10/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Good news for

the Liberal Democrats - they're not the only ones concerned about a

possible British exit if the EU. Last night the Obama administration

weighed into the debate, declaring that the special relationship is

best served by the UK remaining at the heart of Europe - spare a

thought for Dave. He's going to make a big speech about Europe soon,

probably saying something a little different. Oh, well. You can't

please everyone. I'm just wondering, are you a man

of the people, and have you ever worn a onesie? Yes, Nick Clegg

answers the big political questions in his first weekly radio phone-in.

Aberdeen City Council wants to remove beggars from the streets.

Not surprisingly, it's cooked up a bit of a political storm. The thing

that always strikes me about England football - you probably

think this is maybe wrong - always trying to thread the ball through

the middle of the pitch rather than take it down the wings. Don't you

just hate it when strange men talk to you on the tube? We celebrate

150 years of minding the gap! What do they know about football?

Quite a lot by the looks of it. read it on a script. All that for

the next hour. With us is a venture capitalist, Jon Moulton. Welcome to

the Daily Politics. Thank you. First, this morning, let's talk

about the retail price index - the RPI because many people - I won't

name name, just most of the BBC, including myself, thought that the

Office for National Statistics would recommend changing it this

morning. It had been expected that the ar, a which is used to set the

level of pensions, would be brought closer into line with the

Government's preferred measure of inflation - that's called the

Consumer Price Index. Are you still following me? It's basically a

European measure of inflation Mr Brown introduced. Anyway, nothing

happened. We were all completely wrong. All that homework wasted.

Jon Moulton, you have 30 seconds to explain what all this means. Your

time starts now. Retail price index was being computed using a strange

mathematical model called the Cali Index everybody else thinks is

The Government were trying to cut the rate to cut the price of

running the index-linked gilts and save about �3 billion a year.

Unfortunately, the Office for National Statistics has said they

don't want to do it. Nobody understands quite why. RPI is high

largely because of the housing content. Brilliant! Have you been

practising?! Do it again. Sheer the contract. You have got it. We are

all on holiday now. Now a different type of quiz. David Cameron this

week hosted a Downing Street reception for fashionistas. Where

was our invite? You don't even know what it means. The Prime Minister

impressed the crowd with a revelation that he always wears

underpants from Marks & Spencer. Too much information. But where

Later this month David Cameron is going to be the Netherlands. Why

not? To make a speech on Europe. Netherlands being in Europe. To say

it's long-awaited is an understatement. It's been delayed

at least twice and has been the subject of endless speculation here

in Westminster. He told the Commons lobby recently that it would be

like tantric sex, it would be all the better when it happens. Can I

say that on daytime television? I just did. He is expected to talk

about how he wabs to renegotiate the relationship between Britain

and the EU there.'s no shortage of advice being offered as Joe

Some of his own backbenchers are demanding he loosens Britain's

relationship with the EU. Some would prefer we leave altogether.

On the other hand, many business leaders are worried about the

potential consequences for the British economy. Richard Branson is

one of a group of businessmen who have taken to the letters page of

the Financial Times to warn against doing anything that could reduce

British influence in Europe. They say that Britain must be very

careful not to call for a wholesale renegotiation. Such a demand would

be rejected by other member states and could put our relationship with

the membership of the EU at risk. They're not the only people to have

expressed concern. Yesterday, a senior member of Barack Obama's

team explained that Washington believes the special relationship

between Britained a America is best served by Britain remaining at the

heart of Europe. He said it was essential and critical Britain

shouldn't weaken its role in Brussels. In his speech later this

month the Prime Minister will be looking for a way to satisfy people

on both sides of the debate. It's not going to be an easy task.

Now with us is the Conservative MP Nadim Zahowi and old Daily Politics,

Christopher Mere. Welcome to you both. Can we establish there is

nothing new - the timing may be significant. There is nothing new

in what the United States is saying. It has always been the policy of

the State Department to want Britain to be a part of the

European Union and indeed even be at the heart of the European Union?

That, in my experience is absolutely right. As long as I have

had anything to do with the United States of America, they have always

said this about Britain and about the European Union. It is, as you

say, the timing which has turned out to be a bit explosive and

assistant secretary Phil Gordon probably didn't expect when he lit

the blue touch paper there would be an explosion of interest in what

the Americans are saying. You may be surprised with the reaction, but

he didn't say it off the cuff. He - the State Department knew what he

was saying. This was absolutely to be expected. It was only a question

of who would say it, where they'd say it and when they'd say it. I

suspect this message is being delivered to the British Government

in private over a period of months. What is concentrating American

minds? It is the possibility, the reality, if you like, of an in-out

referendum that could take us out of the EU altogether. Sitting in

Washington, this is not in the American national interests. Do you

begin to sense a growing force against Euro-scepticism beginning

to flare up? We have had the businessmen, Richard Branson, and

others saying, "Let's stop talking about leaving the European Union."

