10/01/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/01/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Good news for


the Liberal Democrats - they're not the only ones concerned about a


possible British exit if the EU. Last night the Obama administration


weighed into the debate, declaring that the special relationship is


best served by the UK remaining at the heart of Europe - spare a


thought for Dave. He's going to make a big speech about Europe soon,


probably saying something a little different. Oh, well. You can't


please everyone. I'm just wondering, are you a man


of the people, and have you ever worn a onesie? Yes, Nick Clegg


answers the big political questions in his first weekly radio phone-in.


Aberdeen City Council wants to remove beggars from the streets.


Not surprisingly, it's cooked up a bit of a political storm. The thing


that always strikes me about England football - you probably


think this is maybe wrong - always trying to thread the ball through


the middle of the pitch rather than take it down the wings. Don't you


just hate it when strange men talk to you on the tube? We celebrate


150 years of minding the gap! What do they know about football?


Quite a lot by the looks of it. read it on a script. All that for


the next hour. With us is a venture capitalist, Jon Moulton. Welcome to


the Daily Politics. Thank you. First, this morning, let's talk


about the retail price index - the RPI because many people - I won't


name name, just most of the BBC, including myself, thought that the


Office for National Statistics would recommend changing it this


morning. It had been expected that the ar, a which is used to set the


level of pensions, would be brought closer into line with the


Government's preferred measure of inflation - that's called the


Consumer Price Index. Are you still following me? It's basically a


European measure of inflation Mr Brown introduced. Anyway, nothing


happened. We were all completely wrong. All that homework wasted.


Jon Moulton, you have 30 seconds to explain what all this means. Your


time starts now. Retail price index was being computed using a strange


mathematical model called the Cali Index everybody else thinks is


The Government were trying to cut the rate to cut the price of


running the index-linked gilts and save about �3 billion a year.


Unfortunately, the Office for National Statistics has said they


don't want to do it. Nobody understands quite why. RPI is high


largely because of the housing content. Brilliant! Have you been


practising?! Do it again. Sheer the contract. You have got it. We are


all on holiday now. Now a different type of quiz. David Cameron this


week hosted a Downing Street reception for fashionistas. Where


was our invite? You don't even know what it means. The Prime Minister


impressed the crowd with a revelation that he always wears


underpants from Marks & Spencer. Too much information. But where


Later this month David Cameron is going to be the Netherlands. Why


not? To make a speech on Europe. Netherlands being in Europe. To say


it's long-awaited is an understatement. It's been delayed


at least twice and has been the subject of endless speculation here


in Westminster. He told the Commons lobby recently that it would be


like tantric sex, it would be all the better when it happens. Can I


say that on daytime television? I just did. He is expected to talk


about how he wabs to renegotiate the relationship between Britain


and the EU there.'s no shortage of advice being offered as Joe


Some of his own backbenchers are demanding he loosens Britain's


relationship with the EU. Some would prefer we leave altogether.


On the other hand, many business leaders are worried about the


potential consequences for the British economy. Richard Branson is


one of a group of businessmen who have taken to the letters page of


the Financial Times to warn against doing anything that could reduce


British influence in Europe. They say that Britain must be very


careful not to call for a wholesale renegotiation. Such a demand would


be rejected by other member states and could put our relationship with


the membership of the EU at risk. They're not the only people to have


expressed concern. Yesterday, a senior member of Barack Obama's


team explained that Washington believes the special relationship


between Britained a America is best served by Britain remaining at the


heart of Europe. He said it was essential and critical Britain


shouldn't weaken its role in Brussels. In his speech later this


month the Prime Minister will be looking for a way to satisfy people


on both sides of the debate. It's not going to be an easy task.


Now with us is the Conservative MP Nadim Zahowi and old Daily Politics,


Christopher Mere. Welcome to you both. Can we establish there is


nothing new - the timing may be significant. There is nothing new


in what the United States is saying. It has always been the policy of


the State Department to want Britain to be a part of the


European Union and indeed even be at the heart of the European Union?


That, in my experience is absolutely right. As long as I have


had anything to do with the United States of America, they have always


said this about Britain and about the European Union. It is, as you


say, the timing which has turned out to be a bit explosive and


assistant secretary Phil Gordon probably didn't expect when he lit


the blue touch paper there would be an explosion of interest in what


the Americans are saying. You may be surprised with the reaction, but


he didn't say it off the cuff. He - the State Department knew what he


was saying. This was absolutely to be expected. It was only a question


of who would say it, where they'd say it and when they'd say it. I


suspect this message is being delivered to the British Government


in private over a period of months. What is concentrating American


minds? It is the possibility, the reality, if you like, of an in-out


referendum that could take us out of the EU altogether. Sitting in


Washington, this is not in the American national interests. Do you


begin to sense a growing force against Euro-scepticism beginning


to flare up? We have had the businessmen, Richard Branson, and


others saying, "Let's stop talking about leaving the European Union."


