23/02/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles