10/09/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. He was booed two years

ago, last year he didn't turn up, but Ed Miliband's addressing his

union mates as I speak. But will Red Ed pick a fight or try and make

friends with his comrades at the TUC over power in the party? As the US

weighs over to act in Syria, a new diplomatic solution is on the table.

Now we're in here, it's quite clear this isn't being rented by just one

family. Bed bugs and no broomsticks. We delve into the shady world of

private landlords and overcrowding. And it's National Gibraltar Day, hip

hip hooray. All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

programme today is Sir Robin Wales. He's the elected Labour mayor of

Newham Council, here in London. Welcome to the programme. Now, first

this morning, let's start with a little snap shot of Britain because

according to a new survey on social attitudes out today, Britons have a

stronger belief in politics than 30 years ago but trust politicians

less. Surprise, surprise. The British Social Attitudes Report also

says that people sympathise more with the unemployed but struggle to

support spending more on benefits. You agree with that, don't you? That

is what people tell us and that is what the survey said. What is

happening is that as there is focus on benefits, people realise it is

not as generous as you might think, and support for people who will not

working is not where it should be. As benefits spending is up, the way

to deal with it is to get people into employment. That is what people

think. You said that the system cuts people's legs off. The issue is this

think. You said that the system cuts safety net on welfare. We get that.

When you start work, the claw-back on benefit and tax means it does not

pay. It is ludicrous that if you are wealthy then you can get 50p to the

pound. The current proposals would let people keep 35p. We need a

system where if you work then you can keep some of that money was you

need to reward work. Successive governments said that. You should

always paid to be in work and this government has said that they want

is to change the benefit system to enforce that. Your contributory

welfare system, will it reinforce that system between the deserving

and undeserving? You need to support people into work. The current

programme is a disaster and is not working. In my constituency we have

a system. We spend money and get 5000 people a year into work. You

need to support people into work. You would like to see more benefits

for people in work and lesser people out of work? I think there needs to

a safety net. That should include kids. We gave for e-mails to primary

school kids. -- free school meals.I think people understand this. If you

can encourage people to work and support them into work, and the

evidence we have is that you can help people into work but you must

invest. People need help. Do it properly and you can reduce the

benefit Bill. Work is the solution to the problem. Shouldn't employers

pay people more for the work they do, otherwise the tax credit system

has been criticised because it keeps people on benefits. One thing we

have said this government is, could we enforce the minimum wage? We know

a lot of people are being paid under the minimum wage. We have said that

lets make sure work is paid. We should move the minimum wage up. We

are supporting this. It is all about putting the whole package together

and this government is more concerned about attacking poor

people and driving people out of London because they cannot afford to

live there any more. They are more concerned with that than dealing

with the issues. Now it's time for our daily quiz. Today we've learned,

from one of his former England team-mates that footballer David

Beckham had a crush on the wife of a British Prime Minister. So who was

it? Was it:- A Sarah Brown, B Cherie Blair, C Norma Major, or D Samantha

Cameron. At the end of the show, Robin Wales will give us the correct

answer. Now, who says the BBC doesn't provide great family

entertainment? Yesterday afternoon at 3.15pm, seven top players, past

and present, from the world's leading public sector broadcaster

appeared in front of the Commons Public Accounts Committee to answer

some tough questions about big executive pay-offs. Eastenders, eat

your heart out, here's a flavour of the event. Why was half £1 million,

which for most people was a lot of money, not enough to get rid of

someone who you decided was not needed? We were in the middle of a

restructuring of the BBC, which meant losing a quarter of the senior

management. We were in the middle of a series of gigantic projects to

include the New Broadcasting House, and Salford. It also included the

royal wedding and the Olympics. We took the decision, and it was my

judgement, and we discussed it with the BBC Trust, that we wanted Mark

fully focused on the enormous task we had. We did not want him taking

calls from headhunters, we wanted him fully focused, and that is why

we did not ask him to work through his notice. You had to apologise

we did not ask him to work through because you claimed not to see a

document... I think...We need to take that evidence with a pinch of

salt. That is grossly unfair. You are referring to a document but I

did not understand which document you meant at the time. After that

meeting I was shown the document and I recognised it as a document I was

involved in. I clarified that. All I said to the committee, and I am in

some difficulty about this, I was not party to the agreement. I am in

a position where I am accused of having misled the committee on

something I never knew. Why was it not in the induction pack? We were

not aware of the arrangements, either in writing or through all

contact. That is the fact of the matter. I cannot believe that!If

you want me to explain, I will do so. To discuss the fallout from

yesterday's committee meeting I'm joined by member of the Public

Accounts Committee Stewart Jackson, and by media commentator and friend

of the programme Steve Hewlett. Your thoughts on the performances of Mark

Thompson and Chris Patten? I thought Thompson was at the top of his game.

