:00:46. > :00:50.Daily Politics. Don't expect it to go down a storm. MPs have been
:00:50. > :00:53.falling over each other do say they don't want it. The regulator in
:00:53. > :01:01.charge of their paces they should get a rise of about ten grand a
:01:01. > :01:04.year. Ian Kennedy, the regulator, says refusing the increase could
:01:04. > :01:09.create another expenses style scandal. We sent Giles out with his
:01:09. > :01:12.moodbox to get your views. They don't do nothing. They promised
:01:12. > :01:16.us everything. They say they are going to do this and that, and then
:01:16. > :01:23.they make it worse. The Communities Secretary will tell
:01:23. > :01:27.us why all immigrants should learn English.
:01:27. > :01:34.And we will be taking a look at the man all politicians fear. The
:01:34. > :01:43.loudest man in Westminster. No, it's not Andrew Neil!
:01:43. > :01:45.It is debatable. All of that in the next hour. With us is Labour MP and
:01:45. > :01:50.chair of the Public Accounts Committee, one of the most powerful
:01:50. > :01:55.in Parliament, Margaret Hodge. Welcome. Let's talk first about the
:01:55. > :01:58.warning that the NHS faces a �30 billion funding gap by the end of
:01:58. > :02:04.the decade if current spending levels are maintained. The
:02:04. > :02:12.solution? Mass hospital closures and the creation of huge GP centres. You
:02:12. > :02:16.would think he would have told us all of that before he left? Indeed.
:02:16. > :02:21.I accept the analysis. We have been looking at NHS finances over the
:02:21. > :02:24.past few years. I've always said the most fragile of our public services
:02:24. > :02:28.is the NHS. Whatever the government said about giving it the same amount
:02:28. > :02:36.of money, which is questionable, I think people think they have had
:02:36. > :02:46.less. Every year since the NHS was funded -- founded, there's been a 4%
:02:46. > :02:48.
:02:48. > :02:53.increase in its expenditure. What is really the point is that if we carry
:02:53. > :03:00.on at this budget level and those changes in medicine, there's going
:03:00. > :03:06.to be a gap. Doesn't this mean that if it is decided that in Britain,
:03:06. > :03:10.the state has to make up the �30 billion gap down the political
:03:10. > :03:15.parties, in their own ways or together, need to sit down and work,
:03:15. > :03:22.what is the state not going to do now so that we can afford the 30
:03:22. > :03:30.billion we believe the state should up the NHS by? I don't think we have
:03:30. > :03:33.got to that point yet. Let me go through. I think the reorganisation
:03:33. > :03:36.has been a waste of money. We could have saved billions by not doing
:03:36. > :03:45.that. It doesn't address the pub of funding. Secondly, what does he talk
:03:45. > :03:47.about? He talks about putting much more money into prevention rather
:03:47. > :03:50.than acute services. I couldn't agree more. We looked the other day
:03:50. > :03:56.at diabetes. If everybody who had diabetes had the checks they need to
:03:56. > :04:02.make sure that the heart and cholesterol was all right, if they
:04:02. > :04:06.had that, you would save 20,000, I think the figure was, 20,000 lives
:04:06. > :04:12.per year, and you would stop people from getting the conditions they get
:04:12. > :04:20.from it not being treated. So, early intervention, I agree. No other
:04:20. > :04:24.meant as ever done it. -- no government. When you look at the
:04:24. > :04:29.NHS, the only way they have managed to get the efficiencies they have so
:04:29. > :04:35.far is by freezing pay. That's not sustainable over time. You need
:04:35. > :04:42.efficiencies. If they bought more cleverly, they would save billions.
:04:42. > :04:47.We found that in looking at something like 60 trusts, we found
:04:47. > :04:53.there were hundreds of different gloves that were being bought,
:04:53. > :04:59.hundreds of different kinds of paper. So, cleverer procurement
:04:59. > :05:06.could save millions. Then you go to... I have got to stop you. Thank
:05:06. > :05:12.you for that. It's time for our daily quiz. The
:05:12. > :05:14.question is what our Conservative MPs planning to do at next week 's
:05:14. > :05:24.PMQs to protest against John Bercow? The mind boggles. Not turn
:05:24. > :05:26.
:05:26. > :05:33.up? Wear a badge? Defaces coat of arms? Or tweet about his wife? At
:05:33. > :05:38.the end of the show, Margaret will give us the correct answer.
:05:38. > :05:44.You've got an innocent face? ! Should MPs get more money? Don't all
:05:44. > :05:52.shot that once! -- don't all shout. Independent Parliamentary Standards
:05:52. > :05:57.Authority things they should. It's things a backbencher 's page
:05:57. > :06:03.and rise from just over �66,000 per year to �74,000. -- Independent
:06:03. > :06:06.Parliamentary Standards Authority thinks. An 11% increase. It would be
:06:06. > :06:12.controversial at any time, but especially when public page rises
:06:12. > :06:17.are capped. MPs used to be able to vote down any proposed pay rises
:06:17. > :06:22.that proved unpopular with the public. That will be all of them,
:06:22. > :06:27.then. Following the expenses scandal, Independent Parliamentary
:06:27. > :06:30.Standards Authority took over how to set pay. They say that pay has
:06:31. > :06:35.fallen behind other top jobs and they get less than civil servants,
:06:35. > :06:40.police and headteachers. They also paid less than representatives in
:06:40. > :06:45.France, Germany, the US and Japan. The package does include some
:06:45. > :06:51.significant savings. It includes an end to golden goodbyes for MPs
:06:51. > :06:59.losing their seats. The �15 even in meal allowance for late sittings
:06:59. > :07:04.will also go. -- evening meal. But it's likely to be the rate --
:07:04. > :07:08.writing the basic salary that will be the focus of public attention and
:07:08. > :07:11.leaves Westminster in a tight spot. We wanted to gauge public opinion in
:07:11. > :07:17.the most scientific way possible. As it wasn't possible, we dispatched
:07:17. > :07:21.Giles with the moodbox. Should MPs get a pay rise? Maybe
:07:21. > :07:25.they will have one imposed upon them. What do the public think about
:07:25. > :07:35.that? We can guess the answer, but you never can tell with these
:07:35. > :07:54.
:07:54. > :08:04.No pay rise. Why not? I don't think it's necessary when there's loads of
:08:04. > :08:11.
:08:11. > :08:16.people who are already struggling to for it.
:08:16. > :08:25.I thought we might get a bit of that. They should get a pay rise
:08:25. > :08:27.because you want people of high calibre and quality. Why do you
:08:27. > :08:31.think that's a reasonable? You've got to attract talent. Plus, you
:08:31. > :08:38.want to make sure they are not looking for alternative methods of
:08:38. > :08:42.income. I think there are more people voting
:08:42. > :08:48.yes than I thought. Maybe because people who work in Parliament are
:08:48. > :08:54.walking past. Why absolutely not? Most of us haven't had a pay rise
:08:54. > :08:58.for three years. They have made cuts to people with disabilities and
:08:58. > :09:03.everybody else is struggling. We are supposed to be in it together.
:09:03. > :09:07.more a gut instinct. There's something to be said for them being
:09:07. > :09:12.paid enough for them not to do anything corrupt. Ultimately, at the
:09:12. > :09:15.moment, they haven't done enough to deserve it. I know I won't make many
:09:15. > :09:19.friends, but if this is what Independent Parliamentary Standards
:09:19. > :09:23.Authority once, this is what everybody should get. Brave man.
:09:23. > :09:33.At the end of the day, they promise of everything, they say they are
:09:33. > :09:39.
:09:39. > :09:44.going to do this and that, and when came out on top. No to a pay rise.
:09:44. > :09:51.There were some arguments. But this moodbox is very clear. No, you don't
:09:51. > :09:57.get a pay rise, MPs. Those are the views of the great
:09:57. > :10:01.British public. At least, some of them. Earlier, the head of the
:10:01. > :10:04.Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had this to say.
:10:04. > :10:08.Body after body, organisation after organisation, over the past 15
:10:08. > :10:15.years, has recommended that there should be appropriate pay rises for
:10:15. > :10:24.MPs. Governments of the day have not followed those and looked -- not
:10:24. > :10:27.implement them. They chose always to say that there is a good political
:10:27. > :10:33.reason why they shouldn't, and at the same time, of course, we know
:10:33. > :10:37.what happened - allowances grew and grew, came more bloated. That ended
:10:37. > :10:44.in tears in 2009. Enter Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority,
:10:44. > :10:49.with a remit to put things right. are joined by a businessman who was
:10:49. > :10:55.a board member. Michael Brown used to be a Conservative MP. Margaret
:10:55. > :11:03.Hodge is still with us. Michael Brown is our most loyal viewer. In
:11:03. > :11:08.fact, he's our only loyal viewer. There's never a good time to
:11:08. > :11:13.introduce a pay rise for MPs, is that? No, but this is a bad time.
:11:13. > :11:20.It's such a difficult issue. At when you ask all public servants to take
:11:20. > :11:25.a 1% pay increase, it just seems inappropriate. -- but when you ask.
:11:25. > :11:29.But it's a difficult issue. It's difficult to have a grown-up debate
:11:29. > :11:34.on what we should get paid, how we should get selected, how political
:11:34. > :11:38.parties should be funded. That whole process and the way in which we run
:11:38. > :11:45.our politics, which is hugely important for society... You should
:11:45. > :11:50.have done it in the era of no more boom and bust. Remember that?
:11:50. > :11:55.always better in the past. I know, I know. But these are such hard times.
:11:55. > :12:00.I think it's difficult. This pay rise doesn't come in until after the
:12:00. > :12:05.next election, meaning the election will be partly people like me asking
:12:05. > :12:09.MPs or people standing for election, if elected, will you
:12:09. > :12:18.accept the pay rise? The people who say yes, the local paper we go for
:12:18. > :12:23.them. People will feel obliged to say no. It is a nonsense time.
:12:23. > :12:27.real issue is there is never a good time. Look at what's happening this
:12:27. > :12:32.time. The public is being consulted. The document today is a
:12:32. > :12:39.consultation, not a decision. If the vast majority of the public have an
:12:39. > :12:41.Aga and for not increasing MPs' pay. -- an argument for not increasing
:12:42. > :12:50.MPs' pay, I am sure the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
:12:50. > :12:54.will have something to say to that. If people were told what MPs did,
:12:54. > :12:58.they thought they should get paid more. If the public are educated in
:12:58. > :13:04.the issues, which is what this paper does, I think they will come to the
:13:04. > :13:11.right conclusion. That they should get a pay rise? They will come to
:13:11. > :13:18.the right conclusion. It is the wisdom of crowds. No, it's
:13:18. > :13:24.democracy. Democracy doesn't mean the right conclusion, it means a
:13:25. > :13:32.democratic conclusion. They answer the severally the same thing. -- the
:13:32. > :13:41.aren't necessarily the same thing. Margaret Hodge is saying we are into
:13:41. > :13:46.the third year of a 1% pay rise freeze. If you are in the private
:13:46. > :13:50.sector, average pay rises in the private sector are about 1% as well.
:13:50. > :13:58.So you must have a whole package, not just pay. One of the biggest
:13:58. > :14:03.problems was the so-called gold-plated MPs' pensions. It would
:14:03. > :14:08.be unfair to say we are going to take away your pension rights and
:14:08. > :14:17.not compensate you. The net result of these recommendations is that it
:14:18. > :14:27.is broadly neutral. I'm told it adds half a million overall. He is
:14:28. > :14:29.
:14:29. > :14:37.rounding. If you were standing for election and you asked them if
:14:37. > :14:47.elected, will you accept this 9% pay rise? What would your answer be?
:14:47. > :14:47.
:14:47. > :14:56.Yes. I was put in that position in almost every general election. When
:14:56. > :15:02.I got elected to Parliament in 1979, the salary was �6,700. When I sought
:15:02. > :15:06.pre-election in 1983, it had doubled �14,000. During that time, 20% of my
:15:06. > :15:11.constituents were made redundant. I had to bite the bullet. The reason I
:15:11. > :15:21.did that was because if you get into an auction, a member of Parliament
:15:21. > :15:26.
:15:26. > :15:34.being forced to say they will do it for less than another politician...
:15:34. > :15:38.Margaret is worth every penny. But seriously, the doctor in her
:15:38. > :15:41.constituency, the headmaster in her constituency, in one of the
:15:41. > :15:51.secondary schools, the borough commander of the police force, they
:15:51. > :15:53.
