:00:36. > :00:40.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The economy might be
:00:41. > :00:45.growing but there's no early cheer for public sector workers. Only a 1%
:00:46. > :00:49.rise for most. That's about half the rate of inflation. David Cameron
:00:50. > :00:57.says it's a fair deal. Some unions are already gunning for industrial
:00:58. > :00:59.action. I have taken over the Daily Politics big board today and will
:01:00. > :01:05.explain how the Liberal Democrats are trying to make taxes fairer. Is
:01:06. > :01:08.this now the World's most famous dynasty? Is it the most talented?
:01:09. > :01:12.We'll be talking to the Godfather. And want to know what MPs get up to
:01:13. > :01:20.after dark? Adam's been to the Parliamentary Variety Show. Which
:01:21. > :01:25.party do you think is more showbiz, more entertaining? I think they both
:01:26. > :01:30.have a long way to go to reach a popular audience.
:01:31. > :01:36.The mind boggles. All that in the next hour. With us for the whole
:01:37. > :01:39.programme today is the former Conservative MEP, Stanley Johnson.
:01:40. > :01:46.Welcome to the programme. Stanley also used to work for the World Bank
:01:47. > :01:49.and the EU Commission. He's the father, I'm sure you know, of Boris
:01:50. > :01:53.Johnson, the Mayor of London. He also used to be Chairman of the
:01:54. > :01:59.Gorilla Organisation and is a keen environmentalist. And he also writes
:02:00. > :02:04.books. He says about 24 of them. Anyway, colourful life. Anyway,
:02:05. > :02:07.welcome to the programme. Now first today let's turn our attention to
:02:08. > :02:10.Europe, because let's face it it's never out of the news these days.
:02:11. > :02:13.Patrick O'Flynn from UKIP is also here. Welcome to the programme,
:02:14. > :02:17.Patrick. Stanley Johnson, do we now know where we are in terms of what's
:02:18. > :02:20.on offer from the parties? If the Tories win, there will be an in out
:02:21. > :02:25.referendum, if Labour wins, there won't be apart from in exceptional
:02:26. > :02:30.unlikely circumstances. That is a very fair, I think, explanation. The
:02:31. > :02:34.Tories are committed to an in out referendum. I don't regard that with
:02:35. > :02:39.any alarm at all and I am a committed European. I worked in the
:02:40. > :02:43.commission. I have been a member of the European Parliament. I was a
:02:44. > :02:47.member in the first election of 1979, when the Conservative Party
:02:48. > :02:55.was gung ho for Europe and we had 61 Conservative MEPs. It's good for
:02:56. > :02:59.David Cameron. It's high time we had an in out referendum. We have been
:03:00. > :03:07.40 years waiting for it and, as far as I am concerned, we will win it to
:03:08. > :03:11.stay in Europe. UKIP's Fox will be shot. The voters have a clear
:03:12. > :03:16.choice. With the Tory offer, I think is used to say, terms and conditions
:03:17. > :03:21.apply. The cast-iron guarantee of a referendum on Lisbon Treaty was
:03:22. > :03:25.broken and voters are crossed Europe are used, if they get the wrong
:03:26. > :03:31.result, two referendums and having to vote all over again. Are you
:03:32. > :03:35.saying David Cameron, if he is Prime Minister again, it's not going to
:03:36. > :03:38.happen? I don't trust him to keep the promise, let me make that
:03:39. > :03:41.absolutely clear, but I can tell you I remember when I was a journalist
:03:42. > :03:46.looking down at Prime Minister 's questions, and Eurosceptic
:03:47. > :03:51.Conservative MPs asking him for an in out referendum, and him saying
:03:52. > :03:54.it's not in the national interest. It was UKIP thumbscrews on David
:03:55. > :03:58.Cameron which changed his mind and we are about but the thumbscrews on
:03:59. > :04:02.Ed Miliband as well. I do think you can credit UKIP for the referendum.
:04:03. > :04:08.You have to go back to Jimmy Goldsmith, frankly. He played an
:04:09. > :04:12.enormous role. Keeping is out for the you talk about terms and
:04:13. > :04:15.conditions applying. The Prime Minister said he will have
:04:16. > :04:20.discussions with Europe, but go back to 1975 when Wilson had a
:04:21. > :04:24.referendum. That change the perspective on the Labour Party
:04:25. > :04:30.totally. The Labour Party came on board and the referendum was won by
:04:31. > :04:34.a 2-1 vote. We can do that again. I'm not at all worried about these
:04:35. > :04:37.negotiations Cameron has to have. Do you think they add up to a row of
:04:38. > :04:44.beans? Do you think anything will be achieved or it's a bit of succour to
:04:45. > :04:50.the Eurosceptics? Of course it is. Going back to 1975, Wilson went in,
:04:51. > :04:53.the renegotiated, came back with a couple of things. Can anybody
:04:54. > :05:00.remember what they wear? No, the fundamental issue was, was bred and
:05:01. > :05:07.then a member of the European Union? The fundamental issue in 2017 is
:05:08. > :05:11.going to be, will Britain stay in? By the way, there is an error in
:05:12. > :05:17.people 's understanding. You don't have to have IGC negotiation before
:05:18. > :05:24.you have the referendum. We never had that. You think there shouldn't
:05:25. > :05:29.be that much reform? No, you don't have to pin down the camera on offer
:05:30. > :05:32.in terms of something... That might be just as well because it clearly
:05:33. > :05:38.doesn't want to be pinned down at all. You don't believe there's
:05:39. > :05:42.anything in this renegotiation. Are you worried by businesses who've
:05:43. > :05:45.come out quite strongly over the past few months saying the
:05:46. > :05:50.referendum is causing uncertainty and they are worried it's also
:05:51. > :05:53.preventing investment? Peter Mandelson and Roland Rudd have their
:05:54. > :05:59.powers in the massive multinational corporations. They wanted Britain to
:06:00. > :06:03.join the euro, and benefit from the endless stream of cheap labour,
:06:04. > :06:08.despite often not paying much tax into the system themselves, and the
:06:09. > :06:11.public are being fleeced. We cannot control our borders inside the
:06:12. > :06:15.European Union. And that's why the UKIP message is spreading way
:06:16. > :06:19.outside the Tory shires to the blue-collar workers and would-be
:06:20. > :06:24.workers. It may be interesting to see what happens after the European
:06:25. > :06:28.elections because, in terms of the consumer and the voter being
:06:29. > :06:32.fleeced, we never get the concrete figures on what they are being
:06:33. > :06:36.fleeced by in terms of money by the European Union. What do you say when
:06:37. > :06:41.UKIP say it costs us billions of pounds to sign up to a unnecessary
:06:42. > :06:46.regulation in Europe? I don't buy that argue didn't at all. I remember
:06:47. > :06:51.a time when the British rebate was a really big issue and Mrs Thatcher
:06:52. > :07:00.got the rebate and it is still in place. Yes, we... Nearly half of it
:07:01. > :07:03.given away. We get huge amount back. Lord Ashcroft has done significant
:07:04. > :07:07.polling saying the issue of Europe is just not that big a deal, which,
:07:08. > :07:14.for you, is obviously clearly very disappointing. People are interested
:07:15. > :07:18.in the economy. Good the Lord Ashcroft. Key member of the
:07:19. > :07:21.Conservative Party. Since the last election, we have more than doubled
:07:22. > :07:26.our membership, quadrupled our poll rating, and eightfold increase in
:07:27. > :07:29.real elections, so something we are offering the British public is
:07:30. > :07:34.clearly chiming and our membership figure is at an all-time record,
:07:35. > :07:39.34,300. One thing you can't do is deliver on a referendum. That
:07:40. > :07:44.presupposes the result of the next election and I'm telling you,
:07:45. > :07:50.fundamental changes are happening. The Tories will deliver on it for
:07:51. > :07:55.the Labour might. UKIP can't for them I think we can force Ed
:07:56. > :07:58.Miliband to changes mind. That would be interesting to see. Stories that
:07:59. > :08:07.Nigel Farage Barca boss private life have been all over the papers. How
:08:08. > :08:11.damaging is that, to your campaign -- Nigel Farage's private life? Not
:08:12. > :08:15.a lot, people are responding to our messages, principally, you can't
:08:16. > :08:19.control your borders inside the European Union. Why are we giving
:08:20. > :08:23.?55 million every single day to the European Union? How are you
:08:24. > :08:29.responding to those stories? We are making the big issues available to
:08:30. > :08:32.the British public. Large part of the establishment don't want that to
:08:33. > :08:43.happen. Nigel Farage and Annabel Fuller had said these stories, made
:08:44. > :08:50.by an embittered former MEP, whenever I see Nicky Sinclair's name
:08:51. > :08:54.mentioned, I keep them peeled. We didn't Metallica news on the BBC
:08:55. > :08:57.last night. I want to know why it was on the BBC Ten O'Clock News? I
:08:58. > :09:01.don't think there would have them at any other political leader. That
:09:02. > :09:06.would be arguable for them how are you going to persuade Ed Miliband?
:09:07. > :09:09.We are going to put the UKIP thumbscrews on him, just like we did
:09:10. > :09:13.to David Cameron, by taking loads and loads of people he has taken for
:09:14. > :09:16.granted as Labour voters from him and loads of people he has taken for
:09:17. > :09:18.granted as Labour voters from feminist party at the European
:09:19. > :09:24.elections on May 22. Let's leave it there. Watch out, Ed Miliband! Now
:09:25. > :09:27.it's time for our daily quiz. Regular viewers of the Daily
:09:28. > :09:29.Politics will know we've taken a keen, some might say excessive,
:09:30. > :09:33.interest in the rodent infestation over the road in the Palace of
:09:34. > :09:38.Westminster. I mean, real rodents, of course. Some MPs thought the
:09:39. > :09:42.answer was to get a cat. And we even had one of the contenders for the
:09:43. > :09:45.job here in the studio. She was called Phoebe. But this morning we
:09:46. > :09:49.learned that the House of Commons Commission, the committee that runs
:09:50. > :09:54.the place, has banned Pheobe or any other cat from becoming mouser in
:09:55. > :09:58.residence. But what's the reason? Stanley Johnson, I hope you are
:09:59. > :10:01.listening. Is it: A) MPs were worried the cat would steal their
:10:02. > :10:05.thunder? B) Speaker Bercow is allergic to cats? C) The cat might
:10:06. > :10:08.get too fat on all the leftover food? Or D) The cat might scratch
:10:09. > :10:13.the Queen's throne in the House of Lords At the end of the show Stanley
:10:14. > :10:17.will give us the correct answer. Now according to the head of the British
:10:18. > :10:22.Army, a moral disarmament in the West has resulted in a reluctance
:10:23. > :10:25.for us to engage in conflicts. Speaking to the Foreign Affairs
:10:26. > :10:28.think tank, Chatham House General Sir Peter Wall says that reluctance
:10:29. > :10:32.will be exploited by Britain's enemies. So what is Britain's role
:10:33. > :10:35.in the world and does our rhetoric outstrip our capability? Let's
:10:36. > :10:40.listen to the Labour MP, John Woodcock, at yesterday's Prime
:10:41. > :10:45.Ministers Questions. This week marks three years since the bloodshed
:10:46. > :10:49.began in Syria. More than two-and-a-half million people have
:10:50. > :10:53.fled the country and the dead can no longer even be counted. We must all
:10:54. > :10:59.bear responsibility for our shameful failure to intervene. But they are
:11:00. > :11:04.supposed to be the ones... They are the supposed be the ones running the
:11:05. > :11:09.country. So what renewed effort will his Government make to end the
:11:10. > :11:14.slaughter before all hope fails? Mr Speaker, he knows my own views. I
:11:15. > :11:18.felt there was a case for intervention at the time when we
:11:19. > :11:22.voted on this. And, of course, his party voted against it but if he now
:11:23. > :11:26.wants to speak with his own party leadership upon that matter, he is
:11:27. > :11:28.more than welcome to do so. I agree with him. The humanitarian
:11:29. > :11:32.catastrophe there is of an unimaginable scale. We must do
:11:33. > :11:36.everything we can to help. That is why I think I'm right in saying our
:11:37. > :11:40.humanitarian effort there is now the largest this country has ever
:11:41. > :11:42.delivered. And why also, the Home Secretary and others in Government
:11:43. > :11:45.are administering, in conjunction with the United Nations, a new
:11:46. > :11:48.programme where we allow the most destitute and desperate refugees
:11:49. > :11:55.some refuge in this country, as well. Nick Clegg from the Deputy
:11:56. > :11:59.Prime Minister 's questions yesterday. With us now is John
:12:00. > :12:02.Woodcock. I was slightly surprised to hear raise the issue in the House
:12:03. > :12:07.of Commons yesterday. What prompted you to do it? We are now entering
:12:08. > :12:13.the fourth year of what is being a horrific conflict. We are in a
:12:14. > :12:17.situation where Syria has faded from the musicals there was a flash point
:12:18. > :12:22.at the vote, but the killing is going on daily, and I was privileged
:12:23. > :12:27.to be part of a Parliamentary briefing where British Syrians came
:12:28. > :12:33.in and talked about the horror in that country and I do think it
:12:34. > :12:38.shames all of us that this has gone on for so long with such a level of
:12:39. > :12:44.killing and we have not been prepared to do sufficient to shift
:12:45. > :12:48.the balance. My surprises because Labour is very much blamed by the
:12:49. > :12:52.Government, your leader's tactics as they were described, by Nick Clegg
:12:53. > :12:56.David Cameron at the time, for blocking the motion that could pave
:12:57. > :12:59.the way military action by Britain. Well, I don't think Parliament and
:13:00. > :13:05.the Parliamentary process came out of that very well. Ed Miliband was
:13:06. > :13:10.wrong, do you think? I did not oppose the Government motion. Like
:13:11. > :13:16.most of the members of my party. But, actually, the person who I'm
:13:17. > :13:19.most angry with is the British prime and is the British primers to David
:13:20. > :13:24.Cameron because when you're in a position of leadership like that,
:13:25. > :13:27.you have a responsibility to Marshall this through Parliament.
:13:28. > :13:31.I'm afraid it was a cataclysmic failure of his process and
:13:32. > :13:35.leadership which left us in a situation where we were not able to
:13:36. > :13:40.leave the option even on the table, which Ed Miliband and the Labour
:13:41. > :13:47.Party wanted. I have got to say, I truly disagree. I disagree because,
:13:48. > :13:52.as a result of your party's decision, we actually got a very
:13:53. > :13:57.good result. And a very good result was we were not forced to
:13:58. > :14:02.intervene. We were not forced to line up behind the Americans and, as
:14:03. > :14:06.a result of Cameron not getting that vote in the House of Commons, Barack
:14:07. > :14:12.Obama felt he did not have to go to Congress and we did not have a
:14:13. > :14:16.conflict... Was that the wrong decision? I think it was the right
:14:17. > :14:19.decision. This was an achievement Cameron got by accident. He came in
:14:20. > :14:26.from Cornwall, failed to get the vote, and now he has the luck to
:14:27. > :14:29.have not got it. We can get embroiled in a discussion about the
:14:30. > :14:38.intricacies of Parliamentary tactics, but I don't think anyone
:14:39. > :14:43.can describe what is happening as a good result. It is appalling. You
:14:44. > :14:46.are asking for intervention for that why can't intervene, in your mind
:14:47. > :14:52.question there are far too many interventions without the cover of
:14:53. > :14:58.international law. Afghanistan, Iraqi, Kosovo. You wouldn't have
:14:59. > :15:06.liked the Government to have gone into Kosovo? No, under NATO mandate.
:15:07. > :15:09.I believe in classic international law which says you go with votes of
:15:10. > :15:14.the Security Council, you get your vote, and you move on that. They
:15:15. > :15:22.would never have got away with it in Russia. That's life, you don't get
:15:23. > :15:28.it. So what are you hoping for now, boots on the ground in Syria? There
:15:29. > :15:32.was no question of that, and that was one of the failings that the
:15:33. > :15:37.Government and the military were not able to give enough of a sense that
:15:38. > :15:43.this was, partly, it ought to have been and could still be about taking
:15:44. > :15:50.proper steps in the face of a leader using chemical weapons, for which
:15:51. > :15:55.there was compelling evidence. But the other big failing that we have
:15:56. > :15:59.allowed to happen is President Assad has been able to successfully
:16:00. > :16:05.portray this, but Ray the opposition forces as even worse than what was
:16:06. > :16:09.coming. -- portray. There are extremists, but they are not all the
:16:10. > :16:15.same, and there are moderate forces who we should have been and could
:16:16. > :16:19.still be supporting. Does it contribute to the idea that we are
:16:20. > :16:22.weaker as a foreign policy powers that the quote from General Sir
:16:23. > :16:27.Peter Wall, chief of the general staff, that there is a moral
:16:28. > :16:32.disarmament, war weary Britain puts us at risk to our enemies? I would
:16:33. > :16:38.rather hear him talk about the need for international backing when we
:16:39. > :16:42.have intervention. It is absolutely fundamental, and it is really
:16:43. > :16:45.worrying, the way the world and Britain has moved away from that. I
:16:46. > :16:50.blame Tony Blair quite a lot for that, the speech he made in Chicago
:16:51. > :16:54.and so on. On the chemicals point, let's face it, Vladimir Putin has
:16:55. > :16:59.played a blinder. He has played a blinder. He put the chemicals offer
:17:00. > :17:03.on the table in the press conference in Moscow, we picked it up, and it
:17:04. > :17:09.has saved, I think, another conflict. There is a suggestion that
:17:10. > :17:13.there is only 5% of the chemical weapons in Syria that have been
:17:14. > :17:18.destroyed as a result of this. The idea that we have got rid of the
:17:19. > :17:23.problem is bonkers. Well, let's look at how much weight we do have on the
:17:24. > :17:27.international arena, with Ukraine, for example. Is William Hague doing
:17:28. > :17:31.a good enough job in terms of appearing tough to stop that
:17:32. > :17:37.escalating further? It is not going to be a boot on the ground
:17:38. > :17:39.situation. Go back to 1994, we had the Budapest agreement, Britain and
:17:40. > :17:44.the United States guaranteed, in some sense, Ukraine after it handed
:17:45. > :17:49.back its nuclear weapons to Russia, so we have a real interest in
:17:50. > :17:54.Ukraine. Realistically, you cannot have a war situation. I go slightly
:17:55. > :18:01.back to the point I just made - it is all very well saying what Putin
:18:02. > :18:06.is doing is illegal, it probably is, but many of the things we did
:18:07. > :18:09.were totally illegal in international law. David Cameron is
:18:10. > :18:14.in Israel, do think there has been enough coverage of that in terms of
:18:15. > :18:20.quite a big set piece event, addressing the message to a standing
:18:21. > :18:24.ovation? Lots of missiles! That short of overshadowed the news
:18:25. > :18:28.agenda. We not interested enough in what Britain is doing on the foreign
:18:29. > :18:35.stage because we do not count? I do not think it is because we do not
:18:36. > :18:38.count. I can understand why, after a decade of war in Afghanistan,
:18:39. > :18:42.without troops in the line of fire and many, many casualties, the
:18:43. > :18:46.shadow of Iraq hangs over the political process here in
:18:47. > :18:52.Westminster and the wider country. People are tired of what they see as
:18:53. > :18:57.intervention, but we have so much to lose as a country if the lasting
:18:58. > :19:02.effect of that is to diminish our influence. Briefly. Quick as a flash
:19:03. > :19:09.on this one, I have just been to Colombia, I happened to have dinner
:19:10. > :19:13.with William Hague in the embassy, he talked about what he was
:19:14. > :19:17.interested in, he was getting on to Brazil. There is a wider dimensions,
:19:18. > :19:20.there is a Latin American dimensions, and I would say William
:19:21. > :19:26.Hague has been a brilliant Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much, John
:19:27. > :19:30.Woodcock. The Daily Politics is a traditional programme, we cannot
:19:31. > :19:33.afford not to be, so tight is the budget, and in the spirit of
:19:34. > :19:36.tradition, we are bringing back something we have not seen for
:19:37. > :19:41.donkeys years, the celebrity big board! I am delighted, because it
:19:42. > :19:44.gives me a break! In a moment we will be hearing from the president
:19:45. > :19:49.of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, but first a spot of
:19:50. > :19:55.nostalgia. The crisis in some secondary schools
:19:56. > :20:00.is obvious to anyone who looks. Just take a few facts. The Government is
:20:01. > :20:05.continually missing its own targets. Only half of young people achieve a
:20:06. > :20:13.five good GCSEs. The Government target is for 16 sent pupils to
:20:14. > :20:16.achieve five good GCSEs by 2008. -- 60%.
:20:17. > :20:21.If you want to offer every child the potential to fulfil, you have to
:20:22. > :20:26.start early, so our aim is simple, to give a helping hand to parents
:20:27. > :20:29.and create a society where every young person, no matter what their
:20:30. > :20:35.background, get a decent start in life.
:20:36. > :20:38.How we provide education and opportunity for children with
:20:39. > :20:42.learning difficulties and disabilities is a vitally important.
:20:43. > :20:45.These children include some of the most vulnerable in the country.
:20:46. > :20:48.Their families often struggle to bring them up and get what they
:20:49. > :20:53.need. Well, that takes you back! That
:20:54. > :20:59.kick-started a certain Prime Minister's rapid rise through the
:21:00. > :21:03.ranks. David Cameron, Ed Davey, Ruth Kelly performing their education big
:21:04. > :21:10.boards, and now Tim Farron has this message on tax ahead of the Budget.
:21:11. > :21:15.Back in 2010, one of Nick Clegg's key election promises was to raise
:21:16. > :21:20.the income tax threshold to ?10,000 per year, a tax cut of ?700 for 25
:21:21. > :21:24.million people. At the time, David Cameron said the idea was
:21:25. > :21:27.unaffordable, but from next month it becomes a reality. In fact, the
:21:28. > :21:32.Conservatives liked the policy so much, they like to pretend it was
:21:33. > :21:35.their idea in the first place. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard
:21:36. > :21:40.for this and taken 2.7 million of the lowest paid workers out of
:21:41. > :21:45.income tax altogether. 25 million people have received a cut. And
:21:46. > :21:50.there is more to come. Ahead of the Budget next week, the Lib Dems want
:21:51. > :21:55.to go even further and turn this ?700 into ?800, a worker's bonus,
:21:56. > :21:59.meaning you would only start paying tax over ?10,500 per year.
:22:00. > :22:03.Meanwhile, the Tories came into government arguing for a tax cut for
:22:04. > :22:07.married couples and a reduction in inheritance tax for millionaires.
:22:08. > :22:12.Labour is still a blank sheet of paper. Let's not forget, in
:22:13. > :22:15.government they scrap the 10p rate. Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats
:22:16. > :22:24.want to see no-one paying income tax on the first 12 -- ?12,500. Someone
:22:25. > :22:29.currently earning minimum wage would not pay any income tax at all. How
:22:30. > :22:33.was that, Jo? Very good, you will put me out of a
:22:34. > :22:38.job! Tim Farron, come and sit down with the rest of us, we are also
:22:39. > :22:42.joined by Pat McFadden of the Treasury Select Committee. Just to
:22:43. > :22:46.say, the Tories and Labour will be delivering their big boards next
:22:47. > :22:52.week. I do not know if it is you, it may fall to some other lucky person!
:22:53. > :22:57.It is your idea, is it, raising the threshold? Your idea entirely, the
:22:58. > :23:05.Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives 42 and nail? It is true! I remember
:23:06. > :23:07.the debates before the last election when Nick Clegg proclaimed the
:23:08. > :23:13.policy, David Cameron said, do not be silly, you cannot afford it. Lord
:23:14. > :23:16.Ashcroft spend his money on polling rather than supporting the Tory
:23:17. > :23:22.party, and he has discovered it is a popular policy, so the Conservatives
:23:23. > :23:26.tried to claim it. We have to accept that is how it is in coalition, we
:23:27. > :23:30.are pleased we managed to get this through. You can probably claim it
:23:31. > :23:34.was your policy bearing in mind those debates, but once in
:23:35. > :23:43.coalition, did they fight you choose and nail not to have it as a policy?
:23:44. > :23:50.Yes, during the Budget that was known by a phrase, the
:23:51. > :23:56.omnishambles, the subtext was a scrap over the Tories wanting to cut
:23:57. > :24:00.the top rate of income tax to 40p, and the Lib Dems wanting to up the
:24:01. > :24:07.threshold. And we fought very hard for that to the extent that Osborne
:24:08. > :24:10.demanded that reduction of the top rate. It serves you well to claim
:24:11. > :24:16.you have to fight for it, it has been denied by Iain Duncan Smith and
:24:17. > :24:23.Matt Hancock yesterday. You can just show the video of David Cameron
:24:24. > :24:27.saying, we are not doing it, it is a daft idea. I think it is help for
:24:28. > :24:32.the low paid, but you have to consider more than one tax rate. The
:24:33. > :24:38.IFS, when they add all the tax and benefit changes together, have said
:24:39. > :24:42.families are ?900 was off. You cannot take one tax and say that is
:24:43. > :24:47.the only thing that affects incomes. When I looked at the figures in the
:24:48. > :24:53.presentation about ?700 better off, ?800, as anyone on a minimum wage if
:24:54. > :24:57.they feel ?800 better off. It is polling very well according to Tim
:24:58. > :25:01.Farron. They will not because of the combined effect of the tax and
:25:02. > :25:05.benefit changes, and the big priority for the government, Tim
:25:06. > :25:14.mentioned a bust up over the top rate, but it was reduced, a ?3
:25:15. > :25:18.billion tax cut for people earning over ?150,000 per year. I know there
:25:19. > :25:24.is a disagreement over how much tax that will make. We have said,
:25:25. > :25:28.looking back on our experience in government, we would reintroduce the
:25:29. > :25:32.10p rate. We think it is a good way to help the low paid, and what we
:25:33. > :25:36.would want to be judged on us all the tax and benefit changes put
:25:37. > :25:40.together, not just taking one tax change and not taking into account
:25:41. > :25:45.everything else that has been done on VAT, tax rate and all the rest of
:25:46. > :25:48.it. I would like to kick in, far be it from me to question the coalition
:25:49. > :25:53.partners are anything like that, but there is another aspect of this,
:25:54. > :25:55.which is you do not want to finance everything through hitting the
:25:56. > :26:02.middle classes more. I think what we are seeing now gets a bit technical,
:26:03. > :26:08.fiscal drag, and actually, if you don't lower the limit at which you
:26:09. > :26:14.kick in with the 40% tax rate, more and more people are going to be
:26:15. > :26:18.hitting it. Let's talk about that, why isn't that being looked at?
:26:19. > :26:23.There is a big call from a number of MPs, more people are being dragged
:26:24. > :26:31.into that 40% bracket. That is going to make them worse off. Including
:26:32. > :26:38.the Tube train drivers, Bob Crow, should they be paying that? Any
:26:39. > :26:46.government is going to have difficult choices in this. To help
:26:47. > :26:50.one group, it is more difficult to help another. This fiscal drag is
:26:51. > :26:55.happening, the not particularly wealthy are being dragged into it,
:26:56. > :27:01.but if you are going to prioritise a tax cut for somebody, it cannot be
:27:02. > :27:06.everybody, it is about choices. So you would see more people included
:27:07. > :27:09.in that 40% bracket? I am not saying that, but the more you pile on to a
:27:10. > :27:13.tax cut in one area, the more difficult it is to give one
:27:14. > :27:19.elsewhere. In a weight we are quibbling about a mouse, because if
:27:20. > :27:22.you look at the report from the Institute of economic affairs, there
:27:23. > :27:29.is no way at all that you can fund the current anticipated pensions out
:27:30. > :27:33.of current earnings, so you have huge things ever view and the
:27:34. > :27:41.government has to do have major spending commitments. -- ahead of
:27:42. > :27:48.you. The cost of raising the allowance was said to cost ?3.2
:27:49. > :27:52.billion, very expensive. But it has been very impactful in terms of an
:27:53. > :27:57.uplift in the economy, because if you give people more money in their
:27:58. > :28:01.pockets, they tend to spend it. That is why consumer spending has
:28:02. > :28:05.increased? It is part of the reason, and the reality is we have to get
:28:06. > :28:09.the balance right. We were right not to do what Ed Balls told us to do
:28:10. > :28:13.and ignore the deficit. We would have been wrong to do what George
:28:14. > :28:17.Osborne wanted to do, cut more money out than was necessary. We were
:28:18. > :28:21.right to put money into the pockets of people on low and middle
:28:22. > :28:26.incomes. What about the mansion tax? You are both in favour, so if it
:28:27. > :28:30.came to another coalition with the Conservatives, would it rule you
:28:31. > :28:34.out? Would you insist on it or would it be debatable? One of the things
:28:35. > :28:39.we learned from the last coalition agreement... You do not get what you
:28:40. > :28:43.want! You have to go into the coalition knowing what you want,
:28:44. > :28:47.knowing that if you get 100% of your manifesto through and you have only
:28:48. > :28:53.got a quarter of the money, that would be unfair. The mansion tax,
:28:54. > :28:56.the Tories do not like the idea. I think you have got to rebrand it.
:28:57. > :29:02.There is a case for having another look at the banding... You would
:29:03. > :29:08.have to do that in order to introduce a mansion tax. You might
:29:09. > :29:14.have do. Is it a local governments tax or a national tax? It is
:29:15. > :29:20.probably not right that a house costing ?84 million should be paying
:29:21. > :29:24.the same tax as a house costing ?800,000. That doesn't seem to be
:29:25. > :29:29.right to me. That does not mean I am in favour of a mansion tax, it would
:29:30. > :29:33.not out hundreds or thousands of property owners in London who have a
:29:34. > :29:39.property, saved up to bite, could not conceivably pay that tax. We are
:29:40. > :29:44.going to turn to public sector pay will stop oh, right! Public sector
:29:45. > :29:49.staff will get a below inflation pay rise, the Government says it is to
:29:50. > :29:58.keep more people employed, but Unison say they are appalled at the
:29:59. > :30:01.decision. Here is David Cameron. For NHS staff are worth the 1% pay rise
:30:02. > :30:05.and everybody will get at least 1%. Either through the rays or through
:30:06. > :30:11.the progression payments that they otherwise receive. Let's look at the
:30:12. > :30:13.big picture here. It is right to make difficult decisions about
:30:14. > :30:17.public sector pay. It's good that it's increasing and not frozen but
:30:18. > :30:21.it's right to take these difficult decisions because it means we can
:30:22. > :30:26.keep more people employed. More people in work and we can make sure
:30:27. > :30:29.we spend money on vital treatments, on hospitals and on delivering
:30:30. > :30:35.services which is what patients so desperately want. It apply to
:30:36. > :30:40.continue with public sector pay restraint? It is. The question of
:30:41. > :30:45.whether it is fair or not, it deserves more than 1%, ensure they
:30:46. > :30:50.do, and it can come at a time like this, can we afford it? I thought
:30:51. > :30:53.things were looking up? We are told endlessly by your colleagues and the
:30:54. > :30:58.Conservatives the economy is going to start to recover for the why
:30:59. > :31:02.can't everybody else have a pay rise? It would be stupid to be
:31:03. > :31:07.complacent about that. In inflation and unemployment is coming down.
:31:08. > :31:11.Great signs but we still owe ?1 trillion. We are not out of the
:31:12. > :31:18.woods at all. So the public sector will suffer? We can't end up in a
:31:19. > :31:23.situation where there will be run on markets, a lack of confidence, 7%
:31:24. > :31:28.interest rates. When a slightly higher pay rise result in that?
:31:29. > :31:31.Public expenditure and that's the case. You agreed with freezing
:31:32. > :31:37.public sector pay and were continuing with it. You are signed
:31:38. > :31:44.up to this policy. I think, if you got a choice between jobs or pay
:31:45. > :31:47.rises, jobs is the way to go. We're in the position of continued
:31:48. > :31:50.restraint because the Government has found much more difficult than they
:31:51. > :31:55.predicted to get the deficit down. It has lasted a lot longer through
:31:56. > :31:59.this Parliament, still higher than they predicted, and they've also
:32:00. > :32:03.spent billions on an NHS reorganisation that no one wanted,
:32:04. > :32:07.so if I wasn't NHS worker right now, I would look at the money spent
:32:08. > :32:12.on the reorganisation, and then look at the signals being sent to me on
:32:13. > :32:16.my pay packet. We are predicted to be the fastest-growing economy in
:32:17. > :32:20.the West this year, so what you mean the policy resulted in conditions
:32:21. > :32:24.like this question in 2010, borrowing was predicted to be much
:32:25. > :32:28.lower than is now. We had three years of no growth. I welcome the
:32:29. > :32:33.growth but it's delayed, and no reason to pop out the champagne
:32:34. > :32:38.corks. Do NHS staff not deserve more than 1% pay rise? I think we have to
:32:39. > :32:44.hold back on spending in the NHS. I'm not talking the party line here
:32:45. > :32:48.but I personally do not believe it should be ring fenced. I don't
:32:49. > :32:51.believe you can do that. I don't begin make sense to say, now we're
:32:52. > :32:58.going to continue with a cast-iron ring fence of the NHS. Looking back
:32:59. > :33:04.over the last five years, one of the big mistakes, I think, is, when it
:33:05. > :33:09.came to the negotiations of public sector, over the increase in
:33:10. > :33:14.retirement age, we backed off. That was a huge mistake. It is the cost
:33:15. > :33:19.of these pensions which is going to really cripple us. The message to
:33:20. > :33:25.the unions who will be balloting their staff? And workers about this
:33:26. > :33:29.pay rise? What do you say to them as they go for industrial action? I
:33:30. > :33:33.hope it doesn't result in industrial action but I do understand why
:33:34. > :33:37.workers are angry after year India's pay restraint. In the NHS, seeing
:33:38. > :33:42.money going on the reorganisation nobody wanted. I hope the unions
:33:43. > :33:51.understand that, too, and they understand the reason we are going
:33:52. > :33:57.through this because the previous Government did this. Thank you very
:33:58. > :34:00.much for that. Now forget the Gandhis, the Grimaldis, the Hanovers
:34:01. > :34:04.and the Sauds. Today it's all about the Johnson Dynasty. So who exactly
:34:05. > :34:08.is Stanley Johnson, and why does he have so many famous children? Is it
:34:09. > :34:13.in the genes? What did he give them for breakfast? Here's our David on
:34:14. > :34:17.the House of Johnson. THEME FROM DYNASTY.
:34:18. > :34:20.This is the story of a family. A dynasty at the heart of the
:34:21. > :34:25.political establishment driven by power, ambition and big, big hair.
:34:26. > :34:29.They are the Johnsons. There's dad, Stanley. He is a former MEP, who
:34:30. > :34:36.worked for the World Bank, and stood for Parliament unsuccessfully as a
:34:37. > :34:39.Tory candidate. I think the whole thing is a racket. Sister Rachel is
:34:40. > :34:43.a former editor of the Lady magazine, a columnist and never
:34:44. > :34:46.short of an opinion or three. David Cameron even though he is taller,
:34:47. > :34:52.looks at Boris as if he is still head boy. Leo shuns the limelight.
:34:53. > :34:57.He's the one in orange but he, too, is a high-flyer, an expert in
:34:58. > :35:00.sustainability. And then, of course, there's the other one. Former Tory
:35:01. > :35:03.MP, Mayor of London, star of quizzes, and possibly future
:35:04. > :35:08.Conservative leader or even perhaps Prime Minister. The normal laws of
:35:09. > :35:15.political gravity don't apply for him, but just what is it about the
:35:16. > :35:23.Johnson family? I think they are very exceptional. Astonishingly
:35:24. > :35:28.competitive, nomadic. Hardy. Determined to tell every possible
:35:29. > :35:32.joke on every possible occasion. I can't think of anyone quite like
:35:33. > :35:37.them. Now, there is another brother and he is on Boris's turf. Joe
:35:38. > :35:40.Johnson is the Conservative MP for Orpington, head of David Cameron's
:35:41. > :35:46.number ten policy unit and perhaps something of a dark horse.
:35:47. > :35:52.Joe is a brilliant man. He's played it completely differently to Boris.
:35:53. > :35:55.He has never given an interview to a national newspaper despite having
:35:56. > :35:59.worked as a journalist himself so he's an insider, hoping to work out
:36:00. > :36:04.what is going to be in the Tory manifesto. There is Boris performing
:36:05. > :36:08.to audiences of millions. And delighting people by going on
:36:09. > :36:10.programmes like Have I Got News For You. So completely different
:36:11. > :36:16.tactics, but they are both very, very serious, seriously competitive
:36:17. > :36:19.figures, who want to get to the top. But it would appear, in a family
:36:20. > :36:26.like the Johnsons, there can only be one leader. One who appointed
:36:27. > :36:30.himself that at a very early age. They are very loyal to each other
:36:31. > :36:34.and I think they do care about each other but I think, of course, there
:36:35. > :36:37.is sibling rivalry. Boris is winning. Boris wants to go on
:36:38. > :36:41.winning. He announced at a very early age he intended to be world
:36:42. > :36:45.king, and so far, he has stayed ahead. Who knows what I had for the
:36:46. > :36:48.Johnson clan? World King might seem a little ambitious, even for someone
:36:49. > :36:58.as confident as Boris. With this family, you just never know. Stanley
:36:59. > :37:01.Johnson cringing during that. You're watching the Daily Politics and
:37:02. > :37:03.we've been joined by viewers in Scotland who have been watching
:37:04. > :37:07.First Minister's Questions from Holyrood. Why are you such a
:37:08. > :37:11.successful high achieving family? I want to make a point for the record
:37:12. > :37:18.here and that is there is also Leo Johnson, a seriously high achiever
:37:19. > :37:25.with PwC, Price Waterhouse. There is Julia Johnson, a fabulous singer and
:37:26. > :37:31.teacher of Latin, Max Johnson, who works the Goldman Sachs in Hong
:37:32. > :37:36.Kong. What is your secret? When people say I am Boris's dad, I have
:37:37. > :37:41.to say I'm lots of people's dad and I'm proud of them all. As for the
:37:42. > :37:44.secret, there is no secret at all. My view was, send the ball off to
:37:45. > :37:51.good schools, and let the good schools to the hard grind. So you
:37:52. > :37:55.handle it over to somebody else. What about the description of how
:37:56. > :38:00.competitive, all the siblings are. Does that help produce high
:38:01. > :38:04.achievers? It's rubbish. Total rubbish. OK, they might say who can
:38:05. > :38:09.get the biggest fish cake when fishcakes come through the hatch?
:38:10. > :38:15.There was a moment when the was a competition and that was who could
:38:16. > :38:20.eat the mince pie quickest? It was a Christmas mince pie. Boris grabbed
:38:21. > :38:27.it and ate it and he burned his throat. Did he learn a moral for
:38:28. > :38:30.life as a result of that? Mince pies, if they are too hard, I think
:38:31. > :38:36.there's a wider lesson there if you have mince pies. What about the
:38:37. > :38:40.nomadic side? My life has been constantly on the move. The World
:38:41. > :38:44.Bank, United Nations, the EU, for the last 15 years, I had been
:38:45. > :38:48.travelling around the world. Two weeks ago, I was in Colombia. I had
:38:49. > :38:52.a nice meeting with William Hague and that keeps me going. I write
:38:53. > :38:56.books mainly about what the world needs to do about the environment.
:38:57. > :39:02.Nomadic is fine for the I get back to life time to time, especially by
:39:03. > :39:07.masks the car on the Daily Politics show. Now let's talk a little bit
:39:08. > :39:10.about Boris. You love your children equally, but when it comes to
:39:11. > :39:15.Boris, how likely do think he will be at number ten? You have slightly
:39:16. > :39:26.sprung this one on me, I have to say. My line is very clear. Michael
:39:27. > :39:31.Cockerill, he recorded me saying that, where there ever to be a
:39:32. > :39:34.leadership contest in the Conservative Party, then I think it
:39:35. > :39:41.would be a fair reflection of the current situation if Boris at least
:39:42. > :39:46.good be one of the candidates. That is what I think. What about changing
:39:47. > :39:52.the rules? I don't think you have to change the rules for them as I
:39:53. > :39:56.recall it, for example, in 1960, 63, Alex Douglas whom were certainly not
:39:57. > :39:59.a member of the House of Commons, yeti was able to stand in a contest
:40:00. > :40:06.for them are not an expert on the rules. OK, we don't do smoke-filled
:40:07. > :40:10.rooms any longer but I can't believe there might not be a way of ensuring
:40:11. > :40:13.that if Boris is not an MP, was still the Mayor of London,
:40:14. > :40:17.nevertheless they could be a formula which says elected Mayers or elected
:40:18. > :40:27.personages are also entitled to put their names forward. What about Joe?
:40:28. > :40:34.Go for it. Here's the 2010 vintage. I read its a very fine vintage. A
:40:35. > :40:43.fine claret or a fine wine. Yes, it's not for me. I look with joy and
:40:44. > :40:50.gladness at all of this. Thank you. I'm sorry if we sprung out on you.
:40:51. > :40:53.Now, to cull badgers or not to cull badgers. MPs are debating two
:40:54. > :40:56.controversial pilot schemes today, critics say they're ineffective and
:40:57. > :41:02.inhumane. Well, our Adam's been talking to two MPs who have rather
:41:03. > :41:06.strong views. So DEFRA has been trialling the idea
:41:07. > :41:08.of a badger cull into areas in England. In Gloucestershire and
:41:09. > :41:11.Somerset. The results of an independent assessment of that have
:41:12. > :41:15.been leaked and it suggests that didn't go that well. It's now going
:41:16. > :41:18.to the subject of a Parliamentary debate. A motion laid by the Green
:41:19. > :41:22.MP Caroline Lucas who joins us alongside the Tory MP Simon Hart who
:41:23. > :41:24.used to run the Countryside Alliance. Caroline, why do we need
:41:25. > :41:28.yet another Parliamentary debate about the issue of badgers? I think
:41:29. > :41:31.really the debate because it's absolutely crucial that the
:41:32. > :41:37.Government is held to account on the results of the pilots which have
:41:38. > :41:41.taken place so far. And it doesn't push ahead with yet more culls
:41:42. > :41:43.without looking at the evidence. The evidence has already been leaked by
:41:44. > :41:46.the independent panel, demonstrates that, even by the government's own
:41:47. > :41:55.estimates, it's been a spectacular failure. It is meant to cull 70%
:41:56. > :41:59.within six weeks and even extending both periods meant that those
:42:00. > :42:02.targets were not met and it was opposed the measure effectiveness
:42:03. > :42:08.and humaneness. On both counts, the evidence from them shows it was not
:42:09. > :42:12.met, so given the evidence, if God be the case of the Government looks
:42:13. > :42:17.to alternative measures. A combination of badger vaccinations,
:42:18. > :42:22.restricting cattle movements, I/O Security, testing. That is how to
:42:23. > :42:28.protect cattle and badgers. The report was leaked. It's not the real
:42:29. > :42:32.deal yet. Are you jumping the gun? We can see those periods were
:42:33. > :42:38.extended and we know that those targets were not met. And we also
:42:39. > :42:49.know that culling can only reduce the incidence by 12%-16%. That is
:42:50. > :42:54.what the randomised cull showed. Even if all of the other things were
:42:55. > :42:59.equal, you would only reduce the incidence by 12%-16%. There are much
:43:00. > :43:03.more effective ways of doing it. Simon, we don't have the full
:43:04. > :43:06.picture although Caroline has given a lot of statistics which paint a
:43:07. > :43:12.damning picture about this idea of culling. Some of what Caroline says
:43:13. > :43:15.is right. We don't know the context of the report by the gall of those
:43:16. > :43:21.measures, of course, it's a package of things needed to eradicate it. No
:43:22. > :43:26.one will say culling will do it on its own but everyone to reduced by
:43:27. > :43:31.just a few percentage points, then culling will have its part. Of
:43:32. > :43:35.course, we will learn lessons. It wasn't perfect for the nobody is
:43:36. > :43:39.claiming that. There were lots of reasons for that. We are pointing in
:43:40. > :43:44.the right direction and it's important we look of a welfare
:43:45. > :43:50.issues for badgers and cattle. There's a economic impact here, too.
:43:51. > :43:55.And, of course, taxpayers fork note 100 million pound a year for this.
:43:56. > :43:58.We have to do eradicate it. They are managing that in Ireland because
:43:59. > :44:06.they have a properly sustained inhumane and cull. How does is
:44:07. > :44:12.actually affect farmers? You can lose 20%, half of your dairy herd
:44:13. > :44:16.overnight if you test positive. I've seen it with my own eyes. It's
:44:17. > :44:21.heartbreaking sight when you're cattle you have bred with love are
:44:22. > :44:23.literally taken away for slaughter. Some have to be slaughtered on the
:44:24. > :44:28.yard because they are pregnant. It damages your whole milk production,
:44:29. > :44:33.you can't sell your milk, get rid of your cattle. It's a devastating
:44:34. > :44:37.thing. It's been going on 30 years and we are still no further forward
:44:38. > :44:45.and we have to bring this to a close sensibly. Work together and not use
:44:46. > :44:49.this as a tribal warfare between us. Is this tribal warfare ever going to
:44:50. > :44:52.come to an end? I think it's not looking at the evidence. My heart
:44:53. > :44:57.goes out to those farmers and my concern is making sure we have a
:44:58. > :45:01.good policy. To protect farmers and cattle and the badgers for them the
:45:02. > :45:06.evidence is, the culling does not work so let's look at alternatives.
:45:07. > :45:09.Thank you for joining us. Lots of very passionate argument that we're
:45:10. > :45:18.going to hear this afternoon in House of Commons as MPs discuss what
:45:19. > :45:22.to do about badgers and bovine TB. I am in a dilemma here, I am a great
:45:23. > :45:29.fan of Caroline Lucas, it is superb we have got a green MP, apropos the
:45:30. > :45:35.issue itself, I have a farm on Exmoor. We have had a cull, not in
:45:36. > :45:38.the last run, about ten years ago. I think a lot of what Simon said was
:45:39. > :45:45.right, but the real issue is the suffering of the badgers. A diseased
:45:46. > :45:50.badgers suffers terribly. We need to make a huge effort on the vaccine,
:45:51. > :45:55.that is honestly a desperate, desperate, urgent need. I will make
:45:56. > :45:59.one point if I may, a more or less funny point. This morning as I
:46:00. > :46:06.picked up the Guardian, which I do read from time to time, David
:46:07. > :46:13.McIntosh, a marksman, in a court in Gloucestershire, he was asked to pay
:46:14. > :46:17.a ?91 fine. Why? Because he drove a van full of dead badgers into a bus
:46:18. > :46:25.stop. Why was it full of dead badgers? Because the police radio
:46:26. > :46:29.got under his accelerator pedal. Why did he have a police radio? That is
:46:30. > :46:34.a mystery! Were the police in contact with him? In treating! -- in
:46:35. > :46:45.treating! From next month, Powys county
:46:46. > :46:56.council takes over from the Office of estate agents, so if you have a
:46:57. > :46:59.problem like this, you know who to go to.
:47:00. > :47:04.It is a perfect place to escape the modern world, a deserted coastline
:47:05. > :47:08.with the vast skies, dotted with tiny period cottages. You might be
:47:09. > :47:13.tempted by this former fisherman's house. After all, the estate agent
:47:14. > :47:17.called it an opportunity not to be missed. But if this is your dream
:47:18. > :47:21.home, well, meet your future neighbour, the Dungeness nuclear
:47:22. > :47:25.power station. But these estate agent's details make no mention at
:47:26. > :47:29.all of the power station, and all the photographs of the cottage have
:47:30. > :47:33.all been taken from the one place where it cannot be seen looming in
:47:34. > :47:37.the background. Neither estate agent selling the property would comments
:47:38. > :47:42.today. I bet they wouldn't! We are joined
:47:43. > :47:48.by the chair of the national trading standards board and James full sight
:47:49. > :47:53.of the Spectator. So the job of regulating estate agents will fall
:47:54. > :47:58.to local authorities, why? The Government has changed the consumer
:47:59. > :48:12.landscape, a this was a function which it previously administered,
:48:13. > :48:16.and it had to go somewhere. We operate through local authority
:48:17. > :48:21.trading standards departments. We went through a tendering process,
:48:22. > :48:24.Powys was the successful bidder. Buying a house or flat is probably
:48:25. > :48:29.the biggest purchase most people make in our lives, and added to that
:48:30. > :48:34.estate agents are not a profession with an unblemished reputation. You
:48:35. > :48:38.want the most rigorous and strongest protections. Also, it is very hard
:48:39. > :48:42.to see how Powys county council can be aware of particular problems that
:48:43. > :48:49.might be affecting the market in Bristol or London, and so I
:48:50. > :48:57.think... So you are calling for a more decentralised set up? Either
:48:58. > :49:04.that or a national setup. IU downgrading the role? It sounds like
:49:05. > :49:12.an esoteric decision to put a national thing in Powys but why not
:49:13. > :49:19.somewhere else? All we are doing is following through the estate agency
:49:20. > :49:24.act, the estate agents act, which is 35 years old. Estate agencies were
:49:25. > :49:30.very different then. The power it gives is to ban somebody from acting
:49:31. > :49:33.as an estate agent. It does not say, we are stamping them with our
:49:34. > :49:40.approval. This is a function that can be carried out more or less
:49:41. > :49:44.anywhere. Will it give the consumer the same protection? It is the same
:49:45. > :49:50.function, my concern is that the estate agents act of 1979 is 35
:49:51. > :49:54.years old, and I do not know how many properties you have purchased
:49:55. > :49:58.in the last 35 years, but you will have noticed how the markets has
:49:59. > :50:05.changed dramatically. We have now got estate agents to act both for
:50:06. > :50:08.the seller and for the purchaser, a built in conflict of interest. This
:50:09. > :50:15.ought to be regulated but we have not got the framework. I would feel
:50:16. > :50:19.the same if they had ascended to Bedfordshire or Buckinghamshire. I
:50:20. > :50:24.think Lord Harris is right is that you need proactive regulation in
:50:25. > :50:27.that you need people to be acting against estate agents that are known
:50:28. > :50:31.to be involved in sharp practice. You want somebody saying, we will
:50:32. > :50:35.address that problem. I do not see how, in Powys, with the best will in
:50:36. > :50:41.the world, they can be aware of problems across the nation. These
:50:42. > :50:45.cases where somebody is struck off, they are generated locally. The
:50:46. > :50:49.local trading standards department with local knowledge will pick this
:50:50. > :50:54.up and refer it up. Usually, these are people with a track record of
:50:55. > :51:02.bad behaviour. This is not a case of the last quango in Powys... Well
:51:03. > :51:05.done, you got the line out! I have met the staff will be taking on the
:51:06. > :51:12.function, they are dedicated, determined, and they want to deliver
:51:13. > :51:16.the best they can. They are doing it on a shoestring budget. It seems to
:51:17. > :51:21.me that considering the size of the market, to spend only ?170,000 on
:51:22. > :51:26.regulating every estate agent does not seem a proportionate response.
:51:27. > :51:30.If anyone has a problem, write to you two about it! Thank you very
:51:31. > :51:34.much. We are told, although it might just
:51:35. > :51:37.be a vicious rumours spread by Westminster gossipmongers, but it
:51:38. > :51:45.was a bad night for London's West End. Les Miserables, The Mousetrap
:51:46. > :51:49.and The 39 Steps were performing to empty houses because talented MPs
:51:50. > :51:56.were performing at the annual big cabaret bash for Macmillan Cancer
:51:57. > :51:59.Support, and Adam had tickets to the hottest show in town.
:52:00. > :52:05.The nights that politics goes a bit spangly. I wonder how many seconds
:52:06. > :52:10.it will be before someone says... Politics is show business for ugly
:52:11. > :52:15.people. It is a good cause, a bit of fun, all politicians are show-offs.
:52:16. > :52:20.Who is the most talented member of the Cabinet? That is a loaded
:52:21. > :52:25.question! The Prime Minister! Have you ever seen him do singing or tap
:52:26. > :52:30.dancing? Not singing or tap dancing, that wasn't the question you asked!
:52:31. > :52:35.I answered in my best diplomatic style. What public figure would
:52:36. > :52:40.humiliate themselves for free? This is all in the name of a good cause,
:52:41. > :52:42.in this case Macmillan Cancer. Some people have paid five grand for a
:52:43. > :52:54.table here. Things got off to a jazzy start with
:52:55. > :53:00.Lib Dem MP John Hemming on piano, alongside the very tall Jesse
:53:01. > :53:09.Norman, performing a ditty composed by Lord Glassman, putting the blues
:53:10. > :53:13.into blue Labour. The truth of the matter is that, actually, these days
:53:14. > :53:16.are thrilled to find politicians do other things than just pontificate
:53:17. > :53:23.about things they do not know much about. Politicians playing jazz is
:53:24. > :53:26.an insult to jazz. Lord Lothian looked like he should be in a Greek
:53:27. > :53:36.to burn until it turned out he is actually amazing, performing along
:53:37. > :53:42.with his daughter! -- Taverna. Do you have any groupies? Not that I
:53:43. > :53:48.know! Lord Dobbs showed us what it would be like if Noel Coward did the
:53:49. > :53:56.international news. # How long can we wait until
:53:57. > :54:00.Brussels puts a cap on it? Then it was the House of Commons
:54:01. > :54:06.band who reckon they have raised about ?1 million for charity since
:54:07. > :54:14.forming a decade ago. # So Sally can wait...
:54:15. > :54:17.While Baroness Knights did a brilliant impression of my Gran
:54:18. > :54:38.after a few sherries. When you and I were young...
:54:39. > :54:41.Handling them, the man management is always a problem, people being ill,
:54:42. > :54:47.people dropping numbers, changing numbers, even on the night. I am not
:54:48. > :54:56.singing that now! So they are slightly devious. I thought I would
:54:57. > :55:03.sing something else! And some recently reshuffled ministers trying
:55:04. > :55:07.to sing through the pain. # Today is the day the Government
:55:08. > :55:10.likes to shuffle... Normally I would sum up with
:55:11. > :55:19.something sarcastic but heart-warming, but how can I compete
:55:20. > :55:24.with any of this talented bunch?! You cannot compete, certainly not
:55:25. > :55:31.with that last bit, and Goldilocks, dare I say it, is with us now,
:55:32. > :55:36.although not in costume! A shame! I was actually dead to sort of Sid
:55:37. > :55:41.there demurely in Prime Minister's Questions with that we're gone, but
:55:42. > :55:46.I don't think I will. I do not think they would let you in! I should
:55:47. > :55:51.introduce you as Michael Fabricant! It was a great night, and importance
:55:52. > :55:57.night, we raised about ?100,000 for Macmillan Cancer Support, and it is
:55:58. > :56:04.a marvellous charity. Do you wish you were there? I wish I was! I went
:56:05. > :56:10.up to Lichfield talking about HS2, not now! We have not got enough
:56:11. > :56:18.time! What would your turn the, if you were doing a turn? I would like
:56:19. > :56:26.to seeing Hey Jude, but I have never got to the end. -- sing. We might be
:56:27. > :56:29.able to arrange that! What was the highlight for you? This might be a
:56:30. > :56:36.downer, but it was a young man who got up and said, my wife, when she
:56:37. > :56:40.was pregnant, got cancer. Whoever thinks of a pregnant young woman
:56:41. > :56:45.getting cancer? And we learned, we all know that Macmillan do a great
:56:46. > :56:49.job for people with cancer, but they actually look after the families
:56:50. > :56:54.when there has been a bereavement, and I didn't know that. I thought
:56:55. > :57:00.that was very valuable. It was not a highlight in the sense of enjoyment,
:57:01. > :57:05.but that was the overriding thing. And entertainment highlight was, I
:57:06. > :57:10.think, Lord Colwyn with his jazz bands doing traditional jazz, which
:57:11. > :57:16.I love, Jesse Norman was absolutely superb on the trumpet. Were you
:57:17. > :57:22.surprised about the talents of? I thought Jesse Norman was going to
:57:23. > :57:24.sing, I had no idea. Lots of MPs blow their trumpets! Some are better
:57:25. > :57:31.at it than others, so make more noise. Someone said to me, if you do
:57:32. > :57:37.not blow your own trumpet, someone else will use it as a spittoon. Who
:57:38. > :57:41.would you like to see on stage next year? Someone whose talents I know
:57:42. > :57:45.nothing about, like Jesse Norman. It is amazing that these things come
:57:46. > :57:50.out of the woodwork, presumably a lot of MPs and Lords are either
:57:51. > :57:58.musical or talented actors and actresses. You say would work, I
:57:59. > :58:03.think that is very unkind! Apropos the question of the mouse... We will
:58:04. > :58:08.come to the mouse in a moment! Do you know what is going on?! He has
:58:09. > :58:14.just reminded me! Thank you very much for taking part. Before we go,
:58:15. > :58:17.as Stanley has reminded me, the quiz, MPs have been told they cannot
:58:18. > :58:22.have a cat in the Commons to deal with the mouse problem, it is the
:58:23. > :58:26.best way, but why not? Because it would steal their thunder, the
:58:27. > :58:32.speaker is allergic, it might get too fat, or it might scratch the
:58:33. > :58:38.throne? Do you want to ask Michael? You are the guest. It is the throne,
:58:39. > :58:44.I am 100% sure, possible damage to the Heritage. You are 100% wrong, it
:58:45. > :58:48.is the leftover food! You don't get a prize, I am afraid. That is all
:58:49. > :58:50.for today, thank you for being our guest. Andrew is back after Question
:58:51. > :58:53.Time. Bye-bye!