12/02/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/02/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily Politics. They press


regulator established by Royal Charter, will it be enough to


prevent another phone hacking type scandal? The Government publishes


proposals this afternoon. Barclays slims down its investment


banking operations and says they are clamping down on bonuses, but


has the City culture changed? Up to 1200 die as a result of poor


care in Stafford Hospital. There has been a 2000 page report, but


why has no one resigned? House of Cards is back on our


screens. Its author, Michael Dobbs, joins us live - but is it as good


with an American accent? You might very well think that, I couldn't


possibly comment. All that in the next hour. With us


for the programme is the businesswoman Nicola Horlick,


welcome. First today, University graduate


Cait Reilly has won her Court of Appeal claimed that requiring her


to work for free at a Poundland discounts caught -- store was


unlawful. Three judges in London ruled that the regulations under


which most of the Government back- to-work schemes were created do not


comply with the law and has quashed them. A few minutes ago, Cait


Reilly's solicitor spoke about it. We can speak to our political


correspondent. How damaging is this for the back-to-work schemes?


are playing this down, saying they will table new regulations so they


comply with the law, but the table like -- the solicitor outside the


court who has just won this case says it is a huge setback for the


Department of Work and Pensions, that there is confusion within the


department and she has raised the possibility that thousands of


people who have had benefits docked for not complying with these


schemes will have to have that money paid back. We have had


reaction from the Employment Minister, he says the court has


backed the Government right to require people to take part in the


programmes which will help get them back to work, he says it is


ridiculous to call it forced Labour. This has not been ruled unlawful on


the grounds of the compulsion. The judges have backed the Government,


saying they can run these schemes. The problem is with the regulations


they have not explained enough about the sanctions, about the


detail of these programmes, in Parliament. So it has gone beyond


what Parliament originally approved, that is why the Government says it


will rewrite regulations. Does this mean that somebody in the position


of Cait Reilly, who is already working for free somewhere, which


you could call work experience, will not be forced to go into a


government back-to-work scheme at Poundland, for example? The whole


point of this is a back-to-work scheme, it is supposed to give


people an extra skill to help them get into the workplace. I suppose


that was part of the problem, this woman was already doing voluntary


work in a museum, she was a graduate. She says she is not above


working in a supermarket, she does that part-time, but she felt it was


wrong that she was taken away from looking at -- looking for work and


another voluntary job to do a job in Poundland, which she felt would


not lead to employment. A Work and Pensions Select Committee has


looked into this and that is their problem. They do not have the


problem with the compulsion, but you have to have a scheme which


will give people extra skills which may lead to employment, otherwise


there is no point. Nicola Horlick, in principle, do you support the


idea that the Government can require young people in this


particular case to take up unpaid work experience or lose benefits?


do actually support that. I think they have to make sure that the


work is suitable for the person and their qualifications. That is what


this lady was arguing against an seems to have won on. I don't think


it is appropriate to stick a graduate in Poundland when she


might want to do museum work long term and was already volunteering


in a museum. I think the Government needs to get a whole lot of


companies to sign up to provide work experience. I do it all the


time, I allow graduates to work with us for a couple of weeks or


maybe even longer in order to have something to put on their CV. That


can be formalised. There are all sorts of charitable organisations


trying to do this, but having some formality and linking it to


benefits, I don't think that is a bad idea. It is important for


people to have things on their CV in order to get into employment.


But if companies, or the right sort of companies, don't come forward


with the right sort of work experience...? I think they will.


Most people in positions of power in the workplace wants to help,


because everybody knows there is a major issue with youth unemployment


and we don't wanted to get to the proportions that today's inns, say,


Spain. One of the problems with making people work longer before


they can draw their pensions is that people at the other Wrens,


coming out of university, are trying to get into the workplace


and it is very hard. They need to distinguish themselves, in order to


do that they need work experience. What about the issue of being paid?


The argument was that any work experience is better than sitting


at home, but if you will not be paid...? You are being paid a


benefit, that is the thing. There have been so many debates over the


years with the workfare concept, which in areas of the United States


they have not introduced, and quite successfully. I think there is


nothing wrong with the idea of workfare, so long as it is


organised in the right way and people are getting the right sort


of experience. Of somebody wants to be a plumber, why not send them


along to somebody who will train them or give them experience so


they know what being a plumber is like?


