:00:37. > :00:57.brighter on Thursday. Have a good day.
:00:58. > :01:18.We look at a new app designed to shine a light
:01:19. > :01:29.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme
:01:30. > :01:32.otherwise known as the Money Saving Expert.
:01:33. > :01:38.First today, the Chancellor Philip Hammond,
:01:39. > :01:40.says the UK will "strike back"
:01:41. > :01:42.if it comes under cyber attack, as he details
:01:43. > :01:43.the Government's new cyber-defence strategy.
:01:44. > :01:48.The plan, which is underpinned by nearly ?2 billion of funding,
:01:49. > :01:53.is aimed at bolstering existing defences,
:01:54. > :01:58.but also involves significant investment
:01:59. > :02:00.in "taking the fight to those who threaten Britain".
:02:01. > :02:03.It comes as the head of MI5, Andrew Parker, tells the Guardian
:02:04. > :02:05.newspaper of the growing threat posed by Russia
:02:06. > :02:18.Should we be treating this as seriously as terrace, cyber attacks?
:02:19. > :02:21.Well, not because of the loss of life, but terrorism is often about
:02:22. > :02:26.making people panic and causing things to shut down and economic
:02:27. > :02:29.attack. And cyber terror is and does exactly that and can be incredibly
:02:30. > :02:35.damaging. ?2 billion is relatively small potatoes on the potential
:02:36. > :02:43.impact. A decade ago, I had our first simulation on the website and
:02:44. > :02:47.we were shut down for three days. We were waiting for a ransom, because
:02:48. > :02:52.this is common. When people get a virus on their computer, that virus
:02:53. > :02:59.may not be looking to damage you, it may be used so that it can then
:03:00. > :03:02.freeze a website or country. So be prepared for this is important. And
:03:03. > :03:09.there is more going on than people expect. When you suffer a big attack
:03:10. > :03:12.my run a top 100 UK website and when you suffer an attack, you have a
:03:13. > :03:20.decision to make. Do you tell users, which is good for transparency? That
:03:21. > :03:23.is the way I operate. But you are admitting there was a hole in your
:03:24. > :03:26.differences and people are coming in to try and suck the dater or leak
:03:27. > :03:31.out your payment details, which we don't have, but if you had them,
:03:32. > :03:35.trying to keep it quiet can be damage prevention. So a lot of these
:03:36. > :03:39.things go on in the background that people never hear about. So you
:03:40. > :03:45.think it is more widespread? The head of TalkTalk admitted that it
:03:46. > :03:49.happened to her, which was welcomed. But she did that quite late and I
:03:50. > :03:52.think she got caught between a rock and a hard place. She was not early
:03:53. > :04:00.enough to appease the public, and she was a bit too late. This is
:04:01. > :04:09.really big, and it is going to continue. It is not just about
:04:10. > :04:15.terrorism. There are teenagers thinking this is interesting. Isn't
:04:16. > :04:19.that the point? The head of MI5 and Philip Hammond are implying that the
:04:20. > :04:23.threat is Russia and that that is where the big threat to our cyber
:04:24. > :04:28.security comes from but actually, a lot of cyber attacks are done by
:04:29. > :04:38.individuals in their bedrooms. Individuals or organised crimes. The
:04:39. > :04:48.first time we were attacked, this was early days. Nobody can access
:04:49. > :04:54.your website. You end up paying large amounts of money. Thankfully,
:04:55. > :04:59.we have better defences these days. Don't attack is, we are a consumer
:05:00. > :05:03.service website. But there is not much you can do unless your national
:05:04. > :05:06.infrastructure works, so to protect our economy and to protect the big
:05:07. > :05:10.in situations of state and to protect our military, you need
:05:11. > :05:14.people who are good at this. When it happens to you, as it happened to
:05:15. > :05:19.me, the institutions and the police were useless. They didn't have the
:05:20. > :05:23.resources in place, so it needs to be looked at. ?1.9 billion is being
:05:24. > :05:24.dedicated to it. We will see if it is enough.
:05:25. > :05:29.playwright Alistair Beaton has teamed up
:05:30. > :05:32.with Yes Minister creator Jonathan Lynn to write a new play.
:05:33. > :05:37.But which political relationship does it explore?
:05:38. > :05:39.Was it a) Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell
:05:40. > :05:41.b) The Three Brexiteers - Liam Fox, David Davies
:05:42. > :05:46.c) Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott
:05:47. > :05:48.or d) Larry and Palmerston the cat.
:05:49. > :05:52.Martin Lewis will give us the correct answer.
:05:53. > :05:54.Now, if you'd taken a pound out of your pocket
:05:55. > :05:57.on the eve of the EU referendum, it would have bought you
:05:58. > :06:06.But almost as soon as the first results were in,
:06:07. > :06:08.the value of sterling plunged -
:06:09. > :06:09.and it has continued declining since.
:06:10. > :06:11.It's now down by roughly 17% since 23rd June.
:06:12. > :06:14.But who are the winners and losers from a cheaper pound?
:06:15. > :06:17.of all 150 currencies tracked by Bloomberg in October.
:06:18. > :06:20.At 10am this morning, the pound was 1.22 against the dollar
:06:21. > :06:29.The falling pound has been a boost in the short term for UK firms
:06:30. > :06:34.The FTSE 100 reached a record high in October,
:06:35. > :06:35.as the profits of many international companies
:06:36. > :06:47.are worth more when converted into sterling.
:06:48. > :06:50.A cheaper pound has also made UK goods more competitive -
:06:51. > :06:53.export volumes grew at their fastest pace for two and a half years
:06:54. > :06:59.It also makes it more expensive, however, for British consumers
:07:00. > :07:01.buying imported goods, which could push up prices.
:07:02. > :07:04.Inflation is rising at its highest rate for two years,
:07:05. > :07:09.The Office of National Statistics, however, cautioned against
:07:10. > :07:11.linking this too explicitly with the fall in sterling.
:07:12. > :07:15.The supermarket Morrisons has already increased the cost of a jar
:07:16. > :07:22.while the chief executive of Typhoo Tea suggested last week
:07:23. > :07:25.that the price of a cuppa could also go up.
:07:26. > :07:27.And what are the prospects for tourism?
:07:28. > :07:35.a more attractive holiday destination for visitors
:07:36. > :07:38.from overseas, but British tourists will find breaks to Europe and
:07:39. > :07:43.Here with me to discuss this further with Martin Lewis
:07:44. > :07:45.are the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock and Gerard Lyons,
:07:46. > :07:53.chief economic advisor at the Policy Exchange think tank.
:07:54. > :08:00.Gerard Lyons, a good thing or a bad thing, the fall in sterling? It is a
:08:01. > :08:04.good thing, but there are winners and losers. It should be stressed
:08:05. > :08:07.that at some stage, the pound was going to fall whatever the outcome
:08:08. > :08:11.of the referendum. The UK has a large current account deficit. We
:08:12. > :08:15.also need to remember that this is not the first time the pound has
:08:16. > :08:21.fallen. After the financial crisis, the pound fell by almost a quarter.
:08:22. > :08:24.So we have seen it before, and it is good in the sense that it is a
:08:25. > :08:30.competitive boost to the economy. The downside is that it will feed a
:08:31. > :08:34.pick-up in inflation which is likely to be temporary over the next year.
:08:35. > :08:38.But is there an issue about the speed at which the pound has fallen?
:08:39. > :08:42.I take your point that it can be a good thing and that it was
:08:43. > :08:46.overvalued, but the speed of that decline, is that something to be
:08:47. > :08:51.worried about? Last month, it fell by 6% overnight to a 31 year low.
:08:52. > :08:55.Doesn't that suggest a lack of faith in the British economy? It could
:08:56. > :08:59.suggest that, but it is more likely to reflect the fact that the pound
:09:00. > :09:04.was overvalued for some time. Even the International Monetary Fund,
:09:05. > :09:06.often cited as an independent group even though they were too
:09:07. > :09:13.pessimistic, they have said that the pound is overvalued by ten to 20%.
:09:14. > :09:16.The thing about the pace of the decline, in the past when
:09:17. > :09:22.governments have intervened to stop a falling currency, that has created
:09:23. > :09:25.problems. This time, it has been sensible for the authorities to
:09:26. > :09:29.stand back and let the currency fund its true level. At some stage, this
:09:30. > :09:32.will help the rebalancing of the economy in terms of interest rates
:09:33. > :09:37.eventually going higher even though for the moment, given where the
:09:38. > :09:42.economy is, interest rates need to stay low. Do you agree that the
:09:43. > :09:44.pound was overvalued and that the result of the referendum may have
:09:45. > :09:48.played a part but it was not the whole story? What is worrying is
:09:49. > :09:55.where the pound has fallen off the edge of a cliff. If you look at
:09:56. > :10:00.Black Wednesday in 1992, the pound only devalued 4%. Since the 23rd of
:10:01. > :10:06.June, the pound has devalued 15%. But was that because it was
:10:07. > :10:12.overvalued? We need to ensure we have the pound valued at one level,
:10:13. > :10:15.in a managed sense. I am also concerned about inflation hitting
:10:16. > :10:18.the poorest in our society hardest. They are the people spending on
:10:19. > :10:25.goods that are most affected by inflation. This will contribute even
:10:26. > :10:29.more to the deeply unfair nature of the British economy. But do you
:10:30. > :10:33.think the fall in the pound has been the trigger to higher inflation?
:10:34. > :10:37.There is no doubt that there is a connection between the fall in the
:10:38. > :10:43.pound and high inflation, because British companies are having to pay
:10:44. > :10:47.more to bring goods in. That is particularly the case with the
:10:48. > :10:52.Marmite. Do you agree that there is a link between the two? The pick-up
:10:53. > :10:58.with inflation recently is because of events before the pound fell, but
:10:59. > :11:01.the weaker pound will lead to higher inflation in the next six to 12
:11:02. > :11:06.months. But we have seen this before. In 2008, the pound fell
:11:07. > :11:11.sharply and inflation picked up and profit margins were squeezed. Some
:11:12. > :11:15.of that hit people across society, and then we saw inflation subdued
:11:16. > :11:22.again. We need to put this in perspective. It is not a permanent
:11:23. > :11:25.pick-up in inflation. But because we have had this before, that does not
:11:26. > :11:31.mean it is a good thing. It means prices will rise, particularly the
:11:32. > :11:36.prices of basic goods, which will hit those who are less well off. We
:11:37. > :11:40.do live in a world economy. Food and energy prices have been relatively
:11:41. > :11:44.low. Even without the pound falling, we would have seen a pick-up in
:11:45. > :11:49.energy prices because of higher oil prices. We need to put into context
:11:50. > :11:53.that mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, has accepted
:11:54. > :11:56.that this will be a one-off increase in inflation. In 18 months, one
:11:57. > :12:03.might expect inflation to be low again. We need to not panic too
:12:04. > :12:07.much. The economy has still done quite well in terms of economic
:12:08. > :12:12.growth. What has been the response to people who sign up to your
:12:13. > :12:16.website in terms of prices going up? This is about future prices, as
:12:17. > :12:21.opposed to now. We have not seen it coming that heavily, and it worked.
:12:22. > :12:25.We overcomplicate this. If the pound drops, when we buy stuff from
:12:26. > :12:30.abroad, that gets more expensive and that feed through into inflation. No
:12:31. > :12:35.one would deny that. The euro rate is about the same as it was three
:12:36. > :12:39.summers ago. It is against the dollar that there has been a real
:12:40. > :12:43.hit. This is of course Brexit. The markets don't like it. So the euro
:12:44. > :12:47.and the pound had gone down and the dollar hasn't to the same extent. In
:12:48. > :12:53.terms of factoring through to prices, there is a big political
:12:54. > :12:58.issue coming. I strongly suspect that this winter, for the first time
:12:59. > :13:02.since 2013, we will see the big six energy price rises, both because of
:13:03. > :13:07.wholesale prices, and because of the pound's weakness. I guess we will
:13:08. > :13:11.have announcements by the end of January 5% or more rises on energy.
:13:12. > :13:16.That is a big political issue because it focuses the debate
:13:17. > :13:20.heavily on this. It is a solid bill going up in peoples homes, and
:13:21. > :13:30.nobody will like it. That is a big hit. But there are positives from a
:13:31. > :13:34.weaker pound. The UK is incredibly competitive. We are interesting for
:13:35. > :13:38.people looking to put inward investment here like the Chinese.
:13:39. > :13:43.But what about Martin's point about energy prices? When you are talking
:13:44. > :13:52.about the positives, that benefits a certain group. But energy costs
:13:53. > :13:56.rising will hit most people. The issue is, one is a direct hit, and
:13:57. > :13:59.telling people the economy may be indirectly boosted does not help
:14:00. > :14:05.people on the ground. Profit margins in the economy are very high. Profit
:14:06. > :14:11.margins before the pound fell five years ago were very high. It depends
:14:12. > :14:16.on the competitive element in those sectors and whether they take
:14:17. > :14:20.advantage of the opportunity to pass on higher prices. There is no doubt
:14:21. > :14:23.that a weaker pound does feeding to higher inflation, but you should not
:14:24. > :14:28.attribute the temporary pick-up in inflation only to the weaker pound.
:14:29. > :14:33.I think we are seeing the tremors. Remember, we haven't even triggered
:14:34. > :14:38.article 50 yet. This is deeply political not just in the UK, but
:14:39. > :14:41.also in the EU. Donald Tusk has said there will be no soft Brexit, there
:14:42. > :14:49.is either a hard Brexit or no Brexit. And that spooks the markets,
:14:50. > :14:54.from the pound to the export markets to our financial services industry,
:14:55. > :14:58.which is already talking about moving thousands of jobs overseas.
:14:59. > :15:02.They have talked about it, and Nissan has just announced that it is
:15:03. > :15:09.actually going to stay. Who knows what the basis of the deal was. The
:15:10. > :15:13.devil is in the detail. But when you talk to people in the financial
:15:14. > :15:18.markets, they have been reassured by the relative political stability we
:15:19. > :15:21.have in the UK. We now need to put those policies into effect, both
:15:22. > :15:25.domestically and terms of the domestic reach and our industrial
:15:26. > :15:28.policy, but also in terms of article 50. Being outside the single market
:15:29. > :15:36.is pretty good for big chunks of this economy.
:15:37. > :15:41.Chevening We delivered a political earthquake on 23rd June. So there is
:15:42. > :15:50.no relative... Let's look at the political stability. You said it is
:15:51. > :15:53.good, Gerard Lyons that there hasn't been Government interference in
:15:54. > :15:57.terms of the value of the pound but you could argue that Theresa May's
:15:58. > :16:01.speech at the Conservative Party conference, that Britain was heading
:16:02. > :16:08.Forestieri a so-called are hard Greggs it, no longer being under the
:16:09. > :16:13.court of justice s that would have... Talking about international
:16:14. > :16:16.investors, the thing that has worried them more than anything else
:16:17. > :16:20.is the comments by the Home Secretary about migration. Even
:16:21. > :16:23.though though whoa need migration, international investments want
:16:24. > :16:26.migration. It is not politic #k8 stability. That issue needs to be
:16:27. > :16:30.clarified. In terms of other things. Because you don't want to see limits
:16:31. > :16:34.on immigration. Looking back to June, the worry was, if we voted to
:16:35. > :16:38.leave we would have three or four months of political inable state. We
:16:39. > :16:42.now have relative political stability, we now have the
:16:43. > :16:45.Chancellor, set in late November to provide an Autumn Statement, to give
:16:46. > :16:50.a boost to the economy. We need to look at the whole context here.
:16:51. > :16:54.There is clearly, as has been mentioned a big change post June
:16:55. > :16:57.23rd, you are trying to imply lots is negative, there are lots of
:16:58. > :17:01.positives. You are putting those positives. But the difference here
:17:02. > :17:04.is who is being affected by what? The broader economy, as Martin Lewis
:17:05. > :17:08.said is not the same as the direct economy to people in their pockets.
:17:09. > :17:13.And people will take a view. Let's look at the City of London, you
:17:14. > :17:21.raise the City of London, saying they are fairly sanguine about what
:17:22. > :17:25.is going on s that your experience? The Chief Executive of the British
:17:26. > :17:29.Bankers' Association, I'm sure who knows what he is talking about, said
:17:30. > :17:33.the finger issing quivering over the relocate button. UBS said they are
:17:34. > :17:38.going to relocate thousands of jobs. This is not just about big bankers
:17:39. > :17:40.in the City of London, there are 1.1 million people employed in the
:17:41. > :17:45.financial services industry, from Edinburgh to Glasgow, to Cardiff, to
:17:46. > :17:49.Leeds. This has systemic impact on the British economy. And you've got
:17:50. > :17:57.Paris and Frankfurt waiting in the wings. We've got to find a deal
:17:58. > :18:01.which gives an equivalence on passporting, if we don't I fear an
:18:02. > :18:05.exodus. I support equivalence on passporting. I think it is
:18:06. > :18:08.important. What the BBA says, I wouldn't hold much weight in that,
:18:09. > :18:11.they tend to talk nonsense in my experience most of the time. We've
:18:12. > :18:16.had enough of experts. They are not experts. They are a trade
:18:17. > :18:22.organisation that tries to talk to all their members... And they are
:18:23. > :18:25.lobbying We can argue that. I think the financial services is a big
:18:26. > :18:29.sweep, investment bank something a small sweep and is a small number of
:18:30. > :18:33.people. They are a big threat to investment banking in the UK but it
:18:34. > :18:38.is not going to go to Europe, it is going to go to New York and that is
:18:39. > :18:41.the real competition out there. But we need to try to protect that
:18:42. > :18:45.industry that's what brings in big tax money. The one thing we have at
:18:46. > :18:47.the moment, I will come to you. We now have the certainty of
:18:48. > :18:52.uncertainty. That's the troou. Nothing has happened. We have had a
:18:53. > :18:55.vote. Sentiment has changed that's T But uncertainty will lead to aing
:18:56. > :18:58.have couple being created, as people will say Inevitably. We know there
:18:59. > :19:04.is going to be change which gives you something you can work on but we
:19:05. > :19:08.don't know what it is. Let's look at the City of London and financial
:19:09. > :19:12.services, would you be prepared to negotiate, you know, access in way
:19:13. > :19:17.to the single market, tariff-free access, a very good deal for certain
:19:18. > :19:21.sectors like the City of London, if it means that those rights are going
:19:22. > :19:26.to be secured? I think, look, how we view the City needs to be seen in
:19:27. > :19:30.context of the whole UK economy, as well as also the fact of the wider
:19:31. > :19:33.European economy. I was at dinner last night with the British bhankers
:19:34. > :19:39.association UPS and others were there. They have been out Chatham
:19:40. > :19:42.House rules, but the gist was a far more positive discussion to the
:19:43. > :19:48.outlook to the sti. One size does not fit all in the City. Are they
:19:49. > :19:52.threatening to pull out, and relocate it Paris, Frankfurt and New
:19:53. > :19:56.York? Financial is glevenlt the competition is London is New York
:19:57. > :20:01.aSingapore. You have not answered my question, would you be prepared for
:20:02. > :20:04.a special deal, would you be prepared for a special deal in erms
:20:05. > :20:10.to have the single market and retaining the sort of access we have
:20:11. > :20:13.now for certain industries? The UK needs to have a clean bricts in
:20:14. > :20:20.terms of sovereignty and migration. So, no And on top, as has been
:20:21. > :20:24.articulated, bespoke deal that suits the EU and UK and out of that, there
:20:25. > :20:27.is no doubt in my mind that London will remain the financial centre.
:20:28. > :20:33.Why are you not more confident about it? I have spent 20 years working in
:20:34. > :20:36.and around the European Union. I'm also looking closely at things like
:20:37. > :20:42.Donald tusk says when he says there'll only be a hard wrecks it.
:20:43. > :20:47.It is not - Brexit. It is not because countries want to punish the
:20:48. > :20:51.UK it is because they have their own realities. We have not to have a
:20:52. > :20:55.gung-ho hubrus and casual approach which seems it fail zwropd stand how
:20:56. > :20:59.the rest of the EU is having to deal with this very complex issue, so the
:21:00. > :21:04.fact of the matter is - you cannot have your cake and eat T we have to
:21:05. > :21:08.find a bespoke deal, yes, but it is not going to be a full continuation
:21:09. > :21:13.of the passporting rights that we currently have which also gives you
:21:14. > :21:18.a seat at the table to shape future regulations. That's the reality. And
:21:19. > :21:22.the banking and financial services industry, 1.1 million jobs across
:21:23. > :21:25.the entire country will take decisions based on strategic
:21:26. > :21:30.importance. To come back to the original question, will the value of
:21:31. > :21:33.the pound fall further? I think eventually the pound will be much
:21:34. > :21:37.stronger. Is it going to fall further now? It depends what happens
:21:38. > :21:42.in the US next week. But the found is firmly valued on many measures.
:21:43. > :21:47.We shouldn't speculate, should we? The pound will either go down, go up
:21:48. > :21:49.or stay the same. All right, we can put a bet on that. Thank you very
:21:50. > :21:50.much. Failing to keep your garden tidy
:21:51. > :21:53.or having a dog who barks excessively could land
:21:54. > :21:55.you with a criminal record under powers introduced by Theresa May
:21:56. > :21:58.when she was Home Secretary. Thousands of so-called
:21:59. > :22:02.Community Protection Notices have been issued by local authorities
:22:03. > :22:05.since they were introduced in 2014. But the campaign group,
:22:06. > :22:10.The Manifesto Club, claims the powers are being abused in some
:22:11. > :22:13.instances and amount We'll speak to them in a moment but,
:22:14. > :22:18.first, here's Theresa May explaining the thinking behind the law
:22:19. > :22:28.change back in 2012. Earlier today I launched our white
:22:29. > :22:31.paper on anti-social behaviour. This new approach he empowers local
:22:32. > :22:35.communities and puts victims' needs at its heart and puts more trust in
:22:36. > :22:38.professionals than ever before. It perfectly compliments our approach
:22:39. > :22:41.to wider, local policing. A lot of what is called anti-social
:22:42. > :22:44.behaviour, of course is actually crime and it should be taken
:22:45. > :22:48.seriously and it should be dealt with. Yet, more than 3 million
:22:49. > :22:52.incidents of anti-social behaviour are still being reported to the
:22:53. > :22:56.police each and every year with many more, doubtless, going unreported.
:22:57. > :23:00.It's clear that the old topdown approach to the problem hasn't
:23:01. > :23:05.worked. It was too bureaucratic, too complex and too time consuming. So
:23:06. > :23:08.we will make powers simpler, I can question, easier to enforce, more
:23:09. > :23:12.flexible and more effective. That was Theresa May as Home Secretary.
:23:13. > :23:14.I'm joined now by Josephine Appleton from the Manifesto Club,
:23:15. > :23:18.and by the Conservative MP Royston Smith, who used to be leader
:23:19. > :23:27.Welcome to both of you. Josephine, first of all, a lot of people would
:23:28. > :23:29.say anti-social behave area blights their lives and councils need more
:23:30. > :23:35.powers to tackle them. Whats' wrong with that? I think it depends what
:23:36. > :23:39.you define as anti-social behaviour. The test for introducing one of
:23:40. > :23:43.these CPNs is incredibly low. It only requires a council official to
:23:44. > :23:47.judge your activity has a detrimental effect on the quality of
:23:48. > :23:51.life in your area and they can write you out a document telling you you
:23:52. > :23:54.must or must not do something, if you break it, it is a criminal
:23:55. > :23:57.offence. It takes the criminal law into unpress departmented areas and
:23:58. > :24:01.really makes the question of what is a crime and what is not a crime
:24:02. > :24:06.extremely subjective. Right. Can you actually paint a picture for us. How
:24:07. > :24:08.many of these community protection notices are being issued and how
:24:09. > :24:14.many are inappropriate, in your view? I mean, the first research we
:24:15. > :24:18.have done is within the first year, there were 4,000 notices issued. And
:24:19. > :24:22.bus the Home Office doesn't actually cope stats on it, it is difficult to
:24:23. > :24:26.work out what they are. But - keep stwats.
:24:27. > :24:30.But the majority seems to be more messy gardens and we received the
:24:31. > :24:34.text of some of the notices and included things dr you must not
:24:35. > :24:39.sleep in bin stores. You must not bus income this town centre. They
:24:40. > :24:43.are really quite broad ranging. Within the home, you must not shout
:24:44. > :24:46.or argue or put your he there vision on, such that can be overheard. I
:24:47. > :24:49.think that the problem is not necessarily councils, but really,
:24:50. > :24:53.the existence of these extremely broad powers in the first place. And
:24:54. > :24:59.where anything is actually serious, there are existing powers that can
:25:00. > :25:04.deal with it. Let me put that to Royston Smith. Those examples,
:25:05. > :25:09.having a messy guard yes, shouting or arguing in your own home, surely
:25:10. > :25:12.they can't come under community protection notice that is should be
:25:13. > :25:16.regarded as a crime. I think she should. Why? When constituents come
:25:17. > :25:23.to see me it is not because someone is hafg a loud conversation at
:25:24. > :25:27.3.00pm it is because they are shouting and screaming at 4.00am,
:25:28. > :25:31.keeping people awake and caution havoc in the area. The bushes are a
:25:32. > :25:33.prime example. Where they are allowed to encroach on to the
:25:34. > :25:40.highway. Partially sighted people walk into them. Mothers with babies
:25:41. > :25:48.can't get past. Council enforce that to make sure they can't do it. The
:25:49. > :25:54.CNN are a tool to enforce that. Is it too heavy handed a tool. One can
:25:55. > :25:58.understand what people complain about in your constituency but is it
:25:59. > :26:02.too heavy handed? I don't think it is. It doesn't first happen that you
:26:03. > :26:06.get a notice. First you get a letter saying you are encroaching on to the
:26:07. > :26:09.highway with your trees or you are shouting or swearing or whatever it
:26:10. > :26:13.is. You get a warning and are told to do something about that. It is
:26:14. > :26:18.not unreasonable. It is checked by environmental health officers and
:26:19. > :26:22.you will at rest. You then have 21 days, to appeal to a magistrate F it
:26:23. > :26:25.was just a child crying, I don't think any magistrate in the country
:26:26. > :26:30.would enforce that. I think there is a mechanism. CPNs. We have spoken to
:26:31. > :26:35.the Local Government Association and they say CPNs offer a quick way, a
:26:36. > :26:38.quick redress, if you like for local residents' concerns and this is
:26:39. > :26:43.ahead, before you get to any criminal prosecution. I think that,
:26:44. > :26:46.these powers are seen as quick, it is not always a good thing, for
:26:47. > :26:51.councils to be able it use powers easily and quickly. It is not a good
:26:52. > :26:55.thing, in my view for an officer to have a bit of paper where they can
:26:56. > :27:00.write in what thing you have to do and if you don't do t then it is a
:27:01. > :27:02.criminal offence. What if you have been disrupting neighbours and the
:27:03. > :27:05.local area where people are living for a long period of time and
:27:06. > :27:08.actually the complapt in the past has been that councils haven't had
:27:09. > :27:10.enough power to deal with people making snois ever Friday and
:27:11. > :27:13.Saturday night, for example. - complaints. Would you not find that
:27:14. > :27:16.disruptive? Of course. Most people have had experience of problems with
:27:17. > :27:22.neighbours. There are statutory nuisance powers, but they set a high
:27:23. > :27:26.test and it is an objective text the definition of statutory nuisance.
:27:27. > :27:29.Detrimental effect, I spoke to people in councils when it was
:27:30. > :27:32.coming through, they said what did it mean, they znth didn't know. I
:27:33. > :27:36.think it is a subjective test that hasn't been through the course. Yes,
:27:37. > :27:40.people have a right to appeal but really the council should have to go
:27:41. > :27:43.to the court before they impose a law on you, rather than require you
:27:44. > :27:47.employ your lawyer to defend yourself after the order has been
:27:48. > :27:51.imposed. You can see a situation where some councils abuse this
:27:52. > :27:53.power. There is a resident in Rotherham who was apparently ordered
:27:54. > :27:57.to clean their windows inside and outside the house this. Would be an
:27:58. > :28:02.extreme, I presume But they were also told to clean up their garden
:28:03. > :28:07.and shrubs, it wasn't one thing in isolation. You think it is
:28:08. > :28:10.appropriate? If they encroach into the high wane partially sighted
:28:11. > :28:15.people are walking into them or mothers with babies have to walk on
:28:16. > :28:20.to the road to get past, yes I think it should. Should they end up with a
:28:21. > :28:25.criminal record, as a result? They would in anyway. So even though, you
:28:26. > :28:29.say Josephine amton there are things in place to deal with them they have
:28:30. > :28:33.been infecty. And Theresa May apparently brought these in because
:28:34. > :28:36.the mechanism under the Labour Government has already too heavy
:28:37. > :28:39.handed. So there are already protections in mranchts I wouldn't
:28:40. > :28:43.say they have been ineffective. I think they are harder to use. Not
:28:44. > :28:49.bad thinking. The example given, obstructing the highway, it is an
:28:50. > :28:51.offence It is an offence to create a statutory nuisance to your
:28:52. > :28:56.neighbours enjoyment of their property. It is an offence. And
:28:57. > :28:59.noise abatement notices. But detrimental effect, has no legal
:29:00. > :29:05.definition, nobody knows what it means. So you have orders, such as
:29:06. > :29:09.currently in an Essex village there are free roaming peacocks, the owner
:29:10. > :29:12.has been issued with an order to remove them within the next two
:29:13. > :29:17.weeks or receive a criminal record. The villagers have set up a petition
:29:18. > :29:21.defending her because they love them. It is not about empowering
:29:22. > :29:25.communities, it is about empowering certain council officers to write on
:29:26. > :29:28.a form what you have to do and what the penalty will be, and that
:29:29. > :29:32.becomes the law. Do you think know need reform in that instance to
:29:33. > :29:36.avoid the case described by Josephine Appleton? I think this
:29:37. > :29:40.piece of work is helpful and helpful to Government. I think Government
:29:41. > :29:45.should look at it and take notice F the process needs to be reformed
:29:46. > :29:49.going forward, these things are helpful. If you tell people they
:29:50. > :29:54.have to get rid of peacocks, it is not what it was set up for. If
:29:55. > :29:59.people are arguing at 4 O'Clockam, night after night, this is what this
:30:00. > :30:03.was for. Do you think it has the usceptibility of being abused, toop
:30:04. > :30:05.blupt an issue, what are the real issues being brought by
:30:06. > :30:09.constituents? This is one of the problems we have in all forms of
:30:10. > :30:10.Government, that this sounds like there is a certain looseness,
:30:11. > :30:11.subjectivity Government, that this sounds like
:30:12. > :30:14.there is a certain looseness, subjectivity and inconsistency that
:30:15. > :30:17.drives people the wall on both sides. Those who want action from it
:30:18. > :30:21.and those on the receiving end T sounds to me, the process doesn't
:30:22. > :30:26.sound right, you have one of these orders and you have effectively have
:30:27. > :30:29.to fight it and you have no way of going through. The problem is we
:30:30. > :30:31.have a breakdown in community and the way people behave that means we
:30:32. > :30:35.have warring factions within different areas and now we are
:30:36. > :30:37.starting where the state is intervening in, that which is a
:30:38. > :30:41.shame but probably necessary. But I think the issue is that there needs
:30:42. > :30:44.to be much stronger and stricter guidelines, listening - I support
:30:45. > :30:48.some of the points you are making about protecting communities but I'm
:30:49. > :30:52.list enning there, and saying, what we have is something that's too
:30:53. > :30:57.loose. -- listening. There needs to be stronger guidelines to what can
:30:58. > :31:01.be enagented when and what counts. Are you saying you want to get rid
:31:02. > :31:03.of them altogether or would you be happy for them to be reformed and
:31:04. > :31:18.guidelines tightened up? I can't see any need for these
:31:19. > :31:22.notices. They replaced litter notices, but if it is serious, there
:31:23. > :31:25.is already another power that would deal with that. This is being used
:31:26. > :31:30.to supplant other powers, even in some cases, criminal offences.
:31:31. > :31:35.People have received them for smoking drugs in their home. There
:31:36. > :31:38.is a drugs law to deal with that. However, the Home Office is
:31:39. > :31:45.currently revising the guidance, and that is a positive step to improve
:31:46. > :31:46.people's rights. But I think they need to be scrapped. Thank you for
:31:47. > :31:47.coming in. Now, are unpaid internships
:31:48. > :31:50.a valuable form of work experience allowing young people a way
:31:51. > :31:53.into the world of work? Or are they just a form
:31:54. > :31:55.of exploitation which actually
:31:56. > :31:56.reduce social mobility by allowing
:31:57. > :32:00.posh kids to push their way ahead in the race for the
:32:01. > :32:13.best-paid careers? At the weekend, the employment
:32:14. > :32:14.minister confirmed that the government was looking at changing
:32:15. > :32:23.the law. There is a story in the Mail
:32:24. > :32:26.on Sunday this morning, that the Government is looking
:32:27. > :32:28.at outlawing unpaid internships, Well, Rob, I think it is
:32:29. > :32:31.important that young One of the big barriers
:32:32. > :32:36.to getting a job is not having And so there is a role for work
:32:37. > :32:40.experience but I think, particularly in the media,
:32:41. > :32:42.in fashion, in these very sought-after occupations,
:32:43. > :32:43.there is a concern... Well, they tend to go to middle
:32:44. > :32:46.class kids, don't they? ...with unpaid internships,
:32:47. > :32:48.those aren't actually accessible to everybody,
:32:49. > :32:50.so I think it is right So it is part of Theresa May's
:32:51. > :32:53.attack on the poshies. It is part of making sure
:32:54. > :32:56.that we are fair to everybody and, you know, for social
:32:57. > :33:00.mobility, it is important. for unpaid interns staffing
:33:01. > :33:04.the photocopier and running the tea? Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke
:33:05. > :33:06.thinks it should be, and Kate Andrews of the IEA thinks
:33:07. > :33:16.that the Government should butt out. Alec Shelbrooke, what is wrong with
:33:17. > :33:23.a bit of unpaid work experience? It is not a bit of unpaid work
:33:24. > :33:27.experience. It is months on end that effectively, unless you have the
:33:28. > :33:35.wealth behind you to be able to live in London on a meme of ?900 a month
:33:36. > :33:39.-- a minimum, you need friends and relatives living around London. I
:33:40. > :33:43.say London because roughly 80% of internships are in the capital city.
:33:44. > :33:47.For everybody who says it would reduce opportunity, where does that
:33:48. > :33:53.opportunity like? It lies with those wealthy enough to exploit it. Isn't
:33:54. > :33:56.that true? If you can't afford to be unpaid for months on end or the bank
:33:57. > :34:01.of mum and dad aren't putting you up in a flat, you cannot afford to take
:34:02. > :34:04.unpaid internship. There is no doubt that paid internships are a
:34:05. > :34:10.fantastic thing and I would encourage big companies who have the
:34:11. > :34:15.ability to pay therein terms. If you go to glass door .co .uk, it looks
:34:16. > :34:19.like companies like Google and Facebook are paying their interns
:34:20. > :34:24.thousands of pounds a month. So those internships do exist. My
:34:25. > :34:28.concern is for small businesses and the charity sector. I work at the
:34:29. > :34:32.Institute of Economic Affairs and we bring 100 interns into the building
:34:33. > :34:38.over a year. We are a charity, for nonprofit. And if all of a sudden,
:34:39. > :34:43.we have to pay those 100 interns the minimum wage, we would have to cut
:34:44. > :34:48.the programme. So you would stop offering internships, or could you
:34:49. > :34:51.just offer a few? We would try to offer a few and we do have bursary
:34:52. > :34:55.schemes where we try to offer them to those from working class
:34:56. > :35:01.backgrounds, but the opportunity would be lost. You are a charity and
:35:02. > :35:06.you can have volunteers work for a charity. I think you are confusing
:35:07. > :35:09.that with internships. I am not, because they are different things
:35:10. > :35:16.that happen over the course of a programme. One of the complaint is
:35:17. > :35:20.that it is just cheap labour, you get someone to do your photocopying.
:35:21. > :35:24.If you think you are in an internship that you think should be
:35:25. > :35:28.classified as a job and you are getting long term projects for
:35:29. > :35:35.months on end, you need to report that. The law allows that. That is
:35:36. > :35:39.where I come in. This is the specific point. It is all very well
:35:40. > :35:53.saying you can report it. That is not the reality we live in. The bill
:35:54. > :35:58.is an adjustment of the minimum wage act. The issue here is, how do you
:35:59. > :36:01.make sure that the government intervenes to make sure people are
:36:02. > :36:04.protected in the workplace? As Theresa May said in her conference
:36:05. > :36:09.speech, some government intervention is sometimes the right thing to do.
:36:10. > :36:12.The bill itself precludes people of compulsory school age because work
:36:13. > :36:16.experience is an important thing, and it also precludes people on
:36:17. > :36:24.accredited degree courses. And what about size of businesses? No. So in
:36:25. > :36:27.the media and charity and fashion industries, where there is very
:36:28. > :36:31.little money to go around often, you would prefer to take those
:36:32. > :36:37.internships off-the-shelf, because those businesses could not afford to
:36:38. > :36:46.pay them? Are you seriously telling me that the fashion industry is a
:36:47. > :36:52.pauper industry? If it is at the top that are making a loss of profits,
:36:53. > :36:55.yes, they can pay. But you saw the Mail on Sunday story, which was one
:36:56. > :37:00.I researched, about Vivienne Westwood. This is hardly a small
:37:01. > :37:06.company. Vivienne Westwood does not represent most people in the fashion
:37:07. > :37:10.industry. But you do admit that actually only those who could afford
:37:11. > :37:12.to, even in small think tanks or businesses or charities, it would
:37:13. > :37:18.only be the rich that could benefit from those? You admit that they are
:37:19. > :37:22.only an option for people who can afford them? This is such an
:37:23. > :37:26.important point, the cost of living. The fact that London rent prices are
:37:27. > :37:30.so high that most people, even if they are working in London, can't
:37:31. > :37:33.afford to pay them for a month, is a huge issue. If the government could
:37:34. > :37:41.get behind planning liberation to allow rents to go down, these issues
:37:42. > :37:46.would be helped. This is a good idea. Even when I was a small
:37:47. > :37:51.company, we paid the London living wage to our interns. And that is a
:37:52. > :37:56.real living wage, not the George Osborne rebrand of the living wage.
:37:57. > :38:00.So you could afford that? Well, there was a slight difference.
:38:01. > :38:03.Coming in for a week or two for work experience is different, but someone
:38:04. > :38:07.coming in on a three-month internship programme, I think you
:38:08. > :38:11.can afford to pay for. My charity does the same. We pay internship
:38:12. > :38:16.programmes. Volunteering is different. This corporation we are
:38:17. > :38:20.talking in is one of the worst for doing this. I know many people who
:38:21. > :38:24.started at the BBC because they were able to do six months of unpaid
:38:25. > :38:31.work, and that was how they got in. They came from affluent families. I
:38:32. > :38:34.am a boy who would not have had that opportunity. I could not have done a
:38:35. > :38:38.three-month internship when I graduated from university. I
:38:39. > :38:44.couldn't have afforded to. It does hit social mobility. Yes, we have to
:38:45. > :38:47.help charities but ultimately we already have nepotism that helps the
:38:48. > :38:51.children of the rich and powerful and connected people, and then if
:38:52. > :38:57.you add in a financial element, it is an interesting issue, the way you
:38:58. > :39:01.are arguing it. Is your bill going to happen? Martin supports it and
:39:02. > :39:04.Kate doesn't, but the point is that there have been a lot of politicians
:39:05. > :39:08.giving the rhetoric about doing something on issues like this in
:39:09. > :39:13.terms of promoting social mobility, and nothing happens. David Cameron
:39:14. > :39:15.vetoed the idea from Nick Clegg in the coalition government, so the
:39:16. > :39:19.government doesn't have a good record. I was told I would have to
:39:20. > :39:26.resign if I put this private member's bill forward. I am a
:39:27. > :39:31.backbench MP. I have been pushing on this issue for over two and a half
:39:32. > :39:38.years now. You chip away and raise it up the agenda. In the last week
:39:39. > :39:43.or so, what I have achieved has hugely pushed this forward. What
:39:44. > :39:48.have you achieved? We are talking about it now, and you heard the
:39:49. > :39:55.employment minister. He was equivocal. You have to keep pushing
:39:56. > :39:59.it. Will this bill becomes law? I hope so. It is harder than ever for
:40:00. > :40:03.young people to get on the career ladder and if the government were to
:40:04. > :40:07.bring this in and we were to see the opportunity for internships and work
:40:08. > :40:13.placements dropped off significantly because people couldn't afford to be
:40:14. > :40:22.paid on that small business level... I don't accept that. YouGov said
:40:23. > :40:24.that over 40% of people offered an internship have two then turned down
:40:25. > :40:32.because they financially can't afford it. That is a huge number.
:40:33. > :40:36.This isn't just a minor issue. Even if it is unpaid, a lot of those
:40:37. > :40:40.unpaid internships come through family, friends and contacts. So
:40:41. > :40:44.actually, there is still an in-built disadvantage. So making them paid
:40:45. > :40:50.would put it on a level playing field. The real issues of the day
:40:51. > :40:53.are issues of nepotism and education not enabling people to get to these
:40:54. > :40:58.opportunities. We have heard about the cost of living, but what you are
:40:59. > :41:01.advocating is the idea that if you force small businesses who cannot
:41:02. > :41:04.pay for 100 people a year to be on the minimum wage for a period of
:41:05. > :41:15.time at their company, you seem to believe that they will continue to
:41:16. > :41:20.do that. You have not rebutted that. Companies should be able to pay
:41:21. > :41:28.staff. They are not staffed, they are interns. If you are a staff
:41:29. > :41:33.member... That is the problem. They are being used to provide real work.
:41:34. > :41:38.We know this goes on. They do genuine work in institutions, and
:41:39. > :41:41.you are saying that business doesn't have to pay them minimum wage. Some
:41:42. > :41:44.of us have been campaigning for real rights for people who go into
:41:45. > :41:48.employment and do real work for a long time, and I think it is a bit
:41:49. > :41:52.rich to come and use the charity excuse, which is a different sector.
:41:53. > :41:57.In small businesses have to pay their staff as well. If anybody out
:41:58. > :42:06.there believe that they as a staff member are actually a staff member
:42:07. > :42:08.and not an intern... Come to the Institute of economic affairs, we
:42:09. > :42:15.will give you an internship. Bring your niece or nephew and see that it
:42:16. > :42:19.is a learning process. They get events, discussions, lectures. But
:42:20. > :42:24.if there is a value of the work they are doing, why not pay for it? If a
:42:25. > :42:29.company has the money to do it, I would encourage them to do so. But a
:42:30. > :42:35.lot of companies don't. We heard these arguments before when we were
:42:36. > :42:51.banning the slave trade. What? Do you compare it to that? That is
:42:52. > :42:57.insulting to the history of slavery. To compare it to the slave trade
:42:58. > :43:04.colour isn't that a bit of a leap? It is a form of slavery. We have
:43:05. > :43:09.just had the Modern Slavery Act. Voluntary work is slavery? Kate, you
:43:10. > :43:12.respond. People who are desperate to get on the career ladder who want to
:43:13. > :43:17.go into sectors that do not necessarily have a lot of money, who
:43:18. > :43:21.are volunteering their time and to meet the right people, you're
:43:22. > :43:27.comparing to slaves. That is though deeply insulting to anybody who has
:43:28. > :43:33.been forced to do something. On that note, I am going to finally ask you
:43:34. > :43:37.about student debt. Students are paying back all this money, what is
:43:38. > :43:43.a few months of unpaid work experience going to do? Well, we
:43:44. > :43:46.have big problems in the student finance system at the moment. In
:43:47. > :43:51.Britain, when you sign a contract, that contact is locked into law.
:43:52. > :43:55.When you get a loan, those conditions are locked into law. The
:43:56. > :43:58.exception is student loans, or whether government has
:43:59. > :44:01.retrospectively changed the conditions after students signed up
:44:02. > :44:06.to those contracts. That is a big issue going on right now. The one
:44:07. > :44:09.advantage of doing an internship is that you don't earn enough to start
:44:10. > :44:15.repaying back your student loan, but I would still want people to earn
:44:16. > :44:22.more money. It is not slavery, and that is a dangerous route to start
:44:23. > :44:25.pushing it. Having said that, you keep fluffing about small businesses
:44:26. > :44:29.who can't afford to get people to work for them, and I am asking you,
:44:30. > :44:34.what about people who come from non-privileged backgrounds who have
:44:35. > :44:36.no income? What do they do? You ruin social mobility. We have to finish
:44:37. > :44:51.it there. Thank you both very much. Now, a thinktank which campaigns
:44:52. > :44:53.for lower taxes has developed an app which puts local councils
:44:54. > :44:54.in the spotlight. The Taxpayers' Alliance
:44:55. > :44:55.says its new app, which pulls
:44:56. > :44:56.together different sets of data on council spending,
:44:57. > :44:58.will help people in England see what's happened to their council tax
:44:59. > :44:59.bills over the past 20 years or how much the head
:45:00. > :45:00.of their council is paid. Some local authorities
:45:01. > :45:01.have welcomed the idea - but not everyone is convinced it
:45:02. > :45:04.gives a full and fair picture. Ever thought - gosh,
:45:05. > :45:09.I wonder what the council tax Or, hmm, what are councillors'
:45:10. > :45:16.allowances in this local authority. Now the answer is even easier
:45:17. > :45:19.to find out, apparently. You go on to the app,
:45:20. > :45:26.pop your postcode in and instantly nine different reports come up
:45:27. > :45:29.that we have done over the last It really gives tax payers
:45:30. > :45:34.lots of information from the amount paid to staff, the amount
:45:35. > :45:37.of Government art that is on show, trade union office space,
:45:38. > :45:39.lots of different information that arms the taxpayer with the data
:45:40. > :45:42.that they need to hold their local This is all information that's
:45:43. > :45:47.already available, though, isn't it? A lot of them make the data
:45:48. > :45:50.available, what they don't do is make it easy to digest for tax
:45:51. > :45:52.payers. So, I think the problem is that
:45:53. > :46:00.you'd have to go on, download the spread sheet,
:46:01. > :46:03.download all the PDFs try and look through them all to see
:46:04. > :46:06.the information that you need. What we wanted to do was make it
:46:07. > :46:09.as simple as possible for tax payers to be able to grab the data
:46:10. > :46:12.they need instantly. The Taxpayers' Alliance say
:46:13. > :46:13.transparency and efficiency go They're particularly
:46:14. > :46:17.impressed with Hammersmith and Fulham a Labour Council,
:46:18. > :46:20.whose leader seems to agree. I think transparency does make
:46:21. > :46:22.for an efficient council but the fact is that we have had
:46:23. > :46:25.successive Labour and Conservative administrations that have taken
:46:26. > :46:28.council tax very seriously. The difference is, this year
:46:29. > :46:31.the Government have told us that at the fully expect us to put
:46:32. > :46:34.council tax up by 3.75% and they've removed the incentive for freezing
:46:35. > :46:36.or cutting council tax but we are still one of the handful
:46:37. > :46:40.of councils in the country who have Last year we were the only
:46:41. > :46:45.council in London The reason for that,
:46:46. > :46:50.we are taking a ruthless approach to stripping out waste
:46:51. > :46:53.and putting money back in people's pockets and rebuilding
:46:54. > :46:54.front line services. Hammersmith and Fulham council say
:46:55. > :46:56.engagement with their They recently launched
:46:57. > :46:58.a Disabled People's This campaigner welcomes the efforts
:46:59. > :47:02.here, but warns that judging any council on headline figures
:47:03. > :47:06.could be misleading. If you are in a low council
:47:07. > :47:10.tax local authority, if behind that there are huge cuts
:47:11. > :47:21.affecting services, then a low council tax isn't the be all and end
:47:22. > :47:24.all of the information that local The Local Government Association
:47:25. > :47:32.insists councils are the most efficient part of the public sector
:47:33. > :47:33.and say the new app is unnecessary, because it replicates information
:47:34. > :47:34.that is already available. But if you do want to
:47:35. > :47:38.have a look Your TPA I'm joined now by Dia Chakravarty,
:47:39. > :47:45.the political director of the Taxpayers' Alliance,
:47:46. > :47:48.and the MP Tristram Hunt, who chairs the Labour Party's
:47:49. > :47:58.committee on local government. Welcome to both of you. Dia, first
:47:59. > :48:01.of all, data on council allowances and how much people get paid, it is
:48:02. > :48:04.out there already. You are not adding anything to the sum knowledge
:48:05. > :48:07.of constituents? You would have thought so. Some councils are much
:48:08. > :48:11.better than putting their data out than others. It is also about how
:48:12. > :48:14.the data is presented. Our focus here was to make sure it is
:48:15. > :48:17.presented in a which which is easily accessible, people can understand.
:48:18. > :48:23.Spreads sheets are a beautiful thing... You may say that. But all
:48:24. > :48:26.the data can be difficult to navigate. It is difficult they are,
:48:27. > :48:29.and they have an obligation to put that information out there, even if
:48:30. > :48:33.you are arguing it is slightly difficult to access. Is this not
:48:34. > :48:38.more a political point than it is actual lay point about being easier
:48:39. > :48:41.and accessible it people sn.s it is about transparency. It is about
:48:42. > :48:45.everybodiry single council behaving in a way which makes it ease canny
:48:46. > :48:51.for every resident to access the information. . What's not to like
:48:52. > :48:55.I'm in favour of transpan sane using technology and platforms and apps to
:48:56. > :48:59.engage with local and central government, it is brilliant. So I'm
:49:00. > :49:05.for the technology. I think the app itself is reductive, because what
:49:06. > :49:09.you see is the salaries, fines, contributions, fine, what you don't
:49:10. > :49:14.see, for example, is, as it, were how much a council has invested in
:49:15. > :49:18.local parks, which has saved money in public health. How much a council
:49:19. > :49:21.has supported music lessons which has transformed the life
:49:22. > :49:25.expectancies of young people. So you can be more creative about how you
:49:26. > :49:28.think about local authority expenditure, so you can drive
:49:29. > :49:32.efficiencies, I'm all for, that but you can also think - we have
:49:33. > :49:35.wonderful local authorities doing interesting creative things, why
:49:36. > :49:40.don't we have that, as well as the PEPs contributions. What do you say
:49:41. > :49:45.to that Dia? It is an app, a civil app we have created in house. It is
:49:46. > :49:49.one-sided. All we are doing is getting the informing out there. So
:49:50. > :49:52.your reporter chose to speak to Hammersmith because with the
:49:53. > :49:57.information available it her t seems like a suitable... Because they have
:49:58. > :50:02.reduced costs overall and managed to bring down council tax. On one of
:50:03. > :50:06.your things is a link to Government art fund. Now lots of local
:50:07. > :50:11.authorities have local museums which are under terrible pressure at the
:50:12. > :50:19.moment in temples allowing access to these great collections. . - in
:50:20. > :50:23.terms of allowing. But many people will be surprised local authorities
:50:24. > :50:27.have art. I think they should have art and young people should go and
:50:28. > :50:32.see it and what your apps suggests is it is a bit of a west of money I
:50:33. > :50:36.think it is coloured because what the app or paper suggested is if,
:50:37. > :50:40.say, I don't know, Hammersmith has X number of art works which is
:50:41. > :50:43.people's property there should be an onus on the council to make that
:50:44. > :50:48.available to the people. And that's a basic point of that paper that a
:50:49. > :50:53.lot of councils sit on a lot of art which is wonderful but we just don't
:50:54. > :50:56.get to see it. That was the point in that particular paper. That was the
:50:57. > :51:01.point. Why not have nice pictures of that on your app so you can go to
:51:02. > :51:05.Hammersmith and say - I wanted to see this wonderful mural. I don't
:51:06. > :51:08.like your taste in art. It is a celebration of the cultural
:51:09. > :51:11.impainting oppeople's life. But it is the conversation we are having.
:51:12. > :51:16.It is putting the information out there for the public to access. You
:51:17. > :51:22.need more in there. Get Tristan to do the app for you. You know It was
:51:23. > :51:25.a very basic app to get a conversation started. We think it is
:51:26. > :51:28.important people can access the information, which, as you say, it
:51:29. > :51:32.should be out in the public anyway. I think, as you say, it is there if
:51:33. > :51:35.you try hard but back to Tristan's initial point, it is slightly
:51:36. > :51:39.one-sided. If you are not presenting a case of added value, if you are
:51:40. > :51:42.only presenting a list of figures, which is where your spread sheet
:51:43. > :51:46.argument slightly falls down, in the sense it doesn't offer the full
:51:47. > :51:49.picture. Because, I presume the point of it is you want to see
:51:50. > :51:55.councils reduce their costs further. That's the sort of result? We often
:51:56. > :51:58.find that councils just tend to forget that they are spend other
:51:59. > :52:03.people's money. Spending tax payers' money. That's a fair nunchts for
:52:04. > :52:07.example, if we look at some -- that's fir enough If we look for
:52:08. > :52:10.Kent, I think the council tax there has gone up almost every single year
:52:11. > :52:14.over 20 years, there was one single tax cut. We know that the Chief
:52:15. > :52:20.Executive of that council earns the high nest this council trif all
:52:21. > :52:31.council leaders. - highest in this country of all counsellors leaders.
:52:32. > :52:37.They went on a fact-finding trip to Disneyland. How How would that
:52:38. > :52:44.enhance the local people If that informs how they use Dreamland in
:52:45. > :52:48.Margate to regenerate coastal resorts as a credible use of money,
:52:49. > :52:55.fine. But my point is that local authorities arep spending 22% less
:52:56. > :53:02.today than they were in 200910. I think #24er he - 2009-10. So I think
:53:03. > :53:06.they are well aware. It is communities like Stoke-on-Trent
:53:07. > :53:11.which have teaken the harest hit It is a decrease of 22%. Councils say
:53:12. > :53:14.they have been stripped to the bone. Surely you welcome something like
:53:15. > :53:19.this, about trans pansy, people can make up their own mind and as Dia
:53:20. > :53:24.said it is all about spending money. Now, I am a biassed journalist. It
:53:25. > :53:28.is not a phrase you hear on the BBC often. I am a biassed journalist
:53:29. > :53:34.because the top of my site says we are here to cut your bills and fight
:53:35. > :53:39.your corner. We are pro-consumer. #50i78' biassed I declare T the tax
:53:40. > :53:44.payers' allowance is a biassed organisation with a stated aim. It
:53:45. > :53:48.is not biassed in the state. You want to reduce the amount of tax
:53:49. > :53:52.payers' money being spent. As long as your app is clearest about your
:53:53. > :53:55.bias and stance and what you are doing it, and approximate people
:53:56. > :53:59.read in that context, it'll provide good, transparent information and I
:54:00. > :54:02.support T if it is being used and being seen as a neutral platform
:54:03. > :54:07.that isn't steering, then I think you have the problem. Do you have
:54:08. > :54:10.your stated aim on it? We very clearly state we exist to cut out
:54:11. > :54:14.waste in the public sector and of course, to bring down tax as a
:54:15. > :54:18.condition sequence of that. I don't think it is a surprise to everybody
:54:19. > :54:22.The challenge is this sh do when an organisation there to, as you put
:54:23. > :54:25.it, strip out waste, implicitly suggests that having art galleries
:54:26. > :54:29.and libraries and museums within local authorities should be viewed
:54:30. > :54:36.within the context of waste, then it is problematic. It is It is a waste
:54:37. > :54:42.if it is not available to the people, and it is then true. It
:54:43. > :54:46.hasn't been a waste having you on. Snr now, it is back to our quiz.
:54:47. > :54:49.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:54:50. > :54:52.The question was, playwright Alistair Beaton has teamed up
:54:53. > :54:54.with Yes Minister creator Jonathan Lynn to write a new play.
:54:55. > :54:56.But which political relationship does it explore?
:54:57. > :54:58.Was it a) Nigel Farage and Douglas Carswell,
:54:59. > :55:01.Liam Fox, David Davies and Boris Johnson,
:55:02. > :55:02.c) Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott
:55:03. > :55:13.So Martin, what's the correct answer?
:55:14. > :55:19.At least give us an answer? My stint would be that it would be the three
:55:20. > :55:26.Brexiteers. - my instinct The Ukip one we have
:55:27. > :55:30.just had the programme which was very funny about Nigel Farage. Did
:55:31. > :55:34.you watch that? I z I found it very amusing. What about the others? I
:55:35. > :55:37.think Diane Abbott and Corbyn, there are better relationship was Corbyn
:55:38. > :55:42.you would want to explore. That's too nice. You want friction. I would
:55:43. > :55:49.go for the Brexiteers. You are right. ! Yeah. You don't anything
:55:50. > :55:55.for it by the way. ! Not even a mug. Maybe. We are cutting costs. The two
:55:56. > :56:04.writers were inspired by the prospect of David Daviser Orgreave,
:56:05. > :56:05.Orgreave, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, sharing the mansion, at
:56:06. > :56:15.Chevening. The PM's decision to make
:56:16. > :56:17.the three Brexiteers - Boris Johnson, Liam Fox
:56:18. > :56:20.and David Davis - share the stately home of Chevening in Kent
:56:21. > :56:23.is unlikely to turn out to become a picture of loved-up
:56:24. > :56:24.hippy communal bliss, especially as the three are rumoured
:56:25. > :56:27.not to be the best of friends. But given that the Jacobean
:56:28. > :56:30.mansion has 3,500 acres of land and 115 rooms,
:56:31. > :56:32.they are unlikely to be living on top on each other
:56:33. > :56:35.or even find each other. Nevertheless, the Yes Minister
:56:36. > :56:36.co-creator, Jonathan Lynn, instantly declared the "house-share"
:56:37. > :56:39.comedy gold saying that Theresa May And now Lynn has teamed up
:56:40. > :56:47.with our next guest It is tru, you couldn't make it up.
:56:48. > :56:49.Three ministers sharing a grace and favour home. A gift to political
:56:50. > :56:53.satire? Very kind of our Prime Minister. Not renowned for her sense
:56:54. > :56:55.of humour but she has given us a gi. Congratulations Martin for being
:56:56. > :56:59.brilliant and getting it right. If you would like to invest in the
:57:00. > :57:03.show, I know you have a lot of money, come back to us. No, it is
:57:04. > :57:06.great. These three people, who are going to have to share this rather
:57:07. > :57:09.lovely building, they are not the ideal sharers, they are not the most
:57:10. > :57:12.flexible and gentle of people. Plait mates You can't imagine them rubbing
:57:13. > :57:15.along nicely in a friendly way together. So the idea is, really, it
:57:16. > :57:20.is a great comic premise, but also will let us put the boot in just a
:57:21. > :57:24.little bit. Just a little bit. Who will you put it in or what? Well I'm
:57:25. > :57:26.in the hugely enthusiastic about Brexit, neither is Jonathan Lynne.
:57:27. > :57:29.It is not very well-organised. We have a Prime Minister who says
:57:30. > :57:31.Brexit means Brexit and the reason she says Brexit means Brexit is
:57:32. > :57:33.doesn't know what Brexit means. Nobody does. We are with a
:57:34. > :57:37.Government that doesn't really know where it is going to be going. Are
:57:38. > :57:40.you going to follow current events and track it closely? We'll probably
:57:41. > :57:45.do a lot of last-minute writing and have a very stressed cast learning
:57:46. > :57:51.new lines at the last minute. You are not new to that? . Do youville a
:57:52. > :57:57.quoshging title? Well the Three Brexiteers but it might change. Will
:57:58. > :58:01.it be a lit it bit like Yes Minister, meets the Manor Born.
:58:02. > :58:07.Well, it will be funny. And perhaps a little savage in places. I do hope
:58:08. > :58:10.So these three people will be probably dealing with the probably
:58:11. > :58:14.the biggest constitutional change for 100 years or something and it is
:58:15. > :58:19.very hard not to relish the prospect of having Boris on stage. Who is
:58:20. > :58:23.going to play Boris? The theatre is his proper residence. Is that where
:58:24. > :58:29.he should be? Do you think he has missed his vocation? He is wasting
:58:30. > :58:32.his time in politics. He is our very first comedy Foreign Minister. Have
:58:33. > :58:36.you asked him about a change of career? We will ask him along. But
:58:37. > :58:42.not to star? We'll let him come to the first night. I think you should
:58:43. > :58:46.ask viewers for a suggested title. I was going with Grace Favour and
:58:47. > :58:50.Boris. On that note, thank you very much for coming N we look forward to
:58:51. > :58:52.T thank you for being our Guesting of today.
:58:53. > :58:55.I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage
:58:56. > :58:56.of Prime Minister's Questions.
:58:57. > :59:09.He's a scientist, brilliant apparently.