:15:53. > :15:57.are all paid 6-figure salaries. Margaret, are you standing in the
:15:57. > :16:01.next election? And will you accept the pay rise?
:16:01. > :16:05.This is where I agree with Michael. It is dangerous. Our leaders should
:16:05. > :16:12.not enter into a Dutch auction, because you end up with people
:16:12. > :16:18.putting themselves forward for 20,000. But you could afford to. I
:16:18. > :16:24.am in a lucky position. But then you end up with the rotten boroughs we
:16:24. > :16:31.had in the past. So would you take the pay rise? I would do what all
:16:31. > :16:40.MPs do. I don't want a Dutch auction between MPs. But your leader says he
:16:40. > :16:47.will not accept it. I don't agree with him or Cameron or Clegg.
:16:47. > :16:50.Cameron and Mr Clegg. The Right Honourable members. If David Cameron
:16:50. > :16:54.doesn't want this pay increase, he can do what Margaret Thatcher used
:16:54. > :16:59.to do and put legislation before the House of Commons and their members
:16:59. > :17:04.of Parliament to accept or reject it. Is there not a risk that
:17:04. > :17:09.political leaders like Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron will instruct their
:17:09. > :17:18.candidates not to accept the pay rise? I hope that doesn't arise. But
:17:18. > :17:21.is there a risk? Let's wait and see. At this point in time, we are never
:17:22. > :17:25.going to win. We did it ourselves, and everybody thought we did it
:17:25. > :17:35.badly. We set up an independent organisation over which we have no
:17:35. > :17:35.
:17:35. > :17:39.control. But I really think the Dutch auction point is so important.
:17:39. > :17:48.We don't want to end up with politics where you can choose what
:17:48. > :17:55.your salary is. We will come back to rotten boroughs. It is strange that
:17:55. > :18:00.the people regulating MPs' pay, and MPs earn �66,000 at the moment, Ian
:18:00. > :18:05.Kennedy gets �72,000 a year for a two-day week. How does that work?
:18:05. > :18:15.The director of communications on a never seems to communicate with
:18:15. > :18:17.
:18:17. > :18:25.anybody, we can't get him on the programme, is on 85,000. So a PR
:18:25. > :18:31.person gets way more than an MP. are not talking about the salaries
:18:31. > :18:39.of the regulators. That is a matter of public record. It fits with the
:18:39. > :18:45.market. Why do you need a director of communications? Because we have
:18:45. > :18:55.to deal with programmes like you. You don't. You are not with them any
:18:55. > :19:01.more. I happily came on this programme when I was with IPSA, and
:19:01. > :19:05.there is an enormous communication job to do with the public. I agree.
:19:05. > :19:10.There are question marks on why on earth we have such an expensive
:19:10. > :19:16.hobby. A lot of people feel unhappy about the cost of the regulator. It
:19:16. > :19:21.is less than it was before, and our accounts were not qualified by the
:19:21. > :19:26.National Audit Office. We have reduced pay a 7 million a year, so
:19:26. > :19:31.the costs are down. I will give you the final word. Remember, many
:19:32. > :19:36.members of Parliament don't do the job until the day of their
:19:36. > :19:44.retirement. They are retired by their voters. I hope Margaret is
:19:44. > :19:49.therefore ever. He is a big fan! But they are getting rid of the big
:19:49. > :19:59.redundancy payment. Do you agree with that? I got six months' pay
:19:59. > :20:03.when I got kicked out. Not as high as some of the BBC. If you want to
:20:03. > :20:07.encourage people into politics and you don't remunerate them, you will
:20:07. > :20:16.just get research assistants becoming MPs. Speaking of the BBC,
:20:16. > :20:22.that is what we are going to move on to. Seamless!
:20:22. > :20:24.Now, our guest of the day, Margaret Hodge, was busy laying into BBC
:20:24. > :20:31.bosses yesterday, metaphorically, when they gave evidence to the
:20:31. > :20:34.committee over severance pay. He was a flavour of that debate.
:20:34. > :20:41.Could you explain why, in your professional judgement, it was value
:20:41. > :20:44.for money to pay Roly Keating beyond his contractual term? Because if we
:20:44. > :20:48.didn't pay him money to go, you would stay. We would then be making
:20:48. > :20:55.him redundant when that will closed 12 months later, and therefore the
:20:55. > :21:03.cost would be, in addition to what we paid him, �500,000. But with all
:21:03. > :21:12.your experience, you have not come from an easy organisation, why did
:21:12. > :21:18.you not just put your foot down? are head of HR. The overwhelming
:21:18. > :21:28.focus was to get numbers out of the door as quickly as possible. But it
:21:28. > :21:30.
:21:30. > :21:34.is licence fee payers' money. It is our money. I understand that, and
:21:34. > :21:38.the BBC has accented many of the criticisms within the National Audit
:21:38. > :21:48.Office report that we were too generous. Culturally, as Lucy Adams
:21:48. > :21:56.and others have said, I think we lost the way. We got bedevilled by
:21:56. > :22:03.zeros on various salaries. One of the issues was that there was not
:22:03. > :22:10.enough grit at the centre of the organisation. There has not been a
:22:10. > :22:16.senior remuneration committee. Things were devolved. I will be
:22:16. > :22:20.bringing that back to a proper level at the heart of the organisation.
:22:20. > :22:25.We did ask someone from BBC management to come onto the show,
:22:25. > :22:30.but they declined. So we are delighted to have the media
:22:30. > :22:34.commentator Steve Hewlett with us. Before we come to you, Margaret
:22:34. > :22:39.Hodge, we saw you grappling with the senior executives. Overall, what was
:22:39. > :22:44.your impression as to why some senior BBC executives were given
:22:44. > :22:48.such high severance payments? I think there was just a cosy culture
:22:48. > :22:51.at the top. They had known each other all their working lives, and
:22:51. > :22:56.they rubbed each other's backs and thought somehow, they were
:22:56. > :23:00.entitled, although as I said on that clip, it is not their money, it is
:23:00. > :23:06.the licence fee payer's money. thought they were entitled to the
:23:06. > :23:09.biggest deal they could get, and it was outrageous. The most outrageous
:23:09. > :23:15.thing was probably G3 who got hundreds of thousands and then went
:23:15. > :23:21.straight out of the door into other well-paid jobs, and think they are
:23:21. > :23:27.entitled to it? Please! We will come back to the issue of the culture and
:23:27. > :23:31.how this sort of thing arose. want to come back to the issue of
:23:31. > :23:37.how severance payments were made beyond people's contracts. Not only
:23:37. > :23:41.were they high, but they went well beyond what was due. Mark Thompson,
:23:41. > :23:47.the former director-general, was the head of the BBC at the time. I
:23:47. > :23:50.understand you have his statement? do. There is no doubt that people's
:23:50. > :23:55.payments went beyond their entitlements. That has been
:23:55. > :24:00.established beyond doubt. In the most high-profile case, the deputy
:24:00. > :24:06.director general, Mark Byford, who was the one who departed with close
:24:06. > :24:13.to �1 million, they decided to make him redundant in October 2010. He
:24:13. > :24:17.then left in August 2011 and was then paid, in addition to his
:24:17. > :24:21.redundancy entitlement, he was paid for 12 months in lieu of notice. So
:24:21. > :24:26.the National Audit Office said Hang on, you decided to make him
:24:26. > :24:29.redundant in October. He then works for eight months and you pay him 12
:24:29. > :24:35.months' notice. Shouldn't you have started the notice period and the
:24:35. > :24:43.clock ticking? In other words, he gets 20 months' pay when he was only
:24:43. > :24:51.entitled to 12. How did that happen? The issue yesterday was, were the
:24:51. > :24:57.trust aware of what was going on? They claimed they did not know and
:24:57. > :25:00.that Mark Thompson had not informed them fully. They invited Margaret
:25:00. > :25:06.Hodge to ask Mark Thompson to come to the committee and spill all. When
:25:06. > :25:10.Margaret said, has Mark Thompson live? They said, we are not saying
:25:10. > :25:14.he has lied, but there is an inconsistency. Mark Thompson is now
:25:14. > :25:19.president of a big New York company, and he said today in a statement, I
:25:19. > :25:22.look forward to laying the facts in front of the committee. I would like
:25:22. > :25:27.to clear up firstly that the BBC trust was fully informed in advance,
:25:27. > :25:33.in writing as well as orally, about the proposed severance packages for
:25:33. > :25:36.Mark Byford. They were told it was proposed that formal notice would
:25:36. > :25:41.not be served immediately, but in the following year. An e-mail from
:25:41. > :25:47.my office to the head of the trust unit makes this clear. I made sure
:25:47. > :25:51.the trust were aware of all potentially contentious issues,
:25:51. > :25:55.including the fact that formal notice would not be served at once.
:25:55. > :26:05.I have a copy of the e-mail here. This is significant because if the
:26:05. > :26:08.
:26:08. > :26:13.trust were aware that the Byford lied. They lied? They said they were
:26:13. > :26:18.not aware. Precisely was aware of what, goodness only knows, and the
:26:18. > :26:27.best of luck to you when you get down to finding out. But Mark
:26:27. > :26:32.Thompson says they were informed, and they are saying, he misled us.
:26:32. > :26:36.These two cannot both be right. It could not be worse that the BBC. It
:26:36. > :26:40.is the most unedifying spectacle. It is almost down to name-calling. That
:26:40. > :26:43.statement is electrifying in the light of what you were told in front
:26:43. > :26:46.of the committee, because the BBC trust member Anthony Fry was
:26:46. > :26:51.questioned about a letter from Mark Thompson, the former
:26:51. > :26:56.director-general, to the trust, which said the payoff to Mr Byford
:26:56. > :27:01.was within contractual arrangements, when it was not. They can't both be
:27:01. > :27:06.right? We are in a really difficult position. Either Mark Thompson did
:27:06. > :27:10.or did not tell the trust, and if, as he alleges, he did tell the
:27:10. > :27:17.trust, the trust, in their evidence yesterday, asserted that they were
:27:17. > :27:24.not told. We have another issue with the BBC, which is the digital media
:27:24. > :27:28.initiative, this attempt to use archive material, where 100 million
:27:28. > :27:33.has been spent and nothing gained. That was also on Mark Thompson's
:27:33. > :27:38.watch, so we want to bring him back about that. He has agreed to come
:27:38. > :27:42.back. I was not going to return to this until we have the relevant
:27:42. > :27:45.reports for the digital media initiative but given what Steve
:27:45. > :27:50.Hewlett has uncovered this morning, we will have to return to this more
:27:50. > :27:55.quickly. I want all the players in front of us so that we try to
:27:55. > :28:05.uncover the truth. You want Mark Thompson sitting next to members of
:28:05. > :28:05.
:28:05. > :28:08.the trust. And also the nonexecutive members of the executive committee.
:28:08. > :28:15.Marcus aegis, the ex-chairman of Barclays bank, is said to have
:28:15. > :28:20.signed off all these deals. He would think these deals were peanuts. I
:28:20. > :28:30.would like to hear his side of the story. It would also be important to
:28:30. > :28:32.
:28:32. > :28:38.hear from Michael Rylands, the director-general at the time.
:28:38. > :28:43.does this do to public trust in the BBC? Margaret has hit the nail on
:28:44. > :28:51.the head. If you put together the digital media initiative, �100
:28:51. > :28:54.million written off, as time goes on, we may see that slightly more
:28:54. > :29:00.benefit has accrued, but nevertheless, it is the
:29:00. > :29:03.mismanagement of �100 million. The trust have to say they are sorry.
:29:03. > :29:09.Then just six weeks later, they are there again because it appears,
:29:09. > :29:14.following another NAL enquiry, that the BBC have paid executives more
:29:14. > :29:20.than they were titled to. It looks like a structural, systemic
:29:21. > :29:25.failings. And that is the problem. I was talking to somebody who is big
:29:25. > :29:29.in the world of politics, a journalist, who says the damage that
:29:29. > :29:35.has been done to the BBC by the combination of factors is not
:29:35. > :29:40.insignificant. When staff pay has been all but frozen for the last few
:29:40. > :29:43.years. When arguing about who knew what, the big picture is that too
:29:43. > :29:50.much was paid to senior executives in their severance packages, more
:29:50. > :29:55.than they needed. To give the context, it was �25 million over a
:29:55. > :30:01.three-year period to 150 senior executives. That is the same as half
:30:01. > :30:05.the total expenditure on Radio 4 programming. We believe that figure
:30:05. > :30:15.hanging in the air. Now we know we are doing this programme for three
:30:15. > :30:17.
