16/07/2013 Daily Politics


16/07/2013

Jo Coburn with the latest political news, interviews and debate.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Politics. Labour and the Tories argue over who is to blame for

:00:44.:00:48.

unnecessary deaths in NHS hospitals as a critical report slams the

:00:49.:00:54.

standard of care at 14 hospital trusts in England. The Government

:00:54.:00:57.

outlines options for replacing Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent

:00:57.:01:01.

programme, but the Lib Dems and Conservatives cannot agree on a

:01:01.:01:06.

plan, we talk to both. What would Britain look like if we leave the

:01:06.:01:12.

EU? Nigel Lawson will explain why he is backing a 100,000 euros prize to

:01:12.:01:15.

find the best route map out of Europe. Tony Blair likes them,

:01:15.:01:20.

Gordon Brown loves them. As the UK swelters, should ice cream vans be

:01:20.:01:24.

allowed to play their chimes more often? We have the inside scoop,

:01:24.:01:34.
:01:34.:01:35.

And an hour full of puns, no doubt. With us for the whole programme is

:01:35.:01:39.

Richard Lloyd, executive director of the consumer organisation Which,

:01:39.:01:47.

welcome to the programme. Hundreds and thousands of pounds, even!

:01:47.:01:50.

report from Which says that Britain's big six energy firms

:01:50.:01:54.

should be forced to separate their generation businesses from their

:01:54.:01:59.

retail arms to ensure customers are not overcharged. Are you suggesting,

:01:59.:02:03.

like the banks, that we break up the big six? Exactly what you should do

:02:03.:02:10.

is but a ringfenced between the part of the energy companies that have a

:02:10.:02:14.

generation business and that sell it to us in the retail market. They are

:02:14.:02:18.

able to sell themselves power and then sell it on to us, and that part

:02:18.:02:22.

of the business is completely not transparent, it is impossible to see

:02:22.:02:25.

whether they are competing properly with each other. They are very often

:02:25.:02:32.

hiding behind trades of huge volumes of gas and electricity, and that is

:02:32.:02:36.

a massive chunk of our bills at the end of the day. So what we want a

:02:37.:02:40.

disease is a clear division between those two parts of unified

:02:41.:02:45.

businesses that do generation and retail, and proper transparency,

:02:45.:02:50.

proper competition. Would it actually bring down bills? Npower

:02:50.:02:55.

has said it is the government's predictions on savings with more

:02:55.:02:58.

investment in green technologies that has pushed up the bills, not

:02:58.:03:02.

their profits, not from cycling a bit from generation to retail, but

:03:02.:03:07.

that is what is pushing up the bills on the Government was over

:03:07.:03:12.

estimating what can be saved. have got a blame game going on. The

:03:12.:03:16.

suppliers are saying it is the Government's fault because of the

:03:16.:03:18.

cost of taking Harman out of electricity generation, in

:03:18.:03:25.

particular. -- carbon. There is a bit of truth in what both sides are

:03:25.:03:29.

saying. We what we want now is to see wheelchair and by the

:03:29.:03:35.

across-the-board. If the Government is going to negotiate for a new

:03:35.:03:40.

nuclear power station, let's make sure there is transparency. We pay

:03:40.:03:44.

for that through our bills, and at the same time we have this problem

:03:44.:03:47.

in the wholesale market, where generators probably are not being

:03:47.:03:51.

forced to compete with each other really strongly, and that, we

:03:51.:03:56.

think, would keep prices in check, too. Across-the-board we need to see

:03:56.:04:02.

these costs kept under control, much more honesty about what is driving

:04:02.:04:07.

prices and bills. At the moment it is all done behind closed doors, it

:04:07.:04:10.

is not transparent, the Government needs to ensure consumers we are

:04:10.:04:15.

getting a good deal. I think they are starting to see that you cannot

:04:15.:04:17.

persuade consumers to pay for this stuff unless you are honest about

:04:17.:04:20.

how much it is going to cost and that they are fighting our corner

:04:20.:04:24.

for a good price. It remains to be seen how much of the new legislation

:04:24.:04:29.

that is about to go through Parliament is going to bring about

:04:29.:04:36.

the transparency we are calling for. Well, it is time for our daily quiz.

:04:36.:04:40.

Vladimir Putin is famous for photos done is showing off his virility, so

:04:41.:04:45.

the question for today is, what's daredevil escapade has the Russian

:04:45.:04:50.

president got up to now? Was it wrestling a giant squid? Skydiving

:04:50.:04:56.

from a fighter jet? Travelling 50 metres under the sea in a high-tech

:04:56.:05:03.

submersible? Or serving one of the world's largest waves in Hawaii? At

:05:03.:05:07.

the end of the show, Richard will hopefully give us the correct

:05:07.:05:12.

answer! Britain's Trident nuclear system is coming to the end of its

:05:12.:05:16.

life. Ministers will have to decide if and how to replace it. Chief

:05:16.:05:20.

Secretary Danny Alexander has been tasked with answering the question,

:05:21.:05:26.

what type of deterrence does the UK need? As we have the head of Which

:05:26.:05:29.

on the show, we thought we would review the options, although it will

:05:29.:05:34.

be for the Government in 2016 to decide which is the best. Investors

:05:34.:05:39.

could decide on a like-for-like replacement, that is expensive. --

:05:39.:05:45.

ministers. Building four new submarines could cost �25 billion.

:05:45.:05:49.

But it will allow the UK to operate a continuous deterrent, as we have

:05:49.:05:55.

done since the 1960s. This will get the stamp of approval from the

:05:55.:05:58.

Conservatives. David Cameron has said he is crystal clear that it has

:05:58.:06:02.

to continue in its current form. We could downgrade Trident, cutting the

:06:02.:06:08.

number of submarines down to either two three. The Lib Dems say this

:06:08.:06:12.

would save billions, money that could shore up conventional military

:06:12.:06:16.

budgets. But it would mean the end of the round-the-clock deterrent,

:06:16.:06:19.

something that Philip Hammond says is a reckless gamble with national

:06:19.:06:23.

security. It is the option favoured by the Lib Dems, arguing the current

:06:23.:06:28.

Cold War system is out of date. The UK could of course get rid of

:06:28.:06:32.

Trident entirely, but with Labour saying it supports a nuclear

:06:32.:06:37.

deterrent, that looks like the one option that will not prove popular.

:06:37.:06:40.

The Defence Secretary said any talk of cutting back on Trident was

:06:40.:06:44.

naive. Moving away from a tried and tested system which has protected us

:06:44.:06:52.

for over 45 years now to try something different, potentially

:06:52.:06:59.

more costly, certainly more risky, at a time when Russia is spending

:06:59.:07:01.

$150 billion rebuilding its armed forces, including its nuclear

:07:01.:07:07.

forces, Iran is attempting to attain nuclear warheads to put on its

:07:07.:07:13.

existing ballistic missile Isles, I think this would be an extremely

:07:13.:07:18.

foolhardy thing to do at this stage. -- ballistic missiles. I have been

:07:18.:07:24.

joined by Penny Mordaunt and Nick Harvey, welcome to you both. Nick

:07:24.:07:29.