We have had this statement from the State Department. Are the forces

now beginning to get a against Europe from your point of view?

it's healthy scepticism. Look at what they do for a Parliament. You

have two Parliaments in two different cities costing hundreds

of millions of pounds. What is happening is not just America but

Germany - I had the head of the German CPI over here who made it

very clear that Germany both politically and the business

community want us to remain a major player. I think what the Prime

Minister a has to do is make sure every settlement that comes in from

the eurozone, every expert can agree on one thing - there is going

to be a new settlement... Within the eurozone. When we know what

that is, we need to renegotiate our position with that, make sure there

are some things, whether it's repatriation of things like the

Working Time Directives, stuff around the criminal justice and

policing, all of those sorts of things we can negotiate, then we

must put it to the country, because we need the backing and the good

will of the British public. I think we'll win the referendum. That

would depend on what you're going to repatriate. What is the absolute

minimum that needs to be repatriated in your view, not the

Government's view? We'll hear that from the Prime Minister. In your

view, what is the minimum that needs to be repatriated for you to

say we need to stay in I would like us to repatriate things around the

Working Time Directives - the spending at the moment in the

regions is done in a costly way, a CAP needs to be renegotiated.

That's not going to happen. Do you want out of it? Let's see what

settlement there is. I have asked you... Let's see what settlement

there is and we will negotiate. are not going to be doing the

negotiating. You are just speaking as an MP. I am speaking as a

backbencher supporting my Government. But what is the minimum

for - if you can't get all of that, do you say vote no? What I would

like to see is - L oh n Brittain said if we can go back to the opt

out. Labour gave up an opt opt out. If we can get that back, that's a

good place to be, so develop that. You look at exsport and not just

the big business. But small exporters in Stratford want us to

be in the single market, to be taking advantage of it. But on

different terms. Is it credible that the Europeans will allow us to

stay in the single market with all the advantages that brings and

almost none of the responsibilities? I think it

probably is. The thing we need above all is free trade, that's one

thing that stands on its own. Doesn't require all the other stuff

definitely to exist. It's easier if it does. At the moment we are

attached to a club which has low growth, unattractive financial

characteristics, very poor future, why would we want to continue?

understand. What I don't understand is why would the French and Germans

agree to put their industries at a disadvantage by agreeing to make it

a lot easier for us? I think there's a bunch of things here that

haven't been properly discussed. The debate which we have had the

European Union has been amazingly parochial. Only now I suspect is

the Government seriously trying to factor in the American attitude as

an objective element in the argument which has to go into David

Cameron's speech. And there's a kind of another thing here, whether

you are a eurosceptic or europhile. To think we can say all we want is

the single market, don't want this, the common fisheries policy and

then we are going to have a healthy relationship. On the other side of

the Channel people are saying, you are not going to get this without a

tough fight, if at all. This is going to be the mother of all

negotiations with no guarantee of success at the end on terms that

might be acceptable to those who would call themselves eurosceptic

Are you prepared to say we should leave? I'm prepared to take it to

the country and make the arguments because I think... What would you

advise the country to do? My advice is we need to stay in the single

market. We get that but with respect, again, that's not what I

asked. I hear you, and it's all hypothetical. It may become a

reality. We all want - LAUGHTER

Go for it. Go on. Answer. I will make the arguments. When I see what

that renegotiation has brought forward, I'll make the argument

hopefully to stay in the single market. By the way, Christopher

talks about Germany and France not wanting us to get what we want.

They need our support to do what we need to do. We're prepared to hold

the eurozone to ransom to stop them becoming an ever closer union if we

don't get what we want. Is that what you're saying? It's a

negotiation. Your point of highest leverage is when you need the other

people to get something for you... So no fiscal union for the

eurozone? No economic union for the eurozone? They don't do... If it

damages the single market - David Cameron was already prepared to do

it. It is unwise to negotiate with guns that are loaded. You can't

fire that weapon. We would be such an enemy of Europe of Europe for so

long, we'd go nowhere. We have to renegotiate a better position. Free

trade is the basics. We want as little as the rest as is necessary

to stay in. It's not easy to say where that'll drop. You wouldn't be

frightened if we left? I wouldn't. That makes you a minority among

business folk. It does indeed. At least I am in the UK, whereas

Richard Branson is somewhere in the Caribbean. He has somewhat

different views. Oh! A saucer of milk for our guest of the day.

