26/01/2012 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics. 60 minutes of public service

broadcasting at its finest. That is what it says here! The Deputy Prime

Minister bids to get low earners out of paying tax more quickly.

Will he get his way with the Treasury?

They have gone to the Swiss Alps to get a better view of the euro-zone

crisis, but do the politicians and businessmen gathering in Davos like

what they are seeing that? The Lords inflict a 6th defeat on

the government on welfare reform. We must now stand together and

fight for the things in which we all believe. They are more

important than any of us individually.

And how accents can help or hinder All that in 60 minutes. A veritable

festival of politics here on BBC2. With us for the duration, a

familiar face, Joan Bakewell, now a Labour peer in the Lords. Welcome

back. First, the government's packs plant

a bomb be laid out by the Chancellor. So you stick -- sit

down with a stiff drink me prepare yourself for the bad news, so

imagine a surprise when you turn on your telly to hear the Deputy Prime

Minister talking about speeding up the tax increase threshold. I want

the commission to go further and faster in delivering the full

�10,000, because bluntly, the pressure on family finances is

reaching boiling point. Compared to those at the top, these families

have seen their earnings in decline for a decade. That has got worse

since 2008, with lower real wages and fewer hours at work. I am

joined now by our political correspondent. It is unusual to

hear tax plans being announced so close to the Budget. Presumably he

had clearance, and it sounds as if it is going to happen? He told me

this morning that he spoke to George Osborne and the Prime

Minister about it, I don't think they sat down and signed off on the

proposals, but clearly they knew what was coming. It is very unusual.

It is just six weeks before the Budget. But this is a very

important issue for Nick Clegg, there is an element of Economics

here, it is being proposed as a way of kick-starting part of the

economy, by getting more money into the pockets of low earners, because

people believe they will spend more quickly, but what is more

significant is this is about distinction - Liberal Democrats

decoupling, if you will. It is an idea which is very important in

terms of fairness. So this is a Lib Dem priority, not necessarily

government policy, although I know they were committed to doing it by

2015. Have they costed it? It sounds like a stimulus to me.

a coalition policy, it says in black and white, and their first

priority when it comes to tax is increasing the personal tax

threshold. What Nick Clegg wants today is for it to go further and

to go faster. He wants it to happen before that commitment of 2015 in

Parliament. I think the rout will be about Howard will be funded, and

the pressure is on Nick Clegg to come forward with some specific

proposals he thinks George Osborne can accept. He talked about tax

loopholes. He talked about stamp duty, pension relief, pension

allowance as well, and then mentioned tax, which is least

palatable for the Chancellor. He did also mention other ways of

tinkering around to get this figure of about 9 billion, which is the

cost, which seemed a far more palatable to the Chancellor if he

were to agree with this. Thank you. Let's look at the substance of the

proposal. If you have got 9 billion in spare cash to spend, is taking

low earners out of tax the best way of helping the working poor?

must -- he must be the last person to notice that the poor are hurting

the most from the government policy. It is a policy that hasn't yielded

croaked. One of the weight of yielding growth is to get people

spending money. There should be a revision of the 80, that is what

you need, people who need to spend can you need to give them the money,

it is obvious daughter of --. Was so you have to get done spending?

People are her to get all sorts of ways, low-paid families, -- hurting.

There are schemes that are being squeezed and all sorts of benefits

systems that are squeezing poor families. He is quite right, they

need help. But if the aim is to help poor families, if you're not

in a job at all and you are poor, then this doesn't help you, because

you are not paying tax. And note most of the 9 billion will go to

middle income, that may be good or bad come but it is not targeted at

the ball. It will include the lower earners, it doesn't take Marks --

take much, and that is where the expansion needs to happen in the

economy. Most of that 9 billion will not go to the poor. It won't,

but it will go to the people feeling the squeeze, not just be

destitute are feeling the squeeze debate is the squeezed middle.

would be different. What is the lower squeeze? People who were on

20,000 a year. They would benefit from this. That may be the plan,

actually. Given it under the guise of helping the very poor. Later we

will discuss whether taxpayers should be told more about where

their money is going. In case you thought the Pensthorpe Nature

Reserve as it -- the eurozone crisis had gone away, it hasn't.

