:00:39. > :00:41.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:48.Ed Miliband's set to make first big intervention of 2014 this week when
:00:49. > :00:51.he talks about the economy. He gives us a bit of hint today, saying only
:00:52. > :00:55.Labour can rebuild our middle class. Is this a new direction for Labour
:00:56. > :00:58.and will the voters believe him? Meanwhile the search for a peaceful
:00:59. > :01:02.solution to the conflict in Syria goes on. We'll talk to the former
:01:03. > :01:07.minister who says more need to be done to help the rebels.
:01:08. > :01:11.MPs have spent almost ?250,000 on paintings and sculptures of their
:01:12. > :01:16.colleagues. It's the taxpayer in the frame to pay, so what conclusions
:01:17. > :01:20.should we draw? And what did MPs do before the
:01:21. > :01:23.invention of the e-mail, the mobile phone, before even the Daily
:01:24. > :01:25.Politics came into being? We'll look at the changing role of the humble
:01:26. > :01:34.backbencher. All that in the next hour. Joining
:01:35. > :01:39.me for the programme today is the former Labour minister and diarist
:01:40. > :01:42.Chris Mullin. Welcome to the show. First this morning, Ed Miliband has
:01:43. > :01:47.written an article for today's Daily Telegraph claiming Labour is the
:01:48. > :01:50.party of the middle classes. It seems the Labour leader, who used to
:01:51. > :01:54.talk about the "squeezed middle", is at it again. He says he believes,
:01:55. > :01:57."The current cost-of-living crisis is not just about people on tax
:01:58. > :02:19.credits, zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage.
:02:20. > :02:29.Has he focused too much on tax credits and zero hours contracts and
:02:30. > :02:35.forgotten about the middle-class? I don't think he has, label has been a
:02:36. > :02:39.middle-class party for some time -- Labour has been. That is inevitable
:02:40. > :02:47.because most people in this country are middle-class. I think he is
:02:48. > :02:50.attempting to counter what... The growth rate is picking up after
:02:51. > :02:53.three years in office, the Tories have got grows back to the level
:02:54. > :02:59.they inherited when they came in in 2010 -- got growth back. No doubt an
:03:00. > :03:03.economic miracle is about to be proclaimed in time for the general
:03:04. > :03:08.election. I think what Ed Miliband is trying to do is to point out
:03:09. > :03:12.there are other issues. The housing crisis in London and the
:03:13. > :03:15.south-east, which has excluded a huge range of people who might
:03:16. > :03:22.otherwise have expected to buy their own homes, and unemployment amongst
:03:23. > :03:27.young graduates. But the recovery really does pose a problem for
:03:28. > :03:31.Labour. As it continues, as the government will no doubt keep
:03:32. > :03:35.saying, as it takes hold, unemployment continues to fall.
:03:36. > :03:37.Living standards for some people will improve and Labour, who
:03:38. > :03:42.predicted a flat-lining economy, that growth would not come back in
:03:43. > :03:45.strength and that basically the country was doomed under the
:03:46. > :03:50.coalition's economic policies, have been proved wrong. I don't remember
:03:51. > :03:54.them saying the country was doomed but this economic miracle that is
:03:55. > :03:58.about to be proclaimed is rather uneven. I live in the north and we
:03:59. > :04:03.haven't noticed much of it up there. I hope the economy does recover and
:04:04. > :04:07.there are signs that it is, and I welcome that and I'm sure Ed
:04:08. > :04:11.Miliband does. But there are some quite large problems looming.
:04:12. > :04:16.Funnily enough, especially in London and the south-east. Where about 50%
:04:17. > :04:21.of the population is shut out because of the extraordinary house
:04:22. > :04:25.prices, of the housing market. Where very large and is of young people,
:04:26. > :04:30.many who have been to the best universities, are not employable.
:04:31. > :04:35.When you sit on the soap docks and say, I am going to bring back
:04:36. > :04:44.socialism, did your Hartley that point -- the same box -- the
:04:45. > :04:47.soapbox, did your heart leap? He is right to focus on the outsourced,
:04:48. > :04:55.that is another growing problem. These are Aspar and middle-class and
:04:56. > :05:02.they are in deep trouble -- Asp -- aspirational middle-class. Who do
:05:03. > :05:08.you count as middle-class? Two sets of people, those who are broadly in
:05:09. > :05:13.white-collar jobs, and also there is an aspirational middle-class. In the
:05:14. > :05:20.1950s it was different. There were 700,000 railwaymen. The best part of
:05:21. > :05:25.1 million minors. And other working-class trades. They formed
:05:26. > :05:29.the core of the Labour vote. Even by the end of the 1950s, that was
:05:30. > :05:33.beginning to change for stock people started to buy washing machines and
:05:34. > :05:38.televisions and going on foreign holidays. Now the number of people
:05:39. > :05:44.you count as working class is a relatively small number. Would you
:05:45. > :05:48.have a salary figure? If someone says, who is he talking about? Is he
:05:49. > :05:53.worried that because he has been labelled as red Ed committee is
:05:54. > :06:00.trying appeal to... This is all Lynton Crosby, the spin doctor for
:06:01. > :06:04.the Tories. It is a tabloid fantasy and it has never been true. Ed
:06:05. > :06:10.Miliband is as middle-class as they come. He doesn't attend otherwise.
:06:11. > :06:17.It is who he is appealing to that is the key. -- he doesn't pretend
:06:18. > :06:20.otherwise. To form a Labour government you have
:06:21. > :06:26.to take with you a fair swathes of the fortunate. That everybody is as
:06:27. > :06:29.mean and as little England as a casual reader of the Daily Mail
:06:30. > :06:41.Daily Telegraph would have you leave. Do you see a Labour -Liberal
:06:42. > :06:44.Democrat coalition? It does seem a possible to, it does look as if no
:06:45. > :06:48.party would get an overall majority, in which case you are talking of
:06:49. > :06:57.eight coalition of one sort or another. Sit on the fence there!
