:00:37. > :00:41.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron says
:00:42. > :00:44.he'll tear up red tape - including almost 100 building regulations - as
:00:45. > :00:51.the Government promises thousands of new affordable homes. Will it help
:00:52. > :00:54.get Britain building? A major incident alert has been
:00:55. > :00:58.issued in Somerset as large parts of the county remain under water. Local
:00:59. > :01:04.people are furious - is the Environment Agency doing enough?
:01:05. > :01:09.Feminism, the pill and... Pan's People. What did sexual revolution
:01:10. > :01:13.or the 60s and 70s really do for women?
:01:14. > :01:16.And after that promise to restore the 50p tax rate, will Ed Balls
:01:17. > :01:30.still get the balls for being pro-business?
:01:31. > :01:34.Balls. -- I have two go with Ed Balls. Because he is not a
:01:35. > :01:38.psychobabble. -- psychopath.
:01:39. > :01:45.Very subtle. All that in the next hour. And with us for the first half
:01:46. > :01:47.of the programme today is Joan Bakewell, former television
:01:48. > :01:52.presenter, now a Labour Peer. Welcome to the programme. Let's
:01:53. > :01:55.start with Syria, because there's increasing pressure on the British
:01:56. > :01:57.government to take refugees from the war-torn country. The conflict has
:01:58. > :02:03.claimed more than 100,000 lives, with more than nine million people
:02:04. > :02:07.displaced. Britain is already the second biggest aid donor, but Labour
:02:08. > :02:11.has called for the door to be opened to refugees. Foreign Secretary
:02:12. > :02:18.William Hague was asked yesterday what the Prime Minister's plans
:02:19. > :02:22.entailed. He did open the door. The Home
:02:23. > :02:26.Secretary is working on that and we'll have more to say on that in
:02:27. > :02:32.the coming days. There is a case for particularly helping people who are
:02:33. > :02:39.particularly vulnerable. Is that code for Christians? That is what
:02:40. > :02:43.the Home Secretary is working on. How we can help people who may need
:02:44. > :02:47.to get away from the region altogether, who are particularly
:02:48. > :02:52.vulnerable to violence. This is being worked on. The Prime Minister
:02:53. > :02:57.and Home Secretary will discuss it further.
:02:58. > :03:04.Joan Bakewell, should Britain be taking Syrian refugees? Yes, I think
:03:05. > :03:10.the phrase open door puts terror into people. Also, there is
:03:11. > :03:15.confusion about the idea of immigrants and asylum seekers. But
:03:16. > :03:19.people in desperate need really need to come for a period while the
:03:20. > :03:25.situation recovers, then they can return home. I do think there is a
:03:26. > :03:30.case. On humanitarian grounds. The British people are very sympathetic
:03:31. > :03:34.to suffering when they see it. They have a capacity to be very generous
:03:35. > :03:40.as individuals. I go back to the time of evacuation when people took
:03:41. > :03:43.children into their homes. There is a case for bringing people,
:03:44. > :03:55.particularly women, because rape is a weapon of war. Who would you have
:03:56. > :04:00.come over here from Syria? The homeless, the people in hospitals,
:04:01. > :04:04.the people in need of medical help. I think children. The consequences
:04:05. > :04:11.for children is going to be damaging for the future of the country. I
:04:12. > :04:16.would start there. How many? I would not like to put a number on it. I
:04:17. > :04:23.think numbers have to be carefully tabulated. The open door phrase is
:04:24. > :04:30.inappropriate. A few hundred does not sound like too many? It was
:04:31. > :04:33.worth saying that it was Nigel Farage you started this idea. He
:04:34. > :04:45.said we should take in asylum seekers. Let's start with 500, go up
:04:46. > :04:50.to a thousand and see what can be accommodated. What about religious
:04:51. > :04:55.groups? Nigel Farage indicated that perhaps we should look at Christians
:04:56. > :05:00.firstly? I do not like people being identified politically by their
:05:01. > :05:04.religious identity. That is really dangerous. But people in need will
:05:05. > :05:08.be of all religions. I think religious identification would be
:05:09. > :05:16.tricky. I would not demarcated thataway.
:05:17. > :05:20.-- I would not demarcate it that way. Now, despite better news on the
:05:21. > :05:23.economy, there are fears it's driving a big and possibly
:05:24. > :05:26.unsustainable rise in house prices, partly because of a shortage of new
:05:27. > :05:29.housing, especially in the South East. Today the Government is
:05:30. > :05:33.announcing plans for more affordable homes. Last year their own figures
:05:34. > :05:36.showed a 26% drop in the number of affordable homes built in England in
:05:37. > :05:39.2012 to 2013 compared to the year before. There's also pressure from
:05:40. > :05:44.Labour, with Ed Miliband promising to build 200,000 new homes a year by
:05:45. > :05:50.2020. So a new programme is being launched to build 165,000 affordable
:05:51. > :05:53.homes over three years. The scheme is being funded jointly by the
:05:54. > :06:00.Government and private investment, and will cost ?23 billion in total.
:06:01. > :06:03.In a speech this morning, David Cameron has announced a blitz on red
:06:04. > :06:07.tape by cutting more than 100 housing regulations down to ten. He
:06:08. > :06:14.claims this will save developers around ?60 million a year.
:06:15. > :06:17.With us now is the Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins. We're also joined by
:06:18. > :06:25.Brendan Sarsfield, CEO of the housing provider, Family Mosaic.
:06:26. > :06:33.Welcome to both of you. Kris Hopkins, 165,003 years, is that
:06:34. > :06:37.enough? It is what we can afford at this moment. We are halfway through
:06:38. > :06:52.a current programme, and we are quite ambitious about the period
:06:53. > :06:58.2015, to 2018. In December, a survey found that over the last six months
:06:59. > :07:02.demand has grown by 10.2% and supply has declined. It looks like you are
:07:03. > :07:07.going backwards? All I can say is that the present programme, halfway
:07:08. > :07:12.through the delivery of that, and we have delivered more than half. We
:07:13. > :07:17.are very confident we can deliver 170,000. That is why we have gone
:07:18. > :07:21.out there in difficult times and put our money on the table. We have got
:07:22. > :07:27.the support from the private sector. We have had ?23 billion worth of
:07:28. > :07:35.investment. How are you going to get more private investment to finish
:07:36. > :07:40.the job? We are confident that we will receive, by April, the tenders
:07:41. > :07:47.for that process. We are confident the private sector will deliver that
:07:48. > :07:53.contribution. The test is, we have already gone out in even more
:07:54. > :08:00.difficult times and we still managed to deliver that number of houses.
:08:01. > :08:03.What you impressed by that? No it is business as usual. The money
:08:04. > :08:08.announced was money we were expecting. Nearly 24 billion. 4
:08:09. > :08:11.billion of that is coming from the Government and the rest will be
:08:12. > :08:18.raised by housing associations through bonds and borrowing. For
:08:19. > :08:25.example, when Family Mosaic used to build a home, we would get ?1 grant
:08:26. > :08:31.for ?1 of our own money. We are now putting in ?6 or ?7 of our own
:08:32. > :08:34.money. Not a problem. But we are losing ?80,000 per unit for each
:08:35. > :08:41.unit we build. And we have to make that shortfall by building housing
:08:42. > :08:46.and doing other things. Good value for the Government. I do not think
:08:47. > :08:51.that model is sustainable in the long term. The volume we are
:08:52. > :08:56.producing when we are doing that is just keeping a cab on it. Just to
:08:57. > :09:01.give you an example, in the London market, house prices have risen by
:09:02. > :09:04.50,000 in the last year. Can you imagine how many people that has
:09:05. > :09:12.excluded in one year from the housing market? The number of people
:09:13. > :09:15.who cannot access Private rented or owner occupation is growing
:09:16. > :09:22.enormously. There is a huge wedge in the middle, never mind the poorest,
:09:23. > :09:27.coming to us for help. That is because they are being priced out of
:09:28. > :09:30.markets? Exactly. The big danger is we think they are going to leave
:09:31. > :09:36.London but they were not because this is where the jobs are. They are
:09:37. > :09:42.over occupying. They are sharing homes. They are living in sheds.
:09:43. > :09:47.There are big challenges. We need to do more to provide homes in London
:09:48. > :09:51.and the south-east. If Brendan is saying that all you're doing is just
:09:52. > :09:54.about keeping a cab on it, you are not doing anything in the long term
:09:55. > :10:00.to answer the huge demand for housing? Brendan is right in the
:10:01. > :10:08.fact there is a particular issue in London, and that is why we have
:10:09. > :10:15.given ?1.1 billion to the London may. -- mayor. This is not just
:10:16. > :10:19.about London. This is about making sure we meet the market across the
:10:20. > :10:23.country. There are different housing market in different parts of the
:10:24. > :10:32.country with different demands. What about Ed Miliband's promise to build
:10:33. > :10:36.200,000 new homes a year by 2020? Typical of labour to just come up
:10:37. > :10:44.with a figure. During the boom years, they reached 176,000 units.
:10:45. > :10:48.The idea that they are now actually... One of the issues we
:10:49. > :10:51.have got is the capacity to build those houses. A quarter of a million
:10:52. > :10:55.jobs were lost in the construction industry during the recession.
:10:56. > :10:58.Thousands of businesses were lost. The ability to make bricks and
:10:59. > :11:07.materials to build houses, that was lost. It was about addressing this
:11:08. > :11:13.capacity issue. Even in the boom times, Labour did not build enough?
:11:14. > :11:23.They did not build enough. The demands are vast. Labour is at least
:11:24. > :11:27.trying to man up to the huge need. 25% of young people are living with
:11:28. > :11:32.their parents. People cannot afford to get on the housing ladder. There
:11:33. > :11:37.is a property boom in London. There was no attempt to control the rented
:11:38. > :11:47.sector. People cannot afford the new build. The new bills are going to
:11:48. > :11:52.people who are buying to rent. With all respect, 13 years in power, and
:11:53. > :12:00.even at the boom period there were still 25,000 short. -- they were.
:12:01. > :12:06.They have admitted that. But we are where we are. And Brendan has said
:12:07. > :12:09.it is not enough. Labour is also suggesting boosting the power of
:12:10. > :12:15.councils to purchase land from developers, telling them to use it
:12:16. > :12:22.or lose it. That is a fairly tough policy which could unleash some
:12:23. > :12:29.land? The Labour government set out to build ten eco-towns. Lots of them
:12:30. > :12:34.will tell you top down what you as a local authority will do. Not one was
:12:35. > :12:37.built. We want to go to communities, get them to design a plan and
:12:38. > :12:44.empower them to actually deliver. That will be more houses than they
:12:45. > :12:49.delivered. What we have seen recently is the growth in developers
:12:50. > :12:54.just banking land and not building on it. Storing or bland. Labour is
:12:55. > :13:05.going to release that land. There is no evidence. Labour has said it is
:13:06. > :13:09.not worth building on that land at the moment. I hear one side saying
:13:10. > :13:14.one thing and another site saying another. We are spinning in
:13:15. > :13:17.circles. This is the craziness. Housing is a long-term problem and
:13:18. > :13:22.it needs long-term planning and solutions. Every time there is a
:13:23. > :13:27.downturn in the market, we lose people from the construction
:13:28. > :13:33.industry. We may very thick-skinned, plumbers and
:13:34. > :13:36.bricklayers, but is -- it is a thin skinned industry. It loses people
:13:37. > :13:41.all the time. Finding the land, getting that place. Getting the
:13:42. > :13:50.building sector -- sector able to deliver. It needs people on the same
:13:51. > :13:55.side delivering a 25 or 30 year plan, not a one-year initiative. Are
:13:56. > :14:02.developers sitting on land? I think that maybe one or two are sitting on
:14:03. > :14:06.rural land. Most developers I know cannot afford to sit on land. They
:14:07. > :14:10.bought it at the high end of the market and had to turn it quite
:14:11. > :14:17.quickly. And they are waiting for the price to rise. No, I don't think
:14:18. > :14:22.they can. If you pay a lot of money for land, the interest is running
:14:23. > :14:29.from day one. All of us, as soon as we buy land I want to go on site as
:14:30. > :14:32.soon as I can. One of the initiatives that Labour want to
:14:33. > :14:36.introduce is building on small brown field sites within cities because
:14:37. > :14:42.developers find that difficult. They want a large site on which to build
:14:43. > :14:46.many items. But the development of small brown field sites would open
:14:47. > :14:52.up inner cities much more and renew those cities rather than building on
:14:53. > :15:07.-- out in the country. We needed all! -- we need it all! The bash --
:15:08. > :15:12.the ambition of the local Labour council is to go on to the
:15:13. > :15:17.Greenfield. I wanted to be up to the local council but I think they
:15:18. > :15:27.should make sure we protect green fields. We do need to utilise brand
:15:28. > :15:33.sites. What about private landlords and rent? If you get rid of the
:15:34. > :15:41.legislation, the standard will increase. First of all this
:15:42. > :15:44.government is paying ?20 million a year in housing benefit to landlords
:15:45. > :15:50.and we are investing in this programme less than 4 billion over
:15:51. > :15:54.three years. You can see how we are driving housing and paying for
:15:55. > :15:58.housing through a revenue stream and not a capital stream. That is like
:15:59. > :16:04.us funding housing through a payday loans Company. It is a very
:16:05. > :16:09.expensive way to deliver housing. What we have got to do is address
:16:10. > :16:14.the housing benefit bill and reduce it by delivering more homes to those
:16:15. > :16:20.in need who are otherwise in the most very expensive homes. Severe
:16:21. > :16:24.flooding is still affecting many people in Somerset after a major
:16:25. > :16:29.incident alert was announced last week due to the sheer volume of
:16:30. > :16:33.water in the area. Today the Environment Agency is facing a
:16:34. > :16:39.furious backlash as people were warned more bad weather could be
:16:40. > :16:44.underway. Yesterday farmers held a demonstration against the agency
:16:45. > :16:47.accusing it of failing to dredge local rivers. The Environment
:16:48. > :16:53.Secretary Owen Paterson has been touring the area and had this to say
:16:54. > :16:58.this morning. I have come down here in person and I had a good meeting
:16:59. > :17:02.last night with representatives of local farmers and experts who
:17:03. > :17:07.understand how water systems work and we have had a good meeting this
:17:08. > :17:12.morning with the two local MPs working on a plan which I hope will
:17:13. > :17:17.sort this problem over the next 20 years. That plan is far too late,
:17:18. > :17:22.that plan should have been put into effect years ago. I inherited
:17:23. > :17:29.guidelines which are not appropriate to this part of England. We can
:17:30. > :17:32.speak to the local MP, conservative Ian Liddell-Grainger. What is your
:17:33. > :17:40.reaction to what Owen Paterson had to say? I am encouraged. This is
:17:41. > :17:47.what we wanted to hear. He has given us six weeks to come up with a local
:17:48. > :17:51.plan. He understand this is an artificial waterway created by man
:17:52. > :17:55.and we need to dredge the rivers and give the power back to local
:17:56. > :18:02.communities to continue doing what they have been doing since Roman
:18:03. > :18:09.times. Your constituents said that Owen Paterson would not talk to
:18:10. > :18:12.them. I am not sure that is the case. We have had representatives
:18:13. > :18:20.with the councils, district and county, so I am not sure that is the
:18:21. > :18:25.case at all. We have been given that challenge and we have taken it up as
:18:26. > :18:31.the local community to do something about this. Tell us what is going on
:18:32. > :18:38.behind you. At the moment we have got palms as you can see to my right
:18:39. > :18:44.and left. They are pumping something like 1 million gallons a day to
:18:45. > :18:49.alleviate the flooding behind the cameras. That is just holding the
:18:50. > :18:55.water is steady. If we have more rain, we will have much more
:18:56. > :19:01.flooding. This river which is tidal is 40% below capacity as we speak.
:19:02. > :19:05.If we got the mart and the rubbish out of here, what you are seeing to
:19:06. > :19:11.my left would not be needed. We have always had flooding here, but it has
:19:12. > :19:18.never been as bad as this. We seem to have left you and lost the
:19:19. > :19:21.picture, but we can still hear you. The Environment Agency said the rain
:19:22. > :19:27.would have overwhelmed the river system even if it had stretched the
:19:28. > :19:33.waterways. What do you say to that? Yes, it would have done, but we are
:19:34. > :19:39.now having rain that starts to flood our area earlier and earlier. Back
:19:40. > :19:43.in the time when it was run by the local community it would flood for a
:19:44. > :19:48.couple of weeks, but this is months upon months upon months. We have
:19:49. > :19:55.lost the capacity. Ever since Baroness Young said she would like
:19:56. > :20:02.to blow up the pub houses, we have never had anything like this. We
:20:03. > :20:07.have to get on with it. Has the Environment Agency being too slow to
:20:08. > :20:12.react? A lot of people were saying we should have got the palms in a
:20:13. > :20:16.week before they did. But until the water goes into those levels, you
:20:17. > :20:22.cannot actually pump. Do you let them wait and do nothing or do you
:20:23. > :20:28.wait until it starts flooding? It is a difficult decision and there are
:20:29. > :20:33.times when I have even cursed myself for not being quicker. This time
:20:34. > :20:39.they were about right. How worried are your constituents because of the
:20:40. > :20:44.forecast of more rain? We are extremely worried. It cannot be any
:20:45. > :20:49.better than it is. We know there is going to be no water and more rain
:20:50. > :20:54.and more flooding. A lot of people are wondering whether they should
:20:55. > :20:59.evacuate all await. We do not know, we are in the lap of the Lord and
:21:00. > :21:04.the Environment Agency. We are going to make a difference, but it will
:21:05. > :21:10.not be overnight, partly because the machines are too heavy to get onto
:21:11. > :21:13.the field anyway. One of the reasons that has been put forward is there
:21:14. > :21:21.have been cuts to the Environment Agency. Do you think they could have
:21:22. > :21:26.done more? They are all concerned with dredging and draining water
:21:27. > :21:30.that is running off. But what seems to be avoided is the strategy of
:21:31. > :21:37.allowing water to soak into the land. We have suburbs in which
:21:38. > :21:42.everybody's front garden has been cemented over to accommodate cars.
:21:43. > :21:48.There is less and less of the water soaking in where it could. A lot of
:21:49. > :21:53.the forests have been cut down. It used to be a forested country and we
:21:54. > :21:58.are not any more, so more water is running off than the environment
:21:59. > :22:02.requires. In areas like Somerset they are talking about a boat being
:22:03. > :22:08.more important than having a car. People are being cut off from coming
:22:09. > :22:14.in and out of the area. There has to be a solution. It might start
:22:15. > :22:18.further up from where the water is coming. Where is the water coming
:22:19. > :22:28.from? In Roman times it was a problem. No Environment Agency then.
:22:29. > :22:33.But where is the water coming from and why is it not being absorbed
:22:34. > :22:38.more where it originates. That is a different way of looking at this
:22:39. > :22:44.problem because it will occur. Yes, it will. We are generally thought to
:22:45. > :22:49.live in a postfeminist age where the great battles for equality for by
:22:50. > :22:55.people like Dame Joan Bakewell have been largely won. But the Everyday
:22:56. > :23:00.Sexism Project has logged 50,000 instances of discrimination in the
:23:01. > :23:05.last 18 months, with 10,000 of those in the workplace. Though in the
:23:06. > :23:09.allegations of unwanted sexual advances made by Lord Rennard and
:23:10. > :23:15.the MP Mike Hancock, and you could just question about how effective
:23:16. > :23:20.the feminist movement really was. The year is 2012, England,
:23:21. > :23:25.traditionally a land of he rose and great statesman is in the grip of a
:23:26. > :23:35.new regime. The country is being run by women. The two Ronnies'
:23:36. > :23:40.considered response to feminism. The 60s and 70s are often seen as the
:23:41. > :23:44.golden age of feminism were people like Jermaine Greer and Joan
:23:45. > :23:48.Bakewell began to change the world for women. But after recent events
:23:49. > :23:52.you could be forgiven for wondering whether things are actually that
:23:53. > :23:59.different, did the women's movement really move anything? You could not
:24:00. > :24:04.get a mortgage. There were two building societies who said you had
:24:05. > :24:09.to be over 40, which I was not, and you had to be a respectable teacher
:24:10. > :24:16.or a doctor and I was neither. So it was a necessary movement. But the
:24:17. > :24:21.gains made then they have become a double edged sword now. There is
:24:22. > :24:26.this perception that such legislative equality has been won,
:24:27. > :24:30.and there is a sense there are no problems and if women try to talk
:24:31. > :24:36.about these problems and if they speak out about sexual harassment
:24:37. > :24:39.there is a case of, calm down, dear. Could that have its roots in the
:24:40. > :24:46.sexual liberation of women in the 60s and 70s. Men's attitudes have
:24:47. > :24:51.never really involved in any way. The coming of the pill meant they
:24:52. > :24:58.did not have to take any responsibility and that was
:24:59. > :25:02.wonderful, sweet shop time. I think actually it was quite a lot of
:25:03. > :25:08.sexual exploitation of women because there was not the threat of having a
:25:09. > :25:13.baby. Which is why feminist today think those in power now need to
:25:14. > :25:18.step up. Right now the spotlight is on this issue and they have an
:25:19. > :25:23.important decision to make about the message they send to other men and
:25:24. > :25:25.women working in those workplaces and two young women thinking about
:25:26. > :25:32.their career prospects, about whether this will be taken
:25:33. > :25:36.seriously. Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips and accordingly they
:25:37. > :25:42.possess intelligence. But how much have the women gone before helped
:25:43. > :25:48.their cause? Feminist movement tended to say women were victims,
:25:49. > :25:52.but also saying all women are powerful, but they do not exert
:25:53. > :25:58.their power and so it is their fault. It is a contradictory
:25:59. > :26:01.message. If it is contradictory for women, it is certainly contradictory
:26:02. > :26:07.for men who are not very subtle creatures. But despite the efforts
:26:08. > :26:14.of the giants of feminism then, some now feel that the two Ronnies did
:26:15. > :26:20.not have to worry their pretty little heads. And joining us now is
:26:21. > :26:24.Anne Atkins. First of all, let's go back to feminism and the sexual
:26:25. > :26:33.revolution, did it improve the lot for women? In 1963 somebody wrote
:26:34. > :26:41.that sexual liberation would always be to women's disadvantage. Women
:26:42. > :26:46.are at a double disadvantage, they play for higher stakes and they are
:26:47. > :26:51.more likely to lose. His point was basically we are not the same, that
:26:52. > :26:59.women are biologically inclined to invest more in monogamy and also our
:27:00. > :27:04.assets diminish in a way that men's assets do not diminish. Whether you
:27:05. > :27:09.agree or not, it is an interesting point. Sexual liberation is not
:27:10. > :27:13.necessarily equally liberating to both sets. I think back to the
:27:14. > :27:19.feminists of the 19th century who were fighting for education, against
:27:20. > :27:24.poverty and child prostitution. Compare it 100 years later or even
:27:25. > :27:28.more now, are we fighting for the right for teenage girls to be sick
:27:29. > :27:36.in a gutter on Friday night because the boys have been? It is a long
:27:37. > :27:40.revolution and we are only partly there, probably a third of the way
:27:41. > :27:49.there. If it gives women the right to be drunk in the gutter, that is
:27:50. > :27:54.one offshoot. In the last week or so I have suddenly become aware there
:27:55. > :28:00.is a groundswell, certainly among women themselves, of what might well
:28:01. > :28:04.turn out to be the third or fourth wave of feminism. Suddenly women are
:28:05. > :28:14.empowered. The Lord Rennard business has... Do you think it is new? It is
:28:15. > :28:19.ongoing and the biggest social change of the last century and it is
:28:20. > :28:25.the slow situation where women have equality with equal pay, and
:28:26. > :28:30.childcare is an enormous problem. We have got a generation of men who are
:28:31. > :28:37.more tender and able to cook and change nappies and things. My father
:28:38. > :28:41.was capable of all of those things. You were fortunate, but the change
:28:42. > :28:47.now is on a bigger scale and there are more people who are able to
:28:48. > :28:51.seize these opportunities. The more they seek the disadvantage is that
:28:52. > :28:57.remain, and they are resolute in their way to go forward, and we will
:28:58. > :29:03.see that happening more and more. Do you think some of these advances
:29:04. > :29:09.have been regression? The NSPCC did some research in the last few years
:29:10. > :29:13.on sex dealing in effect. Over and over again young teenage girls say
:29:14. > :29:19.they feel pressure from their boyfriends to do things they do not
:29:20. > :29:24.want to do. That may be a pressure that 50 years ago that was not a
:29:25. > :29:28.pressure that young girls felt. We have seen a tsunami of high-powered
:29:29. > :29:35.advertising, celebrity culture, cheap fashion, the rise of
:29:36. > :29:40.pornography. The objectification of women. How do we get the benefits
:29:41. > :29:47.and advances we all believe in without the disadvantages? In a way
:29:48. > :29:51.if you look at the allegations that have been made most recently against
:29:52. > :29:57.Lord Rennard, for example, those women have come forward. Do you see
:29:58. > :30:05.that as bravery? It is absolutely essential. One thing I would love to
:30:06. > :30:10.see embraced more is equality does not mean the same. You do not get
:30:11. > :30:16.equality for women by making us more like men. I would love to see a bit
:30:17. > :30:23.more of the visionary side. Men have brought us this, ambition and
:30:24. > :30:30.whatever, women bring a more cooperative side, but why can't we
:30:31. > :30:34.take the best. You can celebrate the difference, but it has not brought
:30:35. > :30:43.equality in the workplace in terms of opportunities once you have had
:30:44. > :30:48.children, for example. You are in danger of suggesting that women
:30:49. > :30:53.should submit to men's criteria. I am saying the opposite. Women bring
:30:54. > :30:59.things to the workplace and men bring things to the homily at the
:31:00. > :31:06.other sex does not. -- to the home that the other sex does not. Lets
:31:07. > :31:14.have equal pay. Let's resolve that one. That is an absolute base. It
:31:15. > :31:19.doesn't exist. But it is something we can all agree on. Do you think
:31:20. > :31:26.that women themselves should stand up for themselves a bit more? Is
:31:27. > :31:32.that a problem? To yes, and I think it is a problem that we must teach
:31:33. > :31:46.our children. Basic assertiveness. This is not rocket science. Why
:31:47. > :31:52.should the onus be on the women? Of course. This recent row has shown
:31:53. > :32:00.that women are thrown on the defensive. It is a whole society
:32:01. > :32:07.revolution. It affects everybody. It affects every home. It affects every
:32:08. > :32:16.family. Everybody can contribute. That is the reward of it. To
:32:17. > :32:19.embark... There has been a lot of discussion everywhere about whether
:32:20. > :32:22.you can really put in the same box allegations of serious sexual
:32:23. > :32:30.assault and rape with allegations of improper touching. Do you agree?
:32:31. > :32:34.What we do have to keep saying, and maybe bases of two women, we have to
:32:35. > :32:40.keep saying that even the sort of thing that we should laugh off is
:32:41. > :32:46.not necessarily acceptable. My first job in the 1980s, at Saint Georges
:32:47. > :32:51.Theatre in Tufnell Park, the director would think nothing of
:32:52. > :32:54.pinching women's bottoms. One actress slapped him in the face and
:32:55. > :33:03.we all thought, I wish we had done that. That was the world in which I
:33:04. > :33:08.grew up and which -- in which it was an accepted mode of male behaviour.
:33:09. > :33:14.But it is not any more. That is an absolute sea change. The high
:33:15. > :33:17.profile of this political row will affect every shop girl, every
:33:18. > :33:25.schoolgirl. It will affect the whole generation of young women who will
:33:26. > :33:28.not put up with it. And they will not. In small ways the change will
:33:29. > :33:32.spread. Thank you for joining us.
:33:33. > :33:36.In a moment we'll be joined by a panel of MPs to discuss the big
:33:37. > :33:39.political stories, but first let's take a look at what's happening in
:33:40. > :33:42.the week ahead. Tomorrow the Office for National Statistics will publish
:33:43. > :33:46.its latest estimates for growth in the final quarter of 2013 - after
:33:47. > :33:51.last week's positive economic news, will the momentum be maintained?
:33:52. > :33:55.Also tomorrow, the ballot to decide the new Deputy Leader of the Lib
:33:56. > :34:00.Dems will be carried out - it's a position elected only by Lib Dem
:34:01. > :34:03.MPs, not party members. On Wednesday, Bank of England Governor
:34:04. > :34:06.Mark Carney will be making a speech in Edinburgh, where's he expected to
:34:07. > :34:11.make his first comments on issues around the referendum on Scottish
:34:12. > :34:15.independence. And on Thursday, the Immigration Bill will be back in the
:34:16. > :34:17.Commons, with Conservative MP Nigel Mills promising to table his
:34:18. > :34:27.amendment to bring back restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians.
:34:28. > :34:29.Joining me now are Mehdi Hasan, political editor of the New
:34:30. > :34:32.Statesman, and the political commentator Iain Martin, who writes
:34:33. > :34:48.for the Sunday Telegraph among others. Ian, GDC -- GDP figures are
:34:49. > :34:51.out tomorrow. The prediction is far better than the flat lining that had
:34:52. > :34:57.been predicted. Quite if the Government not feeling it in the
:34:58. > :35:02.opinion polls? That is a very good question. If this was a normal
:35:03. > :35:06.political situation, to party politics, you would expect by now
:35:07. > :35:11.the Tories to have got out of the low 30s and to be seriously
:35:12. > :35:14.challenging Labour. But because Cameron has Nigel Farage on his
:35:15. > :35:19.tail, and because a lot of the Lib Dem voters went back to Labour after
:35:20. > :35:23.the coalition was formed in 2010, the Tories are really starting to
:35:24. > :35:28.get nervous. Although the economy seems to be recovering really
:35:29. > :35:35.strongly, the figures tomorrow will show that that is intensifying. Even
:35:36. > :35:40.though the Tories are not getting the kick in the polls they had
:35:41. > :35:44.anticipated. How does Labour counter the continual flow of broadly better
:35:45. > :35:50.economic news for the Government? They would always be an issue that
:35:51. > :35:55.when growth returned, what would be Labour strategy be? What would they
:35:56. > :36:00.switch to? They have done not a bad job in pushing the cost of living
:36:01. > :36:04.crisis to the top of the political agenda. You had David Cameron on the
:36:05. > :36:07.today programme this morning pressed on the subject as to whether
:36:08. > :36:12.households would be better off worse off. He tried to swatted away. He
:36:13. > :36:15.would not get involved in statistical arguments. There are no
:36:16. > :36:21.statistical arguments. They will be worse off by 2015. As to why the
:36:22. > :36:25.Tories are not feeling the game in the polls, the return to growth has
:36:26. > :36:29.not been matched by a return to living standards. And Labour, since
:36:30. > :36:38.conference season, have switched the debate onto that terrain. Is the 50p
:36:39. > :36:48.tax announcement by Labour, if they return to power, is that a problem
:36:49. > :36:53.or are they cheering in Tory ranks? Personally I think it is not very
:36:54. > :36:57.sensible economically. It is actually a electorally extremely
:36:58. > :37:01.smart politics. If you look at that coalition that Labour needs to
:37:02. > :37:07.assemble to win the next election, or to become the largest party, it
:37:08. > :37:12.needs the voters it got in 2010. It needs about 4% or 5% of the national
:37:13. > :37:17.vote. The lefties will love this policy. There is a small group of
:37:18. > :37:24.floating voters who may be slightly spooked. Hence Labour trying to
:37:25. > :37:31.emphasise deficit reduction. If that works and the Labour calculation is
:37:32. > :37:34.right, Labour gets due 37% of the vote and wins the next election. It
:37:35. > :37:42.may be very cynical but it is not stupid. Whether it is terrible
:37:43. > :37:47.economics, we don't know. It certainly will bring in some extra
:37:48. > :37:51.revenue. To respond to the point about it being a clever move, it is
:37:52. > :37:59.a clever move politically. It is not crazed class politics. Cameron,
:38:00. > :38:03.Osborne and Lynton Crosby had gone off to immigration and benefits.
:38:04. > :38:08.Labour have done a similar thing on the bankers. It is not just lefties
:38:09. > :38:15.who love this. More Tory voters support this than oppose it. If it
:38:16. > :38:18.is such crazed class warfare, you have to remember that for nine of
:38:19. > :38:27.Margaret Thatcher's 11 years in office, the top tax rate was... It
:38:28. > :38:33.will not be the multimillionaires who will pay this. They will find a
:38:34. > :38:36.way of reordering their affairs. The people this will hit are those on
:38:37. > :38:42.the threshold. And those who crucially I aspire to get to the
:38:43. > :38:50.threshold. Not many people get to the threshold of 150,000. It is a
:38:51. > :38:56.small model number. -- a small number. I do not think it is a daft
:38:57. > :39:01.move electorally. Thank you both very much. Who's best
:39:02. > :39:03.for business? That's the battlefield for this week's economic debate.
:39:04. > :39:07.This morning David Cameron threw business the usual red meat - or
:39:08. > :39:11.should I say red tape? - promising to slash or simplify more than 3,000
:39:12. > :39:16.rules. Yesterday, Ed Ball's said Labour would re-introduce the 50p
:39:17. > :39:18.tax-rate. But his claim that he was still pro-business and
:39:19. > :39:21.pro-investment was met with scepticism by a Business Minister in
:39:22. > :39:28.the last Labour government, Lord Digby-Jones.
:39:29. > :39:33.From a business point of view, if we are going to create jobs, generate
:39:34. > :39:40.Parfitt and pay tax, you want a sign up there saying, come here, stay
:39:41. > :39:45.here. Risk your hats. Employ people, generate wealth. To say, I
:39:46. > :39:50.will tax you an extra 5p in the pound on all of that, is not a way
:39:51. > :39:54.to get this country out of the mess. What about the public - what do they
:39:55. > :39:58.think? Well we sent Adam out onto London Bridge to test the mood
:39:59. > :40:03.amongst commuters. It is the middle of rush hour and we
:40:04. > :40:06.are on the middle of London Bridge. Look at these commuters. Surely
:40:07. > :40:17.somebody wants to tell us who is best for business, George Osborne or
:40:18. > :40:26.Ed Balls? What do you think about the 50p tax? That is going to be a
:40:27. > :40:41.bad thing. Will you be affected? No comment! Osborne or Ed Balls? Who is
:40:42. > :40:56.better for business? Who is best for business? It is a hard decision. Who
:40:57. > :41:00.gets your vote? I will have two say Osborne. I am not a massive fan of
:41:01. > :41:04.either but things are generally going OK at the moment. Do you
:41:05. > :41:13.personally feel the economy is getting better? Yes, I think
:41:14. > :41:17.personally I probably don't feel very much of a change. But there
:41:18. > :41:22.seems to be a feeling it is moving in the right direction. Osborne, I
:41:23. > :41:32.will put a ball in for you. You look very busy. Helping the economy grow.
:41:33. > :41:42.I have to go with balls -- Ed Balls. Because he is not a cycle path! --
:41:43. > :41:45.psychopath! Or sociopath. The wealth of the nation is being divided to
:41:46. > :41:53.extremely. At least Labour gives us a fighting chance. Osborne, no
:41:54. > :42:07.question. I work for the Bank of England. Have you got a purple,
:42:08. > :42:18.please? Referred UKIP? Who is George Osborne? The Chancellor of the
:42:19. > :42:23.Exchequer. All, no. -- oh, no. Who is better for business? I would say
:42:24. > :42:29.you. I do not know if I would be a very good Chancellor. It has
:42:30. > :42:33.quietened down. They prefer the man who is in the Chancellor's office
:42:34. > :42:40.right now by quite some margin. I'm quite surprised. The number of
:42:41. > :42:43.people I have had to explain a simple concept of putting a ball in
:42:44. > :42:47.a box... Joining me now for the rest of the
:42:48. > :42:49.programme are the Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie, Labour's Stella
:42:50. > :42:57.Creasy and the Lib Dem Martin Horwood.
:42:58. > :43:02.You will be surprised to know we're going to start with you, Stella,
:43:03. > :43:07.dreadful response in the papers to Ed Balls's announcement. Bad
:43:08. > :43:12.economics, disincentive etc. The list is endless. Labour is turning
:43:13. > :43:18.its back basically on high earners and big business in the city? I was
:43:19. > :43:23.a little bit surprised by that letter. A number of the people who
:43:24. > :43:25.have signed it represent key businesses in our community. I would
:43:26. > :43:31.have thought they would be very concerned about the statistics
:43:32. > :43:35.today. This announcement is part of a broader package about how we get
:43:36. > :43:39.the economy back on track, how we make sure growth is sustainable and
:43:40. > :43:42.how we help consumers. I would have thought they would have had a little
:43:43. > :43:45.bit of concern for those people who are struggling. If they do not have
:43:46. > :43:52.?1 in their pocket, they will not be able to spend it. Why would raising
:43:53. > :43:56.the top rate of tax help you? This is about dealing with the deficit
:43:57. > :44:00.and our economy. When we have the deficit we have got, it is right
:44:01. > :44:06.that we ask those with the broadest shoulders to contribute what they
:44:07. > :44:13.can. Bringing in the 50p rate of tax is part of a broader plan. It is
:44:14. > :44:17.about saying we have to have an economy that works for everybody.
:44:18. > :44:22.How much will it bring in? These are the questions the ISS, the
:44:23. > :44:31.Government and HRM sea have been arguing about. -- HMR assay. One of
:44:32. > :44:35.the questions the Government has to answer is that we all talk about how
:44:36. > :44:42.this disincentive advises business. I am mature evidence is there. --
:44:43. > :44:46.dis- incentivise. Getting on top of the deficit and debt on top of the
:44:47. > :44:49.fact we have a nation more in debt personally than ever before, is gone
:44:50. > :44:54.to bake a difference. The problem there is everybody has put forward
:44:55. > :44:58.the counterargument. It does not raise very much money. It will be a
:44:59. > :45:05.disincentive to jobs and investment. You have lost the support of what
:45:06. > :45:08.new Labour used to court? I want to have a discussion with businesses
:45:09. > :45:21.about those consumers. Theirs are the people they need to consider.
:45:22. > :45:27.How much did it bring in last time? It is difficult to get back on track
:45:28. > :45:31.and if you look at the facts, rather than the ideology, people say the
:45:32. > :45:35.parties are the same, but this illustrate the differences between
:45:36. > :45:40.them. You can look at the world as you would like it to be, and
:45:41. > :45:45.clobbering the rich might seem like a good idea, but it does not make
:45:46. > :45:49.intuitively the difference people would like it to make. We have got
:45:50. > :45:53.people pay more tax than they have ever done before and the lowest
:45:54. > :46:00.earners paying less tax. Those are facts. If you want to appeal to an
:46:01. > :46:05.ideology to people you would like to, if you are under breadline, you
:46:06. > :46:12.have to go for something that brings the tax in. The 50p tax does not do
:46:13. > :46:18.that. You think it is not worth it? You have to look at how we are
:46:19. > :46:21.doing, but out there on the planet reality we have got the highest
:46:22. > :46:27.earners paying the most and the lowest the least. If it does not
:46:28. > :46:31.bring in that much money, how is it a disincentive? Everybody on the
:46:32. > :46:37.Tory side said it brought in a negligible amount, so why is it a
:46:38. > :46:41.disincentive to I earners? They would say, I do not want to do that
:46:42. > :46:46.and go somewhere else. Is there evidence they did the last time and
:46:47. > :46:54.left the country? People always leave the country. We would not have
:46:55. > :46:58.had a stage where Labour had brought in 40% tax rates and government have
:46:59. > :47:03.lower tax rates and Labour is in a difficult position and is panicking.
:47:04. > :47:08.It is saying, we are going to balance the books and raise the tax
:47:09. > :47:13.rate, which might only bring in 10 million at most and they are in a
:47:14. > :47:20.sticky position. What should the Lib Dems do? We have debated this at
:47:21. > :47:25.length. We want to send a strong signal that we want to build a
:47:26. > :47:30.fairer society. The 50p rate would be one way of doing that, but in the
:47:31. > :47:36.end we thought it was more important to cut the rate of tax at the lowest
:47:37. > :47:41.end of the spectrum. We have only started to do that. People started
:47:42. > :47:47.paying income tax at 6500 under Labour and that will be 10,000 from
:47:48. > :47:53.April. Where do you stand personally? Do you think the richest
:47:54. > :47:58.1% who are over 150,000 should be the ones to bear the burden? That is
:47:59. > :48:02.not the debate, actually and we think those with the broadest
:48:03. > :48:09.shoulders should bear the burden, but there are other ways of doing it
:48:10. > :48:11.like the mansion tax. We wish we had been able to persuade the
:48:12. > :48:16.Conservatives to do more and upfront. Capital gains tax progress
:48:17. > :48:20.has been made and the top earners are paying more in tax than they
:48:21. > :48:29.have ever done before. What about a coalition with Labour? With the 50p
:48:30. > :48:33.rate of tax be a deal-breaker? No, I do not think it would be, because
:48:34. > :48:39.there is a very close debate within the party and the difference would
:48:40. > :48:42.not be colossal. But if you think it strengthens the economy to
:48:43. > :48:49.incentivise people at the top end, perhaps income tax might not be the
:48:50. > :48:54.right tool to use. It may be crazy economics according to some, but it
:48:55. > :49:01.is pure politics and it might work in a few instances. That is the
:49:02. > :49:06.truth, it is just a political move? We want to talk facts. Two thirds of
:49:07. > :49:10.the growth of the economy has come out of the pockets of consumers
:49:11. > :49:15.because they have spent all their savings and they are getting into
:49:16. > :49:19.debt. Asking how we can rebalance our economy at the very time when
:49:20. > :49:24.you guys decided to give millionaires a tax cut, rather than
:49:25. > :49:30.helping people who are getting into debt. Those are the choices we have
:49:31. > :49:38.to make. You get very emotional rhetoric. It is a fact. Four people
:49:39. > :49:44.it is really tough, the cost of living is really tough, but it is
:49:45. > :49:49.like a sunrise, you see the light first and then the heat. We need to
:49:50. > :49:54.make sure it is on track. Ed Balls thinks the recession is nothing to
:49:55. > :50:02.do with Labour. An alcoholic needs to realise there is a problem before
:50:03. > :50:07.he can change and Labour Dr Fossey the ?1.4 trillion of personal debt
:50:08. > :50:13.people have in this country is going up and you people have done nothing
:50:14. > :50:19.about it. You do not understand the difference it makes to our economy.
:50:20. > :50:25.Moral high horses and sounding very tough does not make a difference to
:50:26. > :50:32.people's income. Let's come back to the economics. When will Ed Balls
:50:33. > :50:41.apologise for overspending? That is an insane question. Why? I heard the
:50:42. > :50:47.interview with Andrew Marr yesterday. He was very clear about
:50:48. > :50:50.the choices ahead of us. I am talking to people who are
:50:51. > :50:54.financially struggling and I worried about the choices they can make this
:50:55. > :50:59.year and next year and they need to see a government that is serious
:51:00. > :51:04.about tackling the deficit, but also a government that is serious about
:51:05. > :51:08.making sure they have money in their pockets. You will do nothing to help
:51:09. > :51:12.those people. The Citizens Advice Bureau says people are struggling
:51:13. > :51:17.today. The Prime Minister does not even know if the cost of living is
:51:18. > :51:22.going to go up and down. We have been cutting the rate of tax at the
:51:23. > :51:27.lower end and the strength in the economy has meant we have kept
:51:28. > :51:32.interest rates low. That is because we have taken tough decisions on a
:51:33. > :51:36.deficit. Every house on a mortgage would have been crippled if interest
:51:37. > :51:41.rates had spiralled out of control. You could have voted against nearly
:51:42. > :51:46.every attempt the coalition has made to balance the books and you cannot
:51:47. > :51:51.come back after years of doing that and say, you have not solved the
:51:52. > :51:56.problem. Labour is going to try and balance the books with tax rises.
:51:57. > :52:05.They are not going to cut spending, that is true? Let's be really clear
:52:06. > :52:09.why every pound spent by the government matters. We have said we
:52:10. > :52:17.were looked at tax rises and public spending. And the mansion tax. That
:52:18. > :52:23.pays to get young people back into work along with the bankers' tax.
:52:24. > :52:31.How many times have Labour 's spent the bankers' bonus tax? People can
:52:32. > :52:35.use sympathy arguments and appealed to things that everyone would like
:52:36. > :52:41.to see, richer people being clobbered, but that is going to ruin
:52:42. > :52:46.the economy. Why do we know that? Because they did it last time. The
:52:47. > :52:53.poorest cannot afford to let that happen. We are going to move on to
:52:54. > :52:57.immigration. David Cameron has said the level of immigration from
:52:58. > :53:04.Romania and back -- Bulgaria has been reasonable. Do you think your
:53:05. > :53:08.party overreacted? One thing about the European Union and immigration
:53:09. > :53:13.benefits is freedom of movement. We have got immigration wrong over the
:53:14. > :53:17.past decade. We want people who are going to come and contribute to the
:53:18. > :53:23.country, but not people who are going to come and take. Opening the
:53:24. > :53:26.borders to countries that have very different minimum wages and
:53:27. > :53:35.conditions has distorted things. You would like to see balances on
:53:36. > :53:41.movement? I would like to see people come here and give skills. What do
:53:42. > :53:46.you expect other people to do in terms of the checks and balances on
:53:47. > :53:51.British people who live abroad? It is a reciprocal arrangement and we
:53:52. > :53:57.benefit from it enormously. We were sensible to not lift restrictions on
:53:58. > :54:01.new entrants to the EU before any other country did, would distorted
:54:02. > :54:05.the whole picture with Polish immigration. But taking sensible
:54:06. > :54:11.steps to make sure the system works properly is fine, but some of the
:54:12. > :54:13.hysteria around Romanians and Bulgarians has bordered on
:54:14. > :54:19.xenophobia and we need to get this to a practical debate and not a
:54:20. > :54:25.hysterical argument. Do you support the rebellion and when it comes on
:54:26. > :54:36.Thursday there will be a rebellion? I want a practical solution that
:54:37. > :54:39.works. What is that? What is being proposed is limiting and putting
:54:40. > :54:45.back the restrictions that were in place preventing Bulgarians and
:54:46. > :54:51.Romanians working here. That is not legally likely to happen. Should the
:54:52. > :54:55.government give more concessions? If it can, I think it will be good but
:54:56. > :55:02.they are legally hamstrung by European legislation. Will the Lib
:55:03. > :55:05.Dems block any attempts to toughen up the immigration bill? There are
:55:06. > :55:12.some things that could be done to make it better and one of those is
:55:13. > :55:18.the length of time people could claim benefits. So you will block
:55:19. > :55:27.any attempt? It is above my pay grade. The comedian Rufus Hound has
:55:28. > :55:31.announced his plans to stand as an MEP at the Euro elections. He
:55:32. > :55:42.announced his candidacy to Jonathan Ross on Saturday night. I am going
:55:43. > :55:49.to run for the NHA. Because the NHS is being privatised... But I am
:55:50. > :55:54.looking around to see who is stepping forward and nobody is. I
:55:55. > :56:00.sat with my wife and my wife went, we should do something. A month
:56:01. > :56:04.later she said, we might be those people sitting around saying why is
:56:05. > :56:11.somebody not doing anything? So I think I am going to end up running
:56:12. > :56:17.as an MEP. What a good man. A popular move.
:56:18. > :56:21.Is this a good combination? Comedians and politics? Some people
:56:22. > :56:25.would say we have already got that combination. It is good people want
:56:26. > :56:31.to take part in politics and that is a much more positive response than
:56:32. > :56:37.the Russell Brand nihilism saying we should not vote and get involved. He
:56:38. > :56:41.is going to be standing for the National health action party which
:56:42. > :56:46.was set up in 2012. Do you think people will be drawn to it because
:56:47. > :56:51.of celebrity endorsements? Anything that shined light on what is going
:56:52. > :56:58.on in the NHS is a good thing. The only thing I would caution is, and I
:56:59. > :57:03.have got a lot of time Rufus, is he is going to do it as a protest. But
:57:04. > :57:08.we need answers as well. We need answers as to how you would make the
:57:09. > :57:13.NHS better as well. Let's look at some of the things that have been
:57:14. > :57:20.raised. Patients say they can rely on information on waiting times for
:57:21. > :57:22.non-emergency operators and data was inconsistent and that makes it
:57:23. > :57:29.harder for people to make decisions if they are not being told the
:57:30. > :57:33.truth. One thing we saw with targets under the last government is that
:57:34. > :57:38.hospitals will change their behaviour to meet the targets. The
:57:39. > :57:43.reality is hospitals will fiddle those measures to make those
:57:44. > :57:47.targets. We have seen it all over the place. Jeremy Hunt has done an
:57:48. > :57:52.important thing in making a much wider measurement like an Ofsted
:57:53. > :58:00.style, and not a single target measure. The target culture has had
:58:01. > :58:03.a detrimental effect. But has the top-down organisation not had a
:58:04. > :58:11.devastating effect in terms of the money in the system and people's
:58:12. > :58:14.perception of the NHS? The so-called privatisation is just using
:58:15. > :58:20.different providers and it is free at the point of use. This started
:58:21. > :58:26.under the last government. But they were introduced badly and it was a
:58:27. > :58:32.disastrous PFI and I can see why some people listen to the words
:58:33. > :58:36.privatisation and thing, it went pretty badly, but there is nothing
:58:37. > :58:40.wrong with using providers if they can do it as well and at the same
:58:41. > :58:47.cost for a less to do the same task free at the point of delivery and
:58:48. > :58:51.based on need. Thank you to all of you. The one o'clock News is
:58:52. > :58:54.starting on BBC One and I will be here at noon tomorrow when I will be
:58:55. > :59:09.joined by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries.
:59:10. > :59:12.Our number-one priority is moving the child or baby.
:59:13. > :59:16.You can't let your emotions interfere with that process.
:59:17. > :59:18.You've got to keep one step ahead of the little ones,
:59:19. > :59:20.because anything can happen at any time.
:59:21. > :59:23.When you've just got one child to look after,