27/02/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Put down that Oscar,

Meryl, and pay attention please, to the real cut and thrust of

Westminster politics. There is more trouble for the Government in the

House of Lords over plans to reform the NHS. And now the Royal College

of Surgeons is reconsidering its support for too. How many local

authorities will defy the Government and raise council tax?

And what - if any - punishment might await those which do? George

Osborne comes out fighting against those who want him to spend money

promoting growth in next month's budget. Britain's run out of money,

he says! And, if your political career goes off the rails, how

should you best go about organising All that in the next hour. And

braving the slings and arrows of political fortune, with us this

Monday is the former minister for deregulation, Neil Hamilton. Best

known for the whole Cash for Honours saga, he is now back in

politics with the UK Independence Party. So, if you have any thoughts

or comments on anything we are discussing, then you can tweet your

comments. But first, the German parliament will vote today on

whether to approve the second bail- out for Greece, which was agreed

last week by eurozone finance ministers. There are some critics

of the deal in Chancellor Merkel's own ruling coalition. However, she

is expected to get the votes she needs with opposition support. The

German parliament will decide whether to approve the 130 billion

euro rescue package agreed last week. But one of Chancellor

Merkel's own ministers has suggested today that Greece's

chances of regenerating and becoming competitive are definitely

greater outside the eurozone than in. And here, George Osborne has

warned that we have run out of money and that any tax cuts would

have to be paid for. There has been speculation on whether the

Chancellor will help low earners by raising the personal allowance for

income tax. And it looks unlikely that motorists will get any extra

help, the Chancellor says he has already taken action to cancel

planned fuel duty increases. Let's get more on this with Stephen Evans,

who is in Berlin. The Germans may not like it. It looks as though

they will vote through the second bail out for Greece. Chancellor

Merkel will gets the vote so she needs from the opposition parties.

They met on Friday and said they would do the deed. The doubters but

in her own party will be outnumbered, no matter how many of

them there are. You cannot deny that there is rising scepticism

about the whole thing. The Finance Minister wrote to Members of

Parliament over the weekend, basically saying there is no

guarantee that this will work. That is a change of stance. If you look

at this newspaper, it is saying pay-day for Greece, billions full

Greece. Halt! It has thrown its weight behind the sceptics. If you

are a politician, you will take note. If they're going to go ahead

with this, it sounds as though the Germans will need to swallow it.

Them is a hint there could be more money down the line for Greece. --

there is a hint. The Finance Minister is saying, do not think

this is the end was that the tone in the past has always been, we do

this deal and that we seek light at the end of the time off. The 10

this time is, of the alternatives are worse. We want you to go for it.

It is not the end of the matter and we do not guarantee success. The

bigger question beyond this vote is whether the Germans agreed to

increase the size of the bail out fund. There was the G20 over the

weekend basically saying the Europeans have to put more into

their own bail out fund. The implications are that the IMF, for

example, where Britain could have the say, with then think about

putting in more money themselves but the Europeans with need to do

their bit first. That is the next battle and we wait to hear what is

happening with that. With us now is Neil Hamilton and Chris Lesley. I

must correct what I said before, cash or on a Skype it was Cash for

Questions. This boat may well go through. -- for on us. I think it

could have serious consequences with default. The current option is

not that much better in terms of austerity being piled upon Greece

and the tensions it is stoking up. Ultimately we need to make sure

that markets have confidence in the eurozone and eurozone countries

need to dip into their own pockets and put up a firewall of sufficient

size - a bail out fund that will do the job. The Labour Party has been

saying this for nine months. The Chancellor is beginning to change

his mind to say the eurozone countries had to dip into their

pockets first before coming to the rest of the world. Before we come

to that, at the Hampton, do you think now would be better for

Greece to default and and nine months' time - as Macro -- Neil

Hamilton, do you think now would be better able greased to default than

in nine months' time? Definitely. It is an enormous bankruptcy

machine. The Greek people are being sacrificed on the vanity of

politicians. Unemployment is 20%. The Greek economy contracted by 6%

last year. This is worse than anything that has happened in this

country during the Great Depression. People are not really worried about

what happens to the Greeks. It is about protecting eurozone itself.

Thinking this is better for them and having as a disorderly default.

They should care about social consequences. The difficulty is you

could be out of the frying pan and into the fire. There is a debate

about whether they should have joined the euro in the first place.

We are where we are. They cannot grow in their economy inside the

eurozone. I totally agree with Neil Hamilton on mess. How outrageous we

have not had the leadership from those heads of government across

the eurozone, and also from the British government as well! Pretty

much everyone has accepted inside and outside of Greece that with

that level of austerity and that level of pain there can never be

growth. There is knackery danger that if you have a strategy for

solving the problem that you will end up with the problem Goering on

and on. There are steps that can be taken to stimulate growth. We have

a series of right-wing governments across the eurozone who take the

view of George Osborne that there is nothing governments can do to

stimulate growth. You cannot stimulate growth by recycling the

tax payers money. That is completely nonsensical. Greece

cannot get out of its current problems by -- without having a

lower value currency. The biggest export earners are tourism and

shipbuilders. There is one potential problem, if it did

default, there would be the worry of contagion. The firewall has not

been set up perversely enough and we have not agreed a figure. --

robustly. Without that, Portuguese and Italian debt could be driven.

We are not bailing out the Greeks, we are bailing out the French and

German banks. The Greek people are having to pay the interest on those

bombs for the foreseeable future, this time to the European tax payer.

-- bonds. My view is that a lot of pressure should have been put on,

particularly Germany, but it was not. We needed diplomatic pressure

to have been stronger. Is that enough for the European mechanism?

This is what they are discussing. I think there are some queries about

this. I do not think the Chancellor is out of the words. They could be

going back and back again. They need the bail out for and -- a bail

out fund that is more robust. If they think the IMF will come in and

do the bailing out process, the Americans are right in saying, let

those wealthy nations dip into their pockets first before coming

to other countries, like the UK, to do the bailing out job. That is the

message we have to send. European Central Bank is not the

lender of last resort. The German tax payer was not prepared to be

put on the hook for the consequences of that decision. They

are printing money from nowhere. It is a fast quantitative easing

programme. The money you are talking about is not money that is

being lent to the European Central Bank, they are pressing a computer

key and creating it. There will be huge hyperinflation and that is

what wants to be avoided. There is huge pressure from Britain. Should

we contribute more? I think it is time for the eurozone countries to

dig into their pockets first. The Prime Minister called Bass

breathtakingly irresponsible for taking that view. The Chancellor

has come round to active. Not a penny more from the British tax

payer to pour into this bottomless pit! What you pour in today, it

will not do what it said it would and they will be back for more in a

few months' time. You may not have noticed that it is freezing in most

parts of England. No, not the weather. We are talking about the

council tax. This is the second year that the Government has given

local authorities money so that they won't put up bills. But is the

freeze all that it seems? We sent Adam out during the recent bout of

wintry weather to investigate. At times, this winter has been pretty

chilly in West Sussex. It is not just the landscape that has been

frozen, so has the council tax. is funded by central government who

are offering the Government to grant -- local government a grant.

It will vary across the country. For families in West Sussex in an

average property, they will save about �34 a year, 65p a week. John

makes a living from freezing things. He is an ice sculptor. Like a lot

of locals, he is glad that, at last, there is one Bill that is not

increasing. The cost of heating, electric, stuff like that, is going

up. It will give us a break, albeit for a short period. No one can

complain about that. Not all local authorities are as welcoming of the

idea as West Sussex. I am now in Surrey, where they are not taking

the Government's money and council tax bills are going up. The council

here is fighting the freeze with a planned tax rise of 2.9%. The

county's Conservative leader is doing it because the Government

handout only lasts for one year. you take the council tax grant this

year off the Government, you still will be down 2.5% next it in your

budget. That is the question everyone needs to address. If you

had gone for a council tax freeze the ship, how much would you have

had to have put it up next year? -- this year. Probably about 5%.

local of authorities had decided what they are doing. At least 20 up

going the way of Surrey. A few, mainly Labour-controlled and

Brighton, are opting for increases of 3.5%. So far, none have gone

beyond that. Otherwise there would have to hold a local referendum. A

new law designed by the Government which will have an effect on town

halls as they decide to freeze or not. With me now is the Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles. He is the proud owner of a Daily Politics mug.

How many councils in England are planning to increase council tax?

tiny number. Do you know how many? We will not know until 12th March.

So far we have over 300 who are going to freeze it. There are eight

he will reduce it. That is pretty high for this time of year. I would

anticipate, in terms of local authorities, it could be near 90%.

