:00:37. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics. And the finger-pointing
:00:40. > :00:44.continues. Labour call on George Osborne to apologise for claiming
:00:45. > :00:48.that Ed Balls was involved in the bank-rate fixing scandal. A Tory MP
:00:48. > :00:54.agrees. But William Hague says the Chancellor has nothing to apologise
:00:54. > :00:58.for. So who's right? Nick Clegg's dreams of an elected
:00:58. > :01:02.Upper Chamber are in doubt as MPs prepare to vote on the Deputy PM's
:01:02. > :01:04.cunning plan. We've got the latest on the parliamentary manouverings.
:01:04. > :01:09.Conservative backbenchers demand the government takes back powers
:01:09. > :01:12.from the EU. We'll hear from one of them.
:01:12. > :01:16.And David Cameron rolls out the red carpet for French President
:01:16. > :01:19.Francois Hollande. But will a slap- up meal and a cosy chat in Downing
:01:19. > :01:27.Street make up for the PM's decision not to meet the socialist
:01:27. > :01:30.candidate last time he was in town? All that in the next hour. And with
:01:30. > :01:35.me for the whole programme today is the former Conservative Chancellor,
:01:35. > :01:37.Norman Lamont. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Let's kick off with the
:01:37. > :01:40.suggestion from the Conservative backbencher Nick Boles that the
:01:40. > :01:45.Government should consider cutting things like winter fuel payments
:01:45. > :01:48.and free bus passes for well-off pensioners. Mr Boles - tipped by
:01:48. > :01:56.many as a future Government minister - put forward the idea in
:01:56. > :02:02.a speech this morning. Is that something you would agree with him
:02:02. > :02:07.on? It is very difficult politics, it would meet a lot of opposition,
:02:07. > :02:13.but I do agree with it and I myself have been eligible for the winter
:02:13. > :02:20.fuel allowance for quite some time. I have only taken it for two years.
:02:20. > :02:26.And a bus pass? Yes, I do have one, which I do use, but I don't think I
:02:26. > :02:31.should. Do you think it was a mistake for David Cameron to rule
:02:31. > :02:34.it out? I was watching on television the other night an
:02:34. > :02:41.audience of pensioners and when this was put to them there was
:02:41. > :02:48.complete unanimity - we have paid our taxes, but actually it isn't
:02:48. > :02:51.rational or entirely fair. Do you think it should be part of the
:02:51. > :02:56.calculations post 2015, presumably because it would be too difficult
:02:56. > :03:01.now for David Cameron to go back on his word? I don't think it can be
:03:01. > :03:05.done in the short term, I doubt if the coalition would agree to it,
:03:05. > :03:10.but we are talking about means testing and it would mean poorer
:03:10. > :03:14.pensioners would still get the hell. If as you say, politically very
:03:14. > :03:19.dangerous territory, particularly for a Conservative-led government
:03:19. > :03:25.one might argue if they win a majority next time? That's right.
:03:25. > :03:33.The problem is that once you give the benefit it is extremely
:03:33. > :03:37.difficult to take it away. Should George Osborne apologise to Ed
:03:37. > :03:39.Balls? The answer depends on who you talk to. Labour say yes, as
:03:39. > :03:42.does the Conservative backbencher Andrea Leadsom. Allies of the
:03:42. > :03:45.Chancellor say no, that he's got nothing to apologise for. What's
:03:45. > :03:48.the row all about? It's the allegation George Osborne made in
:03:48. > :03:50.an interview with the Spectator magazine that Ed Balls was clearly
:03:50. > :03:55.involved in discussions about reducing the LIBOR interbank
:03:55. > :03:58.lending interest rate. Yesterday, the Bank Of England's deputy
:03:59. > :04:08.governor Paul Tucker was given the chance to give his side of the
:04:09. > :04:15.
:04:15. > :04:21.story. Did Jeremy Hewitt or any other person encourage you to lean
:04:21. > :04:25.on Berkeley's or and the other bank? At a looming not. To do any
:04:25. > :04:35.government minister encourage you to lean on Berkeley's or any other
:04:35. > :04:44.bank to lower the LIBOR submissions? At a moving not. --
:04:44. > :04:51.absolutely not. If I may add one thing, what's more, I don't think I
:04:51. > :04:59.spoke to the treaty throughout this period at all. Did Ed Balls ask you
:04:59. > :05:05.to lean on a bank, or any other government minister? No, No. Last
:05:05. > :05:09.night, Andrea Leadsom, a Conservative MP, was asked whether
:05:09. > :05:15.she thought George Osborne should apologise for his allegations about
:05:15. > :05:20.Ed Balls. Yes, I do. Obviously he made a mistake and he should
:05:20. > :05:25.apologise but it was a very valid discussion at the time about who
:05:25. > :05:29.knew what and it is now being completely squashed by Paul Tucker.
:05:29. > :05:39.It is a valid conversation to have hard, and now at a personal level
:05:39. > :05:42.
:05:42. > :05:47.he probably would want to apologise. We've been joined by Labour's
:05:47. > :05:54.Shadow Business Minister Pat McFadden. I am pleased to be here
:05:54. > :06:01.but I am not the shadow business minister. You were once? Old habits
:06:01. > :06:05.die hard. Should he say sorry to Ed Balls? We can spend time chasing
:06:05. > :06:09.the Chancellor but he should reflect and the government should
:06:09. > :06:14.reflect on the way they conducted themselves in the last week. These
:06:14. > :06:17.were serious issues. Barclay's put out this information which was
:06:17. > :06:26.intended to have given the impression they were meant on in
:06:26. > :06:30.some way by the Bank of England to change the LIBOR raids. In the
:06:30. > :06:35.evidence from Paul Tucker we are clear that no official from the
:06:35. > :06:39.last government asked him to lean on Berkeley's. The whole impression
:06:39. > :06:47.there was some government jiggery- pokery from the last government
:06:47. > :06:54.going on has been completely squashed. Am I taking from that
:06:55. > :06:59.that he should apologise to Ed Balls? He has certainly been wrong.
:06:59. > :07:04.I specifically asked Paul Tucker about Ed Balls and his denial was
:07:04. > :07:10.as emphatic as any other minister, and this reflects on the Chancellor
:07:10. > :07:15.because rather than focusing on the issues in banking he has chased a
:07:15. > :07:19.political hair and tried to make a political point. But so have you by
:07:19. > :07:27.asking him to apologise. He it has backfired because it has not been
:07:27. > :07:32.borne out by the testimony. What do you say to that, Norman Lamont?
:07:32. > :07:41.didn't much like the scenes in the House of Commons last week and I
:07:41. > :07:46.didn't think they reflected very well on Parliament. If there is an
:07:46. > :07:53.allegation Ed Balls intervened, it doesn't stand up. There is an
:07:53. > :07:56.allegation between a minister, if he or she were to say to a bank
:07:56. > :08:01.there is a public policy reason we would like rates to be lower, that
:08:01. > :08:06.is different from making private gain out of misleading information.
:08:06. > :08:11.It might be legitimate for ministers to intervene, but the
:08:11. > :08:17.evidence is that they didn't even do that. We will come on to that,
:08:17. > :08:21.because as you say there might be real reasons for the government to
:08:21. > :08:29.talk to banks at the time of the crash. On the basis of that,
:08:29. > :08:35.wouldn't draw a line under this whole saga if the Chancellor just
:08:35. > :08:40.said "I'm sorry". I think possibly he did overplay his hand and I
:08:40. > :08:44.didn't like the atmosphere in the House of Commons. This is a very
:08:44. > :08:54.serious issue and I think it is very clear ministers did not
:08:54. > :09:00.intervene in any improper way. Judge -- George Osborne said
:09:00. > :09:07.ministers had questions to answer, which is not quite the same thing.
:09:07. > :09:10.Yes, and various and ambiguity as to who precisely was referring to.
:09:10. > :09:18.As in all these things it is a question of connecting two
:09:18. > :09:24.sentences. Do ministers have questions to answer? Labour
:09:24. > :09:28.presided over that whole culture. Whether ministers were involved or
:09:28. > :09:35.not, and Paul Tucker has said they weren't, are there other questions
:09:35. > :09:45.to answer about what went on? phrase "questions to answer" Has
:09:45. > :09:46.
:09:46. > :09:48.been thrown about in a desperate way to leave an -- and nasty smell
:09:48. > :09:58.in the air. There was a world of difference between legitimate
:09:58. > :10:01.policy concerns and what we were talking about with Paul Tucker. Was
:10:01. > :10:06.liquidity getting back into the market? These are legitimate
:10:06. > :10:11.questions. That is a world away from the allegations made. On that
:10:11. > :10:18.basis, it has not been proven so far if the government intends to
:10:18. > :10:21.pursue it. Let's talk about government ministers or civil
:10:21. > :10:29.servants in the Treasury talking to Barclays and the Bank of England
:10:29. > :10:37.because they were concerned about the lending rate. Wouldn't you
:10:37. > :10:41.expect them to be doing that at that time? There was concern
:10:41. > :10:46.because the Barclay's rate seemed to be an out runner and they were
:10:46. > :10:53.worried it would illustrate or prove to be the case that Barclays
:10:53. > :10:57.could not fund itself. That is what ministers were worried about.
:10:57. > :11:02.it look to some people suspicious that those conversations and e-
:11:02. > :11:12.mails were going backwards and forwards to find ways of bringing
:11:12. > :11:13.
:11:13. > :11:19.rate -- LIBOR down. Does this come close to crossing the line? It is a
:11:19. > :11:27.difficult issue. Ministers might for example with a floating
:11:27. > :11:32.exchange rate say whether they wanted it up or down. LIBOR is used
:11:32. > :11:37.for contract as well, and it is both a policy and regulatory issue,
:11:37. > :11:41.it is very complex. Why haven't Labour, out more strongly in terms
:11:41. > :11:46.of making the case that this is what ministers at the time were
:11:46. > :11:52.doing, these are legitimate concerns and they require that sort
:11:52. > :11:57.of correspondence to go on? I think they have. They have said they had
:11:57. > :12:02.concerns about liquidity in the market. The Jeremy Heywood e-mails
:12:02. > :12:07.you refer to our about policy. They are about we have put this scheme
:12:07. > :12:13.in place, why hasn't it had the effect we thought it would? They
:12:13. > :12:17.are legitimate concerns. There are legitimate policy concerns, and
:12:17. > :12:23.there is telling a bank to do something dishonest - they're very
:12:23. > :12:28.different things and the second did not happen. It is difficult when
:12:28. > :12:38.the public can't listen to transcripts... He is an educated
:12:38. > :12:41.
:12:42. > :12:45.man who knows very different. you have the text of an e-mail, is
:12:45. > :12:51.there an implication not that they are trying to manipulate but
:12:51. > :12:55.finding ways to bring it down? There is no need for any confusion.
:12:55. > :12:59.Confusion here is deliberate. Of course people wanted liquidity in
:13:00. > :13:04.the markets, they wanted a policy package, but that is very different
:13:04. > :13:08.from any indication to a bank that they should do something dishonest.
:13:09. > :13:15.Norman Lamont, are you pleased Bob Diamond won't be taking most of his
:13:15. > :13:20.bonus? Yes, although I think most people will be astonished that he
:13:20. > :13:24.gets any bonus. We have got to be very careful with this whole debate,
:13:24. > :13:30.how we conduct ourselves in the future. Undoubtedly this was a
:13:30. > :13:35.scandal, there was wrong doing, but we must not flagellate ourselves so
:13:35. > :13:38.much that would discredit the whole UK banking system in perpetuity.
:13:38. > :13:42.There were things that have to be put right, but we have got to
:13:43. > :13:49.remember that you can't just banish the banking system and have growth
:13:49. > :13:53.in our economy. You have got to be pragmatic about this. It is an
:13:53. > :13:58.important industry but what has been brought out through the
:13:58. > :14:02.regulators reports is that there is a cultural problem in that bank
:14:02. > :14:05.which has seen this and other regulatory breaches, and what I
:14:05. > :14:15.would want to see it is evidence that the bank takes its cultural
:14:15. > :14:21.
:14:21. > :14:23.problem seriously and changes the culture to restore trust. A group
:14:23. > :14:27.of Conservative MPs have published a "shopping list of requirements"
:14:27. > :14:29.today on what powers they want the UK to take back from the European
:14:29. > :14:33.Union. The Fresh Start project includes Conservative MPs such as
:14:33. > :14:35.Andrea Leadsom, George Eustice, and Chris-Heaton-Harris. Amongst other
:14:36. > :14:38.policies on their lengthy list of possible renegotiations, they think
:14:39. > :14:41.Britain should insist on a veto for EU financial services regulation or
:14:41. > :14:44.perhaps push for regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy. They
:14:44. > :14:46.suggest stopping the use of the Strasbourg seat of the European
:14:46. > :14:56.Parliament, and allowing Member States to impose an income
:14:56. > :14:58.
:14:58. > :14:59.threshold on immigrants from other EU countries. The MPs float the
:14:59. > :15:02.prospect of withholding contributions to European
:15:02. > :15:07.development funds if they are not reformed, and they think there
:15:07. > :15:11.should be radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. We have
:15:11. > :15:21.been joined by one of the Conservative MPs who wrote the
:15:21. > :15:24.