We have had this statement from the State Department. Are the forces


now beginning to get a against Europe from your point of view?


it's healthy scepticism. Look at what they do for a Parliament. You


have two Parliaments in two different cities costing hundreds


of millions of pounds. What is happening is not just America but


Germany - I had the head of the German CPI over here who made it


very clear that Germany both politically and the business


community want us to remain a major player. I think what the Prime


Minister a has to do is make sure every settlement that comes in from


the eurozone, every expert can agree on one thing - there is going


to be a new settlement... Within the eurozone. When we know what


that is, we need to renegotiate our position with that, make sure there


are some things, whether it's repatriation of things like the


Working Time Directives, stuff around the criminal justice and


policing, all of those sorts of things we can negotiate, then we


must put it to the country, because we need the backing and the good


will of the British public. I think we'll win the referendum. That


would depend on what you're going to repatriate. What is the absolute


minimum that needs to be repatriated in your view, not the


Government's view? We'll hear that from the Prime Minister. In your


view, what is the minimum that needs to be repatriated for you to


say we need to stay in I would like us to repatriate things around the


Working Time Directives - the spending at the moment in the


regions is done in a costly way, a CAP needs to be renegotiated.


That's not going to happen. Do you want out of it? Let's see what


settlement there is. I have asked you... Let's see what settlement


there is and we will negotiate. are not going to be doing the


negotiating. You are just speaking as an MP. I am speaking as a


backbencher supporting my Government. But what is the minimum


for - if you can't get all of that, do you say vote no? What I would


like to see is - L oh n Brittain said if we can go back to the opt


out. Labour gave up an opt opt out. If we can get that back, that's a


good place to be, so develop that. You look at exsport and not just


the big business. But small exporters in Stratford want us to


be in the single market, to be taking advantage of it. But on


different terms. Is it credible that the Europeans will allow us to


stay in the single market with all the advantages that brings and


almost none of the responsibilities? I think it


probably is. The thing we need above all is free trade, that's one


thing that stands on its own. Doesn't require all the other stuff


definitely to exist. It's easier if it does. At the moment we are


attached to a club which has low growth, unattractive financial


characteristics, very poor future, why would we want to continue?


understand. What I don't understand is why would the French and Germans


agree to put their industries at a disadvantage by agreeing to make it


a lot easier for us? I think there's a bunch of things here that


haven't been properly discussed. The debate which we have had the


European Union has been amazingly parochial. Only now I suspect is


the Government seriously trying to factor in the American attitude as


an objective element in the argument which has to go into David


Cameron's speech. And there's a kind of another thing here, whether


you are a eurosceptic or europhile. To think we can say all we want is


the single market, don't want this, the common fisheries policy and


then we are going to have a healthy relationship. On the other side of


the Channel people are saying, you are not going to get this without a


tough fight, if at all. This is going to be the mother of all


negotiations with no guarantee of success at the end on terms that


might be acceptable to those who would call themselves eurosceptic


Are you prepared to say we should leave? I'm prepared to take it to


the country and make the arguments because I think... What would you


advise the country to do? My advice is we need to stay in the single


market. We get that but with respect, again, that's not what I


asked. I hear you, and it's all hypothetical. It may become a


reality. We all want - LAUGHTER


Go for it. Go on. Answer. I will make the arguments. When I see what


that renegotiation has brought forward, I'll make the argument


hopefully to stay in the single market. By the way, Christopher


talks about Germany and France not wanting us to get what we want.


They need our support to do what we need to do. We're prepared to hold


the eurozone to ransom to stop them becoming an ever closer union if we


don't get what we want. Is that what you're saying? It's a


negotiation. Your point of highest leverage is when you need the other


people to get something for you... So no fiscal union for the


eurozone? No economic union for the eurozone? They don't do... If it


damages the single market - David Cameron was already prepared to do


it. It is unwise to negotiate with guns that are loaded. You can't


fire that weapon. We would be such an enemy of Europe of Europe for so


long, we'd go nowhere. We have to renegotiate a better position. Free


trade is the basics. We want as little as the rest as is necessary


to stay in. It's not easy to say where that'll drop. You wouldn't be


frightened if we left? I wouldn't. That makes you a minority among


business folk. It does indeed. At least I am in the UK, whereas


Richard Branson is somewhere in the Caribbean. He has somewhat


different views. Oh! A saucer of milk for our guest of the day.


There is a danger here - stepping back from the Euro-sceptic, Euro


Phil argument - there is a danger here taking the American position


and taking what I think would be the likely arrangement of the


countries that would matter in that we end up with no friends? It is


possible. I don't think that'll happen... Because America doesn't


want us to leave as ambassador. America doesn't want to go down the


route he's talking about either. think the big worry in all of this


- it's a completely unknown factor at the moment - is we have more


foreign direct investment from the United States in this country than


from any other country - more or less a million people go to work


every day from American firms investing in the UK. Indeed. When


we did not go into the euro, American business didn't care, but


if we were to leave the European Union as a whole as a result of a


referendum, I wouldn't like to bet that all of that investment would


stay in the UK with the jobs... thing they want is the free trade.


That's what those Americans really want. The other things are very


secondary. The Americans really don't want to have to pay for the


Working Time Directive, for the social stuff for, the unnecessary


regulation and the nonsense. would remind you when it came to


the European budget, who was the cool significance it was the UK,


Germany, France, the Netherlands and Finland going back to vam rum


boy and saying you can't have the increase in the budget you would


To coin a phrase, in that you were all in it together. You all wanted


the same thing. That isn't going to be true when you are going to tell


German business your costs will be hugely high and we will cut our


costs because there will be no no European directives. Let's see what


happens then. We have to leave it there, but I think we will be back.


If this speech ever happens! When is it going... It is going to


happen. I will be patient. It's the first time a serving cabinet


Minister has agreed to a weekly onair grilling. Nick Clegg has his


own half hour radio slot now in which members of the public can


call, e-mail text or tweet questions to the Deputy Prime


Minister. His first slot on London's LBC radio station was


broadcast today. Let's move on to other callers. It's John in London,


you are on the radio. Good morning. Nick Clegg, I am a Liberal Democrat


who's just torn up his membership card. I joined the party first in


1973. I am afraid I cannot now say that I want to represent the Lib


Dems. I am an ex-County Councilor and I am ashamed of what the


party's doing. Have you got your membership card with you? Not now


Jew remember what it -- not now. You remember what it says on it?


The Liberal Democrats exist to build a fair and free open society


in which we seek to balance fundamental values of liberty


equality and community and no one shall be enslaved by poverty,


ignorance or conformity. Can you tell me how you reconcile that with


what this Government's attacks on the poorest in society? You say you


are ashamed. I am immensely proud that facing one of the biggest


economic crises this country has seen in a generation, possibly the


post-war period, the Liberal Democrats took a big collective and


brave decision, at some political cost, to say we are going to step


up to the plate, work in a coalition because no one won the


general election and try and fix this mess and fix this mess while


also trying to make society fairer. How have we done that? You sold


out... Wait a minute. With a promise on the front page of our


manifesto to raise the point at which people start paying income


tax to �10,000, that's the biggest change in the system. The pupil


premium, on the front page of our manifesto, we are delivering �2.5


billion of extra money targeted directly for the first time at


those children on free school meals, from the most disadvantaged


families who need more support in school. For the first time ever as


of this April, because of something I personally pushed through


Government, thousands of two-year- olds for the first time ever will


get 15 hours of free pre-school support and child care in a way


that's never happened in this country before. Those are just


three examples. If do you go ahead and leave the party which party


would you support? I am afraid I can't support any party at the


moment. They're doing exactly the same thing. Thank you. Deputy Prime


Minister, a question from Harry in Sheffield. I am wondering are you a


man of the people and have you ever worn a onesie? I was actually given


a big green onesie in Sheffield which I have kept in its packaging.


I haven't worn it yet but I have one, I possess one. I am not sure


he should be boasting about owning that. More of that later. He knew


what it was, more than I did! Joining us now are Nick Ferrari and


Gillian Reynolds. How do you think he did? I think he did really well.


You saw live radio in all its ugliness with the calls you heard,


the councillor who decided to tear up his card. We have done a couple


of one-offs before, and I am sure he has done phone-ins. The joy of


the radio is you don't know what's coming your way. None of the calls


are vetted, he didn't know what was coming up? Credit to him and his


team. They didn't even ask. They knew that's how it was. They


probably know what to expect. Had he got what he would have expected,


a question on child benefit, something on welfare and a member


ripping up the pledge card from the party and tuition fees. The big


question is are you going to be able to sustain it, is he going to


be able to sustain it every week? This man projected confidence and


enjoyed it at the end, he wasn't beaten. He said how much he was


genuinely enjoying it. He said I look forward to seeing you next


Thursday and meant it. He is up for it. What is I imagine if you look


at it, he is not doing particularly well, what has he got to lose?


did you think? How would you review it? Very swift show. Went in the


blink of an eye. I listened to the first 15 minutes. I listened to it,


I I don't know how you did it, the control of the timing was masterly.


Two questions before the first break, four questions afterwards.


If you compress the time down, you are talking about 25 minutes.