:30:17. > :30:24.and sixpence and a Lucky Bag! Leonardo DiCaprio uses them a lot.
:30:24. > :30:31.MPs use them. So the 1.3 million people in the UK. They are supposed
:30:31. > :30:37.to be an aid to quitting smoking. Now the EU is trying to pacify
:30:37. > :30:43.electric cigarettes as medicines. -- classifier. Let's remind ourselves
:30:43. > :30:53.of Laurie Penny 's appearance on the Daily Politics last year, electronic
:30:53. > :30:56.
:30:56. > :31:04.cigarette in hand. This is not a real cigarette. If any
:31:04. > :31:08.of you are calling the police it a fake cigarette. It's the future. I'm
:31:08. > :31:16.on a 1-person mission to make them popular. What's your vision on
:31:16. > :31:24.this? I'm in the same position. I hate to do agree with George on
:31:24. > :31:32.anything... That might not be a real cigarette but it ain't doing you any
:31:32. > :31:38.good! Oh, it's in the! Joining me now is
:31:38. > :31:46.Stephen Williams and the director of a small business selling Ellington
:31:46. > :31:55.cigarette. Why do people smoke the cigarettes? -- selling eggs Tronic
:31:55. > :32:04.cigarettes. There's a lot of stigma with traditional cigarettes. A lot
:32:04. > :32:06.of people try the traditional chewing tobacco or chewing gum,
:32:06. > :32:13.medicinal spray and things like that. They find it doesn't do the
:32:13. > :32:16.trick. Electronic cigarettes brings another sensation to smoking.
:32:16. > :32:24.just clarify, do people smoke these cigarettes to get off smoking the
:32:24. > :32:30.traditional cigarettes, or as an alternative? There's two sides to
:32:30. > :32:33.the coin. We sell ours as an alternative to smoking. We don't say
:32:33. > :32:43.it will help you to quit smoking, because we don't think it will. It's
:32:43. > :32:43.
:32:43. > :32:46.an alternative. Are they health consequences? None have been proven.
:32:46. > :32:52.They are potentially a good thing if they help people to wean themselves
:32:52. > :32:57.off the real thing. We know that tobacco, if consumed as the
:32:57. > :33:07.manufacturer intends, if the only product that will shorten your life
:33:07. > :33:11.span. -- is the only product. The tobacco companies are busily buying
:33:11. > :33:14.up all of the manufacturers of these products. They are only doing that
:33:14. > :33:21.because they believe it is in their interests. They want to normalise
:33:21. > :33:27.the experience of smoking again. Last week, when I got home from
:33:27. > :33:34.Westminster, I saw a big advert of somebody who, superficially, it
:33:34. > :33:41.looks like they were smoking. It was an electronic cigarette.
:33:41. > :33:49.You can smoke them indoors? Correct. There is no damage to passive
:33:49. > :33:54.smokers? There's no evidence so far. We would support them being
:33:54. > :34:02.classified as a medicinal product. Our products are an alternative is
:34:02. > :34:06.to smoking. We don't make any claims that the product will help you to
:34:06. > :34:11.quit smoking. The majority of our customers don't feel that way.
:34:11. > :34:20.you think there are any health dangers? That's what we need to look
:34:20. > :34:30.at. There has been a review of all iniquity in products, -- nicotine
:34:30. > :34:33.
:34:33. > :34:41.products. You would only get them by prescription? I'm not sure I would
:34:41. > :34:48.go that far. This is something none of us had heard of two years ago. I
:34:48. > :34:53.certainly think the advertising needs to be looked at. I wouldn't
:34:53. > :35:00.want them to get a back door way of normalising the appearance of
:35:00. > :35:07.smoking, or, for instant, targeting them at children. At the moment,
:35:07. > :35:14.these can be advertised in children 's magazines.
:35:14. > :35:19.I was a cigarette smoker. I gave up, oh, God, 30 years ago, and I still
:35:19. > :35:28.think of myself as an addict. I worry would be just that cash that
:35:28. > :35:32.you go back to the feel -- that you go back to the feel of having a
:35:32. > :35:42.cigarette. I have seen people in restaurants complaining because they
:35:42. > :35:43.
:35:43. > :35:49.think somebody is smoking, but in fact they are vaping. For us, we
:35:49. > :35:53.think that overregulation would make it difficult for us to obtain a
:35:53. > :36:01.license. It would price us out of the market. The price of electricity
:36:01. > :36:09.cigarettes, getting the licence, the price would move on to the
:36:09. > :36:18.consumers. -- electronic cigarettes. And you smoke them? And you feel all
:36:18. > :36:26.right? Yes, and I feel fine. haven't. I've seen other MPs doing
:36:26. > :36:31.it. I'm not trying it. Are you? I don't think we will have them in the
:36:31. > :36:36.studio. Should English MPs have a veto legislation applying only to
:36:36. > :36:39.England? According to reports, that is what the government is
:36:39. > :36:44.considering. They say it's unfair that other MPs can determine laws
:36:44. > :36:49.affecting England. But English MPs have no say on devolved matters and
:36:50. > :36:54.are looking for ways to redress the balance. Tom Harris and Conservative
:36:54. > :36:58.MP Harriett Baldwin are on College Green to debate the proposals.
:36:58. > :37:03.Welcome to both of you. Harriett Baldwin, these proposals would
:37:03. > :37:07.create two tiers of MPs in Parliament. You would reduce MPs
:37:07. > :37:16.from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to one day per week MPs.
:37:17. > :37:23.haven't see the -- seen the proposals. But we think they did not
:37:23. > :37:30.propose creating categories of MPs. A proposed changes to the order in
:37:30. > :37:34.the House of Commons. Let's call this the English question. Let's
:37:34. > :37:39.make sure that any legislation in Westminster that applies only to
:37:39. > :37:45.England is carried by a majority from English MPs. That sounds
:37:45. > :37:48.sensible, Tom Harris? It's more complicated than that. Take the Same
:37:48. > :37:56.Sex Marriage Bill, which applied only to England and Wales. There
:37:56. > :38:00.were another -- number of technical aspects regarding Scotland. It is
:38:00. > :38:06.difficult to get a bill that only applies to England. I can think of
:38:06. > :38:13.lots! There are plenty of these bills for England on health and
:38:13. > :38:17.education, for example. And the last health Bill, which only apply to
:38:17. > :38:21.Ian, had technical provisions applying to Scotland. It included
:38:21. > :38:29.the training of certain professionals. Let's go back to
:38:29. > :38:36.Isaac principles. The Scottish Parliament was introduced to
:38:36. > :38:44.address... England does not suffer, never has suffered, will never
:38:44. > :38:48.suffer, a democratic deficit. The only time that English teeth -- MPs
:38:48. > :38:56.could be before the -- defeated would be if every single non-English
:38:56. > :39:06.MP plus 209 image MPs got together and voted against it. It is unfair.
:39:06. > :39:09.
:39:09. > :39:16.Labour MPs, wouldn't it? This is about fairness for England. It has
:39:16. > :39:21.rarely been an issue in the past. I would expect it to be rarely an
:39:21. > :39:25.issue in the future. But when it is, it should be highlighted. It is a
:39:25. > :39:31.cost that usual crisis that is waiting to happen. It is something
:39:31. > :39:38.that needs to be dealt with in this Parliament. It's also more and more
:39:38. > :39:46.the case that with more devolution but just as Scotland but, as the
:39:46. > :39:52.silk commission recommends, Wales, there will be more legislation that
:39:52. > :39:59.refers to England only. All sorts of things apply to England only. It's
:39:59. > :40:04.important that we tackle this thorny question now. Well done for shouting
:40:04. > :40:10.over that motorbike. Tom Harris, isn't this, on the other hand,
:40:10. > :40:15.disastrous for Labour? They rely on their MPs in Scotland and Wales. You
:40:15. > :40:20.would find it difficult to get a majority in England of English MPs.
:40:20. > :40:25.I'm sure that's the case. Let's go back to another first principle. The
:40:25. > :40:30.Prime Minister is known as a first among equals. They have the same
:40:30. > :40:34.voting rights as other members. If you lose that, you lose the
:40:34. > :40:38.functionality of the House of Commons. We have been here before.
:40:38. > :40:42.For 50 years, a devolved Northern Ireland Parliament had its own
:40:42. > :40:46.primers do but still sent MPs to Westminster and nobody ever raised a
:40:46. > :40:53.question about old stuff. Why was that? Was it because the Ulster
:40:53. > :41:00.Unionist MPs to the Conservative whip? -- took the Conservative
:41:00. > :41:07.whip? It's been raised for 100 years.
:41:07. > :41:17.There's never been a Labour majority without a majority of Labour MPs in
:41:17. > :41:23.England. Thank you both very much. Lunch is on the way. Not clear the
:41:23. > :41:31.Australians will make it to lunch, however. They have one wicket to
:41:31. > :41:36.fall. The Coalition have a target to get net migration down by the tens
:41:36. > :41:40.of thousands by 2015. They are making progress. But what about
:41:40. > :41:44.those who decide to move here? Should they be forced to learn
:41:44. > :41:54.English? Should they be helped to integrate into the community? Eric
:41:54. > :41:55.
:41:55. > :41:59.Pickles thinks so. This is his soapbox.
:41:59. > :42:04.Speaking English is essential to living and working in Britain. It is
:42:04. > :42:09.a passport to prosperity, and without it, people are very limited
:42:09. > :42:15.in what they can do. In some communities, learning English
:42:15. > :42:25.doesn't happen. This is not right. I believe that if you want to live
:42:25. > :42:33.
:42:33. > :42:37.here, you must learn to speak the east of London, which is there to
:42:37. > :42:43.help people to learning which. It runs a number of courses, including
:42:43. > :42:50.mental ring services, and some specifically to help mothers who
:42:50. > :42:57.have migrated to this country and have virtually knowingly should.
:42:57. > :43:01.-- no English. Learning the language is important. When you come to a
:43:01. > :43:06.country, one of the things to get to grips with first and foremost is the
:43:06. > :43:12.language. There are a lot of other areas. What we provided a range of
:43:12. > :43:16.life skills to help the women to integrate.
:43:17. > :43:22.Looking at the bigger picture, the census of two years ago showed that
:43:22. > :43:27.a crossing in and Wales, 2% of the population can't speak English or
:43:27. > :43:37.speak it poorly. When you look across London, the figure jumps to
:43:37. > :43:38.
:43:38. > :43:46.9%. That is 150,000 people who can't speak English, can't communicate
:43:46. > :43:49.with their fellow citizens. That is going to create difficulties for
:43:49. > :43:55.people even going to the shops. They are going to have difficulty talking
:43:55. > :44:00.to their neighbours. It's important for me. I come from a
:44:00. > :44:06.different country, different background, different language. This
:44:06. > :44:10.country is new for me. I want to know about this country, about the
:44:11. > :44:15.transport, about the shopping, and other things. I want to make
:44:15. > :44:19.friends. It's also good for the wider
:44:20. > :44:29.community. I want people to live together and work together, to
:44:29. > :44:32.integrate and form friendships and get along with each other. How can
:44:32. > :44:36.you interact with people from other cultures and countries if you can't
:44:36. > :44:42.talk to them? There are also financial benefits. Translation
:44:42. > :44:48.services are very expensive. Independent research shows that
:44:48. > :44:58.local authorities alone spends nearly �20 million per year
:44:58. > :45:03.
:45:03. > :45:05.translating a variety of documents from English to 75 languages. This
:45:05. > :45:07.money will be better directed to help all residents and all
:45:08. > :45:17.communities. But it isn't just about the money. It's about making Britain
:45:17. > :45:21.a better place to live. That is what centres like this are doing.
:45:21. > :45:27.Eric Pickles joins us now. Is it that migrants are refusing to learn
:45:27. > :45:31.English, or is there not enough provision? We need encouragement. It
:45:31. > :45:34.is perfectly possible to survive in this country, to be able to shop in
:45:34. > :45:38.this country, to receive entertainment without speaking
:45:38. > :45:43.English. But it does mean that their life chances are so much more
:45:43. > :45:53.narrow. And it means their children's life chances are
:45:53. > :45:53.
:45:53. > :45:56.narrowed. George Osborne wants to encourage them with the stick rather
:45:56. > :45:59.than the current. He says if you are not prepared to learn English, your
:45:59. > :46:02.benefits will be cut. That is not encouragement, that is from marching
:46:02. > :46:11.you to the English classes, isn't it? That is tough love. It is about
:46:11. > :46:14.getting people to understand the reality. Encouragement will be
:46:14. > :46:19.there, but they should not see this in the way of getting a benefit. It
:46:19. > :46:25.is a way to become a full citizen. I don't want people to forget where
:46:25. > :46:30.they come from all their own language. I want them to be a
:46:30. > :46:35.vibrant part of British society and have an equal chance. How would you
:46:35. > :46:42.judge if someone's English was not adequate enough that they did not
:46:42. > :46:47.deserve their benefits? Well, I am not a linguist, but I think being
:46:47. > :46:50.able to have sufficient English to be able to do the job you are
:46:50. > :47:00.employed for. For example, for your job, I would expect them to be very
:47:00. > :47:01.
:47:01. > :47:05.fluent. He is still taking classes! And showing enormous progress.
:47:05. > :47:15.have been arguing for a long time that it is really important for
:47:15. > :47:19.
:47:19. > :47:22.migrants who settle here, and I am one myself, that you learn the
:47:22. > :47:25.language. But let me say two things to Eric that I have argued for a
:47:25. > :47:28.long time. For women, it is a sensitive issue, because they don't
:47:28. > :47:30.get a job. They are often at home. If they are good mums, it is
:47:30. > :47:34.important for them to talk to teachers. How would you get them to
:47:34. > :47:38.learn? Let me tell you how we have tried to do it and the problems we
:47:38. > :47:41.have faced. We had a lot of English provision in our children's centres,
:47:41. > :47:48.where the mums were encouraged to come when the babies were born, and
:47:48. > :47:52.start learning English. That provision has been cut because local
:47:52. > :47:54.authorities have faced bigger cuts than anybody else. And it is not
:47:55. > :48:02.because I have an inefficient council that is spending money
:48:02. > :48:05.elsewhere. We are looking at different ways of trying to get
:48:05. > :48:15.English across. I launched a competition at the beginning of the
:48:15. > :48:17.
:48:17. > :48:20.year to find unique ways to get English going. The young lady that
:48:20. > :48:23.was interviewed, she was, up to 18 months ago, a newsreader on
:48:23. > :48:26.Pakistani television. She came to this country with not much English,
:48:26. > :48:33.and it demonstrates what is possible. You are avoiding the
:48:33. > :48:43.issue. Margaret, you see everything in this narrow political way. That
:48:43. > :48:45.
:48:45. > :48:48.was a local choice. We are making a difference. If it is all going to be
:48:48. > :48:51.about the wicked cuts, we will not make progress. I have been doing
:48:51. > :48:54.this work for a long time, so frankly, we should be encouraging
:48:54. > :49:02.this and not blaming everything on economic circumstances. I doing
:49:02. > :49:06.courage this. -- I do encourage this. I think it is essential for
:49:07. > :49:12.community go huge on, but the reality on the ground, Eric, in the
:49:12. > :49:15.children's centre I visited recently, is that when you really
:49:15. > :49:22.cut local authority expenditure so badly, they are forced back to their
:49:22. > :49:32.statutory duties and they cut out all this provision which is
:49:32. > :49:33.
:49:33. > :49:40.non-statutory. That is a very old-fashioned view. Let me ask you,
:49:40. > :49:44.is there not at least a chance, at a time when cuts are all over the
:49:44. > :49:49.place, and when local government has had its grant frozen, that some
:49:49. > :49:55.councils may decide, one way to save a few bob is by not doing English
:49:55. > :49:58.classes? Then they are very foolish councils, because it is important
:49:58. > :50:08.that we don't find ourselves with a subclass where people of enormous
:50:08. > :50:13.
:50:13. > :50:16.talent can't get jobs. They are not foolish. It is wrong to say
:50:16. > :50:18.everything has to be done by local authorities. We are looking at
:50:18. > :50:22.different ways of doing it, and it is a very old-fashioned view that
:50:22. > :50:26.Margaret is expressing. Don't talk over me. You and I used to talk
:50:26. > :50:36.about this issue is a lot. I am not saying local authorities should
:50:36. > :50:37.
:50:37. > :50:40.deliver it. It is important for voluntary organisations to be
:50:40. > :50:42.involved. I am just saying that the reality on the ground in my
:50:42. > :50:51.community is that they are being forced back to only funding
:50:51. > :50:55.statutory services. You have both had to say. Very interesting.
:50:56. > :51:00.Now, onto a pressing constitutional matter. How do we hold our
:51:00. > :51:10.politicians to account? As we saw earlier, our guest today, Margaret
:51:10. > :51:24.
:51:24. > :51:26.Hodge, head up the Public Accounts Committee, who rigorous Lee
:51:26. > :51:28.interrogate officials and ministers. But there is another essential part
:51:28. > :51:30.of the British political system that keeps MPs in check. He is usually
:51:30. > :51:32.found loitering outside government departments, or waiting at sunrise
:51:33. > :51:35.on cabinet ministers' doorsteps. And he is armed with nothing more than
:51:35. > :51:37.the simple ray mac of truth and a trusty foghorn voice fair play. Very
:51:38. > :51:47.poetic! Rarely seen, but always heard, he is the BBC's Chief
:51:47. > :51:51.Parliamentary Stalker, Gobby. You have heard him. Now meet him,
:51:51. > :52:00.BBC producer Paul Lambert, known in the Westminster village as Gobby. I
:52:00. > :52:10.wonder why? Has George looked after you? Are the children happy? Are the
:52:10. > :52:13.
:52:13. > :52:17.soldiers happy? His shout outs are as much a part of TV news here as
:52:17. > :52:20.pictures of Big Ben. The point is to fill in the pieces in a TV bulletin
:52:20. > :52:26.piece that you have not got pictures to fill in. You know someone will
:52:26. > :52:30.not say anything, but you just need something. That will be the office.
