30/01/2013 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Are we heading for mission creep in North Africa? The Prime Minister

flies to Algeria after PMQs today. Yesterday, the government announced

that hundreds of British troops are going to the region to support the

French-led forces who are trying to drive Islamists from northern Mali.

Alex Salmond wants to pop the question. But what should the

question be? We'll be talking referendum semantics.

Shock news. The streets of Britain are not paved with gold. We'll be

asking how you deter migrants from Bulgaria and Romania.

And defeating homophobia. The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell

tells us how we should tackle the so-called Muslim patrols of East

London. Victimisation of Muslim people is wrong, so, too, is the

victimisation of gay people. It should be Islamist, I'm not sure

he pronounced it correctly? On Tuesday it both ways? -- can't you

say it both ways? All that and more coming up in the next 90 minutes of

Great British TV, and joining us for the duration are two Great

British MPs. Representing one of the ancient woodlands of England,

the Forest of Dean, it's the Immigration Minister Mark Harper.

And representing part of the ancient city of Nottingham, famed

for its links to Robin Hood and last year named transport city of

the year, Labour Treasury spokesman Chris Leslie. Welcome to you both.

What is transport city of the year? We have trams... Manchester has

trams. In it is very green unsustainable. I like Nottingham.

Some good promotion for the City of Nottingham!

Now, David Cameron is to visit Algeria later today in the wake of

the hostage crisis, and he's going to be talking about the importance

of that country in what he's called a generational struggle against al-

Qaeda in North Africa. Yesterday we learned that the UK is sending 330

military personnel to neighbouring Mali and other West African

countries to support French forces and to help train the Malian army.

Number 10 is emphasising that troops will not have a combat role,

and will be there temporarily. One MP who's warned we could be sucked

into another long-running conflict is Labour's Paul Flynn, he's with

us now. Before I come to you, Paul, Mark Harper, the Prime Minister

said there would be tens of troops, it is now hundreds? There up to 40

troops to be part of the EU training mission, a headquarters or

training role. The extra troops announced yesterday, we will look

at providing up to 200 troops to do training for the Anglophone West

African countries that are putting together a force. Again, that is a

training role. Who will protect those military personnel out there?

We have said we are looking at providing up to 200, one of the

things being worked through is the details now, there will be talks

with the deputy national security adviser and the other countries in

the region to thrash out details. It has not been confirmed that

French troops will be doing the protection? Our troops will not

have to protect our advisers? troops will be there in a training

role, my understanding is we will not be in a protection role. Should

we be there? I think so. Looking at that region, look at what happened

in Algeria. There were British and other European nationals working,

they were threatened and, sadly, some lost their lives because of

terrorists operating in part of the area where the state did not have

controlled. We were affected, whether we like it or not. Algeria

is a big economy, a big gas producer, it is important we have

proper security. Surely you don't object to the fact that Britain is

offering a support role in a region where British personnel, Brits

working in the region, could be threatened? It all sounds very

plausible and seductive, very much as in 2006. We were told our

soldiers would only be in Helmand province for a couple of years, do

some reconstruction, no shots would be fired. At that time we had lost

two thought it -- soldiers in combat, having been in Afghanistan

for five years, now it is 440. There is this continuous bloodshed

in Africa and we will be sucked into another war and the public are,

rightly, wary. We have been in two wars, 179 troops lost in Iraq to

replace one rotten government with another, and 440 troops have died

in Afghanistan and at the end we will possibly have a return to

Taliban rule. Are you saying no support staff to go there from

Britain? I think this is one war which is nothing whatsoever to do

with us. It was right to go to Sierra Leone and Kosovo as well, I

think. We can't let -- pretend we are the policemen for the world and

whisk billions of pounds and lives. Some of those conflicts have gone

on for 20 years, in the Congo and Sudan. We can't pretend we have a

responsibility and it is ludicrous to suggest that the people fighting

in Mali are Al-Qaeda. They are Nationalists with a particular

agenda. We will appear to have a victory but they will disappear

into the population and come back as terrorists. Chris Leslie, do you

agree with the worry about mission creep? You have to be clear about

what this deployment is and what its terms are. Paul has a point...

It was fairly clearly set out to... It is very easy to get into these

situations and very difficult to know what the exit would be. These

are so far non-combat training roles, that is a very good

contribution. That does not mean there is no risk involved. You have

to ask the questions about who will be safeguarding those troops, the

people involved in this. From an opposition point of view we need to

ask very searching questions of the Government. How far will your

support go? Are you saying that that's it, the numbers that have

gone out now in terms of support, Labour won't go any further?

Hearing revelations about the situation and almost a daily basis

now. I don't agree with Paul entirely, he takes a very

principled view on some of these things, historically, in relation

to other conflicts. From time to time, Major developed countries

have a responsibility to safeguard the rest of the international

community. That said, we have to be crystal clear about our role and

also have an eye on the exit. years ago I wrote to Tony Blair and

said if we going to the war in Iraq, without solving the

Israeli/Palestine problem, we will inflame Muslim opinion through the

world, and that is what we have done. But we are not doing this by

ourselves. We en masse acting as the world's policeman, this is part

of an international operation. -- we are not acting as the world's

policeman. It will be supported by the UN and the EU. It could go on

for a long time, couldn't it? is Britain playing a leadership

role with our partners. The Prime Minister's point was clear. The

idea that Britain and our personnel are safer by just abdicating

responsibility and saying it is nothing to do with us, that is a

false option. That is what it was said about Afghanistan, Gordon

Brown said that all the time, it makes the streets safe a year.

we had not gone into Afghanistan, Marjah mat. Doing nothing is a

choice you have to make. You can't just say we will pull up the

drawbridge and nothing in the rest of the world will affect us.

Afghanistan has been going back to the 13th century. Prime Minister's

love to be war leaders - Thatcher loved it, Blair loved it, so does

Cameron. I think that is unfair. Prime ministers have to take

difficult decisions about putting soldiers in harm's way and about

people who might have to lose their life. I don't think any Prime

Minister relishes committing troops to military action. We do it where

we think it is essential for the national interest. That is what

David Cameron said. None of these featured in the Strategic Defence

Review. We are in a situation where the government are being driven by

their fiscal austerity plans, that is affecting our capability.

can't predict these things, though. No, but you need a certain amount

of flexibility in our defence forces to cope with unforeseen

eventualities. Should there be a vote on our involvement in Mali at

all? The Foreign Secretary told me a fortnight ago that there would be

a debate and a vote in Parliament, and they ignored that. The Prime

Minister has been very opened, he made a statement about what

happened in Nigeria. At the moment we are doing a training role, we

will have to see how things... There is a strong feeling

throughout the Commons that this is a war too far. On that note, we

will end it, thank you. The people living in Scotland will get a vote

in late 2014 to decide if they want to leave the United Kingdom and

become an independent state. Sounds a simple enough proposition, but

the exact wording of the question has become a matter of political

You'd think it would be a simple matter, but as any pollster will

tell you, it's not just what you ask, it's how you ask it. The

question Alex Salmond wants to ask the Scottish electorate is, do you

agree that Scotland should be an independent country? But today the

body that regulates voting and party funding, the Electoral

Commission, has said that this question is leading. Instead it

suggests that the question should be, should Scotland be an

independent country? However, the Electoral Commission has no legal

power to enforce its ruling and in the end it will be the Scottish

Parliament, with its nationalist majority, which will have the final

say. However, the SNP Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said

that her government would have to find a very good reason to ignore

the Commission's advice. Joining us now from ICM Research,

we have an expert on how to ask a question. They ask even more than

me, every year, and probably get more answers! Welcome, Martin Boon.

Questions, I am right in thinking that how they are phrased can make

a difference to the outcome of a referendum? I think there is some

evidence suggesting that. There was a very influential piece of work

done by Lord Ashcroft at this time last year in which he tested three

versions of a potential Scottish referendum question, and there was

an eight point movements depending on which version was used. The way

that you phrase individual questions can have a material

impact on the outcome. Electoral Commission looked at the

proposed question, I think it was proposed by the Scottish

nationalists, which was, do you agree that Scotland should be

independent? They want that changed too, should Scotland be

independent? What is the significance of the difference?

think the commission should be commended on their decision. I

think there were many voices, including my own, which criticised

the original Scottish question simply because it excluded two

words, or disagree? To my mind, that made the question fail the

test of being fair and balanced. The commission have looked at

different versions of the question and have come up with a

recommendation. It seems to me to be very clear, it is a short, it

would be difficult to take a view from a technical perspective that

many people could be confused by what it is trying to get through. I

think it passes all the tests that a researcher would apply to a good

question wording. Other examples from around the world are of a

referendum in which the outcome was determined to by the manner of the

question? I'm not an expert in referendums from other countries,

you'd probably need to talk to an academic about that, but I think it

has been the case that many referendums have been criticised

for the questions used. I don't doubt, without having material

evidence, but I don't doubt that outcomes have been at least

partially influenced by a bad question framing.