He had a lot of riding of this, his potential media career, if he was

seen to have lied or misled. He prepared well and was on top of his

game. He was able to direct the committee towards looking at the

failings and the dysfunctional nature of the relationship

failings and the dysfunctional senior members of the BBC Trust. Are

we any the wiser as to why departing executives were paid more than was

necessary? You can sum it up by saying the BBC thought it was

entitled to give private-sector pay and conditions in lieu of notice. I

think there was a culture of the higher up you get, the more likely

you were to get more enhanced payments. It was unacceptable and

wrong. There was, demonstrated by the evidence, a disconnect between

the managers and the rest of the staff. I was in a newsroom not 1

million miles from here and when Margaret Hodge said, we will have no

more lies today, thank you, a cheer went up from the staff in the

newsroom. That's just tells you that there is a degree of dysfunction.

Just to be clear, I do not think there is any doubt about what

happened here and who was paid what, and who authorised it. Mark Thompson

said he authorised it and it was a policy to reduced senior manager pay

as soon as possible. He said he stood by it. The tricky bit here is

about the BBC Trust and that isn't about whether they authorised it

about the BBC Trust and that isn't because they never tire of saying,

constitutionally, they are not allowed to authorise it. The

question is, do they know? If you have an organisation called the BBC

Trust, just think about the name for a second, which is there to protect

licence payer's interest, but cannot express a view or intervene

effectively when something is going wrong, then you plainly have a

problem. I think it is more concentrated than that in this case.

The original position which is that they had no documents or no

recollections is completely wrong. That does not mean they knew

everything. Did they know, in general? Yes, they did. The

spotlight is on the BBC Trust and quite rightly in a way. They are the

ones who were caught looking as though they have not been

straightforward. Is that how you see it in terms of Chris Patten and the

Trust? I think he should consider his position. He should go or be

fired. He was not there, in fairness to him. He did not arrive at the BBC

until several months after this. My problem is that you have Tony hall

trying to gag everything. These people are paid a lot of money and

have brought the BBC into disrepute. The BBC is a fantastic thing for

this country and gives the enemies of the BBC more opportunities to

criticise it. It started with a of the BBC more opportunities to

payoff of George Entwistle. The National Audit Office began to look

at payments after that and we are now in a fight with the BBC because,

although we have used Parliamentary privilege and said we wanted the

names of the managers who received payoffs, the culture was about

payments made before they were signed off, and weak oversight. That

is the issue. Who is to blame for that? There will be staff and

members of the public who have taken a sharp intake of breath at the £1

million payoff. The people in the front line of the management. Mark

Thompson said that was the policy he stood by and he would do the same

again. He argued that it was worth its, even if it meant paying over

the odds. The overall Bill has been reduced and they say they have saved

188 million. That is a valid argument. If we delayed and had done

more negotiation it would have cost the licence payer of fortune. I

think you will agree that the trust were asleep on the job. They are

dysfunctional. Should somebody pay for that? Just to , meant --

complements the committee, Mark Thomson's argument was that if they

had not paid the extra, then he said his I would not be on the ball. How

does an institution, in that sense, gets to that point? It is people at

the top of the pyramid to all know each other and came into

broadcasting at the same time. It happens in lots of institutions. Let

me give you an example. You want to happens in lots of institutions. Let

get rid of a cleaner, you double the payoff. That is true. That is

something we need to crack down on. I preferred that Mark Thompson has

said, I think it is right. You can criticise it but at least there is

leadership there. It is leadership criticise it but at least there is

and I think we should go forward with that. Do we need to hear from

Tony hall? In this respect, in terms with that. Do we need to hear from

of what happened then, not really. I think he is widely trying to stay

out of the way and focus on... This is where the Trust are in

difficulty. I think what they would like to do is be part of Tony

hall's future and not part of Mark's past. They want to be in the

new era of maximum pay-outs of hundred and 50 million and they

don't want to be in the million pound payoff. The trouble is that

they cannot escape their own history. I think the BBC Trust is

asked and the BBC need to look for a new way forward. just yesterday, it

seemed like President Obama was set on taking military action in Syria,

as he took to the airwaves to persuade people to support him. Now

he has said he will put plans for a military strike on hold if Syria

agrees to place its military stockpile of weapons under control.

France has said it would put a resolution to this to the UN

Security Council. Last night, he was asked if this could pause military

action? Absolutely, if that happened. I don't think we would

have got to this point unless we have maintained a credible

possibility of military strikes. I have maintained a credible

want to make sure that the norm against chemical weapons is

maintained. We are joined now by a Conservative MP who has just

returned from the Syrian border. What is your response to this idea

of Syria putting its chemical weapons at arms length and under

international control? I think anything is possible. But I don't

think a scorpion ever changes its habits, so I am not optimistic. We

have two go the extra mile, give the Syrian government every opportunity

to give up their chemical weapons. And if, the Secretary of State, John

Kerry, said yesterday, if they are prepared to give up their chemical

weapons this week, then perhaps they can prevent action being taken

against them. Do you think it is right for President Obama to

persuade Congress that while this is discussed, they should put military

strikes on hold? He should ensure a resolution is passed, so if he does

not give up his chemical weapons, I think the United States and the

Alliance that has been put together, can take what ever action

is necessary to bring President Assad to account. Would you like to

see military action? I would like to see an end to the Civil War. So

anything that could bring an end to the Civil War, I would like to see

happen. But I would like to see President Assad and his brother, who

I believe is directly responsible for the chemical attack, brought

before the courts in the Hague. You have been on the Turkish, Syrian

border so you will have seen floods of refugees trying to leave Syria

for some sort of safe haven. Do you think this potential idea, which

seems to me is about saving face for the politicians involved, will it

help Syrians who are frightened for their lives? No it is not. There

have been over 100,000 people killed by the president is sad military

machine and by taking chemical weapons out of the occasion is not

going to stop what is an asymmetrical war in which the Syrian

regime is constantly bombarding both with aeroplanes and helicopters,

heavy artillery and shells and so on, on innocent, Syrian civilians.

Frankly, there is nothing I see in the future that will bring that to

an end. Do you think President Assad will go for this idea? I think he

will use it, as he always does, as a delaying tactic. I think the

Russians will do everything possible to make sure it is used as a

delaying device. I don't think there is any honest approach to try to

bring an end to the Civil War. He will try to slaughter his people

into submission with or without chemical weapons. Thanks for joining

us. Jim Ure, our Middle East correspondence is in Beirut. Is this

a turning point, or is it a delaying tactic? Obviously we will have to

a turning point, or is it a delaying wait and see. I have always been

foolishly optimistic on these things. I think when we look back in

a few years, we might conceivably see it as a turning point. The

Russians are now proposing something the Americans can accept. The French

are putting forward this idea of a resolution, formulating this stuff

about chemical weapons for a resolution at the UN. It will take a

about chemical weapons for a lot of hammering out, but the basis

is there, in the sense that both sides want to see chemical weapons

collected up and destroyed. We could, for the first time, seeing

Russia and America agreeing to a resolution being allowed through and

the national trend would be to talk about reviving the Geneva peace

process, which everybody agrees is the only way of settling this

conflict. Everybody says there cannot be a military solution, there

has to be a political one. If they cannot agree on these chemical

weapons measures, the National -- natural progression would be to get

a settlement under way again in Geneva or where ever. Thanks for

joining us. Do you share that confidence and optimism, but this

could be a way out for both President Obama, the Syrians and

Russia? Who knows? It has to be a positive thing. The Russians have

come along and said, we think we can take and do something with the

chemical weapons. I think we have learned lessons from Iraq about

intervening in civil wars and intervening in areas with a military

force, it does not always work. We should be working with the United

Nations and people across the world. The best we can hope for is to try

to keep working to get diplomacy going. It sounds like good news. It

is not bad news. Except the scepticism that it might not

happen. It will, to some extent, focus on Britain's role and a gain

on how David Cameron and Ed Miliband have dealt with this. First of all,

the Prime Minister ruling out another vote on military action and

Ed Miliband withdrawing support for what he saw was a march to war. I

Ed Miliband withdrawing support for think Ed Miliband was right, we did

not know enough. I think the Prime Minister came across as petulant.

