01/07/2013 Daily Politics

The sun is out here at Westminster, so join us as we discuss a huge pay

rise for MPs. Yes, it looks like the poor things will have one

forced upon them by the independent authority they set up to decide

such matters. But is it right in a time of austerity? Meanwhile, the

Tories want a married couples tax allowance. They are hinting at an

announcement in the autumn. But why wait? Croatia became the 28th

country to join the European Union at midnight. We will talk to the

leaders of a new campaign to fight British withdrawal. And can we

still trust the police in the wake of just too many bad headlines

about corruption and undercover All that in the next half hour. And,

with us for the duration, the former Shadow Home Secretary, David

Davis. But first, as I'm sure David will be delighted to learn, is the

thorny issue of MPs' pay. Louise Stewart is with us in our newsroom.

They get paid �66,000 a year. The proposal is they should get paid 10

basil pounds more? Is that right? The proposal is from the body that

sets these things was a -- tent �1,000. They should have an

increase to �70,000 and then increases on top of that. It has

always been a controversial issue. It was decided MP should not decide

and set pay levels, it should be done by this independent body. They

have suggested what David Cameron has said is unthinkable in the

current climate, unless they cut the cost of politics elsewhere. He

wanted to cut the number of MPs, which was vetoed by the Liberal

Democrats. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are saying that, at a time

when public sector workers - nurses, teachers, doctors, etc - have been

limited to a 1% pay rise until 2016, it would not be right. Should you

get a whopping pay rise? At the moment, it is madness, frankly.

private sector has come under huge pressure. It is barking mad. It set

is out of touch with reality. going to be forced on you. That is

ridiculous. Parliament can make its mind up about whatever it wants.

The Government may have to legislate to stop it. That would be

ridiculous, wouldn't it? I do not think when they started down the

road they thought that we would be in the powerless state we are

economically and that they would come up with a proposal like this.

We do decline to accept it? I would actually propose a motion to stop

it. -- which you decline? The public at large will not see the

point of this. That is the real issue. If you would put forward a

motion to stop it going ahead - she would not say whether you would

decline to accept it - is that because in principle, you think the

timing is wrong with public sector pay being frozen - in principle, do

you think MPs should get paid more? Given the time. This is the wrong

time. There is a massive issue about trust in public services

generally. Trust in MPs is not at an all-time high. This will do huge

damage to the bond between the public and every one. What is

proposed really is almost symbolic - it is not very much. It is long

overdue. The simple truth is that raising children - the purpose of

marriage in the day - his best in a stable household and the most

stable are married couples and we should encourage it. Is it a

priority for now? I would not wait. There is an autumn statement coming

up. Should it be means tested?The thing about the tax allowance is it

bites into whatever income you have. A tax allowance is a tax allowance.

Test something like that and it becomes very complicated. Despite

the problems with child benefit. Look what happened when they are

assessed that again. Is this a quid pro quo? I hope not. It is about

restoring stable families and married families. Tory backbenchers

at the moment feel they have a government that is not quite Toria

enough. This would help a bit. right. Thank you. Last night,

Croatia officially became the 28th member of the European Union. For

many Croats, it was a moment for celebration. Flags were waved,

fireworks set off and lots of people put on rather scary wolf

heads. But, whilst Croats are celebrating joining the EU, British

MPs will vote for the first time this week on a Bill, which could

eventually see the UK leaving. And even those who support continued

membership argue that the EU is in need of serious reform. A lobby

group, Business for a New Europe, is today launching a manifesto for

reform of the EU with the backing of MPs from all three main parties.

It says the EU should be streamlined - cutting down on

regulations and reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. That it

needs to focus on free trade with the rest of the world. And that the

single market should be extended to all sectors of the economy. The

group also has a warning for euro- sceptics. The manifesto argues that

Britain will achieve more of what it wants if it gets stuck in rather

But is that precisely what MPs are about to do? Another cross-party

group is today stepping up the campaign for a referendum on

Britain's membership of the EU. And, on Friday, MPs will have their

first chance to vote on a Referendum Bill, which calls for a

public in-out vote in 2017. It's a Private Members Bill being

sponsored by Conservative backbencher James Wharton. He has

David Cameron's backing but it could not be brought forward by the

Coalition Government because Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems won't

support it. And as for Labour... They say the Bill is a Conservative

Party stunt and that they will stay away. But Ed Miliband is also under

pressure from some of his own MPs to commit to a referendum before

the next election. Joining us now is the chairman of Business for New

Europe, Roland Rudd. Unless there is the threat of Britain pulling

out of the you can make you do not stand a chance of getting any

reform. I could not disagree more. We have a great chance of reform.

When you go around the Continent and talk to ministers from

different countries, they all say, we're hugely supportive of the

British competitive agenda. Regarding arguments in respect of

what is best for Europe and not just Britain and you will achieve

more. That is what we have done for our manifesto for a more

competitive Europe. No one would disagree with that. What about this

great chance of reform within the EU? I agree with what he wants to

do. Absolutely. Except the European Union. We have been making these

arguments for two decades, in my memory. I was making some of them

myself two decades ago in precisely those terms - it was good for

Europe. We had the odd alive. The Germans were on our side, the

French never were. -- ally. What has happened in the past two

decades has got worse. More regulation and more out of touch

with the public at large and more unpopularity. That is true to an

extent but right now is our opportunity. We had a senior German

minister and supporter at the launch. He did what you said,

saying how much he wants to see the things we want to happen in Europe.

It is not just Germany. When you go to Spain and Italy, the Italian

Prime Minister will be hit in July and he will be supporting the same

sort of reforms we put forward. He is in a strong position. When you

look at Spain, it has 10% of the current account deficit of GDP and

today it is zero. They have the cheek that through increased

competitiveness. You are talking about increase competitiveness.

Most people to agree with that but you said the EU does not. Let's

look at unilateral opt-outs. Who agrees with Britain to have them?

do not think unilateral opt-outs on the right way of phrasing the

argument. The Government has stopped talking about repatriation

and is starting to talk about reform. That is more achievable.

That is the way to get through on a competitive agenda rather than

getting one or two things will Britain alone. William Hague talked

about the red card. -- for Britain alone. He is making a good point.

One problem we see now, let's put trade to one side for a second. In

the Eagle/judicial area, European arrest warrant and 140 other issues,

largely we do not want to be part of. We have an opt-out on those.

They impinge on us in a way that no one foresaw 40 years ago. If you

listen to the police commissioner, or any of the security services,

they like the European arrest warrant. That is not an argument in

favour in my view. I think it is incredibly important to catch these

people. Their arguments are very clear. If you are going to do

without them, it is beholden upon us to say what we will use instead

Foster we have not put that argument yet. I would not be in

favour. -- instead. We have not heard specifically from the

Government of the other opt-outs which they are campaigning for. Do

you feel the rhetoric is being turned down at the very top? We

have not heard the word, repatriation, but will it be to do

with the Criminal Justice System? David Cameron, William Hague and Co

are setting a hurdle for themselves to leap. The higher they set their

Hurdle, the more likely it is that people will turn around in a few

years' time and say, he did not do it, we should leave. David will say,

I want to argue in favour of staying in. There is a real

conundrum at the core of government policy. Lawson pointed this out.

That is why you need to start the process now. If you wait until

after the next election, you have waited almost too long. The need to

build allies and reform now, try to achieve some of this now.

trouble is that there are just too many vested interests inside Europe.

Institutional, bureaucratic ones which will resist this. We need to

have believer. Without this referendum, we have no leader.

become too pessimistic. -- lever. It brings us to the politics of it.

There is not the agreement over what needs to be negotiated and

reform. The politics comes first. The Private Member's Bill is being

called a publicity stunt by Labour. Only Tory MPs will be voting on

Friday. If they do not turn up, that will be their choice was that

if they thought it was a publicity stunt, they could do a deal with

the Liberals but they do not have the nerve for that. What they are

talking matters calling for a referendum next year. If they did

that, they might well succeed. A lot of Tory MPs are on their side.

What do you think about Labour's discussions? They have not said

anything but they could actually call for a referendum next year and

get support from probably a fair and sizable chunk of the

Conservative Party and that would be that. It would be ill-advised. I

said if there were another treaty change which transferred power to

Brussels, there would be another referendum. I would not have had

one but I understand the party renegotiation of the relationship. I

think that if you back out of the referendum it gives you more power.

As the Irish, the Danes and Dutch have shown in the past. The police

have been in for a tough time of late as allegations of wrongdoing

continue to emerge. The latest being that there was an undercover

campaign to dig up dirt on the friends and family of Steven

Lawrence as they fought for justice for the murdered teenager. Today a

House of Commons Select Committee has recommended police officers

should have their pensions docked in serious cases of misconduct and for

a new code of ethics to set out what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

How badly damaged has the reputation of the police in England become and

can it be restored? David Thompson reports.

