:00:49. > :00:52.Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Is the coalition
:00:52. > :00:55.heading into unchartered territory? The two sides this week prepare to
:00:56. > :00:59.go in to battle over the issue of Lords Reform. Can David Cameron
:00:59. > :01:01.bring his Conservative rebels into line? Can Nick Clegg get his
:01:01. > :01:04.treasured bill through Parliament? And can the two men keep the
:01:04. > :01:07.coalition intact? Meanwhile Ed Miliband goes into
:01:07. > :01:12.battle with the banks. The Labour leader is demanding a shake-up of
:01:12. > :01:16.the industry. This afternoon the deputy governor of the Bank of
:01:16. > :01:19.England will give evidence to MPs about his role in the Libor scandal.
:01:19. > :01:22.Should the official beer of the Olympics be British? We'll be
:01:22. > :01:26.looking at why some foreign lagers are leaving a bitter taste in the
:01:26. > :01:36.mouths of some MPs. And we will be hoping that our
:01:36. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :01:49.Calm so far! All that in the next hour.
:01:49. > :01:52.With us for the first half of the programme today is one man who
:01:52. > :01:55.certainly won't behave like that, at least we hope, the government's
:01:55. > :01:59.Behaviour Tsar, Charlie Taylor. Just as well Andrew is off today.
:01:59. > :02:06.Many bankers have not been behaving as they should. Their behaviour has
:02:06. > :02:11.been so bad that this morning, Ed Miliband called up for a shake-up
:02:11. > :02:15.of the banking system and a code of conduct for. We need a system where
:02:15. > :02:21.bankers are given an incentive not just to focus on the short-term
:02:21. > :02:28.return but the long term, a banking system where no one bank is too big
:02:28. > :02:34.to fail or too powerful to be challenged. Where all banks face
:02:34. > :02:39.real competition and customers have promises to make and maybe this
:02:39. > :02:47.sounds like a long way off, but where the term at banker goes back
:02:47. > :02:53.to being a compliment and stops being a term of abuse. Above all, a
:02:53. > :02:58.system the British people can have confidence in. With us is the
:02:58. > :03:02.shadowed Business Secretary Chuka Umunna. The code of conduct. There
:03:02. > :03:08.will be legislation going through so what is it you are suggesting
:03:08. > :03:13.that is different. There are different FSA regulations applied
:03:13. > :03:18.but we want something more broadly applied across the sector. So I
:03:18. > :03:27.used to be a solicitor and I am subject to the solicitors' code of
:03:27. > :03:32.conduct and if I bridge that, you can be struck off... It is quite
:03:32. > :03:36.restricted in the City of London to whom the regulations apply. We want
:03:37. > :03:42.something broader. We have a code of conduct for people way if they
:03:42. > :03:47.breach the fundamental principles, which has clearly happened, further
:03:47. > :03:51.action needs to be taken but that is only part of it. The other thing
:03:51. > :03:56.is there is the sense that if somebody in my constituency
:03:56. > :04:01.shoplifters, the strong arm of the law is brought down to bear on them.
:04:01. > :04:06.But the FSA is investigating and there can be criminal charges.
:04:06. > :04:11.and there was a myth around the headlines that seemed to suggest
:04:11. > :04:15.there was not legislation in place that enabled action to be taken.
:04:15. > :04:20.There was. The issue is that the Serious Fraud Office has not been
:04:20. > :04:28.properly resourced to do this work. One of the things that Ed Miliband
:04:28. > :04:32.spoke about today, the fine is 10 times more than the budget of the
:04:32. > :04:37.FSO so we need to properly resourced that agency so it can do
:04:37. > :04:41.the work to bring those to book. Let's look at things that would
:04:41. > :04:46.make a difference to the average punter on the streets. Forcing the
:04:46. > :04:51.big banks to sell 1,000 branches. How will that help people? Let me
:04:51. > :04:56.put that in context. Part of the problem with the banking system is
:04:56. > :05:01.that it is seen to serve the banks as opposed to the people. One your
:05:01. > :05:05.high-street, you will notice there are just about five big players and
:05:05. > :05:10.if you do not have significant competition, you do not end up with
:05:10. > :05:15.a good deal for the consumer. 85% of small business lending is
:05:15. > :05:20.dominated by four large banks and I think that has something to do with
:05:20. > :05:25.the poor service many of them think they are getting. Make a cow on
:05:25. > :05:31.switching easier. If people can move their accounts more easy Lee,
:05:31. > :05:36.there will be more competition. -- more easily. I have done that
:05:36. > :05:41.myself. How long did it take you to move your account from one bank to
:05:41. > :05:49.another? Because that is the problem. It needs to be quicker.
:05:49. > :05:53.Are these the sort of things you think will appeal? The important
:05:53. > :05:59.thing that people worry most about is the idea that we will not have a
:05:59. > :06:04.repeat of what happened in 2008, that people will not be queueing up
:06:04. > :06:09.in the case of Northern Rock. that was an era over which Labour
:06:09. > :06:14.presided. Isn't there a credibility problem for Labour, that at that
:06:14. > :06:19.time, your party was in government and despite the accusations about
:06:19. > :06:23.whether they were aware of what was going on in terms of rate rigging,
:06:23. > :06:29.they were having conversations with all of the banks, including
:06:29. > :06:34.Barclays, at a time when... Labour has admitted they did not have
:06:34. > :06:37.tight enough regulation? That is right. No doubt about it, we should
:06:37. > :06:42.have better regulated the banks but the important thing is that people
:06:42. > :06:52.in the future don't and are you going to learn the mistakes of the
:06:52. > :06:52.
:06:52. > :06:55.past or compound them? -- and the questionnaires. Vince Cable was
:06:55. > :07:03.responsible for setting up the independent commission on banking
:07:03. > :07:11.but what a shame it has produced a recommendation that if applied
:07:11. > :07:16.strictly does not prevent a repeat of the crisis of 2008... They are
:07:16. > :07:20.going to put through that recommendation. But having set up
:07:20. > :07:26.the commission, they are watering down the proposals. The capital
:07:26. > :07:32.requirements, the vicar's reports said go for a 4% offer, they are
:07:32. > :07:36.going for 3%. They said you should have a clear separation between
:07:36. > :07:41.investment banking and retail banking, but they are allowing some
:07:41. > :07:48.of those things to take place together, for example, the
:07:48. > :07:53.derivatives that we saw that were mis-sold to small and medium-size
:07:53. > :07:58.enterprises. We need a strict application. We are arguing for
:07:58. > :08:02.that because we have learned from our mistakes. I could go into how
:08:02. > :08:09.they were saying we were over regulating but the fact is, we need
:08:09. > :08:14.to have more regulating and we need to have ring-fencing of retail and
:08:14. > :08:17.investment banking and they seem to be walking away from that. What do
:08:17. > :08:22.you think Bob Diamond should get? This is an issue for the
:08:22. > :08:27.shareholders. What do you think? think the public would find it
:08:27. > :08:30.quite outrageous if having presided over failure and having been in the
:08:30. > :08:34.driving seat when some of these things were happening in his bank,
:08:34. > :08:40.for him to walk away with a pay-off beyond what anybody could think
:08:40. > :08:43.about receiving in their lifetime? That is a good point. It is
:08:43. > :08:48.important that politicians are not too heavily involved in this
:08:48. > :08:54.process. This is a decision for shareholders and politicians can
:08:54. > :08:59.set the standards but it is up to shareholders to make the decision.
:08:59. > :09:03.But if the public feel that the banks have got away with a lot over
:09:03. > :09:08.the last ten years, surely it is up to politicians to take the lead on
:09:08. > :09:14.this. We can express an opinion. I think it is fair to say we would
:09:14. > :09:19.not have seen the wave of investor revolves had people in Westminster
:09:19. > :09:25.of all political persuasions not been arguing -- investor revolts.
:09:25. > :09:31.Who should replace him? That is not for me... An insider? We want
:09:31. > :09:36.somebody to restore Barclays' in the public eye... Is that for
:09:36. > :09:41.somebody currently inside the bank? I don't think that is something
:09:41. > :09:46.that as a politician I should be passing comment on. That is an
:09:46. > :09:50.issue for the shareholders and the board. Barclays is our third
:09:50. > :09:54.largest bank. I want to see its reputation restored, both
:09:54. > :09:58.domestically and internationally, because that is in the national
:09:58. > :10:02.interest. Some of the arguments that have been put forward, bearing
:10:02. > :10:06.in mind Paul Tucker will be interviewed this afternoon, that if
:10:06. > :10:11.the rates were being manipulated and he was aware of it at the Bank
:10:11. > :10:18.of England, was he doing so for the sake of market confidence, which
:10:18. > :10:22.was extremely low? A really important distinction needs to be
:10:22. > :10:26.made about what was happening at the time and about what people in
:10:26. > :10:31.the Treasury were concerned about. There was concerned about liquidity
:10:31. > :10:36.and that if lending to businesses stalled, the economy would stall.
:10:36. > :10:40.It is one thing have legitimate concerns about lending and
:10:40. > :10:47.liquidity, and supporting the missed reporting that we saw with
:10:47. > :10:50.the rate rigging. It is important that in maintaining the integrity
:10:50. > :10:55.of the Bank of England that Paul Tucker clears this up this
:10:55. > :11:03.afternoon. Do you be agreed that politicians are useless at holding
:11:03. > :11:07.bankers to account -- do you agree? Do you agree with that point?
:11:07. > :11:11.would not say that every single line of questioning did not work
:11:11. > :11:15.but I think perhaps they could have done a better job the other week
:11:15. > :11:21.and this is why we have been arguing for a judge LED inquiry
:11:21. > :11:24.with a council... You have got you point him. Thank you, Jo.
:11:24. > :11:27.Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is: What is
:11:27. > :11:33.the official beer of the 2012 London Olympics? Is it: Slater's
:11:33. > :11:37.Top Totty? Heineken? Bull Box's Taxi for Dave? Skol? At the end of
:11:37. > :11:40.the show, someone will give us the correct answer.
:11:40. > :11:43.The Government published its House of Lords Reform Bill last month. It
:11:43. > :11:47.calls for the existing Lords to be replaced with a smaller, largely
:11:47. > :11:51.elected, upper house. MPs will debate the plans in the Commons for
:11:51. > :11:53.the first time today and tomorrow. But it is already causing an
:11:53. > :11:57.almighty row, with the Government potentially facing its first
:11:57. > :12:01.Commons defeat. The Government's plans for Lords reform have
:12:01. > :12:05.certainly got some of the Lords a leaping. But it has also got
:12:05. > :12:08.members of the House of Commons hopping mad. Nick Clegg insists
:12:08. > :12:15.that Lords reform is a central part of the Coalition's programme for
:12:15. > :12:18.government. But 70 Conservative backbenchers look set to rebel.
:12:18. > :12:21.Tomorrow evening there will be a crucial vote on what is known as
:12:21. > :12:25.the programme motion, which would allow the Government to guillotine,
:12:25. > :12:30.or cut short, future debates. Without it, the bill may never get
:12:30. > :12:34.passed. That would delight the rebels. The veteran Conservative MP
:12:34. > :12:37.Sir Nicholas Soames says the Bill must be defeated at all cost.
:12:37. > :12:40.Labour are in favour of reform but argue that the Government's
:12:40. > :12:44.proposals are seriously flawed, so they will line up with the rebels
:12:44. > :12:47.to block the programme motion. Lib Dems say that the Tory rebels are
:12:47. > :12:55.going back on a clear commitment. And they accuse Labour of
:12:55. > :13:01.undermining their claim to be a progressive party. James, what
:13:01. > :13:05.exactly is given to happen? We had 70 Tory rebels, what does it mean
:13:05. > :13:11.if they all vote against the motion with Labour? Does that mean the
:13:11. > :13:15.government will lose? Yes, but proviso is that all Labour MPs vote
:13:15. > :13:18.against the government and all independent and minorities party's
:13:18. > :13:24.vote against the government. We know what the government majority
:13:24. > :13:29.years, it is about 80. In technical terms you need the rebellion of
:13:29. > :13:33.over 42 even have a chance. You have 70 Conservative MPs who put
:13:33. > :13:40.their name to this letter today saying they think this is a bad
:13:40. > :13:43.bill and they also think the Bill But they do not definitively say
:13:43. > :13:46.they will vote against the government tomorrow night, and
:13:46. > :13:50.there is clearly a difference between writing a letter and
:13:50. > :13:54.walking through the division lobby in your government. But it shows
:13:54. > :13:58.how difficult it will be for the government to win their vote. A lot
:13:58. > :14:03.of time for on twisting and for the Prime Minister to make personal
:14:03. > :14:08.calls but it is still a very big ask for the government to win.
:14:08. > :14:13.tense is it at Westminster between all these various divisions?
:14:13. > :14:17.depends who you talk to. Some Conservative MPs say, yes their
:14:17. > :14:21.whips have been in touch but they have not had before heavy-handed
:14:21. > :14:26.pressure, simply because a lot of these people have been public in
:14:26. > :14:33.their opposition to Lords reform for some time. The mixture of the
:14:33. > :14:37.carrot and stick is being deployed. I think both sides of the coalition
:14:37. > :14:42.realise it is one of those issues that could drive a wedge between
:14:42. > :14:45.them, the Conservatives say this is a Lib Dem priority and we should
:14:45. > :14:49.not be doing this and the Lib Dems saying, this is something you
:14:49. > :14:53.signed up to in the coalition agreement. That is where the
:14:53. > :14:57.tension is, rather than between angry whips trying to persuade big
:14:57. > :15:00.guys to go with them. Thank you, James Landale.