What he should have said, when we know more facts, we will talk about

what we can do. The right way to do that is through a United Nations

process and work with other countries. We are not the police of

the world. What we can be is a force for the good when we are working

with other people. I think Ed Miliband's position was correct.

Would it make any difference? Is it the right time? Let's see what

develops. This solution might not work, but what is the downside if it

doesn't. If there was fresh evidence and circumstances change, they would

look again at another vote and possibility of military action, what

would your view be? I do like the idea of Britain being involved in

military action. It will not solve things. -- I do not like. It will

also kill and maim the people. It is finding a solution to the Syrian

problem. The only way that will happen is by getting the major

powers together and working it through politically.

As we were saying earlier, Sir Robin Wales is the first directly elected

mayor of the London Borough of Newham. He has been involved in the

London 2012 Olympics. The borough has seen a great deal of

regeneration, but there are still poor areas, suffering from

overcrowding and deprivation. This has prompted the council to

introduce mandatory landlord licensing, the first scheme of its

kind in the country. Early morning in new in London, and

three council officers are knocking on, although not kicking in, doors.

It is not a courtesy call. Since February, the council have been

enforcing the licensing of rented properties. The borough is full of

ordinary houses, some of which have extraordinary numbers of occupants,

whilst each room is unofficially rented as a flat. At first, there is

little luck, but after a while someone opens up and we are allowed

in. Actually, when we first arrived, despite some furious knocking and no

one replied, and the entire group moved on down the street, I just

happened to notice when I look back, people were peeking out of the

window. Some of the occupants had looked out to see what was going on,

so we all came back. Now we are in here, it is clear it is not being

rented by just one family. Now we have come into the property and come

to the top floor, we have locks on the outside of the doors. That

indicates to us, that although the lady is saying and they are one

family, they are living here with some friends staying, we would not

normally have locks on doors. We need to investigate further. Police

are in attendance, and why -- while many occupants who are paying very

high rents are here significantly, some have overstayed their visas.

But for legitimate residents, wide target them, why not rate the

landlords? We need to get the evidence first of all to show the

property is rented. This is what we are doing, gathering evidence,

gathering statements and intelligence. We are making our own

notes and taking our own photographs. Then we will go to see

the landlord. So far, 110 cases have been brought against criminal

landlords and the evidence gathering goes on. A different door, but the

same story. We have access to another one. Just be careful of the

carpet. The condition is not as good as the last one. And the last one

was not great. The state of the house and the kitchen is astonishing

in comparison to the rent charged. Just as it is in the next property.

This is another one they think may have multiple occupancy, being

unlicensed. You cannot help feeling a little bit sorry for the people.