There is a danger here - stepping back from the Euro-sceptic, Euro

Phil argument - there is a danger here taking the American position

and taking what I think would be the likely arrangement of the

countries that would matter in that we end up with no friends? It is

possible. I don't think that'll happen... Because America doesn't

want us to leave as ambassador. America doesn't want to go down the

route he's talking about either. think the big worry in all of this

- it's a completely unknown factor at the moment - is we have more

foreign direct investment from the United States in this country than

from any other country - more or less a million people go to work

every day from American firms investing in the UK. Indeed. When

we did not go into the euro, American business didn't care, but

if we were to leave the European Union as a whole as a result of a

referendum, I wouldn't like to bet that all of that investment would

stay in the UK with the jobs... thing they want is the free trade.

That's what those Americans really want. The other things are very

secondary. The Americans really don't want to have to pay for the

Working Time Directive, for the social stuff for, the unnecessary

regulation and the nonsense. would remind you when it came to

the European budget, who was the cool significance it was the UK,

Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland going back to vam rum

boy and saying you can't have the increase in the budget you would

To coin a phrase, in that you were all in it together. You all wanted

the same thing. That isn't going to be true when you are going to tell

German business your costs will be hugely high and we will cut our

costs because there will be no no European directives. Let's see what

happens then. We have to leave it there, but I think we will be back.

If this speech ever happens! When is it going... It is going to

happen. I will be patient. It's the first time a serving cabinet

Minister has agreed to a weekly onair grilling. Nick Clegg has his

own half hour radio slot now in which members of the public can

call, e-mail text or tweet questions to the Deputy Prime

Minister. His first slot on London's LBC radio station was

broadcast today. Let's move on to other callers. It's John in London,

you are on the radio. Good morning. Nick Clegg, I am a Liberal Democrat

who's just torn up his membership card. I joined the party first in

1973. I am afraid I cannot now say that I want to represent the Lib

Dems. I am an ex-County Councilor and I am ashamed of what the

party's doing. Have you got your membership card with you? Not now

Jew remember what it -- not now. You remember what it says on it?

The Liberal Democrats exist to build a fair and free open society

in which we seek to balance fundamental values of liberty

equality and community and no one shall be enslaved by poverty,

ignorance or conformity. Can you tell me how you reconcile that with

what this Government's attacks on the poorest in society? You say you

are ashamed. I am immensely proud that facing one of the biggest

economic crises this country has seen in a generation, possibly the

post-war period, the Liberal Democrats took a big collective and

brave decision, at some political cost, to say we are going to step

up to the plate, work in a coalition because no one won the

general election and try and fix this mess and fix this mess while

also trying to make society fairer. How have we done that? You sold

out... Wait a minute. With a promise on the front page of our

manifesto to raise the point at which people start paying income

tax to �10,000, that's the biggest change in the system. The pupil

premium, on the front page of our manifesto, we are delivering �2.5

billion of extra money targeted directly for the first time at

those children on free school meals, from the most disadvantaged

families who need more support in school. For the first time ever as

of this April, because of something I personally pushed through

Government, thousands of two-year- olds for the first time ever will

get 15 hours of free pre-school support and child care in a way

that's never happened in this country before. Those are just

three examples. If do you go ahead and leave the party which party

would you support? I am afraid I can't support any party at the

moment. They're doing exactly the same thing. Thank you. Deputy Prime

Minister, a question from Harry in Sheffield. I am wondering are you a

man of the people and have you ever worn a onesie? I was actually given

a big green onesie in Sheffield which I have kept in its packaging.

I haven't worn it yet but I have one, I possess one. I am not sure

he should be boasting about owning that. More of that later. He knew

what it was, more than I did! Joining us now are Nick Ferrari and

Gillian Reynolds. How do you think he did? I think he did really well.

You saw live radio in all its ugliness with the calls you heard,

the councillor who decided to tear up his card. We have done a couple

of one-offs before, and I am sure he has done phone-ins. The joy of

the radio is you don't know what's coming your way. None of the calls

are vetted, he didn't know what was coming up? Credit to him and his

team. They didn't even ask. They knew that's how it was. They

probably know what to expect. Had he got what he would have expected,

a question on child benefit, something on welfare and a member

ripping up the pledge card from the party and tuition fees. The big

question is are you going to be able to sustain it, is he going to

be able to sustain it every week? This man projected confidence and

enjoyed it at the end, he wasn't beaten. He said how much he was

genuinely enjoying it. He said I look forward to seeing you next

Thursday and meant it. He is up for it. What is I imagine if you look

at it, he is not doing particularly well, what has he got to lose?

did you think? How would you review it? Very swift show. Went in the

blink of an eye. I listened to the first 15 minutes. I listened to it,

I I don't know how you did it, the control of the timing was masterly.

Two questions before the first break, four questions afterwards.

If you compress the time down, you are talking about 25 minutes.

Nobody was hurried. He did well. There you go! A great review. Will

you listen next week and week after week? Yes, I will. If you are

talking about what is if for Nick Clegg? What's in it for LBC? It's

got a national audience. Via digital radio and online, it's a

national audience. It's suddenly demonstrated, it's also a younger

audience than the usual one. choose a London station, he will

have done things in Sheffield. asked him. There is that. What

about this idea of a masochism strategy? Boris Johnson comes on

once a month and he has had terrible times. David Cameron last

year, you may have covered this, he took a call from the woman who asks

why are we spending billions on foreign aid, I am dying of cancer

and can't get drugs. And the UKIP clip. That was on my show, when he

was leader of the opposition, before he was Prime Minister. He

knows. I guess it comes back, what's he got to lose? Maybe it is

that streak. But at least perhaps David Cameron doesn't listen to him,

perhaps he doesn't get a word in at home with Miriam. I will be quiet!

He said something interesting, when you explain things to people they

understand them. There was a lot of stick afterwards from the students

in Sheffield, we wouldn't vote for him, we didn't like him. Too many

statistics. Actually, you could feel in the first half hour that he

did that once he started explaining things people did listen and as you

say, might have made a nice change. Will you listen? No. I am

interested that he could do it without the hand gestures,

typically when he does speak all I do is watch his hands going. If he

was in a onesie, it wouldn't be his hands you were looking at. I was

impressed he did know what it was. Andrew and I did not. In the ad

break, what was he like? He enjoyed it. He didn't go, how did I do?

was absolutely buoyant. He really was was. He thoroughly enjoyed it.

I am not just saying that, he was in the studio and his body language

was upbeat. Do you think he was too technical? These are complex

questions about child benefit and about welfare and benefit caps. Do

you think there was a little bit too much in terms of statistics and

figures? No one knows better about the Radio than Gillian. It's a

personal medium. In a newspaper they do a box and TV you put up a

graphic. I don't blame him, politicians do it. They hit you

with figures. You lose the audience. It's about human stories. A couple

of students you mentioned reflected too many numbers, people can't

process them all. He is not presenting. There is a big

difference between being a guest on a show, and actually, Tony Blair

when he did a show he was driving - would you like to hear him present

the programme rather than taking calls? Well, I think after a couple

of weeks or months - I am happy for him to do half an hour and to

address the questions of the minute. Because I don't think there's any

harm in a politician appearing to be accessible and that's quite a

clever thing he's done. He appears to be accessible to a national

audience who can ask him anything S there any other politician who

would take that risk? Is it desperation? Would you come under

pressure from Ofcom to say if you are doing this with the Lib Dems,

you have to let Labour politician on of their choice, a UKIP and a

Conservative? The answer is not until you move into an election

period. Representations have been made by one of the other parties,

we would welcome David and Ed and they can have Friday and Monday and

carve it up between them. At the moment we are confident there are

no problems. The invitation is there. If they want to... You are

not going to say no? No, name your hour and come in. We will tune in

next week. Thank you very much. The pay of Britain's top executives

has been a thorny subject since chief executives were invented. But

it's especially controversial in times of austerity. The wealth

wealth gap between those at the top and those struggling has led to

calls for a cap on executive pay. All three main parties agree that

something must be done. But what? David Thompson reports.

The spoils of capitalism, affordable to the few, not the many.

These days the gap between those who shop here and the rest of us

feels ever wider and ever more irritating. If there's one thing

guaranteed to wind people up, it's the megapay packets of those at the

top largely because it doesn't seem fair. While it might be tempting to

cap executive salaries, in reality, pretty unlikely to happen. There is,

however, more than one way to skin a fat cat. Many viewers will have

pensions or savings wrapped up in different investment funds. We

would like to empower them more to take action to be able to do

something about this by forcing fund managers to disclose how they

vote on issues of remunneration. If you have a pension you deserve to

though if they're voting in favour of excessive irresponsible pay

packets or whether they're actually doing the right thing. Unless you

know you can't do anything about it. It's not just Labour. The

Government wants shareholders to have a binding vote on executive

pay every three years with details of salaries and golden handshakes

made public. In Brussels, the the European Parliament's economic and

monetary committee hopes to push through on weeks. Is it their job

to tell private businesses what they should pay? If you are doing

it for no particular reason, but we are doing it for a reason. There

has been an excessive amount of risk-taking happening in the

financial sector. These high bonuses have brought it about.

There has been a consequence effect upon society. Therefore, that

overrules having a complete Libber attitude of you can take what you

However, bonuses fell by 5% with increased share options largely

making up the increase. Don't feel too sorry for them

though, the medium bonus was still over �600,000 and average earns of

chief executive a micely �4 billion. What would be wrong with an overall

cap on pay? I think having a flat rate cap applying across the board

in all different businesses in industry will be impractical and

will represent far too much of an interference in the day-to-day

management of a company. Actually very few politicians want to cap on

total salaries which some fear pay campaigners think is chickening out.