:15:00. > :15:10.With us now is the Conservative MP, Conor Burns, Liberal Democrat peer,
:15:10. > :15:12.
:15:12. > :15:22.Lord Oakeshott, and the Labour MP, So you will resign as a ministerial
:15:22. > :15:28.aide? It probably means that I will be sacked. What does your boss
:15:28. > :15:32.think? My boss is passionately in favour of House of Lords reform.
:15:32. > :15:36.What does he think about you voting against the Government? I think his
:15:36. > :15:43.view that it is refreshing that somebody is prepared to lay down
:15:43. > :15:47.their job in support of a long-held, passionate belief. How many other
:15:47. > :15:52.people do you think will be in the same city I do not know. I know
:15:52. > :15:55.there is at least one other, and I know of six further who
:15:55. > :16:01.passionately agree with me, but will choose to stay in the
:16:01. > :16:08.government. This letter, you have not signed up to it, presumably
:16:08. > :16:11.because... I believe my name actually is on that list. Do you
:16:11. > :16:15.understand that there is a fear amongst your Tory colleagues, and
:16:15. > :16:19.amongst the Liberal Democrats, that you just cannot pick and choose
:16:19. > :16:26.within this coalition, and you are in breach of that. We were very
:16:26. > :16:30.clear in our manifesto that we would try to establish a consensus.
:16:30. > :16:36.The joint committee failed to establish that consensus. The
:16:36. > :16:41.coalition is incredibly important. For example, Lord Oakeshott left
:16:41. > :16:47.the government over the economy. The central wasn't -- reason that
:16:47. > :16:50.the coalition was reformed was to have economic stability. This is a
:16:50. > :16:54.matter of principle, and what is it that the Liberal Democrats are so
:16:54. > :16:58.upset about? The Tory MPs have set out their case, and they are
:16:58. > :17:02.sticking to it, there was not a coalition government which said
:17:02. > :17:08.that they would go forward and agree on proposals, just that you
:17:08. > :17:12.would set them out. Just a minute, it was in the manifesto of each of
:17:13. > :17:17.the three main parties, that we would reflect on the House of Lords.
:17:17. > :17:22.The impression I get is that it is reasonably Amicus between the MPs,
:17:22. > :17:25.but there is more tension in the House of Lords. -- reasonably
:17:25. > :17:29.amicable. I think there is the feeling that somebody is trying to
:17:29. > :17:34.throw them out of a rather agreeable old people's home. But in
:17:34. > :17:38.general, within the coalition, we are united, it is the policy of all
:17:38. > :17:44.three parties. Let's get a bit of perspective - it is completely
:17:44. > :17:46.wrong that the laws of this country are voted on by people who have
:17:46. > :17:53.been him pointed either by prime ministerial patronage or by kings
:17:53. > :17:56.from years ago. This is a basic democratic principle, and certainly,
:17:56. > :18:01.Chris Bryant and myself, we have had commission after commission,
:18:01. > :18:05.and both of us were on the joint committee of 10 years ago, so we
:18:05. > :18:09.have had plenty of time to discuss it, and now it is time to get on
:18:09. > :18:15.with it. Do you agree that it is time we had a second chamber which
:18:15. > :18:19.is elected, not appointed? I feel uneasy about any constitutional
:18:19. > :18:23.reform, because we have had a functioning democracy for a very
:18:23. > :18:28.long time. I am worried about people's priorities. We have just
:18:28. > :18:34.had a debate about banking reform. I just wonder about the Taxi For
:18:34. > :18:37.Dave -- the relevance of this at the moment. The people who make the
:18:37. > :18:44.laws on this are elected in the House of Commons. The danger is
:18:44. > :18:50.that you will be creating a rival chamber. And we have to vote on
:18:50. > :18:54.this in the same way. We accept 80% of all amendments made by the House
:18:54. > :19:02.of Lords to our legislation. It is a great way of revising and
:19:02. > :19:06.improving legislation. We make the laws, like the Commons. He is
:19:06. > :19:12.factually wrong. It is worrying when Conservatives cannot get their
:19:12. > :19:16.history right. First of all, often, laws start in the House of Lords
:19:16. > :19:21.and we end up revising them in the House of Commons. In that regard,
:19:21. > :19:27.the two chambers have absolute parity. They are complementary.
:19:27. > :19:30.all right, but they are not always revising. Secondly, the vast
:19:30. > :19:32.majority of changes done in the House of Lords are done by the
:19:32. > :19:37.government. There are things which should have been done in the
:19:37. > :19:42.Commons, but they end up getting done in the House of Lords. In the
:19:42. > :19:47.last two years, there have only been 241 votes in the House of
:19:47. > :19:51.Lords. If you had an elected second chamber, I believe you would make
:19:51. > :19:55.the House of Commons to which job better. I do not think we have a
:19:55. > :20:00.perfectly -- perfectly functioning democracy in this country, I
:20:00. > :20:03.disagree on that point. They have scrutinised very successfully in
:20:03. > :20:09.the House of Lords health legislation, for example...
:20:09. > :20:16.they do it better in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons?
:20:16. > :20:19.One at a time, please. There is an awful lot of nonsense talk about
:20:19. > :20:23.what a wonderful revising chamber and everything the House of Lords
:20:23. > :20:27.is. There are some people with expertise, but there are also an
:20:27. > :20:31.awful lot of has-beens, frankly, an awful lot of people who are only
:20:31. > :20:36.there because they have given a million pounds to Tony Blair or to
:20:36. > :20:39.Margaret Thatcher. It is deeply corrupt. There is no way of
:20:39. > :20:45.appointing peers to the House of Lords without corruption, it is a
:20:45. > :20:52.basic principle. So, why isn't Labour-voting for this? I support
:20:52. > :21:00.the bill. Because it is opportunistic? You asked me a
:21:00. > :21:05.question, grumpy! Adam Mynott allowed to be grumpy? No, you are
:21:05. > :21:09.not! There are problems with this bill, and I want to improve it. It
:21:09. > :21:15.is important, because you need time to do it properly. Let me give you
:21:15. > :21:20.one example. The whole page of the programme motion specify is that we
:21:20. > :21:24.will only be allowed two days, about 11 hours of debate, to do the
:21:24. > :21:28.first laws, the most important one, which deals with every single
:21:28. > :21:32.element of the composition of the House of Lords. That's roughly six
:21:32. > :21:36.hours of voting, let alone any time to debate things like, whether
:21:36. > :21:41.there should be bishops in the House of Lords, whether it should
:21:41. > :21:46.be 100% elected, they are not allowing enough time. This is why I
:21:46. > :21:49.think it is important that we vote against. Do you buy the argument
:21:49. > :21:56.that Labour are not going to vote for the programme motion, which
:21:57. > :22:02.could mean that in the end, the reform fails? Labour, and I have
:22:02. > :22:05.paid tribute to those who were in favour of genuine reform. But they
:22:05. > :22:09.have to compromise, because in the House of Lords, you get a different
:22:09. > :22:13.picture. I genuinely hope that some of the reformers on the Labour
:22:13. > :22:17.benches might not vote for the programme motion tomorrow. The
:22:17. > :22:23.danger is that if that programme loses, this is the one opportunity
:22:23. > :22:26.in my lifetime, certainly, to get it through, but if it loses, Ed
:22:26. > :22:32.Miliband has said that they will still vote for the closure on
:22:32. > :22:36.individual filibusters, so it would not be the end of the world. What
:22:36. > :22:41.happens to the coalition if that programme motion is voted down?
