23/02/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. We've bailed the

bank out but was it worth it? RBS announced losses of more than three

quarters of a million pounds this morning. The unions are angry it's

paying �390 million in bonuses to its 17,000 investment bankers. But

is the picture really as bleak as it seems?

More medical organisations call on the Government to withdraw the

Health and Social Care Bill. Ministers say they won't budge and

insist the Bill will improve patient care in England.

Call me Dave likes riding his bike to work. But is it safe? MPs are

debating the issue today. And is the Commons becoming too

posh on both sides of the house? We'll be talking class.

Anyway, he does not ride his bike to Work anymore, he lives above the

shop! All that in the next half hour and

with us for the duration, the head of the Royal College of GPs, Clare

Gerarda. Now, first this morning let's talk about universities

because the lecturers union, the UCU, says the number of

undergraduate courses in the UK has fallen by more than a quarter in

the last six years. The reduction has been starkest in England, where

a third of degree courses have been cut. In Scotland only 3% have

disappeared. What do you think of that? Some of the courses may need

to go by the bike. But I think part of this is the unintended

consequences of the market. Way you have competition and you do not get

bums on seats, does not mean the course is not good, it will have to

go because it does not make money. We cannot predict what we need in

the future, and it is a worrying sign we have seen such a reduction.

We might be worrying we might be trying to predict. At the moment

politicians are telling us the jobs of the future of green. Everyone

says that. 20 years ago and no politician would have told you any

job coming from something called the internet? And 20 years ago, who

would have known Arabic studies would have been one of the most

important studies. We may need a Nordic studies in 20 years. When we

talk about health care there are parallels with what has been

happening in universities competing against each other, competing

against people to go into them. And actually, what we see is a

reduction in choice, and not an increase. We will come on to health

care in a minute. Now it's time for our daily quiz.

On Tuesday, President Obama, gave a barnstorming performance singing at

the White House, so our question today is: Which song did President

At the end of the show, Clare will give us the correct answer. We will

ask for her to sing one of those songs. He don't want to hear me

sing. I know the answer to that, and I know why he sang it.

Life is full of imponderables. What is the meaning of life? Are we

alone in the universe? And just how long will it be before we get a

decent return on our stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland? RBS has

revealed this morning that it made losses in 2011. Big losses. Around

�2 billion in fact. Despite that they're still paying quite a lot in

bonuses to their staff. So is it all worth it? Jo, some big

questions there. Got some big answers for us?

Stephen Hester, the boss of RBS, says he is in the process of

defusing "the largest balance sheet risk time bomb in history". So just

how big is it? Mr Hester has shrunk RBS's balance sheet from �2.2

trillion in 2009 to �1.4 trillion today - that's still about the same

size as the UK economy. In the process, Mr Hester has shed about

�600 billion of assets and cut around 33,000 jobs worldwide.

Despite the losses RBS is paying bonuses to its staff totalling �785

million. Of that, 390 million will be used to pay staff in its

investment banking arm - half what was paid last year. Last month,

Stephen Hester waived his bonus following sustained political

pressure. This is what he said to Robert Peston. I don't think high

pay is limited to the banking industry. It is a commercial

business and we attract people who are attracted by commercial values.

If we did not, they wouldn't be good at their job. They compare the

money they get with doing the same job elsewhere. When I was asked to

come and turn around RBS, I have to look over the world for the best

team because we fired the previous management team. We have to get

good people from other jobs. joining me now is Richard Hunter,

head of equities at the stockbrokers, Hargreaves Lansdown.

Turning round RBS is an enormous task. How is Stephen Hester doing?

If we take it as a five-year project, it is considerable. You

have quoted some of the figures in terms of reducing the balance sheet

and reducing its general risk exposure. This is set against not

only the fact we have had a financial crisis in the last couple

of years. Not only the increasingly global market place is as

competitive as it has ever been, but also the kind of political

"interference" his rivals do not have. The likes of Barclays Bank

and HSBC, who have avoided any handouts from the Government, are

not held back by any outside interference. So you think he is

doing a good job in that sense in making progress. Will the taxpayer

ever make a profit out of RBS? There is a long time to go in terms

of share price. It needs to hit about 50 pence, as compared to its

current 28p. On paper anyway, there is an equalisation of the loss. So

it is a longer term view. Apart from the competitive nature of the

business we have already mentioned, the investment banking business,

whilst profitable did see revenues down 25% over the last year. There

are also a number of other businesses that need to be disposed

of before RBS can read French at to where it can make some money. It is

a longer term objective before there is any prospect of that share

price doubling. The chances of it going back into private hands is a

long way off, nobody is going to buy it are they? Again, it depends

what you compare it with. Compared with up to three years ago, there

has been considerable progress. If you look at it today and look at it

as a private investor to enter the banking sector, you have to say

there is better value elsewhere. You would look at one of the more

globally diversified, Government free companies like Barclays Bank

and page BSE. But it is possible with further prospects, it will

look better than it does today it. It depends on your risk profile as

an investor, and how much you are prepared to put that money aside

for. With us now is the chair of the

Church Arri select committee and the shadow Treasury minister, Chris

Lesley. Stephen Hester says RBS is ahead in his strategy to turn the

bank around, is he right? deserves some credit, it has been a

tough road. It was the largest bank in the world with a lot of toxic

waste on its balance sheet and he is claiming that up. It is a big

job and it has not been helped by the fact the eurozone has been in

crisis. So the decision has been weak. He had 2.7 trillion pounds on

his balance sheet, twice the size of Britain's GDP. He has got to get

rid of that or cut it down. You wouldn't want a 90 doing that job,

you have to pay them well? Indeed he is paid well, he is not short of

a few bob. Not big by banking standards? If it wasn't for the

taxpayer, this bank wouldn't be there. It is not his fault, he was

not there? No, and he has an important job to do. Even when we

have a loss-making scenario, the 2 billion loss that has been

announced... That is the pre-tax loss. The �7 million does feel

inappropriate. It is not showing the restraint. Certainly, the

Government as the shareholder, promised it would encourage. I

asked Andrew, if at a time when the share value of RBS is so low and is

making a loss, if we don't show the culture change now, when will we

show it? If not here with RBS, where? Can you think of any other

business outside banking way you get a bonus for running a loss of

�2 billion? You pay receivers to go into businesses you are going to

dismember. It is not the same thing. Of course... Digging the chairman

of British Petroleum get a bonus of �2 billion? You pay the Mark -- you

pay the person in the market to do the job. Stop interrupting because

I want to answer your questions. You are absolutely right, it is

more pertinent. You absolutely right, Chris. We have got to get to

a point where, when people are paid a bonus, and the public feel those

bonuses are coming as a consequence of having been an return to

profitability. But the key issue for RBS will be when the public

think they will get their money back, 40 billion, I think most

people would be prepared to see large payouts. And the decision of

the senior management not to take these bonuses after all is a

reflection of the fact, the public mood is, when we see the colour of

the improvements then the bonuses can be paid. Before I bring Chris

Lesley back in, it is a �785 million bonus pool acceptable for a

bank that has lost �2 billion? need to divide it up into two

sections. The first part is what you need but the most senior

management, I have been trying to answer that question. The second is,

what do you need to pay to recruit and retain good people who will

enable that bind to perform well. It you strip out all of the toxic

waste, it has made about 6 billion in profit. It is in a competitive

market. We do have to decide, Andrew, if we want this bank to

perform as a socially owned enterprise in definitely, or if we

wanted to be put back into the commercial sector as soon as

possible. If we interfere too much we will arrive at the point where

we can never get this bank privatised. We have been talking

for months, the Prime Minister was promising a culture change and

responsible capitalism. And in the detail of this report, page 50 of

the RBS annual report, the compensation ratio, the ratio

between the income the bank is generating an the renumeration it

is paying out to his executives, has risen in RBS from 32% in 2010,

to 29% in 2011. So the steam roller of bonus culture is going up. And

it is continually rolling on as if nobody can do anything about it. We

own this Bank, 82%. If we won't affect the change in culture now at

this moment, are we putting our hands up saying this is the way of

the world? Absolutely not, we have a duty to the wider society. They

should show the same restaurant as everybody else. I am putting back

the point to Chris, when can we get this bank in to the private sector?

What is the answer to that? Hold on a minute. If we are going to

interfere to the point where the very best people end up drifting

away, we will find ourselves in a position where we can never get it

into the private sector. Is it necessary for the bonus pool to

rise? Really? The American sector are having trouble getting there

banks away. We have to ask ourselves, do we really want to run

our banks that wait indefinitely? Let me try to get you answer a

question. When will this bank end up in the private sector? If you

had been listening you would have heard lots of answers, but you are

too busy looking at your notes. Just answer the question. Of course,

the decision on whether we can get the bank, when I say we, it is you

and me, Joe Public into the private sector, will depend on whether the

situation improves and how quickly it moves back to profitability. But

I do think Stephen Hester and his team have done a good job and we

I am asking your judgment, the initial projection was five years.

