:00:44. > :00:48.Politics. Labour and the Tories argue over who is to blame for
:00:49. > :00:54.unnecessary deaths in NHS hospitals as a critical report slams the
:00:54. > :00:57.standard of care at 14 hospital trusts in England. The Government
:00:57. > :01:01.outlines options for replacing Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent
:01:01. > :01:06.programme, but the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot agree on a
:01:06. > :01:12.plan, we talk to both. What would Britain look like if we leave the
:01:12. > :01:15.EU? Nigel Lawson will explain why he is backing a 100,000 euros prize to
:01:15. > :01:20.find the best route map out of Europe. Tony Blair likes them,
:01:20. > :01:24.Gordon Brown loves them. As the UK swelters, should ice cream vans be
:01:24. > :01:34.allowed to play their chimes more often? We have the inside scoop,
:01:34. > :01:35.
:01:35. > :01:39.And an hour full of puns, no doubt. With us for the whole programme is
:01:39. > :01:47.Richard Lloyd, executive director of the consumer organisation Which,
:01:47. > :01:50.welcome to the programme. Hundreds and thousands of pounds, even!
:01:50. > :01:54.report from Which says that Britain's big six energy firms
:01:54. > :01:59.should be forced to separate their generation businesses from their
:01:59. > :02:03.retail arms to ensure customers are not overcharged. Are you suggesting,
:02:03. > :02:10.like the banks, that we break up the big six? Exactly what you should do
:02:10. > :02:14.is but a ringfenced between the part of the energy companies that have a
:02:14. > :02:18.generation business and that sell it to us in the retail market. They are
:02:18. > :02:22.able to sell themselves power and then sell it on to us, and that part
:02:22. > :02:25.of the business is completely not transparent, it is impossible to see
:02:25. > :02:32.whether they are competing properly with each other. They are very often
:02:32. > :02:36.hiding behind trades of huge volumes of gas and electricity, and that is
:02:37. > :02:40.a massive chunk of our bills at the end of the day. So what we want a
:02:41. > :02:45.disease is a clear division between those two parts of unified
:02:45. > :02:50.businesses that do generation and retail, and proper transparency,
:02:50. > :02:55.proper competition. Would it actually bring down bills? Npower
:02:55. > :02:58.has said it is the government's predictions on savings with more
:02:58. > :03:02.investment in green technologies that has pushed up the bills, not
:03:02. > :03:07.their profits, not from cycling a bit from generation to retail, but
:03:07. > :03:12.that is what is pushing up the bills on the Government was over
:03:12. > :03:16.estimating what can be saved. have got a blame game going on. The
:03:16. > :03:18.suppliers are saying it is the Government's fault because of the
:03:18. > :03:25.cost of taking Harman out of electricity generation, in
:03:25. > :03:29.particular. -- carbon. There is a bit of truth in what both sides are
:03:29. > :03:35.saying. We what we want now is to see wheelchair and by the
:03:35. > :03:40.across-the-board. If the Government is going to negotiate for a new
:03:40. > :03:44.nuclear power station, let's make sure there is transparency. We pay
:03:44. > :03:47.for that through our bills, and at the same time we have this problem
:03:47. > :03:51.in the wholesale market, where generators probably are not being
:03:51. > :03:56.forced to compete with each other really strongly, and that, we
:03:56. > :04:02.think, would keep prices in check, too. Across-the-board we need to see
:04:02. > :04:07.these costs kept under control, much more honesty about what is driving
:04:07. > :04:10.prices and bills. At the moment it is all done behind closed doors, it
:04:10. > :04:15.is not transparent, the Government needs to ensure consumers we are
:04:15. > :04:17.getting a good deal. I think they are starting to see that you cannot
:04:17. > :04:20.persuade consumers to pay for this stuff unless you are honest about
:04:20. > :04:24.how much it is going to cost and that they are fighting our corner
:04:24. > :04:29.for a good price. It remains to be seen how much of the new legislation
:04:29. > :04:36.that is about to go through Parliament is going to bring about
:04:36. > :04:40.the transparency we are calling for. Well, it is time for our daily quiz.
:04:41. > :04:45.Vladimir Putin is famous for photos done is showing off his virility, so
:04:45. > :04:50.the question for today is, what's daredevil escapade has the Russian
:04:50. > :04:56.president got up to now? Was it wrestling a giant squid? Skydiving
:04:56. > :05:03.from a fighter jet? Travelling 50 metres under the sea in a high-tech
:05:03. > :05:07.submersible? Or serving one of the world's largest waves in Hawaii? At
:05:07. > :05:12.the end of the show, Richard will hopefully give us the correct
:05:12. > :05:16.answer! Britain's Trident nuclear system is coming to the end of its
:05:16. > :05:20.life. Ministers will have to decide if and how to replace it. Chief
:05:21. > :05:26.Secretary Danny Alexander has been tasked with answering the question,
:05:26. > :05:29.what type of deterrence does the UK need? As we have the head of Which
:05:29. > :05:34.on the show, we thought we would review the options, although it will
:05:34. > :05:39.be for the Government in 2016 to decide which is the best. Investors
:05:39. > :05:45.could decide on a like-for-like replacement, that is expensive. --
:05:45. > :05:49.ministers. Building four new submarines could cost �25 billion.
:05:49. > :05:55.But it will allow the UK to operate a continuous deterrent, as we have
:05:55. > :05:58.done since the 1960s. This will get the stamp of approval from the
:05:58. > :06:02.Conservatives. David Cameron has said he is crystal clear that it has
:06:02. > :06:08.to continue in its current form. We could downgrade Trident, cutting the
:06:08. > :06:12.number of submarines down to either two three. The Lib Dems say this
:06:12. > :06:16.would save billions, money that could shore up conventional military
:06:16. > :06:19.budgets. But it would mean the end of the round-the-clock deterrent,
:06:19. > :06:23.something that Philip Hammond says is a reckless gamble with national
:06:23. > :06:28.security. It is the option favoured by the Lib Dems, arguing the current
:06:28. > :06:32.Cold War system is out of date. The UK could of course get rid of
:06:32. > :06:37.Trident entirely, but with Labour saying it supports a nuclear
:06:37. > :06:40.deterrent, that looks like the one option that will not prove popular.
:06:40. > :06:44.The Defence Secretary said any talk of cutting back on Trident was
:06:44. > :06:52.naive. Moving away from a tried and tested system which has protected us
:06:52. > :06:59.for over 45 years now to try something different, potentially
:06:59. > :07:01.more costly, certainly more risky, at a time when Russia is spending
:07:01. > :07:07.$150 billion rebuilding its armed forces, including its nuclear
:07:07. > :07:13.forces, Iran is attempting to attain nuclear warheads to put on its
:07:13. > :07:18.existing ballistic missile Isles, I think this would be an extremely
:07:18. > :07:24.foolhardy thing to do at this stage. -- ballistic missiles. I have been
:07:24. > :07:29.joined by Penny Mordaunt and Nick Harvey, welcome to you both. Nick
:07:29. > :07:32.Harvey, we have seen this morning two former chiefs of defence staff,
:07:32. > :07:38.people of all political colours lining up to say this review is
:07:38. > :07:42.wrong. I think they are wrong. We have had the first serious look at
:07:42. > :07:46.this question for several decades, coming at it with an open mind,
:07:46. > :07:50.looking at what we need in the 21st century, rather than what we needed
:07:50. > :07:54.at the height of the Cold War, and I think now is the opportunity to take
:07:54. > :07:59.a few steps down the nuclear ladder, to come off continuous at
:07:59. > :08:04.sea deterrent. It might have made sense at the height of the Cold War
:08:04. > :08:11.when we had a known nuclear anniversary, the Soviet Union,
:08:11. > :08:16.patrolling as 24-7. But that ended 25 years ago, and it does not make
:08:16. > :08:20.any sense in this day and age. the report does not make any clear
:08:20. > :08:24.recommendations, does it? The review does produce options, but it does
:08:24. > :08:29.not tell us anything we did not know. It does not back up your
:08:29. > :08:35.political case. It never set out to make recommendations. It set out to
:08:35. > :08:39.inform a political debate, and I can see that debate running from now
:08:39. > :08:42.until the 2015 general election, when I think the nuclear deterrent
:08:42. > :08:46.will be an issue for the first time since 1983. I think public attitudes
:08:46. > :08:51.have shifted a great deal since 1983, and when people look at the
:08:51. > :08:54.opportunity cost of putting all this money into a Cold War scale nuclear
:08:54. > :08:58.deterrent, they will question the wisdom of that when there are so
:08:58. > :09:03.many other competing demands, not least in the military, not least in
:09:03. > :09:10.the surface navy, which is dear to Penny's hard in Portsmouth. You are
:09:10. > :09:13.a former Royal Navy reserve cadet, looking at this review and the
:09:13. > :09:19.options set out, is there anything that changes your mind about having
:09:19. > :09:22.a continuous deterrent? No, it backs up what we knew all along, which is
:09:23. > :09:26.that if you are going to have this, you needed all year round, and the
:09:26. > :09:31.best value and most effective deterrent is what we are currently
:09:31. > :09:35.got. The tragedy about this is that the two - boat option, which is what
:09:35. > :09:41.the Liberals seem to be moving towards, was not part of the review.
:09:41. > :09:50.It is such a nutty option, because it relies on is basically persuading
:09:50. > :09:53.malign regimes and state-sponsored terrorists not to attack us on
:09:53. > :09:56.months of the year which do not have the letter A in the name. Danny
:09:56. > :09:58.Alexander ruled it out. He said it would be a crazy option. It is not
:09:58. > :10:02.in the detailed costings. The three-boat option, which the
:10:02. > :10:07.Liberals were going for, has now been shown to yield so little
:10:07. > :10:14.savings, and not until 2025, that they are reverting to the two-boat
:10:14. > :10:18.idea. It is good news, it backs up what we have been saying all along.
:10:18. > :10:23.Do you accept the world has changed? We do not live in the Cold War
:10:23. > :10:30.anymore, we do not face those same dangers. We face difference dangers,
:10:30. > :10:38.but not the same ones, so it maybe that would provide cover, but do we
:10:38. > :10:41.need it? We do need it. This is not a capability that would be used in
:10:41. > :10:46.all scenarios, so some terrorist activity, Somali pirates, it is of
:10:46. > :10:50.no use, but that is not an argument for not having it, because it will
:10:50. > :10:54.cover us for a whole variety of scenarios. Your viewers will know
:10:54. > :10:58.about North Korea and Iran. Russia, which might seem like a very
:10:58. > :11:02.friendly country towards us at the moment, just last year was talking
:11:02. > :11:06.about a first strike against US missile bases in Poland. The really
:11:06. > :11:09.important fact is we have not got to just plan for what is happening
:11:09. > :11:16.today with the deterrent, but what will happen over the course of its
:11:16. > :11:19.life. But we have no known nuclear anniversary. Not at the moment.The
:11:19. > :11:23.national-security strategy has downgraded the nuclear threat to a
:11:23. > :11:28.second tier. There is no other part of our military capability that we
:11:28. > :11:31.keep on constant patrol. We keep the skills, the equipment, and we have a
:11:31. > :11:34.contingency basis, and we deploy them when we need them. There is no
:11:34. > :11:41.reason why the nuclear deterrent should not be operated on that
:11:41. > :11:45.basis. This is a threat we face, it is a threat that we will face over
:11:45. > :11:54.the life of the next deterrent, and when you are looking at... This is
:11:54. > :12:02.coming down to money, and to run the four-boat solution is 1% of the
:12:02. > :12:05.welfare budget. �25 billion is a lot of money. But what it gives us, as
:12:05. > :12:09.long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, our public want us to
:12:09. > :12:13.have systems that will protect us from them being used against us, and
:12:13. > :12:17.that is what this does very effectively. Would you feel less
:12:17. > :12:21.secure without this deterrent? think most people will be thinking
:12:21. > :12:25.it is right to look hard at the cost of all of this, is it still the
:12:25. > :12:29.right thing to be doing? Have things changed so much that we should be
:12:29. > :12:32.thinking again? I think, for most people in the run-up to the next
:12:32. > :12:36.election, they will be thinking about where money is being cut from
:12:36. > :12:42.many other budgets, pressure on public spending across-the-board.
:12:42. > :12:47.This hypothetical defence question, it is going to be very hard for
:12:47. > :12:50.voters to engage in it, but the numbers are enormous. You cannot
:12:50. > :12:54.escape the track record of the Ministry of Defence in procuring
:12:54. > :12:57.equipment, it is appalling. Absolutely right to be having a hard
:12:57. > :13:02.look at this, exploring all the options, and are there more cost
:13:02. > :13:06.effective ways of doing this? have to build two boats anyway,
:13:06. > :13:11.because of the state of the current submarines, we need two to continue
:13:11. > :13:15.the policy as it currently stands. So we are talking in the difference
:13:15. > :13:20.in cost between two submarines, three and four, and the more you
:13:20. > :13:30.build, the cost drops. So what are the savings? If we are talking about
:13:30. > :13:31.
:13:32. > :13:36.�1,000,000,000... This is nonsense. Those figures... Villa Pam and is
:13:36. > :13:41.making its figures up as he goes along. -- Philip Hammond. If you
:13:41. > :13:47.look at the Vanguard submarines, the first one cost 40% of the total
:13:48. > :13:52.project, the subsequent ones cost 20%. I am not asserting that you
:13:52. > :13:56.would say 40% by reducing from four to two, but you would certainly save
:13:57. > :14:02.substantial sums, and if you went down to two, you could save as much
:14:02. > :14:06.as 8 billion, and if you went down to three, as much as four billion.
:14:07. > :14:13.And then crewing two three for 40 years, you are racking up savings of
:14:13. > :14:18.possibly half a billion or more. bring us back to where we started in
:14:18. > :14:23.all of this. If you are going to have a nuclear deterrent, you need
:14:23. > :14:28.it available all year round. You cannot do that on less than four
:14:28. > :14:33.submarines. The idea that things only work if you are using them the
:14:33. > :14:37.whole time is self-evidently nonsense. The only other way to do
:14:37. > :14:42.it is wait until London has been taken out or things are escalating,
:14:42. > :14:46.and then send your submarines out with warheads. What would happen in
:14:46. > :14:50.a prolonged stand-off? That is a more likely scenario than the idea
:14:50. > :14:54.Penny is proposing that it will come out of nowhere. Even the current
:14:54. > :14:58.nuclear deterrent would take three or four days to be ready to fire, so
:14:58. > :15:05.we are not ready at a moment's notice, as we were at the height of
:15:05. > :15:07.the Cold War. That.You would not get into a situation where a new
:15:07. > :15:12.adversarial has popped up from nowhere and is threatening to
:15:12. > :15:16.obliterate the United Kingdom overnight. You would be sensitive to
:15:16. > :15:21.the situation and crack capacity up to something far more acting to this
:15:21. > :15:25.as you felt it coming. If we were in a 1939 situation where the future of
:15:25. > :15:34.the state was seriously at risk, we would have to have enormous
:15:34. > :15:38.rearmament right across the board, nuclear and non-nuclear. I would
:15:38. > :15:42.throw the gauntlet down to the Lib Dems and say, if you are really for
:15:42. > :15:48.some kind of nuclear deterrent and are prepared to pay hell of a lot
:15:48. > :15:53.more money for two boats, why don't we get a move on and sign up to two
:15:53. > :15:56.now this side of the general election? We don't need to and it
:15:56. > :16:01.wouldn't be right for the public purse to make contracts before they
:16:01. > :16:08.need to. This contract will be signed in 2016. We now have the
:16:08. > :16:14.opportunity for a national debate. Is it a red line in the sand for
:16:14. > :16:19.post-2015 coalition politics? If they principle you will stand by?
:16:19. > :16:24.is something to put on the table and discuss in a coalition. This is
:16:24. > :16:27.critical to protect the UK. We should commit ourselves to replacing
:16:27. > :16:32.this deterrent. It has stood us in good stead and we don't know what
:16:32. > :16:37.world we will be facing in 20 years time and we have to have that back
:16:37. > :16:41.up. The public wanted, and we should get on and sign for it. We will have
:16:41. > :16:44.two ended there but no doubt we will have to do have this discussion
:16:44. > :16:48.again. Fancy entering a competition which could net you 100,000 euros?
:16:48. > :16:51.It's quite a prize, and all you have to do is write a 2,000-word essay
:16:51. > :16:54.explaining how Britain would thrive if we leave the European Union.
:16:54. > :16:58.We'll talk to the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson
:16:58. > :17:01.about this in just a moment. He is chairing the panel that will decide
:17:01. > :17:03.the winner. First though, here's a flavour of the debate amongst
:17:03. > :17:13.British and world leaders about Britain's place in Europe that's
:17:13. > :17:20.
:17:20. > :17:24.know... If we don't address these challenges, the danger is Europe
:17:24. > :17:31.will fail, and the British people will drift towards the exit. I do
:17:31. > :17:36.not want that to happen. I want the EU to be a success. And I want the
:17:36. > :17:43.relationship between Britain and the European Union that keeps us in it.
:17:43. > :17:47.My priority will always remain yes, reform it, a referendum whether
:17:47. > :17:51.circumstances are right, as we set out in law, but above and beyond
:17:51. > :17:56.everything else, promoting growth and jobs and building a stronger
:17:56. > :18:01.economy in a fairer society. Labour 's position has been consistent and
:18:01. > :18:04.that's the right thing to do. We've said is not right now to have a
:18:04. > :18:08.referendum in four years time because we think this bigger issues
:18:08. > :18:12.the country faces at the moment. would ask the inhabitants of this
:18:12. > :18:18.wonderful island that you can be very happy but you won't be happy if
:18:18. > :18:22.you are alone in this world. can't do Europe a la carte. Imagine
:18:22. > :18:30.Europe as a football club and you join. You can't then say let's play
:18:30. > :18:39.rugby. Everything must be decided in Brussels and by Brussels. We do
:18:39. > :18:44.indeed differentiate, but cherry picking is not an option.
:18:44. > :18:49.probably want to see if you can fix what is broken. In a very important
:18:50. > :18:52.relationship before you break it off. It makes some sense to me.
:18:52. > :18:59.we've been joined by the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel
:18:59. > :19:06.Lawson. Just explain to us exactly, there isn't a further stage before
:19:06. > :19:13.you win that 100,000 euro prize? Everyone is asked to do a 2000 word
:19:13. > :19:19.essay. The top 20 will then be invited to do a more substantial
:19:19. > :19:25.piece of work between 10000 and 20,000 words, more thorough job and
:19:25. > :19:29.come on the basis of that, we will award prizes. What is the point of
:19:29. > :19:33.it? Why do you need a prize for someone to set out a blueprint for
:19:33. > :19:37.Britain leaving the EU? It encourages people to do it, no bad
:19:38. > :19:42.thing, and has been done over the centuries to get things going on.
:19:42. > :19:52.The purpose is that there's going to be an in out referendum at least.
:19:52. > :19:53.
:19:53. > :19:57.What people have on their minds is, OK, we realise that the European
:19:57. > :20:04.union is very unattractive in various ways. But what will be the
:20:04. > :20:08.consequences of leaving? And this will be an exercise in looking at
:20:08. > :20:12.what the economic consequences are, the legal consequences and political
:20:12. > :20:16.consequences are, and how we would handle those. I think it's something
:20:16. > :20:22.people will want to be informed about. Then they can cast their vote
:20:22. > :20:26.in the referendum. You would like to set out what has not been debated in
:20:26. > :20:33.full to encourage more people to perhaps make that choice in favour
:20:33. > :20:40.of Britain leaving the EU? I have come to the conclusion we should
:20:40. > :20:44.leave the EU and I have written at length the reasons. And I think a
:20:44. > :20:49.number of people are concerned about all the bureaucracy, the fact the
:20:49. > :20:53.regulation has become a bit of a bureaucratic monstrosity, the
:20:53. > :21:00.interference when none is needed and so on, but they are concerned, so
:21:00. > :21:08.they don't love the EU. But they fear leaving. They fear the unknown
:21:08. > :21:12.so it's important that, although the future is unknown, we need to make
:21:12. > :21:16.it slightly more mapped out. But we don't know what would happen. It's
:21:16. > :21:21.all theoretical so that fear, to some extent, is well founded. Do you
:21:21. > :21:27.think Britain is drifting, even though David Cameron has said he is
:21:27. > :21:32.negotiating to stay and eventually? I think what most people think is
:21:32. > :21:36.there's a few good things coming from Brussels, lower mobile roaming
:21:36. > :21:39.charges in time for the summer holidays, things which matter to
:21:39. > :21:42.people in their daily lives, and squeezed budgets, being helped by
:21:42. > :21:48.the decisions made in Brussels. Other things people can't stand
:21:48. > :21:51.about it but, in the end, it does feel as if the views of consumers
:21:51. > :21:55.and businesses are being rather swept aside by a very intense
:21:55. > :22:03.political debate. I'm not sure that will be helped by your prize. I'm
:22:03. > :22:08.sure people will be willing to write about it. There's huge issues at
:22:08. > :22:13.stake here and to talk just about lower mobile roaming charges is
:22:13. > :22:19.trivialising it. That's important to many numbers of the public.
:22:19. > :22:24.goodness sake, you have to decide where the balance of advantage lies.
