28/11/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron says he will

give you and me a say in our relationship with Europe. In the

meantime he wants to renegotiate our membership and make the EU work

better for Britain, but how is he going to do it? This morning, a

group of MPs have given him a helping hand. They have published a

wish list of powers they would like to see the Prime Minister claw-back?

The Government thinks it can help with your energy bill. We will have

the details. The return of grammar schools, getting tough on

immigration and the futility of tackling inequality. Is this a true

blueprint of a Boris led Britain? We will be measuring up some of the

finest moustaches in Parliament, and removing them, all for a good cause.

He is wasted in politics, he should be on the stage. Anyway, all of that

coming up. With us for the duration, Lady of many talents, politician,

writer, philosopher -- philosopher, dancing queen. It is Ann Widdecombe.

Let's start with energy. The Government has begun looking at ways

to cut the cost of bills. It is struggling to do so after Ed

Miliband came out with his energy price freeze. David Cameron said

recently he wanted to roll back on some of the green levies. They are

added to our energy bills and the Government are trying to find ways

to cut or remove them. Our deputy political editor has some details

about what the ministers are looking at. Thank you for joining us. Only

one more day with that thing under your nose. Tell us what the Prime

Minister is looking at and is likely to do. It is not a done deal yet,

there are different parties, different energy groups and policy.

The framework is now quite clear. The biggest of these green levies,

the so-called eco-scheme which gives three installation to people on low

incomes, they are planning to extend it. Too implemented over a longer

period of time. As a result of that, the cost on the energy company is

about half, that will be quite a large saving, about ?25 off your

average build. The warm homes discount will be taken out of

people's energy bills and put into general taxation. They are looking

at changing regulations that they can somehow reduce the fixed costs

of transmitting energy around the country. The aim is to try and

reduce people's bill by about ?50 annually. The Lib Dems are trying to

see if they can beef up some other green schemes so overall it is

carbon neutral. Is the Government trying to arrange with the energy

companies that if it announces bills can come down by ?50, we will

immediately see that reduction in the next bill? Yes, it is my

understanding that the Government expect on the day they announced

that -- this deal, they expect all the six big energy companies to

publish letters to the Government making clear their intention to cut

their bills. There is a lot of choreography in this and they're

expecting at all to happen at the same time. The political aim of the

Government is to neutralise this as an issue so they have something to

say in the cost of living debate, so that when they move on to say in the

cost of living debate, so that when they move onto the Chancellor's

Autumn statement they can focus I understand it has been indicated to

you, whereas we thought this would be part of the Chancellor's Autumn

statement next Thursday, that it is going to come out before the autumn

statement? That is what they hope to do. We know the Prime Minister is

travelling abroad. We know time is running out ahead of the Autumn

statement. They have not actually agreed this deal yet. There is a

huge amount of technical information and policy they have to get right.

If they can announce it in advance, they will do so. They have a

strategic incentive to do so. Talk about the cost of living before the

statement so on the Autumn statement itself they can stick to the big

message which is, we hope things are getting better but there is more to

do. It paves the way for them to make that kind of argument. Thank

you very much. Is this the way the Government

should be going? Is this an adequate riposte to Ed Miliband's price

freeze? It is certainly a move in the right direction. If you put

green levies on, the cost has to be met. It was always obvious the

consumer would have to meet them. If we finally get rid of the green

fixation in favour of looking at what is sensible and affordable for

individuals, that has got to be a big bonus. There are more green

taxes. The average bill at the moment is around 110 -?120 worth of

green levies. It looks like the Lib Dems are digging their heels in.

What the Conservative part of the coalition has to do is make it clear

to the general public that their bills could be even lower, were it

not for the antics of the junior partners in the coalition. This is a

conservative Prime Minister who promised vote blue, go green. I

think it was a most unnecessary emphasis in view of the economy we

had inherited, in view of the uncertainty around the science of

climate change. If we are taking action now, that is plenty of time

for people to feel the effects of it. If the Lib Dems are stopping us

taking even more action to relieve the strain on households, that is

something we should all know in time for the next election. Something we

all look forward to. The question for today is what have I went to

police spent more than ?13,000 on in an attempt to deter crime? -- Gwent

Police. 2000 specialist tripwires? 2000 and truncheons? Ten portable

mini-cameras worn by local cats? Or are 50 to cut out police officers?

