:00:41. > :00:45.Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. It is full steam
:00:46. > :00:49.ahead for the next phase of High Speed 2. David Cameron has taken
:00:49. > :00:54.his Cabinet to Leeds this morning to announce details for the next
:00:55. > :00:58.stage of the project. But are the economic benefits worth the money?
:00:58. > :01:03.Can a new government scheme cut energy bills and improve your home?
:01:03. > :01:08.We speak to the energy minister. Should the goalposts be moved to
:01:08. > :01:16.help women get jobs in the boardroom? And it is this man the
:01:16. > :01:22.next Conservative party leader? -- and is this man? All that coming up.
:01:22. > :01:30.And with us today is the lawyer, businesswoman, broadcaster and
:01:30. > :01:35.football association board member... Let's start with the economy. After
:01:35. > :01:39.last week's news that the economy shrunk by 0.3% in the last three
:01:39. > :01:45.months of 2012, George Osborne hit the Breakfast sofa this morning. He
:01:45. > :01:50.was talking up the benefits of the HS2 rail extension, but he also had
:01:50. > :01:54.this to say about the economy. are absolutely determined to tackle
:01:54. > :01:58.the long-term problems that this country faces. Building high-speed
:01:58. > :02:04.rail, investing in jobs, investing in the north of the country, is
:02:04. > :02:09.part of that engine for growth. no let-up in the cuts and the
:02:09. > :02:15.austerity? No let-up in fixing Britain's problems. Growth is flat,
:02:15. > :02:19.talk of a triple dip recession, inflation is rising - do you think
:02:19. > :02:25.the pace of cuts has choked off demand, as Labour claims? I think
:02:25. > :02:30.it is a very difficult balance to strike. What is interesting about
:02:30. > :02:34.BHS to announcement today is that it is a real emphasis on investment
:02:34. > :02:39.to generate growth. Particularly, the regeneration of those parts of
:02:39. > :02:43.the country, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, which we know are
:02:43. > :02:49.experiencing challenging times. So I think that level of investment in
:02:49. > :02:53.infrastructure is important. But I also think that in the area of
:02:53. > :02:57.small businesses, we are an entrepreneurial culture. I work in
:02:57. > :03:01.the creative sector, in media. We see a lot of really interesting
:03:01. > :03:06.small companies, and if they can get access to finance... This is
:03:06. > :03:11.about not getting credit again? Party, and partly about the culture,
:03:11. > :03:15.risk-taking, but it is risks not based on where we were before, on
:03:15. > :03:18.some really complicated innovative, it is risk based on backing people
:03:18. > :03:26.and producing things. We need to get back to making stuff, which is
:03:26. > :03:29.what we used to do. Do you have confidence in John Osborne's plans?
:03:29. > :03:33.-- in George Osborne's plans? the moment we are waiting to feel
:03:33. > :03:37.that growth come back into the economy. To that extent, the jury
:03:37. > :03:42.is still out. But I think it is fair to say, there is no silver
:03:42. > :03:46.bullet, no magic solution. We have become the guinea pigs, everybody
:03:46. > :03:51.is looking at what we are doing. We have done massive amounts in terms
:03:51. > :03:55.of quantitative easing... That has kept interest rates down. Yes, and
:03:55. > :03:59.we have had announcements by the forthcoming new governor of the
:03:59. > :04:03.Bank of England, which might start to make changes. It has been
:04:03. > :04:09.terrible for savings, of course. But at the moment, we would so the
:04:09. > :04:15.jury is out. You were chief executive of Lambeth council in the
:04:15. > :04:20.mid-1990s. Let's take you back there - is it fair for some
:04:20. > :04:24.councils to be booking up council taxes in these difficult times?
:04:24. > :04:31.pink for local authorities who are trying to maintain services,
:04:31. > :04:36.whether that could be elderly, care, maintaining streets, supporting
:04:36. > :04:40.their own regeneration, they have to find ways of bringing tax
:04:40. > :04:43.revenues into their local authorities. What they need to
:04:43. > :04:47.demonstrate is that they are investing effectively, if those
:04:48. > :04:52.council tax rises are to be justified. The Prime Minister has
:04:52. > :04:54.described it as an engine for growth, and this afternoon, the
:04:54. > :04:58.Transport Secretary will stand up in the House of Commons to unveil
:04:58. > :05:01.the second phase of the Government's plan to drive a new
:05:01. > :05:05.high-speed rail line through the north of England, and eventually to
:05:05. > :05:09.Scotland. The Government has already announced the first phase,
:05:09. > :05:13.connecting London to Birmingham, a route not without controversy,
:05:13. > :05:19.especially where it passes through the Chilterns. Today, ministers
:05:19. > :05:23.will outline the second phase, taking it on to Sheffield and Leeds
:05:23. > :05:26.in the east, and on towards Manchester in the north-west.
:05:26. > :05:33.Journey times from London to Manchester will be reduced by an
:05:33. > :05:40.hour to 68 minutes. Journey times from Leeds to London will be
:05:40. > :05:46.reduced to 82 minutes, from more than two hours. It will cost more
:05:46. > :05:50.than �33 billion. It will be opened by 2033. We asked to speak to a
:05:50. > :05:58.Transport Minister, but no-one was available. But I am joined now bike
:05:58. > :06:04.a Conservative Impey, and by Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary,
:06:04. > :06:10.Maria Eagle. Can we afford this? Yes, it is a very considerable
:06:10. > :06:13.period of time. It increases the connectivity of the system. There
:06:13. > :06:19.will also be benefits for the north of the country. It is something we
:06:19. > :06:23.cannot afford not to do. The West Coast Main Line will be full. We
:06:23. > :06:30.cannot keep upgrading. We need new railway lines, and this is a good
:06:30. > :06:34.way to start. We cannot afford not to do this? Constituencies like
:06:34. > :06:38.mine will be taking all of the pain and getting no gain. We will have
:06:38. > :06:42.no station in my constituency, and in fact, we will have the pleasure
:06:42. > :06:47.of driving half-an-hour north to get to London half an hour faster.
:06:47. > :06:52.So, there is nothing in it for us. Added to that, the roots go through
:06:52. > :07:00.a site for private sector investment, which would create up
:07:00. > :07:05.to 7,000 new jobs. It has thrown those plans into mayhem. You have
:07:05. > :07:09.obviously got to defend your constituents, but are you against
:07:09. > :07:12.the project in principle? Do you accept the idea that this is about
:07:12. > :07:17.investing for growth, that capacity limitations will mean that these
:07:17. > :07:21.roots are needed, and that it will be better join up the north and
:07:21. > :07:25.south? I can agree that we need to do that, but I think the route has
:07:25. > :07:29.been so poorly thought-out. I have spoken to East Midlands Airport,
:07:29. > :07:32.where it is that there is going to be a tunnel underneath the airport.
:07:32. > :07:36.That is an employment hub of 10,000 private sector job, and they have
:07:36. > :07:41.not even been consulted. It smacks of incompetence. And you have got
:07:41. > :07:45.the same civil service who delivered as the bomba DA fiasco
:07:45. > :07:55.and Wayne -- and the West Coast Main Line franchise disaster, so I
:07:55. > :08:01.
:08:01. > :08:04.think this is totally badly thought out. -- the Bombardier fiasco.