Leaders have gone to the World Economic Forum. The crisis is still

top of the agenda. Earlier this week the IMF said that the global

economy was now deeply into the danger zone as a result of risks

from the euro-zone. So how are our leaders going to get their act

together? Are they just going to ski, eat and drink? I am not sure

about the former! The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the

euro area will slip into recession this year. Estimates that GDP in

the euro-zone will shrink by 0.5%. The IMF also wants a radical shift

in policy to save the era. It is urging leaders to consider a

doubling or tripling of the bail- out fund, and fought EU

institutions and governments to share the burden of debt relief for

Greece. This is opposed by Angela Merkel, who has raised fresh doubts

about the ability to save Greece from a default, calling the country

a special case. Talks are resuming between the Greek government and

the banks over a write-down of its debt pile. Banks have said they are

willing to take a 50% cut, but Greece is looking for more. Angela

Merkel thinks it will be solved by matching austerity to the ways

Europe is Govan, guaranteeing close fiscal union, but legendary

investor George Soros has sounded a warning. The austerity Jenny wants

to impose will push Europe into a deflationary debt spiral. --

Germany wants to impose. David Cameron says Europe needs to slash

red tape in order to promote growth. Our single-market remains

incomplete, and there are still a colossal 4700 professions across

the European Union to which access is regulated by government. And

that is not all. In spite of the economic challenge, in spite of the

unemployment challenge, we are still doing things through the EU

to make life even harder. In the name of social protection, the EU

has promoted Mehmet -- measures that impose burdens on businesses

and can destroy each jobs. The pregnant workers' directive, the

working time directive, the list goes on. That was the Prime

Minister speaking at Davos and now I go. We are joined now by the

Conservative MP John Redwood and from Brussels, Liberal Democrat MEP

Sharon Bowles. She has just been reappointed, some said she wouldn't

be because she is British, but it is proud for the nation that she

has been reappointed. She is chairman of the Economic and

Monetary Affairs Committee. Is it still in Britain's interest to

support the efforts of Germany and France to save the euro-zone as

currently constituted? I think it is in British interests to do as

much as we can to assist in rescuing, and to participate as

much as we can in the plans, and to contribute our expertise to make is

not just about money. It is also about the steps to take. The

problem isn't going to go away, it keeps on getting more serious, and

we are affected by it. So the more we are in the room in discussions,

the better that is for the UK. understand that is your line, but I

am asking whether it is right that British policy should be to support

keeping the euro-zone as currently constituted, with its 17 members,

intact. Is that the proper course of British policy? I am not sure

that is going to help anybody if the UK had a policy that says, then

it should be a fragmentation of the euro-zone. I think hanging together

is probably an important thing to do. So your answer is yes? I think

yes, the issue of whether or not we should face up to the size of the

Greek debt and the fact it is going to be difficult to get it so that

by 2020 it is down to 120%, which is what lies behind the haircut of

the Bond holders and so on, I think to have some straight talking about

the possibilities and impossibilities... I am going to

come on to Greece as a specific case, I it and just looking at the

eurozone as a whole at the moment. Is the policy not to be ticket

eurozone intact, because if it does begin to split up or free at the

edges, it will throw Europe into the deep recession which will drag

us down? I don't agree with that at all. The only way forward for the

euro-zone is to be realistic and to lose two or three countries and try

and stabilised the rest. I think in public, at the British government

shouldn't say anything at all, they shouldn't say anything that could

be construed as damaging or difficult, so the safest thing is

to say nothing. In private, they should be giving straight, honest

advice, and the honest financial and economic advice you have to

give is that the scheme is now doing enormous destruction to jobs

and the social fabric and the economic life of several states

within the euro-zone, the sooner they are allowed out, the better,

we can get on with adjusting and we can start to rescue the wider

European economy. Our policy should be to shut up? Publicly. That is

what Nicolas Sarkozy told us to do, I'm glad you're align itself with

the outgoing French President! are deliberately missed a string

what I said. I was saying that we should say anything in public that

could be construed as unhelpful, but in private, we should not shut

up, we are a full member of the wider EU. We should say this is not

working, there is now Meechan the distraught -- mutually assured

austerity, a circle which has been created, and it needs to be broken.

If they allowed Greece and Portugal out, it would start be process of

recovery. Sharon Bowles, is it inevitable that Greece will

default? Angela Merkel hinted at that? I think unless we pull

something out of the bag now, it is looking that way. There are few

other things we can try first, for example getting the ECB to

participate in their hair cut on the bonds, because it bought the

bonds at less than full value, so the notional profit it has got and

it could be put into the pot. might be illegal under the

Maastricht treaty. They're not meant to be bailing out European

governments. The profit element, there is 30% to spare, I am not

sure that would make it illegal. And there are possibilities, the

question is again with it is big enough to get down to something

that is sustainable. We have got it a little bit in the UK as well,

because of all the austerity that is around, it does feed off one

another in adjacent countries. It depresses growth, and we cannot

actually get out of the problems we Let me bring John Redwood back in.

Should Britain be giving more money to the IMF, which looks like it

will be coming for a cash call to its members, a lot of which it

wants to use to help the EC and the euro this -- ECB and the European

Union burlap eurozone? He should make this has the option available

for as normal purposes. -- it should make this subscription. You

can't have appropriate monetary action, so we should say to the IMF,

do not waste your money on this, and I agree with good Osborne when

he says we should not be bailing out currencies. -- George Osborne.

Greece is to the euro area as California is to America. Should we

pony up our share if it comes knocking on our door?

I think I half agree with what is being said. We should be looking at

trying to assist countries and we should be trying to make sure we do

contribute to the IMF for its programmes and, without earmarking.

I don't think that is the idea, and you should not contribute to

something earmark. Everybody has to get realistic about what is

possible and impossible. And how far will Germany go, we cannot

carry on as we are at the moment. If we drip-feed money in it becomes

many wasted. Should a money be going in or shouldn't it be a pity

that the dock if the Germans will not dig into their deeper pockets,

why should we? We have to look at how it is done,

whether it is the most effective way and gives us something big

enough to effect the proper rescue. If it is another bit of drip-

feeding, I think we have a right to to voice if we feel we are cynical

about it. That is where it is important we are in the room.

If even Sharon Bowles and Angola Meckel, probably the two most

powerful woman in Europe, -- Angela Merkel, are saying Greece could

default, it seems that will happen. I agree, it seems it will. I agree

with John Redwood. We should just stay silent on the international

picture. I don't think David Cameron is highly regarded in

Europe. After his rather dramatic walkout which played well with his

backbenchers, which went down very badly in Europe, also he belongs to

a strange group within Europe that is far right of the central group

so he doesn't hold any authority there.

At least he is there this year, Nicolas Sarkozy might not be.

have considerable influence and authority if we wish to use it. We

must use it for sensible economic policies. Europe is locked into a

dreadful deflation. The crisis has only been going on

for three years. I'm sure we will be back.

Last night the House of Lords inflicted another defeat on the

Government's welfare reforms. This time there was a proposal to charge

estranged parents �100 to use the services of the Child Support

Agency to settled out maintenance disputes. The government was

defeated by 270, to 278, the biggest rebellion by far. Among the

rebels with 34 Conservative Peers. Lord Lawson, thank you for joining

us. Why did you rebel? This was an issue on a bill which

as a whole I strongly support, and I strongly support the benefit cat

which the great majority of the British people do, but this was a

particular provision where people had -- where the government had

clearly got it wrong. James McKay, a man of great calibre, who work

worked with closely in government, he was Lord Chancellor and there

was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he sought to put it right and I

supported him as a number of others did.

What about the argument the Lords is now, particularly on welfare

reforms, overstepping his role. As you said yourself there is huge

public support for the welfare bill and the welfare reforms. Do you

really have a right to vote down a part of key government proposals

even if you said it is wrong, is this what the Lords should be

doing? Absolutely. We have a duty as a

revising chamber and that is what we are doing. On the welfare cap,

the benefit cap, there was one defeat for the government, which I

supported the government and the government are absolutely right,

crazy Lib Dem rebellion. What about the aspects that have

been voted down, is there a risk that the Government's welfare bill

is actually doing some damage to the modernising image, there will

be part of the population that you them as too cruel?

I don't think we wanted about image and all that sort of thing. What is

important is to get the policy right, get the legislation right,

avoid it to cut back on a necessary public expenditure, at a time of

great economic difficulty, and large does it -- budget deficit,

and have a welfare scheme which encourages people to work, but

helps those who for whatever reason cannot work to get the policy right.

That is what is important. I think all this Blairite obsession of

image is rather sickening. What about the talk of rebellious

behaviour hastening the time of the House of Lords? There is no need

for a great reform of the House of Lords, unless you address the

question of the power to the House of Lords. At the moment the powers

are minimal. It is doing its best and you saw last night, did a very

good job in checking the government where it had got something wrong.

There is a strong case for increasing the powers of the second

chamber, as in the United States, more like two houses which have

roughly equal powers. If you are going to have that you both have to

be democratically elected, no doubt about that. If that is not on offer

there will be no increase whatever in the minimal powers of the House

of Lords. All you can do is get people of calibre, people who have

the Independent -- independence that comes from life Kenya and let

them do their best. A six defeats this year and still don't eerie,

not going well for the government in the second chamber. Could this

be heavier strengthen the Government's intention to put flesh

through reform -- behaviour. For the House of Lords the

coalition has threatened to be guilty of sweeping away appointed

Piers and having hundreds of them thrown out. For as long as there

has been House of Lords there has been those keen to be supported.

