:00:44. > :00:50.To answer questions over the department's handling of historical
:00:51. > :00:54.allegations of sexual abuse. The Government has announced two
:00:55. > :00:57.separate inquiries to find out if a culture of secrecy allowed serious
:00:58. > :01:03.crimes to take place. Many hospitals in England charge for
:01:04. > :01:07.car parking. Is it a fair way for the Health Service to make money or
:01:08. > :01:10.a stealth tax on the sick? You might be thinking about heading off to the
:01:11. > :01:15.great British seaside for your holidays, you will be able to get a
:01:16. > :01:24.stick of rock and a donkey ride, but new rules many beaches are about to
:01:25. > :01:29.be classified as dirty. The way they cover the news on TV in
:01:30. > :01:34.America is well, different what we're used to here. It may seem
:01:35. > :01:42.extreme, but is it for money? -- fun?
:01:43. > :01:46.You may have heard it is allel rage at Westminster -- all the rage to
:01:47. > :01:51.bring in a top adviser from America to sharpen up your image. We don't
:01:52. > :02:01.like to be left behind so we got our own hired gun! It is Frank Lunce. We
:02:02. > :02:05.have just got him for the next hour! Let's start with the tighter
:02:06. > :02:09.security facing air passengers travelling to the US. British
:02:10. > :02:15.Airways warned that anyone who can't turn on an electronic device like a
:02:16. > :02:19.phone or a tablet will be banned from their flight following warnings
:02:20. > :02:24.that Al-Qaeda has developed new types of bomb that could be hidden
:02:25. > :02:30.in electronic devices. Do you regard it as a sensible precaution or too
:02:31. > :02:35.extreme? Well, I fly over 300,000 miles a year and I'm back and forth
:02:36. > :02:40.to Europe five or six times, and I can only imagine what it will do to
:02:41. > :02:44.airport security. I have done a fair bit of Middle Eastern travel. The
:02:45. > :02:47.challenge we have right now is what is happening in Iraq. You have a
:02:48. > :02:52.terrorist organisation, ISIS, that is beyond anything that we have
:02:53. > :02:56.experienced in the last 100 years. Or dangerous, more of a threat and
:02:57. > :03:02.more random, the violence and the killing is more blood thirsty and it
:03:03. > :03:05.is so significant that if anything happens to any plane, we will never
:03:06. > :03:10.forgive our Government. Hasn't that been the case at other points in
:03:11. > :03:13.history? Is the public behind this in your view? Will they actually
:03:14. > :03:21.support this tightening of security as they have done, after 9//11, for
:03:22. > :03:25.example, after 7/7 or will they just think we have had enough of this
:03:26. > :03:31.increased security and want to get on with our lives and travel where
:03:32. > :03:37.we want to when we want to? We expect is 100% success. You have got
:03:38. > :03:42.somewhere between # 5% -- 75% and 80% who would support this. It is
:03:43. > :03:46.another victory for terrorism. The more hassle that it causes us, the
:03:47. > :03:50.more of our freedoms that are given up, the more tragic this becomes,
:03:51. > :03:55.but it is a way of life. You say you travel all the time. What has it
:03:56. > :04:00.been like? Your flight affected already? It is easier to come here
:04:01. > :04:04.than to leave. Heathrow has stronger security. Their rules are stricter
:04:05. > :04:09.than in the States. I've done a lot of travel in the Middle East. If you
:04:10. > :04:12.do it the right way, you have got to come early, you have got to be
:04:13. > :04:15.professional about it, you make sure that your devices are charged, it is
:04:16. > :04:20.not that difficult. But I don't like giving up on our freedoms. I don't
:04:21. > :04:24.like changing the way that we live because someone doesn't like us or
:04:25. > :04:29.how we live. Do you think it is too extreme to stop people boarding the
:04:30. > :04:34.flights even if they take their electronic devices away if they
:04:35. > :04:37.weren't charged up? I'm not a terrorism expert, but when people
:04:38. > :04:42.start to be denied that chance to board, you see, it used to be you
:04:43. > :04:46.would have to throw it into your luggage. If they're going to say, if
:04:47. > :04:50.you can't turn it on, you can't fly, that's going to be a problem. It is
:04:51. > :04:54.time for our quiz. And with the holiday just around the corner,
:04:55. > :04:59.today's question is about your summer reading list. Thanks to
:05:00. > :05:04.e-books academics say they can work out how many people are finishing
:05:05. > :05:12.some of this year's must read titles and it is not many! Which of these
:05:13. > :05:20.is least likely to have you reaching for the final page?
:05:21. > :05:31.S at the end of the show Frank will give us the correct answer. I think
:05:32. > :05:36.it is D. Women I've Loved by Bill Clinton! Thanks for adding that to
:05:37. > :05:40.the list. All eyes will be on the top civil
:05:41. > :05:44.servant from the Home Office later today when he appears before MPs to
:05:45. > :05:47.explain the way allegations of child abuse were handled by the
:05:48. > :05:52.department. His boss, Home Secretary, Theresa May, yesterday
:05:53. > :05:56.announced two new inquiries, one to look into the handling of documents
:05:57. > :06:01.about those allegations passed to the Home Office in the 1980s and a
:06:02. > :06:05.second wider inquiry into allegations of abuse in Parliament,
:06:06. > :06:10.the BBC, and religious organisations that won't report until after the
:06:11. > :06:16.2015 election. Here is Theresa May. I want to set three important
:06:17. > :06:20.principles. First, we will do everything we can to allow the full
:06:21. > :06:24.investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators and
:06:25. > :06:31.we will do nothing to jeopardise those aims. Second, where possible,
:06:32. > :06:33.the Government will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency
:06:34. > :06:36.and third, presumption of maximum transparency
:06:37. > :06:40.and we will make sure that wherever individuals and institutions have
:06:41. > :06:46.failed to protect children from harm, we will expose those failures
:06:47. > :06:49.and learn the lessons. Theresa May announcing the inquiries yesterday.
:06:50. > :06:53.We're joined by our political correspondent, Robin Brant. Robin,
:06:54. > :06:57.so Mr Sedwill is going to be questioned and put under the
:06:58. > :07:04.spotlight by MPs on the Select Committee. What will the line of
:07:05. > :07:08.questioning be? Well, it can be a crucible with Keith Vass in the
:07:09. > :07:12.chair. The thrust assuming we don't get the details on the terms of
:07:13. > :07:16.reference and the broader remit for the bigger inquiry, the thrust this
:07:17. > :07:20.afternoon for Mark Sedwill will be a focus on that letter he send to
:07:21. > :07:23.Keith Vass on Saturday which detailed the review that the Home
:07:24. > :07:29.Office carried out last year. It began in February. It was headed by
:07:30. > :07:35.an inspector from H MI C who was unnamed. It reported in the August.
:07:36. > :07:38.Its conclusions were slipped out, but only really were details added
:07:39. > :07:42.on Saturday in this letter to Keith Vass and it was that letter that
:07:43. > :07:47.revealed that tens of thousands of files had been searched and 114 were
:07:48. > :07:52.presumed missing or destroyed or could not be found and we also
:07:53. > :07:56.learned on Saturday from this letter that four bits of information which
:07:57. > :07:59.had been previously undisclosed had now been turned over to the police
:08:00. > :08:04.for further investigation. So there will be questions about you know,
:08:05. > :08:08.the person that was brought in to do it. How they did it, the methodology
:08:09. > :08:12.of their work. There will be more questions about these 100 plus files
:08:13. > :08:16.which have gone missing. He will be asked to explain, I think, Mr
:08:17. > :08:20.Sedwill what that means and how could they have gone missing? And he
:08:21. > :08:24.referred to the fact that 50% of the files -- 5% of the files initially
:08:25. > :08:28.examined had gone missing, but there is no broader explanation for that
:08:29. > :08:32.and it is this claim, mixed together with the revelation about missing
:08:33. > :08:35.files that is fuelling the conspiracies out there. So the
:08:36. > :08:40.thrust of the questions will be about the missing files, the
:08:41. > :08:44.methodology, the man who did it and why frankly as well at the time the
:08:45. > :08:48.are results were just slipped out and there wasn't more publicity
:08:49. > :08:51.given to the results. That is curious as we're now pouring over
:08:52. > :08:55.the details as you say that didn't get that much publicity, but what
:08:56. > :08:58.about the issue that ministers weren't questioned during the
:08:59. > :09:04.review? Will that be enquired upon? It says in the letter no ministers
:09:05. > :09:08.were interviewed or questioned. That's partly because Mr Sedwill and
:09:09. > :09:12.the man who carried out the investigation wanted to try and keep
:09:13. > :09:17.at arm's length from current ministers, my understanding is that
:09:18. > :09:21.previous ministers weren't questioned either. There will be
:09:22. > :09:24.intrigue about that, because, of course, the man at the centre of
:09:25. > :09:33.this and the man who denies any allegation that he dealt with these
:09:34. > :09:38.accusations improperly is the Home Secretary at the time. So there will
:09:39. > :09:42.be questions as I said, not just about the remit and the way the
:09:43. > :09:49.methodology, the work that was done, but frankly if ministers sitting or
:09:50. > :09:53.past weren't questioned, what are the validity of the conclusions
:09:54. > :09:58.reached last summer? Mark Sedwill said having a review of a review.
:09:59. > :10:02.We're going to get the name of a QC who will help Peter Wanless with
:10:03. > :10:05.that, but he said the reason for that was to check that the
:10:06. > :10:09.conclusions remain sound and valid and quayed Vass and others -- Keith
:10:10. > :10:12.Vass and others will say if you didn't question the politicians
:10:13. > :10:14.involved or politicians now, the conclusion perhaps isn't sound and
:10:15. > :10:18.valid already. Robin, thank you very much. Mark
:10:19. > :10:24.Sedwill will be questioned in a few hours time.
:10:25. > :10:29.Yesterday, an interview emerged of a former Conservative Whip in which he
:10:30. > :10:33.suggested that whips had huge amounts of power over their fellow
:10:34. > :10:43.MPs and would protect them from all kinds of scandals. Here is the MP
:10:44. > :10:51.who is now dead, speaking in 1995. The scandal involve small boys or
:10:52. > :10:55.any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in,
:10:56. > :11:00.they would come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did and we
:11:01. > :11:08.would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points.
:11:09. > :11:14.That sounds a pretty nasty reason, but it is one of the reasons if we
:11:15. > :11:20.can get a chap ot of trouble when he will do as we ask forever more.
:11:21. > :11:26.We're joined by the Labour MP who raised that interview during
:11:27. > :11:30.yesterday's debate in Parliament. You are shocked by that revelation.
:11:31. > :11:34.I was shocked, but not completely surprised, because the thing we know
:11:35. > :11:39.about child abuse, it is about trying to exert power over other
:11:40. > :11:42.people and what we have seen with the trial involving Rolf Harris and
:11:43. > :11:46.Jimmy Savile and other celebrities is people who are in positions of
:11:47. > :11:49.power find it particularly easy to cover-up what is happening to their
:11:50. > :11:53.victims, their victims feel that they can't come forward because this
:11:54. > :11:56.person is incredibly well respected and well-known and so, I wasn't
:11:57. > :12:00.hugely surprised that that had happened, but I was obviously
:12:01. > :12:03.horrified by it and wanted to raise it with the Home Secretary because
:12:04. > :12:07.when we have got an inquiry of this nature now, what we need to make
:12:08. > :12:13.sure is firstly, we can get access to any of those records that still
:12:14. > :12:17.exist in the Whips' Office. If the systems are still in place that
:12:18. > :12:22.conspire to stop the truth coming to light that they must be challenged
:12:23. > :12:26.and tackled however uncomfortable is That for political parties, for
:12:27. > :12:29.Parliament and the Government. Are you reassured by whatever is
:12:30. > :12:33.announced by Theresa May will get to the truth? No, I very much welcome
:12:34. > :12:42.the fact she had a change of heart and she has aannounced there will be
:12:43. > :12:46.an inquiry, but what concerns me, when I raised this in the House
:12:47. > :12:50.yesterday, it transpired it is not clear how this will work. It is not
:12:51. > :12:54.clear if those the whips records exist and if they do exist, it is
:12:55. > :12:57.not clear who owns them and whether they can be made available in the
:12:58. > :13:01.public domain. What this did actually yesterday was it rang alarm
:13:02. > :13:04.bells with me and many of my colleagues because these are the
:13:05. > :13:08.sort of difficulties that arose over the Hillsborough inquiry and as you
:13:09. > :13:12.know, 25 years later, the families are still fighting for justice and
:13:13. > :13:16.for the truth to come out and what we cannot afford as a country, in
:13:17. > :13:19.terms of public confidence and particularly for child abuse
:13:20. > :13:24.survivors is for this to be yet another inquiry that doesn't get to
:13:25. > :13:30.the truth. Right, the inquiry which Yvette Cooper asked for, it is vast,
:13:31. > :13:33.looking at all sorts of institutions and religious organisations and the
:13:34. > :13:38.BBC. Is it going to be any easier to get to the truth there with such a
:13:39. > :13:41.big remit? I think it has to have a broad remit because what we have
:13:42. > :13:45.seen over recent years is there is no part of the country that is
:13:46. > :13:48.untouched by child abuse and I think people working in the field knew
:13:49. > :13:54.that already. The point is not that child abuse is happening everywhere,
:13:55. > :13:57.the point is as my colleague Nicola Blackwood said last year, it can
:13:58. > :14:03.happen anywhere and that's why we need to be extra vigilant and
:14:04. > :14:09.actually, for politicians who are in a position of power, our systems
:14:10. > :14:13.need to be 110% robust to make sure if there are problems that they come
:14:14. > :14:18.to light. What does this do to the institutions that are going to be
:14:19. > :14:22.looked at in terms of whether they did enough to protect children from
:14:23. > :14:26.abuse? Good for you and don't give you and
:14:27. > :14:34.if you don't get the answer, push and push. The key is, don't make it
:14:35. > :14:38.Labour, all governments are involved in this. Relugeous institutions have
:14:39. > :14:42.been -- religious institutions have been involved in this. If you keep
:14:43. > :14:48.it out of politics, the public will say bravo and don't back down. The
:14:49. > :14:51.moment it becomes political, that's when the issue becomes we don't
:14:52. > :14:55.trust politicians anymore because we believe in cover-ups whether it is
:14:56. > :14:59.about money or sex or power, we don't think they're fighting for us,
:15:00. > :15:03.we think they're fighting for them. Do you think it will get to the
:15:04. > :15:07.bottom of it? Will it bring answers? If MPs like you keep the focus on
:15:08. > :15:13.this every week, again and again, it can. If the BBC does, it can and it
:15:14. > :15:17.has to because you cannot have this level of cynicism that you have got
:15:18. > :15:20.in Britain and we have in America and you have to be able to trust
:15:21. > :15:24.these people. Remember, they have a public trust. They were elected to
:15:25. > :15:29.represent and OK, maybe they are not role models, but we expect more from
:15:30. > :15:37.Congress or members of Parliament and if they behave badly, they have
:15:38. > :15:42.to be held accountable. What about shifts in attitude in public
:15:43. > :15:45.response to claims of child abuse? Historical or not, there has been a
:15:46. > :15:51.shift, we have had many people on the programme who have said that in
:15:52. > :15:55.the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, somehow people did turn a blind eye. It was
:15:56. > :16:01.not acceptable, but those people were in a way not investigated after
:16:02. > :16:05.rumours and claims. We want accountability. It has changed. We
:16:06. > :16:12.want accountability, let the chips fall where they may, and the key
:16:13. > :16:16.person, if they are alive and they need to be punished. You set out
:16:17. > :16:21.what you want, to be available to the people looking at this, but why
:16:22. > :16:24.then not have a judge led enquiry, why not have people swearing an
:16:25. > :16:28.oath, why not make it that formal, if you think it is that important
:16:29. > :16:32.and you need to get to the bottom of it. You have used Hillsborough as an
:16:33. > :16:35.example of where it was difficult. Something that was welcomed
:16:36. > :16:38.yesterday, the Home Secretary under pressure from MPs said that if the
:16:39. > :16:41.independent panel that she set up feel that they need statutory
:16:42. > :16:46.powers, she is very open to giving them to them. But the important
:16:47. > :16:53.thing here, child abuse thrives in secrecy, it is not fun, it is not
:16:54. > :16:59.exciting, it is humiliating, it is distressing. It is awful. What we
:17:00. > :17:02.need to do, all of us, whether it is the media, politicians, anybody in a
:17:03. > :17:06.position, we need to shine a spotlight anywhere we think that
:17:07. > :17:09.could have occurred. Keep up the pressure to make sure we have the
:17:10. > :17:14.right answers for people finally after years and years of living with
:17:15. > :17:18.this in silence. Thank you very much.
:17:19. > :17:21.Parking charges are never popular, but the fees charged to park
:17:22. > :17:23.at many hospitals are, according to one MP, a stealth tax
:17:24. > :17:27.Hospitals in Wales and Scotland have abolished them,
:17:28. > :17:29.but three-quarters of hospitals in England do make visitors pay to
:17:30. > :17:34.Our reporter Jane Dodge went to one hospital in Nottingham.
:17:35. > :17:42.Really it is coming out of our pocket, isn't it. We pay our taxes
:17:43. > :17:49.and everything like that and still, it is overpriced for car parks. It
:17:50. > :17:56.is too much. Especially for patients. They should not have to
:17:57. > :18:01.pay that much. Should they be paying anything? They should not. If you
:18:02. > :18:07.are in hospital for a couple of weeks, people have got to I have
:18:08. > :18:13.been here since 7:15am, now it is 1pm, yes, I expect it to cost in the
:18:14. > :18:20.region of about ?10. How does that sound to you? It is a lot of money.
:18:21. > :18:24.The hospital argues that charging the rates they do for car parking
:18:25. > :18:28.means they can ring fence the budget of patient care, it means they do
:18:29. > :18:32.not have to take money out of patient care to subsidise parking
:18:33. > :18:40.for visitors. Do you accept that argument? If you put it that way,
:18:41. > :18:45.perhaps the patients come first. I can afford the parking. I find it
:18:46. > :18:49.expensive but I suppose there is people who would find it extremely
:18:50. > :18:53.expensive. I would only use it in an emergency. I have just jumped off
:18:54. > :19:07.the bus to come here. ?4 an hour, that is pretty steep. And we are now
:19:08. > :19:08.joined by Robert Chalfant and from the centre-right think tank reform,
:19:09. > :19:20.Andrew Halden B. -- Robert Halfon and from the
:19:21. > :19:24.centre-right think-tank Reform, Andrew Haldenby. Hospital car
:19:25. > :19:28.parking has become a stealth tax, people do not know why the charges
:19:29. > :19:34.are there and what it is being spent on, and there are very few
:19:35. > :19:37.concessions. What you say to that? It seems to be unfair that at a
:19:38. > :19:41.point in your life when you are vulnerable, going to hospital,
:19:42. > :19:49.seeing relatives, you are being charged through the nose. It is
:19:50. > :19:54.wrong to charge people through the nose, but you have got to take it in
:19:55. > :19:57.a hospital by hospital case. Kingston Hospital, big car park next
:19:58. > :20:01.to the shops and residential housing, if there were no charges
:20:02. > :20:07.for that car park, it would be full every day of the week, 24 /7. It is
:20:08. > :20:10.not what Robert would like to achieve but the thing is, no patient
:20:11. > :20:17.would be able to get into the hospital. This is the law of
:20:18. > :20:26.unintended consequences. Some hospitals in London are charging up
:20:27. > :20:31.to ?500 every week. ?500 every week? ! There are many examples of
:20:32. > :20:35.horror stories. People have cancer and they are paying huge amounts of
:20:36. > :20:39.money to park their car. The answer is a simple one, to what Andrew has
:20:40. > :20:43.said, if you go to a hospital, you would go to a ward, a token or a
:20:44. > :20:47.ticket would be given to you, and then you would not have to pay, that
:20:48. > :20:52.would stop people using it for shopping and the issues he has
:20:53. > :20:55.described. This has become a stealth tax, charges increasing all the
:20:56. > :20:59.time, it is costing people enormous amounts of money. The charity,
:21:00. > :21:04.bliss, it is a charity for parents with sick children, they have said
:21:05. > :21:07.that parents are paying an average of ?34 a week when they have
:21:08. > :21:10.premature babies. Some of them cannot even go into the hospital to
:21:11. > :21:15.see their baby because they cannot afford to pay the car parking
:21:16. > :21:19.charge. How would you pay for it? You say people do not know where the
:21:20. > :21:24.money goes, and when people are arguing over the cost of cancer
:21:25. > :21:27.drugs, and vital life-saving equipment, perhaps car park charges
:21:28. > :21:30.is not the priority. Important question, I would argue this is as
:21:31. > :21:35.much a front-line issue as it is when you spend money on nurses and
:21:36. > :21:41.medical machinery. These decisions are made in NHS hospitals every day.
:21:42. > :21:44.There is money. If we used a generic drug for stat ins, rather than
:21:45. > :21:50.branded drugs, we would save 200 millions. That is the cost it would
:21:51. > :21:59.take to scrap hospital car park in charges completely. -- statins. If
:22:00. > :22:04.there was a way for paying for it, would you look at hospital charges
:22:05. > :22:07.being scrapped. They can be scrapped now by hospital trust if they want
:22:08. > :22:09.to but the reason they do not is because they want to spend the money
:22:10. > :22:14.on clinical treatments and they are afraid that car it is the same
:22:15. > :22:17.argument as prescription charges, nobody likes prescription charges
:22:18. > :22:21.but they were introduced because when they were free, people were
:22:22. > :22:27.taking too much, they were misusing resources. A small charge was
:22:28. > :22:31.introduced. Most things in your NHS are free at the point of use, a tiny
:22:32. > :22:34.number of things are charged but they are charged for a good reason.
:22:35. > :22:38.We can have a debate in the long term about whether there will be NHS
:22:39. > :22:42.charges, I'm reluctant to have any charges on the NHS, but what we have
:22:43. > :22:46.seen with car parking, it has become a stealth tax, people do not know
:22:47. > :22:50.why they are being charged so much money. If they did know and they
:22:51. > :22:56.were faced with these choices, perhaps they would support the idea.
:22:57. > :23:00.It is interesting hearing a conservative asking for charges to
:23:01. > :23:04.be removed, in a controversial debate about general funding for the
:23:05. > :23:08.NHS. This is quality of life, you have given me an idea that I would
:23:09. > :23:14.like to take back to the US! We charge a lot of money, it can cost
:23:15. > :23:18.40, 50 bucks, just for a visit in hospitals in New York and Los
:23:19. > :23:22.Angeles. You have a bigger issue. Not just quality of life in terms of
:23:23. > :23:25.parking, what kind of service do you get? The big debate, how long it
:23:26. > :23:30.takes to get health care services here, how long do you have to wait
:23:31. > :23:35.for admittance, how long do you have to wait for a doctor to see you?
:23:36. > :23:39.That is a higher priority. What are the margins? People living pay
:23:40. > :23:42.cheque to pay cheque, issues like this will matter in a general
:23:43. > :23:45.election. What about your suggestion, if you are a London
:23:46. > :23:50.hospital, living near good public transport, trying to encourage
:23:51. > :23:53.people not to bring their car, you think that is not justifiable, to
:23:54. > :23:59.have higher charges in the local hospital. We have got to get real,
:24:00. > :24:02.Sony people who go to hospital are immobile for one reason or another,
:24:03. > :24:09.parents and relatives go with children, it is difficult to use
:24:10. > :24:12.public transport. Not every hospital has great communication links. There
:24:13. > :24:16.are hospitals all around the country. There will be isolated
:24:17. > :24:19.examples but it is becoming a stealth tax, there is no
:24:20. > :24:23.transparency and it is hitting the most vulnerable in our communities,
:24:24. > :24:26.and it is wrong that parents cannot afford to go to hospital to see
:24:27. > :24:30.premature babies, because they cannot afford to park their car.
:24:31. > :24:34.That is unjust and that is why the government have got to look at
:24:35. > :24:38.this. I agree that it is a stealth tax in as much as people do not
:24:39. > :24:44.understand it. In the NHS, there is only one place where the NHS says,
:24:45. > :24:48."you must give us money to fund this service" and that is car parks. It
:24:49. > :24:52.is unusual when people do not know about it and it should be explained
:24:53. > :24:56.to them. But I think the principle is correct. The government is not
:24:57. > :25:01.listening to you, that is not seem to be a will to look at this, are
:25:02. > :25:06.you getting anywhere? I am a campaigning MP, we have gone to the
:25:07. > :25:09.backbench committee, 110 members from each side of the house,
:25:10. > :25:15.including Frank Field, from both sides of the house. We have a
:25:16. > :25:20.Twitter page, if you join that I can send you all of the other details.
:25:21. > :25:24.We are on Facebook as well. In a couple of days we have had a
:25:25. > :25:27.thousand people contacting us. Most horrific stories have been sent to
:25:28. > :25:32.me, people suffering from cancer paying huge amounts because there is
:25:33. > :25:35.no concessions. We have got to look at this. You say it is up to
:25:36. > :25:40.individual hospitals but the governments have done brilliantly,
:25:41. > :25:45.in getting rid of mixed sex wards. That was a national decision, this
:25:46. > :25:51.is as much a national decision. Thanks.
:25:52. > :25:54.Now on this show we can't get enough of opinion polls.
:25:55. > :25:57.Which is fortunate, as at the moment you can't move for polls
:25:58. > :26:00.on everything from who do you trust to run the economy to which party
:26:01. > :26:05.The politicians claim they don't take much notice, although
:26:06. > :26:08.if that were true our guest of the day here would be out of a job.
:26:09. > :26:10.Eleanor Garnier's been finding out more.
:26:11. > :26:14.I think that the only polls that count are on May 22 this year and at
:26:15. > :26:18.the general election next year... The only one that counts is the one
:26:19. > :26:22.where people get to vote and decide who they want to run the country...
:26:23. > :26:26.There is only one poll that counts, that is the one that will take place
:26:27. > :26:31.tomorrow, Thursday. The only poll that counts is the pall of the
:26:32. > :26:34.voters... You are beginning to sound like a politician!
:26:35. > :26:39.They Say they do not matter but political parties still spend
:26:40. > :26:45.thousands of pounds on polls and on focus groups, they have been used
:26:46. > :26:50.here in the UK since the late 1970s but they were first pioneered in
:26:51. > :26:53.America. How many of you without saying any names have a preference
:26:54. > :26:58.or who should take over the Conservative Party? This is Frank
:26:59. > :27:01.Luntz, at a focus group for Newsnight during the Conservative
:27:02. > :27:06.Party leadership election, it saw David Cameron rise to power.
:27:07. > :27:14.Welcome to the world of 21st-century focus groups. This is in central
:27:15. > :27:18.London, theories are tested and opinions are listened to and
:27:19. > :27:23.reactions are recorded. They may be anonymous but the people chosen to
:27:24. > :27:26.take part in focus groups are scientifically selected. The
:27:27. > :27:31.questions and queries put to them are detailed and targeted. Instead
:27:32. > :27:36.of simply "do you like ex-politician?" It is "how would you
:27:37. > :27:42.describe them if they weren't -- it is, "what kind of animal would they
:27:43. > :27:47.be? " And what kind of driver might they be? One person said that Nick
:27:48. > :27:52.Clegg is driving the wrong way up a one-way street, that goes further
:27:53. > :27:56.than just saying they do not like them, that is a better understanding
:27:57. > :28:01.of what they dislike. There may be popular with political parties but
:28:02. > :28:04.not all politicians like the idea of focus groups. If you want to waste
:28:05. > :28:08.money they are probably a good thing, they do not do any harm, but
:28:09. > :28:11.the way to find out what people are thinking is to knock on the
:28:12. > :28:15.doorstep, talk to people, that is how you find out what is worrying
:28:16. > :28:20.people. Talking to people on the doorstep, you the truth. Focus
:28:21. > :28:24.groups, they can almost be interpreted to anything. It is
:28:25. > :28:28.unbelievably arrogant I think for any politician to assert that they
:28:29. > :28:34.think they know what all voters think on all issues all of the time
:28:35. > :28:38.or any, any of the time! They need to use all of the tools available to
:28:39. > :28:42.them, to connect with the public and really understand what they feel,
:28:43. > :28:46.and they are mad if they do not use focus groups, they are crazy.
:28:47. > :28:52.They may say that the only poll that matters is the one on election day,
:28:53. > :28:56.but from this side of the glass, looking on, politicians are
:28:57. > :29:01.certainly watching and listening. Any thing to help political parties
:29:02. > :29:03.connect with lost voters. I don't know about you but I agree with
:29:04. > :29:17.everything they have said! We know they do. They just say
:29:18. > :29:21.there's only one to look at. Whilst you conducted polls for Newsnight
:29:22. > :29:25.that propelled David Cameron from behave-on to party leader and it's
:29:26. > :29:34.been asked many times whether you played kingmaker or spotted a trend
:29:35. > :29:38.that already existed. Which was it? -- oblivion? I didn't know what he
:29:39. > :29:43.looked like, the day that I did the session. I had never seen him. I had
:29:44. > :29:51.a transcript of what he said. I was trying to pick clips so voters could
:29:52. > :29:56.react. I said that was David Cameron and my initial reaction was he's too
:29:57. > :29:59.young, they are going to choose someone, maybe not Kenneth Clarke,
:30:00. > :30:07.maybe not someone that old, someone born in this century! But actually,
:30:08. > :30:12.my first reaction was, the Tories were older.
:30:13. > :30:17.The Tory voter is older. I was shocked at how they responded. He
:30:18. > :30:20.didn't use notes. He did not read a speech. Every other politician gets
:30:21. > :30:25.up and they are reading. He delivered from the heart and number
:30:26. > :30:31.two. He gave credit to Tony Blair. It wasn't just a slash and burn. The
:30:32. > :30:36.British public is tired of these divisions, they are tired of the
:30:37. > :30:40.anger that seems to be expressed in every speech. Everything the Tories
:30:41. > :30:44.have done is wrong, everything Labour has done is wrong. They want
:30:45. > :30:48.someone who can find the sensible centre. The centre ground is what
:30:49. > :30:52.every politician says that they are after. How do you think that David
:30:53. > :30:58.Cameron has developed his brand since that time, since that point?
:30:59. > :31:02.It's interesting to me to watch his communication style because it's not
:31:03. > :31:08.as informal. Maybe you can't be as Prime Minister. Maybe you have to be
:31:09. > :31:11.more structured. But to see him attempt to redefine what it is to be
:31:12. > :31:17.a Conservative was important over the last few years because the
:31:18. > :31:21.sketch had a bad reputation. I don't believe that Conservatives won in
:31:22. > :31:27.2010, I believe that Labour lost. The group that was e-Wally as
:31:28. > :31:30.decisive was the one we did for the BBC which showed Gordon Brown could
:31:31. > :31:36.have been re-elected if he'd have gone within the first 100 days.
:31:37. > :31:40.That's tactics. It's not because people's minds change and Gordon
:31:41. > :31:47.Brown did not demonstrate he was a leader. The focus groups work by
:31:48. > :31:52.thinks, let's give them a try. And he was a change from Tony Blair?
:31:53. > :31:54.Which they appreciated. After an hour-and-a-half of watching him,
:31:55. > :32:03.they'd already had enough. That caught us that timing is everything.
:32:04. > :32:06.What about Ed Miliband then now? The Labour Party is trying to adopt the
:32:07. > :32:11.tactics used by the Obama campaign and people say he doesn't compare
:32:12. > :32:16.very fairly and we'll come on to Obama's popularity, but can it work
:32:17. > :32:23.here? Can that Stardust work for Ed Miliband? The first thing I learned
:32:24. > :32:26.is that Labour is spelled LOBOUR, not LABOR and the Americans have to
:32:27. > :32:30.understand that the language here is not the same as America, the
:32:31. > :32:35.expectations are not the same. I'm not the kind of guy that wants to
:32:36. > :32:38.come over here and trash the country but British voters are more
:32:39. > :32:43.sophisticated, asking more detailed questions, shows like this one get
:32:44. > :32:45.into more substance and so it's dangerous to have an American
:32:46. > :32:50.sensibility applied to British politics. So why are so many
:32:51. > :32:54.politicians, why are David Cameron and Ed Miliband using American
:32:55. > :33:00.strategies? Have you seen any evidence of David Axelrod on
:33:01. > :33:11.Labour's campaign? I saw the language he use odd on behalf of
:33:12. > :33:14.Miliband, on Barack Obama which you pronounce PARRACK. It's the same
:33:15. > :33:17.thing with British Consul tans because the British political elite
:33:18. > :33:23.goes to other countries and gives them advice. The key is to
:33:24. > :33:26.understand the civility of the country. Do you think it's
:33:27. > :33:30.understood here? It takes years to understand. I went to Oxford here
:33:31. > :33:34.for three years and over the last five days I've been working my way
:33:35. > :33:39.through the 80 and 90s politicians and the stuff that I read in British
:33:40. > :33:42.publications is not necessarily accurate if you really want to
:33:43. > :33:47.understand the British people. Who is going to win the 015 election? I
:33:48. > :33:50.can tell you why the Conservatives won't win, they are not getting
:33:51. > :33:55.credit for the economy. Labour won't win because Ed Miliband is not
:33:56. > :33:59.sufficiently respected as a leader -- 2015. The Liberals won't do as
:34:00. > :34:03.well because there is a disappointment in their performance
:34:04. > :34:06.in the coalition. I can tell you why each person is going to do badly. I
:34:07. > :34:09.can't give you a winner at this point. Do you think it will be a
:34:10. > :34:14.coalition again, a hung Parliament? I believe it will be a coal Is again
:34:15. > :34:19.but I don't know who will lead it. One thing makes me sad - the level
:34:20. > :34:23.of cynicism in Britain seems to be at an all-time high. Now you have
:34:24. > :34:28.got this child abuse scandal. It's tragic. This is the cradle of
:34:29. > :34:33.democracy for the entire globe and I would want to see the population
:34:34. > :34:37.proud of what British institutions have done globally. Instead, they
:34:38. > :34:44.are cynical, it's dark and it's depressing. We've got the same thing
:34:45. > :34:48.in America. If you take that cynicism, some might argue that's
:34:49. > :34:54.helped the rise of UKIP. Do you agree with that? Do you see echoes?
:34:55. > :35:02.I see tremendous similarities, the level of anger, disappointment and
:35:03. > :35:04.the level of fear. The key for the politicians, particularly the party
:35:05. > :35:10.leaders is to speak with incredible clarity. Put aside the notes, the
:35:11. > :35:13.talking points and tell people not just what they think you want to
:35:14. > :35:18.hear, tell them exactly how you feel and why. Simplify it, lardify it
:35:19. > :35:23.and, most importantly, give voters the chance to be heard. That means,
:35:24. > :35:28.don't respond to questions, ask questions. I'm waiting for the
:35:29. > :35:34.political leaders here in this country. Ask your constituents
:35:35. > :35:37.questions, don't just answer them. The more that you hear them, their
:35:38. > :35:41.voice, their emotions, their passion, the better the political
:35:42. > :35:45.person you'll be. All right. Let's leave it there.
:35:46. > :35:49.Today, the Government's commissioner for victims and witnesses, Helen
:35:50. > :35:53.Newlove, publishes her first report on her work to improve the way the
:35:54. > :35:57.criminal justice system treats victims. The Tory peer has ample
:35:58. > :36:03.experience of that system herself. Helen's husband Garry was murdered
:36:04. > :36:08.outside their home by a gang of drunk everyone youths. She says she
:36:09. > :36:11.spent her first year in the job listening to victims, and in the
:36:12. > :36:16.report, she outlines her priorities for the next 12 months. She calls
:36:17. > :36:20.for more research into restorative justice where victims can be brought
:36:21. > :36:23.face-to-face with offenders to tell them how they were affected by a
:36:24. > :36:28.crime. What's more, she says she wants to
:36:29. > :36:33.give make sure victims' views are better heard by the police, courts,
:36:34. > :36:37.prisons and policy-makers. And Helen Newlove, who entered the Lord's in
:36:38. > :36:40.2010, believes more work should be done to improve the current
:36:41. > :36:44.complaints system for victims and, where cases are dealt with out of
:36:45. > :36:49.court, she says the interests of victims should be prioritised. So
:36:50. > :36:55.that's what she wants to see happen. Will the Government listen? Helen
:36:56. > :36:59.joins me now. Wok welcome to the prom. Are you being listened to?
:37:00. > :37:02.Well, I'm not a person that will go away so they have got to listen and
:37:03. > :37:05.if they don't, I can keep challenging them. What's been the
:37:06. > :37:11.response so far to the issued you have raised in this last year? It's
:37:12. > :37:15.become welcoming on some things but on other things not, and the fact
:37:16. > :37:20.that I recently did a victims contact scheme, we are getting
:37:21. > :37:27.better training and giving training better care to victims. I've been to
:37:28. > :37:32.see a section 28 pilot which I have to say was quite good to see, and
:37:33. > :37:38.I'm not on about the politicians here, but the judiciary, the judge
:37:39. > :37:41.was victim-focussed, the defence and prosecution were victim-focussed.
:37:42. > :37:46.That is nice to see, but there's further work to do. You can't fix
:37:47. > :37:50.this overnight and it cannot be a knee-jerk reaction. Victims need to
:37:51. > :37:54.be understood, rehabilitated and we need to work with them, not speak
:37:55. > :37:58.for them. If you surround that your experience and what happened to your
:37:59. > :38:04.husband, what the complaints that you had about the system chimes with
:38:05. > :38:12.what other victims say to you now? Sadly, it does. This is seven years
:38:13. > :38:17.this year that Garry died. So nothing's changed? They have. Nobody
:38:18. > :38:21.recognised victims, they were part of a process but fitted in when it
:38:22. > :38:25.suited them, so we are speaking about victims. Victims are really
:38:26. > :38:28.tired of being asked the same questions time and time again and I
:38:29. > :38:34.say to the Government, how much more do they need to do. So my review as
:38:35. > :38:39.Victim's Commissioner goes to if heart of them, exposes the failings
:38:40. > :38:43.where they are not doing it, makes it quality, independent reports to
:38:44. > :38:48.place before Government for them, they are the law-makers, along with
:38:49. > :38:53.the judiciary, to do something to support victims.
:38:54. > :38:56.So victims treated in a less compassionate way than you would
:38:57. > :39:00.like. Where does the fault lie? It's bad in every organisation, to be
:39:01. > :39:04.federal feckly organisation. I wouldn't blame any specific. An
:39:05. > :39:09.example is, sending a very clinical letter to a victim if you are no
:39:10. > :39:14.going to go ahead with the case, with principal guidelines. That
:39:15. > :39:18.means nothing to everybody. For me, it's about language, put it in a
:39:19. > :39:22.language that they understand, sit with victims to make them understand
:39:23. > :39:25.and better communication doesn't retraumatise victims. The criminal
:39:26. > :39:31.justice testimony is supposed to be there to protect them, not to
:39:32. > :39:35.revictimise them. We have had a barrister on the programme saying,
:39:36. > :39:39.until a case has gone through, people who're under suspicion have a
:39:40. > :39:42.right to be defended and rigorous questioning of potential victims. Do
:39:43. > :39:45.you think that's still fair? If you over protect people in the witness
:39:46. > :39:50.stand, for example, in the witness box, they still need to come under
:39:51. > :39:55.vigorous questioning until a verdict? I would like to have
:39:56. > :40:01.victims to have some protection, never mind over-protection to be
:40:02. > :40:08.honest. In the States over the last ten years we have switched and we
:40:09. > :40:12.use that phrase "victims' rights" and it's not yours or your husband's
:40:13. > :40:17.fault that you happened to be there. The key is to understand the emotion
:40:18. > :40:20.on it. I'm sorry for you loss. Every day, I'm sure that she relives it
:40:21. > :40:26.and that's something that we forget. Just because it was seven years ago,
:40:27. > :40:30.doesn't mean that it goes away. This tragedy is 20 years from now, it
:40:31. > :40:36.will be the same. So how do you make people whole again? And that emotion
:40:37. > :40:40.is what the policy needs to be focussed on. How do you, taking that
:40:41. > :40:44.point, help people, which is what you have had to do, move on with
:40:45. > :40:48.their lives, get over what's happened and, in some cases, as with
:40:49. > :40:52.you, these are dreadful things, life-changing. How can you help
:40:53. > :40:56.victims move on? It's a fair point on the emotion and that's many of
:40:57. > :41:00.the debates I have is emogs is not recognised in the courtroom. But
:41:01. > :41:04.actually, emotion is what's happened to victims and their trauma and you
:41:05. > :41:08.need to support them as they enter the courtroom but also rehabilitate
:41:09. > :41:12.them. Victims want justice, they believe in a right to a fair trial
:41:13. > :41:17.but they also want rehabilitation. We always talk about rehabilitating
:41:18. > :41:20.offenders and it's about time that rehabilitation of victims is
:41:21. > :41:26.paramount to make sure that there's no further victims in our society.
:41:27. > :41:30.Are you a big supporter of bringing perpetrator and victim together in
:41:31. > :41:35.certain cases? I believe it's a victim's choice. That's what I want
:41:36. > :41:40.to look at in more in-depth reviews. It shouldn't be a political
:41:41. > :41:46.strapline. Nobody should jump into it and say it sounds very good. For
:41:47. > :41:50.me, it's what Vic times need. They are vulnerable and traumatised. You
:41:51. > :41:53.need a specialist area, like the doctors. Let them go at that time
:41:54. > :41:59.when they want to digest it and if they want to follow it through, it's
:42:00. > :42:03.a victim's choice, nobody owns an area and it should be for the
:42:04. > :42:06.victims and what they can get, and happy, healthy lives back from it
:42:07. > :42:11.that. 's what's paramount in this, not politicians. Good luck. Thank
:42:12. > :42:15.you very much. If the travel industry is to be believed, 2014
:42:16. > :42:19.will be the year of the staycation and if you are unfamiliar with that
:42:20. > :42:24.particular buzz word, it means a holiday here in the UK, perhaps by
:42:25. > :42:28.the Great British seaside, but no EU standards coming into effect next
:42:29. > :42:31.year could mean many of the beaches could be reclassified as unfit for
:42:32. > :42:37.bathing. We have been beside the seaside in Hastings to find out
:42:38. > :42:41.more. Holiday-makers have been coming to
:42:42. > :42:45.the seaside town of Hastings for generations.
:42:46. > :42:50.And it's no different today with over three million day trippers
:42:51. > :42:55.flocking to the town every year. But, new EU laws could blight one of
:42:56. > :42:59.the town's biggest attractions. The sea.
:43:00. > :43:03.Changes in the way that bathing water quality is measured could
:43:04. > :43:08.strike Hastings and some 50 other English beaches off the list of
:43:09. > :43:11.recommended places to swim. If the impression is given that Hastings
:43:12. > :43:16.Beach is not clean, you may choose toe go somewhere else. For a town
:43:17. > :43:20.that wants visitors in bigger numbers, that could be damaging. The
:43:21. > :43:24.EU standard is what it is and we'll make sure we do everything we can to
:43:25. > :43:29.hit it. Although the sea is clean by current standards, the new EU water
:43:30. > :43:33.quality targets coming into force next year are twice as stringent as
:43:34. > :43:39.those are bathing areas currently have to meet. On a hot day in high
:43:40. > :43:44.summer, this beach will be packed. But, from October 2015, the new EU
:43:45. > :43:49.law means that local authorities will have to display a sign atth
:43:50. > :43:52.advising against swimming if the water quality fails to meet minimum
:43:53. > :43:57.standards. Authorities are working hard to
:43:58. > :44:02.ensure that doesn't happen. Nationally, water companies are
:44:03. > :44:08.investing ?220 million cleaning up Britain's bathing water in the five
:44:09. > :44:13.years to 2015. In Hastings, ?3 million has been spent by Southern
:44:14. > :44:16.Water this year alone with another ?7 million earmarked for next year.
:44:17. > :44:20.We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds over the years improving
:44:21. > :44:25.the bathing water quality right around the coast and, if you go back
:44:26. > :44:29.20 years, less than 50% of the bathing waters past the standard.
:44:30. > :44:31.All the work we are doing and money we are spending should mean we see
:44:32. > :44:36.results next year but I can't guarantee it.
:44:37. > :44:41.So what needs to be done? Well, what we flush away ends up down here.
:44:42. > :44:46.These Victorian sewers in Brighton are similar to those in Hastings
:44:47. > :44:51.where campaigners are re-educating people about what not to put down
:44:52. > :44:56.the drain or flush down the loo. Waste down the toilet will get
:44:57. > :45:01.treated but contaminated run-off from roads and pavements, domestic
:45:02. > :45:04.oil and fats down the drain, or dirty water from wrongly connected
:45:05. > :45:13.pipes will flow directly into the sea. People have been shocked to
:45:14. > :45:18.hear about the new directives, that they were not aware that not all
:45:19. > :45:21.water that is thrown away, not all substances that are thrown down the
:45:22. > :45:26.drain go off to be treated. With just over one year to go, no one is
:45:27. > :45:30.certain that the sea in Hastings is going to be clean enough to meet
:45:31. > :45:34.these rigorous EU standards, this bike knowing that the change has
:45:35. > :45:39.been coming for eight years. Work is underway to address the issues, but
:45:40. > :45:49.we'll all of the effort payoff? -- but, will all of the effort payee --
:45:50. > :45:54.pay off? We're joined by the Green Party
:45:55. > :45:57.leader Natalie Bennett and by the chair of the all-party
:45:58. > :45:59.parliamentary group for all things He's not beside the seaside
:46:00. > :46:06.but he's in our Salford studio. Do you support the new regulations?
:46:07. > :46:09.You have got to support them, they are European mandate, I think of it
:46:10. > :46:15.like this, people go to the seaside, they do not go there to bathe,
:46:16. > :46:20.necessarily, but it will affect tourism to a large extent. Do you
:46:21. > :46:23.support them? Do you think that the Environment Agency said that bathing
:46:24. > :46:29.water in Britain is far cleaner than it was 25 years ago, what more can
:46:30. > :46:31.be done? We are talking abstractly about European standards, I
:46:32. > :46:38.apologise to everyone who is eating lunch but we are talking about two
:46:39. > :46:41.measures of faecal bacteria. Lovely! This is what we are bathing in, we
:46:42. > :46:45.need people to be bathing in healthy water. This is based upon the best
:46:46. > :46:52.signs of what healthy water is, a measure introduced in 2006, we have
:46:53. > :46:56.had plenty of time to react, I feel sorry for small business people who
:46:57. > :47:00.may be affected. But example, it is a lovely place to visit, and I hope
:47:01. > :47:04.that it will meet the standards, but there is a lot of other
:47:05. > :47:07.attractions. When Natalie Bennett puts it like that, in terms of the
:47:08. > :47:10.kind of bacteria you could be coming up against, the ball will feel
:47:11. > :47:14.reassured that coastal communities will have to do their bit to improve
:47:15. > :47:19.the standard of cleanliness in the water. Most council communities have
:47:20. > :47:24.been doing that for a long time, to put it into perspective, between the
:47:25. > :47:28.wars, they would bring battleships to the jetty of my constituency,
:47:29. > :47:34.people were bathing in oil, and all kinds of stuff! That was when
:47:35. > :47:41.tourism was at its height. We are in a different world altogether. --
:47:42. > :47:47.most people will feel reassured. I think that these your chips -- I
:47:48. > :47:51.think that these yardsticks are probably a little too Draconian,
:47:52. > :47:56.however, having clean water, good clean water, is never a bad thing.
:47:57. > :48:02.You represent Morecambe, would you say that the beaches in your area
:48:03. > :48:07.are clean or dirty? My beaches are clean in my area. Quite recently we
:48:08. > :48:16.have had a new measurement on our beaches, and two of my beaches have
:48:17. > :48:20.just failed. These EU mandates are getting more stringent all of the
:48:21. > :48:25.time. How clean does it really have to be? How clean does it have to be,
:48:26. > :48:31.we saw in that film, the effect that this is going to have on tourism, if
:48:32. > :48:37.you have got signs saying, "unfit for bathing, do not swim". That is
:48:38. > :48:41.going to harm the British tourist industry at the seaside. We have got
:48:42. > :48:45.to do what we are balancing your, a business cost, health of people
:48:46. > :48:51.exposing themselves to the sea water. Is there a big health risk.
:48:52. > :48:55.Yes, that is what faecal bacteria will do, I was reading the brief,
:48:56. > :48:59.preparing for this, reading the website, and there are suggestions
:49:00. > :49:04.that if you go surfing in certain areas, surfers, not bathers, talk to
:49:05. > :49:09.your doctor about having a hepatitis A vaccination! We do not want to be
:49:10. > :49:15.there! We want to be able to go into water anywhere in Britain. We really
:49:16. > :49:19.must ask, given that this came in in 2006, privatised water companies,
:49:20. > :49:22.this is one more example of where the model of privatisation has not
:49:23. > :49:29.delivered. We have seen improvements but we could have gone much further,
:49:30. > :49:35.much better. Answer that one. I disagree, in my constituency we have
:49:36. > :49:40.an outlet with United Utilities, spending millions, I am fighting
:49:41. > :49:45.them putting an outlet near a populated area in my constituency. I
:49:46. > :49:51.know that they are spending copious amounts of money to address this, to
:49:52. > :49:57.say that it is privatised industry is a fallacy. How come you have not
:49:58. > :50:04.done more, not you, specifically, how come more has not been done when
:50:05. > :50:11.you have had a number of years to deal with it? The regulation is
:50:12. > :50:16.going more and more stringent, it is going up rather than down, or even
:50:17. > :50:18.levelling out, what we are experiencing here is European Union
:50:19. > :50:20.bureaucracy going crazy as usual, how clear does the water have to be?
:50:21. > :50:20.bureaucracy going crazy as usual, I went into my local United
:50:21. > :50:21.Utilities plant, over this discrepancy of a new tube going near
:50:22. > :50:24.a populated area, they showed me what it comes in as and what it goes
:50:25. > :50:28.out as. It was fit to drink. If it is of that standard, do we still
:50:29. > :50:36.have two carry on looking for clean and clear waters? We will ask a
:50:37. > :50:44.visitor to the country. -- do we still have two carry on looking for
:50:45. > :50:49.clean and clear waters? Your water is too cold! With all due respect, I
:50:50. > :50:54.am going to swim in Florida! California! It is too cold here, but
:50:55. > :50:58.what I would say, you can have a healthy economy and healthy water,
:50:59. > :51:01.and we have the right to expect both. That is what the British
:51:02. > :51:07.population would say, the air they breathe should not make them sick,
:51:08. > :51:10.the water in which they swim should not make them ill, and there has got
:51:11. > :51:18.to be a focus upon what it does to the economy in the local area.
:51:19. > :51:24.Nothing short of that is acceptable. You are going to have to heat up the
:51:25. > :51:25.water to get Frank in! What about the environmental impact? LAUGHTER
:51:26. > :51:32.That is for another day. Now here
:51:33. > :51:34.at the Daily Politics we give you Of course we do! But TV channels in
:51:35. > :51:49.Britain are by law obliged to be That's not the case in the States,
:51:50. > :51:53.where cable channels are allowed to trumpet their highly charged
:51:54. > :51:54.and partisan views. Our guest of the day is
:51:55. > :52:09.a regular contributor to one Lets see what the American people
:52:10. > :52:15.had to say about that clip. SHOUTING One at a time! Can I ask you a
:52:16. > :52:24.question, seriously, is this going to be the level of discourse over
:52:25. > :52:29.the next two years? Yes! Macro shouting point well taken... That
:52:30. > :52:32.was not presidential... Macro SHOUTING
:52:33. > :52:40.Warrants stop worrying about what the other person do, we have got to
:52:41. > :52:46.come together! No, no, no! -- stop worrying about what the other person
:52:47. > :52:51.do! We are going to stop this conversation now! I am glad that you
:52:52. > :52:58.were in charge! I lost control. It is difficult! That was one of your
:52:59. > :53:05.focus groups from 2010, when President Obama had accused the
:53:06. > :53:10.Republicans of being hostage-takers over negotiations about tax cuts.
:53:11. > :53:13.And we're joined by Medhi Hasan from the Huffington Post website, he's
:53:14. > :53:15.also a presenter on al-Jazeera's English language channel
:53:16. > :53:19.It is more polarised. Except that in Congress, we would never do what you
:53:20. > :53:22.do in Parliament! I was Congress, we would never do what you
:53:23. > :53:25.Margaret Thatcher, her final speech, somebody
:53:26. > :53:30.Margaret Thatcher, her final "hypocrite! ". She is sitting down,
:53:31. > :53:34.her last speech, somebody screams out. We would never do that in
:53:35. > :53:37.Congress. But our public is more polarised. At least in Congress we
:53:38. > :53:43.do not scream and holler at each other. Does it help political
:53:44. > :53:50.debate, to have parties and shows like Fox News, does it help the
:53:51. > :53:54.level of discourse or do you end up with a screaming match? Before I
:53:55. > :53:59.come to that, to take this point, when President Obama gave the state
:54:00. > :54:07.of the union, a Republican shouted out "liar back Tory" and many would
:54:08. > :54:13.argue that this is part of a new level of unprecedented polarisation.
:54:14. > :54:21.One person, one time. -- a Republican shouted out "liar! "
:54:22. > :54:24.Americans are deciding where to live and who to marry and who to make
:54:25. > :54:29.friends with on the basis of what they believe, I think... Fox News
:54:30. > :54:33.and talk radio is not the sole cause of it but it would be mad to think
:54:34. > :54:36.that it does not feed into it, the idea the news channels are under no
:54:37. > :54:42.obligation to give you the other side of the argument, they spew out
:54:43. > :54:47.one-sided use all day long in order to generate heat rather than light.
:54:48. > :54:50.I was in the States the last time, when Obama care was being discussed
:54:51. > :54:54.and debated, I watched with interest, and a lot of British
:54:55. > :55:01.people thought, my goodness, why is there so much vitriol? We take it so
:55:02. > :55:05.seriously, the promise, we do seek out information, to affirm us,
:55:06. > :55:11.rather than inform us. I think that is a fundamental challenge. The
:55:12. > :55:15.issue, we do not know enough, we do not learn enough, we do not read
:55:16. > :55:21.enough. We do not watch enough. I work for Fox News, I will admit, I
:55:22. > :55:27.watch an hour or two of MSNBC, I want to know what everybody is
:55:28. > :55:31.saying. And what they are saying. There was an academic study a couple
:55:32. > :55:35.of years ago which found that people who watch Fox News are less informed
:55:36. > :55:39.about MST news in America than people who watch no news whatsoever!
:55:40. > :55:46.People who watch the daily show were better informed! We have done the
:55:47. > :55:51.same kind of research, and the Fox News viewer knew more. Did they know
:55:52. > :55:58.more are all a more engaged? Are they more passionate? Do they know
:55:59. > :56:03.more? You work for Huffington Post, not exactly mainstream media... It
:56:04. > :56:06.is the biggest new site in America, but the point about television era,
:56:07. > :56:11.it is regulated differently, but in America, elevating channels, there
:56:12. > :56:16.is no difference between comment and news. -- television channel. His
:56:17. > :56:23.papers are far more balanced here. And they are self regulated. --
:56:24. > :56:28.newspapers are far more balanced here. Would it be better if
:56:29. > :56:33.television was like it was in America? This did not help the level
:56:34. > :56:40.of public discourse, it does not help information, the vast majority
:56:41. > :56:43.of the British public want impartial news. We know that everybody is
:56:44. > :56:47.turned off from politics, disengaged, if we made it more
:56:48. > :56:50.entertaining? Why should we encourage mistrust by saying what
:56:51. > :56:56.you are getting is not necessarily both sides of the argument? Looking
:56:57. > :57:01.at Al Jazeera, is it impossible for a news organisation to be completely
:57:02. > :57:05.impartial? Surely there is always an agenda? There is no such thing as
:57:06. > :57:08.pure impartiality, but I think the point that would be made by Al
:57:09. > :57:11.Jazeera, and I present a show for them, but they would say that they
:57:12. > :57:15.give a different view on the world, it is the first global news channel
:57:16. > :57:20.not based in the West, for example. In this country, Al Jazeera English
:57:21. > :57:23.is regulated by off, full to their is the obligation to you
:57:24. > :57:28.impartiality which was dropped in the late 1980s by America, and it
:57:29. > :57:34.has been a disaster for the US. It is rich... For someone coming from
:57:35. > :57:37.your perspective... To condemn America. I will be the first to say
:57:38. > :57:43.there is issued, but I will defend what they do because our newspapers
:57:44. > :57:48.are far less biased. We are talking about television. The problem is the
:57:49. > :57:53.web, just read the comments section, go to Huffington Post, whoever is
:57:54. > :57:57.watching... For one day, go to the website and read the comments... It
:57:58. > :58:03.is the most personal, vicious, horrific commentary in politics. You
:58:04. > :58:07.are talking about the comments below the line, every news organisation
:58:08. > :58:14.has those, every newspaper. It does not make it right. But in America,
:58:15. > :58:20.Fox News encourages that on the air! That is enough for the moment! We
:58:21. > :58:24.have got to be proud of the BBC. I am!
:58:25. > :58:27.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:28. > :58:31.to a new academic study, which of these books are readers
:58:32. > :58:34.Is it: a, Capital, by the French economist Thomas Piketty?
:58:35. > :58:35.b, Hilary Clinton's memoir Hard Choices?
:58:36. > :58:38.or c, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time
:58:39. > :58:51.I think that it is D, daily politics! LAUGHTER
:58:52. > :58:57.I have already read on Twitter, it is capital! You cheated!