09/07/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/07/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, welcome to the Daily Politics. Is the coalition


heading into unchartered territory? The two sides this week prepare to


go in to battle over the issue of Lords Reform. Can David Cameron


bring his Conservative rebels into line? Can Nick Clegg get his


treasured bill through Parliament? And can the two men keep the


coalition intact? Meanwhile Ed Miliband goes into


battle with the banks. The Labour leader is demanding a shake-up of


the industry. This afternoon the deputy governor of the Bank of


England will give evidence to MPs about his role in the Libor scandal.


Should the official beer of the Olympics be British? We'll be


looking at why some foreign lagers are leaving a bitter taste in the


mouths of some MPs. And we will be hoping that our


Calm so far! All that in the next hour.


With us for the first half of the programme today is one man who


certainly won't behave like that, at least we hope, the government's


Behaviour Tsar, Charlie Taylor. Just as well Andrew is off today.


Many bankers have not been behaving as they should. Their behaviour has


been so bad that this morning, Ed Miliband called up for a shake-up


of the banking system and a code of conduct for. We need a system where


bankers are given an incentive not just to focus on the short-term


return but the long term, a banking system where no one bank is too big


to fail or too powerful to be challenged. Where all banks face


real competition and customers have promises to make and maybe this


sounds like a long way off, but where the term at banker goes back


to being a compliment and stops being a term of abuse. Above all, a


system the British people can have confidence in. With us is the


shadowed Business Secretary Chuka Umunna. The code of conduct. There


will be legislation going through so what is it you are suggesting


that is different. There are different FSA regulations applied


but we want something more broadly applied across the sector. So I


used to be a solicitor and I am subject to the solicitors' code of


conduct and if I bridge that, you can be struck off... It is quite


restricted in the City of London to whom the regulations apply. We want


something broader. We have a code of conduct for people way if they


breach the fundamental principles, which has clearly happened, further


action needs to be taken but that is only part of it. The other thing


is there is the sense that if somebody in my constituency


shoplifters, the strong arm of the law is brought down to bear on them.


But the FSA is investigating and there can be criminal charges.


and there was a myth around the headlines that seemed to suggest


there was not legislation in place that enabled action to be taken.


There was. The issue is that the Serious Fraud Office has not been


properly resourced to do this work. One of the things that Ed Miliband


spoke about today, the fine is 10 times more than the budget of the


FSO so we need to properly resourced that agency so it can do


the work to bring those to book. Let's look at things that would


make a difference to the average punter on the streets. Forcing the


big banks to sell 1,000 branches. How will that help people? Let me


put that in context. Part of the problem with the banking system is


that it is seen to serve the banks as opposed to the people. One your


high-street, you will notice there are just about five big players and


if you do not have significant competition, you do not end up with


a good deal for the consumer. 85% of small business lending is


dominated by four large banks and I think that has something to do with


the poor service many of them think they are getting. Make a cow on


switching easier. If people can move their accounts more easy Lee,


there will be more competition. -- more easily. I have done that


myself. How long did it take you to move your account from one bank to


another? Because that is the problem. It needs to be quicker.


Are these the sort of things you think will appeal? The important


thing that people worry most about is the idea that we will not have a


repeat of what happened in 2008, that people will not be queueing up


in the case of Northern Rock. that was an era over which Labour


presided. Isn't there a credibility problem for Labour, that at that


time, your party was in government and despite the accusations about


whether they were aware of what was going on in terms of rate rigging,


they were having conversations with all of the banks, including


Barclays, at a time when... Labour has admitted they did not have


tight enough regulation? That is right. No doubt about it, we should


have better regulated the banks but the important thing is that people


in the future don't and are you going to learn the mistakes of the


past or compound them? -- and the questionnaires. Vince Cable was


responsible for setting up the independent commission on banking


but what a shame it has produced a recommendation that if applied


strictly does not prevent a repeat of the crisis of 2008... They are


going to put through that recommendation. But having set up


the commission, they are watering down the proposals. The capital


requirements, the vicar's reports said go for a 4% offer, they are


going for 3%. They said you should have a clear separation between


investment banking and retail banking, but they are allowing some


of those things to take place together, for example, the


derivatives that we saw that were mis-sold to small and medium-size


enterprises. We need a strict application. We are arguing for


that because we have learned from our mistakes. I could go into how


they were saying we were over regulating but the fact is, we need


to have more regulating and we need to have ring-fencing of retail and


investment banking and they seem to be walking away from that. What do


you think Bob Diamond should get? This is an issue for the


shareholders. What do you think? think the public would find it


quite outrageous if having presided over failure and having been in the


driving seat when some of these things were happening in his bank,


for him to walk away with a pay-off beyond what anybody could think


about receiving in their lifetime? That is a good point. It is


important that politicians are not too heavily involved in this


process. This is a decision for shareholders and politicians can


set the standards but it is up to shareholders to make the decision.


But if the public feel that the banks have got away with a lot over


the last ten years, surely it is up to politicians to take the lead on


this. We can express an opinion. I think it is fair to say we would


not have seen the wave of investor revolves had people in Westminster


of all political persuasions not been arguing -- investor revolts.


Who should replace him? That is not for me... An insider? We want


somebody to restore Barclays' in the public eye... Is that for


somebody currently inside the bank? I don't think that is something


that as a politician I should be passing comment on. That is an


issue for the shareholders and the board. Barclays is our third


largest bank. I want to see its reputation restored, both


domestically and internationally, because that is in the national


interest. Some of the arguments that have been put forward, bearing


in mind Paul Tucker will be interviewed this afternoon, that if


the rates were being manipulated and he was aware of it at the Bank


of England, was he doing so for the sake of market confidence, which


was extremely low? A really important distinction needs to be


made about what was happening at the time and about what people in


the Treasury were concerned about. There was concerned about liquidity


and that if lending to businesses stalled, the economy would stall.


It is one thing have legitimate concerns about lending and


liquidity, and supporting the missed reporting that we saw with


the rate rigging. It is important that in maintaining the integrity


of the Bank of England that Paul Tucker clears this up this


afternoon. Do you be agreed that politicians are useless at holding


bankers to account -- do you agree? Do you agree with that point?


would not say that every single line of questioning did not work


but I think perhaps they could have done a better job the other week


and this is why we have been arguing for a judge LED inquiry


with a council... You have got you point him. Thank you, Jo.


Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is: What is


the official beer of the 2012 London Olympics? Is it: Slater's


Top Totty? Heineken? Bull Box's Taxi for Dave? Skol? At the end of


the show, someone will give us the correct answer.


The Government published its House of Lords Reform Bill last month. It


calls for the existing Lords to be replaced with a smaller, largely


elected, upper house. MPs will debate the plans in the Commons for


the first time today and tomorrow. But it is already causing an


almighty row, with the Government potentially facing its first


Commons defeat. The Government's plans for Lords reform have


certainly got some of the Lords a leaping. But it has also got


members of the House of Commons hopping mad. Nick Clegg insists


that Lords reform is a central part of the Coalition's programme for


government. But 70 Conservative backbenchers look set to rebel.


Tomorrow evening there will be a crucial vote on what is known as


the programme motion, which would allow the Government to guillotine,


or cut short, future debates. Without it, the bill may never get


passed. That would delight the rebels. The veteran Conservative MP


Sir Nicholas Soames says the Bill must be defeated at all cost.


Labour are in favour of reform but argue that the Government's


proposals are seriously flawed, so they will line up with the rebels


to block the programme motion. Lib Dems say that the Tory rebels are


going back on a clear commitment. And they accuse Labour of


undermining their claim to be a progressive party. James, what


exactly is given to happen? We had 70 Tory rebels, what does it mean


if they all vote against the motion with Labour? Does that mean the


government will lose? Yes, but proviso is that all Labour MPs vote


against the government and all independent and minorities party's


vote against the government. We know what the government majority


years, it is about 80. In technical terms you need the rebellion of


over 42 even have a chance. You have 70 Conservative MPs who put


their name to this letter today saying they think this is a bad


bill and they also think the Bill But they do not definitively say


they will vote against the government tomorrow night, and


there is clearly a difference between writing a letter and


walking through the division lobby in your government. But it shows


how difficult it will be for the government to win their vote. A lot


of time for on twisting and for the Prime Minister to make personal


calls but it is still a very big ask for the government to win.


tense is it at Westminster between all these various divisions?


depends who you talk to. Some Conservative MPs say, yes their


whips have been in touch but they have not had before heavy-handed


pressure, simply because a lot of these people have been public in


their opposition to Lords reform for some time. The mixture of the


carrot and stick is being deployed. I think both sides of the coalition


realise it is one of those issues that could drive a wedge between


them, the Conservatives say this is a Lib Dem priority and we should


not be doing this and the Lib Dems saying, this is something you


signed up to in the coalition agreement. That is where the


tension is, rather than between angry whips trying to persuade big


guys to go with them. Thank you, James Landale.


With us now is the Conservative MP, Conor Burns, Liberal Democrat peer,


Lord Oakeshott, and the Labour MP, So you will resign as a ministerial


aide? It probably means that I will be sacked. What does your boss


think? My boss is passionately in favour of House of Lords reform.


What does he think about you voting against the Government? I think his


view that it is refreshing that somebody is prepared to lay down


their job in support of a long-held, passionate belief. How many other


people do you think will be in the same city I do not know. I know


there is at least one other, and I know of six further who


passionately agree with me, but will choose to stay in the


government. This letter, you have not signed up to it, presumably


because... I believe my name actually is on that list. Do you


understand that there is a fear amongst your Tory colleagues, and


amongst the Liberal Democrats, that you just cannot pick and choose


within this coalition, and you are in breach of that. We were very


clear in our manifesto that we would try to establish a consensus.


The joint committee failed to establish that consensus. The


coalition is incredibly important. For example, Lord Oakeshott left


the government over the economy. The central wasn't -- reason that


the coalition was reformed was to have economic stability. This is a


matter of principle, and what is it that the Liberal Democrats are so


upset about? The Tory MPs have set out their case, and they are


sticking to it, there was not a coalition government which said


that they would go forward and agree on proposals, just that you


would set them out. Just a minute, it was in the manifesto of each of


the three main parties, that we would reflect on the House of Lords.


The impression I get is that it is reasonably Amicus between the MPs,


but there is more tension in the House of Lords. -- reasonably


amicable. I think there is the feeling that somebody is trying to


throw them out of a rather agreeable old people's home. But in


general, within the coalition, we are united, it is the policy of all


three parties. Let's get a bit of perspective - it is completely


wrong that the laws of this country are voted on by people who have


been him pointed either by prime ministerial patronage or by kings


from years ago. This is a basic democratic principle, and certainly,


Chris Bryant and myself, we have had commission after commission,


and both of us were on the joint committee of 10 years ago, so we


have had plenty of time to discuss it, and now it is time to get on


with it. Do you agree that it is time we had a second chamber which


is elected, not appointed? I feel uneasy about any constitutional


reform, because we have had a functioning democracy for a very


long time. I am worried about people's priorities. We have just


had a debate about banking reform. I just wonder about the Taxi For


Dave -- the relevance of this at the moment. The people who make the


laws on this are elected in the House of Commons. The danger is


that you will be creating a rival chamber. And we have to vote on


this in the same way. We accept 80% of all amendments made by the House


of Lords to our legislation. It is a great way of revising and


improving legislation. We make the laws, like the Commons. He is


factually wrong. It is worrying when Conservatives cannot get their


history right. First of all, often, laws start in the House of Lords


and we end up revising them in the House of Commons. In that regard,


the two chambers have absolute parity. They are complementary.


all right, but they are not always revising. Secondly, the vast


majority of changes done in the House of Lords are done by the


government. There are things which should have been done in the


Commons, but they end up getting done in the House of Lords. In the


last two years, there have only been 241 votes in the House of


Lords. If you had an elected second chamber, I believe you would make


the House of Commons to which job better. I do not think we have a


perfectly -- perfectly functioning democracy in this country, I


disagree on that point. They have scrutinised very successfully in


the House of Lords health legislation, for example...


they do it better in the House of Lords than in the House of Commons?


One at a time, please. There is an awful lot of nonsense talk about


what a wonderful revising chamber and everything the House of Lords


is. There are some people with expertise, but there are also an


awful lot of has-beens, frankly, an awful lot of people who are only


there because they have given a million pounds to Tony Blair or to


Margaret Thatcher. It is deeply corrupt. There is no way of


appointing peers to the House of Lords without corruption, it is a


basic principle. So, why isn't Labour-voting for this? I support


the bill. Because it is opportunistic? You asked me a


question, grumpy! Adam Mynott allowed to be grumpy? No, you are


not! There are problems with this bill, and I want to improve it. It


is important, because you need time to do it properly. Let me give you


one example. The whole page of the programme motion specify is that we


will only be allowed two days, about 11 hours of debate, to do the


first laws, the most important one, which deals with every single


element of the composition of the House of Lords. That's roughly six


hours of voting, let alone any time to debate things like, whether


there should be bishops in the House of Lords, whether it should


be 100% elected, they are not allowing enough time. This is why I


think it is important that we vote against. Do you buy the argument


that Labour are not going to vote for the programme motion, which


could mean that in the end, the reform fails? Labour, and I have


paid tribute to those who were in favour of genuine reform. But they


have to compromise, because in the House of Lords, you get a different


picture. I genuinely hope that some of the reformers on the Labour


benches might not vote for the programme motion tomorrow. The


danger is that if that programme loses, this is the one opportunity


in my lifetime, certainly, to get it through, but if it loses, Ed


Miliband has said that they will still vote for the closure on


individual filibusters, so it would not be the end of the world. What


happens to the coalition if that programme motion is voted down?


gets much more difficult. But no- one is making threats, we are just


saying... We say to everybody, including Conor Burns, it is very


difficult for us, some of the things we have had to vote for,


things like tuition fees, and if they do not co-operate with us, it


will be harder to get Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for certain


things. Conor Burns, what do you say to that, that is a threat, a


warning, let's put it that way, if you do not vote with the government.


Matthew is being buried temper it today, which is unusual. The deal


that was done was honoured. This is very important - some of us are in


favour of reform of the House of Lords, we would like to limit the


numbers, we would like to strengthen the Independent


commission, but what this bill proposes is the abolition of the


House of Lords, which is a very different thing altogether. And


actually, there is the case for reform of the House of Commons, a


point which was made by Chris Bryant. I would just say to the BBC,


please, in the next few months, do not get obsessed about the process


of this, it is about the substance. In the end, how we distribute power


within the British political system, which is what the House of Lords


does, is essential to our politics. At the moment, it is unsustainable,


it has got more than 800 members. At this rate, every single member


of the Liberal Democrat party will be a member of the House of Lords.


That is true. It is too big, that is absolutely true. But it is they,


Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who did that. I am totally in favour of


removing hereditaries. What about the coalition? The coalition came


together because of the economy, and that remains the central focus.


I should not be in that place, none of us should be in that place.


Where you Can Leave, taken leave of absence! If you are the last


hereditary peer to be elected, elected hereditary, I know it is


weird, but he only has his seat because the first person who had


his barony was put into the House of Lords in 1911 by the Liberals,


to make sure the bill got through. So, it is about time we had some


change. What do you think, looking at it from the coalition, do you


think it will survive? I think it is very important that the exciting


education reforms which the coalition are working through at


the moment should be protected by them continuing to work together.


am going to have to let you all go. I will try not to be as grumpy in


the future, Chris Bryant. If I told you teachers in England were being


urged to pin up notices on their walls reminding them to stay calm


and to remember the names of the children, you might think I was


making it up, but I am not. It is the latest attempt to get pupils to


behave themselves in their schools. The checklist is the brainchild of


our guest today, Charlie Taylor. We sent our correspondent back to


school to find out if it might work. A few years ago, this primary


school was in trouble. Wistaston Green Primary School was in trouble


with bad behaviour. But thanks to the efforts of Linda Davis and her


team, it came off the sick list in less than a year. It is now


clocking up above average ratings in English and maths. It took a lot


of hard work, and a version of this, Charlie's checklist. It is the


brainchild of the Government's adviser on classroom behaviour,


Charlie Taylor. It is simple, a list of ideas and instructions,


stuck up on the wall, so that head teachers, teachers and pupils, have


a daily reminder of behaviour. It includes advice like, keep the


buildings clean, stay calm, and, remember the names of the children.


If the words bloomin' obvious are coming into your mind, you might


not be alone. I am all in favour of the Government emphasising


discipline. It was one of the things that I was keen on. A child


who is out of control is learning nothing. But do you not -- but you


do not manage to do that by little gimmicks, and a checklist which


pupils can see is a bit of a gimmick. But here is the thing. It


may be obvious, but around here, they reckon it works. We all need


checklists. We use checklists for new staff, for induction, we know


that surgeons use checklists, airline pilots. We are only human,


and we can forget. If we are under stress, that is the very time when


we are likely to forget the basic, essential things. To my mind, a


checklist is a very useful document. Maybe, that teachers cannot live by


a list alone. Perhaps a more fundamental, time-consuming and


expensive issue needs to be addressed. I think traditionally we


have not spent enough time making sure that teachers can take control


of the class, earn respect and make sure that it is carried through out


into the playground and into the community. Even checklist


cheerleaders think that Blunkett might be onto something. I believe


young teachers on training courses need more training in managing


behaviour. That is for the simple reason that we can have the best


lesson in the world, differentiation, all sorts going on,


but if you can not -- cannot deliver it, and manage behaviour,


following the key points on the checklist, it can all fall apart.


Checklists may sound like the bloomin' obvious, but sometimes,


the bloomin' obvious works. Perhaps the bigger question is, what else


does the Government have up its sleeve to make sure that no child


is left behind? Reception, are we ready? What a well-behaved class.


