:00:39. > :00:48.No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.
:00:49. > :00:52.But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?
:00:53. > :00:55.Doctors want to ban smoking outright.
:00:56. > :00:58.A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all
:00:59. > :01:11.We've been crunching the numbers to find out whether Parliament's about
:01:12. > :01:16.Are Royal Mail services under threat as TNT muscles in on more
:01:17. > :01:32.And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political
:01:33. > :01:43.panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.
:01:44. > :01:45.They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in
:01:46. > :01:48.Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.
:01:49. > :01:50.He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made
:01:51. > :01:52.it big in the world of European politic.
:01:53. > :01:56.I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
:01:57. > :02:00.He'll soon be President of the European Commission,
:02:01. > :02:06.He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.
:02:07. > :02:09.But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up
:02:10. > :02:24.on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.
:02:25. > :02:28.-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist
:02:29. > :02:30.So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes
:02:31. > :02:33.of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?
:02:34. > :02:37.Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.
:02:38. > :02:44.Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr
:02:45. > :02:47.Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got
:02:48. > :02:52.harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The
:02:53. > :02:58.majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts
:02:59. > :03:02.power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right
:03:03. > :03:10.cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European
:03:11. > :03:19.Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European
:03:20. > :03:22.countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of
:03:23. > :03:25.Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on
:03:26. > :03:27.how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the
:03:28. > :03:33.mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming
:03:34. > :03:38.European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The
:03:39. > :03:44.Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to
:03:45. > :03:50.integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.
:03:51. > :03:54.What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at
:03:55. > :04:03.different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.
:04:04. > :04:13.Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the
:04:14. > :04:18.approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime
:04:19. > :04:21.Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general
:04:22. > :04:26.acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to
:04:27. > :04:29.the single currency will want to press forward with closer
:04:30. > :04:34.integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country
:04:35. > :04:39.in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern
:04:40. > :04:43.that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with
:04:44. > :04:48.28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the
:04:49. > :04:54.extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and
:04:55. > :04:57.integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable
:04:58. > :05:01.geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand,
:05:02. > :05:03.geometry, and other phrases nobody that you're back benches don't
:05:04. > :05:05.geometry, and other phrases nobody any union at any speed, even in
:05:06. > :05:09.geometry, and other phrases nobody slow lane. They want to go in the
:05:10. > :05:18.other direction. It depends which backbencher you talk to. There's a
:05:19. > :05:25.diverse range of views. I think that there is acceptance that the core of
:05:26. > :05:29.the Prime Minister's approaches to seek reform of the European Union,
:05:30. > :05:33.for renegotiation after the election, then put it to the British
:05:34. > :05:36.people to decide. It won't be the British government or ministers that
:05:37. > :05:39.take the final decision, it's the British people, provided they are a
:05:40. > :05:42.Conservative government, who will take the decision on the basis of
:05:43. > :05:47.the reforms that David Cameron secures whether they want to stay in
:05:48. > :05:52.or not. Is there more of a chance, not a certainty or probability, but
:05:53. > :05:58.at least more of a chance that with Mr Juncker in that position of
:05:59. > :06:02.Britain leaving the EU? I don't think we can say that at the moment.
:06:03. > :06:08.I think we can say that the task of reform looks harder than it did a
:06:09. > :06:14.couple of weeks ago. But we have do put Mr Juncker to the test. I do
:06:15. > :06:26.think he would want his commission to be marked and I think that there
:06:27. > :06:30.is, and I find this in numbers around Europe, and there is a
:06:31. > :06:34.growing recognition that things cannot go on as they have been.
:06:35. > :06:38.Europe, economically, is in danger of losing a lot of ground will stop
:06:39. > :06:42.millions of youngsters are out of work already that reform. There is
:06:43. > :06:45.real anxiety and a number of countries now about the extent to
:06:46. > :06:50.which opinion polls and election results are showing a shift of
:06:51. > :06:52.support to both left and right wing parties, sometimes outright
:06:53. > :06:59.neofascist movements, expressing real content and resentment at
:07:00. > :07:04.Howard in touch -- how out of touch decisions have become. You say you
:07:05. > :07:09.are sensing anxiety about the condition of Europe, so why did they
:07:10. > :07:14.choose Mr Juncker then? You would have to put that question to some of
:07:15. > :07:20.the heads of European government. Clearly there were a number for whom
:07:21. > :07:27.domestic politics played a big role in the eventual decision that they
:07:28. > :07:32.took. There were some who had signed up to the lead candidate process and
:07:33. > :07:36.felt they could not back away from that, whatever their private
:07:37. > :07:39.feelings might have been, but I think the PM was right to say that
:07:40. > :07:42.this was a matter of principle and it shouldn't just be left as a
:07:43. > :07:49.stitch up by the European Parliament to tell us what they do. He said, I
:07:50. > :07:54.can't agree to pretend to acquiesce. They have to make the opposition
:07:55. > :08:00.clear that go on with reform. Are the current terms of membership for
:08:01. > :08:08.us unacceptable? The current terms of the membership are very far from
:08:09. > :08:14.perfect. Are they unacceptable? The current terms are certainly not ones
:08:15. > :08:18.that I feel comfortable with. The Prime Minister described them as
:08:19. > :08:22.unacceptable. Do you think they are? We look at the views of the British
:08:23. > :08:27.people at the moment. If you look at the polling at the moment, the
:08:28. > :08:30.evidence is that people are split on whether they think membership is a
:08:31. > :08:40.good thing. I'm asking what you think. David Cameron wants to in --
:08:41. > :08:45.endorse changes in our interest, but also because the biggest market is
:08:46. > :08:49.going to suffer if they don't challenge -- grasp the challenge of
:08:50. > :08:52.political and economic reform. Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm
:08:53. > :08:57.Rifkind the former Secretary of State said to me that even if the
:08:58. > :09:02.choice was to stay in on the existing terms, he would vote to
:09:03. > :09:05.stay in on the existing terms. He doesn't necessarily like them, but
:09:06. > :09:08.he would vote to stay in. That is the authentic voice of the Foreign
:09:09. > :09:16.Office, isn't it? That is the position of your department. Is it
:09:17. > :09:18.your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a distinguished and independent minded
:09:19. > :09:24.backbencher. He's not in government now. But that is your position. No,
:09:25. > :09:27.the position of the government and the Conservative Party in the
:09:28. > :09:33.government is that we believe that important changes, both economic and
:09:34. > :09:35.political reforms, are necessary and that they are attainable in our
:09:36. > :09:42.interest and those of Europe as a whole. Would you vote to stay in on
:09:43. > :09:48.the existing terms? That's not going to be a question that the
:09:49. > :09:50.referendum. Really? I know that in 2017 Europe is going to look rather
:09:51. > :09:52.different to how it looks today. 2017 Europe is going to look rather
:09:53. > :09:56.different to how it looks today For one thing our colleagues in the
:09:57. > :09:59.Eurozone will want and need to press ahead with closer integration.
