:00:36. > :00:40.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:43.Pressure is mounting on Harriet Harman - she says she now "regrets"
:00:44. > :00:47.that a civil liberties group she used to work for had links to
:00:48. > :00:51.pro-paedophile campaigners. We'll look at the details of the claims.
:00:52. > :00:56.Labour wants to show they can be responsible bank managers, but do
:00:57. > :01:01.their sums add up? We need more housing, but where on
:01:02. > :01:03.earth do we put it? We'll look at how to square the circle between
:01:04. > :01:06.giving local communities more power, and the need to build more
:01:07. > :01:09.infrastructure. And celebrities and politics -
:01:10. > :01:21.shouldn't they just leave it to the professionals?
:01:22. > :01:24.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is
:01:25. > :01:33.the presenter, writer, comedian and all round good egg Griff Rhys Jones,
:01:34. > :01:40.welcome to the show. Not a celebrity, I have to say, or I
:01:41. > :01:43.wouldn't be able to give my opinion. So let's start today with the
:01:44. > :01:46.pressure that's mounting on Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman. In
:01:47. > :01:49.recent weeks, the Daily Mail has published a series of reports on the
:01:50. > :01:52.links between a civil liberties group she used to work for and
:01:53. > :01:55.paedophile rights campaigners in the 1970s. The Mail has repeatedly
:01:56. > :01:58.questioned the Labour MP, her husband the MP Jack Dromey and the
:01:59. > :02:01.former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt about their time working for
:02:02. > :02:03.the National Council for Civil Liberties because of its connection
:02:04. > :02:09.to the Paedophile Information Exchange. That group, which lobbied
:02:10. > :02:16.on behalf of paedophiles, was granted affiliate status to the
:02:17. > :02:19.NCCL. There's no evidence to suggest that Ms Harman, Mr Dromey or Ms
:02:20. > :02:22.Hewitt personally supported the views of the group, but the Mail
:02:23. > :02:28.says she has repeatedly refused to answer its questions and has called
:02:29. > :02:31.her an "apologist for paedophilia". Well, yesterday, Ms Harman said the
:02:32. > :02:39.newspaper's claims were "horrific" and she denied all of them. Here she
:02:40. > :02:46.is on the BBC's Newsnight programme last night. There wasn't an
:02:47. > :02:53.affiliation between the two groups. You make it sound as if there was a
:02:54. > :02:58.mutuality. There wasn't. Technically, there was an
:02:59. > :03:05.affiliation. They were part of the wider group. Was that a mistake?
:03:06. > :03:11.They paid their money to NCCL. NCCL takes money from any lawful
:03:12. > :03:17.organisation and individual. Was it a mistake, to have that affiliation?
:03:18. > :03:20.I think what was right was to dispel them from the conference and to make
:03:21. > :03:29.sure their views were never taken forward. It is a very simple
:03:30. > :03:34.question. Yes or no, was it a mistake to allow an overt group who
:03:35. > :03:39.were publicly campaigning for paedophiles to be affiliated, which
:03:40. > :03:47.is the term they used, to the NCCL when you were the legal officer? I
:03:48. > :03:53.think on the basis it has created somehow a sense that NCCL's work was
:03:54. > :03:58.tainted by them, yes, obviously, that is a very unfortunate inference
:03:59. > :04:06.to have. But it is not the case that my work when I was at NCCL was
:04:07. > :04:10.influenced by them, was apologising all colluding with paedophilia. That
:04:11. > :04:24.is an unfair inference and it is a smear. We can speak to the BBC's
:04:25. > :04:30.James Landale. Why did she not just say it was a mistake? She was caught
:04:31. > :04:35.between two strategies. Her first strategy was to say nothing and hope
:04:36. > :04:39.it would fizzle out. It hasn't, so she was forced to give that
:04:40. > :04:43.interview. I think she didn't want to be seen to give an inch to the
:04:44. > :04:47.Daily Mail. She and other Labour Party members see this as a battle
:04:48. > :04:55.with the Daily Mail in the same way the Labour Party had a battle with
:04:56. > :05:04.regard to articles written about Ralph Miliband. Since she did not
:05:05. > :05:07.want to give an inch, she has expressed regret in a statement at
:05:08. > :05:13.the involvement of Paedophile Information Exchange in the NCCL,
:05:14. > :05:19.but she does not go further than that. She does not want to give any
:05:20. > :05:23.more ground to the Daily Mail. Just to prove that point, Harriet Harman
:05:24. > :05:29.has this morning issued a tweet with a picture in which she says: When it
:05:30. > :05:35.comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons
:05:36. > :05:41.from the Daily Mail? And she has a picture which was on the website
:05:42. > :05:45.showing very young women in bikinis. So Harriet Harman is making a clear
:05:46. > :05:51.point that this is now a battle over who is right and wrong. But how much
:05:52. > :05:58.pressure is she now under? This story is escalating. It is not
:05:59. > :06:04.toning down. I remember the police are already investigating
:06:05. > :06:08.information as part of existing operations. There is also a separate
:06:09. > :06:15.Home Office enquiry as to whether public money was channelled through
:06:16. > :06:21.the Paedophile Information Exchange. Tom Watson the Labour MP has tweeted
:06:22. > :06:29.this morning saying: Producing this into a row between Harriet Harman
:06:30. > :06:34.and the Daily Mail is not the point. So the story has not reached its end
:06:35. > :06:41.by any means. Joining me now is the femmist writer Julie Bindel. Should
:06:42. > :06:45.Harriet Harman now apologise properly for allowing this
:06:46. > :06:50.affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange? Absolutely. It
:06:51. > :06:58.was a huge mistake and it ricocheted across the left at the time. I am a
:06:59. > :07:02.great admirer of Harriet Harman. She has done wonderful work in
:07:03. > :07:08.Parliament as a feminist and she has vilified -- she has been vilified
:07:09. > :07:12.because of that. But the NCCL were absolutely wrong to allow the
:07:13. > :07:16.Paedophile Information Exchange to affiliate. They were using the
:07:17. > :07:24.language of an oppressed when a team, language that oppressed gay
:07:25. > :07:30.groups were using. She should absolutely own up to her mistake.
:07:31. > :07:34.Why was it not challenged more rigorous Lee at the time? You were
:07:35. > :07:40.very much part of the left at that time, why was it not challenged
:07:41. > :07:45.more? I think because, as I said, the Paedophile Information Exchange
:07:46. > :07:56.use the language of liberation struggles. They also suggested this
:07:57. > :08:03.was about a fight for children -- for freedom. Why do you think
:08:04. > :08:09.Harriet Harman is finding it difficult? We heard there that this
:08:10. > :08:12.has been categorised as a battle with the Daily Mail. But generally
:08:13. > :08:21.wide would she find it difficult to say, it was wrong, it was a mistake
:08:22. > :08:26.and I'm sorry? Quite frankly I've no idea and this is not the Harriet
:08:27. > :08:29.Harman I know and admire. It strikes me she is refusing to take
:08:30. > :08:32.responsibility and certainly she shouldn't have to take personal
:08:33. > :08:37.responsibility across the board. But she was part of that decision-making
:08:38. > :08:41.process. We know that in the NCCL at the time there were a minority who
:08:42. > :08:49.are challenging this alliance, and we also know that outsiders
:08:50. > :08:52.challenged the fact that they were affiliated with the NCCL. But as I
:08:53. > :09:01.say at the time it was seen as almost homophobic teen named gay men
:09:02. > :09:06.within these child abuse rings as child rapists. People were living in
:09:07. > :09:12.a climate of fear, and was a cultural relativism so people were
:09:13. > :09:22.terrified of being accused of some kind of sexual moralist. We are
:09:23. > :09:30.talking about at the time. This was the 70s. I remember the Paedophile
:09:31. > :09:37.Information Exchange starting this campaign and I think at the time
:09:38. > :09:42.paedophilia was not much on the agenda. People did not have a strong
:09:43. > :09:47.and attitude about it as they do today. There's been a considerable
:09:48. > :09:53.change in our sort of attitude to this, partly as a result of cases
:09:54. > :09:58.coming out. However, I think part of the reason there was such ignorance
:09:59. > :10:02.about this was the terminology. Paedophilia means a lover of
:10:03. > :10:07.children, which is how this organisation presented themselves.
:10:08. > :10:12.It is child rape. Feminists at the time were fighting tooth and nail,
:10:13. > :10:20.some of them within the NCCL, some without, to say, all sex is not good
:10:21. > :10:24.sex. There is nonconsensual sex. You cannot possibly campaign as some gay
:10:25. > :10:28.libertarian men were for the abolition of the age of consent
:10:29. > :10:38.because some men grow up and say they enjoyed abuses children. The
:10:39. > :10:43.language of liberation was what I think really muddied the waters. But
:10:44. > :10:52.it was of course a lawful organisation at the time. The Iraq
:10:53. > :10:59.has changed. -- the era. We're going to leave it there, but thank you.
:11:00. > :11:02.If there's one area more than any other that Labour have had to claw
:11:03. > :11:05.back credibility on during their time in opposition, it's been their
:11:06. > :11:08.handling of the economy. In particular it's their record on
:11:09. > :11:12.spending, that critics say ran out of control towards the end of their
:11:13. > :11:16.time in office and helped contribute to the financial crash and
:11:17. > :11:19.subsequent recession. Well, now Labour have come over all prudent
:11:20. > :11:23.once again, and are promising not only to balance the books in the
:11:24. > :11:29.next parliament, but even to run a surplus on the current budget by
:11:30. > :11:33.2020. In fact, as bank manager in chief Ed Balls is so eager to prove,
:11:34. > :11:37.Labour can be trusted on the economy that they would even pass a law to
:11:38. > :11:46.make sure the Government sticks to tough fiscal rules. But running a
:11:47. > :11:48.current budget surplus wouldn't include borrowing additional money
:11:49. > :11:51.for long-term investments, whereas the Tories have said they'd go
:11:52. > :11:56.further and run an absolute surplus - meaning total Government spending
:11:57. > :12:00.is less than revenue raised. The IFS concluded this would mean Ed Balls
:12:01. > :12:03.could still borrow ?25 billion a year more than George Osborne, as
:12:04. > :12:14.the Tories would be forced to make deeper cuts to public spending from
:12:15. > :12:18.2016. Labour are conducting what they call a zero-based review
:12:19. > :12:20.looking at how every pound in spent by Government, and this morning
:12:21. > :12:23.Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie announced
:12:24. > :12:27.Labour would reform public services to make them more efficient. This
:12:28. > :12:29.includes Fire And Rescue Services sharing buildings with police
:12:30. > :12:32.forces, co-locating County Courts and Magistrates' Courts on the same
:12:33. > :12:34.site, and even the posibilty of scrapping police and crime
:12:35. > :12:40.commissioners which have been introduced by the Coalition
:12:41. > :12:44.Government. Chris Leslie the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury is
:12:45. > :12:48.with us now, along with Treasury Minister Sajid Javid and Ian Swales
:12:49. > :12:53.from the Liberal Democrats. Welcome to all of you. After that very long
:12:54. > :12:58.introduction, Chris Leslie, you said you would make sure to stick to your
:12:59. > :13:03.own fiscal rules you want your manifesto pledges to be audited. All
:13:04. > :13:07.of that, laudable though it may be, is a tacit admission that you lost
:13:08. > :13:11.control of the economy, for which you will now have to be child
:13:12. > :13:16.minded. It is an acknowledgement that, if we win the next general
:13:17. > :13:23.election, on the current plan, we would inherit a ?79 billion
:13:24. > :13:26.deficit. That is a deficit they promised to eradicate. They said we
:13:27. > :13:32.would balance the books completely. It looks as though that will be
:13:33. > :13:34.quite challenging. We've said the Conservatives and Liberals have
:13:35. > :13:40.tried unsuccessfully to balance the books. We will make sure we finished
:13:41. > :13:44.that job in the next Parliament. We are committed to getting the current
:13:45. > :13:49.budget into surplus as soon as possible by the time of the general
:13:50. > :13:54.election after next. That does not answer my question as to why you
:13:55. > :13:57.can't, it seems, be trusted to do this without being checked by the
:13:58. > :14:01.bodies that you are asking to bet your plans. That is an admission
:14:02. > :14:15.that you make mistakes before and you don't think the public will give
:14:16. > :14:22.you the reins second time. Sajid is here because he is on a PR campaign
:14:23. > :14:29.and you will hear from him shortly. I am here today to set out the
:14:30. > :14:33.proposals we have. One aspect of savings needs to come from
:14:34. > :14:38.decluttering public services, because, quite frankly, the lack of
:14:39. > :14:42.reform we've seen from this Government has added bureaucracy and
:14:43. > :14:49.administration. They have not decluttering policing. There are
:14:50. > :14:58.other ways they have added to the cost of the tax payer. Sajid, do you
:14:59. > :15:04.want to respond to that? This is a PR exercise to slander the Labour
:15:05. > :15:08.card -- Labour Party, to keep going back to 2010, when, as we know,
:15:09. > :15:10.there was a global banking crash which did not have anything to do
:15:11. > :15:18.with. That is what the Labour Party want
:15:19. > :15:21.you to believe. But the public knows the reality. This has been billed as
:15:22. > :15:26.a major speech, but hardly anyone has picked up on it, and I think
:15:27. > :15:31.people realise it is another set of gimmicks. They would also rather
:15:32. > :15:36.judge Labour by their actions rather than the cheap words they use now.
