:00:15. > :00:18.Hello and welcome to the Record, a round-up of the day in Parliament.
:00:18. > :00:25.The Government says there'll be no U-turn on the benefit cap, because
:00:25. > :00:28.it's a good policy. Those on benefits should not be earning more
:00:28. > :00:30.than those who are living and working harder.
:00:30. > :00:33.Lawyers, writers and scientists join forces to highlight the
:00:33. > :00:37.failings of the law on defamation. And, making sure the taxpayer gets
:00:37. > :00:45.the best deal when the Government sells off its shares in the bailed-
:00:45. > :00:49.out banks. The one group that should not be allowed to bid for
:00:49. > :00:52.those shares other bankers who got us into this financial mess in the
:00:52. > :00:55.first place. But first, the Government's Welfare
:00:55. > :00:58.Reform Bill includes plans to limit the amount of money one household
:00:58. > :01:01.can receive in benefits. It will be set at the average annual earnings,
:01:01. > :01:04.currently �26,000 a year. In an interview at the weekend, the
:01:04. > :01:08.Welfare Reform Minister, Lord Freud, appeared to suggest a shift in
:01:08. > :01:16.policy on the benefit cap. His comments were seized on at Question
:01:16. > :01:21.Time by Labour's work and pensions spokesman. The cap on overall
:01:21. > :01:25.benefits is an important part of the bowl but yesterday, the noble
:01:25. > :01:31.lord Freud said on television there would be a significant U-turn and
:01:31. > :01:36.when pressed on the detail, he said this. Well, it is wherever we think
:01:36. > :01:44.that, you know, there is something happening that is undesirable. I
:01:44. > :01:49.don't wish to be pedantic but that is not a clear structure on welfare
:01:49. > :01:53.reform. Will we have a new proposal? He should not believe
:01:53. > :01:59.everything he reads in the media. The reality is that this policy is
:01:59. > :02:03.not changing because it is a good policy. Near on half of those of
:02:03. > :02:06.working age are all working earn less than �26,000 a year and they
:02:06. > :02:14.pay taxes to see some people on benefits earning much more than
:02:14. > :02:19.that figure. I simply say to him, as we proceed through the report
:02:19. > :02:23.and third reading, I look forward to seeing him actually support this
:02:23. > :02:25.and the support and vote for the welfare bill on the third reading
:02:25. > :02:32.because he believes that those on benefits should not be earning more
:02:32. > :02:35.than those who are living and working hard. His Welfare Reform
:02:35. > :02:39.Bill would be easy to support if we actually knew what difference it
:02:39. > :02:44.was going to make in the real world but at the moment we don't know
:02:44. > :02:50.what it means for childcare, people with disabilities or the benefit
:02:50. > :02:55.cap either. Since he took office, the housing benefit bill has been
:02:55. > :03:00.projected to go up by the Treasury by �1 billion. If he cannot tell us
:03:00. > :03:06.what his policy on exemptions is, will he tell us what the Lord
:03:06. > :03:12.Freud's policy is going to cost the taxpayers? We are not changing the
:03:13. > :03:16.policy, as I said to him. In fact, we are doing what we already doing,
:03:16. > :03:21.which is discretionary payments to make sure the policy is eased in
:03:21. > :03:25.exactly right. Wait a minute. He cannot have it both ways. He has
:03:25. > :03:28.just said that we are not cutting housing benefit enough. He would
:03:28. > :03:33.like to talk to his honourable friend who says we are cutting it
:03:33. > :03:36.too much. This is the problem with the opposition. Today we had a
:03:36. > :03:43.speed from the Leader of the Opposition where they said they
:03:43. > :03:50.would be tough on those on benefits. This whole idea of welfare and
:03:50. > :03:55.change is a lot of wriggly worm he returns from the opposition.
:03:55. > :03:59.Government's benefit cap will force many people to be uprooted from
:03:59. > :04:03.their jobs and schools in my constituency. According to his
:04:03. > :04:10.colleague, the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, such people are making
:04:10. > :04:14.lifestyle choices. Is that the Government's view? The position on
:04:14. > :04:18.the cap is very straightforward and that is to say that those who are
:04:18. > :04:23.on benefit should not, of course, receive more money than those war
:04:23. > :04:30.working and paying their taxes. There are, of course, exemptions
:04:30. > :04:34.for that. Those who are disabled and widows and war widows, they are
:04:34. > :04:39.exempted, but for the rest, the simple principle lies that if you
:04:39. > :04:43.can, you should be helping to try and work and �26,000 a year seems
:04:43. > :04:47.like a reasonable sum of money to Now, the big political story of the
:04:47. > :04:50.day was the future of the NHS in England. The NHS Future Forum,
:04:50. > :04:52.commissioned by the Prime Minister to review the Government's proposed
:04:52. > :04:56.changes, has published its findings after a two-month listening
:04:56. > :04:59.exercise. The Forum has called for substantial changes to the Health
:04:59. > :05:01.and Social Care Bill, including the gradual introduction of the new
:05:01. > :05:04.regime and a greater emphasis on collaboration instead of
:05:04. > :05:07.competition. The head of the Forum, Professor Steve Field, went to
:05:07. > :05:10.Downing Street to brief the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister,
:05:10. > :05:13.Nick Clegg, and the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.
:05:13. > :05:16.Professor Field said there were "genuine and deep-seated concerns"
:05:16. > :05:26.about the legislation. Back in the Commons, there was concern about
:05:26. > :05:31.how the Government was going to take his recommendations forward.
:05:31. > :05:35.Mr Speaker, you are of course aware there is a major bill before
:05:36. > :05:40.Parliament proposing huge changes in the National Health Service. It
:05:40. > :05:44.has been announced in the press today that the Prime Minister and
:05:44. > :05:49.Deputy Prime Minister are to hold a staged event at 12pm tomorrow,
:05:49. > :05:53.announcing the changes they intend to make in the stationary. Is it
:05:53. > :05:56.not utterly unacceptable, particularly when a bill is before
:05:56. > :06:02.the House of Commons, that announcements should be made about
:06:02. > :06:06.what is to be done to that bowl should take place two-and-a-half
:06:06. > :06:10.hours before the House sits, and do you not agree that that statement
:06:10. > :06:20.should be made first to the House of Commons and that this stunt
:06:20. > :06:22.
:06:22. > :06:28.should be called off? I reiterate my point. If ministers, be they
:06:28. > :06:34.ever so high, have important policy announcements to make, including
:06:34. > :06:38.about any changes in policy, those announcements should be made first
:06:38. > :06:44.to the House of Commons. One MP tried to draw the Speaker
:06:44. > :06:48.out a bit more. I am letting your original pronouncement in relation
:06:48. > :06:53.to my honourable friend for Manchester sink in. I would not
:06:53. > :06:58.want to put any words in your mouth, obviously. But it seemed to me you
:06:58. > :07:01.might have been suggesting that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime
:07:01. > :07:07.Minister would not be right to go ahead with an announcement before
:07:07. > :07:12.coming to this House in another venue? If the honourable gentleman
:07:12. > :07:22.have not made his name as a Member of Parliament I feel sure that he
:07:22. > :07:23.
:07:23. > :07:28.would have had a very fruitful career at the bar. Behind the bar!
:07:28. > :07:31.Not downstairs but in the law courts. What I would say is that
:07:31. > :07:35.have not suggesting anything and I do not feel the need to add
:07:35. > :07:40.anything to what I have already said in response to the honourable
:07:40. > :07:43.gentleman. First I thought I said was pretty clear and secondly, the
:07:43. > :07:51.honourable member for Manchester Gorton is not in any way slow on
:07:51. > :07:54.the uptake. I hope that his clear! The Speaker, John Bercow. A
:07:54. > :07:57.committee examining the libel laws in England and Wales has been told
:07:57. > :07:59.that the costs for claimants and defendants should be cut. The
:07:59. > :08:04.Government has produced a draft Defamation Bill aimed at reducing
:08:04. > :08:08.the number of cases and the expense involved. It would also tighten up
:08:08. > :08:12.the definition of what is libellous. A joint committee of MPs and peers
:08:12. > :08:15.heard from a number of journalists and authors who've been sued. Tom
:08:15. > :08:17.Bower, who successfully defended a libel action brought against him by
:08:17. > :08:27.the newspaper proprietor Richard Desmond, said the bill didn't go
:08:27. > :08:29.
