23/06/2011 Daily Politics

Morning, Fox, will come to the Daily Politics. Robin Hood Clegg

says he wants to give you the banks, but is it any more than political

posturing? He is friends with huskies, we know that, but his any

peace in Europe are voting against his Government's policy on the

environment. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

Going Dutch, our students are making big savings by studying

abroad. And MPs prepared to vote to ban on wild animals from circuses,

but is the centuries of tradition really cruel? The Republic want us,

they support us, and we really ought to be listening to the people

of vote with their feet. -- the public want us.

All of that is coming out in the next half hour. With us for the

duration is writer, broadcaster and Labour peer Joan Bakewell. Lovely

to have you on the programme. whenever Nick Clegg goes abroad, he

makes an announcement! He probably has nothing else to do, idling away

hours with journalists on the plane. It seems that is largely unreported

trip to Brazil, he did not know he was there, did you? It has inspired

the Deputy Prime Minister to launch a scheme which would see shares in

the nationalised banks, the Royal Bank and Lloyds, distributed to the

taxpayers who bailed them out in the first place. It is not clear

how it will go down with the Chancellor, because it seems Mr on

Thorn was banking on using the profits of reselling the banks to

help improve the public finances. - - Mr Osborne. Here's a thought, cut

our taxes before the next election! Do Chancellors do that? It comes

from an idea that was put forward originally by Lib Dem MP Stephen

Williams, who joins us now. Welcome. Hello! Let me just clarify this, is

it an official Lib Dem policy to do this, but not yet coalition policy?

It is not officially Lib Dem policy yet until our party conference

discusses it, because that is the way we make policy, but it has been

pretty well endorsed by everyone who matters in the party from the

Deputy Prime Minister down. You may remember, Andrew, I launched this

pamphlet on your programme back in March. It is an idea that has been

gathering momentum. Even John Redwood, who was on television this

morning, said he was in broad support. Is it an idea whose time

has come? I think so, and more people are coming on board when

they see it is popular. There are not many people who I have spoken

to in the last six months who, after the conversation, say, no, I

don't like that. It is popular, and it makes a clear link between the

nationalisation of the banks and the benefit when they return to

profitability in the near future. That is interesting. You think the

banks are ready to return to the private sector? I think the

preparations need to be made now for when they are ready. The share

prices are still pretty much in the debt. Yes, but those share prices

are probably artificially depressed at the moment because there is no

real knowledge of expectation as to what the government is going to do

with the two enormous holdings that it has in these banks. Once the

Government makes its intentions clear, at the share prices will

rally to some extent, but the main driver is the profitability of the

banks themselves. Do you really want to lumber all of us with bank

shares just on the brink of a European sovereign debt crisis?

These banks have balance sheets full of a new toxic waste called

European sovereign debt. We would not be lumbered with them. The

state owns these bank shares at the moment, so we have already got them.

I mean the individuals. Treasury would only dispose of

these shares when either it knows it can do so at a profit in terms

of a normal privatisation that you and I will remember from the

Thatcher and John Major era, all to do it in his rather more

imaginative way, where every citizen gets the benefit. We can

only do it when the market conditions are right. We are not

there yet, but we must be optimistic that both are these

banks, which have been saved by the taxpayer, they have been in

intensive care, and pretty soon they will be ready to return to the

private sector, which is where they belong. I want to do that in a way

in which everyone can benefit. quick questions before I get our

guest's reaction. You say it is not yet Lib Dem policy, but the

manifesto policy was, we will turn Northern Rock into a building

society. You did not get away on that, did you? We will have to wait

and see what happens. It has been privatised. It may well be sold to

an existing building society, of course. There are many options.

Unlikely. Let me ask you this. Who would get these shares? Every

citizen? That is the model I have proposed. How would we do find

that? If your name is on the electoral roll? That is the way I

suggested. Electro role has more holes than a Swiss cheese. -- the

electoral roll. I would say it is pretty robust. There would have to

be some clean-up operations. Students and MPs would get two sets

of shares! I think we would be caught out! There Ahsan is used

with the Elektra Register, but it remains the only complete dataset

of all 46 million adults in the UK. -- there our son is used with the

collector of register. What do you think? I think it is a bit of a

gimmick. A gimmick! Offer people �1,000, they are going to like it,

they are going to be very pleased with it. If it is every citizen,

that includes people who do not pay taxes, and there is already lots of

talk about people saying, you mean people who do not pay taxes are

going to get his bonus, too? Also, we already Tony Banks, don't we?

Isn't that the point of the purchase? -- owned by the banks.

What they are doing is making us into shareholders and privatising

the banks by giving us the money. I think we should all get together as

shareholders, go to the shareholders' meeting and vote down

the bonuses and the pay of the chief executive. That would be a

case of doing it. Stephen Williams, keeps in touch with us. OK.

regard the Daily Politics as your outlet for taking this debate on!

That is very kind of you. Now, the government is committed to

increasing our target for reducing CO2 emissions from 20% down to 30%

by 2020, which is far enough in the future of one of the current bunch

to be held accountable if it does that happen. But it will not apply

to the heart head generated in this studio, which is preserved by

national statute. -- hot air. Some MEPs are planning to vote against

the Government's policy today. Anita has the details. I will do my

best to explain. You are right, David Cameron has repeatedly said

he wants the commission to be the greenest government ever, so in his

bunny hugging coalition agreement, he said he wanted to raise the EU

carbon cutting target from 20% up to 30% by 2020. Today, there is

this non-binding European Parliament vote that calls for the

target to be raised. All well and good, not really, because the

Conservative MEPs are threatening to blow smoke all over the Prime

Minister's green credentials by voting against raising the target.

Led by Martin Callanan, they say a higher target would harm business,

and that any unilateral action would put Europe at a competitive

disadvantage to rivals like China. Martin Callanan is also not

particularly bothered by the coalition's flower-power, sharing

agreement, saying, we are not in coalition with the Lib Dems in the

European Parliament. At PMQs, Mr Cameron reiterated that he was

committed to the 30% target, and in his words, nothing is going to

change that. He added, I will work on my any pace. So the question

today is, do those MEPs feel a little bit like they have been work

done? Andrew is going to find out. It is a very good question. We

asked for a minister to defend the Government's support for this 30%

target, but strangely none was available. We are delighted to be

joined from Brussels by a Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, and

in the studio in Westminster we have Liberal Democrat MP Duncan

Hames. Well can do both. Roger Helmer, are you voting against

these targets because you think they are economically damaging or

because you do not think Climate Change Act is such a big deal?

you may be surprised that I am voting against them because I think

they are bad for the environment. These proposals do not make sense

in economic or environmental terms. They will simply drive jobs,

production and investment out of the EU entirely, and into other

jurisdictions with lower standards. Instead of one tonne of CO2 in

Britain, you would get two tonnes in China. I cannot see how that is

any good for the environment or for anybody except the Chinese. Duncan

Hames, there is a trend for heavy industry to leave Europe and go to

the emerging markets. If you put on these heavy targets which will

raise the cost of doing business here, you simply reinforce that

trend. Well, he is way behind the curve in this debate if he does not

think China is trying to reduce the carpet intensity of its own

economic activity. But not a 30% target like ours, they open a new

coalmine every week. We need to make sure we have the jobs which

will be sustainable in the future. What you say to his point that jobs

would go? The Tory position in Europe has more to do with the fact

that their only friends in the European Parliament are a right-

wing Polish party who are worried about their jobs. He is putting

their interests ahead of British economic policy, which is

astounding. Lay the ball, not the man. Never mind his Polish allies,

answer his question. If you make these targets to strike, stricter

than anybody else, as ours are at 30%, we will lose jobs to the

emerging markets. What is the counter argument, that is all I'm

asking. The whole point of negotiations across Europe is to

ensure that within a larger economic bloc, there is a level

playing field. That is why we are working with you on a common target.

That is why we are trying to work internationally, and frankly to say

that we should not take part in international agreements, that we

should sign with whoever the lifeguards in this debate is not

really in the interests of our We in Britain now have this tougher

target of 30%, when it at least makes sense to get a level playing

field if we went along with the rest of Europe having that targets,

too? Well, the whole idea of a 30% target is, of course, absurd. The

Liberal Democrat wants to lead on this issue, but nobody else is

following. I'm not voting to be nice to our Polish colleagues,

although I'm happy to be nice to them. I'm voting for a common sense

policy in Britain. What is the answer to my question? If you would

stop playing the man and start playing the ball, what is the

answer to my point? We have got this very tough standard, so it

would be helpful if the rest of Europe had a tough standard as well.

Well, some of my colleagues would be prepared to vote for 30% if the

rest of the world went for it. But the rest of the world is not going

for 30%. We should not have 30%. We will not be able to deliver, and

the sooner that the coalition government recognises that its

policies do not make sense, do not do any good for the environment and

are damaging the economy and are going to force homers into fuel

poverty, pensioners will literally die because of what we are doing in

terms of bringing policies. This whole programme needs to be

reviewed. There is a growing head of steam, both within Brussels and

in Westminster, to look at it again. We cannot go on with this folly.

a time when fuel prices are rising rapidly, we have just seen huge

increases with Scottish Power, and we also know that the poorer you

are, the more of your income you have to spend on fuel as well as

food, does it make sense for greens like you to be having the fuel

bills of ordinary people who are struggling to afford it? You're

already adding �200 on to the average fuel bill with these

policies. Prices are rising in line with the oil price, and what we

need for those people is to get energy bills off the fossil fuel

them. Even if prices keep going up, we can get energy bills down

through measures such as the Green deal, which we are putting through

Parliament at this moment. I will repeat this again. Energy bills are

already rising because of world oil and gas prices, and because nuclear

power is in retreat at the moment. You are increasing that rise. It is

rising even more because of your green policies. Well, it is. It all

depends on the oil price level. make electricity companies by twice

the market rate for onshore wind power, three times for offshore. Is

it fair to poor people that you are increasing their bills in that way?

What is there for poorer people is the Green deal on energy, which

will ensure that we reduce energy consumption and their energy bills.

Whilst we cannot control prices, we can work to reduce people's bills,

which addresses the very concerns about fuel poverty which you quite

reasonably raised. There is no sign that bills will fall and the future.

Under this measure, they will rise. Not if we do not get them off the

oil crisis. Nothing you are doing well do that. The Prime Minister

said he would work a new, have you been worked over? -- he would work

We haven't been worked over. I have heard nothing from London. As far

as I know, my colleagues haven't. see. There's been no pressure. Can

I go back on that last point? Andrew, you were right about wind

power. It is disingenuous to say prices for electricity are lining

with the oil price. No, they are not. They are rising much higher.

All right. A lot of old people die from the cold in winter? There are

a lot of other ways of keeping people alive rather than juggling

oil prices. Quite clearly, the Green Agenda is a long-term agenda.

To be dicing around with short-term consequences as a way of blocking

the long-term engagement is folly. We have to take on the long-term

issues. Is it right to be increasing the fuel bills of the

old and poor at a time when their fuel bills are already rising?

way to tackle that is to deal with the problems of the old and poor

which after all caused many other remedies too. Other people can bear

the burden who can afford it. you for that. Give us a call if the

Prime Minister threatens you at any stage. I will let you know! Thank

you. Now, here is a question: Why spend �9,000 an English university

Ze agree when you can get a cheaper degree somewhere else in Europe? --

degree when you can get a cheaper degree somewhere else in Europe?

The University of Groningen is a particularly popular destination

for British students where numbers have increased from a handful a few

years ago to more than 100 thousand-of-this year. Paul Henley

sampled the student life -- 100,000 this year. Paul Henley sampled the

student life. Choosing to study abroad doesn't necessarily mean you

have to give up the familiar comfort of a student night out.

This man is finishing his first year at Groningen University. He is

from St Albans. At a Dutch student comedy night with his friends and

flatmates, some of the jokes might be lost in translation. I'll take

care of the booze, lady! A few pints probably help. LAUGHTER

Netherlands is one of the few places in Europe you can study

entirely in English and get by in daily life without the local

language. And you can live quite cheaply here. Welcome to my humble

abode. He shares a big flat with three other students paying just

over �400 a month. This is Adrian's corner! He missed his A-level grade

force the university he wanted in the UK, heard about the Dutch

option and realised he was on to a winner, even if it meant being a

pioneer. It feels unique, it feels like I am doing some independent.

Groningen is in the top 150 of most university world rankings,

somewhere on a par with Liverpool or Leeds in the UK. Once you know

the facts, it seems less a question of why study in the Netherlands

than why not? His annual tuition fee of �1,500 sounds good compared

to the �9,000 in the UK. It sounds better when you know he can claim

it back from the Dutch government. If he works eight hours a week, he

can also get a grant of �250 a month and free rail travel anywhere

in the country. That is out of gratitude, he's chosen to have

Dutch lessons. Dutch universities aren't part of the British UCAS

system yet but they are working on it and applying doesn't sound

complicated. You contact us through the website. If A-levels are

sufficient, you are admitted. higher education might still be an

unusual one for a British person, but maybe not for long. I would

recommend it. Surprised more people haven't come here. Joan Bakewell is

still with us. Norman Tebbit did say "get on your bike" but he

didn't mean sending some of our brightest people to the Netherlands.

What do you make of it? I think it is a wonderful idea. The more

students across Europe that go to each other's universities the more

we will understand each other. I think it will be wonderful. Getting

on your bike will be perfect for Amsterdam. Won't it be one-way

traffic? If they can get an education for free, or very

subsidised, we are charging �9,000 a year, who is going to come here?

Well, there are lots of people now among our student body who want to

go to universities who might well find a better niche abroad. I think

that would be to spread the culture. I mean, we have too many students

really than our universities can take. I think that would be a

terrific way of spreading the load and bringing other students here

who might be specialists in particular subjects which we are

particularly good. Specialists or rich? Doesn't the matter of tuition

fees going up - we have had that argument many times. Does it mean

we are the bastions for rich people's education? That is so. So

we do have a two tier system. So let the market decide. Let the

students go abroad and see that they get a good education for less

and if we believe in a market economy, it should come right.

the market decide? If the market decides and there are numerous

courses which will no longer be offered in this country because the

market says you don't earn that much when you do them, and you are

not... You don't have to pay back your student loan of course. You

only pay back your student loan when you have made a good living

out of having the degree. You are comfortable with the fact there is

not an even playing field in Europe? I'm - that is an

abstraction. I like the idea of a lot of young people going to each

other's country to study. Before any of you start tweeting,

we are aware that European students do not pay fees at Scottish

universities. Before you start tweeting further, we are aware that

English students do pay fees at Scottish universities. When it

comes to plates, you keep spinning them. A circus cliche? Yes, but

this story is about circuses. A cross-party group of MPs will

attempt to change the law banning the use of wild animals in circuses

in England. Yes, only England. It is Westminster. It's a practice

they believe to be cruel. The Government prefers a licensing

regime and as Adam Fleming discovered, circuses that use lions,

tigers and elephants, they vigorously defend the practice.

Recently pitched up in this field in Surrey, the Great British Circus,

its owner is one of the few who still keeps wild animals. General

Motors has gone bust and I am still here. The public want us. They

support us. We really ought to be listening to the people who vote

with their feet. The punters here do seem happy. Mostly. I can see

both sides but as long as everything is by the book, it's

fair. I do like to see animals in the wild. I love the animals.

