04/03/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

The West resolves to speak with one voice against Russian aggression in

Ukraine. But, are western countries actually divided on the issue?

Tensions remain high in Crimea between Russian and Ukrainian

troops. The US calls it a "brazen act of aggression", and says all

options are on the table. Vladimir Putin says economic

sanctions will backfire on the West. As a leaked British document exposes

reticence about tough action, is the West at a loss about how to deal

with Mr Putin? Labour unveils plans for tackling

our "fragmented health and social care". But is it just another

blueprint for a radical top-down reorganisation of the NHS?

And, you've heard the one about MPs and flipping? No, I'm not talking

about expenses! I'm talking about pancakes! Yes, it's Shrove Tuesday,

and the annual Westminster pancake race. Stay tuned to see who won.

All that in the next hour. With us for the whole programme

today is Margaret Prosser. She was once a president of the TUC,

Treasurer of the Labour Party, and now sits on the Labour benches in

the House of Lords. Welcome to the show.

Let's start with the latest developments in Ukraine. President

Putin has been holding a press conference calling the toppling of

President Yanukovych and anti constitutional coup. He said sending

troops into the rest of the Ukraine was not needed but did not rule it

out. He also warned economic sanctions from the West would

backfire. John Kerry is on his way to Kiev in the Ukraine. He has

reiterated his support for the new government.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who visited Kiev yesterday,

is answering questions in the Commons at the moment. These are

life pictures as we speak. He will give a statement on the Ukraine

issue at 12:30pm, we will bring you some of that later in the show.

The government has reiterated its condemnation of the Russian presence

in Crimea. But it suffered an embarrassing incident yesterday

afternoon, when a senior official was photographed with a briefing

document on show. The document said: "The UK should not support for now

trade sanctions, or close London's financial centre to Russians," And

the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has this to say earlier this

morning. I want to be really clear that

Russia will face a range of diplomatic and political and

economic consequences if it carries on with its current course. We are

absolutely not ruling out now the kind of options we will look at, in

order to make it very clear to President Putin and the Russian

Federation that there will be very real consequences. There was no

predetermined limit on the measures we will look at, entertain, in order

to safeguard the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Taking a different line from what we saw in the security briefing

yesterday. To give us more detail, we have the

BBC's political correspondent, Norman Smith, joining us from the

Central Lobby of Parliament. When William Hague makes his

statement to the House of Commons, he will be under pressure to come up

with a coherent government response. He may be under pressure but I do

not think we will get much detail. I would characterise the government

position as the Au al 's strategy, you had better not go into Ukraine,

or else. But what actually that is, we do not know. I do not think we

will find out. We have an indication what it is not. It is absolutely not

military action which is off the table. We know from that document

that it is also probably not any meaningful economic sanction or

trade retaliation against Russia. We are not going to close the city to

Russian investors, which leaves you scratching your head, what is it? We

will not find out because, listening to William Hague, he has a wonderful

way of saying a lot without saying much at all beyond vague assertions

there will be costs and consequences. The reality is we are

not being specific because there is an awareness anything specific could

damage our own interests, take a long time to have impact, may not

influence President Putin. Far better to keep it general and vague,

and to hope by some overarching diplomatic blaster, that President

Putin begins to step back and we can begin a process of engaging him in a

diplomatic route. We're joined now by the Conservative

MP John Whittingdale who chairs parliament's All-Party Ukraine

Group. And by Sir Andrew Wood, a former British Ambassador to Moscow.

If President Putin was listening that, he would take great comfort.

Either we don't know what to do, we are undecided, what ever we do won't

make any difference. What we need to do is to send the strongest message

we can to President Putin that what has happened is not acceptable, in

breach of international law, not acceptable in this century for a

foreign power to have armed forces in another country. It is hard to

divine what the response will be, not just from Britain, also Germany

and America. This has two be done through international agreement. It

is hard to define what the practical responses are. This has to be

discussed very quickly. You can not send ministers of the Royal family

to Sochi, but that is not enough. We may need economic sanctions, there

is a range of ways, you can target individuals. That was ruled out in

the security paper. That was a briefing not confirmed. Downing

Street has said it does not represent the view. This is

something they will have to settle quickly. Wealthy Russians are

involved in wealth management in this country, football clubs,

various industries. Are we going to stop them coming to this country to

visit their investment? The property market. There is a very strong

Russian community in written. I would like to see targeted sanctions

against individual members of the government. They are not the ones

who... Some do hold assets in this country. Would that make much of a

difference to President Putin? It might make a difference. A lot of

people do have houses in Knightsbridge who are associated. We

need to look at all the options. That must mean measures which are

going to have a significant impact on the Administration in Russia, to

demonstrate we are not going to indulge in gestures, we take this

seriously. Should that Deputy National Security adviser who

revealed that document, Esat? I do not know who that was. He would have

thought they have learned this lesson. Should he be sacked? It

seems extraordinary that a national security adviser should have such a

lax procedure. Why are spies needed, when they weigh these documents

around in the street? We do know, at the end of the day, it is ministers

who advise, with advice from officials. I hope they look at these

measures seriously. We have to let you go because you are going to see

the Ukrainian ambassador. Thank U. Ambassador, it is clear that when

the coup took place in Kiev, the Russians at the very least were

going to take control of Crimea. Why didn't the West anticipate that?

I am not sure it was, to be honest. From the moment they announced

exercises as not having any links with Ukraine, it was obvious. Crimea

was an obvious target. And an easy one. Can I come back to your earlier

questions. There is a very good reason why a lot of Russians keep

their money in this country and do not invest in Russia. The punishment

for Putin will essentially be that this will do great harm to his

economy. It will certainly make foreign investment more difficult.

It will certainly increase the likelihood that he will be still

more repressive to his own people. It will certainly be read by Russian

potential investors of increasing the risk of arbitrary rule and the

risk to their own investment. They are already in economic trouble and

this will make it worse, perhaps in the longer run, it can make it

better, but I do not think so. They have to go through a period of

painful reform, pretty much what we are prying -- trying to prescribe to

Ukraine. That would be attracted to Putin Russia is itself in a bind.

There is a terrific charge from going in with troops, it is not a

drug which lasts. I understand budget is in a bind

because it needs foreign currency it gets from oil and gas sales to

Europe. It needs more than that. That is 50% of revenue. A big chunk

comes through the Ukraine. Who would blink first, the Europeans need the

gas, Germany, Holland, Poland. You would wonder that the Kremlin will

be tough on this than we would be. The last time they cut off the gas,

it was estimated Gazprom lost about 3 billion. It is a question of

mutual suffering. Gazprom will not like losing that revenue. It has

reserves of over 300 billion. But this is a long-term issue. For

sanctions to have an effect, they need to be on for a long period,

which is why it is not a realistic option. There is no will to do that.

I would be surprised. Looking at the British response, and the Americans

were the rhetoric is tougher. The real response that matters is

Germany. The new social Democratic Minister has indicated he thinks we

should still go to the G eight. He is not even signed up to boycotting

that. He is hostage to the bleep if you're nice to the Russians, he will

learn to be as nice as you are. Which is a fallacy. If we haven't

got the Germans... Unlike the British, the Germans have

substantial foreign -- foreign direct investment. So have we, BP

has a huge investment in Russia. We have got huge services sectors, a

fine tradition of doing Russian trials in this country. I want to

bring Margaret in here. What do you make of it all?

Well, interestingly, watching the demonstrations in the square in

Kiev, clearly, those people were feeling hugely energised by the idea

of change. And then you think to yourself, but you are not the whole

community. Only one part of it. How are they going, as time goes along,

to demonstrate some inclusivity. The country is made up of very different

groups of people. Unless they all feel they have a shout in the future

of the country, they are not going to be happy with one solution, be it

a Russian or European solution. It has to bring in more people, surely?

