14/09/2012 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. A Vince Cable

announces a shake-up of labour laws to make it easier for businesses to

get rid of workers they don't want. But will a cap on unfair dismissal

claims and a new compromise agreement system help kick-start

business? As William and could continue their

tour of south-east Asia, they are said to be curious about a French

magazine's publication of topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge.

Will anybody else dared publish them?

As the President of the European Commission calls for a federal

Europe, we launch our new feature, Politics Europe, with all the

latest news from Brussels and Strasbourg.

And could MPs be kicked out of Parliament to allow billions of

pounds worth of repairs to take place? If Parliament is going to

decant, I would like to decant to Birmingham. Why not? It is our

second city! Birmingham! We would have to go to Birmingham! Why not?

With us for the next 30 minutes, the political correspondent for the

Sun, Craig Woodhouse, and Rowenna Davis, who writes for the Guardian.

Welcome to the programme. Let kick- off with the predictable storm over

the topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, published by the

French magazine Closer. Kate and William are said to be furious

about the photos, which were taken during their holiday at a French

chateau, owned by the Queen's nephew, Lord Linley. Do we have any

evidence that these photographs were offered to British newspapers

or magazines? That is certainly what is being said, the decision

was obviously taken not to accept them. Were they offered to the Sun?

Not as far as I know, those are decisions that are taking it well

above my head. Have you heard whether any British newspapers have

been offered them? It has been reported all day. I haven't seen

any evidence, but even if they were, I don't think any British paper

would go ahead and print them. We all believe in freedom of the press,

but you only invade privacy if there is a public interest case,

and there is none here. Are there any different of The Sun -- News Of

The World publishing those photographs of Prince Harry? If it

wasn't in the public interest, there is a massive difference

between inviting members of the public to your hotel room and what

he considered to be a private holiday with no members of the

public even around. But what is the world Committee we cannot invite 20

women back to your hotel suite without it getting out? Standards

have slipped in Las Vegas! Completely. The other issue is that

France has some strong property laws. We know that they covered up

for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, we had the same thing with President

Mitterrand. They kept to love child secret for 19 years until somebody

exposed it as in the Sunday Times. Oh, that was me! She was living in

a state apartment, that made it in the public interest. But the

British press now is at a critical junction. We are that the Leveson

inquiry, we have at Hillsborough and Prince Harry, so there is a

real worry in the British press about whether they have the trust

and respect of their readers, and publishing these voters would

undermine that further. You're right about France, the penalties

are not a huge, you don't pay massive fines, you go down, but you

can take a calculation. The issue of these pictures, I would suggest,

it is highly unlikely they will be published in Britain. But the issue

for the Royal Family is they could be published in a lot of other

places around the world. That is the danger. And that is the problem

with the internet. There are no boundaries, no national boundaries

any more with the internet, no doubt a lot of people will be

saying how awful the stairs while hitting Google. Without the Leveson

inquiry committee think they would have been published in Britain?

don't think so. Kate has almost sacred status, she is not the

Prophet Mohammed, but she is heading that way! I would also say

that she will be more popular, as will the world family, after this

debacle, the public will empathise with her. Vince Cable is back in

action this morning, and a team plans to make it easier for

companies to sack or otherwise remove employees. He says the new

steps will give firms more flexibility and confidence to

manage staff and cut red tape. The package falls short of the most

controversial parts of the Beecroft report, which talked of giving

employers the right to no-fault dismissals of workers. Instead, Mr

Cable would allow buses to open talks about leaving even if there

is no workplace dispute, and without the report being admissible

in any future unfair dismissal case. The government would propose these

settlement agreements as a way of saving bosses the cost of dealing

with the tribunals by persuading staff to leave a voluntary. He is

also proposing to streamline employment tribunals by making it

easier for judges to dismiss weak cases, producing be �72,000 cap on

tribunal payouts in unfair dismissals, saving businesses money

and reducing the disincentive to hiring. There are to be

consultations in changing what is called the TUPE rules, at which to

protect an employee's terms and conditions when a business falls

under new management. This morning he explained what he hoped the

reforms would achieve. government has turned the rejected

ideas are they hire and fire culture, what we'd do what to do is

have a better balance, we want to create a balance where small

companies to have a great fear of tribunals, because they are very

long-winded and expensive, that they can deal with disputes with

the individual employees in a more practical way, through conciliation,

through settlement agreements, without expensive tribunals. We

want a proper balance, and I completely agree that we don't want

all the insecurity that comes with the hire and fire system. That was

the business secretary. With me now is Sarah Veale, from the TUC, and

John Walker, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses.

What evidence do we have that any of the existing employment walls

are stopping it employers from hiring people? In out member

service, around 40% of the members who are employers often cite

employment legislation as being a barrier to a potential employer.

During these Economic times, we need to do all we can to encourage

employers to take new staff on rather than having barriers to it.

As a result of these changes, we can expect to see small and medium-

sized is that is rushing out to hire new people? It is certainly

going to make it easier. Our members cite these barriers...

will they? Only time will tell. But to make things easier now can only

be an advantage. Surely the reason people are not hiring more at the

moment isn't because of employment laws, it is to do with lack of

demand in the economy, the economy is under growing, so you don't need

to employ more people because demand isn't growing. There have

been some conflicting economic indicators recently, with GDP and

unemployment figures going in different directions, which are a

bit surprising. But to make it easier to be an employer will make

employers consider... If we can take more people on, and it is

easier to do so, led to consider it, rather than think, the economy is a

bit difficult. These are changes at the margin, they are not likely to

make much difference? I don't think they will to employers. There is no

economic argument, seriously, that bears any water, to suggest there

is more of there -- the employers are were screaming about

unemployment rocketing when the minimum wage Kenyan, and the

reverse happened. The trouble with these proposals is they will not

make any difference to business, it is not what most businesses asking

for, but they will damage some employees, and the reduction in

tribunal awards for unfair dismissal is going to hit

professional workers very hard, depress the median award.

almost nobody gets to the 72,000, fewer than 2%. The trouble is, when

you push the cab and, it depresses the medium, so middle only people

and lower earning people will in reality get less in compensation.

The key to the word is unfair dismissal, they deserve

compensation. But we don't know by how much of the reduction is going

to be. It will be quite considerable, we have had figures

floating around between 30 and 50, which if you consider that is going

to push the level of further down the stream, that is going to make

quite a difference to individuals, who have lost their jobs, they will

not be able to get references easily, the employer has done well,

and the employer should compensate according to be lost. I think the

average settlement is about �5,000 from the figures we have, so

whether the 72 is reduced to fit -- a 50% of that, I don't think it

will make a big difference. It is the perception about being taken to

an employment tribunal in the first place, which concerns many of our

members. Employers and employees have disagreements are all the time,

that is part of a free labour market. If you are showing at an

average of 5000, that may be cheap at the price! There are hardly any

dismissals, it is a minuscule number. But that is a tribunal

settlement. The cost of actually been in the court with management

time and legal representation, that is a significant figure over and

above. But it is a myth. You're looking at the wrong end of the

relationship, I did the most employers pick people on and worry

straightaway about getting rid of them -- take people on. They are

trying to ensure loyalty and productivity. It is a mistake if

people think the first thing employers are worrying about how to

sack people. I think it is more to do with a fairer tribunal, for

dissent about members are concerned about employment law in general --

40% of our members. But the numbers of claims have been going down for

the last year, this really is a myth. Out of the whole labour

market, there are very few tribunal the early stages because they are

not meritorious and they get weeded out. The fears are being pumped up,

may I say, by expensive consultants who are facing your members! If you

have got good business sense, I think you would tell those people

to clear out and managed sensibly and you will be fine. The just

seems to me that if there is a problem of perception rather than

reality, the answer is education, not legislation. As a councillor in

Peckham, talk to a lot of small business owners and I have never

had a problem being that there are too many staff selling things, the

problem is always not enough customers coming into shops, that

is the sad reality. Surely that is partly what these reforms are meant

to achieve. Nothing for point of it is, if you are members perceive

there is a problem, this is about sending a signal the same, we are

all on your side. It was a complaint that went on and on about

this under Vince Cable, this is the government same, we are trying to

listen, trying to help businesses, would have a help or not, it is the

psychological perception. But it has been a coalition compromise,

you haven't got all you wanted to. No, we're not keen on some of the

proposals in the Beecroft report, which is where some of this is

coming from, we felt that some of the proposals were going too far,

we feel that something needs to be done on the issues we are talking

about today. On a scale of 1-10, where would you rate the Vince

Cable as a business secretary? would rather not get stuck on

numbers, but I think he has been very receptive to listening to what

we have been saying, and we have to weigh up how he takes these ideas.

I think he has stood up against the Conservative backbenchers on the

Beecroft report, this ridiculous report that employers should be

able to dismiss somebody because they don't like them, I think he

has done quite well standing up against that. We would agree on

that. What do you make of this texting love affair between Vince

Cable and Ed Balls? A I think it is a fantastic but if mischief-making

by Ed Balls. Last weekend we saw him on the sofa, he was cosying up,

saying, come round mine, I will make your lasagne! Unit at fines's

political past, he has been all over the place. -- you look at have

been to's political past. It is Menzies Campbell was not too happy

about it. He attacked Vince Cable for having this kind of

relationship. There is a fear that if Vince Cable took over, the

Liberal Democrats would become a branch of the Labour Party and

there is a fear about the Liberal- Democrat identity being besmirched.

I think it is important for them to keep their options open because

they need voters and that is one thing they have not got at the

moment, they cannot shut off any avenues. Thank you very much.

A on Wednesday this week the President of the European

Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, made what was grandly titled a

state of the union address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

He told MEPs Europe should become a federation of nation states in

order to face the challenges of the 21st century. After his speech I

spoke to the President of the European Parliament, the German MEP

Martin Schulz, and started asking him if there was a majority for the

federal Europe. Perhaps more people in the European Parliament are in

favour and in some of the member states. The members of the European

Parliament are with a broad majority for a European federation.

I found the description that we need a federation of nation states,

I would go a little bit further than he did today. We need a kind

of political union, which is a real European Federation of. Could a

federal Europe happened without the people of the individual nation-

states being consulted? We must win the trust and the confidence of

people to create a political union by explaining what we mean. We are

often discussing terms nobody understands. What I understand as a

federal union, a political union in Europe. The single states are not

able to manage some of the issues in the 21st century like climate

change, migration, speculation on currencies, the worldwide trade

relations. These are dimensions beyond the capacity of a single

member state of the European Union to solve it alone. Exactly for this

and these areas we need a strong, united Europe with common

institutions. All the other things we can easily manage on the level

of the national state. You say there is a big majority tea in the

European Parliament, does that not illustrate cat out of touch the

European Parliament is whether public opinion weather is very

little evidence that the people of Europe want a federal union?

should not mix the public opinion in your country with the public

opinion in other countries. Other countries have a high majority in

favour with more and deeper integration with Europe. In my

country all the political parties, the right-wing parties and the

left-wing parties, are in favour of the deepening of the European Union.

The German affairs foreign minister, the Belgian affairs foreign

minister and the Spanish minister came to the conference of the group

chairman to support us with a project they presented to the

European Parliament for more and a deeper integrated Europe. If there

is such a public clamour for a federal Europe and much deeper

integration, if that is the case, why is turnout for the European

parliamentary elections solo and has fallen consistently below 50%?

Half the people of Europe do not even bother to vote for you. Why on

of the problems of European elections is all the national

parties, including my own party, consider the European election as

an instrument of the acting Government. The second point is a

lot of people believe the European Parliament has a low influence on

law-making in Europe, one of the biggest misunderstandings in public

life in Europe. But we are on the way to change this. Mr Barroso

explained it twice in his speech. The next commission's President, on

the basis of the Lisbon Treaty, will be elected by the European

Parliament, and the big political party, all the parties, will

present leaders for the whole of Europe with a goal and they will

become the next president of the European Commission and we have an

election campaign similar to the national election campaign. They

will be running together to get a majority in parliament and that

will increase the participation and attention to the election debate.

We will see if that test comes true and we will see what the turnout is

comes the European elections. Is it fair at a time when governments all

over Europe are having to tighten their belts and take difficult,

public spending cuts, whether it is a Christian Democrat coalition in

Germany or a new socialist Government in France, all nation

states are having to do it, that the European Commission should

propose a 7% increase in the European Union's budget? Is that

fair? Do you know why the commission proposed the 7% more?

The commission always proposes more in every Budget. Therefore I will

explain it to you. The heads of states in Government, including

Prime Minister Cameron from your country during the last 10 years

decided one year after another to put more responsibilities for

international co-operation, for climate change, for research and

development, on the level of the European Union. Now the commission

did nothing to count how much money we need to fulfil what their heads

of states and Government, Cameron included, promised to the outside

world. One fair deal to the European taxpayer would be to end

the absurdity of moving the parliament between Brussels and

Strasbourg every month. Do you think that is ever going to happen?

It costs �150 million a year. Thursday I disagree, this is a

figure you mention, but I have other figures. How much does it

cost? Secondly about the seats of the institutions, if the European

Parliament would decide, we would have one single seat. We are not a

federal state because we are a union of several states, sovereign

states, who decide about the seat of the institution and they insist

a second country contributed to the European budget and they have only

one institution, the European Parliament. The French are prepared

to give up the seat of the European Parliament here. The Germans

accepted the move of the central bank from Strasbourg to Frankfurt.

This is a debate I have always to answer. The seat of the European

Parliament in Strasbourg, we have not got two seats, but we also work

in Brussels. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. The President of the

European Parliament. If we have got Jose Manuel Barroso talking about a

federal Europe and we have had Martin Schulz St there is a big

majority for that in the European Parliament, and Angela Merkel and

Francois Hollande are not hostile to the idea, it means we are going

to have a referendum? Absolutely it does because we have got a

referendum not much trumpeted by the Conservatives, because if they

do propose anything that would involve a transfer of power, then

we would have to have a referendum. That plays into David Cameron's

hands because he does not have to come up with the timing or the

question himself. It is a very thorny issue on his backbenches.

is not quite clear whether he wants a referendum. No, it is not, but

the people of Britain deserve one. The European Union was a good idea

in theory and there are lots of issues we have to solve cross

boundary, but it was always a project conceptualise and delivered

by elites. He was out of touch with the people of those individual

countries who may not want a federal system because it feels far

too far away from them. Most people in this country do not know who

their MEPs are and that is a travesty. Do you know who you're as

is? We have got eight London-wide. We do not have them individually.

could not list their names. Do you know them? Now, I do not. I thought

he was incredibly out of touch. We have seen people protesting in

Greece, Spain and Italy saying no to the 4th right. If you had a vote

now and you were to ask people should we stay in the European as

it is, or should we leave? You would get a majority, probably, who

would say it we stay in. But if the choice was do we move to a federal

Europe or come out? You would probably get a vote to come out.

You probably would it you had deeper integration. Although the

Continent has been a bit more sympathetic to federal integration,

I am not convinced they would want deeper integration than they have

got already. We have got a generation of young people who have

had no experience of the war, the motivation of this, and you have

got incredibly high unemployment. Big dipper cent increase and 20% in

Spain and the next generation will be a lot more sceptical about

integration. -- 50% in Greece. think you put this to the people

across Europe and most people would say no and where is the European

dream then? We shall see because Europe is back on the agenda with a

bang, so we are producing a programme every month called

Politics Europe. It starts at 12:30pm on this programme.

Parliament may look in good nick from the outside, but yesterday MPs

heard they might have to vacate the Palace of Westminster while at

billion pounds worth of repairs is carried out to the building. The

Liberal Democrat MP John Thurso who speaks for the House of Commons

Commission who oversees the running of the Palace said no decision had

been taken yet. Not that that stopped MPs suggesting potential

locations for a temporary parliament. Can I reassure

honourable members that no decisions have been taken as yet.

Such a project will be a major undertaking and a final decision

could not be taken for some time and will probably be a matter for

both houses. If Parliament is going to decant, it decants to Birmingham.

Why not? It is our second city. Would the Honourable Member

consider the September sittings are a significant barrier to be able to

achieve these necessary repairs without completely closing the

parliament? We are into something of a different magnitude. There is

already estimated to be �1 billion of backlog and these are not

contracts of 10 or 11 weeks, they are seriously big contracts. All

options to ensure best value for the taxpayer must be looked at.

the House of Commons Commission gets its skates on, we have a

fantastic facility in east London in Hackney in the media centre

which could happily house parliament in the interim. With a

seven-minute shackled to St Pancras, excellent transport links, would

the House of Commons Commission consider a temporary relocation to

the East? The answer on asbestos is much too complacent. I think it is

incredible we have been brought back here went every day I go in

two office and I meet many white coats wearing protective clothing...

And, Mr Speaker, protective gas masks. We have got staff in this

building wandering around and we have had reports going back to 2005

on the dangers of asbestos in this building. I would suggest the

Honourable Gentleman Takes this matter far more seriously. I cannot

imagine the Right Honourable Lady keeps eccentric company. It is

quite beyond my imagination. have been joined by one of the MPs,

Meg Hillier. Have you seen any of Ann Clwyd's men in white coats?

but I have had a big, bad leak in my office, so there are serious

issues. Lots of people say that toilers do not work properly either.

