18/06/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. The people of Greece vote

in effect to stay in the euro. The New Democracy Party, which broadly

supports the international bailout, achieved a narrow victory in

yesterday's elections and is now trying to form a coalition

government. World leaders meeting in Mexico have welcomed the result.

But the euro's not out of the woods yet. The good ship coalition

appears to be heading for choppy waters. We'll be looking at what

might sink it. They get to smile and wave at the camera but is being

a cabinet minister all it's cracked up to be? And we'll be lending

members of the House of Lords a helping hand over their

pronunciation. It appears some of them need it. President Harland is

not President Hollander. I accept these wires rebukes about my

pronunciation, it has never been very good soul or practise more. --

good, so I will practise more. that in the next hour. And with us

for the first half of today's programme is Matthew Taylor, the

Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the encouragement of

Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, or the RSA as it's better known!

Welcome. Now Matthew also used to work for Tony Blair when he was

Prime Minister, so we might as well start by asking him about the

current spat in the Labour party. Some trade unions are attempting to

expel the New Labour pressure group, Progress, from the party. On that

basis is Ed Miliband actually listening to progress? Progress is

an open organisation which represents the modernising strand

of thought, Ed Miliband spoke recently and made clear yesterday

he does not support this rather odd idea from the trade unions that he

should be expelled. Saw a thing he has made his position clear. Trade

unions tend to be debated by activists who tend to be more left-

wing than activist so -- dominated. So calling for a think tank is just

a token gesture but it gives Ed Miliband a chance to do what he has

done more loudly, which has to say he is not standing for this

nonsense. Peter Mandelson is saying Ed Miliband is listening closely to

this new Labour think tank. Is that being provocative to the trade

unions? Ensure the existence of Peter Mandelson on this earth is

provocative to trade unions. It is clear he is speaking tour part of

the party because he is leading this policy review so politicians

are looking for good ideas, particularly at a time of austerity

there are not that many around, so you will take them from wherever he

can get them. He was clear yesterday that he wants the Labour

Party to be a broad church. Is this a throwback to the Blair, Brown era,

still in fighting, still splits. It does not give the Labour Party a

great image. Because of our electoral system we have big

parties that range widely. The Conservatives are the same, right

wing, moderate Conservatives, it is the same in labour, they will

always be people who say controversial things. The challenge

for Ed Miliband is to work with that group of people but never

looked like he is beholden to any faction. Now it's time for our

daily quiz. The question for today is... Which of these bailout

countries is no longer in the European Football Championship?

We'll try and find out the answer for you by the end of the show. The

big fear ahead of elections was that Greece may be forced out of

the single currency. Has there been a sense of relief at the news

voters might have backed the country then release supports the

bail-out package. Then joined by its chief economist at Schroders.

Any favourable response seems to have been wiped already. The relief

rally was quite short lived. We got quite a nice start to the morning,

Asia was rallying but what we have seen now as a focus on the bigger

picture and there has been a sharp rise in Spanish bond deals this

morning which have now gone over 7% so it looks like the markets are

moving on from Greece and focusing on the bigger picture and looking

at the problems in Spain. Do you think Greece is a sideshow on that

With Greece, although it is problematic, the European Union has

the resources to be able to solve that problem, they can keep funding

Greece. The difficulty is what tons to they do it on and how much do

they allow? The problem with Spain and the economy is it is very big

and would absorb nearly all the resources that have been put aside

for a crisis in the eurozone. So that is what the markets are

concerned about. A what about looking ahead? If all the leaders

are saying some time has been bought, what -- is their chance the

markets will be calmed or will they just go after the other vulnerable

countries in the eurozone? I think they're looking for the European

Union to come up with a solution and I think that would have to be

one where the debt in the eurozone is neutralised or brought across a

common basis. In other words, Germany putting in funding to help

support those countries through lower interest rates. Unless we see

that I think the markets will continue to pick away at countries

that are weak economically and have big debt problems. That means the

problem could continue into next year and the problem comes back to

the politicians who why the only ones who can provide that

submission. Sajid doubt that it is the Conservative MP and economics

editor of the Guardian, the Larry Elliott. -- Sajid David. I think at

some point Greece may leave the euro of its own will be booted out

by the rest of Europe. It is one of the four options for dealing with

this crisis. Do you think the hints coming out of Berlin that Germany

might relax the terms of the bail- out is going to change anything

dramatically? I don't actually. I think the problems of Greece are so

intractable that even more time is not going to solve the problem. The

Germans are in a position where they do not want be responsible for

breaking of the euro, they don't want to through Greece out, they

want crease to come along and say we have had enough, we cannot cope.