All the councils have not officially declared. That is a

significant number. Your report said brighten, Taunton Deane has

not and Scarborough has not. They are in the figures. It is a mix

politically. These are councils of all shades who could resist. About

three or four are Conservative but the majority are Labour. It is

strange. If I was a resident of Surrey, I would say a, why have you

turn down just short of �40 million in government grants? Instead of

that you're going to take �16.5 million away from me. That seems a

logical. The point that was made in the thumb, the council's who want

to increase, they do not know if they are going to provide the same

level of funding, they will have to increase by 6%. That is the

economics of the madhouse. If you are going to give councils the

equivalent of a 2.5% rise and you were to Dublin next year, it would

be around 5%. We're changing the way that local government is

financed. We're changing the process of the business rate next

year. It is theoretically possible that Surrey maybe in a worse

position because they have raised the council tax this year. That is

why most councils have taken the sensible course been taking money

from the Government in recognition that things are a little bit

difficult for families, let's show some slop -- solidarity. What about

localism? Local areas should decide what to do. You are dictating to

local governments telling them what I am not forcing them to freeze

their council tax! You have been pretty heavy about it! I am robust!

Surrey will be putting up their council tax and a number of Labour

authorities. I am taking no sanctions against them. It is

interesting. They have stood up for localism but they haven't taken the

ultimate test, to increase it a bit more and take it to the electorate.

If they have a good case, take it to the electorate. A politician

should never be frightened of the public and. Eric has been admirably

robust about this and has been protecting the interests of local

taxpayers. But he cannot because a proportion of councils will rebel.

And they are idiots for doing so. The idea that businesses of these

sizes cannot make 3% economies in 12 months is ridiculous. Non-jobs

are still being advertised for by its various councils, a senior

travel awareness officer for Enfield Council to tell people to

walk more often and use their bicycle, and Camden is looking for

someone �30,000 a year with a load of management gobbledegook that

means nothing. You can always find examples of that but are you saying

that Chelmsford, Devon and Surrey are basically practising the

economics of the madhouse? Yes! Follow Brentwood's example.

Hammersmith and Fulham. Cut the council tax. And which services

will be harm? No services! This ridiculous idea that merely because

you buy your services better, because you control your staff

better, because you concentrate on protecting frontline services, that

somehow we will get better services... Look at Hammersmith and

Fulham. It has cut its council tax successfully for five years and

services have got better. In my own counsel in Wiltshire, they are

cutting the wheelie bin collections rather than... -- in my council!

Eric Pickles failed to get councils to do what he wanted about that!

Totally wrong! I am not forcing them. They do not have to have the

weekly collection but I am providing serious sums of money

off... Why should they get more of an incentive to do what you would

like? Because I give them an advantage so smaller councils can

go out together and improved procurement. There a lot of things

two separate rubbish. We will give them a grant for that. Rather than

putting a yoghurt pot into the wrong being, they will be

encouraged and not given a fine -- into the wrong rubbish bin. We have

had that discussion many time before. Let's go back to the idea

of reassurance under the new scheme that will come in for local

government. Can you offer reassurance that councils will get

money next year so they can change their mind? Councils will be able

to retain the growth in their business rate so if they bring in

new business... But that is difficult in the current times.

have started this process whereby they get sums of money for every

house that they built in their area. We are moving away from where you

demonstrate how bad your council is to get more money to one in which

the power is in your hands. The idea that if we don't take the

money, we have to put it up, that is the view of an officer, not a

politician. So there will be money next year to compensate? To be

clear, next year we are moving on to a new system of local government

and the power is in their hands, not my hands. You said there will

be no sanction for councils. So no penalty in future for councils who

do not toe the line? Other than if you bump into me in Westminster!

was going to say that only people with the legal powers to send you

to prison if you do not pay for the services that they decide on and

the level they are provided at could possibly behave in this way.

If they are in the competitive world of business, they would have

to cut the Cote according to their cloth. There is not this bottomless

pit of money that the government can shovel towards local

authorities. They have to get into the real world. What about high

council tax bands for expensive homes, every -- Eric? It would need

a full revaluation. It would probably cost somewhere in the

region of �200 million to do that. We have seen this in action in

Wales. A lot of houses with John two or three bands and I am very

doubtful that a whether we would recoup this money -- a lot of

houses would jump. So you are not in favour of it? I am not sure that

I am. I am being understated. It would be a very expensive process.

