:00:40. > :00:43.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. The Prime Minister
:00:43. > :00:47.is back in Brussels for the first time since wielding to the Dell
:00:47. > :00:52.last month, but has his stance on the deal agreed by the rest of the
:00:52. > :00:58.EU softened? RBS boss Stephen Hester forgoes his �1 million bonus,
:00:58. > :01:02.but he and other bosses could still be in line for millions more. When
:01:02. > :01:07.our Conservative Home Secretary announced a 20% cut to police, she
:01:07. > :01:10.got a stony reception from officers, so will they be won over by the
:01:10. > :01:15.compromise announced today? And could last summer's riots have been
:01:15. > :01:21.prevented if parents felt free to smack their children? The Labour MP
:01:21. > :01:25.for Tottenham thinks CO, so should the law be changed? -- thinks so.
:01:25. > :01:28.All that in the next 60 minutes, and with me today is for Mark
:01:28. > :01:32.policy wonk Matthew Taylor, who is now chief executive of the Royal
:01:32. > :01:37.Society for the encouragement of Arts, manufactures and Commerce,
:01:37. > :01:41.the RSA. First this morning, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced
:01:41. > :01:45.plans for reform of police forces in England and Wales. The original
:01:46. > :01:49.proposals were to have saved �1 billion, but after a backlash from
:01:49. > :01:52.police officers, the Government has gone with a compromise deal.
:01:52. > :01:56.Theresa May also announced plans to give communities tougher powers to
:01:56. > :02:02.tackle antisocial behaviour. This is what she had to say earlier.
:02:02. > :02:06.Since the 1970s, pays systems and the private and wider public sector
:02:07. > :02:10.have changed to recognise and reward specialist skills. The most
:02:10. > :02:16.productive employees are paid more, incentives are used to improve
:02:16. > :02:20.performance. But in the police that does not happen enough. Skills,
:02:20. > :02:24.performance and successful crime- fighting are not rewarded. Time-
:02:24. > :02:29.servers still determines how well most police officers are paid. --
:02:29. > :02:32.Times served. I do not think that is right. I am joined by the
:02:32. > :02:37.chairman of the Police Federation, which represents police officers.
:02:37. > :02:41.Thank you for joining us today. pleasure. We heard from Theresa May
:02:41. > :02:44.about reform of how police are paid, and she said that some would be
:02:44. > :02:49.disappointed. Bearing that in mind, when you accept what she is
:02:50. > :02:53.proposing? We respect the fact she has honoured the police arbitration
:02:53. > :02:59.tribunal, but there is still �160 million being taken out of police
:02:59. > :03:02.officers' pockets, and when you put this alongside the pay freeze and
:03:02. > :03:06.other pay that has been taken out of our pockets, it is not the most
:03:06. > :03:10.attractive situation. Whatever Theresa May says about police
:03:10. > :03:15.reform, the bottom line here is that the police budget has been cut
:03:15. > :03:17.by up to one third, 30% is the amount we are losing from our
:03:17. > :03:22.budget with inflationary considerations over the next four
:03:22. > :03:28.years. This is part of it. You feel you have been harder hit than other
:03:28. > :03:31.public sectors. We accept what she is proposing? We are bound by the
:03:31. > :03:34.arbitration decision anyway, and we said that when it was announced,
:03:34. > :03:37.but we are disappointed that we are going through a process which has
:03:37. > :03:40.taken even more money out of our pay than elsewhere in the public
:03:40. > :03:44.sector. There is a schizophrenia about some of the things she said
:03:44. > :03:49.today. She said it is a choice between having our pace oppressed
:03:49. > :03:53.and reduced, or losing jobs, and yet in the last year alone we have
:03:53. > :03:56.lost 7,000 jobs across the country, and that is in the first year of
:03:56. > :04:00.cuts that will go on for another three and a half years. Not all
:04:00. > :04:03.officers would lose pay. What she is saying is that there would be a
:04:03. > :04:07.restructuring, to provide incentives for officers with
:04:07. > :04:10.special skills, those working antisocial hours and poor people to
:04:10. > :04:15.have incentives on the front line. Those who do not do those things
:04:15. > :04:18.will be paid last. That sounds a fairer division of the money.
:04:18. > :04:22.if police officers have autonomy of what they do and where they work,
:04:22. > :04:26.and as most people in the public will know, we do not have complete
:04:26. > :04:29.control over the job we perform within the service. We joined the
:04:29. > :04:33.service and are directed to where we work, and so some officers will
:04:33. > :04:36.find themselves being moved from one post which is given one level
:04:36. > :04:40.of pay and then moved to another post where they are finding a
:04:40. > :04:44.reduction through no fault of their own. We think that is unfair and
:04:44. > :04:48.does not recognise the realities of policing in Britain today.
:04:48. > :04:53.question there is, if you take on board some of the reforms, you were
:04:53. > :04:58.never going to support pay cuts for your offices, where you? As I said,
:04:58. > :05:03.we are already facing what are, in effect, a cuts of the next few
:05:03. > :05:07.years. We accept that, and we are one of the few parts of the public
:05:07. > :05:11.sector has accepted that there needs to be cuts, up to 12%, we
:05:11. > :05:16.said, but we are seeing cuts that go way beyond that, and it is not
:05:16. > :05:19.good for the police service, as we heard the chief constables say over
:05:20. > :05:23.the weekend. He said his forces facing a cliff edge, and it is not
:05:23. > :05:27.good for the public either. It is putting public safety at risk,
:05:27. > :05:31.these massive cuts. But you do accept the force has to be
:05:31. > :05:36.modernised. Theresa May said it had not been reforms in the 1970s.
:05:36. > :05:38.is not true, we have been through pay reforms of the last decade, and
:05:38. > :05:42.some of the revisions that have been proposed in the Winsor Report
:05:42. > :05:45.are actually old-fashioned provisions, not modernisation of
:05:45. > :05:50.police pay at all. It is actually setting officers against officers.
:05:50. > :05:53.It is also going to have rode the trust in police officers as well.
:05:53. > :05:56.Police officers, if they're going to be paid for performance, there
:05:56. > :06:00.will be a suspicion that if they are stopped by the police, that
:06:00. > :06:03.they are being reported not because they feel they should be, but
:06:03. > :06:09.because the officer might get a bonus. That cannot be a good thing
:06:09. > :06:13.in policing. It is something we should not have. Matthew Taylor,
:06:13. > :06:19.people and said the police is the one and reformed public service. Do
:06:19. > :06:24.you agree with that? Absolutely. It was a running joke when I worked at
:06:24. > :06:27.Number Ten, I would always churned up, what about the great unreformed
:06:27. > :06:30.public service, the police? Everyone else would look at me as
:06:30. > :06:34.if I was off my head because of the problems politically about being
:06:34. > :06:37.seen to take on the police. So actually acting the coalition are
:06:37. > :06:40.right to be trying to reform the police, and everything we are
:06:40. > :06:44.discussing now is about the new economic circumstances of austerity,
:06:44. > :06:48.and I think the police may have been able to fight as hard a few
:06:48. > :06:51.years ago, but now, just like the chief executive of RBS, we are
:06:51. > :06:54.recognising we are in a different climate. If you look as though you
:06:54. > :06:59.are unwilling to be inflexible and the face of the pain everyone is
:06:59. > :07:02.suffering, you lose legitimacy. There is an irony that at the time
:07:02. > :07:06.when conditions were no more benign, you argue it would have been hard
:07:06. > :07:10.at... No question in my mind that one of the failings of New Labour
:07:10. > :07:14.in government was that it did not take on the police. It was too
:07:14. > :07:19.frightened, and that is because if you are left of centre, you feel
:07:20. > :07:23.more vulnerable in terms of being tough on crime, yes. The emergence
:07:23. > :07:27.of a German plan to send an EU official to Athens to oversee Greek
:07:27. > :07:30.budget plans has highlighted the deep divisions that remain in
:07:30. > :07:34.Europe over how to deal with their huge national debt. The Greeks have
:07:34. > :07:37.rejected the idea, and they are still big questions about how
:07:37. > :07:42.Greece and other stricken countries are going to resolve the problems.
:07:42. > :07:45.A summer of EU leaders takes place today in Brussels. -- Summit. Once
:07:45. > :07:49.again, they will be concentrating on the eurozone crisis and the
:07:49. > :07:54.search for economic growth. They will also focus on bespoke union,
:07:54. > :07:58.new deficit and debt rules for the single currency. Most member states
:07:58. > :08:02.are expected to sign up to a new budget treaty, but not the UK. Back
:08:02. > :08:07.in December, David Cameron shocked the rest of the EU by opting out of
:08:07. > :08:10.negotiations for a fiscal pact. At the time, he highlighted the legal
:08:10. > :08:14.difficulties of countries that signed the pact using EU
:08:14. > :08:19.institutions like the European Court of Justice. But it is now
:08:19. > :08:21.reported that he will allow the ECJ to oversee any agreement. Yesterday
:08:22. > :08:28.the Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, made clear he
:08:28. > :08:31.thought the veto was still in place. The Prime Minister vetoed, use of
:08:31. > :08:34.the institutions, and he said that was because he had no guarantees
:08:34. > :08:37.that what they were proposing would not damage the single market or,
:08:37. > :08:40.for that matter, would cause problems to the financial sector.
:08:40. > :08:44.We do not know what they are coming forward with yet, they have not
:08:44. > :08:49.completed their treaty and are not anywhere near signing it. We do not
:08:49. > :08:52.know everyone will go down that road with them. If with us now is
:08:52. > :08:57.the Conservative MP Douglas Carswell and Liberal Democrat per
:08:57. > :09:01.year Lord Oakeshott. Welcome to the programme. Hearing his position
:09:01. > :09:04.there, is it in your understanding that David Cameron has decided he
:09:04. > :09:08.is not going to block the institutions being used to
:09:08. > :09:12.implement this new fiscal union? gather that is the case. I hoped to
:09:12. > :09:15.be able to come on air and say this was something frightfully clever,
:09:15. > :09:19.us going along with the idea that the other 26 members should form a
:09:19. > :09:21.fiscal union, take the institutions with them, but I'm afraid to say
:09:21. > :09:25.that the more I hear about the small print, the more it is
:09:25. > :09:30.beginning to look as if it is back to business as usual, ministers and
:09:30. > :09:34.mandarins making decisions. I think it underlines why it is vital now
:09:34. > :09:37.that we have a referendum and let the people decide. I thought the
:09:37. > :09:41.whole idea was that it would be a way of protecting Britain's
:09:41. > :09:48.interests, otherwise what was the point of the veto? Indeed, I had
:09:48. > :09:51.hoped to be able to say that there was a point,... Bad luck! If you
:09:51. > :09:56.study the small print, it looks as if, I'm afraid to say, when you
:09:56. > :09:59.leave it to ministers and mandarins, this is what happens, and it is
:09:59. > :10:03.back to business as usual, deal- making in a backroom, the British
:10:03. > :10:06.people treated with contempt. that why a Liberal Democrat has
:10:06. > :10:11.gone on this trip to assist David Cameron? I thought you might find
:10:11. > :10:13.it helpful because Iain Duncan Smith was not speaking for the
:10:13. > :10:18.government yesterday, but I thought it might be helpful to check with
:10:18. > :10:23.Number Ten. I like to be helpful where I can! That is very good of
:10:23. > :10:26.you, Lord Oakeshott! I was told I was free to say that IDS was not in
:10:26. > :10:30.line with the position and that is separate from the Prime Minister in
:10:30. > :10:35.that view. I thought you would like to have that. Isn't that a rather
:10:35. > :10:44.complicated way of handling European relations? Indeed, but
:10:44. > :10:47.Iain Duncan Smith is a total and European. -- anti-European. I'm
:10:47. > :10:50.pleased to say that David Cameron is starting to rein him in. I have
:10:50. > :10:55.been watching what has been happening in Europe with great
:10:55. > :10:59.interest for a long time, and we see these wrangles, and even I find
:10:59. > :11:03.it too complicated. This shows why, at the end of the day, we need to
:11:03. > :11:06.put this to the people in a straightforward referendum. What
:11:06. > :11:11.should David Cameron actually do at this meeting? The last time he was
:11:11. > :11:14.there, he walked out, and we now have people like ourselves
:11:14. > :11:17.understanding something different to the Government's position.
:11:17. > :11:20.should make it absolutely clear that the fiscal union will be
:11:20. > :11:26.entirely separate from the European Union, and that if the rest of
:11:26. > :11:31.Europe wants to spin off and joined it, great, too not involve us.
:11:31. > :11:35.get a turn?! What we have seen here, and I feel sorry for Douglas
:11:35. > :11:39.Carswell, who is a principled and two European, I feel we have seen
:11:39. > :11:44.what a disastrous miscalculation it was by David Cameron to do that the
:11:44. > :11:51.dough. -- anti-European. But it was popular. It ended up in a real mess.
:11:51. > :11:55.What really matters now is that we do not block sensible measures that
:11:55. > :12:00.are going on with the Europeans and the euro, where there is a real
:12:00. > :12:05.crisis of jobs and the economy, and we should not have a dog in a
:12:05. > :12:08.manger attitude. What about measures that are taken that affect
:12:08. > :12:12.the single market, which we will now not be able to do anything
:12:13. > :12:16.about? That is one of the big dangers, and we should be improving
:12:16. > :12:20.the single market and getting free trade going again. A decade ago, we
:12:20. > :12:23.had another Prime Minister from another party promising we would
:12:23. > :12:27.have... I think they called at the Lisbon agenda, to make the most
:12:27. > :12:31.competitive part of the global economy by 2010. How did that work
:12:31. > :12:34.out? We are hearing the same rhetoric. I do not think these
:12:34. > :12:39.mutual suicide pact of the European fiscal union is in our interests,
:12:40. > :12:43.Cameron should keep us out. We are still, two years on, talking about
:12:43. > :12:47.Greece and what to do about this country which, you know, could
:12:47. > :12:50.default in a couple of months' time. Is it not feasible now to be
:12:50. > :12:54.supportive of any bail-out plan when Greece has no chance for
:12:54. > :12:57.growth? That is a separate issue where we would probably agree. I
:12:57. > :13:01.have been saying for months and months, on this programme and to
:13:01. > :13:06.anyone who would listen, that Greece has got to leave the euro,
:13:06. > :13:09.has not to devalue. There is no way out for Greece. They went in at the
:13:09. > :13:16.wrong exchange rate with figures could buy Goldman Sachs, and it is
:13:16. > :13:19.not doing anyone any favours to pretend they can. Any senior
:13:19. > :13:23.economists will tell you that Greece will have to devalue.
:13:23. > :13:27.that is not happening at the moment. It is not the main point of what is
:13:27. > :13:30.happening. Mathematics will drive against political delusion. Greece
:13:30. > :13:34.will not stay in. The British government should get behind the
:13:34. > :13:38.idea of defaulting on this unsustainable debt and the coupling
:13:39. > :13:42.of the rope. Until they do that, our closest trading partners will
:13:42. > :13:47.never return to prosperity. Withdrawal by stealth? We are
:13:47. > :13:51.talking about kicking Greece out. Just generally in terms of the
:13:51. > :13:55.position Douglas Carswell speaks about. It is not our decision, but
:13:55. > :13:57.that is what the eurozone should do. This grand Cartesian design that
:13:57. > :14:04.means that experts and technocrats have arranged the lives of millions
:14:04. > :14:07.of Europeans has not worked out. Matthew Taylor, time to bale out?
:14:07. > :14:11.The European politicians are doing the very best they can to handle
:14:11. > :14:14.this problem that was not created solely by the European Union. It is
:14:14. > :14:17.part of a bigger set of global issues. They have got massive
:14:17. > :14:21.problems with deficit in America, which has nothing to do with the
:14:21. > :14:25.European Union. I think what is interesting, apart from the idea of
:14:25. > :14:31.Number Ten encouraging people to breathe against members of the
:14:31. > :14:34.Cabinet, that didn't even happen in my time! This isn't even briefing,
:14:34. > :14:39.it is putting Iain Duncan Smith back in his box, which I'm happy to
:14:39. > :14:42.help with. It was inevitable that David Cameron was going to have to
:14:42. > :14:46.go back into Europe and adopt a more combative attitude, absolutely
:14:46. > :14:50.inevitable, because these are huge issues that affect our economy, and
:14:50. > :14:55.the idea of standing aloof in order to satisfy the appetite of people
:14:55. > :15:00.like Douglas Carswell or Iain Duncan Smith... Well, the voters!
:15:00. > :15:04.For, to be honest, the voters at a point at which we need our great
:15:04. > :15:13.minds to be resolving the issues in Europe. The idea that UK separate
:15:13. > :15:17.It looked good in December and there was support, but now,
:15:17. > :15:24.listening to Matthew Taylor... was gesture politics. The lesson to
:15:24. > :15:28.draw is that the pro-European position is discredited. It is now
:15:28. > :15:31.trust -- time to trust the people than in or out referendum. I see in
:15:32. > :15:37.the Financial Times today that you are going on about all of these
:15:37. > :15:44.people in Britain. He was a Tory Cabinet minister in Mrs Thatcher's
:15:44. > :15:49.government. He's not a raving pinko. Briefly on the IMF, George Osborne
:15:49. > :15:53.seems to have softened his stance. Do you get that feeling, in terms
:15:53. > :15:56.of increasing Britain's contribution? I read different
:15:56. > :16:00.briefs, given to different newspapers. If we are going to use
:16:00. > :16:06.the IMF to do what it should do, to create new currencies to allow
:16:06. > :16:09.Greece and others to quit the euro, I will happily vote for it. Lord
:16:09. > :16:12.Oakeshott, Douglas Carswell, thank you very much.
:16:12. > :16:16.The images of youngsters running a mock during the summer riots was
:16:16. > :16:19.blamed by some politicians and commentators on poor parenting. But
:16:19. > :16:24.could the politicians themselves be making life more difficult for
:16:24. > :16:28.parents? A law passed in 2004 made it illegal for parents to smack
:16:28. > :16:31.their children if it resulted in reddening of the skin. Tottenham MP
:16:31. > :16:36.David Lammy said that the law makes it difficult for parents to
:16:36. > :16:40.effectively punish their children. Is he right? Carol Walker is in the
:16:40. > :16:44.Central Lobby with two MPs. David Lammy, a former schools minister,
:16:44. > :16:48.has provoked quite a controversy by his comments suggesting that it was
:16:48. > :16:50.a bit unfair for many of the parents in his constituency to be
:16:51. > :16:54.told that they should not be smacking their children, many of
:16:54. > :16:59.them felt that they would have their children perhaps taken away
:16:59. > :17:04.by social workers if they did so. He feels that perhaps different
:17:04. > :17:09.standards apply to middle-class parents. I'm joined by two MPs with
:17:09. > :17:13.different views, Kevin Barron for Labour and Harriet Baldwin for the
:17:13. > :17:17.Conservatives. Can I start with you, do you think that David Lammy has a
:17:17. > :17:21.point? I think there is an issue about parents worrying about having
:17:21. > :17:26.their children taken away by social workers. But if we ban smacking
:17:26. > :17:31.altogether, like most of Europe, only four countries have not, they
:17:31. > :17:35.would never reach the level of people protecting their child
:17:35. > :17:40.against an open fire or running on to a road, they would never be any
:17:40. > :17:45.reason to take children away or any form of prosecution. Harriet, does
:17:45. > :17:49.he have a point? I think we need to send out a message that for loving
:17:49. > :17:52.parents bringing up their children, there might be occasions when
:17:52. > :17:56.smacking is an appropriate part of loving parental discipline. I
:17:56. > :18:01.certainly think that the last thing you want your child answering back
:18:01. > :18:06.and saying is, if you do that to me, I will take you to social services.
:18:06. > :18:10.It's very difficult for the law to define loving discipline and
:18:10. > :18:15.somebody that is going over the top. Do we not need a clear distinction,
:18:15. > :18:18.as we have in law at the moment? think there is a clear distinction
:18:18. > :18:23.in law at the moment. I think everyone would recognise the kind
:18:23. > :18:27.of examples that Kevin is talking about. Your child runs into traffic,
:18:27. > :18:34.they are very small, you bring them back in and you might give them a
:18:34. > :18:38.short smack. As a parent, I have never smacked a child. But I think
:18:39. > :18:42.it is a deterrent and you can warn your child that you can smack them
:18:42. > :18:47.as well. If that were made illegal, I think that warning would not have
:18:47. > :18:51.the same force. David Lammy seemed to be suggesting that this type of
:18:51. > :18:56.attitude was at the root of the problems of indiscipline that may
:18:56. > :19:02.have led to the riots. Does he have a point? I just don't see that what
:19:02. > :19:07.happened in the riots... It was illegal, these were law-breakers.
:19:07. > :19:11.Were they perhaps kids that had not had discipline at home? One talk
:19:11. > :19:16.about discipline at home, we don't have corporal punishment in schools
:19:16. > :19:20.now. When I went to school, they did. I got caned more than once
:19:20. > :19:24.when I was at school. It didn't stop it. You know, it wasn't that
:19:24. > :19:28.long ago when it was quite legal for people in this country to hit
:19:28. > :19:31.their wives or servants. That has been stopped as well. I don't see
:19:31. > :19:37.why children should not have the same protection in law as adults.
:19:37. > :19:41.Of course, if an adult is going to do something dangerous, perhaps
:19:41. > :19:44.with special needs, it would be right for you to stop them doing
:19:44. > :19:49.that and you would be supported in the law. Reasonable chastisement,
:19:49. > :19:53.nobody knows what it means, but you can still do that. Children should
:19:53. > :19:58.have the same protection as you all right. I think there are wider
:19:58. > :20:03.issues around discipline and some of the measures in the Education
:20:03. > :20:07.Act. It was around giving headteachers the powers to expel
:20:08. > :20:12.pupils without being overwritten. I think we need to work on that
:20:12. > :20:17.responsibility, the discipline boundaries for our children. Adult
:20:17. > :20:21.male role models are often important as well. Do you think
:20:22. > :20:24.David Lammy has a point with this class point, that a lot of the
:20:24. > :20:30.parents of Tuffers dates are worried about social workers moving
:20:30. > :20:35.in, whereas middle-class parents are allowed to carry on giving six
:20:35. > :20:39.of the best? I'd like to put money on that the kids involved in the
:20:39. > :20:43.riots, about one in five of them under the age of 18 had been
:20:43. > :20:46.smacked in their lives. I don't think it's got these things. We
:20:46. > :20:53.shouldn't look excuses for law- breakers. Bringing up kids probably,
:20:53. > :20:58.that is what you do. That is it for now.
:20:58. > :21:02.On that issue, there were those that said it was a typical new
:21:02. > :21:06.Labour initiative, was it? The use of force against children to punish
:21:06. > :21:12.them has been banned in most parts of Europe. In a way, Britain was
:21:12. > :21:17.catching up. I think it is a sense of Micro Management of people's
:21:17. > :21:21.lives that people associated with New Labour. The point David Lammy
:21:21. > :21:26.is making is not saying that because children were not smacked
:21:26. > :21:28.they went and rioted, he's saying that parents feel confused and they
:21:28. > :21:32.feel their authority is on the line because they are not sure what they
:21:32. > :21:36.are allowed to do. This debate isn't really clearing it up. I
:21:36. > :21:39.still think that the principle, that is that we should protect
:21:39. > :21:43.children the same that we should protect anybody else from being
:21:43. > :21:48.subject to physical violence, I think it is important. So the law
:21:48. > :21:53.should not be relaxed, as David Lammy is suggesting? No, and it is
:21:53. > :21:57.not clear how much you relax at full support level of violence? You
:21:57. > :22:00.can restrain a child, a quick smack is probably not going to get you
:22:01. > :22:08.into trouble. But it you are smacking until you leave a mark,
:22:08. > :22:10.which lasts, that is probably undue violence. Now, how the corporate
:22:10. > :22:14.world behaves itself is very topical at the moment. It has
:22:14. > :22:20.become something of an obsession for politicians. Caring capitalism
:22:20. > :22:24.is in, greed is out. A report by Matty Taylor's RSA argues that big
:22:24. > :22:27.companies have a key role to play in the life of the communities they
:22:27. > :22:31.operate in. But is it the business of business to go around doing
:22:31. > :22:35.good? The B&Q store in Sutton. It is
:22:35. > :22:39.where to come if you are doing up a house. Here, they are trying to
:22:39. > :22:44.pull a makeover of capitalism. B&Q have worked with the Royal Society
:22:44. > :22:47.of Arts on a report that insists that big business has a vital role
:22:47. > :22:51.to play in building strong communities. That is right on trend.
:22:51. > :22:54.All of the main parties say that capitalism has to be about people
:22:54. > :22:58.as well as profits. The report is not due out for a couple of weeks
:22:58. > :23:01.but we have had a sneak preview. The report says that businesses
:23:01. > :23:05.should actively planned to make life better for communities they
:23:05. > :23:09.operate in. They can set aside part of the store as a meeting-place for
:23:09. > :23:13.local people. Government can help fund schemes where firms work to
:23:13. > :23:20.boost the local economy and become what is known as community hopes.
:23:20. > :23:25.That might sound a bit happy Class B. But what is in it for B&Q?
:23:25. > :23:29.customers feel they are dealing with a company they can trust that
:23:29. > :23:33.makes a positive contribution, they will reward it by shopping mall. We
:23:33. > :23:36.have evidence in centres where we have training centres that
:23:36. > :23:39.customers come back more often, they do more project and end up
:23:39. > :23:43.spending more money. There is a hard business benefit to it, as
:23:43. > :23:47.well as being a good neighbour. of which is great. But is it the
:23:47. > :23:51.best way for business to do good? The corporate responsibility
:23:51. > :23:55.movement has put a huge tax on customers. In order to prove their
:23:55. > :24:01.social responsibility credentials, companies have to set up big
:24:01. > :24:05.departments. They naturally want to make themselves even bigger. They
:24:05. > :24:08.turn to lobbyists and so on. Everybody in lobbying has an
:24:08. > :24:12.interest in building it up yet again. You end up with a huge
:24:12. > :24:17.bureaucracy, paid for out of company funds. That means higher
:24:17. > :24:21.prices for you and me. Funnily enough, B&Q's corporate
:24:21. > :24:25.responsibility man did not approve of that analysis. What about the
:24:25. > :24:30.idea that it is clever marketing rather than an image to do good?
:24:30. > :24:33.think it is marketing and PR to an extent. But encouraging local
:24:33. > :24:40.people to shop there is actually something which is pretty laudable.
:24:40. > :24:43.It isn't -- but isn't changing the world a job for politicians? Eight
:24:43. > :24:46.job of businesses to do good business and serve their customers.
:24:46. > :24:50.If you can do civic good as part of that package, it is entirely
:24:50. > :24:54.correct for business to do. I don't think it is solely the preserve of
:24:55. > :24:58.government to do that. Business, community groups and individuals
:24:58. > :25:02.have their parts to play. It's important that businesses should be
:25:02. > :25:06.out there making money for owners, shareholders, including pension
:25:06. > :25:11.funds and other people's investments. If they are making
:25:11. > :25:14.good profits, paying high taxation, then we can have the debate about
:25:14. > :25:18.six. Rather than trying to make business people do something that
:25:18. > :25:22.they are not in a position to do. It seems these days that greed is
:25:22. > :25:27.not good. You want big business to make a profit, but we also wanted
:25:27. > :25:36.with a human face. But can we really have it all? Thank you for
:25:36. > :25:39.shopping at B&Q... We are joined by the Guardian's Zoe
:25:39. > :25:43.Williams and Matthew Taylor from the RSA. Picking up the point made
:25:43. > :25:46.in the film, should and does this is just concentrate on making money,
:25:47. > :25:52.bringing prices down and doing what they are supposed to do? This is
:25:52. > :25:57.just a gimmick? Part of what we buy is a brand. We buy what the brand
:25:57. > :26:01.represents to us. If companies engage with communities in
:26:01. > :26:05.effective ways, if they employ local people that support other
:26:05. > :26:10.local businesses, it contributes to the value that we have on that band.
:26:10. > :26:13.It is in their interests to do good stuff in the community. Is it good
:26:13. > :26:20.business to create a whole department that deals with it?
:26:20. > :26:24.Somebody that his head of corporate responsibility? This is a myth. B&Q
:26:24. > :26:27.array community store. Strengthening their relationship is
:26:27. > :26:31.what their managers in all of their shops do. They don't need a
:26:31. > :26:35.separate department. Isn't that what we want them to do? I don't
:26:35. > :26:39.buy that we are paying in taxes for a corporate responsibility
:26:39. > :26:43.department. You cannot talk about purchasing stuff as taxation on the
:26:43. > :26:48.consumer. I am suspicious about the line that employing local people is
:26:48. > :26:53.a service to them. All businesses employ people near them. That is
:26:53. > :26:58.because it is good business. Often, decisions that companies make,
:26:58. > :27:01.which are beneficial and profitable, are then dressed up as Big Society
:27:01. > :27:07.initiatives. That is absurd and it also skews things as though they
:27:07. > :27:12.are doing the community a favour. I don't think B&Q are doing them a
:27:12. > :27:16.favour if they employ people nearby. I don't think companies are doing
:27:16. > :27:20.people a favour when eight take people on as a work experienced
:27:20. > :27:23.workers when they are not paying them. Across society, because of
:27:23. > :27:26.austerity, we are in a position that the kind of things we want for
:27:26. > :27:31.the world are not going to happen through public spending. The
:27:31. > :27:35.economy is not growing. We need to squeeze more, with less. What we
:27:35. > :27:42.have found is that stores are community pubs, where people come
:27:42. > :27:47.together. That is not something that has been exploited. They found
:27:47. > :27:51.that people didn't know much about DIY, so they started putting on DIY
:27:51. > :27:56.classes. This increases people's skills and they buy more from B&Q.
:27:56. > :28:02.It is tapping into latent capacity. I am not against DIY classes. That
:28:02. > :28:05.would be good for me. Sainsbury's were asking their staff to identify
:28:05. > :28:09.people they thought might be carers because of their buying patterns
:28:10. > :28:13.and then give them leaflets to say, if you are a carer, this is
:28:13. > :28:18.information for you. It is facilitating. Is there anything
:28:18. > :28:21.wrong with it? You have to wonder if all transactions in society have
:28:21. > :28:27.to be tied into financial transactions. B&Q is watching the
:28:27. > :28:32.fact that people talk to each other in the B&Q, and then a pass to
:28:32. > :28:38.become financial. If it cannot be, it has to be turned into marketing.
:28:38. > :28:42.It is being turned into a value proposition. Saying, we are B&Q, we
:28:42. > :28:47.are a big value proposition. I think it is cynical. We would argue
:28:47. > :28:52.that companies would want to say they are doing well for society and
:28:52. > :28:57.are also making money, rather than saying we are going to screw as
:28:57. > :29:00.much out of society as we can. Marks & Spencer his heart out reach
:29:00. > :29:06.programmes with ex criminals. That is valuable, because the state
:29:06. > :29:10.cannot do that. In a way, they are filling a gap in the market?
:29:10. > :29:16.state would never give you DIY lessons. But they might have an
:29:16. > :29:19.outreach programme. Is it different to what is being proposed at B&Q?
:29:19. > :29:25.People come into schools and give up their time voluntarily, isn't
:29:25. > :29:28.that more valuable? That is an interesting point. At what point is
:29:28. > :29:32.it distinguished between someone doing something valuable in a
:29:32. > :29:37.school, and a company annexing parts of a public school for
:29:37. > :29:40.advertising? There is a gap. If you can persuade stores to help fill it,
:29:40. > :29:45.through apprenticeships or through opening up premises to community
:29:45. > :29:49.groups, through financial people, that has to be a good thing. Nobody
:29:49. > :29:54.says it's all sorts of the problems in the world. But it seems a more
:29:54. > :29:58.modern idea of what capitalism should be. Zoe's point about an
:29:58. > :30:02.extension of marketing, it is not going to be totally altruistic.
:30:02. > :30:07.They will have all of their logos and... At the Griffi. Companies can
:30:07. > :30:11.make different appeals. They can say, drinking our product, it will
:30:11. > :30:14.get you very drunk and it is cheap, or they can say, work with us
:30:14. > :30:24.because we get back to the community. It should probably be
:30:24. > :30:26.
:30:26. > :30:30.There is a busy week in the store, and to better to look ahead than
:30:30. > :30:35.Anushka Asthana and Quentin Letts? Thank you both for joining us.
:30:35. > :30:40.Quentin Letts, starting with you, just on RBS and Stephen has a's
:30:40. > :30:44.bonus, has this been difficult? Huge relief now for David Cameron,
:30:44. > :30:53.but has Ed Miliband has a bounce? And the jazz been difficult for
:30:53. > :30:56.Cameron, yes, very awkward, so I think he will be very pleased that
:30:56. > :31:00.he has leaked of the cliff and done the decent thing. The real story is
:31:00. > :31:04.that Parliament is exerting a sense of moral shame. Very interesting, a
:31:04. > :31:07.sign of a resurgent house of Commons partly, what is going on,
:31:08. > :31:11.but for Ed Miliband to be doing all of that, I love the hypocrisy of
:31:11. > :31:14.this because it was the government where he was part of the Cabinet
:31:14. > :31:19.that arranged this deal in the first place. But hey, he is an
:31:19. > :31:23.opposition now, so we can say what he wants! Cameron has mishandled it
:31:23. > :31:28.quite badly, so he will be relieved that Hester is not going to take
:31:28. > :31:32.this bonus. Anushka Asthana, a good weekend for Ed Miliband, is it good
:31:32. > :31:37.enough? It certainly is a coup for Ed Miliband, some people are saying
:31:37. > :31:39.it is the best hit that he has had so far, because the decision to
:31:39. > :31:43.drop the bonus clearly came straight after Labour said they
:31:43. > :31:47.would raise this in Parliament. I do not know whether they are going
:31:47. > :31:49.to continue threatening to have debates every time we here are
:31:49. > :31:56.their large bonus, but it will be interesting to see whether that
:31:56. > :32:00.happens. Isn't that the point? What happens with other RBS executives?
:32:00. > :32:03.It is still a big political problem. I think it is a problem, although
:32:03. > :32:06.perhaps people will look at this and say, I do not want to be
:32:06. > :32:10.vilified. I think Stephen Hester said that as one of the reasons for
:32:10. > :32:15.not taking it, and we all saw what happened to Fred Goodwin before him.
:32:15. > :32:19.But they will think harder before they go there in future. Looking at
:32:19. > :32:23.Europe, we have been talking about David Cameron's position in Europe,
:32:23. > :32:29.and it seems he will allow the institutions to be used in fiscal
:32:29. > :32:33.union, a big U-turn? Not quite, but certainly a turn of sorts. Is
:32:33. > :32:36.looking in his mirror, I think. The Conservative backbenchers will not
:32:36. > :32:40.be happy about this, but they do not have any immediate opportunity
:32:40. > :32:43.to have a go at him in the House of Commons. It may not be a problem
:32:43. > :32:49.this week, although at PMQs there might be a bit of it. There is
:32:49. > :32:55.certainly a hint that the greater the dough which we all went
:32:55. > :33:00.palliative, except the BBC, maybe it was not such a telling point. --
:33:00. > :33:06.Hallelujah. As Douglas Carswell said, what was the point? What was
:33:06. > :33:08.the point indeed? As far as you are concerned, what do you think David
:33:08. > :33:12.Cameron needs to do now as far as the position in Europe is
:33:12. > :33:16.concerned? There is this thing with Europe which is you go in all guns
:33:16. > :33:21.blazing, this is the position you want to take, but the reality it's
:33:21. > :33:25.when you're sitting around a table with the leaders of other countries.
:33:25. > :33:28.-- reality hits. David Cameron must be feeling rather isolated. If he
:33:28. > :33:32.were to go ahead and block the use of certain institutions from every
:33:32. > :33:36.other country, I think he would become a bit of a pariah, and he
:33:36. > :33:41.knows that. If I do not think that matters. If you are isolated in
:33:41. > :33:47.Europe, it is great on the domestic scene, so he will be quite happy
:33:47. > :33:50.about that. The story will be about Greece and their debt problems.
:33:50. > :33:55.That will be much bigger in Europe than the story of Cameron.
:33:55. > :33:58.return briefly to the lesser story of the coalition at David Cameron,
:33:58. > :34:03.what about relations between the Labour Democrats and Conservatives
:34:03. > :34:06.over Europe? It has been creaking quite a lot, but you get the
:34:06. > :34:11.impression the Tories have been giving Clegg one or two nice little
:34:11. > :34:14.things to do, his announcement on aspirations for the tax policy, you
:34:14. > :34:19.got the impression that Cameron was trying to boost to make it. There
:34:19. > :34:22.has been a little bit of rebuilding going on. The Tory backbenchers
:34:22. > :34:27.will not be pleased about that either, but Carmen is ahead in the
:34:27. > :34:31.opinion polls possibly, he has got a bit of political capital, and he
:34:31. > :34:35.seems to be spending it. -- Cameron. In terms of policing, do you feel
:34:35. > :34:39.that Theresa May has been under pressure in terms of giving the
:34:39. > :34:43.impression that the coalition is still strong on crime? I think that
:34:43. > :34:45.one of the most effective members of the opposition front bench has
:34:45. > :34:49.been Yvette Cooper on the issue of policing, and they knew that this
:34:49. > :34:53.was an issue that was really going to hit the Government hard. Every
:34:53. > :34:57.time they have bought out things about police cuts, Theresa May has
:34:57. > :35:01.been under pressure to take action on that front. Has she done enough,
:35:01. > :35:06.Quentin Letts? She might have done. I'm not sure that Yvette Cooper has
:35:06. > :35:10.done too brilliantly, she is all right, but she is very much helped
:35:10. > :35:14.by the coppers, there are very protective of their own patch, and
:35:14. > :35:18.they have been militants against Theresa May. Today's announcement,
:35:18. > :35:23.I would not put much by. It is only about some pilot ideas, and I think
:35:24. > :35:27.it is probably being dressed up a bit much. Thank you very much.
:35:27. > :35:32.Now, you can almost hear the sighs of relief across government last
:35:32. > :35:37.night as the TV executive of RBS decided that he would not after all
:35:37. > :35:40.take the million pounds in shares he was awarded this here. As the
:35:40. > :35:45.chief executive of RBS, his bonus was always going to be a subject
:35:45. > :35:48.for public scrutiny, and that most public sector workers facing a pay
:35:48. > :35:51.freeze and the RBS share price falling 37% in the last 12 months,
:35:51. > :35:56.any payout was going to be controversial. Originally it was
:35:56. > :35:59.reported they wanted to give Stephen Hester shares worth about
:35:59. > :36:03.�1.6 million. That figure was reduced to just under �1 million
:36:03. > :36:06.when the announcement was made last Thursday. Supposedly that was after
:36:06. > :36:10.intervention from the government. But pressure for him to give up the
:36:10. > :36:13.bonus mounted, and Labour said they would call for a vote in the House
:36:13. > :36:17.of Commons. He was apparently worried that he had become a pariah,
:36:18. > :36:21.so he is going away empty-handed, apart from his �1.2 million salary,
:36:21. > :36:25.of course. But there are reports that investment bankers at RBS are
:36:25. > :36:28.still in line for a total of �500 million, and even Stephen Hester
:36:28. > :36:32.could end up with a further award under a separate long-term
:36:32. > :36:38.incentive plan. Is this the end of the row, or will the issue run and
:36:38. > :36:44.run? I have been joined by three MPs for the rest of the programme,
:36:44. > :36:49.Amber Rudd, Fiona O'Donnell and Gordon Birtwistle. Also here to
:36:49. > :36:54.talk about the bonus, in case the three MPs agree, is Allister Heath,
:36:55. > :36:59.the editor of City AM. I am sure they will all gang up on you.
:36:59. > :37:03.don't mind! Thank you to Matthew Taylor, a previous guest. There is
:37:03. > :37:06.consensus this was the right thing to do. Which means I do not
:37:06. > :37:08.understand why the government agreed to this in the first place,
:37:09. > :37:13.they should have blocked it out right. We are in a weird situation
:37:13. > :37:16.where people are saying, yes, this is your bonus but do not take it.
:37:16. > :37:20.If the government did not want him to take a bonus, they should have
:37:20. > :37:23.blocked it as a majority shareholder. They said there was a
:37:23. > :37:27.risk that the board would walk, that Stephen Hester would go, they
:37:27. > :37:30.felt that was better. Is that a myth? I think it is a perfectly
:37:30. > :37:33.plausible explanation and a good reason to give him the bonus, but
:37:33. > :37:38.in that case they should have defended it. They were trying to
:37:38. > :37:40.have their cake and eat it. They would give in it but they did not
:37:40. > :37:46.believe he should take it. I do not think they cover themselves with
:37:46. > :37:50.glory, but nobody has. Labour, when a nationalised the Bank, called
:37:50. > :37:53.Hester in to rescue the bank and told him that it would be run like
:37:54. > :37:58.a commercial organisation with private sector pay and so on. Now
:37:58. > :38:01.everybody is making a U-turn honest and say, look, it should not be run
:38:01. > :38:05.like a private company, it should be run like a social enterprise,
:38:05. > :38:10.lending more at doing this sort of stuff. And people should be paid
:38:10. > :38:14.like in the public sector. Like a social enterprise, is that really
:38:14. > :38:17.the case? Aren't the measures for success the share price, lending an
:38:17. > :38:22.up to small businesses? That must at being part of the job spec. Lot
:38:22. > :38:26.of people have lost their jobs at RBS. By those measures, the City
:38:26. > :38:30.may said he has done a good job, but in those terms he has not.
:38:30. > :38:35.the share price issue, that is unfair, because you need to look at
:38:35. > :38:38.that over a longer period of time. It is too short term to look at a
:38:38. > :38:42.one-year share price. In terms of lending, that was not in his
:38:42. > :38:47.original job description. That was a late a policy change. I think
:38:47. > :38:50.this whole thing is a giant mess, and to be the only issue that
:38:50. > :38:53.matters is how taxpayers will get their money back, how people who
:38:53. > :39:00.are put billions of pounds into their RBS going to get their money
:39:00. > :39:04.back. Don't you help or hinder that? I suspect it will hinder it.
:39:04. > :39:09.That will be hopeless, if that happens. He is quite right in
:39:09. > :39:12.saying that his bank owes the UK taxpayer something in the region of
:39:12. > :39:16.�50 billion. I think the most urgent thing that Hester needs to
:39:16. > :39:20.do is get the bank to a position where the share price matches what
:39:20. > :39:23.we are owed and we can sell it back to the private sector and get the
:39:23. > :39:28.taxpayers' money back to and vested in what goes on. Until that happens,
:39:28. > :39:32.he should never get a bonus? I am not saying that at all. The
:39:32. > :39:36.directors decide whether he has a bonus. They decided he should get
:39:36. > :39:41.one. Yes, indeed. If David Cameron wants to sack all the directors and
:39:41. > :39:46.replace them with directors that will do what David Cameron says,
:39:46. > :39:50.then he could do that, but it would create chaos within the bank and
:39:50. > :39:57.the sector. To me, the most important thing is to get our money
:39:57. > :40:00.back. �50 billion is that there. He needs to get it back. But isn't the
:40:00. > :40:04.biggest problem actually that the action that the government was
:40:04. > :40:08.prepared to take could never match the rhetoric that they have been
:40:08. > :40:10.spouting over the past year or so? They never intended to block it in
:40:10. > :40:15.that sense. They should never have given the impression that they
:40:15. > :40:18.could or would. There was an inconsistency in a way that he was
:40:18. > :40:21.treated and the way he was appointed. In 2008, he was brought
:40:21. > :40:24.in, remember he had nothing to do with the bank that was failed, he
:40:24. > :40:28.was brought in to put the band right, and it was agreed his
:40:28. > :40:32.contract and payments would be agreed by the board. So it was a
:40:32. > :40:36.myth to say that it was Labour who actually made up the contract, that
:40:36. > :40:40.he would get these awards, it was discretionary. Labour agreed the
:40:40. > :40:45.contract, which was that the board would agree it. What was not
:40:45. > :40:51.proposed was that there would be a public sector job with a fixed
:40:51. > :40:56.salary. That was not agree. It was treated as a proper bank, where the
:40:56. > :41:01.board would agree is pay. When the board agreed this pay, it was
:41:01. > :41:04.agreed it was way too much. What would have been acceptable to you?
:41:04. > :41:09.Well, I'm delighted that Steve has decided not to take the bonus, it
:41:09. > :41:13.is the right decision, and I think the government taking the position
:41:13. > :41:17.that the board has allocated the bonus but we hope he will not take
:41:17. > :41:21.it... That is a weak position, isn't it? They should have just
:41:21. > :41:24.blocked it. No, because then you have a situation where you might
:41:24. > :41:30.have the boardwalk out and Stephen Hester walking out. He is doing a
:41:30. > :41:33.good job... Then he should get the bonus! I want him to recognise that
:41:34. > :41:36.he is paid well, and even though he is entitled to the bonus because of
:41:36. > :41:41.the contract on the last government, he is not going to take it because
:41:41. > :41:43.he wants to complete the job at a lower pay. What about other bonuses
:41:43. > :41:48.at RBS? What should happen to people within the investment arm
:41:48. > :41:52.who are said to have big bonuses, bigger than Stephen Hester's?
:41:52. > :41:57.is a question for David Cameron. What is the Labour position on
:41:57. > :42:01.that? Can I reply to what am I said? There is a limit to how many
:42:01. > :42:04.things his government can blame on the previous government. The Prime
:42:04. > :42:09.Minister said on the 19th and January, when he was asked if he
:42:09. > :42:12.would block the �1 million bonus, he said the short answer is yes,
:42:12. > :42:17.and yet he did not take action in this case. He shrugged his
:42:17. > :42:21.shoulders. To some extent, we have had the Stephen Hester and, if you
:42:21. > :42:28.like, and is not taking the bonus, and Labour will try to take credit
:42:28. > :42:33.for that, rightly or wrongly. But what about other RBS executives?
:42:33. > :42:37.Should they also forgo their bonuses? Well, George Osborne, when
:42:37. > :42:42.he presented the Merlin projects to Parliament, he said that one of the
:42:42. > :42:47.tests would be lending to SMEs, and in the third quarter are plastic,
:42:47. > :42:51.are this did not meet that target. I think we need to listen to the
:42:51. > :42:54.public, and this has been the main mistake of the government, they're
:42:54. > :42:57.out of touch with public opinion. The next round is not going to be
:42:57. > :43:02.about RBS executives but the hundreds of investment bankers who
:43:02. > :43:05.are paid large salaries, and that is an issue. We cannot have a
:43:05. > :43:08.nationalised investment bank. Unfortunately, whatever decisions
:43:08. > :43:16.will be taken for political reasons, shutting down investment bank or
:43:16. > :43:20.selling it cheaply, it will hurt the taxpayer. For political reasons,
:43:20. > :43:25.not to maximise the amount of money paid back to the taxpayers, that is
:43:25. > :43:29.my big fear. The taxpayers will lose because of short-term politics.
:43:29. > :43:33.The taxpayer will not thank you if that is what happens. The taxpayer
:43:33. > :43:36.as an expectation that we see some Venice introduced into the system.
:43:36. > :43:40.The fact that these people are still in a job is because the
:43:41. > :43:45.public bail out the bank in the first place. Yes. What would help
:43:45. > :43:48.us if we had representation from the workforce perhaps.
:43:48. > :43:52.workforce in this context of people earning millions of pounds, because
:43:52. > :43:58.you are talking about ordinary traders and so on. I do not think
:43:58. > :44:02.RBS should have been bailed out. We are at a stage when politics, when
:44:02. > :44:07.it comes to try to extract value back, that is the real issue.
:44:07. > :44:10.you say to that, Gordon Birtwistle? Is it fair that Stephen Hester does
:44:10. > :44:16.not take his bonus but other members of the investment arm of
:44:16. > :44:20.RBS do? Is it fair that Barclays chief executive could get a bonus
:44:20. > :44:25.of up to �10 million? It is one of those words that is bandied about,
:44:25. > :44:28.fairness. Or of these people have contracts that if they do a certain
:44:28. > :44:31.thing, they get paid a set amount of money. Barclays is nothing to do
:44:31. > :44:35.with the government. But they benefited hugely from the measures
:44:35. > :44:41.that the government to have the time. Well, indeed, but the people
:44:41. > :44:45.in work for them have contracts, and they create wealth for the bank.
:44:45. > :44:49.Now, I agree with Vince Cable. They should be broken up, we should not
:44:49. > :44:54.have banks that are too big to fail. They should be broken up so that
:44:54. > :44:58.the people in the casino banking side go off on their own and stand
:44:58. > :45:00.by their own failures or successes. The banks that we are concerned
:45:00. > :45:05.about, high-street banks, the banks that deal with normal people in the
:45:05. > :45:10.street, they are the ones that we need to run properly. At the end of
:45:11. > :45:18.the day, we have got to get back our �50 billion that we are owed by
:45:18. > :45:22.Should Vince Cable have come out more strongly and said they are
:45:22. > :45:25.going to block the bonus? At the end of the day, the board of
:45:25. > :45:29.directors decide the bonus. could have made a statement?
:45:29. > :45:34.could have made a statement, it is no good making a statement that you
:45:34. > :45:38.cannot carry through. The whole board would have probably resigned.
:45:38. > :45:42.Stephen Hester would have resigned. Do you think he will walk anyway?
:45:42. > :45:46.think there is a good chance. The situation is unsustainable. There
:45:46. > :45:51.is no way he can be paid a bonus again, regardless of what has been
:45:51. > :45:58.agreed or what is in his contract. There will be a big row about the
:45:58. > :46:02.investment banking division. We would end up with civil servants
:46:02. > :46:06.running the RBS, and that would be a disaster for the taxpayer.
:46:06. > :46:09.agree, it would be a disaster. At the moment, it is the best possible
:46:10. > :46:13.world, he is not taking a bonus and he is staying on.
:46:13. > :46:16.The referendum on Scottish independence is not for two years,
:46:16. > :46:20.but battle lines are already taking shape. Ed Miliband entered the fray
:46:20. > :46:24.this morning, telling an audience in Glasgow that he is prepared to
:46:24. > :46:29.go toe-to-toe with Alex Salmond to argue the case for the survival of
:46:29. > :46:35.the United Kingdom. Here he is, speaking earlier. What is the most
:46:35. > :46:41.urgent task facing us? Putting up a boarder cross the A1 and the M74?
:46:41. > :46:45.Or the task of creating a more equal, fair and just society? I say,
:46:45. > :46:52.let's confront the real divide in Britain. Not between Scotland and
:46:52. > :46:57.the rest of the United Kingdom, but between the haves and have-nots.
:46:57. > :47:01.I'm joint from Inverness by John Finney. Welcome to the programme. A
:47:01. > :47:06.message that will chime with Scottish voters? It is very clear
:47:06. > :47:10.that Ed Miliband has no message for the Scottish voters. He is at an
:47:10. > :47:14.all-time low poll rating, and the Scottish people are not going to
:47:14. > :47:19.take lectures from a man whose party offered her as cuts deeper
:47:19. > :47:23.and more savage than Margaret Thatcher. We are in favour of
:47:23. > :47:26.social justice and we will work to achieve that, not just within
:47:26. > :47:32.Scotland but elsewhere. But lectures from the Labour leader? I
:47:32. > :47:38.don't pig so. The question, as proposed, it is designed to elicit
:47:38. > :47:42.a Yes? I would hope so, yes. Agreeing that Scotland should be
:47:42. > :47:47.independent, rather than saying independent or leaving the United
:47:47. > :47:52.Kingdom. Why did you say it as it is? The referendum will follow the
:47:52. > :47:56.highest terms of international law. I am sure it will, but could you
:47:56. > :48:00.answer the question? I am trying to answer the question. The reality is
:48:00. > :48:03.that the advice is that it is a clear and concise question. It is
:48:03. > :48:08.the question the Unionist parties have been asking us to ask. That is
:48:08. > :48:15.what we are going to do. Will the UK Electoral Commission have a veto
:48:15. > :48:20.over the question? Why would they? Alex Salmond has conceded that it
:48:20. > :48:23.will have a role in assessing the questions. Who will have the final
:48:23. > :48:29.say on the wording? I think the whole tone of the question suggests
:48:29. > :48:34.a misunderstanding about the situation. The Scottish people gave
:48:34. > :48:38.a clear indication in May of their wishes, with unprecedented support
:48:38. > :48:42.to my party. That is recognised by other parties in the parliament. We
:48:42. > :48:46.have a wholesale change whereby none of the parties in the Scottish
:48:46. > :48:50.Parliament accept that the status quo is acceptable. All of them what
:48:50. > :48:55.additional powers. The question will be outlined by the First
:48:55. > :48:58.Minister and it will subscribe to the highest possible terms of
:48:58. > :49:02.international electoral law. are saying the Electoral
:49:02. > :49:06.Commission's role in terms of wording is minimal? I have answered
:49:06. > :49:10.to say that there will be no issue with legality or indeed the merit
:49:10. > :49:14.of the question, which quite simply could not be more straight forward.
:49:14. > :49:19.The issue of devo-max is one that seems to be preying on people's
:49:19. > :49:24.minds. In terms of civic Scotland, as Alex Salmond has talked about,
:49:24. > :49:28.is that the only option in terms of getting a devo-max style question
:49:28. > :49:33.on to the ballot paper? It is a peculiar situation. The reality of
:49:33. > :49:36.the situation is that the Scottish government clearly is in favour of
:49:36. > :49:40.independence. There is a significant voice, and I have
:49:40. > :49:44.already alluded to the other parties wanting additional powers,
:49:44. > :49:49.that the somewhere between the status quo and full independence.
:49:49. > :49:54.We have a peculiar situation where the Unionist parties on one hand
:49:54. > :49:58.appear to be advocating that, but see no role for it in the
:49:58. > :50:02.referendum. The First Minister has said that we are nationalists, but
:50:02. > :50:06.also Democrats. He will listen and take great heed of what comes back
:50:06. > :50:12.as a result of the consultation process, which is ongoing. Thank
:50:12. > :50:17.you for joining us. Fiona, no lectures from Ed Miliband or Labour.
:50:17. > :50:20.That is because Labour took Scotland for granted and they
:50:21. > :50:24.deserve the lack of support they are getting? Ed really cannot win.
:50:24. > :50:28.On the one hand, the SNP say they want to move the debate on to
:50:28. > :50:33.substantive issues. When he goes up to do exactly that, to talk about
:50:33. > :50:37.the big challenges that we are facing in Scotland, then he is
:50:37. > :50:41.accused... The question I would like to have asked John Finney is
:50:41. > :50:44.why it wasn't devo-max in their manifesto, as a commitment to be
:50:44. > :50:48.part of the referendum? The only reason they are pushing the issue
:50:48. > :50:52.now is because they are worried they will not get the support.
:50:52. > :50:56.has been widely debated. Let's get back to the substance of the issue.
:50:56. > :50:59.Why is it and -- Ed Miliband talking about the substance of a
:50:59. > :51:05.natural social justice? Why not talk about the economic
:51:05. > :51:08.implications? Why doesn't he go on hard finances? I think that was the
:51:09. > :51:13.right thing for Ed to go on. The fact that we are politically
:51:13. > :51:17.different from Scotland, that we only elect one Tory member of
:51:17. > :51:22.parliament, there is more of a sense of egalitarian society in
:51:22. > :51:27.Scotland. These are the issues that Scottish people are concerned about.
:51:27. > :51:34.Do you think Labour has done enough in Scotland? In terms of...
:51:34. > :51:39.terms of its heartland. Clearly not, that was the message we were sent
:51:39. > :51:43.in the elections. We accept that lesson. Part of today is about
:51:43. > :51:49.seeing the real challenges and -- the challengers are best met with
:51:49. > :51:52.Scotland within the UK. They are better equipped than the
:51:52. > :51:56.Conservatives, who feel it is better to keep quiet in case
:51:56. > :52:01.anything else pushes them into the arms of Alex Salmond? We are not
:52:01. > :52:04.very good at keeping quiet. It is a great loss for us and Scotland that
:52:04. > :52:11.there is only one Conservative MP. But we do need to lead on the
:52:11. > :52:15.business of selling the union to Scotland. Ed Miliband's speech,
:52:15. > :52:20.historically around the likes of Clement Attlee, that put it into an
:52:20. > :52:24.historical perspective. I hope we can win the battle by selling
:52:24. > :52:29.Scotland to England, as well as England to Scotland. Your
:52:29. > :52:34.constituents, what they like Scotland to stay or go? I would say
:52:34. > :52:37.they have not thought about it. At the moment they are thinking about
:52:37. > :52:42.what the Government is doing and what goes on with the economy. We
:52:42. > :52:47.get lots of the males saying it is time for Scotland to go. I think
:52:47. > :52:51.that is exactly why Alex Salmond is making this such a long, drawn-out
:52:51. > :52:57.campaign. All of their politics are about division. He wants to create
:52:57. > :53:00.as many divisions as he can before autumn 2014. What do you think the
:53:00. > :53:07.Liberal Democrats should be doing? Having lost out in Scotland, they
:53:07. > :53:11.are in a very weak position. agree with Amber. We have to keep
:53:11. > :53:15.the union, I agree with that totally. I also think we should
:53:15. > :53:19.have this referendum sooner, rather than later. I think it is causing a
:53:19. > :53:24.lot of problems to people wanting to invest in Scotland. The critical
:53:24. > :53:27.thing to me is that it has to be a decisive election. It has to be yes
:53:27. > :53:33.or no, to throw other things on the ballot paper would confuse people.
:53:33. > :53:37.It is not acceptable. Who should lead the Unionist campaign? I think
:53:37. > :53:41.there is room for everybody. That is the difference. The nationalist
:53:41. > :53:45.campaign has a man Who Would Be King of Scotland, as he was seen in
:53:45. > :53:55.the papers this weekend. There are people from civic Scotland, all
:53:55. > :53:59.walks of life, the businesswoman throwing her hat in the ring, our
:53:59. > :54:04.politics are about building consensus. The SNP had never been
:54:04. > :54:08.good at working with others. Well, you have until 2014 to do it.
:54:08. > :54:12.needs to be before them. There is so much confusion in Scotland,
:54:12. > :54:16.firstly about the time being spent on it and also about what is going
:54:16. > :54:21.on the ballot paper. They cannot have es, no or something else like
:54:21. > :54:26.devo-max. I have to have yet honour, if they want devo-max they can
:54:26. > :54:29.negotiate with the British government. We all agree that the
:54:29. > :54:32.Scottish maybe should have more powers, but I don't agree with
:54:32. > :54:40.independents. The first in a series of films
:54:40. > :54:44.demystifying sometimes arcane and mystifying procedures in Parliament.
:54:44. > :54:54.This is where public broadcasting is at its finest, as my absent
:54:54. > :54:54.
:54:55. > :55:00.partner likes to say. Let's start Adjournment debate. These are
:55:00. > :55:03.strange little to debates of sparse significance in law-making process,
:55:03. > :55:07.but they allow a parliamentarian to let off steam about an issue that
:55:07. > :55:12.he or she might feel strongly about, normally from a constituency point
:55:12. > :55:16.of view. Hospital closures, road repairs, local industry expansion
:55:16. > :55:20.or job losses. These are the sorts of things that MPs will choose to
:55:20. > :55:25.talk about in adjournment debates and get ministers to reply to. That
:55:25. > :55:30.is useful. The question is that the house does now a gym. Mr Steve
:55:31. > :55:36.Baker. Thank you, a huge pleasure this evening to address the future
:55:36. > :55:39.of the Royal British Legion hall. Seagulls are part of the fabric of
:55:39. > :55:43.seaside Britain. A historically, other than following the plough,
:55:44. > :55:48.they have kept themselves to the coast. In recent years they have
:55:48. > :55:53.moved inland. It is an issue that has brought together an
:55:53. > :55:56.extraordinary coalition of local residents and organisations, united
:55:56. > :56:01.in their concern to maintain pedestrian access through our
:56:01. > :56:05.station. Adjournment debates last half an hour and it happens at the
:56:05. > :56:09.end of every day's session in the House of Commons. You get an
:56:09. > :56:13.adjournment debate by putting your name into a lucky draw and sending
:56:13. > :56:17.it off to the Speaker's office, hoping for the best. Adjournment
:56:17. > :56:22.debates do not tend to draw much of a gate, to use the football term.
:56:22. > :56:27.But they forced right all -- Whitehall to come to a conclusion
:56:27. > :56:30.and tell the MP what it is. They also have the adjournment debates
:56:30. > :56:34.in a House of Lords, but they call them Questions For Short Debate.
:56:34. > :56:40.Dean House of Lords, they go on for an hour-and-a-half. They can't do
:56:40. > :56:45.anything for a short time. They may seem piffling, but they can lead to
:56:45. > :56:48.moments of history. May 1940, the war is going badly at the House of
:56:48. > :56:54.Commons adjourns of a motion concerning the prosecution of the
:56:54. > :57:02.war in Norway. As a result of the debate, the Government falls. All
:57:02. > :57:06.because of a little adjournment motion. Adjournment debates are a
:57:06. > :57:10.problem for ministers. All the more reason to like them. The ministers
:57:10. > :57:14.have to stay until the end of the parliamentary day. That any means
:57:14. > :57:18.about 10:30pm nowadays. In the old days it could mean waited until
:57:18. > :57:23.dawn. They also did a highly personal nature to the
:57:23. > :57:28.parliamentary day. An individual MP can wrap himself in a particular
:57:28. > :57:38.issue. That is great. Adjournment debates also provide a bit of
:57:38. > :57:38.
:57:38. > :57:42.variety. And we all need that, Are they really worthwhile?
:57:42. > :57:45.Definitely. They are excellent tool for backbenchers to do. You can
:57:45. > :57:50.hold a Minister to account, get answers to your question. The first
:57:50. > :57:54.time I did what, I was surprised to find myself almost the only person
:57:55. > :57:57.in the chamber. That is not very encouraging! The minister or
:57:57. > :58:02.Secretary of State has to answer and you get a full 15 minutes of
:58:02. > :58:06.them having to answer. It is a pick before getting a real answer.
:58:06. > :58:11.Quentin Letts has to go back to 1940 to find one that had that much
:58:11. > :58:17.impact, it doesn't seem like they have much effect? It can for the
:58:17. > :58:20.people you represent. constituents, yes. I spoke about a
:58:20. > :58:24.case about disability living allowance, where I cannot get an
:58:24. > :58:30.answer from the DWP. It was a way to bring the minister to the
:58:30. > :58:34.chamber and get that answer. Just a consensus, it should stay? I add a
:58:34. > :58:38.new MP, and I agree. That is all for today. Thanks to our guests and
:58:39. > :58:42.all of those I forgot to thank during the programme. Our guest
:58:42. > :58:49.tomorrow is educationalist Toby Young. If you have anything to ask