20/01/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. No one ever said it was

easy being a party leader but has Nick Clegg got himself in a pickle

over this man. Lord Rennard is refusing to apologise to women who

claim they were sexually harassed by him. He says he's done nothing wrong

and intends to take his seat in the Lords. Stepping up the war over

welfare. Labour announce that benefit claimants will be forced to

sit a test showing they can read, write and do maths in order to claim

payments. Were scenes like these the result of the Government's decision

to legalise gay marriage? The UKIP councillor who thinks so has been

suspended from the party. And everyone says they want an end to

Punch and Judy politics, but do we secretly love it? We'll be talking

about taking the yah-boo out of Westminster.

And with us for the duration are three whippersnappers, just cutting

their teeth on the Westminster scene. Former Welsh Secretary,

Cheryl Gillan. Former Culture Secretary, Labour's Tessa Jowell and

former Liberal Democrat Leader, Menzies Campbell. Welcome to you

all. First today, let's talk about immigration. Two senior Government

ministers have announced that new migrants from the EU will not be

entitled to housing benefit, if they already claim jobseeker's allowance.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the Work and Pensions Secretary,

Iain Duncan Smith, also say that those who lose their jobs and get

out-of-work payments will only receive housing benefit for a

maximum of six months. Should jobless migrants be denied housing

benefit? This is almost exactly what Nick Clegg said almost the other

day. It's an assumption that in every other country, member of the

European Union, people get unlimited access to benefits. The fact is

rather different. In Holland, there are quite restrictive conditions. I

think it is perfectly reasonable to say you don't get benefits as soon

as you arrive, you don't get them without any strings and they don't

go on with -- without a limited time. These principles were flagged

up by Nick Clegg some time ago. Are these announcements new, or are they

just restating what already exists? Bitter restatement of the principles

that Nick Clegg set out. If EU migrants get jobs, they can't claim

housing benefit for six months. Do you think that is right, even if

they are contributing and paying taxes? I don't think that is

unreasonable. You want to be satisfied that people are here in

the long term. That they are not floating in and out in order to try

and take advantage of the benefits system. It is important to remember

that although there is a universal right of movement, there is no

universal right of benefits. The universal right of movement, David

Cameron wants to limit that. Is that wise? What we've done today with

this announcement and what Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May have

done today is reaffirm what we've been doing as conservatives, which

is to take back control of our welfare and benefit system. I think

most reasonable people think that should happen. Menzies said it

already existed and other countries were doing it. We needed to take

control because there's no doubt that after the last Labour

government, there was this feeling that our welfare and benefit system

had got out of control and aggression had got out of control.

I've not done the sums. It's not just a question of how much

ultimately it will save inexact monetary terms, but it's also about

making sure that we are in command and in charge of our own destinies

and borders in this country, despite being members the European Union. Do

you back the idea of David Cameron's, which is to limit the

free movement of people or have a cap on the numbers? I want people

coming here to work. I want a rich and vibrant employment seen here. I

think we need to be careful people do not come here to do other than

work, and that is what we want to see. I think that's common across

all parties. Do you agree that Britain shouldn't be seen a magnet

to people who want to just use the welfare system? Of course it

shouldn't. We should welcome and our economy needs to welcome migrants

with skills that contribute to our economy. Really, the point about

this particular proposal, and in the time available this morning I've

tried to establish with welfare experts what it means in practice,

just bear in mind this, 2% of migrants actually claim benefits.

The numbers involved in this tiny, and therefore the point that Cheryl

is making is probably the main one, which is that this was a bold move

by Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May to outbid Rachel Reeve speech. It's

electioneering, isn't it? That's completely wrong. From the moment we

came in and took office, we have said we need to repair a damaged

welfare and benefit system. That's what we've been doing. Come on!

Rachel Reeves is trying to catch up with the government. All political

parties try to put a shot across the bow is trying to catch up with the

government. All political parties try to put a shot across the bowels

of anyone... It's almost exactly a restatement of things that have been

said before. It is electioneering. The point I wanted to make is this.

Remember, the freedom of movement applies to people in Britain who

want to go abroad. There are estimates that as many as 1.5

million Britons are living and working abroad. If you start

restricting people coming into this country, then don't be surprised if

there are tit-for-tat responses elsewhere. But even you can't fail

to have noticed that Labour is well behind the curve... Save it, leave

it for later. Now it's time for our daily quiz. I'm sorry to break the

sad news if you haven't heard already, but Tessa and Menzies are

standing down at the next election. The rigours of being on Daily

Politics panel were proving too much for them. So the question for today

is... Which of the following is a career that a former MP hasn't

pursued so far? Public relations, trying to fix the Middle East, going

into space or stand-up comedy. At the end of the show, our trio will

try to give us the correct answer. Lord Rennard's refusal to apologise

over allegations of sexual harassment mean he shouldn't be

allowed to take up the party whip, according to Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg

said that Lord Rennard had caused distress and that an apology was a

matter of basic decency. An independent investigation found that

there was broadly credible evidence against Lord Rennard, although not

enough evidence to begin disciplinary proceedings against

him. Lord Rennard has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has

refused to apologise. Nick Clegg insisted this morning that his

authority was not being undermined. Leadership is partly about direct

powers. It is also a process of persuasion and setting up your

views. My views are clear, they are strongly held. If you've caused

distress to another colleague, and that has been shown to be the case,

then the most basic, decent thing you can do is apologise. That is

what I believe and what many other people believe as well. That's why I

think as long as that apology has not been issued, it wouldn't be

right for Lord Rennard to join the group in the House of Lords. Let's

talk now to our deputy political editor, James Landale. As it stands,

in a couple of hours time Lord Rennard will return to the red

benches and won't have apologised. Yes, up to a point. As I walked into

the studio, I got a text suggesting there is now some doubt as to

whether or not Lord Rennard will come to the House of Lords today.

Not because of politics or strategy, but simply because of his health. It

is well known that Lord Rennard has diabetes. It is well known that his

health has suffered during this entire affair. A decision has been

taken as to whether or not he feels up to coming to the House of Lords.

And the inevitable Mediaset to and political pressure that would follow

that. As of this morning his supporters were expecting him to

turn up, come what may. But that is now in some doubt. What about Nick

Clegg's authority? Nick Clegg has his hands tied by his internal party

structures and the fact that the Lib Dems and the Lord is pretty much

come when their own show. He now has two try and show he is taking some

kind of decisive action. The problem is it's not an easy option. If he

persuades a committee internally to restart some new disciplinary

procedures, that then could be used as a pretext by the Lords chiefs to

suspend the whip from Lord Rennard. Then two possible consequences of

that. One is the possibility of legal action by Lord Rennard, saying

that this has been an unfair process. You can't have a new

disciplinary procedure just because you didn't like the results of the

last one that came out last week. Secondly, there is the possibility

this is challenged by the peers themselves. They have a regular

meeting on Wednesday, Lord Rennard could appeal against any decisions

to suspend him. He could potentially persuade enough peers to overturn

Nick Clegg's decision. Not only could Nick Clegg" hugely bruising

defeat and damage to his authority, he could also end up with a legal

case that could stretch along into the distance, right up to the

elections in May. If you talk to the Liberal Democrats on whichever side

of this fence they fall, they also -- they all use the word that is a

mess. Only the Liberal Democrats have the internal structures which

would allow for this process. Most other political parties would have

found some excuse to get rid of Lord Rennard, regardless of the rights or

wrongs over this. Only in a party as smaller of the Liberal Democrats

would Lord Rennard have had such power and influence and such a hold

over this party. There's a huge generational division within the

Liberal Democrats over this. There's an awful lot of undercurrents. This

is a really Liberal Democrat issue, it wouldn't have happened in the

other parties. Should Chris Rennard apologise to the women who claim he

has harassed them? I speak for myself, I don't speak for the party.

Anything I say here is based on what I've been thinking about in the last

48 hours. It's interesting we are suffering from a surfeit of

democracy. If you put it in rather confrontational terms, there would

two sides. The independent investigation found, in relation to

the standard of proof, that that hadn't been achieved. But at the

same time, the independent investigation said women had been

upset. There is a sense we neither one or neither lost. It seems to me

therefore that it's not beyond the wit of man or the Liberal Democrats

to find a form of words in which Lord Rennard is able to assert the

fact that he was found, or in relation to him there was no finding

of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but also to say at the same time

that if by any chance and in any way inadvertently I have caused distress

to anyone, then obviously I regret that very much indeed. At the end of

that, part of it should be an apology. No, it will be highly

qualified. I don't think you were able to remember the -- able to read

the whole of the decision, it was talked about whether there was any

intent. It was the absence of intent that the independent investigation

found as being crucial. So it's perfectly reasonable for him to say,

I had no intention, but if, per chance, I have caused upset, then I

regret that very much. I tell you why I say this, and it's because of

some of the things that have just been said by James Landale. We

cannot allow this to go on and on and on. Should he be allowed to take

up his seat in the House of Lords before that qualified apology? It

needs two lines drawn under it. Were I advising Lord Rennard, which I'm

not, I would have told him not to come today. To get here I came to a

forest of photographers and cameras. It has been well known his health

has been fragile for some time. If the consequence of these events has

been for his health to be damaged, then what ever viewed you take that

is obviously something for which one should be entirely sympathetic. But

he feels he's done nothing wrong. Therefore, why shouldn't he try and

take up his seat in the House of Lords, he seems to have the support

of many Lib Dem peers? Are they wrong, too? You must get away from

the question of who is wrong and who is right. The fact of the matter is

a judgment was issued by the independent investigation saying...

