:00:42. > :00:48.Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. So stand by for a
:00:48. > :00:51.blast of bankers, badgers, beer and Borgen! Yes, the Government is
:00:51. > :00:55.forcing one bank to pay back hundreds of millions of pounds in
:00:55. > :00:59.tax it avoided perfectly legally. But can you, should you, close
:00:59. > :01:04.these loopholes in hindsight? Bill Oddie tells us why we should be
:01:04. > :01:07.protecting badgers rather than killing them to protect our cattle.
:01:07. > :01:12.Fans of the Danish drama, Borgen, have seen a female Prime Minister
:01:12. > :01:17.struggling to save her marriage and get home in time to see the kids.
:01:17. > :01:20.But does life in politics necessarily entail such sacrifices?
:01:20. > :01:30.And find out what happened next when this waiter got a bit too
:01:30. > :01:30.
:01:30. > :01:35.All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is
:01:35. > :01:37.the investment fund manager, Nicola Horlick. So, if you have any
:01:37. > :01:45.thoughts or comments on anything we're discussing then tweet your
:01:45. > :01:48.comments. But first, late last night the police and bailiffs went
:01:48. > :01:52.in to dismantle the Occupy London campsite outside St Pauls here in
:01:52. > :01:55.London. 20 people were arrested as tents and equipment were removed
:01:55. > :02:01.from the site. Demonstrators have been camped out there since mid-
:02:01. > :02:05.October. In a statement, the City of London Corporation said that it
:02:05. > :02:13.had nothing against free speech and protest. It is just the bedding and
:02:13. > :02:19.tents that they could tolerate no more. Could you tolerate it no
:02:20. > :02:23.more? I never understood why they were there. It was a little bizarre.
:02:23. > :02:29.I felt at one stage we would be able to ask them why they were
:02:29. > :02:35.there but had did not get around to it. Are they protesting against
:02:35. > :02:40.capitalism? Communism did not work. I am not sure what the alternative
:02:40. > :02:46.is. It is like what Churchill said about democracy - it is the best
:02:46. > :02:51.you can come up with but it may not be perfect. They might have
:02:51. > :02:57.appreciated you going down to talk to them about it. There is race
:02:57. > :03:04.sense in some people's minds but it has taken a long time for them to
:03:04. > :03:14.go. Do you feel it took too long? would have got rid of them sooner.
:03:14. > :03:19.It was messy looking. St Paul's was a beautiful building. It was
:03:19. > :03:27.stranger than fiction. Except, I suppose, it did chime in some
:03:27. > :03:34.people's minds come up with some of the anti- capitalism feeling we are
:03:34. > :03:39.going -- we are hearing about. whole communist thing collapsed
:03:39. > :03:45.rather spectacularly. I have not noticed many people trying to go
:03:45. > :03:50.back to that. What is the alternative? Capitalism should be
:03:50. > :03:55.responsible capitalism rather than people diving for profit at every
:03:55. > :04:00.opportunity. There are better ways of doing it than sitting outside St
:04:00. > :04:08.Paul's Cathedral. In a democracy people have a right to do it. I
:04:08. > :04:12.heard in the middle of the night a lot of the tents were empty. There
:04:12. > :04:15.used to be a time that running a bank was a nice job for the
:04:15. > :04:18.publicity shy. But no longer. There seems to be a story a day about
:04:18. > :04:21.banks, bankers or bonuses. And today's is about Barclays and tax
:04:21. > :04:24.avoidance. The bank is being forced by the Treasury to pay half a
:04:24. > :04:26.billion pounds in tax it tried to avoid perfectly legally. The move
:04:26. > :04:29.involves the unusual step of introducing retrospective
:04:29. > :04:32.legislation to close down the loopholes. One involved the bank
:04:32. > :04:36.buying back its own debt and not paying corporation tax on it, the
:04:36. > :04:38.second involved investment funds trying to benefit from tax credits.
:04:38. > :04:41.Barclays disclosed the schemes themselves under a code where banks
:04:41. > :04:51.are obliged to inform the authorities of any seemingly legal
:04:51. > :04:53.tax avoidance plan. The Treasury estimates changing the legislation
:04:54. > :04:55.could bring in �2 billion of tax they would otherwise have lost.
:04:56. > :05:03.Speaking earlier, Lord Oakeshott, the former Liberal Democrat
:05:03. > :05:08.Treasury Spokesman, gave a cautious welcome to the move. I am glad the
:05:08. > :05:13.Treasury has done this. It has taken them a long time. Four years
:05:13. > :05:21.ago I was using parliamentary privilege in the laws to expose
:05:21. > :05:25.enormous tax avoidance operations by Barclays all over the world.
:05:25. > :05:35.Barclays tax avoidance factory at Canary Wharf is the most productive
:05:35. > :05:36.
:05:36. > :05:41.system in history. It is highly abusive and highly aggressive. We
:05:41. > :05:47.have �38 billion in a tax scam in this country. A large extent could
:05:47. > :05:52.be closed if the Treasury got tough with large-scale tax avoidance by
:05:52. > :05:59.people like Barclays. The Editor of City AM, Alistair Heath, joins us
:05:59. > :06:05.now. What do you say to that? Treasury is right to shut down
:06:05. > :06:09.their schemes. I cannot see why they exist. It defies belief. I
:06:09. > :06:16.have a big issue with the weight it is done and a language they are
:06:16. > :06:20.using. It is a retrospective change in the tax code. When you do that
:06:20. > :06:24.you open the floodgates to all sorts of problems and probably give
:06:24. > :06:30.too much authority to the tax authorities to change tax codes and
:06:30. > :06:35.tax laws. In the past that has caught a lot of people who have
:06:35. > :06:40.behaved illegally and then suddenly they have to pay more tax. What is
:06:40. > :06:46.wrong with that retrospective element in terms of banks and tax
:06:46. > :06:53.avoidance? As far as the public is concerned, there would be two
:06:53. > :06:58.cheers. I agree with the ethics of it. Once you start changing things
:06:58. > :07:02.retrospectively, where do you stop? Do you change the general public's
:07:02. > :07:07.tax schemes retrospectively? Do you decide that all sorts of things
:07:07. > :07:15.that used to be allowed and that law-abiding sister then -- citizens
:07:15. > :07:20.used to do, suddenly you change the tax code retrospectively? I do not
:07:20. > :07:26.think that is right. The tax code is much too complex. Some people
:07:26. > :07:36.pay more tax than others. It is completed wrong and needs to change.
:07:36. > :07:37.
:07:37. > :07:39.I am not sure that retrospective tax code changes are the answer.
:07:39. > :07:44.With us now is the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, and his
:07:44. > :07:50.Shadow, Labour's Owen Smith. Are the public at risk of being hit
:07:50. > :07:54.from this? We should only use retrospective legislation in
:07:54. > :07:59.exceptional circumstances. Alastair is right that there are questions
:07:59. > :08:04.about stability that are being raised. There are exceptional
:08:04. > :08:08.circumstances with regard to one of the schemes. It was engaged in by a
:08:08. > :08:12.bank that had signed the code of practice, saying it would not
:08:12. > :08:17.engage in this type of scheme. It is specifically in an area where
:08:17. > :08:21.the previous government had made announcements in 2009, change the
:08:21. > :08:25.legislation in 2010, and said we do not want this. What had happened
:08:25. > :08:29.was is keen other similar to something that had been closed down
:08:29. > :08:35.in the past. It sounds like it is something the last Labour
:08:35. > :08:40.government could have been on top of. We sought to legislate in 2009
:08:40. > :08:47.to outlaw precisely this issue. The problem is that Barclays found a
:08:47. > :08:51.way to get around these specific clauses that we put in the built in
:08:51. > :08:59.2009 and and acted in 2010, by fiddling with the way in which they
:08:59. > :09:03.were accounting. -- enacted. It was a further Dodge they put into the
:09:03. > :09:11.system. The only reason we know about this is because other
:09:11. > :09:15.legislation that Labour made in 2002. Do you think there is a back
:09:15. > :09:24.to restart industry of tax avoidance by but his macro and
:09:24. > :09:29.other banks? A lot of people are trying to minimise tax for
:09:29. > :09:34.companies and clients. The general trend in recent years, although
:09:34. > :09:39.public attention has got stronger Inez, is that HMRC has become
:09:39. > :09:44.increasingly effective enclosing this down. The closure of tax
:09:44. > :09:50.avoidance schemes has been good. We are making a lot of progress but
:09:50. > :09:54.sometimes we need to be tough. avoidance is perfectly legal. The
:09:54. > :10:00.rhetoric that has been used by the Government and politicians is
:10:00. > :10:06.really not appropriate. In my view, it is not. When you invest in a
:10:06. > :10:11.company, let's remember who owns Barclays. It is our country's
:10:11. > :10:17.savings which are invested in a company like Barclays. They have a
:10:17. > :10:21.duty to shareholders to mitigate tax - legally of course. There is
:10:21. > :10:26.nothing wrong with putting in place schemes that allow you to do that
:10:26. > :10:31.legally. That means they have more profit to distribute. In our
:10:31. > :10:35.country, 50% of profits are paid out to shareholders in dividends.
:10:35. > :10:39.The dividends are taxed and individuals spend the money and pay
:10:39. > :10:47.VAT when they spend it. At corporate tax level you'll capture
:10:47. > :10:51.it later. In my view it is a bit of a fuss. It is really important we
:10:51. > :10:56.have a competitive tax environment. There are some stories about
:10:56. > :11:02.businesses and tax that is scaremongering. For most businesses
:11:02. > :11:07.that pay tax which is due, they do tax planning and do not engage with
:11:07. > :11:12.very aggressive abusive tax avoidance schemes. They are placed
:11:12. > :11:17.at a competitive disadvantage. We need to do something about
:11:17. > :11:22.businesses that are more aggressive. It is levelling the playing field.
:11:22. > :11:26.We want businesses to pay their fair share. We do want the tax
:11:26. > :11:31.environment which is as predictable and competitive as possible. That
:11:31. > :11:36.is what we are trying to do. Is it right to make it retrospective?
:11:36. > :11:43.They were in breach of the spirit of the law. I shared the concerns
:11:43. > :11:53.of the Prime Minister in that there are an Army of fancy lawyers
:11:53. > :11:53.
:11:53. > :11:59.employed to avoid tax. It is a cultural issue. I think, very often,
:11:59. > :12:04.and this case illustrates the fact, there are very fine lines between
:12:04. > :12:10.tax-planning Cammack aggressive tax planning, tax avoidance and tax
:12:10. > :12:17.evasion. They need to resource HMRC properly. There is a gap between
:12:17. > :12:21.the rhetoric and the reality. They are cutting numbers in HMRC and
:12:21. > :12:25.resources. For the first time, it came to the Spending Review in 2010,
:12:25. > :12:32.we identified spending on dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance
:12:32. > :12:37.and put more money in. What is the overall budget? It has gone down by
:12:37. > :12:43.2 billion. The number of taxmen has gone down by 10,000. If you look at
:12:43. > :12:48.the decrees under the last Labour government it was a lot more.
:12:48. > :12:54.the priority, why aren't to spending more money on it? A lot of
:12:54. > :13:04.the work of the HMRC is processing paperwork. Some of that money we
:13:04. > :13:06.
:13:06. > :13:06.are planning back into HMRC so there are more stories about
:13:06. > :13:11.taskforce teams focusing on particular areas and we are
:13:11. > :13:17.strengthening the capability. Our record on tackling tax evasion and
:13:17. > :13:21.tax avoidance is a good one. Can I just come to this other point? The
:13:21. > :13:27.Public Accounts Committee, and perhaps you can help us with the
:13:28. > :13:34.figure, says �25 billion of money is going unaccounted for. Do you
:13:34. > :13:40.recognise that figure? I do recognise that figure. It is gone.
:13:40. > :13:46.It is not from tax-avoidance? the assessment made by the HMRC. It
:13:46. > :13:56.is a snapshot that Esmonde of the potential risk before they look at
:13:56. > :13:57.
:13:57. > :14:01.particular areas. As for total avoidance, the HMRC assessment, and
:14:01. > :14:06.for the last year we have, it is about 7 billion on avoidance. That
:14:06. > :14:14.was under the last Labour government. We think we're getting
:14:14. > :14:18.at number down. No system in the world eliminates it. Our forecast
:14:18. > :14:24.with the extra investment, we will be getting an extra �700 billion a
:14:24. > :14:28.year in additional yield because of the money we are putting into HMRC.
:14:28. > :14:33.Do you think there should be sanctions or banks like Barclays?
:14:33. > :14:39.The rhetoric is quite strong. We talk about aggressive tax avoidance
:14:39. > :14:45.and abuses. Why should the Government not introduce sanctions?
:14:45. > :14:52.Did he say 700 billion extra a year. I said we are putting in 900
:14:52. > :15:02.million extra which will generate 7 billion a year. Labour collected 11
:15:02. > :15:04.
:15:04. > :15:09.billion him 2008, 2009. To write think sanctions are a good idea?
:15:09. > :15:13.Yes. -- do I think? If they are going to introduce an anti-
:15:13. > :15:19.avoidance rule in the Budget, will at have the teeth the rules have
:15:19. > :15:26.elsewhere? Penalties and charges that might be introduced or will it
:15:27. > :15:32.be toothless? Will it be toothless or will you look at it? As the
:15:32. > :15:36.sanctions, with this particular case, we have close it down. We
:15:37. > :15:43.have retrospective legislation. We will look to see what house needs
:15:43. > :15:46.to be done. There has not been a breach of the law. The Labour
:15:46. > :15:56.spokesman said there should be sanctions and the Government is not
:15:56. > :15:57.
:15:57. > :16:02.At the moment we don't have sanctions, and something illegal
:16:02. > :16:07.has been changed retrospectively in this case. The tax system is too
:16:07. > :16:13.complicated, there are so many loopholes, and HMRC just running
:16:13. > :16:17.around trying to close the loopholes. The buying back of debt,
:16:17. > :16:22.which Barclays did, was reported several months ago so everybody
:16:22. > :16:26.knew about it but it took several months for anything to happen. We
:16:27. > :16:31.are not fixing the core problem, a corporate tax system that does not
:16:31. > :16:39.work properly. It is too complicated and it needs to be
:16:39. > :16:42.reformed. The thank you. Hands up, who has heard of Helle
:16:42. > :16:46.Thorning-Schmidt and Birgitte Nyborg? The first one is the real
:16:46. > :16:56.Prime Minister of Denmark, and the other is the fictional star of
:16:56. > :17:04.
:17:04. > :17:09.Borgen, which has proved to be a big hit drama in Westminster.
:17:09. > :17:14.This is the latest drama to come out of Denmark. Borgen is all about
:17:14. > :17:19.the compromises made by female politician Birgitte Nyborg who
:17:19. > :17:23.rises to the top to become Prime Minister and the pressure it puts
:17:23. > :17:29.on family life. I may not be Prime Minister, but as a mother working
:17:29. > :17:34.in Westminster sometimes I know how she feels. But what is the answer?
:17:34. > :17:38.That key is flexible working, and senior management accepting it is
:17:38. > :17:45.not a soft thing to do, it is valuable, and would benefit the
:17:45. > :17:52.company. There are still ingrained sexist attitudes. Senior managers
:17:52. > :17:59.look to appoint people like them, and that turns to be male, pale,
:17:59. > :18:05.stale. The men outnumber women four to one in Westminster and only five
:18:05. > :18:12.of the 23 Cabinet ministers are female. In business, only 14% of
:18:12. > :18:16.directors on FT-SE 100 boards are women. Is there anything we can do
:18:16. > :18:20.about it? David Cameron has said he wants a third of his ministers to
:18:20. > :18:25.be women by the end of this Parliament, but on occasion he has
:18:25. > :18:35.run into trouble with his choice of language in the Commons. A calm
:18:35. > :18:35.
:18:36. > :18:41.down, dear. Calm down, listen to the doctor. 37 of the 49 female
:18:41. > :18:47.Tory MPs has joined together to form the new Conservative Women's
:18:47. > :18:51.Forum to hand back the Prime Minister. Andrea is one of them, a
:18:51. > :19:01.former high-flyer in banking and finance, now conquering the world
:19:01. > :19:05.
:19:05. > :19:13.of Westminster. The accused --PMQs is not a great advertisement for
:19:13. > :19:19.Westminster. Is politics stellar career you would encourage other
:19:19. > :19:24.women to going to? It is demanding of your time and it pins you down
:19:24. > :19:29.because you need to be there when the vote is called and not when it
:19:29. > :19:39.is convenient to your private life. This is one of the most satisfying
:19:39. > :19:40.
:19:40. > :19:45.roles there are out there. lesson from Borgen is that women
:19:45. > :19:50.can't seem to have at all. Birgitte Nyborg may have made it to the
:19:50. > :19:56.equivalent of Denmark's Number 10, but only at the cost of her family
:19:56. > :20:06.life. Maybe things are getting better, and some of us can start to
:20:06. > :20:06.
:20:06. > :20:11.call the shots. Andrew, a cup of tea with sugar. So certainly, one
:20:11. > :20:15.lump or two. I'm joined now by Labour's Nia Griffith and the
:20:15. > :20:20.Conservative Nadine Dorries. The main point of Borgen is that women
:20:20. > :20:24.can't have it tall. Is it possible to hold down a high-powered job,
:20:24. > :20:30.spend proper time with your children during the week, and have
:20:30. > :20:37.a successful marriage? The view look at the Cabinet, the answer to
:20:37. > :20:41.your question is no. In the Cabinet now, there are five women, three of
:20:41. > :20:45.those are either childless or wealthy. It seems you have to be
:20:45. > :20:52.one or the other. Looking at the Labour Cabinet of the past,
:20:52. > :20:58.Margaret Beckett, Baroness Amos, Hazel Blears, the list goes on and
:20:58. > :21:05.on, they are all childless. The exceptions are women who were
:21:05. > :21:11.healthy before they came into politics or have a wealthy partner.
:21:11. > :21:17.If you are wealthy or childless, unless you are those it seems
:21:17. > :21:24.impossible to get on in politics. Do you agree? It is very difficult.
:21:24. > :21:29.If you look at the generation who came in in 2005 compared to 2010,
:21:29. > :21:36.either they have children who are grown up they are beginning to make
:21:36. > :21:40.a career, I would add that to the group mentioned, but we need to
:21:40. > :21:46.change the structure so it is easier to come in earlier. When
:21:46. > :21:52.they are younger you mean? Absolutely. It seems to me the key
:21:52. > :21:58.is of the hours. If the hours were different, if you look for example
:21:58. > :22:03.at the Welsh Assembly, even at the Scottish parliament, the hours
:22:03. > :22:08.seemed to be more conducive to women with young families. It is
:22:08. > :22:13.not just their hours, it is that now there has been a massive focus
:22:13. > :22:17.on the constituency and that is because of media and other reasons.
:22:17. > :22:21.The working week for a politician is Monday to Thursday night in
:22:21. > :22:30.Parliament, then Thursday night back to your constituency, Friday
:22:30. > :22:40.and Saturday in your constituency. That is about 15 hours a week, then
:22:40. > :22:46.you have your constituency, that is like two full-time jobs, being a
:22:46. > :22:52.mother is like a full-time job as well. But should it change? Is it
:22:52. > :23:00.desirable to have a lot more? There are 22 female MPs in the House of
:23:00. > :23:09.Commons. Do we need to have double that? It would be ideal to have a
:23:09. > :23:14.50/50 split, but if we split Westminster it is impossible
:23:15. > :23:24.because you have to come to London for most of the week. The air at
:23:25. > :23:25.
:23:25. > :23:30.economic arguments being put forward to say it makes better
:23:30. > :23:34.business sense to have women put on the boards, do you agree with that?
:23:35. > :23:39.Yes, but travelling a lot and bringing up children as well, it is
:23:39. > :23:46.incredibly difficult. We have not found a way for men to have babies
:23:46. > :23:50.yet, so I don't think we will ever be in a position where we have
:23:50. > :23:56.50/50 in politics or business. Scandinavian it is held up as this
:23:56. > :24:01.model. They have introduced a law. It is only public companies and
:24:01. > :24:07.state companies, so if you have a private business you don't have to
:24:07. > :24:14.have 40% women. Sure that be a start? That could make the
:24:14. > :24:18.difference here. I am not in favour of quotas. The opportunity for
:24:18. > :24:24.women should be there if they want to do these jobs. A lot of them
:24:24. > :24:29.don't, at the end of the day. vouch for that. I went into a
:24:29. > :24:35.sixth-form college recently, and it was like asking who wanted to be a
:24:35. > :24:41.car mechanic. Politics is ugly, boring, they are not attracted to
:24:41. > :24:47.politics. That is because there are not enough role models. If there
:24:47. > :24:54.was a change... A Margaret Thatcher was a pretty good role model.
:24:54. > :25:00.is only one person. If ladies like you persuaded them it was a good
:25:00. > :25:05.option, would they think it was a positive option to do? It is the
:25:05. > :25:10.chicken and the egg. If we put in quotas as well as role models, that
:25:10. > :25:14.is very important for young people, but by having women in the
:25:14. > :25:19.organisation's you change the way they work. The worst culprits are
:25:19. > :25:22.the corporates, and even universities in this country. There
:25:22. > :25:28.is an assumption that you are property of the company and that
:25:28. > :25:36.you will do as they wish, and the family will follow. That is not
:25:36. > :25:40.very easy for any woman to persuade her husband to follow. Where there
:25:40. > :25:47.are opportunities in their own towns, as in many continental
:25:47. > :25:51.settings, they can rise to the top more easily. There is a very
:25:51. > :25:55.obvious fact about women in politics - if you are at a single
:25:55. > :26:00.mother in the North of England and you want to be a politician and
:26:00. > :26:06.exist without partner on an MP's salary, it would be impossible. A
:26:06. > :26:14.whole group of women are excluded before they even start. The you
:26:14. > :26:24.mentioned the personal, the set-up at home, the assumption that if a
:26:24. > :26:29.child is ill they will call the woman before her partner. Look at
:26:29. > :26:34.Yvette Cooper's situation, her partner is also in politics. If you
:26:34. > :26:39.look at the Women in politics who do have children, either there
:26:39. > :26:44.husbands are with them in Parliament or they are in the Home
:26:44. > :26:52.Counties. There is always a unique situation of support that enabled
:26:52. > :26:56.them to be there. Should women be shortlisted. It is demeaning. I
:26:56. > :27:06.could not hold my head up knowing the reason I got there is that men
:27:06. > :27:08.
:27:08. > :27:15.were excluded from competing with me for that role. 27% of people in
:27:15. > :27:20.the last government were women, we are now 32%. It has gone up. They
:27:20. > :27:24.have promoted certain candidates, and the Lib Dems have gone down
:27:24. > :27:32.because they didn't have the system. I'm afraid it is still necessary.
:27:32. > :27:36.The idea now that 40% of members of the board should be women, given a
:27:36. > :27:41.certain running period, and if not they will have to do something more
:27:41. > :27:49.formal about it, at least we are seeing a move forward. If we don't
:27:49. > :27:53.have targets, it will not happen automatically. We always tend to
:27:53. > :27:57.appoint people who look like ourselves, and that is the same in
:27:57. > :28:04.politics as it is in business. Let's have a look at one senior
:28:04. > :28:11.politician in Europe, who I thought dealt with this crisis rather well.
:28:11. > :28:16.Look at Angela Merkel, watched the waiter behind her. The rest of
:28:16. > :28:22.Libya disappears, as you will see, down her neck. I don't know what
:28:22. > :28:28.you would have done if that had happened. She flicked her hair,
:28:28. > :28:34.then back to the conversation. What would you have done if somebody
:28:34. > :28:42.tipped beer down your neck? I would have screamed. Keeping cool is
:28:42. > :28:47.always the best answer. She is used to being in the public eye, she has
:28:47. > :28:50.a camera following her, she will not be jumping up and screaming.
:28:50. > :28:58.Angela Merkel has done pretty well compared to Margaret Thatcher,
:28:58. > :29:08.hasn't she? Yes, that is great, she has done well. Should women give
:29:08. > :29:15.
:29:15. > :29:19.other women allege got to help them on to boards? -- a leg up. If there
:29:19. > :29:23.is a good woman candidate, he she should be given a chance.