:10:00. > :10:03.That, in our view, needs to be done in a way that fully respects the
:10:04. > :10:09.rights of those of us who remain outside. Variable geometry, tackling
:10:10. > :10:11.things like the abuse of freedom of migration. Those are all in the
:10:12. > :10:16.conclusions from the leader this week and we should welcome that.
:10:17. > :10:20.Very briefly, finally, when will you, as a government, give us the
:10:21. > :10:22.negotiating position of the government? Will you give us what
:10:23. > :10:29.you hope to achieve before the election or not? David Cameron set
:10:30. > :10:33.out very clearly in his Bloomberg speech that he wanted a Europe that
:10:34. > :10:39.was more democratically accountable, more flexible, more at it --
:10:40. > :10:42.economically competitive. That is all very general. When will you lay
:10:43. > :10:48.out the negotiating position? It's not general. It is very far from
:10:49. > :10:49.general. We have seen evidence in the successful cut of the European
:10:50. > :10:55.budget, the reform of fisheries, budget, the reform of fisheries
:10:56. > :10:57.those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories
:10:58. > :10:59.and I'm sure the Prime Minister, effect. We have won some victories
:11:00. > :11:00.and I'm sure the Prime Minister as and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as
:11:01. > :11:04.we get towards the general election, will want to make clear what the
:11:05. > :11:08.Conservative Party position is, and perhaps other political leaders will
:11:09. > :11:13.do the same for their party. Thank you for joining us this morning. The
:11:14. > :11:17.you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there
:11:18. > :11:21.is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring
:11:22. > :11:26.back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I
:11:27. > :11:30.think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,
:11:31. > :11:33.those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay
:11:34. > :11:37.regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on
:11:38. > :11:42.renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would
:11:43. > :11:46.vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20
:11:47. > :11:50.years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only
:11:51. > :11:54.stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be
:11:55. > :12:00.re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the
:12:01. > :12:04.referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single
:12:05. > :12:09.biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not
:12:10. > :12:14.what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure
:12:15. > :12:18.to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against
:12:19. > :12:22.Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr
:12:23. > :12:26.Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only
:12:27. > :12:31.because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these
:12:32. > :12:34.changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that
:12:35. > :12:40.would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the
:12:41. > :12:45.biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of
:12:46. > :12:49.coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of
:12:50. > :12:54.benefits, and he might get that He benefits, and he might get that. He
:12:55. > :12:57.wants to restrict freedom of movement for future member states,
:12:58. > :13:01.and that's difficult, because it is a treaty change. And he wants to
:13:02. > :13:05.deal with closer union, but that is also treaty change. In the Council
:13:06. > :13:08.conclusions, David Cameron was encouraged because it said, let s
:13:09. > :13:13.look at closer union, but it did not say it would reform. All it said was
:13:14. > :13:17.ever closer union can be interpreted in different ways. In other words,
:13:18. > :13:28.we're not going to change it. The fundamental problem the David
:13:29. > :13:30.Cameron was that two years ago, when he vetoed the fiscal compact, that
:13:31. > :13:33.showed Angela Merkel was unwilling to help them and what happened in
:13:34. > :13:36.the last two weeks was that Angela Merkel was unable to help him. There
:13:37. > :13:38.is not a single leader of the European Union that once Juncker as
:13:39. > :13:42.president, and he doesn't want it, he wants the note take a job at the
:13:43. > :13:46.European Council. But there was this basic stitch up by the European
:13:47. > :13:49.Parliament that meant he was presented, and when Angela Merkel
:13:50. > :13:53.put the question over his head there was a huge backlash in Germany and
:13:54. > :13:58.she was unable to deliver. I understand that, but I'm looking
:13:59. > :14:03.forward to Mr Cameron's predicament. I don't know how he squares the
:14:04. > :14:07.circle. It seems inconceivable that he can bring back enough from
:14:08. > :14:12.Brussels to satisfy his backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of
:14:13. > :14:16.them fundamentally want out. They don't want to be persuaded by
:14:17. > :14:19.renegotiations. Where it's hard to draw conclusions from the polling is
:14:20. > :14:24.that if you ask people question that sounds like, do you like the fact
:14:25. > :14:27.that our Prime Minister has gone to Brussels and stuck it to the man,
:14:28. > :14:31.they say yes, but how many people will go to the voting booths and put
:14:32. > :14:36.their cross in the box based on Europe? We know mostly voters care
:14:37. > :14:42.about Europe as a proxy for immigration fears. In ten people in
:14:43. > :14:45.this country could not tell you who John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir
:14:46. > :14:48.is replacing. -- and who he is replacing.
:14:49. > :14:51.And I'm joined in the studio now by arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP,
:14:52. > :14:54.Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by staunch European and former Liberal
:14:55. > :15:15.war? His declared objectives would leave Britain still in the common
:15:16. > :15:21.agricultural policy, the common foreign policy, the European arrest
:15:22. > :15:25.warrant, so the negotiating aims which we just heard Nick setting out
:15:26. > :15:31.wouldn't fundamentally change anything. It would be easy for the
:15:32. > :15:38.Government to declare war on any of these things. The danger from your
:15:39. > :15:42.point of view as someone who wants to stay in is that if David Cameron
:15:43. > :15:46.only gets cosmetic changes, the chance of getting the vote to leave
:15:47. > :15:55.the European Union increases, doesn't it? Hypothetically it
:15:56. > :15:59.probably does but we have two big things to get through first in
:16:00. > :16:05.domestic politics before we even reach a negotiation. One is are we
:16:06. > :16:12.going to have the United Kingdom this time next year following the
:16:13. > :16:16.referendum in Scotland? Secondly, are the Conservatives after the
:16:17. > :16:21.general election next year going to be in a position to pursue a
:16:22. > :16:27.negotiation? In other words are they going to be a majority government or
:16:28. > :16:31.even a minority government? For the sake of this morning let's assume
:16:32. > :16:37.the answer to both is yes, the UK stays intact and against the polls
:16:38. > :16:41.they were saying this morning, David Cameron forms an overall majority
:16:42. > :16:43.after the election. There is a danger, if he doesn't bring much
:16:44. > :16:50.back, that people will vote yes, back, that people will vote yes
:16:51. > :16:55.correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press
:16:56. > :17:00.comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold
:17:01. > :17:05.Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to
:17:06. > :17:09.say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is
:17:10. > :17:15.different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it
:17:16. > :17:19.cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government
:17:20. > :17:25.to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land
:17:26. > :17:28.will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on
:17:29. > :17:35.the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European
:17:36. > :17:39.Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the
:17:40. > :17:43.line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting
:17:44. > :17:48.dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will
:17:49. > :17:58.not get away with this, will he? It not get away with this, will he It
:17:59. > :18:03.will be an acceptable to his party. If it is an acceptable to Tory
:18:04. > :18:07.backbenchers it is because it is working and they are reflecting what
:18:08. > :18:13.their constituents say. A majority of people in the country are unhappy
:18:14. > :18:17.with the present terms. They can see there is a huge wide world beyond
:18:18. > :18:23.the oceans and we have confined ourselves to this small trade bloc.
:18:24. > :18:30.There is a huge debate to be had about whether we could be doing
:18:31. > :18:33.better outside. It is not danger, it is democracy, trusting people. If
:18:34. > :18:39.the only person offering a referendum at the moment is the
:18:40. > :18:42.Prime Minister, it has serious consequences for his party, your
:18:43. > :18:49.party, that's what I'm talking about. I am very proud of being part
:18:50. > :18:55.of the party that is trusting people to offer this. If he only gets
:18:56. > :19:00.cosmetic changes he cannot carry his party. But ultimately it will not be
:19:01. > :19:05.his party, it is the electorate as a whole that has to decide whether the
:19:06. > :19:09.changes are substantive. Everything we have been hearing just now is
:19:10. > :19:13.about staying out of future integration, protecting the role of
:19:14. > :19:19.the non-euro countries. People are upset about what is going on today
:19:20. > :19:24.with the EU. They can see laws being passed by people they cannot vote
:19:25. > :19:28.for, friendships overseas are prejudiced, and they conceive that
:19:29. > :19:33.the European Union has just put in charge in the top slot somebody who
:19:34. > :19:38.wants a United States of Europe into which we will eventually be dragged
:19:39. > :19:44.into as some kind of Providence. Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist,
:19:45. > :19:53.you are Federalist, why did the Lib Dems oppose him? We shared the view
:19:54. > :19:56.that whilst you take account of what the members of the European
:19:57. > :20:01.Parliament say, ultimately the choice of the presidency in the
:20:02. > :20:05.commission should be the political leaders, the governmental leaders at
:20:06. > :20:11.a national level, and that's why we went down the route we did. It was
:20:12. > :20:15.more to do with the system than the individual. Although I would say
:20:16. > :20:19.that you need to bear in mind, I mean Daniel, I respect him
:20:20. > :20:26.personally and the integrity of his views, as I think he does mine, but
:20:27. > :20:32.to dismiss the European Union as a small trading block globally, when
:20:33. > :20:36.you have got the United States of America, China and other countries
:20:37. > :20:55.acknowledging its importance, it is really Walter Mitty land. Are we
:20:56. > :21:00.closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we closer to an exit after what
:21:01. > :21:05.happened last week? Yes, because the idea that we could get substantive
:21:06. > :21:14.reforms, gets a mythic and powers back and be within a looser, more
:21:15. > :21:23.flexible European Union has plainly been closed off. We have to face up
:21:24. > :21:25.to the actual European Union that has taken shape on our doorstep. Are
:21:26. > :21:30.has taken shape on our doorstep Are we going to be part of that or are
:21:31. > :21:34.we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship
:21:35. > :21:46.with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or
:21:47. > :21:51.another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on
:21:52. > :21:55.and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can
:21:56. > :22:00.remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the
:22:01. > :22:06.referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it
:22:07. > :22:11.sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is
:22:12. > :22:18.a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we
:22:19. > :22:28.will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to
:22:29. > :22:33.ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I
:22:34. > :22:37.thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the
:22:38. > :22:44.Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional
:22:45. > :22:48.implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to
:22:49. > :22:56.established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we
:22:57. > :22:59.mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the
:23:00. > :23:04.institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by
:23:05. > :23:11.federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate
:23:12. > :23:15.but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains
:23:16. > :23:24.national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it
:23:25. > :23:27.makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the
:23:28. > :23:39.Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU
:23:40. > :23:43.wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you
:23:44. > :23:49.liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to
:23:50. > :23:53.you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be
:23:54. > :23:59.disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only
:24:00. > :24:04.had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,
:24:05. > :24:10.France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of
:24:11. > :24:16.menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the
:24:17. > :24:24.North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an
:24:25. > :24:33.army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms
:24:34. > :24:38.of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you
:24:39. > :24:42.can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having
:24:43. > :24:47.the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the
:24:48. > :24:53.United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,
:24:54. > :24:59.Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is
:25:00. > :25:04.an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want
:25:05. > :25:08.to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a
:25:09. > :25:24.referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he
:25:25. > :25:29.was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and
:25:30. > :25:32.restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw
:25:33. > :25:37.everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born
:25:38. > :25:42.after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those
:25:43. > :25:48.plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British
:25:49. > :25:53.was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men
:25:54. > :25:58.smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a
:25:59. > :26:02.political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in
:26:03. > :26:13.those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,
:26:14. > :26:18.more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that
:26:19. > :26:29.thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in
:26:30. > :26:32.enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately
:26:33. > :26:39.we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think
:26:40. > :26:44.it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has
:26:45. > :26:49.improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.
:26:50. > :26:55.Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on
:26:56. > :26:59.those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the
:27:00. > :27:06.introduction of plain packaging. There is still those who take pride
:27:07. > :27:19.in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.
:27:20. > :27:22.We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson
:27:23. > :27:25.from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban
:27:26. > :27:29.on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark
:27:30. > :27:39.They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are
:27:40. > :27:48.bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in
:27:49. > :27:53.our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as
:27:54. > :27:58.children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start
:27:59. > :28:02.smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for
:28:03. > :28:07.you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we
:28:08. > :28:12.totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make
:28:13. > :28:17.that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol,
:28:18. > :28:20.eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is
:28:21. > :28:25.totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes
:28:26. > :28:29.which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping
:28:30. > :28:35.children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops
:28:36. > :28:40.shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so
:28:41. > :28:46.you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a
:28:47. > :28:50.36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you
:28:51. > :28:55.will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the
:28:56. > :28:59.younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily
:29:00. > :29:05.addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this
:29:06. > :29:07.becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you
:29:08. > :29:14.would have to take go into shops to buy cigarettes you
:29:15. > :29:18.no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if
:29:19. > :29:23.we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 20
:29:24. > :29:28.years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't
:29:29. > :29:32.have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their
:29:33. > :29:37.20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes
:29:38. > :29:40.the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting
:29:41. > :29:46.cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get
:29:47. > :29:57.better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is
:29:58. > :30:02.going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.
:30:03. > :30:05.Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see
:30:06. > :30:10.adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is
:30:11. > :30:14.for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop
:30:15. > :30:18.young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they
:30:19. > :30:28.never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds
:30:29. > :30:34.who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government
:30:35. > :30:38.increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to
:30:39. > :30:44.18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,
:30:45. > :30:47.we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal
:30:48. > :30:52.says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a
:30:53. > :30:56.motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There
:30:57. > :30:59.is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they
:31:00. > :31:03.doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not
:31:04. > :31:07.about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and
:31:08. > :31:10.they have to get their act together because they are bringing the
:31:11. > :31:15.medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about
:31:16. > :31:21.things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,
:31:22. > :31:23.but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes
:31:24. > :31:29.altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s
:31:30. > :31:33.not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to
:31:34. > :31:38.smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would
:31:39. > :31:40.be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So
:31:41. > :31:46.even if I am born in the year 2000, even if I am born in the year 2 00,
:31:47. > :31:53.it would still be illegal to smoke, just illegal to buy the cigarettes?
:31:54. > :31:56.Indeed. The point being that the habit of smoking is very strongly
:31:57. > :32:00.linked to your ability to buy, so that is why things like Price and
:32:01. > :32:03.availability and marketing are so important. People will flood across
:32:04. > :32:07.the Channel with the cigarettes. One the Channel with the cigarettes One
:32:08. > :32:10.thing you will find is that throughout the world people is
:32:11. > :32:14.looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and
:32:15. > :32:18.different countries like Australia, they were the first with a
:32:19. > :32:21.standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all
:32:22. > :32:26.of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the
:32:27. > :32:30.tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with
:32:31. > :32:34.cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going
:32:35. > :32:38.head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal
:32:39. > :32:40.representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be."
:32:41. > :32:42.So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So said David Cameron back in 2009.
:32:43. > :32:45.So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality
:32:46. > :32:48.of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching
:32:49. > :32:50.the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after
:32:51. > :32:55.the next year's general election. Here's Giles.
:32:56. > :32:58.Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their
:32:59. > :33:00.constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society
:33:01. > :33:06.well at all the parties it. In 010 well at all the parties it. In 2010
:33:07. > :33:09.more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but
:33:10. > :33:18.not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.
:33:19. > :33:24.Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female
:33:25. > :33:30.MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and
:33:31. > :33:34.the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have
:33:35. > :33:38.selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and
:33:39. > :33:41.to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been
:33:42. > :33:46.trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts
:33:47. > :33:51.and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the
:33:52. > :33:52.all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the
:33:53. > :33:57.whole country. Despite the jibe, the whole country. Despite the jibe the
:33:58. > :33:59.Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being
:34:00. > :34:11.representative. So we way to go on the issue of being
:34:12. > :34:12.look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.
:34:13. > :34:44.In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they
:34:45. > :34:50.got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%
:34:51. > :34:52.The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy
:34:53. > :34:54.at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most
:34:55. > :34:57.marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn
:34:58. > :35:00.In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected
:35:01. > :35:06.If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones
:35:07. > :35:09.they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.
:35:10. > :35:13.The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won
:35:14. > :35:16.at the last election, if they manage that, they would have
:35:17. > :35:21.However all the indications are it could be
:35:22. > :35:25.a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform
:35:26. > :35:30.swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.
:35:31. > :35:34.One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all
:35:35. > :35:36.options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is
:35:37. > :35:51.The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at
:35:52. > :35:58.evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life
:35:59. > :36:02.experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.
:36:03. > :36:04.They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be
:36:05. > :36:08.represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary
:36:09. > :36:10.projection for gender, According to the last census
:36:11. > :36:15.in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from
:36:16. > :36:21.black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they
:36:22. > :36:24.get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party
:36:25. > :36:29.were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME
:36:30. > :36:35.candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,
:36:36. > :36:39.that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats
:36:40. > :36:47.don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling
:36:48. > :36:52.on to their current number of seats they would have two,
:36:53. > :36:56.giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost
:36:57. > :36:57.their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix
:36:58. > :37:08.of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve
:37:09. > :37:10.the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to
:37:11. > :37:14.a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford
:37:15. > :37:22.or Cambridge. Only a fifth
:37:23. > :37:30.of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with
:37:31. > :37:33.the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like
:37:34. > :37:37.us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they
:37:38. > :37:42.cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the
:37:43. > :37:45.turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20
:37:46. > :37:47.points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and
:37:48. > :37:50.that is getting worse with single election.
:37:51. > :37:53.And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a
:37:54. > :37:56.Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get
:37:57. > :38:05.It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:38:06. > :38:08.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:38:09. > :38:12.Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.
:38:13. > :38:23.First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.
:38:24. > :38:27.Joining us for the next 20 minutes or so,
:38:28. > :38:33.Sir Richard Ottaway, Conservative MP for Croydon South and
:38:34. > :38:38.Teresa Pearce, Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead. Welcome to you both.
:38:39. > :38:45.Let's start today, after we have considered how TNT is muscling in on
:38:46. > :38:51.the Royal Mail's London patch. Is it a game changer for how we get our
:38:52. > :38:54.post? That in a moment, but first a quick word on Chancellor George
:38:55. > :39:02.Osborne calling for the creation of a northern hub. How would this rival
:39:03. > :39:04.the capital? Well,
:39:05. > :39:07.he says by focusing on four key areas; by providing modern transport
:39:08. > :39:09.connections; backing science and universities; backing Northern
:39:10. > :39:20.creative clusters and by giving them One thing that emerged from this was
:39:21. > :39:23.more discussion about whether London is sucking the life out of the rest
:39:24. > :39:28.of the country. Is that what George Osborne means? I wouldn't say
:39:29. > :39:32.sucking the life out of the rest of the country. There's no doubt about
:39:33. > :39:36.it, there is a clear focus on the British economy in London and it is
:39:37. > :39:39.the engine room. We clearly want to devolve as much of that economy as
:39:40. > :39:47.we can do the North. There has been a lot of investment in the north, as
:39:48. > :39:48.there is a ?600 million infrastructure project going on,
:39:49. > :39:49.there is a ?600 million infrastructure project going on and
:39:50. > :39:53.we have seen 20,000 more jobs which is a boost the economy, but what
:39:54. > :39:59.he's talking about, because people are to good transport links, if we
:40:00. > :40:03.actually connect the city 's up we will get people to go there --
:40:04. > :40:06.people are attracted to good transport links. That will take some
:40:07. > :40:12.of the pressure of London. Does London have this role that somehow
:40:13. > :40:15.saps the rest of the country, or do you think that there is a need for a
:40:16. > :40:21.rebalancing? I think London is important. But everything is London
:40:22. > :40:24.centric, so people look around London and think this is what we
:40:25. > :40:29.need, more housing, more jobs but they don't look outside of where
:40:30. > :40:32.they are talking about. I was brought up in Lancashire, so
:40:33. > :40:38.Manchester has undergone quite a revival and you have media city
:40:39. > :40:41.there, and what we need to look at in transport is not just line is not
:40:42. > :40:47.just lines that come to and from London, or north to south, we need
:40:48. > :40:54.to West. Do you not think there is a danger or the intention is, by
:40:55. > :41:00.reflecting attention to the North, a recognition that possibly over the
:41:01. > :41:04.last three or four years the party hasn't got this right yet in terms
:41:05. > :41:10.of economic balance? I don't agree with that. I think it's important to
:41:11. > :41:14.note that George Osborne is an MP for Cheshire. The first Chancellor
:41:15. > :41:23.of the Exchequer to come from that region for some time. But Manchester
:41:24. > :41:27.is the next big hub in Britain. It is where the industrial revolution
:41:28. > :41:31.and its heart, and like most regions, it needs a shot in the arm
:41:32. > :41:35.now and again and he feels that the time is right, because he spends a
:41:36. > :41:39.lot of time there and he can see it, and personally I think is right
:41:40. > :41:43.to focus on it. Not for electoral reasons or anything like that. I
:41:44. > :41:46.think he wants to get his long-term economic plan going and to give a
:41:47. > :41:49.boost to the Northern economy. . boost to the Northern economy.
:41:50. > :41:56.Let's get the focus back on London. The housing charity Shelter has this
:41:57. > :41:56.week published a report claiming the vast majority of property
:41:57. > :41:57.in London is out of the reach Families with children are
:41:58. > :42:08.particularly missing out. The housing charity Shelter looked
:42:09. > :42:12.at thousands of properties on sale in London on any given day and
:42:13. > :42:15.compared it to the mortgage that the average family working in the
:42:16. > :42:20.borough could afford. According to the report, 99.7% of homes were too
:42:21. > :42:23.expensive for those who could put down the average 18% deposit. For
:42:24. > :42:28.families with the smaller 5% deposit, the picture was even more
:42:29. > :42:37.stark. The report comes as official figures show average house prices in
:42:38. > :42:37.London rising almost 20% in the last year.
:42:38. > :42:40.Joining me in the studio is the Head of Shelter, Campbell Robb.
:42:41. > :42:46.Welcome to you. Just outline again the methodology. You made a
:42:47. > :42:52.comparison between incomes and expenditure. Outline that
:42:53. > :42:56.methodology. We looked at one single deal on one of the property websites
:42:57. > :43:00.and looks every the sale in England and London and we looked at the
:43:01. > :43:03.house prices and we set them against what the average wage is for a
:43:04. > :43:07.family and what the average deposit was. What that clearly showed was
:43:08. > :43:11.that were an average working family, with two incomes, who have saved up
:43:12. > :43:16.a bit and got an average deposit, nearly 88% of properties were not
:43:17. > :43:21.affordable to them. In some areas there was no property available and
:43:22. > :43:25.in some areas there was one or a handful. What it clearly shows is
:43:26. > :43:28.the real drought of affordable homes for families who are increasingly
:43:29. > :43:32.stuck in properties that are either too small or rental market not fit
:43:33. > :43:40.for purpose. You made an assumption that you could get a deposit of
:43:41. > :43:44.about 18%. That high? What we also show is that if you have the smaller
:43:45. > :43:52.deposit, a Help-To-Buy deposit of 5%, then 0.1% of properties were
:43:53. > :43:56.available. You have a smaller deposit and your monthly costs go
:43:57. > :44:02.up. It is the first time you've done this exercise? Do you presume that
:44:03. > :44:06.this will starkly change? This differential has happened in 18
:44:07. > :44:12.months. We have seen London house prices rise by 18%, and the average
:44:13. > :44:15.price is ?475,000. It is a housing market that is so far away from the
:44:16. > :44:19.average family and what they want to be able to achieve and we really
:44:20. > :44:22.need to see effort from the Mayor of London and the government to get
:44:23. > :44:27.some affordable housing bill. Things like Help-To-Buy were meant to
:44:28. > :44:31.precisely remove this. Most Help-To-Buy is helping people with a
:44:32. > :44:34.small deposit of 5%, which puts the average cost per month and the
:44:35. > :44:38.research shows that across London less than 0.1% of properties
:44:39. > :44:42.available for a family, two bedrooms or more, could help Help-To-Buy.
:44:43. > :44:46.or more, could help Help-To-Buy It's not really helping people in
:44:47. > :44:52.London. Sir Richard, let's bring you in, a seat like Croydon web people
:44:53. > :44:56.see the demographic changing because they are forced out of high-priced
:44:57. > :44:59.central London properties and it puts the pressure on you. Or tell
:45:00. > :45:12.me? Can you see pressure in that area?
:45:13. > :45:23.property constituency. It is an interesting report though it doesn't
:45:24. > :45:27.include studio flats, share them -- accommodation and retirement homes
:45:28. > :45:31.but I think we have to kick-start housing and get interest rates down,
:45:32. > :45:37.which the Government is doing its best to keep interest rates down.
:45:38. > :45:42.Since 2010 we have built some 200,000 affordable homes, 70,000 in
:45:43. > :45:49.London, another 15,000 in the pipeline. We have built more council
:45:50. > :45:55.houses in the last year than the Government did in its entire 13
:45:56. > :45:59.years. The average family in London, they don't recognise that. They have
:46:00. > :46:04.been built. But they are not genuinely affordable average
:46:05. > :46:09.families who are stuck in a rental market which is too expensive and
:46:10. > :46:15.broken for them. We need to see more genuinely affordable being built.
:46:16. > :46:19.Successive governments have failed to do this but there are people
:46:20. > :46:23.watching this programme trying to buy their own home in London who
:46:24. > :46:35.will feel there is not much for them. Successive governments, he
:46:36. > :46:41.said, and these properties should have been started and done under
:46:42. > :46:49.Labour government. Yes, they should. In my constituency, on the
:46:50. > :46:54.salary I earn now, if I was starting now without a hefty deposit I would
:46:55. > :46:59.not be able to buy a house for my family. That is a ridiculous
:47:00. > :47:02.situation. Stable homes make stable communities and it is in the
:47:03. > :47:08.interest of everyone to make sure we have places for all our public
:47:09. > :47:12.servants to live. If we end up in a city where firefighters, nurses and
:47:13. > :47:18.teachers cannot live, what is the future for Londoners? Can't they
:47:19. > :47:25.live in places like Croydon South? Are you seeing already people being
:47:26. > :47:29.forced out of London? But we are building the homes. Boris Johnson is
:47:30. > :47:33.releasing a lot of land at the moment and we have got something
:47:34. > :47:39.like over 200,000 planning permission is being given. What do
:47:40. > :47:44.you say to people who are suffering now? Well, unlucky, you were the
:47:45. > :47:49.wrong generation, and about a bit longer? I cannot deny the fact that
:47:50. > :47:56.house prices in London are rocketing. But there are still
:47:57. > :47:59.plenty of places outside of London warehouses are much cheaper, much
:48:00. > :48:10.more affordable and we were talking a second ago about the Northern
:48:11. > :48:17.hub, houses but there are reasonably priced. People should be leaving
:48:18. > :48:24.London to go and live there? That will be the long-term result of the
:48:25. > :48:29.Northern hub, that some of the economic base of London will move to
:48:30. > :48:35.relieve pressure and boost the north. That is the answer rather
:48:36. > :48:40.than going through any big house-building programme? It is not
:48:41. > :48:43.just in London that people cannot afford houses, there are whole range
:48:44. > :48:51.of places where they are struggling to so. We need to do both. At the
:48:52. > :48:58.moment we have a lot of homes in the north and not so many jobs, and we
:48:59. > :49:03.have more jobs in the south and not so many homes. We need a decent
:49:04. > :49:10.programme happening now. The Royal mail has complained to come TNTs
:49:11. > :49:14.growing presence, it says by cherry picking a few areas which are
:49:15. > :49:18.profitable, the company is threatening its own universal
:49:19. > :49:24.service. Sending a letter used to be a fairly
:49:25. > :49:28.straightforward affair. It went in the letterbox, Royal Mail collected
:49:29. > :49:34.it, and delivered it to the recipient. Not any more. In fact the
:49:35. > :49:40.Postal Service has changed so much in the last ten years or so that
:49:41. > :49:44.over half of the male in the UK is collected and sorted not by Royal
:49:45. > :49:47.Mail but by its private sector competitors, and when it comes to
:49:48. > :49:59.business mail the new kids on the block like UK Mail and TNT have 70%
:50:00. > :50:03.of the market. Most of it now seems to be coming from various
:50:04. > :50:06.competitors. I have noticed very few have dumps all Royal Mail logos,
:50:07. > :50:09.competitors. I have noticed very few have dumps all Royal Mail logos it
:50:10. > :50:27.is mainly all sorts of other logos now. Across town at the Balham
:50:28. > :50:35.operation, at TNT the rivalry is under way. They are now active in
:50:36. > :50:42.around one third of London, and in the places that they are, some 5%
:50:43. > :50:46.of all letters delivered come from a TNT employee rather than the
:50:47. > :50:50.traditional Royal Mail postman. However there have been some high
:50:51. > :50:56.profile cases of male going missing. In April, it was reported
:50:57. > :51:01.that one London resident found over 200 letters dumped in a bush and
:51:02. > :51:07.this post was discovered by the Conservative MP for Hendon after it
:51:08. > :51:11.was dumped in a river. Myself and some supporters were cleaning up the
:51:12. > :51:16.river and we noticed a lot of cans and mattresses and things like
:51:17. > :51:21.that. We noticed a black sack which opened up to reveal lots of council
:51:22. > :51:26.tax bills, notifications from banks and other official documents which
:51:27. > :51:32.have not been delivered. It is very important mail, as I said, a council
:51:33. > :51:38.tax notification, and those who needed that information were
:51:39. > :51:43.probably not in a position to be able to work out what had happened
:51:44. > :51:48.to their letters. TNT have pointed out that the vast majority of their
:51:49. > :51:52.mail is delivered without a hitch, but according to Royal Mail the
:51:53. > :51:56.problem with TNT is that their new covers are only delivering to the
:51:57. > :52:00.most profitable parts of the country, mostly so far in London
:52:01. > :52:06.which gives them an unfair advantage. The universal service
:52:07. > :52:12.offering is described in law so we have got to deliver to every address
:52:13. > :52:17.in the UK six days a week. If we don't have the volumes of mail that
:52:18. > :52:24.allow us to cross subsidise, so business cross subsidising, we will
:52:25. > :52:28.get to a tipping point where the economic spur of the universal
:52:29. > :52:34.service offering don't make sense. Last week Royal Mail asked off, to
:52:35. > :52:42.look at this. The review is promised but not until next year. In the
:52:43. > :52:44.meantime, you might well find a TNT postman delivering at your door.
:52:45. > :52:46.meantime, you might well find a TNT postman delivering at your door The
:52:47. > :52:52.company aimed to soon cover nearly half the country. Mark Littlewood is
:52:53. > :52:56.here now, welcome to you. What do you say here? Is it important to
:52:57. > :53:01.preserve the universality of the Royal mail service or is that the
:53:02. > :53:06.problem? I think that is the problem. If you are determined that
:53:07. > :53:11.you want a system that we guarantee that the same price of a stamp every
:53:12. > :53:16.household and every business in the country, competition becomes very
:53:17. > :53:22.difficult indeed. You can understand why TNT would concentrate on London
:53:23. > :53:25.and Manchester, because moving post around in densely concentrated
:53:26. > :53:32.cities is relatively cheap. You wouldn't need to charge 60p for a
:53:33. > :53:36.first-class stamp for a letter moving within London. Royal Mail
:53:37. > :53:42.have got a point. If you are going to demand of them that they have got
:53:43. > :53:47.to deliver six times a week to every household no matter how far flung to
:53:48. > :53:51.the corners of the UK, it will be difficult to compete with these
:53:52. > :53:57.insurgents. The problem you are saying is that we have gone to a
:53:58. > :54:01.partial opening up but not a complete opening up of the market.
:54:02. > :54:06.That's right and we seem unwilling to change the universal service
:54:07. > :54:12.obligation at all. Do we really need to guarantee all six days of the
:54:13. > :54:17.week, or might three days a week be OK? Can there be some differential
:54:18. > :54:24.pricing if you are sending a letter within a city like London or
:54:25. > :54:31.Manchester, might that be a a service the Royal Mail can offer? It
:54:32. > :54:37.does make their job very difficult. Should it be the case that people
:54:38. > :54:44.paid more in rural areas or areas over a wider geographical spread
:54:45. > :54:48.than in urban areas? I think that is perfectly reasonable. I was trying
:54:49. > :54:52.to work out the cost of sending a letter from John O groats to Land's
:54:53. > :54:57.End. It runs to maybe ?20 or ?30 letter from John O groats to Land's
:54:58. > :55:02.End. It runs to maybe ?20 or ?3 and we are only charging 60p. If you
:55:03. > :55:09.choose to live in a cold area of the country, your heating bill will be
:55:10. > :55:12.relatively higher, or if you live in a fairly remote area your train
:55:13. > :55:15.journey to London will be more expensive. I don't understand why
:55:16. > :55:30.postal services are uniquely different. What would you do here?
:55:31. > :55:36.Restrict TNT or say to the Royal Mail you don't have to be
:55:37. > :55:40.universally more? The Royal Mail are in an extremely difficult situation
:55:41. > :55:48.because they are bound to deliver a service that their competitors are
:55:49. > :55:53.not bound to do. At the moment it is said... It is like you have put them
:55:54. > :56:01.in a race and tied their shoelaces together. They cannot possibly
:56:02. > :56:09.compete with TNT who employ people on zero hours contracts and low
:56:10. > :56:14.wages. The service delivery is not up to scratch. Yes, we can have
:56:15. > :56:19.competition but it needs to be true competition. What do you think? Is
:56:20. > :56:26.it time to have a serious look at universality and say realistically
:56:27. > :56:36.the Royal Mail, you will not have to do that in the future. The arguments
:56:37. > :56:39.that were put forward, when we introduced the Postal Service act in
:56:40. > :56:43.2011 these arguments were put forward and it is not a genuine
:56:44. > :56:48.market because we have a regulator with the power to intervene, to
:56:49. > :56:53.provide subsidy to Royal Mail if necessary to provide a universal
:56:54. > :56:58.service, and he has the power to impose conditions on TNT and any
:56:59. > :57:02.other operator in the market at the same time. To me, that is the best
:57:03. > :57:11.way to keep the simplicity of the service rather than what I think a
:57:12. > :57:15.fairly complex structure. Can you, if the Royal Mail are saying that
:57:16. > :57:20.under the present system allowing TNT to expand, they are not going to
:57:21. > :57:27.be able to afford... They are just not going to be able to provide that
:57:28. > :57:31.universal service? The regulator as recently as last November looked at
:57:32. > :57:36.it and said there is not a problem with the universal service at the
:57:37. > :57:42.moment, but he has got the power is here. He can set up what they call a
:57:43. > :57:44.contribution fund, which can guarantee the universal service For
:57:45. > :57:48.guarantee the universal service. For the time being, nothing is set in
:57:49. > :57:54.stone and I think that is the right way forward. That is all we have got
:57:55. > :58:00.time for today. Now it is time for the rest of the week's political
:58:01. > :58:08.news in 60 seconds. A new study has found that in - in
:58:09. > :58:16.London eligible for free meals have surpassed those in the of England.
:58:17. > :58:20.London's Deputy Mayor for policing has confirmed the Metropolitan
:58:21. > :58:24.police has purchased three water cannon from Germany, which cannot be
:58:25. > :58:27.deployed until the Home Secretary authorises their use in England and
:58:28. > :58:32.Wales. A new report finds many child
:58:33. > :58:36.protection services are in crisis and a large number of children are
:58:37. > :58:41.slipping through the net. In Prime Minister 's question time
:58:42. > :58:47.Labour's may Hayley raised the problem of the unavailability of
:58:48. > :58:51.faster broadband. Businesses in Shoreditch and the city cannot get
:58:52. > :58:56.fast broadband, this is a national embarrassment. My right honourable
:58:57. > :59:00.friend the culture secretary is working very hard to deal with those
:59:01. > :59:04.areas of the country that do not have superfast broadband and I will
:59:05. > :59:12.make sure he puts Hackney firmly on his list. What Stephen Green has
:59:13. > :59:17.said this week is that water cannon fill the last gap in a kind of
:59:18. > :59:22.public order toolkit, he called it, just in case we need it. I think
:59:23. > :59:26.that is very disappointing. We need to be putting our money into
:59:27. > :59:31.policing on the streets and looking at why the riots for instance
:59:32. > :59:35.happened, and what we can do to stop them happening again and I don't
:59:36. > :59:40.think water cannon would be effective. In an area like mine it
:59:41. > :59:45.is different in the boulevards of cities but in an area like London
:59:46. > :59:50.around St Paul's, those little narrow roads, how would you use
:59:51. > :00:01.water cannon there? I think it is a waste of You had trouble in Croydon.
:00:02. > :00:04.We certainly did. In 2012, the rights we had in Croydon, the water
:00:05. > :00:08.cannons would have made a difference -- the riots. Croydon might be a
:00:09. > :00:11.different place today if we had had them. The police have to make the
:00:12. > :00:17.operational decisions about when to use them. I think they can be
:00:18. > :00:23.effective in certain circumstances. 200,000 German police knock-offs,
:00:24. > :00:28.second-hand, only a few years left. The key point, the Home Secretary
:00:29. > :00:32.has not made a final decision. Boris is not averse to finding a bargain
:00:33. > :00:36.in the marketplace and he has got cheap. I suspect he has had a nudge
:00:37. > :00:39.and a wink that there will be some guidance coming from the Home
:00:40. > :00:43.Secretary, and it's probably worth buying them. He wouldn't have been
:00:44. > :00:47.so foolish to go ahead and and do it otherwise. So you think he will
:00:48. > :00:51.know? He began as Mayor of London saying he would make the streets
:00:52. > :00:55.more peaceful and with less crime, and halfway through a second term he
:00:56. > :00:59.is buying water cannons. Just a final point, is there any concerns
:01:00. > :01:03.about injuries caused by them? Health and safety issues? That is
:01:04. > :01:08.why they are rather good. Water pushes people back but doesn't do
:01:09. > :01:11.long-term damage. If you are rioting, you have to accept that
:01:12. > :01:14.there is a risk that the police might come back at you. There have
:01:15. > :01:18.been problems elsewhere in Europe, but I take your point. Thanks to
:01:19. > :01:24.both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.
:01:25. > :01:25.Now, there have been some less-than-helpful remarks
:01:26. > :01:28.about the way the Labour party makes policy, and they've come
:01:29. > :01:33.from the man who is heading Labour's Policy Review, Jon Cruddas.
:01:34. > :01:37.In a speech to party activists he was recorded saying that,
:01:38. > :01:39."instrumentalised, cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus
:01:40. > :01:43.groups and our press strategies and our desire for a topline in terms of
:01:44. > :01:45.the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any
:01:46. > :01:56.He added that Labour's election strategy was being hampered by a
:01:57. > :02:09.The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was asked about what Mr Cruddas had
:02:10. > :02:16.I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he's not frustrated, he is
:02:17. > :02:22.excited about his policy agenda. He excited about his policy agenda He
:02:23. > :02:28.is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our
:02:29. > :02:33.fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we
:02:34. > :02:37.have big ideas about devolution long term infrastructure spending
:02:38. > :02:40.and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes
:02:41. > :02:49.which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How
:02:50. > :02:53.serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error. You
:02:54. > :02:57.go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.
:02:58. > :03:00.There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's
:03:01. > :03:04.hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for
:03:05. > :03:08.a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no
:03:09. > :03:12.overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as
:03:13. > :03:15.a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things
:03:16. > :03:20.that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not
:03:21. > :03:23.sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not
:03:24. > :03:28.having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I
:03:29. > :03:31.think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he
:03:32. > :03:37.prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling
:03:38. > :03:41.point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature
:03:42. > :03:45.is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,
:03:46. > :03:51.before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the
:03:52. > :03:56.economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but
:03:57. > :04:00.it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms. I
:04:01. > :04:04.don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical
:04:05. > :04:07.enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They
:04:08. > :04:11.are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and
:04:12. > :04:15.nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,
:04:16. > :04:19.maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies
:04:20. > :04:25.or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.
:04:26. > :04:28.I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the
:04:29. > :04:32.Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are
:04:33. > :04:35.terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the
:04:36. > :04:39.heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do
:04:40. > :04:43.they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John
:04:44. > :04:50.Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his
:04:51. > :04:53.ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,
:04:54. > :04:58.but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far
:04:59. > :05:02.enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is
:05:03. > :05:07.hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of
:05:08. > :05:12.power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is
:05:13. > :05:16.trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd
:05:17. > :05:19.is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is
:05:20. > :05:25.another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a
:05:26. > :05:30.professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.
:05:31. > :05:32.So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director
:05:33. > :05:34.of communications was convicted of phone hacking.
:05:35. > :05:38.David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.
:05:39. > :05:43.At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.
:05:44. > :05:50.I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some
:05:51. > :05:53.on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and
:05:54. > :05:57.those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned
:05:58. > :06:02.out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that
:06:03. > :06:07.today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong
:06:08. > :06:11.decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle
:06:12. > :06:15.of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of
:06:16. > :06:25.that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for
:06:26. > :06:29.coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy
:06:30. > :06:32.Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing
:06:33. > :06:36.Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26- on
:06:37. > :06:39.unrelated issue. And he was 26-2 on the wrong end in Brussels, and there
:06:40. > :06:44.is a poll this morning which no one seems to be talking about which puts
:06:45. > :06:46.Labour nine points ahead. Before all that there was Dominic Cummings
:06:47. > :06:51.criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr
:06:52. > :06:55.Cameron's judgement becoming an issue? Yes, what often happens when
:06:56. > :06:59.one leader is under pressure for long enough, as Ed Miliband has been
:07:00. > :07:03.the six months, we get bored. We then switch the Gatling gun to the
:07:04. > :07:06.other guy. So David Cameron going into the Conference season might be
:07:07. > :07:09.the man under pressure. The whole Andy Coulson saga has raised
:07:10. > :07:13.questions about his judgement and those around him, but any political
:07:14. > :07:17.damage she was going to sustain over Andy Coulson and phone hacking was
:07:18. > :07:19.sustained years ago -- he was going. It was Brother beyond the
:07:20. > :07:25.date the News of the World was closed down three summers ago - it
:07:26. > :07:32.was probably on the date. As the hacking trial cut through to the
:07:33. > :07:35.general public? Or is it just as media and political obsessives? I am
:07:36. > :07:38.sure it has cut through in some way but it didn't necessarily happen in
:07:39. > :07:42.recent days, more likely in recent years. It was some time ago that
:07:43. > :07:46.Andy Coulson resigned in high profile circumstances. It has had a
:07:47. > :07:51.slow burning effect over a few years, and the Prime Minister fears
:07:52. > :07:56.the Big Bang. But there is one theme and words that unites this week with
:07:57. > :08:00.Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that is that the Prime Minister can be
:08:01. > :08:03.lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical in not asking big question is when
:08:04. > :08:06.there was a lot in the public domain about what had happened that the
:08:07. > :08:10.News of the World. And he was lackadaisical with Juncker. He made
:08:11. > :08:14.a calculation that Angela Merkel would support him and it turned out
:08:15. > :08:18.she couldn't. Maybe he needs to change. He was late in understanding
:08:19. > :08:25.what was happening in Germany when both the Christian Democrats, her
:08:26. > :08:28.party, wanted Juncker, and when the actual Murdoch press of Germany said
:08:29. > :08:33.that they wanted him as well. He never saw that. He only looks at one
:08:34. > :08:38.person in Germany, Angela Merkel, and it is a grand coalition, and the
:08:39. > :08:42.SDP felt strongly about it. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime
:08:43. > :08:43.Minister. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He's
:08:44. > :08:48.essay crisis Prime Minister. He s very good in an essay, and the SA
:08:49. > :08:54.gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has
:08:55. > :08:58.John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday
:08:59. > :09:01.Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr
:09:02. > :09:03.Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time, so
:09:04. > :09:07.polls than he has had some time so he must be wondering why they are
:09:08. > :09:10.having a go at him. He made a tactical error in Prime Minister's
:09:11. > :09:15.Questions by asking all the questions about Andy Coulson. The
:09:16. > :09:19.one at the end about what Gus O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in
:09:20. > :09:22.the extreme. Politicians can be out of touch on all sides of the house.
:09:23. > :09:27.The problem is, and there is a great quote by William Hague, is that the
:09:28. > :09:30.Tory party has two modes, panic and complacency. At the moment they are
:09:31. > :09:33.complacent. They think Ed Miliband will lose Labour election but I
:09:34. > :09:35.don't know if they have a positive plan about how to win it. -- lose
:09:36. > :09:38.Labour the election. Now, we knew Prince Charles had
:09:39. > :09:40.trouble keeping his views about the environment
:09:41. > :09:42.and the countryside to himself, but that's not the only thing he's
:09:43. > :09:45.passionate about according to a radio four documentary to be
:09:46. > :09:47.broadcast this lunchtime. Here's former Education Secretary,
:09:48. > :09:52.David Blunkett on how the Prince had once attempted to influence
:09:53. > :10:00.his policy on schools. I would explain that our policy was
:10:01. > :10:05.not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very
:10:06. > :10:09.keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had
:10:10. > :10:13.what he would've seen as the opportunity to escape from their
:10:14. > :10:15.background, where as I wanted to change their background.
:10:16. > :10:18.And you can hear that documentary - it's called The Royal Activist -
:10:19. > :10:26.Does it matter that Prince Charles is getting involved in this kind of
:10:27. > :10:29.policy, released behind closed doors question mark on the issue of
:10:30. > :10:35.grammar schools is not clear anybody listened to him. I think it is a
:10:36. > :10:39.principal problem. I've spoken to form a government members, and
:10:40. > :10:40.judging by what they say, if anything we underestimate how much
:10:41. > :10:44.contacting makes with ministers. And contacting makes with ministers And
:10:45. > :10:49.how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There
:10:50. > :10:53.has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological
:10:54. > :10:57.question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the
:10:58. > :11:01.public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know
:11:02. > :11:06.what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?
:11:07. > :11:08.Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly --
:11:09. > :11:12.Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so
:11:13. > :11:15.a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight
:11:16. > :11:20.down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.
:11:21. > :11:24.There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his
:11:25. > :11:28.argument in favour for architectural development takes into account
:11:29. > :11:31.affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has
:11:32. > :11:35.interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle
:11:36. > :11:39.whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your
:11:40. > :11:45.former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You
:11:46. > :11:47.slightly feel sorry for him. He s described him as the SDP king. You
:11:48. > :11:53.slightly feel sorry for him. He's 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a
:11:54. > :11:57.difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are
:11:58. > :12:01.to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in
:12:02. > :12:04.the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a
:12:05. > :12:08.line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit
:12:09. > :12:13.too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that
:12:14. > :12:18.goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become
:12:19. > :12:23.King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?
:12:24. > :12:26.He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an
:12:27. > :12:30.interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,
:12:31. > :12:34.going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we
:12:35. > :12:38.think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting
:12:39. > :12:44.parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial
:12:45. > :12:48.charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and
:12:49. > :12:52.that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad
:12:53. > :12:56.thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.
:12:57. > :12:59.I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do
:13:00. > :13:03.about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck
:13:04. > :13:07.into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He
:13:08. > :13:09.has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings
:13:10. > :13:12.we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up.
:13:13. > :13:16.The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am
:13:17. > :13:21.We'll be back here at the same time next week.
:13:22. > :14:06.Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.
:14:07. > :14:32.Catch the late-afternoon games on the go.