01/02/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Today's top story,

you guessed it, stripped of his knighthood, but he was not the only

man -- only guilty man, was he the victim of political opportunism? A

7th defeat in the Lords for the welfare reform plans, will the

Government stick to its guns at the legislation returns to the Commons?

More trouble for the government over its plan for the NHS in

England, ministers are publishing amendments to the Bill, a last-

ditch attempt to win over its critics.

Back in a day, you could murder and pillage and still keep your

knighthood, though you might lose your head. We will look at the

naughty knights of old. All at coming up in the next 90

minutes of public service broadcasting at its finest! Its

finest, I say that because of one of our guests. We will bring you

live and uninterrupted Prime Minister's Questions at midday, and

other public service. Joining us for the duration, Education

Secretary Mr Stephen Twigg, he does not risk losing any titles! But the

Honourable, yes, the Honourable, son of the life peer, Ed Vaizey.

Just you be careful, you could lose that! Threats already! He is the

media minister, we have to be nice to him. Sir Fred Goodwin is no more,

it is just now main that plain Mr Fred Goodwin, but the decision to

strip him has not met with universal approval. Neither from

the City of politicians. We are joined by the Conservative MP for

cities and Westminster, Mark Field. Was it the right decision? I think

the night bird is a bit of a sideshow. The most important they

are the rewards for failure. He was given it in 2004, and there was not

a murmur of disapproval. By the time he got his penchant in 2009,

we were aware that he had been overlooking a vast bank. -- pension.

It is a much bigger question. I am slightly concerned that this witch-

hunt against Fred Goodwin, he has not got too many friends, and most

people come across him in business think he is having his comeuppance,

but by the same token there was no question of illegality or

criminality in what he did. He was monumentally incompetent, but to

have a knighthood taken away on that basis seems to be said in a

difficult precedent. We are a country that wants to be open for

business. What message does it send, do you think? I think the genie is

out of the bottle, and we will see in the next few months a number of

other people in the corporate world suddenly coming under the kind of

scrutiny that has been the case for Stephen Hester last weekend and

Fred Goodwin over the last 24 hours, but I think that is quite dangerous.

We are an open and outward-looking mercantile nation. This is the

message is getting across that we are not open for business, that is

bad news for this country. The Government was wrong to buy so much

rhetoric and one man and one man only? As I say, this will be a

precedent that will be used for There was a campaign started by the

Daily Mail that Fred Goodwin should be stripped Arcos night heard. It

is unusual that this campaign did not have as much leverage in 2009.

-- should be stripped of his knighthood. The government handed

out a very generous pension package It is easy for the political class

to gang up on the city and bankers will our public enemy number one at

the moment, but we have got to get our own house in order. We have a

number of people in the House of Lords to have a lifelong seat in

the legislature will have a time in prison over the expenses scandal.

If we want to reserve the sanctity of the honours system, I hope David

Cameron would get the four budget committee to look at the case of

certain lords who are expense hurdlers who still have their

honours very nicely intact. I am catching the whiff of a witch

and beginning to build up! And we're just the kind of people to

stoke the fires. A quiz, Stephen Twigg, who presented with a gift

over Christmas 2007? Fred Goodwin. Yes, one year later, he presented

them with the cards at RBS. Who said in 2004, you are the wealth

creators, the women and men who can make our nation more successful,

more prosperous, and let me thank Sir Fred Goodwin and RBS? I will

hazard a guess, Gordon Brown. Correct! And I think you are going

for the hat-trick here, who gave Fred Goodwin the Night Herd?

think it might have been Tony Blair, the Queen! Well, it was the Queen

he did it at the end. I think Alex Salmond was a supporter. We got it

wrong, and Ed Miliband has been clear we should not have done what

we did. I suggest to you, Minister, people do not care whether Fred

Goodwin keeps his knighthood or not, but they want to see some of their

money back and the banking system being put on a better basis than

the Bank does not getting showed loads of money from dodgy bonuses.

-- and bankers. He was an independent committee that took the

decision, but it should not be a distraction. I do not think -- we

should think that somehow we have moved on by removing his knighthood.

We will move on when we have got responsible capitalism, when we get

RBS back on its feet, when we put in place systems to try to ensure

we do not have the kind of banking crisis that has put this in so much

trouble. It is important to focus on the future and the changes we

need to make. Are we not meant to think that the Prime Minister leant

on this committee? It is very convenient, at a time when the

government got itself into a complete Horlicks over Stephen as

the's bonus, to have this sideshow. The Roman emperors were brilliant

at this, they called it bread and circuses. The Prime Minister made

his view clear, as has the leader of the opposition, most of the

political classes. It is important there is public confidence in the

system, and there was a sense that the public were angry about this.

It is symbolic, not the main show in town where it came to improving

the banking sector. Fred Goodwin is a finished character, finished, a

pariah now. People throw stones at his house. He has got to keep his

whereabouts secret now and so on. So why just pick on him? Dennis

Stephenson, Lord Stephenson of HBOS, another bank that went down the

Swanee. Why is he still a lot? Your Labour government gave Alan

Greenspan a night heard. He presided over a system which

supported derivatives, one of the things that brought the financial

system to its knees. Do we go back to calling him Mr Alan Greenspan?

There is a difficulty if we open up the floodgates. There is a

particular set of circumstances following the FSA report which made

this a proper decision. There may be some others which need to be

looked at, but we do not get into a situation where dozens of people

are having their honours removed. So you just want to be on him

because he is a useful one to problem a cattle prod. The scale of

what happened with RBS does justify this decision, but this is symbolic.

We need to move on to the much bigger and more challenging

territory are responsible capitalism, the phrase that Ed used.

Hold on, Hector Sants, who appeared before a Commons select committee

was to the executive of the FSA at a time when the ABN AMRO deal was

allowed to go ahead. Indeed, he was part of the system that the Brood

RBS upping its leverage to be able to buy ABN AMRO. -- that approved.

He has apologised and is set to become deputy governor of the Bank

of England. How does that work?! that a reward?! That is even worse!

He did get a going-over, I read the sketches of the Treasury Select

Committee. How I do think it is important... You can play a parlour

game, this is in itself is a parlour game, when the government

put up categories of people who should be stripped of their honours.

I would draw a line under it, I hope the forfeiture committee, I

hope these are exceptions rather than the rule, and I think, as

Stephen said, Fred Goodwin was a particular figure who took a

successful bank and ended up having to be bailed out to the tune of �45

billion by the taxpayer. The other key point is that he got his

knighthood for services to banking. It might have been a different

question it he got it for philanthropy. Which Labour claimed

it was! If you go back to the pub quiz, sitting in the pub say, what

did you get it for, services to banking, I destroyed RBS, why have

you still got it? The First Minister says that although he

agrees that the decision, he wants to know of others involved in the

financial collapse will have their honours reassessed, too. Mr Salmond

has also said that he would be, in retrospect, do things differently,

when asked about his support for Fred Goodwin. We have all said that.

Everyone has a different view in hindsight.

There was a fundamental policy, in 2005, in keeping with our quiz, who

said the following? The new model we propose is quite different, any

risk based approach, there is no inspection without justification.

No form-filling without justification, no information

requirements without justification, describing the new rules for the

City, who said that? Probably Ed Balls. No, Gordon Brown.

acknowledged that we got regulation wrong. It has been acknowledged by

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. Let's move on to how we can get it right

in the future. If Why have you tried to drop Ed Balls in it?!

Terrible! By had to get one wrong! Are you looking at me? Two years

after, Gordon Brown said, he was complaining about the burdens and

City regulations? I don't know. George Osborne. I would have got

that one right. You are all in this together. We got that wrong on

regulation, we acknowledge that, but last September Ed Miliband was

criticised when he moved on to this territory and talked about the need

for responsible capitalism. I think it is a real achievement of Ed

Miliband's leadership that is a focus of public policy debate.

Shall we leave it there? No, gone, do another question!

MPs will be voting on the Welfare Reform Bill after Prime Minister's

questions following a series of defeats inflicted by the House of

Lords. Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron are promising to fight all

the way for the changes, including a �26,000 cap on benefits. They

think it is popular, so they quite like the cash with the laws. The

vote could be close depending on how many Lib Dem MPs decide to

rebel. Andrew, for years politicians on

all sides have talked to voters about cutting back on the welfare

bill, which last year cost the taxpayer �192 billion. This

Government has planned a wide- ranging set of reforms, including

the eye-catching and popular cap on a household's benefit at �26,000.

But the Government's plans for reform have suffered a total of

seven defeats in the House of Lords, most recently last night. Labour

peers helped inflict those defeats, but the party officially supports

the benefits can in principle. With the government refusing to back

down, Labour now says the cap should be set locally, higher in

some areas, lower end others. The Welfare Reform Bill returns to the

Commons today, where Liberal Democrat MPs will have to decide

whether to rebel, as many of their colleagues did in the Lords. This

morning the government appears to have offered concessions, including

money to help families affected by the cap. But will it be enough?

We can find out, we enjoyed by Liberal Democrat per year Mike

German. Ed Vaizey, there is some transitional relief to describe

this. We have any idea how much that will cost? If well, the point

about welfare reform is that they will make savings on something like

�1.5 billion a year. The BL package that we will be debating in the

House of Commons is about 1.5 billion. -- the whole package. They

are actually quite small savings when you consider the huge size of

the welfare bill. It is very difficult. We have made these

reforms, and I fully support them, but they have caused controversy,

and we have been defeated in House of Lords. It shows the massive

scale of the task when you try to reform welfare. You do it

incrementally, shave a bit off, and opinion are trying to reduce the

rate of growth of the welfare bill, but even when you take these

measures, they caused a stormy debate. I think we have got a long

way to go in reforming welfare, but we have got to have a consensus

that it is getting out of control. I mean, Liam Byrne, the Labour

spokesman, wrote an article saying that Beveridge would look on these

It's your policy now to have a different cap depending on where

you live s that correct? Yes. would you contemplate a higher cap

for for London? London housing costs is probably the key feature

of this debate. I think the like hihood is if you had ditch local

caps in the most expensive parts of the country the caps would be

higher than in other parts of the country. If I'm on average wage, in

other words, people going out to work can't afford to live in

central London, why should people on welfare be able to live in

central London? The key thing here is the Government's trying to save

money. Ed has said that. What is the answer to the question? I am

starting to answer the question. What the department of local

Government have said is there might be a net cost from introducing a

single benefit cap for the whole country, because of the costs of

temporary accommodation if people are forced out of their homes. If

we are trying to save money, and we support trying to save money, we

have got to do this in an intelligent way, that's why our

amendment today is saying it should be an independent body that decides

on these local caps as to what they should be. But Labour would

contemplate or tolerate a system where maybe you had, let's pluck

figures out of the air, �32,000 cap for London, which would mean you

would have to earn �45,000 to take home �32,000, that's a big salary,

even by London terms, but maybe a �16,000 cap in Liverpool? You would

be happy with regional differences like that? There's nothing new

about regional and indeed local differences in terms of housing

benefits. We have local housing allowances in the system at the

moment. We are responding to what we stheu a rushed reform from the

Government which could have some appalling consequences in terms of

homelessness and more families moving into temporary accommodation,

that's why we are making this proposal. Give than housing costs

are the thing that vary most from region to region, Ed Vaizey, what

would be wrong with a regional based cap? Into it would add a

layer of complexity. It's still I think a generous cap, you can still

live in London on �1,200 a month. So I think the cap is relatively

generous and there are lots of important exceptions for different

categories of people, so it's a very straightforward and simple

reform. I hear what Stephen says, it's interesting the the unions

have always opposed things like regional pay. There hasn't been an

- the Labour Party to recognise there are Reg regional differences

in living standards, if you start a debate about how we take into

account... The principle of London public sector workers earning more

has been established in the system and accepted. Let me bring in Mike

German. Has Government done enough to asaupblg rebels? On the cap it

certainly has. We will see a figure which is considerable about the

amount of money that's going to be put in to help people who are in

the most difficult circumstances, because clearly they're going to be

people trapped by circumstances beyond their control. This is the

transitional arrangement. First of all, there's money and I understand

it's a substantial amount of money, we are not talking about just five

or six million, talking about tens, maybe hundreds of millions of

pounds over a period of time. on, the cap itself only says �275

million, why would you end up spending more? Over a period of

time. Shoug the transition going to be? The transition is as people

need to to adjust. There's one other group of people, people lose

their jobs who will face a period of time to readjust, we don't want

to see them immediately trapped by the cap, give them time to get back

into work and the Government has to give them nine months, which is

beyond what the average is for people to get back into jobs. There

are things that have been done and the Government has done enough I

think for my colleagues to be able to support this as it goes through

tonight. Sounds like it's hardly worth the candle. It's going to

take years and cost hundreds of millions when you are only going to

save 275. You have to start somewhere. By spending more?! He's

just managed to water it down. These are relatively modest reforms,

but they are long overdue and again if you have - to keep coming back

to the principle, which all of us have to decide based on our income

where we live, how we will live. The great prize in all this is the

bit of the Bill going through which allows people to earn more money

and not to lose all their benefits, which is stop people from going

back to work. It's actually a major reform and we got the most complex

benefits structure in the whole of the western world and we are trying

to reform all that and make it sense of it, that's happening now.

And that part of the Bill has gone through both the Commons and the

Lords and thankfully it will mean after today it will mean that we

will be able to put that into practice, roll it out for people so

whatever you do you can get back to work and there will always be a

chance of earning more money. wasn't only the cap the Lords

defeated the Government on a series of other amendments voted on today,

opportunities to protect cancer patients from cuts, opportunities

to protect disabled children from cuts. These are save thags are very,

very modest and there is a basic point of decency here where the

Lords are standing up for what most British people... Funnily enough, I

received this morning from Macmillan cancer care, the people

who have been behind this pressure, a note of agreement, they say we

now find we can work with the Government on proposals, we have

reached... We quoted Macmillan cancer care on this programme.

was you that done it, Andrew. did point out... It's also worth

pointing out, when Stephen says the House of Lords is standing up for

decency and truth a lot of Labour peers rebelled against their

leadership. There is a consensus, although Stephen tries to hide it

in terms of jumping on a band wagon, there are important reforms. And

when you use language like protecting cancer patients you are

means testing people and reviewing benefits. You are - you don't want

to be associated with bankers' bonuses, you don't want to be

associated with people who can make more on welfare than people on the

average wage and people earning �35,000, just as bankers are

difficult for the Conservatives, this is difficult because we know

from the polls Labour voters like these changes. Of course it's

difficult for us, and we're trying to strike the balance between

ensuring that work pays, which is why we support the principle of a

cap, but recognising that for many families in high cost areas the cap

will be a problem. In the end the best solution is to create jobs.

course. So the rebellion is over? Wye have thought this Bill will see

the light of day. It's in a much better place than twhepb started,

that will mean... Down to the Lords? The Lords and the Commons,

there have been changes as well by the way which the Government has

put forward as a result of pressure put on by its own backbenchers.

have often wanted to say that, in a much better place than when we

started! It was you that done it on the

cancer care, I will remember that. We even take the credit, but we

don't deserve it. Regular viewers will know that the Daily Politics

mug, here it is, is a prized possession. We don't give these out

to any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Ed or Steve. Not like knighthoods

and we never ask for them back! If you want to join Britain's most

exclusive club you will just going to have to enter our Guest the --

Guess the Year competition. Let's see if you can remember when this

# This is the time, time for action Housewives came to their senses,

the panic buying stopped which means there should be enough food

After three years in jail Mr Stonehouse sprinted towards the car

And to be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug send

your answer to our special e-mail address.

You can see the full terms and conditions on our website.

Coming up to midday here, let's look at Big Ben. There it is. I

know it's not Big Ben, but some mistakes are beyond correction!

Just take it like that. Whatever that clock is, it can only mean one

thing, Prime Ministers questions is on the way it means that Nick

Robinson is with us. Nick... Children in the studio! I said it

leans to the north-west. Have you quite finished?! Let's get on with

serious matters. Mr Miliband did did rather well

yesterday when the Prime Minister made his statement on Europe. He is

coming off a high. He is, what is intriguing, he began the year with

these dreadful write-ups, it was really that PMQs before Christmas

in which he had done so badly and the polls were bad and now he is on

a bit of a high. Not just because his call for a vote on Hester's pay,

the chief executive of the RBS, was cited by RBS as the reason why

Stephen Hester was turning it down, but then he discovered a new kind

of way of dealing with David Cameron yesterday, which is

interesting to see if he try it is today, mockery. Up until now it

seems to me, he has deployed a level of outrage which frankly just

bounces off David Cameron, much of the time. But the fun he had

yesterday and, frankly, the Labour whips got their act together, was

to mock David Cameron for what he calls a phantom veto on the EU. He

knew the sceptics were uncomfortable and he got his own

side together to laugh at the Prime Minister. There was much

synchronised laughing from the Labour benches yesterday. Let's

look at what Nick has been talking about, this is from yesterday

afternoon. Mr Speaker, having heard the Prime

Minister's statement on Europe, the whole House now knows the truth,

that with this Prime Minister a veto is not for life, it's just for

Christmas. LAUGHTER. Calm down, calm down,

dear. He said it was a real veto on the use of European institutions

and his backbenchers believed him. Mr Speaker, even his cabinet

believed him. It was funny, but I think the

Labour whips were pumping in some laughing gas just to keep it going

on the backbenches. What does he go on today, probably can't go on

Europe again, that was done yesterday? He is likely to surf off

this wave over bankers' bonuses. I would imagine the tone he struck

yesterday after the removal of Fred Goodwin's knighthood, which is fine

but now what are you going to do, is what he will want to pursue, get

some credit for the fact Stephen Hester lost his bonus, he will want

to accuse the Prime Minister of failing to deal with that bonus and

want to deal with it. He might have another go at health, I only say

that because he asked three questions on health last week. The

reason he did it actually is that he was aware that the Royal

colleges at the time were trying to co-ordinate a letter on protest

against the health Bill, actually there were too many disagreements

at the top level. Between the colleges. They couldn't agree, some

wanted to send a militant letter, others said that they wanted still

to work with the Government to improve it. So he didn't have a

kind of platform to go on. But he will try again because he knows

there is a lot of concern about the Bill, he knows it's coming back to

the House. But the interesting thing is just one last thought,

when we say the hraft certificate co-ordinated, -- laughter is co-

ordinated, don't forget who Iain Duncan Smith said to us in this

studio, former leader of the opposition, said you have to as a

leader of the opposition, have co- ordinated action by your whips. We

can kind of mock it, we can say isn't it pathetic. All ask the same

question, all laugh at the same joke, but you are on your own there.

The party is by definition bigger than you, more resource, if you

don't operate as an opposition together, you are stuffed. I won

ter too, whether the Commons will raise itself above its normal

parochial concerns and do anything, will anybody raise the issue of

this secret NATO report which the BBC News revealed last night, must

have been 3.00am, this report done by interviewing 27,000 Afghans,

research all over the place, shows not only the Pakistan military and

intelligence is supporting the Taliban, which we knew, but NATO

confirm, the Afghan army, the Afghan police, local Afghans are

all supporting the Taliban, as well now. That brings into question ten

years of Labour and Conservative foreign policy. The thing you have

noted a lot of times on this programme is how rarely Afghanistan

has been properly debated. 9,000 troops there. So will someone raise

it, who knows? The truth is it is not given the significance in the

House of Commons that you might think, people are nervous of

questioning the mission, but there are now real nerves at the top that

Obama wants out quick for electoral reasons. Mr Sarkozy. And David

Cameron finds himself in the unusual position of saying hold on,

let's not get out too quickly here. And yet now with this report

suggesting that we are fighting, not just the Taliban, but as it

were the organised and supported and financed forces in part of the

Pakistani intelligence services. heard this morning the Taliban in

parts of Afghanistan have a helpline in place, that the Taliban

are basically running the areas, but if any Taliban leaders gets out

of line the local Afghan peasant can call the local leadership and

say your Guy's out of order here and they can sort him out T would

seem from that NATO report that the moment we, the NATO allies, leave

they're in. All that blood and treasure that's been spent could

end up for nought. The one person who has constantly talked about

this is David Miliband. He has constantly made the case in office

and now out, that because of what you are saying, the only thing you

can do is seek some political settlement with the Taliban and now

we know there were talks, Karzai came here to talk about that, there

have been talks with the Taliban and Afghan Government, but there is

an argument that is the only way The whole house were wants to join

me in sending our condolences to the family's of the servicemen,

dedicated soldiers who were highly respected by their colleagues for

their selfless service which will never be forgotten by our country.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,

and in addition to my duties in his as I will have further such

meetings later today. Paul Farrelly. Can I associate myself and the

whole house with a Prime Minister's remarks? Those brave soldiers have

been the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. In the

past week, chief constables in England and Wales have warned that

policing is on a cliff-edge and facing a watershed moment as

numbers fall to their lowest in a decade. My paws in Staffordshire is

cutting hundreds of police officers and staff. The Prime Minister said

in the debates before the election, we are not seeing enough police on

the streets, we are not catching up burglars, we are not convicting

enough. How does the Prime Minister's rhetoric square with the

reality of frontline policing now? Well, the fact is the percentage of

officers on the front line has actually increased. What we

inherited... We inherited a situation... We inherited a

situation where there were 6,000 uniformed officers performing back

office roles in the police. Now, we have had to make difficult spending

reductions, but I think if he listens to his front bench, he will

find out they support the cuts and the pay freeze, and they even so

strongly support our police commissioners that droves of Len

MPs are going to try to become man! Alok Sharma. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tonight his house as an historic vote on other households on benefit

should be able to receive more than ourselves in work. Does the Prime

Minister agree with me that the introduction of a benefits captured

have the support of the whole house? Well, I think my honourable

friend is entirely right. The cap is right and there. It is right to

say that you should not get more than �26,000 per year in benefits,

�500 per week, and it is fair because we are introducing a new

principle in our welfare system that an able-bodied family that can

work should not get more in benefits than the average family

gets from work. The leader of the party opposite has said he is not

against a cap in principle. Tonight when it will more find out whether

he is in favour of a cap in Mr Speaker, can I join the Prime

Minister in paying tribute to the signaller Ian Jones from 20th

Armoured Brigade headquarters signals squadron and Lance Corporal

attached to 1st Battalion the auction regiment? Both men showed

exceptional courage and bravery and our thoughts are with their family

and friends. Before the election, legislation was passed by

Parliament with cross-party support to make all banks disclose how many

people earn over �1 million, but it needs the government to trigger the

change. Will the Prime Minister go ahead and do it? We now have the

toughest and most transparent regime are of any major financial

centre in the world. For the first time, banks are going to publish

the paper are the top eight executors. That never happened in

13 years of a Labour government. On the specific Walker reforms, Walker

himself said that it should be done at the same time in all countries

across the European Union. Miliband! A Mr Speaker, exactly

what we would expect, no leadership on top pay from the Prime Minister.

In case he had not... In case he had not heard the news, they are

more than eight people earning over �1 million at our banks. What did

the Chancellor say in opposition? He said this. We... I think the

honourable gentleman opposite should listen to what the

Chancellor said in opposition. He said this. We support proposals to

make these banks disclose the number of their employees who are

on high salaries. Mr Speaker, he even called for them to publish

their names! It is another broken promise from this Government. I

asked in the question, and again, the legislation is on the books, it

is ready to go, it had all-party support. Why doesn't he make it

happen? We are listening to the advice of the man who produced the

report for the last Labour government! Now, he asks about the

number of people getting �1 million bonuses. Let me remind him of this,

it was the last Labour government, when he was in the Cabinet, that I

read an RBS bonus ball of �1.3 billion! Literally hundreds of

people... Literally hundreds of people were getting �1 million

bonuses, and he signed it off. The issue for the honourable gentleman

is why he is in favour of our things he never did in government?

Some might call it opposition, some might call it hypocrisy! This is

bigger, I will tell him what hypocrisy is. It is saying he is

going to start a �1 million bonus to Stephen Hester and then nodding

it through. -- Stop. I have his say to him, I have to say to him, I

think we have heard it all, because he says that the class war against

the bankers is going to be led by him and his cabinet are

millionaires. I do not think it is going to wash, frankly. Let me as

Tim... Now, let me ask him about another simple proposal. He had no

answer on transparency. Does he agree with me that to bring a dose

of realism to the decisions about top pay, they should be an ordinary

employee on every page committee so that people on a huge salary at

least have to look one of their employees in the eye and justify

it? Order! The Prime Minister will know that the use of the word

hypocrisy in relation to one individual member is not

parliamentary, therefore... Order! Just before the Prime Minister

begins his reply, I would ask into the draw that turns straight away.

I am very happy to do that, this has begun. I think it is just

because we are expected to listen to the people who presided over the

biggest banking and financial disaster in our history, and it is

not as if they had nothing to do with it! One of them was the city

minister and the other one was sitting in the Treasury. I have to

ask, who failed to regulate the banks? Labour! Who gave us boom and

bust? Labour! Who was it who failed to fix the roof when the sun was

shining? Labour! Who presided over a multi-million-pound bonuses and

did nothing? Labour! I have looked very carefully at his propositions.

I do not think it is practical to do what he is suggesting. It breaks

an important principle of not having people on a remuneration

committee who have their own pay determined, so I do not think it is

the right way forward. The house may be interested to know, because

I have looked carefully at all his proposals, he also proposed in

Glasgow to ban performance-related pay in all but the most exceptional

circumstances. I think that is completely wrong. There are people

working in offices and factories and shops around the country who

want poor performance related pay, and if they meet some targets, they

would like to have a bonus at the end of the year. That is pro

aspiration, doing the right thing for our family, and it shows he has

not got a clue how to run an economy. Mr Speaker, now we know

where the Prime Minister's stance. No to transparency, no to an

employee on the remuneration committee, and what was the

Chancellor doing last week when supposedly cracking down on top

pay? He was going to Davos to tell the business community to lobby for

a reduction in the top rate of income tax! We know the truth. We

know the truth. When it comes to top pay, his government and this

Prime Minister are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Mr Speaker, I do not know what the word is for criticising someone who

went to Davos when he went to Davos I think... I think the word Peter

Mandelson used when he was in Davos was struggling! The Prime Minister

is exceptionally well educated, and I'm sure he has got a very full

vocabulary and can make proper use of it. Mr David Davis. Yesterday it

was announced that the French company that sold one the first

round of a contest for the 10 billion Biden contract with India.

That is disastrous news for thousands of workers up and down

the country, particularly in my constituency. Given the long

relationship between India and Britain, given the fact that we

give many times more aid to India and France ever did, would he

engage himself and the full force of the government in attempting to

reverse his decision? I would do everything I can, as I have already,

to encourage the Indians to look at Typhoon, because it is such a good

aircraft. The decision is disappointing, but it is about to

the Indians have assessed as making the lowest bid and asked to enter

into further negotiations. They have not awarded the contract. I

would say to my honourable friend, who cares deeply about the people

in his constituency, we do not expect any jobless as stemming from

this decision, and it doesn't rule out A iPhone 4 India. -- job losses.

This is a superb aircraft man we will encourage the Indians to take

that look. -- that view. The Deputy Prime Minister said that means-

testing may be brought in for pensioners' bus passes. Was he

speaking for the government, as does the Prime Minister think that

is fair? I made a very clear commitment at the time of the last

election about pension and bus passes, about winter fuel payments,

apart free television licences, and we are keeping all those promises.

Order! The house must come down. I want to hear Penny Mordaunt. If a

local supermarket closes down, another quickly takes its place. If

Portsmouth Football Club closes down, the Pompey fans will not be

content with buying a season ticket from Southampton. Will the Prime

Minister at his boys to mind in club so it recoups the tax it is

owed that our club survives and the fans have their chance to become

its owners? I will certainly do that, and acting she is absolutely

right to raise this issue. Knowing what to Pompey fans, I can

understand. Their idea that they could support Southampton is

completely incredible, and we must do everything we can to keep this

friendly rivalry going. Mr Ed Miliband! Mr Speaker, this week,

this week the British Medical Journal, the Health Service Journal

and Nursing Times published a joint editorial that said, and I quote,

the Prime Minister's reorganisation has destabilised and damaged one of

this country's greatest achievements, a system that

embodies social justice and has delivered a widespread patient

satisfaction, public support and value for money. We must make sure

that nothing like this ever happens again. Mr Speaker, why does the

Prime Minister think he has so comprehensively lost the medical

profession's Trust? I noticed he does not run on to raise the well-

backed cap today! Peel up and down the country will recognise that. --

he does not want to raise the welfare cap. There are tens of

thousands of General Practitioners up and down the country who are

implementing our reforms because they once decisions made by doctors,

not bureaucrats. They want to see health and social care brought

together, and they want to put the patient in the driving seat. What I

would say to him is look at what is happening in the health service,

waiting times are down, infection rates are down, the number of

people in mixed sex wards that we put up with for 13 years and a

Labour is down by 94%. He should be praising the good things that are

happening in the health service, rather than having his policy,

which is to say an increase in NHS resources is irresponsible. That is

their position. This government is putting the money in and getting

Every time he talks about the NHS he just shows how out of touch he

is with what is happening on the ground. Let me now tell him who is

lined up against this Bill. 98% of GPs against the Bill. The Royal

College of Nursing against the Bill. The Royal College of Midwives

against the Bill. The Royal College of Radiologists against the Bill.

