25/11/2013 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. This looks like

another bad day for RBS. A new report suggests the bank shuttered

stores deliberately in order to drive small businesses to the wall

and seize their assets on the cheap. It's very, very, very long.

In fact, the bill paving the way for High Speed Two is the biggest we've

ever seen, and it's published today. But will it ever make law?

Should the arts be singing for their supper? We'll be asking what level

of public funding they deserve. And...

# Take on me. Ed Miliband on brotherly love and

his Desert Island discs. All that in the next hour. And with

us for the first half of the programme today, and adding a touch

of glamour to the show, is the former ballerina, Deborah Bull.

Welcome to the programme. Deborah was also the creative director of

the Royal Opera House. She is currently director of the Cultural

Institute at Kings College London. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now,

first this morning, let's talk about payday loans because the Government

is to introduce a new law to cap the cost of payday loans. Ministers want

to limit interest rates, which at the moment can exceed 4000%. Labour

pledged to crack down on payday lenders some time ago but the

Chancellor, George Osborne, denies he's stolen the opposition's idea.

We inherited a situation where the payday lending industry was almost

entirely unregulated, leading to outrageous fees and totally

unacceptable practices. We will now cap the cost of credit for the

payday lending industry, because we are on the side of hard-working

people, we want to make sure they are properly protected and we want

the banking system to work for them. Is the Government right to

intervene? There has to be evidence of real

harm for the government to intervene. It does it when there is

real harm, with alcohol and tobacco. Intervening now seems to suggest

they have accepted the evidence that there is real harm, but that means

that the Government needs to look at it more broadly. I am glad they are

looking at terms and conditions, but I think advertising has a role to

play. The Money Advice Service found that over a million people would be

going to payday lenders to fund Christmas. Why do they think there

is the need? Many people just can't get loans from high-street banks,

they are having to pay higher interest to payday lenders. And

others are saying they'll -- they are dodgy but useful. Do they have a

role to play? Of course, but it is ensuring the most vulnerable are not

targeted through inappropriate advertising, prevalence,

availability, through affordability checks which become nothing more

than a wing and a prayer. Lots of these payday lending shops are

prevalent on certain high streets. The more you see them, I suppose the

more people will be tempted to use them. If you combine that with the

power of advertising, which makes us all feel inadequate, that we have to

give more to our children and how the things that somebody else has, I

think it is good they are looking at it and I am in favour. Do you

think... The Government denies they have performed a U-turn, but you

think they are becoming more interested in intervening where they

think markets are failing? There is a question whether governments are

acting for what they believe or because they think it will will map

votes. -- win them votes. I tend to think these are pretty good

statements that I think there is real harm being done by excessive

borrowing, to easy borrowing. If good comes out of it, that is a good

thing. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is who chairs the all-parliamentary dance group?

Is it Vince Cable, Theresa May, Sir Gerald Kaufman or Caroline Flint?

There's a challenge for you! At the end of the first half of the show,

Debra will try to give us the correct answer.

George Osborne says he is shocked, Vince Cable is appalled, Labour says

it's deplorable. Those are just some of the phrases used to describe the

latest allegations against the Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS is accused of

deliberately forcing some companies into administration in order to

seize their assets. Those are the allegations contained in a new

report into bank lending out this morning. The report has been

produced by this man, Lawrence Tomlinson, a wealthy entrepreneur

who made his fortune in the care home business. He focuses his

criticism on a division at RBS known as the Global Restructuring Group,

or GRG, which handles loans which are deemed to be risky. Mr Tomlinson

claims that some perfectly good companies have been engineered into

GRG, some of which then collapsed. He states that a perception has

arisen that the intention is to purposefully distress businesses, to

put them in GRG and subsequently take their assets at a discounted

price. Another review from the former Deputy Governor of the Bank

of England, Sir Andrew Large, into the lending practices at RBS is also

being published today. His initial findings earlier this month found

serious allegations of poor treatment by firms in financial

distress. With me now are the Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna and

the Conservative MP, Brooks Newmark, who sits on the Treasury select

committee. Does this surprise you, Brooks Newmark? No. I have talked

about it since I first got on the select committee. All MPs get

constituents who write in and particularly focus on the banks, RBS

in particular. More than almost any other bank it has been driving

perfectly healthy businesses underwater. It is the allegation

that perfectly viable businesses, not ones that were struggling but

ones that were doing all right, were driven out of business? One argument

is perfect with healthy SMEs that suddenly have the goalposts moved,

there loan comes up for renewal and they are told they are no longer

lending to that sector. Once one bank says no, even if you are

healthy, no other bank will touch you with a barge pole. But you

accept that people are attached to their businesses emotionally, as

well as financially, and RBS under the banks were being put under huge

pressure to clean up their balance sheets, get rid of businesses that

could perhaps be viewed as difficult in the future, but not all of them

were viable and perhaps they were just doing what was necessary? All

banks need to clean up unsure of their balance sheets and provide

more liquidity, ie more cash. But they were driving perfectly viable

businesses underwater and not working through their restructuring

group. Businesses teetering on the edge, they drove them under rather

than saving them. You recognise this? We have had an ignoble --

anecdotal evidence to that effect. But the central allegation of the

report is that RBS was systematically and artificially

distressing businesses with the goal of putting them under to seize their

assets and therefore profit from that. That is gravely serious. Vince

Cable is right to refer to the Financial Conduct Authority Amber

Prudential Regulation Authority, that RBS can do two things which I

think will give people confidence. -- and the Prudential Regulation

Authority. The RBS chief executive has two confirmed that the Global

Restructuring Group is not used as a profit centre but used to minimise

losses in respect of potentially distressed businesses. Just

confirming that fact, I think, would start on a road to giving people

confidence that they are not a rigging the system. The second thing

that needs to happen is the core problem that is identified as the

way in which the business's assets are valued. They are saying that the

way they are valued as skewed towards giving them an undervalued

so that the bank, through its West Register property owning arm, can

seize these assets. But the validation should begin and not just

to the bank but the businesses as well, so the valuation has a duty of

care to the businesses, not just the bank. I would like to know what RBS

has two say. We would like to hear from them, they are going to make a

statement. What happened to regulation? It depends which period

you are talking about. Post the crash, as we have seen recently with

the Paul Flowers case, it has been grossly lamentable. We wanted to see

a step change in the I think the point that Chuka Umunna

makes is correct, if they are trying to be a profit centre and prey on

weak businesses to put them under, that is a serious allegation that

must be dealt with. But you are talking about anecdotal evidence.

People will question this entrepreneur in residence, a

businessman who will have sympathy, rightly or wrongly, with the

businesses concerned. Are you absolutely sure that that very

serious allegation will be borne out, if you like? Our business

editor today says the bank is under huge pressure to get rid of the

zombie businesses, failing businesses, pressure from both your

government and your government put RBS under huge pressure. That is why

Vince Cable is right to have reverted to authorities concerned,

you are right to question the facts. I used to practice as a lawyer

myself, I did not do much insolvency, but posted 2008/2009 and

the holy nationalised nature of RBS, its management became more

centralised, there was less local discretion for relationship managers

and within the unit, which may have impacted on how people were treated.

To what extent did the incentive arrangements of those managing that

unit linked to what may have happened? There is another issue.

Potentially, to me, it would seem there are issues of legality,

whether this was lawful, what was going on. Do you accept that the

tripartite regulation under Labour failed? Wii there is generally a

consensus towards a light touch regulation, which obviously failed,

because we would not have had the global financial crash. In terms of

the tripartite system or the Twin Peaks model, I would refer to what

the former head of the FSA said in respect when he gave evidence to the

select committee when I was on it, you could have tweaked the

tripartite model and improved it all you could have had the current Twin

Peaks model, as it is now. But nobody in the overall system was

taking overall control of the financial stability. That system was

set up by Gordon Brown. You were not calling for heavy regulation, no

Conservatives were. There is a difference between heavy regulation

and better regulation. We have called for better regulation, not

necessarily more. The problem with the tripartite system is that

problems fell to even three stalls... When you have three

different regulators, things tend to fall between two. That was the

weakness of Labour's proposal. You are shocked and appalled as

everybody else by what might have happened. Deborah, are you as

shocked and appalled by the report? I think it comes alongside another

report about RBS and SMEs. I think the nation as a whole, the inexpert

nation, is throwing its hand up and saying, what will come to life?

