17/05/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Nigel Farage raises the prospect of a second EU referendum

if there's a close result on June 23rd -

Are saying there would be resentment from Conservatives that

David Cameron had not been playing fairly.

David Cameron launches another attack on Leave campaigners -

accusing them of being vague about the economic impact

We'll have all the latest from the referendum campaign.

The Queen travels to Westminster tomorrow to officially open

and outline the government's legislative plans.

And a new play celebrates the political life of

Screaming Lord Sutch - the founder and leader

We'll talk to the playwright and the party's current leader.

and with us for the whole of the programme today

the former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard.

Let's kick off with Theresa May's speech

to the Police Federation this morning.

In the past the Home Secretary has had a rocky relationship

with the organisation that represents rank-and file officers

after being booed in 2012 and last year accusing them

and commended the police for "doing a fantastic job"

six years ago, I stood on this platform and address due for the

first time. On each occasion since then, I've talked about the

wide-ranging programme of reform I've put in place since becoming

Home Secretary. A programme which, let's face it, you haven't always

agreed with and at times have resisted. But, six years on, British

policing has changed substantially for the better. We've overhauled

inadequate institutions and systems, reduced excessive bureaucracy and

inadequate institutions and systems, replaced a centralised model of

inadequate institutions and systems, governance with democratic

accountability. That sounded governance with democratic

and calm. What happened to the usual confrontation? The Home Secretary

was right to talk about the progress that's been made over the last six

years. She and they have both done an extremely good job. As the police

forced changed since she became Home Secretary? She has been there a long

time. She has. And I think it has changed for the better. The

reputation of the police has been dented by Hillsborough, for example.

That's true, and it dented by Hillsborough, for example.

it is something that has to be addressed and is being addressed

either affirms the Home Secretary to about. Although the Police

Federation have talked about about. Although the Police

fact that Hillsborough doesn't make for good legislation. Do they have

fact that Hillsborough doesn't make point? It depends on what they are

talking about and what legislation you have in mind. I have

talking about and what legislation in the Home Secretary and don't

think she in the Home Secretary and don't

legislation that isn't extremely well considered. We will have to see

what she has. Plans like pensions being stripped from certain

officers. Do you think these are things that should be strengthened

if police are found to have behaved badly? I'm going to wait and see

what the Home Secretary comes up with and I will give you my view

them. After the event. The Police Federation of England and Wales

claimed a national shortage of armed police leaves Britain vulnerable to

terror attacks. Do use the pies with them? Of course. It is a serious

situation and I'm sure the Home Secretary will take it seriously. --

do you sympathise? In the time when the terror alert for, for example,

Irish Republican has been strengthened, does it make it a bad

time for that? She needs to look at some of the guidance which exists

which means that being a firearms officer is a perilous job to half

because of the outcry that often occurs when firearms have to be

used, sometimes justifiably but not always. I don't think it is just a

question of money. If we wanted more armed officers, there would have to

be more money spent. No. It is a question of how many police officers

want to become the offices that have the special training that enables

them to become armed officers. That is part of the problem. We will

leave it there. The spymasters at GCHQ

in Cheltenham are on a mission to open up to the public,

so our question for today is, what have they done to try

to improve their image? b) Enter Robert Hannigan,

the Director of GCHQ, as a contestent

on Strictly Come Dancing as their new director

of communications. At the end of the show, Michael

will give us the correct answer. It's been a busy morning

on the referendum campaign trail - with both sides taking

potshots at each other. First up, Nigel Farage -

who told BBC Breakfast he thought there might be calls for a second

referendum if the result puts Remain I think we are going win

this referendum. Because there's far more passion

on the Leave side of the argument. Leave voters are much more likely,

on June 23rd, to go down to the local

primary school and vote. If we were to lose, narrowly,

which I don't believe we will, if we were, then what I can see

is a large section, particularly in the Conservative Party,

who feel the Prime Minister is not playing fair,

that the Remain side are using way more money

than the Leave side and there would be, you know,

a resentment that would build up if that

was to be the result. Having said that, I still think

Leave is going to win. Next came the Shadow

Chancellor John McDonnell, whose speech had been billed

as the progressive case He defended immigration into the UK

and accused Brexit campaigners of It's the Tories who enacted a

top-down reorganisation of our NHS, It's the Tories cuts

to our schools budgets, It's not the fault of

Polish fruit pickers or Latvian care workers that

house-building is at its lowest in It's the Tory failure

to build more homes. We don't blame the people

who work in our public services and make

such a valuable contribution to our economy and society for the state

of those public services and we won't give an inch

to the anti-migrant rubbish of some of those

campaigning for Brexit. And in the last hour

the Prime Minister has also been making a set-piece speech -

arguing that a vote to leave the EU We heard it from the Bank

of England, from the OECD, from the IMF, the Treasury,

from the Office for Budget Responsibility

and many others besides. I think, when very respected

organisations are saying, as clearly as they are,

that output would be lower, growth would be less,

unemployment would be higher, prices would be higher, we would see

a hit to living standards, that there is a very clear consensus

that leaving the EU would have not just a short-term affect

on confidence and investment and growth, but actually would

have a longer-term affect as well. We've been joined by the leader

of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron. We'll talk about this morning's

