:00:47. > :00:50.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Cameron
:00:50. > :00:56.opens at the door to a referendum on Britain's relationship with the
:00:56. > :01:02.EU. We ask UKIP Eden Nigel Farage if the Prime Minister has stolen
:01:02. > :01:05.his party's most popular political tune. As Labour called for an
:01:05. > :01:11.inquiry into the banking scandal, shouldn't the parties start by
:01:11. > :01:16.apologising for its own record on regulation? We asked shadow Chief
:01:16. > :01:19.Secretary to the crater rim, Rachel Reeves, to come clean. The
:01:19. > :01:25.Government push ahead with plans to reform the second chamber and we
:01:25. > :01:29.ask the leader of the Lords whether it is a fight they can possibly win.
:01:29. > :01:33.All that and the best political panel in the business looking at
:01:33. > :01:38.the political week ahead and tweeting with all the abandon of a
:01:38. > :01:44.banker on the Bollinger. In London as the recession bites high streets
:01:44. > :01:54.are suffering. The Mayor and local councils are pumping money in, but
:01:54. > :01:55.
:01:55. > :02:01.is it public money well spent? All that and more in the next hour, but
:02:01. > :02:04.first the news with Gavin great. Good afternoon. The prime minister
:02:04. > :02:09.has suggested the possibility of a referendum at some point in the
:02:09. > :02:13.future on Britain's relationship with Europe. In an article in the
:02:13. > :02:17.Sunday Telegraph he says a vote may be needed to get the full-hearted
:02:17. > :02:20.support of the British people for changes in the way they are
:02:20. > :02:24.governed. Recently returned from another
:02:24. > :02:30.Brussels summit, David Cameron says the EU is in flux and now is not
:02:30. > :02:34.the right time for a referendum. Instead he writes, whole swathes of
:02:34. > :02:39.legislation covering social issues, working time and home affairs
:02:39. > :02:42.should be scrapped. We will need to consider how best to get the full-
:02:42. > :02:48.hearted support of the British people whether it is in a general
:02:48. > :02:53.election or a referendum. The Prime Minister is not changing our
:02:53. > :02:56.position, but he is pointing the way to how our thinking is
:02:56. > :03:02.developing and how policy should be guided in the future, how we should
:03:02. > :03:06.think about this choice about whether to have a referendum.
:03:06. > :03:09.Downing Street say David Cameron is speaking to eight Tory audience as
:03:09. > :03:14.the Tory leader with an eye on the next election and Labour are
:03:14. > :03:19.critical. On Friday the Prime Minister seemed to rule a
:03:19. > :03:23.referendum out. On Sunday morning he hints he is willing a referendum
:03:23. > :03:28.in. The Foreign Secretary has been sent out to say the position has
:03:28. > :03:33.not changed. It is a shambles. While the Liberal Democrats say
:03:33. > :03:36.this is the wrong debate at the wrong time.
:03:37. > :03:41.The business secretary Vince Cable has urged shareholders in British
:03:41. > :03:46.banks to get a stronger grip on weak boards and out of control
:03:46. > :03:49.executives. He said that nobody at Barclays was prepared to take
:03:49. > :03:54.responsibility for the rate rigging scandal that has engulfed the
:03:54. > :03:57.company in recent days and shareholders ought to take action.
:03:58. > :04:03.Violent thunderstorms across the eastern United States have killed
:04:03. > :04:07.at least 13 people. High winds and hailstones caused widespread
:04:07. > :04:13.destruction and left millions without power. More extreme weather
:04:13. > :04:18.is forecast for the next few days. There is more news on BBC One at
:04:18. > :04:21.5:30pm. How significant is this morning's
:04:21. > :04:25.intervention by the Prime Minister backed up by the Foreign Secretary,
:04:25. > :04:29.dangling the prospect of a referendum on Britain's
:04:29. > :04:34.relationship with the European Union? One man with a vested
:04:34. > :04:39.interest in that question is UKIP Eden Nigel Farage. You have got
:04:40. > :04:44.eight Tory party promising to claw back powers from Brussels and tat
:04:44. > :04:51.that endorsed by a referendum. That is bad news for you? We have heard
:04:51. > :04:57.it all before. This was a man who promised a cast iron referendum. We
:04:57. > :05:00.constantly hear they are going to call back powers when in fact there
:05:00. > :05:05.Conservative MEPs vote for more powers to be transferred to
:05:05. > :05:11.Brussels. He is giving some vague promise there might be a referendum
:05:11. > :05:15.in the future, but it will not be about our membership of the EU. If
:05:15. > :05:21.he thinks he has buried this issue in the long grass, he is in for
:05:21. > :05:26.another think. We do not know what the shape of Europe is going to be.
:05:26. > :05:31.Let's see what the euro-zone will look like and what our relationship
:05:31. > :05:37.should be with the euro-zone. We know we will not be part of it and
:05:37. > :05:43.so then have a referendum. What is wrong with that? We are now stuck
:05:43. > :05:50.inside a single market. 75% of the laws are made because of that. We
:05:50. > :05:54.have to pay and membership fee of �50 million a day. I am perfectly
:05:54. > :05:59.happy for us to have a referendum now. Do we want a simple free-trade
:05:59. > :06:03.agreement. Even Liam Fox is sympathetic with what you say and
:06:03. > :06:09.he thinks it is only the extremes, you at one end and the pro-
:06:09. > :06:14.Europeans at the other who wants a referendum now. That is silly.
:06:14. > :06:18.There is a clear majority of people who want a referendum on this issue
:06:19. > :06:24.and want an end to our political involvement with the European Union.
:06:24. > :06:30.Liam Fox is aged in our direction. Let us go for a quick negotiation
:06:30. > :06:35.and if we do not get what we want, we believe anyway. Are we further
:06:35. > :06:41.away from the European Union after this article? We are no closer at
:06:41. > :06:46.all. The only reason he has said this is because he is terrified of
:06:46. > :06:51.the votes from the UKIP. If there was a European election tomorrow,
:06:51. > :06:56.the Tories would come third. language you are talking has a lot
:06:56. > :07:05.of support in the country, maybe they do not go at the whole weight,
:07:05. > :07:09.but why are you polling 6%? Some have had as as high as nine or 10%.
:07:09. > :07:14.The first-past-the-post system is very cruel to UKIP, but there is a
:07:14. > :07:18.European election coming up in two ears time and that is under PR.
:07:18. > :07:22.What do you say to Tory backbenchers who do not think the
:07:22. > :07:25.Prime Minister has gone far enough? Principled though they are, they
:07:25. > :07:30.have lost every single battle within the Conservative Party since
:07:30. > :07:35.the treaty of Maastricht. The only way we are going to get changed in
:07:35. > :07:41.this country and a referendum is it UKIP is stronger. They are in the
:07:41. > :07:45.wrong party. That was 40 seconds. For a definite maybe at some
:07:45. > :07:50.unspecified date in the future from the Prime Minister on a euro
:07:50. > :07:55.referendum, but what about Labour? They have flirted with the idea in
:07:55. > :08:01.recent months. Rachel Reeves is the Shadow Chief Secretary to the
:08:01. > :08:05.Treasury and joins us from the Cambridge studio. Hello, Andrew.