Lawrence Tomlinson is essentially independent. If he had not asked

these questions, would we have known? What else is simmering that

might be uncovered to somebody's passion and investigative skills? I

think he has precipitated a proper process in respect of the

authorities who should look into this. He has done is a service. Why

did it need him to do that? In fairness to the Business Secretary,

he got him to do that. The problem is the regulators don't tend to be

popular with industry practitioners. He is highly sensitive to what is

going on with SMEs and he has ought to light a number of the issues. --

he has brought to light. We have all seen similar anecdotal evidence as

MPs. What should be the sanction? You have talked about it perhaps

being unlawful. There is a question about whether civil liability

attaches to this and whether what we have seen is fraudulent and

criminal. In advance of the findings being delivered as a matter of fact,

it would be unwise of me to start hypothesising about what should

happen. But if the law has been broken in anyway, shape or form,

there should be a severe sanctions indeed. Criminal sanctions? With

something criminal has taken place, that should do it. We need to look

forward about dealing with the problem of putting healthy

businesses under, and how can the restructuring group itself do a

better job so there is a win for the bank and a win for the company

itself, meaning more of a chapter 11 US style restructuring. The process

is very opaque. The transparency... People can't understand what is

happening, partly because... People might want justice. Reign if people

are breaking the law and doing criminal things and engaging in

fraudulent mistake then people would expect to see them banged up. If

that is what has happened. These are friends, families and local

communities which are being impacted by something we are supposed to own

and control and it feels wrong. Clare's Law is being rolled out

across England and Wales. It was named after Clare Wood. She had met

her partner on Facebook and was unaware of her history of violence

against women. Hilary Fisher welcomes the new law but thinks it

should go further. This enables a woman to ask the police if there has

been evidence of a partner being a perpetrator in the past. Police may

find no evidence even though he is a perpetrator. We are asking, if the

woman has made this request and she thinks there is something wrong with

the relationship, the police should flag this up, make sure they

regularly visit but put her in touch with special services or she can get

support and information sheet needs. Norman, does it work? -- she needs.

It has worked. I went down to Wiltshire to see this in action and

to talk to both the police, other agencies and victims who have been

able to use this system, in order to get themselves a new start in life,

away from someone who might have committed domestic violence upon

them. How does it work? If you did meet somebody on Facebook or an

online dating agency, you're not necessarily going to call the police

and say, can you check the records? Can you do that? Are women being

encouraged to do that? Women were contacting the police to say, I have

heard something from a friend of mine about a suspicious activity

which was undertaken. Can you check this person out? That led to a 61%

disclosure rate. That included the fact there was nothing to disclose.

It gave, I hope the women that contacted the police a peace of mind

that they were secure or that they ought to get out. Relationship they

were in. Do you think that was a good thing? There is a difficult

question for the police in how much they reveal about what is

allegations as opposed to convictions. We get into the guilty

before proven and that is very difficult territory. It is an

interesting time we live in where so many of us are building

relationships by digital platforms. We do not have those references we

might have if it is a family friend we meet them through work or they

are at the same college. People are entering relationships with people

with whom they have no connections. We can build profiles for ourselves

on the Internet which are not accurate will stop what has made

this more necessary is that society as a whole is recognising domestic

violence as something which must be dealt with. It has to be taken

seriously. In some cases life loss has occurred. It is a crime

prevention. There is an issue about supporting women in a potentially

violent relationship. It is not always easy. What evidence shows is

that separated women are the most vulnerable. I agree with that point.

We are funding 144 independent domestic violence advisors. When

someone decides to separate with someone with domestic abuse

tendencies, there is a support network in place for them to reform

their lives. We have someone to help them stop absolutely. I entirely

agree that when someone separates, it is a very crucial time. Is in

that whether funding and focus should be? That is the most

difficult period. If some are not resources, people should stay put.

