24/02/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Can anyone stop

Syria's dictator from killing his own people on an increasingly large

scale? Delegates at an international conference in Tunis

are hoping to ratchet up pressure on Damascus to agree a ceasefire.

They are expected to call for humanitarian workers to be given

urgent access to Homs and other areas where Syrians are being

attacked. We will have the latest. At the Speaker of the House of

Commons of the tax payer is being fleeced for the cost of trees at

Portcullis House. In an interview he defends his timekeeping at PMQs

and declares himself a happy man. The Tories are having an awayday.

Yes, they are. We will be asking what they should be talking about.

And we will be revealing the longest ever word to hit Hansard.

Why does that remind me of an episode of Blackadder? All will be

revealed. That and much more in the next hour. With us for the duration,

Nick Watt of the Guardian and Peter Oborne of the Telegraph. Let's

start with the ongoing row over the Government's work experience

programme. The High Street shop can Brant said it had decided to

suspend the Government's mandatory Work Programme while the Government

clarifies its scheme and introduces other youth employment initiatives.

-- Poundland. The picture is rather confused. Let's see if our

correspondent Louise Stewart can enlighten us. What has hound land

done? You are right. It is very confusing I spoke to the company

earlier and they said can we get back to when we are 100 % sure

which scheme we are pulling out of! They have said they are pulling out

of one of the Government's work programmes. It seems to be their

problem with it is the fact that there could be if somebody signs up

for one of these schemes to get them back into work, there could be

sanctions imposed which would mean if they decided not to continue

with the scheme after a week or two, they could end up losing some of

their benefits. Poundland said to me they believe it is wrong that

people have to work for their benefits. They say they will

continue to offer voluntary work schemes, they say it is successful

and they have had over 1,000 people who want to get into retail and

they want to offer some of them jobs, but they are concerned about

elements of the Government scheme. This comes on the back of other big

retailers also voicing concerns about it. We tried to get

clarification from the relevant government department. Have you

been more successful? I have been calling them all morning. They said,

yes, Poundland have confirmed they are pulling out of one of the

schemes but they will continue to provide work experience on a

voluntary basis. But then the Employment Minister Chris Grayling

came out this morning. He has been defending the scheme. We were going

to do an interview with him but he seems to have pulled out. He

defended the scheme saying it was a good way for people who have been

out of work to get back into work and for young people to get work

experience. He says he has a meeting on Wednesday with C E Ls

from some big companies. Greg's voiced their concerns last night on

Newsnight. The chief executive there will be meeting Mr grayling

and leaders from Matalan and Waterstone's. These are all

companies which have expressed concerns about some elements of the

Government's scheme. I think politically what this says is that

some companies are getting cold feet, if you like, about being

involved in these schemes. There have been terms bandied around of

slave labour. Tescos were involved in that earlier in the week. Some

companies are getting cold feet about being involved in the schemes.

Thank you, I think you have clarified it as well as you can in

the circumstances! Peter Oborne, is this government losing its grip?

This is a scheme which has support from all of the coalition. Labour

is not against it. The public overwhelmingly supports it. There

is a well-organised come -- campaign against it but the public

think if you are on benefits and there is a chance of work

experience, you should take it and yet it is a complete Horlicks.

do not know what has happened but judging by the report we have had

their and judging by what I heard on the today programme, Poundland

seems to be not objecting to the cock-up by the Government, it seems

to be taking a principled stance by what the Government is doing. This

is an elected government. It has the support of the opposition and

there is an element of compulsion to the workfare scheme. As far as I

read it, pounds land, the chief executive of it, is taking a

principled objection to that part of the scheme. Shouldn't he have

worked it out before he signed up to it? We do not know the full

facts. It sounds like he has gone off and joined, not the Labour

Party but the Socialist Workers' Party. It looks like Poundland is

taking a far left point of view that we should Molly coddle people

who are out of work. Good for Pam bland but I do not think it is

appropriate for a chief executive of a public company to take that

view -- good for Poundland. looks like companies are running

scared of the campaign. They say they are pulling out of a mandatory

scheme when it is a voluntary scheme and there is a reason why

they call netminder a tree which is somebody took part in this scheme,

worked in Poundland and then after three weeks left and sued the

Department for Work and Pensions sake I had been forced to take part

in it. The DWP had to admit that this person had been wrongly

advised. It is voluntary that you take part but it is Monday tree

that you lose your benefit if you pull out of it. I think the problem

for Poundland is they are the victims of a very effective

campaign saying essentially people are being forced to work for

virtually nothing. The governors say it is voluntary. In a

recession... You only lose your benefits if you take part and

withdraw. A lot of people would say if you turn this down, you're not

sure you should get benefits. point is, we are in a recession.

These big stores are having to fight for every single customer. It

does not look good for them if their stores are being occupied.

looks like a blatant political intervention, caving in to fire

left pressure from Poundland and I think that is reprehensible and

disgraceful. We may not have clarified it but struck -- some of

us have strong opinions! Urgent talks are due to take place

in Tunisia later today to try to force the Syrian president to call

a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid into the country. Fighting is

continuing around the city of Homs and the Red Cross said it had

received no response from the Syrian government for its request

for a pause and the fighting to allow aid to be taking in.

Commentators have expressed fears that because China and Russia are

not attending a conference, the chances of a breakthrough Arslan.

Just before we went on air, I spoke to the BBC diplomatic correspondent

Jonathan Marcus. He is in the Tunisian capital of Tunis. I began

by asking him what the conference was trying to achieve. The genesis

of this conference is really the blockage of the United Nations, the

Chinese and Russians have vetoed any combined effort of the UN

Security Council. This conference is trying to get around that

roadblock. It has three main aims. One is to issue an urgent call to

get humanitarian assistance in two cities like Homs which are under

attack by Syrian government forces. They will need an immediate

ceasefire to do that. Secondly, they want to try and encourage the

Syrian opposition forces, they want to engage the Syrian National

Council, the main opposition grouping. They are likely to

recognise it as a legitimate representative of Syrians who want

a change in their society. Interestingly, not the

representative, they want it to become more inclusive, to put down

better routes in Syria itself. And thirdly, there will be an attempt

to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime, both by focusing and

co-ordinating sanctions, but also by putting the regime on notice.

You will remember yesterday a un Human Rights Commission report was

delivered which alleges war crimes have been committed by a senior

Syrian officials and there is a responsibility to the highest

levels in Damascus. The message that will come from here is they

are on notice. Evidence is being collected. What they are doing is

being closely watched and there will be a day of reckoning at some

point mackerel in the future. they think they can do all of that

in a meaningful way without the involvement of China and Russia? Do

they expect China and Russia to look the other way or block what

they are doing in practice? I think it will work up to a point. The

problem is diplomatic sanctions is a cumulative process, it is a

question of taking time and clearly time is not on anyone's side. I

think the difficulty is this meeting is essentially watching

from the sidelines. The real events are tragically taking place on the

ground in Syria. You have to remember that this is a regime in

Syria which is fighting for its survival. It believes its back is

to the wall which we have clearly seen in Homs and elsewhere. It

needs to do what is required to maintain itself in power. It is

also important to realise that there are significant groups of the

population in Syria who may not be happy with what is going on at the

moment but perhaps they are still willing to give President Bashar

al-Assad the benefit of the doubt. They prefer the guy they know to

the potential chaos which might come after. Is a hugely complex

situation and that complexity is one of the reasons why outside

military intervention is not been cancelled as it was in Libya.

was Jonathan Marcus in Tunis. We are now joined him in London by Bob

Stewart from the commander of UN forces in Bosnia now a Conservative

MP, and Mousab Azzawi of the Syrian Network for Human Rights. Let me

start with you, Mousab Azzawi. Humanitarian aid, some kind of

temporary ceasefire, it does not sound to me like that will be

anywhere enough to please the rebels in Syria? No, at all, that

is not enough because it is not realistic. The regime methodology

is to accept every initiative and then emptied. If the regime will

accept that, it will not be a permanent solution to deliver

humanitarian aid for those pockets of geographical places with people

trapped there. Many people died every day because they do not have

fuel, they do not have clean water, they do not have fluid or access to

healthcare. This is not enough and I do not think it will not be

accepted for a temporary remedy for the crisis -- they do not have food.

What would you be telling this organisation to do? I would be

telling them to do three steps. The first step is the humanitarian

corridors which needs to be done through the United Nations with a

very clear plan to deliver this aid. The second thing which is buffer

zones with the borders with Turkey to allow the Syrians who are end

trapped to flee to a safe haven. The third step which might be

controversial is the no fly zone because the biggest proportion of

the Syrian army is waiting for the right moment to desert the army but

they do not want to be easy targets. How do you know that? Basically,

there are signals coming from those ordinary people who serve in the

army. They are not professional soldiers. They are just ordinary

people serving in the army to do their national service the two

years. They tell their families we are waiting for the moment to

desert the family -- to desert the army but we do not want to be easy

targets for the military aircraft as happened in August last year.

Six officers deserted the army with their tanks, they were very easy

targets. That is the key solution to sort out the Syrian crisis as I

see it. Bob Stewart, I do not get the impression that we in the West

are anywhere near a no-fly zone or a safe haven on the border with

Turkey? That is correct. The big problem, of course, is that the

Security Council of the United Nations requires a resolution and

there are two people on the permanent Council, Russia and China,

that won't agree it. In order to set up humanitarian operations at a

United Nations level, you have got to have a Security Council

resolution. Even if we had the UN on side on this, I'll be even up

for those? I'm not sure who I am talking about, the British, the

French, the Americans in a presidential year? Are they going

to put a no-fly zone over Syria? Are they going to back UN troops

going into a safe haven with the border with Turkey? There is no

wish for us to get involved in this situation. And indeed, it may be

time in my view for the Arabs to start doing a little bit more.

Who'd you mean by the Arabs? I mean Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Their troops

are not going to fight. But why is it always ask? As a politician, I

am saying, there is a limit. Each time we going, what is our national

interest in going in there? Apart from the fact we have a

humanitarian desire to try and stop people dying and that is quite

right, but it is us again, the Americans. If people turn to us and

say, can you do it and the answer is, I don't think we can. I suppose

we could if we put more money into it but that is it. Again, more

money is required. Defences at its It sounds to me that the brutal

reality is, if you are hoping for help from the West, you will be

disappointed. The point is that any open civil war in Syria will not be

limited to the band a series of Syria. The risk for the Western

powers, if they leave this crisis without supporting the Syrians and

facilitating the transition to democracy, this civil war is easily,

because of the tribal clans interlinking, it may move to the

neighbouring countries quickly. Then, if they pay $100 for a barrel

of oil now, they will pay $400, because it is easy to move to Saudi

Arabia. There are signals coming from those tribes in Syria. They

are saying, if you are going to fight on a sectarian background, we

will fight with you. That is something we do not want to see.

Peter Oborne, rightly or wrongly, there is no appetite to intervene,

is there? Yes. I think the West miss reports what is happening in

many ways. Absolutely, there is a popular uprising against President

Assad. And he is absolutely a frightening dictator and becoming

more so. But it is worth remembering that he has a lot of

popular support. How do you know? have looked at surveys from the

Russians, for instance. They say 60% of people are defined -- behind

him. That suits the Russian narrative. Yes, but I do not think

we should assume that the Russians talk nonsense. But there are two

different things. That is an interesting we writing of what is

going on in Syria to say that President Assad has support. What

is sustaining him is an alliance with his tried and the Sloaney

middle classes, who are uneasy about what is going on. The reason

why Russia are saying they do not support action is because they were

badly burnt by what went on in Libya and they do not want to

sanction an action against Syria because they thought it would be a

simple military operation, and it turned into regime change. Russia

do not want a repeat of that. do you say to Peter Oborne, who

says that President Assad is more popular than we report him to be in

the worst? This is not correct. We rely on evidence and statistics. In

Syria, there are 1200 villages and towns. Last Saturday, more than 684

places off demonstrations existed. The total number of demonstrators

in a country in which 60% of the population is under the age of 18,

was more than 1 million in all the cities. There is no spare city

whatever. There is a very small Shiite community. 20%? No, less

than one in 1000. President Assad's supporters are less than 1%, that

tried it. They do exist. But many of the people who participate in

the uprising are also from that stride. It is not true that it is a

sectarian issue. The most important thing is to stop people dying. That

is the most crucial thing. We all agree with that, but how? That is

what the conference should be thinking about. So you are saying

we have to get rid of him? They remain in power by mowing down

their opponents. There are a lot of reports. Again, there is over-

simplification of the conflict from the start. There has not been a

civilised opposition movement. We have had armed men from the start.

Al-Qaeda did those atrocities in Damascus a couple of months ago. I

am sure they are involved with that now. This is not true. The main

body of the revolution, which is named the Syrian revolution General

Commission, comprises 200 Revolutionary members on the ground.

They are similar to the French Revolution. They have stated, we do

not have links with any fundamentalists. We do not like Al-

Qaeda. We have to leave it there. Let's hope it works out better than

the French Revolution. Now, cast your mind back to the

days of Super tomatoes, trampled fields and even an accusation that

we had a Prime Monster. That was the GM debate of the 1990s, but

have things moved on since then? The men in white coats are still

quietly at work and preparations are almost complete for a new GM

wheat field trial in Hertfordshire. Imagine the perfect fruit - not

just began juicy, but actually better than nature itself could

provide. That was the idea. In the late 1990s, two letters struck fear

into the hearts of public and media alike - GM. Campaigners wrecked

crops and took their protests to Number 10. Tony Blair was AGM fan,

as were many of his ministers, but there was one unbeliever. I think I

was a lone voice. I found I had no other ministerial support. I found

myself isolated. But I resisted. That could have been the reason why

I was sacked. Despite the protests, Labour allowed the commercial

planting of GM maize in 2004. But the firm behind the project pulled

out shortly afterwards. So is the former minister happy with where we

are now? I think we are in the right place in the sense that there

is now much greater concern about the possible long-term effects of

GM, and therefore there is an inhibition against spreading it

indiscriminately across the world. There are checks and balances. And

that is right. GM crops have never been grown commercially in this

country, but that is not the end of the story. This is one of a tiny

number of scientific trials currently under way in the UK. The

scientists here hope they can change the way we think about GM.