Crimea is now in Russian hands, be any question mark now has to be

whether he moves in on the eastern Ukraine as well? It is easy to

exaggerate the depth of attachment in eastern Ukraine for Russia.

it is true there are stronger conditions of European traditions,

if you like, in the West, not least because that is the part of Ukraine

that was seized by Stalin. But it is also true that it was as much

recognising that Victor Yanukovych was a thief and a third in the east

as in the West. There is a much better chance at the moment of a

degree of support across the country for the sort of difficult changes

that would need to be done. We should sympathise with the

reluctance to undertake them, we have never wanted to upset things,

it is easy to go on doing the same thing, but the country is broke for

a good reason. We shall see how events unfold. Some shots were fired

this morning, so it is a moving story. A senior Downing Street

adviser has been arrested in connection with allegations about

imagery of child abuse. Number Ten has confirmed that Patrick Rock, who

was the deputy head of policy, was detained at his home last month and

has resigned from his post. Let's get more with our political

correspondent Carole Walker who is outside Downing Street. Bring us up

to date. Patrick Rock is someone who has worked for the Conservative

Party for decades, going back to the era of Margaret Thatcher and John

Major. He knew David Cameron well from their days when they were both

special adviser and the Prime Minister brought him back as deputy

head of the policy unit in 2011, so Patrick Rock was closely involved in

the Fx to draw up rules to block access to child pornography on the

Internet. He was arrested in the early hours in relation to a

potential offence relating to child abuse imagery. Number Ten say they

are cooperating fully with the investigation and they have given

them access to computers and officers and so on. They are saying

as this is an ongoing investigation it would not be appropriate to say

anything further, although they are stressing the Prime Minister views

child abuse images at up rent and anyone who has anything to do with

this should be dealt with properly under the law. But it is worth

remembering that Patrick Rock has not been charged with anything and

we have not been able to contact him to get a response to the

allegations. Now, as you all know it is National Apprenticeship Week. Oh,

you didn't know that? Well, it is. Prime Minister David Cameron is

speaking in Coventry today about apprentices and how they can help

the long-term economic recovery. He will say apprentices form part of

the Government's broader economic plan to create jobs and cut taxes

before the next election. But are apprenticeships really one of the

coalition's success stories? Or could they be doing more to help

people train for future careers? We can speak now to the Skills

Minister, Matthew Hancock. Welcome to the programme. I am sorry we did

not have you on on Sunday, but Ukraine meant we had to cover that

instead. I understand. The Government is emphasising a lot

about its support for apprenticeships and I have heard you

do the same. There are more apprenticeships and their work in

the last years of the last Labour Government, but they fell last year.

Why was that? There has been a sharp rise in the number of

apprenticeships and in the last year those participating were at record

levels, 868,000. We have taken action to make sure every

apprenticeship is high quality. Previously an apprenticeship could

be less than one year long and I do not see that as a proper

apprenticeship. We have insisted everyone has a minimum of one year

and that means we have removed some low quality provision. If you take

those that are longer than one year and that our high quality, then

those numbers are going up. It is not only about the numbers, it is

also about quality. You talk about quality, but a big chunk of the

apprenticeships are in two sectors, health and business Administration.

I would not run those down, but you know as well as I do that this

country's skilled shortage is in the stem skills, science, technology,

engineering and mathematics. Why don't we have more apprenticeships

in these? The number applying for engineering apprenticeships went up

over 20% over the last two years. But one of the things we have done

that has made apprenticeships a big part of the scene these days is made

sure that they reflect the whole economy. As well as the traditional

areas of engineering and manufacturing where we have skills

shortages, and they would be worse without these schemes, we have got

to make sure the apprenticeships can get you to all sorts of the economy.

I was in Saint Thomas 's hospital yesterday with the health care

apprenticeships. Today we are launching a graduate apprenticeship

in nursing to be able to get you to be a fully qualified nurse through

an apprenticeship at graduate level. You can now become a fully qualified

solicitor through an apprenticeship without necessarily having gone to

university and that was not possible before. The economy is broad. This

country is not exactly short of solicitors. But it is short of

engineers and scientists and technologists and surely that is

where any apprenticeship programme should concentrate? It is not

either, aura. We would have a problem if we did not have high

quality training in the health sector. Likewise, the law is

dominated by people who went to university and the best schools and

apprenticeships can open up access. The BBC launched an apprenticeship

programme yesterday, I was there with Tony Hall, launching an

apprenticeship in journalism to broaden access into the BBC's so you

do not have to have gone to the right school to get into the BBC.

