:00:38. > :00:44.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Has Britain's eavesdropping agency GCHQ
:00:44. > :00:46.been eavesdropping a bit too much? The Foreign Secretary, William Hague
:00:46. > :00:48.will be making a commons statement later today over allegations that
:00:48. > :00:55.the government's so-called spy centre used intelliegence from
:00:55. > :00:57.American agencies to get information on UK citizens.
:00:57. > :01:02.Disability campaigners are warning that hundreds of thousands of people
:01:02. > :01:12.could lose out under a new system of benefits payments that come into
:01:12. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:17.effect today. This isn't a game! They can
:01:17. > :01:19.disappear people now. You have an arrest for public safety, life in
:01:19. > :01:23.prison. Yes, we're all a bunch of lizards,
:01:23. > :01:25.and every landing on the moon was a fake. We'll be talking good
:01:25. > :01:35.old-fashioned conspiracy theories. Are stings like this in the public
:01:35. > :01:38.interest or an unfair intrusion into All that in the next hour, and with
:01:38. > :01:41.us for the first half of the programme today is the former editor
:01:41. > :01:44.of the Sun Newspaper, Kelvin MacKenzie. Welcome to the Daily
:01:44. > :01:47.Politics. Now, first this morning, let's talk about the world, because
:01:47. > :01:51.that's exactly what David Cameron is doing today - or at least Britain's
:01:51. > :01:59.place in it. Here's what the Prime Minsiter had to say a little
:01:59. > :02:05.earlier. The challenge before us is clear. We
:02:05. > :02:10.are in a battle for Britain's future. It is a battle we've got to
:02:11. > :02:15.fight on two fronts. At home, really ambitious about competing, and
:02:15. > :02:20.abroad, ambitious about pursuing our national interests and standing up
:02:20. > :02:24.for our values. That is the approach this government is pursuing, that is
:02:24. > :02:27.what brings together our foreign and domestic agendas into a complete
:02:27. > :02:33.plan for national renewal, and that is what will lead to success in the
:02:33. > :02:39.modern world. Kelvin, in terms of Britain's place
:02:39. > :02:44.in the world, where is it? If you look down the education league, one
:02:44. > :02:49.of his sets of changes, we slipping further and further down. We are
:02:49. > :02:55.just a little country doing our best. Sometimes, I think, hampered
:02:55. > :02:59.by politicians rather than increasing our position. I don't
:02:59. > :03:05.dislike Cameron at all, but the things he talks about are basically
:03:05. > :03:09.in favour of apple pie and the like. We understand those issues. He has
:03:09. > :03:13.led the Conservative Party for eight years and run the country for three
:03:13. > :03:17.years, to tell us we are trying to reduce debt, increase education and
:03:17. > :03:22.Europe is at the heart of our future does not seem particularly an
:03:22. > :03:27.interesting thing to say. I look to my Prime Minister for leadership on
:03:27. > :03:31.these issues. And should Britain be punching above its weight? Should we
:03:31. > :03:35.just accept the reality of the world, Britain is a small country
:03:35. > :03:42.and surely our place in it will diminish and we should accept that?
:03:42. > :03:47.I totally accept that. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I
:03:47. > :03:50.suspect we should spend more time trying to make our people feel
:03:51. > :03:55.happier about themselves in reduced circumstances will stop we have lost
:03:55. > :04:00.an empire, that was 60 years ago. Have we found a role? Not
:04:00. > :04:04.particularly. But I don't think it is helpful for Ray Prime Minister to
:04:04. > :04:10.talk about that. His job is to give us leadership and potential
:04:10. > :04:15.solutions. With Cameron, whether it ever comes from the heart, my sense
:04:15. > :04:21.is that it is all an intellectual challenge and on that basis
:04:21. > :04:26.unfortunately we now have UKIP taking 15% or 16% of what I think
:04:26. > :04:30.would be natural Conservative voters under normal circumstances. In the
:04:30. > :04:33.terms of the role in the world, it is time for our daily quiz. The
:04:33. > :04:36.question for today is, what group is worried that they may be virtually
:04:36. > :04:40.wiped out by a new bill to tackle anti-social behaviour? Soccer
:04:40. > :04:45.hooligans, naturists, newspaper hacks or morris dancers? We'll
:04:45. > :04:48.reveal all - that may or may not be a clue! - at the end of the show.
:04:48. > :04:50.For the last week the Guardian has been publishing stories based on
:04:50. > :04:57.leaked information about how US intelligence agencies have been
:04:57. > :04:59.collecting personal internet data. Yesterday they released an interview
:04:59. > :05:02.with the whistleblower behind the stories. He is former CIA employee
:05:02. > :05:11.Edward Snowden, who has been working as a contractor for the last four
:05:11. > :05:17.years for the American National Security Agency, or NSA. He told the
:05:18. > :05:22.Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald how they operated.
:05:22. > :05:28.The NSA specifically targets the community occasions of everyone, it
:05:28. > :05:31.ingests them by default, it analyses and measures them and stores them --
:05:31. > :05:37.targets the communications of everyone. Findlay because that is
:05:38. > :05:44.the easiest, most efficient and valuable way to achieve these ends.
:05:44. > :05:47.So while they may be intending to target someone associated with the
:05:47. > :05:50.foreign government or a terror suspect, they are collecting your
:05:50. > :05:52.communications to do so. Questions have also been raised
:05:52. > :05:54.about the involvement of British intelligence agencies, in particular
:05:54. > :05:57.whether GCHQ has been using intelligence gathered by the
:05:57. > :06:04.Americans and whether that's legal. Foreign Secretary William Hague was
:06:04. > :06:09.asked about it yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show.
:06:09. > :06:16.As someone who knows GCHQ very well, and I authorise operations most days
:06:16. > :06:21.of the week by GCHQ, I know how they work. The idea that in GCHQ people
:06:21. > :06:26.are sitting working out how to circumvent the UK law with another
:06:26. > :06:29.agency in another country is fanciful, nonsense. I think I can
:06:29. > :06:33.I'm now joined by the former Security Minister Lord West, and the
:06:34. > :06:39.Conservative MP Dominic Raab. Give people that assurance. Dominic
:06:39. > :06:42.Raab, are you assured that those sorts of allegations fanciful?
:06:42. > :06:48.think we need to hear more information from him in his
:06:48. > :06:55.statement today. We understand intelligence agencies do port and
:06:55. > :06:58.work for our national security. -- due important work. But we have
:06:58. > :07:03.Americans involved in surveillance on British citizens that they would
:07:03. > :07:07.not be able to do with their own, and the Brits taking advantage even
:07:08. > :07:12.though they could not conduct that type of surveillance. We will hear
:07:12. > :07:17.the options explained. One is that the Foreign Office was not aware, in
:07:17. > :07:22.which case there are huge questions to answer at GCHQ, or the foreign
:07:22. > :07:26.office and the oversight that that divides was nodding it through, in
:07:26. > :07:32.which case there is a breakdown of trust and accountability. That is
:07:32. > :07:37.the circle that needs to be squared. You believe the allegations are true
:07:37. > :07:41.in the sense that GCHQ has used information gathered by Prism, the
:07:41. > :07:47.US spy programme, without the consent of ministers? We need to
:07:47. > :07:51.hear about that at length and in detail. I agree with the Foreign
:07:52. > :07:56.Secretary, it is fanciful to think that in GCHQ they are working on
:07:56. > :08:00.ways of circumventing our laws. I had three years running naval
:08:00. > :08:04.intelligence, three years running defence intelligence, three years as
:08:04. > :08:09.a minister for security. I know GCHQ and the people who work in those
:08:09. > :08:14.agencies very well, they struggle very hard to make sure we do what is
:08:14. > :08:19.legal. I would be very surprised if there is any attempt to circumvent
:08:19. > :08:26.it, but I think we need to hear what the Foreign Secretary says. I agree
:08:26. > :08:27.that the law is often uncertain. I have experience working with the
:08:27. > :08:32.intelligence agencies over information cooperation in the
:08:33. > :08:37.Foreign Office. The idea of national security and the rule of law being
:08:37. > :08:40.tradable, I think, is wrong. We need a regime that the intelligence
:08:40. > :08:46.agencies work too, otherwise you undermine them, making them weaker,
:08:46. > :08:50.not stronger, as we saw in one particular case where the taxpayer
:08:50. > :08:59.is taking a hit of millions of pounds. I think the intelligence
:08:59. > :09:03.agencies need to get clear. Picking up the last point, a think it is one
:09:03. > :09:08.of the reasons the Communications Data Bill is so important.
:09:08. > :09:15.Snoopers' Charter, as it was renamed. I hate that name.I'm sure
:09:15. > :09:19.you do. What I find very funny about this chap who calls themselves a
:09:19. > :09:23.whistleblower, he is doing it in Hong Kong. Has he any idea of what
:09:23. > :09:27.the Chinese do in terms of crawling all over, I bet they have been in
:09:27. > :09:32.your e-mails, they will have been in there and read it. It is
:09:32. > :09:35.extraordinary that we have a paranoia about our own people.
:09:35. > :09:41.problem with the Snoopers' Charter is we all agree on national
:09:41. > :09:44.security, GCHQ and the CIA, but we struggle on the idea that those kind
:09:44. > :09:53.of intrusive powers get expanded to quangos and councils for all sorts
:09:53. > :09:57.of other things. Legislation was given on terrorism which was then
:09:57. > :10:05.used to follow the -- follow children home from school to check
:10:05. > :10:09.the catchment area. RIPA was introduced because there was no
:10:09. > :10:18.control what the weather. Sometimes it was used badly, but it was used
:10:18. > :10:22.to try to get some control. Do you understand people 's fears and
:10:22. > :10:28.concerns that the headline, national security, will be used to mask any
:10:28. > :10:33.sort of fishing expedition into what you would call ordinary peoples
:10:33. > :10:38.phone messages and e-mails? understand how people could get
:10:38. > :10:42.worried. Are you saying they are unfounded? I believe our agencies
:10:42. > :10:46.spend their lives trying to look after them. You can't go into any
:10:46. > :10:51.mail, you have to identify a specific person, give a cause and
:10:51. > :10:57.reason why things should be looked at, it has to go to the Foreign
:10:57. > :11:06.Secretary who will sign you off, having had legal advice. You limit
:11:06. > :11:08.the Snoopers' Charter to National Security Agency is, and of problem.
:11:08. > :11:13.Before we get onto the Communications Data Bill, the
:11:13. > :11:16.Snoopers' Charter, whatever you wish to call it, what would you like to
:11:16. > :11:22.hear from Foreign Secretary William Hague? Are you surprised by the
:11:22. > :11:27.story? Allah in some ways I am reassured, I like the idea that the
:11:27. > :11:33.CIA or somebody is looking at potentially very, very nasty
:11:33. > :11:40.people. It is only three weeks ago, Woolwich. Are they just potentially
:11:40. > :11:44.nasty? I don't care. If they looked at me, they would probably be
:11:44. > :11:50.surprised at the amount of times I go to Ladbrokes. That is not a
:11:50. > :11:54.criminal offence. But most people understand who the agencies are
:11:54. > :11:58.looking at and reassured that somebody is looking at them, even
:11:58. > :12:05.though they may be crossing some kind of rather intellect line. I,
:12:05. > :12:14.personally I'm delighted. You can't have 100% security and privacy being
:12:14. > :12:19.mutually exclude -- 100% security and privacy, they are mutually
:12:19. > :12:24.exclusive. And the idea of tackling loops and people looking at child
:12:24. > :12:28.pornography, you could note down the IP address. If you say, no, we can't
:12:28. > :12:33.possibly look at those, well then let them just get on with it because
:12:33. > :12:36.there is no other way of tracking them down. As these gentlemen here
:12:36. > :12:43.are saying, Dominic Raab, is it the case that people with nothing to
:12:43. > :12:46.hide have nothing to fear? That is crazy, if you look at the abuse of
:12:46. > :12:50.surveillance powers. I want the spooks to have all the information
:12:50. > :12:54.they need to deal with national security concerns, but the
:12:54. > :13:02.difference between us and Communist China is that we have a rule of law.
:13:02. > :13:04.If you break that, not only do you find innovations enalapril C and our
:13:04. > :13:10.daily lives, and also the government can be sued and I can be an erosion
:13:10. > :13:15.of public trust. Do you think there could have been a breach by GCHQ,
:13:15. > :13:18.someone working independently, on what ministers knew what was
:13:18. > :13:22.happening, in terms of taking information from US spy programmes
:13:22. > :13:29.or the CIA, where they may have broken the law even if Britain has
:13:29. > :13:32.not? That is why I am interested in what the Foreign Secretary says. To
:13:32. > :13:39.say nobody has ever done something off, there are almost 6000 people
:13:39. > :13:45.working there, multiple connections, so I couldn't really say that
:13:45. > :13:53.without knowing the details. But we have a rule of law which we apply.
:13:53. > :13:55.There is a huge effort put in, I know because I was involved, to make
:13:55. > :14:03.sure that we follow the law. I would be very surprised if there was
:14:03. > :14:07.abuse. 197 intercepts, we are not talking about a huge amount. You
:14:07. > :14:10.would have thought you would have had a processing issue with that
:14:10. > :14:14.number of requests which ought to have been done in an acceptable
:14:14. > :14:21.framework. We will hear more details from the Foreign Secretary. He
:14:21. > :14:26.looked fairly confident. Do you think these revelations have brought
:14:26. > :14:32.back, or could lead to, the dating communications bill being brought
:14:32. > :14:38.back through the back door? -- the Communications Data Bill being
:14:38. > :14:41.brought back into the back door? They are open to abuse, that is a
:14:41. > :14:45.concern. And there is a big distinction between national
:14:45. > :14:49.security and things used by councils and quangos. The best way to restore
:14:49. > :14:55.public trust is too limited to what we want to worry about, public
:14:55. > :14:57.safety. We need a new version of the bill. One committee was formed
:14:57. > :15:02.specially to look at this. They gave the huge number of recommendations
:15:02. > :15:09.in Parliament, they were all taken into the new draft and accepted, it
:15:09. > :15:13.was pulled by the Deputy Prime Minister out of the Queen's Speech.
:15:13. > :15:18.40 odd conservatives are very concerned about it. I don't think to
:15:18. > :15:27.polarise it in that political way is very fair. If the Lib Dems are
:15:27. > :15:32.against, I am in favour. Different phases each day but the pictures are
:15:32. > :15:40.familiar. MPs and peers all recorded by newspapers in apparent acts of
:15:40. > :15:45.wrongdoing, acts they deny. The latest to hit the headlines was this
:15:45. > :15:51.weekend. Tim Yeo was accused of abusing his position on a committee
:15:51. > :15:54.to help a private company influence Parliament. Are these stings shining
:15:54. > :16:01.examples of British journalism at its best or an unfair and intrusive
:16:01. > :16:11.attack on our elected representatives?
:16:11. > :16:11.
:16:11. > :17:16.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 64 seconds
:17:16. > :17:23.You mention getting traction with Well, I am joined by Evan Harris,
:17:23. > :17:27.the former lead MP and Hacked Off campaign, and Kelvin MacKenzie. Why
:17:27. > :17:32.do MPs and peers fall for this every time? If anybody comes to you
:17:32. > :17:35.offering money, you would think they would run a mile. I assume the only
:17:35. > :17:38.ones who fought for it are the ones who are publicised.
:17:38. > :17:44.I hope some people have engaged their brain and don't have the kind
:17:44. > :17:47.of motives that appear to be the case from at least some of these
:17:47. > :17:55.pictures. Some of them like to be flattered, I imagine. They feel they
:17:55. > :18:02.are wanted. My hope is that we are seeing a selection, not everybody
:18:02. > :18:08.that is attempted. In that vein, surely this is a fair way of, if you
:18:08. > :18:18.like, exposing people 's greed? is right. Hacked off has never
:18:18. > :18:21.
:18:21. > :18:23.opposed the interest journalism using subterfuge. The editors code
:18:23. > :18:30.is clear that subterfuge should not be used unless there is a public
:18:30. > :18:36.interest. I think there is an interest in these issues of cash for
:18:36. > :18:39.questions, coaching of witnesses by a select committee chair who has a
:18:39. > :18:43.vested interest. The Vince Cable case was found not to be
:18:43. > :18:51.sufficiently in the pub it in to rest, even by the PCC. Ashman
:18:51. > :18:55.Republic interest. You can't just go into an MP 's surgery and record
:18:55. > :18:58.everything in the hope that something comes up. It is clear in
:18:58. > :19:02.the code that you have to have specific reasons. The editor has to
:19:02. > :19:10.believe there is a case that they will find out. Clearly, you could
:19:10. > :19:17.with Timmy -- Tim Yeo. I'm not sure I understand the comment on Vince
:19:17. > :19:23.Cable. Why is that different? It is certainly not because he is my
:19:23. > :19:31.colleagues. This is the PCC public view. They are run by a Conservative
:19:31. > :19:37.peer. -- the PCC 's of you. Firstly, they went to every Lib and Minister
:19:37. > :19:42.to hope they can find something. -- Lib Dem Minister. They did not
:19:42. > :19:52.expose wrongdoing. When you do that in a surgery as opposed to a
:19:52. > :19:53.
:19:53. > :19:57.corporate dinner, you are pushing everything that the MP says to all
:19:57. > :20:04.of his or her constituents. You have to have a high level of suspicion.
:20:04. > :20:08.Aren't they all fishing expeditions, really? None of these MPs are chosen
:20:08. > :20:11.for these stings because there is already a suspicion about them. It
:20:11. > :20:21.is just crossing your fingers and hoping they fought for it. Let's
:20:21. > :20:24.
:20:24. > :20:33.come back to Vince Cable. That was a serious issue. You agree with it. I
:20:33. > :20:37.did not agree with the PCC. I think if the PCC here's both sides
:20:37. > :20:42.of the argument and all of the facts and they make a ruling, since we and
:20:42. > :20:47.you believe in press regulation, that should, as the Telegraph did,
:20:47. > :20:52.the accepted. I thought it was the wrong judgement.
:20:52. > :20:57.Let's deal with the other issues that have come out. What is bizarre
:20:57. > :21:01.is that we can even have this debate, in one sense, that there are
:21:01. > :21:05.people out there that don't think this is right. The reality is these
:21:05. > :21:15.people are our elected present stings, and how on earth are we
:21:15. > :21:18.going to find out what is going on? -- elected representatives. We find
:21:18. > :21:22.out the most extraordinary things are happening. One of the other
:21:22. > :21:28.things that is beginning to happen, I lived in America for a while and I
:21:28. > :21:35.was astonished at the reaction to Senators, who they all saw as
:21:35. > :21:40.charlatans. 30 years later, I think these stings will run out of speed.
:21:40. > :21:47.I think that most of the electorate thinks they are all at it anyway and
:21:47. > :21:50.that newspapers and great shoes like Panorama, in the end, will not be
:21:50. > :21:59.carrying out these stings because actually they find that the reader
:21:59. > :22:04.or the viewer is now suffering from some kind of fatigue. I beg to
:22:04. > :22:06.differ in the sense that we now finally have this suggestion of a
:22:06. > :22:10.register for lobbyists. Whether it would have done anything
:22:10. > :22:16.except to help MPs to check that the company approaching them is
:22:16. > :22:21.bogus... But it does trigger interest.
