:00:41. > :00:44.Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:44. > :00:47.Labour's on the war path again over bankers' bonuses. They want
:00:47. > :00:51.benefits to be performance related, and they want another bonus tax to
:00:51. > :00:53.help get young people back into work. We'll be talking to the
:00:53. > :00:56.Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and to a former
:00:56. > :01:00.Chancellor. The radical Muslim cleric, Abu
:01:00. > :01:05.Qatada, is to be released on bail. Parliament's kicking up a story,
:01:05. > :01:08.but what, if anything, can be done? We'll be debating regional public
:01:09. > :01:14.sector pay. One MP says the issue will prove more explosive than
:01:14. > :01:24.pensions. BELL RINGS. And, what's that noise?
:01:24. > :01:26.
:01:26. > :01:29.Quentin will be here with his guide All that in the next half hour.
:01:29. > :01:31.With us for the programme today is Max Steinberg from Liverpool Vision,
:01:31. > :01:34.the city's economic development company. Welcome.
:01:34. > :01:38.First this morning, let's talk about shops. Because a report by
:01:38. > :01:41.the Local Data Company has found that one in seven shops in towns
:01:41. > :01:44.and cities stood empty last year. It found that vacancy rates were
:01:44. > :01:51.above average in the Midlands and the north, including Stockport,
:01:51. > :01:56.Nottingham, Grimsby and Stockton on Tees.
:01:56. > :02:02.How or are you finding it? In your area, you cover regional
:02:02. > :02:07.regeneration. How is Liverpool bearing up? We have just had a very
:02:07. > :02:15.good lead-up to Christmas. The new shopping development is proving
:02:15. > :02:24.popular. There was a time, in the 80s and 90s, we thought we were
:02:24. > :02:30.America, of building it out of town centres. If you create the right
:02:30. > :02:34.offer in the town centre, car- parking remains an issue. Create
:02:34. > :02:41.the right attractions around shopping, that's what is happening
:02:41. > :02:46.in Liverpool. If so you are not experiencing what Grimsby, not a
:02:47. > :02:56.them are experiencing, empty shops? We are seeing 2 million people a
:02:56. > :03:00.month, lettings and up to 97%. House of Fraser. Taking business
:03:00. > :03:06.away from other town centres? do think it is out of town shopping
:03:07. > :03:12.centres. I have seen examples across the North, in small towns,
:03:12. > :03:20.out-of-town shopping centres have killed the small town centre.
:03:20. > :03:29.what Peter will -- what people want. It is causing the death of the High
:03:29. > :03:34.Street. Ours has an Odeon cinema, one of the most popular. If you
:03:34. > :03:43.create the right attractions which we have done. Liverpool was so
:03:43. > :03:47.confident, there is a �200 million development coming.
:03:47. > :03:52.What do you think about the Government's mantra that there has
:03:52. > :03:59.to be a shift from reliance on public sector to more reliance on
:03:59. > :04:04.the public -- private sector. How does that impact on jobs? It is
:04:04. > :04:11.having an effect. There is a strong argument that this is going too
:04:11. > :04:15.quickly. We have an economy heavily dependent on public sector jobs.
:04:16. > :04:22.Our council has had to take �90 million out of the budget this year.
:04:22. > :04:29.A huge amount of money. When an economy is so dependent on the
:04:29. > :04:35.public sector, we need investment to meet private sector investment.
:04:35. > :04:39.It takes the risk it areas, in parts of the nipple, the north east
:04:39. > :04:43.and north west where the private sector may not going. The
:04:43. > :04:51.government says it wants to see private sector jobs picking up
:04:51. > :04:54.public sector jobs. I believe we can do that. We have a global
:04:54. > :05:00.entrepreneurship Congress coming to the people next year, recreating
:05:00. > :05:09.the spirit of enterprise in the City, getting people to understand,
:05:09. > :05:13.50% in this country want to form a business, but only 5% do. The Now
:05:13. > :05:18.it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is: Which of
:05:18. > :05:22.these has Ed Miliband been compared A) Wallace from Wallace and Gromit.
:05:22. > :05:26.B) A Lizard. C) Bert from Sesame Street.
:05:26. > :05:32.D) Ernie from Sesame Street? At the end of the show, we'll give you the
:05:32. > :05:35.Let's turn our eyes again to banks and bankers' bonuses. Because this
:05:35. > :05:39.afternoon, Labour have forced a Commons debate calling for any
:05:39. > :05:43.benefits to be "performance related". And for a new bankers'
:05:43. > :05:46.bonus tax which would help young people get back into work. It comes
:05:46. > :05:49.after the bosses of Network Rail, and the Royal Bank of Scotland
:05:49. > :05:53.chief executive Stephen Hester turned down bonuses following a
:05:53. > :05:58.political outcry. Joining us now from Central Lobby is the Shadow
:05:58. > :06:02.Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves.
:06:02. > :06:08.Thank you for joining us. You must be delighted with the decision by
:06:08. > :06:13.Network Rail bosses to waive their bonuses. He made the right decision
:06:13. > :06:16.as did Stephen Hester. Because they are not justified at a time when
:06:17. > :06:22.ordinary families are struggling, and businesses aren't delivering
:06:22. > :06:28.the performers they should, with share price at RBS falling, they
:06:28. > :06:34.are laying of ordinary workers. But, we are calling for two things.
:06:34. > :06:41.First, a tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.
:06:41. > :06:46.We have more than one million young people out of work. Also, a more
:06:46. > :06:54.fundamental reform of how pay and bonuses work. Transparency in terms
:06:55. > :06:59.of pay. Workers on remuneration committees to set wages at the top.
:06:59. > :07:04.To bring bonuses back down to Planet Earth.
:07:04. > :07:09.Would you rather have that the bonus culture didn't exist at all?
:07:09. > :07:14.Or do you want bonuses you can tax? I think bonuses should before
:07:14. > :07:20.exceptional performance, especially at the top. It should be in
:07:20. > :07:28.addition to pay. But at the moment do you want to see all bonuses
:07:28. > :07:33.reined in? All banks have relied on an implicit guarantee from the
:07:33. > :07:38.government. Those bonuses, as Ed Miliband has said, is part of what
:07:38. > :07:45.caused the financial crisis. Bonuses for short-term reward
:07:45. > :07:49.rather than adding long-term value encourages excessive risk-taking.
:07:49. > :07:55.We want a reform in the way bonuses work because that would be good for
:07:55. > :07:59.the economy and business. At the moment, with these bank bonuses
:07:59. > :08:04.getting under way again, multi- million pound bonuses being paid,
:08:04. > :08:09.we said the priority is to use that money to fund jobs for long-term
:08:09. > :08:16.young unemployed people rather than the parity of a tax cut for the
:08:16. > :08:21.banks. Are you going to target companies in the wake RBS and net
:08:21. > :08:27.work well were. Companies which are state owned or part-owned, like
:08:27. > :08:32.Eurostar, like Channel 4? One other things this government says his
:08:32. > :08:36.shareholders should take an active interest in the bonuses and pay of
:08:36. > :08:40.staff at the top of those organisations. With a RBS, the
:08:40. > :08:45.taxpayers are the key shareholders. Would you like the government to
:08:45. > :08:53.look specifically at those companies as a starting point?