I know you were all pitching for getting this temporary parliament

in your own constituency, whether it is Birmingham or in the east...

It is very handy for you. It is not handy for me, I do not think that

is the top consideration, even though it should be! We are told

you are going to move to the Q E I think that might be trickier than

people suggest. But there is a serious point, we have a modern

building down the road in Stratfield -- Stratford, I think it

will also change working practices in Parliament. Because of these

problems of asbestos, mice, it belongs to the public, it should be

maintained, we don't have proper Wi-Fi axis, mobile phones don't

work half the time. I think it is time to modernise the way be work.

Some of my colleagues may not agree! With the Sunday Times first

broke the story, there was talk of building a huge marquee in the

shadow of Big Ben. It is that a possibility? Can you imagine what

the security guards would think of that! I am not sure that would go

down very well! But you have this huge building, the Olympic legacy,

I knew you would love it to go east, it made to Parliament good, but you

have portcullis House, this whole area is covered by observers of

Parliament, they can't move. The it is a series point, and there are

lot of us who don't have offices in that part of the building who don't

have to move at the same time. We have modern ways of working, I have

calls on a spider phone, video conferencing, Skype, we don't all

lead to travel quite as much. So it could modernise the way MPs work.

We are out in our constituencies a lot, the business-to-business staff

in Parliament could be done in a different way. But a billion pounds

to renovate, this could be the pump primer you were looking for a!

is interesting, because when I have been talking to people about this,

it is such a huge amount of money, it does seem like fiddling while

Rome burns. But it is a national monument, it is an iconic building

around the world, it is what illustrate the UK. In does belong

to the people, but it is not done, up it will get worse. Will we be

the last generation are custodians -- of custodian to leave it to rot?

We could make some revenue, the Speaker has been looking into that

because it is so expensive to run it. But these figures have to be

look but -- looked out. Not quite as bad as the Scottish parliament.

What would you do? I don't know, I like the idea of go to East London

and reinstalling the game's lanes of. Imagine the public outcry!

could go on a five-year tour around Britain. It would cost us a fortune,

and we can say to the Europeans, we can do it as well as you can.

would move up north. I think it is a fantastic opportunity to end what

people see as a London centric politics, which is a reason for

disillusionment in this country. Whenever in terms have to go to

parliament, only people in London get to stay in the City, other

people have to travel. If you move parliament up, maybe MPs... Medeva

will have a rotating parliament! may never come back if it moves up

north! Anywhere, it is just gone and a half past 12, time to say

goodbye to our guests, Craig Woodhouse and Rowenna Davis. This

week, members of the European Parliament have been meeting in

Strasbourg for their regular session, what have they been

getting up to and what else has been happening in Europe? Here is

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso believes a more

Europe, not less is the answer to the financial crisis. He told MEPs

he didn't want a European superstate, although to critics

that is exactly what it sounded like. What would be to move to what

a federation of nation states, this is what we need. Victims of crime

should have the same rights wherever they are the EU, according

to MEPs. They passed a directive which will see victims are given

access to services like counselling and a translation. Foreign policy

chief Cathy Ashton defended Europe's handling of the crisis in

Syria, saying there were no easy answers. We need to see this

political transition move forward. In Dutch elections, voters backed

pro-European parties come with a man who called for the Netherlands

to leave the European currency With us for next 30 minutes,

Richard Ashworth leads the Conservative MEPs, and his opposite

number, the Labour MEP Glenis Willmott. Let's just take a look at

the story which has been developing all week, talk of a federal Europe,

talk of the treaty changes. Are we heading for another treaty change?

I don't think there is any doubt, if we are going to have the changes

we need in the euro-zone to deal with the crisis, there will be some

agree to changes in the months and years to come, but we don't know

how they affect us. We need to see what they are before we get

concerned about it. If they are treated changes, inevitably they

will involve extra powers moving to the centre. As I understand it,

there Conservatives in the coalition think there has to be a

referendum if there is any of that. I think Barroso's analysis was

right when said the problem is the architecture, which is not fit for

purpose. I agree with that, it does mean a treaty change somewhere

along the horizon, that doesn't mean a redefinition of the right

and positions of those 10 nations who were not men - but -- members

of the euro-zone. Ultimate that probably is the time for the

referendum will stop how seriously do we take the talk of a federal

Europe? We heard of Mr Bryce to talk about it. I spoke to the head

of parliament, he said there was its huge majority for a federal

Europe, Angela Merkel is meant to be sympathetic. How seriously

should we take it? I think it is all hot air. I think it was empty

rhetoric. He said a federal to please some people, nation states

to please other people. Would you should have been talking about is

how do we get jobs and growth, how do we get economic recovery in the

euro-zone and throughout Europe. That is what he didn't do. We need

to know what our priorities are. causes Tory Euro-sceptics to have

the papers, the thought of federal Europe, should they take it

seriously? It is time to sit down and say, what does Federation been

to you and me? A federation of businesses, or a federal government

like in the US? What we have said is that those euro-zone nations,

you must concentrate more powers in the centre if you're going to make

monetary union work. Is that federalism? Then probably that is

what they need to do. We have chosen not to. It has huge

implications for us, if the euro zone is the ever closer union,

although we're not going to be part of that, probably, it still affects

us. We need to know what the proposals are, it is really a big

decision we have got to make. What sort of Europe do we want, what is

the Europe of the future? We have plenty to talk about. For example,

this week the European Commission unveiled its blueprint for the

European banking union involving the central regulation of banks in

the euro-zone. A Briton has been warned to tread carefully by a

senior British MEP, he says that a repeat of last year's beat her by

the government could backfire. -- last year's veto.

So the summer is over but the euro- zone crisis still is a crisis. It

is true that financial market meltdown may have been avoided in

countries like Spain, thanks to the action of the man who heads the ECB

saying he would do whatever it takes to protect the euro. If that

was planned a for saving the euro, another European political because

it has been in town to announce his planned for stopping Europe's banks

going under. Jose Manuel Barroso reduced his State of the Union

address to tell members of the European Parliament of his cunning

plan. We must complete economic and monetary union. We must create a

fiscal union and the correspondent institutional mechanisms. Today the

commission is presenting legislative proposals for a single

European supervisory mechanism for the euro-zone. This is the

stepping-stone to the banking union. 6000 banks across Europe could end

up being controlled by the European Central Bank. With the power to

shut down any euro-zone operation that runs into trouble. Attractive

-- drastic but necessary step, they say, but there are fears this could

have -- harm the interests of the city of the London. They rise and

difficult negotiations in the coming months, and that we have to

make sure that we have to get the tone of those negotiations are

right. To say we are going to walk away from the table and exercise a

veto, in a stroppy way, is absolutely not the way to go.

the Chancellor likes the idea of a single regulator for the banks in

the 17 euro-zone countries, but he has to persuade the other member

state here at the European Parliament to sign up to policies

that will not have a negative impact on Britain's banking system.

Last year's Biedermann make those negotiations harder. -- last year's

beater. Not everyone is happy to have all German banks regulated.

Germany we have a problem with an hour regional banks, which belonged

to the regional authorities have. They are complaining against the

idea that they should pay for the losses of big private banks like

Deutsche Bank. We must find a solution for them and I'm sure we

will. But time is of the essence as some are eurozone countries are

struggling with soaring debt and little prospect of any growth.

of the lessons that we have to learn out of the current crisis is

that the weaknesses, the deficiencies of the financial

sector, cannot be dealt with fragmented national policies. We

need an integrated vision to stop long journey of negotiation,

similar to the journey for Europe's MPs on their way back to Brussels.

He is a classic example of something the eurozone is doing

which will have implications for us. The British government seems to

welcome the spankingly Union for the euro-zone. But it doesn't have

the potential to be dangerous, does it? We have to make sure our

interests are maintained. We don't do that by storming out of meetings

as happened in December. We need to be at the table to make sure that

any new regulations or anything we are doing in terms of banking has

British interests at heart, we to be at the table, shaping those

discussions. Since we are not joining the party, why would the

euro-zone countries take any notice of last? Let's get back to basics

on this, millions of savers and every taxpayer across Europe has

been affected badly by banking incompetence, so we have to

regulate and control the industry. The industry is a pan-European

industry and therefore does need pan-European legislation. We have

already got legislation in place, which controls how banks operate,

and we have the European banking authority here in London. So these

things have to be made to work, but make a mistake, this has not an

excuse for it to spill over into the federal Europe, the integration

or whatever you would like to call it. For speak up banking union, a

simple banking regulatory authority, as if we could do it like falling

off a lock. They refer to an entirely different set of values

and attitudes of the German banks, owned by state governments, look at

those in Spain, they are totally different. Are we sure that is

going to happen this quickly? going to have to happen, because

millions of savers have got hurt, you cannot have that going on.

Where Borisov it missed the opportunity is that the UK is seen

to be the cause of the problem in Europe. It has got to communicate

with voters that is not to cause, it is the solution. He didn't get

that message through. Our banks operate in Europe, they lend

billions to French and German banks, who then lend it onto the Club Med

countries, which is keeping some people awake at night, but whatever

happens, we will have to follow these banking rules to do business

in the euro-zone. There is no doubt, we have seen that would have

happened in the euro-zone has a massive impact here in the UK --

whatever happens. That is what we need to be in there to make sure

that any regulation there comes forward, we are happy with. Can we

stop this banking union if its regulations are, we believe,

harmful to our banking system, we are the biggest banking centre by

All the while it is the European Central Bank, that is a matter for

those who wish to participate. If it became the European Commission

doing it, that has got deeper consequences. This is the thin end

of the wedge with so many issues, talking about euro-zone nations

working closely together. What would be the impact on that on the

interests of nations like Britain, Sweden, Denmark who do not want to

join the euro-zone, but who fully wish to participate in the single

market and wish to participate in things like the banking sector?

These are the answers they have to come up with now because it is

important and that will be in the treaty change. It is not a full

banking union. There will be a common Deposit guarantee scheme for

customers in banks, that will not be common. The ECB is still not

going to be responsible for the direct recapitalisation up banks.

These are features of our banking union in the UK are the United

States. We would like to see a guarantee scheme for people

depositing money in banks. Germans would not. But we would and

my party certainly would. We need to push forward with things, but we

need to look at the proposals. We do not know what the final

proposals are going to be. We will keep an eye on it in the weeks

ahead. This weekend, MEPs voted through new rules on energy

consumption with the aim of ensuring EU countries cut carbon

emissions by 20% by the year 2020. It is called the Energy Efficiency

Directive, so what does it involve? It requires member-states to

present a national efficiency action plan every three years with

the European Commission monitoring progress. Big businesses will have

to submit energy audits every four years carried out by accredited

experts. Central governments will be told to renovate 3% of state

owned buildings every year to improve energy efficiency. No doubt

the House of Commons will benefit. Energy companies will have a new

obligation to ensure their customers save 1.5% on energy use

each year from 2014. Those behind this directive claim that the

legislation will boost the UK's economy by 34 billion euros and

increase employment by 400,000. Well, we are joined from Luxembourg

by the Green MEP a Claude Turmes who helped draw up his new

directive in his role as energy efficiency rapporteur in the

European Parliament. Welcome to the Daily Politics. 34 billion euros

booze, 400,000 new jobs. Does that take into account the cost of doing

this and the loss of jobs because European business will be less

competitive? The loss of jobs will happen in Russia and in other

places. Europe will by much less oil and gas and maybe some jobs,

but the wells of the oligarchs will diminish. But, frankly speaking, I

do not care about that. I care about the citizens in Europe who

will have greater opportunity to save energy and tableaux energy

bills and what is of interest to me is creating jobs and economic

activity in the Europe, and also investing in industrial processes

in Europe which help us to be competitive. This is an anti-crisis

legislation which will help diminish the wealth transfer from

outside Europe and bring back jobs and economic activity to Europe

whilst also being economically and climate friendly. The one thing you

it is not very good at is creating jobs, particularly for young people.

A lot of these measures will make it more expensive to do business in

Europe. Why will that help job creation? Sorry, that is really

nonsense. When you consume less energy, you have low energy costs.

We are in the age of higher oil prices. Do not believe any policy-

maker who tells you Europe is controlling an influence on world

prices. We do not and we have very little grip on the prize, so where

we can act is to bring in better services to the citizens and to the

energy consumers and that is all about this directive. Who is going

to pay for all of this? Who is going to pay for the new

insulation? The detailed implementation will be decided at

national level. In the UK you have an existing regime, on energy-

saving obligations, and the British Government will have to be more

ambitious in its energy-saving obligation schemes. It is power

companies, gas companies, who will be the Investment and that will

have some consequences on the bills, but the money which we invest will

be much lower than the benefits we get from reduced energy consumption,

which then diminishes also the total cost for energy, both for the

citizens and businesses. So stay with us. Where are you on this?