My council tax is �3,000 already and I don't want it to go up any

more! Why does the owner of a �2 million house in Kensington pay the

same as someone in a one-bedroom flat were �350,000? If you want to

raise serious money, you can raise it with a revaluation and we have a

rule that out. There are legitimate concerns about foreign nationals

purchasing their property through a company rather than themselves and

I hope the Chancellor may well be looking at that. You keep saying

that. We know it is a matter for the Chancellor. Just in case they

put it back to the Treasury! Thank you.

Our guest of the day of course is Neil Hamilton. Once a minister in

John Major's government, who lost his seat in 1997 after weeks of

headlines about cash for questions. But he is refusing to believe that

his political life is over and he is back in public life as an

elected member of UKIP's National Executive Committee. So how do you

make a successful political comeback? David Thompson

investigates. All political careers end in

failure or so the saying goes. Some sail more spectacularly than others.

I shall be registering the biscuits... Neil Hamilton was

forced to resign from John Major's government over claims he had taken

cash for asking questions in Parliament. That led to him losing

his seat at an election and later been declared bankrupt. Since then,

he has had a lively alternative career outside politics, but now he

is back on the political comeback trail as the senior member of the

UK Independence Party. It is fair to say that Neil Hamilton is not

dreaming of Number Ten but he is making a political comeback.

Question is, how do you pull it How you have got to have a brass

neck and treat people as though the circumstances of your resignation

were unimportant and you cannot imagine why anybody should suppose

that you cannot come back because if you start going around penitent,

you will not get anywhere. Matthew's and voice brought to

mind the Prince of comebacks. Peter Mandelson was once, twice, three

times Cabinet minister. comeback kid! Quite enough! And a

more recent departee would like a Cabinet comeback as well. You come

into politics to make a difference. There are different ways of doing

that. Is that a Yes? But given the grief ministers get,

why would you come back? I was one of the biggest profile ministers,

to a backbencher. Was I devastated? No. I was profoundly relieved. For

a while. For a while. And then you start to want to come back.

Fortunately, Anne Widdecombe saw the error of her ways and

reinvented herself as the Queen of everything television and that

seems to be the way many politicians come back in to the

public eye. The media that most politicians go to of the serious

stuff. The? No. I went to Strictly Come Dancing. The joy every time

and is you can say yes or No As You fancy, not because you think it is

a good stepping stone for your career. She is right. This Week

attracts politicians but are there shows that should not be touched

with the proverbial? There on media opportunities which are so cheap

that you have to be paid a great deal to endure them. For instance,

if you go on to "I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here!", look at

George Galloway for instance. That is probably curtains to your being

taken entirely seriously so make sure they pay you a lot. Let's face

it, you would have to appear in something pretty bad because if you

can come back from this, then anything is possible.

David Thomson reporting. And we are joined now by the former Labour MP

for Reading, Martin Salter, who decided to quit frontline politics

before the last election. And has so far dedicated his life after

parliament to fish. Being happy! And? Monster fish! Is that your

It is a kingfish. I spent 15 happy months in Australia and New Zealand

I wanted to be somewhere where people were not coming up to me in

the street and giving me problems. I wanted to catch big fish that I

had dreamt about when I was a little kid, and I did. So you

achieve your ambition. Would anything tempt you back into

politics? I have waited to come on this programme, I have listened to

the interviews, watched the Strictly Come Dancing nonsense. I

want to come back even less now than I ever did. We had this

discussion several years ago. I have no intention of going around

the House of Commons in my 60s. I stood down when I was 57. I am not

criticising people but it is not for me. What is it that has tempted

you back about the game? It is not a game. There of things that really

matter in life. I have left the House of Commons to devote more

time to politics! Why would you want to go there again? There are

things I believe in very strongly. We started the programme talking

about things in Greece. The human tragedy that is tied up in that is

visited in so many other areas. I want to do something about it. I

have spent the last 14 years doing a lot of other things! We didn't

have a big enough programme for all of them! It is not mainstream!

is not edifying! Why can't we have fun in our 60s? We can do a variety

of different things. I am enjoying being on the wing in UKIP. I am

simply advancing the cause is that I believe in. I have no personal

ambitions in politics what's the weather. I don't see myself walking

through the door of Number Ten -- whatsoever. Do you think the fact

you have trodden the media stage is because that was the only option

left to you? It was. I was too hot to handle, even for the many people

who didn't believe the allegations that were made about me. Being

controversial means you are effectively unemployable and I have

been self-employed happily for 14 years. I have lost a huge amount of

money and I was bankrupt for three years because of the legal expenses

of trying to clear my name. I have spent those years recovering the

family fortune as it were! I am fortunate enough to have a more

financially successful partner than most! Do you think part of the

problem was that if you, if you fall from grace becomes so

notorious, if you hold on too long, it takes that much longer to come

back? And love people like David Of course. Things were said about

me which caused my political career to be destroyed, which I denied

because they were untrue. That is different from people like Jonathan

Aitken and Jeffrey Archer. Perhaps it was not the most enjoyable

pursuit between 1997 or 2008, being a Tory MP. When and lost my seat, I

did not stop believing in all the things I've previously believed in,

I just took up the reins from where I left off. It is difficult to come

back if there has been a very long and dominating campaign that has

filled headlines or filled an election. With some MPs, it would

be the same post expensive -- expenses. It is a little bit tragic

for a lot of people. There are people who have only to find

themselves by having those two initials after their names. There

is an interesting world. I wanted to see if I could make it in civvy

street. Walking through Reading as not a councillor or not a member of

parliament was very interesting. I now work for a fantastic

organisation called the Angling Trust. We look after Britain's

number one participant sport. I have transferred skills and

experiences I have learned from politics to another field. The age

at which she retired from politics meant you could pursue something

which you enjoyed. -- you retire. Some MPs lost their seats in 1997,

and 2010. They have to get real jobs and have real careers. I went

to a gathering of former MPs which was interesting. Those who had

planned their soft landing, by and large, they have done all right.

They could use their skills, experiences and contacts, and

enjoyed their lives. We all miss an incredibly exciting part of our

lives. Those people who are suddenly turfed out of office, it

is a shock to the system. It is difficult for people to apply for

jobs when you look like a beaten individual. That is the experience

of some MPs. There is an expectation that it used to be a

Korea by life. If you were an MP, you could rest on your laurels.

should it be a career for life? In 1980s, the average number of

letters that an MP got is about 20 a week. Now it is in the hundreds.

The pressures are huge. I do not think it is a job that people can

do, particularly in marginal situations, for 20 years. Martin is

wholly unsuited for a life in politics because he is a genuine

human being. That is debatable. What the House of Commons lacks is

people with a hinterland. That is crucial. The professional

politician who goes from university to researcher or trade union

boffin... Of like David Cameron. I agree with you. It is a major flaw

in the system. Politics should be seen, not as a part-time career,

but you should be able to see you live in compartments. I have had a

full life in many respects. Not only his third the media stuff and

nonsense, I do serious things as well. I am a barrister by

profession and to use my legal expertise. You are a better dancer

than me. I do not know whether we will seek either of you on Strictly

Come Dancing. We could dance together! Before we go down that

road, I was say goodbye to both of you. No doubt you'll have seen some

red carpet glamour on the news this morning as everyone who was anyone

was in Hollywood for the Oscars, well in a moment we too will be

able to add a touch of showbiz sparkle to Westminster with one of

Fleet Street's most glamorous parings. First, let's take a look

at what's coming up this week. Today is a busy day with the Health

Bill being debated in the Lords. Liberal Democrat peers will be

trying to push through several amendments, most notably on the

role of competition within the NHS. Speaking of the Lords, Nick Clegg

is appearing in front of a joint committee to discuss Lords reform.

The Deputy Prime Minister is keen to push ahead with plans to

introduce a mainly elected Upper House, despite opposition amongst a

number of peers. And, on Wednesday, the Employment Minister, Chris

Grayling, is due to meet companies involved in the Government's

controversial workfare scheme. Mr Grayling will be hoping to reassure

businesses that, despite a raft of bad headlines last week, the work

experience project is still worthwhile. And finally, after a

two week break, the Leveson Inquiry is back. The hearings will look at

the relationship between the press and the police. So joining me from

the red carpet now is Tom Newton Dunn from The Sun and Suzanne Moore,

who writes for the Guardian and the Mail on Sunday. Tom, how much of a

strain on coalition relations at the top is the ongoing saga of the

NHS Bill and now House of Lords reform? This morning we have

already had significant movement from the Government on NHS reform.

We will hear from Nick Clegg later on. In lobby this morning, which we

have every morning, it was asked directly what the position of the

Government may be on the amendments to the House Bill in the House of

Lords. They said we'd do not think there should be any significant

changes. If all they do is clarify legislation, we will not feel any

need to overturn that. That is totally different from where the

Government was last week. They said they would fight all the way.

sounds as if they are suffering the line. There has been some

discussion about whether this Bill could lead to privatisation. The

Government has said the service will remain free at the point of

use. Is that your fear? It has been circulated quite widely a list of

both MPs and Lords who have interests in private health

companies. It is a real career. When you have professional bodies

very against much of this legislation, yes, people are very

upset about it. The NHS is something the Tories said they were

not going to privatise and they were not going to change all the

top-down management. This is what they are doing. In terms of

privatisation, what you understand by that? Supporters of the Bill

would argue that competition exists to some extent already within the

NHS. It is still going to be free. What is the privatisation that

people are talking about? It is a simple issuing of contracts which

have already been drawn up with private health care companies. The

links are already well known, and MPs. If you are going to make any

of this work, you need to have all the professionals on side. At the

moment they do not. If GPs are saying they do not want to manage

the funds and consultants are saying, we do not want to do this,

it is hard to bring in another level of management to make them do

it. That is part of what they're doing and that is part of what they

said they would not do. Chris Grayling is meeting companies who

are taking part in the scheme. A couple of companies have decided to

pull out or are reconsidering their position. How much trouble is this

in? For me, it is quite extraordinary. It should not be a

story at all. Two things happened last week, the Socialist Worker

Party led protest. Let's be clear who is behind all this. The

problems of a man has done as well. As Westminster and the media bubble

has a tendency to do, it turns it into an avalanche. Stewart rose

yesterday said, these sort of companies who are buckling in the

face of an absolute minority protest, need to show some backbone.

Anyone who might support what is effectively and has proved to be a

very effective brake getting young people back into work needs to back

this. -- effective way of getting young people. David Cameron needs

to stand up and defend his own policy. The group's Against this

have been accused of being supporters of Trotsky and reds

under the beds. That is ridiculous. A lot of people do not want to see

a compulsory element of kids working for nothing. The companies

have backed down. They have seen the incredibly bad PR. Most people

would support the idea of the unemployed doing something that was

based on community led projects. They do not support the idea that

some huge firms, like Tesco, or pound land or whatever, can make a

profit of the back of free Labour. The idea that stacking shelves is

valid work experience, I would like to see some politician stack

shelves and say that is going to lead to a fantastic career. It is

typical of a government who has never really worked. They need work

experience. That is interesting! Now, forgive me if you think I've

said this before, but the big political news story of the day is

likely to be the fate of the Government's proposed reforms to

the NHS in the House of Lords. The English Constitution is a wonderful

thing which, from time to time, involves legislation bouncing back

and forth between the two Houses of Parliament. The technical term is

ping-pong. In our series of the A to Z of Parliament, Quentin Letts

B is full parliamentary bills. Where better to talk about

parliamentary legislation than in a fencing school. Parliamentary

legislation is about fancy footwork, as you can see from the

professionals. A Bill is a proposal for legislation. It will become law

if it passes through Parliament. It has to be introduced to I their

House by a government minister. Before it becomes law it has to

pass through various stages. At each stage, the Government must

beat En garde. There are five stages a bill must pass. First

reading, second reading, Committee, report and third reading.

Throughout this process, the Bill may be changed by new clauses or

anemones put down by the opposition. All the time the Braille - as that

of the Bill is being jacked and stamped by opposition MPs. The

Government may accept some changes and not others. A bill must gain

the approval of both Houses of Parliament, the Commons and the

Lords. That can lead to to-ing and fro-ing, called parliamentary ping-

pong. If the two Houses cannot agree, the Commons can use the

Parliament Act. It does not happen very often. It finally becomes law

when it receives Royal Assent. It means Her Majesty thinks it is all

right. Back to the sharp end of things. Where were we? Is this

I didn't fancy Quentin Letts's chances!

Quentin Letts at the Landsdowne Club in Mayfair with Olympic

hopeful Corinna Lawrence and her coach, Vladimir Meshkoff. In a

moment I'll be talking to three members of their Lordships House.

But first Norman Smith is in Central Lobby now. Norman, we heard

about this meeting about the Royal College of Surgeons? We seem to be

seen growing number of health professionals getting wobbly about

the proposal because the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal

College of obstetricians and Royal College of Physicians are to hold a

meeting. They do not hold these extraordinary general meetings to

swap the time of day, presumably they have concerns about what the

government is doing to the health service. The absolute linchpin to

winning the arguments over health reform is getting health

professionals on board and what is significant about these three

latest colleges is that they were all invited to the Downing Street

summit last week, which was meant to be for those who will

constructively engaged and willing to co-operate. Now it seems even

they are getting cold feet about these reforms. Thank you.