The British Medical Association against the Bill. The Patients'

Association against the Bill. Mr Speaker, he knows in his heart of

hearts this Bill is a disaster. Now there were rumours last week that

he was considering dropping the Bill. He has a choice, he can carry

on regardless, or he can listen to the public and the professions,

will he now do the right thing and drop this unwanted Bill?

If you are trying to bring in to a public service choice, competition,

transparency, proper results and publication of results, you will

always find that there will be objections. The question is, is it

going to improve patient care and the running of the health service?

I apologise for interrupting, the Prime Minister's answer must be

heard. Order! There is excessive noise on both sides. Members must

calm down, let's hear the Prime Minister's answer. Let me tell him

something that Tony Blair once wrote about the process of reform.

I know, there is a man who knows a thing about bonuses and pay. He

said this: Listen, listen! It is an important lesson in the progress of

reform, changes proposed, it is announced as a disaster. It

preseeds with vast opposition, it is unpopular, it comes about.

Within a short space of time it is as if it has always been so. The

lessen is instructive f you thing is a change is right, go with it.

The opposition is inevitable, but it is rarely unbeatable. Someone

who knew a thing or two about reform. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Order!. The honourable member will be heard. Thank you, Mr Speaker. A

year ago I asked the Prime Minister for help when there was the

announcement of the Pfizer closure in Sandwich, would the Prime

Minister agree that the support and help from his Ministers that's

delivered us an enterprise zone and �40 million for jobs in east Kent

ensures that we are still a leading centre for life sciences? I am

delighted with what the honourable lady says. It was a tough and

difficult time when they made that decision, but I think it's shown

that Government and industry and local people in organisations

coming together, we have been able to keep a lot of jobs and a lot of

investment and research and development in that area. What Wye

say to all pharmaceutical companies is this Government has the patent

box, if you invent things in this country and develop them in this

country you only pay a 10% corporation tax rate, that enables

us to say to pharmaceutical ap -- companies all over the world, come

and invest in Britain. This week temperatures across Britain have

dropped drastically and last winter 200 people died every day from

preventable cold weather-related illnesses, but in in Barnsley,

instead of being able to focus resource on promoting the dangers

of cold weather, we have had to set aside �17 million for an

undemocratic, top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Can the

Prime Minister tell my constituents if this really is a responsible use

of public money? First of all, what I would say to

him and everyone in Barnsley, this Government has been able to keep

higher level of cold weather payments introduced before the

election and we have kept them for all years and that will be a real

help along with the winter fuel allowance. What I would say about

the NHS is to simply look at the figures, if you look since the

election there are 4,000 more doctors working in our NHS, there

are 620 more midwives working in our NHS. And we are actually

treating 100,000 more patients per month in our NHS. That's what is

actually happening in the NHS, if he looks at what's happening in the

hospital, rather than repeats what the trade unions are telling him.

The Prime Minister will be aware that talks between St George's and

Epsom and St Helier Trust have been abandoned regarding a possible

merger. Could I seek reassurances that the Trust will be able to

engage with local partners such as local authorities and the clinical

commissioning groups to come forward with a proposal that meets

local health needs and also that the �290 million allocated for the

hospital is still available? Well, I totally understand my

honourable friend's concerns about this issue. The priority for the

Trust remains to secure the future of Epsom and St Helier and Sutton

hospitals. I understand the board and those working on a possible

merger had already started to look at the other options in case this

didn't happen. I understand they're now looking at the next steps and I

am sure the Department of Health will want to engage closely with

him as this unfolds. Prime Minister, you are keen to

tell us that work should always pay. Therefore, what do you say to my

constituents from low and middle income family who is have contacted

me to convey their fears about the measures being brought forward by

the Government such as the removal of working and child tax credits,

these are working people who are already facing severe financial

difficulties and the current proposals could cost these hard

working families with disabled children in receipt of the lower

disability premium over �1300 per year?

Well, I make two points. Of course we have had to reform the tax

credit system when we came to office, tax credits went all the

way up the income scale so actually people even in this House were

eligible for tax credits and we have taken it further down the

income scale. In terms of what she says about disability, I would make

two points. Disability living allowance is going up by 5.2% this

April, which will be well ahead of inflation. The point I would make

about the universal credit issue is as she knows there is the lower

rate for disabled children at �53. Anyone on that level is going to be

completely protected through transitional payments. We haven't

yet set the higher rate, but I can tell the honourable lady it will be

at least what it is now, and possibly higher.

Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, look into recent

shocking report into allegations of overcharging of vulnerable adults

on which arele and cases of violence and intimidation under a

Labour-led council control, making sure those responsible are brought

to account and never work in adult social services again?

Well, I will certainly look at the report that she mentions. It's

clearly a serious matter. Also ask the Minister responsible in the

Department of Health to look into this matter further and speak with

her. Clearly CQC, which has had a difficult birth has a really

important job to do in terms of making sure inspections are

thorough and targeted in the areas where they're most needed and

clearly it sounds from what she said, is there is a great need for

this to happen on Merseyside. again today the Prime Minister has

denied that he is cutting benefits for disabled children, but the

lower rate of disability living allowance for disabled children has

been reduced from �54, almost �54 to almost �27, a cut of practically

50%. 100,000 children are going to be affect. Is that not correct,

Prime Minister? What is correct is that anyone on

that lower rate of payment, no one will receive less as a result of

their move to universal credit. No one will be affected by that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree that a

meaningful cap on benefits is essential if we are to end the

something for nothing culture which developed under the last

Government? I think that is absolutely right.

It is right to bring in this cap T does introduce a new principle,

which is you shouldn't be better off on benefits than the average

family is in work. But what we have had from the party opposite is a

complete silence. Are they going to be supporting us tonight in the

lobbies? Why not just nod? Nod? I thought it was all about taking

tough decisions, that they were in favour of a cap. They were going to

tear up some of Labour's history. It was time to make bold decisions.

Come on, one bold decision, just nod. Are you with us or against us?

A great big vacuum. Can the Prime Minister explain why

my 65 kwraoerbld conconstitute --- year-old consit kwrepbt who

couldn't debt a council home has to pay �100 because of his housing

benefit reforms? Why is this Prime Minister so much tougher on the

vulnerable, than he is on the powerful with their excessive

bonuses? We know they're not going to back

us on the welfare cap, and now we can see they're against the housing

benefit reforms as well. Let me just remind her what her own

welfare Minister said. He said it's completely unacceptable that

housing benefit has rocketed to �20 billion. This is what he said.

Where is - he is not at home today. He said this: Beverage would

scarcely have believed housing benefit alone is costing the UK

over �20 billion a year. Now, this Government is reforming it, that

opposition is doing nothing. Does the Prime Minister agree that

all members of this House who claim they're on the side of hard working

families across the country should vote with the Government tonight to

cap benefits at �26,000, which is after all the average income of

hard working families? She's absolutely right. People up

and down the country will be completely amazed that supposedly

the party that's meant to stand up for working people thinks that it's

OK to get more on benefits, than a family gets from working. Let me

give them one more go. Are you with news the lobbies tonight -- with

you with us in the lobbies tonight? Absolutely hopeless. It is now

clear that the single biggest funder of the Prime Minister's

party got his peerage on false pretenses. Can the Prime Minister

guarantee that Lord Ashcroft has now told the whole truth about his

connections with the building company Johnson International, or

is it yet again one rule for his rich friends, and another rule for

everyone else? I have answered this question many

times. I I might point out to him the largest funder of his party has

been based offshore. There are eight million houses who have to

make do with earning �26,000 or less before tax. What message does

my right honourable friend think we will be sending to those people if

we are to renege on to cut benefits. Many people who do criticise the

benefit cap and say actually �26,000, �500 a week is too high. I

think it is fair, I think it is right but I think they have got -

people have an expectation of their politicians that we are going to

make it clear that you are better off in work than you are in

benefits. There are plenty of people who are excluded from the

cap because they're on disability living allowance, they're not able

to work and the rest of it. But if you can work, you shouldn't be

better off on benefits. A simple principle. I find it amazing that

the party opposite can't agree. One more go, one little nod? Nothing.

Mr Speaker, in opposition the Prime Minister told millions on TV, if

you work hard, I will be behind you. 82% state owned RBS hasn't signed

up to pay the living wage of �8.30 in London and �7.20 per hour

elsewhere for all its staff and contractors. Why does his

Government support low wages for workers, but big bucks and bonuses

for bankers? I thought by saying standing up for people who work

hard he was beginning to get the hang of it and we might have a

supporter tonight. What this Government has done with RBS is

radically cut the bonus pool that was massive under Labour, is say

there should be a �2,000 cash cap, unlike the massive cash increases

under Labour and actually beginning to get this bank under control.

Liberal Democrat plan to increase the income tax threshold to �10,000

was on the front page of our manifesto. It will give many

working people an extra �700 a year and lift millions of poorly paid

people out of income tax altogether. At a time when many working people

are struggling to make ends meet, will the Prime Minister agree to go

further and faster on this much needed tax cut?

I think the honourable gentleman is right to raise this issue and I am

proud of the fact we have taken 1.1 million people out of tax, those

are some of the lowest paid people in our country, the majority are

women and we are committed to making further progress during this

parliament with this policy. Prime Minister, before the general

election you told midwives that you would make their lives easier and

that you would recruit 3,000 more midwives. Since the general

election nurses and midwives have been downbanded, working harder for

less, and midwives in training have been reduced by 3% a year. Will the

British people wrong to take you at your word?

I am very sorry but the honourable lady's figures are in fact wrong,

compared with the election there are over 620 more midwives working

in the NHS, and there are record numbers in training. Now we want to

do more. But will only be able to do more if we keep funding the NHS

and her party is committed to cutting it, saying NHS funding

increases are irresponsible. And will only be able to do it if we

keep cutting back on the bureaucracy which we are doing

successfully with our reforms and making sure the money goes into the

front end. But there are more midwives, more in training. I am

afraid her figures are wrong. you, Mr Speaker. On New Year's Eve

2010 my constituent Jamie Still was killed by a drink driver who was

more than twice over the limit. And yet his family had to face the fact

that the person who killed him continued to drive for a further

eight months until sentencing. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet

with the family and consider their campaign that people who are

seriously over the limit in a death by dangerous driving case should

have as part of their bail conditions their driving licence

withdrawn? My heart goes out to my honourable

friend's constituents for the loss they've suffered. I think he raises

a very important point about what happens in cases like these and

what you can and cannot do with bail conditions. I will certainly

go away and look at that. It may well be this is something we can

consider alongside the recommendations we are considering

about drug-related driving. I think there is more work for the

Government to do in this area and I will certainly listen to his

concerns. We believe on these benches that the Government's

welfare cap is both fair and reasonable and we will be

supporting the Government in the lobbies tonight but we also believe

that the Lords' amendments affecting vulnerable people, cancer

patients and disabled people are also fair and reasonable. Not least

because of the disproportionately detrimental effects on Northern

Ireland which the Prime Minister will be aware of. Why is it,

therefore, that we are so limited in time in terms of debating these

crucial issues which affect so many of our most vulnerable people?

First of all, can I thank him for his support in the lobbies tonight

and look forward to seeing him there. On the issue of the cancer

sufferers and the plans, let me explain that the number of people

under our plans, the number of cancer sufferers that will get

extra long-term help through the support group is actually going to

increase. And we are going to reduce the number of people that

have to have face-to-face assessments. These proposals have

been fully supported by Professor Harrington Harrington who we asked

to look into this issue because we weren't happy with the previous

Government's arrangements and the way these things were dealt with.

The point Wye make is there are two types of employment and support

allowance, the support group who will always go on getting support,

not means tested, as long as they need that help they will get it and

the work-related activity group, people who with help are able to

work and I think it's right to ask them with support to get into work

and that's what we are going to do. Who does the Prime Minister think

is on the side of hard working low paid families in doesn't eaten? The

Conservative-led coalition that's taken the lowest paid out of tax

and capping benefits or the party opposite who took away the 10p tax

rate and flip-flopping over the benefit cap?

I think my honourable friend is being chartable, they're not flip-

flopping over the benefit cap, So Mr Mellor and went on bankers'

bonuses, asking the Prime Minister to do even more following the loss

of the knighthood from Fred Goodwin. -- Mr Miliband. He then went on the

NHS reforms, which the government is still struggling to get through

the Lords, pointing out that most of the medical establishment is

against the reforms. The Prime Minister pointed out that the

medical establishment is usually against any kind of reform. What

was not mentioned, dogs that did not bark in the mother of all

parliaments, Afghanistan did not rate a mention, despite the NATO

report we are talking about earlier. The eurozone, despite the failure

of Greece to agree the size of its haircut, and Portugal looking as if

it will be next in line to take a haircut as well. There was not even

a passing reference to Mitt Romney winning in Florida in the early

hours of this morning, which I thought they might have mentioned.

We will hear what our panel thinks in a moment, but first what were

the e-mails about? The leaders' performances and the NHS, in the

name. Ian Jordan from Tamworth, suddenly Ed Miliband has the

measure of David Cameron, who seems rattled and weak by comparison on

key issues. David Cameron does not do himself well when he loses his

temper and personalises his attack. This is from Damian in Manchester,

David Cameron is quite right to repeat the fact that Labour left us

with such a mess, many people in the Labour Party are very fickle

and need a reminder, hence the lame class division Jan. This is from

Liam in addition, fed up with David Cameron refusing to answer the

questions, the response about NHS reform proved that he is genuinely

at of touch. But this is from Damian, all right, two goes, here

we go again with desperate veto using the NHS card. -- desperate Ed.

Time to hose down our automatic accent, back to class war!

thought that was the striking thing, there is no doubt that Ed Miliband

that the Prime Minister on the back foot, just by quietly asking

questions that he knew the answer to already, the answer was no. Why

not implement the Walker report which would mean that bankers

salaries over �1 million were published? Why not put an employee

on the remuneration committees? But then he is an extraordinary phrase

when he said that David Cameron and his Cabinet of millionaires, of his

political strategy, could not lead a class war on bankers. I think he

might come to regret that phrase. If I was a businessman, sitting in

New York right now, and I am thinking of relocating and putting

a new investment into Europe, and I am watching British politics at the

moment, what do I see? I see politicians in the keirin on how

much I can pay senior executives, those who pay a lot being pilloried,

and whatever I pay, the state will take 52%. Why come to Britain?

not think it is only in Britain that these debates are happening.

They are happening in America and other European countries, and it is

about getting a proper balance between open for business and

having proper remuneration for people, and understanding the

causes of the collapse in 2008. are meant to be open for business,

we have to rebuild our economy after the Great Crash of 2008, and

this would not seem to be a great way of going about it if we want to

have a business-friendly environment. Of course, we have got

to have a business-friendly environment, and it is right that

we strike a proper and correct balance and avoid being anti-

business. Ed is promoting a devout about responsible capitalism, which

a lot of people in the business world recognise needs to happen.

The problem for the Conservatives is that you unleash the dogs of war,

the Tories in opposition loved banker bashing. Indeed, your

rhetoric often outbid Labour, and it has come back to bite you in the

bottom. I do not think so, if you are sitting in New York, you will

see the Occupy Wall Street protesters down the road. This

debate happens all over the world. The day are not saying how much you

can pay people. Net but the focus on business. Nobody objects to

people starting a business being rewarded for it. -- let's put the

focus. Are people being paid large bonuses went by and large they are

only in business because the taxpayer has bailed them out?

People object to the one-way bet, where if you do well, you get a

large bonus, and the same if you do badly. There's nothing wrong with

politicians pointing that out. If you were in New York, I hope he

would say this was a great place to do business for a technology

company, but also it if you are a banker, let's show a bit of

humility and understanding that you live in a society where people have

real concerns. I understand the point that if we bailed these

bankers out, it is rather frustrating to see them still being

on huge salaries, even though they have not put their banks on to an

even keel. But you NPower, and when you took over, you both agreed that

that decision on pay and bonuses were not be yours. -- in power. You

and sauced it to a quango, and you do not have the direct power to

determine pay. -- out sourced. reality in the case are RBS is that

the state had to intervene to save RBS. That is not my issue. You did

not take direct control of pay and bonuses. You out solstice, and the

Conservatives in government have kept it that way. -- Alex Horne

state. I thought you were linking Andrew is putting his finger on

something interesting, which is the concern that business has and is

beginning to articulate, the arbitrary nature of political

intervention. They can cope with rules. If you change the tax system,

they have got predictability. If you want to change the rules on

transparency, for example, or how pay is set, whether there should be

bonuses, in the end they make a judgment. The thing that is really

an ailing business at the moment is the fact that when political

pressure gets great enough, when there is contest on the front

benches as to who can be holier than now, suddenly this arm's-

length relationship with RBS goes out the window when the Prime

Minister desperately tries to stop Stephen Hester's bonus. People

expect politicians to talk about the businesses -- issues of the day.

I seem to remember the chairman of RBS waved his bonus before Stephen

Hester made his decision, leaving Stephen Hester even more exposed.

There was a public debate, and he knew he was taking on a publicly

owned bank and the brokers would be on hand. The share price has halved,

people are wondering why he should get a �2 million bonus. Mash the

It needs to be about changing the rules, and what was striking today

was that Ed Miliband put to the Prime Minister some pretty modest

changes to the rules that have been recommended by the High Pay

Commission, and the Prime Minister parted them away. The Walker report

says do not introduce those rules unless they are global. The idea

that the Prime Minister is holding back on his is not right. One issue

that we have not talked about as we come to the end of our time here,

as a country, we give almost more than �250 million the year in

foreign aid to India. I understand we have given about �1.3 billion in

the last four years, and yet we learned last night that the Indians

have decided not to buy the Eurofighter, the Typhoon, of which

we make a big chunk, but to buy what most people regard as an

inferior French fighter, the Rafale. It has not been money well spent.

do not think we gave money to India... France is nothing to India.

France has no one aid to India. are a generous nation. Comic Relief

has raised more money in a recession than they did before. We

give that money to the Indian people. We give it to people who

are in poverty, suffering from illness and disease. It goes to

government quangos. It is moving to a position where India will no

longer receive aid over the next three years. That is the direction

of travel. We have supported programmes which deserve to be

supported. The Prime Minister indicated that this was not yet a

done deal. If that is true, we are going to go back in Anne and Pitch

Again. He seemed to suggest the Indians had opened negotiations

with the French because they had given the lowest bid. He seemed to

suggest it might yet unravel and that there would be another go for

British Aerospace. I have not seen at anywhere else. Neither have I.

David Davies, along with Alan Johnson, the former Labour Home

Secretary, both MPs in hull, have been campaigning together to try to

defend jobs in the area, and this will cause them real angst. Thank

you for being with us, we're holding hostage until one o'clock,

so do not think about leaving! gets to leave early? For good

behaviour! He is a member of Her Majesty's BBC. He has got to get to

the news. I can check whether that is true! It is out! The Government,

about to publish what could be as many as 100 amendments to its

controversial Bill to reform the NHS. After the furore caused by the

original proposals on the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, there

was a redrafting of the legislation. Doctors and nurses have been on the

warpath again, calling for the plans to be abandoned. I'm joined

by former Labour Health Minister Lord Warner. Do you think it is

still possible politically to push these reforms through? I have

little doubt that the Government will get its bill at the end of the

day. Now, they would get that bill at a price. They will have

alienated quite a lot of people. They certainly will not have

achieved cross-party consensus. The uproar that will come from

implementing the Bill will disrupt the NHS from delivering the �20

billion savings over the next four years that have to be delivered.

the bill should be scrapped? have got to that rather strange

point where the Bill is a good way up the hill, and it is a tough

judgment as to whether you march everybody back down or continue to

the summit. I think we are at the point where you are got to carry on

and make the best of a bad job. that is the problem, it seems

impossible to get rid of it, even if there are people across the

political spectrum who feel it is too difficult to achieve while

making savings. I think there is a danger that we end up with a

financial train crash. I mean, there is no doubt about that. Most

organisations would not try to overturn the organisational

structure at the same time that they are trying to produce �20

billion worth of savings over a period of years. They would try to

keep more managers in those posts to deliver the changes, but they

have chosen, the government, to go the hard route. What about the

amendments themselves? We are expecting about 100. Will that do

anything to dramatically changed the bill? It is a very able

minister in the Lords, but he got a fair old kicking from across the

benches and quite a few issues. They are not issues which have been

in the public eye, but they are important, education, training,

research, public health. The conversation I had with him this

morning, where he courteously rang me up, suggested they have listened

to some of the concerns that were expressed in the Lords from

different parts of the house. So I think we are going to end up with

probably a better built than it Thank you very much.

Now, you might well be confused about what these reforms to the NHS

actually mean. We certainly are, but the politicians they must

understand it, right? Well, just to be sure we have a

little test for our two politicians, test number two. I would like to

ask you, Ed, you are going to start us off, to arrange these cards on

the flip chart, which has been brought in very ably by John, to

show us the structure of the NHS will look like under the

Government's reforms. I might help you. Stephen, you are going to tell

him if he is right or not. Can you be - this is a flow chart, you

remember these from school. Starting at the top with the chain

of responsibility. Have a go. think it's unfair to ask me,

because I came early to the programme and walked in and was

told I wasn't allowed in the studio and saw the entire arrangement.

mean you cheated! I will say that is my flow chart. This is what

these reforms are about. Obviously, they will be helped by your

clinical commissioning groups, go somewhere over here. You want to

put patients at the bottom, you are the BBC, but I would put them at

the top. This is the Government's reforms. I do want to put Andrew at

the top, he is a great man. I think they go to the side here, clinical

Senates, linking in to the groups. GPs and dentists and the national

board under Andrew, of course, very important people. And hospitals

over here. But the key point is patients. That's what it's all

about. I want to put them at the top. This is a BBC flow chart.

key thing happened there is when things started to fall off, that's

what has been happening throughout this process. It's a disaster and

big waste of money what the Government are doing. What is a

waste of money? Labour have said handing over a slice of the budget

to GPs, cutting out the middle management is not a bad idea.

started some of this with practice- based commissions, Andy Burnham

when he became shadow Health Secretary made an offer to Andrew

Lansley to work together to spread clinical commissioning but we don't

need this legislation in order to do that. Isn't the problem really,

as the Health Select Committee said, - I will change those. Listen, we

have 100 amendments coming on. was so nervous! Shouldn't GPs be

closer? You get a point. Do you want to swap those around. Utterly

humiliating this programme! I only come on it waupbs year -- waupbs

year. There is unhappiness on your benches with this, even if you

agree with the reforms it's not possible to do the same thing as

taking that money out and carry out reforms at the same time. Well, I

think the reforms are long overdue and I think they will put power

into the hands of GPs and you will remember the letter from the

commissioning groups published I think last week, saying this is a

huge opportunity for the NHS. There have been reforms, reforms under

the last Government. I remember as a new MP we had five Primary Care

Trusts, we went down to down. We want to simplify the structure. I

thought would you produce a much more complicated, one that closely

resepl pwepled the BBC perhaps. studio is not big enough for that!

This puts power in the hands of GPs to commission the services that

patients need. As a constituenty MP, I am sure Stephen has a different

experience, I am not experiencing in my postbag in terms of people

saying this is a distraction... heard Conservative MPs who are

worried about the effect of taking that money out at the same time.

constituency, including people who have been involved with this

clinical commissioning the Government says it's based on the

evidence is 98% of GPs are opposed, yet it's supposed to be putting

more power. It's been rushed and the Government need to go back to

the drawing board. You think it should be scrapped altogether?

can't see how this Bill can be salvaged. It's been changed

funmently. That's part of the problem, you have the combination...

Norman Warner said �20 billion is being taken out of the system as

well as a reorganisation, so it's a waste of money on the

reorganisation at a time when when services are being cut. It would be

much better to work together on a cross-party base which is doctors

and nurses to make clinical-based practices actually work which they

could do. It will be in the end down to what the Liberal Democrats

do, won't it in terms of numbers and politics? Yes, I think it will.

I think, you know, in general, yes, the Bill will go through and I

think the amendments, I haven't seen the amendments, but they're

technical amendments as as -- as I understand it, people are much

clearer. It has been - again what the Prime Minister said at PMQs,

you will always get opposition to reform, and then once it goes

through people will adapt it, but I think will produce a simpler system

and for me the key is giving power to GPs. After After - some of the

colleges are against it. Despite that, it will still go through,

probably. Someone has tweeted that you demand

fresh fruit and cab both ways when you appear on the BBC. Is it true?

No, in fact, we don't get cars at all now. We inherited a �300,000

bill from the last four Labour Ministers who were in there.

BBC would be paying for the cab? walked here. You can categorically

deny that? Yes, I walked here. Forget about hug a hoody, the

latest policy is to deknight a hoody. Fred Goodwin may be one of

few. History is full of Sirs who perhaps should have been

dishonoured as well. Giles has been looking at when knights go bad.

The idea of the bad knight is not rare, it's a caricature in medieval

history, but some titled terrors really do stand out. In 11 70 Sirs

hacked at the head of an Archbishop, and redecorated the cathedral with

the insides. And murder is no stranger to knights of the Realm.

Sir James confessed to the murder of the Princes in the tower, in

1483. Although he might have been tortured. No, I don't mean he was

racked with guilt. Frankly, France sis is a bad name if you want a

good night. Sir Francis in the 1570s was a shifty but effective

chief spook for Elizabeth I Sir Francis Bacon's life ended in

disgrey, barred for bribery. And Sir Francis Drake was a killer,

thief and slave trader. In the 17th century Sir Henry Morgan proved the

rule if you mug and kill someone on land you are a thief and if you are

at sea and they're Spanish you are a hero. Sir Roger Casement was

convicted of spying. He was stripped of his honour and executed.

And a spot of Soviet spookery, led Mrs Mrs Thatch tore remove the

knighthood on Sir Anthony Blunt, the lesson being murder might be

bad, but it's spying that actually gets you stripped of your honours.

Bluntly put, a spot of regal sword play on the Commons shoulder might

make a Sir but doesn't necessarily make a noble human being. We are

joined now by the historian Dan Snow. Welcome to the show. Good to

see you. Was Fred Goodwin in the wrong time,

the wrong place, the wrong era? think he was, what's interesting

about that piece there it shows sometimes knights are denobled,

whatever the word is, for evil deeds, but often it's because their

politics, they fall out with the people in charge. Of course, James

I decided Sir Walter wasn't his cup of tea and and he was far too

towards the Spanish, he got in trouble, he was executed. Most of

the time, unfortunately, they find themselves being Lorded by one

regime, the regime changes, or circumstances change and events

change, and like Fred, you find yourself on the receiving end of

some punishment. We have moved a long way from medieval times when

knights were supposed to live by a code. I don't think that many who

are called Sir this and that these days live by that kind of code, do

they? Of course, arguably that code is a massive spin exercise, anyway.

Of course, the basis of knights, in fact, was probably around 9th and

10th century France where thugish provinesal war Lords emerge and

they become knights, they exercise local power and they have an uneasy

relationship with a central Government that they hold land in

return for vague service to the Crown. It's only later in the

middle ages people start saying if you are going to be one of these

thugish locals cow be nice to people and women and children and

stuff like that. British history is littered with - don't forget,

perhaps the greatest knight of them all, Sir Winston Churchill, a man

who took risks, he risked the entire future of Britain and The

Empire, possibly the entire future of western civilisation of his

tkpapl bell of stopping Hitler. Bomber Harris was knighted after

effectively incinerating a huge number of Germans during the war.

It's not necessarily the deeds that are notable about these knights and

Fred took great risks whilst he was at RBS, bomb is Harris, Churchill.

What I have been watching the last few days, frankly it all comes down

to luck F you are on the right side of events you are going to do fine.

It reminds me of Napoleon, who asked off his Generals, are they

lucky? Do you think in the 21st century we should be still spraying

around these knighthoods? Shouldn't we get rid of it altogether or keep

it for the truly exceptional, like a Winston Churchill, so you only

have maybe about 20 knights at any one time? Like the knights of the

Garter, for example, which is an extraordinary extraordinary

medieval hangover that's survived. Possibly, our hopb honours system

is slightly absurd, but as - people the point is people will be feted

and if it's not knighthoods, it will be some other way, Chancellors

of the university or whatever it might be and then events will

change, luck will change, decisions that were welcomed in different

circumstances will now look completely inabgriesic. It won't be

long, Sir Dan. Fingers crossed! will put a word in for you, that

will make sure you never get it! Time to give you the answer to

Guess the Year. 1979. The road hauliers strike was the clue. You

can pick the winner, Ed Vaizey. Stephen guessed the year.

haven't that much time to be polite! Politicians! Cameron