:15:24. > :15:28.report, just in the nick of time. Can I start with you, George
:15:28. > :15:34.Eustace. I have had a brief look at the things you would like
:15:34. > :15:38.repatriated. You offer a series of options - green, amber and red -
:15:38. > :15:48.but the red options would have to be withdrawal entirely, do you
:15:48. > :15:52.I do not agree. This is a green paper, there are a lot of different
:15:52. > :15:57.proposals in there. We are saying, this is setting out a series of
:15:57. > :16:01.alternatives. Some of them do not require any negotiation with the EU,
:16:01. > :16:06.some of them would require some renegotiation. And the red options
:16:06. > :16:10.are areas where Britain could, if it wanted, take unilateral action.
:16:10. > :16:14.It would technically put us in breach of some of the EU treaties.
:16:14. > :16:20.That in itself would become a catalyst for renegotiation.
:16:20. > :16:24.Somewhere, we have to cut this Gordian knot, where people say it
:16:25. > :16:29.is impossible to renegotiate with the EU, what if they say no? The
:16:29. > :16:34.answer to that is not to say, therefore we will leave and give up,
:16:34. > :16:37.the answer is to say, we will take action through Parliament to
:16:37. > :16:44.unilaterally set aside certain areas, to bring them to the table
:16:44. > :16:50.and encourage them to negotiate. I think there are a lot of potential
:16:50. > :16:55.for us to make many changes. Some examples, like withdrawing from the
:16:55. > :17:02.Common Fisheries Policy - make is that an Indian itself, or is it a
:17:02. > :17:04.negotiating tool to get a whole range of things for you? I think
:17:04. > :17:08.the Common Fisheries Policy is a good example where the Government,
:17:08. > :17:15.through negotiation, has made some sterling progress over the last
:17:15. > :17:18.nine months. If the commission put through what is currently proposed,
:17:18. > :17:21.we're actually going to have a repatriation of fisheries policy in
:17:21. > :17:25.all but name, and you will have groups of national governments
:17:25. > :17:29.taking their own decisions. What makes you think you will get what
:17:29. > :17:33.you want? If it had been that easy, one presumes these things would
:17:33. > :17:38.have been done by now. Is it not the case that Britain does not have
:17:38. > :17:43.partners with whom it can negotiate in the EU, because of what has gone
:17:43. > :17:48.on over the last year or so, they will just say no? No, the case is
:17:48. > :17:51.that nobody has actually tried to renegotiate yet. Not only this
:17:51. > :17:56.government, but in the last 10 years, we had a Labour government
:17:56. > :18:00.which wanted to continue to hand powers over. I agree with a lot of
:18:00. > :18:04.what you're saying, but one important thing is that our
:18:04. > :18:07.relationship with the European Union is changing, and the nature
:18:07. > :18:11.of the eurozone is changing. It is becoming much more integrated and
:18:12. > :18:16.will become more so, and those changes require Britain's agreement.
:18:16. > :18:19.We have got to wait until those things come forward, and when that
:18:19. > :18:22.happens, we have a chance to say, we want a different relationship
:18:22. > :18:26.with Europe, because that relationship is going to be
:18:26. > :18:32.different, come what may. How long do you think that would mean
:18:32. > :18:39.waiting? I think it would be wise to wait before doing most of the
:18:39. > :18:43.things which George is suggesting. This will happen in time, but I
:18:43. > :18:47.think the Prime Minister is right, that the idea of a referendum now
:18:47. > :18:52.long would be completely wrong. But a referendum in which there were
:18:52. > :18:56.three options, in a few years' time, would be the right course. Are you
:18:56. > :19:00.prepared to wait to? Absolutely, I am prepared to wait. A referendum
:19:00. > :19:04.would come at the end of the process, not at the beginning. I
:19:04. > :19:09.think there are some things we can do in the short term. But I accept
:19:09. > :19:13.that a lot of things we will need to get in our manifesto, to do the
:19:13. > :19:17.more fundamental renegotiation after the next general election.
:19:17. > :19:20.some extent, they are taking over your territory here, if they are
:19:20. > :19:26.promising not just Tory MPs to be part of this group, but also the
:19:26. > :19:30.Government, to renegotiate, to repatriate powers, at the end of
:19:30. > :19:35.which there may be the prospect of a referendum, what has UKIP got to
:19:35. > :19:40.offer? The poles say that people want a yes or no question, as
:19:40. > :19:44.simple as that. The point I would like to make would be that many of
:19:44. > :19:49.the things you are talking about would require unanimity. You would
:19:49. > :19:58.have to get 26 member states to agree to them. It is cloud-cuckoo-
:19:58. > :20:03.land. This is a set-up job to try to kick this into the long grass.
:20:03. > :20:11.No, that is nonsense. I reject this defeatist idea. But how do you get
:20:11. > :20:16.over unanimity? The point is that even if you left the EU, you would
:20:16. > :20:20.have to renegotiate some kind of re-entry to that single market.
:20:20. > :20:25.Norway accepts 75% of the laws which come from the EU, but has no
:20:25. > :20:32.say on their formulation. So we have better negotiate from inside
:20:32. > :20:35.rather than from outside. Norman Lamont is saying, we have a stick
:20:35. > :20:44.with which to threaten the EU, in terms of getting what Britain would
:20:44. > :20:47.like. It says clearly, I have got it in front of me, this article of
:20:47. > :20:51.the Lisbon Treaty says renegotiation can only happen after
:20:51. > :20:55.we have handed over control. So, you're doing it the wrong way round.
:20:55. > :20:59.We should have the referendum first, then we start the negotiation, not
:20:59. > :21:05.the other way around. How much of a chance do you think the Government
:21:05. > :21:09.house of repatriating powers? Norman Lamont is saying, we could
:21:09. > :21:16.use the threat of not agreeing to close the fiscal union for the rest
:21:17. > :21:20.of the EU? I have got some time for Norman Lamont's point. It is
:21:20. > :21:24.absolute cloud-cuckoo-land to think that at the moment, we can pick and
:21:24. > :21:30.choose what we want from the European Union. The unanimity rule,
:21:30. > :21:36.and other rules, will stop that process. It is a two-way process.
:21:36. > :21:40.When Ted Heath joined the European Union, whatever it was called then,
:21:40. > :21:44.Fisheries was something he gave away for New Zealand Agriculture.
:21:44. > :21:49.It is give-and-take. So, they will want things from us. If they do
:21:49. > :21:52.move towards fiscal union, if they do, then you will see the fact that
:21:52. > :21:56.there will be negotiation by Britain about its relationship with
:21:56. > :22:00.that union. I would hope that at some stage we will join that, I
:22:00. > :22:03.don't think we can live as an offshore island indefinitely. Our
:22:03. > :22:07.job is to keep the economy up with the Germans and the North Sea
:22:07. > :22:15.economies, otherwise we will sink into the Mediterranean abyss.
:22:15. > :22:22.do you say to that? When we joined the European Community, back in
:22:22. > :22:30.1972, it made up 30% of global trade. It is now 15% and shrinking.
:22:30. > :22:35.We should be tying ourselves to an area closer to home, not to the
:22:35. > :22:39.slowest growing economic bloc in the world. The more there is no
:22:39. > :22:44.firm promise of a referendum, do you not think it is driving people
:22:44. > :22:47.into the arms of UKIP? Not at all. We need to prepare for that
:22:47. > :22:53.renegotiation. This paper is about starting that detailed heavy
:22:53. > :22:57.lifting work. It is very lazy just to talk about having a referendum.
:22:57. > :23:01.What we really need to do is to work out the kind of relationship
:23:01. > :23:05.we want with the European Union. As Norman Lamont said, things are
:23:05. > :23:09.changing, there is a fork in the road. Whether or not some countries
:23:09. > :23:15.leave the euro, or whether or not they integrate further, it is going
:23:15. > :23:19.to be forcing change, and we should be there, ready with proposals..
:23:19. > :23:23.But do you accept what this might mean in terms of relationships with
:23:23. > :23:27.France and Germany, that it will make those more difficult, even
:23:27. > :23:35.with the threat of what might happen in terms of closer fiscal
:23:35. > :23:39.union? Britain would be seen very much to be on the outside? I think
:23:39. > :23:44.heads of government are grown-up people, they know that Britain,
:23:45. > :23:49.culturally and historically, has never been an enthusiastic entity
:23:49. > :23:53.in favour of integration. They know that. They accept that. Britain is
:23:53. > :23:58.very important to the European Union in certain areas, like
:23:58. > :24:04.foreign policy, for example, what happened with Libya, though it was
:24:04. > :24:07.not strictly speaking an EU thing. They know very well that Britain
:24:07. > :24:10.has a special position and a special attitude. I think they
:24:10. > :24:17.understand that perfectly well. terms of the plan that you're
:24:17. > :24:22.putting forward, it is no different to David Cameron's, is it? It is in
:24:22. > :24:26.terms of saying that there are things right can do right now. They
:24:26. > :24:30.have started on some of the coalition commitments, and I think
:24:30. > :24:37.it is highly likely that they will exercise the opt-out from the
:24:37. > :24:40.justice and home affairs laws. And I think they have done well to
:24:40. > :24:46.safeguard our interests when it comes to things like the budget,
:24:46. > :24:51.where they have pressed for a freeze. And the Government are also
:24:51. > :24:55.examining the regulatory cost, the cost on the economy, and this is a
:24:55. > :25:05.very important point, that the burden of regulation ought actually
:25:05. > :25:05.
:25:05. > :25:11.to be quantified, so that we know what the cost of membership is.
:25:11. > :25:16.Essentially, the Government cannot agree on any development in
:25:16. > :25:19.relation to the European Union. We have got a range of opt-outs, and I
:25:19. > :25:22.think the relationship, and I do not agree with Norman Lamont on
:25:22. > :25:26.this, I think the relationship is getting worse. We are having this
:25:26. > :25:30.debate, the eurozone are having a debate about whether they are going
:25:30. > :25:37.to be able to continue or not, but I think that for Britain to raise
:25:37. > :25:41.this question is a bit like, I mean, William Hague's analysis that the
:25:41. > :25:45.euro is a house on fire with no exit doors, and if there is a house
:25:45. > :25:52.on fire, we are arguing about some boundary fences down the bottom of
:25:52. > :25:56.the garden. We are not saying we should disrupt the process and a --
:25:57. > :26:00.disrupt the process now. We are saying that once they come up with
:26:00. > :26:05.some proposals for fiscal union, which will be some years away, that
:26:05. > :26:11.is the point at which you put your demands on the table. We have
:26:11. > :26:15.waited 37 years, if you're under 54, you have not had a vote on this.
:26:15. > :26:20.What we originally voted on was for trade, but it has now turned into
:26:20. > :26:24.the embryo of a European superstate. What we are actually saying is, why
:26:24. > :26:32.did this house catch fire? Let's make sure it does not catch fire
:26:32. > :26:35.again. But you have been calling for closer union. We are actually
:26:35. > :26:39.calling for the EU to go in a different direction. All of these
:26:39. > :26:44.proposals are about taking back some powers from the European Union.
:26:44. > :26:46.We talk about disagreements between Britain and the EU, but there are
:26:46. > :26:50.plenty of disagreements within the EU. The relationship between
:26:50. > :26:54.Germany and France, the relationship between Germany and
:26:54. > :27:04.Greece and Ireland, for example. Do not get so obsessed about our
:27:04. > :27:04.
:27:04. > :27:07.relationship. You will have more time to talk, but I'm going to say
:27:07. > :27:11.goodbye to George Eustice, so, thank you very much. It was the
:27:11. > :27:15.year that Windsor Castle burned down, bill Clinton was elected in
:27:15. > :27:20.the United States, and the UK suffered its worst-ever financial
:27:20. > :27:24.crisis until, this one. Norman Lamont brought Britain out of the
:27:24. > :27:29.exchange rate mechanism, and arguably any chance of joining the
:27:29. > :27:33.euro when it came. Giles Dilnot has been finding out why Lord Lamont
:27:34. > :27:39.might feel that in the end he did the UK a big favour. A decade ago,
:27:39. > :27:44.it launched at midnight on New Year's Day.
:27:44. > :27:49.NEWSREADER: In Athens, where history dominates the skyline...
:27:49. > :27:53.With irony like that, it is no surprise Euro-sceptics have often
:27:53. > :27:57.suggested that Europe has been living with a hangover ever since.
:27:57. > :28:02.Why? Because they fully believe the euro was not an idea that went
:28:02. > :28:06.wrong, it was an idea that was wrong. Imagine if we said that
:28:06. > :28:10.every motorist driving in Britain had to drive their car using
:28:10. > :28:14.exactly the same gear at the same time, it would be ridiculous. Some
:28:14. > :28:18.would be stalling, some would be driving too fast, some would be
:28:18. > :28:22.ending up in the ditch, yet that is pretty much how monetary union
:28:22. > :28:25.works, it says that the dear settings within each economy, the
:28:26. > :28:29.interest rates, have to be set at the same rate. So countries like
:28:29. > :28:33.Ireland, they overheated and stalled, other countries which
:28:33. > :28:36.could have done with higher interest rates could not get them.
:28:36. > :28:43.Having a single interest rate for all of Europe was inevitably going
:28:43. > :28:53.to end in recession and disaster. So, why, if it was so clearly silly,
:28:53. > :28:59.
:28:59. > :29:03.would Europe have embraced such an economically flawed plan? I think a
:29:03. > :29:07.single European state is what has been in the process of construction
:29:07. > :29:12.since the 1950s. The euro was an extension of that. It can be made
:29:12. > :29:15.to succeed. Unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, it cannot
:29:15. > :29:20.succeed with all of the current members. It is perhaps no surprise
:29:20. > :29:26.that having stood on the abyss, Lord Lamont, who had to announce
:29:26. > :29:30.mechanism, is no great believer in the euro. But should he accept a
:29:30. > :29:34.bit of blame? I think another problem with the eurozone project
:29:34. > :29:39.is that it tried for too long to make it possible for Britain to be
:29:39. > :29:44.a member. For a long time, the British dangled a bit of ankle,
:29:44. > :29:47.saying we might join, we might not, and I think that process retarded
:29:47. > :29:51.the political integration within the eurozone, which might have
:29:51. > :29:55.meant that it would not have been facing the same problems today. I
:29:55. > :29:58.think we are much more likely to see a eurozone in which Germany
:29:58. > :30:03.sends money every year to weaker parts of the eurozone to raise
:30:03. > :30:09.their growth. We are much less likely to see one in which Germany
:30:10. > :30:13.agrees to guarantee everybody's debts. We need to admit that the
:30:13. > :30:17.grand designs of the elite are colliding with reality. It is
:30:18. > :30:21.coming into collision with the laws of maths, and so we will always
:30:22. > :30:31.come off second best. The sooner we recognise that and unwind the
:30:32. > :30:39.
:30:39. > :30:42.position we are in, the better for John Monks, the Labour peer is here,
:30:42. > :30:51.Aziz and Norman Lamont. If it wasn't for Black Wednesday, do you
:30:51. > :30:58.think we would be signed up to the euro? No, I don't. Membership did
:30:58. > :31:05.not imply it was a glide path towards the euro. Nigel Lawson was
:31:05. > :31:15.a strong opponent of the euro. I have always been against the euro,
:31:15. > :31:15.
:31:15. > :31:19.but I think Britain's exit from the currency arrangement with the euro
:31:19. > :31:26.might think strengthened public opinion against the euro and I
:31:26. > :31:31.actually think the whole event was overblown economically. But
:31:31. > :31:38.politically its consequence was to harden opposition against the euro.
:31:38. > :31:42.Do you agree with that? It has certainly hard and some of position,
:31:42. > :31:47.but most will be to illuminated our problems since the Second World War
:31:48. > :31:52.in particular, witches that our economy does not keep pace in
:31:53. > :32:00.productivity terms with Germany and the other North Sea neighbouring
:32:00. > :32:05.countries, the Nordic countries. We have to devalue periodically -
:32:05. > :32:09.Norman was in charge during a major problem. Was it built on a false
:32:09. > :32:15.premise because people don't have economies that move at the same
:32:15. > :32:21.time? They is may be true, but if there was no euro now and we are
:32:21. > :32:24.hit by this financial crisis, the currencies would be going up and
:32:24. > :32:30.down all over the place. Can you run a single market on that basis
:32:30. > :32:35.of massive currency valuations? Just after Black Wednesday, the
:32:35. > :32:38.French did think about putting import controls on some British
:32:39. > :32:43.goods because of the British devaluation and people will start
:32:43. > :32:50.responding. It is not an easy option, not having the single
:32:50. > :32:57.currency. How would countries have responded if we had had separate
:32:57. > :33:03.economies? A trade would go on, and I don't believe the single market
:33:03. > :33:07.requires a single currency. I don't think there was any real evidence
:33:07. > :33:11.that exchange rate fluctuations inhibit trade. If you look at where
:33:11. > :33:18.trade is growing fastest in the world, in the Far East between
:33:18. > :33:23.Asian countries, all of whom have separate currencies. I don't
:33:23. > :33:27.believe that currency fluctuation... I think they are a necessary means
:33:27. > :33:32.of adjustment. If you had national currencies in the last five years,
:33:32. > :33:37.what has happened in the eurozone would have been a lot happier.
:33:37. > :33:42.that basis, if you think it was ill-conceived from the start, this
:33:42. > :33:49.idea of a single currency, was it that or was at that it didn't have
:33:49. > :33:54.the political union following it? few had a European state, the
:33:54. > :33:58.European government, and fiscal transfers automatically every year,
:33:58. > :34:05.then it might work. You would still have the problem of differential
:34:05. > :34:09.inflation rates and productivity rates, which is at the bottom - at
:34:09. > :34:14.the heart of the problem. The fact that southern Europe can't compete
:34:14. > :34:20.with Germany. Do you think Germany needs to bail out those countries
:34:20. > :34:26.in order to bring the imbalances closer together? That logic will
:34:26. > :34:32.not be followed. Because Germany doesn't want to do it? Exactly.
:34:32. > :34:37.a not shell, what has Europe done for the working man here? Europe
:34:37. > :34:41.was always about healing the scars of the 20th century and the world
:34:41. > :34:47.wars, and that is what the ever- closer union phrase was about as
:34:47. > :34:52.well. I think Europe has brought prosperity and peace to a large
:34:52. > :34:54.part of Europe. Those hearts outside to the east have not done
:34:55. > :35:01.so well and it has brought democracy to countries which didn't
:35:01. > :35:05.have it before, so don't knock Europe. There is a danger many in
:35:05. > :35:10.Britain will throw everything out of the window. I think it is
:35:11. > :35:15.ludicrous to do that. Our interests are with our neighbours. I would
:35:15. > :35:19.like to be in the North Sea Premier League rather than the
:35:19. > :35:23.Mediterranean Second Division, but at the moment we are in danger of
:35:23. > :35:29.being in the second division. you would like Great Britain to
:35:29. > :35:34.join the euro at some stage? And you would like to be in northern
:35:34. > :35:40.Europe? That is where we have got to be. Our destination is to get
:35:40. > :35:45.into those countries that can compete and do well with the rest
:35:45. > :35:50.of the world rather than relying on quantitative easing, all of which
:35:50. > :35:57.are about debasing the currency. Thank you.
:35:57. > :36:02.We can show you some live pictures of the visit from the French
:36:02. > :36:10.President, Francois Hollande. He is in London today, his first visit to
:36:10. > :36:13.the UK since he was elected two months ago. We can see live
:36:13. > :36:16.pictures now of Monsieur Hollande being given a Guard of Honour in
:36:16. > :36:19.the quadrangle of the Foreign Office buildings in Whitehall. He's
:36:19. > :36:22.then due to have lunch with the Prime Minister, followed by a press
:36:22. > :36:24.conference in the Downing Street State Dining Room and an audience
:36:24. > :36:27.with the Queen at Windsor Castle. Francois Hollande last visited
:36:27. > :36:30.London in February during the presidential election campaign. At
:36:30. > :36:33.the time David Cameron refused to meet him and Ed Miliband treated
:36:33. > :36:39.the socialist candidate to roast beef in the House of Commons
:36:39. > :36:42.instead. Last month David Cameron said he would roll out the red
:36:42. > :36:52.carpet for wealthy French people who wanted to move to the UK to
:36:52. > :36:53.
:36:53. > :36:57.escape a planned 75% tax rate for top earners. Ralph joke was not
:36:57. > :37:04.appreciated in Paris, I seem to remember. We've been joined by the
:37:04. > :37:08.French journalist Agnes Poirier. Is it ill-fated, this meeting? It is
:37:08. > :37:13.the first one. Frankly David Cameron should have received him
:37:13. > :37:22.when it was quite clear for months he would be elected. So you think
:37:22. > :37:27.he snubbed him? I think so, perhaps. Francois Hollande is extremely
:37:27. > :37:31.persuasive. Even a private meeting would have allowed them to get to
:37:31. > :37:39.know each other so now they have got to do it months later when we
:37:40. > :37:46.have got such a busy international agenda. So you think it was a faux
:37:46. > :37:51.pas? Yes, but let's not dwell on it. What about Francois Hollande
:37:51. > :37:55.himself? How do you think he has been feeling before this visit,
:37:55. > :38:00.bearing in mind being snubbed, and the joke they didn't appreciate
:38:00. > :38:09.about French businesses coming over here. It is true, they didn't quite
:38:09. > :38:14.like that. Will the French billionaire's start taking the
:38:14. > :38:17.Eurostar to London? I doubt it. They have got so much on her plate,
:38:17. > :38:22.I don't know whether they will choose today to talk about the
:38:22. > :38:28.contentious issues because there are a lot of them. There are some
:38:28. > :38:35.moments for rejoicing, like what they're doing in defence. It is
:38:35. > :38:45.going very well. On Syria, and some international issues, they share
:38:45. > :38:45.
:38:45. > :38:49.the same opinion. If you are talking about top rates of tax,
:38:49. > :38:54.austerity spending, will they get on? It is difficult to say because
:38:54. > :39:00.they don't know each other basically. I think people get over
:39:00. > :39:06.these things. I remember when John Major was Prime Minister, it was
:39:06. > :39:10.alleged that the British government had facilitated access to Bill
:39:10. > :39:13.Clinton's security records and what he had been up to politically as a
:39:13. > :39:18.student, and Bill Clinton was supposed to be very offended by
:39:18. > :39:23.this, but very quickly they developed a relationship because
:39:23. > :39:28.they had, things to discuss. It is frequently the case that heads of
:39:28. > :39:33.government are talking to opposite numbers with different political
:39:33. > :39:38.philosophies from different political parties. Francois
:39:38. > :39:44.Mitterrand always got on very well with Mrs Thatcher. Really, despite
:39:44. > :39:51.some of the old wood spats? Didn't he say she had the eyes of Caligula
:39:51. > :39:55.and the lips of Marilyn Monroe? think that may have been a
:39:55. > :39:59.compliment! The event its relations may have been strained before this
:39:59. > :40:06.meeting started, you think in terms of policy they will be able to get
:40:06. > :40:10.down... Yes, don't forget Francois Hollande has his own differences
:40:10. > :40:17.with Angela Merkel as well. The Franco-German relationship has been
:40:17. > :40:22.the powerhouse of the European Union for decades. Is Francois
:40:22. > :40:27.Hollande just putting on a pretence until the parliamentary elections
:40:27. > :40:33.are behind him? But he started off with an abrasive approach to Angela
:40:33. > :40:38.Merkel so he has to mend fences there as well. And that is the more
:40:38. > :40:44.important relationship, isn't it? No, Britain is always very
:40:44. > :40:48.important, especially with Europe. Where does Britain stand? It is a
:40:48. > :40:55.matter of grave concern on the Continent and deep irritation as
:40:55. > :41:00.well. Will he make that deep irritation known? I think he
:41:00. > :41:05.already has. He recently said Europe is not a self-service
:41:05. > :41:10.restaurant, nor is it the cash till. David Cameron could use the
:41:10. > :41:15.opportunity to talk about repatriating powers, and will he
:41:15. > :41:20.get a sympathetic ear from Francois Hollande? Probably not. I don't
:41:20. > :41:24.think he will be talking about that at this stage because David
:41:24. > :41:27.Cameron's view is that that is a game that should be played long and
:41:27. > :41:33.we should wait until the relationship between the eurozone
:41:33. > :41:37.and the rest of Europe has become clearer. What has been fiscally
:41:37. > :41:42.proposed for the eurozone needs to become clearer before he will put
:41:42. > :41:48.forward any ideas. There is a handshake, if the journalist will
:41:48. > :41:52.get out of the way of the shot. They are going into Number 10,
:41:52. > :41:55.probably for lunch. It's crunch time for Nick Clegg's
:41:55. > :41:58.Liberal Democrats in the Commons today, as MPs vote on the
:41:58. > :42:01.Government's plans for reforming the House of Lords. It's the second
:42:01. > :42:02.day of debate - yesterday the Deputy PM weathered a stormy
:42:03. > :42:12.session with dozens of Conservative backbenchers denouncing the
:42:13. > :42:14.
:42:14. > :42:16.proposals. Here's a flavour of yesterday's debate. Mr Speaker, no
:42:16. > :42:22.one doubt the commitment and public-service of many members of
:42:22. > :42:26.the House of Lords, but dedicated individuals can't compensate for
:42:26. > :42:31.flawed institutions and this bill is about fixing a flawed
:42:31. > :42:38.institution. The in his preamble to the draft Bill, he said the House
:42:38. > :42:46.of Lords performs its work well. Is he saying it works in practice but
:42:46. > :42:50.not in theory? As I will come to in a minute, I think it is both flawed
:42:50. > :42:55.in theory because of its lack of democratic legitimacy and flawed in
:42:55. > :43:03.practice because the status quo is not sustainable. Well who pledged
:43:04. > :43:13.today that he will not take their places in the House of the reformed
:43:14. > :43:14.
:43:14. > :43:18.House of Lords? I am making the case for the government's bill.
:43:18. > :43:26.People need to feel Parliament belongs to them, so will he give
:43:26. > :43:30.people a vote on their proposals? think a referendum is not justified
:43:30. > :43:37.in this instance. Do doesn't he think that people watching this
:43:37. > :43:41.debate will be been used? In 2010, they voted for three parties which
:43:41. > :43:47.had House of Lords reform in their manifestos and yet backbenchers
:43:47. > :43:53.from some of those parties are now trying to block it. People voted
:43:53. > :43:56.for it in 2010, let's get on with it. I want to repeat what my right
:43:56. > :44:02.honourable friend has made clear - we want the House of Lords reformed,
:44:02. > :44:08.we do not want this bill stock in the Commons, but we want the
:44:08. > :44:14.opportunity to scrutinise, amend and approve the bill accordingly.