If this afternoon, the Government is expected to outline the measures


it thinks are necessary to prevent a repeat of the press excesses


leading to the phone hacking scandal. Lord Justice Leveson


published his long awaited 2000 page report at the end of November


last year, declaring that the press had wreaked havoc with the lives of


ordinary people. Lord Leveson said that the pressured continue to be


self-regulated but there should be a new press standards body created


by the Industry, complete with new code of conduct. Crucially, he said


it should be backed by legislation. It is whether to have the statutory


underpinning that has split the political parties. David Cameron


and many in his party opposed to Parliament legislating to regulate


the press, preferring a Royal Charter. This is a way of setting


up a body as a single legal entity, and once it is established it can't


be amended by parliament, which legislation could be. At the time


Leveson was published, Nick Clegg indicated some specific concerns


about Ofcom's role as the Independent verify of the new


watchdog. Labour said they supported the central


recommendations made in the report and published a draft bill to prove


it could be done. Has David Cameron managed to bring out below back --


Ed Miliband onside and bring a consensus around the Royal Charter.


Natalie Fenton of the campaigning group Hacked Off joins me now. Can


you tell us what the government responses are? The Royal Charter


looks like it has tried to implement some of Leveson, but has


not done so very well. It would seem, and I have not seen the final


version so why can't comment in great detail, it would seem that it


does not fulfilled the requirement of Leveson to be independent and


effective. That meant independence from politicians and press, and


effective in terms of delivering protection and redress for the


public as well as safeguarding protection for the integrity of


journalists. It seems like the Royal Charter does not deliver on


those crucial accounts. As I understand it, royal charters are


legally binding documents that can set out powers, rules and other


responsibilities of a body, so why can't it deliver, in broad terms,


what Leveson was saying? something is Independent it


literally can't have interference from the industry and politicians.


If you are going to set up a body with industry and put into who will


be the chair, who will be on the board, that is really problematic -


- something with industry input. Royal charters are designed to be


independent of the industry that they are there to regulate.


seems that the chair of the appointments panel will be selected


by parliament... Actually, not by Parliament, by ministers. It will


simply be appointed. The other people on the appointments panel,


one of them will be there to represent the interests of the


industry. The whole idea of the appointments panel is that it does


not represent the interests of industry at all, it is there to be


entirely independent. What do you fear if this is what will be


established, this royal charter with representation from ministers


and the industry? Sadly, it looks like the industry has persuaded the


Government to do their bidding. That introduces a major problem for


us and for victims. If that is the way it proceed without any further


amendment, we simply can't support it at all. Do you think Lord


Justice Leveson would agree with you that these proposals are the


wrong way to go? He would absolutely agree with us. The


majority of these recommendations are breached in this Royal Charter.


What do you make of the Government are not introducing this with great


fanfare? I think the whole process has been rather undemocratic. There


has been very little consultation over the whole Royal Charter. They


were talking to hacked off for a little while and then they stopped


talking to us, they started talking to the press, but it should have


been in the public domain, they should have been public


concentration's consultation on how this Royal Charter functions. It


has been announced without any consultation and there could be a


bid to force it through in that form. Natalie Fenton, thank you.


Conservative peer Lord Balad and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming


joined me. Do you share Natalie's fears that this is a stitch-up


behind closed doors and will not establish any of the


recommendations that Lord Justice Leveson put forward? My concern is


to keep the politicians' hands of things like the regulatory code.


There is a problem with statute, it puts politicians in charge of the


regulatory code. This is not statute in that sense. A Royal


Charter is potentially worse. Because it is within the gift of


the Privy Council, which is more controlled by the Government than


the Queen, we face a bigger problem with the Royal Charter than statute,


potentially. Do you think phone hacking could happen again under


eight Royal Charter? The phone hacking scandal was about the


police not prosecuting criminal offences and sweeping them under


the carpet as being unimportant. I am not sure myself why Lord Leveson


solves a problem which is a failure of the police. What do you think


about a royal charter if, as Natalie Fenton said, it is a


stitch-up, a compromise in order to get the newspaper industry on


boards and avoid statute in the way that David Cameron says he was


worried about? Is it the perfect compromise? I think it is about the


worst solution of a lot. Let me just tell you very briefly what the


guidance says about royal charters. Once incorporated by Royal Charter,


a body surrenders significant aspects of control of its internal


affairs to the Privy Council. This effectively means a significant


degree of government regulation of the affairs of a body. So


government regulation, nobody can change it apart from the Government.


John may have reservations about what Lord Leveson was proposing,


but I would have thought it is nothing compared to the


reservations he will have. I think you are right. This just hand over


to the Government... To give you an example, the BBC a Royal Charter is


the Royal Charter of the BBC. We had a long, long debate about his


in the House of Lords, we made proposals about the management


structure at the top of the BBC where everyone agreed with us that


there was nothing anyone could do about it because it depended upon


what the Government decided, and the Government decided against us.


What do you want to see? Leveson. In its entirety? Yes. I think there


has been a, frankly, hysterical reaction to Leveson, because all it


is saying is we should have a body which the press will set up and we


should have a checking mechanism which would have to be set out by


statute. But if I may make this last point, on the Royal Charter,


as far as I understand it it will need legislation to make it work.


Quite well all the opposition to legislation goes at that point, I'm


It puts politicians in control. The recognition process specify his


what is acceptable press code. shouldn't they be accountable in


the end to something? What is wrong with that? The question is why the


press should be more accountable to Parliament and anyone else. Why


those people whose job it is to look at what politicians are doing


wrong, should be more accountable. If you look at the pressure that


was put on the Daily Telegraph to not look at something, that


demonstrates not putting politicians in control. The press


have gone overboard and they have abused their position and as was


being said before by Hacked Off there were lots of people out there


whose rights have been trashed. police failed to prosecute criminal


offences. It is not that, it is the culture. The culture inside the


newspapers to allow that to happen is the problem. Let's come back to


that main principle which is the excesses of the press, the Last


chance Saloon, that something had to be done. Do you agree with that?


I agree very much with what Lord Powell has said. They abused their


power. They can destroy people's reputations within minutes. People


were left, individuals, to fight them through the courts, by which


time all the damage has been done. Of course it is vital to protect


freedom of speech, but it has to be responsible freedom of speech. For


some reason in this country it had got out of control. We have an


unusual situation in this area in that people with wealth can


suddenly by a newspaper and start influencing what that newspapers


said and that has to be controlled. I think it has to be independently


monitored. Self regulation clearly did not work. But if you set up a


regulatory body which is either in statute or by Royal Charter, is


there a fear that editors of newspapers would have to ring


members of that body when they want to run a story like expenses in


order to check they are going to be allowed to do so? No, they would


employ lawyers as they do now to look at the story to decide whether


or not it complies with regulations. But rather than having to waste


enormous amounts of money on lawyers you should be able to


quickly get resolution. That is vital. Now if you want to stop


something, you can go and get an injunction, but after that there is


a great big legal process. You have got to prove that you were right to


get that injunction. Your position of not having any press regulation


in that sense... The law is still there. We have failures in our


legal system which is not accessible to ordinary people. That


is the big problem. We need to stop the big problems. We have just made


a proposal in the House of Lords on exactly that. The issues are ones


that if we are saying you can only have freedom of speech and less it


is responsible, there are great dangers of putting the politicians


through ministerial order. Leveson said to change statute requires


another statute, but that is not true. Both of you seem to disagree


with your party leaders on this issue. Yes, we both disagree.


are you going to do? I was the first person who raised in


Parliament the scandal and app remained consistent look out.


are you going to say to David Cameron? What I am saying to you


now have. I am not suddenly going to change my view on this. Reform


is well overdue, 70 years overdue some would think. What is being


proposed by Leveson is a very moderate reform and infinitely


better than a royal charter. It is a year since the Government put in


place its changes to the NHS's struck Jeff in England. The


original proposals caused such a furore they had to be modified. But


has a package of reforms eventually passed made any difference?


There was a time when Andrew Lansley and the Government's health


reforms were not every day news, but news every day. Then a year ago


the legislation that had angered many and confused some sympathetic


to reform passed and suddenly the news. Away. What is actually


happening? What can we see? Critics claim reform is stalling because


the plans were designed for a country that had public money,


others that they are adapting and progressing even more creatively


because of the economic climate. These reforms were a big risk,


absolutely enormous. Whether things were have bedded down in a couple


of years' time, it is too early to say. Quite apart from hospitals are


designed for the 21st century the Government wanted to design an NHS


that was fit for the 21st century. But as politicians you have only


got five years for us as consumers to really notice a difference.


was a tough passage of legislation, there were arguments, arguments


within and between the Government and outside groups. What you will


see this here is patience starting to see what the actual reality is


of that for them. That reality comes foremost in April as GPs


offer more information about what treatments are available to


patients, more choice of where you can go to get it, and what you can


get. But there is still that nagging issue of money. The NHS is


a huge organisation. It is spending �300 million every day. It is like


a big super tanker in some way. If you can get in the way of it and


try and push it, but it ploughs on, and it will take some time before


these things to come through and take some time before us who I


study it to notice it. The reason why it has gone quiet is a couple


of hundred 1000 people are reapplying for jobs because it has


been an enormous a shake-up. The good news is that what these


reforms have done is they have put the GPs on to the front foot and


put them in a position where they are much more interested in


prevention and keeping people out of hospital. But an awful lot of


the infrastructure around them is in chaos at the moment. Add to that


the new findings coming from the King's band that NHS finance


managers have some very gloomy predictions for the year ahead, and


the fact that most of us do not ascribe a good experience at the


doctor's to Government reforms and the question that by 2015 the NHS


has changed for the better will become harder to diagnose.