:08:53. > :08:57.David Abrahams got a 123,000 pound bonus last year despite viewers the
:08:57. > :09:03.leaving the Channel. Whether government has a role, as a
:09:03. > :09:09.shareholder or owner of, those bonuses should be looked at. This
:09:09. > :09:12.goes well beyond what is happening in those organisations. But in
:09:12. > :09:17.financial services companies which have relied on that implicit
:09:17. > :09:22.government guaranteed to continue to pay out bonuses of up to
:09:22. > :09:27.millions of pounds. Those bonuses have been damaging to the banking
:09:27. > :09:34.sector and wider economy. Unless we take action and get a transparency,
:09:34. > :09:36.we risk another financial crisis. Even Alastair Darling said, as far
:09:36. > :09:42.as the backbone this tax is concerned, it will be a one-off
:09:42. > :09:49.thing. The people you are after will find imaginative ways of
:09:49. > :09:55.avoiding it. This year, we are likely to get
:09:55. > :10:00.another bumper bonuses. Not as big as you thought. We're still talking
:10:00. > :10:04.about billions of pounds of bonuses being paid this year. That could
:10:04. > :10:14.bring into million pounds of funding we would use to create
:10:14. > :10:24.100,000 jobs for people out of work. Is there a feeling now that what
:10:24. > :10:24.
:10:24. > :10:29.you are saying, that this will send a message to the city that you are
:10:29. > :10:34.serious? Banks already get very large salaries for doing their job.
:10:34. > :10:38.That should be the reward, rather than these bonuses which often
:10:38. > :10:48.rewards for failure. That is what we saw leading up to the crisis and
:10:48. > :10:52.what we are still seeing today. If Britain is to succeed, we need a
:10:52. > :10:58.factor -- banking sector supporting small businesses which are
:10:58. > :11:08.desperately trying to get finance and create jobs. It is about reform
:11:08. > :11:12.of the wider economy as well to get money is flowing through.
:11:12. > :11:18.The emotion is non-committal, you have taught about improving lending
:11:18. > :11:24.levels, but you have not set any figures. It doesn't specify what
:11:24. > :11:30.you would like? We are in opposition. We wanted to set the
:11:30. > :11:34.tone of the debate. We hope people will support us. That is why we are
:11:34. > :11:39.calling for the government had to reinstate that backbone this tax
:11:39. > :11:42.and looked at transparency and fairness in the culture of bonuses.
:11:42. > :11:50.With me is Nigel Lawson, Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, now a
:11:50. > :11:58.member of the Lords. Is it right going after bankers'
:11:58. > :12:05.bonuses? There is a problem of which bankers' bonuses are sent
:12:05. > :12:12.home. It is a problem with banking. That is what needs to be sorted out.
:12:12. > :12:16.These excessive bonuses are a symptom of the two big to fail, too
:12:16. > :12:21.important to fail, of which has led to the feeling they don't have to
:12:21. > :12:24.be that careful. They can gamble a huge amount because of it goes
:12:24. > :12:34.wrong the tax payer will bail them out. They are not risking their own
:12:34. > :12:37.money. It is striking, for example, over a period of time, looking at
:12:38. > :12:45.figures for five years, bank shareholders have not done
:12:45. > :12:54.particularly well at all. Why is it that the pay of exacted bank
:12:55. > :13:02.managers has gone up, compared to dividends to shareholders? It maybe
:13:02. > :13:10.shareholder failure, but a more fundamental thing. Banking
:13:10. > :13:17.legislation. First of all, the government is proposing to put in
:13:17. > :13:23.place following recommendations, a ring fence between the investment
:13:23. > :13:27.banks and ordinary commercial banks. The purpose of that is to make it
:13:27. > :13:32.extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will have to bail out
:13:32. > :13:36.commercial banks. They are the ones that matter to the economy. If an
:13:36. > :13:42.investment bank goes bust, like a hedge fund, they should be allowed
:13:42. > :13:50.to fail. Then there is the question of the complicated but important
:13:50. > :13:55.thing of the accountancy rules, the new accounting standards which are
:13:55. > :14:00.particularly bad for banks which enables them to pay huge real
:14:00. > :14:08.bonuses out of purely paper profits. They don't have the profits in the
:14:08. > :14:13.first place. So you have basic legal system which makes this worse.
:14:13. > :14:19.And the tax system is wrong. It says, if you find as yourself with
:14:19. > :14:25.debt, the debt interest is tax deductible. If you finance yourself
:14:25. > :14:29.without short equity, there is no tax deductible. This makes the
:14:29. > :14:34.system very unsafe. If the government takes on the
:14:34. > :14:38.recommendations from the report, all those things will be sold?
:14:38. > :14:44.Particularly the separation of retail investment? Or is there
:14:44. > :14:51.still the potential for banks to circumvent those rules, and they
:14:51. > :14:57.will still be vulnerable? The only have to look at the banks in Europe.
:14:57. > :15:02.Will this recommendation prevent that? The European Bank system is
:15:02. > :15:07.extremely vulnerable as a result of the disaster of the eurozone. That
:15:07. > :15:11.is a separate issue. I would prefer to see a complete structural
:15:11. > :15:17.separation between investment and commercial banking. The ring-fence
:15:17. > :15:27.will go some way. These other things are needed, tax changes,
:15:27. > :15:27.
:15:27. > :15:35.accountancy rules, and beyond both, something which is across the board,
:15:35. > :15:39.Coming back to the political row about bonuses, do think the
:15:39. > :15:45.government is right in doing what it is doing, going at the bonuses,
:15:45. > :15:48.trying to change the culture? think, as he said in his opening
:15:48. > :15:52.remarks, there is genuine concern from the man and woman in the
:15:52. > :15:56.street about what is going on. The situation in this country where the
:15:56. > :16:00.FTSE chief executive is turning to wonder 19 times the median work it
:16:00. > :16:06.is a situation that cannot continue. -- is burning to wonder than 19
:16:06. > :16:11.times. The bonus system came here from America. Did it come at the
:16:11. > :16:16.time of the Big Bang, when you were Chancellor? Too big to fail, that
:16:16. > :16:18.was the start of it. I think it is true that it is one of the
:16:18. > :16:22.consequences of the Big Bang, although it did not happen in my
:16:23. > :16:27.time, it happened later, that universal banks came into being. In
:16:28. > :16:31.the old days, in this country, we had quite separate... They were not
:16:31. > :16:35.called investment banks, they were called merchant banks, and they
:16:35. > :16:38.were completely separate from the commercial banks. They were
:16:39. > :16:43.different cultures, different people. No-one wanted to turn off
:16:43. > :16:48.the Taff. Remuneration committee after remuneration committee...
