:01:01. > :01:04.He says it's time for David Cameron to drop or at least emasculate the
:01:05. > :01:08.health reform Bill or risk disaster at the next election.
:01:08. > :01:13.We will be joined live by health Minister.
:01:13. > :01:15.Should we ignore the rulings of European judges and kick Abu Qatada
:01:15. > :01:20.out of the country? All three main parties want him
:01:20. > :01:24.deported. But the European Court is more worried about his human rights.
:01:24. > :01:27.Labour's leader in the Lords says Nick Clegg and David Cameron should
:01:27. > :01:31.drop their plans to reform the House of Lords. Helpful advice or a
:01:31. > :01:41.sraeled threat? We will ask her.
:01:41. > :01:41.
:01:41. > :01:51.And, how prepared are we for is worried the Government hasn't
:01:51. > :01:54.
:01:54. > :01:58.learned the lessons. All that coming newspaper the next
:01:59. > :02:02.will see this on no other channel, for which the other channels are
:02:02. > :02:05.grateful. With me Andrew Pierce and the Guardian's Zoe Williams. I
:02:05. > :02:09.don't know if you know, it's Andrew's birthday. Happy birthday.
:02:09. > :02:13.I will go easy on you. 24 again! Thank you so much.
:02:13. > :02:17.First, let's talk about bank bonuses, why not, we seem to do it
:02:17. > :02:23.every day. Barclays has published its full-year results and given
:02:23. > :02:28.details of bonuses handed out to staff. The bank, whose chief
:02:28. > :02:31.executive is Bob diamond, he's reported a 3% fall in profits to a
:02:31. > :02:41.mere �5.9 billion for last year. Mr Diamond says the total bonus pool
:02:41. > :02:46.for the group is also down by 25%. tell ITV what he was going to do
:02:46. > :02:55.with it either. There are reports that he is entitled to arpbtd --
:02:56. > :02:59.take all that remains to be seen. Barclays not owned by the state.
:02:59. > :03:07.so we don't have any call to give them a hard time one way or the
:03:07. > :03:12.other. I wonder, still benefiting from the implicit state guarantee
:03:12. > :03:16.it won't go bust. The problem is, I mean, if you want to talk logically,
:03:16. > :03:20.Barclays will say we never had a bail-out, we went to the Saudis.
:03:20. > :03:23.The Qataris. We are fine, let us get on with our own business. As
:03:23. > :03:31.soon as you start having these bonuses and everybody scrutinising
:03:31. > :03:32.them carefully, people will come through your business practice with
:03:32. > :03:36.a fine toothcomb and there is no large business in the country that
:03:36. > :03:39.hasn't benefited in some way, either from the financial
:03:39. > :03:47.underwriting of the Government, or from low wages which are
:03:48. > :03:52.supplemented or from a whole raft of things. You know, so basically,
:03:52. > :04:02.it's a toxic issue, it will be impossible for a bank to take what
:04:02. > :04:04.
:04:04. > :04:09.a member of public would think was matter for the shareholders and the
:04:09. > :04:14.company. But we just point out that if he gets �1 million bonus, we the
:04:14. > :04:20.taxpayer will get �520,000 of it. Cameron is not going to do that.
:04:20. > :04:24.Why doesn't he, we get more hapb hapb half -- more hapb half the
:04:24. > :04:32.bonus. Ed Miliband made the speech last night reminding people that
:04:32. > :04:35.guarantee, therefore, we all as taxpayers have a stake in the bank
:04:35. > :04:42.and they should pay what is seen as reasonable. I had a wonderful
:04:42. > :04:52.letter from a reader who had written to Lord Ash, head of BP in
:04:52. > :04:53.
:04:53. > :04:56.1995 complaining about his bonus bonuses so they can buy wonderful
:04:56. > :05:00.things and go on wonderful holidays. That may seem disproportionate to
:05:00. > :05:05.you but I can assure you it is a business necessity. We used to call
:05:05. > :05:11.that trickle down. It shows the trickle down rhetoric is so
:05:11. > :05:14.disgusting. There is a tick nickical point that's -- technical
:05:14. > :05:17.point point which is important if I was a shareholder, which I am not,
:05:17. > :05:22.the profits of just shy of �6 billion, the bonus billion of �2
:05:22. > :05:25.billion, that's a big percentage of the profits at a time when banks
:05:25. > :05:28.are under pressure to recapitalise balance sheets, which if do you
:05:29. > :05:32.that the share price would get stronger, so if I was a shareholder
:05:32. > :05:35.I wouldn't be too happy. If you look at the actual stats for
:05:35. > :05:39.shareholders in all businesses, they used to hold shares for an
:05:39. > :05:42.average of five years, now three and a half months, they're not that
:05:42. > :05:46.emotionally invested in the business shares in. They're paying
:05:46. > :05:52.massive bonuses to each other but still not lending money to small
:05:52. > :05:57.and medium-sized businesses. They haven't met the targets. Barclays
:05:57. > :06:04.says it has done better. What did you get for your birthday?
:06:04. > :06:13.haven't opened my presents yet. That's coming later. We have a quiz
:06:13. > :06:21.lined up for you, it's our present. Which of these does not want to be
:06:21. > :06:24.a new police commissioner. The Iraq veteran Tim Collins,
:06:24. > :06:27.Falklands veteran Simon Weston or political veteran John Prescott, we
:06:27. > :06:31.will give you the answer later in the show.
:06:31. > :06:36.Are the health reforms for England as bad for the coalition as the
:06:36. > :06:43.poll tax was for Thatcher? Not my words, but those of a Conservative
:06:43. > :06:47.cabinet Minister according to the influential right leaning blogger
:06:47. > :06:53.Tim Montgomery. This morning he published an article for the
:06:53. > :06:57.Conservative home blog, read by a lot of Tory grass roots, saying any
:06:58. > :07:03.problems the NHS will face in the future will now be unfairly blamed
:07:03. > :07:07.on the Bill and a Bill that is not evenly o only mangled and
:07:07. > :07:12.bureaucratic but unnecessary. He goes on to say the Bill is an
:07:12. > :07:13.unexploded bomb beneath the Tories' electoral prospects. Cameron must
:07:13. > :07:20.defuse it. The health Bill is having a tough
:07:20. > :07:25.time in the House of Lords where the Government's made 136 changes.
:07:25. > :07:31.There's concern this won't be enough to appease some Liberal
:07:31. > :07:35.Democrat peers. Labour is to stage an all-day debate in the Commons on
:07:35. > :07:41.February 22nd on the bill. So, what are the bill's chances of
:07:41. > :07:44.now. Welcome back to the daily politics.
:07:44. > :07:50.You have been encouraged to do this by three cabinet Ministers? That's
:07:50. > :07:58.right. There was a very important piece in Tuesday's Times by Rachel
:07:58. > :08:00.Sylvester which... Which you the srael, not on Liberal Democrat
:08:00. > :08:04.disquiet about the Bill which we have been familiar with but Tory
:08:04. > :08:14.disquiet and she quoted a Tory insider in Downing Street who
:08:14. > :08:16.
:08:16. > :08:20.talked about Andrew Lansley having to be taken out and shot. I was
:08:20. > :08:27.approached -. I began a ring around and was able to establish the
:08:27. > :08:29.extent of unhappiness amongst a lot of Conservatives at the health Bill.
:08:29. > :08:35.I think Conservative home was meant to represent the grass roots, not a
:08:35. > :08:42.hotline for distressed cabinet Ministers. Maybe we can do both.
:08:42. > :08:45.The Tory grass roots seem to be in Conservatives would like to see the
:08:45. > :08:48.National Health Service reformed, the question is do we have all the
:08:48. > :08:52.pre-conditions in place to make this a successful reform. Do we
:08:52. > :08:55.have a health saeg who has the confidence of the professions, who
:08:55. > :09:00.is able to communicate these reforms in a compelling way? Have
:09:00. > :09:05.we prepared the public for reform? Have we got a Whitehall machine
:09:05. > :09:08.that's on side? I don't think these pre-conditions exist. None of these
:09:08. > :09:12.pre-conditions were there there from the start. What has changed...
:09:12. > :09:17.Why didn't you say it then? Some of us were surprised when this health
:09:17. > :09:20.Bill came forward at the beginning. But... You weren't alone in that.
:09:20. > :09:24.We could see the case for it. Over time, you have just talked about
:09:24. > :09:32.the scale of amendments, it's become more mangled, more
:09:32. > :09:34.bureaucratic. Further detached from purpose. The headline, The Guardian
:09:34. > :09:40.report and others that have followed on your your article, say
:09:40. > :09:45.when I read it you don't really want to kill it, you want to
:09:45. > :09:52.emasculate it. That's closer to the truth. I believe it needs to be
:09:52. > :09:56.killed as far as the public are Bill, like the public health die
:09:56. > :09:59.mention, that could -- die mention that could enjoy support. The
:09:59. > :10:02.Government is doing enough incredibly important things on
:10:02. > :10:08.schools and welfare and the deficit, that's what it should be focused on.
:10:08. > :10:10.It doesn't need to be distracted by this health reforms as well. What
:10:10. > :10:17.do these cabinet Ministers want to you do? I think I have done what
:10:17. > :10:22.they wanted me to do. They're hiding behind you? Well, you were
:10:22. > :10:29.editor of the Sunday Times, you know how this works, a lot of
:10:29. > :10:33.people do not want to put their head above the phet, I have
:10:33. > :10:38.reported this. Are there more than three on the Conservative side?
:10:38. > :10:41.spoke to a lot of people after these approaches and I couldn't
:10:41. > :10:45.find others. Others thought it was too late now to retreat and we had
:10:45. > :10:49.to go on with the reform. These Ministers, just to clarify, these
:10:49. > :10:56.Ministers and perhaps others, these cabinet Ministers, they want the
:10:56. > :11:00.Bill to be emasculated or... Exactly, what I cannot find is any
:11:00. > :11:06.senior Tory, any MP who thinks that this is either been handled well or
:11:06. > :11:11.some think we still need to progress, because to retreat is the
:11:11. > :11:17.worst outcome, it's a terrible mess. I think I found a Tory that may
:11:17. > :11:23.just fit that Bill. Andrew Lansley? Not yet, almost. Tim Montgomery,
:11:23. > :11:28.thank you for joining us. We are joined from Chelmsford by Simon
:11:28. > :11:33.Burns, the health Minister. Three cabinet Ministers briefing a
:11:33. > :11:37.Conservative blog against your boss. Downing Street letting it be known
:11:37. > :11:41.that someone there wants to take your boss out to be shot. Can you
:11:41. > :11:46.ever remember any cabinet Minister being briefed against by his own
:11:46. > :11:51.mates like this? No, but what you are referring to is tittle tattle
:11:51. > :11:54.that appeared in the press in recent days and in the blog on
:11:54. > :11:58.Conservative Home. But what is important and we must not lose
:11:58. > :12:04.sight of, is the importance of modernising the NHS because,
:12:04. > :12:08.frankly, what is the key component of the modernisation is having the
:12:08. > :12:13.patient and the patient's interests at the heart of the NHS and the
:12:13. > :12:17.treatment of that patient, improving the quality of care and
:12:17. > :12:22.the standard of treatment for that patient, cutting out the
:12:22. > :12:27.bureaucracy in the NHS and getting greater integration of services so
:12:27. > :12:31.that we can have a more cost- effective delivery of service with
:12:31. > :12:36.improved standards so that the money that is generated, which will
:12:36. > :12:41.be about �4.5 billion between now and the next general election, that
:12:41. > :12:45.will be completely invested in frontline services. That's the
:12:45. > :12:48.important issue. I understand, and I want to come back to the
:12:48. > :12:54.substance of your reform in a minute. Let me clarify something,
:12:54. > :12:59.are you saying that when three cabinet Ministers brief a well
:12:59. > :13:03.known Conservative website against your Minister and his reforms, that
:13:03. > :13:08.that's just tittle tattle? I am saying that is tittle tattle
:13:08. > :13:12.because what is far more important is it is quite clear the Prime
:13:12. > :13:18.Minister has made it clear that he supports the modernisation
:13:18. > :13:23.programme, and that the Bill will continue because the NHS needs the
:13:24. > :13:31.legislation to be able to modernise to meet the challenges it is facing
:13:31. > :13:35.through an ageing population, massively increasing drugs Bill and
:13:35. > :13:40.improved medical science. If what you say about these reforms is true
:13:40. > :13:43.and it will result in a better health service, as you in your view
:13:43. > :13:49.have outlined, why have you managed to unite almost every professional
:13:49. > :13:56.health group in the country against you? Well, if you look at the
:13:56. > :14:00.responses from the Royal colleges, the BMA, the RCN -- RCN, when they
:14:00. > :14:04.responded to the White Paper, responded to recommendations that
:14:04. > :14:08.the future forum made that we adopted and amenned the Bill to
:14:08. > :14:13.take into account last June, there were elements of the legislation
:14:13. > :14:17.that they liked, for example, the BMA voted at its special general
:14:18. > :14:22.meeting last summer that in favour of GP commissioning, which is a
:14:22. > :14:28.core component of the legislation. But it's against the Bill?
:14:28. > :14:32.minute, if you look at the surveys that have been based on taking
:14:32. > :14:39.decisions by, for example, the Royal College of GPs, it's not
:14:39. > :14:45.representative. 8% of members of that Royal College took part, it is
:14:45. > :14:49.a self-selecting opinion poll and people could multiple vote.
:14:49. > :14:52.understand that. It was not the poll that would stand up if you had
:14:52. > :15:00.a political one trying to determine which party had what support in the
:15:00. > :15:05.country. I understand that. I have not used the poll. That shows
:15:05. > :15:08.distorted basis. The people who run the Royal College of Nurses, of
:15:08. > :15:13.Midwives, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of
:15:13. > :15:22.GPs are all against the Bill and the Prime Minister said change, if
:15:22. > :15:26.it is to endure, if it's really to people who work in the NHS. We have
:15:26. > :15:35.to take our nurses and doctors with us. By that criteria you have
:15:35. > :15:43.I disagree. As you have acknowledged earlier, in your
:15:43. > :15:50.statement, those surveys were flawed, and what is more important,
:15:50. > :15:55.I go around the country, I meet GPs' who are now actually engaged
:15:55. > :15:59.in commissioning care with PCTs, and they are enthusiastic about the
:16:00. > :16:03.fact that they are now empowered to take decisions to provide the
:16:03. > :16:11.finest quality care for patience, because of the modernisation this
:16:11. > :16:16.will give them. That is more important. Are you seriously
:16:16. > :16:20.telling us that if a proper opinion poll was done of nurses, doctors,
:16:20. > :16:26.clinicians, midwives, there would be substantial support for your
:16:26. > :16:31.reforms, is that what you're claiming? No, what I'm saying...
:16:31. > :16:35.That is what you were implying. what I'm saying is that the
:16:35. > :16:39.important judgment of what people think of the modernisation
:16:39. > :16:44.programme can be judged by speaking to those who are carrying it
:16:44. > :16:47.through on the ground. GPs, who are part of clinical Commission groups,
:16:47. > :16:53.who are now working with primary care trusts to commission care for
:16:53. > :16:56.their patients. And if you speak to them, you will find they are far
:16:56. > :17:06.more enthusiastic than you have been led to believe by the press
:17:06. > :17:12.
:17:12. > :17:17.and comments on blocs. That is only anecdotal evidence. If I meet and
:17:17. > :17:21.talk to people, it is anecdotal, it may be right, it may be wrong. But
:17:21. > :17:25.the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that you have not
:17:25. > :17:28.carried the health professionals with you, you have not carried the
:17:28. > :17:33.Liberal Democrats with you, you cannot even carry Alan Milburn with
:17:33. > :17:37.you, and now you cannot carry parts of the Cabinet with you - it is not
:17:37. > :17:41.a great result, is it? As I keep saying, there are a number of
:17:41. > :17:45.organisations within the NHS which have not mentioned which to support
:17:45. > :17:50.the modernisation. The Royal College of gynaecologists, the
:17:50. > :18:00.family doctors' Association, the National Association of primary
:18:00. > :18:01.
:18:01. > :18:08.care, all do. They all support the bill? Yes, they do. And you have
:18:08. > :18:13.seen that, even though it gets lost in the telling. The key thing which
:18:13. > :18:20.I keep coming back to his, if you go and speak to GPs on the ground...
:18:20. > :18:23.You have made that point very well, you have made it twice, actually. I
:18:24. > :18:27.would be grateful if you could send us press releases from these
:18:27. > :18:30.organisations, coming out in favour of the bill, and we will put them
:18:30. > :18:38.up on our website. That would be very interesting to see that. Just
:18:38. > :18:43.finally, the constant complaint is that your boss, Andrew Lansley, has
:18:43. > :18:47.not sold this bill well. So, if you were given 30 seconds to tell us
:18:47. > :18:54.just the headline of why the Health Service will be better in five
:18:54. > :18:59.years' time than it is now, it is yours... Thank you. Patients are at
:18:59. > :19:03.the heart of the modernisation, giving them increased care,
:19:03. > :19:11.improved care, Greater outcomes, cutting bureaucracy, so the money
:19:11. > :19:14.can be put back into health care, and moving forward, making sure
:19:14. > :19:18.that you do not have political micro management of the Health
:19:18. > :19:21.Service by politicians and civil servants in Whitehall, but you
:19:21. > :19:26.allow practitioners on the ground around the country to take
:19:26. > :19:31.decisions in the best interests of patients. That was a little more
:19:31. > :19:36.than 30 seconds, but we are very fair on this programme. Thanks for
:19:36. > :19:42.joining us from Essex. What did you make of that? It is such a car
:19:42. > :19:47.crash, isn't it? This morning I was trying to step outside my political
:19:47. > :19:52.identity and imagine what it is like to be David Cameron. I thought
:19:52. > :19:58.you were going to say Andrew Lansley. It is incredibly difficult
:19:58. > :20:02.for them, it is absolutely toxic. This whole idea that the country
:20:02. > :20:05.wants civil servants to be removed from healthcare, nobody came into
:20:05. > :20:08.this election thinking, civil servants are involved in my health
:20:08. > :20:13.care. They have concocted a completely false problem that
:20:13. > :20:18.nobody had, and now they have devised a sledge hammer to solve it.
:20:18. > :20:21.I would suggest that these three Cabinet members which Tim
:20:21. > :20:25.Montgomerie was talking about are kind of malicious in this, because
:20:25. > :20:32.if they really think this, they should stand up and be counted, and
:20:32. > :20:36.also, it is a bit late, is it not? The legislation is now back in the
:20:36. > :20:39.House of Lords, and I suspect what they're privately wishing for will
:20:39. > :20:43.be that the legislation will be defeated in the House of Lords, and
:20:43. > :20:47.then the Government can move away and say, we tried. But before the
:20:47. > :20:52.general election, David Cameron said, there will be no unnecessary,
:20:52. > :20:55.top-down reorganisation of the NHS. After the election, Andrew Lansley,
:20:55. > :21:01.the Secretary of State for Health, a friend of David Cameron, which is
:21:01. > :21:07.part of the problem, says it is the biggest and most radical shake-up
:21:07. > :21:12.of the NHS since 1948 - what changed after the election?
:21:12. > :21:15.person said, this would be like, if my editor said, you go away for a
:21:15. > :21:20.year and think up whatever story you like and then come back and we
:21:20. > :21:24.will put it on the front page. And then five minutes later, before you
:21:24. > :21:30.go on to press, -- and then five minutes before you go to press,
:21:30. > :21:36.they say, no, it is rubbish. think it will go through? I think
:21:36. > :21:40.it will be badly battered, but as some Tories are saying, this is
:21:40. > :21:50.going to turn out to be David Cameron's big test. I think it
:21:50. > :21:54.
:21:54. > :22:01.could be the thing which crucify as the coalition, and then... We have
:22:01. > :22:07.to move on. There's a Row as you all know about what to do about Abu
:22:07. > :22:10.Qatada, which is rumbling on. On Monday, the President of the
:22:10. > :22:15.Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that the radical,
:22:15. > :22:21.some might say extremist - did I say that? - Islamist cleric should
:22:21. > :22:26.be freed on strict bail conditions, because his deportation had been
:22:26. > :22:30.blocked by the European Court of Human Rights. And the judge, Mr
:22:30. > :22:34.Justice Mitting, has said that even those strict bail conditions could
:22:34. > :22:38.be revoked within three months, unless British officials make
:22:38. > :22:41.progress on a new deal with Jordan. Last night, the Defence Secretary,
:22:41. > :22:46.Philip Hammond, outlined the Government's position. We are going
:22:46. > :22:49.through the process to try to see if we can get him back there. The
:22:49. > :22:53.Prime Minister has spoken to the King of Jordan this afternoon. A
:22:53. > :22:58.Home Office minister will be going out there next week. We are trying
:22:58. > :23:02.to establish with the Jordanians a set of assurances which will
:23:02. > :23:10.satisfy the court that we can send him back. This is not a good place
:23:10. > :23:12.for us to be, but the best thing... Which caught is this?
:23:12. > :23:21.Immigration Appeals Tribunal here, to allow us to send him back to
:23:21. > :23:26.Jordan. With us now, the Conservative MP Mark Reckless, and
:23:26. > :23:30.David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of Terrorism legislation.
:23:30. > :23:33.Mark Reckless, what would you like to do with Abu Qatada, what do you
:23:34. > :23:41.think should be done with him? would like to send him back to
:23:41. > :23:45.Jordan, everyone is agreed he is a very dangerous man. He came here in
:23:45. > :23:50.1993, applied for asylum, he has gone through every avenue. Our own
:23:50. > :23:54.highest court has determined that he can be sent back to Jordan.
:23:54. > :23:57.would you do that, would you whisk him out in the middle of the night?
:23:57. > :24:02.If the Government announced that it was going to defy the European
:24:02. > :24:07.Court, the Government would immediately be injected by Abu
:24:07. > :24:12.Qatada's lawyers. Well, I understand the Prime Minister has
:24:12. > :24:19.spoken with the king of Jordan. if there is not an arrangement, how
:24:19. > :24:23.would you send him back? You said we would be injected, but actually,
:24:23. > :24:27.what Mr Justice Mitting said was that we could not send him back
:24:27. > :24:31.without taking on the political and reputation will cost, whatever that
:24:31. > :24:36.might be, of defying a European Court judgment. We have had a
:24:36. > :24:39.decision by our own highest court that he can be sent back.
:24:39. > :24:43.understand that, but it am asking you about the practicalities,
:24:43. > :24:48.because unless you whisky about in the middle of the night, his
:24:48. > :24:51.lawyers, if you announce you're going to do it regardless of the
:24:51. > :24:56.Strasbourg ruling, would immediately be on to it, and you
:24:56. > :24:59.would have to wait for that action. I'm not sure, because the
:24:59. > :25:04.Government would be acting contrary to an international treaty
:25:04. > :25:07.commitment, but it would be acting in line with the judgment of our
:25:07. > :25:12.highest court year. It has become clear that the Strasbourg court has
:25:12. > :25:15.gone so far off where it was, and is no longer I think a serious or
:25:15. > :25:22.credible court, that it is not unreasonable for the Government to
:25:22. > :25:25.act on the basis of what our court has said. David Anderson, if the
:25:25. > :25:29.Government decided, regardless of the Strasbourg court, if there is
:25:29. > :25:33.not another deal done in the desert, with the Jordanians, we're going to
:25:34. > :25:38.send him back, could they just do that, or would they face more legal
:25:38. > :25:42.action which could delay them doing that? They could certainly face
:25:43. > :25:46.legal action, the outcome of which nobody knows. More fundamentally
:25:46. > :25:52.you have got to decide whether you want to be bound by this court will
:25:52. > :25:58.not. If you want to be bound by it, you cannot pick and Jewish which
:25:58. > :26:03.judgements to abide by. Suddenly pick and choose. From time to time,
:26:03. > :26:08.a judgment is not complied with. Prisoners' voting, from 1995, we
:26:08. > :26:13.have not complied with that one. But in general, they are complied
:26:13. > :26:16.with. But the French and Italian equivalents of Abu Qatada were sent
:26:16. > :26:20.back to other countries, even though the court heard ruled
:26:20. > :26:26.against doing so. And last time I looked, the French and Italians
:26:26. > :26:30.still have one judge each in the Strasbourg court, as part of the 47.
:26:30. > :26:34.That's quite true. At the end of the day, the enforcement mechanism
:26:34. > :26:37.of the court is a political one, through the Committee of Ministers.
:26:37. > :26:43.If a state is continually in breach, then you get into difficult
:26:43. > :26:48.territory. Russia is continually in breach, but it is still a member.
:26:48. > :26:52.It has got a surprisingly good record, on most cases. There are
:26:52. > :26:58.several hundred Russian cases which are in breach at the moment. Turkey
:26:58. > :27:02.has more than Moldavia, and almost as many as Russia. But they are all
:27:02. > :27:07.members of the court. The last president, in his farewell speech,
:27:07. > :27:11.put it fairly well - governments are often reluctant to comply, but
:27:11. > :27:16.they generally get round to it in the end. The criticism from Britain
:27:16. > :27:21.is that the Strasbourg court changed the goalposts. Article
:27:21. > :27:25.three, Against torture, there are no caveats on that, and the British
:27:25. > :27:30.Government went to the Jordanians to get an agreement that he would
:27:30. > :27:33.not be tortured if sent back. That then went before the Strasbourg
:27:33. > :27:39.court again, and the court said, yes, we will have that, we accept
:27:39. > :27:42.that, but oh, hold on, he also cannot face any evidence which has
:27:42. > :27:47.been extracted by torture. To which, we said, you have never mentioned
:27:47. > :27:51.that before. Well, last time Abu Qatada went on trial in Jordan, he
:27:51. > :27:57.was convicted and the evidence of two men who had been tortured, they
:27:57. > :28:00.had been drugged, beaten on the soles of their feet. What the
:28:00. > :28:03.Strasbourg court was saying was that, if you want to send him back
:28:03. > :28:09.again, please can you get an Assurance first from Jordan that it
:28:09. > :28:13.will not happen again. Far from moving the goalposts, all it was
:28:13. > :28:18.doing was saying exactly what our own Court of Appeal had said in
:28:18. > :28:24.2008. A excuse me, the Court of Appeal was overruled by the Supreme
:28:24. > :28:28.Court. It was indeed. You always mention the Court of Appeal, you
:28:28. > :28:31.never mention the Supreme Court. You did the same on the Today
:28:31. > :28:36.Programme. You know better than I, the Supreme Court is superior to
:28:36. > :28:39.the Court of Appeal - why do you do that? I was addressing the question
:28:39. > :28:43.of, was the Court of Human Rights coming out of left field with
:28:43. > :28:48.something completely absurd and unprecedented? No, it wasn't. It
:28:48. > :28:54.was applying the law, as well understood. If we cannot get an
:28:54. > :28:57.agreement on evidence gained by torture, which satisfied the
:28:57. > :29:01.European Court -- satisfies the European Court, is it your view
:29:01. > :29:05.that we should withdraw from the European Court? Yes, it is, but we
:29:05. > :29:09.should take as many people with us as possible. That means trying to
:29:09. > :29:12.go through due process. David Cameron is trying to get reform of
:29:12. > :29:17.the court, and that is going to be very difficult to get that agreed
:29:17. > :29:22.by the 47. But by doing everything possible, it will then strengthen
:29:22. > :29:25.the ground, were we to find it necessary to leave the court.
:29:25. > :29:30.you remind our viewers of the only other European country which is not
:29:30. > :29:40.a member of the European Court? only other European country is
:29:40. > :29:41.
:29:41. > :29:45.Bella Russia. Which is also the last totalitarian state. But other
:29:45. > :29:55.countries not that far short of the Munros are appointing judges who
:29:55. > :30:00.
:30:00. > :30:03.are overruling our own Supreme Court. -- short of Belorussia. One
:30:03. > :30:07.of our law lords then says, no-one is suggesting that you cannot send
:30:07. > :30:10.anyone abroad just because their standards are not as good as ours.
:30:10. > :30:20.I'm afraid that is what the European Court is saying. We need
:30:20. > :30:23.
:30:23. > :30:29.to deal with that. Given the kind of things which have been said,
:30:29. > :30:33.that if you are the Sun or the daughter of an apostate, you can be
:30:33. > :30:39.killed, and we have seen his videos, people watching this programme will
:30:39. > :30:48.be wondering, how come we have got John Terry on trial, and we cannot
:30:48. > :30:52.I think they will. What's the answer? The European Court, it's
:30:52. > :30:54.going to further contaminate people's dislike and distrust.
:30:54. > :30:57.not the European Court's fault we are not putting him on trial in
:30:57. > :31:01.England. The Supreme Court should be on a matter of national security,
:31:01. > :31:04.it should be the view of the the court that prevails over a European
:31:04. > :31:07.court. That should be the end game. Cameron should, as soon as he
:31:07. > :31:11.secured some agreement with the King of Jordan, deport this man.
:31:11. > :31:14.think that's a bit ridiculous, frankly. You cannot blame Europeans
:31:14. > :31:18.in any shape or form for the fact we won't put him on trial ourselves
:31:18. > :31:22.F we have a problem - I mean, obviously the two arguments against
:31:22. > :31:25.it are if it were open court it would compromise other
:31:25. > :31:28.investigations and then we have to pay for his prison care for amount
:31:28. > :31:34.of time necessary prison. I can see both those points but we have to
:31:34. > :31:38.take on both those points, we can't invoke - you can't do that.
:31:38. > :31:42.can't seriously want this man running, he is going to be a curfew,
:31:42. > :31:48.for two hours a day he is allowed to wander freely and he is a
:31:48. > :31:54.security threat. It is strange we can't try him ourselves. If you do
:31:54. > :31:59.want to walk away from Europe, it's a little bit reckless to assume we
:31:59. > :32:02.won't then have to have a bill of rights our own. The Human Rights
:32:02. > :32:08.Act in our domestic law and our top judges have decided it's OK to send
:32:08. > :32:11.him back to Jordan, but then that's overruled by someone else's sper
:32:11. > :32:14.pretation of the con-- interpretation of the convention.
:32:14. > :32:19.You are both going to be on a lot of programmes like this, we have
:32:19. > :32:25.not yet resolved prisoners' votes either. Plenty to keep us busy. We
:32:25. > :32:28.like keeping lawyers busy, because they don't get well paid.
:32:28. > :32:36.Ten million animals were slaughtered to control foot-and-
:32:36. > :32:40.mouth when it wraut the -- brought the countryside to a standstill in
:32:41. > :32:44.in 2001. It has since recovered but one of the big controversies over
:32:44. > :32:47.whether it is best to cull or vaccinate animals and that remains
:32:47. > :32:51.unresolved years on. What lessons have been learned since the foot-
:32:51. > :33:01.and-mouth outbreak? Max Cotton has been finding out what happened
:33:01. > :33:09.
:33:09. > :33:15.In late January and early February 2001 a highly contagious disease
:33:15. > :33:19.was quietly spreading through the British livestock industry. Foot-
:33:19. > :33:25.and-mouth disease was discovered in Essex on the 19th February that
:33:25. > :33:30.year, and led to the slaughter of ten million animals. It thraeued a
:33:30. > :33:33.-- delayed a general election and cost the farming industry �3.1
:33:33. > :33:38.billion. It's a horrible thing to just come
:33:38. > :33:41.in and shoot everything on farm and just leave it there and just burn
:33:41. > :33:47.it, it just seemed a total waste and against everything that we had
:33:47. > :33:51.ever believed in. Philip rebuilt his Dartmoor farm after foot-and-
:33:51. > :33:56.mouth, and he's diversified. Horse riders on holiday come here to
:33:56. > :34:01.gather and drive cattle off the moors. The disease changed this
:34:02. > :34:07.farm in one positive way. I think farming has a much better view in
:34:07. > :34:13.the public eye now. There was a time perhaps in the 80s and 90s
:34:13. > :34:16.where farmers were demons of of the countryside, they were heavily
:34:16. > :34:21.subsidised and not overly efficient producers, I think that's changed
:34:21. > :34:26.now. There was a political undercurrent to the 2001 foot-and-
:34:26. > :34:32.mouth outbreak. Were farmers, particularly in Cumbria, and here
:34:32. > :34:38.in Devon, suffering at the hands of a terrible disease or at the hands
:34:38. > :34:43.of a terrible policy? Philip's farm was culled out because a farm
:34:43. > :34:47.nearby might have had foot-and- mouth. In fact, it didn't. Why kill
:34:47. > :34:52.millions of healthy animals, why not vaccinate?
:34:52. > :34:55.The problem with vaccination is that you then can't tell if the
:34:55. > :35:00.animal actually has foot-and-mouth, because it doesn't show any
:35:00. > :35:05.symptoms and so consumers here and across the EU would have to agree
:35:05. > :35:11.to eat meat from vaccinated animals. And it might take months or even
:35:11. > :35:13.years to prove that foot-and-mouth had been eradicated. Nick Brown,
:35:13. > :35:17.the agricultural Minister at the time, insists that he was right
:35:17. > :35:23.then, but thinks we should now be planning a new strategy. I would
:35:23. > :35:27.like to see a clearly established and properly honoured vaccinate to
:35:27. > :35:32.live strategy adopted worldwide and the best time to do it is when
:35:32. > :35:36.there isn't an outbreak and so people can discuss it in
:35:36. > :35:40.theoretical terms, rather than with there being practical and as ever,
:35:40. > :35:44.with these things, the trade consequences, I am not certain it
:35:44. > :35:49.has. After the storm three inquiries were used to draw up a
:35:49. > :35:52.new contingency plan against foot- and-mouth. But the vaccination
:35:52. > :35:56.versus culling debate which caused so much controversy for Nick Brown
:35:56. > :36:01.is still unresolved. Nothing's changed on that front at all. We
:36:01. > :36:03.still have the issue, do we cull cattle so people can farm again or
:36:03. > :36:08.vaccinate? If you vaccinate you then have the issue of whether they
:36:08. > :36:12.can go in the food chain. We also have the issue of smallholders
:36:12. > :36:16.having animals who probably haven't registered them with the ministry,
:36:17. > :36:19.so these people have sheep, pigs, that can all harbour foot-and-mouth
:36:19. > :36:24.and they wouldn't recognise it because they're not experienced
:36:24. > :36:29.farmers. 11 years after the epidemic and British farming has
:36:29. > :36:32.recovered and is thriving. But if foot-and-mouth did get a hold once
:36:32. > :36:36.again the former Agriculture Minister and one of the country's
:36:36. > :36:41.leading dairy farmers say that Government policy has a long way to
:36:41. > :36:46.go if it's to protect us from millions of burning carcasses and
:36:46. > :36:51.another very big bill. That was our Max. Joining me now
:36:51. > :36:57.the Conservative MP Neil Parish, who is also a farmer. Welcome to
:36:57. > :37:00.the Daily Politics. As we look back, almost 11 years, the pictures still
:37:00. > :37:05.seered in our minds, of course, because it's hard to forget, what
:37:05. > :37:09.is the single biggest lesson that we should have learned from that?
:37:09. > :37:13.think the single biggest lesson and I was part of an inquiry done by
:37:13. > :37:16.the European Parliament into the disease, was to close down all
:37:16. > :37:22.movement of animals immediately and also manage it very close to where
:37:22. > :37:25.the outbreak was. The Scots they manage their smaller outbreak of
:37:25. > :37:29.foot-and-mouth from the locality. We managed everything from London
:37:29. > :37:34.and of course very huge problems there for farmers, for the burial
:37:34. > :37:39.of sheep and the general handling of the whole outbreak. So, of
:37:39. > :37:43.course clampdown immediately on any movement of animals whatsoever.
:37:43. > :37:48.There was a great argument, I wonder if it's resolved now, many
:37:48. > :37:53.people, some people, not many, some people said we should not have gone
:37:53. > :37:58.in for this multimillion animal slaughter, we should have done
:37:58. > :38:04.vaccination instead. The Dutch, I am told, did more vaccination than
:38:04. > :38:09.we did. Where do staupb on that? -- stand on that? The Dutch couldn't
:38:09. > :38:11.then put those animals into the food chain, they did sraeubgs Nate
:38:12. > :38:16.-- vaccinate, they then had to slaughter animals afterwards. We
:38:16. > :38:19.have to agree a policy through the single market of Europe, as whether
:38:19. > :38:22.the supermarkets and the buyers all across Europe will accept
:38:22. > :38:26.vaccinated meat. There's nothing wrong with eating it whatsoever,
:38:27. > :38:30.it's very often the perception. There was I think a little bit of
:38:30. > :38:34.resistance from the supermarkets as well at the time as to whether they
:38:34. > :38:37.were going to want to sell vaccinated meat. It's something we
:38:37. > :38:42.have to deal with. The other thing we needed to deal with is we didn't
:38:42. > :38:45.need this massive cull, these were animals that were very close to an
:38:45. > :38:49.outbreak but didn't have the disease. I always feel there was a
:38:49. > :38:53.lot to do with getting the general election on the way and stamping
:38:53. > :38:57.out the disease quickly and too many animals were slaughtered, even
:38:57. > :39:02.under a slaughter policy. So you are saying that a large degree of
:39:02. > :39:08.slaughter was inevitable, but not as much as we ended up doing?
:39:08. > :39:12.and also when we ended up burning those huge funeral pyres, there
:39:12. > :39:16.were valleys in Devon when they set fire to these animals, then the
:39:16. > :39:20.farms all through that valley were then infected with the disease. We
:39:20. > :39:23.have never been able to prove scientifically whether the disease
:39:23. > :39:28.was borne through the air or not, but it's one of those suspicions
:39:28. > :39:32.that lay there and we just basically slaughtered too many
:39:32. > :39:37.animals, and we allowed the movement to carry on for some five
:39:37. > :39:44.days when the outbreak started and that's where the disease got out of
:39:44. > :39:48.control. Now the outbreak that happened that came from Our own
:39:48. > :39:52.laboratories the disease escaped from, at least it did actually shut
:39:52. > :39:56.down - we shut down much quicker and we didn't have the spread of
:39:56. > :40:00.the disease. It is about the spread of the disease. Vaccination on its
:40:00. > :40:06.own unless you vaccinate all your cattle all of the time, would not
:40:06. > :40:10.have helped in this instance. Finally, have we improved our early
:40:10. > :40:13.warning systems to nip any future outbreak, because there will be one
:40:13. > :40:19.inevitably in the scheme of things, in the bud? I believe we have. But
:40:19. > :40:27.I also think it would be right for Defra and the ministry to actually
:40:27. > :40:30.do a spot check and actually have - - and deal as though an outbreak
:40:30. > :40:32.had happened and see if the procedure is fit for purpose. I
:40:32. > :40:35.worry sometimes with our bureaucracy, especially ruling
:40:35. > :40:39.everything from London, we sometimes don't get it right in
:40:39. > :40:43.Cumbria or Devon or Wales, where the outbreaks were. I have noticed
:40:43. > :40:49.that too on many things, Mr Parish! Absolutely. Thank you for joining
:40:49. > :40:52.Plymouth, Essex, we are getting around today. Back to London. The
:40:52. > :40:55.coalition agreement included plans for an elected House of Lords. All
:40:55. > :40:58.the parties backed reform at the last last election but previous
:40:58. > :41:02.attempts have failed in the face of opposition from peers themselves.
:41:02. > :41:05.Now Labour's leader in the Upper House, Jan Royall, says it would be
:41:05. > :41:10.wrong for the Government to press ahead with change now. That's
:41:10. > :41:14.likely to put her on a collision course with Nick Clegg, who sees
:41:14. > :41:19.Lords reform as a critical part of the Lib Dem bit of the coalition
:41:19. > :41:26.programme. Here he is talking about it all just before Christmas.
:41:26. > :41:30.The Lords is perhaps the most potent symbol of a closed society.
:41:30. > :41:35.Because we are in the process of building support for a Lords reform
:41:35. > :41:40.package, I am often advised not to be too outspoken on this issue. But
:41:40. > :41:45.I am afraid this is one boat that urgently needs rocking. Lloyd
:41:45. > :41:50.George described the House of Lords as being a body of 500 men, chosen
:41:50. > :41:55.at random, from amongst the unemployed. To be honest, it would
:41:55. > :42:00.be better if it was. Of course among our peers there are those
:42:00. > :42:05.with valuable experience and expertise, but a veneer of
:42:05. > :42:08.expertise can surely no longer serve as an alibi for a chamber
:42:08. > :42:13.which legislates on behalf of the people, but is not held to account
:42:13. > :42:17.by the people. The Lords is currently constituted, is an
:42:17. > :42:22.affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern
:42:22. > :42:26.democracy. Joining me now Jan Royall, Labour's
:42:26. > :42:30.leader in the House of Lords. Are you really telling us that even in
:42:30. > :42:33.the 21st century we can't move towards an elected second chamber?
:42:33. > :42:37.I am not saying that and I heard your introduction in which you said
:42:37. > :42:41.I had said they shouldn't go along with reform, that's not what I said.
:42:41. > :42:45.What did you say? I said that if and when I hope they do go ahead
:42:45. > :42:48.with it, I am just sort of giving them, I am observing that it will
:42:48. > :42:51.clog up the House of Lords, that's not to say I don't want it. Tkoeu
:42:51. > :42:55.want it, I am I am saying it's going to be extremely difficult.
:42:56. > :43:00.Not if you helped? I will be helping, absolutely. If you have
:43:00. > :43:04.the coalition and the Lords helping together, why will it clog it up?
:43:04. > :43:08.Because although I am very pro- reform and my front bench is very
:43:08. > :43:13.pro-reform, I cannot take the whole of my benches with me and certainly
:43:13. > :43:16.most importantly, I think that a huge percentage of the Tory benches
:43:16. > :43:20.will be against reform and they will be the people who are stopping
:43:20. > :43:25.reform, not my people. I have covered House of Lords reforms
:43:25. > :43:28.since it was stopped by Enoch Powell and Michael Foot, there's
:43:28. > :43:33.never a good time to reform it, let's get on with it. I agree.