Find you very much Martin. Let's go now to Edinburgh and to Annabelle

Ewing, a member of the Scottish parliament and a member of the

referendum committee of the Scottish Parliament. Welcome. Do

you accept these findings? Absolutely. We are absolutely

delighted with the findings, including on the question, should

Scotland be an independent country, yes or no? I think it could not be

more straightforward a question, we are delighted with the findings

today of the Electoral Commission. It is not the question you proposed,

but you are delighted? It is a refining of the question that we

had proposed, our initial question has been tested, the electoral

commission have refined that and we are delighted with the final

conclusion recommendation which is, should Scotland be an independent

country, yes or no? We are delighted. The commission said your

original question was leading and not neutral. I understand what they

said was that it was a fair question, it was easily understood,

and there was no evidence of any deliberate intention of partiality,

but nevertheless they felt that the question they have now recommended,

should Scotland be an independent country, yes or no, was a fair and

straightforward question. We are absolutely delighted to accept that.

Are you just putting a brave face on this? It is not the question you

wanted. I am delighted with the question, should Scotland be an

independent country, yes or no? I think it is very straightforward. I

will mention that the electoral commission recommended that there

be discussions as to what would happen in the event of a vote

either yes or no, and in the event of a "yes" vote there should be a

clear process agreed as to transition talks and so forth with

the UK government. That was a recommendation today. Another

recommendation that the SNP are very happy to accept. I think it

now begs the question, what is the We are happy to accept all the key

recommendations. We wanted a level playing field on the spending limit,

and that has been recommended by the Electoral Commission. We had

concerns about spending restraint, particularly in these difficult

economic times, but we are happy that the Electoral Commission has

recommended a level playing field in terms of spending limits. We are

happy to accept that recommendation and the other recommendations. The

question now is, will the UK government to do the same? Could

you explain to our viewers, how is it that since Alex Salmond has

launched the yester independence campaign in May, the support for

the union has gone through the roof? Well, it would depend what

pull you were looking at. Every poll. The Sunday Times poll... I

can't think of a single poll, could you name a single respectable poll

since May that has shown support for a referendum has arisen? G&T

independence movement did not -- the anti independence movement did

not achieve above 50% in that poll. We now need to put forward the

arguments for Scotland controlling her own affairs. It would be a

debate won on the arguments. We have the arguments on our side, and

I am confident that we will gain the support of the people of

Scotland in the referendum in response to the question, should

Scotland be an independent country? And on the issue of substance,

which is Scotland's position in the European Union, but any Yes vote in

a referendum, do you now accept, contrary to what your party had

been claimed until late last year, that it is by no means a foregone

conclusion that Scotland would automatically stayed in the EU?

light of the Prime Minister's announcement last week on that

issue, we have seen that the only way for Scotland to be assured of

remaining a member state of the European Union is to vote Yes in

the referendum. But that was not my question, as you well know. Your

party told us that there was no question that if Scotland went

independent, it would automatically stay in the European Union. No

debate, no problem. Do you now accept that that was not true and

that there is at the very least a major question mark over Scotland's

status, post-independence? It has always been clear that Scotland

would negotiate its terms as an independent member state of the EU

from the basis of being currently a member state. We have been part of

the European Union for 40 years. But you are not a member state.

Scotland is not a member state of the European Union.

Mr Barroso, the president, will not see you. Has he seen you yet in

Edinburgh to talk to you? Scotland is of course part of a member state.