The landlord is making up to £50,000 a year from multiple rental on a

property unlicensed, unsafe and unpleasant for such use. These marks

are squashed bedbugs. In my hair, in my ears, it in my hair. 15 last

night? Yes. It is no surprise the council are accusing in new of being

a thing cover for border agency checks. But it is clear for now, the

raids will go on. Why did you decide to do this? When

we looked at the situation there has been a big expansion in the private

sector rental market in you. You are twice as likely to get anti-social

behaviour from a property that is rented. We had lots of complaints,

rubbish in gardens, people behaving badly, people making noise. If you

have lots of people in a house, they generate noise and it is awful. Then

when we looked, people are being exploited. They are people who do

not care. A third of the landlords are very good, a and about 25% are

criminals. We are out to get the 25% of criminal landlords. We have no

issue with landlords, it is the ones who are criminal putting too many

people in a property. 15 people, typically. We have two people living

in a walk in freezer. It is not good enough. They are shocking, some of

the pictures and I am sure people think those squalid conditions are

unacceptable. But there is obviously think those squalid conditions are

demand out there. Report said you feel a bit sorry for the people

living there, when you have your teams going in? We are going to

drive these landlords out and have the properties improved, so they are

better places for people to live. If we don't do this, it is £50 for a

bed, typically. They are making a fortune? Of course they are. If we

don't do anything, more people will do it. It is not the people we are

after, it is the landlords we go after. But there may be people

living illegally there? What we have found is, out of the 600 unlicensed

properties we visited, one in five we made an arrest. We are paying for

the police officers. It is costing us money. Residents are telling us

they are sick and tired of living next to places who are bad. What you

have seen is replicated in many properties. We are not going to put

up with it. How long are you going to do this for? It is very

expensive. How long will you continue to do this? Until we clear

these bad landlords out. A good landlord, if you register, £150 for

five years. Interestingly, across landlord, if you register, £150 for

London and the rest of the country, people are looking at this. Who else

is looking at this in London councils? We have been talking to

Oxford, Blackpool and Liverpool. This is trailblazing. As they see

the impact, other people will want to do it. We have the same problem

in other parts of London in particular. You could argue that

some of these dodgy landlords could go to neighbouring counties?

Anecdotally, that is what we are hearing. Other councils will respond

the same way. In the end it is about the neighbours who have been putting

up with appalling problems from these places, and the people who are

exploited. You have children living in a number of them. You see that,

and it is not on. We cannot allow this. If we don't do anything, it

will turn into a ghetto. What about the number of landlords

that are signed up to the new licensing scheme? It is 25% of the

landlords. It is cash in hand and they are not paying tax. It is being

avoided by these people. There are criminals living in them. Many are

avoided by these people. There are arrested for immigration but for

other crimes as well. What about the legacy for 2012 for your area? You

were in the spotlight and this is your dark side. You were trying to

clear the issue up. Has the legacy been a good thing? It has created

jobs and opportunities. We have got 5000 people into work last year. We

think employment is important. On top of that, we have invested 40

million in sport. Every child gets free tuition. What we wanted from

million in sport. Every child gets the Olympics was inspiration and I

think it has inspired our people. Last night we had a show for

schoolchildren to come to. For us, it it was regeneration but

inspiration as well. There are lots of good news stories, but we will

not allow the bad news stories to continue either. Now, the weather's

getting colder, the mornings are getting darker and the leaves are

starting to turn. But that hasn't stopped Ed Miliband from planning a

nice trip to the seaside. However, it's choppy waters ahead for the

Labour leader who addressed the TUC conference in Bournemouth this

morning. His most pressing challenge is to sort out Labour's relationship

with the unions. It's all guns blazing between the two sides over

proposed changes to Labour Party funding in the wake of the

controversy over the selection of Labour's candidate in Falkirk. And

fighting with the unions means Labour's finances looks likely to

take a hit with both the GMB and Unison withdrawing some of their

funding to the party. Meanwhile, voters still haven't warmed to Ed.

The latest poll shows his net approval rating is at minus 31

compared to just minus 15 for David Cameron. And that's all while things

are looking rosier for the government, with George Osborne

insisting the UK economy has turned a corner all thanks to their

economic policy. I want a different relationship with individual trade

union members as part of building a relationship with individual trade

different Labour Party. Some people ask me, why do you think it is

necessary to make these changes? Let me try and explain. We have 3

million working men and women affiliated to our party, and I am

proud of that. I am proud of that link. But here is the problem. So

many of them, the vast majority of them, play no role in our local

parties. They are affiliated in name only. That was not the vision of the

founders of our party. That is not my vision and it is not your vision

either. I want each and every my vision and it is not your vision

affiliated member of the Labour Party to be a real part of the

party. A real voice in our party based on an active choice to be part

of the party. Well, joining me now from Bournemouth are two union

delegates who were listening to Ed Miliband's speech - Maureen Le

Marinel from Unison and Lisa Johnson from the GMB. Your response to the

speech? I think he said some of the right things. Certainly, our members

are not asking what the funding relationship is between ourselves

and the Labour Party but what they are wanting to hear is what he is

going to do about the economic crisis and how he is going to get

education for our young people, jobs for our young people, how he is

going to fight the Bedroom Tax which is forcing our families out of their

homes. They are the important thing is that the members. Do you think he

has picked the wrong time to have a fight? I do not think there is a

fight in all honesty. I think Ed Miliband is saying that people

should have a choice. Where Unison members are concerned, we have

always had that choice. For us, and our members, what Ed Miliband is

suggesting is no different to the way we have been operating for ten

years. Was the GMB union rights to cut funding to the Labour Party? --

right. What we have seen today from Ed Miliband is what we want to hear.

