07/02/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Labour's on the war path again over bankers' bonuses. They want

benefits to be performance related, and they want another bonus tax to

help get young people back into work. We'll be talking to the

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and to a former

Chancellor. The radical Muslim cleric, Abu

Qatada, is to be released on bail. Parliament's kicking up a story,

but what, if anything, can be done? We'll be debating regional public

sector pay. One MP says the issue will prove more explosive than

pensions. BELL RINGS. And, what's that noise?

Quentin will be here with his guide All that in the next half hour.

With us for the programme today is Max Steinberg from Liverpool Vision,

the city's economic development company. Welcome.

First this morning, let's talk about shops. Because a report by

the Local Data Company has found that one in seven shops in towns

and cities stood empty last year. It found that vacancy rates were

above average in the Midlands and the north, including Stockport,

Nottingham, Grimsby and Stockton on Tees.

How or are you finding it? In your area, you cover regional

regeneration. How is Liverpool bearing up? We have just had a very

good lead-up to Christmas. The new shopping development is proving

popular. There was a time, in the 80s and 90s, we thought we were

America, of building it out of town centres. If you create the right

offer in the town centre, car- parking remains an issue. Create

the right attractions around shopping, that's what is happening

in Liverpool. If so you are not experiencing what Grimsby, not a

them are experiencing, empty shops? We are seeing 2 million people a

month, lettings and up to 97%. House of Fraser. Taking business

away from other town centres? do think it is out of town shopping

centres. I have seen examples across the North, in small towns,

out-of-town shopping centres have killed the small town centre.

what Peter will -- what people want. It is causing the death of the High

Street. Ours has an Odeon cinema, one of the most popular. If you

create the right attractions which we have done. Liverpool was so

confident, there is a �200 million development coming.

What do you think about the Government's mantra that there has

to be a shift from reliance on public sector to more reliance on

the public -- private sector. How does that impact on jobs? It is

having an effect. There is a strong argument that this is going too

quickly. We have an economy heavily dependent on public sector jobs.

Our council has had to take �90 million out of the budget this year.

A huge amount of money. When an economy is so dependent on the

public sector, we need investment to meet private sector investment.

It takes the risk it areas, in parts of the nipple, the north east

and north west where the private sector may not going. The

government says it wants to see private sector jobs picking up

public sector jobs. I believe we can do that. We have a global

entrepreneurship Congress coming to the people next year, recreating

the spirit of enterprise in the City, getting people to understand,

50% in this country want to form a business, but only 5% do. The Now

it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is: Which of

these has Ed Miliband been compared A) Wallace from Wallace and Gromit.

B) A Lizard. C) Bert from Sesame Street.

D) Ernie from Sesame Street? At the end of the show, we'll give you the

Let's turn our eyes again to banks and bankers' bonuses. Because this

afternoon, Labour have forced a Commons debate calling for any

benefits to be "performance related". And for a new bankers'

bonus tax which would help young people get back into work. It comes

after the bosses of Network Rail, and the Royal Bank of Scotland

chief executive Stephen Hester turned down bonuses following a

political outcry. Joining us now from Central Lobby is the Shadow

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves.

Thank you for joining us. You must be delighted with the decision by

Network Rail bosses to waive their bonuses. He made the right decision

as did Stephen Hester. Because they are not justified at a time when

ordinary families are struggling, and businesses aren't delivering

the performers they should, with share price at RBS falling, they

are laying of ordinary workers. But, we are calling for two things.

First, a tax on bank bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.

We have more than one million young people out of work. Also, a more

fundamental reform of how pay and bonuses work. Transparency in terms

of pay. Workers on remuneration committees to set wages at the top.

To bring bonuses back down to Planet Earth.

Would you rather have that the bonus culture didn't exist at all?

Or do you want bonuses you can tax? I think bonuses should before

exceptional performance, especially at the top. It should be in

addition to pay. But at the moment do you want to see all bonuses

reined in? All banks have relied on an implicit guarantee from the

government. Those bonuses, as Ed Miliband has said, is part of what

caused the financial crisis. Bonuses for short-term reward

rather than adding long-term value encourages excessive risk-taking.

We want a reform in the way bonuses work because that would be good for

the economy and business. At the moment, with these bank bonuses

getting under way again, multi- million pound bonuses being paid,

we said the priority is to use that money to fund jobs for long-term

young unemployed people rather than the parity of a tax cut for the

banks. Are you going to target companies in the wake RBS and net

work well were. Companies which are state owned or part-owned, like

Eurostar, like Channel 4? One other things this government says his

shareholders should take an active interest in the bonuses and pay of

staff at the top of those organisations. With a RBS, the

taxpayers are the key shareholders. Would you like the government to

look specifically at those companies as a starting point?