This is roughens their research in Harpenden. They are tried to create

a breed which will be resistant to greenfly. This new approach is

taking naturally occurring genes which occur in other plants, and

immobilising them in a way that mimics what happens in nature,

because at some plants do deter insects from landing on them. So we

have taken it to a new level. We call it a Green GM. The work they

are doing is cutting edge, but these scientists believe that

Britain is running to catch up on what could have been a

technological and economic opportunity. We have exported

thousands of jobs over the years to the US and South America that we

could have had at a time when, from an economic point of view, we are

hoping to develop economic growth through technology and innovation.

But is that a reason to pursue something which has consistently

divided public opinion? difference is not for its own sake.

If it is not doing something useful, we should take a sceptical view.

has never been a place in the world where the consumer, given the

choice of being able to say, we live by it or not, as uniformly

said, we will not touch a GM product. So the argument goes on.

The science of GM may be moving into a new future, but the debate

is always likely to be influenced by its past.

The government's former chief scientist David King is with us now.

You were broadly in favour of proceeding with GM experiments and

moving to their commercial exploitation. Tony Blair was in

favour. The then science minister, Lord Sainsbury, was in favour.

Given these powerful and well- informed voices, how did you manage

to lose to a coalition of the Daily Mail and the Greens? Firstly, yes,

I was in favour. Lord Sainsbury and I were clear about this. We were in

favour, but within a regulatory environment in which each new food

product was carefully regulated. The line we took was, don't ban the

technology, ban the products that might be risky to the environment

or to human health. A reasonable line, but you still lost the

argument. Unfortunately, I think the argument was initially framed

as a result of a very vigorous campaign of advertising by one

company in the GM field, Monsanto. And this created a backlash against

this rather brash American company that seemed to be taking over the

world of agriculture and plant foods. The issues around

environmental and human safety got caught up in that. But if you

examine those issues, they were not dealt with in the sort of detail

that one might expect, except to show that no GM products in the

market has yet shown any negative impact effects. So even though GM

food is now quotidian in the US, there is no evidence, you say, of

any detrimental effect on Americans' health? Correct. The

United States and South America, Canada and Mexico, that entire area

has gone heavily over to GM products for the simple reason that

those products are very efficient at producing good crops. You can

produce resistance to disease. You can also produce resistance to

drought and flooding. There are real advantages in this very

refined technology. I would also point out that most of the soya

that we can get in the world is now produced by GM techniques. It is

difficult to buy soya anywhere in the world that has not got a large

percentage of GM products Dinnet. - - in it. Rightly or wrongly, the

other side of the argument won. Is it the blunt truth now that

although we at one stage as a country were not at the cutting

edge, but pretty well into the science, but we have fallen so far

behind now that we will not catch up? There is a good argument to be

made around that. Britain invented molecular biology. We were the

leaders in this field. Two companies, Unilever and Astra

Zeneca, invested heavily in second- generation products which would

give health to people who ate them. All of that has been closed down.

But that strength in the science base of molecular biology still

exists. If there was a change in public opinion, I think the

situation would change. The other factor that is important - while we

can say that we know of no human being who has suffered from eating

GM products, we know of many who have suffered from not having

availability of GM products. I am referring largely to the developing

world, where GM products could have met malnutrition problems that

still massively exist, especially after 2007, with the big food price

rises that have occurred. Now, the Speaker of the House of

Commons has entered the row over a dozen fig trees which are being

rented at an office block for MPs at a cost to the taxpayer of

�30,000 a year. Writing in Westminster's House magazine, John

Bercow declares that the contract to supply and maintain the trees in

Portcullis House should be terminated as soon as possible. We

wanted to speak to a correspondent live from Portcullis House, but the

powers that be will not let us in because Parliament is not sitting

today. And why should they? After all, it is only our Parliament. We

paid for the building. This is a democracy. But we are not allowed

it. Anyway, we probably cannot manoeuvre there because of the

trees. But we are joined by Vicki Young on College Green. She has

tons of room to manoeuvre. What is This does date back to when the

building was put up. The fig trees cost �30,000 a year. The tax payer

is renting them from a company which goes towards the upkeep. John

Bercow is making it clear that the contract should be terminated as

soon as possible. It is up for review in September. In the last

hour, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has waded into the

argument. He said it is right that the whole of the public sector

should be looking at cutbacks and Parliament should be no different.