:08:04. > :08:07.There is a consultation which is about to start, to look carefully
:08:07. > :08:10.at these issues, and I am particularly concerned about the
:08:10. > :08:15.location of some of the stations that will be needing. And also, the
:08:15. > :08:18.fact that they appear to have abandoned the spur to Heathrow. I
:08:18. > :08:22.think connectivity to the main hub airport would actually be one of
:08:22. > :08:25.the most important things, so I am a bit concerned about that. So if
:08:25. > :08:28.you want to get into office, you want to redraw the route, and
:08:28. > :08:33.change it quite substantially, connect it to Heathrow, I mean,
:08:33. > :08:37.that will mean even more delay. Well, we have to see how far we get.
:08:37. > :08:40.There will be a bill published later this year, and once that has
:08:40. > :08:44.gone through Parliament, that will fix the route. We want to be
:08:44. > :08:47.constructive, we want to see this done, but that is not to say we
:08:47. > :08:55.will not be raising concerns as we look in more detail at the
:08:55. > :08:58.proposals. Listening to Andrew talking about, questioning, the
:08:58. > :09:08.economic benefits - are you sure that there will be that kind of
:09:08. > :09:09.
:09:09. > :09:12.engine for growth? I think I can only speak for my experience, in
:09:12. > :09:17.relation to CrossRail, going across London, and we have already
:09:17. > :09:22.generated around 7,000 jobs, tens of thousands of jobs in the supply
:09:22. > :09:25.chain. In terms of regenerating parts of London, and indeed East
:09:25. > :09:30.Kent, we are at the beginning of that journey, but certainly,
:09:30. > :09:35.everything is telling us that you - - if you can create those catalysts,
:09:36. > :09:39.you can begin to influence the economy is around those hubs. I
:09:39. > :09:45.think the critical point about a just to is about the North-South
:09:45. > :09:50.question. As Andrew said, the real challenge is to make sure that we
:09:50. > :09:54.get the Connection's right. All the benefits can be lost if you end up
:09:54. > :09:58.having to travel for half an hour to get to a mainline station, which
:09:58. > :10:01.is where you have just come from. So, the question about where the
:10:02. > :10:07.questions will be, and this really connect with CrossRail and Heathrow
:10:07. > :10:12.as well. That's what really needs to be hammered out. What are you
:10:12. > :10:16.going to do about that, we'll be fighting very hard to try to get
:10:16. > :10:20.stations changed, is there any chance of that happening? I will be
:10:20. > :10:24.fighting hard to get the route change, quite honestly. It should
:10:24. > :10:28.have gone closer to Derby, Derby tell wanted that station, and they
:10:28. > :10:33.have got the infrastructure for it. Have you got a campaign together
:10:33. > :10:36.for this? I think it will gather support quite rapidly. There will
:10:36. > :10:39.be various campaigns opposing either of the spurs. That is how
:10:39. > :10:43.things will pan out in parliament. I would like to hear what Patrick
:10:43. > :10:45.McLoughlin has got to say this afternoon. I was particularly
:10:45. > :10:49.annoyed when he said that some people would be a little upset over
:10:49. > :10:52.the route, when it is announced - that is the kind of comment which
:10:52. > :10:55.you can only make when you are the MP of a constituency which will be
:10:55. > :11:01.completely unaffected couple have you got any chance of achieving
:11:01. > :11:06.anything? At the end of the day, it is not starting until 2026, until
:11:06. > :11:10.the London to Birmingham route is completed, which is three general
:11:11. > :11:20.elections away. However, the fear about the plight and the anxiety
:11:21. > :11:22.
:11:22. > :11:28.will start today. Will you vote against the legislation? A believe
:11:28. > :11:33.I will, yes. One of our viewers has tweeted us, if this is so good for
:11:33. > :11:36.jobs, how come Spain has the highest unemployment in the EU?
:11:36. > :11:40.There are many factors involved in that. But the important point for
:11:40. > :11:45.us is that our railway system is creaking. Passenger numbers are
:11:46. > :11:50.going up and up, lost an system is full. We do need new railway lines.
:11:50. > :11:54.I think we ought to be getting on with this faster. When could
:11:54. > :11:59.restart, feasibly? Well, you do have to put the legislation through,
:11:59. > :12:03.to get the planning consent. But the current government are planning
:12:03. > :12:10.two bills, for both phases, but I think we should have one bill. You
:12:11. > :12:13.could then start building from the north as well as from the south. I
:12:13. > :12:17.think our great northern cities need assurances about this.
:12:17. > :12:22.mentioned that you have worked with CrossRail, and if anything has
:12:22. > :12:27.taken for ever to actually get started, it was CrossRail. Yes, it
:12:27. > :12:31.took something like 20-odd years. And they do think that is the
:12:31. > :12:35.challenge, that on one level, we want to make sure that there is
:12:35. > :12:41.effective consultation, and on another level, we have to, I think,
:12:41. > :12:44.get these turntables down. The reason we need the investment is
:12:44. > :12:54.for all of those reasons we have spoken about today. In 20 years'
:12:54. > :12:54.
:12:54. > :12:58.time, who knows what will have happened? So, I think, as has been
:12:58. > :13:03.said, if we could have one built, that at least would begin to bring
:13:03. > :13:07.down that timetable. It is a bit embarrassing, in a country that
:13:07. > :13:12.invented the railways, we still have journey times similar to the
:13:12. > :13:15.Victorians, when the rest of Europe have bullet trains... We have
:13:15. > :13:17.announced investment in the electrification of the East
:13:18. > :13:24.Midlands Main Line, which is starting next year. Actually I have
:13:24. > :13:28.not got a passenger railway station in my constituency. We have asked
:13:28. > :13:32.the Government to reopen the Ivanhoe Line, to connect up to
:13:32. > :13:37.Leicester, but I was told there was no money left. And yet there is �32
:13:37. > :13:40.billion to spend on a just to. Thank you very much all of you. Now,
:13:40. > :13:44.one of the finest Westminster traditions came up in the Sunday
:13:44. > :13:47.papers yesterday, a backbench plot against the Prime Minister.
:13:47. > :13:50.According to some reports, a group of Conservative backbenchers have
:13:50. > :13:53.been discussing propelling one of their number to the party
:13:53. > :13:58.leadership if the Conservatives failed to get a majority at the
:13:58. > :14:03.next election. So, who is the Knight in shining armour? It is the
:14:03. > :14:06.MP for Windsor, not a household name, yet. After he saw the
:14:06. > :14:11.newspapers yesterday, he was quick to deny any involvement in a plot.
:14:11. > :14:17.Were you surprised to read the newspapers this morning? I choked
:14:17. > :14:22.on my cereal, as did the rest of the family. Let me say, I will
:14:23. > :14:26.never stand against David Cameron. I a 100% supportive of him. I am
:14:26. > :14:30.working with many colleagues to make sure that they give the
:14:30. > :14:38.Conservatives -- the Conservatives the best chance of winning of a
:14:38. > :14:43.general election and European elections. Well, Tim Montgomerie
:14:43. > :14:47.joins us now - did you choke on your cereal? Well, it was certainly
:14:47. > :14:51.a bit of a surprise, in a week when things have gone so well for us. We
:14:51. > :14:55.have had one of our best weeks in a long time. For these rumours to
:14:55. > :15:02.appear at this time about David Cameron's leadership, it is
:15:02. > :15:06.complete nonsense. But it is not the first time, is it? There has
:15:06. > :15:10.been speculation about David Cameron's leadership, as there is
:15:10. > :15:17.in every Parliament, about every leader and Prime Minister. But it
:15:17. > :15:20.was not a total shock, was it? think last summer, David Cameron's
:15:20. > :15:24.leadership was going in the wrong direction. The boundary review had
:15:24. > :15:28.collapsed, there was all of the media about the Olympics, the
:15:28. > :15:33.coalition was in a fraught state of mind. Since then, we had a very
:15:33. > :15:38.effective speech from David Cameron at the party conference, jutting
:15:38. > :15:42.out his policies. You have had a reshuffle, seeing people like Chris
:15:42. > :15:52.Grayling coming on board, a more balanced team. Because of fears of
:15:52. > :15:58.
:15:58. > :16:00.They knew something was going wrong. Linton Cosby is the campaign
:16:00. > :16:06.manager. David Cameron has solidified his leadership in the
:16:06. > :16:10.last six months. There will always be 40 or 50 irreconcilable MPs who
:16:10. > :16:15.don't like him. But things are going better for him than for some
:16:16. > :16:20.time. That's a rump isn't it. 40 or 50 monies who can never be reck
:16:20. > :16:25.sield is still a danger, particularly on issues like Europe,
:16:25. > :16:30.and there are some in your party who won't be happy unless Britain
:16:30. > :16:34.pulls out of the EU. There are those who don't like the coalition.
:16:34. > :16:41.They fear that the Tories may not get a majority at next election. So
:16:41. > :16:46.you could say they are thinking ahead. I think there are probably
:16:46. > :16:50.nearly every Conservative and Labour MP thinks in the back of
:16:50. > :16:56.their mind - perhaps I could be leader. There are quite a few who
:16:56. > :17:01.talk to friends About whether they would support them in the case of a
:17:01. > :17:05.vacancy. There is no vacancy. Talk of changing the leadership stkracts
:17:05. > :17:10.us from what we need to do. We're united on the European issue. We
:17:10. > :17:16.need to focus on the bread and butter issues of tax and the Health
:17:16. > :17:24.Service and crime to ensure we can win a majority. You've seen plenty
:17:24. > :17:30.of Prime Ministers and parliaments going by, what was your reaction
:17:30. > :17:34.sno --? I too were shocked. Some of our colleagues in the media were
:17:34. > :17:39.tired writing about Europe and the Obama effect. On one level, how
:17:39. > :17:43.fantastic that we could have a black MP at least put out there as
:17:43. > :17:46.potential leadership candidate. That shows how we've moved in
:17:46. > :17:50.politics. That's something to be celebrated. I suspect that some of
:17:50. > :17:54.the people who are no longer in Cabinet might be feeling
:17:54. > :17:58.disgruntled. It's halfway through a term. We often get these
:17:58. > :18:03.conversations around leadership. I would suspect that, at the moment,
:18:03. > :18:06.Cameron is pretty well secure. The Europe speech, particularly,
:18:06. > :18:12.consolidated his position within those parts of the party. The last
:18:12. > :18:16.four or five opinion polls we've seen Labour's lead fall below 10%.
:18:16. > :18:22.At this stage of the Parliament that's a very poor showing. One of
:18:22. > :18:26.them still put them 13 points ahead. Five of them were below 10%. If
:18:26. > :18:29.there are questions about any leader it should be directed to the
:18:29. > :18:36.red corner. Does David Cameron feel secure? I think he must do at the
:18:36. > :18:41.moment. Do you hear that?, No I have no reason to hear that. He
:18:41. > :18:44.does feel secure. There are issues, gay marriage is one of those things.
:18:44. > :18:48.Is there are -- he needs to work better at party management. A lot
:18:48. > :18:55.of people don't feel loved, that their views are heard in the party.
:18:55. > :19:03.He cannot afford to be complacent. But he is scier. This is the issue.
:19:03. > :19:08.-- He is secure. This is the issue. Is this why a backbencher name has
:19:08. > :19:14.been put forward. He had to deny it, Adam Afriyie, do you think that is
:19:14. > :19:19.a worry that there are quite a few backbench MPs who feel they should
:19:19. > :19:24.have been ministers, who feel there is a disconnect between Cabinet and
:19:24. > :19:28.ministers and the Parliamentary party? Cameron has two coalitions.
:19:28. > :19:32.He has a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, which we talk a lot
:19:32. > :19:38.about. But he also has a coalition with his own party. The party is a
:19:38. > :19:43.broad beast. It has - Sure, but has he lost that connection? He still
:19:43. > :19:47.needs to work a lot harder, not just to keep Nick Clegg happy but
:19:47. > :19:51.to keep backbenchers happy. This is the generation who cut their
:19:51. > :19:54.political teeth under Margaret Thatcher. This is have Thatcherite
:19:54. > :19:57.views. Giving them hope that this isn't the best it's going to be,
:19:57. > :20:01.that at the next election, there will be more of a traditional
:20:01. > :20:05.message, that's what he has to achieve. Thank you very much.
:20:05. > :20:10.Smashing through the glass ceiling, it's what women who get to the top
:20:10. > :20:15.in male TV dominated professions are described as having done. What
:20:15. > :20:25.do women need to do to compete in a man's world. Susana Mendonsa has
:20:25. > :20:27.
:20:27. > :20:32.Football and politics, they're both male-dominated areas where women
:20:32. > :20:36.try to level the playing field. This woman has done a bit of both.
:20:36. > :20:40.She used to play football and now combines working at this youth club
:20:40. > :20:44.in Tower Hamlets with being a Labour politician in Essex. She
:20:44. > :20:48.says to succeed in a man's world, women need confidence. There have
:20:48. > :20:51.been so many times over the last 20 years, and I've been on the pitch,
:20:51. > :20:55.all men, or even a football tournament and it's all men. I have
:20:55. > :20:59.to believe that I have enough ability to play in that tournament.
:20:59. > :21:04.Does that make sense? In some ways that seems like a small thing and
:21:04. > :21:07.you take it into politics and you walk into Westminster, fairly male-
:21:07. > :21:11.dominated and you have to believe you have a contribution to bring.
:21:11. > :21:17.While the number of women in football and politics is growing
:21:17. > :21:25.there are still 13 men for every woman taking part in football. In
:21:25. > :21:28.politics, around one in five MPs is a woman. Last year, just 15% of
:21:28. > :21:33.board directors on the FTSE 100 companies were women. Compared with
:21:33. > :21:36.12.5% in 2010. So the number of women getting to the top of
:21:36. > :21:39.financial firms has increased but it's not happening quickly enough
:21:39. > :21:45.according to this former market analyst, who's worked for the
:21:45. > :21:49.lights of BGC and Goldman Sachs. There has been very, very little
:21:49. > :21:53.improvement. Women are still massively under represented. I
:21:53. > :21:56.think we have gots to the stage now where quotas are necessary, where
:21:56. > :22:01.that force has to happen. In ten years, when we have lots of women
:22:01. > :22:06.running the world, we don't need quotas any more. The Prime Minister
:22:06. > :22:11.has made clear he would prefer to avoid quotas and he's been
:22:12. > :22:17.resisting calls from Brussels for a 40% female quota. There are women
:22:17. > :22:22.who'd agree with the know-quota approach. When you're talking about
:22:22. > :22:28.quotas, positive discrimination, what you're really talking about is
:22:28. > :22:33.tokenism. That dints women's self- confidence. It stokes male
:22:33. > :22:38.resentment. It creates a culture where suspicion is the norm. That
:22:38. > :22:43.is bad for everybody concerned. this Labour Parliamentary candidate,
:22:43. > :22:47.who was selected on an all-women short list in Harlow say quotas are
:22:47. > :22:51.needed. If you want to address any kind of imbalance, you have to do
:22:51. > :22:55.it in a purposeful way. You can't just give it good words and dream
:22:55. > :22:58.about it and one day think, a few years down-the-line, it will change.
:22:58. > :23:02.That's not how change happens. Things have been changing. Women
:23:02. > :23:08.have been rising through the ranks. So do they need a leg up to speed
:23:08. > :23:11.up the process or should they just be playing men at their own game
:23:12. > :23:16.I'm joined now by Mike Buchanan from the Campaign for Merit in
:23:16. > :23:20.Business. Before I come to you, can I ask you first, Heather Rabbatts,
:23:20. > :23:25.what's it like being the only female director at FA? Well, I
:23:25. > :23:30.think it's interesting. I am also the only female director on some of
:23:30. > :23:34.the other boards I sit on. We all know that football has a particular
:23:34. > :23:38.representation in terms of whether it has the most modern outlook to
:23:38. > :23:44.women, but the fact that I am on the board of the FA is a sign that
:23:44. > :23:48.times are changing. Do you think they are? Is it tough? How are you
:23:48. > :23:51.treated? It's always a mix. There are people who are incredibly
:23:51. > :23:56.welcoming. Others are somewhat suspicious. I think that's true of
:23:56. > :24:01.most boardroom that's women go into whether they are in football or a
:24:01. > :24:06.top 100plc. There's always a challenge. I think women invariably
:24:06. > :24:10.have to work often twice as hard to find that way of being accepted,
:24:10. > :24:14.because they don't go in with being given the benefit of the doubt. I
:24:14. > :24:19.think actually to have quotas to wake it worse. You would have a
:24:19. > :24:25.sticker on your head saying "I'm only here because I'm part of the
:24:25. > :24:29.quota." How do you change? By some of the work that's being done,
:24:29. > :24:33.constant exultation, about putting companies on notice, about chairman
:24:33. > :24:38.being asked serious questions at their shareholders about why there
:24:38. > :24:42.are no women on their boards. As we were talking earlier, at times,
:24:42. > :24:46.maybe the threat of quotas, the threat of change might get
:24:46. > :24:54.everybody to focus about what they need to do. Do you agree we need
:24:54. > :24:57.more women on boards? No, I don't. Why? We have five studies which
:24:57. > :25:01.show that when you increase the number on women on boards,
:25:01. > :25:06.financial performance declines. There is not one single study
:25:06. > :25:12.worldwide which shows... What about women matter 2010, a report by
:25:12. > :25:17.management consultants that suggest that companies with gender balance
:25:17. > :25:20.boardrooms are 56% more profitable? We keep hearing this, if you look
:25:20. > :25:23.at the reports you'll find that they report in correlation.
:25:23. > :25:27.have they done these reports when there rnts that many boards with
:25:27. > :25:32.women on them? There's plenty of them. In Norway there was a huge
:25:32. > :25:36.expansion of the number of women on corporate boards. The results were
:25:36. > :25:41.corporate decline. The reason that men dominate the boardroom, the
:25:41. > :25:48.reasons are well understood. The most important single reason is,
:25:48. > :25:52.was something that was explained by a renowned sociologist in 2000. Her
:25:52. > :25:59.research showed that while four in seven men are work centred, only
:25:59. > :26:03.one in seven women are. You would expect an 80/20 split on boards on
:26:03. > :26:07.that alone. I'm not aware of some of the surveys that have just been
:26:07. > :26:13.mentioned. I always find it quite interesting where we look at board
:26:13. > :26:18.effectiveness and we were talking about the economy and why we've got
:26:18. > :26:22.into some of the mess, many people would say it was about how banks
:26:22. > :26:26.are governed. We look at process with failing companies. We look at
:26:26. > :26:30.lack of regulation. We don't necessarily look at the fact that
:26:30. > :26:34.they were fundamentally male boards. I don't know about that survey. I'm
:26:34. > :26:40.sceptical about it. What about women not being work centred
:26:40. > :26:44.enough? I think that as you look at the indices, women are
:26:44. > :26:47.participating more in the economy, they're working longer, certainly
:26:47. > :26:52.women might not be work centred through certain times of their
:26:52. > :26:56.career, when they're having young families, but when I talk to women
:26:56. > :27:00.across all sectors one of the things they constantly come back to
:27:00. > :27:06.is A, they want to come back to work, most need to stay in work. So
:27:06. > :27:11.I think all of those indices are changing. Also it's about age and
:27:11. > :27:14.stage. Most non-execs are in their 50s and 0s when they have had
:27:14. > :27:19.experience. Having experience and wisdom is important. You'll find
:27:19. > :27:23.that many women are wanting to be back in the labour market during
:27:23. > :27:28.those years. What about, there are two points there. You could say
:27:28. > :27:32.maybe a bit crudely that it was men that broke it, the banking system,
:27:32. > :27:38.that those boards were male- dominated and that they took too
:27:38. > :27:42.many risks and a mix, having women perhaps as a generality are more
:27:42. > :27:48.risk averse, add a different dimension would be healthy and
:27:48. > :27:54.profitable. It's a theory, but it's a self-serving theory. But it was
:27:54. > :27:57.borne out. It's a bit like your surveys, self-serving to your
:27:57. > :28:04.perspective to argue that women can't get on board, I don't know
:28:04. > :28:14.what experience they need to have - There are no surveys that say
:28:14. > :28:17.performance improves. There's a Deutsche bank where they
:28:17. > :28:22.voluntarily put more women on the boards. The result was more risky
:28:22. > :28:27.behaviour. We can argue about surveys one way or the other, but
:28:27. > :28:30.don't you feel it's right more women should be on boards? 50% of
:28:30. > :28:35.the population are female, why shouldn't there be more women if
:28:35. > :28:38.they want to have a role on boards, why shouldn't they be there?
:28:38. > :28:43.don't think any men feel that just because they want to be on a board
:28:43. > :28:48.there's some sort of efpb titlement. Some would argue they do. Veryify l
:28:48. > :28:52.few. We come back to the point that the number of qualified men for
:28:52. > :28:59.mangor corporate boards hugely outnumbers the number of qualified
:28:59. > :29:02.women. The last 45 or 25 FTSE 100 have been non-executives.
:29:02. > :29:06.reason that boards have stayed male is because they want similar people
:29:06. > :29:13.to themselves on the boards. Again the reason they do that is that the
:29:13. > :29:16.pool of men is hugely deeper than the pool of women. What do you say
:29:16. > :29:21.Tha'it, that point doesn't stand up? I think there's been all sorts
:29:21. > :29:26.of research that says in of the past -- in the past that people
:29:26. > :29:29.tend to recruit in their own image. When we look at issues of
:29:29. > :29:32.discrimination, those points have been made. What I would like to
:29:32. > :29:36.stress is that there's 50% of the population are women. There are
:29:36. > :29:41.huge numbers of talented women out there. I think increasingly boards
:29:41. > :29:45.are wanting to have people with diverse voices and diverse
:29:45. > :29:48.experiences. Having people who've just come up through one particular
:29:48. > :29:54.part of the industry to then become a non-exec doesn't necessarily give
:29:54. > :29:57.you the breadth of outlook you want to have. If you start to look at
:29:57. > :30:01.the criteria about effective non- execs and think about what the
:30:01. > :30:06.talent pool you want to look at, you will start to find more women
:30:06. > :30:12.coming onto boards. We always have 50% of the population is women, why
:30:12. > :30:16.aren't 50% of the directors women? No-one's arguing for 50%. But it's
:30:16. > :30:19.just 15%. I don't see anyone xam paining for 50% of lorry drivers to
:30:19. > :30:25.be women. What do you say to that? If women want to be lorry drivers,
:30:25. > :30:27.they will apply and no doubt, they will be put up with some of the
:30:27. > :30:33.challenges of getting into lorry driving. What we're talking about
:30:33. > :30:37.here is power. Actually, most people give up power with great
:30:37. > :30:42.difficulty. This is about ensuring that power, whether it's around
:30:42. > :30:46.effective decision making ash our companies, has the best talent. My
:30:46. > :30:50.belief is that when I meet many women they say we would really like
:30:50. > :30:55.to become a non-exec. We don't have the confidence, we don't know how
:30:55. > :30:59.to do. It I don't find the same comments that I get from some of my
:30:59. > :31:09.male colleagues. Who do feel, the next thing is becoming a non-exec.
:31:09. > :31:14.
:31:14. > :31:18.We need to support women to find The next crunch day for the
:31:18. > :31:23.coalition comes on Tuesday, when MPs will vote on delaying boundary
:31:23. > :31:30.changes until 2018. Could this be the first time David Cameron and
:31:30. > :31:40.declared end up on the other side - - on opposite sides of the vote? --
:31:40. > :31:54.
:31:54. > :31:58.We can speak now at to James Lyons from the Daily Mirror, and the
:31:58. > :32:03.Sun's Emily Ashton. Emily Ashton first of all, two big issues for
:32:03. > :32:07.the coalition this week, Europe and boundaries - initial reaction,
:32:07. > :32:15.overwhelming support from backbenchers, but how long can that
:32:15. > :32:21.unity last? We cannot hear you just at the moment. Now, attic we can.
:32:21. > :32:25.Sorry, start again, how long do you think Tory unity will last? Well,
:32:25. > :32:29.David Cameron has had one of the best weeks of his premiership. He
:32:29. > :32:33.has even impressed some European leaders. It is funny because
:32:33. > :32:37.tomorrow's vote is not going to be particularly helpful to that unity.
:32:37. > :32:40.Suddenly, a lot of Tories will be a bit cross and frustrated that they
:32:40. > :32:44.cannot get his decision on the boundaries through. Remember, this
:32:44. > :32:48.vote is very important to the Conservative Party. The next
:32:48. > :32:52.election will depend crucially on them getting those extra 20 seats,
:32:52. > :32:59.and experts think changing the boundaries will help them get that.
:32:59. > :33:03.This has put David -- Ed Miliband into a very difficult position. He
:33:03. > :33:06.doesn't to rule out a referendum, but what is the official line now?
:33:07. > :33:10.I think it is that they do not want a referendum, but that is the
:33:10. > :33:14.answer just a now, as you say. They are trying to keep their options
:33:14. > :33:18.open. They will probably get forced into accepting a referendum at some
:33:18. > :33:21.point. A lot of people in the party would like to get ahead of the game
:33:21. > :33:24.by essentially saying that before David Cameron had come out in
:33:24. > :33:28.favour of one, which means that Ed Miliband is now on the back foot,
:33:28. > :33:31.but his position is not as bad as some people would like to pretend.
:33:31. > :33:35.Over the weekend we have seen David Cameron coming under pressure on
:33:35. > :33:39.Europe again, despite at speech last week, which was very well
:33:39. > :33:43.received. We have seen people like Boris Johnson coming out and saying,
:33:43. > :33:46.yes, I would be prepared to campaign to take us out of the EU.
:33:46. > :33:49.That is not something we have heard from David Cameron, but it is
:33:49. > :33:58.something his troops will be demanding in the weeks ahead.
:33:58. > :34:03.terms of demands, Emily, are those demands going to start very quickly
:34:04. > :34:09.from the Tory MPs who want to repatriate powers? That is the
:34:09. > :34:12.problem. This referendum is five years down the track. I cannot see
:34:12. > :34:16.many Tory Euro-sceptic backbenchers saying, OK, we will just wait for
:34:16. > :34:20.that. He is going to face increasing demands for all kinds of
:34:20. > :34:27.powers to come back, crime, Justice, all kinds of things, so this issue
:34:27. > :34:30.is not going to go away. Let's talk about boundaries. Tomorrow night,
:34:30. > :34:34.Lib Dem MPs will vote to postpone the review of parliamentary
:34:34. > :34:38.boundaries until after the next election, so what will that do to
:34:38. > :34:43.the harmony of the coalition? is a very important moment in the
:34:43. > :34:47.life of the coalition government. We are seeing for the first time,
:34:47. > :34:51.or we will see, Lib Dem ministers trying to defeat Tory plans. That's
:34:51. > :34:55.if everything goes to plan. In fact, I think it will be tighter than
:34:55. > :34:58.some people are expecting. I suspect the Tories have got some
:34:58. > :35:02.tricks up their sleeve to try to get it through, but very few of
:35:02. > :35:04.them seriously think they will win. What this does to the collision
:35:05. > :35:08.afterwards, it is going to be painful. Essentially you have got
:35:09. > :35:12.David Cameron at the moment fighting on two front. Today, the
:35:12. > :35:16.whips are out there trying to minimise a Tory rebellion by MPs
:35:16. > :35:19.who will face their seats going, which will be hugely embarrassing
:35:19. > :35:24.to David Cameron. The whips are desperately trying to minimise that,
:35:24. > :35:27.but tomorrow, the real test, that will be when he tries to gather
:35:27. > :35:30.together the backbenchers who maybe still feeling the warm glow from
:35:30. > :35:34.his Europe speech, to explain to them why they will probably be
:35:34. > :35:40.losing the next election. Tomorrow evening could be the day that David
:35:40. > :35:44.Cameron loses the 2015 election. you see it in those terms, Emily?
:35:44. > :35:48.Yes, it is quite crucial to David Cameron. You can see that there are
:35:48. > :35:52.still mutterings about his leadership. The 2015 Election does
:35:52. > :35:56.depend on anything he can do to help himself to win that, which
:35:56. > :36:00.includes these 20 extra seats. So, he desperately wants to get this
:36:00. > :36:03.through. If this vote does not go the right way for him tomorrow, he
:36:03. > :36:06.needs to leave it, because these Boundary Commission review has been
:36:07. > :36:16.going on and on, and it has been costing millions of pounds.
:36:17. > :36:17.
:36:17. > :36:21.Taxpayers want to say, OK, enough is enough. Because I have been
:36:21. > :36:26.joined by the Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom and my other guests
:36:26. > :36:31.for the rest of the show... Starting with you, Dan Rogerson,
:36:31. > :36:35.would you be happy to go into coalition with the Conservatives,
:36:35. > :36:38.promising tamarin in a referendum? I would be happy to go into
:36:38. > :36:41.coalition with either of the party's comedy spending on how they
:36:41. > :36:48.frame their policies at the general election. That is what we are doing
:36:48. > :36:51.at the moment. We have got some of these constitutional reform issues
:36:51. > :36:57.to take into account. We will do anything to deliver what we said we
:36:57. > :37:00.wanted to do.. But you are not in favour of this referendum. I am in
:37:00. > :37:06.politics to get things done, not just to talk about things. Having
:37:06. > :37:09.said that, we are not likely to be in a position of having a majority,
:37:09. > :37:13.so if we are in that kind of situation, we will have to work
:37:13. > :37:18.with another party again. Europe is a key issue for the
:37:18. > :37:21.Liberal Democrats, and Nick Clegg has said this referendum would
:37:21. > :37:26.damage the economic stability of the country. Why would you go into
:37:26. > :37:30.coalition with them? Because it is not the only issue. That is the
:37:30. > :37:34.crucial thing. If I speak to my constituents, there are some for
:37:34. > :37:37.whom the European issues are what keeps them interested in politics,
:37:37. > :37:44.but they're a small bunch of people, the vast majority are interested in
:37:44. > :37:48.the economy, the environment and things like that. The gamble would
:37:48. > :37:51.be that Britain comes out, because it would be up to the people, and
:37:51. > :37:59.you would be the government, a Liberal Democrat government which
:37:59. > :38:02.presided over that? I think people are entitled to decide, but
:38:02. > :38:05.artificially trying to bring it to a head would be the wrong thing to
:38:05. > :38:10.do. It should be at a time when there is a genuine treaty
:38:10. > :38:14.negotiation on a particular issue. Your party is not going to be
:38:14. > :38:18.setting out which powers it intends to bring back to this country until
:38:18. > :38:22.after the next election, are you happy about that? Actually,
:38:22. > :38:30.negotiations are going on the whole time. There are issues like the one
:38:30. > :38:34.over banking union, like the use of the veto on financial services...
:38:34. > :38:37.But we heard from David Lidington over the weekend, any powers would
:38:37. > :38:42.not start until the manifesto is drawn up, so you can see which
:38:43. > :38:48.powers they want to repatriate, and those negotiations will not start
:38:48. > :38:51.until at least two years down the line. I am sorry, but I do not
:38:51. > :38:56.agree. There are already positions being taken by the Government of
:38:56. > :39:00.some of these issues. As you know, the government is minded to opt out
:39:00. > :39:04.of the justice and home affairs 130 rules which we have an opt-out from.
:39:04. > :39:06.That has to be exercised by the middle of 2014. So, there are
:39:06. > :39:10.certain measures which the Government is trying to do, for
:39:10. > :39:14.example, making some sense of the Common Fisheries Policy. But
:39:14. > :39:20.because of the timescale, those issues will needed -- will need to
:39:20. > :39:25.be sorted out before 2015. If these powers are not repatriated, Will
:39:25. > :39:29.you be voting no in any referendum? There may well be some powers which
:39:29. > :39:33.we were not calling for. It may be that there were some treaty changes
:39:34. > :39:40.which we were not calling for, and some that we poor. It will be very
:39:40. > :39:44.important that each individual.... For you, personally, we you vote
:39:44. > :39:49.no? I could countenance it, but I think Britain would be better off
:39:49. > :39:53.staying in the EU. Which member states of the EU are pushing for
:39:53. > :39:58.reform, and threatening exit if they do not get what they want?
:39:58. > :40:02.am not aware that any other EU number is threatening exit, but nor
:40:02. > :40:07.is Britain. We are talking about a referendum. Other member states
:40:07. > :40:11.have had referendums. Well, they are using the threat of an exit.
:40:11. > :40:14.do not think that is white. We are not threatening to leave. What we
:40:14. > :40:17.are saying is, we will renegotiate, but having done that, the people of
:40:18. > :40:22.Britain will get the opportunity to say whether they want to be in on
:40:22. > :40:24.the terms of the negotiation or whether they want to leave. At the
:40:24. > :40:30.negotiating table, everybody will be aware that that is the
:40:30. > :40:36.possibility. What I'm saying is, no other member states are pushing for
:40:36. > :40:45.that, are they? They do not seem to be at the moment. Was it wise of Ed
:40:45. > :40:51.Miliband to seemingly rule out an in out referendum? What he actually
:40:51. > :40:55.ruled out was a referendum now. Well he did actually seem to say,
:40:55. > :41:01.no referendum. So you understand it that there is a chance of a
:41:01. > :41:06.referendum? I do not see that it is on the table particularly. But as
:41:06. > :41:10.we have just seen from consular's and so, we have got the issue of an
:41:10. > :41:17.in out referendum on the table from the Tories, without any idea of
:41:17. > :41:21.what it is that we are advocating even on the basis of. Andrea
:41:21. > :41:24.Leadsom cannot even answer whether she would vote yes or No 1 that
:41:24. > :41:28.referendum, and the same goes for the rest of the Tory party. So,
:41:28. > :41:32.this has created huge uncertainty about our ongoing membership of the
:41:32. > :41:36.EU. Businesses up and down this country, in quite an unprecedented
:41:36. > :41:40.step, have been coming out and saying that this is really damaging
:41:40. > :41:47.for investment in the economy. And just at the time when the Tory
:41:47. > :41:51.party should be focusing 100% on getting the economy moving.. What
:41:51. > :41:58.do you say to that argument about instability? Both the Liberal
:41:58. > :42:01.Democrats and Labour have said this... That is such a
:42:01. > :42:04.misrepresentation of the situation. Over the last few years there has
:42:05. > :42:07.been increasing, massive uncertainty, because of the lack of
:42:08. > :42:11.democratic accountability in the European Union. The eurozone
:42:11. > :42:15.financial crisis, and all of these other things, have meant that the
:42:15. > :42:18.eurozone is changing. They have to move towards greater fiscal
:42:19. > :42:25.integration, which means... What we have seen happening in Europe, as
:42:25. > :42:30.you have just described, is a more flexible Europe, where, depending
:42:30. > :42:34.on your own national interests, you either opt in or opt out of various
:42:34. > :42:38.things. So, some countries have opted into the financial
:42:38. > :42:41.transaction tax, but Britain has not. We obviously will not be part
:42:41. > :42:45.of the conversations about the eurozone and what action needs to
:42:45. > :42:54.be taken there, because we are not in the euro. So, this is what
:42:54. > :42:59.Europe is already doing. The key point is that the eurozone is
:42:59. > :43:03.changing. They have to move closer to a country called Europe. To
:43:03. > :43:06.simply maintain the status quo is not a realistic option. Do you
:43:06. > :43:12.think David Cameron would have made that speech without awe of the
:43:12. > :43:16.pressure from your backbenchers? Yes, I think that what the Prime
:43:16. > :43:21.Minister has done Tiffney, he has taken his time to consider where he
:43:21. > :43:26.thinks the EU is going. He has been very focused on they go need for
:43:27. > :43:33.greater integration in the area of currency, but at the same time, for
:43:33. > :43:36.Britain to lead them towards greater democratic accountability
:43:36. > :43:40.and a new settlement for Britain. Some key questions which we have
:43:40. > :43:44.raised there. Fisheries and agriculture, they do be
:43:44. > :43:47.renegotiated anyway. That is nothing to do with his repatriation.
:43:47. > :43:56.That is what all governments in Europe are involved in. What I am
:43:56. > :44:02.confused about, with regard to the Prime Minister, on this, is what
:44:02. > :44:05.exactly might be negotiated. I tried to amend the bill when it was
:44:05. > :44:13.going through. I am in favour of the principle of reducing the
:44:13. > :44:17.number of MPs. You are going to vote against it? The issue for me
:44:17. > :44:21.is, at the time when we announced an increasing number of unelected
:44:21. > :44:24.politicians in the House of Lords, we are being asked to vote for
:44:24. > :44:27.cutting the number of elected politicians. That is not what I got
:44:27. > :44:31.into the coalition to do. As the Conservative Party were not able to
:44:31. > :44:36.deliver on getting rid of some of the unelected politicians, it would
:44:36. > :44:41.be absolutely wrong to cut down on the democratically elected element.