:22:24. > :22:29.I'm not saying members of the EU are wrong but it's a question of whether
:22:29. > :22:33.it brings more good than harm. You have to judge where the balance is,
:22:33. > :22:36.where it's going and the fact of the matter is, the European Union has
:22:36. > :22:42.changed. There's been a fundamental change since the coming of the
:22:42. > :22:46.common currency and the Eurozone which, quite rightly, we are not a
:22:46. > :22:49.member of, and that is change the whole nature of the European Union,
:22:49. > :22:54.and Britain's relationship with it and therefore it's time to take
:22:54. > :22:56.stock. What I think you could usefully do with your prize is to
:22:57. > :23:00.get people to focus on what matters to people in their daily lives about
:23:00. > :23:06.Europe, good and bad. There are some very practical changes that affect
:23:06. > :23:09.us all, as a result of the barriers between countries coming down, as a
:23:09. > :23:13.result of the EU, and I think he should get people to concentrate on
:23:13. > :23:16.that as much as the risks and what might happen if we exit. There's got
:23:16. > :23:21.to be a debate about this, absolutely but, frankly, it seems to
:23:21. > :23:24.be the debate is already happening without your prize. What do think in
:23:24. > :23:29.terms of those Conservative MPs who going along at the moment with the
:23:29. > :23:35.idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe? Will they
:23:35. > :23:44.be disappointed? I think so. I think it's clear from the interviews you
:23:44. > :23:47.had before this discussion, that the European Union is not prepared to
:23:47. > :23:52.make any significant changes. Any changes which David Cameron is able
:23:52. > :23:56.to negotiate with Ed Miliband, will be, in my judgement, and I have
:23:56. > :24:00.known the EU very well and have many, many friends there for many
:24:00. > :24:04.years, I think they will be inconsequential. Do you agree with
:24:04. > :24:07.that? David Cameron is campaigning for a new relationship with Europe
:24:07. > :24:11.and then, when it comes to the referendum, if he still Prime
:24:11. > :24:14.Minister, he will campaign to stay in, not what many of his
:24:14. > :24:20.backbenchers would like to hear. He's got a problem keeping his
:24:20. > :24:24.backbenchers and his party onside, and I think for most people looking
:24:24. > :24:27.on, it does seem a bit odd to be having a referendum and, at the same
:24:27. > :24:32.time, to be saying is Prime Minister, I want to stay in if
:24:32. > :24:35.that's what you believe. Then you should stay in and promote the
:24:35. > :24:40.benefits to businesses and consumers. If you want to get out,
:24:40. > :24:46.take further steps faster towards getting out. Why does he think he
:24:46. > :24:52.can renegotiate successfully a different relationship? Maybe he's
:24:52. > :24:57.an optimist and I certainly wish the best of luck my own judgement is
:24:57. > :25:01.that he is not going to get anything of any significance whatsoever. The
:25:01. > :25:07.same with Harold Wilson, we've been through this before, in the 1970s.
:25:07. > :25:11.He said he will renegotiate the terms and he got absolutely nothing
:25:11. > :25:17.and there was a 1975 referendum where he got nothing but the
:25:17. > :25:20.majority of people, it is a different setup, and we voted in
:25:20. > :25:24.favour of it. What's interesting is that you're asking for people to
:25:24. > :25:27.write a blueprint as to what happens to Britain if it leaves the EU. We
:25:27. > :25:31.heard from European leaders saying you can't cherry pick, we're not
:25:31. > :25:36.going to give up everything but we also heard from Barack Obama who
:25:36. > :25:43.said it would be better to fix it and leave. Of course, Barack Obama
:25:43. > :25:47.is not the president of Britain but the USA. The United States once as
:25:48. > :25:55.in, why? Because they're afraid of anti-Americanism the European Union.
:25:55. > :25:59.That they want a spinner. They want us to remain in for their interests.
:25:59. > :26:03.If I was an American, I would be the same, but that's not the question
:26:03. > :26:07.before the British people. It is about spheres of influence. Have
:26:07. > :26:12.they got a lot to be frightened of about leaving as perhaps some people
:26:12. > :26:16.think? Maybe we will shed some light on this through the essays Lord
:26:16. > :26:22.Lawson will generate but for most people, they aren't much more
:26:22. > :26:28.relaxed about the prospect of staying in for the long term. -- and
:26:28. > :26:35.they are. Hoping the poem to get successions bashed hoping the Prime
:26:35. > :26:38.Minister get some successes in his renegotiations. We must give credit
:26:38. > :26:44.to the economic Institute of economic affairs. They just asked me
:26:44. > :26:50.to do this and judge it. Will the winning peace be presented to
:26:50. > :26:53.anyone? Will we see it in lights? Of course, it will be prominently
:26:53. > :26:58.published. I will take it to number ten and I'm sure they will be
:26:58. > :27:08.anxious to read it. I'm sure they will. You need to get your entry,
:27:08. > :27:08.
:27:08. > :27:12.it be your neighbours' loud music? Don't get me started! People putting
:27:12. > :27:15.their feet on the train seats? Or even apostrophes put in the wrong
:27:15. > :27:18.place? Well, for our next guest, the Lib Dem MP Mike Crockart, the most
:27:18. > :27:22.irritating thing is none of these. It's nuisance calls. Unwanted phone
:27:22. > :27:31.calls from firms trying to sell you anything from insurance to double
:27:31. > :27:36.glazing. And he's got a plan to deal with them. Here's his soapbox.
:27:36. > :27:40.Excuse me, is this a good time to talk? Have you considered a
:27:40. > :27:46.stairlift? I'm calling in regard to your property. We are a country
:27:46. > :27:49.under siege. 90% of the people I speak you don't realise it's on
:27:49. > :27:54.their policy. I'm fed up with nuisance calls to my mobile phone
:27:54. > :28:00.and landline and I mean unwanted marketing calls. Silent calls,
:28:00. > :28:06.abandoned calls, text messages and recorded messages. Being pestered
:28:06. > :28:10.day in and day out by these calls. And I know I'm not alone. If you
:28:10. > :28:15.have this done you will notice a difference in your energy bills.
:28:15. > :28:20.It's absolutely free. constituents have contacted me in
:28:20. > :28:29.great numbers for stories about complaints about companies who
:28:29. > :28:33.pester them. You may be entitled to payment protection insurance.
:28:33. > :28:40.single month last, the independent regulator of Com recorded 10,000
:28:40. > :28:43.complaints about nuisance calls. Payment protection insurance and
:28:43. > :28:46.insurance Company is where responsible for more than half
:28:46. > :28:50.unwanted calls and are frequently blamed for this rise. They are an
:28:51. > :28:55.annoyance for most people but, for many elderly people, they are also a
:28:55. > :29:01.menace and one which puts them at risk of fraud, just as much as if a
:29:01. > :29:05.pushy salesman turned up at their doorstep. Many of my constituents
:29:05. > :29:09.complain about receiving nuisance calls despite being registered with
:29:09. > :29:13.the Telephone preference service. A scheme designed to block cold calls
:29:13. > :29:19.from telemarketing firms. The problem is, the calls just keep
:29:19. > :29:22.coming and coming. Is this a good time to talk? With 19 million
:29:22. > :29:28.members registered with a telecom preference service, around three
:29:28. > :29:33.quarters of all landlines in the UK, something clearly isn't working. I
:29:33. > :29:36.want one single point of contact, one regulator who takes in all forms
:29:36. > :29:40.of unsolicited contact and one single simple process for any
:29:40. > :29:45.individual who wants to protect the privacy but, for now, I will settle
:29:45. > :29:47.for changes in the laws around how personal data is used and more
:29:47. > :29:51.powers for the regulators to tackle companies which break the law. And
:29:51. > :29:53.Mike Crockart is here now. And from Glasgow, we're joined by Anne Marie
:29:53. > :29:56.Forsyth, Chief Executive of the Customer Contact Association, which
:29:56. > :30:06.is a professional body for contact centres. And still with us is
:30:06. > :30:12.Richard lloyd of Which? You can understand how frustrating and
:30:12. > :30:16.irritating nuisance calls are. Absolutely, we are living in a 24-7,
:30:16. > :30:20.always on world, and about 1 million people work in customer contact
:30:20. > :30:27.centres across the UK, just about all of them dealing with 3.5 billion
:30:27. > :30:31.inbounds transactions, lots of them very complex. Every time we do a
:30:31. > :30:34.transaction, whether financial or anything, any interaction we do, we
:30:34. > :30:38.tend to leave trails, and of course the whole thing becomes appealing to
:30:38. > :30:43.organisations who want to contact us. So I can understand the
:30:43. > :30:48.frustration. I think the most recent statistics I heard was a average of
:30:48. > :30:52.two nuisance calls per week, and this has been hugely exacerbated by
:30:52. > :30:57.the recent PPI thing. The news there is that once PPI is out of the road,
:30:57. > :31:02.if it ever is, there will be other things, we live in a compensation
:31:02. > :31:06.culture. It is not just small businesses doing this, it is also
:31:06. > :31:11.big companies and big corporations, who are using and may be abusing the
:31:11. > :31:14.idea of cold calling. The air. As you point out, there are two very
:31:15. > :31:19.separate things going on, large organisations which, in some cases,
:31:19. > :31:24.can be helpful, they called to tell you you are overdrawn, for example,
:31:24. > :31:29.a text to say your shopping will be late or something of that nature,
:31:29. > :31:32.perhaps your security has been threatened through fraud. All of
:31:32. > :31:39.these calls are being drowned out somewhat by the nuisance and the
:31:39. > :31:45.random, less targeted, and for larger organisations, the
:31:45. > :31:53.reputational risk in doing these things is absolutely huge. The work
:31:53. > :31:57.we do, we work between organisations and consumers, and our advice always
:31:57. > :32:03.to organisations is, K, it is a very small percentage of the overall
:32:03. > :32:06.customer service world, tiny, less than 5%, but it is huge in
:32:07. > :32:10.reputational risk, and it is rather silly organisations who think they
:32:10. > :32:17.can flout the law or just be careless in not checking the
:32:17. > :32:21.processes. OK, let me come to Mike Crockart, because on that basis
:32:21. > :32:25.nuisance calls are a pain, but there are legitimate reasons. Larger
:32:25. > :32:32.organisations to make those goals, as we heard, and there is
:32:32. > :32:35.legislation in place, is it not being applied very well? There are
:32:35. > :32:40.two aspects here. Some of the legislation is not being applied
:32:40. > :32:44.stringently enough, but also there are gaps, huge, yawning gaps in the
:32:44. > :32:51.legislation. If we look at the level of annoyance this is causing people,
:32:51. > :32:55.you know, we have 10,000 calls, 10,000 complaints per month to Ofcom
:32:55. > :33:01.about silent and abandoned calls, 4000 about TPS, and we have no idea
:33:01. > :33:05.how many are going to others about this. This is a huge problem, not
:33:05. > :33:10.just a few calls being made by legitimate companies, it is
:33:10. > :33:14.enormous. So there is the Telephone Preference Service in place, but who
:33:14. > :33:18.is in charge of regulating nuisance calls? This is part of the problem,
:33:18. > :33:22.too many people are in charge, at least five regulators have something
:33:22. > :33:25.to do with it. That is because there are so money different parts of the
:33:25. > :33:33.law that go towards dealing with nuisance calls, so there is a claims
:33:33. > :33:35.management regulator that deals with PPI claims companies, there is Ofcom
:33:35. > :33:37.that deals with silent calls, and there is the Information
:33:37. > :33:42.Commissioner, that deals with nuisance calls and texts that are
:33:42. > :33:48.unsolicited, laws of data than not allowed. We want the government to
:33:48. > :33:52.get all those regulators to work together properly, we have started
:33:52. > :33:55.having conversations, interrupted by a spam text the other day, with the
:33:55. > :34:00.Minister and the regulators about how they can work together better.
:34:01. > :34:04.Why not have one regulator? That would make things much clearer, one
:34:04. > :34:08.organisation accountable, but they have all said the law is not clear
:34:08. > :34:13.enough. It requires a lot of distress to be proved before the
:34:13. > :34:17.regulators can find companies for using these techniques for getting
:34:17. > :34:22.in touch with people. But companies are fined, and they? The current
:34:22. > :34:31.fine is up to �500,000, a lot of money, that would break quite a lot
:34:31. > :34:34.of businesses. It would not break some of the major companies that are
:34:34. > :34:38.involved. The powers that the Information Commissioner's office
:34:38. > :34:42.has to chase up those fines is not strong enough, so if someone ignores
:34:42. > :34:46.the Information Commissioner for a month, the powers that they have to
:34:46. > :34:53.force them to pay that fine are actually quite limited. What we need
:34:53. > :34:57.to do, actually, is to massively change the whole way that consent is
:34:57. > :35:02.organised around this. Because it is all about whether people want to
:35:02. > :35:05.receive these calls, and clearly they don't. I was slightly worried,
:35:05. > :35:10.reading the background to this, that consumers who tick the box that
:35:10. > :35:14.say, yes, please send my details to a third party, for all those people,
:35:14. > :35:20.including myself, who do not take that box, yet that information is
:35:20. > :35:26.somehow sold on, that is illegal, isn't it? There is a massive issue
:35:26. > :35:32.here around complexity, and as consumers I don't think we often
:35:32. > :35:38.realised that we are doing this. Sometimes we are desperate to get to
:35:38. > :35:44.the end of a script without reading it. I completely agree with that
:35:44. > :35:48.piece. One of the reasons the regulator is an issue, we need a
:35:48. > :35:52.stronger and better working of what we have got. We have recently seen
:35:52. > :35:56.some of these large and well publicised fines, but perhaps they
:35:56. > :36:00.are not big enough. Your point by breaking companies, we want to make
:36:00. > :36:03.sure that legislation works and people do not -- who do not wish to
:36:03. > :36:07.recall not called, and also those organisations which are dragging
:36:08. > :36:11.down the whole customer services industry are properly dealt with,
:36:11. > :36:16.you know, and a good example is the recent BBC Three documentary about
:36:16. > :36:21.the company in Wales, the rather opportunistic company who ended up
:36:21. > :36:28.with a very large fine. More of these, I think, will help with that.
