:00:37. > :00:39.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:46.The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has withdrawn all diplomatic
:00:46. > :00:54.staff from its embassy in Syria and suspended its services. The move
:00:54. > :00:56.comes amid esculating violence in the country. -- escalating. UN
:00:56. > :00:59.diplomats have backed a resolution condemning the Syrian government
:00:59. > :01:02.for human rights violations. We'll be talking to the former Foreign
:01:02. > :01:04.Secretary, Lord Owen. We'll be talking to the son of
:01:04. > :01:08.businessman Christopher Tappin, who was extradited from the UK to the
:01:08. > :01:11.US over arms dealing charges. Is Nick Clegg getting into deeper
:01:11. > :01:14.water over the Government's health reforms? Liberal Democrat activists
:01:14. > :01:20.say they'll propose a motion at next week's spring conference
:01:20. > :01:23.calling for them to be scrapped. And to tax or not to tax. 500
:01:23. > :01:33.business leaders call for the 50 p rate to be scrapped, claiming it's
:01:33. > :01:36.damaging the economy. Are they All that in the next half hour, and
:01:36. > :01:44.with us for the whole programme today is the businessman and doctor,
:01:44. > :01:46.Chai Patel. Welcome to the programme. Nice to be here.
:01:46. > :01:48.First today, let's talk about welfare because the Government's
:01:49. > :01:51.Welfare Reform Bill, which introduces an annual cap on
:01:51. > :01:57.benefits and overhauls many welfare payments, has passed its final
:01:57. > :02:01.hurdle in Parliament. It has been hailed as an historic moment. But
:02:01. > :02:05.do you agree with the Government that this is one step towards a
:02:05. > :02:08.revolution in welfare? They have been trying to do this for a long
:02:08. > :02:12.time so in that sense it is historic. They have been trying to
:02:12. > :02:17.get the people abusing the system to not be doing it and that is the
:02:17. > :02:21.right thing. We are capping this so that is the right thing. We are in
:02:22. > :02:26.centre rising and motivating people to work to earn more whilst taking
:02:26. > :02:30.away some of the disincentives. All of those are very positive.
:02:30. > :02:36.agree that it will lead to a reduction in workless nurse in that
:02:36. > :02:40.sense? And it will be an incentive for people to work? Looking at some
:02:40. > :02:45.of the areas of complaint around the changes to disability
:02:45. > :02:50.allowances, and housing benefit, those fears are still there. Those
:02:50. > :02:54.are my two caveats. It is great to incentive vies for jobs, but this
:02:54. > :02:58.is coming at a time when jobs are very hard. We will have to see how
:02:58. > :03:02.that is managed and how these people train. Otherwise it will
:03:02. > :03:11.take something away without putting something in. I am particularly
:03:11. > :03:20.concerned with where people have disabilities. They can't be
:03:20. > :03:24.penalised by an arbitrary cap. you think there should be more
:03:24. > :03:28.allowances made for people either making the transition or should be
:03:28. > :03:32.getting more money than 26,000? it to work effectively, that is
:03:32. > :03:36.what is needed to happen otherwise we will have an outcry M we will
:03:36. > :03:41.once again be discussing the bits that did not work rather than the
:03:41. > :03:48.broad stream of this change, which is obviously the right way to go.
:03:48. > :03:52.It is all in the execution. If we executed in the right way -- if we
:03:52. > :03:55.don't execute it in the right way, we will be discussing the failures.
:03:55. > :03:58.The Leveson Inquiry has been back in the spotlight this week and it's
:03:58. > :04:00.been the relationship between the police and the media that has taken
:04:00. > :04:10.centre stage. On Monday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers
:04:10. > :04:12.
:04:12. > :04:16.gave a damning account of illegal payments at the Sun newspaper.
:04:16. > :04:20.There also appears to have been a culture at the Sun of illegal
:04:20. > :04:22.payments and systems have been created to facilitate those
:04:22. > :04:29.payments whilst hiding the identity of the officials receiving the
:04:29. > :04:34.money. The e-mails indicate that payments to sources were openly
:04:34. > :04:39.referred to within the Sun. In which case, the source is not named,
:04:39. > :04:42.but rather the category public official is identified rather than
:04:42. > :04:45.her name. Also on Monday, the former Deputy Prime Minister John
:04:45. > :04:48.Prescott waded into the debate. He argued there was more than enough
:04:48. > :04:55.evidence in the original hacking investigation to show that it was
:04:55. > :04:59.more than just one or two people involved. There's all sorts of
:04:59. > :05:04.evidence we know about. There's a blue book with all the names. It
:05:04. > :05:09.wasn't just one rogue reporter, it was more. They have all this
:05:09. > :05:15.information, now they are saying we only got it through another source.
:05:15. > :05:20.That is having told the courts, basically, and misleading the first
:05:20. > :05:23.inquiry. The information was there, whether it is payments to be made,
:05:23. > :05:27.names to be used. How much evidence do you want unless you don't want
:05:27. > :05:29.to look for it? The inquiry also heard a personal account from
:05:29. > :05:32.Jacqui Hames, who's a former police officer and Crimewatch presenter.
:05:32. > :05:35.She explained on Tuesday how her family were put under surveillance
:05:35. > :05:38.by the News of the World after her then husband, also a police officer,
:05:38. > :05:48.reopened a murder inquiry that had connections to a detective agency
:05:48. > :05:50.
:05:50. > :05:55.that itself had connections to the paper. In some ways, by coming here,
:05:55. > :06:03.you stick your head above the parapet because you are angry and
:06:03. > :06:09.distressed about what has happened. The impact on us, I think, is
:06:09. > :06:14.important. It is very easy to compartmentalise people in as much
:06:14. > :06:20.as celebrities have clearly suffered in this whole process, as
:06:20. > :06:24.have many others. Sometimes it is easy to dismiss certain people
:06:24. > :06:27.because they should be able to put up with it. But I don't think
:06:27. > :06:31.anybody from any walk of life should have to put up with it. I
:06:31. > :06:41.would hate to think of any other person in the future having to go
:06:41. > :06:44.through what we have had 10 years off. Peter Clark was a deputy
:06:44. > :06:48.assistant commissioner at the Met during the first investigation. He
:06:48. > :06:51.was the officer who decided not to continue with the inquiry into
:06:51. > :06:55.hacking and he said he would do the same again. He said the
:06:55. > :06:59.investigation was stopped because of pressure on resources due to
:06:59. > :07:06.ongoing terrorism operations and a lack of co-operation from News
:07:06. > :07:10.International. The minute she died of whether there was circumstantial
:07:10. > :07:14.evidence against the certain journalist is a minor consideration
:07:14. > :07:18.in comparison with the consideration of what poses a
:07:18. > :07:22.threat to the lives of the British public. Invasions of privacy are
:07:22. > :07:31.odious, obviously, they can be very distressing and at times they can
:07:31. > :07:36.be illegal. But to put it bluntly, they don't kill you, terrorists do.