No conclusive evidence, but reason for an apology for causing distress.

Exactly. It is not beyond the wit of man, this happens in law courts up

and down the country every day. People say, I don't admit liability

but if as a result of something then I'm willing to say... Will make some

kind of apology. Now people really should be thinking about the future

of the party, and not about trying to rerun the events. Except that

friends of Chris Rennard says he's been through an awful lot. It's been

very trying for him and his family. He feels he doesn't want to

apologise on any grounds. Rightly or wrongly, that is how they feel. It

looks as if, as James Landale said, they could advise him to take legal

action, if there is now some sort of disciplinary proceeding about

bringing the party into disrepute. Do you think that should go ahead? I

believe there's a meeting going on at the moment. We should put these

judgments aside. That is a judgment the Lib Dems... No, we've got the

judgment of the independent investigation. We are where we are.

The question is whether or not that is accepted. And the question is

whether or not it can be lamented. On the basis I have suggested, I

believe it can. I know him very well, I have worked closely with him

for many years. The Liberal Democrats have become his life and

his soul. But the party has been his life. And his wife as well, there is

a huge affection between him and his wife. I do not know how Tessa feels

about this, but aside from how everything Menzies has been saying,

I am just speaking as a woman, and as a woman politician, we have

enough trouble attracting young people to come into politics, and

so, for me, the greatest sadness of this is that this is a story which

has gone on and on and on, and continues to leave a nasty taste in

the mouth, no matter what the rights or wrongs. I really regret it

because it is just another example which can put women off politics.

But do you think women have a right to have made this claim in the first

place? I think women do have a right to make that kind of claim, as men

would in a similar situation. It is not about women or men in that

sense. Should he apologise? As far as I am concerned, sorry seems to be

the hardest word to say. Menzies has come up with what I would consider

to be a diplomatic solution to this. But it is a matter for the Liberal

Democrats. Speaking just as a woman, I want more women to come into

politics and I think this is yet another story that will put them

off. This is about culture and attitudes to some extent in

Westminster as a whole, isn't it? I cannot judge the Liberal Democrats

culture, but I think it is part of the culture of politics. Menzies

Campbell is white, you do not have to sign every last bit of legal

exoneration, but what you do say is, if I have caused distress, then I

regret that. It is not only Lord Rennard who have been upset by this,

and his family, but also the women. This is a phenomenon which happens a

lot in politics, the refusal to say sorry, and it is a great pity.

Because actually, people watching at home, it makes us seem even more

alien. We are going to come back to this later in the programme. Now,

what action should you take if a member of your party says this? We

have done many things over the years which have caused problems. One, for

example, is the abortion laws, in which something like 6 million

children, as many as the people killed by the Nazis in the death

camps, have been killed as a result of the abortion laws. Now, the

latest in this process is these homosexual laws, and I believe that

the Prime Minister, who was warned that disasters would follow if he

went in this direction, he has persisted, and I believe that this

is largely a repercussion from this godlessness which he has persisted

in. Well, the councillor concerned, David Silvester of UKIP, was

suspended from the party last night. We are joined now by the UKIP

spokesman Peter Reeve. At first, Cheryl Gillian, was it right for

UKIP to suspend him? It is a matter for the party, but I think most

normal people, listening to what we have just heard, and certainly

members of the Major Roger: Office, came to recognise the connection

between people's sexuality and legislation and the weather patterns

in this country! -- of the meteorological office. You thought

the attitudes were ridiculous?! You can tell, by my reply, that I think

most normal people in this country would feel that this gentleman was

expressing some very deeply held, personal views. Except, it was not

that long ago that he was in your party. Should you have done more?

Well, all parties have people with strange views within them, as I am

sure my colleagues will agree. But it is a matter for UKIP as to

whether they suspend him. I do not believe he expressed those views in

those terms whilst he was a member of the Conservative Party. But no

doubt he still held them. I do not know this gentleman personally, so I

have not had the opportunity to discuss the weather with him

recently. There was a very good tweet from someone who said, it is

the hot air coming from UKIP! Lets see what Nigel Farage had to say,

the leader of the party... Shall we just get a sense of perspective?

This is somebody I had never even heard of, not even a district

councillor, a town councillor, in a small town in Oxfordshire, who

defected to us from the Conservative Party. This is not the party

chairman. I think it is very interesting, the way that absolutely

everybody in UKIP is under intense media scrutiny, where people from

the other parties, at local level, are simply ignored. Here we go

again, and other controversies around in one of your elected

representatives, it is not going to stop, is it? It shows the pressure

we are under as a political party, when a parish councillor says

something that our party does not as assembly agree with, but would

defend his right to say it, when a parish councillor writes a letter to

a newspaper, a government minister comes on television to attack him.

And that is what happened yesterday with Mr Fallon. When you say the

party does not necessarily agree with him, are you saying there are

those who do? No, this is a man with personal views, the mistake he made

was attributing those views to our party. UKIP is a broad church, we

have got many gay people. He does speak on behalf of the party,

doesn't he? The mistake he made was a tribute in his personal views we

are a party under the pressure. We are the most popular political party

in this country, according to a recent survey. Nigel Farage is one

of the most popular political leaders, and we are making real

progress. If you want to play at the top level, you have got to realise,

this is what happens. All of the parties have the same thing. Also,

it is a bit tough of Nigel Farage to dismiss, I think he described him as

a town councillor from Oxfordshire. There are an awful lot of town

councillors up and down the country who will feel insulted by that. I am

a town councillor, I do not feel insulted. If I may say so, you would

not be the spokesman for the party if you were easily insulted. But the

point is this, these are the views of those who have been left behind

in the enormous progressive and social changes in this country. I

support all of these changes, I think it has made us a more

tolerant, a more inclusive and a better place to live. But there are

people who hold views which may not be considered to be mainstream in

all the parties. Who knows? I am not going to say that if you lift the

roof off a town council... What I am going to say is that this man?

Observations were entirely out of sync with the prevailing mood of the

public. The fact that we have embarked, really since the time of

Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary, upon a progressive change in society,

which has benefited us all. Do you believe that the recent flooding was

caused by the Government? Decision to legalise gay marriage? I think

David Cameron can be blamed for an awful lot of things, for wrecking

the Armed Forces... All right, but do you blame him for that? No, I

would not. We are vetting our candidates. What we do not

anticipate is the level of pressure our people are under. This man said

these things when he was a Conservative councillor, nobody made

anything of it. But this is going to keep happening, isn't it? All of a

sudden, you are under more spotlight, the vetting procedure has

not been all that robust. Actually, it has. When you look at the Liberal

Democrats running round in circles with ministers, we are talking about

parish councillors! What do you mean by that? In the interview you gave

just a moment ago, your party is running around in circles in

Parliament, not able to contain itself, attacking its own people.

UKIP does not do that. If I may say so, that is because the word

democracy is not one which appears in Nigel Farage? Dictionary. I think

you will find we are the as far as I can see, the only person that gets

airtime, apart from Nigel Farage, are those who express, how shall I

put it, notoriously use them or maybe even hit journalists over the

head with paper. It just shows you, it is a one-man show. But it is one

which Conservative MPs seem to find a great threat? As Menzies says,

welcome to Test cricket, this is what happens. If you are going to

use that analogy, you had better look at what the women's team is

doing. I follow women's cricket with great interest. What is it about the

party which attracts people with extreme and colourful views? UKIP

does not attract any more extreme views than other parties. Does it

not? The difference between us and the other parties, which is very

often found to be unpalatable, is that we are made up of ordinary the

other parties will claim the same thing. I think if you look at the

other parties, you will find a certain type of person, very

polished, who has been to a certain type of school. Rubbish. Now, it is

a widely held belief in British politics that MPs behaving badly,

particularly at Prime Minister's Questions, is a big turn-off for the

public, especially female voters. There have been repeated calls for

all of the party leaders to town down the aggro. And the first PMQs

of this new session did see a markedly different tone to the

exchanges between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. But can they keep it

up, and just how much would we missed the argy-bargy?

Welcome to a world where Parliamentary democracy is a contact

sport, brought to you by the people who really put the punch into Punch

and Judy politics. Nothing more amusing than watching something like

that in one of those funny foreign parliaments. But when it comes to

our own prime ministers questions, we allegedly do not like it. Ed

Miliband and David Cameron have at times from it to bring an end to

yah-boo politics. But what do we really want? Although there are some

negative public reaction is to prime ministers questions, the

overwhelming majority of people who are interested in politics and PMQs

say fairly positive things about it. And here is another conventional

wisdom you sometimes hear from female politicians. Some of them say

that they think it is Prime Minister's Questions, and the Punch

and Judy show of parliament, which puts women off politics. But that is

why I researched it, I cannot find evidence that that is the case. It

puts off women MPs, but not women in the public, I have found. But there

is no doubt that even for the most experienced hands, PMQs can be a

cruel place. Declare your interests! It is not just between parties where

it gets all macho, sometimes, it is within them. Rumour has it that one

of our guests of today, Tessa Jowell, had to sort out some

handbags between Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander. What are the

chances of bringing peace to PMQs? I think Cameron and Miliband do have a

responsibility to try to behave a bit more responsibly, and not

engaging quite so much yah-boo politics. But I am a realist and a

political journalist and sceptic, and as the general election gets

much closer, and the polls narrow, and there is so much at stake, it is

going to be very, very difficult for either party leader to resist

dishing it out. The institutions and the structures and the ways of

behaving are deeply embedded . they are habit-forming kinds of

behaviour. So, it will take an enormous amount of will. I would not

put my own money on it. So, it seems like cutting out bad behaviour in

the Commons chamber may remain an aspiration rather than a pledge. And

remember, David Cameron has not actually tried this on Ed Miliband,

or even Ed Balls, yet. Well, we have not quite got to that level yet.

Perhaps not something to aspire to, necessarily. But did you find the

behaviour of some MPs cruel, when you were leader of the Lib Dems in

the chamber? Well, you saw that clip. I learned afterwards that

because I had quite large writing, Eric Forth had spied that I was

going to talk about pensions, so he had had time to work up the joke.

But of course, it was beautifully timed, and if you get something like

that, it is very difficult to cope. But what is interesting is that in

the first Prime Minister's Questions after the New Year, the whole house

was shaken by the death of an enormously popular person from

within the house, and a man who had respect. As a result of that, the

atmosphere was very, very different. What you find, the Speaker

frequently says, I get letters every week from people complaining. But I

have got friends in the United States who will not go out to dinner

on Sunday night because they want to watch Prime Minister's Questions,

and one last point, if I may, since we have been talking about women, I

sit just below the gangway on the government bench, I look across, and

some of the most noisy contributors are women. And there is one

particular woman, who I will not identify. Oh, go on. No, it would be

unfair. She keeps up and running, drew from the start to the end. It

is not Tessa. Do you turn native when you get into

the chamber? They say women MPs, and the lady in that film said women MPs

don't much like, but in the end, do you just join in? Guess, is the

answer. But Menzies' point is an important one. An occasion like the

announcement of Paul Goggins' death, or I remember Tony Blair's

last PMQs. I remember the day that David Cameron's son died. There is a

sense that the whole mood is to behave properly on those occasions.

Should it stay like that? We did the story that Ed Miliband would like to

see the whole tone brought down a level or two, do you think that's

right? I think there's a difference between the shouting and all the

rest of it and personal abuse, just being rude and not answering the

question. I think that is what frustrates people at home. But I

think there is a difference here. I don't accept that women like this. I

think we all join in but that is PMQs. But actually, people want to

feel that politics is more engaged, politicians are more engaged in the

specific problems of the lives of the people. Churchill said, we shape

our buildings and our buildings shape us. The House of Commons is

very confrontational. But what people fail to appreciate is it's

just that half hour in the middle of the week. There are so many other

debates for hours and hours on end. But it is held up as the

centrepiece. But partly because of journalists as well. I looked up in

the gallery and it is during Prime Minister 's question Time that that

gallery is packed with journalists with their tongues hanging out. We

can't hear anything because you are also busy shouting at each other!

This The reason we have a rectangular shape is because the

first parliament met in a chapel. Chapels are rectangular. So when

they built a house of parliament, they built it in a rectangular

shape. As a result, we have adversarial politics. Go to Europe

and they are built in a hemisphere. The atmosphere in Westminster Hall

changes as well. There was taunting and hectoring of one of your

colleagues, Julian Huppert. Was that acceptable? No. No more than there

was taunting of a Conservative MP whose physical appearance attracted

some attention. But that says more about the individual politician than

it does about the chamber and the house. David Cameron has been

criticised for making remarks like, calm down, dear. That is all played

up by the media. We all know in the chamber, if we've been there a long

time, like as three have been, we all know how far we can go. We

understand it. I think maybe some of the new younger ones make mistakes.

The personal attacks never go down well. There's a clear difference

between a spontaneous response and organised by raging. A lot of the

time it is organised region. Tessa Jowell, we mentioned the so-called

fight between Douglas Alexander and Ed Balls. Did you have to break that

fight up? I have got no recollection. I don't remember it.

You don't remember breaking it up for the fight? Both. I've talked to

Douglas about it and Ed Balls. Did they say you broke it up? No, they

say they can't remember either. Amnesia on the Labour bench. No!

Maybe you got a blow to the head in the middle or something. Let's take

a look at what's happening this week. Later today the Transport

Committee will hear evidence from Sir Howard Davies, Chair of the

Airports Commission, on increasing aviation capacity in London and the

South East. On Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron faces his

regular questioning session in the House of Commons. Wednesday also

marks the start of the World Economic Forum in Davos in the Swiss

mountains, where more than 2,000 politicians, business leaders and

journalists from around the world will meet to chew over the world's

critical issues. And on Friday, James Wharton's EU Referendum Bill

is at committee stage in the Lords. Joining me now is Laura Pitel from

the Times and Oliver Wright from the Independent. The announcement was

made by both parties today on welfare, clearly indicating a battle

over who can sound tougher on the issue of welfare. Is that how you

see it? Totally, they are trying to outdo each other. Most would agree

that the Conservatives have the lead. Labour are very conscious that

even amongst their own supporters, these Conservative policies are very

popular. So they've been trying to hit back a bit, these Conservative

policies are very popular. So they've been trying to hit back a

bit and come up with their own welfare announcement. The

Conservatives have been trying to drown them out by doing more of

their own. Why don't we ever hear the parties talk more about the

positives of welfare and what it's for, who with there to defend and

help? It's not in vogue at the moment. What is in vogue is saying

how tough you are going to be on benefits. What is interesting is how

circular these debates are. Thinking back to 1997, it was Labour saying,

we are going to be more generous and give more, that was electorally

popular. The Conservatives are gambling that in 2015, the mood of

the country will be being tough on welfare and benefits. But it is

possible that if the economic situation improves a bit between now

and the election, that the mood of the country may change and people

may think that we're being too hard on benefits and that people need a

helping hand. What Labour are gambling on is they put the emphasis

on training and education and helping to get people back into

work, tough but fair, that will perhaps be more appealing message

than the Conservatives, who are characterised as just being tough or

mean. Do you think it is a gamble that in the end, the Conservative

Party will be risking being demonised by being too tough on

benefits? It feels very negative. We're talking about benefits,

migrants, bad things and people who are coming here to take advantage of

what we've got. The politicians coming up to this time next year and

going into the election, they will need to portray a positive message

that doesn't just leave people feeling depressed. Lets try and

lighten the mood a little bit and think about those politicians and

journalists skiing in the Swiss mountains, I mean attending a

conference on economics! What is the point of Davos? I'm not quite sure.

I've never been. Maybe if I went then I could understand it better.

It all feels terribly new Labour, all these people getting together

and having a nice chitchat and a bit of skiing. I'm surprised we leave

that the economic crisis didn't lead to a dramatic falloff in the number

of people that go, because it doesn't, to my mind, look terribly

edifying, this elite gathering of business men and politicians in the

Swiss mountain resorts. Yes, sure, it's a good idea for them to meet,

but I'm not sure that Davos sends quite the right image of business

perhaps. In terms of friends for the Prime Minister, is he going to find

himself like Billy no mates, having made these comments about freedom of

movement and trying to limit it? It's gone down very badly with other

EU leaders. There was a piece in the FT about how other leaders in Europe

are getting a bit twitchy about things he has said, particularly

this renegotiation of the relationship between Britain and the

EU. I know it is not always going well, he faces a difficult challenge

over the next few years to get people onside and persuade them to

help him in this task. But the question remains of why they should

do that when he is acting for Britain on its own? It's going to be

difficult for him. In her first major speech as Shadow Work and

Pensions Secretary, Rachel Reeves says benefit claimants will be

forced to sit a test claiming they can read, write, add up and use a

computer. If not, they will have to sign up to training will be stripped

of their benefits. Here she eased -- speaking earlier. Your Low we also

need to take action to make sure that those who are unemployed now

have the skills they need to move into the long-term jobs they want

and that the country needs them to take. So today I am announcing

another important plan to address this problem. The new requirement

for job-seekers to take training if they do not meet basic standards in

maths, English and IT. Training that they will be required to take up

along their job search or lose their benefits. Tessa Jowell, does Labour

need to take a harder line on welfare? We all need to take a hard

line on people who cheat the system. But I think sometimes we can

be led to a position where we overstate and believe there is more

fraud, more cheating than there is. I think Rachel Reeves' proposals

this morning are very constructive and positive. Because actually, low

levels of literacy and low levels of numeracy and not being IT competence

are what Loch Ewe out of the job market. These are the prerequisites

to getting jobs today and staying in work. This is constructive. But it's

also saying, we live in a country where we expect everybody to work.

If they are not working, to show that they are genuinely trying to

get into work. So you do accept, as this policy seems to indicate, that

there is a group of an appropriate for the need a kick up the backside?

I think there's a small group of unemployed people who have just

become completely disconnected from the labour market, who are no longer

trying to get jobs and so forth. I think this will galvanise them to

actually get to the job centre and do what is necessary. But

overwhelmingly, and I'm always struck by this when I'm talking to

young people in my constituency in south London who are ambitious about

wanting to get jobs, they may not be in work, they just don't know how to

get themselves from where they are now to a job that makes them feel

proud of themselves will stop I think this is a practical step

towards that. A person rocks up, does the test, let's say can't add

up for toffee but perhaps passes the others and they lose their benefit.

Are you happy with the idea that they will, if they don't then or not

able to on to training as a result, they don't want to take the training

that is offered, that they will be left languishing? They will have a

choice. If you're literacy is not at the proper standard for you to get a

job, then you go to an FC college and you are taught reading,

writing, the basic levels of literacy that give you the chance of

getting a job. If you are severely dyslexic then that is not going to

happen. That is the kind of thing that will be factored into this.