The idea executive pay should be a no-go area is risible and it's

because in the main they're terrified of the threat that

they'll be seen as anti-wealth generation as it's posed, if they

challenge the highest executive pay packets in the world which is

nonsense and there's been a good lobby in favour of high executive

pay which they haven't dared to take on. It's easy to say red over

the trappings of executive wealth. Coming up with realistic plans to

scale down the perks of those at I didn't know you'd parked your car

there. I think it's yours. small one. We're joined by the

former Deputy Leader of the Unite union, Jack Dromey and our guest of

the day, Jon Moulton, is still with us. In 1985 Margaret Thatcher said

the top fare makers in the city make one gasp they're so large. Do

you ever gasp at the size of salarys in your industry? I am not

in the City with the FTSE 100 lot. Their pay is remarkably high, 4

point something million average. It's hard to believe that you

actually need to pay that sort of money to get people to perform well.

You know? You can get perfectly good TV presenters for a lot less.

You certainly can. A great deal less. Before you answer that we're

going to welcome our viewers from Scotland who have been watching

First Minister's Questions in Holyrood. Welcome to the Daily

Politics. Let's come back to perhaps not the pay of TV

presenters but yes, your point about the fact people are paid too.

When you say those salaries are too high, what is too high? They're by

international standards - the UK is pretty well the highest payer of

CEOs now. We're way ahead of Germany, France, Italy, even the

United States. We're ahead of the Americans? We are. Why has that

happened? I think the main thing that's happened is the perversity

is when we set up these remuneration committee at the

boards these became part of corporate governance, saying we'll

pay in the top quarter of the industry. As a result they started

chasing each other at pace. It's most of the last 20 years you'll

see much higher rates of acceleration of senior pay than

middle and lower. Should there be a cap? A firm cap probably doesn't

need to exist. I think the right answer is gradually drifting into

sight, which is shareholders voting on remuneration packages and voting

some down. Some have done that we have some notable examples. Jack

Dromey, isn't that a better way to go than to have a blanket cap?

Let's start with what the nature of the problem is. We have had soaring

boardroom pay - it's not based on merit. If you look at the

performance of the companies compared to what they have been

getting in the boardroom, it's not based on merit. All too often it

rewards failure. Why? Because you've got this cosy old-boys club

of remuneration committees. They all fix one another's salaries.

It's a you-scratch-my-back, I'll- scratch yours. There is a second

problem - the way remuneration works it insent rises short termism

in our country. The gap from top to bottom is half what it is in

Britain in Germany. What would you like to see? If you're not

convinced by shareholders beginning to take action and voting with

their feet, why do you think a cap proposed by the Europeans would be

a good idea? You need complete transparency, the publication of

top and medium pay. If there are significant changes in future you

have to justify that the other thing is proper accountability. Why

not workers on the board of remuneration committees? I know

from my own past experience in the union workers would not begrudge a

good governor a decent pay increase and also, crucially, that the

investors, the pension fund managers - they should have to

justify how they make their decision ass well. What do you say

in response to those points? very basic point - these packages

are very complicated. That's part of the problem, though. Long-term

incentive plan, one-option scheme, three option scheme... Should they

be simpler? Absolutely they should. There is no need for the complexity

of some of these. The long-term incentive plans of most senior

management are incomprehensive to., So even those who work in the City.

Should politicians be getting involved in dictating what top

executives should get or at least guiding them? I think they should

be influencing it. We do need some sort of legal backing. It might be

reasonable to have - if the Chief Executive is paid more than 20

times average pay of the workforce you need a 70% share of the

shareholders to vote for it. think it's absolutely right the

politicians act, not the least Regularly people say to me how

wrong they think it is that your boardroom pay soars whilst their

pay either is constrained or falls. What about the point that people

will go elsewhere? You say Britain is ahead at the moment. That

situation can change. These people are very mobile. If indeed the

competitive pressure is there, that's fine. It isn't there in most

cases. That's right. Do you think it's a myth put forward by people

in the industry who say if we don't pay top dollar... What is

remarkable is how it's so concentrated at the top. This isn't

in the middle ranks in the same way. This is a UK phenomenon at its

extreme. Why don't Labour take a leaf out of the Social Democrats'

book? What they were considering? If a company pays a Chief Executive

�20 manage, say, a big salary, all of that �20 million is tax

deductsable before that company pace corporation tax. It's a cost.