:07:36. > :07:39.Brian Paddick is with me now, and joining me from Cambridge, the
:07:39. > :07:47.director of the Society of Editors and a former News of the World
:07:47. > :07:51.journalist. Do you by Mr Clarke's reason why it was right not to
:07:51. > :07:53.continue the investigation? afraid not. Whilst he might have
:07:53. > :07:58.been under pressure and the officers in the anti-terrorist
:07:58. > :08:01.branch might have been under pressure, there are 45,000 police
:08:01. > :08:07.officers in the Metropolitan Police, I'm sure they could have rounded up
:08:07. > :08:11.a couple of dozen. One of the reasons they did not proceed was
:08:11. > :08:15.because News International did not co-operate. That means if you catch
:08:15. > :08:18.me with a bag of swag coming out of someone's house and I said yeah,
:08:18. > :08:23.well, you caught me but are not co- operating, you will let me off.
:08:23. > :08:31.That is not a good excuse, I don't think. Are you confident now, under
:08:31. > :08:35.Sue Akers, that there's a proper independent inquiry determined to
:08:35. > :08:40.get the truth? I have got the advantage over most people in that
:08:40. > :08:44.I know Sue Akers personally. She is of the highest integrity, I would
:08:44. > :08:48.not doubt her for a minute. Unfortunately a lot of members of
:08:48. > :08:52.the public don't know her that well. To have a combination of a
:08:52. > :08:56.committee set up by NewsCorp, the parent company of News
:08:56. > :09:01.International, the investigating themselves, working with the Met
:09:01. > :09:04.Police against whom all sorts of allegations have been made, corrupt
:09:04. > :09:08.payments, not investigating it properly first time round, I don't
:09:08. > :09:12.see how the ordinary member of the public can have confidence that
:09:12. > :09:17.that combination will get to the bottom of things. Perception is
:09:17. > :09:22.important, but from what you've said, and you said you know Sue
:09:23. > :09:28.Akers, that perception may be understandable but is wrong. Well...
:09:28. > :09:32.The difficulty is everybody has bosses. Sue Akers has bosses. What
:09:32. > :09:36.does -- what do her bosses say if she were to come up with something
:09:37. > :09:40.absolutely horrible that was very detrimental to the Met Police and
:09:40. > :09:45.News International? Would she be allowed to say it? She is welcome
:09:45. > :09:48.to come on this programme and say it! One of the benefits of a free
:09:48. > :09:55.society is if your bosses don't let you say it, there's other ways of
:09:55. > :09:59.getting it out. You heard in the evidence on Monday that you gave.
:09:59. > :10:05.You said you had a working relationship with journalists. We
:10:05. > :10:10.have to be careful not to stray into a necessary territory. Having
:10:10. > :10:15.policeman on a retainer, clearly wrong. Paying police for stories,
:10:15. > :10:19.Ron. Speaking to police to get a story, not wrong. No. What I said
:10:19. > :10:22.did Lord Leveson was an acid test of whether the police officer or
:10:22. > :10:25.public official was giving the right thing in the public interest
:10:25. > :10:29.was whether they were prepared to put their jobs at risk and not be
:10:29. > :10:33.paid for that information. As soon as you get into a situation where I
:10:33. > :10:38.will only tell you if you pay me for it, fantastic cast doubt on
:10:38. > :10:42.whether the story is in the public interest. You had lunch with the
:10:42. > :10:46.Guardian and with the Daily Mirror and the Financial Times. You said
:10:46. > :10:50.the Mirror was more an audience with Piers Morgan. I'm grateful you
:10:50. > :10:55.should have been for it as well, many of us would like an audience!
:10:55. > :10:59.You only dealt with left-wing papers. No. That is the three you
:10:59. > :11:04.named. The right-wing papers didn't like me so I never got invited.
:11:04. > :11:11.They wouldn't even pay you. Absolute Lee not. Let's speak to
:11:12. > :11:15.Bob Thatcher will. Didst journalism in some trouble? Are we in danger,
:11:15. > :11:19.as Sue Akers rightly get to the bottom of wrongdoing that seems to
:11:19. > :11:22.have happened at News International, that we are going to interfere with
:11:22. > :11:28.what can also be a healthy relationship between police and
:11:28. > :11:33.journalists? I think that is obviously the danger. What we have
:11:33. > :11:39.to do is try to let Sue Akers do her job and get the evidence out.
:11:39. > :11:43.What we are hearing all the time at the moment are allegations,
:11:43. > :11:47.suggestions, what it may seem like. In the end, we need to know the
:11:47. > :11:53.full scale of what has gone on before we can make final decisions.
:11:53. > :11:56.But already, my fear is that we will have police officers at all
:11:56. > :12:01.levels saying they can never speak to a journalist again or at least
:12:01. > :12:05.be frightened off, having a chilling effect on those kinds of
:12:05. > :12:08.relationships, which are vitally important. After all, the
:12:08. > :12:12.relationship between the police and the media is not just for the two
:12:12. > :12:16.of them, it is on behalf of the public because the media is simply
:12:16. > :12:21.a conduit. We already have a situation where I believe the
:12:21. > :12:24.police tell the public far too little and the press, in fact, the
:12:24. > :12:29.media generally, reveals far too little. That is the thing we have
:12:29. > :12:34.to avoid. Let me put that to Brian Paddick. That is absolutely right.
:12:34. > :12:40.There's not enough openness or transparency. Don't you want Aironi
:12:40. > :12:44.to be formal relations in meetings between journalists and police? You
:12:44. > :12:49.testified it to be on a formal basis. You will not tell us
:12:49. > :12:53.anything on a formal basis. That is about what is going on at the most
:12:53. > :12:58.senior levels way you have senior police officers were there to
:12:58. > :13:02.investigate a newspaper or not and meetings with newspaper editors. I
:13:02. > :13:06.had always spoken openly and freely with journalist when I was in the
:13:06. > :13:10.police, it is very important to do so. Sometimes you might have to say
:13:10. > :13:14.things that your boss was not too happy about. That is healthy, but
:13:14. > :13:19.when it gets into corrupt payments, when it gets into newspaper editors
:13:19. > :13:23.and senior police officers being so close that went unlawful activity
:13:23. > :13:29.is discovered, the police are reluctant to investigate it, it has
:13:29. > :13:33.gone too far. We all know that journalists speak to the police and
:13:33. > :13:42.quite often the police use journalists. That is partly the
:13:42. > :13:46.basis of the Crimewatch programme. Every local newspaper... A lot of
:13:46. > :13:51.local newspapers of bunging the local police station to be tipped
:13:51. > :13:55.off about things that happens. That is the way of the world. Were you
:13:55. > :14:00.not surprised at the industrial scale of the Sun's relationship
:14:00. > :14:05.with the Met? You say surprised at the industrial scale. We haven't
:14:05. > :14:12.seen the evidence yet. Sue Akers said that was happening.
