07/12/2011 Daily Politics

Morning, folks - welcome to The Daily Politics. David Cameron says

no to repatriation of powers - saving the euro and protecting the

City of London are his priorities. But has he shown enough steel to

convince his eurosceptic MPs? As the dispute continues over public

sector pensions, is the Government going to act on the taxpayer-funded

union reps that have become known as pilgrims? Hard-playing rugby

player Ben Cohen on why the rough stuff should be confined to the

rugby pitch. It is cruel and unnecessary, and I'm here to do

know some of our hard-working MPs watch Strictly Come Dancing and the

X factor if. How do I know? They All that coming up in the next 90

minutes. Now, we had promised you Iain Duncan Smith today - but after

briefly turning up the volume at the weekend, it appears the self-

styled quiet man has been muted - the official excuse is that he had

a meeting to go to this afternoon. Never mind, because we have one of

IDS's deputies, Pensions Minister Chris Grayling, and Labour's Shadow

Treasury Minister, Rachel Reeves. We like to think of them as

Westminster's cuddlier answer to pandas Tian Tian and Yang Guang. We

called the pounds to check on the pronunciation, by the way. Welcome

to the programme. First this morning, it looks like a plan of

sorts is emerging to deal with the eurozone crisis ahead of a summit

of European leaders in Brussels which begins tomorrow - the seventh

such summit this year. The plan being put together by the President

of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, apparently involves a

"fiscal compact" in the shape of either a new treaty or merely a

change in the protocols of existing treaties which would avoid

referendums or votes in the parliaments of member countries -

votes which could be problematic, not least in Britain. You wouldn't

really want to consult the people, would you? A good general chooses

would you? A good general chooses his battles carefully, and David

Cameron must now decide where to plant his standard on Europe. The

Conservative army of eurosceptics want their leader to fight to

repatriate powers over fisheries and employment regulations. But the

Prime Minister has said that this is not the time, despite his

manifesto commitment. Instead he said his mission is to save the

euro. But he warned his EU partners that this didn't mean he lacked

steel. He will stand firm against any measures which harm the single

market or the money men of the City of London. The Prime Minister's

stance will find favour with his allies and lieutenants, such as

Nick Clegg and Ken Clarke, who has said today that this was not the

time to extract concessions. But will Cameron be able to placate his

own mutinous footsoldiers? A full- blown treaty change - of all 27

states, rather than a change of protocol - would require a change

in the law and a vote in the House of Commons. And that could see a

peasants' revolt. Remember the Battle of Maastricht? Let's speak

to eurosceptic Conservative MP Chris Heaton Harris. He's in the

Chris Heaton Harris. He's in the central lobby of Parliament. What I

your demands from the Prime Minister? Actually, I do not hear

many Conservative MPs asking for specifics at this moment. We just

want assurances. Should there be a change to the treaty of the 27,

then there will be two or three months where the treaty is lined up,

and we must be allowed to get involved in that negotiation, to

work out whether we one some powers coming back to us. So, you would

like to see some repatriation of powers? David Cameron has just

spoken about safeguards for the City - would that be enough I have

got to wait till Friday, because I'm not convinced that it is going

to be as bad as lots of the media commentators are making out.

think actually there is a very good chance that the French and Germans

will be helping us to help them. I do not want to get in the way of

them sorting out the eurozone crisis. But equally, I do think

there is a general understanding that politics in Britain is

demanding that we get much more involved. But you have to be much

more so for terrific - what would you like to see in terms of

repatriation? Struggling much more specific. It sounds from what

you're saying that safeguarding the City would be enough. You and I

both do not know what will be decided on Friday. At the moment,

it could be a protocol, as Mr Van Rompuy might like. Would you be

happy about that? Protocols can have a huge amount of influence. I

have been a member of parliament for 10 years. I would be up for

that. It could be a treaty of the 17, it could be a treaty of the 27,

it could be something just involving two or three states, no-

one knows. I'm not hedging, but everybody is speculating until

Friday. On the protocol issue, are you saying you do not mind if

Parliament does not have a say in terms of approving whatever is

agreed? No, I'm saying that protocols have been very useful to

Britain in the past. We have had protocols on the currency, for

example. That is exactly where I would like to see more business

than, protocols can be very helpful Joining us now from Brussels is the

Lib Dem chief whip in the European parliament, Chris Davies, and

Rachel and Chris are still here. Chris Davies, you're at the heart

of things, in Brussels, what do you think is going to happen? Is it

going to be treated changes, a new treaty, or simply is everything

going to be done by protocols? must remember, most importantly, it

is going to be done by consensus. That leaves David Cameron playing a

bit of a week and, frankly. Can we come on to this in a minute? I

would appreciate it, even if only out of courtesy, if you answered my

question. Very simply, I think it is going to be done by protocol. I

think Chris Heaton Harris was correct. If you read what Mr Van

Rompuy has said in the papers today, it is all about a protocol which

will affect basically the 17 countries within the eurozone, and

not those outside. So, David Cameron would be on perfectly good

ground to say that this would not require a referendum in the UK. If

it does require approval, and I assume it will, then it can be done

by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Are you saying that

it will only affect the 17 in the eurozone, that the other 10 will

not be involved? I have read the paper this morning, and all the

talk is of a protocol. I think that steers around the issue of whether

there is going to be a transfer of sovereignty from the UK. It is not,

the whole point is to strengthen the eurozone, not to try and

transfer powers either way. Why are you placing so much emphasis on

what Mr Van Rompuy thinks, as opposed to the Germans, who, so far,

have not talk about a protocol? First of all, I suppose, because

van Rompuy represents all the smaller nations. We hear a lot

about Angela Merkel and Sarkozy, but there's 15 other countries,

many of them very small, within the eurozone, and the President of the

council has to stand up for them. When they all finally get around

the table, then I suspect the small countries will want a say. I'm sure

they will. Chris Grayling, so, we're going to have major changes

in Europe, they are going to be done through the back door, which

is basically what the Protocol system is, and once again, no

referendum - happy with that? see what happens on Friday. I have

been very clear, as was David Cameron this morning, that we have

got to defend the British national interest. What is the British

national interest in all of this? Well, practical example - it looks

as if we're going to see steps towards a fiscal union. What we

cannot have as a result of that is a situation where, if you take our

financial services industry, for example, that can somehow be

squashed at the dictats of other member states. We have got to

protect our national interest. is a strong thing which the

Conservatives are setting up - there are no plans to do things

which will squash the City of London. There are two very

practical things. First of all, there is the transactions plan.

That's a plan that Europe would like to see introduced, it is not

part of saving the eurozone. but if you have a more integrated

eurozone, which commands power in the European council, we have to

make sure that those states are in a position to turn around and say,

that is what we're going to do, it affects you and you do not have a

say on it. So, the key task for David Cameron on Friday, is those

negotiations, is to make short... We have also got 49 directives

which will impact upon the City of London. But that is not part of

treaty changes or protocol changes to save the eurozone, it is nothing

to do with it, they're separate issues We have had over the past 30

years, a number of different protocols giving Britain opt in

rights, and opt out rights, giving us protection. What David Cameron

was talking about this morning, he said he was going to go in with

steel to defend the British interest. I think we need a bit of

the spirit of the Thatcher handbag. You would expect any Prime Minister

to stand up for Britain's interests, that is what they are supposed to

do. What is your position on this? I think what needs to happen in

terms of the eurozone crisis is that you need the ECB to stand

behind the countries which are in difficulty, but you need Chancellor

Merkel to stand behind that. you in favour of fiscal union for

the eurozone countries? I don't think that is a solution. It is up

to them, it is not Britain's decision. But in terms of what they

need to do to get through this crisis, they need a central bank

which stands behind these things, in the same way that the Bank of

England does in the UK. But that is not going to be one of the changes.

But I think there is a chance... want to get this clear - Labour is

not in favour, because it does not think it is one of and, of the

eurozone becoming a fiscal union? think what Chancellor Merkel is

saying is that if you have some kind of "fiscal compact", which is

some kind of integration, then the ECB might be allowed to come in and

support countries in difficulty. So, if "fiscal compact" is getting the

ECB to play a proper role, then, yes, I would support that. If it is

going to get a solution to the problem. You just told me you were

not in favour of it. I don't think it is fiscal union which will get

through this crisis. But if it leads to the ECB becoming the

lender of last resort, you're in favour of it. Yes, but on its own,

I don't think it will solve the problems. That's the opposite of

what you told me two minutes ago. You told me that fiscal union is

not the answer. It isn't. But if a "fiscal compact" means that the

other countries in the eurozone will allow the ECB to do its job,

then that is part of the answer, but not on its own. Chris Davies,

do you think it is very democratic that setting up a eurozone which

will impinge on the tax-and-spend policies of all the peoples of the

eurozone is done through the back door by a protocol change? I assume

that protocol change will be put to national parliaments. So where is

the democracy element? So, it would be put to national parliaments just

like a treaty change? unassuming, and at do not know the

answer to this yet, that what will be required is a change to the

protocol. That would not mean a transfer of sovereignty from the UK

to the European Union. And therefore, it can go to the

Parliament at Westminster, and can be voted on without the need for a

referendum. But that might not be the case in Ireland, for example. A

treaty change, as I understand it, would require a referendum there.

Is there are substantive difference between a treaty change and a

protocol change? Does it demand the same democratic procedures?

protocol change is a treaty change. It seems to me that as far as the

UK is concerned, the difference is simply, does it now require, under

the new Act of Parliament, us to go to a referendum? I think not.

the eurozone becomes a fiscal union, whether it is by a treaty change or

protocol change, friendly, and lost now, but let's just say it happens,

doesn't that fundamentally change Britain's relationship with Europe,

since we are not part of it? Clearly, what that requires is some

form of protection in whatever those negotiations deliver for the

UK. But it is also a fundamental change, and your boss, IDS, said

that the Prime Minister has always said that if there was a major

treaty change, we would have a We have got to make sure that what

comes out of this is something that properly protects Britain's

interests. Chris Davis who was it that said

"the public are being denied a proper debate on the EU. Nobody

under the age of 50 has been able to have their say on this crucial

issue." Who said that? I suspect you are going to say that it is

Nick Clegg. You got it in one. He is not saying

that now, is he? No, he is not saying it now because

it is the wrong time to have a referendum. That would be

ridiculous. It is like shooting yourself in the foot. No one wants

to say we should lose millions of of collapse for the sake of this

argument. There is an argument about whether or not the UK should

be in the European Union. This is not the time for it.

So the simple question he said in or out, that's where I will

continue to lead the argument for a referendum on our membership. That

ain't party policy anymore? As far as I know it is still party

policy. So So why aren't we having it?

Because of what we just said. Would you recommend that? Would you

honestly recommend at a time when the... I didn't say it Mr Davis,

your leader said it, not me. This is very much a question of

could have dense. Do -- confidence. Do the financial markets have

confidence about the direction which the European leaders are

taking us? To have a referendum on the table would destroy the hopes

of that confidence. Mr Davis, thank you.

Forgive me for being stupid, does it mean the Parliament would still

have to vote its approval? As far as I'm aware any change to the

arrangements have to come before Parliament.

Good. I was confused. I'm still confused.

This time last week, many schools were closed and bins left

uncollected and NHS operations cancelled. The Prime Minister

called it a damp squib, but there could be further strikes in the

coming months. Union reps came to prominence

earlier in the year. The trade unionist journey is not

an impoverished one according to by research by the taxpayers alliance

pressure group. Trade unions received �113 million of funding

from taxpayers in 2010/11. This includes �80 million in paid staff

time. The taxpayers alliance is extrapolate this means 2,840 full-

time equivalent public sector staff worked on trade union activities.

It found the organisation with the highest number of employees working

on trade union activities was the Department for Work and Pensions

with 308 equivalent full-time staff. Birmingham City Council had nearly

62 full-time equivalent staff and the top police force was the

Metropolitan Police force with 16 full-time equivalent staff

undertaking union duties. Aidan Burly heads the trade union reform

campaign? Over 130 million pounds a year of of taxpayers money not

going on front-line services like doctors and nurses, but funding

those organising the strikes and the chaos we saw last week. I agree

with the Prime Minister, this can't be sustained and that's why I'm

campaigning to end this Spanish practise.

Rachel Reeves, picking up on that, in the times of austerity, you

could be forgiven for thinking the public might say, "Let's not cut

police officers, nurses and libraries, why don't we put

taxpayer funded union officials.". I worked in the public and private

sector before becoming an MP. When I worked in the private secretaryor,

I was a manager, we negotiated over pay and the rest of it and that was

valuable, it is not just something that happens in the public sector.

It happens in the private sector as well where employers... You think

we are not getting value for money at the moment looking at the

numbers of people that are... way it works an employer and

employees come together and decide the number of seconded people. They

are not union staff, they are staff that work for the organisation,

whether it police or the Health Service who are second to represent

the employees in that organisation and that's what happens in the

private sector. Why don't the unions pay for the

posts? Bearing in mind these people are doing trade union work, why

don't they pay for it? They are representing people in the

workplace, representing the employees and in the same way you

have big HR function ins any large o, the -- organisation, the

employees always need someone to to stand up for them and represent

their work. You are doing trade union work. We

have some of those in the BBC, why don't the unions pay for the posts?

Because they are representing people in the workplace and it is

not that they are doing trade union work, they are doing work of

supporting the people, the nurses, the doctors, the BBC staff or

whoever it is and actually it helps those organisations because you

have somebody to negotiate with whether it is on pay conditions,

change and the rest of it. 2,840 full-time staff working on

trade union activities, do you think that's too many? That's

across Government, including all local authorities.

It is a lot of people, isn't it? Including the quangos and the rest

of it. You will find that in the private sector as well, you will

have people in all levels of the organisations in different

departments representing the people who have worked there.

In these times of austerity and you said it is about value for money,

who would you rather cut, one of the taxpayer funded officials or a

police officer? Labour have said we wouldn't cut at

the speeds that the Government... know, but you still admit you were

going to cut particularly in the police force. Who would you rather

cut if you had to make a choice, who would you rather see cut. Could

we lose a number of the taxpayer funded officials? Labour said we

would cut by 12% compared to 20% and the police representatives said

that wouldn't mean a reduction in front-line support so we think we

could do it in a different way. As the size of the public sector, as

there are cuts, there has to be proportionate across the whole

whole organisation and it is up to the employers and the employees to

negotiate that as it is in the private sector as well.

Do you think it is difficult because Labour and because yourself,

are so closely linked and dependant on the unions? Does that make it

difficult for you to criticise it? I am a member of a trade union and

I was in a trade union when I worked in the public sector and the

private sector and was represented by my union. I am proud thoot

Labour Party was -- that the Labour Party was formed... Does it make it

difficult for you to criticise that link? The main members of the

Labour Party are members. How much do you get from Unite?

don't get any money from a trade union, my constituency party have

an agreement with Unite and we get, I think, the constituency party

gets money towards the campaigning activities for the local elections

and for the the general election as well, but I don't get money from a

trade union. What about the law on pilgrims? Is

it going to change? It is now under review. I would be surprised if it

didn't change. Clearly we sitting in the WDP... It has the most

That's because we have 100,000 staff.

How many would you like to see cut? I don't believe there should be

full-time officials. I am happy to see members of staff with union

responsibilities being able to take time off from their jobs to do

their union jobs. You heard from Rachel Reeves they

do a valuable jobs. That smoothed industrial relations with their

employees? We are spending �80 million a year that could be spent

on extra add viresers in -- advisers in Jobcentre Plus centres

and that money is going to the union movement which is, whatever

Rachel says, it is the principle funder of the Labour Party and we

have situations where there is evidence that Labour politicians

are asking questions and tabling amendments in the House of Commons

specifically at the request of trade unions.

If you talk to manager in the DWP who negotiate on pay and conditions,

I'm sure they will tell you that it is helpful to have people there

representing the employees in the workplace and it reduces the number

of disciplinaries. The full-time activities that Chris

Grayling - it is the end of full- time taxpayer funded officials?

That's what I would like to see. You are happy to have two part-time

rather than one full-time? My view is within the DWP we would like to

see us making time available for members of staff to represent union

interests, but not for them to be just doing that. We should be

talking about people who have got other responsibilities given time

to do their representative work. Well, if they are seconded for a

year to represent people, a nurse se conned for a -- se seconded for

a year, I don't see a problem. It can avoid disciplinaries and for 13

years we had less industrial action than we had ever before. So I don't

think it is necessarily a bad thing. It is going to be a cut price

Christmas for many this year... hope you got my present.

I sent it back. We have had a warning from

Government today not to be buying cheap counterfeit foods. That's

what I got you, I forgot! Fake UGG boots, I like that word,

hair straighteners and iPhones and iPads. That's a real iPad.

It is difficult to say. It fell off the back of a lorry. Designer

clothes and Hello Kitty products, what's that? It is for children.

They are among the tens of thousands of counterfeit items

seized by Border Agency officials in reen months. I am prized they

have had the time. -- surprised they have had the time. This may

look like a genuine Daily Politics mug, but if you look carefully, you

can see the letters on the mug have been reversed! I'm sure you don't

spell politics like that! The differences might not just be

cosmetic. A genuine Daily Politics mug contains hazardous substance,

scalding hot water! If you're lucky. Fake mugs is a potential deathtrap.

Don't risk it. Enter our competition. After that health and

safety exercise, we will remind you how you can enter, but let's see if

you can remember when this Sir Michael called me a Puppet and

kangaroo. The majority of the British people

I think they will wear my pockets To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, the genuine article that is, send your answer

You can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on

our website. It is coming up to midday. Let's

look at Big Ben. It is a glorious, cold, sunny day in London. It can

only mean one thing. Prime Minister's Questions are on their

way and Nick Robinson is here. Welcome. I guess you don't have to

be a rocket rocket scientist to work that the frontbench exchanges

will have have something to do with Europe and the economy? The Labour

Party is inclined to say, "Let the Conservatives have their own

difficulties on Europe. Let the coalition have their difficulties,

we, the Labour Party, don't want to have much of a say. He is not

calling for a referendum. Ed Miliband, he is not calling for a

renegotiation. So why not let The Daily Mail and The Sun and the

Telegraph fall out with the Conservative Prime Minister. What

he might be tempted to do, you will remember again and again he

criticised previous Labour figures criticised the Conservative Party

for for pulling out of this organisation, the E EPP, it won't

look so obscure today to the Prime Minister, meeting in Marseille

today for the EPP, which is the European People's Party, it it

brings together the centre right party, and no fewer are the leader

of Germany and France and the president of the European

Commission, the current president of the European Parliament and all

because... Haven't we got Slovakia? We will not be there!

I just think it is possible that Ed Miliband might be tempted to say,

"How much influence have you really got when these guys are getting

together and you are not there?". There is a gulf developing between

Mr Cameron and a section of his his backbenchers? The first question

being asked by a Euro-sceptic, will he raise it? Who knows, he often

raises Gibraltar, but I suspect someone might. They want a moment

of decision. They think this is a once in a generation opportunity

for Britain to redefine its relationship. Some because they

want to get out, others, no, they want to have a new sort of

relationship, but David Cameron is determined that this will not be

the moment Britain says, "Look, we know the world economy is going to

hell." But he thinks that's a mistake.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others. Mr Speaker, the British people want to see two

things from this week's European summit - firstly a resolute and

uncompromising defence of Britain's national interests, and secondly,

it in the end to the disastrous Euro crisis, a currency the party

opposite still wants us to join. Will the Prime Minister do us proud

on Friday and show some bulldog spirit in Brussels? I can guarantee

to my Honourable Friend that that is exactly what I will do. The

British national interest absolutely means that we need to

At the same time, we must seek safeguards for Britain, that is the

right thing to do. It is something the Right Honourable Gentleman

opposite takes a different view about. The the six weeks ago, the

Prime Minister said, and I quote, the idea of some limited treaty

change in the future might give us the opportunity to repatriate

powers back to Britain. At the European summit, what powers will

he be arguing to repatriate? As I have just explained, at the

summit... Let be explained. -- let me explain. Order. We're all

interested to hear the answer. will have the key aim of helping to

resolve the eurozone crisis, and we believe that means European,

eurozone countries coming together and doing more things together. If

they choose to do that through a treaty at 27 that we are involved

in, we will insist on some safeguards for Britain. And yes,

that means making sure we are stronger and better able to do

things in the UK to protect our own national interests. Now, let me

explain. Obviously, do more the countries in the eurozone ask for,

the more we will ask for in return. But we will judge it on the basis

of what matters most to Britain. The more he talks, the more

confusing his position gets, quite frankly. Let me remind him, on the

eve of the biggest post-war rebellion against a Prime Minister

on Europe, he was telling his Prime Minister's -- he was telling his

backbenchers that the opportunity of treaty change would mean in the

future the repatriation of powers. That was his position six weeks ago.

Today he writes an article in the Times, 1,000 words, not one mention

of the phrase of repatriation of powers. Why does the Prime Minister

think it is in the national interest to tell his backbenchers

one thing to quell a rebellion on Europe, and tell his European

partners another? I do not take back a single word I said in that

debate. Yes, what we want to do, specifically and particularly in

the area of financial services, where this country has a Mashud

national interest... Let me remind him, it is 10% of GDP, it is 3% of

our trade surplus, it is 7% of UK employment. I want to make sure we

have more power and control here in the UK to determine these things.

And that is in complete contrast to the party opposite, which gave away

power after power. They gave up our power, and they made us join the

bail-out fund. We have had to get out of the bail-out fund! They gave

up our rebate and got nothing in return. We have managed to freeze

the European budget. We have got one party which defends Britain's

interests, and another that always so renders it. -- surrenders. Mr

Speaker, I think the short answer is... I say to the usual,

predictable, noisy tendency, people must be heard, that's what will

happen, however long it takes. Speaker, I think the short answer

is that six weeks ago, he was promising his backbenchers a hand

begging for Europe, now he's just reduced to hand-wringing. That is

the reality of this.. And the problem for Britain is that at the

most important European summit for a generation, which matters usually

for families and businesses up and down the country, the Prime

Minister is simply left on the sidelines. Is it not the truth that

we have a Prime Minister caught between his promises in opposition

and the reality of government? That is why Britain is losing out in

Europe. I'm afraid even the best scripted joke on handbags is not

going to save his leadership. He talks about being isolated. Let me

just explain to him where we would be if we adopted Labour's policy.

If we adopted you're spending and your deficit policies, and if we

were in the euro, what we would find is, I would not be going to

Brussels to fight for Britain, I would be going to Brussels to get a

bail-out. Under the proposals being put forward, Labour would put

Britain in such a bad position that the tax changes would not be

written by the Shadow Chancellor, they would be written by the German

Chancellor! There is a wide spectrum of views on Europe

throughout this House, and one can sense it from the responses even to

that remark. Will the Prime Minister take the straightforward

message with him to the European council that the one thing most

likely to unite the House of Commons would be the perception of

a calculated assault from Brussels, not even in their interests, on the

well-being of the UK financial services industry, and on the 1.3

million people, in all of our constituencies, who worked in it?

The Honourable Gentleman is entirely right. Of course we want

to see a greater rebalancing of our economy, and we want to see more

jobs in manufacturing, in aerospace and in technology. But the economy

that we inherited is very dependent on financial services, and I do

think we should at least celebrate the fact that it is a world-class

industry, a world-class industry not just for Britain but for Europe.

It is absolutely vital that we safeguard it. We do seek it under

continued regulatory attack from Brussels, and I think there is an

opportunity, particularly if there was a treaty at 27, to get some

safeguards, not just for that industry, but to give us greater

power and control in terms of regulation gear in this House of

Commons. I think that is in the interests of the entire country,

and it is something I will be fighting for on Friday. Does the

Prime Minister agreed that the recent escalation of industrial

action in the public sector, which incidentally, in my part of the

world, was not a damp squib, is a result of genuine anger about the

sheer unfairness of government action to deal with pension

contributions, unfair action which is making people on low and middle

incomes pay for the horrendous mistakes at the top? Sewers and

afraid I think the Honourable Lady is just plain wrong. The lowest-

paid workers are not being asked to contribute more to their pensions.

In terms of Furnace, let me just make his point. Under what we're

offering, a primary school teacher earning �32,000 a year could

receive a pension worth �20,000 a year. A private sector worker,

remember, the people who are putting their money into these

pensions, a private sector worker would have to pay 38% of their

salary, almost half of their salary, to get an equivalent pension. Of

course there is an issue of fairness. We must play fair by

public sector workers. But we also must be fair to the private sector,

who are putting their money into these pensions. Mr Speaker, does my

Right Honourable Friend agree with me that it is time for this country

to even Europe, in the hope of a new, post-bureaucratic age? I do

think there are opportunities for Britain in Europe. I think we

should start from the premise that it is in Britain's interest to be

in the single market. We are trading nation, we need those

markets open, we need to be able to determine the rules of those

markets. But as Europe changes, yes, of course there are opportunities.

But the first priority, at the end of this week, must be to make sure

that the eurozone crisis, which is having such a bad effect on our

economy, is resolved. But at the same time we should be very clear

about the British national interest - safeguarding the single market,

safeguarding the financial services, looking out for the interests of UK

plc. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he will be having his usual

Christmas bash with Rebekah Brooks and Jeremy Clarkson? If so, will

they be talking about just how out of touch they all are with British

public opinion? I seem to remember the annual sleepover was with the

former Labour Prime Minister. So, no, I will be having a quiet family

Christmas. Can I offer him my full support as he promises to stand up

for the British national interest at the EU summit on Friday? But is

it not the case that bail out after bail out of the eurozone will not

save Europe, but making Europe more competitive, reducing its high unit

costs, and cutting regulation and red tape on business will do so?

is entirely right. I can quite understand why leading members of

the eurozone, like Germany, for instance, want to see tougher

fiscal rules about budget deficits for euros a members. But it is

right to point out that the heart of the crisis is actually caused by

current account deficits in some countries, and large current

account surpluses in others. Unless we solve the competitiveness

problem at the heart of the euro crisis, this crisis will keep

recurring. Our argument has been thrown out, yes, you need tough

rules on deficits, yes, you need the institutions of the euro acting

in concert and acting strongly, but you have got to resolve the

competitiveness problem at the heart of the single currency in

order to deal with this crisis. I will continue to make those points

on Thursday and Friday. Mr Speaker, can the Prime Minister confirmed

that next year, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, as a

result of his economic policy, the poorest third of families will lose

three times as much as the richest third? No, his figures are wrong.

If you take all the things that the Government has done, which is the

right way to measure this, what you find is that the top 10% see losses

nearly 10 times greater than the bottom 10%. And I believe that is

fair. I believe the point which has not been properly understood, but

is important, is, if you take the richest 10% in our country, they

not only see the biggest reduction in their income in cash terms, they

also see the biggest reduction of their income proportionately. So,

we are being fair. It is incredibly difficult to deal with the debts

and a deficit which the Honourable Gentleman and his party left behind,

but we are determined to do it in a way which is fair. He's simply

wrong again, the figures are there.. The figures are there. And the

poorest third are losing far more than the richest third. Of course,

he used to say, I am not going to balance the budget on the backs of

the poor. He's not balancing the budget, he's right, he's not

balancing the budget, Mr Speaker. �158 billion more borrowing! But he

is hitting the poor. But cash and one group to give him credit, that

he is easing the pain for, and I don't think this has got the

publicity it deserves - he's delaying for a year the tax on

private jets, Mr Speaker. This is at the same time as hitting the

poorest families in this country. Can he confirm that a working

mother earning �300 a week is seeing VAT going up, her tax

credits cut, child benefit frozen and her maternity grant cut? He had

13 years to tax private jets! And now, former Labour leaders are

jetting around in them! We will tax them in two years. He quotes the

Institute for Fiscal Studies - that me remind him what they said about

Labour's plans specifically. Labour's policies would lead to,

and I quote, even higher debt levels over this Parliament... I

know, Mr Speaker, they do not like to hear it when their own policies

are taken apart. Calm down. They do THE SPEAKER: I want to get down the

order paper. If the Prime Minister wants to give a brief answer, let

it be brief. Let's hear it. Let me just explain what the IFS

said. His plans imply even debt levels over this Parliament than we

will see. If you want the stimulus we are giving the economy by low

low interest rates, you have to stick to the plans we've set out.

There is no a party in Europe, apart from the moll doveian

communists that back his plans. He is talking about a stimulus, he

doesn't understand he is cutting too far and too fast. And that's

why we have got problems in our economy. He doesn't want to tell us

what the IFS said about his plans. He is the Prime Minister, the new

tax on benefit measures, the new tax on benefit measures are a take

away from lower income families with children. The figures speak

for themselves. His changes are hitting women twice as hard as men.

Isn't truth that he is the first Prime Minister in modern times to

say "it is the women and children first.". His soundbites get weaker

and weaker as his leadership gets weaker and weaker, that's the truth

of it. If you look at what we have done, lifting 1.1 million people

out of tax, that is mostly women that benefit. If you look at the

increase in the pension, �5.35 starting next next April, that will

benefit mostly women. If you take the issue of public sector pensions,

well we're helping the lowest paid in the public sector, that will

help women. Yes, we are giving the economy a stimulus by keeping our

interest rates low. We have interest rates at 2% while they are

at 5% in Italy and 5% in Spain and 30% in Greece. If we followed his

his advice, we would have interest rates rocket and more people out of

work. That's what Labour offer and that's why they will never be

trusted with our economy again. Can I tell the Prime Minister that

small and medium enterprises in my constituency are still having grave

difficulty accessing reasonable finance?

A major contributors of that is lack of competition. Will the

Government consider breaking up the nationalised banks in order to be

able to create more competition on the high street?

I think we have opportunities to increase the competition on the

high street and obviously as we look to return the State banks back

into the private sector, we will have further opportunities. We have

managed to take one important step forward which is to get Northern

Rock back out there lending to businesses and to households

properly established in the north- east of England.

THE SPEAKER: Closed question, Jeremy Corbin.

Not here. Mr Speaker, our history at repatriating powers back from

the EU is not a happy one. May I therefore suggest a fundamental

renegotiation of our relationship with the EU based on free trade,

growth and competitiveness which other countries enjoy and not

political union and dead weight regulation? This EU Summit is a

defining moment. A once-in-a- lifetime opportunity. Will the

Prime Minister seize the moment? I am a little bit more optimistic

than the honourable gentleman. The bail out power that the last

Government gave away, we are returning to the United Kingdom via

the treaty is we have returned a power Arrecently we have won

exception from EU legislation to make sure that from January 2012

microenterprises will not face any EU regulation at all. Are we going

to go in there and fight for British interests on Thursday and

Friday? Yes, we will, but let's be clear. There is the option of a

treaty at 27, where we have the ability to say yes or no and as a

result get a price for that. But there is always the possibility

that the eurozone members at 17 will go ahead and form a treaty of

their own. Again, we have some leverage in that situation because

they need the use of EU institutions, but we should

recognise what our leaverages are and make the most of it.

Last year the Prime Minister's manifesto promised to repatriate

legal rights, criminal justice and employment and social legislation.

His article in the Times this morning is silent on all these

issues and the Justice Secretary has said this agenda is not

realistic anyway. Does the Prime Minister regret leading his party

up the garden path and forcing himself into a choice between

ditching his manifesto or potentially vote owing a treaty --

vetoing a treaty? What I regret is the party opposite gave away so

many powers. It will take a while to get some of them back, but we're

making progress. When he was in Government, when he was in

Government, there were repeated increase in the EU budget. This

year we have achieved an EU EU budget freeze. When he was in

Government, he gave away the bail out power and with had to pour

billions of pounds into other countries. We got that power back

and I believe with strong negotiation, standing up for

Britain, we can clear up the mess that Labour left us.

Over the last decade-and-a-half there has been an explosion of

personal debt levels in our country, yet we let our young people leave

school without the power to make informed decisions. Will the Prime

Minister read the report and meet with a small Group of MPs to ensure

that young people are more financially literate? My honourable

friend knows a great deal about this having been a supply teacher

for many years in the constituency that he represents. And a permanent

teacher as well. Excuse me. I'm happy to meet financial education

is important for our young people and I look forward to seeing his

all party report. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said

he wanted to lead the most family- friendly Government ever. Isn't it

a disgrace that nearly �19 billion of cuts his Government announced so

far, �13 billion have fallen on women?

What I say, it was this Government that introduced 15 hours of free

nursery care for three-year-olds and four-year-olds, something that

the Labour Party never managed to do in Government and in spite of

the mess that we were left in this Autumn Statement, we put in an

extra �380 million to double the number of disadvantaged two-year-

olds whose parents will get free nursery care. That is real progress.

Real help for families. Something they never delivered.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What would the Prime Minister say to a council

like Redcar in Cleveland who are considering rejecting Government

funding for a council tax council tax freeze next year and instead

charging my hard-pressed constituents 3.5% more? I very much

hope that that all councils will take up the offer of a council tax

freeze. In this year when people face economic hardship it is

important we help where we can. That's why we have cut the petrol

tax and allowed the council tax freeze to go ahead. My advice would

be to support parties that back a council tax freeze.

Thank you plrks speaker. -- Mr Speaker. Since the Education Act

1944 successive governments have supported subsidised travel for

students who live three miles or more from the faith school of their

choice. Some local authorities are beginning to cut back on that

support, that financial support, I don't think any member in this

House wants to see that happen. Can the Prime Minister encourage local

authorities to embrace the spirit of the 1944 Education Act on this

particular issue? I think the honourable gentleman

asks an important question. I support school choice, parents

having the ability to choose between schools and I also support

Faith schools indeed, I have chosen a faith school for my my children,

so I will look carefully at what he says and what local authorities are

doing and discuss it with the Education Secretary to see what we

can do to enhance choice and the faith based education that many of

our constituents choose. Does the Prime Minister agree with

me that in exchange for us supporting the Euro countries in

dealing with their crisis, we should be seeking changes on the

law on immigration, employment, and fishing rights in order to support

our economy? What I would say to the honourable gentleman is, as

I've said, if they choose a treaty at 27, that treaty requires our

consent and so we should therefore think of what other things most in

our national interests and I've talked about keeping the single

market market open, I have talked about the importance of financial

services, but the more that eurozone countries want to do in a

treaty of 27, the more changes they want to make, the greater ability

we have to to ask for sensible things that make sense for Britain.

I am keen that we exercise the leverage that we have to do a good

deal for Britain and that's what I'll be doing in Brussels this

Thursday and Friday. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister

promised, "I will cut the deficit, not the NHS." Why is his Government

closing the accident and emergency and maternity services at King

George Hospital, shouldn't he have said, "I will cut the NHS, not the

deficit?". The deficit is coming down and the NHS spending is going

up throughout this Parliament and I note his own health spokesman says

that it is irresponsible to increase spending on the NHS. We

don't think it is irresponsible. We think it is the right thing to do

as he knows, the Health Secretary set out the criteria for all local

changes shoulding in his constituency, there has to be

proper public and patient engagement, there has to be sound

clinical evidence, there has to be support from GP commissioners and

proper support for patient choice. The Prime Minister has taken a

strong interest in the incredible work of the Oxford Parent Infant

Project in helping families who are struggling to form a strong

attachment with their babies. Two months ago I started a charity in

Northamptonshire and with the Prime Minister's interest in

strengthening families, will he commit to looking at the incredible

work that can be done in early intervention that saves a fortune

in the criminal and care services later on? The honourable lady is

right. I know about the project that she speaks about and I'm

delighted she is expanding it into her constituency, all the evidence

shows that the more we can do to help children and their parents

between the age of naught and two, it is the key time when so much

disadvantage can set in that could have a bad impact later on in life.

Her work and the work of members across this House in prioritising

early invention is so important for our country.

The Prime Minister was asked by his constituent Philip Hall to cut VAT

on home repairs and improvement. Mr Hall runs his own construction

company. This has the support of over 50 business organisations

including the Federation of Small Businesses. Will he support that

cut in VAT which would help jobs, growth and business?

Well, look, the problem, the hon honourable gentleman has, they have

a long list of extra spending and extra tax cuts they want. As we

have heard today at Question Time again, they oppose every spending

reduction that we're making. They impose every reform to get better

value for money. So you can only conclude that spending would go up,

that borrowing would rocket, that interest rates would increase and

the economy would be left in very, very dire straights.

-- dire straits. Why is my right honourable friend

supporting a policy of fiscal unification of the eurozone States,

which if it happens, will lead to the creation of a dangerously

undemocratic single Government for those countries?

Look, the point I make to my honourable friend is this, I don't

want Britain to join the euro. Britain is better off outside the

euro. Those countries that have chose tonne join the euro, they

have got to make that system work and they don't just need stronger

fiscal rules, which I think is clear, they need to have greater

competitiveness. It is for them to decide how to go ahead and do those

things. What we should do is maintain Britain's position outside

the euro and make sure we safeguard our interests at the same time.

That's what I will be doing in Brussels.

10,000 service personnel will have heard of their real terms cut in

pay whilst serving on the front- line in Afghanistan. What does the

Prime Minister think that morale for those risking their

lives for us? What we have done is doubled the

operational allowance that people in Afghanistan receive and they are

extremely brave people and we should be doing right by them and

that's why we doubled that allowance and we have increased the

council tax disregard. We have made sure that the pupil premium is not

just available to children on free school meals, but is available to

all service children and we have put the military covenant into the

law of our land and we will go on defending, promoting and protecting

our brilliant armed service personnel and their families.

The windfarm application spans three local authorities, each of

whom assessed it against their local plans and rejected it.

Subsequently a distant unelected planning inspector inspector

overruled and moved forward his decision so it could be made the

day before the localism Bill got Royal Assent. The Prime Minister

will understand my constituents anger, can he look into what

appears to be a slap in the face He makes an important point. As he

knows, as a result of the changes we are making, it will not be

possible in future to overrule such decisions, because we have now got

rid of those regional targets. We're giving much more authority

and many more decision-making powers to those local bodies. Our

planning reforms will make sure that local people and their

councils decide what it is that people need, and how we meet that

need. Mr Speaker, is the Prime Minister worried that the scandal

of misselling in this country has just got a lot worse? Even the

previous broken guarantees to the public, the Prime Minister is now

rejecting a vote on these latest European changes. He has miss sold

the issue to the public at large. Will the Prime Minister give a

guarantee to this House that there will be the opportunity for the

British people to deliver its verdict on the changes which are

happening in Europe? What this government has given is something

which no previous government has done in this country, which is, we

passed a law which means that if ever this government or any future

government or any future House of Commons tries to pass powers from

Westminster to Brussels, it has to ask the British people in a

referendum first. There would have had to have been a referendum on

Lisburn or Amsterdam or any of the other treaties. So, the fact that

people feel so betrayed by what happened under the last government,

that cannot happen again. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the

engine of the economy in my constituency and will play an

important part in our economic recovery. Will the Prime Minister

acknowledge that a key factor in achieving growth is to take action

in Britain's interest to tackle and reduce the huge regulatory burdens

on small companies, so many of which come from Europe? I think the

Honourable Lady makes an important point. We have got to start in our

own back yard to stop this over regulation. That is why we have the

red tape challenge, with every rule being put on the Internet, so that

people can show how little we need to keep. We have got a one in, one

out rule for every minister, they cannot introduce a regulation

without getting rid of the regulation. But we have got a major

breakthrough, that businesses employing less than 10 people will

not be subject to a European regulation from 2010 onwards. It

shows that if you make the arguments, you can win them.

Prime Minister today has refused to accept that women and children will

bear the brunt of his failed economic policy. No wonder he

continues to turn off women. Will he accept the Treasury's own

figures, that 100,000 more children will be living in poverty as a

result of his policies? What I would say to the Honourable Lady is,

how on earth does it advantage women and children to pile them up

with debt after debt after debt, that they then have to pay back? We

have been standing here for 33 minutes, all we have heard his

proposals for tax reductions, for spending increases, for reforms

they would not go ahead with, for scrapping the changes to public

sector pensions... They would take those women and children that we

are concerned about, pile them high with debt and let them live under

that burden for the rest of their days. May I hark back a month, to

7th November, when I put forward some suggestions to my Right

Honourable Friend for containing the euro crisis, with which he

appeared to agree, but none of them, as he will have noticed, have been

acted upon by the European Central Bank? May I now expressed to him my

belief, therefore, that the alternative policy, of a fiscal

union, will, as my Honourable Friend the member for the New

Forest has already said, pose a great threat to the whole of the

liberty of Europe? It will inevitably make Germany still more

dominant. Can the Germans be persuaded to study the reason for

the Boston tea Party? Because... Because no taxation, without

representation, is the bastion of freedom. As ever... We have heard

the question. We now want to hear the Prime Minister's answer.

ever, the leader of the House speaks with great knowledge and

wisdom and foresight. What I would say to him is, the reason that he

and I do not want to join the single currency is that we would

not be prepared to put up with being told what our debt and our

deficit and everything else should be, that's why we do not want to

join. The point I would make is that if the countries of the

eurozone want to make their system work, then it is clear that fiscal

rules are one thing they may need, but that will not be enough without

proper competitiveness, and the full-hearted intervention and

support of the institutions of the eurozone, including the European

Central Bank. But it is a decision which those eurozone countries have

. The frontbench bench exchanges were on Europe and the economy. Mr

Miliband split his questions in half. Half on Europe and half on

the economy. He didn't get far on the economy, but he did get quite a

way on Europe putting the Prime Minister on the back foot by asking

a question which was what powers he would repatriate or attempt to get

back from the Brussels summit. The Prime Minister never really

recovered from that. On the economy, one thing that wasn't mentioned was

the figures today, industrial production for the UK out for

That's quite a big decline in production. Looks like

manufacturing is in recession. viewers picked up on your first

point, dissatisfied with David Cameron's answers on Britain's

position, as far as the EU is concerned. This one says, very

clever questions on the euro from Ed Miliband, and the Prime

Minister's answers were weak. He simply did not have any answers,

because he cannot defend his own policies. Good luck to Chris

Grayling, having to defend him, says this one. This one says,

predictable that Ed Miliband would bang his drum about Brussels. I

think this will be continued in the coming days, to divide the Liberals

and Conservatives. Cameron looked really rattled, this one says. This

one says, from Birmingham, David Cameron says there is one party,

one government, protecting Britain's interests - I thought it

was a coalition. Does Nick Clegg agree? Colin says, once again,

David Cameron is not answering the questions, he is at the mercy of

the eurozone 17, and he knows he is between a rock and hard place. This

one from Highgate says, a fairly even tussle this week, a confident

performance from David Cameron, who was not caught out as he was by

Miliband's questions on youth unemployment. And this one says,

the opposition front bench are duplicitous lot. They have the

affront to criticise this government, it says. I get the

sense that the Prime Minister is in some trouble over Europe, and

that's the reason why he thought he had to wait in the Times this

morning, sounding tough, setting up a few straw men to knock down. But

as Ed Miliband shows, it does not get him around this major problem,

that he used to talk about repatriation, and now he does not

even use the word. There is no doubt that there was a gulf between

what he thinks is the right think to do at this summit, and what many

of his own party think. He believes that trying to help the eurozone

countries save the euro is primarily in Britain's interest,

and that he might just be able to get the odd safeguard inserted in

as the price of being co-operative, and that's about it. Many of his

backbenchers, many in his party, think this is a once-in-a-lifetime

moment to say, the euro has failed, the project has failed, Britain

should pull back from it, not necessarily leave, but renegotiate

its entire position. Yes, the reason he was frankly long-winded

in his first answer today, the reason, when I did a clip with him

yesterday, frankly, I could not make head or tail of it at the end

of the first answer, was because the Prime Minister is trying to

cover that base at one minute, and another base at a different minute.

What is he trying to do? He is trying to not look weak before

European countries, trying not to look weak before his own

backbenchers, while simultaneously trying not to upset his coalition

partners. You can just say, that's life, every Prime Minister has had

this. Many Tory backbenchers say, why does he not behave like

Margaret Thatcher? To get our money back, to use the phrase, but that

would be fertility forgetting that she signed away the British veto in

order to create the single market. -- that would be utterly forgetting.

The idea that there is some model of a Prime Minister who has never

made compromises in Europe is nonsense. Here's a prediction - Mr

Cameron will go to the European summit, the French and Germans will

get some version of what they want, in which the British will have

close to zero input, there will be largely spectators, and Mr Cameron

will come back without a single repatriated power. We will find out

next week. But my view is that David Cameron is going into a

treaty, like a poker player. The last thing you do before poker is

lay your cards on the table. Anybody who was expecting him to

say in fine detail today, this is precisely what I aim to achieve,

would have been wrong. But he gave a very clear message, not just

about safeguarding the financial services industry, but about his

intent to bring back to the House of Commons powers of regulation

over what is one of our crucial industries. That was a clear

statement of intent. Mr Cameron is going in to this summit to bring

back powers over financial regulation? That is what he said in

the House of Commons. Or is it just that he does not want to transfer

more powers? The Times article did not talk about repatriation at all.

You talk about the poker player, but six weeks ago, when Parliament

debated whether we should have a referendum on Europe, David Cameron

was very clear that he wanted to repatriate certain powers. So, he

has changed position in those six weeks. The words were clear,

bringing back powers from Brussels to Westminster, all three remain

Conservative Party policy, and all three are in the national interest.

Six weeks is a long time in politics. But I will not take

lessons from the Labour Party. They promised a referendum, they did not

give it to us. And you signed up to Maastricht. But I am not trying to

give your lessons. I'm just saying, that six weeks ago, the Prime

Minister said one thing, but now, it is a different story. You're

saying that the Prime Minister want to repatriate powers about

financial services, but he did not say that today. Is this news to

you? I heard him talking about a greater role for the House of

Commons in regulating financial services. The it is something which

none of us know. Chris Grayling is saying something I did not know.

The question is, what does he mean by talking about greater regulation

of the financial industry? We have heard about the Robin Hood tax and

things like that. We know that. This is much more to do with the

rules of the European single market being used potentially by the 17

members of the euro club, in a way that is either not consciously or

deliberately designed to damage the City of London. There is an example

recently, I forget the exact financial instrument, but there was

a new regulation saying that this particular transaction could only

take place within the eurozone, and it so happened that 80% of the

existing transactions happened in London. It is that kind of rather

detailed thing, but which involves important jobs going from here to

abroad. It would seem to me that the Labour Party would agree with

the Prime Minister on that kind of thing. The Prime Minister said that

in the area of financial services, he said, I want to make sure we

have more power and control in the UK to determine these things. Does

that mean repatriation of powers? It is exactly what he said.

understand that that is is in general government policy, or at

least, Conservative Party policy, because they are worried that the

French and Germans are out to put regulations on financial services

which would, above all, affect the City. I can understand that. But I

did not take it that he's going to this summit to do that, that he's

going to say, if I do not get this, I will not let you former fiscal

union in the eurozone. Do you think that is what he's going to do?

don't know how the negotiations will pan out. But I interpreted

what he said as a statement of clear intent about control of the

financial services industry. this summit... As I said, when you

going to a poker game, you do not put all of your cards on the table

up front. But the problem, I would suggest, is that in a sense, the

British Prime Minister, wants to play a different poker game from

all of the other poker games which are being played. The rest of

Europe, including those outside the eurozone, do not see this as a

summit about changing financial regulation, or repatriating powers,

the rest of Europe sees this as probably the last chance to save

the eurozone and stop Europe going That's right. But there are some

allies for the Prime Minister in wanting to be a desession of all 27

countries and not just the 17. Britain is one of ten countries

that are not in. Most of the others are what are called irritateingly

in Europe pre-ins. Countries that are legally bound, have said they

will one day... Like Poland. Like Poland and Sweden, indeed, but who

are not yet in. Some of those countries do want to make sure that

what doesn't happen today or tomorrow and the next day that the

17 go off on their own, can take decisions that affect everybody

else which no one else has any say on. What David Cameron will think

he can win allies for is ensuring that it stays at the level of the

27 and he might be able to say, "My price for putting my signature on

that document is some generalised protection for the financial

services industry." One mechanism, but there is something call an

emergency brake mechanism, the French have used it, the British

haven't where any leader can say, "This actually goes to the heart of

my strategic national interests, I need to stop this process going

on." Now even if something is under qualified majority, in other words,

you can get outvoted. This is one of the techniques which might be

used to protect the City. FT Dutch Land quotes that the

demands of David Cameron are unachievable and the Governmentan

Government considers the idea that the City should be exempt from

financial regulation is unaccomplishable. So we shall see.

We have got to fight, David Cameron has got to fight to keep the

national interests m It is making sure that the eurozone

crisis doesn't implode. It will keep us busy this weekend.

We have to leave it there. I wish you were there instead of me,

Andrew. That's heartfelt.

I will be in Brussels for the next two days.

We can arrange it for you. I'm off to Strasbourg next week.

Last night Hillary Clinton told the UN had should never be a crime to

be gay and while it is illegal to discriminate against anyone because

of of their sexuality, it seems in sport, being gay is something to

keep quiet about. Ben Cohen is xalging that. -- challenging that.

He set up the world's first organisation to highlight bullying

with focus on the gay community. Ben will be with us shortly. Here

is why he says people need to stand It is fact that we hear and see

bullying in every day of our children's lives, especially at

school. We We know and understand the devastating effects it has on

young children today. We hear about it every day in the media, and we

have to act now and do something to stop it.

These day, it is not just about a note around the classroom anymore,

like it was when I was at school. We know that cyber bullying is

getting more and more widespread. There are thousands of days of

education being missed each year as young people are too afraid to go

to school. Health suffers and long- term emotional damage is caused. It

is cruel and unnecessary and I'm here to do something about it.

I created the Stand Up Foundation to combat bullying across-the-board,

but I want to ask everyone - children, parents and teachers to

stand up against these bullies. I understand how bull young can tear

families apart. It happened to my family when my father was killed

eleven years ago. We all need to be aware when

bullying is taking place, but more importantly, feel that the

necessary support is there to make it stop. Try and notice those

people around you who are struggling with being perceived to

be different every day. Are they suffering at the hands of bullies?

You can do something about it. Do something today - stand up and make

Well, Ben Cohen is here now. You cut short your rugby career, to

start up this foundation? In 2005 my dad got killed when he stood up

to protect someone and he got attacked and lost his life. My

family are an accepting family and for me it was about being in a

privileged position to make a difference, and being a successful

sportsman that I could bridge that gap between the gay and the

straight community and bring awareness as to what bullying does.

Do you think the fear of it actually stops gay sports people

coming into top level sport? At an early stage, most definitely. It is

the same within school. Bullying in school too, that people don't want

to go to school. It is easier not to go to school. And find ways of

not going to PE lessons or your junior club rugby or football. It

deters them not to do that and it is easier not to do that. There are

thousands of days that are missed through people playing truancy

because it is easier to get told off than getting bullied.

What more can be done to encourage people to come out and feel feeltry

and to stop the bullying? I would like to see support and I would

like to see youngsters, young people, whether in lower school,

upper middle school or university actually understand what bullying

does. There is a support mechanism, in schools, do they know the route

to go down if someone is getting buddied or if they are -- bullied

or if they are getting bullied themselves. Sometimes it leads to

them being on the mental health register, the fact they have been

bullied so bad that they can't get jobs because they have mental

health issues. Schools are supposed to take this

seriously, and are making in roads on this. You are working with the

Government on this? I am working with the Government and to

highlight bullying. There is a lot of sportsmen and women around the

world, specifically in the UK and in the US that actually sportsmen

and women are role models, whether they like it or don't like it, you

know, people follow their actions and it is important, as I know,

being a rugby player and having been successful, people look up to

me and that's why I started the Stand Up Foundation, people can

follow my actions and stand up for the people who are getting picked

on at school and I have got twin girls and I want to bring my kids

into a safer place and a kinder world especially within education.

Chris Grayling, Hillary Clinton said last night it shouldn't be a

crime to be gay. Aren't It sad that we are still talking about this in

2011? Bullying is about more than that. In sport, it is unacceptable.

There is a culture in the sporting world that picks and discriminates

the gay. If you look at bullying in the workplace more generally, I

have had a number of cases over the years of people saying, "I have

been bullied in the workplace." That's a challenge. I praise Ben

for what he is doing. The more we can raise awareness of bullying,

the better. I have got shock news for you.

Politicians may come across as remote, humourless, yes they do.

They are fully formed human beings who curl up on the sofa on a

Saturday night and watch The X Factor or Strictly Come Dancing.

How do I know this? Because they don't just watch these

programmes, they use Twitter to let the rest of us know they are they

are watching, like we care. Why would they do that? Here is Adam.

Welcome to Strictly Come Tweeting. MPs cannot get enough of tweeting

about their favourite Saturday night reality TV shows. Take these

messages from Harriet Harman. My favourite on Strictly Come

Dancing, is Harry. Minutes later she switched to the

other side to choose her favourites in another programme.

But some MPs are less enthusiastic about their tweeting. To To make

sure they have the right balance of zaniness and seriousness like

Labour's Stella Creasy. 268 pieces of case work, The X

Factor and some food. There are those who question why

these MPs want to quote themselves in the stardust like Tim Montgomery.

Some wondering if Ed Balls is genuine in his X Factor tweets.

So MPs, keep tweeting! LAUGHTER

You have got your paddles there from Strictly. We're going to ask

you to vote. How convinced are you are you these tweeters are genuine

fans. Let's play Strictly Come Treating.

-- Tweeting. Sorry to see MishaB go out.

How convinced were you? I know that he genuinely does like

I know that he genuinely does like He loves it. He loves it.

David Miliband has been talking about his favourite band on The X

Factor. I have no idea whether these people

watch it. Here is the third tweet from Louise

She used to be in the record business!

True. . She was political enough not to

say who that band were. Doesn't it always end in tears when

politicians try to show they are in politicians try to show they are in

touch with popular culture? I do tweet.

Your Your tweets are the most boring!

I'm going to a meeting of Local Government finance. Why do you

think we want to know that you are going to a meeting on Local

Government finance? That's what I was doing!

We have run out of time. It is time to give you the answer to Guess The

Year. Rupert Murdoch buying the News of the World, do you remember

the year? It was 1979. That's it for today. Thanks to our guests.