At the end of the show, Ann will give us the correct answer. That is

interesting, isn't it? I think I know. Keep it to yourself. I will, I

might be wrong. W.W.M.D.N, any idea what it stands for? It is, what

would Maggie do now? It seems to be a question increasingly asked by

conservative on questions on Europe, tax and education. Last night the

question was raised by Boris Johnson. In a speech guaranteed to

ruffle feathers in Downing Street, Boris bemoaned the UK's lack of

social mobility and says Maggie would have tackled that by bringing

back grammar schools. Where she here now, I hope she would make wider use

of that most powerful utensil of academic improvement. And that is

academic competition between children themselves. Is that an

unthinkable thing to say? Is it? It is not. I remember sitting in a

meeting of the Tory Shadow on team and listening with disbelief to a

convert -- a conversation where everyone agreed it would be madness

to bring back the grammar schools. I happen to know most of the people in

that room were about to make use, as parents, of some of the most

viciously selective schools in the country. I maybe wrong, but I hope

she would find a way use that device and help children everywhere

overcome their background. Even if I am wrong, I feel she would direct

maternal and terrifying devotion upon Michael Gove and everything he

does. Boris Johnson, never boring. Is he right on grammar schools? Yes,

he is 100% right. In the days when we had grammar schools all over the

country, there was no problem about the number of state school pupils

who got into Oxbridge. Grammar schools used to compete very

successfully. Since the abolition of grammar schools, parents feel, and I

know this because I represented a constituency which had grammar

schools and they used to fight like lions if ever there was a suggestion

that a political party would do away with grammar schools. Parents want

their children to get on, if they cannot afford to buy that, they want

the state to supply the same standard of excellence. Did David

Cameron must calculate the difficulty of bringing his party

with him when he decided not to bring back grammar schools? I think

he understood he was not in tune with the rest of the party. He was

trying to be practical. Of course, he was right that he could not

reinstate grammar schools all over the country. But he should have

said, where a local authority wants to build a new grammar school, we

will go along with that. That was the crucial step he missed. He said

when he became leader that old grammar school policy had been a

chain around our necks. What he wrong? Totally. Grammar schools

allow children from modest backgrounds to be able to get out of

that and get on, if they are able. But there will not be a reversal of

that policy? I do not want David Cameron to blandly say, we will

introduce grammar schools in every town. I want him to say, whether

local authorities want to introduce grammar schools, we will not stand

in their way. Let's have a look at Boris and the motivation for the

speech. Always entertaining, but some of the things he said were

deliberately provocative. Were they just cheap, easy remarks? He is

saying things that a lot of politicians would not dare to say.

Effectively, what he said in that speech was, there are some very

clever people. Most of the population fall in between them and

the very stupid people. And those who are academically challenged,

will not find it as easy to get on as a very bright people. I cannot

see what he said that the rest of us could not have worked out at the age

of about eight or nine. What has he said that is so remarkable? On that

point, that clip we showed where he said he sat around the table with

the Shadow Tory education team where they were solemnly declaring you

could not possibly continue with grammar schools, yet there they were

sending their children to body called viciously selective schools.

Is he right? Yes, but it also happens with Labour cabinets. They

send their children to public schools, they move and send them to

the best schools in the country. If you are Tony Blair, you send them

across London to a chosen school. I do not think there is anything

unique about that particular set of ministers. But it shows a level of

hypocrisy? It shows a level of we liked one thing, but we are going to

do another because it is the best thing for our children. He is right

about Margaret Thatcher, because one of her big initiatives was to

introduce the assisted places scheme meaning children from poorer

backgrounds could go to independent schools. We will leave it there.

David Cameron wants to give you a say on our membership of the

European Union. Not before he has attempted to renegotiate that

membership. What should he be trying to change? This morning a group of

MPs calling themselves the Fresh Start Group have published

the group's plans are set out in what they have called a mandate for

reform. It argues the status quo in Britain's relationship for the EU is

no longer an option. There is backing for the call to limit

benefits for EU migrants. Member states must be able to decide who

can access their welfare. The reach of the EU and its institutions

should be scaled back. Reference in the EE treaties for an ever closer

union should be removed. In one area there is a call for greater

co-operation. There should be a new legal safeguard to inhibit any

measure for a legal safeguard for the single market. Member states

should we gain complete control of social and employment law. The UK

should opt out of all policing and criminal justice rules. The

fisheries policy should be regionalised and control of

territorial waters should be returned to their member states.

There should also be a new red card system to allow national parliaments

to block proposed EU rules. The Prime Minister heads to a summit

today on Eastern European cooperation. He might be hoping for

a bit of that in his renegotiation. Our correspondent is there. Is there

any talk of a reaction to his attempts in his campaign to try and

renegotiate Britain's relationship with the rest of the EU? People are

mostly aware of what was said yesterday, cracking down on welfare

tourism, the idea of having a discussion about the impact of

freedom of movement within the European Union. I have heard a

couple of comments about that. People understand the need to make

sure that people do not abuse the system. What a reappraisal of the

entire philosophical principle of freedom of movement, that will be a

tougher nut to crack. The Prime Minister will raise the issue this

evening. He has to be careful. This is a summit about Eastern Europe and

he does not want to sound like a broken record. He will say that we

support enlargement, a broader rather than deeper European Union,

but within the context of other poorer countries coming in, there

has to be a proper policy to enable people to move between one country

and another. This is not a summit particularly lending itself to what

David Cameron would like to talk about. On the other issues of

renegotiating powers, will you have an opportunity to raise that? I

doubt it will be done in any significant degree, no. This is a

long-term process. He will start to set things out, particularly on the

issue of free movement. He knows this is difficult territory. He is

caught between the minimum that many of his backbenchers would be

prepared to accept, and the maximum that many other people in Europe may

be prepared to offer. It may be a difficult process. It is only just

beginning. This is one of a series of summits. I do not think that this

is the specific time to go into all that detail, because other people

would simply switch off. He has to make a show for his domestic

audience. The leadership make much of Angela Merkel's listening mode.

What about her social Democrat colleagues in coalition? Are they

cooler on the idea? Yes, they are. Angela Merkel clearly wants to help

David Cameron. She does not want Britain to leave the European Union.

If he can -- she can help them, she will do that. If you look across the

spectrum of German politics, most of the main parties are in favour of

the EU. If you said to the average social Democrat in Germany, what

about giving Germany control over social and employment policy? What

about reassessing the entire principle of freedom of movement?

They will say, not on your Nelly. That is a big problem. This new

coalition government in Germany, still led by Angela Merkel, but with

a strong element in it which is more pro-European and less inclined to do

David Cameron a favour. With us now is Andrea Leadsom - one of those

Conservative MPs who leads the Fresh Start Group - and Claude Moraes, a

Labour Member of the European Parliament.

Andrea Leadsom, let me come to you first, let me try to flesh out the

strategy, is it your intention that Britain should renegotiate these

powers for itself, or that all of the members of the European Union

should have these powers repatriated? This mandate is about

making the EU globally competitive. Obviously Britain wants a better

deal. In getting a better deal it creates a better, stronger, more

flexible, more democratically accountable European Union. That is

what all Europeans want. What is the answer to my question? We are not

just trying to get a better deal for Britain. The EU has a crisis of

competitiveness. It is going nowhere. This is about trying to

take leadership, to focus on getting a better deal for the EU. If there

really is not an appetite for repatriation across the EU on this

scale, would it still be Britain's intention to repatriate on this

scale unilaterally? You see, this is not about repatriation. This is

about reform of the EU. Under the headings of global competitiveness,

urging the EU to do more to negotiate free-trade. Your questions

are not the right ones. That may be because you cannot answer them. Not

at all. I'm happy to answer your questions. This is about reform of

the EU on the headings of creating greater global competitiveness, more

flexibility and far greater democratic accountability. It's

repatriating control over social and employment policy, it is opting out

from policing and Criminal Justice Act it is taking back the CAP. They

are all repatriation. It looks like repatriation. The point is that the

EU share of global trade is in steep decline. I know all that. The EU

needs to focus on how it can become globally competitive. Supposing the

rest of the EU doesn't share your analysis. It may agree that it is

becoming less competitive, but it does not think this is the way to go

to make it more competitive, would it be Britain's intention to demand

and take back these powers? We cannot do that unilaterally. That is

what I am trying to find out. The fresh group of spent a lot of time

travelling to Europe. European taxpayers and voters are keen on

reform. What is the answer to my question? Do we proceed unilaterally

if we cannot get a European majority for this, or don't we? The answer is

that we will continue to propose EU reform. And in the event that we get

nowhere, I suspect the people in 2017, will make their decision. What

we cannot do is to remain in the EU. I see your questions are not the

right ones, because we cannot simply unilaterally change all sorts of

things. Let me try one more time. If the European Union generally says

there is no broad appetite to go this far down the repatriation rued

the way Britain wants to go, so do not count us in, will Britain

attempt to repatriate these powers for itself? I'm not saying just walk

out, will be attempts to repatriate these powers? We cannot. We cannot

do it. This is a mandate for the reform of the EU. Not Britain's

relationship with the EU. Would we don't go and say that Britain may

not want to repay your -- and say, you may not want to repatriate these

powers, but we want to? We cannot do that? We can do that. Unless all of

Europe signed up to this, we cannot repatriate. The whole premise is

wrong. This is not take it or leave it. This is several different areas,

looking how to create a more successful European Union. Is Labour

interested in repatriating powers? No, we are interested in reform.

That is very different. This needs unanimity in many areas are majority

in some areas. To be fair to Andrea, some of this document we would agree

with. Some of it we would not agree with. It is a reform document. But

it is not a negotiation in terms of a unilateral negotiation. Reform is

an honest position. What reform is, is that you make your case with the

rest of the members of the European Union. If you go to a referendum you

make the case for Europe. You argue that case with the British public.

You negotiate with your European partners. You do not make a

unilateral case. Pretending to the British public that when you need

unanimity, you don't. You did ask the right questions. We may go into

a referendum sink to the British people, we can get these things,

when in fact we cannot get them. The track record so far is that our

European partners are saying, we're indifferent to this. I need to ask

you another question. If it is the Labour approach that you want an

overarching reform of the European Union, then you will have to get

everybody to the table. That will take years. There is no prospect of

that kind of reform this decade. That is happening right now. That is

happening on the CAP right now. You have rolled your eyes on this many

times. You are doing it now. Let me just tell you, and before you start

as well, and, we started CAP reform. The point is we do it right

now. You have to do it with your partners. One of the dangers of this

is that -- is that if you misrepresent reform, you cannot do

it with your partners. I resurrect death -- represent London. You have

to work with your partners. We know all that. Can we just keep clear

heads? There are only two ways that you can get this sort of reform. One

is if everybody does agree. It would be a jolly good thing for the EU of

that was the way. Second thing, new treaty, opt outs for Britain. I

would say those are unlikely. Let us assume something did, this. This is

crucial. That in 2017, Cameron comes to the country and says, I have got

you a new deal. We will know what the scenario is for staying in.

Nobody is telling us what the scenario is telling us what the

scenarios for coming out. There is no work being done on other trading

relations would be etc. I want an evenhanded referendum. I put it to

you, Andrea Leadsom, there is no prospect of all of Europe agreeing

to all of this by 2017? And I would completely disagree with you there.

In fact, on various trips to European capitals, there is a huge

appetite across the EU for reform. This is a set of very logically

argued, carefully we searched reform ideas. There is support from some

countries for some reforms. You definitely need a mechanism by which

the EU can be prominently reformed. To get that, Andrea, you have to

engage in Europe. This kind of exercise, if I could say, the way we

are disengaging, is not helping us do what you are saying in this

document. These kinds of reformers want us to engage in Europe and

reform that way. That is the honest way to do it. To do it within the

structures we have got now and to be honest with the British people about

how we have got now and to be honest with the British people about how

we're reforming... When you need unanimity and majority... What one

policy could you get a majority on? There are all sorts of non-treaty

reforms proposed. Getting out of Strasbourg, you need a treaty

change. Structural fund reform, to fundamentally change structural

fund, to change free movement of labour, some member states could

have their own decisions about how to treat access to benefits. For

example, those things could be done without unanimity. But what I really

want to say here is there it is now a unique moment in history for

reform. That is because of the eurozone crisis. The compulsion for

eurozone member states to go towards greater fiscal union, means they

need things to change. It is not really a question of can we achieve

reform? It will be a case of what we can achieve and by when. It is for

every member of this country to make their own decision. But the point

is, there is a unique opportunity for reform and Europe is up for

reform. We will see. If I had 100 quid for every time a politician

told me Europe was up for reform, we could be doing this from Barbados!

What happens if they are not up for reform? You made that point already.

We have now added in stereo! Yesterday David Cameron said, it is

something I am not fully capable of myself. He was talking about growing

a moustache. He said the chamber was full of members who were suddenly

resembling bandits. Why, you might ask? For the past month men around

the world have been growing or attempting to grow some fine plumage

on their upper lip for the charity Movember. In a moment we will be

meeting three of them. But first we sent Adam Fleming to meet some of

Westminster's finest moustaches. I am glad it does not show all that

much. I actually do not like it, but it is for a good cause. My father

died of prostate cancers though I do what I can to ensure other people do

not suffer from this dreadful disease.

You have actually been on the Daily Politics with your moustache, was a

different being on the programme with a moustache? Having a moustache

changes your life, especially going on television. You get so many

interesting comments on Twitter. Someone said I looked like a 1970s

pawn star. I tried growing a real moustache

once, it did not work but I was determined to do something dramatic.

I have raised over ?500 for prostate cancer just by tweeting that I would

wear a false moustache. Mr Speaker was very kind. He gave me some very

odd looks. I think I will wear better off now. Did that hurt? Not

really, no. What an image. With that is now a

trio of moustaches and their owners. Conservative MP George

Freeman, John Woodcock and Roger Williams. We have gone across the

parties. John, do you think uses your moustache? I have been told,

almost universally know. My wife is watching today, making sure it comes

off. She is absolutely repulsed by. You get grudging admiration from

male friends. Not from the ladies. Absolutely. What about responses for

you? I have tried many styles, this is the most successful. I do get

admiration. I am pleased to say we have our viewers from Scotland

joining us. At least they will not miss out on this wonderful display

of moustaches. George, what about your question yesterday, you raised

it with the Prime Minister? It is a great campaign, but there is a very

important point. Prostate cancer is a silent killer. Movember has done

something extraordinary. This is now the world's biggest prostate charity

and my question was highlighting the change, the power of social media

and I have a ten minute rule Bill honoured this week. It is a big

revolution in medicine and the NHS have got to adapt to it. Is it still

a taboo talking about prostate cancer? We are still trying to alter

the culture that men have in talking about problems with their

waterworks. Particularly going to doctors and talking about these

issues. My advice is, go to your doctor, it might save your life. It

is nice to see Movember now linking with mental health. Men are not good

about talking about it. Has it actually raised awareness? That is

the extraordinary thing about this charity, it has such a high profile

and people see it all around the country. They may not start an

explicit conversation about prostate cancer, but it has opened things up.

I have learned so much more this month about it. This is one of the

areas where the girls are ahead of us. This year I organised a virtual

wall of support and got a lot of support from Parliamentary female

colleagues. Women have been better at talking about their health care

with each other, and many to catch up. Ann, what do you think of the

campaign and the moustaches? Off with them! Ann is not a fan of

facial hair at all. I am keeping mine until the end of the month.

Have you done it before? I have done it quite a lot of times, but I was

looking forward to a proper shave today, but I guess we are not having

that and it is a disappointment. I am a Movember virgin. But I can

would urge everyone, you can go to the website and donate every -- and

donate now into December. Thank you very much. I think we will see a

couple of you later on. Stage two and until the end of the show

because Roger and John will be back, we have a little surprise in store.

It will be interesting. I saw the Barbara's hand and it was

shaking. Now, recent scandals such as the

blacklisting of construction workers, LIBOR ringing and the midst

NHS Foundation Trust as -- Mid Staffordshire foundation trust has

shocked us all. A group of experts have urged the Government to give

people confidence to speak out. One member of the Commissioners Gary

Walker, the former chief executive of a Lincolnshire hospital and he

spoke out about the culture of what he called sheer bullying in the NHS

in an appearance before the Health Select Committee this year. In

essence, there was clearly a lot of pressure to deliver the targets. It

was a case of, this is going to reflect on me as an individual. At

the same time, I am asking for help. This sort of situation escalates as

we go through this. As the hospitals become awful, more threats are made.

In the context of the culture of the NHS where you cannot speak out

without fear of actions being taken towards you, you certainly cannot

fail to hit the targets without threats being made to you. That was

Gary Walker and he joins us in the studio. Give us a brief summary

about what happened with your experiences as a whistle-blower? In

2009 I blew the whistle on patient safety concerns. As a result of

that, a number of events happened in terms of victimising and bullying

me. Who was doing that? People above me, health authorities and others.

They did not like that you had pulled back a cover to see what was

going on? It was exposing things that would make it difficult for

them in their roles. As we have seen from the Commissioners report today,

people are more concerned with protecting the reputations of

organisations and that can be at the expense of whistle-blowers. What had

you attempted to do before you became a whistle-blower? In terms of

leading up to that. Most whistle-blowers raise a concern, no

one listens to them. They raise at a second time and no one listens to

them. Most give up at that point. You went public, what then happened

to you? I was then dismissed for some other reasons which we probably

cannot go into. Then there was an arrangement made where the NHS paid

hundreds of thousands of pounds buying my silence. I agreed to sign

that compromise deal, as it was called at the time, because I owed

money. Then about one year later, when the Francis Report came out and

the Prime Minister got on the podium and said, no one was to blame. I

thought, I know that is not the case. And so I decided to break my

gagging order. It was a risk and I was threatened with being sued. As

you saw in the clip, I had to appear in front of the Parliamentary select

committee. Their verdict, which came out last month, was it was wrong of

the NHS to threaten to sue me. Is it your opinion they went to these

lengths against you, not just a close you down, but to intimidate

any prospective whistle-blowers? I think the culture in the NHS, from

what we have seen in Mid Staffordshire, the Francis Report,

surveys over the years, staff are typically frightened to speak out.

There have been various campaigns this year from various magazines to

get staff to speak out. Jeremy Hunt has gone on record to say he wants

to change the culture and has written to all organisations to say,

you cannot gag anybody any more. In what way with these

recommendations... What are the most important one that would, in your

opinion, make a difference for someone in your position a couple of

beers ago? If they had been implemented at the time, what

difference would it have made? The report sets out a code. It is not an

internal code of conduct, it is a code of practice we are hoping the

Government will adopt and will become legally binding. It is a

series of actions and organisation must take to prove they are open and

honest in encouraging staff to speak out. Then they would have to report

that publicly, what concerns were raised and action taken. If they

were not doing that, we are recommending that regulators

intervene and potentially take away their license to practice. If you

are a hospital, should you be providing care if you cannot prove

that you are encouraging people to is they -- to speak up about safety?

Would it have stopped you from being fired? It would have made an open

and transparent culture. I think it probably would have meant there was

some honesty in the system, rather than people trying to cover their

own backs. Ann, where are you on this? I think it is very important

that people are allowed to complain internally. If people complain

internally and are ignored, they should all be able to complain

without sanction to the regulator concern. If they are still ignored,

I think it is a question for them if they want to go public. Certainly,

there should never be a bribe involved. A gagging arrangement is

often a bribe. The problem is, if you say no more, a lot of very

innocent people may go on suffering. The National Audit Office looked up

all of these gagging orders and said there were thousands. There were so

many that they could not look at all of them. We know historically that

Lott has been covered up, but we do not know what is in that. Will the

Government accept your code? We have had indications this is welcome. The

level that the Government are interested in, it is not a wholesale

change of the law. The law just needs tightening up and we are

making recommendations about that. You need to go back to the basic

problem. The basic problem is when a whistle-blower blows the whistle, it

becomes all about the whistle-blower's actions and

conduct. Did they do it in good faith? Even when you get to court,

the question is all about the law of how the whistle-blower acted. Even

the tribunal is not interested in what it was actually about. The

corruption, the wrongdoing, whatever it is. This code is saying, this is

the responsibility of organisations. If you are a Board of Directors, it

is your responsibility to make sure your organisation is being open and

honest. If there is a whistle-blower out there in the NHS now, before

this code has come in, wondering what to do. Would the NHS treat them

now any differently from the way they treated you? There is probably

a good chance of that on the basis of the publicity. But it should be

as a matter of course. I think it probably depends what they are

raising concerns about. If they are raising concerns which are likely to

reflect badly on the board of an organisation, they might find it is

not necessarily in their interest and they may need to blow the

whistle to an outside regulator. It is an interesting story and we are

going to keep an eye on this. Thank you for explaining. Tomorrow, Nick

Clegg is expected to put some more flesh on the bones of the

Government's plans to increase the flexibility of parental leave. It's

an aim of all the main parties - it was in the original Coalition

Agreement - but so far the actual details have been a bit sketchy.