I enjoyed by the shadow health minister Andrew Gwynne and the


Conservative MP and she beat Philip Lee and Nicola Horlick is still


here. In your position have you noticed any difference from the


reforms? Not yet and I am not sure they really will be, especially if


you have got a district set-up like we have in Hampshire. I do not


think there is going to be a great deal of difference. In some ways


that is a missed opportunity. The reforms have been watered down and


all that is happening is a reshuffle of personnel who I going


to be working for different organisations with different names.


Of all that pain for not much difference? Indeed and I have some


sympathy with that position. Things that you see in the news at the


moment like Stafford Hospital is not to do with the change of


commissioning. Commissioning in general terms was a positive move


because you are putting things into the hands of the clinicians, but


where I would agree is the challenge facing us now is one of


structure and how we pay for it. But I thought the structure was


supposed to have been changed by it all these top-down reforms that


were criticised. Primary care structure. But has it been worth


it? I think in time yes, it will have been worth it, but my concern


is the capital cost means we cannot deal with the situations alike in


Hampshire and in my patch in Berkshire. That is where I get


frustrated. That is what matters to the punters and the constituents,


they want these hospitals in their area to look after them. And that


means closing others. You want to see bad hospitals close? It is


inevitable we are going to have fewer acute sites in the future.


And we should. All the research shows is that you need a population


of at least 500,000 in order to provide things like radiotherapy.


Some hospitals should close. there are MPs who have agreed with


that, but then will we ever see an MP standing outside a hospital that


is going to be closed saying, yes it should be closed, constituents.


You are talking to me. You have done that. Yes, I have produced a


report suggesting we need to merge acute trusts in my area which


involved the closure of a side that has served my constituency. I will


defend that site if they do not have a bigger plan, but I think it


is in the best interest of my constituents to have a


consolidation. That is a novel approach. Before the last general


election we embarked on a programme of reconfiguration precisely for


the reasons that have been out line because sometimes they deliver


better health care outcomes and we had the then shadow Health


Secretary, Andrew Lansley, and David Cameron, the leader of the


opposition, appearing outside every hospital that was going to be


downgraded. But Labour politicians have done that as well. Let me come


to you in terms of which pits the now of the reforms would you


reverse? We would repeal the Health and Social Care Act, but we are not


going to embark on another top down a reorganisation. Is that not what


would happen if you were to try and repeal the Act? No, and I hate to


sound technical, but the actor is in three parts. Part one was about


the Secretary of State's powers and we would re introduce the


responsibility of the Secretary of State for the NHS. Part three was


about competition and we would introduce the NHS as the preferred


provider. Part two was about restructuring. Do you like the


sound of that? I do not want another restructuring, but what is


really important, and it is very difficult in this economic


situation, it is to have money available for infrastructure. If


you close a hospital, you want to create a new hospital that can


accommodate more patients. The worst would be mergers which would


involve bussing people around different sites. It is like when we


got rid of grammar schools and secondary moderns. It is difficult


to make that work. What we really need is a national plan for the NHS


where we work out where we need our hospitals and capital injection and


we need to build some new, acute care hospitals. Can I come to the


proposals put forward by Andy Burnham, the idea of allowing local


authorities to commission care. Why is that a good idea? What we want


is whole person care. We want to stop the kind of mentality that has


been part and parcel of our health care system where... It would


politicise the commissioning of care. What we want to do is to


ensure that the acute services, the primary care services through the


clinical commissioning groups and the public health functions and the


adult's social care all come together and in that way people


approached the NHS as a single service rather than it being


fragmented as it is at present. Would you like local authorities to


commission care rather than GPs? Why not? The problem with


commissioning, health care is very complex and quite a sophisticated


business. When I look at hospitals, and this applies primarily to the


previous Government, but I know my Government has done it, introducing


a market in hospitals does not make any sense. If you have a heart


attack, you want to go to the best hospital. You cannot compete to


apply for that. There is a need for a national plan for acute and


emergency care because you need to be able to look at the map and the


demographics. I have requested this and said, this is what we need and


I am getting nowhere. I have even spoken to colleagues on your side


of the house. The problem is you are disconnecting and you are


giving it to people who fundamentally do not understand


health care and that would be problematic. We have to stop it


there. This morning, MPs have been hearing evidence from Robert


Francis who wrote the report into what went wrong at Mid


Staffordshire NHS Trust where it is thought there were up to 1200


additional deaths due to poor care. He was asked whether the current


chief executive of the NHS should It is not accurate to say nobody


has resigned. At Foundation Trust level, those primarily responsible


for the care of patients in the trust are no longer there, and I


have made comments about the circumstances in which some of them


left. That was the foundation for my recommendations in relation to


fitness for office. I don't think it is right for me to comment. It


is not far inquiry chairman to say what people should do following an


inquiry, it is for them and those who employ them to consider the


report. Frankly, that is the sort of question which should be


addressed to them, not me. They are coming! LAUGHTER.