Nobody was hurried. He did well. There you go! A great review. Will


you listen next week and week after week? Yes, I will. If you are


talking about what is if for Nick Clegg? What's in it for LBC? It's


got a national audience. Via digital radio and online, it's a


national audience. It's suddenly demonstrated, it's also a younger


audience than the usual one. choose a London station, he will


have done things in Sheffield. asked him. There is that. What


about this idea of a masochism strategy? Boris Johnson comes on


once a month and he has had terrible times. David Cameron last


year, you may have covered this, he took a call from the woman who asks


why are we spending billions on foreign aid, I am dying of cancer


and can't get drugs. And the UKIP clip. That was on my show, when he


was leader of the opposition, before he was Prime Minister. He


knows. I guess it comes back, what's he got to lose? Maybe it is


that streak. But at least perhaps David Cameron doesn't listen to him,


perhaps he doesn't get a word in at home with Miriam. I will be quiet!


He said something interesting, when you explain things to people they


understand them. There was a lot of stick afterwards from the students


in Sheffield, we wouldn't vote for him, we didn't like him. Too many


statistics. Actually, you could feel in the first half hour that he


did that once he started explaining things people did listen and as you


say, might have made a nice change. Will you listen? No. I am


interested that he could do it without the hand gestures,


typically when he does speak all I do is watch his hands going. If he


was in a onesie, it wouldn't be his hands you were looking at. I was


impressed he did know what it was. Andrew and I did not. In the ad


break, what was he like? He enjoyed it. He didn't go, how did I do?


was absolutely buoyant. He really was was. He thoroughly enjoyed it.


I am not just saying that, he was in the studio and his body language


was upbeat. Do you think he was too technical? These are complex


questions about child benefit and about welfare and benefit caps. Do


you think there was a little bit too much in terms of statistics and


figures? No one knows better about the Radio than Gillian. It's a


personal medium. In a newspaper they do a box and TV you put up a


graphic. I don't blame him, politicians do it. They hit you


with figures. You lose the audience. It's about human stories. A couple


of students you mentioned reflected too many numbers, people can't


process them all. He is not presenting. There is a big


difference between being a guest on a show, and actually, Tony Blair


when he did a show he was driving - would you like to hear him present


the programme rather than taking calls? Well, I think after a couple


of weeks or months - I am happy for him to do half an hour and to


address the questions of the minute. Because I don't think there's any


harm in a politician appearing to be accessible and that's quite a


clever thing he's done. He appears to be accessible to a national


audience who can ask him anything S there any other politician who


would take that risk? Is it desperation? Would you come under


pressure from Ofcom to say if you are doing this with the Lib Dems,


you have to let Labour politician on of their choice, a UKIP and a


Conservative? The answer is not until you move into an election


period. Representations have been made by one of the other parties,


we would welcome David and Ed and they can have Friday and Monday and


carve it up between them. At the moment we are confident there are


no problems. The invitation is there. If they want to... You are


not going to say no? No, name your hour and come in. We will tune in


next week. Thank you very much. The pay of Britain's top executives


has been a thorny subject since chief executives were invented. But


it's especially controversial in times of austerity. The wealth


wealth gap between those at the top and those struggling has led to


calls for a cap on executive pay. All three main parties agree that


something must be done. But what? David Thompson reports.


The spoils of capitalism, affordable to the few, not the many.


These days the gap between those who shop here and the rest of us


feels ever wider and ever more irritating. If there's one thing


guaranteed to wind people up, it's the megapay packets of those at the


top largely because it doesn't seem fair. While it might be tempting to


cap executive salaries, in reality, pretty unlikely to happen. There is,


however, more than one way to skin a fat cat. Many viewers will have


pensions or savings wrapped up in different investment funds. We


would like to empower them more to take action to be able to do


something about this by forcing fund managers to disclose how they


vote on issues of remunneration. If you have a pension you deserve to


though if they're voting in favour of excessive irresponsible pay


packets or whether they're actually doing the right thing. Unless you


know you can't do anything about it. It's not just Labour. The


Government wants shareholders to have a binding vote on executive


pay every three years with details of salaries and golden handshakes


made public. In Brussels, the the European Parliament's economic and


monetary committee hopes to push through on weeks. Is it their job


to tell private businesses what they should pay? If you are doing


it for no particular reason, but we are doing it for a reason. There


has been an excessive amount of risk-taking happening in the


financial sector. These high bonuses have brought it about.


There has been a consequence effect upon society. Therefore, that


overrules having a complete Libber attitude of you can take what you


However, bonuses fell by 5% with increased share options largely


making up the increase. Don't feel too sorry for them


though, the medium bonus was still over �600,000 and average earns of


chief executive a micely �4 billion. What would be wrong with an overall


cap on pay? I think having a flat rate cap applying across the board


in all different businesses in industry will be impractical and


will represent far too much of an interference in the day-to-day


management of a company. Actually very few politicians want to cap on


total salaries which some fear pay campaigners think is chickening out.


