:00:38. > :00:42.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Most MPs claim they
:00:43. > :00:46.really do not want it, not one little bit. But this morning, the
:00:47. > :00:52.Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has confirmed that it
:00:53. > :00:58.wants to give MPs an 11% pay rise. Other public sector workers are
:00:59. > :01:00.getting a 1% rise. The increase would take their annual salary to
:01:01. > :01:04.?74,000. Flirting with the enemy, or not? The
:01:05. > :01:07.new Iranian envoy to Britain is over for tea and cake with the Foreign
:01:08. > :01:12.Secretary. It's the great British beard-off. We
:01:13. > :01:16.will be talking to some of the runners and riders in the
:01:17. > :01:19.parliamentary beard of the year. And the BBC has learned from
:01:20. > :01:31.Westminster sources that hacks talk journalese, something they
:01:32. > :01:36.vigorously deny. Dear, oh dear, crunch talks, calculated snub is. I
:01:37. > :01:46.would never talk like this in these appalling cliches. Not on this
:01:47. > :01:50.show, no talk of bonking boffins. I like the phrase, though.
:01:51. > :01:52.All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is
:01:53. > :01:55.the journalist, Melanie Phillips. Welcome to the Daily Politics. First
:01:56. > :01:58.this morning, let's talk about something clever for a change, like
:01:59. > :02:02.genetics, because following Boris Johnson's recent comments on IQ, new
:02:03. > :02:13.research claims that DNA is twice as likely as your school or environment
:02:14. > :02:19.in determining educational success. Do you buy this? Not really. This
:02:20. > :02:24.has been around for a while, this research on the inn heritability of
:02:25. > :02:28.intelligence, that IQ can be transmitted to your genes. It is
:02:29. > :02:37.based on studies of twins. London University College were doing it.
:02:38. > :02:40.Yes, and I have some scepticism. The scientific literature seems to be
:02:41. > :02:44.disputed. There is a lot of feeling that these twin studies going back
:02:45. > :02:50.over time are based on slightly dodgy premises. To me, the whole
:02:51. > :02:54.notion of intelligence is a slippery concept. We know that it changes
:02:55. > :03:00.over time, that children are more receptive to having their IQ
:03:01. > :03:05.improved and adults. This makes it difficult to measure. So studies
:03:06. > :03:12.which claim to measure it and studies which vary in the estimate
:03:13. > :03:16.from 50% to 70% of IQ supposed to be good down to your genes, I don't
:03:17. > :03:23.really buy it. I think nature and nurture go together. It is bound to
:03:24. > :03:27.be some kind of combination. The question is what the proportion is.
:03:28. > :03:30.I feel that when it comes to education, there are countless
:03:31. > :03:34.examples of people with very unpromising backgrounds whose lives
:03:35. > :03:40.have been immeasurably transformed for the better by a good education.
:03:41. > :03:44.And conversely, bad education leaves people mired in disadvantage. The
:03:45. > :03:48.danger of this sort of thing is that it leads people to conclude, that it
:03:49. > :03:52.doesn't matter what we do, if these people are going to be stupid, they
:03:53. > :03:59.will be stupid. And it gets them out of jail for saying no matter what
:04:00. > :04:05.your background, you should get a good education. All this genetic
:04:06. > :04:11.stuff on IQ plays to the idea of what is called determinism, the idea
:04:12. > :04:17.that we are the helpless and passive victims of circumstances, whether it
:04:18. > :04:24.is genes or poverty. It is the idea that we are powerless. This is like
:04:25. > :04:33.a fashion which comes and goes. Personally, I think it is dangerous.
:04:34. > :04:39.I think we are able to rise out of disadvantage. Our environment and
:04:40. > :04:48.how we control our environment is terribly important, and the idea
:04:49. > :04:53.that we are just the victims of our genes, it is the idea that we are
:04:54. > :04:57.just a bag of bones and cells and neurons firing, and there is nothing
:04:58. > :05:04.else inside us. It is a good recipe for keeping people in their place.
:05:05. > :05:07.Exactly. Now, yesterday a little gremlin
:05:08. > :05:10.sabotaged our guess the year competition, and our tape machine
:05:11. > :05:13.refused to play. It was probably overwhelmed by our Christmas
:05:14. > :05:16.giveaway, this one-off card of the Daily Politics team, signed by me
:05:17. > :05:17.and Jo, the Defence Secretary and the shadow Work and Pensions
:05:18. > :05:39.Secretary. And the editor has put her cross in
:05:40. > :05:43.it. Rachel Reeves signed it. You won't find one of these on the high
:05:44. > :05:47.street, for good reason! Anyway, if you are mad enough to want this and
:05:48. > :05:58.one of these, we have fixed the tape machine, so feast your eyes on this.
:05:59. > :06:00.We got the screwdriver out and the oil went into the machine. We gave
:06:01. > :06:17.her a kick with a tire iron. It has been decided to permit the
:06:18. > :06:22.establishment of a number of broadcasting stations. So, from high
:06:23. > :06:23.above the Strand came the first voice of the British broadcasting
:06:24. > :06:36.Company. Into Number Ten went to Conservative
:06:37. > :07:04.cabinet. flowers.
:07:05. > :07:10.# Still, it holds a goodly share of bliss.
:07:11. > :07:13.The cup final was held at Stamford which the last time. And there,
:07:14. > :07:33.Huddersfield beat Preston North End. Good music.
:07:34. > :07:36.To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug and that
:07:37. > :07:42.wonderful card, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address.
:07:43. > :07:53.Melanie has already tried to half inch it! You can see the full terms
:07:54. > :07:59.and conditions if you are a complete geek and third on the death the year
:08:00. > :08:05.website. -- the guess the year website. It keeps people in jobs.
:08:06. > :08:11.And viewers who entered via our website yesterday, don't panic, your
:08:12. > :08:15.name will go forward! If you believe that, you will believe anything.
:08:16. > :08:19.The independent body which sets MPs' salaries has put in a late bid to be
:08:20. > :08:23.the least popular organisation of 2030. -- 2013. It confirmed today
:08:24. > :08:27.that it inks members of Parliament should receive an 11% pay rise.
