:03:59. > :04:03.parliament in contempt? That is right. You are tempted to say that
:04:03. > :04:08.the electorate must feel awful about this, but they have no say in this,
:04:08. > :04:11.because these are peers. People have no say. It is politicians who decide
:04:11. > :04:17.who goes into the House of Lords. People are fed up with this. There
:04:17. > :04:20.was the example last week Patrick Mercer, and I think the House of
:04:20. > :04:23.Commons generally is held to higher standards now than the House of
:04:23. > :04:27.Lords, but there is not really proper is not really proper scooter
:04:27. > :04:33.near the House of Lords. Reporters very rarely sit in the press gallery
:04:33. > :04:39.at the House of Lords. Obviously, there is the gay marriage bill, but
:04:40. > :04:44.it is not really scrutinised properly. Here is a question - do we
:04:44. > :04:49.have any evidence that lobbyists are actually doing this, as opposed to
:04:49. > :04:55.journalists posing as lobbyists? This is what intrigues me. If
:04:55. > :05:01.parliamentarians are guilty of this, it is stupidity. How many newspapers
:05:01. > :05:03.things have to be conduct before MPs and Lords realise that if they
:05:03. > :05:08.receive strange delegations of people offering them money, the
:05:08. > :05:13.thing to do is to say no? Maybe it happens so often from real lobbyists
:05:13. > :05:17.that they do not think there is anything unusual when somebody from
:05:17. > :05:21.Fiji comes along and says, put down these questions and we will stick
:05:21. > :05:27.2000 in your bank account every month. Precisely, I know Patrick
:05:27. > :05:30.Mercer, and he is nobody's fall, as you well know. I rather suspect that
:05:30. > :05:35.these delegations are not as strange as we might wish they were. In
:05:35. > :05:40.relation to MPs, hence we have reached a point where we now need to
:05:40. > :05:44.pay them more. I know that will make everybody wins, give them a really
:05:44. > :05:49.substantial pay rise, and say, that is it, no more outside interests.
:05:49. > :05:53.Just cut it out altogether, then there can be no ducking and diving.
:05:53. > :05:57.Bungle it would also deal with the expenses problem. Raise the salary
:05:57. > :06:02.to a level that we would find hard to swallow, but also abolish the
:06:02. > :06:12.expensive regime -- expenses regime and ban them from taking outside
:06:12. > :06:13.
:06:13. > :06:21.income. That would deal with 90% of the problem. You could only do that
:06:21. > :06:28.after you were elected, not in the run-up to the election! Another
:06:28. > :06:33.week, another stinging, catching MPs out in the Lords - how bad is this?
:06:33. > :06:40.I think it is very depressing that we are flashing back to 1994, and
:06:40. > :06:45.the sort of potential cash for questions type of scandal. Why can't
:06:45. > :06:49.we get our house in order, why can't we reform? Certainly, the House of
:06:49. > :06:54.Lords desperately needs reform. Why can't we get a culture in the House
:06:54. > :06:58.of Commons that these sorts of things cannot get off the ground?
:06:58. > :07:03.But why cannot we have proper sanctions against those who fall for
:07:04. > :07:08.such things? Patrick Mercer has lost the Tory party whip lash why should
:07:08. > :07:13.voters regard that as any sort of punishment? I agree entirely. Of
:07:13. > :07:17.course, there is a way of dealing with it. If the Parliamentary
:07:17. > :07:20.Commissioner for Standards finds he has breached the rules, it goes to
:07:20. > :07:26.the committee for standards and privilege, who can suspend a member
:07:26. > :07:30.of Parliament. Of course, that happened to Denis McShane. He saw
:07:30. > :07:33.that even staying as an independent was untenable if he was suspended
:07:33. > :07:38.from the House of Commons. If the same was to happen to Patrick
:07:38. > :07:41.Mercer, then, in due course, he would have to stand down and there
:07:41. > :07:46.would have to be a by-election, which I am sure the people of Newark
:07:46. > :07:49.would prefer. If that does not happen, the reality is that Mr
:07:49. > :07:55.Mercer will stay in the Commons for another two years, until the
:07:55. > :08:03.election, earning �130, and any expenses he cares to file as well,
:08:03. > :08:10.it carries on as normal. Yes, it is unacceptable, I agree entirely. --
:08:10. > :08:14.�130,000. There is a lot of talk of the idea of the power of recall,
:08:14. > :08:18.whereby the voters in a constituency can call for another election, and
:08:18. > :08:25.he or she can either stand or not, is it not time for something like
:08:25. > :08:32.that? I am sympathetic to the idea, although you do have the worry
:08:32. > :08:40.about, if, for example, an MP votes in a way that the local constituents
:08:40. > :08:42.do not agree with, and you get a lobby going to get rid of him,
:08:42. > :08:48.wouldn't that be equally unacceptable as well? I think it
:08:48. > :08:53.would be much better if the committee on standards and
:08:53. > :08:57.privileges could deal with, as I say, suspending a member of
:08:57. > :09:02.Parliament until the next general election, which would in effect mean
:09:03. > :09:12.he would have to stand down. We have got these three Lords now, who have
:09:13. > :09:21.
:09:22. > :09:26.also been caught in a sting. What is to stop them carrying on, claiming
:09:26. > :09:31.allowances and things like that? Yes, I think you can even go to jail
:09:31. > :09:36.and carry on. The House of Lords is over ripe for reform. Why have we
:09:36. > :09:41.got a second chamber where, between 800 and 900 people, and I think they
:09:41. > :09:47.are being added to every few months by the Prime Minister's office, why
:09:47. > :09:49.have we got such a second chamber of such a size, which is clearly so
:09:49. > :09:55.vulnerable to the sort of lobbying influence that we have been hearing
:09:55. > :09:57.about? Because, I would suggest to you, it has become a dumping ground
:09:57. > :10:04.for the establishment, and these people have got nothing else to
:10:04. > :10:09.do... Well, then, people have to call for reform, and people have to
:10:09. > :10:13.follow it through. Even if Nick Clegg's proposals were not the most
:10:13. > :10:20.ideal, they would have been very much better than what we have got at
:10:20. > :10:23.the moment. Thank you for joining us. As we have been hearing, today's
:10:23. > :10:27.revelations focus on members of the House of Lords allegedly offering
:10:27. > :10:32.their Parliamentary services for money. Two of those involved are
:10:32. > :10:35.Labour peers, so what is the party going to do about it? Shadow defence
:10:35. > :10:40.secretary Jim Murphy joins me from Glasgow. What action will Labour
:10:40. > :10:47.take against the two Labour peers caught this morning in the Sunday
:10:47. > :10:52.Times sting? Good morning. Obviously, I have watched the
:10:52. > :10:55.videotape from here in Glasgow of what the Sunday Times has, and what
:10:55. > :10:58.has been broadcast, and I sit here with my toes curling up inside my
:10:58. > :11:03.shoes out of utter embarrassment about some of the things which
:11:03. > :11:09.appear to be said. There is the quote about, this is a bribe, or I
:11:09. > :11:14.will deny it when asked. Our view is clear, which is that if there is
:11:14. > :11:17.real evidence of serious wrongdoing, and somebody brings Parliament and
:11:17. > :11:23.politics into disrepute, then disciplinary action should be taken.
:11:23. > :11:27.I cannot sit here ten seconds after having watched a clip and say what
:11:27. > :11:33.should happen, but there will be an enquiry, and if serious wandering
:11:33. > :11:36.has been undertaken, there will be disciplinary action. Your
:11:36. > :11:40.disciplinary action is that you suspend the Labour whip if they are
:11:40. > :11:45.found to be gutty, or even suspended from the party, but you must be
:11:45. > :11:48.aware that no voter regards that as any kind of sanction or penalty.
:11:48. > :11:54.There is a range of disciplinary action, both from the party, from
:11:54. > :11:59.Parliament and from the authorities, the criminal 40s. We
:11:59. > :12:03.have seen this starting with Patrick Mercer in his alleged actions around
:12:04. > :12:08.lobbying on behalf of Fiji. -- criminal authorities. I think the
:12:08. > :12:11.public, who have looked on with a sense of astonishment, a sense that
:12:11. > :12:18.there is one rule for those who govern, and another for those who
:12:18. > :12:22.are governed, will be utterly sickened by this. That is why I am
:12:22. > :12:26.asking you what you are going to do about it. I have already answered,
:12:26. > :12:32.that in this specific case, I cannot comment, based on a video I have
:12:32. > :12:35.seen a few seconds ago. But firstly, there needs to be a register of
:12:35. > :12:42.lobbyist, not to prevent things, because I think stings are a
:12:42. > :12:47.legitimate part of journalism, but there has to be a compulsory
:12:47. > :12:51.register of lobbyist 's, so that all of that can be regulated. But you
:12:51. > :12:56.opposed that, let me pick you up on that, you opposed that when you were
:12:56. > :13:01.in power. It was in our manifesto, we have offered to work with the
:13:01. > :13:07.government on a nonparty basis. We could sort it out on that basis.
:13:07. > :13:12.why did you opposed the policy in 2009 and 2010? It is very easy for
:13:12. > :13:19.you in opposition to say, let's do this, but when you were in power, in
:13:19. > :13:24.2009-10, you opposed a register. 2010, when we were in power, we said
:13:24. > :13:27.we would put it in the manifesto for the forthcoming election. The other
:13:27. > :13:32.important thing, this point of recall, which you have been
:13:32. > :13:35.discussing, I think it is really important that if a member of
:13:35. > :13:43.Parliament, a member of the House of Commons, behaves in a disgraceful
:13:43. > :13:46.way, bringing themselves into disrepute, behaving in a way which
:13:46. > :13:52.is way below the standards expect it, then there should be that
:13:52. > :13:56.recall, we should not have to wait several years before they can cease
:13:56. > :13:58.to be a member of Parliament. There is one important caveat dash it
:13:58. > :14:08.cannot be just because you do not like your member of Parliament,
:14:08. > :14:11.because you did not vote for them, it has to be for behaviour, serious
:14:11. > :14:16.financial misbehaviour, which brings Parliament and Parliament into
:14:16. > :14:21.disrepute. Because I think the public probably thought things could
:14:21. > :14:24.not get any worse, but this is a new low for British politics, and it has
:14:24. > :14:29.to be resolved. That leads to the question of the House of Lords,
:14:29. > :14:34.these lords, even if found guilty, continue to attend, the their daily
:14:34. > :14:39.allowance, pick up their expenses - what would you do about that?
:14:39. > :14:43.reform is not yet complete in the House of Commons, but I think we
:14:44. > :14:48.have only just scratched the surface, all the political parties,
:14:49. > :14:53.when it comes to reforming the House of Lords. What would you do?There
:14:53. > :14:55.is too much self-regulation, there needs to be a system whereby, if
:14:55. > :15:01.someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, and has served
:15:01. > :15:05.time, they should not be able to help form and create the law of the
:15:05. > :15:12.land. Those massive reforms would be really important. There is no issue
:15:12. > :15:15.thereabout the power of recall. So, there has to be, if you like, an
:15:15. > :15:25.even stronger set of sanctions and powers when it comes to the House of
:15:25. > :15:25.
:15:25. > :15:28.Lords. Can I finally ask you, Theresa May, the secretary, she
:15:28. > :15:32.wants reintroduce the Communications Data Bill, critics call it the
:15:32. > :15:42.snooper charter, are you willing to help to deal with the Tories to get
:15:42. > :15:45.that past Lib Dem opposition? Government get it right, we would
:15:45. > :15:51.support the legislation. The first responsibility, as you know, is to
:15:51. > :15:54.protect the public from a group of individuals or malevolent
:15:54. > :15:58.organisations who continue to shift their tactics and continue to make
:15:58. > :16:01.use of new technology, so the Government can consult internet
:16:01. > :16:06.service providers that they get it right, so it is capable of carrying
:16:06. > :16:10.ads that work. If they guarantee it is not going to be a significant
:16:10. > :16:13.infringement on the majority, we think it would be important to get
:16:13. > :16:18.some new legislation in place. Think of what happened in Woolwich. It is
:16:18. > :16:21.important we are able to guard against those kind of sanctions but
:16:21. > :16:26.those two people have been arrested for but it is important that we
:16:26. > :16:29.don't snoop and keep the Civil Liberties. It is clear that you are
:16:29. > :16:33.willing to talk to the Government about this and I thank you for that
:16:33. > :16:38.answer. That was Jim Murphy in Glasgow.
:16:38. > :16:42.Parliament returns next week after two weeks relaxing, but it is
:16:42. > :16:44.unlikely to have done much to ease the tensions coalition, with
:16:44. > :16:48.controversies over terrorism and the lobbying scandal awaiting the
:16:48. > :16:52.Government parties when they return from the beach.
:16:52. > :16:57.The spring of 2010 was a harmonious time for the coalition and in the
:16:57. > :17:02.months after the Rose Garden traced, France's mud was an evangelist for
:17:02. > :17:08.2-party rule. He told the Guardian that broad-based government was a
:17:08. > :17:12.huge advantage. Today, that optimism looks misplaced. Parliament returns
:17:12. > :17:15.from recess for the first time since the Woolwich murders. In response to
:17:15. > :17:20.the atrocity, Theresa May wants to resurrect her Communications data
:17:20. > :17:23.Bill, which was dropped from the Queen's Speech. But Nick Clegg
:17:23. > :17:26.believes the so-called Snooper's Charter remains on workable. And
:17:26. > :17:32.despite this warning from David Cameron about lobbying before the
:17:32. > :17:35.election... There is, I believe, another big issue which we can no
:17:35. > :17:40.longer ignore. It is the next big handle waiting to happen. There is
:17:40. > :17:43.still a register of lobbyists. Nick Clegg says he wants reform but his
:17:43. > :17:47.partner stopped it. It was not in the Queen's Speech, it was not
:17:48. > :17:52.something we could get across the coalition. I hope at some point we
:17:52. > :17:56.will. In 2010, Francis Maude said there was a lot of trust and a lot
:17:57. > :18:02.of stuff gets sorted out. Three years on, the unresolved stop is
:18:02. > :18:08.stacking up. Francis Maude joins us from his
:18:08. > :18:11.constituency in Sussex. David Cameron said that lobbying is the
:18:11. > :18:17.next big scandal waiting to happen, that was about three years ago, and
:18:17. > :18:22.from Liam Fox to Peter Cruddas to Patrick Mercer, he is proved right
:18:22. > :18:27.again and again. So why have you done nothing about it? Well, they
:18:27. > :18:30.were going to introduce statutory register of lobbyists, that is a
:18:30. > :18:33.commitment. There is a certain amount of debate about what it
:18:34. > :18:39.should cover. To be honest, Labour when they were in office were very
:18:39. > :18:42.sceptical about this. Towards the end of their time, Tom Watson, a
:18:42. > :18:46.senior Labour MP, said he thought it was all the really bad idea. We
:18:46. > :18:50.don't think it is a bad idea, we think it is necessary but there is
:18:50. > :18:56.work still to do to define the scope of it. The only affected would have
:18:56. > :18:59.had on what is going on at the moment -- the only effect it would
:18:59. > :19:03.have had on what is going on at the moment is it would have made it
:19:03. > :19:07.easier for people duped by a bogus lobbying company to find out no such
:19:07. > :19:10.company existed. What is holding it up? You didn't include it in the
:19:10. > :19:14.Queen's Speech, you have had three years to think about it and Nick
:19:14. > :19:19.Clegg, your Cabinet colleague is up for it, the lobbying companies
:19:19. > :19:24.wanted to happen. What is your problem? We all wanted to happen,
:19:24. > :19:29.but it is scope and how it operates. But you haven't put it in
:19:29. > :19:33.the Queen's Speech. Will it be in the next Queen's Speech? It won't
:19:33. > :19:37.necessarily be in the next Queen's Speech, because it is perfectly
:19:37. > :19:40.possible we will legislate for it in this session. We always introduce
:19:40. > :19:44.legislation that isn't in the Queen's Speech. The Queen's Speech,
:19:44. > :19:48.as important as it is, isn't the be all and end all. We are going to do
:19:48. > :19:54.this but we need finally to resolve the issues about scope and so on and
:19:54. > :19:59.then we will get on with it. what is the hold-up? Well, it is
:19:59. > :20:01.sorting out the final details. so it is possible that you could go
:20:01. > :20:07.into the next election without a statutory registrar in place,
:20:07. > :20:10.correct? No, I would think that is very unlikely indeed. Another
:20:10. > :20:14.promise you fail to deliver is the right of voters to recall MPs, that
:20:14. > :20:19.was in your agreement as well. Mister Mercer has resigned but he
:20:19. > :20:26.could remain an empty until the next election. It is not a likely what
:20:26. > :20:29.the voters expect, is it? -- not exactly. We will legislate for that
:20:29. > :20:32.as well, it is the coalition agreement. This is quite a major
:20:32. > :20:38.constitutional change and you do need to make sure that you get that
:20:38. > :20:44.right. What you are saying is that a minority of people in a constituency
:20:44. > :20:48.will have the ability to overturn a decision made by the electors at the
:20:48. > :20:53.previous election. So there is a whole lot of issues that need to get
:20:53. > :21:00.sorted out. What is the trigger for it? What kind of wrongdoing triggers
:21:00. > :21:03.it? You absolutely don't want an MP who takes a principle but unpopular
:21:03. > :21:06.position -- a principled but unpopular position to be hounded out
:21:06. > :21:13.of his constituency by those who oppose it. But you have had three
:21:13. > :21:17.years to work out that answer. And yet this morning, you cannot come at
:21:17. > :21:22.the answer to either of these questions. -- you cannot tell me.
:21:22. > :21:26.They need to be worked out properly. This sits within Nick Clegg 's
:21:26. > :21:31.portfolio and I'm sure he's working on those cancers. Can we get it
:21:31. > :21:35.clear, can you tell us this morning, by the 2015 election, both
:21:35. > :21:41.the statutory register of lobbyists and the power of recall of disgraced
:21:41. > :21:45.MPs will be on the statute book? cannot absolutely guarantee that
:21:45. > :21:49.because it is not in my power to do that, but I would be astonished if
:21:49. > :21:54.that were not the case. OK, let's see if you are astonished. Let's
:21:54. > :21:58.turn to the Snooper's Charter, that is what the critics call it, but it
:21:58. > :22:02.is the power for the security services to do their job and stop us
:22:02. > :22:09.being blown up or shot or attacked in our streets. You want one, the
:22:09. > :22:15.Conservatives. The Lib Dems don't. Does that mean it won't happen?
:22:15. > :22:18.are trying to make everything really simple and binary and it isn't. We
:22:18. > :22:24.know everyone wants there to be proper protections, but yet we all
:22:24. > :22:27.want also that to be proportionate and not impact on people's civil
:22:27. > :22:32.liberties by giving the Government to much power. Working out exactly
:22:32. > :22:37.where that balance lies is a tricky. The joint committee of the two
:22:37. > :22:40.Houses of Parliament have spent quite a lot of time on this and
:22:40. > :22:44.concluded that the bill is desirable but with some constraints. So there
:22:44. > :22:48.is a lot of work to be done to reconfigure exactly where the
:22:48. > :22:54.boundary lies. But everyone agrees that there should absolutely be no
:22:54. > :22:59.ability, without a warrant, for the authorities of the state to look at
:22:59. > :23:03.the content of any communications. The only question is about the
:23:03. > :23:09.ability of the law enforcement agencies to track through the
:23:09. > :23:16.records kept by communications businesses the traffic. So where is
:23:16. > :23:21.the traffic going? And from which computers to which internet provider
:23:21. > :23:26.addresses? All of that is a perfectly proper subject of debate
:23:26. > :23:29.and there is no right or wrong. Everyone accepts, I think, that
:23:29. > :23:34.there would be a considerable security upside is that ability to
:23:34. > :23:38.track the traffic, not the content... But if you cannot get Lib
:23:38. > :23:41.Dems support for a compromise, will you talk to Jim Murphy and the
:23:41. > :23:47.Labour Party? We have just heard his willingness to talk and he sounds
:23:47. > :23:53.closer to you on this than Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Well, there is no
:23:53. > :23:57.party politics in this. It is not an ideological issue. So you will talk?
:23:57. > :23:59.You heard David Davis, my Parliamentary colleague, on the
:24:00. > :24:03.television earlier arguing very strongly the same position as the
:24:03. > :24:08.Lib Dems. It is not a party political issue, it is genuinely
:24:08. > :24:13.trying to work out where you pitch this right. Nobody denies that there
:24:13. > :24:17.is a strong security upside in making some changes, it is where you
:24:17. > :24:21.strike the balance, where you make the trade-off, between the ability
:24:21. > :24:24.to protect us all through better security and the ability for people
:24:24. > :24:31.to feel confident that the state is not able to to track all of the
:24:31. > :24:35.movements to the end degree. October 20th and that back in
:24:35. > :24:38.October 20th 10th of you told a private court that even if the
:24:38. > :24:43.Conservatives win a majority, there will be a desire to continue with
:24:44. > :24:51.the coalition amongst parts of the Conservative party. Her strong with
:24:51. > :24:53.you say that desire is today's Conservative Party? I think it's
:24:53. > :24:57.absolutely the case that the coalition government was able to do
:24:57. > :24:59.things early on that a single party government would not have been able
:25:00. > :25:02.to do, particularly in terms of driving down the deficit, doing
:25:02. > :25:10.really difficult things which have grouped incredibly controversial in
:25:10. > :25:15.many other countries -- which are grooved. Because this was a 2-party
:25:15. > :25:18.government... But what is the answer to my question? There was very
:25:18. > :25:23.little tension between them so there were huge advantages in the national
:25:23. > :25:28.crisis which we inherited for there to be a coalition agreement.
:25:28. > :25:33.what was the answer to 2015? Well, I hope we won't be in a national
:25:33. > :25:38.crisis then and I very much hope that the Conservative party will win
:25:38. > :25:42.an outright majority. I am optimistic that we can, and if we do
:25:42. > :25:48.win an outright majority, then I would expect the first option to
:25:48. > :25:52.form a majority government. Finally, you have been making some efficiency
:25:52. > :25:57.savings. I understand that by 2014-2015, you will hope to have
:25:57. > :26:03.made accumulative total of around �20 billion worth of efficiency
:26:03. > :26:07.savings. That is not cumulative, that will be the annual run rate. We
:26:07. > :26:12.started in the first ten months by saving nearly �4 billion and we move
:26:12. > :26:16.that up to five and a half the next year, the year that has just ended
:26:16. > :26:20.in March. I will be announcing the numbers tomorrow. We set the target
:26:20. > :26:23.was to be in excess of eight billion and I will be able to announce the
:26:24. > :26:27.numbers but it will be well in excess of 8 billion. This is by
:26:27. > :26:31.doing some difficult and unglamorous, probably unexciting
:26:31. > :26:36.things, like renegotiating contracts with the Government 's major
:26:36. > :26:40.suppliers, by cutting the size of the civil service, by stopping
:26:40. > :26:45.ridiculous advertising and marketing spend, by cutting down on the use of
:26:45. > :26:49.consultants. By doing actually what the public are entitled to expect of
:26:49. > :26:55.a competent, purposeful government. Which is to cut the cost of running
:26:55. > :26:58.government. So the total saving will be what? I will announce the number
:26:58. > :27:03.tomorrow but it will be well in excess of the 8 billion target we
:27:03. > :27:07.said. Francis Maude, thank you for joining us.
:27:07. > :27:10.Now, after all we have been discussing this morning, you might
:27:10. > :27:15.not be in the mood to hear members of Parliament complaining about that
:27:15. > :27:17.other expenses system that was introduced after the scandal over MP
:27:17. > :27:26.claims a few years ago. Politicians are angry about the independent
:27:26. > :27:36.pilot standards authority -- about IPSA, which they say is expensive
:27:36. > :27:38.
:27:38. > :27:44.and unfair. So what is the problem? There are few topics more toxic than
:27:44. > :27:47.in the Westminster World Bank MPs expenses, and people think they are
:27:47. > :27:51.coining it still, living in the lap of luxury. But more and more them
:27:51. > :27:54.have been telling us that the new expenses system is so out of gear
:27:54. > :28:04.that they are getting saddled with debt and they can't do the job
:28:04. > :28:07.properly. I absolutely appreciate that we earn
:28:07. > :28:12.well above the average salary, but I think far too many people think we
:28:12. > :28:16.are living the lifestyle of millionaires, that we are bathing in
:28:16. > :28:20.Champagne every night and eating caviar in the members tea room, and
:28:20. > :28:24.everything is free, we don't pay for anything. I think people need a
:28:24. > :28:27.reality check. Of course, we all know why the
:28:27. > :28:33.public feel like this about expenses. We all remember what
:28:33. > :28:38.happened in 2008. A newspaper splash of expenses MPs had fought
:28:38. > :28:44.vigorously to hide open our disbelieving eyes to claims for moat
:28:44. > :28:47.cleaning, house flipping, imagine remortgages and the duck has that
:28:47. > :28:53.became iconic. Careers ended and in some cases, the second home became
:28:53. > :28:57.jail. No fear of public outcry is such in Parliament that many MPs,
:28:57. > :29:02.who were nothing to do with illegal claims before or arrived after the
:29:03. > :29:05.scandal, tell me they will not claim for things they are entitled to an
:29:05. > :29:09.increasingly, they blamed the men and women who work out of here. On
:29:09. > :29:15.the seventh floor office building is the Independent Parliamentary
:29:15. > :29:21.Standards Authority, or IPSA. It is the body that replaced the old fees
:29:21. > :29:25.office in 2010. And MPs have been keen to stress to me that their
:29:25. > :29:29.complaints about IPSA are not about lining their own pockets, but
:29:29. > :29:35.genuine and real concerns about its competency and its cost. It is
:29:35. > :29:40.bureaucratic, it is far too expensive. It has a chairman who and
:29:40. > :29:45.�90,000 per year for a two-day week, plus five directors, all of
:29:45. > :29:50.whom earn more than an ordinary MP plans. And you would think for that
:29:50. > :29:53.kind of renumeration, there would actually be efficiency, but it is
:29:54. > :29:57.not promote the efficient. Amongst the cases we have been given our own
:29:57. > :30:00.MP outside of London who spent �8,000 of their own savings to stay
:30:00. > :30:05.overnight in the capital because, for a year, IPSA would not cover the
:30:05. > :30:10.costs. They then relented. Transport credit cards cancelled with no
:30:10. > :30:15.notice, and rows over a �10 taxi fare and when an MP parked their own
:30:15. > :30:21.car for three days to avoid such a row, the �80 cost was paid without
:30:21. > :30:26.complaint. I'm claim above teas and coffees brought for constituents and
:30:26. > :30:30.gets by MPs when meeting them, running up to �100 per week and
:30:30. > :30:34.three MPs told us of a colleague whose claim for transport to meet a
:30:34. > :30:37.plane, taking them and a group of sixth-formers to Auschwitz, was
:30:37. > :30:47.queried on grounds of going was not part of their job. It is now being
:30:47. > :30:52.paid. It is like Monty Python, it is the
:30:52. > :30:56.Monty Python guide to politics. Other things said to me include the
:30:56. > :31:03.fact that the body is frustrating to deal with and only answers calls
:31:03. > :31:07.after 1pm, despite having only 650 people to be responsible for. One MP
:31:07. > :31:17.goes further, suggesting they can be spiteful. Every time I have raised
:31:17. > :31:20.problems, about the cost to the taxpayer of the IPSA, suddenly, my
:31:20. > :31:25.claims for that month have been delayed. Some of my claims from
:31:25. > :31:28.December were not paid until the end of January. That means you are
:31:28. > :31:34.continually in debt if you like with your overdraft, it is not the way
:31:34. > :31:41.members of Parliament wants to operate. One senior MP told me that
:31:41. > :31:45.he thinks IPSA has gone through the looking glass, extreme, inflexible,
:31:45. > :31:50.even hiring high paid lawyers to take one MP through the courts. One
:31:50. > :31:58.MP said that it so you as MPs as guilty until proven innocent. You
:31:58. > :32:02.might say, so what. -- IPSA. Many have told me they are now assessing
:32:02. > :32:07.whether they can afford to continue as MPs, and that, they say, is bad
:32:07. > :32:11.for democracy. Unfortunately, with IPSA, the way they are impinging on
:32:11. > :32:15.the way we can do our work as a member of Parliament, I firmly
:32:15. > :32:20.believe, as do many others, that unfortunately, you will not get the
:32:21. > :32:25.best people willing to stand for Parliament. As a nation, we are a
:32:25. > :32:29.bit schizophrenic on this. I think the large majority of the population
:32:29. > :32:34.are heading in the direction of having a Parliament where you either
:32:34. > :32:39.have to be a millionaire or a puritan. There is one MP who
:32:39. > :32:44.disagrees, to put it mildly. Which, in the past, has opened the door to
:32:44. > :32:50.heavy criticism from his colleagues in the house. The idea that MPs
:32:50. > :32:54.cannot afford to live with the expenses of today is a nonsense. Any
:32:54. > :32:57.MP who says that is not in the real world, does not know what the rest
:32:58. > :33:03.of the country is going through, does not know what life is like in
:33:04. > :33:08.Britain. Clueless. We are well paid, relative to our constituents. We
:33:08. > :33:12.have an expenses system which is a bit bureaucratic but is fair and
:33:12. > :33:18.reasonable and allows us to do the job. Any MP who says they are not is
:33:19. > :33:25.not telling the truth. Despite the permission of John Mann, IPSA is to
:33:25. > :33:27.propose arrays for MPs, as they are about �20,000 behind the European
:33:27. > :33:33.average for elected parliamentarians. But for some, a
:33:33. > :33:41.rise is not the solution. You would be very brave as an MP to go on
:33:41. > :33:46.television and demand a pay rise. But as far as IPSA is concerned, we
:33:46. > :33:51.are the only elected legislature in the whole of the British Isles that
:33:51. > :34:01.has farmed out our expenses system to an external body, and that has to
:34:01. > :34:03.
:34:03. > :34:07.be brought back in-house, to save a lot of money right away. All food
:34:07. > :34:12.for thought, even if it has to be home-made sandwiches in a lunchbox.
:34:12. > :34:16.But it is a sign of how frustrated MPs are over the new expenses system
:34:16. > :34:24.that they are happier to voice concerns on a subject they know the
:34:24. > :34:34.public find hard to swallow. asked IPSA onto the programme, but
:34:34. > :34:34.
:34:34. > :35:19.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds
:35:19. > :35:24.we were told nobody was available. IPSC is definitely a four letter
:35:24. > :35:30.word. Nadine Dorries, welcome to the programme. We have sad some unhappy
:35:30. > :35:35.stories from MPs that, have you got a tale of hardship? I think every MP
:35:35. > :35:41.has a tale of hardship. The fundamental problem of this is that
:35:41. > :35:44.actually, IPSA has cost the taxpayer �30 million in the last three years.
:35:44. > :35:51.It actually costs �7 million a year to administer the expenses of 650
:35:51. > :35:55.people. If you told any company which employs 650 staff that just to
:35:55. > :35:59.pay their expenses was going to cost �7 million a year, I think that
:35:59. > :36:04.company would have a collective heart attack. It is bureaucratic, it
:36:04. > :36:09.charges a huge amount of money, it is not able to answer its telephones
:36:09. > :36:15.before one o'clock at lunchtime. They say that is because very few
:36:16. > :36:20.MPs call them before 1pm. They say that 3% of the money is doled out,
:36:20. > :36:25.which is low by private sector standards. They have made a number
:36:25. > :36:28.of statements, including the one about Mr McCartney being hysterical,
:36:28. > :36:35.which is pushing the boundaries of truthfulness. The fact is, they do
:36:35. > :36:39.not answer the phones until 1pm, their chairman owns �700 a day, the
:36:39. > :36:44.Chief Executive earns an awful lot. They do not even answer the phones
:36:44. > :36:47.and letters. They are supposed to make an MP's job easier. But they
:36:47. > :36:50.make us more vulnerable due to their own inefficiency. And they do not
:36:50. > :36:56.assist MPs in doing their job. I think there is a very simple
:36:56. > :37:00.solution to this, which is to scrap IPSA, to say to MPs, no more
:37:00. > :37:05.accommodation in London. Then I started work as a nurse, I was given
:37:05. > :37:10.the key to a nurses room in a house, and while I worked on site at a
:37:10. > :37:14.hospital hundreds of miles away from hospital, that was my room. --
:37:14. > :37:20.hundreds of miles away from home. We need the equivalent of a nurses
:37:20. > :37:24.home. We need accommodation which is out of expenses. We know every MP
:37:24. > :37:28.employs three members of staff, every MP travels around their
:37:28. > :37:34.constituency about twice a week. Take those payments, give them in
:37:34. > :37:39.one lump sum and do away with expenses. But here is your problem -
:37:39. > :37:45.the public, average income, �26,000, does not give you much sympathy. You
:37:45. > :37:48.have �66,000 a year, a very decent pension, renting a second home, you
:37:48. > :37:54.can earn money outside Parliament. It is not going to get public
:37:54. > :37:58.simply, is it? The public have to think, do they want a fully
:37:58. > :38:01.representative democracy? If they do, MPs have to be able to access
:38:01. > :38:06.that democracy. At the moment we are going to have a parliament which is
:38:06. > :38:09.full of millionaires and paupers, because many MPs can no longer
:38:09. > :38:14.afford to be MPs. I know of two who are going to stand down because they
:38:14. > :38:18.cannot afford, and do not want the hassle of having to deal with IPSA
:38:18. > :38:24.on a day-to-day decease. That is the other issue. It takes a huge amount
:38:24. > :38:27.of an MP's day. Who do you blame for this? David Cameron and Gordon
:38:27. > :38:31.Brown, because in the last Parliament, trying to save their
:38:31. > :38:36.skins, they agreed to the recommendations put forward by Ian
:38:36. > :38:38.Kennedy. It was a knee-jerk reaction, badly thought through. It
:38:38. > :38:44.costs taxpayer a huge amount of money and it should never have been
:38:44. > :38:49.agreed to. I understand I am not supposed to ask you questions about
:38:49. > :38:54.how much you made going into the jungle. Is that true? You do not
:38:54. > :38:58.want to talk about it? It is not that I do not want to talk about it,
:38:58. > :39:02.it is just that when I personally benefit... It is the same way that
:39:02. > :39:08.if I ask you, how much you earned from the British taxpayer, via the
:39:08. > :39:13.licence fee, including your benefits and travel allowance. You say here
:39:13. > :39:17.now how much you get paid and I will tell you how much I get paid. You
:39:17. > :39:22.are paid by the taxpayer. So, you have been paid nothing to go into
:39:22. > :39:31.the jungle? I have not personally benefited from going into the
:39:31. > :39:36.jungle. I do have a company for which I write extensively, I do
:39:36. > :39:39.television appearances extensively, and I do get paid for doing those.
:39:39. > :39:43.Will you have to declare this in Parliament? When I benefit
:39:43. > :39:49.personally from that, I will have to declare it to the register. I will
:39:49. > :39:51.do so immediately. Is the difference between you and Andrew not that you
:39:51. > :39:58.are an elected public representative, you took time out of
:39:58. > :40:02.a paid job... I was on holiday.You are paid an annual salary, which
:40:02. > :40:07.pays you every day of the week. You took time out to do a television
:40:07. > :40:13.programme. You must tell the truth - parliament was on recess when I was
:40:13. > :40:17.in the jungle. It was my holiday. But your job is not just sitting in
:40:17. > :40:24.the chamber, it is representing your constituents, that is what you do in
:40:24. > :40:34.recess. So, I am not allowed to have a holiday? You need to declare it.I
:40:34. > :40:35.
:40:35. > :40:38.do declare the money. You are a public representative. I think
:40:38. > :40:43.Nadine Dorries' expenses for the jungle have been quite well raked
:40:43. > :40:46.over, I am more interested in what you think about my idea that MPs
:40:46. > :40:48.should be paid substantially more, which I know would be really
:40:48. > :40:56.unpalatable to the public, do you think your colleagues would go to
:40:56. > :41:01.that, say, a salary of 100 grand, and no more expenses which are not I
:41:01. > :41:07.think MPs should be paid on a par with GPs and headteachers. That
:41:07. > :41:11.would be about 100 grand. I think if there were no outside earnings, I
:41:11. > :41:15.think probably a large number of MPs today would leave, and the people
:41:15. > :41:23.attracted to parliament would be a very different type of person.
:41:23. > :41:27.if MPs had 100,000 salary and got no outside earnings, they would leave?
:41:27. > :41:30.I think there are some who financially earn far more than that.
:41:30. > :41:36.For any MP to give up outside earnings, you have got people who
:41:36. > :41:40.write books, people who sit as chair people of companies, some people who
:41:40. > :41:50.spend far more time on their outside earnings than I ever did in 12 days
:41:50. > :41:50.
:41:50. > :41:54.in the jungle. I think probably Parliament is lumbered with IPSA.
:41:54. > :42:03.Unfortunately it needs to become a lot more accountable and a lot more
:42:03. > :42:06.scrutinised. You are watching The Sunday Politics. Coming up in just
:42:06. > :42:16.over 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with our political
:42:16. > :42:23.
:42:23. > :42:26.panel. Until then, The Sunday this week, a little later, we will
:42:26. > :42:30.be hearing about the children who go missing permanently from care. We
:42:30. > :42:34.will also look at plans to transform the royal Albert docks into a
:42:34. > :42:38.business park for the European headquarters of Chinese and South
:42:38. > :42:41.Asian businesses. Is this a deal to help unlock the economic potential
:42:41. > :42:45.of the Thames Gateway? We will be discussing that with Richard
:42:45. > :42:52.Ottaway, the Conservative MP for Clwyd South, as well as the Labour
:42:52. > :42:55.MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. First, eight quick word on the pace of
:42:55. > :42:59.change in the middle justice system in the capital, and the news that
:42:59. > :43:08.there are more than 900 people who have been on police bail for more
:43:08. > :43:13.than six knots, not knowing whether there is a case against them or not.
:43:13. > :43:20.Answer that one, Richard Ottaway. am not quite sure where this one has
:43:20. > :43:25.come from. You have to balance on the one hand Civil Liberties, but
:43:25. > :43:29.also, you have got to allow the police plenty of time to carry out
:43:29. > :43:35.their investigations. OK, there is no long stopped on this at the
:43:35. > :43:42.moment, but I think most cases are dealt with pretty promptly. Do you
:43:42. > :43:48.agree with that? I do not, actually. The police are under enormous
:43:48. > :43:52.pressure, which is potentially one reason why this is taking longer. We
:43:52. > :43:55.do need to make other people do not have to wait a very long time,
:43:55. > :43:59.particularly if there is not a case to answer. So, their lives are
:43:59. > :44:02.turned upside down and in the meantime the Government is not
:44:02. > :44:10.providing any support to the police to carry the investigation out
:44:10. > :44:15.quickly. That must be the nub of this, mustn't it, to keep evil for
:44:15. > :44:22.so long in that sense of uncertainty, and of course, people
:44:22. > :44:26.on police bail have a lot of restrictions imposed on them?
:44:26. > :44:31.think she is being a bit unfair. Under the last Labour government,
:44:31. > :44:35.the time interval between offence and charge was 88 days. Despite all
:44:35. > :44:39.the pressures that the police are under at the moment, that time is
:44:39. > :44:44.now 89 days, so, really, there has been no change whatsoever over the
:44:44. > :44:48.years. You have to manage the resources effectively. You have to
:44:48. > :44:51.allow visible liberties, but allow the police to get on with it.
:44:51. > :44:56.months is an awful long time for people to have their movements
:44:56. > :45:01.restrict it, whatever it might be. Some of these are very competitive
:45:01. > :45:04.cases, and if you say you have got to charge someone within 28 days,
:45:04. > :45:08.the police will say, sorry, we cannot do that, and those people
:45:08. > :45:16.will go free. The public deserve to be protected, which is why we have
:45:16. > :45:21.the rules. Investigations can be complex and take time. Which is why
:45:21. > :45:25.we need to support the police. There are 1,500 officers losing their
:45:25. > :45:28.jobs. If you don't have adequate support in the police system, if
:45:28. > :45:36.they don't have the capacity, how can they investigate and get people
:45:36. > :45:38.out of rail and through the system -- bail? And there is pressure then
:45:38. > :45:41.on the courts and that is a direct consequence of the governments
:45:41. > :45:47.turning the pressure on the services, so on the one hand, they
:45:47. > :45:53.are saying the police must do X, Y and Z but they are not giving them
:45:53. > :45:56.adequate support. You see, there is no change in the interval.
:45:56. > :46:00.wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't a problem. These
:46:00. > :46:04.figures provided by the library this morning are 88 days under Labour, 89
:46:04. > :46:07.and the Conservatives. We wouldn't be having this debate if there
:46:07. > :46:11.wasn't a problem. And I don't think we will get agreement, let's move
:46:11. > :46:14.on. It has long been puzzling challenge for government had to fill
:46:14. > :46:19.the economic void left in east London by the decline of Doc land
:46:19. > :46:23.industry, but this week it looked like one week piece may have fallen
:46:23. > :46:26.into place. A major Chinese investor has been chosen to transform the
:46:26. > :46:31.Royal Albert docks into a giant business Park, housing, for the most
:46:31. > :46:36.part, the European HQ is Asian companies.
:46:37. > :46:41.A derelict site next to London city airport, but not, it seems for much
:46:41. > :46:45.longer. This week, a grand plan was unveiled. A new business hub aimed
:46:45. > :46:49.at investors from Asia, mainly offices and also some homes and
:46:49. > :46:55.shops. Work will start in 2016 with the first phase planned for
:46:55. > :46:57.completion in 2017. I2026, the whole project should be finished,
:46:57. > :47:02.transforming this wasteland into one of Europe's easiest business
:47:02. > :47:06.districts. There was a celebratory air at the City Hall when the deal
:47:06. > :47:11.was signed. This is an area that has been neglected for decades, most of
:47:11. > :47:16.our lives, and nothing has been going on there economically. It is
:47:16. > :47:20.an amazing vote of confidence in London by a massive Chinese investor
:47:20. > :47:23.that has done all sorts of projects already in China and around the
:47:23. > :47:24.world. An interpreter for the Chinese developer said he was
:47:24. > :47:30.inspired by the London Olympic Games.
:47:30. > :47:34.TRANSLATION: The success for housing the Olympic Games in London has
:47:34. > :47:42.increased our confidence in the ability of the Greater London
:47:42. > :47:46.authority is in managing the city and also managing large events.
:47:46. > :47:52.its peak about 100 years ago, there were 20,000 people employed at the
:47:52. > :47:57.well Albert docks. This new scheme aims to match this feature with jobs
:47:57. > :48:01.the many local people. It is claimed the project will attach up to �6
:48:02. > :48:05.billion worth of investment, a big boost the local economy.
:48:05. > :48:11.John Biggs, London Labour assembly member for the city and is London,
:48:11. > :48:14.covers that area and is here. Welcome to you. Do you welcome this
:48:14. > :48:19.question mark it is impossible not welcome that of investment, do you
:48:19. > :48:22.believe it? It is early days but it sounds like good news and they seem
:48:22. > :48:27.to have deep pockets and a record of doing this stuff in China. It has
:48:27. > :48:30.taken a long time to get serious development across the River Lea,
:48:30. > :48:34.getting it further east. I guess there are a number of missing pieces
:48:34. > :48:38.so we need alongside this to work on the skills and employability of
:48:38. > :48:42.local people and make sure people benefit from the regeneration. Boris
:48:42. > :48:46.has been a bit slow getting off the start with this but he has finally
:48:46. > :48:48.come in his second term, realised that London's role as an
:48:48. > :48:53.international trading centre requires us to go out and get
:48:53. > :48:56.investment from overseas. And there is another big at all here, which is
:48:56. > :49:01.about other European cities trying to steal a march on us and this is a
:49:01. > :49:04.real victory in terms of Chinese investment in the UK. But it does
:49:04. > :49:08.beg questions about airport policy. We will come until later, but there
:49:08. > :49:14.are claims being made about this, that it might have a dramatic affect
:49:14. > :49:19.on unemployment in the area, as much as increasing employment by 30%. Do
:49:19. > :49:23.you buy that? And what kind of jobs might it bring? If it works, it will
:49:23. > :49:27.certainly increase employment in the area. There will be relatively
:49:27. > :49:33.high-tech and high skilled jobs, I think. Everyone who lives in you is
:49:33. > :49:39.in reach via public transport, so it is not just about lack of jobs
:49:39. > :49:43.locally, it is about skills and employability. This is very good
:49:43. > :49:47.news, but we need to keep lobbying the Government to get investment
:49:47. > :49:51.coming in to raise the skills levels of Londoners so they can compete for
:49:51. > :49:57.these jobs. Because what lessons might be learned for instance at
:49:57. > :50:01.what happened in Canary Wharf, about whether jobs and being for local
:50:01. > :50:05.people? An awful lot has been written and researched about that
:50:05. > :50:11.and it was seen as very much an imposed regeneration on the area, so
:50:12. > :50:15.nowadays people talk about the partnership but we need to be seeing
:50:15. > :50:20.the detail about how we are going to lever up schools. If school
:50:20. > :50:22.standards are improving, exam results are better and more children
:50:22. > :50:28.a good university but we still have stubborn unemployment in the area,
:50:28. > :50:34.we still have a need to address that. Nobody would disagree that the
:50:34. > :50:38.Canary Wharf and the Docklands contributed to the growth of the
:50:38. > :50:43.capital's economy. Looking back, do you regret that it did in sharing
:50:43. > :50:46.the proceeds of that growth to local people? -- that it did not. I think
:50:46. > :50:51.this is a continuation of the growth started by Michael has a sign and
:50:51. > :50:56.Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s -- Michael Heseltine. This is a good
:50:56. > :51:06.news story, it is a win-win situation. It fits neatly alongside
:51:06. > :51:11.the East London Take City and it is going to establish London as a
:51:11. > :51:16.leading financial centre in the world. How does it work? Is it the
:51:16. > :51:20.clustering effect that is so important? And do we believe that
:51:20. > :51:27.big moves like this, the Chinese investor promising to bring other
:51:27. > :51:31.Chinese companies into the area will really happen? You get momentum with
:51:31. > :51:39.a cluster, whatever the area of expertise is. I used to work in the
:51:39. > :51:46.city of London and you mix and move with these people, and if those get
:51:46. > :51:51.its own drive forward. Rushunara, where big companies like this
:51:51. > :51:55.set-up, other infrastructure follows, doesn't it?
:51:55. > :51:57.infrastructure investment is welcome. Just as able were very
:51:57. > :52:03.pleased about the Olympics infrastructure and investment, the
:52:03. > :52:06.big question is about whether local people in the host boroughs that did
:52:06. > :52:11.not particularly benefit from the Olympics do, in terms of jobs. The
:52:11. > :52:15.devil is in the detail. This is a really exciting opportunity. I grew
:52:15. > :52:18.up watching the Canary Wharf tower is going up and local people did not
:52:19. > :52:23.benefit much at all from that. We have to make sure that when this
:52:23. > :52:28.opportunity comes, the businesses that invest, the foreign investors
:52:28. > :52:35.that do invest, do not create tensions by bringing in their own
:52:35. > :52:37.Labour, which has been the source of tension historically. Isn't that the
:52:37. > :52:43.danger? Bringing in well educated, high-flying Chinese business people
:52:43. > :52:48.who will... And this will be used certainly as a European
:52:48. > :52:52.headquarters. I think that in itself is not the problem. The problem is
:52:52. > :52:55.if we do not framed the employment agreements, recruitment agreements,
:52:55. > :52:58.training agreements between local authorities and the Chinese
:52:58. > :53:05.investors to make sure that local people can apply for those jobs, and
:53:05. > :53:09.that high skilled Labour within London and within the East End of
:53:09. > :53:13.London is tapped into, rather than quick fixes, which is partly what
:53:13. > :53:20.happens during the Olympics project, without looking at local
:53:20. > :53:23.people. So it is not about being hostile at looking at people coming
:53:23. > :53:28.in but we need to make sure local people benefit. Richard Ottoway, it
:53:28. > :53:34.shows how rapidly this global economy is shifting and have, we
:53:34. > :53:39.here in Britain need China to come and help develop and unlock this
:53:39. > :53:43.Thames Gateway. Why does it need Chinese companies? You look at
:53:43. > :53:47.Nissan and tired and other companies investing but we invest a lot
:53:47. > :53:52.overseas -- iota. It is a global village, a global economy, and we
:53:52. > :53:55.one of the leading financial centres along with Hong Kong, New York and
:53:55. > :53:58.Geneva. These are the places that people want a bit and we are
:53:58. > :54:05.providing facilities and I congratulate the London assembly and
:54:05. > :54:07.the Mayra Blunden forgetting behind this. A last word from you -- the
:54:07. > :54:14.mail of London. Housing infrastructure, is there enough of
:54:14. > :54:17.that? There is plenty of houses being will today stunned but whether
:54:17. > :54:21.it can be afforded by local people is a different matter. In the East
:54:21. > :54:24.End, we need more public money and subsidy to provide housing that is
:54:24. > :54:27.accessible for people on low incomes. The benefit changes are
:54:27. > :54:31.squeezing people out of the area just at the time when the job
:54:31. > :54:34.opportunities are coming in. That is not the way London has historically
:54:34. > :54:39.liked to live. We are a city where mixed communities have lived
:54:39. > :54:41.alongside each other and we are at risk of becoming very segregated
:54:41. > :54:49.stop now, children in care face a myriad of problems.
:54:49. > :54:52.Too many underachieve at school and according to the police, too many go
:54:52. > :54:57.missing from their care homes and are never traced. On the streets,
:54:57. > :55:01.they can face finance and sexual exploitation but that the still does
:55:01. > :55:04.not stop many of them running away in the first place.
:55:05. > :55:08.This 14-year-old ran away from care repeatedly. On the streets, she
:55:08. > :55:11.became a victim of sexual exploitation. They know that
:55:11. > :55:15.obviously you are born rubble for a start, because you are unsettled and
:55:15. > :55:20.depressed where you are, and then they kind of do what they want --
:55:20. > :55:24.you of all the rubble. But if you refuse, like I refused one person
:55:24. > :55:28.before, I got hit in the face. After that, couldn't what happened to me
:55:28. > :55:34.until got brought home. -- I couldn't remember what happened to
:55:34. > :55:41.me. There are around 1,000 children in care homes in London, but
:55:41. > :55:46.according to the police, there were 8830 reports of something when they
:55:46. > :55:52.had gone missing. Roughly one child in every 30 in London care home has
:55:52. > :55:55.been gone since last year. Fraser Cook works with looked after
:55:55. > :56:01.children in London, helping them to find work when they leave. He grew
:56:01. > :56:07.up in care and understand why some might want to run away. I was in
:56:07. > :56:12.shared hostel accommodation when I was 16 and I was looking at sharing
:56:12. > :56:17.with people where it was a free for all, there was no structure. It is
:56:17. > :56:20.just a free for all and they are scary places, because you're living
:56:20. > :56:26.with people with drug problems, prostitution, it is a scary
:56:26. > :56:30.environment. A big problem in London is that young people are normally
:56:30. > :56:34.placed outside the area they are from. Only 32% of looked after
:56:34. > :56:38.children are kept in their own borough. A colleague of Fraser's
:56:38. > :56:42.also grew up in care. Her borough thought the most important thing was
:56:42. > :56:46.that she was with foster parents from Uganda, like she was, and moved
:56:46. > :56:52.her from East London to serve. It is the only time she thought about
:56:52. > :56:56.running away. For me, Peckham was really hard, because I was moved
:56:56. > :57:01.from everything that I really knew, from the east of London to the south
:57:01. > :57:06.and I had never really been down to Peckham before. A new family,
:57:06. > :57:09.completely new area, I had to make new friends outside of the family
:57:09. > :57:14.and in the family and that was really hard for me. I didn't have
:57:14. > :57:21.anyone to talk to, I didn't have anyone I could relate to or with all
:57:21. > :57:27.stop and I hardly spoke to my social worker, so I felt dumped in south
:57:27. > :57:31.London and forgotten about. 6% of the country's children's homes are
:57:31. > :57:35.based in London. The Northwest is home to a quarter. MPs think more
:57:35. > :57:39.could be done by councils to increase provision. They could talk
:57:39. > :57:44.to some of the private providers to see if they can come to arrangements
:57:44. > :57:49.about perhaps houses in which the private providers are offering
:57:49. > :57:53.daycare, maybe the houses are offered by borough themselves. --
:57:53. > :57:56.offering daycare. They could look at alternative foster arrangements,
:57:56. > :57:58.there are some successful professional fostering scheme is to
:57:58. > :58:01.support children. So I think that there are things that London
:58:01. > :58:06.boroughs could do to make sure that there are more children's homes
:58:06. > :58:12.available to London children. Following high-profile abuse cases
:58:12. > :58:14.in Oxfordshire and Rochdale, where children who run away from care
:58:14. > :58:17.became victims of exploitation, the Government had made efforts to
:58:17. > :58:23.improve the care system. It may not be enough for some.
:58:23. > :58:28.We are joined by someone from The Children's Society. Is this because
:58:28. > :58:32.children become adults and so when they can missing, they are no longer
:58:32. > :58:36.chased by the police and just disappear? What happens to them?
:58:36. > :58:43.know that around 10,000 children go missing from care every year, and we
:58:43. > :58:49.also know that when children go missing, they are at very high risk
:58:49. > :58:55.of exploitation and abuse. Children in care are particularly vulnerable
:58:55. > :58:58.because they have suffered neglect. So it is a large number and nobody
:58:58. > :59:03.knows officially where they end up. It is difficult to children who are
:59:03. > :59:07.placed far away from where they come from. We knew it contributes to them
:59:07. > :59:12.going missing, because they want to run back to family and friends, so
:59:12. > :59:18.we know it is a real problem and it is a particular problem in London.
:59:18. > :59:22.Nearly 32% of children stay in London and that are placed outside
:59:22. > :59:27.of London. So they are sent to Kent coastal towns, where the buildings
:59:27. > :59:30.are cheaper or something? We do know there is a concentration of
:59:30. > :59:34.children's homes in areas of cheap housing, such as the Northwest or
:59:34. > :59:39.the south-east coast, so that is a concern. There is more the London
:59:39. > :59:43.boroughs could do to make sure children stay near where they live.
:59:43. > :59:47.What, creating new homes in their burrows? We know that would go
:59:47. > :59:50.against the grain, the trend, which is to look for more fostering and
:59:50. > :59:56.more placements which are not residential children's homes?
:59:56. > :00:00.some children, it is children I am thinking of who have been
:00:00. > :00:03.trafficked, it is important is to be removed from the situation where
:00:03. > :00:09.they are near the traffickers, but for most children, it is important
:00:09. > :00:14.to stay near where they live and it is the responsibility of the
:00:14. > :00:19.individual local authority, who have parental responsibility, to make
:00:19. > :00:29.sure that child is safe. But I do not mind if they care is fast as
:00:29. > :00:34.carer or a children's home, it has to be right for the children.
:00:34. > :00:40.say the councils could do more, it is pretty tough presumably for them
:00:40. > :00:44.to find the resources for this. You getting the feeling this is becoming
:00:44. > :00:53.an area that is not given the priority it should be? We do spend a
:00:53. > :00:58.fair amount of money on children in care, but councils need to think
:00:58. > :01:08.about where and how they spend it. They spend a lot of money on it but
:01:08. > :01:09.
:01:09. > :01:15.we are not getting the returns. you get that kind of impression?
:01:15. > :01:18.Absolutely. At the crux of this, national government needs to require
:01:18. > :01:24.local authorities to have the duty of responsibility not to push kids
:01:24. > :01:34.away, the minute they have no legal responsibility or obligation. That's
:01:34. > :01:37.
:01:37. > :01:44.where the problem was arising. After 18, and these are young adults who
:01:44. > :01:48.are vulnerable, they are at risk of getting into crime. The cost is
:01:48. > :01:51.extremely high among young children who have been in care. If you look
:01:51. > :01:54.at the criminal justice system, and if you look at the savings that
:01:54. > :01:58.would have been made if local authorities were more strategic, and
:01:58. > :02:03.responded to these points about supporting young people in these
:02:03. > :02:08.very difficult times, that would make a significant difference. So,
:02:08. > :02:10.the money needs to be spent more effectively, but I think you have to
:02:10. > :02:15.address the incentive structures faced by local authorities, because
:02:15. > :02:20.this is a group which does not have the power, does not have the impact,
:02:20. > :02:30.that other organisations have bustle I have to agree. The figures are
:02:30. > :02:34.unacceptable high. In my own borough, Croydon, compares quite
:02:34. > :02:39.well, keeping 60%, compared with the London average of 32%. It is doing
:02:39. > :02:42.that by making a big effort, having monthly meetings with the police
:02:42. > :02:46.under social services, actually just having joined up government, which I
:02:46. > :02:56.think is very important. It is time for a look at the rest of the
:02:56. > :02:57.
:02:57. > :03:03.political news, in ex-Downing Street press chief Andy Coulson said Boris
:03:03. > :03:07.Johnson would rather see David Cameron fail miserably at the
:03:07. > :03:11.election then stabbed him in the back. He said the London mayor then
:03:11. > :03:15.believed he could ride in on his bike to save party and country.
:03:15. > :03:25.So-called pilot towns have seen a fall in the number of occupied shop
:03:25. > :03:25.
:03:25. > :03:30.units, including in Croydon, Bedford and Dartford. The number of
:03:30. > :03:35.cancelled operations in London's hospitals has reached a four-year
:03:35. > :03:45.high. 9474 elective operations were scrapped at the last minute for
:03:45. > :03:47.
:03:47. > :03:52.non-medical reasons last year, an average of 26 today. The number of
:03:52. > :04:02.thefts of property also went up, by over 1200. The total level of crime
:04:02. > :04:05.on the Underground network fell, however. Richard Ottaway, Croydon
:04:05. > :04:10.was one of those pilot schemes, and the number of vacant properties is
:04:10. > :04:14.increasing on the high Street to mark very few. We have got an
:04:14. > :04:20.enormous development going on, and all of these things take time.
:04:20. > :04:25.will make the high-street even worse, will it not? Well, the
:04:25. > :04:31.high-street is part of the same area, go down and have a look. This
:04:31. > :04:37.is not one big shop, it is going to be streets, alleyways, residential
:04:37. > :04:46.aspects. The whole centre of Croydon is going to be completely
:04:46. > :04:53.regenerated, and the future is Croydon. A brief word on your area -
:04:53. > :04:58.what can be done to bring some life back to the local high-street? We
:04:58. > :05:02.got Maryport is involved in the Roman Road market, but we did not
:05:02. > :05:08.get the funding that Croydon did. Despite that, we are coming
:05:08. > :05:18.together, working with her, with a tiny amount of money. Both of you,
:05:18. > :05:19.
:05:19. > :05:23.thank you very much indeed. Back to Andrew. So, Parliament is back on
:05:23. > :05:31.Monday, and there is a fair bit in the in tray. Big questions for the
:05:31. > :05:35.week ahead... Let's come back again to these stings stories, because
:05:35. > :05:37.they are going to dominate as Westminster comes back after the
:05:37. > :05:42.recess. I would've thought most people watching this programme
:05:42. > :05:47.simply think it is wrong if you are an MP or a member of the House of
:05:47. > :05:51.Lords, that you should be paid for advocacy even if you declare it.
:05:51. > :05:55.Absolutely. The rules are actually really clear. We have heard some of
:05:55. > :05:59.the MPs and peers who have been caught up in these stings defending
:05:59. > :06:03.what they did, suggesting that it was a grey area. But actually, if
:06:03. > :06:09.you look at the rules as set out in the Sunday Times today for everybody
:06:09. > :06:11.to see, there is not much grey area about it. It is the recent poll -
:06:11. > :06:19.you should not take financial benefit for representing Private
:06:19. > :06:23.business interest in Parliament. think the behaviour of the Lords is
:06:24. > :06:27.the most shocking thing. If you remember in the debate about Lords
:06:27. > :06:33.reform, it was argued that the House of Lords was the crucible of wisdom,
:06:33. > :06:38.of moral but dude, was unsullied by democratic input. Did you fall for
:06:38. > :06:47.that? I did not. But a shopping number of the political and media
:06:47. > :06:51.world did. But on the broader question of lobbying, I always think
:06:51. > :06:54.the biggest victims of lobbying are the clients. They pay for influence,
:06:54. > :07:02.but the influence they get is kind of early day motions, Parliamentary
:07:02. > :07:04.questions. Big deal, hey? Absolutely, these all-party
:07:04. > :07:09.Parliamentary groups, anybody could tell them, are meaningless. But
:07:09. > :07:15.because you are from the outside, you end up spending big money on
:07:15. > :07:18.these relatively pointless things. had to laugh at the idea of Jack
:07:18. > :07:23.Cunningham boasting that he could write to the Prime Minister, as if
:07:23. > :07:28.David Cameron is going to take any notice. The failure to reform the
:07:28. > :07:31.House of Lords, indeed, to turn it into an even bigger dumping ground
:07:31. > :07:39.for establishment worthies who careers are over, has meant that it
:07:39. > :07:45.is now almost 900 strong, most of them have nothing to do, it is right
:07:45. > :07:48.for this kind of nonsense. And it is an arms race. There are going to be
:07:48. > :07:51.more and more peers going in, because you have got to get the
:07:51. > :07:56.party numbers up, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are
:07:56. > :08:00.under representative, so the numbers will go up. That's the problem with
:08:00. > :08:03.not reforming the Lords. There was the attempt last July to get it
:08:03. > :08:06.mainly or completely elected, and when that was thrown out, the Prime
:08:06. > :08:12.Minister tried to do the other thing, going with the reforms of
:08:12. > :08:16.Lord Steel, which would mean that anyone convicted of a criminal
:08:16. > :08:22.offence would be out, but Nick Clegg said, it is democratically elected
:08:22. > :08:26.or nothing. What about this register? I thought that was a very
:08:26. > :08:34.flat performance by Frarncis Maude. I do not know whether everyone
:08:34. > :08:37.managed to stay awake during it. You were the interest! He sounded very
:08:37. > :08:42.unconvincing about why they cannot just get on with it. It should not
:08:42. > :08:51.be that conjugated. I want to show you this quote from Andy Coulson.
:08:51. > :08:58.There it is, up on the screen. What he is really saying is that he is
:08:58. > :09:04.advising that Samantha Cameron takes a much bigger role in preparing the
:09:04. > :09:10.Conservatives for the next election. I am unclear why he thinks that is a
:09:10. > :09:13.good idea... There is something which makes me wince about this,
:09:13. > :09:16.something faintly sexist about the idea that the Prime Minister's wife
:09:16. > :09:23.has to come out to the rescue wearing a pretty dress and do some
:09:24. > :09:28.nice photo shoots. I do not like it. I think Andy Coulson's political
:09:28. > :09:31.judgment is generally very cute, he was perhaps the only truly blue-chip
:09:31. > :09:36.talent that David Cameron ever recruited into his inner circle, but
:09:36. > :09:40.he is wrong on this. The main criticism made of David Cameron is
:09:40. > :09:43.that he is too cliquey, too reliant on people he has known for decades.
:09:43. > :09:47.Do you respond to that charge by then making your wife a major
:09:47. > :09:52.adviser and campaigner? I would suggest that is the opposite of what
:09:52. > :09:58.you should do. He is implying she has got some kind of link with the
:09:58. > :10:01.people. I do not know Samantha Cameron, but I do know people who
:10:01. > :10:05.know her and who have known her before David Cameron was Prime
:10:05. > :10:09.Minister, and all of these people rave about her. They say she has got
:10:09. > :10:14.a wonderful, straightforward touch, despite her very privileged
:10:14. > :10:18.background. Don't forget, she is the daughter of, I think, a baronet. She
:10:18. > :10:22.has a wonderfully straightforward way of talking, but the problem is,
:10:22. > :10:26.when you get a media adviser, like Andy Coulson used to be, advising a
:10:26. > :10:30.politician that they need to bring their wife in, or in the case of a
:10:30. > :10:35.woman politician, there has been, then you know that something is
:10:35. > :10:38.going wrong, because they are not connecting. She has all of these
:10:39. > :10:43.attributes way to make sure people do not like her is to do what Andy
:10:43. > :10:49.Coulson says, to bring her into the public. I want to get onto debates
:10:49. > :10:53.in the election - let's have a look at this... What David would do is,
:10:54. > :10:57.for ideological reasons, take �6 billion out of the economy and put
:10:57. > :11:02.our recovery at risk. The time to do the deficit reduction is when the
:11:02. > :11:05.recovery is assured. Every leading business leader is saying that we
:11:05. > :11:12.have got it right, and the Government is wrong. I think we
:11:12. > :11:15.should start with welfare. We are not going to be able to fill the
:11:15. > :11:22.black hole in our public finances unless we also do it with fairness
:11:22. > :11:25.at the heart of everything we do. Well, we covered these debates at
:11:25. > :11:29.the last election, and we thought this was years ago, that these
:11:29. > :11:33.debates would now become part of British political culture, but I am
:11:33. > :11:38.beginning to think that thanks to Mr Farage, they may not. I think you
:11:38. > :11:41.are right, and a lot of it is due to the nervousness in number ten, to do
:11:42. > :11:46.with David Cameron's underperformance last time. I think
:11:46. > :11:52.they are worrying too much. They say behind-the-scenes that they want
:11:52. > :11:55.2015 to be a presidential campaign. They want to juxtapose Cameron's
:11:55. > :11:58.leader personality with Ed Miliband's lack of such a
:11:58. > :12:03.personality, and there is no sharper way of drawing that distinction than
:12:03. > :12:07.by having them next to each other in a TV studio. I also think they can
:12:07. > :12:13.justify not having Nigel Farage there. In many ways, Caroline
:12:13. > :12:18.Lucas, the Green MP, who also has a council in Brighton, has a better
:12:18. > :12:22.claim to be in that debate than Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage will
:12:22. > :12:25.probably win the European Parliamentary elections next year.
:12:25. > :12:30.The point about these debates is that they were a disaster for David
:12:30. > :12:34.Cameron, because his entire election campaign was about being the change
:12:34. > :12:39.candidate, and it turned out, he was not the change candidate, Nick Clegg
:12:39. > :12:42.was. They realised the debates were going to be a disaster during the
:12:43. > :12:46.first dress rehearsal, when Jeremy Hunt did such a brilliant job of
:12:46. > :12:49.being the change candidate, in Nick Clegg, that they realised they had a
:12:50. > :12:53.problem. They are trying to make sure these debates do not take
:12:53. > :12:59.place, but make sure they are not blamed for them not taking place.
:12:59. > :13:04.put it to you that if there is any question of Nigel Farage, there will
:13:04. > :13:14.be no debate. No question, because I think he would make David Cameron
:13:14. > :13:16.
:13:16. > :13:21.look quite weak. Debates, yes or no? I hope we do have them. Yes, but
:13:21. > :13:24.spread out over a longer period. They should take place but I imagine
:13:24. > :13:29.they will be killed because Nigel Farage cannot be allowed to take
:13:30. > :13:34.part. But is it for today. Our thanks to the person who tweeted, if