I think the Germans will make life difficult enough for Greece so that

option happens. So that would make the Germans -- the lives of the

Germans easier. Is that privately what the Conservatives would like

to see? I don't think that's correct. Our view is now the euro

has been created the genie is out of the bottle, we cannot reverse it,

the best thing is to try and find a way for it to survive. Even with

Greece in it? The at is up to Greece. The thing yesterday was the

least bad of two options but the problems of the day before I still

still -- still all there. Is David Cameron right to urge closer

integration in the eurozone with a banking union under Germany's

control? There are only four ways out of this crisis, one is that

Greece and the other countries can have austerity forever. The other

is to have high inflation, the third is that the Germans write

cheques in definitely for the rest of the eurozone so they get their

credit card out and fund everybody else's deficit, or they could be

some kind of break-up. Unfortunately the eurozone has

decided it doesn't want any of those options. So the result is

kicking the can down the road and I think we are close to the end of

that road. Why? You just heard about Spanish bombs at 7.1%, that

suggests to me the end of the road is rapidly approaching. -- bombs. -

We are told the issue is the Greek election, it goes the right way,

but it makes no difference. All the small things will not do it, the

only way to achieve change is from a level of leadership which seems

to be beyond our current national leaders. What would that the bishop

had to do? It would have to be what David Cameron is saying, a higher

level of integration with Germany in the driving seat. That is the

only way out of this. Otherwise the question is, is this a rapid or

slow car crash? I think we are in agreement here. A single currency

was never going to work without some kind of fiscal or political

union, one has never survived so this problem was always going to

occur. It requires decisive action by European leaders. Now is a time

to make a decision. If you are talking about banking and closer

fiscal integration, that will not happen tomorrow, that is not going

to happen in a couple of weeks, it will not save Spain. The markets

are now operating in a faster -- at The problem now is any of those

political solutions that David Cameron has offered will take time

and requires countries like Spain to be prepared to bow to German

demands to be able to run their fiscal policy. I somewhat doubt the

Spanish government will want the Germans in their saying you have to

raise this amount of tax, you can only spend it on these issues.

These issues are issues that national governments normally

decide and the idea that Madrid or Rome will say we will allow Angela

Merkel to take -- dictate the terms of our budget is improbable. I do

not think we should let the does off the hook. If there was a short

leadership at the G20 demonstrating politicians have moved to a

different level of understanding of this, if the markets felt it was

being gripped, the fact it might take time to work out the details,

they need to feel there is a qualitative difference in the way

leaders are gripping this. Why did we do it in 2008 and now it feels

like we can't? Whereas the sense of urgency? Why does it appear that

they are powerless to do anything? I think the European leaders really

know what they need to do. Neutralise debts, have a banking

union to have a common treasury. But that won't save the situation

as it is now. Spain and Italy are in a perilous state at this moment.

If European leaders set out concrete steps to achieve it it

would change the situation. cannot ignore the markets. I spent

20 years as a bond trader before it became a politician and you cannot

buck the markets. The markets are looking at these countries and

asking for action. It is up to the politicians in the eurozone to

deliver. Our job is to protect our economy from this debt storm to

deal with the debt we have inherited. How are they doing that?

We cut our deficit for a quarter since this government was elected.

But still no growth. We inherited an economy built on debt, we have a

European debt storm building. At a time like that the main requirement

is to protect the economy. Some of the measures you have seen, like

last week, the funding for lending scheme, designed to protect the

economy. Is it enough? I don't think so. These are stop-gap

measures. The government is worried about the state of the economy.

People I speak to say things have deteriorated in the last couple of

months, the economy has deep structural problems and we're not

going to get through those easily. The European problem makes it much

We need to rebalance the economy away from debt and towards

productive capacity of exports but that will not happen any time soon.

Certainly not with the European debt crisis raging. Leaders can't

really do anything against this, can they? All they can do globally

is to call for leadership. Domestically, I think the problem

is we are trying to move from an old house which was in many ways

built on weak foundations and to actually build a new house based on

strong foundations and it is not clear we can do both. So much

energy is going to manage and the problems of the past and there is a

lack of any credible account of what Britain will feel like in 15

In your book, you have talked about Britain heading for the Third World

economy - how did you come to that conclusion? We have used the North

Sea oil, will have 15 years were a real incomes don't grow at all, we

will be in 2017 by the time in comes get back, we have had

stalling public growth and we are struggling to find new sources of

growth. Britain faces deep structural problems. We have

papered over the cracks for many years, using the proceeds of North

Sea oil, and now the bills are having to be paid. We have suddenly

reached a reality check point and the UK economy is not a pretty

picture. Do you share that gloomy prediction? No, if lorry is saying

we are facing some serious challenges, of course we are. We

are the seventh largest economy in the world and 60% of our trade is

with the eurozone. The key right now is to make sure Britain remains

a safe haven, that we keep low interest rates and deal with the

deficit that we inherited, and try to deal with a lot of those

problems. You will prove him wrong by 2014 then? Absolutely. He makes

an important point, which is that we have not realised how far we

have already slipped behind. Looking at average in comes and

inequality, if you combine those we are falling down the league table

in terms of income and up the table in terms of inequality. Great

Britain is a very bad place to be poor and I don't think people have

noticed how far we have slipped behind other countries. We have got

hold of our correspondent in Athens. Can you hear me? There are pretty

gloomy predictions from our guests here, what is the mood like in

Athens after the election? The mood is pretty sober, to put it mildly.

I am looking over constitution Square. Last night the place was

almost deserted, apart from a few people letting off firecrackers for

the sake of appearances. It is not hard to see why. It was tough in

Greece yesterday, it will be tough for a long time to come. They are

going through the process of trying to put the government together, but

just imagine the coalition talks in Britain in 2010, then think of them

faster and more complicated. At the end of it there will be a

government, but it will have the difficult job of trying to get a

better deal as far as the bail-out is concerned and selling it to the

Greek people. Are you confident there will be some bail-out

government formed in the next few days? They are confident there will

be a government. We can be reasonably sure of that. At the

moment the winner of the election, the New democracy party, is trying

to find the main other party it could do business with, but that

old Labour Party doesn't want to get into bed with the old enemy

without getting someone else in there as well and that is proving

difficult. It is looking like there will be a coalition, and then in

gets really difficult. The powers- that-be are moving to soften the

deal with Greece and that might help but it was tough before the

elections persuading the Greek people the austerity would be worth

it and it will get harder and harder. Thank you.

A failing care system, a billion pound bill, hundreds of children

reported missing and at risk of sexual abuse. An all-party group

today has published a damning report on care homes, and before we

go to the reporter - I have forgotten to say thank you to my

guest - our reporter can tell us more. This report comes just a

month after nine men were convicted in Rochdale of sexually exploiting

young girls, one of hair -- one of whom was in a care home. I am

joined now by Ann Coffey and Councillor David Simmons. What were

the main findings of your report? We think the care system is failing

some very vulnerable young people who go missing and run away, and

thereby put themselves at risk of sexual grooming and exploitation.

Propagator is not being collected, we don't know how many children go

missing and crucially what they do when they go missing. There is

inadequate data sharing between the police and children's services and

the police have a duty to safeguard children. They should share data

properly, and they have poor practices working together at a

local level, which means children are not being safeguarded within

the care system. Councillor David Simmons, why aren't you working

more closely with the police in this terrible situation? This

report makes very uncomfortable reading for anybody, in the police,

the NHS, the voluntary sector responsible for children in the

care system, but it is also clear that the multiple different sort of

regulations, the way in which different police forces, different

council's approach this has created a statistical fog. The key thing to

helping children who are vulnerable is not just sharing data but also

the intelligence about what is going on in their lives. When we

think they might be at risk, we can pick that up and intervene earlier

on. That requires good information sharing, from health professionals,

please, Von Trier organisations and those responsible for running care

homes. That is pretty shocking - the police and councils don't know

where the care homes are, and many of them are in areas where there

was already paedophilia. That is shocking, isn't it? It is shocking

that a sexual predator can be sitting in a car outside children's

home, targeting them, often having followed a child that has moved to

escape sexual exploitation. The children don't even know the care

home exist and sometimes the local authority doesn't even know the

child has been placed there. That is what I mean about having to get

a much better system of working together. Presumably this is about

attracting the right people, some of whom work in a supermarket one

day and next day they are responsible for the most vulnerable

children. It was interesting that the people who came to give

evidence talked about not being listened to, and part of that issue

is not having the staff with the level of training skills that can

hear what the young people are saying, here behind the words, and

it is a big issue. This is why we want to further investigation into

whether care homes are offering the kind of skills in supporting and

protecting, safeguarding, and dealing with the underlying

problems that cause children to go away. Is that a problem you

recognise as well? A very much so, and I think it is a helpful

recommendation that has come forward. At the moment Ofsted,

responsible for regulating children's homes, don't let the

police know where they are or the standard of service. We know they

are required to meet a certain basic standard, but for a council

looking to move a child away from a place where they have been a victim

of abuse to break that cycle of abuse, we need to know that home

they are going to will be providing them with the safe and well,

environment. I spoke to a government adviser earlier who says

they want to rattle the cage and make sure that when children go

missing, alarm bells to ring. At first glance, being a Cabinet

minister might look like a cushy number - lashings of power, civil

servants to do your every bidding, and a nice car. But you also get

intense pressure, ferocious criticism, and that is just from

your own backbenchers, and the constant threat of the sack. Most

of the top team have been under fire at one time or another, so is

being a Cabinet minister all it is cracked up to be? We sensed David

to find out. If you are MMP, it doesn't get much better than this.

Walking into Downing Street for the first time as a fresh-faced newly-

minted member of the Cabinet. But all too soon reality kicks in and

the seat at the big table of British politics gets very hot.

Take the current top team - virtually all of them have been in

hot water. William Hague, hotel room controversy, Theresa May, Abu

Qatada, Andrew Lansley, NHS reforms. Baroness Warsi, rent issues, and

most recently Jeremy Hunt with Rupert Murdoch again. Who would

want to be a Cabinet minister when frankly it is more likely to end in

tears? We thought we would ask someone who knows better than most.

Every minister goes into the thinking I will be the one who

isn't the person who runs into either personal or political

problems. I don't think you could step into it unless you hoped that

would be the case, but for very many people you become the minister

in trouble, the minister who you can see in your colleagues' eyes

they are sympathetic but thank goodness it is you, not me. Some

have already paid the ultimate political price. At the last two

days have been the longest and toughest of my life. David Laws,

Chief Secretary to the Treasury at one minute, out of the Treasury the

next. Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary, was busted down to

backbencher over his links to a lobbyist. Chris Huhne in the fast

lane as Energy Secretary, forced to resign over problems with speeding

offence fraud. Even though you are under immense pressure, the reason

why you're doing this job is because you think you can make a

difference. You think this is the thing that your political values

have brought you to. It is the peak of your political career, the time

of which you think actually there is something I can do to put into

operation the things I care about. You never think you have achieved

what you want to achieve when it is time to leave that. The next time

you see a member of the Cabinet in bother, don't feel too sorry for

them because the truth is most of them wouldn't miss it for the world.

Let's find out if that is true with Lord Norman Fowler. Let's go back

in time - how did the pressures of Cabinet life affect your family

life? You have less time than you would otherwise have, but in the

main Cabinet life was very good because you could put into effect

the ideas that you had. I started doing transport, I had done it in

the Shadow Cabinet fully three years. I put the plans I had into

effect, that was brilliant. The last thing I did was to abolish the

Dock Labour Scheme, which people had been flapping about four years.