Steven Lawrence, Hillsborough, even Blebgate, a series of events some

believe have eroded trust in one of Britain's great institutions - the

police. I was a police officer for over 30 years. I am ashamed of what

my colleagues were up to back in the day. I think trust has eroded in the

police over the last few years and these allegations coming out at the

moment really don't help. The police have two very big problems. The

first is that they're not very good at talking to people, particularly

groups of people like young people that they're getting distanced from.

The second big problem they've got is they're just not good at

confessing. They're not good at saying this is the truth, we stand

by it, we are sorry about it and it is the whole truth. Are things as

bad as they seem? In a poll taken this year but before the Steven

Lawrence allegations suggested that 65% of the public do still trust the

police to tell the truth. That's behind doctors and teachers but

comfortably ahead of MPs and indeed journalists. But it's the

allegations surrounding people like Duane Brooks that will be hardest

for the police to overcome. It's claimed they were the targets of a

failed smear campaign and even covert recording. Some believe that

if true that had to be authorised from very near the top of the Met's

chain of command. My understanding is that the covert recording of the

meeting between the police, Duane Brooks and his solicitor was

actually signed off at a very senior level. One can only assume that the

other activities to undermine the Lawrence family were also sanctioned

at a similar level. The public should be very concerned if these

allegations turn out to be true. That at a senior level the police

were authorised to undermine the family, covert record meetings,

because those are the senior officers who were at the same time

publicly saying that you can trust the police, that we are going to

have a new regime, a new culture in the police that treats people with

dignity and respect. Many of the allegations against the police go

back to previous regimes, but it's the people in charge at the Met and

other forces now who have to regain public trust. Clearly the

commissioner and other senior officers have to say that things are

different now but of course are we going to believe them? What we need

to see is a clean record for a number of years before the public

will again trust what senior police officers say. With us now is the

chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation John Apter. We heard

about things that have scarred the police reputation over recent weeks,

smear campaigns against victims, including the Lawrence family and

Hillsborough. The list is not great for the reputation of the police.

What's gone wrong? I think many of these cases are historic cases, if

you look at Hillsborough and the Lawrence investigation, whilst there

are new allegations that have come to light recently they're all

historic cases and the Police Federation and the 135,000 police

officers who we represent would say that the victims from Hillsborough

and indeed the Lawrence family deserve a - and must have justice

and that must be seen to be done but these are historic cases which make

it appear that policing is broken and that's just not the case.

it a case of better transparency and the fact now that the police are

finding it more difficult to hide some of these historic cases or some

of the injustices that have gone on and there will be more of these

coming to light? I have been a police officer for 20 years. I have

seen the changes, the real positive changes across the country from

cases such as the Stephen Lawrence murder. Those great examples of

progress must not now be hidden. More importantly, the police

officers we represent, 135,000, as I say, there is a shadow over their

integrity because of the actions of a very, very small minority. We must

not allow them to dominate the headlines which sadly is happening

on a daily basis. How bad is it? Well, it is bad. He is right, he has

a very large number of members who are good upstanding public servants

committed to protecting the public. Let's get that clear before we

start. But the reason some of these are historic is because it takes 20

years to expose them. That itself is a disgrace and it's a disdpras on

the police force, I am a-- disgrace on the police force, I am afraid.

Some of it is not historic. Blebgate, Operation Alice and this

indicates it's still systemic. Some of those are about filling of logs

logs... When there is a transparent thorough investigation many times it

is shown that the police who do have difficult job in difficult

circumstances are shown to have been within the law and done what was

expected of them. I would expect that to be 100% of the time. The

problem with - you can't say look it's just 5%. 5% is massively too

many. Half a percent is too many. agree but police officers, they're

not robots. They're human beings. We are the first to say that they will

make mistakes. If police officers break the law they deserve rightly

to face the full force of the law. Indeed they do on many occasions.

