15/03/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. There is more

pressure on Syria today, 200 aid and Human Rights Groups have called

on rish and China to support attempts by the United Nations to

end the violence in the country. The move marks one year since the

first protests against President Assad's regime Has the line been

crossed on police reform? An independent review calls for

performance related pay. Koonsultaition on gay marriage

begins today with the Government planning to introduce legislation

before the next general election. We will get reaction. And that is

one for the family album. Cameron and Obama are enjoying their photo

opportunities, but do they make any difference? All that coming up in

the next hour. With us the Green Party's Caroline Lucas. Welcome

back to the Daily Politics ch first this morning let us start with

Syria. Out of the headlines these days. Today's guardian has

published secret e-mails received and sent by the Syrian President,

and his British-born wife Asma. The cash of -- cache of e-mails were

intercepted by a rebel group in Syria and leaked to the Guardian.

In one of the E mailts between the couple, President Assad to his wife,

mocks his own promised political reforms as the "Rubbish laws". His

wife received an e-mail from, this is interesting, Mayassa al-Thani,

she is the daughter of the Emir of Qatar, that is the Government

behind Al-Jazeera, and she offered them it seems the chance to leave

Syria, saying "I am sure you have many places to turn to, including

Doha," which is the capital of Qatar. Asma shows an obsession with

internet shopping including expensive shoes, and even a fondue

set. Every Dick Tay tr's wife should have one! And they all have

plenty of shoes, if I remember from the Philippines. The Guardian

reports that the e-mails show that President Assad has been advised by

Iran during the crisis. Again, no suprise there. Syria's closest ally

is Iran. With me now Michael levy who was Tony Blair's Middle East

envoy. Good to see you back. They are fascinating to see these kind

of e-mails. Anybody's e-mails but particularly those from a dictator

and his wife. But nothing in, I mean, they spend lots of money and

gifts, they are in cahoots with Iran, nothing suprising really.

what I would call a smoking gun there. It is stuff we would have

expected. They live in their secluded castle, they are not in

touch with the real world, and it is really more of the same of what

one would have an tispailted and expect. Did you learn anything at

all, any significance on the Emir of Qatar's daughter almost saying

you can come here if things get rough. Not lail. They say one thing

in public, in privately these people are friends and have known

each other for years. You see, this current President, who was never

meant to be President, it was meant to be his older brother, he was

killed in a car crash, some people think in mysterious circumstances,

he has a younger brother who people think is the real hard line one, he

is head of the Republican Guard or whatever it is called in Syria, the

British Foreign Office gave this guy the benefit of the doubt. They

thought because he went to medical college, he had a lovely wife, he

is not an evil dig dictator like his father. The father as you say

was an evil dictator, I met him many times. I thought I had really

done a deal with him, between Syria, and Israel, the father went to that

meeting in Geneva with President Clinton, meeting got messed up. I

will never forget the words, now is the time to talk to the Israelis

without preconditions, the Americans couldn't believe it it.

The Secretary of State went there, the talks tarted. It looks like

there was an opportunity. But it didn't happen. The son came into

power. Young man, as you say educated here, was there a

opportunity for him to change what was going on in Syria? But again,

the imprint of the father, the imprint of the regime was just so

deep, and the tentacles with so clasping of the regime, that really

nothing happened. Was it worthwhile? -- courting him,

worthwhile seeing if he were for real? Yes I believe it was. I

believe we are now in a situation where the scenarios are all pretty

bad, but trying to work with him, what Kofi Annan is doing, trying to

deal with the Russians, and to get them, if not on side, to understand

their perspective, what is the alternative? To send our boys in,

to send a force in, probably without a UN Resolution. That is

not going to happen? Of course not. Another Afghanistan. Another Iraq,

this is diplomacy and getting your hands dirty diplomacy, that is what

this is about. In retrospect from what we know about the nature of

the regime in Damascus, if the young Assad had turned out to be

the westernised liberal reformer we were hoping he was, they would have

deposed him. Andrew, I remember going shopping with this guy.

younger Assad? The younger Assad. The old one never left Damascus. I

didn't look what he was buying, but we are in the so-called VIP lounge

in Serena airport. He was on the same plane as me. I had been there

officially with my guys from the Foreign Office. And we spent time.

We went round for about an hour together, and you know, you, as you

say the guy spoke perfect English, you would have thought a complete

gentleman, and then his father dies, he is now the dictator in Syria,

and behaving the way he is. You really, there are such different

sides to these people, they are one person when they are here, in

England being educated, marrying a girl from Ealing, father, a really,

very world respected medical man, and then they go back to where they

were brought up, surrounded by the people there, their father, their

regime, put into power. They are totally split personalities. It is

almost a Jekyll and Hyde situation. Beware the girl from Ealing, that

is the message in this foreign policy. I am sure her family

wouldn't want you to say that. don't think it is enough coverage,

we tend to see this as a battle between the rebel, the insurgent,

the people trying to break free from dictatorship and their

disparate group, they are united, suffering terrible casualties, and

this regime. His mate, the big friend, the person giving him every

possible help is Iran. He is their guy. He is their route to his

southern Lebanon and down into Hamas, this is, Iran cannot afford

to lose this regime. Correct. You are absolutely right. But Iran will

play the game the way they want it. If Hezbollah and Hamas move out of

Damascus, and move somewhere else. Like Lebanon. You bet they will

back them no matter where they will be. At the end of the day Iran will

take care of what Iran believes is going to be right for Iran. All of

these countries, ultimately play the game that way. OK. Caroline,

you, have you had a chance the glance at the e-mails. I had a

quick look. I saw the hand made furniture from Chelsea. You know,

as Lord Levy says it dedemonstrates because someone has a nice British

accent it doesn't mean they can't be evil. What comes over is that

contrast on the day when, you know, weapons are raining down on Homs,

he is sending a thing on his iPad with music from you know, a western

country singer from the US. Just, the parallel, the contrast of these

things happening at the same time is shocking. On one night Hitler

had a up meal. Interest stuff and I am sure more will come out in the

days ahead that will tell us more about this. Michael thank you for

joining us. Thank you very much. something a little more trivial. It

is time for the daily quiz. It seems at some point all Prime

Ministers let slip what they like to listen to their iPod. The

question for today is what does David Cameron say he plays when he

Caroline will give us the correct answer at the end of the show.

Lucky Caroline. Lucky lucky Caroline. Now, all police officers

should be made to take an annual fitness test. I must say that did

make me smile this morning, with a pay cut for those who fail. I hope

the BBC doesn't catch on with this! It is one of the recommendations

from Tom Winsor, he is the man the Home Secretary asked to look into

police pay. He has produced the second part of his report this

morning, but will the Government take on the police in this way? Jo?

There is a big battle, but Tom Winsor says there are unfairnesss,

he has recommended an end to policing as a job for life. Saying

that Chief Constables should be able to make redundancies, he also

wants to introduce a system of performance related pay. Controv ly

he suggests pay cuts for those who fail fitness tests. Critics are

worried it will lead to more arrests, cash for collars. The

first part of the report published last year recommended a cut in

overtime pay designed to save about �150 million a year. Overall the

police budget is being cut by 20% over four years in England and

Wales. It is estimated there will be a reduction over over 16,000

police officers by 2015, compared to the number in 2010. Speaking

earlier today, let us listen to a bit of what Tom Winsor had to say.

Polices is becoming more complex. It is not the blue collar job of 30

years ago or longer, it is a complex environment, and it

requires the most intellectually able people who have the other

qualities to be police officers, which are just as important.

Courage, judgment, self control, the ability to assess situation and

deal with people. Are ven shall qualities. But raising the entrance

requirements will increase the average quality of police officers

in the future, to join the able people who are in the service today.

That was Tom Winsor who carried out the report. Joining me is Simon

Reed from the Police Federation. Can we get a genre action as to

whether you welcome any of the proposals? These aren't reform,

this is another cut to the police budget, Mr Winsor took �300 million

in his fis report. He has grabbed nearly �2 billion on this occasion,

it has been predictable what he said, most of it has been said

before, and failed. We have looked at things like direct entry before

and it has been rejected. So, he has had a difficult time. A task to

cut the pay, he has cut the pay but it is not innovative, and it is

pretty blunt, and we are going back 30 years to where we won't be able

to recruit police or keep police. So that is what you say, so you

will resist the proposals. A few of them, let's us look at the raising

minimum standards, is that something you couldn't support.

average age of an officer is 27678 40pergs have degrees and they come

with maturity and values that we are looking for. That is who the

modern recruit to the police service is. They are good people.

Now, making the minimum recruitment for three A-levels is irrel vaant.

We are getting mature people, nearly half of whom have degrees,

what is wrong with that. What about the annual fitness test? Some

people might say I would have thought that would have been scheme,

with a reduction for thoz who fail. Shouldn't they be fit enough to do

the job? Most are fit enough to do the job. There is fitness testing

for firearms officers but the emphasis has and should be on

health. It shouldn't just be about how fast you can run. We should be

saying we want you to be healthy, the problem is, very few welfare

departments now are left in the police service, so the

infrastructure for what Mr Winsor is suggesting, doesn't currently

exist either. Right. I mean, you know, there are a lot of

recommendations and none of which you seem to be embracing,

increasing the pension age to 60, what do you say to that? Do you

want to see 60-year-old police officers? He is talking about

making them fit. There will be some 60-year-old officers who are fit.

But policing is a strenuous job. Can we expect people of that age to

be on the streets chasing 18-year- old offenders. I am joined by Keith

Vaz, Labour MP and by Mark Reckless, Conservative member of that

You have criticised the length of time needed to produce his report.

Was it worth the wait? It is worth the wait in the sense it provides

us with information that will help us with the new landscape of

policing. I admire what the Government has done in terms of

wanting to radically changed the landscape of policing, it does need

change. The problem with this report is it has taken 18 months to

come out. We had Mr Winsor before our committee on his first report

on Tuesday. It is helpful but it is only part of the solution. There

are bits I like, there are bits I think will create problems.

idea of a fitter police force? long as they don't start

introducing fitness tests for MPs I don't have a problem! Have caught

it is important that police officers are fit. If you look

around the Palace of Westminster, there are people who are right for

the job. Things like performance- related pay, Andrew, does it mean

they have to rest a certain number of people during a day or a week?

If they don't, they get their pay docked or they get more pay? I was

hoping you would answer that! I ask the questions! What does it do?

That is what the public want. The day I first met the police officer,

they knocked on the door of my house and asked to see my father

and they informed my mother he had been killed in an accident and they

spent a huge amount of time with her. I was 14 years old. That time

is not going to be able to be spent. The public don't want officers on

the end of the phone. I can't answer your questions, you can't

answer your questions. Let's ask Mark. There is very little in the

way of performance bonuses we have seen in this new scheme. There

might be one element of �600 you get if you have particular skills.

We have seen the special priority payments have been done away with

and that has saved money for the police. Is that a good thing?

think so. As a member of a police authority, I initially supported

these but the more I saw of these, I thought it was divisive. Do you

think these reforms go far enough? I am very impressed with what I

have read so far of this very substantial and considered report.

It really is going to give us... You think the Government should

push ahead with this? Put it into effect? The principles of this are

very good. They will also help the police start recruiting again. If

you allow the police to bring in new officers, what that can mean

his most forces have hundreds if not thousands of people wanting to

join the police. They can bring in new people with some of the money

for that money saved. Something jumped out at me from the report.

They wanted a scheme allowing new recruits directly to enter the

police service at inspector rank. Is that the beginning of trying to

create an officer class? We need to look carefully at these proposals

and put them in the context of what the Government is doing. We all

want to see professional officers. This is a profession, one of the

most important and respected professions in the country. Of

course we have to look at these issues. It has not had an offer

could -- officer class like the army. Is it right? The manager of

the local Tesco has been successful a lot of product, but I'm against

him coming into the police force as Inspector. We need to study these

proposals carefully. Look at our profession as MPs. We have people

coming in from every single walk of life. There's nothing wrong with

that. You are nearly all professional politicians? Police 4

x lawyer's... My case rests! need to be careful who these people

are. We need to look at the requirements. Do you want to see...

It's been a criticism and people are either for it or against it.

Some people's critique of the police have said it's never had a

proper officer class the way the army or the military has. That

might be the wrong analogy. strikes the right balance. It

doesn't go all the way to a separate officer class, but it

allows for accelerated promotion. He inspectorate will be open to

existing police officers as well as people from outside. You have that

at superintendent level. Crucially, we will open the police up at Chief

Constable level to people from Australia, the US, other people who

have experience, to bring in new ideas. I don't think there will be

a lot of new people, but the possibility of it has to be good.

Let me give you this... Politicians on the left and the right often say

the police needs more reform. Its real critics call it, along with

the prison services officers, the last unreformed public service. If

you listen to the Police Federation, they say we have seen a minimum 20%

cut to the police budget, a loss of 16,000 officers over the next four

years, 300 million removed from police pay, increased pension

contributions, a two-year public sector pay freeze, a cap of 1%

increase in years three and four. Let me encapsulate that. Enough is

enough. I'm in favour of reform, but what you have to do is carry

the police with you. What we have got is this stand-off which they

feel everything has been done which undermines them. What the Home

Secretary and Nick Herbert have to do is make sure they are part of

the solution. Bring them with the Government on these reforms. There

will be opposition. There is opposition! I do hope ministers

will push most of this through because I think it is the right

thing for the police force. What you have said in terms of those

reductions, those savings, that means that many more people can

stay on as police officers, we can recruit more officers. We also have

to look at the police staff and get them working together with the

police without these artificial divisions we've had in the past.

What are your thoughts, Caroline? The list of the cuts you just read

out is instructive because that is the backdrop for this and it is not

surprising that the police feel very under pressure and battered at

the moment and therefore somewhat suspicious of some of the

recommendations in the latest report. My concern around some of

the work around direct entry is the Government says it wants the police

to be held in the same esteem as doctors and lawyers, so do why, but

in doctors and lawyers you would not have someone coming in at

direct entry level and do some operations on you. One would hope

not! It is a very strange way of trying to achieve the end they want.

We will leave it there. Thank you. Gay marriage is back on the agenda

today with the Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, launching a

consultation this morning. The Government say they want to

legislate to allow what they call "equal marriage," but although

Conservative MPs have been told they're be allowed a free vote,

there is anger amongst some Tory backbenchers, not to mention many

in the church. Speaking this morning, Lynne Featherstone said:

It was very clear that there was a big inequality, the great

unhappiness with that particular barrier. Civil marriages, the

marriages offered by the state, were only available to opposite sex

couples. We have a law that doesn't discriminate. We believe that

people, same-sex people's love and commitment is exactly the same as

people from the opposite sex. As the Government, we feel we are duty

bound to offer the same facilities, if you like, to people regardless

of their gender. This is about love and wanting to be married.

With me now is the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman, Tom Brake.

And Austin ivory from Catholic voices. Listening to the equalities

minister, what exactly is going to be gained in terms of any legal

advantage? There doesn't seem to be any difference in terms of

increased rights between gay marriage and civil partnerships.

marriage is different. That is why many people choose to get married.

That is why many gay people want to get married. I think there is a

difference. But there won't be any new rights. The rights you get with

the civil partnership will be the same for us if you are having a gay

marriage. They are different, qualitatively, but it is actually

about providing an opportunity for same-sex people to get married. I

really don't see the problem. supposed to be a consultation at

the moment, but it is not a consultation over whether it will

happen, because it is clear the Government has made up its mind, it

is how it will be implemented. is. All three party leaders are

committed to gay marriage. This is about how to do it and not whether

to do it. It was not in any manifesto. Not in the Conservative

or Lib Dem manifestoes. It is the commitment we have decided to make.

It is fair for the fair for a government come forward with

proposals there's demand for. Interestingly, recent polls suggest

over 60% of people think same-sex relationships are just as valid as

heterosexual ones and if that is the case, why can't same-sex people

get married? Her you argue there is a groundswell of opinion in favour

of this happening? The polls suggest people think heterosexual

and same-sex relationships are of equal value. There's been talk that

Tory backbenchers are happy, some of them. I don't have numbers and I

don't think it has been that vocal in terms of people who may be

unhappy about it. Is there going to be a free vote? Will that

categorically happen? 5 not sure whether there's going to be. I

suspect that already we he reports some people will be given some

flexibility in relation to this vote, but it's a clear commitment

from the Government, a very clear expression of support from David

Cameron that this is something the Government wants to do and I hope

Tory and Lib Dem members will want to support this unanimously. It

also has the support of the Labour Party. Would you like to see a free

vote on this issue? The Government have made it clear this is

something we intend daring and from a Lib Dem perspective, it is

something there is a policy commitment to. Their something I'm

baffled about. Lynne Featherstone has been at pains to stress that

this is no obligation on churches or religious organisations to hold

these ceremonies in a religious setting. Is it true that some

religious groups... Liberal Jews, for instance, or Quakers, would

like to hold a gay marriage in the synagogue but they can't? That's

correct. What we are consulting on his about civil marriage and

anything that the Government does would not actually legally allow

religious marriage to take place. That is why on a bit confused as to

why the Catholic Church, for instance, is as concerned as they

appear to be. Why is the Catholic Church so concerned? Because people

are concerned. This isn't just about the church. The polls show

70% of people believe the current definition of marriage should stay

the same. How does that square with the polls... The poll he was

referring to was referring to the quality of relationships and life.

People do respect homosexual love. When people asked about marriage,

most people believe that the have gunged an institution, man passed

woman. They wanted to stay that way. For duvet? That is maybe what

people understand it to be, but why can't that change? People don't

want it to change because they recognise it is a unique

institution with unique benefits. Not only is it an institution that

exists in societies, the building block of civil society. The state

exists to recognise and protect that marriage institution in the

same way the Church St defies it. The proposal here is not just to

allow a group -- the group of people to marry, it is to rearrange

the architecture of marriage. is civil marriage. It doesn't have

anything to do with judges for religions in that sense. You are

not being asked to preside over these ceremonies. There are not two

marriages in this country. There are two ways in to it, the civil

and religious. Parliament decided nearly 200 years ago what the

definition of marriage was. It is right that parliament should take

the decision in relation to equal marriage. This is about providing

it an opportunity for people who love each other to get married. I

can't see the problem. desperate to come in! This issue is

fundamental. It is about equality. That is why it seems odd to be

worrying so much about whether or not it is 70% or 60% in favour. It

is an issue about the qualities. We would not be having debate about

this about whether women should have the vote. If you place the

issue in that context of the qualities it is clear that the

Government is doing the right thing. I'm not sure we need a consultation,

I would like to see them just do it. It was in no manifesto. Suddenly we

have this consultation paper being launched. This has been thrust upon

people. You say it is about equality. There is no legal right

gained by this. Equality and equivalents are not the same thing.

If we were to open pensions to the under 65, that would be to overcome

discrimination but it would also destroy pensions. What shocks me

about this debate is that senior Catholic church leaders have

described the proposals -- proposals as grotesque. I find that

shocking. We're talking about allowing people who love each other

to get married. Why is that grotesque? Had you feel about being

accused of inflaming homophobia? That his inflammatory to say to the

church that they are homophobic when the church is expressing the

majority view of civil society. We want to welcome folks from

Scotland who are watching now. They have been watching First Minister's

Question, gay marriage was also on the agenda there. That is what we

are talking about here in London as well, about the Government's

changes here in Westminster for gay marriage. We hope in a few minutes

to be joined by indeed I have been told he may be there now BBC

Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor. Great to see you. What are

they saying about gay marriage in the land of the brave? We have a

picture of Brian. But clearly, they have nothing to say at all. Where

do we go from here? We have a consultation, this consultation is

about how to implement these rights, and what I think will, the

Government will make very clear, is this is not about religious

marriage, this is about civil marriage. When I got married in a

civil marriage, that was a commitment to my wife, I didn't, we

didn't emback, on something with the intent purpose of having

children, so to suggest marriage is simply about procreation. It is not

true. I didn't suggest that. think we have sound with Brian

Taylor now. Brian. Good to see you. Thank you for joining u we are

talking about gay marriage down here, tell us what the situation,

the debate is in Scotland? I would be interested, because it has been

said although in economic terms Scotland is more radical than

England, in social terms, Scotland is often a more Conservative

country, where are we? It is often thought to be that, if you recall

the debate early on the business of clause 13, really, I think on the

promotion of homosexuality in school, it was a very huge emotive

edebate and the change wend ahead. At this point in Scotland there is

a consultation issued, responses to that closed at the end of last year,

and the Scottish Government say they Alex Salmond was asked about

it, say they are considering the response, they got 50,000 response,

very large indeed. The indication previously had been the Scottish

Government would give the verdict in the spring. I think the spring

in Scotland maybe extended a bit perhaps towards May or June.

Ministers, Alex Salmond has said in the past he is in favour of the

equality issue going ahead, in favour there by of gay marriage. He

said in response to prompting from the leader of the Liberal Democrats

who said stand against the serious forces, the church and others,

arguing against this change, Mr Samed said it was right to take

account of the consultation, and he urged those who were demanding that

he stick to his path, that they shouldn't use inflammatory language.

He said it was the wrong thing the debate required. Thank you for that

Brian. An extended spring in Scotland? Brian is predicting that

there. It is the nicest time of the year in Scotland, I hope it is

extended. Thank you to our guests. Let us move on to something equally

controversial. Who would be a banker? It seems not a day goes by

wouldn't these poor misunderstood souls being attacked in the press

for the sides of their bonuss or salaries or both. Is all this

banker bashing justified or is it is a distraction from the real

issues facing the economy? # Life the rich

# And rich is nice # But all things come at a price #

The very fact that a group of actors can put on in the West End,

and expect the public to come and watch a play called Toxic Bankers

demonstrates how disliked these people are. Do they really deserve

it? Should we give them a break? have gone too far. We are saying

that finance is useless, it is parasitic, they shouldn't exist or

it shouldn't exist in the UK. That is totally misguided and economic

suicide for the UK. Even bankers admit that to lift to cloud of

suspicion from them, a deal M&S now be done that ensures banks stay

afloat and never rely on us for bail ought. But their pay is so

high. Isn't it? # The avaricious values sh

# On which our lives are built # Mean in this time of crisis

# We have to share the guilt # The official data shows about a

third of 50 pence taxpayers work in the financial sector. So they will

be people who work in industry, actor, doctors, all sorts of

profession like that, so it is wrong to think the only place where

there is very large salaries is finance, that is not the case. This

musical doesn't include the song brother can you spare a dime? Isn't

that the crux of our anger? They won't lend to anyone any more.

# Smash the system # Trash the bankers #

What happened here is that the Government have stepped in and

massively changed regulations governing lending. They are forcing

banks to lend less, telling them to lend at a more expensive rate by

forcing them to hold more capital. Many of these reforms make sense,

because they ensure the banking system is more prudent and there is

more, greater reserves in case something goes wrong, but the

consequence of that is always higher lending costs, and reduced

lending. OK, that is all very clever, but they started this

crisis. # Who's to blame? #

As everyone is aware we were happy to take the mortgage, credit cards

when they were available, although there are important questions to be

asked about bankers, perhaps we are all a bit to blame. In a way we

probably could have called the show Toxic Bankers? After seeing that we

could have the singing Daily Politics. Joining me is Mark

Littlewood. Let me bowl you a fast one right away. Bob Diamond picked

up �28 million last year, justify that. It is not for me to justify

it. It for the shareholders to justify. The last thing we need

which is the danger we are moving into is having politicians debating

this. We almost had the near farce of Steven Hester's salary being

debated on the floor of the House. But politicians are going to debate

it? I think what we still have is this back wash still, a fury about

the abilities, that there is this feeling if the taxpayers leap to

your aid if you go bust, you can't have this heads I win, details you

bail me out. If we can move, which I think we are taking steps towards,

that if Barclays goes down it is wound up rather than bailed out. It

is up to Barclay what is they are paid. They have to makes the

judgment, not politicians. Well, there are issues of fairns here,

and it goes wider than the banks. I can see that Bob Diamond is kind of

at the upper echelons of this. If you look at the, the directors of

leading British firm, this is not just bankers but all firm, they saw

their earnings in the last financial year rise by 49%. And yet

average pay, in the private sector rose by 2.6%. Why it is fair for

the bosses to get 49%, and the ordinary workers to get 2.6%?

averages cover a very wide range of different areas. There was one boss

I think that goes into that figure whose salary went up 400%. But his

company performed fantasticically. They are getting big erase, we are

told in the information age that a company runs on its brain, that the

quality and productivity and brainpower of the work force.

the guy at the top. Why the discrepancy. You need to go through

company by company, but the guy at the top is very important,

sometimes people make in, I think, wrong suggestion that if the share

price fall the boss must be doing a bad job. Sometimes that is not true.

Sometimes the hardst job is to stabilise a fail ing company.

you telling me that Bob dime would work only half as hard if we paid

him �14 million. It is not a question of us paying him. We all

have insurance policies, the money is, in a sense, I mean let me not

take a populist line on this, let me do it another way. This is theft

from the shareholders. This is money that belongs to the

shareholders that senior management are pinching. Not pinching it. You

have to decide, there has to be a process to decide what the is

correct remuen Asian, would be 20 be OK, they have to have a process

in place, that determines what they think he is worth, it is not qeef

him working... You know as well as I do, shareholders do not determine

these salaries. They don't. That is a fiction. It is remuen nation

committees that determine them. Not always, often, I am on your

committee if you sit on mine and we will both get �28 million. I think

there is a case for greater shareholder activism, but we can't.

It would be disastrous if we got into a cycle that any ort of

substantial salary in the tns shall services is pinching or stealing,

it isn't. I wanted to sign you up, I thought you were doing a really

good job. I am cheaper than �28 million. You are right of the

limitations for shareholders to hold chief executive to account.

Some of the shares are held for microseconds before they get passed

on. Many are held by others in other countries and others have

vested interested. So that is not going to work. I think particularly

now, at a time when we are supposed to be in this together. Where have

I heard that? It is corrosive for people to say their own salaries

going down, at the same time as you say, these bankers and many others

are getting high pay outs. There is one way you could say these guys

are getting really big salaries and they are nearly all guys. They are

getting big salaries. We don't think they are worth it but in the

end of the day the consequences of Government trying to intervene in

the private sector and saying you are worth that, that is never going

to work in the end. Let us take the view Bob Diamond is getting 28

million, we the taxpayer will get 14 million of that and so we are

quids in. That is what I would suggest, that rather than having

politicians try and work out what the figure should be, let us have a

50% tax and a permanent tax on bonuses, that would be a simple way

of doing it. You could look at issues of the differential between

company, putting the highest paid and lowest paid. That concentrates

mind. If people want to get higher they would have to bring up the

lowest paid. There was a documentary on the BBC last night,

not mine, from America, they talked in the 1950s the differential

tweenk between the chief executive of the General Motors and the

average worker was 40-1. Today it is 550-1. That is a huge difference.

Any way I have run out of hard balls so you can put your bat down

and go back to the tea room. Always good to be bowled out by you Andrew.

David Cameron and Barack Obama have promised to review the rules on

extradition following a series of high profile case, the current ex

pra dition treaty between Britain and America was signed in 2003.

Complaints were raised over the case of the NatWest Three who were

extradited to America, and convicted of fraud connected to the

Enron scandal. Then there was Gary McKinnon whon has been accused of

hacking NASA and Pentagon computers. Concern has been raised by the case

of Christopher Tappin, the businessman who is awaiting trial

in America on charges of illegally exporting goods to Iran. Last month

David Cameron said that Mr Tappin's case raised the need for a

thoughtful review of the process. His son Neil told the Daily

Politics he felt his father's treatment had been unfair. He has

never once had the opportunity to show any of the evidence on his

side of the argument, so in the hear information this country, the

US put across their side of the story, and then our lawyers had to

argue a few technical points which were pointless, so he goes out

there, he is in a cell on his own, no contact with us, 5,000 miles

away from home. It feels to us and if his presumption ofness has been

lost. That that is Neil Tappin talking about his faer. Let us get

more from Dominic Raab. What can be done? Is this not just window

dressing? We have had a review, we have had the baker review, he was

very clear, he said the treaty was not one sided. It doesn't operate

in an unbalanced manner. Apart from tweaking nothing is going to change

I would dispute that on the facts. The ratio of citizens between the

US and UK is something like five to one. It is in practise lopsided.

The point Baker made is that the legal tests, the evidential tests

are broadly similar, that is true, I think more or less but the key

thing is the way judges look at the evidence in the US, and they don't

do that here. The other critical think thing, I think that is what

is being trailed is this idea of a forum test, when you cross border

cases what this means is they could be tried here if it's a crime here.

Do you dispute what Scott Baker has done. His conclusions are clear, it

doesn't leave room for manoeuvre for David Cameron to look at this

again. I disagree. We have had review, there is a problem with the

Baker review, four months on we don't have any of the evidence it

received. That cast a shadow over the credibility of the report.

it going to be published? I am calling for it to be published.

that because you are worried it wasn't as independent as it said on

the tin? I am no doubt about the propriety of Scott Baker but the

evidence was shifted over the Home Office. It is extraordinary to have

an independent review and you don't have the evidence published so

people can see why people came ep to these conclusions. There is a

case of baba Ahmed who has been in prison without charge and the US

wants to extradite him. He hasn't been. This is a case that you

brought, shouldn't he be extradited. No, he is a UK citizen. The crimes

which he is alleged to have committed are supposed to have

happened in the UK. We should be trying that in this country. He is

under severe accusation and it is right there should be a trial. He

wants a trial. U but it should be in the UK where the crimes are

alleged to have occurred. Where someone hasn't been extradite, we

are seeing the example where people feel they have been handed over too

easily and quickly. The whole thing is a mess. Whatever you think it

can't be right to hold someone for years as a matter of principle that

can't be right. I think David Cameron is brave taking this on. He

is addressing the matter with the President, something that Tony

Blair was scared to do, with all those accusations of being a poodle.

It is important he addresses this. There is an expectation that

something will happen. The House of Commons voted for reform, not just

of the US arrangement but the European arrest warrant.

officials are looking at how this treaty is working, are you

optimistic is going to change. Something is, you have heard the

Prime Minister and the President saying they are going to examine it

and that has to be good news. Greens achieved the dream of any

small party, they got a seat in the Commons. Caroline Lucas won

Brighton Pavillion. He is a lone voice and there is a limit to what

one MP can do. Has it allowed The Greens to shine. We sent David

Thompson up the property ladder to This might be the most eco-friendly

house in Britain and if the greens were in power, they would probably

like us all to live in a place like this. But they do have one foot on

the Westminster property ladder. The Green Party now have a seat at

the top table of British politics and it has always been seen as a

triumph to have a green voice on the green benches, but actually, as

having an MP made a blind bit of difference? It has been an article

of faith that getting an MP in Parliament would be the be-all and

end-all for a small minority party. We now know that is not the case.

It is massively important and the role Caroline has is important, but

the success of green ideas does not depend on having one MP in

Parliament. There are some who describe themselves as turquoise

Tories, True Blues but a bit green who are frankly fairly caustic

about the impact Caroline Lucas has made. I'm not sure I'm finding

having a green member of parliament as creative as I thought it might

be, for creating as much attention as I was expecting. I would say

good on the publicity, but maybe a bit light on policy. Apart from

Caroline in Westminster, the Greens have two MSPs in Scotland, and 133

councillors in England and Wales and they control one council,

Brighton and Hove. They have to make gains in local government, but

think it is too early to say what will happen in Westminster. But

even their friends are doubtful whether Caroline will have to budge

up any time soon. It is difficult to make the sunshine there -- a

function that having one Green MP in Parliament, however good, it

leads automatically to the election of a lot of green MPs. That doesn't

mean sitting in splendid isolation in the Palace of Westminster is a

waste of time. Organisations like Age UK and Kucker look at most MPs

in vain. The debate on nuclear power, where all the major parties

have given up on finding alternatives to nuclear power, the

Green Party can do that. There's a very important role of bringing

these radical and ideas into the heart of the system that seems

locked into this very cruel politics of austerity without any

imagination about how a better world might be created. Or maybe it

is. As a single issue parliamentarian, there's a huge

opportunity. I'm not sure she has taken that opportunity and I am not

sure the green message is coming through as strongly. Her platform,

as it is from the coalition's platform, she is responding to our

policies, not the other way. Harsh words but that's life in

Westminster. Will that ever really be the ideal home for the Green

Party? Caroline is still with us. I didn't

run away! I don't blame me. It was obviously going to be difficult

because you're one of over 600 and you what a woman in what is still a

kind of men's club, despite the increase in women. Has it been more

difficult than you thought or have you been able to make more of an

impact than you had? It depends how you measure impact. In terms of

getting key issues on the political agenda that otherwise would not

have been there, we can say I've been successful. Example?

nuclear power. The Liberals are meekly following the Conservatives

and they have given up their opposition to nuclear power. The

majority of people are opposed. Where is the voice and the Commons?