:44:41. > :44:46.This would be the wrong time to do that. Briefly, how angry with you
:44:46. > :44:51.and your colleagues be over this? Well, it is a great tragedy that
:44:51. > :44:55.obviously, it makes sense for there to be regularisation of the number
:44:55. > :44:59.of voters in each constituency.... And it will not deliver you as
:44:59. > :45:02.easily a victory? Well, what we are looking for is a level playing
:45:02. > :45:05.field. We are not looking for favouritism towards the
:45:05. > :45:09.Conservatives, we are looking for equalisation of the number of
:45:09. > :45:12.voters in seats and a reduction in the number of MPs. That is in
:45:12. > :45:22.everybody's interest in the country. It is quite astonishing that
:45:22. > :45:31.neither Labour nor the Lib Dems We all know what high Energy Bills
:45:31. > :45:33.are like. The average annual bill is now �1400. There's a scheme
:45:33. > :45:39.launching today that ministers say will provide savings. One minister
:45:39. > :45:43.has been quoted as saying - is this transformational? Yes, is this the
:45:43. > :45:47.biggest home improvement programme since the Second World War? Yes.
:45:47. > :45:52.You're dying to know who it is. Wait no longer, it's Greg Barker,
:45:52. > :45:57.the Energy and Climate Change Minister. Welcome. What a great
:45:57. > :46:01.introduction. Do you still stand by that? Absolutely. Why? Is it,
:46:01. > :46:05.nothing like this has been tried before. We have a huge challenge.
:46:05. > :46:11.This isn't going to be an overnight flash in the pan. We're talking
:46:11. > :46:16.about a framework to see us through into the 2020s. This isn't a stop-
:46:16. > :46:21.go programme. The framework will bring unprecedented choice and
:46:21. > :46:26.empoirplt to consumers who want to improve their homes. How many
:46:26. > :46:30.people have signed up to the Green Deal? It only went live this
:46:30. > :46:35.morning. It's a bitterlyy to write oaf a 20-year programme about three
:46:35. > :46:40.hours in. I'm not writing it off. I just asked how many people have
:46:40. > :46:45.signed up. I have been told that people have starleted writing plans
:46:45. > :46:49.this morning, but it went live today. So the story that only five
:46:49. > :46:56.people signed up and there was a computer glitch wasn't true. That
:46:56. > :47:01.was to do with assessments and that is out of date. Hundreds, maybe
:47:01. > :47:03.thousands have booked assessments in anticipation of being able to
:47:03. > :47:06.write a Green Deal plan this morning. Give it time. We're not
:47:06. > :47:10.claiming overnight success. This isn't a big rush. We're going to
:47:10. > :47:13.build over the coming months and years to achieve that objective.
:47:13. > :47:16.What people will want to know and the reason they'll sign up is
:47:16. > :47:20.they'll want savings in Energy Bills. How can you guarantee
:47:20. > :47:27.savings from this scheme? We can't guarantee savings because if
:47:27. > :47:32.somebody decides to buy a series of plasma TVs or to suddenly put up
:47:32. > :47:38.their central heating to 24, rather than 22, of course their bill is
:47:38. > :47:42.going to go up. What we can do is give sensible, conservative
:47:42. > :47:46.estimates on a like for like basis on what their energy costs have
:47:46. > :47:51.been and what they are likely to be if they take these measures. That's
:47:51. > :47:55.the Green Deal golden rule. Under that basis, projected savings
:47:55. > :48:00.should always be greater than the finance costs. Even after you've
:48:00. > :48:04.put these measures in, which can be a range of things, from double
:48:04. > :48:07.glazing, new lighting, a new front door, even, a boiler, heating
:48:08. > :48:11.system, a whole range of things that people actually want and are
:48:11. > :48:15.going to improve their home that actually they should still be
:48:15. > :48:19.better off and they'll be insulated not only against the cold but
:48:19. > :48:23.against future rises in bills as well. It's a high interest rate at
:48:23. > :48:28.7%, when you think of interest rates at the moment. There's a big
:48:28. > :48:32.gap between 0.5% and 7% which will make people think those savings are
:48:32. > :48:38.just not going to be achievable. Firstly that interest rate is fixed
:48:38. > :48:43.for 20 years. Secondly, it's a lot cheaper than any comparable finance
:48:43. > :48:51.on the High Street. If you try and finance a kitchen or a conservatory
:48:51. > :48:56.or a bathroom, compare that to the finance you'll be available through
:48:56. > :49:00.store cards, personal loans or an APR sometimes of 20% on some of
:49:00. > :49:04.these schemes. Actually for the vast majority of people that offers
:49:04. > :49:09.a really good deal for long-term, fair finance. OK. Greg Barker,
:49:09. > :49:13.thank you very much. How optimistic are you that millions will take up
:49:13. > :49:19.this deal? As we've heard from the minister, probably not today. In
:49:19. > :49:22.the long-term, absolutely. I've had constituents of mine who have had
:49:22. > :49:26.these pre-consultation things. We've ht people going round talking
:49:26. > :49:30.to people on the doorstep and they're keen to get started. The
:49:30. > :49:34.key thing is people feel a benefit in terms of energy savings, but
:49:34. > :49:38.also, will know that this money is going as far as it can. It would be
:49:38. > :49:42.great if the Government has huge amounts of cash, but it doesn't. Ip
:49:42. > :49:45.stead of piling in Government money, it's a way tone courage people to
:49:45. > :49:49.do it themselves. As a country there's a carbon saving as well.
:49:49. > :49:53.This is a market-based framework. The Government is keen to see this
:49:53. > :49:57.market work. Is leaving it to the market the best way to improve
:49:57. > :50:01.energy efficiencyy in homes? As I say, we haven't got the money in
:50:01. > :50:06.this country to invest huge amounts of money needed to insulate every
:50:06. > :50:11.home. So there has to be some market solution. The Government can
:50:11. > :50:18.frame that so it works for the consumer and encourages creating
:50:18. > :50:21.jobs as well? Will be -- will you be signing up? Yes, I'd love to. I
:50:21. > :50:28.was thinking over the weekend, I would be quite interested in doing
:50:28. > :50:31.it. What's putting you off? Well, because I live in a very old, stone
:50:31. > :50:36.house with very thick stone walls and we did actually when we moved
:50:36. > :50:39.into it, think about the fact that it would be drafty. It has
:50:39. > :50:44.technical problems. We put some solar panels on the roof and so we
:50:44. > :50:48.do in the summer get completely free hot water and no fume costs at
:50:48. > :50:53.all. It's very attractive -- fuel costs at all. It's very attractive.
:50:53. > :50:58.You should look at it. Was your response to the idea? I think it's
:50:58. > :51:01.a perfectly laudable objective, but it's -- as with lots of other
:51:01. > :51:05.things, the devil is in the detail. You're right to raise the point
:51:05. > :51:09.about interest rates. The minister is wrong. There High Street
:51:09. > :51:13.interest rates for personal loans at the moment are comparable to
:51:14. > :51:17.this rate. You've seen a lot of consumer groups over the last few
:51:18. > :51:21.weeks and this morning saying there are a number of hidden costs here,
:51:21. > :51:26.which when you look into it, will put people off. The assessments
:51:26. > :51:34.that you're talking about, costing between �100 and �150. You only get
:51:34. > :51:40.that money back if you then take up the offer of the - from the company.
:51:40. > :51:43.There's worries about koibs entering the marketplace. I worry
:51:43. > :51:47.about older constituents who might be mis-sold things on the doorstep
:51:47. > :51:52.and on the phone. We need greater protection for the consumer. We
:51:52. > :51:55.need to look at the interest rate again. The outlay will put off
:51:55. > :51:59.poorer households, I suggest, and also, they may not get those
:51:59. > :52:04.savings for a while. I cannot see how many poorer households will be
:52:04. > :52:07.attracted to this idea and they're the ones, we all are, keen to cut
:52:07. > :52:10.costs? That's the purpose of the planning process. They have to be
:52:10. > :52:13.able to demonstrate that they will save money and save energy too. It
:52:14. > :52:17.real sli getting that golden rule right. That's what the planning
:52:18. > :52:20.process should do. We need to get the message across that we should
:52:20. > :52:23.look at different companies to ensure they have the best deal
:52:24. > :52:26.possible. Believe it or not, we are in the middle of an election
:52:26. > :52:34.campaign in Westminster. Haven't you heard? Sadly, the electorate
:52:34. > :52:39.for this one is limited. In fact it's restricted to hereditary peers.
:52:39. > :52:44.Giles has donned his iep -- finest tweed to tell you more.
:52:44. > :52:50.There you are. Yes, pay attention chaps, oh,
:52:50. > :52:55.chappesss in this new world, a quick word about hereditary peers.
:52:55. > :53:03.1999 passing of the lourdz act, most hereditary peers cleared off,
:53:03. > :53:06.all except 92. They are made up of 42 Conservatives, ah, a haunch of
:53:06. > :53:10.cross-backbenchers, a smatters of Lib Dems and three Labour. These
:53:10. > :53:15.days the general feeling is that taking part in the Democrat proik
:53:15. > :53:20.ses by right of birth isn't on, well unless you're the Queen of
:53:20. > :53:26.course, means those peers in the House of Lords are elected. In
:53:26. > :53:32.November last year, the 13th Earl Ferrers died creating a vacancy in
:53:32. > :53:37.the Conservative ranks of sitting peers. Now, his fellow hereditary
:53:37. > :53:40.sitting peers become the electorate and candidates from the register of
:53:41. > :53:44.hereditary peers, who don't sit, throw themselves forward for
:53:44. > :53:49.election. Ironically it takes place under the AV system. The result
:53:49. > :53:56.will be known on the 5th of February. I'd love to explain more,
:53:56. > :54:01.but I huge part of Gloucestershire to run.
:54:01. > :54:05.Oh, life is tough at the top for some people. Joining me now is Lord
:54:05. > :54:11.Sudeley, who has put himself up for election. Lord Sudeley welcome to
:54:11. > :54:15.the programme. Why do you want to do this? Well, two things, I
:54:15. > :54:20.particularly want to bring pieces of business, I'd like toe bring
:54:20. > :54:23.before the House of Lords. The first reflects the bankruptcy of my
:54:24. > :54:27.great grandfather the fourth Lord Sudeley at a place in
:54:27. > :54:31.Gloucestershire called Toddington, personally designed so he was
:54:31. > :54:35.chairman of the commission for the rebuilding of the Houses of
:54:35. > :54:42.Parliament. With the debt accumulated my great grandfather
:54:42. > :54:48.had, he was in debt to about half of what he had. But then he to
:54:48. > :54:52.suffer a bank foreclosure which meant everything going forward...
:54:52. > :54:56.OK. You have a personal back story, but why is it important, why is it
:54:56. > :55:01.important that we have elections for hereditary peers to replace
:55:01. > :55:05.those who've passed on? At least some element of the hereditary
:55:05. > :55:08.element has been kept in the constitution. Democracy now has
:55:08. > :55:13.become a very clean word. I don't think that necessarily has to be
:55:13. > :55:19.the case. In the 18th century we had something which our ancestors
:55:19. > :55:25.called the mixed constitution derived from Aristotle and under
:55:25. > :55:30.such arrangement I believe it was more balanced on the -- whilst
:55:30. > :55:34.elected to the constitution. What about the election process itself?
:55:35. > :55:38.Do you have to give a speech? I made an electoral address for
:55:38. > :55:43.about three minutes. It's not the first time you've gone for this, is
:55:43. > :55:47.it? No, I've done it six times already. I mean, and I presume
:55:47. > :55:51.failed to become elected. Why do you want to put yourself through
:55:51. > :55:57.it? Well, because there's certain things, I was beginning to start to
:55:57. > :56:02.explain one element of the business. Yes, you were. But you're so keen
:56:02. > :56:07.you're prepared to go through the election snfrbgts oh, yes, that
:56:07. > :56:15.doesn't bother me at all. How are you rating your chance that's time?
:56:15. > :56:19.I have 26 competitors. I always was a bit a maverick, so my chances
:56:19. > :56:25.there by possibly rendered a little slighter, I don't know. Good luck.
:56:25. > :56:32.And all the others standing. Thank you for coming onto the programme.
:56:32. > :56:36.Are there too many peers in the House of Lords? Yes. Would you like
:56:36. > :56:40.to see the rest of the hereditary peers go? As Liberal Democrats we
:56:40. > :56:44.wanted to see a Democratically elected House of Lords. That's what
:56:44. > :56:47.we're working towards. Part of the issue we're having with the
:56:47. > :56:54.boundaries in the House of Commons is because we haven't succeeded in
:56:54. > :56:59.reforming the House of Lords. He's a very nice chap, but it's an odd
:56:59. > :57:03.processes, especially elected by AV, which is an irony. We know what the
:57:03. > :57:07.Liberal Democrats position is, why is the Deputy Prime Minister set to
:57:07. > :57:17.create 50 new peers this week? Because we didn't successfully
:57:17. > :57:18.
:57:18. > :57:22.reform the lourdz. It does seem hypocritical. We need to correct it.
:57:22. > :57:26.I prefer a democratic House of Lords. What do you think of the
:57:26. > :57:32.election? No disrespect to Lord Sudeley, is it? Yes. Do you not
:57:32. > :57:36.know him? He couldn't be a better advert for House of Lords reform.
:57:36. > :57:40.Obviously, Labour began the process of House of Lords reform. We got
:57:40. > :57:44.rid of 90% of hereditary peers. We should have got rid of them all. We
:57:44. > :57:47.still should get rid of them all. We'd be happy to work with the
:57:47. > :57:52.Liberal Democrats and others - didn't want to vote for the means
:57:52. > :57:55.to do it. We felt there should be more Parliamentary time. We would
:57:55. > :57:59.have voted for it and your Government withdrew the bill at
:57:59. > :58:04.that point. As you say, we're having this very important vote on
:58:04. > :58:08.boundaries this week. It is about cutting the number of MPs. It's the
:58:08. > :58:13.very same week that we're seeing David Cameron creating I think the
:58:13. > :58:17.largest number of unelected peers. I just find that absolutely
:58:17. > :58:22.hypocritical. Should we get rid of the hereditary peers? I actually
:58:22. > :58:27.think we probably should, at the same time, I think that we throw
:58:27. > :58:31.away our heritage and tradition as -- traditions at our peril. One of
:58:31. > :58:35.the advantages of the Lord's has been that there's been real
:58:35. > :58:39.expertise. There's a couple of peers that I've met recently, who
:58:39. > :58:43.are real experts in things like neuroscience, in human rights and
:58:43. > :58:46.so on, who bring a real case to bear that perhaps through the
:58:46. > :58:52.democratic selection process, you might not get quite that same level