0:00:32 > 0:00:37Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics. Will Government reforms
0:00:37 > 0:00:40to the NHS in England make it harder to save money in the end? A
0:00:40 > 0:00:44House of Commons committee says yes. The Government says no. We'll hear
0:00:44 > 0:00:48from both sides of the debate. Richard Branson tells MPs that the
0:00:48 > 0:00:51"war on drugs" is counter productive. He'll join us live,
0:00:51 > 0:00:55just as soon as he's finished speaking. Yesterday, we talked
0:00:55 > 0:00:59about the House of Lords and how the bishops were trying to stop the
0:00:59 > 0:01:02Government capping benefits. We'll take a look at how they got on and
0:01:02 > 0:01:05assess the consequences. And Churchill had his ministerial car
0:01:05 > 0:01:11specially adapted so he could smoke his cigars without the rain coming
0:01:11 > 0:01:20through the open window. But do ministers today still need a
0:01:20 > 0:01:22All that in the next half hour. And with us for the whole programme
0:01:22 > 0:01:29today is the former Labour Minister, Select Committee chairman and
0:01:29 > 0:01:32diarist, Chris Mullin. First, Chris Mullin, your diaries are full of
0:01:32 > 0:01:39how you attempted to persuade Tony Blair that Rupert Murdoch was the
0:01:39 > 0:01:43devil incarnate. Do you think anything will change after the
0:01:43 > 0:01:48Leveson Inquiry? The trouble is that politicians, Murdoch in
0:01:48 > 0:01:51particular, but also the Daily Mail and one or two will macro other
0:01:51 > 0:01:59papers have got so big that politicians have become scared of
0:01:59 > 0:02:02them. Instead of taking them on, they've tried to ride the tiger.
0:02:03 > 0:02:08Usually with consequences that didn't work out very well. Although
0:02:08 > 0:02:10Tony Blair, being the first Labour Leah -- Labour leader really to
0:02:10 > 0:02:16have a relationship with Rupert Murdoch which did serve him well in
0:02:16 > 0:02:19his path to power, it didn't it? did. I was thinking recently of
0:02:20 > 0:02:24David Cameron's attempt to Remploy Andy Coulson. But there are
0:02:24 > 0:02:27examples from the New Labour the rubber things went badly wrong. I
0:02:27 > 0:02:33think this is an historic opportunity at the moment.
0:02:33 > 0:02:37Personally, I would give Murdoch or News Corp a greater share of Sky
0:02:37 > 0:02:41Television in return for him relinquishing his newspapers in
0:02:41 > 0:02:44this country. I think that the shareholders of News Corp may go
0:02:44 > 0:02:48for that. Be is something that is under consideration. One of the
0:02:48 > 0:02:52things that has come out today, people have been shocked by some of
0:02:52 > 0:02:54the revelations particularly around the Milly Dowler case, the news
0:02:54 > 0:02:59that the Surrey police, the fourth that investigated the abduction of
0:02:59 > 0:03:05Milly Dowler, was told by the News of the World of newspaper back in
0:03:05 > 0:03:082002 that it had access to a missing girl's voice mails. It just
0:03:08 > 0:03:11shows it wasn't just the politicians and the relationships
0:03:11 > 0:03:17between police and press were almost extremely close, perhaps too
0:03:17 > 0:03:21close. The number of skiers, yes. Politicians, certainly. The police,
0:03:21 > 0:03:25obviously. There's a range of subjects on which it's not possible
0:03:25 > 0:03:28to have a rational discussion on this subject. It's not possible to
0:03:28 > 0:03:35have a rational discussion because of the amount of hysteria that can
0:03:35 > 0:03:41be whipped up by the tabloids. Tax policy, drug policy, we are going
0:03:41 > 0:03:45to discuss that later. Immigration and asylum. A list of subjects that
0:03:45 > 0:03:48have no serious discussion taking place. And you say that because of
0:03:48 > 0:03:54the fear rob some populist campaign being run? Undoubtedly that is the
0:03:54 > 0:03:59case. Should the result be the regulation of the press? There has
0:03:59 > 0:04:06been evidence given from James Harding, saying that would be a
0:04:06 > 0:04:11disaster, it would have a chilling effect, he said, on the press.
0:04:11 > 0:04:16not arguing for statutory regulation of the newspaper, but
0:04:16 > 0:04:22one has to say that the television company, both the BBC and ITV, are
0:04:22 > 0:04:27regulated. I don't think it has a particularly chilling effect on
0:04:27 > 0:04:33them if it's done sensitively. The key thing is to break these empires
0:04:33 > 0:04:37up so they become less arrogant, less powerful and, I think that the
0:04:37 > 0:04:41moment has come. You don't think it will be dangerous in terms of
0:04:41 > 0:04:45stifling the press? We don't have freedom of the press. We have
0:04:45 > 0:04:49newspapers who are owned by a handful of oligarchs. They
0:04:49 > 0:04:52sometimes abused the power at their disposal. That's one of the reasons
0:04:52 > 0:04:56we are in the difficulty we are now boast a now we've got an
0:04:56 > 0:05:01opportunity to separate Murdoch from his newspapers. I hope the
0:05:01 > 0:05:04politicians will have the courage to put that deal on the table.
0:05:04 > 0:05:11have many months more of the League say inquiry. Later in the programme
0:05:11 > 0:05:14we will be taking a look at the government's car service. Chris
0:05:14 > 0:05:16wrote in his diaries how he tried to get rid of his state funded
0:05:16 > 0:05:19chauffeur, and David Cameron promised to slash the costs,
0:05:19 > 0:05:26forcing ministers onto the tubes and buses. But our question for you
0:05:26 > 0:05:33today is - which of these cars is not a car in the government pool?
0:05:33 > 0:05:42At the end of the show Chris will hopefully be able to give us the
0:05:42 > 0:05:45The Government's plans to reform the NHS in England have met
0:05:45 > 0:05:49numerous hurdles. Last year the Bill was held up after concerns
0:05:49 > 0:05:53from Liberal Democrats. Last week the unions for nurses and midwives
0:05:53 > 0:05:56moved to a position of "outright opposition" to the plans. Now a
0:05:56 > 0:05:58former Conservative Health Secretary has waded into the debate
0:05:58 > 0:06:02saying the reforms are distracting from the real challenge of funding
0:06:02 > 0:06:06the health service. Andrew Lansley is performing radical surgery on
0:06:06 > 0:06:11the NHS in England. His plans will see GPs take control of much of the
0:06:11 > 0:06:14NHS budget and encourage greater competition with the private sector.
0:06:14 > 0:06:22Mr Lansley also wants the NHS to save �20 billion by 2015 through
0:06:22 > 0:06:25efficiency savings. However, these twin aims are proving controversial.
0:06:25 > 0:06:27Stephen Dorrell, who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee and
0:06:27 > 0:06:31is himself a former Conservative Health Secretary, has criticised
0:06:31 > 0:06:33the plans. His committee has published a report saying the
0:06:33 > 0:06:43health reforms are acting as a "disruption and distraction" from
0:06:43 > 0:06:45
0:06:45 > 0:06:50I think there is definitely a concern that managing the changes
0:06:50 > 0:06:54of the management structure becomes a priority when the real priority
0:06:54 > 0:06:59is managing health care in order to meet the demands of patients.
0:06:59 > 0:07:02report says the current division between NHS and council ran so -
0:07:02 > 0:07:06Mackay is a major cause of inefficiency and service break down.
0:07:06 > 0:07:09It suggests there needs to be more integration of health and social
0:07:09 > 0:07:13care, particularly for the elderly. By moving more care into the
0:07:13 > 0:07:17community. Here is what Andrew Lansley has said in response to the
0:07:18 > 0:07:22report. If you look a euro two down the line, to make continuing
0:07:22 > 0:07:27savings depends upon redesigning the shape of services. More
0:07:27 > 0:07:30community services, better services around patients. Better integration
0:07:30 > 0:07:34between health and social care. Will the reforms deliver those
0:07:34 > 0:07:40things? That is what clinical commissioning, doctors and nurses
0:07:40 > 0:07:42leading on commissioning, is doing. You can go anywhere in the country,
0:07:42 > 0:07:44including health select committee members' constituencies and find
0:07:44 > 0:07:48their clinical Commissioner's coming together with local
0:07:48 > 0:07:50authorities who are into gritting health and social care, who are
0:07:50 > 0:07:55redesigning services in order to deliver better results in the
0:07:55 > 0:08:00future. With us now is Roswyn Hakesley-Brown, chair of the
0:08:01 > 0:08:04Patients' Association. And the health minister Simon Burns. It
0:08:04 > 0:08:07must her during those criticisms from a former Tory health secretary
0:08:07 > 0:08:11who was now chairing the select committee? He and his committee
0:08:11 > 0:08:14have published their report. We will be studying it and responding
0:08:14 > 0:08:19to it in due course. As Andrew Lansley was saying, we don't
0:08:19 > 0:08:23believe the situation is exactly as portrayed in that report. Which bit
0:08:23 > 0:08:27don't you think is correctly portrayed? For our viewers, they
0:08:27 > 0:08:30will understand a Health Select Committee is full of a group of MPs
0:08:31 > 0:08:35who study this intensively, who will have taken evidence. Why would
0:08:35 > 0:08:41it not be correct? Because what we are seeing in the NHS and on the
0:08:41 > 0:08:47ground is a significant move towards modernisation was a
0:08:47 > 0:08:51modernisation can only move forward by a freeing up part of the NHS to
0:08:51 > 0:08:56respond to that by getting rid of the PCTs. What we are seeing so far
0:08:56 > 0:08:59is just over 15,000 administrators have left the NHS. We have 4000
0:08:59 > 0:09:04extra doctors. And that is what you would call efficiency savings.
0:09:04 > 0:09:07That's what you want to see in terms of modernisation?
0:09:07 > 0:09:11efficiency savings, that is part of it but what is also important is
0:09:11 > 0:09:16we've seen since we came into power the NHS, by delivering care in the
0:09:16 > 0:09:20more effective and efficient way and other measures, has saved �7
0:09:20 > 0:09:25billion of which every single penny is being reinvested in frontline
0:09:25 > 0:09:29services. It is spilling over to improvements in the NHS. We've seen
0:09:29 > 0:09:32the 94 % drop in mixed-sex accommodation. MRSA dropping down
0:09:32 > 0:09:36to a record low levels. And those are the successors which have been
0:09:36 > 0:09:40Noda by the committee. But what is happening, according to Stephen
0:09:40 > 0:09:43Dorrell, is there is salami-slicing going on. Services are being cut in
0:09:43 > 0:09:48order to keep up with the modernisation programme. Are you
0:09:48 > 0:09:52denying that? I do not believe that is the case. We cannot see evidence
0:09:52 > 0:09:56of what is going on in the NHS of salami-slicing. Yes, the NHS is
0:09:56 > 0:10:00facing challenges, it is responding to those challenges in different
0:10:00 > 0:10:05circumstances because of the economic situation we inherited.
0:10:05 > 0:10:11Stephen Dorrell is wrong? I believe that if the main thrust is there is
0:10:11 > 0:10:14salami-slicing going on, that is not been shown that in the NHS.
0:10:14 > 0:10:20there salami-slicing, our services being cut in certain areas to make
0:10:20 > 0:10:25the efficiencies? Our evidence suggests DS. We have an exponential
0:10:25 > 0:10:32increase in calls to our helpline in relation to what is happening on
0:10:33 > 0:10:40the ground. For example, we had a 94-year-old yesterday who couldn't
0:10:40 > 0:10:46get new batteries for his hearing aid. We've had numerous reports
0:10:46 > 0:10:54from patients about the waiting time for particular episodes of
0:10:54 > 0:11:00surgery. There are instances of poor care where patients are being
0:11:00 > 0:11:03encouraged to pass you're in or even defecate in their beds because
0:11:04 > 0:11:08there are not enough nurses to deliver the service. And you would
0:11:08 > 0:11:14say that is the result of the savings being made? Systems
0:11:14 > 0:11:21failures. First of all, the waiting times. The waiting times and number
0:11:21 > 0:11:26of people waiting is stable at the moment. Let's define them. The one
0:11:26 > 0:11:30you might be referring to his 18 week. The median waiting time in
0:11:30 > 0:11:35the last month has dropped to 8.1 weeks, which is lower than when we
0:11:35 > 0:11:39came into power. The number of people waiting over 52 weeks has
0:11:39 > 0:11:44been halved in the last two months. But do you deny that the figure has
0:11:44 > 0:11:48gone up quite dramatically and some of the other... On some of the
0:11:48 > 0:11:53measures people awaiting much longer. Between 18 weeks and and a
0:11:53 > 0:11:5852 weeks there has been an increase which we are addressing. If you
0:11:58 > 0:12:00look at the figures, there are a few trusts that have got individual,
0:12:01 > 0:12:06specific problems where action plans are now in place to bring
0:12:06 > 0:12:12those figures down. We will continue, or the NHS will continue,
0:12:12 > 0:12:16its drive to see that they start falling to respond to the median
0:12:16 > 0:12:20waiting time falling and the over 52 weeks falling. Let's take some
0:12:20 > 0:12:23of the other examples. What do you say to that? It does sound as it
0:12:23 > 0:12:28patients are suffering as a direct result of people saying, this
0:12:28 > 0:12:33servants isn't perhaps widely used, we will cut it? Some of the
0:12:33 > 0:12:38examples that were given our appalling. But one has to look to
0:12:38 > 0:12:42see, is it to do with the way in which the care is being provided?
0:12:42 > 0:12:49Is enough time being spent by nurses looking after patients? That
0:12:49 > 0:12:55is why Andrew Lansley asked the CQC to do a number of cheques of
0:12:55 > 0:13:00dignity and nutrition in hospitals, 150 carried out last year. Over 200
0:13:00 > 0:13:04going to be carried out this year in hospitals. Salas to Raich -- so
0:13:04 > 0:13:08as to raise standards. Are you reassured by this, Roswyn Hakesley-
0:13:08 > 0:13:13Brown? Are you convinced they will be able to deliver this plan
0:13:13 > 0:13:19without more services being cut? We have real concerns about how
0:13:19 > 0:13:25much the reforms are costing. There are issues in the level of money
0:13:25 > 0:13:30being spent on the legislation. We have concerns about the services
0:13:30 > 0:13:34and quality that is being delivered. We have just launched a Care
0:13:34 > 0:13:40Campaign in relation to care of the elderly, because it is that group
0:13:40 > 0:13:44of people which demographically is the largest group of patients and
0:13:44 > 0:13:48social care users. They are really suffering at this point in time.
0:13:48 > 0:13:54Can I briefly bringing Chris Mullin? Do you accept that the
0:13:54 > 0:13:57government is now having to take measures to reform the NHS? Not
0:13:58 > 0:14:01necessarily directly as a result of all the money that was put into the
0:14:02 > 0:14:06NHS and the Labour, but that Labour did failed to reform it at the same
0:14:06 > 0:14:10time? There is all the scope for improving the efficiency of an
0:14:10 > 0:14:14organisation as fast as the NHS. I don't agree that we failed to
0:14:14 > 0:14:16reform it. We didn't do everything we wanted to land that now falls to
0:14:16 > 0:14:22the present government. But if I was the present government I would
0:14:22 > 0:14:24listen carefully to what Stephen Dorrell, former Secretary of State
0:14:24 > 0:14:29for Health and the very thought Omand, to what he and his
0:14:29 > 0:14:34colleagues have had to say about the proposed reforms.
0:14:34 > 0:14:37impression from Andrew Lansley is, even from yourself you think he is
0:14:37 > 0:14:41wrong and it doesn't sound like you will take any notice of it at all,
0:14:41 > 0:14:45is that wise? We will study the report. Where we believe the report
0:14:45 > 0:14:48is not an accurate assessment of what is going on in the NHS, we
0:14:48 > 0:14:53will point that out in our response. Can I pick up an important point
0:14:53 > 0:15:01that was made about the cost? There is a one-off cost, as shown by the
0:15:01 > 0:15:06impact assessment, of 1.2 to �1.3 billion for the modernisation. But
0:15:06 > 0:15:10thereafter, for the rest of this Parliament, there will be a savings
0:15:10 > 0:15:15of �4.5 billion. Then for the rest of the decade a �1.5 billion saving
0:15:15 > 0:15:25each year of which every penny will be reinvested in the NHS. That is
0:15:25 > 0:15:28
0:15:28 > 0:15:33Is that achievable? I am very doubtful. The impact assessment and
0:15:33 > 0:15:37it is based on fact and analysis of the modernisation. But on the
0:15:37 > 0:15:40ground, the reality has been different. The assessment may have
0:15:40 > 0:15:45said one thing, the impact on the ground while doing the reforms at
0:15:45 > 0:15:49the same time is proving to be much more difficult, which means you
0:15:49 > 0:15:53could have an overspend at the end, you will not save money, and there
0:15:53 > 0:15:59would backfire. What is going on on the ground within the NHS is that
0:15:59 > 0:16:05over the last 18 months, �7 billion has been saved by greater
0:16:05 > 0:16:09effectiveness, efficiency and other measures and every single penny of
0:16:09 > 0:16:14that �7 billion is being reinvested. If that is any achievement. Even if
0:16:14 > 0:16:19some services have been affected, to save that amount of money will
0:16:19 > 0:16:23in the end have a positive effect, won't it? It will have a positive
0:16:23 > 0:16:30effect, but looking at all of the other contextual details about the
0:16:30 > 0:16:34finance. For example, the private providers. That is about profit. We
0:16:34 > 0:16:37are very concerned about profit and patience. That was something
0:16:37 > 0:16:43brought up by your Lib Dem coalition colleagues in terms of
0:16:43 > 0:16:48profit. Looking at another area, social care, that is the other area
0:16:48 > 0:16:51that has been picked up by the committee. How much integration
0:16:51 > 0:16:56will there be between health and social care? It is important that
0:16:56 > 0:17:00they work together, that has been worked on since Stephen Dorrell was
0:17:00 > 0:17:04Secretary of State and I was his junior minister. The last
0:17:04 > 0:17:08government, to their credit, moved that agenda forward and there were
0:17:08 > 0:17:12great strides, but more needs to be done. They are working together so
0:17:12 > 0:17:15they are putting the patient at the heart of care, they are not
0:17:15 > 0:17:18languishing in hospitals when they should not be. They should not be
0:17:18 > 0:17:22in hospital if it is more appropriate to treat them in the
0:17:22 > 0:17:26community, and they get that care and assistance. That is what is
0:17:26 > 0:17:30being worked on and at the same time, the Government, in talks with
0:17:30 > 0:17:36the Labour opposition, are seeking on the other related subject, long-
0:17:36 > 0:17:41term care and the financing of it, sitting around a table, seeking to
0:17:41 > 0:17:46get consensus. Very briefly, we knew rebalance the spending between
0:17:46 > 0:17:50healthcare and social care? We have already made extra money available
0:17:50 > 0:18:00and we are looking at the most effective ways of providing money
0:18:00 > 0:18:01
0:18:01 > 0:18:04to deal with the situation. Thank you. Her
0:18:04 > 0:18:06Britain should forget the so-called "war on drugs" which has been both
0:18:06 > 0:18:09ineffective and incredibly wasteful. That's according to the Virgin boss,
0:18:09 > 0:18:12Sir Richard Branson. This morning, he's been appearing in front of the
0:18:12 > 0:18:15Home Affairs Select Committee and he's been comparing the attitude of
0:18:15 > 0:18:18successive governments towards the problems to the Prohibition era in
0:18:18 > 0:18:20the United States which tried to outlaw alcohol. He thinks that they
0:18:20 > 0:18:28do better in Switzerland and Portugal where decriminalisation
0:18:28 > 0:18:33has - in his opinion - successfully led to lower drug use. By not
0:18:33 > 0:18:37regulating drugs at all and checking on drugs, three people
0:18:37 > 0:18:44died in hospital recently from taking Ecstasy tablets, but they
0:18:44 > 0:18:49were not ecstasy tablets, they were laced with DNA so the kids did not
0:18:49 > 0:18:54know what they were taking. At the moment it is completely unregulated,
0:18:54 > 0:18:59with nobody checking up on what the kids are taking. And Sir Richard
0:18:59 > 0:19:03Branson joins us now from Central Lobby. We have heard some of the
0:19:03 > 0:19:06evidence you have been giving, but what is the hard evidence that
0:19:06 > 0:19:12decriminalisation would lead to lower levels of drug use and drug
0:19:12 > 0:19:16addiction? I am part of the global drug commission that was set up by
0:19:16 > 0:19:22President Cardoso of Brazil and it has people like Kofi Annan and many
0:19:22 > 0:19:25other people. We spent a long time studying 50 years of evidence.
0:19:25 > 0:19:30Portugal is one good example, the last 10 years not one person has
0:19:30 > 0:19:35been sent to prison for taking any kind of drug. Everybody has been
0:19:35 > 0:19:41helped. The Department of Health now looks after the drug issues in
0:19:41 > 0:19:46Portugal, not the Home Office. It has been a tremendous success. The
0:19:46 > 0:19:50amount of people taking hard drugs has more than halved, the amount of
0:19:50 > 0:19:56people taking soft drugs has come down dramatically because nobody
0:19:56 > 0:19:59has gone to prison. It has reduced the cost to the state, the amount
0:19:59 > 0:20:02of break-ins has reduced dramatically because one of the
0:20:02 > 0:20:07reasons people break in it is because they need to get their drug
0:20:07 > 0:20:12effects. That is one example that has worked well. There is still
0:20:12 > 0:20:16this problem with the message itself. What message does it send
0:20:16 > 0:20:21out to people, decriminalisation. Politically it is not palatable.
0:20:21 > 0:20:26think you'll find that asking people to treat drugs as a health
0:20:26 > 0:20:29problem and not a criminal problem is a positive message. At the
0:20:29 > 0:20:35moment, you've got between 3 million a 5 million young people
0:20:35 > 0:20:40every year using cannabis. 100,000 of those people are arrested for
0:20:40 > 0:20:46using small amounts of cannabis. They then get criminal records. It
0:20:46 > 0:20:51is ruining their careers, their chances of trouble and so on. --
0:20:51 > 0:20:55travel. Three to 5 million people are taking drugs anyway. All we are
0:20:55 > 0:21:00saying is get out and make sure they are being helped. Don't
0:21:00 > 0:21:04prosecute them if they take excess drugs, in the same way you take
0:21:04 > 0:21:09excess alcohol, make sure people are helped and not prosecuted.
0:21:09 > 0:21:12some extent, these arguments have been made over the years. No doubt
0:21:12 > 0:21:17during the years you have been serving on that Global Commission.
0:21:17 > 0:21:21What makes you think the political will is there now to change that
0:21:21 > 0:21:27mindset from looking at it as criminal behaviour to a health
0:21:27 > 0:21:32issue? Very simply, the commission has done a big study on the war on
0:21:32 > 0:21:37drugs and it has proven it has failed. Every decade, the amount of
0:21:37 > 0:21:41people that use drugs has gone up dramatically. If something fails,
0:21:41 > 0:21:44if I'm running a business that is failing, a look at better ways of
0:21:44 > 0:21:49dealing with the problem. There must be better ways of dealing with
0:21:49 > 0:21:52the problem and therefore I welcome the House of Commons Select
0:21:52 > 0:21:58Committee doing a study on it and seen if they can come up with a
0:21:58 > 0:22:02better way. The commission welcomes this. Stay with us a moment if you
0:22:02 > 0:22:06can. Chris Mullin, you served on the Home affairs Select Committee.
0:22:06 > 0:22:12Under the last government, what was discussed internally and how
0:22:12 > 0:22:16different was it what came out publicly? I chaired a major inquiry
0:22:16 > 0:22:21into drugs policy and we came to the conclusion that we needed to
0:22:21 > 0:22:24move towards what Richard Branson has just been saying. Reduction
0:22:24 > 0:22:29rather than criminalisation. A small number of our proposals were
0:22:29 > 0:22:34taken up, although the one on cannabis -- cannabis, the
0:22:34 > 0:22:38recommendation was implemented, reducing from Class B to a classy
0:22:38 > 0:22:42and then the next thing that happened, hysteria was organised in
0:22:42 > 0:22:46the Daily Mail and elsewhere and the Government caved in to it. They
0:22:46 > 0:22:52reversed the change. We really have to move in this country towards a
0:22:52 > 0:22:56rational debate on drugs. As Richard Branson says, what we have
0:22:56 > 0:23:00been doing until now is not working. If you look at countries like
0:23:00 > 0:23:05Portugal, what they are doing appears to be working. We should
0:23:05 > 0:23:08stop banging our heads against a brick wall. Richard Branson, there
0:23:08 > 0:23:12have been attempts to do what you have suggested and it is extremely
0:23:12 > 0:23:18difficult because the public and political will is not there. Well,
0:23:18 > 0:23:22as he said, it should be assigned to be based fact. It is up to
0:23:22 > 0:23:26politicians to get the message across and sometimes to ignore a
0:23:26 > 0:23:30newspaper like the Daily Mail and just get on and do what they
0:23:30 > 0:23:36believe is right. If you talk to any individual politician, they
0:23:36 > 0:23:42know what is right. David Cameron, 10 years ago, wanders on a Select
0:23:42 > 0:23:46Committee where he argued exactly what I'm arguing. Now he's Prime
0:23:46 > 0:23:49Minister, anyway... He's not doing anything about it. He's got to be
0:23:49 > 0:23:54brave as Prime Minister and you have to do what's right for the
0:23:54 > 0:23:56country and society and the individuals and treat them like
0:23:56 > 0:24:01your children or treat them like your brothers and sisters who have
0:24:01 > 0:24:06a problem. You would never throw your family in prison, you would
0:24:06 > 0:24:11help them. Richard Branson, thank you very much. Did David Cameron
0:24:11 > 0:24:14served with you? He did. He played a very constructive part and I
0:24:15 > 0:24:19suspect he is sympathetic to the arguments which Richard Branson is
0:24:19 > 0:24:26making. It is very good that people like Richard Branson are saying
0:24:26 > 0:24:31this out loud. Scientific evidence... It is a dangerous
0:24:31 > 0:24:38message and that is why it hasn't worked. It is not a dangerous Mrs
0:24:38 > 0:24:41unless it is misrepresented. It has been misrepresented up until now.
0:24:41 > 0:24:44When I was first starting out as a correspondent here at Westminster,
0:24:44 > 0:24:47everyone knew all the names of MPs who rebelled against their party's
0:24:47 > 0:24:50whips. The regulars became household names. But these days
0:24:50 > 0:24:53you'd need to be really good at maths to do that because there are
0:24:53 > 0:24:59so many of them. This parliament is the most rebellious we've had for
0:24:59 > 0:25:04more than 50 years, as Max Cotton reports. The fixed-term Parliament
0:25:04 > 0:25:08Bill, the European Union Bill, the Localism Bill, a coalition
0:25:08 > 0:25:13legislation has attracted an enormous number of parliamentary
0:25:13 > 0:25:19rebels. It has turned rebellion in the Commons from a really big deal
0:25:19 > 0:25:22into not much of a story. Back in the day, when nine Tories lost the
0:25:22 > 0:25:27Conservative whip in the fall-out of the Maastricht treaty, the
0:25:27 > 0:25:34rebellion made headlines for months. Party loyalty 20 odd years ago was
0:25:34 > 0:25:38taken much more seriously than it is today. Why? Have no leadership.
0:25:38 > 0:25:43-- no leadership likes descent, but it is a reflection of a much
0:25:43 > 0:25:48greater change going on nationally. The attachment to party
0:25:48 > 0:25:51organisations is much less than it was when I first was elected to
0:25:51 > 0:25:56Parliament and that is clear and certain. Therefore the
0:25:56 > 0:26:01disconnection is that members of parliament perhaps feel a stronger
0:26:01 > 0:26:06loyalty to the views of those they are elected to represent and to use
0:26:06 > 0:26:10their judgment in that matter. MPs we have got in there are the
0:26:10 > 0:26:16most rebellious bunch we have had since the end of the war. Up until
0:26:16 > 0:26:21the Christmas recess, there were rebellions in 179 divisions. That
0:26:21 > 0:26:25is 43% of all votes. It is even more unusual because this is the
0:26:25 > 0:26:31beginning of a parliament, when you traditionally expect MPs to behave
0:26:31 > 0:26:35themselves and to toe the line. Yes, the coalition is a very broad
0:26:35 > 0:26:40church and some went -- somewhere, someone will object to whatever
0:26:40 > 0:26:44Cameron and clay propose, but that is not a whole story. Voters still
0:26:44 > 0:26:51vote for the party and not the individual, but they are also
0:26:51 > 0:26:54voting increasingly for the individual. MPs think that if they
0:26:54 > 0:26:57rebel at Westminster, they can start to differentiate themselves
0:26:57 > 0:27:00from the party and start to embed themselves with their constituents
0:27:00 > 0:27:04and get a reputation for being independent-minded and that will
0:27:04 > 0:27:09serve them at the ballot box. There's no evidence of that so far,
0:27:09 > 0:27:12but that is the perception. Some of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs
0:27:12 > 0:27:18have been impressive record. I would like to introduce you to one
0:27:18 > 0:27:23of them, who rebelled 23 times in his first 18 months. Andrew Percy
0:27:23 > 0:27:28says he has no ministerial ambitions. I have worked with the
0:27:28 > 0:27:32Conservative Party 90% of times. Any other job I would be considered
0:27:32 > 0:27:39a loyalist. I do think that although people still vote for the
0:27:39 > 0:27:46party, they do look at the individuals. I like to think some
0:27:46 > 0:27:49of my 19,600 votes were because I was independent-minded. Sir Joseph
0:27:49 > 0:27:53Porter, in HMS pinafore, says when he got into Parliament that he
0:27:53 > 0:27:57always voted at his party's call, he never thought of thinking for
0:27:57 > 0:28:02himself. I reckon they say Amen to that in the Government whip's
0:28:02 > 0:28:05office. I'm sure they do! I'm now joined by the Conservative
0:28:06 > 0:28:09MP for Wycombe, Steve Baker, who was first elected last year and has
0:28:09 > 0:28:15already racked up quite a number of appearances in a different lobby to
0:28:15 > 0:28:21his own whips. The whips will not like you. Is this a badge you wear
0:28:21 > 0:28:24with on? I would prefer never to rebel. I am quite proud to have a
0:28:24 > 0:28:29reputation as having an independent mind, but I would prefer never to
0:28:29 > 0:28:33rebel. What has happened to loyalty? You were elected as a
0:28:33 > 0:28:37Conservative MP, people don't necessarily know you, they are
0:28:37 > 0:28:42voting for Conservative social new vote with your party? Absolutely
0:28:42 > 0:28:45and we mostly do. I have only rebelled on 4.5% of votes,
0:28:45 > 0:28:49overwhelmingly in relation to the European Union. The key issue is
0:28:49 > 0:28:53not so much loyalty to the party, but loyalty to the public.
0:28:53 > 0:28:58Particularly on the issue of the EU, the public expect me to show
0:28:58 > 0:29:02loyalty to them rather than the party. Is this refreshing to hear?