There are issues, if you're going to get rid of them, they belong to

this company, they would have to get them out of the building and

someone said you would have to take the roof off of Portcullis House.

But I think they will be going cheap and you could get one for

your living room. I could do that, I would just have to put a hole in

the ceiling of my living room! Can explain why these trees cost so

much? We don't actually own them so the problem is this money is not

going towards the taxpayer at the end of the day even owning them. It

is some thing where people say it was signed off by officials many

years ago. That will be the problem to get out of if it is a contract

which cost more to get out of. It is up for review in September and

John Bercow is strongly hinting that some changes will have to come

about. And finally, will I understand the Speaker has some

views on party conferences. What is he saying? He basically said that

Parliament should be sitting in September and if the conferences

are going on, they should be held over the weekend so they should

start on a Friday and go on Saturday and Sunday. He says MPs

should be working in their workplace in September which is

what most people expect given that they go on their holidays in July.

I do not think that will be popular. Particularly because the parties

make a lot of money out of the conferences with the stalls and so

one. We will have to see if that changes in the future. Thank you.

People watching this must think, you rent fig trees? You rent a

tree? Does anybody in the country do that except parliament and you

rent it for 30,000 quid a year. Who is the landlord of these trees? I

would like to get into this business. I do think Speaker per

cow is in charge of the House of Commons and these views of

annoyance, he was responsible for these -- this contract. Micheal

Martin would have been speaker at the time, Portcullis House went up

in 2001. As Speaker he is responsible for every conference --

aim -- every contract. That idiot Micheal Martin was probably

responsible. There was that huge hubris of the House of Commons as

the political class that they regarded themselves above reproach,

worthy of the best of everything. think it reminds us of an era when

the taps were on and there was not a great deal of monitoring money

which will spend. George Osborne has this lovely story that he

decided he would say something like �5,000 by not having the designated

Christmas tree in the Treasury and he went down the road and spent 20

quid on a Christmas tree. The health and safety rules meant that

only one person was in -- able to put the start on the top of the

tree and that had to be the permanent secretary. Can I just

point out that Speaker burka has spent several thousands of pounds

of money on his portrait -- John Bercow. People have been able to

see a picture of the Speaker. Maxwell famously half inched the

wind from the House of Commons cellar. There are things the

general public would be amazed at about. Portcullis House has a

portrait of almost every third-rate politician. We may joke about the

Speaker but one thing he is really doing is holding this executive to

account. In this interview he said he made George Osborne answer

questions for three hours because he was so angry with him for the

way the Autumn Statement had been leaked out before. The excepted do

not like it because he is making them be held to account. If anyone

is interested in several fig trees, I would get your bid in now because

I have a sense they will not be there for much longer. No one has

any record of them producing figures but that is another matter.

They have been lots of things happening this week but the only

things MPs have been talking about is the rest of the MP for Falkirk,

Eric Joyce, who is alleged to have started a bit of a fracas in House

of Commons bar on Wednesday night. That is what happens when you

subsidise cheap drink. You are watching pictures of Mr Joyce

leading central London police station in a car late last night.

He was charged in the end. No doubt our guests would like to talk about

the alleged incident but first, let's take a look back over the

last seven days of proper politics. Here is Max with the Week in 60

Seconds. The week began badly for Andrew

Lansley. Date you dare lie to me! Another battle, this one between

the men who resigned for personal reasons as Liam Fox and David Laws

disagreed about whether the low- paid or business should be the

beneficiary of the Chancellor's largesse at next month's budget.

Professor Les Ebdon is the new man charged with trying to make higher

tuition fees at universities fairer. His appointment is seen as one up

for the Lib Dems. RBS announced that it lost a

further �2 billion last year. As yet, the money has not been found.

Big losses in a very strange way are a sign of success.

And finally, a girl from West Norwood with a lovely voice caught

the attention of an ancient willow read baronet from Ealing. I shared

her disappointment that her speech was cut short by what she called

the suits. Now, he has been charged so my

learned friends are telling me to be careful what we say but no one

is talking about anything except Eric Joyce. They have been over the

years plenty of fracas in the Strangers' Bar which is normally

fairly quiet but this is something which by all accounts was a truly

spectacular outburst. Five policemen carted him away. The

broken windows. It is a magnificent mess. It is interesting that

Parliament has really changed with the sitting hours. In the old days

it would not start until after lunch and it would be going until

10 o'clock at night and there would be votes and people would be

drinking late at night. That has changed since parliament started

sitting earlier. This has gone back to an era we thought we had moved

on from. Eric Joyce is a decent man. I suspect he has got a problem and

we should not really be... I think it is a very sad story. Lots of

people get these sorts of problems. I'm not going to mention names, we

know who they are but I think he needs help rather than... I agree.

