16/01/2013 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Spare a thought for

call me Dave, the poor PM is being shouted at for more sides about,

you've guessed it, Europe. This morning the so-called Fresh Start

group of Conservative MPs told Mr Cameron they wanted the complete

repatriation of key powers from the EU and would not settle for

anything else. Fighting talk. Ken Clarke is a bit worried. He is

concerned the PM may accidentally open the door to a British exit.

His medical innovation being stifled by the law? Maurice Saatchi

will explain why he thinks so. Hold your horses for PMQs, when we

will be examining the contents of the 12 o'clock Westminster Stakes -

or should that be Shergar burgers?! If that has -- if that is not

enough to whet your appetite, we have a bookie on hand to spice

things up. For the first time I will be taking

bets on the number of times Speaker Bercow interrupts PMQs.

We are all waiting for Speaker Bercow! We speak of nothing else.

That is coming up in the next 90 minutes. We are joined for the

duration by Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander and

Health Minister Dan Poulter. If you have just joined us on BBC Two this

morning, Scotland Yard have confirmed that two people died

early after a helicopter crashed at rush-hour just across the river

from our studio in Westminster in the Vauxhall area. It is a very

misty morning in Central London. Police say it appeared the

helicopter hit a crane on top of a new block of high-rise flats. It is

not yet complete. That was at about 8am. As well as two fatalities,

nine injured people have been taken to hospital, one is said to be in a

critical condition. If there are any more developments we will keep

you up-to-date. In a speech this evening, Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt will say he wants the NHS to be paperless by

2018. The first step would be to give people online access to health

records by 20th March 15. By April 2018, any crucial health

information should be able to staff at the touch of a button. It is a

lovely idea, but in terms of IT revolutions, haven't we heard this

before and why would this be more successful? There was a very good

idea to set up, if you like, a national database for NHS IT.

Unfortunately that did not work well for a number of reasons, we

did not involve front line professionals in designing the

service -- it did not involve. Jeremy this morning is making sure

the database will be driven at a local level so that different parts

of local health care can talk together effectively, so someone

being picked up in an ambulance, patient details will be available

to the paramedics, saving the time of a lot of my medical colleagues

and also it will mean that patients are treated in a more timely and

effective manner, particularly in emergencies. Looking at the Labour

record and NHS IT projects, it has not been amazing and does not

inspire confidence. My first reaction would be, I would not take

the risk? Of course we want the NHS to innovate, but we need to make

difficult choices about priorities, especially given how tight budgets

are. The Care Quality Commission said that there were 17 hospitals

with unsafe staffing levels, so I am sure viewers would think that

would be a priority. Isn't that more of an issue for patients,

rather than trying to make it paperless? As a doctor, I know

paperless records will make it better for patient care. I will

have more time to spend with patients rather than chasing around

the hospital corridors where the paper records are in different

apartments or phoning up the GP, I will have them in front of me and

it will save a lot of time and I can affect patients more

effectively and quickly, especially in an emergency. On staffing, it

has always been the case that some hospitals are managed very well,

the vast majority are managed exceptionally well and have very

high quality staff, and the right number. But the CQC flag up that

there are problems and concerns in 17 hospitals. Those hospitals need

to to be flagged up, the directors of those hospitals need to make

sure that patient care is achieved. Surely Labour supports the idea of

saving money in terms of what you might call back of his style

operations? It could save �4.4 billion. -- back office style

operations? This Government is spending billions on an unwanted,

indeed, a reorganisation of the NHS from the top down that was

explicitly denied before the election. If you want real savings,

surely the priority is not spending billions on an unwanted

organisation, it is ensuring safe levels of staffing. There are 7000

less nurses today than in 20th May 10. We should consider how the NHS

can innovate and be strengthened for the future, but the priority

must be safe staffing in the NHS and making sure that patients are

getting the care that they need. it much more widespread than you

said? The CQC have five to problems of local hospitals in the past. The

Labour government made it a requirement that you must use a

Freedom of Information request to get information, we want to see

more transparency in the NHS. At a local level, where we are seeing

Chief Executives not prioritising frontline care, it is right we

should expose those hospitals and pressure should be brought to bear.

This IT project is about to delivering savings to the NHS. It

is �4 billion of savings. A big challenge was set under the

previous government, just to continue to deliver the same high

quality of patient care, we need to make savings and put that into the

front line. It will save �1.5 billion a year, these IT savings

will save �4 billion and allow doctors to spend more time with

patients. Let me ask you about something broadcast in the news

this morning, traces of horsemeat found in value beefburgers. Tesco

was named. What is your reaction? It was very concerning foreign

number of reasons. It is also the fact that there is potentially pork

found in beefburgers, and we know people for religious reasons may

not wish to eat pork. That was another concern. We know as we

understand at the moment there are no soap... No public safety

concerns, but the Food Standards Agency are investigating and we

must make sure that they investigate quickly. It is

important that consumers can make an informed choice, that is what we

all want to do, particularly for groups affected. Why did it take

the Irish to discover this? Why didn't the British Food Standards

Authority identified that this was a problem in the supply chain,

ending up in stores like Tesco and ASDA in the United Kingdom? Serious

questions must be asked of the Food Standards Authority.

If you have been an underground bunkers and Christmas you may not

know that the Prime Minister is about to make a key, key, key

speech about our relationship with our European cousins across la

Manche. Ahead of his speech on Friday you may not be surprised to

learn that the Prime Minister has been lobbied by every Conservative

Tom, Dick and Harry about what to say. The Deputy Prime Minister has

stuck his oar in. Let's go to Captain JoCo, who can preview.

Here is David Cameron's battle plan. Tomorrow evening the Prime Minister

will drop quietly into Holland as Operation Common Market Garden gets

under way. Then Addo 900 hours on Friday morning the action begins. -

- then acts 0900 hours. David Cameron's trips include the Fresh

Start group of MPs, who are in no mood to take prisoners, demanding a

complete repatriation of social and employment law, an opt-out from all

existing policing and criminal justice measures, an emergency

brake on any new regulation of financial services and changes to

the EU agricultural, fishing and regional policies. Ken Clarke has

described David Cameron's raid on the EU as a gamble. Can the Prime

Minister link-up with friendly forces and deliver a tactical

withdrawal from Europe in these areas, or is the plan overly

ambitious? Let's go to the Central lobby in

Parliament, where -- where the chair of the conservative Fresh

Start group Andrea Leadsom joins us. Good morning. Let me ask you this,

you're not calling for Britain to withdraw from the EU? Correct, we

think Britain should be in the EU, but we want a better settlement for

Britain. You have outlined a number of areas where you want power was

repatriated. Have you spoken to any of your political counterparts in

the other 26 member states about how they may react to these

demands? Yes, we've had a number of conversations over many months.

What not many people in this country ever see reported is people

like the Dutch Prime Minister is already talking about doing a

balance of competencies review in the Netherlands to look at areas

where perhaps the EU is doing stuff it should not, and where it should

perhaps be repatriated to member states. I don't think we are alone

by any means. Are you saying the Dutch want the complete

repatriation of all social and employment law, a complete opt out

of existing policing and criminal justice measures? Are you claiming

that is the Dutch position? No. But the Fresh Start manifesto is a

culmination of 18 months of research into 11 EU policy headings.

We are trying to set out what would be a significant renegotiation from

Britain's point of view, but what could also get some support from

other EU member states who also have problems with the particular

areas highlighted. We have limited our calls to five treaty

negotiations, but another raft of reforms that could be achieved

within existing treaties. This is a huge piece of research we are

giving to the Prime Minister and other thinkers in this area which

has a contribution to the debate about what sort of renegotiation we

want. And I am sure he is very grateful! You have admitted it

would require a number of treaty changes, some quite substantial.

That requires the unanimous support of the other 26 countries, so it

would only take one to say no, we are not going down this road, and

you are stymied? Yes, but the status quo is not an option. The

eurozone has to move down the path of ever greater fiscal union

because of the financial crisis. They have set themselves off on

that journey. Britain as a non-Euro member, along with other non-Euro

members, has to articulate what sort of relationship we wanted

going forward with the EU. This is a contribution to that. What are

you prepared to trade at to get you demand? What will you give? Britain

is a major EU contributor, one of the big three contributors to the

Budget. We have lead in a number of areas, particularly in moves

towards... What will you give in negotiations? The eurozone needs to

move be -- moves towards fiscal union. As and when there is another

treaty, which Barroso says is soon and other politicians say they will

avoid, if another treaty negotiation happens, the eurozone

will be looking to Britain to support their need, which we do

support, for greater fiscal union. Bad at the same time Britain should

look for what will work better as a new settlement for British people.

Supposing British Government goes to Europe and tries to meet your

agenda and repatriate most of what you have in this document and comes

back and says, actually, they are not interested, they don't want to

give us anything, it is the status quo or nothing, what would your

attitude be? I I don't accept the premise. Why would they say that?

Indulge me, what would you do? not really inclined to indulge you.

You are suggesting they would say get lost, we are happy for Britain

to leave the EU. They would not discuss anything. Would you be up

for leaving if you can't get this agenda? I don't believe it would

come to that. But if it did? think it is extremely unhelpful to

talk about leaving. Precisely what Nick Clegg said this week, the Big

Chill. We are in a position now where the Conservative Party is

very united behind the need for reform, we don't want to leave the

European Union, it would be a disaster for the British economy so

we don't want to go there. Discussing it when there is no need,

I don't think that is helpful. will leave it there.

Let's come back into the studio. Dan Poulter, David Cameron once

warned Conservative MPs to stop banging on about Europe, these are

his exact words. How is that going? At the moment we have a situation

where we have a party that is broadly of a mind that we believe

that our interests are best served being in Europe. There are lots of

benefits we have. We need to be part of the trading bloc in Europe.

Do you support all these things that she wants to repatriate?

not looked into it in great detail. Social and employment law, existing

police and criminal justice measures, any new legislation

affecting financial services. are legitimate concerns. On

employment law I have seen in the NHS the previous government signed

up to the European Working Time Directive, which has badly affected

the continuity of care. So there are things, and the Prime Minister

has made clear, that we want to renegotiate with Europe. The Prime

Minister will set that out very clearly. He has been telling us for

weeks, six weeks, it feels like six months. Do you support the Fresh

I fully support the fact we need to look at what powers are in Europe

and which powers... That's your Government's policy. I am asking if

you support the powers that Fresh Start have said they want

repatriated? There are some things they have outlined and I have given

you an example of the European work time directive where there are

concerns that we have expressed as a Government - we have expressed. I

haven't seen the full list and in detail but there are clearly issues

that have been raised by that group. It's been in the papers for days,

what have you been doing? I do read the papers, but until it was

outlined properly, I have have to analyse it, as you will later on.

have read it. Look into detail at what they've said and we will take

a judgment. But the point is that there are things within that group

have outlined which the Prime Minister has highlighted, this

Government has highlighted. We fully agree... I understand that.

How often do your constituents raise the common fisheries policy?

I have had letters about the fisheries policy. How often? I am

not a coastal constituency so I haven't had in the past very many

representations about that. Would you tell us one other country of

the remaining 26 members of the European Union that supports the

British approach? We just heard from Andrea that in other countries

in the European Union, the Dutch, for example, agree that there are

powers that need to be repatriated. They don't agree with the full list

of Fresh Start. Mr Rutt, I think his name is, isn't even going, we

understand, to listen to Mr Cameron, even though he will be in the

Netherlands. It's clear there are a number of countries in Europe that

have concerns that too many powers have been centralised, that there's

been too much centralisation of powers too fast and too quickly and

that's not in the interest, not just of Britain but other nation

states. Name me one other than the Dutch? We said Holland. Another?

Other countries that have raised concerns. Almost every country...

Name one! Every country in Europe has politicians who have raised

concerns absolutely about the fact that there are - that Europe has

had too many centralised powers and that we need to - all countries

realise that there is a legitimate debate about having more powers in

the British national centre back... You just can't tell me one. Douglas

Alexander, if you don't want a referendum on Europe, you should

vote Labour? You should vote Labour for a number of reasons. On that

issue? Well, we will set out our manifesto in due course but we are

clear and we stand along with senior business leaders actually on

this point with Michael Heseltine, and Nick Clegg and others in saying

to commit now to an in-out referendum is not just bad for

British investment, creating economic uncertainty but bad for

influence within Europe. Change is coming to Europe, on that there is

common ground between Andrea and myself. Will Labour rule out a

referendum at the next election? Well, we do not believe now is the

time to commit to an in-out referendum. Are you saying there is

any circumstances in the future? He is announcing as we anticipate,

depending on whether the speech is delivered on Friday, that he will

commit to an in-out referendum we expect around 2018. Will you commit

to a referendum at the next election? We are saying what Ed

Miliband said on Sunday, we do not believe now is the time to commit

to an in-out referendum in 2018 or beyond. You rule out a referendum

for the foreseeable future? We are clear that in the present

circumstances we do in the believe that a referendum is justified.

What about another kind of referendum? Is Labour in favour of

repatriating any powers. In terms of other referendums, it's the law

of the the land and reaccept that, if there is any significant

transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels under the

referendum act there will be a referendum. You won't repeal that

legislation. We will see how the legislation operates. We have given

no commitment to repeal that legislation. If there is a new

treaty which involves a substantial movement of power from London to

Brussels, you will have a referendum? Well, the Government of

the day would have a referendum, yes. Not if you repeal the law.

have not given a commitment. That's different from saying you won't

repeal the law. We will look at how that legislation operates in

practice, that's what we said when the legislation passed. If you are

asking me to commit to repeal the legislation... The only way you can

see the legislation in operation is by having a referendum. You can see

how it affects Britain's capacity to answer some of the questions you

were asking Andrea. Are we in a position where we can have a

genuine negotiation with other European partners about how Europe

changes? My real concern is that notwithstanding the reasonableness

of how Andrea presents the case, there is still still an unbridgable

gap between what the Conservative Party will insist upon and what

other European leaders can concede. What powers would Labour

repatriate? In relation to state aids, for example, in relation to

regional policies there are grounds to look at whether those powers

better held within individual states. In the last Government we

made the case in relation to regional policy there was a case

for powers coming back to the United Kingdom and in that sense we

will take a pragmatic view. We are not saying no to any powers coming

back from Brussels. We are saying if you set this up... It's not a

big issue, is it? If you set it up as an agenda for what we can take

back from Brussels you are left with a question that you posed,

which is what if other nations say no? If you have a broad agenda of

reform rather than a narrow agenda of repatriation you are more likely

to get an outcome that works for Britain and is accepted. Is no

repatriation and no referendum. have given you an example, regional

policy and state aids. That would be part of a general agreement.

any reckoning, even David Cameron would accept this there are broader

changes coming to Europe. repatriation initiative and no

referendum. I have given you two examples of where we said that we

would be willing and indeed support powers coming back. It's not true

to say no repatriation. I am still not clear on that, but that's

probably just me. Only a few more days to go until the great speech!

The pain will be over, temporarily. Now, Prime Ministers questions is

often described as a lottery for Mr Cameron and Miliband, each man's

political future balancing on the turn of a question. Apparently

that's not enough of a gamble for some. A well-known book-maker is

placing bets on today's questions questions. Being the BBC, we take

our values seriously, but we are not going to tell you which bookie,

but I can tell you that we have someone called Paddy in the studio.

Other book-makers are available. What are you doing? Taking bets the

number of times The Speaker interruts. -- interpruts. We have -

- interrupts questions. We have come up with the idea that we

reckon it will be between two or three interruptions that will

happen today in PMQs. It might make watching questions more interesting.

Right. A huge talking point most weeks in this studio, John Bercow

interventions. How are you going to define an intervention? Obviously,

it's not easy, he has to stop proceedings to be considered an

intervention. So a significant stop and if he is watching this he might

want to have a bet himself and he can affect the outcome of that.

will be watching closely. Not wanting - - do you think this is

treuflising parliament? It makes it more engaging for people who want

to watch and it's what people are talking about and speculating. Some

people think he likes the sound of his own voice too much. This is a

chance for people to put their money where their mouth is. What do

you think of the idea? I am afraid I can say I have never placed a bet

in my life. Could this be the first time? I wouldn't know thousand fill

in a betting slip if I walked into a bookies. I am sure we could find

someone to help you. What about you, Dan Dan Poulter? I am not a betting

man either. I am a great man of John Bercow but I would be going

for three or more. Exactly how many times do you think? Two sounds

fairly modest. How many times do you go for? Three. That's quite a

lot. He always does one because he likes the sound of his own voice.

Sour sin sale -- you are so cynical, Andrew. What are you going for? I

think he only does one. One, three and more than three. He can't

interrupt more than three times! We will be speaking to you later.

It's hard to know what to trust these days. HMV gift vouchers that

won't buy you a Lembit Opik DVD. Beefburgers that may have more than

a passing acquaintance with the winner of the 2.30 at Doncaster.

It's good to know there's always something you can that rely on. Yes

you have guessed it, the Daily Politics mug, crafted lovingly by

little BBC elves and fired in the kiln of free-flowing political

discourse. It's free from ekwaeupb -- equine DNA, I am told. It can be

euros if you can answer just -- it can be yours if you can answer one

question. You would be a horse's derriere to miss. It. -- to miss it.

Let's see if you can remember when # I don't feel like dancing

# My heart could take a chance #. Storming to victory in Labour's

heartlands, there's hardly any seat in the country that will be safe

and Gordon Brown must be quaking in # Does that make me crazy

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug you can send

your answer to our special e-mail address. You can see the full terms

and conditions on our website. It's coming up to midday. There's Big

Ben behind me. It's a cold winter's day here but quite bright. Prime

Ministers questions are on the way and Nick Robinson is here. We have

been talking about Europe. Think we are going to hear more about it in

and in a way it's dominated this week and it's worth pausing to

think how cure curious this is. We are debating, and I think they will

debate in a few minutes, a speech that's yet to be delivered about a

decision that will be taken for an election that hasn't yet been

called, about a treaty change that may not happen, because other

European countries may not agree to it, about a negotiation that hasn't

been started that Britain might not succeed in and what might then

happen in that referendum. It is a pretty curious position we have

ourselves into. It seems all parties have a problem on this. The

Tories have the biggest problem, of course, because of the danger of

disappointing one faction or another. That's why David Cameron

for so long said he wouldn't talk about this subject at all. William

Hague refers to the issue of Europe as a ticking timebomb underneath

the Conservative Party. But forgive me, I was watching Douglas

Alexander, too. The Labour Party don't want to tell you whether they

will have a referendum or not, whether they're ruling it out or in.

They want to essentially watch the Government's difficultying and say

-- difficulties, and say, on you go, why don't you make a mess of it and

we will tell you what we will do in a couple of years. Given there is

not a majority in the Commons for a big repatriation strategy because

Lib and the Lib Dems won't vote against it why does Mr Cameron not

just wait until the election manifesto? Why does he have to lay

out a stall now? Why doesn't he say I am with you, chaps and lasses, I

am on your side on the Tory Party in this but we haven't got a

majority. Let's get it right in the manifesto? One word answer - trust.

Three-word, lack of trust. His party doesn't trust him because the

fact he posed as a eurosceptic and - remember that row about who the

Tories sat with in Europe in parliament, because he said let's

have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and said actually I didn't

mean now have a referendum on the treaty. The truth is his own party

don't trust him on it. So there would be a strategy that any Prime

Minister would want to follow, which is we are not sure how things

are going to change, we are sure they are, we will get back to you

in a while. Is that all right? The reason he can't do that, the reason

he has to give a speech is because at his back are backbenchers saying,

we need to know and if you don't give us something we want, we will

put our own motion down in the House of Commons and will force it.

His His activists are saying, do you know how many of my friends

have joined the UK Independence Party? He has twin pressures and

his attempt will be to say OK, here is a rationale picture of what the

next five years might look like but if he listened to John Major or

Margaret Thatcher he might remind himself that it's quite hard to do

that, to draw a line in the sand on this issue. All my sources tell me

he is not going to give them enough red meat, that he will end up not

satisfying anybody. He won't satisfy the remaining pro-Europeans

in the Tory Party, because he has raised the issue, they don't want

it raised at all and he won't go down the repatriation road that

others... I think that group was effectively set up to put the

Cameron and Hague strategy... think that's the moderate strategy?

They're saying is you create space for us. So the things that I think

David Cameron thinks could be and I emphasise could be achievable, is

for Britain to say, we will not be part of judicial co-operation, we

will get back things like the Working Time Directive, and we will

have some protections which even a a Labour Government would fight for

if they were there for the City of London and the financial services.

