and getting more so and we wouldn't be telling the story if we didn't have them. >> why are they get manager powerful? >> they're gaining more and more law making powers from westminster. and the scottish parliament is powerful and in control of most aspects of domestic policy in scotland, northern ireland and wales are beginning to look at increasing their powers in line with that. >> do each of those bodies have a tax-raising ability? >> no, the zottish parliament has that ability but -- the scottish parliament has that ability to a small degree but has never exercised it, the other two don't. >> what's you view, having been in this business for 25 years, of what's happened in great britain with all the new channels, there are at least 80 in almost everybody's home and in some there are a couple hundred channels. what's been that impact on the mainstay, the bbc? >> the main bbc channels still

get really, really big audiences. it is still possible if you put on a great drama or an event that everybody is talking about to get an audience in the millions. and very serious programs and serious news programs still get huge audiences. so it hasn't been damaging. what i think is great is that bbc parliament is an example but there are others, there is genuinely more choice now and people can pursue their interests much more easily. before we were just telling them what to watch. >> one thing i noticed that's very different than in american television, especially on the bbc, news channel, i would guess, that there, it seems like almost whenever you're watching it, there's a person standing there doing sign language but prominent on the screen, not down, in our case, we have closed captioning but usually a person that's in the lower right hand corner or lower left-hand corner.

who is requiring that? >> that's the regulatory body ofcom. office of federal communications. there's a requirement to do closed captioning and sign language assistance on a certain percentage of programs. and so where those news programs have been simulcast on the -- by the bbc on the main network and the news channel, the news channel will do sign language. >> the government here, the current government under david cameron and nick cleg, the coalition government, announced the bbc's money is frozen for six years. >> that's right. >> what does that say about your income for the next six years? >> as well as the freeze, there's also a requirement for the bbc to take home the costs of providing world service and

other services as well, so it's more significant even than just the freeze. i'm not sure. the settlement has just been arrived at. bbc parliament itself is extremely cheap to run. it would be quite difficult to run it more cheaply and it's really important. in temples of the democracy here. so i'd be reasonably hopeful but we'll all be asked to make further efficiencies, that comes around every year. >> it's hard for us to understand about the world service being paid for by the bbc. was it in the past and how big is the world service? >> up to the present time, world service, which is providing radio and internet services but principally radio organization, has been funded by the -- directly by the government, by the foreign office. the equivalent of the state

department. that arrangement is going to come to an end in the next few years and all the costs of world service will then come to the u.k. licenseing payer. if you're paying your tv license fee in this country, part of that fee will be spent on international broadcasts. >> do you think that will change anything for the listener or the view her >> no, i doubt it. the people are quite proud of the world service and what it does, it's best in the world. there's likely to be more close working between the international and domestic services, at the moment there's a tremendous rigmarole about who is paying for what because the accounting lines have to be kept separate. it would be easier to operate in an efficient way. >> the nine years you've been the controller of the bbc parliamentary channel, have you noticed a big change in europe in the number of channels that have been created to do their

parliaments? >> there are huge, not just in europe, every in the world, parliamentary changes are springing up. they are a mix, about half-and-half, between those run directly by the parliaments and those run by broadcasters. but i think quite a lot of them are not really trying too hard to reach an audience. they go off air when the parliament -- the parliamentary session is over. so really quite a number of them are an expansion of the parliament, so internal information service if you like, rather than what you or i would recognize as a network. there's no one model, every one of them is different. >> do you have an example of one that's doing pretty well that you're aware of in europe? >> in audience terms, i believe

the bbc parliament is the only one of these channels that's actually part of the regular daily rating system that actually knows what its audience is. others take part in surveys occasionally. we're the only ones that quote our standings. the french are interesting, it's an expensive model, they have two networks side-by-side for assembly and senate but it's a much more costly model than any in europe. >> what's the biggest worry you have for the future? >> i'm really not worried, perhaps i should be, but i'm very excited about the growth in the audience of the tv channel is phenomenal for the last two years, and it just keeps on going. i don't know what the feeling will be. it's been fantastic, we've hit two million this year and we've

got a fantastic website, we've got much more flexibility than ever before. >> what's your favorite part of your job? >> i love the mix of all the responsibility for every sort of practical management function you could imagine on a tv channel. that's so much fun. >> peter noles, thank you for your time -- knowles thank you for your time and hospitality. >> thank you very much. >> with the house of commons now in recess, prime minister's questions will not be seen live this wednesday. it returns live wednesday, january 12, at 7:00 a.m. on c-span2. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow a discussion on the techniques and ethics of lobbying. the panel includes professional lobbyists, professors and journalists.

that's tomorrow on c-span3. >> now bbc parliament tv takes a look back at the major events in the british parliament since september. "the record review" covers the election of the new labor party leader derek baits over public spending cuts and a hike in university tuition fees. alicia mccarthy host this is one-hour program. >> hello and welcome to "the record review." let's look back to a freezing autumn and freezing cold winter here. coming up, m.p.'s increased tuition fees for the english university students. there's a new labor leader. and cuts, cuts, cuts.

they reveal what slashing the budget deficit will mean for all of us. >> i have taken the difficult decision to remive child benefits from families with a high rate taxpayer. >> let's begin with what's proved to be the first real test of the coalition government unity, the decision to raise university tuition fees for english students. fees currently stand at over 3,000 pounds a year. the government wants to lift the cap with 6,000 with a maximum limit of 9,000. students wouldn't start to repay until they were earning 21,000 pounds. maintenance costs will rise and those on free school meals get two years tuition for them. and they wouldn't have to pay up front. it was difficult for democrats who signed a pledge saying they wouldn't support any rise in fees. debate began back in october with the liberal democrat business reminding m.p.'s that

all parties changed their views. >> those opposites have ranged from being early advocates of a graduate contribution through that those implaqueably opposed to change to the current leadership who have embraced a barrage watt tax. they initially campaigned against graduate contributions but reversed their position. my own party consistently opposed contribution bus in this current economic climate we are -- we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible. that is why -- and that is why i intend -- and that is why i intend on behalf of the coalition to put specific proposals to the house to implement radical and aggressive reforms of higher education. >> they reminded the house that

they signed a pledge opposing fee rise. >> promises were made by the business secretary and deputy prime minister at the last election which should not be lightly thrown away. the trust of politicians is not just a matter for the liberal democrats, it's for the integrity of this house as a whole. >> a couple of weeks later, thousands of angry students had a sear reese of protests against the risings. the huge demonstration filled the streets around parliament. the pla card waving crowd was good natured and peaceful early in the day but later there were chashes -- clashes between demonstrators and police. some protesters broke into the building in bill milbanks. they questioned whether deputy prime minister was standing in for david cameron.

>> this is not about the deficit. the chancellor said the deficit will be dealt with by 2014 when this new system will hardly have begun. no this is not about the deficit. this is about him going along with a torey plan a tore -- a tory plan a tory plan to shove the cost of higher education onto students and families. we all know what it's like. you meet up with a dodgey bloke and you do things you regret. isn't it true, isn't it true? isn't it true? isn't that the truth of it. >> mr. speaker, i know she now thinks she can reposition the labor party as the champion of students. let's remember -- let's remember -- let's remember the labor party's record against tuition fees in 1997, introduced them a

few months later. against the man tess toe in 2001, introduced later. the then the brown review which they're now trashing. now, have a policy to actually tax graduates which half the front bench doesn't even believe in. maybe she will go out for the student whors protesting outside now and explain what on earth her policy is. >> as the vote drew near, student protests continued. as the last m.p.'s went through the lobbies, they clashed on the issues. cameron accused milliband of playing student poll sicks -- politics. >> i warned the student politician. -- i was a student politician. but i wasn't hanging around with people who were throwing bread rolls and wrecking restaurants.

now, isn't the truth that all he can offer us is, you've never had it so good on planet cameron? and what does he have against young people? he's taken away the child trust fund, he's abolishes the educational allowance, he's scrapping the future jobs fund and now he's trebling tuition fees. isn't the truth he's pulling away the ladder but doesn't understand the lives of ordinary people up and down this country. the fact is, if you introduce a graduate tax, you'll be taxing people on 6,000 pounds, on 7,000 pounds, on 9,000. where is the fairness in that? the truth of the matter is, mr. speaker, the truth of the matter is, we examined a graduate tax, we know it doesn't work. his party examined a graduate tax they know it doesn't work. the liberal democrats had a look

at a graduate tax they know it doesn't work. the only reason, the only reason, mr. speaker, he is back here is because it gives him a political opportunity. i know what it's like. you can sit there for year after year, you see a political opportunity but you'll never be a party of government. >> violent demonstration took place on the day the m.p.'s refused to vote. the leadership hopes to sway its m.p.'s to ab-- to change, some would, but others refused. as the debate began in the commons, many eyes were on the liberal democrats' deputy leader. >> under the fee scheme introduced by the labor party, all universities ended up charging at the highest rates. one of the worries out there is

that all universities might end up being allowed to charge the 9,000. what assurance, what rules, what guarantees can my friend give that this law will be exceptional and 6,000 will be the limit for most universities in the country? >> we have searched for a policy that provides a strong base for university funding which makes a major contribution to reducing the deficit and introducing a significantly more progressive system of graduate papers, and i'm proud to put forward that measure. >> order! order! order! >> they urged the lib democrats to vote against reminding him he'd resign and rebel over the

decision to go to war with iraq. >> i was minister who re-signed on a point of principle. i will say to ministers and back benchers considering their position today, i do know what you're doing through -- going through. it's hard to stand aside from friends and colleagues with whom you've shared many a vessel but after you've done it, you real it wasn't half as bad as you thought it would be before you did it. the self-respect you gain far outweighs any temporary loss of position, power or outcome and the truth is, in any generous political party and mine is not the only generous political party in this house, there is usually a way back. mr. speaker, this matter this decision matters so much. to so many people. i say to the house if you don't believe in it, vote against it. >> and then it was time for the back benchers to have their say. >> being asked to vote to increase fees of up to 9,000

pounds is not a compromise. it is not something that liberal democrat back benchers or even many conservative back benchers should have been asked to consider. >> when is a student going off to university? we've had tuition freeze in place over a decade? the student numbers have gone up by 44%. 44%. >> if you come from a family where no one has ever been to university, where maybe no one in your immediate family has stayed at school past the age of 16, the prospect of debt, of 60,000 or 100,000 if you want to be a doctor, must be offputting. members must put themselves in the position of ordinary families. >> in the year i was born, mr. speaker, 414,000 people pursued full-time higher education in this country, when i went to

university it was 660,000, now it's 1.3 million. when you have that magnitude, you have to have a fundamental rethink of how to pay for it. >> a recent poll found that raising fees to 5,000 pounds a year would deter almost half of those from deprived backgrounds that otherwise would have gone to higher education while raising it to 7,000 pounds would could the -- cut the number to 2/3. >> a few minutes later, they were ready for the results. >> the ayes to the right, 323, the nays to the left, 302. >> so the government won by 21 votes a quarter of its usual majority. 27 coalition m.p.'s rebelled, 21 liberal democrats and six conservatives. that included two former lib dem leaders campbell and kennedy. here in central lobby, m.p.'s

meet their constituents and stop to gossip with their colleagues. there's been plenty for them to talk about, not least lay bar' new leader ed miliband. in his first outing at prime minister's question he questioned david cameron on another controversial policy, the decision to remove child benefit from higher rate taxpayers. >> there are hundreds of thousands of families where one parent stays at home. there are hundreds of thousands of families and the question they're asking, and the question they're asking, mr. speaker, is this -- why should a family on 45,000 pounds where one person stays at home lose their child benefit, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 pounds a year but a family on 80,000 where both partners in the couple are working should keep their child benefit?

that doesn't strike people as fair. it doesn't strike me as fair. it doesn't strike the prime minister as fair. >> what i believe is fair is asking better off people to make a contribution to reduce the deficit. let me try putting it this way to the honorable gentleman. think about it like this. there are thousands of people in his constituency earning 1/6 of what he earns. through their taxes, they will be paying for his child benefits. is this this -- is that really fair? >> the truth is, mr. speaker, that the prime minister has no defense of this policy. he cannot explain to families up and down the country why they're going to sustain this loss. let's be honest, the chancellor says that this policy has been a shambles from day one. the rest of the cabinet knew nothing about it, the local government accidentally found out from the media it was being announced the children's minister, he went on the run.

i i wish the prime minister wished the bbc blackout had gone ahead it was such a shambles. on child benefit, mr. speaker, isn't it time the prime minister had the grownup sense to admit this -- he's got it wrong, he's made the wrong decision, he should tell middle income families up and down britain he'll think again. >> the right honorable gentleman has suddenly discovered middle income families. we're now hearing about the squeezed middle. who is it who squeezed the middle? who is it who doubled the council tax who put up tax 122 time, who taxed the pensions, petrol, mortgages, marriages, and suddenly having done all this to middle income earners, they want to stand up for middle income earners. it is a completely transparent political strategy to cover up

the inconvenient truth that he was put where he was by the trade union movement. >> they're debating just one of the government's budget cuts. with britain still straining under an enormous budget deficit, chancellor george osbourne came to announce the results of his spending review and the biggest cut since world war ii, 81 billion pounds worth over four years. he said they were based on reform, fairness and growth but labor called them reckless. >> we believe the best estimate remains the one set out by the independent office of budget responsibility. they have forecast a reduction in -- of 490,000 over the spending period. that's over four years not overnight and much of it will be achieved by natural turnover, leaving posts unfilled as they become vay can cant. they suggest a turnover rate of 80% but there will be some

redundancy. the state pension age for men and women will reach 66 by the year 2020. this will involve a gradual increase in the state pension age from 65 to 66 starting in 2018. my right honorable friend is setting out proposals with my support to replace all working age benefits and tax credits with a single simple universal credit. the guiding rule will be this. it will always pay to work. those who get work will be better off than those who don't. it represents the greatest reform to our welfare state for a generation. i have taken the difficult decision to remove child benefits from families with a higher rate taxpayer. i wish it were otherwise but i cannot ask those watching this earning just 15,000 or 30,000 pounds a year to go on paying the child benefit of those earning 50,000 or 100,000 pounds a year. total health spending will rise

each year over and above inflation. this year we are spending 104 billion pounds on health care, capital and current behind. by the end of this we'll be spending 114 billion pounds. we can afford this because of the decisions on welfare i have just announced. there lab real increase in money for schools not just next year or the year after as the last governor once promised but for each of the next fur years. it's our firm believe, mr. speaker, that the rush to cut the deficit en-- engages the -- endangers the recovery and reduces the prospect for employment in the short-term and prosperity in the longer term. we believe we can and should sustain a more gradual -- gradual reduction securing growth. i don't believe the chancellor or prime minister understands the worries and concerns of families up and down the country. i think those worries will have multiplied considerably as a

result of his statement today. >> how does he possibly imagine after the statement today that in real terms direct cut to the scottish block of around four pl bel pounds can do anything other than weaken the ability of scotland to recover from the difficult economic times. >> over the next few weeks, the implications of the cuts became clear and it was the changes to housing benefits that provoked some of the fiercest anger. the government wants to cap the maximum claim at 4,000 pounds a week. opponents say that will force some out of their homes particularly in inner cities. nick the clerk will designate the amendment reacted angrily to one claim -- nick cleg reacted strongly. >> it's estimated that thousands of people will be forced out of major urban areas as a result of this with the poor consigned

into the outer ring. that's the result of three constituencies according to his bill. would it not be inicy us to if on top of being socially cleansed out of london the poor were disenfranchised of the bill. how does he intend to make electoral provision for these people. >> we all indulge in hyperbole. but to refer to cleansing will be deeply offensive to people who witnessed ethnic cleanses in other parts of the world. no, what we are doing is saying people who receive housing benefits, people who receive housing benefits, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to say it won't hand out more in housing benefits that people who go out to work, pay their taxes, play i bithe rules will do when they look for

housing themselves. we suggest there should be a cut for family homes or four bedrooms of 400 pounds a week 21,000 pounds a year. does he really think it's wrong? does he think it's wrong for people who can't afford to live privately in those areas that the state should subsidize people to the tune of more than 21,000 pounds? i don't think so. >> and then there was the impact on council services. town halls across england face cuts in 2011 of almost 20% in their core central government funding. the biggest reductions for a generation. unions have warned that will mean thousands of job losses, including among front line staff. but ministers say cuts should be made in back office staff and the deal is progressive and fair. >> the secretary of state has spoken of affairs of state and progressive proposal. he must be using a different dictionary than the one i have. this will be devastating to my

deprived sit constituency with 40% of the budget being spent on elderly and children's care, can he not see that this will mean draconian cuts in everything else won't he admit his real agenda is shrinking the state and shifting the blame. >> the honorable lady will be pleased to know that lewisham faces a drop in spending of 3.5% this year and 4.3% the following year. that doesn't strike me as being draconian in any way. i have to say the honorable lady has made a reputation of shroud waving in this chamber and she should be addressing the needs of the people of her district who will continue to receive a high level of support from the

central state to ensure reasonable provision within the area. >> another controversial cut was defense. david cameron told m.p.'s that 7,000 jobs will go across the three armed service it would be delayed until after the next general election. it went down badly when the plans were discussed in the house of lords. >> can i say to the leader of the house, i have done a strategic review. this is not a strategic review. instead, does it not seem to the country as a whole that this is cobbled together with the treasury calling for deep cuts

in the defense budget? as such, it is unworthy of those who served in our armed forces today. >> " we have to do is get the resources in place for the best estimates for the risks that we face, and if it changes and the unexpected happens, be ready to change as well. >> i welcome your statement and i certainly cannot dignified the words strategic. it will be viewed with dismay by our armed forces. >> with students being expected to pay more and cuts in almost every area of public spending, how will this way down with the general public? did the public think the public suggest to date? >> too much, too fast -- that has a great deal of residence.