:22:41. > :22:48.gets much more difficult. But no- one is making threats, we are just
:22:48. > :22:51.saying... We say to everybody, including Conor Burns, it is very
:22:51. > :22:56.difficult for us, some of the things we have had to vote for,
:22:56. > :22:59.things like tuition fees, and if they do not co-operate with us, it
:22:59. > :23:05.will be harder to get Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for certain
:23:05. > :23:12.things. Conor Burns, what do you say to that, that is a threat, a
:23:12. > :23:17.warning, let's put it that way, if you do not vote with the government.
:23:17. > :23:23.Matthew is being buried temper it today, which is unusual. The deal
:23:23. > :23:26.that was done was honoured. This is very important - some of us are in
:23:26. > :23:29.favour of reform of the House of Lords, we would like to limit the
:23:29. > :23:32.numbers, we would like to strengthen the Independent
:23:32. > :23:35.commission, but what this bill proposes is the abolition of the
:23:35. > :23:39.House of Lords, which is a very different thing altogether. And
:23:39. > :23:44.actually, there is the case for reform of the House of Commons, a
:23:44. > :23:47.point which was made by Chris Bryant. I would just say to the BBC,
:23:47. > :23:53.please, in the next few months, do not get obsessed about the process
:23:53. > :23:56.of this, it is about the substance. In the end, how we distribute power
:23:56. > :24:01.within the British political system, which is what the House of Lords
:24:01. > :24:06.does, is essential to our politics. At the moment, it is unsustainable,
:24:06. > :24:10.it has got more than 800 members. At this rate, every single member
:24:10. > :24:16.of the Liberal Democrat party will be a member of the House of Lords.
:24:16. > :24:23.That is true. It is too big, that is absolutely true. But it is they,
:24:23. > :24:29.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who did that. I am totally in favour of
:24:29. > :24:36.removing hereditaries. What about the coalition? The coalition came
:24:36. > :24:42.together because of the economy, and that remains the central focus.
:24:42. > :24:48.I should not be in that place, none of us should be in that place.
:24:48. > :24:52.Where you Can Leave, taken leave of absence! If you are the last
:24:52. > :24:57.hereditary peer to be elected, elected hereditary, I know it is
:24:57. > :25:01.weird, but he only has his seat because the first person who had
:25:01. > :25:05.his barony was put into the House of Lords in 1911 by the Liberals,
:25:05. > :25:13.to make sure the bill got through. So, it is about time we had some
:25:13. > :25:18.change. What do you think, looking at it from the coalition, do you
:25:18. > :25:21.think it will survive? I think it is very important that the exciting
:25:22. > :25:28.education reforms which the coalition are working through at
:25:29. > :25:33.the moment should be protected by them continuing to work together.
:25:33. > :25:36.am going to have to let you all go. I will try not to be as grumpy in
:25:36. > :25:40.the future, Chris Bryant. If I told you teachers in England were being
:25:40. > :25:43.urged to pin up notices on their walls reminding them to stay calm
:25:43. > :25:48.and to remember the names of the children, you might think I was
:25:48. > :25:53.making it up, but I am not. It is the latest attempt to get pupils to
:25:53. > :25:57.behave themselves in their schools. The checklist is the brainchild of
:25:57. > :26:03.our guest today, Charlie Taylor. We sent our correspondent back to
:26:04. > :26:13.school to find out if it might work. A few years ago, this primary
:26:14. > :26:17.school was in trouble. Wistaston Green Primary School was in trouble
:26:17. > :26:22.with bad behaviour. But thanks to the efforts of Linda Davis and her
:26:22. > :26:25.team, it came off the sick list in less than a year. It is now
:26:25. > :26:30.clocking up above average ratings in English and maths. It took a lot
:26:30. > :26:33.of hard work, and a version of this, Charlie's checklist. It is the
:26:33. > :26:37.brainchild of the Government's adviser on classroom behaviour,
:26:37. > :26:43.Charlie Taylor. It is simple, a list of ideas and instructions,
:26:43. > :26:48.stuck up on the wall, so that head teachers, teachers and pupils, have
:26:48. > :26:54.a daily reminder of behaviour. It includes advice like, keep the
:26:54. > :26:57.buildings clean, stay calm, and, remember the names of the children.
:26:57. > :27:02.If the words bloomin' obvious are coming into your mind, you might
:27:02. > :27:07.not be alone. I am all in favour of the Government emphasising
:27:07. > :27:12.discipline. It was one of the things that I was keen on. A child
:27:12. > :27:15.who is out of control is learning nothing. But do you not -- but you
:27:15. > :27:20.do not manage to do that by little gimmicks, and a checklist which
:27:20. > :27:24.pupils can see is a bit of a gimmick. But here is the thing. It
:27:24. > :27:31.may be obvious, but around here, they reckon it works. We all need
:27:32. > :27:36.checklists. We use checklists for new staff, for induction, we know
:27:36. > :27:40.that surgeons use checklists, airline pilots. We are only human,
:27:40. > :27:45.and we can forget. If we are under stress, that is the very time when
:27:45. > :27:51.we are likely to forget the basic, essential things. To my mind, a
:27:51. > :27:55.checklist is a very useful document. Maybe, that teachers cannot live by
:27:55. > :27:59.a list alone. Perhaps a more fundamental, time-consuming and
:27:59. > :28:03.expensive issue needs to be addressed. I think traditionally we
:28:03. > :28:08.have not spent enough time making sure that teachers can take control
:28:08. > :28:12.of the class, earn respect and make sure that it is carried through out
:28:12. > :28:17.into the playground and into the community. Even checklist
:28:17. > :28:20.cheerleaders think that Blunkett might be onto something. I believe
:28:20. > :28:24.young teachers on training courses need more training in managing
:28:24. > :28:28.behaviour. That is for the simple reason that we can have the best
:28:28. > :28:33.lesson in the world, differentiation, all sorts going on,
:28:33. > :28:39.but if you can not -- cannot deliver it, and manage behaviour,
:28:39. > :28:42.following the key points on the checklist, it can all fall apart.
:28:42. > :28:47.Checklists may sound like the bloomin' obvious, but sometimes,
:28:47. > :28:50.the bloomin' obvious works. Perhaps the bigger question is, what else
:28:50. > :28:58.does the Government have up its sleeve to make sure that no child
:28:58. > :29:02.is left behind? Reception, are we ready? What a well-behaved class.
:29:02. > :29:10.With us now, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers,
:29:10. > :29:15.Christine Blower. Cannes come to you first of all, Charlie Taylor,
:29:15. > :29:22.what do you think of the accusation that it is all a gimmick? That was
:29:22. > :29:26.a good example, that school in Crewe, Linda Davis took over at
:29:26. > :29:31.school when it was in a real state, and look at it now. She made a good
:29:31. > :29:36.point, and lines and surgeons all use checklists for things like
:29:36. > :29:40.washing your hands before doing an operation, or things like that.
:29:40. > :29:43.Teaching is an incredibly complicated job at times. But just
:29:43. > :29:47.like Linda Davis was saying, it is about getting the simple things
:29:47. > :29:50.right. Surely it is a given that they will remember the names of the
:29:51. > :29:56.children, that they will stay calm, that they will know what lesson
:29:56. > :30:00.comes next. One would assume that planes would not take off without
:30:00. > :30:04.enough fuel in the tank, and yet they have it on their checklist. It
:30:04. > :30:08.is the same with surgeons, one would assume that they would wash
:30:08. > :30:13.their hands. When we are excited about the brilliant lesson we are
:30:13. > :30:17.going to deliver, actually, we can forget to do those basic things.
:30:17. > :30:27.you think that is right, is it just as simple as having a checklist
:30:27. > :30:32.
:30:32. > :30:36.This is called Charlie's checklist. There are lots of different types
:30:36. > :30:42.of checklists which have been operation before Charlie came up
:30:42. > :30:45.with this idea. The fact is, the vast majority of primary kids have
:30:45. > :30:49.a really good experience because teachers are making sure that
:30:49. > :30:56.everything is in place, and I slightly disagree with David
:30:56. > :31:02.Blunkett. The idea that saying what is accepted in the classroom is not
:31:02. > :31:06.a gimmick, it is a good idea. It is the adults and children having a
:31:06. > :31:12.shared understanding of what is happening so they can be ready to
:31:12. > :31:20.do their learning. Does any of that work if you have very disruptive
:31:20. > :31:27.pupils in that class? Relying on a ladder of success, is that going to
:31:27. > :31:29.keep the class engaged and keep the disruptive pupils under control?
:31:29. > :31:39.need absolute consistency so that children know what they are going
:31:39. > :31:40.
:31:41. > :31:46.into. There are children who need the additional support and
:31:46. > :31:50.attention, but making sure that the classroom is well rewarded and
:31:50. > :31:55.consistent helps for the vast majority of children. His behaviour
:31:55. > :32:00.getting worse in the classroom? think teachers would say there are
:32:00. > :32:05.a group of anxious, often young children coming into schools who
:32:05. > :32:09.are more aggressive, but the general standards of behaviour are
:32:10. > :32:16.continuing to improve and when I started teaching in the late 80s,
:32:16. > :32:21.there was much worse behaviour. There were no-go areas in schools
:32:21. > :32:25.with you did not fancy walking in break times. I think teachers have
:32:26. > :32:32.done a fantastic job of improving behaviour. But if it is getting
:32:32. > :32:39.worse and certain groups, is that exposing ineffective teaching?
:32:39. > :32:44.Teaches that survive, they survived 20 years ago, are struggling now
:32:44. > :32:52.because they are not good enough? People need to have more expertise
:32:52. > :32:56.when we are dealing with the relief -- really troubled children. The
:32:56. > :33:01.checklist is about keeping things simple and well organised but there
:33:01. > :33:06.is a group of children who require little bit extra and that is where
:33:06. > :33:10.we need training, expertise and support. And that costs money.
:33:10. > :33:15.There is a huge amount of money being spent already on these
:33:15. > :33:20.children. Schools are spending a fortune on things like teaching
:33:20. > :33:28.assistants who support children who have not had the expertise they
:33:28. > :33:33.need to deliver. Is the problem that what teachers need sometimes
:33:33. > :33:37.is a bit of personality? No-win your subject is marvellous but
:33:38. > :33:46.sometimes you need a bit of... you look at the teacher or mad
:33:46. > :33:49.video? The vast majority of teachers have to be like that. What
:33:49. > :33:55.Charlie his singing is that in general, behaviour is better than
:33:55. > :34:00.it ever was. -- What Charlie is saying. There is a small group of
:34:00. > :34:05.difficult young people and we need something additional for them, but
:34:05. > :34:09.all teachers need to look at the way that he managed behaviour
:34:09. > :34:13.because if you can't manage the behaviour in the classroom, you
:34:13. > :34:19.can't do the teaching in the first place. Michael Gove mentioned
:34:19. > :34:25.returning to O-levels? It is a good and time the argument to be having.
:34:25. > :34:31.A lot of people feel there has been graves inflation, that GCSEs are
:34:31. > :34:35.not worth the O-levels that I did many years ago. Therefore it is
:34:35. > :34:40.important there is a debate about that and we cannot have people
:34:40. > :34:44.feeling that what we are doing now is not good enough. Thank you.
:34:44. > :34:48.So any sign that things are calming down for the summer? Doesn't look
:34:48. > :34:51.like it! In a moment, we will talk to a couple of political hacks who
:34:51. > :34:56.we have flushed out from the dark corridors of Westminster. But first,
:34:57. > :34:59.As we have heard, the week starts with the coalition's sternest test
:34:59. > :35:02.yet. MPs are discussing Lords reform today and tomorrow. The
:35:02. > :35:05.Treasury Select Committee is due to ask questions about the Barclays
:35:05. > :35:08.Libor banking debacle. Paul Tucker, the Bank of England's Deputy
:35:08. > :35:10.Governor, is up today. Barclays chairman, Marcus Agius, will be
:35:10. > :35:13.quizzed tomorrow. And, also tomorrow, French President Francois
:35:13. > :35:16.Hollande arrives in London for talks with David Cameron. By
:35:16. > :35:20.Wednesday, social care comes to the fore when the government's care and
:35:21. > :35:27.support white paper is debated. And believe it or not, Wednesday will
:35:27. > :35:30.be the last PMQs before the summer Let's talk now to our political
:35:30. > :35:35.hacks, Torcuil Crichton, of the Scottish Daily Record, and Craig
:35:35. > :35:40.Woodhouse, the Sun's new political correspondent. Can the Coalition
:35:40. > :35:45.survive the week? It will certainly be the biggest test for the
:35:45. > :35:51.coalition. Rebels are thinking, Tory rebels, that they will be able
:35:51. > :35:58.to hit David Cameron with his biggest revolt yet. I think more
:35:58. > :36:01.like 80. The Lib Dems are spitting feathers. They are saying, we have
:36:01. > :36:09.had to march through the lobbies on things we don't like, now you have
:36:09. > :36:14.got to do it on this. It is a huge test. The Lib Dems are saying
:36:14. > :36:20.uncharted territory. Is it a leadership problem for David
:36:20. > :36:26.Cameron if he cannot deliver his MPs through these division lobbies?
:36:26. > :36:30.It is a basic issue of maths. If 100 people are rebelling, you have
:36:30. > :36:34.five or six parliamentary aides, which I think is towards the Top
:36:34. > :36:40.End, if he cannot maintain their discipline then yes, he has a
:36:40. > :36:50.problem. Some Tory MPs saying last week Liam Fox giving a big speech
:36:50. > :36:51.
:36:51. > :36:56.on Europe, David Davis batting hard on her Lords reform. One to banking.
:36:56. > :37:00.We have heard Ed Miliband make his speech on proposals to improve the
:37:00. > :37:04.culture within banking but how easy is it for Ed Miliband to take the
:37:04. > :37:08.moral high ground when Labour has to take responsibility for what
:37:08. > :37:15.when it on in the past? He does take responsibility for what
:37:15. > :37:19.happened in the past. The when Ed Miliband gave us his conference
:37:19. > :37:25.speech last autumn about predatory capitalism, none of us had a clue
:37:25. > :37:29.what he was talking about. We certainly have an idea now. It
:37:29. > :37:33.seems that Ed Miliband has once again been ahead of the game. He
:37:34. > :37:39.spoke last year about the squeezed middle. We did not know what he was
:37:39. > :37:44.talking about until we got our winter fuel bills. George Osborne
:37:44. > :37:51.is delighted, this is the second week that we have started a Monday
:37:51. > :37:57.not talking about the Budget, and he is using the Libor rate fixing
:37:57. > :38:00.scandal as the club to beat the Labour Party with. This cuts
:38:00. > :38:05.through to 2015. This is about George Osborne saying, you cannot
:38:05. > :38:10.trust these guys with the banks and the economy, this is what they did
:38:10. > :38:15.the last time. Ed Miliband is hitting back and saying, I am the
:38:15. > :38:19.guy with a vision on how to deliver responsible capitalism and banking.
:38:19. > :38:28.It is fascinating stuff. We will hear from Paul Tucker this
:38:28. > :38:31.afternoon. Would it be revealing? If you listen to what some of the
:38:31. > :38:36.Treasury Select Committee members have been saying, probably not! We
:38:36. > :38:40.are useless at getting to the bottom of these things. The one
:38:40. > :38:45.question people want answered is, who were these Whitehall figures
:38:45. > :38:51.talking to Bob Diamond and the bankers about lowering Libor?
:38:51. > :38:56.know who has denied it. But is it this legitimate, let's try and get
:38:56. > :39:01.Libor down to help British business in the crash? In which case that is
:39:01. > :39:05.probably illegitimate. But these are questions we do not know the
:39:05. > :39:09.answers to and hopefully we will get to the bottom of them. If not,
:39:09. > :39:14.maybe it will be down to the parliamentary inquiry. One of the
:39:14. > :39:18.issues that is deemed huge in terms of the future planning his social
:39:18. > :39:26.care. Labour sources have said there have been no cross-party
:39:26. > :39:32.talks since February, which I've found astounding. How do we pay for
:39:32. > :39:38.care? The issue of our age. There have been reports about this, the
:39:38. > :39:43.idea that social care should be capped at �35,000 over a lifetime.
:39:43. > :39:47.We would all take out insurance against to pay for that. The
:39:47. > :39:53.government agrees in principle with this but it is not putting any cash
:39:53. > :39:58.forward. It would cost 1.7 billion to set this up. There is no money.
:39:58. > :40:03.They say they will look at this again in 2014. Labour are cross
:40:03. > :40:07.because they were not included in talks to come up with this plan. We
:40:07. > :40:14.will have a ding-dong, but nothing is going to happen this side of an
:40:14. > :40:17.election on that. Thank you both. Joining me for the rest of the
:40:17. > :40:26.programme are the Conservative MP, Jessica Lee, Liberal Democrat MP,
:40:26. > :40:31.Martin Horwood, and Jenny Chapman for Labour. Welcome. Jessica, we
:40:32. > :40:35.heard Creek raising the point from your colleagues that their
:40:35. > :40:41.politicians on the Treasury Select Committee are useless at holding
:40:41. > :40:46.bankers to a count. Andrea has done a fantastic job on the Treasury
:40:46. > :40:50.Select Committee. She is in force to be reckoned with. I think we are
:40:50. > :40:55.all waiting to see the evidence of the Select Committee and see how it
:40:55. > :41:00.pans out but I think this whole issue about the bankers, the
:41:01. > :41:07.reality has hit us all and we are now in the starting position. We
:41:07. > :41:12.need to move things forward and bring shame sh. But on the point
:41:12. > :41:17.that perhaps they did not go far enough, why not have a judge
:41:17. > :41:24.inquiry if people feel that politicians are not doing their job
:41:24. > :41:29.probably? We do not need a judicial inquiry. We need to politicians to
:41:29. > :41:33.get to grips. We need a joint inquiry with in parliament. It
:41:33. > :41:37.doesn't stop any investigations being done separately, that can
:41:37. > :41:42.continue in terms of criminal matters. But this is something that
:41:42. > :41:49.should be dealt with within the Houses of Parliament. Paul Tucker,
:41:49. > :41:54.a former deputy of the Bank of England, coming forward. The point
:41:54. > :41:58.that Labour has made is that what we need is not a panel of MPs
:41:58. > :42:05.asking these questions, we need people who are properly trained and
:42:05. > :42:09.qualified. What would you like to hear him say? Labour wants to see a
:42:09. > :42:13.proper inquiry into banking led by a judge and it is not for me to
:42:13. > :42:18.suggest what those questions should be. Ed Miliband has set out today
:42:18. > :42:22.what he would like to see with banking. He wants to see more
:42:22. > :42:27.diversity on the high street. If you look back ten years, there was
:42:27. > :42:31.a multiplicity of banks in the country. There were building
:42:31. > :42:37.societies in every town. We need to give consumers more choice and work
:42:37. > :42:40.out how we get from where we are now two will meet to be. Was it a
:42:40. > :42:45.defining watching George Osborne and Ed Balls going fought each
:42:45. > :42:50.other in parliament? particularly edifying, no, but that
:42:50. > :42:55.is what you get. People are angry about this and that lays out in the
:42:55. > :43:00.Commons chamber and there is nothing wrong with that.
:43:00. > :43:05.questions the Bank of England have to answer. The first, with that
:43:05. > :43:09.they were giving some kind of nod and wink to the Libor process,
:43:09. > :43:13.which is supposed to be a purely mechanical process, or was
:43:13. > :43:19.something fishy going on? If they thought something fishy was going
:43:19. > :43:24.on, why don't they do something about it? It is a test for Ed
:43:24. > :43:27.Balls's light touch regulation regime. This is why we need a
:43:27. > :43:32.Banking Reform Bill and why we need to get much tougher on regulating
:43:32. > :43:36.activities of the banks to make sure this does not happen again.
:43:36. > :43:39.The test last week in that debate was for George Osborne to back up
:43:39. > :43:45.the allegations he was making about Ed Balls and he absolutely failed
:43:45. > :43:50.to do that, and that is why the debate was so bad tempered.
:43:50. > :43:56.Balls was the banking minister at the time. I think part of the
:43:56. > :44:01.lack of acknowledgement, I think, by the Labour Party... Although Ed
:44:01. > :44:07.Miliband has said this morning. am talking about last week. I am
:44:07. > :44:11.talking about today. Part of this frustration is that at times people
:44:11. > :44:16.need to stand up and say, we do get that wrong, we need to take
:44:16. > :44:23.responsibility. That was part of the issue. But do you give credit
:44:23. > :44:28.to Ed Miliband for doing that today? I have no difficulty with Ed
:44:28. > :44:33.Miliband saying that today but it is long overdue. What about Bob
:44:33. > :44:38.Diamond? He should get as little as possible. He has brought the whole
:44:38. > :44:42.industry into disrepute. The eye D he should be rewarded with more
:44:42. > :44:46.than �20 million of shareholders' money is obscene -- the idea.
:44:46. > :44:52.was not in breach of his contract and did build up one of the most
:44:52. > :44:58.successful investment banks. Define success. I am not sure boxes looks
:44:58. > :45:03.like a successful banker right now. -- Barclays looks like. This is
:45:03. > :45:08.something we have to look at. Vince Cable has been very clear. Lib Dems
:45:08. > :45:12.have been talking about this... Working out the mechanics of this
:45:12. > :45:15.are quite complicated. We have been telling banks to become more
:45:15. > :45:20.secured through the mechanics of how you force them to do what they
:45:20. > :45:24.need to do, to lend to small businesses, the engine of recovery,
:45:24. > :45:31.we need to do more on this. fascinating thing is that Vince
:45:31. > :45:37.Cable is outraged by Bob Diamond's bonuses but is unable to do a
:45:37. > :45:41.single thing about it. That is the proper. We have had two years, you
:45:42. > :45:47.had 13 and you didn't manage to do anything. What Ed Miliband is
:45:47. > :45:57.saying today... Vince Cable, I am sure, will come up with stronger
:45:57. > :45:59.
:45:59. > :46:04.Why have these cross-party talks failed? That is a question for
:46:04. > :46:08.Andrew Lansley. Labour is very, very happy to engage in these talks,
:46:08. > :46:17.if the door is wide open. What the Labour Party does not want is a
:46:17. > :46:20.political row about this. We cannot afford to mess about, because there
:46:21. > :46:26.has been in action on this issue for many, many years. It is a key
:46:26. > :46:34.issue for all of us. We all have ageing relatives. We are all going
:46:34. > :46:39.to be old ourselves. It concerns everybody in the country. I welcome
:46:39. > :46:49.what comes this week, I think the coalition government have done a
:46:49. > :46:49.
:46:49. > :46:55.huge amount to move this issue on. How have they moved it on? If you
:46:55. > :46:58.look at who has led with this issue in House of Commons, it is clearly
:46:58. > :47:04.the Conservative Party, supported by the Liberal Democrats on this
:47:04. > :47:11.point. It is the Conservatives who have been leading the debates in
:47:11. > :47:15.the House of Commons. And we have now got agreement... The main thing
:47:15. > :47:20.in the Dilnot report was the idea of a cap on the amount any
:47:20. > :47:26.individual should pay towards his or her own care, do you agree with
:47:26. > :47:29.that? I want to see how the debate pans out. On a personal level, this
:47:29. > :47:32.is one of the most important issues we're going to have to deal within
:47:33. > :47:37.this entire parliament. I don't know the why those cross-party
:47:37. > :47:42.talks, if that is right, have not been going ahead, but I hope there
:47:42. > :47:45.can be some progress on this. have they not? Everybody comes on
:47:45. > :47:54.to this programme and says it is the biggest problem facing society,
:47:54. > :47:58.and yet we have not managed to get agreement on one single proposal?
:47:58. > :48:03.The most bizarre thing is that of course we have actually got a
:48:03. > :48:08.proposal from Dilnot. It could be the money attached to this. Who
:48:08. > :48:11.knows where the logjam has happened? All I know is that the
:48:11. > :48:15.Lib Dem minister involved in this is deeply committed to finding a
:48:15. > :48:18.way to progress on the reform and the funding of social care. It is
:48:18. > :48:24.something he campaigned passionately about in opposition,
:48:24. > :48:28.so he must be as frustrated as everybody. There is a log jam with
:48:28. > :48:32.money, isn't there? Honestly, do you think the politicians will be
:48:32. > :48:39.able to agree, when they are so concerned with making savings and
:48:39. > :48:42.deficit reduction? I suppose in the end, if there are fundamental
:48:42. > :48:46.disagreement between the political parties, then it may be something
:48:46. > :48:49.which has to wait for the 2015 election. The Liberal Democrats
:48:49. > :48:55.would probably be happy to say that this would be something they would
:48:55. > :49:00.be happy to see funded to taxation. But I think we should just give the
:49:00. > :49:05.cross-party attempt a bit more time, to see if we can get a solution.
:49:05. > :49:10.is not about whether we pay for it or not, it is how it is paid for.
:49:10. > :49:14.This has got to be paid for, it is how we do it. Before the last
:49:14. > :49:19.election, the Labour Party made a proposal on how it might be done,
:49:19. > :49:24.and got its fingers badly burned, the Tories Corder to death tax. We
:49:25. > :49:31.have got to get well away from this territory. -- the Tories called it
:49:31. > :49:35.a death tax. We have taken a few knocks already in the last two
:49:35. > :49:44.years, and Salomon anything in the next week or so will threaten the
:49:44. > :49:47.coalition. -- and I don't think anything in the next week or so.
:49:47. > :49:51.might just have to use up the summer holidays to discuss House of
:49:51. > :49:56.Lords reform, it is a bizarre way to spend your time, though. This is
:49:56. > :50:01.not the most important thing on the Government's agenda. It seems to be
:50:01. > :50:08.quite important. It is important to us, we have gained -- we have been
:50:08. > :50:13.campaigning for it for 100 years. But that is why a programme motion
:50:14. > :50:18.which threatens to blow everything else out of the way, and spend
:50:18. > :50:24.endless amounts of time discussing Lords reform, it seems a bit out of
:50:24. > :50:29.proportion. So, you're saying that they should be worrying about the
:50:29. > :50:33.boundary review? It is dangerous to get into this tit-for-tat politics.
:50:34. > :50:38.The point is, a deal is a deal. It was in the coalition agreement, it
:50:38. > :50:41.was in the Tory manifesto. It is clearly a bit of a test of David
:50:41. > :50:46.Cameron's leadership that he can deliver members of his own party,
:50:46. > :50:52.on this matter. It is a test of David Cameron's leadership? I think
:50:52. > :50:59.it is a test of lots of things over the next few days, including how is,
:50:59. > :51:05.as a country, have our second chamber. I think it is going to be
:51:05. > :51:09.quite a fascinating period. will you vote? I am voting with the
:51:09. > :51:15.Government, I have always been in favour of House of Lords reform,
:51:15. > :51:19.quarter to consistent on that. It has been said a lot, but it is true,
:51:19. > :51:24.this has been lined up for more than 100 years. I think we have a
:51:24. > :51:29.genuine opportunity here to improve our second chamber. Any message for
:51:29. > :51:33.rebels in your party? I would say, there are some people who have had
:51:33. > :51:38.passionate views strongly against reform for many years, and I
:51:38. > :51:41.respect their position. But I think if other people are more concerned
:51:41. > :51:51.about specific details, I'm sure they will take the opportunity to
:51:51. > :51:54.
:51:54. > :51:57.discuss that with their whip. was very subtly put! We have heard
:51:57. > :52:01.from some of your colleagues, saying they're going to vote
:52:01. > :52:05.against, in other words, they could talk and talk about Lords reform,
:52:05. > :52:10.but it might block up other legislation. A our position is very
:52:10. > :52:20.simple. We think 10 days is not enough. It is not a complicated
:52:20. > :52:22.
:52:22. > :52:28.position. We have had years. That is exactly the point. Suddenly, the
:52:28. > :52:33.Government wants to settle this within 10 days. 10 days! It is not,
:52:34. > :52:37.it has been months, with the review, the commission, people know that.
:52:37. > :52:43.If the Government feels confident about this, which I would question,
:52:43. > :52:49.to win the argument in parliament, it needs more than 10 days. It was
:52:49. > :52:55.-- if it was confident to win this without using the whip in the
:52:55. > :52:59.lobbies, then it would give it more than 10 days. Labour is the party
:52:59. > :53:04.off Kier Hardie, Clement Atlee and John Smith, so the idea that they
:53:04. > :53:08.are going to effectively sabotaged a reform of the House of Lords, and
:53:08. > :53:12.effectively to end hereditary peerage, would be bizarre. I'm sure
:53:12. > :53:17.there will be talent to debate it on this programme anyway. Let's
:53:17. > :53:27.find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, what is the
:53:27. > :53:28.
:53:28. > :53:35.official beer of the 2012 London Olympics? What is the correct
:53:35. > :53:43.answer? Heineken. Well done. I have to say, that's very good. Does it
:53:43. > :53:46.matter, what the official beer is of the Olympics? It is not ideal.
:53:46. > :53:51.But I would say, this country, we are having a spectacular year with
:53:51. > :53:55.the Jubilee, the Olympics is another opportunity to showcase our
:53:55. > :53:59.talent to the entire planet, and I think there will be many
:53:59. > :54:06.opportunities for many British companies. In Derbyshire, we have a
:54:06. > :54:09.real growth in micro-breweries at the moment, in my constituency. And
:54:09. > :54:15.I genuinely think this is a fantastic opportunity for the
:54:15. > :54:20.country.. And the brand of the beer does not matter? It is not ideal,
:54:20. > :54:29.but it is not the most important thing in the world. It kind of
:54:29. > :54:33.matters, I would prefer it if it was a beer from Cheltenham. I'm
:54:33. > :54:41.afraid these big sponsorship deals are crucial to the Games. I am
:54:41. > :54:45.pretty cross that the French state is the official electricity
:54:45. > :54:48.supplier, we do not have to be heavy about every single dodge deal
:54:48. > :54:56.to accept that these are important to the Games. We do not have to
:54:56. > :55:02.drink it. I don't think you're allowed to bring your own, actually.
:55:02. > :55:08.What is the official water?! What about you? I think it matters a
:55:08. > :55:14.huge amounts. Beer is part of Britishness. This is not the best
:55:14. > :55:22.product, I would say. And I have found out it is going to be sold at
:55:22. > :55:25.�4.24 a 330 ml bottle.. How much is it normally? A lot less than that.
:55:25. > :55:28.I think it is a shame that families will be getting ripped off when
:55:28. > :55:34.they go to these games. They will not have a choice about what they
:55:34. > :55:38.can buy, and it is being sold at very high prices. There is the
:55:38. > :55:42.point about it having to be a big company to be able to pay that kind
:55:42. > :55:46.of sponsorship deal? That is the sad thing about brewing in this
:55:46. > :55:51.country, then, isn't it? We have got some great businesses here,
:55:51. > :55:57.making fantastic products, great breweries, and it is just a shame,
:55:57. > :56:02.I think. If you had a choice, apart from your Cheltenham one, which one
:56:02. > :56:08.would it be? It would be a mixture from our micro-breweries in
:56:08. > :56:14.Derbyshire. We will come back to you on that one! We all know that
:56:14. > :56:20.political exchanges can get a bit heated, with the occasional raised
:56:20. > :56:30.voices. Even the odd bout of fisticuffs. But have you ever seen
:56:30. > :57:03.
:57:03. > :57:07.-- have you ever seen anything like I like the way they have bleeped it,
:57:07. > :57:14.because none of us can understand what the swearwords were. None of
:57:14. > :57:18.you aren't, are you? I left the firearms at home today. Were you
:57:18. > :57:23.shocked by that? A little. Maybe they were discussing the reform of
:57:23. > :57:28.the Jordanian parliament. Nothing like that has ever happened yet on
:57:28. > :57:35.The Daily Politics. Have you ever lost your temper on live TV? No, I
:57:35. > :57:39.have not, no. No cause to, not yet. But what makes you really angry?
:57:39. > :57:46.Has there been a debate or a subject which has really got you
:57:46. > :57:50.going? I did once walkout on Yvette Cooper during a Westminster debate.
:57:50. > :57:54.We were discussing Labour's regional strategies, and she was
:57:54. > :57:59.basically saying that the local consultations did not matter. So I
:57:59. > :58:04.thought, in that case, no point staying. I stomped out, which was
:58:05. > :58:08.silly, really. When I go to primary schools, I do say, I think your
:58:08. > :58:11.behaviour policy is much better than the House of Commons. I think
:58:11. > :58:21.the shouting and jury in the House of Commons does a lot of damage. It
:58:21. > :58:22.
:58:22. > :58:30.is much better if people can keep a lid on their tempers. -- shouting
:58:30. > :58:34.and jeering. Everybody sees PMQs at home, but we know that there is a
:58:34. > :58:37.huge amounts to a cross-party work, select committee work. Of course
:58:37. > :58:41.there are disagreements, but actually, the things that get me
:58:41. > :58:46.going in life, it is not disagreements on policy or ideas,
:58:46. > :58:51.it is all to do with people who are bad manners or -- bad-mannered or