For Nick Clegg it is to be polished for a modern democratic age.

Prime Minister I -- and I are clear, we won the reforms to the upper

chamber to take place in 2015. But while we know what we want to

achieve, we are open-minded about how we get there. We propose an

upper House made up of 300 members. Each eligible for a single term of

three parliaments. One of the problems that has always dogged

Lords reform is that it is like those domestic jobs you have that

you might like to do, perhaps ought to do, but is this the time, there

are more pressing things to be getting on with? One thing that

might dog this specific attempt to reform the Lords is there is now

public appetite for accountability, and for politicians that haven't

just spent a great power lives doing this, but have done a real

job before and -- spent their entire lives. That is the kind of

peer that might be got rid of in an elected House. You are being fooled

by the publicity some might like to persuade we are all independent,

most of us are retired has been politicians, we do the work there.

Of course there are some people with expertise that come in and

vote on issues it they are interested in that they are not

their most of the town. The lofty ideal is elections give

even the most ordinary people a voice. Critics say party politics

sucks Independent out of the system. There will be more independent of

party them there is now, but we will have a responsibility to the

public to listen to what they are saying. He could always get that if

you have a strong party whip in the Commons -- you don't always get

that. Controversial Bills are driven through without the voice of

the public being heard. Are those against elections against reform?

There is no way to sit, it is as bad as that, like Ryanair. We don't

need more than about 600. There ought to be a method of retirement,

with dignity, they should also be a way in which the laws can expel a

member. All of those reforms of fine, just not elections.

Definitely not. The Baroness will be policed, privately many things

these reforms will fail. -- many think. The way it has been behaving

recently, the Govan will not want some great big bills next year the

Lords can forever -- the government. We are joined by the constitutional

affairs minister Mark Harper. Are there voting for Christmas coming

soon? The real issue and we have seen this in the debates this year,

it does batter who makes the rules in this country and in the 21st

century laws should be made by people who are elected. Most

politicians in the House of Lords at the moment our party

representatives, there are crossbenchers, the most a party

representatives. The most common for my job is Member of Parliament.

What about all the crossbenchers, the numbers of people who have had

other lives and our expert in their areas? That is why that is a good

argument put in our proposals we proposed an 80% elected House of

Lords proposing to keep 20% crossbenchers so you can have that

range of people who did come with a party political point.

When will it happen, when will you bring this forward? We want to do

it, the date is to make sure we get the first elections in 2015. When

is the bill coming forward? As soon as we can. We have published a

draft bill which is being scrutinised by a joint committee.

We want to listen to what they have got to say, they are doing a

serious job, then we will look at what they have to say and bring

forward our proposals in due course. How helpful are these defeats?

House of Lords clearly is involved in making the law. The message for

the public is if you take the view these are important issues and they

matter to people and clearly the big debate we have seen on the cap

on benefits shows it really matters to people, everyday people in their

everyday lives, those decisions should be taken by people elected,

not appointed. We shouldn't be making these decisions. The law

doesn't have a lot of power -- the Lords. It is our job to improve the

rather ramshackle Laws sent away from the Commons, made too quickly

and thoughtlessly with unintended consequences. We can put that right

and we can advise the Commons this would improve the bill and they

very often agree. Did you do it with half the numbers? I think it

is cutting it to find. It should be reformed, there are about 800

members. 500 turn up regularly and take it seriously. 500 is good, and

if everyone does find a seat, and they carry the most amazing range

of expertise. They are not locked into short-term outlook, they can

take a long-term view of how it will work. It is simply advising

the Commons. You can push through this legislation, you said you are

going to, so what is the problem? The Commons can get its own way and

we are not proposing to change that, but the fact is, the Lords can

block legislation if it wants to and can delay it. It can by being

able to lay it force decisions on the Commons. This isn't just an

advisory chamber, they don't just turn the offer an opinion, and say

take-it-or-leave-it. You can get into some real arguments. This is

about the law of our land, be made by people elected by the public.

You would be happy if they were elected them they could be more

forceful in terms of their disagreements. They would be more

legitimate. If you ask the public, most people think people who make

laws should be elected. Only 6% the public think it should stay as it

is. If you have to Eddie Chambers, which one pulls rank? If you have

elected Lords they will be far more assertive and wish to impose their

will on the Commons and that will be a really important...

You will have to bodies doing similar things, there will not be -

- they will not be different -- easy to differentiate. We wanted

you what is good about the Lords, a long, single, non-renewable terms.

