04/06/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. Is it too easy to schmooze politicians? Parliamentary

authorities are recovering dozens of security passes after the latest

revelations about lobbying. Plans to overhaul legal aid in England and

Wales have been criticised by barristers, who say the changes

threaten a world-renowned justice system.

How can we produce enough electricity in the future? We will

talk to the energy secretary, Ed Davie, about the Energy Bill.

And remember Swampy? Can direct action ever make a difference? On

the 100th anniversary of the death of a suffragette, we will discuss

whether protests can still lead to change.

All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is

the former Labour Lord Chancellor, Charlie Falconer. Welcome back to

the Daily Politics. Let's start with the parliamentary lobbying scandal

that continues to rumble through Westminster. Yesterday afternoon the

government said it would bring forward legislation on lobbying

before the summer recess after all. And last night the House of Commons

authorities announced they are reviewing 80 Commons security passes

in order to validate their use. For the latest on this let's talk to our

political correspondent Carole Walker. So, what is happening with

those passes? We have had a statement from the House of Commons

commission in the last few minutes, it seems they are checking all of

those passes to see exactly who they have been issued to and who these

all party Parliamentary groups are using and allowing access to the

House of Commons. Underlying this is a concern that these all-party

parliamentary groups can be set up on a huge range of issues. You have

got ones you might expect on economic's and banking, defence and

diplomacy in the Middle East, but there are all-party parliamentary

groups on cider, hockey and cheese. That is why the Speaker has

introduced a review of these all-party parliamentary groups. How

they work and what exactly they are doing and, indeed, if the passes

they are handing out, because the concern is that some of these could

be falling into the hands of lobbyists once they get into the

palace of wisdom and stare. They are then in a very good position to

collar individual parliamentarians and ministers. -- the concern is

some of these could be falling into the hands of lobbyists once they get

into the Palace of Westminster. Plans to limit organisations'

funding of political parties has been thrown in at the last minute.

What is the reaction been from unions and the Labour Party? They

are, frankly, furious. The minister in the house this morning confirmed

there would be legislation to introduce a register of lobbyists,

she defended this idea of including this question of the money that

third parties, including the unions, give to parliamentary

parties. She said it was part of being open and transparent about the

funding and influences on politics. But one Labour MP described this as

shoddy tactics and certainly we know that now these hopes you might have

about ensuring a swift passage of legislation on a register of

lobbyists, it will not get a cross-party consensus if they are

trying to throw in questions about trade union funding, which throws

into doubt the whole process. Thank you. Charlie Falconer, as part

of the Labour Party, will you try to stop this going through? I and the

Labour Party will strongly support legislation to deal with lobbying,

we have been incredibly damaged as a Parliament by the Mercer scandal and

the Lord scandal over the weekend. What Carole Walker is saying is that

the union stuff and the party political funding stuff is very

contentious. I don't know if you're under Hayden Philip did an inquiry

and the Labour and the Conservative Party couldn't agree. -- I don't

know if you remember, Hayden Phillips did an inquiry. It is a

very odd thing for the government to suddenly have thrown in this hand

grenade which has the effect, does it not, of leading to dissent about

it? If I was the government, I would be trying to get legislation through

very quickly which people agree on, because that is really dangerous for

Parliament. Are you calling on the government to drop the element that

refers to and would affect union funding? Funding of political

parties generally, yes. Otherwise Labour would not supported? It seems

to be an odd thing to do. If that stays, your feeling is that Labour

will not agree and the lobbying will not go through either? It will slow

down the bill. What about funding for political parties. You couldn't

agree with the Conservatives, isn't it time that was dealt with?

should maybe set up cross-party talks to try to reach an agreement,

but don't snatch Cockett into a piece of legislation that everybody

wants through fast, be sensible if you are the government, recognise

the need for urgent action on lobbying.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is what cost

cutting measure did Ed Balls say a Labour government would take if they

win the next election? Was it scrap lollypop men and women outside

schools, cancel the High Speed 2 rail link, end winter fuel payments

for wealthy pensioners or introduce monthly bin collections. At the end

of the show Charlie Falconer will give us the correct answer. And if

he doesn't get it right, Ed Miliband will be having words!

How will the UK keep the lights on for the next 50 years, meet

renewable targets and keep energy affordable? Quite a tall order,

isn't it? Well, the Energy Bill being discussed in Parliament today

is designed to do just that. The Energy Bill sets out plans for

energy production for the next few decades. The aim is to reduce the

UK's reliance on imported gas and generate enough energy to meet

needs. Measures in the Bill include greater safeguards to ensure

consumers can access the cheapest energy tariffs. The Bill also paves

the way for new nuclear power stations, including a guaranteed

price for low carbon electricity producers to help encourage

investment. There are concerns that the Energy Bill will lead to higher

costs for consumers, with the department saying it will add an

extra �95 to the average annual household energy bill by 2020.