What the Social Democrats said was anything over, say, a million, you

can still pay them more than a million but none of it over a

million is tax deductible. Sure. You do learn - we have been arguing

very strongly for transparency and accountability as a first step. I

think at the next stages, absolutely, we need to draw upon

European examples, in particular, Germany, because in Germany, the

gap is half what it is in Britain, and Germany is a successful long-

term-ist economy. Why don't you go for that idea? We learned very

valuable lessons from Germany. Watch this space because Chukka

made it very clear earlier on that it is wrong at a time like this,

but also, if we're going to put right our economy - deep-seated

difficulties over 30 years, this is a nettle we have to grasp. There is

one thing I would like to chuck in. Chuck in, Chuckca! The FTSE 100 now

is very largedy... They're not British companies. There is

confusion there. Thank you very much.

This morning, Britain's most Senior The Prime Minister decided on the

basis of the genuine interests to draw a line under the matter. That

was what his position was. I work for the Prime Minister. So it was

decided to possibly accept that Andrew Mitchell was lying? I don't

think the Prime Minister at any stage thought Andrew Mitchell was

lying. If he was telling the truth, then somebody else was lying.

in life you sometimes have a difference of view as to what was

said. You didn't feel it was part of your investigation to get to the

bottom of that? No, it would be impossible for me to do that

without investigating the police. It's not my job to investigate the

police. Did you ask to see the police log? No. No. Can you just

explain why you didn't ask to see the police log? Because I didn't

think it was appropriate for me to be investigating the police log. I

didn't think it was necessary for me... Investigating the police log

- it was a question to see whether Mr Mitchell was telling the truth

or not. Would you not have wanted to see the police log? It's very,

very important not to get confusion here. My review, set by the Prime

Minister, was into the e-mails, not into the police log. I didn't think

I needed to see the police logs in order to draw the conclusions that

I did about the e-mails, which were that they were not reliable and

therefore that Andrew Mitchell should be kept in his position.

Your remit was very limited? Very Every now and again the curtains

pull back and you see the senior Civil Service in action in this

country. You can decide whether or not it's a pretty sight. We're

joined by Conservative MP Alan Johnson. -- Kerns. Did Heywood make

a complete horlik of all of this? As he analysed the evidence there

was clearly inconsistently from the e-mail to the log to the CCTV. He

hadn't brought them all together. If he had, that would have showed

serious tkwheas should have been brought to the police or the IPCC

Is it not his job to mark the Prime Minister's card? Is it not his job

to say, look, Prime Minister, I've seen the police - the police log.

I've seen the CCTV footage. The two don't mesh. You'd better be careful

about this? That's the point. Sir Jeremy Heywood said he hadn't seen

the police log, but the challenge I made to him is it was in the Daily

Telegraph. Exactly - or was suggested to be the police log. He

wasn't sure that was the police log in the Daily Telegraph, but I would

have thought there was sufficient evidence there to warrant further

investigation. After that displace, would you get him to organise the

proverbial in a brewery? That's the right question. Was he the right

person to do it. That's what the chairman of the committee was doing

should it have gone to the Prime Minister's advisor on the

Ministerial Code. If the Prime Minister - in the United States,

the president would have got one of his senior political advisors to do

this, and to be aware with political antennae because this

involved a Cabinet Minister, a Prime Ministerial appointment - and

a political advisor would have raised all of these things with the

Prime Minister. Well, I'm not sure it has to be a political advisor

because I think the press itself would then say you've got a

politician investigating a politician. That would undermine it.

I am not talking an official investigation. I am talking the

Prime Minister to one of his senior advisors, can you go find out about

this Mitchell business? Go and get the facts. The Prime Minister did

say, will you investigate the e- mails and look at the case? He kept

on saying, "But I was only asked to look at the e-mails, nothing else."

That's what I would expect Sir Jeremy Heywood to come back to the

Prime Minister to say this needs widening if that was the limit of

the investigation in the first. Your lot weren't impressed with him

this morning, were you? He left some questions unanswered.

LAUGHTER We need to remember... Say what you

mean. We were limited, in fairness, in terms of what we could say. I

was called to order on one occasion because there was a police

investigation ongoing. We don't want to prejudice that inquiry.

What was also important to me is Sir Jeremy Heywood responded to a

complaint by Yvette Cooper before, I would suggest, he went into the

CCTV and he looked at the police log, if he looked at the police log

at all. I thought on the one hand he said having received a complaint

from such a senior politician I had to investigate it. I am not clear

he did so. I find this incomprehensible. You have an event,

a police log, some e-mails and some CCTV. How can it take an

intelligent person more than 15 minutes to review the bloody lot

and come up with the right answer? Whether that was somebody from the

Attorney General's office, a political advisor, one of the

Number Ten staff? Anybody would have come to a conclusion in very

short order. He also later said he suspected there was the possibility

of a gigantic conspiracy. That was investigated, and I'm a bit

confused by that, particularly in he was looking at in isolation each

element rather than bringing them all together. We're now waiting on

the police investigation? That's got to be given a run... This is

just the police investigating themselves. Yes, absolutely and the

IPCC if necessary. Even again, though, why would that take more

than a day? This is not a monumentally complex event? They

need to pursue the evidence. We're going to Aberdeen now. All of us.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. It may be one of

Scotland's wealthiest cities... Scotland's wealthiest cities...

Thank you. Let's not qualify that! Doesn't take too kindly to its

poorest inhabitants. The city council wants to ban beggars from

its streets. From and, a Kevin Keen It's something politicians the

world over have been trying to find a solution to, probably before

money ever existed. A string of plans here in Aberdeen in recent

years have all failed. Now the latest administration at the

council is trying again. In 2008, these giving boxes were installed

at key points across the city centre. People were urged in ad

campaigns not to give their loose change to beggars. Instead, the

contents of the box would be given to homeless charities. But some of

them were broken into, and crucially, the number of beggars in

Aberdeen stayed about the same. attempt was then made to introduce

a bylaw so the beggars could be moved on, but legal advisors

advised the then-administration you can't make it illegal for someone

to just be in a public place and that aggressive begging is already

covered in law. So it's back to the drawing board. A new administration

has now taken over in Aberdeen, and they're keen to re-examine the

bylaw option, saying they're more confident now that it can be

brought in. Joining us now from Aberdeen, Scotland's richest city

is the leader of the city's council, Labour's Barney Crockett and Mark

McDonald from Edinburgh, who is the Scottish National Party MSP for the

north-east region. Welcome to both of you. First of all to Barney

Crockett - how big a problem is How big a problem is begging in

Aberdeen? It's not a huge problem, it's something that is significant

and there are growth features in. We are looking for tools to try and

help that situation and we think one of the things we need is the

ability to control it through legal methods as is in other parts of the

United Kingdom. But why? Begging is something that happens in most

cities. If it's not a particularly big problem in Aberdeen and if the

beggars aren't being aggressive why do you think you need to go down

the legal route to ban it? First of all, we have a strong record of

helping people in difficult circumstances and I think that we

want to take that further and I think this gives us a way of making

an intervention. It can be effective. Also, we face - it was

mentioned, that we are perhaps the only UK city that's doing

particularly well at the moment and we are certainly one of the key

growth cities in the UK. We do attract people in. We welcome

people. We need people to be coming in. But we want to give them

positive futures than begging on the streets and we think this is

one of the possible ways. What's your problem with that, Mark

McDonald? This is entirely the wrong approach. It's essentially

criminalising people who are vulnerable, it doesn't tackle the

causes of why people end up begging. It tackles the effect. It may make

streets look nicer to put beggars off into the justice system but it

does nothing to resolve problems that allow people to fall into that

position, whether that's through people who have found themselves

homeless, find themselves with mental health problems, addiction

problems. There are many route causes of why people beg,

criminalising them isn't going to make it go away. Are you going to

try to stop this going through? Scottish Government's made it clear

they see no reason for a buy-law banning begging. The piece there

said aggressive begging is dealt with. We have breach of the peace

laws which can deal when that arises. The key thing is to have

agencies working together to help these people not to victimise and

criminalise them. I think you will struggle to find any of the key

charities, either in Aberdeen or nationally who deal with beggars

who are saying they want to see a bye-law introduced. You haven't

really got the support for this then? I think we have the support

in the city. I think that... Do you from charities? I think that the

problem I have is that cities must have the ability to make their own

decisions in looking at the future and I think that it's important

that Aberdeen is not put at a big disadvantage compared to cities in

the rest of the UK. A recent survey said Aberdeen was one of the three

best places in the UK for investment. But the warning was

there that cities and devolved regions were doing slightly better

than in England but the warning was that an undue influence from

central Government could be a big problem and I think here we have,

we are looking for a local solution to a local problem. I don't think

it's helpful to have a a Scottish Government wading in. There is a

clear message there. But basically stop interfering. If devolution is

going to work they should be allowed to make their own mind up?

Any bye-law requires Scottish Government approval and that's the

nature of the law in Scotland. I am simply saying - I think that I

don't want to see people begging on the streets either. The difference

with myself and the Councilor Crockett, I think you should help

to look people begging. It's a Dickensian approach to criminalise

those people. Rather than helped appropriately. Thank you both very

much. Looks nice in Aberdeen behind him

there. We should do the programme there one day. A great city. Ken

Livingstone loves it, Boris thinks it annihilates distance, liquidates

traffic and is the throbbing cardiovascular system of the

greatest city on the earth. I am not talking about happy in our the

West End, but the London Underground which which opened its

doors to passengers 150 years ago # It's your train...