:44:14. > :44:18.We will vote against the programme motion tomorrow night. This bill
:44:18. > :44:24.ignores the will of the people. Only one year ago we had an
:44:24. > :44:28.expensive nationwide referendum in which the people overwhelmingly
:44:28. > :44:33.rejected a proportional representation voting system. Now
:44:33. > :44:41.the deputy prime minister is ignoring the will of the people. PR
:44:41. > :44:46.was rejected, so let's bring it in for the Other Place he says. What
:44:46. > :44:51.contempt. Member of this house can differ on the underlying issues,
:44:51. > :44:54.but they can't differ on the flaws in the billing itself. It is a
:44:54. > :44:59.deeply confused and dangerous piece of legislation which will prevent
:44:59. > :45:04.real reform, reduce diversity and deep expertise in our political
:45:04. > :45:14.system. It would be a catastrophe for this country if this bill was
:45:14. > :45:17.
:45:17. > :45:20.After yesterday's difficult session, Nick Clegg will be hoping he can
:45:20. > :45:23.muster enough support this evening for what is known as the programme
:45:23. > :45:27.motion, which effectively allows the Government to push the
:45:27. > :45:31.legislation through. If the Liberal Democrats loos that vote, and it is
:45:31. > :45:36.looking quite likely, with scores of Conservatives pledged to vote
:45:36. > :45:39.against, it is not clear whether the bill can survive. We can get
:45:39. > :45:44.the latest from James Landale, in the lobby, just outside the House
:45:44. > :45:49.of Commons. What thugs are going to happen later on? There will be two.
:45:49. > :45:53.First of all, at 10 o'clock, there will be a vote on the principle of
:45:53. > :45:56.the bill - do you or do you not support the idea of Lords reform?
:45:56. > :45:59.The expectation is that the Government will win that one,
:45:59. > :46:03.because they have the support of the Labour Party, which supports
:46:03. > :46:07.the principle of the reform. Then there will be that crucial
:46:07. > :46:11.programme motion. Essentially, it is the timetable. The Government
:46:11. > :46:17.says this bill should have about 10 days of detailed scrutiny. All the
:46:17. > :46:23.many opponents, from all sides, say, no, 10 days is not enough for a
:46:23. > :46:27.bill of such complexity or of such constitutional importance. It is on
:46:27. > :46:32.that that the real battle will be had, and it is this which will
:46:32. > :46:35.determine whether or not the bill will get there. Talking about the
:46:35. > :46:38.whipping operation, the party managers trying to get people to
:46:38. > :46:46.vote with the government, how stern is that looking at the moment for
:46:46. > :46:50.the Tory MPs? What is interesting is that a line of thought has
:46:50. > :46:59.emerged that actually, the Conservative whips are soft-
:46:59. > :47:04.pedalling on this. It was explained to me like this - on the less
:47:04. > :47:09.experienced MPs, a hard line is being taken, but on more
:47:09. > :47:12.experienced MPs, like Malcolm Rifkind and people like that, you
:47:12. > :47:17.have to take a different approach, and it is because of that that the
:47:17. > :47:27.whips have gone soft on MPs like that, so this is why the idea has
:47:27. > :47:28.
:47:28. > :47:32.come out that the Conservatives are not really trying hard on this one.
:47:32. > :47:40.They think they are making some progress, but if you push them,
:47:41. > :47:44.they do not think they are going to get enough votes. We have been
:47:44. > :47:51.joined by the former leader of the Liberal Democrats Charles calendar
:47:51. > :47:55.year. Welcome to the programme. -- Charles Kennedy. How important is
:47:55. > :48:01.this issue of Lords reform to the party? It is very important to the
:48:01. > :48:06.party. Given the loss of the AV referendum, it is the other big
:48:06. > :48:10.piece of constitutional reform to which we are wedded, as a party.
:48:10. > :48:14.But it is also important to our long-standing analysis of the
:48:14. > :48:17.failings of British politics, and how it needs to be improved. It is
:48:17. > :48:24.not just all about the House of Commons and the voting system, it
:48:24. > :48:26.is also about the House of Lords as well. Why would the balance between
:48:26. > :48:34.the two Houses of Parliament necessarily be upset by making the
:48:34. > :48:37.Lords democratic? I think once you have an elected House of Lords, the
:48:37. > :48:42.people there would regard themselves as more legitimate, they
:48:42. > :48:45.would feel that the conventions which had governed the two houses,
:48:45. > :48:48.the restraint which has been shown by the House of Lords when the
:48:48. > :48:53.Commons has a difference opinion, I think they would feel, we are just
:48:53. > :48:57.as good as you, we are as legitimate as you, we are as
:48:57. > :49:00.elected as you, why should we not disagree with you? And I think
:49:00. > :49:05.there would have to be more ministers in the House of Lords. I
:49:05. > :49:09.do not see why we should not have the Prime Minister there, or the
:49:09. > :49:13.Foreign Secretary. We have actually had the Foreign Secretary there
:49:13. > :49:16.even when it has not been elected. I think the whole balance of power
:49:16. > :49:21.would alter, just as you can see the way the European Parliament is
:49:21. > :49:27.acquiring more power, since it has been elected, just as the Scottish
:49:27. > :49:30.Parliament is demanding and getting, before independence, more powers.
:49:30. > :49:36.But the Commons would still ultimately be able to get its own
:49:37. > :49:42.way. Why do you say that? Because they would be able to use the
:49:42. > :49:51.Parliament act. But you could imagine situations in which there
:49:51. > :49:55.was complete deadlock on -- complete deadlock. Don't forget,
:49:55. > :49:59.the political composition of a second chamber might be completely
:49:59. > :50:05.different, it might have a Labour majority, whereas the Commons might
:50:05. > :50:08.have a Conservative majority. would be gridlock, wouldn't it?
:50:08. > :50:15.Whatever systems you go for, you could go for a Washington-style
:50:15. > :50:23.system, or a continental-style system, but even under the existing
:50:23. > :50:26.system, it takes goodwill and common sense on the part of the
:50:27. > :50:31.personalities involved for any system to operate. If we change to
:50:31. > :50:34.the kind of system which is applied, it will change the dynamic, Norman
:50:34. > :50:39.Lamont is absolutely right, and the House of Lords could be very
:50:39. > :50:44.bloody-minded, if they so wished. But they can do so under existing
:50:44. > :50:50.procedures. So you have got to have a degree of faith in the
:50:50. > :50:53.commonsense and the goodwill of the politicians involved. But I think
:50:53. > :50:58.the moderation in the House of Lords at present comes from the
:50:58. > :51:01.fact that it is not elected. They know that they could be under the
:51:01. > :51:07.cosh at any moment from the House of Commons if they abuse their
:51:07. > :51:11.powers, if they go frustrating what is in the manifesto of a party. It
:51:11. > :51:16.is the doctrine that you do not vote down something which is in a
:51:16. > :51:22.government's manifesto. All these conventions exist precisely because
:51:22. > :51:26.the House of Lords is not elected. When I first arrived in the House
:51:26. > :51:30.of Lords, I remember, I was inclined rather to vote against the
:51:30. > :51:35.government, and I remember a former Speaker speaking to me, jack
:51:35. > :51:39.Wetherall, now dead, alas, but he said to me, I would not do that if
:51:39. > :51:42.I were you, that is not what the House of Lords should be doing.
:51:42. > :51:48.should we have a second chamber which is full of people who were
:51:48. > :51:53.appointed? Is it not time to modernise? I reject the idea that
:51:53. > :51:58.this is more modern. I think there is nothing wrong with an appointed
:51:59. > :52:03.chamber. That chamber only have limited powers. The powers it has
:52:03. > :52:07.are merely to advise and to revise. No law can be made under the
:52:07. > :52:13.current system without the House of Commons being satisfied. What do
:52:13. > :52:17.you say to that? I do not shirk from the word modernisation, I
:52:17. > :52:20.think that is exactly what it is. We're sitting here in the 21st
:52:20. > :52:25.century, discussing a house of parliament which is still
:52:25. > :52:35.structured essentially on the basis of the 17th century and the 18th
:52:35. > :52:39.century. I think we need to get a few hundred years up to date.
:52:39. > :52:45.Modernisation is the word, because it is indefensible for this day and
:52:45. > :52:51.age to have a second chamber of, in a modern, developed democracy,
:52:51. > :52:56.where there is not a single person elected in it. Charles Kennedy,
:52:56. > :53:00.what do you think the impact will be if it fails? I think there will
:53:00. > :53:03.be initially a bad impact for the coalition. It will be a knock for
:53:03. > :53:06.David Cameron in terms of his leadership, it will be a knock for
:53:06. > :53:10.Nick Clegg in terms of his leadership ambitions, and wanting
:53:10. > :53:14.to drive this proposal forward. This proposal has come from both
:53:14. > :53:19.sides of the coalition. So, it will have a bad effect in the short term.
:53:19. > :53:23.I don't think it will end the coalition. It is not a deal breaker.
:53:23. > :53:27.I think there will have to be, which there would have had to have
:53:27. > :53:31.been anyway, some reassessment of where the coalition goes next. But
:53:31. > :53:36.the fact that the coalition remains intact seems to me something that
:53:36. > :53:41.we can take as read. Do you think there will be Liberal Democrats who
:53:41. > :53:45.will feel, we did not get tuition fees how we wanted, we did not win
:53:45. > :53:50.the of a referendum, we did not get Lords reform, so what will be left
:53:50. > :53:55.for the Liberal Democrats? If you take constitutional issues first of
:53:55. > :54:00.all, let's saved his runs out of steam, does not go anywhere, just
:54:00. > :54:07.for the sake of argument, it could be that you might have to say, for
:54:07. > :54:11.the remainder of this Parliament, essentially, further constitutional
:54:11. > :54:16.reforms have got to be parked. But that raises the question, what do
:54:16. > :54:22.you put in their place? Are there other reforms that you can look at?
:54:22. > :54:25.I have not been part of that brainstorming process. But I hope
:54:25. > :54:28.that process is already under way, because it needs to take place, for
:54:29. > :54:33.the second half of this Parliament, which will be very different from
:54:33. > :54:37.the first half. As we know, the second half of Parliament tend to
:54:37. > :54:41.go much more quickly. Also, there will be the key Spending Review,
:54:41. > :54:44.and Liberal Democrats will have to be thinking about further cuts,
:54:44. > :54:47.perhaps cuts to welfare, which there will have to follow over the
:54:47. > :54:50.next few years. The Autumn Statement is the next big
:54:50. > :54:54.parliamentary event coming down the track after the summer recess.
:54:54. > :54:59.Clearly, when we see how the economy has gone over the next
:54:59. > :55:09.quarter or so, decisions will have to be taken, I hate these phrases
:55:09. > :55:13.
:55:13. > :55:16.myself, but is it a Plan A, or a plans something else? As we get
:55:16. > :55:20.into all of this parliamentary nitty-gritty over Lords reform,
:55:20. > :55:26.there is the prospect that some MPs might be thinking of devious ways
:55:26. > :55:30.to torpedo the bill. Heaven forbid. One of the tools that the disposal
:55:30. > :55:37.of politicians is the ancient art of filibustering. Here is a little
:55:37. > :55:40.history lesson. This Roman senator was one of the first politicians to
:55:40. > :55:45.use the filibuster. The rules of the Senate meant that all business
:55:45. > :55:49.had to be concluded by dusk, so he talk until nightfall to block laws
:55:49. > :55:53.he did not like. More recently, Labour members of the House of
:55:53. > :55:58.Lords attempted to do the same thing with proposals to change the
:55:58. > :56:08.voting system. We will be aware that 650 is the product of three
:56:08. > :56:11.
:56:11. > :56:16.prime numbers... 630 of course is the product of four prime numbers.
:56:16. > :56:24.And just for reasons of political balance, here is a well-known
:56:24. > :56:34.Conservative MP practising the ancient art. When I was a child, I
:56:34. > :56:35.
:56:35. > :56:43.had a mug, which had some wonderful lines on it. I eat my own chicken
:56:43. > :56:48.and ham. I have lawns, I have fruits, I have flowers. So, God
:56:49. > :56:52.speed the Plough, success to the farmer. How very poetic! That was
:56:52. > :56:57.Jacob Rees-Mogg. I suppose some people are better at filibustering
:56:57. > :57:03.than others. I don't know why you are looking at me. I was looking at
:57:03. > :57:09.both of you. Have you ever engaged in that? I don't think I would have
:57:09. > :57:13.the physical energy. How long did your budgets tend to come in at?
:57:13. > :57:19.Well, once television came, the budget became dominated by the
:57:19. > :57:25.television schedules, so one could not be like Mr Gladstone. Do you
:57:25. > :57:30.think it is a rotten tactic? don't think so. You were laughing,
:57:30. > :57:36.both of you. Yes, it is like listening to another age, it is
:57:36. > :57:43.hard to believe that was just a few months ago, from Jacob Rees-Mogg!
:57:43. > :57:49.That was in the elected House of Commons, modernisation! It is
:57:49. > :57:52.legitimate. Yes, I think it should be allowed, because Houses of
:57:52. > :58:00.Parliament, whether it is Congress, whether it is here, whether it is
:58:00. > :58:07.the ancient Senate, are based partly on the principle of rhetoric.
:58:07. > :58:12.It is legitimate in that sense. The very first film I ever served on
:58:12. > :58:16.was the privatisation of British Telecom. There was a retired trade
:58:16. > :58:22.union general secretary who was an ace at filibustering, and used to
:58:22. > :58:26.keep the place going all night. this particular motion on Lords
:58:26. > :58:33.reform is voted down, we may see a lot more of people like Jacob Rees-
:58:33. > :58:39.Mogg. You will indeed. During the Maastricht business 20 years ago, I
:58:39. > :58:49.was a European spokesman for the party, and there was people like
:58:49. > :58:49.
:58:49. > :58:52.Iain Duncan Smith, they were called nightwatchmen. Sometimes people