These sorts of moves both to get the skills, but also to broaden channels

of entry into the professions are really important. We want to make it

the new norm that when a young person leaves school they can choose

either to go to university or into an apprenticeship and they get

high-quality options for both. Our job is not to push people one way or

the other, but to make sure there are high quality options on both

sides. 45% of apprenticeships start as work over the age of 25 and that

is encouraging in that in one sense older people are getting new skills

to suit new demands. But on the other hand there are about 1 million

young people not in education or employment or training, and we know

there are still far greater demands for apprenticeships among young

people than there are places for young people. Yes, it is important

that it is an all age programme as you say, not least because in this

economy whole industries come and go and we need to make sure people can

retrain. But we have also got to get support at the younger end.

Interestingly, last Thursday statistics came out showing that the

number of 16-18 -year-olds without jobs or training is at the lowest

level since action began. There is action that is starting to be taken

that is showing to be working. It is still too high, but it is coming

down. There is growth in the apprenticeships aged between 19 and

24. I agree that broadly we have got to have an all age programme, but

action to tackle youth unemployment involves apprenticeships and the new

trainee schemes for those who have not got the wherewithal to hold down

a job, but it is also about making it easier for employers to employ

young people and some of the action we are taking is one of the reasons

youth unemployment is finally starting to fall. You have got views

on this given your experience in the TUC and the Labour Party. What would

you say? On the one hand, of course, any attention being paid to

training and upscaling people for work is to be welcomed. I am

confused, as are many people in the country, by the use of the term

apprenticeship. I am glad to hear him say it will be a minimum of 12

months, but that does not make it an apprenticeship. It is a training

programme. The term apprenticeship is a fast one. You think it is too

wide? It is far too wide. The TUC is a big supporter of the

apprenticeship programme and I work very closely with them. What about

the point is the definition is too wide? Moving the minimum up to the

year was the right thing to do and driving up quality overall is really

vital. You can do one apprenticeship at an entry-level and then go on to

do a higher apprenticeship or even now a degree level or Masters level

apprenticeship. The point is to get people into progression so you keep

training all way through and make sure whether or not you go to

university there is training available, that you can keep moving

up the career ladder. If you made one year apprenticeship and then you

did another apprenticeship to get you up to a higher level of

skill... But over all the support for the programme and the increasing

quality in the programme is important. What do you make of the

attempt by conservatives in the Cabinet to try and talk the Liberals

into getting a referendum deal on Europe and recall mechanism into the

Queen's speech? I have not followed it, I have been talking about

apprenticeships all day. But I do support having a referendum on

membership of the EU in 2017. Would you like to see it in the Queen's

speech? I very much would like to see it happen. We had to have it as

a private member 's' bill because the Lib Dems did not want it to

happen. And you are happy with recall of MPs if they are not

behaving? There are good arguments. I used to sit on the standards and

privileges committee in the Commons which currently adjudicates on

whether an MP should be kicked out. The arguments are difficult and

finely balance. So long as you get the right structures in place, I

think it could work, but you have got to get the details right so you

do not get purely vexatious recall elections. IU encouraged this was

discussed and they try to force it through this morning? I will wait to

read the minutes and find that the official version. It is good you

came here and got an early heads up. We thank you for speaking about

apprenticeships. Remember when David Cameron revealed that they would not

do a top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Labour opposed that programme.