Harvey, we have seen this morning two former chiefs of defence staff,

:07:29.:07:32.

people of all political colours lining up to say this review is

:07:32.:07:38.

wrong. I think they are wrong. We have had the first serious look at

:07:38.:07:42.

this question for several decades, coming at it with an open mind,

:07:42.:07:46.

looking at what we need in the 21st century, rather than what we needed

:07:46.:07:50.

at the height of the Cold War, and I think now is the opportunity to take

:07:50.:07:54.

a few steps down the nuclear ladder, to come off continuous at

:07:54.:07:59.

sea deterrent. It might have made sense at the height of the Cold War

:07:59.:08:04.

when we had a known nuclear anniversary, the Soviet Union,

:08:04.:08:11.

patrolling as 24-7. But that ended 25 years ago, and it does not make

:08:11.:08:16.

any sense in this day and age. the report does not make any clear

:08:16.:08:20.

recommendations, does it? The review does produce options, but it does

:08:20.:08:24.

not tell us anything we did not know. It does not back up your

:08:24.:08:29.

political case. It never set out to make recommendations. It set out to

:08:29.:08:35.

inform a political debate, and I can see that debate running from now

:08:35.:08:39.

until the 2015 general election, when I think the nuclear deterrent

:08:39.:08:42.

will be an issue for the first time since 1983. I think public attitudes

:08:42.:08:46.

have shifted a great deal since 1983, and when people look at the

:08:46.:08:51.

opportunity cost of putting all this money into a Cold War scale nuclear

:08:51.:08:54.

deterrent, they will question the wisdom of that when there are so

:08:54.:08:58.

many other competing demands, not least in the military, not least in

:08:58.:09:03.

the surface navy, which is dear to Penny's hard in Portsmouth. You are

:09:03.:09:10.

a former Royal Navy reserve cadet, looking at this review and the

:09:10.:09:13.

options set out, is there anything that changes your mind about having

:09:13.:09:19.

a continuous deterrent? No, it backs up what we knew all along, which is

:09:19.:09:22.

that if you are going to have this, you needed all year round, and the

:09:23.:09:26.

best value and most effective deterrent is what we are currently

:09:26.:09:31.

got. The tragedy about this is that the two - boat option, which is what

:09:31.:09:35.

the Liberals seem to be moving towards, was not part of the review.

:09:35.:09:41.

It is such a nutty option, because it relies on is basically persuading

:09:41.:09:50.

malign regimes and state-sponsored terrorists not to attack us on

:09:50.:09:53.

months of the year which do not have the letter A in the name. Danny

:09:53.:09:56.

Alexander ruled it out. He said it would be a crazy option. It is not

:09:56.:09:58.

in the detailed costings. The three-boat option, which the

:09:58.:10:02.

Liberals were going for, has now been shown to yield so little

:10:02.:10:07.

savings, and not until 2025, that they are reverting to the two-boat

:10:07.:10:14.

idea. It is good news, it backs up what we have been saying all along.

:10:14.:10:18.

Do you accept the world has changed? We do not live in the Cold War

:10:18.:10:23.

anymore, we do not face those same dangers. We face difference dangers,

:10:23.:10:30.

but not the same ones, so it maybe that would provide cover, but do we

:10:30.:10:38.

need it? We do need it. This is not a capability that would be used in

:10:38.:10:41.

all scenarios, so some terrorist activity, Somali pirates, it is of

:10:41.:10:46.

no use, but that is not an argument for not having it, because it will

:10:46.:10:50.

cover us for a whole variety of scenarios. Your viewers will know

:10:50.:10:54.

about North Korea and Iran. Russia, which might seem like a very

:10:54.:10:58.

friendly country towards us at the moment, just last year was talking

:10:58.:11:02.

about a first strike against US missile bases in Poland. The really

:11:02.:11:06.

important fact is we have not got to just plan for what is happening

:11:06.:11:09.

today with the deterrent, but what will happen over the course of its

:11:09.:11:16.

life. But we have no known nuclear anniversary. Not at the moment.The

:11:16.:11:19.

national-security strategy has downgraded the nuclear threat to a

:11:19.:11:23.

second tier. There is no other part of our military capability that we

:11:23.:11:28.

keep on constant patrol. We keep the skills, the equipment, and we have a

:11:28.:11:31.

contingency basis, and we deploy them when we need them. There is no

:11:31.:11:34.

reason why the nuclear deterrent should not be operated on that

:11:34.:11:41.

basis. This is a threat we face, it is a threat that we will face over

:11:41.:11:45.

the life of the next deterrent, and when you are looking at... This is

:11:45.:11:54.

coming down to money, and to run the four-boat solution is 1% of the

:11:54.:12:02.

welfare budget. �25 billion is a lot of money. But what it gives us, as

:12:02.:12:05.

long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, our public want us to

:12:05.:12:09.

have systems that will protect us from them being used against us, and

:12:09.:12:13.

that is what this does very effectively. Would you feel less

:12:13.:12:17.

secure without this deterrent? think most people will be thinking

:12:17.:12:21.

it is right to look hard at the cost of all of this, is it still the

:12:21.:12:25.

right thing to be doing? Have things changed so much that we should be

:12:25.:12:29.

thinking again? I think, for most people in the run-up to the next

:12:29.:12:32.

election, they will be thinking about where money is being cut from

:12:32.:12:36.

many other budgets, pressure on public spending across-the-board.

:12:36.:12:42.

This hypothetical defence question, it is going to be very hard for

:12:42.:12:47.

voters to engage in it, but the numbers are enormous. You cannot

:12:47.:12:50.

escape the track record of the Ministry of Defence in procuring

:12:50.:12:54.

equipment, it is appalling. Absolutely right to be having a hard

:12:54.:12:57.

look at this, exploring all the options, and are there more cost

:12:57.:13:02.

effective ways of doing this? have to build two boats anyway,

:13:02.:13:06.

because of the state of the current submarines, we need two to continue

:13:06.:13:11.

the policy as it currently stands. So we are talking in the difference

:13:11.:13:15.

in cost between two submarines, three and four, and the more you

:13:15.:13:20.

build, the cost drops. So what are the savings? If we are talking about

:13:20.:13:30.
:13:30.:13:31.

�1,000,000,000... This is nonsense. Those figures... Villa Pam and is

:13:32.:13:36.

making its figures up as he goes along. -- Philip Hammond. If you

:13:36.:13:41.

look at the Vanguard submarines, the first one cost 40% of the total

:13:41.:13:47.

project, the subsequent ones cost 20%. I am not asserting that you

:13:48.:13:52.

would say 40% by reducing from four to two, but you would certainly save

:13:52.:13:56.

substantial sums, and if you went down to two, you could save as much

:13:57.:14:02.

as 8 billion, and if you went down to three, as much as four billion.

:14:02.:14:06.

And then crewing two three for 40 years, you are racking up savings of

:14:07.:14:13.

possibly half a billion or more. bring us back to where we started in

:14:13.:14:18.

all of this. If you are going to have a nuclear deterrent, you need

:14:18.:14:23.

it available all year round. You cannot do that on less than four

:14:23.:14:28.

submarines. The idea that things only work if you are using them the

:14:28.:14:33.

whole time is self-evidently nonsense. The only other way to do

:14:33.:14:37.

it is wait until London has been taken out or things are escalating,

:14:37.:14:42.

and then send your submarines out with warheads. What would happen in

:14:42.:14:46.

a prolonged stand-off? That is a more likely scenario than the idea

:14:46.:14:50.

Penny is proposing that it will come out of nowhere. Even the current

:14:50.:14:54.

nuclear deterrent would take three or four days to be ready to fire, so

:14:54.:14:58.

we are not ready at a moment's notice, as we were at the height of

:14:58.:15:05.

the Cold War. That.You would not get into a situation where a new

:15:05.:15:07.

adversarial has popped up from nowhere and is threatening to

:15:07.:15:12.

obliterate the United Kingdom overnight. You would be sensitive to

:15:12.:15:16.

the situation and crack capacity up to something far more acting to this

:15:16.:15:21.

as you felt it coming. If we were in a 1939 situation where the future of

:15:21.:15:25.

the state was seriously at risk, we would have to have enormous

:15:25.:15:34.

rearmament right across the board, nuclear and non-nuclear. I would

:15:34.:15:38.

throw the gauntlet down to the Lib Dems and say, if you are really for

:15:38.:15:42.

some kind of nuclear deterrent and are prepared to pay hell of a lot

:15:42.:15:48.

more money for two boats, why don't we get a move on and sign up to two

:15:48.:15:53.

now this side of the general election? We don't need to and it

:15:53.:15:56.

wouldn't be right for the public purse to make contracts before they

:15:56.:16:01.

need to. This contract will be signed in 2016. We now have the

:16:01.:16:08.

opportunity for a national debate. Is it a red line in the sand for

:16:08.:16:14.

post-2015 coalition politics? If they principle you will stand by?

:16:14.:16:19.

is something to put on the table and discuss in a coalition. This is

:16:19.:16:24.

critical to protect the UK. We should commit ourselves to replacing

:16:24.:16:27.

this deterrent. It has stood us in good stead and we don't know what

:16:27.:16:32.

world we will be facing in 20 years time and we have to have that back

:16:32.:16:37.

up. The public wanted, and we should get on and sign for it. We will have

:16:37.:16:41.

two ended there but no doubt we will have to do have this discussion

:16:41.:16:44.

again. Fancy entering a competition which could net you 100,000 euros?

:16:44.:16:48.

It's quite a prize, and all you have to do is write a 2,000-word essay

:16:48.:16:51.

explaining how Britain would thrive if we leave the European Union.

:16:51.:16:54.

We'll talk to the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson

:16:54.:16:58.

about this in just a moment. He is chairing the panel that will decide

:16:58.:17:01.

the winner. First though, here's a flavour of the debate amongst

:17:01.:17:03.

British and world leaders about Britain's place in Europe that's

:17:03.:17:13.
:17:13.:17:20.

know... If we don't address these challenges, the danger is Europe

:17:20.:17:24.

will fail, and the British people will drift towards the exit. I do

:17:24.:17:31.

not want that to happen. I want the EU to be a success. And I want the

:17:31.:17:36.

relationship between Britain and the European Union that keeps us in it.

:17:36.:17:43.

My priority will always remain yes, reform it, a referendum whether

:17:43.:17:47.

circumstances are right, as we set out in law, but above and beyond

:17:47.:17:51.

everything else, promoting growth and jobs and building a stronger

:17:51.:17:56.

economy in a fairer society. Labour 's position has been consistent and

:17:56.:18:01.

that's the right thing to do. We've said is not right now to have a

:18:01.:18:04.

referendum in four years time because we think this bigger issues

:18:04.:18:08.

the country faces at the moment. would ask the inhabitants of this

:18:08.:18:12.

wonderful island that you can be very happy but you won't be happy if

:18:12.:18:18.

you are alone in this world. can't do Europe a la carte. Imagine

:18:18.:18:22.

Europe as a football club and you join. You can't then say let's play

:18:22.:18:30.

rugby. Everything must be decided in Brussels and by Brussels. We do

:18:30.:18:39.

indeed differentiate, but cherry picking is not an option.

:18:39.:18:44.

probably want to see if you can fix what is broken. In a very important

:18:44.:18:49.

relationship before you break it off. It makes some sense to me.

:18:50.:18:52.

we've been joined by the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel

:18:52.:18:59.

Lawson. Just explain to us exactly, there isn't a further stage before

:18:59.:19:06.

you win that 100,000 euro prize? Everyone is asked to do a 2000 word

:19:06.:19:13.

essay. The top 20 will then be invited to do a more substantial

:19:13.:19:19.

piece of work between 10000 and 20,000 words, more thorough job and

:19:19.:19:25.

come on the basis of that, we will award prizes. What is the point of

:19:25.:19:29.

it? Why do you need a prize for someone to set out a blueprint for

:19:29.:19:33.

Britain leaving the EU? It encourages people to do it, no bad

:19:33.:19:37.

thing, and has been done over the centuries to get things going on.

:19:38.:19:42.

The purpose is that there's going to be an in out referendum at least.

:19:42.:19:52.
:19:52.:19:53.

What people have on their minds is, OK, we realise that the European

:19:53.:19:57.

union is very unattractive in various ways. But what will be the

:19:57.:20:04.

consequences of leaving? And this will be an exercise in looking at

:20:04.:20:08.

what the economic consequences are, the legal consequences and political

:20:08.:20:12.

consequences are, and how we would handle those. I think it's something

:20:12.:20:16.

people will want to be informed about. Then they can cast their vote

:20:16.:20:22.

in the referendum. You would like to set out what has not been debated in

:20:22.:20:26.

full to encourage more people to perhaps make that choice in favour

:20:26.:20:33.

of Britain leaving the EU? I have come to the conclusion we should

:20:33.:20:40.

leave the EU and I have written at length the reasons. And I think a

:20:40.:20:44.

number of people are concerned about all the bureaucracy, the fact the

:20:44.:20:49.

regulation has become a bit of a bureaucratic monstrosity, the

:20:49.:20:53.

interference when none is needed and so on, but they are concerned, so

:20:53.:21:00.

they don't love the EU. But they fear leaving. They fear the unknown

:21:00.:21:08.

so it's important that, although the future is unknown, we need to make

:21:08.:21:12.

it slightly more mapped out. But we don't know what would happen. It's

:21:12.:21:16.

all theoretical so that fear, to some extent, is well founded. Do you

:21:16.:21:21.

think Britain is drifting, even though David Cameron has said he is

:21:21.:21:27.

negotiating to stay and eventually? I think what most people think is

:21:27.:21:32.

there's a few good things coming from Brussels, lower mobile roaming

:21:32.:21:36.

charges in time for the summer holidays, things which matter to

:21:36.:21:39.

people in their daily lives, and squeezed budgets, being helped by

:21:39.:21:42.

the decisions made in Brussels. Other things people can't stand

:21:42.:21:48.

about it but, in the end, it does feel as if the views of consumers

:21:48.:21:51.

and businesses are being rather swept aside by a very intense

:21:51.:21:55.

political debate. I'm not sure that will be helped by your prize. I'm

:21:55.:22:03.

sure people will be willing to write about it. There's huge issues at

:22:03.:22:08.

stake here and to talk just about lower mobile roaming charges is

:22:08.:22:13.

trivialising it. That's important to many numbers of the public.

:22:13.:22:19.

goodness sake, you have to decide where the balance of advantage lies.

:22:19.:22:24.