And joining me now, Labour's Lord Winston, Liberal Democrat, Baroness

Jolly and the Conservative, Lord Forsyth. Or Robert, Judith and

Michael for the next 20 minutes or so. Michael, less support or

certainly what was already fragile support from health professionals

is even more under threat. Can the bill continue? Yes. One of the

things about the bill is that it went through the House of Commons

pretty well and scrutinised and what has been going on in the Lords

isn't detailed discussion -- non- scrutinised. Many amendments. Of

course issues arise. But the fundamental issues of the bill, to

give patients more choice and to give more power to the

professionals as opposed to the bureaucrats, are things which

everyone supports. But surely the backing of health professionals is

critical to the success? No, the backing of patients is critical and

that is what the bill aims to achieve. So as far as Michael

Forsyth is concerned, the patients count more, you on making

unnecessary and amendments -- you are making unnecessary amendments.

We have amendments probably down to no more than a dozen clauses, there

are over 360 clauses. You have already caused it. We played some

part in it but it took our Conservative partners to work with

us and work together and also at that stage work with a lot of the

Royal Colleges on improving this bill. Some of the amendments are

amendments that the government would be very happy to accept.

Which ones? Detailed points... but on competition? You probably

have not followed this in the House of Lords. Judith and Freddie have

done sterling work and I have listened to this. It is a very

complicated bill but what we are trying to achieve is very simple.

More power to the patience. Lord Winston, it is still able to

achieve what it set out to achieve, which is more patient choice, which

already existed to some extent anyway, and the support of health

professionals is a red herring. agree with one thing, I think it

will go well. I think the record will be astonishing because this is

a thoroughly bad bill in almost every respect and it is something

which the Prime Minister at the hustings and Nick Clegg both argued

that it was something they would not do to the health service, and

they have done it. They have effectively gone against an

election pledge. I think it is shocking the Liberal Democrats on

their own admission have only put down 10 amendments on the bill they

are deeply worried about. Let's come down to basics. The real

problem is that what the patient wants is a doctor who has time to

listen to them and to examine them and to address their concerns. That

is very healing. What is increasingly happening is the

separation of the patient from that healing process. This bill, by

fragmenting the health service, will make it much worse.

government has said it is about giving power to doctors to make the

best choices for the patient? will make them more able to choose

bureaucratically, yes, but if you do for the health service to more

and more GPs and commissioning groups, you end up with less time

to do what is important -- if you default. That is, practise medicine.

This is why the colleges are worried. They are worried because

they are increasingly concerned, all my colleagues will tell you,

there will be more and more separation from the patient who

needs the care. If you cannot persuade doctors and health

professionals, you will not be able to persuade the Patients. His many

GPs are worried about this and talking about fears of

privatisation, you will not persuade the public -- if many GPs.

The best way to persuade them is by demonstrating success and it is

entirely natural that people are fearful of change but this bill

reduces bureaucracy by 4.5 million, it gives more power two GPs and

nurses and it enables the patients to have more say. The key thing is

the relationship with the doctor but if we have doctors spending

more time with patients, we need to have more resources available and

less spent on bureaucracy. Lib Dem Lords are not trying to scupper

this? Or absolutely not. purpose of the Lords is to

scrutinise legislation. There was several areas that we felt were

lacking. I think 10 is probably too few. We do not have the resources

of the Labour Party. We have looked at specific areas where we have

concern and we worked really hard with the government, engaging them

at every stage. Competition is where there seems to be a lot of

uncertainty. Lib Dems are worried about the competition element?

There are areas of this, yes. There is evidence that competition can

improve performance. It does exist anywhere in the NHS so what are you

worried about? What we don't want to see is the NHS being overtaken

by the private sector. And you think this bill will do that?

inevitable. Can I just come back quickly on that? Is bill builds on

the 2006 bill, which laid the groundwork for competition and

private sector involvement, so what the Liberal Democrats are trying to

do is use his bill to plug the gap that was left in the 2006

legislation -- this bill. Labour lay the groundwork so what are you

worried about? Labour left the National Health Service in a good

state because if you look at the independent American think-tanks,

it shows that the British health service is over twice as cheaper

than the American system, a third cheaper than the German system, and

a quarter of cheaper than the French. The outcomes are better

than many countries including France, Italy, Germany and Spain

and our care of old people has been good and therefore one has to ask,

why do you meet at this stage, when the country is in such turmoil, and

through expensive reshuffle of the health service which is as Major

and as demoralising as this -- why do you need? Do you think it will

lead to privatisation was mad yes. Unfortunately I think that is

already happening. This will make it easier and much worse. Once you

have that, you do not have joined up care. I had a friend the other

day he spent six hours in casualty to a broken nose. She said, my real

problem is my sinuses. He said, that is a different department.

