06/02/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. The boss of Network

Rail is on track to get a bonus worth a third of a million pounds.

The Transport Secretary says she will vote against it, but can't

block T Labour says she can, but who is right? The MoD's billions of

pounds in the red. The Government wants to start buying arms off the

peg instead of made to measure, but what does that mean for the

hundreds of thousands employed in our arms industry?

Is too much subsidy being paid to erect wind wur tines. -- wind

turbines? And what can the Cabinet learn from

reading Dickens? We celebrate the buy centenary of the great author's

birth. With us for the first-half of the

programme today is the outgoing of the president of the girl schools

association, Dr Helen Wright. We will begin with education because

over the weekend the new Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael

Wilshaw, a former headteacher has criticised the standard of

leadership in some schools. He said heads in more than 5,000 schools

are not up to standard and and bear responsibility for high high levels

of poor teaching. Do you agree it is down to leadership and that that

leadership flow frs the headteachers? I think leadership is

very important, indeed. Sir Michael Wilshaw isn't talk being my school

where the leadership is outstanding! Nor is he talking

about the leadership in schools, many of the hundreds and thousands

of schools of heads who I meet often... Because he is talking

about the heads of state schools? Heads in state schools as well.

Many are doing exceptional jobs in challenging and difficult

circumstances, underfunded and a lot of bureaucracy. He is right

that leadership in schools is terribly important and that's

leadership at all levels because that is what the of sed figures are

with -- Ofsted figures are about and we need to pull together.

Leaders do need to have ambition for their young people in their

schools. Do you think the headteachers are key? That's all

the rhetoric that we have been getting over the last few years. If

you have a fantastic headteacher, the rest will fall into place?

Partly, that's true. Heads are important, but leadership

throughout the school is important as well. Heads are responsible for

appointing people and without a good governing body and without

people attracted to the schools and without a supportive framework in

the country. Are headteachers in the independent

sector better and more successful than in the State sector? They have

more freedom and that matters. Freedom and and autonomy are

important. If you have children in front of you, you know you

understand their background, their needs, you are able to invest in

them more and that matters significantly.

Does that mean an independent school should play a bigger role in

taking over or helping in the State sector? Well, it is very

interesting that question. I went into education to be able to make a

difference to the country and and to beyond. I can't thing of a

single independent school which doesn't have strong partnerships...

But that's not the same as taking them over. They could do more

successful independent schools to help the State sector and schools

that are struggling? I am not sure they could do a lot more.

From a leadership point of view? There is a lot of pressure from the

Government for Independent schools to sponsor academies. The most

successful partnerships are those built up over time. It is important

to build that up. We have seen before Government funded

initiatives like State school, independent school partnerships.

Would you like to sponsor an academy? We have looked at that. I

am going to be moving on from my school in a while so it is the

wrong time to do that. People need to be at the right stage within

their school and you need to have a need in the area. You don't want to

be turning up at a nearby school saying, "We are here to sponsor

you." How is that going to help anybody.

I presume there would be a two-way street. People feel there is a

reluctance when the opportunity is there, I don't think that would be

a good thing? I don't think there is a reluctance. So many

independent schools are very, very involved in their local communities

and quite right too. Would a headteacher from an

independent school to be able to have the right schools to run or

help run a large inner city mixed comprehensive? I don't see why not.

Leadership is leadership. And children are children. And And as

long as we have a concerted effort to move together, it will work.

For something different. It is time for our daily quiz and the question

for today is what ale has been banned from a House of Commons bar?

It is on the grounds that it is At the end of the show, we will

give you the answer. It is bonus season, but all is not well for

some of Britain's senior managers. Last week Stephen Hester bowed to

pressure and and waived his bonus of nearly �1 million in shares.

Tomorrow, Labour are holding a debate on bank bonuses and are

hoping the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will back a tax

on the payouts. Network rail made changes to the bonus scheme so

bosses would only get 60% of their solicitorry rather than -- salary

rather than 100. This would see their Chief Executive receiving

�340,000. It faces prosecutions over two

fatal accidents. Can ministers stop this privately owned company which

does receive direct and indirect Government subsidy from awarding

bonuses. On the Sunday Politics, the Transport Secretary they

couldn't. I won't be able to stop it going

through. The Government structure means I can go and vote against t

but the problem we have got is that won't necessarily change the result.

The other problem we've got is that the members can vote against the

bonus package, but their vote is only advisory.

Well, Labour say Justine Greening is wrong and the Government can

block the payouts. Joining us now is rail expert,

Christian Wolmar. Who is right? Can the Government block the payout?

is more complicated. Network Rail is a very strange beastie. It is

basically, it doesn't have any owners. It is controlled by 100 so-

called members of which Justine Greening is just one so if Justine

Greening does manage to get everybody to vote against it, all

the members, then possibly they would block it, but on the other

hand the membership is only advisory so it is very complicated.

We have just had copy come down about what the Government is going

to do. It is going to announce proposals to improve Geoff earnance

at Network Rail. Will that improve things? It has been having

discussions for over a year. It was supposed to come out with a paper

about the corporate governors, this was Labour's mistake, when Network

Rail was created back in 2003 I think it was, it should have been

nationalised. It should have just been a Government owned company.

Instead they created this funny company limited by guarantee which

basically is out of control. It has nobody to actually stop it from

doing things. It doesn't have any shareholders and supposedly the

members are supposed to control t but they are a very weak body and

ineffective. It really is a law on to itself.

Except won't it be under political pressure? If the Secretary of State

rocks up on Friday and votes against this package, then surely

that is going to make it difficult for them to go ahead? Now, the

politics is something different. Yes, I suspect that if Justine

Greening turns up to this meeting, although she is one member out of

100, I suspect she will swing a lot of people behind her and also

Network Rail directors are going to look at this and think the last

thing in the world we want to do is make the Government angry which

gives Network Rail around �4 billion a year in subsidy. So

politically, she might manage to have more influence than legally

she has. In terms of putting someone on the

remuneration committee, would that change things? Network Rail put out

a statement saying that wouldn't change things either, the director

wouldn't have a a veto there? would help in terms of influence,

but the key point is that the Government is desperate for Network

Rail debt which is over �20 billion not to come on to its own accounts

and that's why Labour created this strange beast of a company limited

by guarantee so if they tried to influence, if the Government tried

to influence Network Rail too strongly and say determine the

incentive programme then Network Rail would become a Government-

owned company and the �20 billion would add to George Osborne's

problem. They have to influence it behind the scenes without actually

ordering Network Rail to do anything because if they did that,

it would come on to their books and that's not what they want.

Maria Eagle, the Shadow Transport Secretary is here. Influence is the

way to go here. Influence is important. But the articles of

association which I have I have got here are clear. They say clearly

that the Secretary of State has to give prior written consent to any

changes to the incentive arrangements. That means she can

stop this if she wishes to. She can appoint a director to the

remuneration committee and that would give more influence as well.

Let's go back to the original quote. It is any changes to the bonus

scheme or the pay package. At the moment what Network Rail said in

their statement, there are no changes in that. If they were

introducing a new system, then she would be able to veto it? This is

pedantic. They are proposing a change to the annual bonus and and

they are proposing a change to the length of the long-term bonus.

What's the change? They are cutting the bonus to 60% of salary over a

five year period. All their five years salary paid again after five

years. This is a change to the current arrangements and it is

wrong of Justine Greening to say she can't have any influence on

this. She can. Well, she doesn't say she can't

have any influence, by hoping against on Friday, she is hoping to

have influence. She can do more. She has to give prior written

consent for the arrangements to go ahead. It is straightforward. She

needs to use the influence she has, the influence that she has has

there the articles of association. She started out last week, you know,

saying she couldn't do anything. Now, she is saying she can go along

to the meeting and vote, but it won't have any impact, I am

starting to wonder if she wants to have an impact. She can veto the

bonuses and she should. If she could veto, surely, Justine

Greening would. There is no advantage for her not to do that.

If she had the power to do so surely she would use it, it would

be something politically she would gain credit for, the the Department

of Transport are firm saying she can't. If she did order Network

Rail to do and the consequence was they came a company on whose debts

balance sheet that came back to the public finances is that something

you would like to see? She has to give I prior written consent for

the changes. It doesn't pet the debt on the books if she were to do

that. The arrangements are clear in the articles of association. The

question is why doesn't she want to, she wants to talk tough, but not do

anything. She can do something. She will vote against on Friday. If

she decide the bonus payment doesn't go ahead? I will be happy,

but the reality is the Secretary of State has more of an influence than

she is she is letting on and she needs to use.

What about the level? What would you like to see at Network Rail?

Network Rail has been criticised for failing to meet its licence

conditions. Its performance is deteriorating. Passengers are

seeing their fares go up by 11% this year, 13% next year, I don't

think it is appropriate... doesn't have control over the

fares? No, that's the Government. I don't think it is appropriate for

an organisation like Network Rail which has been criticised by its

regulator to take bonus and they should refuse them if they are

offered them, but Justine Greening should take a lead and should stop

this going ahead. Should it be nationalised? Well, we

are having a look at the structure of the rail industry. It is not

just Network Rail, it is the way in way the railways interact and the

way in which the system works. It has a a lot of built in

inefficiency and we will come out with a view of that, but I have

ruled nothing in and I have ruled nothing out.

You said you were in support of a director on the committee. These

are building blocks to ensure politically and technically that

this bonus may not go ahead? don't think that it should go ahead

and if Justine Greening puts a stop to it, I would say well done to her.

We have to ask why is it she is talking tough, but not using the

powers she has got. Do you think now there is a shift

and it is the right right shift as far as people being awarded

bonuses? The Government says it should only be awarded for success,

I think a lot of this discussion is about the size of bonuses, and

whilst we want to be able to take the brightest and best to take

Network Rail out of its difficult situation, we have to accept and it

is right to accept that if people are tasks to do something, they

should perform at be held to account. What lesson otherwise are

we giving how younger generations? Thank you. In a time of austerity,

should we buy the best military equipment or the cheapest? Or

should our priority to beat to protect jobs by pine British? It is

a question the government have been looking at, and they have concluded

that value for the taxpayer for comes first. It could mean more

foreign arms. For years, overspending at the MoD and

disastrous procurement projects, over-budget and years behind

schedule, have dogged ministers. Now the coalition government has

adopted a zero-tolerance approach to the defence industries. In a

white paper on the future of defence spending, ministers have

laid down the law. Peter Luff, the Minister for Defence Support, have

said MoD purchases will be decided through open competition in the

domestic and global market, buying off the shelf where appropriate. We

will look first for products that are proven.

For many, that means buying American, or even French, aircraft

that are already flying, ships and submarines already afloat, and

armoured vehicles already in use in other countries. Latin would be

even without the need to invest in expensive prototypes. More worrying

for those in Britain's arms industry, the white paper states,

the MoD does not consider wider employment, industrial or economic

factors in its value for money assessments. The sector's support

300,000 jobs, many highly skilled, but with a �38 billion black hole

in defence spending, by the most cost-effective materiel has become

not just desirable but a necessity. Last week there was much anguish

amongst MPs that the Indian government had favoured a French

jet over Typhoon, but if we cannot guarantee to buy our own kit in a

future, can we expect other countries to do so? Carole Walker

has got two MPs are concerned about this in Central lobby.

Defence procurement has been a thorny issue for successive

governments with projects inevitably running way over budget

and the way over that time limit, and I'm joined now by Bernard

Jenkin, former Shadow Defence Secretary, and Alison Seabeck, who

speaks on these issues for the Labour Party. Bernard, given the

fact that there is a �38 billion black hole in the defence budget,

surely it makes sense for the government to try to save money by

buying off the shelf. Well, I think this defence white paper has got

much more to do with reforming the whole system of procurement, and

there is a big tussle going on inside the Ministry of Defence

between those who are defending what they have done at justifying

vested interests, and those were trying to reform the system. I do

not think this white paper resolves that complex, but they are

important pointers, particularly the engagement with small and

medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, because that is

where the gene innovations are. If we are going to do it on 2% of GDP

or less, those are the innovations we need. Do you think it is right

for the government to signal a move much closer towards buying off the

shelf when it is feasible? What does that mean? Certainly, you can

buy body armour off the shelf, but you cannot procure those really big

projects off the shelf, the ones that are vital to our nation's

security, and that is where the overspend is and delays happen. I

do not think this white paper really looks at how you overcome

some of those... Then it is quite right, these are inherited problems

that have gone through successive governments. Your government left a

�38 billion black hole! I would take issue with that figure. Nobody

has explained that. Let's actually have a look at how we take this

forward, how we improve the contracting process to tighten us

up. This document does not do it. We want more, and there is, I

understand, another paper coming. The deputy penance Secretary gave

the Defence Select Committee that figure. -- Permanent Secretary.

Before we get bogged down in that, isn't the big danger here that if

the Government looks to try and save a bit of money by buying more

of defence equipment off the shelf, then there is going to be an impact

on jobs and on long-term skills base in the country? Well, what the

skills base depends upon his investment the government makes in

defence R&D, and they are attempting to halt the decline that

we have seen over recent decades. If the government is going to take

a strategic view about maintaining onshore defence industry capability,

their investment in R&D ensures the long-term competitiveness and

competitive advantages of our industry. But yes, you are right.

If you're going to open up the system to competition, you might

finish up by more foreign kit, and indeed that might not be a bad

thing. Except... The main thing is to get the big Brimes out of the

way, the prime contract has. There are very few, they operate in the

manner of a cartel or oligopoly, not in the legal sense, but they

are so big that they dominate the market, and the government has got

to have the in-house skills to bypass those big integrated systems

people. Isn't there a danger, if we look at what happened with the

Indian spying jets from the French instead of choosing the British,

isn't there a need for the British government at least to show some

faith in its own defence industry by buying British when it can?

These companies are largely global. They can go anywhere. You are right

that the British government does need to show exactly where they

want to go in the future in terms of our equipment procurement.

Industry have not got that certainty, and they need it, at

last they have not got it, they are going to think twice about

investing in the UK, and that is not good for futures bills. Very

briefly on that point, Bernard. key thing is for the government to

invest in R&B and engage with SMEs, not just the big prime contractor

has, and that is the way to maintain our defence industry base,

which is, after all, one of our great national asset. That is it

for now from Westminster. How best to educate our children?

The received wisdom is that boys are better educated in co-

educational schools and girls do better in single-sex establishments,

so do you sacrifice the education of girls to improve outcomes for

boys, or is the received wisdom just wrong? I attended an all-girls

school, make your own judgments about that!