:36:28. > :36:32.Can I make a separate point? Very quickly! Regulation is one half, and
:36:32. > :36:35.the other half is standards. The reputational risk to large brands,
:36:35. > :36:39.if they are not seen to be staying within the law or annoying
:36:39. > :36:43.customers, is huge. There are standards, we need to have more
:36:43. > :36:46.adoption of standards that are well recognised, there is a global
:36:46. > :36:51.standard. We need to have more of this, and we need to make it a
:36:51. > :36:57.boardroom issue. Too often we see on the cover of stories, people are
:36:57. > :37:04.shock are about things... Very briefly. Standards will not fix
:37:04. > :37:08.this. Over half of nuisance calls come from PPI claim companies that
:37:08. > :37:11.will disappear overnight if they are fine. Only proper regulation will
:37:11. > :37:16.fix this and proper powers for a single regulator. Thank you very
:37:16. > :37:19.much. Later this afternoon, the Health Secretary will make a
:37:19. > :37:24.statement about a critical report into care at 14 hospital trusts in
:37:24. > :37:28.England. The report, led by NHS England medical director Professor
:37:29. > :37:33.Bruce Keogh, was commissioned after the Stafford Hospital scandal.
:37:33. > :37:38.Jeremy Hunt has been answering help questions in the Commons, including
:37:38. > :37:47.this from Andy Burnham. Seven of the 14 hospitals in the review have,
:37:47. > :37:51.between them, cut a shocking 1117 nursing jobs on this government's
:37:51. > :37:57.watch. Unsurprisingly, A&E performance has plummeted at all
:37:57. > :38:00.seven. All 14 hospitals were meeting the A&E target in my time in office.
:38:00. > :38:09.None of them are meeting at under him. Surely the right response to
:38:09. > :38:13.this review is to stop dithering and act now on safe staffing levels.
:38:13. > :38:17.Well, I am surprised that he wants to talk about the Keogh review
:38:17. > :38:24.before we have our statement, but I'm particularly surprised because
:38:24. > :38:27.it is the review that Labour never wanted to have. In all those
:38:27. > :38:33.hospitals, stretching right their way back to 2005, a record of
:38:33. > :38:37.inaction by Labour. I think the house might be interested. As a
:38:37. > :38:42.former Labour councillor, a Mid Staffs campaigner, Ken Lowndes said
:38:42. > :38:48.today, can you imagine this review and Andy Burnham or any Labour
:38:48. > :38:52.Health Secretary? Not a chance! can talk to Vicki Young, who joins
:38:52. > :38:55.us from outside Parliament. We have not had the report yet, but already
:38:55. > :38:59.the politicians are lining up to blame each other for failings in a
:38:59. > :39:03.number of NHS hospitals. What is interesting is that you have the NHS
:39:03. > :39:08.leaders in England, if you like, trying to move on, to go into these
:39:08. > :39:13.hospitals, which is what Sir Bruce Keogh's team did, going to speak to
:39:13. > :39:17.patients and staff about what is going on, to see what improvements
:39:17. > :39:21.can be made, DC the regulatory system is robust enough, to see if
:39:21. > :39:24.people are taking responsibility for what is going on. Whereas, as you
:39:24. > :39:27.saw there, the Conservatives wanting to go back to the past, and there
:39:27. > :39:32.has been a huge political Barney about this going back to the big
:39:32. > :39:35.debate, the big row about Mid Staffs. The Tories have Andy Burnham
:39:35. > :39:40.in their sights, the man who was the Labour Health Secretary for just 11
:39:40. > :39:46.months, and he has come out and given his works to robust defence of
:39:46. > :39:49.Labour's record in office. He says there is no evidence of a cover-up
:39:49. > :39:52.by him, no evidence he was ignoring the warnings. He says completely the
:39:52. > :39:56.opposite, that some of these hospitals, about five of these 14,
:39:56. > :40:01.when he left office, he left a health warning on them, so this had
:40:01. > :40:04.been flagged up by him and he said, going back to Mid Staffordshire, he
:40:04. > :40:07.organised the first inquiry into that, even as civil servants did not
:40:08. > :40:13.want him to. What the politicians at the end of this want to be able to
:40:13. > :40:17.say is that the NHS is not safe in their opponents' hands. What period
:40:17. > :40:20.of time was Sir Bruce Keogh covering? Did it include the time
:40:20. > :40:26.that Andy Burnham was Health Secretary in the last government, or
:40:26. > :40:29.is it solely looking at the years under the coalition? It has been
:40:29. > :40:32.triggered because these 14 trusts had a higher than normal mortality
:40:32. > :40:36.rate over the last two years, but it is certainly the case that in some
:40:36. > :40:41.of these hospitals there were problems before, and I think that is
:40:41. > :40:46.Andy Burnham's defends here. He is saying, look, I didn't like this up
:40:46. > :40:49.when he was Health Secretary. But of course it is a much bigger debate
:40:49. > :40:54.about the NHS, how will it cope in the future with higher demand, all
:40:54. > :40:57.of us getting older, not much more money to go around? A lot of people
:40:57. > :41:01.think some hospitals will have to close. The Labour I commit is that
:41:01. > :41:09.the coalition has tried to paint the NHS in a bad light in order to
:41:09. > :41:18.soften the public for changes. -- We are joined by Priti Patel, one of a
:41:18. > :41:26.group of Labour MPs who have accused Andy Burnham of ignoring... Welcome
:41:26. > :41:29.to both of you. Priti Patel, he went out of his way to sound bipartisan,
:41:29. > :41:35.why has the Conservative Party and you decided to take the gloves off
:41:35. > :41:39.now? From my own point of view, in the county of Essex, there are two
:41:39. > :41:42.hospitals on the list of 14 hospitals, and I have just found and
:41:42. > :41:46.my colleagues have discovered that the culture in the NHS around these
:41:46. > :41:50.hospitals and some of the questions we have been asking have actually,
:41:51. > :41:53.we have uncovered a range of not just failures but institutional
:41:53. > :41:57.defensiveness, basically, where there has been a degree of denial
:41:57. > :42:02.about what has happened in the past, and that's just fails patients
:42:02. > :42:05.and does not mean we can move on in an adequate way to address the wider
:42:05. > :42:10.concerns around patient care and the neglect of patients and
:42:11. > :42:15.constituents. And you are blaming Labour for the institutionalised
:42:15. > :42:22.objection and not helping or listening to patients? Well, if you
:42:22. > :42:24.go back and listen to those who were around under the previous Labour
:42:24. > :42:27.government, some of the independent experts, like Brian Jarman as well
:42:27. > :42:31.and Baroness young, who was heading up the CQC, they have said there was
:42:31. > :42:35.a culture at the time, the denial machine is how it is referred to by
:42:35. > :42:39.Brian Jarman, but also Baroness Ye Yang has said there was a focus on
:42:39. > :42:44.talking about good news, as opposed to dealing with things such as the
:42:44. > :42:51.high death rates at these hospitals. Many of the challenges associated
:42:51. > :42:55.with were patient care that the CQC has been trying to expose. That get
:42:55. > :42:59.a response to that from Andrew Gwynne. That is not the full
:42:59. > :43:01.picture, because it was under the last Labour government that
:43:01. > :43:07.regulation of hospitals was introduced. It was under the last
:43:08. > :43:11.Labour government that all these death rates were published on the
:43:11. > :43:16.website. And of course if you were trying to cover these issues up, you
:43:16. > :43:21.certainly wouldn't be going fully for transparency by publishing all
:43:21. > :43:25.the mortality data online. Now, what about the patients in this, Richard
:43:25. > :43:30.Lloyd? One of the biggest complaint is that they were not listened to,
:43:30. > :43:34.they will not listened to by medical staff in many cases. This is why it
:43:34. > :43:38.is so disappointing to see this being used as a political football,
:43:38. > :43:42.and we want all the politicians to focus on why it was that patients
:43:42. > :43:47.and their families, who time after time ran out the red flag and said
:43:47. > :43:52.things were going horribly wrong, were ignored. How can we make the
:43:52. > :43:56.regulator, the inspectors be made to respond to the patient voice? How
:43:56. > :44:00.can we create a stronger patient voice? As well is getting data out,
:44:00. > :44:03.the information out about how hospitals are performing, right down
:44:03. > :44:08.to the individual consultant level. We need to see more transparency,
:44:08. > :44:12.more honesty about what is going on, but also that responsiveness to
:44:12. > :44:16.patients and their families when they do say, hang on, look how I
:44:16. > :44:21.have been treated, this is not right. Is it fair to play politics
:44:21. > :44:26.over deaths in hospitals? I do not think this is about politics at all.