:08:28. > :08:29.Controversial? Not half. So why does the Independent Parliamentary
:08:30. > :08:52.Standards Authority, known as IPSA, think they should get the extra
:08:53. > :09:01.cash? Well, at the moment, if you are an average backbencher with no
:09:02. > :09:04.extra jobs, you get ?66,400 a year. IPSA, set up after the expenses
:09:05. > :09:07.scandal, compared MPs' wages to other professions and found that
:09:08. > :09:10.they get less than head teachers, police chief superintendents and
:09:11. > :09:13.senior civil servants, so they are below other big public sector jobs.
:09:14. > :09:16.They are also paid less than legislators in other countries
:09:17. > :09:18.including Japan, Australia, the US and Germany. But they are paid more
:09:19. > :09:23.than members of Parliament in vans and Spain. But then Spain has 60%
:09:24. > :09:28.use an opponent. So exercise that after two years of careful thought,
:09:29. > :09:34.it has decided that they should rise to ?74,000 in 2015. Conveniently,
:09:35. > :09:39.after the election. IPSA says it will offset the cost of the rise by
:09:40. > :09:46.squeezing MP Rumack generous pensions and various other perks. It
:09:47. > :09:49.says it will not cost any more in the round and warns that if it is
:09:50. > :09:54.not allowed to act, there could be a repeat of the expenses scandal, more
:09:55. > :09:58.duck houses going up all over the country. The plan risks going down
:09:59. > :10:02.like a bucket of cold sick with the public. David Cameron, who helped
:10:03. > :10:08.set IPSA up, has threatened to scrap the body if it goes ahead with the
:10:09. > :10:12.rise. Here are Ed Miliband and David Cameron at PMQs yesterday. Does the
:10:13. > :10:16.prime minister agree that given the crisis families are facing in their
:10:17. > :10:21.living standards, MPs should not be awarded a pay rise many times above
:10:22. > :10:26.inflation in 2015? The idea of an 11% pay rise in one year at a time
:10:27. > :10:31.of pay restraint is unacceptable. A complete, it is a need to think
:10:32. > :10:35.again. Unless they do, I don't think anyone will want to rule anything
:10:36. > :10:40.out. No one wants to go back to MPs voting on their own pay, but we need
:10:41. > :10:44.an outcome that can build public confidence. You may have noticed
:10:45. > :10:51.that MPs were unusually quiet during that exchange. The man who runs IPSA
:10:52. > :10:57.is called Ian Kennedy. He gets a fair whack for doing his job. He did
:10:58. > :11:04.not want to speak to us, but he did give an interview to another part of
:11:05. > :11:11.the BBC. What we have announced is a package of reforms long overdue.
:11:12. > :11:15.Part of those reforms has to do with reducing pensions which were
:11:16. > :11:21.overgenerous by cutting back on old and did eyes, cutting down on
:11:22. > :11:26.expenses -- cutting back on old goodbyes. The other side is that we
:11:27. > :11:30.have got to catch up after it boring recommendations for decades as to
:11:31. > :11:34.what MPs should be paid. We have arrived at a figure of ?74,000 after
:11:35. > :11:45.the most authoritative study ever carried out. And that is what we are
:11:46. > :11:50.going to implement. With us now, Joe Twyman, director of the little
:11:51. > :11:54.research at YouGov, which has carried out some polling for IPSA.
:11:55. > :11:59.The Labour MP John Mann. We did phone up a host of MPs who we hoped
:12:00. > :12:09.might stand up in support of a pay rise, but alas, no one said yes. But
:12:10. > :12:17.we have got Bono. Joe Twyman, -- we have got you to. Job one, did MPs
:12:18. > :12:23.want a pay rise? Only 2% of the MPs we spoke to thought they were due a
:12:24. > :12:28.pay rise. The majority thought a pay rise was suitable. They thought an
:12:29. > :12:36.average of ?85,000 would be the most suitable salary. But they would not
:12:37. > :12:42.say that in public. Well, they have not said that yet. What about the
:12:43. > :12:47.public? Do they have a view as to what a proper MP's salary should be?
:12:48. > :12:53.That is an interesting question, because we also ask that, and we
:12:54. > :12:56.found out in comparison to 80,000, the public thought 40,000 was a more
:12:57. > :13:02.reasonable amount. But was the average from them, and that is where
:13:03. > :13:07.the trouble arises, because you have two very different views. IPSA's
:13:08. > :13:10.position is closer to the MPs. When you set out what they are talking
:13:11. > :13:12.about, cutting back on other benefits and revising pension
:13:13. > :13:18.contributions, the majority of people agree with that. When you ask
:13:19. > :13:22.them, should a ?10,000 pay rise take place, 85% of people say no matter
:13:23. > :13:30.and it is very difficult to get as many people as that to agree. John
:13:31. > :13:36.Mann, which figure are you closer to? It depends who you ask. If you
:13:37. > :13:43.go on the streets of my constituency and quoted the figures, many would
:13:44. > :13:50.say of their own MP, he does a very good job, but no, he should not be
:13:51. > :13:54.paid more. My view is that we voted through the pay restraint on the
:13:55. > :14:00.public sector. We need to impose that on ourselves. Is it all to do
:14:01. > :14:03.with timing? This is at a time when the rest of the public sector is
:14:04. > :14:10.being forced to tighten its belt. This is just a bad time to think
:14:11. > :14:14.about an MPs' pay rise. Some would say there would never be a good time
:14:15. > :14:19.. But it is the height of madness to do a job evaluation scheme when
:14:20. > :14:30.there is a public sector pay freeze. You would not do it anywhere else.