:14:12. > :14:15.understand. She was giving a briefing on the record, whereas
:14:15. > :14:20.often it is the kind of briefing which are given to journalists of
:14:20. > :14:24.the record. Suppose she's right. She does carry some authority. I
:14:24. > :14:29.take your point that this is only the police investigation. Any of
:14:29. > :14:33.that evidence has yet to be tested in court. Supposing she was right,
:14:33. > :14:38.what would you make of it? Quite frankly, I think most journalists
:14:38. > :14:45.would be astonished if it is of that sort of scale. Relationships
:14:45. > :14:49.were there. As she mentioned, and it is perfectly reasonable for
:14:49. > :14:54.journalists to by coppers a pie and a pint, was her phrase. Those
:14:54. > :14:57.things have happened. I can remember many years ago when I was
:14:57. > :15:04.at the News of the World, long before we had mobile phones I
:15:04. > :15:09.hasten to add, I had very good relationships with very senior
:15:09. > :15:12.officers at Scotland Yard, but at the same time, with other officers,
:15:12. > :15:17.I was threatened with prosecution when we had uncovered the drugs
:15:17. > :15:21.ring. I happened to have the drugs in my possession in order to take
:15:21. > :15:29.them to an analyst and I was told the next time... Her a likely
:15:30. > :15:34.story! For the idea about the relationships, just because you
:15:34. > :15:38.have a relationship with senior officers... I don't believe they
:15:38. > :15:45.would be so unprofessional not to prosecute someone if they saw
:15:45. > :15:51.evidence, real evidence, of We had meetings between senior
:15:51. > :15:54.people at News International and senior police officers at Scotland
:15:54. > :16:00.Yard, whilst News International was under investigation.
:16:00. > :16:06.Let me bring in Chai. I I think the more you look at this, the more you
:16:06. > :16:11.begin to conclude, but you begin to feel there was an incredibly close,
:16:11. > :16:15.almost incest uous relationship between News International and the
:16:15. > :16:20.Metropolitan Police on the other that went up to some of the highest
:16:20. > :16:26.levels? It doesn't meet the smell test. The facts are whatever they
:16:27. > :16:30.are, but you clearly feel that this was way up and it wasn't just
:16:30. > :16:37.happening - we are making the distinction here, it is not about
:16:37. > :16:41.the relationships, we need more media input all of those are valid
:16:41. > :16:43.points and the use of techniques and the cosiness.
:16:43. > :16:47.It went to the extent of horse trading.
:16:47. > :16:51.Horse trading now as well! It was reported that the horse was handed
:16:51. > :16:56.back in worse shape than it had been given out. But that's another
:16:56. > :17:04.matter! We are going to have to leave it there. Bob, I am surprised
:17:04. > :17:09.you got away with that that story, but at least you are still out. I
:17:09. > :17:14.am surprised that you got away with a pie and a pint!
:17:14. > :17:20.It is one of the most difficult aisles on the political agenda, how
:17:20. > :17:23.do we pay for the non medical needs of the elderly. It means things
:17:23. > :17:33.like washing and eating a and a solution has I will lewded
:17:33. > :17:41.politicians of all -- eluded politicians of all parties. We sent
:17:41. > :17:45.David Thompson to fin out more. This is what social care looks like
:17:45. > :17:49.in action. Music therapy for the residents of this elderly person's
:17:49. > :17:52.home in North London. Mind you, here they call it a bit of a sing
:17:52. > :17:55.song. The three main political parties
:17:55. > :17:59.recognise that social care shouldn't be about politics, it is
:17:59. > :18:03.about people and they have been talking to one another in an
:18:03. > :18:06.attempt to find consensus. The only problem is, they tried that before
:18:06. > :18:10.and it didn't end well. Before the last election, Labour
:18:10. > :18:15.tried to get cross party agreement on this issue and this was the
:18:15. > :18:20.result. So what's different this time? I think trying to get cross
:18:20. > :18:24.party agreement three months before a general election is always more
:18:24. > :18:27.difficult for obvious reasons than trying to get cross party long-term
:18:27. > :18:33.agreement in the middle of a Parliament as we are now. I think
:18:33. > :18:36.at this this stage it's better, these talks are better timed than
:18:36. > :18:40.the talks just before the last general election.
:18:41. > :18:45.As it happens, there is a plan on the table which has broad cross
:18:45. > :18:50.party support. The the economist Andrew Dilnot put forward a set of
:18:50. > :18:54.proposals on how social care should be funded.
:18:54. > :18:58.He wants to see a cap of around �35,000 on the amount individuals
:18:58. > :19:02.are expected to contribute with the Government meeting the rest. And he
:19:02. > :19:07.wants the amount of savings someone can have before they have to pay
:19:07. > :19:10.for help with washing, dressing and eating raised from over �23,000 to
:19:10. > :19:14.�100,000. We should know in a few weeks
:19:14. > :19:18.whether the Government will adopt these proposals. If they do, it
:19:18. > :19:23.will cost �1.7 billion a year and money is tight. Which is something
:19:23. > :19:29.that makes some people in the care sector nervous. The Government must
:19:29. > :19:34.resist any temptation to go for a stop gap solution on care. We're
:19:34. > :19:38.united in our belief and they say they are too that care is in crisis
:19:38. > :19:43.and it needs reform. A sticking plaster won work. That's why --
:19:43. > :19:46.won't work, that's why we need need them to be bold and radical.
:19:46. > :19:50.Some Conservatives think that tinkering at the edges is not an
:19:50. > :19:53.option. In individual parts of the country
:19:53. > :19:57.as experienced by individual families, there are documents of it
:19:57. > :20:01.failing and it is failing often. That doesn't mean it fails
:20:01. > :20:06.everywhere, it done, but it fails often and if we put in place
:20:06. > :20:11.structures that work, we can reduce the number of failures.
:20:11. > :20:14.But who wouldn't want that? The question is, is it affordable?
:20:14. > :20:19.can't afford to support people in their own homes with eating, with
:20:19. > :20:23.feeding, with toileting, with basic exercise and support. We would have
:20:23. > :20:28.to think really strongly about whether that is a country we would
:20:28. > :20:33.be proud to live in. We have to reframe and re-think about our
:20:33. > :20:37.ageing population and how we support and provide care.
:20:37. > :20:40.Individuals will need to pay more. And that's the thing. It is not
:20:40. > :20:50.just politicians who have to face up to the problems of paying for a
:20:50. > :20:55.
:20:55. > :20:59.Well, Chai Patel is here. You agree, everyone agrees, that social care
:20:59. > :21:04.is in crisis. That it is an urgent issue. Is that how you see it?
:21:04. > :21:10.is in crisis. The funding and with the new cuts that are coming, we
:21:10. > :21:13.are going to go back to the spending levels of of 2001, but
:21:13. > :21:17.that's a separate matter to what Dilnot is about. For �1.7 billion
:21:17. > :21:21.which is what we heard last night, the cost of changing the structures
:21:21. > :21:25.in the NHS for the new healthcare Bill to throw this into the long
:21:25. > :21:30.grass, to kick this into the long grass would be a travesty. People
:21:30. > :21:34.have waited. We have had commissions and and white papers
:21:34. > :21:41.and Green papers and people are waiting for a solution and the
:21:41. > :21:45.Government needs to create a consensus. One of my key pleas here
:21:46. > :21:49.is this is not a party political matter. This should be a cross
:21:49. > :21:54.party matter. We have had the politicians on say,
:21:54. > :21:57."Yes, we're going to move towards consensus." They always say that on
:21:57. > :22:00.big issues like this. Is it less about party politics now as it was
:22:00. > :22:05.before the election and more about affordability? Can the country
:22:05. > :22:10.afford it? We heard from the lady who said we can't afford not to do
:22:10. > :22:15.anything. Can we afford to to put the costs in? We are at a
:22:15. > :22:19.particular point in our cycle economically, had is a long-term
:22:19. > :22:22.solution. We are talking about a new arrangement. Social care
:22:22. > :22:26.happened by slight of care. The older people today used to think
:22:26. > :22:32.the care was going to be free at the point of delivery, at some
:22:32. > :22:36.point somebody called it social care and and started means-testing
:22:36. > :22:43.it. You don't know if you will have to pay for it and how do you
:22:43. > :22:46.provide for T the money issue is a small issue. Andrew Dilnot shows a
:22:46. > :22:50.chart on what we spend and �1.7 billion is not the issue. The issue
:22:50. > :22:53.is do we want to find a new settlement that's fair?
