:00:46. > :00:51.Daily Politics. President Obama changes his mind. Syria has been
:00:51. > :00:55.using chemical weapons, so the US will start arming rebels in Syria,
:00:55. > :01:02.fighting against President Assad. Are Britain, France and America now
:01:02. > :01:06.on the same page? Four former Home Secretaries urge
:01:06. > :01:13.Nick Clegg to drop his opposition to tougher surveillance of
:01:13. > :01:21.communications. Could arts and museums funding get
:01:21. > :01:25.the chop in the upcoming Spending Review? We will discuss if arts
:01:25. > :01:32.spending can be exempt from cuts. Do Government reshuffles cause more
:01:32. > :01:40.harm than good? A report today warns Prime Ministers to think hard before
:01:40. > :01:43.shuffling the decks. All that is coming up. With us for
:01:43. > :01:48.the next half an hour is James Kirkup from the Telegraph and Mary
:01:48. > :01:54.Ann Sieghart from the Social Market Foundation. Four former Home
:01:54. > :02:00.Secretaries have accused Mr Clegg of putting lives at risk by blocking
:02:00. > :02:04.plans for what critics call the Snoopers' Charter. Supporters say
:02:04. > :02:07.they are vital to stop terrorism in the age of e-mail and social media.
:02:07. > :02:11.Theresa May had hoped a new Data Communications Bill would be
:02:11. > :02:15.included in the Queen's Speech, but Nick Clegg announced on radio that
:02:15. > :02:19.it was not going to happen - and it didn't. The Bill would have required
:02:19. > :02:26.internet companies to store users' data for a year. Here is what one of
:02:26. > :02:30.the former Home Secretaries had to say. There is bipartisan support for
:02:30. > :02:34.this Bill and there's been an all-party committee looking at the
:02:34. > :02:38.Bill, which has said narrow it down, increase the safeguards. We say yes
:02:38. > :02:41.to that. There is no particular reason why there should not be a
:02:41. > :02:46.majority in the House of Commons from the Labour Party and the
:02:46. > :02:52.Conservative Party for this Bill. As for Nick Clegg, he is not the only
:02:52. > :02:57.senior politician who said things which he may later regret. He needs
:02:57. > :03:01.to think about what is more important - supporting Google and
:03:01. > :03:05.Amazon and these other American companies or supporting security and
:03:05. > :03:10.reassurance for the British people. Jack Straw earlier this morning.
:03:10. > :03:16.James Kirkup, how much pressure does this put Mr Clegg under? More,
:03:17. > :03:23.undoubtedly. It is not news to him that there is a segment of the
:03:23. > :03:29.Labour Party that is still speaking for that view. Three form Labour
:03:29. > :03:33.Home Secretaries and a Tory - that is quite an array of people. That is
:03:33. > :03:37.more experience than Mr Clegg has in this area? Undoubtedly. So far, he
:03:37. > :03:44.knows full well that he's got most people against him on this. For
:03:44. > :03:52.whatever reason, he is deciding to take a stance. If you think - Jack
:03:52. > :03:57.Straw speaking for that Old Labour authoritarian... I thought it was
:03:57. > :04:01.the New Labour authoritarian tendency? There wouldn't have been a
:04:01. > :04:06.question about this debate. Is it conceivable that the Conservatives
:04:06. > :04:11.and Labour could get together and do this over the heads of the Lib Dems?
:04:11. > :04:14.That is an incredibly intriguing thought. I don't think it would - I
:04:14. > :04:18.think it would be damaging for the coalition if they did. I don't think
:04:18. > :04:23.it will happen. It was a bit rich for Jack Straw to accuse Nick Clegg
:04:23. > :04:29.of doing this because he had Google's interest at heart. That was
:04:29. > :04:33.a strange accusation, was it not? You can be right and you are wrong.
:04:33. > :04:37.Accusing them of being Mr Google was unnecessary? It was unnecessary and
:04:37. > :04:45.wrong. Using the killing of Lee Rigby as an excuse to bring this
:04:45. > :04:51.back on to the statute books is also pretty disingenuous. The killers
:04:51. > :04:58.were already on MI5's file. In your view, though, who is right and who
:04:58. > :05:03.is wrong? Do we need this extra communication powers or not? I think
:05:03. > :05:07.we probably do. We want to keep on top of terrorism. We always have
:05:07. > :05:17.these sorts of powers for telephones. We need to accept the
:05:17. > :05:22.
:05:22. > :05:32.realities of 2 21st Century technology. I agree. There are more
:05:32. > :05:37.
:05:37. > :05:42.important things you can do. Such as? Everybody needs more capacity?
:05:42. > :05:46.Would another 500 analyst going over this data make more of a difference?
:05:46. > :05:50.It will be interesting to see if this works out. Yeah.Time for the
:05:50. > :06:00.Daily Quiz. What has Chris Grayling said he would like to do with
:06:00. > :06:15.
:06:15. > :06:23.give us the correct answer, maybe. The Obama administration has
:06:23. > :06:29.concluded on the basis of new evidence that the Assad regime has
:06:29. > :06:32.been using some amount of chemical weapons, including sarin in the
:06:32. > :06:37.Syrian civil war. The President is preparing to send arms to the
:06:37. > :06:41.rebels. The change in the position appears to bring it more into line
:06:41. > :06:45.of Britain and France. What is behind it? On Monday, David Cameron
:06:45. > :06:49.made a statement to Parliament on the decision to lift the EU arms
:06:49. > :06:55.embargo on the Syrian opposition. He said lifting the embargo did "not
:06:55. > :06:59.mean that we have made any decision to send arms, but we now have the
:06:59. > :07:03.flexibility to respond if the situation continues to deteriorate."
:07:03. > :07:08.Two days later, the French President, Francois Hollande, said
:07:08. > :07:14.that mounting evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria obliges
:07:14. > :07:19.the international community to act. The Foreign Secretary, he was in
:07:19. > :07:23.Washington meeting with his US counterpart, John Kerry. He said,
:07:24. > :07:31."We cannot turn away from Syria and its people. We will have to be
:07:31. > :07:37.prepared to do more to save lives." Yesterday, announcing Mr Obama's
:07:37. > :07:41.U-turn, or change of heart, the US deputy Deputy National Security
:07:42. > :07:48.Adviser, Ben Rhodes said the use of chemical weapons crosses clear red
:07:48. > :07:54.lines that have existed within the international community for decades.
:07:54. > :07:59.President Obama's decision has been welcomed by a man who was
:07:59. > :08:03.campaigning to arm the Syrian rebels, senator John McCain.