The idea executive pay should be a no-go area is risible and it's


because in the main they're terrified of the threat that


they'll be seen as anti-wealth generation as it's posed, if they


challenge the highest executive pay packets in the world which is


nonsense and there's been a good lobby in favour of high executive


pay which they haven't dared to take on. It's easy to say red over


the trappings of executive wealth. Coming up with realistic plans to


scale down the perks of those at I didn't know you'd parked your car


there. I think it's yours. small one. We're joined by the


former Deputy Leader of the Unite union, Jack Dromey and our guest of


the day, Jon Moulton, is still with us. In 1985 Margaret Thatcher said


the top fare makers in the city make one gasp they're so large. Do


you ever gasp at the size of salarys in your industry? I am not


in the City with the FTSE 100 lot. Their pay is remarkably high, 4


point something million average. It's hard to believe that you


actually need to pay that sort of money to get people to perform well.


You know? You can get perfectly good TV presenters for a lot less.


You certainly can. A great deal less. Before you answer that we're


going to welcome our viewers from Scotland who have been watching


First Minister's Questions in Holyrood. Welcome to the Daily


Politics. Let's come back to perhaps not the pay of TV


presenters but yes, your point about the fact people are paid too.


When you say those salaries are too high, what is too high? They're by


international standards - the UK is pretty well the highest payer of


CEOs now. We're way ahead of Germany, France, Italy, even the


United States. We're ahead of the Americans? We are. Why has that


happened? I think the main thing that's happened is the perversity


is when we set up these remuneration committee at the


boards these became part of corporate governance, saying we'll


pay in the top quarter of the industry. As a result they started


chasing each other at pace. It's most of the last 20 years you'll


see much higher rates of acceleration of senior pay than


middle and lower. Should there be a cap? A firm cap probably doesn't


need to exist. I think the right answer is gradually drifting into


sight, which is shareholders voting on remuneration packages and voting


some down. Some have done that we have some notable examples. Jack


Dromey, isn't that a better way to go than to have a blanket cap?


Let's start with what the nature of the problem is. We have had soaring


boardroom pay - it's not based on merit. If you look at the


performance of the companies compared to what they have been


getting in the boardroom, it's not based on merit. All too often it


rewards failure. Why? Because you've got this cosy old-boys club


of remuneration committees. They all fix one another's salaries.


It's a you-scratch-my-back, I'll- scratch yours. There is a second


problem - the way remuneration works it insent rises short termism


in our country. The gap from top to bottom is half what it is in


Britain in Germany. What would you like to see? If you're not


convinced by shareholders beginning to take action and voting with


their feet, why do you think a cap proposed by the Europeans would be


a good idea? You need complete transparency, the publication of


top and medium pay. If there are significant changes in future you


have to justify that the other thing is proper accountability. Why


not workers on the board of remuneration committees? I know


from my own past experience in the union workers would not begrudge a


good governor a decent pay increase and also, crucially, that the


investors, the pension fund managers - they should have to


justify how they make their decision ass well. What do you say


in response to those points? very basic point - these packages


are very complicated. That's part of the problem, though. Long-term


incentive plan, one-option scheme, three option scheme... Should they


be simpler? Absolutely they should. There is no need for the complexity


of some of these. The long-term incentive plans of most senior


management are incomprehensive to., So even those who work in the City.


Should politicians be getting involved in dictating what top


executives should get or at least guiding them? I think they should


be influencing it. We do need some sort of legal backing. It might be


reasonable to have - if the Chief Executive is paid more than 20


times average pay of the workforce you need a 70% share of the


shareholders to vote for it. think it's absolutely right the


politicians act, not the least Regularly people say to me how


wrong they think it is that your boardroom pay soars whilst their


pay either is constrained or falls. What about the point that people


will go elsewhere? You say Britain is ahead at the moment. That


situation can change. These people are very mobile. If indeed the


competitive pressure is there, that's fine. It isn't there in most


cases. That's right. Do you think it's a myth put forward by people


in the industry who say if we don't pay top dollar... What is


remarkable is how it's so concentrated at the top. This isn't


in the middle ranks in the same way. This is a UK phenomenon at its


extreme. Why don't Labour take a leaf out of the Social Democrats'


book? What they were considering? If a company pays a Chief Executive


�20 manage, say, a big salary, all of that �20 million is tax


deductsable before that company pace corporation tax. It's a cost.


