27/02/2014 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to The Daily Politics. German Chancellor

Angela Merkel gets the red carpet treatment. She's about to address

MPs and peers in the Royal Gallery, but has she brought enough

eurosceptic goodies for David Cameron to keep Conservative

backbenchers happy? The Government launches its strategy

for eradicating child poverty, but why they can't they agree what child

poverty is? You've heard of fly-tipping but what

about horse fly-grazing? Horses are being abandoned in farmers' fields

across the country but what should be done about it?

And it could make and break political reputations. We look back

at Spitting Image on its 30th anniversary.

All that in the next hour, and viewers tuning in specifically to

see Janet Street Porter to hear her pearls of wisdom on today's stories

will be disappointed. She pulled out a little more than an hour ago. But

stepping valiantly into the breach and with us for the duration is

Times columnist Matthew Parris. Thank you, Matthew, and welcome to

the programme. Eye and the thinking man's Janet Street Porter! I'm glad

you said that! Let's start with Northern Ireland,

because the First Minister Peter Robinson has threatened to resign

unless there is a judicial review into a decision by a judge to throw

out a case against John Downey, who is suspected of being responsible

for the Hyde Park bombing in 1982, which killed four soldiers. Mr

Downey is amongst almost 200 Republican paramilitaries who have

been sent letters promising they won't be prosecuted for crimes

committed during the Troubles. Let's talk to our Northern Ireland

reporter Chris Page, who's at Stormont. Chris, this is escalating

into a full-blown editable crisis, isn't it? Crisis is certainly a word

you are hearing quite often in Northern Ireland this morning. The

Democratic Unionist First Minister Peter Robinson says he will quit

unless he gets that additional enquiry into the issue and also he

wants the government to rescind those 187 letters which have gone to

Republican terror suspects, saying they would not be prosecuted. He met

with the Secretary of State to reasonable as last night. This

morning, it is the turn of the Deputy First Minister, Martin

McGuinness, to meet with the First Secretary. He has spoken to the

media and called for cool heads and steady leadership. In response to

questions about the threat to resign, he said it would achieve

absolutely nothing and that the outcome would be that they would be

fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. -- they would be.

You do get a sense that the crisis is deepening. The Northern Ireland

Assembly is to be called on Friday to discuss this matter and Mr

Robinson says what he says in that Assembly debate. But what happens

now? Because if Peter Robinson has threatened to resign unless his

conditions are met, it seems difficult to see a compromise? Well,

that is right. The room for manoeuvre he has is quite limited.

That is becoming quite clear. It is not the first time he has threatened

to resign. Couple of years ago he made a threat over the issue of

emblems on the uniforms of prison officers. That said, this crisis

seems to be much more serious in that Mr Robinson says this is a

fundamental principle of why he went into government with Sinn Fein. He

said had he known about these letters, he would not have agreed to

go back into government with Sinn Fein several years ago when they

were sharing the Assembly here. There is going to be lots of

discussion over the next 24 hours on exactly who knew what and when.

Martin McGuinness is adamant all the political parties in Northern

Ireland knew about a scheme to deal with these people who were on the

run and the Democratic Unionist Party have said they did not know

about these letters, the detail. Martin McGuinness says this issue

was raised with the Policing Board. That will be a key question asked

over the next few days or so and tomorrow eyes will be on the debate

here instalment. Thank you. Matthew Parris, Peter Hain, Labour's former

Northern Ireland Secretary, has said in order to bring old at arrivals to

the table and secure that piece, side deals had to be done? Do you

think he has a point? -- peace. This is very Blairite and this affair has

Tony Blair written all over it. This regard for due process and the rule

of law and to hope that by the time the thing services, one will have

gone somewhere else! I believe David Trimble on the BBC this morning when

he says that he didn't know and he ought to have known. He ought to

have known about these things. You don't think it was worth it, even

if, at the time it had come to the fore and people had known about it,

there might not have been a deal and we might not have had a peace

process that resulted in power-sharing in Northern Ireland?

That will be the Blairite argument, too. Sorry, chaps, we had to do it.

You would not have had an agreement. He was wobbled under the fuss at the

time but that related to people already in prison. -- viewers will

remember. The right thing to have done would have been to pursue them,

catch them, can the them and then pardoned them, as those already in

prison were pardoned. It could already have been done and people

would have wanted that but it would have been messy politically and this

was a way of avoiding an immediate political mess. Do you think a

solution or compromise can be found? Yes. Peter Robinson can postpone his

threatened resignation until after a big enquiry has reported and slowly

it will go into the thank you. Let's leave it there.

Now it's time for our daily quiz. During Angela Merkel's last visit to

the UK, she was given a DVD box set of one of her favourite programmes

by David Cameron, so our question today is which box set was it?

At the end of the show, Matthew will give us the correct answer.

Now, she's arguably the most powerful woman in the world and

she's certainly getting the red-carpet treatment today. She's

having lunch at Downing Street, meeting the Queen for tea, and her

motorcade has just been taken through the Sovereign's Entrance of

the Palace of Westminster, where she has been afforded the rare privilege

of addressing both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery.

Giles is just outside Parliament for us. Have you seen her go by? I have

indeed! About ten minutes ago looking quite eager as she came into

the entrance, because, as you say, not everybody gets driven straight

in. The rest of security had to stand outside. And a large

entourage. But of course she did, because she is Europe's most

powerful leader. Great Britain is going all out to give her a red

carpet visit. It is to say, you are a very, very important relation and

the relationship between us is important. Germany seems to be

saying, yes, you are important, Great Britain, but you are not the

only one we deal with in Europe. She will be talking to both Houses of

Parliament, and some people, particularly Conservative

backbenchers, will be listening very carefully to what she has to say.

Has she brought with her a load of goodies about Reid he's that will

work for a nicely for them? -- treaties. Maybe she wants to be very

precise about what she says because she will be delivering the speech in

German. Though she talks about negotiation changes and she has made

warm words, the suspicion is these things would be enough, and there is

a feeling on the German side, certainly if you talk to

policymakers in Germany, that they are not entirely sure what it is

Great Britain wants. Hopefully by the end of the day, we might find

out what she is going to give or is prepared to give, whether it will be

enough and whether Britain is going to be more explicit about what it

wants. Well, a lot rides on this, no doubt about it. And there has been

an awful moth of hype. But is this a case of expectation management after

the event? 's big yellow there is no doubt about that because there will

be certain people who will say, I didn't hear about anything there

that helps with renegotiation and it should be out. And you will see that

from UKIP and others like that. You might see some back ensures who just

don't want to be part of the European Union. Others will say, the

Prime Minister is on the right lines and we can develop more. There will

be some who say, we told you, this isn't going to work. Renegotiation

isn't going to happen. And, besides, she might be the most powerful

leader in Europe but she is not the only powerful leader in Europe. As

they say, there is still some confusion in Europe as to exactly

what it is Great Britain once. Just hold fire because I think we

have some pictures we can show of the German Chancellor, Angela

Merkel, arriving. There she is coming in with the speaker, John

Bercow, behind her, coming into the Royal Gallery to address both Houses

of Parliament, with a round of applause for her. As you say, all

part of the red-carpet treatment. Quite a historic moment because it

has been 40 years since the last German Chancellor addressed both

Houses of Parliament, and there is David Cameron. Thank you. We will be

following the event. And we can speak now to Thomas Matussek, the

former German ambassador to the UK. We are hoping to be joined from

Strasbourg by Syed Kamall, the Conservative Leader in the European

Parliament. And Roland Rudd is here in the studio. Welcome to you. Will

this charm offensive work? The red-carpet treatment? Will she be

impressed? I think she will be impressed and what she wants is to

underline that we think it is a very, very important thing that

Britain stays engaged in the heart of Europe and Angela Merkel has said

time and again that in order to have a strong euro in a globalised world,

we need a strong Great Britain. Great Britain brings to the table a

lot of things which are desperately needed in Europe right now. A sense

of pragmatism, a conviction that a free-market economy is the right

philosophical basis, a sense of subsidiaryness, a de Gea full

version against too much bureaucracy. These are all issues

which are very, very important and Britain makes its case in Europe

this way. But what can she realistically and in concrete terms

of the David Cameron today? I think what she wants to point out is that

there are a lot of things where we can make the EU more pragmatic, more

practical, more anti-bureaucratic without changing the treaties.

Because I think she would not offer a treaty change because we consider

that a can of worms. Look, if you have 28 member states and you open

the treaty to one of them, everyone will be coming in, trying to write

their own hobbyhorses, but we think that there is a lot of scope below

the threshold of treaty change. Right. Roland Rudd, David Cameron,

or certainly his Eurosceptic benchers, will be disappointed that

there won't be this case for a wholesale treaty reform, which is

really what they are looking at? Well, it has been obvious for a

while that there will not be any treaty change by 2017, and it is not

just France that has said no to it. So we should not be surprised by

that. But there is a huge amount of four we can have without treaty

reform. We can push hard on these free trade agreements on these most

powerful nations of the world and also enhance London's position as

Europe's financial centre and a global financial centre or without

treaty change. So we do need that to see more reform in the European

Union. But will that be enough for a romp of Tory backbenchers who want

to see far more than that? In fact, they have even drawn out a manifesto

with far reaching reforms that would require some sort of change or a

revision of the existing establishments? The word romp is

well chosen. There is a group of the benchers for whom nothing will be

enough. It doesn't matter what she says or what David Cameron manages

to renegotiate. They want out and nothing less than that will satisfy

them. Others will listen. I suspect not particularly to Angela Merkel

today. I don't know why the Government have allowed expectations

to be aroused in the way they have. It is far too early for her to start

making offers when we haven't even had any British demands yet. And

that is the point - do we need to have heard from David Cameron more

specifically about demands in terms of repatriations of powers before

this historic meeting here with Angela Merkel? There won't be any

repatriations powers. Simply, it won't happen. What can happen... But

Tory MPs are laying their reputations and careers on this!

Well, there are those who would not want anything and want out. So you

will never pacify them. But reform is possible and we should not be

putting all our eggs in the German basket. We should not alienate as we

did at the beginning of the year. That was silly. Lots of countries

want to see European reform and that is possible. On that, can I ask

you, then, some of the things Angela Merkel might be able to accept? And

emergency brake for any member state regarding future EU legislation

affecting financial services? Is that something she could agree to?

Honestly, I don't know anything about the details. This visit has to

be seen in the context of a very, very important political gesture and

political opening. I don't think it is too much about negotiating any

details. That's what I believe. Are they on the same page, David Cameron

and Angela Merkel, that opening of negotiations? Do they start from a

similar standpoint and have the personal relationship to take it

forward? I think the personal relationship is quite good, and you

must see that where we come from on Germans, on certain issue, we are

philosophically or -- more close to Britain than say the French -- as

Germans. We would like in the centre of Europe not just a German and

French tandem, but a menage a trois. We need David Cameron there.

David Cameron will be betting his future on the fact the relationship

will hold, but she's going to see Ed Miliband as well. Yes, but she will

do all she can to keep Britain in. No question about that. We mustn't

let expectations run away. She can deliver more reform, and I believe

that Germany and Britain are on the same track in that, but she can't,

and nor would she be willing to letters take powers back to Britain,

and that would let it unravel and she won't have it. But that will

lead to disappointment on the Tory backbenches. There has been too much

massaging of expectation. I think the former ambassador has written

Angela Merkel's speech for her, maybe in his own mind. Today will be

a loving, Britain, we love you, we think along the same lines, stay

with us. There is no negotiation going to happen today. -- love-in.

Are people getting fed up with having a section in the media that

say it's not only time for reform or having Britain pull-out? The

Germans, on the whole, they adopt a lot of British lifestyle elements,

and there will be part of us that say we are not Britain, but that is

not the political class or the majority of Germans. We would be

very reluctant to see Britain EU at that level. Germany is looking for a

reformed Europe, but more Europe at the same time, with close

integration, and is of the Tory government looking for the opposite?

Not really. If you look at the banking union, where you have the

majority of the ins and outs, that was a great victory for Britain, and

the idea of double majority voted could be extended through Europe to

protect interests, if the European nations get closer. I don't think we

have to worry about that too much. One thing I would say, it's

incredibly important that David Cameron starts the serious process

of reform immediately after the European elections and does not get

knocked off by how well you can does in terms of appealing to his

backbench MPs. What about business, standard life said they might leave

Scotland if they voted for independence, is that a wake-up call

for Britain in relation to EU membership -- Standard Life. They

had 14 different reports from businesses, and not one business

came up with one piece of legislation they wanted repatriated

from Europe, and everyone that took part in the government review said

it was essential we remain in the European Union. That is the view of

the vast majority of businesses. But there are businesses that disagree

with that and say there should be wiping out of regulations. We never

quite know what those are. This wish list of reform, getting rid of a bit

of regulation, a few opt outs for Britain, be enough? The most

businesses, I think it would be. The principal fear the business is the

fact we would walk out of the European Union, but your right, red

tape, removal of that, it always goes down well. I have a strong

feeling this is all terribly premature. We do have the European

elections coming so it has focused people 's minds. We do, but its

three-year to work referendum -- three years. I do think the

Conservatives will win the election and we're not down to brass tacks.

Angela Merkel is in a grand coalition with the social Democrats,

so does that change her negotiations in the future? Does it temper what

she'd be able to do because of the Social Democrats? I don't think it

changes anything. There is a strong continuity in the relationship with

Britain, irrespective of the political colour. If I may add one

thing, you see the basic difficulty with Britain, as I see it, is that

British governments regard the Brussels Forum as something where

you riding like St George, want to slay the dragon, come back home and

say I had got this and this out of Brussels. Now to turn around and

tell the British public you must love the dragon, that is very, very

difficult. And there I see a certain difference in the overall political

attitude towards Brussels, in Germany and in Britain. Rather late,

but better late than never, we can go to Syed Kamall. I don't know if

you've been able to hear any of the discussion that has gone before we

got a connection to you, but to sum up, Thomas Matussek says it's

unlikely there would be wholesale treaty change and repatriation of

powers would not happen either. What would you say to that? Is that

disappointing to you and your colleagues? Any negotiation is going

to be tough, but when you look back at the record David Cameron has in

negotiation with other European partners, many said we could not

veto a treaty, and we did that. Many people said we could not cut the

budget, and we managed to do it. So when people say you can't do this or

it cannot happen, let's wait and see what happens when we come to the

negotiations. You think there could be wholesale treaty change and

repatriation of a list of powers, despite what just heard today from

Berlin? There are always doomsayers who say you cannot achieve it. That

is what some German colleague said when we try to get the budget cut,

and we achieved it. I was told Britain would never be able to pull

it sells out of the European bailout mechanism, but we managed to do it.

-- pull itself out. I was told we would not be able to veto a treaty.

Each time people say we cannot do it, we have proved them wrong so I

don't see why it should be different. So you are going to be

proved wrong. I haven't heard one piece of legislation that would be

repatriated back to Britain. Every time I hear about these appalling

regulations in Europe, and you ask the question, which one do you want

unravelled, which one do you want brought back you hear what it is. So

which one is it if you could pick one? The large businesses with

lobbyists here and compliance officers don't mind EU legislation

because it kills competition from small businesses. But I get small

businesses all the time that say we want exceptions because of our size,

and we can't afford three or four days to comply with EU regulations

because that is one person's time for a small company. But in large

companies they have full-time lobbyist. -- lobbyists. But which

specific piece of legislation would you want unravelled and repatriated

to Britain? There are two ways to look at it. One is specific areas.

Which one? We've made a good start in justice and home affairs, and

some colleagues want to talk about agriculture and fisheries. Those are

issues for negotiation. At the same time, there are constitutional

issues. There has to be an ability for national governments to say to

the EU, you have gone too far, reconsider. So no actual regulation.

So, no specific regulation, but on Justice and home affairs we've opted

out about a and we are trying to go back into 30 -- we opted out of

about 130. There does have to be a European arrest warrant, so we are

now trying to get back into 30 of them. But I haven't heard the piece

of legislation or regulation that needs to be unravelled, and that is

the normal case. What about the working time directive? We have an

opt out, but that didn't quite come up as much as anybody thought it

would in terms of torque from businesses. Syed Kamall, if there

was a vote on British membership of the EU tomorrow, which way would you

vote? There isn't going to be about tomorrow. I realise that. But if we

found ourselves without anything changing in a few years time, which

way would you vote? I was having a conversation with David Cameron

about this the other day and he said not to answer hypothetical

questions. So you can't come clean on what you would do? Let's wait for

2017 and the referendum. We have to wait for the renegotiation, we can

put that. We can but that the British people, and then I would

decide how I would vote. We will ask you then. Don't take any advice from

David Cameron, that's my advice. Thank you all very much.

Now, did you know that child poverty, as it's officially

measured, actually went down in the wake of the financial crisis of

2008? But that's not because poor children got richer, but because

richer people got poorer. That's one of the perverse outcomes which the

Work and Pensions Secretary wanted to eliminate by changing the way the

government measures child poverty. But it's a change that's been left

out of today's child poverty strategy amid reports of a row

between the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Chancellor. Iain

Duncan Smith and and George Osborne both agree that the current

definition on child poverty needs to be changed. Currently, a child is

defined as living in poverty when their family income falls below 60%

of median income. Iain Duncan Smith is said to want to

see broader measures of poverty included in the definition such as

entrenched worklessness, family breakdown, problem debt, drug and

alcohol dependency. But Mr Osborne is reported to have

blocked this new definition being included in today's strategy paper.

And Lib Dem Education Minister David Laws has weighed in behind Mr Duncan

Smith, supporting the change. What is disappointing is that the

Coalition Government has not been able to agree a new set of measures

to target child poverty and reduce child poverty in the future. Those

measures are important, because ultimately they are the driver of

policy and the future -- in the future. We've done a lot of work on

that in government and the Liberal Democrats have a clear idea of what

the new measures should be. We will not allow the Conservative Party to

simply end discussion on this. Joining us to discuss this is Policy

Exchange's Ruth Porter and Alison Garnham from the charity Child

Poverty Action Group. Ruth Porter, are you disappointed the government

has not changed the definition of child poverty? What is clear is that

the current poverty measure is fundamentally flawed, but where the

government is right today is to come out and say that what we need is a

strategy which actually focuses on looking at the reasons why people

living in poverty and aims to address those. If you take, for

example, needs analysis we have done -- the analysis we have done which

has 2 million children in Britain as materially deprived, on a different

definition, the ones that don't show up in current statistics because

they are based around income. Similarly we saw Iain Duncan Smith

and George Osborne talking about the fact that there are 100,000 fewer

children in workless households, and these are both statistics which

don't show up in the current measure. Clearly the way we are

looking at poverty, the way we are measuring it with one statistic, is

far too simplistic, and the key is to move to a strategy that deals

with the underlying reason why people are in poverty. Do you agree

with that, Alison? There are four measures, not just one indicator.

They are not definitions, they are measures. The 60% median is a

relative measure, there is one that looks a deprivation and there is

another but looks persistence of poverty, how long the family has

been poor for. There is also in the act of whole list of building blocks

including childcare, parental support, education, housing, all the

things discussed quite rightly in the child poverty strategy but it's

not just about those indicators. So these are needed, is the argument,

to keep track of people who are living in, by whatever measure,

poverty? Although there are supposedly four measures, we fixate

on relative income. All four of those measures look at income, and

the reality is for some people, people can be just above the income

line but if they have someone in their household who has a severe

addiction issue, or issues with debt, they won't be picked up. They

are a tiny proportion of families. The real issue is we are facing a

child poverty crisis. We know that child poverty will rise by nearly 1

million x 2020, so having a discussion about what goalpost we

want to move in an environment where there is a crisis on the horizon,

that is what we need the strategy to address, what policies would make a

difference? But the focus on income means that if we look at our

approach to tackling poverty, it is focused on, how do you, through the

benefits system, redistribute money, rather than looking at the

underlying reasons why people are poor, and that is why the Government

is absolutely right to be doing things like looking at addressing

educational attainment of the poor, getting more people into work and

helping people in work to move up the pay scale. We have seen over the

last ten to 15 years policy on all of those areas so there were clearly

the childcare strategies, we saw the lone parent rate increase from 45 to

50%, we have the narrowing of the gap in educational attainment. All

sorts of policies have been developed that address a whole range

of issues. Except that there are these big hats and many people who

don't make those statistics and they are being missed. -- big gap is. How

do you address this? They are not being left out. There is a very

strong association between relative low income and all kinds of poor

outcomes for children. Low educational attainment, poor health,

low self-worth and so on. The real problem at the moment is that poorer

families are facing ?22 billion of tax cuts and benefits cuts. 60% of

those are hitting working and low income families. So now they cannot

make those ends meet and it shows in the statistics. 60% of poor children

live with a working parent, as these are telling us. Just to welcome

viewers from Scotland. What you say to the fact that the Treasury has

blocked these definitions because they do not want to look at what

they can see as -- what they might see as expensive targets and cannot

see a way of getting around them? The Government has said today they

want to focus on the reasons people live in poverty. And that is the

right approach. The exciting on target to do with income simply

drives policy in the wrong direction. Do we need to have those

targets in place in order to measure child poverty? Well, we must say

what we mean by poverty when we talk of poverty and the big question is,

is it a relative measure or an absolute measure? Are people

relatively poor because they are living in quite a rich country and

though their income isn't bad, it is a lot worse than other people's?

Poverty lobby was always in favour of relative poverty rather than

absolute, and just because a slight dip now in our fortunes has kind of

reversed and moved the goalposts in a way that is unhelpful to the

poverty lobby, I don't think we should abandon that important

principle that poverty is a relative concept. I'm certainly not

complaining about what the indicators are showing. And in fact

it is very easy to read what is going on and you can tell what is

happening to average incomes. You have odd findings every now and then

but poverty is always relative to the society you live in. People need

cash to pay their bills, keep their house warm, to buy food. But those

definitions can be misleading because some of those are absolute?

The reality is, there is no single measure which is perfect, so what we

need is to introduce more measures looking at other things as well,

things like addiction, things like the cost of housing and the impact

of that. Rather than just focusing on one headline figure. A loss of

those things are already in the child poverty measure but we used to

have some other things included. I'm not against adding measures to the

existing measures and I think it would be quite important to look at

other issues. Thank you. We've all heard of fly-tipping but

what about horse fly-grazing? It's where people leave their horses on

farmland without payment or permission, and it seems to be a

growing problem. MPs have recently debated the issue and one who's had

lots of problems in his constituency thinks more desperately needs to be

done. Here's Damian Hinds, with his soapbox.

The sight of horses grazing on the field is a beautiful countryside

sight. As long as they are there legally. Unfortunately, that is not

always the case. Horses abandoned in a farmer's field or left by the side

of the road, that could be a nuisance for farmers and endanger

the safety of people in the area, and of course can have terrible

consequences for the welfare of the animals themselves. These horses at

Newton balance in East Hampshire really well looked after and cared

for. But equine charities estimate there could be 7000 horses in

England and Wales at risk of welfare problems. With upwards of 3000 on

land without consent. And that number is growing. In the first

quarter of 2013, the British horse Society saw complaints about horse

welfare rise by 50% on the previous year. A few unscrupulous owners

leave their animals on private land without payment or permission.

Sometimes the conditions can be terrible, without adequate grass to

graze on. They might be there for days or weeks until the verities are

notified and then they just move them onto another piece of land. Not

only is it an act of theft using the farmer's grazing land without

permission terrible burden on the charities concerned with horse

welfare who try to help. One piece of land in my constituency recently

had 46 horses left on it, though in that case with payment and

permission. But the horses were not being properly looked after authored

by their owner. The RSPCA had to remove them. Shortly after this,

another 18 horses appeared. Many of them were in a terrible state and

one died soon after in a century. -- sanctuary. Local authorities need

more powers to remove horses before they just get moved to another

location and the cycle starts over again. I welcome DEFRA's efforts to

negotiate a limit to the free movement of horses from the

continent to this country but there is still a problem with horses

originating in England and Wales. In Wales, and you control of horses act

has come into force. I am concerned that without similar initiatives

here in England, the problem could be further displaced across the

border. -- a new control. And the Conservative MP Damian Hinds

joins us now. Obviously a problem in your constituency. Is it a big

problem across the UK? It is, and you all the numbers on the film. And

it is a movable problem and it does move. Since we had a big hug and my

constituency it has gone down somewhat in Hampshire but then has

moved elsewhere. -- a bid problem. Why do you think people are

struggling to look after their horses, because presumably that is

why they are being dumped or abandoned? I am not sure we can make

those assumptions so quickly. I'm sure there is an element of that but

it also seems there is a small number of people who own very large

numbers of horses, who, as part of their practice, will keep moving

them from piece of land to piece of land. Can you impound horses? No.

The local authority will typically have one option, which is once they

have been through a process and had a statutory delay, they have to

auction the waters off after micro-chipping them, which increases

their value. Sometimes they then get what back by the original owner! --

fought back. In Wales impounding is an option and there are certain acts

where impounding can be a possibility, including in Hampshire.

If the horse becomes ill or dies, whose responsibility would that be?

I think the full misery clear. The people who either irresponsibly

breed horses or leave them without due care for their welfare, it is

definitely their fault. The responsibility depends on whatever

horse charity has taken them in and the way they deal with it. So they

could blame the farmer on whose land it has been left? Yes, and I think

this whole issue is a big burden because once you have animals on

your land, the idea that you have responsibility for them. It is

already. It is not allowed to fly graze horses. We have had the Welsh

act in for a month and we need to see what impact that powers and

whether it displaces the problem across the board, and also how

effective it is in Wales. But this is something I am sure the team will

keep under review. What about microchip in horses? It is very

important and we need more enforcement as well. It is important

to get a good deal. You can get free microchips in circumstance can --

certain circumstances. My llamas escaped a few months ago and went

fly grazing in a neighbour's... He came home and they were very

understanding! I am delighted to hear it!

On one level, the Greens are doing pretty well. They've got an MP, two

MEPs, they control a council and have a meaningful presence in

English local government generally. But where do they go next? Is it

possible for an organisation which is still viewed by a sizeable chunk

of the electorate, rightly or wrongly, as a single-issue party to

get any bigger, and if so, how do they make the breakthrough? Or is

this as good as it gets for the Greens?

St Mary's ward in Oxford. They do things a little differently here. It

has been home to generations of thinkers and that desire to

challenge the conventional wisdom extends to their politics. People in

this part of Oxford tend to believe in green. Along with the

affectionately named news of Brighton, it is a party stronghold,

and some people think it could become an electoral ghetto from

which the party find it hard to escape. Looking at the European

election, it is the Greens who will struggle to get airtime because you

have UKIP and the whole in- out referendum question. And actually,

they have not been out there on national issues such as flooding and

climate change that have been really good opportunities recently. At the

moment in England and Wales, the Greens have one MP, two MEPs, two

members of the Greater London assembly and more than 40 local

councillors. And the than doubled since 1998, almost 13,000 now, and

the party that runs Brighton council has significant presence in a number

of places including Oxford. All good but is it something of a comfort

blanket? Is not according to the man who helped write the last election

manifesto for them. It might be the other political parties who are

wearing the comfort blanket rather than the Greens, and they need to

persuade the mainstream parties that the issues they have been

campaigning on for a long time of the key ones to which they should be

paying attention. But previous attempts to access the mainstream

are precisely what led this candidate to quit the party in

frustration. I suspect if you look to their individual policies, many

of those would actually get majority support but as a whole, the party

has found it for a difficult to connect with the mainstream

electorate and unless that changes, the Green Party is stuck with 3% of

the vote. By the way, this is not a pretty lake we are standing next to.

It is a flood plain, which he sings rather makes his point. We have seen

the worst floods ever over the last few weeks in British history.

Climate change is the defining issue of the 21st century. Only the Greens

really seem to take it very seriously, but unless they bring on

a lot of other policies to attract mainstream voters, the Green Party

will not be able to solve the climate change problem. Oxford is

part of the fabric of this green and pleasant land, but will dreaming of

the dreaming spires be the limit for the Green Party? We are joined now

by the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett. Where were you

during the floods? There seem to be a few people in that film is saying

that was your big opportunity and you didn't capitalise it? We

definitely had a ten point plan on how to react to the floods and we

are the lighted Ed Miliband picked up the call we made for Owen

Paterson to go as Environment Secretary, so there we can see our

call making a real impact and making on the national stage. But we didn't

see you. Was it an opportunity, a missed opportunity, to get higher

profile rather than let the other parties take on your plan? Well, I

went down to the Thames barrier instead and stood in front of a

successful anti-Flood project which showed how we can work together to

deal with the threat of climate change. So, I did not choose the

Wellington boot route. There is another party trying to make an

impact and be more successful than you, UKIP, and bus stops and

Brighton and no sign of a breakthrough in the polls. -- asked

ups. Have you reached your limit? Not at all. We got our first County

Council is in Essex, Cornwall, Sussex and Kent and several places

in the West Midlands, so we are a much more national party than we

were before and we have doubled our membership and it is going up

steadily and significantly, so we are definitely on an upward curve,

and, with European elections, which are representational... We only need

a swing of 1.6% which would travel our number of MEPs in Brussels. We

have great campaigns in the south-west, the north-west, the east

of the region and the Humber. Great candidates out there on the ground

making a real impact on issues like winning the railways back into

public hands. And also Caroline Lucas in Parliament. And the bill to

bring railways back into public hands is up for debate tomorrow. Do

you see them making headway in the general elections? I don't think

it's very likely. The problem with a first past the post system, and I

shouldn't say single issue parties, climate change is the big issue, but

the problem is what does it leave you to say on everything else that

is coherent? I believe in ideology. I think a mainstream political party

needs to have a view on what are the main springs of human behaviour and

how government can control and organise society to the best

advantage. For the Greens, climate change and ecological issues are the

hook, the portal brings you in, but there has to be something in the

room once people have been brought in and it's not clear to me in terms

of what life ought to be like, what the role of government is, the Green

party has anything to say. I would invite you to read the 2010

manifesto, and that made the point that social and environmental

justice are indivisible. We talk about the need for everybody in

Britain to have access to a decent quality-of-life. I was at an

anti-ATOS process, and we were speaking out against the welfare

cuts, the bedroom tax, and speaking out to ensure that everyone in

society has sufficient resources for a decent life? Are you on the left?

To the left of the Labour Party. But in Brighton, where the Greens are

running the show there has been infighting, and they have fell out

about budget cuts, and even Caroline Lucas has opposed their policies.

It's hardly setting a good example of what Greens would be like in some

sort of government. I think you haven't quite thought -- caught up

with things. Brighton has been calling for a referendum for 4.75%

increase in council tax, about 60p per person per week, to meet social

care needs, to ensure older people get the care they need. But they

have been fighting amongst themselves. What we have is a real

vision of how we can accept that the cuts have gone too far, austerity is

a disaster for the poor people of Britain, the most disadvantaged. We

are currently playing for the errors of the bankers by taking it out of

the pockets of the poor, and it has to stop. But that is obviously not

cutting through. Matthew MUST -- Matthew's point is they are running

the administration in Brighton and they have fought over striking

binmen and there has been no coherence. We have a coherent

message about issues within fighting for. We start of the decade leading

on the living wage and making the minimum wage a living wage. If you

are in full time you should earn enough money to live on. That's a

simple message and one where we are starting to win. We saw the Tory MP

making that point in the Guardian this week. Do you think they will

win another seat? I don't think so. I don't think there should be any

competition between you and UKIP because you are in different

places, but there are a range of voters who want to vote for somebody

who is not the mainstream, and I think you will lose some to UKIP,

oddly enough. I think there is a small percentage of people who will

hover between, but a lot of people think that the three main parties do

not meet their needs and don't recognise that society has to change

significantly and politics has to. The three largest parties are stuck

in the 20th century and have not moved on to recognise we need a new

economic and political model. Natalie Bennett, thank you. Well, as

we've been on air German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been addressing

both Houses of Parliament. Here's what she had to say a few moments

ago. I have been told many times during the last few days that there

are very special expectations of my speech here today. Supposedly, or so

I have heard, some expect my speech to pave the way for a fundamental

reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of

alleged or actual British wishes. I'm afraid they are in for a

disappointment. I have also heard that others are expecting the exact

opposite, and are hoping that I will deliver the clear and simple message

here in London that the rest of Europe is not prepared to pay almost

any price to keep Britain in the European Union. I'm afraid that

these hopes will be dashed as well. Angela Merkel, speaking in English,

and the expectation was she would speak in German, and I've never

heard her speak in English before, but she did set out that she said

she was not there to deliver fundamental reform so there will be

disappointment on the backbenches of the Tories. Some will be delighted.

They would have been sad if she was ready to deal. It's such an early

stage that I would not expect the German Chancellor to come to Britain

and say, like you, I want fundamental reform of the European

Union and the architecture and structure and the machinery of the

European Union. This is not the time to say that. But, could she have

nuanced it a little more? Will David Cameron be disappointed by what she

said in rather clear terms? I wouldn't think he would be very

surprised. It is an opening bid, as we were, and now we wait to hear

David Cameron's opening bid. They will now go and have those

discussions and it will be interesting to see the reaction. She

also said that others who were hoping she would deliver the clear

and simple message in London that Europe is not prepared to pay any

price to keep Britain in the European Union, I suppose, once

again, one is not going to be surprised, but she is laying the

marker down. Yes, taking this stuff -- top stand at the beginning. I've

just been told that's the only bit of the speech that were -- was to be

said in English. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the launch of

Spitting Image. The show spanned the early years of Margaret Thatcher's

government to the end of John Major's. And up to 15 million people

tuned in on Sunday evenings to watch politicians being lampooned. Who can

forget besuited Margaret Thatcher and grey John Major? Next month, the

BBC Four programme, Arena, will tell the story of Spitting Image. Say it

to the whole cabinet. Shut up, Norman. Speak up, man, for god sake,

you're not the platform now. Nigel pinched my pen. Nigel, is this true?

You know my policy on stealing from 1's friends. Cabinet, what do we

call it when people go around stealing other people's property?

You? A free-market economy? What do we call it, David? Socialism. The

leader we should have one word from your name, and one word from mine.

From yours, I thought we would take the word David. And from yours,

David? What about Owen? So it's David Owen, head of the social

Democratic party. Well, that's put my mind at rest. Thank you very

much, David. David, have you just burst the hot water bottle? No...

Joining me now are the creators of Spitting Image, Peter Fluck and

Roger Law and as we've just seen, one of the people they mercilessly

satirised, Lord Steel. Laughing, as you were. Did you hate your

caricature? Not at all. What was interesting about the whole

programme is that the politicians that weren't on it complained

bitterly. Why they would have rather been on it than miss out. -- they

would have been -- rather been on it. Did you watch it religiously?

Regularly. I thoroughly enjoyed it. What effect did it have on your

career? I don't think any. Some people thought it made me look a lot

weaker partner, but I don't believe it. I don't think people took the

politics of spitting image seriously, they just enjoy the

entertainment of it and it was a good send-up of a lot of people. Is

that true asthma well, he's bigger than I thought he should be. Why did

you think you should be so tiny? Because it was funny. Why did you

think he should be so small in stature? You are quite tall, aren't

you. I recall how it happened. It was an accident. When we first

started making puppets, we naively thought that the smaller they are,

the cheaper they are. Since we had to make a complete cast of puppets

we started with small ones, and we realised you could not get the

clothes from Oxfam from -- for a little puppet, so the cost shot up

because everything had to be tailor-made. What people don't know

if you have more than one puppet. I know that there are at least two

images today, one in the House of Commons, one of mine, and one of

Margaret Thatcher, and there is one in the daily record office in

Glasgow. Those rascals we employed were sending them out the back door.

I'm sure of it. Did David steel deserve that betrayal? Well, we had

1000 puppets, and you could put on David steel with David Owen more

than once. It was when you did Elizabeth Taylor, and the only joke

they had was that she was fat. They did the fat joke, and we spent three

days crafting this fantastic puppet for one sketch. You want to see

repeat business. Marvellous. Why do you think the programme was so

successful? Because it was as abrasive and unpleasant and rude as

Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. We were there at the right time. Do you

think it caught the time? I would think it was very much of its time.

Several people could have done the show. You go back to the 70s, writes

in the street, the 70s was awful, the most awful decade of my life --

riots in the street. I would have killed several people to be made a

puppet. Were you never on it? Brian Walden, he had a puppet, and every

night I would pray there would be a Matthew Parris puppet. That is how I

would know I was famous. Jeffrey Archer sent in some reference

pictures. What did you do with them? We said we would never do him,

but then he got caught with a prostitute of the railway station

and we had to. Would you do something like that today? I

wouldn't want to make another 1500 puppets, but I think it could be

done. Nigel Farage is one already. David Cameron isn't because he has a

tiny mouth like a cat 's bottom, and to make a puppet out of that would

be difficult. It's amazing what you did with puppetry. It's what the

puppeteers did. Even so, you brought the thing to such a wide audience.

They had to go through weight training, they weighed a tonne.

Today's politics could do with that. People think I'm a nice, benign

gentlemen these days, and I think Spiting Image was just warm and

lovely -- Spitting. His answer to bringing it back would always be

that it is ?25 per bag of play, so you do it. Apart from Nigel Farage,

who else would you like to make? What's the name of the presenter

with the huge ears always on television? Andrew Marr. You could

do him, because he is pompous and has ears like that. What about

Andrew Neil? Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you to two David

steel. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which box set did David

Cameron give Angela Merkel during her last visit to the UK? Was it: a)

Benidorm? B) Midsomer Murders? C) The Inbetweeners? Or d) Auf

Wiedersehen Pet? I think it was Midsummer murders, . That is the

right answer. Thank you to Matthew Parris for stepping into the fray.

The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One. Andrew is back on BBC One

tonight. Goodbye.