Ah, the tube, I couldn't get to work without it. Apart from when

they're on strike and it's been serving Londoners for a century and

a half, it's also being a magnet for politicians when they want to

ditch the limo and look normal but what are the tube habits of these

well known London MPs? How much do you love or loath the tube? I love

the tube. It gets a pad press, un-- a bad press. It's reliable,

sometimes lines go down, engineering work at weekends, but

it's the quickest way of getting from A to B. I love the tube. I

learned to drive about four months ago so all my life I have used the

tube. I love the tube. I use it often and London wouldn't be London

without the tube and my constituency would not be linked to

the rest of London without the tube. Do you stand up when there is an

elderly person or pregnant laid? -- ladyy. Tkoeu stand up for the

elderly, although I get nervous sometimes about pregnant women! And

getting it wrong. Have you ever been caught fare-dodging? Certainly

not. I wouldn't admit it to you anyway! Do you always mind the gap?

I always mind the gap. I get scared. I always stand behind the yellow

line. I also, if people aren't moving along so other people can

get on, I become a supplemental conductor to say, move on, come on!

And they normally do. Which Tube Station is the only one that

doesn't contain any of the letters in the words mackerel? Oh, you are

joking! Oh, I do know, is it Vauxhall? No. I am afraid I have to

pass on that one thrfrpblgts's so many --. There's so many tube

staugss -- stations. I haven't a clue. St John's Wood. I have been

there once or twice. I have been there, normally actually with the

pheriest of hearts because I am on the way to watch cricket at Lords.

Oh no, I forgot to ask them the most important question of all -

what do you do when you are really annoyed by the person who sits down

next to you? You try to ignore the Prime

Minister if you found him on the tube, wouldn't you? It used to be

said of Mussolini, at least he used to make the trains run on time. One

reason why no one could ever mistake our next guest for a

fascist. Bob Crowe. Do you happen by tube. On London. Why does it

always stop in Hendon? It should never have stopped at Hendon. It

was shut down by the Labour Party. Glenda Jackson as the transport

Minister was to shut down that line. It should have been extended.

you offer up your seat? Certainly, yeah. To whom? No one younger than

me. We are narrowing it. A woman pregnant, baby on board. Elderly

person. People with kids, yeah, certainly. John? Do you travel by

tube? I may be younger by him. you travel by tube? Occasionally.

Would you give up your seat? course. Best and worst experience?

Best experience is every day, actually. To get from parts of the

suburbs into London in 25 minutes, no way to beat it. The worst

scenario was stuck down a tube tunnel for over an hour and being

evacuated. You had to walk along? It didn't concern me but for

elderly people it was stressful for them. Shall we do our quiz? Do you

agree with Boris, this isn't the quiz, you and Boris that the tube

is the throbbing cardio vase skhrar system of the greatest city on

earth. Absolutely. Ets do the quiz. Which chat show host was reportedly

born in a in station. Springer. What is the mosquito named after

the tube called? They thought about that! I thought might be trickier.

We call it the tube and the Americans call it the subway.

What percentage of the underground is under grown? -- underground?

say probably 60%. 40%. You say 40%. You are closer, it's 45%. We could

be done under the trade descriptions act. The underground

is actually 55% overground. Chesham, Watford, Epping. Most of the

Metropolitan line out in the suburbs. They are talking about

Crossrail two. North to south. see. A fantastic way. Only way you

are going to improve the tube is more capacity. That's why Crossrail

is a fantastic opportunity. The extension of the the Northern Line

is fantastic. Crossrail is not the tube? It's the overground route

going underground and joining? will be joined to the tube, coming

to Whitechapel and Liverpool Street and through to Heathrow. But north

to south will be the next. How many mice live on the tube? Never

counted them. Who's counting them? The rats! Must be in the ten

million. It says half a million. I think that's underestimated. It's

got to be. Has anyone counted them? What is

the London Underground known in Cockney rhyming slang? That's a

good one. Must have heard it on Minder years ago. The Oxo. Never

heard that before. The cube, tube. Never heard that. Do you think they

shared a Christmas cracker? They're similar. The first journey on the

tube, it took place today in 1863. Amazing it was the mid-19th century

they could do all this. It shows you the engineers capacity in this

country then. Paddington and Farringdon. Which notable person

turned down the invitation? Good point. I guess he probably did,

because the politician who first went on the overground train

journey he fell off the train and died. The Prime Minister? It was,

Lord palmisson. He departed on a snooker table, didn't he? What was

he doing? Not for this time of the day. Didn't he sire a child when I

was about 70 and Disraeli said keep it quiet or he will be swept to

power in an overall majority? We taught you about the Oxo. Let's

carry on the theme of quizzes. We have just time to find out the

answer. Where does David Cameron What do you think, John? I don't

think he would wear Hush Puppies. Or go to Sports Direct that leaves

us with the third option. Well done! It is Oliver Sweeney. He is a

trendy designer. Never heard of him. Thank you to all our guests. The