05/06/2014 Daily Politics

It's the morning after the Queen's Speech.

So we know how Parliament's going to be spending the next year.

But does it add up to a bumper political agenda

Or was it all just a bit of a rag bag of legislative odds and sods?

There were new laws on pensions, childcare, slavery and plastic bags.

We'll be talking to the minister responsible for taking

Ministers have been out and about trying to damp down the row

between Michael Gove and Theresa May over how to tackle extremism.

As rows go, it was a biggie, but where does it leave the Governemnt's

We all remember those long hot days back in 2010

when two parties decided how to get along together in coaltion.

If it happens again after next year's election,

And we'll be hearing from Tim Booth, lead singer of the band James,

on why it is time to free our bodies from the ties of religion.

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration, Peter Hennessy.

He's says he likes gossip and French wine.

Well Peter, on this show we rarely have any of those things.

The polls are open in the Newark by-election triggered

by the resignation of the former Tory MP Patrick Mercer following

We can't talk about the vote today for fear of influencing your vote -

as if we would - but fear not, I'll be back this evening

when the polls close for a marathon of by-election coverage

So yesterday, Her Majesty bought her brand new golden coach

down the road to Westminster for the annual state opening of Parliament.

She was there to read out the Government's planned

parliamentary business for the year up to the election, and

the coalition said it proved they were still "fizzing" with ideas.

Was this really any different to any other Queen's Speech? No, it wasn't.

These words can take on a resonance of their own. I remember when we

worked together, it was always inconvenient if you had worked out

the story in your head and it did not quite fit the events as they

transpired! Because what we have swerve very good at was instantly

minting new cliches. I think it is quite wrong to call it a zombie

parliament. I think the Modern Slavery Bill is very important, and

the pensions stuff is of great significance and promise. Zombie it

was not, but the fag end government is always like that. The nerve ends

are getting more and more excited about the prospect. The tribes are

starting to align for the next election. The emotional geography of

the last year of a parliament is always interesting. And there is

always the lens of the upcoming election? That's right. There is

always something which could happen which could change the political

weather, some international event, for example. And there is one big

thing which was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, because you cannot

legislate for it, which is a possible independent Scotland. In

September, if Scotland decides to separate, the preoccupation of

Whitehall will be hell on earth to make it operable. All hands will be

to that pump, and our nation will change, the configurations of the

nation, but also the emotional make-up of the nation. You cannot

legislate for that. And for reasons I have never understood, the Cabinet

decided there should be no contingency planning for Scottish

separation. So that will all have to start on the 19th of September, from

scratch! So we know that the Queen had

a brand-new coach - central-heated, I hear - she's slowly catching up

with the modern motor car. But what exactly was that "fizz"

in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Yesterday was

the coalition's last Queen's Speech before the general election next

year, and there were 11 new bills. They included a Private Pensions

Bill which introduces new "defined ambition" collective pension

schemes, allowing people to pay into A Childcare Payments Bill, which

introduces a new tax-free childcare subsidy worth up to ?2,000 a year

per child, from the autumn of 2015. There was a Modern Slavery Bill that

will punish those convicted of the most serious offences with

life sentences - others will be subject to restrictions

on their movements and activities. The courts will also be able to

order offenders to compensate A Social Action, Responsibility

and Heroism Bill, which helps people who are sued after intervening

in emergencies or acting to protect And there's a Recall of MPs Bill -

voters will be able to trigger a by-election where an MP has

committed serious wrongdoing, but There are also six bills that are

being carried over from the 2013-14 parliamentary session -

including the controversial High Speed Rail Bill, which has led

to suggestions that some Let's speak now to Thomas Docherty,

who's Shadow Deputy Leader So, hardly says on the parliament?

Where the Government has set out steps, such as the Newark, such as

the Modern Slavery Bill, we will obviously work with them, but this

is also a missed opportunity. There is nothing at all about the National

Health Service, nothing about helping hard-pressed families with

the cost of energy. There was nothing at all about immigration. It

is a real missed opportunity. This is a government which has both run

out of steam as well as ideas in many of these important areas. Let's

look at immigration - would you like to see fewer immigrants to Britain

from the European Union? Obviously, we had a really important speech

from Ed Miliband last week where he set out in some detail the Labour

Party's approach. We think immigration is a good thing for our

country, but it has to be managed properly. So do you want fewer

immigrants? There is a dividing line, isn't there, in labour? Tony

Blair said anti-immigration language is very dangerous, people should not

be blaming immigrants if they are struggling to get a job. And then we

had another senior Labour figure, John Denham, saying that Labour

should be honest about what they are trying to do, which is to cut the

number of EU migrants - who is right? Obviously it is Ed who is

white. He was not in that choice! He is the only party leader who

actually seems to listen to the concerns raised by our constituents.

But he also has the courage to say, we think immigration is a good

thing. We think people want to come here to study and work, and to help

the economy, and that is a good thing. What we need is a managed

immigration policy. After four years, this government has failed to

hit its own targets on immigration. So you do not think there should be

a target, and you think the freedom of movement of people within the EU

should continue unabated? We are clear that we want to work with the

Government to have a sensible policy. What is that policy? Having

false targets, and Theresa May set a bizarre target for the number of

migrants, which was spectacularly missed. Look, the key thing is, it

is not about coming up with artificial targets... But people

would like to know, would Labour like to see fewer people coming from

the EU to work here? Is that why you are clamping down on dodgy agencies,

enforcing the minimum wage, all of these things, it is all about trying

to deter people coming here to work from the EU, is that the case? It is

not about determined people, it is about stopping unscrupulous

employers from taking advantage of people. That is what Ed set out in

Thurrock last week, it was a really gutsy speech. He is the only party

leader who has said anything on immigration. Ian Austin, one of your

Parliamentary colleagues, yesterday asked David Cameron why there was no

bail for an in-out referendum in this Parliament - do you think there

should be? We have brought in a very important referendum which is coming

up in September. That is our priority. We want to keep the UK

together. So, no chance of Ed Miliband offering an in-out

referendum on the EU going into the election? I am not going to start

making policy announcements ten months away from an election. That

is for Ed Miliband. Let's look at the NHS - would you like to see

Labour promise a bigger health budget? Andy Burnham has said

clearly that we want to make sure... Would you like to see more

money spent on the NHS? It is not about restructuring, it is about

getting value for the money that we spend. But do you think more should

be spent on the NHS, because of all the talk that there is going to be

this massive black hole in funding, should Labour promise to spend more

on the NHS? I think it is an important issue for every voter, and

you're right, Labour has got a very good track record on the NHS. A

recent poll found that only 29% of people agreed that Labour was the

most trusted party to run the Health Service, is that why you are

planning to say, leading up to the election, Labour will spend more, it

will be intense in taxes to pay for the NHS? Again, I am not going to

start making policy announcements on The Daily Politics. What is true is

that more people trust Labour with the Health Service more than they

trust the coalition parties, and rightly so. That is why Andy Burnham

has announced that we are going to be rolling back some of the

privatisation that we have seen introduced by Andrew Lansley and his

colleagues over the years. One final go - can you rule out an increase in

national insurance contribution to pay for increased spending on the

NHS? It has been widely reported. One of your colleagues, Frank Field,

says he thinks voters will go for that, is it going to happen? What we

have heard this morning is various backbench colleagues, the person who

will make these announcements is Ed Miliband, he is the leader. He will

set out exactly where we stand as we get closer to the election.

With us now is the man responsible for the Government's legislative

programme, Andrew Lansley, the Leader of the House of Commons.

Let's look at a couple of things in this Queen's Speech. What is

Conservative about a 5p tax on carrier bags? We are a government

and the party which is committed to improving our environment. Being

Conservative is doing things which are practical. I think we have

acknowledged, I know how it works in Wales, people take it seriously,

they have changed their behaviour. Sometimes you need a nudge, this is

going to be a pretty hefty nudge towards a much more environmentally

friendly solution. People will be making a contribution to charity,

some ?20 million per year, we estimate. Another tax on ordinary

people? Insofar as they do not reuse their carrier bags. I quite like

nudges, if people do not want to pay, then they can easily avoid

paying for the carrier bags. And the ones that people use time and time

again are actually hotbeds of various viruses, have you taken that

into account? My friends at DEFRA are responsible for that. It is a

policy which has been adopted in Wales and Northern Ireland... That

does not make it right. If there are any issues like that, it is a matter

for DEFRA. The point you make would be true anyway. But you will be

forcing them to do it. Anyway, the Lib Dems told you to do it, didn't

they? No, it was a coalition policy. It was not in the coalition

agreement? No, but we have worked together. In the last session of the

Parliament, you are more likely to see as completing the coalition

programme, but also dealing with other issues are things like the

Serious Crime Bill, which are not necessarily... Let's look at one of

the other measures, the ability to recall your MP if they have been

behaving particularly badly, putting a mechanism in place, though not as

strong as some would have liked. Which MPs in this Parliament do you

think would have been subject to recall? It depends on the house. We

structure the provision. We are clear that one of the triggers would

be any custodial sentence, so Denis MacShane, who was tried and

convicted there was a custodial sentence, he would have been subject

to disqualification and recall as a consequence of that. In fact, it

would have been recall rather than disqualification because it was not

beyond 12 months. The second part of that serious wrongdoing where the

house has decided that somebody should be subject to recall, the

criteria that are going to be a matter for continuing discussion. We

brought forward a draft bill and are sticking to a basic structure, but

to precisely identify that is yet to come. And there have been issues

about whether it should be an MP suspended from the service of the

House of Commons were given period of time. That is something are

discussing. In a proper recall system it would not be up to you, it

would be up to the electors in the constituents. It is a recall system.

You could still block it if you wanted to. It's a matter of whether

the House of Commons has concluded there is serious wrongdoing that has

taken place. There is a different proposal for a recall system which

is, as you might say, call it pure rather than proper. The pure system

would be a large number of constituents petitioning for an MP

to be recall. There are two arguments against it. The recall is

the general election. When you have judgements on an MP, our view is

that our judgements, the decisions we take, the popularity of those,

those are subject to recall, as it were, and re-evaluation at the time

of the general election. What happens if the MP goes badly wrong

in the first year? What if he does exactly the opposite of everything

he said and is caught by all sorts of things? If you leave it to the

election, you are still stuck with him or her for five years. There are

two things. One is doing things that your constituents might not approve

of, which is a political judgement. MPs are sent to the House of Commons

to exercise their judgement, not necessarily to do the things agreed

with by the majority of their constituents on each item as you go

along. Evidence in previous parliaments, like the rock wall --

the Iraq war. But if serious wrongdoing takes place in the first

year, that is what it is about. What wrongdoing has happened in this

parliament that would be subject to this recall Bale? I mentioned Dennis

McShane. Maria Miller? It depends on the nature of the criteria. She was

not subject, from the standards committee, to the recommendation

that she be suspended. Patrick Mercer? He was subject to the

recommendation, so the distinction might emerge there. He resigned

anyway, so it might not have come to that. Recall is a powerful weapon,

and people know that if they commit serious wrongdoing, they cannot just

simply ignore that and take a suspension and simply carry on

regardless. In this important argument between Theresa May and

Michael Gove, the extremism, whose side are you on? I'm not a member of

some of the extremism task force. But we know what the divisions are.

They are working together to get this right. We all know what we are

setting out to do, which is to have a strategy of counterterrorism which

is about protecting ourselves against terrorism and preventing it

and preventing the longer term. -- preventing it in the longer term.

They have had a robust debate, but I don't think it's right to

characterise them as being on the one hand of dealing with long-term

issues that lead to the circumstances for terrorism to

emerge and just dealing with terrorism. That is not how any of us

can deal with this. We are working together to make sure that we

prevent the circumstances and the incidence of terrorism. If you are

working together why did the Home Office released the text of a letter

attacking the education Department at two a.m.? Frankly, I don't know.

It doesn't suggest harmony to me. Does it do you? What it suggests is

there is a thing going on where people are trying to explain their

respective positions. At two in the morning? The government should be

conveying what actually happened yesterday. Michael Gove said that we

should ignore it, and they then both explained how they were working

together. After the Prime Minister bang their heads together. They put

that out together. I couldn't see any bruises yesterday. I saw Theresa

yesterday and I didn't see any bruises. I was talking about Michael

Gove. Well, I didn't see him yesterday. There's a big job in the

European commission coming up. Who do you think would be a suitable

candidate? I think the Prime Minister will say who he thinks

should be that person. Of course. It is his power to appoint. But who do

you think would be a suitable candidate? I think the Prime

Minister will make judgement and we will leave it to him. Commissioner

Lansley sort of rolls off the tongue. Not my tongue. It rolled off

mine. Let the Prime Minister make the decision will all be better. But

if asked, would serve? My approaches -- but if he asked, would you

serve? My approaches, if he asked I would be available. Has he asked

you? It is the Prime Minister's job to make these decisions, not mine.

You are Europhile, Eurosceptical something in between? I think my

record would show that I have taken positions against the entry to the

euro. I ran the 1999 William Hague campaign. I have been very much

against, as the Prime Minister is, the idea of a closer union and

constant integration. I do support the Prime Minister very much on the

proposal that we should renegotiate and have a referendum, with the

objective of securing the renegotiation that allows us

confidently to secure a yes vote to remain inside the European Union. So

the Prime Minister would be getting some good party line there? Well,

whoever he sends, we want them to reflect the interests of this

country. But if you become a Commissioner, you're not allowed to

do that. You have to sign an agreement that you represent Europe.

Happily. In the next period, as you saw from what Angela Merkel will

say, the interest of the European Union is best served by Britain

continuing in the EU. Anything else would be bad for Britain and Europe.

We have a coincidence of interest between British national interest to

secure reforming Europe and our continued membership on that basis

-- reform in Europe. OK. Make sure you come and give us your first

interview as Commissioner. Thank you very much. We would go to keep you,

but we have to let you go. You can stay if you like. I've got five

minutes, I think. Marvellous. I do like politicians who make a firm

decision. By tradition,

two backbenchers propose and second a "loyal address",

which is a thank-you motion to One is usually

a promising MP early in their political career, while the other is

a longstanding parliamentarian. Yesterday, it was the turn

of Conservative Penny Mordaunt The coalition's last stand. My

government's legislated programme will continue to deliver on its

long-term plan to build a stronger economy and a fairer society. I am

proud today that we have a Parliamentary first, an all woman

double act to propose and second the loyal address and I'm delighted to

serve as the warm up act for the honourable member for mid Dorset and

Poole. The Right Honourable member for Gainsborough is concerned about

the consequence of the coalition running its full course. He might

see this as the Thelma and Louise of the Parliamentary session. Driving

at top speed to the Grand Canyon of electoral defeat. Let me reassure

him that this will not be the case, because unlike 1966 Thunderbird,

this coalition is right-hand drive. If she's looking for a new

challenge, she should try wrestling a bacon sandwich live on national

television. The coalition has been a difficult period for me politically,

but I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to comment on just

a few of the many policies of which I am generally very, very proud. And

reflect on the economic recovery which was made possible by the

formation of the coalition. Mr Speaker, I am honoured to commend

the gracious speech to the house today. This Queen 's speech sets out

the next steps in seeing out this vital plan to secure our future, but

it will take the rest of this Parliament and the next two finish

the task of turning our country round. That is the normally --

enormity of the challenge but is matched by the strength of the

commitment to sort it out by us. And it broke joins us now. Did you enjoy

the experience? -- Annette Brooke. I don't thing I can say I was enjoying

it because there is a lot of noise not picked up on the microphones.

There weren't many Liberal Democrats there in relation to the others in

the House of Commons, so I was determined to do that speech when I

was asked to do it. I had been described as quietly determined, and

I hope that came over in my approach. Let's talk about the

content of the speech and the legislative programme. You know that

Labour called it a zombie Parliament. Should have their been

builds on the NHS, housing and immigration? -- bills. I think there

is quite a lot of content in the Queens speech. We should count the

number of them. Would you have liked to see one on the NHS or housing? I

don't want to see any structural change in the NHS at the moment. I

think National health staff would have been aghast if there was

anything major. There is so much bedding down to happen. This has

been a reforming government though. Quite surprisingly with a coalition

that you might think is not going to be moving forward at the same pace.

You said it was a difficult period, politically, the idea of coalition.

So you've changed your mind? I said it was a difficult period for

somebody on the left wing of the Liberal Democrats, because you have

to make compromises and it doesn't come easily to people. I think it

was really important yesterday that I identified that it was difficult,

but look what has come out of it, things I am proud of. Plastic bags?

Was that a Liberal Democrat policy imposed on the Conservatives? It is

easy to belittle that. Every time I put into the Private members Bill

and you think it's like winning the lottery, and there was one year I

thought I might do that. Was it your idea though, imposed on the

Conservatives? I certainly think it would come from the Liberal

Democrats. It's been a conferences for some time and it's important in

its own right, but I don't think we should overlook the overall

significance of other green measures -- at conferences. Zero carbon

homes, that's really important. I think the Liberal Democrat impact in

keeping this towards the green issues and tackling climate change

has been really important. I do not think a Conservative government

would has stuck as hard as we have managed to even know, again, things

have had to be moderated to get an agreement. What is your response to

that? Have you been a block on these measures? We set out at the outset

of the coalition to be the greenest government ever and I think it's

happening. We are leading in Europe in Europe and the reduction of

carbon emissions will stop 34% down on the 1990 level. A lot has

happened with it. It doesn't help the coalition to say this is our

bit, this is your bid. -- your bit. But both sides would like to prove

which were their policies. Looking at the recall Bill, do you agree

with Zac Goldsmith what is being proposed so far is con? I think it's

important we hacks a proposal on the table. I thought that was going to

be lost -- had a proposal. It was in the manifesto and in the coalition

agreement. Something on the table has to be better than nothing.

There's lots of chance for debate in committee, and we would be open to

look at suggestions. I think Zac Goldsmith has to convince his own

party about this. It's interesting this bill, but it is has taken quite

a significance when you thought it wouldn't have been that important

within the legislative programme. We are all still jangling with the

reaction to the expenses scandal. I know it's five years ago, but it was

a sea change. It reinforced those who took a dim view of the political

class and it made those who were neutral or did not care outrage. We

are still in the shadow of that. That's why it's a lightning

conductor question and part of putting that right in the public's

mind. Are they ducking it? If MPs can effectively block it, if it

isn't the will of the constituents, isn't that a bit of a sham?

it. Otherwise you can get great spasms of outrage in the newspapers.

I know it is 10% of the electorate to have two sign up for it, and that

is a big enough hurdle. But you do need some kind of calibration. I am

sufficiently trusting of the Parliamentary system cover such that

if there is a committee of MPs, that adds to the sense of proportionality

and justice, because you do not want witchhunts. Even though the expenses

scandal was an outrage and people are still enraged by it. Are you

pleased you welcomed the talks, informal as they may be, between the

Lib Dems and Labour? I think it is important to have cross-party talks

right across the board, all the way through. It makes for better

government. That is how it should be. I do not want any fixes over

dinner parties and the like, but talking is good. What about party

morale, very briefly, after the wipe-out in the European elections

and poor performance in the locals? We obviously had dreadful results,

we have lost some excellent MEPs and councillors of long-standing, and I

would say I am pretty gutted about that. I think we have had very

positive talks, I certainly went straight back on the doorstep and

was out canvassing every day last week, which was perhaps quite a

brave thing to do. I learned that people were still with us locally,

but they have questions as to the next vote. And we have to get our

message out, and we do have to review our messaging, that I am

quite sure of. We are going to have to leave it there. Thank you very

much. We are used to arguments between the Lib Dems and

Conservative members of the government, but today, David Cameron

is dealing with a spat which has broken out between two of his most

important Cabinet members. He has demanded a full account about what

has happened in the argument between Theresa May and Michael Gove, who

have been arguing over what to do about the problem of alleged Islamic

extremism in schools. It has been rumbling on this morning. Michael

Gove had this to say as he left for work... Good morning, how are you? I

think Teresa May is doing a fantastic job. It is lovely to see

you all, and I hope that you will all enjoy the rest of today, there

is a lot going on. We take a very firm line. Well, Labour asked for a

government response, and the Leader of the House of Commons, who has

just left us, Andrew Lansley, he had this to say... I think the time for

a statement is when Ofsted have produced their report, that would be

appropriate. As far as colleagues working together on the extremism

task force, absolutely, they are working together, they are doing so

energetically, and with an objective not only of taking these issues

extremely seriously, but taking measures which are going to be

effective. The extremism task force has already given rise to a range of

measures that we have been taking. We are joined now by former chairman

of the British Joint Intelligence Committee Pauline Neville Jones.

Welcome back to the programme. What do you make of the state of the

Government's counter extremism policy? It has important continuing

elements in it, and serious work is being done on the front of not just

preventing activity which results in violence, but also in the area of

preventing the growth of extremist ideologies. I am not totally full of

praise for this, but where I think the policy is lacking is in the

develop and they really integration strategy. We have got to get beyond

the argument about, is something extremist? Into the whole area of,

what constitutes a really good, functioning Britain, and how you

bring communities together. It is there that I think the emphasis

needs to go. There is excellent work being done. And it government does

have to take a lead and put some funding in, but it has to reside in

the communities. We hear about extremist Muslim activity, and it is

hard to know what has been going on in Birmingham, but where are the

moderate Muslims who actually need to lead in a different direction?

There is excellent work going on in a number of places, and I can give

you examples, particularly in London, of programmes which bring

youngsters together from all communities and take them through

these issues in a very, very explicit way. And it produces

remarkable results - remarkable results. A lot more money needs to

go into that kind of thing. We would just like to welcome viewers from

Scotland, who have been watching First Minister's Questions in

Holyrood. Here, we are discussing the Government's anti-extremism

agenda. Is it not surprising that things were allowed to get as far as

they got in these schools in Birmingham? No, I agree, it is

worrying. One does have to recognise, this is not just central

government, a lot of this is local government. It is not always easy to

get in from central government into the operation. Where the scores are

academies, does that not really put the onus on central government? I

think, no, something has been missing. One of the questions I

asked is, what is the remit of Ofsted, and does it include in its

remit, when it is marking schools and giving them a grading, does it

include the kind of preoccupation which we are now suddenly faced with

- are these children being led and taught in a way which helps them

integrate? I am not at all saying that young girls should not where

they hid jab. Although I would say that it used to be only after

puberty that this was actually a Muslim practice. But what I do not

want to see happen, I have to say, is girls wearing it as a matter of

uniform. They should not be obliged them they should be allowed to

choose. And you do see in the pictures absolutely uniform wearing

of it, so, is that a good idea? I do not think so. It does not fit with a

modern Britain. There is a clear difference of emphasis between

Theresa May and Michael Gove on this, isn't there? It is very hard

to be sure of anything until the 21 Ofsted reports are out, but I think

I am closer to Teresa May, because I have always thought that in an open

society, you have to be clear where the lines are between people's

beliefs and those beliefs spilling over into intentions to do criminal

things, harm other people. At the same time, the Prevent bit of the

strategy, pursue, protect and prevent - is always the hardest,

because the hearts and minds are the most difficult thing. In an open

society, you want to trust people to do decent things, without having

endless audit and inspection. It is worrying that anxiety like this

means that the state inevitably will be tipped it, if not required in

some circumstances, to intrude in what should be local matters. There

is a wider debate about faith schools. We found a very good

settlement for that in the last century, to give early in the 1944

education act. But the question of the Islamic element in faith schools

has reopened the question big time, and it is extremely difficult to

know where the lines are drawn, without looking as if you are

letting the state intrude in areas where people feel maybe it should

not. But when it comes to schools, do we not always have to be on the

lookout to make sure that what the pupils are getting is education and

not instruction, because the two things are the three different?

Absolutely. -- are very different. And how you design things is very

important, how much you do in school and how much you do outside of

school, for example. I want to see a lot more activity outside school,

but which forms the context in which children are going to school. That

is the context in which we are falling down. And we do need to

mobilise the moderates. It is important that those who think

Wright also help do right. If the polls are anything to go by,

everything is still on the table for next year's general election. We

could even end up with another coalition. But second time around,

how different will the whole affair be? Eleanor Garnier has been having

a look. In amongst a rolling scrum of cameras, reporters and news

onlookers, there were twists and turns and drama. Before David

Cameron eventually got the blessing of the Queen, and the key to number

10 Downing Street, plenty of deals have been done. I aim to form a

proper and full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal

Democrats. This is going to be hard and difficult work. Coalition will

throw up all sorts of challenges, but I believe together, we can

provide that strong and stable government which our country needs.

In fact, it had taken five days of haggling in May 2010 before the

Tories and Lib Dems got together to create the first coalition

government in the UK for more than 60 years. With less than a year

until the next general election, we are all wondering what a new

coalition might look like. All the polls show the prospect of another

one is pretty high. Last time it was such a surprise, the first time

since the war, nobody knew what to do, the civil servants, the

politicians. This time I think everybody will be much more savvy.

Parties will be much more clear about their red lines, what cannot

negotiate a. But I think the leaders will have to be more open to putting

to their parties the idea of going into coalition, which could come to

get everything. Last time the Lib Dems did that, but the Tories

didn't. The politicians might be calling the shots, but it is the

thousands of civil servants here in Whitehall and across the country who

keep the cogs of government turning. So, second time around, what kind of

trouble could a coalition create for our civil servants? It seems a newly

formed coalition is relatively easy for Whitehall mandarins to cope

with. Trouble starts much further down the line. In the early years of

Parliament it tends to be quite self reinforcing. So I think the

challenges are that are far more in the run-up to an election.

Coalitions have a tendency to fall apart, as you come close to general

elections. The civil servants, for its own good, we want to try and

make sure it keeps a distance from that kind of party politics. It is

important that there are clear rules of the game, as to how the civil

service can be used by each party. So, just how wide could the cracks

in this relationship grow before the next election? There is no doubt

divorce is an option, but come next May, this couple could be

celebrating a five year political marriage by renewing their vows.

Remember that, Peter Hennessy, the rose garden? I thought it was

faintly toe curling at the time and I have not changed my mind. If there

is another coalition, as the polls suggested there might be, will it be

easier this time around? Yes, because we had a lot of adjusting to

do. We had not had a coalition since the great World War II coalition.

And the circumstances were different. We had to do what the

Brits are good at, making it up as we go along. The planning in the

Cabinet Office was well done, the permanent secretaries got ready

piece of paper, for those of us who had to impersonate the Queen in the

television studios. So, those of us who were impersonating the Queen,

several of us had been involved in helping the Cabinet Office trawl up

what became that bit of the Cabinet manual on Hung Parliament 's. so we

had a bit of paper, which said what because Egyptian was, and it has

been refined since, on the basis of experience. But now everybody is

more attuned to it, the markets are more attuned to it. Unless there is

a huge financial crisis. I would not be surprised if it is at least a

week. The parties may well start laying out where their red lines

are. You would have a kind of 2-term manifesto? Yes, that is what we

would do if we were full-blooded. -- 2- tone manifesto. I do not think

they will discuss much with parties ahead of time, but David Cameron has

indicated that he will give his party say this time. He did not do

so last time, although the Lib Dems did. So he will have to consult more

people. All our nerve ends were used to rapid and civilised evictions,

the removal van at the back of another 10 Downing Street. But as

reflected in the latest version of the Cabinet manual, it is reflected

that the Prime Minister will wait until it is obvious who the Queen

will say, so there is no question of her being drawn into it. But it is

only an expectation, it remains to be seen whether this will turn into

a convention. And it still relies on the good chap theory of government,

so that everybody behaves in the right way, and makes sure that the

Queen has no whiff of politicisation about her. What about the civil

servants, will they be pulling the strings, bringing the parties

together, to try and get in quickly once a coalition has been

established? The civil service was prepared to provide the secretariat,

but this set of note you are taking, would they be under Freedom of

information on the cabinet secretary said he did not know. Very

interesting. That is why the civil service did not take the minute. The

civil service has published something I was writing a couple of

years ago, the sequence of events, and who saw what, and it was very

interesting. The Private Secretary took an office in the cabinet and he

went into twice to see Gordon Brown to tell him what the constitutional

position was. Some of Gordon's advisers said it wasn't going to

work, so just leave. He behaved with great dignity and only came out to

resign when there were still 20 minutes left to run between the

Conservative and Liberal Democrat negotiations. A fine run thing, but

he behaved with great dignity. Always the fear is that somebody who

is exhausted says something unfortunate and it all goes sour and

false accusations are made. The Queen does on that, does she? Only

got a year to think about it -- does not want that.

Is organised religion a force for good, a source of morality?

Or are its rules and regulations, particularly on sexuality

and the human body, the cause of conflict and a source of prejudice?

Tim Booth is the lead singer of the band, James.

Much of his work reflects questions around religion

The dominant religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism believe

that man must transcend his sexual nature. That our sinful bodies need

controlling, preferably by the church. I believe that these

ancient, patriarchal beliefs still have a far too strong and subtle

control over our society. The enforced suppression of our

sexuality is poisonous, natural and damages our mental and physical

well-being. How many well-intentioned priests are

attempting to stem their natural desires by being unnaturally

celibate? Then became paedophiles? Adultery and homosexuality are still

punished by stoning in parts of the world. Circumcision is routinely

performed on newborns without thought of psychological

consequences. In the time of AIDS, it is a sin to use a condom. In most

countries we cannot obtain assisted suicide even when in unbearable

pain. Whilst the murder of young girls is called honour killing.

Women are labelled whores for the merest expression of their

sexuality. It is estimated that 120 million girls have had their

clitoris is removed. If boys were being castrated like this, wouldn't

we have stopped it by now? Religion still tries to dictate what we can

and cannot do with our bodies and shames us, or much worse, for

disobedience. Darwin caused a storm by saying we are descended from

apes. This doesn't go far enough. We are apes. Apes in denial, with some

pretentious aspirations. We have some basic, beautiful, natural needs

that we are often fearful to express. Finger-pointing shame is

toxic. It's time for we individuals to choose what we do with our own

bodies. The bodies that we have been given in this lifetime, and to hear

-- heal the wounds that have been created by thousands of years of

violence, exile and shame. We're joined now by Tim Booth,

and by the Reverend Sally Hitchiner, she's

the chaplain at Brunel University. Welcome to both of you. Tim, tell us

a bit about your upbringing. You came from a fairly religious home.

Yes, church every week, at boarding school, church every day. This was

Protestantism, and the kind of pride that in our lineage was John

Wesley. So you have been steeped in religion. I have been stewed in it.

Has that put you off? Is that what led you to believe that religion has

done more harm than good? I don't think I say religion has done more

harm than good, it's not a statement I would use. I would say that the

ethics of Christ are quite brilliant. Forgiveness, helping the

disadvantaged, but the church that got built upon it by men, the

patriarch of became corrupt very quickly and resulted in huge amounts

of control and violence. The historical aspect of the church, it

is appalling. It is appalling. It's got better as Christianity has lots

of -- lost its power. I would say that has been a benefit to

Christianity and society. I wouldn't see it as a negative, that waning.

But there has been too much oppression and too much oppression

on women. Do you agree with that? That sexuality has been oppressed by

the church and it is written with guilt and shame? That has been a

question in the church, there is no denying it, especially of women and

other vulnerable groups through history. This is not a problem of

religion, it's a problem of humanity in general. If we look at any

government or system power throughout history there have always

been abuses. If we think about the 20th century, it's generally the

atheists who have been the strongest abusers of others, the great regimes

of the 20th century. The really important thing for me is not what

has happened so far, but what we do now. How can we a difference now?

The fact there are 280 churches that run night shelters, and groups that

provide food banks motivated from their religion. Only yesterday

Manchester Cathedral appointed a trans-lesbian activist as a canon in

their Cathedral. I think there is so much good happening, and I think

it's a one-sided approach to have a report like that that only

highlights the negative aspects that religion is bringing and does not

highlight the human problem behind it. But you do accept that the

problems raised by Tim exist when talking about issues of people 's

personal behaviour? Whether it is about sexual issues, abortion, AIDS,

these are big moral issues, and Tim, in your mind, I presume, you

think the church has tried to dictate how people should behave,

and if they behave differently, they are wrong. In the time of age you

cannot buy a condom in Ireland. Assisted suicide, people who are

needing it, in a great deal of pain, but a whole stigma around

suicide exists which is kind of a religious echo through the culture.

I'm more concerned about the subtle echoes rather than the actual more

obvious ones. Obviously Sally comes from a more liberal aspect of the

church that I applaud. I'm a big fan of Desmond Tutu and his speeches on

forgiveness, so I'm not against aspects of the church at all, I'm

against the intolerant imposition. As a Catholic, what do you say? I

grew up where everything was an occasion of sin. I sometimes wonder

how I managed to breed, but I'm glad I did. I'm a fellow traveller with

the Anglicans, I love the Anglican Church. But the me, I understand why

you have done this -- but for me. I have some feeling for you. For me,

the liberating bit of the faith is the beatitude, the best copy ever

written. As an injunction on how to live life, it transcends everything.

But that is the core of the faith for me and I'm in no way diminishing

your feelings which you have been very candid in expressing. But the

Christian morality that comes through the beatitude is, I think,

extraordinary. It is as vivid now as when Jesus uttered it. So, for me, I

have some sympathy, but that's the sticking point. A fairly

hard-hitting film and you said some poignant things but we can't discuss

any more as we run out of time. Thank you ever so much. Some

important news coming out of Frankfurt and the European Central

bank. It's cut the main interest rate to 0.15%. You might think you

can't get lower than that, well, you can. It has cut another rate called

the discount rate which banks get by lodging money with the ECB to -0.1%.

This is unprecedented in European monetary policy and it means if you

are a financial institution, you lodge money with the ECB, you will

have to pay the ECB for the right to lodge money there. And the bank is

trying to confront what it now has been forced to realise is the

biggest problem facing the Eurozone, which is the deflationary

trap the most economies are in with prices collapsing. It's trying to

stoke up monetary policy to get the banks to lend again and to get a bit

more inflation into the system will stop there will be a lot more of

that on the one o'clock news. Forget the Oscars,

forget the BAFTAS. Last night saw The Parliamentary

Internet, Communications and As you can imagine it was

a star-studded event and tickets were harder to come by than a signed

copy of Peter's latest book. The "Local Yokel" Award for the MP

who has mentioned their constituency the most on Twitter went to Labour

Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy. She's tweeted 43,400 times in total

and she's mentioned her constituency I hope the people

of Walthamstow are grateful. Perhaps not surprisingly

James Wharton, the Tory MP who tried to take the EU

Referendum Bill through Parliament, He's gone from very few to

nearly 5,000 followers. You might think the Green Party's

one MP might have talked most about green issues on Twitter, but no,

it was Greg Barker the minister for climate change who pipped the Green

MP Caroline Lucas to the post. Greg Barker's tweeted 186 times

on green matters this year. And the "Most Mentions"

Award was won by the Scottish He was mentioned 2,300

times last year in tweets. I'm sure some were even

complimentary. We have 45 seconds, coming from the glitzy, all-night

party, Pete Wishart, why did you win? I just want to thank my mother,

all of those who supported me, my goldfish, and particularly my

Twitter followers. More MPs are involved in this and I think it is

great to recognise this and celebrate the fact we are now there.

Do you enjoy it? Aren't you worried you might put your foot in it? There

is always that danger and it has happened to several of us along the

years, but it's a great way to communicate. You can get a story out

to thousands very quickly. Like your own press wire service. Well,

congratulations. Sorry it has been so short, blame the European Central

bank. I will do. Always. The one o'clock news is starting on BBC One

now. I'll be on BBC One tonight with the

longest-ever This Week, it's our version of the Longest Day, starting

with Hank Marvin, Kate Williams, Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott,

Andrew Rawnsley and Miranda Green, before a change of guests

and we settle down and wait And I'll be back here again

at noon tomorrow when we'll work out