:44:26. > :44:30.You said that Andy Burnham's job was not sustainable. This is about
:44:30. > :44:34.patients, and we have discovered there is this culture where they
:44:34. > :44:38.have not been listened to, and to be fair, as the Parliamentary questions
:44:38. > :44:41.I have been asking have demonstrated, 1500 red flags went
:44:41. > :44:45.into the Department of Health, raising concerns about these
:44:45. > :44:49.hospitals, and this comes back to the lack of transparency within the
:44:49. > :44:53.NHS in terms of what just happened. We have to learn lessons of the back
:44:53. > :44:57.of this review, when we hear the statement later, and not just for
:44:57. > :45:01.hospitals to learn, but for them to engage with patients and their
:45:01. > :45:07.families and the public to work with them in terms of managing
:45:07. > :45:12.expectations and providing good clinical care. 1500 warnings about
:45:12. > :45:19.the trusts but why were they not acted upon? They were acted upon and
:45:19. > :45:23.that's where I take issue with what Priti Patel has said. In 2009, I
:45:23. > :45:27.went to see Andy Burnham when he was the Health Secretary and I was a
:45:27. > :45:33.backbencher at the time, along with my two colleagues who also
:45:33. > :45:38.represented Tyneside and repainted the complete picture of what was
:45:38. > :45:43.going on at a Tyneside. His officials told him he couldn't act,
:45:43. > :45:49.as Secretary of State because it was a foundation trust and these words
:45:50. > :45:56.were that there was no place in our NHS for substandard care and he
:45:56. > :46:02.ordered the sea QC to go in and announced to Tyneside Hospital which
:46:02. > :46:08.has happened right up to the review. Do you know what is the most
:46:08. > :46:12.scandalous thing? For the last three years, there were still problems at
:46:12. > :46:17.Tyneside except, up until March this year, when they gave it a clean bill
:46:17. > :46:21.of health. That's battling to people. Shouldn't you be more
:46:22. > :46:24.worried about conditions in these hospitals now? It's all very well
:46:24. > :46:30.getting people to take responsibility for what happened in
:46:30. > :46:34.the last government but Andy Burnham has been saying all of 14 are
:46:34. > :46:38.missing their AMD targets and it is understood, the report will point to
:46:38. > :46:46.the concerns over nurse staffing levels in the hospitals under
:46:46. > :46:53.investigation. We are missing the point. Nurse staffing levels are too
:46:53. > :46:56.low in these hospitals and it's led to poor standards of care. Bruce
:46:56. > :47:03.Keogh has referred to that but that is not the full answer to the actual
:47:03. > :47:06.challenges faced by these hospitals. We are talking about quality of care
:47:06. > :47:12.and transparency. Actually, this is about the culture in these hospitals
:47:12. > :47:17.and the NHS. I am convinced this is just the tip of the iceberg right
:47:17. > :47:20.now. Some of these hospitals will go to special measures today and we
:47:20. > :47:27.should be deeply concerned about that but as I have said this is
:47:27. > :47:31.about transparency in the NHS, learning lessons and ensuring
:47:31. > :47:37.patients are listened to and they and their families get the care
:47:37. > :47:45.required. Andrew Gwynne and Priti Patel, thank you very much. Now,
:47:45. > :47:55.remember this? The number of votes recorded for the candidates at each
:47:55. > :48:11.
:48:11. > :48:21.election is as follows. Martin Bell, Neil Hamilton, 18,000.
:48:21. > :48:33.
:48:33. > :48:38.scandal back in 1997. Or a surprise for me! Counts still provide much of
:48:38. > :48:40.the drama of election night. But a report out today from the Electoral
:48:40. > :48:43.Commission says that, despite a generally successful set of
:48:43. > :48:46.elections in May of this year, provision of information at some
:48:46. > :48:52.counts was patchy and in some cases announcements were infrequent or
:48:52. > :48:54.inaudible. Goodness. We've been joined by Tom Hawthorn, head of
:48:54. > :49:00.electoral policy at the Electoral Commission. And Mike More, Chief
:49:00. > :49:04.Executive and Returning Officer at Westminster City Council. Can I
:49:04. > :49:10.start with you, Michael. Were you happy with the way the elections
:49:10. > :49:15.were done in May? I, personally, was not responsible for the elections in
:49:15. > :49:18.May but I was very happy with them. We have them coming up in London
:49:18. > :49:23.next summer aligned with the European elections, but yes, I think
:49:23. > :49:28.what has happened across the country in the last couple of years has been
:49:28. > :49:35.a good story. Do you agree? Apart from picking up on this patchiness,
:49:35. > :49:40.what do you mean by that? Where were they patchy? What we found overall
:49:40. > :49:45.weight the elections were run, backed up by what the voters were
:49:45. > :49:49.told, 90% said it was well run. In a couple of places we saw on election
:49:49. > :49:55.night there were some places where the communication wasn't as good as
:49:55. > :49:58.it could've been and maybe it was good and bad in parts. Does this
:49:59. > :50:03.concern of voters, how local elections and national elections are
:50:03. > :50:09.run? Remember big queues when people couldn't actually getting beyond the
:50:09. > :50:13.ten o'clock cut-off point? I think in the 2010 example, when it goes
:50:13. > :50:17.wrong, people are up in arms and rightly so. What we should be
:50:17. > :50:21.thinking about is how to make elections engaging, encouraging
:50:21. > :50:26.people to get involved, people to maybe stay up late and watch it all
:50:26. > :50:30.night and see the results, helpfully audibly. There's a need to keep the
:50:30. > :50:35.excitement about elections and the results going. Otherwise, more and
:50:35. > :50:40.more people will drift away from the process and won't engage with it. So
:50:40. > :50:46.how we do does matter. What about the idea some returning officers are
:50:46. > :50:50.inaudible? It's not good if you can't hear the result. We saw
:50:50. > :50:53.announcements which are really good but the PA system in place wasn't
:50:53. > :50:57.good enough. Probably, it's all right for some candidates have been
:50:57. > :51:00.doing this for lots of years, they've been around a bit and they
:51:00. > :51:04.understand what's going on but if you are a new candidate, you don't
:51:04. > :51:12.understand and you need to know what's happening so you can provide
:51:12. > :51:17.that essential element of transparency. What is your response?