We want to hear how to get people back to work and how people can pay

the Bills. This is exactly what we need to talk about. I am not sure

that our members in care homes and the dinner ladies want us to talk

about an internal Labour Party issued when they are struggling to

pay the Bills. Do you think this was the wrong time to bring this up? He

was the one that tried to reform the relationship and used the Falkirk

saga to act as a platform. That is exactly what I think. People are

interested on policies that impact on their everyday lives. They are

not interested in internal party workings. We're not saying we do not

want change at all. Our general secretary said many times it was not

working exactly as we wanted but it needs to be the right change and

Labour need to start talking. Maureen, you are both members of the

Labour Party, how many new members Do you think will join up to Labour

if they have to do it as individual members? I think if members know

that they have that choice then more people will join the Labour Party

because they know that they have that choice. 300,000?Why not? Why

not 300,000? It Ed Miliband is going to lead the Labour Party in the

right way for the people of this country, doing all the economic

things and getting them off the ground, that the public ones, and

that the community needs, then I believe that the Labour Party is the

party for the future. Thank you very much for joining us from sunny

Bournemouth. That's the view from Bournemouth. Labour's Chuka Umanna

joins me now. They are optimistic about all of these new members that

will sign up. What other political about all of these new members that

parties have turned down the membership declination? We have a

crisis of politics across the Western world. The point is that

this is not just an issue for the Labour Party. We are seeking to

tackle this crisis and I found, in my own constituency, in many

respects, people are more political than ever because of the adverse

circumstances that they are living in, but they have never felt so

distant from party politics. That represents a challenge for you in

the media and for us. I think we have a head start over other

political parties because we have a link to 3 million people who power

British businesses and services. What we are trying to do through

these reforms is making sure we have a better relationship with them.

Secondly, we need to take big money out of politics and that is why this

individual link, and having a funding to the Labour Party, is so

important. Compare and contrast that to the Conservative party who've

made no effort to transform politics whatsoever. They use this issue to

denigrate hard-working trade union members. Since you brought it up,

about taking the big money out of politics, there will be many voters

who are saying it is brave to tackle this issue at this point. You have

laid all your cards on the table and have picked a fight with union

leaders, what concessions have you got for the Tories? It is not about

picking a fight. Quite frankly, there have been no concessions from

the Conservative party... They are in a position where they lose 25% of

their funding. MPs in marginal seats will be thinking yikes! If we do not

sort out our politics it does not matter what policies we come up

with. That is why this is a priority. The principle of having a

healthy democracy has got to come before big money. We have had a

discussion about where we set a funding cap. The simple fact is that

if your viewers would sue Google Conservative party, you will see

that for the price of £50,000 a year, you can have a dinner with

David Cameron. We think that is big money. I know that there you have

David Cameron. We think that is big not achieved it. We will achieve!

That is an issue for them. We are adjusting... You are going to

bankrupt your party... No, we are not! Diane Abbott, your colleague,

said she is not worried about it because the union leaders will come

up with the money when election time comes. Is that your strategy? The

money that the GMB is cutting will come back just before the election?