With privatisation, that will get worse and worse. Thank you. I am

afraid I have to leave it there. A little later today, the Deputy

Prime Minister Nick Clegg will appear before a joint committee of

both Houses of Parliament talking about Lords reform. There is much

talk that there could be a bill to change the composition of the Upper

House in the next Queen's Speech. If it happens, it will undoubtedly

soak up days of parliamentary time and be a long and bloody battle.

And we saw a little glimpse of just how long and bloody on yesterday's

Sunday Politics. This was the Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott taking on

the Conservative MP, Philip Davis. Our coalition agreements as we were

established a committee to bring proposals for a major elected

second chamber on the basis of proportional representation and as

you are not very good on the coalition agreement, let me give

you this and you can read it and remember it, and if you go back on

the deal for that I can assure you, you will not find Lib Dems in

parliament at all keen to vote for redistribution. Redistribution of

the boundaries. Frankly... You have made you point. I voted against

that bill as well so it wouldn't bother me! I was not elected on a

coalition agreement, I was elected by the people before any coalition

agreement. I did not sign up to that. Do you back up Lord

Oakeshott's threat? Islamic is not backing of that sort of reform, you

can forget it over the boundary review -- if there is not that

backing? I back his call to reform the House of Lords, yes. Why?

than a coalition agreement. In each of the three Party's manifesto is,

there was this pledge. But who cares whether there is a wholly

elected House of Lords? A lot of politicians care. The one might

argue... But this health bill has shown up the importance of the

House of Lords. As an expert chamber. A political chamber could

not do to the Health Bill what is actually happening to the Health

Bill. I have only been in the chamber 14 months and there are

some experts but also, there are a lot of people who when you enter

the House of Lords, you come in as an expert but only if you keep on

practising, your expertise goes, so you have wisdom but not necessarily

expertise. There on some experts in the House of Lords, and on

difficult subjects, I go and listen to a debate occasionally. The key

point is that most people in the House of Lords do not want anything.

They are not controlled by the whips. They are free to say what

they want. At the end of the day, the government will decide what

happens. The House of Commons is pre-eminent. The problem with an

elected House of Lords is not that it will change the House of Lords,

which it will to its detriment, but it will destroy the House of

Commons as the pre-eminent house and if I am elected, I am not going

to give way on issues and if I am elected for 15 years on

proportional representation, I will argue I have a stronger mandate

than people in the House of Commons. If you are elected, you have a

political career! You are a politician so people know where you

come from but because it is really long term, it is only... 15 years?

It is really long. It is only one term. You cannot keep coming back.

But you do not need to worry, as they do in the House of Commons, of

keeping on the site of the whips. But I will spend my time trying to

get people on the side of their... I tell you something. I have been

in the House of Lords quite a long time like Michael. I don't suppose

that Nick Clegg has ever once sat through a debate in the House of

Lords to see how it works. One of the reasons Nick Clegg will sink

without trace is because of that lack of experience and his

willingness to opine about various things that he does not have

experience on and I think his attack on the House of Lords is

actually a savage attack on our constitution at a time when reform

is needed in the House of Commons. We should get away from PMQs, we

should get away from pools in the bar... Let's not bring that up.

arguments in the bath. It is highly relevant. Why is it so important to

Nick Clegg? Will it cause a rift in the coalition? I don't think it

will cause a rift. There are bumpy times in the coalition and both of

us find issues uncomfortable but we went into this arrangement in 2010

and deals were made, conversations were had as part of the agreement.

So the Conservatives should keep to it? I would love them to keep to it.

The idea that we would reform our constitution so fundamentally in

return for votes on an issue about the redistribution of seats, that

is appalling. That is a bill that went to Parliament, has been agreed,

and the notion that there is a squalid backroom deal to destroy

the Upper House and change the nature of the House of Commons, I

don't think any respectable member of any political party would sign

up to that and I was amazed to hear Matthew suggesting it. Squalid

deal? I am not aware of any deal within the Liberal Democrats to try

to scotch anything, as Matthews suggests. We could go on but I have