It is incredible that they have been no major prosecutions, that


nobody has been sacked. Should they be? Yes, absolutely. I am


flabbergasted, to be honest, by the tone of the report. I have not read


the whole report, just the executive summary. One section says


that individuals and organisations are not responsible for their


actions within a negative culture. That is the Nuremberg defence. I am


sorry, if that action makes an impact on somebody's life, that


person dies, they should be held responsible. If they are too


stressed, as I gather the CEO was, why are we paying them a six-figure


sum? Was it right to promote Sir David Nicholson? No. I fail to see


how you can when this man was responsible, as I understand it,


for the Strategic Health Authority at the time. I struggle with this


because so much wrong was done. The details of what happened are


atrocious and I fear it may be happening in other trusts, maybe


not to the same degree. To not hold people responsible for this type of


behaviour is disgraceful. Do you agree? I think people need to be


held to account. They are paid quite large sums of money to do a


job, quite clearly the job was not done properly, but there are much,


much wider issues. It is very difficult at the moment for acute


care hospitals to function. If I walk around our hospitals, the


average age of the patients is probably about 85 years old, and


many of them are not releasing Keane have to be in an acute care


hospital but not well enough to go home, there was no one at home to


look after them. -- many of them are not really sick enough to be in


an acute care hospitals. We need some sort of step down facility to


get these people out of acute care hospitals. We need to look very


carefully at the Francis Report and take the recommendations extremely


seriously. The danger is there will be knee-jerk reactions, one is that


we go back to business as usual and say the NHS is operating perfectly


well... Nobody is saying that and nobody is advocating that. This


happened on Labour's watch, thousands of people died who did


not have to and Labour presided over the whole period. Andy Burnham


instructed France's to commission the first reports, and as I say we


need to look very seriously at the recommendations in this Francis


Report. What I would say is that the other reaction that I think


would be wrong from the Francis Report is to completely trashed the


NHS and completely trashed the professionals, clinicians and


nurses working in the NHS. Things have gone very badly wrong at


Stafford Hospital and we need to look very carefully at what has


gone wrong. Was it a lack of accountability in the Mid-


Staffordshire Trust, a lack of supervision, a problem of


governance? Coup was to blame? think there has been chronic


mismanagement at every level... the managers should resign or be


prosecuted? Absolutely they are accountable for their actions,


there Hospital, they should really look very carefully at what the


Francis Report has said went wrong. If a hospital is to operate


properly you need a good relationship between clinicians and


managers, there clearly was not that correct chemistry going on


between those individuals in that organisation. It is all very well


blaming the management, but doctors and nurses surely could tell if


people were being mistreated, or should have said something at the


time? Aren't they equally to blame? Of course. The tenure of the


executive summary is that somehow you can construct systems to make


human beings, system so perfect nobody needs to be good, to quote T


S Eliot. Ultimately, you are human or you're not. I would say the


culture introduced by the previous administration of targets,


delivering financial targets which you could print and an election


card pledge, leads to the inhumane care provided. To try to suggest


that somehow the Labour government... I am not saying they


meant to do this, but to suggest that the culture you introduced was


not part of the problem, I think, is wrong. Do you think it was an


unseen consequence? I think, and Andy Burnham has acknowledged...


The targets were wrong? Targets are not wrong, they have brought down


waiting times, they have brought down... And the cover up -- current


government uses them as well. The problem at Mid Staffordshire


and possibly one or two other trusts has been the implementation,


they treated patients as numbers, they brought in a tick box approach.


We need to go back to treating patients as people with real needs.