Jacqui Smith is right. Obviously there are things you feel you could

have done, but on the other hand you can and do have the opportunity

of doing so much. When you resigned, did you say it was to spend more

time with your family as well, that it was an opportunity? Was that a

euphemism, or was that what you really meant? No, it wasn't a

euphemism, but I did say other things as well. I have done 11

years in government... You had had enough? I wanted to move on, if I

could put it that way. I had two a small children, both of whom were

born when I was in the Cabinet, and I thought I would miss out on that,

but I don't want to say I was a crusader on the family or anything

like that. There does, time when you have done 11 years of Cabinet

you feel that is enough. What about scrutiny? Do you think there is

more scrutiny for this generation of politicians than when you were

in the Cabinet? That is probably right. I think the worst thing

about the Cabinet and the thing which took most time, and the thing

which caused most aggravation was not the outside scrutiny. The thing

that caused the most problems were the public spending rows each year

when you were attacked from the Treasury, and you would say but you

can't propose that, that was in our manifesto, we were against that.

What about people hounded out of office? Is that worse now? We

listed some politicians who had to resign. He it -- it might be worse.

In Margaret Thatcher's time, almost each year you had regular

reshuffles and cabinet ministers were sometimes simply left out

there with all kinds of predictions being made about the fact they

would be sacked. If you are too sensitive on this, it is a rough

Matthew, is it more a case of personal issues that seem to be the

end of members of some of the Cabinet rather than policy issues?

It tends to be personal issues because of the Prime Minister sat

somebody for personal reasons, it falls back on the Prime Minister

because why have you supported them? Tomorrow apparently we are

going to go to a reform package for the Civil Service and I bet, like

all previous reform packages, it will not grasp the problem of the

interface between politicians and civil servants. Imagine if they

want and Corporation are ostensibly run by a committee of 30 people,

each person has a job that requires them to work 16 hours a day, many

of them do not trust the organisations that work for them,

then you have junior ministers who have no role and just go around

causing trouble? That is a very I was part of the Thatcher

government, I was there from the beginning almost to the end. We

were written down as being the most radical governments since the war

in domestic policy. I don't think we have those problems. Is that

because you ignore the civil service? No, that is the point. We

got the civil service to work with us, we said this is the policy and

they put it into practice. It was a perfectly good partnership. This

government has a lot of briefing at the moment saying they do not feel

the civil services working for them. They also did not have to new --

deal the 24 hour news. I think it was more possible in your time to

say I will address that in a couple of weeks. Now you have to respond

to things immediately. If you have not close an issue within hours to

have Number Ten on the phone saying you have to get out there. Can you

think of a cabinet member handed out who should not have been?

It is clear to me Peter Mandelson resigned for a trivial reason. It

was to do with the image he created for himself which made him somebody

people wanted to have a go at. think your point about the 24 hour

news cycle is a commentary on Number Ten. I was on a phone-in the

other day and a special adviser rang up and said we need to have a

new story every four hours. That is crazy. I agree. A everyone needs to

relax. We should go back to a former age about announcing

policies and the rest. You said you managed to achieve a lot in the

Cabinet. Unless you are in the Cabinet is it really worth being a

junior minister? Only if you were genuinely interested in the area

you're working in. When I worked for Tony Blair I proposed that

junior ministers were asked to make a change happen. You get appointed

for a couple of years to oversee a particular process. At the moment

you are only junior minister because you want to be a cabinet

minister. But if you are doing what I was doing, health and social

security, it is crucial your ministers of state are strong

people. I recruited Ken Clarke, Tony Newton and John Major. With

that sort of support I had an easy life. I rested on them. Tips for

anyone joining the Cabinet after a reshuffle? No. Funnily enough. One

tip. I think you might bring a Malcolm Rifkind back into it. I

don't know if he wants to but he is such an intelligent, good

communicator, I think he is wasted on the backbenches. You heard it

here first! Thank you both. Coalition shinanigans have been

keeping the Westminster hacks busy of late. And on College Green we

have our own little coalition. Anushka Asthana from the Times and

James Kirkup from the Telegraph. Can we start with the Leveson

Inquiry, do you think the decision by the Liberal-Democrats took

abstain was a key moment? It is an ongoing process where both party

leaderships are trying hard to engage in party management. They

are looking for ways of sending signals to the backbenches and

party membership we are still a distinct party, pushing our own

agenda. Nick Clegg is trying to push that independence on Murdoch

based issues and that the same time we are seeing Conservative

ministers pushing a Conservative agenda on welfare, Trident, issues

like that. Are Tory MPs still angry about it or was it a flash-in-the-

pan? Of course they are angry but it is just the latest reason to be

angry. Most MPs have an ongoing frustration at the fact they are in

coalition. That anger express itself in various ways depending on

what is in the headlines. At the moment it is Leveson. When Lords

reform comes back it will be Lords reform. There is always something.

It traces back to the original sin, David Cameron's failure to win the

Tory majority in 2010. I Liberal- Democrat MPs worried about revenge?

We have heard a number of times that they could use Lords reform as

the stick to be the Lib Dems with? I think is sues the Tories to see

this as treachery because it gives them an excuse to go on things like

Lords reform. Lib Dems are worried about that because it is important

to them to get the Lords reform February. -- through. None the Tory

said we never did this to Vince Cable but the response was actually

yes, they did. The Lib Dems view is it was fair for them to abstain. I

think the Tories would uses as a chance to punish them. David

Cameron is clearly attempting to push the eurozone countries towards

closer integration with Britain outside that. What other Liberal-

Democrats thinking about that? Lib Dems are have spoken to mainly

support the idea of closer fiscal pact but they want Britain to be

involved in the conversation and that is where the parties split.

Whilst Cameron might be pushing for that a lot of his backbenchers

think one needs to happen now is that Greece needs to default and

other countries need to follow suit, which is what they will be pushing

for. Do you think the eurozone crisis has masked even bigger

cracks in the coalition? Without the crisis you wonder how we will

be doing on the fundamental question of addressing the deficit.

-- would be doing. I think the severity of the events does hide

various tensions. There are some clear divisions of Tory opinion on

this. George Osborne and David Cameron are pushing for the

eurozone to integrate and push towards a fiscal union. There are

Conservatives who regard the idea of fiscal union as being Anathema.

It flies in the face of 2000 years of Western civilisation. The idea

there is a unified position on be fiscal crisis is not really the

case but because they are secondary to the end of the euro zone

economic crisis it might be getting less attention than it would be

otherwise. On a referendum issue, which seems to have reared up again

because Labour has also been calling for it, maybe not now, is

pressure mounting for that to come sooner rather than later? I think

there are voices in all parties who want to see a promise for a

referendum. What with the question be and is now the right time for a

question? And in out referendum would be dangerous because

Eurosceptics might get the answer they do not want and where does

Britain go from there? I think Cameron will want to resist any

temptation to do that on the table right now. I would expect us to be

seen something like an offer for a referendum in Tory manifesto, maybe

then Labour manifesto as well. joined now for the rest of the show

by three peers of the realm. Labour's leader in the Lords, Jan

Royall, Conservative Peer, Patience Wheatcroft and for the Liberal

Democrats Tim Clement Jones. Last week Liberal Democrat MPs

infuriated some of their Conservative partners by refusing

to back Jeremy Hunt in a House of Commons vote. The Lib Dems

abstained on a Labour motion calling for the embattled Culture

Secretary to be investigated over breaches of the ministerial code.

The good ship Coalition has sailed into choppy waters after the Lib

Dems abstained last week. Conservative ministers are fighting

back, sailing under Tory colours, apparently without much thought for

what their Lib Dem partners think. The Home Secretary Theresa May has

been getting tough on immigration and human rights laws. Oliver

Letwin has suggested that subsidies for onshore wind-power will be

stopped despite strong Lib Dem support for green energy. And

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has announced a �1 billion contract

for the next generation of nuclear powered submarines. They would be

needed if the Government decided to go ahead with a like-for-like

replacement for Trident, something the Lib Dems oppose. With a further

row looming over House of Lords reform David Cameron and Nick Clegg

could be looking for the coalition life jackets. Have we got to that

stage yet? Not yet. The government has sensible policies it wants to

push through. They will not all be what the Lib Dems would like to see

but coalition is about give-and- take. How would you characterise

the state of the coalition at the moment? I think it is never easy

and certainly not proving to be easy but it is still there and I

think it will survive. The you understand why the Lib Dems were

not right to support Jeremy Hunt on the Labour motion? Not really.

do you think they decided to make that decision? I don't understand

why. I think it was a strange thing to do and played into labour's

hands. I thought the most appalling thing about the episode was the

speaker allowing Jeremy Hunt to be termed a liar in a debate in the

House of Commons. That really was atrocious. There was controversy

over that which we debated at the time. Justify that decision for the

Lib Dems to abstain. It was not a matter of collective Cabinet

responsibility, that was made clear. This was a decision not to refer by

the Prime Minister to Alex Allan which Nick Clegg played no part in.