However, the Bill doesn't include a firm target for decarbonisation -

that means removing carbon dioxide from the process of energy

generation. The Committee on Climate Change recommends this happens by

2030 in order to have a largely decarbonised power sector. This is

something the Lib Dems are committed to. It happens to be party policy.

And the Conservative MP Tim Yeo has tabled an amendment calling for the

government to commit to a target to decarbonise. Tim Yeo Joins me now

from Central Lobby in the House of Commons.

Why is a decarbonisation targets of important? Because it makes it clear

to people who want to invest in new electricity generation capacity what

the government is committed to. At the moment there is an element of

uncertainty. If we have this target, which has been recommended by the

government's statutory independent adviser, the climate change can be,

-- the climate change committee, it is clear to new investors what the

ground rules will be. These are very long-term investments. They need to

know not just about the next five years but the next 20. But one of

your Tory colleagues has said it would be absurd to legislate for a

decarbonisation target. I think that is a minority view. If you look at

the majority of the academic world, the business world, the voluntary

sector, they recognise that in an industry where you are making very

long-term decisions, if we make the wrong decisions now we pay the

penalty in the 20 20s and the 20 30s. So you need a target. They are

not quite sure whether the government is really serious about

reducing carbon emissions from energy generation. This amendment

would remove that uncertainty and make investors more cough that the

-- confident. They would accept a lower return because the risk would

be reduced. Who do you expect report -- support from? I know a number of

my conservative colleagues have signed the amendment and will

support it is official Liberal Democrat policy so I am hoping that

those backbench Lib Dem MPs will do so. If we get all the Lib Dems who

supported this when it was debated to vote in favour, I expect to win

the vote out 4pm. Sounding very confident. We have been joined now

by energy Secretary Ed Davie and the Conservative MP I mentioned, Peter

Lilley. Why is there no firm commitment to decarbonisation in the

bill? We are legislating for rate, the difference between myself and

Tim Yeo is very small. Liberal Democrat voters will be voting for

Liberal Democrat policy. But the power to set one is not the same as

having a target. The climate change committee said that we should

legislate for a power. The difference between them and the

government is they want us to use that power in 2014, we have agreed

across government we should do it in 2016, with good reason. In 2016 we

will be setting the fifth carbon budget which will set the overall

carbon emissions for the UK for 2030. We are sending a really strong

signal to industry, is Tim Yeo suggested we should, but more than

that, last week we suggested that we as a government would be pushing in

Europe for a very ambitious greenhouse gas emission target, the

most ambitious yet proposed. All this action shows that not just

Liberal Democrats but the whole coalition support decarbonisation.

But people like Tim Yeo and the businesses he mentions did not say

that it guaranteed certainty. You are legislating for decarbonisation

but you are not setting the targets, you are going against the wishes of

your members who would wish to see it set now. If you are at the

debate, you would have seen... not. It was a great debate.Would

you be happy if liberal Democrat MPs vote for the amendment? Will you be

cross with them? They should vote with the government, the government

is supporting Liberal Democrat policy. You are going to complain

about the Liberal Democrat MPs voting for an amendment which

manifests what the party policy is. Nobody, even the Green Party,

proposed a decarbonisation target. Since I became the Secretary of

State for energy and climate change, I have argued for this and got it in

the bill before Tim Yeo put his amendment down. Why aren't you doing

it now? Let me explain. Under the climate change act, in 2016 we have

to set the fifth carbon budget, including the year 2030. We will set

the decarbonisation target at the same time because they cover the

same year. If you could press Europe for a target, why can't you have one

now? In Europe the target is about greenhouse gas emissions, not just a

target for a sector. Both of these target show the commitment of this

government to decarbonisation. Ed Davie, a new generation of

nuclear power stations will cost taxpayers and consumers tens of

billions of pounds, who said this? Jeremy Paxman has already asked me

that, it was me. So things have changed, you are now supporting a

new generation of nuclear power stations and a subsidy? We have a

coalition agreement which says there will be no subsidy for new nuclear

unless it is available to all low carbon technologies. White means

there is a subsidy, including a subsidy for nuclear. We are saying

it should not get any extra support, compared to other low carbon

technology. With nuclear, if you think about the challenge of climate

change and the need to go to low carbon, which I think it's essential

for our economy, long-term, our economy will be busted if you do not

tackle climate change, we need low carbon. That is a load of Tosh,

Peter Lilley? Yes, on economic grounds, the maximum benefits would

be almost half the likely cost 's. I am a sceptic, of course. I am

certain that no proof yet exists that it is worth taking the very

costly actions... Let me give you my source, the knighted nation's

intergovernmental panel on climate change, his advice on science you

say we should accept. -- the United Nations intergovernmental panel.

Before you respond, on the issue of nuclear, Peter Lilley, you said it

was Tosh, what were you referring to? Specifically? It would be absurd

is now to legislate for a target in 2030 that we cannot yet achieved. We

may be able to achieve it in 2030, but at present there is no

affordable alternative to fossil fuels that would enable us to meet

this target. Nuclear is extremely expensive and very sluggish.

Renewables cannot provide the baseload, can't provide the power

you need for peaks of demand. There is no alternative. They hope that

carbon capture and storage will come on stream by then. If it doesn't, a

recent report said the cost of meeting that target would be between

�30 billion and �40 billion. Are you saying there shouldn't be an

agreement now to get companies to sign up to build the new generation

of nuclear? I think I am modestly in favour of it. The Conservative

stated that there should not be a public subsidy for nuclear. Clearly,

there is one? That is why I have become sceptical about nuclear

power. I used to strongly supported because I thought it would be

cheaper. The latest study of the select committee, largely from

before I got onto it, suggests it would be hideously expensive.

is going to be a subsidy, let's just say, so that the public know, the

idea there is not going to be UK taxpayers subsidising nuclear is not

true. There is going to be a subsidy? We made it clear that if

you take account of things like the carbon price and so on, nuclear can

be competitive if you get a good deal, which we are going to get.

are not answering the question, is there going to be a public subsidy?

There will be no pub at subsidy that is not available for low-carbon

solutions. Can I take on Peter's argued? It basically assumes you

don't need to take action on climate change. I think you do need to take

action. I think he is saying to pursue the root of gas. Are you

rejecting that? Our policy is gas and renewables, gas and carbon

capture and storage, the real enemy is the most polluting energy

generation form that there is. Peter doesn't believe we need to act

against climate change. That is why I disagree with him. To come back to

the issue of nuclear, Labour failed completely to resolve the issue of

the new generation of nuclear power stations because they could not

agree on the issue of a subsidy. So it was left. Which has meant that we

are now in this predicament? body politic has failed to resolve

this question over a long time. Labour was in power for 13 years?

agree, and on a cross-party basis we need to agree where we get to on

nuclear. While I find what Tim was saying persuasive about setting the

target now, I think Ed's position, that we do need to move forward in

relation to it and making sure it is not an undue subsidy, that is

something we need to do. Speaking for myself, I would support nuclear

power. With a subsidy?You can't do it without a subsidy, that is the

problem. Isn't that the problem? We would provide only 4% of total power

from nuclear, even if all goes to plan? That's total energy, if you

talk about electricity, it's a lot more than that. 80% is very

expensive? I think you will find that new nuclear power will be very

effective in our new, low carbon world. If other unaffordable things

that cost twice so much... That is because in your model you don't take

into account the pollution and damage that is threatening our

planet, which threatens huge costs, far greater than the cost of

investing now in low-carbon. If you act now and you invest in low-carbon

now, it is much cheaper than waiting for the cost some damage of climate

change, which we are already seeing now in terms of flooding. I agree

with that. Fiona Hall has said the contract for difference, in other

words a subsidy, is something that goes against the coalition agreement

and will prolong the most expensive piece of post-war British

policy-making. And this is a Liberal Democrat? I know Fiona, I disagree

with him on this one. She doesn't like nuclear in any way. I believe

that because the threat of climate change and the cost of climate

change are so great that we have to invest in all low carbon

technologies. I think excluding any low-carbon technology from the get

go, as Fiona would like to do, is the wrong thing to do. It's

irresponsible, actually. We have to make sure these low carbon

technologies are invested in so that we have diversity and competition to

drive down costs. Peter agrees with that, the idea that we should be

investing in nuclear in the long term because there are energy

requirements? I was attracted to become a scientist in my childhood

when nuclear power was first around. Stop interrupting, he's losing his

train of thought. Nuclear had just art and it was going to make

electricity too cheap to meter. I always supported it because I

thought it would be cheap. Now I discover it is going to require a

subsidy, meaning it is twice as expensive as electricity from coal

and gas. Not only that, it is going to add, as you yourself say, it is

going to make ill is more expensive in the next few years? If you look

at our bills and prices report and you look at the net impact of our

departments policies, we are helping to reduce bills compared to what

they otherwise would have been. We are doing it through energy

efficiency. We are doing it through standards, to make sure that

appliances are more efficient. a time when things are extremely

difficult? Bills are being driven up because of gas prices. The gas that

Peter loves so much, it has been increasing in price significantly.