Now, issue, question, - would that ever be enough? Answer for some of

course, because there is a great spectrum between people who want

some protections, and those who have had enough of it and want to

get out. The big change since I first started reporting on this, it

was the first story I really did as a young producer at the BBC 25

years ago, is the split in the Tory Party, it's no longer between pro-

Europeans and eurosceptics, it's between eurosceptics and those who

want out and those figures who regard themselves as public pro-

Europeans, the older generation. he undervails -- veils the stall

and it goes quiet for two years. We have had our say. Let's hear what

Can I pay tribute to suburb Richard Walker. But it is clear to see from

the tributes paid that he was an outstanding soldier and hugely

respected, and our deepest sympathies are with his family and

friends at this difficult time. I would also like to mention a

helicopter crash in Central London this morning. The whole house wish

to join me in thanking the emergency services for their rapid

and professional response to this situation. This morning I had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in

addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings

today. For too long many women and

especially hard-working stay-at- home mums have been penalised by

the country's pension system for having interruptions to their

National Insurance contributions. After 13 years when the previous

government did nothing to redress first, does the Prime Minister

think that the announcement this week of a single tear pension will

find a league deal with this grave injustice? -- will finally deal

with? I think the single deer pension is excellent. I think it

will have all-party support, because it holds out the prospects

in 2017 of having a basic state pension of over �140 rather than

�107, taking millions of people out of the means test, giving them

dignity in retirement and particularly, as he said, helping

low-paid people, self employed people and, above all, women who

have not been able to have a full state pension in the past, to have

one. It is an excellent reform. Mr Speaker, can I join the Prime

Minister in paying tribute to Sapper Richard Reginald Walker,

attached to 21 Engineer Regiment. He showed the utmost courage and

bravery. I also joined him in passing on condolences to the

families of those who lost their lives in a helicopter crash in

London, and paying tribute to the emergency services. When the Prime

Minister first became leader of the Conservatives, he said their

biggest problem was spending too much time banging on about Europe.

Busy but those days are over? LAUGHTER. -- is he glad those days

are over? LAUGHTER. I think even the leader of the

Labour Party should accept a massive change taking place in

Europe. A change driven by the changes in the eurozone. Frankly,

this country faces a choice and political parties in this country

face a choice, do we look at these changes and see what we can do to

maximise Britain's national interest, and do we consult the

public about that, or do we sit back, do nothing and tell the

public to go hang? I know where I am this party stand, in the

national interest of this country. I should congratulate him on having

decided on the date of his speech. Well done. Another example of the

Rolls Royce operation of Number Ten Downing Street. Now, Mr Speaker, in

advance of his speech, what is his answer to this question, which

investors need to know? Will Britain be in the European Union in

five years' time? On important decisions, can I firstly

congratulate him on his important decision this week, to keep the

Shadow Chancellor in place until 2015. Rarely do we see so much

cross-party support. My view is that Britain is better off in the

European Union, but I think it is right for us to use... It is right

for us to see the changes taking place in Europe and make sure we

are arguing for the changes Britain needs, so therefore we had a better

relationship between Britain and Europe, a better organised European

Union and the full-hearted consent of the British people. Those are

our choices, what are his? Maybe we are making progress. In October

2011, I am sure you will remember, he and I walked shoulder to

shoulder through the lobby against the 81 members of his party who

voted for and in/out referendum. You might call it two parties

working together in the national interest, Mr Speaker! The Foreign

Secretary said at the time, I think he was on his way to Australia to

get as far away as possible from the Prime Minister's speech, he

said, the reason for our boat was that an in/out referendum would

create additional economic uncertainty at a difficult economic

time. Was he right? He was entirely right. It is interesting that the

leader of the opposition only wants to talk about process, because he

dare not debate the substance. I don't think it would be right for

Britain to have an in/out referendum today, because I think

we would be given the British people a false choice. -- would be

giving the British people. Millions, myself included, want Britain to

stay within the European Union but believe there are chances to

negotiate a better deal. Countries are looking at forthcoming treaty

change and thinking, what can I do to maximise my national interest?

That is what the Germans and the Spanish will do, that is what the

British should do. Let's get to the substance and give up the feeble

First of all, Mr Speaker, I thought the jokes were pretty good. But I

am talking about the substance. His position appears to be this, and

in/out referendum now would be destabilising, but promising one-

in-five years' time is just fine for the country. -- but promising

one in five years' time. That is five years of businesses seeing a

closed for business sign hanging around Britain. What did Lord

Heseltine say? He said, to commit... Dear Lord Heseltine, one mainstream

conservative voice, to commit to a referendum about a negotiation that

has not begun, and a timescale you can't predict, on an outcome that

is unknown, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble. Isn't he right?

It is no secret that there are disagreements between myself and

Michael Heseltine when it comes to Europe. I have a huge amount of

time for Michael, he was one of the leading voices for Britain joining

the single currency, and I am delighted we have been joined, and

we should not, and under my prime ministership we never will. -- I am

delighted we have not joined. What business wants in Europe is what I

want, to be part of Europe but a more flexible and competitive

Europe, a Europe that can take on the challenge of the global race

and the rise of nations in the south and east. I put it to him

again, when there is change taking place in Europe, when the single

currency is driving change, isn't it in the British national interest

to argue for changes that will make the European Union more competitive

and flexible, that will strengthen and sort out the British

relationship between Britain and the European Union, then to ask the

British people for their consent? That is our approach. Apart from

coming out with what he considers very amusing jokes, what is his

approach? The biggest change we need in Europe is to move from

austerity to growth and jobs. And he has absolutely nothing to say

about that. And here is the reality, the reason he is changing his mind

is nothing to do with the national interest, it is because he has lost

control of his party. And the problem is this, he thinks his

problems on Europe will end on Friday. They are just beginning.

They are just beginning. Can he confirm that he has now given the

green light to Conservative cabinet ministers to campaign on different

positions on whether they are for or against being in the European

Union? He tries to make the point that Europe should somehow be

moving off the policy of deficit reduction, he is completely

isolated in Europe. There is not one single government, not even

socialists in Europe, who believe you should be pushing up borrowing

and borrowing more. That is the simple truth. What is in Britain's

interest is to seek a fresh settlement in Europe that is more

flexible and competitive, that is in our interest and that is what we

will seek. I must ask him, doesn't he understands -- understand that

what has happened over the last decade, where a Labour government

signed treaty after treaty, gave away power after power, saw more

centralisation after more centralisation had never consulted

the British people is what has made this problem so big in the first

place? The Prime Minister did not answer the question about whether

he gave the green light to his Conservative colleagues in Cabinet,

for some of them to concern being in the European Union and some of

them getting out of the European Union. -- for some of them to

campaign about being in the European Union. When there are 1

million young people out of work and businesses are going to the

wall, he spends six months creating a speech to create five years of

uncertainty for Britain. When it comes to Europe, it is the same old

Tories, a divided party and a weak Prime Minister.

He has absolutely nothing to say about the important issue of

Britain's relationship with Europe. What is his view? Order, order. The

response from the Prime Minister must be heard, and it will be.

There will be a very simple choice at the next election. If you want

to stay out of the single currency, you vote Conservative, if you want

to join it, you boots Labour. If you want to take power back from

Britain, you vote Conservative, if you want to give power to Brussels,

you vote Labour. That is the truth. He wants absolutely no change in

the relationship between Britain and Europe and he does not believe

the British people should be given a choice. Mark Causey!

The Prime Minister has very rightly focus the Government on growth and

the development of new housing plays a key part in providing that

growth, as well as providing much- needed new homes. In my

constituency we have two developments of the combined size

of 8000 new homes. Will the Prime Minister joined meet in praising

the Council's attitude towards new development? He might come to rugby

to see how we are going about it. would be delighted to visit him in

Rugby. He is right in saying we need to build more houses, because

right now, unless you have help from your parents, the average age

of a first-time buyer is in their 30s. We need to build more homes to

make sure we can allow people to achieve the dream that so many

people have done, getting on the housing ladder. David Lammy.

2010 the Prime Minister and his party said it was, I quote, lying

and scaremongering to suggest that they would reduce family tax

credits for families earning less than 31,000. We found out last week

that the threshold will in fact be �26,000. Will he now apologised to

families that he has failed to protect.