:08:03. > :08:08.applause the President's decision. I appreciate it. The President of the
:08:08. > :08:14.United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not
:08:14. > :08:19.going to change the equation on the ground. These people, the Free
:08:19. > :08:23.Syrian Army, need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and
:08:24. > :08:32.aircraft. They ne a a no-fly zone. Bashar al-Assad's air assets have to
:08:32. > :08:37.be taken out. We can do that without risking a single American aeroplane.
:08:37. > :08:42.Senator McCain. We are now joined by the Conservative MP Brooks Newmark.
:08:42. > :08:52.He has travelled to Syria a number of times. He's met with and had
:08:52. > :08:52.
:08:52. > :09:00.extensive talks with not just President Assad, but the President's
:09:00. > :09:04.wife. We are also joined by Jack Straw. Welcome to you both. Let me
:09:04. > :09:12.come to you, Brooks Newmark. Syria is awash with arms already. Why
:09:12. > :09:17.would sending more make any difference? Well, it's pretty much a
:09:17. > :09:20.war with heavy weaponry on the one side, with the Russians and the
:09:20. > :09:25.Iranians supported with Hezbollah. They have 16,000 bits of heavy
:09:25. > :09:31.artillery. They have an air force and so on. On the other side, they
:09:31. > :09:36.have mainly small arms. The better armed of the opposition at the
:09:36. > :09:42.moment happens to be the Islamists. What is happening is members of the
:09:42. > :09:48.Free Syrian Army is flaking away to the better-armed opposition. We need
:09:48. > :09:56.to stop that, support General Idris and do what we can to help him to
:09:56. > :10:00.bring Assad down. Let me come to the issue. If the heavier arms are with
:10:00. > :10:05.the Assad forces, it would seem that the only thing that could be a game
:10:05. > :10:09.changer would be if the Americans were to provide the rebels with
:10:10. > :10:15.heavier arms themselves, by which I mean anti-tank weapons. Is that what
:10:15. > :10:18.you want the President to do? is what I want a coalition to do,
:10:18. > :10:23.not just the United States, but the UK and France... That is what you
:10:23. > :10:28.are talking about? Sending in small arms, better small arms would be
:10:28. > :10:32.welcome by the FSA. This is not where the Government is today, or
:10:32. > :10:38.the Americans. I would send tank-busters and anti-aircraft
:10:38. > :10:43.weapons in. Jack Straw? concerned. I'm not saying rule out
:10:43. > :10:48.such weaponry at any stage. I'm really worried that such an
:10:48. > :10:56.escalation, which would mean that there would be Western boots on the
:10:56. > :11:03.ground... I disagree.You can't use this stuff. You might be able to use
:11:03. > :11:08.the rifle just after a couple of hour' training. The West would have
:11:08. > :11:13.to send its people in? We have this G8 coming up. Russia will be around
:11:13. > :11:18.the table. I don't think it is helpful to try and get an
:11:18. > :11:22.accommodation with Russia and get the Geneva talks off the ground to
:11:22. > :11:26.start speaking about a further escalation. We have seen - I can
:11:26. > :11:33.talk about this - it is easy to get into military action, it is much
:11:33. > :11:39.more difficult to withdraw from it. If America and the UK, and France,
:11:39. > :11:46.is not careful, you will get dragged into a proxy war. At any level of
:11:46. > :11:50.armaments, the Syrian government are likely to have access to heavy and
:11:50. > :11:58.more effective weaponry. They have them already. They have Russia and
:11:58. > :12:02.the Iranians seeing this as an existential crisis for them. Let me
:12:02. > :12:06.put that point. We have had no indication out of Washington that
:12:06. > :12:13.the administration is prepared to provide these heavier arms? Correct.
:12:13. > :12:20.You are right. Supposing we did go down this road of the heavier arms,
:12:20. > :12:25.every indication I have seen out of Moscow is they are prepared to
:12:26. > :12:31.provide heavier arms. I am all for negotiation. Negotiation has to be
:12:31. > :12:36.the ultimate outcome. For two years, we have been talking to Lavrov and
:12:36. > :12:41.Putin and to the Assad regime. They have had no incentive to come to the
:12:41. > :12:44.negotiating table. The message by lifting the arms embargo - the
:12:44. > :12:50.Foreign Secretary was right to push for this - is when you come to
:12:50. > :12:54.Geneva, we are serious. All options now remain on the table if you do
:12:54. > :12:59.not negotiate. I'm not saying heavy arms will go. Dealing with Jack's
:12:59. > :13:03.question, in dealing with Geneva, I think this sounds a powerful message
:13:03. > :13:07.that we are serious and you should take it seriously. What would you do
:13:07. > :13:15.if Mr Assad says, "If you are going to send heavy weapons to the rebels,
:13:15. > :13:23.I'm not coming to Geneva." ? probably wasn't coming anyway.
:13:23. > :13:27.instead he gets on the plane to Moscow and says, "Can I have a few
:13:27. > :13:32.more anti-tank-busters?" From what I know of Assad - I have dealt with
:13:32. > :13:37.him for five years - I think he feels strong when he is unopposed.
:13:37. > :13:43.Like with any bully, if he thinks there is a real threat to him, he is
:13:43. > :13:51.more likely - I'm not saying he will - he is more likely to come to the
:13:51. > :13:56.negotiating table. The Russian by sending a signal through lifting the
:13:56. > :14:02.arms embargo with the US in tune with us, it sends a strong message,
:14:02. > :14:10.come to Geneva, negotiate seriously. If you do not. , all options remain
:14:10. > :14:17.on the table. You went to a memorial service in 2005. You said, "We mourn
:14:17. > :14:21.the thousands killed here. We recall the words of Edmund Burke, "Good men
:14:21. > :14:25.do nothing. It is for the shame of the international community that
:14:25. > :14:33.this evil took place under our noses and we did nothing like enough."
:14:33. > :14:38.Yes. Many more people have been killed there than in Syria? You are
:14:38. > :14:43.absolutely right. The difficulty is that you have to make these
:14:43. > :14:51.judgments on the basis of the facts as you find them. These analogies
:14:51. > :14:55.are important and, indeed, I deplore them in respect of Afghanistan and
:14:55. > :14:59.Iraq. I'm as concerned as Brooks. I don't doubt the commitment of
:14:59. > :15:06.William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, in facing incredibly
:15:06. > :15:10.difficult decisions. There are no good options? There is a fine
:15:10. > :15:15.calculation here about whether suddenly increasing the arms to the
:15:15. > :15:20.rebels would or would not bring the Russians to the table. The last
:15:20. > :15:24.point I would make, where we need to see a shift in policy, we have to
:15:24. > :15:29.reach out to the Iranians. There is no point pretending they don't
:15:29. > :15:39.exist. There are 80 million people next to Syria. They are of
:15:39. > :15:39.
