:00:00. > :00:14.jacket but there may be something to your taste. Now on BBC time for the
:00:15. > :00:20.week in Parliament. Welcome to the week in Parliament. Reserve troops
:00:21. > :00:23.are regulars, the battle lines were drawn up in the Commons as the rebel
:00:24. > :00:28.forces tried to ambush the government. The original plan was to
:00:29. > :00:33.maintain the regulars until the reserve is could take their place.
:00:34. > :00:37.That plan has not been scrapped. What we cannot accept is the
:00:38. > :00:42.destabilisation of the programme. Could we be in for another
:00:43. > :00:47.Westminster battle? Between civil servants and another breed of
:00:48. > :00:53.special advisers? The taxpayer will be charged ?16 million a year so he
:00:54. > :00:57.can be advised by his mates. In a move towards a Jew is, west Wing
:00:58. > :01:02.type of government which is completely unpopular as far as the
:01:03. > :01:08.countries concerned. Later, women bishops, are they on the way in, and
:01:09. > :01:12.Twitter, should it the only way at Westminster. A potential
:01:13. > :01:16.embarrassing defeat for the government was averted on Wednesday
:01:17. > :01:21.when MPs on the Commons voted down a rebel Conservative MP's than to call
:01:22. > :01:26.a halt to the replacing of regular soldiers with reserve is. Under the
:01:27. > :01:32.policy, the Army reserve, formerly the territorial Army would increase
:01:33. > :01:35.in numbers. From 19,000 to 30,000. Some Tory MPs had been concerned at
:01:36. > :01:42.the slow pace of recruitment of reserve is. When the defence reform
:01:43. > :01:46.bill was debated on Wednesday, the arguments were principally between
:01:47. > :01:51.between Conservative MPs. The principle between the change in the
:01:52. > :01:55.proportion of reserves and regulars was exactly right. It brings us into
:01:56. > :02:00.line with many more contemporary countries. The proviso in practice
:02:01. > :02:04.was the change would not take place in productions with the regulars
:02:05. > :02:07.until such times as we saw the improvements in training and
:02:08. > :02:10.equipping the numbers in the reserves. The problem for the House
:02:11. > :02:16.of Commons was we had very little information to go on. We do know
:02:17. > :02:19.things are not going well. Reserve list recruitment targets are being
:02:20. > :02:26.badly missed. EA numbers are falling. There is a widening
:02:27. > :02:31.capability gap as a result. We have deviated from the original plan as
:02:32. > :02:34.was clearly confirmed by the former Secretary of State who made it very
:02:35. > :02:38.clear this was not the original plan. The original plan was to
:02:39. > :02:43.maintain the regulars until the reserve is could take their place.
:02:44. > :02:48.That plan has not been scrapped. As we keep missing the reserve of
:02:49. > :02:53.recruitment targets, the capability gap gets ever wider. We are creating
:02:54. > :02:58.a mechanism where annual leave the house will receive a progress report
:02:59. > :03:02.on the state of the reserves and I would expect the house to debate
:03:03. > :03:06.that progress report. That is providing the level of scrutiny that
:03:07. > :03:11.the honourable gentleman seeks. What we cannot accept is the
:03:12. > :03:18.destabilisation of the programme that is introducing an artificial
:03:19. > :03:23.herbal. The effect of the schools will not be to guarantee a larger
:03:24. > :03:26.regular army, the effect will be to devastate our attempts to rebuild
:03:27. > :03:32.the reserve forces by putting them all on hold. Is it not better they
:03:33. > :03:35.carry on speech and the resolving the issues by putting a halt on
:03:36. > :03:41.further delay to sorting out the problems? Can we be very clear, what
:03:42. > :03:46.we are talking about is not any conflict or preference for reserves
:03:47. > :03:54.or regulars. We are talking about numbers. Competency, capability for
:03:55. > :03:59.the defence of the round. That is what we are talking about. What we
:04:00. > :04:02.need to be assured of and which this house largely does not feel
:04:03. > :04:07.confident that we have is that the government's plans will provide us
:04:08. > :04:13.with the numbers in the competency and capability. That is what the
:04:14. > :04:19.clauses about and it a pause. It is not a thrown away of the plan. It is
:04:20. > :04:24.a pause. The arguments over reserve lists and regular troops. Could