This Government has had to make difficult decisions on public

spending and welfare. But throughout that we have protected

those on the lowest incomes and Major, particularly with the child

tax credit, that we have increased it. That is what we have done with

child tax credits, it is a record we should support.

The residents of Thanet both enjoyed burgers but also love

horses. This morning they will be shocked to hear that they might

have been eating horsemeat. I wonder whether the Prime Minister

can reassure us that he and the Government is doing enough to

reassure the diners of Thanet? honourable lady raises a very

important issue. It is an extremely serious issue. People in our

country would have been very concerned to read this morning that

when they thought they were buying beefburgers they were buying

something that had horsemeat in it, that is extremely disturbing news.

I've asked the Food Standards Agency to conduct an urgent

investigation. They have made clear there is no risk to public safety

because there is no food safety was, but this is a completely

unacceptable state of affairs. They will be meeting retailers and

processes this afternoon, working with them to investigate the supply

chain, but it is worth making the point that ultimately retailers

must be responsible for what they Could I thank the Prime Minister

and the leader of the opposition for their condolences and could I

add my condolences and sympathy to those people who died, the families

of those who have died in my constituency this morning in the

helicopter crash. Would he share with me the absolute amazing work

that was done by particularly the fire services this morning, the

firefighters who came from Clapham station were there in a short time.

Would he also recognise at some stage, not for today, but some

stage we do need to look at whether now with a changing skyline of

London we need to look much more closely at where and how and why

helicopters fly throughout our central city?

I think the honourable lady is absolutely right again to praise

the emergency services. Everyone could see from those terrifying

pictures on our screens this morning just how quickly the

emergency services responded and how brave and professional they

were in the way in which they responded. I think the point she

makes about the rules for helicopter flights and other

flights over our capital city, I am sure they will be looked at as part

of the investigations that will take place. That's not an issue for

today but tpheft plea something -- inevitably it's something to be

looked at. Last week I organised an entrepreneurship seminar for women

wanting to set up their own businesses and one of the questions

they asked was about the cost of child care. Given that this

Government has extended 15 hours of care to two-year-olds for the most

disadvantaged, quarter of a million two-year-olds and extended it to

three and four-year-olds, does it not show this Government is

supporting families and women who want to work? I think my honourable

friend makes an important point. We have seen over the last couple of

years one of the fastest rates of new business creation in our

history. But we do need to encourage particularly female

entrepreneurship, if we had the same rate as other countries we

could help wipe out unemployment altogether. We do help families as

she said, in terms of two, three and four-year-olds with childcare.

We also help through the tax credit system, but as the House will know,

we are looking at how we can help even further for hard-working

people that want to go out to work, that need help for childcare, to

make sure they can do the right thing for their children and

families. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When will the Prime Minister visit

a food bank? He is welcome to come to Rother hpl? -- -- Rotherham.

should welcome the work they do. It was the last Government I think

that quitely actually recognised that through giving food banks an

award. As honourable members have asked this question, and shout out

a lot about food banks, let me remind them of one simple fact -

the use of food banks went up ten- fold under the last Labour

Government. So before they try to use this as some political weapon,

they should recognise this started under their own Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The national star college in my constituency

provides well renowned care for some of our disabled youngsters

with the most profound and complex learning difficulties to enable

them to lead an independent life. Sadly, it and a few similar

colleges' future is being placed in jeopardy by a decision not to

ringfence the funding. As I am sure my right honourable friend will

wish to solve this problem, may I invite him to come to the college

to see this wonderful care for himself.

As my constituency neighbour, I am happy to discuss this issue with

him. He praises the fantastic work carried out by the college. It does

do an excellent job in improving the life chances of young people. I

know the college has concerns over the new funding system. I know that

he has contacted the Minister responsible. We are changing the

way that funding is allocated but this does not necessarily mean that

the funding will be cut. I am happy to discuss this with him but the

new funding system does allow local authorities to have more say in how

the funding is distributed but I am sure they'll want to recognise

excellent work including from this college.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the trauma facing thousands of families,

particularly in London, who live in private represented accommodation

where the housing benefit payments do not meet the rapidly increasing

rents and they are forced out of their homes, out of their boroughs

and the community suffers as a result and children's education

suffers? Does he not think it's time to regulate private sector

rents and bring in a fair rents policy in this country so that

families are not forced out of the communities where they have lived

for a very long time? I would say is he does have to

recognise that we inherited a situation in terms of housing

benefit in London that was completely out of control. Some

families were getting as much as �104,000 for one family for one

year. Even today we are still spending something like �6 billion

on housing benefit in London. I think we have to recognise that

higher levels of housing benefit and higher rents were chasing each

other up in a spiral. I don't support the idea of mass rent

controls because what we would see a massive decline in the private

rented sector which is what happened last time we had such

controls. We need proper regulation of housing benefit and making sure

we have a competitive system for private sector renting and also

making sure we build more flats and houses. The deficit has to be

brought down, but if tax credits and benefits are capped now for the

next three years at 1%, people on low incomes will be vulnerable to

increases in food and energy prices. If prices go up by more than

expected what contingency plans does the Government have for

benefits and tax credits? The most important thing is to make sure

people are getting a good deal in terms of energy prices. That's why

we are going to be ledge lating to make -- legislating to make

companies put people on the lowest available tariffs, that's something

on this side of the House we are doing that will help all families.

As a diabetic, can I welcome the fact that last year the Prime

Minister lit up Number 10 for the first time on World Dine Day. One -

- Diabetes Day. One third of all school leavers, are either obese or

overweight, yet they consume cans of coke and Pepsi that contain up

to eight teaspoons of sugar. What steps is the Prime Minister

proposing to take to engage manufacturers in a war against

sugar? If we don't act now, the next generation will be overwhelmed

by a diabetes epidemic. I think the gentleman is absolutely right to

raise this issue. It's one of the biggest health challenges that we

face in our country, a public health challenge that we face. He

is right to highlight the problem of accessive eating of sugar.

That's why we challenged business through our responsibility deal to

try and reduce levels of sugar and that has had some effect. What we

have in place now is a diabetes action plan which is about how we

improve early diagnosis, how we better spwe care and -- integrate

care and provide better support. It's one of of those challenges not

just for the health service, it's a challenge for local authorities,

schools and for parents, as well. As someone trying to bring up three

children without excessive amounts of coca-cola, I know exactly how

big the challenge is. 20 years ago this week Claire Tiltman, a 16-

year-old girls school pupil was stabbed to death in my constituency.

Nobody has ever been convicted of this crime. Both of her parents

subs subsequently died never knowing who had actually taken

their only child from them. Mr Speaker, could the Prime Minister

assure the House that this government will continue to provide

full assistance to Kent Police to help bring justice for one of

Britain's most brutal and unsolved murders? He is absolutely right to

raise this case. It is a particularly tragic case because as

he says, the parents of this girl have both died. What Wye say is of

course we will do everything we can but above all, it's for other

people, anyone who knows anything about this case to talk to the Kent

Police because in the end it is their responsibility to try and

solve this case. In terms of taking action to deal with appalling knife

crimes like this one, as he knows the Government has taken a set of

important actions. 39 people suspected of serious child sex

offences who fled the country have been brought back quickly to

Britain under the European Arrest Warrant to face justice. Sadly,

many of these backbenchers want to scrap the European Arrest Warrant

making it easier for paedophiles to escape justice. Will he today

categorically rule that out? As the honourable gentleman knows, we have

the opportunity to work out which of the home affairs parts of the

European Union we want to opt out of and which ones we want to opt

back into. That's being rightly discussed in the Government. It's

being discussed in this House. I am sure they'll listen carefully to

his arguments. Great progress is being made in improving the rights

of park oepl owners, many of whom are are vulnerable on low incomes.