:15:39. > :15:44.fundamental importance. You were trying to reach out to the Iranians
:15:44. > :15:54.for a decade on nuclear arms, and you got nowhere. If get we did not
:15:54. > :15:54.
:15:54. > :15:59.get nowhere. It is the national intelligence estimate, from 2007,
:15:59. > :16:03.never subsequently contradicted, the assessment was that Iran had been
:16:03. > :16:08.trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability, but that it had
:16:08. > :16:18.abandoned that. So, the Iranians are incredibly difficult to deal with.
:16:18. > :16:21.So, you think there is centrifuges have stopped? No. It is a subject
:16:21. > :16:28.for another discussion, but what I know, however, is that the moderates
:16:28. > :16:32.in Iran were fatally undermined by President Bush calling them part of
:16:32. > :16:36.the axis of evil. That pulled the rug from under them. If you want to
:16:36. > :16:41.do a deal over Syria, you have got to accept the reality, Russia has
:16:41. > :16:49.got to be around the table, and so has Iran. I read your fascinating
:16:49. > :16:52.article in the Daily Mail, and you said that when you asked President
:16:52. > :17:00.Assad what his war aims were, he quite bluntly said, it is the
:17:00. > :17:05.preservation of the regime. Yes, when I first met him, in 2006, and I
:17:05. > :17:09.asked him, what is it you care about most chess regime survival was the
:17:09. > :17:13.first thing he said. When I asked him subsequently, when the war in
:17:13. > :17:19.Iraq was going on, why are you allowing your people over the border
:17:19. > :17:25.to attack American soldiers and so on? He said, if I do not let them,
:17:25. > :17:29.they will turn on me and attack me. The third thing he said to me was in
:17:29. > :17:35.respect of Hezbollah. He said, I am not strong enough to take on Israel
:17:35. > :17:39.correctly, I am weak militarily and economically, but I would rather use
:17:39. > :17:44.a proxy like Hezbollah to put the pressure on Israel, so that I can
:17:44. > :17:49.get the Golan Heights back. Is your problem not with us, all with the
:17:49. > :17:54.people that are watching, but with your own party? As I understand it,
:17:54. > :18:00.it is unlikely there will be a majority in the Commons for this,
:18:00. > :18:04.and Labour's position seems to be highly sceptical. We have had
:18:04. > :18:07.Douglas Alexander on the programme and he has made that clear. The Lib
:18:07. > :18:11.Dems, I think a lot of them will fall into that category, and a lot
:18:11. > :18:20.of your own members do not seem to be supporting you, so, we do not
:18:20. > :18:27.have a majority. Yes, I feel a little bit like in 12 Angry Men.
:18:27. > :18:30.Very angry! It is up to those of us who believe it is morally the right
:18:30. > :18:37.thing to do to persuade our colleagues. Now, most of our
:18:37. > :18:42.colleagues are not on persuadable. I think what they are saying is, look,
:18:42. > :18:46.we have been through Iraq and Afghanistan, and our constituents
:18:46. > :18:50.are concerned that we should not go through the same thing again. Let us
:18:50. > :18:56.hear the full debate, the merits of the argument. If you can persuade
:18:56. > :19:03.us, then maybe we will accept it. Lets see if you have persuaded our
:19:03. > :19:08.two journalists here - do we arm the rebels or do we not? I cannot bear
:19:08. > :19:18.to just shrug my shoulders and say, let this carry on. I would like at
:19:18. > :19:24.
:19:24. > :19:30.least then to be able to have some answer to Assad's air superiority. I
:19:30. > :19:34.think it is possible to them in Jordan. But it is not easy, and it
:19:34. > :19:37.is not obvious, and do I want Al-Qaeda to have anti-aircraft
:19:37. > :19:40.missiles? Not necessarily. I agree entirely, if this was going on in
:19:40. > :19:43.our country, if this was happening to civilians, we would immediately
:19:43. > :19:49.intervene, so why is this different? On the other hand, if we take this
:19:49. > :19:51.in REL of giving the rebels surface-to-air missiles, we pay for
:19:51. > :19:55.intelligence services who spend a great deal of time trying to make
:19:55. > :20:05.sure that that kind of technology does not spread around the region
:20:05. > :20:07.
:20:07. > :20:12.already. We were just slightly puzzled about that letter from the
:20:12. > :20:16.four former Home Secretary 's, but to suggest that Nick Clegg was in
:20:16. > :20:19.the pockets of Google seems a strange thing to say. The point we
:20:19. > :20:27.were drawing attention to at the end of that letter was something
:20:27. > :20:31.slightly weird, that the Liberal Democrats should, in this rate
:20:31. > :20:35.debate, be siding with these unaccountable American beer moths,
:20:35. > :20:40.rather than siding with the need for greater counterterrorist ability in
:20:40. > :20:43.this country. We have always had legislation to allow the agencies
:20:43. > :20:48.and the police to look at communications data, which is not
:20:48. > :20:53.the contents, but it is who contacted who, who text it who and
:20:53. > :20:59.who phoned Hoo. What this is about is bringing back the legislation
:20:59. > :21:03.which I first brought in 14 years ago, when the internet was barely in
:21:03. > :21:09.existence. That is all it is about. It is an upgrade. George Osborne,
:21:09. > :21:15.the Chancellor, is going to announce his spending plans for 2015-16 on
:21:15. > :21:25.26th June. We will carry it live on The Daily Politics. Some politicians
:21:25. > :21:27.
:21:27. > :21:30.have dug their heels in to resist further cuts. In the last hour, the
:21:30. > :21:34.Treasury has confirmed that six more departments have settled, but has
:21:34. > :21:38.not given any more details. Health and international development have
:21:38. > :21:42.been exempt from the cuts, but not small spending Culture, Media and
:21:42. > :21:47.Sport. As a consequence, museums and galleries in England are bracing
:21:47. > :21:51.themselves for some bad news and possible closures. But should the
:21:51. > :22:01.arts be bolstered by public funding? Is it time for them to
:22:01. > :22:01.