:08:06. > :08:10.you welcome the Prime Minister's decision to open the door on a
:08:10. > :08:15.referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister is
:08:15. > :08:19.all over the place with this. We had a vote in parliament in October
:08:19. > :08:24.on whether there should be a referendum and Labour MPs voted No
:08:24. > :08:29.and the Prime Minister did as well. On Friday he said one thing and on
:08:29. > :08:33.Sunday he is saying something different. It is a shambles and it
:08:33. > :08:36.says more about David Cameron's relationship with the Tory party
:08:36. > :08:41.backbenchers than it does with his leadership and the future of
:08:41. > :08:45.Britain in Europe and Britain's economy. Right now the number one
:08:45. > :08:49.priority should be getting us out of the recession, bringing down
:08:49. > :08:54.unemployment and dealing with the deficit. I do not think having this
:08:54. > :09:00.debate about whether we may or may not have a referendum on Europe in
:09:00. > :09:03.the future is the right priority. Let's come to Labour's policy. We
:09:03. > :09:07.know the euro-zone is moving towards a much closer physical and
:09:07. > :09:11.banking union and that will have implications for Britain's
:09:11. > :09:16.relationship with the EU. At some stage will be not have to have a
:09:16. > :09:20.look at that again and consult the people? First of all, it is clear
:09:20. > :09:25.Europe is changing. Even though we are not part of the euro-zone and
:09:25. > :09:29.will not be part of the further integration on banking, those
:09:29. > :09:34.decisions will have a huge bearing on the UK economy because so much
:09:34. > :09:38.of our trade is with Europe. We need to be at the decision-making
:09:38. > :09:44.table ensuring those decisions are in the interests of the British
:09:44. > :09:49.people. What is Labour's position? For example at the moment the
:09:49. > :09:55.austerity programme we are seeing has tipped as back into recession.
:09:55. > :09:59.Sorry to interrupt, but that is not what I am asking. Will we not need
:09:59. > :10:05.at some stage to look again at our relationship and consult the
:10:05. > :10:10.people? What is Labour's answer? is fine to have that discussion in
:10:10. > :10:14.the future when we know what the future of Europe looks like, one we
:10:14. > :10:18.know what that relationship between the euro-zone countries and the non
:10:18. > :10:24.euro-zone countries look like. It is not the debate we should be
:10:24. > :10:28.having now. I understand you have ruled out a referendum now. But I
:10:29. > :10:34.am wondering since you do accept Britain's relationship with Europe
:10:34. > :10:38.will inevitably change as the euro- zone becomes ever more united,
:10:38. > :10:42.would Labour envisage a referendum at some stage in the future? Once
:10:42. > :10:48.we know what it looks like, we can have a discussion about whether it
:10:48. > :10:53.is appropriate to have a referendum. We already have a law that if any
:10:53. > :11:01.further powers are transferred to Europe we will have a referendum.
:11:01. > :11:06.That is a Tory law. Yes, it is. you rule out a referendum in the
:11:06. > :11:11.future or not? No, I do not rule out a referendum in the future, but
:11:11. > :11:15.it is not a debate we should be having to date. We should be
:11:15. > :11:19.debating how to get the economy back on track here and in Europe.
:11:19. > :11:24.Do you think Bob Diamond should resign as chief executive of
:11:24. > :11:30.Barclays? We have not seen anything of Bob Diamond since the scandal
:11:30. > :11:38.emerged last week. Do you think you should resign? It is clear he is
:11:38. > :11:41.not providing the leadership. He has got an opportunity next week to
:11:41. > :11:47.explain his views and we need to know what he knew when this market
:11:47. > :11:51.rigging was going on. Do you think he should resign? We do not know
:11:51. > :11:54.what he knew and when. At the moment it is clear he is not
:11:54. > :11:59.providing the leadership that Barclays needs and that the banking
:11:59. > :12:04.sector needs to get out of this latest scandal. If your leader Ed
:12:05. > :12:09.Miliband says major changes are required at Barclays and, quote, it
:12:09. > :12:14.is hard to see that led by Bob Diamond, if that is what he is
:12:14. > :12:21.saying, why not call for his resignation? We have got to hear
:12:21. > :12:26.what he has to save. But your leader has made up his mind. I do
:12:27. > :12:33.not think so. What he is saying is we need a clear change at Barclays.
:12:33. > :12:37.So Bob Diamond should resign? have not heard from him yet. Why is
:12:37. > :12:43.you're leaders say it is very hard to see Bob diamonds now leading
:12:43. > :12:47.Barclays? What he is saying is it is unacceptable what has been
:12:47. > :12:52.happening and they need to explain themselves. They should have done
:12:52. > :12:56.that over the weekend. Bob Diamond has a final opportunity when he
:12:56. > :12:59.comes to the Treasury Select Committee next week to explain
:12:59. > :13:04.himself and then we can make a judgment about whether he should
:13:04. > :13:10.stay or not. At the moment I am far from convinced he should be in his
:13:10. > :13:16.job. I have got that impression. Your leader has called for an
:13:16. > :13:21.inquiry into the banking industry. Alastair diamond said, we know what
:13:21. > :13:28.went wrong and we do not need a costly inquiry to tell us. Who is
:13:28. > :13:32.right? We are not calling for a judge led inquiry, but a public
:13:32. > :13:37.inquiry that reports back in 12 months in a number of areas, but
:13:37. > :13:40.particularly around the culture. We had the Vickers Report into the
:13:40. > :13:46.structure of the financial services sector, but there is the much wider
:13:46. > :13:50.issue of the culture. Alistair Darling says you do not need that
:13:50. > :13:54.in a wiry, we know what went wrong. He is right there are things that
:13:54. > :13:58.can be done immediately. In the Financial Services Bill going
:13:58. > :14:03.through Parliament at the moment that could be amended to put in
:14:03. > :14:09.tough causes -- clauses about criminal proceedings when bankers
:14:09. > :14:13.do wrong. It could also change the way in which the LIBOR rate is
:14:13. > :14:17.regulated. There are short-term things that can be done and I hope
:14:17. > :14:21.the Government does that, but we also need a wider reform into the
:14:21. > :14:27.culture of the sector and that has not happened yet, but it certainly
:14:27. > :14:32.should. In any inquiry into past mistakes and do your Government,
:14:32. > :14:40.the Shadow Chancellor would be a key witness. Should he begin by
:14:40. > :14:43.We already said that we should have been tougher in regulating the
:14:43. > :14:49.banks. But George Osborne and others were saying that the
:14:49. > :14:53.regulation was too tough. All parties have some responsibility.
:14:53. > :14:56.The LIBOR arrangements were set up in the 1980s. Of course, we should
:14:56. > :15:01.have been tougher when we were in power. But this is something that
:15:01. > :15:05.has grown up over the last 30 years, not just in the UK but
:15:05. > :15:08.internationally as well. That is why we need this wider review into
:15:08. > :15:12.the cultural the sector so that we can put it right for the future,
:15:12. > :15:17.not just about the past. You didn't change the LIBOR rules while you
:15:17. > :15:21.were in power. The culture really took root and fostered under your
:15:21. > :15:25.government. Once again I would say, shouldn't you apologise for a
:15:25. > :15:28.massive mistake when you were in government? Well, we have
:15:28. > :15:33.apologised. I am happy to apologise again and say we should have been
:15:33. > :15:37.tougher when we regulated the banks when we were in power. But this is
:15:37. > :15:40.something that has grown up over 30 years and the governments of both
:15:40. > :15:45.Labour and conservative. But it has also been an international problem
:15:45. > :15:49.as well. On LIBOR, specifically, those rules were put in place in
:15:49. > :15:53.the 1980s. They were not changed under our government, the last
:15:53. > :15:57.Biden government. In the financial services bill, at the moment, there
:15:57. > :16:02.is no plans to regulated, despite the fact that Labour are such
:16:02. > :16:04.questions about that great elation back in March. I hope the
:16:04. > :16:08.Government amends the bill so that the libel rate is regulated in
:16:08. > :16:13.future. But we do need a wider review to get things right for the
:16:13. > :16:17.future. Now, if crisis in banking, the
:16:17. > :16:20.economy and Europe were not enough to keep the Government occupied,
:16:20. > :16:24.they are also taking on the small matter of reforming the House of
:16:24. > :16:27.Lords. That shouldn't be too challenging(!) After all, the
:16:27. > :16:33.Parliament Act of 1911 was designed as an interim step towards a new
:16:33. > :16:36.system. That was only, what, 101 years ago? Nick Clegg has published
:16:36. > :16:39.the Government plans to finally make some progress.
:16:39. > :16:45.Under the plans, the current House of Lords will be replaced by a
:16:45. > :16:50.largely elected second chamber. It will be smaller. Instead of 826,
:16:50. > :16:54.there would be 450 members. 80% would be elected using proportional
:16:54. > :16:58.representation. The remaining 20% would be appointed by an
:16:58. > :17:03.independent commission. The first election would take place in 2015,
:17:03. > :17:07.with further reductions every five years. All members would serve for
:17:07. > :17:11.15 year terms, but would not be allowed to stand for re-election.
:17:11. > :17:17.David Cameron has given the reforms his full backing. We have been
:17:17. > :17:21.discussing this issue for 100 years. It really is time to make progress.
:17:21. > :17:26.There are many in his party who do not share his enthusiasm, perhaps
:17:26. > :17:30.as many as 100 rebels. Which is more important for UK growth and
:17:30. > :17:34.jobs? The implications of these massive changes being proposed in
:17:34. > :17:40.the EU or House of Lords reform? Labour supports the principle of
:17:40. > :17:43.Lords reform, but will not back the Government timetable, potentially
:17:43. > :17:47.clocking up parliamentary business for weeks or months. The Lib Dems
:17:47. > :17:52.are keenest. They would not easily forgive their coalition partners if
:17:52. > :18:02.the reform is blocked. Tam Strathclyde, the Government
:18:02. > :18:04.
:18:04. > :18:09.leader in the House of Lords, joins Welcome. In what way is the House
:18:09. > :18:12.of Lords Brogan? Why does it need radical reform? For one of the
:18:12. > :18:18.difficulties for reformers is that the House of Lords does a very good
:18:18. > :18:22.job and has done so consistently. What this is about is giving it a
:18:22. > :18:26.new, democratic legitimacy. Making sure that it can do its job more
:18:26. > :18:29.effectively, be stronger, hold the Government to account, challenge
:18:29. > :18:33.the House of Commons. The whole parliament needs to be strengthened.
:18:33. > :18:39.The best way of starting the process is to democratise the House
:18:39. > :18:43.of Lords. Many people think it does the job well already. David Davies,
:18:43. > :18:47.a leading Tory backbencher. He says, the Lords is the only institution
:18:47. > :18:51.which has stood up to over-mighty government, whose dominance in the
:18:51. > :18:56.Commons led to unreasonable actions. Let me move on to another one, Lord
:18:56. > :18:59.Howe distinguished Tory peer, increasing the electoral component
:18:59. > :19:02.will certainly not lead to an improvement in the ability of this
:19:02. > :19:07.House to do the functions that it has done so well over the years.
:19:07. > :19:11.How about this young chap? He said, members of the House of Lords speak
:19:11. > :19:15.for themselves entirely, not for lobbies, not for groups, not for
:19:15. > :19:20.interests, unions. They are there on their own behalf. If you think
:19:20. > :19:24.that, why are you reforming it? said at the beginning that the
:19:24. > :19:29.House of Lords is doing a good job. The purpose behind this is to come
:19:29. > :19:34.to a very sensible conclusion. Should lawmakers be elected? Our
:19:35. > :19:40.argument is that they should be. For the first time in 100 years, a
:19:40. > :19:45.government has had the courage to put a bill before Parliament. I
:19:45. > :19:49.come on the shearers and discuss -- I come on the shows and discuss
:19:49. > :19:55.this for many years. Now Parliament is making it the decision. If you
:19:55. > :19:59.make them elected, they will not do the things that you said. They will
:19:59. > :20:02.speak for lobbies, they will speak for the groups, they will speak for
:20:02. > :20:07.interests and unions. They will not be there on their behalf? Isn't
:20:07. > :20:11.that right? We have tried to replicate, as far as possible, the
:20:11. > :20:15.strengths of the current house. Peers will only be elected once,
:20:15. > :20:21.for long terms, 15 years. That guarantees independents. They do
:20:21. > :20:25.not have to stand for re-election. It also means that they have had
:20:25. > :20:30.the tick of authority from the electorate. That is an important
:20:30. > :20:34.strengthening. Let's come on to some of that. It is Sunday. Can we
:20:34. > :20:40.agree, from the Department of honesty, that he would not be
:20:40. > :20:43.pressing ahead of this if you were not in coalition with the Lib Dems?
:20:43. > :20:47.It is right that this is a coalition government attempt at
:20:47. > :20:51.reforming. If you were not in coalition, you would not do it?
:20:51. > :20:56.think that is also true. David Cameron has been well quoted saying
:20:56. > :20:59.that it was not his priority and it might be a third term issue if we
:20:59. > :21:02.were a Conservative government. But it is an important demand for
:21:02. > :21:06.Liberal Democrats and we have worked very closely together,
:21:06. > :21:10.including what the Labour Party, to come up with this Bill. You said
:21:10. > :21:15.people would be elected for a long term and there would be democratic
:21:15. > :21:21.and accountable peers. In what way would the politicians are elected
:21:21. > :21:24.for 15 year terms be accountable to the people? I very carefully didn't
:21:24. > :21:30.use the word accountable. You probably thought I might. You are
:21:30. > :21:35.right, they are not accountable. It is people who choose which people
:21:35. > :21:43.will represent them in the second chamber. There, they will use their
:21:43. > :21:47.independence, their knowledge, in that chamber. But they will not
:21:47. > :21:51.have to come back to the electorate. Once they are there, they are there
:21:51. > :21:54.for 15 years. I think that is strengthening the current system.
:21:54. > :21:59.Can you name any other democratic legislature in the world where
:21:59. > :22:04.people are elected for 15 years? can't. There isn't one, we couldn't
:22:04. > :22:08.find one. But I cannot think of another second chamber that is
:22:08. > :22:13.created in exactly the same way as ours, partly a Blairite House of
:22:13. > :22:17.cronies, partly an ancient, hereditary House, with
:22:17. > :22:22.representation from bishops. It is a good mixture but I think we can
:22:22. > :22:27.improve it. If they get in for 15 years, what happens if they turn up
:22:27. > :22:30.for lunch, subsidised, signed on to get their �300 and then go back to
:22:30. > :22:37.the City or their trade union and do nothing else? Can we get rid of
:22:37. > :22:41.them? What would be the point of standing for election? �300 per day.
:22:41. > :22:49.If they came every day. Of course they would come for that. There
:22:49. > :22:55.will be rules in the new chamber and there will be the power to
:22:55. > :22:58.expel them. Who would have had that power? The House of Lords itself.
:22:58. > :23:03.If it was decided that a member was not playing the game or respecting
:23:03. > :23:09.the rules, they would be flown out. You expect them to turn on their
:23:09. > :23:14.own? Very much so. We have examples in the recent past where the House
:23:14. > :23:18.of Lords has expelled peers. That is because they were sent to jail!
:23:18. > :23:22.And those that were not sent to jail, but were suspended for
:23:22. > :23:26.breaking the rules. If the US Senate can get by on 100 members,
:23:26. > :23:36.why does a fine fear religious letter, covering a much smaller
:23:36. > :23:41.country, need 450? Originally it was 300. Twice the size of the US
:23:41. > :23:47.Senate! It is a good point. Our politics has revolved in a
:23:47. > :23:53.different way. We have sat and examined this, they said they
:23:53. > :23:57.should be 450. The Government, in the spirit of compromise, trying to
:23:57. > :24:02.create a consensus, accepted that point. You would have liked you
:24:02. > :24:07.are? I argued for that. It is part of collective responsibility. We
:24:07. > :24:12.came to a conclusion, trying to create a consensus. It is now 450.
:24:12. > :24:20.Can I show you what David Blunkett said about this? They are all going
:24:20. > :24:24.to be chosen from party lists. 80% will come from party lists. David
:24:24. > :24:27.Blunkett, the strength of the current house is to speak with the
:24:27. > :24:32.voice of people with a live experience, not purely because they
:24:32. > :24:39.are on a party list. Every one of the elected members will be chosen
:24:39. > :24:45.by parties up and down the country. It will go to those who grease best,
:24:45. > :24:49.not those that know best? The party position on this was to have
:24:49. > :24:53.smaller constituencies, based on cities and counties, probably
:24:53. > :24:56.elected on first past the post. But we are in a coalition and it was a
:24:56. > :25:01.requirement that it should be under PR. We have come up with this list
:25:01. > :25:07.system. It doesn't suit everybody but it is not 1 million miles away
:25:07. > :25:11.from Jack Straw's position in 2008. Again, it is trying to find the
:25:11. > :25:14.most consensual position. In the House of Commons there is a tension
:25:14. > :25:17.between those who want to democratise the second chamber, but
:25:18. > :25:21.do not want it to have too much authority. Some of them believe by
:25:21. > :25:26.having a system like this it will remove that authority. I do not
:25:26. > :25:30.think they are right. The current house has many, many problems. We
:25:31. > :25:33.understand that. Particularly its appointed nature. But it does have
:25:33. > :25:38.independent-minded people with expertise, you said that yourself.
:25:38. > :25:42.You cannot argue that a party list system will produce independent-
:25:42. > :25:47.minded people with expertise. You know that not to be true as I do.
:25:47. > :25:53.am not one of those who believes you cannot elect people with
:25:53. > :25:56.independence and expertise. Just to push the point one bit further, we
:25:56. > :26:01.reserve 20% of the new House of Lords for people who have exactly
:26:01. > :26:05.that, who are genuinely independent of party politics and who will
:26:05. > :26:09.represent all sorts of bodies and bring the kind of expertise that we
:26:09. > :26:13.are very used to in House of Lords today. Can I ask you a question of
:26:13. > :26:17.parliamentary procedure? I'm interested in what happens. If the
:26:17. > :26:22.Commons votes against the timetable motion, an attempt to limit debate
:26:22. > :26:25.within agreed parameters, still a lot of debate, but limited, it
:26:25. > :26:29.means that Lords reform will dominate the floor of the Commons.
:26:29. > :26:34.It has to be taken on the floor as a constitutional issue. What would
:26:34. > :26:37.happen? We are still in very early days. There is just over a week to
:26:38. > :26:41.go before the House of Commons has to take a decision on a programme
:26:41. > :26:46.of motion. Discussions will take place between the Government and
:26:46. > :26:50.the Labour Party. They do not yet know how many days we are going to
:26:50. > :26:54.offer, they haven't told us how many days they want. Can you
:26:54. > :27:00.proceed with that? I think it will be very difficult to spend weeks
:27:00. > :27:05.and months. But we mustn't second- guess the House of Commons. I think
:27:05. > :27:10.most of them will want to get down to discussing the important issues
:27:10. > :27:14.of what is happening in the second chamber, rather than relying on a
:27:14. > :27:17.Labour Party political tactic to delay discussion, again and again.
:27:17. > :27:22.People will find it very strange that in the middle of an economic
:27:22. > :27:26.crisis, a banking crisis, a eurozone crisis, events in Syria
:27:26. > :27:30.and perhaps elsewhere, if the Commons floor is dominated, week
:27:30. > :27:33.after week, of Lords reform? Members of the House of Commons
:27:33. > :27:36.will also see the force of that argument. That is why I think they
:27:36. > :27:40.will support a programme motion, a sensible programme motion proposed
:27:40. > :27:44.by the Government. We have a referendum on just about everything,
:27:44. > :27:48.if we want an elected mayor, if Scotland should have its own
:27:48. > :27:53.parliament, it Scotland should be independent, the Welsh Assembly,
:27:53. > :27:57.why can't we have a referendum on this major constitutional change?
:27:57. > :28:00.We have had very few national referendums. The last General
:28:00. > :28:04.Election, all three party manifestos agreed that there should
:28:04. > :28:08.be a democratic reform, and have done over the course of the last 10
:28:08. > :28:13.or 12 years. They said they would try to find a consensus, they
:28:13. > :28:17.didn't all say they would do it? have it all yet seen whether or not
:28:17. > :28:21.we can achieve a consensus. That is the whole point of the
:28:21. > :28:27.parliamentary debate. Referendums are expensive. �88 million on,
:28:27. > :28:31.ostensibly, asking people to agree something that the political
:28:31. > :28:34.parties have already agreed. I think this is a political ploy by
:28:34. > :28:40.the Labour Party. They shoved this into their manifesto at the last
:28:40. > :28:49.minute and have never mentioned his in the past. But if the Lords
:28:49. > :28:54.Lords stuck it into the bill, they would have to be a discussion in
:28:54. > :28:58.government about what would be the most appropriate way of continuing.
:28:59. > :29:03.Speaking of referendums, a final question, the same question as to
:29:04. > :29:07.Nigel Farage, are we closer or further away from a referendum on
:29:07. > :29:12.Europe after the Prime Minister's statement? I think we are closer to
:29:12. > :29:17.a referendum than we were. What we are not clear which is what the
:29:17. > :29:18.basis of that referendum is going to be. The Prime Minister says he
:29:19. > :29:22.understands the needs and requirements to have a referendum,
:29:22. > :29:32.but let's decide what it's going to be about before making that
:29:32. > :29:36.
:29:36. > :29:42.It is approaching 12:30pm and you are watching the Sunday Politics.
:29:42. > :29:52.Coming up: I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.
:29:52. > :29:54.
:29:54. > :29:59.Until then the Sunday Politics across the UK. Welcome to the
:29:59. > :30:05.London part of Sunday Politics. Coming up: As the recession bites,
:30:05. > :30:08.what does the future hold for London's high streets? I am joined
:30:08. > :30:13.by Labour MP Margaret Hodge and Conservative MP for Orpington Jo
:30:13. > :30:20.Johnson. First, it has been repealed the south London health
:30:20. > :30:23.care trust is in big trouble. It has debts of �150 and is losing a
:30:23. > :30:28.further �1 million a week. The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is
:30:28. > :30:34.in talks with the trust and has set in train a process which could end
:30:34. > :30:38.with the arrival of a Government appointed administrator. Insolvency
:30:38. > :30:42.looms for the south London health care trust made up of three
:30:42. > :30:46.hospitals in Orpington, Woolwich and Sidcup. The trust may find
:30:46. > :30:51.itself taken over by a Government administrator, but will it be
:30:51. > :30:56.possible to balance the books without reducing treatment, using
:30:56. > :31:01.beds and sacking doctors and nurses? Health campaigners say not.
:31:01. > :31:06.If you are going to save �1 million a week you cannot do that without
:31:06. > :31:12.making massive cuts to staffing and capacity. That will impact directly
:31:12. > :31:16.on the availability and access of quality health care. But the
:31:16. > :31:20.trust's management say despite their financial woes of the care
:31:20. > :31:24.that patient receive one not get worse. If every three months we
:31:24. > :31:27.measure the quality of care and we can measure it is getting better
:31:27. > :31:34.and at the same time sought the money out, this will be a good
:31:34. > :31:38.thing. How did we get into this mess? The Government put the blame
:31:38. > :31:44.with its Private Finance Initiative schemes. These allowed hospitals to
:31:44. > :31:48.borrow money. A private company would stump up the money up front
:31:48. > :31:53.for large-scale projects such as building hospitals and the state
:31:53. > :31:59.paid them back over many years. This year the trust will pay �61
:31:59. > :32:04.million in charges and interest. But not everyone believes the PFI
:32:04. > :32:09.is are solely to blame. It is convenient for the Government to
:32:09. > :32:14.blame them. Experts have said it is only responsible for about a third
:32:14. > :32:19.of the problems. But could this problem be replicated across the
:32:19. > :32:23.capital? The Government has identified 21 trusts nationally who
:32:23. > :32:27.are in trouble. Eight of those are in London and four in particular
:32:27. > :32:35.have serious debts. But they may not need the same level of
:32:35. > :32:39.Government input. Barking, Havering and veg Bridge Trust has got a
:32:39. > :32:44.problem, but they have a plan that they have agreed with us and that
:32:44. > :32:48.has been agreed with the Secretary of State. As things stand they have
:32:48. > :32:52.a plan they are working to and delivering on. But the difficulty
:32:52. > :32:56.for Government is that although individual hospitals may have got
:32:56. > :33:01.themselves into trouble it is likely to be ministers taking the
:33:01. > :33:08.blame if there are cuts. Margaret Hodge, is this the time
:33:08. > :33:12.for a recantation about the errors of embarking on this PFI model.
:33:12. > :33:17.have looked at PFI many times in the Public Accounts Committee and
:33:17. > :33:24.it is true it is not good value for money which is why it is a bit
:33:24. > :33:28.depressing that this Government is going on with that as a mechanism.
:33:28. > :33:33.Lots of people told you that when you're in Barking in Government and
:33:33. > :33:39.embarking on this. But we would have never got our new hospital in
:33:39. > :33:43.our area if we had not had PFI and there were lots of hospitals built
:33:43. > :33:50.that otherwise would not have been built. And secondly I agree with
:33:50. > :33:56.what was said on your piece that to use PFI for the so excuse of the
:33:56. > :34:01.financial problems is wrong. In my hospital which has got a PFI and is
:34:01. > :34:06.paying more that it should, last year for example in obstetrics they
:34:06. > :34:13.had to pay �5 million in compensation in obstetrics for poor
:34:13. > :34:19.services and they were paying less than �1 million in 2006-2007. And
:34:19. > :34:23.because of the poor quality of care they are wasting money. In the A N
:34:23. > :34:29.D AA have got 30 to 40% locum doctors who do not know what they
:34:29. > :34:34.are doing so people are waiting too long and they cost more. In your
:34:34. > :34:41.constituency there is one of these hospitals, two out of three appear
:34:41. > :34:48.five. What is going on? On a couple of points Margaret made. Yes, the
:34:48. > :34:54.early PFI contracts were often very easy for the financiers who created
:34:54. > :35:01.them and they were very lucrative tricks and maintenance contracts
:35:01. > :35:08.with hugely inflated billing, for example a �500 a light bulb. Over
:35:08. > :35:12.the years the Treasury has got better at managing PFIs and be know
:35:12. > :35:18.how to manage them better. There was never a get out in the early
:35:18. > :35:24.stages. The contractor which renegotiate and made huge profits.
:35:24. > :35:30.You mentioned the PFI contract on the Princess Royal in Orpington and
:35:30. > :35:35.that is an example of a contract that was signed in 1998 in the very
:35:35. > :35:39.early days of the Blair Government and it was a very generous contract
:35:39. > :35:44.and its stuffed Princess Royal with these massive interest payments.
:35:44. > :35:49.That is not the totality of the problem. A receipt there are others
:35:49. > :35:52.there as well. What do you think needs to happen? This south London
:35:52. > :36:02.health care trust is heavily indebted and it is the product of a
:36:02. > :36:03.
:36:03. > :36:08.three-way merger. The chief executive of the NHS himself said
:36:08. > :36:12.was that it was inevitable. could see the savings that have to
:36:12. > :36:16.be made, so do you accept they will have to be cuts in staffing and
:36:16. > :36:21.services may suffer? What is important we end the uncertainty
:36:21. > :36:24.because nothing kills a hospital more than uncertainty. Patients
:36:24. > :36:28.whose confidence in their treatment and it is unsettling and they do
:36:28. > :36:32.not know whether they will get the care they expect and stab a
:36:32. > :36:37.confidence in their own job security. When you have got a trust
:36:37. > :36:41.that is using over �1 million a week and that is unsustainable and
:36:41. > :36:45.straining resources but elsewhere in the health system, you have got
:36:45. > :36:50.to end that uncertainty. That is why Andrew Lansley has stepped in
:36:50. > :36:55.to put it into administration. It should have been done earlier.
:36:55. > :37:01.could not disagree with that. That is exactly what a Labour Health
:37:01. > :37:05.Secretary would have to do. I have become back on the PFI. We looked
:37:05. > :37:11.at the 20 trusts that were in the greatest financial difficulty and
:37:12. > :37:17.we found that in only six of them was PFI that factor. We are where
:37:17. > :37:21.we are. What do you do? Do you close hospitals? One of the
:37:21. > :37:24.problems in London and I think you would agree with this, is that
:37:24. > :37:31.money is sucked into the centre of London with the big teaching
:37:31. > :37:35.hospitals. We both represent outer London constituencies. It may well
:37:35. > :37:39.be that you go for a merger, but at the expense of closing the
:37:39. > :37:43.hospitals in out a London and expect people to go into inner
:37:43. > :37:49.London is wrong. My constituents do not have cars in the same way as
:37:49. > :37:56.other people do. If you are having a baby to a you have to go into
:37:56. > :38:02.central London... Would you support a merger? There will have to be job
:38:02. > :38:05.cuts and some services may have to be closed. I cannot prejudged the
:38:05. > :38:09.decisions the administrator will have to make. There will have to be
:38:10. > :38:14.difficult decisions to be taken. But we must not allow this process
:38:14. > :38:22.to end up with the centre of gravity shifting into the centre of
:38:22. > :38:27.town. Outer London has its own special needs. We must not let
:38:27. > :38:32.health quality worsen because of this. There is also trouble on the
:38:32. > :38:36.High Street. As the recession bites London's local retailers find
:38:36. > :38:42.themselves in competition with retail parks, shopping centres and
:38:42. > :38:47.a booming online sector are. What would help? The Mayor's office and
:38:47. > :38:52.London councils are pumping millions into the high streets. But
:38:53. > :39:01.his is money well spent? The suburban high street, summer, 2012,
:39:01. > :39:05.the recession now visible. But perhaps London should be grateful.
:39:05. > :39:12.We are also having amounts of money ploughed into our high streets that
:39:12. > :39:16.others can only dream up. One of the Mayor's key objectives was to
:39:16. > :39:20.have money pumped into the high streets. We know that banks have
:39:20. > :39:24.been given billions and we have seen help given to other industries
:39:24. > :39:28.like the British car manufacturers, but are London's high streets about
:39:28. > :39:35.to get a bail-out of their own? This is what Leyton High Road used
:39:35. > :39:40.to look like. It is now like this. Waltham Forest council spent nearly
:39:40. > :39:44.�500,000 doing up the shop fronts. At this boutique this investment
:39:44. > :39:50.helped inspire them to put money of their own into doing up the entire
:39:51. > :39:55.store. We had a few meetings, we talked about the design and the
:39:55. > :39:59.colours and they showed us a few colours and we took it from there.
:39:59. > :40:04.Great news for the shops who got the money, but what about their
:40:04. > :40:09.competitors who miss out? Shoppers on the High Street had mixed views
:40:09. > :40:12.about whether public money should be spent on private businesses.
:40:12. > :40:17.improves the community and generates more business for all of
:40:17. > :40:22.us. Private individuals are making money. As a taxpayer I like things
:40:23. > :40:27.to go into things like people in hospital. But the council insists
:40:27. > :40:33.the public get a good return for their money. Some people would say
:40:33. > :40:37.largesse, others would say ambition. We are spending money in Leyton and
:40:37. > :40:42.Walthamstow and next year in the north of Walthamstow. These are
:40:42. > :40:46.places that have been neglected for a long time and we are investing
:40:46. > :40:51.and showing our ambition so that private owners and businesses can
:40:51. > :40:55.have confidence this is a place they want to invest in and live in.
:40:55. > :41:02.But could it be that our money is being spent on a hunch as opposed
:41:02. > :41:06.to a rigorous business model? According to one company that
:41:06. > :41:11.specialises in collecting data on the High Street, our politicians
:41:11. > :41:14.might be making a stab in the dark. I'm not aware they have that
:41:14. > :41:19.ability to drill down into every single high-street and understand
:41:19. > :41:23.what its occupancy and vacancy rate is like. What has been historically
:41:23. > :41:29.a mix between food and beverage and shops. It is important to
:41:29. > :41:34.understand how areas have changed. Is public money being spent badly
:41:34. > :41:38.at the moment? I think it could be spent better. Like with anything we
:41:38. > :41:42.have to know what is the return on that investment going to be.
:41:42. > :41:46.matter how well public money is spent, the high streets will have
:41:46. > :41:52.to compete with internet sales, large shopping centres and
:41:52. > :41:58.stagnating living centres. Richard Dodd has joined us from the
:41:58. > :42:03.British Retail Consortium. A number of funding streams, Mary Portas, is
:42:03. > :42:07.this all to be welcomed from your point of view? Our high streets are
:42:07. > :42:12.tremendously important, they are important to local communities in
:42:12. > :42:16.terms of the jobs and services they provide. Many of them are in
:42:16. > :42:21.trouble. One in 11 High Street shops is standing empty and it
:42:21. > :42:26.would be a big mistake to ignore that. Of course these schemes
:42:26. > :42:30.involve a relatively modest sums of money. They are not going to be an
:42:30. > :42:36.all embracing, a total solution, but they are showing the right
:42:36. > :42:42.intent. It looks predominantly about facelifts, surface staff, is
:42:42. > :42:47.that true? The real problems on the high streets are about costs of
:42:47. > :42:54.doing business and one of those is business rates. It's is that too
:42:54. > :42:58.high? Not getting enough back from them? The Government put �350
:42:58. > :43:02.million of extra costs on to retailers last April and the
:43:02. > :43:06.previous year as well. That has made huge impact on these
:43:06. > :43:10.businesses. But also we should not ignore the fact we need to invest
:43:10. > :43:16.in making our town centres into safe and attractive places people
:43:16. > :43:20.want to go to. It seems to be a perennial thing warning that the
:43:20. > :43:25.high street is dying with retells super parks, but it never quite
:43:25. > :43:31.does. Something else comes along, whether it is a coffee shop or an
:43:31. > :43:35.Internet cafe. It is not dying. Many of them are in trouble. They
:43:35. > :43:39.are all evolving, some more successfully than others and we
:43:39. > :43:44.have to work with that process of evolution to make sure high streets
:43:44. > :43:49.go on providing those services and jobs even if they are different in
:43:49. > :43:54.nature to what has gone on in the past. How is Orpington town centre?
:43:54. > :43:59.Things are looking up. Vacancy rates are only Piper said which is
:43:59. > :44:03.a third of the national average. That is due to a successful
:44:03. > :44:09.regeneration programme funded by City Hall and by Bromley council.
:44:09. > :44:13.They spent �2.2 million doing the roads and the lighting and it has
:44:13. > :44:18.made a big difference and we got a vote of confidence in Orpington
:44:18. > :44:23.High Street. It will bring the first cinema there since 1982 if
:44:23. > :44:27.Miller Developments goes ahead. had doubts whether there was
:44:27. > :44:31.empirical evidence to show whether this money was being spent
:44:31. > :44:38.correctly. You will only be able to tell from football, but surely it
:44:38. > :44:42.is too early to say? We have got about 440,000 every week. Sorry,
:44:42. > :44:47.every month in Orpington High Street and that is an impressive
:44:47. > :44:50.figure. It is clear that strong lead from local Government can
:44:50. > :44:56.create a fertile environment in which businesses still confident
:44:56. > :45:02.enough to invest. He is barking beaming? Not yet. We have got some
:45:02. > :45:05.of the Mayor's money, but it is money in people's pockets to spend.