I'm not saying members of the EU are wrong but it's a question of whether

:22:24.:22:29.

it brings more good than harm. You have to judge where the balance is,

:22:29.:22:33.

where it's going and the fact of the matter is, the European Union has

:22:33.:22:36.

changed. There's been a fundamental change since the coming of the

:22:36.:22:42.

common currency and the Eurozone which, quite rightly, we are not a

:22:42.:22:46.

member of, and that is change the whole nature of the European Union,

:22:46.:22:49.

and Britain's relationship with it and therefore it's time to take

:22:49.:22:54.

stock. What I think you could usefully do with your prize is to

:22:54.:22:56.

get people to focus on what matters to people in their daily lives about

:22:57.:23:00.

Europe, good and bad. There are some very practical changes that affect

:23:00.:23:06.

us all, as a result of the barriers between countries coming down, as a

:23:06.:23:09.

result of the EU, and I think he should get people to concentrate on

:23:09.:23:13.

that as much as the risks and what might happen if we exit. There's got

:23:13.:23:16.

to be a debate about this, absolutely but, frankly, it seems to

:23:16.:23:21.

be the debate is already happening without your prize. What do think in

:23:21.:23:24.

terms of those Conservative MPs who going along at the moment with the

:23:24.:23:29.

idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe? Will they

:23:29.:23:35.

be disappointed? I think so. I think it's clear from the interviews you

:23:35.:23:44.

had before this discussion, that the European Union is not prepared to

:23:44.:23:47.

make any significant changes. Any changes which David Cameron is able

:23:47.:23:52.

to negotiate with Ed Miliband, will be, in my judgement, and I have

:23:52.:23:56.

known the EU very well and have many, many friends there for many

:23:56.:24:00.

years, I think they will be inconsequential. Do you agree with

:24:00.:24:04.

that? David Cameron is campaigning for a new relationship with Europe

:24:04.:24:07.

and then, when it comes to the referendum, if he still Prime

:24:07.:24:11.

Minister, he will campaign to stay in, not what many of his

:24:11.:24:14.

backbenchers would like to hear. He's got a problem keeping his

:24:14.:24:20.

backbenchers and his party onside, and I think for most people looking

:24:20.:24:24.

on, it does seem a bit odd to be having a referendum and, at the same

:24:24.:24:27.

time, to be saying is Prime Minister, I want to stay in if

:24:27.:24:32.

that's what you believe. Then you should stay in and promote the

:24:32.:24:35.

benefits to businesses and consumers. If you want to get out,

:24:35.:24:40.

take further steps faster towards getting out. Why does he think he

:24:40.:24:46.

can renegotiate successfully a different relationship? Maybe he's

:24:46.:24:52.

an optimist and I certainly wish the best of luck my own judgement is

:24:52.:24:57.

that he is not going to get anything of any significance whatsoever. The

:24:57.:25:01.

same with Harold Wilson, we've been through this before, in the 1970s.

:25:01.:25:07.

He said he will renegotiate the terms and he got absolutely nothing

:25:07.:25:11.

and there was a 1975 referendum where he got nothing but the

:25:11.:25:17.

majority of people, it is a different setup, and we voted in

:25:17.:25:20.

favour of it. What's interesting is that you're asking for people to

:25:20.:25:24.

write a blueprint as to what happens to Britain if it leaves the EU. We

:25:24.:25:27.

heard from European leaders saying you can't cherry pick, we're not

:25:27.:25:31.

going to give up everything but we also heard from Barack Obama who

:25:31.:25:36.

said it would be better to fix it and leave. Of course, Barack Obama

:25:36.:25:43.

is not the president of Britain but the USA. The United States once as

:25:43.:25:47.

in, why? Because they're afraid of anti-Americanism the European Union.

:25:48.:25:55.

That they want a spinner. They want us to remain in for their interests.

:25:55.:25:59.

If I was an American, I would be the same, but that's not the question

:25:59.:26:03.

before the British people. It is about spheres of influence. Have

:26:03.:26:07.

they got a lot to be frightened of about leaving as perhaps some people

:26:07.:26:12.

think? Maybe we will shed some light on this through the essays Lord

:26:12.:26:16.

Lawson will generate but for most people, they aren't much more

:26:16.:26:22.

relaxed about the prospect of staying in for the long term. -- and

:26:22.:26:28.

they are. Hoping the poem to get successions bashed hoping the Prime

:26:28.:26:35.

Minister get some successes in his renegotiations. We must give credit

:26:35.:26:38.

to the economic Institute of economic affairs. They just asked me

:26:38.:26:44.

to do this and judge it. Will the winning peace be presented to

:26:44.:26:50.

anyone? Will we see it in lights? Of course, it will be prominently

:26:50.:26:53.

published. I will take it to number ten and I'm sure they will be

:26:53.:26:58.

anxious to read it. I'm sure they will. You need to get your entry,

:26:58.:27:08.
:27:08.:27:08.

it be your neighbours' loud music? Don't get me started! People putting

:27:08.:27:12.

their feet on the train seats? Or even apostrophes put in the wrong

:27:12.:27:15.

place? Well, for our next guest, the Lib Dem MP Mike Crockart, the most

:27:15.:27:18.

irritating thing is none of these. It's nuisance calls. Unwanted phone

:27:18.:27:22.

calls from firms trying to sell you anything from insurance to double

:27:22.:27:31.

glazing. And he's got a plan to deal with them. Here's his soapbox.

:27:31.:27:36.

Excuse me, is this a good time to talk? Have you considered a

:27:36.:27:40.

stairlift? I'm calling in regard to your property. We are a country

:27:40.:27:46.

under siege. 90% of the people I speak you don't realise it's on

:27:46.:27:49.

their policy. I'm fed up with nuisance calls to my mobile phone

:27:49.:27:54.

and landline and I mean unwanted marketing calls. Silent calls,

:27:54.:28:00.

abandoned calls, text messages and recorded messages. Being pestered

:28:00.:28:06.

day in and day out by these calls. And I know I'm not alone. If you

:28:06.:28:10.

have this done you will notice a difference in your energy bills.

:28:10.:28:15.

It's absolutely free. constituents have contacted me in

:28:15.:28:20.

great numbers for stories about complaints about companies who

:28:20.:28:29.

pester them. You may be entitled to payment protection insurance.

:28:29.:28:33.

single month last, the independent regulator of Com recorded 10,000

:28:33.:28:40.

complaints about nuisance calls. Payment protection insurance and

:28:40.:28:43.

insurance Company is where responsible for more than half

:28:43.:28:46.

unwanted calls and are frequently blamed for this rise. They are an

:28:46.:28:50.

annoyance for most people but, for many elderly people, they are also a

:28:51.:28:55.

menace and one which puts them at risk of fraud, just as much as if a

:28:55.:29:01.

pushy salesman turned up at their doorstep. Many of my constituents

:29:01.:29:05.

complain about receiving nuisance calls despite being registered with

:29:05.:29:09.

the Telephone preference service. A scheme designed to block cold calls

:29:09.:29:13.

from telemarketing firms. The problem is, the calls just keep

:29:13.:29:19.

coming and coming. Is this a good time to talk? With 19 million

:29:19.:29:22.

members registered with a telecom preference service, around three

:29:22.:29:28.

quarters of all landlines in the UK, something clearly isn't working. I

:29:28.:29:33.

want one single point of contact, one regulator who takes in all forms

:29:33.:29:36.

of unsolicited contact and one single simple process for any

:29:36.:29:40.

individual who wants to protect the privacy but, for now, I will settle

:29:40.:29:45.

for changes in the laws around how personal data is used and more

:29:45.:29:47.

powers for the regulators to tackle companies which break the law. And

:29:47.:29:51.

