Browse content similar to 28/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. So stand by for a | :00:42. | :00:48. | |
blast of bankers, badgers, beer and Borgen! Yes, the Government is | :00:48. | :00:51. | |
forcing one bank to pay back hundreds of millions of pounds in | :00:51. | :00:55. | |
tax it avoided perfectly legally. But can you, should you, close | :00:55. | :00:59. | |
these loopholes in hindsight? Bill Oddie tells us why we should be | :00:59. | :01:04. | |
protecting badgers rather than killing them to protect our cattle. | :01:04. | :01:07. | |
Fans of the Danish drama, Borgen, have seen a female Prime Minister | :01:07. | :01:12. | |
struggling to save her marriage and get home in time to see the kids. | :01:12. | :01:17. | |
But does life in politics necessarily entail such sacrifices? | :01:17. | :01:20. | |
And find out what happened next when this waiter got a bit too | :01:20. | :01:30. | |
:01:30. | :01:30. | ||
All that in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is | :01:30. | :01:35. | |
the investment fund manager, Nicola Horlick. So, if you have any | :01:35. | :01:37. | |
thoughts or comments on anything we're discussing then tweet your | :01:37. | :01:45. | |
comments. But first, late last night the police and bailiffs went | :01:45. | :01:48. | |
in to dismantle the Occupy London campsite outside St Pauls here in | :01:48. | :01:52. | |
London. 20 people were arrested as tents and equipment were removed | :01:52. | :01:55. | |
from the site. Demonstrators have been camped out there since mid- | :01:55. | :02:01. | |
October. In a statement, the City of London Corporation said that it | :02:01. | :02:05. | |
had nothing against free speech and protest. It is just the bedding and | :02:05. | :02:13. | |
tents that they could tolerate no more. Could you tolerate it no | :02:13. | :02:19. | |
more? I never understood why they were there. It was a little bizarre. | :02:20. | :02:23. | |
I felt at one stage we would be able to ask them why they were | :02:23. | :02:29. | |
there but had did not get around to it. Are they protesting against | :02:29. | :02:35. | |
capitalism? Communism did not work. I am not sure what the alternative | :02:35. | :02:40. | |
is. It is like what Churchill said about democracy - it is the best | :02:40. | :02:46. | |
you can come up with but it may not be perfect. They might have | :02:46. | :02:51. | |
appreciated you going down to talk to them about it. There is race | :02:51. | :02:57. | |
sense in some people's minds but it has taken a long time for them to | :02:57. | :03:04. | |
go. Do you feel it took too long? would have got rid of them sooner. | :03:04. | :03:14. | |
It was messy looking. St Paul's was a beautiful building. It was | :03:14. | :03:19. | |
stranger than fiction. Except, I suppose, it did chime in some | :03:19. | :03:27. | |
people's minds come up with some of the anti- capitalism feeling we are | :03:27. | :03:34. | |
going -- we are hearing about. whole communist thing collapsed | :03:34. | :03:39. | |
rather spectacularly. I have not noticed many people trying to go | :03:39. | :03:45. | |
back to that. What is the alternative? Capitalism should be | :03:45. | :03:50. | |
responsible capitalism rather than people diving for profit at every | :03:50. | :03:55. | |
opportunity. There are better ways of doing it than sitting outside St | :03:55. | :04:00. | |
Paul's Cathedral. In a democracy people have a right to do it. I | :04:00. | :04:08. | |
heard in the middle of the night a lot of the tents were empty. There | :04:08. | :04:12. | |
used to be a time that running a bank was a nice job for the | :04:12. | :04:15. | |
publicity shy. But no longer. There seems to be a story a day about | :04:15. | :04:18. | |
banks, bankers or bonuses. And today's is about Barclays and tax | :04:18. | :04:21. | |
avoidance. The bank is being forced by the Treasury to pay half a | :04:21. | :04:24. | |
billion pounds in tax it tried to avoid perfectly legally. The move | :04:24. | :04:26. | |
involves the unusual step of introducing retrospective | :04:26. | :04:29. | |
legislation to close down the loopholes. One involved the bank | :04:29. | :04:32. | |
buying back its own debt and not paying corporation tax on it, the | :04:32. | :04:36. | |
second involved investment funds trying to benefit from tax credits. | :04:36. | :04:38. | |
Barclays disclosed the schemes themselves under a code where banks | :04:38. | :04:41. | |
are obliged to inform the authorities of any seemingly legal | :04:41. | :04:51. | |
tax avoidance plan. The Treasury estimates changing the legislation | :04:51. | :04:53. | |
could bring in �2 billion of tax they would otherwise have lost. | :04:54. | :04:55. | |
Speaking earlier, Lord Oakeshott, the former Liberal Democrat | :04:56. | :05:03. | |
Treasury Spokesman, gave a cautious welcome to the move. I am glad the | :05:03. | :05:08. | |
Treasury has done this. It has taken them a long time. Four years | :05:08. | :05:13. | |
ago I was using parliamentary privilege in the laws to expose | :05:13. | :05:21. | |
enormous tax avoidance operations by Barclays all over the world. | :05:21. | :05:25. | |
Barclays tax avoidance factory at Canary Wharf is the most productive | :05:25. | :05:35. | |
:05:35. | :05:36. | ||
system in history. It is highly abusive and highly aggressive. We | :05:36. | :05:41. | |
have �38 billion in a tax scam in this country. A large extent could | :05:41. | :05:47. | |
be closed if the Treasury got tough with large-scale tax avoidance by | :05:47. | :05:52. | |
people like Barclays. The Editor of City AM, Alistair Heath, joins us | :05:52. | :05:59. | |
now. What do you say to that? Treasury is right to shut down | :05:59. | :06:05. | |
their schemes. I cannot see why they exist. It defies belief. I | :06:05. | :06:09. | |
have a big issue with the weight it is done and a language they are | :06:09. | :06:16. | |
using. It is a retrospective change in the tax code. When you do that | :06:16. | :06:20. | |
you open the floodgates to all sorts of problems and probably give | :06:20. | :06:24. | |
too much authority to the tax authorities to change tax codes and | :06:24. | :06:30. | |
tax laws. In the past that has caught a lot of people who have | :06:30. | :06:35. | |
behaved illegally and then suddenly they have to pay more tax. What is | :06:35. | :06:40. | |
wrong with that retrospective element in terms of banks and tax | :06:40. | :06:46. | |
avoidance? As far as the public is concerned, there would be two | :06:46. | :06:53. | |
cheers. I agree with the ethics of it. Once you start changing things | :06:53. | :06:58. | |
retrospectively, where do you stop? Do you change the general public's | :06:58. | :07:02. | |
tax schemes retrospectively? Do you decide that all sorts of things | :07:02. | :07:07. | |
that used to be allowed and that law-abiding sister then -- citizens | :07:07. | :07:15. | |
used to do, suddenly you change the tax code retrospectively? I do not | :07:15. | :07:20. | |
think that is right. The tax code is much too complex. Some people | :07:20. | :07:26. | |
pay more tax than others. It is completed wrong and needs to change. | :07:26. | :07:36. | |
:07:36. | :07:37. | ||
I am not sure that retrospective tax code changes are the answer. | :07:37. | :07:39. | |
With us now is the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, and his | :07:39. | :07:44. | |
Shadow, Labour's Owen Smith. Are the public at risk of being hit | :07:44. | :07:50. | |
from this? We should only use retrospective legislation in | :07:50. | :07:54. | |
exceptional circumstances. Alastair is right that there are questions | :07:54. | :07:59. | |
about stability that are being raised. There are exceptional | :07:59. | :08:04. | |
circumstances with regard to one of the schemes. It was engaged in by a | :08:04. | :08:08. | |
bank that had signed the code of practice, saying it would not | :08:08. | :08:12. | |
engage in this type of scheme. It is specifically in an area where | :08:12. | :08:17. | |
the previous government had made announcements in 2009, change the | :08:17. | :08:21. | |
legislation in 2010, and said we do not want this. What had happened | :08:21. | :08:25. | |
was is keen other similar to something that had been closed down | :08:25. | :08:29. | |
in the past. It sounds like it is something the last Labour | :08:29. | :08:35. | |
government could have been on top of. We sought to legislate in 2009 | :08:35. | :08:40. | |
to outlaw precisely this issue. The problem is that Barclays found a | :08:40. | :08:47. | |
way to get around these specific clauses that we put in the built in | :08:47. | :08:51. | |
2009 and and acted in 2010, by fiddling with the way in which they | :08:51. | :08:59. | |
were accounting. -- enacted. It was a further Dodge they put into the | :08:59. | :09:03. | |
system. The only reason we know about this is because other | :09:03. | :09:11. | |
legislation that Labour made in 2002. Do you think there is a back | :09:11. | :09:15. | |
to restart industry of tax avoidance by but his macro and | :09:15. | :09:24. | |
other banks? A lot of people are trying to minimise tax for | :09:24. | :09:29. | |
companies and clients. The general trend in recent years, although | :09:29. | :09:34. | |
public attention has got stronger Inez, is that HMRC has become | :09:34. | :09:39. | |
increasingly effective enclosing this down. The closure of tax | :09:39. | :09:44. | |
avoidance schemes has been good. We are making a lot of progress but | :09:44. | :09:50. | |
sometimes we need to be tough. avoidance is perfectly legal. The | :09:50. | :09:54. | |
rhetoric that has been used by the Government and politicians is | :09:54. | :10:00. | |
really not appropriate. In my view, it is not. When you invest in a | :10:00. | :10:06. | |
company, let's remember who owns Barclays. It is our country's | :10:06. | :10:11. | |
savings which are invested in a company like Barclays. They have a | :10:11. | :10:17. | |
duty to shareholders to mitigate tax - legally of course. There is | :10:17. | :10:21. | |
nothing wrong with putting in place schemes that allow you to do that | :10:21. | :10:26. | |
legally. That means they have more profit to distribute. In our | :10:26. | :10:31. | |
country, 50% of profits are paid out to shareholders in dividends. | :10:31. | :10:35. | |
The dividends are taxed and individuals spend the money and pay | :10:35. | :10:39. | |
VAT when they spend it. At corporate tax level you'll capture | :10:39. | :10:47. | |
it later. In my view it is a bit of a fuss. It is really important we | :10:47. | :10:51. | |
have a competitive tax environment. There are some stories about | :10:51. | :10:56. | |
businesses and tax that is scaremongering. For most businesses | :10:56. | :11:02. | |
that pay tax which is due, they do tax planning and do not engage with | :11:02. | :11:07. | |
very aggressive abusive tax avoidance schemes. They are placed | :11:07. | :11:12. | |
at a competitive disadvantage. We need to do something about | :11:12. | :11:17. | |
businesses that are more aggressive. It is levelling the playing field. | :11:17. | :11:22. | |
We want businesses to pay their fair share. We do want the tax | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
environment which is as predictable and competitive as possible. That | :11:26. | :11:31. | |
is what we are trying to do. Is it right to make it retrospective? | :11:31. | :11:36. | |
They were in breach of the spirit of the law. I shared the concerns | :11:36. | :11:43. | |
of the Prime Minister in that there are an Army of fancy lawyers | :11:43. | :11:53. | |
:11:53. | :11:53. | ||
employed to avoid tax. It is a cultural issue. I think, very often, | :11:53. | :11:59. | |
and this case illustrates the fact, there are very fine lines between | :11:59. | :12:04. | |
tax-planning Cammack aggressive tax planning, tax avoidance and tax | :12:04. | :12:10. | |
evasion. They need to resource HMRC properly. There is a gap between | :12:10. | :12:17. | |
the rhetoric and the reality. They are cutting numbers in HMRC and | :12:17. | :12:21. | |
resources. For the first time, it came to the Spending Review in 2010, | :12:21. | :12:25. | |
we identified spending on dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance | :12:25. | :12:32. | |
and put more money in. What is the overall budget? It has gone down by | :12:32. | :12:37. | |
2 billion. The number of taxmen has gone down by 10,000. If you look at | :12:37. | :12:43. | |
the decrees under the last Labour government it was a lot more. | :12:43. | :12:48. | |
the priority, why aren't to spending more money on it? A lot of | :12:48. | :12:54. | |
the work of the HMRC is processing paperwork. Some of that money we | :12:54. | :13:04. | |
:13:04. | :13:06. | ||
are planning back into HMRC so there are more stories about | :13:06. | :13:06. | |
taskforce teams focusing on particular areas and we are | :13:06. | :13:11. | |
strengthening the capability. Our record on tackling tax evasion and | :13:11. | :13:17. | |
tax avoidance is a good one. Can I just come to this other point? The | :13:17. | :13:21. | |
Public Accounts Committee, and perhaps you can help us with the | :13:21. | :13:27. | |
figure, says �25 billion of money is going unaccounted for. Do you | :13:28. | :13:34. | |
recognise that figure? I do recognise that figure. It is gone. | :13:34. | :13:40. | |
It is not from tax-avoidance? the assessment made by the HMRC. It | :13:40. | :13:46. | |
is a snapshot that Esmonde of the potential risk before they look at | :13:46. | :13:56. | |
:13:56. | :13:57. | ||
particular areas. As for total avoidance, the HMRC assessment, and | :13:57. | :14:01. | |
for the last year we have, it is about 7 billion on avoidance. That | :14:01. | :14:06. | |
was under the last Labour government. We think we're getting | :14:06. | :14:14. | |
at number down. No system in the world eliminates it. Our forecast | :14:14. | :14:18. | |
with the extra investment, we will be getting an extra �700 billion a | :14:18. | :14:24. | |
year in additional yield because of the money we are putting into HMRC. | :14:24. | :14:28. | |
Do you think there should be sanctions or banks like Barclays? | :14:28. | :14:33. | |
The rhetoric is quite strong. We talk about aggressive tax avoidance | :14:33. | :14:39. | |
and abuses. Why should the Government not introduce sanctions? | :14:39. | :14:45. | |
Did he say 700 billion extra a year. I said we are putting in 900 | :14:45. | :14:52. | |
million extra which will generate 7 billion a year. Labour collected 11 | :14:52. | :15:02. | |
:15:02. | :15:04. | ||
billion him 2008, 2009. To write think sanctions are a good idea? | :15:04. | :15:09. | |
Yes. -- do I think? If they are going to introduce an anti- | :15:09. | :15:13. | |
avoidance rule in the Budget, will at have the teeth the rules have | :15:13. | :15:19. | |
elsewhere? Penalties and charges that might be introduced or will it | :15:19. | :15:26. | |
be toothless? Will it be toothless or will you look at it? As the | :15:27. | :15:32. | |
sanctions, with this particular case, we have close it down. We | :15:32. | :15:36. | |
have retrospective legislation. We will look to see what house needs | :15:37. | :15:43. | |
to be done. There has not been a breach of the law. The Labour | :15:43. | :15:46. | |
spokesman said there should be sanctions and the Government is not | :15:46. | :15:56. | |
:15:56. | :15:57. | ||
At the moment we don't have sanctions, and something illegal | :15:57. | :16:02. | |
has been changed retrospectively in this case. The tax system is too | :16:02. | :16:07. | |
complicated, there are so many loopholes, and HMRC just running | :16:07. | :16:13. | |
around trying to close the loopholes. The buying back of debt, | :16:13. | :16:17. | |
which Barclays did, was reported several months ago so everybody | :16:17. | :16:22. | |
knew about it but it took several months for anything to happen. We | :16:22. | :16:26. | |
are not fixing the core problem, a corporate tax system that does not | :16:27. | :16:31. | |
work properly. It is too complicated and it needs to be | :16:31. | :16:39. | |
reformed. The thank you. Hands up, who has heard of Helle | :16:39. | :16:42. | |
Thorning-Schmidt and Birgitte Nyborg? The first one is the real | :16:42. | :16:46. | |
Prime Minister of Denmark, and the other is the fictional star of | :16:46. | :16:56. | |
:16:56. | :17:04. | ||
Borgen, which has proved to be a big hit drama in Westminster. | :17:04. | :17:09. | |
This is the latest drama to come out of Denmark. Borgen is all about | :17:09. | :17:14. | |
the compromises made by female politician Birgitte Nyborg who | :17:14. | :17:19. | |
rises to the top to become Prime Minister and the pressure it puts | :17:19. | :17:23. | |
on family life. I may not be Prime Minister, but as a mother working | :17:23. | :17:29. | |
in Westminster sometimes I know how she feels. But what is the answer? | :17:29. | :17:34. | |
That key is flexible working, and senior management accepting it is | :17:34. | :17:38. | |
not a soft thing to do, it is valuable, and would benefit the | :17:38. | :17:45. | |
company. There are still ingrained sexist attitudes. Senior managers | :17:45. | :17:52. | |
look to appoint people like them, and that turns to be male, pale, | :17:52. | :17:59. | |
stale. The men outnumber women four to one in Westminster and only five | :17:59. | :18:05. | |
of the 23 Cabinet ministers are female. In business, only 14% of | :18:05. | :18:12. | |
directors on FT-SE 100 boards are women. Is there anything we can do | :18:12. | :18:16. | |
about it? David Cameron has said he wants a third of his ministers to | :18:16. | :18:20. | |
be women by the end of this Parliament, but on occasion he has | :18:20. | :18:25. | |
run into trouble with his choice of language in the Commons. A calm | :18:25. | :18:35. | |
:18:35. | :18:35. | ||
down, dear. Calm down, listen to the doctor. 37 of the 49 female | :18:36. | :18:41. | |
Tory MPs has joined together to form the new Conservative Women's | :18:41. | :18:47. | |
Forum to hand back the Prime Minister. Andrea is one of them, a | :18:47. | :18:51. | |
former high-flyer in banking and finance, now conquering the world | :18:51. | :19:01. | |
:19:01. | :19:05. | ||
of Westminster. The accused --PMQs is not a great advertisement for | :19:05. | :19:13. | |
Westminster. Is politics stellar career you would encourage other | :19:13. | :19:19. | |
women to going to? It is demanding of your time and it pins you down | :19:19. | :19:24. | |
because you need to be there when the vote is called and not when it | :19:24. | :19:29. | |
is convenient to your private life. This is one of the most satisfying | :19:29. | :19:39. | |
:19:39. | :19:40. | ||
roles there are out there. lesson from Borgen is that women | :19:40. | :19:45. | |
can't seem to have at all. Birgitte Nyborg may have made it to the | :19:45. | :19:50. | |
equivalent of Denmark's Number 10, but only at the cost of her family | :19:50. | :19:56. | |
life. Maybe things are getting better, and some of us can start to | :19:56. | :20:06. | |
:20:06. | :20:06. | ||
call the shots. Andrew, a cup of tea with sugar. So certainly, one | :20:06. | :20:11. | |
lump or two. I'm joined now by Labour's Nia Griffith and the | :20:11. | :20:15. | |
Conservative Nadine Dorries. The main point of Borgen is that women | :20:15. | :20:20. | |
can't have it tall. Is it possible to hold down a high-powered job, | :20:20. | :20:24. | |
spend proper time with your children during the week, and have | :20:24. | :20:30. | |
a successful marriage? The view look at the Cabinet, the answer to | :20:30. | :20:37. | |
your question is no. In the Cabinet now, there are five women, three of | :20:37. | :20:41. | |
those are either childless or wealthy. It seems you have to be | :20:41. | :20:45. | |
one or the other. Looking at the Labour Cabinet of the past, | :20:45. | :20:52. | |
Margaret Beckett, Baroness Amos, Hazel Blears, the list goes on and | :20:52. | :20:58. | |
on, they are all childless. The exceptions are women who were | :20:58. | :21:05. | |
healthy before they came into politics or have a wealthy partner. | :21:05. | :21:11. | |
If you are wealthy or childless, unless you are those it seems | :21:11. | :21:17. | |
impossible to get on in politics. Do you agree? It is very difficult. | :21:17. | :21:24. | |
If you look at the generation who came in in 2005 compared to 2010, | :21:24. | :21:29. | |
either they have children who are grown up they are beginning to make | :21:29. | :21:36. | |
a career, I would add that to the group mentioned, but we need to | :21:36. | :21:40. | |
change the structure so it is easier to come in earlier. When | :21:40. | :21:46. | |
they are younger you mean? Absolutely. It seems to me the key | :21:46. | :21:52. | |
is of the hours. If the hours were different, if you look for example | :21:52. | :21:58. | |
at the Welsh Assembly, even at the Scottish parliament, the hours | :21:58. | :22:03. | |
seemed to be more conducive to women with young families. It is | :22:03. | :22:08. | |
not just their hours, it is that now there has been a massive focus | :22:08. | :22:13. | |
on the constituency and that is because of media and other reasons. | :22:13. | :22:17. | |
The working week for a politician is Monday to Thursday night in | :22:17. | :22:21. | |
Parliament, then Thursday night back to your constituency, Friday | :22:21. | :22:30. | |
and Saturday in your constituency. That is about 15 hours a week, then | :22:30. | :22:40. | |
you have your constituency, that is like two full-time jobs, being a | :22:40. | :22:46. | |
mother is like a full-time job as well. But should it change? Is it | :22:46. | :22:52. | |
desirable to have a lot more? There are 22 female MPs in the House of | :22:52. | :23:00. | |
Commons. Do we need to have double that? It would be ideal to have a | :23:00. | :23:09. | |
50/50 split, but if we split Westminster it is impossible | :23:09. | :23:14. | |
because you have to come to London for most of the week. The air at | :23:15. | :23:24. | |
:23:25. | :23:25. | ||
economic arguments being put forward to say it makes better | :23:25. | :23:30. | |
business sense to have women put on the boards, do you agree with that? | :23:30. | :23:34. | |
Yes, but travelling a lot and bringing up children as well, it is | :23:35. | :23:39. | |
incredibly difficult. We have not found a way for men to have babies | :23:39. | :23:46. | |
yet, so I don't think we will ever be in a position where we have | :23:46. | :23:50. | |
50/50 in politics or business. Scandinavian it is held up as this | :23:50. | :23:56. | |
model. They have introduced a law. It is only public companies and | :23:56. | :24:01. | |
state companies, so if you have a private business you don't have to | :24:01. | :24:07. | |
have 40% women. Sure that be a start? That could make the | :24:07. | :24:14. | |
difference here. I am not in favour of quotas. The opportunity for | :24:14. | :24:18. | |
women should be there if they want to do these jobs. A lot of them | :24:18. | :24:24. | |
don't, at the end of the day. vouch for that. I went into a | :24:24. | :24:29. | |
sixth-form college recently, and it was like asking who wanted to be a | :24:29. | :24:35. | |
car mechanic. Politics is ugly, boring, they are not attracted to | :24:35. | :24:41. | |
politics. That is because there are not enough role models. If there | :24:41. | :24:47. | |
was a change... A Margaret Thatcher was a pretty good role model. | :24:47. | :24:54. | |
is only one person. If ladies like you persuaded them it was a good | :24:54. | :25:00. | |
option, would they think it was a positive option to do? It is the | :25:00. | :25:05. | |
chicken and the egg. If we put in quotas as well as role models, that | :25:05. | :25:10. | |
is very important for young people, but by having women in the | :25:10. | :25:14. | |
organisation's you change the way they work. The worst culprits are | :25:14. | :25:19. | |
the corporates, and even universities in this country. There | :25:19. | :25:22. | |
is an assumption that you are property of the company and that | :25:22. | :25:28. | |
you will do as they wish, and the family will follow. That is not | :25:28. | :25:36. | |
very easy for any woman to persuade her husband to follow. Where there | :25:36. | :25:40. | |
are opportunities in their own towns, as in many continental | :25:40. | :25:47. | |
settings, they can rise to the top more easily. There is a very | :25:47. | :25:51. | |
obvious fact about women in politics - if you are at a single | :25:51. | :25:55. | |
mother in the North of England and you want to be a politician and | :25:55. | :26:00. | |
exist without partner on an MP's salary, it would be impossible. A | :26:00. | :26:06. | |
whole group of women are excluded before they even start. The you | :26:06. | :26:14. | |
mentioned the personal, the set-up at home, the assumption that if a | :26:14. | :26:24. | |
child is ill they will call the woman before her partner. Look at | :26:24. | :26:29. | |
Yvette Cooper's situation, her partner is also in politics. If you | :26:29. | :26:34. | |
look at the Women in politics who do have children, either there | :26:34. | :26:39. | |
husbands are with them in Parliament or they are in the Home | :26:39. | :26:44. | |
Counties. There is always a unique situation of support that enabled | :26:44. | :26:52. | |
them to be there. Should women be shortlisted. It is demeaning. I | :26:52. | :26:56. | |
could not hold my head up knowing the reason I got there is that men | :26:56. | :27:06. | |
:27:06. | :27:08. | ||
were excluded from competing with me for that role. 27% of people in | :27:08. | :27:15. | |
the last government were women, we are now 32%. It has gone up. They | :27:15. | :27:20. | |
have promoted certain candidates, and the Lib Dems have gone down | :27:20. | :27:24. | |
because they didn't have the system. I'm afraid it is still necessary. | :27:24. | :27:32. | |
The idea now that 40% of members of the board should be women, given a | :27:32. | :27:36. | |
certain running period, and if not they will have to do something more | :27:36. | :27:41. | |
formal about it, at least we are seeing a move forward. If we don't | :27:41. | :27:49. | |
have targets, it will not happen automatically. We always tend to | :27:49. | :27:53. | |
appoint people who look like ourselves, and that is the same in | :27:53. | :27:57. | |
politics as it is in business. Let's have a look at one senior | :27:57. | :28:04. | |
politician in Europe, who I thought dealt with this crisis rather well. | :28:04. | :28:11. | |
Look at Angela Merkel, watched the waiter behind her. The rest of | :28:11. | :28:16. | |
Libya disappears, as you will see, down her neck. I don't know what | :28:16. | :28:22. | |
you would have done if that had happened. She flicked her hair, | :28:22. | :28:28. | |
then back to the conversation. What would you have done if somebody | :28:28. | :28:34. | |
tipped beer down your neck? I would have screamed. Keeping cool is | :28:34. | :28:42. | |
always the best answer. She is used to being in the public eye, she has | :28:42. | :28:47. | |
a camera following her, she will not be jumping up and screaming. | :28:47. | :28:50. | |
Angela Merkel has done pretty well compared to Margaret Thatcher, | :28:50. | :28:58. | |
hasn't she? Yes, that is great, she has done well. Should women give | :28:58. | :29:08. | |
:29:08. | :29:15. | ||
other women allege got to help them on to boards? -- a leg up. If there | :29:15. | :29:19. | |
is a good woman candidate, he she should be given a chance. | :29:19. | :29:23. | |
Everything should be equal. One of the problems is the queen bee | :29:23. | :29:29. | |
syndrome, where often you get a woman's at the top who pushes a lot | :29:29. | :29:32. | |
of the other women down. He you could say that happens in | :29:32. | :29:38. | |
broadcasting as well as politics. There is also this element that | :29:38. | :29:42. | |
meant employee like minded people because they want people whom they | :29:42. | :29:47. | |
can relate to more easily. Does that happen in business? A most | :29:47. | :29:51. | |
businesses where you get a stereotypical person don't do that | :29:51. | :29:58. | |
well. The best teams have diversity in all its senses, and they are the | :29:58. | :30:03. | |
companies that do best. They have actually given it some thought, | :30:03. | :30:07. | |
they have thought we need different people and that is why they are | :30:07. | :30:12. | |
able to do better. You have to accept that politics is very unique, | :30:12. | :30:16. | |
there is no other job like it and it is incredibly difficult if you | :30:16. | :30:26. | |
Now to kill or not to kill, that's the question. Quite important if | :30:26. | :30:31. | |
you are a badger. The Government is preparing for trial culls in | :30:31. | :30:33. | |
Gloucestershire and Somerset in an attempt to control bovine TB, and | :30:33. | :30:36. | |
culling badgers in areas of high infection, it is claimed, does have | :30:36. | :30:39. | |
an effect on the disease. In 2010, the Government says 25,000 cattle | :30:39. | :30:43. | |
were destroyed after contracting the disease. But the Badger Trust | :30:43. | :30:46. | |
and Humane Society are all raising objections, with some scientific | :30:46. | :30:49. | |
support, about how efficient the cull would be, and indeed if it | :30:49. | :30:54. | |
doesn't spread the disease wider. Giles is outside Parliament with | :30:54. | :31:02. | |
two interested parties. I will introduce them in a moment. | :31:02. | :31:12. | |
Dementia and the figure of 25,000 but what cold in 2010. -- you | :31:12. | :31:20. | |
mentioned. Let me introduce Bill oddly, Simon Hart, Conservative MP. | :31:20. | :31:26. | |
That is a lot of money, a lot of cattle - animals being killed. Does | :31:26. | :31:35. | |
that justify culling badgers? You will not find a single | :31:35. | :31:39. | |
conservationist who will not have sympathy with farmers. More than | :31:40. | :31:45. | |
that they will be looking to co- operate with farmers. We depend on | :31:45. | :31:54. | |
it. Owl what life does. What are you saying? -- hour wildlife. There | :31:54. | :32:03. | |
is no evidence to suggest the disease will go away. How can we | :32:03. | :32:10. | |
improve the situation? In our view, there should be an inoculation | :32:10. | :32:19. | |
programme. That is possible. It has been down in some areas. Or, the | :32:19. | :32:25. | |
alternative, is to shoot them. I find that strangely unacceptable. | :32:25. | :32:31. | |
Let's get to the point. DEFRA says if you go through the trial Coles, | :32:31. | :32:37. | |
you might reduce the disease by 15%. It does not sound very much. The | :32:37. | :32:44. | |
methodology chosen seems to suggest it might push the disease elsewhere, | :32:44. | :32:49. | |
as contain it. We are not looking at this in isolation. We are | :32:49. | :32:55. | |
looking at vaccines, better cattle Movement. We are looking at these | :32:55. | :32:59. | |
different options. There is no single cure for this particular | :32:59. | :33:07. | |
disease. This is one part of the complicated jigsaw. I think 12% to | :33:07. | :33:12. | |
15% is better than nothing. We can do a lot better. We have looked at | :33:13. | :33:18. | |
every other possible option. No one wants to do this. We have explored | :33:18. | :33:24. | |
every option and taken better revise that this is the only way to | :33:24. | :33:31. | |
nail the disease once and for all. You are asking them to rethink. The | :33:31. | :33:35. | |
fact of the matter is there would be no justification they could be | :33:35. | :33:42. | |
viewed in the way you could support become a badgers. Not unless people | :33:42. | :33:48. | |
were literally dying. It is complete nonsense. It does bother | :33:48. | :33:54. | |
me a great deal. If you think about it, when you say shoot them, how | :33:54. | :33:59. | |
will you shoot them? How do you shoot a badger? It is an | :33:59. | :34:04. | |
interesting comparison with the previous wildlife management debate | :34:04. | :34:10. | |
we had. It is possible. You can feed them into areas and have | :34:10. | :34:18. | |
trained marksmen using rifles. sufficient numbers? Absolutely! It | :34:18. | :34:23. | |
needs to be a combined approach to make this work. We are talking | :34:23. | :34:29. | |
about hundreds of millions of pounds devoted to this so far. We | :34:29. | :34:36. | |
have to go down this route, in conjunction with other things. | :34:36. | :34:44. | |
is reducing it to the level of a sport. It is misrepresenting the | :34:44. | :34:49. | |
position. You have no excuse to carry it on. We are going to do | :34:49. | :34:59. | |
this, we are going to do that. have one point. On top of this, the | :34:59. | :35:08. | |
farmers who do support it, they are going to have to pay for its. | :35:08. | :35:13. | |
Absolutely. Farmers are absolutely desperate to make progress on this. | :35:13. | :35:19. | |
Nobody wants to do this. Nobody is taking pleasure from this. People | :35:19. | :35:24. | |
have very heavy hearts. It is one part of a broad mix to solve a | :35:24. | :35:31. | |
problem. It is not just about cattle, it is about badgers as well. | :35:31. | :35:37. | |
They seem to not care about the fact about TB is rife. Are you | :35:37. | :35:46. | |
making light of it? I am not making light of it at all. I care about it. | :35:46. | :35:51. | |
I find the process involved, in shooting badgers, is nothing like | :35:51. | :35:57. | |
as simple as you say. They are amongst the most timid creatures we | :35:57. | :36:03. | |
have. Thousands of millions of people love badgers. It is a | :36:03. | :36:09. | |
marvellous occasion. I will leave you to keep debating it. It will go | :36:09. | :36:15. | |
on and on. That is the issue. They have not started culling yet. It | :36:15. | :36:21. | |
looks as though there will be some good temps to stop it going ahead | :36:21. | :36:28. | |
at all. -- attempts. I would vaccinate the cattle. Because of | :36:28. | :36:34. | |
the various issues we have had with meat and Food, people shy away from | :36:34. | :36:40. | |
that because of those issues. seems there will be yet more | :36:40. | :36:42. | |
officially sanctioned changes to the Health Bill that is currently | :36:42. | :36:45. | |
going through the House of Lords. Yesterday, Nick Clegg co-wrote a | :36:45. | :36:48. | |
letter with Baroness Williams to all Lib Dem peers and MPs, setting | :36:48. | :36:52. | |
out the amendments he wants to see in the Bill. In the letter, they | :36:52. | :36:54. | |
write that the bill is now undoubtedly a better Bill because | :36:54. | :36:59. | |
of the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg and Baroness Williams go on | :36:59. | :37:03. | |
to write, we want to rule out beyond doubt any threat of a US | :37:03. | :37:06. | |
style market in the NHS. The Deputy Prime Minister supports five final | :37:06. | :37:09. | |
changes to the Bill, including insulating the NHS from the full | :37:09. | :37:12. | |
force of competition law and making the watchdog, Monitor, to require | :37:12. | :37:18. | |
Foundation Trusts to put patients first. It is understood Mr Clegg | :37:18. | :37:20. | |
discussed the letter with the Prime Minister and Downing Street said | :37:20. | :37:23. | |
the changes were not significant amendments and they are areas where | :37:23. | :37:28. | |
reassurance is required. However, critics point to a potentially | :37:28. | :37:30. | |
stormy Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in March where the NHS | :37:30. | :37:34. | |
could dominate the agenda. Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Andy | :37:34. | :37:37. | |
Burnham argued the letter was stage managed and part of a face saving | :37:37. | :37:43. | |
exercise for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. With me in the | :37:43. | :37:50. | |
studio now is the Health Minister, Simon Burns. Do you agree the Bill | :37:50. | :37:55. | |
is better because of the Liberal Democrats? The Bill is better | :37:55. | :37:59. | |
because of the Liberal Democrats and a host of other people as well. | :37:59. | :38:03. | |
We said at the Independent Future Forum which went had and consulted | :38:03. | :38:08. | |
with the health service. We have been listening to everyone | :38:08. | :38:13. | |
interested and concerned about health. Through an amalgamation of | :38:13. | :38:19. | |
fees from a variety of sources, the Bill has been approved and | :38:19. | :38:22. | |
strengthened. You are giving into further demands from the Deputy | :38:22. | :38:27. | |
Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, on competition. We have got to a place | :38:27. | :38:32. | |
now where we believe the Bill is in the right place - where we are | :38:32. | :38:38. | |
giving protections with regard to competition. We are seeking where | :38:38. | :38:44. | |
reassurances are needed. We will provide those reassurances. | :38:44. | :38:50. | |
changes would tighten the rules on competition, insulate it from | :38:50. | :38:55. | |
competition and place extra safeguards on the private income | :38:55. | :39:01. | |
that foundation hospitals can earn. Those are changes. Can I pick out | :39:01. | :39:07. | |
one thing? There was never any intention for a US style insurance | :39:07. | :39:13. | |
system. You will see that in clause one of the bill. It is about a | :39:13. | :39:19. | |
health service free at the point of use. That has always been the | :39:19. | :39:25. | |
intention. So, it is an orchestrated attempt by Nick Clegg? | :39:25. | :39:35. | |
Nick Clegg does have some MPs, some peers, but also appears -- people | :39:35. | :39:38. | |
be on the Parliamentary Party who are concerned. They need | :39:39. | :39:44. | |
reassurances and clarification. During the continuing progress of | :39:44. | :39:49. | |
the Bill, we will seek to give those assurances and clarifications. | :39:49. | :39:56. | |
These amendments are not significant? We have 136 amendments | :39:56. | :40:01. | |
that the Government tabled that were as a result of the | :40:01. | :40:03. | |
recommendations the Independent Future Forum made an also | :40:03. | :40:07. | |
discussions that have been ongoing with Liberal Democrat crossbench | :40:07. | :40:13. | |
and Labour peers to find ways of improving that bill. If it is | :40:13. | :40:18. | |
insignificant, why has Nick Clegg got to write to his MPs to try to | :40:18. | :40:23. | |
say he has some concessions? will continue to give reassurances | :40:23. | :40:28. | |
and clarification where it is needed. In terms of support, if it | :40:28. | :40:33. | |
turns out that none of the Royal Colleges support the Bill, will do | :40:33. | :40:38. | |
go ahead? We believe the NHS is an evolutionary body that has to | :40:38. | :40:43. | |
evolve to meet new challenges. We will be pressing ahead with it. | :40:43. | :40:48. | |
There has been a lot of confusion over the last 24 hours as to which | :40:48. | :40:52. | |
were at college is or is not supporting the Bill and a lot of | :40:52. | :40:58. | |
factual inaccuracies. You have already lost the support of the | :40:58. | :41:04. | |
Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and the | :41:04. | :41:14. | |
:41:14. | :41:15. | ||
Royal College of GPs. If you lose, and it looks IQ will lose almost | :41:15. | :41:15. | |
everybody except for the obstetricians and gynaecologists, | :41:15. | :41:21. | |
is it really acceptable for the Government to move ahead? The Royal | :41:21. | :41:25. | |
College of Surgeons Support the Bill. They continue to support the | :41:25. | :41:32. | |
Bill. The members do not. If you just let me finish. Under the rules | :41:32. | :41:36. | |
and the constitution of the Royal College of Surgeons, 25 surgeons or | :41:36. | :41:42. | |
members can call for an emergency general meeting. 31 out of 18,000 | :41:42. | :41:47. | |
members have called for an emergency meeting. There will be | :41:47. | :41:51. | |
one under their constitution. It will not be to withdraw support for | :41:51. | :41:56. | |
the bill. They, like us, no it is important for patients that the | :41:56. | :42:01. | |
reforms go ahead. You said they are not going to withdraw whatever | :42:01. | :42:05. | |
happens at that meeting. They will still support the Bill. You are | :42:05. | :42:13. | |
happy to go ahead with that. There is other areas one needs to look at. | :42:13. | :42:19. | |
For example, 95% of England is covered by clinical commissioning | :42:19. | :42:24. | |
groups. GPs are now becoming involved in commissioning care for | :42:24. | :42:30. | |
their patients. When I talk to them, they are coming to fully appreciate | :42:30. | :42:33. | |
the independence and power they have to be able to put patients at | :42:33. | :42:38. | |
the forefront of commissioning care for them. They are welcoming that | :42:38. | :42:47. | |
extra power. Nicola Horlick, what is your view? I am not a lay person. | :42:47. | :42:53. | |
I am on the board of a Foundation's trust hospital. I have had a lot to | :42:53. | :42:59. | |
do with all of this from the sharp end. My view is it is a good thing | :43:00. | :43:05. | |
to remove bureaucracy, which is what will happen. I think it is | :43:05. | :43:10. | |
broadly right he should have practitioners involved. That is a | :43:10. | :43:14. | |
good thing. What we have been concerned about is the whole | :43:14. | :43:20. | |
competition angle. The fear is you will get bodies coming in from | :43:20. | :43:24. | |
outside, who will then cherry-pick bits of business from the NHS which | :43:24. | :43:30. | |
might be the most profitable pits. They will only be interested in the | :43:30. | :43:36. | |
profitable pits. That is where the concern comes from. It needs to | :43:36. | :43:44. | |
have all its business within the NHS to make it viable. What do you | :43:44. | :43:49. | |
say to that specific accusation? can appreciate the concern and I | :43:49. | :43:55. | |
think I can reassure her. On the face of the bill, we have enshrined | :43:55. | :43:59. | |
in the legislation that private companies will not be allowed to | :43:59. | :44:04. | |
cherry pick because we think that is wrong. We are going further than | :44:04. | :44:08. | |
that. We are stopping what the Labour government last allowed them | :44:08. | :44:12. | |
to do, which was with the Independent treatment centres, they | :44:12. | :44:16. | |
would cherry-picking care and were doing it in favour of the private | :44:16. | :44:22. | |
sector at the expense of the NHS. We are banning that as well. | :44:22. | :44:26. | |
30th anniversary of the Falkland Islands conflict is next month. On | :44:26. | :44:28. | |
2nd April 1982, the ruling Argentinean military junta | :44:28. | :44:32. | |
sanctioned the invasion and Britain went to war. 255 British soldiers, | :44:32. | :44:38. | |
sailors and airmen lost their lives. As did more than 600 Argentineans. | :44:38. | :44:40. | |
The two countries resumed diplomatic relations back in 1990 | :44:40. | :44:46. | |
but there are still tensions. And, in the last month, the British | :44:46. | :44:49. | |
Government has sent military vessels - a destroyer and maybe | :44:49. | :44:52. | |
even a submarine - to the South Atlantic to make sure our national | :44:52. | :44:57. | |
interests are protected. All this to the fury of the present | :44:57. | :45:03. | |
Argentinean Government. So, given all these tensions, would you bit a | :45:03. | :45:06. | |
little surprised to know that Britain helps to fund hundreds of | :45:06. | :45:08. | |
millions of pounds of aid to Argentina through the IMF? Joining | :45:08. | :45:11. | |
me now is the former American Ambassador to the United Nations, | :45:11. | :45:21. | |
:45:21. | :45:25. | ||
Nancy Soderberg, who is over here The United States has recently | :45:25. | :45:35. | |
:45:35. | :45:36. | ||
started to vote, and we believe the UK in particular should lead Europe | :45:36. | :45:42. | |
in joining the United States. Argentina is an irresponsible act | :45:42. | :45:47. | |
that in the international scene, not just in the Falklands, but with | :45:47. | :45:51. | |
its international creditors it has defaulted on millions of dollars, | :45:51. | :45:57. | |
it will not pay, it is in a grey zone in anti-terrorism laws, and it | :45:57. | :46:01. | |
is part of a way for the leadership in Argentina to deflect attention | :46:02. | :46:11. | |
from its failure of leadership at home. The reason new one to put | :46:11. | :46:17. | |
pressure on them is because it owes billions of dollars. A exactly, it | :46:17. | :46:27. | |
:46:27. | :46:28. | ||
has defaulted, paying 27 on the dollar which is unacceptable. | :46:28. | :46:33. | |
this something you should do in terms of getting a deal? The deal | :46:33. | :46:38. | |
is between Argentina and its creditors, but we are trying to | :46:38. | :46:42. | |
make sure it plays its role internationally, including on its | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
relationships with the anti- terrorism laws, it is repressing | :46:46. | :46:52. | |
its own press, and we are trying to make sure American taxpayers do not | :46:52. | :46:56. | |
go to support them. We need a majority of votes in the World Bank | :46:56. | :47:01. | |
and we are hoping Britain will join America in this effort. Do you | :47:01. | :47:06. | |
think Britain should? They are already slight tensions around the | :47:06. | :47:14. | |
Falklands, whether there is foil or so forth, so if we do it could put | :47:14. | :47:18. | |
us in a difficult position with Argentina. You mentioned the | :47:18. | :47:24. | |
Falklands, but it is because of the tensions just outlined that Britain | :47:24. | :47:28. | |
is unlikely to tread heavily in terms of putting more pressure on | :47:28. | :47:33. | |
the Argentinian government. Right now it is cost-free for the | :47:33. | :47:41. | |
Argentinian government to be wreaking havoc on the international | :47:41. | :47:48. | |
roles. In my role as a negotiator, you can tread softly and not get it | :47:48. | :47:58. | |
:47:58. | :48:00. | ||
solved, or you can raise the cost for Argentina. The public may not | :48:00. | :48:04. | |
like the fact that we are contributing money to Argentina. | :48:04. | :48:09. | |
Yes, but I think the problem is there are these unresolved issues, | :48:09. | :48:15. | |
people would take a step back from joining the US on this. If it came | :48:15. | :48:23. | |
to it, would the Obama administration back Britain in a | :48:23. | :48:33. | |
:48:33. | :48:36. | ||
conflict with the Falklands? Yes, it always would. It is an ally. | :48:36. | :48:39. | |
If you were watching the Sunday Politics at the weekend you will | :48:39. | :48:41. | |
have seen an almighty bust up between the Conservative | :48:41. | :48:44. | |
backbencher Philip Davies and the Liberal Democrat peer Matthew | :48:44. | :48:46. | |
Oakeshott over the Governerment's plans for House of Lords reform. | :48:46. | :48:49. | |
It's a totemic Liberal Democrat policy, and yesterday the Deputy | :48:49. | :48:52. | |
Prime Minister Nick Clegg was in front of a joint committee of Lords | :48:52. | :48:55. | |
and Commons defending his plans. Here he is, receiving a grilling | :48:55. | :48:57. | |
from the former Education Secretary, who is now a Baroness, Gillian | :48:57. | :49:07. | |
Shephard. I think the vast majority of people intuitively would accept | :49:07. | :49:13. | |
that it should be people, not party political patronage, which | :49:13. | :49:17. | |
determines who should sit in the House of Lords. The air has been no | :49:17. | :49:22. | |
evidence whatsoever received supporting the claim that the | :49:22. | :49:27. | |
privacy of the House of Commons will not be affected by having an | :49:27. | :49:33. | |
elected House of Lords. I wonder if you would like to comment on that. | :49:33. | :49:37. | |
The only evidence we have had supporting that argument has been | :49:37. | :49:42. | |
most loyally from the minister. want to basically doing exactly | :49:42. | :49:49. | |
what previous administrations have done, to allow that relationship to | :49:49. | :49:53. | |
evolve on its own merits and not tried to predict it with any | :49:53. | :50:00. | |
scientific precision. We have heard from Nick Clegg a lot about | :50:00. | :50:06. | |
democracy and so on. I don't know that we have heard very much of the | :50:06. | :50:12. | |
word accountability of those who would be elected with a 15 year | :50:12. | :50:16. | |
non-renewable term to the second house. To many of us who have been | :50:16. | :50:23. | |
elected, it would seem that there isn't much accountability in that. | :50:23. | :50:30. | |
Whilst I totally accept one can argue almost indefinitely whether a | :50:30. | :50:35. | |
shorter term, a longer term might be appropriate, I come back to the | :50:35. | :50:40. | |
principle - is it better in a legislative chamber to give people | :50:40. | :50:47. | |
at least some say then simply allow for the whole thing to remain in | :50:47. | :50:52. | |
the clammy hands of a small number of individuals who happen to be the | :50:52. | :51:00. | |
leaders of political parties? I am now joined by the | :51:00. | :51:06. | |
constitutional affairs minister, welcome back to the programme. Why | :51:06. | :51:12. | |
do you think so many backbenchers are against Lords reform? I do not | :51:12. | :51:18. | |
accept your premise. The ring leaders, according to commentators, | :51:18. | :51:23. | |
already have 81 people signed up to the cause. A There is very little | :51:23. | :51:28. | |
evidence of that. Quite a lot of the new intake are keen on the | :51:28. | :51:35. | |
reforms. A lot of these used people raised, like those that Gillian | :51:35. | :51:39. | |
Shephard raised, we have thought about these issues, and set out a | :51:39. | :51:43. | |
sensible set of proposals which the joint committee were scrutinising | :51:43. | :51:50. | |
yesterday. Jessie Norman is the latest to speak out, saying | :51:50. | :51:57. | |
focusing on selecting Lords would damage the diversity. He seemed the | :51:57. | :52:01. | |
basic principle, which is those who make the laws should be chosen by | :52:01. | :52:09. | |
the public, is a pretty straight forward 1 in a democratic country. | :52:09. | :52:16. | |
The tears becoming a familiar phrase to say people don't care | :52:16. | :52:23. | |
about it at all. This is one of the things the government will be | :52:23. | :52:28. | |
focusing on, it is not the only one. The government can do a range of | :52:28. | :52:34. | |
things. Looking at statistics from the 40s, the House of Lords were | :52:34. | :52:44. | |
:52:44. | :52:47. | ||
spending two days debating the but there reforms, in 1944 while our | :52:47. | :52:56. | |
forces were fighting against Nazi tyranny. Are you one of those | :52:56. | :53:02. | |
people clamouring to see them elected? I am not. I want to see a | :53:02. | :53:07. | |
different way of doing things. You do get diversity, and people coming | :53:07. | :53:12. | |
into the House of Lords, who, if it was elected, simply would not want | :53:12. | :53:17. | |
to go through the hassle of an election. When it comes to local | :53:18. | :53:26. | |
elections and electing people for European Parliament, the turnout is | :53:26. | :53:32. | |
pitifully low. How many people will turn up on the day and vote? You | :53:32. | :53:38. | |
might end up with a weaker body. 70% of people who sit in the House | :53:38. | :53:48. | |
:53:48. | :53:52. | ||
of Lords are already party politicians selected already. Many | :53:52. | :53:59. | |
backbenchers are not affiliated to a party, and that his weight we say | :53:59. | :54:04. | |
20% should retain, that that sort of people Nichola mentioned. We | :54:04. | :54:09. | |
would be electing 80% of them. There are people who are there | :54:09. | :54:14. | |
because they were a top doctor, the judge, or whatever it is. The truth | :54:15. | :54:19. | |
is you have a bit of both. There are people who will affiliate them | :54:19. | :54:24. | |
with the party, but if you have to put yourself up for election, I | :54:24. | :54:29. | |
think a lot of those people wouldn't do it. If you look at the | :54:29. | :54:37. | |
House of Commons... We have journalists, doctors, lawyers, | :54:37. | :54:43. | |
bankers, teachers. The feel constrained, don't they, by the | :54:43. | :54:47. | |
fact they are part of a political party and they have a career to | :54:47. | :54:56. | |
further. The idea that everyone in the House of Lords, and there are | :54:56. | :55:01. | |
over 800 Peers by the way, and it will not be long before there are | :55:01. | :55:07. | |
1000, the idea that you don't have to do any reform I just don't think | :55:07. | :55:11. | |
stands up to scrutiny. The or have been several instances in the last | :55:11. | :55:16. | |
few months were they have rejected pieces of legislation and there are | :55:16. | :55:20. | |
people in their not necessarily tied to a party, I think that is | :55:20. | :55:25. | |
part of democracy, allowing them to have a voice. I agree, and that is | :55:25. | :55:30. | |
why it our proposal is for 80% elected say you can still keep the | :55:30. | :55:36. | |
group of people who bring something extra without the party dimension. | :55:36. | :55:40. | |
If 80% were elected, it would be like the House of Commons. They | :55:41. | :55:47. | |
would feel they had supremacy or equal billing with the House of | :55:47. | :55:52. | |
Commons and there is a danger in that. The fact is, with the | :55:52. | :55:56. | |
Parliament Act, the House of Commons ultimately can still get | :55:56. | :56:00. | |
its own way. It may be that the House of Lords will be more | :56:00. | :56:05. | |
assertive and the relationship will change over time, and that will | :56:05. | :56:11. | |
strengthen Parliament as a whole. How will it restrain legislation? | :56:11. | :56:15. | |
Mo as members of the public will probably think fewer pieces of | :56:15. | :56:20. | |
legislation... Let's put it like this - if every problem could be | :56:20. | :56:23. | |
solved by passing legislation, the legacy of the last government would | :56:23. | :56:31. | |
be a much happier one than it was. We can debate about how many people | :56:31. | :56:35. | |
are for this and against, but do you think they will adhere to the | :56:35. | :56:40. | |
whip when it comes to a vote? we set out our proposals, after we | :56:40. | :56:43. | |
have listened to what the joint committee has got to say, we can | :56:43. | :56:50. | |
publish a draft bill, and I think the House of Commons will think | :56:50. | :56:55. | |
this is a sensible reform. For the Liberal Democrats, this is a red | :56:55. | :57:03. | |
line in the sound. This is Nick Clegg's passion. This was in the | :57:04. | :57:09. | |
coalition agreement. I have to say, the House of Lords reform, it is | :57:09. | :57:13. | |
fair to say the enthusiasm may not be as high in the Conservative | :57:13. | :57:21. | |
Party, but it was in our manifesto in 2001, 2005, and 2010 service is | :57:21. | :57:27. | |
not something that we haven't supported in the past. I accept it | :57:27. | :57:31. | |
is more important of the Lib Dems but many Conservatives supported | :57:31. | :57:35. | |
this when it was debated in the last parliament under Labour. I | :57:35. | :57:39. | |
think we will get a lot of Conservatives supporting it. What | :57:39. | :57:45. | |
about a threat from Matthew Oakeshott that they can kiss | :57:45. | :57:51. | |
goodbye to boundary changes? He is a backbencher, and speaks for | :57:51. | :57:56. | |
himself. He doesn't speak for his party. I have not heard that view | :57:56. | :58:02. | |
shared widely, and Nick Clegg made it clear that was not the Liberal | :58:02. | :58:07. | |
Democrats position. It doesn't worry you? I have the experience of | :58:07. | :58:11. | |
taking through the legislation on the AV referendum and the | :58:11. | :58:15. | |
boundaries, and my experience was that the Liberal Democrats were | :58:15. | :58:21. | |
very solid at supporting the boundary changes against Labour | :58:21. | :58:28. | |
filibustering so I think they will deliver their promise. Is David | :58:28. | :58:37. | |
Cameron as dedicated almost as you? He said it would be government | :58:37. | :58:42. |