That's something that concerns small businesses - and some Tory MPs - who

worry that ministers may go too far in allowing mums and dads to switch

between who stays home, and who goes back to work in the early months of

their children's lives. It's a balance which is dividing opinion

among the Coalition's backbench troops, as David Thompson has been

finding out. To modern dads, to modern party

leaders committed to giving both parents time off to look after their

newborns. It is called flexible parental leave but it is causing a

bit of a catfight over what it should mean. Oh, dear. I have heard

so much about Lib Dem hobbyhorses. I think this may be another. The

Liberal Democrats tend to be a little more progressive in the

things they want to achieve. Maternity leave can be shared

already. But ministers want to make it easier and start earlier in

England, Scotland and Wales. What worries some Tory MPs is that the

details will not be set in stone until after the bill is passed. The

notice period given to employers may be reduced from 12 weeks to eight

weeks. It concerns me that the minister is left with the power to

define the time that may be allowed in this respect. That would happen

at a later stage without the matter having primary legislation and going

towards the house. The Government was advised to scrap parental leave

altogether at one point. The idea came from a venture capitalist. It

was dropped from his final report, however, but small businesses

worried. Sometimes -- firms are struggling to take on staff. You

need to be in a position to recruit a new member of staff. If somebody

goes off for two months and comes back, you have do think about

filling the vacancy twice, maybe even three times. That can be a

heavy burden on a small business. Lib Dems think there are concerns

may be misplaced. Small businesses are more flexible than any other

businesses I know. They have always allowed for their individual

employees, for their own particular circumstances, to be taken into

account. And who knows? May be in the end Lib Dem and Tory MPs will be

able to play nicely over this. I think we are talking about

relatively fine details now. I know there will be discussions. We have

managed to come through stormier waters than this, I can assure you.

I think we will come up with something that every party can

cohere around. At the moment, on flexible parental leave, some

politicians are pulling in different directions. I'm joined now by Ros

Bragg from Maternity Action. Welcome. And Ann Widdecombe is still

with us. Do you think it is a good idea? Not if it goes to those

extremes, no. Consider the employer. He has got somebody who is

pregnant. She wants a year off in maternity leave. He has already got

to recruit some videos, train them and, just as they are becoming an

asset, he has to lay them off. -- recruit someone else. It is equally

manageable if she says she is going off for six months and the husband

is taking over for six months. But there is a problem if you

continually chop and change. The employer never knows where he is.

This is going to hinder the position of young women at work. If I was an

employer faced with this legislation, I would employ people

who are unlikely to ask to exercise it. They may argue that his

short-sighted. What do you say to the point that shared parental leave

in practice may be all right, but the practice -- the principle

doesn't work? It is important that fathers and mothers have the chance

to be primary carers, but also for employers to see both men and women

taking extended work breaks. The suggestion we will see parents

chopping and changing is a little bit exaggerated. As an organisation

providing advice to parents, it would be unusual for parents to be

looking for a model of leaf of that kind. In our discussions with the

Government, we understood that it is in the right of the employer to

reject an application for a lead if they are not happy with leave being

taken in multiple breaks. It is a little misleading. Do you not like

the idea of the ability to have that flexibility of perhaps mother

staying at home for a while, and then the father? For the vast

majority of parents, the current model provides for most of their

needs. There are some families for whom this would be extremely useful.

For employers to be able to have somebody back to help of the

Christmas rush, for example, that is a useful option. If you have a

father who can only get time off on the workplace is quiet, or chooses

to take time off when the workplace is quiet, that is helpful. Isn't

that just a consequence of modern life? People are juggling things

much more. It is more progressive. Nick Clegg said it would be a

Edwardian not to go down that route. I don't agree with that. Employers

value stability and predict ability because they can make plans. If

there is to be no chopping and changing, we don't need anything

very new. The idea that this is to make extremely flexible so you can

do that. It is not just one person. The employer may have six people

wanting to swap their maternity and paternity arrangements. It seems to

me to be a recipe for chaos. And it is Edwardian to be against chaos? I

think the chaos has been overstated. Whenever there are

suggested changes to parental leave, certain groups complain about it.

For us, it is a matter of the Government is living up to the

commitment it has given to be able to make family friendly arrangement

in the UK. They complain because they have got a genuine concern.

They are supposed to be running a business, making profits, taking on

new employees, doing their bit for Britain. And Britain just makes

their work arrangements chaotic. If you look around Europe, there are

plenty of other businesses who have been running successfully. What

about the issue of gender equality? The fact that a lot of business say

they lose women who are extremely effective in the workplace, because

they don't think it is family friendly enough? There are already

arrangements that say you can go off for a year and still come back.

There are arrangements that say that you can elect paternity leave

instead. The question is how often you want those changes to be made

and the degree of stability that employers can rely upon. If you know

somebody is going off for a year, you know what you have to do. If it

is three months and then another month, and then another month, then

they change their minds again, that is where the chaos comes in. If you

have a multiple number of mothers in the workforce, that's just compounds

the problem. Gender equality, I am sick to the back teeth of these

cliches. There is gender equality because the man can be the house

husband if he wants to be. There is gender equality. What about some

good business for Britain? There is gender equality. There is no need to

extend this any further because men still have the opportunity to take

parental leave? I think the shared parental leave proposals are quite

use. In the direction of encouraging fathers to take leave. They fall far

short of what is possible. I think the German model is an excellent

model. Fathers take two months leave or more. The family get an

additional two months of paid leave. In Germany, the take-up of

leaf from fathers jumped to 30%. And Germany has not gone down the pan,

has it? Use a productivity in Germany has not gone down the pan,

they have their problems as well. I think what you will find is that the

take-up of that is not so enormous. If this becomes, just like maternity

leave when it came in, people did not rush to take a year off, it is

something that grows over time. Employers would not be complaining

if they did not have some reason. It does not sound as if there is going

to be that much take-up. In a way, couldn't you let it grow

organically? If there was a real clamour for it, fine but there

isn't. Somewhere between 2% and 8% of fathers will take up the shared

parental leave, according to the Government. It is quite worrying

they're not putting in place the measures that would encourage

further take-up. Should we just take a step backwards instead of making a

move towards gender equality in the workplace? I don't think so. What

about the issue as far as the Tory party is concerned about being a

modernising party? Here we go again! Will this make them look as if there

are going backwards if they renege on this? No. It will make them look

as if they are exercising some common sense. People are worried

about their energy bills, the cost of living, they are worried about if

they can relax on the issue of job security. They are worried about how

to afford Christmas. And in future, we say, mum and dad, you can just

swap childcare. It is irrelevant. A final word from you? The

Conservatives did commit in the manifesto to make in the UK the most

family friendly country in Europe. It would be surprising if they walk

backwards on this one. Thank you very much. We're walking backwards

for Christmas. There's just time before we go to find out the answer

to our quiz. The question was what have Gwent Police spent more than

?13,000 on in an attempt to deter crime?

I think it is a toss-up between the cats and the police officers,

because they are the most ludicrous. I am going for the cats.

The cats would have been right. But it was the cutout police officers. I

saw one in a petrol station that it was quite lifelike. If I was going

to rob the petrol station, within five seconds I would have realised

it was a cardboard cutout and therefore not in danger. You may

remember earlier, we were joined by three MPs who have been growing

moustaches for charity. Well, two of them - John Woodcock and Roger

Williams - have come back. And, in an exclusive for the Daily Politics,

they have agreed to have their moustaches shaved off a couple of

days early. To do the honours, we have Al from Pall Mall Barbers. I

hope you have got a steady hand. Yes, I have. Start removing those

moustaches. Here we go. It is goodbye to the

moustache. It should be a cut-throat razor! We have to find out, John,

how it feels to have lost that bit of hair on your upper lip, when it

finally disappears. Don't just do half of mine! Finish it! Lets do

Roger quickly and we can come back to it. While we see that, thanks to

all of our guests. The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One

now. I'll be on This Week tonight with Rory Bremner, Martin Sorrell,

John Pienaar, Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott and Miranda Green. And

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the

day. Do join me then. Bye-bye.