This has won a good schools guide awards, 96% Get good GCSEs, a good

place to send your kids if you live in the Twickenham area and if they

are girls. If you're a parent with children of a certain age, he will

be painfully familiar with the sheer and stop trying to get them

into the best school possible. Now, for some people, that might be a

single-sex school, but the problem is finding one. According to the

Department for Education, there are more than 3,300 state secondary

schools in England, but just 165 are all boys, and only 219 are all

girls. Interestingly, of the schools with the best A-level

results in 2011, 17 out of the top 25 were single-sex. There are many

reasons why single-sex schools work, and why we have positive results

here. They do not have the distractions of boys, and they are

able to grow in confidence. It is OK to be good at academic subjects

here, I know it is in many mixed schools as well, but it is OK here,

and that means girls are happy to get better and progress very well.

Which is why schools like this have a lot of fans. The research that we

did a few years ago looking at a value-added scores showed that

girls who were in comprehensive girls-only schools made more

progress between the ages of 11 and 16 and girls who were in

comprehensive co-educational schools. Particularly interesting

was the fact that the girls at the bottom of the range made the

biggest bully, they make the most progress between 11 and 16. --

biggest league. Or is also made a bit more progress when they were in

single-sex schools. -- always. But it was not that noticeable. So what

is not to like about single-sex schools? Some experts point out

that they tend be raised in affluent areas which might skew the

results are a bit. Also, what if you cannot get in? Parents will

choose girls schools for their daughters but co-educational for

their sons. You just cannot square that circle. So you end up with

individual choices adding up to pay social outcome which is not

desirable. But if you do want to go back to the good old days, you

might have to go back to the good old days of council knows best.

Arguably, if he wants to maintain single-sex schools, he would have

to go back to a system where LEAs had a degree of planning and

oversight are able to say, we have so many girls places, and we have

to match that for boys. Whether that would be popular with parents

of politicians, I do not know. could probably hazard a guess,

though. Parents like single-sex schools, but they also like Joyce.

Giving them both could be the tricky bit.

Her guest of the day, Helen Wright, is president of the Girls' School

Association. Clearly, we know where you stand when it comes to single-

sex education, you are a fan. Absolutely, yes. Nothing has

changed your mind on that. Absolutely not. I have a son as

well as two daughters, and I was single-sex education for him. In

the teenage years, it is most effective, because that is the time

when you are coming to terms with your agenda, and I think you need a

strong space at that point to be able to do that. It is interesting

from one of the contributors to says the research has shown that it

is advantageous for girls, either in the state or independent sector,

but not necessarily for boys. Why do you think that is? Do not think

there is evidence to say that girls have a calming effect even in those

teenage years when they may be a distraction? All of this research

is slightly dubious, actually. It is very hard to say that there is

one single direction that a school should take. What you need to do is

go back to basics and look at schools themselves and go into a

boys' school, of which they are not very many, going two goals schools,

and see the effect that being in that environment is having. -- go

into girls' schools. There is a difficulty in terms of planning and

what sort of system we have. If you have a state system controlled by

local education authorities, parents want girls in single-sex

schools, you cannot square the circle. You can have a choice,

though, and it would be interesting to find out why parents think that

boys should be in co-educational schools, because I think that we

still have a big hangover in our thinking about the past and what

girls' schools and boys' schools used to be like. We really need to

shed that. We need to say that we need a space for girls to the girls,

particularly in those teenage years, when they are learning who they are.

Even if that choice is unevenly distributed, because if you leave

it open, you may not get the choice you want as parents, the schools

may not be available in your area. The more successful boys' schools

are, the more successful girls' schools are, the more parents will

want to choose them. Looking ahead to the future, should there be a

directive which says, let's look at single-sex education in the state

sector? Absolutely, it is exactly the right way to move forward,

because pounds to not often have that choice. As a result, that

leads to compromises for education. These are wonderful places,

fabulous places to be. Girls can grow up and develop that confidence,

the carriage, and take a much wider range of subjects, free of

stereotypes and prejudices, ditto in boys' schools, and we should be

able to see that, place more emphasis on that in our education

system. Do you think it will happen? It will have I had anything

to do with it! We were let you have the last word on that! Goodbye,

thank you for being our guest. Last week we saw a minister quits

the Cabinet after being charged with perverting the course of

justice and a minor reshuffle. What can we look forward to this week?

In a moment I will be joined by two journalists to look into the

crystal ball. First, a summary of what we know is in the political

diary. On Tuesday, Labour will use their opposition date in an attempt

to keep the spotlight on bankers' bonuses. They want to reintroduce

the bank bonus tax and end bonuses based on what they call one-way bet.

One day later, the Health and Social Care Bill faces the report

stage in the Lords. The government has attempted to pre-empt further

criticism by offering concessions. Peers may press for more changes.

And on Friday, as he will have heard on Sunday politics, transport

secretary Justine Greening says she will be attending the Network Rail

AGM to vote against plans to reward their chief executive with a

�340,000 bonus. Well, to talk about those things and what will be a

busy political week, and joined by Andy McSmith on the Independent and

Melissa Kite, contributing editor to the Spectator. Let's picked up

on the Health and Social Care Bill, how dangerous is this what David

Cameron? It is not looking good. It has been a terrible muddle. I do

not know why they got into this in the first place. Were they ambushed

by Andrew Lansley? I think so, he is an old trouper who will have

been senior to Cameron years ago in Tory Central Office, and he

probably said, I have got this great idea that shaking up the

health service, he will have told him that Tony Blair regretted not

doing it straight away, but it is a real dog's breakfast, and hardly

anybody in the NHS is in favour of it. Even politically, some Tory MPs

and said it is a difficult one to sell to constituents, and even Mark

Field MP yesterday said that Andrew Lansley failed to articulate what

the Bill is trying to achieve. Not And then you see in the Daily

Mirror that 6,000 nurse jobs to go. People are thinking why are they

spending �1.8 billion reorganising the place and sacking nurses.

can't stop it now, can you? No, you can't. I think David Cameron must

be thinking how on earth did I get into this? It is one of those

reforms that it is a kind of messy compromise. They really wanted to

do something radical, a lot of Tories want to do something radical

with the Health Service. That is political - a political hot pay

Tayto, they don't dare what they want which is more competition.

They got together this Bill which is a compromise anyway. It is messy

anyway way. They have got loads of amendments

to be made. If it does go, it will be such a

sort of, you know, a hotchpotch that it won't have any effect at

all. So ss, you know -- it is, you know, in a sense a waste of

political energy. What will it mean in term of David

Cameron's claim that the NHS is safe in our hands, you know, he did

a lot of work to convince people that as far as the Conservative

Party was concerned he was a great supporter and is a great supporter

of the NHS? Yes, well it doesn't help, does it? A suspicion is

getting around that perhaps the purpose of this is to get more

competition into the NHS. That's where a lot of the

controversy is. Yes. People fear the idea that the Health Service is

going to be given over to profit motive and end up having to pay for

it. It is an old nightmare. As I say, I find it surprising they ever

walked into this. They must be wishing they left it alone.

Do you think on Friday when Justine Greening votes against this

remuneration that Network Rail will say, "All right, we won't go

ahead"? She is hoping it will shame them into.

A bit like the Stephen Hester bonus when Labour said they were going to

have a vote on it in the House of Commons.

It is talking tough, but can anything be done? In a sense does

David Cameron want to play a double game here? Does he want to talk

tough on bonuses and have Justine Greening go to the meeting and make

it sound like they are cross about it and they don't want it to happen

because they know they can't do anything about it unless he

voluntarily offers not to take it which would be a good compromise.

Does David Cameron really want a massive war on bonuses? Is the

political mileage in this? Is there a danger that in the end, you find

yourself on the wrong side of the argument, the City are getting

worried and suspicious about how much Government interference there

is going to be, but the public mood is very much with this? I can't see

what there is in it for the Government if Justine Greening

doesn't get her way. People think they are able to stop this and

there is an argument going on across the way in the Commons about

whether they can or they they can't and as of the time I left the

building, Labour seemed to be winning the argument. It looks as

if they could stop it if they wanted.

Maybe they were hoping that it would look like they tried. "sorry,

we did try, but we couldn't do anything.". The fact is they are

not on the right side of the argument. Public opinion is very

anti-certain types of bonuses. It is not everybody's bonuses, but

certain people including those whose organisations are heavily

State funded. That's the problem. There we must

leave it. Thank you very much. There has been violence this

morning in the Syrian city of Homs. 25 people have been reported killed

and many more injured as Government troops shelled the town. This This

follows the violence when opposition groups said over 200

civilians were killed in the city. On Saturday China and Russia

blocked a UN resolution calling for President Assad to step down. We

are joined by our correspondent, Jim Muir, because they blocked the

resolution, does that mean there is an end to the diplomatic channels

here in terms of what they can do in terms of putting pressure on

Syria? Well, it hasn't ground to a complete halt. People are looking

for ways at exerting pressure. The Arab League are meeting on Saturday.

William Hague has said that there will be -- they will be working

with the Arab League to push forward the Arab League's peace

plan which was at the centre of that resolution. The Russian

Foreign Minister Foreign Minister was unrepentant about that veto. He

will be seeing President Assad and he is taking with him the

equivalent the head of the CIA, they want to push the political

process forward to get quicker reforms going and and to sponsor

some kind of dialogue. Both those things are not realistic because

the Russians don't have clout with the Syrian opposition. They are a

dirty word with the opposition at the moment along with the Chinese

because of that veto and they are not really in a position now to

talk about dialogue or some kind of talks between the two sides. So it

is very hard at this stage to see a way forward diplomatically. The

West will be trying to squeeze more with sanctions, economic sanctions

by the EU, trying to get the Arabs also to tighten up their sanctions

against the regime. Perhaps working with the Arab League to take

diplomatic moves like throwing Syrian ambassadors out, all of

which ups the pressure, but it is not a breakthrough and it won't

break the ear of President Assad who rejected that peace plan plan

because it requires him to step aside.

On the ground, the violence is intensifying. Is there any hope of

a pause in the fighting in order to allow humanitarian aid to get

through? Well, not at the moment. I mean

they both seem to be going hell for leather. After the veto at the UN

both sides said that the only solution was to crack ahead on the

ground. The Government basically through its Government -- through

its Government newspaper talked about stability. President Assad is

believed to have told visiting allies from Lebanon that the cost

of not doing anything was a lot higher than the cost of being

decisive. So he seems to have decided that that it is time to

wipe out these pockets of resistance where the Free Syrian

Army to try and stifle those pockets of defiance in places like

Hops. The free -- Homs, the Free Syrian Army said the only way to

get rid of this regime was by force and they intended to step up their

activities. There has been a rash of attacks and clashes, not just

Homs, but also a town in the west and a number of places. Both sides

seem to be bent on clashing at the moment.

Jim Muir. Thank you very much. I am joined by four MPs. The

Conservative Conor Burns, and a representative from Plaid Cymru.

Duncan Hames, it has been ruled out military action. Is that something

you agree with? We have been clear of the importance of working

through that through the United Nations under this Government and

that's difficult at the moment and I think a coalition Government was

was doing the right thing in supporting the Arab League backed

resolution, but we must look to other measures we can use to keep

the pressure up on the Syrian regime.

But in the meantime the violence is intensifying, we are going to have

a statement this afternoon from William Hague, the Foreign

Secretary, I mean it just seems there isn't much you can do unless

there is some action taken. Well, you could say that, but I am

disappointed about the resolution failing. The UN process is becoming

a busted flush. I do hope that there are as we speak speak dip

plaitic efforts being -- diplomatic efforts being made, but as you say,

people are being killed, but I have to make make one point and I don't

agree with Russia's veto, but they made it on the basis that regime

change is unlawful at international law. Time was when we respected

international law actually and it is unlawful, but I would hope that

the way forward in this particular way is to support African countries

in the main, support their efforts, support the Moroccan resolution and

see if diplomatic avenues can bear fruit.

Do you think there can be a solution in Syria? We need to go

back to the point about the United Nations. If the international

community is to make sure it has legitimacy, decisions like the one

taken with China and Russia, not supporting it puts the

international community in a very difficult position and what needs

to happen is continued pressure on Russia and China to take a stand...

Are you going to to change their minds? It has been a year. The

first attempt was made by Britain and France and other countries to

have a resolution failed. The sanctions are an important step,

but around 7,000 people have been killed and Russia and China need to

step up and take responsibility and the international community needs

to keep the pressure. The second thing is around avoiding unilateral

action by countries within the Arab League, if the UN doesn't take

concerted action together, there is a greater risk of not having a

common voice voice and regional instability, but military action

should be a last resort and in this situation with Syria strategically

in a position where it can destabilise the region... Isn't

that the difficulty? What we are talk being is a bigger problem and

that is Iran, of course? Seen very much as Syria's sponsor? The whole

situation is depressing and what I find worrying about it, not just in

the case of Syria, but going forward. Here we have China, one of

the emerging great powers and on a simple question like this, where

you have a president murdering his own people under licence, China is

not prepared to step up. There must be an Arab solution to this. We are

talking about our friendships and ties of history with that part of

the world, it is time for the Arab League to step up to this problem.

Because the consequences of Syria going into civil war with Israel

next to them, with the problem of Iran, attempt to go acquire a

nuclear weapon is too frightening to contemplate.

We will hear the statement at 3.30pm

Ed Ed Davey has barely got his feet under his recycled desk. 100 MPs

are written to David Cameron demand that the Government cut subsidies

for for for windfarms. Mr Davey has been on a visit with Nick Clegg

this morning where the two Lib Dems have been making clear, they are

behind green energy. Now, Conor Burns, did you sign that

letter? I didn't. I am a Parliamentary private secretary so

I can't. We have a pro proposal for a windfarm in Bournemouth and it is

ten miles off the coast. Over 100 meters high, red flashing light. We

are concerned about it and because it is over ten miles away from

shore, local authorities, members of Parliament, had no impact on it

at all. I think what the letter is making clear, we are not against

the idea of renewables of course in the insecure world we live in, we

must have a diversity of energy supply. I feel we are in the grip

of a fashionable consensus here and the opportunity of a new Secretary

of State to have a look at it again is one worth taking.

Because you don't think he will be as tough as Chris Huhne? He will be

more pragmatic. You sense there is an opportunity

for you and your colleagues to do a land grab? There is an opportunity.