:04:25. > :04:27.Whitehall be about to undergo an Americanisation? No longer
:04:28. > :04:35.Westminster but west Wing fourth stop for those followers of logical
:04:36. > :04:38.TV dramas, the new generation of special advisers known as extended
:04:39. > :04:42.ministerial offices are about to be appointed to help ministers run the
:04:43. > :04:48.country. Could the arrival of this new breed cause friction with
:04:49. > :04:52.traditional senior civil servants. We will discuss the issues with two
:04:53. > :04:57.people who have expert insights on the running of government. First the
:04:58. > :05:05.idea of new special advisers was based in the Commons on Tuesday at
:05:06. > :05:07.question Time. Canon in responding to my supplementary the Deputy Prime
:05:08. > :05:11.Minister told the house about plans to be announced this week that each
:05:12. > :05:16.Cabinet member is going to be allowed to appoint up to ten
:05:17. > :05:20.personal advisers in move towards a US, west Wing type of government
:05:21. > :05:27.which would be completely unpopular as far as the country is concerned.
:05:28. > :05:30.This is not a plan to import an endless series of political
:05:31. > :05:33.advisers. It is recognising something that has been recommended
:05:34. > :05:39.to government by a number of independent think tanks which is in
:05:40. > :05:44.order to allow ministers access to external policy expertise which is
:05:45. > :05:50.sometimes lacking within Whitehall. In addition to the supplementary
:05:51. > :05:53.people, and the news this morning cabinet ministers will be allowed to
:05:54. > :05:56.have additional ten political appointees, does the Deputy Prime
:05:57. > :06:01.Minister and could is right the taxpayer will be charged ?16 million
:06:02. > :06:04.a year in addition to the current bill so that he and his Cabinet
:06:05. > :06:11.colleagues can be advised by their mates? The average salary cost of
:06:12. > :06:20.special advisers is 9% lower than it was in the administration of the
:06:21. > :06:23.previous labour administration. Nick Clegg answering questions on
:06:24. > :06:28.Tuesday. I'm joined in a studio by Paul Richards who used to be a Labor
:06:29. > :06:32.special adviser. He worked for Hazel Blair when she was a Home Office
:06:33. > :06:37.Minister and Dave Penman, general section `` secretary of an
:06:38. > :06:42.association which represents senior civil servants. Welcome to the week
:06:43. > :06:46.in Parliament. You are not very pleased by this new idea of a
:06:47. > :06:51.special breed of special advisers? We had some significant concerns
:06:52. > :06:56.when the government announced in some of these extended ministerial
:06:57. > :07:00.offices to support ministers in government would be staffed by
:07:01. > :07:03.personal appointees by ministers. That crossed the line for us about
:07:04. > :07:08.what the role of the civil service is. It created issues on
:07:09. > :07:13.impartiality. What we have seen develop since the summer, is a set
:07:14. > :07:19.of rules that rings some safeguards to the process. These will be
:07:20. > :07:23.appointments that are limited to five years. They will be subject to
:07:24. > :07:28.the civil service code. They will be managed by civil servants. They will
:07:29. > :07:34.only be bought in with approval of the Prime Minister that a minister
:07:35. > :07:36.can have these. That they are an individual who has the skill set of
:07:37. > :07:42.experience that is currently available. One of your initial
:07:43. > :07:46.objections was that special advisers could give orders to senior civil
:07:47. > :07:50.servants? Special advisers have a very particular role. It is one we
:07:51. > :07:55.support and civil servants support. They give ministers political advice
:07:56. > :08:00.and everyone understands how that operates. It is good for ministers
:08:01. > :08:04.and good for civil servants. Initially when the announcement was
:08:05. > :08:09.made the concern was these would be a hybrid between civil servants and
:08:10. > :08:15.political appointees. I think the rules allow now for Drake `` greater
:08:16. > :08:18.transparency in the sort of safeguards we are looking for. Paul
:08:19. > :08:23.Richards gives a flavour of a day in the life of a special adviser. You
:08:24. > :08:28.have been working in government. The idea is they are shadow we figures.
:08:29. > :08:32.What do they do? We know far too much of them when they get involved
:08:33. > :08:35.in scandals. The day starts very early, monitoring the media,
:08:36. > :08:39.advising the Minister of what is on the papers and television and
:08:40. > :08:44.Twitter. Shadowing the meaty is `` meetings. And visits and media
:08:45. > :08:50.interviews. Going with them to the house a player making statements to
:08:51. > :08:53.the house. Giving them a good talking to afterwards. Post match
:08:54. > :08:59.analysis. Being with them every hour of the day on official duties. A
:09:00. > :09:05.very close contact thing. Very different from the extended office
:09:06. > :09:11.thing we have been discussing. As their attention, a long`standing
:09:12. > :09:16.tension between a long serving civil servant and a special adviser
:09:17. > :09:18.attached to a minister? Wendy relationship works will works
:09:19. > :09:22.extremely well. It is and everyone's and dressed for those
:09:23. > :09:28.roles to be extinct it reinforces the demarcation between the two. We
:09:29. > :09:32.are coming up to the 50th anniversary of special advisers.
:09:33. > :09:37.Harold Wilson introduced them. You need that role but you have two and
:09:38. > :09:42.forced the impartiality of the civil servants. That is how you square
:09:43. > :09:45.that circle. This idea of extended offices and officers who are not
:09:46. > :09:53.quite advisers, this is quite difficult, it could underline ``
:09:54. > :09:57.alert the activities of the special adviser. There is a Parliamentary
:09:58. > :10:01.list, salaries are known, it is a specific job. That means no one else
:10:02. > :10:06.can arrive and say I am a special adviser. I saw Paul Flowers being
:10:07. > :10:09.described as a special adviser, he would say he is not. It needs a
:10:10. > :10:16.clear distinction between special advisers and everyone else. Is this
:10:17. > :10:19.a sign of the time that the civil servant is being marginalised as we
:10:20. > :10:24.see more of these special adviser types and as extended ministerial
:10:25. > :10:29.office are coming in. This is a culture change for Whitehall?
:10:30. > :10:33.Government has to reform and respond to the demands of ministers being
:10:34. > :10:36.made. To some degree, this reflects that ministers feel they are under a
:10:37. > :10:41.lot of pressure. The government looks to other countries and how
:10:42. > :10:45.they organised the sorts of offices and demonstrated the support given
:10:46. > :10:50.to ministers in this country was significantly less than a lot of
:10:51. > :10:57.other than PCs around the world. I think that is fair. What is
:10:58. > :11:04.important there is clarity over argue a civil servant, are you
:11:05. > :11:11.subject to the civil service code or argue a special adviser. Overseas
:11:12. > :11:18.visitors come to Whitehall and see the level of support a minister
:11:19. > :11:21.gets, maybe five civil servants, people in their 20s, compare that to
:11:22. > :11:24.the American system or other systems, they do find it quite plain
:11:25. > :11:29.that we have so few people. Departments are under a lot of
:11:30. > :11:33.resource pressure, they see 25% cuts in staffing. It will take a brave
:11:34. > :11:37.minister to say what I think is a priority in this department is
:11:38. > :11:49.dozens more civil servants supporting me as a minister. We have
:11:50. > :11:57.seen some concern. They think it is a fair criticism, comparing this to
:11:58. > :12:05.the West Wing? Ministers do need good support. It is crazy that they
:12:06. > :12:11.do not. A junior minister does not have been allocated speechwriter.
:12:12. > :12:23.Editor at `` do not necessarily have a team that is five or six strong.
:12:24. > :12:29.Would you do not want to do is blur the line in the middle. This has
:12:30. > :12:37.come out in a few leaks here and they're. The public will not be
:12:38. > :12:42.policed. `` will not be pleased at the sheer cost of all these extras.