:22:21. > :22:27.I don't think it is true that the more this is exposed, the less
:22:27. > :22:33.interesting it is. What is fascinating is that with all the
:22:33. > :22:37.things that happened on hacking, thousands of cases, not a single one
:22:37. > :22:42.by the press, was used to expose this sort of thing. This is the sort
:22:42. > :22:49.of thing that is a good use of journalistic subterfuge. The tragedy
:22:49. > :22:55.about hacking is, did they hack Jimmy Savile? No, they had to be
:22:55. > :23:01.found out by a TV company. Did they go for any politicians? No, they
:23:01. > :23:10.didn't. They use it for commercial reasons. That is why Leveson was
:23:10. > :23:13.right to set up interest journalism needs to be nurtured. -- to say that
:23:13. > :23:19.public interest journalism needs to be nurtured.
:23:19. > :23:25.If you are a Murdoch or a rather mere, you are a massive figure. --
:23:25. > :23:34.Lord rather mere. They would not end up saying the disgusting things you
:23:34. > :23:40.hear politicians say. I'm not sure. In business, do you wanted to your
:23:40. > :23:47.toast on both sides? You probably do. I you trying to tell me that
:23:47. > :23:55.Rupert Murdoch has not received the biggest bucketload...
:23:55. > :24:04.Proprietors had a pact not to attack each other and it was exposed.
:24:04. > :24:07.Newspapers do not like it up them. You did not like it. I make no
:24:07. > :24:17.complaints about it. Proprietors have what we used to referred to in
:24:17. > :24:19.
:24:19. > :24:23.the old days as the NPP. It is powerful and corrupt. The press are
:24:23. > :24:29.hypocritical. Great work is done by the Sunday Times, Telegraph and
:24:29. > :24:33.Panorama in this area. But there is hypocrisy. There are some very
:24:33. > :24:36.powerful people in the media who are not exposed. It took the Guardian, I
:24:36. > :24:41.grant you, to do a lot of the exposure on what is happening at
:24:41. > :24:45.News International. All of these newspapers claim they need the
:24:45. > :24:49.freedom from Leveson in order to do this great work and they did not
:24:49. > :24:56.even cover it when the Guardian were doing it. There was a silence of the
:24:56. > :25:02.front pages of the newspapers. I don't know, I was not connected.
:25:02. > :25:08.At the same time, I would say you cannot suggest there is not they
:25:08. > :25:16.want enough media to poor ape bucket over everybody. -- a wide enough
:25:16. > :25:22.media to pour a bucket over everybody. You have even got a High
:25:22. > :25:29.Court judge on your side. We have got one bloke and his guide dog,
:25:29. > :25:35.actually. The point is that we do rely on the
:25:35. > :25:41.Panoramas, the ITV Exposes, journalism by the press, which is
:25:41. > :25:48.not cheap. Even tabloids do valuable work in the average interest. We,
:25:48. > :25:52.for example, want to see public interest defence is in law so that
:25:52. > :26:02.if Jimmy Savile 's phone had been hacked, there will be a defence in
:26:02. > :26:02.
:26:02. > :26:06.law so that police would not start to arrest the journalists.
:26:06. > :26:16.We want to see Leveson implemented in order to curtail the non-public
:26:16. > :26:26.interest, unlawful and unethical conduct. Would you trade the public
:26:26. > :26:31.defence act of 1906? So if the police call up and find that a
:26:31. > :26:36.murderer has a sky sports package, and it should be exposed, and the
:26:36. > :26:43.policeman asks for 500 quid to expose it, where would you be?
:26:43. > :26:50.The Sun newsletter argued -- newspaper argued there should have
:26:50. > :26:54.been a public interest defence. We agree, actually.
:26:54. > :26:59.On that rare bit of agreement, we finish there. Do you ever get the
:26:59. > :27:03.feeling you are being watched? I do. Occasionally. This weekend was
:27:03. > :27:09.something of a week event for conspiracy theorists as this
:27:09. > :27:14.lucrative Bilderburg group of politicians and business leaders met
:27:14. > :27:19.in Watford. Among the attendants worthy Prime Minister and Lord
:27:19. > :27:25.Mandelson. Yesterday, Andrew Neil attempted to discuss it with Alex
:27:25. > :27:34.Jones. He got more that he bargained for.
:27:34. > :27:39.Let him finish. They turned back some of my reporters.
:27:39. > :27:44.Do you think the BBC is part of the Bilderburg group?
:27:44. > :27:48.Eric Blair worked here, George Orwell. He said it was. You guys
:27:48. > :27:54.think you can manage the whole thing. Now the information has
:27:54. > :28:02.gotten too big. I have 3 million radio listeners per day. I get 50
:28:02. > :28:10.million use she views per month. I make films that can be watched
:28:10. > :28:20.millions of time. All right, all right, all right.
:28:20. > :28:20.
:28:20. > :28:25.Ten years ago, I would have said, listen to this stuff. We would have
:28:25. > :28:34.said, I would have said, that is kind of mad. It is an interesting
:28:34. > :28:39.psychological phenomenon. The problem is... I am here to warn
:28:39. > :28:44.people. You keep telling me to shut up. This is not a game. The US is
:28:44. > :28:48.building camps. They disappear people. You have this arrest for
:28:48. > :28:56.public safety, life in prison. You are the worst person I have ever
:28:56. > :29:02.interviewed. David, thank you for being with us. It is 11:30am. We
:29:02. > :29:09.have an idiot on the programme today. Enough. You will not stop the
:29:09. > :29:15.Republic! I couldn't work out if he was
:29:15. > :29:20.flossing his teeth there. It is rare for my wonderful colleague to be
:29:20. > :29:28.struggling to be heard. Entertaining though that was, are we at risk from
:29:28. > :29:33.a global conspiracy? There has been a lot of criticism about that. Even
:29:33. > :29:40.some TV producer described it as car crash TV. It was fascinating. That
:29:40. > :29:50.is great stuff. We should have more of that. There are 90 people out
:29:50. > :29:55.there who are managing to get on BBC1. -- natty. It makes our
:29:55. > :30:00.politicians look straightforward. But it does occasionally make
:30:00. > :30:07.fascinating TV. I like it. Does it occasionally have a point?