With us now, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers,


Christine Blower. Cannes come to you first of all, Charlie Taylor,


what do you think of the accusation that it is all a gimmick? That was


a good example, that school in Crewe, Linda Davis took over at


school when it was in a real state, and look at it now. She made a good


point, and lines and surgeons all use checklists for things like


washing your hands before doing an operation, or things like that.


Teaching is an incredibly complicated job at times. But just


like Linda Davis was saying, it is about getting the simple things


right. Surely it is a given that they will remember the names of the


children, that they will stay calm, that they will know what lesson


comes next. One would assume that planes would not take off without


enough fuel in the tank, and yet they have it on their checklist. It


is the same with surgeons, one would assume that they would wash


their hands. When we are excited about the brilliant lesson we are


going to deliver, actually, we can forget to do those basic things.


you think that is right, is it just as simple as having a checklist


This is called Charlie's checklist. There are lots of different types


of checklists which have been operation before Charlie came up


with this idea. The fact is, the vast majority of primary kids have


a really good experience because teachers are making sure that


everything is in place, and I slightly disagree with David


Blunkett. The idea that saying what is accepted in the classroom is not


a gimmick, it is a good idea. It is the adults and children having a


shared understanding of what is happening so they can be ready to


do their learning. Does any of that work if you have very disruptive


pupils in that class? Relying on a ladder of success, is that going to


keep the class engaged and keep the disruptive pupils under control?


need absolute consistency so that children know what they are going


into. There are children who need the additional support and


attention, but making sure that the classroom is well rewarded and


consistent helps for the vast majority of children. His behaviour


getting worse in the classroom? think teachers would say there are


a group of anxious, often young children coming into schools who


are more aggressive, but the general standards of behaviour are


continuing to improve and when I started teaching in the late 80s,


there was much worse behaviour. There were no-go areas in schools


with you did not fancy walking in break times. I think teachers have


done a fantastic job of improving behaviour. But if it is getting


worse and certain groups, is that exposing ineffective teaching?


Teaches that survive, they survived 20 years ago, are struggling now


because they are not good enough? People need to have more expertise


when we are dealing with the relief -- really troubled children. The


checklist is about keeping things simple and well organised but there


is a group of children who require little bit extra and that is where


we need training, expertise and support. And that costs money.


There is a huge amount of money being spent already on these


children. Schools are spending a fortune on things like teaching


assistants who support children who have not had the expertise they


need to deliver. Is the problem that what teachers need sometimes


is a bit of personality? No-win your subject is marvellous but


sometimes you need a bit of... you look at the teacher or mad


video? The vast majority of teachers have to be like that. What


Charlie his singing is that in general, behaviour is better than


it ever was. -- What Charlie is saying. There is a small group of


difficult young people and we need something additional for them, but


all teachers need to look at the way that he managed behaviour


because if you can't manage the behaviour in the classroom, you


can't do the teaching in the first place. Michael Gove mentioned


returning to O-levels? It is a good and time the argument to be having.


A lot of people feel there has been graves inflation, that GCSEs are


not worth the O-levels that I did many years ago. Therefore it is


important there is a debate about that and we cannot have people


feeling that what we are doing now is not good enough. Thank you.


So any sign that things are calming down for the summer? Doesn't look


like it! In a moment, we will talk to a couple of political hacks who


we have flushed out from the dark corridors of Westminster. But first,


As we have heard, the week starts with the coalition's sternest test


yet. MPs are discussing Lords reform today and tomorrow. The


Treasury Select Committee is due to ask questions about the Barclays


Libor banking debacle. Paul Tucker, the Bank of England's Deputy


Governor, is up today. Barclays chairman, Marcus Agius, will be


quizzed tomorrow. And, also tomorrow, French President Francois


Hollande arrives in London for talks with David Cameron. By


Wednesday, social care comes to the fore when the government's care and


support white paper is debated. And believe it or not, Wednesday will


be the last PMQs before the summer Let's talk now to our political


hacks, Torcuil Crichton, of the Scottish Daily Record, and Craig


Woodhouse, the Sun's new political correspondent. Can the Coalition


survive the week? It will certainly be the biggest test for the


coalition. Rebels are thinking, Tory rebels, that they will be able


to hit David Cameron with his biggest revolt yet. I think more


like 80. The Lib Dems are spitting feathers. They are saying, we have


had to march through the lobbies on things we don't like, now you have


got to do it on this. It is a huge test. The Lib Dems are saying


uncharted territory. Is it a leadership problem for David


Cameron if he cannot deliver his MPs through these division lobbies?