:06:58. > :07:00.Now it's time for our daily quiz. Today's question concerns the
:07:01. > :07:02.Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, who for charity you understand, is
:07:03. > :07:05.promising to wear a rather interesting item of clothing in
:07:06. > :07:09.Parliament. So the question is, what is Mr Shelbrooke threatening to
:07:10. > :07:12.wear? Is it a cowboy hat, a onesie, a gorilla costume or a clown
:07:13. > :07:14.costume? At the end of the show Chris will give us the correct
:07:15. > :07:17.answer. Yesterday on the programme we talked
:07:18. > :07:20.about the Channel 4 programme Benefits Street, which follows
:07:21. > :07:23.residents of one Birmingham street living on what the producers call
:07:24. > :07:28.the bottom rung of Britain's economic ladder. It seems everyone's
:07:29. > :07:31.t talking about it, even in the House of Commons. But one
:07:32. > :07:39.Conservative MP, Philip Davies, wasn't feeling sympathetic. Has the
:07:40. > :07:45.Secretary of State managed to watch programmes like benefit Street, --
:07:46. > :07:49.like Benefits Street, and has he been struck by the number of people
:07:50. > :07:51.on there who managed to combine complaining about welfare reforms
:07:52. > :08:05.whilst being able to afford to buy copious amounts of cigarettes, have
:08:06. > :08:06.lots of tat who's done -- tat to And we're joined now by the Conservative
:08:07. > :08:16.MP, Andrew and cannot afford those kinds of
:08:17. > :08:20.luxuries themselves. My honourable friend is right, many people are
:08:21. > :08:23.shocked by what they see. The reality is that is why the public
:08:24. > :08:30.backs are welfare reform package, to get more people back to work to end
:08:31. > :08:32.these abuses. They date back to what the last government left, massive
:08:33. > :08:40.spending and trapping people in a benefit dependency. We are joined by
:08:41. > :08:44.the Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen. Chris Mullin, is the government
:08:45. > :08:50.putting too much emphasis on cutting working age benefits and welfare in
:08:51. > :08:53.order to make their savings? It is right that any government would have
:08:54. > :09:00.to face the scale of the benefit budget. The two largest portions of
:09:01. > :09:06.that are one, the benefits for the elderly, who are of course, the core
:09:07. > :09:09.of the government's votes, so they are nervous about dealing with that,
:09:10. > :09:17.and the other is housing benefit, which is going by and large to buy
:09:18. > :09:24.to let landlords. This programme, Benefits Street, it is tabloid
:09:25. > :09:27.television. By newspaper tabloids have been stirring up fear and
:09:28. > :09:32.loathing among the righteous for years, and doing quite a good job,
:09:33. > :09:36.by the sounds of things. We July to see more cuts to pension benefits
:09:37. > :09:45.question certainly -- would you like to see. Certainly universal
:09:46. > :09:49.benefits. Things like the free bus passes or television licence for the
:09:50. > :09:54.over 75, the fuel allowance, I wouldn't take them away, because it
:09:55. > :09:57.is quite important to bind the middle classes into the welfare
:09:58. > :10:04.system if it is going to have general consent. I would make them
:10:05. > :10:07.taxable, so that people who are among the wealthiest people in the
:10:08. > :10:12.country, many giveaway things like their fuel allowance... If you made
:10:13. > :10:17.it taxable, I think there would be consent for that. The government has
:10:18. > :10:23.made a big play of saying they are going to protect the triple lock on
:10:24. > :10:29.pensions, that would be the right -- the rise in basic state pension.
:10:30. > :10:35.Where would you look for those ?12 billion of cuts from the welfare
:10:36. > :10:40.budget? It has to be on working age benefits. Chris says that Benefits
:10:41. > :10:46.Street is tabloid television, it is not, it is grim reality television.
:10:47. > :10:51.People abandoned by society, trapped in a benefits dependency culture,
:10:52. > :10:56.that is the grim reality. That is what the last Labour government
:10:57. > :11:00.did. Hang on a minute, it actually started in the Thatcher decade. I
:11:01. > :11:06.represented one of the poorest areas in the country for 23 years. I do
:11:07. > :11:12.accept there is a benefits culture. Housing benefit has doubled in ten
:11:13. > :11:15.years. Because Mrs Thatcher sold off one third of the council houses and
:11:16. > :11:20.they are in the hands of buy to let landlords. The first thing they do
:11:21. > :11:28.is jack up the rents to be highest amount the market will bear. That is
:11:29. > :11:31.why housing benefit has ballooned. It is about fairness, fairness on
:11:32. > :11:35.the people who receive benefits. And if its need to be a platform to
:11:36. > :11:44.build your life back from, not a ceiling that people can break out. I
:11:45. > :11:48.don't disagree with that, but what I deprecate his attempts to pretend
:11:49. > :11:52.this is a problem that rose under the last Labour government. It
:11:53. > :11:59.isn't. It is certainly a problem that wasn't tackled by the Labour
:12:00. > :12:04.government. I disagree with that. Then why have we got it? It is a
:12:05. > :12:09.huge issue and previous attempts to tackle it were only partially
:12:10. > :12:15.successful. Frank Field had some berry good ideas about changing the
:12:16. > :12:18.welfare system. They were rather expensive and I believe the present
:12:19. > :12:22.Chancellor has said that of Iain Duncan Smith's reforms. You have to
:12:23. > :12:28.spend more in order to reduce and that is the great dilemma. It is a
:12:29. > :12:31.great ideal to make sure that work days at any level and one of the
:12:32. > :12:35.problems with the benefits system, it is so complex that when people
:12:36. > :12:38.take short-term or insecure work, when they have to go back onto
:12:39. > :12:44.benefits, the benefits don't come back straightaway. It is a great
:12:45. > :12:47.disincentive to take work. Isn't it true that Labour failed to deal with
:12:48. > :12:53.this, they couldn't get it passed their own backbenchers, so they did
:12:54. > :13:00.back the issue? They made some inroads. And sacked the messenger.
:13:01. > :13:03.Frank is a good guy and a thoughtful guy but he was proposing something
:13:04. > :13:11.that rightly, or only, the government thought was wholly
:13:12. > :13:14.impractical. It represents a third of all government spending and even
:13:15. > :13:17.if we were not in a time of austerity... It is subsidising the
:13:18. > :13:23.lowest paying employers, that is where it is going. Some people were
:13:24. > :13:27.getting over ?100,000 in housing benefit, my constituents would think
:13:28. > :13:30.that is obscene. You need to quantify the nub of families, most
:13:31. > :13:34.people would agree it is not right to have that amount of money, but is
:13:35. > :13:40.it fair to take more savings now, after a recession, to still look for
:13:41. > :13:46.those savings from working age people who are on benefits? Is it
:13:47. > :13:48.right to abandon those people to a life of benefits dependency and
:13:49. > :13:54.intergenerational unemployment, which is what follows on? The
:13:55. > :13:59.benefits cap, since it was introduced, 19,000 individuals have
:14:00. > :14:04.moved into work comes to it is working. Work is the best way out of
:14:05. > :14:09.poverty for everybody. Do you agree with the cap? You are looking to
:14:10. > :14:15.review it on the Conservative side, is 26,000 the right level? All I
:14:16. > :14:19.would say is the way to get people out of the world of landlords is to
:14:20. > :14:29.start building social housing again. If you moved the people... The money
:14:30. > :14:35.is wasted spending ?25,000... You haven't built anything like what is
:14:36. > :14:38.needed since 2010. The previous Conservative government banned the
:14:39. > :14:42.spending of the proceeds of the sale of council houses on building new
:14:43. > :14:48.social housing. They actually banned it. Do you accept that Iain Duncan
:14:49. > :14:54.Smith and this government have made big steps to actually getting a
:14:55. > :14:59.handle... They have set up universal credit, they are trying to reform
:15:00. > :15:07.welfare, they have set a cap, they are putting their money where their
:15:08. > :15:10.mouth is. I don't disagree with the goal to create universal benefit for
:15:11. > :15:14.the reasons we have described. Whether it works or not remains to
:15:15. > :15:18.be seen. There are technical problems. I do not mock him for the
:15:19. > :15:24.problems he isn't cantering. He is just encountering same problems. I'd
:15:25. > :15:30.deprecate the attempts to pretend it is something that just he and Iain
:15:31. > :15:34.Duncan-Smith noticed. He is doing something about it and there is no
:15:35. > :15:40.more decent human being than he. He is a very nice chap. On some of the
:15:41. > :15:44.ideas that have been put forward, would you be in favour of -- in
:15:45. > :15:50.favour of capping child benefit? I would. I think anyone has the right
:15:51. > :15:53.to have as many children as they like. If the third child makes the
:15:54. > :15:58.difference, I would questioned whether that is a reason to have
:15:59. > :16:03.children. You don't think it would be there? Is unfair for people on
:16:04. > :16:07.benefits? If you want to reduce the benefit bill, you have to address
:16:08. > :16:12.the subsidies to the lowest paid on the employers who are paying the
:16:13. > :16:16.least. And benefits spent on the wealthiest pensions. That is two
:16:17. > :16:23.issues the government needs to address. And they declined to do so.
:16:24. > :16:27.You would not want to look at universal benefits for pensioners?
:16:28. > :16:31.Probably the savings would be so small that it would cost more to do
:16:32. > :16:35.that... That is what the government says. Thank you. It's traditional
:16:36. > :16:38.for portraits of Prime Ministers and Commons speakers to be commissioned
:16:39. > :16:42.to mark their time in office. They usually hang them in the corridors
:16:43. > :16:45.of the Palace of Westminster, not in the downstairs loo which is where
:16:46. > :16:48.I've put mine. Hidden away, safely. Now a freedom of information request
:16:49. > :16:51.from the Evening Standard newspaper has revealed that ?250,000 has been
:16:52. > :16:54.spent on pictures and statues, and the list of those immortalised
:16:55. > :16:59.includes not just occupants of the great offices of state but some
:17:00. > :17:58.junior ministers and backbenchers. Let's have a look.
:17:59. > :18:03.A long shot of Ken clerk. We're joined now by the man who chairs the
:18:04. > :18:06.committee responsible for commissioning these works of art,
:18:07. > :18:09.the Labour MP Frank Doran, and by Jonathan Isaby from the campaign
:18:10. > :18:16.group the Taxpayers' Alliance. Jonathan, would you object to? I
:18:17. > :18:20.think people would expect it was reasonable for Prime Ministers and
:18:21. > :18:23.speakers to be immortalised in a painting but I think the net has
:18:24. > :18:26.been cast increasingly wide over the last few years in terms of who has
:18:27. > :18:35.been afforded this privilege of being immortalised on canvas or in
:18:36. > :18:38.bronze. People have to look at how we could immortalised people for a
:18:39. > :18:42.more reasonable sum. Photographic work rates can be a cheaper way.
:18:43. > :18:45.When the House of parliament was built, you did not have photographs
:18:46. > :18:49.so you have to paint people to immortalise them but these days, you
:18:50. > :18:54.can use a photograph. And you need to look at who you are
:18:55. > :18:56.commissioning. Could you look at getting art students or constituents
:18:57. > :19:01.of some of these members of Parliament to get involved, perhaps
:19:02. > :19:07.in a competition? Rather than commissioning a five figure sum of
:19:08. > :19:11.taxpayers money for the job. The first objection, you are casting the
:19:12. > :19:18.net to white. You should stick to people occupying the great offices
:19:19. > :19:21.of state? We have been collecting art in the Houses of Parliament
:19:22. > :19:25.since the 14th century and we have always collected across the board,
:19:26. > :19:31.people who made a valuable contribution to politics. Diane
:19:32. > :19:34.Abbott, there has been a lot of comment on her portrait. She was the
:19:35. > :19:39.first black woman in Parliament. And in this modern-day, we think it is
:19:40. > :19:42.important to reflect the changes in Parliament and the number of women
:19:43. > :19:47.who have come into Parliament, the ethnic mix in Parliament. I think
:19:48. > :19:51.that is a key part of our strategy, to make sure that the abolition of
:19:52. > :19:58.Parliament as part of its history is recorded. That seems fair. To look
:19:59. > :20:02.broader than just the Prime Minister? The macro I think every
:20:03. > :20:06.member of Parliament would claim to be the first something rather.
:20:07. > :20:10.Harriet Harman, there was talk of her being the first graduate of the
:20:11. > :20:14.University of York to be in Parliament. At the time, she said
:20:15. > :20:17.she would not have this done because she did not think that spending
:20:18. > :20:20.thousands of pounds on a painting was the right thing to do. Let's
:20:21. > :20:24.look at the cost. Could you do it more cheaply or do you think in
:20:25. > :20:30.terms of the world of art this is money well spent? We are preserving
:20:31. > :20:33.history of Parliament through art. We are also doing other things as
:20:34. > :20:38.part of our process. One is supporting young artists. Most of
:20:39. > :20:42.the artist to paint for us are up and coming artists. Most of them,
:20:43. > :20:55.not all of them. We also bargain seriously with the artists. Some of
:20:56. > :20:58.the people most upset by this story will be upset to see the prices that
:20:59. > :21:03.we have managed to get, pushing them down. They want to be in our
:21:04. > :21:11.collection and we bargain very hard. One of our most recent paintings is
:21:12. > :21:13.of Margaret Beckett. She was the first female Foreign Secretary, the
:21:14. > :21:19.first female leader of the Labour Party. And the artist who painted
:21:20. > :21:23.that portrait spent one year on the portrait. If you look at the
:21:24. > :21:27.portrait, you will see why because it is done with a particular method.
:21:28. > :21:31.And we got a very good price for that portrait, more than anyone else
:21:32. > :21:37.would have been able to achieve. Is it money well spent or is it a
:21:38. > :21:43.vanity project? It is money well spent. This is a nonsense story. The
:21:44. > :21:47.thing missing is that the ?250,000 is dated from 1995. That is a small
:21:48. > :21:56.annual budget and it is mainly about three or four ex-prime ministers and
:21:57. > :21:59.speakers. As Frank said, Diane Abbott's portrait has been shown
:22:00. > :22:07.quite a lot. She is the first black woman ever to be elected. Why not?
:22:08. > :22:09.Are you storing up costs because of these economic times? This has been
:22:10. > :22:14.going on for years and will continue. The macro at any point,
:22:15. > :22:17.when politicians are spending taxpayers money, they have to be
:22:18. > :22:22.aware that it is not bear to spend and they should spend it wisely. As
:22:23. > :22:28.I say, I accept that there will be Prime Ministers and speakers who
:22:29. > :22:34.would be afforded this kind of portrait. How much would you spend
:22:35. > :22:39.on a portrait of an MP? It would depend how big it was and who did
:22:40. > :22:42.it. I'm not going to get into the numbers but we need to focus on
:22:43. > :22:47.delivering value for money and look at other ways of immortalising
:22:48. > :22:51.politicians on canvas. In the 14th century there was not the option of
:22:52. > :22:55.a photograph. But these days, a photograph can be a good way of
:22:56. > :22:59.capturing somebody. Which? Wrote to you think they are good? Some of
:23:00. > :23:09.them are good but some of them are not. Are you pleased with them? We
:23:10. > :23:12.are very proud of the collection and it is used in different ways. One of
:23:13. > :23:17.the key issues is access. The public have access to all of the ones which
:23:18. > :23:21.you have shown today, because they are in an area to which the public
:23:22. > :23:28.has access, and we are trying to widen access. We started a programme
:23:29. > :23:30.some time ago of art and architecture tours. And we are
:23:31. > :23:35.getting a big response from the public on that. And that is a good
:23:36. > :23:41.thing because if we pay for it, we should be able to see it. Thank you.
:23:42. > :23:50.Talks are due to take place in Switzerland this week aimed at
:23:51. > :23:53.ending the civil War in Syria. Yesterday, Foreign Secretary William
:23:54. > :23:56.Hague came to the Commons to update MPs on the conflict, and he said
:23:57. > :24:04.with some understatement that securing peace remains
:24:05. > :24:06."challenging". Since my last statement to the
:24:07. > :24:12.House, the violence has remained intense. The Syrian Observatory for
:24:13. > :24:16.human rights puts the death toll at over 125,000 people. The regime
:24:17. > :24:20.continues to bombard Aleppo and other towns and cities. One area in
:24:21. > :24:26.which progress is being made is the destruction of Syria's Emma Coyle
:24:27. > :24:30.stocks. The first consignment of dangerous chemicals has left Syria
:24:31. > :24:36.after a short delay caused by intense fighting. The Syrian regime
:24:37. > :24:40.must ensure that the remaining material is transported to the port
:24:41. > :24:45.as quickly as possible to ensure that all chemicals can be eliminated
:24:46. > :24:49.by the end of June. Last week, the Iranians Foreign Minister said that
:24:50. > :24:53.Iran would take action related to a peace conference if invited without
:24:54. > :24:57.preconditions and added, and this is a quote, we support any initiative
:24:58. > :25:01.aimed at finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Of
:25:02. > :25:03.course, it is right that we acknowledge the wall that Iran has
:25:04. > :25:08.played in deepening and inflaming this conflict. Yet with the need for
:25:09. > :25:12.a resolution so urgent, does the Foreign Secretary agreed that
:25:13. > :25:16.Iran's claimed resolve to be part of the solution should now be tested
:25:17. > :25:20.and if so, does he agree with me that one way of doing that is to
:25:21. > :25:24.bring Iran to the table at Geneva to participate in the conference? I've
:25:25. > :25:32.visited a refugee camp before Christmas along with the Jesuit
:25:33. > :25:35.refugee service is project supporting refugees in Jordan. The
:25:36. > :25:39.situation is dire, particularly for those who are very vulnerable. I
:25:40. > :25:42.would like to press the Foreign Secretary that we could make a real
:25:43. > :25:45.contribution as part of a court noted Roper of resettlement for the
:25:46. > :25:51.very vulnerable refugees who could benefit from coming here. If the
:25:52. > :25:54.people in Syria are to get their country back, we should do what we
:25:55. > :25:59.can to support the opposition in Syria if necessary revisiting the
:26:00. > :26:04.decision to supply only non-lethal weapons. We are ready to increase
:26:05. > :26:08.our support of important but non-lethal supplies, providing that
:26:09. > :26:13.we are confident about what will happen to those supplies. And that
:26:14. > :26:17.is a condition on which this House will always insist.
:26:18. > :26:20.We're joined now by the former Foreign Office minister Alistair
:26:21. > :26:24.Burt, he's calling for the Syrian rebels to be armed, and our guest of
:26:25. > :26:29.the day Chris Mullin was also a Foreign Office minster under Tony
:26:30. > :26:33.Blair. Why armed rebels in Syria now?
:26:34. > :26:40.Because I think the Syrian opposition coalition of which -- for
:26:41. > :26:45.which the United Kingdom has worked with for over two years, with its
:26:46. > :26:49.commitment of democracy and a ballistic Syria, and to human
:26:50. > :26:54.rights, make them valued partners. Secondly, they represent those who
:26:55. > :26:58.are simply being crushed by Irish team with massive military might
:26:59. > :27:03.available to it. They want the means to defend themselves. -- crushed by
:27:04. > :27:07.a regime. Would it actually reduce the number of people being
:27:08. > :27:11.senselessly slaughtered? I think it would. For this reason. The only
:27:12. > :27:15.thing that has not happened in Syria is a serious challenge to the might
:27:16. > :27:20.of the regime. If that was to happen on the resume new that it could not
:27:21. > :27:26.win a military victory in Syria, I think there is more of an incentive
:27:27. > :27:29.to negotiate an end to this. Now come quite frankly, backed by
:27:30. > :27:32.Russia, Hezbollah and Iran, the regime thinks it can win. The only
:27:33. > :27:40.thing that will end the conflict is a realisation that is -- that that
:27:41. > :27:46.is not the case. Do you agree? Yes, with most of that. You would arm the
:27:47. > :27:50.moderate opposition? It depends, as William Hague said, can we be happy
:27:51. > :27:53.that the arms are going to where they should be supposed to be going?
:27:54. > :28:00.And there are signs that they are not. If there are any signs, it is
:28:01. > :28:03.the rapprochement underway with Iran. If they can be brought to the
:28:04. > :28:08.table and more pressure put on the Russians to lean on their ally, that
:28:09. > :28:12.is the only way forward. I do not pretend to have any particular
:28:13. > :28:17.answers. But instinctively, at this point, taking up what Alistair Burt
:28:18. > :28:22.has set, in order to push the Assad regime to the negotiating table,
:28:23. > :28:27.would it be strategically wise to arm those rebels? If you could be
:28:28. > :28:36.satisfied that that would be the outcome. The weapons need to go
:28:37. > :28:39.where they are supposed to be going. We know in Afghanistan that a number
:28:40. > :28:47.of weapons ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda. You cannot guarantee it.
:28:48. > :28:50.It has been a recurring saga. This is all about risk. What is happening
:28:51. > :28:56.at the moment is a recruiting Sergeant. You see the regime
:28:57. > :28:59.destroying the country. 30% of houses have been destroyed and half
:29:00. > :29:04.the population has moved out. That is happening now with a policy of
:29:05. > :29:06.non-intervention. That is acting as a recruiting Sergeant to those who
:29:07. > :29:11.want to do something about it. The point I'm making is that in order to
:29:12. > :29:16.change that situation, something you has to come into the equation. The
:29:17. > :29:23.people we would be giving alms to have no vested interest in being
:29:24. > :29:27.passed into the hand of jihadis is. Ultimately, they will need to take
:29:28. > :29:30.them on for the future of Syria. There's no reason for them to want
:29:31. > :29:36.the arms to go to the wrong direction. It is unlikely to happen
:29:37. > :29:41.because you do not have William Hague's here on it? William is not
:29:42. > :29:47.supporting a policy of bombing because we have worried about
:29:48. > :29:52.putting arms into the situation. Can we persuade him? We are three years
:29:53. > :29:56.on and the policy of non-intervention, allowing it to
:29:57. > :30:00.settle down, if that was working then fine. My worry is that it is
:30:01. > :30:04.not working. How long does this go on? It Geneva does not produce a
:30:05. > :30:07.situation where the resume once to move towards transition, if they
:30:08. > :30:11.continue to do what they are doing, how long to people stand back when
:30:12. > :30:16.these arms are dropped on innocent populations? And people say that
:30:17. > :30:21.they can do nothing about it because there is no way to shoot down
:30:22. > :30:26.anything in the air. Whether you die of a machine gun or a chemical
:30:27. > :30:31.weapon, does it matter in the end? Neither side can win militarily, so
:30:32. > :30:35.if you arm the rebels, it escalates. You have to get into a situation
:30:36. > :30:40.where people want to end it. At this point, the resume does not want to
:30:41. > :30:46.end this. I think the opposition do because they want to CNN is to the
:30:47. > :30:48.killing. How much faith you have in the Geneva talks? Does anyone
:30:49. > :30:55.believe that anything will come out of that? It doesn't look very
:30:56. > :30:59.hopeful, I think the opposition are declining to turn up.
:31:00. > :31:04.We have a decision to make on Friday. It would be hopeless if they
:31:05. > :31:11.don't turn up. I am afraid the sad tragedy of this is that the West
:31:12. > :31:17.started attacking Assad far to early on, when the uprising began. The
:31:18. > :31:22.West supported the rebels far too early, without realising... I met a
:31:23. > :31:25.Syrian who had just come to Damascus and he said that this regime is a
:31:26. > :31:30.great deal stronger than we are reading in your newspapers, and it
:31:31. > :31:34.is going to survive. Do you think you miss judged Bashar al-Assad and
:31:35. > :31:39.the strength of the regime? Nobody knew if the regime was resilient
:31:40. > :31:43.enough to deal with a revolt in many places over a long period of time.
:31:44. > :31:49.It is true that the regime had been quite ruthless in putting down
:31:50. > :31:54.revolts and had done so. No one knew what would happen if those revolts
:31:55. > :31:57.went on. Remember those early days, we are talking about hundreds of
:31:58. > :32:01.thousands of people on the streets, saying that the regime should
:32:02. > :32:06.reform. And when the regime met that with torture and violence, the
:32:07. > :32:09.regime should go. What should we say about a situation like that, if it
:32:10. > :32:14.is not to support those who seek freedom from tyranny? How much
:32:15. > :32:20.impact did giving up the chemical weapons stockpile... Has it had any
:32:21. > :32:24.effect? It has given a degree of free license to the regime to carry
:32:25. > :32:28.on killing people conventionally, as they have. Chemical weapons coming
:32:29. > :32:32.out is a good thing, there is no argument about that, but the terms
:32:33. > :32:38.on which it is done have been Russian terms, regime terms. As the
:32:39. > :32:44.quid pro quo being that mystery is pressure has been put on the regime
:32:45. > :32:51.to stop the conventional killing. How much support have you got from
:32:52. > :32:54.MPs for arming the opposition? MPs are desperately concerned, they are
:32:55. > :32:57.worried and sceptical about any engagement in the process, either by
:32:58. > :33:00.allowing people to get arms or anything else. I would not suggest
:33:01. > :33:06.at the moment that there is a majority in the house. But the house
:33:07. > :33:15.is worried that -- about how long this goes on. And the refugee
:33:16. > :33:19.crisis? No country has done more than the United Kingdom, we have put
:33:20. > :33:28.in more to support people in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, to protect
:33:29. > :33:32.them. The human Terry and crisis is the symptom. Unless the conflict
:33:33. > :33:39.end, it just goes on and gets worse -- humanitarian crisis is the
:33:40. > :33:43.symptoms. Only the Russians can put pressure on the regime to bring it
:33:44. > :33:45.to the table. It may be that bringing the Iranians would help as
:33:46. > :33:49.well and perhaps talking to the Saudis. They have such a vested
:33:50. > :33:54.interest in keeping the regime going. The Iranians have fought in
:33:55. > :33:59.Syria, they are fighting to protect a sad and their own interests. -- to
:34:00. > :34:03.protect President Assad and their own interests. Unless the conflict
:34:04. > :34:11.ends, we can't even get to that stage. Those pesky lords, they have
:34:12. > :34:13.been causing problems for the coalition recently, inflicting a
:34:14. > :34:17.series of defeats on government legislation in the upper house. Last
:34:18. > :34:22.night they were at it again, this time knocking holes in the lobbying
:34:23. > :34:29.bill. It is designed to make the lobbying of ministers more
:34:30. > :34:34.transparent. One of the concerns is the effect it will have on charities
:34:35. > :34:38.and other campaign groups. This bill is fiendishly compensated.
:34:39. > :34:41.It is designed to shine a light on the political activities of
:34:42. > :34:44.charities. That means they would have to register what they are doing
:34:45. > :34:48.with the Electoral Commission, say how much money they are spending,
:34:49. > :34:54.there would be limits on spending. Opponents say this will impose huge
:34:55. > :35:00.rig Autori burdens, and some fear it could also make it harder for
:35:01. > :35:06.charities to raise genuine issues of public concern around elections --
:35:07. > :35:10.huge regulatory burdens. Katie Wright is senior policy adviser at
:35:11. > :35:15.Oxfam and also joined by the Conservative MP for Carmarthen West
:35:16. > :35:20.who used to be Chief Executive of the countryside Alliance. Can you
:35:21. > :35:28.spell out a sort of political activities that charities get up to?
:35:29. > :35:32.Absolutely. The vast amount of money we spent directly on humanitarian
:35:33. > :35:37.work and working in poor countries around the world. We also part of
:35:38. > :35:40.big, iconic campaigns that helped to change the lives for millions of
:35:41. > :35:45.people if they are successful. Things like make poverty history,
:35:46. > :35:52.the Robin Hood tax campaign, taking on tax dodging and promoting aid
:35:53. > :35:55.spending. Whilst these may be policy issues, they may be controversial
:35:56. > :35:58.politically, they are not party political and we think we should be
:35:59. > :36:04.able to do them in the year before an election as well. So why
:36:05. > :36:06.shouldn't there be greater accountability and transparency
:36:07. > :36:10.about what your organisation and others are getting up to? The
:36:11. > :36:14.government tell us that the point of this bill is to try to take some of
:36:15. > :36:17.the big money out of politics and they raise the spectres of the
:36:18. > :36:23.big-money campaigns you see in the innovative states. They don't want
:36:24. > :36:28.to limit -- in the United States was they don't want to limit policy
:36:29. > :36:33.campaigning but we -- they have driven the bill is so widely that we
:36:34. > :36:38.are caught up in its net. We want to make some amendments to ensure our
:36:39. > :36:42.work could continue. What is wrong with those points of concern? The
:36:43. > :36:47.charitable sector is worried at the government seems determined to press
:36:48. > :36:51.it through -- but the government. Some early concerns were legitimate
:36:52. > :36:55.but I think the government has made huge strides to correct those. I am
:36:56. > :36:59.told the latest position is of great comfort for people like Oxfam and
:37:00. > :37:02.others in the voluntary sector and charitable sector. I think the
:37:03. > :37:09.dangers which were first highlighted have receded into the background.
:37:10. > :37:14.There is a clear distinction between campaigning up to the election on
:37:15. > :37:20.policy issues, which all of us in politics welcome and have nothing to
:37:21. > :37:23.fear from, but also as distinct from activity which has attempted to
:37:24. > :37:27.influence the outcome of an election, which might favour one
:37:28. > :37:30.candidate or another. That is what the bill is trying to exclude, I
:37:31. > :37:35.think charities should have nothing to worry about. Charities are
:37:36. > :37:42.covered by charity law, why do they need a fresh burden of adulation? I
:37:43. > :37:46.think -- fresh burden of regulation. I think it is a different point.
:37:47. > :37:51.From a charitable point of view, it doesn't restrict them in any point
:37:52. > :37:58.from -- in any way from campaigning on policy issues. You are not going
:37:59. > :38:02.to be prevented from raising it visibly, loudly, frequently in the
:38:03. > :38:05.run-up to an election. It prevents you distorting the outcome of an
:38:06. > :38:09.election by ploughing all of your resources into a campaign which may
:38:10. > :38:14.affect the outcome of the election. It is a clear distinction. I think
:38:15. > :38:18.the government has got the balance about right, it has listen to the
:38:19. > :38:24.concerns of the charities and I think nobody should have anything to
:38:25. > :38:28.worry about from here. How divided are the charities? Some want further
:38:29. > :38:32.concessions to make it less burdensome, some want complete
:38:33. > :38:36.exemption from any of these regulations for charities. I think
:38:37. > :38:40.it comes from everybody feeling as scared as each other. This bill has
:38:41. > :38:46.managed to unite a quite widespread of organisations. -- wide spectrum.
:38:47. > :38:50.We are working with people we normally argue with because we all
:38:51. > :38:53.want to protect our right to speak out about these issues in a year
:38:54. > :38:58.before an election. We are all pretty united now in that whilst we
:38:59. > :39:02.are glad the government has listen to some of our concerns, the
:39:03. > :39:06.distinction that Simon is talking about is far from clear. We need to
:39:07. > :39:12.see further votes and amendments made tomorrow to help create the
:39:13. > :39:15.distinction to perhaps take the big-money out of party politics, but
:39:16. > :39:21.allow charities and other campaigning groups to continue.
:39:22. > :39:24.Isn't there a risk that you end up with a two tier system, charities
:39:25. > :39:28.treated in one way and campaign groups, such as the countryside
:39:29. > :39:33.Alliance and Amnesty International, treated in a different way. There
:39:34. > :39:36.are different conditions affecting charities. They are the
:39:37. > :39:40.beneficiaries of public money to some extent through gift aid and
:39:41. > :39:43.things like that. Nobody has argued that it is against the law to
:39:44. > :39:46.campaign in such a way that might influence the outcome of an
:39:47. > :39:53.election. This bill doesn't really address that at all. It makes it
:39:54. > :39:57.fairer as far as all charities and all non-governmental organisations
:39:58. > :40:02.are concerned, and more transparent from the point of view of the voter.
:40:03. > :40:06.What will happen in the House of Lords tomorrow? I think the
:40:07. > :40:09.government will do well if they listen to some of the amendments put
:40:10. > :40:18.forward, which are designed to make this ad law into a much better law.
:40:19. > :40:22.-- this bad law. That is the bill, it is complete hated and it is in
:40:23. > :40:25.the House of Lords tomorrow. Government has been defeated 86
:40:26. > :40:28.times. The opponents and campaigners are looking for more tomorrow. Thank
:40:29. > :40:31.you very much. As discussions about Britain's
:40:32. > :40:34.relationship with Europe rumble on, both the pro-and anti-sides of the
:40:35. > :40:38.debate are keen to show that they have business voices backing their
:40:39. > :40:42.case. Today Business for Britain, the campaign group that wants to see
:40:43. > :40:47.reform of the EU, has suggested how they'd like to help firms. They'd
:40:48. > :40:49.like to see the millions of companies who do not export to
:40:50. > :40:53.Europe exempted from Brussels regulations. They claim that single
:40:54. > :40:59.market regulations cost UK businesses an estimated ?7.5 billion
:41:00. > :41:04.a year. But fewer than 5% of companies actually export goods or
:41:05. > :41:06.services to other EU states. Business for Britian predict that
:41:07. > :41:11.with small and medium-sized firms freed from EU regulation, there
:41:12. > :41:14.could be a jobs boom. The Bruges Group think tank has previously
:41:15. > :41:17.claimed that pulling out of the EU but staying in the European Economic
:41:18. > :41:23.Area would create 1 million British jobs. But those in favour of the UK
:41:24. > :41:26.remaining in the EU say millions of jobs could be lost as global
:41:27. > :41:31.manufacturers move to lower-cost EU countries. The House of Commons
:41:32. > :41:39.library suggests that in 2011 an estimated 4.5 million UK jobs were
:41:40. > :41:42.dependent on exports to the EU. To discuss this I'm joined now by Peter
:41:43. > :41:46.Wilding from British Influence - they want to keep Britain in a
:41:47. > :41:49.reformed EU - and by Matthew Elliot from Business for Britain - they
:41:50. > :41:57.want a referendum on our relationship with Europe. Welcome to
:41:58. > :42:02.both of you. While I take a quick breath. If you are part of the
:42:03. > :42:07.single market as a country, all the rules for businesses apply, don't
:42:08. > :42:10.they? They do at the moment, though interestingly, the EU does exempt
:42:11. > :42:15.certain micro-businesses from certain regulations. The principle
:42:16. > :42:19.that EU regulations should not apply to all businesses is already in
:42:20. > :42:25.place. We propose extending it to say only 5% of companies in the UK
:42:26. > :42:28.export to the single market, so surely the British Parliament can
:42:29. > :42:35.describe that certain regulations should not apply to those that don't
:42:36. > :42:39.export -- can decide. David Cameron talked about how it was ridiculous
:42:40. > :42:43.that all the regulations apply to the NHS, which doesn't export to the
:42:44. > :42:47.EU. The point is you can't pick and choose as a member of the EU,
:42:48. > :42:50.certainly not on cornerstone policy. There are always going to be
:42:51. > :42:58.exceptions, isn't this just because you want Britain out of the EU? We
:42:59. > :43:01.are not worn -- moving towards a period of treaty change where
:43:02. > :43:05.everything is up for grabs. We are in a space for new ideas. The PM,
:43:06. > :43:10.quite rightly in his Bloomberg speech, made competitors of Ness and
:43:11. > :43:17.the reduction of red tape a centre space -- made competitiveness and
:43:18. > :43:27.the reduction of red tape a centrepiece of his speech. 7.5
:43:28. > :43:33.billion pounds a year could be saved. We are not going to disagree
:43:34. > :43:37.about red tape, red tape should be brought down in whatever way we can
:43:38. > :43:43.do it. We want to create growth. The problem with Matthew's analysis is
:43:44. > :43:48.that he does two things will stop first of all, over half of the
:43:49. > :43:52.amount of money is generated by UK gold-plating. Civil servants adding
:43:53. > :43:56.more burden upon the EU directives that Matthew is talking about.
:43:57. > :43:59.Secondly, a strange figure has cropped up. The OECD published a
:44:00. > :44:05.report which said that in a league table of countries burdened by red
:44:06. > :44:10.tape, written is number eight. Above that -- Britain is number eight.
:44:11. > :44:13.Above that lie four other countries inside the European Union. We are
:44:14. > :44:18.banging on about red tape, why aren't they? Why is Germany
:44:19. > :44:23.exporting so much more than us, but inside Europe and outside? I think
:44:24. > :44:27.red tape is a very important thing but it is absolutely not the hammer
:44:28. > :44:32.that cracks the nut of bringing us out of the single market. You are
:44:33. > :44:37.inflating, to some extent, the figures, or certainly painting them
:44:38. > :44:42.in a way that looks disadvantages to British firms, when it is added by
:44:43. > :44:45.civil servants or bureaucracy here, and you haven't talked about the
:44:46. > :44:50.benefits of being part of the EU. What about the benefits in terms of
:44:51. > :44:51.jobs, in terms of being part of a big group where things like
:44:52. > :44:58.environmental protection is included? The 7.5 billion figure is
:44:59. > :45:01.from the government itself, it is a government figure and I would agree
:45:02. > :45:05.with you on the gold-plating point, it is a really serious point. As to
:45:06. > :45:09.the benefits of being in the single market, I completely agree. This
:45:10. > :45:13.proposal is a way where firms who want to export to the single market
:45:14. > :45:16.would be able to do so. Of course they should go along with this in
:45:17. > :45:18.the single market would be able to do so. Of course they should go
:45:19. > :45:21.along with this ingle market begin nations. Of those firms who don't
:45:22. > :45:24.want to export, like the shop where I bought my cup of coffee, will
:45:25. > :45:30.never export to the EU, why should they go along with the regulations?
:45:31. > :45:36.What about the supply chain? Wouldn't it logically mean a drop in
:45:37. > :45:41.exports to the EU? In 2011, 50 3% of UK goods exports were to other EU
:45:42. > :45:48.countries, comprising 10% of GDP. You have surely got to look at the
:45:49. > :45:52.whole supply chain. If you look at the UK economy, only 10% is to do
:45:53. > :45:55.with manufacturing. There are already mechanisms in place to make
:45:56. > :46:01.sure that cheap goods do not enter the single market. We're talking
:46:02. > :46:05.about the same level of regulation not existing, but less regulation of
:46:06. > :46:12.companies that do not export. You back in this? What is this red tape?
:46:13. > :46:16.Nobody has said anything about this. Is it the minimum wage? It used to
:46:17. > :46:23.be. There is no doubt that the working hours directive
:46:24. > :46:26.regulations, the environmental regulations... You would have to
:46:27. > :46:31.introduce red tape to separate those companies to whom in the new rules
:46:32. > :46:34.would apply and those to whom it does not. It will be very
:46:35. > :46:38.compensated with all kinds of companies who should be bound by it
:46:39. > :46:44.trying to find a loophole. These mechanisms are in place. One thing
:46:45. > :46:47.about the solution is that it is imaginative but impractical. We have
:46:48. > :46:52.a series of businesses do not export. You mentioned the shop on
:46:53. > :46:58.the corner. The fact of the matter is that we must be positive. We have
:46:59. > :47:02.to create jobs and the way to do that is to enable people to export.
:47:03. > :47:06.The problem with this solution is he will introduce an export police that
:47:07. > :47:09.are going to wander around small firms and say, how much are you
:47:10. > :47:16.exporting to Europe and how much are you not? And that is utterly crazy.
:47:17. > :47:20.These systems are already in place. The trouble with Matthew is he looks
:47:21. > :47:25.at where we are today and tries to go backwards. What I am trying to do
:47:26. > :47:29.is go forward. The forward thing is quite simple. The Prime Minister
:47:30. > :47:32.says he wants more people to export but Matthew's report only talks
:47:33. > :47:37.about goods. It does not talk about the massive ability that we have two
:47:38. > :47:42.cell services. Let me tell you one thing. In order to do that, here is
:47:43. > :47:44.the Prime Minister with 18 different other Prime Ministers in Europe
:47:45. > :47:51.signing up to liberalise the single market. Is it impractical? These
:47:52. > :47:56.systems are in place so it is practical. The second point, the
:47:57. > :48:01.Prime Minister, before Christmas, talked about exempting small
:48:02. > :48:06.companies from EU red tape. I think it is also forward-looking. The PM,
:48:07. > :48:11.the centrepoint of his speech said that he wanted the EU and the UK to
:48:12. > :48:16.become competitive. So that we can compete in the global race. This
:48:17. > :48:18.solution will help that. Actually, we would look overseas to
:48:19. > :48:23.high-growth countries outside Europe, and they are the ones we
:48:24. > :48:31.need to trade with more. The problem that Matthew has referred to,
:48:32. > :48:35.coalescing with other states, is exactly what we're doing right now.
:48:36. > :48:39.The United States and EU are negotiating a free trade zone,
:48:40. > :48:44.effectively. The United States is not going to sign up to a situation
:48:45. > :48:49.where half of the business of one member state is ruled by different
:48:50. > :48:52.regulations. But in the US, each state has a different system of
:48:53. > :48:56.regulation, so the states are familiar with that. Support that
:48:57. > :49:00.free trade deal. Thank you very much. It's a well-known fact that
:49:01. > :49:02.everything was better in the Old Days. Summers were hotter,
:49:03. > :49:06.neighbours were friendlier and policemen would give you a cheery
:49:07. > :49:10.wave as they clipped a small boy round the ear. But what about
:49:11. > :49:14.politicians? Was there a golden age when our MPs were upstanding men and
:49:15. > :49:18.women of integrity, who had the respect and love of the people, or
:49:19. > :49:21.were they held up to as much ridicule and contempt then as they
:49:22. > :49:29.seem to be today? Here's David, with a blast from the past.
:49:30. > :49:35.Your first side of the government front bench. Mr Keeley at the
:49:36. > :49:40.bottom. Mr Josef Craig Lloyd Jenkins. The State opening of
:49:41. > :49:44.Parliament, 1966 style. The decor is much the same but the politicians,
:49:45. > :49:49.from a very different age. This place may not have changed very
:49:50. > :49:53.much, but what about the people who make it take? Our MPs. Are they the
:49:54. > :49:56.same as they were when everything was black and white? Do we still
:49:57. > :50:01.treat them with the respect they think they deserve? David Winick
:50:02. > :50:07.came into the Commons as part of the class of 1966. It was a different
:50:08. > :50:13.time. We were not expecting to do all that work. It does not mean that
:50:14. > :50:18.MPs are lazy, but it was a different type of job. If you spoke three
:50:19. > :50:21.times a year, that would not have been considered inappropriate. If
:50:22. > :50:28.you visited your constituents in frequently, that might not be so
:50:29. > :50:36.difficult. It has totally changed. But are our resident day MPs reaping
:50:37. > :50:41.the rewards? If you go back to 1966, 90 7% of people for their MP was
:50:42. > :50:46.doing a good job. In 2005, it is not the same question but it shows the
:50:47. > :50:50.trend. Actually, only 46% of people think that the MPs try hard. I think
:50:51. > :50:55.there has been a decline in satisfaction. And it would not get
:50:56. > :51:02.away with making the odd cameo appearance. There's been a shift in
:51:03. > :51:06.wanting MPs to be doing more constituency work, prioritising that
:51:07. > :51:10.of national politics. But we still want our MPs to push forward
:51:11. > :51:14.policies on the national stage. I think there is a trend at a personal
:51:15. > :51:17.level to reject the professionalisation of politics, to
:51:18. > :51:21.want MPs to look more like ordinary people. But compared to this
:51:22. > :51:28.cynical, less deferential age, where the media goes out of the way to
:51:29. > :51:31.make them figures of fun, MPs get more -- got more respect from the
:51:32. > :51:38.public in the olden days. I'm afraid not. Dickens Parliamentary gauges
:51:39. > :51:42.did not show a lot of respect for MPs. If you read the literature of
:51:43. > :51:48.the 19th century, parliamentarians were often the butt of jokes. I'm
:51:49. > :51:54.sure that was so before. It does not seem to be a golden age at any time.
:51:55. > :51:57.Politicians should accept that it is perhaps part of the British
:51:58. > :52:03.tradition to have a go at us. And why not two of an safety may have
:52:04. > :52:08.been less of a big deal but worthy MPs better? -- and why not? Health
:52:09. > :52:12.and safety. Maybe not. To talk about the changing nature of the job of
:52:13. > :52:15.being an MP we're joined now by Charlotte Leslie, she's a
:52:16. > :52:19.Conservative who entered Parliament in 2010, and our guest of the day
:52:20. > :52:25.Chris Mullin who was elected in 1987 and stood down in 2010.
:52:26. > :52:29.For come to you, Chris Mullin, are you envious of Charlotte's position?
:52:30. > :52:35.It seems that with the backbench committee, she is in a better
:52:36. > :52:41.position. I think the rise of the Select Committees has increased the
:52:42. > :52:45.influence of backbench members. It was pretty low in the 50s and 60s.
:52:46. > :52:54.That has made a huge difference. Yes, up until the time that are
:52:55. > :53:01.retired, the government whips had a large influence. You were whipped
:53:02. > :53:07.within an inch of your lives! In my case, no, but not want trying. It
:53:08. > :53:12.seems that individual MPs, if they want to take up an issue, have
:53:13. > :53:15.avenues that they can do so. It is very difficult for me to compare
:53:16. > :53:21.because I was not around them. I think Parliament takes our time to
:53:22. > :53:24.get used to. I'd think you have to make a decision as to whether you
:53:25. > :53:27.want to get promoted very quickly, in which case there are avenues that
:53:28. > :53:32.it may not be wise to choose them, or whether you will deal with the
:53:33. > :53:38.things that matter to you. I think through the invigoration of the
:53:39. > :53:41.Select Committees, you feel that you can make a substantial difference.
:53:42. > :53:45.And if you do it with respect, and correctly, there is every avenue to
:53:46. > :53:50.disagree with the government. And how has that gone if you disagree?
:53:51. > :53:53.Not you necessarily but one of the most notable things that came
:53:54. > :53:57.through the backbench debate was calling for a referendum on the
:53:58. > :54:03.UK's membership of the EU, which was not what the Prime Minister wanted.
:54:04. > :54:09.That is and is sample of how MPs got what they wanted to talk about. --
:54:10. > :54:13.and example. I was one of the MPs talking about reform of the House of
:54:14. > :54:16.Lords. If you want to get on the front bench quickly, it is not the
:54:17. > :54:21.wisest option. But think that if do it reasoned -- correctly and in a
:54:22. > :54:24.recent way, I would like to think that this government is very much
:54:25. > :54:30.like that, that people respect differing points of view. As John
:54:31. > :54:34.Bercow help that? Is he not put Parliament at the forefront,
:54:35. > :54:38.challenging the executive? -- has John Bercow helped that.
:54:39. > :54:42.Conservatives are not keen on him, it is that because he challenges the
:54:43. > :54:46.government? It is difficult to comment, not having been an MP under
:54:47. > :54:52.another speaker. I think there is a freshness, and often familiarity
:54:53. > :54:56.breeds contempt. We can get into our politicians' lives much more than
:54:57. > :55:00.ever before. That demands a freshness from the establishment
:55:01. > :55:07.itself to keep connected with the public. I think John Bercow has been
:55:08. > :55:12.an excellent speaker. He has done a great deal to raise the standing of
:55:13. > :55:16.Parliament from a pretty low base. But under Labour, MPs did not feel
:55:17. > :55:24.that they have the room to manoeuvre. I do not know if it is a
:55:25. > :55:29.question of Labour or Conservative. That that time, there was such
:55:30. > :55:33.control. Labour had enormous majorities. There were large
:55:34. > :55:40.uprisings, though. But nothing like as rebellious as the MPs under the
:55:41. > :55:48.coalition. Coalition changes the mathematics. The thing that has
:55:49. > :55:51.changed, because MPs have allowances and do a lot of things they could
:55:52. > :55:57.not previously do, they do not even get postage in the 1950s, or
:55:58. > :56:02.telephone calls outside of London. A lot of them, because of this,
:56:03. > :56:08.instead of holding the executive to account in Parliament, have spent a
:56:09. > :56:10.lot of time in acting as fairy godmother to their constituents in
:56:11. > :56:18.the hope that they will be re-elected next time. And I think
:56:19. > :56:21.that is going too far. I disagree with that. There is a false
:56:22. > :56:25.dichotomy between constituency work and what you do on a national stage.
:56:26. > :56:28.In Parliament, you are in a bottle and the only source of information
:56:29. > :56:34.is the House of Commons library. The constituents are a reality library.
:56:35. > :56:36.It is will you go to talk to people who are not politicians or
:56:37. > :56:41.journalist or researchers. I'd get the best input from my
:56:42. > :56:46.constituency. In places like pubs, where it is always a chore(!), It is
:56:47. > :56:50.very viable. -- valuable. There's just time before we go to find out
:56:51. > :56:53.the answer to our quiz. The question was, what is the Conservative MP
:56:54. > :56:57.Alec Shelbrooke threatening to wear in Parliament, is it a cowboy hat, a
:56:58. > :57:00.onesie, a gorilla costume or a clown costume?
:57:01. > :57:08.Alec Shelbrooke threatening to wear in Parliament, is it a Well. I've
:57:09. > :57:13.not been told the answer, but my feeling is that this is an example
:57:14. > :57:20.of the extremes a backbencher has to go to to get noticed. It is a
:57:21. > :57:29.onesie, is it? You might have been able to spy Alec Shelbrooke. How do
:57:30. > :57:35.you feel? I feel very comfortable. The House of Commons dress code says
:57:36. > :57:42.that MPs clothes should show respect for the House. You are not going to
:57:43. > :57:47.wear it in the chamber? No. I am in try to raise money for Martin's
:57:48. > :57:49.house children's Hospice. It is a campaign in my constituency for
:57:50. > :57:58.terminally ill children. If people want to donate, go to just giving
:57:59. > :58:02..com, and we're hoping to raise ?5,000. If we do, I will vote in
:58:03. > :58:10.this attire. I'd macro have you asked the Speaker. I do not need to
:58:11. > :58:16.ask the speaker because I am not going into the chamber. What you
:58:17. > :58:22.think of the outfit? It is very charming. But I wonder if everyone
:58:23. > :58:27.started doing this, I figured that -- I think that the figure of 46% of
:58:28. > :58:31.MPs doing a good job would decline somewhat. Even though it is in a
:58:32. > :58:35.good cause. I do not think it would be much fun to follow me afterwards.
:58:36. > :58:40.Before Christmas, the Shadow Chancellor rushed over from his
:58:41. > :58:44.grotto vote whilst dressed as Father Christmas. It is not without
:58:45. > :58:52.precedent. Do you want others to follow in your wake? Let's raise the
:58:53. > :58:58.money for the children's Hospice. Thank you to our guests. Will be
:58:59. > :59:00.back tomorrow at 11:30am. Goodbye. -- we will be back.