They have nowhere to go - there is no alternative. Some charities say

you would be better off putting money and resources there. This does

not require further resources. It is a matter for the police to make

available information. From a financial point of view, if you stop

one murderer or one serious assaults, it would be beneficial in

financial terms. It is about funding domestic violence advisers with

hotlines and so one. In most cases, abuses will not be known to the

police. They have never been reported in the past. People can be

repeat offenders and not have police records. Police will give

information about convictions. If someone has been found not guilty,

that information ought to be passed on with the proviso they are found

not guilty but that it did happen. We are trying to say, this is

information we had to hand. How is life in the Home Office? Very

interesting. I got a wonderful brief stop it dealt with wonderful people.

It is not about people who had domestic violence or rape but also

appalling exploitation. I am very keen to deal with this. Are you all

getting along? We are getting along fine. HG Wells says the newspaper is

about distinguishing between a bicycle accident and the end of

civilisation. Art for art's sake, money for God's sake. Not just a

'70s pop lyric, more a mantra for Britain's creative sector. But where

should that money come from - especially in a time of austerity?

There is a view that the current model of state funding is bloated,

London-centric and ripe for replacement by kind private backing

seen in places like the United States. Equally strident voices,

however, say public money is what keeps the arts vibrant and

accessible. We sent our David for a stroll along the South Bank to find

out more. Some of Britain 's natural treasures

- cathedrals and high art. To state fund the arts or not? Whether it is

no blood for a tax payer to stump up or for the arts to rely on wealthy

benefactors. -- more noble. This is an experiment and was started after

the war. It was not in the British tradition. Before that, Britain was

the country Shakespeare, Milton and comfortable and all the rest of it.

It was always the view that the state stands back from art.

Shakespeare accepted funding from the Lord Chancellor of his time. It

is only the state, the evidence is there are battled back something

which has not yet existed. The new is where the unknown and

untested... When we did War Horse, it was about people wandering about

with cardboard boxes on their heads. We had no idea it would turn into a

hit. The arts Council in England is facing a 5% cut in funding but is

likely to receive 348 million in tax this year. Some people think it is

time for others to pick up the tab. We are much richer than we have been

before. There are more super wealthy people. The problem is you have arts

funding through the state and it crowds out other alternatives.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, it is agreed that it is probably here

to stay. I see no one who will change how arts is funded. It will

be too bad and unpopular. Even if the results might be better and

create a more robust arts sector. More diverse sources of funding

might create more creative forms of art and we will get art away from

the long arm of the state. Why would you entrench on something which,

from the world 's perspective, we do very well? Why wouldn't you

celebrate that? I think these arguments are known very well. And

we're joined now by the Conservative MP, David Ruffley. We are right in

saying you are part of a group setting out a document that makes a

new case for investment in the arts and culture. Is this about survival?

Over the last decade we have not been sharp enough in articulating,

particularly to a new generation the importance of art investment. It is

about articulating those arguments. Going back to Keynes and looking at

his model, in the 21st century we should not be taking too much

attention as to the reason why he did or did not set up that council.