:29:23. > :29:29.Everything should be equal. One of the problems is the queen bee
:29:29. > :29:32.syndrome, where often you get a woman's at the top who pushes a lot
:29:32. > :29:38.of the other women down. He you could say that happens in
:29:38. > :29:42.broadcasting as well as politics. There is also this element that
:29:42. > :29:47.meant employee like minded people because they want people whom they
:29:47. > :29:51.can relate to more easily. Does that happen in business? A most
:29:51. > :29:58.businesses where you get a stereotypical person don't do that
:29:58. > :30:03.well. The best teams have diversity in all its senses, and they are the
:30:03. > :30:07.companies that do best. They have actually given it some thought,
:30:07. > :30:12.they have thought we need different people and that is why they are
:30:12. > :30:16.able to do better. You have to accept that politics is very unique,
:30:16. > :30:26.there is no other job like it and it is incredibly difficult if you
:30:26. > :30:31.Now to kill or not to kill, that's the question. Quite important if
:30:31. > :30:33.you are a badger. The Government is preparing for trial culls in
:30:33. > :30:36.Gloucestershire and Somerset in an attempt to control bovine TB, and
:30:36. > :30:39.culling badgers in areas of high infection, it is claimed, does have
:30:39. > :30:43.an effect on the disease. In 2010, the Government says 25,000 cattle
:30:43. > :30:46.were destroyed after contracting the disease. But the Badger Trust
:30:46. > :30:49.and Humane Society are all raising objections, with some scientific
:30:49. > :30:54.support, about how efficient the cull would be, and indeed if it
:30:54. > :31:02.doesn't spread the disease wider. Giles is outside Parliament with
:31:02. > :31:12.two interested parties. I will introduce them in a moment.
:31:12. > :31:20.Dementia and the figure of 25,000 but what cold in 2010. -- you
:31:20. > :31:26.mentioned. Let me introduce Bill oddly, Simon Hart, Conservative MP.
:31:26. > :31:35.That is a lot of money, a lot of cattle - animals being killed. Does
:31:35. > :31:39.that justify culling badgers? You will not find a single
:31:40. > :31:45.conservationist who will not have sympathy with farmers. More than
:31:45. > :31:54.that they will be looking to co- operate with farmers. We depend on
:31:54. > :32:03.it. Owl what life does. What are you saying? -- hour wildlife. There
:32:03. > :32:10.is no evidence to suggest the disease will go away. How can we
:32:10. > :32:19.improve the situation? In our view, there should be an inoculation
:32:19. > :32:25.programme. That is possible. It has been down in some areas. Or, the
:32:25. > :32:31.alternative, is to shoot them. I find that strangely unacceptable.
:32:31. > :32:37.Let's get to the point. DEFRA says if you go through the trial Coles,
:32:37. > :32:44.you might reduce the disease by 15%. It does not sound very much. The
:32:44. > :32:49.methodology chosen seems to suggest it might push the disease elsewhere,
:32:49. > :32:55.as contain it. We are not looking at this in isolation. We are
:32:55. > :32:59.looking at vaccines, better cattle Movement. We are looking at these
:32:59. > :33:07.different options. There is no single cure for this particular
:33:07. > :33:12.disease. This is one part of the complicated jigsaw. I think 12% to
:33:13. > :33:18.15% is better than nothing. We can do a lot better. We have looked at
:33:18. > :33:24.every other possible option. No one wants to do this. We have explored
:33:24. > :33:31.every option and taken better revise that this is the only way to
:33:31. > :33:35.nail the disease once and for all. You are asking them to rethink. The
:33:35. > :33:42.fact of the matter is there would be no justification they could be
:33:42. > :33:48.viewed in the way you could support become a badgers. Not unless people
:33:48. > :33:54.were literally dying. It is complete nonsense. It does bother
:33:54. > :33:59.me a great deal. If you think about it, when you say shoot them, how
:33:59. > :34:04.will you shoot them? How do you shoot a badger? It is an
:34:04. > :34:10.interesting comparison with the previous wildlife management debate
:34:10. > :34:18.we had. It is possible. You can feed them into areas and have
:34:18. > :34:23.trained marksmen using rifles. sufficient numbers? Absolutely! It
:34:23. > :34:29.needs to be a combined approach to make this work. We are talking
:34:29. > :34:36.about hundreds of millions of pounds devoted to this so far. We
:34:36. > :34:44.have to go down this route, in conjunction with other things.
:34:44. > :34:49.is reducing it to the level of a sport. It is misrepresenting the
:34:49. > :34:59.position. You have no excuse to carry it on. We are going to do
:34:59. > :35:08.this, we are going to do that. have one point. On top of this, the
:35:08. > :35:13.farmers who do support it, they are going to have to pay for its.
:35:13. > :35:19.Absolutely. Farmers are absolutely desperate to make progress on this.
:35:19. > :35:24.Nobody wants to do this. Nobody is taking pleasure from this. People
:35:24. > :35:31.have very heavy hearts. It is one part of a broad mix to solve a
:35:31. > :35:37.problem. It is not just about cattle, it is about badgers as well.
:35:37. > :35:46.They seem to not care about the fact about TB is rife. Are you
:35:46. > :35:51.making light of it? I am not making light of it at all. I care about it.
:35:51. > :35:57.I find the process involved, in shooting badgers, is nothing like
:35:57. > :36:03.as simple as you say. They are amongst the most timid creatures we
:36:03. > :36:09.have. Thousands of millions of people love badgers. It is a
:36:09. > :36:15.marvellous occasion. I will leave you to keep debating it. It will go
:36:15. > :36:21.on and on. That is the issue. They have not started culling yet. It
:36:21. > :36:28.looks as though there will be some good temps to stop it going ahead
:36:28. > :36:34.at all. -- attempts. I would vaccinate the cattle. Because of
:36:34. > :36:40.the various issues we have had with meat and Food, people shy away from
:36:40. > :36:42.that because of those issues. seems there will be yet more
:36:42. > :36:45.officially sanctioned changes to the Health Bill that is currently
:36:45. > :36:48.going through the House of Lords. Yesterday, Nick Clegg co-wrote a
:36:48. > :36:52.letter with Baroness Williams to all Lib Dem peers and MPs, setting
:36:52. > :36:54.out the amendments he wants to see in the Bill. In the letter, they
:36:54. > :36:59.write that the bill is now undoubtedly a better Bill because
:36:59. > :37:03.of the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg and Baroness Williams go on
:37:03. > :37:06.to write, we want to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US
:37:06. > :37:09.style market in the NHS. The Deputy Prime Minister supports five final
:37:09. > :37:12.changes to the Bill, including insulating the NHS from the full
:37:12. > :37:18.force of competition law and making the watchdog, Monitor, to require
:37:18. > :37:20.Foundation Trusts to put patients first. It is understood Mr Clegg
:37:20. > :37:23.discussed the letter with the Prime Minister and Downing Street said
:37:23. > :37:28.the changes were not significant amendments and they are areas where
:37:28. > :37:30.reassurance is required. However, critics point to a potentially
:37:30. > :37:34.stormy Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in March where the NHS
:37:34. > :37:37.could dominate the agenda. Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Andy
:37:37. > :37:43.Burnham argued the letter was stage managed and part of a face saving
:37:43. > :37:50.exercise for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. With me in the
:37:50. > :37:55.studio now is the Health Minister, Simon Burns. Do you agree the Bill
:37:55. > :37:59.is better because of the Liberal Democrats? The Bill is better
:37:59. > :38:03.because of the Liberal Democrats and a host of other people as well.
:38:03. > :38:08.We said at the Independent Future Forum which went had and consulted
:38:08. > :38:13.with the health service. We have been listening to everyone
:38:13. > :38:19.interested and concerned about health. Through an amalgamation of
:38:19. > :38:22.fees from a variety of sources, the Bill has been approved and
:38:22. > :38:27.strengthened. You are giving into further demands from the Deputy
:38:27. > :38:32.Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, on competition. We have got to a place
:38:32. > :38:38.now where we believe the Bill is in the right place - where we are
:38:38. > :38:44.giving protections with regard to competition. We are seeking where
:38:44. > :38:50.reassurances are needed. We will provide those reassurances.
:38:50. > :38:55.changes would tighten the rules on competition, insulate it from
:38:55. > :39:01.competition and place extra safeguards on the private income
:39:01. > :39:07.that foundation hospitals can earn. Those are changes. Can I pick out
:39:07. > :39:13.one thing? There was never any intention for a US style insurance
:39:13. > :39:19.system. You will see that in clause one of the bill. It is about a
:39:19. > :39:25.health service free at the point of use. That has always been the
:39:25. > :39:35.intention. So, it is an orchestrated attempt by Nick Clegg?
:39:35. > :39:38.Nick Clegg does have some MPs, some peers, but also appears -- people
:39:39. > :39:44.be on the Parliamentary Party who are concerned. They need
:39:44. > :39:49.reassurances and clarification. During the continuing progress of
:39:49. > :39:56.the Bill, we will seek to give those assurances and clarifications.
:39:56. > :40:01.These amendments are not significant? We have 136 amendments
:40:01. > :40:03.that the Government tabled that were as a result of the
:40:03. > :40:07.recommendations the Independent Future Forum made an also
:40:07. > :40:13.discussions that have been ongoing with Liberal Democrat crossbench
:40:13. > :40:18.and Labour peers to find ways of improving that bill. If it is
:40:18. > :40:23.insignificant, why has Nick Clegg got to write to his MPs to try to
:40:23. > :40:28.say he has some concessions? will continue to give reassurances
:40:28. > :40:33.and clarification where it is needed. In terms of support, if it
:40:33. > :40:38.turns out that none of the Royal Colleges support the Bill, will do
:40:38. > :40:43.go ahead? We believe the NHS is an evolutionary body that has to
:40:43. > :40:48.evolve to meet new challenges. We will be pressing ahead with it.
:40:48. > :40:52.There has been a lot of confusion over the last 24 hours as to which
:40:52. > :40:58.were at college is or is not supporting the Bill and a lot of
:40:58. > :41:04.factual inaccuracies. You have already lost the support of the
:41:04. > :41:14.Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and the
:41:14. > :41:15.
:41:15. > :41:15.Royal College of GPs. If you lose, and it looks IQ will lose almost
:41:15. > :41:21.everybody except for the obstetricians and gynaecologists,
:41:21. > :41:25.is it really acceptable for the Government to move ahead? The Royal
:41:25. > :41:32.College of Surgeons Support the Bill. They continue to support the
:41:32. > :41:36.Bill. The members do not. If you just let me finish. Under the rules
:41:36. > :41:42.and the constitution of the Royal College of Surgeons, 25 surgeons or
:41:42. > :41:47.members can call for an emergency general meeting. 31 out of 18,000
:41:47. > :41:51.members have called for an emergency meeting. There will be
:41:51. > :41:56.one under their constitution. It will not be to withdraw support for
:41:56. > :42:01.the bill. They, like us, no it is important for patients that the
:42:01. > :42:05.reforms go ahead. You said they are not going to withdraw whatever
:42:05. > :42:13.happens at that meeting. They will still support the Bill. You are
:42:13. > :42:19.happy to go ahead with that. There is other areas one needs to look at.
:42:19. > :42:24.For example, 95% of England is covered by clinical commissioning
:42:24. > :42:30.groups. GPs are now becoming involved in commissioning care for
:42:30. > :42:33.their patients. When I talk to them, they are coming to fully appreciate
:42:33. > :42:38.the independence and power they have to be able to put patients at
:42:38. > :42:47.the forefront of commissioning care for them. They are welcoming that
:42:47. > :42:53.extra power. Nicola Horlick, what is your view? I am not a lay person.
:42:53. > :42:59.I am on the board of a Foundation's trust hospital. I have had a lot to
:43:00. > :43:05.do with all of this from the sharp end. My view is it is a good thing
:43:05. > :43:10.to remove bureaucracy, which is what will happen. I think it is
:43:10. > :43:14.broadly right he should have practitioners involved. That is a
:43:14. > :43:20.good thing. What we have been concerned about is the whole
:43:20. > :43:24.competition angle. The fear is you will get bodies coming in from
:43:24. > :43:30.outside, who will then cherry-pick bits of business from the NHS which
:43:30. > :43:36.might be the most profitable pits. They will only be interested in the
:43:36. > :43:44.profitable pits. That is where the concern comes from. It needs to
:43:44. > :43:49.have all its business within the NHS to make it viable. What do you
:43:49. > :43:55.say to that specific accusation? can appreciate the concern and I
:43:55. > :43:59.think I can reassure her. On the face of the bill, we have enshrined
:43:59. > :44:04.in the legislation that private companies will not be allowed to
:44:04. > :44:08.cherry pick because we think that is wrong. We are going further than
:44:08. > :44:12.that. We are stopping what the Labour government last allowed them
:44:12. > :44:16.to do, which was with the Independent treatment centres, they
:44:16. > :44:22.would cherry-picking care and were doing it in favour of the private
:44:22. > :44:26.sector at the expense of the NHS. We are banning that as well.
:44:26. > :44:28.30th anniversary of the Falkland Islands conflict is next month. On
:44:28. > :44:32.2nd April 1982, the ruling Argentinean military junta
:44:32. > :44:38.sanctioned the invasion and Britain went to war. 255 British soldiers,
:44:38. > :44:40.sailors and airmen lost their lives. As did more than 600 Argentineans.
:44:40. > :44:46.The two countries resumed diplomatic relations back in 1990
:44:46. > :44:49.but there are still tensions. And, in the last month, the British
:44:49. > :44:52.Government has sent military vessels - a destroyer and maybe
:44:52. > :44:57.even a submarine - to the South Atlantic to make sure our national
:44:57. > :45:03.interests are protected. All this to the fury of the present
:45:03. > :45:06.Argentinean Government. So, given all these tensions, would you bit a
:45:06. > :45:08.little surprised to know that Britain helps to fund hundreds of
:45:08. > :45:11.millions of pounds of aid to Argentina through the IMF? Joining
:45:11. > :45:21.me now is the former American Ambassador to the United Nations,
:45:21. > :45:25.
:45:25. > :45:35.Nancy Soderberg, who is over here The United States has recently
:45:35. > :45:36.
:45:36. > :45:42.started to vote, and we believe the UK in particular should lead Europe
:45:42. > :45:47.in joining the United States. Argentina is an irresponsible act
:45:47. > :45:51.that in the international scene, not just in the Falklands, but with
:45:51. > :45:57.its international creditors it has defaulted on millions of dollars,
:45:57. > :46:01.it will not pay, it is in a grey zone in anti-terrorism laws, and it
:46:02. > :46:11.is part of a way for the leadership in Argentina to deflect attention
:46:11. > :46:17.from its failure of leadership at home. The reason new one to put
:46:17. > :46:27.pressure on them is because it owes billions of dollars. A exactly, it
:46:27. > :46:28.
:46:28. > :46:33.has defaulted, paying 27 on the dollar which is unacceptable.
:46:33. > :46:38.this something you should do in terms of getting a deal? The deal
:46:38. > :46:42.is between Argentina and its creditors, but we are trying to
:46:42. > :46:46.make sure it plays its role internationally, including on its
:46:46. > :46:52.relationships with the anti- terrorism laws, it is repressing
:46:52. > :46:56.its own press, and we are trying to make sure American taxpayers do not
:46:56. > :47:01.go to support them. We need a majority of votes in the World Bank
:47:01. > :47:06.and we are hoping Britain will join America in this effort. Do you
:47:06. > :47:14.think Britain should? They are already slight tensions around the
:47:14. > :47:18.Falklands, whether there is foil or so forth, so if we do it could put
:47:18. > :47:24.us in a difficult position with Argentina. You mentioned the
:47:24. > :47:28.Falklands, but it is because of the tensions just outlined that Britain
:47:28. > :47:33.is unlikely to tread heavily in terms of putting more pressure on
:47:33. > :47:41.the Argentinian government. Right now it is cost-free for the
:47:41. > :47:48.Argentinian government to be wreaking havoc on the international
:47:48. > :47:58.roles. In my role as a negotiator, you can tread softly and not get it
:47:58. > :48:00.
:48:00. > :48:04.solved, or you can raise the cost for Argentina. The public may not
:48:04. > :48:09.like the fact that we are contributing money to Argentina.
:48:09. > :48:15.Yes, but I think the problem is there are these unresolved issues,
:48:15. > :48:23.people would take a step back from joining the US on this. If it came
:48:23. > :48:33.to it, would the Obama administration back Britain in a
:48:33. > :48:36.
:48:36. > :48:39.conflict with the Falklands? Yes, it always would. It is an ally.
:48:39. > :48:41.If you were watching the Sunday Politics at the weekend you will
:48:41. > :48:44.have seen an almighty bust up between the Conservative
:48:44. > :48:46.backbencher Philip Davies and the Liberal Democrat peer Matthew
:48:46. > :48:49.Oakeshott over the Governerment's plans for House of Lords reform.
:48:49. > :48:52.It's a totemic Liberal Democrat policy, and yesterday the Deputy
:48:52. > :48:55.Prime Minister Nick Clegg was in front of a joint committee of Lords
:48:55. > :48:57.and Commons defending his plans. Here he is, receiving a grilling
:48:57. > :49:07.from the former Education Secretary, who is now a Baroness, Gillian
:49:07. > :49:13.Shephard. I think the vast majority of people intuitively would accept
:49:13. > :49:17.that it should be people, not party political patronage, which
:49:17. > :49:22.determines who should sit in the House of Lords. The air has been no
:49:22. > :49:27.evidence whatsoever received supporting the claim that the
:49:27. > :49:33.privacy of the House of Commons will not be affected by having an
:49:33. > :49:37.elected House of Lords. I wonder if you would like to comment on that.
:49:37. > :49:42.The only evidence we have had supporting that argument has been
:49:42. > :49:49.most loyally from the minister. want to basically doing exactly
:49:49. > :49:53.what previous administrations have done, to allow that relationship to
:49:53. > :50:00.evolve on its own merits and not tried to predict it with any
:50:00. > :50:06.scientific precision. We have heard from Nick Clegg a lot about
:50:06. > :50:12.democracy and so on. I don't know that we have heard very much of the
:50:12. > :50:16.word accountability of those who would be elected with a 15 year
:50:16. > :50:23.non-renewable term to the second house. To many of us who have been
:50:23. > :50:30.elected, it would seem that there isn't much accountability in that.
:50:30. > :50:35.Whilst I totally accept one can argue almost indefinitely whether a
:50:35. > :50:40.shorter term, a longer term might be appropriate, I come back to the
:50:40. > :50:47.principle - is it better in a legislative chamber to give people
:50:47. > :50:52.at least some say then simply allow for the whole thing to remain in
:50:52. > :51:00.the clammy hands of a small number of individuals who happen to be the
:51:00. > :51:06.leaders of political parties? I am now joined by the
:51:06. > :51:12.constitutional affairs minister, welcome back to the programme. Why
:51:12. > :51:18.do you think so many backbenchers are against Lords reform? I do not
:51:18. > :51:23.accept your premise. The ring leaders, according to commentators,
:51:23. > :51:28.already have 81 people signed up to the cause. A There is very little
:51:28. > :51:35.evidence of that. Quite a lot of the new intake are keen on the
:51:35. > :51:39.reforms. A lot of these used people raised, like those that Gillian
:51:39. > :51:43.Shephard raised, we have thought about these issues, and set out a
:51:43. > :51:50.sensible set of proposals which the joint committee were scrutinising
:51:50. > :51:57.yesterday. Jessie Norman is the latest to speak out, saying
:51:57. > :52:01.focusing on selecting Lords would damage the diversity. He seemed the
:52:01. > :52:09.basic principle, which is those who make the laws should be chosen by
:52:09. > :52:16.the public, is a pretty straight forward 1 in a democratic country.
:52:16. > :52:23.The tears becoming a familiar phrase to say people don't care
:52:23. > :52:28.about it at all. This is one of the things the government will be
:52:28. > :52:34.focusing on, it is not the only one. The government can do a range of
:52:34. > :52:44.things. Looking at statistics from the 40s, the House of Lords were
:52:44. > :52:47.
:52:47. > :52:56.spending two days debating the but there reforms, in 1944 while our
:52:56. > :53:02.forces were fighting against Nazi tyranny. Are you one of those
:53:02. > :53:07.people clamouring to see them elected? I am not. I want to see a
:53:07. > :53:12.different way of doing things. You do get diversity, and people coming
:53:12. > :53:17.into the House of Lords, who, if it was elected, simply would not want
:53:18. > :53:26.to go through the hassle of an election. When it comes to local
:53:26. > :53:32.elections and electing people for European Parliament, the turnout is
:53:32. > :53:38.pitifully low. How many people will turn up on the day and vote? You
:53:38. > :53:48.might end up with a weaker body. 70% of people who sit in the House
:53:48. > :53:52.
:53:52. > :53:59.of Lords are already party politicians selected already. Many
:53:59. > :54:04.backbenchers are not affiliated to a party, and that his weight we say
:54:04. > :54:09.20% should retain, that that sort of people Nichola mentioned. We
:54:09. > :54:14.would be electing 80% of them. There are people who are there
:54:15. > :54:19.because they were a top doctor, the judge, or whatever it is. The truth
:54:19. > :54:24.is you have a bit of both. There are people who will affiliate them
:54:24. > :54:29.with the party, but if you have to put yourself up for election, I
:54:29. > :54:37.think a lot of those people wouldn't do it. If you look at the
:54:37. > :54:43.House of Commons... We have journalists, doctors, lawyers,
:54:43. > :54:47.bankers, teachers. The feel constrained, don't they, by the
:54:47. > :54:56.fact they are part of a political party and they have a career to
:54:56. > :55:01.further. The idea that everyone in the House of Lords, and there are
:55:01. > :55:07.over 800 Peers by the way, and it will not be long before there are
:55:07. > :55:11.1000, the idea that you don't have to do any reform I just don't think
:55:11. > :55:16.stands up to scrutiny. The or have been several instances in the last
:55:16. > :55:20.few months were they have rejected pieces of legislation and there are
:55:20. > :55:25.people in their not necessarily tied to a party, I think that is
:55:25. > :55:30.part of democracy, allowing them to have a voice. I agree, and that is
:55:30. > :55:36.why it our proposal is for 80% elected say you can still keep the
:55:36. > :55:40.group of people who bring something extra without the party dimension.
:55:41. > :55:47.If 80% were elected, it would be like the House of Commons. They
:55:47. > :55:52.would feel they had supremacy or equal billing with the House of
:55:52. > :55:56.Commons and there is a danger in that. The fact is, with the
:55:56. > :56:00.Parliament Act, the House of Commons ultimately can still get
:56:00. > :56:05.its own way. It may be that the House of Lords will be more
:56:05. > :56:11.assertive and the relationship will change over time, and that will
:56:11. > :56:15.strengthen Parliament as a whole. How will it restrain legislation?
:56:15. > :56:20.Mo as members of the public will probably think fewer pieces of
:56:20. > :56:23.legislation... Let's put it like this - if every problem could be
:56:23. > :56:31.solved by passing legislation, the legacy of the last government would
:56:31. > :56:35.be a much happier one than it was. We can debate about how many people
:56:35. > :56:40.are for this and against, but do you think they will adhere to the
:56:40. > :56:43.whip when it comes to a vote? we set out our proposals, after we
:56:43. > :56:50.have listened to what the joint committee has got to say, we can
:56:50. > :56:55.publish a draft bill, and I think the House of Commons will think
:56:55. > :57:03.this is a sensible reform. For the Liberal Democrats, this is a red
:57:04. > :57:09.line in the sound. This is Nick Clegg's passion. This was in the
:57:09. > :57:13.coalition agreement. I have to say, the House of Lords reform, it is
:57:13. > :57:21.fair to say the enthusiasm may not be as high in the Conservative
:57:21. > :57:27.Party, but it was in our manifesto in 2001, 2005, and 2010 service is
:57:27. > :57:31.not something that we haven't supported in the past. I accept it
:57:31. > :57:35.is more important of the Lib Dems but many Conservatives supported
:57:35. > :57:39.this when it was debated in the last parliament under Labour. I
:57:39. > :57:45.think we will get a lot of Conservatives supporting it. What
:57:45. > :57:51.about a threat from Matthew Oakeshott that they can kiss
:57:51. > :57:56.goodbye to boundary changes? He is a backbencher, and speaks for
:57:56. > :58:02.himself. He doesn't speak for his party. I have not heard that view
:58:02. > :58:07.shared widely, and Nick Clegg made it clear that was not the Liberal
:58:07. > :58:11.Democrats position. It doesn't worry you? I have the experience of
:58:11. > :58:15.taking through the legislation on the AV referendum and the
:58:15. > :58:21.boundaries, and my experience was that the Liberal Democrats were
:58:21. > :58:28.very solid at supporting the boundary changes against Labour
:58:28. > :58:37.filibustering so I think they will deliver their promise. Is David
:58:37. > :58:42.Cameron as dedicated almost as you? He said it would be government