:30:07. > :30:16.You may not agree with the way it was put across, is there anything in
:30:16. > :30:20.what he says about the Bilderburg group? I didn't know anything about
:30:20. > :30:25.the Bilderberg group. My friend is a mortgage Roker and about five years
:30:25. > :30:30.ago he said to me, they are deciding the world, the Bilderberg group --
:30:30. > :30:37.my friend is a mortgage broker. He lives in deepest Surrey and he knows
:30:37. > :30:43.about the Bilderberg group. By the way, he votes for Labour. I try to
:30:43. > :30:47.avoid them, to be honest with you, apart from when they are selling me
:30:47. > :30:50.the Big Issue! I am sorry about that. But there is a sense of
:30:50. > :30:55.conspiracy about the Bilderberg group and, in the end, they will
:30:55. > :31:02.kill it. They will have to open it up to the TV cameras, otherwise
:31:02. > :31:06.people. Believing that 30 or 40 people are named the world.
:31:06. > :31:09.Otherwise people will start believing. But how many people out
:31:09. > :31:16.there believe there are little green men just about to walk down at high
:31:16. > :31:22.Street? What is your favourite conspiracy theory? In the Sunday
:31:22. > :31:27.sport when it said, bus found on the moon. I feel that is what we might
:31:27. > :31:33.be heading towards, someday we will land on some obscure planet and we
:31:33. > :31:41.will see a number 178 bus gently driving past. You will have to eat
:31:41. > :31:44.your words then! How often were you run up by conspiracy theorists when
:31:45. > :31:48.you are editing a newspaper, and did you ever run any of them? We fell
:31:48. > :31:53.for one elaborate hoax about somebody doing something, and if you
:31:53. > :32:01.followed them. We followed some bloke as a game, I presume, all over
:32:01. > :32:05.Europe, for about four months, costing is about 300,000 quid, and
:32:05. > :32:12.there was no story at the end of it. Deraa nutters out there, but rather
:32:12. > :32:16.clever nutters. Every so often, somebody says that the aliens have
:32:16. > :32:22.started putting out their rubbish on Wednesday at number 28, we didn't do
:32:22. > :32:27.that, but there are some clever people out there who are misleading.
:32:27. > :32:31.Thank you for being our guest of the day, or for the first half of the
:32:31. > :32:33.programme. Now it's time for a look at the week
:32:33. > :32:35.ahead. As we've been hearing, this afternoon the Foreign Secretary,
:32:35. > :32:38.William Hague, makes a statement to the House on GCHQs spying
:32:38. > :32:40.allegations. Also today, disability living allowance is no more! It's
:32:40. > :32:44.being replaced by the personal independence payment.
:32:44. > :32:46.Today and tomorrow the Supreme Court will be in session to discuss votes
:32:46. > :32:49.for prisoners. And they're at it again - it's the
:32:49. > :32:52.Lords versus the Commons, but this time it's a tug of war.
:32:52. > :32:54.On Wednesday we're hoping for good news as the ONS publishes the latest
:32:54. > :33:04.unemployment statistics. And on Sunday it's the start of the
:33:04. > :33:10.
:33:10. > :33:13.G8 summit, which the UK will be And joining us from a cloudy College
:33:13. > :33:22.Green is Isabel Hardmen from the Spectator and Helen Lewis from the
:33:22. > :33:26.New Statesman. -- Isabel Hardman from the Spectator. Isabel,
:33:26. > :33:29.disability campaigners are warning that hundreds of thousands could
:33:29. > :33:34.lose out under renew system of benefit payments being rolled out
:33:34. > :33:36.today. It is clear that a significant number of people
:33:36. > :33:41.receiving disability living allowance will lose that benefit?
:33:41. > :33:46.Yes. One of the things about this test is there is not a great deal of
:33:46. > :33:49.public faith already cost of the test which went before for
:33:49. > :33:53.incapacity benefit. The work capability assessment is another
:33:53. > :33:58.government has not going that well at the moment, there is a real
:33:59. > :34:04.public faith issue with these new test. Helen, ministers have said
:34:04. > :34:09.that opponents of the change are being alarmist. Is that fair?
:34:09. > :34:14.utterly unfair. Disabled people in this country have been hit by a
:34:15. > :34:20.combination of benefit changes and it is very hard to see, even if you
:34:20. > :34:24.believe each individual one is fair, the same family can be hit by five
:34:24. > :34:32.or six changes. Let's look ahead and predict into the glass ball, what
:34:32. > :34:37.will happen to this new change, the personal independence payment? Will
:34:37. > :34:41.it be successful, Isabel? I don't think it is alarmist to scrutinise
:34:41. > :34:45.policy and make sure it is working, especially when it is so important
:34:45. > :34:49.and sensitive. I imagine it will have to be revised, that is the sort
:34:49. > :34:54.of thing that ministers should do. If disability campaigners say
:34:54. > :34:57.certain elements are not working, they should listen. Let's look at
:34:57. > :35:03.Labour, they made some fairly big announcements, maybe not in
:35:03. > :35:09.financial terms, but symbolically. Will it have the impact that Ed
:35:09. > :35:16.Balls and Ed Miliband hoped? I think so, because it was harder to paint
:35:16. > :35:20.them as a profligate party. On the Sunday Politics yesterday, Ed Balls
:35:20. > :35:23.insisted that the state pension might be included within this
:35:23. > :35:32.policy. That would be enormous, because traditionally David Cameron
:35:32. > :35:36.has protected benefits the pensioners in a way that he has not
:35:36. > :35:38.for disabled people, because the power of the pensioner vote is seen
:35:38. > :35:44.as Almighty. Where does that leave the Conservatives, Isabel Hardman?
:35:44. > :35:51.You seem to admit that the cap would include spending on pensions. Is it
:35:51. > :35:55.realistic policy? It is an important and -- opportunity for the
:35:55. > :35:57.Conservatives. If Ed Balls is looking at bringing the state
:35:57. > :36:04.pension into the spending cap, it is an opportunity for conservatives to
:36:04. > :36:08.argue for a welfare state which is not universal, it is a safety net.
:36:08. > :36:12.It is their version of the welfare state that they can push. In 2010,
:36:12. > :36:14.the Tories were protecting the Winter fuel payment and bus passes,
:36:14. > :36:19.they were bounced into it by Ed Balls and his colleagues. It is an
:36:19. > :36:24.opportunity for them to look at some things they have been scared off.