Martin wouldn't allow our cameras behind-the-scenes but he showed me

where the animals were kept. Back there, there are five tigers,

camels, llamas, even some reindeer. They are all in cages, some of them

with electric fences, but they have all got shade and water and to this

untrained eye they didn't look unhealthy. That won't reassure

concerned MPs and campaigners who say this amounts to mistreatment.

And nowadays protesters are as much a part of circus life as clowns and

candy floss. They point to secret filming like this from earlier this

year, an elephant called Ann from another zoo. The courts are daily

full of pet owners who don't care for their animals properly. Since

1932, there have been seven cases of mistreatment of animals, seven.

Seven too many, but compared with the rest of the animal-keeping

world, it is not a bad record. These horses are domesticated so

don't count as wild animals. The Government's preferred solution to

all this is a new system of licences, but that is not enough

for the backbenchers pushing for a total ban. Welcome to big tent

politics. See what he did there? We are

joined by the Conservative MP Mark Pritchard who wants to see a ban on

the use of non-domestic animals in circuses. There seems to be a

three-line whip out to block your move. Why? That is something for

the Whip's Office. I am rather surprised. 92% of the public want

to see a ban on wild animals in circuses, 64% of MPs said they want

to see a ban. An Early Day Motion has attracted over 200 MPs. It is

in the top ten of Early Day Motions. There is wide support for a ban,

not only in Parliament, but also outside of Parliament. In view of

that level of support, why would your leader want to thwart your

ambition? I have seen some of the rumour mill on the blogs, I'm not

going to comment on conversations I may or may not have had with

officials from Number Ten. A lot of colleagues have telephoned me this

morning and say they are rather perplexed why Number Ten have taken

a personal interest in this. The Government is very busy given we

are at war in two places, we have a public deficit to deal with, and

yet they are applying a three-line whip on the ban, the use of wild

animals in circuses. Have you been told Mark, get into line here?

not going to comment on what conversations I may or may not have

had. Yes, then? I get calls from all sorts of people in different

parts of the party all of the time. That is a question perhaps you need

to put to Number Ten. All I do know is that there's wide support for

this ban. I'm very perplexed why there's been a three-line whip put

on my motion. The Government tabled an amendment to my motion which

wouldn't bring aboutliness Let's talk about the amendment. What does

the amendment suggest? What is the Government's plan? I have had my

run-ins with Mr Speaker as Andrew knows. I have to put on record here

today on live television Mr Speaker has once again proven that he is a

champion for Parliament and a champion for the backbenchers.

Despite the fact 44 Members of Parliament signed the amendment

which would have blocked my motion being voted upon, the speaker has

not selected that amendment. It was a Government amendment Theyskens'

Theory got to 44 MPs. That is -- amendment which they got to 44 MPs

to sign. Forget about the mechanics. I won't ask you again. But in such

an important time in Parliament, what is the argument that is being

put forward by those who seek to thwart you as to why they are

trying to thwart you? I will answer that. I will address the licensing

point. The proposal is a licence of circuses. The problem is it will

give a green light for an import of a new generation of animals so

tigers, elephants, lions, zebras and camels. However well they may

or may not be treated, the fact is they are travelling all the time in

very cramped conditions, both housed and transported in cramped

conditions. I want to see an end to that. You don't know why they are

thwarting you? The Government is saying, the statement on 19th May,

the parliamentary secretary came along and told the House, the fact

is the Government is saying that European Services Directive is

being breached, it is not. Thank you very much. A quick comment from

you? Circuses have moved on. The most successful circuses rely on

the brilliant ability of trapeze artists and that is what we want to

see. Thank you. Beware of the revenge of the clowns! The Guess

The Year - 1961, the year of the Bay of Pigs. You have to pick a