For Westminster is hopeless at noticing this. Indeed, it looks the

other way and offers you another drink. Quite right.

Andrew Lansley and the health reform, Peter, does the health

reform get through in the end. It is back in the Lords where it seems

to be ravaged by guerrilla warfare at every turn. Does it get through

in the end bruised and battered and does Mr Lansley get through bruised

and battered as well? I thinks so. At the end of the day, you can look

at Andrew Lansley and I think he is a well-meaning man and I think he

passionately cares for the health service. I think a lot of

opposition comes from vested interests. The BMA is a vested

interest of the worst kind. It opposed the original formation of

the health service. I think Mr Lansley may well win three. His

reforms are supported by the Labour Party. The Labour Party is

opportunistically causing mischief but basically it supports bringing

markets into the health service. You get the feeling that a lot of

Tories, whatever their views on the reforms of health think we have got

welfare to reform, education reform, deficit to cut, I wish we had never

been down this road? Yes, they have mixed emotions. They are annoyed

with the Liberal Democrats who signed up to the Bill eight days

before it had its final reading. Nick Clegg described it as a fusion

of Liberal Democrat and Conservative thinking. But on the

other hand they are worried that if this Bill does become an Act of

Parliament, three years before the general election, every single

problem which happens in the NHS, and there will be problems because

of the inevitable squeeze on spending and the ageing population,

with every problem, Labour will say I know what caused that, this bill.

It is the Greens' spring conference. They are in Liverpool. The Deputy

Leader Adrian Ramsay joins us now. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Thank you for joining us from our BBC offices up there. You must be

very enthusiastic about the Government's economic policy. You

do not believe in economic growth and that is precisely what the

Government has achieved, no economic growth. You're at one with

Mr Osborne? Far from it. The Government's policies are

increasing the gap between rich and poor and what the Green Party is

saying is we can and must be protecting the services that

vulnerable people rely on. There is a �2 billion a year that we could

be getting in if we clamp down on corporate tax avoidance, make

people pay the taxes that I do and that is about the same amount of

money that was taken out of public services in the deficit reduction

last year. The Green Party is alone in politics in saying there is a

different approach from the one the Government is taking in slashing

and burning things. You say you want to allow negative growth to be

feasible. Your leader, I'm not sure you call her the leader, Caroline

Lucas has said economic growth is becoming an economic, you do not

believe in growing our economy, do you? We are making a very serious

point about how you measure success in the economy. If you make it

clearly based on GDP, you're treating all economic activity as

the same, whereas some like building a school a good, other

economic activity like clearing up after a car crash is bad. Lots of

economists are saying we need a far greater range of measures to see if

our economy is successful. A far more sophisticated approach which

looks at the level of inequality in our society, the impact of the

Environment on health and well- being. Even David Cameron said he

things well-being should be a measure of economic success. My

question is what is the Government doing in taking on board advice to

make that happen in practice. Their policy on cutting public services

and building over the green belt and destroying public spaces is

taking us in the wrong direction. Your policy statement also says

there must be an optimum population for the UK, what is an optimum

population? What we need to do is make sure that all our policies are

about living in harmony with the planet and we need to have a debate

about population levels and lots of respect. But what should be, what

is an optimum population as I don't have those figures to hand myself.

But your party policy says you need one and it must be introduced to

the UK so what is it? It is one of the factors about living within the

sustainable means of the planet. What is it? I cannot tell you of

the top of my head. We need to make it easier Thrupp whole world, it is

not just about population within the UK, but it is about the whole

world. We need to make sure we are promoting birth control and women's

writes in developing countries, we need to make sure we are reducing

the gap between rich and poor globally, getting the food to where

it needs to be, rather than countries exporting foods which

they cannot afford to buy themselves, that we are taking

seriously the fact that we need to feed the world. We need a very

different economic policy if we are to do that. Thank you. Enjoy

yourself in Liverpool. You may or may not know that the

Tories are holding an away day today. I'm sure you did not know,

why would you care? In leafy and I emphasise the word leafy,

Portcullis House. Yes, that is right! The one with the expensive

trees in it. Last night, they all went out for dinner, 300 of them.

The mind boggles. 300 Tories at dinner in the same place. One of

the MPs we spoke to could not remember where the dinner was held

but he thought it was over the river and good fun. We tried to get

hold of today's agenda but to no avail. We have made up our own.

First, how to achieve the biggest U-turn since the poll tax and ditch

the health bill. Next, how to make the Chancellor

George Osborne a real Tory hero and deliver tax cuts in the Budget.

And then be pressing question which always gets them going, should they

be nice or nasty to our European neighbours.

And then be difficult one, working out whether Nick Clegg is a goody

or rave baddie. To answer all of these and more

systemic questions, I'm joined by the Conservative MPs Matt Hancock

and Peter Bone. Welcome to both of you. I remember you used to go away

on away-days. Was it good for you? Was a lot of group hugs and paint

balling? No. No group hubs but self deprecating humour was the key to

it all -- group hugs. We talk about our coalition partners as well. In

the sporting language that stop was there a lot of agreement in the

wigwam of trust? It was the Portcullis House of trust today.

What did you discuss? We are not going to go into what was in a

private meeting but it was a bigger picture than the one you mentioned.

It is about showing Conservative values in action. For instance, how

to tackle Labour's something for nothing culture which a lot of our

politics -- policies are aimed at. Why do need an awayday if you are

doing that? We have got to come together from time to time. I'm

sure you do it at the BBC. I tried Did you get an answer as to whether

Nick Clegg is a goodie or a bad day? It came up, but I am not sure

what the consensus of opinion was. What is your opinion? You know that

I think the coalition is there for a purpose. But Nick Clegg?

coalition should be got rid of. Nick Clegg has been brave in

leading his party to oblivion. These two are telling us nothing.

They are not telling us a lot, but I understand their predicament. The

BBC is every bit as given to these self surging... I have never been

to one. The Conservatives have made real progress. 15 years ago, when

there was a Conservative awayday, it would be at an ancient Hotel in

Eastbourne. And they would all be lined up in their embarrassing

woollies. Look at Peter and Matt, beautifully turned out. The only

person with a woolly is Peter. But where is Mrs Bone? The government

is telling us that she is more on- message than you these days.

was there in spirit. Last night, that was probably the view of our

host, that Mrs Bone was more on- message than I sometimes am. What

was the consensus on the Health Bill and Mr Langley? There is

strong backing. There is strong backing for getting this bill

through, because it will improve outcomes for patients and put power

in the hands of doctors. By you have not convinced anybody. This is

why there was strong support... We have strong support to get this

bill through. But when you fought the election, the polls showed that

on a matter of who you could trust with the NHS, you were on even

Stevens with Labour. At one stage, you were even ahead. Now you are

back to your historic gap. People trust Labour much more than the

Conservatives on this, because of these reforms. Didn't you talk

about that? The biggest cheer of the night and the most applause was

for Andrew Lansley. But that was a sympathy gear. No, it wasn't. When

you are trying to reform a state monopoly, you will get interested

groups opposing it. It is clear that we are doing something in the

interest of the patients. It is unpopular, so the idea that we just

do popular things is nonsense. Didn't the three Cabinet ministers

who had briefed Conservative home with their reservations, didn't

they speak up? Or almost all of the Cabinet were there, and there was

strong support. Andy polling is not conclusive on this. What matters is

improving the health service, getting rid of a lot of the waste.

It is conclusive that you have lost the trust of the people on the

health service. If you want to look at polling, you should look at all

polling. There are poles that say, or would you trust Labour any more?

And they are level pegging. More importantly, it is about whether we

are improving the NHS so that it is free at the point of use, and

available to everybody. Can you give us any indication as a result

of this awayday, which seems to just be an excuse for a dinner...

Of a new direction you might be taking? Was there any concern

expressed that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor listened too much

to the Lib Dems and not enough to the people at this awayday? Are I

do not think that was brought up. Why not? It is what you think.

my table seemed to be an awful long way from where the Prime Minister

was sitting. I wonder why. No idea. But we were talking about running

the country, not the Liberals, because they are irrelevant.

would not be in government without them. He said there was lots of

talk about the Lib Dems. You should get your story straight. I did not

say there was much talk about them. Maybe you should spend more time

within the wigwam of trust. broader point is that the Liberal

Democrats support the Government in doing what needs to be done in the

national interest. A party believing in the national interest

- it will never catch on. I think it was a waste of time. I suspect

that there is a divide in the leadership between Cameron in

particular and his troops. They feel neglected. But the love here

between Peter and Matt does show that the mood is much less scratchy

than at the end of last year, when there was real anger over the

Europe vote. People like Peter were delighted when David Cameron will

do that veto. That was the biggest cheer, actually. When it was

mentioned about the veto, that was the biggest cheer of the awayday.

