24/01/2012 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics. Will Government reforms

to the NHS in England make it harder to save money in the end? A

House of Commons committee says yes. The Government says no. We'll hear

from both sides of the debate. Richard Branson tells MPs that the

"war on drugs" is counter productive. He'll join us live,

just as soon as he's finished speaking. Yesterday, we talked

about the House of Lords and how the bishops were trying to stop the

Government capping benefits. We'll take a look at how they got on and

assess the consequences. And Churchill had his ministerial car

specially adapted so he could smoke his cigars without the rain coming

through the open window. But do ministers today still need a

All that in the next half hour. And with us for the whole programme

today is the former Labour Minister, Select Committee chairman and

diarist, Chris Mullin. First, Chris Mullin, your diaries are full of

how you attempted to persuade Tony Blair that Rupert Murdoch was the

devil incarnate. Do you think anything will change after the

Leveson Inquiry? The trouble is that politicians, Murdoch in

particular, but also the Daily Mail and one or two will macro other

papers have got so big that politicians have become scared of

them. Instead of taking them on, they've tried to ride the tiger.

Usually with consequences that didn't work out very well. Although

Tony Blair, being the first Labour Leah -- Labour leader really to

have a relationship with Rupert Murdoch which did serve him well in

his path to power, it didn't it? did. I was thinking recently of

David Cameron's attempt to Remploy Andy Coulson. But there are

examples from the New Labour the rubber things went badly wrong. I

think this is an historic opportunity at the moment.

Personally, I would give Murdoch or News Corp a greater share of Sky

Television in return for him relinquishing his newspapers in

this country. I think that the shareholders of News Corp may go

for that. Be is something that is under consideration. One of the

things that has come out today, people have been shocked by some of

the revelations particularly around the Milly Dowler case, the news

that the Surrey police, the fourth that investigated the abduction of

Milly Dowler, was told by the News of the World of newspaper back in

2002 that it had access to a missing girl's voice mails. It just

shows it wasn't just the politicians and the relationships

between police and press were almost extremely close, perhaps too

close. The number of skiers, yes. Politicians, certainly. The police,

obviously. There's a range of subjects on which it's not possible

to have a rational discussion on this subject. It's not possible to

have a rational discussion because of the amount of hysteria that can

be whipped up by the tabloids. Tax policy, drug policy, we are going

to discuss that later. Immigration and asylum. A list of subjects that

have no serious discussion taking place. And you say that because of

the fear rob some populist campaign being run? Undoubtedly that is the

case. Should the result be the regulation of the press? There has

been evidence given from James Harding, saying that would be a

disaster, it would have a chilling effect, he said, on the press.

not arguing for statutory regulation of the newspaper, but

one has to say that the television company, both the BBC and ITV, are

regulated. I don't think it has a particularly chilling effect on

them if it's done sensitively. The key thing is to break these empires

up so they become less arrogant, less powerful and, I think that the

moment has come. You don't think it will be dangerous in terms of

stifling the press? We don't have freedom of the press. We have

newspapers who are owned by a handful of oligarchs. They

sometimes abused the power at their disposal. That's one of the reasons

we are in the difficulty we are now boast a now we've got an

opportunity to separate Murdoch from his newspapers. I hope the

politicians will have the courage to put that deal on the table.

have many months more of the League say inquiry. Later in the programme

we will be taking a look at the government's car service. Chris

wrote in his diaries how he tried to get rid of his state funded

chauffeur, and David Cameron promised to slash the costs,

forcing ministers onto the tubes and buses. But our question for you

today is - which of these cars is not a car in the government pool?

At the end of the show Chris will hopefully be able to give us the

The Government's plans to reform the NHS in England have met

numerous hurdles. Last year the Bill was held up after concerns

from Liberal Democrats. Last week the unions for nurses and midwives

moved to a position of "outright opposition" to the plans. Now a

former Conservative Health Secretary has waded into the debate

saying the reforms are distracting from the real challenge of funding

the health service. Andrew Lansley is performing radical surgery on

the NHS in England. His plans will see GPs take control of much of the

NHS budget and encourage greater competition with the private sector.

Mr Lansley also wants the NHS to save �20 billion by 2015 through

efficiency savings. However, these twin aims are proving controversial.

Stephen Dorrell, who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee and

is himself a former Conservative Health Secretary, has criticised

the plans. His committee has published a report saying the

health reforms are acting as a "disruption and distraction" from

I think there is definitely a concern that managing the changes

of the management structure becomes a priority when the real priority

is managing health care in order to meet the demands of patients.

report says the current division between NHS and council ran so -

Mackay is a major cause of inefficiency and service break down.