:16:49. > :16:55.is impossible to say the word! are letting each other up. I ask
:16:55. > :16:59.the question, where are the shareholders, turning up at AGMs
:16:59. > :17:03.and arguing the case that it is not right? There is clearly a lot of
:17:03. > :17:06.anger and a lot of upset about this in the country. The parties are
:17:06. > :17:12.saying that the system is fractured, and whether it cannot be repaired I
:17:12. > :17:15.do not know, but the other question is, why do people need bonuses?
:17:15. > :17:19.Isn't this about setting the right salary and incentives for people to
:17:19. > :17:24.do their job? The system is now at a point in this country where
:17:24. > :17:27.people have lost belief in the whole system. There has been talk
:17:27. > :17:32.not about bonuses but profit sharing and incentives. The John
:17:32. > :17:36.Lewis model. Would that work in banking? The John Lewis model will
:17:36. > :17:41.not. The John Lewis model is very old hat, it is a very old company,
:17:41. > :17:45.a good company but very old. People have tried this, workers' co-
:17:45. > :17:50.operatives, time and again, and it does not provide a suitable model
:17:50. > :17:54.for business and industry going ahead. On the Vickers Report,
:17:54. > :17:58.Wright, the government has said they are going to introduce it in
:17:58. > :18:03.2015. Is that let too late? There is going to be a gap until then
:18:03. > :18:08.before the separation is going to take place. I think it is important
:18:08. > :18:11.to do it as soon as possible. I think it is very desirable that the
:18:11. > :18:15.legislation should be introduced in the next session of Parliament.
:18:15. > :18:19.They had said it will be in this Parliament, but I think it should
:18:19. > :18:23.be in the next session of Parliament. We cannot go on
:18:23. > :18:27.rewarding failure. We cannot go on with a situation where the public
:18:27. > :18:31.are completely out of tune with this. We have got to have a
:18:31. > :18:36.situation where this is managed in a more effective way, and we are
:18:36. > :18:43.the major shareholders, turning up at AGMs, arguing that these are out
:18:43. > :18:46.of kilter. Now, to the row that has taken Parliament by storm, beer!
:18:46. > :18:50.Over to you, Giles. It has to be said, there are
:18:50. > :18:55.certain jobs in journalism I will not do, but this is not all of them.
:18:56. > :19:02.Standing outside, discussing beer! The whole problem started with his
:19:02. > :19:07.beer that was served in the bar served -- bar frequented by MPs,
:19:07. > :19:12.Top Totty. It was banned, somebody said they were offended by it. What
:19:12. > :19:16.you make of that? Well, I think it is not just a storm in a teacup,
:19:16. > :19:20.the vast majority of voters and the general public, people watching
:19:20. > :19:26.this programme will think, have and MPs got something better to talk
:19:26. > :19:30.about? It is quite a last place, the House of Commons, two women
:19:30. > :19:35.have a point? I think it was an over-reaction, I would rather the
:19:36. > :19:40.Top Totty than speckled hen! suspect the name alone might have
:19:40. > :19:43.been all right, it was something to do with the marketing around it and
:19:43. > :19:48.the label which hopefully people will be able to see in a moment. It
:19:48. > :19:52.does have a scantily clad female, barely concealed inside a bikini
:19:52. > :19:58.with bunny ears. You can see how some people might have got upset.
:19:58. > :20:03.met the aforementioned Lady... is never real! She is a real person.
:20:03. > :20:07.It is nothing worse than you would see on a saucy seaside postcard or
:20:07. > :20:10.Jessica Rabbit, it is nothing more than that. I think you have got
:20:10. > :20:17.done a bit of a sense of humour. There is a long tradition of having
:20:17. > :20:21.cheeky names for beers in Britain, real ales with GDA names. Maybe, in
:20:21. > :20:24.the interests of quality, we should have a cheeky chappie scantily clad
:20:24. > :20:30.and see if any of my male colleagues... I think it would go
:20:30. > :20:35.down quite well, maybe more of the female drinkers. Been to have a
:20:35. > :20:40.gentleman offended by a beer? of my mature constituents was
:20:40. > :20:45.offended by old codger and wanted me to take that up. Look, part of
:20:45. > :20:49.the problem is some of the marketing. Top Totty is described
:20:49. > :20:55.as a stunning blonde beer, full- bodied with a voluptuous of. It is
:20:55. > :21:00.being replaced by his beer, Kangaroo Court, which is not using
:21:00. > :21:07.the same sort of language, and assuming Lehman after the initial
:21:07. > :21:12.kick with a tight, dry finish. we judge it by its label? It as a
:21:12. > :21:17.kangaroo on it, largely! Is it scantily-clad? Vaguely furry, but
:21:17. > :21:23.not naked. Is it in danger of offending Australians first mark
:21:23. > :21:27.possibly, but that is a national sport here. The sales of Top Totty
:21:27. > :21:31.have gone through the roof as a result of this row, it is probably
:21:31. > :21:41.the best marketing they have had. You are both beer fans, as a
:21:41. > :21:42.connoisseur... Not quite the distance, but pretty good.
:21:42. > :21:46.would you describe the flavours? Quite sweet. Sweet? It is almost
:21:46. > :21:50.like a Belgian beer. I am the chairman of the All Parliamentary
:21:50. > :21:57.beer Group, which is the best job in Parliament, and I would say, as
:21:57. > :22:02.an expert, it is quite hotly. would expect A kangaroo Court to be
:22:02. > :22:06.a bit wobbly. On that note, I think we should get back to the studio
:22:06. > :22:11.while we just clear up here! We will give them away!
:22:11. > :22:16.It is a tough job, Giles, but somebody has to do it. I will tell
:22:16. > :22:20.the staff, they will be delighted, we aim to please. Rebellion is in
:22:20. > :22:24.the air among Liberal Democrat MPs of a coalition plans to localise
:22:24. > :22:26.public sector pay. George Osborne is looking at whether public sector
:22:26. > :22:30.workers should be paid different amounts depending on where they
:22:30. > :22:35.live. For example, a fireman in Inverness could earn a different
:22:35. > :22:38.amassed by firemen working in Surrey. Adam Fleming reports. -- a
:22:38. > :22:42.different amount. So South Wales as a big public
:22:42. > :22:46.sector. This village has schools, a library, a hospital, and most of
:22:46. > :22:50.the people who work in them have their wages set nationally. Critics
:22:50. > :22:53.of national pay bargaining say it takes no account of the fact that
:22:53. > :22:58.the cost of living in places like this might be different from other
:22:58. > :23:04.places. They also say their private sector employers struggle to match
:23:04. > :23:10.the same wages. Local solicitor Victoria experience that when she
:23:10. > :23:14.advertised for a legal assistant. What we found is that solicitors or
:23:14. > :23:18.lawyers alike would prefer to work for the public authority, the local
:23:18. > :23:23.authority, and work in private practice. Who can blame them? We
:23:23. > :23:25.cannot offer the salary, we do not have the benefits that you get in
:23:26. > :23:29.the local authority, and therefore this is why lawyers really are
:23:29. > :23:33.going straight to the local authority upon leaving, upon
:23:33. > :23:38.graduating from university. The so- called public sector wage premium
:23:38. > :23:42.varies by gender as well as region. In Wales, men in the public sector
:23:42. > :23:47.earn on average 18% more than their private sector counterparts. In
:23:47. > :23:52.Scotland, women earn on average 20% more. In Northern Ireland, men in
:23:52. > :23:57.the public sector get 15.5% more. But in the East Midlands, it is
:23:57. > :24:00.much less, just 7%. In the south- east, the difference is not
:24:00. > :24:04.statistically significant. In other words, there's hardly any
:24:04. > :24:08.difference at all. To address those variations, last year the
:24:08. > :24:12.Chancellor wrote to the pay review bodies for nurses, teachers, prison
:24:12. > :24:16.workers and some senior staff, asking them to investigate and
:24:16. > :24:21.report back this summer about whether salaries can be made more
:24:21. > :24:28.market phasing in local areas. To the unions, that is code for cuts
:24:28. > :24:32.to pay. This is an agenda of cutting pay in the public sector,
:24:32. > :24:36.and our point of view is that it is a race to the bottom in the regions.
:24:36. > :24:40.The only real driver in terms of regional differences around there
:24:40. > :24:42.it is London and the south-east, and you can deal with that through
:24:42. > :24:46.London weighting or market supplements to retain people. If
:24:46. > :24:50.you are just looking at this as an organisational problem, that is.
:24:50. > :24:54.But this is a backdoor way of driving down pay in the public
:24:54. > :24:58.sector. Some local businesses also worry that it could deflate the
:24:58. > :25:02.local economy. The protests over changes to pensions taught the
:25:02. > :25:06.government it can be tough to tangle with the public sector.
:25:06. > :25:10.Realising their pay is technically tricky and some Lib Dems have
:25:10. > :25:16.already said it is a terrible idea, so there is no guarantee that it
:25:16. > :25:20.will ever actually happen. Joining me now is Liberal Democrat
:25:20. > :25:25.MP Andrew George and conservative anti-David Ruffley, who is on the
:25:25. > :25:30.Treasury Select Committee. Max Steinberg is still with us. --
:25:30. > :25:33.Conservative MP. You think this is a terrible idea. Yes, I come from
:25:33. > :25:37.West Cornwall, the bottom of the earnings league table since records
:25:37. > :25:41.began, and if you want to introduce a measure which is going to drive
:25:41. > :25:46.down wages and actually enshrined an area, a region like Cornwall as
:25:46. > :25:53.a place of endemic low wages, this is a pretty good way of going about
:25:53. > :25:55.it. The national minimum wage, a lot of private sector employers
:25:55. > :25:59.suggested it would cause catastrophe across the country, but
:25:59. > :26:04.it never did. We should be looking at mechanisms to drive wages up,
:26:04. > :26:09.not to push them down. A race to the bottom, why fix something that
:26:09. > :26:14.ain't broke? The IFS, which is independent, says if you are in
:26:14. > :26:18.Wales or the north-east, on average, in a public's after Jock, you are a
:26:18. > :26:22.30% more on average than someone off during the same job in the
:26:22. > :26:26.private sector. -- in a public sector job. The private sector is
:26:26. > :26:30.suffering as a result, and we need to have more than us through a
:26:30. > :26:34.regional, locally determined pay structure. Is it really fair,
:26:34. > :26:39.Andrew George, that a worker living in an area with a low cost of
:26:39. > :26:45.living to end the same as a worker who lives in a more expensive area?
:26:45. > :26:49.No, it is not. That is not what happens. Isn't it? Take for example
:26:49. > :26:54.my own area, I will talk about my own area, we are at the bottom of
:26:54. > :26:58.the earnings league table, but our house prices are anything but. As a
:26:58. > :27:02.result of large numbers of second homes and the pressure of the
:27:02. > :27:05.market, the external market, a desire to move to the area, the
:27:05. > :27:10.cost of living is one of the greatest in the country. So to say
:27:10. > :27:14.that there is any kind of parity between wages and cost of living,
:27:14. > :27:17.it is simply not the case. south-west is an interesting case,
:27:17. > :27:22.because it is traditionally one of the poorest areas, but because it
:27:22. > :27:28.is so popular and fashionable to live there you are suggesting would
:27:28. > :27:35.make it difficult for people. prose medium weight of a public
:27:35. > :27:40.sector employee in the south-west is �541, where I am, East Anglia,
:27:40. > :27:45.it is less than that. All of those factors are public sector wages.
:27:45. > :27:48.They are a lot higher in many parts of the country than the same job in
:27:48. > :27:56.the private sector. Where is the fairness in that? What about
:27:56. > :27:59.pushing up wages? Why try to suppress them in some areas? Well,
:27:59. > :28:04.Labour employment is a market like many other things, and it has to
:28:04. > :28:08.find its own level. The CentreForum, the Lib Dem think-tank, which has
:28:08. > :28:12.lots of good ideas, even they say that the private sector employer is
:28:12. > :28:17.finding it very difficult to compete with inflated public sector
:28:17. > :28:22.wages in the regions. What is your experience? The government is
:28:22. > :28:25.saying that we have to create areas like Liverpool or the north-west
:28:25. > :28:30.where there is too much reliance on the public sector, private sector
:28:30. > :28:35.jobs, but I do not want a system which drives away higher-paid jobs.
:28:35. > :28:38.I want to bring in all sorts of jobs into the North West and
:28:38. > :28:44.Liverpool. Is there a policy which will put pressure on salaries?
:28:44. > :28:48.Where are they go into go? To the south-east, I think. That. The
:28:48. > :28:53.regeneration of cities like Liverpool. -- that will stop the
:28:53. > :28:55.regeneration. I'm against a policy which will put pressure on the
:28:55. > :29:01.drive to bring private sector investment into a city like
:29:01. > :29:04.Liverpool. You would not want to do that either. I am not sure I follow
:29:04. > :29:10.the logic. We are saying to give a boost to private sector employers,
:29:10. > :29:14.the opposite of what I am suggesting. But the economy, David,
:29:14. > :29:17.in places like Liverpool will be dependent on the public sector for
:29:17. > :29:22.years to come, and there's nothing wrong with that. We need to
:29:22. > :29:25.rebalance it, the Chancellor said, this year, I'm going to get work
:29:25. > :29:28.done on realising pay. I cannot understand why you want high public
:29:28. > :29:33.sector pay when you say you are trying to encourage private sector
:29:33. > :29:36.jobs on Merseyside, you should be supporting this. I am encouraging
:29:36. > :29:42.the private sector, but I do not want to discourage salaries going
:29:42. > :29:47.up, because the more disposable income in the economy... You want a
:29:47. > :29:52.fairer deal for private sector employers to pay a decent wage.
:29:52. > :29:56.without public sector wages going down, that is the point. The fact
:29:56. > :30:00.is that it is a market. If you are doing the same job in the public
:30:00. > :30:05.sector, you can have a premium of 30% over the same job in the
:30:05. > :30:11.private sector. How can you justify that? Let me just come in and say
:30:11. > :30:14.that from the point of view of the implications for public finances,
:30:14. > :30:19.one of the hat comes as a result of the establishment of the national
:30:19. > :30:25.minimum wage was that income- support budgets went down. --
:30:25. > :30:28.outcomes. That is because, those employers who were then paying the
:30:28. > :30:33.national minimum wage, employees who were dependent on higher levels
:30:33. > :30:38.of housing benefit to make up their income, the public sector, were in
:30:38. > :30:48.effect subsidising poor employers who were paying below what was an
:30:48. > :30:53.
:30:53. > :31:00.I think we should have regional benefit rates as well. Iain Duncan
:31:00. > :31:05.Smith said that is something we should look at. He said it would be
:31:05. > :31:09.difficult to execute. He is saying it is a legitimate question. I
:31:09. > :31:16.think there are plenty of Conservatives on the back bench who
:31:16. > :31:21.have floated that idea well before Labour. That would be localism?
:31:21. > :31:26.Localism is a question of making decisions locally. We need a
:31:26. > :31:34.benchmark against which everyone can have some security. If you are
:31:34. > :31:41.enshrined in areas low wages and their benefits as well... You will
:31:41. > :31:46.be condemning Merseyside in effect. By actually putting a dampener on
:31:46. > :31:56.wages, and benefits as well, the money circulating in that local
:31:56. > :31:59.
:31:59. > :32:04.economy in Merseyside. David wants to... Du Liberal Democrat in attack
:32:04. > :32:10.-- think-tank said the idea is to get people into work. They are
:32:10. > :32:14.being crowded out by artificially high public sector wages. I am
:32:14. > :32:20.afraid we have to bring this to an end. Are the Liberal Democrats
:32:20. > :32:23.going to dig their heels in? I am sure we are. We want to stimulate
:32:23. > :32:26.debate. He's been described as a "truly
:32:26. > :32:29.dangerous individual" and a "key UK figure" in al-Qaeda related terror
:32:29. > :32:33.activity. But the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada is to be released
:32:33. > :32:37.on bail, under strict conditions. So how have we reached this
:32:37. > :32:42.position? He was one of the UK's most wanted men when he was taken
:32:42. > :32:46.to Belmarsh prison in 2002. But he was freed in 2005 when the courts
:32:46. > :32:52.ruled his detention was unlawful. Later that year, he was detained
:32:52. > :32:55.again. The UK started trying to deported him back to his native
:32:55. > :33:01.Jordan where he faces terror charges, beginning his six and a
:33:01. > :33:04.half year fight against deportation. At the start of this year, the
:33:04. > :33:07.European Court of Human Rights blocked his deportation, saying
:33:07. > :33:10.that Jordan might use evidence obtained by torture. This led Mr
:33:10. > :33:15.Justice Mitting to rule yesterday that the preacher should now be
:33:15. > :33:18.bailed. But he's under strict bail conditions. He will only be allowed
:33:18. > :33:22.to leave the address for two one- hour periods a day. Anyone visiting
:33:22. > :33:26.his home, bar his wife and children, have to be pre-approved. And he
:33:26. > :33:30.must give notice of all meetings arranged outside his home. He will
:33:30. > :33:35.not be allowed to leave the general area, and will also have no access
:33:35. > :33:39.to the internet or electronic communications devices. The Home
:33:39. > :33:42.Office is up in arms. They've been given three months to show that
:33:42. > :33:46.British diplomats had made progress in negotiations with Jordan, which
:33:46. > :33:50.would satisfy the European Court. Or else see Abu Qatada's stringent
:33:50. > :33:54.bail conditions revoked. I'm joined now by the former counter-terrorism
:33:54. > :34:03.and security minister, Hazel Blears. And with us for the rest of the
:34:03. > :34:10.programme we have the Liberal Democrat peer, Susan Kramer.
:34:10. > :34:16.Human rights, our rights are being made a mockery? We have to hold up
:34:16. > :34:26.to due process. One is very disturbed when someone like this
:34:26. > :34:28.
:34:28. > :34:34.announce -- appears to be announced as potentially free. There may well
:34:34. > :34:40.be other solutions I would like to see, there must be answers. He was
:34:40. > :34:45.in jail at the time when you were in government. Why were
:34:45. > :34:50.prosecutions not brought? We all wish every suspected terrorist
:34:50. > :34:59.could be brought before a normal criminal court. Wasn't he
:34:59. > :35:03.different? We have in this country a handful of people for whom the
:35:03. > :35:07.evidence against them is basic intelligence evidence. If you were
:35:08. > :35:13.to bring that to a normal criminal court, you would have to reveal
:35:13. > :35:19.your capability and agents who would be compromised. What we did
:35:19. > :35:23.was we've brought in a system of control orders, very controversial,
:35:23. > :35:28.but within the human rights framework. With Abu Qatada, he was
:35:28. > :35:32.held under deportation provisions, which is why they can put bail
:35:32. > :35:37.conditions on him. My worry is, if we cannot get this issue sorted
:35:37. > :35:44.with Jordan, those strict bail conditions will be relaxed and he
:35:44. > :35:49.will be virtually free. Abu Qatada, walking the streets free. How will
:35:49. > :35:56.the public react? The public will be quite rightly horrified. The
:35:56. > :36:00.pressure on the government now is to make sure that we can get the
:36:00. > :36:04.assurances from Jordan in relation to a possible trial, that the
:36:05. > :36:09.evidence will not be introduced through torture. That way we can
:36:09. > :36:16.get him deported. There is a big issue about the European Court of
:36:16. > :36:21.Human Rights. Showed, is it time to leave the European Court? Leave the
:36:21. > :36:25.jurisdiction? I don't think that is right. We need to change the
:36:25. > :36:30.European Court so it is not in the position of second-guessing our
:36:30. > :36:35.court. The reason we put the legislation into our own system is
:36:35. > :36:39.so we wouldn't need to keep going to Strasbourg. But it has backfired.
:36:39. > :36:44.So the government needs to decide whether to appeal the judgment of
:36:44. > :36:49.the European Court. Or get changes to the court so we don't find
:36:49. > :36:53.ourselves in the same position. they haven't been charged and
:36:53. > :36:59.prosecuted, why should he be held indefinitely in prison? He should
:36:59. > :37:06.be released. We would all argue for due process. Otherwise we would
:37:06. > :37:11.have a chaotic system. The question is, it is due process working
:37:11. > :37:15.properly in this particular case? Or is it illustrating real
:37:15. > :37:19.problems? There are real issues about the European Court of Human
:37:19. > :37:26.Rights. I would personally like to understand why we're not in a
:37:26. > :37:30.position to bring a serious prosecution here. We have had as
:37:30. > :37:36.explained. It is one of the things I hope the government will look at
:37:37. > :37:46.very closely. If there is intelligence evidence which is none
:37:47. > :37:49.
:37:49. > :37:54.of dated, we may not have the risks -- long dated. Where I have some
:37:54. > :37:58.comfort is that this man is identified and watch. I would want
:37:58. > :38:03.assurances that will never change. If here is under strict bail
:38:03. > :38:07.conditions, surely that is fine? He is still so well known, there is
:38:07. > :38:13.this process with Jordan. You seem relatively confident that might
:38:13. > :38:17.bring results in terms of seeing him deported. I sincerely hope it
:38:17. > :38:23.does bring results. Otherwise we will see these bail conditions
:38:23. > :38:27.relaxed. Then, this person could have access to the internet, mobile
:38:27. > :38:34.phones, to be back with his associates and to start to do that
:38:34. > :38:39.terrible things he was inspiring. He was an inspirational figure
:38:39. > :38:45.which led people to radical as Asian and terrorism. There is going
:38:45. > :38:52.to be an urgent question this afternoon. Is Britain powerless?
:38:52. > :39:01.These are the tanagers Government's -- challenges a government has to
:39:01. > :39:06.deal with. We are where we are now, this man is at least under a very
:39:06. > :39:13.tough bail conditions. We have three months in which to get it
:39:13. > :39:16.right. They Now to Syria. Because the
:39:16. > :39:19.Syrian army has resumed shelling opposition-held areas in the city
:39:20. > :39:23.of Homs for the fourth day running. The UN says more than 5,500 people
:39:23. > :39:25.have been killed by the Syrian regime since the uprising began.
:39:25. > :39:28.Yesterday, in the Commons, the Foreign Secretary William Hague
:39:28. > :39:38.condemned what he called the "doomed and murdering regime" of
:39:38. > :39:43.
:39:43. > :39:47.Are Mr Speaker, the human suffering in so it is already unimaginable
:39:47. > :39:53.and is in grave danger of escalating. The position taken by
:39:53. > :39:57.Russia and China has regrettably made this more likely. But this
:39:57. > :40:02.government will not forget the people of Syria. We will redouble
:40:02. > :40:09.our efforts to put pressure on this appalling regime and to stop this
:40:09. > :40:13.indefensible violence. There is clear agreement across
:40:13. > :40:18.this house and across much of the international community that the
:40:18. > :40:23.regime has no future and President Assad must go. The tragedy is, not
:40:23. > :40:28.withstanding that, of the slaughter continues. For the international
:40:28. > :40:31.community, condemnation is not enough. Diplomatic efforts are
:40:31. > :40:34.required which is why the recent failure of which the Foreign
:40:34. > :40:44.Secretary has just spoken to reach agreement in the secure eye dee
:40:44. > :40:46.
:40:46. > :40:53.council is such a stain on the conscience of the world. Isn't the
:40:53. > :41:00.immediate problem the anguish being paid by a those people. Do we not
:41:00. > :41:03.need a broader strategic croaked -- approach? Kenny tell the House what
:41:03. > :41:10.he thinks it is that animates the Chinese government are to support
:41:10. > :41:16.these butchers? Isn't it the case that brochette is rapidly turning
:41:16. > :41:24.itself into a pariah state? -- Russia. Wouldn't it be an
:41:24. > :41:27.opportunity for the Conservative Party to part company with Putin?
:41:27. > :41:29.I'm joined now by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas
:41:29. > :41:36.Alexander. And by the former Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies
:41:36. > :41:41.Campbell. Thank you very much for joining us.
:41:41. > :41:47.The Russian foreign minister is in its area, can he achieve anything?
:41:47. > :41:50.There is a heavy burden of responsibility on him to prove
:41:50. > :41:56.Russia's good faith in ensuring the slaughter is ended and the violence
:41:56. > :42:00.is stopped. Do you believe that? am not hopeful but one has to wait
:42:00. > :42:05.and see, he will be judged from what emerges from those discussions
:42:05. > :42:09.in Damascus. There has been a hopeful sign where the Turkish
:42:09. > :42:14.promise to make clear Turkey will take an initiative in the coming
:42:14. > :42:18.days. The Turkish foreign minister will be visiting Hillary Clinton in
:42:18. > :42:22.Washington. I welcome the fact, not withstanding the setback of the
:42:22. > :42:27.failure to reach agreement on Saturday, that we do see an
:42:27. > :42:33.initiative being taken by one of the regional powers, Turkey. Do you
:42:33. > :42:37.think, the frustration being felt internationally at the fact Russia
:42:37. > :42:42.and China vetoed that resolution, will there be more pressure for
:42:42. > :42:46.momentum on countries like Turkey to find a solution? There will be
:42:46. > :42:52.considerable pressure on Turkey which will want to respond, because
:42:52. > :42:58.of its determination to be much more assertive in foreign affairs.
:42:58. > :43:03.I had the advantage of listening to the Munich secluded conference, and
:43:03. > :43:08.the objections to the resolution of which had not been put to the city
:43:08. > :43:14.council, seemed to me to be pretty flimsy. They didn't stand up to any
:43:14. > :43:19.kind of scrutiny. My cynical approach to this is that perhaps
:43:19. > :43:24.the Russians were keen to portray themselves as the brokers in this
:43:24. > :43:29.business. But of course, in the meantime, as some of us said
:43:29. > :43:35.dramatically yesterday, the people are paying for this, the people of
:43:35. > :43:41.Syria, their children, their parents. Indiscriminate shelling of
:43:41. > :43:43.civilians. More and more are being killed as violence intensified and
:43:43. > :43:48.they think the international community has let them down. Isn't
:43:49. > :43:54.it the truth we in Britain are pretty powerless in this brokering
:43:54. > :43:58.between nations who don't seem to be keen to be involved? I don't
:43:58. > :44:03.condemn or criticise the British government's actions. What we saw
:44:03. > :44:08.at the Security Council is a stain on the conscience of the world. We
:44:08. > :44:10.need to work with our European Union partners. Yesterday alleged
:44:10. > :44:16.that Foreign Secretary to facilitate a meeting with the
:44:16. > :44:20.European Union and Arab League which has a key role to play. I
:44:20. > :44:24.approached him to speak to the Russian foreign minister and urge
:44:24. > :44:29.him not simply to speak for Russia but to communicate the global
:44:29. > :44:35.average at the shelling of Homs. And they urged him to speak
:44:35. > :44:40.directly to Turkey where the Prime Minister, partly for his reasons
:44:40. > :44:46.and for regional reasons, has a strong interest in seeing Turkey
:44:46. > :44:52.bring a resolution to this conflict. What about the option of support
:44:52. > :45:00.for the opposition which William harry read -- William Hague talked
:45:00. > :45:04.about? That is essential. It has to be political support. There is no a
:45:04. > :45:09.authority under the United Nations Security Council resolution for
:45:09. > :45:13.giving arms, or indeed for any kind of military intervention. One
:45:13. > :45:17.Labour backbencher suggested there should be a no-fly zone but there
:45:17. > :45:22.is no authority for that. That underlines the point Douglas
:45:22. > :45:26.Alexander has made, which is we have to be realistic about what we
:45:26. > :45:32.can achieve. The fact this is global is emphasised by William
:45:32. > :45:36.Hague, he had a conversation with the Australian foreign minister.
:45:36. > :45:40.The more we can assemble a coalition of the willing throughout
:45:40. > :45:49.the world to bring pressure on Syria, the better our chances will
:45:49. > :45:54.Do you really think the only solution is for us that to go?
:45:54. > :45:59.Countries do not want to be seen to be advocating regime changed.
:45:59. > :46:02.not think he has any legitimacy it whether within Syria or be on Syria.
:46:02. > :46:10.The first step is the cessation of violence, the second is his
:46:10. > :46:12.departure, but there is a burden of forces in Syria, and this is why I
:46:12. > :46:16.hope the British Army is talking about putting in credible plans for
:46:16. > :46:22.transition. That is a key part of the plan. Thank you very much for
:46:22. > :46:27.joining us. Now, a question, our Liberal Democrat peers naughty?
:46:27. > :46:30.Perish the thought! They are thought of as a quiet bunch, not
:46:30. > :46:35.troublemakers, but 62 have voted against the government at least
:46:36. > :46:39.once in this Parliament. Here is a flavour of them in action. In the
:46:39. > :46:44.past, I have congratulated the noble Lord on the eloquent and
:46:44. > :46:49.ingenious way he has defended the indefensible, but this is Alice In
:46:49. > :46:54.wonderland stuff! I have liked riot my protest to what is going on here
:46:55. > :46:59.this evening. We have just spent several hours on what many people
:46:59. > :47:08.in his house considered to be a completely useless bill and totally
:47:08. > :47:12.unnecessary. The Bill, in its current form, will cause dire
:47:12. > :47:16.consequences for 670,000 households across the United Kingdom. I am
:47:16. > :47:20.very concerned that the evidence base for making this change is
:47:20. > :47:26.incredibly thin and the consequences of implementing it
:47:26. > :47:30.have not been thoroughly researched for properly thought through.
:47:30. > :47:34.hope the minister will listen to our consent and give us some hope
:47:34. > :47:39.of substantial movement in the later stages of the bill. -- our
:47:39. > :47:43.concerns. If he doesn't, let me give in a word of warning. Anyone
:47:43. > :47:46.who mussy Lord Falconer resplendent in his beach shorts directing
:47:46. > :47:51.operations in the village sports which take place in front of our
:47:51. > :47:55.cottage in Seagrove they will know that you cross him at your peril!
:47:55. > :48:02.Yes, an image to remember, Lord Oakeshott ending that these, and we
:48:02. > :48:06.are joined by Quentin Letts. Are you a naughty Lib Dem, Susan?
:48:06. > :48:11.have moments of being naughty, but I think we are quite constructive
:48:11. > :48:16.with our naughtiness. People think very carefully before they make a
:48:16. > :48:19.decision that they might not support the government, and I also
:48:19. > :48:25.suspect that the rebellion is usually exaggerated, quite frankly,
:48:25. > :48:35.in the media. In terms of numbers? Typically, most rebellions have
:48:35. > :48:36.
:48:36. > :48:41.been two or three people, and it is not something that... But on key
:48:41. > :48:45.policies, benefit cuts something that peers do not agree with the
:48:45. > :48:50.government on. You will get one or two people who fundamentally
:48:50. > :48:54.disagree. We are not robots. If you want Liberal Democrats in either
:48:54. > :48:56.house, you will not get automatons. A lot of us feel a responsibility
:48:56. > :49:02.to make sure that the coalition works because there are more gains
:49:02. > :49:04.and losses in all of that. A lot of the most constructive people have
:49:04. > :49:08.discussions behind the scenes, because changing bills in the House
:49:08. > :49:13.of Lords should not just be seen as confrontational. It actually is the
:49:13. > :49:16.point where you work on a lot of the detail of legislation, and the
:49:16. > :49:20.government comes forward with amendments, and most of the change
:49:20. > :49:26.does happen behind the scenes. Quentin Letts, they are not robots.
:49:26. > :49:30.I am rather in favour of beers causing trouble! Or at least...
:49:30. > :49:35.you are a naughty sketch writer. Isn't that what Parliament is there
:49:35. > :49:39.for? Where I think it is a little rum is where the Lib Dem ministers
:49:39. > :49:43.plainly relish what is going on, and yet at the same time they
:49:43. > :49:48.accept ministerial cars and salaries. There is a bit of that
:49:48. > :49:53.going on, but the backbench peers... They are doing a good job,
:49:53. > :49:57.scrutinising legislation. That is what they are there for, but they
:49:57. > :50:00.are sometimes useful idiots for the Labour Party, which is glad to see
:50:01. > :50:04.them doing the dirty work. That is what was going on with the dear old
:50:04. > :50:08.bishops, stepping on a landmine with the welfare bill. I think
:50:08. > :50:12.there are times when the Labour Party looks at them and says, thank
:50:12. > :50:17.you for doing it, guys. Isn't there truth in that, that there is a
:50:17. > :50:21.divide between ministers and Labour peers themselves? They signed up to
:50:21. > :50:25.the coalition... Sorry, Liberal Democrat peers! They signed up to
:50:25. > :50:28.the coalition, you are tearing it apart on principle. I actually
:50:29. > :50:32.think if you take a look at the Liberal Democrat peers, you will
:50:32. > :50:36.see that overall it is very supportive of the coalition's
:50:36. > :50:43.underlying goals, certainly the coalition agreement. But they are
:50:43. > :50:46.wrecking bills, welfare and health. The moment one wants to snap once
:50:46. > :50:56.pencilled in heart this when Paddy Ashdown stands up and starts giving
:50:56. > :50:56.
:50:57. > :51:01.a moral lecture. -- wants to snap one's pencil in half. He is a
:51:01. > :51:04.classic example or being happy to be rejoicing in the grandeur of the
:51:04. > :51:08.Lib Dems being part of the coalition, but at the same time
:51:09. > :51:13.stepping apart from the collision. He tries to have it both ways. --
:51:13. > :51:15.the coalition. Quite frankly, when I have worked with ministers on
:51:15. > :51:19.bills, there is a lot of appreciation of the work that goes
:51:19. > :51:22.on, because people want good legislation on the end of this.
:51:22. > :51:26.There is often fundamental agreement on the philosophical
:51:26. > :51:30.underpinning of issues it is how you implement it and how it can be
:51:30. > :51:34.done. There are occasions when I did not support them, I do not
:51:34. > :51:37.support those who rebelled along with the bishops, because quite
:51:38. > :51:43.frankly where were we going to find the extra billions in order to
:51:43. > :51:47.achieve that particular policy? I could not see. But in a lot of
:51:47. > :51:51.cases, it is raising issues, ministers look at it and think, you
:51:51. > :51:55.have got a point, so let's make this work, and the give-and-take
:51:55. > :51:59.has really impressed me in the House of Lords. I never saw it and
:51:59. > :52:04.a Labour in the Commons, but in the Lords it really does happen. -- I
:52:04. > :52:07.never saw it under Labour. crossbenchers, the supposedly
:52:07. > :52:12.independent ones, are becoming quite politicised, acting almost as
:52:12. > :52:15.a block at times, and that is interesting to watch. There are a
:52:15. > :52:20.few rumblings about how they are almost being whipped, being
:52:20. > :52:25.encouraged. They are not just being independent? That has been going on,
:52:26. > :52:31.and there is discomfit in concern for the -- Conservative circles
:52:31. > :52:35.about this. Paddy Ashdown may not be a favoured Liberal Democrat peer.
:52:35. > :52:43.You cannot think of another one! That is very nice that he thinks
:52:43. > :52:47.isn't it your favourite. I paid him earlier! -- that you think Susan is
:52:47. > :52:54.your favourite. The danger is that an elected House of Lords would
:52:54. > :52:57.create mayhem. I am very much in favour of an elected House. We are
:52:57. > :53:01.changing legislation in ways that really invites people's lives.
:53:01. > :53:04.think we ought to be accountable. So they should not pipe down.
:53:04. > :53:07.should not pipe down, but they should be elected so they are
:53:07. > :53:12.accountable. They will be a lot of hype about Charles Dickens this
:53:12. > :53:16.week because it is 200 years today since he was born. What you may not
:53:16. > :53:20.know is that one of his first jobs as well as as a parliamentary
:53:20. > :53:23.reporter. He did not like MPs much, he thought they were a bit pompous,
:53:23. > :53:26.and he would probably be shocked to find out that not many of the
:53:26. > :53:31.traditions have changed over the road. Since Quentin Letts is with
:53:31. > :53:41.us, we thought we would return to Parliament to look at another
:53:41. > :53:42.
:53:42. > :53:47.ancient tradition, the Division Eight division is the term used for
:53:47. > :53:50.the moment at which the House of Commons splits for a vote. MPs need
:53:50. > :53:55.to be physically on the premises to cast a preference, jolly in
:53:55. > :54:01.considered, they do not want to be there all the time. The division
:54:01. > :54:06.bell will ring when a division is called. You might say why, in this
:54:06. > :54:11.day and age, do they need to be there in person? Having MPs in the
:54:11. > :54:15.voting lobbies in person means that they can, the Secretary of State of
:54:15. > :54:18.the minister and express their concerns. Here she is, this is the
:54:18. > :54:23.division bell. From the moment this rings, they have eight minutes to
:54:23. > :54:27.get to Parliament and cast their vote. You have these things in
:54:27. > :54:31.private homes around Westminster, pubs and clubs, and also in other
:54:31. > :54:34.places you might find MPs. They do not have to take part in a debate
:54:34. > :54:41.in order to be able to vote. They quite often will not have heard a
:54:41. > :54:47.single word, and you can tell, if you're watching on TV, when the
:54:47. > :54:52.Speaker shouts, clear the lobby's! Division, cleared the lobby's!
:54:52. > :54:56.we are in a restaurant four minutes from the House of Commons. If you
:54:56. > :55:01.come for lunch or dinner, you will find MPs eating. There is a
:55:01. > :55:11.division bell on the war, when it rings, it is like the start of the
:55:11. > :55:25.
:55:25. > :55:28.It is an offence to impede and MP on his or her way to vote. The
:55:28. > :55:36.result of the division is announced immediately afterwards in the
:55:36. > :55:42.chamber. The ice to the right, 111, the noes to the left, 483, so the
:55:42. > :55:46.noes have it. The key ones to find out how your MP voted, just look at
:55:46. > :55:56.next day's Hansard. -- If you want to find out. It is online these
:55:56. > :55:56.
:55:56. > :56:01.And Quentin Letts is still with us. You were very good, I thought. How
:56:01. > :56:06.did you get that bike out so quickly? I am very good with those
:56:06. > :56:10.things! I wonder how many lunches have been left cold. Dickens, I am
:56:10. > :56:14.being told, what you think about Dickens? Do you think he would be
:56:14. > :56:17.thinking, nothing much has changed? He would think very little has
:56:17. > :56:23.changed, but he would not be surprised. He was fully alive to
:56:23. > :56:27.the satire of the House of Commons. Gk Chesterton wrote a biography of
:56:27. > :56:32.him in which he said that Dickens was very little overpowered by the
:56:32. > :56:36.dignity of Parliament. How very crushing! He took the rise out of
:56:36. > :56:41.them, he invented the Office of circumlocution, and it is still
:56:41. > :56:44.operated by the barnacles, the civil servants. Public life has not
:56:44. > :56:49.altered. We have got the same characters pretty much in our
:56:49. > :56:54.Parliament. That is human nature. Isn't it shocking to some extent?
:56:54. > :56:57.Shouldn't it have moved on visibly? I would like some things to move on.
:56:57. > :57:02.It is incredible that we do not get lots of good professional advice
:57:02. > :57:05.and those things that we need, but it would be tremendous to have
:57:05. > :57:10.Dickens do something like examine the media in Parliament. I can
:57:10. > :57:16.imagine him with a Murdoch equivalent character. Trollope did
:57:16. > :57:19.that, much better than Dickens in Parliament. Dickens was a
:57:19. > :57:23.parliamentary reporter at the age of 19, and the only did it for a
:57:23. > :57:26.short time. He worked for a paper called the Mirror, not the same as
:57:26. > :57:31.the Daily Mirror. He would have enjoyed some of the characters.
:57:31. > :57:36.What would he have made of our speaker, John Bercow? Great
:57:36. > :57:41.material! He would have been terrific material. What would he
:57:41. > :57:48.have made up Nick Clegg? He might have been one of his heroes! Well
:57:48. > :57:51.done, Susan. The Prime Minister, so sure in his comforts, I think
:57:52. > :57:56.Dickens would have loved it. might have looked at the sketch
:57:56. > :58:00.writers and deflated them. Would he have sat way you sit, those premium
:58:00. > :58:05.places? They would not have been seated, they had to stand. He had a
:58:05. > :58:09.very good short and, and he would stand there doing it on the palm of
:58:09. > :58:13.his hand. At least he covered it, and today, frankly, other than when
:58:13. > :58:18.people think there's going to be Punch and Judy, there is barely any
:58:19. > :58:26.coverage at all. I will have to leave you, we have got to be the
:58:26. > :58:35.answer to our quiz. Which of these has Ed Miliband been compared to
:58:35. > :58:41.question --? Which one? A oh, my God! Wallace? I think it is all of
:58:41. > :58:47.them, isn't it? I think he has been portrayed... Sorry, thank you, that