This is putting job centres back in the position that they were in when

we were in power, which is having a dynamic responsibility to get people

into work as quickly as possible. Is also a tacit that Labour has failed

on education? That there is this group of people that can't read or

write, which is a tragedy, really, isn't it? It is certainly something

that persisted. The numbers reduced when we were in power. I was an

employment Minister, we did something very similar. But in

addition to these very hard to place young people, we put them through

what was called soft skills training, which is required for the

hotel industry, coffee shops, whatever it may be. We are talking

here about a hard-core of people who find it very difficult to get into

work, giving them the practical help they need. This is a practical and

more positive way of looking at trying to get people of jobseeker's

allowance and to work. In that clip I felt I was hearing a

re-announcement of what is actually happening in terms of trying to get

young people who are not numerous and literate, and I think there was

an announcement by Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith some time ago on

this. I went on Friday to Bucks and looked at people trying to get back

into the world of work on the Work Programme. I was really impressed by

what I saw on Friday. There's no point getting people back to work if

their literacy and numeracy is not... What I was impressed with was

not only helping them with interview techniques, but once they were in

work, the Work Programme is actually giving support to people. I saw one

young man who was running his own business, and he was being helped

with the finance of how to keep his business in line with HMRC. I

thought that that was really valuable, because it was recognised

that people need that help and support. That is why I think what we

are doing in our reforms is so important. But if the numbers are so

small, as you said, and the numbers of people defrauding the system are

also very small, this is just posturing, it is just about who is

going to look tough on welfare? We are in the middle of a very severe

period master at it. Every pound counts. But you may have put your

finger on it a moment ago, because to acknowledge that this is

necessary is by implication to acknowledge that these young people

have been failed in our education system. It seems to me that if you

are going to do what is being suggested, then the quid pro quo

ought to be that we are going to invest more in education. What we

have to remember, of course, is that it is a very competitive world now.

We have a lot of university graduates who cannot get jobs, so

what do they do, they trade down. When they trade down, the people

whose jobs they take trade down as well. And therefore it is a much

more competitive set of circumstances than we have seen in

the past. But the one thing which is absolutely essential is that work

makes people feel better, work is... Nobody disagrees with that. But is

this a battle between the parties, to say they are the toughest? There

is no doubt about that, otherwise you would not have these

announcements made on the same day. I would like to say it is more about

ambitions to get people into work who find it very hard, and giving

them skills to do that. Let's return to the story about Lord Rennard. As

we heard earlier, there are moves to suspend him from the Liberal

Democrats for bringing the party into disrepute. He has refused to

apologise to women who brought sexual harassment claims against

him, saying he has done nothing wrong. And inquiry said there was

not enough proof to take the matter further. But it said the claims were

credible. He is due to take up his seat in the House of Lords later

today. As we heard earlier, there are doubts as to whether he will in

fact attend, you to health reasons. One of the women involved says Nick

Clegg must act. We are expecting him to show some leadership on our

behalf. We want Nick Clegg to have the confidence to say it is not

acceptable to have somebody who is under such clout to be back on the

benches, calling himself a Liberal Democrat. -- under such a cloud.

Nick Clegg has said Lord Rennard should apologise. Paddy Ashdown

agrees. Daddy Alexander said the same. Lord McDonald's said it is

perfectly reasonable to expect an apology, and Menzies Campbell has

said a qualified apology is also needed, so why hasn't Lord Rennard

apologised? You will have to ask him that. I am one of those who has been

horrified at what seems to be the lack of acceptance of a due process.

But I think we are past that now. I think the whole argument about an

apology is becoming quite ridiculous. I do not think it will

will understand that that is the fundamental issue of British

politics today. It seems to me that the party is in a huge crisis now.

It is divided into two camps, over what in the grand scale of things is

a storm in a teacup. There is a huge chasm in the party, and each side is

standing behind their own lines, chucking grenades at the other, and

there is absolutely no dialogue going on. What we now need is a new

process of reconciliation and mediation. You say it is a storm in

a teacup - the women who brought those charges against Lord Rennard,

they do not think so, nor do the number of Liberal Democrats who have

formally complained and are calling on Nick Clegg to act. Well, neither

do people who are appalled that having had a due process, that due

process seems to be being ignored substantially. The substantial

issue, that there was no case to answer, is being ignored. But people

on both sides are in entrenched positions, and all this is going to

do is to destroy the party. You have spoken about entrenched positions,

but if Lord Rennard were to apologise, in your mind, would that

then released those positions, and the party could get on? I do not

think so, no. Why? That was part of the recommendation, wasn't it? What

I am saying is that I do not think it would. There are two possible

outcomes at the moment. The first is that Lord Rennard is able to take up

his position, and everything carries on as before, in which case a very

large number of people in the party would be angry. The other

alternative is that he is expelled from the party, in which case

another section of the party will be very angry. There is a huge chasm in

the party, and we have got to start to heal that chasm. How do you do

that? We need a peace and reconciliation process. If it works

between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley... This cannot be compared