It is gas prices that have driven up electricity and gas prices. I want

to insulate the economy from that rising gas price to make sure we

have diversity with low-carbon. There is a huge analysis to suggest

that if you go green, if you go low-carbon, in the long term it is a

lot cheaper. Do you recognise yourself as a publicity seeking

nimby? You would include him in that? I wouldn't. I think it's

rather sad that you want to discourage the press from reporting

views that are not your own. That is not what you said. I've got it in

front of me. I know what I said. I'm happy for healthy scepticism. What I

am not happy... It says it should not be reported uncritically. In

other words, the only time that people like me will be allowed to be

reported is when criticism is attached. That is a kind of

censorship. Not at all. If you read some of the press, they report

climate change sceptics and the anti-climate change science, but

they criticise one side. They can't have it both ways. Given that 97% of

climate change scientists agree there is a problem, I think we have

scientists on our side of the argument. The survey asked two

questions. Do you think the average temperature has risen? ANSI, yes, I

agree. Do you think that man-made emissions have contributed? Yes, I

agree. It didn't ask if it was damaging, severe, if it accounted

for the majority. When they did, less said that was the case. Lawyers

say the government changes to the legal aid system for criminal cases

could threaten the reputation of Justice in England and Wales. Today

is the final day of consultation on the plans, which would reduce the

budget by �200 million per year. It's not the only reform coming from

a department that has earned irritation for radical change. The

prize for most radical government department goes to...

The Ministry of Justice. FIFA years in a row, the market orientated

think tank Reform has named as one of the top performers. It responded

to a big cut in its budget with some big changes. For so long, justice

has been left in a corner to do exactly what it wants to do, with as

much money as it can get out of the Treasury. What this secretary of

state has done, in a radical and reforming way, has made sure that

the departments deliver value for money. You can see one of those

reforms Doncaster and Peterborough prisons, where a payment by results

scheme is being piloted. It involves a mixture of private companies and

charities that will only get paid by the government if inmates do not

reoffend after release. The initial results will be published this

month. One of the more controversial areas has been the reduction in the

budget for legal aid, currently more than �2 billion per year. Two years

ago, the Department removed legal aid from lots of civil cases, things

like employment, family law and medical negligence. Now there are

plans for big changes to the provision of legal aid in criminal

cases. Fees for lawyers will be reduced. Firms will have to tender

for contracts to provide criminal legal aid and there will no longer

be automatic funding to pursue judicial reviews. Maura McGowan of

the Bar Council has helped lead the almost universal opposition amongst

the legal profession. Although some lawyers are extremely well paid, no

doubt about that, most lawyers that work for legal aid are not that well

paid at all. Most junior barristers probably earn about the same as

teachers. Nobody would say that teachers are terribly well paid or

on a gravy train. Then there are the department plans to give, in their

words, more commercial freedom to the courts. Reports that it means

privatisation of the system have been denied. But it could mean the

likes of Aisling Russian oligarchs being charged extra for access to

British justice. And some services being provided by the private

sector. One reason for reform is the condition of the court buildings.

Anyone that's been to a County Court in the last few years will have seen

the poor quality of the buildings. If we can introduce efficiencies and

make sure we are spending less on the upkeep of the buildings, there

will be more to invest in the infrastructure. That can only be a

good thing for lawyers, litigants and judges. Then there is the tone.

Gone is Ken Clarke, who likes to talk of a rehabilitation revolution.

Replaced by Chris Grayling, who likes to present himself as more of

a tough guy. Now, some more tough guys here. We

are joined by former Conservative Solicitor General Edward Garnier and

by the director of the Reform think tank. Charlie Falconer, what

objections do you have to these reforms? They will wreck the

system. How?First, crime. The purpose of the criminal justice

system is to determine if somebody is guilty or innocent. The effect of

the changes is to remove something like 90% of the firms that do

criminal defence work and replace them, all of whom will be motivated

by money, but not by trying to establish innocence. The only group

in the criminal justice system arguing for innocents are the

defence counsel. They are being completely starved of money. It's

the completely the wrong way to reform the system. The system does

need reform, but the way that you do it is by much more offensive...