It suggests there needs to be more integration of health and social

care, particularly for the elderly. By moving more care into the

community. Here is what Andrew Lansley has said in response to the

report. If you look a euro two down the line, to make continuing

savings depends upon redesigning the shape of services. More

community services, better services around patients. Better integration

between health and social care. Will the reforms deliver those

things? That is what clinical commissioning, doctors and nurses

leading on commissioning, is doing. You can go anywhere in the country,

including health select committee members' constituencies and find

their clinical Commissioner's coming together with local

authorities who are into gritting health and social care, who are

redesigning services in order to deliver better results in the

future. With us now is Roswyn Hakesley-Brown, chair of the

Patients' Association. And the health minister Simon Burns. It

must her during those criticisms from a former Tory health secretary

who was now chairing the select committee? He and his committee

have published their report. We will be studying it and responding

to it in due course. As Andrew Lansley was saying, we don't

believe the situation is exactly as portrayed in that report. Which bit

don't you think is correctly portrayed? For our viewers, they

will understand a Health Select Committee is full of a group of MPs

who study this intensively, who will have taken evidence. Why would

it not be correct? Because what we are seeing in the NHS and on the

ground is a significant move towards modernisation was a

modernisation can only move forward by a freeing up part of the NHS to

respond to that by getting rid of the PCTs. What we are seeing so far

is just over 15,000 administrators have left the NHS. We have 4000

extra doctors. And that is what you would call efficiency savings.

That's what you want to see in terms of modernisation?

efficiency savings, that is part of it but what is also important is

we've seen since we came into power the NHS, by delivering care in the

more effective and efficient way and other measures, has saved �7

billion of which every single penny is being reinvested in frontline

services. It is spilling over to improvements in the NHS. We've seen

the 94 % drop in mixed-sex accommodation. MRSA dropping down

to a record low levels. And those are the successors which have been

Noda by the committee. But what is happening, according to Stephen

Dorrell, is there is salami-slicing going on. Services are being cut in

order to keep up with the modernisation programme. Are you

denying that? I do not believe that is the case. We cannot see evidence

of what is going on in the NHS of salami-slicing. Yes, the NHS is

facing challenges, it is responding to those challenges in different

circumstances because of the economic situation we inherited.

Stephen Dorrell is wrong? I believe that if the main thrust is there is

salami-slicing going on, that is not been shown that in the NHS.

there salami-slicing, our services being cut in certain areas to make

the efficiencies? Our evidence suggests DS. We have an exponential

increase in calls to our helpline in relation to what is happening on

the ground. For example, we had a 94-year-old yesterday who couldn't

get new batteries for his hearing aid. We've had numerous reports

from patients about the waiting time for particular episodes of

surgery. There are instances of poor care where patients are being

encouraged to pass you're in or even defecate in their beds because

there are not enough nurses to deliver the service. And you would

say that is the result of the savings being made? Systems

failures. First of all, the waiting times. The waiting times and number

of people waiting is stable at the moment. Let's define them. The one

you might be referring to his 18 week. The median waiting time in

the last month has dropped to 8.1 weeks, which is lower than when we

came into power. The number of people waiting over 52 weeks has

been halved in the last two months. But do you deny that the figure has

gone up quite dramatically and some of the other... On some of the

measures people awaiting much longer. Between 18 weeks and and a

52 weeks there has been an increase which we are addressing. If you

look at the figures, there are a few trusts that have got individual,

specific problems where action plans are now in place to bring

those figures down. We will continue, or the NHS will continue,

its drive to see that they start falling to respond to the median

waiting time falling and the over 52 weeks falling. Let's take some

of the other examples. What do you say to that? It does sound as it

patients are suffering as a direct result of people saying, this

servants isn't perhaps widely used, we will cut it? Some of the

examples that were given our appalling. But one has to look to

see, is it to do with the way in which the care is being provided?

Is enough time being spent by nurses looking after patients? That

is why Andrew Lansley asked the CQC to do a number of cheques of

dignity and nutrition in hospitals, 150 carried out last year. Over 200

going to be carried out this year in hospitals. Salas to Raich -- so

as to raise standards. Are you reassured by this, Roswyn Hakesley-

Brown? Are you convinced they will be able to deliver this plan

without more services being cut? We have real concerns about how

much the reforms are costing. There are issues in the level of money

being spent on the legislation. We have concerns about the services

and quality that is being delivered. We have just launched a Care

Campaign in relation to care of the elderly, because it is that group

of people which demographically is the largest group of patients and

social care users. They are really suffering at this point in time.

Can I briefly bringing Chris Mullin? Do you accept that the

government is now having to take measures to reform the NHS? Not

necessarily directly as a result of all the money that was put into the

NHS and the Labour, but that Labour did failed to reform it at the same

time? There is all the scope for improving the efficiency of an

organisation as fast as the NHS. I don't agree that we failed to

reform it. We didn't do everything we wanted to land that now falls to

the present government. But if I was the present government I would

listen carefully to what Stephen Dorrell, former Secretary of State

for Health and the very thought Omand, to what he and his

colleagues have had to say about the proposed reforms.

impression from Andrew Lansley is, even from yourself you think he is

wrong and it doesn't sound like you will take any notice of it at all,

is that wise? We will study the report. Where we believe the report

is not an accurate assessment of what is going on in the NHS, we

will point that out in our response. Can I pick up an important point

that was made about the cost? There is a one-off cost, as shown by the

impact assessment, of 1.2 to �1.3 billion for the modernisation. But

thereafter, for the rest of this Parliament, there will be a savings

of �4.5 billion. Then for the rest of the decade a �1.5 billion saving

each year of which every penny will be reinvested in the NHS. That is

Is that achievable? I am very doubtful. The impact assessment and

it is based on fact and analysis of the modernisation. But on the

ground, the reality has been different. The assessment may have

said one thing, the impact on the ground while doing the reforms at

the same time is proving to be much more difficult, which means you

could have an overspend at the end, you will not save money, and there

would backfire. What is going on on the ground within the NHS is that

over the last 18 months, �7 billion has been saved by greater

effectiveness, efficiency and other measures and every single penny of

that �7 billion is being reinvested. If that is any achievement. Even if

some services have been affected, to save that amount of money will

in the end have a positive effect, won't it? It will have a positive

effect, but looking at all of the other contextual details about the

finance. For example, the private providers. That is about profit. We

are very concerned about profit and patience. That was something

brought up by your Lib Dem coalition colleagues in terms of

profit. Looking at another area, social care, that is the other area

that has been picked up by the committee. How much integration

will there be between health and social care? It is important that

they work together, that has been worked on since Stephen Dorrell was

Secretary of State and I was his junior minister. The last

government, to their credit, moved that agenda forward and there were

great strides, but more needs to be done. They are working together so

they are putting the patient at the heart of care, they are not

languishing in hospitals when they should not be. They should not be

in hospital if it is more appropriate to treat them in the

community, and they get that care and assistance. That is what is

being worked on and at the same time, the Government, in talks with

the Labour opposition, are seeking on the other related subject, long-

term care and the financing of it, sitting around a table, seeking to

get consensus. Very briefly, we knew rebalance the spending between

healthcare and social care? We have already made extra money available

and we are looking at the most effective ways of providing money

to deal with the situation. Thank you. Her

Britain should forget the so-called "war on drugs" which has been both

ineffective and incredibly wasteful. That's according to the Virgin boss,

Sir Richard Branson. This morning, he's been appearing in front of the

Home Affairs Select Committee and he's been comparing the attitude of

successive governments towards the problems to the Prohibition era in

the United States which tried to outlaw alcohol. He thinks that they

do better in Switzerland and Portugal where decriminalisation

has - in his opinion - successfully led to lower drug use. By not

regulating drugs at all and checking on drugs, three people

died in hospital recently from taking Ecstasy tablets, but they

were not ecstasy tablets, they were laced with DNA so the kids did not

know what they were taking. At the moment it is completely unregulated,

with nobody checking up on what the kids are taking. And Sir Richard

Branson joins us now from Central Lobby. We have heard some of the

evidence you have been giving, but what is the hard evidence that

decriminalisation would lead to lower levels of drug use and drug

addiction? I am part of the global drug commission that was set up by

President Cardoso of Brazil and it has people like Kofi Annan and many

other people. We spent a long time studying 50 years of evidence.

Portugal is one good example, the last 10 years not one person has

been sent to prison for taking any kind of drug. Everybody has been

helped. The Department of Health now looks after the drug issues in

Portugal, not the Home Office. It has been a tremendous success. The

amount of people taking hard drugs has more than halved, the amount of

people taking soft drugs has come down dramatically because nobody

has gone to prison. It has reduced the cost to the state, the amount

of break-ins has reduced dramatically because one of the

reasons people break in it is because they need to get their drug

effects. That is one example that has worked well. There is still

this problem with the message itself. What message does it send

out to people, decriminalisation. Politically it is not palatable.

think you'll find that asking people to treat drugs as a health

problem and not a criminal problem is a positive message. At the

moment, you've got between 3 million a 5 million young people

every year using cannabis. 100,000 of those people are arrested for

using small amounts of cannabis. They then get criminal records. It

is ruining their careers, their chances of trouble and so on. --

travel. Three to 5 million people are taking drugs anyway. All we are

saying is get out and make sure they are being helped. Don't

prosecute them if they take excess drugs, in the same way you take

excess alcohol, make sure people are helped and not prosecuted.

some extent, these arguments have been made over the years. No doubt

during the years you have been serving on that Global Commission.

What makes you think the political will is there now to change that

mindset from looking at it as criminal behaviour to a health

issue? Very simply, the commission has done a big study on the war on

drugs and it has proven it has failed. Every decade, the amount of

people that use drugs has gone up dramatically. If something fails,

if I'm running a business that is failing, a look at better ways of

dealing with the problem. There must be better ways of dealing with

the problem and therefore I welcome the House of Commons Select

Committee doing a study on it and seen if they can come up with a

better way. The commission welcomes this. Stay with us a moment if you

can. Chris Mullin, you served on the Home affairs Select Committee.

Under the last government, what was discussed internally and how

different was it what came out publicly? I chaired a major inquiry

into drugs policy and we came to the conclusion that we needed to

move towards what Richard Branson has just been saying. Reduction

rather than criminalisation. A small number of our proposals were

taken up, although the one on cannabis -- cannabis, the

recommendation was implemented, reducing from Class B to a classy

and then the next thing that happened, hysteria was organised in

the Daily Mail and elsewhere and the Government caved in to it. They

reversed the change. We really have to move in this country towards a

rational debate on drugs. As Richard Branson says, what we have

been doing until now is not working. If you look at countries like

Portugal, what they are doing appears to be working. We should

stop banging our heads against a brick wall. Richard Branson, there

have been attempts to do what you have suggested and it is extremely

difficult because the public and political will is not there. Well,

as he said, it should be assigned to be based fact. It is up to

politicians to get the message across and sometimes to ignore a

newspaper like the Daily Mail and just get on and do what they

believe is right. If you talk to any individual politician, they

know what is right. David Cameron, 10 years ago, wanders on a Select

Committee where he argued exactly what I'm arguing. Now he's Prime

Minister, anyway... He's not doing anything about it. He's got to be

brave as Prime Minister and you have to do what's right for the

country and society and the individuals and treat them like

your children or treat them like your brothers and sisters who have

a problem. You would never throw your family in prison, you would

help them. Richard Branson, thank you very much. Did David Cameron

served with you? He did. He played a very constructive part and I

suspect he is sympathetic to the arguments which Richard Branson is

making. It is very good that people like Richard Branson are saying

this out loud. Scientific evidence... It is a dangerous

message and that is why it hasn't worked. It is not a dangerous Mrs

unless it is misrepresented. It has been misrepresented up until now.

When I was first starting out as a correspondent here at Westminster,

everyone knew all the names of MPs who rebelled against their party's

whips. The regulars became household names. But these days

you'd need to be really good at maths to do that because there are

so many of them. This parliament is the most rebellious we've had for

more than 50 years, as Max Cotton reports. The fixed-term Parliament

Bill, the European Union Bill, the Localism Bill, a coalition

legislation has attracted an enormous number of parliamentary

rebels. It has turned rebellion in the Commons from a really big deal

into not much of a story. Back in the day, when nine Tories lost the

Conservative whip in the fall-out of the Maastricht treaty, the

rebellion made headlines for months. Party loyalty 20 odd years ago was

taken much more seriously than it is today. Why? Have no leadership.

-- no leadership likes descent, but it is a reflection of a much

greater change going on nationally. The attachment to party

organisations is much less than it was when I first was elected to

Parliament and that is clear and certain. Therefore the

disconnection is that members of parliament perhaps feel a stronger

loyalty to the views of those they are elected to represent and to use

their judgment in that matter. MPs we have got in there are the

most rebellious bunch we have had since the end of the war. Up until

the Christmas recess, there were rebellions in 179 divisions. That

is 43% of all votes. It is even more unusual because this is the

beginning of a parliament, when you traditionally expect MPs to behave

themselves and to toe the line. Yes, the coalition is a very broad

church and some went -- somewhere, someone will object to whatever

Cameron and clay propose, but that is not a whole story. Voters still

vote for the party and not the individual, but they are also

voting increasingly for the individual. MPs think that if they

rebel at Westminster, they can start to differentiate themselves

from the party and start to embed themselves with their constituents

and get a reputation for being independent-minded and that will

serve them at the ballot box. There's no evidence of that so far,

but that is the perception. Some of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs

have been impressive record. I would like to introduce you to one

of them, who rebelled 23 times in his first 18 months. Andrew Percy

says he has no ministerial ambitions. I have worked with the

Conservative Party 90% of times. Any other job I would be considered

a loyalist. I do think that although people still vote for the

party, they do look at the individuals. I like to think some

of my 19,600 votes were because I was independent-minded. Sir Joseph

Porter, in HMS pinafore, says when he got into Parliament that he

always voted at his party's call, he never thought of thinking for

himself. I reckon they say Amen to that in the Government whip's

office. I'm sure they do! I'm now joined by the Conservative

MP for Wycombe, Steve Baker, who was first elected last year and has

already racked up quite a number of appearances in a different lobby to

his own whips. The whips will not like you. Is this a badge you wear

with on? I would prefer never to rebel. I am quite proud to have a

reputation as having an independent mind, but I would prefer never to

rebel. What has happened to loyalty? You were elected as a

Conservative MP, people don't necessarily know you, they are

voting for Conservative social new vote with your party? Absolutely

and we mostly do. I have only rebelled on 4.5% of votes,

overwhelmingly in relation to the European Union. The key issue is

not so much loyalty to the party, but loyalty to the public.

Particularly on the issue of the EU, the public expect me to show

loyalty to them rather than the party. Is this refreshing to hear?