without wishing to sound patronizing, i generally do not but people have the capacity to hold two opposing positions. they recognize that tax cuts and sound finances are what are needed, but they are do not want that to affect the wrong quality of life and standard of living. what has happened over the last two or three months, the more you see about cutting public services and spending, and in particular cutting services like these, that is when public opinion has taken a deep breath and said we're not really sure whether we like the way this is being executed. the government will turn around and say there is no alternative. it will not be easy for the public to hear. >> we will have more from him all little later in the program.

we come here to the commons committee corridor. they take evidence and delve into the way government works. the way the commons is elected, it could be about to change. they're going to be a string of constitutional reforms. the conservative plan to redraw the constituency map of the u.k., reducing the number of mp's. >> you will be under the obligation to go for this number. we cross mountains, with the five communities, you have a statutory obligation to do that. dividing up traditional communities. >> there are two ways of doing gent, two or more options. you start with this absolute

requirement, the electorate must fit within a target range. but then you will probably have one option and another option that does not cross it. you end up waiting off two solutions that are satisfactory or unsatisfactory in different degrees, and there will be a judgment on which is preferable. publish that as provisional proposals, listen to the responses, positing the alternatives already delivered did it on, and go forward from there. >> have you started the naming of constituencies? southeast and southwest are very boring. >[unintelligible] >> we will take at -- take that

as an advance please. >> minister said the move will bring greater political stability. the opposition calls it gerrymandering the system. >> this bill has a single clear purpose -- to introduce six new members of parliament to the united kingdom, to say the right of the prime minister to dissolve parliament for pure political gain. it will have a profound effect because for the first time in our history, the timing of general elections will not be a plaything of government. there will be no more feverish speculation over the next election, distracting politicians from getting on from running the country. everyone will know how long the parliament can be expected to last. and crucially, if for some reason there is a reason for parliament to dissolve early, that will be up to the house of

commons to decide. >> may i put it to him that this proposal, whatever the merits of fixed term parliaments may bee, smack of gerrymandering that constitution in favor of a particular coalition. that is of very bad thing. doesn't this smack of constitutional making on the hoof, and what we need is a proper constitutional convention of some kind to consider such a major change to our constitution? >> a referendum on changing the voting system to federal a lesson for the government was all the referendum on whether we should switch to the alternative vote on may 12 -- make that, 2011. it will mean voters put in candidates won, too, and three instead of marking deaths of

familiar single cross. many do not want a referendum to take place on the same day as elections for the seats. >> the referendum, it will probably receive little attention in scotland. we will now be wasting any time discussing for oregon's this referendum. we will upgrade our debris artie's -- we will have greater priorities. i think i have rows some argument. >> which is a debate? well the referendum aroused no interest adult because you have matters to discuss, or will it drowned out the voices of citizens who wish to vote? >> state bond honorable lady is missing the point. or the media -- that is the

issue that will dominate. >> thank you for giving way. it was not clear to me whether his position is that there should be a referendum on another date, or whether that this issue is so irrelevant to people, it should be held on no date? >> i clearly notice that he is anticipating the. i come to bear it is not to say that the electoral system is unimportant. it is it will be viewed as unimportant. >> there was plenty more change afoot. the health secretary had several plan to put gp's in charge of budgeting care. image of abolishing the primary care trust. at the same time coming in a justice as to make 20 billion pounds worth of savings over the next quarter years.

the health committee wanted to tell on that. >> we said that two things. we know that there are certain costs associated with does density and management of the nhs, and we know if the current standings for the nhs are such that that cost are more than recouped within two years and then there are subsequent savings that flow from that. we have made that clear. beyond that, there will be further cost but they will be reflected in total in the impact assessment we published at the time of the publication bill. >> just give me a figure. other people have put it between 2 billion pounds and 3 billion pounds. what do you recognize? to and i think we will publish

an impact statement at the time. >> surely must know now. >> i am not going to publish a single figure now on the basis -- >> you must have a clearer idea. >> i have not finished an impact statement. how do you respond to the fear that this is resulting in some awful catastrophe as a result of having to save all lot of money, achieving efficiency at the same time. two significant reorganization? >> where we make changes involve a reduction of 45% and the number of managers in strategic health across the country. the senior managers and primary care trusts would all be delighted by this prospect. it would be unreasonable for that because. >> the energy and enthusiasm

being generated in those places where that new consortium is being established is far in excess of the energy and enthusiasm the commission and other places. it is the simple truth that there is a difference between clinical leadership and a focus on how we can deliver and improve care for patients and the enthusiasm generated by people given the freedom and the authority to do that, as distinct from people who were going through more of a managerial and a bureaucratic process. >> is planning his plans to change the way the nhs is run. also appeared before a committee of mp's to talk about his work. the events of rigid the events surrounding the deaths of 13 soldiers on january 5, 1972.

an inquiry was simply known as bloody sunday ordered by the last government. it took 12 years to complete at a cost of 200 million pounds. and the end, it concluded that the soldiers actually were wrong and that none of those killed were posing a threat. asked about the cost. >> if you look get the appendix in the end of the report, if you will see my reasons on what we allow the legal representation we did. but putting it in general terms, [unintelligible] you have a lawyer to protect your family's interests? we've been accused of callously murdering, people on the

streets, a british people on a british city, if you have a lawyer to protect your interest. and in a place where people have died as a result of state agencies such as soldiers, it is now our law under article 2 of the human rights convention in effect that you should have legal representation. so we just thought what is fair, what is just, whether it be soldiers or civilians or anyone else, and unfortunately -- and i say that -- lawyers are expensive. very expensive. >> presumably they told you what they charged in you paid it. there must of been some sort of agreement as to what they were allowed to charge. >> fees are a bit of a mystery

but there generally what is regarded as a going fast rate. -- a going rate. that is what we paid. >> what is the going rate? >> i could not tell you what the going rate is. it would depend on the seniority of the council concerned and the amount of time it employed and so on. but i could say here that some quite serious criticism of my leading counsel, mr. christopher clark, in some of the press talking about the billions of pounds -- the millions of pounds the earnest on this inquiry. that criticism is grossly unfair. he is the very top in 1998 when i asked him if he would be counsel to the inquiry.