Mike Crockart is here now. And from Glasgow, we're joined by Anne Marie

:29:51.:29:53.

Forsyth, Chief Executive of the Customer Contact Association, which

:29:53.:29:56.

is a professional body for contact centres. And still with us is

:29:56.:30:06.

Richard lloyd of Which? You can understand how frustrating and

:30:06.:30:12.

irritating nuisance calls are. Absolutely, we are living in a 24-7,

:30:12.:30:16.

always on world, and about 1 million people work in customer contact

:30:16.:30:20.

centres across the UK, just about all of them dealing with 3.5 billion

:30:20.:30:27.

inbounds transactions, lots of them very complex. Every time we do a

:30:27.:30:31.

transaction, whether financial or anything, any interaction we do, we

:30:31.:30:34.

tend to leave trails, and of course the whole thing becomes appealing to

:30:34.:30:38.

organisations who want to contact us. So I can understand the

:30:38.:30:43.

frustration. I think the most recent statistics I heard was a average of

:30:43.:30:48.

two nuisance calls per week, and this has been hugely exacerbated by

:30:48.:30:52.

the recent PPI thing. The news there is that once PPI is out of the road,

:30:52.:30:57.

if it ever is, there will be other things, we live in a compensation

:30:57.:31:02.

culture. It is not just small businesses doing this, it is also

:31:02.:31:06.

big companies and big corporations, who are using and may be abusing the

:31:06.:31:11.

idea of cold calling. The air. As you point out, there are two very

:31:11.:31:14.

separate things going on, large organisations which, in some cases,

:31:15.:31:19.

can be helpful, they called to tell you you are overdrawn, for example,

:31:19.:31:24.

a text to say your shopping will be late or something of that nature,

:31:24.:31:29.

perhaps your security has been threatened through fraud. All of

:31:29.:31:32.

these calls are being drowned out somewhat by the nuisance and the

:31:32.:31:39.

random, less targeted, and for larger organisations, the

:31:39.:31:45.

reputational risk in doing these things is absolutely huge. The work

:31:45.:31:53.

we do, we work between organisations and consumers, and our advice always

:31:53.:31:57.

to organisations is, K, it is a very small percentage of the overall

:31:57.:32:03.

customer service world, tiny, less than 5%, but it is huge in

:32:03.:32:06.

reputational risk, and it is rather silly organisations who think they

:32:07.:32:10.

can flout the law or just be careless in not checking the

:32:10.:32:17.

processes. OK, let me come to Mike Crockart, because on that basis

:32:17.:32:21.

nuisance calls are a pain, but there are legitimate reasons. Larger

:32:21.:32:25.

organisations to make those goals, as we heard, and there is

:32:25.:32:32.

legislation in place, is it not being applied very well? There are

:32:32.:32:35.

two aspects here. Some of the legislation is not being applied

:32:35.:32:40.

stringently enough, but also there are gaps, huge, yawning gaps in the

:32:40.:32:44.

legislation. If we look at the level of annoyance this is causing people,

:32:44.:32:51.

you know, we have 10,000 calls, 10,000 complaints per month to Ofcom

:32:51.:32:55.

about silent and abandoned calls, 4000 about TPS, and we have no idea

:32:55.:33:01.

how many are going to others about this. This is a huge problem, not

:33:01.:33:05.

just a few calls being made by legitimate companies, it is

:33:05.:33:10.

enormous. So there is the Telephone Preference Service in place, but who

:33:10.:33:14.

is in charge of regulating nuisance calls? This is part of the problem,

:33:14.:33:18.

too many people are in charge, at least five regulators have something

:33:18.:33:22.

to do with it. That is because there are so money different parts of the

:33:22.:33:25.

law that go towards dealing with nuisance calls, so there is a claims

:33:25.:33:33.

management regulator that deals with PPI claims companies, there is Ofcom

:33:33.:33:35.

that deals with silent calls, and there is the Information

:33:35.:33:37.

Commissioner, that deals with nuisance calls and texts that are

:33:37.:33:42.

unsolicited, laws of data than not allowed. We want the government to

:33:42.:33:48.

get all those regulators to work together properly, we have started

:33:48.:33:52.

having conversations, interrupted by a spam text the other day, with the

:33:52.:33:55.

Minister and the regulators about how they can work together better.

:33:55.:34:00.

Why not have one regulator? That would make things much clearer, one

:34:01.:34:04.

organisation accountable, but they have all said the law is not clear

:34:04.:34:08.

enough. It requires a lot of distress to be proved before the

:34:08.:34:13.

regulators can find companies for using these techniques for getting

:34:13.:34:17.

in touch with people. But companies are fined, and they? The current

:34:17.:34:22.

fine is up to �500,000, a lot of money, that would break quite a lot

:34:22.:34:31.

of businesses. It would not break some of the major companies that are

:34:31.:34:34.

involved. The powers that the Information Commissioner's office

:34:34.:34:38.

has to chase up those fines is not strong enough, so if someone ignores

:34:38.:34:42.

the Information Commissioner for a month, the powers that they have to

:34:42.:34:46.

force them to pay that fine are actually quite limited. What we need

:34:46.:34:53.

to do, actually, is to massively change the whole way that consent is

:34:53.:34:57.

organised around this. Because it is all about whether people want to

:34:57.:35:02.

receive these calls, and clearly they don't. I was slightly worried,

:35:02.:35:05.

reading the background to this, that consumers who tick the box that

:35:05.:35:10.

say, yes, please send my details to a third party, for all those people,

:35:10.:35:14.

including myself, who do not take that box, yet that information is

:35:14.:35:20.

somehow sold on, that is illegal, isn't it? There is a massive issue

:35:20.:35:26.

here around complexity, and as consumers I don't think we often

:35:26.:35:32.

realised that we are doing this. Sometimes we are desperate to get to

:35:32.:35:38.

the end of a script without reading it. I completely agree with that

:35:38.:35:44.

piece. One of the reasons the regulator is an issue, we need a

:35:44.:35:48.

stronger and better working of what we have got. We have recently seen

:35:48.:35:52.

some of these large and well publicised fines, but perhaps they

:35:52.:35:56.

are not big enough. Your point by breaking companies, we want to make

:35:56.:36:00.

sure that legislation works and people do not -- who do not wish to

:36:00.:36:03.

recall not called, and also those organisations which are dragging

:36:03.:36:07.

down the whole customer services industry are properly dealt with,

:36:08.:36:11.

you know, and a good example is the recent BBC Three documentary about

:36:11.:36:16.

the company in Wales, the rather opportunistic company who ended up

:36:16.:36:21.

with a very large fine. More of these, I think, will help with that.

:36:21.:36:28.