They have, that's the problem, it's been to years to happen. -- 20 years

to happen. It's a small number of cases, significant but minor. I

could tell you daily dozens if not hundreds of cases where acts of

bravery, compassion, professionalism happen every day. One of the things

about saying they're and do act police officers with integrity and

professionalism is it's undermined by these cases. People do not trust

the police in the way they did. think it's wrong to say that the

public don't trust the police perse I said they don't just trust them in

the way they used to. Recent events have been damaging and it's up to

the Police Federation and ACPO and politicians to say this is a

minority. This is a minority. They must be held to account, they must

be -- there must be full transparent investigations. I think it's very,

very important to the relationship of the police and the public but

it's important to the upholding of law and order in this country. I

think it's time for a new era in British policing and a lot of things

need to change from the original standards through. Changing regimes

isn't necessarily changing the culture of the police and you

mentioned the federation but I interviewed the Police Federation

over the so-called Blebgate affair and there was a feeling that the

federation were defend defending police officers' actions before

knowing the full facts. Do you accept that needs to change, that

sort of standing together before even knowing what is necessarily

going on has to change? With plebgate there is an investigation.

Of course. I am using it as an example of... It's a representative

body that represents officers across the country. What we are seeing now

is there is an independent review into the Police Federation which I

welcome and that will see, I am sure, significant positive changes.

Some of the representatives told lies, bluntly. That's not yet been

found. It's clear enough... There is an ongoing investigation. Let's look

at some of the changes, some of the recommendations. Should officers be

fined for misconduct? Ironically they used to be and in 2008 the -

Would you like them brought in? an option for the panel members to

impose a fine which could be an alternative to something else.

pensions docked? Already happens. Does it? Indeed it does.Will that

make a difference if that already happens fine, but bringing back the

idea of finding? Just the penalties are not enough. This goes back to

the core of some of the ways some policing is done, the way logs are

kept, rules that are applied, the way that investigations are done.

Take plebgate as you call it, the Downing Street affair. That's what -

nine months now, you could have a baby faster than The Met has set

about solving a simple operation that took 45 seconds. Investigations

are complex and protracted. I would rather them be quicker, the IPCC,

some investigations can go on for years, not months. That's damaging.

All right. Thank you very much. Let's have a look at the week ahead.

This issue of MPs' pay is bound to run. An independent report is

expected to say they should get thousands more. But the Prime

Minister is urging restraint. As will the debate within the Tory

Party about whether to -- about when to recognise marriage in the tax

system. There is pressure from the Conservative back benches on David

Cameron to do so earlier rather than later. And Europe will feature

heavily with James Wharton's private member's bill being voted on this

Friday and joining us from a sunny College Green are Kate Devlin from

The Herald and James Forsythe is The -- from The Spectator. How big a

problem is MPs' pay going to be? Parts of what has happened is that

the public has not forgotten and not forgiven the furore over MPs'

expenses. The independent body that was set up to try and take these

issues about pay and pensions away from MPs really hasn't been

successful in separating MPs from the process. The public still think

they're in it for all they can get. This kind of process there's been

for the last couple of years to take them away from the process just

hasn't worked. If large increases do go ahead, MPs will get the blame

from the public. What can David Cameron do, because as Kate rightly

says this is an independent recommendation, or would be, the

idea is MPs won't vote on this, that they should accept the

recommendation? When they set it up it was meant to be independent. As

Kate says it was meant to stop the controversy over MPs' pay and

expenses by demrit sizing it. -- depoliticising it. David Cameron has

a difficult problem. A lot of MPs say we have fallen behind in sal

salary terms behind civil servants, senior civil servants ap other big

public sector professionals, people who run health trusts and they say

we should be paid more or you are going to end up with a parliament

with already people already wealthy or backed by a trade union can

afford to be in it but David Cameron knows the public would revolt over a

large rise for MPs at a time of austerity and it's going to add to

problems with his backbenchers, a lot say it's all right for you,

David Cameron, you inherited money, your wife earns a small fortune

every year, we don't. We need this cash. That will be something for him

to chew over in the next few weeks. Let's look at the bill on Friday

being voted on, on Europe. What impact Duke will have -- that impact

do you think that vote will have? couple of things it will do and I am

not sure what impact to be honest it will have in the end. It will be a

great set-piece, it will placate for a short time a lot of what have

wanted to see this. The cracks are starting to emerge. Already

questions about asked about what this means. Would it actually mean a

referendum? Basically, the problem starts to become if it's just a

set-piece without anything behind it, will there still be problems for

the future? All right. James, very briefly. It's a bonding exercise for

Tory MPs. They're going to have this barbecue on Thursday night and then