:00:38. > :00:42.Good afternoon, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:43. > :00:46.A Strategic Defence Review lacking in strategy, and driven only by the
:00:47. > :00:53.need to cut costs, says a committee of MPs. But, are more cuts heading
:00:54. > :00:55.the MoD's way? European judges say whole-life
:00:56. > :00:59.sentences for prisoners are illegal. The government must respond this
:01:00. > :01:04.week. So, is it time to stand up to the European Court of Human Rights?
:01:05. > :01:09.Want to see less immigration? Well, the government does. It's promised
:01:10. > :01:11.to get net migration down to less than 100,000 a year. But its
:01:12. > :01:18.Business Secretary says that target's unachievable.
:01:19. > :01:21.And, looking for a party venue? Look no further, the Palace of
:01:22. > :01:25.Westminster's for hire. But, should the right amount of cash really give
:01:26. > :01:34.you the right to hold an event in the mother of Parliaments?
:01:35. > :01:38.All that in the next hour. We're seven days in to 2014, and
:01:39. > :01:40.look who's kept his New Year resolution to come on the programme.
:01:41. > :01:45.Former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, welcome. Happy New
:01:46. > :01:48.Year. Let's start with the Chancellor's
:01:49. > :01:52.plans to cut ?12.5 billion from the welfare bill after the next general
:01:53. > :01:56.election. He wants the cut to come from working age welfare recipients
:01:57. > :02:00.rather than pensioners. And it's part of a ?25 billion package of
:02:01. > :02:05.cuts designed to get the public finances back in surplus by the end
:02:06. > :02:08.of the next Parliament. It's not a policy that George Osborne's
:02:09. > :02:21.coalition partners are signed up to, however. Before we come to Nick
:02:22. > :02:27.Clegg, is it feasible to cut another ?25 billion, is it desirable?
:02:28. > :02:34.In terms of feasibility, it is a tall political order. We have seen,
:02:35. > :02:38.even in the climate of austerity, and one hopes after the next
:02:39. > :02:42.election it will not be as Diana, how difficult it was for the
:02:43. > :02:50.government to constrain the growth of expenditure as opposed to real
:02:51. > :02:57.cuts. ?25 billion is a very tall I -- order. All parties agreed there
:02:58. > :03:03.will be a further squeeze of necessity. This is as much about
:03:04. > :03:08.politics as economic. It is a gamble to delineate the tram lines for the
:03:09. > :03:12.next election. Because George Osborne says it is
:03:13. > :03:18.popular with the public to trim the welfare bill even further, that is
:03:19. > :03:24.debatable, and also because he says it is not fair on working people to
:03:25. > :03:29.subsidise those on benefits. But the people who would be vulnerable to
:03:30. > :03:33.these further cuts are many people in work.
:03:34. > :03:41.This is the difficulty. You might say, Nick Clegg would say that. That
:03:42. > :03:45.Ed Balls would say that. It is the allies of Iain Duncan Smith, unnamed
:03:46. > :03:50.in newspapers today, who are saying, we are going back to the
:03:51. > :03:56.same people and penalising them again. Is this good electoral
:03:57. > :03:59.politics? It is not clear cut who George Osborne is battling when he
:04:00. > :04:07.talks about this. There is a legitimate argument, if you took
:04:08. > :04:13.more working families out of tax as has been successfully at our behest,
:04:14. > :04:18.or made them better off, that would reduce the welfare bill.
:04:19. > :04:25.Is it a monumental state to state now, as Nick Clegg has said, ?12
:04:26. > :04:34.billion coming from welfare? It is a monumental gamble on George
:04:35. > :04:39.Osborne. He wants to set out these very clear distinctions across the
:04:40. > :04:44.political spectrum early on. And put Labour in particular and ourselves
:04:45. > :04:50.on the back foot, saying, here are the figures. Doesn't it put the Lib
:04:51. > :04:55.Dems on the back foot? We have to turn this into an
:04:56. > :05:02.opportunity. Which is what Nick was beginning to do. To say, you need to
:05:03. > :05:07.constrain welfare but how do you do that? Surely by taking less people
:05:08. > :05:11.off welfare dependency by making them better off. You can use money
:05:12. > :05:16.more effectively. What about means testing pensioner
:05:17. > :05:23.benefits? I always have been in favour. Not
:05:24. > :05:30.just pensioners, it is ridiculous that people like us qualify, I speak
:05:31. > :05:33.as a Scot, where it is more accentuated in Scotland, for
:05:34. > :05:39.benefits you get for nothing. People... But the basic state
:05:40. > :05:47.pension should go to everybody? Yes, a sense of social equity, that
:05:48. > :05:52.has to be maintained. Now it's time for our daily quiz.
:05:53. > :05:56.This man has just received an MBE in the New Year's Honours List. So, our
:05:57. > :05:59.question today is, what service does he provide for the Prime Minister?
:06:00. > :06:02.Is it: a) Chef. B) Security guard.
:06:03. > :06:10.C) Hairdresser. Or d) Ski instructor.
:06:11. > :06:18.At the end of the show, Charles will give us the correct answer.
:06:19. > :06:24.I never know these ones. But today I do know the answer to this.
:06:25. > :06:26.I won't divulge it. Keep the drama going.
:06:27. > :06:31.What's the greatest threat facing our military? Is it terrorism? Is it
:06:32. > :06:34.cyber attack? You might be surprised to learn that, in fact, it's you.
:06:35. > :06:37.Specifically, it's the lack of public understanding about what our
:06:38. > :06:39.armed forces are for, that represents one of the greatest
:06:40. > :06:45.strategic threats to Britain's military. That's the view of a
:06:46. > :06:48.report published today by the Defence Select Committee. The
:06:49. > :06:51.committee's chairman, James Arbuthnot, also said the government
:06:52. > :06:55.lacks a clear defence strategy, and that the last Defence Review was
:06:56. > :06:57.dictated more by the need to cut the deficit rather than a proper
:06:58. > :07:08.assessment of what our defence needs should be.
:07:09. > :07:13.The proper process to take place needs to be a discussion in the
:07:14. > :07:20.country of what this security strategy should be. Followed by a
:07:21. > :07:25.process of a defence and Security review, hand in hand with a
:07:26. > :07:31.comprehensive spending review, so that they work out what the wish
:07:32. > :07:37.list is, and if it is necessary to change the security strategy of the
:07:38. > :07:42.country, then we need to be open about what we are giving up, and we
:07:43. > :07:47.need to say how we are going to give that up, rather than pretend we can
:07:48. > :07:53.do everything. In the last review, the government said we were going to
:07:54. > :07:57.do more with less. There comes a point where we can't do that, that
:07:58. > :08:00.point has been reached now. With me now are the former Defence
:08:01. > :08:07.Minister Gerald Howarth, the Shadow Defence Minister Gemma Doyle, and
:08:08. > :08:12.Charles Kennedy is still with us. Welcome to the programme. Do you
:08:13. > :08:17.agree with the committee the review was governed by the overriding
:08:18. > :08:22.objective of reducing the UK budget deficit?