:14:31. > :14:34.The concept is fundamentally wrong. Of course you have got to have a
:14:35. > :14:39.living. And it needs to be sufficient for people to manage, and
:14:40. > :14:43.perhaps a bit more than manage, in order to ensure that people stay and
:14:44. > :14:48.do not get caught off the moment they are there. But it is not a job,
:14:49. > :14:54.it is a vocation. We are elected to do it, and therefore, job evaluation
:14:55. > :15:00.is a contradiction in terms. Your job evaluation comes from the ballot
:15:01. > :15:06.box. MPs love to compare with journalists and head teachers and
:15:07. > :15:10.people who they perceive as being better paid. They don't like to
:15:11. > :15:14.compare with cleaners, for example. And yet it seems that that is an
:15:15. > :15:18.equally valid comparison. But that would lead you to begin division
:15:19. > :15:24.that MPs should be on the average wage. The conclusion is that it is
:15:25. > :15:28.not a job. There needs to be enough to do it. There are hidden costs,
:15:29. > :15:32.and the public will not be aware of them, but we are not impoverished. I
:15:33. > :15:36.am one of the average MPs you mentioned. I get the actual amount
:15:37. > :15:46.and nothing more, and I survived perfectly well. We actually asked
:15:47. > :15:51.about a whole host of different jobs, and whether people thought
:15:52. > :16:00.they were overpaid or underpaid, and very few came higher but fared worse
:16:01. > :16:09.than MPs. Bankers, television presenters, they were that those who
:16:10. > :16:19.were felt to be more overpaid. What is your take? Parliament says we
:16:20. > :16:24.cannot possibly determine our pay, but it is perverse that when IPSA
:16:25. > :16:31.turns round and says that there is something that the MPs don't like,
:16:32. > :16:40.the MPs say, we can't have that. So where is its independence? And they
:16:41. > :16:47.have only just done it. IPSA is new. But the problem with pushing through
:16:48. > :16:52.a pay rise at this time, I agree with John Mann. The fundamental
:16:53. > :16:59.problem is that MPs regard what they do was a job. I absolutely agree
:17:00. > :17:02.that it is a vocation. A lot of the problems in politics because it has
:17:03. > :17:10.become a job, and MPs have become cannon fodder for the Whips because
:17:11. > :17:14.they depend so much for the entire livelihood and Korea on this job
:17:15. > :17:18.being member of armament. It is all very well to say that it is not a
:17:19. > :17:23.job, but it doesn't stop many of your colleagues taking other jobs.
:17:24. > :17:27.No, but the key to me on that is transparency. If people are spending
:17:28. > :17:32.their time not doing the job, they should be voted out. But what is
:17:33. > :17:35.critical is transparency. If someone wants to come and be a presenter
:17:36. > :17:40.alongside you, I don't care about that. But what I do care about is
:17:41. > :17:44.that people can see what is happening and how they are getting
:17:45. > :17:49.paid. They can make a judgement for better or worse. You have been
:17:50. > :17:57.prepared to come on and give a point of view. We were saying that MPs
:17:58. > :18:14.don't want to speak about this in public. So far, nine or ten MPs have
:18:15. > :18:19.signed a statement saying that they think the pay rise should be 1%. I
:18:20. > :18:25.think they are keeping quiet and hoping they will get the pay rise. I
:18:26. > :18:34.can assure you I am in a minority. You don't have to assure me. I have
:18:35. > :18:38.seen the figures! What I note is quite a lot of people seem to fail
:18:39. > :18:46.to see that I am there as they walk past. There is a silence. It must be
:18:47. > :18:51.something I did in the past. It is hard to see a way out of this. There
:18:52. > :18:58.was a time when MPs set their own pay. Then they did this thing called
:18:59. > :19:02.the comparison thing, where they tried to benchmark themselves with
:19:03. > :19:08.senior grades in the civil service. Now they have outsourced it all the
:19:09. > :19:12.IPSA. Nothing seems to work. It is a matter of perception. Look at the
:19:13. > :19:17.context, it is in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, when trust in
:19:18. > :19:22.politicians is low and falling, and the guy from IPSA himself said that
:19:23. > :19:28.if we don't do this, we might have another expenses scandal. He is
:19:29. > :19:33.saying, you can't trust them enough to be fair dealing on this. If you
:19:34. > :19:40.don't give me enough money, I will cheat. We often argue that we need
:19:41. > :19:43.to get more good people in the parliament, the best and the
:19:44. > :19:50.brightest should be going in. And to do that, don't you have to pay a bit
:19:51. > :19:55.more? The salary hasn't gone up relatively over the last 20 years.
:19:56. > :20:01.Whether the quality has improved in a similar way is debatable. It
:20:02. > :20:07.really is a myth that there are all these people out there who would be
:20:08. > :20:10.better than, say, the industrial workers we don't get, the cleaners
:20:11. > :20:16.we don't get, the nurses that we don't get, and many more. That is
:20:17. > :20:20.what Parliament is lacking. There are not a shortage of professional
:20:21. > :20:28.wealthy people in Parliament, in fact exactly the opposite. There are
:20:29. > :20:36.more of them than they used to be. When you look back into the past,
:20:37. > :20:47.when it was much more of the tradition of a gentleman or lady
:20:48. > :20:52.doing it as a second job, it was better quality. It wasn't
:20:53. > :20:56.scrutinised like it is now. They seem to be people of rather more
:20:57. > :21:04.intelligence and flair and creativity and wisdom. I will let
:21:05. > :21:09.that hang in the wind and see what people think, because I am not
:21:10. > :21:24.convinced. I have seen Andrew Bonar Law's Cabinet. Anyway, . Now
:21:25. > :21:39.yesterday a little gremlin sabotaged our guess the year competition, and
:21:40. > :21:42.our tape machine refused to play. How to reduce child poverty? It's an
:21:43. > :21:46.issue that MPs have been wrestling with for decades,and yet one in six
:21:47. > :21:49.children in the UK still live in very poor households, according to
:21:50. > :21:52.the latest Government figures. In fact, experts predict the target to
:21:53. > :21:56.end child poverty by 2020 is likely to be missed unless more is done to
:21:57. > :21:59.address inequality. The Labour MP Frank Field has long been a
:22:00. > :22:03.campaigner on the issue, and he argues the first three years of a
:22:04. > :22:05.child's life are the most important. Here's his soapbox.
:22:06. > :22:12.I was appointed by the current government to lead a review into
:22:13. > :22:15.child poverty and life chances. Poor areas in Birkenhead are like poor
:22:16. > :22:20.areas anywhere else in the country. Around half the children grow up in
:22:21. > :22:24.poverty, and almost one in ten are born with a low birth weight. One in
:22:25. > :22:29.five young people from the poorest areas of Birkenhead are found not to
:22:30. > :22:34.be in employment or in training or education. Once you lock those
:22:35. > :22:39.figures together, you see the real link between poverty and stunted
:22:40. > :22:43.life chances. I am striving with colleagues from all sides of the
:22:44. > :22:48.House of Commons to bring greater political focus into supporting
:22:49. > :22:51.families. The first 1000 days of a child's life are the most
:22:52. > :22:55.important, and what we now need is a commitment from all three party
:22:56. > :22:59.leaders that they will act on this knowledge in the next Parliament.
:23:00. > :23:04.The home start centre here in my constituency does just this. It
:23:05. > :23:11.gives support to people, and aids parents to give their children the
:23:12. > :23:16.best start in life. Good to see you. Evidence shows that the earliest
:23:17. > :23:20.emotional experiences of a baby from at least one of their parents will
:23:21. > :23:25.have a major impact on the development of that child's brain,
:23:26. > :23:30.and subsequently its life chances. Parents coming here really value the
:23:31. > :23:33.support on offer. If you are isolated at home, you can feel that
:23:34. > :23:37.things are getting on top of you, but if you get out and about with
:23:38. > :23:44.others sharing similar experiences, it is a way to help yourself and
:23:45. > :23:47.your child. You meet other parents, children that have also been in
:23:48. > :23:51.special care for various reasons, and that is a great community
:23:52. > :23:56.support for you, to know that you are not the only one. Services like
:23:57. > :24:01.this are brilliant, and of course we need to do more. We want to ensure
:24:02. > :24:05.that all vulnerable families have the most help in promoting that link
:24:06. > :24:11.between themselves and their babies. Young people want to learn
:24:12. > :24:17.how to be good parents. Likewise, sure start centres should offer
:24:18. > :24:22.worth registration, child benefit forms and welcoming ceremonies to
:24:23. > :24:28.ensure that all families engage with sure start. If we can secure a
:24:29. > :24:33.commitment to this vision, we will ensure that no child falls behind.
:24:34. > :24:41.But to prevent poor children now from becoming poor adults in the
:24:42. > :24:44.future, we need to start acting now. That was Frank Field in his
:24:45. > :24:50.constituency. And Frank Field joins me now.
:24:51. > :24:55.You heard Melanie Oudin I talking at the start of the show on this nature
:24:56. > :25:02.and nurture thing, about whether intelligence is genetic. What is
:25:03. > :25:05.your take? I thought you both struck the right balance. There is the
:25:06. > :25:13.question of nature and nurture, but nurture can affect nature. The big
:25:14. > :25:23.findings today, we know that 42% is not decided by genetics. Tests on
:25:24. > :25:29.monkeys have shown that good nurturing mothers switch off the
:25:30. > :25:33.effects of bad genetics, and then nurturing switches off the effect --
:25:34. > :25:39.switches on the effect of good genetics. So how you nurture your
:25:40. > :25:44.child has a really good effect on how you get on in life, on things
:25:45. > :25:51.like violence, aggression, lack of social skills, and so on. So it is
:25:52. > :25:58.not predetermined? Let me come on now to the subject of your film. Can
:25:59. > :26:03.I begin with a basic question, and I have been told in the social
:26:04. > :26:05.sciences, that if you want to get rid of something, you have to
:26:06. > :26:13.measure it first. How should we measure child poverty? Income is the
:26:14. > :26:16.traditional way. I did the report in the film for the Prime Minister to
:26:17. > :26:21.say, if we're going to get out of this debate which hasn't got us
:26:22. > :26:28.very, 30 years, we need to try to measure life opportunities, and that
:26:29. > :26:32.certainly by the age of three, one begins to see these divisions which
:26:33. > :26:38.appear to be based on class, which are reinforced at five, and however
:26:39. > :26:43.good schools are, they don't close those gaps. Children's abilities go
:26:44. > :26:48.up, but they don't narrow. So it would suggest that all this emphasis
:26:49. > :26:51.by politicians that if we beat up the schools enough, we will get at
:26:52. > :26:55.the end of this process young people who will be able and ready for
:26:56. > :27:00.work, who have the skills for work, that is misconceived. Because the
:27:01. > :27:06.damage is done before? Before they even enter school. It can make the
:27:07. > :27:13.difference between struggling into the job market. But these big
:27:14. > :27:19.changes have almost been set in concrete already. But what one can't
:27:20. > :27:23.do, the big boys as they like to think of themselves in politics,
:27:24. > :27:28.they need to address their minds, why is it, and in 1870 we had
:27:29. > :27:33.compulsory schooling, why do these age-old divisions remain? What we
:27:34. > :27:38.were seeing in that film was just how effective it can be in
:27:39. > :27:45.supporting mothers, and letting them know, often when they have not had a
:27:46. > :27:49.good up being themselves, what the key things are that they should be
:27:50. > :27:53.doing the feed that brain. Do you agree with that, that the early
:27:54. > :27:58.years are crucial? I think they are crucial. Notwithstanding the
:27:59. > :28:01.terrible difficulties child may present with when he she goes to
:28:02. > :28:09.school, a good school can make a considerable difference, but they
:28:10. > :28:12.are battling against great odds. Frank alludes to the definition of
:28:13. > :28:16.poverty being much more than financial. I have always longed for
:28:17. > :28:20.that, that there is emotional poverty, psychological poverty. But
:28:21. > :28:25.the crucial thing in this whole debate which goes back 20 or 30
:28:26. > :28:30.years is that the most important thing that Skype is a child's life
:28:31. > :28:38.chances is family disintegration # That destroys a child's life
:28:39. > :28:43.chances. It is the mother bringing up a child alone in a broken
:28:44. > :28:48.family, and she very often has been brought up herself by a mother
:28:49. > :28:50.alone. So you have several generations where the idea of a
:28:51. > :28:54.committed father is virtually unknown, and all of the research
:28:55. > :29:02.overwhelmingly shows that even though lone parents do a heroic
:29:03. > :29:08.job, and very often can succeed in mitigating the worst effects of a
:29:09. > :29:24.child not having a father, fatherless , being fatherless brings
:29:25. > :29:29.a great economic disadvantage. It can bring an inability to function
:29:30. > :29:35.as a human being. I agree with a lot of that, but if you just look at the
:29:36. > :29:41.crude poverty figures, if you don't want your child to be poor, it is
:29:42. > :29:48.crucial to have two wage earners. That doesn't guarantee that you
:29:49. > :29:55.won't be poor, but we now have an economy that you need two earners.
:29:56. > :30:02.And this has a huge spin off for the well-being of most children who
:30:03. > :30:05.don't have two parents. There are now 2.4 children in working
:30:06. > :30:12.households who live in poverty. So even if the parents are working, and
:30:13. > :30:17.that may well provide a better environment than a workless
:30:18. > :30:26.household, it doesn't get these 2.4 million out of poverty. One of the
:30:27. > :30:36.problems we have had is that we have subsidised low wages. That now comes
:30:37. > :30:43.to 20,000 million pounds. If some of that effort had gone into getting a
:30:44. > :30:46.labour force which could in a fit from real wages, it would be
:30:47. > :30:54.different. It is not adequate. This will go on for ever... Benefits
:30:55. > :31:02.themselves, crucial as they maybe, other long-term solution to these
:31:03. > :31:06.massive structural problems. We saw with that homes. Roddick in
:31:07. > :31:11.Birkenhead that there are a lot of willing takers who want to do well
:31:12. > :31:19.by their children. It is ignoring that wish that is so terrible. Thank
:31:20. > :31:24.you. We will come back to this in the new year.
:31:25. > :31:27.It has been two years since Iranian diplomats were expelled from the UK
:31:28. > :31:31.after the British embassy in Tehran was launched during anti-sanction
:31:32. > :31:35.protests. But following last month's agreement with Iran, their
:31:36. > :31:39.envoy is making his first visit to London today, to drop in on Mr
:31:40. > :31:44.Hague, the Foreign Secretary, at the Foreign Office, for a cup of tea or
:31:45. > :31:47.a biscuit. Here is the Foreign Secretary, talking about the
:31:48. > :31:52.importance of the thaw in relations when that Iranian-West deal was
:31:53. > :31:56.announced. The fact that we have achieved, for the first time in
:31:57. > :32:01.nearly a decade, an agreement that rolls back Iran's nuclear programme
:32:02. > :32:06.should give us heart that this work can be done and that a comprehensive
:32:07. > :32:10.agreement can be obtained. On an issue of such complexity, and given
:32:11. > :32:15.the fact that to make any diplomatic agreement worthwhile to both sides,
:32:16. > :32:18.it must involve compromises. Such an agreement is bound to have critics
:32:19. > :32:25.and opponents, but we are right to test Iran's readiness to act in good
:32:26. > :32:27.faith, to work with the rest of the international community and enter
:32:28. > :32:31.into international agreements. If they do not abide by their
:32:32. > :32:36.commitments, they will bear a heavy responsibility. If we did not take
:32:37. > :32:43.the opportunity to attempt such an agreement, we would be guilty of a
:32:44. > :32:46.grave error. We are joined now by the former Liberal Democrat leader
:32:47. > :32:51.Ming Campbell, who specialises in foreign affairs. You are in favour
:32:52. > :32:56.of the talks, as I understand it. We have six months to come to an
:32:57. > :33:01.agreement. How hope for are you? Well, we have to see if the
:33:02. > :33:05.sentiment is supported by action. The fact that there is an agreement
:33:06. > :33:10.at all is enormously significant. When you have Paddy Ashdown and
:33:11. > :33:13.William Hague and John Kerry all on the side of it, this is something
:33:14. > :33:18.worthwhile. You need the point in your introduction little while ago.
:33:19. > :33:24.There are still the outstanding issue of the storming of the British
:33:25. > :33:27.embassy, and the diplomatic exchange which is taking place is not a full
:33:28. > :33:34.return to diplomatic relations. It is an exchange of Sharjah affaire --
:33:35. > :33:40.charged affair, who are below ambassadors. You think we are being
:33:41. > :33:46.played? Absolutely. I can't believe the extent to which written, America
:33:47. > :33:49.and the EU are being played for suckers, and not for the first time.
:33:50. > :33:53.The Iranians are rightly crowing about this, because the terms of
:33:54. > :33:58.engagement have now been changed by this deal, in exchange for the most
:33:59. > :34:02.cosmetic improvement, a slight increase in the amount of time
:34:03. > :34:08.before Iran can break out its nuclear capability. Iran has got
:34:09. > :34:12.what it wanted, which is the tacit agreement that it will continue to
:34:13. > :34:17.produce uranium indefinitely. We used to have a situation where the
:34:18. > :34:22.world agreed that the bottom line from the world, because Iran is such
:34:23. > :34:27.a threat, number one rogue state, the idea that it could become a
:34:28. > :34:30.nuclear state was so unthinkable for world security that the aim of the
:34:31. > :34:35.world was to make it impossible or to to enrich uranium, and now they
:34:36. > :34:41.can. Let me welcome viewers from Scotland who were watching First
:34:42. > :34:45.Minister 's questions from Holyrood. We are discussing the prospect of a
:34:46. > :34:56.deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions with money Phillips --
:34:57. > :35:03.Melanie Phillips. Some of you may recognise her. Well, Iran is a
:35:04. > :35:09.signatory of the nonproliferation treaty. It is entitled to develop a
:35:10. > :35:18.nuclear policy for peaceful purposes. And this agreement has
:35:19. > :35:22.provided that there will be a reduction. Of course it is not
:35:23. > :35:26.perfect. Are we right to be sceptical? Of course. William Hague
:35:27. > :35:30.has gone out of his way to say that. But we have got a moment at which
:35:31. > :35:34.people sat around a table and reached an agreement. If you look at
:35:35. > :35:40.the alternatives to an agreement they are pretty horrific. For
:35:41. > :35:44.example, like the possibility of nuclear action either by Israel on
:35:45. > :35:52.its own, or by Israel with support from the United States. If you think
:35:53. > :35:56.of the impact that could have on the fragility of the situation, you have
:35:57. > :35:59.to go as far as you can before that remains the only option. That is a
:36:00. > :36:03.perverse inversion of reality. The really horrific respect for the
:36:04. > :36:07.world is Iran getting the bomb, firstly because of what it might do
:36:08. > :36:11.with it and secondly because of the effect on the arms race in the
:36:12. > :36:14.Middle East. But we have now got ourselves in a situation in which
:36:15. > :36:20.bombing Iran is worse than Iran getting the bomb . But I don't agree
:36:21. > :36:23.with Ming Campbell that that is the only alternative. The alternative,
:36:24. > :36:30.which was one we painfully arrived at, what sanctions, which were
:36:31. > :36:36.beginning to bite. But we have given away the sanctions. They are still
:36:37. > :36:44.in place. No, the Americans are increasingly agreeing to give up on
:36:45. > :36:47.sanctions. One of the difficulties that the Obama Administration will
:36:48. > :36:56.have is that this carefully constructed agreement could be
:36:57. > :37:00.undermined if Congress declines. The Middle East is always an issue in
:37:01. > :37:06.the United States. How it seems that the argument will be resolved one
:37:07. > :37:09.way or the other in six months' time. The danger for the West is
:37:10. > :37:14.that under the existing arrangement, after six months, we have to come to
:37:15. > :37:21.a comprehensive arrangement in which the sanctions go, but there will be
:37:22. > :37:24.test and inspections to check that it can only enrich uranium for
:37:25. > :37:30.peaceful purposes. The danger will be that Tehran will see, let's have
:37:31. > :37:36.another interim agreement. Surely that is the test? But you would not
:37:37. > :37:41.want to create a cliff edge on a matter as significant as this.