:36:24. > :36:28.Helen, is the interesting thing about a cup that include pensions,
:36:28. > :36:33.is it a bit more about whether Labour would have to raise the
:36:33. > :36:39.retirement age if the cap looked like it would go against the triple
:36:39. > :36:43.lock in place in terms of how pension spending will rise? Sources
:36:43. > :36:46.have already said they will protect the triple lock because they know it
:36:46. > :36:52.is potentially incredibly inflammatory. They could offset the
:36:52. > :36:58.need to increase pension contributions with other things, but
:36:58. > :37:04.the overall bill would have a cap. This is phenomenally interesting to
:37:05. > :37:11.people like us, because it has seen for so long that you couldn't attack
:37:11. > :37:17.or cut benefits for pensioners. Apparently there has been a letter
:37:17. > :37:20.of no confidence in the Prime Minister, is this significant?
:37:20. > :37:26.Conservative MPs sent those letters in, and estimates vary as to how
:37:26. > :37:29.many. He will have been talking to colleagues about the fact he has
:37:29. > :37:37.done this. There is a suspicion in the party that the whips have
:37:37. > :37:42.briefed the depression -- the press about this. There are signs about
:37:42. > :37:46.the whips office getting to grips with bad behaviour. Backbenchers
:37:46. > :37:55.dark -- can't just criticise the PM. It is not acceptable, they have
:37:55. > :37:58.to be seen to be clamping down on that. It is part 392 in the saga of
:37:58. > :38:02.people angry about gay marriage being seen to be prioritised, people
:38:02. > :38:07.angry about the EU referendum. It follows on from Lord Ashcroft, who
:38:07. > :38:12.was once the big Tory donor, he did polling showing that Cameron is less
:38:12. > :38:21.popular than the party. People will be saying, why do we have a leader
:38:21. > :38:29.less popular than others? Are you in the tug of war? Yes -- no.Are you
:38:29. > :38:32.upset? Not really my thing, videogames would be more my thing.
:38:32. > :38:34.And joining us for the rest of the programme we have three of
:38:34. > :38:37.Westminster's finest - the Conservative MP George Eustice. The
:38:37. > :38:47.Labour MP Alison McGovern and the Liberal Democrat MP Lorely Burt.
:38:47. > :38:48.Welcome to you all. Can I start with George Eustice, let's look at the
:38:48. > :38:53.disability living allowance. Taney Grey Thompson's view is that the
:38:53. > :38:58.government changes could result in disabled people being ghettoised and
:38:58. > :39:02.excluded from society. I think that is alarmist, because we are
:39:02. > :39:07.introducing an assessment which will make sure that the support given to
:39:07. > :39:15.disabled people is better targeted when it is needed. We are saying you
:39:15. > :39:19.have an assessment, then you can change the supporters they needed.
:39:19. > :39:23.For some it might mean they have increasing support, for others it
:39:23. > :39:30.might be a consistent condition and there may be somewhere the condition
:39:30. > :39:33.improves and they release -- reduce it. That is sensible. Why are so
:39:33. > :39:38.many disabled people worried? If people were reassured it would be
:39:38. > :39:47.that fair, why are we already having leading disability campaigners
:39:47. > :39:49.saying that making those sorts of comments and, as conservatives have
:39:49. > :39:55.admitted, far fewer people will get the new benefits than the current
:39:55. > :39:59.allowance. People just don't like change sometimes. We are looking at
:39:59. > :40:05.the budget that we inherited in 2010, around �12 billion, this
:40:05. > :40:12.increased exponentially since it was introduced in 1997. It will rise for
:40:12. > :40:17.a while, we are talking about significant cuts. -- we are not
:40:17. > :40:21.talking about significant cuts. is the estimate for the number of
:40:21. > :40:27.people that will reduce, in terms of claiming, this personal independence
:40:27. > :40:31.payment? I think it is in the region of around 100,000, far lower than
:40:31. > :40:38.the figure of 600,000 that has been put around. 450,000 has been put
:40:38. > :40:42.about. But it will be far lower than that. It is the right thing to do,
:40:42. > :40:48.to have a fair benefit system you need to target the support where it
:40:48. > :40:54.is needed. Some people will get an increase in support. Lorely Burt,
:40:54. > :40:56.are you happy? Yes. There have been a number of scare stories, and from
:40:56. > :41:00.my own constituency people with mental health problems are
:41:00. > :41:04.particularly worried, because small things can really knock them off
:41:04. > :41:10.balance. I think all these changes have to be fermented very
:41:10. > :41:17.sensitively, but I think the idea of putting more flexibility in is a
:41:17. > :41:20.good thing. So what is the problem? One of the problems I hear from
:41:20. > :41:25.people affected in my constituency is the plethora of changes that
:41:25. > :41:28.people are dealing with, that there is a cumulative impact of all these
:41:28. > :41:33.changes coming at people with disabilities and their carers and
:41:34. > :41:38.making it incredibly hard to cope at the moment. Frankly, the practice of
:41:39. > :41:42.what has gone on in terms of some of these assessments, I have seen my
:41:42. > :41:50.own constituents be treated not well and I don't think the government has
:41:50. > :41:54.got a grip on that. What sort of experiences are they talking about?
:41:54. > :41:58.Unfortunately I have had cases where there has been bad practice, people
:41:59. > :42:01.'s needs not being attended to what they go through the assessment. We
:42:01. > :42:05.have had debates in Parliament about how the contract has been managed
:42:05. > :42:11.and I don't think anybody thinks it has worked well. The government
:42:11. > :42:17.really needs to get a grip. What do you mean by getting a grip? How else
:42:17. > :42:21.can you facilitate the change in the system whereby, as George has said,
:42:21. > :42:24.many can be targeted more effectively? I think people should
:42:24. > :42:29.listen to the chair of the select committee and her contributions
:42:29. > :42:35.about the manner in which this contract has been managed and the
:42:35. > :42:40.lessons that have to be learned. That sounds like no change, no
:42:40. > :42:44.reduction in the welfare bill? you can have the best policy
:42:44. > :42:47.possible, which I don't think the government has got, but if the way
:42:47. > :42:50.it is being carried out and all the evidence we have heard in
:42:50. > :42:55.Parliament, the manner in which it is being carried out does not work,
:42:55. > :43:02.that will mean disabled people face a plethora of challengers putting
:43:02. > :43:06.them in a very difficult position. Constituencies come to us with
:43:06. > :43:13.problems with ATOS. -- constituents come to us. The government is
:43:13. > :43:19.reviewing the way ATOS works. They have made some important changes to
:43:19. > :43:22.the way that ESA is assessed. about those people who have had a
:43:22. > :43:28.humiliating time when they have been reassessed in order to see whether
:43:28. > :43:35.they can claim this? First of all, the government is taking much
:43:35. > :43:39.greater account of evidence from the GP at the first round, which was not
:43:39. > :43:43.the case under Labour. We are also giving people the chance to have an
:43:43. > :43:47.immediate second opinion before even getting to appeal, so we reduce some
:43:47. > :43:50.of the bureaucratic process. There is an appeals process, and the
:43:51. > :43:55.evidence shows that around about a quarter of people still have
:43:55. > :44:00.appeals. We need to keep reforming and changing the ATOS assessment,
:44:00. > :44:03.but we have made improvements already. Labour had quite a big week
:44:03. > :44:08.in terms of making assessments around the economy and on welfare
:44:08. > :44:12.spending, let's hear what the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said about
:44:12. > :44:16.pensions. George Osborne will announce his cap in two weeks, I
:44:16. > :44:20.don't know whether he will exclude or include pension spending but our
:44:21. > :44:26.plan is to included. Pension spending would be included in the
:44:26. > :44:30.welfare cup? That is our plan.Are you happy that pension spending,
:44:30. > :44:39.which is the majority of welfare spending, would be included in a cap
:44:39. > :44:42.set by Labour? If you are looking over the long term as to how you can
:44:42. > :44:47.reshape social security so that it works well over the medium to
:44:48. > :44:54.long-term, of course it would not make sense to exclude what is a
:44:54. > :44:58.large part of it. We are committed to the triple lock. We protected
:44:58. > :45:03.pensioners, there are a lot of pensioners that I know in Merseyside
:45:03. > :45:07.who did really badly in the 1990s, there was real pensioner poverty.
:45:07. > :45:13.With the last Labour government they were supported. If you are committed
:45:13. > :45:16.to the triple lock and you are at risk of breaking the cup, what can
:45:16. > :45:25.you do to reduce spending on pensions? You'd have to cut the
:45:25. > :45:31.amount that people getting pension or increase the retirement age?
:45:31. > :45:38.whole of the contribution that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were making
:45:38. > :45:43.was we want to look over the long term and invest in the right things.
:45:43. > :45:48.You say it is hypothetical. As a real hypothetical, any party could
:45:48. > :45:55.easily breach a cap. You had got to say, how would we stop any breach
:45:55. > :45:59.happening? Would you increase the retirement age? Right now, we are
:45:59. > :46:04.daily -- dealing with economic failure. George Osborne is taking
:46:04. > :46:13.short-term decisions. It is the wrong way to look at it. We have got
:46:13. > :46:17.to address the crisis now but think of the long-term. That will help us.
:46:17. > :46:24.You could say it was a brave statement and a realistic one that
:46:24. > :46:29.Ed Balls made by including pensions which George Osborne has not done.
:46:29. > :46:32.He is being realistic when that is the bulk of spending.
:46:32. > :46:38.I am shocked at this. I would think any pensioner watching this
:46:38. > :46:43.programme today would never trust Labour again. The idea that there
:46:43. > :46:46.hard earned money that they have put by, all their lives, should suddenly
:46:46. > :46:53.be regarded as some kind of welfare benefit, I think it is just
:46:53. > :47:02.stunning. From the party that brought us the promise of an end to
:47:02. > :47:05.tuition fees... Let's talk about this subject in hand. For 13 years,
:47:05. > :47:12.Labour failed to reinstate the earnings link. We have now got a
:47:12. > :47:22.triple lock so that every pensioner will be better off. All right, so,
:47:22. > :47:25.
:47:25. > :47:30.what would you cut? The Conservatives wanted to make �10
:47:30. > :47:36.million of cuts to square the budget. We insisted that only �3
:47:36. > :47:41.billion of that should be in welfare spending. What we think is there has
:47:41. > :47:47.got to be a balance. We have got to have a fairer society, as well as a
:47:47. > :47:57.stronger economy. That is our compromise. You still have not said
:47:57. > :48:01.
:48:01. > :48:06.what you would cut. Nick Clegg has mentioned a few things. We can make
:48:06. > :48:11.additional cuts. Really, we are wanting to go forward and grow the
:48:11. > :48:17.economy. Let's talk about that 10 billion
:48:17. > :48:23.extra in terms of cuts to spending. In all honesty, you can't really cut
:48:23. > :48:28.any more from welfare unless you look at universal benefits. I am not
:48:28. > :48:36.sure. Ideas have been floated around restricting housing benefit for the
:48:36. > :48:43.under 25s, for instance. Labour have had three years of opportunistic
:48:43. > :48:52.opposition, opposing everything. you agree with including pensions in
:48:52. > :49:02.welfare? I do. They are talking about cutting the singlet -- single
:49:02. > :49:07.being mixed... I buy energy the idea that there is an issue of fairness.
:49:07. > :49:12.When people have paid into things, there should be benefits. I don't
:49:12. > :49:19.understand the idea of cutting the state pension.
:49:19. > :49:22.We have to move on, to immigration. A group of MPs and peers has
:49:22. > :49:26.criticised new immigration rules which, it says, have led to British
:49:26. > :49:30.people being separated from partners born overseas. The All-Party
:49:30. > :49:33.Parliamentary Group on Migration says the government should consider
:49:33. > :49:40.relaxing the regulations. Do you think they should be relaxed,
:49:40. > :49:43.Alison? They should be looked at. have got a case that is disturbing
:49:43. > :49:46.from our own constituency, where I have got somebody with eight
:49:46. > :49:50.teaching contract starting in September and his wife has to give
:49:50. > :49:55.birth overseas because the government are saying the contract
:49:55. > :49:59.is not good enough. Of course, we need to protect the public purse.
:49:59. > :50:09.But these rules have actually got to work. We raised concerns at the
:50:09. > :50:09.
:50:09. > :50:19.time. Its 18,602 high as an income threshold for somebody who wants to
:50:19. > :50:21.
:50:21. > :50:26.bring somebody to the UK? -- is �18,600 to high. It needs to be in
:50:27. > :50:30.fermented more flexibly. -- implemented. People who have got
:50:30. > :50:36.spouses who are earning money overseas, that money is not allowed
:50:37. > :50:45.to be counted in. That disadvantages women in particular. Anecdotally,
:50:45. > :50:48.according to members of that committee, many families have
:50:48. > :50:56.British children made to grow up without a parent here. Is that
:50:56. > :51:00.right? No system is going to be perfect. What we have got here is an
:51:00. > :51:05.improvement on what we had. We said we would reduce immigration. If you
:51:05. > :51:09.are serious about that, you have got to look at the way that you issue
:51:09. > :51:13.visas for spouses. You have to look at students, for instance. This is
:51:13. > :51:22.about making sure that people who come here do not end up being a
:51:22. > :51:27.verdant on the taxpayer, taking benefits. -- a burden. Savings are
:51:27. > :51:35.not included. Savings, property, and the spouse abroad but Mike earnings
:51:35. > :51:45.are not counted, either. -- the spouse abroad 's earnings. Is that
:51:45. > :51:46.
:51:46. > :51:52.fair? As I said, the problem is if they have not had a job for the last
:51:52. > :51:56.12 months. People might start taking short-term jobs. No system is
:51:56. > :52:01.perfect. If you are serious about reducing immigration, you have got
:52:01. > :52:08.to take some serious decisions. Conservatives have cut net
:52:09. > :52:14.migration. Part of that is people leaving the country. Part of it is
:52:14. > :52:19.students. That has an impact on universities. The system has got to
:52:19. > :52:25.be looked at. Somebody could be earning lots and then lose their job
:52:26. > :52:28.tomorrow. How can you make a fair system? We have got to look at it.
:52:28. > :52:33.On immigration, I would also question whether the government have
:52:33. > :52:37.done enough on illegal immigration and making sure that is dealt with.
:52:38. > :52:42.That is the kind of problem that people really worry about.
:52:42. > :52:47.We have to move on. The three MPs on our panel today all have something
:52:47. > :52:53.in common. It is something they all wish was not true. No, they are not
:52:53. > :52:56.the latest politicians to be caught in a lobbying steam. The problem
:52:56. > :53:00.they share is that they all have small majorities in their
:53:00. > :53:04.constituencies, which means that at the next election they will all be
:53:04. > :53:07.working their socks off to make sure they are re-elected. Let's get out
:53:07. > :53:13.our crystal ball and imagine what we will be saying in 2015. Over to
:53:13. > :53:23.Giles. Welcome to election night, 2015.
:53:23. > :53:23.
:53:23. > :53:30.These are the marginal seats. Let's see what it would take for our panel
:53:30. > :53:36.to be put out on their ears. First up, Alison McGovern. She is the
:53:36. > :53:42.Labour MP for Wirral South. She has a majority of 531, which would fall
:53:42. > :53:47.to the Tories on a swing of just 0.7%. This is just a bit of fun, but
:53:47. > :53:54.maybe not for our MPs. Next, Lorely Burt. Her majority is just 175,
:53:54. > :54:00.which needs a tiny 0.2% swing to go to the Tories and turned blue. Last
:54:00. > :54:08.of all, George Eustice. His majority is the smallest of the lot, just 66
:54:08. > :54:13.votes. 0.1% would do for him, with Labour picking up the seat. It is
:54:13. > :54:18.going to be a nailbiter for three of them.
:54:18. > :54:27.Don't you feel sorry for the three of them? Particularly you, George,
:54:27. > :54:32.with the smallest majority. Feeling good about job prospects for 2015?
:54:32. > :54:42.The truth is, there are two ways to think about it. You can either fret
:54:42. > :54:42.
:54:43. > :54:48.about what your opponent is saying, or you can say, let's try to achieve
:54:48. > :54:53.something in the constituency and nationally. I have done the latter.
:54:53. > :55:00.It means taking some positions that people don't agree with. You just
:55:00. > :55:04.have to do that. You are a brave man.
:55:04. > :55:08.It is important to have something you can point to as a record.
:55:08. > :55:18.Are you jealous, Lorely Burt, of your colleagues with big
:55:18. > :55:19.
:55:19. > :55:23.majorities? Yes and no. I do think there was a whopping majority in
:55:23. > :55:27.2005, and it was a Conservative majority, which I managed to
:55:27. > :55:31.overturn. Despite the fact the Conservatives threw everything at
:55:31. > :55:40.the seat that they could in 2010, they just failed to take the seat
:55:40. > :55:48.again. You are confident for 2015? Confident is an overstatement. Once
:55:48. > :55:54.we get into a seat, the Lib Dems at work like crazy. The locals
:55:54. > :55:59.appreciate that. Are you saying that Labour does not
:55:59. > :56:08.work as hard? Do you work harder in the constituency because you have
:56:08. > :56:15.got a majority? I work really hard. But before, as
:56:15. > :56:24.an MP, I was a councillor in Harriet Harman 's seat. I think she worried
:56:24. > :56:30.hard about her constituents' views. If you have got a big majority,
:56:30. > :56:34.there must be some complacency. it is about respect for the voters.
:56:34. > :56:37.You should always get out there and listen to people. I don't think many
:56:37. > :56:46.MPs who think you should not do that these days. You have got to listen
:56:46. > :56:52.to people, or you can do a good job. -- you can't do.
:56:52. > :56:59.Do you think the campaign will get dirty? I think the Tories thought
:56:59. > :57:02.they were home and save in 2010. I snuck under the radar and got in.
:57:02. > :57:10.You never know what is going to happen. I am very cautious about
:57:10. > :57:15.elections. Hopefully everybody would work harder. What about UKIP, George
:57:15. > :57:21.Eustice? You say you are not going to blow in the wind depending on
:57:21. > :57:26.pressure. How do you deal with the threat?
:57:26. > :57:31.I have always campaigned on the European issue. I even stood for
:57:31. > :57:37.UKIP in 1999. I am an authentic Euro-sceptic, although not of the
:57:37. > :57:46.UKIP can't any more. We have pledged a referendum on membership of the EU
:57:46. > :57:53.and we are going to negotiate. That is a small part of our agenda. There
:57:53. > :57:57.is a whole swathe of things around welfare reform, school reform,
:57:57. > :58:04.sorting out the economy, which are nothing to do with Europe. It is not
:58:04. > :58:08.as simple as your chart showed. All three parties have a chance. In the
:58:08. > :58:12.last two times that it has changed hands, it has gone from the
:58:12. > :58:18.candidate in third place going to first place. All kinds of dynamics
:58:18. > :58:24.happen in my constituency. Do any of you have another career
:58:24. > :58:34.lined up, just in case? What may she think we have got time for anything
:58:34. > :58:34.
:58:34. > :58:43.like that? -- what makes you think. The answer to our quiz...