:51:17. > :51:21.Maybe this has not come across terribly well. Some colleagues don't
:51:21. > :51:26.come across well but they should do. Surely they should be able to speak
:51:26. > :51:30.loudly enough? My role is to talk to all the players, front of House,
:51:30. > :51:34.this is what's going to happen next, no surprises, the result will
:51:34. > :51:38.be a surprise but they're not surprised by the process, so keeping
:51:38. > :51:42.communication going all the way through that, culminating in the
:51:42. > :51:48.very clear, positive presentation. You're not going to sack the ones
:51:48. > :51:53.who don't speak clearly or hold some sort of poll to find out? We are
:51:53. > :51:57.front of House agent and we can agree that's what we are there for.
:51:57. > :52:02.We have some good examples of excellent practice and will work
:52:02. > :52:06.with colleagues and returning officers to explain a best practice
:52:06. > :52:11.model for people to use for next year 's elections. How worried are
:52:11. > :52:15.you about the next two years because there's a lot on your plate?
:52:15. > :52:19.London, we have the European and council elections at the same time,
:52:19. > :52:24.the third week of May, individual electoral registration, new process,
:52:24. > :52:29.and then the general election. you, gentlemen, very much, and I
:52:29. > :52:33.heard you perfectly, both of you. Now, in case you hadn't noticed,
:52:33. > :52:37.it's rather hot outside. Time for an ice cream you might think. Well, in
:52:37. > :52:40.a seasonal slashing of red tape, ice cream van drivers will be allowed to
:52:40. > :52:44.sound their chimes for a whole 12 seconds, up from the current four.
:52:44. > :52:46.But not until this autumn. But what will really freeze your brains is
:52:46. > :52:56.noise campaigners think the Government has been wasting its
:52:56. > :52:57.
:52:57. > :53:01.time. Our very own Mr Whippy, Giles Dilnot, is finding out why. I've
:53:01. > :53:05.come to the conclusion I'm rapidly becoming a Daily Politics culinary
:53:05. > :53:09.correspondence having done a burger tasting last week, following a tub
:53:09. > :53:16.of ice cream but weirdly, it's not about how ice cream tastes, but how
:53:16. > :53:21.it sounds. Confused? Meet Leander. Tell me why we are discussing the
:53:21. > :53:26.sound of ice cream? The law used to be it was the four seconds you were
:53:26. > :53:32.allowed to play it, but now it is changed to 12 seconds. What would be
:53:32. > :53:36.the difference of seconds for us? What difference does that make?
:53:36. > :53:39.Apparently it can affect your business. We had a lot of customers
:53:39. > :53:44.complaining that we weren't coming down their streets but of course,
:53:44. > :53:50.they weren't hearing is because the times were not chiming for long
:53:50. > :53:53.enough. They are complaining they don't get to hear you at all?
:53:53. > :53:58.love the chiming, that's what British summer is all about.
:53:58. > :54:03.would we have the noise abatement Society with us, because it's not
:54:03. > :54:10.about the fact we don't like this, but about the fact that this was an
:54:10. > :54:15.exercise in government cutbacks and you tell me why it didn't work.
:54:15. > :54:21.code of practice was put in place to protect the mobile food industry and
:54:21. > :54:26.by local agreement, vendors could have chimed for as long as they
:54:26. > :54:31.wanted to anyway. The four second guidance was put in place 30 years
:54:31. > :54:36.ago for worst-case scenarios, never to not allow the industry to China.
:54:36. > :54:39.It was the consultation, the wait was carried out and put forward,
:54:39. > :54:45.actually could potentially endanger the industry and set a dangerous
:54:45. > :54:50.precedent for noise pollution in general. The government says it
:54:50. > :54:56.spoke to noise stakeholders, I'm not sure what that is, but I would have
:54:56. > :54:59.thought it would include your society. So would I. We worked on
:54:59. > :55:03.the original code of practice I don't understand who they spoke to
:55:03. > :55:11.but they did not speak to us. We could've had a chat, and ice cream
:55:11. > :55:18.together, and worked out ourselves. Is there a push for you, soon there
:55:18. > :55:21.was a relaxed, we can do 12 seconds now? We were surprised that there
:55:21. > :55:25.was a fuss in the first place because ice cream is one of the
:55:25. > :55:30.things Britain does best in the world. You'll never see an ice cream
:55:30. > :55:36.van as good as ours. To be honest, for us, it's a lot better 12 seconds
:55:36. > :55:42.because it's what people want to hear. I've not show sure about the
:55:42. > :55:47.parents when the children ask for ice cream. It's good for us.
:55:47. > :55:52.there any suggestion people don't like it? There's occasions when
:55:52. > :55:56.certain times of day when children are sleeping, or elderly people, who
:55:56. > :56:01.might be ill, sometimes people with special needs, can react strongly to
:56:01. > :56:06.certain types of noises, so there is a need to have a legislation and
:56:06. > :56:11.guidance in place, but it was never about stopping mobile food vendors.
:56:11. > :56:16.It's about striking a balance. you regulate yourselves and think,
:56:16. > :56:21.we tend not to go down there because not many customers want us and as a
:56:21. > :56:25.residential area? People wouldn't come out if they didn't want it. We
:56:25. > :56:29.would waste our time otherwise. can't think of any other industry
:56:29. > :56:32.that is allowed to use sound to advertise in this way and
:56:32. > :56:38.presumably, we wouldn't want to go back to Victorian times when people
:56:38. > :56:42.are shouting in the streets? Absolutely not. It's important to
:56:42. > :56:46.understand why the code was put in place to protect the industry as an
:56:46. > :56:50.exceptional case against the control of pollution act, and the
:56:50. > :56:55.regulations which would normally apply. Essentially, the government,
:56:55. > :57:00.to cut red tape, has made more work for itself and didn't need to do
:57:00. > :57:03.this? It was a completely pointless exercise but at least we still have
:57:03. > :57:09.the mobile food vending industry chiming in the streets for those who
:57:09. > :57:14.want ice cream. We may as well taste some of it so let's have an ice
:57:14. > :57:24.cream. There's no point doing this unless you get to eat the food. Come
:57:24. > :57:24.
:57:24. > :57:29.on. Thank you. Thank you. enjoyed your ice cream is because
:57:29. > :57:35.Richard and I will suffer without. I did like it when they said the best
:57:35. > :57:41.ice cream vans in the world, but not at the best ice cream is. Do you
:57:41. > :57:43.have a view on the times? I think it will wrap up a storm of protest who
:57:43. > :57:48.will be pestered even more by their children but I think we should
:57:48. > :57:52.relax. I think we can probably live with it. There's just time before we
:57:52. > :57:55.go to find out the answer to our quiz. If you can remember what it
:57:55. > :57:59.was. Let me remind you. So what daredevil escapade has the Russian
:57:59. > :58:04.President got up to now? Was it: Wrestling a giant sea squid?
:58:04. > :58:14.Sky-diving from a fighter jet? Going under the sea in a submarine? Or
:58:14. > :58:15.
:58:15. > :58:24.surfing in Hawaii? Richard, what's the answer? My choice is that he
:58:24. > :58:28.went in a submersible. I think we might be able to show that picture.
:58:28. > :58:33.This may not be very politically correct but I think he could be a
:58:33. > :58:39.good James Bond villain. Do you think, Vladimir Putin and a
:58:39. > :58:43.submersible? Was that a cat sitting with him? He's obviously a he-man.
:58:43. > :58:47.That's all for today. Thanks to Richard Lloyd and all my guests. The