Different electoral system, and they will be elected entrenches,

not at one go. The Parliament Act will ultimately mean done 2% elated

House of Commons will get its own way that people in the Lords will

be more legitimate. Do people care enough about this?

The real issue is, do they care about what the Lords decide? This

week was a good example, making decisions about important issues

like the benefits cap which the government -- the population care

about. Do the people that make the decisions, are they elected and

listen to the public? While we have been debating these

issues it has been first Minister's Questions in Edinburgh. The

Holyrood parliament. We will be looking at that in a moment. We

will be looking at political You're watching the Daily Politics.

We are joined by viewers in Scotland and have been watching

First Minister's questions from Hollywood. Alex Salmond has been

uttering questions on the future of prosperity or otherwise of an

independent Scotland. -- answering questions. The reality is that

people of this country want confidence in their pensions, their

mortgages and their future. Scotland would emerge as an

independent country with the 6th highest wealth per head in the

Organisation of economic co- operation and Development. That in

itself is not the argument for independence. The argument for

Independent is self-determination. But given we would be the 6th most

prosperous country in the developed world, most people in Scotland will

have some degree of confidence in Scotland's ability not just to

survive, but prosper as a socially just, economically progressive

society. We can now talk to Ascot and political editor. -- out

Scotland political editor. It seems that despite the fact meeting still

have to go ahead with Westminster politicians, Alex Salmond has gone

ahead and published his preferred question anyway, is that a tactic?

He is trying to steer matters in his way. The way I think this is

going to go is that Alex Salmond is adamant about the timing, he once

the referendum in the autumn of 2014. I think he wants -- will get

his way. The only way the British government can print that is to

hold a referendum of their own, and they don't want to do that. I think

Alex Salmond get his weight on autumn 2014 but the UK government

get their way on a single question. Alex Salmond wants that single

question on independence, the wording will be a straightforward

question. He wants the idea of a back-up question, the UK government

says no to that. The UK government hold the strings to a large extent,

and Alex Salmond except that if he wants a referendum on independence,

he has to get back to trade off. Alex Salmond will get his date, the

UK government get their questions. So it sounds like everybody is

happy? There is a lot of talking to go! The concept of happiness in

Scottish politics, they don't really go together! Quite right!

They don't often go together! So when other talks scheduled with

the Prime Minister? They are having discussions tomorrow, but the

secretary of state unfortunately has chickenpox will stop my

sympathy to him, I hope he gets better, but it has been deferred to

next week. After those preliminary discussions, we will then have

discussions between Alex Salmond and the Prime Minister. Thank you.

We will be coming back a lot, don't go away! A lot more to come there!

If you're young and looking for work, think you will know it is

almost as hard to get work experience as to get an actual job.

The demand is so high up to companies are charging people for

work experience. That striker you pay for it! Youngsters often paying

more than �100 a day, so that is going to help you if you come from

an ordinary background, isn't it! That is going to help social

mobility a lot. With even MPs using free labour dressed up as work

experience, our Sunday politics West reporter has been

investigating. Students know how important it is

to get work experience. Without it, you have basically little or no

chance of getting a job. So how far would they go? Would you pay to get

work experience? Not sure about that! Personally, no, I don't pick

it is really worth it, doing something they want you to do.

it was needed to get into the job, then yes. Because that is the only

way to get into it. This Somerset company takes a fee for putting

people in touch with small businesses. They will provide

experience and training so long as you pay for it. A we're providing

people with an opportunity to put information on their CV. If you

want to get work experience for a large company or a bank, it is

reasonable that these multinationals have a

responsibility and will provide this training for free. If you look

at smaller companies, where you have one or two people in the

business, typically they don't provide training because they don't

have the money or resources. does run other businesses. If you

want experience as a copywriter with him committee will have to pay.

You think you're worth that person paying that much a day? I don't

really think �130 is frankly enough for somebody to get the kind of

experience they can get here, to be honest. Graham is a photographer in

Gloucestershire. You can get a day with him for �95. What they will

get is my experience of 35 years in this industry, where I can guide

them and showed them the aspects of the industry that might be relevant.

Also, they will put more value on it if they have invested some of

the money into that. It is not the sort of thing I'm doing to make

money out of, because I would normally charge a lot more than

that for a day. But critics say paying for work experience means it

is not open to everyone. De Deputy Prime Minister himself says

internships call-back social mobility, even though Westminster

is awash with them. All political parties have been running offices

on the efforts of underpaid or none paid people for far too long.