What the Social Democrats said was anything over, say, a million, you


can still pay them more than a million but none of it over a


million is tax deductible. Sure. You do learn - we have been arguing


very strongly for transparency and accountability as a first step. I


think at the next stages, absolutely, we need to draw upon


European examples, in particular, Germany, because in Germany, the


gap is half what it is in Britain, and Germany is a successful long-


term-ist economy. Why don't you go for that idea? We learned very


valuable lessons from Germany. Watch this space because Chukka


made it very clear earlier on that it is wrong at a time like this,


but also, if we're going to put right our economy - deep-seated


difficulties over 30 years, this is a nettle we have to grasp. There is


one thing I would like to chuck in. Chuck in, Chuckca! The FTSE 100 now


is very largedy... They're not British companies. There is


confusion there. Thank you very much.


This morning, Britain's most Senior The Prime Minister decided on the


basis of the genuine interests to draw a line under the matter. That


was what his position was. I work for the Prime Minister. So it was


decided to possibly accept that Andrew Mitchell was lying? I don't


think the Prime Minister at any stage thought Andrew Mitchell was


lying. If he was telling the truth, then somebody else was lying.


in life you sometimes have a difference of view as to what was


said. You didn't feel it was part of your investigation to get to the


bottom of that? No, it would be impossible for me to do that


without investigating the police. It's not my job to investigate the


police. Did you ask to see the police log? No. No. Can you just


explain why you didn't ask to see the police log? Because I didn't


think it was appropriate for me to be investigating the police log. I


didn't think it was necessary for me... Investigating the police log


- it was a question to see whether Mr Mitchell was telling the truth


or not. Would you not have wanted to see the police log? It's very,


very important not to get confusion here. My review, set by the Prime


Minister, was into the e-mails, not into the police log. I didn't think


I needed to see the police logs in order to draw the conclusions that


I did about the e-mails, which were that they were not reliable and


therefore that Andrew Mitchell should be kept in his position.


Your remit was very limited? Very Every now and again the curtains


pull back and you see the senior Civil Service in action in this


country. You can decide whether or not it's a pretty sight. We're


joined by Conservative MP Alan Johnson. -- Kerns. Did Heywood make


a complete horlik of all of this? As he analysed the evidence there


was clearly inconsistently from the e-mail to the log to the CCTV. He


hadn't brought them all together. If he had, that would have showed


serious tkwheas should have been brought to the police or the IPCC


Is it not his job to mark the Prime Minister's card? Is it not his job


to say, look, Prime Minister, I've seen the police - the police log.


I've seen the CCTV footage. The two don't mesh. You'd better be careful


about this? That's the point. Sir Jeremy Heywood said he hadn't seen


the police log, but the challenge I made to him is it was in the Daily


Telegraph. Exactly - or was suggested to be the police log. He


wasn't sure that was the police log in the Daily Telegraph, but I would


have thought there was sufficient evidence there to warrant further


investigation. After that displace, would you get him to organise the


proverbial in a brewery? That's the right question. Was he the right


person to do it. That's what the chairman of the committee was doing


should it have gone to the Prime Minister's advisor on the


Ministerial Code. If the Prime Minister - in the United States,


the president would have got one of his senior political advisors to do


this, and to be aware with political antennae because this


involved a Cabinet Minister, a Prime Ministerial appointment - and


a political advisor would have raised all of these things with the


Prime Minister. Well, I'm not sure it has to be a political advisor


because I think the press itself would then say you've got a


politician investigating a politician. That would undermine it.


I am not talking an official investigation. I am talking the


Prime Minister to one of his senior advisors, can you go find out about


this Mitchell business? Go and get the facts. The Prime Minister did


say, will you investigate the e- mails and look at the case? He kept


on saying, "But I was only asked to look at the e-mails, nothing else."


That's what I would expect Sir Jeremy Heywood to come back to the


Prime Minister to say this needs widening if that was the limit of


the investigation in the first. Your lot weren't impressed with him


this morning, were you? He left some questions unanswered.


LAUGHTER We need to remember... Say what you


mean. We were limited, in fairness, in terms of what we could say. I


was called to order on one occasion because there was a police


investigation ongoing. We don't want to prejudice that inquiry.


What was also important to me is Sir Jeremy Heywood responded to a


complaint by Yvette Cooper before, I would suggest, he went into the


CCTV and he looked at the police log, if he looked at the police log


at all. I thought on the one hand he said having received a complaint


from such a senior politician I had to investigate it. I am not clear


he did so. I find this incomprehensible. You have an event,


a police log, some e-mails and some CCTV. How can it take an


intelligent person more than 15 minutes to review the bloody lot


and come up with the right answer? Whether that was somebody from the


Attorney General's office, a political advisor, one of the


Number Ten staff? Anybody would have come to a conclusion in very


short order. He also later said he suspected there was the possibility


of a gigantic conspiracy. That was investigated, and I'm a bit


confused by that, particularly in he was looking at in isolation each


element rather than bringing them all together. We're now waiting on


the police investigation? That's got to be given a run... This is


just the police investigating themselves. Yes, absolutely and the


IPCC if necessary. Even again, though, why would that take more


than a day? This is not a monumentally complex event? They


need to pursue the evidence. We're going to Aberdeen now. All of us.


Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. It may be one of


Scotland's wealthiest cities... Scotland's wealthiest cities...


Thank you. Let's not qualify that! Doesn't take too kindly to its


poorest inhabitants. The city council wants to ban beggars from


its streets. From and, a Kevin Keen It's something politicians the


world over have been trying to find a solution to, probably before


money ever existed. A string of plans here in Aberdeen in recent


years have all failed. Now the latest administration at the


council is trying again. In 2008, these giving boxes were installed


at key points across the city centre. People were urged in ad


campaigns not to give their loose change to beggars. Instead, the


contents of the box would be given to homeless charities. But some of


them were broken into, and crucially, the number of beggars in


Aberdeen stayed about the same. attempt was then made to introduce


a bylaw so the beggars could be moved on, but legal advisors


advised the then-administration you can't make it illegal for someone


to just be in a public place and that aggressive begging is already


covered in law. So it's back to the drawing board. A new administration


has now taken over in Aberdeen, and they're keen to re-examine the


bylaw option, saying they're more confident now that it can be


brought in. Joining us now from Aberdeen, Scotland's richest city


is the leader of the city's council, Labour's Barney Crockett and Mark


McDonald from Edinburgh, who is the Scottish National Party MSP for the


north-east region. Welcome to both of you. First of all to Barney


Crockett - how big a problem is How big a problem is begging in


Aberdeen? It's not a huge problem, it's something that is significant


and there are growth features in. We are looking for tools to try and


help that situation and we think one of the things we need is the


ability to control it through legal methods as is in other parts of the


United Kingdom. But why? Begging is something that happens in most


cities. If it's not a particularly big problem in Aberdeen and if the


beggars aren't being aggressive why do you think you need to go down


the legal route to ban it? First of all, we have a strong record of


helping people in difficult circumstances and I think that we


want to take that further and I think this gives us a way of making


an intervention. It can be effective. Also, we face - it was


mentioned, that we are perhaps the only UK city that's doing


particularly well at the moment and we are certainly one of the key


growth cities in the UK. We do attract people in. We welcome


people. We need people to be coming in. But we want to give them


positive futures than begging on the streets and we think this is


one of the possible ways. What's your problem with that, Mark


McDonald? This is entirely the wrong approach. It's essentially


criminalising people who are vulnerable, it doesn't tackle the


causes of why people end up begging. It tackles the effect. It may make


streets look nicer to put beggars off into the justice system but it


does nothing to resolve problems that allow people to fall into that


position, whether that's through people who have found themselves


homeless, find themselves with mental health problems, addiction


problems. There are many route causes of why people beg,


criminalising them isn't going to make it go away. Are you going to


try to stop this going through? Scottish Government's made it clear


they see no reason for a buy-law banning begging. The piece there


said aggressive begging is dealt with. We have breach of the peace


laws which can deal when that arises. The key thing is to have


agencies working together to help these people not to victimise and


criminalise them. I think you will struggle to find any of the key


charities, either in Aberdeen or nationally who deal with beggars


who are saying they want to see a bye-law introduced. You haven't


really got the support for this then? I think we have the support


in the city. I think that... Do you from charities? I think that the


problem I have is that cities must have the ability to make their own


decisions in looking at the future and I think that it's important


that Aberdeen is not put at a big disadvantage compared to cities in


the rest of the UK. A recent survey said Aberdeen was one of the three


best places in the UK for investment. But the warning was


there that cities and devolved regions were doing slightly better


than in England but the warning was that an undue influence from


central Government could be a big problem and I think here we have,


we are looking for a local solution to a local problem. I don't think


it's helpful to have a a Scottish Government wading in. There is a


clear message there. But basically stop interfering. If devolution is


going to work they should be allowed to make their own mind up?


Any bye-law requires Scottish Government approval and that's the


nature of the law in Scotland. I am simply saying - I think that I


don't want to see people begging on the streets either. The difference


with myself and the Councilor Crockett, I think you should help


to look people begging. It's a Dickensian approach to criminalise


those people. Rather than helped appropriately. Thank you both very


much. Looks nice in Aberdeen behind him


there. We should do the programme there one day. A great city. Ken


Livingstone loves it, Boris thinks it annihilates distance, liquidates


traffic and is the throbbing cardiovascular system of the


greatest city on the earth. I am not talking about happy in our the


West End, but the London Underground which which opened its


doors to passengers 150 years ago # It's your train...


