26/10/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,




Download Subtitles