What about the benefits? Do they not understand and appreciate, as you

see it, the benefits of arts and culture. Where we need to do more

work and get more evidence is around the public benefit which derived

from the arts. In terms of educational attainment, students

from low income families are more likely to get a degree. It produced

cognitive abilities. It drove urban regeneration and had a positive

impact on well-being. There is emerging evidence we need to gather

that evidence and support Maria Miller and colleagues in government

who I believe want to support the arts. Are you convinced about the

benefits? It is not just an economic sector but that is not it. We are

world-class. My concern is we are not looking at more diverse ways of

funding. The taxpayer cannot in these tough times, we cannot rely on

the taxpayer. All parts of government are being cut back. Arts

and business says that only 2% of philanthropic league active

individuals give to the arts. There is not a history. Onto their tax

benefits for people giving so much money to the arts that do not exist

here? I think that is true. I do agree with Deborah that the arts

sector has sharpened its act up and realises how it can monetise with

online streaming of all sorts of ways of getting money from

performances. On its own, that will not do it. We need more individuals

behaving like America. That is relying on people coming forward. We

may see funding cut before that happens. Organisations like the

National Theatre, the Royal Opera House, organisations in London which

can leverage large donations, the public funding has reduced hugely. I

think it is a fifth. As for the Royal Opera House. We are finding

new ways to bring money into the arts. We have two began full of the

American model. What happens with arms length funding, it is difficult

to maintain but it is worth maintaining. You do not have the

repertoire and innovation creativity driven by a select group of

stakeholders. You have the ability to take strategic and longer-term

decisions which are good for the arts. Investment tries the creative

industries. These deliver 6% of GDP. They employ 2 billion people. 26% of

their supply chain comes through the subsidised arts sector. That is a

powerful argument. Up to the crash, ?0.6 billion of

donations went into the arts. I would expect soon for there to be

more donations privately, and then also this philanthropic gain would

rise. Do you want to cut public funding? A key statistic, this year,

?600 million is going into arts counselling gland. That is what it

was in the last year of the Labour government. The lottery is taking up

the slack in departmental funding. There is more lottery money going in

than under the Labour government. Lottery money is not Government

money, it is the people's money. What would you like arts funding to

be? At least four percentage or five per cent, because of the benefits

that it delivers. The arts deliver benefits across government agendas,

from health to... But do they deliver across the board in terms of

different parts of the population? There is a claim that it is London

centric. There is a challenge, without doubt. Artist 's help

collected in London, audiences have developed, traditionally, so you

have any college G. You can look at the BBC moving to Bristol and

Salford. -- so you have an ecology. Investment in the National Theatre

in 's across the country, and globally. Ditto the RSC. Where would

you make a saving? ?600 million goes to Arts Council England next year. I

don't care whether it is taxpayer funded or not, the lottery has shot

up in the last two years. We are giving less to environmental causes

and more to the arts. The government has made that choice. That is what

the lottery was initially intended for. But we should not remove

Government responsibility to fund arts. I don't think the ceiling is

falling in. Before you go, Deborah, the answer to our quiz, who chairs

the all-parliamentary dance group? Is it Vince Cable, Theresa May, Sir

Gerald Kaufman or Caroline Flint? I know Vince Cable loves the car and

-- the tango, Gerald has a strong interest in the arts. I will say

Gerald. Your powers of deduction, that might mean you get to spin

around the dance floor with Sir Gerald Kaufman. Thank you for

joining us. Now, let's look ahead to another

busy week in politics. Tomorrow the focus will be on Holyrood as the SNP

government in Scotland publish their long-awaited White Paper which will

outline the case for independence. On Wednesday morning the BIS select

committee will hear evidence from Vince Cable and Michael Fallon over

the Royal Mail sell off, and later David Cameron and Ed Miliband will

clash over the despatch box in PMQs. And on Thursday the Fresh Start

Group made up of Conservative MPs including Andrea Leadsom and Chris

Heaton-Harris will publish their EU Negotiating Mandate aimed at

assisting David Cameron as he attempts to renegotiate the UK's

relationship with Europe. I'm joined now from a chilly College

Green by Tim Shipman from the Daily Mail and Laura Pitel from The Times.

Welcome to you both. Tim, payday loans cup, whose victory

is it? I think it is Stella Creasy's. There is an interesting

debate going on between Labour and the Tories about who has responded

faster, but in both cases I think you could make an argument that it

is front benches against backbenchers. On the Tory side a

campaigner like Robert Karlsson has been arguing for control over fuel

prices, and Stella Creasy has been arguing to get to grips with the

payday lending industry. It is quite telling that both frontbenchers are

trying to jump on this round-robin, -- bandwagon. On the Labour Party

website, Stella Creasy is listed as this on the business team. That

seems under her abilities. Things might change. Laura, George Osborne

denying claims on the today programme that this was a U-turn. It

is? Yes. Previously it was said there was no need to impose a cap.

What is interesting with George Osborne this morning was his

shifting language about market. He moved slightly into Ed Miliband's

territory, saying he supports the free markets but sometimes you need

to intervene when they go wrong. Tim, are we seeing the Conservative

part of the Government abandoning Conservative laissez faire,

free-market policies? They are intervening on everything. That is

politics, you might say. George Osborne would argue that he is a

free marketeer, but that has to be tempered. Both parties have found

out over the last decade that leaving some of these industries to

their own devices is a recipe for financial disaster and political

ruin. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, Desert Island Discs. A rite

of passage, you might say. What did his choice of music say? It made his

advisers grown. There has been debated in Westminster about whether

his choices were vetted. Some say they were so bad they could not have

possibly had approval, others are saying, you should have seen what he

would have chosen if we had not stepped in! It sounded more

authentic Ed Miliband than a spin doctor's choice, but what did you

think? One groans when you hear the South African national anthem was on

there, one of my colleagues argued that was a right on choice for North

London, picking Jerusalem was his attempt to placate the middle

classes. But to give him credit, he is not afraid to admit he is a

Boston Red Sox van before a foot all fan, same as myself. Take On Me, ,

how could you fault a man who wore white trousers and dance to that? It

did say something about him, indicating what he was doing in the

70s and 80s. Did you learn anything new about him? Not just from the

music but the interview, Desert Island Discs has a knack for making

politicians go soppy and open up. That is the point. It was

interesting to hear him talk candidly about his brother and the

selection contest, there were noticeable size as the conversation

went on. If we were to ask in an interview about those sorts of

topics he would rebuff the question, but he softened up and talked about

that and his family, so we had more insight. Apart from being an

opportune the four PR, because they have all done it, Nick Clegg and

David Cameron, but you are reminded primarily, or at least I was, about

how he went up against his brother -- apart from it being an

opportunity for PR. He would never get through an interview with Kirsty

Young without talking about his brother, the answers were

interesting. Thinking back to David Cameron's Desert Island Discs, that

could almost have been written by one of those red top comp islands of

joke songs. He had Perfect Circle, Tangled Up In Blue. He picked This

Charming Man by the Smiths, which they regarded as outrageous and they

said he was not allowed to listen any more!

And joining us for the rest of the programme is the Conservative MP

Steve Brine, the Labour MP Luciana Berger and the Liberal Democrat MP,

Lorely Burt. Welcome to you all. Now to immigration because reports

suggest that the Prime Minister wants to prevent EU migrants from

claiming benefits until they've lived in the UK for a year. The

Education Secretary Michael Gove says Britain needs to make sure that

immigrants are coming here to work, not to take advantage of a generous

welfare system. Here's what he had to say on The Andrew Marr Show

yesterday. When it comes to new migrants from

accession countries in the EU, we need to look properly at the benefit

system to make sure people are coming here to work and contribute,

not take advantage of what is rightly a generous welfare system.

Steve, do you agree, would it be a good idea to extend the amount of

time before immigrants can claim benefits? Absolutely. Even if it is

in breach of EU law? I discussed this with the Prime Minister

recently. My constituents write to me about this. I was at a street

surgery in a lovely old Georgian market town, hardly a hot bed of

immigration, and it was raced repeatedly as an issue. It is always

the number one issue. But it might be against the law. The Prime

Minister is working with European fellow leaders and he is well placed

to do that, he wants to renegotiate the relationship with the EU. At the

end of the day, the European Union needs to lessen. David Cameron is

deadly serious. -- the European Union needs to listen. Lorely, the

Liberal Democrats will not support this? All governments and Prime

Minister 's are entitled to review and look up the laws relating to

benefits from time to time. No problem. I think some people forget

that if you take EU migrants in this country, they contribute over a

third more to this country than they take out. So we have to have a

balanced view. One might argue that the Lib Dems are not on the right

side of the argument, as far as many voters are concerned, the point that

Steve is making is that people are coming here primarily to claim

benefits. Would it be better to extend the time before immigrants

can claim benefits? People can't just turn up off the ferry and start

claiming benefits. There are several rules that they have to comply with.

Should it be longer than three months? They have to prove a link to

the country. There are a number of other things. They have to

demonstrate that they want to work and they are willing to work.

