28/02/2012 Daily Politics


28/02/2012

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

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.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS