15/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. The European Court

of Human Rights has ruled that British Airways was wrong to ban a

worker wanted to wear a cross. Are the rights of Christians at work

being respected? Sorry I am late, it has been a terrible day!

Prime Minister is back on our television scenes, and so is the

old complaint, that it is the mandarins who run Whitehall. We

will ask a former minister if it is true. We were once one of the

world's great exporting nations, but do we make anything, and does

it matter? And we are expecting a rare sighting of the lesser spotted

Gordon Brown bird in Westminster this afternoon, keep your eyes

peeled, what should former prime ministers do?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is

broadcaster and Labour peer Joan Bakewell. Welcome to the programme.

Thank you. Let's start with the ruling by the ECHR about the right

of workers to express religious beliefs at work. Four people

claimed they had been discriminated against, only one has won, Nadia

Eweida, the BA employees sent home for wearing a cross. The other

three lost their cases, including the nurse who wore a cross outside

a uniform. The court ruled that there were legitimate health and

safety reasons in her case. The other two cases involved people who

refused to perform some of their duties because they said they were

not compatible with their religious beliefs. Gary McFarlane was a

councillor with Relate, who refused to offer sex therapy to same-sex

couples. He explained why he felt it was the right thing to do.

sex therapy, you are required to diagnose people's sexual problems

and write a treatment plan and work with them for six months to a year,

helping them to actually improve their sex life, improve the way

they do their sexual activity. For me to do that in a same-sex

relationship creates a conflict with what I understand my Christian

faith and the Bible has to say. Gary McFarlane there. He lost his

case, but do you think his religious rights were infringed?

All these cases are very separate and very interesting. I feel that

he had taken employment in a job and are taking certain obligations

that are laid down by law, that you must treat all people equally. When

he found that he could not do that, then his position as a Christian

was threatened and he was in the wrong job. You think they can ever

be an exception in those cases where people say, because he went

on to explain, I do not think I could have given the right advice,

but I would have referred them to a colleague? If you have a job in

which all people are meant to be treated equally, and it states that

both in law and the employers setting out of the job, you have to

comply with that. Isn't that obvious? I think that applies to

all sorts of jobs in which you undertake to carry out obligations

that are put upon you by the state. So I think the two lost the

Employment Appeals are quite right. I am delighted that Nadia Eweida is

allowed to wear a crucifix. How stupid were British Airways to say

she should not! She had been wearing on under their clothes, but

this was bought of their corporate image, they wanted to standardise,

but the court found against British Airways' claim in this case. You

see that as a victory? Yes, a victory for common sense. Are they

go into stop Sikhs wearing turbans? I don't think we want to do that in

this country, we believe in religious tolerance, and it is

perfectly right that should be allowed to wear it. The nurse, why

couldn't she not wear her cross underneath a uniform in the same

way? They cited health and safety. It might be held and safety go in

party, I do not understand the risk of the issue, but she had been

offered the chance to wear a cross on her lapel, and she turned that

down. Clearly a negotiation had not resolved the situation, which it

should have done. Do you think employers have too much discretion

to set parameters as to what people have a right to do in terms of

expressing their religious beliefs? Apparently those parameters are

quite wide. I do not have enough experience about how people run

into religious problems. I would have thought employers are more

tolerant generally, certainly in terms of uniform, and when I was

younger, that was an absolute thing, you wore the uniform or you were

out. I think people are probably more tolerant now, and I think most

employers want to be good employers, that is a target for them. It is

what they are told to do, be good employers, and that means meeting

the request of our employees as much as we can. These cases were

taken to the European Court. Does the law needs to change gear, or

was it, in most of those cases, a vote for common sense? People just

need to be sensible, don't they? It is not worth going to court over

somebody wearing a crucifix. If they really believe that wearing a

crucifix, and I am told it is not necessarily the expression of their

religion, they are not required by the religion to wear a crucifix,

their beliefs are very important to them, and if you're believes are

very important and devout, then you should not be taking on a job that

compromises them. That is what fate Something a little different, does

is bring back memories? Sorry I am late! It has been a terrible day.

Any particular reason? You have read about the Cabinet split and

see what happened to the FTSE and the pound and the inflation

forecasts and the rising unemployment figures? How many

particular reasons do you want?! This Lancaster House conference is

turning into a catastrophe. It was your idea. If you become President

of Europe in the biggest financial crisis for 80 years... With respect,

there is no such title as President of Europe. You are so pedantic!

Don't you just love it? Yes Prime Minister is back on our TV screens.

The new series starts at 9pm on UKTV gold. Set your buttons on the

TV. But is the Yes Minister culture back in Whitehall, too? Steve

Hilton has been telling students in his new job in California that the

Government is run by paper shuffling mandarins, rather than

ministers. Yesterday Gus O'Donnell, who retired as head of the Civil

Service in 2011, accused ministers of attacking the civil service to

deflect attention from their own failings. Nick Herbert was, until

September last year, a Home Office minister. His Yes Prime Minister,

laughing away as you were, is it comedy wall documentary? As far as

any minister is concerned, it is an essential training manual. Like all

the best parodies, it is rooted in a real truth, which is that the

system can be very resistant to change. I do not think it is any

longer fit for purpose. I think it is quite wrong for Gus O'Donnell to

say this is just the current government halfway through its term,

saying this. Actually, yesterday Tony Blair, who after all has been

out of office for some time, said that the Civil Service was

hopelessly bureaucratic and no longer fit for purpose. There are a

range of voices on all sides of politics was saying that times have

changed and we need a system, which is the case that I make, the

ability to bring people in, good people. There is a ring of steel

around the Civil Service. It is a monopoly. You are not allowed to

get external policy advice, you're not allowed external advisers, and

it would be much healthier, as in other public services, healthcare,

schools and everything else, you open up services and make them

stronger. So you are proposing the end of the Victorian principles of

a civil service. You do not want to have that neutrality in the way

that we have had for generations, that separation between the

political and the Civil Service. You are right that that model is

well over 150 years old. Should it end? In its current form. I am not

suggesting that we jump straight to the US model of administration

changes with every president, because we have, unlike the US, a

different system. They have separation of powers. But I think

we could do more to bring good people in, and there are other

systems with parliamentary documentaries like ours, Australia,

Canada, where ministers have more advisers and are able to draw on

people with expertise and from within the Civil Service who work

more directly for ministers to get things done. I'm going to bring

Joan Bakewell in in just a minute, but you are saying you want to be

able to bring more advisers, the whole point of your party's pledge

was to end the culture of sofa government where unaccountable spin

doctors, whether Alastair Campbell Damian McBride, make-up policies,

not to meet the National Industry - - national interest but for party

political reasons. I have no time for that kind of spin doctor, I

never wanted one myself. Policy advisers, people of expertise. I

would not want to see more spin doctors. I think there is a need to

have some communications in modern government, but what this is about

is can we bring in the brightest and the best? Look at the West

Coast mainline debacle, it cost tens of millions of pounds because

of a failure... You could say it was as a result of cuts to the

Civil Service. That is not what the internal report said. What do you

say, first of all, to the end of the way we run government? I think

Mandarin is a good word. We want wise people who are being in a

position for a long time to know a great deal. There may be

shortcomings, I can see that maybe so, the thing being stuck up with

bureaucracy, but bringing in outside experts means bringing in

your people, people who are going to be at your beck and call,

telling you what you want to know. I think that the neutrality of the

civil service has to be defended at all costs. It is a gold-plated

ideal that must not be sacrificed for party political interest. Look

at the mess in America! One government goes out, they bring in

a whole new set of people who do not know their way around. The

Civil Service, as Yes Minister shows, civil servants know their

way around. They know how the system runs, and very often young

ministers do need guidance. Well, actually, the US system does not

all change, the key positions do. I'm not arguing for that model, but

greater ability to bring people in. What about politicising that? He

would just bring your own people in. You think the public mind about the

fact that ministers might are people working for them to share

their views? You think they might mind about the effective

government? If you make pledges and say you will reform health, schools,

the police or whatever you promised, what the public want is for you to

be able to deliver that. Today... Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith

say they are doing well with their reforms in the current system, and

all that you are doing, to answer the accusation of Gus O'Donnell, is

to say that a workman blames his tools and the ministers are not of

a high enough quality to use the guidance of the Civil Service and

pushed through their reforms. is a problem with our political

system which includes the problem of professionalisation of politics,

too. I do not think this is just a problem of the civil service, but

this morning on the programme I made for the Today programme, Lord

O'Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, made what I thought was

an astonishing claim when he said that the first job of the Civil

Service was to challenge ministers. There is a role to challenge,

because that is healthy, but surely the first job is to help the

government get its policies through. Which policies have been blocked,

do you think? I'm not sure it is a question of blockage. They can be

resistance, and I encountered some of that when I was at the Home

Office and the Ministry of Justice. Other teams were good, but the

random nature of it was frustrating. As a minister, you're accountable

for everything, but you do not control any of the people who work

for you. They work for the -- they work for the permanent secretary.

What other work of life would you accept accountability for people

who do not work for you? You are elected by the people to be the

government of the day, but the civil servants are the servants of

the public, throughout their career, and that is what they have

dedicated their lives do. They build up expertise, they know their

way around, and young ministers come in eager for change, and

perhaps rather clumsy as they begin to know the job, a good and wise

civil servant will show them the way round so that they understand

how to implement their policy. Should they be allowed to frustrate

the agenda? It is a trade-off, isn't it? That is why it is so

humorous when we see it, but there's nothing to stop them

bringing in other people to advise, the place is full of political

advisers... It absolutely is, there are limits, they are not allowed to

go for outside advice. People outside may not see papers, that is

the whole point, it is a monopoly. It is not just about blocking

policy, it is about the capability of the Civil Service. This morning,

a very eminent former Permanent Secretary said that he did not

think that the Civil Service was fully fit for purpose because it

does not have the skills which today's commissioning civil

service... I think that is a problem, and that is why we have

got to have a more fluid system where good people can go in and out

of an administration, and we do not have that at the moment. There are

really good people in Whitehall, and I make no personal criticism. I

get on very well with the ones I worked with, many were of a high

calibre, but when you encounter a team which is not right, which does

not have the capability... would not throw out the good.

can we bring in the brightest and best? Unless you have made your

career in the civil service or are willing to be employed full-time,

Very briefly, the Home Secretary has announced the starting salary

for police constables will be capped to �19,000. Are they are

overpaid? Those already in roles will not be affected. It was

recommended by an independent review. It said, in order for

police officers to move faster up the pay scale, there should be a

lower starting point. Overall, you do not lose as a police officer

match OBR for Korea. It is part of the reform of pay and conditions to

make Remuneration better. -- match over your career. Old friends, sat

on their park bench like bookends. So sang Simon & Garfunkel. But much

about old age has changed since they penned that song for their

1968 album, Bookends. Life expectancy has risen dramatically

and today's pensioners can expect to enjoy a long retirement in

From reporter to plain old porter. I have come to the airport to meet

these people for Nottinghamshire. Though a lifelong friends and

living off generous occupational pensions. They are heading off for

two weeks to South Africa. What better way to get into a holiday

mood and talking about the politics of pensioners? David Willetts says

the amount of wealth in the UK in the form of housing is 2.1 trillion

pounds. Those over 65 own 800 billion - more than a third. We are

comfortably off. That is because we have saved for our retirement. I

think, as our age group, we are fortunate we were born at the right

time. Gerald and Jim do not feel loaded. But we have taken a pay cut

because our investments - our savings - have gone down. You

cannot find anywhere to put your money because you don't get

interest of your savings. What about the top-up benefits that go

to pensioners regardless of income? Winter Fuel Allowance, TV licences

and the bus pass. About �130 a month for electricity and oil. �200

does help, definitely. What if someone said, did you spend your

Winter Fuel Allowance going to South Africa? Definitely not.

it went on the bills. We have saved for a holiday separately to the

Winter Fuel Allowance. However, not all pensioners us jetting off to

Johannesburg. Officials -- official figures showed those over 65 he did

not go on holiday Atul was 41%. Many said it was because they were

not well enough. Does that surprise you? It does. That is a shame. We

think of ourselves as an average pensioner. We are fortunate to be

able to go for one decent holiday. We also have a few weekends away.

As a child, have we did not have holidays. They could not afford it.

We were born at the right time. We have put away and it has paid off

for us. It is time to wave them off. I forgot to ask them about adult

social care and the fact I will not retire as early as they did and

loads of other things. Maybe I will save that for when they get back.

Our guest of the day, Joan Bakewell, acted as a Voice of Older people

under the last Government. We're also joined by David Willetts, who

is the Universities Minister, but is also the author of The Pinch, a

book about how the baby boomer generation have ended up with more

than their fair share. They have ended up with it surely by lack -

timing. As the lady in the film said, just an accident of birth.

People were buying houses when prices were low. Then house prices

shot up. Then there was high inflation which eroded the burden

of their mortgage. The group by particularly focus on in my book,

who have done particularly well, are the 45 to 65 age group. There

are those over 65 who are enjoying final-salary pension schemes.

feel they should be allowed to do that and enjoy their retirement?

They have saved. They have built up a final salary pension scheme. One

disaster in the last 20 years has been the collapse of pensions. This

very week, the coalition has brought forward some big reforms

which will encourage people to save. What is your problem with the 45 to

65 group? What should be done to redress the balance? We need to

insure you for a fair deal to the a regeneration. My worry is that

we're not doing enough to support the younger generation. I think a

lot of parents and grandparents do want to help their kids and grand

kids. I want to have a contact between the generations. And

interesting question to ask those people going off on holiday would

be, by helping children with the cost of their first house? Are you

providing childcare to grunge kid so your son or daughter kangaroo up

to work? -- your grand kids, so your son or daughter can go out to

work? Benefits are being capped or cut and there are very generous

pension allowances. We have kept to our pledge. Is it the right thing

to do? It is. When you have made a specific pledge in an election, you

must stick to it. I would add a further point. Interest rates are

very low at the moment. One of the results of this is there are many

pensioners with modest savings who are finding they are getting very

little income from personal savings. Are you concerned about the future

for the younger generation? I am. I have grandchildren who are victims

to all the things that have been mentioned. My generation is helping

them out in as far as they're able. We are about for the next 10 years

to engage in a hole reassessment of how we deal with an ageing

population because everyone is going to be ageing. We need to know

how they will be able to live a decent retirement. Some of us have

been enormously fortunate, I am one of them, in having property that

was cheaper and aborted and is now fallible. Those of us who have so -

- and brought it and is now valuable. I should say that old

people are not a uniform type of person. They do billions of pounds

of caring. They do the caring for their grandchildren. That allows

their children to go out to work. They care for each other which

saves on the carers budget and they share -- care in the community.

lot of that is an costive. If you look at the figures in the final

salary pension schemes, they retired earlier than younger

generations will be able. They will have to pay in more, work longer

and get out less. There are retired people with a huge amount of

political clout who have none means tested benefits. In terms of social

mobility, there is very little to help young people improve their

situation, buy a house, unless parents help them. I am someone who

does believe that the fuel allowance should be means tested.

No question that he should be added to income and taxed. And means

tested in that way. What can the Government do to help social

mobility? Colleagues of mine say they were never be able to get onto

the housing ladder in the way that some of my other colleagues can.

That is one of the big changes. For the Government, it is a matter of

making it easier for people to get started with their mortgage. Our

funding for lending scheme may at last be beginning to open up the

mortgage market which collapsed in the financial crisis. Something

which older generations can do, when there is a proposal for

housing in our area, when you see people in any housing development

that will turn up and protest. It is a delicate issue. If you turn up

and protest every time they raise a proposal, that makes it much

tougher for the younger generation. Our attitudes need to change.

think that new housing which preaches green belt rules should

not be embarked upon until all the Brown housing available has been

exploited. That will not damage the countryside. This is where we need

reforms. Sometimes, the brownfield sites in cities are where kids kick

around a football. We have to get the balance right. One of the

priorities is to get more housebuilding. That is one of the

best single things we can do. is a powerful, political group.

They use that boys because they have the time to do so and use it

very effectively. People who live in the country can afford it. They

are not necessary old age pensioners. They mean -- may be

thrusting and dynamic executives. The reason the Tories make this

pledged to not change universal benefits is because they know very

well that old people vote. For some reason, a higher proportion of old

people vote and they will be punished. Particularly the bus pass,

which is cherished by old people. That is the truce. They are a

powerful, political voice. -- the truth. Of course, everybody. You

need to take account of the views of everyone. Are you giving too

much to the voice of the older generation? We are increasing their

pension age. It will not affect me! It is happening as we speak. The

pension age is already rising for women. We are finally, after years

of frustration, tackling the problem of long-term care and the

costs involved. It is signalling that people will have to make a

contribution from their own savings to long-term care. We will wait for

you to implement till marked. was in the coalition's mid-term

report. Sorting out the financing of long-term care and the issue

that the pension age was too low, given we enjoyed extra years of

life expectancy. It will be harder and more expensive. People are

going to have to work harder and longer. That is good news because

we are living longer. The period of retirement will be as long as ever.

You cannot have the extra years receiving a pension. It is a major

social change. The scale of it, no one has really begun to appreciate.

His Master's Voice has been a fixture on the British High Street

for over 90 years. Last night, the firm went into administration. It

follows the collapse of the photography firm Jessop and it is

the most recent of a long line of retailers that have fallen victim

to the economic downturn. Let's have a reminder of HMV's

illustrious history. This record was made in 1905. I'm going to play

to you a few bars on an instrument Shadow Business Secretary Chuka

Umunna is here with us now, reminiscing about HMV, did you go?

I use Dubai vinyl at HMV, yes, one of the places I used to shock --

shop. It is a sad day. It is one of those issues that has cut through

with everybody, because everybody remembers going to HMB,

particularly at Christmas. It is one in a long list of major

retailers who have gone into administration over the last 12

months. But isn't it a sign of the times that the business itself was

outmoded, that it is not the way we shop? I also used to go to a HMB,

but I have not done recently, and that is what is happening to

businesses will not be able to keep up. -- HMV. No doubt the economic

downturn, and I would argue that the government has precipitated

some of these things happening, but undoubtedly the changing shape of

the market place has had an effect, too. In some senses, we are victims

of our own success, because we have one of the most innovative retail

sectors in the world, the third largest internet market in the

world, and if you are not in the vanguard of these new ways of

selling products, integrating... Are lot of the talk is about multi-

channel ways of operating in retail, integrating what you sell online

with the shop front, and if you are not doing that, you will run into

difficulties. The challenge for us now is to make sure that we have a

sector specific industrial strategy for the retail sector... To save

companies like HMV, when you have just outlined that people are

downloading music, aren't they? When was the last time you went

into HMV? I did actually go into the one on archer Street during the

Christmas period, but I had not been very often. -- Oxford Street.

I did not buy anything, actually. You are right, I am not suggesting

that we would prop up industries which are sticking to old ways of

working, and I do not think retail is, but we have got to look at how

we can help them succeed. For example, we have to make sure that

we quickly speed up the complete transformation of our digital

infrastructure so that we have got high-speed broadband, because

smaller businesses he was seeking to break into new markets, if they

cannot use the technology to do that, we are on to a hiding to

nothing. Secondly, we have got to ensure we have got the skills for

people to develop. That is in addition to ensuring we have a

level playing field in terms of tax. I was going to ask you about that,

the issue of tax has caught the politicians alike, that some big

companies are not paying corporation tax. Has that had

anything to do with the demise of HMV? No. In this particular

instance, HMV not keeping pace with the Times, and by the way we are

talking as if it is dead... Absolutely, they are trying to find

a buyer. We would hope to see as many of the stores bought up as

possible, but I think what it does is it affects the playing field,

doesn't it? For online retailers to pay their fair share, it is

impossible to compete on a level playing field, we know we are

talking about multinational retailers, Amazon, who many people

say are not paying their fair share of tax. Are you sad? I have still

got a few HMV discs, a little wind- up gramophone, I play sentimental

records. Third a down the food chain is the high street. HMV

itself was aged chain, so it was quite an important change in a town.

What matters is the local high street of independent shops, and

the government appointed Mary Portas, and she brought out a

report... They gave out some small amounts of money, she isolated 10

towns that deserved help, including Stockport, my home town. It was a

gesture towards trying to save the high street, which needs more

attention. Two really important things. Retail is our biggest

private-sector employer. It gives a lot of young people their first job,

employing 40% of our working teenagers. You are going to cut the

off, I can talk very long! You have made a good case, thank you.

Yesterday saw a coalition exposed on the floor of the house. The

Lords were debating an amendment which would delay the change in the

number of MPs until after the next election. When the change was

included in the coalition agreement, it is key to the Conservatives'

hopes of winning an overall majority, but after Lords reform

was dropped because of a Tory position, Nick Clegg withdrew his

party's support for the changes. Yesterday Lib Dem peers voted with

Labour to delay implementation of the boundary changes and scupper

David Cameron's plans. Here is a flavour of the debate, with Lord

Hart explaining his reasons for The continuing uncertainty about

boundaries is having a chilling effect on selections, planning and

the distribution of resources. He is also inevitably going to be a

source of concern and distraction for sitting MPs who should

otherwise be focusing on their central role of representing the

people who elect them. Achieving a conclusion and stopping the

boundary review process will also save significant amounts of public

money being wasted on the process which appears to be doomed.

have we got into this mess? Why are we faced with this problem? The

answer is because the Deputy Prime Minister is cross. He is cross that

his Bill, which was not properly thought through, and despite

repeated warnings, it crashed on landing in the other place.

truth is that this is solely because the Deputy Prime Minister

did not get his way on Lords reform. And now he wants to exact a little

retribution. It is nothing less than a great political sulk. My

party has always considered the need to reduce the number of MPs

and the complex issues such as greater devolution and

decentralisation. And the reform of your Lordships House. My Lords, not

all my noble friends behind me will agree on some key aspects of Lords

reform, but we all want to see an effective second chamber, able to

hold the government of any party to account. Everybody who votes for

this amendment is determining that the unfairness that is recognised

and published and generally accepted, that that unfairness will

be maintained, and not wholly maintained, by the way, but is an

elected House will then determine that the voters in those

constituencies that some votes will would be worth more than others,

and the unfairness that existed in the 2010 election, actually, this

House will ensure by voting for this amendment that it is actually

even worse next time. What we are doing if we pass his bill into law

is to set fire to the electoral map of Great Britain, to all the

constituency loyalties and personal loyalties that have been

incorporated within it, and to pledge ourselves to do the same

thing again at every single election for all eternity, and that

is why I hope the amendment will be Miraculously, the Conservative peer

and former cabinet minister Michael Forsyth this year, as is Chris red

knot of the Liberal Democrats. -- is here. After yesterday, how do

you feel about your colleagues in the Lords? Well, not just in the

Lords, I feel they cannot be trusted. We made a deal with them,

I had to vote for the AV referendum, which I was totally opposed to. The

Prime Minister missed the future of the Conservative Party. The deal

with the leader of the Liberal Party was that in return they would

support the changes so that we have a fair voting system in the

constituencies, and now they have grenade done that because the

Deputy Prime Minister failed to produce a bill which the House of

Commons was even prepared to a latter-day off. Where do you think

the coalition stands after this? Well, what does it mean when

liberal ministers go through the lobbies and vote against a

government of which they are members? I assume that if one of

the Liberal ministers had voted to support the government, he would

have been sacked by Nick Clegg, which would have been the first

time in history that a minister would be sacked for supporting his

own government. Is that true? not a fair analogy. No minister

would have been sacked for voting with the government? It is not fair

to suggest that. The Liberal Democrats make clear that we had a

difference on this issue. Coalitions do not end when the two

parties who work together on some things, the economic packages we

have had to put through, and we have avoided the difficulties of

countries like Spain and Greece. We have disagreed on boundaries and

Lords reform. We wanted Lords reform, and if we had that, we

would have at reform of constituency boundaries. If we

could not have one, we will not have the other. But you are not

disagreed with the principal, Nick Clegg is in favour of equalising

boundaries, so you are taking revenge. We do want to see more

equal boundaries, but at the last election it took 33,000 votes to

elect a Labour MP, 35,000 to elect a Conservative MP, and 120,000 to

elect a Lib Dem MP, so why don't we talk about that? We have had the

debate on PR, which you resoundingly lost, and you ended

into an agreement with us which you have now ratted on. I know that

Nick Clegg is cross, but he is now double cross against the Prime

Minister. When a partner cheats on another, that marks the end of the

marriage. Oh, no, you can have negotiation. Perhaps the Liberals

can think again and be as good as their word when the matter goes to

the House of Commons, but it is absolutely unacceptable that we

have been asked by the Prime Minister to vote for fixed-term

parliaments, the AV referendum, a range of stuff which frankly we do

not like, and we have been urged to do this on the basis that it is

essential to get fair voting so that the Conservatives have a fair

chance at the next election. If I can intervene, you put your finger

on it when you said the deal was that they would vote for Lords

reform, but the bill for Lords reform was so poor... That was not

the deal. The deal was that we would deliver AV and they would

vote for their constituencies. then you would bring in Lords

reform. It was the failure to do that... Look at the coalition

agreement. It says we would bring forward... Proposals. We would set

up a committee to bring forward proposals. Nick Clegg was on the

Today programme repeating the same line, he said we had a manifesto

commitment to launch reform. We did not, the commitment was to seek

consensus on Lords reform, which there was not. But it was about a

wholly or mainly elected House, you are talking semantics here, haven't

the Liberal Democrats got a point when they are talking about trust?

On Lords reform, they feel you broker a deal, too. They feel

exactly the same way. The speech was very explicit in 2010 after

there would be a proposal brought forward for an elected House of

Lords using proportional representation, and the reason why

David Cameron sack some people when they voted against reform, he knew

perfectly well that if the Conservative Party could not

deliver Lords reform, the Lib Dems would not deliver boundary reform.

There we have it, he is arguing that it was right that Conservative

PPSs should have voted against a botched law reform, but it is OK

for liberal ministers to vote against the government and still

keep their jobs. Should they be sacked? It is not government policy,

it was the two parties the green... Of policy is where they both agree.

He says that you did have an agreement. We disagreed on

boundaries, and with good reason, because we did not think it right

to reduce the number of MPs and make government more par-four

unless we also reformed the House of Lords and increased the

legitimacy of the House of Lords. - - more powerful. Should the Prime

Minister the sacking Lib Dem ministers? We have always had the

principle of collective responsibility, you stay in

government and support the government. If you do not agree

with what it has done, you resign or get fired. What are we to make

of this? What happened last night in the House of Lords was the sort

to amend a bill which had been agreed by the House of Commons,

which was an act of parliament, to defer the boundary changes. All the

Lib Dems all voted for that legislation, which would have

provided for their voting. Last night we had liberal ministers

going through the lobbies, voting against the government, that is the

end of collective responsibility. await developments. I wait to see

which ministers will resign and which will be sacked. He is this

why, because of relations in the Lords, while Lord Strathclyde

stepped down? He would need to ask him, but it was reported he was fed

up... He reported it himself! not blame him. As a Conservative, I

am expected to go and vote for things that I do not particularly

like because they are part of the coalition agreement. Why does that

not apply to the Liberals and the Liberal Front Bench? It is

outrageous. What do you say to those accusations? This is very

serious from his side, it sounds as if the coalition is pretty well

over. My noble friend here, if I may call and that, as we would if

we were in the House of Lords, he takes the view that coalition is

about doing what the largest party says. It is not simply about doing

that, the coalition is about where you agree, and we try to agree a

comprehensive package on Lords reform, Commons reform. Of the

Conservative members in the Commons could not deliver on Lords reform.