:22:01. > :22:06.stand a little bit more on the National Media Museum, , at risk of
:22:06. > :22:10.closure due to funding cuts, like other places. If, as expected, the
:22:10. > :22:15.forthcoming spending review cuts the Department for Culture, Media and
:22:15. > :22:22.Sport's budget by 10%, then many other arts and media sites could
:22:22. > :22:28.also be facing cuts. Many think that could be a huge mistake, at least in
:22:28. > :22:32.their own neck of the woods. This museum is essential not just to the
:22:32. > :22:35.people of Bradford, but to the North of England, and to the economy of
:22:35. > :22:39.Bradford as well. It is not something which sucks money, it is
:22:39. > :22:44.something which creates wealth in the wider Bradford economy. It is a
:22:44. > :22:47.fantastic place and we do not want to lose it. That argument is
:22:47. > :22:51.embraced by Maria Miller, the culture Secretary. She has been
:22:51. > :22:57.battling to protect her budget. She wants the Treasury to back the
:22:57. > :23:00.business case for the arts, but not everybody is buying it. I do not
:23:00. > :23:03.agree with the argument that arts should be funded by the government
:23:04. > :23:08.because they bring economic benefit. That is probably the worst reason.
:23:08. > :23:13.The Government is very bad at picking commercial winners. If we
:23:13. > :23:17.want actually to have arts which are commercially successful, which bring
:23:17. > :23:22.some commercial return, then we should leave it to those who are
:23:22. > :23:26.actually spending their own money, and able to analyse and decide how
:23:26. > :23:28.they invest and spend their money, rather than leaving it to a
:23:28. > :23:36.bureaucracy to determine which projects should be funded and which
:23:36. > :23:40.should not. People like Philip would not just like to see the budget cut.
:23:40. > :23:43.I think that the CMS should be closed down. It is a relatively new
:23:43. > :23:47.department. The idea that the Government should have a big
:23:47. > :23:51.department which is looking after things like arts, culture and sport
:23:51. > :23:54.I think is entirely wrong. Arts, culture and sport should be things
:23:54. > :24:00.which are embedded in civil society, as separate from politics as
:24:00. > :24:05.possible. The National museums of England are already coping with cuts
:24:05. > :24:08.of 20%, before this spending review even cuts in. As a result, they are
:24:08. > :24:13.beginning to think the end thinkable, and have discussed
:24:13. > :24:15.bringing back admission fees. But would that be so terrible? In fact,
:24:15. > :24:21.I think this would bring a considerable benefit to museums and
:24:21. > :24:25.galleries, like it did in the 1980s and 1990s. The idea that the only
:24:25. > :24:30.people who should not contribute to the upkeep of a museum or gallery
:24:30. > :24:38.are the people who actually visit I think is entirely misguided.
:24:38. > :24:42.Ultimately, a free admission museum is better than a paid for one, but a
:24:42. > :24:45.paid for one is better than no museum at all. I understand the
:24:45. > :24:50.arguments, but I think if we can maintain free admission, -- free
:24:50. > :24:54.admission, we should do. Uncle spending review are a feature of
:24:54. > :24:57.modern politics these days, but this one may determine whether free
:24:57. > :25:04.museums and galleries remain part of English cultural life, or whether
:25:04. > :25:10.they frazzle become part of history. We are joined now by the
:25:10. > :25:14.former ballerina Deborah Bull. Welcome to The Daily Politics.
:25:14. > :25:19.Almost every part of public life is having to take cuts at the moment -
:25:19. > :25:22.surely the arts cannot be exempt? do not think anybody is saying they
:25:22. > :25:26.should be exempt. The point was made in that film that we should not
:25:26. > :25:31.value them economically. I do not think we can value them
:25:31. > :25:36.economically. It is one tenth of 1% of government funding goes to the
:25:36. > :25:40.arts. It delivers employment, it delivers tourism, �900 million a
:25:40. > :25:45.year of tourism, inward investment, there is evidence for these things.
:25:45. > :25:48.But for me, that is not the most compelling argument. Yes, the arts
:25:48. > :25:52.should be embedded in civic society, absolutely, that the Government has
:25:52. > :25:57.a role to play in supporting that. We know that the arts deliver across
:25:57. > :26:00.so many areas. They deliver around urban regeneration, we know about
:26:00. > :26:04.social cohesion, there is evidence for this. We know that social
:26:04. > :26:08.mobility is affected, with young people from low-income families
:26:08. > :26:11.being three times more likely to get a degree if they have engaged in the
:26:11. > :26:16.arts as young people. We know that people engaged in the arts are more
:26:16. > :26:20.likely to vote, twice as likely to volunteer. So, the ability of the
:26:20. > :26:26.arts to develop across broad range of areas is really important. -- to
:26:26. > :26:31.deliver. But since a lot of our arts institutions exist because we, the
:26:31. > :26:35.taxpayer, subsidise them, it is quite hard for us to know which ones
:26:35. > :26:41.are really worthwhile, and which ones are not. Does every museum that
:26:41. > :26:45.we have at the moment have a right to exist in perpetuity? I would say
:26:45. > :26:49.two things - yes, of course, and it is investment, because it delivers
:26:49. > :26:55.back, is important. But the Government is not the biggest
:26:55. > :26:58.investor in the arts. Across the portfolio, 50% of the income comes
:26:58. > :27:03.from the public. The public are voting with their feet, they are the
:27:03. > :27:08.biggest investor in the arts. not by enough, according to some
:27:08. > :27:13.people, for these institutions to exist. When Shakespeare was writing
:27:13. > :27:22.his plays, he did not get a subsidy. Why does the royal chicks big
:27:22. > :27:27.company need one? He is the most famous playwright in the world! --
:27:27. > :27:34.the Royal Shakespeare Society. Would Say It Is About Leaving
:27:34. > :27:37.Support. We Know That 90% Of Charitable And Philanthropic Giving
:27:37. > :27:45.takes place in London. Outside London, you are at a disadvantage,
:27:45. > :27:50.absolutely. You have come to my next question - if that is the case, if
:27:50. > :27:55.the private money is overwhelmingly located here, where the real money
:27:55. > :28:02.is, why does the arts Council not spend more of its budget outside
:28:02. > :28:08.London? I think it tries to create a broad spread of funding, but a big
:28:08. > :28:15.chunk of our best art is in London, the highest profile... Why would
:28:15. > :28:25.that be? ! There is something around eight of creative artists here, and
:28:25. > :28:28.
:28:28. > :28:32.that is changing. The BBC moving to, for instance. The Arts Council is
:28:32. > :28:36.investing outside of London, but of course, local authority investment
:28:36. > :28:39.is also very important. Local authorities have very few areas of
:28:39. > :28:44.discretionary spend, so they are having to make cuts in those areas
:28:44. > :28:54.where they do have that, which means arts and leisure. 17% on average has
:28:54. > :29:02.
:29:02. > :29:06.been in local authorities. London got 47% of Arts Council funding.
:29:06. > :29:10.has probably got 47% of the organisations. The audiences are
:29:10. > :29:16.where the artists are. If the National Theatre performed in major
:29:16. > :29:19.to, would they not get an audience? If we had a real National Theatre,
:29:19. > :29:24.instead of spending millions on that ugly thing on the River Thames, it
:29:24. > :29:31.could be touring around the country. In Manchester, of course, you do
:29:31. > :29:41.have the Manchester International Festival, which is a brilliant
:29:41. > :29:42.
:29:43. > :29:48.example of what you can do. What do you think? She makes a very eloquent
:29:49. > :29:51.arguments, but there are problems with them. Essentially, it is a
:29:51. > :29:55.Keynesian argument, but it means that you are competing with all
:29:55. > :30:02.sorts of other spending. There are lots of other areas which could have
:30:02. > :30:06.a higher multiplier, capital spending, and the rest. It cannot be
:30:06. > :30:11.the only argument. Your second argument, the cultural benefit, it
:30:11. > :30:13.makes the world a good place - if all of these things are true, it
:30:13. > :30:22.makes people vote, it makes them happy, it makes the world a better
:30:22. > :30:25.place, why do you not just put the faith in people, the electorate, the
:30:25. > :30:35.taxpayers, to go out and spend their own time doing these things which
:30:35. > :30:39.
:30:39. > :30:46.are marked -- doing these things? I'm very much on Deborah's side.
:30:46. > :30:56.It's been cut a lot. It's been cut 30% already. On top of that, local
:30:56. > :30:57.
:30:57. > :31:01.council, the funding of the arts has fallen a lot. The sort of values and
:31:01. > :31:06.gains that Deborah talked about aren't things you can achieve
:31:06. > :31:09.through - sorry, aren't things that you can measure in economic terms.
:31:09. > :31:14.People aren't going to pay and go to the theatre because it makes them
:31:14. > :31:18.more likely to vote. Why do we have the best theatre in the world? We
:31:18. > :31:23.have the National Theatre putting on fantastic productions, lots of which
:31:23. > :31:27.go on to the West End and make money and recoup money for the National
:31:28. > :31:31.Theatre. The National Theatre and the RSC provide a fantastic
:31:31. > :31:39.baseline. We will have to leave it there. You will keep campaigning?
:31:39. > :31:44.Certainly am. It can seem like a cross between a soap opera and a
:31:44. > :31:54.blood sport - not the Daily Politics - but when reality TV comes to
:31:54. > :31:57.
:31:57. > :32:00.Westminster. Government reshuffles are fascinating, but do they aid or
:32:00. > :32:02.harm Government? According to the Political and Constitutional Reform
:32:02. > :32:12.Committee, it can lead to instability and paralysis. In a
:32:12. > :32:20.
:32:20. > :32:29.moment, we will discuss that. # That's life
:32:29. > :32:34.# That's what all the people say # You're riding high in April
:32:34. > :32:44.# Shot down in May # But I know I'm going to change
:32:44. > :32:49.
:32:49. > :32:54.that tune. E. # REPORTER: Is this your last Cabinet?
:32:54. > :32:57.# That's life. # As funny as it may seem
:32:57. > :33:03.# Some people get their kicks # Stopping on a dream
:33:03. > :33:10.# But I don't let it # Let it get me down
:33:10. > :33:14.# 'Cos this fine old world # It keeps spinning around. #
:33:14. > :33:20.Sad days, or happy days, depending on your view. Reshuffles, are they
:33:20. > :33:25.good or bad? Good, if used sparingly. Sometimes people don't
:33:25. > :33:29.perform as well as expected. It is good to get rid of them. It is good
:33:29. > :33:32.to get people a chance to get on. I like this idea of keeping Cabinet
:33:32. > :33:36.Ministers in their job for a full Parliament if possible. Someone like
:33:36. > :33:42.Iain Duncan Smith couldn't reform welfare and bring in universal
:33:42. > :33:49.credit if he was being moved on every two years. Mr Blair chopped
:33:49. > :33:55.and changed them a lot. Are they good or bad? They are great from a
:33:55. > :34:01.journalistic point of view. We all vote for them! Remember, David
:34:01. > :34:05.Cameron said he didn't want Government to be a demented branch
:34:05. > :34:08.of the entertainment industry. didn't work(!) They are probably
:34:08. > :34:16.good in principle. In practice, they are bad. They never go according to
:34:16. > :34:19.plan. We have to get to the answer to our quiz. What was Justice
:34:19. > :34:27.Secretary Chris Grayling like to do with ex-offenders? What was the
:34:27. > :34:37.answer? Work for the NHS. Pay back their board? No. Work for the NHS.
:34:37. > :34:39.
:34:39. > :34:44.OK. It has just gone 12.30pm. It is time to say goodbye to our two
:34:44. > :34:47.guests of the day, Mary Ann Sieghart and James Kirkup. This week, Members
:34:47. > :34:57.of the European Parliament have been meeting in Strasbourg for their
:34:57. > :34:58.
:34:58. > :35:05.regular Plenary Session. What have they been getting up to? Here is our
:35:05. > :35:10.guide in 60 seconds. MEPs have criticised a secret
:35:10. > :35:16.American programme to gather data called Prism. Parliament debated
:35:16. > :35:21.revelations that internet firms could be ordered to give access to
:35:21. > :35:24.data uploaded by foreign users. Amid protests in Turkey, MEPs voted on a
:35:24. > :35:30.resolution setting out their position on Turkey following a
:35:30. > :35:35.heated debate the day before. EU negotiators have been trying to win
:35:35. > :35:40.French support to green light trade talks with Washington. France's
:35:40. > :35:45.demanding to exempt its film industry from the talks.
:35:45. > :35:49.Negotiations on the EU's next budget are going to the wire after an extra
:35:49. > :35:53.round of talks was scheduled. MEPs are holding out for concessions. TV
:35:53. > :35:58.screens went black in Greece when the government abruptly shut down
:35:58. > :36:06.the state broadcaster, ERT, in the middle of the night. The government
:36:06. > :36:10.said it was to staunch a waste of taxpayers' money.
:36:10. > :36:14.With us for the next 30 minutes, I have been joined by the leader of
:36:14. > :36:19.the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Richard Ashworth, and by
:36:19. > :36:23.the UKIP MEP, Gerard Batten. Welcome. Let's take a look at one of
:36:23. > :36:30.those stories in more detail, the latest round of austerity cuts in
:36:30. > :36:36.Greece. It was interesting they pulled the plug on the Greek BBC, it
:36:36. > :36:41.isn't actually quite like, as the troika was arriving in Athens and as
:36:41. > :36:46.part of the privatisation programme had failed. It was symbolic? Greece
:36:47. > :36:52.is skint, as we all know. They have fantastic unemployment rates. It is
:36:52. > :37:02.around 27%. Youth unemployment is 62.5%. Ean European Single Currency
:37:02. > :37:10.