Currently they're not eligible for the green deal. Will he ask his

civil servants to investigate this mat tore make sure that assistance

with energy efficiency is available to everybody who really needs it?

I will look carefully at what my honourable friend says. This

Government has taken some steps forward in terms of the rights of

park home owners. I have some of these in my own constituency and I

know how important it is we get the balance of law right. Specifically

her point on the green deal, I will look at that because the green deal

is a very important measure to try and help people with their energy

efficiency and keep their bills down. We want that obviously to be

available to as many people as possible. Yesterday Sir Bruce Keel

the medical director of the NHS, told the Public Accounts Committee

GPs were imposing unjustified restrictions on cataract operations.

It seems the Prime Minister and his reorganisation is taking the NHS

back to the 1980s when it was - when the NHS was the sick man of

Europe. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to elderly

people who are waiting unnecessarily for their cataract

operations? First of all, can I make the point that compared with

2010-11 last year there were 400,000 extra operations in our NHS.

If you look across our NHS, there are 5,000 more doctors and 5,000

fewer administrators. We have the level of mixed sex wards right down.

The level of infections - the point I am making, I know the the party

opposite don't want to hear, the NHS is improving under this

Government because we are putting money in and they take the money

out. Many of us were inspired by the Prime Minister's speech on

political reform delivered in kaoepbs kaoepbs kaoepbs -- Milton

Keynes when we were in opposition. To make that happen, we were

promised a system of open primary selection which has already had

such a refreshing effect in the constituencies of Totnes. When does

the Prime Minister expect open primaries to be in place more

widely as promised in the coalition agreement? I do support using open

primaries. On this side of the House - sorry in this party we had

a number of open primaries. I hope that all parties can look at this

issue and debate and see how we can encourage maximum participation,

including in the selection of candidates. Let's talk about Europe

and the national interest. Millions of British women would be hit by

the post in today's Conservative Fresh Start report to opt out of

the EU law on equal pay. Will the Prime Minister rule out this opt-

out today? What this Government has done is we explained at the

beginning of Prime Ministers questions, is massively helped

women through the single tier pension. I will look carefully at

the proposal he mentioned and I will write to him. I know my right

honourable friend is aware of the extreme flooding suffered in the

West Country in November and December of last year, impacting

many homes and businesses and also sweeping away the rail link between

the West Country and London, leaving us cut off for several days.

Would he please ensure our Government will take every step

necessary to impoef the resilience -- improve the resilience of this

sraoeut afl link to -- vital hreurpbg so we -- link to we never

get cut off again? I went to see myself how badly one town had been

-- flooded. He is going to be visiting the area soon to look at

this. We are working with Network Rail to improve the resilience of

the overall network and we will do everything to make sure these

important services are maintained even when they're challenged by

floods like last year. Does the Prime Minister accept that a

statement on Europe designed to be populist runs the risk of

polarising this House, undermining key UK UK relations with America,

confusing and alienating our friends in Europe and starting a

process that sleep-walks the UK out of Europe? I think the most

dangerous thing for this country would be to bury our head in the

sand and pretend there isn't a debate about Britain's future in

Europe. The most dangerous thing for this country would be to see

the changes that are taking place in Europe because of the single

currency and stand back and say, we are going to do nothing about it.

What Britain should be doing is getting in there, fighting for the

changes that we want, so then we can ask for the consent of the

British people to settle this issue once and for all. Can the Prime

Minister tell the House what the Government is doing to keep

pensioners warm in this cold weather and will he join me in

congratulating the Suffolk Foundation for the great success of

their surviving winter campaign? What this Government has done is

first of all give the biggest increase in the basic state pension

of �5.30 a week last year. We have kept the winter fuel payments, we

kept the cold weather payments at the higher level and we are

replacing the Warm Front Scheme with the energy company obligation

and while the Warm Front Scheme helps something like 80,000 houses

a year, the eco could help up to 230,000 houses a year. So that is

what we are doing. That's how we are helping old people and it's a

record we should be proud of. Prime Minister should know that the

ONS have recently released figures which show there were 24,000 extra

cold weather deaths over the winter of 2011-12. The majority of those

who perished were over the age of 75. Mr Speaker, can I ask the Prime

Minister if he thinks his Government should do more to help

the elderly and vulnerable and less to help millionaires with tax cuts?

As I just said, we are doing more to help the elderly and the

vulnerable. A record increase in the basic state pension. Bigger

than what the party opposite would have done with their rules. Keeping

the cold weather payments at the higher level that the last party

only - last Government introduced before the election. Keeping our

promise on winter fuel payments, taking all of those steps and

making sure again something never done by the party opposite, that

energy companies will have to put people on the lowest tariffs.

That's a record we can be proud of. Mr Speaker, a business in my

constituency is enduring a hideous regulatory farce, thanks to the

Health and Safety Executive and the European Union. Will my right

honourable friend remind the CBI that the British economy is very

reliant and small and medium businesses, businesses far less

able to cope with bad regulation, particularly when it's badly

administered in the UK? He is absolutely right. Businesses large

and small are complaining about the burden of regulation, not just the

pwurtd of regulation -- burden of regulation from Europe but more

generally and that's why we should be fighting in Europe for a more

flexible, more competitive Europe and a Europe where we see

regulations come off, rather than always go on. The sraouf of the

party -- view of the party opposite is sit back and do nothing and

never listen to the British people The big news is that the speaker

interrupted only once. Who said he would interrupt only once? Are a

forgotten! That would be me. How much do I get? Nothing.

In other news, a Europe dominated the frontbench exchanges, just as

they dominated the first part of our programme. PMQs now follows the

so carefully that the leader of the opposition even began with the same

question I began the programme with. He is obviously watching the show

and taking notes as he heads into the chamber. We saw a debate about

Europe that will take place over the next three years. Just get used

to it. An interesting thing that was not mentioned, there was no

question about Mali, a major intervention by one of our European

allies in which the British are providing logistical support. Al-

Qaeda will now use northern Mali as a new base to launch terrorist

attacks on Western Europe and the United States, it is said, and yet

no one in the House of Commons, the mother of parliaments, I asked a

question about it. That may be a sign of increasing parochialism in

British politics. 99% of our viewers commented on

Europe and the debate between the two leaders. John in Leeds said

that history is to date repeating itself, a Conservative PM digging a

hole for himself over Europe. David Cameron even made a non-existent

Labour policy on Europe look viable. Diane in Truro, David Cameron has

dug himself into a massive hole and is committing political suicide as

a result. The issue of Europe will be an irrelevance in a general

election, but party unity and competence is always crucial.

Peter in the Wirral, an incredibly weak performance from Cameron but

Europe is an open goal for Miliband. One viewer says that the electorate

cannot forget the way in which Labour handed over power was to the

European Union, I shed our thinking of Gordon Brown is signing the back

door and going -- going in the back door and signing the Lisbon Treaty.