Stafford and that trust were serving 230,000 people. When Nicola


is right, the hospital is struggling to provide the acute and


emergency care. For the nurses and doctors is is extremely difficult


to provide the care if your hospital does not have the


facilities, the staffing or whatever. It feeds back into what


we said previously, we have too many acute hospital sites. Do you


engage at board level?... At day wards level? Our board go around


and our governors do mystery shopper checks, they will suddenly


appear and inspect commodes in the ward and make sure it is clean,


talk to the patients, ask them about their experience. Say you


have a ward with 15 very old people, half of whom are suffering from


severe dementia, and the trolley arrives at lunchtime with 15 hot


meals and you have three nurses and it takes half-an-hour to feed each


patient, how on earth are they meant to cope? It is


extraordinarily difficult, even in the best hospitals. Our nurses are


all fantastic and working night and day to get this right. So we need


to spend more money to employ more staff? Absolutely. One of the


things that the Francis Report identified was that at Mid-


Staffordshire, at a time of real growth in the NHS, there were


staffing problems. It happened at a time when so much money was going


into the NHS. And record numbers of nurses, we have lost 5000 on the


watch of this government. We have 14 trusts being investigated for


mortality rates. As a time when in the last 10 years you did, you


doubled the spend. If it was simply about spending money, it would be


easy. You have to be very careful looking at mortality rates. We have


a culture where people go to hospital to die a lot of the time,


50% of people die in hospital, partly because relatives move away,


there is nobody to care for them and they are dumped in a hospital


to die, which is terrible. It comes back to the social care issue.


afraid I will have to leave it there, thank you, gentlemen, for


joining us. Is the culture in our banking


industry changing? The chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland appeared


before the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards yesterday and


said Stephen Hester, the chief executive, is modestly paid. Just a


you know, his annual packages around �7.8 million. I don't think


it is hyperbole to say that he is dealing with a challenging and


demanding jobs. RBS was the biggest banking firm in the world. Stephen


took it on at an exceptionally difficult time. He has also, in his


four years in charge, been paid well below the market rate for a


job in world banking. Nicola, is he being paid well below


the market rate, Stephen has to? Probably, but the question is


whether the market rate is the right rate. We have seen huge


inflation in banking salaries and bonuses. We have been infected by


what was going on in the States, we had these longer than telephone-


number salaries. Headhunting started to go global and we are


saying, you need somebody from an American investment bank to come


over and run this British bank. As a result, salaries have gone up and


up and up. In the old days, what we hadn't the banks was you would be


paid a relatively small amount in terms of your actual salary and


then the bonus depended on how the bank did. A portion of the bank


profits, usually around 20%, would be set aside to cover bonuses. I


think we have lost that link and people have contractual right to


very large sums. If you look at Stephen Hester and what he has done


in terms of, as they would argue, transforming the bank, and it has


gone global, how can one bank or British-based banks be the ones


paying hat -- paying far below the market rate if that is the case?


think Stephen felt that you very much had to forgo bonuses and so on


previously because there was a real spotlight on him and what was going


on. The truth of the matter is he has done a very good job. I should


declare an interest, I have known him since we were 18, we were at


university and he is an old friend. But looking at it is passionately


and objectively, he has done a very good job for us, actually, the


public who, in effect, on that bank. If you don't pay and the market


rate, will you go off and do something else? Isn't that just a


myth? I don't know. I think he feels a real sense of


responsibility and a desire to sort it out, he probably wouldn't walk


away, but that is for the board to decide. They have to make that


judgment. What he potentially walk away and leave them in the lurch?


Bonuses are one thing, but there was also news coming from a


slightly different quarter, Barclays Bank, this morning, they


are axing jobs in their investment banking division and reducing the


amount available to pay bonuses. Chief Executive Antony Jenkins has


waived his own bonus this year and suggests that the culture at the


Bank, mired in the LIBOR scandal, was changing. It is about building


a better Barclays, what we call the go to a bank. It is about running


it in line with our purpose and values but also about delivering


great returns for shareholders, that is the plan we are laying out.


Do you believe Antony Jenkins? He says the culture has changed, he


waived his bonus last year. Symbolic and financially real, in


that sense. But if they are starting from Ground Zero, can they


do it? I think he is a genuine person who does want to change the


culture of Barclays. But it is like a supertanker, it is an enormous


organisation, you cannot change it literally overnight, but I believe


him when he says he wants to attempt to change the culture. I


sometimes think that maybe this is to do with the fact that we don't


have wards any more, to any great extent. All the testosterone is


thrown into the City, that is the battleground, and the rewards are


these excessive salaries and bonuses. I think you need to


temperate, calm it down, stop people behaving in this incredibly


irresponsible manner which has caused as enormous problems. We are


going to see the results of everything what -- which went wrong


in 2007 for decades, there does not seem to be light at the end of the


tunnel currently. Many people would argue that banks should be punished


further. But in the way that Antony Jenkins -- Antony Jenkins has set


out, you could argue that what is so dramatic about Goldman Sachs


getting rid of 10% every year to get rid of the dead wood, so are


they making dramatic steps? There is a hire-and-fire culture in these


organisations and they have these cults on a regular basis, the


workforce goes up and down pretty rapidly. -- they have these culls.


But it is about the culture, how they do business and whether it is


ethical. Investment banks are one thing, high-street banks are


completely different. Barclays is a hybrid bank. One of the issues we


have at the moment is that banks are not giving money to businesses,


not lending to any great extent. They will enter a third seed


company... Not a small business. The majority of businesses in this


country of small businesses and they cannot borrow, we really need


to focus on that. From the point of view of Barclays, I am not


particularly concerned with the investment banking side, I'm


concerned about the High Street. Thank you.


Who are Britain's most powerful women? Other than the ones in this


studio, of course! Radio 4 think they know and have unveiled the 100


women who have made the Woman's Hour Power List. One of the judges,


Oona King, joins me. Who got the top three slip -- slots? It is


unbelievable, the Queen won, can you believe it(!) But it was only


this last week that she went to number one. In the top 20 we have


thanked them, then we have put the rest, the following 80, they are


just an alphabetical order, it is a bit too hard! We have also done it


in terms of groups like politics, arts, culture etc. It was really


interesting, the discussion between soft power and hard power. I am


more at the heart power end, but those women who really influence us


with the ability to make another generation listen, we must take


them into account. The criteria, between hard and soft power, what


other things did you look at in terms of the most powerful and


influential women? We had to be sure we went excluding whole groups.


I have no idea who the most powerful women are in terms of


engineering or genetic research in science, we had to take expert


advice and be careful when we looked at business, are we taking


into account the turnover in terms of shares, what sort of matrix are


we using to measure the power? But what comes out from the list, the


key message, his first day that it is not as diverse as we might


wanted to be. -- his first the that it is not as diverse. I am not just


talking about ethnicity, although seven out of 100 are from ethnic


minority backgrounds, but also social diversity and class and how


women managed to break the glass ceiling. It seems as though we have


not made Joe boot made as much progress as we would help. But


looking down the list, you will not recognise many names of some of


these women because they have huge power and influence but they are


not in immediate talking about the froth that might come along here


and there, they are at an underlying level talking about how


things -- changing how things happen in Britain. Which women did


well in politics? You would expect the Home Secretary to be there, she


was number two, on the other side of politics there are people like


Harriet Harman and people like Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy


from Scotland to. There are women that did not make the list who use


social media in a way, for instance, in politics that in a few years'


time will very much have them on the list, people like Stella


Creasey, who has done impressive things by reaching out far beyond


the usual range that politicians can reach out to people with,


people like Gloria Del Piero. I think we will have a different


looking list and it will be even more different outside politics,


where social media has made the transition between hard power and


You can see the full list on the women's our website. So, women can


have it all, but what about men? What about in the domestic sphere?


How accepting his society of men who look after, cook and clean?


Michael Reeves is giving a lecture tonight about The Symmetrical


Family. Where men and women have an equal opportunity to go to work and


earn money, or an equal opportunity to stay at home and raise children.


We leave behind the gender roles that we attach to men, that we have


mostly managed to leave behind that we attach to women. We are halfway


in a sense that we have seen the conversation we had just had and


the conversation earlier about how much there was too much


testosterone in the city. Saying that you are a career man or in


working father might sound a bit weird, and until it does not sound


weird, means we cannot have absolute equality. You cannot have


equality unless men changed as well. It is interesting looking at it


instead of women pushing at the glass ceiling we have got will


almost encourage men to be proud of taking a more central role at home.


What do you say to that? Things have changed dramatically and men


do an awful lot more in the home than they used to. I do not think


they did terribly much with babies a few decades ago as now they are


prepared to change nappies these days. I have come across a few men


who have stayed at home and looked after the family, but quite often


they get frustrated and eventually return to the workplace. I think


men are programmed to go and hunt and gather and women are programmed


to stay at home and nurture to an extent. Often what happens is were


meant work and still go and buy the food and do the cooking and do the


cleaning. Actually, women end up doing both and are completely


frazzled and exhausted. That is one outcome, they end up working a


double shift and end up being exhausted. I think those attitudes


are the problem. If we say men are programmed to go and hunt and


gather and women are programmed to look after kids, then we should


accept that the pay gap will be here forever. You'll get a gap in


boardrooms. I am just asking is it possible? I do not think it is a


cultural thing. I think it is mostly a cultural challenge. For


example, the Government has said it will make almost all maternity


leave transferable between men and women. But men cannot breast-feed.


That is right, but maybe they can make some decisions in the first


six months. We leave it to them to decide, but you are right it is


mostly cultural. The US military are put in women on the front line.