:15:37. > :15:39.Back in 1996 there was another Labour Shadow Chancellor called
:15:40. > :15:46.Gordon Brown that promise, in his words, iron discipline with the
:15:47. > :15:49.public finances -- that promised. He stuck to Conservative spending plans
:15:50. > :15:55.and then there was a boom. He stuck to them for a year, but then he let
:15:56. > :15:59.spending gun, and the result was the largest rate of overspending of any
:16:00. > :16:03.developed country in the world -- spending go. The biggest bust the
:16:04. > :16:08.country saw in a hundred years and the largest bank bailout the world
:16:09. > :16:11.ever saw. You are saying that Labour Party spending in the UK cause the
:16:12. > :16:17.financial crash that affected the rest of the world? It was a major
:16:18. > :16:24.contributing factor that -- to the troubles we face, and overspending
:16:25. > :16:28.was huge by the beginning of 2007, according to the IMF, and many
:16:29. > :16:31.others, Britain was running the largest deficit of any developed
:16:32. > :16:35.country and what is called a structural deficit. That is a huge
:16:36. > :16:41.rate of overspending, and that was happening before the banking crisis.
:16:42. > :16:45.How is the level of debt going now after four years of coalition
:16:46. > :16:51.government in terms of proportion of GDP? The rate of borrowing is down.
:16:52. > :16:55.What about the debt? When the government took office, you heard
:16:56. > :17:02.Chris talking about what they inherited. The rate of borrowing was
:17:03. > :17:06.?116 billion per year. I'm not asking about borrowing, I'm talking
:17:07. > :17:13.about the debt. Which direction is it going in? Anyone would understand
:17:14. > :17:17.that when you inherit a rate of borrowing it will take time to turn
:17:18. > :17:20.around. George Osborne said he would balance the books by the end of the
:17:21. > :17:26.parliament, so at the end of this, the public is out there thinking,
:17:27. > :17:29.who do we trust to do what they say they will do, bring down borrowing
:17:30. > :17:34.and bring down the levels of debt. It hasn't happened yet with the
:17:35. > :17:38.debt. That is misleading. You can't reduce borrowing until you reduce
:17:39. > :17:42.the rate of borrowing, and that is the deficit. People understand
:17:43. > :17:47.that. Labour don't want people to understand that. What you are not
:17:48. > :17:51.being clear about is that you say you will have this balancing of the
:17:52. > :17:58.books, but you are leaving yourself room to borrow vast amounts of money
:17:59. > :18:01.on what we call capital spending, on infrastructure projects. So on the
:18:02. > :18:07.day-to-day, current spending, you say you will balance the books, but
:18:08. > :18:10.you will spend to invest? It is the same target the current Chancellor
:18:11. > :18:18.has said. He said in this Parliament that his aim was to get the current
:18:19. > :18:23.budget into surplus, and now we have said for the next Parliament that we
:18:24. > :18:27.would target the current budget. It's true we want to reserve the to
:18:28. > :18:32.state of the economy when we get closer to 2015. How much would you
:18:33. > :18:37.like to spend? Capital infrastructure spend is a good way
:18:38. > :18:40.to stimulate the economy, but we've also committed to reduce the level
:18:41. > :18:45.of national debt by the end of the next Parliament. What about the
:18:46. > :18:49.Liberal Democrats? Which planned the fancy, Ian Swales? The Liberal
:18:50. > :18:53.Democrats have not been as clear. Would you have an absolute budget
:18:54. > :18:55.surplus, so you'd include capital spending, or would you allow
:18:56. > :19:00.yourself room to spend more with capital spending? As you might
:19:01. > :19:04.expect, I'm saying we'd be somewhere in the middle. We do believe in a
:19:05. > :19:09.stronger economy and we want to see the deficit brought down to zero,
:19:10. > :19:13.but we also believe, as Chris does, that investing in infrastructure is
:19:14. > :19:17.a good way to go forward, and we are doing more of that now when this
:19:18. > :19:22.government, as recent plans have shown. I also think we do need a
:19:23. > :19:25.change. Page one of the document Chris was speaking about this
:19:26. > :19:28.morning says that the Labour Party would need to govern in a very
:19:29. > :19:33.different way to how they have in the past. I would certainly agree
:19:34. > :19:38.with that. But the test is, can they actually do it, and does anybody
:19:39. > :19:44.believe that they will? If we get elected, we will be saddled with a
:19:45. > :19:48.?79 billion deficit, so we have to make some tough choices. What would
:19:49. > :19:54.they be? That is what everyone is dying to know. You're going to but
:19:55. > :19:57.the 50p tax rate back in. That is one decision that won't be popular
:19:58. > :20:05.with the rich, but it has to be done. It also won't raise any
:20:06. > :20:09.revenue. That's debatable. It is only ?100 million per year, which
:20:10. > :20:12.isn't very much. But today I was talking about the need to get
:20:13. > :20:21.serious about decluttering the number of local bodies we have. We
:20:22. > :20:26.spend ?3 billion on the whole commissioning of architecture in the
:20:27. > :20:31.NHS, and it needs to be Lena. -- it needs to be more lean. Does it make
:20:32. > :20:33.sense that the new Police Commissioner arrangements cost more
:20:34. > :20:37.than the police authorities than they replaced? We don't think it
:20:38. > :20:43.does. We also have the same number of police and fire authorities. At
:20:44. > :20:47.the same time we are looking at losing front line police officers.
:20:48. > :20:50.It were going to make savings, take those costs out of management and
:20:51. > :20:53.bureaucracy rather than the front line. That is something that this
:20:54. > :20:59.government's spending approach has failed to do. Let's look at the tax
:21:00. > :21:02.and spend and departmental spending. Do you think that the departments
:21:03. > :21:09.that are not ring fenced will be able to withstand 7% cuts in their
:21:10. > :21:16.current spending, year on year? Can I correct something Chris has said.
:21:17. > :21:19.The commitment is Shadow Chancellor made -- his Shadow Chancellor made
:21:20. > :21:23.was about current spending, but we are talking about total spending
:21:24. > :21:27.much over the next few years, by 2019, we plan to eliminate the
:21:28. > :21:30.deficit whether it is capital spending or current spending. We
:21:31. > :21:35.believe that a country must live within its means, and what it spends
:21:36. > :21:38.must be covered by tax. We will not sign up to the gimmicks that the
:21:39. > :21:44.Labour Party use, like differentiating between capital and
:21:45. > :21:50.current. Can I ask, if you're going to try and balance the books, you
:21:51. > :21:53.will not spend to invest, so how are you going to build the houses for
:21:54. > :21:59.the future and the schools for the future and the hospitals if you
:22:00. > :22:03.won't spend to invest? We are going to spend to invest that we will make
:22:04. > :22:08.sure it's raised through taxes. Broadly we have had a decade of flat
:22:09. > :22:11.spending for the NHS, so are you saying over the next Parliament we
:22:12. > :22:14.will have to reduce public spending to a level never seen before because
:22:15. > :22:19.public spending investment is going to generally come down? I'm not
:22:20. > :22:23.saying that, I'm saying we are reducing the rate of borrowing that
:22:24. > :22:26.means we have to keep looking at finding ways to find more savings,
:22:27. > :22:30.and I don't doubt for a minute that it will be difficult as it has been
:22:31. > :22:33.in the last few years. But we are determined to make the tough
:22:34. > :22:37.decisions. Labour had opportunity after opportunity in the last few
:22:38. > :22:41.years to support some of the tough decisions, such as welfare spending,
:22:42. > :22:47.and they voted against every single one of the initiatives. On welfare
:22:48. > :22:52.spending do you support the idea of another ?12 billion being taken out
:22:53. > :22:56.of the welfare budget after 2015? Frankly, no, we have to look
:22:57. > :22:59.carefully at welfare spending. We want to have a fair society and we
:23:00. > :23:02.think those that need help should get it, but we also accept that some
:23:03. > :23:08.changes were needed and we have supported the changes that have
:23:09. > :23:11.already taken place. Would you go into another coalition with the
:23:12. > :23:15.Conservatives with George Osborne saying they need to take another ?12
:23:16. > :23:19.billion? We will be fighting the next election with independent
:23:20. > :23:22.programmes. If we go into coalition again, we will fight out a programme
:23:23. > :23:27.like last time but that does not mean we accept everything in the
:23:28. > :23:31.Tory party manifesto. You seem to ally yourself closer to the Labour
:23:32. > :23:34.Party. I did ask you a specific question, but you want to spend to
:23:35. > :23:37.invest, but your not keen on the welfare cuts at George Osborne
:23:38. > :23:46.suggested. What about the personal tax allowance? If we are talking
:23:47. > :23:49.about the raising of the threshold for basic rate, we would like to see
:23:50. > :23:53.it go further. We would like to get it up to the minimum wage level
:23:54. > :23:56.which would bring it roughly in line with the living wage, which I think
:23:57. > :24:04.is an important milestone. Is that affordable? We want to see lower
:24:05. > :24:10.taxes. A lot of money to raise the threshold. Yes, but we still want to
:24:11. > :24:15.reduce taxes for people who have the lowest take-home pay. Take it away
:24:16. > :24:22.through VAT and cuts to tax credits then? Come on. I want to ask you
:24:23. > :24:25.about Harriet Harman which is the story mainly being discussed today.
:24:26. > :24:29.Should she fully apologise to the organisation that she worked for
:24:30. > :24:34.having the Paedophile Information Exchange as an affiliate
:24:35. > :24:39.organisation? Harriet has been under a lot of attack by the Daily Mail on
:24:40. > :24:45.this and she has said that she regrets that this odious
:24:46. > :24:54.organisation had this affiliation with the NCCL 30 years ago. Is that
:24:55. > :24:59.enough? She's being accused of being an apologist for paedophilia. There
:25:00. > :25:03.can be nothing more absurd or hurtful. It is an appalling thing
:25:04. > :25:06.for her to deal with. I'm sure nobody round this table really
:25:07. > :25:13.thinks that that is the essence of Harriet Harman. But to draw a line,
:25:14. > :25:16.should she make a full apology? I actually think she said the right
:25:17. > :25:21.thing in terms of regretting that this organisation has now been
:25:22. > :25:27.allowed to besmirch a lot of the good work that the organisation she
:25:28. > :25:31.was with at the time was doing. That is a different order of issue as to
:25:32. > :25:34.whether she is an apologist for paedophilia, which has been on the
:25:35. > :25:39.front page of the Daily Mail for the past four days. You think they are
:25:40. > :25:43.running a smear campaign? Undoubtedly. There are many things
:25:44. > :25:48.going on in politics but I hope none of us would never resort to that
:25:49. > :25:56.level of mudslinging, that sort of ridiculous accusation. It is just
:25:57. > :26:00.absurd. Thank you, gentlemen. It is a perennial headache for governments
:26:01. > :26:04.of all persuasions. We the public want more homes, improved transport
:26:05. > :26:08.links and a new generation of power plants, but just not in the
:26:09. > :26:13.backyard. Get it wrong, and ministers stand accused of drawing
:26:14. > :26:18.up a charter for not in my backyard types, or concreting over England.
:26:19. > :26:21.But can the balance be pulled off? Here's David.
:26:22. > :26:31.If only planning was this simple. The Piper Central London model.
:26:32. > :26:33.Neat, and not a protest inside. When the coalition came to power they
:26:34. > :26:36.promised people are much greater say in the things that really mattered
:26:37. > :26:41.to them, like what's get built -- what gets built and where. But they
:26:42. > :26:44.also need to do the big things like transport links, power stations and
:26:45. > :26:49.of course, a lot more housing. So how do they do that and keep the
:26:50. > :26:53.locals happy at the same time? In England, the government has scrapped
:26:54. > :26:57.regional planning targets and given community greater input into what
:26:58. > :27:00.gets built in their areas. But they've also slimmed down planning
:27:01. > :27:03.policy from literally thousands of pages to just over 50, and they want
:27:04. > :27:06.to see thousands of homes built in the coming years. That has led some
:27:07. > :27:15.to wonder what local is really means. The trouble with localism is
:27:16. > :27:19.that it means all things to all men and women, and we created a
:27:20. > :27:21.situation of unreasonable expectations. People thought it
:27:22. > :27:28.meant they could say no when sometimes they can't, and also, it's
:27:29. > :27:31.about having localism introduced in planning without it being introduced
:27:32. > :27:36.in some other areas which are very centralised. The government have
:27:37. > :27:40.also made it harder to use judicial reviews as a way of stalling
:27:41. > :27:43.development, yet some people feel that the dice is loaded in the
:27:44. > :27:48.favour of those opposed to new schemes rather than those who need
:27:49. > :27:52.somewhere to live. We need local, trusted champions, making the same
:27:53. > :27:58.sort of case for housing in their area as say, for example, the Royal
:27:59. > :28:03.Society for the Protection of Birds does for birds. At the same time as
:28:04. > :28:08.championing localism, control over infrastructure projects has been
:28:09. > :28:12.moved to ministers, which might make the more democratic, but also more
:28:13. > :28:18.difficult to stop. Is there actually a way of squaring the circle? The
:28:19. > :28:21.problem at the moment is that local communities and councils have very
:28:22. > :28:26.little financial incentive to allow building of any kind, commercial or
:28:27. > :28:30.residential or infrastructure, in their areas. We have to change that
:28:31. > :28:35.and allow those local communities to reap the benefits of development
:28:36. > :28:40.were not just to feel the pain. We all, collectively, did not really
:28:41. > :28:43.make the case for housing, but what we need in terms of
:28:44. > :28:47.telecommunications infrastructure, what we need in terms of energy to
:28:48. > :28:51.keep the lights on, what we need to build in terms of connectivity,
:28:52. > :28:55.getting people from a to B. We have to persuade the public that not only
:28:56. > :28:59.do we need these things as a nation, and in their place, but it
:29:00. > :29:05.actually translates to stuff in their area. Ministers get paid to
:29:06. > :29:10.take the big decisions, the ones which shape a nation. In planning,
:29:11. > :29:16.they have to decide to what extent they are on the side of the little
:29:17. > :29:20.guy. Our guest of the day, Griff Rhys Jones, is president of Civic
:29:21. > :29:23.Voice, and we are joined by the Conservative MP John Howell. Griff
:29:24. > :29:30.Rhys Jones, would you say as a civic minded person that you automatically
:29:31. > :29:33.and not in my backyard type? I am in that I think that they are a good
:29:34. > :29:39.idea. Where it is important that people take a concern or interest in
:29:40. > :29:43.what happens in their local environment, that's a valid and
:29:44. > :29:47.important thing. It was set up by a Conservative government, the civic
:29:48. > :29:51.movement, Duncan Sands put it in in order to help people to be involved
:29:52. > :29:59.in what is happening in their own area. Too often is the idea that
:30:00. > :30:02.it's perpetrated by a group of people stopping everything
:30:03. > :30:07.happening. What most people feel is they think, how did that happen?
:30:08. > :30:10.What is earthy -- on earth is happening question why do I live in
:30:11. > :30:16.an area where there is a derelict site that has been a derelict site
:30:17. > :30:19.for maybe getting on for 50 years in central London? We can walk around
:30:20. > :30:23.central London and wonder why that happens, and why is that the case,
:30:24. > :30:27.so it's not just a question looking at people from the point of view of
:30:28. > :30:35.saying they are naysayers. They are people who might be concerned about
:30:36. > :30:39.what's happening in their area. And are you concerned about planning
:30:40. > :30:49.reforms? I'm concerned about aspects of them. I worry there might be an
:30:50. > :30:53.idea we can reduce planning legislation to 65 pages when that
:30:54. > :30:57.cannot be the case. Planning starts at the front gate and the way it
:30:58. > :31:01.evolved over the last 50 years is effectively to deal with all the
:31:02. > :31:12.different conditions that came into play, with different and local
:31:13. > :31:17.considerations will stop --. If we chop that down then there will be
:31:18. > :31:22.additions in the future because simple sentences are open to
:31:23. > :31:31.complicated interpretations, even when they are good sentences. And
:31:32. > :31:37.erosion of the green belt. The point about reducing the legislation, as
:31:38. > :31:44.it were, the guidance, down to 50 pages, is I think a misunderstood
:31:45. > :31:48.one. What we did is to take over 1000 pages, and through an
:31:49. > :31:55.enormously long process, boil it down to 50 pages of concise
:31:56. > :31:58.information that is compressible. But it is ambiguous and can be
:31:59. > :32:02.interpreted then in lots of different ways. Also, as many in
:32:03. > :32:10.your own party feel, it gives developers the right. I don't think
:32:11. > :32:17.it does at all. National policy framework introduces practically
:32:18. > :32:22.nothing do. -- new. All it does is take existing guidance and boil it
:32:23. > :32:28.down to 50 pages. That has been of enormous value to people and in my
:32:29. > :32:35.own constituency neighbourhood planning has been introduced and is
:32:36. > :32:44.going very well. The civic interest has been shown enormously by people
:32:45. > :32:48.in my constituency. One in ten people turned up to the same polling
:32:49. > :32:51.booth and only voted for the referendum, they did not vote for
:32:52. > :32:57.the County Council election on the same day. Is John Howell right when
:32:58. > :33:04.he says it does not give builders more right to interpret the guidance
:33:05. > :33:10.to their advantage? I don't think he is right. The framework is an
:33:11. > :33:14.interesting and worthwhile document. What is more complicated as some of
:33:15. > :33:17.the guidelines that have gone out to local authorities. They need a
:33:18. > :33:23.five-year land plan and some have not been given enough time to do
:33:24. > :33:27.that. Consequently, there are gaps which are being exploited by
:33:28. > :33:32.developers, because, effectively, they are saying, look, there is a
:33:33. > :33:35.piece of secondary legislation which says if you as a council have not
:33:36. > :33:39.done this, these guidelines will apply willy-nilly. As a result,
:33:40. > :33:44.there are some bad developments happening. We must never forget that
:33:45. > :33:51.over 90% of planning applications did go through. It is the 10% of
:33:52. > :34:01.rather bad planning applications which are now... Let me pick you up
:34:02. > :34:10.on Matt. 76% of councils have at least a draft planning process. --
:34:11. > :34:19.pick you up on that. That is a good thing. Without that plan, people are
:34:20. > :34:23.exposed to this. All we're asking them to do is, when they are putting
:34:24. > :34:31.forward their plans, we asked them to prove they deliver them. Do you
:34:32. > :34:40.accept you have ditched this idea of Brownfield only sites first. No, not
:34:41. > :34:44.in the slightest. You are not said that they had to be looked at first.
:34:45. > :34:48.The National Trust says its research shows that half of councils with
:34:49. > :34:51.green belt land are preparing to allocate some of it to development
:34:52. > :35:01.while Brownfield sites are overlooked. Not at all. They are
:35:02. > :35:07.still the priority. Priority is not the same as saying it has to be. I
:35:08. > :35:10.can give you an example. In Bradford, people have gone to the
:35:11. > :35:15.council and said it is not financially viable for us to develop
:35:16. > :35:24.Brownfield sites. It is only financially viable for us to develop
:35:25. > :35:30.in other places, areas of rather beautiful green field values, around
:35:31. > :35:33.existing villages. So they had been allocated to expansion for the
:35:34. > :35:37.simple reason that developers have set a standard for themselves.
:35:38. > :35:44.They've said, we could not possibly make profit out of this. Councils do
:35:45. > :35:48.not have too accept what developers tell them and they do not accept.
:35:49. > :35:57.They have to test viability arguments. Are they able to actually
:35:58. > :36:00.fight those decisions? Under planning regulations, they become
:36:01. > :36:07.liable for failed appeals, and therefore when they are strapped for
:36:08. > :36:13.cash... They always have been! I know they always have been, but the
:36:14. > :36:17.presumption is, actually, with the developer. It is also to people
:36:18. > :36:23.fighting bad ideas. They becoming sourced it and may simply be
:36:24. > :36:27.appealed. The presumption is neighbourhood planning is the way
:36:28. > :36:30.forward. We have almost 800 communities around the country
:36:31. > :36:37.engaging in neighbourhood planning. They are engaging with your civic
:36:38. > :36:43.pride. The worry is that will not result in anything because it will
:36:44. > :36:48.all be called off. We have to leave it there, but thank you.
:36:49. > :36:51.The IT company ATOS, which delivers disability benefit assessments, was
:36:52. > :36:54.repeatedly warned by the Government to improve its service, according to
:36:55. > :36:57.the disabilities minister Mike Penning. ATOS has said it wants to
:36:58. > :37:00.leave its Government contract early and when asked yesterday in the
:37:01. > :37:04.Commons, Mr Penning said he intends to get out of the deal and claimed
:37:05. > :37:15.it won't cost the taxpayer extra money. The issue is to do would be
:37:16. > :37:32.an acceptable backlog that ATOS have built up. -- to do with the
:37:33. > :37:36.unacceptable backlog. Given that ATOS have announced they want to
:37:37. > :37:40.withdraw from the contract negotiated with the party opposite,
:37:41. > :37:43.will he agree with me it would be a disgrace if the hard-pressed
:37:44. > :37:51.taxpayer had to pay any form of compensation to this company? ATOS
:37:52. > :37:55.has acted as a lightning rod for all that is wrong with this assessment.
:37:56. > :38:12.They are delivering a contract to Government specified guidelines. It
:38:13. > :38:16.is no surprise to many that ATOS, appointed by the last Labour
:38:17. > :38:24.Government, have now failed their own work capability assessment.
:38:25. > :38:28.Considering appeals upheld were 40% of original decisions, what can be
:38:29. > :38:34.done now to make sure those original decisions in the first place are far
:38:35. > :38:38.more accurate? We're joined now by Anne Begg, who's
:38:39. > :38:42.chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and you saw her
:38:43. > :38:48.there speaking in the debate. Is Labour to blame for this? We signed
:38:49. > :38:56.the original contract, but this company -- this coalition
:38:57. > :39:00.renegotiated that. Also what this Government did was roll out much
:39:01. > :39:04.more quickly the migration from incapacity benefit on to employment
:39:05. > :39:13.and allowance. But there are flaws in the contract. ATOS say they want
:39:14. > :39:16.to terminate the contract because of persistent threats against their
:39:17. > :39:21.staff. Do you think they are justified in pulling the plug? I
:39:22. > :39:26.would've liked the Government to pull the plug earlier. We've been
:39:27. > :39:29.calling for that for some time now. If ATOS failed to deliver, they
:39:30. > :39:36.don't actually seem to suffer any penalty. In this case, I feel
:39:37. > :39:41.slightly sorry for the company. They've become the lightning rod
:39:42. > :39:43.which has attracted all the unhappiness about the work
:39:44. > :39:52.capability assessments have been carried out. All the hatred and
:39:53. > :39:56.upset has been poured on them. As the week there were demonstrations
:39:57. > :40:01.outside many of their officers. So I can understand as a company they
:40:02. > :40:10.must fear their reputation -- fear for their reputation. It is
:40:11. > :40:14.perfectly understandable why the people who have been failed by the
:40:15. > :40:21.system are feeling very annoyed. They want help, many of them want to
:40:22. > :40:26.go back to work. In the media, they are portrayed as lazy. They are
:40:27. > :40:31.not, they want help, but also to do a job they can do. And when they are
:40:32. > :40:37.ill, they do not want to be badgered into always having to go back into
:40:38. > :40:42.the job centre to sign-on. The Government has been keen to reduce
:40:43. > :40:46.the welfare bill. They say tests were not stringent enough, too many
:40:47. > :40:52.were on incapacity benefits. Then you hear these terrible stories of
:40:53. > :40:54.people being put through what are probably humiliating experiences to
:40:55. > :41:01.get benefits they feel they rightly deserve. I once met a doctor in
:41:02. > :41:06.Northern Ireland who explained one of the problems with new legislation
:41:07. > :41:09.which was designed to catch cheats or people exploiting the system is
:41:10. > :41:14.that the actual people exploiting the system continue to find their
:41:15. > :41:20.way around it. The people who really suffer those who deserve assistance
:41:21. > :41:24.and help the most. Putting in some safeguards against that happening is
:41:25. > :41:30.part of the business of making sure the contract is well done. On the
:41:31. > :41:41.other hand, this is a farce that is happening democratically and is a
:41:42. > :41:45.useful bus -- is useful tool to bring it into the public eye. We
:41:46. > :41:54.have to continue looking at these things. Who will foot the Bill? I
:41:55. > :42:00.honestly don't know, I haven't seen the contract because of
:42:01. > :42:06.confidentiality. So the select committee has not been able to study
:42:07. > :42:09.the contract. The minister was saying yesterday they could not get
:42:10. > :42:13.out of the contract in 2010 because it would cost a lot of money, but
:42:14. > :42:18.they don't seem to be saying it now. So I don't know if that is true or
:42:19. > :42:22.not. The taxpayer at the moment is paying a huge amount for a flawed
:42:23. > :42:27.system. Huge amounts are being paid to reassess people that really
:42:28. > :42:32.should not be reassessed. I had a 64-year-old person about to go
:42:33. > :42:37.through his assessment this week. By the time he goes through the system,
:42:38. > :42:41.he will be on the state pension. That is a waste of money and a lot
:42:42. > :42:44.of activists are saying this is wasting huge amounts of Government
:42:45. > :42:50.money and is not getting the right result. Thank you.
:42:51. > :42:53.Scottish Independence is understandably dominating the news
:42:54. > :42:56.agenda at the moment, but in Wales there are also important debates
:42:57. > :43:00.underway about how the country is run. Since devolution, Wales has
:43:01. > :43:03.gone its own way in a number of areas, not least in health and
:43:04. > :43:05.education, so should the nation be seen as a trailblazer for the rest
:43:06. > :43:29.of the UK? Devolution can create laboratory of
:43:30. > :43:35.ideas for the rest of the UK. It is an idea which has long been
:43:36. > :43:40.articulated. Wales has been busy experimenting since 1999.
:43:41. > :43:44.Prescriptions in Wales have been free since 2007, an idea adopted by
:43:45. > :43:51.governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland, who also followed the lead
:43:52. > :43:55.of Wales in charging plastic bags. The ban on smoking was first
:43:56. > :44:00.introduced in Scotland, but Welsh Assembly members had voted for it
:44:01. > :44:03.three years earlier. A snapshot of policy development across the UK.
:44:04. > :44:09.But do we learn enough from each other? It is difficult at the moment
:44:10. > :44:14.for the devolved governments to speak to and learn from each other.
:44:15. > :44:19.We still have a bit of a risk where we are not learning from others as
:44:20. > :44:24.quickly as we code, both in terms of best practice and policy failure. It
:44:25. > :44:27.would be good to have more definite mechanisms in place so the
:44:28. > :44:31.governments of the nations can learn more effectively from each other.
:44:32. > :44:36.With governments of a different colour at both ends of the M4, there
:44:37. > :44:42.is unlikely to be too much policy adoption. They are frequently at
:44:43. > :44:56.loggerheads over big-ticket items such as education and welfare. We
:44:57. > :45:04.have to make it clear that Blair's speech was for England only, not for
:45:05. > :45:09.Wales. Then we widened it into a broad and back broader issue, just
:45:10. > :45:13.to make it clear to the people of Wales that there was a distinct
:45:14. > :45:19.Welsh emphasis to the programme we would be drawing up to put in a
:45:20. > :45:25.A distinctive Welsh programme that rejects the marketisation of
:45:26. > :45:28.services but with Wales languishing at the bottom of education tables
:45:29. > :45:33.and regularly missing key health targets, critics argue it is the
:45:34. > :45:37.wrong programme. Nevertheless, Wales voted in 2011 to give the assembly
:45:38. > :45:42.the necessary tools to make further changes. The referendum to give the
:45:43. > :45:46.Assembly full lawmaking powers hardly caught the imagination, but
:45:47. > :45:53.it did mark a significant step in the devolution journey. I would love
:45:54. > :45:58.to have the powers that Carwyn Jones has now. Had it been available to me
:45:59. > :46:03.in the year 2000 when I took over as First Minister, because it was quite
:46:04. > :46:07.frustrating having to ask Westminster to pass legislation on
:46:08. > :46:12.our behalf. And powers and the possible devolution of further
:46:13. > :46:15.policy areas could see the Welsh laboratory become more experimental
:46:16. > :46:18.in the years to come, but has it so far produced any eureka moments?
:46:19. > :46:24.That is a matter of debate. After all, policy development can be more
:46:25. > :46:29.of an art than a science. We have heard about the record of devolution
:46:30. > :46:35.in Wales, but what about the Labour run Welsh government? How are they
:46:36. > :46:38.faring? Well we can speak now to Jeff Cuthbert, Communities Minister
:46:39. > :46:43.in the Welsh government, and Andrew RT Davies, leader of the Welsh
:46:44. > :46:47.Conservatives. Welcome to both of you. Jeff Cuthbert, why do Welsh
:46:48. > :46:53.hospitals underperform? I think we need to be careful with statements
:46:54. > :46:59.like that. What that does is create a lot of mistrust and fright amongst
:47:00. > :47:08.patients. Patient satisfaction, those using the NHS in Wales, that
:47:09. > :47:11.shows a satisfaction rate of over 90% so it's not fair to say
:47:12. > :47:14.hospitals are underperforming. There will be incidents from time to
:47:15. > :47:18.time, and those are investigated, as is happening at the moment with a
:47:19. > :47:24.couple of hospitals. There are figures here I'd say 50% of Welsh
:47:25. > :47:28.patients wait six weeks for bowel cancer scans compared to 2% in
:47:29. > :47:34.England, simile for MRI scans, and 80% of patients were waiting similar
:47:35. > :47:40.for your ring tests which can be used to detect bladder cancer. --
:47:41. > :47:43.your ring test. You are comparing apples and pears. The issue of
:47:44. > :47:48.waiting times in England is calculated in a different way from
:47:49. > :47:53.waiting times in Wales. That doesn't mean we don't look at the issue and
:47:54. > :47:58.try and improve matters, but the raw comparison is unfair, and it doesn't
:47:59. > :48:04.produce realistic comparisons. That has been accepted by the medical
:48:05. > :48:08.profession. Andrew Davies, this is a political football, isn't it? We
:48:09. > :48:12.often hear in Prime Minister's Question Time, look at the Labour
:48:13. > :48:16.record in Wales, it's just an easy slogan to bash the Labour Party? I
:48:17. > :48:22.don't think that's the case at all. If you look at the big ticket items
:48:23. > :48:25.like the economy, health, education, regrettably Wales does lag behind
:48:26. > :48:28.other parts of the UK. It's not because the Welsh aren't in --
:48:29. > :48:33.aspiring to be the best at everything, it's just the Welsh
:48:34. > :48:41.government policy lead since they took power in 1999. So surely you
:48:42. > :48:44.and your colleagues are accountable? Let's be clear, Andrew Davies
:48:45. > :48:48.mentions the economy. The latest figures show that unemployment in
:48:49. > :48:52.Wales is lower than in the rest of the UK, and in the crucial area of
:48:53. > :48:58.young people, 16 and 17-year-old, there has been a 22% drop in the
:48:59. > :49:04.numbers out of work. A lot down to the successful growth scheme which
:49:05. > :49:08.is creating 10,000 opportunities. As I am talking to you, the First
:49:09. > :49:13.Minister is in the US looking to win good contracts for Wales, inward
:49:14. > :49:17.investment, and promoting Wales as a tourist centre. We are doing our
:49:18. > :49:21.best to raise the profile. It is disappointing that the leader of the
:49:22. > :49:27.opposition continues to talk Wales down. Andrew RT Davies, are you
:49:28. > :49:31.talking Wales down because it is politically expedient? Far from it.
:49:32. > :49:42.I see huge ambition in Wales but the facts speak for themselves. If you
:49:43. > :49:47.look at GBA -- GVA, we are 70% less than the rest of the UK. The
:49:48. > :49:51.government set a goal of 90% GVA. Look out waiting times in the NHS,
:49:52. > :49:55.one in seven people in Wales are on a waiting list, and the cancer
:49:56. > :50:02.waiting times have not been met since 2009. And education, if you
:50:03. > :50:07.take the internationally recognised standard, regrettably, year on year,
:50:08. > :50:10.we have got worse in those assessments. It's not because the
:50:11. > :50:13.people of Wales don't have the ambition, or because the
:50:14. > :50:16.professionals in the areas haven't got the desire to get on in life,
:50:17. > :50:22.it's because the policy direction that the Welsh Labour government
:50:23. > :50:26.have set and been responsible for since 1999 since the assembly came
:50:27. > :50:33.into being. Griff Rhys Jones, had you think Wales is faring? I have to
:50:34. > :50:36.speak to somebody who runs two businesses in Wales, both of which
:50:37. > :50:40.are run by people who are very dedicated and very good people, so I
:50:41. > :50:44.don't find any sense in which the idea that Wales is not a place where
:50:45. > :50:51.business can thrive has any validity. But also, what's important
:50:52. > :50:57.for Wales is to be aware that, just like any other country, if it has a
:50:58. > :51:00.priority about its economy and about its organisation. Do you think the
:51:01. > :51:06.priorities right in Wales at the moment? It's all raise the wrong
:51:07. > :51:10.thing to stand back and say we are fine, don't pick on us because we
:51:11. > :51:14.are Welsh. There is a sense in which we ought to be trying to achieve
:51:15. > :51:18.better standards, and I hope that that would be something that is
:51:19. > :51:24.important. There is a tendency in Wales to think of yourself as a
:51:25. > :51:30.subject nation, repressed place, special case, and I think that's
:51:31. > :51:34.very negative and not usable. Why don't you think there is a clamour
:51:35. > :51:40.for independence by a section of the population as there is in Scotland?
:51:41. > :51:46.I think, possibly, Welsh people are too sensible. There is a sense in
:51:47. > :51:51.which if you turn independence movements into a reverse racism,
:51:52. > :51:56.then we have a problem. What's important about independence is a
:51:57. > :52:02.pride in what is achievable and has been achieved, not a sense of being
:52:03. > :52:08.hard done by, which is one of the primary factors that drives the
:52:09. > :52:13.strong independence movements. Jeff Cuthbert, do you agree with that?
:52:14. > :52:16.Does it come down to attitude? Should the Welsh not be seeing
:52:17. > :52:22.themselves as a subject nation and should be striving more, whoever is
:52:23. > :52:26.in power? Yes, I agree that the situation is different to that in
:52:27. > :52:30.Scotland. Let me make it clear, we hope very much that the people of
:52:31. > :52:34.Scotland do not vote to leave us in Wales by separating from the UK. But
:52:35. > :52:39.there is no appetite for independence in Wales, and I think
:52:40. > :52:45.Griff Rhys Jones is quite right when he says that we don't want special
:52:46. > :52:48.consideration in that sense. We are a proud nation, we want to make sure
:52:49. > :52:52.that the economy is as strong this week can have it, we have a lot of
:52:53. > :52:56.work to do will stop I want to make some points on the issue of
:52:57. > :52:58.education, which the leader of the opposition raised, because we take
:52:59. > :53:06.those matters very, very seriously indeed. Let me ask Andrew RT Davies,
:53:07. > :53:08.what about your relationship with the Welsh Secretary, David Jones
:53:09. > :53:14.question mark how would you describe it? We work very well at the end of
:53:15. > :53:22.the day -- David Jones? How would you describe it? Is the most senior
:53:23. > :53:25.Welsh politician in London, arguing for a better state for Anglesey and
:53:26. > :53:31.the electrification that will take ties between London and Swansea. So
:53:32. > :53:35.why don't you agree on giving or granting Wales tax varying powers,
:53:36. > :53:38.which David Jones would like to see? You are wrong there. We agree with
:53:39. > :53:43.the silk commission recommendations that they should be an element of
:53:44. > :53:48.devolution on income tax. That is in the government strategy. So why did
:53:49. > :53:54.you sack for members of your team? You are talking about a specific
:53:55. > :53:58.measure. That is not the principle of devolving income tax in Cardiff
:53:59. > :54:03.Bay. It's also about devolving stamp duty and other taxes so there is
:54:04. > :54:10.greater fiscal responsibility. And you don't agree on that? We are at
:54:11. > :54:14.the draft stage. What David and myself are completely united over is
:54:15. > :54:18.making sure that future government in Cardiff has an element of fiscal
:54:19. > :54:21.responsibility because that will create better government and better
:54:22. > :54:29.responsibility and accountability in Wales. Gentlemen, thank you very
:54:30. > :54:33.much. Earlier we spoke about Harriet Harman and the links between a civil
:54:34. > :54:36.liberties group she used to work for and paedophile rights campaigners in
:54:37. > :54:42.the 1970s. In the last few moments she has spoken to the TV cameras.
:54:43. > :54:45.Well, I'm not going to apologise, because I've got nothing to
:54:46. > :54:49.apologise for. I very much regret that this vile organisation ever
:54:50. > :54:56.existed and that it ever had anything to do with NCCL, but it did
:54:57. > :55:01.not affect my work at NCCL. They had been pushed to the margins before I
:55:02. > :55:06.even went to NCCL, and to allege I was involved in collusion with
:55:07. > :55:11.paedophilia, or apologising for paedophilia is quite wrong and is a
:55:12. > :55:16.smear. Harriet Harman responding again to the accusations and calls
:55:17. > :55:20.for her to apologise. What does it take to get an issue into the news?
:55:21. > :55:22.A well reasoned argument? A petition? A demonstration? Or
:55:23. > :55:25.perhaps a little bit of stardust. Politicians and campaigners alike
:55:26. > :55:28.are desperate to get celebrities on board, although as David Bowie
:55:29. > :55:34.discovered to his cost last week it can land them in a bit of trouble.
:55:35. > :55:38.The singer ended his acceptance speech at the BRIT Awards with the
:55:39. > :55:40.words, "Scotland stay with us" and promptly faced a barrage of
:55:41. > :55:43.criticism from angry pro-independence campaigners. So is
:55:44. > :55:48.it ever a good thing for celebs to get involved? Here's some who've had
:55:49. > :56:57.a go. Watching that rogues gallery is the
:56:58. > :57:01.writer Zoe Williams. Why would celebrities bother to put their
:57:02. > :57:04.heads above the parapet? They get a hell of a lot of offers, you have to
:57:05. > :57:09.think about how many times people have gone to Angelina Jolie and said
:57:10. > :57:12.they would change their lives if she did it. I think she's a special
:57:13. > :57:15.case, because personally, she has a lot of interest, with those adopted
:57:16. > :57:25.children and the connections in the countries. She became very
:57:26. > :57:33.interested in the whole geopolitical area, and it's completely Judith, --
:57:34. > :57:37.legitimate for her to follow it up. Does it transform the cause really?
:57:38. > :57:43.That is why you entice the celebrities in, but does it change
:57:44. > :57:45.anything? The problem is it is used indiscriminately. If you are
:57:46. > :57:49.somebody with no relevance to the cause, and you're trying to get some
:57:50. > :57:54.following and hijack the popularity, that's problematic. And it bears
:57:55. > :57:58.down on the person themselves. But I think that's unfair. We can't have
:57:59. > :58:01.it both ways. We can't say celebrities cannot intervene,
:58:02. > :58:05.because you're saying you just need to live in your little bubble and
:58:06. > :58:12.not care about the world. Do you get lots of offers? Are they causes you
:58:13. > :58:18.like? There is a big distinction between a political cause and they
:58:19. > :58:21.cause which effectively -- a cause which effectively needs publicity.
:58:22. > :58:26.The reason people involved themselves, and celebrities are the
:58:27. > :58:31.most part, is to get publicity for a forgotten corner or area which needs
:58:32. > :58:34.focus. When celebrities stand up and say they are just being a billboard
:58:35. > :58:43.for this particular area which you might not know about, I don't see
:58:44. > :58:49.that as wrong. I'm afraid we have do end it there. It was short, Zoe, I
:58:50. > :58:55.apologise. That is it for today. Thanks to our guess. Thanks Zoe for
:58:56. > :58:58.coming on at the end -- thanks to our guess. I will be back tomorrow
:58:59. > :59:00.with Andrew. Goodbye.