So it was perfectly proper for us to take a different view as a party,

which we did. But what we did not want to do was to vote with the

Labour Party in the division because we are members of the

coalition and at least we do it to our colleagues not to see the

ousting of a minister. But we wanted to make it clear we felt the

Prime Minister should have referred to a special adviser. But you

agreed on principle with what the Labour motion stated, that you did

not agree David Cameron should have made the decision not to refer it

to Sir Alex Allan so by rights he should have supported it? That is

the nature of coalition, there are some cases were you do not go the

whole hog. -- wear. Abstention is a lily-livered way out. I think it is

a posturing by the Lib Dems that we see a lot in the House of Lords. If

the Lib Dems really believed they should have voted, they should have

made a statement against Jeremy party. I absolutely do not agree.

In coalition there are all kinds of compromises you need to make, even

within political parties. To jump up and down, cry, lack of principle,

traitor, whatever on every occasion that the parties do something

different is just impractical and does not represent reality. Do you

think relations are better in the House of Lords than they seem to be

in the Commons? I think that is right. There are strains sometimes.

Over the health will there were strains, over things are welfare

reform there were strings. But I do we have ways of dealing with them

because the personal relationships across the parties are good I would

say. We're probably capable of separating out the politics from

the personalities rather better Do you think the announcement on

submarines does prejudge the position on nuclear weapons? No, I

think it has been made clear that the investment made in the building

in Derby will be used for whatever happens. The money will not be

wasted, but we do have to start planning now walk in case the

decision is made to go ahead with Trident. Can you see why it would

be viewed as a decision made by staff? In a way, this decision has

been made. No, because the money would not be wasted. I have no

doubt there will be people who interpret it that way but I see it

as a sensible decision on planning. Are you worried about this decision

being made before 2016 as was agreed? Now, the very fact that

Nick Harvey is the minister who has been explaining the decision makes

it very clear. He has made it clear what is a programme over 11 years

of expenditure, that half the expenditure will be going to Derby

facilities. I don't think it will cause a great strain. Do you think

the Tories are trying to flex their muscles on immigration - too hard

line for the Liberal Democrats? amount of debate and discussion

between government departments is enormous. If you look at the

interest of the business department, the Treasury, DCMS as opposed to

the Home Office, there is a debate going on about the way in

particular that students are treated. The debate has been very

clear, that it makes Britain look as if it is closed for business if

you come down to hard on immigrants who would like to come to the

country and contribute something. have many Conservative colleagues

who are just as concerned as I am about this punitive approach, and

this approach to students treating them as permanent migrants. It's as

having a dreadful effect on our universities, which are now finding

it difficult to attract students from overseas. How else do you

bring the numbers down? There is a commitment from all parties to

bring the numbers down. Why are they gunning for students, as it

were? Students are the future of our relationships with these

countries as well so you have to be delicate when dealing with the

policy. I think some of what Theresa May wants to do makes good

sense, particularly looking at the family issue and that human rights

act. On the student issue there is a degree of uniformity in the House

of Lords because treating a student as a permanent migrant is obviously

not a sensible thing to do, it is backfiring, and there is increasing

debate in the House of Lords. Lords reform, will it happen? He

depends on what they do in the House of Commons, I would suggest.

I think the sensible thing would be for the Steel Bill to come in first.

More delay then? They would amount to something happening, whereas the

risk is that there will be more delay if we don't get this.

depends what happens in the Commons. In the House of Lords, we are way

down the track at the moment. There may be a referendum inserted, and

so on and so forth, so who knows? It is premature to write off the

House of Lords reform. Let's not do that.