MP has gone further. Paying out of her own pocket to help youngsters

get on the jobs ladder. I do have a large number of people, not in

terms, they are work experience. I have had over 40 young people

through my office doing work experience in the last year. I pay

for their lunches and travel out of my personal money, not the

taxpayers' money, not party money, it is my own pocket. I think it is

a fantastic opportunity for young people to actually see what it is

like. For the student, then, some tough decisions ahead, not least

how much they would pay for work experience.

We are joined by the Lib Dem and Pete Annette Brooke, and the

director of the Institute of economic Affairs. You pay your

intones? I do, I have an in first - - advertisement, I should say that

money is coming out of the public purse, because it comes out of my

staff budget. You charge it as part of your expenses? Per person

becomes a salaried person within the House of Commons. But those who

are going to be been turns working in your constituency, did they get

paid? A not necessarily come up we have a mix of people. If we have a

full-blown in turn, that is always within a training programme, so we

make sure there is a support package around. Do they get the

minimum wage? We have to make sure we cover expenses a folly. The if

you are from a poor background, you cannot afford to take that.

have to live. Expenses alone, you are already narrowing down the

social final of people who can do this? I am individual try to do the

best I can come up because I passionately believe in giving the

opportunity to young people, and all young people, at that. So I do

my best within the context that I can, and for Westminster, I think

since the end of 2008, I have been advertising, only at minimum wage,

I wish there could be more, but I do think that gives real

opportunity for young people to give a bit of a mix. But Nick Clegg,

who has made a big deal of this, because of the potential

implications for social mobility, he benefited hugely, because he's

father gave him a placement in a finish back -- in a Finnish bank.

The Lib Dems are still advertising for internas, but with only travel

expenses. We have a code of practice, and everybody is being

encouraged to do what they can. All power to his elbow, he has

recognised he had advantages. I can only talk for myself. But you have

made this an issue, and you were doing the best you can. Have you

made representations to your party to stop being hypocritical, and

practise what Nick Clegg preaches in his speeches? My party knows my

views are very well! I have a long background of supporting young

people, particularly in business as well. I realised today that I have

supported Young Enterprise Inns called for over 40 years. We need

to move forward, and Nick Clegg has done the right thing. So why are

you only advertising for them getting travel expenses only? Your

party put you up today as a spokesperson for your party.

need to look at the context within all particles -- parties. We are

not auctioning places within my party, that I'm sure of. Work

experience and internships, when they first started, they were seen

as a way of getting people into the work environment, getting a sense

of what they want to do. They have actually turned out to be a gift

for the privilege, haven't they? Well-connected folk get their kids

in, and they pay for them because they can afford to, and did you

have just come out of a decent comprehensive in Scunthorpe, you

have no chance of getting on to this gravy-train -- if you have a.

I basically agree with you, if you're well connected and have

affluent parents, when you leave school, you are going to be in a

better position than if you haven't and you have just left a

comprehensive school in Scunthorpe. I think that while we don't want to

see nepotism to that degree, I think Nick Clegg is right, we have

got to be a bit careful before we are against networking. At the

Institute of economic Affairs, we get dozens of youngsters saying,

can I come in for a few weeks over the summer? We have to turn down

most of them the space reasons. It would wait with me if somebody said,

this chap is really good, I think it is reasonable to take -- bear in

mind those things. We have to have a self- denying ordinance in that

regard. But do you? You cannot allow them away in? We pick on

quality. You can go to our website, open advertisements. Do you pay?

You have the same problem. We have a real problem with the minimum

wage, which I think is also helping affluent people. Why is that?

Because it is not worth me paying �6.80 an hour, we would rather not

have an there than pay than that amount, but that means we have to

pay than 0. If you have affluent parents, you can probably afford

that. You are living at home in Surrey. We cannot pay them at three

or �4 an hour. I think one should make every effort to pay. I admit

there is a bias with regard to my Westminster position, because the

person has to be able to live in London. I don't know why you were

mentioning comprehensives, I'm very proud of my daughters went to the

local comprehensive, but it is particularly with the schools that

we need to start this business, we need business opportunities locally

for those that can't travel, and full engagement across the board

with education and business, something I have always tried to

make an important thing. We are looking at the structural problem

of youth unemployment and we have got to find those opportunities, I

think we should all be pulling together to do the best we can.

Hazel Blears has come up with this scheme whereby she has raised a lot

of money through her own efforts, and through the help of some people,

they have brought in a lot of people who were not in turns, they

are working for MPs, they are on a decent wage, the living wage, which

is more than the minimum wage, and getting some expenses, and they

help of accommodation. They have brought in people from all sorts of

backgrounds that you wouldn't expect to be doing these jobs.

Isn't that the way to go? I think it is one of many ways to go. Very

laudable, and I praised the scheme greatly. We are trying to make as

wide access as possible, and you try all routes. Are you ashamed to

the dutiful grandson work experience? I paid my grandson!

he had to be your grandson! I paid him, and if there are so many

shades of opinion, and variables in this matter, it opens up all sorts

of injustices, and opportunities. There is the opportunity for

someone who is well connected by family, when I needed some help,

and a paid him more than the minimum wage, but on the other hand,

why should companies not pay their employees? If they are using people

as employees, they should pay them. If they can't afford to pay them,

shouldn't be employing them. they're not really employees if

they are coming in as work experience at? It is called low

level secretarial help, it can be very happy for. -- helpful. I can

see it looks like exploitation, but here, we put on a huge range of

events for our students, with professors the road leading

academics, we send them away... That is an apprenticeship. Should

be charged for that? Or would it be There is the whole scale of

apprenticeships, a young people deserve opportunities, they don't

deserve to buy into it because they have got rich parents.

We will be fit there. We have come a little while from

the days when the Tories at their fund-raising events optioned work

experience. Thank you. How would you feel about paying

your tax if you have every hardened pad well spent? Interesting. The MP,

Ben Gummer, thinks we are being set -- kept in the dark and he is

talking about getting an itemised and a statement.

What I propose is very simple. The government should tell us how much

we pay tax and where it goes. He should do so as close as possible

to the Chancellor's Budget statement and to the end of the tax

year, and her Majesty's Customs and revenue should provide to each

person who pays income tax and national insurance statement to

that in fact -- to that effect. We would not think about paying a bill

in a supermarket or setting up a mobile phone to erect them that if

we did receive an itemised receipt in change -- mobile phone direct

debit. We get nothing, a notable account of how much we have paid,

no detail whatsoever of where it has gone. I would say, there are

far more important issues we should be changing about the way

expenditure in this country is made, is revealed to the taxpayers. Not

least because in this House we do an extremely bad job of analysing

We are joined by Ben Gummer he we saw in that clip introducing his

bill and Ben page. Ben Gummer, Festival, it would be fascinating

to have an itemised breakdown but wouldn't it have the consequence

nobody would want to pay it when they saw where it all went?

never have done samples they are amazed by some of the things, the

differences in where the money goes. Someone on average earnings,

�26,000 per year, �2,100 goes to pensions and benefits, �1,000 to

the NHS, and then roads and railways get about �70 each. That

kind of massive differential people don't recognise if they come out of

it straight away without actually seeing the tax statement. What

people get best upset about? Is it the actual areas or the amounts?

Both. A lot of the things that we pick up on the doorstep as Members

of Parliament that all the money is going to Africa and Europe, Trident,

whatever somebody's bed there is, it turned out to be miniscule

amounts of money compared with the big guns by pensions, aged hundred

pounds and rising. The government will not go for that, seeing

itemise bills so people can figure out who is getting what? President

Obama has done it in the White House you can go online and get a

receipt. Number 10 said they were very supportive and the Chancellor

was behind it to a good happen quickly.

What public opinion be behind it? They would, they like the idea of

transparency. People always say if you're looking at their tax bill

and you can look at local authority council tax, they absolutely want

to know, it is one of the things they are most interested in, where

does it go? As Ben has rarely illustrated people are deluded

about how much goes into different areas.

We do get that breakdown from local councils and a good read it

carefully enough, actually, to see. -- and they did read it. Would

people take enough notice? everybody would look at it but a

lot more people would. One difference is in a country I leave

relied on centralised taxation you cancel tax isn't that much of your

income. This is a large part of your income and they would be very

interested. Maybe you could tick the box, would you be allowed to

move it around? Would there be any option? What

would you like to see? A I would like to withdraw my contribution to

Trident, he however small it might be, not keen on war, I would like

money back, happy about roads and the NHS and education. Steamy as

much as you like on those issues. What would follow from the popular

engagement would be you can actually specify and you can ask to

opt out of certain payments and begin to shape how your money is

spent, a dead pig is possible but am sure people long to do that once

Basie -- I do not think is possible. People to make decisions, and half

the population just say it this is ultimately what I choose

politicians to do for may. If you force people to make really tough

choices, the sort of policies Cabinet have to make -- the sort of

choices Cabinet have to make, half were not to it. -- will not do it.

Even when asked to bridges spending and they will, people will put it

up on things they care about like young people. It would be

interesting for the government did you see where people in terms of

numbers would like to spend more money, perhaps, as well as less

money or no money. We are already having discussion. It actually

generate democratic discussion. Politics are talking -- but you

just talking about Chileans, that his understanding -- people talking

about trillions, that is out side the understanding of many. On the

issues the House of Lords are looking out, billions of pounds,

taxpayers can make a real understanding of what it DLA means.

Will result in people paying -- paying less tax? One anxiety, the

high proportion of pensions bulkiness print-out, is that they

might create a backlash against the old. I take people to say let's cut

the pensions, they are old. It is an expanding part of that

population, you think it would be understandable. Younger people

might feel too much of my money is going to these old people, they

don't deserve it. They don't vote. It depends how you feel about young

people. The sixteen-year-old, you have got to regenerate an interest

in the politics. How quickly do you think it might come in? He said it

could be adopted, you sounded optimistic? It is very easy to do.

Very cheap. Cheaper than what has good does it every week with its

Clubcard members. Incredibly easy to do this, personal statement, the

technology is there. Their sponsor the have Repsol it is free, he

could happen within months. -- let's sponsored the envelope so it

is free. You have got it all worked out.

Have you enjoyed listening to the velvety tones of our guests, Joan

Bakewell? It has been reported she is too posh for some programmes. I

thought she would definitely be to push for this lot here. She has

been told her accent means she will not get work in the BBC. I don't

believe that for a moment. Anyway, does it matter how you speak these

days? As a political commentator or politician? Here is our report on

political pipes. In this game voice is everything,

but some politicians have had a few vocal difficulties. Tony Blair knew

what Joan Bakewell has been talking about, he famously dropped his

It is it is a wonderful pleasure to be back here with you will.

Research from Canada shows voters like their leaders to have deep

voices. Alison Margaret Thatcher learned from her speech coach,

compare and contrast these clips from the beginning and end -- a

lesson. We must now stand together and fight for the things in which

we all believe, they are more important than any of us

individually. We wanted the European Parliament to be the

democratic body of the community. The commission to be the executive,

and the Council of Ministers to be All were no amount of voice

coaching could help. -- could help one of her successors. Do not

underestimate the determination of a quiet man. Critics of the Labour

leader Ed Miliband say it is not volume that is a problem for him,

but the fact he sounds quite nasal. He has eased -- even had surgery on

his nose. He claims that was for breathing problems. I had a

deviated septum and it needed repositioning, typical Labour

leader, as soon as he is elected As they don't say, all politics is

local. We are joined by the first coach,

Barbara Berkery, who worked on the film, The King's Speech. -- a voice

coach. I didn't work on that film, but are normally work with Geoffrey

Rush, I worked on Shakespeare in Love. We would eschew the research,

we have got too many, anyway. Politicians who have changed their

accents most. Margaret Thatcher. She had elocution lessons at school.

She demanded as herself. Probably to get rid of the Midlands accent,

Grantham accent. Then it was thought to become too posh, and she

had voice lessons to change back. The thing about her, within the

time period she was, she would have had a normal at some when she came

from then everybody tries to lose their accents as they climbed up

the greasy pole. Everybody. You did that, didn't you? My mother wanted

me to get on the world and she semi- to elocution lessons.

were in Stockport. -- sent me. Stockport, south Lancashire.

Certainly not posh. Why are people who have elocution lessons like

Joan Bakewell or as Sue Lawley or that Arctic critic we had on. --

art critic. How do the end up sounding more posh than posh

people? Because they are learning something and it is not becoming

part of their being. When I work with actors we spend a lot of time

each -- learning each sound individually, where you plated,

where your tongue does so it becomes part of you. When it

becomes on top of you, painted on, it sounds unnatural because it has

not become an integrated part of you.

Do politicians consciously still change their accents? There is such

a variety now on broadcasting does it matter as much? I think it does.

Add 1 point it was all regional accents which is very popular, --

at one point. It is all fashion, it goes on all the time. We had Gordon

Brown when he became Prime Minister, he tried to lose a lot of his

Scottish accent. Absolutely remarkable difference. I never

noticed that. You have never tried to lose yours? No. The Scottish and

Welsh a privileged as it is an a loud accent you have. The English

cannot distinguish Scottish accent. This is to do with class, deciding

which lay you come from and got his people .. It is pretty clear Alex

Ferguson is not an aristocrat. is to do with the words he uses.

Most of the aristocrats left Scotland a long time ago and they

didn't look after their people. are reading the long -- a long

history books, they are everywhere. The Duke of the glue, Duke of

Hamilton pulled up you go Paisley., We could do that this all day.

Thank you to our guests, thank you I will be back tonight with Alain