We are not talking about Lords reform. Where do we go from here?

This is over, as far as the boundary review? The Commons will

have to decide. By the way, there is a really important in which has

been lost, and that is these matters, these Boundary Commission

matters should not be a matter of division between parties and

subject to changes in order to gain particular party advantage.

this not party politically motivated? Are you denying that

that would give an advantage potentially to the Conservatives in

the way that you are accusing him? I am not, but when I was Secretary

of State for Scotland, a report destroyed my constituency. It never

occurred to me for a millisecond not to do it, because the

convention is, on boundary matters, he wore his support the Commission.

Here, the Liberals, for their own advantage, are undermining our

I would like to be a fly on the wall at your next meeting. At the

Queen's Coronation 60 years ago, the souvenirs were almost entirely

British made. But, while Elizabeth II has been on the throne, British

manufacturing has been in decline. Many of the great names of British

industry are in foreign hands, or have disappeared altogether. For

more than 20 years, journalist Nick Comfort has been covering that

decline and the political decisions which he believes failed to stop it.

He has written a book on the slow death of British industry. He will

join us in the studio in a moment. First, here's his take on that

story. Let us visit one of the British Motor Corporation's huge

machine shops and see the kind of equipment that is being used for

the production of engine parts. Britain share was around a quarter.

There was talk of a new Elizabethan age of British economic and

technological achievement. Britain was about to launch the first jet

airliner. By now open Calder Hall, Britain's first atomic power

station. She was on the verge of being first -- the first. Her

factories are working flat out producing or materials demanding a

society on the verge of prosperity after rationing and the war. One

third of the population was employed in manufacturing.

Unemployment was negligible. 60 years on, the picture is

unrecognisable. Most industries have disappeared. Those of our

competitors have flourished. British household names for thrive

under foreign ownership. We have lost most of our export markets.

Many kids had to be imported. Manufacturing now only accounts for

12% of the national income and employs fewer than 3 million

workers. Nicholas Comfort is here now. We're also joined by Philip

Booth, an economist and former adviser to the Bank of England, who

is now at the Institute for Economic Affairs. What happened to

British manufacturing? The after the war, you had bad decisions on

investment and over-powerful unions. He had strikes which led to

headquarters of Ford and Vauxhall living to Germany. You had a

situation where investment banks are at encouraging firms to believe

all they need to do is be fattened up and sold to foreign companies.

Has this been a natural and necessary decline in some parts of

manufacturing to make us more competitive or should we try to

rebuild it? There has been a natural decline in many respects.

The proportion of natural -- national income is not very

different from France or the United States. What about during BAT's

question marks at the same time, what has happened -- what about

during the 1980s? In the 1980s, manufacturing did decline. Now we

export about �50 billion worth of financial and legal services. With

that we import manufactured goods. That is what trading economies do.

They're not all the same. Haven't we just adapted? Does it matter if

it is 12% or 10%? A lot of that 12% is owned by foreign companies and a

lot of our major plants are just one decision not to invest away

from being moved somewhere else. You have a situation where Jaguar

landowner is owned by an Indian company. It will start producing in

China. How long will it produce in Britain? 70% of the owning --

earnings of the FTSE 100 companies, come from abroad. If companies want

to accumulate assets, we have a low level of saving. That is a problem

but a different problem from that of the decline in manufacturing.

You are saying this is the generation in which you grew up.

had a great empire and the great industrial base. After the war, a

lot of that was destroyed. All of the other countries got better at

doing things than we did. Cotton was manufactured in India and

stared at Lancashire. There was inevitable decline in our base.

Two-thirds of our economy is service industry. That is a

tremendously high risk balance in fact. Do you think that is what we

do best? A lot of that is not essential in the basic need of the

country's survival. It is wonderful that we have marvellous

hairdressing and restaurants and tourism. It is not the bedrock of

the existence of an economy. You have to make something people want

that is nuts and bolts. We are not doing enough of that. You can make

services in trade - as Reckitt and trade. It is not a risk to have a

higher level. -- services and trade. They had a lot of financial and

banking services and legal services. Banking services is a small aspect

was up look how Honourable shipbuilding was! -- a small aspect.

The should we be picking sectors that we back as the Government?

Governments have had a bad record. Government set-up British Leyland

and backed the aircraft industry after the war to the exclusion of

everything else. It needs industry to have ownership in this country

of critical mass. It also needs the banks to do what they do for the

German firms. That is lend them money of back them to do what they

do well and go on doing it, not just backing them up for sale.

You're talking about let them do what they do and doing it well. Can

they do it before to the? Is a cost-effective? There is no reason

why it should not be. -- we afford to do that. ICI gave up the post --

the ghost. British Leyland imploded. We do not have the new companies

coming up. There are industries that are doing well. The luxury end

of manufacturing does pretty well. Should and would be backing that

more to help it grow the economy? - - should we not? A horizontal

policy provides the best condition for all businesses to thrive. Not

high in manufacturing or particular service industries and back those.

We should have a government policy of low regulation and taxes which

allows all businesses to thrive and as the economy to specialise and

trade in the way that is appropriate. The bedrock of that

his training - training in the IT skills in which we show some skill.

Also medical research and things that will be needed to support an

ageing population. We're good at medicine research and that is where

it should be funded. His opponents used to joke that he never have

left the bunker. For some, that joke has continued 2.5 years after

he left Downing Street but not the House of Commons. But, today,

Gordon Brown makes a rare appearance as a backbench MP in a

debate on the future of two factories in Fife. The former Prime

Minister has spoken just three times so far since losing the

election - most memorably during a debate calling for the withdrawal

of News Corporation's bid to take over broadcaster BSkyB. I rise in

this debate, not to speak about myself, but to speak for those who

cannot defend themselves. For the grieving families about brave war

dead, courageous survivors of 7/7 come out for the outraged victims

of crime and most recently and perhaps most of all victims of the

violation of the rights of a missing and murdered child. Many

holy innocent men, women and children who, at their darkest hour

- at the most vulnerable moment in allies - with no love and know

where to turn, found they are properly private lives, private

losses, private solaced treated as property of News International -

their private most innermost feelings and private is bought and

sold by News International for commercial gain. So, what do you do

as a former Prime Minister? Once that famous door closes behind you

for the last time, how do create a new role for yourself? Joining me

now to deliver his words of wisdom is Quentin Letts, sketch writer at

the Daily Mail. It is difficult, isn't it? You have led the nation

and held the role as Prime Minister and then what? You go back into

Parliament and devote herself to public service. There is a

possibility that prime ministers are there for their greater own

personal glory. Look at history! James Callaghan did eight years in

the House of Commons after leaving Number 10. Good for him! Mrs

Thatcher did come in. She looked like a shock victim but she sat on

the bench just below the gangway. Tony Blair could not be fact so

he's scuppered as soon as possible. John Major made some powerful

speeches from the backbenches. Where has Gordon Brown been? He has

stayed. What do you do it as a former Prime Minister when the new

leader is standing there. You do not want to undermine them. We do

not want to intimidate them in the sense that you have done the job

before. Is it better to stay and be seen but not heard? You could

support the new leader. He turns up today, for the first time in... It

is the first time since 20th November 11. He has been scooting

around the world, making speeches. -- since November, 2011. Do you

think it is justifiable? It is tough. If you have held a position

of high international importance and domestic significance and then

it is just wiped out. I think the internal crisis of such a fall from

grace must be catastrophic. If you lost your column, what would you

do? I'm giving one of them up. That is more incumbent on a Prime

Minister to showed that his or her power arose not from personal

brilliance but from the House of Commons. That is where you gain

your power. Edward Heath was not exactly helpful, was he? He still

applied himself. He was very grumpy as well. He earned his chips.

Somehow he respected the body that had given him his power. Winston

Churchill stayed in has a Commons until 1964. The do think Gordon

Brown should have said more since he lost the job as Prime Minister?

-- do you think? You have to accept there is a personal crisis for each

individual and they will find individual solutions. It maybe he

is coming back in a timely way to make comments. If the country is

going to war, if we have a big international crisis, a Prime

Minister brings unparalleled experience to that. We have heard

from Alistair Darling as a former Chancellor. Do they have things to

say that are helpful? I happen to think his finite analysis of the

economic situation was correct. does turn up. He does. You say that

Tony Blair stepped down immediately pulled up is that more dignified?

There is a separate matter. It's useful for the country to know what

is going on with personal money. If they are in Parliament, they have

to declare income. With Tony Blair, we do not get that. That is a pity.

Can I cite the example of ex- president Carter? He has fulfilled

many important jobs since being President. People say he is a much

more successful ex-president man he was as President. I am afraid we

have to end it there. I hope Gordon Brown was listening. Thank you to