interventions in a moment, but first let's discuss the front

page of this morning's Daily Mail whose headline is "Exposed -

Cameron's EU Sham". Suggesting that David Cameron was

planning his campaign to remain in the EU even before he'd signed off

on his EU reform deal. Boris Johnson was asked about this as he left

number ten after attending the political Cabinet meeting where he

compared the stitch up to like the buyer tapestry, in typically

colourful language. David Cameron was choreographic elements of the

remain campaign when he was still negotiating with each new leaders,

so the story goes. So what? I don't know if there is any truth in the

story. The important thing that the renegotiation that the Prime

Minister wanted to achieve, fundamental and far-reaching reform

of the EU didn't happen. It's hardly mentioned now in the debate. No one

pretends that the reforms that he obtained in the renegotiation where

anything like what he wanted, anything like what he originally set

out to. Is that because you feel he was already committed to remain and

never thought about leaving? I don't know what was in his innermost

thoughts. He genuinely set out to achieve far-reaching reform. It's

not his fault he didn't achieve it. It is the blindness of European

leaders who didn't recognise the need for reform. But the story

claims that he was not out to get the best deal, he was already

setting out his campaign to remain. He was planning on that basis. That

was what the renegotiation was based on. I think he tried to get the

fundamental and far-reaching reform he wanted but he failed. So this

idea of being a stitch up isn't true? I don't want to get involved

in that argument. Objectively, what we can all do is look at the results

of the re-negotiation and, frankly, they didn't amount to very much. In

terms of the claims that it is a stitch up, it does feed the idea,

Tim Farren, that you and the others are lining up the establishment to

browbeat the public into remaining. I think this is a nonstory.

Britain's best interests are in remaining in the European Union. The

fact that businesses large and small are lining up saying that we would

be foolish to leave the European Union, a massive risk to our economy

would have been the case before the re-negotiation and clearly is now.

It is not browbeating anyone. If you're going to make the biggest

collective political decision in our lifetime, it is important to have

the facts. Those people who understand how the economy works and

who employ the bulk of people in this country, it is right that their

voices are heard. Doesn't it prove that the renegotiation was a

cosmetic exercise? That is for the Prime Minister to answer. I don't

think it matters too many people beyond the Westminster echo chamber.

Beyond there, people are thinking are we more secure, are we better

off, are we better off with our friends and neighbours in these

dangerous times or are we better off isolated? Isn't it true that your

side has lost the economic argument? Not at all. The only thing that you

can say is that the forecasts would be wrong. They are all right. I

can't say with any certainty that those who support our side of the

argument are going to be right. We don't know.

argument are going to be right. We wrong. What we do know is that many

of the large organisations that are urging us to stay,

of the large organisations that are like Tim, were the

of the large organisations that are cheerleaders for our joining the

euro. And they could not have been more wrong. Tim could not have been

the people who got it so wrong when there was the important issue to

decide of joining the euro? Has that damaged your credibility? When you

listen to people like the CBI, people who are often dismissed by

people on Michael's side of the argument, people who say it is a

great establishment conspiracy, all forecasts are approximations but we

do know that if we remain in the European Union we retain

do know that if we remain in the single market which is worth ?78

billion per year to our economy. 3 million jobs depend in large part on

the trade with that economy. If we go outside, all that is at risk. We

could still have access, though. That figure is rubbish. It is the

CBI figure. The CBI were wrong about the euro. There is a lot of money

and lots of jobs that depend on our continuing to trade with the

European Union. Inside or outside the European market?

European Union. Inside or outside outside we will be able to trade

with the European Union just as we trade with other countries in the

world, even if we are outside the single market. It is ridiculous to

suggest that the Germans are not going to want to sell as BMWs, the

French are not going to want to sell as cheese and wine, in order for

that to happen, we will have a perfectly sensible trading

relationship. At a cost. The economic argument has been difficult

to find institutions to line up and support your side, do you think an

immigration it is a stronger card? Let's emphasise the fact that we had

hundreds of businessmen writing to the Daily Telegraph yesterday saying

they could create more jobs if we leave the European Union. I don't

accept that we have lost the argument. What about immigration?

Referendum is not about the level of immigration. That is that's what

some people think it is B It is about who should decide the level.

The levels could be the same I think there are people in our country who

think the current levels are fine, there are people who don't. I think

we should be able to argue it out n this country and decide in this

country and at the moment, while we are in the European Union, we have

no control. We don't make the decisions. That message is cutting

through, isn't T even if you could argue that you maybe stronger on the

economic Melsage, immigration, which is important to many people, is

not... When you examine the issue, immigration does not work as an

argument for the leave side for two years, fist, there are roughly 2

million EU citizens working and living in the UK and there are #

million living and working elsewhere in the European Union. It is

neutral. The second thing is Dan Hammond, Conservative MEP leaver

pointed o ut this morning if you are part of the European free trade

area, we would still be subject to the EU's rules when it comes to

movement and border of labour. And if we leave the European Union and

have access to the single market as Michael wants us to do it. ' Cost us

probably as much as it does to be in the EU, we will have no more. If you

want to lose sovereignty, you leave the EU I'm not sure about

immigration being neutral, for the Leave campaign in terms of polling.

It is a reality. There are as many people in the EU here... That is

besides the point. And I don't believe, if we vote to leave, that

we will sign up to any arrangement or agreement which with continue to

deprive us of our right to dewho should come into this country and

who shouldn't. -- right to decide. What about nighing ale Farage's

comments, that there could be a second referendum. Do you support

that? No, I think it is a once in a lifetime time to decide the future

and we have to accept it. Even if it is really close, a whisker either

way? The result of the Welsh referendum on devolution was as

close as you could possibly get. Look at the Scottish independence

question. That has come around again. Well it hasn't. It hasn't and

it may well not. I don't believe it will, actually. So it hasn't come

around again. Well the discussion on it has. Well, you can have

discussions. They said it would be settled for a generation You can

have discussions for as long as it takes for the cows to come home. I

think we have to September result of the referendum. I hope everybody

will, however close. Well, Michael Howard says he hopes it will be

accepted by everybody but let's say it is only a Is withker for Remain,

wouldn't there be legitimate calls then for it to be run a second time

by, certainly Conservatives, perhaps not Michael Howard, but many of his

colleagues who wanted snout I'm sure it'll fester in the Conservative

Party, especially for many years to come. -- who wanted out? But as far

as the electorate is concerned, it is a once? A generation to express

our views r we getter off in, together with colleagues and

friends, protecting our security, jobs and economy or isolated and on

our own and less powerful. Once the decision is made we have to stick

with it. You say we have to stick with it. We ought to abide by it.

But if the accusations are that the Government hasn't set out a level

playing field, particularly with money spent on campaign leaflets,

would there be an argument to fuel calls for a second referendum.

Im'sure those in the Conservative Party won't shut up if we vote to

remain. What about Boris Johnson. Look carefully at what he says. I z

he talked about Napoleon. He was talking about the various attempts

over made over the centuries to unite the countries of Europe. It

was an entirely accurate historical annal sichls he is a great asset A

very -- analysis. He is a great asset. A popular figure and putting

the case in his own fashion. Even Donald tusk argues - when I hear the

EU being compared it the plans and projects of Adolf Hitler I can't

remain silent. It wasn't. He probably didn't read boys's speech.

I don't think it is a fair characterisation of the speech. --

Boris' speech. He is probably such a big character he is probably pulling

a lot of vote e if you look how well he polled, very difficult. I don't

want to get into a battle of personalities. I I share the

frustration, if the debate becomes a blue on blue, slug fest between two

guy who is went to the same school it'll not give people any idea of

the real issues for and against. It is why we need it xt issues, a tough

decision with huge risks. -- examine the issues. The British people want

those answers, not a schoolboy knock B

Thank you. -- knock about. The referendum campaign

has been pretty bruising for the Conservative Party -

with fellow Conservatives trading blows and at times using some

fruity language against each other. So it the issue tearing

the party apart? If we vote to Leave on 23rd June,

we will be voting for higher prices. It is a great grotesque

patronising and proposterous Peter

Mandelsonion conceit, that imagines that the people

of this country are mere children, capable of being frightened into

obedience by conjuring up new bogey The next thing we know the Leave

camp will be accusing us of faking the moon landings,

kidnapping Shergar and covering up the existence of the

Loch Ness Monster. There are certain problems that

are caused by EU membership but of Her arguments are enough to persuade

me to vote Leave and should be enough to persuade most

people to vote Leave. # Love, love will tear

us apart again # If we left the EU, we would face

more regulations and be in double whammy of EU regulations

and UK regulations. You see these kind of Downing Street

hostage videos, these people coming Knickers to the pessimists -

how about that? # Love, love will tear

us apart again...# Yet another example of that fraughty

language, courtesy of Boris Johnson. Let's talk post of EU referendum. 37

days to go. If only it was coming a little

quicker. The disappointment for the losing side, whichever side it is,

will have bred such resentment and bitterness. How will both sides of

the Conservative Party come together? Well we have to. We have

to get together because the Conservative Party has to form the

Government of our country, for at least the next four years and given

the current state of the Labour Party, probably for much longer than

that and so we have to come together and we will. Really? How do you

know? Let's look back in history, post Maastricht and John Major,

those sides never forgave each other,

those sides never forgave each resolved It was very different. Why

different? It was the same issue? It was different,

different? It was the same issue? It was still a lot of bitterness

different? It was the same issue? It the way in which Margaret Thatcher

was turned out of office and that really had a huge affect which ran

through to the post-Maastricht situation. We haven't got anything

like that? Haven't you, there will be bitterness about this

like that? Haven't you, there will playing field, accusations chucked

around. There are lots of accusations being thrown about on

both sides during the accusations being thrown about on

referendum debate. When it is over, on June 24th, we simply have to come

together. I would expect - whatever the result - - there is a lot of

talk about the Prime Minister having a Cabinet reshuffle. I would expect

him to have a new Cabinet which gave big jobs to people on the other side

of the argument, from him. So, big jobs to people on the other side

of the really key job, Chancellor? I don't know what. I will not get into

the game of constructing the Cabinet. We've go the time. But he

will recognise the need to unite the party and I think the Cabinet will

reflect the different strands of opinion within the country, as

indeed it does now. What about if Leave, if your side wins, do you

still hold to the belief that David Cameron can continue as Prime

Minister? Yes, I do. Look, we are going to have some challenges in

front of us, if we vote to Leave. I think that challenge we can easily

deal with. But the last thing we would want in that situation is the

distraction of a Tory leadership campaign. So, David Cameron has said

he will stay. I think he should stay and I think he will stay. But will

your colleagues, Conservative colleagues, who have campaigned so

vociferously, to Leave like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, would they

really sit down and accept David Cameron as Prime Minister,

negotiating out? Well, I'm sure they would. And I what I imagine David

Cameron would do in that situation, I haven't discussed it with him, I

don't know what is in his mind but what I would imagine he would do is

select someone to conduct the negotiations, who had been arguing

to Leave. That would be a sensible thing to do. We have heard from

Boris Johnson, just today, he has accused the Prime Minister of a

stitch-up in terms of planning and choreographing the Remain side with

the big corporations as being the biggest stitch-up since the Bayu,

tapestry. Priti Patel, look likened them to the three wise monkeys, hear

no immigration, see no immigration, and speak no immigration And George

Osborne yesterday accused us of being fantacists. There will be a

coming together on June 24th. There has to be. You stha with fingers

crossed rather than belief in terms of what is possible. I say it with

total belief and confidence. I mean, divided parties, as you know, do not

inspire confidence with the electorate. What about the damage

being done, right now, with a divided party? Well, we will have

power years to put that right and to come together again and to govern

the country in the interests of the country. That's what the

Conservative Party is always good at.

Tomorrow is the State Opening of Parliament, which marks the start

The highlight the day will be the Queen's Speech.

It's the biggest of Parliamentary occasions and begins

with a Royal procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.

But what political hand luggage is the Queen tipped to be bringing

Although the Queen will read it out, her speech is actually written

by the Government and sets out the laws that the Government hopes

to get approved by Parliament over the coming year.

In it, she's expected to announce changes to the care system -

including greater support for young people leaving care and speeding

There'll also be changes to education in England -

to allow more schools to become academies,

encourage new non-profit and commercial companies to open

private universities, and allow some universities

Some of the big education ideas are being carried over to prisons - with

a plan to give powers for "reform prisons" to take over failing jails,

in a similar manner to school academy chains.

There'll be a crackdown on extremists - stopping them

working with children and the vulnerable by including

extremism offences on criminal record checks.

There could also be steps towards a new Bill of Rights,

which would replace the Human Rights Act.

The Queen will also announce changes to the powers of the Upper Chamber,

limiting the Lords' ability to block legislation and finally there'll be

some futuristic transport plans, with legislation on insuring

driverless cars and the creation of Britain's first spaceport.

And Daniel Thornton, from the Institute of Government,

joining us now to talk about the Government's

And the challenges of getting it through. Welcome. Is one of the

biggest problems the backdrop of the EU referendum? It is certainly

causing some problems. The other issues to bear in mind is the fact

that the Government has a working majority of 17 and no majority at

all in the House of Lords. It is trying to balance the budget by

2020, so there is pretedy significant public spending cuts

under way and there are far-reaching reforms in a number of public

services. So, all these three things together make for a pretty

challenging backdrop for the Government. Which legislative ideas

are going to be the priorities? Well, I think the headlines will be

probably taken by the extremism proposals, tackling terrorism and so

on. But, for the institute for Government, the most interesting

issue is the sort of intersection of the austerity in public services and

the far-reaching reforms that round way and some of the signs of strain

we are seeing. So, what we are saying, is that the Government

really needs to prioritise and recognise the zrients it faces and

be realistic about what it can achieve by when. This isn't just the

Institute that is saying this. The Government's employed a lot of

business people to help it run the Government. There is a lot of senior

business people brought in. They have a pretty consistent MissAge for

the Government. That is - prioritise F you are working in a big private

sector company, the Chief Executive focuses on a small of things and

make sure they are done properly. The Government is committed to a

wide range of changes, as well as reducing the budgets in a number of

services. Do you think it is just not workable. Their plans, as you

are putting t ambitious plans for further austerity or zrients on

public sector reform r they not workable? It will be challenging. --

austerity or restraints. It will be cuts, and it will be ut

can by 22% up to 2020. Much of the reductions will fall on the prisons.

And, you know, we have seen an increase in violence in prisons, as

a cross of had party committee was saying on Monday. So, there are

warning signs from so. Public services. If you try and do a big

reorganisation at the same time as the sfs is under strain, you are not

necessarily going to achieve your objectives. -- at the same time as

the service is under strain. It is welcome that Michael Gove has said

he will be publishing draft legislation on prison, to give

Parliament a chance to consider the proposals carefully. Thank you very

much. We have been joined by the shadow Leader of the House of

Commons, Chris Bryant. Welcome back. Those warning signs that our

previous guest has talked about, do you recognise those that the public

sector in certain areas will be put under too much strain - we'll

discuss prisons later, but actually what will happen is the situation

will get worse and people will be in Putting in place the programme to

put things back in shape and in order is full of challenges. So far,

the government has risen to those challenges and will continue to do

so. I'm a great supporter of publishing proposals in draft

legislation so Parliament has the opportunity to look at them and

consider them and I'm delighted to hear that Michael Gove is planning

to do that in relation to prisons. You say that the Tories have risen

to the challenge but there is a long list of legislation that are being

scrutinised or defeated because they haven't been thought through, so say

the opposition, also your own side, tax credit cards, child refugees,

trade union legislation, housing. They haven't risen to the challenge.

They've been trying to push through bad legislation. Most of the defeats

in the House of Lords have come from the fact that the Tories don't have

a majority in the house of Lords and have been outvoted. There have been

times when the government has been asked to think again and has fought

again. It is a listening government. The house of Lords

again. It is a listening government. happening in the Commons? First, I

don't think you should be able to read out a list of what's

don't think you should be able to Queens speech tomorrow. Parliament

should hear about it first tomorrow. This is just what has been in the

papers. Already announced in the papers and briefed out. That's

naughty. I don't think the government is dealing

naughty. I don't think the economic situation in this country.

They've missed every target in terms of debt, cutting the deficit. One of

the reasons is because often in their anti-austerity measures,

they've cut off our noses to spite our face. They have public services

which simply can't cope. One of the good things the government might

want to do tomorrow is around children in care. You can't do that

with local authorities that are pared back to the bone, in

particular in the toughest areas. I feel most angry about Tory MPs who

rebel getting more money to the richest authorities in the land

while the poorest get cut more. I don't think we should have a Queen

's speech tomorrow at all. It should be after the referendum. It will be

candy floss with a nasty taste afterwards. The key point is that

they are going to cut back the house of Lords because they are terrified

that they lose bad legislation all the time. Pick up on your main

point. The thrust of Chris Bryant's argument about whether austerity has

been counter-productive. You are pushing public services so hard that

you won't be able to do the things you want to do. It hasn't been

counter-productive. We had to do it. We had to bring the nation's

finances back into order. The debt hasn't disappeared yet. We haven't

achieved everything but we are making a huge amount of progress

towards achieving that difficult objective. Let's look for a point of

agreement between Chris and I. We think Wales is a good country. We

do. I absolutely agree about the importance of the measures to do

with children in care, young people in care. I think they are overdue.

It is something that should have been tackled a long time ago. I

think you will find that the proposals are such that they will be

Cape ball of being put in place without putting undue burdens on

local authorities. The undue burden is already there on local

authorities. That is my argument. One of the dangers in the economy at

the moment. Two major pressures, house prices. I suspect there will

be nothing that will help build more homes which we desperately need. For

instance, I'd like to see an end to the hoarding of land by big

developers. It is perfectly easy to legislate on that. Secondly,

productivity in this country is falling way behind other countries

in Europe. There should be measures in the Queens speech tomorrow to

enhance skills. There is a Digital economy Bill, hurrah, well overdue.

Let's talk about the EU backdrop, in terms of productivity, for example.

As a result of the referendum, everything is on hold. Businesses

aren't making decisions. Legislation is being tailored to wait for the

referendum. It has been an almighty destruction. If the government had

taken Chris's advice and postponed the Queens speech until after the

referendum, you would have said everything was on hold. That's not

the question. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have it after the

referendum? The government has to get on with running the country and

that is why we are having a Queens speech. It is not true to say that

everything has been put on hold. Nice try. We are only sitting for 16

days in the next six weeks. We should be waiting until after them

to have proper Queens speech with a proper programme in it and say that

everything is on hold? On the house of lords, Chris Bryant talked about

proposals to clip the wings of the House of Lords, is that going to be

supported? There is a problem. The House of Lords has a very important

constitutional role to scrutinise legislation and send it back to the

House of Commons to think again. No one argues with that. But when the

House of Lords does it again, again and again. Even when the house has

considerable majorities and they have looked again and thought again

and they want to do it, the House of Lords is overstepping the mark if it

keeps sending things back. On manifesto commitments. If Labour

were in government, pushing through a radical programme of reform, being

stopped by the House of Lords every five minutes you'd be furious. I

respect Michael's position more if he had said this when the Tories had

a majority in the House of Lords under a Labour government and

smashed our legislation all over the place. We always respected manifesto

commitments. What about the commitment to get rid of all

hereditary peers? You did get rid of them. There are still 92 of them

with by-elections. It's bizarre. One thing that is dangerous is the

government using secondary legislation which only gets 90

minutes debates if the government allows it and is an amendable to

push through enormous changes like working tax credits last year. That

is what they are trying to stop the House of Lords doing. I think the

House of Lords is within its rights not to let those through. Secondly

to say we're never going to allow secondary legislation provisions in

primary legislation. I think the government is working in dangerous

territory. At the end, the House of Lords needs reform. It should be

elected. It is a nonsense. It is unsustainable. There will be as many

as the Chinese People's assembly soon. Thank you, Chris Bryant.

You may remember that last week the Welsh Assembly failed to choose

a new First Minister, after Plaid Cymru, UKIP

and the Welsh Conservatives joined forces to block the Labour Leader,

So are the parties any nearer to a deal?

Let's get the latest from the BBC Wales Political

So, tell ours. There have been talks between Labour and Plaid Cymru to

break the deadlock. By way of background, this time last week,

roughly this time last week, there was a vote to nominate the next

First Minister and we expected it to be a formality because Labour are by

far the biggest party in the assembly after the assembly

election. But what happened was that Plaid Cymru's leader Leanne Wood

challenged Carwyn Jones in that vote and she had the support of Ukip and

the Conservatives which meant she had the numbers to get to 29 and we

were left with a situation where Carwyn Jones the Labour leader and

Leanne Wood had 29 votes each and there was stalemate. The back of

that, and Plaid Cymru have had talks to break the deadlock. We had a

statement last night saying that the talks were over they have gone very

well. This morning, they have been putting whatever deal has been

agreed to their respected Labour and Plaid Cymru assembly members. The

Labour meeting has finished. We have not had any official feedback yet. I

met a couple of assembly members who had smiles on their faces saying

everything went fine. Whatever was presented to them, they clearly, the

ones I've been speaking to, don't have a problem with it. The Plaid

Cymru group meeting is still going on so we will have to wait to see

what has been put to them before we get an official response. Once we

get the response from the two parties, we will get a joint state

and and it will be all zest and scale. Is this on the First Minister

or an Coalition Government in Wales? -- all systems go. It will not be

for a Coalition Government. -- all systems go. It will not be

expect the nomination vote will be held again, this time without the

expect the nomination vote will be drama, we expect. We expect Carwyn

Jones to be officially drama, we expect. We expect Carwyn

First Minister. During the rest of the week he will be

First Minister. During the rest of cabinet together and by the weekend,

administration. These two cabinet together and by the weekend,

have been in coalition in the past, this time, it will be a minority

Administration. An attempt to get some degree of stability to get

budgets and legislation through. The issue of prisoner safety has

been looked at in two new major reports -

one by the Commons Justice Select Committee, another by the BBC -

which found that there is a 20% increase in assaults

in the last six six months drugs and weapons being smuggled

into jails has more than doubled Some even by drone or thrown over

prison walls, as you can The evidence shows the extremes

to which inmates are willing to go and authorities seem to be fighting

a losing battle over violence We've been joined

by Frances Crook from the Howard League for Penal Reform,

and of course Michael Howard - former Home Secretary -

is still with us. Michael Howard, can I get your

reaction to these pictures of drones flying in drugs or mobile phones and

packages going over walls. It's horrifying. It's not entirely new.

In my day, drugs were thrown over the walls of prisons and I

introduced for the first time, drug testing in prison. I was told it

couldn't be done, it would lead to riots and the unachievable. We did

put in place drug testing and what you describe is an extremely serious

situation and has to be dealt with. How would you deal with it? The

government has been increasing punishments for illicit items,

drugs, phones, any kind of misbehaviour. That's created a kind

of battle and make things much worse. They have upped the ante so

much. The extra imprisonment that has been given as a punishment has

amounted to 2000 years of extra imprisonment for misbehaviour. The

extra punishments are making things worse, not solving things. The drugs

and phones are a symptom of a real crisis in the prisons. It's

different to what it was a quarter of a century ago. Prisons are in

such a terrible state. Violence levels are so high. Drug-taking is a

symptom. Last week, another 18-year-old handedness of in prison.

I attended an inquest with the mother of an 18-year-old son who

took his own life, he was known to have mental health problems. There

are very serious problems that need addressing. It is a desperate

situation that is a result of the wrong sort of ways of running them.

It is a desperate situation for a young man to take his life in those

situations. Lessons must be learned from that event but we have no

reason to suppose, sitting here this morning, that had anything to do

with the punishments that are being imposed for people using drugs in

prisons. I think, using drugs in prison is wrong. I think you've got

to do everything you can to stop that happening and that includes

punishing the people who do it. Ask But if there is a policy of zero

tolerance and more drugs are getting n the policy is not working? . There

is no evidence to suggest that the krachdown of drugs is there with

extra violence. Extra violence is aed about thing, you need to take

whatever actions you need it take to deal with that. But you also have to

take firm action to deal with the abuse of drugs in prison. Surely

that is the right way to do it. The public wouldn't accept that

prisoners are allowed to get the sort of things that we saw in those

pictures into their prisons, and then go unpunished. The drugs are

extremely dangerous. We don't want people to take them. Particularly as

they are often taking a cocktail of drugs, prescription dru, illegal

drugs and legal drugs. It is extremely dangerous (it creates

gangs inside prison and adds to the violence. You have to punish them.

You have to deal with the problem. If you deal with it in the long way

you make it. You inflate the market. If you want to make a lot of money,

buy drugs in prisons. You have to deal with the problems, gross

overcrowding, inappropriate overuse of prisons. Far too few stwaf,

nothing happening all day for people. Young men locked up day

after day after day, in a stinking cell with rats and cockroaches, an

open toilet they have to defecate into, next to the person sleeping on

the bunk next to them. That's a reality. This is' unacceptable. This

as a result of a Government that says it'll have a campaign of zero

tolerance of prisoners who offend in prison on things like drugs and your

claim that prison works, seems to have been dashed by the wayside Not

Atul A first of all when I said "prison work requests" what I meant

which is incontrovertible, is that you have the professional, repeat

serious criminals in prison, they can't continue to commit crimes

against the public it is undenighable. They go out and

reoffend and come back in again. As prison population increased crime

has come down. The conditions that from sows be describes are

unacceptable and Michael Gove is putting in place some far-reaching

Myers it deal with those conditions. What is he doing to deal with

overcrowding? Build new prisons. He has said he will do that. Building

new prisons and closing... Let me finish. What has not been

established at all, is any link between the conditions which have

been described, which are unacceptable and the need it take if

you were action against the use and abuse of drugs in prison. How would

you, looking at it as an observer, how would people behave if they were

in conditions, if Frances Cook is correct you have vermin, and people

defecating next to you who. You have no room. Nothing to stimulate your

moneyed and nothing to do all day. How do you think they would react?

Look, not all prisoners by any means are in those conditions. The

majority are. Is that true? That sounds incredible. I'm sure you

don't have any evidence for that. I do. 20,000 men are forced to share

cells. That is a different matter. No, they are forced to share cells

designed for one person. The conditions - the report today on

Nottingham, report after report after report, and I visit prisons

all the time. But they are all are being punished, not there for

holiday. A lot are on remand awaiting trial. Most will not get a

prison sentence. Our prison conditions are a stain on the

nation, disgraceful. Causing more crime. Putting staff in danger,

putting lives at risks. Every four days somebody takes their own life

in prison. This is, as Michael Howard says, completely unacceptal.

We have to do something about it. I'm pleased that Michael Gove is

talking positively about the treasure within everyone. We need it

talking positively about the However, we need urgent action not

postponed. Michael Howard, this idea of having a Leaking table of

prisons, to have successful conditions, prisons that aren't in

the condition that Frances Cook describes taking over other prisons

or acting as a guide, do you support that? It seems a reasonable y.d I

support every effort made to improve the rehabilitation of people in

prison. It is a very difficult thing to do. Many ways have been tried to

do it. That's true, we agree on that. None have

do it. That's true, we agree on should certainly keep trying but we

also have it punish people when they do wrong, we have to be firm this

they abecause drugs in prison and we have to take action, I quite agree,

to reduce overcrowding. Frances Cook thank you very

There was probably more chance of a stage musical

of Screaming Lord Sutch being made than one on the life

of Jeremy Corbyn but then real life being more absurd than fiction

Transferring to the West End, the show about David Sutch's life

We'll talk to playwright in a moment.

NEWS REEL: The youngest contender of the five

the National Teenage candidate, is a 22-year-old pop

singer, who's latest disk is called Jack the Ripper.

The funny thing - and he was funny - about David Sutch -

was that for a man who became a Monster Raving Loony,

In 1966 he stood for the National Teenage Party in

For David Edward Sutch, 585 votes....

Promoting a lowering of the voting age from 21.

He wasn't just a novelty politician, though, but a '60s' wild

man on the music scene, he played alongside Keith Moon.

This is a rehearsal scene from a romp of a play

He might have stayed with music were it

at in America during a mugging and he came back in the 1980s

The Monster Raving Loony Party, an attempt to prick political

pomposity and have a laugh, which in the infamously

heated South Bermondsey by-election of that year,

COMMENTATOR: Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

Though, over time, not everyone saw the joke.

People like you, you are ruining this country, you.

Loonies contested by-elections and general elections,

often standing side-by-side with Prime Ministers and by 1997,

Lord Sutch was included in a novelty range of leaders chocolate heads.

But the party's ledgendary moment was in the first Bootle by-election

of 1990, where the Loonies upset an otherwise rather mundane

The other fragments of the shattered Alliance -

The Liberal at least avoiding the indignity suffered

suffered by the SDP, who were beaten by The Monster

Lord Sutch immediately offered an electoral back to the SBP.

David Sutch's suicide in 1998 did not mean Loonydom ended.

funny is that Loonydom's legacy includes absurd policies that

Legalisation of commercial radio, and the abolition

That things that were once considered utterly

is probably the best tribute to the Loonies and satirises

genuine policies that might actually be crazy,

but then in British politics, such is life.

The first Cabinet reshovele. Come on, shuffle along a bit.

That is a novel take on a Cabinet reshuffle. I do that at home quite a

lot. And the political playwright

James Graham is here, as is the current leader

of the Monster Raving Loony Party, James, where Creaming Lord such and

The Monster Raving Loony Party? It makes sense to mee, unlike other

party leaders, politicians have a shelf life, they represent a kind of

constance through modern British political history. I think the first

election that Screaming Lord Sutch stood for was 1953 and here they are

standing today so as at slightly comic but also important look at how

politics and democracy has changed I thought it was important. You have

been there since the 50s. What do you make of it? I isn't seen it.

Wonderful. I expect Screaming Lord Sutch is smiling down now. What

about the comedic side. They do provide great comedy for you to

right with, the characters. Yes but people can disagree on the

candidates now, that are imstating what Alan does and single oar u

candidates aren't always particularly serious but they

represent something moving, the mrinder that politics is not about

anyone having a investigate but also that anyone can stand. And if

Screaming Lord Sutch can stand and Howling Laud Hope can stand, then

anyone can, respectfully. Do you think party has changed, not you,

but the party? Noe what it is trying to do? Note really. We are still

there, doing what we do. Say we are still there, I am, we are actually

doing the Tooting by-election on June 16th. Are you? Which in actual

fact, June 16th is the exact day we started the party in 198 #. So a bit

of nostalga there for you. It is also my birth Dane the day that

Screaming Lord Sutch was no longer with us. -- my birthday. What about

the proposals from your party that have become law? I mean I have

always been inkreeged by the fact that quite a few have become law.

Anything else now on the table Yes, we are still want a 99 p coin.

And our position on the EU is that maybe we should come out and be like

humpty dumpty and put ourselves together in. In out, in out. Shake

it all about. They are on your side at the moment.

All support welcome. I'm sure it is at this stage. Have you had any

run-ins with the Monster Raving Loony Party? As far as I recall, I

always had an excellent relationship with the party. Didn't a former

member stand against you in 2005? Yes, it was all right. Did you get

to know him? A bit. It wasn't a problem but you shared a platform at

the time. We Z In terms ever of your writing, are you influenced by what

is going on in the current climate or have you been planning this for

ages? I have been planning it but you are listening. I sometimes think

it is not original Shakespeare, but if you want it comment on what is

happening now, it is useful to look back at the past equivalent. I did a

play This House in the 1970s... Which was great I thought it was a

helpful way to look at what coalition politics is like today and

equally, there are party fractions all across Westminster at the moment

and I think looking at that through monster raving loonies is quite fun.

You mentioned the Welsh Assembly early on, last Thursday. We got

5,742 votes. Is that a record? Yes. 5,742 people 234 Wales wanted us to

represent them in their party. The loony party they are voting for. Do

you think this play will kick-start more of a revival? Of course it

will. Where can we see the play? Opening tonight at the Soho Theatre.

We have been previewing, but we open tonight and run through to June

18th. There will be at least 20 Loonies there. Are you going

tonight? Not tonight. On 28th. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was -

what has GCHQ done to try B) Enter Robert Hannigan, the

Director of GCHQ, as a contestent as their new Director

of Communications? So Michael what's

the correct answer? They have opened a Twitter account.

You are right. Reading all those, it wasn't the most difficult. What do

you think about that? Of them opening themselves up Why in the I

thought it was supposed to be secret I think they have said they are not

going to disclose everything. I think they have said they are not

wonder what they are going to say. It makes you wonder. Thank you for

being on the programme today. Instead there'll be live coverage

of the Queen's Speech But Andrew and I will be back

here on BBC Two on Thursday You look lovely, Mum.

Go on, do a twirl.