0:29:02 > 0:29:07In the days that you were in government and before, and when I
0:29:07 > 0:29:10first started, rebellions were rare and now they are 10 a penny. There
0:29:11 > 0:29:15were many in the last Parliament. And the Government was defeated in
0:29:15 > 0:29:22the Commons on for example the attempt to extend the pre-trial
0:29:22 > 0:29:28detention to 90 days. I take great pleasure in being one of the people
0:29:28 > 0:29:33that put a stop to that. The privatisation of the Post Office
0:29:33 > 0:29:36was seen off because it was explained carefully to the leaders,
0:29:36 > 0:29:39in the privacy of the Parliamentary Labour Party, that it would not go
0:29:39 > 0:29:45through. Although there was no rebellion on the floor of the House,
0:29:45 > 0:29:49major issues like that were stocked up as a result of uprisings. What
0:29:49 > 0:29:56are you? A former rebel or a government minister? You did make
0:29:57 > 0:30:03it into ministerial ranks. Not once but twice. I was invited to visit
0:30:03 > 0:30:12the Government. And you are accepted. By instinct, I'm a team
0:30:12 > 0:30:20player. I don't enjoy rebelling any more than Mr Baker does. But there
0:30:20 > 0:30:24are one or two big issues which I think you have to... I was not one
0:30:24 > 0:30:32of the 139 Labour MPs who voted against Iraq. There was also a
0:30:32 > 0:30:39large majority and to some extent you can rebel knowing that the
0:30:39 > 0:30:44Government will still win the day. People think the government will
0:30:44 > 0:30:47almost certainly win the day. But we would have liked to have one at
0:30:47 > 0:30:51Bolt. We were serious about it and understand the gravity of the
0:30:51 > 0:30:55situation. But we don't want to defeat the government, we just want
0:30:55 > 0:30:59a referendum on the European Union. That is the crux of the matter. We
0:30:59 > 0:31:03are trying to do the right thing rather than what we are told.
0:31:04 > 0:31:08don't want a job then, do you, in government? There are things I'd
0:31:08 > 0:31:11like to do but it's more important, bearing in mind the context it came
0:31:11 > 0:31:16into Parliament, it's more important to serve the public first.
0:31:16 > 0:31:19All that dismay and contend that was developed over the years and
0:31:19 > 0:31:23was particularly expressed during the expenses scandal, we have to
0:31:23 > 0:31:27deal with it and get on with it. Some have parliamentary democracy
0:31:27 > 0:31:31has to be raised up to wait. That you can respect it. I think it
0:31:31 > 0:31:36should be an on-again even to be a backbencher. But isn't it difficult,
0:31:36 > 0:31:39Chris Mullin, as your diaries revealed, that you disagree with
0:31:39 > 0:31:42the government of the day and a number of things, it's been quite
0:31:42 > 0:31:47difficult to serve in it because you are quite often being asked to
0:31:47 > 0:31:50do things you disagree with in principle? No, in the four years I
0:31:50 > 0:31:54was in government I can't say I found myself... There were things I
0:31:54 > 0:31:57was mildly unhappy about of things I wouldn't have done, but not
0:31:57 > 0:32:01things that I felt... If we'd invaded Iraq while I was in
0:32:01 > 0:32:04government I guess I would have been one of the people who would
0:32:04 > 0:32:07have came out of government. But every minor disagreement you won't
0:32:07 > 0:32:12go into there other lobby because they knew would develop a
0:32:12 > 0:32:16reputation for not being reliable. Are you developing a reputation for
0:32:16 > 0:32:21that? I think I get a on pretty well with the whips. In my arm case,
0:32:21 > 0:32:25it's mostly about the EU. They know where I stand on the European Union.
0:32:25 > 0:32:29I believe we should have a referendum. They can rely no need
0:32:29 > 0:32:33to always vote and a bar of a referendum on the European Union
0:32:33 > 0:32:37and against an expansion of European powers. The key thing for
0:32:37 > 0:32:40us is to have powers in Parliament. I think the whips know where I
0:32:40 > 0:32:44stand on this particular issue. They know where they will find me.
0:32:44 > 0:32:49So you wouldn't have a problem serving in the government if they
0:32:49 > 0:32:54ask you? I don't think they are likely to ask. We do accept if they
0:32:54 > 0:32:59did ask? They are not going to. If they did, I can't see me serving in
0:32:59 > 0:33:02the government might now. Between high-speed rail, which is a big
0:33:02 > 0:33:06issue for Buckinghamshire, and the EU, I think it would have to be a
0:33:06 > 0:33:11revolving door. Is it refreshing to hear this? It is, because on the
0:33:11 > 0:33:15Tory side, with the exception of Europe, they do tend to be less
0:33:15 > 0:33:18rebellious than our loft. Yesterday, our main story was the debate in
0:33:18 > 0:33:22the House of Lords about benefits for some ministers want to put a
0:33:22 > 0:33:25cap on the total amount of money any one family can claim at �26,000
0:33:25 > 0:33:28a year in England, Scotland and Wales. The Labour Party have put
0:33:28 > 0:33:32down an amendment that would have exempted people who were threatened
0:33:32 > 0:33:36by homelessness. That was defeated. Then it was over to the bishops,
0:33:36 > 0:33:40some of whom sit in the House of Lords. They were arguing that child
0:33:40 > 0:33:43benefits shouldn't be included in the copulations stop Labour and
0:33:43 > 0:33:53some Liberal Democrats swung behind them and the scene was set for a
0:33:53 > 0:33:54
0:33:54 > 0:33:59My Lords, Christianity, along the way of other faiths and believes
0:33:59 > 0:34:05requires us to think most of those who have no voice of their own.
0:34:05 > 0:34:09Children in most need is one of the most evident examples of that. The
0:34:09 > 0:34:16New Testament shows Jesus as having a very special concern for children.
0:34:16 > 0:34:21They have no vote in our society. They probably don't answer YouGov
0:34:21 > 0:34:28questions. This amendment goes some way to protecting them. Quite a lot
0:34:28 > 0:34:32has been said about the popularity of this Bill, particularly the cap.
0:34:32 > 0:34:37It does seem to me that one has got to be fairly careful, particularly
0:34:37 > 0:34:40in making legislation, about being too quick in Rhys -- in response to
0:34:40 > 0:34:45vox pop. If we were debating capital punishment I suspect many
0:34:45 > 0:34:48of the same things would it be said. After housing costs these families
0:34:48 > 0:34:56are going to be hit with his housing benefit cap are poor as
0:34:56 > 0:35:00church mice. When you measure the amount of income available to the
0:35:01 > 0:35:06household divided by the people in the house sold, they get tiny
0:35:06 > 0:35:15amounts of money. An article today talked about 62p per family member.
0:35:15 > 0:35:17After the household benefit cap. What are we doing? I think the
0:35:17 > 0:35:21worst thought of child poverty is poverty of aspiration. There are
0:35:21 > 0:35:25many in this country and a household with no experience of
0:35:25 > 0:35:29paid employment. It is a terrible condemnation of what has been
0:35:29 > 0:35:35allowed to grow up in the name of the welfare system. This measure do
0:35:35 > 0:35:40something different. It cuts the number of families who are affected
0:35:40 > 0:35:46by the cap from 67,000 down to about 40,000 families. That is the
0:35:46 > 0:35:51real cost of this amendment. It takes the pressure away from those
0:35:51 > 0:35:56families, those 20,000 families will go on in the same way that
0:35:56 > 0:36:06they have been and we will not have the behavioural change that we want
0:36:06 > 0:36:07
0:36:07 > 0:36:11In the end the Lords decided in favour of excluding child benefit
0:36:11 > 0:36:16payments from the proposed cap. The government losing the vote by 15.
0:36:16 > 0:36:21Our correspondent has been watching what happened next. How have
0:36:21 > 0:36:24ministers reacted? After the vote last night issued a statement, the
0:36:24 > 0:36:28DWP issued a statement they work very disappointed by the outcome of
0:36:28 > 0:36:33the debate. They said it lies in the face of public opinion. They
0:36:34 > 0:36:38said that the net effect of removing child benefit from the cap
0:36:39 > 0:36:43would be to put the cap up to about �47,000, so you are effectively
0:36:44 > 0:36:47undermining the whole purpose of having a benefit cap. I think in
0:36:47 > 0:36:51the longer term ministers are more relaxed about this. Firstly,
0:36:51 > 0:36:53because they think public opinion is on their side and they've been
0:36:53 > 0:36:59pointing to some of the opinion polls that show that perhaps as
0:36:59 > 0:37:03many as 80 % of the population are in favour of the 35,000 limit.
0:37:03 > 0:37:07There is a sizable chunk of the population who want the limit to be
0:37:07 > 0:37:12set even lower than that. They also see this as something of an attack
0:37:12 > 0:37:16line against Labour. They feel the government that they can claim that
0:37:16 > 0:37:20Labour are soft on welfare and, as they would put it, once again
0:37:20 > 0:37:23sending out contradictory messages about bringing down the deficit. I
0:37:23 > 0:37:27also think that they are hoping that transitional arrangements,
0:37:27 > 0:37:31which they haven't yet given details about, will be enough to
0:37:31 > 0:37:35buy off some of the rebels and the Lords. Nick Clegg this morning was
0:37:35 > 0:37:39talking about that, saying that he felt the transitional arrangements,
0:37:39 > 0:37:43once they are announced, would be of comfort to people. But he
0:37:44 > 0:37:48insisted the government was going to stick with its plans. Lord
0:37:48 > 0:37:51Fowler, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Social
0:37:51 > 0:37:54Security, was taking part in that debate. He is with us now. We've
0:37:54 > 0:37:59heard those views expressed by both sides. Were you surprised that the
0:37:59 > 0:38:04government lost? Not altogether. We always thought it was going to be a
0:38:04 > 0:38:10very close to vote. I'm interested in the Bishop's line that because
0:38:10 > 0:38:14the public is on your side, one to be extremely cautious about that.
0:38:14 > 0:38:18When being opposed by people like Chris, I pursued measures which
0:38:18 > 0:38:22were regarded as unpopular, that was regarded as being crucial. You
0:38:22 > 0:38:25can't really have it both ways. Which way do you want to have it?
0:38:25 > 0:38:30Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right, that is what they
0:38:30 > 0:38:34are saying. And I think if you've got a measure, basically the
0:38:34 > 0:38:37measure is agreed by every party. This is the extraordinary thing.
0:38:37 > 0:38:42The cap is agreed because the principle is that you shouldn't be
0:38:42 > 0:38:45better off on benefit than in work. That is all agreed. Yes, but
0:38:46 > 0:38:51there's a disagreement between earnings and income. We won't
0:38:51 > 0:38:54relived that disagreement but if we come back to the politics of it,
0:38:54 > 0:38:58the government seems fairly relaxed presumably because they are going
0:38:58 > 0:39:01to force it through. I don't think all sit through. I think that if
0:39:01 > 0:39:05the House of Lords has given a second opportunity, which it will
0:39:05 > 0:39:09be, to debate this again and I'd be surprised if we came to the same
0:39:09 > 0:39:14conclusion. I don't think the point was taken in the debate that what
0:39:14 > 0:39:19the effect of what the bishop was proposing was to actually increase
0:39:19 > 0:39:23the Kappa. I don't think that. Was taking. And there is no chance, in
0:39:23 > 0:39:26your view, that that could happen, that the government could increase
0:39:26 > 0:39:31the cat or take child benefit out or do something that would mean
0:39:31 > 0:39:35there's more money... They don't think that. What I do think is if
0:39:35 > 0:39:43there were 67,000 people who are affected year. That sounds an
0:39:43 > 0:39:47enormous number but it is 1% of the 5 million claimants. 7000 families.
0:39:47 > 0:39:51And therefore we have the opportunity, and the measure
0:39:51 > 0:39:56doesn't come in until 2013 in any event, we have the opportunity in
0:39:56 > 0:40:02the transition and in going to those families and looking at each
0:40:02 > 0:40:06individual family of ironing out the difficulties that there are
0:40:06 > 0:40:10bare. I'm not going to say one is going to be doing it with everyone
0:40:10 > 0:40:14but I would be very surprised if the bulk of that 67,000 aren't
0:40:15 > 0:40:18dealt with. Are these the right reforms, Chris Mullin? Against the
0:40:18 > 0:40:20problem is something that hasn't been spoken about that will now
0:40:20 > 0:40:24also most of these families that are going to be affected are going
0:40:24 > 0:40:28to be living in the more prosperous parts of the country, London and
0:40:28 > 0:40:33the south-east. They are going to have three or four children and are
0:40:33 > 0:40:40likely to be living in private rented accommodation. As a result,
0:40:40 > 0:40:45they are paying very large rent. That is why the amount of benefit
0:40:45 > 0:40:48that is being spent on them is as high as it is. A large part of the
0:40:48 > 0:40:5435,000 or whatever figure you pick is made up of housing benefit. One
0:40:54 > 0:40:59of the effects of selling off all the council houses in the 80s and
0:40:59 > 0:41:05early 90s was that many people sold... Bought their council houses,
0:41:05 > 0:41:10moved to Spain and then rented their council house or flat back to
0:41:10 > 0:41:16the local authority at up to 10 times the price that they
0:41:16 > 0:41:22themselves were paying in the days when they paid rent. As a result,
0:41:22 > 0:41:24rents have gone bananas, certainly in London. But that is a pretty
0:41:24 > 0:41:28extraordinary example also most people who bought their council
0:41:28 > 0:41:32house lived in a council house, and that was the great advantage of the
0:41:33 > 0:41:37policy. Do you think the reforms are right? There is general
0:41:37 > 0:41:40consensus about a Kapo, this principle that the government keeps
0:41:41 > 0:41:46repeating, that they shouldn't be able to play more in benefits than
0:41:46 > 0:41:50the median working family. principle is not a bad one. That is
0:41:50 > 0:41:53no doubt why Labour is not object into it. But the consequences have
0:41:53 > 0:41:58to be considered very carefully. Beware of consequence is that you
0:41:58 > 0:42:01don't foresee. Sooner or later we will see families, and they will be
0:42:01 > 0:42:04the deserving poor rather than the undeserving poor, being forced out
0:42:04 > 0:42:08of their homes. At that moment public opinion may not think this
0:42:08 > 0:42:12is such a good idea. That is the point being made by the bishops and
0:42:12 > 0:42:15critics of the policy, that we can't see the consequences yet.
0:42:15 > 0:42:18Although some of the councils in outlying London boroughs have
0:42:18 > 0:42:22already been complaining that they will have the job of having to
0:42:22 > 0:42:25rehouse a lot number of these families and the costs will be
0:42:25 > 0:42:30extremely high. I don't disagree that when you get to the detail of
0:42:30 > 0:42:35it that they Rob going to be awkward decisions to be made and
0:42:35 > 0:42:38details to be put in. I think Tony Newton, a great expert on social
0:42:38 > 0:42:42security, made the point in the House yesterday that you can't put
0:42:42 > 0:42:46all that into the primary legislation. You got the
0:42:46 > 0:42:49regulations which are to come. quite an important consequence that
0:42:49 > 0:42:54you are Ribeiro or council waiting and not knowing what the numbers
0:42:54 > 0:42:59might be. An important consequence is you are dealing with 1% of the
0:42:59 > 0:43:03benefit population. When I was giving some of the changes in
0:43:03 > 0:43:08social security, if I'd got the losers down to 1%, I reckon I'd be
0:43:08 > 0:43:14doing rather well. That's not to discount the 67,000, but Richard
0:43:14 > 0:43:18and beyond the wit of man to deal with the particular problems of
0:43:18 > 0:43:2267,000 families. But it is a massive budget, the welfare budget,
0:43:22 > 0:43:25the biggest in government. We are talking about a saving of 270
0:43:25 > 0:43:31million. You could turn at the other way. It doesn't seem to be
0:43:31 > 0:43:34that great if you are just looking at the figures. A I've been round
0:43:34 > 0:43:40making changes, fighting the Treasury on changes on social
0:43:40 > 0:43:45security for six years. I'd just say this. If you are going to give
0:43:45 > 0:43:48up on soon -- on social security and 270 million here doesn't matter
0:43:48 > 0:43:51and there's another hundred million here, so far Labour have actually
0:43:51 > 0:43:57added �5 billion to the cost of this and haven't reduced anything
0:43:57 > 0:44:01over a five-year period, �5 billion has been added. It is a bill of
0:44:01 > 0:44:04�200 billion we are spending on pensions and social security. If
0:44:04 > 0:44:07you are not prepared to make changes then you might as well give
0:44:07 > 0:44:11up. That's a valid argument, Labour doesn't want to find itself on the
0:44:11 > 0:44:14wrong side of the argument. best way to reduce the number of
0:44:14 > 0:44:20people on social security is to get people back into work. Get those
0:44:20 > 0:44:24who are in some cases pretending to be ill back on to the WORK register.
0:44:24 > 0:44:29That is the best way. The Labour government and the present
0:44:29 > 0:44:33government had been trying to do that. It's a long, slow, arduous,
0:44:33 > 0:44:38difficult task, but that, in the end, is the best way to reduce the
0:44:38 > 0:44:43overall benefit claimants. The best ways to go to universal credit.
0:44:43 > 0:44:49That is Iain Duncan Smith's great... It really what Social Security
0:44:49 > 0:44:53Secretary's have been wishing to do for the last half century. For once,
0:44:53 > 0:44:58we have got a social security secretary and a Chancellor of the
0:44:58 > 0:45:00Exchequer. The Treasury and the social security department are
0:45:00 > 0:45:08together. Unlike at the time when you were in government, when he was
0:45:08 > 0:45:12asked to think the unimaginable. It was all rejected. Yes, because
0:45:12 > 0:45:17Frank Field's proposals then, and I guess Iain Duncan Smith's will
0:45:17 > 0:45:21require a lot of money up front, which the Treasury at this point
0:45:21 > 0:45:24seems to be ready to go along with. It's a very formidable conversion
0:45:24 > 0:45:30as far as the Treasury are concerned. I praise George Osborne
0:45:30 > 0:45:34as much as I praised Iain Duncan The Business Secretary, Vince Cable,
0:45:34 > 0:45:37is making a speech today in which he is expected to give further
0:45:37 > 0:45:40details his plans to curb executive pay. Yesterday in the House of
0:45:40 > 0:45:44Commons, he said that shareholders will be given more powers to block
0:45:44 > 0:45:47excessive payouts to people that they think don't deserve it. And
0:45:47 > 0:45:50companies will have to justify high salaries in their annual reports.
0:45:50 > 0:45:59But that didn't go down well with every Conservative MP on the
0:45:59 > 0:46:07Government benches behind him. sexual state must be extremely
0:46:07 > 0:46:11happy. -- Secretary of State. His liberal claptrap, which even Labour
0:46:11 > 0:46:15did not do in 13 years, has somehow got through the coalition in the
0:46:15 > 0:46:22hope of a good headline. It has done nothing to increase the growth
0:46:22 > 0:46:27or employment in this country. Is he a happy man? I am, actually. I
0:46:27 > 0:46:32realise that when I first raised the issue of responsible capitalism
0:46:32 > 0:46:36I was denounced as a Marxist, I thought I had left that behind but
0:46:36 > 0:46:43apparently not. Adam Fleming is in Central Lobby now with two MPs who
0:46:43 > 0:46:47have been taking a close interest in all this. We have got two MPs
0:46:47 > 0:46:50who hopefully have strong views. Ian Wright, on Labour's shadow
0:46:50 > 0:46:56frontbench team for business, and Nadhim Zahawi, who was a
0:46:56 > 0:46:59businessman before coming to Parliament. We heard Peter Bone
0:47:00 > 0:47:05calling it claptrap. Is the Conservative Party's heart really
0:47:05 > 0:47:09in this, regulating business more? It certainly is. If you look at
0:47:09 > 0:47:15what the Prime Minister was saying in 2006 about capitalism with a
0:47:15 > 0:47:19conscience, he made a speech talking about it, and myself and
0:47:19 > 0:47:24Matt Hancock wrote a book which looks at how we can change the
0:47:24 > 0:47:29culture in the boardroom. There isn't a simple solution to this.
0:47:29 > 0:47:35There is no magic bullet. We know there's a problem. There's a
0:47:35 > 0:47:39disconnect between pay at executive level and value creation. We do
0:47:40 > 0:47:45need to fix this. We have looked at the recommendations, we will
0:47:45 > 0:47:49implement 10 of the Twell. This is real change. Your leader has been
0:47:49 > 0:47:53talking about responsibility at the top for a long time. Labour must be
0:47:53 > 0:47:58over the moon that them Tories and Lib Dems are adopting 10
0:47:58 > 0:48:02recommendations?, and clip -- please do Business Secretary was
0:48:02 > 0:48:07dragged to the House to announce these proposals, but I think Vince
0:48:07 > 0:48:11Cable could have gone further. The recommendations on things like
0:48:11 > 0:48:14worker involvement in remuneration committees would have been a strong
0:48:14 > 0:48:19step in terms of strengthening that accountability and transparency. I
0:48:19 > 0:48:24also think the publication of pay ratios, where the highest executive
0:48:24 > 0:48:28pay is calculated according to the average or lowest paid, would have
0:48:28 > 0:48:31provided a degree of transparency. It has gone some way but not far
0:48:31 > 0:48:35enough. The accusation levelled that Labour was that you could have
0:48:35 > 0:48:40done something like this when you were a in the office. The figures
0:48:40 > 0:48:45quoted yesterday were that in 1997 executive pay was 46 times the
0:48:45 > 0:48:48average, in 2010 it was 120 times. I think what the Business Secretary
0:48:48 > 0:48:54was trying to do was make it a party political issue. Fizz has
0:48:54 > 0:48:59gone back further than Labour being in government. And it goes back at
0:48:59 > 0:49:03least 30 years. We have put measures in place as far back as
0:49:03 > 0:49:07when Patricia Hewitt was trade and industry secretary in order to
0:49:07 > 0:49:10strengthen corporate governance. The Walker proposals would have
0:49:10 > 0:49:13strengthened remuneration committees, but the Conservative
0:49:13 > 0:49:17government have not put that in place. It is unfair to say this is
0:49:17 > 0:49:21all Labour's fault. Her last week the Government were talking about
0:49:21 > 0:49:26having employees much more involved in their companies, the John Lewis
0:49:26 > 0:49:31model. Why can't we have to employees on renumeration boards?
0:49:31 > 0:49:34ran a business in Germany and Scandinavia and the UK. The model
0:49:34 > 0:49:39there is to have employee representation, but she would have
0:49:39 > 0:49:44to change. In Germany you have supervisory boards and advisory
0:49:44 > 0:49:48boards. We would have to change the corporate system in the UK. Who
0:49:48 > 0:49:53will police that individual? Which country will they come from if they
0:49:53 > 0:49:58are a multinational? This is an area which is complicated. I don't
0:49:58 > 0:50:02think it would work in the UK corporate structure. Nor would the
0:50:02 > 0:50:07publication of pay ratios. You have Tesco doing much worse than Goldman
0:50:08 > 0:50:12Sachs. What we are doing, there's the legislation from 2004 that
0:50:12 > 0:50:15allows for employee consultation when it comes to executive pay. The
0:50:15 > 0:50:21remuneration committee is taking into account the distribution
0:50:21 > 0:50:24between executive pay, employees pay, taxation, dividends and all
0:50:24 > 0:50:29the other ways of distributing the wealth created by that business.
0:50:29 > 0:50:34Those things are positive. If Ian Wright would stop political mud-
0:50:34 > 0:50:37slinging, we could work this out and work out a system for the UK
0:50:37 > 0:50:40that could depress practice for the world. You mentioned your time in
0:50:40 > 0:50:44business. Were you ever scared about what your shareholders
0:50:44 > 0:50:49thought about your salary and performance? Of course. You have to
0:50:49 > 0:50:53worry about how you are creating value for the business and how you
0:50:53 > 0:50:56are remunerated for it. The important thing is to make sure the
0:50:56 > 0:51:01remuneration committee is made up of diversity, there's a diverse
0:51:01 > 0:51:05number of people on that committee. Also, a very good recommendation
0:51:05 > 0:51:09that Vince Cable announced, executives in other companies who
0:51:09 > 0:51:14depend on committees to deliver their own packages should not be
0:51:14 > 0:51:18sitting on committees of other companies. I sit on a board at the
0:51:18 > 0:51:22moment. The committee is made up of people who do not do it an
0:51:22 > 0:51:25acceptable anywhere else. Thank you both of joining us for top high-
0:51:25 > 0:51:32paid is not an issue in central lobby because they both turned up
0:51:32 > 0:51:37for a free today! The taxpayer will be pleased. Picking up on one of
0:51:37 > 0:51:40those things. If you think the suggestions put forward by Vince
0:51:40 > 0:51:45Cable, do you think it will have chief executives quaking in their
0:51:45 > 0:51:50boots? Probably not. It is a difficult issue for governments of
0:51:50 > 0:51:54all persuasions. We don't own the shares. The public don't own the
0:51:54 > 0:51:58shares. I do hope the Government will show the same degree of
0:51:58 > 0:52:05political will in dealing with the top earners as it is clearly
0:52:05 > 0:52:08showing in relation to the lower earners, the people on benefit.
0:52:08 > 0:52:12do think they are linked in that sense? If the Government wants to
0:52:12 > 0:52:16be taken credibly, they need to do it. They have one advantage the
0:52:16 > 0:52:23previous government never had and that is that the biggest offenders
0:52:23 > 0:52:30are the bankers. We now own affair slice of the British banking
0:52:30 > 0:52:34industry. We own up 87% of Lloyds Bank. Headed by Mr Stephen Hester,
0:52:34 > 0:52:38who is in line for a very large bonus, so I'm told. But his
0:52:38 > 0:52:41contract was made under the last Labour government and they say
0:52:41 > 0:52:48contractually they can't do anything about it. I don't know the
0:52:48 > 0:52:54details of his contract. It is the litmus test. He earns �1.2 million
0:52:54 > 0:52:58a year and he is already quite comfortable. I think... No doubt he
0:52:58 > 0:53:04is doing a good job, but I think �1.2 million is it is quite enough.
0:53:04 > 0:53:06I don't think he needs a large bonus. We will hear it in the next
0:53:06 > 0:53:09few weeks. Now, when our guest published his
0:53:09 > 0:53:12diaries of life in Government, not only was he praised for his frank
0:53:12 > 0:53:15revelations that being a junior minister is in fact to be very
0:53:15 > 0:53:18junior indeed, but also for his amusing account of a battle over
0:53:18 > 0:53:21trying NOT to have a ministerial car. He was happy with the bus.
0:53:21 > 0:53:24That, it seems, was not done. But now the Government positively
0:53:24 > 0:53:28encourages ministers not to have a driver. And certainly not a big
0:53:28 > 0:53:34beast of a car. Giles has been whisked to Whitehall to find out
0:53:34 > 0:53:39more. It used to be that one of the benefits of getting to the top of
0:53:39 > 0:53:44government was that you got your own car. Whitehall, please. Thank
0:53:44 > 0:53:48you. The problem is that in an age of austerity, with the Government
0:53:48 > 0:53:52keen to show it can also make savings, being a minister doesn't
0:53:52 > 0:53:59guarantee you a car. The number of the side drivers and vehicles to
0:53:59 > 0:54:03ministers has dropped from 78-13. Not to say the Government car and
0:54:03 > 0:54:08dispatch service doesn't have an impressive ministerial pool of 84
0:54:08 > 0:54:12vehicles, including 38 Toyota Prius, the electric petrol hybrid, see
0:54:12 > 0:54:17what they did for the Environment, eight Jaguars and six Ford galaxies.
0:54:17 > 0:54:20And if you think I am giving away Today's quiz, you are one caught
0:54:20 > 0:54:24short of a fleet. But these are now operated as a taxi service pool
0:54:25 > 0:54:30rather than one driver, one minister. The standard rate is �60
0:54:30 > 0:54:34an hour and money is important. In the spirit of every little helps,
0:54:34 > 0:54:38the Government has taken the cost of government cars they inherited
0:54:38 > 0:54:44and recently announced they had halved it. Indeed, more than halved
0:54:45 > 0:54:48it, from 6.7 to �3.1 million. Some departments gave up beside cars.
0:54:48 > 0:54:53The Cabinet Office, whose role is to cut government waste, has gone
0:54:53 > 0:54:57from four to none. Business from 7- 1. William Hague chose not to have
0:54:57 > 0:55:02one. Though all ministers are required to use the pool if they
0:55:02 > 0:55:06are working on classic guys -- classified papers. Using this
0:55:06 > 0:55:11system is not quite the same. There was a kindly if the relationship
0:55:11 > 0:55:15between ministers and their drivers. Part driver, part security man, but
0:55:15 > 0:55:19confident. Sometimes they were the best source of information in the
0:55:19 > 0:55:24entire government system. Austerity means fewer perks and that is
0:55:24 > 0:55:28probably right and proper. It is just that if I was in the Cabinet,
0:55:29 > 0:55:36a terrifying thought I know, I would rather be brazenly taking and
0:55:36 > 0:55:39a ban -- Bentley, not a battery car! Wishful thinking!
0:55:39 > 0:55:42Earlier in the programme, you'll remember that I asked you which of
0:55:42 > 0:55:46these cars ministers can't get from the Government car pool. They were:
0:55:46 > 0:55:49And the answer - you can get all of them except the Mercedes S Class.
0:55:49 > 0:55:52Joining us now from Stoke - Geoff Dudley from the University of the
0:55:52 > 0:55:54West of England, who has literally written the book about the
0:55:54 > 0:55:58Government car pool. How close have prime minister has been to their
0:55:58 > 0:56:01drivers, historically? Often very close. That is one of the
0:56:02 > 0:56:04intangible benefits of the car service. Mrs Thatcher, a very
0:56:04 > 0:56:09famous image of her tearfully leaving Downing Street as prime
0:56:09 > 0:56:14minister when she resigned in 1990 and her driver was driving her at
0:56:14 > 0:56:22that time. The car service, they wanted Dennis to take over as John
0:56:22 > 0:56:26Major's driver when he became Prime Minister, but he said no. He stayed
0:56:26 > 0:56:30with Mrs Thatcher as the former prime minister's driver. You often
0:56:30 > 0:56:35get this close relationship between ministers and drivers are going
0:56:35 > 0:56:39back to Harold Wilson's time. He had a driver called Bill as prime
0:56:39 > 0:56:44minister and former prime minister. They became very close friends.
0:56:45 > 0:56:48Sources of gossip as well? Well, I guess so, although quite often
0:56:48 > 0:56:54there's a culture in the car service where they say we don't
0:56:54 > 0:56:59lead anywhere as much as people might think we do. We hear
0:56:59 > 0:57:03everything that goes on in the back of the car. It is quite often do
0:57:03 > 0:57:07drivers can tell ministers about ministerial reshuffles before the
0:57:07 > 0:57:09minister knows himself. Correspondence would like to grab
0:57:09 > 0:57:13these drivers on numerous occasions! Previous governments
0:57:13 > 0:57:18have tried to cut the number of cars in the past. They have, but
0:57:18 > 0:57:22not always with success. There is a precedent with David Cameron
0:57:22 > 0:57:27cutting back assigned cars. In 1951, when Rick Winston Churchill
0:57:27 > 0:57:31returned, he had a similar attitude. He said it had been abused and we
0:57:31 > 0:57:35must cut back to just two or three senior ministers. But he got a
0:57:35 > 0:57:41Cabinet rebellion on his hands and the ministers would not accept it
0:57:41 > 0:57:45so the designed cars continued. Thank you very much. It is amazing
0:57:45 > 0:57:50that it is a source of such importance. People will think you
0:57:50 > 0:57:54were mad, why not take advantage? This is a little reform that I can
0:57:54 > 0:57:58take credit for. After he had read my diaries about the confrontation
0:57:58 > 0:58:02I had with the Government car service, David Cameron announced it
0:58:02 > 0:58:07as a press conference. You think... He said so as Leader of the
0:58:07 > 0:58:11Opposition. When I became a minister, I discovered not entirely
0:58:11 > 0:58:16to my surprise that the buses continued to run past my door.
0:58:16 > 0:58:20could not take official papers! dealt with official papers in the
0:58:20 > 0:58:24department and sometimes in my room in the House of Commons. I
0:58:24 > 0:58:28discovered to my amazement that it was costing each ministerial office
0:58:28 > 0:58:35about �60,000 a year to retain the services of a car and driver. I
0:58:36 > 0:58:39declined. Another deficit-reduction there. I made my contribution to