:37:10. > :37:17.is one of the prime reasons why they are failing. What should happen now
:37:18. > :37:23.is, is the austerity working or isn't it? No. Who can survive? The
:37:23. > :37:26.only way they are going to solve their problems is to leave the
:37:26. > :37:30.European Single Currency and start some kind of economic revial. We
:37:30. > :37:36.know from the IMF report the only reason for the bail-out was to save
:37:36. > :37:41.the euro, not to save Greece. Greek economy's fallen by another 6%
:37:41. > :37:49.year on year. There was a feeling too that the worst had been over and
:37:49. > :37:54.that it was beginning to turn the corner. The failure of gas Prom to
:37:54. > :38:04.buy the energy company, switching off of the national broadcaster
:38:04. > :38:06.
:38:07. > :38:11.suggests it ain't coming right? is a Honghe haul. It is about
:38:11. > :38:16.productivity and competitiveness. -- it is a long-haul. They have two
:38:16. > :38:21.choices. You can either spend five or ten years having jungle warfare
:38:21. > :38:25.with trade unions to cut costs, or you say shut it down, sort it out
:38:25. > :38:30.and open it up again. We have form in the United Kingdom where some
:38:30. > :38:34.newspapers have done that. Do you agree with him that Greece should
:38:34. > :38:38.just leave the euro? No, I don't think so. I think it is their
:38:38. > :38:43.choice, if they want to stay in. They have to understand what they
:38:43. > :38:53.are going to do to keep up with the pace. They are doing it. They need
:38:53. > :38:55.
:38:55. > :38:59.to get rid of a whole raft of tU regulation. OK. Next week's G8
:38:59. > :39:04.Summit in Northern Ireland is meant to mark the start of a fresh round
:39:04. > :39:11.of EU-US trade negotiations which it is hoped will need to a new free
:39:11. > :39:15.trade agreement. 14 months of pre-talk preparation, it may be
:39:15. > :39:20.under threat if EU member states agree to fail their negotiating
:39:20. > :39:25.position on mandate. The members agree the position, then the EU
:39:25. > :39:31.negotiates on all of our behalves. What is the problem? The French.
:39:31. > :39:35.There is a surprise! Trade between the EU and the US is subject to
:39:35. > :39:40.relatively low tariffs. These trade talks could make tariffs lower or
:39:40. > :39:46.get rid of them altogether and they could tackle non-tariff barriers to
:39:46. > :39:56.trade, not prices, but things like technical regulations which hinder
:39:56. > :39:57.
:39:57. > :40:00.exports. The talks could be derailed because France is insisting that
:40:00. > :40:10.they keep their exception culturelle. The trench position
:40:10. > :40:20.could stymie the trade talks. The usmt ambassador to the EU said: --
:40:20. > :40:25.
:40:25. > :40:29.challenge any deal that affects French film, TV and music. It could
:40:29. > :40:34.be negotiated but the French could have a veto. That could irritate
:40:34. > :40:39.other member states as it breaks normal EU procedures over unanimity
:40:39. > :40:42.on these decisions going into the negotiations. The French, however,
:40:42. > :40:48.have thought long and hard. They are digging their heels in. They are
:40:48. > :40:52.asking for the issue to be totally off the table, not part of the
:40:52. > :40:56.negotiations at all. We can get the latest on this from our
:40:56. > :41:03.correspondent in Paris, Christian Fraser. No surprise that the French
:41:03. > :41:09.are taking this position. It's an historic one for them. So, will they
:41:09. > :41:14.- are they playing brinkmanship? Are they going to stick to this line?
:41:14. > :41:18.looks like they are playing brinkmanship. The French Trade
:41:18. > :41:22.Minister is saying that they want this taking off the table. They feel
:41:22. > :41:26.very passionately about their French TV and film industry. It is one of
:41:26. > :41:31.the biggest - it is the biggest in Europe. It is the third biggest in
:41:31. > :41:35.the world in terms of admissions and revenues that come in. If you go to
:41:36. > :41:39.the cinema, there is a levy on your ticket which is reinvested in the
:41:39. > :41:47.industry. There are incentives for people who invest in the industry.
:41:47. > :41:56.They had a record number of films in 2010, over 200 films made. They see
:41:56. > :42:00.it as the bull walk against it. The figures involved are quite
:42:00. > :42:04.staggering. This would liberalise a third of world trade. Obviously, it
:42:04. > :42:08.would be hugely important to French agriculture and to French business
:42:08. > :42:13.at a time when there is high unemployment in France and President
:42:13. > :42:16.Hollande is trying to reverse the curve at the moment and to get
:42:16. > :42:21.unemployment coming down. So, he is playing high stakes. The French -
:42:21. > :42:25.the British and the German positions is this: If you start sending down
:42:25. > :42:30.red lines before the talks have begun, the sceptics in the United
:42:30. > :42:35.States will start carving out their position. We might have red lines on
:42:35. > :42:39.Californian champagne. They really want to go with open palms and say,
:42:39. > :42:44."Let's start afresh and get on with it." The window is quite small. The
:42:44. > :42:48.compromise is this: They will go with an open book and when they get
:42:48. > :42:52.to audio and visual, they will come back to the French. They will have
:42:52. > :43:01.an unprecedented say on whether to approve it or not. They are hoping
:43:01. > :43:05.that that fudge will see them through. OK. Thank you. The French
:43:05. > :43:12.could stop this trade deal from taking place? They can slow it down.
:43:12. > :43:19.I think that is the important point. This trade deal is ambitious, it's
:43:19. > :43:23.over 30% of global trade. They need jobs and growth. The prize is great.
:43:23. > :43:29.We can't go into the negotiations on the other hand with preconditions.
:43:29. > :43:34.So, while we set a very ambitious timescale to get it done within two
:43:34. > :43:38.years, I think before we go to the negotiations we have to get this
:43:38. > :43:42.sorted. If it means delaying the start, I would tell the Commission
:43:42. > :43:47.to hold it back, sort this issue about audio and visual problems...
:43:47. > :43:53.How would you sort it? The French do dig their heels in. Mr Hollande is
:43:53. > :43:56.not the most secure or powerful French President in recent years.
:43:56. > :44:01.He's a Socialist. Most of the French art world is on the left. Is he
:44:01. > :44:06.going to take on his own constituency? This is old-fashioned
:44:06. > :44:10.protectionism in its most naked form. This is what free trade deals
:44:10. > :44:15.are all about. If we can't overcome this, we are lumbered with this for
:44:15. > :44:20.a long time to come. Can I point out that Washington, which is in the
:44:20. > :44:26.middle of a pivot to the Pacific, they have other trade deals to do.