Everybody in the room cheered the Prime Minister. The veto that he

then reneged on? He then said yes. No, he didn't. Well, it allows me

to say goodbye to itchy and scratchy. I have never been called

Scratchy. I have called you It chief.

Now for the most difficult question of the day other than which one is

itchy and scratchy. Can any of you pronounce this? Neither can I. I

can, but I am not trying it live on air. But I know a man who can.

requirement not to be rude about judges only applies to judges in

this country. It does not apply to judges in the European Union. So

let me be rude about them. Let me indulge in the

floccinaucinihilipilification of judges of the European Union. Let

me quote from the Book of Amos about judges of the European Union.

We know their manifold transgressions and our mighty sins.

They afflict the just, they take a bribe, they turn aside the poor at

the gate from their right. These are the judges of the European

Union. Her Majesty's government is right to stand up to them. They do

not deserve their money and it is iniquitous that they have allowed

themselves to be judges in their own cause. It is a breach of

justice and ought to be criminal. come Rees-Mogg in the House of

Commons. That is the longest ever entry in Hansard, that word. For

those of you who have no idea what Hansard is, here is Quentin Letts

without to Z of Parliament. -- our to Z of Parliament.

The letter H is for Hansard, available at 7:30am every day. This

publication records what is said in the Houses of Parliament by our

legislators. Parliamentary reporting only goes back to

Napoleonic times, when William Cobbett, that terrific journalist,

decided it was an outrage that the people did not know what went on in

Parliament. He produced glorified histories of law-making in the

British Isles. In 1811, he sold his interest to Thomas Curzon Hansard,

son of the printer who served the House of Commons. Slowly, you get

the arrival of verbatim reporting in the House of Commons. The people,

at last, could find out how the laws were being reached at. Here we

are in the parliamentary archives act room, with all the ancient

statutes stacked up. This is vellum, animal skins. But if these are

impressive, what about this? The Daily Hansard. Thousands of words,

ensuring that we have an accurate verbatim report of what our

legislators say. A pretty good. MPs have the ability to tidy up a bit

of what they say. Some of their hesitations get taken out. On

Prescott's words used to be given major surgery by Hansard. It does

not always capture the full atmosphere of the House of Commons.

When there is terrible raucous laughter, it just says laughter.

When people are heckling, you just get "interruption". But this daily

publication catches the arguments that are used in Parliament to

produce these laws. It also catches ministers' answers. They can't

wriggle off the hook after this. Hansard employs dozens of reporters

and sub-editors with brilliant shorthand skills. You ought to see

their fingers flying across the stenographer keyboards. They turn

this thing around in record time. It is now online, too. At a time in

our history when journalism has a slightly spotty reputation, the

people from Hansard are keeping the side up. Well played, lads.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is with us now. What does this would mean?

habit of estimating that something is worthless. What was the word,

remind me? Give me the Latin derivation -- the Latin derivation.

I can't, not of hand. I don't always have to give the etymology

of every word I use. It comes from a word meaning a piece of wall and

a trifle and another word meaning nothing and another word meaning

something insignificant. Everyone knows that. I could not give a

straw. That is the literal interpretation. Why did you not use

a small a word? I did not think of it. Floccinaucinihilipilification

came to mind, as it does from time to time. But it often come to your

mind? It is one of those words I have known since I was a schoolboy.

When it comes to your mind, is their room for anything else?

particularly pointing out that we wanted to indulge in the

floccinaucinihilipilification of the European Court of Justice,

which is the key point. The ECJ ruled to their own benefit that the

pay rises of European officials had to go through, and that included

their own pay. This is against one of the most important principles of

justice that you should not be a judge in your own cause. Thankfully,

using this odd word has got some attention to that tremendously

important point of corruption in the law courts of Europe. You have

made that point. The Big Issue I want to know - did the Hansard

people have to ask you to spell it? No. And Saab are fantastic, as

Quentin Letts was saying. They improve my speech. They take out

the um-ing and ah-ing and make what one said make better sense.

spoke at this Tory dinner last night. I did. It was just on the

other side of Lambeth Bridge. Whereabouts? On the other side. The

Plaza Hotel. You spoke as a new MP. What was your message? My message

was that the Conservatives are wonderful and the Liberals are not

as good. So it was controversial with the audience. It was a hard-

hitting message. Do you expect promotion afterwards? I do not

think so. Why aren't you in the government? Because I am a

backbencher. I love representing the county of Somerset. How many

more letters does your favourite word have an

antidisestablishmentarianism? 1. Correct. He is good. I do not want

to show off. We have now run out of time. We have used such big words.