and he accepted that. it was a matter public duty. if he had not done so as top of the commercial bar, i reckon he would earn two or three times as much as here as a barrister for the inquiry. >> here in the house of lords, it was a time of change. with the introduction of a cornucopia of new peers, they have a membership topping 800. no one party has a majority in the house of lords. but the coalition now lacks surely does. that would mean the government rejects all the same way, they weren't for some nasty shock. the government suffered a defeat of the part of its plan to hold a referendum on changing the system for themp's. ministers want the referendum to happen on may 5. it appears that calls from the former labour minister for to be

held on any day before the end of business october. the government was defeated of the scrapping of identity cards. it made it possible for those who've already bought one to get a refund. but 12,000 people purchased a card at the cost of 30 pounds. the government had every right to get rid of the cards, but -- >> what is not fair is the decision by the government to refuse to refund the 30 pounds to those people who purchased those i.d. cards. i must say, my lords, that i have the rather disappointed by that someone unsympathetic attitude of the noble better and s, the minister, who said a second reading, we realize that some people spent 30 pounds would be disappointed but it would be canceled this leader without any refund. she went on to say those who

chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statement by the coalition party that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. the noble baroness said to those cardholders, they cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out. she then went on to say that citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. it was clear this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it. she then dismiss the potential refund of 30 pounds as being rather less that people pay for a subscription to sky tv. >> it is certainly the case that comparing the costs already paid out, which is over 290 million pounds, another half-million might not seem significant. but that is not the attitude the

coalition government takes the public spending. we've demonstrated we have a commitment that unjust expenditure is stopped. and then there was the plan to abolishment quangos. later there was another defeat on the same bill, this time over a government plan to abolish the chief coroner for english and -- england and wales. it was rejected by a majority of 122. for a quick look at some of the other stores which made the news -- smiles all around with the announcement that prince william is to marry his longtime girlfriend, kate middleton. they became engaged during the secret holiday in kenya. the wedding will take place in london on april 29. at the eight declared a public holiday. that common speaker offered congratulations. jindal like to make us or a

statement following the announcement from the other house the day of the engagement of prince william to miss catherine milton. i am sure that members of all sizes of the house will join me in congratulating the couple on this most happy occasion, and will wish them all the very best with their future together. jindal level of immigration in the u.k. was in the election. the coalition has introduced a cap on the number of skilled workers from outside the european economic area. the new number is to be 20,700 year. >> in the new -- in the 1990's, net migration was consistently of the tens of thousands each year. under labour, it was close to 200,000 per year for most years since 2000. as a result, net migration

totaled more than 2.2 million people, more than double the population of birmingham. we cannot go on like this. we must tighten up our immigration system, focusing on tackling abuse and supporting only the most economically beneficial migrants. gen the chancellor announced that britain contributes support to ireland. ireland was overwhelmingly interested -- in a interest to provide the funds. >> when this coalition government came into office, britain was in the financial danger zone. we've taken action to put our own house in order. whereas we want to saying as part of the problem, we're now part of the solution.

ireland is a friend in need and it is and on national interest to help them at this difficult time and i commend the statement to the house. >> and then usually cold snap and britain. commuters bore the brunt of the arctic weather and experience chaos with traffic jam on the road, trains dilator councils, and i was one of the biggest shots for two days. a review. delimit be cleared the question i am asking david to address is not whether we expected to be disruption when we have weather of the severity, it is whether there is anything that could or should have been done that has not been done. >> the expenses council -- scandal brought parliament to its very foundation. clamming money for everything from mortgages to deckhouses.

a new system was rapidly introduce, the independent parliament standards that party. rigid standards of our do you. -- the independent parliament standards of our do you -- authority. >> we of handed over the control of work to an unelected and unaccountable body. ipsa is judge and jury, regulator and regulated. mp's are rightly accountable to the people they elect them. the ipsa are accountable to no one. they control the way that we were, the time that we have to conduct our duties. >> he said many were not climbing what they were entitled to we know that we have members who are of cars from parents. still sleeping on the source of offices which they are not

supposed to do because they cannot -- because they are not claiming what they've rightfully should claim. is not -- i am not moaning -- i love all the mp's. i am not planning on your behalf. i am not whinging on your behalf. what i'm concerned about is the functioning of parliament for the next 100 years. where are we going to be in 30 years' time if we continue down this route were only the wealthy can serve? if that you -- that is where we were. the thought we had moved on from that. >> teenage children are not allowed to have children in london. we're not allowed to have our children stay with us in our own accommodation. if you're a single mother, when that child gets sick or ill you're told to collect your child, what are you supposed to

do? you're not allowed to have them with you and yet we have to be here to carry out our duties. what you do about the women? >> with whether we have done something and not, we were all considered to be crooks. during my election campaign, someone came up and chanted the. -- theif. if i had been a man, i would have punched him in the face. on the behalf of other members of this house, that they should be considered theifs. >> one argued that calls for changes in the system was a backward step. >> do we or do we not cede authority to ipsa.

that is the basis on which we legislated. this resolution which would have been improved as suggested by mr. not taken, this amendment which why would up propose a dense, breaks that principle. what it does is that it says that mp's should have the powers to be determinants of such matters. that principle was the fundamental weakness in the previous expenses system. >> and the end, they voted to give ipsa until april. this parliament has not been entirely scandal three. some were found to breach leave it -- lobbying rules. they were interviewed by reporters posing as

representatives of fictitious logging company, asking what services they could provide. all three men stood down at the last election. the committee on standards and privileges ruled that to have brought parliament into disrepute. the chairman of the committee began with a few words about the media. >> it was -- if it was not entrapment, it was close to entrapment. i do not seek to excuse the conduct of these members but the whole house should give some sympathy for them in the way that they were deceived. >> one who likened himself as a cap for higher have apologized. >> i do not dispute the genuineness of his apology, but unfortunately the seriousness of his offense means that sorry is not enough. >> the committee recognized that he had his parliamentary pass

withdrawn for two years. the turn to the former defense secretary. >> he was giving a clear impression that he could read about policy on the basis of his inside knowledge. this was, as we said in a report, a particularly serious breach, because it brought the house and members generally into serious disrepute. >> his parliamentary pass was drawn for five years. the last had committed minor offenses and his pass was withdrawn for six months. >> if we're going to go into this business of picking up on other people's outside of this house to bring them to the floor of this house and encourage our and members, they not think there's something wrong. >> at the end of the debate, they backed the sanctions which come into force in january.

in the house of lords, there were three suspensions after wrongly claiming thousands of pounds of expenses. one lady was suspended until april 2012 and told to repay more than 125,000 pounds. one was suspended for eight months and has already paid more than 27,000 pounds. one was suspended for four months. the initial findings were set out at the subcommittee. >> in the three cases before, we concluded in each case that the noble lords concern wrongly designated the properly in question as his or her main residence. their range to in various amounts. the noble lords themselves made these claims in bad faith. to the and all three had appealed to the full committee of privileges and conduct.

>> in each case we found the team main residence designated by the noble lords were not properly designated. they were properties outside london, designated by main residence, who before, during, and after resided substantially inside of them. they did not reflect any natural interpretation of the term main residence. no entitlement to public money should have been claimed on such a basis. as a member of the privileges and conduct committee, i believe that all three pairs concerned fell short of the standards of conduct that the house and the public are entitled to expect. we must as a house act decisively. the public expects us to react with firmness and unity to demonstrate our abhorrence of wrongdoing. >> there were concerns about the way the internal investigation had been carried out. too much weight have been given

to the original article. >> i did not in any way wish to accuse any member of the committee or the subcommittee of racism. that would be quite improper and wrong. but it cannot escape the attention that the only three member of your lordships house who referred to the committee for privileges of conduct and subsequently investigated under these procedures were all asian. my lord, i reviewed the 20 who have had expansible claims before parliament and i cannot find in a consistent pattern for the referrals. inconsistency in approach, that this proportion of the sanctions might concern deepens. >> i do not accept that somebody cannot understand that if they never stayed somewhere, it is not their main residence.

my lord, i am very disappointed and i am sad that there are three agents here said they did something about indian culture. i do not know which indian culture is speaking of. the only indian culture i know of is honor. that is the indian culture and i hope it does not apply to him. >> one was stripped of his seat after court ruled he had made false statements about his opponent during may's general election campaign. the decision means there will be a by-election there on january the 13th. a hectic few months with a government facing its first really tough test. before the election, we were told the people quite like the idea of a coalition. now they have got one. how was it going down? what do people make of this new style of government?

>> it has been a difficult honeymoon for the coalition. it's difficult to talk about how the coalition is doing in isolation from the two parties. when you look at the previous honeymoons, a new prime minister, tony blair had an extraordinary -- this is a little bit more like john major's, all that that this far into john major's premier said, we were beginning to feel the impact of black wednesday. but david cameron would be hoping that the slide in support his experience so far will be matched by what happened a market factor. she had a similar slide in support with no better than david cameron, but by 1983, her first general election as prime minister, she had pulled things

around again. overall the conservatives are doing as well as they can hope to combine given the bad news on the economy and the jury being out and to see some turnaround in economic figures, the only thing that will restore their fortune. liberal democrats, it is a different matter. >> wire that don't -- little democrats doing quite so badly in the poll? >> one very simple reason. the public feels that they were elected on promises that they have no intention to keep. without going into a huge detail on numbers, it is around 67% of the public but feel they have been led down by the live dems. -- lib dems. one of our questions was to give the most honest answers? nick clegg won by a mile.

they may have been led to a false sense of security. they like what this all. that thought it was an honest politician. as far as they're concerned, is proven himself to be unreliable. i think that is really driving perception of the party as a whole. >> if the clegg and david cameron needed reminding that it was a whole new types of politics, they were given a heart -- sharp nudge at the end the year. they dealt mostly, it's made by defense table. he was caught on tape saying he had the nuclear option to collapse the government by resigning if pushed too far on policy. and further examinations later in the day, he has declared war on rupert murdoch.

mr. cable was due to have the ultimate say on whether a takeover could happen. they said that he would not in .act westminster watchers say that the conservative men under would of been fired for the same rigid minister would have been fired for the same comments. and that is it for now. join us again on january 10 when parliament returns. we will be back with our daily edition of the record. all the best from the commons to the lords and the committees. for now, goodbye. i [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> monday at americans for tax reform hold a debate for the candidates for chairman of the

republican national committee. live monday from the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal," if the news of the day connecting you with elected officials, policy makers, and journalist. during the week, watch the u.s. house in our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. congressional hearings and policy forums. supreme court oral arguments. on the week to consider signature interview programs. the communicators, and on sundays, newsmakers, q&a, and prime ministers questions from the british house of commons. if you can watch our programming anytime at c-span.org. is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span -- washington your way. a public service created by

america's cable companies. >> now senator tom harkin of iowa pays tribute to a departing senators chris dodd, george for a, judd gregg, and ted kaufman. this is just over 20 minutes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous

consent that jillan liebeck be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, in these closing weeks of the 111th congress, the senate will be saying goodbye to a number of retiring colleagues. for my part, i will miss them all, but i have to be honest, the most poignant farewell for me will be the departure of my dear friend, senator chris dodd of connecticut. chris and i have a lot in common. we're both proud of our irish roots. we were both elected to the house of representatives at the same time: 1974. chris moved over here in 1980 and i followed four years later. and we both ran for president with similarly unambiguous results. over the years we've collaborated on many legislative initiatives, including most recently the historic patient

protection and affordable care act, the health reform bill. as we all know, chris dodd is almost literally a son of the senate. with good reason, he is enormously proud of his father, former senator thomas j. dodd, lead prosecutor at the nuremberg trials and served two terms in the senate from 1959 to 1971. chris worked as a senate page at age 16, was elected to the senate at age 36. for three decades chris embodied everything that is good about this body. a passion for public service, a sincere desire to reach out across the aisle, a great talent for forging coalitions and bringing people together, and a willingness to work extraordinarily long hours in order to accomplish big and important things. over the decades, senator dodd has been a leading champion of working americans, fighting for safer workplaces, the right to organize, stronger public