:45:05. > :45:10.In the current recession more people are out of work and there is
:45:10. > :45:14.not that money to spend on the High Street. The other thing in Barking
:45:14. > :45:20.and Dagenham is we lost Marks & Spencer and that was a key store
:45:20. > :45:24.that attracted others. Woolworths went into liquidation. I think from
:45:24. > :45:30.all my experience both on local Government and in central
:45:30. > :45:40.Government unique a catalyst that brings in other private sector
:45:40. > :45:43.
:45:43. > :45:47.One thing that would really change things for you? We need to focus on
:45:47. > :45:50.the sorts of initiatives that can spark action. But we mustn't ignore
:45:50. > :45:56.them really impact for things, things like business rates and
:45:56. > :46:06.rents are -- the top of that. A so, what else has been happening
:46:06. > :46:06.
:46:06. > :46:10.in the capital? Here is the answer Airline bosses, business leaders
:46:10. > :46:14.and unions united to attack the Government's blocking of a third
:46:14. > :46:18.runway at Heathrow, claiming that Britain was losing opportunities
:46:18. > :46:24.and business when it could least afford it. They accused the
:46:24. > :46:27.Government of making decisions for short-term political gain. Less
:46:27. > :46:31.than four weeks to the Olympics, Tower Bridge got in on the act with
:46:31. > :46:35.the Olympic logo dangled from its structure. And the new cable car
:46:35. > :46:39.that serves Olympic valleys, the ExCel centre and the O2 Arena,
:46:39. > :46:44.opened. But at what cost to the taxpayer? If there is any taxpayer
:46:44. > :46:49.spending, we would expect it would be recouped from merchandising and
:46:49. > :46:52.ticket sales. One caveat, people are banned from swimming underneath
:46:52. > :46:56.the flightpath. Barking and Dagenham borough has the highest
:46:56. > :47:04.risk of housing repossession in the UK according to a new report by
:47:04. > :47:11.Shelter. Variation is most balanced in capital, where it is more than
:47:11. > :47:16.6.5 times that in Kensington and So nice to have a member of the
:47:16. > :47:20.Johnson family here. It has been too long. The cable car, what does
:47:20. > :47:24.the cable-car provide for the people of Orpington? Well, it is an
:47:24. > :47:28.opportunity for them to cross the river in a new way. It is not just
:47:28. > :47:34.for the people of Orpington. It doesn't directly go there. It is an
:47:34. > :47:37.addition to London's infrastructure. I am sure it will be useful. Do you
:47:37. > :47:42.get the impression or the feel for whether this is good for
:47:42. > :47:46.regeneration or good as a tourist attraction? Some people will call
:47:46. > :47:51.it a vanity project. What do you think it's long-term aim or
:47:51. > :47:54.reasoning could be? Well, infrastructure is a critical part
:47:54. > :48:00.of creating jobs and growth in the London economy. There is clearly a
:48:00. > :48:02.need for new ways to get around in that part of the city. Putting the
:48:02. > :48:07.infrastructure in place often creates benefits that we cannot
:48:08. > :48:10.identify immediately. If we reduced all big infrastructure projects to
:48:10. > :48:15.the immediate financial benefits that we could envisage in the next
:48:15. > :48:18.three or five years, nothing could ever get built. They create huge
:48:18. > :48:22.options and spin-offs that we cannot envisage at the moment.
:48:22. > :48:26.it opens up the area around the docks and draws people there, it
:48:26. > :48:30.might be slow, but if it does that that is a great new addition to
:48:30. > :48:35.London? I do agree with Joe on this. I don't think Boris will get his
:48:35. > :48:39.money back, but I think you have to invest in infrastructure to try to
:48:39. > :48:45.encourage further investment and growth. Just thinking about it, the
:48:45. > :48:48.Olympics meant that we got the extension of the Jubilee Line to
:48:48. > :48:51.the Olympic site at the expense of the extension of the Docklands
:48:51. > :48:55.Light Railway, which would have helped the Royal Docks and
:48:55. > :48:59.certainly would have helped me and my constituents in Barking and
:48:59. > :49:02.Dagenham. I wonder if this cable- car reveals the bigger problem that
:49:02. > :49:07.is still there, particularly in south-east London or an area like
:49:07. > :49:12.yours, where it highlights the need for getting people into the central
:49:12. > :49:16.London? And this is just one small measure? Absolutely. The transport
:49:16. > :49:22.links to south-east London are in urgent need of improvement. Andy
:49:22. > :49:24.East London! We are very keen that City Hall, that rail is devolved to
:49:25. > :49:29.City Hall. There is an accountability to that part of
:49:29. > :49:33.London. It at the moment they are embedded within the Department for
:49:33. > :49:36.Transport. There is no sense of accountability, locally. What we
:49:36. > :49:39.need is for London Overground, doing a fantastic job and other
:49:39. > :49:49.parts of the capital, to take over the South Eastern suburban routes.
:49:49. > :49:55.
:49:55. > :49:58.I'm afraid that is all we have time So, with Bob Diamond before the
:49:58. > :50:03.Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday and Liam Fox putting the
:50:03. > :50:13.cat among the pigeons on Europe today and tomorrow, it is time to
:50:13. > :50:20.
:50:20. > :50:25.break open the Bollinger again for The Express political editor is
:50:25. > :50:31.making a wonderful tweet, remember about this referendum that we are
:50:31. > :50:34.not going to have, when are we not going to have it? The best I can
:50:34. > :50:40.make out of it is that there will be a referendum one day, once we
:50:40. > :50:44.know what our relationship with the European Union is. As ambiguous as
:50:44. > :50:49.that is, the one consoling factor is that Labour's position is
:50:49. > :50:54.roughly the same thing. Eventually, not yet, once we know what the
:50:54. > :51:00.eurozone looks like. The problem with the Government's position and
:51:00. > :51:08.Cameron's article in the Telegraph is not its ambiguity, it's that he
:51:08. > :51:18.seems to be saying he can renegotiate our position. I don't
:51:18. > :51:20.
:51:20. > :51:24.think the French and the eurozone I still don't understand what it is.
:51:24. > :51:30.Is he saying that nothing can happen before 2015, but he will put
:51:30. > :51:34.it in the Tory manifesto that he will renegotiate the relationship
:51:34. > :51:37.with Europe. He probably will not be able to do it, but then does he
:51:37. > :51:42.go for a referendum or is it job done? And not even sure he knows
:51:42. > :51:45.what he means. I was in the Sunday Times newsroom yesterday and got
:51:45. > :51:48.two entirely different briefings from Downing Street on what this
:51:48. > :51:51.article was going to save. The first said one thing and somebody
:51:51. > :51:55.rang me up and said, actually, we are not sure about what we told you
:51:55. > :51:59.earlier, can you change it? It had all the hallmarks of something that
:51:59. > :52:03.was rushed out, possibly because they knew that Liam Fox was making
:52:03. > :52:07.this very provocative speech on Monday and wanted to get in there
:52:07. > :52:12.first. It has opened a hornets Nest the monks to Euro-sceptics. They
:52:12. > :52:16.are not pacified with us at all? Absolutely. Janet is right, Cameron
:52:16. > :52:20.is now in the same position as Labour, we might have a referendum
:52:20. > :52:23.if the terms change. But even though it was billed as Cameron
:52:23. > :52:27.coming closer to a referendum, I thought it was incoming further
:52:27. > :52:31.away. It was my understanding that in the coalition agreement, if our
:52:31. > :52:35.terms and relationship with Europe changed, we would have a vote won
:52:35. > :52:38.membership. Actually, the terms of Europe have changed as Europe
:52:38. > :52:42.renegotiate its relationship with each other. What he ended up saying
:52:42. > :52:47.was, actually, even though the terms of changed, there will be no
:52:47. > :52:51.referendum until 2015. It seemed like he rushed out something. The
:52:51. > :52:56.whole article was pregnant with phrases you learn at the school of
:52:56. > :53:02.PR. It will be tough, but we can do it, that sort of stuff. Because he
:53:02. > :53:07.had no spoken in Brussels, when he ruled out and in or out referendum?
:53:07. > :53:09.It seemed like a reaction against what he said 72 hours earlier. This
:53:09. > :53:13.presents the was problem of all, a government which does not really
:53:13. > :53:16.know what it thinks and is pushed around by events. In the first 18
:53:16. > :53:20.months of its life, even if you hated everything the Government did,
:53:20. > :53:24.you could not accuse it of weakness. It had a sense of direction. They
:53:24. > :53:28.have lost that since January. I think it began with her Stephen
:53:28. > :53:32.Hester and RBS bonus row and it has never really been recovered. Going
:53:32. > :53:35.back to what you said, Janet, Europe is becoming closer together
:53:35. > :53:38.and Cameron is increasingly isolated. What he will say in his
:53:38. > :53:45.speech tomorrow is that we will safeguard the City of London.
:53:45. > :53:50.Actually, I'm not sure if Europe is going to be able to take London
:53:50. > :53:54.acting as a sort of jersey on the side of the Continent. It could
:53:55. > :53:58.really take steps to isolate the UK. What if it said, for example, if
:53:58. > :54:02.you want to do business as a bank in Europe and we are underpinning
:54:02. > :54:07.new, financially, you have to be in the eurozone area. It would
:54:07. > :54:11.completely shut out London. If it was legal, which it might not be.
:54:11. > :54:15.But you raise a good point. The point that Janet made is absolutely
:54:15. > :54:19.right, I think. I would guess it is almost inconceivable that the
:54:19. > :54:23.Europeans would agree a renegotiation that allowed us to
:54:23. > :54:26.stay in with all of the benefits and none of the obligations, which
:54:26. > :54:32.would leave a Tory majority government in a position of having
:54:32. > :54:35.to have an in or out referendum and probably having to say out? I think
:54:35. > :54:39.what Cameron has been afraid of, and he is right to be afraid of it,
:54:39. > :54:43.is Ed Miliband catching him out on this and making a really bold
:54:43. > :54:47.statement by saying, actually, we are going to offer people a
:54:47. > :54:51.referendum. That would have made Cameron look very weak. He did have
:54:51. > :54:55.to come out and say something. What is odd is the timing of it and how
:54:55. > :54:59.garbled it has been. On banking, although Rachel Reeves did not
:54:59. > :55:02.quite say it, it is pretty clear that Labour are waiting to see how
:55:02. > :55:06.Bob Diamond performs. There is every chance that after they hear
:55:06. > :55:12.what he had to say, they are going to call for his resignation?
:55:12. > :55:15.Absolutely. I think he should go. He was either complicit in what was
:55:15. > :55:17.happening or totally negligent. Either way, the fact that he
:55:18. > :55:21.doesn't realise that the public needs to see somebody taking
:55:21. > :55:25.responsibility is symptomatic of an entire industry that is completely
:55:25. > :55:29.out of touch. I don't think it would be a risk for Labour to say,
:55:29. > :55:33.actually, we need him to go. The one point why would make is that
:55:33. > :55:37.this is much, much bigger than Bob Diamond. I do think that we need a
:55:37. > :55:42.Leveson Inquiry for the banking sector. It's interesting, the
:55:42. > :55:45.parallels between the two. A set of elites in an over concentrated
:55:45. > :55:48.industry that think they are above the rules and manipulate them for
:55:48. > :55:51.their interests, rather than the public interest. I think we need
:55:51. > :55:59.some kind of reckoning now. Ed Miliband has been right to call for
:55:59. > :56:03.that public inquiry. How much would we find out? These things cost so
:56:03. > :56:08.much money and end up like a theatre, often. You hold an inquiry
:56:09. > :56:12.into a specific event like Bloody Sunday. To hold an inquiry into
:56:12. > :56:16.something like the culture of banking, it's like an inquiry into
:56:16. > :56:21.media ethics. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry took six years and cost
:56:21. > :56:25.millions of pounds! That did go on for too long and cost too much. To
:56:25. > :56:28.do it on the culture of banking would allow it to turn into what
:56:28. > :56:33.Leveson Inquiry has become, an inquiry with no discernible limits
:56:33. > :56:37.and will resulting conclusions that satisfy no one. Which of the five
:56:37. > :56:45.Iraq inquiries have placated people? We are still waiting for
:56:45. > :56:48.one! They are still meeting in Whitehall. Politically, in a sane
:56:48. > :56:52.world, the Government would want an inquiry into banking because it has
:56:52. > :56:56.very little to lose from it. Most of the regulatory failures took
:56:56. > :57:03.place previously. Labour should actively oppose one because they
:57:03. > :57:07.are going to be in front of it. But the exact inverse has happened.
:57:07. > :57:12.a sense, this has caught people's attention almost more than the
:57:12. > :57:16.slump itself. They have worked out, although they do not know what
:57:16. > :57:20.LIBOR is and it probably didn't affect them, it was a kind of
:57:20. > :57:25.victimless crime, in a way, for ordinary people, people behind
:57:25. > :57:29.closed doors were rigging things and I think the public are just
:57:29. > :57:33.saying, why isn't somebody going to jail for this? In a way, it's
:57:33. > :57:38.simple to understand. You can see an exchange of the e-mails that
:57:38. > :57:43.says, hey, mate, can you change it to this? The other guy says, yes,
:57:43. > :57:48.just for you. It looks really dodgy. Fixing an interest rate that is at
:57:48. > :57:51.the heart of London's integrity as a global financial centre? This is
:57:51. > :57:55.another reason why we need an inquiry. It has happened in the
:57:55. > :57:59.States and has been very successful there as well. It says that if you
:57:59. > :58:04.do wrong you will be publicly shamed. That stops a massive
:58:04. > :58:07.problem happening afterwards. are getting at with the select
:58:07. > :58:12.committees. It's become very Americanised, how we will people
:58:12. > :58:16.out, put them behind the stand as if this is what goes on. Not as
:58:16. > :58:20.good at asking questions as the Senate. We will get there.
:58:20. > :58:24.believe it is only the start, many other banks are going to be done
:58:25. > :58:32.for this LIBOR scam as well. If Bob Diamond goes, you could see the
:58:32. > :58:39.case for a complete Cole. Cameron hasn't ruled out a full inquiry. --
:58:40. > :58:43.That is all for this week. Jo Coburn will bring you the Daily
:58:43. > :58:47.Politics on BBC Two tomorrow at the earlier time of 11 o'clock. We will