Chris in Berkshire says Ed Miliband's attempt to embarrass the

Prime Minister by suggesting that Tory cabinet members would be given

the right to campaign in a referendum campaign from -- for a

withdrawal from the EU, does he not recall that is what Harold Wilson

did in 1975? Was he... Yes, he was Prime Minister in 1975, I was just

checking. They call it the hokey-cokey

referendum. In, out, shake it all about!

I know exactly where we are. Let me ask you this, Nick, is it the view

of Mr Cameron and those around 10 that Europe is a vote winner? -- Mr

Cameron and those around him. It is not an issue which resonates every

day, and this country is more Euro- sceptic than it has ever been. So

do they think for him to be, quote, banging on about it in a Euro-

sceptic way, is that a helper in the run-up to the election or not?

What do they think? Coup I think they did this beach not because

they thought it was a bold winner, but because the pressure was coming

from within and outside his party, from UKIP and others. But you could

see the strategy. In his last words, and the Prime Minister always gets

the last word, he said if you want to go into the single currency you

vote Labour. They looked amazed, because Ed Balls was the person who

told Gordon Brown under no circumstances should Britain go...

No, he just told Gordon Brown that Tony Blair was in favour! Tony --

Gordon Brown said, that was not happening! But clearly the tactic

was to say that Labour were in favour of more powers. If in favour

of getting rid of the pound. If you want to keep the pound you have to

vote for the Conservatives. They are trying to turn it around into a

vote-winner. Sometimes it is worth looking at faces in the House of

Commons. Did the Tories look like they were having a good time?

Whereas the Labour backbenchers looked like they were. I think Ed

Miliband can scarcely believe his luck. The reminder that he summed

up of a divided Conservative Party, people just hear a noise in the

Conservatives, an argument about something which does not appear to

be the priority of the day. That is so valuable foreign opposition

party. It does not mean that Labour will not face difficult questions

that they are not answering... did this morning. Perish the

thought! That has never happened before, when Douglas did not answer

the question! I suspect he does not feel any pressure to answer the

question at the moment. He will do one day, before the election, but

not now. It is clear that Mr Maher but -- Mr Miliband knew what he was

doing... Because he asked your question! We will send the invoice.

And his and your backbenchers seemed to like it. There must be

concern that Labour gets its positioning rights in a country

where all the polls show there is very little appetite for Europe.

have to recognise the legitimate concerns expressed by the British

public. Europe needs to change. But the central point, as Mix suggested,

the promise is being driven by this position not by strength but by a

weakness. I expect you'll get some good headlines out of the speech.

The suggestion you up -- will be that he will push around other

European leaders. But he is being pushed around by his own

backbenchers, which might be good for Labour but not for the country.

As Nick outlined earlier, the Prime Minister has always maintained a

pragmatic Euro-scepticism and a pragmatic year-old involvement, we

must be involved as trade in Europe is important to the country, we

must be part of Europe, but there is widespread agreement among so

Conservative Party that where we are now is not in a good position,

it is not in the British national interest. The European Working Time

Directive and the powers highlighted this morning by Andrea.

It is right that we look to bring back powers that are in the British

interest back to Britain. That is the broad consensus of the

Conservatives. I thought the most significant moment for the history

books today was when he said, Ed Miliband, will you give your

Cabinet permission to campaign on either side during the referendum?

Because going back to 1975 when Harold Wilson did that, you have

the extraordinary spectacle of two cabinet members in the Panorama

studio, Roy Jenkins on one side, Tony Benn on the other, at each

other's throats on the issue of Europe. That was 1975. By 1981, Roy

Jenkins was leading the SDP, an alternative political party, and I

think the row about Europe and the Labour Party in the mid-70s

generated the anger that produced the Social Democratic Party, which

generated the split on the centre- left which meant the Tories were in

power for 18 years. It was written last week that this European

Business has the ability to split the Tories like corn rows. Forgive

me if I'm wrong, the referendum happens in this context, as Mr

Cameron would wish it, that he gets a deal from Europe in some form

that you think amounts to a repatriation of certain powers.

Probably not his wish-list or anything like it, but something to

come back. Then the choice he plans to put before us if re-elected is

that we both for this may be a bit more semi-detached relationship

with Europe, and if we both know, we are voting to leave? We won't

know until he delivers the speech. We know he wants to renegotiate and

thinks he can do it. What is the vote on? One possibility is to say

to the British public, do you support to the new negotiated

position of the Government on Europe? If they vote yes, we know

what that means. Voting no could mean a boat to try a bit harder,

have another negotiation in the sense that the Irish referendum did

not mean they got out of Europe, the Dutch referendum, the French

referendum, these were all no votes over different treaties in recent

years. That is the ambiguity which we will see if it is resolved on

Friday. And does it mean, please try again, all, off we go? -- or

off we go? Is it true, as I have read in the papers, that Downing

Street and those around Mr Cameron ARC all his mates from Eton who are

around him? -- are all his mates? don't recognise that at all. All of

their cabinets and Mr Tenham regularly engaged. I mean what we

used to call the kitchen cabinet? It is not something I recognise.

How many did not go to Eton? I am sure you will tell me. But it

depends on who you describe as the inner circle. I always found him

very receptive to me when I was a backbench MP, from all members of

the party he is receptive. He has shown very good engagement with our

backbenchers and with ministers. I think that is the case. You up for

promotion, I can see it! -- you are up for promotion. Tell us about it.

His Chief of Staff, Ed Llewellyn, was at Eton with him. Craig Oliver

used to work at the BBC, he is not an Old Etonian, and Andrew Cooper.

There are lots of exceptions. But what angers a lot of Conservatives,

let alone people outside, is they feel they can't break into a circle

which is as much about what's anything-goes end of the Times

called it not at the Notting Hill set, but the research department

set. A group of people began in the -- began in politics working in the

research department under John Major, George Osborne and David

Cameron included. The reason they became so-called Tory modernisers

and said our generation should lead, they look at what happened to John

Major and said, never again to our party. The reason today is

significant is they will go back to their office and say, does that

feel just a bit familiar? Maastricht rebels, who were seen as

the extreme Euro-sceptics, are now the mainstream of the

Conservatives? And the mainstream of the country, in some respect.

The gamble the Prime Minister is taking is that Europe is bound to

change after the Euro crisis, that it is, therefore, perfectly

possible to negotiate a new deal and that no government - Labour,

Tory or Coalition - could drive that a new deal through Parliament

like the Maastricht treaty was, without consulting the public. The

gamble is let's get brownie points now for stating what he regards, we

know he regards this, as the completely obvious - there will be

a new deal, there will have to be a referendum. Does he get brownie

points or do the parties say, it is not enough, or it is too far, and

drag him around? There is a rather more significant, powerful and some

will say significance arrangement of chums, it is the Paisley

arrangement. We have always seen it as a conspiracy! I was not brought

up in Paisley, just for the No one wants to join! Touche! 15-

all! Writing a letter of complaint as we speak!

I really must not lower my standards!

He is best known as an advertising guru, but now Lord Saatchi says he

knows how to cure cancer and it's all by changing the law. 18 months

ago, Lord Saatchi lost his wife to a rare form of the disease. He has

put what he learnt into his Medical InOvation Bill -- Innovation Bill

which aims to prevent doctors from being held liable for clinical

negligence if they innovate during cancer treatment. Here he explains

Cancer is relentless, remorseless, merciless. Its treatment is

medieval, degrading and ineffective. There is no more distressing thing

in the whole world than a beautiful woman being reduced to a sparrow.

That's why I have introduced the Medical Innovation Bill into the

House of Lords. Will this Bill cure cancer? No, but it will encourage

the man or woman who will. The treatment regime for such cancers

are 40 years old. For the woman, the good news is hair loss. The

less good news is that the drugs mimic the disease. Nausea,

diarrhoea, vomiting, fatigue. That's before we get to the bad

news. That's that the drugs do such damage to the immune system,

allowing fatal infections to enter the body, that the woman is as

likely to die from the infections as from the cancer. Current law is

a barrier to progress in curing cancer. Under present law, any

tkaoef -- divation by a doctor will result in a verdict of guilt of

medical negligence. Fear of litigation is sa barrier to

progress in curing cancer. We don't want human beings being treated

like mice, but on the other hand, we do want bold scientific

discovery. This Bill achieves both. One man or woman with an idea will

cure cancer. That person has to be encouraged, not frightened. Only a

change in the law can solve that problem because the law is the

problem. And Lord Saatchi joins us now.

Welcome to the programme. Before I come to you, Dan Poulter, do you

tkpre with Maurice Saatchi that current law is a barrier to

progress in terms of cancer care? think we are sympathetic to the

points that Lord Saatchi has raised. Do you think it's a barrier, the

law is a barrier to progress can cancer care? One thing that was a

problem in the past was getting quick access to drugs and we

introduced as a Government the cancer drugs fund which has meant

25,000 more people are getting access to drugs but there are

concerns certainly that some medical professionals have that

sometimes when they bring forward or have new ideas about what can

improve care for patients, that sometimes they're not able to bring

that forward as quickly as they would like to do and this is

something we do need to have a look at. We are sympathetic to the ideas

and would like to engage further. I think Jeremy Hunt has already

spoken to Lord Saatchi and I know I will be keen to continue

discussions because we have to do everything we can to improve

patient care. Certainly as far as cancer treatment. Let me ask you

then, do you think it really could lead to a cure in the way that you

outlined, that by releasing doctors or giving them the freedom to be

more innovative, that it could then lead to a proper cure for cancer?

Well, I thank Dan very much for what he has just said. It sounds

surprising, doesn't it, that... sounds quite dramatic. Yes, how can

an skwrablt of parliament -- skwrablt of parliament cure cancer?

The answer is the analysis which has taken place over the course of

the last year with a great deal of consultation with medical

practitioners and academics and lots of people in Dan's department,

if the analysis is correct there is an ever present fear in the mind of

a doctor who is treating a patient, that only the well worn path of the

status quo is safe and that to deviate from the status I do, from

-- status quo, from that path is a risk to the patient, never mind the

patient, a risk to the doctors' lifelyhood and -- livelihood.

you advocating experimentation? You don't want patients to be treated

like mice, isn't that the risk? What this Bill does, and there is a

debate in the House of Lords today on the general subject of medical

innovation and the Bill will take its course and probably there will

be a second reading when the particular clauses can be debated

in detail. But those of us who have been involved in the preparation of

this Bill believe that by defining responsible innovation in law for

the first time that you will do more to discourage quackery and

reckless experimentation which puts patients' lives at risk than the

present law. Let's put that to Dan Poulter, who is a doctor, a

hospital doctor, of course, still practising. I tried to retire you

last time you were on the programme! I am going this

afternoon. Do you agree that you could actually minimise risk by

defining what being innovative is in law? That still sounds like not

a huge guarantee to being being experimented on? It's right that we

have safeguards in place so people can't - you won't have ad hoc

experimentation with medical drugs and with procedures. We do know in

some areas in medicine advances happen very quickly. But at the

same time Lord Saatchi is right, in other areas, for example,

particularly in the field of drugs, things have not been as quick as we

would like. Where we know that a drug potentially has worked and

there are clinical evidence and trials that's worked we need to

bring on stream more quickly and continue to do more quickly

medications that are effective. Douglas Alex and tkrer, do --

Alexander, do you agree? Of course you want to strike the right

balance between established protocols and innovation. Dan is a

doctor, I am a lawyer by training. My instinct is to establish on

statute a legal water-tight definition. It's a tough ask of the

legal draftsman. That being said, my own mother was a leukaemia

specialist for many years in the NHS. There recall clearly

established protocols for cancer treatment. But if we encounter

situations where there are patients who if they follow established

protocols, inevitably are not going to respond to that treatment, we

need to look, for example, at the named patient procedure in place at

the moment and see if there is further scope for innovation

because we have an interest in finding right balance between

innovation and safety. Because some patients would like to try, if

they're coming towards the end of their life, you may think I will

try anything, why not, I have not very much to lose? To take

Douglas's point, he is a lawyer and he understands that in the court of

-- course of the drafting of this Bill by senior draftsmen with

support and advice from the judiciary, that the point that the

Bill takes in law is to follow, for example, the law in relation to

abortion or law in relation to sectioning under the Mental Health

Act both of which involve activities not permitted by the

signature of one doctor alone. Two doctors are required in both those

cases, for very good reasons. In this Bill what the safeguards that

appears is a definition of a process which has to be followed in

order for the innovation to be legal. That process is very

restrictive in that the multidisciplinary teams that Dan

has put in place who deal with all cancer patients will have to

approve the innovation. I have to stop you there, thank you very much.

Because we need to move, we are getting the word from the betting.

Let's get back to our friend, Paddy. As you said yourself, before and

after, one interruption from the Speaker today. A little bit

disappointing. Probably should have been offering odds on how many

times the Prime Minister said "you are absolutely right ask that

question". To be fair, you were correct. Exactly. What are the odds

on the next election? Labour majority is favourite at 5-4. A

Conservative majority 11-4. Between the two of them is probably the

outcome. What odds on a hung parliament? Would be, I suppose,

probably around 8 or 10-1 shot. What odds by still being in Europe

by 20? There is talk about a referendum. It's 5-1 that he

actually - the Prime Minister says he has an intention of having an

in-out referendum on Friday. What odds of Dan Poulter being the next

leader of the Conservative Party? This is a difficult one because he

is here. You want to pitch this in such a way... 100-1?! We want to

offer good value but not be insulting. 80-1. What about Douglas

Alexander the next leader of the Labour Party? Well, Douglas, 12-1

shot. Better news. Who is ahead of him? Ed Miliband! How very helpful

there. I like this one, odds on the first MP to go topless in a

photoshoot? I think I - most appropriate thing to do is probably

offer 20-1 for either of your guests to do it right now. Because

we have a fine example of this, you will be pleased to know. Let's have

a look. Dan. Is that you having a flu jab? I am disturbed about the

Mail on Sunday reporter's interest in spending time in researching

this. But I am pleased it's raised awareness for the campaign. We need

to do The Guess The Year. The answer was David Cameron was - the

husky photoshoot, remember? It was 2006. Dan, press that red button.

Paul Rees in Hampshire. You won, you got 2006. That's it for today.