schools, better access to higher education, and of course quality health care as a right and not as a privilege. he was the author of the 1993 family and medical leave act, which for the first time entitled every american to have leave from their job to take care of children or elderly or sick relatives. make no mistake, senator dodd is leaving the senate at the very top of his game. last year when senator kennedy fell ill, chris picked up the torch of health care reform. and when i became chair of the health, education and labor committee, i asked him to continue to take the lead in forging the final bill which he had led so expertly on before. again which will go down, i think, in history as one of america's great progressive accomplishments on a par with social security and medicare. even before final passage of health reform senator dodd chaired the banking committee, was hard at work crafting yet

another historic bill, the most sweeping reform of wall street and the banking industry since the great depression. to be sure, other senators played important roles in passion health reform and wall street reform, but it was senator dodd's dogged work and virtuoso skills as a legislator that ultimately won the day. these two landmark laws are a tremendous living legacy to the senior senator from connecticut. he has made his mark as one of the great reformers in the history of the united states senate. mr. president -- madam president, chris dodd has accomplished many things during his three decades in this body, but in my book the highest accolade is simply that chris dodd is a good, generous and decent person with a passion for fairness and social justice. for me, it has been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 36 years. our friendship, of course, will continue. but i will miss the day-to-day

association here on the floor and in committee and elsewhere here on the hill. paul wellstone used to say that -- quote -- "the future belongs to those with passion." by that definition, our friend chris dodd has a wonderful future ahead of him. no question about it, he is full of passion. he's full of passion for doing the right things to make us a better country. and no question that the senate is losing one of our giants, one of our most accomplished and respected members. we're also losing a happy warrior in the mold of a hubert humphrey or a franklin roosevelt. as the columnist e.j. deio nebraska has written, the happiness quotient in the senate will definitely drop when senator dodd leaves. i couldn't agree more. for 36 years in congress, chris

dodd has faithfully served the people of connecticut and the people of the united states, and there is no doubt that he will pursue new avenues of public service in retirement. as i said, i will miss his friendship and counsel here in the senate, but i wish chris, his wonderful wife jackie and their wonderful two young children grace and christine the very best in the years ahead. madam president, again, for our colleague ted kaufman, who is leaving, was sworn in as a senator in january of 2009. he was a senator for between years, and he was sworn in to succeed the newly elected vice president, senator joe biden. at the time ted kaufman made it clear that he would not run for reelection in 2010. he noted that he had not raised

any money to become a senator, and he wasn't going to raise any money to be elected two years later. he said he would be a free man, beholden to no special interest, tkoerpbld to do what is right -- determined to do only what is right for the people of delaware and the united states. senator kaufman made good on that pledge. he may be no longer a member of the senate since the swearing in of our new senator from delaware, senator coons. but in just two years here in the senate he left his mark. it should come as no surprise that ted kaufman excelled in this body and had influence and khraut far beyond what is -- clout far beyond what is typical for a freshman senator whose tenure here was only going to be two years. after all, he came to the senate with a distinguished and diverse background in government, business, and academics. as we noted, he holds a degree

in mechanical engineering with duke. that led to a job with dupont chem wall company. he earned his m.b.a. from the wharton school, taught at duke university schools of law and business. as we knew ted before, 20 years on the staff of senator joe biden, most of the time as his chief of staff. madam president, like most senators, i have enormous respect for the role of the senate's professional staff members. we often joke around here that senators are a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning of staff. and senator ted kaufman, we saw the best of both possible worlds, combining the expertise and confidence of a veteran staff person with the leadership and political skills of a first-grade senator. this made ted kaufman a formidable presence in this body during the last two years. no question, senator kaufman's influence was felt most impressively in the effort to reforeman wall street in the wake of the financial meltdown

of 2008. soon after becoming senator, he cosponsored along with senator leahy and senator grassley a bill to give federal prosecutors more effective tools for rooting out financial fraud. well, president obama signed that bill into law in may of last year. and when the senate undertook the sweeping reform of the financial system earlier this year, senator kaufman quickly stepped forward as one of the toughest critics of wall street, giving speech after speech here on the floor proposing and demanding fundamental changes in america's broken financial system. i listened with particular interest to his explanations and criticisms of high-frequency trading and other opaque trading practices of hedge funds and big wall street firms. i was a proud cosponsor of the safe banking act cosponsored by senator kaufman and senator brown. this legislation would have dramatically reduced the size

and concentration of the largest financial institutions, thereby making our financial system safer. i was disappointed this proposal was not included in the final bill. but getting 33 votes for this ambitious measure was no small feat. no question senator kaufman's tireless efforts helped to rally support in the senate for reforming our financial institutions. thanks in no small measure to senator kaufman's expertise and relentless advocacy, the worst aspects of wall street's casino capitalism have been eliminated and our financial system is better able to allocate capital to areas of the economy that need it the most. so, madam president, the junior senator from delaware was true to his word. for the last two years he was a senator's senator, giving his all, beholden to no interests, serving the people of delaware and the united states with confidence, character, courage, and i might add with rock-solid

integrity. i have valued ted kaufman's friendship and counsel here in the senate, as i said, going back for nearly 20 years and i look forward to continuing that relationship now that he has departed from this body. so i join with the entire senate family in wishing ted and lynn much happiness and success in the years ahead. madam president, with the close of the 111th congress, the senate will lose to retirement again one of our most seasoned and respected members on the other side of the aisle, senator george voinovich of ohio. now, senator voinovich and i have, again, much in common. we're both proud midwesterners. but here's what we really have in common:

my mother immigrated to america from what is now slow vein yarks the nation of slow vein yarks and george's mother was a first-generation american of slovenia descent. both of us are -- and i think the only two senators ever -- were awarded the golden mod medal of merit. we both care very deeply about the success of democracy in slovenia, a very small nation that set a powerful example of political stability, economic reform, true democracy, and ethnic inclusiveness in the balkans. madam president, for nearly four and a half decades, george voinovich has dedicated himself to public service at just about every level of government. quite amazing. as a member of the ohio house of representatives, cuyahoga county

commissioner, mayorer of cleveland, lieutenant governor of ohio, governor of ohio, and for the last 12 years united states senator from the state of ohio. across those 44 years of service, he has been respected for his independence, his pragmatism, his insistence on putting ideology and partisanship aside in order to accomplish important things for ordinary working americans. another constant in the career of george voinovich has been his insistence on fiscal discipline and his willingness to advance creative, tough-minded, nonideological approaches to help government live within its means. as mayor of cleveland, he took a municipality that had recently declared bankruptcy and turned it around to become a three-time all-american city winner. as governor, he returned the state budget to balance, despite a bad economy.

and for the last 12 years he's been one of the senate's leading champions of fiscal conservatism and by that i mean true fiscal conservatism. which means a willingness both to cut spending and to raise revenues, as necessary, in order to bring down deficits and balance the books. on that score, on matters of tsming and spending, senator voinovich had the courage to break ranks with his own party on many occasions. madam president, our colleague, senator voinovich has many accomplishments in this body. i don't have time to mention them all, but i know he is particularly proud of his work as chair and most recently ranking member of the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee of the committee on environment and public works. wherein he played a key role in passing the national energy security act of 2009, which is

helping our nation to lessen its dependence on imported petroleum. he is also deservedly proud of his long leadership in the fight to preserve and protect lake erie and other great lakes, a cause that has been a constant throughout his career in public service. here in the senate, he has been a cochair of the great lakes task force, and he introduced the bill that, when signed into law in 2008 by president bush, ratified the great lakes compact to protect these national treasures through better water management and conservation. a singular accomplishment by senator voinovich of ohio. so, madam president, as i said, senator voinovich has achieved many things during his distinguished career in public service. again, i could use any number of superlatives to describe his character and work: sterling character. an honest individual, someone

who when he gave you his word gave you his word. senator voinovich, a hand sh smack was a handshaifnlgt it was commitment. and he would never go back on that. but again in my burke the highest accolade is simply that george voinovich is a general rushings sincere, decent person, dedicated to public service, always determined to do the right thing for the people of ohio and the entire united states, a man lacking in ideological rigger but still a person dedicated to true conservative causes that he's championed all his life. for me, it has been great honor to be his friend and colleague for these last years. our friendship, of course, will continue. and i wish george and janet the very best in the years ahead. madam president, i know others are here. if i could indulge them for a few more minutes. like i would like to make one

more speech in praise of another colleague retiring on the other side of the aisle. that is a good friend and someone for whom i've had not only a great friendship but great respect. and i've served with him a lot on our committee, senator judd gregg of new hampshire. senator gregg can be a very effective and persuasive partisan for the conservative causes he holds dear. he also has a strong new hampshire independent streak and is willing to buck his party what he thinks it is wrong. for example, when voted against president bush's medicare prescription drug benefit bill because it was unpaid for and would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt. indeed, as rangerring member and former chair of the budget committee, senator gregg has been one of the senate's leading champions of fiscal discipline. i especially admire senator gregg's capacity for reaching across the aisle, building bridges, and getting important things done. on that score, he has

represented new hampshire and the united states at its very best. this quality has made him a stand-up member of the health, education, labor, and pensions which i chair. he forge add very productive working relationship with my predecessor as chair, senator ted kennedy. for example, he played a key role in senator kennedy in crafting the bipartisan no child left behind act. and a few years later i was proud to work with both of those new england senators but especially senator gregg to reauthorize and improve the americans with disabilities education act. in 2008, senator gregg was a key leader in crafting and forging bipartisan support for the emergency economic stablization act. system are criticized the troubled assets relief program, tarp. but facts are facts. tarp prevented a total meltdown of our financial system and almost the entire $700 billion

taxpayer investment has been or soon will be paid back to the u.s. treasury. in fact, just this week the treasury booked a $12 billion profit on its previous $45 billion investment in citigroup. this year senator gregg has played a key role on the "help" committee in bringing together senators from both parties to advance food safety legislation. now, frankly, there were many times when sharp policy disagreements threatened the survival of that bill, but at every turn senator gregg played a constructive role in working through the options, crafting bipartisan compromises, keeping the legislation on track to passage. i have nothing but admiration and gratitude to senator gregg for his leadership on the food safety bill, which, as you know, passed the senate and because of a little glitch, the house had

to return it and it's coming back to us on the continuing resolution bill. we will put it one our omnibus -- we will put it on our omnibus bill. i don't think there's any doubt that this will signed into law this year. that's the first modernization of our food and drug administration inspection systems in 70 years -- 70 years. and, again, i just want to publicly thank senator gregg for hanging in there over several years' period of time to make sure we kept it on track from one congress to another, from one congress to another, up and down, but we finally got it done. and, again, as i said, i just have the utmost gratitude and admiration for senator gregg for hanging in there and making sure we got the job dofnlt as many of our colleagues will remember, several years ago senator gregg

bought a $20 powerball lottery ticket and won $850,000. again, we always -- we all wanted to go up and touch hirnlings you know, see if it would rub off on us a little bit. to this day, senator gregg is still the only pimp a ever known who won a powerball lottery ticket. as we often said, that was judd gregg's personal good fortune but it has been our good fortune have a senator of his high caliber and character in this body for the last 18 years. during that time, i have placed great store by his friendship and counsel. of course, that relationship and friendship will continue. but i am sorry that we're going to miss him here in the united states senate. and i join with the entire senate family in wishing judd and kathleen the very best in the years ahead. >> next, q&a with robert

samuelson. then the documentary on the supreme court. >> tomorrow, on "washington journal" -- andrew biggs discusses the financial solvency of social security. and brandon roberts. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> maturity in a time of pettiness, calm anytime a banker, that is what the nation asks of the united states senate and that is what this office and that is what this office demands