agree, I think he is absolutely right. We were disappointed we did

not get mandatory targets for this, partly because our own Government

blocked legislation. But we have already lost our aluminium industry

because of the extra cost in legislation. Everybody is talking

about the need to rebalance the British economy, but you are making

it more expensive to be manufactured in Britain. Which? Did

a survey and this is the one thing in terms of financial issues that

householders worry about most, household costs. We should be

stimulating our economy with construction and green jobs. It is

a win-win situation. Where are you on this? I am not coming from the

climate change angle, but I am coming from the competitiveness of

the European economy. One of the witnesses is we are far too

dependent on imported energy, which is becoming increasingly expensive.

We have to learn to generate our own and be more efficient in the

way we are using it and these are sensible suggestions. Claude Turmes,

let me come back to you. Are you still with us? Yes. What happens if

the energy companies fail to meet these targets? What other

sanctions? The sanctions will be imposed at national level, so back

again to the British system where the British system is an energy-

saving obligation for the big companies. They will have an

obligation to save a certain amount of energy with the British energy

consumers. If they do not comply, they will pay a penalty and this

penalty will be fixed by the British Government. So you're and

what we have done is a framework directive, so we give the

orientations, and it is not good if we from Brussels intervened too

much in every detail, so now we have given a clear mandate to the

British Government to act and the details will have to be discussed

openly with the stakeholders over the next months and then be

implemented over the next six or seven years. Thank you for coming

on live from Luxembourg and explaining that to us. It was my

pleasure and maybe as a last word this is his door up because also

Japan has decided to get away from nuclear and France closes down his

nuclear reactor, so this is a step change. Clearly you have something

to celebrate. Go and have a glass of carrot juice. Now for the first

in our guidelines as to how the European Union works. Here is Adam

Fleming with the low-down on the European Commission.

The EU's glass-walled engine room, home to the commission. The people

who work in this building see themselves as the guardians of the

European ideal, the keepers of the EU flames. All the power lies on

the 30th floor, so they are not that superstitious. The reason this

floor is so important is because the commission is the only part of

the EU that has got the power to bring forward new legislation. You

will find the President and his 26 commissioners up here, one from

each member state. Each one is responsible for a different policy

area. Every Wednesday, they meet in there. The President is elected by

national leaders and he is serving his second four-year term. His

commissioners are selected by the member states and then approved as

a group by the European Parliament. This is one of them. She is Danish

and responsible for policies on climate change. When we caught up

with her she was finalising new pollution standards for cars and

vans. Is this a typical day questor Mark yes, there is no such as Fang

as a typical day, but it is a busy day. As she meets and greets the

great and good, she is surrounded by her political advisers. Then it

is often a news conference. The commission has been accused of

being overly powerful, but the system has been reformed to make it

appear more or Open. Do you feel you have got quite a lot of power?

Yes, because it is our job to present the proposals. But what is

overlooked is we do not have total powers. I can present this proposal,

but it will not be law in Europe until the governments in the

European Parliament basically have nodded to theirs. All of that is

supported by 30,000 civil servants, recruited through a gruelling

multilingual process. Sometimes the commission is simply enforcing

existing rules. For example the import and export of step ladders.

It is not all high politics around here, you know.

Glad he got that through health and safety! We do not elect these

commissioners. We have no idea who they are. It is your job to hold

them to hold them to democratic scrutiny and account. Are you doing

that? We do, but they do not make the decisions, they come forward

with proposals. But it is people like us to change the legislation

and shake the legislation and we agree with are cancelled. You do

not have the power to propose legislation? No, we do not, they

have the right to propose which is under the direction of the council

which says, this is the direction we want to go in. It is analogous

to a board of a company. The executive team work out the

proposition and we are there to hold it to account. We can amend

and we can change and we can reject as well and we do. Why don't we get

a chance to elect the President of the Commission? That is the system

a whether you like it or not. I think there are too many

commissionaires, but that is for another day. But I would like to

see a bit more transparency in the council. Jose Manuel Barroso has

come a few times saying he is fed up. The leaders of the countries.

He has been complaining they say one thing in Brussels and go back

to their nation-state and says something different. I want to know

what they are saying. Politicians saying two different things, or who

would have thought that? How can that happen? We would have three

elected bodies claiming three elected mandate, no, we are there

to hold them to account and that is what we are doing. We are grateful