26/10/2015 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Chancellor George Osborne is said to be in listening mode,

but will that stop peers killing off his cuts to tax credits?

Members of the House of Lords are on their way back to Westminster

where later today they'll have to decide whether to derail the plans.

If they do, will it set them on constitutional collision course?

John Bercow is loved by some, loathed by others.

We know he likes to scold naughty ministers, but has he

The Calais migrant crisis has slipped out of the news

but hauliers say its threatening trade and their livelihoods.

We'll be talking to one MP who's calling for action.

And it's been the stationery of choice at Parliament for centuries,

but campaigners want plans to use paper instead of vellum, that's made

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

of the programme today, I'm joined by the Conservative MP Paul Scully

So, let's talk first today about the government's changes to

tax credits, which independent researcher say will cost three

Having spent weeks insisting that there will be no change to the

policy despite growing criticism from inside and outside the

Conservative Party, George Osborne is now said to be in listening mode.

But will that sway peers this afternoon as they vote on a series

of motions that could postpone or kill off the tax credit changes?

And if they do try to block the plans, will it lead to

Well, here's the minister Matt Hancock

These changes are important and are part of a broader package to make

sure that the country can live within its means and we move from a

low wage, high welfare, high tax economy to a higher pay, lower

welfare, lower tax society. We don't take money away from people and give

it back to them so much and benefits and we make sure that the country

can pay its way. This has been debated three times in the House of

Commons and passed each time with a majority bigger than the government

majority. It would be unprecedented for the House of Lords to block a

motion like this that is so central to the budget of the country.

Well, let's find out more about this afternoon's vote from

our political correspondent Chris Mason who's out enjoying a mild

Lucky old shoe, Chris. Listening to Matt Hancock, this has been passed

in the Commons, but could it be defeated by the Lords? Yes, it

could, and that is why there is the drama around the proceedings today.

There is a sea of Westminster jargon to paddle through. Talk of statutory

instruments and kill motions. One of my bosses were saying that I should

be fined for using phrases like that, but you can forget those

terms, because it boils down to two things. One, the millions of people

who could be affected by the government's changes, and secondly,

the sense of drama around today's debate in the House of Lords. There

is always drama around tight, unpredictable votes, and

particularly in the Lords where, frankly, people are more

independently minded. There are crossbenchers and independent peers

who are not whipped. They are only their own bosses. There is a sense

of uncertainty about precisely what will happen as the series of motions

are put forward and we find out at around eight o'clock tonight what

will happen. What about this phrase that the Chancellor is in listening

mode? Is it meaningless? Or does it indicate a change in stance by

George Osborne? It's a corking phrase, because it creates an image

of him walking round the rest of the time with a pair of ear defenders

on. What does it mean speaking to people here? I think it is keen that

the Conservatives are keen to push out a message that they get the

scale of concern articulated about the changes, the scale on their own

benches in the Commons, the scale of concern amongst the press that are

normally supportive of the Conservative Party. Even like the

Spectator. They are entertaining the idea that they can do something to

mitigate the effect of these changes, possibly in the Autumn

Statement, the mini budget in a month's time. We do not have any

detail and there is no meat on the bones but that appears to be where

they are heading. At the same time, they are making a real noise about

what they see as the constitutional crisis. If the Lords were to throw

out something that has been back three times by the elected House of

Commons which adds to the sense of drama as we look ahead to the

debates this afternoon. Chris Mason, thank you.

So we're told that George Osborne is in listening mode, and there's been

speculation for weeks that he may do something in next month's Spending

Review and Autumn Statement to help those affected by the tax credit

changes, which are designed to save ?4.5 billion.

Well, to talk about what options he might have

we're joined by James Brown from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Does he actually have, George Osborne, any wriggle room if he

wants to save ?4.5 billion? There are different things you can do to

save that amount of money. He could increase taxes on a different group

and reduce benefits on a different group or reduce departmental

spending by more. But if you are looking to take a similar amount of

money from a similar group of people, there are not many other

options you can look to. These tax credits are well targeted on a

particular group. What about the claims that the government and

ministers keep making that, overall, when you take in people coming out

of tax and increasing thresholds and wages going up, is it true to say

that most of these people affected by the tax credit system will be

better off? No, I don't think it's likely these people will be better

off overall. These are very big reductions in tax credit entitlement

is coming in next April, averaging around ?1100 per household. Only

about two fifths of these households contain somebody paid less than the

living wage, for example. For a lot of these people there won't be

anything else that is offsetting the reduction in tax credits. Paul

Scully, there you have heard it from the Institute for Fiscal Studies,

most people will not be better off, even when you take on other

factors. I disagree. They are wrong at the Institute for Fiscal Studies?

Over the parliament, people will be ?2400 per year better off. Is that

true? Going further forward it could be possible that further increases

in earnings might mean that by 2020 some people will be better off then

than they are currently. But not all? You can construct examples.

There are a lot of other things going on. Let's take your point that

some of them would be better off by 2020, we are in 2015 and the changes

coming next April, so those people will all, by your own calculations,

be worse off for a period of time. There is no easy way of doing the

changes we have to do. We know we have to take ?12 billion out of the

welfare budget overall and this is an important cornerstone of it.