:44:26. > :44:30.Of course, Washington would love to do a deal with the EU. There are 22
:44:30. > :44:36.outstanding deals waiting to be done rather quickly on the Pacific with
:44:36. > :44:43.other countries. If Europe is held up, because they want the frepb -
:44:43. > :44:49.the French want to continue to subsidise their movies, the US will
:44:49. > :44:55.say, we are off to the other side of the world. This will be the biggest
:44:55. > :45:05.trade deal ever done in the world. With no WTO deal on the table...
:45:05. > :45:05.
:45:05. > :45:14.Which fell apart. This sets the opportunity for the EU-US to set the
:45:14. > :45:18.Gold Standard for everyone to comply with. This is an open goal for him.
:45:18. > :45:23.This shows the nonsense of having our trade policy decided by the EU.
:45:23. > :45:30.I knew you were going to say that. We should be deciding our own deal.
:45:30. > :45:36.I always admire the French, and French culture. But they always
:45:36. > :45:39.expect somebody else to pay for it. We pay for the French farmers,
:45:39. > :45:42.through the Common Agricultural Policy, but it is the same kind of
:45:42. > :45:46.thing. I do not see why some of my constituents, some of the poorest
:45:46. > :45:52.people in the country, should be subsidising French farmers. And now
:45:52. > :45:57.we have this. His position is that if we were not in Europe, the United
:45:57. > :46:02.Kingdom could go and do a fantastic trade deal with America, like that,
:46:02. > :46:08.because we do not care about protecting our movies! We watch all
:46:08. > :46:13.their films, anyway! No disrespect to Iceland or Switzerland, but they
:46:13. > :46:18.have not got the kind of clout which 27 European nations have. If you are
:46:18. > :46:25.not at the table at this deal, which Britain would not be... Local but
:46:25. > :46:28.his point is, we could do our own. I know you could, but only after the
:46:28. > :46:32.US has done a deal with 27 other nations. That would set the rules.
:46:32. > :46:38.We need to be at the table setting those rules. These are the rules
:46:38. > :46:43.that China, Russia and all of the others will be following. Leading?
:46:43. > :46:45.America has done bilateral deals with a number of Asian economies.
:46:45. > :46:51.Britain is the biggest foreign direct investor in the United
:46:51. > :47:01.States, and vice versa. So, we have a huge community of interest - why
:47:01. > :47:01.
:47:01. > :47:05.could we not do a UK-US deal on our own? Because this deal, which will
:47:06. > :47:10.set up the world's largest trade zone, is a fantastic opportunity,
:47:10. > :47:16.and we need to be at the top table, setting the rules. We will not be
:47:16. > :47:20.setting the rules. We would set our rules to suit a UK-US arrangement. I
:47:20. > :47:25.am not saying it is right or wrong, I am just asking, why could we not
:47:25. > :47:31.do that? I am not saying you couldn't. You probably could. But
:47:31. > :47:36.you would not get priority. The US is going to get far greater priority
:47:36. > :47:39.for doing a deal with 27 nations in Europe we shall we speak the same
:47:39. > :47:49.line which, we have a very similar legal system, very similar company
:47:49. > :47:51.
:47:51. > :47:56.law and all the rest of it. It would be much easier. And we have not even
:47:56. > :48:06.heard from the French farmers yet. Wait till they hear about the cheap
:48:06. > :48:07.
:48:07. > :48:17.wheat production in Iowa! Jo Coburn has been to Strasbourg. European
:48:17. > :48:21.elections are famously low-key affairs. They usually have dismal
:48:21. > :48:24.turnouts, but that might be about to change. An obscure paragraph in the
:48:24. > :48:29.Lisbon Treaty means next year's election results will effectively
:48:29. > :48:33.date take whether the next commission president is from the
:48:33. > :48:35.centre or centre-left politics. The treaty states that although heads of
:48:35. > :48:41.governments will propose the successor, they must do so taking
:48:41. > :48:45.into account the elections to the European Parliament. The new
:48:45. > :48:50.Commission head shall be elected to the European Parliament by a
:48:50. > :48:55.majority of its members. This could lead to a fundamental shift of power
:48:55. > :49:02.in the European institutions. next European elections will open a
:49:02. > :49:08.new chapter, because in fact, the citizens will directly influence who
:49:08. > :49:11.is the boss of the European executive, by their vote, more or
:49:11. > :49:17.less, they will be determining who gets a majority in the chamber, and
:49:17. > :49:22.the majority here in the Houses of Parliament will decide who is the
:49:22. > :49:26.president of the European and. the first time, party activists
:49:26. > :49:31.across Europe will play a role in choosing the figurehead. And what's
:49:31. > :49:41.more, Labour Party members in Britain will have a say in who the
:49:41. > :49:42.
:49:42. > :49:46.centre-left's champion will be. Labourer invests, Labour Party
:49:46. > :49:52.delegates among the European socialist, in spring next year, they
:49:52. > :50:01.will be part of the process, they will influence and decide which one
:50:01. > :50:05.they like most, and I think that is a good, and aquatic procedure.
:50:05. > :50:08.British Conservatives on the other hand will find themselves on the
:50:08. > :50:14.outside looking in. David Cameron's decision to pull his party out of
:50:14. > :50:17.the influential pro-European EEP grouping back in 2009 means British
:50:17. > :50:26.Conservatives will be excluded from the selection of the centre-right
:50:26. > :50:33.candidate. Prime Minister Cameron will have no role, because he will
:50:33. > :50:37.be isolated in the Council decision. Especially in the EPB, they will
:50:37. > :50:41.decide and they will vote for this candidate, but unfortunately, the
:50:41. > :50:48.Conservatives will not be there, and they were just have too accept what
:50:48. > :50:52.the others have decided. Four years, this institution has been derided by
:50:52. > :50:58.critics as something of a toytown parliament, but now, it will be
:50:58. > :51:03.invested with proper power, and its voters really will decide who runs
:51:03. > :51:12.Europe. So, tell me, Graham Watson, do you think the European parties
:51:12. > :51:16.will agree... ? I am sorry, we have got Graham Watson, the Liberal
:51:16. > :51:22.Democrat MEP, joining us from Brussels. Have we got you? I am
:51:22. > :51:24.going to come to you first, sorry for that - do you think that the
:51:24. > :51:30.European parties will agree a candidate for the European
:51:30. > :51:34.Commission president next year? Certainly. I am the president of the
:51:34. > :51:37.European Liberal Democrats pan-European political party. We
:51:37. > :51:42.agreed four weeks ago the timescale and the procedure for this election
:51:42. > :51:46.of a Liberal candidate for the presidency of the Commission. I know
:51:46. > :51:50.from discussions with my counterparts, the European
:51:50. > :51:57.Socialists and the European People's party, that they also have agreed
:51:57. > :52:00.their procedures. This will go ahead towards the end of the year. We all
:52:00. > :52:07.expect to have special electoral congresses in early February of next
:52:07. > :52:11.year, where the candidates will be voted on. Richard as Croft - what do
:52:11. > :52:15.you make of this? We have to remember that the commission, at the
:52:15. > :52:19.end of the day, is the civil service, albeit a very powerful
:52:19. > :52:22.civil service. I do not know anywhere in the world where you have
:52:22. > :52:28.an elected civil service. Heaven forbid that you have somebody
:52:28. > :52:34.running a civil servants in this way. It is actually the MEPs and the
:52:34. > :52:40.Council, the 27 heads of government, they call the shots. Let me go
:52:40. > :52:44.straight back to you, Graham Watson - how do you reply to that? I am
:52:44. > :52:48.very surprised that Richard Ashworth says that, because President Obama
:52:48. > :52:52.is the head of a civil servants. He is not a member of Congress or a
:52:52. > :52:59.member of the Senate, he is a member of and the leader of, the civil
:52:59. > :53:02.service, in the same way that Jose Manuel Barroso is currently the head
:53:02. > :53:08.of the European civil service. It strikes me that this would bring
:53:08. > :53:11.Europe far closer to the people, if they were able to elect that person.
:53:11. > :53:16.This is another small step on the way to a United States of Europe. It
:53:16. > :53:18.has been mooted in the past that there should be direct elections for
:53:18. > :53:25.the president of the European Union, and it is a small step in that
:53:25. > :53:31.direction. What will be interesting, when the MEPs get to vote next time,
:53:31. > :53:34.is that the balance of the European Parliament could change. Not just in
:53:34. > :53:40.the UK are we expecting to do extremely well, but there are more
:53:40. > :53:48.anti TEU parties springing up. I think the new president could
:53:48. > :53:57.reflect that new balance. -- anti-Mac EU. After all, most of us
:53:57. > :54:03.would have no idea who most of the candidates were... As you know,
:54:03. > :54:07.because you were there at the launch of the Reuters study of the TV
:54:07. > :54:10.debates after the last election in the UK, over half of the people who
:54:10. > :54:13.watched those debates said it helps them to make up their mind which way
:54:13. > :54:17.they were going to vote. Three quarters of them said that they
:54:17. > :54:21.learned something they did not know, and more than nine out of ten who
:54:21. > :54:30.watched those leader Pol Pot debates actually went away and talked about
:54:30. > :54:34.it afterwards. -- leaders' debates. We did not know who the three
:54:34. > :54:38.debaters were, and we will have no idea who the chap from Italy is, or
:54:38. > :54:43.the chap from Spain, or the candidate from Hungary. You do not
:54:43. > :54:48.know that. It may well be that the political parties choose people who
:54:48. > :54:51.have been Prime Minister Des of their countries before that and are
:54:51. > :54:54.quite well-known at a European level. They might choose people who
:54:54. > :55:02.are senior members of the European Commission. Who is the current Prime
:55:03. > :55:07.Minister of Italy? It is... That is correct. He is a former member of
:55:07. > :55:17.the European Parliament. I think you are in the 0.1% of people who would
:55:17. > :55:19.
:55:19. > :55:22.know that. Well done! This is moving in the wrong direction. It is
:55:22. > :55:26.investing more power in the commission, more power in the
:55:26. > :55:31.European Union. Actually, I think voters will respond to seeing more
:55:31. > :55:38.power with member state governments. We want to see more
:55:38. > :55:44.involvement with member state governments. The best-known
:55:44. > :55:49.politician across Europe is Nigel Farage, but I do not know... !
:55:49. > :55:53.you name... ? We have not got time. Congratulations for knowing the
:55:53. > :55:58.Italian Prime Minister. We will ask you again in six months, when it has
:55:58. > :56:08.probably changed. It is a plum job, but you have trouble be never heard
:56:08. > :56:10.
:56:10. > :56:14.of it, so what is so appealing about the role of rapporteur in the
:56:14. > :56:24.European Parliament? There is the latest installation of our guide to
:56:24. > :56:37.
:56:37. > :56:42.Labour's Glenis Willmott is doing what every European official dreams
:56:42. > :56:46.of. She is a rapporteur. They have written some new legislation
:56:46. > :56:49.concerning clinical drugs trials. The draft law then comes here to the
:56:49. > :56:55.European Parliament, where it is sent to the MEPs on the public of
:56:55. > :56:58.committee. And that is where Glenis comes in. As a mpg, it is her job to
:56:58. > :57:05.formulate the committee's responds to the legislation. -- as a
:57:05. > :57:08.rapporteur. You make sure you know the subject, you make sure you meet
:57:08. > :57:12.all of the stakeholders involved, whoever has an interest in that
:57:12. > :57:16.particular report. You will meet with all of them and make sure that
:57:16. > :57:25.you hear all of their views, and then, you have to decide, with
:57:25. > :57:28.technical and legal support, where you want the report to go. It is a
:57:28. > :57:33.huge amount of extra work for me, and the people who work with me. But
:57:33. > :57:39.it is worth it, because you really can make a difference. Do you get
:57:39. > :57:42.paid any extra money? Absolutely not. Everybody in the European
:57:42. > :57:46.Parliament gets paid exactly the same. It is not like Westminster,
:57:46. > :57:50.where you have ministers on a higher salary. Uncle after all of that
:57:50. > :57:53.work, the committee presents its reports to the whole of the European
:57:53. > :58:00.report -- to the whole of the European Parliament for a final
:58:00. > :58:05.vote. There is one of the most famous rapporteurs of all, a young
:58:05. > :58:11.Nick Clegg. More than a decade ago, he brought a law on addition in the
:58:11. > :58:15.telecoms set to get through in record time. There is intense
:58:15. > :58:20.competition between the different political groups to secure roles
:58:20. > :58:23.like the one Glenis have. It is an influential job, and one which just
:58:23. > :58:28.does not have an equivalent in the UK political system. Appear on the
:58:28. > :58:38.12th floor, Glenis is part Minister, part select committee chair, part
:58:38. > :58:47.legislative fixer. You have been a temp icky, would you like to be one?
:58:47. > :58:51.Yup it is part of our policy not to do it. They are being paid an extra