:22:53. > :22:57.consensus has got to be around a cap, if you like, that people have
:22:57. > :23:02.to save to pay for themselves because it is not going to be free
:23:02. > :23:08.anymore. You run a whole set of care homes. You took over Southern
:23:08. > :23:14.Cross when it failed last year. part of scrost.
:23:14. > :23:19.-- -- -- -- Southern Cross. Do you think that's a reasonable
:23:19. > :23:23.cap? The average length of stay in a care home is 18 months and that
:23:23. > :23:26.amount of money would mean the majority of people who are means-
:23:26. > :23:30.tested would be paying for themselves if they could afford it.
:23:30. > :23:32.The overall cost to the Treasury is not very high. That captures the
:23:32. > :23:37.current people. What it would do however, is tell people that if
:23:37. > :23:42.they needed care for a longer period of time, then the State
:23:42. > :23:45.would step in so they wouldn't be left to worry about what is going
:23:45. > :23:51.to happen when I run out of money. Would I be moved to a different
:23:51. > :23:56.home? Would I not be able to afford the care? It would mean the
:23:56. > :23:59.Government wroont wouldn't be crippled by the number of people?
:23:59. > :24:02.You are only funding the people who could afford to pay, but not
:24:03. > :24:10.increasing the pot. What I'm concerned about, what we should get
:24:10. > :24:14.is to get Dilnot as as a way of having an open discussion and
:24:15. > :24:18.discuss the cap, but more importantly alongside this, there
:24:18. > :24:21.has to be a discussion of how we shift the budget from the health
:24:21. > :24:24.budget into social care because it is the interface of social care and
:24:24. > :24:28.healthcare where the problems are lying right now and there is a huge
:24:28. > :24:33.waste in the system that could pay for this and I'm happy to talk
:24:33. > :24:36.about either now or either because this could be self-funded. This
:24:37. > :24:41.isn't about the size of the pot actually, it is about how we use it.
:24:41. > :24:47.The story around care homes is they ran into financial difficulty. In
:24:48. > :24:52.your case, how is HC 1 going now? We are in the middle of 120 days at
:24:52. > :24:57.the moment. We have had a lot of change. We have absorbed a lot of
:24:57. > :25:01.issues, but we are making progress. A lot of what we stand for which is
:25:01. > :25:06.the whole issue of kindness does not cost actually, it is about
:25:06. > :25:09.culture and values really. You are being monitored by the
:25:09. > :25:12.Department of Health? Well, one of the things I have been saying today
:25:12. > :25:14.at a conference is that's a sideshow, but you can do the
:25:14. > :25:18.financial monitoring, we have bigger issues than financial
:25:18. > :25:25.monitoring. I wondered who the two large guys
:25:25. > :25:26.were outside! Monitoring them! I took you seriously there!
:25:26. > :25:30.LAUGHTER I'm very trusting.
:25:30. > :25:36.She is. She will never learn! Businessman, Christopher Tappin,
:25:36. > :25:40.who has been extradited from the UK to the US over arms dealing charges
:25:40. > :25:44.faces a bail hearing tomorrow in the United States. It comes in a
:25:44. > :25:49.week that the Home Affairs Select Committee heard from Mr Tappin's
:25:49. > :25:54.wife and son as part of their inquiry into this extradition. We
:25:54. > :26:00.will hear from Neil Tappin in a moment. But first here is what his
:26:00. > :26:04.mother had to say about the lead-up of her husband's extradition to
:26:04. > :26:11.America. In the end, we had nine days notice.
:26:11. > :26:18.We stared into a wholy uncertain future for us both. How did we
:26:18. > :26:25.feel? Incredulity, frustration, heart-rendering sadness, despair
:26:25. > :26:30.and utter disbelief. Chris solicitor injured on, trying to --
:26:31. > :26:36.soldiered on trying to sort out the necessary practical issues, selling
:26:36. > :26:44.his car, our house, etcetera while saying farewell to his friends and
:26:44. > :26:54.colleagues. Not knowing when or if he would see
:26:54. > :26:57.them again. Early morning on... Clearly a difficult time for the
:26:57. > :27:07.Tappin family. Joining me now is the son of
:27:07. > :27:13.Christopher Tappin, Neil Tappin and David Bermingham.
:27:13. > :27:16.Let me start with you, Mr Tappin. Have you heard from your father
:27:16. > :27:21.since arrival in the US and what do you know of his treatment?
:27:21. > :27:26.mother heard from him on, I think, it was Wednesday evening. She was
:27:26. > :27:31.calling his American lawyer and he was sat opposite his lawyer so she
:27:31. > :27:35.spoke to him, the conversation got cut off ten seconds, he said he was
:27:35. > :27:40.What conditions is he enduring? Well, this is the thing that's
:27:40. > :27:43.upsetting us at the moment. He is in a cell on his own which in some
:27:43. > :27:49.ways you might think is a good thing, but he is left in the cell
:27:49. > :27:53.for 23 hours a day. One hour a day outside. He has no reading material
:27:53. > :28:02.at all and... He is not allowed to have anything in the cell? It was
:28:02. > :28:09.reported in the Press he took his two books with him, a Seve
:28:09. > :28:13.Ballesteros biography and a Jeremy Clarkson biography. One of the
:28:13. > :28:16.distressing things is the light is being left on 24 hours a day. He
:28:16. > :28:20.has nothing to keep him occupied. It is just him and his thoughts.
:28:20. > :28:23.Are you surprised that he has to endure that, given that he is still
:28:23. > :28:27.innocent until proved guilty. I mean, these seem harsh conditions
:28:27. > :28:32.for someone who has yet to be found guilty? Well, you said. Innocent
:28:32. > :28:36.until proven guilty. He has never once had the opportunity to show
:28:36. > :28:40.any of the evidence on his side of the argument. So in the hearings in
:28:40. > :28:45.this country, the US put across their side of the story, as it were.
:28:45. > :28:49.Then our lawyers had to argue a few points of technical points of
:28:49. > :28:53.extradition which to be honest with you were pointless. He goes out
:28:53. > :28:59.there. He is in a cell on his own. No contact with us, 5,000 miles
:28:59. > :29:03.away from home. It It really, really feels as if his presumption
:29:03. > :29:10.of innocence has been lost. Can you explain what it is he has
:29:10. > :29:15.been accused of? He has been accused of conspiring to export
:29:15. > :29:17.cell missile batteries to Iran. Which fell foul of the sanctions
:29:17. > :29:22.regime against Iran? I suspect so, yes.
:29:22. > :29:26.Happens now? He has a bail hearing on Friday evening. The US
:29:26. > :29:32.Government are opposing bail based on him being a flight risk. Again,
:29:32. > :29:37.I need to underline, he is 65 years old. He is in the US and he has
:29:37. > :29:40.surrendered himself to Heathrow Airport last Friday. He has has
:29:40. > :29:46.$250. He never committed a crime in this country and yet, there is a
:29:46. > :29:50.case to be said that he should be kept in prison without the prospect
:29:50. > :29:54.of release in the near future. Is his lawyer giving you
:29:54. > :29:58.encouragement that he may get bail? They are taking a cautious approach
:29:58. > :30:02.on that. They are trying not to get anyone's hopes up about bail. It is
:30:02. > :30:05.in the balance, we don't know. If he got bail, he wouldn't be
:30:05. > :30:09.allowed to leave the United States or the State of Texas, he would
:30:09. > :30:12.have to get accommodation nearby the court until it was time to be
:30:12. > :30:15.in court? Exactly, right. He would stay out there and they
:30:15. > :30:19.would build their defence case outside of the prison. If he
:30:19. > :30:23.doesn't get bail, he has to build that defence case in prison with
:30:23. > :30:27.only limited access to his lawyers which obviously makes that harder
:30:27. > :30:31.for him to do. And hard for your mother as we saw,
:30:31. > :30:35.for all of you. Really hard for mum. She has been dragged through just
:30:35. > :30:39.hell on all of this and then, you know, last night to find out that
:30:39. > :30:44.he had, that the light has been left on 24 hours a day, it is
:30:44. > :30:47.sending her, you know, into a bad place.
:30:47. > :30:50.It is like when you see in some movies when a terrorist has been
:30:50. > :30:54.caught? That's how it feels. He is very British. He has done his
:30:54. > :30:58.business, a small businessman in this country, he lived his life
:30:58. > :31:08.here and never left the UK in these dealings, I don't know why we feel
:31:08. > :31:16.
:31:16. > :31:20.as if the judiciary can't deal with By we have Neil Tappin with us, and
:31:20. > :31:26.also David Birmingham, who had gone through this process in America and
:31:26. > :31:31.is now back here. Explain to us, what were you extradited for and
:31:31. > :31:37.then put in jail for? We were accused by the United States
:31:37. > :31:45.government of defrauding NatWest Bank in London. It was in a
:31:45. > :31:50.transaction connected to Enron. played guilty? We did. The
:31:50. > :31:55.statistics on this are truly terrifying, if anyone analyses them.
:31:55. > :31:59.98% of people in the federal system in America who are indicted will
:31:59. > :32:03.enter into a plea bargain rather than going to trial. They will do
:32:03. > :32:07.that for a variety of circumstances, but the system is almost set up to
:32:07. > :32:12.guarantee you will get a plea bargain as soon as somebody is
:32:12. > :32:19.indicted rather than going to trial. You were sentenced to 37 months.
:32:19. > :32:25.Correct. You served seven in the US and tent in the UK. That's right.
:32:25. > :32:31.In the US, what conditions both when you were on remand and after
:32:31. > :32:36.the sentence did you endure? remand, our position was all but
:32:36. > :32:40.unique. Because of the furore surrounding our extradition in 2006,
:32:40. > :32:44.Tony Blair intervened with the US government to get them to allow us
:32:44. > :32:48.to have failed. We were the first people ever to have been extradited
:32:48. > :32:52.to America to have been granted bail and are not aware of anybody
:32:52. > :32:56.else who has contested extradition since has enjoyed that luxury.
:32:56. > :33:00.Prior to entering into a plea agreement, which took two years, we
:33:00. > :33:06.did want to fight this case. We eventually found ourselves unable
:33:06. > :33:10.to do so. We were therefore out on bail, we were electronically
:33:10. > :33:13.monitored, we were living in Houston, we were unable to be
:33:13. > :33:20.together as defendants other than in the presence of attorney's.
:33:20. > :33:24.least you were out. Exactly. Once you had played guilty and was
:33:24. > :33:29.sentenced, what were the conditions for the seven months? You were in a
:33:29. > :33:35.federal penitentiary? That's right. Over those seven months I was in
:33:35. > :33:39.five different places. I spent most time in California. Part of our
:33:39. > :33:42.deal, one of the reasons we agree to enter into a plea agreement, was
:33:42. > :33:46.the prosecutor said if you sign this paper, we will ensure you get
:33:46. > :33:51.sent home quickly. If you go to trial and lose, we will make sure
:33:51. > :33:56.you never go home. Quite a strong motivation. A gun to your head.
:33:56. > :34:01.is how business is done over there. It is not just a system as we would
:34:01. > :34:06.recognise. You were not in a cell with a light on for 24 hours a day
:34:06. > :34:12.with nothing to read. Nope. What Mr Taplin is going through at the
:34:12. > :34:16.moment is not untypical of remand conditions. The remand conditions
:34:16. > :34:19.are part of the game, if you wish, to get somebody to enter a plea
:34:19. > :34:23.agreement. They will make it as unpleasant as they can. If you
:34:23. > :34:28.decide to plead guilty, it shortens the romance period because you
:34:28. > :34:32.don't need to prepare for a trial. Remand facilities are different to
:34:32. > :34:37.the facilities when somebody has been convicted. In California, I
:34:37. > :34:41.was in the dormitory of 250 people with bunk beds two feet apart. That
:34:41. > :34:46.is a much more normal scenario for people once they have been
:34:46. > :34:51.convicted. What kind of prison did you end up in Britain? Five
:34:51. > :34:57.different prisons. I started in Wandsworth, a remand prison, two to
:34:57. > :35:02.a cell, and I ended up in an open prison. Rather more pleasant than
:35:02. > :35:07.what Mr Caplin has had? Indeed. As a foreigner in the US, you're not
:35:07. > :35:10.entitled to be in an open prison because you are do portable alien.
:35:11. > :35:15.There is a prejudice against foreigners in that system.
:35:15. > :35:21.could not be in the equivalent of a US Open prison? No. All of the
:35:21. > :35:27.closed prisons are run by gangs. there any word of encouragement for
:35:27. > :35:31.Neil Tappin? Yes. The mere fact he is out there means he is one step
:35:31. > :35:35.closer to coming home. I said this did Chris Ann Neale the other day.
:35:35. > :35:40.This is the worst time because from here on in, he is beginning their
:35:40. > :35:45.journey home, no matter how long that is. When you go out to America
:35:45. > :35:50.to see your father, when is that? We have to wait to see whether he
:35:50. > :35:54.gets bail or not. If he does, I'm sure Mum will go up to see him and
:35:54. > :35:57.I will go out as well. If he doesn't get bail, it will be very
:35:57. > :36:01.distressing for mum to go and see him in an orange jumpsuit with
:36:01. > :36:05.shackles. We are not a family that has been through this before.
:36:05. > :36:10.Nobody knows what to expect. I will certainly go up to see him, but it
:36:10. > :36:17.is up in the air at the moment. Abu Qatada hasn't been deported.
:36:17. > :36:20.know. Let's leave it there. So, Britain has shut its embassy in
:36:20. > :36:22.Syria and pulled out all of its diplomats because of the
:36:22. > :36:24.deteriorating security situation. The announcement came as UN
:36:24. > :36:28.diplomats voted to condemn the Syrian government for human rights
:36:28. > :36:31.violations and called for immediate access for aid agencies. The
:36:31. > :36:36.resolution is aimed at stepping up the pressure on Damascus. Our
:36:36. > :36:40.correspondent Imogen Foulkes is in Geneva, where the UN is meeting.
:36:40. > :36:47.I spoke to her earlier and began by asking her whether the UN
:36:47. > :36:51.resolution had been passed. Yes. It is a very tough resolution. The
:36:51. > :36:59.thought that the UN Human Rights Council has passed condemning Syria
:36:59. > :37:04.for what it terms brutality against its own citizens, widespread,
:37:04. > :37:08.systematic human rights violations. The resolution then calls for an
:37:08. > :37:13.immediate end to the violence, and immediate access for humanitarian
:37:14. > :37:23.aid agencies. It was passed pretty overwhelmingly, three countries
:37:23. > :37:30.voted against. Russia, China and Cuba. Human rights groups accused
:37:30. > :37:34.them of being out on a limb now and undermining attempts to try to
:37:34. > :37:39.bring some resolution to this crisis in Syria. Does this mean
:37:39. > :37:42.there's more optimism that the resolution being put together by
:37:42. > :37:51.the Americans also about humanitarian aid, is there more
:37:51. > :37:56.likely had that that will pass? is really hard to say. Initially,
:37:56. > :38:01.myself and other people watching this meeting thought Russia might
:38:01. > :38:04.not vote against, given what we have been seeing for example from
:38:04. > :38:11.the City of Homs and the relentless shelling that has been going on
:38:11. > :38:16.there. But Russia voted against and we know it has vetoed resolution at
:38:16. > :38:20.the UN Security Council before. The question now is will it go a long
:38:20. > :38:24.with this new attempt at the Security Council being drafted by
:38:24. > :38:31.the Americans or will it oppose again? I think Russia will find it
:38:31. > :38:38.difficult, but the signs this morning are not good.
:38:38. > :38:42.David Owen is with us now. I am asking you this question, mindful
:38:42. > :38:48.of the Rolls you have played. Is this beginning to look more like
:38:48. > :38:53.Bosnia than Libya? It has never looked like Libya. Libya is a very
:38:53. > :38:58.different situation in all aspects. This does look like it is coming to
:38:58. > :39:04.one of these civil wars where you were locked with both sides having
:39:04. > :39:12.the capacity to halt the fighting and no outright winner. These are
:39:12. > :39:20.the most dangerous civil wars. you see Homs, it is hard not to
:39:20. > :39:27.think of Sarajevo. Yes. But I think it is better to think of Hamann.
:39:27. > :39:31.President Assad's father. And his family. They wiped out a whole tone
:39:31. > :39:36.and they got away with it. We did not take enough concern for it when
:39:36. > :39:40.it happened in 1982. This is where history is repeating itself. What
:39:40. > :39:44.can we do? There isn't a day these days that I don't wake up thinking
:39:44. > :39:49.what can you do about it. It is a hugely difficult thing to see a way
:39:49. > :39:53.through it. I have always repeated the country that holds the key to
:39:53. > :39:58.it is Turkey and Turkey have looked at it and mighty hard. They have
:39:58. > :40:03.concluded there is no military role. It they say no military role, it is
:40:03. > :40:07.pretty hard for anyone else to have a military role. It is end of story.
:40:07. > :40:12.They are the country that could use NATO, they are a member of NATO,
:40:12. > :40:16.and go to NATO to ask for help, but they would have to be the country
:40:16. > :40:22.that did the heavy lifting. They have to make an assessment. They
:40:22. > :40:26.have assessed so far that it can't be done. The other issue is that
:40:26. > :40:28.China is getting concerned about this issue in the Security Council
:40:28. > :40:34.and I don't thing Russia is having it all their own way in the
:40:34. > :40:41.dialogue with China. If you could start to prise China away from
:40:41. > :40:44.Russia, China might bend. There was talk earlier of Turkey looking at
:40:44. > :40:50.almost a safe haven zone on the Syrian northern border with Turkey,
:40:50. > :40:56.which the Turks themselves said they would protect. Has that faded
:40:56. > :41:00.away? Did that not come to fruition? I was always opposed this
:41:00. > :41:05.safe havens in Bosnia Herzegovina and look at what a tragedy that end
:41:05. > :41:10.up with. It is no good calling them a safe haven if they don't provide
:41:10. > :41:15.the troops for it, which is what we did not do in Bosnia. Srebrenica
:41:15. > :41:20.was an accident waiting to happen. I am very unlikely to support safe
:41:20. > :41:23.havens. Also it means you are giving up. Basically you would be
:41:23. > :41:27.encouraging the civilians to depopulate, come to this area, and
:41:27. > :41:33.you would effectively be going for politician. I don't think that is a
:41:33. > :41:38.solution. The question is, from the air, can you interdict the supply
:41:38. > :41:44.lines of Assad's forces in such a way as to be a serious threat to
:41:44. > :41:47.continuing this type of violence? It would be challenged. It would be
:41:47. > :41:54.challenged by sophisticated aircraft, it would be challenged by
:41:54. > :41:58.a country that has the support of Iran and has the support of Russia.
:41:58. > :42:03.And Iraq will not get involved, they will probably be neutral, but
:42:04. > :42:08.they might be in part on their side. Then there's the closely as to the
:42:08. > :42:13.Lebanon, closeness to Israel. You are playing... It is a powder keg.
:42:13. > :42:16.At the moment, as you look at the British foreign policy response,
:42:16. > :42:20.and to the Western foreign policy response, how would you
:42:20. > :42:26.characterise it? The British response has been first class, I
:42:26. > :42:32.have no criticism of it whatever. Both William Hague and the prime
:42:32. > :42:40.minister have got this right. I think they got Libya right. I don't
:42:40. > :42:44.look for policy disputes unless I have to have them. You have enough!
:42:44. > :42:48.What are your thoughts, Chai Patel? It is a tragedy of the highest
:42:48. > :42:54.order. If we haven't learnt anything from these interventions,
:42:54. > :42:58.it is that judgments have to be fine. If our neighbours in Turkey
:42:58. > :43:04.and people know much more about it are wanting to jump in, jumping in
:43:04. > :43:08.is not the right thing. Final question to you, David, can you see
:43:08. > :43:12.a time in the near future where we may consider arming the rebels?
:43:12. > :43:16.I think that is perfectly possible. We did that in Libya and that is
:43:17. > :43:21.one case where there's a possibility. But you are adding
:43:21. > :43:25.fuel to a civil war. In the past, the issue has often been that
:43:25. > :43:29.nobody supplies weapons to a civil war and that was what was done in
:43:29. > :43:33.Bosnia, but that came under a huge attack because of its unfairness.
:43:33. > :43:38.You have to be very careful on this sort of thing. It is happening and
:43:38. > :43:43.it is being done by tacit support from most Western countries. It is
:43:43. > :43:48.happening at the moment. This is not, I don't think, the big problem,
:43:48. > :43:52.weaponry. So far they have conducted a very skilful campaign.
:43:52. > :43:57.They fight in the suburbs, in the inner cities, and then when they
:43:57. > :44:02.know the game is up, they move and fight somewhere else. This is what
:44:02. > :44:09.they have on their side. There's also continued defections from the
:44:09. > :44:11.Syrian army. Thank you. No easy solution to it.
:44:11. > :44:14.Now, remember those heady days of December, when David Cameron
:44:14. > :44:18.exercised what he called his veto over EU-wide measures to tackle the
:44:18. > :44:24.eurozone crisis? Well, today the Prime Minister returns to Brussels
:44:24. > :44:30.for a European leaders summit. Iain Watson is there.
:44:30. > :44:34.What reception do you think awaits Mr Cameron? I think what David
:44:34. > :44:38.Cameron wants to prove is that he is no longer isolated in Brussels.
:44:38. > :44:44.He looked rather lonely after he vetoed that EU treaty in December.
:44:44. > :44:48.First thing tomorrow in Brussels, 25 of the 27 EU countries will sign
:44:48. > :44:51.what would -- what would have been in that treated. The two countries
:44:51. > :44:55.that were not signed up Britain and the Czech Republic. The Prime
:44:55. > :44:59.Minister is travelling to Brussels with the prime minister of the
:44:59. > :45:02.Czech Republic. Much more significantly than that, Britain
:45:02. > :45:07.has also signed the letter effectively saying that the EU has
:45:07. > :45:12.not been doing enough to boost economic growth. 12 countries have
:45:12. > :45:15.signed a letter. To give you a flavour of it, it says it is a
:45:15. > :45:19.perilous moment for economies across Europe, we need to show
:45:19. > :45:22.leadership, take bold decisions, achieve results. But France and
:45:22. > :45:26.Germany have not signed a letter and I have seen what is the draft
:45:26. > :45:32.conclusions of this summit even before people have met. It talks a
:45:32. > :45:35.lot about economic growth, but it doesn't have specifics on
:45:35. > :45:42.deregulation that David Cameron is looking for. He may not be isolated
:45:43. > :45:48.this time, but he will have his He might be disappointed that, he
:45:48. > :45:51.is not Billy No Mates as you have said, but in terms of ratifying
:45:51. > :45:55.this fiscal come fact, Ireland and France, depending what happens in
:45:55. > :46:00.the election, that ratification has to take place and there are doubts
:46:00. > :46:04.about it, aren't there? Yes, there are. I mean this is the other area
:46:04. > :46:07.where Britain may not be isolated. Although 25 countries are signing
:46:08. > :46:10.this, it has to go back to their parliaments to make a decision. The
:46:10. > :46:15.Irish are having a referendum on this, but it is not clear that they
:46:15. > :46:18.will go along with it and the candidate who is leading in the
:46:18. > :46:21.opinion polls for the French presidency says he will not ratify
:46:21. > :46:25.this. He was in Britain yesterday, of course, he won't ratify this
:46:25. > :46:29.unless there are changes. He thinks it is restricts European debt too
:46:29. > :46:35.much. However, only 12 of the 25 countries have to ratify it for it
:46:35. > :46:39.come into force, imagine the row, the row may shift from Britain, but
:46:39. > :46:41.imagine the row if the EU tries to impose this on a newly elected
:46:41. > :46:49.Government in France. Indeed.
:46:49. > :46:55.I am joined by the the Conservative MP, Bill Cash and Emma Reynolds.
:46:55. > :47:00.Bill Cash we talked about happened in December, but Britain has been
:47:00. > :47:04.banging on about growth in the eurozone. Is there any point in
:47:04. > :47:08.depriving the eurozone of the instruments they need to put it
:47:08. > :47:10.into effect? Most people believe that it won't work anyway because
:47:11. > :47:14.the trillions that they are pouring in, are not going to produce the
:47:14. > :47:19.answer they really need which is to have growth. The other thing which
:47:19. > :47:23.is really important and why I got this emergency debate yesterday in
:47:23. > :47:26.the House of Commons is that the method that they are employing is
:47:26. > :47:32.according to much of the evidence that we're receiving, and I believe
:47:32. > :47:35.that the Government knows this, is that they are using a system which
:47:35. > :47:38.will effectively break the rule of law in Europe, by using the
:47:38. > :47:41.European Commission and the Court of Justice. This is a serious
:47:41. > :47:48.problem because they are using rules to break the rule of law.
:47:48. > :47:52.Right, would it affect us in a very negative way? Even if they are
:47:52. > :47:56.breaking the law, would it have any effect if as what we want is growth
:47:56. > :48:02.in the eurozone? As David Cameron indicated because he sent this
:48:02. > :48:07.letter to the letter European Council. We reserve our position
:48:07. > :48:11.and David Liddington said yesterday it would be a dangerous press den
:48:11. > :48:15.and the problem with that -- precedent and that the problem with
:48:15. > :48:19.that, they are creating to Europes built on sand. The truth is this is
:48:19. > :48:24.a new kind of Europe. We are at a crossroads and I don't think it is
:48:24. > :48:31.good to cry wolf to say, "We are going to take legal action." And
:48:31. > :48:37.then not do it because it it makes you look like a straw man.
:48:37. > :48:47.Emma Reynolds, Iain Watson, mentioned the meeting Ed Miliband
:48:47. > :48:53.had with the candidate for French President. Do you gree that this --
:48:53. > :48:57.agree that this shouldn't be ratified? For too long centre right
:48:57. > :49:01.Governments have focused on austerity alone.
:49:01. > :49:05.He will have come here to say, "I am not going to ratify it unless
:49:05. > :49:09.there are big changes." Does Ed Miliband agree? We agree that the
:49:09. > :49:14.treaty as it stands focuses too much on austerity and doesn't
:49:14. > :49:19.involve any commitment to growth and that's what he is saying. He is
:49:19. > :49:26.saying not scrap the treaty, he is saying there should be additions to
:49:26. > :49:31.the treaty. If there were the additions that Ed
:49:31. > :49:39.Miliband and the French presidency candidate would support it?
:49:39. > :49:44.problem is timing. If he was French President in January, it would have
:49:44. > :49:48.been easier. What happens if he gets elected in
:49:48. > :49:52.May, what happens the agreement that has been reached in January?
:49:52. > :49:56.This could be tricky. This is a jigsaw. The one thing you
:49:56. > :49:59.could look at Bill Cash, with so many countries signing up,
:49:59. > :50:04.ratification, let's leave that aside, with so many countries
:50:04. > :50:07.signing up, it could boost market confidence which would be a good
:50:07. > :50:10.thing for the British economy? Every time they produce the
:50:10. > :50:15.treaties and agreements and they have been having summit after
:50:15. > :50:19.summit after summit and they pour and more trillions into it.
:50:19. > :50:22.It is an important thing in these issues, isn't it? Market confidence
:50:22. > :50:28.is important. There is no doubt about that. But this is not the way
:50:28. > :50:33.to achieve it. The way to achieve it is to put oxygen into the small
:50:33. > :50:36.and medium sized businesses, not not to go in for Leaties --
:50:36. > :50:42.treaties which are unlawful and to generate growth which is the only
:50:42. > :50:45.way of achieving advantage with the countries like China and the rest.
:50:45. > :50:55.We have got to get down to the serious business of generating
:50:55. > :50:58.
:50:58. > :51:08.growth. It will be interesting to see if he
:51:08. > :51:11.
:51:11. > :51:21.does what in opposition what he Now, the latest in the seemingly
:51:21. > :51:21.
:51:21. > :51:23.never ending battle over Andrew Lansley's Health and Social Care
:51:23. > :51:26.Bill, Lib Dem will push for a vote at the conference.
:51:26. > :51:30.I am joined by Vicky Young. I notice that the Liberal Democrats
:51:30. > :51:35.or the Government have put out saying they are confident that he
:51:35. > :51:39.wouldn't lose the motion, but there could be a debate? It is fair to
:51:39. > :51:42.say that the Health Bill is going at a snail's pace through the House
:51:42. > :51:45.of Lords. Nick Clegg this week really tried to talk about the
:51:45. > :51:50.great work that the Liberal Democrat peers have been doing in
:51:50. > :51:54.the House of Lords to change it to improve it, the problem is they
:51:54. > :51:58.have a problem here, because they positioned themselves with the
:51:58. > :52:00.party that made a lot of changes, especially watering down parts of
:52:00. > :52:07.the Bill which are about competition. If you have got MPs
:52:07. > :52:12.sniping from the sides, it undermines their argument.
:52:12. > :52:16.The motion is to be debated. Is it becoming worse than tuition fees?
:52:16. > :52:21.The problem is as someone said to me today, it is becoming like
:52:21. > :52:23.tuition fees did really for the Liberal Democrats. The spring
:52:23. > :52:27.conference kicks off a week tomorrow. There has been a critical
:52:27. > :52:31.motion put forward. It is certain there will be an emergency motion
:52:31. > :52:35.on health debated. The one that has been suggested and put forward
:52:35. > :52:40.calls for the Bill to be withdrawn or defeated and dropped and it says
:52:40. > :52:43.that the Bill has failed to win the support of the public or health
:52:43. > :52:48.professionals and it will make reorganisation of the NHS worse.
:52:48. > :52:51.Many MPs, Liberal Democrats MPs, aren't happy where we are, but they
:52:51. > :52:55.feel dropping it now is too late. If they were going to drop the Bill,
:52:55. > :53:00.they should have done it months ago and saved themselves the agony. The
:53:00. > :53:06.Lib Dem leadership is confident it if they have peers on side, they
:53:06. > :53:10.can see down this activists conference motion.
:53:10. > :53:15.Chai Patel, we have been through the wringer on this on the Health
:53:15. > :53:17.Bill. The issue has been about competition. Do you fear the
:53:17. > :53:21.cherry-picking element that has been talked about by the Liberal
:53:21. > :53:26.Democrats? Competition exists in the NHS, but does the Bill lead to
:53:26. > :53:31.a new level of it? The changes that the Lib Dems brought in has now
:53:31. > :53:35.made sure that that won't happen. The recent LSD report showed that
:53:35. > :53:41.competition is good for the patients, it is good for healthcare
:53:41. > :53:47.outcomes, but it pointed out that the private healthcare sector had
:53:47. > :53:51.the option to cherry-pick the stuff. We have to make the Health Service
:53:51. > :53:56.more effective and efficient. One of the of the worries that GPs
:53:56. > :54:00.put, they don't want their patients to think they are thinking about
:54:00. > :54:05.the cost and profit margin and they are only thinking about care?
:54:05. > :54:08.have been commissioning for a while in a a variety of ways. What
:54:09. > :54:14.patients want is the best care at the right right place at the right
:54:14. > :54:18.time. They don't mind who delivers Is the 50 pence rate of tax
:54:18. > :54:22.damaging the economy? More than 500 business leaders think so in a
:54:22. > :54:26.letter to the Daily Telegraph they claim the tax is reducing
:54:26. > :54:32.Government income and it is not raising it and they are calling for
:54:32. > :54:36.to to be axed in the Budget. I'm joined by Charlie Mullin and
:54:36. > :54:43.Richard Murphy who is an accountant. They have been squabbling on
:54:43. > :54:48.Twitter. So let's going now! Charlie Mullin you said, "We
:54:48. > :54:53.believe the richest should help the poorest in society." So why scrap
:54:53. > :54:58.the top rate now? It is having a vice versa effect. Since they
:54:58. > :55:01.brought in the 50 pence tax rate, it has been proven that �500
:55:01. > :55:05.million less in revenue has been raised from the top tax earners.
:55:05. > :55:07.It is not getting money? It is having the vice versa effect. It is
:55:07. > :55:11.stopping people expanding and stopping people investing in
:55:11. > :55:15.business. It has gone the wrong way around.
:55:15. > :55:19.The case against it, it is not bringing in any dosh and it is
:55:19. > :55:22.having a detrimental effect on the economy? Is wrong. First of all,
:55:23. > :55:26.there has been no prove on this. There is no evidence which is firm
:55:26. > :55:32.and fast as yet... We have had initial figures. We have had
:55:32. > :55:42.figures, but they are wrong. Let's look at the data... How much do you
:55:42. > :55:47.
:55:47. > :55:51.think it is bringing in I think it will bring in �5 billion. There
:55:51. > :55:55.will be people earning quite a lot. Even the tax in the Labour Party
:55:55. > :56:00.and the Lib Dems, I have never heard any of them claim it will
:56:00. > :56:07.bring in �5 billion. Are you putting your name? Yes.
:56:07. > :56:11.Will you come back on? I will. It will either be a triumph for you
:56:11. > :56:16.or not? There is a lot of tax avoidance going on which we would
:56:16. > :56:22.have to tackle. It is impossible though and I am hanny hanny to say
:56:22. > :56:26.dp habby -- happy to say. Is it going to generate jobs? Of course,
:56:26. > :56:30.three billion which is the minimum, if all the avoidance was done that
:56:30. > :56:33.it could generate is the entire capital of the Green Investment
:56:33. > :56:36.Bank. If the top rate was cut, what would
:56:36. > :56:41.you do with the money? I would reinvest it into the business.
:56:41. > :56:45.Richard, you are talking rubbish, mate. Absolute rubbish. You are
:56:45. > :56:49.talking rubbish. Time will prove right or wrong.
:56:49. > :56:53.don't run a business. I have run businesses. Lots of
:56:53. > :56:58.businesses. I was a serial entrepreneur.
:56:58. > :57:04.You should be dealing with tax dodgers, not the good guys pay the
:57:04. > :57:07.tax. I paid over �0.5 million in tax last year.
:57:07. > :57:11.Charles Charlie, your assumption is the only way you can get more money
:57:11. > :57:17.in, first of all, you run a limited company, almost 0% of the -- 90% of
:57:17. > :57:22.the people who signed that letter run limited companies? Why do you
:57:22. > :57:26.run a limited companies because the tax rate is 20%. So you have the
:57:26. > :57:31.tax break for enterprise. You are confusing people with
:57:32. > :57:35.figures. They are stopping people reinvesting. It had the vis versa
:57:35. > :57:38.effect and -- vice versa effect. I don't think you have got a clue,
:57:38. > :57:43.mate. Who is right or wrong here? We have
:57:43. > :57:48.to wait for the numbers on this. We don't have to wait long.
:57:48. > :57:51.And then we can make a decision. Normally, it has been a disentive
:57:51. > :57:56.to growth. It shows more money has come in,
:57:56. > :58:00.will you settle? If he is right, I will carry on paying it. But I'm
:58:00. > :58:07.telling you now, you're wrong. 500 business leaders put their names to
:58:07. > :58:10.this. They are not stupid people. You know why you are wrong, you are
:58:10. > :58:14.paying yourself more because the tax has gone up so you have got the
:58:14. > :58:19.same net pay. We have got to do Guess The Year.
:58:19. > :58:29.Our prize is tax-free, it is not �5 billion!
:58:29. > :58:30.
:58:30. > :58:35.If we take 50%, half the mug goes. The answer was 1983. The winner is
:58:35. > :58:40.Mr Swindle. What a great name.