In the days that you were in government and before, and when I

first started, rebellions were rare and now they are 10 a penny. There

were many in the last Parliament. And the Government was defeated in

the Commons on for example the attempt to extend the pre-trial

detention to 90 days. I take great pleasure in being one of the people

that put a stop to that. The privatisation of the Post Office

was seen off because it was explained carefully to the leaders,

in the privacy of the Parliamentary Labour Party, that it would not go

through. Although there was no rebellion on the floor of the House,

major issues like that were stocked up as a result of uprisings. What

are you? A former rebel or a government minister? You did make

it into ministerial ranks. Not once but twice. I was invited to visit

the Government. And you are accepted. By instinct, I'm a team

player. I don't enjoy rebelling any more than Mr Baker does. But there

are one or two big issues which I think you have to... I was not one

of the 139 Labour MPs who voted against Iraq. There was also a

large majority and to some extent you can rebel knowing that the

Government will still win the day. People think the government will

almost certainly win the day. But we would have liked to have one at

Bolt. We were serious about it and understand the gravity of the

situation. But we don't want to defeat the government, we just want

a referendum on the European Union. That is the crux of the matter. We

are trying to do the right thing rather than what we are told.

don't want a job then, do you, in government? There are things I'd

like to do but it's more important, bearing in mind the context it came

into Parliament, it's more important to serve the public first.

All that dismay and contend that was developed over the years and

was particularly expressed during the expenses scandal, we have to

deal with it and get on with it. Some have parliamentary democracy

has to be raised up to wait. That you can respect it. I think it

should be an on-again even to be a backbencher. But isn't it difficult,

Chris Mullin, as your diaries revealed, that you disagree with

the government of the day and a number of things, it's been quite

difficult to serve in it because you are quite often being asked to

do things you disagree with in principle? No, in the four years I

was in government I can't say I found myself... There were things I

was mildly unhappy about of things I wouldn't have done, but not

things that I felt... If we'd invaded Iraq while I was in

government I guess I would have been one of the people who would

have came out of government. But every minor disagreement you won't

go into there other lobby because they knew would develop a

reputation for not being reliable. Are you developing a reputation for

that? I think I get a on pretty well with the whips. In my arm case,

it's mostly about the EU. They know where I stand on the European Union.

I believe we should have a referendum. They can rely no need

to always vote and a bar of a referendum on the European Union

and against an expansion of European powers. The key thing for

us is to have powers in Parliament. I think the whips know where I

stand on this particular issue. They know where they will find me.

So you wouldn't have a problem serving in the government if they

ask you? I don't think they are likely to ask. We do accept if they

did ask? They are not going to. If they did, I can't see me serving in

the government might now. Between high-speed rail, which is a big

issue for Buckinghamshire, and the EU, I think it would have to be a

revolving door. Is it refreshing to hear this? It is, because on the

Tory side, with the exception of Europe, they do tend to be less

rebellious than our loft. Yesterday, our main story was the debate in

the House of Lords about benefits for some ministers want to put a

cap on the total amount of money any one family can claim at �26,000

a year in England, Scotland and Wales. The Labour Party have put

down an amendment that would have exempted people who were threatened

by homelessness. That was defeated. Then it was over to the bishops,

some of whom sit in the House of Lords. They were arguing that child

benefits shouldn't be included in the copulations stop Labour and

some Liberal Democrats swung behind them and the scene was set for a

My Lords, Christianity, along the way of other faiths and believes

requires us to think most of those who have no voice of their own.

Children in most need is one of the most evident examples of that. The

New Testament shows Jesus as having a very special concern for children.

They have no vote in our society. They probably don't answer YouGov

questions. This amendment goes some way to protecting them. Quite a lot

has been said about the popularity of this Bill, particularly the cap.

It does seem to me that one has got to be fairly careful, particularly

in making legislation, about being too quick in Rhys -- in response to

vox pop. If we were debating capital punishment I suspect many

of the same things would it be said. After housing costs these families

are going to be hit with his housing benefit cap are poor as

church mice. When you measure the amount of income available to the

household divided by the people in the house sold, they get tiny

amounts of money. An article today talked about 62p per family member.

After the household benefit cap. What are we doing? I think the

worst thought of child poverty is poverty of aspiration. There are

many in this country and a household with no experience of

paid employment. It is a terrible condemnation of what has been

allowed to grow up in the name of the welfare system. This measure do

something different. It cuts the number of families who are affected

by the cap from 67,000 down to about 40,000 families. That is the

real cost of this amendment. It takes the pressure away from those

families, those 20,000 families will go on in the same way that

they have been and we will not have the behavioural change that we want

In the end the Lords decided in favour of excluding child benefit

payments from the proposed cap. The government losing the vote by 15.

Our correspondent has been watching what happened next. How have

ministers reacted? After the vote last night issued a statement, the

DWP issued a statement they work very disappointed by the outcome of

the debate. They said it lies in the face of public opinion. They

said that the net effect of removing child benefit from the cap

would be to put the cap up to about �47,000, so you are effectively

undermining the whole purpose of having a benefit cap. I think in

the longer term ministers are more relaxed about this. Firstly,

because they think public opinion is on their side and they've been

pointing to some of the opinion polls that show that perhaps as

many as 80 % of the population are in favour of the 35,000 limit.

There is a sizable chunk of the population who want the limit to be

set even lower than that. They also see this as something of an attack

line against Labour. They feel the government that they can claim that

Labour are soft on welfare and, as they would put it, once again

sending out contradictory messages about bringing down the deficit. I

also think that they are hoping that transitional arrangements,

which they haven't yet given details about, will be enough to

buy off some of the rebels and the Lords. Nick Clegg this morning was

talking about that, saying that he felt the transitional arrangements,

once they are announced, would be of comfort to people. But he

insisted the government was going to stick with its plans. Lord

Fowler, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Social

Security, was taking part in that debate. He is with us now. We've

heard those views expressed by both sides. Were you surprised that the

government lost? Not altogether. We always thought it was going to be a

very close to vote. I'm interested in the Bishop's line that because

the public is on your side, one to be extremely cautious about that.

When being opposed by people like Chris, I pursued measures which

were regarded as unpopular, that was regarded as being crucial. You

can't really have it both ways. Which way do you want to have it?

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right, that is what they

are saying. And I think if you've got a measure, basically the

measure is agreed by every party. This is the extraordinary thing.

The cap is agreed because the principle is that you shouldn't be

better off on benefit than in work. That is all agreed. Yes, but

there's a disagreement between earnings and income. We won't

relived that disagreement but if we come back to the politics of it,

the government seems fairly relaxed presumably because they are going

to force it through. I don't think all sit through. I think that if

the House of Lords has given a second opportunity, which it will

be, to debate this again and I'd be surprised if we came to the same

conclusion. I don't think the point was taken in the debate that what

the effect of what the bishop was proposing was to actually increase

the Kappa. I don't think that. Was taking. And there is no chance, in

your view, that that could happen, that the government could increase

the cat or take child benefit out or do something that would mean

there's more money... They don't think that. What I do think is if

there were 67,000 people who are affected year. That sounds an

enormous number but it is 1% of the 5 million claimants. 7000 families.

And therefore we have the opportunity, and the measure

doesn't come in until 2013 in any event, we have the opportunity in

the transition and in going to those families and looking at each

individual family of ironing out the difficulties that there are

bare. I'm not going to say one is going to be doing it with everyone

but I would be very surprised if the bulk of that 67,000 aren't

dealt with. Are these the right reforms, Chris Mullin? Against the

problem is something that hasn't been spoken about that will now

also most of these families that are going to be affected are going

to be living in the more prosperous parts of the country, London and

the south-east. They are going to have three or four children and are

likely to be living in private rented accommodation. As a result,

they are paying very large rent. That is why the amount of benefit

that is being spent on them is as high as it is. A large part of the

35,000 or whatever figure you pick is made up of housing benefit. One

of the effects of selling off all the council houses in the 80s and

early 90s was that many people sold... Bought their council houses,

moved to Spain and then rented their council house or flat back to

the local authority at up to 10 times the price that they

themselves were paying in the days when they paid rent. As a result,

rents have gone bananas, certainly in London. But that is a pretty

extraordinary example also most people who bought their council

house lived in a council house, and that was the great advantage of the

policy. Do you think the reforms are right? There is general

consensus about a Kapo, this principle that the government keeps

repeating, that they shouldn't be able to play more in benefits than

the median working family. principle is not a bad one. That is

no doubt why Labour is not object into it. But the consequences have

to be considered very carefully. Beware of consequence is that you

don't foresee. Sooner or later we will see families, and they will be

the deserving poor rather than the undeserving poor, being forced out

of their homes. At that moment public opinion may not think this

is such a good idea. That is the point being made by the bishops and

critics of the policy, that we can't see the consequences yet.

Although some of the councils in outlying London boroughs have

already been complaining that they will have the job of having to

rehouse a lot number of these families and the costs will be

extremely high. I don't disagree that when you get to the detail of

it that they Rob going to be awkward decisions to be made and

details to be put in. I think Tony Newton, a great expert on social

security, made the point in the House yesterday that you can't put

all that into the primary legislation. You got the

regulations which are to come. quite an important consequence that

you are Ribeiro or council waiting and not knowing what the numbers

might be. An important consequence is you are dealing with 1% of the

benefit population. When I was giving some of the changes in

social security, if I'd got the losers down to 1%, I reckon I'd be

doing rather well. That's not to discount the 67,000, but Richard

and beyond the wit of man to deal with the particular problems of

67,000 families. But it is a massive budget, the welfare budget,

the biggest in government. We are talking about a saving of 270

million. You could turn at the other way. It doesn't seem to be

that great if you are just looking at the figures. A I've been round

making changes, fighting the Treasury on changes on social

security for six years. I'd just say this. If you are going to give

up on soon -- on social security and 270 million here doesn't matter

and there's another hundred million here, so far Labour have actually

added �5 billion to the cost of this and haven't reduced anything

over a five-year period, �5 billion has been added. It is a bill of

�200 billion we are spending on pensions and social security. If

you are not prepared to make changes then you might as well give

up. That's a valid argument, Labour doesn't want to find itself on the

wrong side of the argument. best way to reduce the number of

people on social security is to get people back into work. Get those

who are in some cases pretending to be ill back on to the WORK register.