:52:30. > :52:39.It does involve a lot of standing around, though, which means there is
:52:39. > :52:41.plenty of time to hear some of Gobby's famous war stories. During
:52:41. > :52:49.Blair's last conference, he walked across after the speech and I
:52:49. > :52:51.shouted across, oi, Bill, are you going to miss Tony? But sometimes it
:52:51. > :53:01.is very physical, like this hilarious attempts to get pictures
:53:01. > :53:04.
:53:04. > :53:12.of David Cameron jogging. Jogging, boys! Or dangerous. Watch the wall.
:53:12. > :53:17.Let's see that again. Although sometimes it is painful in other
:53:17. > :53:22.ways. We are going live to Downing Street in a few minutes' time,
:53:22. > :53:26.because the prime minister will be holding a news conference. He is
:53:26. > :53:31.setting up, with a BBC producer standing whether Spanish prime
:53:31. > :53:36.minister will be standing. Now here's where the British prime
:53:36. > :53:40.minister will be standing. He has ideas above his station.
:53:40. > :53:46.Frequently, it is very newsworthy, like the time Gobby cornered sharia
:53:46. > :53:50.Blair at the height of speculation that her husband was standing down.
:53:50. > :53:56.Darling, that is a long way in the future. That quote made the front
:53:56. > :54:06.page of most national papers the next day, but can anyone do this?
:54:06. > :54:11.Why did it take you so long to settle? How was that? Very good.
:54:11. > :54:15.Well, that is Cabinet over for today. What is next, a press
:54:15. > :54:19.conference, a stakeout at a government department or home of an
:54:19. > :54:23.MP? Actually, it is a bacon sandwich.
:54:23. > :54:28.Well, you need sustenance for these jobs. Adam Fleming, you need to
:54:28. > :54:32.practice more with the shouting. We are joined now by the BBC's IPD
:54:32. > :54:38.political editor, James Landale. Gobby, as he is affectionately
:54:38. > :54:41.known, is something of a legend in the West Mr bubble, but he is also
:54:41. > :54:51.respected by the politicians? Yes, he is a legend because they have all
:54:51. > :54:55.
:54:55. > :54:58.had him on their doorstep at some point, and they know that all he
:54:58. > :55:00.will do is ask a question. He gets on with everybody. He has more brass
:55:00. > :55:03.than anybody in Westminster. He has a better new sense than many people
:55:03. > :55:05.in Westminster. If there is any flaw in this perfect human being, he is
:55:05. > :55:09.possibly got a pathological obsession with his mobile phone and
:55:09. > :55:15.injurious reluctance to work on some Fridays. But apart from that, he is
:55:15. > :55:20.amazing. Moving on to the issue of MPs' pay, which we talked about at
:55:20. > :55:23.the start of the programme, is there a sense that there is now a growing
:55:23. > :55:27.division between what party leaders are saying, and they are saying it
:55:27. > :55:34.is not the right time for a pay rise, and backbenchers, who are paid
:55:34. > :55:39.considerably less, and think it is long overdue? It is not a clear-cut
:55:39. > :55:43.division. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have said they will turn down this
:55:43. > :55:47.pay rise. David Cameron's spokesman has said he opposes it and thinks it
:55:47. > :55:51.is the wrong time for a pay rise, but will not specify whether Mr
:55:52. > :55:56.Cameron will hand this back. Education Secretary Michael Gove has
:55:56. > :56:00.been far more rude. In the last few minutes, he has said MPs should
:56:00. > :56:06.absolutely not receive these pay rises. MPs are well paid anyway.
:56:06. > :56:10.IPSA is a bit of a silly organisation, and that pay rise,
:56:10. > :56:13.they can stick it. Charming! It is not clear whether Mr Gove speaks on
:56:13. > :56:18.behalf of the government, but he certainly speaks for himself.
:56:18. > :56:22.are loads of MPs who think this is the wrong time and IPSA are putting
:56:22. > :56:27.them in an invidious position. will reduce public trust in them,
:56:27. > :56:31.and they have no control over it. But he quickly, privately a lot of
:56:31. > :56:38.them say there is clearly an issue about pay that has to be resolved.
:56:38. > :56:40.But publicly, we are scarring Westminster to find someone who will
:56:40. > :56:44.defend this, and we are not succeeding, for obvious reasons. The
:56:44. > :56:49.risk is that if you do get into a bit of a Dutch auction, as Margaret
:56:49. > :56:52.says, where does it stop? What about the package, that there are other
:56:53. > :57:02.things which will be reduced as part of this proposal to increase MPs'
:57:02. > :57:04.pay? There was some encouragement from government to see if IPSA could
:57:04. > :57:07.come up with a package that overall reduces the cost to the public
:57:07. > :57:10.purse. They have not managed that. They are over that by �3.5 million,
:57:10. > :57:14.which in the grand scheme of things might be a modest proportion of the
:57:14. > :57:20.whole, but it is still above the line, which makes it harder for the
:57:20. > :57:23.government to support this. There will be no immediate decision on
:57:23. > :57:29.this. So it will be interesting to see if the party leaders can find a
:57:29. > :57:35.way of finessing this further down the road. This is not a policy, it
:57:35. > :57:40.is a proposal. We have just had some other news from the Justice
:57:40. > :57:42.Secretary, Chris Grayling, who has asked the serious fraud office to
:57:42. > :57:46.consider investigating gene for us after the government was left with
:57:46. > :57:55.bills worth millions of pounds for electronic tags that were not used.
:57:55. > :58:01.Sounds like a scandal. Yes. It is something we look that not long
:58:01. > :58:05.ago. There is a general point here about how more private providers are
:58:05. > :58:11.providing public services, and the government has to be better with its
:58:11. > :58:16.openness. I want the National Audit Office to go and see how they spend
:58:16. > :58:21.taxpayers' money when they provide a public service. I am glad he has
:58:21. > :58:26.called in the serious fraud office. Very quickly with the quiz, the
:58:27. > :58:31.question was, what are Conservative MPs planning to do at next week's
:58:31. > :58:38.PMQs to protest against John Bercow 's do you know? IR may John Bercow
:58:38. > :58:48.fan. James, the answer is? They are going to start wearing badges with
:58:48. > :58:49.
:58:49. > :58:51.the letters BBB. The first letter refers to a ticking off that begins
:58:51. > :58:56.with B. Ticked off by John Bercow, but in slightly more fruity