Can I make a separate point? Very quickly! Regulation is one half, and

:36:28.:36:32.

the other half is standards. The reputational risk to large brands,

:36:32.:36:35.

if they are not seen to be staying within the law or annoying

:36:35.:36:39.

customers, is huge. There are standards, we need to have more

:36:39.:36:43.

adoption of standards that are well recognised, there is a global

:36:43.:36:46.

standard. We need to have more of this, and we need to make it a

:36:46.:36:51.

boardroom issue. Too often we see on the cover of stories, people are

:36:51.:36:57.

shock are about things... Very briefly. Standards will not fix

:36:57.:37:04.

this. Over half of nuisance calls come from PPI claim companies that

:37:04.:37:08.

will disappear overnight if they are fine. Only proper regulation will

:37:08.:37:11.

fix this and proper powers for a single regulator. Thank you very

:37:11.:37:16.

much. Later this afternoon, the Health Secretary will make a

:37:16.:37:19.

statement about a critical report into care at 14 hospital trusts in

:37:19.:37:24.

England. The report, led by NHS England medical director Professor

:37:24.:37:28.

Bruce Keogh, was commissioned after the Stafford Hospital scandal.

:37:29.:37:33.

Jeremy Hunt has been answering help questions in the Commons, including

:37:33.:37:38.

this from Andy Burnham. Seven of the 14 hospitals in the review have,

:37:38.:37:47.

between them, cut a shocking 1117 nursing jobs on this government's

:37:47.:37:51.

watch. Unsurprisingly, A&E performance has plummeted at all

:37:51.:37:57.

seven. All 14 hospitals were meeting the A&E target in my time in office.

:37:57.:38:00.

None of them are meeting at under him. Surely the right response to

:38:00.:38:09.

this review is to stop dithering and act now on safe staffing levels.

:38:09.:38:13.

Well, I am surprised that he wants to talk about the Keogh review

:38:13.:38:17.

before we have our statement, but I'm particularly surprised because

:38:17.:38:24.

it is the review that Labour never wanted to have. In all those

:38:24.:38:27.

hospitals, stretching right their way back to 2005, a record of

:38:27.:38:33.

inaction by Labour. I think the house might be interested. As a

:38:33.:38:37.

former Labour councillor, a Mid Staffs campaigner, Ken Lowndes said

:38:37.:38:42.

today, can you imagine this review and Andy Burnham or any Labour

:38:42.:38:48.

Health Secretary? Not a chance! can talk to Vicki Young, who joins

:38:48.:38:52.

us from outside Parliament. We have not had the report yet, but already

:38:52.:38:55.

the politicians are lining up to blame each other for failings in a

:38:55.:38:59.

number of NHS hospitals. What is interesting is that you have the NHS

:38:59.:39:03.

leaders in England, if you like, trying to move on, to go into these

:39:03.:39:08.

hospitals, which is what Sir Bruce Keogh's team did, going to speak to

:39:08.:39:13.

patients and staff about what is going on, to see what improvements

:39:13.:39:17.

can be made, DC the regulatory system is robust enough, to see if

:39:17.:39:21.

people are taking responsibility for what is going on. Whereas, as you

:39:21.:39:24.

saw there, the Conservatives wanting to go back to the past, and there

:39:24.:39:27.

has been a huge political Barney about this going back to the big

:39:27.:39:32.

debate, the big row about Mid Staffs. The Tories have Andy Burnham

:39:32.:39:35.

in their sights, the man who was the Labour Health Secretary for just 11

:39:35.:39:40.

months, and he has come out and given his works to robust defence of

:39:40.:39:46.

Labour's record in office. He says there is no evidence of a cover-up

:39:46.:39:49.

by him, no evidence he was ignoring the warnings. He says completely the

:39:49.:39:52.

opposite, that some of these hospitals, about five of these 14,

:39:52.:39:56.

when he left office, he left a health warning on them, so this had

:39:56.:40:01.

been flagged up by him and he said, going back to Mid Staffordshire, he

:40:01.:40:04.

organised the first inquiry into that, even as civil servants did not

:40:04.:40:07.

want him to. What the politicians at the end of this want to be able to

:40:08.:40:13.

say is that the NHS is not safe in their opponents' hands. What period

:40:13.:40:17.

of time was Sir Bruce Keogh covering? Did it include the time

:40:17.:40:20.

that Andy Burnham was Health Secretary in the last government, or

:40:20.:40:26.

is it solely looking at the years under the coalition? It has been

:40:26.:40:29.

triggered because these 14 trusts had a higher than normal mortality

:40:29.:40:32.

rate over the last two years, but it is certainly the case that in some

:40:32.:40:36.

of these hospitals there were problems before, and I think that is

:40:36.:40:41.

Andy Burnham's defends here. He is saying, look, I didn't like this up

:40:41.:40:46.

when he was Health Secretary. But of course it is a much bigger debate

:40:46.:40:49.

about the NHS, how will it cope in the future with higher demand, all

:40:49.:40:54.

of us getting older, not much more money to go around? A lot of people

:40:54.:40:57.

think some hospitals will have to close. The Labour I commit is that

:40:57.:41:01.

the coalition has tried to paint the NHS in a bad light in order to

:41:01.:41:09.

soften the public for changes. -- We are joined by Priti Patel, one of a

:41:09.:41:18.

group of Labour MPs who have accused Andy Burnham of ignoring... Welcome

:41:18.:41:26.

to both of you. Priti Patel, he went out of his way to sound bipartisan,

:41:26.:41:29.

why has the Conservative Party and you decided to take the gloves off

:41:29.:41:35.

now? From my own point of view, in the county of Essex, there are two

:41:35.:41:39.

hospitals on the list of 14 hospitals, and I have just found and

:41:39.:41:42.

my colleagues have discovered that the culture in the NHS around these

:41:42.:41:46.

hospitals and some of the questions we have been asking have actually,

:41:46.:41:50.

we have uncovered a range of not just failures but institutional

:41:51.:41:53.

defensiveness, basically, where there has been a degree of denial

:41:53.:41:57.

about what has happened in the past, and that's just fails patients

:41:57.:42:02.

and does not mean we can move on in an adequate way to address the wider

:42:02.:42:05.

concerns around patient care and the neglect of patients and

:42:05.:42:10.

constituents. And you are blaming Labour for the institutionalised

:42:11.:42:15.

objection and not helping or listening to patients? Well, if you

:42:15.:42:22.

go back and listen to those who were around under the previous Labour

:42:22.:42:24.

government, some of the independent experts, like Brian Jarman as well

:42:24.:42:27.

and Baroness young, who was heading up the CQC, they have said there was

:42:27.:42:31.

a culture at the time, the denial machine is how it is referred to by

:42:31.:42:35.

Brian Jarman, but also Baroness Ye Yang has said there was a focus on

:42:35.:42:39.

talking about good news, as opposed to dealing with things such as the

:42:39.:42:44.

high death rates at these hospitals. Many of the challenges associated

:42:44.:42:51.

with were patient care that the CQC has been trying to expose. That get

:42:51.:42:55.

a response to that from Andrew Gwynne. That is not the full

:42:55.:42:59.

picture, because it was under the last Labour government that

:42:59.:43:01.

regulation of hospitals was introduced. It was under the last

:43:01.:43:07.

Labour government that all these death rates were published on the

:43:08.:43:11.

website. And of course if you were trying to cover these issues up, you

:43:11.:43:16.

certainly wouldn't be going fully for transparency by publishing all

:43:16.:43:21.

the mortality data online. Now, what about the patients in this, Richard

:43:21.:43:25.