There are important and difficult decisions to be made, but what we

need to do is look at it as an overall package. We talked about the

end of the parliament, but we are also talking about the national

living wage coming in and we also have the increase in tax thresholds

as well, where you start paying tax. There are other changes to

childcare. You heard some of the tweaks and proposals the Chancellor

could take to further mitigate the changes. Would you like to see him

do that? I would like to continue to see him to listen. It will be for

him to then look at the specifics. I have heard from EIF S and from a

number of other different think tanks and economists and they are

coming up with different figures. It would be nice for him to come up

with different figures, go away and consider the things that the

organisations have said. So you would like to see tweaks to it? What

I don't want to see is the whole thing derailed by an unprecedented

move in the House of Lords this afternoon. That is crucial. We are

going to come onto that. In a sense, do you agree with reform to the tax

credit system? That it should be cut on principle anyway? I think it is

totally the wrong priority. They're all sorts of ways to make savings in

the welfare system. The money we spend on housing benefit is a huge

issue and we should bring it down. The money we spend on inheritance

tax. There are number of different ways that we put it forward to

change spending. These are people at the bottom trying to struggle to

make ends meet week by week, day by day, and these are the people the

Tories said they were standing up for. They are totally at odds with

their policy and rhetoric and have got themselves in knots. I'm glad to

hear George Osborne is listening, but the wall of noise from the Sun

newspaper, the Tory backbenches is overwhelming and he has to change

his mind. How much has the tax credit builder gone up since it was

introduced? I think at the back end of 1997 we were spending 8 billion

per year -- the tax credit bill gone up. Currently it is about ?30

billion. It goes to show how much this area of support for low-income

families through these tax credits has been increasing, particularly

during the last Labour period in government. These changes will only

slightly role that back, but even so, you still have a lot of people

losing out on quite a lot of money from the changes. Would you support

John McDonnell bringing in higher taxes, that is how he would go in on

covering the tax credit Bill? There are people better off to foot the

bill. We should look at inheritance tax. There is a whole raft of

measures. To hit those people who work in day in, day out, at the

NHS, school assistance, these are the ones we are clobbering and it is

deeply unfair. When we took over the Coalition Government in 2010, nine

out of ten families were reliant on tax credits. How can it be that we

have created a system where people are paying tax then getting a pat on

the head and getting money back from the state? It's important in terms

of changing the economy from a low pay, high tax economy through to a

higher pay, low tax economy where people can keep more of their own

money. Do you think the tax credit system is wrong in principle? That

it is wrong to subsidise, if you like, some employers by paying

people through the tax credit system? So would you like to see a

dismantled altogether? By changing it, you do it gradually, but you get

a ripple effect. You have big employers like Asda, Tesco, the sort

of companies who are increasing their salaries now and not waiting

for the national living wage to come in next year. That will be a big

benefit to people, because at the end of the day has to be work and

getting into gainful employment that pays. Just finally, the government

talks about ?12 billion worth of cuts to the welfare bill. Where does

the rest of it come from? The other changes they are bringing in the

benefits are being frozen for the next four years which gives you

another four or ?5 billion. There are cuts to tax credits for new

claimants, so the two child limit introduced from April 20 17th. --

April 2017. They also reducing social rents to reduce the housing

benefit bill. Thank you very much. So yesterday

the education secretary Nicky Morgan warned peers not to block tax credit

changes which have been agreed by MPs, warning the move would be

"constitutionally unprecedented". Well, the Liberal Democrats,

who have 111 peers, are trying to We're joined now by one of them,

Susan Kramer. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Your party has eight MPs, you spectacularly lost the general

election. Why do you think it is acceptable to block the legislation

of the party who has won a majority? We have a 2 house parliament and

there is a significant and important role for the House of Lords. In the

last Parliament, my party tried to change it to an elected house and

both Conservatives and Labour came back with a message that you can

carry out your responsibilities on an unelected basis. We are carrying

out our responsibilities. Our job is to view and scrutinise and revise

legislation, to challenge the government. But not to block it?