:08:29. > :08:33.far enough. I would not have been helped in any way by the
:08:33. > :08:39.recommendations which you are suggesting. And I have actually
:08:39. > :08:43.bought it here because I wanted to see, here is a book that describes
:08:43. > :08:50.Richard Desmond's dishonesty. I cannot get it published not because
:08:50. > :08:55.it is not true but because of the libel. The publishers in London are
:08:55. > :09:00.not afraid of publishing the truth and the insurers are not afraid of
:09:00. > :09:05.financing of the information, but it is the time and costs and the
:09:05. > :09:08.fact that the complications within the trial process make it
:09:08. > :09:13.impossible to actually produce this book and sell it without consuming
:09:13. > :09:18.a huge amount of effort and time. Is the problem rather than being
:09:18. > :09:26.with the law of libel a problem with the mechanisms by which
:09:26. > :09:33.defamation trials are conducted and decided? The cost is the chilling
:09:33. > :09:37.factor for all publishing houses at the moment and it has got worse. It
:09:37. > :09:40.is in the interests of an aggressive, ruthless litigant to
:09:40. > :09:50.increase the costs to stifle the publisher.
:09:50. > :09:50.
:09:50. > :09:53.He wanted a key change. You must include within your bill a
:09:53. > :09:57.presumption of public interest of publication as they have in America,
:09:57. > :10:03.and that the threshold for somebody like a public figure, whether it is
:10:03. > :10:09.Richard Desmond or another, to prove that the author is motivated
:10:09. > :10:15.by malice. Once that threshold is decided and discussed, then you can
:10:15. > :10:19.go into the issues of whether it is true or not on reputation -- and
:10:19. > :10:23.whether reputation has been affected. But until then, I do not
:10:23. > :10:29.think you will get over the problem. Other witnesses thought businesses
:10:29. > :10:33.should be barred from suing for libel. The inequality of arms
:10:34. > :10:37.between a corporation and an individual is extremely huge and I
:10:37. > :10:42.don't see any justification for corporations being treated and is
:10:42. > :10:48.they -- as if they have human rights. I think it is entirely
:10:49. > :10:54.reasonable to expect that they can use this where there is a higher
:10:54. > :10:57.bar to take cases against individuals. Some of the most
:10:57. > :11:03.concerning cases over the last couple of years have involved
:11:03. > :11:12.companies, so I was sued by a company, several others have also
:11:12. > :11:16.been sued by companies. Bloggers have also been threatened. It is
:11:16. > :11:21.companies too often have the most chilling effect and they're often
:11:21. > :11:24.people we should be challenging... Well, they are not people, that is
:11:24. > :11:30.the point Maghreb. They are entities we should be challenging
:11:30. > :11:35.in order to get to the truth. Having said that, the question is,
:11:35. > :11:40.or what redress do we have? And the Press Complaints Commission and
:11:40. > :11:47.very large advertising budgets, I think it those other ways companies
:11:47. > :11:51.can seek to redress if the claim has been false. It is my view that
:11:51. > :11:54.wherever somebody is writing critically about ideas and
:11:55. > :11:58.practices where it is clearly in the public interest that they do so,
:11:58. > :12:02.I think the Bar should be said very high for somebody trying to sue
:12:02. > :12:06.them for libel. If a public interest can be shown they should
:12:06. > :12:11.then have to show malice or recklessness on the part of the
:12:11. > :12:14.person making assertions about them if it turns out they were wrong.
:12:15. > :12:20.all of these cases where people have been sued for libel, the
:12:20. > :12:26.claimants thought they had a real chance. In my case, the law was so
:12:26. > :12:30.grey, so messy, most lawyers thought it could have gone either
:12:30. > :12:35.way. When the case was eventually resolved, it looked as though it
:12:35. > :12:39.should have been a slam dunk from day one. The material was removed
:12:39. > :12:42.and I think my views have been vindicated completely. So what
:12:42. > :12:48.should have been a slam dunk becomes a horrendous mess because
:12:48. > :12:53.the case law is so fuzzy. This is why the goal is a welcome because
:12:53. > :12:58.the people who face these issues, it brings clarity to the law and
:12:58. > :13:03.common sense to the law for them, and hopefully, the sort of measures
:13:03. > :13:07.you will be bringing will block those cases by having a high hurdle
:13:07. > :13:14.in clause one and by hopefully stopping corporations from suing
:13:14. > :13:17.and that. These things happening. The journalist and author, Dr Simon
:13:17. > :13:20.Singh. You're watching The Record, on BBC Parliament. The main
:13:20. > :13:23.headlines. The Work and Pensions Secretary has
:13:23. > :13:27.insisted there's no change of policy on capping benefit at
:13:27. > :13:32.�26,000 a year. He said Labour was making what he called "wriggly
:13:32. > :13:41.worm" U-turns on welfare reform. Coming up, more questions for
:13:41. > :13:45.people who've filled out their census forms! They are required to
:13:45. > :13:55.stand on a doorstep for 10 minutes answering personal questions to a
:13:55. > :13:59.
:13:59. > :14:03.Peers have been trying to find out when and how taxpayers' added to
:14:03. > :14:08.recompense by the banks. The organisation that manages the
:14:08. > :14:13.government's shares in the banks is called UK financial investments. At
:14:13. > :14:19.Lord's Question Time, a Treasury minister explained what its next
:14:19. > :14:23.move would be. The gunmen will be advised on the
:14:23. > :14:28.timing of the dispose of these assets. The Office of National
:14:28. > :14:32.Statistics will decide how to account for the proceeds, taking
:14:32. > :14:36.into account the nature of the transaction. How the proceeds will
:14:36. > :14:42.be used will be determined as a part of the normal annual budget
:14:42. > :14:47.process. I would like to thank the Minister that the Government has
:14:47. > :14:55.been able to tell us little about their future banking policy.
:14:55. > :15:01.Perhaps we could be a light and bore. She complained about project
:15:01. > :15:06.Merlin, a scheme to get the bank's lending more to small businesses.
:15:06. > :15:14.When are the banks actually going to lend to small enterprises at
:15:14. > :15:22.rates they can afford? I could be churlish, or be fair to other noble
:15:22. > :15:30.lords will want to ask about the question. We seem to be strain
:15:31. > :15:35.rather far from the question. Let me briefly say, indeed project
:15:35. > :15:39.Merlin, agreed between the government and the banks means that
:15:39. > :15:43.the banks have put aside more lending capacity this year than
:15:43. > :15:51.last year. We have transparent reporting and a range of other
:15:51. > :15:57.initiatives which the banks have committed to to ensure that lending
:15:57. > :16:01.flows, as well as putting money into a considerable new equity fund
:16:01. > :16:06.for smaller businesses. Given that all UK citizens have had to bear
:16:06. > :16:12.some of the costs of the government bailing out the banks, can the
:16:12. > :16:17.Minister confirm that the Treasury is giving serious consideration to
:16:17. > :16:25.a distribution of the estate owned shares in RBS's to the UK
:16:25. > :16:30.population as a whole. I can confirm to my Noble Friend that the
:16:30. > :16:37.UK financial investments will be considering retell participation in
:16:37. > :16:42.the distribution of the shares. That does not mean a quite what he
:16:42. > :16:48.says, which is some form of distribution but mass participation
:16:48. > :16:52.in some form is very much to be considered but value-for-money is
:16:52. > :16:58.one of the considerations that but they are required to take into
:16:58. > :17:05.account. Could I ask, particularly in the use of the word value-for-
:17:05. > :17:09.money, is it not the Government's duty to determine that the taxpayer
:17:09. > :17:13.gets the maximum proceeds from the sale of the shares. Is it not also
:17:13. > :17:18.clear cut that the one group that should not be allowed to bid for
:17:18. > :17:27.the shares are the bankers that got us into this financial mess in the
:17:27. > :17:32.first place. The obligation on UK Financial Investments is to provide
:17:32. > :17:42.advice to the Government on the time and the form of the sale and
:17:42. > :17:44.
:17:44. > :17:48.the value-for-money. The Government does not in Stent to be a permanent
:17:48. > :17:52.investor -- intend to be a permanent investor in the bank's
:17:52. > :17:56.and the disposals will have to take into account many considerations
:17:56. > :17:58.including market conditions at the time. Staying with Lords Question
:17:58. > :18:01.Time, the once-in-a-decade Census form may be a forgotten memory for
:18:01. > :18:04.many people. But some households are having to answer yet more
:18:04. > :18:07.questions, even though their forms have been filed correctly. It's
:18:07. > :18:15.part of an exercise by the Office for National Statistics to evaluate
:18:15. > :18:20.the census. The current Office for National Statistics census coverage
:18:20. > :18:26.survey is a validation exercise which will greatly enhance the
:18:26. > :18:32.statistical authority and value of the census. It will cover 17,000
:18:32. > :18:41.postcodes across England and Wales. It represents a sample of 1.3% of
:18:41. > :18:49.all postcodes in England and Wales and will cover 330,000 addresses.
:18:49. > :18:53.The cost is expected to be �6.5 million, representing 1.3% of the
:18:53. > :18:57.total sense as costs. The cost of processing the information
:18:57. > :19:03.collected in the survey is included in the overall costs of the
:19:03. > :19:08.processing operation. I thank the Minister for that full answer but
:19:08. > :19:12.the Minister will be aware that this is a survey of the people you
:19:12. > :19:17.have filled out the census form and about whom are no questions have
:19:17. > :19:21.been raised as to accuracy and we are required to stand on a doorstep
:19:21. > :19:26.for 10 minutes answering questions to a complete stranger. Surveyors
:19:26. > :19:31.are instructed that if someone refuses to answer to return up to
:19:31. > :19:35.10 times to wear them down into actually answering the survey. As
:19:35. > :19:40.someone said to me, it is fascinating to watch an exercise
:19:40. > :19:46.that not only wastes public money but also manages to alienate the
:19:46. > :19:50.public. Will he give us a guarantee that future evaluations of the
:19:50. > :19:57.census of proportion it and targeted and designed with a dose
:19:57. > :20:07.of common sense? If one has to halt a objective survey, is it necessary
:20:07. > :20:17.to get complete strangers to ask questions. Wider complete strangers
:20:17. > :20:21.ask questions, of course strangers after ours questions. -- have to
:20:22. > :20:26.ask questions. There is a short interview on the doorstep and a
:20:26. > :20:30.form that can be filled in if people prefer to fill in a fall.
:20:30. > :20:36.People may ask, why are we doing this if we have already completed
:20:36. > :20:42.the census form? It is to ensure that the figures in the census are
:20:42. > :20:47.no accurate representation of the household. I think it is worth
:20:47. > :20:54.investing as little bit of extra effort. It is a valid statistical
:20:54. > :20:58.exercise. It is compliant with quality assurance. It is an
:20:58. > :21:07.international practice. It makes sure that the census really does
:21:07. > :21:10.achieve its adjectives -- objectives. I thought if you filled
:21:10. > :21:14.in the form it did not have to be on the doorstep but from what he
:21:14. > :21:19.has just said it sounds as if they set a number of people are still
:21:19. > :21:25.interviewed, even if they have filled in a form. How can they
:21:25. > :21:30.assess which ones have completed the form? This is done on the basis
:21:30. > :21:35.of post code and it is designed to structure those postcodes where
:21:35. > :21:41.information has, in the past, been difficult to obtain and to make
:21:41. > :21:47.sure that the information that has been returned his valid. I thank my
:21:47. > :21:51.Noble Friend for pointing it out that the actual or household may or
:21:51. > :21:57.may not have completed a form in the first place. This is designed
:21:57. > :22:03.to make sure that the information that is available is correct.
:22:03. > :22:07.a surprising admission from Lord Taylor. If it is the purpose of the
:22:07. > :22:10.survey to ensure the information on the census forms is accurate, I
:22:11. > :22:15.wonder if it is possible to ensure that members of this House are
:22:15. > :22:19.included in that survey. The way that the census form was designed
:22:19. > :22:22.made it extremely difficult for people who are members of this
:22:22. > :22:31.House to give accurate information about how they spend their working
:22:31. > :22:36.days. I thank the noble lady for that question. I struggled a little
:22:36. > :22:41.crew complete my own form and I was rather a embarrassed considering I
:22:41. > :22:45.occasionally have to answer questions on the subject. I can
:22:45. > :22:50.reassure the noble lady that were she part of the postcode lottery,
:22:50. > :22:57.if one might put it like that, the postcode selected for this into the
:22:57. > :23:00.process, she might indeed find somebody wanting to interview her
:23:00. > :23:03.about her census form. Later in the Lords, the Government
:23:03. > :23:06.suffered another defeat on its European Union Bill, intended to
:23:06. > :23:09.give the British people a greater say on European issues. Peers voted
:23:09. > :23:12.by a margin of just four votes to reduce the number of issues on
:23:12. > :23:15.which referendums could be held. It means referendums could only be
:23:15. > :23:23.held on joining the single currency, creating a single European military
:23:23. > :23:29.force and on changes to border controls.
:23:29. > :23:37.Just to focus our debate at this important stage on what the essence
:23:37. > :23:47.of these amendments are. That essence is to reduce the 56
:23:47. > :23:47.
:23:47. > :23:54.varieties of referendum loch that this Bill contains two new treaties
:23:54. > :24:04.plus three major issues, joining the euro, joining showing an, and
:24:04. > :24:05.
:24:06. > :24:13.the setting up of a single European army, or racing all-European force.
:24:13. > :24:16.There are clearly some aspects of transferring the power where the
:24:16. > :24:22.government has decided not to make its subject to a referendum. It is
:24:22. > :24:26.not in terms of what issues are being protected here by the
:24:26. > :24:31.referendum. It is not something that is new and pulled out of the
:24:31. > :24:36.air. It is about issues that have been seen as important red lines
:24:36. > :24:41.not to cross by governments of both persuasions. We must recognise that
:24:41. > :24:48.people will only vote in a referendum on issues which are of
:24:48. > :24:55.real interest to them. So far the principle of the way in which
:24:55. > :25:00.referendums should be used have been recognised and observed.
:25:00. > :25:06.who are moving these amendments would argue, as I do now, that we
:25:07. > :25:12.actually strengthening Parliament's powers over the handling of any
:25:12. > :25:22.changes to the treaty, not, as the government does, weakening of
:25:22. > :25:22.
:25:22. > :25:30.Parliament's powers by giving them referendums and the possibility
:25:30. > :25:38.overall the British Government. It is important if you are trying
:25:38. > :25:42.to support the Bill that to give your name to a referendum that
:25:42. > :25:47.there are l lot of things that tunnels objected to referenda any
:25:47. > :25:54.more. There should be more protection for them so that we can
:25:54. > :26:00.be sure that if at some stage the European train goes tearing along
:26:01. > :26:04.towards an ultimate destination of a united Europe, and we will get
:26:04. > :26:12.off befall British sovereignty is lost and we cease to be an
:26:12. > :26:16.independent nation. I am not attracted at all by this piecemeal
:26:16. > :26:20.approach and that this is all done in a spirit of compromise and we
:26:20. > :26:24.can take away the right to have referendums here and there and it
:26:24. > :26:28.does not matter, it is just like the language we have had for the
:26:28. > :26:31.last 25 years and I do not find it attractive.
:26:31. > :26:34.And to finish the programme, we're going back to the start of the
:26:34. > :26:36.day's proceedings in the Commons. The Queen delivered a message to
:26:37. > :26:39.MPs, via the Government whip Mark Francois. With the official title,
:26:39. > :26:49.Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, Mark Francois is technically one of
:26:49. > :27:04.
:27:04. > :27:11.the Queen's officers. Order, order, Mr Speaker, and message from Her
:27:11. > :27:19.Majesty the Queen. I have received your address concern in the 90th
:27:19. > :27:27.birthday of his Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh. It gives me
:27:27. > :27:33.great pleasure to here of the affection and regard of the House,
:27:33. > :27:43.the nation and the Commonwealth on this special occasion and I welcome
:27:43. > :28:06.
:28:06. > :28:10.your intention to send a message to MPs enjoying that military-style
:28:10. > :28:20.twirl and stamp of the foot. In case you missed it, here it is
:28:20. > :28:26.