:12:43. > :12:52.How do you ensure the public it will improve government efficiency? It is
:12:53. > :12:59.not compulsory. We have to make a case to the Prime Minister. There
:13:00. > :13:08.will be greater visibility around the resources allocated were in the
:13:09. > :13:12.past some ministers had pointed civil servants and experts outside
:13:13. > :13:21.and has been clouded. The transparency will provide a good
:13:22. > :13:25.discipline for ministers. People would know about it and will be able
:13:26. > :13:31.to challenge things. We heard from a MP talking about the importance of
:13:32. > :13:37.mates. There is an impression that the minister will just point their
:13:38. > :13:43.friends. They should appoint somebody they know as a special
:13:44. > :13:47.adviser, someone they trust. It is a close personal relationship. If it
:13:48. > :13:52.extends beyond that, I think it is dangerous. You do not want the
:13:53. > :13:56.system in other countries where it is like your brother`in`law. There
:13:57. > :14:12.are rules. If an individual minister wants to appoint someone, there will
:14:13. > :14:18.be an someone overseeing the appointments. The only value in the
:14:19. > :14:23.job is that you are saying things honestly as you see it. A good
:14:24. > :14:28.minister will appoint someone who is good at that. Otherwise, what is the
:14:29. > :14:34.point? Is the public going to except this? I suspect the public will need
:14:35. > :14:40.to take a lot of convincing. I would agree. Given the strain on resources
:14:41. > :14:46.in the public service, ministers will have to think long and hard
:14:47. > :14:53.about that. Ministers will have to make a good case on why the spending
:14:54. > :14:57.resources... Hard argument to win. The sums in the money is minute
:14:58. > :15:05.compared to the big spending of the government. Thank you very much for
:15:06. > :15:11.joining us. Some thoughts on advisers. One year ago, plenty of
:15:12. > :15:19.consternation when the idea of women bishops was narrowly rejected. One
:15:20. > :15:24.year on, things are different. They approved measures this week which
:15:25. > :15:26.could allow the ordination of women bishop next year. The Church of
:15:27. > :15:34.England representative in the Commons told us what happened. By an
:15:35. > :15:39.overwhelming majority, it was a `` proposals were approved to enable us
:15:40. > :15:48.to see women bishops in the Church of England by 2015, 2016 at the very
:15:49. > :15:53.latest. What happens next? Further procedures within the general Synod
:15:54. > :16:06.next February. Drink because of year, it will come to Parliament. ``
:16:07. > :16:09.hopefully next year. I am confident, having seen the
:16:10. > :16:14.overwhelming support this measure had yesterday in general synod, but
:16:15. > :16:21.this will go through Parliament without any difficulty. How likely
:16:22. > :16:26.will be proposals succeed? I cannot see any reason why we should not see
:16:27. > :16:32.women being consecrated as bishops in the Church of England in the near
:16:33. > :16:38.future? When will we see the first in Bishop take a seat in the House
:16:39. > :16:45.of Lords? The government will work with the church to an sure that can
:16:46. > :16:49.happen as soon as possible. There was something of a
:16:50. > :16:52.Parliamentary first on Wednesday. An extract from live Twitter comments
:16:53. > :17:03.made by a former labour MP. History was made this week when a
:17:04. > :17:10.tweet sent during Prime Minister is questions was cited by David Cameron
:17:11. > :17:19.himself. `` Prime Minister's questions. I hope I can explain this
:17:20. > :17:33.tweet from Tony McNulty. The former labour security minister.
:17:34. > :17:40.I would stay up with the tweet if you want to get on the right side of
:17:41. > :17:54.this one. We asked one keen Twitter user. It is not easy. It is deeply
:17:55. > :17:57.partisan. And his own learning that tweaking has its drawbacks. In
:17:58. > :18:05.September, Mr Cameron had this advice for Labour's MP. Let me point
:18:06. > :18:09.this out. I follow these things closely. She tweeted this morning
:18:10. > :18:13.that she had a question for the Prime Minister and she asked for
:18:14. > :18:20.questions `` suggestions. The first question came back. How happy are
:18:21. > :18:22.you that the leader of the Labor Party. Be in place come the next
:18:23. > :18:40.election? Why reject that advice? And not
:18:41. > :18:43.everyone is a fan. This month, the Chancellor use Twitter to reveal a
:18:44. > :18:49.new date for a big Parliamentary event. The Autumn statement. Neither
:18:50. > :18:54.Labour nor the speaker was amused. Is it appropriate that the
:18:55. > :18:58.Chancellor announced this change on Twitter and not that this house?
:18:59. > :19:02.Even today, it has not been confirmed by a statement. Nor was it
:19:03. > :19:07.mentioned in last week was made as the statement. Given the fact that
:19:08. > :19:13.the Chancellor announced the original net `` they buy Twitter as
:19:14. > :19:21.well, could you warn if he is conduct was in order? To put it very
:19:22. > :19:26.candidly and bluntly, these announcements should be made to the
:19:27. > :19:33.house. Not by the mechanism of Twitter. That is probably not the
:19:34. > :19:39.final word on the subject. I think Labour will learn what happened next
:19:40. > :19:44.week. There is no reason, in terms of protocol, on why they cannot
:19:45. > :19:54.raise a tweet. The real problem for the Lib Dems, it may have to remain
:19:55. > :20:00.mute in the chamber but not outside it. David Cameron's eagerness to
:20:01. > :20:09.follow Twitter may backfire. Wine Labour and P invited his supporters
:20:10. > :20:18.to tweet their questions. `` wine and labour MP.
:20:19. > :20:25.There was the unveiling of a more trustworthy NHS. The Health
:20:26. > :20:27.Secretary said the NHS in England needed to have a profound
:20:28. > :20:35.transformation to create a learning culture. One of the most chilling
:20:36. > :20:40.accounts in this report came from employees are considered the care
:20:41. > :20:47.they sought to be normal. Cruelty became normal in all the NHS. No one
:20:48. > :20:52.noticed. Changing the culture is not done by statements, nor legislation
:20:53. > :20:58.in this house, it is done by working inside the NHS. It is not the
:20:59. > :21:03.central driver of the recommendations to an sure never
:21:04. > :21:10.again shall we have that `` have closed institutions in a closed
:21:11. > :21:21.system. While the Royal `` was the Royal Navy sold off to cheaply? ``
:21:22. > :21:28.Royal Mail. The bank is to advise the government faced questions. For
:21:29. > :21:35.all of the money you paid, you are not very clever at your job. This
:21:36. > :21:41.was a large, complicated deal. It was against an uncertain backdrop in
:21:42. > :21:48.the markets. From a company level, with the ongoing strike and it, in
:21:49. > :21:57.that context, it was a well executed transaction. The eyes have it. How
:21:58. > :22:04.safe is laser surgery? More than 100,000 have it done every year in
:22:05. > :22:10.the UK. MP said the treatment should be that `` better regulated. There
:22:11. > :22:18.are definite risks involved. Some estimate that between one in 20
:22:19. > :22:27.patients experienced problems. It includes dry eyes, blurred vision,
:22:28. > :22:29.Claire. From eyes displays, the revelations of GCHQ and the
:22:30. > :22:36.controversial mass surveillance programme. There is anger in the
:22:37. > :22:42.House of Lords. Wholesale, untargeted state intrusion into the
:22:43. > :22:47.habit lives of all the people is unacceptable. Recent events have
:22:48. > :22:55.shown that the intelligence and Security committee has currently
:22:56. > :23:01.constituted is not really effective. Which minister authorised the
:23:02. > :23:05.project? Can I assure him that secret does not mean unaccountable.
:23:06. > :23:11.We have a system where any intrusion of the sort that the Lord prefers to
:23:12. > :23:14.have to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted. You are
:23:15. > :23:20.watching the week in Parliament.