Clear that's out. So what do you think, ten now? It's very difficult

to tell. The five years looks out because the eurozone Chris reus --

crisis made the conditions look worse. If you look the eurozone

crisis out of the situation, you see an American recovery beginning,

global recovery perhaps succeeding in taking route. At that point it

may be possible that five or six years' time we could get RBS...

core bank, the investment bank is being run down, not sure why they

need bonuses of �390 million for something they're trying to run

down. The core bank, what we the public will want to sell back to

the market, that made a profit, quite a good profit in difficult

circumstances. And on that side of the bank they're not hugely well

paid. So, don't they deserve a bonus for doing well? Bonuses

should be paid for exceptional performance and individuals will be

either exceptional or won't be and the bonus decision should be made

accordingly. It has to be put in the context of the total

performance of the organisation and the society in which we live and

all I am really saying is that this is an organisation that lives in

the same planet as the rest of us. There are businesses up and down

the country who are pair p -- paring down rewards, dividends,

bonuses they're paying themselves. I want to see RBS exercise the same

restraint, especially given... The compensation ratio has gone in the

other direction but nobody's picked up on the detail is my point.

observation as you listen, I know you don't want to talk about banks,

what's going through your mind? these incredible high salaries and

bonuses were there over the last few years and we were in the mess

that we were in now because of them, so the the answer - to say for

example they need this in order to work, that begs the question what

were they doing in the past when they were getting one and two

million? The other thing is I want to say is how do you know? How do

you know you can't attract the best people for salaries that would be

significantly less? I work in medicine, we attract some of the

brightest of the generation to work in medicine and I find it

incredibly arrogant that actually - that you are saying you can't

attract the best people unless you offer �750 million bonus pool.

Those are the sort of... Hold on. Let Mr Tyrie try and answer that.

Where I strongly agree with you is that there is something very

curious about the financial sector as a whole that seems to require

these uniquely high rewards. Addressing that is a big question

that involves the need for much more shareholder activism, not just

what the Government is doing but going across the board, looking at

ways in which shareholders can take a much more direct interest in what

people are paid. I think if you just prick the balloon and say we

are not paying this, I think you still will get the bright things

into banking, you still will get the loyalty, still the performance

and you might get better performance. I think it's self-

fulfilling. We are here discussing these staggering salaries. We need

to move on, thank you for answering my questions, and Chris, thank you.

Now, the budget is looming. George Osborne will have a lot in his

inbox. And it appears he is under increasing pressure from his own

MPs to rethink plans to withdraw child benefit from high earners. I

am joined now by the Tory MPs Christopher Chope and Peter Lilley.

What is the the strength of feeling amongst your colleagues over this

issue? There is a lot of feeling that the plans as currently put

forward are unsustainable and that the Chancellor's got to to think

again about this and in fairness to him I think he is he is as is the

Prime Minister, the policy originally announced more or less

off the back of an envelope at the conference in 2010 doesn't add up,

as is made clear from the latest report for the institute of fiscal

studies. You say you have evidence and the Chancellor and Prime

Minister are rethinking this, where is that from? It's in various

statements they've made to the press and obviously in discussions

we have on a day to day basis amongst Conservative members of

parliament. Are you confident it's going to be dropped? I am not

saying that at all. I am saying is that I hope that it will be dropped

and that if the Chancellor feels that additional money has to be

raised from higher rate taxpayers he won't just pick off higher rate

taxpayers who happen to have children. Why pick off higher rate

taxpayers with children, rather than higher rate generally? Can you

answer that question, Peter Lilley? Why single out those higher rate

taxpayers can children rather than those without? Well, he is not just

singling them out, of course, it's a higher rate of tax on upper

income earners with more than �150,000 and higher rates on those

over �100,000 and those just below �150,000. I considered this

proposal when I was responsible for social security and rejected it

because it does have all sorts of difficulties and problems which

Chris has highlighted. I can understand why the Chancellor now

is thinking it necessary to go ahead because in a much more

difficult financial situation nationally now, than in the 1990s

when I was responsible for social security. I don't think he has that

much alternative. If he can find an easier way, less unfair way of

doing it that's fine, I couldn't then and I am not sure one is

available. You do admit it is unfair? Obviously, it's always

quoted two lower rate taxpayers with a combined income of 70 or 80

won't be hit whereas one will. Picking up something you said, do

you think there was an assumption at the time when it was actually

announced, this proposal, that it would never really go ahead in 2013

and it's only because of the economy that they might well push

ahead with it? No, I think when they announce announced it they

intended to go ahead and will probably have to if they can find

some way of dealing with the unfairness, yes and it is very

rough justice or skwruf injustice some -- rough injustice some might

say, that's fine. I couldn't see a way of withdrawing child benefit

from upper income groups without this sort of rough edge. I was

going to say this is - 2010 budget, the first that came in after the

coalition was elected. And in that budget the Chancellor made it quite

clear that he was going to freeze child benefit for three years and

that was what he was going to do with child benefit and wasn't going

to alter it in any other way. Then there was a proposal to remove

child benefit from 16-19-year-olds which was vetoed and then we came

up with this half-baked policy at the conference. There is this

universal benefits, isn't the Chancellor arguably making a brave

prove that wealthier people shouldn't just by right have that

universal benefit? If you go down that road you start saying people

who are millionaires shouldn't access the health service without

being means tested and I think there is a strong reason for saying

we should maintain some universal benefits as set out by Beforage and

has been the consensus among the parties for years. You would agree

with that with better off pensioners as well? In fact, the

Government's specifically ruled out dealing with better off pensioners

by taking away their benefits in the same way as they specifically

ruled out before the general election taking away child benefit.

Thank you very much. Now, when your GP tells you that

you don't need that hip replacement or that hernia sorted out, or are

they thinking about what's best for you or their budget? Could GPs

prapgs be rationing more healthcare procedures for patients they don't

think will benefit from treatment under the guise of budget cuts?

Adam Fleming has been taking a loom. -- a look.

The health sr was -- service was born when we still had rationing.

There is the rations... The NHS has always had to do some rationing of

its own. Otherwise the nation's every penny could be spent on

healthcare. But, with budgets being squeezed there's now more of it.

Here's how it works now. The NHS here in north London is

very similar to other areas of the country in that they've a list of

what the is called procedures of low clinical effectiveness. In

other words, operations you will only get if you meet very specific

criteria. So here your child will only get

their tonsils out if they've suffered a certain number of really

serious bouts of tonsilitis. You will only have skin lesinons

removed if they're causing real medical problems. Elsewhere in the

country if you have a hernia it will only be operated on in its --

if its big big enough and other places will only give a hip

replacement if it's an emergency. The Primary Care Trusts say they're

cutting back on treatments that might not make that much of a

difference so there is money left to pay for ones that really do. GPs

can appeal in exceptional cases, but this senior surgeon says

patients' health is being put at risk for a false economy. If you

don't get certain procedures it can lead to extreme problems later on.

If you don't have your hip operation, when you should have it,

then it's going to be a much more difficult procedure at a later time

and it's going to be less satisfactory outcome. And one of

the reasons that GPs have had enough of the Government's changes

to the NHS is that instead of shadowy anonymous managers making

these kind of decisions it will be them. We are going to have to break

the news to the patients and obviously we are going to be the

ones left holding the baby. So, the politicians will say oh well, we

devolved down the decision-making processes to the GPs, go fight it

out with them. The NHS of the future will be defined by two

things: Less money and more local decisions. The Government say that

will make the health service more responsive to patients. Critics say

it's a recipe for more rationing. We have as our guest Claire Gerada,

the chair of the Royal College of GPs. It's a difficult one for

doctors, people will think I need my hip replacement, it would be

better for me, but the doctor might say no, it won't. Yes, and GPs have

always been careful with the public's purse. We have always in a

sense rationed care. We have always, for example, choosing cheaper

medicines over more expensive when they have the same effect. I think

what we are moving into is an area where GPs may well not just have

the patient in front of them that we are concerned about, but

actually out there a much wider public purse issue, but also the

fact that the patient may think we are doing this for a conflict of

interest and to be crude, that our take home pay will be dependent on

preventing you getting care and the most important thing and most

successful part of the health service is because you trust me as

your doctor to do what's best for you based on your needs and not

on... I might not. My patients' generation trusted doctors all the

time and they were grateful, they were the first beneficiaries of the

NHS and they were just grateful to get the kind of care they hadn't

got in the 20s and 30s. Subsequent generations aren't quite in awe of

doctors any more like that. We may get an opinion from you, but I may

want an opinion from another doctor because you may not be right.

think you will find that survey after survey still puts the GP as

one of the most trusted of all the professions right up there, as 90%,

I hope you are not in awe of me... I will tell you at the end of the

programme. But you trust the decision I make on your behalf,

based on your needs and not some other motive. It may be that you

don't need a hip replacement t may be I do defer referring you but you

must not think that's made through opl -- some other issue and the

worry about these reforms is I am going to be given a quality premium

if I save money from not referring you and it will place a conflict of

interest. If you look at the States, for example, GPs in the States, the

equivalent, have as little trust as the bankers. So, it is something

that can be rapidly reversed. puts a huge premium on the doctor

being right. It puts a lot of responsibility on you because you

may deny a treatment to someone and turn out to be wrong and they

suffer as a result. That's very complex. What I would say is that

as a GP I make sometimes some life- changing decisions every ten

minutes and what I would expect is that our politicians, they take the

responsibility for how much health service - how much money should be

put into the health service and we work together about deciding what

then should be funded but together with some of the organisations, as

some of these operations that you heard may not be required,

absolutely. In the olden days we used to do hysterectomy for women's

anxiety. You may not require an operation but you have to trust

that's a decision based on evidence and on your best interests.

often would a doctor be faced with a decision like this? Every day,

every week? About? Having someone wanting some important treatment

and the doctor having to say no, it's not necessary, it's not right

for you. Probably every surgery. Every surgery we would say a

patient might say what about X and we might say this might be better

for you. Yes, of course we can explore that, that might be better,

but that's not rationing, that's good patient care. Rationing is

where we make a decision based on an you will terior motive and a

situation made on finances, either finances that I am going to benefit

for or finances that is because the PCT hasn't got any money. In those

situations I have to be honest with you and say you can't be referred

for that, because there is no money. I don't say to you you don't need

It is a rationing decision? It is, but we can't pretend you don't need

it because of other reasons. welcome our viewers from Scotland

and we are discussing health reforms with the head of the Royal

College of GPs. Does that include Scotland? It includes Scotland,

Northern Ireland and Wales. I represent 44,000 GPs although we

have a devolved Council. The Health Bill was part of a heated debate in

the Commons. Andy Burnham said the release of so-called risk registers.

Miss the Deputy Speaker, this is what the National Health Service is

telling the Prime Minister of the potential effects of his

reorganisation. It is appalling and shocking. They are taking

unacceptable risks with children's safety and people's lives. If this

is what the NHS has been telling ministers for 20 months, how can

they possibly justify pressing on with this dangerous reorganisation?

Hasn't what remains of any just a vocation for carrying on with his

reorganisation just collapsed? If this is what is published in local

risk registers, it begs the question, what are they trying to

hide in the national assessment? Can I clarify to the house, I met

last week with the hospital he referred to earlier. The chief

executive or the German raised any of the points he raised. And the

local GP commissioning consortia are perfectly happy and are asking

me and other local MPs to push ahead with this Bill. Why is he

such a scaremongering buffoons. I say, this is by some margin the

worst tempered debate I have chaired. Can I ask members on both

sides to lower the temperature. We need to have a decent debate.

curious, on the one hand, the shadow Secretary of State is saying

it is going badly, and he is opposing the reform of the NHS. Yet,

the Secretary of State is saying the outcome has never been better,

so why is he pressing on with the bill? The argument, the curious

thing is, and they know he will appreciate this, even the leader of

the opposition says reform is needed in the NHS because of the

challengers. I'm joined now by Conservative MP,

Anna Soubry, who is Parliamentary private secretary to the Health

Minister, Simon Burns, and shadow health minister, Liz Kendall. Now,

your boss claims you don't represent the views of GPs in these

health reforms? I think I do, I represent a 44,000 general

practitioners, and over 90% wanted me to ask for a withdrawal of the

bill. It is against the background of 18 months of consultation, three

surveys, five executive councils and and national conference,

endless consultations. I can categorically tell you my members

of the Royal College of GPs do not want this bill. Some of the parts

of the bill are good. Putting GPs in charge of money, putting

patients first, but in its totality, it is a mess and it is flawed and

the Bill won't achieve what Andrew Lansley is setting out to achieve.

She represents the GPs? I think she is wrong. Let me tell you what I

think. I go into my constituency and talk to real GPs on the ground.

In my area, the consortia was formed before we got elected into

Government. They were in existence. They are putting into operation

already what we are seeking to achieve. That is my experience in

my constituency. I was approached by a doctor who lives in my

constituency but practices in Nottingham. He said, for God's sake

get this Bill through so I can deliver the treatment to my

patients have that I want to do. That is anecdotal evidence, her

evidence is surveys and taking the opinion, why should your anecdotal

evidence be more important? I did not saying it was. You just said

she was wrong. I work in a general practice. You are part time.

have lots of practices across London and I speak to general

practitioners. The doctor you spoke to might be one of the 56 out of

2,500... What about the doctors who formed the consortia, the 95% of

other areas of the country it is happening? It is not reflected what

we're hearing through the Royal College of GPs. GPs write to me.

You have been very patient, but you say you are not a politician but in

reading your case against the bill and so on, you do have a pretty

strong ideological opposition to competition or further choice. You

have even said it is an attempt to privatise the NHS and turn it into

an American-style system? It is an attempt to privatise the NHS. We're

not against competition. Turn it into an American-style system?

it into a system with individuals... It is just your opinion. Give me a

substantial fact. The American system involves private insurance.

Is that what they will do in Britain? I would like to ask what

is in the Bill that prevents that from happening. What you will find

his there is nothing in the Bill that prevent that happening. We're

not against competition, we have never been against competition

where it adds value for patients. We are against any qualified

provider way you have everybody competing for the same HIP and the

same knee. Do you believe the Government is attempting to

privatise the NHS? I think when they are telling clinical

commissioning groups across the country, you have to put three

services out to tender. When they are saying to hospitals you can

have up to 49% of your patients treated in the private sector, I am

very worried about that. Let me ask my question again in the hope of

getting an answer. Do you believe the Government is attempting to

privatise the NHS? When they are forcing services out to tender,

when that is not what GPs and patients want, then that is what

they are doing. Your answer is yes? I need to clarify. Is your answer

yes? It is part of where they want to go with the health services,

they want to see more services run by the private sector. There is a

role for bringing in the private sector where we know it can build

capacity and create some challenge in the system and improve services.

But you have to manage the consequences choice and competition

bring. I think the Government is in denial about how the different

parts of the NHS are against this bill. It is not just GPS, the

paediatricians came out against the Bill today. They seem to be saying,

they are all confused by myths that Labour has put out. These are

highly trained professionals. have had enough about who is for

and against it. What about the substance of his bill? Let's talk

about the substance of it. What you say about the Labour criticism,

they are not against some more competition, we're not against

further choice, but it has to be managed and not a free for all and

the danger is this will lead down to too much private involvement?

There are enough structures that have been put into this Bill to

make sure that does not happen. Let's look at the so-called

competition and the so-called privatisation. I find that deeply

offensive. How many times does the Secretary of State, ministers, the

Prime Minister, every Tory stand up and say this Bill is not about

privatising the NHS. Can somebody put forward were it says in the

built where it will allow privatisation. We believe it should

be free at the point of delivery. I will concede we have probably not

explained it in the simple terms it needs to be explained in. It is our

fault. It is Andrew Lansley's fault. He is the Health Secretary. As a

team, I would agree we have not explained it in good, simple

language. So let's have that debate in simple language. It is about

shifting power back to GPs. I have no problem with that. Or Derry

people in my constituency get it and ordinary GPs in my constituency

like it. If you can just encapsulate in a couple of

sentences, why it is not just due against what has been done, you

wanted to be dropped, why? It is so complex now with hundreds of

amendments that don't make sense. It is so conflicted. They have lost

control? We are turning one National Health Service into

thousands of different health services, competing for each other.

It is a complete and utter mess that needs stopping. We need to

work with you now to stabilise the NHS. You need to stop saying things

like we are going to privatise it and introducing an American-style

system. Liz, I will give you the final word, but it has to be brief.

If this Bill won't help us make the changes we need. We need to shift

services into the community and more towards integration. This Bill

sets different part of the NHS against each other and won't help

them work together. I hope we come back to it.

Now, should more be done to protect the growing number of cyclists on

our streets? MPs have been debating that this morning and in a moment

we'll be talking to the Cambridgeshire MP, Julian Huppert.

But first we put our very own Chris Hoy - Giles Dilnot, on his bike.

I have been cycling to work for four years. It keeps me fit, saved

me money and they don't have to run a car or pay for public transport.

But I do feel vulnerable sometimes. Three things, vehicles too many

people trying to share too little road space. They are not malicious,

just ignorance of me being there, even though they shouldn't be. And

pedestrians who just stepped in front of you because they did not

hear you. And they get aggressive like that. But other cyclists can

provide a lot of problems as well. They have got to take

responsibility for it, they do some stupid stuff. Jumping red lights

and riding on pavements. I am coming up to some traffic now. This

is where it gets dodgy. I'm really, really don't like this bit. Too

many lanes across. One of the reasons I would say I am a safe

cyclist is because I am a driver, too. Not enough drivers understand

cyclists and cyclists do not understand drivers. New can see how

close some of these vehicles get. There we are, Jenny end.

That was a frightening shot at the end with the bus coming towards him.

Will he make the next Olympics? And the Liberal Democrat MP, Julien

Huppert, is with us now. It is not safe on the roads is it? Cycling is

a safe thing to do, but I would like it to be more sake. Most

people who do cycle cycle regularly absolutely fine. We need to stop

these crashes and there is a lot we can do. Is it fairly safe? You are

looking at someone who has had two accidents, my feet been crushed,

Blackfriars Bridge. It is terrifying. By what? Lorries.

are the danger aren't they? It is terrifying Cycling in London.

terrifying and we need to tackle it. As more people cycle, people get

used to cyclists, give them more space and it gets savour. There are

places like those bridges,. -- safer. We cannot fix the traffic

levels on the dangerous junctions and there are cyclists out there

who are not very good at it and they are a danger to themselves.

You have to be very confident to tackle the roads in London and

Have a space for cyclists and a space for other users. A good

quality space for cyclists, not some track that weaves around trees.

You are right about the education point. The Government's continued

funding to train 9-11-year-olds. I would like to see cycles... With

helmets? The key thing about helmets is what we found in the

world where they've become become compulsory is people have stopped

cycling, particularly children. Why? Because of the look of it, the

feel, it reduces the number and that's bad for the health. The life

expectancy of people who cycle is longer than people who don't cycle

because of the health benefits. It keeps you fit, it's much better for

you than sitting on the tube or a car. Would you advise for the

health of the nation and your own health cycle something a good idea

after what you experienced? Absolutely, if we can get more

people cycling it will become safer, exactly what you say. The problem

we have, in fact, I passed my cycling test many moons ago, the

problem is in all honesty, is the speed of cars, especially over

bridges, who seem to think a bridge is a motorway. It's cars and vans

not understanding that you get squashed against the side and they

lose you. It's actually pedestrians who tend to rush out. I think I am

biased about this, I love cycling, I am now frightened of cycling, but

I love it and we need to get more bikes on the road. Thank you very

much. An MP has been arrested on

suspicion of assault following an incident in a bar at the House of

Commons last night. It's understood the MP is Labour's Eric Joyce, and

we can now speak to our political correspondent Vicky Young. What can

you tell us? We understand that the police were called to a bar in the

House of Commons before Len.00pm -- 11.00 where they handcuffed Eric

Joyce, he was taken to a central London police station where he is

still being head. There -- held. There are various reports about

what went on. Eyewitness reports about glasses being broken, about

angry exchanges, even about a window in the House of Commons

being broken and the Conservative MP Stuart Andrew is alleging that

he was assaulted, he was headbutted and we are waiting to see whether

the police take this further. The Labour Party issued a statement

swiftly saying it was an extremely serious incident and they have

suspended Eric Joyce from the Labour Party, penning results of a

police investigation. In the last hour or so the Speaker of the House

of Commons has said he takes these allegations very seriously and he's

warned MPs not to talk about it on the floor of the House of Commons

while this investigation continues. It's not the only high profile

arrest, is it? Other news, the West Midlands MEP, Nicki Sinclair has

been arrest on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud the European

Parliament. She now sits as an independent. This is an

investigation going back to 2010 when allegations surfaced about

expenses and she's one of four people who have been detained by

they've been released on bail today and that investigation also

continues. Thank you.

That's the kind of behaviour you get with subsidised drinking.

That's why the Government wants a minimum price.

They have all the subsidised booze in parliament. They're hitting each

other. Allegedly. Hitting each - may be who did it!

Is parliament too posh? It's a question the Conservative leaning

think tank Policy Exchange is asking, only a year after my own

documentary on the matter. Do they need working class MPs in

parliament? Many professions have opened up to people from other

backgrounds, research from the Policy Institute found in 1979

almost 40% of Labour MPs had done manual or clerical work. By 2010

that was only 9%. 60% of Government Ministers, 54% of Conservative MPs,

40% of Liberal Democrats, they all attended fee-paying schools,

compared with 7% of the population as a whole.

So, is the future more Bullingdon than bog standard comp? Does it

matter that the Commons is not quite as common as what it used to

Jack Dromey and David Amess welcome to our discussion. Does it matter?

Yes, it does. Parliament is increasingly narrow in whom it

draws from. Progress is being made in the last 20 years in relation to

women and black and Asian ethnic minority people. Much more progress

needs to be made, but it's absolutely wrong that parliament

has come to be dominated by the professional middle classes and

professional political classes. What I want to see is parliament

truly representative, including of the world of work, and that means

car workers, care workers, but also chief executives. A rich diversity

from the world of work in the House of Commons. People who have

walkeded walk and talked the talk and know from experience what the

real world is like. And what can be wrong with that? I think the way

things are at the moment class just doesn't matter at all. The House of

Commons is completely irrelevant. You could shut it down tomorrow, it

wouldn't make any difference. The Commons was destroyed since 1997

and if we get our power back it might matter. My mother still lives

in the original terrace house in the East End of London, returning

the first Labour member of parliament - you are much posher

than I am, Jack and the Labour Party is for goodness sake. I

haven't got a hangup about class. I just want the country to be

governored well. I was brought up in the East End of London, no

bathroom, outside toilet, no - I am proud of it but I don't go around

saying I am a working class Conservative, because all MPs are

middle class. The idea that we are going to pretend we are working

class... David, I am surprised at you from your background, because

it's not healthy. I am being frank about all political parties,

including our party. It is simply not healthy that your party is

increasingly dominated by people from a public school background and

bankers. They've all been journalists or lecturers, you are

not representing the working - get real on this. Let me ask you this.

How did your party get into a position, given it's called the

Labour Party, that you made so much effort to get more women in and

more ethnic minorities in, with some success as a consequence, but

you actually forgot to get people from ordinary background in?

agree with that. Historically the Labour Party was an alliance of the

organised working class and the middle classes, absolutely, we need

to be more than that because we need to appeal to the country as a

whole. But there has been a sad decline of people from working

class backgrounds, that's wrong. Doesn't that reflect the decline of

the works class? -- Clarking class? There's been changes in the working

class, but if you look occupationally and in class terms

where people are drawn from, that's wrong. In relation to Labour,...

will give you the last word. What Ed Miliband has said and he is

right, is we need to change that. We need to be truly representative

of the country as a whole. I oepl wish that the Conservative Party

would do the same thing. Aren't you worried that you increasingly, you

are becoming more public school again? There is the grammar school

generation drops out, there are few of you getting on in the

Conservative side, even the women and ethnic minorities that have

broken through, they're all pretty posh. Right, first of all I

definitely support grammar schools. I went to a grammar school and it

gave me... What about the general point? Generally, I am not hung up

where my colleagues have been educated. Even if they come from an

increasingly narrow group? Look, I am concerned about their judgment

and the advice that they get and whether the country's well governed

I am not hung up about class. For goodness sake, the Labour Party to

start talking about class when it was run by the most upper class

Prime Minister ever. We have run out of time, sorry. We have to go

to Somalia, which has more to worry about than class. I knew we

wouldn't get anywhere. But I thank you both.

From one battle to another. To Somalia, because representatives

of more than 50 countries are meeting in London today to try to

find a solution to two decades of turmoil and conflict in the country.

The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and the

American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are among those

attending. The Prime Minister, who is leading the conference, said he

wants to address the growing threat to global security posed by

terrorists and pirates. Andrew Mitchell joins us now, on that

basis, it's such a failed state. Everybody gress it has been --

agrees it has been and to some extent still is. What can be

achieved today? What is impressive about the conference so far is the

absolute identity of purpose you have from all the disparate groups

from inside Somalia. The countries of the region and the international

community and the United Nations, everyone is at least focused and

pulling in the same direction. And that is a breakthrough. We are

clear what needs to be done now, and I hope that will be the outcome

of this conference today which our Prime Minister has convened.

Britain's been engaged in Somalia now for sometime, because of the

dreadful humanitarian consequences, but the effects of this failed

state across the world and the region are seen every day.

course not negotiating with the militant group al-Shabaab, you

agree with Hillary Clinton on that, do you? Yes, absolutely. They've

been killing their own people, have been threatening and trying to kill

people elsewhere in the region and the world. They are a barrier to

progress in Somalia. Everyone understands that. What we need to

ensure is that there is a political process from the bottom, not

imposed from the outside, which people in Somalia can see is

genuinely to their advantage and what's what this conference is

seeking to achieve. If al-Shabaab is such a threat and still controls

large sections of the country, what about a stronger military presence?

Well, that is right and that is why the United Nations agreed yesterday,

following the Foreign Secretary's resolution being passed, that we

would boost the United Nations African Union troops there. The

European Union will be providing funding to pay for these troops T

will increase from something like 10,000 to 17,000, and that that as

you suggest, is absolutely essential if progress is to be made.

What about military... It fell to the Ethiopian forces pushing

through there, that's good news for all the poor people who have been

caught up in these dreadful circumstances in Somalia. What

about military presence from us, for example, if it's such a big

threat to security and the country is still in a very precarious state,

what about our military presence? We are focused on boosting this

African Union and United Nations force, and that's why the

resolution to which I referred is extremely good news. Britain has

given technical advice. We had a mission last year which went in and

assisted with planning and its strategy, that's extremely

important. It's an area where the British military have made a big

big contribution. But the key thing is to support them, which is led by

Barundi and Uganda who put their troops on the ground and suffered

substantial reu and -- substantially and we need to

support them. Time before we go to What was the correct answer? I have

no idea. I suspect Give me some loving. No, let's hear it.

# Same old place # Sweet home Chicago.

Sweet Home Chicago because it's his home town. I know he was in

Indonesia when he was a kid but Chicago is his home town before you

start tweeting and annoying me. 1990 was the answer from the guess

the year competition. Dr Claire, you get to pick. Mark from