:08:23. > :08:28.In part, that is correct. The nation faced a catastrophic situation with
:08:29. > :08:34.a budget deficit of ?160 billion, the MoD accounts were in turmoil
:08:35. > :08:41.with a ?38 billion black hole. So sorting out those finances is a
:08:42. > :08:46.continuing issue. But I think it is quite a tribute to the MoD and
:08:47. > :08:53.national-security council, which came out of the Strategic Defence
:08:54. > :08:58.Review, that they were able to produce a number of strategic lines.
:08:59. > :09:04.The committee is being unfair. They are contradicting that by
:09:05. > :09:08.saying it was a botch job because of the overriding objective of cutting
:09:09. > :09:12.costs which took away the element of strategy.
:09:13. > :09:16.I would answer that by reference to a number of specific things we did.
:09:17. > :09:24.We only had five months in which to do it. Was it rushed? Was there an
:09:25. > :09:31.alternative? Absolutely no choice. The Chancellor had to produce a
:09:32. > :09:36.comprehensive spending review by the 20th of October 2010. If he failed
:09:37. > :09:41.to do so, the international capital markets would not have believed in
:09:42. > :09:46.Britain's credibility. That would have stuffed us on a gigantic scale.
:09:47. > :09:57.We did not want in opposition to do this in months. We were denied the
:09:58. > :10:03.opportunity of longer. But I think that the establishment of the
:10:04. > :10:09.Council, a new institution, the decision to bring back our troops
:10:10. > :10:14.from Germany, the decision to prioritise current operations in
:10:15. > :10:21.Afghanistan. To look to future Force 2020, and create a template for our
:10:22. > :10:25.Armed Forces, that stands today. What you say about those priorities,
:10:26. > :10:31.bearing in mind the economic backdrop. Did they do a good job?
:10:32. > :10:39.The report does back up what we said, the strategic part was missing
:10:40. > :10:44.from the review. And strategy? The decisions about aircraft carriers
:10:45. > :10:57.which were reversed. Very little mention of certain regions. And,
:10:58. > :11:03.things to do with Nimrod. Really, we need, the next review had to be much
:11:04. > :11:12.more based on strategy. Of course you need a financial balance. That
:11:13. > :11:15.?8 billion is not supported by anyone except by Conservative
:11:16. > :11:21.defence ministers. It was far too rushed.
:11:22. > :11:27.Proper consultation did not happen. Aircraft carriers, that was a
:11:28. > :11:33.fiasco. The idea was that in the last Labour
:11:34. > :11:39.government, it produced a new design for the aircraft carriers, 65,000
:11:40. > :11:47.tonnes, the biggest built in British yards, capable of being retrofitted
:11:48. > :11:50.with catapults and equipment. We decided in office it would make
:11:51. > :12:00.sense to look at that possibility to be able to provide a propensity with
:12:01. > :12:09.the US. We were told it was ?250 million. Then, we discovered, it was
:12:10. > :12:15.?2.5 billion. Ministers are entitled to ask of those professionals in the
:12:16. > :12:22.MoD what you think you're doing coming up with an estimate which is
:12:23. > :12:26.one tenth of the ultimate figure. Do you think that the cuts that have
:12:27. > :12:33.been taken to the defence budget will lead to a disproportionate
:12:34. > :12:37.decline in Britain's place in the world?
:12:38. > :12:41.Yes, I do. That the cuts were too big? That is what I argued at the
:12:42. > :12:50.time. But, effectiveness possibility, let's call priorities.
:12:51. > :12:59.We were in coalition. Defence was not as high a priority. The Defence
:13:00. > :13:04.Review... And we are getting a 2015 review because what came out of our
:13:05. > :13:08.non-strategic defence review was we should as a nation review every five
:13:09. > :13:15.years. So it's all your fault!
:13:16. > :13:22.I was going to become symmetric until that last bit. It's not a
:13:23. > :13:26.priority for the Lib Dems and as a result the cuts were much deeper,
:13:27. > :13:34.the government perception changed? No. That was a telling example,
:13:35. > :13:40.commemorating last week the sad passing of John Fortune. I once
:13:41. > :13:44.asked him about biting comedy and he said the easiest comedy sketch ever
:13:45. > :13:49.is anything to do with defence. Because you don't have to crack a
:13:50. > :13:52.joke. You just tell the story. As they would at home if they were not
:13:53. > :13:57.outraged by ministers being told something would cost a certain
:13:58. > :14:06.amount but it was ten times the amount. What on earth are the civil
:14:07. > :14:12.service doing? It is laughable were it not so serious. The main point,
:14:13. > :14:19.it is very different focus? It's not a priority for the Lib Dems?
:14:20. > :14:22.We have had our differences with the Conservatives on items like
:14:23. > :14:29.Trident. That would have a massive effect within any defence budget. I
:14:30. > :14:37.think also, there is a question to be asked. We have been in Parliament
:14:38. > :14:43.long enough. I have never been satisfied as an onlooker we have had
:14:44. > :14:50.a proper assessment of what kind of nation are we? Principally maritime?
:14:51. > :14:55.Do we need land forces for future conflict? More into peacekeeping? I
:14:56. > :15:02.don't think so, incidentally. Speak to the Canadians and Irish.
:15:03. > :15:08.Looking to the future, should defence spending be ring-fenced?
:15:09. > :15:15.I think Charles is right and we do have to have this conversation.
:15:16. > :15:20.There is no minister in that department any more and that is
:15:21. > :15:23.very, very sad. When you are looking at spending across government
:15:24. > :15:30.departments, I don't think you can say defence should be treated in a
:15:31. > :15:36.different way. So there would be more departmental cuts to MoD
:15:37. > :15:40.spending? In 2015? From our point of view, we would need to see what the
:15:41. > :15:44.books are going to look like in 2015. It is not going to be
:15:45. > :15:49.protected as it is not protected in the way health is, so there will be
:15:50. > :15:53.further cuts? Well, we will try to persuade the Prime Minister, as I
:15:54. > :16:01.have been trying to do privately and publicly since I left office, that
:16:02. > :16:04.we make sure defence delivers security and protection of our
:16:05. > :16:11.interests in the times we live. I want to see an increase in defence
:16:12. > :16:17.expenditure, in fact. Is that really realistic? I don't know, Jo. But I
:16:18. > :16:20.believe in defence of the realm and I'd believe defence leverages
:16:21. > :16:25.influence. One of the key thing is this report questions is, what does
:16:26. > :16:29.the Government think, what do the parties think Britain's role in the
:16:30. > :16:35.world should be? David Cameron has made it clear and William Hague said
:16:36. > :16:38.in 2009 that Britain intends to help shape the world in which we find
:16:39. > :16:43.ourselves and I'd believe defence can help us shape the world. Does
:16:44. > :16:47.Labour accept Britain would have to have a smaller role on the
:16:48. > :16:51.international stage in a defence capacity if it will not spend the
:16:52. > :16:55.money? I think the world is changing and I think actually we are playing
:16:56. > :17:01.catch up a bit at the moment with the changes taking place in the
:17:02. > :17:04.world in a defence sense. I think we need to look more at how we prevent
:17:05. > :17:12.conflict and work to strengthen other nations' security. Thank you
:17:13. > :17:17.to you all. Now, it is just a few days since
:17:18. > :17:21.restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians working in Britain have
:17:22. > :17:26.been lifted. We will not know exactly how many have come. And
:17:27. > :17:30.time. The Government has said it wants to cut net migration to less
:17:31. > :17:35.than 100,000 a year and a survey for a BBC documentary on BBC Two tonight
:17:36. > :17:41.indicates just over half of Britons want to see immigration cut by" a
:17:42. > :17:45.lot" . Nick Robinson is fronting that documentary. Welcome to the
:17:46. > :17:52.programme. One you are very familiar with! I am sorry I cannot be with
:17:53. > :18:02.you. Priam here finishing it off! -- I am. The truth about immigration,
:18:03. > :18:08.and I suppose the truth is, -- the question is, whose truth do you
:18:09. > :18:13.believe? That is right. People might say, who the heck do you think you
:18:14. > :18:17.are to pretend you know the truth? It was my view there had not been a
:18:18. > :18:20.proper political debate about this for many, many years and that those
:18:21. > :18:24.people, which ever side of the debate they are on, have for not
:18:25. > :18:30.being candid with the public about the downsides of their views, so on
:18:31. > :18:34.the one side, I think those who have argued for cuts in immigration has
:18:35. > :18:38.not really been pressed to think, what is the economic consequence of
:18:39. > :18:42.that? Would we be poorer as a result? And those in favour of
:18:43. > :18:46.immigration have not been pressed to say, what are the consequences for
:18:47. > :18:50.communities and individuals who find greater competition for jobs, wages,
:18:51. > :18:55.driving wages down, and also the change to the social fabric of Great
:18:56. > :18:59.Britain. So that was the purpose of doing this documentary. And what
:19:00. > :19:04.about views within government? Because we know they have had
:19:05. > :19:16.differences of opinion, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. But that
:19:17. > :19:18.quite controversial target that was set - is it now unachievable? I
:19:19. > :19:29.think it looks increasingly likely, and, more importantly, Vince Cable,
:19:30. > :19:34.the Business Secretary, has talked about its importance. The net
:19:35. > :19:37.migration is the difference between those coming into the country and
:19:38. > :19:42.those going out. David Cameron said he would get it below 100,000. I'd
:19:43. > :19:49.put it to the Business Secretary tonight that it might prove very
:19:50. > :19:53.difficult, and he agreed. It is not sensible to have an arbitrary cap
:19:54. > :19:56.because most of the things under it cannot be controlled. It involves
:19:57. > :20:01.British people emigrating and you cannot control that. It involves
:20:02. > :20:05.free movement in and out of the European Union. It involves British
:20:06. > :20:09.people coming back from overseas who are not immigrants but are counted
:20:10. > :20:14.in the numbers. So setting an arbitrary cap is not helpful. It
:20:15. > :20:18.almost certainly will not achieve the 100,000 level the Conservatives
:20:19. > :20:24.have set anyway, so let's be practical about it. That was Vince
:20:25. > :20:28.Cable, Business Secretary. For many years, it was considered something
:20:29. > :20:44.politically they to abuse object, immigration. -- politically
:20:45. > :20:47.controversial. Yes. He persuaded some people it was too dangerous to
:20:48. > :20:58.talk about it because it was somehow linked in with the issue of race and
:20:59. > :21:01.racism as well. -- it persuaded. But immigration is not about racial
:21:02. > :21:06.difference or religious difference. There are plenty with Asian
:21:07. > :21:09.backgrounds and Caribbean backgrounds who are just as
:21:10. > :21:13.concerned as those with white heritage as well. It has made it
:21:14. > :21:18.easier to have that conversation again. The leader of UKIP, Nigel
:21:19. > :21:22.Farage, says Enoch Powell distorted that debate, although he agrees with
:21:23. > :21:26.many of those warnings. I'd put it to him that he wasn't really being
:21:27. > :21:31.upfront with people and unless he was willing to say to them, yes, I
:21:32. > :21:35.am against immigration, but that will actually make you poorer. He
:21:36. > :21:40.replied he was willing to say it and then added this. I don't want to
:21:41. > :21:44.live in a country whose population is heading toward 75 million people.
:21:45. > :21:49.There are some things in a society and the community that matter more
:21:50. > :21:54.than just money. Quality of life. Overcrowded Britain. Back of social
:21:55. > :22:00.housing. Youth unemployment. These are very real issues. Very dramatic
:22:01. > :22:06.comments there from him. When is it on? 9:30pm, BBC Two, and even your
:22:07. > :22:11.viewers want just politics. There are lots of real people in this and
:22:12. > :22:13.you can have a laugh at me running a pie stall trying to illustrate that
:22:14. > :22:21.people don't actually know the numbers of those coming into the
:22:22. > :22:29.country with a pie chart. Get it? Yes! I am joined by Tim Aker, Head
:22:30. > :22:32.of Policy at UKIP, and Charles Kennedy is still with us. Charles
:22:33. > :22:40.Kennedy, you said immigration is not something a Dutch auction on the
:22:41. > :22:46.back of UKIP should be indulged in. Are you out of step with the public
:22:47. > :22:50.mood? I would say by the records of public opinion, yes, but in
:22:51. > :22:54.politics, you have to be prepared to be that. Politics is the business of
:22:55. > :22:57.trying to persuade and change public opinion to what you think is a
:22:58. > :23:02.better viewpoint. I think we are all in the business of that. Where we
:23:03. > :23:06.find ourselves in a minority occasionally. It also has to be
:23:07. > :23:12.about reading public opinion. This debate, and are largely agree with
:23:13. > :23:16.Nick Robinson, it is a bit like Europe. The establishment did not
:23:17. > :23:21.want to discuss these matters. Well, in a healthy, vibrant democracy, you
:23:22. > :23:26.need to. And I think it is good thing we are. Those who take a
:23:27. > :23:33.different view from the Nigel Farage Outlook need to make that case
:23:34. > :23:37.robustly. There is conflicting research, as you know, but there is
:23:38. > :23:48.return should that -- research in the short term that indicates that
:23:49. > :23:51.there is a problem with low-wage and low skilled workers, those who were
:23:52. > :24:03.migrants themselves in the first place. Yes. You can argue this both
:24:04. > :24:10.ways. I think the key thing is, are we better in the internationalised
:24:11. > :24:14.world we live in as a multicultural society functioning well? I think we
:24:15. > :24:20.are and I think that is something to celebrate, quite frankly. What is
:24:21. > :24:23.wrong with that? I think it is a question of numbers and we made a
:24:24. > :24:28.promise we would cut immigration from hundreds of thousands down to
:24:29. > :24:31.tens of thousands. You are not going to achieve that, you? We have
:24:32. > :24:38.actually made a lot of restrictions... It was part of the
:24:39. > :24:42.agreement made with the EU, but just go on, are you going to achieve this
:24:43. > :24:48.net migration target of tens of thousands? We may do. It is a
:24:49. > :24:51.challenging target. I've thought we were on target six months ago and
:24:52. > :24:56.I'm worried we have been knocked off that target cause of problems in
:24:57. > :25:00.Europe with the currency and the numbers from Bulgaria and Romania.
:25:01. > :25:06.But think it is essential we deliver on that promise for migration. But
:25:07. > :25:13.you cannot do anything about it, Mark Reckless, because other member
:25:14. > :25:16.countries around the EU, we have free movement of people. Are you
:25:17. > :25:22.worried it is something you couldn't deliver? What is happening is,
:25:23. > :25:26.because of the problems controlling EU immigration, we are having to do
:25:27. > :25:31.more on non-EU immigration. And I say, why are we allowing... ? I
:25:32. > :25:36.don't think it helps our graduates domestic lead to let EU graduates
:25:37. > :25:42.stay on and get jobs after their graduation, constituting a third of
:25:43. > :25:49.graduate employment in London, or why we let some come and work for a
:25:50. > :25:58.very short time or why we allow domestic servants in from the
:25:59. > :26:02.European Union. Certainly the rhetoric from David Cameron and the
:26:03. > :26:06.Government, notwithstanding the Lib Dems, the Conservative side of the
:26:07. > :26:14.government, has been to try to limit in some way net migration and they
:26:15. > :26:17.are now at 182,000, I think. And though it may not be achievable,
:26:18. > :26:22.they have gone to some way to doing it and trying to restrict access to
:26:23. > :26:26.benefits for new immigrants. So in a way, they are doing the sorts of
:26:27. > :26:35.things you are promising. Well, we are shaping the agenda on this. IDSA
:26:36. > :26:42.without UKIP, we wouldn't have been having this discussion now. -- I'd
:26:43. > :26:47.dare say. It is continuity blow. We have had ten years of this. Ten
:26:48. > :26:53.years. And we have only been able to discuss it in the last two because
:26:54. > :26:59.of a political class and the cosies -- cosy consensus where they would
:27:00. > :27:03.not discuss it. When did you find out UKIP wanted a five-year
:27:04. > :27:09.moratorium on immigrants settling in the UK? We have been discussing this
:27:10. > :27:16.for a while. We discussed policy all the time at UKIP. Do you think that
:27:17. > :27:23.is a good idea? I don't think it is fair to say it was a reaction to
:27:24. > :27:26.UKIP. We promise to... Under the Conservatives we never had that and
:27:27. > :27:33.we promised we would cut it back from the quarter of a million year
:27:34. > :27:37.we had under Labour to under 100,000. But you know as well of
:27:38. > :27:42.idea, Mark, that the only way to do that is to bring forward the debate
:27:43. > :27:47.now. Your leader is only prepared to kick the can down the road. The only
:27:48. > :27:51.way we can get control back of our borders is with this. So why are you
:27:52. > :27:57.supporting kicking the can down the road? To do this, we need a
:27:58. > :28:01.Conservative government to give a referendum... We must have a
:28:02. > :28:06.referendum. They need a Conservative government that will give them the
:28:07. > :28:12.referendum. Do you feel you are on the outside looking in? Yes! I am
:28:13. > :28:19.delighted and relieved! This is a clear blue and deeper blue water
:28:20. > :28:24.flowing through the studio! Support a referendum. I am very happy with
:28:25. > :28:29.the referendum. I would have had it 20 years ago for a start! We have a
:28:30. > :28:34.referendum this year on the future of one union, the United Kingdom,
:28:35. > :28:39.and after the May 2015 election, we will have another on the European
:28:40. > :28:44.Union, and that is, to me, seems sensible. Is the debate you have
:28:45. > :28:49.heard here about two parties trying to buy who will be tougher, is that
:28:50. > :28:52.identifying it as far as you're concerned or do we need to be
:28:53. > :28:57.discussed in detail policy about whether immigrants should be
:28:58. > :29:01.restricted from accessing benefits or whether we should have a
:29:02. > :29:09.moratorium? It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate on the
:29:10. > :29:15.specifics of policy and it isn't -- insulting to people's intelligence
:29:16. > :29:20.not to. It is as legitimate to express these who is as it is to
:29:21. > :29:23.rehearse my view. That's pick up on the point of Nigel Farage, that it
:29:24. > :29:27.would be better to be poorer because there is plenty of research which
:29:28. > :29:31.states from the GDP growth point of view that the country is actually
:29:32. > :29:35.better off as a result of immigration. It is one view put out
:29:36. > :29:42.by the national in shoot for economic research that says without
:29:43. > :29:49.immigration GDP will come down. -- national institute. I think the
:29:50. > :29:52.impact of immigration on the GDP per head tends to be quite small but
:29:53. > :29:56.lots of people who are perhaps better off benefit from employing
:29:57. > :30:00.cheaper immigrants, cheaper labour, and then those people look down on
:30:01. > :30:03.the rest of the population and said they were racist for not agreeing
:30:04. > :30:06.with them, and the rest of the population are very often competing
:30:07. > :30:10.with those people in the labour market and therefore are not as
:30:11. > :30:14.supportive of immigration as those who are better off. But it suggests
:30:15. > :30:19.it is short-term and long-term, more people in the population would
:30:20. > :30:25.benefit. How do you counteract that argument if the research states that
:30:26. > :30:28.in terms of GDP, which the Conservatives have made accordance
:30:29. > :30:34.stone of their policy, how does it work if Nigel Farage says we are
:30:35. > :30:39.going to be poorer? We are having these debates now, so let's have
:30:40. > :30:44.more research. Let's find out. The research now says that, but let's
:30:45. > :30:49.look at this. We have school place shortages, communities that feel
:30:50. > :30:52.uncomfortable. We are having this discussion now because three
:30:53. > :30:55.quarters of the British public want immigration reduced and we have 1
:30:56. > :31:00.million young unemployed people in this country, and that is a
:31:01. > :31:05.disgrace. But do you accept, as Nigel Farage does seem to, that we
:31:06. > :31:07.would be worse off from a GDP growth point of view if we don't have
:31:08. > :31:17.continued immigration of some sort? Statistics mean little to someone
:31:18. > :31:22.who has gone through Christmas without a job.
:31:23. > :31:27.Economically, it is arguable, but socially there is a big impact when
:31:28. > :31:37.it comes to hospitals, school places. This country doesn't have
:31:38. > :31:40.the room for these, for a lot more immigration?
:31:41. > :31:47.I do not accept that statement. If you look at the NHS, if it wasn't
:31:48. > :31:53.for a lot of labour at all levels within the NHS, then what is a
:31:54. > :32:01.creaking edifice would be in a state of genuine crisis.
:32:02. > :32:05.The reason so many people from Europe are coming to the UK is
:32:06. > :32:09.because our economy is doing better compared to the massive problems in
:32:10. > :32:15.the Eurozone. I think we can cut immigration to below 100,000 while
:32:16. > :32:21.still making it beneficial. We should have in people who we would
:32:22. > :32:25.benefit from, not those competing disproportionately with those
:32:26. > :32:27.struggling to get jobs. Vince Cable would argue by
:32:28. > :32:48.restricting non-EU immigration... Should life mean life for murderers
:32:49. > :32:51.and other serious offenders? It's an issue the government is having to
:32:52. > :32:55.grapple with, after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. And
:32:56. > :32:58.it's just the latest example of the court in Strasbourg putting itself
:32:59. > :33:01.at odds with the British government. There are currently 52 criminals in
:33:02. > :33:03.England and Wales serving whole-life prison terms, which allow no
:33:04. > :33:07.possibility for parole. Different rules apply in Scotland. Judges in
:33:08. > :33:10.Strasbourg found in favour of three of those prisoners, all notorious
:33:11. > :33:12.killers, when it said their sentences breached human rights
:33:13. > :33:15.rules because they were not allowed a "right to review". David Cameron
:33:16. > :33:19.said he "profoundly disagreed" with the decision. But it looks like the
:33:20. > :33:21.government could try to comply with the ruling by replacing whole-life
:33:22. > :33:23.tariffs with US-style 100-year prison sentences. That would
:33:24. > :33:27.potentially allow offenders to have their sentences reviewed and
:33:28. > :33:30.reduced. The government is already considering how to respond to
:33:31. > :33:37.another ruling from the ECHR, after it said the UK's ban on prisoners
:33:38. > :33:41.voting is unlawful. For many, all this adds up to proof that the court
:33:42. > :33:44.in Strasbourg is overreaching itself. The former Lord Chief
:33:45. > :33:46.Justice, Lord Judge, said last month it threatened the sovereignty of
:33:47. > :33:52.Parliament, warning, "this is a court which is not answerable to
:33:53. > :33:55.anybody". The period for the government to decide what to do
:33:56. > :33:58.about whole-life tariffs runs out this week. And the Ministry of
:33:59. > :34:04.Justice says it will respond "shortly".
:34:05. > :34:07.I'm joined now by the Conservative MP and member of the Home Affairs
:34:08. > :34:09.Select Committee Mark Reckless, and of course Charles Kennedy is still
:34:10. > :34:13.here. Ian Brady, Rosemary West, Jeremy
:34:14. > :34:20.Bamber, notorious killers, are they being denied their human rights?
:34:21. > :34:27.It's not a matter of releasing them, but having a review after 25 years.
:34:28. > :34:30.They could be released. It's not for politicians to take
:34:31. > :34:34.that judgement. But there should be a right to review. This is
:34:35. > :34:40.misunderstood. This is not about opening cell doors to notorious
:34:41. > :34:46.people who need to be locked up for their own safety as well as others.
:34:47. > :34:51.You should have a review process. Interestingly, the European Court,
:34:52. > :35:00.again much misunderstood, is talking about an automatic right of review
:35:01. > :35:04.after 25 years. In English law, the standard is in fact 16 years. What
:35:05. > :35:10.the court is talking about is more punitive than the working practice
:35:11. > :35:15.in England. For many people, life should mean
:35:16. > :35:21.life. For those notorious killers, they should stay, they should die in
:35:22. > :35:25.prison. Life should mean life, but that doesn't mean an independent
:35:26. > :35:29.judge or panel should be able to review after a quarter of a
:35:30. > :35:33.century, the individual circumstances.
:35:34. > :35:38.An example, hypothetically, suppose somebody is terminally ill and have
:35:39. > :35:43.served 30 years. Suppose there is a prison riot and they save a
:35:44. > :35:48.warder's life, and they only have a few months left of their own knife.
:35:49. > :35:57.A judge might take that into account and say they should serve that, the
:35:58. > :36:00.rest of their term in liberty. Should there be some sort of legal
:36:01. > :36:18.right to a review? It sounds like when the Scottish
:36:19. > :36:28.government sent al-Meghari back to Libya.
:36:29. > :36:35.We come in Parliament, should decide. Ultimately, our top judge
:36:36. > :36:39.said this was quite compliant with the European Convention on Human
:36:40. > :36:43.Rights. Our courts have interpreted it that way. They only had to have
:36:44. > :36:53.regard to Strasbourg, they do not need to follow it. We should respect
:36:54. > :37:00.our own top judges. Personally, you would like to see
:37:01. > :37:04.them stay, regardless of who decides whole-life tariffs. Why shouldn't
:37:05. > :37:08.somebody as stated by Charles Kennedy, no matter how hard they
:37:09. > :37:14.work towards rehabilitation, their punishment should not change?
:37:15. > :37:18.The Lord Chief Justice looked at the case of David Oates, a cold-blooded
:37:19. > :37:24.murder of his former partner and daughter. It was planned. The judge
:37:25. > :37:28.said he took pleasure in the killing. There was no mitigation.
:37:29. > :37:33.The worst possible murder. It is important society has the ability to
:37:34. > :37:37.sake you must go to prison for the rest of your life. Belief in our
:37:38. > :37:44.criminal justice system would be undermined if that principle were
:37:45. > :37:54.bitten away. 2011, in England, 160 people were
:37:55. > :38:00.released for murder, of those, 26 had served less than ten years. That
:38:01. > :38:05.is nothing to do with Strasbourg, or the European Court, that is what is
:38:06. > :38:13.happening in domestic law. Why isn't the same outrage about that, if what
:38:14. > :38:18.Strasbourg is saying is invidious. I think Parliament should decide.
:38:19. > :38:22.You are happy with those decisions that Parliament has made leading to
:38:23. > :38:26.those statistics? I would like to see tougher sentencing more
:38:27. > :38:35.generally. And the issue life must mean life should hold. I believe we
:38:36. > :38:39.should... Given what is happening in our country, nothing to do with
:38:40. > :38:43.Strasbourg, why don't we abolish the court system in England? There is
:38:44. > :38:49.the European Convention, and the question of who decides. We have a
:38:50. > :39:03.mess where both of us are deciding. It is not clear. Other countries...
:39:04. > :39:07.Our judges have a better record than those European judges. We should
:39:08. > :39:13.follow our Lord Chief Justice and allow them to make decisions. As a
:39:14. > :39:17.country governed by our Parliament, that is a better system than one
:39:18. > :39:23.which this European court decides. There is a contradiction. If you
:39:24. > :39:28.pulled out of the European court, you would still have cases where
:39:29. > :39:37.people who should stay for life could be released. Our Lord Chief
:39:38. > :39:42.Justice upholds what Parliament passes. We only have two have regard
:39:43. > :39:50.to Strasbourg. Our Parliament doesn't even have two have regard.
:39:51. > :39:55.What about the compromise? We shouldn't be dancing around to do
:39:56. > :40:00.what the European Court says. Ministers may be trying to obey
:40:01. > :40:04.international law because the Prime Minister has issued a ministerial
:40:05. > :40:08.code. Under our system, you should only have two obey the law as
:40:09. > :40:14.determined by Parliament. How dangerous would it be if Britain
:40:15. > :40:21.pulled out of the European Court and convention? A disaster, we are a
:40:22. > :40:29.founding member. I like the phrase, our judges are better than anyone
:40:30. > :40:32.else. I am a member of the all party Parliamentary assembly of the
:40:33. > :40:37.Council of Europe. The one important vote I have is I get to vote for who
:40:38. > :40:43.these judges are from all other 46 countries. All the more reason for
:40:44. > :40:52.not following this decision. And I pay great attention... I was there
:40:53. > :40:58.when David Cameron addressed the Parliamentary assembly last year. If
:40:59. > :41:02.he had used phrases like, our judges are better... I said they were
:41:03. > :41:07.better than judges who had not been judges in their own country or had
:41:08. > :41:08.no legal experience. Let us leave it there.
:41:09. > :41:14.The general election of 2015 promises to be fascinating. And,
:41:15. > :41:18.less than 18 months out, there's still no clear indication of how any
:41:19. > :41:26.of the main parties will fare. It will be particularly crucial for the
:41:27. > :41:30.Lib Dems. Not only will they be going to the voters on the back of
:41:31. > :41:33.five years in coalition with the Conservatives, a significant number
:41:34. > :41:36.of their big beasts, people like Menzies Campbell, will be standing
:41:37. > :41:39.down. That in itself could have an effect on their chances of holding
:41:40. > :41:42.onto seats, as familiar faces are replaced with relative unknowns. So,
:41:43. > :41:45.five years on from Clegg-mania, just what might it mean for the party?
:41:46. > :41:51.Here's David. A changing of the guard, as familiar
:41:52. > :41:54.faces give way. They have seen hard times and glory days, what will
:41:55. > :41:59.their departure mean for the future of the party? The Lib reckon they
:42:00. > :42:05.have a secret weapon in a general election campaign, it is called
:42:06. > :42:11.incumbency. Once they get in, it is tough to get them out. They become
:42:12. > :42:15.familiar faces. With more than 10% of their MPs standing down and
:42:16. > :42:22.having been in coalition, will it still work in 2015? Big names
:42:23. > :42:28.standing down will have an impact on the Lib Dems. Essentially, they are
:42:29. > :42:32.based on the local relevancy of their MPs. Looking at inheriting
:42:33. > :42:38.seats, with the national polls showing them on just 8%, having been
:42:39. > :42:43.in government, they are going to struggle to hold onto seats,
:42:44. > :42:47.particularly Liberal Democrat- Labour seat where Labour can play
:42:48. > :42:52.that anti-government card. If that holds true, they could lose more
:42:53. > :42:56.than 30 seats. There are concerns about the big names who have been
:42:57. > :43:02.the face of unpopular policies. Being an AA Minister does have its
:43:03. > :43:05.benefits. Someone like Danny Alexander is aware of the
:43:06. > :43:08.difficulties that come from being the man in charge of the public
:43:09. > :43:15.purse strings. He is making sure there are sweeteners going the way
:43:16. > :43:21.of his constituents. He is being careful to play that game well. Even
:43:22. > :43:25.those standing down think the Lib Dems have brought benefits in their
:43:26. > :43:29.time at office. We all know government is a process
:43:30. > :43:33.of compromise particularly in a coalition. At the same time, you do
:43:34. > :43:39.get things done which you have been trying to do for many years. You are
:43:40. > :43:43.able to keep those promises to your electorate. Let me tell you, if you
:43:44. > :43:47.have the choice, then being in government enables you to deliver in
:43:48. > :43:52.a way you will never do in opposition. You can talk a lot, but
:43:53. > :44:04.you can't get things done. Could the Lib Dems's best hope be pride in
:44:05. > :44:12.their time in office? I don't think you can wash your
:44:13. > :44:17.hands of the coalition, but playing for the next three months they will
:44:18. > :44:21.be authentic. 2015 will be new territory for
:44:22. > :44:25.everyone but it could be toughest for the Lib Dems. They hope will be
:44:26. > :44:29.locally and nationally some of the achievements of their past will
:44:30. > :44:36.still be standing the day after they next go to the polls.
:44:37. > :44:41.Charles Kennedy, what you think of your electoral chances?
:44:42. > :44:46.Very tough. Excuse me, I am croaking a bit. Have some water. They were
:44:47. > :44:50.bound to be tough from the moment the coalition decision was taken.
:44:51. > :44:56.That would have been the case whatever way that had gone. Had
:44:57. > :45:02.there been a coalition or arrangement with labour. You'd
:45:03. > :45:06.probably have had a shot at Polmont but it would have been tough. I
:45:07. > :45:14.didn't support it at the time, I would have stayed in opposition.
:45:15. > :45:18.Most of my Parliamentary colleagues took the view understandably they
:45:19. > :45:25.didn't want that but wanted the long haul. I was never any doubt the
:45:26. > :45:32.press underestimate the resilience of this party. They don't understand
:45:33. > :45:37.this party. But, despite all the ups and downs, there have been plenty,
:45:38. > :45:42.once the ink was dry, this deal would see its way through.
:45:43. > :45:52.But you lost seats after the Cleggmania and there was talk of the
:45:53. > :45:57.Lib Dems being wiped out. Can they hold the same number of seats they
:45:58. > :46:01.have now? I think we can do that because if you look at the pattern
:46:02. > :46:05.of results, sure, we have had very bad set acts, but in areas where we
:46:06. > :46:10.have Parliamentary representation, we have been bucking that trend. In
:46:11. > :46:14.the main, that is. So we can certainly do that but there is a
:46:15. > :46:19.big, big communication job for us to do in the next 18 months in
:46:20. > :46:24.particular. We have two, possibly three big opportunities to do this.
:46:25. > :46:28.The Scottish referendum campaign in the autumn, between now and
:46:29. > :46:32.September, for once we are on the side of something which the polls
:46:33. > :46:36.suggest has majority support and we very much have to be in the vanguard
:46:37. > :46:42.of that. Secondly, on the European elections, which will be very tough
:46:43. > :46:48.indeed, with UKIP... You could do very badly there as well? Well, when
:46:49. > :46:52.I was leader, I remember one weekend we came fourth in the European
:46:53. > :46:57.elections, which was a disaster. We came second on the same day of
:46:58. > :47:02.polling in the English local elections and beat Labour and we won
:47:03. > :47:05.one if not two sensational Parliamentary by-elections, so we
:47:06. > :47:12.can survive bad results but the challenge is, to be pro-, and
:47:13. > :47:19.unambiguously pro-European, because that is our niche market. What about
:47:20. > :47:24.the brand? Because the editor of the magazine says it is a toxic brand,
:47:25. > :47:28.partly because of tuition fees but other things as well. He uses the
:47:29. > :47:32.evidence that you have not been able to, as the party, select all your
:47:33. > :47:37.candidates, and by now normally that would have happened. This is for the
:47:38. > :47:42.next election. Groves of people have gone to Labour since 2010 and that,
:47:43. > :47:47.in the end, will inhibit you having anything like a strong performance
:47:48. > :47:52.as you did in 2010. -- droves of people. Well, if you remember, we
:47:53. > :47:56.were due to be in the process of a very controversial people with the
:47:57. > :48:04.new Parliamentary boundaries, which got scrapped last year because of
:48:05. > :48:10.all sorts of internal Parliamentary vaccinations. On the brand issue,
:48:11. > :48:14.yes, we took some very big knocks. Tuition fees, in my view, was the
:48:15. > :48:20.biggest, and Nick Clegg has apologised for it. However, I was
:48:21. > :48:24.interested looking at some of Lord Ashcroft's most recent polling,
:48:25. > :48:28.where it showed, and this is where we can work and we have potential to
:48:29. > :48:33.work with the grain here, is that we are still trusted on things like, if
:48:34. > :48:38.you ask the question, is the heart in the right place? Largest single
:48:39. > :48:43.group of respondents say yes. But the polling figures are terrible.
:48:44. > :48:46.Yes. We have to translate those value judgements about us into
:48:47. > :48:54.practical support but we have campaign opportunities to do it.
:48:55. > :49:01.Just to confirm, you are standing, are you? I have been reselected! The
:49:02. > :49:05.electorate willing, my hat will be in the ring next time and eye will
:49:06. > :49:09.be back! Thank you for clarifying that. -- I.
:49:10. > :49:12.Ed Miliband's described them as spreading like an epidemic, and
:49:13. > :49:15.tomorrow Labour will use an opposition day debate to discuss the
:49:16. > :49:18.regulation of fixed-odds betting terminals. Currently, bookmakers are
:49:19. > :49:23.allowed up to four of these machines per branch on which punters can bet
:49:24. > :49:26.up to ?300 a minute. But Labour argues this is causing more and more
:49:27. > :49:30.bookmakers to open on the high streets. They want councils to be
:49:31. > :49:34.given powers to limit the number of bookmakers allowed to open in an
:49:35. > :49:37.area and regulate how many machines are allowed on the premises.The
:49:38. > :49:41.Government is waiting for a study into the machines' effects before
:49:42. > :49:44.deciding on the matter. Joining me from Birmingham is the Labour MP Tom
:49:45. > :49:50.Watson, who's campaigned on the issue.
:49:51. > :49:55.Tom, why not wait for that study to deliver what the impact has been of
:49:56. > :50:00.these machines? Well, Jo, the problem with the study is, it is
:50:01. > :50:04.like waiting for the polar ice caps to melt! We have been waiting years
:50:05. > :50:08.for this. And the Government, in their tri- annual review of stakes,
:50:09. > :50:20.has decided the simple way to deal with these machines to reduce the
:50:21. > :50:29.stakes from ?200 down to ?100, that is not the way to do it. Give local
:50:30. > :50:33.authorities the power to rule that if there is anti-social behaviour
:50:34. > :50:39.problems, give them the powers to ban them. That is the debate
:50:40. > :50:43.tomorrow. What impact do you think, anecdotally, if the study is still
:50:44. > :50:47.looking at it, and I am told by Charles Kennedy that the review
:50:48. > :50:52.should be concluded early 2014, so you should be expecting it fairly
:50:53. > :50:57.soon, but what sort of impact is it having on communities? It is great
:50:58. > :51:01.to have Charlie Kennedy back, by the way! He talks so much sense. And
:51:02. > :51:05.what the resolution tomorrow is about is he is probably inspired a
:51:06. > :51:09.bit by the Lib Dems, whose own conference past policy in this area
:51:10. > :51:13.in September, so the Lib Dems have made their mind up on it and I'm
:51:14. > :51:18.hoping we can unite around the issue of a resolution tomorrow, though I
:51:19. > :51:22.have not seen it yet. I'm hoping my front bench will be clever in the
:51:23. > :51:26.way they word it so it gives the Lib Dems an opportunity to express their
:51:27. > :51:31.support. The real argument is, there is an emerging body of evidence and
:51:32. > :51:35.it doesn't need a gambling charity report to see that these machines
:51:36. > :51:39.are being used for money-laundering, that there is an increasing amount
:51:40. > :51:47.of violence within bookmakers and nearly 180 callouts to the police
:51:48. > :51:50.every week from bookmakers, predominantly from gamblers smashing
:51:51. > :51:55.them up who have lost too much money. And there is also a body of
:51:56. > :51:58.evidence that says these machines are creating gambling addicts and
:51:59. > :52:02.that is something Parliament should act on. And we never should have
:52:03. > :52:06.licensed these machines in the way we did in 2005 and we should put the
:52:07. > :52:12.matter right as quickly as possible. So that was when Labour
:52:13. > :52:16.was in power, then? Yes. I'd feel duty bound to continue with this
:52:17. > :52:19.campaign because I was on the bill that allowed the licensing of these
:52:20. > :52:27.machines to go through. And it is time all MPs -- at the time all MPs
:52:28. > :52:32.let these machines go through sort of on the nod. We basically drop the
:52:33. > :52:34.ball on this one and didn't understand the impact this
:52:35. > :52:39.technology would have on the high street. Now is the time to put it
:52:40. > :52:43.right. Thank you. Charles Kennedy, you woman should there. Are the
:52:44. > :52:49.Liberal Democrats going to support this? Tom is so kind and it seems
:52:50. > :52:56.dishonourable to not go along with him! He is right, the 2005 act is
:52:57. > :53:02.what gave life to this problem. But we do have the review. Don Foster,
:53:03. > :53:07.the Lib Dem government minister, and onto recently he became our Chief
:53:08. > :53:11.Whip and the deputy Chief Whip, he set up the review and a flow was
:53:12. > :53:21.pointing out, it is reporting early this calendar year. -- and as I was
:53:22. > :53:25.pointing out. I hope the review will endorse it and it seems this is
:53:26. > :53:31.slightly putting the cart before the horse. It is procedural rather than
:53:32. > :53:34.any other sort of disagreement. Thank you.
:53:35. > :53:39.Now, would you like to get married in a neo-Gothic palace on the banks
:53:40. > :53:43.of the River Thames? As long as you don't mind the odd MP photo-bombing
:53:44. > :53:46.the wedding pictures, that is. Or perhaps you're a business wanting to
:53:47. > :53:50.hire out a function room in the heart of Westminster to really
:53:51. > :53:53.impress your clients? Well, it's all now possible thanks to the House of
:53:54. > :53:57.Commons authorities, who have begun renting out a number of the historic
:53:58. > :54:01.rooms in Parliament for the first time.
:54:02. > :54:07.But what exactly is on offer? Well, members of the public can hire the
:54:08. > :54:11.Pugin Room, which seats 30 people for just ?900 an evening.
:54:12. > :54:15.Or for a bigger gathering, you could opt for the vast Portcullis House
:54:16. > :54:18.glass atrium, which can be rented for ?9,000 on a Saturday and can
:54:19. > :54:22.hold up to 450 people. And what food's on offer? Well, a
:54:23. > :54:25.Westminster cream tea will set customers back ?24 a head, or for
:54:26. > :54:26.the more extravagant, there's House of Commons champagne available at
:54:27. > :54:35.?40 a bottle. The idea behind all of this is for
:54:36. > :54:39.the Commons to generate more revenue to pay for repairs and upkeep of the
:54:40. > :54:44.buildings, but some argue it's just commercialising a public institution
:54:45. > :54:48.to the highest bidder. I'm joined now by the Labour MP Paul
:54:49. > :54:51.Flynn, who's in favour of the hiring-out of Parliament, and by the
:54:52. > :54:54.Conservative MP Robert Halfon, who opposed the commercialisation of
:54:55. > :55:02.Parliament when it was proposed in 2012. What is wrong with it, Robert?
:55:03. > :55:08.Welcome. Well, they wanted to originally charge for going up Ben
:55:09. > :55:12.and I'd put a stop to that because the first issue is about respect and
:55:13. > :55:16.equality and we should have respect for Parliament. It is at the base of
:55:17. > :55:20.our democracy and it should be equal to all citizens, not just if they
:55:21. > :55:24.are rich enough to hire it out. And also, there are savings that can be
:55:25. > :55:30.made elsewhere as well. Thirdly, I think we are in danger of making
:55:31. > :55:34.Parliament a theme park. We are opening a Pandora's box. Why not
:55:35. > :55:38.have roller-coaster 's and other things? This is central to our
:55:39. > :55:42.country and I have a rented view about Parliament. We are the
:55:43. > :55:46.greatest Parliament in one of the greatest countries in the world and
:55:47. > :55:54.we should treat it as such. Robert, what do you say to that? It is
:55:55. > :55:57.deserted. Members are not there on Tuesday evenings or Wednesday
:55:58. > :56:03.evenings, nothing happening at the weekend. We have this huge asset and
:56:04. > :56:06.we should be doing it in a democratic way. Prices should be at
:56:07. > :56:13.a level where everybody can have a go and there has to be some kind of
:56:14. > :56:17.lottery to have a go. It should be used by everyone. It is a marvellous
:56:18. > :56:22.place to have a wedding, for instance. And everyone should have
:56:23. > :56:28.at least a chance, then paying costs which would be similar to a
:56:29. > :56:33.first-class hotel. In terms of the practical level, the building is
:56:34. > :56:37.crumbling in parts, as I am told. If it is not being used to its full
:56:38. > :56:41.capacity and you want to retain and maintain it, then isn't that a
:56:42. > :56:46.sensible way just to make some money and allow people to use it
:56:47. > :56:49.recreationally? But the reality of this if there will be some people
:56:50. > :56:55.who use it for having a cream tea and weddings, and good luck to them.
:56:56. > :57:00.But the majority who can afford to hire it will be corporate and it
:57:01. > :57:06.should be for the people. It should not be for big business by big
:57:07. > :57:09.business. MPs have been dodging this and they are underused in
:57:10. > :57:13.Parliament. People use it to the greatest extent for big business and
:57:14. > :57:17.lobbyists and it should be open to the public and everyone should have
:57:18. > :57:21.the chance to use it. It is a wonderful building. It should be
:57:22. > :57:25.open to the public and it should be free to walk around. They are even
:57:26. > :57:31.talking about charging... But if they want to have their wedding...
:57:32. > :57:35.The public already pay taxes for Parliament should be able to walk
:57:36. > :57:41.around it. This is not a museum or hotel. It is the place of our
:57:42. > :57:45.democracy. On the sort of romantic notion it should be for the people
:57:46. > :57:52.and of the people, what do you think? I am genuinely sitting on the
:57:53. > :57:58.fence listening to the argument. Hate to be a traditional Liberal
:57:59. > :58:02.Democrat! When I assumed the capitalist Conservative would be all
:58:03. > :58:04.in favour of opening up the place to maximise the profit and then my good
:58:05. > :58:10.socialist friend here from the Council of Europe would be against
:58:11. > :58:16.it. I think I'd tend towards the more romantic view, have to say,
:58:17. > :58:18.because Paul's argument is interesting but the same argument
:58:19. > :58:25.should apply to Buckingham Palace as well, shouldn't it? Indeed. There
:58:26. > :58:29.was the suggestion that the royal palaces, there are eight of them,
:58:30. > :58:34.and one of them has 600 rooms, that they should be open to the public.
:58:35. > :58:38.Very quickly, the answer to our quiz, the man who received the MBE
:58:39. > :58:43.in the New Year's honours list, what service does he provide for the
:58:44. > :58:48.prime minister? He is Sweeney Todd! A close shave! Not quite Sweeney
:58:49. > :58:52.Todd! But he is the hairdresser. Many thanks to all of you,
:58:53. > :58:55.particularly you, Charles Kennedy. The one o'clock News is starting on
:58:56. > :59:01.BBC One now. Goodbye.