Ah, the tube, I couldn't get to work without it. Apart from when


they're on strike and it's been serving Londoners for a century and


a half, it's also being a magnet for politicians when they want to


ditch the limo and look normal but what are the tube habits of these


well known London MPs? How much do you love or loath the tube? I love


the tube. It gets a pad press, un-- a bad press. It's reliable,


sometimes lines go down, engineering work at weekends, but


it's the quickest way of getting from A to B. I love the tube. I


learned to drive about four months ago so all my life I have used the


tube. I love the tube. I use it often and London wouldn't be London


without the tube and my constituency would not be linked to


the rest of London without the tube. Do you stand up when there is an


elderly person or pregnant laid? -- ladyy. Tkoeu stand up for the


elderly, although I get nervous sometimes about pregnant women! And


getting it wrong. Have you ever been caught fare-dodging? Certainly


not. I wouldn't admit it to you anyway! Do you always mind the gap?


I always mind the gap. I get scared. I always stand behind the yellow


line. I also, if people aren't moving along so other people can


get on, I become a supplemental conductor to say, move on, come on!


And they normally do. Which Tube Station is the only one that


doesn't contain any of the letters in the words mackerel? Oh, you are


joking! Oh, I do know, is it Vauxhall? No. I am afraid I have to


pass on that one thrfrpblgts's so many --. There's so many tube


staugss -- stations. I haven't a clue. St John's Wood. I have been


there once or twice. I have been there, normally actually with the


pheriest of hearts because I am on the way to watch cricket at Lords.


Oh no, I forgot to ask them the most important question of all -


what do you do when you are really annoyed by the person who sits down


next to you? You try to ignore the Prime


Minister if you found him on the tube, wouldn't you? It used to be


said of Mussolini, at least he used to make the trains run on time. One


reason why no one could ever mistake our next guest for a


fascist. Bob Crowe. Do you happen by tube. On London. Why does it


always stop in Hendon? It should never have stopped at Hendon. It


was shut down by the Labour Party. Glenda Jackson as the transport


Minister was to shut down that line. It should have been extended.


you offer up your seat? Certainly, yeah. To whom? No one younger than


me. We are narrowing it. A woman pregnant, baby on board. Elderly


person. People with kids, yeah, certainly. John? Do you travel by


tube? I may be younger by him. you travel by tube? Occasionally.


Would you give up your seat? course. Best and worst experience?


Best experience is every day, actually. To get from parts of the


suburbs into London in 25 minutes, no way to beat it. The worst


scenario was stuck down a tube tunnel for over an hour and being


evacuated. You had to walk along? It didn't concern me but for


elderly people it was stressful for them. Shall we do our quiz? Do you


agree with Boris, this isn't the quiz, you and Boris that the tube


is the throbbing cardio vase skhrar system of the greatest city on


earth. Absolutely. Ets do the quiz. Which chat show host was reportedly


born in a in station. Springer. What is the mosquito named after


the tube called? They thought about that! I thought might be trickier.


We call it the tube and the Americans call it the subway.


What percentage of the underground is under grown? -- underground?


say probably 60%. 40%. You say 40%. You are closer, it's 45%. We could


be done under the trade descriptions act. The underground


is actually 55% overground. Chesham, Watford, Epping. Most of the


Metropolitan line out in the suburbs. They are talking about


Crossrail two. North to south. see. A fantastic way. Only way you


are going to improve the tube is more capacity. That's why Crossrail


is a fantastic opportunity. The extension of the the Northern Line


is fantastic. Crossrail is not the tube? It's the overground route


going underground and joining? will be joined to the tube, coming


to Whitechapel and Liverpool Street and through to Heathrow. But north


to south will be the next. How many mice live on the tube? Never


counted them. Who's counting them? The rats! Must be in the ten


million. It says half a million. I think that's underestimated. It's


got to be. Has anyone counted them? What is


the London Underground known in Cockney rhyming slang? That's a


good one. Must have heard it on Minder years ago. The Oxo. Never


heard that before. The cube, tube. Never heard that. Do you think they


shared a Christmas cracker? They're similar. The first journey on the


tube, it took place today in 1863. Amazing it was the mid-19th century


they could do all this. It shows you the engineers capacity in this


country then. Paddington and Farringdon. Which notable person


turned down the invitation? Good point. I guess he probably did,


because the politician who first went on the overground train


journey he fell off the train and died. The Prime Minister? It was,


Lord palmisson. He departed on a snooker table, didn't he? What was


he doing? Not for this time of the day. Didn't he sire a child when I


was about 70 and Disraeli said keep it quiet or he will be swept to


power in an overall majority? We taught you about the Oxo. Let's


carry on the theme of quizzes. We have just time to find out the


answer. Where does David Cameron What do you think, John? I don't


think he would wear Hush Puppies. Or go to Sports Direct that leaves


us with the third option. Well done! It is Oliver Sweeney. He is a


trendy designer. Never heard of him. Thank you to all our guests. The


Download Subtitles