:00:43. > :00:46.Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. The Labour's two
:00:46. > :00:52.Eds are setting out their plans for the economy ahead of next week's
:00:52. > :00:54.Budget. They are calling for fair taxes. We will ask the shadow chief
:00:54. > :00:59.secretary to the Treasury of what it means.
:00:59. > :01:03.Nick Clegg emerges from the spring conference battered and bruised
:01:03. > :01:06.with the grassroots defying his pleas to support the NHS reforms.
:01:06. > :01:11.Senior party figures are questioning his plans for a tycoon
:01:11. > :01:14.tax. We will be assessing the fall- out for the Deputy Prime Minister.
:01:14. > :01:18.David Cameron launches a new scheme to help homeowners with the promise
:01:18. > :01:21.of guarantees for first-time buyers. We have the details.
:01:21. > :01:27.Do you know you're standing committee from you select
:01:28. > :01:31.committee? What does the Parliamentary Statutory Instruments
:01:31. > :01:36.Committee actually do? Quentin Letts has his A-Z Guide to
:01:36. > :01:46.Parliament. It is a jungle out there and sometimes what Parliament
:01:46. > :01:48.
:01:48. > :01:52.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole programme today,
:01:52. > :01:55.the historian Douglas Murray. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.
:01:55. > :02:01.If you have any thoughts or comment on anything we are discussing, then
:02:01. > :02:09.please go to a Twitter. Let's start with the announcement this morning
:02:09. > :02:16.that the Government is announcing a new scheme to help new buyers get a
:02:16. > :02:19.mortgage on properties that are new builds. Eric Pickles has been
:02:19. > :02:22.promoting the NewBuy Guarantee scheme, meeting her couples hoping
:02:22. > :02:27.to become homeowners under the scheme. Grant Shapps explained how
:02:27. > :02:31.it will work. The person buying a home will need to put down a
:02:31. > :02:35.deposit of 5% and then the industry itself, the developer, the
:02:35. > :02:42.housebuilder, will put another 3.5% into a special account, which they
:02:42. > :02:46.would lose if there is another repossession. That is with the
:02:47. > :02:50.taxpayer guaranteeing the other 5.5%. We think we are standing
:02:50. > :02:54.behind the market, using the weight of the Government, and in the end
:02:54. > :03:03.it will not cost the taxpayer much money if any and it enabled the
:03:03. > :03:07.generation to get onto the housing -- enables a generation to get onto
:03:07. > :03:12.the housing ladder. Is this a new announcement? This scheme was
:03:12. > :03:16.announced last November but today it has gone live. It is a reality
:03:16. > :03:20.and you can actually apply for one of these mortgages. We have several
:03:20. > :03:25.lenders and housebuilders that have signed up to the scheme. As you
:03:25. > :03:28.heard, the idea is that the taxpayer stands behind these
:03:28. > :03:33.mortgages, and the idea is that it will provide people that want to
:03:33. > :03:37.get a foot onto the housing ladder to get and 95% mortgage, something
:03:37. > :03:41.that is very difficult to find in the market at the moment. There
:03:41. > :03:46.will be a fear because it was the housing bubble that burst that in
:03:46. > :03:51.many people's minds contributed to the crash. Should the Government be
:03:51. > :03:55.a encouraging people to take out 95% mortgages? The Government is
:03:55. > :03:59.saying that the taxpayer's stake in this is third in line. The money
:03:59. > :04:06.that the Government is putting up will only be at risk wants the
:04:06. > :04:10.stake that the person taking out the mortgage it at risk and then
:04:10. > :04:15.the building stands in front of the taxpayer again. Then there is this
:04:15. > :04:23.worry about people being encouraged to take on and 95% mortgage. The
:04:23. > :04:25.Government is pointing out that their rustic do -- there are
:04:25. > :04:30.stricter rules in place to make sure that people can afford these
:04:30. > :04:34.mortgages. The mortgages on offer are fixed rate, but only for a few
:04:34. > :04:38.years. And yes, there is some risk because this era has very low
:04:38. > :04:43.interest rates and everybody expects them to go up sooner or
:04:43. > :04:47.later. There is always the risk in this labour market that is very
:04:47. > :04:51.difficult of people losing their jobs. There is a riskier but the
:04:52. > :04:56.Government is insisting it is not a question of going back to sub-prime
:04:56. > :05:00.mortgages. It is about helping people get back into the housing
:05:00. > :05:03.market. The risk is that if the housing market remains flat, then
:05:03. > :05:08.the investment might not look like such a good idea in a few years'
:05:08. > :05:13.time anyway. Thank you. On principle, bearing in mind what has
:05:13. > :05:17.happened and how we are so obsessed with owning homes, is that the
:05:17. > :05:21.right line to go down? Easy for us to say because many of us own our
:05:21. > :05:27.own homes. Should we be pushing the idea that as soon as you can afford
:05:27. > :05:31.to you should own your own home? is everybody's dream but for my
:05:31. > :05:34.generation it has pretty much become a fantasy. It is extremely
:05:34. > :05:39.difficult to get onto the housing ladder. Obviously this new
:05:39. > :05:42.initiative is very good for the building industry. Is it better for
:05:42. > :05:48.the building industry than it might be for people trying to get on to
:05:48. > :05:52.the ladder? It might be. Lots of houses are unoccupied and I think
:05:52. > :05:57.we should encourage people to buy them, do them up, move into areas
:05:57. > :06:00.with empty houses and to do that before building new ones.
:06:00. > :06:04.Particularly when the situation in the country is that there are huge
:06:04. > :06:08.parts of the country that could do with an influx of people coming in
:06:08. > :06:14.to do a property. What about the issue of the taxpayer subsidising
:06:14. > :06:22.these mortgages, even if it is in a remote weight than one might
:06:22. > :06:26.Essien? -- in a more remote way than one might assume? It is one
:06:26. > :06:29.thing if we flat line but what if there is a housing collapse? There
:06:29. > :06:33.are many lessons that we should have learned about the Government
:06:33. > :06:43.are not getting involved in this area. Interest rates could be key.
:06:43. > :06:47.At the moment it is affordable for many people to afford the mortgage
:06:47. > :06:52.payments if their levels stay so low. But who can afford to pay them
:06:52. > :06:57.back in the future? People will be trapped. If you have a 95% mortgage
:06:57. > :07:00.you only have the choice of keeping interest rates at the rate they are
:07:00. > :07:05.at or seeing massive amount of home repossession which everybody wants
:07:05. > :07:09.to avoid. Let's move on. With one week to go before George Osborne
:07:09. > :07:13.delivers his Budget, the arguments over tax are continuing. The
:07:13. > :07:21.Liberal Democrats spent the weekend squabbling over whether mansion tax
:07:21. > :07:30.or tycoon tax would be preferable in exchange for the scrapping six
:07:30. > :07:34.of the 50p rate of tax. The two Eds are speaking in London about their
:07:34. > :07:39.ideas for fair taxes. Next week's Budget will take place against the
:07:39. > :07:43.backdrop of the highest unemployment in our country for 17
:07:43. > :07:50.years, double the number of young people out of work for more than
:07:50. > :07:55.six months than one year ago, a situation where growth has stalled
:07:55. > :07:59.and an unprecedented squeeze on living standards. Wages stuck.