:37:42. > :37:47.Stopping the clock is not unknown in these matters. The OECD stopped the
:37:48. > :37:51.clock so that a deadline never expired. But if Iran does not come
:37:52. > :37:55.to an agreement after stopping the clock, wouldn't Melanie Phillips is
:37:56. > :38:03.in thinking they never meant to have one? B I don't think you can make
:38:04. > :38:06.that judgement. This is a country which does not have a vertical
:38:07. > :38:13.system of government, it has a horizontal system in which there are
:38:14. > :38:17.many centres of power. Hassan Rouhani is different from those who
:38:18. > :38:23.have gone before. The question is, can we test the sincerity of what is
:38:24. > :38:36.being said with actions? We will see in six months' time what happens.
:38:37. > :38:44.Merry Christmas. Sing to you. -- same to you.
:38:45. > :38:50.And we are two Glasgow graduates, praising St Andrews.
:38:51. > :38:54.They are worth more than ?19 billion to the economy and 950,000 jobs
:38:55. > :38:58.depend on them, but last year, 1100 pubs closed across the country. The
:38:59. > :39:04.industry's decline is being blamed on people buying cheap Argyle in
:39:05. > :39:07.supermarkets and pubs often being bought and turned into supermarkets.
:39:08. > :39:18.Reporter, Bhavani Vadde. Reporter, Bhavani Vadde.
:39:19. > :39:22.# Closing time. It is a great British institution,
:39:23. > :39:27.and the heart of many a community, but the pub is under threat on many
:39:28. > :39:32.fronts. Whether that is from cheap alcohol sold at supermarkets or from
:39:33. > :39:36.being turned into a supermarket, which is an increasing problem.
:39:37. > :39:42.Locals at the Royal Oak intemperate wells are fighting to keep their pub
:39:43. > :39:47.the way it is. There are many reasons why this should remain a
:39:48. > :39:52.pub. E-fit was to be turned into a supermarket, it would destroy the
:39:53. > :39:57.area. It is not just a building, it is a home away from home. The best
:39:58. > :40:01.weapon communities have to stop developers buying a pub and
:40:02. > :40:05.converting it is by listing it as an asset of community value, something
:40:06. > :40:09.they have achieved here. That means local people have the power to
:40:10. > :40:14.postpone the sale for six months to give them enough time to raise the
:40:15. > :40:19.funds to buy the pub for themselves. That in itself is of putting for
:40:20. > :40:25.developers. It means they can't just come in, grab a piece of body and
:40:26. > :40:32.take it away. They would have to contest with us. We get first
:40:33. > :40:35.choice, if you like. We have seen it in quite a few pubs in Tunbridge
:40:36. > :40:42.Wells where Tesco or someone has taken over, and good community pubs
:40:43. > :40:46.all over the country are going that way. The government says it is doing
:40:47. > :40:51.all it can to safeguard community pubs from closure. Nearly 200 pubs
:40:52. > :40:56.have now been listed as assets of community value. But some fear that
:40:57. > :41:00.this detection does not go far enough. If developers did buy a pub
:41:01. > :41:04.like this, they would not need planning permission to convert it
:41:05. > :41:09.into a supermarket or a betting shop. Campaigners want the
:41:10. > :41:13.government to plug that loophole. We believe that pubs, because of the
:41:14. > :41:20.unique but should be shown they bring to society and the economy,
:41:21. > :41:24.should be in a category so that any change in use of a pub should
:41:25. > :41:27.require planning permission and community consultation. We are
:41:28. > :41:32.asking councils to put together a proposal to central government to
:41:33. > :41:37.achieve that. The pub and brewing industry lay a significant role in
:41:38. > :41:45.the UK's economy. It brings in ?19.4 billion, 950,000 dished jobs depend
:41:46. > :41:49.on the sector. But 1125 pubs closed down across the country last year.
:41:50. > :41:54.But another industry audience does not believe changing planning rules
:41:55. > :42:00.will help save pubs, and points to other solutions. Beer duty went up
:42:01. > :42:05.42% in four years. We have just had a 2% cut . We need more. If you go
:42:06. > :42:10.to a supermarket tonight, you can buy a meal to dine at home . You
:42:11. > :42:18.don't pay VAT on that, but you do in the pub. We have a campaign about
:42:19. > :42:22.this rates. Local businesses have a right to be offered additional help.
:42:23. > :42:26.The Royal Oak is one example of how a valuable resource to the community
:42:27. > :42:30.may have been lost if left to market forces, so shouldn't we be calling
:42:31. > :42:36.time on the lack of detection for our neighbourhood pubs? -- lack of
:42:37. > :42:43.protection. We are doing now by Mark Littlewood
:42:44. > :42:47.from the Institute of Economic Affairs and Tim Martin, the founder
:42:48. > :42:53.of Wetherspoon. You are businessman, therefore. Shouldn't these matters
:42:54. > :43:00.be determined by market forces? To a point, yes. It is trying to shut the
:43:01. > :43:05.stable door. The question is, what is the underlying economic reason
:43:06. > :43:09.that is causing the problem in the first place? It was touched upon by
:43:10. > :43:15.the spokesperson for the pub industry. It is the fact that
:43:16. > :43:21.supermarkets pay no VAT on food sales, and pubs pay 20%. That is the
:43:22. > :43:28.kiss of death for pubs. But restaurants pay 20%. And it is the
:43:29. > :43:32.kiss of death for many restaurants. In less well off areas of the
:43:33. > :43:40.country, you will find very few restaurants, coffee shops at Tetra.
:43:41. > :43:46.-- et. No sane person would give supermarkets a VAT advantage over an
:43:47. > :43:53.institution such as a pub today. So your case is that the playing field
:43:54. > :43:58.is not level? It is very un-level, especially on VAT rates. It is a
:43:59. > :44:02.good point, there is not a level playing field. The problem is not
:44:03. > :44:08.market forces, it is government forces, the amount of tax taken.
:44:09. > :44:13.Whether it is VAT, I think we got 1p off a pint of beer from George
:44:14. > :44:18.Osborne in the last Budget. Trivial difference when you see how much tax
:44:19. > :44:22.has gone up. Over the last three years, you have seen the average
:44:23. > :44:26.profit a pub makes drop by about 12%, but you have seen the average
:44:27. > :44:35.tax take up a pub has to hand it to the government go up by nearly 20%.
:44:36. > :44:42.And that is because? VAT, business rates. Excise duty. David Cameron
:44:43. > :44:48.says it is not a tax, it is a late-night levy, and so on. Pubs
:44:49. > :44:55.have been milked for things like binge drinking issues, for ten or 20
:44:56. > :45:00.years. Binge drinking is an issue, so the easy way is to tax a pub out
:45:01. > :45:04.of existence, but it does not solve it. We are agreed that the
:45:05. > :45:11.government is not going to introduce 20% VAT on food in supermarkets.
:45:12. > :45:17.Unless it wants to commit mass suicide. But I would also suggest
:45:18. > :45:21.that the alternative, which is to cut VAT in pubs, that would be a
:45:22. > :45:34.hard sell as well because you would have to do it in restaurants as
:45:35. > :45:45.well. You will have to do it in restaurants as well. A supermarket,
:45:46. > :45:53.per pint of beer, gives half as much tax as a pub, but one tenth of the
:45:54. > :46:00.jobs. We pay 43% of our sales, ?600,000 per pub per year in tax, we
:46:01. > :46:03.are a tax generated machine. The Chancellor should give you a night
:46:04. > :46:14.would! Immediately after the programme. I will put a word in for
:46:15. > :46:19.you. Do you have a view? I have make views -- mixed views. I never going
:46:20. > :46:26.to pubs, I see them as places where people do a lot of drinking and
:46:27. > :46:32.throw up outside. I'm sure that is a terrible slur on your trade. She
:46:33. > :46:35.lives in a rough part of London! But if an institution plays a valuable
:46:36. > :46:39.part in the life of the nation and is a community resource, I have
:46:40. > :46:45.never been a believer in market forces. We should preserve these
:46:46. > :46:51.things. There is to me the difference between a picturesque pub
:46:52. > :46:59.such as we saw in your clip where people are playing snooker and
:47:00. > :47:04.having a bit to eat and the heavy drinking ones, spit and sawdust, and
:47:05. > :47:07.people getting off their faces. And it troubles me that it is part of
:47:08. > :47:18.British culture, we are drinking culture. People drink to get drunk.
:47:19. > :47:21.The question is, is the public has a valuable community resource which
:47:22. > :47:25.needs to be preserved or a bit of a blight? I can see where the
:47:26. > :47:29.community resource thing comes from, but too often community
:47:30. > :47:33.resources used to describe something that people are quite fond of but
:47:34. > :47:41.not willing to spend enough money in the render viable. A final word for
:47:42. > :47:45.you, Tim. The underlying emotions about the issue are is that the
:47:46. > :47:53.reason that pubs are taxed so heavily, and everyone agrees that
:47:54. > :48:06.pubs and customers which misbehave should be dealt with. It will be
:48:07. > :48:12.less supervised and social if pubs break down. Certain brilliant
:48:13. > :48:18.companies will always do well. But not whether Spain! Just joking!
:48:19. > :48:21.Now, regular viewers of this programme might think we're a little
:48:22. > :48:24.obsessed about facial hair. And you're right! We enjoy shaving off
:48:25. > :48:29.MPs' moustaches, and have an in-house barber on our books. Your
:48:30. > :48:32.licence fee can't be better spent than that. And frankly, viewers,
:48:33. > :48:36.we're proud of it. However, we fess up to neglecting the mighty beard.
:48:37. > :48:42.But fear not, you lovers of the mutton chop, the goatee and the
:48:43. > :48:49.stashburn, Giles is on hand. I am indeed, and just to empathise,
:48:50. > :48:55.I haven't shaved, just for you this morning. But not since Jeremy Paxman
:48:56. > :49:04.sported his face fungus has the beard got so much attention. I have
:49:05. > :49:20.three gentlemen with me who are ideally Hersey hirsuted to discuss
:49:21. > :49:25.this. How long have you had a beard? Since I was old enough to
:49:26. > :49:30.grow on. So what is it about the beard? The leader of the beard
:49:31. > :49:37.liberation front quoted me as saying, I wear my beard is my
:49:38. > :49:40.opposition to new Labour. But that doesn't really work when John
:49:41. > :49:47.himself wears a beard. There are contradictions within the movement.
:49:48. > :49:51.Those who are eagle eyed will spot that you are all Labour politicians.
:49:52. > :50:01.The Tories don't really support beards. Mrs Thatcher said that only
:50:02. > :50:10.men with weak chins sport beards. She was wrong about 70 things. There
:50:11. > :50:15.is evidence that there are more beards around during times of
:50:16. > :50:21.recession. And are you always winning? The voting is still going
:50:22. > :50:24.on. It is still open to the public to decide who is to be the
:50:25. > :50:30.Parliamentary beard wearer of the year. Do you think yours is better
:50:31. > :50:35.than his? When you asked me earlier whether I had ever thought of taking
:50:36. > :50:41.it off, we would have to change all the posters. The voters recognise
:50:42. > :50:45.that, in this constituency, with a substantial seat population, and I
:50:46. > :50:50.have never found a beard to be an electoral problem. I am the only
:50:51. > :50:53.member of the short list who is in the House of Lords, so there is an
:50:54. > :50:57.air of continuity being offered to this important competition. I am
:50:58. > :51:07.pleased to say that none of you have ever suffered what is known in the
:51:08. > :51:13.trade as pognophobia, a hatred of beards. These guys love them.
:51:14. > :51:17.Thanks, Giles! That's your lot. Time for us to go. But wait! Breaking
:51:18. > :51:20.news. Hold the front page immediately, because a furious row
:51:21. > :51:23.has broken out over the use of journalese. It's spinning out of
:51:24. > :51:26.control and could hemorrhage the heart of Government. We are good on
:51:27. > :51:29.the cliches. Beleaguered hacks of the Westminster village fear they
:51:30. > :51:33.could be shamed into a climb-down following a chorus of criticism that
:51:34. > :51:36.appears to be spinning out of control. In the smoke-filled rooms
:51:37. > :51:39.of the Red Lion pub, a cosy consensus has emerged that hacks use
:51:40. > :51:57.silly words to baffle the public. Surely not!
:51:58. > :52:03.The public sector's answer to achieve. Like their Russian
:52:04. > :52:05.namesake, nominally in charge of things they don't really control
:52:06. > :52:09.such as drugs or anti-social behaviour. And there ultimate fate
:52:10. > :52:17.is likely to be a firing squad and burial.
:52:18. > :52:32.Senior backbenchers, backbenchers who returned our call. We can also
:52:33. > :52:38.use rising star. Some of them are not terribly senior.
:52:39. > :52:48.Eccentric is defined here as mad. I find myself using this word all the
:52:49. > :52:53.time. For obvious reasons. And I often get MPs coming up to me and
:52:54. > :52:57.saying, what did you mean? I tell them I consider it to be the highest
:52:58. > :53:02.compliment. But now they might know the truth.
:53:03. > :53:10.My least favourite bit of journalese is when you hear that it is the
:53:11. > :53:15.timing of the statement that makes it so significant. What that means
:53:16. > :53:19.is there is nothing particularly significant about it at all, but I
:53:20. > :53:29.am so desperate to get in the paper or on the air that I will ham it up.
:53:30. > :53:34.It has emerged that... What that really means is, I read it in the
:53:35. > :53:39.papers but I don't want to tell you. The BBC has learned that... It
:53:40. > :53:48.sounds so academic, Sosa read all, so not like the other networks.
:53:49. > :53:55.Crunch talks, calculation is, appalling cliches.
:53:56. > :54:01.This is a giant riles brew blown of the political establishment, and yet
:54:02. > :54:08.tonight we stand on the brink. Do you agree with the Chancellor that
:54:09. > :54:10.the glass is half full? They have rocked Westminster and are
:54:11. > :54:17.making all the other political parties think hard.
:54:18. > :54:25.He is never going to come onto PMQs again! I can't believe we stitched
:54:26. > :54:27.him up like that. And the author of "Romps, Tots and Boffins: the
:54:28. > :54:33.Strange Language of News", Robert Hutton, is here. Is it simply
:54:34. > :54:38.repetition that creates journalese? Phrase goes into the language and we
:54:39. > :54:42.milk it for all it is worth? I think we find things that we like, and we
:54:43. > :54:50.often like them because they are short, especially in print
:54:51. > :54:58.journalism. Or they are PC. We saw this with omnishambles last year. It
:54:59. > :55:02.was a word at all, and then the Daily Mail started using it all the
:55:03. > :55:08.time, and suddenly it took off. We all loved it. It is a great word.
:55:09. > :55:18.But it has kind of faded now. Other things, . Is there a difference
:55:19. > :55:24.between journalese and cliche? Journalese is a subset of cliche.
:55:25. > :55:28.This all came about because we were sitting on a trip trying to come up
:55:29. > :55:40.with a list of words that you only see in newspapers, and boffin was
:55:41. > :55:44.the word that came to mind, people used to use it but now you only see
:55:45. > :55:50.it in newspapers to define someone a bit clever. These would creep in and
:55:51. > :55:55.then we hang on to them. Is it true that were we say, the BBC has
:55:56. > :56:06.learned... It means we have but watching Sky? Somebody from Sky took
:56:07. > :56:12.me aside when I made reference to sky sources and said, it doesn't
:56:13. > :56:16.mean us, it means Twitter. It means we have checked out the story on the
:56:17. > :56:21.front page of The Times, and you can run with it. So somebody puts it
:56:22. > :56:28.into one of their reports, and then all of the other correspondents say,
:56:29. > :56:33.the BBC has learned. The only defence of journalese is that people
:56:34. > :56:38.understand what you talking about, it fades. A lot of it goes, and new
:56:39. > :56:46.journalese comes in. It is ever-changing. Part of it in a
:56:47. > :56:51.feeble attempt to excuse my trade, part of it is because of the need
:56:52. > :56:55.for brevity, especially in headlines. You have so few words to
:56:56. > :57:01.play with. Particularly in tabloid headlines, and you need small words.
:57:02. > :57:05.Politicians in vent the cliche into the sound bite in order that they
:57:06. > :57:10.can have their perfect cliche in an interview. I love Robert's
:57:11. > :57:19.definition here of a wide-ranging speech, a leadership aide. The
:57:20. > :57:26.reason may earlier this year made a wide-ranging speech. And she put
:57:27. > :57:29.down a marker! My favourite hate thing which I hope I haven't been
:57:30. > :57:33.guilty of myself, is when journalists don't know what they are
:57:34. > :57:41.talking about, they will end their report by saying, time alone will
:57:42. > :57:44.tell. There is a certain amount of journalese, and I am a working
:57:45. > :57:53.journalist and I use these phrases, I found myself using rebuff this
:57:54. > :57:56.week. Sometimes you use it because you try to smooth over the fact that
:57:57. > :58:05.you don't know everything about the story, so you are trying to create a
:58:06. > :58:09.clear sounding pitch. Upset at the polls. We called this one wrong. A
:58:10. > :58:12.stocking filler for my stocking here.
:58:13. > :58:16.Now, there's just time to put you out of your misery and give you the
:58:17. > :58:20.answer to Guess The Year. The clue was the first ever radio broadcast
:58:21. > :58:23.by the BBC and the general election won by Andrew Bonar Law's
:58:24. > :58:30.Conservatives. I was giving new clues as well. Yes, it was 1922! I
:58:31. > :58:43.remember it well. Melanie, hit that big red button there.
:58:44. > :58:48.Frank Jones of Kendal, he has one. That's all for today. Thanks to our
:58:49. > :58:52.guests. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now. I'll
:58:53. > :58:59.be back tonight on This Week at 11.35. The most trending programme
:59:00. > :59:01.on British television! We will have Kate Nash. Goodbye.