Again, there has to be some kind of a balance. The bottom-line of it, it

is more beneficial for us to have here. EU people, English people go

over to the EU as well. Where did you stand? Should the Prime Minister

pursue this attempt, whether or not he can, we will find out, but should

he? Crewe the over whelming majority of people who come to this country

do so to contribute and work. It was the shadow home affairs team and

Yvette Cooper that said nine months ago that there are things we could

do specifically on jobseeker's allowance, both domestic clear and

we should be having in Europe. -- both domestic league and we should

be having in Europe. We are not sure of the government position. You

mentioned it was 12 months, reports coming out from Number Ten today six

months. There is a principle here, you are saying you would back the

idea in principle, six months or 12 months. Would you like 12 months? We

would. And the reason... We can understand the reason, but is this

just bluster and politics? From both parties, Labour and the

Conservatives? EU law is EU law, you can't pick and choose. That is why I

think this is a much bigger picture about our relationship as members of

the EU, and without massively diverging we are coming onto that.

The Prime Minister is putting something out there and is

discussing with fellow leaders whether he can do this. We are

trying to make it more difficult and less attract for people who come

here and do not want to work. If they want to work, which many do,

they are welcome, there a Visa process for Bulger Aryans who want

to work. What is your reaction to the report today which says there

has been no restrictions on Bulger Aryans, no application has been

turned down and the Home Office shuffled their feet. Then nobody has

anything to worry about. Each case is considered on its merits. Do you

think we are pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment? It is

important that we acknowledge there are concerns, it is not bigoted to

have a conversation about it. But we need sensible policies, and this in

isolation will not deal with problems of illegal immigration,

issues of low skilled migration, which is probably one of the

greatest challenges. One Mark Harper looked at all the factors bringing

people to this country... Benefits was not a major poll. Know. But one

of the major things... We are not seeing things that would work. We

have seen people exploited living in overcrowded and overpriced

properties. We would like to see a register of landlords. Abbey

National minimum wage, people come to our country and they are not paid

the National minimum wage. Immigration is down by a fifth since

the general election. Net migration is not coming down. Two thirds of

that figure is British people leaving this country who are coming

back. Did you struggle to get to sleep last night? I may have the

solution for you. Newly published today: A 400 page bill with an extra

50,000 page environmental statement. Guaranteed to get your eyelids

drooping before you can say, quasi-judicial process. But the

Government's hybrid bill for Phase One of High Speed Two, that's the

London to Birmingham part of the controversial rail project, may not

give the Government pleasant dreams. Our Adam has been looking into the

technical details of a rather unusual piece of legislation. The

Channel Tunnel needed one in 1986. The last one was London 's Crossrail

in 2005. Now a chest to require is a rare form of legislation, a hybrid

Bill. It affects some private individuals like landowners and

requires a lot of paperwork. The bill is about 400 pages long. The

environmental statement is 150,000 pages. That is two of these. The law

has been changed so it can be published in electronic format and

the public has eight weeks to comment. Excuse me. At some point

will be a second reading debate and vote where the House of Commons

approved the project in principle. That is the moment when opponents

can give it the red light. It heads to the committee room where a panel

of MPs can consider the pleas of people directly affected. It is a

bit like a court. There are QCs present, sometimes in weeks. With

the Crossrail project, this took two and a half years. Some MPs did not

see it as an honour. I have voted against 90 did not see it as an

honour. I have voted against 90 detains detention of terror

suspects. The telling members of the committee have voted against the

Crossrail Bill. We'll so got the opportunity to spend two and a half

years on the committee of this hybrid Bill. It sounds like it is

quite a lot of work. It is. If all of that is inconvenienced by

something like an election, not a problem, MPs can vote to carry it

over to the next session. Will it ever amount to more than those boxes

we saw being pushed across the roads? They are all protesting

outside now. Will it ever get online? I hope so. It is really

important we get on with this and get on with it as soon as we

possibly can. In Japan, they introduced the bullet train in

1964. In 2064, we could still be running on the same row way be

introduced in the Victorian era. We need to think about not just the

immediate future but the long-term future for this country and the

prosperity and jobs in this country and linking up the Midlands with the

South and the North with the Midlands and the South. Nothing will

be more powerful to achieve that prosperity that we all want. We

thought Labour were behind it as well. Will Labour back it? We have a

responsibility to make sure this project is on track and within

budget. There have been concerns. I support this, as does Labour. It is

absolutely crucial. The North/South line leads to jobs and growth. I am

sorry it has taken three and a half years. We are still having many

consultations and the phase two investigation is only just launched.