It is a basic issue of maths. If 100 people are rebelling, you have


five or six parliamentary aides, which I think is towards the Top


End, if he cannot maintain their discipline then yes, he has a


problem. Some Tory MPs saying last week Liam Fox giving a big speech


on Europe, David Davis batting hard on her Lords reform. One to banking.


We have heard Ed Miliband make his speech on proposals to improve the


culture within banking but how easy is it for Ed Miliband to take the


moral high ground when Labour has to take responsibility for what


when it on in the past? He does take responsibility for what


happened in the past. The when Ed Miliband gave us his conference


speech last autumn about predatory capitalism, none of us had a clue


what he was talking about. We certainly have an idea now. It


seems that Ed Miliband has once again been ahead of the game. He


spoke last year about the squeezed middle. We did not know what he was


talking about until we got our winter fuel bills. George Osborne


is delighted, this is the second week that we have started a Monday


not talking about the Budget, and he is using the Libor rate fixing


scandal as the club to beat the Labour Party with. This cuts


through to 2015. This is about George Osborne saying, you cannot


trust these guys with the banks and the economy, this is what they did


the last time. Ed Miliband is hitting back and saying, I am the


guy with a vision on how to deliver responsible capitalism and banking.


It is fascinating stuff. We will hear from Paul Tucker this


afternoon. Would it be revealing? If you listen to what some of the


Treasury Select Committee members have been saying, probably not! We


are useless at getting to the bottom of these things. The one


question people want answered is, who were these Whitehall figures


talking to Bob Diamond and the bankers about lowering Libor?


know who has denied it. But is it this legitimate, let's try and get


Libor down to help British business in the crash? In which case that is


probably illegitimate. But these are questions we do not know the


answers to and hopefully we will get to the bottom of them. If not,


maybe it will be down to the parliamentary inquiry. One of the


issues that is deemed huge in terms of the future planning his social


care. Labour sources have said there have been no cross-party


talks since February, which I've found astounding. How do we pay for


care? The issue of our age. There have been reports about this, the


idea that social care should be capped at �35,000 over a lifetime.


We would all take out insurance against to pay for that. The


government agrees in principle with this but it is not putting any cash


forward. It would cost 1.7 billion to set this up. There is no money.


They say they will look at this again in 2014. Labour are cross


because they were not included in talks to come up with this plan. We


will have a ding-dong, but nothing is going to happen this side of an


election on that. Thank you both. Joining me for the rest of the


programme are the Conservative MP, Jessica Lee, Liberal Democrat MP,


Martin Horwood, and Jenny Chapman for Labour. Welcome. Jessica, we


heard Creek raising the point from your colleagues that their


politicians on the Treasury Select Committee are useless at holding


bankers to a count. Andrea has done a fantastic job on the Treasury


Select Committee. She is in force to be reckoned with. I think we are


all waiting to see the evidence of the Select Committee and see how it


pans out but I think this whole issue about the bankers, the


reality has hit us all and we are now in the starting position. We


need to move things forward and bring shame sh. But on the point


that perhaps they did not go far enough, why not have a judge


inquiry if people feel that politicians are not doing their job


probably? We do not need a judicial inquiry. We need to politicians to


get to grips. We need a joint inquiry with in parliament. It


doesn't stop any investigations being done separately, that can


continue in terms of criminal matters. But this is something that


should be dealt with within the Houses of Parliament. Paul Tucker,


a former deputy of the Bank of England, coming forward. The point


that Labour has made is that what we need is not a panel of MPs


asking these questions, we need people who are properly trained and


qualified. What would you like to hear him say? Labour wants to see a


proper inquiry into banking led by a judge and it is not for me to


suggest what those questions should be. Ed Miliband has set out today


what he would like to see with banking. He wants to see more


diversity on the high street. If you look back ten years, there was


a multiplicity of banks in the country. There were building


societies in every town. We need to give consumers more choice and work


out how we get from where we are now two will meet to be. Was it a


defining watching George Osborne and Ed Balls going fought each


other in parliament? particularly edifying, no, but that


is what you get. People are angry about this and that lays out in the


Commons chamber and there is nothing wrong with that.


questions the Bank of England have to answer. The first, with that


they were giving some kind of nod and wink to the Libor process,


which is supposed to be a purely mechanical process, or was


something fishy going on? If they thought something fishy was going


on, why don't they do something about it? It is a test for Ed


Balls's light touch regulation regime. This is why we need a


Banking Reform Bill and why we need to get much tougher on regulating


activities of the banks to make sure this does not happen again.


The test last week in that debate was for George Osborne to back up


the allegations he was making about Ed Balls and he absolutely failed


to do that, and that is why the debate was so bad tempered.


Balls was the banking minister at the time. I think part of the


lack of acknowledgement, I think, by the Labour Party... Although Ed


Miliband has said this morning. am talking about last week. I am


talking about today. Part of this frustration is that at times people


need to stand up and say, we do get that wrong, we need to take


responsibility. That was part of the issue. But do you give credit


to Ed Miliband for doing that today? I have no difficulty with Ed


Miliband saying that today but it is long overdue. What about Bob


Diamond? He should get as little as possible. He has brought the whole


industry into disrepute. The eye D he should be rewarded with more


than �20 million of shareholders' money is obscene -- the idea.


was not in breach of his contract and did build up one of the most


successful investment banks. Define success. I am not sure boxes looks


like a successful banker right now. -- Barclays looks like. This is


something we have to look at. Vince Cable has been very clear. Lib Dems


have been talking about this... Working out the mechanics of this


are quite complicated. We have been telling banks to become more


secured through the mechanics of how you force them to do what they


need to do, to lend to small businesses, the engine of recovery,


we need to do more on this. fascinating thing is that Vince


Cable is outraged by Bob Diamond's bonuses but is unable to do a


single thing about it. That is the proper. We have had two years, you


had 13 and you didn't manage to do anything. What Ed Miliband is


saying today... Vince Cable, I am sure, will come up with stronger


Why have these cross-party talks failed? That is a question for


Andrew Lansley. Labour is very, very happy to engage in these talks,


if the door is wide open. What the Labour Party does not want is a


political row about this. We cannot afford to mess about, because there


has been in action on this issue for many, many years. It is a key


issue for all of us. We all have ageing relatives. We are all going


to be old ourselves. It concerns everybody in the country. I welcome


what comes this week, I think the coalition government have done a


huge amount to move this issue on. How have they moved it on? If you


look at who has led with this issue in House of Commons, it is clearly


the Conservative Party, supported by the Liberal Democrats on this


point. It is the Conservatives who have been leading the debates in


the House of Commons. And we have now got agreement... The main thing


in the Dilnot report was the idea of a cap on the amount any


individual should pay towards his or her own care, do you agree with


that? I want to see how the debate pans out. On a personal level, this


is one of the most important issues we're going to have to deal within


this entire parliament. I don't know the why those cross-party


talks, if that is right, have not been going ahead, but I hope there


can be some progress on this. have they not? Everybody comes on


to this programme and says it is the biggest problem facing society,


and yet we have not managed to get agreement on one single proposal?


The most bizarre thing is that of course we have actually got a


proposal from Dilnot. It could be the money attached to this. Who


knows where the logjam has happened? All I know is that the


Lib Dem minister involved in this is deeply committed to finding a


way to progress on the reform and the funding of social care. It is


something he campaigned passionately about in opposition,


so he must be as frustrated as everybody. There is a log jam with


money, isn't there? Honestly, do you think the politicians will be


able to agree, when they are so concerned with making savings and


deficit reduction? I suppose in the end, if there are fundamental


disagreement between the political parties, then it may be something


which has to wait for the 2015 election. The Liberal Democrats


would probably be happy to say that this would be something they would


be happy to see funded to taxation. But I think we should just give the


cross-party attempt a bit more time, to see if we can get a solution.


is not about whether we pay for it or not, it is how it is paid for.


This has got to be paid for, it is how we do it. Before the last


election, the Labour Party made a proposal on how it might be done,


and got its fingers badly burned, the Tories Corder to death tax. We


have got to get well away from this territory. -- the Tories called it


a death tax. We have taken a few knocks already in the last two


years, and Salomon anything in the next week or so will threaten the


coalition. -- and I don't think anything in the next week or so.


might just have to use up the summer holidays to discuss House of


Lords reform, it is a bizarre way to spend your time, though. This is


not the most important thing on the Government's agenda. It seems to be


quite important. It is important to us, we have gained -- we have been


campaigning for it for 100 years. But that is why a programme motion


which threatens to blow everything else out of the way, and spend


endless amounts of time discussing Lords reform, it seems a bit out of


proportion. So, you're saying that they should be worrying about the


boundary review? It is dangerous to get into this tit-for-tat politics.


The point is, a deal is a deal. It was in the coalition agreement, it


was in the Tory manifesto. It is clearly a bit of a test of David


Cameron's leadership that he can deliver members of his own party,


on this matter. It is a test of David Cameron's leadership? I think


it is a test of lots of things over the next few days, including how is,


as a country, have our second chamber. I think it is going to be


quite a fascinating period. will you vote? I am voting with the


Government, I have always been in favour of House of Lords reform,


quarter to consistent on that. It has been said a lot, but it is true,


this has been lined up for more than 100 years. I think we have a


genuine opportunity here to improve our second chamber. Any message for


rebels in your party? I would say, there are some people who have had


passionate views strongly against reform for many years, and I


respect their position. But I think if other people are more concerned


about specific details, I'm sure they will take the opportunity to


discuss that with their whip. was very subtly put! We have heard


from some of your colleagues, saying they're going to vote


against, in other words, they could talk and talk about Lords reform,


but it might block up other legislation. A our position is very


simple. We think 10 days is not enough. It is not a complicated


position. We have had years. That is exactly the point. Suddenly, the


Government wants to settle this within 10 days. 10 days! It is not,


it has been months, with the review, the commission, people know that.


If the Government feels confident about this, which I would question,


to win the argument in parliament, it needs more than 10 days. It was


-- if it was confident to win this without using the whip in the


lobbies, then it would give it more than 10 days. Labour is the party


off Kier Hardie, Clement Atlee and John Smith, so the idea that they


are going to effectively sabotaged a reform of the House of Lords, and


effectively to end hereditary peerage, would be bizarre. I'm sure


there will be talent to debate it on this programme anyway. Let's


find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, what is the


official beer of the 2012 London Olympics? What is the correct


answer? Heineken. Well done. I have to say, that's very good. Does it


matter, what the official beer is of the Olympics? It is not ideal.


But I would say, this country, we are having a spectacular year with


the Jubilee, the Olympics is another opportunity to showcase our


talent to the entire planet, and I think there will be many


opportunities for many British companies. In Derbyshire, we have a


real growth in micro-breweries at the moment, in my constituency. And


I genuinely think this is a fantastic opportunity for the


country.. And the brand of the beer does not matter? It is not ideal,


but it is not the most important thing in the world. It kind of


matters, I would prefer it if it was a beer from Cheltenham. I'm


afraid these big sponsorship deals are crucial to the Games. I am


pretty cross that the French state is the official electricity


supplier, we do not have to be heavy about every single dodge deal


to accept that these are important to the Games. We do not have to


drink it. I don't think you're allowed to bring your own, actually.


What is the official water?! What about you? I think it matters a


huge amounts. Beer is part of Britishness. This is not the best


product, I would say. And I have found out it is going to be sold at


�4.24 a 330 ml bottle.. How much is it normally? A lot less than that.


I think it is a shame that families will be getting ripped off when


they go to these games. They will not have a choice about what they


can buy, and it is being sold at very high prices. There is the


point about it having to be a big company to be able to pay that kind


of sponsorship deal? That is the sad thing about brewing in this


country, then, isn't it? We have got some great businesses here,


making fantastic products, great breweries, and it is just a shame,


I think. If you had a choice, apart from your Cheltenham one, which one


would it be? It would be a mixture from our micro-breweries in


Derbyshire. We will come back to you on that one! We all know that


political exchanges can get a bit heated, with the occasional raised


voices. Even the odd bout of fisticuffs. But have you ever seen


-- have you ever seen anything like I like the way they have bleeped it,


because none of us can understand what the swearwords were. None of


you aren't, are you? I left the firearms at home today. Were you


shocked by that? A little. Maybe they were discussing the reform of


the Jordanian parliament. Nothing like that has ever happened yet on


The Daily Politics. Have you ever lost your temper on live TV? No, I


have not, no. No cause to, not yet. But what makes you really angry?


Has there been a debate or a subject which has really got you


going? I did once walkout on Yvette Cooper during a Westminster debate.


We were discussing Labour's regional strategies, and she was


basically saying that the local consultations did not matter. So I


thought, in that case, no point staying. I stomped out, which was


silly, really. When I go to primary schools, I do say, I think your


behaviour policy is much better than the House of Commons. I think


the shouting and jury in the House of Commons does a lot of damage. It


is much better if people can keep a lid on their tempers. -- shouting


and jeering. Everybody sees PMQs at home, but we know that there is a


huge amounts to a cross-party work, select committee work. Of course


there are disagreements, but actually, the things that get me


going in life, it is not disagreements on policy or ideas,


it is all to do with people who are bad manners or -- bad-mannered or


Download Subtitles