If you are subsidising something, you think it is the write thing to

do. It is a question of putting them under scrutiny financial and

every other way. Will Ed Davey give in? These

subsidies are important to get costs down so we can benefit from

lower costs. The Government had set out its intentions to look to

reduce these supports and there is a review taking place at the moment

which the Government will be in a position to make a decision on

shortly. Because of the success in expanding this sector, costs are

coming down that nainls the sub -- enables the subsidy to fall, but

gives us a more diverse range of sources of energy for our country

which must be a good thing. But should they be getting a huge

slice of the cake? Can we really afford to give that level of

subsidy to something that only provided 7% of electricity? How big

of the slice of the cake was it? It was �10 on your energy bill that

went towards subsidy for onshore and off shore wind combined. This

is about supporting a small sector starting out, get its costs down,

so it can be a contributor to our energy needs in the future and if

that means we are not stuck on the oil price hook and if if that means

we are not at risk of things going on in the Middle East then that

surely must be a good way to get bills down for energy bill payers

in the future. Does Labour agree that we should be

looking at the level of subsidy? People resent the amount that comes

on their bills that goes because it is not that transparent anyway,

that goes to subsidise green We need innovation, and that is an

important part of the debate. At the beginning of these phases, it

is important to provide support, but they will become more self-

sufficient. These 100 MPs Boro signature signals a broader point

about their attitude towards the green economy. It actually

undermines what David Cameron said before the election. The greenest

government ever. In reality, if you have got 100 MPs who are not

subscribing to these efforts, it shows a lack of commitment to

having a greener economy and, you know, a Green government. I think

it is very much the case that they have taken advantage of Chris

Huhne's resignation, and it is an attempt to undermine Ed Davey

before he has got his feet under the desk. That is not acceptable,

and the Conservatives are basically coming back with a vengeance, the

right of the Conservatives. That is a very predictable accusation. It

is about having a dialogue. That is what it looks like. David Cameron

said it would be the greenest government ever, and you are now

calling on the government to back down. We are calling on the

government to have a think about this. I took a delegation of MPs to

talk to Chris Ruane about a wind farm in Dorset. We talk about

empowering local communities. -- boom-boom. There are quite a lot of

stories about local opinion being overridden by wind farms. They are

10,000 jobs in the sector, and it could be eight times that many. At

the moment, we really need to support industries that are

providing new jobs, and one of the good things announced today was the

intention that more and more of the supply chain for wind power should

be supporting UK jobs and businesses, giving people

livelihoods here in the UK. I can totally agree with that. I saw

German turbines in a British offshore territory in the Falklands.

Ridiculous. We should be getting the manufacture of this into

Britain, we should be innovating and bringing it to market ourselves.

You have always been talking about empowering local communities.

Surely it is wrong that the will of local people, when there is an

inappropriate proposal, can be overridden in the policy planning

framework. I agree with that, and in Wales we have a situation where

if a plant is more than 50 megawatts, it is taken a part of

our hands completely and dealt with at an official level any department

down here. That cannot be right. On the larger point, discussing

renewables, nobody has mentioned the fact that I do not think we are

doing enough with waveband sea power. When you look at the

percentage of energy that New Zealand gathers from the sea,

totally clean, you know, to my way of thinking that is where we should

be doing the research. So the emphasis could be shifted anyway,

but there is also a statistic that says for every job created in the

UK renewable energy sector, 3.7 jobs are lost because of the extra

cost in creating those jobs. What you say to that? I do not recognise

that at all. It was a fairly reputable report which suggested

that it means more jobs are lost elsewhere in order to create the

jobs you have talked about in the renewable energy sector. I have not

seen that report, I do not recognise it. I see new jobs in my

constituency and right across the country because people are being

employed to help improve people's energy efficiency, and the Green

deal is going to do even more on that. On where the subsidies go,

the coalition government has increased subsidies for the

offshore marine renewables, wave and tidal, that we have been

hearing about, because they need that support, because they are

early-stage technologies. Hundreds of jobs in renewables in mid-Wales,

hundreds presently and they are increasing. Nick Clegg, the DPM, on

that visit defending green measures. Acting the future of the British

economy and the world economy has to be a green one. -- I think. It

is the only way we can create jobs for the future in a sustainable way.

You know, I think there is nothing inconsistent about doing the right

thing for the plant at the right thing for jobs and growth today,

and that is what innovations like this, why they are so important,

because they show you can create jobs, create affordable homes and

create affordable homes which are cheaper to heat and the many homes

which people live in right now. Well, Conor Burns, you have got a

battle on your hands, are you going to get anywhere with this?

pragmatism of government will allow a serious conversation on this, and

the other thing to remember, Jo, is that we're all getting e-mails and

letters from people in a very cold spell at the moment, struggling to

pay their heating bills. You can do a lot of this stuff, and you can

pile costs on at the time of great growth. In a time of difficulty,

some of the electorate are struggling, and anything that puts

extra pressure on them, it is probably not the right time to do

it. In view of the subsidy, let's hope they get it right, because in

regard to the solar energy, an absolute start breakfast, defeated

in the courts, a complete mess. They are appealing, I think. Yes,

OK, well, 101 tory MPs wrote to the Prime Minister about wind turbines,

102 have put pen to paper on another issue, this time edging

David Cameron to take back a series of criminal justice powers from

Brussels. The backbenchers do not want to see the European Courts of

Justice being given permanent control over British law and order

when it comes to things like handing over suspects do other EU

states. Duncan Hames, yet again, there are Tory Euro-sceptics who

want to claw back powers, and that was a promise given to them. Are

you worried? I am not worried, but I'm surprised that some of the

targets of this particular letter. The European arrest warrant, which

in some cases is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in others it is a very

valuable crime-fighting tool for the British police. It was first

used in Britain have to arrest a Portuguese man who murdered his

fiancee. Her family are still among my constituents. Just nine months

later, at he was apprehended in Spain, he was convicted in a

Bristol court and given a life sentence and jailed for the murder.

Now, those people that want to see as being tough on Europe are going

to have to take care to make sure that we do not stop being tough on

crime. Do you support this measure being put forward by these MPs?

spoke before Christmas on this matter in a house. The primary duty

that any government, after defending the country, has to its

citizens is the maintenance of law and order and criminal justice, one

of the few things that only the state can do. We are now in a

situation under the European arrest warrant where British citizens can

be extradited to other European countries to face charges that they

would not face at home for the same offence. I think that is wrong. I

think we should be co-operating inter-governmental the across

Europe, we should be co-operating between police forces, but the idea

that our criminal justice system and police authorities should be

subject to external control other than from the UK citizens, elected

and appointed, to me, this is simply wrong. This is not new in

one sense, so why do you think will make any headway with it? Because a

whole raft of new proposals are coming forward. The debate before

Christmas, there was cross-party senses, even from the left of the

Labour Party, saying we need to look again at the European arrest

warrant. Do you agree with that? We have to focus on my operation is

necessary in an era of organised crime that transcends boundaries

and borders, so it is bizarre that Conservative MPs have decided to go

down this route. We need to look at where there is a need for co-

operation, including on the arrest warrant, and more widely around

policing and security issues. And as I say, once again, there is a

hidden agenda here with Conservative MPs flexing their

muscles, telling David Cameron that he needs to take on board their

anti-European angle, and any excuse to pick on the European Union and

think about how points can be stored and how there could be a

wedge driven between the pro Europeans and the anti-Europeans is

being brought home. This is another example of it. It has very little

to do with crime, and if they are serious about tackling crime, there

would be more co-operation, not less. I went to Brussels a few

weeks ago, and one of the problems we have, when we scrutinise

European regulations, it is too late. We should be getting in at

the very beginning. Isn't that the whole point about David Cameron's

promise? It is difficult to repatriate these things. I am

talking about looking for. There are issues with the European

restaurant, I would accept that, but hitherto it has not been

misused, it seems to me. -- European arrest warrant. But with

regard to current applications, when we get a Westminster, it is

too late, the horse has bought it. We should be getting in at the

beginning so that if changes are necessary, they can be argued for

in good time. OK, thank you. The country may be experiencing hard

times, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has great expectations for

2012. Anybody got the clues yet? Not only is it the next year, it is

the 200th anniversary of Charles Dickens. Jeremy Hunt wants to get

his Cabinet colleagues in the mood to celebrate one of our greatest

writers, so when they meet at Downing Street tomorrow, he will be

handling at a carefully chosen not all two, but will it go down well

or cause a dickens of a row? We have got some of the books here.

Nick Clegg might not like his gift, he is going to get a copy of Oliver

Twist, either because Mr Clegg is responsible for social

responsibility or, as I suspect, many are saying that their hero is

constantly asking for more! Chancellor George Osborne gets e-

book, perhaps reflecting rivalries with Paris over the future of the

City of London. -- A Tale Of Two Cities. Justine Greening will get

Dombey And Son, which features the male line which was considered high

speed. Which one would you have? am glad that Nick Clegg is going to

get the opportunity to be as informal, sir, all that was, I

would happily take that from him. - - asking for more. Is this a wise

strategy by Jeremy Hunt? Dickens was very prescient, talking about

corruption within Parliament, corruption within the authorities,

but also he was saying that we are being ruled by Old Etonians.

the class for point in there! The first book by Dickens that I read

was Nicholas Nicol be, and there has been a row about when you

should start reading them. To have any expert as vice? As early as

possible. -- do you have any expert advice? They are so many different

ways of familiarising yourself with the stories, and I have very fond

memories of reading Oliver Twist and watching the different versions,

so I think as early as possible. They will not have any time to read

these books, is this part of their ministerial brief? Or to be done in

their free time crust Mark I hope they do, I think it is a wonderful

initiative, but mine would be David Copperfield. My favourite character

is in that, there is a lesson for modern politics... There seems to

be a lesson for modern politics in all of them! If expenditure exceeds

income, and happiness, misery. He embodied the idea of the last

government that something might turn up. A David Cameron is being

given hard times on Great Expectations, both ends of the

scale. When he refers to David Copperfield, I was met to read

during the summer break at school, and I forgot to start it until the

week before. I never got it going! Just time before we go to find out

the answer to our quiz. What Taylor has been banned from the House of

Commons bar on the ground that it is expensive to women? Was it

dangle very, Cornish Knocker, Top Totty or Kilt Lifter? Top Totty!

You knew that quickly enough, well done! That is all for today. We

know where you spend your time, not reading Charles Dickens's novels!