That is the best way. The Labour government and the present

government had been trying to do that. It's a long, slow, arduous,

difficult task, but that, in the end, is the best way to reduce the

overall benefit claimants. The best ways to go to universal credit.

That is Iain Duncan Smith's great... It really what Social Security

Secretary's have been wishing to do for the last half century. For once,

we have got a social security secretary and a Chancellor of the

Exchequer. The Treasury and the social security department are

together. Unlike at the time when you were in government, when he was

asked to think the unimaginable. It was all rejected. Yes, because

Frank Field's proposals then, and I guess Iain Duncan Smith's will

require a lot of money up front, which the Treasury at this point

seems to be ready to go along with. It's a very formidable conversion

as far as the Treasury are concerned. I praise George Osborne

as much as I praised Iain Duncan The Business Secretary, Vince Cable,

is making a speech today in which he is expected to give further

details his plans to curb executive pay. Yesterday in the House of

Commons, he said that shareholders will be given more powers to block

excessive payouts to people that they think don't deserve it. And

companies will have to justify high salaries in their annual reports.

But that didn't go down well with every Conservative MP on the

Government benches behind him. sexual state must be extremely

happy. -- Secretary of State. His liberal claptrap, which even Labour

did not do in 13 years, has somehow got through the coalition in the

hope of a good headline. It has done nothing to increase the growth

or employment in this country. Is he a happy man? I am, actually. I

realise that when I first raised the issue of responsible capitalism

I was denounced as a Marxist, I thought I had left that behind but

apparently not. Adam Fleming is in Central Lobby now with two MPs who

have been taking a close interest in all this. We have got two MPs

who hopefully have strong views. Ian Wright, on Labour's shadow

frontbench team for business, and Nadhim Zahawi, who was a

businessman before coming to Parliament. We heard Peter Bone

calling it claptrap. Is the Conservative Party's heart really

in this, regulating business more? It certainly is. If you look at

what the Prime Minister was saying in 2006 about capitalism with a

conscience, he made a speech talking about it, and myself and

Matt Hancock wrote a book which looks at how we can change the

culture in the boardroom. There isn't a simple solution to this.

There is no magic bullet. We know there's a problem. There's a

disconnect between pay at executive level and value creation. We do

need to fix this. We have looked at the recommendations, we will

implement 10 of the Twell. This is real change. Your leader has been

talking about responsibility at the top for a long time. Labour must be

over the moon that them Tories and Lib Dems are adopting 10

recommendations?, and clip -- please do Business Secretary was

dragged to the House to announce these proposals, but I think Vince

Cable could have gone further. The recommendations on things like

worker involvement in remuneration committees would have been a strong

step in terms of strengthening that accountability and transparency. I

also think the publication of pay ratios, where the highest executive

pay is calculated according to the average or lowest paid, would have

provided a degree of transparency. It has gone some way but not far

enough. The accusation levelled that Labour was that you could have

done something like this when you were a in the office. The figures

quoted yesterday were that in 1997 executive pay was 46 times the

average, in 2010 it was 120 times. I think what the Business Secretary

was trying to do was make it a party political issue. Fizz has

gone back further than Labour being in government. And it goes back at

least 30 years. We have put measures in place as far back as

when Patricia Hewitt was trade and industry secretary in order to

strengthen corporate governance. The Walker proposals would have

strengthened remuneration committees, but the Conservative

government have not put that in place. It is unfair to say this is

all Labour's fault. Her last week the Government were talking about

having employees much more involved in their companies, the John Lewis

model. Why can't we have to employees on renumeration boards?

ran a business in Germany and Scandinavia and the UK. The model

there is to have employee representation, but she would have

to change. In Germany you have supervisory boards and advisory

boards. We would have to change the corporate system in the UK. Who

will police that individual? Which country will they come from if they

are a multinational? This is an area which is complicated. I don't

think it would work in the UK corporate structure. Nor would the

publication of pay ratios. You have Tesco doing much worse than Goldman

Sachs. What we are doing, there's the legislation from 2004 that

allows for employee consultation when it comes to executive pay. The

remuneration committee is taking into account the distribution

between executive pay, employees pay, taxation, dividends and all

the other ways of distributing the wealth created by that business.

Those things are positive. If Ian Wright would stop political mud-

slinging, we could work this out and work out a system for the UK

that could depress practice for the world. You mentioned your time in

business. Were you ever scared about what your shareholders

thought about your salary and performance? Of course. You have to

worry about how you are creating value for the business and how you

are remunerated for it. The important thing is to make sure the

remuneration committee is made up of diversity, there's a diverse

number of people on that committee. Also, a very good recommendation

that Vince Cable announced, executives in other companies who

depend on committees to deliver their own packages should not be

sitting on committees of other companies. I sit on a board at the

moment. The committee is made up of people who do not do it an

acceptable anywhere else. Thank you both of joining us for top high-

paid is not an issue in central lobby because they both turned up

for a free today! The taxpayer will be pleased. Picking up on one of

those things. If you think the suggestions put forward by Vince

Cable, do you think it will have chief executives quaking in their

boots? Probably not. It is a difficult issue for governments of

all persuasions. We don't own the shares. The public don't own the

shares. I do hope the Government will show the same degree of

political will in dealing with the top earners as it is clearly

showing in relation to the lower earners, the people on benefit.

do think they are linked in that sense? If the Government wants to

be taken credibly, they need to do it. They have one advantage the

previous government never had and that is that the biggest offenders

are the bankers. We now own affair slice of the British banking

industry. We own up 87% of Lloyds Bank. Headed by Mr Stephen Hester,

who is in line for a very large bonus, so I'm told. But his

contract was made under the last Labour government and they say

contractually they can't do anything about it. I don't know the

details of his contract. It is the litmus test. He earns �1.2 million

a year and he is already quite comfortable. I think... No doubt he

is doing a good job, but I think �1.2 million is it is quite enough.

I don't think he needs a large bonus. We will hear it in the next

few weeks. Now, when our guest published his

diaries of life in Government, not only was he praised for his frank

revelations that being a junior minister is in fact to be very

junior indeed, but also for his amusing account of a battle over

trying NOT to have a ministerial car. He was happy with the bus.

That, it seems, was not done. But now the Government positively

encourages ministers not to have a driver. And certainly not a big

beast of a car. Giles has been whisked to Whitehall to find out

more. It used to be that one of the benefits of getting to the top of

government was that you got your own car. Whitehall, please. Thank

you. The problem is that in an age of austerity, with the Government

keen to show it can also make savings, being a minister doesn't

guarantee you a car. The number of the side drivers and vehicles to

ministers has dropped from 78-13. Not to say the Government car and

dispatch service doesn't have an impressive ministerial pool of 84

vehicles, including 38 Toyota Prius, the electric petrol hybrid, see

what they did for the Environment, eight Jaguars and six Ford galaxies.

And if you think I am giving away Today's quiz, you are one caught

short of a fleet. But these are now operated as a taxi service pool

rather than one driver, one minister. The standard rate is �60

an hour and money is important. In the spirit of every little helps,

the Government has taken the cost of government cars they inherited

and recently announced they had halved it. Indeed, more than halved

it, from 6.7 to �3.1 million. Some departments gave up beside cars.

The Cabinet Office, whose role is to cut government waste, has gone

from four to none. Business from 7- 1. William Hague chose not to have

one. Though all ministers are required to use the pool if they

are working on classic guys -- classified papers. Using this

system is not quite the same. There was a kindly if the relationship

between ministers and their drivers. Part driver, part security man, but

confident. Sometimes they were the best source of information in the

entire government system. Austerity means fewer perks and that is

probably right and proper. It is just that if I was in the Cabinet,

a terrifying thought I know, I would rather be brazenly taking and

a ban -- Bentley, not a battery car! Wishful thinking!

Earlier in the programme, you'll remember that I asked you which of

these cars ministers can't get from the Government car pool. They were:

And the answer - you can get all of them except the Mercedes S Class.

Joining us now from Stoke - Geoff Dudley from the University of the

West of England, who has literally written the book about the

Government car pool. How close have prime minister has been to their

drivers, historically? Often very close. That is one of the

intangible benefits of the car service. Mrs Thatcher, a very

famous image of her tearfully leaving Downing Street as prime

minister when she resigned in 1990 and her driver was driving her at

that time. The car service, they wanted Dennis to take over as John

Major's driver when he became Prime Minister, but he said no. He stayed

with Mrs Thatcher as the former prime minister's driver. You often

get this close relationship between ministers and drivers are going

back to Harold Wilson's time. He had a driver called Bill as prime

minister and former prime minister. They became very close friends.

Sources of gossip as well? Well, I guess so, although quite often

there's a culture in the car service where they say we don't

lead anywhere as much as people might think we do. We hear

everything that goes on in the back of the car. It is quite often do

drivers can tell ministers about ministerial reshuffles before the

minister knows himself. Correspondence would like to grab

these drivers on numerous occasions! Previous governments

have tried to cut the number of cars in the past. They have, but

not always with success. There is a precedent with David Cameron

cutting back assigned cars. In 1951, when Rick Winston Churchill

returned, he had a similar attitude. He said it had been abused and we

must cut back to just two or three senior ministers. But he got a

Cabinet rebellion on his hands and the ministers would not accept it

so the designed cars continued. Thank you very much. It is amazing

that it is a source of such importance. People will think you

were mad, why not take advantage? This is a little reform that I can

take credit for. After he had read my diaries about the confrontation

I had with the Government car service, David Cameron announced it

as a press conference. You think... He said so as Leader of the

Opposition. When I became a minister, I discovered not entirely

to my surprise that the buses continued to run past my door.

could not take official papers! dealt with official papers in the

department and sometimes in my room in the House of Commons. I

discovered to my amazement that it was costing each ministerial office

about �60,000 a year to retain the services of a car and driver. I

declined. Another deficit-reduction there. I made my contribution to