to that, can it? Of course not. But if it works on huge great things

like that, if it worked in South Africa, surely, for what is in the

grand scale of things, within the Liberal Democrats, a small party in

this country, a relative small in -- a relative storm in a teacup... What

I want to say is that we have got to get together as a party. Any of the

possible outcomes at the moment are going to seriously damage this party

for a generation. We have got to call a halt, step act, give

ourselves time and see if it can be sorted out. Should Chris Rennard be

allowed to take the whip again in the House of Lords? Allowed by

whom? By Lib Dem peers. Well, it is accepted by the officers of the

group in the Lords that they have no grounds at the moment, as we speak,

to exclude him. This has been described in almost apocalyptic

terms as a crisis facing the party. You took the words out of my life.

-- out of my mouth. Of course we would like not to be where we are.

But I think the last thing we need is another process, with all that

that involveswhat we need is common ground and common-sense, and I

believe that can be achieved without going through the paraphernalia, if

you like, of another formal process, and I said this earlier in the

programme. But some members of the party are saying they will define

Nick Clegg over this. The one thing I do agree about is the fact that

the volume should be turned down. People should not be rushing into

television studios on either side of this argument. A period of calm

reflection would be better, and would provide the opportunity for

the kind of circumstances I suggested - a joint statement in

which it is pointed out firmly on Lord Rennard? Behalf, that so far as

the allegations against him were concerned, they were not able to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt, but that there is an acceptance that if

in any way, people were caused distress, he is willing to say how

much he regrets that. And that is the crucial thing, at the moment,

those people would not accept such an apology. I am not sure about

that. I am. We are both calling for peace. Peace has broken out on The

Daily Politics! After the coalition government called for a freeze on

council tax, immunities secretary Eric Pickles said councils had a

moral duty to abide by it, despite swingeing cuts to their budgets. --

Communities Secretary. But the Government said that if local

authorities wanted a council tax rise above a certain amount, they

would have to hold a referendum. The Green Party in Brighton could be the

first to hold one. They want a council tax increase of almost 5%.

Their leader is in Brighton. Welcome to the programme. Is it just a

failure on your part to manage your budget? It is a serious proposal. It

is needed. We think we should ask the people for a referendum on the

future of social care. As you said, we have seen a huge reduction in our

funding by government. We have also got growing demand, an ageing and

growing population, neither of which are recognised by covenant funding.

And we have a situation where -- government funding -- in previous

years, a freeze has been imposed upon us. Inflation since we took

control has been 9.6%, and council tax has risen in that time Western

2%. So, we are well behind. We have a huge pressure on social care. --

less than 2%. Many other councils have similar structures, but they

are not trying to increase council tax by 5%? Directed now is that it

is a difficult time for everyone, and I think that is why we want to

let the people decide. -- I recognise that it is a difficult

time. These cuts have gone too far and too deep for councils across the

country, and many councils are proposing increases. We think that

the elderly and the disabled need support from local government. Do

you think there will be a majority of people who will vote for more

taxes? I think we have got a long time to make that argument. The

referendum will be in May. We need the opposition parties to accept the

idea of letting the people choose. Since our last local elections in

Brighton, the circumstances are quite different. Nobody expected to

have ?100 million cut out of our budget. How much would the

referendum cost to run? Because it can be held on the same day as the

European elections, the estimates are around ?30,000. It is the only

choice I have got on the table. Conservative MPs said this proposal

was bonkers. Actually, Brandon Lewis, the Local Government

Minister, said that we should trust the people. Much has been made by

Tories about their care and concern for pensioners, and yet when we say

that social care cannot take any more reductions in spending, they

seem to be running away from the idea. There is just time before we

go to find the answer to our quiz. What was that question?! The

question was, which of the following is a career that a former MP has not

pursued so far? Is it public relations, trying to fix the Middle

East, going into space or stand-up comedy? Going into space? I presume

so. I think that is the right answer. I do not think anybody has

gone into space. You two, what are you going to do when you stand down,

are you going to stand for Mayor of London, Tessa? I have not decided. I

am going to Harvard for three months to teach at the School For Public

Health. I am also going to be doing work with the city 's programme at

the London School of Economics. And there are other possible to use.

When are you going to make up your mind? I do not think anybody should

be making up their mind until the other side of the general election.

Would Tessa make a good Mayor of London? I rather like the one we

have got. I am fond of Boris. I am rather fond of Tessa. I certainly

think she would give Boris a run for his money. And she has got a much

better haircut. And she does not do this all the time with her hair.

What about you? I am not reading up politics, and I am going to get my

week out. -- giving up politics. -- wig out. That is it for today. I

will be back tomorrow.