That pressure and scrutiny has actually made the government work

hard at keeping the cost down, hasn't it? They did do a service in

some ways, didn't they? The government is fading constituents

money, that is what we will do. What about when high-speed two is put

forward? It does not affect me I think we need to do this it is about

capacity. I am interested. People say, do not back it. It is either

that or investment in our part of the world. There is huge investment

going into south-west rail in our part of the world. This is part of

the future. You do not think it will be redundant. There is a huge

capacity crisis at the moment. This is there to meet that. I am a bit

confused as to what Lucianne is saying. Aren't Labour saying two

separate things? Aren't they not backing it because they are worried

about the cost but the Northern councils... They are quite aghast at

those comments. They want it so much. There seems to be some

schizophrenia with both the major parties. The Shadow Chancellor has

ultimate responsibility. When this project was first put forward it was

in the region of 30 billion. It is now 50 billion it is Labour

amendments which will ensure if there is to be a substantial and

disband or overspend, they will have to come to Parliament and present it

and debate on it. What about the 40 or 50 Conservatives who might rebel

it is a hugely controversial project. He has not convinced them,

or anyone. When you get 1000 letters from constituents, that does impact

on constituents. It is damaging to him. He is putting forward a project

about the future and asking Parliament to support him. I think

and hope and believe that is what happened. The majority of parliament

will back him. I suspect the Laban party will back him. -- the Labour

Party. Whoever is in power will need cross-party support. You are

confident it will end up happening. We are supposed to have support by

2017. I hope they do get control of the budget and get this plan back on

track. Members of the media have compared Ed Miliband to Wallace

dashed the cheese loving children's character of Wallace and Gromit

fame. Yesterday, the Labour leader was happy to pile on the cheese. He

appeared on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, with some truly fromage-y

music and provided a bit of an insight into himself. There is some

flash photography in this film. This is a cheesy choice. It is Take On

Me. I cannot understand me without understanding where I come from. My

dad had a particular political outlook, which is not the same as

mine. It is a big part of what inspired me.

My parents loved this country. When the Daily Mail wrote, the man who

hated Britain, the reason I hated that so much is because it is so

much at odds with the way I think about this country.

You said, David is my best friend in the world, I love him dearly. Is he

still your best friend? Yes but it has been incredibly tough. She

offers me protection, a lot of love and affection, whether I'm right or

wrong. The difficulty for many people is the perception that here

is a man heading this party who will put party loyalty before family

loyalty and many people do not find that palatable. Do you get that? I

understand that. I do understand that. It is hard for my family and

hard for David. Very hard. I suppose I felt it was the right thing. Does

it feel that things have healed? Healing.

I read that you did not have the girlfriend all the way through

Oxford. I was pretty square. How very honest of him to admit that.

Does it surprise you that he did not have a girlfriend through Oxford? We

have had reports of many women who were interested in him. He said he

did not have a proper girlfriend. You could be a spin doctor. Any

surprises? You said that was a good choice. Ed Miliband is never going

to be, and probably never was, mystical. I am sure they didn't sit

down in the office and think, what should be put together? They

probably thought, let him be him. I would love to go on it and I would

pick Fleetwood Mac and the Carpenters. You may get that call! I

love the idea of the jumper and trousers. I had black slip on shoes

with white socks. Too much information. Did you listen to it or

have you heard it? I quite liked his song choice, in the main. The South

African national anthem, Jerusalem, just lovely. Can you seeing any of

them for us? Not right now will stop it might be the end of my political

career if I did. Does it surprise you that David and Ed are still in

the healing process? They are both moving in different directions. It

was fairly amazing at the time. People said that was the most steely

thing he had done until recently. Do you think that image will linger?

The backbone? It was a brave thing to do, go against your brother and

beat him for the leader. That is history now. We will not judge him

on his music choices. We had Jerusalem at our wedding. On that

happy and jubilant note, we will end it there. From all of us here,

goodbye.