Effective case management. It is the ignorant, completely misjudged a

view of a department that appears to know nothing about the law. What do

you say to that? I would say that firstly the legal aid budget is �2

billion a year. In these times, as Ed Balls himself recognised

yesterday, no area of public spending can be exempt from

scrutiny. We just have to put that on the table. I would agree with

that, how do you make the savings? By destroying the defence, only one

bit of the system? What the government is trying its best to do

is to preserve access to services. No it's not! As it's doing in other

areas of public service, introducing a series of contracts and trying to

get a grip on providers to reduce the cost. I agree with you that

other aspects of the criminal justice system could be reformed.

What are they doing about the other bits? Nothing! I don't think that is

fair, there is discussion about case management. What discussion?I think

the government deserves credit. In the face of great criticism, it is

willing to look at this budget. I would also say that the review for

your government, by something of a hero of mine, also recommended a

reduction of �100 million in costs, compared to this 200, and also looks

at the restriction of choice in some legal services. What work have you

done to see what savings could be made by better case management?

Normal. We asked for a statement, and nobody was put up. Is there a

middle way? Can savings be made to legal aid without wrecking the

system? They can be. Charlie's remarks are interesting, certainly

hyperbolic, and let's wait and see what the government responses to the

consultation. Given that no part of government spending is immune from

scrutiny, we must do it in such a way that you don't damage or destroy

the criminal justice system while you are at it. Is that a threat,

that it might be? The short-term problem is the money problem, the

long-term problem is that if you frighten away through absence of

proper funding good lawyers from the criminal justice system, you will

then not have the growing cohort of bright people wanting to become QCs,

then you won't have the judges. In ten or 15 years, we will look back

and say, what did we do wrong? You can't square this circle, but if you

do it in a hurry and because you have to fit in with a spending

review, you will make a mistake. What I am nudging the Lord

Chancellor and the Justice Secretary to do is not just to look at the

numbers, although they must be looked at, but to look at the

quality of the servers that the numbers will provide. Do you back

what Chris Grayling is doing? seen the advert but not the finished

project. So far, do you support it? I am deeply spec -- sceptical, but I

am still giving him room to manoeuvre so that when he finishes

his consultation process he will come back with something which will

not give long-term damage. review which was done for your

government found that the cost of justice in the UK is higher than

just about any other country in the world. And it does not say much

about the quality, access or servers. The government said we have

a Rolls-Royce service, you don't need a Rolls-Royce for every journey

in your car. It may be that the country has discovered that it can't

afford the best of the most expensive facilities for legal aid.

Reign we all agreed that we need to reform the system. -- we are all

agreed that we need to reform the system. When I was Solicitor

General... You have left.But my memory can just about... I am not

saying you do not remember accurately, I am saying the idea of

better case management has been dealt with in a quicker way.

spent a lot of time with the DPP and the CPS, trying to work out how to

make the system more efficient, to take cases from the Crown Court and

keep them in the Magistrate's Court, I am sure your government would try

to do the same. I don't think there is a difference in approach, but we

have to work out how to pay for it. There is one of the principal, the

idea that the very best of should be exempt from this system of public

support. I think it is fascinating, yesterday Ed Balls said the richest

pensioners should not receive winter fuel allowance, there is an

important principle. Let's move on, just briefly, to another principle,

which is merging some of the courts, which could lead to courts closing.

Is that a price worth paying? could well be a good thing. Very

often, ringing public services together... Some of the best courts

in the country are in the same place as police and probation, we

genuinely have a joined up public sector, which I think was a phrase

of your government, joined up government. Hallelujah to this.

have to be careful of not dropping yourself into a siloed budget

system. When magistrates courts were closed under the last government,

the saving for the Ministry of Justice was put towards the police

because they had to do extra things. Will it be a false economy? At the

moment we are boxing in the dark. agree. In principle, do you agree

that these moves should be looked at? Is it possible, without reducing

justice? It is possible, but you have to move carefully. What you

mustn't do is say that I must cut 220 million quid, without looking at

the fact. But then you don't cut anything and you don't make savings?

You do. The issue of payment by results, will it work? No.Why not?

What about for offenders once they have been released from prison to

stop them reoffending, payment by results, why can't it work?

funds eight upfront? And doesn't it lead to a focus on the people who

will not reoffend again? It is ridiculous. I wrote the paper on

this. Right, OK.I read a paper which was very good, the reoffending

rate is too high. You have industrial numbers of people coming

out of prison and reoffending, 55 or 60% of adults, 80 or 90% of

youngsters. It is mad economic and it is immoral. Surely what the

evidence suggests is that the intensity of intervention is what

makes a difference? The people who can't provide that degree of

intensity are the third sector and private blunders? They will do the

work that suits them. If you look at the health service, the private

sector mostly works in the health service, with the mostly risk issues

of mental health, where there can be an overlap with the justice system,

dealing with cases that the NHS finds difficult to treat in the

public sector. You will get that degree of funding into the criminal

justice system? You seem to be saying no to everything. Blue.

not in favour of own thought out ideas which wreck that purpose of

the system. That paper sets out on good ideas, it has been over six

years. The criminal Justice Department has been subject to

cuts, while others have been ring fenced. They are driving change and

I think they should take down the ring fences on health and schools.

Thank you, gentlemen. We know where the Conservatives

stand on a referendum of Britain's membership into Europe. They all

want one, but they are just arguing when it takes place. Labour believes

that committing to a referendum now would be wrong and damaging to

Britain. Here is what Ed Miliband said last month. We don't think it

is right now to commit to an in-out referendum in four years. We think

it would cause uncertainty for the country at a time when we are trying

to sort out the problems of the country. Let's focus on sorting out

jobs and living standards and the deep problems are economy faces. By

contrast, you see a Conservative Party which is, as Cameron said he

wouldn't do, just banging on about Europe and not voting at the

problems the country faces. Some Labour Party members would like an

in-out referendum, and today they are launching a new group calling

for just that. One of the members of Labour for a Referendum is MP Kate

Hoey, who joins us. How much support is there within the Labour Party for

an in-out referendum sooner rather than later? We are launching Labour

for a Referendum today, the numbers to start with are quite small, over

20 MPs have signed up. But even in the last day I have had a number of

senior Members of Parliament sidle up to me and basically say that they

know before the European elections next year that there is going to

have to be a commitment that we will have a referendum. We will have a

referendum, I think it would be madness for a party to go into the

European elections and the next general election basically saying,

we don't trust the people, Europe hasn't changed, you haven't had a

vote since 1975, you'd have to be over 55 to have a vote, and we will

say no. But things have changed so much, we know that Labour supporters

in the country wants to see a referendum, so I think we are really

just launching this today to show there is support, and even from

people who are very, very pro-Europe. It is not an anti-Europe

thing, although I personally would be more sceptical. Would you vote

for out? I'd like to see lots of power is back, and I don't think we

will get them, so I would vote to come out because I feel confident

our country and its future. I think we should be more internationalist,

I think Europe is a Sikh organisation that will get worse.

Some senior people close to Ed Miliband are saying, in the end, we

will offer that referendum. Yes. I will not go into any more detail. I

think the vast majority of our party realise that we will have to, it is

a question of how Ed gets to the stage where he announces that we

will support it. I would like to say the sooner the better, really.

will he get to that stage? I think he is right that now is not the

time. Nobody is saying aged be tomorrow. If you promise a

referendum say, in a years time, what about a referendum after

renegotiation? The effect of what Cameron is day in, as I understand

it, he will renegotiate come what may. Are we committed to a

renegotiation? We are certainly not. I don't what is going on. It aims

like it is rushing into a referendum, have the referendum,

then what? Do we renegotiate if we say to stay in? I think we are

looking per a commitment that says, we accept that Europe has changed so

much that what people voted for is not what we have got now. We need

that in our manifesto before the European Union elections. At some

stage we will have a referendum. Suppose we have one immediately

after the next general election, assuming we win, if the result is,

yes, stay in, what next? That is it. There is no renegotiation? Ed does

not seem to want to have it, even bringing back powers. We will have

to have that debate. How helpful is that for people like Kate Hoey to

use the phrase, bang on about Europe. I don't think it is

unhelpful. We are perfectly OK about having the debate. I don't feel that

Europe is as significant an issue as, for example, many in the Tory

party do, but I find that having this debate in the context of the

wide economic issues... I don't think it is tall... I think Miliband

is right that the economic situation is very important, but that does not

exclude having the debate. How much damage will Labour face at the

ballot box if they don't offer a referendum? Without a doubt, the Lib

Dems would have come out. They had it in their referendum last time but

they would have a referendum, we can't be the only party going

without promising it. Denying people a democratic mandate, that is what

the Tories and Lib Dems will say. am unelected, Kate is elected. I am

not sure the extent to which the public that absorbed in the European

issue. Some are and some aren't. It is quite difficult to judge the

electoral effect. If you ask people, do you think we should have

a vote and a say on what is happening, they might have different

views on what the vote would say, but they want to have a say. They

don't bring it up every second, that are other more pressing immediate

questions. And the economy and immigration, immigration is, in a

sense, the UKIP issue. Thank you, Kate Hoey. There were

colourful scenes in Westminster yesterday as peers discussed

government plans to legalise gay marriage. We must believe in Jesus.

# Love is never a crime. Inside the chamber, the decision --

the discussion was more sober. Marriage is abolished, redefined and

recreated. Being different and unequal for different categories.

The new marriage of the bill is an awkward shape, with the same gender

and different gender categories scrunched into it. Neither fitting

well. The effect on schools, undoubtedly, will be divisive, and

we should reflect on the fact that calls have already been made for

children to act out gay weddings in class. Homosexuals are often

delightful people, very artistic and very loving people, too. No one

doubts that the one single moment. But marriage is not about just love.

It's about a man and a woman, themselves created to produce

children, producing children. question is, does the Bill redefined

marriage? It was put to me by one correspondent. The government's

plans will redefine the marriages of the 24 million married people

without their consent. My Lords, other people have referred to their

anniversaries last year -- their anniversaries, last year my wife and

I celebrated our diamond wedding. Mutual comfort and support. Is this

bill going to redefine that marriage? I have to say, I simply

trying to detract from the will of the commons? No, they should not.

Our job is to revise legislation when it comes from the Commons. The

commons have voted by a substantial majority in favour of gay marriage.

Our role is not to take these decisions of principle. The

decisions of principle should be taken by the elected chamber, which

is the commons. As a matter of principle, we should be allowing

this to happen. If the amendment to the second reading motion is allowed

today, the bill will fall. That will be the end for this session, for the

government attempts to introduce gay marriage. Do you think it will

happen? I hope it will not happen. It is a real test for the Lords. If

the amendment is allowed and the bill falls, the Lords will appear to

do two things. First, to be opposed to gay marriage, which is, to my

view, to be opposed to progress, and be opposed to the role of the

commons. You think there is a real threat that might happen? I hope

very much that the Lords will vote in favour of letting the bill go

ahead. Whether that happens, I don't know. I hope that the Lords, by a

clear majority, indicate that they want to move forward and also that

they accept it is for the Commons to make these decisions. Have you ever

made a complaint about a public service or a government department?

Did it make any difference? Cases such as the Stafford Hospital

scandal suggests that public bodies can almost be blind to the problem

is that members of the public report. With, potentially, appalling

consequences. This morning, a committee of MPs has been taking

evidence on complaining to find out what lessons can be learned and how

the system can be improved. While we certainly enjoy a good moan,

especially about the weather and public transport, are we any good at

complaining? It has to be said, the sun is out, the sky is blue and

there is not a great deal to complain about. But we have been

talking about complaining. The Public Administration Select

Committee has been discussing it. I have the chairman of that committee

with me, Bernard Jenkin, and also a representative from the Institute of

Customer Service. You were looking at the Stafford example. But it is a

wider issue. Are we not being taken seriously when we complain?

Complaints are a fantastic source of information about your

organisation. Everyone tells you something about why your

organisation has failed to meet the expectations of the people you are

seeking to serve. Does Whitehall use that information properly? Do

government departments and public services use that properly? Or do

too many people feel they are bashing their head against a brick

wall and they don't even bother to complain because they think nobody

is going to listen and nothing is going to change. Is that the

experience of those people whose job it is to deal with complaints?

the Institute of Customer Service undertakes tracking of customer

satisfaction and complaints. The good news is, overall in the UK,

customer satisfaction is improving and complaints are falling. But we

are more likely to complain if we have a problem. And there is a

certain percentage of the population, over 20%, that are

silent. If I get access to complain and there is more access to

complaint, there are more complaints because people are encouraged to do

so, does that mean that the thing there are complaining about has got

worse? Or is it a false reading? think it is important to get people

to complain. If you are raising that as an issue, broadly, we don't

complain for the sake of complaining. There usually is a

problem or issue that needs resolution. Is the private sector

better than the public sector at this? Broadly, the private sector

does perform better than the public sector. That is the problem that we

are trying to highlight. We can tweet, we can put it on Facebook,

there is a platform for complaints, if they want to listen or not. Are

you trying to get the whole of Government and White will be better

at receiving those complains? are lessons for the whole of

Whitehall to be learned from the Mid-Staffordshire Hospital crisis.

There were plenty of complaints, but the management did not want to know

about complaints. They didn't want to hear complaints, they didn't want

complaints of their own staff, trying to tell them things were

going wrong. It is that deafness in organisations that leadership in

Whitehall and public services has got to address. That leadership,

openness, understanding, sharing of problems instead of denial of

problems. All of that should flow from a proper complaints and

seizure. I wonder if the fact is, people make their complaints, do you

measure the satisfaction of how it is dealt with by the fact something

is done about it or the fact they just got listened to? Both. That's

an important point. It's not just the outcome, it is how you are dealt

with throughout the process. Udal complain about both the service and

also the process of the complaints procedure. Did people have a

dialogue with me? Did they listen to me? It is critical that is dealt

with appropriately and I am dealt with like a human being. Age of

austerity, they want to slim things down a bit, big complaints

departments often involve a great deal of work and a number of people.

How do you get the balance right? you cut that, you are making false

economy. You have all this information people want to give you

about how you can do things better. If you could just embrace that, it

is about moving from what one of our witnesses has called the command

state to the relation state. We now live in a stage where every citizen

expects to be dealt with politely and not have to be deferential to

people in authority and important people doing important jobs. That is

what we expect from the private sector. It is automatic in the

private sector. We need to make it automatic in the public sector as

well. I cannot be deferential their... We could talk about

death of Emily Davidson, he threw herself in front of the King's horse

at Epsom. The suffragettes quickly established her as a martyr for the

rights of women. Eventually, they achieved their aim, but only after a

campaign of Iraq's action. Their motto was deeds, not words. It is a

strategy that has been followed by many groups over the years. Here is

a reminder of some of the more high # A Little less conversation, a

little more action # All of this conversation isn't

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 59 seconds

anything? Is there still a place for it in the 21st century? We are

joined by Alison Playford, who has in the past taken part in direct

action with the pressure group Occupy. Why have you taken part in

direct action in the past? Because I believe that change is achieved when

people on the ground grouped together and work together to

forward their aims. For instance, the suffragette movement, which

achieved votes for women. The civil rights movement, another amazing

achievement. In Parliament, we have the equal marriage movement and

everything they have come forward to it. This is how things are achieved.

It is not politicians, I think, that eventually push that agenda for

change. It's not even Martin Luther King, the kind of figureheads that

lead the movements. It is the people in the streets and communities that

make the true change that we need in the world for equality. Direct

action, as opposed to peaceful protest? There are many forms of

direct action that our peaceful protest. I am a peaceful protest and

I have taken part in direct action all over the world. Some of the

scenes we saw there, do you think it needs to be a more aggressive form

of protest in order to persuade politicians to change direction?

Absolutely not, there is a spectrum of direct action. The kind I work in

is creative and non-violent. I am talking about inclusion of people,

encouraging people to work in the action movements, I would feel that

the best way to do this is to do that in a non-violent and inclusive

way. However, I do not judge people that take more radical tactics,

necessarily. If you take the suffragettes, the kind of pressure

that they were working under was unbelievable. Their demands were

such basic human rights. For instance, now, it is inconceivable

to ask that we would live in a world where women do not have the vote.

The Occupy movement, it is inconceivable that we live in a

world where we have the economic disparity that we have today.

will come back to weather that has achieved anything. Peaceful protest

is, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. When it crosses

the line in terms of breaking the law, is it still worth doing?

look at the civil rights movement in the United States of America, those

pictures of police officers with dogs, attacking people that were

peacefully protesting, maybe they were technically breaking the law,

direct action there is hugely important. But direct action can

delay and setback causes, as well. For example? The mine workers strike

in 1984, direct action, it did have an effect on improving a lot of

those things. I don't think it was direct action and setback the

Mineworkers, I think it was the Tories and Margaret Thatcher.

the question seems to be, does direct action bring to public

attention something they did not know about before? The civil rights

movement is an incredibly powerful example. The Arab Spring, the

rioting that started in Tunisia as the result of the mistreatment of a

market trader, it is another important way of demonstrating that

the public, or a strong section of the public... But Alison is so

right, it has to be a real section of the public. The blacks in

America, the people in Tunisia, if it is not properly representative,

if what you're doing... Did you not think was representative? I don't

know, it depends on what particular issue. What changes have come about?

I would say that not much has changed. Apart from engaging people

and raising awareness? It is commonly understood now that we have

been totally abused by the banking system. That is absolutely the

normal parlance of people to understand, that this country has

been desperately, desperately damaged. What we need now is to find

a way for people to engage. Currently, we are facing a

government that is destroying the NHS. The NHS is one of the

absolutely most important British bastions, as is the welfare state.

The government is destroying them and we must take action

immediately. Just time to find that the answer to the quiz. The question

was, what cost-cutting measure would Ed Balls take if Labour won the

election? Was at the winter fuel payments? It certainly was. Will

Labour support that? Peter Hain says it's a terrible idea. Ed Balls,

Shadow Chancellor, said that was his position, I am sure that we will

support him. On that note of consensus, thanks to Charlie