:00:37. > :00:41.Good afternoon and welcome to The Daily Politics. German Chancellor
:00:42. > :00:45.Angela Merkel gets the red carpet treatment. She's about to address
:00:46. > :00:48.MPs and peers in the Royal Gallery, but has she brought enough
:00:49. > :00:52.eurosceptic goodies for David Cameron to keep Conservative
:00:53. > :00:55.backbenchers happy? The Government launches its strategy
:00:56. > :01:00.for eradicating child poverty, but why they can't they agree what child
:01:01. > :01:05.poverty is? You've heard of fly-tipping but what
:01:06. > :01:07.about horse fly-grazing? Horses are being abandoned in farmers' fields
:01:08. > :01:12.across the country but what should be done about it?
:01:13. > :01:16.And it could make and break political reputations. We look back
:01:17. > :01:22.at Spitting Image on its 30th anniversary.
:01:23. > :01:27.All that in the next hour, and viewers tuning in specifically to
:01:28. > :01:32.see Janet Street Porter to hear her pearls of wisdom on today's stories
:01:33. > :01:36.will be disappointed. She pulled out a little more than an hour ago. But
:01:37. > :01:40.stepping valiantly into the breach and with us for the duration is
:01:41. > :01:48.Times columnist Matthew Parris. Thank you, Matthew, and welcome to
:01:49. > :01:51.the programme. Eye and the thinking man's Janet Street Porter! I'm glad
:01:52. > :01:53.you said that! Let's start with Northern Ireland,
:01:54. > :01:57.because the First Minister Peter Robinson has threatened to resign
:01:58. > :02:01.unless there is a judicial review into a decision by a judge to throw
:02:02. > :02:04.out a case against John Downey, who is suspected of being responsible
:02:05. > :02:07.for the Hyde Park bombing in 1982, which killed four soldiers. Mr
:02:08. > :02:09.Downey is amongst almost 200 Republican paramilitaries who have
:02:10. > :02:14.been sent letters promising they won't be prosecuted for crimes
:02:15. > :02:17.committed during the Troubles. Let's talk to our Northern Ireland
:02:18. > :02:26.reporter Chris Page, who's at Stormont. Chris, this is escalating
:02:27. > :02:30.into a full-blown editable crisis, isn't it? Crisis is certainly a word
:02:31. > :02:34.you are hearing quite often in Northern Ireland this morning. The
:02:35. > :02:38.Democratic Unionist First Minister Peter Robinson says he will quit
:02:39. > :02:42.unless he gets that additional enquiry into the issue and also he
:02:43. > :02:46.wants the government to rescind those 187 letters which have gone to
:02:47. > :02:52.Republican terror suspects, saying they would not be prosecuted. He met
:02:53. > :02:55.with the Secretary of State to reasonable as last night. This
:02:56. > :03:00.morning, it is the turn of the Deputy First Minister, Martin
:03:01. > :03:05.McGuinness, to meet with the First Secretary. He has spoken to the
:03:06. > :03:11.media and called for cool heads and steady leadership. In response to
:03:12. > :03:16.questions about the threat to resign, he said it would achieve
:03:17. > :03:20.absolutely nothing and that the outcome would be that they would be
:03:21. > :03:27.fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. -- they would be.
:03:28. > :03:31.You do get a sense that the crisis is deepening. The Northern Ireland
:03:32. > :03:34.Assembly is to be called on Friday to discuss this matter and Mr
:03:35. > :03:42.Robinson says what he says in that Assembly debate. But what happens
:03:43. > :03:45.now? Because if Peter Robinson has threatened to resign unless his
:03:46. > :03:52.conditions are met, it seems difficult to see a compromise? Well,
:03:53. > :03:57.that is right. The room for manoeuvre he has is quite limited.
:03:58. > :04:01.That is becoming quite clear. It is not the first time he has threatened
:04:02. > :04:05.to resign. Couple of years ago he made a threat over the issue of
:04:06. > :04:09.emblems on the uniforms of prison officers. That said, this crisis
:04:10. > :04:13.seems to be much more serious in that Mr Robinson says this is a
:04:14. > :04:16.fundamental principle of why he went into government with Sinn Fein. He
:04:17. > :04:20.said had he known about these letters, he would not have agreed to
:04:21. > :04:26.go back into government with Sinn Fein several years ago when they
:04:27. > :04:31.were sharing the Assembly here. There is going to be lots of
:04:32. > :04:34.discussion over the next 24 hours on exactly who knew what and when.
:04:35. > :04:37.Martin McGuinness is adamant all the political parties in Northern
:04:38. > :04:42.Ireland knew about a scheme to deal with these people who were on the
:04:43. > :04:46.run and the Democratic Unionist Party have said they did not know
:04:47. > :04:50.about these letters, the detail. Martin McGuinness says this issue
:04:51. > :04:55.was raised with the Policing Board. That will be a key question asked
:04:56. > :05:01.over the next few days or so and tomorrow eyes will be on the debate
:05:02. > :05:04.here instalment. Thank you. Matthew Parris, Peter Hain, Labour's former
:05:05. > :05:10.Northern Ireland Secretary, has said in order to bring old at arrivals to
:05:11. > :05:18.the table and secure that piece, side deals had to be done? Do you
:05:19. > :05:23.think he has a point? -- peace. This is very Blairite and this affair has
:05:24. > :05:29.Tony Blair written all over it. This regard for due process and the rule
:05:30. > :05:34.of law and to hope that by the time the thing services, one will have
:05:35. > :05:40.gone somewhere else! I believe David Trimble on the BBC this morning when
:05:41. > :05:43.he says that he didn't know and he ought to have known. He ought to
:05:44. > :05:48.have known about these things. You don't think it was worth it, even
:05:49. > :05:51.if, at the time it had come to the fore and people had known about it,
:05:52. > :05:55.there might not have been a deal and we might not have had a peace
:05:56. > :05:59.process that resulted in power-sharing in Northern Ireland?
:06:00. > :06:06.That will be the Blairite argument, too. Sorry, chaps, we had to do it.
:06:07. > :06:10.You would not have had an agreement. He was wobbled under the fuss at the
:06:11. > :06:14.time but that related to people already in prison. -- viewers will
:06:15. > :06:19.remember. The right thing to have done would have been to pursue them,
:06:20. > :06:23.catch them, can the them and then pardoned them, as those already in
:06:24. > :06:26.prison were pardoned. It could already have been done and people
:06:27. > :06:31.would have wanted that but it would have been messy politically and this
:06:32. > :06:35.was a way of avoiding an immediate political mess. Do you think a
:06:36. > :06:41.solution or compromise can be found? Yes. Peter Robinson can postpone his
:06:42. > :06:46.threatened resignation until after a big enquiry has reported and slowly
:06:47. > :06:50.it will go into the thank you. Let's leave it there.
:06:51. > :06:54.Now it's time for our daily quiz. During Angela Merkel's last visit to
:06:55. > :06:57.the UK, she was given a DVD box set of one of her favourite programmes
:06:58. > :07:06.by David Cameron, so our question today is which box set was it?
:07:07. > :07:12.At the end of the show, Matthew will give us the correct answer.
:07:13. > :07:15.Now, she's arguably the most powerful woman in the world and
:07:16. > :07:17.she's certainly getting the red-carpet treatment today. She's
:07:18. > :07:20.having lunch at Downing Street, meeting the Queen for tea, and her
:07:21. > :07:23.motorcade has just been taken through the Sovereign's Entrance of
:07:24. > :07:26.the Palace of Westminster, where she has been afforded the rare privilege
:07:27. > :07:30.of addressing both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery.
:07:31. > :07:38.Giles is just outside Parliament for us. Have you seen her go by? I have
:07:39. > :07:42.indeed! About ten minutes ago looking quite eager as she came into
:07:43. > :07:47.the entrance, because, as you say, not everybody gets driven straight
:07:48. > :07:51.in. The rest of security had to stand outside. And a large
:07:52. > :07:58.entourage. But of course she did, because she is Europe's most
:07:59. > :08:04.powerful leader. Great Britain is going all out to give her a red
:08:05. > :08:08.carpet visit. It is to say, you are a very, very important relation and
:08:09. > :08:12.the relationship between us is important. Germany seems to be
:08:13. > :08:16.saying, yes, you are important, Great Britain, but you are not the
:08:17. > :08:21.only one we deal with in Europe. She will be talking to both Houses of
:08:22. > :08:22.Parliament, and some people, particularly Conservative
:08:23. > :08:29.backbenchers, will be listening very carefully to what she has to say.
:08:30. > :08:32.Has she brought with her a load of goodies about Reid he's that will
:08:33. > :08:38.work for a nicely for them? -- treaties. Maybe she wants to be very
:08:39. > :08:42.precise about what she says because she will be delivering the speech in
:08:43. > :08:46.German. Though she talks about negotiation changes and she has made
:08:47. > :08:49.warm words, the suspicion is these things would be enough, and there is
:08:50. > :08:53.a feeling on the German side, certainly if you talk to
:08:54. > :08:56.policymakers in Germany, that they are not entirely sure what it is
:08:57. > :09:00.Great Britain wants. Hopefully by the end of the day, we might find
:09:01. > :09:04.out what she is going to give or is prepared to give, whether it will be
:09:05. > :09:08.enough and whether Britain is going to be more explicit about what it
:09:09. > :09:14.wants. Well, a lot rides on this, no doubt about it. And there has been
:09:15. > :09:18.an awful moth of hype. But is this a case of expectation management after
:09:19. > :09:22.the event? 's big yellow there is no doubt about that because there will
:09:23. > :09:26.be certain people who will say, I didn't hear about anything there
:09:27. > :09:29.that helps with renegotiation and it should be out. And you will see that
:09:30. > :09:34.from UKIP and others like that. You might see some back ensures who just
:09:35. > :09:38.don't want to be part of the European Union. Others will say, the
:09:39. > :09:43.Prime Minister is on the right lines and we can develop more. There will
:09:44. > :09:48.be some who say, we told you, this isn't going to work. Renegotiation
:09:49. > :09:52.isn't going to happen. And, besides, she might be the most powerful
:09:53. > :09:59.leader in Europe but she is not the only powerful leader in Europe. As
:10:00. > :10:03.they say, there is still some confusion in Europe as to exactly
:10:04. > :10:07.what it is Great Britain once. Just hold fire because I think we
:10:08. > :10:10.have some pictures we can show of the German Chancellor, Angela
:10:11. > :10:17.Merkel, arriving. There she is coming in with the speaker, John
:10:18. > :10:20.Bercow, behind her, coming into the Royal Gallery to address both Houses
:10:21. > :10:25.of Parliament, with a round of applause for her. As you say, all
:10:26. > :10:30.part of the red-carpet treatment. Quite a historic moment because it
:10:31. > :10:33.has been 40 years since the last German Chancellor addressed both
:10:34. > :10:37.Houses of Parliament, and there is David Cameron. Thank you. We will be
:10:38. > :10:44.following the event. And we can speak now to Thomas Matussek, the
:10:45. > :10:50.former German ambassador to the UK. We are hoping to be joined from
:10:51. > :10:53.Strasbourg by Syed Kamall, the Conservative Leader in the European
:10:54. > :11:00.Parliament. And Roland Rudd is here in the studio. Welcome to you. Will
:11:01. > :11:05.this charm offensive work? The red-carpet treatment? Will she be
:11:06. > :11:09.impressed? I think she will be impressed and what she wants is to
:11:10. > :11:15.underline that we think it is a very, very important thing that
:11:16. > :11:18.Britain stays engaged in the heart of Europe and Angela Merkel has said
:11:19. > :11:24.time and again that in order to have a strong euro in a globalised world,
:11:25. > :11:31.we need a strong Great Britain. Great Britain brings to the table a
:11:32. > :11:36.lot of things which are desperately needed in Europe right now. A sense
:11:37. > :11:46.of pragmatism, a conviction that a free-market economy is the right
:11:47. > :11:49.philosophical basis, a sense of subsidiaryness, a de Gea full
:11:50. > :11:54.version against too much bureaucracy. These are all issues
:11:55. > :11:59.which are very, very important and Britain makes its case in Europe
:12:00. > :12:04.this way. But what can she realistically and in concrete terms
:12:05. > :12:09.of the David Cameron today? I think what she wants to point out is that
:12:10. > :12:16.there are a lot of things where we can make the EU more pragmatic, more
:12:17. > :12:24.practical, more anti-bureaucratic without changing the treaties.
:12:25. > :12:32.Because I think she would not offer a treaty change because we consider
:12:33. > :12:37.that a can of worms. Look, if you have 28 member states and you open
:12:38. > :12:42.the treaty to one of them, everyone will be coming in, trying to write
:12:43. > :12:47.their own hobbyhorses, but we think that there is a lot of scope below
:12:48. > :12:53.the threshold of treaty change. Right. Roland Rudd, David Cameron,
:12:54. > :12:58.or certainly his Eurosceptic benchers, will be disappointed that
:12:59. > :13:00.there won't be this case for a wholesale treaty reform, which is
:13:01. > :13:05.really what they are looking at? Well, it has been obvious for a
:13:06. > :13:10.while that there will not be any treaty change by 2017, and it is not
:13:11. > :13:13.just France that has said no to it. So we should not be surprised by
:13:14. > :13:17.that. But there is a huge amount of four we can have without treaty
:13:18. > :13:21.reform. We can push hard on these free trade agreements on these most
:13:22. > :13:26.powerful nations of the world and also enhance London's position as
:13:27. > :13:31.Europe's financial centre and a global financial centre or without
:13:32. > :13:35.treaty change. So we do need that to see more reform in the European
:13:36. > :13:39.Union. But will that be enough for a romp of Tory backbenchers who want
:13:40. > :13:44.to see far more than that? In fact, they have even drawn out a manifesto
:13:45. > :13:47.with far reaching reforms that would require some sort of change or a
:13:48. > :13:54.revision of the existing establishments? The word romp is
:13:55. > :13:58.well chosen. There is a group of the benchers for whom nothing will be
:13:59. > :14:02.enough. It doesn't matter what she says or what David Cameron manages
:14:03. > :14:07.to renegotiate. They want out and nothing less than that will satisfy
:14:08. > :14:11.them. Others will listen. I suspect not particularly to Angela Merkel
:14:12. > :14:14.today. I don't know why the Government have allowed expectations
:14:15. > :14:18.to be aroused in the way they have. It is far too early for her to start
:14:19. > :14:23.making offers when we haven't even had any British demands yet. And
:14:24. > :14:27.that is the point - do we need to have heard from David Cameron more
:14:28. > :14:30.specifically about demands in terms of repatriations of powers before
:14:31. > :14:36.this historic meeting here with Angela Merkel? There won't be any
:14:37. > :14:43.repatriations powers. Simply, it won't happen. What can happen... But
:14:44. > :14:47.Tory MPs are laying their reputations and careers on this!
:14:48. > :14:51.Well, there are those who would not want anything and want out. So you
:14:52. > :14:55.will never pacify them. But reform is possible and we should not be
:14:56. > :15:00.putting all our eggs in the German basket. We should not alienate as we
:15:01. > :15:04.did at the beginning of the year. That was silly. Lots of countries
:15:05. > :15:10.want to see European reform and that is possible. On that, can I ask
:15:11. > :15:16.you, then, some of the things Angela Merkel might be able to accept? And
:15:17. > :15:18.emergency brake for any member state regarding future EU legislation
:15:19. > :15:29.affecting financial services? Is that something she could agree to?
:15:30. > :15:33.Honestly, I don't know anything about the details. This visit has to
:15:34. > :15:38.be seen in the context of a very, very important political gesture and
:15:39. > :15:45.political opening. I don't think it is too much about negotiating any
:15:46. > :15:49.details. That's what I believe. Are they on the same page, David Cameron
:15:50. > :15:53.and Angela Merkel, that opening of negotiations? Do they start from a
:15:54. > :15:57.similar standpoint and have the personal relationship to take it
:15:58. > :16:02.forward? I think the personal relationship is quite good, and you
:16:03. > :16:12.must see that where we come from on Germans, on certain issue, we are
:16:13. > :16:15.philosophically or -- more close to Britain than say the French -- as
:16:16. > :16:22.Germans. We would like in the centre of Europe not just a German and
:16:23. > :16:30.French tandem, but a menage a trois. We need David Cameron there.
:16:31. > :16:34.David Cameron will be betting his future on the fact the relationship
:16:35. > :16:39.will hold, but she's going to see Ed Miliband as well. Yes, but she will
:16:40. > :16:44.do all she can to keep Britain in. No question about that. We mustn't
:16:45. > :16:50.let expectations run away. She can deliver more reform, and I believe
:16:51. > :16:59.that Germany and Britain are on the same track in that, but she can't,
:17:00. > :17:03.and nor would she be willing to letters take powers back to Britain,
:17:04. > :17:07.and that would let it unravel and she won't have it. But that will
:17:08. > :17:16.lead to disappointment on the Tory backbenches. There has been too much
:17:17. > :17:22.massaging of expectation. I think the former ambassador has written
:17:23. > :17:28.Angela Merkel's speech for her, maybe in his own mind. Today will be
:17:29. > :17:33.a loving, Britain, we love you, we think along the same lines, stay
:17:34. > :17:48.with us. There is no negotiation going to happen today. -- love-in.
:17:49. > :17:53.Are people getting fed up with having a section in the media that
:17:54. > :17:58.say it's not only time for reform or having Britain pull-out? The
:17:59. > :18:06.Germans, on the whole, they adopt a lot of British lifestyle elements,
:18:07. > :18:09.and there will be part of us that say we are not Britain, but that is
:18:10. > :18:14.not the political class or the majority of Germans. We would be
:18:15. > :18:21.very reluctant to see Britain EU at that level. Germany is looking for a
:18:22. > :18:25.reformed Europe, but more Europe at the same time, with close
:18:26. > :18:32.integration, and is of the Tory government looking for the opposite?
:18:33. > :18:35.Not really. If you look at the banking union, where you have the
:18:36. > :18:38.majority of the ins and outs, that was a great victory for Britain, and
:18:39. > :18:44.the idea of double majority voted could be extended through Europe to
:18:45. > :18:47.protect interests, if the European nations get closer. I don't think we
:18:48. > :18:51.have to worry about that too much. One thing I would say, it's
:18:52. > :18:54.incredibly important that David Cameron starts the serious process
:18:55. > :18:58.of reform immediately after the European elections and does not get
:18:59. > :19:08.knocked off by how well you can does in terms of appealing to his
:19:09. > :19:13.backbench MPs. What about business, standard life said they might leave
:19:14. > :19:18.Scotland if they voted for independence, is that a wake-up call
:19:19. > :19:24.for Britain in relation to EU membership -- Standard Life. They
:19:25. > :19:29.had 14 different reports from businesses, and not one business
:19:30. > :19:32.came up with one piece of legislation they wanted repatriated
:19:33. > :19:35.from Europe, and everyone that took part in the government review said
:19:36. > :19:40.it was essential we remain in the European Union. That is the view of
:19:41. > :19:43.the vast majority of businesses. But there are businesses that disagree
:19:44. > :19:47.with that and say there should be wiping out of regulations. We never
:19:48. > :19:52.quite know what those are. This wish list of reform, getting rid of a bit
:19:53. > :19:57.of regulation, a few opt outs for Britain, be enough? The most
:19:58. > :20:00.businesses, I think it would be. The principal fear the business is the
:20:01. > :20:06.fact we would walk out of the European Union, but your right, red
:20:07. > :20:10.tape, removal of that, it always goes down well. I have a strong
:20:11. > :20:17.feeling this is all terribly premature. We do have the European
:20:18. > :20:23.elections coming so it has focused people 's minds. We do, but its
:20:24. > :20:26.three-year to work referendum -- three years. I do think the
:20:27. > :20:33.Conservatives will win the election and we're not down to brass tacks.
:20:34. > :20:36.Angela Merkel is in a grand coalition with the social Democrats,
:20:37. > :20:42.so does that change her negotiations in the future? Does it temper what
:20:43. > :20:48.she'd be able to do because of the Social Democrats? I don't think it
:20:49. > :20:50.changes anything. There is a strong continuity in the relationship with
:20:51. > :21:00.Britain, irrespective of the political colour. If I may add one
:21:01. > :21:04.thing, you see the basic difficulty with Britain, as I see it, is that
:21:05. > :21:11.British governments regard the Brussels Forum as something where
:21:12. > :21:16.you riding like St George, want to slay the dragon, come back home and
:21:17. > :21:21.say I had got this and this out of Brussels. Now to turn around and
:21:22. > :21:25.tell the British public you must love the dragon, that is very, very
:21:26. > :21:30.difficult. And there I see a certain difference in the overall political
:21:31. > :21:37.attitude towards Brussels, in Germany and in Britain. Rather late,
:21:38. > :21:40.but better late than never, we can go to Syed Kamall. I don't know if
:21:41. > :21:44.you've been able to hear any of the discussion that has gone before we
:21:45. > :21:51.got a connection to you, but to sum up, Thomas Matussek says it's
:21:52. > :21:54.unlikely there would be wholesale treaty change and repatriation of
:21:55. > :21:57.powers would not happen either. What would you say to that? Is that
:21:58. > :22:02.disappointing to you and your colleagues? Any negotiation is going
:22:03. > :22:06.to be tough, but when you look back at the record David Cameron has in
:22:07. > :22:10.negotiation with other European partners, many said we could not
:22:11. > :22:17.veto a treaty, and we did that. Many people said we could not cut the
:22:18. > :22:20.budget, and we managed to do it. So when people say you can't do this or
:22:21. > :22:25.it cannot happen, let's wait and see what happens when we come to the
:22:26. > :22:27.negotiations. You think there could be wholesale treaty change and
:22:28. > :22:33.repatriation of a list of powers, despite what just heard today from
:22:34. > :22:39.Berlin? There are always doomsayers who say you cannot achieve it. That
:22:40. > :22:44.is what some German colleague said when we try to get the budget cut,
:22:45. > :22:49.and we achieved it. I was told Britain would never be able to pull
:22:50. > :22:53.it sells out of the European bailout mechanism, but we managed to do it.
:22:54. > :22:58.-- pull itself out. I was told we would not be able to veto a treaty.
:22:59. > :23:01.Each time people say we cannot do it, we have proved them wrong so I
:23:02. > :23:11.don't see why it should be different. So you are going to be
:23:12. > :23:14.proved wrong. I haven't heard one piece of legislation that would be
:23:15. > :23:18.repatriated back to Britain. Every time I hear about these appalling
:23:19. > :23:22.regulations in Europe, and you ask the question, which one do you want
:23:23. > :23:26.unravelled, which one do you want brought back you hear what it is. So
:23:27. > :23:34.which one is it if you could pick one? The large businesses with
:23:35. > :23:37.lobbyists here and compliance officers don't mind EU legislation
:23:38. > :23:43.because it kills competition from small businesses. But I get small
:23:44. > :23:47.businesses all the time that say we want exceptions because of our size,
:23:48. > :23:50.and we can't afford three or four days to comply with EU regulations
:23:51. > :23:54.because that is one person's time for a small company. But in large
:23:55. > :24:01.companies they have full-time lobbyist. -- lobbyists. But which
:24:02. > :24:07.specific piece of legislation would you want unravelled and repatriated
:24:08. > :24:15.to Britain? There are two ways to look at it. One is specific areas.
:24:16. > :24:19.Which one? We've made a good start in justice and home affairs, and
:24:20. > :24:23.some colleagues want to talk about agriculture and fisheries. Those are
:24:24. > :24:27.issues for negotiation. At the same time, there are constitutional
:24:28. > :24:29.issues. There has to be an ability for national governments to say to
:24:30. > :24:39.the EU, you have gone too far, reconsider. So no actual regulation.
:24:40. > :24:43.So, no specific regulation, but on Justice and home affairs we've opted
:24:44. > :24:51.out about a and we are trying to go back into 30 -- we opted out of
:24:52. > :24:55.about 130. There does have to be a European arrest warrant, so we are
:24:56. > :24:59.now trying to get back into 30 of them. But I haven't heard the piece
:25:00. > :25:03.of legislation or regulation that needs to be unravelled, and that is
:25:04. > :25:11.the normal case. What about the working time directive? We have an
:25:12. > :25:16.opt out, but that didn't quite come up as much as anybody thought it
:25:17. > :25:26.would in terms of torque from businesses. Syed Kamall, if there
:25:27. > :25:29.was a vote on British membership of the EU tomorrow, which way would you
:25:30. > :25:36.vote? There isn't going to be about tomorrow. I realise that. But if we
:25:37. > :25:41.found ourselves without anything changing in a few years time, which
:25:42. > :25:44.way would you vote? I was having a conversation with David Cameron
:25:45. > :25:49.about this the other day and he said not to answer hypothetical
:25:50. > :25:55.questions. So you can't come clean on what you would do? Let's wait for
:25:56. > :25:59.2017 and the referendum. We have to wait for the renegotiation, we can
:26:00. > :26:05.put that. We can but that the British people, and then I would
:26:06. > :26:09.decide how I would vote. We will ask you then. Don't take any advice from
:26:10. > :26:17.David Cameron, that's my advice. Thank you all very much.
:26:18. > :26:22.Now, did you know that child poverty, as it's officially
:26:23. > :26:25.measured, actually went down in the wake of the financial crisis of
:26:26. > :26:28.2008? But that's not because poor children got richer, but because
:26:29. > :26:31.richer people got poorer. That's one of the perverse outcomes which the
:26:32. > :26:34.Work and Pensions Secretary wanted to eliminate by changing the way the
:26:35. > :26:37.government measures child poverty. But it's a change that's been left
:26:38. > :26:40.out of today's child poverty strategy amid reports of a row
:26:41. > :26:43.between the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Chancellor. Iain
:26:44. > :26:46.Duncan Smith and and George Osborne both agree that the current
:26:47. > :26:49.definition on child poverty needs to be changed. Currently, a child is
:26:50. > :26:51.defined as living in poverty when their family income falls below 60%
:26:52. > :27:03.of median income. Iain Duncan Smith is said to want to
:27:04. > :27:05.see broader measures of poverty included in the definition such as
:27:06. > :27:07.entrenched worklessness, family breakdown, problem debt, drug and
:27:08. > :27:13.alcohol dependency. But Mr Osborne is reported to have
:27:14. > :27:18.blocked this new definition being included in today's strategy paper.
:27:19. > :27:28.And Lib Dem Education Minister David Laws has weighed in behind Mr Duncan
:27:29. > :27:31.Smith, supporting the change. What is disappointing is that the
:27:32. > :27:36.Coalition Government has not been able to agree a new set of measures
:27:37. > :27:40.to target child poverty and reduce child poverty in the future. Those
:27:41. > :27:45.measures are important, because ultimately they are the driver of
:27:46. > :27:48.policy and the future -- in the future. We've done a lot of work on
:27:49. > :27:54.that in government and the Liberal Democrats have a clear idea of what
:27:55. > :27:57.the new measures should be. We will not allow the Conservative Party to
:27:58. > :28:01.simply end discussion on this. Joining us to discuss this is Policy
:28:02. > :28:06.Exchange's Ruth Porter and Alison Garnham from the charity Child
:28:07. > :28:09.Poverty Action Group. Ruth Porter, are you disappointed the government
:28:10. > :28:14.has not changed the definition of child poverty? What is clear is that
:28:15. > :28:17.the current poverty measure is fundamentally flawed, but where the
:28:18. > :28:20.government is right today is to come out and say that what we need is a
:28:21. > :28:24.strategy which actually focuses on looking at the reasons why people
:28:25. > :28:30.living in poverty and aims to address those. If you take, for
:28:31. > :28:35.example, needs analysis we have done -- the analysis we have done which
:28:36. > :28:41.has 2 million children in Britain as materially deprived, on a different
:28:42. > :28:44.definition, the ones that don't show up in current statistics because
:28:45. > :28:47.they are based around income. Similarly we saw Iain Duncan Smith
:28:48. > :28:52.and George Osborne talking about the fact that there are 100,000 fewer
:28:53. > :28:55.children in workless households, and these are both statistics which
:28:56. > :28:59.don't show up in the current measure. Clearly the way we are
:29:00. > :29:03.looking at poverty, the way we are measuring it with one statistic, is
:29:04. > :29:07.far too simplistic, and the key is to move to a strategy that deals
:29:08. > :29:13.with the underlying reason why people are in poverty. Do you agree
:29:14. > :29:16.with that, Alison? There are four measures, not just one indicator.
:29:17. > :29:20.They are not definitions, they are measures. The 60% median is a
:29:21. > :29:25.relative measure, there is one that looks a deprivation and there is
:29:26. > :29:29.another but looks persistence of poverty, how long the family has
:29:30. > :29:33.been poor for. There is also in the act of whole list of building blocks
:29:34. > :29:37.including childcare, parental support, education, housing, all the
:29:38. > :29:41.things discussed quite rightly in the child poverty strategy but it's
:29:42. > :29:47.not just about those indicators. So these are needed, is the argument,
:29:48. > :29:52.to keep track of people who are living in, by whatever measure,
:29:53. > :29:58.poverty? Although there are supposedly four measures, we fixate
:29:59. > :30:01.on relative income. All four of those measures look at income, and
:30:02. > :30:05.the reality is for some people, people can be just above the income
:30:06. > :30:09.line but if they have someone in their household who has a severe
:30:10. > :30:16.addiction issue, or issues with debt, they won't be picked up. They
:30:17. > :30:20.are a tiny proportion of families. The real issue is we are facing a
:30:21. > :30:25.child poverty crisis. We know that child poverty will rise by nearly 1
:30:26. > :30:29.million x 2020, so having a discussion about what goalpost we
:30:30. > :30:32.want to move in an environment where there is a crisis on the horizon,
:30:33. > :30:40.that is what we need the strategy to address, what policies would make a
:30:41. > :30:43.difference? But the focus on income means that if we look at our
:30:44. > :30:47.approach to tackling poverty, it is focused on, how do you, through the
:30:48. > :30:51.benefits system, redistribute money, rather than looking at the
:30:52. > :30:54.underlying reasons why people are poor, and that is why the Government
:30:55. > :30:58.is absolutely right to be doing things like looking at addressing
:30:59. > :31:01.educational attainment of the poor, getting more people into work and
:31:02. > :31:08.helping people in work to move up the pay scale. We have seen over the
:31:09. > :31:18.last ten to 15 years policy on all of those areas so there were clearly
:31:19. > :31:24.the childcare strategies, we saw the lone parent rate increase from 45 to
:31:25. > :31:27.50%, we have the narrowing of the gap in educational attainment. All
:31:28. > :31:31.sorts of policies have been developed that address a whole range
:31:32. > :31:35.of issues. Except that there are these big hats and many people who
:31:36. > :31:42.don't make those statistics and they are being missed. -- big gap is. How
:31:43. > :31:45.do you address this? They are not being left out. There is a very
:31:46. > :31:49.strong association between relative low income and all kinds of poor
:31:50. > :31:54.outcomes for children. Low educational attainment, poor health,
:31:55. > :32:00.low self-worth and so on. The real problem at the moment is that poorer
:32:01. > :32:07.families are facing ?22 billion of tax cuts and benefits cuts. 60% of
:32:08. > :32:11.those are hitting working and low income families. So now they cannot
:32:12. > :32:16.make those ends meet and it shows in the statistics. 60% of poor children
:32:17. > :32:23.live with a working parent, as these are telling us. Just to welcome
:32:24. > :32:25.viewers from Scotland. What you say to the fact that the Treasury has
:32:26. > :32:32.blocked these definitions because they do not want to look at what
:32:33. > :32:39.they can see as -- what they might see as expensive targets and cannot
:32:40. > :32:43.see a way of getting around them? The Government has said today they
:32:44. > :32:47.want to focus on the reasons people live in poverty. And that is the
:32:48. > :32:51.right approach. The exciting on target to do with income simply
:32:52. > :32:55.drives policy in the wrong direction. Do we need to have those
:32:56. > :33:00.targets in place in order to measure child poverty? Well, we must say
:33:01. > :33:05.what we mean by poverty when we talk of poverty and the big question is,
:33:06. > :33:07.is it a relative measure or an absolute measure? Are people
:33:08. > :33:11.relatively poor because they are living in quite a rich country and
:33:12. > :33:16.though their income isn't bad, it is a lot worse than other people's?
:33:17. > :33:20.Poverty lobby was always in favour of relative poverty rather than
:33:21. > :33:27.absolute, and just because a slight dip now in our fortunes has kind of
:33:28. > :33:30.reversed and moved the goalposts in a way that is unhelpful to the
:33:31. > :33:33.poverty lobby, I don't think we should abandon that important
:33:34. > :33:39.principle that poverty is a relative concept. I'm certainly not
:33:40. > :33:42.complaining about what the indicators are showing. And in fact
:33:43. > :33:46.it is very easy to read what is going on and you can tell what is
:33:47. > :33:50.happening to average incomes. You have odd findings every now and then
:33:51. > :33:53.but poverty is always relative to the society you live in. People need
:33:54. > :34:00.cash to pay their bills, keep their house warm, to buy food. But those
:34:01. > :34:06.definitions can be misleading because some of those are absolute?
:34:07. > :34:10.The reality is, there is no single measure which is perfect, so what we
:34:11. > :34:13.need is to introduce more measures looking at other things as well,
:34:14. > :34:17.things like addiction, things like the cost of housing and the impact
:34:18. > :34:23.of that. Rather than just focusing on one headline figure. A loss of
:34:24. > :34:27.those things are already in the child poverty measure but we used to
:34:28. > :34:31.have some other things included. I'm not against adding measures to the
:34:32. > :34:36.existing measures and I think it would be quite important to look at
:34:37. > :34:41.other issues. Thank you. We've all heard of fly-tipping but
:34:42. > :34:44.what about horse fly-grazing? It's where people leave their horses on
:34:45. > :34:47.farmland without payment or permission, and it seems to be a
:34:48. > :34:51.growing problem. MPs have recently debated the issue and one who's had
:34:52. > :34:54.lots of problems in his constituency thinks more desperately needs to be
:34:55. > :35:10.done. Here's Damian Hinds, with his soapbox.
:35:11. > :35:16.The sight of horses grazing on the field is a beautiful countryside
:35:17. > :35:21.sight. As long as they are there legally. Unfortunately, that is not
:35:22. > :35:25.always the case. Horses abandoned in a farmer's field or left by the side
:35:26. > :35:28.of the road, that could be a nuisance for farmers and endanger
:35:29. > :35:31.the safety of people in the area, and of course can have terrible
:35:32. > :35:38.consequences for the welfare of the animals themselves. These horses at
:35:39. > :35:43.Newton balance in East Hampshire really well looked after and cared
:35:44. > :35:47.for. But equine charities estimate there could be 7000 horses in
:35:48. > :35:52.England and Wales at risk of welfare problems. With upwards of 3000 on
:35:53. > :35:57.land without consent. And that number is growing. In the first
:35:58. > :36:01.quarter of 2013, the British horse Society saw complaints about horse
:36:02. > :36:11.welfare rise by 50% on the previous year. A few unscrupulous owners
:36:12. > :36:14.leave their animals on private land without payment or permission.
:36:15. > :36:17.Sometimes the conditions can be terrible, without adequate grass to
:36:18. > :36:21.graze on. They might be there for days or weeks until the verities are
:36:22. > :36:26.notified and then they just move them onto another piece of land. Not
:36:27. > :36:31.only is it an act of theft using the farmer's grazing land without
:36:32. > :36:35.permission terrible burden on the charities concerned with horse
:36:36. > :36:39.welfare who try to help. One piece of land in my constituency recently
:36:40. > :36:42.had 46 horses left on it, though in that case with payment and
:36:43. > :36:47.permission. But the horses were not being properly looked after authored
:36:48. > :36:51.by their owner. The RSPCA had to remove them. Shortly after this,
:36:52. > :36:59.another 18 horses appeared. Many of them were in a terrible state and
:37:00. > :37:03.one died soon after in a century. -- sanctuary. Local authorities need
:37:04. > :37:07.more powers to remove horses before they just get moved to another
:37:08. > :37:12.location and the cycle starts over again. I welcome DEFRA's efforts to
:37:13. > :37:15.negotiate a limit to the free movement of horses from the
:37:16. > :37:19.continent to this country but there is still a problem with horses
:37:20. > :37:25.originating in England and Wales. In Wales, and you control of horses act
:37:26. > :37:29.has come into force. I am concerned that without similar initiatives
:37:30. > :37:32.here in England, the problem could be further displaced across the
:37:33. > :37:38.border. -- a new control. And the Conservative MP Damian Hinds
:37:39. > :37:42.joins us now. Obviously a problem in your constituency. Is it a big
:37:43. > :37:45.problem across the UK? It is, and you all the numbers on the film. And
:37:46. > :37:50.it is a movable problem and it does move. Since we had a big hug and my
:37:51. > :37:56.constituency it has gone down somewhat in Hampshire but then has
:37:57. > :38:00.moved elsewhere. -- a bid problem. Why do you think people are
:38:01. > :38:02.struggling to look after their horses, because presumably that is
:38:03. > :38:08.why they are being dumped or abandoned? I am not sure we can make
:38:09. > :38:12.those assumptions so quickly. I'm sure there is an element of that but
:38:13. > :38:17.it also seems there is a small number of people who own very large
:38:18. > :38:20.numbers of horses, who, as part of their practice, will keep moving
:38:21. > :38:29.them from piece of land to piece of land. Can you impound horses? No.
:38:30. > :38:33.The local authority will typically have one option, which is once they
:38:34. > :38:36.have been through a process and had a statutory delay, they have to
:38:37. > :38:39.auction the waters off after micro-chipping them, which increases
:38:40. > :38:46.their value. Sometimes they then get what back by the original owner! --
:38:47. > :38:52.fought back. In Wales impounding is an option and there are certain acts
:38:53. > :38:57.where impounding can be a possibility, including in Hampshire.
:38:58. > :39:02.If the horse becomes ill or dies, whose responsibility would that be?
:39:03. > :39:09.I think the full misery clear. The people who either irresponsibly
:39:10. > :39:15.breed horses or leave them without due care for their welfare, it is
:39:16. > :39:19.definitely their fault. The responsibility depends on whatever
:39:20. > :39:24.horse charity has taken them in and the way they deal with it. So they
:39:25. > :39:30.could blame the farmer on whose land it has been left? Yes, and I think
:39:31. > :39:34.this whole issue is a big burden because once you have animals on
:39:35. > :39:42.your land, the idea that you have responsibility for them. It is
:39:43. > :39:47.already. It is not allowed to fly graze horses. We have had the Welsh
:39:48. > :39:50.act in for a month and we need to see what impact that powers and
:39:51. > :39:53.whether it displaces the problem across the board, and also how
:39:54. > :39:59.effective it is in Wales. But this is something I am sure the team will
:40:00. > :40:02.keep under review. What about microchip in horses? It is very
:40:03. > :40:08.important and we need more enforcement as well. It is important
:40:09. > :40:15.to get a good deal. You can get free microchips in circumstance can --
:40:16. > :40:23.certain circumstances. My llamas escaped a few months ago and went
:40:24. > :40:28.fly grazing in a neighbour's... He came home and they were very
:40:29. > :40:30.understanding! I am delighted to hear it!
:40:31. > :40:35.On one level, the Greens are doing pretty well. They've got an MP, two
:40:36. > :40:38.MEPs, they control a council and have a meaningful presence in
:40:39. > :40:42.English local government generally. But where do they go next? Is it
:40:43. > :40:46.possible for an organisation which is still viewed by a sizeable chunk
:40:47. > :40:49.of the electorate, rightly or wrongly, as a single-issue party to
:40:50. > :40:54.get any bigger, and if so, how do they make the breakthrough? Or is
:40:55. > :41:00.this as good as it gets for the Greens?
:41:01. > :41:04.St Mary's ward in Oxford. They do things a little differently here. It
:41:05. > :41:07.has been home to generations of thinkers and that desire to
:41:08. > :41:13.challenge the conventional wisdom extends to their politics. People in
:41:14. > :41:19.this part of Oxford tend to believe in green. Along with the
:41:20. > :41:22.affectionately named news of Brighton, it is a party stronghold,
:41:23. > :41:27.and some people think it could become an electoral ghetto from
:41:28. > :41:31.which the party find it hard to escape. Looking at the European
:41:32. > :41:36.election, it is the Greens who will struggle to get airtime because you
:41:37. > :41:39.have UKIP and the whole in- out referendum question. And actually,
:41:40. > :41:44.they have not been out there on national issues such as flooding and
:41:45. > :41:48.climate change that have been really good opportunities recently. At the
:41:49. > :41:53.moment in England and Wales, the Greens have one MP, two MEPs, two
:41:54. > :42:03.members of the Greater London assembly and more than 40 local
:42:04. > :42:05.councillors. And the than doubled since 1998, almost 13,000 now, and
:42:06. > :42:08.the party that runs Brighton council has significant presence in a number
:42:09. > :42:13.of places including Oxford. All good but is it something of a comfort
:42:14. > :42:18.blanket? Is not according to the man who helped write the last election
:42:19. > :42:21.manifesto for them. It might be the other political parties who are
:42:22. > :42:24.wearing the comfort blanket rather than the Greens, and they need to
:42:25. > :42:27.persuade the mainstream parties that the issues they have been
:42:28. > :42:33.campaigning on for a long time of the key ones to which they should be
:42:34. > :42:37.paying attention. But previous attempts to access the mainstream
:42:38. > :42:41.are precisely what led this candidate to quit the party in
:42:42. > :42:45.frustration. I suspect if you look to their individual policies, many
:42:46. > :42:50.of those would actually get majority support but as a whole, the party
:42:51. > :42:53.has found it for a difficult to connect with the mainstream
:42:54. > :42:59.electorate and unless that changes, the Green Party is stuck with 3% of
:43:00. > :43:03.the vote. By the way, this is not a pretty lake we are standing next to.
:43:04. > :43:08.It is a flood plain, which he sings rather makes his point. We have seen
:43:09. > :43:12.the worst floods ever over the last few weeks in British history.
:43:13. > :43:15.Climate change is the defining issue of the 21st century. Only the Greens
:43:16. > :43:19.really seem to take it very seriously, but unless they bring on
:43:20. > :43:24.a lot of other policies to attract mainstream voters, the Green Party
:43:25. > :43:28.will not be able to solve the climate change problem. Oxford is
:43:29. > :43:33.part of the fabric of this green and pleasant land, but will dreaming of
:43:34. > :43:39.the dreaming spires be the limit for the Green Party? We are joined now
:43:40. > :43:42.by the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett. Where were you
:43:43. > :43:46.during the floods? There seem to be a few people in that film is saying
:43:47. > :43:51.that was your big opportunity and you didn't capitalise it? We
:43:52. > :43:54.definitely had a ten point plan on how to react to the floods and we
:43:55. > :43:57.are the lighted Ed Miliband picked up the call we made for Owen
:43:58. > :44:02.Paterson to go as Environment Secretary, so there we can see our
:44:03. > :44:07.call making a real impact and making on the national stage. But we didn't
:44:08. > :44:10.see you. Was it an opportunity, a missed opportunity, to get higher
:44:11. > :44:16.profile rather than let the other parties take on your plan? Well, I
:44:17. > :44:19.went down to the Thames barrier instead and stood in front of a
:44:20. > :44:22.successful anti-Flood project which showed how we can work together to
:44:23. > :44:31.deal with the threat of climate change. So, I did not choose the
:44:32. > :44:35.Wellington boot route. There is another party trying to make an
:44:36. > :44:38.impact and be more successful than you, UKIP, and bus stops and
:44:39. > :44:46.Brighton and no sign of a breakthrough in the polls. -- asked
:44:47. > :44:51.ups. Have you reached your limit? Not at all. We got our first County
:44:52. > :44:55.Council is in Essex, Cornwall, Sussex and Kent and several places
:44:56. > :44:58.in the West Midlands, so we are a much more national party than we
:44:59. > :45:01.were before and we have doubled our membership and it is going up
:45:02. > :45:07.steadily and significantly, so we are definitely on an upward curve,
:45:08. > :45:11.and, with European elections, which are representational... We only need
:45:12. > :45:15.a swing of 1.6% which would travel our number of MEPs in Brussels. We
:45:16. > :45:19.have great campaigns in the south-west, the north-west, the east
:45:20. > :45:22.of the region and the Humber. Great candidates out there on the ground
:45:23. > :45:25.making a real impact on issues like winning the railways back into
:45:26. > :45:34.public hands. And also Caroline Lucas in Parliament. And the bill to
:45:35. > :45:38.bring railways back into public hands is up for debate tomorrow. Do
:45:39. > :45:46.you see them making headway in the general elections? I don't think
:45:47. > :45:51.it's very likely. The problem with a first past the post system, and I
:45:52. > :45:54.shouldn't say single issue parties, climate change is the big issue, but
:45:55. > :46:00.the problem is what does it leave you to say on everything else that
:46:01. > :46:04.is coherent? I believe in ideology. I think a mainstream political party
:46:05. > :46:08.needs to have a view on what are the main springs of human behaviour and
:46:09. > :46:13.how government can control and organise society to the best
:46:14. > :46:19.advantage. For the Greens, climate change and ecological issues are the
:46:20. > :46:22.hook, the portal brings you in, but there has to be something in the
:46:23. > :46:28.room once people have been brought in and it's not clear to me in terms
:46:29. > :46:33.of what life ought to be like, what the role of government is, the Green
:46:34. > :46:40.party has anything to say. I would invite you to read the 2010
:46:41. > :46:43.manifesto, and that made the point that social and environmental
:46:44. > :46:47.justice are indivisible. We talk about the need for everybody in
:46:48. > :46:51.Britain to have access to a decent quality-of-life. I was at an
:46:52. > :46:56.anti-ATOS process, and we were speaking out against the welfare
:46:57. > :46:59.cuts, the bedroom tax, and speaking out to ensure that everyone in
:47:00. > :47:07.society has sufficient resources for a decent life? Are you on the left?
:47:08. > :47:11.To the left of the Labour Party. But in Brighton, where the Greens are
:47:12. > :47:16.running the show there has been infighting, and they have fell out
:47:17. > :47:19.about budget cuts, and even Caroline Lucas has opposed their policies.
:47:20. > :47:25.It's hardly setting a good example of what Greens would be like in some
:47:26. > :47:29.sort of government. I think you haven't quite thought -- caught up
:47:30. > :47:35.with things. Brighton has been calling for a referendum for 4.75%
:47:36. > :47:39.increase in council tax, about 60p per person per week, to meet social
:47:40. > :47:42.care needs, to ensure older people get the care they need. But they
:47:43. > :47:48.have been fighting amongst themselves. What we have is a real
:47:49. > :47:52.vision of how we can accept that the cuts have gone too far, austerity is
:47:53. > :47:57.a disaster for the poor people of Britain, the most disadvantaged. We
:47:58. > :48:00.are currently playing for the errors of the bankers by taking it out of
:48:01. > :48:07.the pockets of the poor, and it has to stop. But that is obviously not
:48:08. > :48:15.cutting through. Matthew MUST -- Matthew's point is they are running
:48:16. > :48:18.the administration in Brighton and they have fought over striking
:48:19. > :48:22.binmen and there has been no coherence. We have a coherent
:48:23. > :48:26.message about issues within fighting for. We start of the decade leading
:48:27. > :48:30.on the living wage and making the minimum wage a living wage. If you
:48:31. > :48:33.are in full time you should earn enough money to live on. That's a
:48:34. > :48:37.simple message and one where we are starting to win. We saw the Tory MP
:48:38. > :48:48.making that point in the Guardian this week. Do you think they will
:48:49. > :48:52.win another seat? I don't think so. I don't think there should be any
:48:53. > :48:56.competition between you and UKIP because you are in different
:48:57. > :48:59.places, but there are a range of voters who want to vote for somebody
:49:00. > :49:04.who is not the mainstream, and I think you will lose some to UKIP,
:49:05. > :49:07.oddly enough. I think there is a small percentage of people who will
:49:08. > :49:11.hover between, but a lot of people think that the three main parties do
:49:12. > :49:16.not meet their needs and don't recognise that society has to change
:49:17. > :49:19.significantly and politics has to. The three largest parties are stuck
:49:20. > :49:23.in the 20th century and have not moved on to recognise we need a new
:49:24. > :49:27.economic and political model. Natalie Bennett, thank you. Well, as
:49:28. > :49:30.we've been on air German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been addressing
:49:31. > :49:34.both Houses of Parliament. Here's what she had to say a few moments
:49:35. > :49:40.ago. I have been told many times during the last few days that there
:49:41. > :49:49.are very special expectations of my speech here today. Supposedly, or so
:49:50. > :49:56.I have heard, some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental
:49:57. > :50:00.reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of
:50:01. > :50:08.alleged or actual British wishes. I'm afraid they are in for a
:50:09. > :50:14.disappointment. I have also heard that others are expecting the exact
:50:15. > :50:16.opposite, and are hoping that I will deliver the clear and simple message
:50:17. > :50:22.here in London that the rest of Europe is not prepared to pay almost
:50:23. > :50:29.any price to keep Britain in the European Union. I'm afraid that
:50:30. > :50:34.these hopes will be dashed as well. Angela Merkel, speaking in English,
:50:35. > :50:37.and the expectation was she would speak in German, and I've never
:50:38. > :50:41.heard her speak in English before, but she did set out that she said
:50:42. > :50:45.she was not there to deliver fundamental reform so there will be
:50:46. > :50:51.disappointment on the backbenches of the Tories. Some will be delighted.
:50:52. > :50:55.They would have been sad if she was ready to deal. It's such an early
:50:56. > :50:58.stage that I would not expect the German Chancellor to come to Britain
:50:59. > :51:03.and say, like you, I want fundamental reform of the European
:51:04. > :51:05.Union and the architecture and structure and the machinery of the
:51:06. > :51:12.European Union. This is not the time to say that. But, could she have
:51:13. > :51:16.nuanced it a little more? Will David Cameron be disappointed by what she
:51:17. > :51:20.said in rather clear terms? I wouldn't think he would be very
:51:21. > :51:24.surprised. It is an opening bid, as we were, and now we wait to hear
:51:25. > :51:27.David Cameron's opening bid. They will now go and have those
:51:28. > :51:31.discussions and it will be interesting to see the reaction. She
:51:32. > :51:34.also said that others who were hoping she would deliver the clear
:51:35. > :51:37.and simple message in London that Europe is not prepared to pay any
:51:38. > :51:40.price to keep Britain in the European Union, I suppose, once
:51:41. > :51:45.again, one is not going to be surprised, but she is laying the
:51:46. > :51:49.marker down. Yes, taking this stuff -- top stand at the beginning. I've
:51:50. > :51:56.just been told that's the only bit of the speech that were -- was to be
:51:57. > :52:00.said in English. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the launch of
:52:01. > :52:02.Spitting Image. The show spanned the early years of Margaret Thatcher's
:52:03. > :52:06.government to the end of John Major's. And up to 15 million people
:52:07. > :52:09.tuned in on Sunday evenings to watch politicians being lampooned. Who can
:52:10. > :52:15.forget besuited Margaret Thatcher and grey John Major? Next month, the
:52:16. > :52:21.BBC Four programme, Arena, will tell the story of Spitting Image. Say it
:52:22. > :52:29.to the whole cabinet. Shut up, Norman. Speak up, man, for god sake,
:52:30. > :52:34.you're not the platform now. Nigel pinched my pen. Nigel, is this true?
:52:35. > :52:37.You know my policy on stealing from 1's friends. Cabinet, what do we
:52:38. > :52:46.call it when people go around stealing other people's property?
:52:47. > :52:54.You? A free-market economy? What do we call it, David? Socialism. The
:52:55. > :52:57.leader we should have one word from your name, and one word from mine.
:52:58. > :53:09.From yours, I thought we would take the word David. And from yours,
:53:10. > :53:13.David? What about Owen? So it's David Owen, head of the social
:53:14. > :53:18.Democratic party. Well, that's put my mind at rest. Thank you very
:53:19. > :53:25.much, David. David, have you just burst the hot water bottle? No...
:53:26. > :53:30.Joining me now are the creators of Spitting Image, Peter Fluck and
:53:31. > :53:33.Roger Law and as we've just seen, one of the people they mercilessly
:53:34. > :53:38.satirised, Lord Steel. Laughing, as you were. Did you hate your
:53:39. > :53:40.caricature? Not at all. What was interesting about the whole
:53:41. > :53:45.programme is that the politicians that weren't on it complained
:53:46. > :53:50.bitterly. Why they would have rather been on it than miss out. -- they
:53:51. > :53:56.would have been -- rather been on it. Did you watch it religiously?
:53:57. > :54:01.Regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed it. What effect did it have on your
:54:02. > :54:05.career? I don't think any. Some people thought it made me look a lot
:54:06. > :54:10.weaker partner, but I don't believe it. I don't think people took the
:54:11. > :54:13.politics of spitting image seriously, they just enjoy the
:54:14. > :54:20.entertainment of it and it was a good send-up of a lot of people. Is
:54:21. > :54:26.that true asthma well, he's bigger than I thought he should be. Why did
:54:27. > :54:32.you think you should be so tiny? Because it was funny. Why did you
:54:33. > :54:39.think he should be so small in stature? You are quite tall, aren't
:54:40. > :54:46.you. I recall how it happened. It was an accident. When we first
:54:47. > :54:50.started making puppets, we naively thought that the smaller they are,
:54:51. > :54:56.the cheaper they are. Since we had to make a complete cast of puppets
:54:57. > :55:00.we started with small ones, and we realised you could not get the
:55:01. > :55:03.clothes from Oxfam from -- for a little puppet, so the cost shot up
:55:04. > :55:07.because everything had to be tailor-made. What people don't know
:55:08. > :55:12.if you have more than one puppet. I know that there are at least two
:55:13. > :55:18.images today, one in the House of Commons, one of mine, and one of
:55:19. > :55:24.Margaret Thatcher, and there is one in the daily record office in
:55:25. > :55:29.Glasgow. Those rascals we employed were sending them out the back door.
:55:30. > :55:35.I'm sure of it. Did David steel deserve that betrayal? Well, we had
:55:36. > :55:40.1000 puppets, and you could put on David steel with David Owen more
:55:41. > :55:43.than once. It was when you did Elizabeth Taylor, and the only joke
:55:44. > :55:49.they had was that she was fat. They did the fat joke, and we spent three
:55:50. > :55:56.days crafting this fantastic puppet for one sketch. You want to see
:55:57. > :56:02.repeat business. Marvellous. Why do you think the programme was so
:56:03. > :56:05.successful? Because it was as abrasive and unpleasant and rude as
:56:06. > :56:10.Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. We were there at the right time. Do you
:56:11. > :56:14.think it caught the time? I would think it was very much of its time.
:56:15. > :56:18.Several people could have done the show. You go back to the 70s, writes
:56:19. > :56:26.in the street, the 70s was awful, the most awful decade of my life --
:56:27. > :56:34.riots in the street. I would have killed several people to be made a
:56:35. > :56:39.puppet. Were you never on it? Brian Walden, he had a puppet, and every
:56:40. > :56:46.night I would pray there would be a Matthew Parris puppet. That is how I
:56:47. > :56:53.would know I was famous. Jeffrey Archer sent in some reference
:56:54. > :56:56.pictures. What did you do with them? We said we would never do him,
:56:57. > :56:59.but then he got caught with a prostitute of the railway station
:57:00. > :57:05.and we had to. Would you do something like that today? I
:57:06. > :57:12.wouldn't want to make another 1500 puppets, but I think it could be
:57:13. > :57:17.done. Nigel Farage is one already. David Cameron isn't because he has a
:57:18. > :57:21.tiny mouth like a cat 's bottom, and to make a puppet out of that would
:57:22. > :57:28.be difficult. It's amazing what you did with puppetry. It's what the
:57:29. > :57:34.puppeteers did. Even so, you brought the thing to such a wide audience.
:57:35. > :57:39.They had to go through weight training, they weighed a tonne.
:57:40. > :57:44.Today's politics could do with that. People think I'm a nice, benign
:57:45. > :57:51.gentlemen these days, and I think Spiting Image was just warm and
:57:52. > :57:56.lovely -- Spitting. His answer to bringing it back would always be
:57:57. > :58:03.that it is ?25 per bag of play, so you do it. Apart from Nigel Farage,
:58:04. > :58:06.who else would you like to make? What's the name of the presenter
:58:07. > :58:12.with the huge ears always on television? Andrew Marr. You could
:58:13. > :58:18.do him, because he is pompous and has ears like that. What about
:58:19. > :58:21.Andrew Neil? Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you to two David
:58:22. > :58:27.steel. There's just time before we go to
:58:28. > :58:30.find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which box set did David
:58:31. > :58:34.Cameron give Angela Merkel during her last visit to the UK? Was it: a)
:58:35. > :58:41.Benidorm? B) Midsomer Murders? C) The Inbetweeners? Or d) Auf
:58:42. > :58:48.Wiedersehen Pet? I think it was Midsummer murders, . That is the
:58:49. > :58:52.right answer. Thank you to Matthew Parris for stepping into the fray.
:58:53. > :58:54.The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One. Andrew is back on BBC One
:58:55. > :58:56.tonight. Goodbye.