Lloyd? One of the biggest complaint is that they were not listened to,

:43:25.:43:30.

they will not listened to by medical staff in many cases. This is why it

:43:30.:43:34.

is so disappointing to see this being used as a political football,

:43:34.:43:38.

and we want all the politicians to focus on why it was that patients

:43:38.:43:42.

and their families, who time after time ran out the red flag and said

:43:42.:43:47.

things were going horribly wrong, were ignored. How can we make the

:43:47.:43:52.

regulator, the inspectors be made to respond to the patient voice? How

:43:52.:43:56.

can we create a stronger patient voice? As well is getting data out,

:43:56.:44:00.

the information out about how hospitals are performing, right down

:44:00.:44:03.

to the individual consultant level. We need to see more transparency,

:44:03.:44:08.

more honesty about what is going on, but also that responsiveness to

:44:08.:44:12.

patients and their families when they do say, hang on, look how I

:44:12.:44:16.

have been treated, this is not right. Is it fair to play politics

:44:16.:44:21.

over deaths in hospitals? I do not think this is about politics at all.

:44:21.:44:26.

You said that Andy Burnham's job was not sustainable. This is about

:44:26.:44:30.

patients, and we have discovered there is this culture where they

:44:30.:44:34.

have not been listened to, and to be fair, as the Parliamentary questions

:44:34.:44:38.

I have been asking have demonstrated, 1500 red flags went

:44:38.:44:41.

into the Department of Health, raising concerns about these

:44:41.:44:45.

hospitals, and this comes back to the lack of transparency within the

:44:45.:44:49.

NHS in terms of what just happened. We have to learn lessons of the back

:44:49.:44:53.

of this review, when we hear the statement later, and not just for

:44:53.:44:57.

hospitals to learn, but for them to engage with patients and their

:44:57.:45:01.

families and the public to work with them in terms of managing

:45:01.:45:07.

expectations and providing good clinical care. 1500 warnings about

:45:07.:45:12.

the trusts but why were they not acted upon? They were acted upon and

:45:12.:45:19.

that's where I take issue with what Priti Patel has said. In 2009, I

:45:19.:45:23.

went to see Andy Burnham when he was the Health Secretary and I was a

:45:23.:45:27.

backbencher at the time, along with my two colleagues who also

:45:27.:45:33.

represented Tyneside and repainted the complete picture of what was

:45:33.:45:38.

going on at a Tyneside. His officials told him he couldn't act,

:45:38.:45:43.

as Secretary of State because it was a foundation trust and these words

:45:43.:45:49.

were that there was no place in our NHS for substandard care and he

:45:50.:45:56.

ordered the sea QC to go in and announced to Tyneside Hospital which

:45:56.:46:02.

has happened right up to the review. Do you know what is the most

:46:02.:46:08.

scandalous thing? For the last three years, there were still problems at

:46:08.:46:12.

Tyneside except, up until March this year, when they gave it a clean bill

:46:12.:46:17.

of health. That's battling to people. Shouldn't you be more

:46:17.:46:21.

worried about conditions in these hospitals now? It's all very well

:46:22.:46:24.

getting people to take responsibility for what happened in

:46:24.:46:30.

the last government but Andy Burnham has been saying all of 14 are

:46:30.:46:34.

missing their AMD targets and it is understood, the report will point to

:46:34.:46:38.

the concerns over nurse staffing levels in the hospitals under

:46:38.:46:46.

investigation. We are missing the point. Nurse staffing levels are too

:46:46.:46:53.

low in these hospitals and it's led to poor standards of care. Bruce

:46:53.:46:56.

Keogh has referred to that but that is not the full answer to the actual

:46:56.:47:03.

challenges faced by these hospitals. We are talking about quality of care

:47:03.:47:06.

and transparency. Actually, this is about the culture in these hospitals

:47:06.:47:12.

and the NHS. I am convinced this is just the tip of the iceberg right

:47:12.:47:17.

now. Some of these hospitals will go to special measures today and we

:47:17.:47:20.

should be deeply concerned about that but as I have said this is

:47:20.:47:27.

about transparency in the NHS, learning lessons and ensuring

:47:27.:47:31.

patients are listened to and they and their families get the care

:47:31.:47:37.

required. Andrew Gwynne and Priti Patel, thank you very much. Now,

:47:37.:47:45.

remember this? The number of votes recorded for the candidates at each

:47:45.:47:55.
:47:55.:48:11.

election is as follows. Martin Bell, Neil Hamilton, 18,000.

:48:11.:48:21.
:48:21.:48:33.

scandal back in 1997. Or a surprise for me! Counts still provide much of

:48:33.:48:38.

the drama of election night. But a report out today from the Electoral

:48:38.:48:40.

Commission says that, despite a generally successful set of

:48:40.:48:43.

elections in May of this year, provision of information at some

:48:43.:48:46.

counts was patchy and in some cases announcements were infrequent or

:48:46.:48:52.

inaudible. Goodness. We've been joined by Tom Hawthorn, head of

:48:52.:48:54.

electoral policy at the Electoral Commission. And Mike More, Chief

:48:54.:49:00.

Executive and Returning Officer at Westminster City Council. Can I

:49:00.:49:04.

start with you, Michael. Were you happy with the way the elections

:49:04.:49:10.

were done in May? I, personally, was not responsible for the elections in

:49:10.:49:15.

May but I was very happy with them. We have them coming up in London

:49:15.:49:18.

next summer aligned with the European elections, but yes, I think

:49:18.:49:23.

what has happened across the country in the last couple of years has been

:49:23.:49:28.

a good story. Do you agree? Apart from picking up on this patchiness,

:49:28.:49:35.

what do you mean by that? Where were they patchy? What we found overall

:49:35.:49:40.

weight the elections were run, backed up by what the voters were

:49:40.:49:45.

told, 90% said it was well run. In a couple of places we saw on election

:49:45.:49:49.

night there were some places where the communication wasn't as good as

:49:49.:49:55.

it could've been and maybe it was good and bad in parts. Does this

:49:55.:49:58.

concern of voters, how local elections and national elections are

:49:59.:50:03.

run? Remember big queues when people couldn't actually getting beyond the

:50:03.:50:09.

ten o'clock cut-off point? I think in the 2010 example, when it goes

:50:09.:50:13.

wrong, people are up in arms and rightly so. What we should be

:50:13.:50:17.

thinking about is how to make elections engaging, encouraging

:50:17.:50:21.

people to get involved, people to maybe stay up late and watch it all

:50:21.:50:26.

night and see the results, helpfully audibly. There's a need to keep the

:50:26.:50:30.

excitement about elections and the results going. Otherwise, more and

:50:30.:50:35.

more people will drift away from the process and won't engage with it. So

:50:35.:50:40.

how we do does matter. What about the idea some returning officers are

:50:40.:50:46.

inaudible? It's not good if you can't hear the result. We saw

:50:46.:50:50.

announcements which are really good but the PA system in place wasn't

:50:50.:50:53.

good enough. Probably, it's all right for some candidates have been

:50:53.:50:57.

doing this for lots of years, they've been around a bit and they

:50:57.:51:00.

understand what's going on but if you are a new candidate, you don't

:51:00.:51:04.

understand and you need to know what's happening so you can provide

:51:04.:51:12.

that essential element of transparency. What is your response?

:51:12.:51:17.