But today Andy Burnham reviewed their plans for the NHS. He calls it

whole person care which would create an integrated service with a single

budget for further, mental and social needs. The same budget that

treats us when we were ill would also treat as in old age. Ed

Miliband and Ed Balls why not entirely convinced. Could the public

really stand another major round of NHS reforms? They told Andy Burnham

to go away and get a second opinion. John Alden is a former

senior civil servant at the Department of Health and a doctor

and was appointed to head up a commission into what Ed Miliband

called the biggest challenge in the history of the NHS. The main problem

was Doctor Burnham's suggestion that local councils would be given the

power to decide what to spend in the budget. Today so John has published

his report and set out his vision for whole person care. It has got Ed

Miliband's endorsement, but how close is it to what Andy Burnham

came up with in the first place? What exactly would it mean for the

NHS. Richard Humphreys is an assistant director at the Kings

fund. What do you make of this proposal? This is very significant

report that will influence the shape of labour's final policy ahead of

the next election. It makes a very strong and compelling case for

change. Also the need for a much more integrated model of care in

which different bits of the NHS and the care system work together to

wrap care around the needs of individuals and care closer to home

and more emphasis on prevention. But this is a long-standing policy

ambition. It is easier to talk about it than it is to achieve it. The

report has come up with some very helpful and practical proposals that

will remove some of the obstacles that have prevented this from

happening in the past, but it still leaves and resolve some big issues

about money and funding, which he acknowledges in the report. How much

money would be needed to make this a success? That is very hard to say.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that we have got a health care

system that is free at the point of views and we pay for it out of

social taxation. The social care system is means tested, rationed and

fewer people are using it, yet there are more of us with a mixture of

health and care needs that need both systems to work together. It is very

hard to do that when you have got a very underfunded care system and an

NHS which is starting to creep under financial pressure. Because of that

we have set up an independent commission also to look at these

bigger questions about funding and entitlement, how we pay for the kind

of quantity and quality of care we need in the future and how that is

done. Thank you for joining us.

With us now is Liz Kendall, the Shadow Minister for Care and Older

People. This is another vision for NHS

reform. A lot of people in the NHS might be saying, particularly after

the Tory reforms, leave us alone. The last thing that anybody working

in the health service wants is another reorganisation. It was in

the terms of reference for the review to make sure what he proposed

would not lead to another reorganisation. The proposals he has

come up with can be achieved without the kind of reorganisation which has

thrown the system into chaos. Won't you repeal the 2012 care act?

We want to get rid of the competition part of that act. The

review says, if you want to join up services, provide more care in the

community at home, have an integrated set of services, that

part of legislation is preventing integrated service is happening. Is

it part of the act you would repeal? We want to get rid of part of the

bill stopping the services from working together. The act was a

top-down organisation reform. If you repeal it, you have two replace it

with something. We won't get rid of the clinical commissioning groups or

the health and well-being boards. If you don't mind me saying, your

introduction about why we have done this is completely wrong. The reason

why we asked him to look at this is because, when Andrew Lansley got in,

he spun this on people without properly involving them. We have

worked with people in services, councils, hospitals to get something

that can be implemented practically. Politicians don't know

all the answers. Absolutely! I never worked that out! We have tried to do

something different, to get people working in the services to help make

the changes. Andy Burnham suggested local councils would decide where to

spend the integrated budgets. In this report, it doesn't look like

those budgets will be handed over. Health and well-being boards have an

important role. They can do things like link up with housing and other

issues locally. The review says, if the local health service and council

decide they want one budget, it is up to them. It shouldn't be forced

on them. You will know it was Mr Miliband who blocked the idea of

handing budgets over to local government. I have never heard them

say anything about what Andy has been proposing, they have always...

The funding idea was misguided. Where did you get that from? The

Independent newspaper. Ed Balls and Ed Miliband understand our health

care system needs to change to improve care for people and get

value for money. We have more people living longer with more chronic

conditions. At the moment our system is based on hospitals when we need

more care in the community and at home. This excellent report gives

practical proposals. But local authorities will not get

the money. If a council and NHS locally want to join up, they should

be allowed to do so. That is not what Andy Burnham originally

proposed. He believes councils should have an important and bigger

role. This report has set out how we might do that. The report also says

it will need ?10 billion from existing allocations. No, it

doesn't. It says everything in the report can be achieved within the

existing finances. They want to see a shift in the focus of resources

more into the community. Where does that money come from? You can't

shift funds without someone losing. In the places where it has worked

well, they have not had so many general medical beds in hospitals,

too many older people who could be kept at home. They have shifted that

money into local teams, nurses, physiotherapists, social care

support people, to keep people at home. The money has been shifted

into the community. That is what we want to see in all parts of the

country. ?3.8 billion has already been put in. That is existing

resources. You are talking about shifting existing resources. Out of

a total budget of ?120 billion. This has started a process you want to

reinforce. Actually, we do want to see this but three years have been

spent on reorganisation when they should have been focused on this.

This legislation is preventing joined up working. Where hospitals

want to work closely with community services, they are being prevented

because of this so legislation -- this legislation. Margaret?

Overall, it sounds what -- this is what is needed. People are living

longer, they have multiple issues to be dealt with, some of which are

better dealt with within a medical context, a social context. What I

think is there, is the devil is in the detail. There needs to be a

cultural shift by all of the players, at local level, suddenly

working hand-in-hand with people you did not used to before. Particularly

at political level where members of Parliament, secretaries of state,

they want to hang on to hang onto the glory. That is the story of

British government. We do need that, the cultural point is

important. A big part of the report is we need to look at the way staff

are trained. If we can have some training where GPs, nurses and

social care staff are trained together. Also, we have a proper

focus on people helping people to help themselves. There is a lot more

patience can do. Which hospitals are not geared up to do. Last Monday, I

saw a 74-year-old woman doing her kidney dialysis at home, because she

had specialist training from nurses. Her life had been

transformed. Instead of going to hospital three times a week, she was

at home. She said she did not think she could cope with machines, but

with support, she can. Helping people to live the lives they want

when they get older it is what it is about. Andy Burnham proposed a death

tax on estates, is that ruled out? I think it was a really bad bit of

politics just before the election, trying to get cross-party agreement.

We will have to pay more for our care as we get older. What is the

fairest way? To call something a death tax when actually many people

were losing all of their homes already to pay for care. Has it been

rolled out? We have not proposed it. I promise you, if we come up with

any proposals on funding social care, you will be one of the first

to know. We hold you to that promise.

Regular viewers of this programme will know that Ed Miliband has been

involved in a long struggle to alter the Labour Party's relationship with

the trade unions. Well, the party approved changes to that

relationship in a special conference over the weekend. Senior Labour

figures have hailed it as the culmination of decades of attempted

reform by successive Labour leaders. But, is that really the case? In a

moment, we'll be talking to our guest of the day, Margaret Prosser,

about that. But first, our reporter Alex Forsyth, has been delving into

the archives of Labour's links with the unions.

The clue is in the name, more than 100 years ago, the Labour party

emerged from the need for a political voice for the working

class. Its roots are buried deep in the trade union movement. Labour is

the party of the future. In post-war Britain, while its fortunes waxed

and waned, its union link remained strong. That -- but not entirely

unchallenged. In the 1960s, a plan from the employment Secretary

Barbara Castle to curb union power threatened a major party split. The

trade unions themselves have been clamouring for years for collective

bargaining to be underpinned more and more by the law. In the end,

there was compromise. So came the era of the mighty barons. As ongoing

strikes caused chaos in Britain, the public mood shifted. The trade union

link became a liability. In 1981, a gang of four defected, claiming

Labour had lurched to the left and yielded power to the unions. It was

Margaret Thatcher who dared do what Labour leaders had not, she went

head to head with the unions and eroded their industrial might. It

led to Neil Kinnock and his effort to distance his party from the hard

left. I am telling you, you cannot play politics with people 's jobs

and people 's services. It was John Smith who first broke the power of

the union block vote in 1993. The changes I propose today are vital.

Then came Tony Blair who tore up old Labour's Constitution, ditching

clause four, the commitment to the common ownership of the means of

production. Now, forced to prove his

leadership, Ed Miliband. Last weekend, he won backing for an end

to the automatic affiliation of union members and introduced the one

member, one-vote system, to elect a leaders. The biggest transfer of

power to our members and supporters in the history of the Labour Party.

He has been praised for finishing a job started long ago, but some say

the reforms are not that radical, and could make labour more dependent

on the unions, not least for their money.

Our guest of the day, Margaret Prosser, is a former senior figure

within the old T Union, and was also the Treasurer of the Labour

Party. We used to go to the converse is on the Isle of Man. I spent my

life going to conferences. And we're also joined by the Conservative MP

Priti Patel. Welcome back. Are these changes as significant as being made

out? They are, I think. I have been living this over the months. The

person who put the report together, Lord Collins of Highbury, is my dear

friend Ray Collins who spent time with me in the union. We have been

discussing this for ages. One of the significant things is that, those

members who agreed to be part of the political fundamental, and to be a

supporter, their names will be part of the Labour Party database. The

Labour Party will, for the first time, be able to communicate

directly with those members rather than through the trades you. This is

how the unions had dealt with it. Transparency is very welcome. An

example of union power being reduced within the Labour Party.

Effectively, Ed Miliband has a problem, not just the link but the

natural dependency with the trades unions. There has been plenty of

commentary at the weekend where the union leadership, Len McCluskey,

they are basically saying they are still in charge, in control. They

will be making it a transactional relationship.

That has always been their argument, but it has not always work out that

way. They are saying they are very happy with the reforms. They claim

it gives them more power, more strength and decision making and it

is all about financial leverage when it comes to policy-making that is

critical. I think they are putting a brave face on it. I do not think

they are happy at all. They cannot say, no, we are not in favour of

these changes, because that makes them look and democratic and

dismissive of their membership. They have had to go along with it. I tell

you what the next step will be, and the unions will cloud me for this,

but if you go back to 1980s there were over 50 trade unions affiliated

to the party. By 1990 it was 30 and now it is ten. What does that mean?

That means the nuances of different interests and concerns and

experiences around the trade union movement have been reduced and

reduced and that cannot be healthy. I think what has happened so far

with these latest changes is hugely important, but somehow something has

to be done about the reduced numbers of voices around the table. Labour

is making changes. It is going to depend more on individual membership

and unions signing people up. It may cause them problems with money

because they are not going to get the money handed over every year in

affiliation. There may be more to do, but shouldn't the pressure now

come on the Tories to clean up their act when it comes to party funding?

I do not think that is what this is about. The reality is we are living

in an anti-politics age anyway, the public are quite disenfranchised

with political parties. We are talking about the unions and it is

clear that the Labour leadership have got very strong links with the

Labour unions. But at the same time it is incumbent from all political

parties, and my party is very broad in our membership and we are very

diverse in the way we select our candidates, I was selected to an

open primary vote. But we do not rely on a block for funding. We rely

on a lot of people who donate across the country. It is not a handful of

donors. Rose coloured spectacles you have on I do feel. You may have a

large number of people giving money but they are almost all from the

same class, it is almost all business. Do not pretend that you

have got a wide variety. We do have. Your membership has gone down faster

than any political party. And so it has for all political parties, but

that does not mean we are not getting a new diverse group of

people. I don't know where to start. Let me start this way, how can you

claim to be a broadly based party in terms of social diversity when five

of the six people who are drying up the next manifesto all went to the

same school and it was not comprehensive. The one who did not

go to Eta went to Saint Pauls. That is categorically not true. I am

sitting here today as a member of the manifesto commission. But you

are not part of David's cronies. We are engaging our parliamentarians

and our party at large when it comes to the manifesto and the type of

manifesto. I am scripting some papers, I can tell you that now. You

say you take money from diverse groups and it is true there has been

much criticism of the union dependency of the Labour Party, but

that is a transparent arrangement. We can see that and we can hold them

to account. I have interviewed Len McCluskey, the head of the GMB and

Labour politicians. I have never managed to interview one of the huge

hedge fund owners that your party depends on. They are not transparent

and told themselves to account. They are old transparent and they are all

registered. They do not give themselves up in the wake trade

union leaders do. They have to get on with the business of what they

are doing. A number of them came from health interests and they got

contracts from the health service. That is a massive generalisation. We

have a range of donors. We have a range of donors to our political

party and they are all registered. But they do not hold themselves

accountable like trade union leaders. They do not buy party

policy and they do not buy leadership. That is ridiculous.

Since when did Labour produce the kind of stuff the trade unions are

calling for? Tony Blair ignored the trade unions. To his credit, but

this is Ed Miliband. The reason we are discussing this is because Ed

Miliband recognises the nature of the relationship between the party

and the unions has to move forward. If Ed Miliband does stand up to the

unions, I do not think he will when you have Len McCluskey and the union

leaders. They are all on the record being quoted. That I had the donors

that you have on the record? A lot of what Len McCluskey would like as

party policy is not party policy. If you could get me an interview with

one of your million pound hedge fund donators... I don't even know them.

You do. If it is as transparent as you say it is, you should know them.

This is not the end of the process. It is going to continue. The whole

purpose of the continuation is to make the thing as transparent as

possible and to make people who are part of working in England, part of

working in the UK, they feel they have some mechanism to influence

what is going on in the political field and that is the path. This is

not a good year to say England. I realise that. Earlier we discussed

the situation in Ukraine. The American Secretary of State John

Kerry has arrived in Kiev. In the last few minutes the Foreign

Secretary William Hague has made a statement. Her Majesty's Government

condemns any violation of the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of Ukraine. Under that agreement Russia is entitled to

station troops and naval personnel on its bases in Crimea, but not to

deploy troops outside those bases without the permission of the

Ukrainian Government. Russia's actions are in breach of the

Budapest memorandum signed in 1994 in return for Ukraine giving up its

nuclear weapons. Russia joined the United Kingdom and the United States

in reaffirming their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of

force against the territorial integrity or political independence

of Ukraine and it went on that none of their weapons would ever be used

against Ukraine except in self defence or otherwise in accordance

with the Charter of the United Nations. The Russian Government has

argued there is no legitimate Government in Kiev, that the

incumbent president abandoned his post, and the subsequent decisions

of the Ukrainian parliament have been carried by a large majority,

required under the Constitution, and the suggestion that a president who

has fled his country then has any authority whatsoever to invite the

forces of a neighbouring country into that country is baseless.

Russia has also argued that Russian speaking minorities in Ukraine are

in danger, but no evidence of that threat has been presented.

International diplomatic mechanisms exist to provide assurance on the

situation of minorities, including within the organisation for Security

and co-operation in Europe. These mechanisms are the way to secure

assurances of the protection of the rights of minorities, not the

breaking of international agreements and the use of armed force. The

latest British Government position. As you know it is showed Tuesday

today. I expect you have been making your batter and squeezing your

lemons for hours! MPs have been limbering up and flipping pancakes

in the annual charity pancake race. We sent stars along to see who won.

What a way to lift the winter blues on a Tuesday in Westminster with the

flower of Parliament excitingly waiting. Parliamentarians have

always been accused of crossing the line, but this morning it is the

pancake race, to see who can flip a pancake and run around a park best.

God bless them all. The MPs were very confident. We do not talk about

flipping. The press always turn up to see this, but every year they

also take part, although some were trying to hire replacement runners.

Is Carol there because she is fast? Suddenly it was all toss and go.

There we are, the Lords were victorious. The MPs were trailing

behind and the press were just a bit cold. We are joined now by Tracey

Crouch, a Conservative MP and was part of the MPs pancake race team.

The Lords won? Let's be clear, they cheated. How did they do that? The

Lord at the front of the race had a pancake in his hat. If you dropped a

pancake, you have to pick it up. So he whipped it out of his hat? Has

there been a stewards enquiry? We need a judge led, independent

enquiry. I think we are running out of judges. And the journalists came

third. It was a dreadful performance. The MPs have won the

pancake race two years in a row and we were going for the hat-trick and

we came a very close second, but it has all been done in a good cause.

Tell me the charity. Rehab do a lot of work for people with physical

disabilities and mental disabilities and we talk about these things in

parliament, but they do not get the media coverage they deserve. If we

have to run around, tossing pancakes to raise awareness, then so be it.

Have you thought of doing this? I have been asked many times. I

noticed there were a lot of blokes there. There are a lot of blokes. Do

you get Pete the pancake at the end? I don't think you want to, it has

been dropped so many times. That is it for the day. Thank you to all my

guests. We will be here tomorrow at 11:30am with Prime Minister 's

questions. I hope you can join us at 11:30am. Goodbye.