:07:59. > :08:05.Prices rising, including the price of the weekly food stock and the
:08:05. > :08:10.price of heating your home. In short, we have an economy not
:08:10. > :08:13.working for the working people of this country. Does it look like
:08:13. > :08:16.this is a Conservative-led Government that has answers to
:08:16. > :08:20.those challenges? It certainly does not from what we have seen in
:08:20. > :08:24.advance of this Budget. They have not been talking or arguing about
:08:24. > :08:29.jobs and how we create jobs in this economy. They have not been talking
:08:29. > :08:34.of arguing about how we get growth moving and change, George Osborne's
:08:34. > :08:40.approach. They seem to have been agonising over whether to cut the
:08:40. > :08:43.50p tax rate for those earning more than �150,000 a year. That is no
:08:43. > :08:48.answer to the problems that the vast majority of the people of
:08:48. > :08:51.Britain are facing. What do we need? We need a Budget for jobs and
:08:51. > :08:56.living standards that does three things. First of all a Budget that
:08:56. > :09:00.changes course on the short term, on the way that the Chancellor and
:09:00. > :09:05.the Prime Minister have got about addressing the talent of growth and
:09:06. > :09:08.deficit reduction. -- have gone about addressing the challenge of
:09:08. > :09:14.growth and deficit reduction. We warned that cutting too far and too
:09:14. > :09:18.fast would not work and we have been proved correct, unfortunately,
:09:18. > :09:22.about what would happen. If you look at what is happening in the
:09:22. > :09:27.United States with Barack Obama, growth is stronger and jobs are
:09:27. > :09:31.being created more quickly in that economy. The result of him taking a
:09:31. > :09:34.different approach. The first thing George Osborne should do in the
:09:34. > :09:37.Budget is to change course. That was the Labour leader speaking in
:09:38. > :09:42.the last few minutes. I have been joined by the shadow chief
:09:42. > :09:48.secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves. Thank you for coming on the
:09:48. > :09:52.programme. What are you actually advocating specifically? We know
:09:52. > :09:57.about the five-point plan. What is new about the economic policy from
:09:57. > :10:02.Labour to stimulate the economy? have a plan for jobs and growth
:10:02. > :10:06.which includes stimulus for employers taking on new workers and
:10:06. > :10:11.cuts to VAT. There are also issues about fairness. We have seen that
:10:11. > :10:14.with changes to child benefit, which means that a single income
:10:14. > :10:21.households owning �43,000 stands to lose all of that child benefit from
:10:21. > :10:25.next year, but a two income family earning �84,000 could keep all of
:10:25. > :10:30.their child benefit. And with tax credits, from next month, in just a
:10:30. > :10:34.few weeks' time families that can only work between 16 and 24 hours,
:10:34. > :10:41.often because of the jobs and 80 hours not being available, they
:10:41. > :10:49.stand to lose all their tax credits which would mean some families will
:10:49. > :10:56.not be better off unless they go on to benefits. We want to reverse
:10:56. > :11:00.that by reining in on the avoidance of stamp duty at the top. On the
:11:00. > :11:04.issue of tax, the Liberal Democrats have been talking about it, too.
:11:05. > :11:11.Labour want to keep the 50p top rate of tax. Would the party be
:11:11. > :11:15.prepared to give it up to support a mansion tax, for example? We will
:11:15. > :11:19.support the Government on a mansion tax. �2 million properties or lower.
:11:19. > :11:27.We will support the Government if they go ahead with the mansion tax
:11:27. > :11:36.and the talk is about properties worth less �2 million -- worth more
:11:36. > :11:41.than �200,000. We do not want to affect families with the middle
:11:41. > :11:46.income living standard. But what is the middle income? What is the
:11:46. > :11:51.upper limit that you are talking about? Families earning �40,000,
:11:51. > :11:58.�60,000 a year, families that are struggling. The priority should not
:11:58. > :12:02.be families earning �150,000, you are in the top income bracket. That
:12:02. > :12:10.money should be used to relieve pressure on ordinary families
:12:10. > :12:14.facing cuts in tax credits and rising fuel and energy bills.
:12:14. > :12:21.about the top rate of tax being brought in for families earning
:12:21. > :12:26.�100,000 instead of �150,000? would keep it at �150,000. We think
:12:26. > :12:36.that is the right policy right now. We don't think it should be the
:12:36. > :12:38.
:12:38. > :12:44.mansion tax or the 50p tax rate, we think it should be both. What about
:12:44. > :12:48.the tycoon tax? We are all about cutting out tax avoidance. Ed Balls
:12:48. > :12:52.has spoken about cutting down on tax avoidance on stamp duty. Nick
:12:52. > :12:55.Clegg is desperate to win back the support of his party, who have
:12:55. > :13:00.abandoned him on changes to the National Health Service, as we saw
:13:00. > :13:04.at the weekend. He has come up with this idea of a tycoon tax. But he
:13:04. > :13:09.is in the Government, he is Deputy Prime Minister, and when he talks
:13:09. > :13:13.about these things is he talking about a Liberal Democrat or is he
:13:13. > :13:21.talking as the Deputy Prime Minister? We will find out about
:13:21. > :13:25.that. How will you pay for these commitments? You want to keep the
:13:25. > :13:30.50p top rate of tax and you want mansion tax. The basically want
:13:30. > :13:40.more taxes at a higher level. but at the higher level. And child
:13:40. > :13:40.
:13:40. > :13:45.benefit. And VAT. We would have a mansion tax to support tax cuts for
:13:45. > :13:49.people on more modest in comes. but you still want to cut VAT and
:13:49. > :13:54.keep child benefit. How would that be paid for? It is about priorities
:13:54. > :14:04.and this Government is Pretoria's into tax cuts for the bags. We are
:14:04. > :14:09.saying reinstate the bankers's taxes. There has been a scheme for
:14:09. > :14:16.new businesses which has not worked. There is �100,000 left a mark which
:14:16. > :14:19.we want to use. What about the proposal which has not been fleshed
:14:19. > :14:24.out of tax relief on pension contributions for higher-rate
:14:24. > :14:30.taxpayers? Reducing that would bring in an awful lot of money.
:14:30. > :14:36.Alistair Darling's last Budget, we set out that people earning
:14:36. > :14:40.�150,000 would get tax relief at the basic rate of 20%. For all
:14:40. > :14:45.higher rate taxpayers? That is what Alistair Darling said, tax relief
:14:45. > :14:51.at the basic rate rather than 50%. George Osborne reversed that in his
:14:51. > :14:56.first Budget. Actually people in the top 1% are getting more tax
:14:56. > :14:59.relief than they would have under a Labour Government. Is it fair to
:14:59. > :15:06.hit the pensions of people but a higher rate taxpayers and still
:15:06. > :15:10.allow them to get child benefit? -- that are higher rate taxpayers.
:15:10. > :15:17.think that it is right that we have a universal child benefit because
:15:17. > :15:21.there are costs... Higher rate taxpayers could afford that. There
:15:21. > :15:25.are administrative costs and people paying into the system and it is
:15:25. > :15:28.vital that they get something extra, whether it is the basic state
:15:28. > :15:36.pension or child benefit, to support people when they have extra
:15:36. > :15:41.It is a difficult process, made worse by the fact it has been
:15:41. > :15:46.fleshed out in public and everybody is arguing. What is that doing, do
:15:46. > :15:56.you think, to the process itself? First, toy not think we could refer
:15:56. > :15:58.
:15:58. > :16:03.to it as a "confused budget." You are speculating. It is not just
:16:03. > :16:08.we speculating. Government ministers are speculating. It is a
:16:08. > :16:12.coalition. We don't normally hear people bidding in the same way.
:16:12. > :16:17.First of all, the Liberal Democrats are doing what the Labour Party is
:16:17. > :16:22.doing. Labour are the opposition. noticed that. But the fact is that
:16:22. > :16:25.every party at the moment is trying to make clear water between itself
:16:25. > :16:30.and other parties. It is difficult for the Liberal Democrats to do.
:16:30. > :16:33.Nick Clegg is trying to hold a voter base together, so has to do a
:16:33. > :16:39.dog whistle politics. The Labour Party, to a great extent, are doing
:16:39. > :16:44.the same. I think, watching that clip of Ed Miliband, it's hard not
:16:44. > :16:49.to pity him really in a way. He is trying desperately to create a
:16:49. > :16:53.policy that sticks and means something. Most of this is debating
:16:53. > :16:56.around the same terrain. They are debating. Row are trying to grab
:16:56. > :16:59.the same people. You debate who the average household are.
:16:59. > :17:03.Conservatives want the average household to be on their side.
:17:03. > :17:07.Everybody does. It is a terrible mistake for Mr Miliband to cite the
:17:07. > :17:11.situation in America. Yes, there has been a slight upturn in the
:17:11. > :17:15.number of jobs being created. Look at the debt and the deficit in
:17:15. > :17:20.America. America is in more debt than it has been any time since
:17:20. > :17:24.World War II. It won World War II. What has it got this time?
:17:24. > :17:28.Government are borrowing �158 billion more than they planned
:17:28. > :17:31.because unemployment is growing. The reality is unless the
:17:31. > :17:35.Government get a plan for jobs and growths they will not be able to
:17:35. > :17:39.get the deficit down, reduce debt. That is the predicament that George
:17:40. > :17:43.Osborne finds himself in and why we need a plan for jobs and growth.
:17:43. > :17:48.There is a predicament. It is a predicament your party left this
:17:48. > :17:52.Government. David Cameron says he wants the
:17:52. > :17:55.Human Rights Act to be replaced by a British Bill of Rights. Last year
:17:55. > :17:58.the coalition set up a commission to look at the idea, which the
:17:58. > :18:01.Prime Minister says, would restore the sovereignty of the British
:18:01. > :18:05.Parliament. Now one of the commission members has resigned,
:18:05. > :18:08.saying Nick Clegg and the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, have been
:18:08. > :18:14.working to frustrate plans for reform. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky
:18:14. > :18:19.set out his frustrations to Andrew Neil on yesterday's Sunday Politics.
:18:19. > :18:25.It sound like you have lost faith in the commission to deliver any
:18:25. > :18:30.real change - where does that leave your position? Well, I am afraid it
:18:30. > :18:39.leaves me with no alternative but to resign because I think the cause
:18:39. > :18:41.is so important to look in a mature way at human rights and to make it
:18:41. > :18:45.consistent with parliamentary sovereignty that I do need to
:18:45. > :18:49.pursue it, but not on the commission. Well, that was Andrew
:18:49. > :18:53.Neil yesterday, talking to Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Let's join our
:18:53. > :18:57.political correspondent, who is outside Westminster. It is an
:18:57. > :19:00.interesting debate. On one hand you have a gentleman who has resigned,
:19:00. > :19:04.who many will not have heard of and resign from a commission many
:19:04. > :19:09.people will not have heard of. Underneath that is an issue that
:19:09. > :19:13.very much gets people going. Who ultimately is responsible for
:19:13. > :19:18.deciding whether prisoners get the vote for instance? Or whether the
:19:18. > :19:21.radical Muslim preacher should get deported? That is where you get a
:19:21. > :19:27.tussle about whether it is a decision made by Parliament, behind
:19:27. > :19:30.us, or by judges in Strasbourg. A sense from speaking to people
:19:30. > :19:34.around the commission in the last 24 hours that yes they might have
:19:34. > :19:41.found Dr Michael hard to work with, but others say some of what he was
:19:41. > :19:45.saying resonates. It matters. It's effectively a reflection of
:19:45. > :19:50.difficulties around that commission. A sense that you have people there
:19:50. > :19:54.reflecting the commission of a liberal bench -- bent. It cannot
:19:54. > :19:58.conclude anything when it reports at Christmas. One person suggested
:19:58. > :20:07.to me that those of a right-leaning persuasion might publish a minority
:20:07. > :20:11.report when this commission reports at the end of the year. We have two
:20:11. > :20:15.guests here. Douglas, I was looking at the terms of reference of this
:20:15. > :20:21.commission this morning. It will investigate the creation of a UK
:20:21. > :20:24.Bill of Rights, that it incorporates and builds on our
:20:24. > :20:28.obligations on the European Court of Human Rights. It sound like a
:20:29. > :20:32.fudge. From the beginning when I saw the terms of reference I was
:20:32. > :20:37.suspicious. I thought it was perhaps designed to kick this into
:20:37. > :20:40.the long grass. It turns out the grass was not all that long, after
:20:40. > :20:46.all. It is unfortunate Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has stood down. He
:20:46. > :20:50.was an independent voice on a commission, otherwise dominated by
:20:50. > :20:57.retired judges, human rights establishment figures. He has gone.
:20:57. > :21:01.This shows this commission is not up to the job to review our
:21:01. > :21:04.position. He's not up to the job? This was always an interesting
:21:04. > :21:10.beast. Let's not forget going into the last general election, the
:21:10. > :21:14.Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had opposing views on
:21:14. > :21:20.the Human Rights Act. On the issue of his resignation - of course we
:21:20. > :21:23.don't know the particular dynamics behind the scenes and conservices.
:21:23. > :21:29.From his public statement -- conversations. From his public
:21:29. > :21:35.statement, it seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on his
:21:35. > :21:40.part about the role of this commission.
:21:40. > :21:45.I think ultimately you cannot reconcile the idea of judicial
:21:45. > :21:50.supremacy with democracy. The human rights establishment, those who see
:21:50. > :21:54.themselves as modernising want us to go back to a pre-modern idea,
:21:54. > :22:00.where ideas are made on an elite rather than what the people want
:22:00. > :22:03.democratically. The architects of human right rules, we cannot
:22:03. > :22:08.reconcile what they want with democracy. Is this a problem of
:22:09. > :22:13.personnel in the Government? One of the suggestions was that Ken Clarke
:22:13. > :22:17.was leaning on this position. That is denied by others. Is Ken Clarke
:22:17. > :22:21.the right person for the job? Prime Minister in Number Ten finds
:22:21. > :22:26.themselves with a reform. You have to decide do you remove the road
:22:26. > :22:36.block or have the reform. David Cameron needs a clear choice. He
:22:36. > :22:36.
:22:36. > :22:41.either takes on the establishment and gets serious or go into the
:22:41. > :22:47.next election and explain why. Where will we be in 12 months' time
:22:47. > :22:51.when we have the results of this commission? What do you think will
:22:51. > :22:54.happen? Who knows? It is a serious commission. There are eight members
:22:54. > :22:57.of it now that Michael Pinto- Duschinsky has been replaced.
:22:57. > :23:02.Anyone who believes in human rights in this country should take the
:23:02. > :23:06.threat to our current human rights arrangements seriously. I believe
:23:06. > :23:16.passionately in human rights. The way to secure it is through
:23:16. > :23:16.
:23:16. > :23:22.democracy and real liberalism, not giving power to a technocrat elite.
:23:22. > :23:27.-- Thank you for your time here on College Green. A new commissioner
:23:27. > :23:31.has been appointed to replace Dr Michael. Another lawyer. So all the
:23:31. > :23:34.commissioners will now be lawyers. As I say, their report, whether a
:23:34. > :23:40.majority or minority report will be published at the end of the year.
:23:40. > :23:44.Thank you very much. Let's pick up, Douglas. The other Douglas said Ken
:23:44. > :23:47.Clarke should go, we need a new Justice Secretary. Do you agree?
:23:47. > :23:51.is strong from a Conservative backbencher. I am not sure whether
:23:51. > :23:54.Ken Clarke himself is the problem. There is a problem in the
:23:54. > :23:58.Government about how it is approaching this. The nature, the
:23:58. > :24:03.parties had different views about this. There are terrible problems
:24:03. > :24:08.with the convention and the court though, which I think should not be
:24:08. > :24:12.avoided. There are very few options open at the moment. There is the
:24:12. > :24:20.option I raised the other week of ignoring the court when it comes up
:24:20. > :24:27.with crazy decisions such as Qatarda. In the long-term you is to
:24:27. > :24:31.negotiate in some way or get out. There was a report by another
:24:31. > :24:35.commissioner saying that there could be a protocol added to the
:24:35. > :24:41.convention and that could be a way around it. Realistically, as you
:24:41. > :24:47.said yourself, we're in a coalition. There will not be the progress that
:24:47. > :24:53.you and some in the Government would like to see. As was said the
:24:53. > :24:57.grass is not as long as when they kicked it in. You cannot say strong
:24:57. > :25:00.enough the convention of the European Court because it is more
:25:00. > :25:04.about laws. It is about sovereignty. It is about whether Parliament in
:25:04. > :25:08.this country can be dictated to or whether it decides for the people.
:25:08. > :25:12.That isn't a small question. It's not. As you say may not be one that
:25:12. > :25:16.is answered in the near future. Now Kosovo, Sierra Leone and of course
:25:16. > :25:24.Iraq and Afghanistan - just some of the places where British troops
:25:24. > :25:29.have been involved in active combat in recent years. The policy is
:25:29. > :25:34.called interventionalism. The idea it can be used if it is to bring
:25:34. > :25:38.peace to the civilian population. Does that doctrine hold true? If it
:25:38. > :25:46.does high not apply it to Iran and Syria?
:25:46. > :25:50.David Thompson reports. Britain's conflict s are seen at
:25:50. > :25:54.the national army museum in London. Many of the conflicts remembered
:25:54. > :26:00.here were fought by Britain under the banner of using forbs to bring
:26:00. > :26:04.about a greater good. Liberal interventionalism. These days the
:26:04. > :26:11.possibility is on the possibility of military action in Syria or Iran.
:26:11. > :26:16.Could we and should we? Syria and Iran are both very oppressive
:26:16. > :26:21.regimes. Syria far more so. Iran is also a danger to its neighbours and
:26:21. > :26:26.particularly to Israel. To take force, the use of military force
:26:26. > :26:33.from outside out of the evasion I think would be irresponsible and
:26:33. > :26:37.dangerous. The doctrine of liberal intervenalism is one that is still
:26:37. > :26:44.value yoobl. We should inter-- valuable. We should intervene if we
:26:44. > :26:50.think we can make the world a safer plails. What about now -- place.
:26:51. > :26:55.What about now? Although the loss of life in Syria currently is a
:26:55. > :26:58.moral outrage, I still think the circumstances make intervention
:26:59. > :27:05.extremely difficult. The difficulties of a military attack
:27:05. > :27:10.on Iran is to know precisely what needs to be attacked to reduce or
:27:10. > :27:14.remove or render incapable their developing nuclear weapon
:27:14. > :27:19.capability. If not Syria, where the regime is killing its own people,
:27:19. > :27:26.or Iran, which is widely suspected of developing a nuclear weapon,
:27:26. > :27:29.where? The one thing mader than using military force would be
:27:29. > :27:36.allowed for Tehran to acquire new nuclear weapons. That would be
:27:36. > :27:40.dangerous for Israel and the world. I think you have to retain the
:27:40. > :27:43.option of military force. Maybe there is something for that - a
:27:44. > :27:48.failed military attack on Iran. Which is why some experts think it
:27:48. > :27:52.may be better to think the unthinkable. If we have tried to
:27:52. > :27:56.bomb Iran, not to have a bomb, we will wind up with a bombed Iran,
:27:56. > :27:59.with a bomb. A country that's angry, that has been set very much against
:27:59. > :28:04.the West. That could be the worst of all options. Maybe the least
:28:04. > :28:07.worse option is to accept that we cannot stop them having a weapon,
:28:07. > :28:11.even though we have tried diplomatically, economically,
:28:11. > :28:16.perhaps ruled out military means and therefore live to -- learn to
:28:16. > :28:22.live with Iran with a bomb. War, whatever the pretext is not about
:28:22. > :28:27.theory, it is about people. Be they Iranian, Syrian or British,
:28:27. > :28:30.ultimately they pay the price. Douglas Murray is still with me. We
:28:30. > :28:33.have been joined by Mehdi Hassan from the New Statesman. Let's start
:28:33. > :28:37.with you on the humanitarian situation. It is dreadful,
:28:37. > :28:44.whichever way you look at it and the scenes are distressing,
:28:44. > :28:48.particularly in Homs. If you look at the justification for the
:28:48. > :28:54.intervention in Libya. Gaddafi could not slaughter civilians
:28:54. > :28:58.looking for democracy. Have we got to that stage now however
:28:58. > :29:02.complicated the situation in Syria, an argument for intervention to
:29:02. > :29:07.help civilians? In terms of killing civilians. Ast ast is giving
:29:07. > :29:17.Gaddafi a run for his -- Assad is giving Gaddafi a run for his money.
:29:17. > :29:19.
:29:19. > :29:25.true, Syria is not Libya. You cannot, even if you want to do what
:29:25. > :29:30.you did there the options are not there. Why? You would take on
:29:30. > :29:37.Syrian anti-aircraft batteries. Syria has an army of 300,000-
:29:37. > :29:40.400,000 men. Assad is a stronger leader than Gaddafi was. It's not
:29:40. > :29:45.just people like me who criticise a lot of foreign interventions.
