10/07/2013

:00:45. > :00:52.Politics. Ed Miliband tries to distance himself a bit from the

:00:52. > :01:02.unions, but will the plan work and please voters, but leave the Labour

:01:02. > :01:06.Party penniless? Tell Sid, or should it be tell Pat. Will it see off

:01:06. > :01:10.opposition? What does the Queen think about press regulation? We can

:01:10. > :01:15.only speculate. The Privy Counsellors are to meet the Queen

:01:15. > :01:19.over a Royal chaverTer to keep their house in order. -- charter to keep

:01:19. > :01:28.their house in order. Could the legal profession be the next public

:01:28. > :01:36.institution to fall from grace? You mean it hasn't already?

:01:36. > :01:39.officially! All that to come. Some of the very finest public service

:01:39. > :01:43.broadcasting your licence fee can buy. To prove that, with us for the

:01:43. > :01:50.duration, the man who used to have two jobs, justice and Home Office

:01:50. > :01:53.minister, but he now has none. Nick Herbert is in good company, because

:01:53. > :01:56.we have another ex-Government employee, former Environment

:01:56. > :02:03.Minister and some how Shadow community secretary, Hilary Benn.

:02:03. > :02:08.Good to see you both. We like to help out the jobless. Our very nice!

:02:08. > :02:10.A mixed reaction for Ed Miliband's proposals to mend not end the

:02:10. > :02:15.party's relationship with the unions. Yesterday he said that

:02:15. > :02:18.Labour would no longer accept affiliation fees unless union

:02:18. > :02:25.members had specifically requested to contribute to the Labour Party.

:02:25. > :02:29.But this would, we think, we think, still leave unions political funds

:02:29. > :02:33.in tact to spend as the union leaders wished. Has he done enough

:02:33. > :02:40.to bring Anned to the party's troubles over union influence? Who

:02:40. > :02:45.should we ask? Of course, Kjo. course. 24 hours and many of the big

:02:45. > :02:49.guns have given their reaction to the speech. Tony Blair, a Labour

:02:49. > :02:54.leader who relished taking on the left-wing said this is a defining

:02:55. > :02:58.moment and I think it is bold and strong. He said the proposals were a

:02:58. > :03:02.reform of the Labour Party that is long overdue and frankly I should

:03:03. > :03:08.have done when I was leader. Confounding expectations, Len

:03:08. > :03:11.McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, the trade union at the heart

:03:12. > :03:15.of the controversy in Falkirk, because also supportive. He told the

:03:15. > :03:20.BBC the current status quo isn't acceptable and therefore a new

:03:20. > :03:25.relationship is something I'm very comfortable about. Not all trade

:03:25. > :03:31.unions were as emollient. Paul Kenny, the boss of the GMB said the

:03:31. > :03:35.proposals are as close as you can get to ending the union link. Mr

:03:35. > :03:40.Kenny said the reforms could see a 90% drop in the number of members

:03:40. > :03:44.affiliating to the party and equally severe funding drops could see

:03:44. > :03:51.donations drop from �2 million to around �300,000. That's from his

:03:51. > :03:58.union alone. Andrew. Thank you. Hilary Benn, it's all rushed? Ten

:03:58. > :04:02.days ago Mr Mel band -- Miliband had no intention of doing this, but now

:04:02. > :04:08.he's ending up copying the policy of Stanley Baldwin, Conservative Prime

:04:08. > :04:10.Minister in 1927? I don't think you quite got that right, because the

:04:10. > :04:14.current rules for setting up political rules and for members

:04:14. > :04:18.deciding whether they want to opt out of making a payment were put in

:04:18. > :04:22.place by a Conservative Government in the 1980s. What Ed has done

:04:22. > :04:26.yesterday is to set out a bold set of proposals, because since he

:04:26. > :04:29.became leader he has talked about opening up politics. People look,

:04:29. > :04:32.including at what happened in Falkirk and think they are a small

:04:32. > :04:37.group of people arguing about something and what does it have to

:04:37. > :04:41.do with us? To say to individuals to pay the levy, we want you to make a

:04:41. > :04:45.conscious decision to afailiate to Labour, to say to Londoners who

:04:45. > :04:49.support Labour, we would like you to play a part in selecting our

:04:49. > :04:52.candidate for the Mayor next time around. This is about opening up

:04:52. > :04:56.politics and the test of a leader when a crisis strikes and there's

:04:56. > :05:01.been a problem, is to try to sweep it under the carpet, or do you seize

:05:01. > :05:09.the moment? That's what he has done. If it's not rushed then and it's

:05:09. > :05:15.well-thought out, then we'll pale away -- peel away the proposals.

:05:15. > :05:20.Unite, if you are a member you pay a levy of �8. Is that the bit I'm

:05:20. > :05:24.allowed to opt out of if I want to? Under the law currently, when you

:05:24. > :05:26.join a union you can decide whether to opt out of paying the levy and

:05:27. > :05:30.that is not going to change, because that is the law that the

:05:30. > :05:33.Conservatives put in place. What will change is party will say to

:05:33. > :05:37.affiliated unions, for the members who want to affiliate to Labour,

:05:37. > :05:44.they must make a conscious decision. That is the change, that Ed has

:05:44. > :05:48.proposed. Of the �8, to use the Unite example, only �3 of that goes

:05:48. > :05:52.to the Labour Party. Is that the bit I'm opting out of it? No, members

:05:53. > :05:59.would be deciding that they want to opt in to affiliation to the Labour

:05:59. > :06:03.Party. Now, unions will still have funds. As you know that, they

:06:03. > :06:10.continue to use those. I'm trying to clarify, because the details are

:06:10. > :06:16.interesting. They are not clear. I'm not allowed to opt in to the

:06:16. > :06:21.political fund, that is part of union membership? No, you are wrong.

:06:21. > :06:25.I'm not right or wrong then. You are wrong. I'm asking you questions.The

:06:25. > :06:29.law is very clear. Unions have to ballot on the political funds and

:06:29. > :06:32.member when they are joined are asked, do you want to opt out of

:06:32. > :06:35.paying the levy and that's been the law for a number of years and that

:06:35. > :06:42.won't change. If you don't want to pay it you tick the box and you

:06:42. > :06:47.don't pay it. The whole �8?Whatever the political levy is. The �3 of the

:06:47. > :06:53.�8. No, you don't pay - whatever the levy that is set by the individual

:06:53. > :06:58.union, then unions decide currently how many members they affiliate and

:06:58. > :07:01.for that we want those union members who have agreed to pay the levy to

:07:01. > :07:04.decide. We want to make a conscious decision to be members of Labour,

:07:04. > :07:08.because we want to increase membership and bring working people

:07:08. > :07:16.who are members of trade unions into membership of the Labour Party.

:07:16. > :07:20.don't opt in specifically for the �3 of the eight to go to Labour, do I

:07:20. > :07:24.get it back? No, because you've - you have already decided to pay the

:07:24. > :07:29.levy and that remains with the unions. The consequence of this

:07:29. > :07:34.could be that the union leaders will end up with a bigger fund than they

:07:34. > :07:38.have now? They may, depending on how many choose to opt in. The second

:07:38. > :07:44.thing that we are proposing and Ed made the proposal last year, we want

:07:45. > :07:49.a cap on donations from unions and businesses,ed Conservative Party get

:07:49. > :07:51.-- gets a huge amount from businesses and individuals. At the

:07:51. > :07:55.moment the Conservative Party hasn't responded and David Cameron has

:07:55. > :07:59.indicated he wants a much, much higher cap on donations. We'll come

:07:59. > :08:03.to that. We need to take money out of politics. I'm trying to unravel

:08:03. > :08:07.what is being proposed here. We have accepted that the consequence of

:08:07. > :08:10.this, indeed it could be a major one, because a lot of union leaders

:08:11. > :08:16.think not many people will opt in to paying the Labour bit of the levy,

:08:16. > :08:22.is that union leaders will have a bigger political fund to back Labour

:08:22. > :08:25.candidates that they want to back? Unions will continue to have a

:08:25. > :08:30.political fund to make donations, but we are also proposing that there

:08:30. > :08:33.should be a cap on donations. Ed has proposed there should be a cap on

:08:33. > :08:36.expenditure limits in selections, but what this is really about is

:08:36. > :08:40.saying we want to open up politics and we want more people to get

:08:40. > :08:44.involved. You have said that.I know, but this is the important

:08:44. > :08:48.selling point. We are getting down to the detail. We want people to get

:08:48. > :08:52.involved. We are proud of the links with the unions. There would be

:08:52. > :08:57.nothing to continue to stop Unite doing what it's doing now, indeed it

:08:57. > :09:02.could do it with an even bigger political fund of identifying over

:09:02. > :09:05.40 constituencies in the country, where it wants to put its man or

:09:05. > :09:08.woman and put money behind these people, correct? Unions can of

:09:08. > :09:12.course make donations to the party centrally and to local

:09:12. > :09:18.constituencies. It's funds to back its own people? As to parties

:09:18. > :09:21.locally. Andrew, we are also arguing for a cap on donations. That is the

:09:21. > :09:26.really big prize and change and David Cameron is not responding.

:09:26. > :09:31.I'll get to that in one moment. Two final points. Will this mean the end

:09:31. > :09:34.of the privileged position of unions and voting for your party's leader?

:09:34. > :09:37.Ray Collins has been asked to look at what the consequences of this

:09:38. > :09:42.change are. We are going to wait for his report. We don't know the

:09:42. > :09:47.answer. We don't, because he'll advise on further changes he thinks

:09:47. > :09:52.might be able. Final question on this particular area, will it mean

:09:52. > :09:57.the end of the unions' privileged voting position at conferences?

:09:57. > :10:01.is also something that Ray can look at. We are taking the proposals that

:10:01. > :10:04.are being put forward. It's radical. We are seeing what Tony Blair had to

:10:04. > :10:09.say about them. He said he wished he had done that. This is a significant

:10:09. > :10:14.moment. Ed is probably the first party leader in history to say, "I

:10:14. > :10:19.want to make a change and it might result in us... ." He didn't want to

:10:19. > :10:22.make the change. It's about the leadership you show when a cry

:10:22. > :10:27.erupts. Ewants to make a change because it's the right thing to do.

:10:27. > :10:30.It may result in less money, but he thinks involving more people is even

:10:31. > :10:38.more important than that in politics. It doesn't affect you

:10:38. > :10:46.because you have have take taken from hedge fund managers and private

:10:46. > :10:50.equity guys and people who earn a tonne of money Anned -- and don't

:10:50. > :10:55.pay much tax? There is the question of the cap that should be re-opened.

:10:55. > :11:01.It was the Labour Party's res fusal to broker any notion that the unions

:11:01. > :11:04.should be reformed that stalled those discussions. What we have

:11:04. > :11:12.heard, there is a limit into how much will change in the Labour

:11:12. > :11:15.Party. Yes, apparently now provided the unions agree, if you weren't

:11:15. > :11:18.automatically enrolled as a member of the Labour Party if you are a

:11:18. > :11:26.union member, but you will still be in the political fund unless you

:11:26. > :11:30.decide to opt out. The automatic position where actually you are put

:11:30. > :11:33.into the political funds still applies and that means the unions

:11:33. > :11:39.can make donations to the Labour Party and constituencies if they

:11:39. > :11:48.choose to. What about the cap?I support the cap. I think it should

:11:48. > :11:52.be there. What should it be?The original discussion was �50,000.

:11:52. > :11:57.Would there be a cap on unions? course. It is perfectly reasonable

:11:57. > :12:02.to discuss it. How much?Ed said a year ago �5,000. Kelly recommended

:12:02. > :12:08.10,000. David Cameron has said 50. That means over five years an

:12:08. > :12:14.individual or business could buy �250,000 to the Conservative Party.

:12:14. > :12:17.It would apply to unions and to individuals and businesses. Why are

:12:17. > :12:22.the Tories not supporting that? in favour of a cap. We can discuss

:12:23. > :12:25.the level. We are. What do you think it could be? Could you persuade

:12:26. > :12:29.David Cameron? We'll hear what the Prime Minister has to say. I think

:12:30. > :12:33.there should be a cap, but I don't speak for him. There is a

:12:34. > :12:39.distraction from the undue influence that unions were having on Labour

:12:39. > :12:43.Party policies which extends to the whole areas. You say there should be

:12:43. > :12:47.transparency, but I was looking at the way you have the money into the

:12:47. > :12:51.run-up to the election and because one individual didn't can't to be

:12:51. > :12:55.seen to be giving a lot of money, he gave a tonne of millions, but it

:12:55. > :13:00.wasn't millions, but then you look down the small print and it turns

:13:00. > :13:03.out the wife gave money, the sons gave money, probably the cat gave

:13:03. > :13:06.money as well. You add up how much the family gave and it came to

:13:06. > :13:12.around �4 million. I don't know whether you can frame a law that

:13:12. > :13:16.stops a family from donating money as individuals. It means that one

:13:16. > :13:20.family gave almost 50% of what the whole of Unite has given. You've

:13:20. > :13:25.been able to work that out. The donors have to be named legally.

:13:25. > :13:29.That is absolutely right. It took a long while to get to that. Fine, but

:13:29. > :13:36.the point is that each donation has to be declared. If you can frame a

:13:36. > :13:39.rule that prevents family members from - His rule would. It would

:13:39. > :13:43.apply to individuals too. We'll come back to this. Thank you for that.

:13:43. > :13:49.It's interesting to get more details. I hope they're right.

:13:49. > :13:53.Remember this - Sorry, mate got to go. British Gas shares. They

:13:53. > :13:58.couldn't be easier to do. Phone this number. Place your information on

:13:58. > :14:02.how to apply. If you see Sid, tell him, won't you? It's two decades

:14:02. > :14:06.since the last large-scale public offering of shares. The most

:14:06. > :14:10.memorable being the sell-off of British Gas. Today, the Government's

:14:10. > :14:13.announcing the privatisation of Royal Mail, with shares made

:14:13. > :14:18.available to the public. There will be no big publicity campaign this

:14:18. > :14:23.time around, but shares will be handed out for free to 150,000 Royal

:14:23. > :14:26.Mail staff. Joining us now from Liverpool is Bailey haze, General

:14:26. > :14:36.Secretary of the Communication Workers' Union who oppose this.

:14:36. > :14:46.

:14:46. > :14:49.Welcome to the programme. Will you conditions. But when you say you are

:14:49. > :14:52.defending your people's conditions, I mean, those in favour say the

:14:52. > :14:56.commercial benefits from privatisation of the Royal Mail will

:14:56. > :15:01.help secure the postal service's long-term future?

:15:01. > :15:06.That's just nonsense. The post services are currently in profit.

:15:06. > :15:10.Its profits went up by 60%. It needs investment, it can borrow money on

:15:10. > :15:13.the open markets like Network Rail does and we've got an efficient

:15:13. > :15:19.postal service in the public sector. This is going to destroy postal

:15:19. > :15:22.services. You talk to anybody who 's using any utilities. The

:15:22. > :15:28.privatisation is an old-fashioned idea and will make matters worse.

:15:28. > :15:32.Why will it destroy the postal service? That's a slightly

:15:32. > :15:36.apocalyptic view. Why wouldn't it enhance it in terms of technology.

:15:36. > :15:38.The investment, wouldn'tn't it be better to get the money from private

:15:38. > :15:42.investment, rather than from taxpayers?

:15:42. > :15:48.Well, you see, currently the Government allows, for example, it's

:15:48. > :15:51.just allowed the Greater London Authority to borrow �1 billion for

:15:51. > :15:55.the improvements in the Tube service, the extension of the

:15:55. > :16:00.Northern Line. It could do the same for Royal Mail, it could borrow

:16:00. > :16:04.money on the open markets. Network Rail is currently borrowing �27

:16:04. > :16:07.billion on the open markets and it's looking for �50 billion. That

:16:07. > :16:11.doesn't go on the public sector borrowing requirement. We are talk

:16:11. > :16:16.youing about investment here in the company. The last argument they've

:16:16. > :16:21.got for the people who want to privatise Royal Mail is, it needs

:16:21. > :16:26.money for investment and we agree. How much? My estimate is something

:16:26. > :16:30.like �2 billion over five years. Network Rail borrows �27 billion

:16:30. > :16:35.currently. Borrowing money on the open market and it doesn't go on the

:16:35. > :16:39.public sector borrowing requirements. Let us can check your

:16:39. > :16:43.reaction to what Ed Miliband said. Do you agree with Paul Kenny of the

:16:43. > :16:49.GMB that the union reforms that have been suggested are as close as you

:16:49. > :16:54.can get to ending the union link? agree that it's a set of proposals

:16:54. > :17:00.that are completely muddled. For example, in the open primary that's

:17:00. > :17:04.been discussed for the Mayoral London elections, will the people

:17:04. > :17:11.afilliated to the Labour Party and members of our union be allowed to

:17:11. > :17:17.vote in the London Primary? I mean, listening to people talk about the

:17:17. > :17:21.proposals, I mean, it's about as clear as mutted to me -- - mud to

:17:21. > :17:24.me. All credit to Andrew Neil for muddling through. Nobody knows what

:17:24. > :17:29.the proposals are about, but I think what it's about is posh people's

:17:29. > :17:34.politics. The idea that ordinary working people which Trade Unions

:17:34. > :17:38.represent need to be excluded from politics because they're somehow or

:17:38. > :17:45.other saying it's dirty money, that's completely nowt the case.

:17:45. > :17:49.What do you say to Billy Hayes? opposite of that. It's about

:17:49. > :17:53.encouraging the union members to come and join Labour to participate,

:17:53. > :17:58.including in the Primary which we want Labour supporters to do as

:17:58. > :18:02.well. This is about opening up involvement in politics, it's about

:18:02. > :18:05.welcoming people at work who're Trade Union members participating in

:18:05. > :18:09.the life and the decisions of the Labour Party in a bigger way. I

:18:09. > :18:14.think it's a great opportunity, one that should be seized. That's why

:18:14. > :18:21.others have said they welcome this. Billy Hayes, back to you. What is

:18:21. > :18:24.your reaction to that? Well, youent think he's answered the questions

:18:24. > :18:27.about the mayoral elections in London. Where people hope to stay

:18:27. > :18:32.with Labour, will they be allowed to vote in the London elections? They

:18:32. > :18:37.have more right to vote given they've paid the political levy and,

:18:37. > :18:40.you know, support the Labour Party. Will they be allowed to vote? I'm

:18:41. > :18:45.all for opening up politics. The whole of the political process in

:18:45. > :18:50.this country feels as if it's stuffed with people who spend their

:18:50. > :18:54.whole lives in politics, as a special adviser or this or that, and

:18:54. > :18:58.it feels the same in all the institutions. I'm all for opening up

:18:58. > :19:06.politics. What we have got in this country is posh people's politics.

:19:06. > :19:09.Andrew Neil no less identified that and it was Peter Mandelson who

:19:09. > :19:15.blamed the Trade Union for not getting more people involved in

:19:15. > :19:19.politics. We'll leave it there. Thank you for that. Let me come to

:19:19. > :19:25.you, tonne privatisation of the post office. Why is your Government not

:19:25. > :19:28.taking the opportunity to do a Tell Sid on this? In other words, to

:19:28. > :19:34.spread the shares in the Royal Mail? It's our Royal Mail after all? To

:19:34. > :19:38.spread the shares acorrosion the country? The announcement's just

:19:38. > :19:43.coming, isn't it. But from what we have seen of it, it looks as though

:19:43. > :19:48.the proportion of the shares were... Shares for post office workers?

:19:48. > :19:54.Whether it should be spread more widely. We are told there 'll not be

:19:54. > :20:00.a Tell Sid campaign. That's right. It won't be a big

:20:00. > :20:09.publicity campaign. Here was a chance to spread the

:20:09. > :20:13.shares to people at advantageous prices. You are meant to believe in

:20:13. > :20:17.popular capitalism. This time it looks as no ethe big institutions

:20:17. > :20:22.will only be automobile to buy? will also be the workers.

:20:22. > :20:26.talking about the people who use it? The rest of us who don't work for

:20:26. > :20:30.the Mail, but own the Mail at the moment? There will be the

:20:30. > :20:36.opportunity reports But they are not going to do that? You are talking

:20:36. > :20:40.about whether there should be a marketing campaign. Let's look at

:20:40. > :20:44.the principle. Private ownership gives access to capital and allows

:20:44. > :20:49.the Royal Mail to compete. It's losing market share at so rapidly a

:20:49. > :20:51.rate. But something has to be done. It's not going to be a people's

:20:51. > :20:55.capitalism and it's not just marketing. The British Gas share

:20:55. > :21:00.price was set at a price. The pricing was key, because the frozery

:21:00. > :21:03.wanted a higher price but they took the decision to try and spread the

:21:04. > :21:07.shares as wide as possible to set a competitive price. You are not going

:21:07. > :21:11.to do that. It will be the big institutions. You have to take a

:21:11. > :21:15.decision in setting the price in terms of what the market will pay

:21:15. > :21:19.and to ensure the you can is Cesc of the floatation. You can't just take

:21:19. > :21:24.the view that you can offer it at a price that's a give-away, you will

:21:24. > :21:28.be criticised for that as well. It's important this is a successful

:21:28. > :21:31.privatisation for the future of Royal Mail which will protect the

:21:31. > :21:35.universal service. Thank you for that. Yesterday, she

:21:35. > :21:39.was enjoying the sunshine, sailing down the river on her Royal barge.

:21:39. > :21:43.Today, she's meeting the Privy Council to talk about press

:21:43. > :21:47.regulation. Yes, it's the varied life of a modern Monarch, but one

:21:47. > :21:50.former minister who won't be taking his place on the Queen's Australian

:21:50. > :21:55.shent advisory body today is Lord Prescott. He's resigned over its

:21:55. > :22:04.handling of press regulation. He's on College Green and he's joined by

:22:04. > :22:08.Trevor Kavanagh from the Sun. Welcome, gentlemen. Trevor Kavanagh,

:22:08. > :22:13.you have pushed ahead with your own regulator. Are you trying to hand

:22:13. > :22:17.out a fait accompli? We didn't set out to outflank them, simply went

:22:17. > :22:21.ahead with a plan we feel is worth looking at at the highest level

:22:21. > :22:24.while they sat on their hands for months and did nothing to actually

:22:24. > :22:27.get together a plan that they could put before the Privy Council.

:22:27. > :22:32.Doesn't it seem odd to you that ministers have ended up second in

:22:32. > :22:36.line for the Privy Council when Parliament expressed its will

:22:37. > :22:43.clearly back in March? It asn't actually. The leaders of the various

:22:43. > :22:48.parties have ganged together to stitch up the press with a 2 am

:22:48. > :22:52.pizza conference. There's never been a debate about this at all in the

:22:52. > :22:55.House of Commons, Jo, so this is not something Parliament has agreed.

:22:55. > :22:59.John Prescott, haven't they got every right to pip you at the post?

:22:59. > :23:04.Wait a minute, it's not right. I have a copy of the draft put in in

:23:05. > :23:09.March 18th. You can't can't say that. Every detail is in there.

:23:09. > :23:13.Parliament decided by 500 votes to put this. They didn't debate it.

:23:13. > :23:19.They could a second debate on it. This is the one that's ready now.

:23:19. > :23:22.The Prime Minister said it will go to the May Privy Council. They

:23:22. > :23:26.didn't put it to maismt I believe they are not putting it to July.

:23:26. > :23:29.They could put it today if they want. That will mean November. The

:23:29. > :23:37.Privy Council is being used to delay the whole business. That's how

:23:37. > :23:40.they've defeated it before. So now, it's being abused and I don't want

:23:40. > :23:45.to be any part of it. So I've resigned.

:23:45. > :23:51.John Prescott's taken a stand there, Trevor Kavanagh. It looks as if you

:23:51. > :23:55.are pressing ahead by using underhand tactics? In what way is it

:23:55. > :24:02.underhand, Jo? We have simply produced an alternative to the Royal

:24:02. > :24:05.Charter that we don't accept which is basically a statutory operation

:24:05. > :24:11.with underpinning. Whichever way you look at it, that's political

:24:11. > :24:16.interference in the process of the media which has been sacred against

:24:16. > :24:23.us for three centuries. Not all the papers agree with the charter.

:24:23. > :24:28.Nearly all. It isn't the Guardian, the Independent... Part of the

:24:28. > :24:31.hacked off operation. It's not a United one. Doesn't even fit with

:24:31. > :24:40.the independence by Leveson. So why is the Government... It's exactly

:24:40. > :24:46.what Leveson spelled out. ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

:24:46. > :24:50.Parliament's word against these press guy who is want to Dutch us.

:24:50. > :24:53.-- dump us. David Cameron and Nick Clegg from told the Commons they

:24:54. > :25:01.didn't have any choice, that they were advised by lawyers that the

:25:01. > :25:04.press had to come first. No, he said when we did the March 18th, when we

:25:04. > :25:08.produced Parliament's report, he said it would go to the May

:25:08. > :25:12.commission. He said it didn't go because it took legal opinion.

:25:12. > :25:17.No-one's seen the legal opinion, but theirs is a divided one. Why is it

:25:17. > :25:20.that they are only just putting the press won first which would talk us

:25:20. > :25:25.up to the election. Delay, delay, delay, is what the press have always

:25:25. > :25:29.done to defeat the last seven. is your party going to do about it,

:25:29. > :25:33.John Prescott? We are making it clear, they are unto the charter.

:25:33. > :25:36.The charter is a kid. They are entitled to make their view as

:25:36. > :25:41.leaders, I'm John Prescott, I'm not running the Labour Party, but I'll

:25:41. > :25:44.tell you this, if you go on like this, you will end up being kidded

:25:44. > :25:48.by the Royal Charter. And by the way, it will be controversial. You

:25:48. > :25:52.are going to involve the monarchy fighting Parliament because

:25:52. > :25:56.Parliament's clear. It has a view. Thank you both very much.

:25:56. > :26:01.John Prescott briefly on Ed Miliband's speech, the relationship

:26:01. > :26:05.with the units, Tony Blair's praised it as being brave and wished he'd

:26:05. > :26:12.done it, although he was never accused of being in with the unions.

:26:12. > :26:16.Billy Hayes says it's clear as mud? Hang on, all the arguments on one

:26:16. > :26:22.member one vote, under clause IV under Tony Blair changing the voting

:26:22. > :26:26.system. They were controversial, we debated it. Now we don't talk about

:26:26. > :26:30.Ed being weak, all the papers are saying he's strong. He's going to

:26:30. > :26:35.have the debate. Len McCluskey said I'll get the vote. That's the nature

:26:35. > :26:38.of the party. It gits controversial. It's about change, but at least this

:26:38. > :26:42.man's shown the framework he wants to work with and people should

:26:42. > :26:45.recognise he has the courage to do that. Is it the courage you say to

:26:45. > :26:52.end the link with the unions? doesn't want to, he's made it clear.

:26:52. > :26:55.I don't want to see it ended. Billy and all those opposed to clause IV

:26:56. > :27:02.change and one member one vote, but we made the changes. Gentlemen,

:27:02. > :27:07.thank you very much. Was that Michael Portillo standing

:27:07. > :27:13.behind them? ! I think it was! be, or one of the union members in

:27:13. > :27:19.disguise. We are good at winning things, the rugby, the tennis, and

:27:19. > :27:24.now the cricket starts today, the Ashes at Trent Bridge. It's not been

:27:24. > :27:31.a brilliant start, 31 for one. Still all to play for. They'll slog it out

:27:31. > :27:37.for the next five days. For what? An urn containing the Ashes of a

:27:37. > :27:41.cricket bale. Not even a bat, a bale. Isn't it about time they found

:27:42. > :27:49.a more fitting receptacle? We think it is. If you are feeling lucky, you

:27:49. > :27:53.too could be a winner of the Daily Politics.

:27:53. > :28:03.Mug. See if you can remember when this

:28:03. > :28:20.

:28:20. > :28:30.Satisfactory peace... # Swing low, sweet Lord

:28:30. > :28:48.

:28:48. > :28:53.to the Scottish people and to their king.

:28:53. > :29:03.It's an all-northern Cup Final as Blackburn and Newcastle take the

:29:03. > :29:18.

:29:18. > :29:28.# Unforgettable... # To be in with a chance of winning

:29:28. > :29:33.

:29:33. > :29:38.that Daily Politics mug, send your website.

:29:38. > :29:43.Do you think anyone's ever read them? I have!

:29:43. > :29:47.Doesn't get out a lot! Coming up to midday. There's Big Ben, a beautiful

:29:47. > :29:56.summer's day here in London. It means Prime Minister's Questions and

:29:56. > :30:00.Nick Robinson. A veritable ucopia of things to discuss at PMQs?

:30:00. > :30:06.Miliband will do party funding and will quote my guest, genuine guest,

:30:06. > :30:11.Sir Christopher Kelly's report from November 11 which said �10,000 cap

:30:11. > :30:14.on party donations if Labour agrees to end the system of Trade Union

:30:14. > :30:19.relationships they currently have. That is what he proposed yesterday.

:30:19. > :30:22.So I've no doubt he'll claim I've moved, rth will you move, Prime

:30:22. > :30:26.Minister. My guess is that the Prime Minister will say, we've heard you

:30:26. > :30:30.say that you have moved, but we are baffled about what it will mean in

:30:30. > :30:34.practice, as are indeed all the Trade Unions who've appeared on the

:30:34. > :30:37.programme. John Prescott department seem to have a clue either about

:30:37. > :30:43.what it would really mean, other than he was broadly in favour.

:30:43. > :30:46.see. Will it all be on the issue of process? I think so. I think David

:30:46. > :30:49.Cameron thinks he created the speech we saw by the Labour Leader

:30:49. > :30:54.yesterday. He'll want to talk about it and he believes he's making the

:30:54. > :30:58.weather. Let's find out. Here is the Prime Minister at PMQs.

:30:58. > :31:03.I'm sure the whole House and country will wish to join me in

:31:03. > :31:08.congratulating Andy Murray on his historic Wimbledon success. To

:31:08. > :31:12.become the first British player to win Wimbledon for 77 years is

:31:12. > :31:17.fantastic and it will go down in our history books. This morning, I had

:31:17. > :31:27.meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my

:31:27. > :31:34.

:31:34. > :31:44.duties in this House, I shall have The government is setting out plans

:31:44. > :31:58.

:31:58. > :32:03.to modernise the Royal Mail and to allow modern people to own 10% of

:32:03. > :32:09.the shares. Could the Prime Minister tell us what support he's expecting

:32:10. > :32:15.to see for this measure? I think there will be widespread support

:32:15. > :32:18.around the country to modernise this great public service and to get new

:32:18. > :32:23.capital into this service and to make sure that 10% of the shares

:32:23. > :32:26.will go to the people who work for the Royal Mail. What is remarkable

:32:26. > :32:31.is it was proposed by the Labour Party when they were in Government,

:32:31. > :32:35.but of course, because the trade unions now oppose it, they have to

:32:35. > :32:45.oppose it too. Fresh evidence today that they are still in the pockets

:32:45. > :32:49.

:32:49. > :32:55.of their trade unions paymasters. Let me first join the Prime Minister

:32:55. > :33:01.in paying tribute to Andy Murray, for his fantastic victory following

:33:01. > :33:04.Virginia Wade's victory in 1977. It was a fantastic achievement. He

:33:04. > :33:10.showed extraordinary determination and the whole country is incredibly

:33:10. > :33:14.proud of him. As the Government considers the issue of party funding

:33:14. > :33:24.reform, can the Prime Minister tell the House how much his party has

:33:24. > :33:29.

:33:29. > :33:34.received in donations from hedge funds? I'm not surprise surprised -

:33:34. > :33:38.THE SPEAKER: Order, the Prime Minister will want to answer - I'm

:33:38. > :33:42.sure he will - I know he will want to answer the question that has been

:33:42. > :33:47.put to him and we must hear him do so. The Prime Minister. I'm not

:33:47. > :33:51.surprised he's got this sudden interest in party funding. However,

:33:51. > :33:57.let's be frank, every donation to the Conservative Party is fully set

:33:57. > :34:01.out and public. Let's be clear what this real scandal is about. It's

:34:02. > :34:08.about trade union fixing of political appointments to this

:34:08. > :34:13.House. That's what it's about. When he gets to his feet let's hope he

:34:13. > :34:17.addresses the 40 seats that Unite have fiddled and let's hope he

:34:17. > :34:24.publishes the full report and let's hope he tells - they don't want to

:34:24. > :34:28.hear! THE SPEAKER: Order, order. I'm

:34:28. > :34:32.always concerned about the rights of backbench members and they will be

:34:32. > :34:36.heard and if we run over for the purpose, because of this sort of

:34:36. > :34:41.conduct, so be it. They will be heard. Please, let's have a bit of

:34:41. > :34:47.order and some answers. The problem is they're paid to shout and they're

:34:47. > :34:55.doing nothing about it. I don't think he wanted to answer the

:34:55. > :35:05.question, did he? Let's give him the answer. The Conservative Party has

:35:05. > :35:10.

:35:10. > :35:18.received 25 million from hedge funds. Now, next question. In the

:35:18. > :35:23.Budget, the Chancellor gave hem funds �145 million tax cut. Can the

:35:23. > :35:27.Prime Minister tell us was it just a coincidence? The tax raid under this

:35:27. > :35:33.Government is going to be higher than it ever was under his

:35:33. > :35:37.government. But let me tell him this important point. There is a big

:35:37. > :35:43.difference between donations to the Conservative Party and donations to

:35:43. > :35:47.the Labour Party. And the difference is this - donations to the Labour

:35:47. > :35:52.Party buy votes at your conference and candidates and MPs in this House

:35:52. > :35:56.and pay for the votes that gave him his job. They pay their money and

:35:56. > :36:03.bought their votes and put him in his place and that hasn't changed a

:36:03. > :36:10.thing. I'll tell him what the difference is, six pence a week in

:36:10. > :36:19.fees from ordinary people up and down the country. I guess the party

:36:19. > :36:22.funded by a few millionaires at the top.

:36:22. > :36:27.THE SPEAKER: Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself.

:36:27. > :36:33.I'm sure you didn't when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it man,

:36:33. > :36:37.get a grip of the situation. What is shameful about it, he doesn't even

:36:37. > :36:41.know about the extra tax cut he gave to hem funds. Now, he says he wants

:36:41. > :36:49.reform. He says he wants reform. So I've a proposal for him. I'm

:36:49. > :36:52.willing, as I've said before, to have a �5,000 limit from unions and

:36:52. > :37:02.businesses and individuals as part of a reform in the way the parties

:37:02. > :37:03.

:37:03. > :37:07.are funded. Is he willing to do that? Firstly, let me deal with six

:37:07. > :37:14.pence a week. THE SPEAKER: Order. We have to

:37:14. > :37:19.listen. Here are the figures since he became leader. 8 million from

:37:19. > :37:25.Unite, 4 million from GMB, 4 million from Unison. They bought the

:37:25. > :37:29.policies and the candidates and they bought the leader. I have long

:37:29. > :37:33.supported caps on donations. I think we should have caps on donations and

:37:33. > :37:43.they should apply to trade unions, to businesses and to individuals.

:37:43. > :37:51.But let me say this - THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. There is

:37:51. > :37:59.still far too much shouting. It's on both sides. The Prime Minister, I

:37:59. > :38:09.think is concluding his answer. me be frank with him, there is a

:38:09. > :38:11.

:38:11. > :38:16.problem with a �5,000 cap and it's this - it would imply a massive

:38:16. > :38:21.amount of taxpayer support for political parties. Frankly, Mr

:38:21. > :38:30.Speaker, I don't see why the result of a trade union scandal should be

:38:30. > :38:38.ever taxpayer in the country paying for Labour. So there we have the

:38:38. > :38:42.truth. THE SPEAKER: Order. Mr Miliband.

:38:42. > :38:47.He's ducking reform. That's the truth. He's ducking funding reform.

:38:47. > :38:54.He doesn't want it to happen. Look, let's test his willingness to reform

:38:54. > :39:03.in this House. Current rules allow MPs to take on paid directorships

:39:03. > :39:07.and consultancies as long as they're declared. It's in the Register of

:39:07. > :39:11.Members' Interests. Members on both sides abide by those rules. I say,

:39:11. > :39:17.in the next Parliament, and this will affect both sides of this

:39:17. > :39:21.House, MPs should not be able to take on new paid directorships and

:39:21. > :39:26.consultancies. Does he agree? think what matters is that

:39:26. > :39:31.everything is transparent and open. Those are the rules. Look, he made

:39:31. > :39:34.me an offer - THE SPEAKER: Order. I said one

:39:34. > :39:39.moment ago, the Leader of the Opposition must be heard and he must

:39:39. > :39:44.be and the Prime Minister must be heard. He made me an offer. Let me

:39:44. > :39:49.make him an offer. If he wants change, I make this offer, there is

:39:49. > :39:54.a Bill coming to this House next week covering trade unions. If he

:39:54. > :39:58.wants to legislate to move from opting out to opting in, if he wants

:39:58. > :40:02.to give union members the chance to choose whether to donate, if he

:40:02. > :40:06.wants to allow union members to vote on whether they should give to

:40:06. > :40:16.Labour, we will legislate. Will he accept that offer of legislation?

:40:16. > :40:17.

:40:17. > :40:22.Yes or no. Mr Speaker, I've got to say to him he's got to do a lot

:40:22. > :40:26.better than that and answer the question on second jobs. He has to -

:40:26. > :40:30.let me just tell the Prime Minister and all the members opposite,

:40:30. > :40:37.between now and the general election they will be subject to this test.

:40:37. > :40:45.Do they support second jobs, new directorships? Yes or no. That is

:40:45. > :40:48.the test. Let's try him on another test. I say

:40:48. > :40:52.THE SPEAKER: Order. The question must be heard and people that I

:40:52. > :40:56.might have thought about calling to ask a question, who are shouting

:40:56. > :41:04.from a sedentary position, might just as well leave the chamber.

:41:04. > :41:07.say this as well, as well as ending new direct orships, there should be

:41:07. > :41:12.a limit on earning on top of the salaries as they have in other

:41:12. > :41:18.countries. The public would expect nothing less from that. What does he

:41:18. > :41:21.say? What is interesting, he doesn't want to talk about the trade union

:41:21. > :41:26.stitching up Parliamentary selections. He doesn't want to

:41:26. > :41:29.address that. That is what this scandal is about. Let us ask what

:41:29. > :41:32.has actually changed since yesterday? Will the unions still

:41:32. > :41:36.have the biggest vote at the conference? Yes. Will they still be

:41:36. > :41:41.able to determine the party's policy? Yes. Will they still have

:41:41. > :41:49.the decisive vote in voting for the leader? Yes. That is the fact. They

:41:49. > :41:56.own you lock, stock and block vote! This is a man owed by a few

:41:56. > :41:59.millionaires at the top of the pile and everyone knows it. Here's the

:41:59. > :42:04.difference between him and me, I want action on second jobs, he

:42:04. > :42:11.doesn't. I want party funding reform, he doesn't. I am proud that

:42:11. > :42:17.we have links with ordinary working people. He's bank rolled by a few

:42:17. > :42:22.millionaires. The party of the people, the party of privilege.

:42:23. > :42:26.not the party of the people, it's the party of Len McCluskey. Those

:42:26. > :42:30.are the facts. THE SPEAKER: Order, we cannot just

:42:30. > :42:34.have a wall of noise. What we need is questions and answers. The Prime

:42:34. > :42:39.Minister. We are the party of the people. You are party of Len

:42:39. > :42:44.McCluskey. They buy the candidates. They buy the policies. They buy the

:42:44. > :42:47.leader. What is their policy on the Royal Mail determined by the

:42:48. > :42:54.communications union? What is their policy on health? Determined my

:42:54. > :43:04.Union. What is their policy on party funding? Determined by Unite. No

:43:04. > :43:05.

:43:05. > :43:14.wonder he thinks that bud that. He wants to be reincarnated and come

:43:14. > :43:18.back as a proper leader. THE SPEAKER: Order, the question,

:43:18. > :43:21.however hong it takes, will be heard. Thank you very much. Three

:43:21. > :43:26.quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a

:43:26. > :43:29.condition which uses one million hospital beds every year. Recent re

:43:29. > :43:33.research says low levels of air pollution can significantly increase

:43:33. > :43:37.this Is are being. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting European

:43:37. > :43:43.standards on air quality, which if implemented could increase life

:43:43. > :43:46.expectancy by up to eight months? makes an important point about air

:43:46. > :43:48.quality. We have seen real improvements in recent years. It

:43:48. > :43:51.makes a genuine difference to public health there are important

:43:51. > :44:00.discussions on going, particularly about car emissions and I'll perhaps

:44:00. > :44:03.write to him about the conclusions. The Government has diverted EU

:44:03. > :44:10.regeneration funds intended for South Yorkshire to benefit wealthier

:44:10. > :44:14.parts of the UK. The Chair of Sheffield City have said that

:44:14. > :44:18.arguments of loeBgsals have been ignored and the decision will have a

:44:18. > :44:25.hugely negative impact on the area. Why has he ignored local business

:44:25. > :44:33.leaders? How can the Prime Minister justify allocating 34% more per head

:44:33. > :44:36.to Cheshire than South Yorkshire? have done a very fair assess

:44:36. > :44:39.assessment between the nations and the regions in the United Kingdom

:44:39. > :44:44.about how to distribute this money. We have distributed it in a fair way

:44:44. > :44:48.and I note if you look at Yorkshire and Humber you see enployment up

:44:48. > :44:51.11,000 this quarter and employment up 86,000 since the election. But as

:44:52. > :44:59.he is a member of Unite, it's not surprising he doesn't mention that

:44:59. > :45:04.fact. Does the Prime Minister welcome last Friday's vote to give

:45:04. > :45:09.the British people a say on their relationship with Europe? A vote

:45:09. > :45:19.with a stark contrast where the party opposite chose to stay away,

:45:19. > :45:27.

:45:27. > :45:30.to squabble within themselves over this side of the House from the

:45:30. > :45:34.Conservative Party. What was noticeable is, even though there was

:45:34. > :45:37.a 19-page briefing from the Labour Party, which like every other bit of

:45:37. > :45:41.paper now refind lying around the House of Commons, they couldn't

:45:41. > :45:46.actually make up their mind which way to vote. Pf

:45:46. > :45:51.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree with the former

:45:51. > :45:54.Conservative treasurer that the Munsefed from Azin Nadir is tainted

:45:54. > :46:01.and they have a moral duty to give it back and, will he return that

:46:01. > :46:06.money? The fact should start with the fact

:46:06. > :46:11.that his party's taken �1. 6 million, not a �5,000 cap, but �1. 6

:46:11. > :46:14.million from Mr Mills and advised him how to dodge the tax!

:46:14. > :46:21.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the last Government, communities like

:46:21. > :46:26.Thanet were left and aJuan donned on benefits. Was the right honourable

:46:26. > :46:31.gentleman impressed by the thousands of jobs created? This Government is

:46:31. > :46:35.putting people back into work. Well, my right honourable friend is

:46:35. > :46:40.absolutely right and I was impressed on visiting Thanet to go and see the

:46:40. > :46:45.jobs being created by the London Array because it's jobs in shipping

:46:45. > :46:48.and for seamen, in terms of engineering and apprenticeships. A

:46:48. > :46:53.really important investment for the UK and we hope to see more.

:46:53. > :46:58.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware about

:46:58. > :47:02.the importance of investment in infrastructure and widespread

:47:02. > :47:06.agreements about its job-creating potential. Can he tell the House why

:47:06. > :47:13.after three year, in office, the employment in the construction

:47:13. > :47:18.centre has fallen by 84,000 people? The employment in construction's

:47:18. > :47:22.currently rising. The recent news on construction has been very good.

:47:22. > :47:26.That is because we have an infrastructure plan, a fifth of the

:47:26. > :47:32.projects are under way, we have got road-building at far higher levels

:47:32. > :47:36.than it ever was under the Labour. They electrified five miles of

:47:37. > :47:41.railway line, we are going to be electrifying hundreds of miles of

:47:41. > :47:45.railway line. I know he doesn't mention the fact that he's been

:47:45. > :47:50.paying rent to Unite in his constituency office. Normally it's

:47:50. > :47:57.money from Unite to Labour, on this case it's money from Labour to

:47:57. > :48:00.Unite. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is my right

:48:00. > :48:05.honourable friend aware that after yesterday's surrender of powers by

:48:06. > :48:11.the Home Office to the European Union by bringing the European Court

:48:11. > :48:15.of Justice into the arrest warrant, the Commission has welcomed it as

:48:15. > :48:21.pragmatic? Has bra thattively overtaken the Prime Minister's

:48:21. > :48:24.popular desire to repatriate powers? What I would say to my right

:48:24. > :48:30.honourable friend is that the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday

:48:30. > :48:34.represents the repatriation to the UK of 98 powers. There were 133

:48:34. > :48:38.items on the justice and Home Affairs list and that's a mattive

:48:38. > :48:42.transfer of power back here to the UK which I think my right honourable

:48:42. > :48:47.friend should welcome. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:48:47. > :48:52.-- massive transfer. A career and her husband with Parkinson's disease

:48:52. > :48:56.were moved to a two-bedroomed property because he found it

:48:56. > :49:01.impossible to sleep when sharing a room. The cumulative effect means

:49:01. > :49:04.she'll have to find an additional �1,000 a year. Evidence has been

:49:04. > :49:10.published which says discretionary payment schemes are only actually

:49:10. > :49:15.benefitting one in ten. That's the scheme that Government ministers

:49:15. > :49:20.frequently pray in aid. Was it his intention that nine out of ten

:49:20. > :49:23.careers should face eviction, debt, arrears and bailiffs? Well, first of

:49:23. > :49:27.all, let me make clear that Disability Living Allowance, the

:49:27. > :49:31.main benefit received by disabled people is being uprated by inflation

:49:31. > :49:35.and excluded from the welfare cap. When it comes to the spare room

:49:35. > :49:39.subsidy, anyone who needs a career sleeping in another bedroom is

:49:39. > :49:43.exempt from the spare room subsidy. Of course, also there is the

:49:43. > :49:48.discretionary payment. Members opposite shake their heads. The fact

:49:48. > :49:51.is, they have opposed each and every one of our welfare savings. It's

:49:51. > :49:56.their poll sill to adopt our spending plans -- policy. They can't

:49:56. > :50:00.go on accepting the plans but criticising at the same time.

:50:00. > :50:04.It's one year since the Government suspended aid money that goes

:50:04. > :50:08.directly to the Kagame regime in Rwanda over the role they played in

:50:08. > :50:12.supporting warlords and militia gangs in the Congo. Recently, the UN

:50:12. > :50:15.confirmed Rwandan Army officers are still involved in such activities.

:50:15. > :50:19.Does my right honourable friend agree with me that these actions are

:50:19. > :50:22.unacceptable for a Commonwealth nation and, will he work with the

:50:22. > :50:27.international counterparts by ensuring those committing war crimes

:50:27. > :50:33.are brought to justice? The war crimes should always be brought to

:50:33. > :50:38.justice. I've raised the issue for support with President Kagame on a

:50:38. > :50:42.number of occasions. We need to bear in mind that fact. We should also

:50:42. > :50:46.recognise, and this goes across parties in this House, that British

:50:46. > :50:49.investment in aid in Rwanda has created one of the great success

:50:49. > :50:53.stories of African development over the last decade and we should

:50:53. > :50:59.continue to invest in that success and lift people out of poverty while

:50:59. > :51:04.delivering a clear message to President Kagame at the same time.

:51:04. > :51:11.Prime Minister, how many job jobs (inaudible)

:51:11. > :51:16.All members of Parliament have the cleers possible duty to their

:51:16. > :51:20.constituents. But let me make this point. Do I think the House of

:51:20. > :51:23.Commons benefits from people like the honourable member for Blackburn?

:51:24. > :51:27.And his experience? Do I think the House of Commons benefits from the

:51:27. > :51:31.honourable member for Sheffield Brightside who comes to this House

:51:31. > :51:35.with his experience? I think we do benefit. I'm not sure we benefit

:51:35. > :51:41.from my immediate predecessor, but there are honourable members

:51:41. > :51:47.opposite who give good service to this House.

:51:47. > :51:51.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, we are all celebrating Andy Murray's

:51:51. > :51:56.historic victory this week. The Prime Minister may not know that

:51:56. > :52:01.history was also made in 1954 when Dave Valentine, a Scotsman, was the

:52:01. > :52:06.first man to lift the Rugby League World Cup trophy for Great Britain.

:52:06. > :52:11.With the 14th Rugby League World Cup happening this year, the first major

:52:11. > :52:14.sporting tournament on these shores since last year's wonderful London

:52:14. > :52:19.2012 Olympics and Paralympics, will the Prime Minister give full support

:52:19. > :52:23.and come to one of the games? wasn't aware of that important piece

:52:23. > :52:26.of history and I'm grateful for him bringing me up-to-date on that. I

:52:26. > :52:31.strongly support the fact we are holding this tournament and will

:52:31. > :52:37.give it all the support we can. We have the small issue of the Ashes

:52:37. > :52:42.which is very important as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the

:52:42. > :52:46.Prime Minister entertained the hedge fund owners of Circle Health, the

:52:46. > :52:54.private hospital company, to a dinner for donors in Downing Street,

:52:54. > :53:01.what did he promise in return for their �863,000 donation to the Tory

:53:01. > :53:07.party? Let me give him the figures. �8

:53:07. > :53:12.million from Unite, �4 million from GMB, �4 million from unison. And the

:53:12. > :53:22.difference is this - those donations, they buy your leader.

:53:22. > :53:23.

:53:23. > :53:27.They buy your policy. They buy... THE SPEAKER: Order, order!

:53:27. > :53:31.Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it's welcomed that 2,500 out

:53:31. > :53:36.of workhouse holds in London can no longer claim more...

:53:36. > :53:41.THE SPEAKER: Order. Mr Lord's question must be heard!

:53:41. > :53:49.Mr Lord? These out of workhouse holds can no longer claim more than

:53:49. > :53:53.the average work family earning, a welfare reform opposed by the party

:53:53. > :53:57.opposite? The party opposite have opposed

:53:57. > :54:03.every single welfare change we've made. �86 billion in total, and

:54:03. > :54:06.people in this country, including Trade Union members, will find it in

:54:06. > :54:10.xplicable why the party opposite think you ought to be better off on

:54:10. > :54:14.benefits than in work. Shows that they have the wrong relationship

:54:14. > :54:19.with the unions and have the wrong values too.

:54:20. > :54:24.Can the Prime Minister tell the House (inaudible)

:54:24. > :54:31.THE SPEAKER: Order. Some basic manners would suggest

:54:31. > :54:35.that the question be heard. Just as I said about Mr Lord, so too Cathy

:54:35. > :54:39.Jamieson will be heard. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:54:39. > :54:42.Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell the House whether the donations

:54:42. > :54:47.to the Conservative Party had any influence on the Foreign Secretary's

:54:47. > :54:51.intervention in his company's tax dispute?

:54:51. > :54:56.The donations to the Conservative Party do not buy votes at our Party

:54:56. > :55:00.Conference. They don't buy votes for our leader. They don't mean you can

:55:00. > :55:07.select candidates. That is the unhealthy relationship in British

:55:07. > :55:10.politics. They can say all they want, but they've been found out in

:55:10. > :55:17.Falkirk and are being found out across the country.

:55:17. > :55:21.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every Shropshire child receives

:55:21. > :55:30.�4,612 per annum for their education. In other parts of the

:55:30. > :55:34.country, that figure is as high as �7,000 to �9,000. This is completely

:55:34. > :55:37.unjust and puts Shrewsbury children at a disadvantage. Will the Prime

:55:37. > :55:41.Minister do all he can to help the Education Secretary to change this

:55:41. > :55:43.funding Meg name before the unions try to block it? We agree the

:55:43. > :55:47.current system is unfair and my right honourable friend gave the

:55:47. > :55:51.figures. We have committed to consulting on how best to introduce

:55:51. > :55:55.a national funding formula for 2015-16. We'll consult widely with

:55:55. > :55:57.all of the interested parties to get this right. We'll obviously include

:55:57. > :56:01.all Members of Parliament and I know that my right honourable friend, the

:56:01. > :56:06.member for Shrewsbury, will campaign very hard on that issue.

:56:06. > :56:10.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Tory chair of the Treasury

:56:10. > :56:16.Select Committee's described the Government's banking reforms as

:56:16. > :56:23.falling short and, in some respects, virtually useless. Is this the pay

:56:23. > :56:26.off for all the millions the bank banks... (Inaudible) Is this

:56:26. > :56:30.Commission that commissioned the Vickers Report, committed to a

:56:30. > :56:33.ringfence around retail banks, it's this Government that's legislating

:56:33. > :56:39.to have criminal sanctions against bankers. What did the last

:56:39. > :56:45.Government do? What did those two do when they were sitting in the

:56:45. > :56:52.Treasury, when Northern Rock were handing out 110% mortgages? They

:56:52. > :56:58.were knighting Fred Goodwin. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

:56:58. > :57:06.Mr Speaker, on Friday, the town centre of Bury will fall silent as

:57:06. > :57:09.the people of Bury lead the nation in paying respects to drummer Lee

:57:09. > :57:14.Rigby, so horrifically murdered on the streets of Woolwich. Will the

:57:14. > :57:19.Prime Minister join with me in paying tribute to all his family and

:57:19. > :57:24.friends and his comrades in the Fusiliers for their calm and

:57:24. > :57:29.dignified response to their loss and thank all those in the church, Armed

:57:29. > :57:34.Forces, police and Public Services who've been engaged in the planning

:57:34. > :57:37.and preparation for the funeral? My right honourable friend speaks

:57:37. > :57:41.for the whole country and the whole House when he talks about this

:57:41. > :57:47.issue. We should all pay tribute to drummer Lee Rigby for his service to

:57:47. > :57:50.our country. I heard about it at first hand when in Afghanistan and

:57:50. > :57:53.meeting members of his regiment. We should pay tribute to his family, to

:57:53. > :57:58.all the pain and difficulty they are going through. I'm sure it will be a

:57:58. > :58:03.very fitting and moving service on Friday and the whole country will be

:58:03. > :58:07.mourning with them. I have a JCB factory in my

:58:07. > :58:11.constituency and I represent their Parliamentary interests as part of

:58:11. > :58:17.my Parliamentary duties. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the

:58:17. > :58:21.Foreign Secretary was paid by JCB whilst he was in opposition?

:58:21. > :58:26.JCB is a Great British company that exports all over the world. Instead

:58:26. > :58:30.of trying to take it down, we should be celebrating it. It's opening

:58:30. > :58:34.businesses, creating employment, it's training apprenticeships, it's

:58:34. > :58:42.backing our academy programme. How typical of the party opposite. All

:58:42. > :58:48.they want to do is talk down Great British businesses.

:58:48. > :58:53.Does the Prime Minister agree that what this Government does, as it

:58:53. > :58:58.helped us save the Medway Insolvency Service is represent the interests

:58:58. > :59:01.of ordinary, decent Trade Unionists who too often are lions led by

:59:01. > :59:05.donkeys? I absolutely agree with my right

:59:05. > :59:10.honourable friend. Can I pay tribute to him for his work in saving the

:59:10. > :59:15.Medway Insolvency Service. This is important and the fact is, the party

:59:15. > :59:19.opposite is in hock to union leaders and that is why they refuse to

:59:19. > :59:29.investigate the scandal of these rigged appointments. That is what

:59:29. > :59:34.this is scandal is about and that's what they refuse to talk about.

:59:34. > :59:37.Major contributors to Conservative Party funds... . Could the Prime

:59:37. > :59:40.Minister say what role will be played in Conservative Party

:59:40. > :59:44.planning policy? As a member of Unite, she speaks

:59:44. > :59:48.with great authority on this subject. Let me explain again - when

:59:48. > :59:52.people donate to the Conservative Party, they are not buying votes for

:59:52. > :59:56.the leader, they are not buying policies, they are not buying votes

:59:56. > :00:01.to the Party Conference. The reason the right honourable gentleman has

:00:01. > :00:06.his job is that Trade Unions bought votes in the Labour Party and put

:00:06. > :00:09.him where he is. That doesn't happen in any other political party. If

:00:09. > :00:15.they've got any sense at all, they'll realise it's profoundly

:00:15. > :00:21.wrong. I'm sure the Prime Minister will

:00:21. > :00:28.agree with me that there's no better way to build a stronger economy and

:00:28. > :00:31.a fairer society than through apprenticeships. In Solihull, the

:00:31. > :00:37.number of apprenticeships has nearly doubled already and I'm on a mission

:00:37. > :00:41.to build on the success by working with local businesses to create 100

:00:41. > :00:46.new apprenticeships in 100 days. Will the Prime Minister support this

:00:46. > :00:52.objective? I certainly support her campaign, as

:00:52. > :00:56.I would to all members to encourage to take up apprenticeships. It's

:00:56. > :01:00.about encouraging young people and businesses as well. In the West

:01:00. > :01:05.Midlands, we have Jaguar Land Rover powering ahead taking on many more

:01:05. > :01:11.employees and investing heavily in apprenticeships. Thank you very

:01:11. > :01:16.much, Mr Speaker. This morning I had a person threatening to commit

:01:16. > :01:21.suicide because they were so depressed from the effect of welfare

:01:21. > :01:24.reform. I would like to say this was unique, Mr Speaker, but it wasn't.

:01:24. > :01:29.Can the Prime Minister tell the House today what is Government is

:01:29. > :01:34.doing to analyse the effect of the welfare re reform and how he will

:01:34. > :01:39.react to it? As I said many times, I'm always happy to look at

:01:39. > :01:42.individual casings, but the fact is, we badly need to have welfare

:01:42. > :01:48.reform, the system was completely out of control. Housing Benefit was

:01:48. > :01:53.out of control. DLA had gone up by over a third. We need reforms and

:01:53. > :01:57.it's no good the Shadow Chancellor gesticulating. He now is in favour

:01:57. > :02:07.apparently of welfare reform. The only problem is that he opposed all

:02:07. > :02:13.

:02:13. > :02:16.86 billion of the reforms that we'd made. Engineering work is under way

:02:17. > :02:21.to finance Swindon. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it's a

:02:21. > :02:23.good example of Spencible investment in infrastructure leading to

:02:23. > :02:27.economic growth for Gloucestershire? My right honourable friend is

:02:27. > :02:30.absolutely right. Investing particularly in some of the branch

:02:31. > :02:34.lines, single track lines like some of the ones that serve my

:02:34. > :02:38.constituency and turning them into double, makes the service far better

:02:38. > :02:48.and we can get more people on trains and out of cars and use the service

:02:48. > :02:52.

:02:52. > :02:56.like that. What I said to the honourable gentleman is that he

:02:56. > :03:00.needs to examine again this relationship between the unions and

:03:00. > :03:04.the Labour Party. That that's the problem. They do this, yes, they

:03:05. > :03:14.give you the money, they buy the votes, they buy the leader. That's

:03:15. > :03:17.

:03:17. > :03:22.how it works.let oo Prime Minister's Questions comes to an end. It was a

:03:22. > :03:30.noisy rum bustious PMQs. Hasn't been that noisy for a while. It was all

:03:30. > :03:34.about party funding in the exchanges between the two frontbenches. Mr

:03:34. > :03:37.Miliband depicted Mr Cameron as being financed by millionaires and

:03:38. > :03:43.hedge fund magistratements and Mr Cameron depicting Mr Miliband as

:03:43. > :03:53.being in the pockets of the union leaders as some things never change

:03:53. > :04:03.

:04:03. > :04:11.in British politics. This is one of scaring the people into voting for

:04:11. > :04:14.them. Dave, you have UKIP breathing down your neck. Jill said, as usual

:04:14. > :04:22.they accused each other of being corrupt. The sad part is they are

:04:22. > :04:26.both probably right. Helen said Ed's predictable today. Amazing how he

:04:26. > :04:30.wants to change the debate when they are trying to fix the candidate

:04:30. > :04:36.voting system. They must think we were all born yesterday. Isabel

:04:36. > :04:46.says, "It's giving me a sore head listening to the constant shouting.

:04:46. > :04:46.

:04:46. > :04:52.They're like children in the playground." Class wear fair never

:04:52. > :04:59.dies in this country, does it, Nick? I just sometimes wonder whether this

:04:59. > :05:03.argument about process not about how to build homes or grow the economy

:05:03. > :05:08.or make society fairer, whether it doesn't just go over the heads of a

:05:08. > :05:12.lot of people? The other thing it may do is convince people to say

:05:12. > :05:17.well they are all as bad as each other and they're all corrupt in

:05:17. > :05:21.some way. Labour did to David Cameron what the Tory backbenchers

:05:21. > :05:24.had done last week to Ed Miliband. They were organised and they all

:05:24. > :05:28.this questions about hedge funds who had been to dinner at Downing Street

:05:28. > :05:33.and given a lot of money. Last week it was all about Unite. What is the

:05:33. > :05:37.impression? Remember, largely because we no longer have a Lib Dem

:05:37. > :05:43.voice, the leader was able to pop up and he would have been able to

:05:43. > :05:47.playing on both your houses. The result was you just get this wall of

:05:47. > :05:52.noise and it's worth saying to viewers watching, they may think why

:05:52. > :05:57.does the speaker keep popping up. You honestly wouldn't be able to

:05:57. > :06:01.hear them in there. It's because the microphones are directional and they

:06:01. > :06:04.are programmed to get the sound close to the speaker and you need to

:06:04. > :06:08.get a sense of quite how noisy it is, but as you say, we have the

:06:08. > :06:11.claim on the one hand from Labour, they are the people's party against

:06:11. > :06:15.the party of privilege and the claim from the Conservative Party that

:06:16. > :06:21.Labour have been bought lock, stock and block vote as the Prime Minister

:06:21. > :06:27.put it by the unions. The funny thing is that report I mentioned

:06:27. > :06:32.before, Sir Christopher Kelly, they posed a cap on donations, agreed by

:06:32. > :06:36.all party leaders. The argument is about the level. He says 50 K a year

:06:36. > :06:40.and Ed says five. He also said that was only possible if Labour moved

:06:40. > :06:43.way from a system that they have, exactly what Ed Miliband announced

:06:44. > :06:47.he intended to do yesterday. The people are automatically signing up

:06:47. > :06:52.to the Labour Party. If you came down from Mars and you read the

:06:52. > :06:56.report and you would think there was the makings of a deal. There was a

:06:56. > :06:59.five between five and 50, but there should be a deal. That gives you the

:06:59. > :07:09.impression there is not the slightest chance. The Prime

:07:09. > :07:12.

:07:12. > :07:16.Minister's claim is that whereas that union donations by influence --

:07:16. > :07:22.buy influence, that rich folks' donations buy no influence on policy

:07:22. > :07:25.on the Conservatives. Is that really credible? People who make major

:07:25. > :07:28.donations to the Conservative Party wine and dine regularly with

:07:28. > :07:33.Conservative leaders and Cabinet ministers. They have special dinners

:07:33. > :07:40.at party conferences, where all the Tory leaders turn up and they see

:07:40. > :07:46.them regularly. Are we really meant to believe that all of that social

:07:46. > :07:49.meeting that follows major donations has no influence at all? He was

:07:49. > :07:56.drawing the contrast between formal influence, where there is a formal

:07:56. > :07:59.input over the policy process, which is what happens to the Labour Party.

:07:59. > :08:03.Ed Miliband wouldn't be there and what happens when someone makes a

:08:03. > :08:08.donation to the Conservative Party, they can seek to influence, but in

:08:08. > :08:14.the end it's transparent and they have no formal say over policy.

:08:14. > :08:19.unions are transparent too. There are plenty of people who have

:08:19. > :08:22.expressed dissatisfaction with the policies. Plenty of individuals have

:08:23. > :08:27.expressed that. Doesn't it pass the smell test for ordinary viewers if

:08:27. > :08:32.you give a couple of million to the Conservative Party and then that

:08:32. > :08:36.gets you all sorts of access to social occasions and even working

:08:36. > :08:39.dinners with leaders of the Conservative Party that the

:08:39. > :08:45.Conservatives are not in anyway influenced by these people? That's

:08:45. > :08:49.why there needs to be a cap on donations. Nick is right, that has

:08:49. > :08:53.been agreed. They do have an influence? Of course, and it would

:08:53. > :08:58.be better to have a cap. The Prime Minister is wrong when he says they

:08:58. > :09:02.don't have an influence? I think it's just playing with words. What

:09:02. > :09:06.we need to have is confidence in the system. There should be a cap. I go

:09:06. > :09:11.back to the fact that as the former General Secretary of the Labour

:09:11. > :09:14.Party admitted in his book, the talks collapsed or were collapsed by

:09:15. > :09:18.Labour, because they wouldn't move on union funding. The view that was

:09:18. > :09:22.taken by the others at the time is you can't have a cap on donations

:09:22. > :09:26.and yet allow millions of pounds to flow through from the unions to the

:09:26. > :09:30.Labour Party. If the Labour Party will agree that not just the

:09:30. > :09:34.affiliation fee but the political fund as well is covered by all of

:09:34. > :09:38.this, that people should have to opt into political fund too, then yes,

:09:38. > :09:41.of course, we can go back to the position and talk about a cap. That

:09:41. > :09:45.would be better. There is transparency on donations. People

:09:45. > :09:54.can look to see who is donating. They don't have an influence over

:09:54. > :10:01.the formal policy. They don't. What about Adrian Beacroft. He lobbied

:10:01. > :10:09.David Cameron on workers' rights and got to write a report on it and the

:10:09. > :10:12.document became Government poll -- policy. What about JCB. They've

:10:12. > :10:18.lobbied on various matters and commissioned a report by the Prime

:10:18. > :10:22.Minister on industrial policy. They have bought direct access to the

:10:22. > :10:25.Conservative Party. The central recommendation of the report was

:10:25. > :10:29.rejected by the Government. Many others were accepted. It's a public

:10:30. > :10:33.report. You can judge the merits on it. Here was a businessman who

:10:33. > :10:40.advised on competitiveness. I cannot think of a better person than to

:10:40. > :10:46.advise on industrial policy than Sir Anthony Bamford who is leader of

:10:46. > :10:49.JCB. He is a word leader. Every single pound of his money is

:10:49. > :10:52.published and it's apparent and people can make their judgment. I go

:10:52. > :10:57.back to the fact, we are not disagreeing about the fact that

:10:57. > :11:00.there should be a cap. Why should it be? That is, as the Prime Minister

:11:00. > :11:05.said, a matter for discussion. It was the Labour Party who walked away

:11:05. > :11:09.because they refused to accept the fact that the unions would not be a

:11:09. > :11:13.part of it. That is where the focus should lie. The unions now seem to

:11:13. > :11:18.be a part of it. The point though that the Prime Minister made is

:11:18. > :11:21.probably correct, isn't it, Hilary Benn, that if you go down to a

:11:21. > :11:26.donation as low as 5,000 being the cap in the end the taxpayer will

:11:26. > :11:29.have to stump in and finance your parties? I don't think there's a

:11:29. > :11:35.public appetite for that. No.For reasons I think all of us

:11:35. > :11:42.understand. Look, the Prime Minister was - The last report, I'm sorry to

:11:42. > :11:48.interrupt, but the last report did say that if you went to a cap double

:11:48. > :11:54.that, �10,000, every Westminster vote would then get �3 given by the

:11:54. > :11:57.taxpayer to political parties and therefore a euro election vote would

:11:57. > :12:02.get �1. 50 as a piece of information. Sure. Look, I think

:12:02. > :12:06.what the public wants, they want to rereform of the system and the fact

:12:06. > :12:09.that why did the head funds get a large tax cut in the budget? The

:12:09. > :12:13.Prime Minister couldn't answer that. He wasn't prepared to say what he

:12:13. > :12:19.will do in answer to Ed Miliband on a cap on donations and we have

:12:19. > :12:26.moved, as you've acknowledged, and that is what Ed did. Because you've

:12:27. > :12:30.had to. You refused to talk before because you didn't want the unions

:12:30. > :12:34.to be affected. You've oenT moved because you had to, because of the

:12:34. > :12:37.scandal of Unite trying to buy influence in the party in not just

:12:37. > :12:42.one Parliamentary selection, but 40 of them and you still haven't

:12:42. > :12:47.answered questions about that. the case. - You have a Unite

:12:47. > :12:52.official leading the inquiry. case has been referred to the

:12:52. > :12:57.police. A crisis arose and what Ed decided to do was lead from the

:12:57. > :13:01.front and make a profound change, which everybody has acknowledged.

:13:01. > :13:06.The Prime Minister wouldn't answer on paid directorships and the like.

:13:06. > :13:09.Nick, you know, see the grainy footage that we've been suspected to

:13:09. > :13:12.as members of Parliament have been discussing how much they might

:13:12. > :13:17.charge in response to businesses that approach them. The fact is that

:13:17. > :13:20.shouldn't have a place in Parliament, which is why Ed Miliband

:13:20. > :13:27.said today that they shouldn't be allowed. What is the Prime

:13:27. > :13:35.Minister's position and yours on that? Quick response. I don't know.

:13:35. > :13:41.Blunket, Straw, Brown, who are the biggest earners outside the --

:13:42. > :13:48.blunket, Straw, Brown, who are the biggest earners outside the party.

:13:48. > :13:51.The danger here is the sum of the proposals will lead to the wholesale

:13:51. > :13:55.professionalisation of the parties, where there is no outside interests.

:13:55. > :13:58.If you are a minister you give all up, but there is quite a big

:13:58. > :14:02.question whether for instance you are a director of a family company,

:14:02. > :14:06.or whether you are a solicitor, if you have some outside experience or

:14:06. > :14:10.interest, whether you should not be allowed to have that at all. I

:14:10. > :14:15.wonder if that's whether the public want that. I agree.You are putting

:14:15. > :14:23.this down as a smokescreen to deflect. I'm not talking about

:14:23. > :14:28.experience. It's people because they've been elected as a MP. -- an

:14:28. > :14:32.MP. I'm talking about new ones. No ones that they bring in. If they've

:14:32. > :14:37.founded a family firm, it's different. It's people who are

:14:37. > :14:46.approached once elected to come on the boards and what Ed Miliband is

:14:46. > :14:50.saying it's stopping now. I need to hear from Nick Robinson. I do

:14:50. > :14:53.sometimes despair. The one view I'm allowed to have as BBC political

:14:53. > :14:58.editor I believe in politics. I think it's a good thing. The slight

:14:58. > :15:01.feeling of despair I have to say that I have today is that with a

:15:01. > :15:05.recommended pay rise for MPs tomorrow, being made not by them,

:15:05. > :15:11.but being made by aned pent body, it will be less than �10,000 a year,

:15:11. > :15:14.but it will seem like a fortune to many watching this. There is not a

:15:14. > :15:17.lot these guys can do about it. They would have to overturn that. But

:15:17. > :15:22.with that, with Labour saying the Tories are corrupt as they take

:15:22. > :15:25.money from the rich and the Tories say their corrupt with the unions

:15:25. > :15:29.and now we are talking second earnings. I have a horrible feeling

:15:29. > :15:35.that the only impact on most people will be to say a playing on all of

:15:35. > :15:39.you and we don't trust any of you. The increase will be vast and it

:15:39. > :15:42.won't compensate people for some change to outside earnings, so

:15:42. > :15:46.simultaneously, members of the public will be outraged and members

:15:46. > :15:56.of Parliament will feel they are now in danger of earning less than they

:15:56. > :16:00.

:16:00. > :16:02.ever did. It's a self-generated and ever did. It's a self-generated and

:16:02. > :16:05.very painful political story. Hilton, one of the Prime Minister's

:16:05. > :16:10.senior advisers reportedly said British bureaucracy masters the

:16:10. > :16:13.politicians. It's not unusual to hear ministers complain the Civil

:16:13. > :16:18.Service machine is not up to the job. There are plans for a big

:16:18. > :16:25.shake-up of the way Whitehall has been working. Francis Maude spoke

:16:25. > :16:31.earlier. We think the current system where we have an impartial Civil

:16:31. > :16:35.Service capable of serving any Government with equal enthusiasm and

:16:35. > :16:40.dedication and passion and commitment is a very important part

:16:40. > :16:44.of how Britain can be made to be really successful and win in the

:16:44. > :16:49.global race. But actually, it whats to be the case that ministers need

:16:49. > :16:58.to feel that their offices are their offices, not the department's office

:16:58. > :17:01.and that's the change that will will be put in place. You said one thing

:17:01. > :17:05.you discovered is that civil servants don't work for you. Is it

:17:05. > :17:08.really that bad a problem? Imagine you were asked to do a job, say that

:17:08. > :17:11.you were asked to be chairman of a company but none of the people in

:17:11. > :17:14.the company worked for you, you can't vary or alter their pay

:17:15. > :17:19.according to performance, the Chief Executive doesn't actually work for

:17:19. > :17:24.you, would you take the job? Nobody would. That's what we ask ministers

:17:24. > :17:28.to do. Real questions now do arise about accountability. I strongly

:17:28. > :17:31.welcome what the Government has announced today, which I think is a

:17:31. > :17:35.sensible step forward that enhances the accountability of a system of

:17:35. > :17:40.the permanent Civil Service, for instance by saying that the

:17:40. > :17:44.Permanent Secretaries should not suffer a long-term more than five

:17:44. > :17:47.years and allows ministers to have extended offices to bring in people

:17:47. > :17:52.and make use of civil servants as well with real policy expertise.

:17:52. > :17:55.That happens in other Parliamenty democracies. It was recommended by

:17:55. > :18:00.the IPPR, it has been endorsed by the Institute for Government and I

:18:00. > :18:04.think it's a very good foreword to make sure that it's equal to the

:18:04. > :18:09.task of delivering a modern Government. Will it make civil

:18:09. > :18:13.servants equal to the task? Obviously, Whitehall's been painted

:18:13. > :18:18.as this independent institution that puts into place Government policy.

:18:18. > :18:20.Is the Government in danger of blurring that line, or is it the

:18:20. > :18:25.pragmatic way forward? You have to make sure there are proper

:18:25. > :18:28.safeguards and the fact that we have it independent. We haven't got the

:18:28. > :18:31.American system. You get a President elect and everybody goes and there's

:18:31. > :18:36.chaos for three months while confirmations take place. I've been

:18:36. > :18:39.a Cabinet Minister for seven years, and in the end, you are the person

:18:39. > :18:44.responsible and it's important that the people you are working with are

:18:44. > :18:49.properly accountable to you. That's about the clarity you give, the

:18:49. > :18:58.extent to which you are on top of the job. When I reflect to my time

:18:58. > :19:04.as deputy council lead leader, we took part in electing electing ours.

:19:04. > :19:09.I think it's fair, frankly, that Secretary of States should be able

:19:09. > :19:13.to bring in other outside expertise to assist them. We have seen that

:19:13. > :19:17.under both Governments. You get specialist advise advisers

:19:17. > :19:21.recognising that we are politicians, as well as holders of the office of

:19:21. > :19:24.state and we come with a particular perspective and view and it's

:19:24. > :19:30.important that that's reflected in the decisions that the Government

:19:30. > :19:35.makes. That sounds like consensus for it, at least certainly the

:19:35. > :19:40.direction ofle - travel. You have a group of people hand picked by the

:19:40. > :19:44.minister, one of you two, whose job will depend on that minister, to

:19:45. > :19:47.some extent staying in office. That will become more political? There is

:19:47. > :19:51.an emerging consensus but the reforms are sensible. What we are

:19:51. > :19:54.not talking about is hugely increasing the number of political

:19:54. > :19:59.advisers. Are you sure that just won't happen as a consequence

:19:59. > :20:06.though? There 'll be loads more paid special advisers? But I think what

:20:06. > :20:09.the proposal is talking about, people of expertise, there is a

:20:09. > :20:13.desire to bring in people of calibre and experience and expertise and to

:20:13. > :20:17.make use of them from within the existing Civil Service. That happens

:20:17. > :20:22.in other comparable systems. If you look at the support that a minister

:20:22. > :20:26.in Australia or Canada receives, it's far greater. They have much

:20:26. > :20:30.bigger offices than our own ministers who're under supported and

:20:30. > :20:36.I don't think the system is sufficient to do what we now need to

:20:36. > :20:40.do. We need a different kind of Civil Service today. If it's about

:20:40. > :20:44.winning the global race, we need a better skilled Civil Service with

:20:44. > :20:48.very strong commissioning skills. We have seen failures with things like

:20:48. > :20:53.the West Coast Mainline, so there needs to be a shake-up. Do you think

:20:53. > :20:58.that civil servants should be made for publicly accountable? I think

:20:58. > :21:01.the accountability arrangements are unsatisfactory because ultimately,

:21:01. > :21:05.ministers are accountable for everything. Because they can't be

:21:05. > :21:08.accountable for the minutiae, the reality is that nobody is

:21:08. > :21:13.accountable. In the West Coast Mainline, it wasn't just the

:21:13. > :21:17.minutiae, there was the sense that ministers were perhaps blaming civil

:21:17. > :21:23.Searle have beens -- civil servants. Is that a case of ministers saying,

:21:23. > :21:27.I'm covering my back here? I don't think you can have a working

:21:27. > :21:31.relationship if you are going to blame the civil servant colleagues.

:21:31. > :21:35.Your job is to take responsibility. That's what happened here? ! I take

:21:35. > :21:40.the blame for everything. You have to be on top of staff, but it's

:21:40. > :21:45.right and proper that, as Cabinet Ministers, you are able to call in

:21:45. > :21:50.other expertise and support to help you through. Nike's -- Nick's

:21:50. > :21:55.thought about this. It's a typically pragmatic British compromise.

:21:55. > :21:59.fudge? Well, no, it's not a fudge. It is after all, special adviser

:21:59. > :22:08.were created as a body and it recognised, we bring politics, views

:22:09. > :22:12.and values into our job. You could have a French system of an interim?

:22:12. > :22:16.It'sle an extended ministerial office because there should be

:22:16. > :22:20.guards built around it, I agree. But it works well in other Commonwealth

:22:20. > :22:25.countries. The secretary has to be someone you have confidence in.

:22:25. > :22:28.you should select? I certainly took a decision about who would be a

:22:28. > :22:33.private secretary because it's about a working relationship, not about

:22:33. > :22:40.politics. I remember that bit of France from

:22:40. > :22:43.my science class. Here is a test for you, name we once

:22:43. > :22:48.Great British institution which hasn't fallen from grace in recent

:22:48. > :22:51.years? Not even the dear old BBC. It's been through the ringer whosmt

:22:51. > :23:01.will be the next focus of public derision. Ross Clarke's got his soap

:23:01. > :23:16.

:23:16. > :23:20.backs to argue that it's time we put We've done bankers, politicians and

:23:20. > :23:25.even journalists. But what about the one group of professionals which has

:23:25. > :23:30.never been reformed? Lawyers. Even the coalition's attempts to tripe a

:23:30. > :23:39.mere 10% from the hideous legal aid budget has run into the sand. As for

:23:39. > :23:44.the chronic overcharging on nonlegal aid cases, it goings on -- goes on,

:23:44. > :23:47.unabated. Critics of legal aid reforms like to damn the idea of

:23:47. > :23:52.cheaper legal services as Tesco justice, but the reality is that

:23:52. > :24:00.legal costs are spiralling out of control. Even a junior counsel in

:24:00. > :24:05.the Leveson Inquiry was paid �218,000 for a few months' work.

:24:05. > :24:09.To use the courts, you need to be either very rich or very poor. If

:24:09. > :24:13.you are very rich, you can behave like Robert Maxwell, threatening

:24:13. > :24:17.anybody who crosses you with ruinous legal costs. If you are very poor,

:24:17. > :24:24.you might qualify for legal aid, if which case the taxpayer picks up the

:24:24. > :24:28.tab. But I have an idea of how we could create a level playing field.

:24:28. > :24:32.Why not allow anybody involved in a court case to set a cap on the cost

:24:32. > :24:35.which they will claim from the other side in the event of them whipping.

:24:35. > :24:41.The cap could work both ways and serve as a limit on the costs which

:24:41. > :24:47.the other side can claim from you in the event of you losing.

:24:47. > :24:54.-- winning. Wealthy litigants could still pay for fancy law, but they

:24:54. > :24:58.wouldn't be able to frighten their poor opponents into submission.

:24:58. > :25:04.Go into court and it's not cheap, but there's no reason why it should

:25:04. > :25:07.have to cost you your shirt or even your house.

:25:07. > :25:12.Ross Clarke joins us now. Do you think any Government of the left or

:25:12. > :25:19.the right will ever take that on? The big problem is the House of

:25:19. > :25:23.Commons is stuffed with lawyers. This is true. When see set out to

:25:23. > :25:27.reform education, you don't put a teacher in charge. You don't put a

:25:27. > :25:31.doctor in charge of reforming the NHS. An attempt at legal reform, we

:25:31. > :25:36.always sealp to get a lawyer to do it. It's a difficult one to get

:25:36. > :25:40.progress? For that very reason, yes, the vested interests. Hilary Benn,

:25:40. > :25:43.if you look at the, never mind the public sector, take the private

:25:43. > :25:49.sector, look at the huge changes blue collar workers have gone

:25:49. > :25:55.through in the car industry, in the newspaper industry, in broadcasting,

:25:55. > :26:00.all of them are bywords for restrictive practice and overmanning

:26:01. > :26:05.and inefficiency. All gone, all state-of-the-art doing all these

:26:05. > :26:11.things now. Yet, the white-collar professions are still mired in the

:26:11. > :26:16.restrictive practices of overmanning and absurd costs. Why? I think Ross

:26:16. > :26:20.has a point. One of the last things we did when in Government was to

:26:20. > :26:27.reduce the criminal legal aid fees that could be charged and there was

:26:28. > :26:31.quite... Outcry.Indeed. The introduck shufr of no-win no-fee was

:26:31. > :26:38.in part an attempt - we strengthened it - the previous Government began

:26:38. > :26:42.the change. But in an attempt to enable people to get access to law.

:26:42. > :26:46.You make a very fair point. If you are talking about access to civil

:26:46. > :26:49.justice, it's either the very rich and before some of the changes the

:26:49. > :26:52.current Government's made, or those on very low income who is 'ed have

:26:52. > :26:59.the opportunity and for most of the rest of the country tlfrksn't any

:26:59. > :27:04.access to justice. Look at the outcry. Mr Grayling suggested some

:27:04. > :27:07.people may regard things as modest reforms. Huge outcry, after

:27:08. > :27:13.listening to well-spoken judges saying it's the end of life as they

:27:13. > :27:20.know it and he's had to Iran back already? The criminal legal aid

:27:20. > :27:27.system is too expensive. If you look at comparable systems of legal aid.

:27:27. > :27:30.Our system is twice as expensive as New Zealand. I think in n all the

:27:30. > :27:33.reforms you have to separate what's in the public interest and in the

:27:33. > :27:37.producer interest and those are not necessarily the same thing. So you

:27:37. > :27:42.have to separate out when lawyers are saying this is all appalling and

:27:42. > :27:47.so on, actually is that an access to justice argument, whether it's right

:27:47. > :27:51.to protect access to justice or is it about defending a particular way

:27:51. > :27:55.you are working. Medicine is a classic example. If you capitulate

:27:55. > :28:00.too much to that producer interest, you, as happened in the previous

:28:00. > :28:03.Government in relation to the GP contract, then what happens is the

:28:03. > :28:08.patient interest suffers. If the Labour Party supports the

:28:08. > :28:11.Government, it would be good, on the legal aid reforms. Ross, this sounds

:28:11. > :28:16.a tough mountain to climb. Are you going to continue your campaign?

:28:16. > :28:20.shall do, yes. I'm amused by the idea the High Court judges slam any

:28:20. > :28:23.reform as Tesco justice, but I'm sure that the point of Tesco and

:28:23. > :28:26.other supermarkets is, they come up with this brilliant compromise

:28:26. > :28:29.between quality and price and the law seems to think it should be

:28:29. > :28:34.immune from that. Ross, we'll leave it there. Keep us

:28:34. > :28:40.posted. What was the year? I'm going to tell you. Time to put you out of

:28:40. > :28:48.your misery. The year was 1951. We need to have a winner. Press the

:28:48. > :28:53.red button, Nick, Hilary, anyone! Even a lawyer could do it.