We are all doomed, that is according to Prince Charles. He has

issued end ominous warning ahead of the global conference on

sustainability. On a video address on the Royal Channel, he was one in

about action on climate change. Like a sleepwalker, we seem unable

to wake up to the fact that so many of the catastrophic consequences of

carrying on as business-as-usual are bearing down on us faster than

we think, already dragging millions more people into poverty and

dangerously weakening global food, water, and energy security for the

future. Do you agree with him? think we are not doing in this

country towards climate change and decisions by this Conservative-led

coalition about junking grants for wind power and solar power

demonstrates this is not the most green government ever. She should

he be saying this sort of thing? he needs a role model, and she has

the -- he has the perfect one in his mother, and she would not be

saying this, but he has kept quiet recently so the board -- occasional

announcement should be allowed. his track record in this area, and

in areas of social responsibility, he has been fantastic. The heir to

the throne is entitled to be saying these things and I might dispute

that if I didn't agree with everything he said in this area but

he has been remarkably sound on the environment throughout the whole of

his adult court basically. Do you agree with that? Does anyone listen

to him? I hope some people listen to him because, as my colleagues

have said, he has done a fantastic job, especially with the Prince's

be listened to, but the decision makers must come to their

conclusions on the basis of evidence. If he becomes a king,

would he have to follow his mother's example and be quiet?

Things are evolving all the time. I think he would find it difficult to

be as quiet as his mother has been, but perhaps there is a compromise.

But should he? The Queen is the model we now have, and perhaps he

will sadly have to stop writing those letters, and he will have to

not make those sorts of public announcements because you can't be

entering into the political arena as the sovereign. It is very

different thing. But then we would expect Prince William to take his

mantle and takeover the charities that Prince Charles foundered.

Is it not diplomatic to continually mispronounce foreign leaders'

names? It appears etiquette is slipping at the Foreign Office,

where ministers don't have the experience they used to. These are

challenging demands unfair obviously creating great strains

and tensions in the countries affected, but my noble friend has

asked me to comment on not only Francois Hollande's which put the

German wish to stick rigidly to certain austere budget disciplines.

Somewhere between these two, and in the talks, there will emerge a

sensible balance. We hope there will and we will contribute to

anything that would achieve that. Would the noble lord the Minister

accept a mild rebuke from me on this matter of the mispronunciation

of the names? I declare any interest. It seems a failing of

successive governments to get the names of French President's

properly pronounced. The previous President was inevitably and almost

always referred to as Mr Sarkozy as that it was rhyming with tea cosy,

and President Francois Hollande should be pronounced like this. I

totally accept these extremely wise rebukes from the noble Lord about

my French pronunciation. I will practise a lot more. The Radio 4

news reader is with us. Maybe you need to train some of those Peers

in terms of their pronunciation? will be passing my card around,

leaving them on the benches. It is quite hard to get names right, what

do you think? It is important. Whether they are presidents,

murderers, victims, whoever they are get their name right. He would

want your name right, wouldn't you? Yes, I have been used to that over

the years. How difficult do you think the French President names

are? Not that difficult. It is Francois

Hollande, with "on" in the surname. With Nicolas Sarkozy, did they say

the emphasis on the last syllable? As a newsreader, we are guided by

the pronunciation Unit at the BBC and we can get into some real

arguments with correspondents who have their way of saying it, but

his name is Sarkozy. Not tea cosy. We have a little quiz for you, I'm

sure you'll be delighted. They are going to come up in just a moment.

How do you pronounce these? You get the easy one, the President of Iran.

Mahmud Ahmadinejad. People think with Arabic names you need phlegm

to deliver them, but this one you are aiming for a sighing sound.

This one is quite difficult. We This one is quite difficult. We

will give you the chance, it is the President of the Ivory Coast. How

do you pronounce that? I think that is a pretty good

attempts. It is spelt incorrectly! Let's gloss over that. It is mostly

a question of emphasis on that one. The life raft is at the end of it.

We will have to have you on regularly when these leaders change.

yours is the prime minister of Turkey. I'll always just say the

Prime Minister of Turkey, if I have to do. You have fallen, I'm afraid,

but what else would you say when looking at that. It is Re-jip. That

is the sort of thing we laugh at. Everybody messes that one up the

first time. I leave this one open to any of you, it is the prime

minister of Sri Lanka. Have always felt that one right? Probably!

wants to have a go. I am saying it as it looks. Whatever the last one

was. I did have to write this one down because it is very difficult.

Again, it is the emphasis. Marvellous. Thank you took all of