:43:33. > :43:38.There is never a good time. Constitutional change is incredibly
:43:38. > :43:42.important. I say bring it on, but I also say that if this is to be the
:43:42. > :43:45.absolute sort of - the most important part of the coalition's
:43:45. > :43:49.programme for Government in the next session, I just wonder if the
:43:49. > :43:52.people of Britain will understand that constitutional change is more
:43:52. > :43:57.important than their standard of life, jobs for kids, etc. You can
:43:57. > :44:00.say that at any time. You can't. You could, cow have said it when --
:44:00. > :44:05.you could have said it when the IMF were brought in to save this
:44:05. > :44:13.country and Lords reform was on the agenda. I wouldn't have said it in
:44:13. > :44:17.97 were things were rosy and we did got in. Start is the operative word.
:44:17. > :44:24.We made a huge, huge change by getting rid of the majority of
:44:24. > :44:28.hereditary. It's still unelected. probably want an elected house more
:44:28. > :44:33.than you do. You don't know what I want and you won't find out either,
:44:33. > :44:36.because it's not my job to tell you. Well, dam! It seems interests a --
:44:36. > :44:41.there is a huge vested interest among the existing members of the
:44:41. > :44:51.Lords, which is a kind of club for the establishment, just to stop
:44:51. > :44:51.
:44:51. > :44:58.A lot of peers want to stop it, but I would not call them a club for
:44:58. > :45:02.the establishment. But there's about 800 of you. There are far too
:45:02. > :45:06.many, that is one of my problems. Here's one difference, the Senate
:45:06. > :45:12.in America actually matters. You've got 800 people, and very limited
:45:12. > :45:18.powers. Yes, we have got very limited powers. How many would you
:45:18. > :45:28.have? How many peers? Would you still call them peers? Would you
:45:28. > :45:29.
:45:29. > :45:34.call the monkeys? No, I would not. What would you call them? Well,
:45:34. > :45:39.senators has been positive. As a socialist, do you think anybody
:45:39. > :45:43.should be called Lord in the 21st century? I would go with senators.
:45:43. > :45:47.But one of my problems is that at the moment, there are rumours that
:45:47. > :45:54.the coalition government is going to put in 60 or more peers, how mad
:45:54. > :45:59.is that, when you have got a House of more than 800 people? It keeps
:45:59. > :46:05.them off the streets. But it is completely mad to put in more peers
:46:05. > :46:12.now. I understand. It is mad and less you lose every single bill,
:46:12. > :46:16.and then it makes sense. -- unless you lose every single bill.
:46:16. > :46:20.country is about to go back into double dip recession, there is
:46:20. > :46:23.massive unemployment, and what is the response of Nick Clegg and the
:46:23. > :46:27.Lib Dems? Let's two with the constitution. That is not what
:46:27. > :46:32.people want, they want growth to get us out of recession. Can they
:46:32. > :46:36.not have a strategy for growth, and a second chamber which represents
:46:36. > :46:42.the country in the 21st century? They are on an exceptionally sticky
:46:42. > :46:48.wicket, in as Lara's, they have not got a mandate, and many of the most
:46:48. > :46:52.important policies were not announced in any manifesto.
:46:52. > :46:58.Effectively, when they were unelected themselves, they will be
:46:58. > :47:05.opening up... They are not exactly unelected, if you add together the
:47:05. > :47:10.Tory and the Lib Dem vote... Sure, but people will say, I did not vote
:47:10. > :47:14.for this or that, and I did not vote for this government. This is
:47:14. > :47:19.just because Nick Clegg failed so miserably on the alternative vote
:47:19. > :47:23.referendum. It strikes me, if you are as enthusiastic about House of
:47:23. > :47:27.Lords reform as you say, you should be sitting down with the Tories in
:47:27. > :47:37.the Lords, and the leader of the Lib Dems, working together to get
:47:37. > :47:40.
:47:40. > :47:48.this through. I'm sure that we will get together and try and get this
:47:48. > :47:52.bill through. However, I still say that there will be 70% or 80% of
:47:52. > :47:56.people in the House of Lords... you think there is a big
:47:56. > :47:59.constituency in the chamber against reform? I think there is, but it is
:47:59. > :48:03.because a lot of them are concerned about the powers of the House of
:48:03. > :48:07.Commons. The majority of people want the House of Commons to be the
:48:07. > :48:11.prime chamber, they want the House of Commons to have primacy, and
:48:11. > :48:14.there concern is that the bill, as it was drafted, makes a mockery of
:48:14. > :48:21.that. People think the House of Commons is the most important
:48:21. > :48:26.chamber. And it is. And it should remain so. When you come back and
:48:26. > :48:31.see us? I will be delighted to. Over in the Commons, another topic
:48:31. > :48:41.which has been around for some time now, MPs have been discussing
:48:41. > :48:41.
:48:41. > :48:45.Afghanistan, asking, crucially, when will it end? In Helmand and
:48:45. > :48:48.across Afghanistan, is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that
:48:48. > :48:53.British military personnel will be involved in combat operations for
:48:53. > :49:00.potentially between one year and 18 months after the Americans have
:49:00. > :49:05.transferred away from combat operations? We cannot be complacent,
:49:05. > :49:10.as gains made are fragile and not yet irreversible. But we are firmly
:49:10. > :49:15.on track for the Afghans to have lead responsibility by 2013. They
:49:15. > :49:20.will have full security responsibility by the end of 2014.
:49:20. > :49:24.This means that plans for British combat troop draw down by the end
:49:24. > :49:29.of 2014 also remain on track. hope you will excuse me if I return
:49:29. > :49:34.to the issue of the attitude of the United States and of the French.
:49:34. > :49:40.There is of course a common background - in each country, they
:49:40. > :49:43.are in the throes of a very acrimonious presidential election,
:49:43. > :49:50.which leads me to the conclusion that statements may be made for
:49:50. > :49:54.political rather than military reasons. Can he say more about the
:49:54. > :49:59.negotiations going on in Qatar? Is there anything we can do to get
:49:59. > :50:04.more impetus to those negotiations? We all want an Afghanistan which
:50:04. > :50:08.can maintain its own security, and which is not used as a safe haven
:50:08. > :50:12.for international terrorists. Our strategy is to help the Afghan
:50:12. > :50:14.Government to build security forces, to make progress towards a
:50:14. > :50:24.sustainable political settlement and to support the building of a
:50:24. > :50:27.
:50:27. > :50:30.viable Afghan state. Joining me now, the former leader of the Lib Dems
:50:30. > :50:34.at Menzies Campbell. It is hard to avoid the impression that we are
:50:35. > :50:39.moving towards the end game in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly. First of
:50:39. > :50:44.all, we had the statement from the Lisbon conference about combat
:50:44. > :50:48.troops coming out by 2014, but you may have noticed, I know you're a
:50:48. > :50:51.keen student of American politics, Mr Pennetta, the Secretary of State
:50:51. > :50:55.for Defence, hinted very strongly that the Americans would start a
:50:55. > :50:58.serious draw down before that. In the exchanges we had yesterday in
:50:58. > :51:02.the House of Commons, William Hague was endeavouring to put a slightly
:51:02. > :51:05.different interpretation on it, but Mr Pennetta has never would go on
:51:05. > :51:10.that. When you add to that the fact that Sarkozy has said that the
:51:10. > :51:14.French are coming out at the end of 2013, then, there is a lot of
:51:14. > :51:19.political stuff going on. It is election time, isn't it? You have
:51:19. > :51:23.got it in one, there are two presidential elections taking place,
:51:23. > :51:28.in the United States and in France. Obama was able to blame the
:51:28. > :51:33.previous administration, Iraq was George W Bush's war, and he had
:51:33. > :51:39.been against it. By agreeing to a surge, putting 30,000 more troops
:51:39. > :51:42.on the ground, then Afghanistan became Obama's war. He will not
:51:42. > :51:46.want to face the electorate in November of this year with it still
:51:46. > :51:49.hanging over him. He will want to show that there has been some
:51:49. > :51:56.serious reduction. What did you make of the confidential report
:51:56. > :52:00.which was leaked to the media by NATO, which told us things we knew,
:52:00. > :52:05.though the fact it came from NATO still made it important, but it
:52:05. > :52:13.added to it, saying not only was Pakistani intelligence and the
:52:13. > :52:17.Pakistani military supporting the Taliban, but part of the Afghan
:52:17. > :52:21.army and the Afghan police are close to the Taliban, indeed, in
:52:21. > :52:24.some areas, the Taliban are so on the present, that they have a
:52:24. > :52:29.hotline in the village, if the chief is behaving badly, you call
:52:29. > :52:36.up the Taliban - I mean, in some shape or form, they and up taking
:52:36. > :52:40.over, do they not? That document was not based I think on close
:52:40. > :52:45.analysis, it simply recorded what people were saying. But we are
:52:45. > :52:52.talking to the Taliban, they have been allowed to establish not an
:52:52. > :52:56.Embassy, but it in the office in Qatar. For a long time, the Afghan
:52:56. > :53:01.Government, Hamid Karzai, has been very sensitive about the whole
:53:01. > :53:04.notion of whether or not we should talk to the Taliban. Remember, two
:53:04. > :53:08.civil servants were thrown out of Afghanistan because they had been
:53:08. > :53:13.doing just that. But there is no doubt, if we're going to have
:53:13. > :53:18.anything approaching political, and, we hope, peaceful agreements, then
:53:18. > :53:22.it can only be done by talking to the Taliban. Some will wonder what
:53:22. > :53:25.could see the blood and treasure that has been spent has been for,
:53:25. > :53:29.if we end up with the situation where the Taliban are either in
:53:29. > :53:35.power completely, or the dominant faction in a new government.
:53:35. > :53:41.Remember that our purpose in going to Afghanistan was to prevent any
:53:41. > :53:45.further acts of terrorism from Al- Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, based
:53:45. > :53:50.there with the consent, sometimes perhaps even the encouragement, of
:53:50. > :53:55.the Taliban. To that extent, we have succeeded. But you're quite
:53:55. > :54:00.right, it is an issue which came up almost on the sidelines of that
:54:00. > :54:04.exchange which we saw a moment ago, in the position of women. If, after
:54:04. > :54:09.all of this, the position of women in Afghanistan goes back to what it
:54:09. > :54:12.was before Hamid Karzai, before our intervention, then a lot of people
:54:12. > :54:18.will feel very disappointed and let down. But your point about blood
:54:19. > :54:23.and treasure was very well made. it was the position of women which
:54:23. > :54:28.mattered, we should have kept the Soviets there. There were more
:54:28. > :54:32.women in professional positions in those days. Indeed. It reminds me
:54:32. > :54:38.of the Jill Dando crime Institute been set up when Jill Dando was
:54:38. > :54:43.killed. Someone said, it is a brilliantly successful Institute
:54:43. > :54:47.because no more Jill Dandos have been killed. There was not another
:54:47. > :54:52.Osama Bin Laden. We went in there to close down that situation, and
:54:52. > :54:56.of course, that situation has not been duplicated. I'm glad Menzies
:54:56. > :54:59.Campbell reminded us why we were there, it was to do with
:54:59. > :55:05.suppressing Al-Qaeda. A lot of people thought it was to try and
:55:05. > :55:11.topple the Taliban. We did that many years ago. In which case,
:55:11. > :55:16.pull-out now. And where are they now? They are in Somalia, and the
:55:16. > :55:24.Yemen. So far, we have not had a major attack since 7/7 in this
:55:24. > :55:28.country. Fingers crossed, with the Olympics coming up. 600th
:55:28. > :55:33.University of your university this year? Because we are not exactly
:55:33. > :55:43.sure of the date, it has lasted 14 the years! Time now to see what
:55:43. > :55:45.
:55:45. > :55:48.else has been happening over the Transport Secretary Justin Greening
:55:48. > :55:52.said she would vote against bonuses for Network Rail executives, but
:55:53. > :55:56.she got what she wanted on Monday anyway, when they decided to forgo
:55:56. > :56:03.their payouts. William Hague returned from the United Nations
:56:03. > :56:06.and accused Russia and China of a... Grave error of judgment.
:56:06. > :56:10.Government's Health Bill came in for more criticism. Andrew Lansley
:56:10. > :56:15.came under sustained fire, from Labour, and later closer to home.
:56:15. > :56:20.That is why his people are saying that the Health Secretary should be
:56:20. > :56:25.taken out and shot. His career prospects are a lot better than
:56:25. > :56:29.those of the Leader of the Opposition. The Bank of England
:56:29. > :56:39.pumped more than �300 billion more into the economy through
:56:39. > :56:48.
:56:48. > :56:52.quantitative easing. And David Just time before we go to find out
:56:52. > :57:00.the answer to our quiz question. The question was, which one of
:57:00. > :57:09.these does not want to be a Police Commissioner? What was the answer?
:57:09. > :57:13.I think it must be Simon Weston who doesn't, because otherwise...
:57:13. > :57:19.think it is John Prescott. You're all wrong, all three want to be.
:57:19. > :57:25.Does he really want to do it, John Prescott? Yes, he's standing for
:57:25. > :57:30.the Hull area. It brings a salary of �100,000. It was the first job I
:57:30. > :57:35.could imagine John Prescott in and not mind. Now, it is your birthday,
:57:35. > :57:41.we wanted to light the candles, but we were told we had to go on a risk
:57:41. > :57:44.assessment course first, and we did not have time. Sadly, would you...?
:57:44. > :57:50.not have time. Sadly, would you...? Shall I be mother? Am going to cut
:57:50. > :57:58.you a piece of cake. So, I have not had a answers to every question
:57:58. > :58:07.today, so let's see if I can get one. How old are you? 51. Was that
:58:07. > :58:12.necessary? You are wearing well, I might say. By sue. Are you going to
:58:12. > :58:21.have some? No, not yet. I will have some after the programme. -- bless
:58:21. > :58:25.you. Are we seeing a turning point with Ed Miliband, he has done well
:58:25. > :58:32.at three PMQs in a row now? Well, maybe it got to the point where
:58:32. > :58:34.things were going so badly... remember, William Hague did very
:58:34. > :58:41.well at Prime Minister's Question Time against Tony Blair, it did him
:58:41. > :58:45.no good in the end. On that note, we say thanks to our guests, the
:58:45. > :58:51.One O'Clock News is starting on BBC One. I will be back at midday on