:29:45. > :29:49.William Hague is saying, we wish we could do something in Syria, but
:29:49. > :29:53.the military options are not there. A lot are saying we cannot do it in
:29:53. > :29:57.Syria. Who are these opposition groups? Who would the West, if you
:29:57. > :30:03.like, or the Arab League, who would they do it with against Syria? How
:30:03. > :30:08.would you bring down, which is whait would be the Assad regime?
:30:08. > :30:14.suggest a no-fly zone is intervention of a kind. A no-fly
:30:14. > :30:19.zone means at some point you will shoot down a helicopter gunship.
:30:20. > :30:24.There is retally yea Tory fire. Before you know it you have an air-
:30:24. > :30:28.scale intervention. I don't think anyone is talking about a ground
:30:28. > :30:31.force intervention. There is talk in Washington and elsewhere of
:30:31. > :30:41.potentially arming rebel groups. Of course then you have to be specific
:30:41. > :30:44.
:30:44. > :30:50.We are talking about the religious country full of complexities. Who
:30:51. > :30:56.would we be arming? The army is split. Their opposition groups that
:30:56. > :31:00.do not want Western intervention, rightly or wrongly. They think it
:31:00. > :31:04.will make sectarianism worse. Leading members of the opposition
:31:04. > :31:07.on the ground do not want intervention. Then there is the
:31:07. > :31:12.Free Syrian Army. They have a loose conglomeration of armed groups and
:31:12. > :31:20.they do want arms. Some say that Saudi Arabia is already arming them.
:31:20. > :31:24.Do we want to arm them? Go and ask Human Rights Watch what is going on
:31:24. > :31:29.in Libya now, with torture and alarming murders and raping. We
:31:29. > :31:33.cannot just arm violent groups without knowing who they are.
:31:33. > :31:38.should not harm anybody if we do not know who they are. We do know
:31:38. > :31:46.some more about people in the Free Syrian Army and they would be more
:31:46. > :31:49.desirable than the President Assad regime. Whenever human rights
:31:49. > :31:54.abuses go on around the world people always say that something
:31:54. > :31:57.must be done and I tend to be one of the people saying that, when
:31:57. > :32:01.massive amounts of civilians are being massacred I think something
:32:01. > :32:08.should be done. But we have to be clear what something means and what
:32:08. > :32:11.the being done means. To my mind, it would be desirable to get rid of
:32:11. > :32:16.the President Assad regime and to get rid of their supporters in
:32:16. > :32:21.Tehran as well. Because it would hit Iran? That is not liberal
:32:21. > :32:24.intervention. Lots of people are saying it is not about
:32:24. > :32:28.humanitarianism and liberal intervention falls apart. Western
:32:28. > :32:36.governments use it for their strategic interests. Why intervene
:32:36. > :32:43.in Syria but not Bahrain? They are our ally and that is why. I am very
:32:43. > :32:48.critical of the non-intervention in Bahrain. I put it this way. There
:32:48. > :32:51.are two key reasons to intervene anywhere. Firstly, humanitarian
:32:51. > :32:56.concerns and secondly strategic concerns. Sometimes one of those is
:32:56. > :33:00.not enough. You cannot intervene everywhere that you want to for
:33:00. > :33:04.strategic reasons or for human rights issues. But sometimes the
:33:04. > :33:10.two things come together and it could be desirable. And you think
:33:10. > :33:12.that is the case in Syria. If humanitarian aid get through and
:33:12. > :33:18.the President of that regime falls, then we are looking straight down
:33:18. > :33:26.the barrel at Iran. You say it would be desirable to hit Iran in
:33:26. > :33:32.that way. Would it be desirable or would we be escalating the violence
:33:32. > :33:36.and conflict? I just think that the regime in Iran should be encouraged
:33:36. > :33:40.to fall. They have been an enemy of hours for 30 years. They have
:33:40. > :33:44.wrecked the country. We are talking about a regional conflict that
:33:44. > :33:51.would spread. It is not a regional conflict. I am not suggesting that
:33:51. > :33:57.we intervene in Iran. That is a slightly potted history. Both sides
:33:57. > :34:00.have demonised the other. We overthrew the Government in 1993
:34:00. > :34:04.and we backed Saddam Hussein when he was gassing Iranians. Let's
:34:04. > :34:09.understand why the other side might hate us a little bit. The logical
:34:09. > :34:13.end step of Douglas's rhetoric is intervention. That is what has been
:34:13. > :34:18.going on, ratcheting up the temperature. Either you
:34:18. > :34:21.deliberately go to war or you end up with a conflict accidentally and
:34:21. > :34:27.that would be a disaster and it would make Iraq look like a walk in
:34:27. > :34:30.the park. That is not necessarily the end point. If the sanctions
:34:30. > :34:34.continue to bite, then the opposition that most of us would
:34:34. > :34:39.dream of, that the Iranian people get their country back from the
:34:39. > :34:44.tyranny, that would be a real possibility. Then at the Green
:34:44. > :34:50.movement could finally come to power. That movement also backs
:34:50. > :34:56.nuclear power and in Richmond. Do you back that? If they wanted to an
:34:56. > :35:01.irate member states, then I would back that. -- to annihilate member
:35:01. > :35:06.states. Thank you. Let's look at the week ahead. David Cameron is
:35:06. > :35:10.jetting off to the United States to meet Barack Obama and discuss Iran
:35:10. > :35:15.and Syria among other pressing international matters. It is not
:35:15. > :35:19.all work because the President is whisking him on Air Force One to
:35:19. > :35:27.Ohio, a key swing state in the presidential election to watch a
:35:27. > :35:30.basketball game. After the commissioner from the British Bill
:35:30. > :35:35.of Rights resigned on our programme on Sunday, the issue of human
:35:35. > :35:42.rights comes under scrutiny this week. The Joint Committee on Human
:35:42. > :35:48.Rights takes evidence from Sir Nicholas Bratza, President of the
:35:48. > :35:52.European Court of Human Rights. It is an early start on Tuesday, 11
:35:52. > :35:55.o'clock, to discuss the Health and Social Care Bill. Will the
:35:55. > :35:58.turbulence at the Lib Dem conference shake peers into
:35:58. > :36:02.ditching the controversial bill? With the Prime Minister across the
:36:02. > :36:06.pond, both parties have their deputies stepping up to the
:36:06. > :36:11.dispatch box. Watch out for William Hague versus Harriet Harman on
:36:11. > :36:14.Wednesday at midday. Pippa Creagh from the Evening Standard and Paul
:36:14. > :36:23.Waugh from PoliticsHome joined us now. And I just have to thank my
:36:23. > :36:26.guest for coming onto the programme. Now, this trip on Air Force One,
:36:26. > :36:30.glamorous meetings with Barack Obama, does that mean the special
:36:30. > :36:33.relationship is live and kicking? It is certainly useful for the
:36:33. > :36:37.President and hopefully for the Prime Minister. He will get a lot
:36:37. > :36:42.more out of this trip than was previously imagined. It seems that
:36:42. > :36:48.the USA finally appreciate that Britain's role in the world,
:36:48. > :36:53.particularly given a Iran and Syria in the Middle East, is crucial.
:36:53. > :37:02.There was a tilt towards the Pacific but now the US they seem to
:37:02. > :37:06.have -- the USA seems to have realised how important we are.
:37:06. > :37:13.will not be meeting up with politicians at the Republican Party.
:37:13. > :37:16.Is that a surprise? It is not a surprise. I expect the Liam Fox
:37:17. > :37:21.would like him to be meeting the Republican front-runners. It is not
:37:21. > :37:26.all fun and games were the Prime Minister. He will be having serious
:37:26. > :37:31.discussions about defence strategy. And also about what is happening in
:37:31. > :37:36.Afghanistan. In recent days we have seen the terrible events going on
:37:36. > :37:41.there, particularly with the murder of civilians and children. That is
:37:41. > :37:45.bound to be the top of both of the leaders' agendas. And we will be
:37:45. > :37:48.talking about that in a few moments, too. Can we look back at the
:37:48. > :37:52.Liberal Democrats' spring conference? All right, Nick Clegg
:37:52. > :37:58.lost the vote, it will not change Government policy, but what does it
:37:58. > :38:03.saved about the relationship between him and his party? -- what
:38:03. > :38:07.does it say? It is embarrassing for Nick Clegg. What it will not do is
:38:08. > :38:16.stop Lib Dem peers from supporting the bill in the Lords. It will give
:38:16. > :38:26.Labour the opportunity, of course, do so that it is not fully behind
:38:26. > :38:26.
:38:26. > :38:30.the bill. -- to say that it is not fully behind the bill. Health has
:38:30. > :38:34.been a hugely controversial issue for the Liberal Democrats. Now we
:38:34. > :38:38.have an interesting line on tax. This idea of the tycoon tax. Lots
:38:38. > :38:44.of senior Lib Dems did not seem to know about it. Do you think it has
:38:44. > :38:48.been roundly rejected? This afternoon, the famous Quatt, the
:38:49. > :38:53.Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, George Osborne and Danny
:38:53. > :38:57.Alexander, they will all be meeting in the Cabinet room for what I am
:38:57. > :39:01.told will be a very long meeting, the final meeting ahead of the
:39:01. > :39:06.Budget when they will hammer down the issues on tax for the higher
:39:06. > :39:10.and lower paid. The question is whether the tycoon tax will survive
:39:10. > :39:15.beyond this weekend. It will not be in his Budget and it has been
:39:15. > :39:19.quietly doused down by the Treasury overnight. Even within the Lib Dems,
:39:19. > :39:24.there is obviously division, with the Deputy Prime Minister deriding
:39:24. > :39:30.Lord Oakeshott for being one of the tycoon's within the party that does
:39:30. > :39:35.not like the tycoon tax. Right! And finally, William Hague versus
:39:35. > :39:37.Harriet Harman? Looking forward to it? I am. William Hague has
:39:38. > :39:45.reputation for being a great showman but Harriet Harman has
:39:45. > :39:50.always held her own. She has lost her chief stand-up jokes from her
:39:50. > :39:53.team, but we will see how she gets on without that. The vast majority
:39:53. > :39:57.of people's eyes will be on what is happening over the pond rather than
:39:57. > :40:04.in the House of Commons. You could be right! Thank you.
:40:04. > :40:08.I have been joined by a Rehman Chishti, Owen Smith and Eilidh
:40:08. > :40:11.Whiteford for the rest of the programme. Can I start with
:40:11. > :40:17.Afghanistan, because that will no doubt be discussed with Barack
:40:17. > :40:22.Obama? Do you feel we are safer with the mission in Afghanistan?
:40:22. > :40:26.think we have no choice but to go into the mission in Afghanistan. We
:40:26. > :40:30.went into the country for our national security. So you think it
:40:30. > :40:34.has worked? David Cameron says we are safe on the streets because of
:40:34. > :40:41.our boys up there? I did eight years of foreign policy with
:40:41. > :40:45.Benazir Bhutto before I came into policy in this country. The attacks
:40:45. > :40:49.in 2005 were linked to that region. The money we have spent on
:40:49. > :40:52.education, changing attitudes from radicalisation to education, to fit
:40:52. > :40:58.in with the broad approach, that is absolutely right. But links in with
:40:58. > :41:02.military action but we do need the political settlement as well.
:41:02. > :41:06.is the point people are making. If we are keeping our streets safer,
:41:06. > :41:12.that is one thing, but if we wanted to create democracy in Afghanistan,
:41:12. > :41:16.that was not the point and we have strayed. Absolutely. In 1989, the
:41:17. > :41:20.international community left Afghanistan in a vacuum and the
:41:20. > :41:25.Taliban came in. We have to make this sustainable and linked to our
:41:25. > :41:30.community over here. Do you back that? The idea that troops are not
:41:30. > :41:36.just fighting the Taliban but also Al-Qaeda. Is it an imaginary enemy
:41:36. > :41:39.in that sense? I think that Rehman Chishti is right. We are safer as a
:41:39. > :41:45.result of what we have done in Afghanistan. There is no doubt
:41:45. > :41:50.about that. The plan was obviously that Afghanistan had become an area
:41:50. > :41:54.of the world where Al-Qaeda was harboured and now it is harder for
:41:54. > :41:58.them in Afghanistan. Therefore we are safe in the West. We also
:41:58. > :42:07.always said that installing democracy, and seeing a safer and
:42:07. > :42:13.more Deborah -- democratic country it would always be in our interests
:42:13. > :42:18.and it is about that. And it is about supporting our troops in
:42:18. > :42:21.difficult circumstances. But following the death of the 16
:42:21. > :42:25.civilians and the six servicemen, will the public be questioning when
:42:25. > :42:29.the troops come home? Yes. We must always ask that question and as
:42:29. > :42:34.politicians we must always ask that question on behalf of the public.
:42:34. > :42:38.Do you want it to be sooner? We all want them to come back as soon as
:42:38. > :42:42.possible and we all aspire to that. We need to make sure that they
:42:42. > :42:45.finish the job. If you talk to people, and I do regularly, that
:42:46. > :42:50.are fighting in Afghanistan, then they want to feel like they have
:42:50. > :42:54.finished the job. They do not want to leave prematurely. Because the
:42:54. > :43:00.risk is that if they leave to sin than the Taliban will move in and
:43:00. > :43:04.their work will be damaged? -- leave too soon. I think that is
:43:04. > :43:07.right. We have to come back to the reasons why we were in Afghanistan
:43:07. > :43:11.in the first place and why many years on whether those objectives
:43:11. > :43:15.are still being met and if they are still being met through the
:43:15. > :43:19.military response. Do you think they are being that? I have real
:43:19. > :43:23.questions over it, I must confess. Clearly there were national
:43:23. > :43:28.security reasons for going in there, but I do question what our troops
:43:28. > :43:33.are doing now and if that is really going to strengthen civil society
:43:33. > :43:42.effectively in Afghanistan? We are not releasing the evidence of that,
:43:42. > :43:45.I don't think. How -- we are not really seeing the evidence. I think
:43:45. > :43:53.all the families want to see our people brought home. I think they
:43:53. > :43:58.want to see that conflict brought to some sort of sustainable
:43:59. > :44:02.resolution for the people of Afghanistan, too. We have debated
:44:02. > :44:07.this in Parliament. When the Prime Minister comes back, a statement
:44:07. > :44:13.will be made on that. Looking at the situation in Afghanistan,
:44:13. > :44:17.180,000 members in the Afghan army and members of the police force as
:44:17. > :44:20.well, linked to education and infrastructure. We are giving
:44:20. > :44:24.Afghanistan an opportunity to master their own destiny. There
:44:24. > :44:27.needs to be more political work as well as military work to make sure
:44:27. > :44:30.Afghanistan can play a key role in the international community. Thank
:44:30. > :44:33.you. If you caught the train from
:44:33. > :44:37.Gateshead this weekend you may have seen some sullen Liberal Democrat
:44:37. > :44:44.faces on the way back from the spring conference. But one member
:44:45. > :44:49.was more silent than the others. Nick Clegg suffered a series of
:44:49. > :44:56.blows, after 10 party activists to rip off the rear view mirror on the
:44:56. > :45:06.health you. -- telling party activists. They still rejected the
:45:06. > :45:14.bill in a non-binding vote. Nick Clegg's attempts to steer
:45:14. > :45:18.conversation away towards tycoon taxes did not go very well because
:45:19. > :45:22.he had not of the Business Secretary about the plans. Vince
:45:22. > :45:27.Cable commented that he had not seen the details of the proposals
:45:27. > :45:32.and could not give a very informed. Very honest of him. He said the
:45:32. > :45:35.idea is interesting for and taxing the wealthy has been a popular
:45:35. > :45:39.discussion point among Liberal Democrat but the mansion tax has
:45:39. > :45:44.long been seen as the favoured plan and the tycoon tax seemed to take
:45:44. > :45:51.people by surprise. With the Budget a week away and negotiations in the
:45:51. > :46:01.final stages, the big question is what Nick Clegg will be able to
:46:01. > :46:08.
:46:09. > :46:15.We'll have to wait for the Budget for the Chancellor to lay that out.
:46:15. > :46:19.I am now joined by Andrew George. It was a surprise to you the tycoon
:46:19. > :46:24.tax? We enjoy a good debate. One of the great things about the Liberal
:46:24. > :46:28.Democrats is we have very open debates. It was hardly a great
:46:28. > :46:32.weekend for Nick Clegg, was it? spoke extremely well. The fact is
:46:32. > :46:41.the values of the party were presented very well. And the fact
:46:41. > :46:47.is that we have debates which other parties would rather we kept behind
:46:47. > :46:52.closed doors. You are having open debates. You are not supporting a
:46:52. > :46:57.basic thread of Government policy. People need to grow up. After the
:46:57. > :47:02.2010 general election election and reg naiz debates is about in public,
:47:03. > :47:08.enjoying the wider community. Not having the Blair type control
:47:08. > :47:11.Government we had in the past. We have a very open and democratic
:47:11. > :47:16.system. You would like Nick Clegg to start again with the health
:47:16. > :47:22.bill? I think Nick has done an excellent job in securing some
:47:22. > :47:28.important amendments to the Health Bill. Not enough? Not good enough.
:47:28. > :47:33.I am clear on my view on it. I am pleased the party supports my view.
:47:33. > :47:38.We're having an open debate about this. We have a healthy party. We
:47:38. > :47:43.welcome healthy debate. In terms of the Bill itself, you want it ripped
:47:43. > :47:47.up, you want it scrapped, you want it withdrawn? You can use whatever
:47:47. > :47:52.terms you wish. But the fact is, yes, it should be withdrawn, in my
:47:52. > :47:57.view. If we are to take the health's profession with us and the
:47:57. > :48:01.Patients Association and other groups then it is clear the Health
:48:01. > :48:07.Bill, what we ought to do is go back to the coalition agreement. I
:48:07. > :48:09.signed up to a coalition agreement. It will not happen this idea of it
:48:09. > :48:14.being withdrawn, just from a political point of view.
:48:14. > :48:18.Westminster politics at the moment is dominated by this contest in the
:48:18. > :48:23.environment. Partly fuelled by the media itself. Actually it's not
:48:23. > :48:28.possible for Cameron or anyone else to actually withdraw the Bill at
:48:28. > :48:35.this stage without media headlines saying humiliating climbdown. We
:48:35. > :48:40.have to find a mechanism by which we can achieve a dignified exit.
:48:40. > :48:43.this appropriate at this time, on a bill like the Health Bill? I don't
:48:43. > :48:46.think we can say to the Lib Dems how they should have their
:48:46. > :48:50.conferences. They have their conference, they have their debate.
:48:50. > :48:57.Do I think the coalition is working well? I think it is working well. I
:48:57. > :49:01.think the Health Bill is the right bill. We are in a position where
:49:01. > :49:05.the party activists don't support it and peers could cause trouble.
:49:05. > :49:10.At the end of the day, the Lib Dems having a debate, it is right and
:49:10. > :49:15.proper for democracy. But should be ignored? Not at all. Let them have
:49:15. > :49:20.their debate. We've had a debate in Parliament. It is the right Bill.
:49:20. > :49:27.You are pleased - will you join one the Lib Dem peers in trying to get
:49:27. > :49:31.this withdrawn and rewritten? hope so. I think Andrew George has
:49:31. > :49:37.fought a one or two man liberal rather-guard action against the
:49:38. > :49:42.Bill. I share many of his views. It is an unmitigated disaster. The
:49:42. > :49:48.Government ought to withdraw it. I hope in tomorrow's debate we will
:49:48. > :49:53.see further changes. Do you welcome the support for your campaign?
:49:53. > :49:58.fact is that the legacy which the Government inherited is one which
:49:58. > :50:02.did mean there were further reforms required to the NHS. That was in
:50:02. > :50:06.the coalition agreement. Going as faur as the Government proposed is
:50:06. > :50:10.a major disruption to the NHS and quite disastrous as far as taking
:50:10. > :50:15.it forward. This debate is about the NHS in England and does not
:50:15. > :50:19.affect you in that way. What is your view from the outside of what
:50:19. > :50:26.Cameron and Lansley are doing? may not affect us directly. The vau
:50:26. > :50:30.in Scotland is we're very relieved we are not having to have this Bill
:50:30. > :50:36.on us. You don't think that there should be any reform? There are
:50:36. > :50:43.other ways to do costs N Scotland we have seen investment in
:50:43. > :50:48.preventative services. Our conference was around erltly
:50:48. > :50:53.detection in cancer, for example. The -- early detection in cancer,
:50:54. > :50:57.for example. What has worried us is it could see cuts in the overall
:50:57. > :51:01.budget of the health service. That could have a knock-on effect in
:51:01. > :51:05.terms of the overall grant to the NHS. That is the big concern. In
:51:05. > :51:08.terms of the policy direction, what has struck me has been the
:51:08. > :51:13.opposition from health care professionals in England and their
:51:13. > :51:18.deep concerns about the direction of travel this Bill has taken.
:51:18. > :51:23.Where did the idea of tycoon tax come from? As far as this issue is
:51:23. > :51:29.concerned and I think that the -- I think that Vince Cable has been
:51:29. > :51:33.clear and he has persistently floated the idea of a mansion tax.
:51:33. > :51:40.The tycoon tax has been debated within the party on a number of
:51:40. > :51:44.occasions. Were you surprised it was brought up before the Budget.
:51:44. > :51:49.We're having a Spring Conference. It is reasonable for Nick Clegg to
:51:49. > :51:53.flot it in the way he did. -- float it in the way he did. Of course
:51:53. > :51:57.with a more open style... Row are doing very well here on the open
:51:57. > :52:05.style. Do you not think it is a trade-off? He's not going to get
:52:05. > :52:11.the mansion tax is he? We are actually... It is not fully-formed.
:52:11. > :52:16.I did not say that. I was talking theatrically that if we are move
:52:16. > :52:20.from a situation of actually very controlled and restrained policy
:52:20. > :52:25.debates, which people cannot take part in. Is it a good idea? I think
:52:25. > :52:31.what we have to do, we have to have, we have to be pragmatic about it -
:52:31. > :52:35.is it deliverable. The principal is fieb. It is one thing, but I --
:52:35. > :52:41.fine. It is one thing, but I suggest the details have not been
:52:41. > :52:44.worked out. Would Labour support it? I think if Andrew or Nick Clegg
:52:44. > :52:48.could explain what they mean by it and make us and everybody else
:52:48. > :52:53.understand what it would mean and how it would work then we would
:52:53. > :52:58.back it. It is the rate at which it would be set F you were going to
:52:58. > :53:02.set a tycoon tax, where would you set it? When Nick Clegg saw the
:53:02. > :53:06.debate in the US about what the effective rate of tax was, and
:53:06. > :53:11.decided he would transpose that to the UK, without any real thought
:53:11. > :53:14.and it was clearly on the back of a fag packet. You said the principle
:53:14. > :53:20.of ensuring that millionaires have a sort of minimum floor, they
:53:20. > :53:26.cannot fall below in terms of tax, to take that analogy from America,
:53:26. > :53:33.what rate would you set it at? think we need broadly what we have
:53:33. > :53:37.got, which is a prg sieve taxation system. -- progressive taxation
:53:37. > :53:44.system. Clearly, the problem is you have a Deputy Prime Minister who is
:53:44. > :53:53.floating this out of the wide blue sky, who is supporting a Government
:53:53. > :53:59.to cut the rate for those earning over �150,000. Just very briefly,
:54:00. > :54:04.tycoon tax will not make it, do you think mansion tax will make it?
:54:04. > :54:07.are seeing it is different being in opposition than being in Government.
:54:07. > :54:12.The Liberal Democrats are in Government. My colleagues, the Lib
:54:12. > :54:17.Dems, they come out with ideas. There is a difference between being
:54:17. > :54:21.in opposition than in Government. We will have to wait. We will. Now,
:54:21. > :54:25.and Andrew George thank you very much for coming in. That is right.
:54:25. > :54:33.In Quentin Letts's guide to the workings of Westminster here's our
:54:33. > :54:39.parliamentary insider with the low- down on committees.
:54:39. > :54:44.C is for committees. Carer said it was a committee with four back legs.
:54:44. > :54:51.Well, they know about animals here. It is the natural history museum.
:54:51. > :54:55.Lots of dinosaurs in there, just like the Palace of Westminster.
:54:55. > :54:59.Committees ideally are held in sterile, almost scientific
:54:59. > :55:04.environments. They allow a Government and a Parliament to
:55:04. > :55:10.assemble information without the who what of politics. Parliamentary
:55:10. > :55:15.-- the ho-ha-politics. There are those which the MPs and the
:55:15. > :55:20.parliamentarians draft the lays line by line and those which
:55:20. > :55:26.scrutinise and interrogate public servants and ask them for their
:55:26. > :55:29.opinions about proposed thoughts. These magnificent presses are used
:55:29. > :55:36.to flatten biological specimens. Select committees do the same job.
:55:36. > :55:38.There are 90 committees in all in the Houses of Parliament. They are
:55:38. > :55:42.aseemabled according to the general election result. In the old days
:55:42. > :55:47.the pwhips used to decide which MPs would sit on which committees. Now
:55:47. > :55:51.they are voted for by the House. This has given MPs more kf about
:55:51. > :55:56.the way they go about their -- confidence about the way they go
:55:56. > :56:01.about their committee work. They are more beastly to people.
:56:01. > :56:06.have destroyed a great British bank, cost the taxpayer �20 billion. How
:56:06. > :56:10.would you summarise that deal? deal was a bad mistake. They are
:56:10. > :56:15.rather dull N all the time I have reported Parliament, about 20 years,
:56:15. > :56:19.I must have covered at least four of them. Bill committees are where
:56:19. > :56:24.legislation is drafted line by line. It can allow MPs to show they have
:56:24. > :56:29.a head for detail. On the whole, they are avoided. It
:56:29. > :56:31.is select committees which are show time. This is when public figures
:56:31. > :56:37.in British life are brought before Parliament to account for their
:56:37. > :56:42.actions and to give their opinions. I would like to say one sentence,
:56:42. > :56:47.this is the most humble day of my life. British public life is a bit
:56:47. > :56:57.of a murky undergrowth. It is a jungle out there. Sometimes what
:56:57. > :56:59.
:56:59. > :57:02.Well, from the gore of parliamentary committees, that was
:57:02. > :57:08.Quentin Letts, with his lowdown on committees of Parliament. Let's
:57:08. > :57:11.come to you guys. What is your favourite committee? I sit on the
:57:11. > :57:16.Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have the President, Sir Nicolas
:57:16. > :57:21.Bratza, giving evidence tomorrow. It will be great. It was billed
:57:21. > :57:27.that they would make Parliament more powerful, more accountable.
:57:27. > :57:31.Are these powerful, these select committees of MPs? They have taken
:57:31. > :57:35.it on because of the election and the strangeness of our politics,
:57:35. > :57:39.given the coalition. Maybe it has been the issues and the fact you
:57:39. > :57:42.have had Murdoch and others appearing in front of them. That
:57:43. > :57:47.attracted a lot of attention. Do you think the questioning is
:57:47. > :57:54.improving? They have always been forensic. My favourite committee is
:57:54. > :58:03.the Welsh grand committee. It is unique, it is neither grand Orwell
:58:03. > :58:08.sh, given that Cheryl Gillard is in control. What is interesting for
:58:08. > :58:17.the House of Commons committees have evolved. When the Scottish
:58:17. > :58:19.Parliament was set up they were given a central role. Do you sit in
:58:19. > :58:23.these committee? No I am in the Westminster Parliament. They work
:58:23. > :58:28.in a different way. Because they can change legislation, it becomes
:58:28. > :58:32.a very powerful means and actually a very effective means of
:58:32. > :58:37.governance. Perhaps if more of evolution to happen here in terms
:58:37. > :58:42.of how committees efleckively influence the process. Which
:58:42. > :58:45.committee would you like to be on? Foreign affairs. They get all the
:58:45. > :58:49.nice trips. It will be Nick Clegg verses Harriet Harman because
:58:49. > :58:53.William Hague will be away on that trip. This researcher will be shot