David Abrahams got a 123,000 pound bonus last year despite viewers the

leaving the Channel. Whether government has a role, as a

shareholder or owner of, those bonuses should be looked at. This

goes well beyond what is happening in those organisations. But in

financial services companies which have relied on that implicit

government guaranteed to continue to pay out bonuses of up to

millions of pounds. Those bonuses have been damaging to the banking

sector and wider economy. Unless we take action and get a transparency,

we risk another financial crisis. Even Alastair Darling said, as far

as the backbone this tax is concerned, it will be a one-off

thing. The people you are after will find imaginative ways of

avoiding it. This year, we are likely to get

another bumper bonuses. Not as big as you thought. We're still talking

about billions of pounds of bonuses being paid this year. That could

bring into million pounds of funding we would use to create

100,000 jobs for people out of work. Is there a feeling now that what

you are saying, that this will send a message to the city that you are

serious? Banks already get very large salaries for doing their job.

That should be the reward, rather than these bonuses which often

rewards for failure. That is what we saw leading up to the crisis and

what we are still seeing today. If Britain is to succeed, we need a

factor -- banking sector supporting small businesses which are

desperately trying to get finance and create jobs. It is about reform

of the wider economy as well to get money is flowing through.

The emotion is non-committal, you have taught about improving lending

levels, but you have not set any figures. It doesn't specify what

you would like? We are in opposition. We wanted to set the

tone of the debate. We hope people will support us. That is why we are

calling for the government had to reinstate that backbone this tax

and looked at transparency and fairness in the culture of bonuses.

With me is Nigel Lawson, Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, now a

member of the Lords. Is it right going after bankers'

bonuses? There is a problem of which bankers' bonuses are sent

home. It is a problem with banking. That is what needs to be sorted out.

These excessive bonuses are a symptom of the two big to fail, too

important to fail, of which has led to the feeling they don't have to

be that careful. They can gamble a huge amount because of it goes

wrong the tax payer will bail them out. They are not risking their own

money. It is striking, for example, over a period of time, looking at

figures for five years, bank shareholders have not done

particularly well at all. Why is it that the pay of exacted bank

managers has gone up, compared to dividends to shareholders? It maybe

shareholder failure, but a more fundamental thing. Banking

legislation. First of all, the government is proposing to put in

place following recommendations, a ring fence between the investment

banks and ordinary commercial banks. The purpose of that is to make it

extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will have to bail out

commercial banks. They are the ones that matter to the economy. If an

investment bank goes bust, like a hedge fund, they should be allowed

to fail. Then there is the question of the complicated but important

thing of the accountancy rules, the new accounting standards which are

particularly bad for banks which enables them to pay huge real

bonuses out of purely paper profits. They don't have the profits in the

first place. So you have basic legal system which makes this worse.

And the tax system is wrong. It says, if you find as yourself with

debt, the debt interest is tax deductible. If you finance yourself

without short equity, there is no tax deductible. This makes the

system very unsafe. If the government takes on the

recommendations from the report, all those things will be sold?

Particularly the separation of retail investment? Or is there

still the potential for banks to circumvent those rules, and they

will still be vulnerable? The only have to look at the banks in Europe.

Will this recommendation prevent that? The European Bank system is

extremely vulnerable as a result of the disaster of the eurozone. That

is a separate issue. I would prefer to see a complete structural

separation between investment and commercial banking. The ring-fence

will go some way. These other things are needed, tax changes,

accountancy rules, and beyond both, something which is across the board,

Coming back to the political row about bonuses, do think the

government is right in doing what it is doing, going at the bonuses,

trying to change the culture? think, as he said in his opening

remarks, there is genuine concern from the man and woman in the

street about what is going on. The situation in this country where the

FTSE chief executive is turning to wonder 19 times the median work it

is a situation that cannot continue. -- is burning to wonder than 19

times. The bonus system came here from America. Did it come at the

time of the Big Bang, when you were Chancellor? Too big to fail, that

was the start of it. I think it is true that it is one of the

consequences of the Big Bang, although it did not happen in my

time, it happened later, that universal banks came into being. In

the old days, in this country, we had quite separate... They were not

called investment banks, they were called merchant banks, and they

were completely separate from the commercial banks. They were

different cultures, different people. No-one wanted to turn off

the Taff. Remuneration committee after remuneration committee...

is impossible to say the word! are letting each other up. I ask

the question, where are the shareholders, turning up at AGMs

and arguing the case that it is not right? There is clearly a lot of

anger and a lot of upset about this in the country. The parties are

saying that the system is fractured, and whether it cannot be repaired I

do not know, but the other question is, why do people need bonuses?

Isn't this about setting the right salary and incentives for people to

do their job? The system is now at a point in this country where

people have lost belief in the whole system. There has been talk

not about bonuses but profit sharing and incentives. The John

Lewis model. Would that work in banking? The John Lewis model will

not. The John Lewis model is very old hat, it is a very old company,

a good company but very old. People have tried this, workers' co-

operatives, time and again, and it does not provide a suitable model

for business and industry going ahead. On the Vickers Report,

Wright, the government has said they are going to introduce it in

2015. Is that let too late? There is going to be a gap until then

before the separation is going to take place. I think it is important

to do it as soon as possible. I think it is very desirable that the

legislation should be introduced in the next session of Parliament.

They had said it will be in this Parliament, but I think it should

be in the next session of Parliament. We cannot go on

rewarding failure. We cannot go on with a situation where the public

are completely out of tune with this. We have got to have a

situation where this is managed in a more effective way, and we are

the major shareholders, turning up at AGMs, arguing that these are out

of kilter. Now, to the row that has taken Parliament by storm, beer!

Over to you, Giles. It has to be said, there are

certain jobs in journalism I will not do, but this is not all of them.

Standing outside, discussing beer! The whole problem started with his

beer that was served in the bar served -- bar frequented by MPs,

Top Totty. It was banned, somebody said they were offended by it. What

you make of that? Well, I think it is not just a storm in a teacup,

the vast majority of voters and the general public, people watching

this programme will think, have and MPs got something better to talk

about? It is quite a last place, the House of Commons, two women

have a point? I think it was an over-reaction, I would rather the

Top Totty than speckled hen! suspect the name alone might have

been all right, it was something to do with the marketing around it and

the label which hopefully people will be able to see in a moment. It

does have a scantily clad female, barely concealed inside a bikini

with bunny ears. You can see how some people might have got upset.

met the aforementioned Lady... is never real! She is a real person.

It is nothing worse than you would see on a saucy seaside postcard or

Jessica Rabbit, it is nothing more than that. I think you have got

done a bit of a sense of humour. There is a long tradition of having

cheeky names for beers in Britain, real ales with GDA names. Maybe, in

the interests of quality, we should have a cheeky chappie scantily clad

and see if any of my male colleagues... I think it would go

down quite well, maybe more of the female drinkers. Been to have a

gentleman offended by a beer? of my mature constituents was

offended by old codger and wanted me to take that up. Look, part of

the problem is some of the marketing. Top Totty is described

as a stunning blonde beer, full- bodied with a voluptuous of. It is

being replaced by his beer, Kangaroo Court, which is not using

the same sort of language, and assuming Lehman after the initial

kick with a tight, dry finish. we judge it by its label? It as a

kangaroo on it, largely! Is it scantily-clad? Vaguely furry, but

not naked. Is it in danger of offending Australians first mark

possibly, but that is a national sport here. The sales of Top Totty

have gone through the roof as a result of this row, it is probably

the best marketing they have had. You are both beer fans, as a

connoisseur... Not quite the distance, but pretty good.

would you describe the flavours? Quite sweet. Sweet? It is almost

like a Belgian beer. I am the chairman of the All Parliamentary

beer Group, which is the best job in Parliament, and I would say, as

an expert, it is quite hotly. would expect A kangaroo Court to be

a bit wobbly. On that note, I think we should get back to the studio

while we just clear up here! We will give them away!

It is a tough job, Giles, but somebody has to do it. I will tell

the staff, they will be delighted, we aim to please. Rebellion is in

the air among Liberal Democrat MPs of a coalition plans to localise

public sector pay. George Osborne is looking at whether public sector

workers should be paid different amounts depending on where they

live. For example, a fireman in Inverness could earn a different

amassed by firemen working in Surrey. Adam Fleming reports. -- a

different amount. So South Wales as a big public

sector. This village has schools, a library, a hospital, and most of

the people who work in them have their wages set nationally. Critics

of national pay bargaining say it takes no account of the fact that

the cost of living in places like this might be different from other

places. They also say their private sector employers struggle to match

the same wages. Local solicitor Victoria experience that when she

advertised for a legal assistant. What we found is that solicitors or

lawyers alike would prefer to work for the public authority, the local

authority, and work in private practice. Who can blame them? We

cannot offer the salary, we do not have the benefits that you get in

the local authority, and therefore this is why lawyers really are

going straight to the local authority upon leaving, upon

graduating from university. The so- called public sector wage premium

varies by gender as well as region. In Wales, men in the public sector

earn on average 18% more than their private sector counterparts. In

Scotland, women earn on average 20% more. In Northern Ireland, men in

the public sector get 15.5% more. But in the East Midlands, it is

much less, just 7%. In the south- east, the difference is not

statistically significant. In other words, there's hardly any

difference at all. To address those variations, last year the

Chancellor wrote to the pay review bodies for nurses, teachers, prison

workers and some senior staff, asking them to investigate and

report back this summer about whether salaries can be made more

market phasing in local areas. To the unions, that is code for cuts

to pay. This is an agenda of cutting pay in the public sector,

and our point of view is that it is a race to the bottom in the regions.

The only real driver in terms of regional differences around there

it is London and the south-east, and you can deal with that through

London weighting or market supplements to retain people. If

you are just looking at this as an organisational problem, that is.

But this is a backdoor way of driving down pay in the public

sector. Some local businesses also worry that it could deflate the

local economy. The protests over changes to pensions taught the

government it can be tough to tangle with the public sector.

Realising their pay is technically tricky and some Lib Dems have

already said it is a terrible idea, so there is no guarantee that it

will ever actually happen. Joining me now is Liberal Democrat

MP Andrew George and conservative anti-David Ruffley, who is on the

Treasury Select Committee. Max Steinberg is still with us. --

Conservative MP. You think this is a terrible idea. Yes, I come from

West Cornwall, the bottom of the earnings league table since records

began, and if you want to introduce a measure which is going to drive

down wages and actually enshrined an area, a region like Cornwall as

a place of endemic low wages, this is a pretty good way of going about

it. The national minimum wage, a lot of private sector employers

suggested it would cause catastrophe across the country, but

it never did. We should be looking at mechanisms to drive wages up,

not to push them down. A race to the bottom, why fix something that

ain't broke? The IFS, which is independent, says if you are in

Wales or the north-east, on average, in a public's after Jock, you are a

30% more on average than someone off during the same job in the

private sector. -- in a public sector job. The private sector is

suffering as a result, and we need to have more than us through a

regional, locally determined pay structure. Is it really fair,

Andrew George, that a worker living in an area with a low cost of

living to end the same as a worker who lives in a more expensive area?

No, it is not. That is not what happens. Isn't it? Take for example

my own area, I will talk about my own area, we are at the bottom of

the earnings league table, but our house prices are anything but. As a

result of large numbers of second homes and the pressure of the

market, the external market, a desire to move to the area, the

cost of living is one of the greatest in the country. So to say

that there is any kind of parity between wages and cost of living,

it is simply not the case. south-west is an interesting case,

because it is traditionally one of the poorest areas, but because it

is so popular and fashionable to live there you are suggesting would

make it difficult for people. prose medium weight of a public

sector employee in the south-west is �541, where I am, East Anglia,

it is less than that. All of those factors are public sector wages.

They are a lot higher in many parts of the country than the same job in

the private sector. Where is the fairness in that? What about

pushing up wages? Why try to suppress them in some areas? Well,

Labour employment is a market like many other things, and it has to

find its own level. The CentreForum, the Lib Dem think-tank, which has

lots of good ideas, even they say that the private sector employer is

finding it very difficult to compete with inflated public sector

wages in the regions. What is your experience? The government is

saying that we have to create areas like Liverpool or the north-west

where there is too much reliance on the public sector, private sector

jobs, but I do not want a system which drives away higher-paid jobs.

I want to bring in all sorts of jobs into the North West and

Liverpool. Is there a policy which will put pressure on salaries?

Where are they go into go? To the south-east, I think. That. The

regeneration of cities like Liverpool. -- that will stop the

regeneration. I'm against a policy which will put pressure on the

drive to bring private sector investment into a city like

Liverpool. You would not want to do that either. I am not sure I follow

the logic. We are saying to give a boost to private sector employers,

the opposite of what I am suggesting. But the economy, David,

in places like Liverpool will be dependent on the public sector for

years to come, and there's nothing wrong with that. We need to

rebalance it, the Chancellor said, this year, I'm going to get work

done on realising pay. I cannot understand why you want high public

sector pay when you say you are trying to encourage private sector

jobs on Merseyside, you should be supporting this. I am encouraging

the private sector, but I do not want to discourage salaries going

up, because the more disposable income in the economy... You want a

fairer deal for private sector employers to pay a decent wage.

without public sector wages going down, that is the point. The fact

is that it is a market. If you are doing the same job in the public

sector, you can have a premium of 30% over the same job in the

private sector. How can you justify that? Let me just come in and say

that from the point of view of the implications for public finances,

one of the hat comes as a result of the establishment of the national

minimum wage was that income- support budgets went down. --

outcomes. That is because, those employers who were then paying the

national minimum wage, employees who were dependent on higher levels

of housing benefit to make up their income, the public sector, were in

effect subsidising poor employers who were paying below what was an

I think we should have regional benefit rates as well. Iain Duncan

Smith said that is something we should look at. He said it would be

difficult to execute. He is saying it is a legitimate question. I

think there are plenty of Conservatives on the back bench who

have floated that idea well before Labour. That would be localism?

Localism is a question of making decisions locally. We need a

benchmark against which everyone can have some security. If you are

enshrined in areas low wages and their benefits as well... You will

be condemning Merseyside in effect. By actually putting a dampener on

wages, and benefits as well, the money circulating in that local

economy in Merseyside. David wants to... Du Liberal Democrat in attack

-- think-tank said the idea is to get people into work. They are

being crowded out by artificially high public sector wages. I am

afraid we have to bring this to an end. Are the Liberal Democrats

going to dig their heels in? I am sure we are. We want to stimulate

debate. He's been described as a "truly

dangerous individual" and a "key UK figure" in al-Qaeda related terror

activity. But the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada is to be released

on bail, under strict conditions. So how have we reached this

position? He was one of the UK's most wanted men when he was taken

to Belmarsh prison in 2002. But he was freed in 2005 when the courts

ruled his detention was unlawful. Later that year, he was detained

again. The UK started trying to deported him back to his native

Jordan where he faces terror charges, beginning his six and a

half year fight against deportation. At the start of this year, the

European Court of Human Rights blocked his deportation, saying

that Jordan might use evidence obtained by torture. This led Mr

Justice Mitting to rule yesterday that the preacher should now be

bailed. But he's under strict bail conditions. He will only be allowed

to leave the address for two one- hour periods a day. Anyone visiting

his home, bar his wife and children, have to be pre-approved. And he

must give notice of all meetings arranged outside his home. He will

not be allowed to leave the general area, and will also have no access

to the internet or electronic communications devices. The Home

Office is up in arms. They've been given three months to show that

British diplomats had made progress in negotiations with Jordan, which

would satisfy the European Court. Or else see Abu Qatada's stringent

bail conditions revoked. I'm joined now by the former counter-terrorism

and security minister, Hazel Blears. And with us for the rest of the

programme we have the Liberal Democrat peer, Susan Kramer.

Human rights, our rights are being made a mockery? We have to hold up

to due process. One is very disturbed when someone like this

announce -- appears to be announced as potentially free. There may well

be other solutions I would like to see, there must be answers. He was

in jail at the time when you were in government. Why were

prosecutions not brought? We all wish every suspected terrorist

could be brought before a normal criminal court. Wasn't he

different? We have in this country a handful of people for whom the

evidence against them is basic intelligence evidence. If you were

to bring that to a normal criminal court, you would have to reveal

your capability and agents who would be compromised. What we did

was we've brought in a system of control orders, very controversial,

but within the human rights framework. With Abu Qatada, he was

held under deportation provisions, which is why they can put bail

conditions on him. My worry is, if we cannot get this issue sorted

with Jordan, those strict bail conditions will be relaxed and he

will be virtually free. Abu Qatada, walking the streets free. How will

the public react? The public will be quite rightly horrified. The

pressure on the government now is to make sure that we can get the

assurances from Jordan in relation to a possible trial, that the

evidence will not be introduced through torture. That way we can

get him deported. There is a big issue about the European Court of

Human Rights. Showed, is it time to leave the European Court? Leave the

jurisdiction? I don't think that is right. We need to change the

European Court so it is not in the position of second-guessing our

court. The reason we put the legislation into our own system is

so we wouldn't need to keep going to Strasbourg. But it has backfired.

So the government needs to decide whether to appeal the judgment of

the European Court. Or get changes to the court so we don't find

ourselves in the same position. they haven't been charged and

prosecuted, why should he be held indefinitely in prison? He should

be released. We would all argue for due process. Otherwise we would

have a chaotic system. The question is, it is due process working

properly in this particular case? Or is it illustrating real

problems? There are real issues about the European Court of Human

Rights. I would personally like to understand why we're not in a

position to bring a serious prosecution here. We have had as

explained. It is one of the things I hope the government will look at

very closely. If there is intelligence evidence which is none

of dated, we may not have the risks -- long dated. Where I have some

comfort is that this man is identified and watch. I would want

assurances that will never change. If here is under strict bail

conditions, surely that is fine? He is still so well known, there is

this process with Jordan. You seem relatively confident that might

bring results in terms of seeing him deported. I sincerely hope it

does bring results. Otherwise we will see these bail conditions

relaxed. Then, this person could have access to the internet, mobile

phones, to be back with his associates and to start to do that

terrible things he was inspiring. He was an inspirational figure

which led people to radical as Asian and terrorism. There is going

to be an urgent question this afternoon. Is Britain powerless?

These are the tanagers Government's -- challenges a government has to

deal with. We are where we are now, this man is at least under a very

tough bail conditions. We have three months in which to get it

right. They Now to Syria. Because the

Syrian army has resumed shelling opposition-held areas in the city

of Homs for the fourth day running. The UN says more than 5,500 people

have been killed by the Syrian regime since the uprising began.

Yesterday, in the Commons, the Foreign Secretary William Hague

condemned what he called the "doomed and murdering regime" of

Are Mr Speaker, the human suffering in so it is already unimaginable

and is in grave danger of escalating. The position taken by

Russia and China has regrettably made this more likely. But this

government will not forget the people of Syria. We will redouble

our efforts to put pressure on this appalling regime and to stop this

indefensible violence. There is clear agreement across

this house and across much of the international community that the

regime has no future and President Assad must go. The tragedy is, not

withstanding that, of the slaughter continues. For the international

community, condemnation is not enough. Diplomatic efforts are

required which is why the recent failure of which the Foreign

Secretary has just spoken to reach agreement in the secure eye dee

council is such a stain on the conscience of the world. Isn't the

immediate problem the anguish being paid by a those people. Do we not

need a broader strategic croaked -- approach? Kenny tell the House what

he thinks it is that animates the Chinese government are to support

these butchers? Isn't it the case that brochette is rapidly turning

itself into a pariah state? -- Russia. Wouldn't it be an

opportunity for the Conservative Party to part company with Putin?

I'm joined now by the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas

Alexander. And by the former Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies

Campbell. Thank you very much for joining us.

The Russian foreign minister is in its area, can he achieve anything?

There is a heavy burden of responsibility on him to prove

Russia's good faith in ensuring the slaughter is ended and the violence

is stopped. Do you believe that? am not hopeful but one has to wait

and see, he will be judged from what emerges from those discussions

in Damascus. There has been a hopeful sign where the Turkish

promise to make clear Turkey will take an initiative in the coming

days. The Turkish foreign minister will be visiting Hillary Clinton in

Washington. I welcome the fact, not withstanding the setback of the

failure to reach agreement on Saturday, that we do see an

initiative being taken by one of the regional powers, Turkey. Do you

think, the frustration being felt internationally at the fact Russia

and China vetoed that resolution, will there be more pressure for

momentum on countries like Turkey to find a solution? There will be

considerable pressure on Turkey which will want to respond, because

of its determination to be much more assertive in foreign affairs.

I had the advantage of listening to the Munich secluded conference, and

the objections to the resolution of which had not been put to the city

council, seemed to me to be pretty flimsy. They didn't stand up to any

kind of scrutiny. My cynical approach to this is that perhaps

the Russians were keen to portray themselves as the brokers in this

business. But of course, in the meantime, as some of us said

dramatically yesterday, the people are paying for this, the people of

Syria, their children, their parents. Indiscriminate shelling of

civilians. More and more are being killed as violence intensified and

they think the international community has let them down. Isn't

it the truth we in Britain are pretty powerless in this brokering

between nations who don't seem to be keen to be involved? I don't

condemn or criticise the British government's actions. What we saw

at the Security Council is a stain on the conscience of the world. We

need to work with our European Union partners. Yesterday alleged

that Foreign Secretary to facilitate a meeting with the

European Union and Arab League which has a key role to play. I

approached him to speak to the Russian foreign minister and urge

him not simply to speak for Russia but to communicate the global

average at the shelling of Homs. And they urged him to speak

directly to Turkey where the Prime Minister, partly for his reasons

and for regional reasons, has a strong interest in seeing Turkey

bring a resolution to this conflict. What about the option of support

for the opposition which William harry read -- William Hague talked

about? That is essential. It has to be political support. There is no a

authority under the United Nations Security Council resolution for

giving arms, or indeed for any kind of military intervention. One

Labour backbencher suggested there should be a no-fly zone but there

is no authority for that. That underlines the point Douglas

Alexander has made, which is we have to be realistic about what we

can achieve. The fact this is global is emphasised by William

Hague, he had a conversation with the Australian foreign minister.

The more we can assemble a coalition of the willing throughout

the world to bring pressure on Syria, the better our chances will

Do you really think the only solution is for us that to go?

Countries do not want to be seen to be advocating regime changed.

not think he has any legitimacy it whether within Syria or be on Syria.

The first step is the cessation of violence, the second is his

departure, but there is a burden of forces in Syria, and this is why I

hope the British Army is talking about putting in credible plans for

transition. That is a key part of the plan. Thank you very much for

joining us. Now, a question, our Liberal Democrat peers naughty?

Perish the thought! They are thought of as a quiet bunch, not

troublemakers, but 62 have voted against the government at least

once in this Parliament. Here is a flavour of them in action. In the

past, I have congratulated the noble Lord on the eloquent and

ingenious way he has defended the indefensible, but this is Alice In

wonderland stuff! I have liked riot my protest to what is going on here

this evening. We have just spent several hours on what many people

in his house considered to be a completely useless bill and totally

unnecessary. The Bill, in its current form, will cause dire

consequences for 670,000 households across the United Kingdom. I am

very concerned that the evidence base for making this change is

incredibly thin and the consequences of implementing it

have not been thoroughly researched for properly thought through.

hope the minister will listen to our consent and give us some hope

of substantial movement in the later stages of the bill. -- our

concerns. If he doesn't, let me give in a word of warning. Anyone

who mussy Lord Falconer resplendent in his beach shorts directing

operations in the village sports which take place in front of our

cottage in Seagrove they will know that you cross him at your peril!

Yes, an image to remember, Lord Oakeshott ending that these, and we

are joined by Quentin Letts. Are you a naughty Lib Dem, Susan?

have moments of being naughty, but I think we are quite constructive

with our naughtiness. People think very carefully before they make a

decision that they might not support the government, and I also

suspect that the rebellion is usually exaggerated, quite frankly,

in the media. In terms of numbers? Typically, most rebellions have

been two or three people, and it is not something that... But on key

policies, benefit cuts something that peers do not agree with the

government on. You will get one or two people who fundamentally

disagree. We are not robots. If you want Liberal Democrats in either

house, you will not get automatons. A lot of us feel a responsibility

to make sure that the coalition works because there are more gains

and losses in all of that. A lot of the most constructive people have

discussions behind the scenes, because changing bills in the House

of Lords should not just be seen as confrontational. It actually is the

point where you work on a lot of the detail of legislation, and the

government comes forward with amendments, and most of the change

does happen behind the scenes. Quentin Letts, they are not robots.

I am rather in favour of beers causing trouble! Or at least...

you are a naughty sketch writer. Isn't that what Parliament is there

for? Where I think it is a little rum is where the Lib Dem ministers

plainly relish what is going on, and yet at the same time they

accept ministerial cars and salaries. There is a bit of that

going on, but the backbench peers... They are doing a good job,

scrutinising legislation. That is what they are there for, but they

are sometimes useful idiots for the Labour Party, which is glad to see

them doing the dirty work. That is what was going on with the dear old

bishops, stepping on a landmine with the welfare bill. I think

there are times when the Labour Party looks at them and says, thank

you for doing it, guys. Isn't there truth in that, that there is a

divide between ministers and Labour peers themselves? They signed up to

the coalition... Sorry, Liberal Democrat peers! They signed up to

the coalition, you are tearing it apart on principle. I actually

think if you take a look at the Liberal Democrat peers, you will

see that overall it is very supportive of the coalition's

underlying goals, certainly the coalition agreement. But they are

wrecking bills, welfare and health. The moment one wants to snap once

pencilled in heart this when Paddy Ashdown stands up and starts giving

a moral lecture. -- wants to snap one's pencil in half. He is a

classic example or being happy to be rejoicing in the grandeur of the

Lib Dems being part of the coalition, but at the same time

stepping apart from the collision. He tries to have it both ways. --

the coalition. Quite frankly, when I have worked with ministers on

bills, there is a lot of appreciation of the work that goes

on, because people want good legislation on the end of this.

There is often fundamental agreement on the philosophical

underpinning of issues it is how you implement it and how it can be

done. There are occasions when I did not support them, I do not

support those who rebelled along with the bishops, because quite

frankly where were we going to find the extra billions in order to

achieve that particular policy? I could not see. But in a lot of

cases, it is raising issues, ministers look at it and think, you

have got a point, so let's make this work, and the give-and-take

has really impressed me in the House of Lords. I never saw it and

a Labour in the Commons, but in the Lords it really does happen. -- I

never saw it under Labour. crossbenchers, the supposedly

independent ones, are becoming quite politicised, acting almost as

a block at times, and that is interesting to watch. There are a

few rumblings about how they are almost being whipped, being

encouraged. They are not just being independent? That has been going on,

and there is discomfit in concern for the -- Conservative circles

about this. Paddy Ashdown may not be a favoured Liberal Democrat peer.

You cannot think of another one! That is very nice that he thinks

isn't it your favourite. I paid him earlier! -- that you think Susan is

your favourite. The danger is that an elected House of Lords would

create mayhem. I am very much in favour of an elected House. We are

changing legislation in ways that really invites people's lives.

think we ought to be accountable. So they should not pipe down.

should not pipe down, but they should be elected so they are

accountable. They will be a lot of hype about Charles Dickens this

week because it is 200 years today since he was born. What you may not

know is that one of his first jobs as well as as a parliamentary

reporter. He did not like MPs much, he thought they were a bit pompous,

and he would probably be shocked to find out that not many of the

traditions have changed over the road. Since Quentin Letts is with

us, we thought we would return to Parliament to look at another

ancient tradition, the Division Eight division is the term used for

the moment at which the House of Commons splits for a vote. MPs need

to be physically on the premises to cast a preference, jolly in

considered, they do not want to be there all the time. The division

bell will ring when a division is called. You might say why, in this

day and age, do they need to be there in person? Having MPs in the

voting lobbies in person means that they can, the Secretary of State of

the minister and express their concerns. Here she is, this is the

division bell. From the moment this rings, they have eight minutes to

get to Parliament and cast their vote. You have these things in

private homes around Westminster, pubs and clubs, and also in other

places you might find MPs. They do not have to take part in a debate

in order to be able to vote. They quite often will not have heard a

single word, and you can tell, if you're watching on TV, when the

Speaker shouts, clear the lobby's! Division, cleared the lobby's!

we are in a restaurant four minutes from the House of Commons. If you

come for lunch or dinner, you will find MPs eating. There is a

division bell on the war, when it rings, it is like the start of the

It is an offence to impede and MP on his or her way to vote. The

result of the division is announced immediately afterwards in the

chamber. The ice to the right, 111, the noes to the left, 483, so the

noes have it. The key ones to find out how your MP voted, just look at

next day's Hansard. -- If you want to find out. It is online these

And Quentin Letts is still with us. You were very good, I thought. How

did you get that bike out so quickly? I am very good with those

things! I wonder how many lunches have been left cold. Dickens, I am

being told, what you think about Dickens? Do you think he would be

thinking, nothing much has changed? He would think very little has

changed, but he would not be surprised. He was fully alive to

the satire of the House of Commons. Gk Chesterton wrote a biography of

him in which he said that Dickens was very little overpowered by the

dignity of Parliament. How very crushing! He took the rise out of

them, he invented the Office of circumlocution, and it is still

operated by the barnacles, the civil servants. Public life has not

altered. We have got the same characters pretty much in our

Parliament. That is human nature. Isn't it shocking to some extent?

Shouldn't it have moved on visibly? I would like some things to move on.

It is incredible that we do not get lots of good professional advice

and those things that we need, but it would be tremendous to have

Dickens do something like examine the media in Parliament. I can

imagine him with a Murdoch equivalent character. Trollope did

that, much better than Dickens in Parliament. Dickens was a

parliamentary reporter at the age of 19, and the only did it for a

short time. He worked for a paper called the Mirror, not the same as

the Daily Mirror. He would have enjoyed some of the characters.

What would he have made of our speaker, John Bercow? Great

material! He would have been terrific material. What would he

have made up Nick Clegg? He might have been one of his heroes! Well

done, Susan. The Prime Minister, so sure in his comforts, I think

Dickens would have loved it. might have looked at the sketch

writers and deflated them. Would he have sat way you sit, those premium

places? They would not have been seated, they had to stand. He had a

very good short and, and he would stand there doing it on the palm of

his hand. At least he covered it, and today, frankly, other than when

people think there's going to be Punch and Judy, there is barely any

coverage at all. I will have to leave you, we have got to be the

answer to our quiz. Which of these has Ed Miliband been compared to

question --? Which one? A oh, my God! Wallace? I think it is all of

them, isn't it? I think he has been portrayed... Sorry, thank you, that