04/03/2012 Sunday Politics London

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Our top story: will the coalition

agreed to scrap red tape in the Budget to make it easier for

employers to hire and fire? I will ask the new Lib Dem business

minister, Norman Lamb. Alex Salmond has and one to business referendum

until late 2014, but says he will kick off the Yes campaign in May.

Scotland's first minister joins us for the Sunday interview. As the

price of petrol reaches record highs, should the Chancellor cut

fuel duty? The petrol head and a green campaigner go head-to-head.

And our top political panel here to analyse British politics in the

week ahead, and tweeting fervently throughout the programme. It London,

should a Christian charity be allowed to provide a paid

parliamentary interns. Some MPs say controversial views on

All that and more in the next hour, There is new evidence of the scale

of funding cuts charities are facing. A leaked report suggest the

sector has lost at least �1 billion of funding in the current financial

year. The Cabinet Office disputes the figures.

Some of the funding hasn't materialised. This Nottingham

counselling Service has told people for more than 30 years. The charity

was held by it there hundred million pounds Transocean fund set

up by the government to help charities adapt to cuts in funding.

-- transition fund. It found in the leaked report that charities face

to cut of �524 million in the financial year and estimated cuts

to all UK charities would be between �1,000,000,005.5 billion

I think we can be fairly sure that the charity sector is being hit

disproportionately hard and we can be confident that this year's cuts

are going to be harder. Charities are calling on the Chancellor to

announce another transition fund in his forthcoming Budget. But money

is tight. The government said reforms including tax incentives

and greater access to contracts would provide an extra �600 million

for charities over this Parliament, but, said this report, that

represents the facts. It made all kinds of extrapolations from

analysis of a relatively small number of charities that by

definition were the most vulnerable. There will be a reduction in public

expenditure on charity, but the question is as a government, what

are we doing to support and strength and the sector.

Cabinet Office's dispute the figures, but no one denies that

charities are struggling in tough economic times, and that is a worry

for the government with the Prime Minister committed to opening up

public services and giving the voluntary sector a far greater role

in tackling societies deeper A man has been shot dead by police

after they stopped a car in which she was travelling. The incident,

which took place in Cheshire last night, has been referred to the

independent Police Complaints Commission. Two men were arrested

at the scene. At least 15 people have been killed and more than 50

injured in a head on a train crash in southern Poland. The trains were

travelling at high speed on the same track. Fancied for the moment.

More news at after 6:30pm. -- that Less than three weeks to the Budget

but the coalition is trying to reach agreement on measures to

boost economic growth. Let's talk to the Liberal Democrat business

minister, Norman Lamb. Mr Lam, do you plan to do anything to make it

easier for small businesses to hire and fire? Well, yes. The government

is all ready work in -- already working on ways to ease the route

to take on a new worker, just the simple things to make it easier to

get all the different measures in place when you take on an employee.

That is often very difficult for small businesses. We are also

extending the qualifying period before you can claim unfair

dismissal between one year up to two years, and addressing the

problem of settling disputes when things go wrong, making it easier

to settle disputes and reduce the number of claims that end up in

tribunals. There are already a number of things that we are doing.

And there will be a call for evidence to look at what happens

internationally, both in countries like Germany and Australia, to get

used of people in this country as well about how you can ease the way

forward for small businesses -- get the views of people in this country.

Would it be fair to say you are against the report that was

commissioned in Downing Street? You are against the report's radical

plans to cut employment regulations. Correct? I want there to be a

rational debate about this. I was an employment lawyer and I

understand employers frustrations very well. I want to address the

anxieties that employers have about the challenges of employment law.

So are you largely for or against the changes? Why I am against is

encouraging a culture of hiring and firing. The best employment

practices to recruit well, investing your staff, and that is

the best way to improve productivity. -- invest in your

staff. I recognise there are many employers to get anxious about what

happens when a number employee -- and employees underperforming. I

have ideas from my own practice in employment in how we can ease the

way for employers to resolve the problems, often reaching agreements

with the employee. The problem is you have to go to an expensive

lawyer at the moment to get it sorted out, something like I used

to be. What we want to do is mainstream the approaches I used to

make it easier for small businesses to deal with those problems when

they arise, and I think that is a really important thing we need to

tackle. Some of that sounds like tinkering at the edges. Wouldn't it

be fair to say, as the Tories say, that the Lib Dems are the road

block to the reform on this issue? Absolutely not. I have had

constructive discussions with conservative colleagues about how

to make the system work better. What we all are focusing on is

finding ways in which we can boost employment, and that is critical.

We can improve competitiveness. But at the same time we do not throw

away employment rights that could increase anxiety and end up with

unintended consequences. I think there is a way forward where we can

achieve agreement on this, improving processes, and making it

simpler for small employers to tackle these problems without

losing the protection that is actually important for many working

people. You are close to Nick Clegg. I am not asking what will be in the

Budget, but he's your party of for a deal on tax, a cut on the top

rate of income tax in return for higher property taxes on big

houses? As a general sort of principle, I think shifting tax

away from employment and onto an unearned wealth and pollution is a

good principle, but the Lib Dem priority is to cut tax for people

on low and middle incomes. That is where the squeeze is. Are you up

for a deal or not? Our focus is absolutely on cutting tax.

understand that, but are you up for a deal? That has to come first.

then are you what run deal? I am not part of the budget negotiations,

and you will have to wait until we know that the -- details. That is

the principle, we want to cut tax for people on lower incomes.

Whether Scotland decides to stay in the United Kingdom will go alone is

an independent country is the biggest challenge to the British

constitution in 300 years. Alex Salmond doesn't want to settle the

question until the autumn of 2014. David Cameron once the issue

resolved earlier, maybe much earlier, but what will the road to

the referendum look like? At the moment there are more questions

than answers. When is the referendum taking place? Autumn

2014 is Alex Salmond's favoured date. Last week it was suggested

18th October 1920 14 would be the day of destiny. But David Cameron

has made it clear he does not want to wait that long. I think there is

a strong case for getting on and asking the question. The Scottish

people I speak to one to have this debate, they want to have the

question answered. -- wants to have this debate. There is a cloud over

Scotland's future. I don't see why we have to wait as long as the

First Minister wants. One of the biggest areas of disagreement

between London and Edinburgh is over what should be on the ballot

paper. The UK government says they should be a single straightforward

question on independence. But the Scottish government wants to

include an option on Defoe Max. And then there is the question on who

will be able to vote. Alex Salmon says 16 and 17 year-olds should

have the vote -- Alex Salmond. But he wants to exclude Scots in the

rest of the UK who are not on the as the mechanics of the referendum

there is pressure on the First Minister to set out exactly what an

independent Scotland would look like. I travel to Aberdeen to meet

Alex Salmond for today's Sunday First Minister, Scotland face is

the most decision -- important decision in 300 year, so I want to

get clarity on what independence means. As head of state, you say

you would keep the Queen. But it wasn't that long ago the your

party's policy was to have a referendum on a republic and lots

of your member -- members are of a republican mindset. Is this a

change because you do not want to scare the voters? I think that was

15 years, and in those 15 years parties have changed policies Major

times at Westminster and are barely recognisable from 15 years ago, but

for a number of years we put forward the proposition that Her

Majesty the Queen and her successor should be head of state in a

constitutional monarchy. Nothing unusual about that. Scotland and

England had 100 years we have the same monarch a way independent

countries. -- where we had the same monarch but where independent

countries. The Queen is head of state in 16 countries at the moment,

so we would be in the family of countries there. I think there is a

wider message to people, and that is the aspect of the Social Union

between Scotland and England that we want to see continue, and I

think the monarchy is the personification of that. So no

post-independence referendum on a republic? Correct. Let's move to

another area way you seem to have changed policy. You have also said

to want to keep the pound, but it also said -- it was long ago you

were an enthusiast for the euro. Why the change? As was that Tony

Blair government, and the Liberal Democrat government might be now. I

am saying that I was just reported of saying that when the facts

change, I changed my mind. I think it was a great adage from a great

economist. Given the condition of the year wrote, that is not a

sensible policy option to advocate -- given the condition of the euro.

I don't think the euro is looking for additional members. We are

looking forward as they Stirling's own, and that seemed to have a lot

of strength. Three years ago you'd told Spanish television that euro

membership is "a strong argument for independence". You also added

in that sterling was sinking like a stone. I will rest on John Maynard

Keynes. When the facts change, I changed my mind. Not a bad adage.

But like with the flip-flop on the monarchy, it's hard to avoid the

impression you have changed, because you know that Scotland do

not want to join the euro even though you have been a supporter of

membership until recently. You have done it again to not scared of

horses, we will keep the head of state, keep the pound but a few

years ago you were arguing for the euro. I was elected as first

minister of Scotland by a substantial number of Scottish

people in 2007 and re-elected by an overwhelming number of Scottish

people in 2011. They seem to accept that the evolution of policy is

Ayse -- a sensible thing in the modern world. So you will keep the

pound? That is your policy. So interest rates would be set in

London. I can remember a time when you would complain endlessly about

interest rates being set in London but she would not change it? Again,

the circumstances have changed. One of the arguments in terms of

sterling was that it went to a long period of time where there was a

premium on sterling interest rates, say over Deutschmark rate. We are

now in a period where sterling interest rates, not the rate paid

by businesses, but nonetheless the official Bank of England rate is

extremely low and I don't think there is an interest rate argument

against sterling at the moment. I think there are good arguments in

favourite of the currency zone policy that we are putting forward.

But interest rates would be set in an independent Scotland to suit the

the UK, not Scotland. It will be the Bank of England setting it.

do not have a single member, not a single Scot, who would be a likely

candidate at the monetary policy at the Bank of England. We are saying

if you look at similar arrangements in the past say between Belgium and

Luxembourg to pursue a successful monetary union over many years,

then Luxembourg had influence, not determination, but influence. But

then who does determine interest rates? We live in an era of an

independent central bank. wouldn't be you. But it would not

be George Osborne of all the UK. I am merely pointing out that

politicians in London or Edinburgh would not do it, but we would have

ability through the monetary policy committee to argue in terms of the

economic conditions. It is not a foregone conclusion they would have

a member for you one. Who would back me? They are meant to be

Politicians at Westminster are also in a position of no political

influence. If you have monetary union, which is what you're saying,

all the lessons from the recent eurozone crisis are that for

monetary union to work, it needs a high degree of fiscal union as well.

So, in an independent Scotland, your fiscal policy would not be

totally independent. I disagree with you. I think the fundamental

lesson of the eurozone crisis is that for monetary union to work,

there has to be comparable productivity rates between

component members. The euro currently has a combination of

different productivity levels, that's the underlying instability.

One of the reasons that a sterling zone would work would be that we

have similar productivity levels between Scotland and the rest of

the UK. I agree, you need a fiscal stability arrangement. One much

respected economist here in Scotland, often quoted by your

party, says that your fiscal room for manoeuvre would be limited.

it would be limited, but if I may say so, I spelt it out a couple of

weeks ago at the London School of Economics, to general acceptance, I

would say, half a dozen fiscal policy initiatives you could make

to boost growth within the context of a stability pact. Your fiscal

room for movement is limited in the modern world anyway. By being part

of a monetary union with the rest of the UK? I would not necessarily

say that. Let's say that we said borrowing should not be more than

3% over the long term, I would say that is no more than the fiscal

discipline that any sensible country would have in any case.

That's interesting, you would agree to enter into a borrowing packed

with London? There would have to be a stability pact. Which would limit

the amount you could borrow. Can we clarify whether an independent

Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the EU? No, we would

be a successor state, one of two successor states, both of which

would have to negotiate, but within the context of the wider European

Union. But there is no precedent for an EU member-state doing this,

it is uncharted territory. There are and many leading legal experts,

including at Glasgow University and Edinburgh University, and many

others, who have said that Scotland would have to reapply. Why should

Scots believe you, rather than the experts? Many people, including

former director generals of the European Union, all argue the

contrary position, that both countries would be in the same

position with regard to each other, and with regards to the European

Union. And of course, there is no precedent for any country being

expelled, either. We have established that it is

unprecedented, though you are trying to give a guarantee - have

you sought advice from your own Scottish law officers? We have.

What did they say? You can read that in the documents that we have

put forward. What did they say? cannot give you the review of the

legal advice of the law officers, you know that. But what we can say

is that everything that we have published his consistent with the

legal advice that we have received. We can argue, lawyer against a

lawyer... No, I am just asking you what the advice was. The only

precedent I can think of in terms of the publication of legal advice,

from any government, is the advice on the Iraq war. No government will

publish legal advice. But this is about the future of our country. Do

you not owe it to the Scottish people to publish both the advice

of the Scottish law officers and the advice of Brussels? Have you

got advice from Brussels? As you would expect, the commission has

said that they will not answer an hypothetical question. Although you

will have noted the number of agency reports saying that European

Commission lawyers actually agree with the successor state argument.

Why are you dragging out the referendum? I am not dragging it

out at all. We have got to have a timetable which can be agreed in

the Scottish Parliament. If I may say so, the people who are saying

this seem to be in no fit condition to argue their case. So, run it now

and win. I think it is important that when we come to the referendum

in the autumn of 2014, that people have an exact proposition on

independence, which I have pledged to give, everybody's questions

having been answered to people's satisfaction. And of course, people

in Scotland have to know what the alternative is. In the last few

weeks we have seen a variety of alternatives springing forward, the

only thing the anti-independence campaign are agreed on is that

they're against independence, but they disagree on everything else.

Many people in Scotland just think you are frightened, because you

think you will lose if you have the referendum now. Many people, not

just in Scotland... You are. They told me there would not be a

Scottish Parliament, and there is, then they told me there would not

be an SNP government. I think we will win the referendum, and I am

so confident about that that shortly after the local elections

in May, the yes campaign will be launched, and that campaign will

not just be the Scottish National Party, it will be a broad-based

campaign, with job creators, unions, a variety of people coming together

to enunciate the case for independence. That positive

approach is going to contrast markedly with opponents who are

united only in their negativity. Thank you very much. This week, the

cost of petrol will reach record highs, 137.4 pence for a litre of

unleaded. The increasing strain on motorists is fuelling a campaign to

urge George Osborne to cut fuel duty in his budget this month. So

far, the signs are that he will not heed their calls, but could any cat

actually bring in more money to the Treasury? We have been looking at

These days, petrol bills are feeling anything but mini. This man

runs tours around London, and fuel prices weigh heavily on his mind.

Seriously, it is getting pretty scary these days. It is a new

record, at �1.42, it is extortion it, and I just hope and pray that

it has not got any more. Petrol and diesel prices have gone in that

direction for lots of reasons - instability in the Middle East, the

value of the pound, but also because of tax. The Government

takes duty and VAT worth 60p in every pound spent at the pumps, the

highest proportion in the EU. The coalition are trying to do

something about it. They have postponed two planned increases in

duty, they have introduced a fuel stabiliser, and this week, people

in remote areas are getting a discount on their fuel duty. Drive

on. And with budget fever revving up at Westminster, some are

lobbying the Chancellor to do even more. I am asking the Government to

forgo the August tax rise and look seriously at cutting fuel taxes in

the long term. The latest stats this week show that a cut of only

Melaine Walker in fuel duty would create 180,000 jobs. We desperately

need those jobs.. But the problem is, that would require the

Government to pull off a tricky manoeuvre with the public finances.

If the Chancellor decides to cut fuel duty, his dabbling with

something which in principle brings in �30 billion a year, and any cut

will reduce that by several hundreds of millions. So, he has

got to be careful, it will potentially make a bit of a dent,

although, in the content -- context of a total tax take of between �500

billion and �600 billion, there is an argument that he could take a

cut of a couple of pence per litre. The Chancellor is facing demands

from a load more people than you could fit into a Mini. That was our

whole production team! So, should the Chancellor cut fuel duty in his

Budget? Joining me now, Quentin Willson, from FairFuelUK, and Sian

Berry. This is actually affecting the economy, and people. The point

is that if you cut duty by 2.5p, the CBI report says it will be

fiscally neutral for the Treasury, because you create jobs. That money

is going back into the economy, things like clothing, food,

household goods, leisure and entertainment. All of these things

are being constrained because people cannot afford... But surely

you're simply moving the money from fuel duty to people spending it on

other things. Yes, but money which is not spent on higher fuel duty

will be spent in the wider economy. What could be wrong with that, no

loss in revenue, he says? If you're going to spend money on something

like this, then the main thing is getting people out of car

dependency. We know what the markets have done to the petrol

price recently. The AA have called them greedy speculators. Any cut

will be swallowed up by speculation like that. We need to be spending

money on reversing bus cuts, rail fares. Some people this week have

been talking about transport poverty, where you have not got a

car and your bus services have been cut. That's the kind of thing we

need to be spending money on. should we have to pay more than our

European neighbours for petrol? would accept a delay in the further

increase, because of what the markets have done, but a cat is

effectively government spending, and government spending needs to be

spent instead on getting us out of the car. It will give people a

relief socially. The truth is that since 1997, the overall cost of

motoring, unlike public transport, which has gone through the roof,

has fallen by 7%, so why more for motorists? Tell that to the people

who write to me to say, I have had to give up my job because I am

spending more on fuel than I am spending on rent every month. It is

a deeply important social issue, which is emasculating the economy

and stopping people going to work. Half of all families in actual

poverty do not have a car at all. These cuts are having a terrible

effect on young people looking for jobs, trying to get into education.

Those are social problems which could be solved by further

investment in bus services. I am saying we should do both of them,

we have got to develop a transport system, that is something we need,

but it will take 10 years. But a cut in fuel duty would help lots of

ordinary families, what's wrong with that? Most households are

single car households, most of the people in the household do not rely

on the car, they rely on public transport. 70% of councils have cut

bus services this year. It would only cost tens of millions to

reverse those cuts to the bus services. But you want a cut in

duty at a time, over the years, we used to see tables about fuel duty,

and we see that now it is lower in real terms than it was in 2009.

of every litre you put into your card goes in tax, the highest in

the eurozone. This is not right. does make business more expensive,

doesn't it, including heavy vehicles? Yes, and fuel prices are

only going to go up in the future. In the long term we need to reduce

our reliance on oil, not encourage it by doing this. How would you pay

for it - there is no money, so you will have to find the money?

would increase economic activity, that's the way we do it. By

reducing duty, you're increasing That was fun. It is midday and you

are watching the Sunday Politics, coming up in 20 minutes. I will

look at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the

Welcome to the land a part of Sunday Politics where we will be

talking about hacking, horses and have a head-to-head between Boris

Johnson's to rival biographers. They will be here shortly. A little

later, why some MPs are saying one Christian charity should not be

allowed to pay for parliamentary in terms because of their "extremist

views". To pick over the entrails of the week are Bob Neill and Heidi

Alexander, the Labour MP for Lewisham East. She also has a

shadow post in the Department of Environment and rural affairs. We

know the Olympics are a showcase for the capital, but can they be a

showcase for protest, public sector cuts, as suggested by the leader of

the country's biggest union? Not in the way been proposed by Len

McCluskey. It was disgraceful to say that the Olympics, which is a

showcase for the UK is a legitimate target for, his phrase, civil

disobedience. We have industrial relations issues, and there are

other ways to pursue it, but that was a throwback to the bad old days

and a naked bit of self-interest. Whatever disputes you might have,

the last thing you do start trashing your country in front of

half of the world, and potentially encouraging people to spoil what

should be a fantastic event for folks and families across the

country and the world. He is only suggesting protest, not breaking

the law. Should and visitors to the country get a rounded and full

impression of what people are thinking? -- shouldn't visitors.

This is the point in the year when the eyes are on London, and it

should be a showcase for the capital. I disagree with what Len

McCluskey said. I don't think we should be disrupting the Games. I

think the problem here is that the unions and a lot of public sector

workers are very fed-up and frustrated with the way the

negotiations, the so-called negotiations have gone on on public

sector pensions and I think there is frustration there, but I don't

think they would be helping their own course, because I think they

would be losing public support were they to disrupt the Games. With the

mayoral election only weeks away, it is no coincidence that

publishers have seen their opportunity. Not one, but two

updated biographies of Boris Johnson are about to be published.

They assess his record and shed fresh light on what was happening

behind the scenes during what many feel was his Hurricane Katrina

moment, the summer riots. My house is on fire, my neighbour's house is

on fire. It is bedlam on the streets. Both authors say the riots

took Boris Johnson by surprise, but according to one biographer,

Downing Street sources said they found it incredible that the mayor

did not return from holiday until the 4th day of disturbances. The

sources have maintained that the mayor did not understand gravity of

the situation and that his lack of empathy with local people in front

of the cameras dismayed the Tory leadership will watching. However,

the following morning he would appear on the radio and seemed to

criticise the Government's plans to cut police numbers. I think this is

not a time to think about making substantial cuts in police numbers.

This announcement put a huge strain on his relationship with the Prime

Minister. As the capital came to terms with the destruction, its

national and local government were I am joined by Andrew Jameson and

Sonia Purnell who both have updated biography is coming out. How did

the summer riots and his handling of them define Boris Johnson? You

say he flunked it. Why? I think that was his test as to what he

would be like is a national leader. He was put under a lot of pressure,

and people needed empathy, leadership and reassurance and

guidance. The police were being criticised and were not able to

contain the violence and he was out of the country for quite a long

time. When he did come back, he didn't quite strike the right note

and looked slightly smirking in interviews in Clapham with a member

of the public who was trying to tell him how bad things were for

her. I think he failed that particular test. Do you agree was

his Hurricane Katrina moment? Should he have come back soon and

taken a different approach? Here was his lowest point. He was stuck

in a Winnebago van with his wife and children, and everybody was

wrong-footed by this. There was not a single person who was not

astonished. Did he take too long to come back though? I don't think so.

It could have been one night quicker. When he came back and came

to Clapham, did he get the mood right? No, he got it wrong, but he

recovered by picking up that this was not the time people wanted less

money spent on the police, so he tore up the policy on that and to

the Normans annoyance of Downing Street he went on the Today

programme and said he should not be so cutting money for the police.

Cameron was furious with him, but in that respect he did respond to

public opinion. You found he had had dinner the night before we

David Cameron and did not mention he would go on to his favourite BBC

programme and attack the Government's cuts to policing.

behaved like the mayor of London and represented London. He is not

there to represent Cameron. Did you think he was right? What was the

response to his turning on the government and saying there he

needs more money for the police when he had spent three years

saying he could cope with the cuts? That was the biggest rift they had

ever been between Boris and Cameron. George Osborne was sent to deliver

a severe dressing down. Downing Street people said he did really

messed up and they were very cross. He would have been a bigger mess

not to do it, frankly. But what did they feel about it? One of them

described him as a selfish showman? I am not sure at this hour of the

day I can use the actual language. It tends to be the second division

people who get very cross with Forest. Cameron and Osborne,

although crosser the time, they are serious enough to know that if he

does not stand up for London Boris doesn't have a hope. With the

election coming up, can he say that this is a good record? I am

surprised how weak his record is. He is obviously a talented and

clever person but it strikes me they're not big achievement for him

to talk about. We can talk about the bikes, which are fun, but they

cost a lot of money, about �100 million which is a lot of money

during a time of austerity. We have the new buses, but only one at the

moment. That cost �1 million. I happen to like it very much that

it's questionable whether that is a priority. He got rid of the head of

the Metropolitan Police but his successor only lasted a couple of

years. You are taking on balance a negative view. Do you accept that

you? Has he come up to the mark? There were fantastically low

expectations. Do year-old Polly Toynbee said he would be exposed as

a clown and a liar. Did he come up to your mark? Yes, because he was

so determined not to gratify critics on the right and left. He

actually took it very seriously and got a man called Simon Milton in to

run things and he did that very well. A quick sense from both of

you, has there been a certain amount of complacency? The polls

look closer than we thought. Do you think he will win? It is impossible

to say but I think it is good that fight has become tougher. That will

show Tories in other places like Bromley, that will bring them out.

I am hoping the argument goes to policy rather than personality. The

more it goes on to policy, the more trouble he is in. The one quick

word from you to. Bob Neal, just back on the riots, was the selfish

in turning on the government about not providing enough money for the

police when he accepted the settlement for policing? I think

Andrew makes a fair point. In a mature world of devolution you are

going to have different nuances from those of us who have a job to

do in central government to contain public spending and the mayor of a

city like London who has to fight his corner. I am relaxed about it.

I think it was a creation of artificial divisions, because the

Livingstone camp has little to go on. If it comes to records, Boris

is the man who keeps his word. Ken has repeatedly broken his. Forest

should have been standing up for London before the riots -- Forest

should have been. People in my community were coming up to me and

saying they were concerned about cuts to police as they were seen

crime, burglary, robbery, serious violence rising. We need police on

our streets. It is simply not good enough for Boris Johnson to play

catch-up at the end of his four years. Thank you very much indeed.

We will have to see what the next chapter is.

The air have been calls from some MPs to stop one Christian charity

providing paid in turns to worker members in parliament. The

organisation Care has strong views on homosexuality. One MP has

described them as extremist, but another London Tory MP has said he

is happy to have a Care in turn These are the London offices of

Care, in Westminster. From the outside there is little clue as to

what they are about. Their website provides a bit more information.

write speeches for parliamentarians, make our supporters aware of when

key votes are happening and we asked them to write into

parliamentarians. Along with campaigning on Christine issues,

Care pays for interns to work in NP offices a campaign which has become

controversial in recent weeks -- M P offices. In 2009, the sponsor the

event in central London discussing therapeutic approaches to same-sex

attraction, which some describe as trying to change gay people's

sexuality. This greatly concerned Philip Dawson, who, amongst other

things, is the treasurer of the Enfield Conservative Party. Their

MP had an intern from Care. Royal College of psychic --

psychiatrists say to suggest that there is a treatment for

homosexuality allows prejudice to flourish. So our question on

whether a registered charity should be giving its support through co-

sponsoring an event could be argued that they are in effect creating an

environment in which prejudice and discrimination flourish. Indeed,

one openly gay MP feels Care directly discriminated against him.

And in turn would help to ben Bradshaw with his 1997 -- when his

1997 campaign. Very late in the day, the in turn was told, and I do not

know she was given an explanation, that you could not work for ben

Bradshaw. I think the reasons that Care gave to me were pretty clear.

You believe it is because you are gay. Absolutely no doubt about it.

It caused quite a for Rory at the time. Since the beginning of the

time there has been a campaign to stop MPs taking interns from Care.

Three London MPs have had one in the last year, and one of them,

David Lammy, says he wouldn't take on again. Another, Paul Burstow

said he had no comment to make. But the third, David Burrows, whose

interne worked in the same room, says he fully intends to take on

again. If you are going to judge the character of Care and then make

dishes and on the intern you have to look at what they have done over

the years. They have made a great contribution to public life. They

have played a key role in trying to encourage people opting into the

human trafficking direction -- directed, focusing on the child

victims of human trafficking and also the areas around pornography

and internet service providers. Regardless of their agenda, does

the fact that they are paying the in turns to work in Parliament mean

they will have divided loyalties -- in terms. Ben Bradshaw think so.

think it is difficult for the young people concerned. In my case,

although this young woman desperately wanted to work for me.

We knew each other, we were friends and we had helped each other on the

young people are put under coercion in that respect, regardless of what

they themselves might believe. We can go up to Salford and speak

to Hazel Blears, who's running a programme on this matter. Can I ask

you first whether you think there should be or can be controls on the

suitability or otherwise of interns in the House of Commons? I do not

personally know the organisation Care. But there is always a danger

that if a particular group are paying somebody to work in

Parliament, there could be a public perception of having an agenda. The

organisation which I am promoting makes absolutely sure that they are

not funding specific interns, that's the problem, I think.

what about people who might not agree with their views? You can be

sensitive when you're interviewing people, you can ask them your views,

you do not always have to be 100% in agreement with the person you're

working for. But a general sympathy for the views of the person you're

going to be working closely with, particularly in politics, I think

is important. What are you trying to do about the barriers? Well,

there are huge barriers. A lot of the internships are not paid, so it

is virtually are -- virtually impossible if you have not got

money behind you. If you live outside London, it is very

expensive. The scheme that I have set up pays people a proper living

wage, it gives people help with housing, the people come and work

with their MP for four days a week, but they then get a full training

programme about the workings of the House of Commons, it is a very

well-designed scheme, it is cross- party, backed by the Speaker, who

has given us tremendous support, and our first 10 people came to

work in November. They are an inspirational group of people, not

all Young, either. Some have been to university, some haven't.

you doing your bit to bring on people who might not naturally see

a path into Parliament? I do have in terms from time to time, I know

all about Hazel Blears' scheme. I think there is room for other

organisations as well. I don't think you should be too purist

about whether people pay or not, I want people to be able to do

internships from as wide a background as possible, that's the

most important thing. Is there a slight unease if people are

promoting organisations with certain views? There's two things,

I do not think we should be having a witch hunt about view was that

might not be those of the majority. People are entitled to their views.

Hazel Blears is quite right, if you're going to work so -- work

with somebody in parliament, you have to be roughly on the same page.

I have concerns about unpaid internships. What I do is to take a

large number of work experience students, and we have shadowing

scheme, where somebody gets to literally be with me for the whole

day, to see what my job is. I think the problem with the internships

paid for by a third party is that it starts to blur the line between

what is lobbying activity and what is the work that needs to go on in

an MP's office. A final word to you, Hazel Blears. If you have unpaid

internships, it means that usually it is only people with financial

support who can do it. I think we need many more people in Parliament

who come from a variety of backgrounds, and that includes MPs.

There's far too many who have just taken that special adviser route.

What else has been happening in London this week? Here's a flavour

in 60 seconds. The first of the much-trumpeted new buses hit the

streets, and immediately malfunctioned. At the Leveson

Inquiry, the former Assistant Commissioner of the Met rejected

suggestions that drinking champagne with the crime editor at the News

of the World had influenced his thinking. It was revealed that

Rebekah Brooks had been lent a horse by the Metropolitan Police.

Two years later, the horse was returned. The Mayor's

rehabilitation programme at Feltham young offenders' institute will not

continue when the money runs out after the mayoral election. The

results of the scheme will not be known until the summer. Meanwhile,

the new bus continued to falter under the weight of expectations.

I'm sure neither of you have got to ride a retired Met Police horse.

But are you pleased with what the inquiry is doing? I think we do

need to have some light shed on this, it is a matter of concern

across the board. Leveson is a respected High Court judge, a

member of the Court of Appeal, let's see what comes out, let's not

prejudge anything. There is still a lot more to be done. Are you

pleased that somehow he is redressing the balance with regard

to tabloid newspapers? I think Leveson has really exposed some of

the dirty dealings that were going on, whether it's tabloids, members

of the police force, the nature and the extent of what was happening is

quite alarming, really. I would hope to see quite a hard-hitting

report coming out. Thank you very much for being with me today. With

Alex Salmond told me that a Yes campaign for Scottish independence

will begin after the local elections in May. That could mean

one ferry, very, very long campaign. And we understand that Steve Hilton

will be leaving Downing Street, to go to California. Let's discuss all

of that, and more now. Let's begin with the question which Norman Lamb

would not answer which is, are they are the makings of a deal, do you

sense, between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories on

agreeing to cut the top rate at some stage, if we have higher

property tax on people with big houses? I thought it was a bit

feeble of Norman Lamb to be so evasive about this. If you speak to

any other Lib Dem, they were quite openly say, yes, they are ready to

move on 50p, they are not ideologically wedded to it, which I

think is an interesting position. It also puts David Cameron in a

difficult position, because the onus is now on him to explain to

his backbenchers and the business community why sticking with the 50p

is preferable to some kind of wealth tax on property. Will the

Tories by this? It is important to remember, the opposition to getting

rid of the 50p rate does not just come from within government, it

comes from public opinion. My view on the Budget is that you will not

really see anything radical in the way of council tax or a mansion tax

or 50p, it might be a raid on pensions, in respect of higher rate

taxpayers. How would Labour react, do you think, to a deal like that?

They would not like the cut in the 50p, but they would quite like

wealthy folk pay more for their homes? I think this is a really

interesting one. Labour will have to make a decision about what to

support. It cannot be the only party which comes out against a

wealth tax. But I think what we're seeing is, politics seems to be

determined by what works out best in the backroom deals between the

coalition partners, rather than what is just and fair for the

country. Welcome to coalition politics. But where is the

consistency? How do we know what this government stands for, if it

is constantly about the balance of power? In my interview with Alex

Salmond, I teased him about his new friendship with Rupert Murdoch -

what do you make of it, he's really the only major politician who will

be seen in public with Rupert Murdoch, whereas a year ago, they

were falling over themselves to be seen in public with him... Yes,

Rupert Murdoch has a thing for anti-establishment Scots. He was

closer to Gordon Brown than you might have assumed. But clearly,

there is something going on here. Rupert Murdoch was believe there is

a strategic gain for him in the possibility of an independent

Scotland, but what exactly that is, whether that is a lower corporation

tax rate for possibly basing his company there, or whether it is a

lighter approach to press regulation, I do not know. But he

must see something in his relationship. I don't think there

is any doubt about that. Mr Murdoch has never liked Britain, and he

likes it even less now, after the establishment has had its revenge

on him, so he would like to break up the United Kingdom, no question

about it. Alex Salmond would love the Scottish Sun to support the

case for independence, the biggest- selling newspaper. But I think,

when Mr Murdoch saw Alex Salmond, Mr Salmond would not confirm this,

but I am reading between the lines, Mr Murdoch indicated that if

corporation tax in an independent Scotland was cut, he could be talk

into moving BSkyB to Edinburgh. That leads into a much bigger issue

about England is going to be competing with Scotland for

businesses more generally. The other thing which I thought was

really interesting about this is that if you look at the pro-union

Ks, the problem that they have is that it is very rational and

academic, when you look at these arguments, but with your interview

with Alex Salmond, you were getting the sense that this is a community

based, populist, emotional campaign. If you have something like the Sun

coming out and backing them as well, then you're forcing the other side

to look more like the rational, cold-hearted... We should point out

that Sky already employs about 7,000 people in Scotland, because

that is where the call centres are. What a coup that would be. But

first of all, I do not think that Alex Salmond is such a bogeyman

north of the border as he is here, and secondly, it does him no harm

to be seen with the billionaire businessman. It helps his

credibility in the business community. He used to mix with

Donald Trump, but he has now fallen out with him, so we shall see.

Moving on now, what is the significance of the departure of

Steve Hilton? Huge. I think there are plenty of people in politics

who are good at pure politics, and plenty who are good at

administration, but there are very few who have a vision about what

the country should look like, and what you should do with power, and

Steve Hilton was one of those. Without him, there is a danger that

the Government becomes a bit too tactical, a bit too focused on

retaining power, and worried about winning the next election, rather

than doing something with the country while they are in pole.

fear it is that the Government looks like a deflated balloon.

Steve Hilton was there to provide the bigger picture, and it is

concerning that the reason that he is leaving his because he thinks

the Government has one out of steam. So, effectively, we have got three

years of frankly not much happening. I think we should all take a

sabbatical for three years. It goes back to what you were saying about

the coalition, from the Tory papers about the Government running out of

steam, and Steve Hilton's departure making it worse. It is interesting,

because this government has been incredibly reforming, but the

reform has not always been popular, when we look at the NHS or schools,

it is not like people are clamouring for these things. But

the good thing that reform has provided is a distraction from what

would otherwise be a politics of austerity, which is not actually

working out very well. When you lose the person who's providing

that positive vision, that agenda of what you're about, what you are

for, as well as what you're cutting, then it could leave you in a hard

place. The big myth about Steve Hilton is that he is some kind of

closet leftie, but he is not. He is a Thatcherite. How can you do that,

while you are in London? This allows me to officially deny that I

am Steve Hilton's guru. But I think I know who it is! That's it for