Maybe this has not come across terribly well. Some colleagues don't

:51:17.:51:21.

come across well but they should do. Surely they should be able to speak

:51:21.:51:26.

loudly enough? My role is to talk to all the players, front of House,

:51:26.:51:30.

this is what's going to happen next, no surprises, the result will

:51:30.:51:34.

be a surprise but they're not surprised by the process, so keeping

:51:34.:51:38.

communication going all the way through that, culminating in the

:51:38.:51:42.

very clear, positive presentation. You're not going to sack the ones

:51:42.:51:48.

who don't speak clearly or hold some sort of poll to find out? We are

:51:48.:51:53.

front of House agent and we can agree that's what we are there for.

:51:53.:51:57.

We have some good examples of excellent practice and will work

:51:57.:52:02.

with colleagues and returning officers to explain a best practice

:52:02.:52:06.

model for people to use for next year 's elections. How worried are

:52:06.:52:11.

you about the next two years because there's a lot on your plate?

:52:11.:52:15.

London, we have the European and council elections at the same time,

:52:15.:52:19.

the third week of May, individual electoral registration, new process,

:52:19.:52:24.

and then the general election. you, gentlemen, very much, and I

:52:24.:52:29.

heard you perfectly, both of you. Now, in case you hadn't noticed,

:52:29.:52:33.

it's rather hot outside. Time for an ice cream you might think. Well, in

:52:33.:52:37.

a seasonal slashing of red tape, ice cream van drivers will be allowed to

:52:37.:52:40.

sound their chimes for a whole 12 seconds, up from the current four.

:52:40.:52:44.

But not until this autumn. But what will really freeze your brains is

:52:44.:52:46.

noise campaigners think the Government has been wasting its

:52:46.:52:56.
:52:56.:52:57.

time. Our very own Mr Whippy, Giles Dilnot, is finding out why. I've

:52:57.:53:01.

come to the conclusion I'm rapidly becoming a Daily Politics culinary

:53:01.:53:05.

correspondence having done a burger tasting last week, following a tub

:53:05.:53:09.

of ice cream but weirdly, it's not about how ice cream tastes, but how

:53:09.:53:16.

it sounds. Confused? Meet Leander. Tell me why we are discussing the

:53:16.:53:21.

sound of ice cream? The law used to be it was the four seconds you were

:53:21.:53:26.

allowed to play it, but now it is changed to 12 seconds. What would be

:53:26.:53:32.

the difference of seconds for us? What difference does that make?

:53:32.:53:36.

Apparently it can affect your business. We had a lot of customers

:53:36.:53:39.

complaining that we weren't coming down their streets but of course,

:53:39.:53:44.

they weren't hearing is because the times were not chiming for long

:53:44.:53:50.

enough. They are complaining they don't get to hear you at all?

:53:50.:53:53.

love the chiming, that's what British summer is all about.

:53:53.:53:58.

would we have the noise abatement Society with us, because it's not

:53:58.:54:03.

about the fact we don't like this, but about the fact that this was an

:54:03.:54:10.

exercise in government cutbacks and you tell me why it didn't work.

:54:10.:54:15.

code of practice was put in place to protect the mobile food industry and

:54:15.:54:21.

by local agreement, vendors could have chimed for as long as they

:54:21.:54:26.

wanted to anyway. The four second guidance was put in place 30 years

:54:26.:54:31.

ago for worst-case scenarios, never to not allow the industry to China.

:54:31.:54:36.

It was the consultation, the wait was carried out and put forward,

:54:36.:54:39.

actually could potentially endanger the industry and set a dangerous

:54:39.:54:45.

precedent for noise pollution in general. The government says it

:54:45.:54:50.

spoke to noise stakeholders, I'm not sure what that is, but I would have

:54:50.:54:56.

thought it would include your society. So would I. We worked on

:54:56.:54:59.

the original code of practice I don't understand who they spoke to

:54:59.:55:03.

but they did not speak to us. We could've had a chat, and ice cream

:55:03.:55:11.

together, and worked out ourselves. Is there a push for you, soon there

:55:11.:55:18.

was a relaxed, we can do 12 seconds now? We were surprised that there

:55:18.:55:21.

was a fuss in the first place because ice cream is one of the

:55:21.:55:25.

things Britain does best in the world. You'll never see an ice cream

:55:25.:55:30.

van as good as ours. To be honest, for us, it's a lot better 12 seconds

:55:30.:55:36.

because it's what people want to hear. I've not show sure about the

:55:36.:55:42.

parents when the children ask for ice cream. It's good for us.

:55:42.:55:47.

there any suggestion people don't like it? There's occasions when

:55:47.:55:52.

certain times of day when children are sleeping, or elderly people, who

:55:52.:55:56.

might be ill, sometimes people with special needs, can react strongly to

:55:56.:56:01.

certain types of noises, so there is a need to have a legislation and

:56:01.:56:06.

guidance in place, but it was never about stopping mobile food vendors.

:56:06.:56:11.

It's about striking a balance. you regulate yourselves and think,

:56:11.:56:16.

we tend not to go down there because not many customers want us and as a

:56:16.:56:21.

residential area? People wouldn't come out if they didn't want it. We

:56:21.:56:25.

would waste our time otherwise. can't think of any other industry

:56:25.:56:29.

that is allowed to use sound to advertise in this way and

:56:29.:56:32.

presumably, we wouldn't want to go back to Victorian times when people

:56:32.:56:38.

are shouting in the streets? Absolutely not. It's important to

:56:38.:56:42.

understand why the code was put in place to protect the industry as an

:56:42.:56:46.

exceptional case against the control of pollution act, and the

:56:46.:56:50.

regulations which would normally apply. Essentially, the government,

:56:50.:56:55.

to cut red tape, has made more work for itself and didn't need to do

:56:55.:57:00.

this? It was a completely pointless exercise but at least we still have

:57:00.:57:03.

the mobile food vending industry chiming in the streets for those who

:57:03.:57:09.

want ice cream. We may as well taste some of it so let's have an ice

:57:09.:57:14.

cream. There's no point doing this unless you get to eat the food. Come

:57:14.:57:24.
:57:24.:57:24.

on. Thank you. Thank you. enjoyed your ice cream is because

:57:24.:57:29.

Richard and I will suffer without. I did like it when they said the best

:57:29.:57:35.

ice cream vans in the world, but not at the best ice cream is. Do you

:57:35.:57:41.

have a view on the times? I think it will wrap up a storm of protest who

:57:41.:57:43.

will be pestered even more by their children but I think we should

:57:43.:57:48.

relax. I think we can probably live with it. There's just time before we

:57:48.:57:52.

go to find out the answer to our quiz. If you can remember what it

:57:52.:57:55.

was. Let me remind you. So what daredevil escapade has the Russian

:57:55.:57:59.

President got up to now? Was it: Wrestling a giant sea squid?

:57:59.:58:04.

Sky-diving from a fighter jet? Going under the sea in a submarine? Or

:58:04.:58:14.
:58:14.:58:15.

surfing in Hawaii? Richard, what's the answer? My choice is that he

:58:15.:58:24.

went in a submersible. I think we might be able to show that picture.

:58:24.:58:28.

This may not be very politically correct but I think he could be a

:58:28.:58:33.

good James Bond villain. Do you think, Vladimir Putin and a

:58:33.:58:39.

submersible? Was that a cat sitting with him? He's obviously a he-man.

:58:39.:58:43.

That's all for today. Thanks to Richard Lloyd and all my guests. The

:58:43.:58:47.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS