02/06/2013 Sunday Politics London

parliament in contempt? That is right. You are tempted to say that

the electorate must feel awful about this, but they have no say in this,

because these are peers. People have no say. It is politicians who decide

who goes into the House of Lords. People are fed up with this. There

was the example last week Patrick Mercer, and I think the House of

Commons generally is held to higher standards now than the House of

Lords, but there is not really proper is not really proper scooter

near the House of Lords. Reporters very rarely sit in the press gallery

at the House of Lords. Obviously, there is the gay marriage bill, but

it is not really scrutinised properly. Here is a question - do we

have any evidence that lobbyists are actually doing this, as opposed to

journalists posing as lobbyists? This is what intrigues me. If

parliamentarians are guilty of this, it is stupidity. How many newspapers

things have to be conduct before MPs and Lords realise that if they

receive strange delegations of people offering them money, the

thing to do is to say no? Maybe it happens so often from real lobbyists

that they do not think there is anything unusual when somebody from

Fiji comes along and says, put down these questions and we will stick

2000 in your bank account every month. Precisely, I know Patrick

Mercer, and he is nobody's fall, as you well know. I rather suspect that

these delegations are not as strange as we might wish they were. In

relation to MPs, hence we have reached a point where we now need to

pay them more. I know that will make everybody wins, give them a really

substantial pay rise, and say, that is it, no more outside interests.

Just cut it out altogether, then there can be no ducking and diving.

Bungle it would also deal with the expenses problem. Raise the salary

to a level that we would find hard to swallow, but also abolish the

expensive regime -- expenses regime and ban them from taking outside

income. That would deal with 90% of the problem. You could only do that

after you were elected, not in the run-up to the election! Another

week, another stinging, catching MPs out in the Lords - how bad is this?

I think it is very depressing that we are flashing back to 1994, and

the sort of potential cash for questions type of scandal. Why can't

we get our house in order, why can't we reform? Certainly, the House of

Lords desperately needs reform. Why can't we get a culture in the House

of Commons that these sorts of things cannot get off the ground?

But why cannot we have proper sanctions against those who fall for

such things? Patrick Mercer has lost the Tory party whip lash why should

voters regard that as any sort of punishment? I agree entirely. Of

course, there is a way of dealing with it. If the Parliamentary

Commissioner for Standards finds he has breached the rules, it goes to

the committee for standards and privilege, who can suspend a member

of Parliament. Of course, that happened to Denis McShane. He saw

that even staying as an independent was untenable if he was suspended

from the House of Commons. If the same was to happen to Patrick

Mercer, then, in due course, he would have to stand down and there

would have to be a by-election, which I am sure the people of Newark

would prefer. If that does not happen, the reality is that Mr

Mercer will stay in the Commons for another two years, until the

election, earning �130, and any expenses he cares to file as well,

it carries on as normal. Yes, it is unacceptable, I agree entirely. --

�130,000. There is a lot of talk of the idea of the power of recall,

whereby the voters in a constituency can call for another election, and

he or she can either stand or not, is it not time for something like

that? I am sympathetic to the idea, although you do have the worry

about, if, for example, an MP votes in a way that the local constituents

do not agree with, and you get a lobby going to get rid of him,

wouldn't that be equally unacceptable as well? I think it

would be much better if the committee on standards and

privileges could deal with, as I say, suspending a member of

Parliament until the next general election, which would in effect mean

he would have to stand down. We have got these three Lords now, who have

also been caught in a sting. What is to stop them carrying on, claiming

allowances and things like that? Yes, I think you can even go to jail

and carry on. The House of Lords is over ripe for reform. Why have we

got a second chamber where, between 800 and 900 people, and I think they

are being added to every few months by the Prime Minister's office, why

have we got such a second chamber of such a size, which is clearly so

vulnerable to the sort of lobbying influence that we have been hearing

about? Because, I would suggest to you, it has become a dumping ground

for the establishment, and these people have got nothing else to

do... Well, then, people have to call for reform, and people have to

follow it through. Even if Nick Clegg's proposals were not the most

ideal, they would have been very much better than what we have got at

the moment. Thank you for joining us. As we have been hearing, today's

revelations focus on members of the House of Lords allegedly offering

their Parliamentary services for money. Two of those involved are

Labour peers, so what is the party going to do about it? Shadow defence

secretary Jim Murphy joins me from Glasgow. What action will Labour

take against the two Labour peers caught this morning in the Sunday

Times sting? Good morning. Obviously, I have watched the

videotape from here in Glasgow of what the Sunday Times has, and what

has been broadcast, and I sit here with my toes curling up inside my

shoes out of utter embarrassment about some of the things which

appear to be said. There is the quote about, this is a bribe, or I

will deny it when asked. Our view is clear, which is that if there is

real evidence of serious wrongdoing, and somebody brings Parliament and

politics into disrepute, then disciplinary action should be taken.

I cannot sit here ten seconds after having watched a clip and say what

should happen, but there will be an enquiry, and if serious wandering

has been undertaken, there will be disciplinary action. Your

disciplinary action is that you suspend the Labour whip if they are

found to be gutty, or even suspended from the party, but you must be

aware that no voter regards that as any kind of sanction or penalty.

There is a range of disciplinary action, both from the party, from

Parliament and from the authorities, the criminal 40s. We

have seen this starting with Patrick Mercer in his alleged actions around

lobbying on behalf of Fiji. -- criminal authorities. I think the

public, who have looked on with a sense of astonishment, a sense that

there is one rule for those who govern, and another for those who

are governed, will be utterly sickened by this. That is why I am

asking you what you are going to do about it. I have already answered,

that in this specific case, I cannot comment, based on a video I have

seen a few seconds ago. But firstly, there needs to be a register of

lobbyist, not to prevent things, because I think stings are a

legitimate part of journalism, but there has to be a compulsory

register of lobbyist 's, so that all of that can be regulated. But you

opposed that, let me pick you up on that, you opposed that when you were

in power. It was in our manifesto, we have offered to work with the

government on a nonparty basis. We could sort it out on that basis.

why did you opposed the policy in 2009 and 2010? It is very easy for

you in opposition to say, let's do this, but when you were in power, in

2009-10, you opposed a register. 2010, when we were in power, we said

we would put it in the manifesto for the forthcoming election. The other

important thing, this point of recall, which you have been

discussing, I think it is really important that if a member of

Parliament, a member of the House of Commons, behaves in a disgraceful

way, bringing themselves into disrepute, behaving in a way which

is way below the standards expect it, then there should be that

recall, we should not have to wait several years before they can cease

to be a member of Parliament. There is one important caveat dash it

cannot be just because you do not like your member of Parliament,

because you did not vote for them, it has to be for behaviour, serious

financial misbehaviour, which brings Parliament and Parliament into

disrepute. Because I think the public probably thought things could

not get any worse, but this is a new low for British politics, and it has

to be resolved. That leads to the question of the House of Lords,

these lords, even if found guilty, continue to attend, the their daily

allowance, pick up their expenses - what would you do about that?

reform is not yet complete in the House of Commons, but I think we

have only just scratched the surface, all the political parties,

when it comes to reforming the House of Lords. What would you do?There

is too much self-regulation, there needs to be a system whereby, if

someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, and has served

time, they should not be able to help form and create the law of the

land. Those massive reforms would be really important. There is no issue

thereabout the power of recall. So, there has to be, if you like, an

even stronger set of sanctions and powers when it comes to the House of

Lords. Can I finally ask you, Theresa May, the secretary, she

wants reintroduce the Communications Data Bill, critics call it the

snooper charter, are you willing to help to deal with the Tories to get

that past Lib Dem opposition? Government get it right, we would

support the legislation. The first responsibility, as you know, is to

protect the public from a group of individuals or malevolent

organisations who continue to shift their tactics and continue to make

use of new technology, so the Government can consult internet

service providers that they get it right, so it is capable of carrying

ads that work. If they guarantee it is not going to be a significant

infringement on the majority, we think it would be important to get

some new legislation in place. Think of what happened in Woolwich. It is

important we are able to guard against those kind of sanctions but

those two people have been arrested for but it is important that we

don't snoop and keep the Civil Liberties. It is clear that you are

willing to talk to the Government about this and I thank you for that

answer. That was Jim Murphy in Glasgow.

Parliament returns next week after two weeks relaxing, but it is

unlikely to have done much to ease the tensions coalition, with

controversies over terrorism and the lobbying scandal awaiting the

Government parties when they return from the beach.

The spring of 2010 was a harmonious time for the coalition and in the

months after the Rose Garden traced, France's mud was an evangelist for

2-party rule. He told the Guardian that broad-based government was a

huge advantage. Today, that optimism looks misplaced. Parliament returns

from recess for the first time since the Woolwich murders. In response to

the atrocity, Theresa May wants to resurrect her Communications data

Bill, which was dropped from the Queen's Speech. But Nick Clegg

believes the so-called Snooper's Charter remains on workable. And

despite this warning from David Cameron about lobbying before the

election... There is, I believe, another big issue which we can no

longer ignore. It is the next big handle waiting to happen. There is

still a register of lobbyists. Nick Clegg says he wants reform but his

partner stopped it. It was not in the Queen's Speech, it was not

something we could get across the coalition. I hope at some point we

will. In 2010, Francis Maude said there was a lot of trust and a lot

of stuff gets sorted out. Three years on, the unresolved stop is

stacking up. Francis Maude joins us from his

constituency in Sussex. David Cameron said that lobbying is the

next big scandal waiting to happen, that was about three years ago, and

from Liam Fox to Peter Cruddas to Patrick Mercer, he is proved right

again and again. So why have you done nothing about it? Well, they

were going to introduce statutory register of lobbyists, that is a

commitment. There is a certain amount of debate about what it

should cover. To be honest, Labour when they were in office were very

sceptical about this. Towards the end of their time, Tom Watson, a

senior Labour MP, said he thought it was all the really bad idea. We

don't think it is a bad idea, we think it is necessary but there is

work still to do to define the scope of it. The only affected would have

had on what is going on at the moment -- the only effect it would

have had on what is going on at the moment is it would have made it

easier for people duped by a bogus lobbying company to find out no such

company existed. What is holding it up? You didn't include it in the

Queen's Speech, you have had three years to think about it and Nick

Clegg, your Cabinet colleague is up for it, the lobbying companies

wanted to happen. What is your problem? We all wanted to happen,

but it is scope and how it operates. But you haven't put it in

the Queen's Speech. Will it be in the next Queen's Speech? It won't

necessarily be in the next Queen's Speech, because it is perfectly

possible we will legislate for it in this session. We always introduce

legislation that isn't in the Queen's Speech. The Queen's Speech,

as important as it is, isn't the be all and end all. We are going to do

this but we need finally to resolve the issues about scope and so on and

then we will get on with it. what is the hold-up? Well, it is

sorting out the final details. so it is possible that you could go

into the next election without a statutory registrar in place,

correct? No, I would think that is very unlikely indeed. Another

promise you fail to deliver is the right of voters to recall MPs, that

was in your agreement as well. Mister Mercer has resigned but he

could remain an empty until the next election. It is not a likely what

the voters expect, is it? -- not exactly. We will legislate for that

as well, it is the coalition agreement. This is quite a major

constitutional change and you do need to make sure that you get that

right. What you are saying is that a minority of people in a constituency

will have the ability to overturn a decision made by the electors at the

previous election. So there is a whole lot of issues that need to get

sorted out. What is the trigger for it? What kind of wrongdoing triggers

it? You absolutely don't want an MP who takes a principle but unpopular

position -- a principled but unpopular position to be hounded out

of his constituency by those who oppose it. But you have had three

years to work out that answer. And yet this morning, you cannot come at

the answer to either of these questions. -- you cannot tell me.

They need to be worked out properly. This sits within Nick Clegg 's

portfolio and I'm sure he's working on those cancers. Can we get it

clear, can you tell us this morning, by the 2015 election, both

the statutory register of lobbyists and the power of recall of disgraced

MPs will be on the statute book? cannot absolutely guarantee that

because it is not in my power to do that, but I would be astonished if

that were not the case. OK, let's see if you are astonished. Let's

turn to the Snooper's Charter, that is what the critics call it, but it

is the power for the security services to do their job and stop us

being blown up or shot or attacked in our streets. You want one, the

Conservatives. The Lib Dems don't. Does that mean it won't happen?

are trying to make everything really simple and binary and it isn't. We

know everyone wants there to be proper protections, but yet we all

want also that to be proportionate and not impact on people's civil

liberties by giving the Government to much power. Working out exactly

where that balance lies is a tricky. The joint committee of the two

Houses of Parliament have spent quite a lot of time on this and

concluded that the bill is desirable but with some constraints. So there

is a lot of work to be done to reconfigure exactly where the

boundary lies. But everyone agrees that there should absolutely be no

ability, without a warrant, for the authorities of the state to look at

the content of any communications. The only question is about the

ability of the law enforcement agencies to track through the

records kept by communications businesses the traffic. So where is

the traffic going? And from which computers to which internet provider

addresses? All of that is a perfectly proper subject of debate

and there is no right or wrong. Everyone accepts, I think, that

there would be a considerable security upside is that ability to

track the traffic, not the content... But if you cannot get Lib

Dems support for a compromise, will you talk to Jim Murphy and the

Labour Party? We have just heard his willingness to talk and he sounds

closer to you on this than Nick Clegg's Lib Dems. Well, there is no

party politics in this. It is not an ideological issue. So you will talk?

You heard David Davis, my Parliamentary colleague, on the

television earlier arguing very strongly the same position as the

Lib Dems. It is not a party political issue, it is genuinely

trying to work out where you pitch this right. Nobody denies that there

is a strong security upside in making some changes, it is where you

strike the balance, where you make the trade-off, between the ability

to protect us all through better security and the ability for people

to feel confident that the state is not able to to track all of the

movements to the end degree. October 20th and that back in

October 20th 10th of you told a private court that even if the

Conservatives win a majority, there will be a desire to continue with

the coalition amongst parts of the Conservative party. Her strong with

you say that desire is today's Conservative Party? I think it's

absolutely the case that the coalition government was able to do

things early on that a single party government would not have been able

to do, particularly in terms of driving down the deficit, doing

really difficult things which have grouped incredibly controversial in

many other countries -- which are grooved. Because this was a 2-party

government... But what is the answer to my question? There was very

little tension between them so there were huge advantages in the national

crisis which we inherited for there to be a coalition agreement.

what was the answer to 2015? Well, I hope we won't be in a national

crisis then and I very much hope that the Conservative party will win

an outright majority. I am optimistic that we can, and if we do

win an outright majority, then I would expect the first option to

form a majority government. Finally, you have been making some efficiency

savings. I understand that by 2014-2015, you will hope to have

made accumulative total of around �20 billion worth of efficiency

savings. That is not cumulative, that will be the annual run rate. We

started in the first ten months by saving nearly �4 billion and we move

that up to five and a half the next year, the year that has just ended

in March. I will be announcing the numbers tomorrow. We set the target

was to be in excess of eight billion and I will be able to announce the

numbers but it will be well in excess of 8 billion. This is by

doing some difficult and unglamorous, probably unexciting

things, like renegotiating contracts with the Government 's major

suppliers, by cutting the size of the civil service, by stopping

ridiculous advertising and marketing spend, by cutting down on the use of

consultants. By doing actually what the public are entitled to expect of

a competent, purposeful government. Which is to cut the cost of running

government. So the total saving will be what? I will announce the number

tomorrow but it will be well in excess of the 8 billion target we

said. Francis Maude, thank you for joining us.

Now, after all we have been discussing this morning, you might

not be in the mood to hear members of Parliament complaining about that

other expenses system that was introduced after the scandal over MP

claims a few years ago. Politicians are angry about the independent

pilot standards authority -- about IPSA, which they say is expensive

and unfair. So what is the problem? There are few topics more toxic than

in the Westminster World Bank MPs expenses, and people think they are

coining it still, living in the lap of luxury. But more and more them

have been telling us that the new expenses system is so out of gear

that they are getting saddled with debt and they can't do the job

properly. I absolutely appreciate that we earn

well above the average salary, but I think far too many people think we

are living the lifestyle of millionaires, that we are bathing in

Champagne every night and eating caviar in the members tea room, and

everything is free, we don't pay for anything. I think people need a

reality check. Of course, we all know why the

public feel like this about expenses. We all remember what

happened in 2008. A newspaper splash of expenses MPs had fought

vigorously to hide open our disbelieving eyes to claims for moat

cleaning, house flipping, imagine remortgages and the duck has that

became iconic. Careers ended and in some cases, the second home became

jail. No fear of public outcry is such in Parliament that many MPs,

who were nothing to do with illegal claims before or arrived after the

scandal, tell me they will not claim for things they are entitled to an

increasingly, they blamed the men and women who work out of here. On

the seventh floor office building is the Independent Parliamentary

Standards Authority, or IPSA. It is the body that replaced the old fees

office in 2010. And MPs have been keen to stress to me that their

complaints about IPSA are not about lining their own pockets, but

genuine and real concerns about its competency and its cost. It is

bureaucratic, it is far too expensive. It has a chairman who and

�90,000 per year for a two-day week, plus five directors, all of

whom earn more than an ordinary MP plans. And you would think for that

kind of renumeration, there would actually be efficiency, but it is

not promote the efficient. Amongst the cases we have been given our own

MP outside of London who spent �8,000 of their own savings to stay

overnight in the capital because, for a year, IPSA would not cover the

costs. They then relented. Transport credit cards cancelled with no

notice, and rows over a �10 taxi fare and when an MP parked their own

car for three days to avoid such a row, the �80 cost was paid without

complaint. I'm claim above teas and coffees brought for constituents and

gets by MPs when meeting them, running up to �100 per week and

three MPs told us of a colleague whose claim for transport to meet a

plane, taking them and a group of sixth-formers to Auschwitz, was

queried on grounds of going was not part of their job. It is now being

paid. It is like Monty Python, it is the

Monty Python guide to politics. Other things said to me include the

fact that the body is frustrating to deal with and only answers calls

after 1pm, despite having only 650 people to be responsible for. One MP

goes further, suggesting they can be spiteful. Every time I have raised

problems, about the cost to the taxpayer of the IPSA, suddenly, my

claims for that month have been delayed. Some of my claims from

December were not paid until the end of January. That means you are

continually in debt if you like with your overdraft, it is not the way

members of Parliament wants to operate. One senior MP told me that

he thinks IPSA has gone through the looking glass, extreme, inflexible,

even hiring high paid lawyers to take one MP through the courts. One

MP said that it so you as MPs as guilty until proven innocent. You

might say, so what. -- IPSA. Many have told me they are now assessing

whether they can afford to continue as MPs, and that, they say, is bad

for democracy. Unfortunately, with IPSA, the way they are impinging on

the way we can do our work as a member of Parliament, I firmly

believe, as do many others, that unfortunately, you will not get the

best people willing to stand for Parliament. As a nation, we are a

bit schizophrenic on this. I think the large majority of the population

are heading in the direction of having a Parliament where you either

have to be a millionaire or a puritan. There is one MP who

disagrees, to put it mildly. Which, in the past, has opened the door to

heavy criticism from his colleagues in the house. The idea that MPs

cannot afford to live with the expenses of today is a nonsense. Any

MP who says that is not in the real world, does not know what the rest

of the country is going through, does not know what life is like in

Britain. Clueless. We are well paid, relative to our constituents. We

have an expenses system which is a bit bureaucratic but is fair and

reasonable and allows us to do the job. Any MP who says they are not is

not telling the truth. Despite the permission of John Mann, IPSA is to

propose arrays for MPs, as they are about �20,000 behind the European

average for elected parliamentarians. But for some, a

rise is not the solution. You would be very brave as an MP to go on

television and demand a pay rise. But as far as IPSA is concerned, we

are the only elected legislature in the whole of the British Isles that

has farmed out our expenses system to an external body, and that has to

be brought back in-house, to save a lot of money right away. All food

for thought, even if it has to be home-made sandwiches in a lunchbox.

But it is a sign of how frustrated MPs are over the new expenses system

that they are happier to voice concerns on a subject they know the

public find hard to swallow. asked IPSA onto the programme, but

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 45 seconds

we were told nobody was available. IPSC is definitely a four letter

word. Nadine Dorries, welcome to the programme. We have sad some unhappy

stories from MPs that, have you got a tale of hardship? I think every MP

has a tale of hardship. The fundamental problem of this is that

actually, IPSA has cost the taxpayer �30 million in the last three years.

It actually costs �7 million a year to administer the expenses of 650

people. If you told any company which employs 650 staff that just to

pay their expenses was going to cost �7 million a year, I think that

company would have a collective heart attack. It is bureaucratic, it

charges a huge amount of money, it is not able to answer its telephones

before one o'clock at lunchtime. They say that is because very few

MPs call them before 1pm. They say that 3% of the money is doled out,

which is low by private sector standards. They have made a number

of statements, including the one about Mr McCartney being hysterical,

which is pushing the boundaries of truthfulness. The fact is, they do

not answer the phones until 1pm, their chairman owns �700 a day, the

Chief Executive earns an awful lot. They do not even answer the phones

and letters. They are supposed to make an MP's job easier. But they

make us more vulnerable due to their own inefficiency. And they do not

assist MPs in doing their job. I think there is a very simple

solution to this, which is to scrap IPSA, to say to MPs, no more

accommodation in London. Then I started work as a nurse, I was given

the key to a nurses room in a house, and while I worked on site at a

hospital hundreds of miles away from hospital, that was my room. --

hundreds of miles away from home. We need the equivalent of a nurses

home. We need accommodation which is out of expenses. We know every MP

employs three members of staff, every MP travels around their

constituency about twice a week. Take those payments, give them in

one lump sum and do away with expenses. But here is your problem -

the public, average income, �26,000, does not give you much sympathy. You

have �66,000 a year, a very decent pension, renting a second home, you

can earn money outside Parliament. It is not going to get public

simply, is it? The public have to think, do they want a fully

representative democracy? If they do, MPs have to be able to access

that democracy. At the moment we are going to have a parliament which is

full of millionaires and paupers, because many MPs can no longer

afford to be MPs. I know of two who are going to stand down because they

cannot afford, and do not want the hassle of having to deal with IPSA

on a day-to-day decease. That is the other issue. It takes a huge amount

of an MP's day. Who do you blame for this? David Cameron and Gordon

Brown, because in the last Parliament, trying to save their

skins, they agreed to the recommendations put forward by Ian

Kennedy. It was a knee-jerk reaction, badly thought through. It

costs taxpayer a huge amount of money and it should never have been

agreed to. I understand I am not supposed to ask you questions about

how much you made going into the jungle. Is that true? You do not

want to talk about it? It is not that I do not want to talk about it,

it is just that when I personally benefit... It is the same way that

if I ask you, how much you earned from the British taxpayer, via the

licence fee, including your benefits and travel allowance. You say here

now how much you get paid and I will tell you how much I get paid. You

are paid by the taxpayer. So, you have been paid nothing to go into

the jungle? I have not personally benefited from going into the

jungle. I do have a company for which I write extensively, I do

television appearances extensively, and I do get paid for doing those.

Will you have to declare this in Parliament? When I benefit

personally from that, I will have to declare it to the register. I will

do so immediately. Is the difference between you and Andrew not that you

are an elected public representative, you took time out of

a paid job... I was on holiday.You are paid an annual salary, which

pays you every day of the week. You took time out to do a television

programme. You must tell the truth - parliament was on recess when I was

in the jungle. It was my holiday. But your job is not just sitting in

the chamber, it is representing your constituents, that is what you do in

recess. So, I am not allowed to have a holiday? You need to declare it.I

do declare the money. You are a public representative. I think

Nadine Dorries' expenses for the jungle have been quite well raked

over, I am more interested in what you think about my idea that MPs

should be paid substantially more, which I know would be really

unpalatable to the public, do you think your colleagues would go to

that, say, a salary of 100 grand, and no more expenses which are not I

think MPs should be paid on a par with GPs and headteachers. That

would be about 100 grand. I think if there were no outside earnings, I

think probably a large number of MPs today would leave, and the people

attracted to parliament would be a very different type of person.

if MPs had 100,000 salary and got no outside earnings, they would leave?

I think there are some who financially earn far more than that.

For any MP to give up outside earnings, you have got people who

write books, people who sit as chair people of companies, some people who

spend far more time on their outside earnings than I ever did in 12 days

in the jungle. I think probably Parliament is lumbered with IPSA.

Unfortunately it needs to become a lot more accountable and a lot more

scrutinised. You are watching The Sunday Politics. Coming up in just

over 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with our political

panel. Until then, The Sunday this week, a little later, we will

be hearing about the children who go missing permanently from care. We

will also look at plans to transform the royal Albert docks into a

business park for the European headquarters of Chinese and South

Asian businesses. Is this a deal to help unlock the economic potential

of the Thames Gateway? We will be discussing that with Richard

Ottaway, the Conservative MP for Clwyd South, as well as the Labour

MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. First, eight quick word on the pace of

change in the middle justice system in the capital, and the news that

there are more than 900 people who have been on police bail for more

than six knots, not knowing whether there is a case against them or not.

Answer that one, Richard Ottaway. am not quite sure where this one has

come from. You have to balance on the one hand Civil Liberties, but

also, you have got to allow the police plenty of time to carry out

their investigations. OK, there is no long stopped on this at the

moment, but I think most cases are dealt with pretty promptly. Do you

agree with that? I do not, actually. The police are under enormous

pressure, which is potentially one reason why this is taking longer. We

do need to make other people do not have to wait a very long time,

particularly if there is not a case to answer. So, their lives are

turned upside down and in the meantime the Government is not

providing any support to the police to carry the investigation out

quickly. That must be the nub of this, mustn't it, to keep evil for

so long in that sense of uncertainty, and of course, people

on police bail have a lot of restrictions imposed on them?

think she is being a bit unfair. Under the last Labour government,

the time interval between offence and charge was 88 days. Despite all

the pressures that the police are under at the moment, that time is

now 89 days, so, really, there has been no change whatsoever over the

years. You have to manage the resources effectively. You have to

allow visible liberties, but allow the police to get on with it.

months is an awful long time for people to have their movements

restrict it, whatever it might be. Some of these are very competitive

cases, and if you say you have got to charge someone within 28 days,

the police will say, sorry, we cannot do that, and those people

will go free. The public deserve to be protected, which is why we have

the rules. Investigations can be complex and take time. Which is why

we need to support the police. There are 1,500 officers losing their

jobs. If you don't have adequate support in the police system, if

they don't have the capacity, how can they investigate and get people

out of rail and through the system -- bail? And there is pressure then

on the courts and that is a direct consequence of the governments

turning the pressure on the services, so on the one hand, they

are saying the police must do X, Y and Z but they are not giving them

adequate support. You see, there is no change in the interval.

wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't a problem. These

figures provided by the library this morning are 88 days under Labour, 89

and the Conservatives. We wouldn't be having this debate if there

wasn't a problem. And I don't think we will get agreement, let's move

on. It has long been puzzling challenge for government had to fill

the economic void left in east London by the decline of Doc land

industry, but this week it looked like one week piece may have fallen

into place. A major Chinese investor has been chosen to transform the

Royal Albert docks into a giant business Park, housing, for the most

part, the European HQ is Asian companies.

A derelict site next to London city airport, but not, it seems for much

longer. This week, a grand plan was unveiled. A new business hub aimed

at investors from Asia, mainly offices and also some homes and

shops. Work will start in 2016 with the first phase planned for

completion in 2017. I2026, the whole project should be finished,

transforming this wasteland into one of Europe's easiest business

districts. There was a celebratory air at the City Hall when the deal

was signed. This is an area that has been neglected for decades, most of

our lives, and nothing has been going on there economically. It is

an amazing vote of confidence in London by a massive Chinese investor

that has done all sorts of projects already in China and around the

world. An interpreter for the Chinese developer said he was

inspired by the London Olympic Games.

TRANSLATION: The success for housing the Olympic Games in London has

increased our confidence in the ability of the Greater London

authority is in managing the city and also managing large events.

its peak about 100 years ago, there were 20,000 people employed at the

well Albert docks. This new scheme aims to match this feature with jobs

the many local people. It is claimed the project will attach up to �6

billion worth of investment, a big boost the local economy.

John Biggs, London Labour assembly member for the city and is London,

covers that area and is here. Welcome to you. Do you welcome this

question mark it is impossible not welcome that of investment, do you

believe it? It is early days but it sounds like good news and they seem

to have deep pockets and a record of doing this stuff in China. It has

taken a long time to get serious development across the River Lea,

getting it further east. I guess there are a number of missing pieces

so we need alongside this to work on the skills and employability of

local people and make sure people benefit from the regeneration. Boris

has been a bit slow getting off the start with this but he has finally

come in his second term, realised that London's role as an

international trading centre requires us to go out and get

investment from overseas. And there is another big at all here, which is

about other European cities trying to steal a march on us and this is a

real victory in terms of Chinese investment in the UK. But it does

beg questions about airport policy. We will come until later, but there

are claims being made about this, that it might have a dramatic affect

on unemployment in the area, as much as increasing employment by 30%. Do

you buy that? And what kind of jobs might it bring? If it works, it will

certainly increase employment in the area. There will be relatively

high-tech and high skilled jobs, I think. Everyone who lives in you is

in reach via public transport, so it is not just about lack of jobs

locally, it is about skills and employability. This is very good

news, but we need to keep lobbying the Government to get investment

coming in to raise the skills levels of Londoners so they can compete for

these jobs. Because what lessons might be learned for instance at

what happened in Canary Wharf, about whether jobs and being for local

people? An awful lot has been written and researched about that

and it was seen as very much an imposed regeneration on the area, so

nowadays people talk about the partnership but we need to be seeing

the detail about how we are going to lever up schools. If school

standards are improving, exam results are better and more children

a good university but we still have stubborn unemployment in the area,

we still have a need to address that. Nobody would disagree that the

Canary Wharf and the Docklands contributed to the growth of the

capital's economy. Looking back, do you regret that it did in sharing

the proceeds of that growth to local people? -- that it did not. I think

this is a continuation of the growth started by Michael has a sign and

Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s -- Michael Heseltine. This is a good

news story, it is a win-win situation. It fits neatly alongside

the East London Take City and it is going to establish London as a

leading financial centre in the world. How does it work? Is it the

clustering effect that is so important? And do we believe that

big moves like this, the Chinese investor promising to bring other

Chinese companies into the area will really happen? You get momentum with

a cluster, whatever the area of expertise is. I used to work in the

city of London and you mix and move with these people, and if those get

its own drive forward. Rushunara, where big companies like this

set-up, other infrastructure follows, doesn't it?

infrastructure investment is welcome. Just as able were very

pleased about the Olympics infrastructure and investment, the

big question is about whether local people in the host boroughs that did

not particularly benefit from the Olympics do, in terms of jobs. The

devil is in the detail. This is a really exciting opportunity. I grew

up watching the Canary Wharf tower is going up and local people did not

benefit much at all from that. We have to make sure that when this

opportunity comes, the businesses that invest, the foreign investors

that do invest, do not create tensions by bringing in their own

Labour, which has been the source of tension historically. Isn't that the

danger? Bringing in well educated, high-flying Chinese business people

who will... And this will be used certainly as a European

headquarters. I think that in itself is not the problem. The problem is

if we do not framed the employment agreements, recruitment agreements,

training agreements between local authorities and the Chinese

investors to make sure that local people can apply for those jobs, and

that high skilled Labour within London and within the East End of

London is tapped into, rather than quick fixes, which is partly what

happens during the Olympics project, without looking at local

people. So it is not about being hostile at looking at people coming

in but we need to make sure local people benefit. Richard Ottoway, it

shows how rapidly this global economy is shifting and have, we

here in Britain need China to come and help develop and unlock this

Thames Gateway. Why does it need Chinese companies? You look at

Nissan and tired and other companies investing but we invest a lot

overseas -- iota. It is a global village, a global economy, and we

one of the leading financial centres along with Hong Kong, New York and

Geneva. These are the places that people want a bit and we are

providing facilities and I congratulate the London assembly and

the Mayra Blunden forgetting behind this. A last word from you -- the

mail of London. Housing infrastructure, is there enough of

that? There is plenty of houses being will today stunned but whether

it can be afforded by local people is a different matter. In the East

End, we need more public money and subsidy to provide housing that is

accessible for people on low incomes. The benefit changes are

squeezing people out of the area just at the time when the job

opportunities are coming in. That is not the way London has historically

liked to live. We are a city where mixed communities have lived

alongside each other and we are at risk of becoming very segregated

stop now, children in care face a myriad of problems.

Too many underachieve at school and according to the police, too many go

missing from their care homes and are never traced. On the streets,

they can face finance and sexual exploitation but that the still does

not stop many of them running away in the first place.

This 14-year-old ran away from care repeatedly. On the streets, she

became a victim of sexual exploitation. They know that

obviously you are born rubble for a start, because you are unsettled and

depressed where you are, and then they kind of do what they want --

you of all the rubble. But if you refuse, like I refused one person

before, I got hit in the face. After that, couldn't what happened to me

until got brought home. -- I couldn't remember what happened to

me. There are around 1,000 children in care homes in London, but

according to the police, there were 8830 reports of something when they

had gone missing. Roughly one child in every 30 in London care home has

been gone since last year. Fraser Cook works with looked after

children in London, helping them to find work when they leave. He grew

up in care and understand why some might want to run away. I was in

shared hostel accommodation when I was 16 and I was looking at sharing

with people where it was a free for all, there was no structure. It is

just a free for all and they are scary places, because you're living

with people with drug problems, prostitution, it is a scary

environment. A big problem in London is that young people are normally

placed outside the area they are from. Only 32% of looked after

children are kept in their own borough. A colleague of Fraser's

also grew up in care. Her borough thought the most important thing was

that she was with foster parents from Uganda, like she was, and moved

her from East London to serve. It is the only time she thought about

running away. For me, Peckham was really hard, because I was moved

from everything that I really knew, from the east of London to the south

and I had never really been down to Peckham before. A new family,

completely new area, I had to make new friends outside of the family

and in the family and that was really hard for me. I didn't have

anyone to talk to, I didn't have anyone I could relate to or with all

stop and I hardly spoke to my social worker, so I felt dumped in south

London and forgotten about. 6% of the country's children's homes are

based in London. The Northwest is home to a quarter. MPs think more

could be done by councils to increase provision. They could talk

to some of the private providers to see if they can come to arrangements

about perhaps houses in which the private providers are offering

daycare, maybe the houses are offered by borough themselves. --

offering daycare. They could look at alternative foster arrangements,

there are some successful professional fostering scheme is to

support children. So I think that there are things that London

boroughs could do to make sure that there are more children's homes

available to London children. Following high-profile abuse cases

in Oxfordshire and Rochdale, where children who run away from care

became victims of exploitation, the Government had made efforts to

improve the care system. It may not be enough for some.

We are joined by someone from The Children's Society. Is this because

children become adults and so when they can missing, they are no longer

chased by the police and just disappear? What happens to them?

know that around 10,000 children go missing from care every year, and we

also know that when children go missing, they are at very high risk

of exploitation and abuse. Children in care are particularly vulnerable

because they have suffered neglect. So it is a large number and nobody

knows officially where they end up. It is difficult to children who are

placed far away from where they come from. We knew it contributes to them

going missing, because they want to run back to family and friends, so

we know it is a real problem and it is a particular problem in London.

Nearly 32% of children stay in London and that are placed outside

of London. So they are sent to Kent coastal towns, where the buildings

are cheaper or something? We do know there is a concentration of

children's homes in areas of cheap housing, such as the Northwest or

the south-east coast, so that is a concern. There is more the London

boroughs could do to make sure children stay near where they live.

What, creating new homes in their burrows? We know that would go

against the grain, the trend, which is to look for more fostering and

more placements which are not residential children's homes?

some children, it is children I am thinking of who have been

trafficked, it is important is to be removed from the situation where

they are near the traffickers, but for most children, it is important

to stay near where they live and it is the responsibility of the

individual local authority, who have parental responsibility, to make

sure that child is safe. But I do not mind if they care is fast as

carer or a children's home, it has to be right for the children.

say the councils could do more, it is pretty tough presumably for them

to find the resources for this. You getting the feeling this is becoming

an area that is not given the priority it should be? We do spend a

fair amount of money on children in care, but councils need to think

about where and how they spend it. They spend a lot of money on it but

we are not getting the returns. you get that kind of impression?

Absolutely. At the crux of this, national government needs to require

local authorities to have the duty of responsibility not to push kids

away, the minute they have no legal responsibility or obligation. That's

where the problem was arising. After 18, and these are young adults who

are vulnerable, they are at risk of getting into crime. The cost is

extremely high among young children who have been in care. If you look

at the criminal justice system, and if you look at the savings that

would have been made if local authorities were more strategic, and

responded to these points about supporting young people in these

very difficult times, that would make a significant difference. So,

the money needs to be spent more effectively, but I think you have to

address the incentive structures faced by local authorities, because

this is a group which does not have the power, does not have the impact,

that other organisations have bustle I have to agree. The figures are

unacceptable high. In my own borough, Croydon, compares quite

well, keeping 60%, compared with the London average of 32%. It is doing

that by making a big effort, having monthly meetings with the police

under social services, actually just having joined up government, which I

think is very important. It is time for a look at the rest of the

political news, in ex-Downing Street press chief Andy Coulson said Boris

Johnson would rather see David Cameron fail miserably at the

election then stabbed him in the back. He said the London mayor then

believed he could ride in on his bike to save party and country.

So-called pilot towns have seen a fall in the number of occupied shop

units, including in Croydon, Bedford and Dartford. The number of

cancelled operations in London's hospitals has reached a four-year

high. 9474 elective operations were scrapped at the last minute for

non-medical reasons last year, an average of 26 today. The number of

thefts of property also went up, by over 1200. The total level of crime

on the Underground network fell, however. Richard Ottaway, Croydon

was one of those pilot schemes, and the number of vacant properties is

increasing on the high Street to mark very few. We have got an

enormous development going on, and all of these things take time.

will make the high-street even worse, will it not? Well, the

high-street is part of the same area, go down and have a look. This

is not one big shop, it is going to be streets, alleyways, residential

aspects. The whole centre of Croydon is going to be completely

regenerated, and the future is Croydon. A brief word on your area -

what can be done to bring some life back to the local high-street? We

got Maryport is involved in the Roman Road market, but we did not

get the funding that Croydon did. Despite that, we are coming

together, working with her, with a tiny amount of money. Both of you,

thank you very much indeed. Back to Andrew. So, Parliament is back on

Monday, and there is a fair bit in the in tray. Big questions for the

week ahead... Let's come back again to these stings stories, because

they are going to dominate as Westminster comes back after the

recess. I would've thought most people watching this programme

simply think it is wrong if you are an MP or a member of the House of

Lords, that you should be paid for advocacy even if you declare it.

Absolutely. The rules are actually really clear. We have heard some of

the MPs and peers who have been caught up in these stings defending

what they did, suggesting that it was a grey area. But actually, if

you look at the rules as set out in the Sunday Times today for everybody

to see, there is not much grey area about it. It is the recent poll -

you should not take financial benefit for representing Private

business interest in Parliament. think the behaviour of the Lords is

the most shocking thing. If you remember in the debate about Lords

reform, it was argued that the House of Lords was the crucible of wisdom,

of moral but dude, was unsullied by democratic input. Did you fall for

that? I did not. But a shopping number of the political and media

world did. But on the broader question of lobbying, I always think

the biggest victims of lobbying are the clients. They pay for influence,

but the influence they get is kind of early day motions, Parliamentary

questions. Big deal, hey? Absolutely, these all-party

Parliamentary groups, anybody could tell them, are meaningless. But

because you are from the outside, you end up spending big money on

these relatively pointless things. had to laugh at the idea of Jack

Cunningham boasting that he could write to the Prime Minister, as if

David Cameron is going to take any notice. The failure to reform the

House of Lords, indeed, to turn it into an even bigger dumping ground

for establishment worthies who careers are over, has meant that it

is now almost 900 strong, most of them have nothing to do, it is right

for this kind of nonsense. And it is an arms race. There are going to be

more and more peers going in, because you have got to get the

party numbers up, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are

under representative, so the numbers will go up. That's the problem with

not reforming the Lords. There was the attempt last July to get it

mainly or completely elected, and when that was thrown out, the Prime

Minister tried to do the other thing, going with the reforms of

Lord Steel, which would mean that anyone convicted of a criminal

offence would be out, but Nick Clegg said, it is democratically elected

or nothing. What about this register? I thought that was a very

flat performance by Frarncis Maude. I do not know whether everyone

managed to stay awake during it. You were the interest! He sounded very

unconvincing about why they cannot just get on with it. It should not

be that conjugated. I want to show you this quote from Andy Coulson.

There it is, up on the screen. What he is really saying is that he is

advising that Samantha Cameron takes a much bigger role in preparing the

Conservatives for the next election. I am unclear why he thinks that is a

good idea... There is something which makes me wince about this,

something faintly sexist about the idea that the Prime Minister's wife

has to come out to the rescue wearing a pretty dress and do some

nice photo shoots. I do not like it. I think Andy Coulson's political

judgment is generally very cute, he was perhaps the only truly blue-chip

talent that David Cameron ever recruited into his inner circle, but

he is wrong on this. The main criticism made of David Cameron is

that he is too cliquey, too reliant on people he has known for decades.

Do you respond to that charge by then making your wife a major

adviser and campaigner? I would suggest that is the opposite of what

you should do. He is implying she has got some kind of link with the

people. I do not know Samantha Cameron, but I do know people who

know her and who have known her before David Cameron was Prime

Minister, and all of these people rave about her. They say she has got

a wonderful, straightforward touch, despite her very privileged

background. Don't forget, she is the daughter of, I think, a baronet. She

has a wonderfully straightforward way of talking, but the problem is,

when you get a media adviser, like Andy Coulson used to be, advising a

politician that they need to bring their wife in, or in the case of a

woman politician, there has been, then you know that something is

going wrong, because they are not connecting. She has all of these

attributes way to make sure people do not like her is to do what Andy

Coulson says, to bring her into the public. I want to get onto debates

in the election - let's have a look at this... What David would do is,

for ideological reasons, take �6 billion out of the economy and put

our recovery at risk. The time to do the deficit reduction is when the

recovery is assured. Every leading business leader is saying that we

have got it right, and the Government is wrong. I think we

should start with welfare. We are not going to be able to fill the

black hole in our public finances unless we also do it with fairness

at the heart of everything we do. Well, we covered these debates at

the last election, and we thought this was years ago, that these

debates would now become part of British political culture, but I am

beginning to think that thanks to Mr Farage, they may not. I think you

are right, and a lot of it is due to the nervousness in number ten, to do

with David Cameron's underperformance last time. I think

they are worrying too much. They say behind-the-scenes that they want

2015 to be a presidential campaign. They want to juxtapose Cameron's

leader personality with Ed Miliband's lack of such a

personality, and there is no sharper way of drawing that distinction than

by having them next to each other in a TV studio. I also think they can

justify not having Nigel Farage there. In many ways, Caroline

Lucas, the Green MP, who also has a council in Brighton, has a better

claim to be in that debate than Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage will

probably win the European Parliamentary elections next year.

The point about these debates is that they were a disaster for David

Cameron, because his entire election campaign was about being the change

candidate, and it turned out, he was not the change candidate, Nick Clegg

was. They realised the debates were going to be a disaster during the

first dress rehearsal, when Jeremy Hunt did such a brilliant job of

being the change candidate, in Nick Clegg, that they realised they had a

problem. They are trying to make sure these debates do not take

place, but make sure they are not blamed for them not taking place.

put it to you that if there is any question of Nigel Farage, there will

be no debate. No question, because I think he would make David Cameron

look quite weak. Debates, yes or no? I hope we do have them. Yes, but

spread out over a longer period. They should take place but I imagine

they will be killed because Nigel Farage cannot be allowed to take

part. But is it for today. Our thanks to the person who tweeted, if