:00:40. > :00:45.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. The floodwaters are
:00:46. > :00:49.rising, thousands of homes are at risk, and the politicians are
:00:50. > :00:52.sniping, mainly at each other and this man, the head of the
:00:53. > :00:56.Environment Agency, Chris Smith. There are calls for him to resign,
:00:57. > :01:00.he says he's staying put. Edwina Currie is on the warpath over food
:01:01. > :01:05.banks, she thinks they should be canned. We will be asking why. Nick
:01:06. > :01:09.Clegg has been to see the floods for himself, but is the coalition in
:01:10. > :01:14.deepwater? More calls from both sides to call it a day. And we will
:01:15. > :01:22.be asking what tickles your fancy at the ballot box, good looks,
:01:23. > :01:26.maturity, or a brilliant manifesto? All that in the next hour, and
:01:27. > :01:33.witness for the first half of the programme is Vidhya Alakeson from
:01:34. > :01:39.the Resolution Foundation. Should you be smoking in a car if any of
:01:40. > :01:42.your passengers is a child? MPs are to vote on the issue this
:01:43. > :01:47.afternoon. Labour MPs are expected to vote for a ban, the Conservatives
:01:48. > :01:52.and the Liberal Democrats will be offered a free vote. Where are you
:01:53. > :01:55.on this? I think it is an unenforceable ban, so whilst I am
:01:56. > :01:59.not really disputing the health evidence that children are subject
:02:00. > :02:03.to passive smoking in the car, it is more intense than in the home, I
:02:04. > :02:07.think it only works to mitigate those impact on children if you can
:02:08. > :02:12.enforce the ban, and I do not think it is enforceable. Is it's pointless
:02:13. > :02:17.to try to pass a law on its? I think laws are not the best way of
:02:18. > :02:20.changing behaviours, and this one, like mobile phones in cars, will be
:02:21. > :02:26.very hard for police to enforce. I do not think it is a good idea. What
:02:27. > :02:28.about how far the state should intervene on how parents should
:02:29. > :02:33.bring up their children? That is effectively what this is. There is a
:02:34. > :02:37.legitimate argument around protecting the vulnerable, harm to
:02:38. > :02:41.children who are unable to make choices themselves. But I think
:02:42. > :02:44.there are other spheres, where, for example, immunisation, there is a
:02:45. > :02:49.benefit to the child, the wider public, but actually we do not
:02:50. > :02:53.ban... We do not find parents who do not immunise their children, we give
:02:54. > :02:56.them a choice, and this is an area where we should be thinking about
:02:57. > :03:01.changing attitudes to smoking, rather than trying to ban them. Sell
:03:02. > :03:04.you a grey with the state dictating in some areas how people should
:03:05. > :03:10.bring up their children, but not in areas where it is unenforceable? --
:03:11. > :03:14.so you agree. What about the ban on mobile phone usage in cars, that is
:03:15. > :03:18.difficult to enforce? I would argue it is not being well enforced,
:03:19. > :03:22.people are texting on their lap, rather than holding their phone. Do
:03:23. > :03:26.you think it has changed habits at all? It has probably changed some
:03:27. > :03:30.behaviour, but if the argument is that most parents do not smoke in
:03:31. > :03:34.the car with their children, we are talking about a minority, and it is
:03:35. > :03:39.often low income kids who, according to the research, are more likely to
:03:40. > :03:43.face this. But if we say it is the minority, the idea that we will
:03:44. > :03:48.catch that minority of parents by having a ban, I think it is
:03:49. > :03:50.unrealistic. All right. It is interesting that ministers are
:03:51. > :03:59.split, even some of the Tories who he would be expecting to be against
:04:00. > :04:05.a ban, they are in favour of this. The Liberals are split, too. Michael
:04:06. > :04:11.Gove is in favour because the health risks are so clear. Norman Lamb and
:04:12. > :04:14.Nick Clegg, that is the way they are dividing, Nick Clegg saying that
:04:15. > :04:17.parents should have the right to bring up children as they choose,
:04:18. > :04:22.Norman Lamb saying the health evidence outweighs that. I can see
:04:23. > :04:26.both sides of the argument, I think the enforcement trumps the fact that
:04:27. > :04:31.the evidence is reasonably strong. It is time now for our daily quiz,
:04:32. > :04:33.and the question for today is, according to researchers, which of
:04:34. > :04:39.the following could make you more likely to get elected, if you are a
:04:40. > :04:45.man, if you belong to an ethnic minority, if you are really good
:04:46. > :04:48.looking, or if you are more mature? You will see more of some of those
:04:49. > :04:53.people later in the programme, and we will give you the correct answer
:04:54. > :04:57.at the end of the show. It appears the flooding crisis is getting
:04:58. > :05:01.worse, with sections of the River Thames reaching their highest levels
:05:02. > :05:06.for more than 20 years. That is damaging peoples homes and
:05:07. > :05:09.threatening thousands more in Berkshire and Surrey. The
:05:10. > :05:12.Environment Agency has issued 14 severe flood warnings, meaning that
:05:13. > :05:17.lives are in danger in many areas close to the river. Two further such
:05:18. > :05:20.warnings are still in force for the Somerset Levels, while lower-level
:05:21. > :05:26.alerts are in place across much of England and Wales. In Westminster,
:05:27. > :05:30.the political row of the crisis also appears to be getting worse. We
:05:31. > :05:35.joined now by political correspondent Chris Mason, the blame
:05:36. > :05:38.game, isn't? Yes, it is well and truly on, plenty of senior
:05:39. > :05:42.politicians dusting around the garage looking for their wellies,
:05:43. > :05:47.Nick Clegg has been on the Somerset Levels this morning, saying now is
:05:48. > :05:51.not the time for apportioning blame. But plenty are clearly not
:05:52. > :05:56.listening. One MP in Somerset has suggested that the Environment
:05:57. > :05:59.Agency is led by a bunch of monkeys, and Eric Pickles, the communities
:06:00. > :06:04.secretary, has found himself responsible for all things
:06:05. > :06:07.government response to the floods, because Owen Paterson, the
:06:08. > :06:11.Environment Secretary, is flat out on his back recovering from an
:06:12. > :06:15.operation on his eye. Eric Pickles was out and about on the telly over
:06:16. > :06:17.the weekend, and there is no way of finishing this, it really was
:06:18. > :06:24.putting the boot into the Environment Agency. There is no
:06:25. > :06:28.doubt about it, we perhaps have relied too much on the Environment
:06:29. > :06:35.Agency's advice. I think we recognise now that we should have
:06:36. > :06:39.dredged, and I think it is important now that we get on with the process
:06:40. > :06:43.of getting those people back into their houses once we are able to
:06:44. > :06:47.really do some serious pumping. At the moment, the level is too high.
:06:48. > :06:52.So you do think the Prime Minister should apologise to farmers who have
:06:53. > :06:56.said, you need to dredge now? Well, I will apologise unreservedly. I am
:06:57. > :07:02.really sorry that we took the price of experts. So that was the take
:07:03. > :07:05.from Eric Pickles, what the people at the sludge management business
:07:06. > :07:12.make of this, they think it is absolute. -- flood. They think Eric
:07:13. > :07:19.Pickles according to one of them, would be best used as a sound bite.
:07:20. > :07:24.What does Lord Smith say about this? He is wrong. Our agency work
:07:25. > :07:27.following government rules, government guidelines. We put money
:07:28. > :07:31.on the table for dredging 12 months ago, but the maximum that we were
:07:32. > :07:38.allowed by government rules to put on the table, the maximum was
:07:39. > :07:43.?400,000. We did so. Others did not come to the table at the time. Lorna
:07:44. > :07:47.Smith making it absolutely clear he is not going to resign, but he is
:07:48. > :07:53.standing down in a couple of months. -- Lord Smith. Yes, you can apply to
:07:54. > :07:59.be the chairman of the Environment Agency, ?60,000 per year, two or
:08:00. > :08:03.three days' work a week, excellent ambassadorial skills, you need to be
:08:04. > :08:07.a team player and build effective, collaborative partnerships. You can
:08:08. > :08:11.judge whether we have seen much of that!
:08:12. > :08:15.You could apply for that, we could all apply on that criteria! Before
:08:16. > :08:18.we let you go, give us a few lines about the latest weather warnings,
:08:19. > :08:23.because it doesn't sound as if the rain is going to stop any time soon.
:08:24. > :08:27.It is pretty grim, what we are hearing from the Met Office, in the
:08:28. > :08:32.last couple of minutes, 16 severe flood warnings in place, including
:08:33. > :08:39.14 now in Berkshire and Surrey. Police are warning that 2500 homes
:08:40. > :08:42.are at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency is warning of
:08:43. > :08:46.rising water in the Somerset Levels, so this will remain a series issue
:08:47. > :08:51.around the country, and politically here at Westminster for some time.
:08:52. > :08:56.-- a serious issue. To discuss all this is Conservative
:08:57. > :09:00.MP John Redwood, who is working constituency has been affected by
:09:01. > :09:05.flooding, and Shadow Environment Secretary Maria Eagle. How bad is it
:09:06. > :09:08.in Wokingham? There is some bad flooding on major roads and in
:09:09. > :09:15.homes, and flooding which mixes farm water with -- foul water with clean.
:09:16. > :09:18.What is so galling is that we have been warning about it for years and
:09:19. > :09:21.trying to get the Environment Agency to clear the river to make more
:09:22. > :09:31.capacity to take the waterway, and they have refused to do so. They
:09:32. > :09:35.spent our money on things other than dredging and maintaining culverts
:09:36. > :09:38.and drains. What was the response from the Environment Agency over the
:09:39. > :09:43.years if you have been warning of this? They kept on blocking any idea
:09:44. > :09:46.that entailed clearing debris from rivers or improving culverts and
:09:47. > :09:51.drains. They did not want to do that. They argue it is too
:09:52. > :09:55.expensive, and they have also been cut themselves. Their budget went up
:09:56. > :10:01.?41 million last year, a massive increase in expenditure. You say
:10:02. > :10:08.their budget has gone up, you are saying it has not. It is down by
:10:09. > :10:15.over 100 million pounds in real terms, and this yet it is ?567
:10:16. > :10:20.million. The current Government cut by 30% in 2010, and since that time
:10:21. > :10:25.it has been going back up a bit, and John is using figures from lasted,
:10:26. > :10:30.not 2010, to suggest that the budget has gone up. -- from last year. It
:10:31. > :10:35.has gone down by ?100 million per year in real terms since 2010. Do
:10:36. > :10:38.you accept the criticism that the agency has not been listening to
:10:39. > :10:42.people on the ground who have been calling for years for rivers in
:10:43. > :10:47.their areas to be dredged? Well, I don't know what has happened, John
:10:48. > :10:51.is the better to talk about his own constituency. A lot of people have
:10:52. > :10:55.said anecdotally, look, we have been warning about the impact if you do
:10:56. > :10:59.not dredge the rivers. Look, dredging is not an answer in all
:11:00. > :11:03.circumstances. It may be that where you are under sea level, a man-made
:11:04. > :11:07.environments like the Somerset Levels, it is a better option. So
:11:08. > :11:12.they should have done dredging, shouldn't they? You are the shadow
:11:13. > :11:17.Environment Secretary. I do not mind if they say they have got a better
:11:18. > :11:22.answer, but they have got no answer. I think proper local consideration
:11:23. > :11:27.is important, I accept that. I cannot say what has happened in
:11:28. > :11:31.John's constituency. But in general, they failed to do what was
:11:32. > :11:35.necessary, whether it was dredging or something else, and as a result
:11:36. > :11:40.that has compounded the problem. I do not think it is as black or white
:11:41. > :11:43.as that. In each circumstance, there are different answers, and I do not
:11:44. > :11:46.think the blame game that the current ministers have descended
:11:47. > :11:52.into helps in the middle of this crisis, when the waters are still
:11:53. > :11:55.rising, when thousands of homes are affected by flooding, that it helps
:11:56. > :11:59.to engage in this kind of blame game that we are seeing. Internal rows,
:12:00. > :12:03.you know, Owen Paterson has written a letter to the Prime Minister from
:12:04. > :12:08.his sick bed to complain about the way in which his colleague, Eric
:12:09. > :12:13.Pickles, is handled what is, after all, his own Government
:12:14. > :12:18.department's responsibilities. It is very unedifying, and for people
:12:19. > :12:21.affected, is it really what they want to see, different ministers,
:12:22. > :12:26.Tory ministers pointing the finger at each other, and everyone pointing
:12:27. > :12:30.the finger at Chris Smith, head of the Environment Agency? I have
:12:31. > :12:35.sympathy with both ministers in this case. Owen Paterson is exactly right
:12:36. > :12:38.that some of the Environment Agency staff are working extremely hard,
:12:39. > :12:42.and I am very grateful to the ones who are trying to deal with the
:12:43. > :12:46.waters in my constituency. But Eric Pickles is right that if you look at
:12:47. > :12:50.the last ten-year round of the agency's behaviour, it has not done
:12:51. > :12:53.nearly enough to sort out the problem is to prevent them
:12:54. > :12:57.happening, and that is making is very cross. Someone has to express
:12:58. > :13:01.that anger and get a change of policy. He has campaigned to the
:13:02. > :13:15.Prime Minister from his sick bed about the behaviour of Eric Pickles
:13:16. > :13:19.in picking on the right? I think he has a duty to stand up for a lot of
:13:20. > :13:22.the staff who are doing a marvellous job in a crisis, but you have to ask
:13:23. > :13:26.why the Environment Agency didn't spend a lot of all that money on
:13:27. > :13:30.things that would have alleviated it instead of finding other ways of
:13:31. > :13:34.spending it. They greatly increased their staff last year, up by 900
:13:35. > :13:43.people, the budget. By 30 million, and a bit of that money would have
:13:44. > :13:47.kept a lot of us try. I think the Environment Agency is doing a good
:13:48. > :13:50.job, he can speak for himself and has done, and to suggest that if
:13:51. > :13:54.there had been more river dredging generally there would have been no
:13:55. > :13:59.flooding is nonsensical. If you were the Environment Secretary, would you
:14:00. > :14:02.be happy with Chris Smith's performance? I am happy that they
:14:03. > :14:07.are doing their best. They have protected a lot of homes from
:14:08. > :14:11.flooding, as well as having to deal with the consequences when homes
:14:12. > :14:15.have flooded. And the reality is that the current government have cut
:14:16. > :14:17.the amount of money that is available, there are Treasury rules
:14:18. > :14:22.which prevents them from spending money in the way in which others may
:14:23. > :14:25.wish them to spend, and the current government have taken their eye off
:14:26. > :14:30.the ball when it comes to flood protection. Isn't that true? It
:14:31. > :14:34.cannot just be the Environment Agency, why is the Prime Minister,
:14:35. > :14:38.excuse the pun, wading into this, because he feels he did not get good
:14:39. > :14:43.enough advice? He is obviously lacking a bit of faith in Owen
:14:44. > :14:46.Paterson, isn't each Umax I think he sees a national crisis and wishes to
:14:47. > :14:53.help resolve it, as a good Prime Minister does. Is a out of his
:14:54. > :14:56.depth, Owen Paterson? Of course not. They are trying to remedy a position
:14:57. > :15:00.which has been building up for years, the rivers have been silting
:15:01. > :15:03.up for a decade, the culverts, ditches and strains have not been
:15:04. > :15:08.maintained for ten years in many cases, not just the last one or
:15:09. > :15:12.two. There is a huge backlog of work that has to be done, and because the
:15:13. > :15:16.Environment Agency has not been a strong voice against building on the
:15:17. > :15:19.flood plain, in my constituency views that get flooded though is the
:15:20. > :15:28.most recently built, and the Environment Agency did not intervene
:15:29. > :15:32.and say, you should not build here. You should stop building on the
:15:33. > :15:37.flood plain, that is what most people would say. We have an
:15:38. > :15:41.incoherent is here that needs to be looked at. It is a failure of the
:15:42. > :15:46.government. The Environment Agency is a creature of the Government. You
:15:47. > :15:57.cannot wash your hands of it, it is a government issue. We all wrote
:15:58. > :16:05.under the law. The people who have two say to the planning authority,
:16:06. > :16:11.you cannot build here, is the Environment Agency's responsibility.
:16:12. > :16:15.Let's put aside the sniping for a moment. We have all seen the
:16:16. > :16:20.pictures since the start of January. What would you do? Would
:16:21. > :16:28.you say let's start dredging those rivers? I'm not an expert and each
:16:29. > :16:32.local area needs a different kind of solution. Dredging wholesale isn't
:16:33. > :16:37.the answer. When this is no longer on the front pages, can we still
:16:38. > :16:44.make the case for the investment needed for better defences? If we
:16:45. > :16:54.are not going to build a flood plain, we are going to have to find
:16:55. > :16:58.land elsewhere. You can build on the flood plain if the Environment
:16:59. > :17:05.Agency told people how to manage the water and put in proper facilities
:17:06. > :17:13.but they haven't been doing that. Is it affordable long-term? A lot of it
:17:14. > :17:20.is because you create the plan when you are requesting planning
:17:21. > :17:24.permission. A lot of this is very controversial and current. There are
:17:25. > :17:30.schemes and measures put in to improve drainage so things can be
:17:31. > :17:36.done but we are 200,000 homes short of what we need, not merely keeping
:17:37. > :17:42.up with demographic change. We are going to have two free up some land.
:17:43. > :17:50.We have an Environment Secretary who cut the adaptations budget of his
:17:51. > :17:55.department by 40% last year. Do you believe in man-made climate change?
:17:56. > :18:01.I do, and if I were the Environment Secretary I would be looking at
:18:02. > :18:08.whether the department's budget is not focused so much on flood
:18:09. > :18:15.protection. And staff, because clearly that hasn't helped. You have
:18:16. > :18:19.to have staff to do the work that needs to be done by the Environment
:18:20. > :18:25.Agency, you have to have a proper balance. Since 2010 we have seen
:18:26. > :18:36.?100 million per year cut in the budget available. It has gone up.
:18:37. > :18:45.How do you know that? I have read the accounts. Maria is only taking a
:18:46. > :18:50.part of their budget. If you go back over the accounts you will see that
:18:51. > :18:56.with the fees, charges and grant income, more money has been spent.
:18:57. > :19:02.How much more money would you like the Environment Agency to have? I'm
:19:03. > :19:05.undertaking work at the moment to look at their departmental budgets
:19:06. > :19:11.and I haven't got the result of that yet but there should be more
:19:12. > :19:14.priority for flood protection. Thank you both very much.
:19:15. > :19:18.Now, they've been around for decades in America. Here, they're a recent
:19:19. > :19:20.phenomenon. But over the last few years, hundreds have literally
:19:21. > :19:23.sprung up over the country and they're helping thousands of people
:19:24. > :19:26.feed their families. I'm talking, of course, about food banks. They've
:19:27. > :19:29.been welcomed, it seems, across the political spectrum, but they're not
:19:30. > :19:41.everyone's cup of tea. Here's the former Health Minister, Edwina
:19:42. > :19:45.Currie. According to some charities, Britain
:19:46. > :19:50.is in the grip of a food poverty crisis. Their solution, food banks,
:19:51. > :19:58.providing emergency food for the needy. This charity is currently
:19:59. > :20:03.handing out about 100 food bank parcels every week, and the people
:20:04. > :20:13.who run it are wonderful people, but I do wonder whether they are doing
:20:14. > :20:19.almost as much harm as good. What about longer term issues? Many who
:20:20. > :20:28.visit food banks have complex needs, including mental illness. A lot of
:20:29. > :20:32.money is being diverted from health budgets to pay for these food banks,
:20:33. > :20:40.money that I'd believe would be better spent elsewhere. It seems we
:20:41. > :20:44.have forgotten about personal responsibility. Can a tin of soup
:20:45. > :20:50.and a smile really address these problems? I would like to find out
:20:51. > :20:58.more. Mike Godwin is the operations manager here. I saw a lady with four
:20:59. > :21:04.children and you are being asked to give her toiletries and toilet rolls
:21:05. > :21:09.as well as food. Four children means a lot of child benefit. What is
:21:10. > :21:16.going on there? The biggest single reason people come here is because
:21:17. > :21:20.of benefit delays. These are people not mismanaging their benefits, they
:21:21. > :21:25.are not receiving any at all. You have a situation with flexible
:21:26. > :21:30.working practices, where people when they are looking for work, you now
:21:31. > :21:36.go to employment agencies to look for work so you might be working one
:21:37. > :21:43.week, not the next week, three days the next, so people are signing on
:21:44. > :21:49.and off like yo-yos. In my grandparents' time it was expected
:21:50. > :21:58.you would put money away to save for the bad times and now many believe
:21:59. > :22:07.it is the Government's responsibility. Many on benefits are
:22:08. > :22:18.better off than those giving out the food but we have no way of checking.
:22:19. > :22:23.On the times I have been unemployed, it has been the worst time of my
:22:24. > :22:38.life, having to sit there and watch rubbish, not the Daily Politics I
:22:39. > :22:44.might add. Food banks and no way to lift people out of poverty, and as
:22:45. > :22:50.they found in Canada, 25 years on, you could simply be trapping people
:22:51. > :23:00.in dependency. Living hand to mouth is no existence for anybody. This is
:23:01. > :23:03.not the way forward. And I'm joined by Edwina Currie, and from
:23:04. > :23:07.Manchester by Marc Godwin. And Vidhya Alakeson is still with us.
:23:08. > :23:10.Marc, let me come to you first. Edwina says people like you are
:23:11. > :23:18.wonderful but she wonders whether you do almost as much harm as good,
:23:19. > :23:23.do you? No, we try to do the Christian thing because we are
:23:24. > :23:27.church led charity. I think we do lots of positive things. If we
:23:28. > :23:31.weren't around, a lot of people would be suffering in silence and we
:23:32. > :23:39.make sure people get food when they need it. What sort of people come to
:23:40. > :23:43.your food bank? A vast range of people from all over. We get people
:23:44. > :23:49.from a wide range of different backgrounds. Can I just correct
:23:50. > :23:55.Edwina in that piece you did, about food banks getting funding. Chelwood
:23:56. > :24:03.food bank doesn't get a penny of public funding, every penny we find,
:24:04. > :24:07.any tin of soup we find, we have to pay for it ourselves. Also to say
:24:08. > :24:13.that people from all sorts of different backgrounds come to us. It
:24:14. > :24:20.is easy to tar everyone with the same brush, but people come with so
:24:21. > :24:26.many different circumstances. You are just not being very charitable,
:24:27. > :24:31.one might say, where is the big society here when it comes to people
:24:32. > :24:36.who need food getting food? I think we would agree that quite a lot of
:24:37. > :24:42.the people who come to the food banks need help, but where we
:24:43. > :24:47.disagree is about the sort of help we should be providing as a society,
:24:48. > :24:53.as a public sector. What really worries me is that they are just
:24:54. > :24:57.being sent away with food. I know what he will say, we send them to
:24:58. > :25:02.the other agencies, but they have been sent by the agencies to get the
:25:03. > :25:09.food. They don't get fresh food like in the picture here. Plus mark does
:25:10. > :25:14.not know what background they have because they do not visit people in
:25:15. > :25:19.their homes, they are not social workers. But they are providing a
:25:20. > :25:29.service which is needed. You don't think they are necessary, food
:25:30. > :25:36.banks? I think you have three kinds of people who use them, one of them
:25:37. > :25:41.is people who are released from prison, people with post-traumatic
:25:42. > :25:46.stress, people with addiction, and we need to get more help to them.
:25:47. > :25:49.Councils are sending them to food banks. The second group of people
:25:50. > :25:56.with short-term problems like indebtedness, and he should have in
:25:57. > :26:02.his office debt adviser and a credit union that area which is not
:26:03. > :26:08.functioning... A whole range, and some of them, I'm sorry, don't need
:26:09. > :26:12.it. I sat in the car park beforehand, I went early because I
:26:13. > :26:18.am cynical and I like to look at people and make up my own mind. I
:26:19. > :26:24.watched people arrive in their cars, so they can afford to buy petrol,
:26:25. > :26:28.going in clutching their voucher, they say hello and come out
:26:29. > :26:33.clutching the food they haven't paid for. What do you say to that, that
:26:34. > :26:47.it encourages a culture of dependency for some people who don't
:26:48. > :26:50.need it? The vast majority of people who go to food banks would rather be
:26:51. > :26:53.paying money and going to the supermarket. Very few people revel
:26:54. > :26:57.in the culture of benefits. How do you know? Because we have followed
:26:58. > :27:02.many families over many years, and they have a lot better handle on
:27:03. > :27:07.their family finances then I have on mine because every single penny
:27:08. > :27:10.counts. Most of them are very strict with their finances, but
:27:11. > :27:20.unfortunately some of them have got into debt. I would dispute the idea
:27:21. > :27:27.that there are loads of feckless people milking food banks from what
:27:28. > :27:32.they are worth. On the question of people who need more sophisticated
:27:33. > :27:39.help, I don't disagree but you cannot replace food with a mental
:27:40. > :27:42.health programme. If they are mental health problems, they are
:27:43. > :27:46.fluctuating problems, people get better and then worse again. When
:27:47. > :27:54.they are not doing so well, do we not feed them? I don't mind in the
:27:55. > :28:00.least if the food bank is crisis intervention, a hawk to bring people
:28:01. > :28:07.in who have all sorts of problems, then it could start providing the
:28:08. > :28:12.care people need. Isn't marked just there for the crisis then? Do you
:28:13. > :28:19.think you should be expanding your role as such? We would love to, but
:28:20. > :28:23.at the end of the day we are just a charity already punching above our
:28:24. > :28:28.weight. We would love to have a debt adviser and a credit union, but also
:28:29. > :28:33.Edwina raised the point of people getting out of cars. It is very easy
:28:34. > :28:38.to say everyone should look the same who come to a food bank, but those
:28:39. > :28:45.people might have got those cars when they are working. We also have
:28:46. > :28:51.people who have walked several miles to get to us and cannot afford the
:28:52. > :28:56.bus fare. What about your point of council funding being diverted from
:28:57. > :29:00.public health budgets to pay for these food banks? My understanding
:29:01. > :29:08.was that they were mainly charities, are you wrong on that?
:29:09. > :29:13.This is something fairly new. I gather BBC panorama is working on
:29:14. > :29:16.this and looking at it. Manchester alone is giving about quarter of ?1
:29:17. > :29:22.million a year straight to food banks, I would rather it went
:29:23. > :29:29.straight to an addiction clinic. What about the point they need
:29:30. > :29:37.food? They are struggling to eat, I don't disagree they need an
:29:38. > :29:42.addiction programme. You have got people going today programmes for
:29:43. > :29:54.ten years. You have lots of people in need. Why is that OK? Because
:29:55. > :29:59.they are not being passed from pillar to post, they are being
:30:00. > :30:02.looked after and given some continuing care. Care in the
:30:03. > :30:08.community is difficult to do and it needs a big professional input. If
:30:09. > :30:11.those councils are handing money over to people like Mark and the
:30:12. > :30:17.charities and not following up what they are doing, they are getting a
:30:18. > :30:25.much worse service. What about people on benefits, why do they need
:30:26. > :30:28.to go to food banks? If they have a large number of children, they are
:30:29. > :30:34.getting help from the state, isn't that enough? Very few people are
:30:35. > :30:39.rich on benefits. This idea that people are living a life of luxury
:30:40. > :30:43.on benefits, income support is on average ?70 per week. Plus their
:30:44. > :30:47.accommodation and day nursery paid, and an awful lot of other things.
:30:48. > :30:55.They do not get their day nursery pay. If they work 16 hours a week,
:30:56. > :31:00.they do. No, they will pay 30%. Do not think that people are ashamed of
:31:01. > :31:06.going to a food bank, not something they do lightly? The people I saw
:31:07. > :31:14.bringing food were in much worse shape than the people I saw taking
:31:15. > :31:19.food. Have you used a food by? Never! Exactly. I totally disagree,
:31:20. > :31:23.having spent time with the blond very low incomes, they have pride,
:31:24. > :31:28.most of them have the same kind of pride that means they do not want to
:31:29. > :31:33.take benefits. You do not have expertise that I do not have. You
:31:34. > :31:39.are suggesting the majority of people have no qualms about using a
:31:40. > :31:42.food bank. I did not suggest that, I am saying there is a process of
:31:43. > :31:45.change and transition going on in the country, in which people on
:31:46. > :31:49.benefits are being pushed into work, but what they will find if they get
:31:50. > :31:54.into work is that they will be better off. It takes some time and
:31:55. > :31:59.is difficult to do. One of the things I know Marc is keen to do is
:32:00. > :32:04.have a job adviser, but he's doing food first, and I think that is the
:32:05. > :32:09.wrong way round. You have to do the food first. Interesting discussion,
:32:10. > :32:14.Marc, Edwina Currie, and our guest of the day, thank you.
:32:15. > :32:18.Let's take a look at what is happening this week. As we have been
:32:19. > :32:21.hearing, later today MPs will consider a proposal to interviews a
:32:22. > :32:26.ban on smoking in cars with children present. On Wednesday, David Cameron
:32:27. > :32:31.faces his regular questioning session in the House of Commons.
:32:32. > :32:34.Wednesday also sees the Chief Inspector of schools, Sir Michael
:32:35. > :32:39.Wilshaw, give evidence to the Education Select Committee. He was
:32:40. > :32:44.recently quoted as spitting blood over attacks on Ofsted by right-wing
:32:45. > :32:47.think tanks. On Thursday, it is the Wythenshawe and Sale East
:32:48. > :32:52.by-election to replace Labour MP Paul Goggins, who died last month.
:32:53. > :32:57.It is widely expected to be held by Labour, but could UKIP come second?
:32:58. > :33:00.We should find out the result on Friday morning. Joining Li now is
:33:01. > :33:07.Joe Watts from the Evening Standard and Tamara Cohen of the Daily Mail.
:33:08. > :33:11.-- joining me. Let's talk about UKIP and the potential threat to Labour
:33:12. > :33:18.in the North, is Labour taking the threat seriously? Wythenshawe and
:33:19. > :33:23.sale is going to be safely for Labour on Thursday. The polls are
:33:24. > :33:28.suggesting they have a 46 point lead, but UKIP can't come second,
:33:29. > :33:32.and Nigel Farage has made clear that he thinks UKIP are taking both off
:33:33. > :33:35.all the major parties, not just the Conservatives. If they do get a
:33:36. > :33:41.strong showing, it will definitely bolster his case that UKIP are going
:33:42. > :33:46.to be doing well in the North of England. Joe, Nigel Farage often
:33:47. > :33:54.says that he can take as many votes off Labour as he can off the
:33:55. > :34:00.Conservatives. How do you think Labour has to fight UKIP in the
:34:01. > :34:03.North of England? There is a certain level of nervousness among Labour
:34:04. > :34:08.MPs, when I have spoken to them here. UKIP polling shows that, of
:34:09. > :34:14.the votes they are taking at the moment, around 31% of people who
:34:15. > :34:19.voted Tory in 2010, and about 13% voted Labour in 2010. So my feeling
:34:20. > :34:22.is that the mainstream parties have to worry about the fact that a lot
:34:23. > :34:26.of the UKIP vote is coming from people who did not vote at all in
:34:27. > :34:31.2010, and those people are completely apathetic are being
:34:32. > :34:34.brought back into the fold. We know that Nigel Farage has been out and
:34:35. > :34:39.about, visiting flood areas, obviously taking this very seriously
:34:40. > :34:42.as we get closer to the European elections and the general elections,
:34:43. > :34:48.is that the feeling in Westminster? Absolutely, we had news today that
:34:49. > :34:52.Labour have sent a unit to scrutinise UKIP's policies and the
:34:53. > :34:55.people who work there, which the Conservatives have been doing for
:34:56. > :35:00.some months now, an interesting move, given that UKIP may top the
:35:01. > :35:06.poll in the European elections and, head of Labour. While UKIP
:35:07. > :35:11.definitely pose more of a threat to the Conservatives, Labour are taking
:35:12. > :35:17.the fact that people are turning to UKIP quite seriously. We can see
:35:18. > :35:20.Nigel Farage dipping its toe in the floodwaters, how much personal
:35:21. > :35:23.damage has been flooding done to David Cameron politically? Well,
:35:24. > :35:28.everyone is trying to pass that hot potato around at the moment. David
:35:29. > :35:32.Cameron is there today, Owen Paterson is obviously lying in his
:35:33. > :35:34.hospital bed, unfortunately, and Eric Pickles is trying to put the
:35:35. > :35:38.blame onto the Environment Agency. Generally, all of this
:35:39. > :35:42.finger-pointing at the blame game that is going on is going to be
:35:43. > :35:46.pretty damaging to the Government. It is only going to outrage people
:35:47. > :35:51.further in the south-west as they see Westminster fighting like
:35:52. > :35:54.ferrets in a sack. The question of immigration, Mark Harper's
:35:55. > :35:59.resignation over his cleaner's fake documents, will there be a buzz of
:36:00. > :36:01.activity as ministers and shadow ministers start checking the
:36:02. > :36:07.documentation of their cleaners childminders? Well, it certainly
:36:08. > :36:09.raises that question. The fact that Mark Harper was the immigration
:36:10. > :36:13.minister putting a bill through parliament to compel landlords to
:36:14. > :36:19.check the status of their tenants and impose fines on employers, it is
:36:20. > :36:24.like something out of The Thick Of It. It does raise the question, Mark
:36:25. > :36:29.Harper says that he has not committed any offence, that he
:36:30. > :36:34.checked his cleaner's documents in 2007, but there are employment
:36:35. > :36:38.lawyers today saying we do not have enough information to be able to say
:36:39. > :36:40.definitively on that. It does really raise the question that, if the
:36:41. > :36:44.politicians are not clear on what the rules are, how the rest of us
:36:45. > :36:52.opposed to know? Absolutely, widely respected, Mark Harper, regarded as
:36:53. > :36:55.a high. Will he be back in a ministerial post before the
:36:56. > :36:57.election? I think he will be eventually. I think we should just
:36:58. > :37:02.put into context how embarrassing this could have been for the
:37:03. > :37:07.Government. If you think about it in this sense, it is like David
:37:08. > :37:19.Cameron's well feminist are claiming incapacity benefit and cart wheeling
:37:20. > :37:25.his way to work every day. -- health care Minister.
:37:26. > :37:34.Joining me for the rest of the programme is Mark Field MP,
:37:35. > :37:37.Rushanara Ali MP and Malcolm Bruce, the spanking new leader of the
:37:38. > :37:43.Liberal Democrats. Less of the spanking, I think! Let's talk about
:37:44. > :37:46.the coalition, because on Sunday Politics two people who had never
:37:47. > :37:50.thought the coalition marriage was a particularly good idea in the first
:37:51. > :37:57.place at this to say. Our long-term economic plan is working. Further
:37:58. > :38:01.changes in policies that we want to implement are being held back by the
:38:02. > :38:05.Liberal Democrats. I think that tension... I have always said, I
:38:06. > :38:10.have to say it has lasted longer than I thought it would. When will
:38:11. > :38:15.it break up? At least six months before the election, otherwise it
:38:16. > :38:19.has no integrity. Do you think it will survive? The coalition has
:38:20. > :38:24.delivered a great deal in many ways, but it is running out of steam. I
:38:25. > :38:27.think it depends on what happens in the May elections. If the Liberal
:38:28. > :38:32.Democrats do not do better than we have in the last three, there will
:38:33. > :38:35.be very strong pressure from insights to avoid a wipe-out by
:38:36. > :38:38.putting our own policies forward, to show that we can be in coalition
:38:39. > :38:41.with Labour as well as the Conservatives next time. They do not
:38:42. > :38:45.think it is going to last, Malcolm Bruce, do you think it is
:38:46. > :38:48.effectively over and will just go on until six months before the
:38:49. > :38:53.election? To be fair, those two never wanted to start it in the
:38:54. > :38:57.first place. It is a five-year agreement centred on some pretty
:38:58. > :39:01.heavy lifting, which is to turn the economy around. If you walk away
:39:02. > :39:06.from something just as it is about to deliver, you spook the markets
:39:07. > :39:09.and effectively are saying, we did the wrong thing. I don't think we
:39:10. > :39:13.did the wrong thing, I think the country is beginning to realise
:39:14. > :39:19.that, and we will see it through to the end. What I going to deliver
:39:20. > :39:22.between now and 2015? We will go on delivering tax cuts hopefully, we
:39:23. > :39:26.want to raise the threshold even further in the next Budget to give
:39:27. > :39:30.people some cost of living benefit as growth sort of kicks in. There
:39:31. > :39:36.are things we can do, and it is not all about legislation. I am not
:39:37. > :39:41.going to be writing the Budget, and I think there is a slight worry, I
:39:42. > :39:45.would say, with this idea of a broader tax base that we need. Where
:39:46. > :39:48.I would agree with Malcolm, personally I did not want to see a
:39:49. > :39:52.coalition, I think they should have been a second election in 2010, but
:39:53. > :39:56.I think it will last the full five years. The Liberals will go into the
:39:57. > :40:02.next election without any pretence of being able to form a government
:40:03. > :40:07.on their own, they want to be a break on the extremism of the
:40:08. > :40:10.Conservative Party or the Labour Party. The coalition has worked
:40:11. > :40:15.pretty well, but I think that Malcolm is right to say that,
:40:16. > :40:19.actually, let's be honest, the Liberal ministers enjoy being
:40:20. > :40:24.ministers, but also there is going to be ongoing economic recovery, and
:40:25. > :40:29.the Liberal do not want the Conservatives to take all the credit
:40:30. > :40:35.for that. What will happen between now and then? You have not said...
:40:36. > :40:44.Why carry on as a coalition? What do you agree and? There is going to be
:40:45. > :40:48.more recovery. The rolling out of welfare and education reforms will
:40:49. > :40:51.have a long-term elements to them. Where I think there is a bit of a
:40:52. > :40:56.danger, and I think both partners needs to be aware of this, is if
:40:57. > :40:59.there is a very light Queen's Speech programme and there isn't much
:41:00. > :41:01.legislation or much day-to-day work. As we know, politics and horse a
:41:02. > :41:48.vacuum, -- and that somehow there was a lack of
:41:49. > :41:57.confidence, just as confidence is restoring. It would be
:41:58. > :42:02.irresponsible. Let's just have a look at some of the events over the
:42:03. > :42:08.last few weeks. Nick Clegg once a rethink on drugs, the Tories don't.
:42:09. > :42:13.The Liberal Democrats will not... Would you cut the rate of tax over
:42:14. > :42:16.Danny Alexander's dead body if you could?! I am of the view that the
:42:17. > :42:21.most important message is that we are trying to get the deficit down,
:42:22. > :42:27.and we recognise it is going to take longer than five years. There is a
:42:28. > :42:30.mixed message. I am a low tax Conservative, but I do not think it
:42:31. > :42:34.is the number-one priority to get taxed down at this juncture when we
:42:35. > :42:39.are looking to get the deficit down. We are borrowing ?1 in every
:42:40. > :42:44.?5 that we are spending. We need to focus on that. What tax cuts would
:42:45. > :42:53.you introduce? We have made it clear that we think it is... Let me
:42:54. > :42:58.finish, since you have had your say. My point is that you have got
:42:59. > :43:02.this inherent tension between the Conservatives and the Liberals which
:43:03. > :43:06.is coming home to roost. While the coalition may last until the end of
:43:07. > :43:12.this term, the point is that the Liberals are in a really tight
:43:13. > :43:17.position, where they have been in cahoots with the Tories with
:43:18. > :43:21.increases in tuition fees, welfare cuts that are causing a cost of
:43:22. > :43:25.living prices, while the same time the Government has not ruled out
:43:26. > :43:30.cutting top rate taxes further. I think that is going to be a huge
:43:31. > :43:35.issue. What about you two together? You would agree on the rate of tax,
:43:36. > :43:40.would you, at 45p with the Liberal Democrats and not cut it further? We
:43:41. > :43:44.need to make sure the deficit is brought down and borrowing is
:43:45. > :43:52.brought down. By 2015, borrowing will still be at nearly ?80 billion.
:43:53. > :43:57.The tax cut was brought in by Alistair Darling just before the
:43:58. > :44:02.election. They cut capital gains tax to 18%, which has been increased and
:44:03. > :44:05.the coalition to 28%. In addition to that, other taxes on high earners
:44:06. > :44:10.have been introduced, and they are paying more taxes in a fairer, more
:44:11. > :44:18.progressive way than under Labour, partly because you held the economy
:44:19. > :44:21.back. Let me make my point, the cost of living crisis is affecting our
:44:22. > :44:25.constituents dramatically, people cannot, as you saw in the last bit
:44:26. > :44:31.of this programme, cannot afford to eat and pay their fuel costs. And
:44:32. > :44:39.you and your party have been complicit in that, and I think it is
:44:40. > :44:45.time... Hang on a minute! Labour Saudi economy shrank by 7% in a
:44:46. > :44:48.single year. Everyone recognises the financial crisis. We are trying to
:44:49. > :44:53.build the economy back, so of course everybody is being squeezed, but we
:44:54. > :44:57.are trying to ensure it is applied fairly, and all non-work-related
:44:58. > :45:01.benefits have been inflation protected. You agree on a mansion
:45:02. > :45:22.tax, do you agree the top rate should stay at 45p? Could you go
:45:23. > :45:31.into coalition together? On the broad issues, do you agree? At the
:45:32. > :45:37.moment we still have 2.5 million people unemployed. You haven't
:45:38. > :45:41.answered the question. We would be prepared to work in coalition with
:45:42. > :45:45.either of the other parties if we can form an agreement. We are not
:45:46. > :45:51.going to do it in advance of an election but everybody needs to know
:45:52. > :45:55.what the commitments are. You have written that voters shouldn't back
:45:56. > :45:59.the Liberal Democrats into a corner and forced it to make policy pledges
:46:00. > :46:07.before the next election, but how can voters know what they are voting
:46:08. > :46:13.for? We will have to negotiate with another party so we will not make
:46:14. > :46:16.that mistake. The other parties would be unwise to get themselves
:46:17. > :46:26.into a situation where they say we are going to win. Nobody will
:46:27. > :46:32.believe what they say. Do you not think one of the reasons there is
:46:33. > :46:39.this surge of interest in the polls for UKIP is because they think you
:46:40. > :46:47.will make your deals after the voters have had their say? The issue
:46:48. > :46:51.with UKIP is that you cannot go online through line of their
:46:52. > :47:02.policies because most of it is nonsense. I understand that and it
:47:03. > :47:07.is not an unfair point but if we are moving into coalition permanents, it
:47:08. > :47:11.beholds all parties to be aware that you have to compromise. I take the
:47:12. > :47:16.point you don't want to do it in corners after the election but you
:47:17. > :47:21.cannot say, we will do this regardless. You have at your fingers
:47:22. > :47:25.burned and I understand that but we may not be moving into a coalition
:47:26. > :47:35.permanents, I guess we will find that out in the second week of May
:47:36. > :47:40.2015. Onto immigration now. In a moment we will be talking about Mark
:47:41. > :47:50.Harper who resigned after employing an illegal immigrant as a cleaner,
:47:51. > :47:53.but now an undercover investigation by BBC One's Panorama has revealed
:47:54. > :47:56.systematic fraud in the student visa system. Secret filming showed a
:47:57. > :47:59.network of agents helping overseas students pass English tests, obtain
:48:00. > :48:01.false documents, and doctor their academic records. Let's have a look.
:48:02. > :48:04.The Home Office rules are clear, non-EU students have to pass an
:48:05. > :48:09.English exam or they don't get a visa. Only last year we heard and
:48:10. > :48:29.immigration agency in west London that could guarantee a pass for a
:48:30. > :48:32.price. And Studentway denies any wrongdoing. What is the Border
:48:33. > :48:41.Agency doing? They have a difficult job, a lot of their senior people
:48:42. > :48:47.spend time working with universities to make sure everything is right. A
:48:48. > :48:51.quango was setup to do the English tests and there it seems to be this
:48:52. > :48:57.problem that has come into play, but we need to look at the broader
:48:58. > :49:01.national interest. We do want to encourage people to come to this
:49:02. > :49:05.country and the message is that the doors are closed I don't think it is
:49:06. > :49:09.in the national or economic interest. We want the brightest
:49:10. > :49:15.people coming from across the globe, perhaps spending some time here and
:49:16. > :49:20.going back to be ambassadors for this country for the rest of their
:49:21. > :49:28.lives. Actually it looks like the doors have gone up to those outside
:49:29. > :49:34.the EU, do you think that has happened? We have no control over
:49:35. > :49:39.how people are leaving this country, and I suspect there is not that much
:49:40. > :49:44.to choose between our parties where we see the immigration system going.
:49:45. > :49:50.We need an effective system, but let's be honest about this, our
:49:51. > :49:55.education system is a wonderful invisible export for this country.
:49:56. > :50:00.We have some fantastic universities and colleges, and whilst I think it
:50:01. > :50:05.is important that any abuse is highlighted, it is the exception
:50:06. > :50:09.rather than the rule. The implication is that the numbers have
:50:10. > :50:16.been quite big in terms of bogus colleges. Wouldn't it be better to
:50:17. > :50:21.have face-to-face interviews with each these candidate? It may be
:50:22. > :50:26.possible, we could perhaps do it in their home countries through
:50:27. > :50:34.embassies abroad and a large amount of that continues to go on. That is
:50:35. > :50:39.happening. Theresa May said today that she inherited a broken system
:50:40. > :50:47.when it came to immigration, particularly on student visas, from
:50:48. > :50:51.a Labour government. Do you take responsibility? She has been in
:50:52. > :50:56.power for four years and I think it is unacceptable for this Government
:50:57. > :51:01.to blame the last government for everything. You have hard Eric
:51:02. > :51:06.Pickles blaming us for the flooding, and I think she needs to take
:51:07. > :51:11.responsibility. Mark is right that the world-class universities that we
:51:12. > :51:15.have attracts some of the best students and we need to make sure we
:51:16. > :51:20.find ways of doing that and the economy benefits from it, but she
:51:21. > :51:25.needs to get a grip on the abuses because every single abuse leads to
:51:26. > :51:31.discrediting of the system and loss of trust among voters. That is when
:51:32. > :51:35.parties like UKIP try to take advantage of the immigration debate
:51:36. > :51:43.and making a toxic debate which is damaging. Do you accept the majority
:51:44. > :51:46.of those bogus colleges sprung up under Labour, and it is only
:51:47. > :51:54.subsequently they have been closed because they are not getting the
:51:55. > :51:57.students in? I don't accept that. We take responsibility for mistakes
:51:58. > :52:08.that have happened and that is well documented, but she has been in
:52:09. > :52:10.power for four years. I get letters from the UK Border Agency even when
:52:11. > :52:18.people should be returned because they know that they have no right to
:52:19. > :52:22.be in this country. Why doesn't she deal with the problems that exist
:52:23. > :52:30.that her department is responsible for, instead of blaming the previous
:52:31. > :52:36.government? Was Mark Harper right to resign? Yes, when you are an
:52:37. > :52:40.Immigration Minister and you find out you have made an administrative
:52:41. > :52:45.error, you have to go and he has done the right thing. He has to
:52:46. > :52:52.conform to his own rules but it raises a serious issue of
:52:53. > :52:55.enforcement. If they were fake documents... He said he had to
:52:56. > :53:02.resign but they were faked and he didn't check enough, and that is a
:53:03. > :53:08.big onus on everybody. The average householder is not going to know.
:53:09. > :53:13.The requirement of landlords to check their tenants, we have said it
:53:14. > :53:20.should be piloted to check how enforceable it is because otherwise
:53:21. > :53:24.you finish up in a situation where genuinely people don't know the
:53:25. > :53:28.situation and can be caught out. You don't want to make criminals out of
:53:29. > :53:33.innocent mistakes and Mark Harper has been the victim of that. The
:53:34. > :53:37.colleges have been closed down or at least excluded by the present
:53:38. > :53:41.government and it is crucial to recognise that this is a very big
:53:42. > :53:46.challenge but the Government is doing its best and they are
:53:47. > :53:51.interviewing more and more people to check their references. Let's leave
:53:52. > :53:54.it there. Now, time to find out the answer to our quiz. The question
:53:55. > :54:03.was: According to researchers, which of the following could make you more
:54:04. > :54:08.likely to get elected? Is it... If you are man, if you belong to an
:54:09. > :54:14.ethnic minority, if you are good-looking, or if you more
:54:15. > :54:23.mature. Which answer do you think is correct? Don't be shy? In local
:54:24. > :54:29.elections you will have three candidates and it's interesting how
:54:30. > :54:40.often they will be all women so being a woman may bring sexism into
:54:41. > :54:52.it. That wasn't in the question, but what do you think? I'm sure it's
:54:53. > :54:56.maturity. I will let you fight. The answer is if you are good-looking,
:54:57. > :55:05.and you are all good-looking of course. And joining me to explain
:55:06. > :55:07.her research is Caitlin Milazzo, who's a lecturer in politics and
:55:08. > :55:15.international relations at Nottingham University. Is it true,
:55:16. > :55:20.what evidence is there? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence from
:55:21. > :55:24.the study of American politics. We have the long-standing belief that
:55:25. > :55:30.politicians in the US do better when they are good-looking or taller, so
:55:31. > :55:38.we asked some students from the University of Iowa to rate which
:55:39. > :55:42.candidate was more attractive and we found that attractive candidates did
:55:43. > :55:49.tend to be election winners and tended to get more votes than the
:55:50. > :55:55.candidates deemed not attractive. Did age come into it at all? Yes,
:55:56. > :56:00.not only because our subjects were quite young, an average age of only
:56:01. > :56:05.about 20 years old, but even when you take into account age, the
:56:06. > :56:10.party, how much they spent on the campaign, we found out that
:56:11. > :56:16.attractive candidates tend to come out 2% higher in vote share than
:56:17. > :56:20.their less attractive counterparts. Stay and listen to the rest of this
:56:21. > :56:28.discussion, you might learn something. I was going to say were
:56:29. > :56:38.you elected because of your good looks? My brain and intellect and
:56:39. > :56:45.everything else! He is blushing! Do you think there is any truth in
:56:46. > :56:51.that? They are American students. Anyone who watches west wing will
:56:52. > :56:58.know there is a difference. Looking at this, I'm sure people's demeanour
:56:59. > :57:01.is part of it but I suspect it is a bigger feature in American politics
:57:02. > :57:09.because you cannot get anywhere in America if you are not a Hollywood
:57:10. > :57:19.star. In TV advertising, they push people more in that way. What do you
:57:20. > :57:23.think? I agree with Malcolm and I would add that what is really
:57:24. > :57:28.important is that if you don't work hard for your constituents and you
:57:29. > :57:33.are not capable of doing the job, that is made very clear to you by
:57:34. > :57:41.your voters when you are knocking on the door asking for their votes. I
:57:42. > :57:48.think in Britain... You don't think the voters are so vain. Is there
:57:49. > :57:58.ageism? I think it is a media driven thing, but the fact is there is a
:57:59. > :58:04.tendency you have -- you think you have to be young and dynamic but
:58:05. > :58:09.experience matters and I don't think the public discount that as much as
:58:10. > :58:16.the media says they would. I would have thought it was about trust. I
:58:17. > :58:22.am older than all three of the party leaders and it is an unhealthy state
:58:23. > :58:36.of affairs. Gender balance in Parliament, when you look at the
:58:37. > :58:43.fact there is 22% of women, that is where I think we can do much more in
:58:44. > :58:52.terms of having younger people. We don't have any time to come back to
:58:53. > :58:56.you, Caitlin, but I hope it was interesting for you to listen to.
:58:57. > :59:07.That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. Goodbye.
:59:08. > :59:13.It's your job to keep law and order, isn't it?