I think you are missing the point as to why we are doing this. Jo, I am

not going to deny that there will be a dent in the Labour Party's

finances but the majority of our funding comes from small donations

and individuals. The idea that the Labour Party is suddenly going to be

bankrupt is not a picture that I recognise. The implication that

ending affiliation with trade unions is that they will lose their

leadership. The block vote, will that end? Lord Ray Collins is

carrying out the review into the reforms and if we opt in, that will

have implications for our roles but he is consulting with all of the

stakeholders in the Labour Party to work out a reform package. I was

talking about the need for a change to politics. If I come on this

programme and dictate everything that is going to happen, without us

having a consultation with the members, it makes a mockery of

everything. Was this the right time to do this because you could argue

that Ed Miliband has been a leader for three years and there has been

no mention of this dramatic reform or changing relationship? Falkirk

happens and then there is a revolution. Perhaps it was not done

in the best way but he stood up and said he thought it was wrong before

anyone else was doing it. He said, we need to get more working people

into the Labour Party. The Labour Party desperately needs those

people. Do you want it to happen? Yes. We will see a big increase in

membership and we will see hundreds Yes. We will see a big increase in

of people knocking on doors during the next election. I am not bothered

about the money. He has done the right thing and we have a leader who

does the right thing. I have been in the Labour Party for more years than

I care to mention. I go back to 1970, and if I had a pound for every

time that you said there was a battle between Labour and the trade

unions, we will get people who work. We will get people who work on lower

incomes coming in and influencing the Labour Party. It is good for

politics and is the right thing to do. Let's talk about what the Tories

will do with their big donations. Yesterday Diane Abbott said people

in the Labour Party are obsessed that he is not labelled Red Ed. Is

that true? I don't agree with that. I don't believe we are obsessed with

that. What we are obsessed with is putting forward a positive vision on

how we can build a fairer, more equal and democratic and more

prosperous Britain. That is why you have seen exploitative use of zero

hours contract. Do you not agree with zero hours contracts? You think

they are applicable in some instances? Ed Miliband said you

cannot force people to work. Those are important. And where possible we

should have permanent contracts. For a music programme, we have to give

people a contract for a term. What I have said as a result of what it has

done, I have instigated a review of all the zero hours contract in the

council, we have 112 of them. I would rather have people working on

proper contracts. He has not said no to zero contracts, he has said about

the abuse of them. Exploitation. That is what we are trying to outlaw

them. In a year, let's see how many new members there are to the Labour

Party. Bold, radical change is what we need. And 300,000 new members.

Today is an important day on a two square miles rock off the coast of

Spain. I'm talking about Gibraltar which is celebrating National Jibril

today, marking the 19th anniversary of the southern tree agreement.

After authorities dropped 74 concrete blocks into the bay to

build what they say is an artificial reef to encourage conservation,

there has been controversy. Madrid have retaliated by increasing border

checks between Spain and Gibraltar. I spoke to the Chief Minister of

Gibraltar and I asked him what the day would involve. Today we are

celebrating the first expression of our free will in Gibraltar, which

celebrating the first expression of was on the 10th of September 1967,

first referendum. 99% of people voted to remain British and we are

remembering that expression of free will by dressing up in red and

white. The main streets and squares are a swathe of red and white.

Everybody is enjoying the day as a National Carnival and celebration.

Sounds wonderful, will you get a message from the Prime Minister,

David Cameron? We have had a message from the Prime Minister delivered

today, where he has been clear and loud in his support for the people

of Gibraltar and our right to determine our political future for

ourselves. In particular, to choose to remain British. This comes after

a summer of tension between Spain, Gibraltar and Great Britain, if you

like. What is this most recent row Gibraltar and Great Britain, if you

with Spain really like? It has got to be about more than just the

artificial reef built by Gibraltar? You are right, in the same way it is

not about why there are officers shooting at a jet skier which they

did two weeks before the reef was set up. It is all about Spain

wanting to take the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Spain were saying I wish

to persuade the people of Gibraltar they should stop being British and

become Spanish. That is one way of dealing with the matter. Spain says

the wishes of the people of Gibraltar are irrelevant and we

should be turned into a Spanish territory, because there are some

resolutions of the United Nations from the 1960s which say this and

the treaty should be undone. That is the background issue.

Geographically, you are so close to Spain, you could not be any closer.