Where is your mandate to block legislation and actually tried to

kill it off altogether? You cannot amend, as you know, with statutory

instrument, so we are asked to approve or not approve. I recommend

that we do not approve this. We have 3 million people on tax credits you

are going to be just clobbered by this. You have heard the numbers. It

is very real. The mitigations, which are far from being complete, they

come in later. We have families who are going to have to look at feeding

the kids cereal for dinner, turning the heating. This is really serious

and we have to stand up those people. That is one of the jobs of

the House of Lords. Are doing our job. You say that, but you mentioned

that the Liberal Democrats fighting an unelected House of Lords for

years and now you are using the leave at your disposal to block the

will of the elected government. There is a hypocrisy there, isn't

there? If the other parties refuse to

reform, we must work with what we have got, and what we have got is

what we are going to use. It is absolutely crucial that we do. This

is not a constitutional SU. The Conservatives have lost the issue on

tax credits, so they are fairly desperately trying to turn it into a

constitutional issue, because they think they can have a better

conversation there than they can when you actually talk about the

realities of the tax credit problem. This is a bill. If we can't act in

the House of Lords on bills that have some money consequences, there

would be almost nothing at all we could ever look at, we could ever

scrutinise, we could ever revise and we could ever challenge. It really

is important to recognise this is a welfare measure. If you take that as

a welfare measure, then it does give you some ground to oppose, but

opposing rather than blocking. You say the only option open to you is

to kill it off, this statutory instrument, but you could join with

Labour. They are working to delay and asking the government to review,

so there is an alternative. The fatal measure we have brought in is

much cleaner, simpler. It doesn't stop the government acting, it says

to the government you can't do exactly this, go away and think

about it, and it sounds like that is finally persuading this government

that has been refusing to even listen. I hope very much that it is

listening and thinking now it is facing this action in the House of

Lords. But it is a clean measure and then the government can go away,

think again and come back with something new. We are not partisan

on this. If that isn't sustained, as the cleanest way to do it, then we

will obviously support the Labour motion for delay. Susan Kramer, bear

with us, she has a point, this is a welfare measure, not a strictly

money measure, which is how the Conservatives are trying to justify

that the Lords should just accept it, or revise it, but basically

approve it. It is a welfare measure, it is affecting people on welfare,

and they then do have a right to kill it off. It is a money measure,

in that it is ?4.4 billion that is part of the money we are spending

more than we are bringing in as a country. Whilst we are trying to

change and reduce the deficit and ultimately reduce debt, these are

the sort of measures that we have got to bring in, financial measures,

we have got to bring into reverse this. Lord Butler himself, one of

the former cabinet secretary sits with Ernest Kramer in the House of

Lords, said this is an unprecedented measure. A financial instrument that

the Lords should not be rejecting in this way. They will argue that it

wasn't in your manifesto, and the government has made it very clear

that what was in the manifesto was a commitment to cut welfare by ?12

billion. Do you regret now not stating before the election where it

might have come from, particularly since the Prime Minister indicated

it wouldn't be from tax credits? We have given a lot of discussion

throughout the election campaign on welfare reform, and we have had a

lot of time since the election to talk about this as well. There are a

number of instruments available to the House of Lords, of which the

bishops have come up with a motion of regret, I believe it is called.

There are plenty of other options available. However, I would like to

see this go through uninterrupted by the House of Lords, and then George

Osborne will discuss the fact that he is in listening mode, if you want

to make your case, continue making the case and then do it at that

point rather than overstepping the mark constitutionally. The other

thing, Susan Kramer, this is the third cut the tax credits over the

last five years. Not the first one. The other two came when your party

was in coalition. We did not hear any outrage from Lib Dem peers then.

We very much protected those who were among the most probable, that

was a very important role people played in the coalition. People have

been shocked, they didn't see this coming, this very big blow to people

who are the working poor, and that is because we protected them while

we had a say in government. They are being exposed now. It is crucial we

protect them in that is frankly a welfare measure, and we need to

stand up today and do that. I find that startling, I am glad the Lib

Dems have found their conscience after five years of nodding and

supporting through welfare cuts. I'm disappointed the Tories have tried

to rush this through, when we could have had it in primary legislation

and have a much better debate. I am glad this we have put down an

amendment to give George Osborne time again to listen to the very

strong views from his backbenchers, and across both houses, to say this

is not right. This is hitting the people who need our support the most

and we need to think again. John McDonnell said if there is a

reversal, a complete reversal, which is highly unlikely, by George

Osborne, then he promises him personally and publicly he would not

attack him for it. Really? Labour is never going to mention it again? We

will be delighted, because all I can think is the constituents back home

who will be decimated by this. I am quite happy to sit quietly if he

does that. Let's wait and see. The question for today is which

of these parliamentarians has turned down an invitation to appear

on this year's At the end of the show Anna and Paul

will give us the correct answer. You haven't been asked, then?

Definitely not. A sort of sigh of relief there.

So we know the vote on tax credits will be causing a stir today, but

there are plenty of other stories bubbling under here at Westminster.

In a moment, we'll speak to two journalists who

know how to add more froth to their stories than a barista

But first, let's take a look at some of the big events which will

be keeping MPs in the building behind them busy this week.

Today, MPs vote on the final version of the Finance Bill, which enshrines

into law the measures outlined in the 2015 summer budget.

On Tuesday, the Commons takes its final vote on the Welfare Reform

and Work Bill, which provides for significant changes to welfare

benefits, tax credits, and social housing levels - amounting to around

70% of the government's planned ?12 billion welfare cuts.

On Wednesday it's the latest edition of Prime Minister's Questions.

David Cameron's on a trip to Iceland that day, so squaring off

at the despatch boxes in their PMQs debuts will be Foreign Secretary

Philip Hammond and Shadow First Secretary of State Angela Eagle.

Later on Wednesday Labour are staging an opposition day debate

in the Commons to highlight controversy over planned changes to

On Thursday, we'll be talking about tax credits again, as MPs

debate a motion tabled by Labour's Frank Field- he's the chairman

of the Work and Pensions committee - calling on George Osborne to

And on Friday, the Scottish Labour Party meet in Perth

for the first day of their annual conference, with Jeremy Corbyn set

We're joined now by Lucy Fisher from the Times and Jim Waterson

Well, both of you, a busy week in Parliament, as it often is, but

let's talk about some other issues that have been discussed over the

weekend and will impact the week ahead. Looking at deselection. The

story over the weekend, reassurances from the Shadow Chancellor John

McDonnell and moderate MPs worried about deselection, left-wing

activists he says will not be able to force them out. Will that

reassure you enough? I don't think it will. Head of the PLP committee

gave a reassurance, John McDonnell, yesterday gave a reassurance, but it

is not really up to the central party if these spin off local

groups, local Labour parties have influxes of large number of members

who are very far left, then it is not really up to the Central command

to say what they cannot can't do when selection comes up. What about

Frank Field's intervention, Jim Watterson? He has borne such a move

would be met with a mass rebellion within the party, with MPs backing

their ousted colleagues in by-elections in defiance of party

rules. It all sounds like party discipline is crumbling here. If you

were threatened with being removed by your job from a few people who

had turned up late in the day, you might feel unhappy but that is what

MPs are having to deal with. If you have got these new members coming

in, then the membership is programming and the MPs for the hole

are not, then it is quite hard to replicate what is going on because

the membership really do want pro carbon candidates. We spoke to

Momentum, and what they have said as they are not going to back row

selections but if a candidate steps down, if an MP is going to move on,

they would expect to play an active role in choosing a new candidate

because they frankly make up the vast majority of the people who

would have a say in such matters now. Should moderate Labour MPs,

those who don't necessarily support Jeremy Corbyn, just fall into line

and support their party's selection? This is greatly exaggerated. My

membership has doubled in my constituency and I welcome that. I

have tried to meet and speak to as many of those members as possible

and the idea that they are all somehow slaves to Jeremy Corbyn and

can't bear the Labour Party as it is an throw out everything we stood

for, a lot of them have got involved for the first time because suddenly,

they had been Labour supporters and had Labour values for all of their

lives but now there was an opportunity to engage. So why are

they worried, Frank Field supporting up and saying he was support any of

his colleagues being ousted in this way, they are loaded is going on.

People need to calm down. We are way out of an election at the moment, we

have a job to represent our constituents and stand up to this

government. At the end of the day we have always been a broad church. My

plea is for respect on all sides of the parties. The tradition on the

right is just as valid as the tradition on the left, no 1's values

are any more holy than anyone else's in the party. We need to win

in 2020 because there is nothing you can do about tax credits or

steelwork shutting down if you are in opposition. Let's just continue

with this a little bit longer. Simon Danczuk, who would consume himself a

moderate, -- consider himself a moderate, perhaps on the right of

the Labour Party, has talked about himself being a stalking horse in

next May's elections, how likely do you think that will be? I think it

will be very unlikely. The problem is for those moderate MPs talking

about a possible coup, even now, before Christmas or after May, if

the local Welsh, Scottish elections have a poor result for Labour. I

can't really say anything to the fact that most should the party

backs Jeremy Corbyn. He does have this overwhelming mandate, so I

think it would be very unlikely that any Labour MPs would back Simon

Danczuk to make that move. Just finally on Chilcott, it has been

reported we will get the timings of that report at the end of the week.

Are you excited? Given that Chilcott was commissioned in 2009, there will

now be children in their second or 30 at school who were not even born

when it started. I will believe it when I see it, but we have already

had Tony Blair out doing his pre-briefing on this, and the one

thing I can be certain of is that almost no one will be happy with

what it concludes. Yes, you can almost rely on that, can't you?

Thank you to both of. Now,

who remembers the former Liberal He was once a regular

on our screens, but the party's former Treasury spokesman quit

the Lib Dems back in 2014 after it emerged he had commissioned

polls suggesting the party would be He predicted it was heading for a

"disaster" unless it changed leader. But he didn't leave

off politics altogether. Before

the general election it was reported that he had donated ?600,000 to 30

Labour and 15 left-of-centre Lib Dem election candidates,

which he described as "doing his bit to save our country from a

Tory government cringing to Ukip". Well, the money didn't do the trick

for most of those candidates. Only six of the 45 made it

into the Commons. The peer has now announced he is

returning to the House of Lords as a non-affiliated peer, and he's

said he's coming back to campaign Welcome back. Long time no see. The

private polling commissioned by you saying the Lib Dems were walking to

electoral oblivion under Nick Clegg's leadership ten at the

correct, so do you feel vindicated? I told you so is never a good look,

and I must say the polls that I commissioned at that time did turn

out to be pretty well spot on. I see Anatoly from Redcar, the Paul Blair

said that Labour was going to win Turley. The polls are that Nick

Clegg was just going to lose, he only just one but only by squeezing

the Tory vote but that is all history now. I felt the evidence was

very strong that the Lib Dems would save more seats, get more votes and

do better if there had been a change of leader to Vince Cable, and I'm

sorry that the party did not take my view. I don't believe we would have

an overall Tory majority today, I don't think we could have done as

badly. The four polls in the seats that I commissioned got the results

almost dead on with Nick Clegg as the leader, and they showed that

under Vince Cable the Lib Dems would have done between five and 10%

better. So I think there is a good chance, Paul you are the MP for

Sutton and Cheam, you beat Paul Bairstow, there is a good chance

Paul Bairstow would be sitting here instead of you. We can't be sure.

But the results were disastrous and studied his history now. Do you

regret commissioning the research, because in the end you were accused

of an attempted coup and you had to resign from the party? I didn't have

to resign, didn't want to carry on if we were heading for disaster and

I felt I wanted a break anyway. No, I don't regret it at all, indeed

Paul Bairstow was very nice to me on the Tubes the other day, I won't say

exactly what his head, but many Lib Dems probably regret that they did

not stand up more firmly. That is history. I am just coming back now,

I was closely involved in the first European referendum when it came in

in 1975, working for Rod Jenkins at the time, and for Rod Jenkins at the

time, and 40 referendum go the wrong way, so if I can help that I will.

On that line about a Progressive Alliance, what you wanted to create

when you gave the money to Labour candidates, Lib Dems and Caroline

Lucas, but only six of the 45 made it to the Commons, was it a waste of

money? I don't think it was, and I will

tell you why. We stopped Ukip winning, and I was especially keen

to stop them winning Boruc, which was their top target and I was

helping Polly Billington. -- Thurrock. I was helping out in

Thanet, the candour that there was a good third. If Labour had

collapsed, Nigel Farage might have collapsed. Although the result was

disappointing, it was important we stopped Ukip breaking through. Is

Tim Farren the man to revive the Lib Dems? I don't want to get into the

Lib Dems, I am nonparty. I am a social democrat and they are the

same views I have had for 30 or 40 years. Other parties do fluctuate a

lot. I wish Anna and the other Labour Party moderates well in

reclaiming the party from the far left, but when I was in labour for

15 years we spent a lot of time fighting people like Jeremy Corbyn

and John McDonnell, and I'm afraid they are not going to get elected

unless moderates reassert themselves, but it's a difficult

situation at the moment. I shall let Anna comeback in on that. I agree. I

am a moderate, no denying that. But we have been a broad church and

Jeremy won with an overwhelming mandate and he spoke to something

that people wanted. There are new people coming through. A lot of

people who were involved 30 years ago who may not for me put the

Labour Party values ahead of particularly strong views they have,

but the priority for me is making sure we look at what the British

public one. The last time I stood firm parliament was in 1983 after we

founded the SDP and Labour were standing as a broad church under

Michael foot and they were hammered, and I think that will happen again.

I wish you luck, and I hope you reassert yourself over the next few

years. You have come back to campaign on Europe in the

referendum. What about the tax credits row? It is rather critical

for peers like yourself, you are back in the Lords, nonparty. What

will you do? There are a lot of coincidences in life. I didn't know

the vote was coming up and I wanted to come back and take my seat before

the committee stage of the Europe bill. Now, as it happens, I've come

into the middle of this. I will be voting tonight and I will be voting

for the motion to kill or block the tax credits. I am voting for the

Liberal Democrats and the Labour one. There is a constitutional issue

here. I do find it awkward that the Lords have to take a view on this

because the Lords should have been reformed and elected long ago. In

the last Parliament we fought hard for it and there was a vote and then

the Conservatives bottled out. It is awkward. It is a tricky thing to

vote on. But I do think, particularly given the fact that the

constitutional doctrine, in a manifesto, is quite clearly taking

away money from working people was not in the Tory manifesto and it was

categorically denied by David Cameron so it's reasonable to ask

astute make the Commons think again. That is what I will ask for.

Are you still friends with Vince Cable? Very much so. He's coming for

supper and we are going skiing again. We have always been friends,

but there had to be a slight diplomatic cooling after what

happened with Nick Clegg. But we are very good friends and we always have

been. Thank you. Now,

he was re-elected to the big chair at the start of this Parliament,

but has something bitten Speaker He's never been shy of telling Mps

when he thinks they've stepped out of line in the Commons, but lately

he's also had a thing or two to say We asked Giles to find

out what was going on. He waited a long time for the

position to arrive but he has been in the chair a good while, and

though sometimes his wife has garnered the headlines more than

him, Speaker John Bercow is no shrinking violet. The Right

honourable gentleman has no business scurrying out of the chamber.

Order! The reaction of some MPs to that was best expressed like this.

What do you think of the show so far? Rubbish! Once a boy on

crackerjack, the shouting came from the audience, but now he's in charge

of running the Parliamentary show, he takes on all comers. The word

conman is frankly unparliamentary. Order! The Prime Minister is a man

of great versatility in the use of language, and it is a bit below the

level. Be quiet. If you can't be quiet, get out. You are adding

nothing is abstracting a lot. It is rude, stupid and pompous and it

needs to stop. What he should not do is fail to communicate with me in

advance, ignore the convention and greatly exceed his allotted time. It

is, I'm afraid, discourteous and incompetent and it must happen

again. There is a badge of honour and it is called BBB. We call it

bashed by Burke oh, and it became a badge of honour -- bashed by Bercow.

Sometimes you have a bad day and maybe in John's case, he's had a few

by the looks of it. They have a right to be deeply insulted but they

tend to be trivial figures and the capacity to take larger French is

often a sign of triviality. Can I say to the Prime Minister's PPS, his

role is to nod his head in the appropriate places, and to fetch and

carry notes. No noise required. But the speaker likes to make some

noise, even offering opinion on HS2. It is undesirable and an unnecessary

project. Or even human rights to the Chinese president. No country can

exist in isolation, from all matters, from international law to

individual liberty. For his supporters, being forthright is no

bar to delivery. He is one of the best speakers in modern times, in my

opinion, because he keeps it moving along and he holds the executive to

account and if there is a minister who has questions to answer, he will

be at the dispatch box answering them. The fact that he is a

naturally rude man doesn't matter. Well, we're joined now by

the journalist Bobby Friedman, he's are -- is he in a bad mood? He is

always in a bad mood, really. You can't charge him with

inconsistency, then. There has been a flare-up over the last few weeks

but you see these from time to time and he tends to get a bit spiffy

with people and he does have quite a temper. You see it coming out from

time to time, and you see it coming out with Tory MPs, maybe not a

surprise. But that is what you get with John Bercow. What is driving

that, if you yourself admit that it is directed at Tory MPs, rightly or

wrongly? Is it revenge? I think it is revenge and there is a real

personal hatred here. A lot of Tory MPs would say that John Bercow is

quite a good speaker. It is him personally do they do not like. It

is a mutual feeling. John Bercow and David Cameron do not like each other

at all. I cannot repeat some of the words used by either side to

describe each other on TV at this time of day. But that is the general

sense you get with that relationship, and it's not good. It

is, rather than him in the role, it is that personal amity. That does

seem to be displayed on occasion -- Eminem T. Do you think the

government will do anything about it. They tried at the end of the

last Parliamentary session and it rather backfired. It did backfire.

They got quite close. 200 MPs voted effectively to try and get rid of

John Bercow. It would have ended up with his removal, and that was the

plan. Not immediately, but what John Bercow has is that he's more

vulnerable all the time, because David Cameron would like to get rid

of him. Michael Gove would probably like to get rid of him. There is

this underlying current, especially in the Conservative Party, wanting

to unseat him. It didn't work before the election, but it was

interesting. Back in May, we went into an election that was very

uncertain and the fact the Conservative Party were prepared

spend the last day parliament trying to get rid of him when they had this

big campaign to fight shows the strength of feeling -- last day of

Parliament. I'm sure there will be times in the future when it is the

moment is right, they will try and do it. He is a Marmite character.

Like all loathe him? Life is too short to loathe people, but many

people in the Tory party think it is a badge of honour to be torn off a

strip by the speaker. I've been on his good side. I haven't seen that

Crackerjack footage before. It's a shame that the house does not sit on

Friday at 525. We heard in the film that he has been a very progressive

speaker and has encouraged members to stand up, get their questions in.

He has extended question Time on Wednesday to incorporate that. Has

he been a good thing? I'm a fan of his. He has made Parliament more

open and accessible for people. Getting schools and young people

involved in Parliament. He's also made it more family friendly in

terms of the working hours. I am a big fan. He is right to hold the

government to account. He has given us plenty of opportunities. I find

it frustrating as a new MP that it's a struggle to get your voice heard.

There are 650 bus and everyone is trying to battle to bring the voice

of their constituency to the chamber -- 650 of us. Would you be as big

fan if he'd talk to you the same way as savage -- Sajid Javid? That did

seem to overstep the mark in many people's mind. Maybe I am jaded on

this position because my own view and how he has letters down over the

steel issue. -- let us down. He is right to hold as academy has to be

firm sometimes. He is a good referee. Nobody necessarily likes

one. -- he is right to hold us to account. There will always be

different views on how you handle debates in the House of Commons.

What about his role in the recent visit of the President of China?

There were thinly veiled criticisms directed at the Chinese president,

rightly or wrongly. Is it the role of the speaker to do that? I'm not

sure it is. In the last few weeks we have seen a few steps from John

Bercow trying to move out of the impartiality. On schools funding, he

signed a letter. That was quite a substantial move. HS2, and we saw

the clip of him talking about it, and if you are the MP for

Buckinghamshire. I think that is understandable because it is a

constituency issue. On school funding, that is straying. But John

Bercow likes the rough-and-tumble politics and I think he has his

sights fixed, and he said he would stand down by 2019, and I'm not sure

if he will, but as we get towards their evil be like a US president in

the last few years -- as we get to wards there he will be like. Do you

think he has strayed too far, such as signing up with the Tory MPs for

rewriting the funding for schools? With the China situation he does

stray into causing a diplomatic incident every now and again. Is

that wrong? Possibly. I commend him for his work on human rights, as my

father was born in Burma, and he has a long history of fighting for human

rights over there. You can strayed, but the work he does the fact he

highlights so many issues is no thing. Thank you.

Now, hauliers have designated this as "National Lorry Week".

But they're warning that the escalating migrant crisis

in Calais is preventing the movement of goods, and threatening

There are now an estimated 7,000 migrants camped in Northern France,

and at least 16 have died in or near the Channel Tunnel since the

summer, as they become increasingly desperate to get into the UK.

The Road Haulage Association says the industry is suffering because

of intimidation of drivers and attacks on vehicles by migrants,

and says many smaller family-run firms could be put out of business.

Well, we can speak now to the Labour MP Rob Flello, he's chairman

of the all-party parliamentary group on freight transport.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. How would you describe the situation in

Calais? The situation in Calais is really desperate. If you're a

professional driver trying to get either into the UK or out of the UK,

you face intimidation and threats, people brandishing knives, damaging

your vehicle. Breaking into your vehicle. It's really serious at the

moment. It has been escalating and not getting better over recent weeks

and months. Are there enough measures that the government have

announced to protect lorry drivers with a secure waiting area? Will

that change the situation dramatically? Not at all. It is

farcical, unfortunately. There are supposedly secure waiting areas at

the moment and I was hearing from one man on Thursday night, at three

a.m., they were in a secure area, supposedly secure area. There were

no police to be seen or border Force agents, and there were hundreds and

hundreds of refugees threatening them with knives, breaking into

vehicles, stowing away, and every time that he and others tried to

raise this with the Calais port security or with the border Force

themselves, they were told it was either not in their jurisdiction

area or they could not help. There was no sign of any police. This is

happening night after night. No prospect of the situation improving

them, unless serious measures are taken. What do you propose the

government does? The government needs to stepping quickly and take

urgent action, because we cannot carry on like this but what? We need

to have more police presence but what we really need is places like

the jungle to have those applying for refugee status have their

applications processed more quickly, get that dealt with really quickly.

Those who are entitled to refugee status should be granted asylum and

helped on, those who aren't should be taken back to the country they

are from and let's get rid of the jungle and resolve the problem once

and for all rather than play at it. That is what the government, both

British and French, are doing. Isn't that the problem, it needs

cooperation on both sides that has not been in evidence over the last

few years? This problem has been going on for years, really. It's got

worse recently, and successive governments have turned a blind eye

to it. Is there now a feeling that the camps will be the jungle and

will be there permanently? The jungle and other camps cannot be

there permanently. We have something like 2.3 million tracks going out of

the port of Dover and Eurotunnel, about 90% of UK imports and exports

going through. That will increase as we run up to Christmas, and at the

same time refugees will become more and more desperate as their living

conditions deteriorate and they're desperate to get into the UK. It has

certainly been escalating over recent years. It has got far worse

over recent months, and if action is not taken, for example the 13 tragic

deaths of migrants in the tunnel will just get worse and the knock-on

effect not just of their families but of the drivers of those trains,

the situation with Hoey was being threatened will get worse, and a lot

of drivers are simple as saying we have had enough, we can't take this

level of threat and an timid Asian -- intimidation. They will have a

real impact. Over ?1 billion already, the impact on the UK

economy. Do you accept that a fuel of the rulers are in league with

some of these people smugglers? There are fines but probably not

enough to counter it. There are fines, but I am sure there will be a

very tiny number of hauliers that are in cahoots with smugglers, but

actually the vast majority don't want to believe curling up on the

rain -- on the road because someone has lit a fire or worse still is

lying on the road and while they are distracted like that, the locks are

broken on the back of the vehicle and people are getting on board, and

drivers are having to take the law into their own hands and gather

together to try and, in groups, get people who are smuggled onto the

back of their vehicles out. Again, going back to the situation on

Thursday night, where driver after driver was working together to

off-load people in the back of their vehicles, and some of whom were

brandishing knives, that can't happen, that can't be allowed to

happen. Are ministers listening? I don't think they are, they are

paying lip service to this problem but hoping that the bad weather will

make the programme -- problem go away, but it won't, it will make it

worse, in terms of how more desperate the refugees will become.

Now, you might have thought the party

conference season had ended some time ago, but you'd be mistaken.

Over the weekend Plaid Cymru held their autumn meeting in Aberystwyth.

Here's their leader, Leanne Wood, making her pitch.

I ask people in all communities in this country, take another look at

Plaid Cymru. We have listened. We know you want a party that will lead

on those issues that matter most to you. Your family, your hospital,

your school, your workplace and your community. The party of Wales is far

more interested in people than in processors. We have the ideas, the

personnel and the vision to deliver. Leanne Wood joins us now from the

Welsh assembly in Cardiff. Welcome back to the Daily Politics. You were

fourth in Wales in terms of vote share in the May general elections,

you got a smaller share of the vote than Ukip. How do you explain that

result? Westminster elections have traditionally been more difficult

for Plaid Cymru than elections to a National Assembly and we have those

next May. I very much hope that our showing will be different next May.

In every election we have had to date, we have done better in

elections to our national institution, and what we have in

Wales is by next May, we will have had 17 years of a Labour government,

unbroken rule, and they have presided over decline in our

economy, and a pretty poor showing in terms of outcomes, in terms of

health and education, so it is time now for fresh thinking and a new

approach, and it is time for a Plaid Cymru government after next May. You

are criticising Labour and their mismanagement of things like public

services, but what makes you think that votes that may stray from

Labour will go to Plaid Cymru? They will go to the Tories and Ukip.

Well, we have to put the case to people and make sure they understand

that we have been working very hard in coming up with solutions to the

problem that people have identified in public services, but it is up to

us now to make sure that we inform people as to what it is that we want

to do, and that is why it one of my messages to the party faithful this

weekend in our conference in Aberystwyth was that we had to get

out there now and have as many conversations in as many streets and

communities as possible, up and down the country, before next May. There

is no subject for hard work. Victory will not land on our laps, but with

hard work we have got all the ingredients to make sure that our

election campaign is a success next May. They will have seen quite a lot

of Plaid Cymru in the run-up to the May general election too. I

understand you're not campaigning UK wide, but the pollsters not indicate

a surge for you then. You said your party is in the same place the SNP

were before their breakthrough in the 2007 elections, but at this

point before the 2007 elections the SNP were consistently polling at

around 30% of the vote and you are polling at 18%. You are really going

to have to do pound those streets. Yes, I accept we are not in exactly

the same position. Not close, really. The SNP's current success

started with forming a minority government back in 2007, and if we

want Wales to be in the same league as Scotland and have the same clout

as Scotland, then that is what we have to do here in Wales as well.

And coming yes, you are right, we are going to have to pound a lot of

streets and not a lot of doors, but we are in good shape and ready to do

that. And I have got an excellent team of candidates, a very strong

Shadow Cabinet, a very strong programme of government, and it is

up to us now to get out there and explain to people what that is all

about. One of your senior colleagues suggested you could win 20 seats in

the assembly elections. Is that realistic? Yes, it is, nothing is

impossible and nothing is inevitable about the election result either.

There are many people assuming that Labour have run things for 17 years

and so probably they will continue to do the same but there is nothing

inevitable about that and it is up to people in Wales to decide whether

or not they want to carry on with decline or whether they want a

government that has a positive programme to turn around our health

service, to train and recruit 1000 extra doctors, to provide social

care for people in their own homes, to restructure health and social

care so that we can provide better services to people and to turn

around our education system as well. That is the option people have. We

are offering that as an alternative. Democracy means it is up to people

to decide if they want to take that option or not. If you look at the

polls, and you talk about labour not being in a good position, but they

are much healthier in Wales than they were in Scotland before the SNP

have their surge. Do you accept that? Yes, they are, and it is up to

us to point out where they failed, in terms of their record. Because

many people seem to believe that the health service for example is still

run by the Tories in Westminster. That isn't the case. So the failures

in our health service, the long waiting times, the inability for

people to access certain drugs and treatments, is down to the Labour

government here in Wales, and we need to make sure that everybody

understands that, and that they vote on that record, and that they fully

understand what that record is all about and who is responsible for

what. You talk a lot about the SNP and make comparisons, let's talk

about independence. According to ICM poll, less than 10% of people would

want Wales to be independent. Your party might want it but the people

of Wales evidently don't. I would accept that, but there is a greater

appetite, a majority appetite for strengthening the powers of this

institution, our National Assembly, and there is a growing demand for a

resolving of the constitutional anomalies that we have here, and

inequalities in terms of finance. While I am encouraged by that, and I

understand that the constitutional question is not at the top of

people's agenda, health and education and the economy, those are

the subjects that are much more likely to be people's priorities,

and that is why we are focusing on those ahead of next year's election.

Leanne Wood, thank you. Now, on what substance have Acts

of Parliament been formally printed The answer is vellum, which,

if you didn't know, is calfskin. As well as Acts of Parliament,

major documents from British history including the Magna Carta

and parts of the Domesday Book have But this centuries-long

tradition could be about to end. MPs are discussing whether to use

cheaper archival paper instead. The move would, they say,

save around EIGHTY THOUSAND pounds But not everyone is happy,

with some questioning the wisdom Well, joining us now to discuss this

is the calligrapher Patricia Lovett. Welcome to the programme. Why should

we continue the practice? There are three points I would like to make

about vellum, and then one about craft. The fact that you mentioned

we have the Domesday book and the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta

this year is because it has been on vellum. If it had been on paper,

that would not be the case. Vellum lasts. It would not have survived.

We have books going back 2000 years, one of the earliest books, the Codex

I'm Atticus, written about 350 A.D.. It is on vellum and it lasts. This

is one of the key things about Dell. This is a skin on felon here. This

is -- a skin of vellum, the sort of thing I use as a calligrapher. This

isn't what they would use for printing on, in terms of it would be

cut into pieces. And so I get really quite fine lines on the work that I

do on vellum because this is one of the qualities that it has, and this

is using traditional skills of producing gold leaf on gesso. So

vellum lasts. This will outlast me and virtually every success that

comes after me. That is interesting, it would actually outlast any other

sort of material. It feels quite thick and not that pliable, but it

obviously is. It is absolutely fine. What our predecessors had done is

given as this legacy of being able to look at those roles that we have

seen, what we are giving for our successes is 250 years, even with

archival paper, and then reprint the whole lot. So that is the first

thing. The second thing is vellum doesn't need any special anything,

no special ink, no special printers, no special conditions. So can you

save money on that? Yes, because with paper you have to have

temperature and humidity controlled environment. You have to build that

environment, control that environment, monitor that

environment, have someone who looks at that environment. Patricia has

made a fairly impassioned argument, would you be backing the vellum? It

is interesting, because I know this was debated in 1999, and the same

arguments came out then and won the day. We always need to look at the

cost, but on the other hand there are some traditions and archival

reasons why. We would not have had documents like the Domesday book and

the Magna Carta. I am one over. There are some things that you just

can't replace. If we become so mean, and we are the sixth richest economy

in the world, I can't believe that we have to make sacrifices for

things like this as well in this age of austerity. Things like this are

part of our national heritage, history and hopefully our future.

You have convinced two MPs, you are obviously on your way, what is it

like writing on it? My third point, it is green, because it is a

by-product of the meat and dairy industry, no harsh chemicals, no

first cut down or anything like that and it is one of our heritage

crafts. William Cowie is the last vellum producer in the country,

producing a world-class British product. Good luck with your

campaign. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which of these

parliamentarians has turned down an invitation to appear on this year's

I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here? I was disappointed. I am bad enough

if there is a spider in the house. Rather him than me. That is it,

goodbye.