If you look at the social issue, the NHS, who first started to push

commercialisation in the NHS? Labour. The Lib Dems are following

the Tories through the lobbies. Who is standing up for real public

health service? The greens. Afghanistan, I've put down the

amendment in a debate on Afghanistan calling for troops to

be withdrawn. That did not come from any other party. If you're

measuring it by putting issues on the grander, we are doing it. If

you are asking if I can outvote 649 others... I can't. I wonder if the

Times have been propitious for you. There are two ways in which Green

issues have been put on the back- burner. One is the economic Times,

which are quite grim and people are more worried about putting bread on

the table, and the global warming issue, rightly or wrongly, has been

put on the back foot as well. The public are more sceptical than they

were. Let me take the first one around whether or not there's a

contradiction between trying to get the economy back on track and

promoting investment in green technologies. My role is unique.

I'm the only one saying there doesn't have to be a division

between these things, precisely by investing in energy efficiency and

renewables. They would have vastly good economic effects as well as

good environmental effects. I was able to help instigate an inquiry

into the green economy to make sure those arguments were heard by a

cross-party committee of MPs and hopefully then to go forward to

make recommendations for the Government. Since getting elected,

we have been a strong green voice in Parliament. Membership of the

Green Party has doubled. We have our first council in Brighton and

Hove. Success in your grasp! What more can I say?

All those pictures we've seen on the news and in the papers of David

Cameron and Barack Obama schmoozing must be the stuff spin doctors

dream of. But just how important are these photo opportunities and

what happens when they don't go according to plan? In a moment,

I'll be speaking to one of Tony Blair's former spin doctors as well

as the Sun's former political editor, but first, here's a look

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 58 seconds

There was a great end! Well, former Labour spin doctor

Lance Price and George Pascow Watson, who's now at the PR firm

Portland, are with us now. Do they work or of a very risky? They are

slightly risky, but in the name, particularly with someone like

David Cameron, who is a natural performer, they are fantastic. A

great set of pictures can tell a fantastic story and they also give

a politician the chance to shine as a normal human being away from

Westminster. I presume that is what they are for, to show they are

human. We know they are. But to show them in normal surroundings.

But that clip of Tony Blair on the Tube, he looked really awkward, I

thought. I have to put my hand on your heart -- my heart. I was Byley

responsible. The idea was to make him look as if he understood the

concerns of normal people. Travelling on public transport. But

it is not true. You can only do it if it is true. It has to look right.

When we put him on the Tube or when we encouraged him to travel by

Ryanair on holiday one time because there were too many stories about

his fancy holidays, those sorts of photo opportunities go horribly

wrong. When you look at pictures between American President's and

British prime ministers, there's a feeling sometimes that you see that

unequal relationship, however good the photo opportunity, they look as

if they are the underling, if you like, to the American President. Is

that something you can't overcome in a photo? I'm not sure it's too

much of a problem. There will always be a sense that America is a

bigger animal than Britain. People don't have the time that people who

watched this show normally get to tune into politics. It is quite a

boring and difficult subject for a lot of people. Sometimes big

pictures like this are the way they get their perceptions and that is

really important for politicians. It is also important to point out

that what we've seen in this footage is a little bit. We haven't

seen the private stuff. The prime minister had 80 minutes on Air

Force One, one-on-one with the President. We don't see that sort

of picture. It is important to give the picture of security, economic

lakes and the fact we are being taken seriously. It doesn't change

anyone's vote. I doubt it. You have to provide pictures for television.

You guys need pictures. If you have a big event on the health service,

for example, you will see another picture of David Cameron listening

to nurses or Nick Clegg nodding his head sagely in the background,

making it look like they are engaging. It is all a bit

artificial. The real work goes on behind closed doors in really

serious discussions and the prime ministers and party leaders get a

bit fed up with these photo- opportunities. How much time do you

spend on thinking about the photo opportunity? Whoever came up of

that idea of Ed Balls and Andy Burnham swinging on those swings.

There are people like me who think about these things all the time and

it is not that easy. You get a brief that says make the prime

minister look more human. You scratch your head. Half the time it

doesn't work. Half the time it is counter-productive because prime

ministers are not like the rest of us. Thank you for joining us.

Time to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: What does

David Cameron say he plays when he needs a lift? Do you know the

answer? I can remind you... I was going to go for the last one but I

can't remember. That was Champagne supernova by Oasis. Do you know?

have drawn a blank. Thin Lizzie's Whiskey In The Jar.

Andrew will sing it! You get to pick the winner. I was amazed that

the President was allowed to use Air Force One to go to the

basketball game. This is this the year winner. This is not the winner

of that competition. This is yesterday's competition. The answer