If relations are that bad between yourselves, the Spanish and Great

Britain, it is not good for you and the people of Gibraltar. We do not

wish for there to be bad relations between Spain and Gibraltar. We

could boast of a great relationship with Spain. Our most important

relationship in the world is that with the United Kingdom. And the

second important relationships are that with Spain and Morocco. We have

a fluid communication with the municipality. But unfortunately the

Spanish government does not want to engage in direct contact with the

government of Gibraltar and the forum that has been set up for that

purpose. Hopefully the formula William Hague has proposed a leaders

to rekindle some contract with Madrid. -- contact. You have

described Spain as acting like North Korea over the latest tensions. That

will not help the matter will it? I was quoting the Spanish foreign

minister in an interview on the 4th of August. An interview from which

he has resile in great measure now. But in that interview, the way he

expressed issues was a kin to that But in that interview, the way he

you might expect from the North Korean regime. A complete

overreaction and an attack on the people of Gibraltar. Are you

entirely blameless in the tensions that have built up in recent weeks?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am a politician, and

politicians in this area have tried to take an axe to human relations

because of the way they deal with things. I would not be the first one

to say I am entirely blameless in everything. Even though every time

we have acted we have acted reasonably, responsibly to try to

deflect tensions. But I let others judge me, not myself. We'll

relations improve with Spain, or do you think it could deteriorate

further? The will of the people of Gibraltar prevails. The relationship

will only improve, and the best possible relationship between the

people of Gibraltar and the people possible relationship between the

of Spain, and the two governments, we think it is important for the

people. In particular, the people of the region. But there is no region

-- reason for people in Madrid to read in the newspapers that there is

friction between Gibraltar and Spain. Gibraltar is an opportunity

to showcase how well Anglo Spanish relations can go and take the

benefits of Gibraltar and the economic opportunities we create and

four Gibraltar to enjoy the touristic opportunities the region

around us provides. That is what I would like to see is concentrating

on. Enjoy the day.Thank you very much, indeed.

I am joined by Ian Paisley, and London correspondent for the Spanish

nationalist -- national newspaper, ABC. What do the Spanish press make

of the Gibraltar story? It made for an August vacuum story to fill our

pages and covers. It is a big story. It comes and goes. The main elements

of the story are well-known. It is a British colony, it will probably

always remain a British colony. But other elements were played out

through the summer that are different to previous incidents. So

there was a story and people had feelings about this story. And some

of the more social and economical elements of the story involving

fishermen. People get quite emotional about fishing rights. What

have the Spanish made about fishing rights, telling the Spanish

ambassador in London to pack his sombrero, straw donkey and sangria

and go? I have not spoken to the ambassador, he does not wear a

sombrero, and does not have a donkey. But he does like a drink

once in a while. British people do drink tonnes of sangria. Do you

regret your choice of words? I don't think the ambassador has had a

bypass operation of humour. It is a very tense situation, was it

appropriate to use that humour. Others say it was insulting to refer

so personally to the Spanish ambassador and Spain in that way.

Did it help? We met with the Minister prior to this question Time

and the feelings in that group were very strong. They wanted to summon

ambassador in and tell him that this was technically wrong with what was

happening in Gibraltar. Is that what you think? That is why I thought

about putting humour in this and deflect some of the feelings but

make the point. I hope tension does go down. The Prime Minister needs a

good relationship with Spain, Spain needs a good relationship with him.

Are the Spanish passionate about getting Gibraltar back? It goes to

the national feelings. But it is not just a strategic issue in the minds

of the people. Most people would agree with the saying, Spanish

Gibraltar. But for the government, agree with the saying, Spanish

it is different. Gibraltar is a tax haven. Spain has its own tax haven

list which includes Gibraltar. It has a problem with tobacco

smuggling. It was once a beautiful, natural bay, now filled with an

ugly, industrial landscape. The Minister said it, they should be on

good terms and there would be a lot of potential for developing a

beautiful area on both sides of the border, but it is not happening. The

people who live on this rock, families who stay there. They have

said they British and want to remain British. That is what needs to be

respected. It may be easy to walk away from it, but it cannot be

done, these people have rights. Should the government be tougher

with the Spanish government? I think they should. What would you do? I

cannot imagine any situation where people who want to be part of

Britain, we would walk away from them. But to compare them to North

Korea however, if there are issues them. But to compare them to North

they should be dealt with. It suits politicians to make a fuss about it.

And it filled the newspapers in Spain over August. I will have to

say goodbye to both of you. Just before we go, we can find out the

answer to our quiz. Which leader's wife does David Beckham have a crush

on, according to one of his former team-mates? Which one? I would guess

Cherie Blair. You are right. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests.

The 1pm news is starting on BBC One now. We will be back at 11:30am

tomorrow.