We have had a women Prime Minister and we have completely changed


about the way women are in society. I meant up for this? I think some


art and some I not, like the feminist somewhere ahead of the


curve and others needed to be convinced. But there are more women


graduating from British universities than men, so it seems


to be entirely unsustainable to have a labour market based on the


idea that that is the man's World and something has to give. It is


either exhausted women, badly raised children or up real gender


equality. You say you would like to see more men to get on that role.


What could Government do to encourage it? Well, child care is a


major issue, the cost of it, so I am not sure it men should have to


stay at home and look after children. We should be investing


more in childcare. My PA has just been on maternity leave and her


husband is a film-maker and she is a PA, and they both want to work,


but they cannot afford more than three days a week of childcare and


she is having to work less. That is true for so many people. If you add


in the cost of getting to work. A lot of people cannot afford to live


in central London, and then it becomes economic for people to work.


Child care is a major issue. It is not just a matter of who stays at


home to look after the children. I think both should be able to go out


and work and both should have an economic future and we as a society


should have a better way of looking after children. There is nothing


preventing men from doing this. There is nothing preventing men


from engaging more at home, is there? Currently women can take a


year off in maternity and men can take two weeks of, so there is a


very big a symmetry in legal rights to take time off. The recent


Government announced men could attend antenatal clinics. I am not


claiming some conspiracy against men, but we need to recognise the


assumptions about the role of men are still there. Child care is


important and the Government is doing more on that, but I do not


think the way to gender equality is for women to work the way men have


always done and sub-contract the child-rearing to others. We are


looking for something a bit better than that. Are you old enough to


remember the political drama series house of cards? It's not an


ambitious Francis Urquhart played by Ian Richardson try and find his


way up the political greasy pole. It has now been adapted for an


American audience with Kevin Spacey taking the lead role as an American


Democrat Frank Underwood. We will be speaking to the author Michael


Dobbs who is an executive producer on the new series. Let's remind


ourselves of the original drama and also take a look at Kevin Spacey in


action. Don't you see I had to do it. How could I have ever trusted


her? You might very well think that I could not possibly comment.


exactly may I help you? You must know the administration's


legislated agenda. I'm May. Will you tell me? What will your guess


be? In migration, tax reform is not sexy enough, it is education,


everyone can get behind children. Is that education? You might very


well think that, I could not possibly comment. That


unforgettable phrase. The author of the House of Cards, Michael Dobbs,


is here with us now. Have they kept true to the original version? Have


you kept true to the original version? It is treated the spirit.


But the Americans have have poured so much money into it. It is a


superb series. In 13 hours it does not even get as far as the BBC's


original four hours, so it goes into new territory, but plays


wonderful homage to the original. Everybody there, the directors and


the writers, they were all inspired by that brilliant original series.


I cannot we forget Ian Richardson playing Francis Urquhart, I did not


think anybody would be able to match that look and that crushing


comment. Does he? Kevin Spacey? feel as if I should give -- be


given a gold medal. Yes, how did you get Kevin Spacey? He plays in a


different way. Ian had some pretty camp humour. Kevin Spacey is much


darker. But he was pretty dark. but this is much darker. This is


the west wing for where waltz. He has just come off a global tour of


Richard the Third and it is like he was using that as his training for


this. Shakespeare's and Berlin into his new role. What was it like


adapting it from a British political system into the American


political system at which is different? It is different, but it


is the same. They have whips there, but they have more power, more


money and bought interests. It gives a whip even more possibility


of manipulation. It is not about Britain and America, it is about


power and people. I am not comparing myself to Shakespeare,


but it is what Shakespeare it knew and understood. It is not about


systems, it is about people and what motivates them and where they


go wrong. Did you watched the original series? Yes, I loved the


original. I will definitely download it and watch it. I think


Kevin Spacey is a very good villain. He is very good at chilling roles.


He is not just a television actor. He took the Old Vic Theatre from


where it was going to be turned into a theme bar and has made it


one of the great cultural forces of today. He has all that quality


which he pours into this series. Clyde could you not keep the name


Urquhart? They could not possibly pronounce it. Do you think there is


always a real-life Francis Urquhart behind the scenes politically?


only people I have ever upset as far as I am aware in politics are


those who have come up to me and have said was Francis Urquhart me?


I had said, No It was not you, and they go away totally crestfallen.


That is all for today. Thank you to Nicola Horlick for being our guest


today. The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One. Andrew


and I will be here tomorrow at 11:30am. We will leave you with


some of the highlights of the annual parliamentary pancake race


which was run this morning. MPs took on teams from the House of


Download Subtitles