But you want to change that! have been part of the European

Union for some 40 years. As for the president of the commission, they

have made it clear this week that they don't take a particular view

on Scotland at the moment, because no request for an opinion has been

made by the current member state government, the UK. We have made it

clear that we would be happy to make a joint approach to the

European Commission with the UK government to obtain a legal

opinion, but the UK government had refused to do that. It is a

question you should put to them. And I will, but it is also because

Mr Barroso will not see you. He and the foreign minister of Spain have

said, if you go independent and you want to be a member of the EU, get

to the back of the queue. Having worked in Brussels for many years,

I don't think that is how it would pan out. We are remember of the

European Union. But you are not a member of the European Union.

Scotland is not a member. territory of Scotland is part of

the European Union. That is because it is part of the United Kingdom,

and you want to change that. That is the reason for your referendum.

Well, it is clear in terms of what is happening south of the border

that the only certainty on this issue is for the people of Scotland

to vote yes, because otherwise, there is a danger that the

political machinations south of the border will take Scotland out of

the European Union. I think most Scots would prefer to be inside the

club rather than outside, and that is a position which will become

clearer in the months ahead. It is always good to be in the club.

Let me ask you, why doesn't the British Government go to Brussels

on Mr Barroso's invitation and establish this once and for all?

What would the legal position of Scotland B, post-independence?

think it is clear. It is clear that Scotland would not be a member

state. It would have to apply. Annabel did not want to go there

because if it applies, it would have to join the euro and it would

have to join the Schengen regime. That would mean we would have DA

border controls and immigration controls between England and

Scotland, which would be in nobody's interest. The Scots could

not negotiate. They would have to negotiate that like all member

states? It is a complicated issue. Some legal authorities say Scotland

should and would remain part of the EU without a separate negotiation.

A letter from Mr Barroso is not enough. Is it not incumbent on the

British Government to go to Brussels, raised it with the legal

authorities and get a definitive opinion? No, I think it is the

Scottish government that wants to have an independent Scotland. It is

up to them to explain what would happen. But Brussels will not talk

to them because they are not a nation state member. You are.

need to set out what they think would happen if there was a yes

vote in the referendum and the people of Scotland decided to be

independent. It is for them to answer these questions. A but

Brussels will not speak to them. will set out what we think the

benefits of Scotland being part of the UK are. She can't answer those

questions. Are you happy with the question now? Are well, they have

to accept the Electoral Commission's view. You can't be a

referee and a player in the campaign. But it is a bit of a slap

in the face for the SNP. But she was delighted.

A knowledge of history is everything, according to Mark

Harper's team at the Home Office. They have just revised the UK

citizenship test to focus on what they call Britain's greats. Nelson,

Churchill, Pippa Middleton. So can you integrate yourself into British

society by answering our own political history test? Yes, it is

time for guess the year again. Our prize is more valuable than a mere

British passport, more worthy than a work permit. And Our Price is

more patriotic. What could be more traditional than a beverage utensil

from Britain's finest institution, the BBC, filled with Britain's

finest Wood, invention, T. No matter that the Chinese claim to

have got there first. It is the drink that built an empire, and you

can be part of our great island story and so are but a thousand

years of history, one sip at a time. But only if you passed the Daily

Politics citizenship test, otherwise known as guess the year.

We will remind you how to enter in a minute, but let's see if you can

It is an insult to the unemployed to suggest that a man who doesn't

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 51 seconds

have a job is likely to break the To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail

address. You concede the full terms and conditions for guess the year

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

look at Big Ben. Our studio clock is usually wrong! Prime Minister's

Questions are on their way. The BBC's deputy political editor is

here, fresh from his starring role in the Marshall. David Cameron is

off to Africa after PMQs. First, let's take a gander at this little

number from the Taiwanese outfit, Next Media Animation.

Tory leaders are dissatisfied with David Cameron's leadership and the

drubbing the Conservative Party is taking in the polls. According to

media reports, millionaire MP Adam has sensed an opportunity and is

putting too at David Cameron. -- plotting to oust David Cameron.

A vote of no confidence would require support from 46 party

Is there an unannounced third candidate? Does anyone in Taiwan

know what that was about? They are quite obsessed. Why can we at the

BBC not afford graphics like that? Instead, it is like Blue Peter 30

years ago here. Nothing wrong with Blue Peter. I have got a Blue Peter

badge. Is there a stalking horse? will not answer that until you tell

me what you have a Blue Peter badge for? I gave an interview to Blue

Peter ones, and they gave me a badge instead of a fee. I and who

did the interview, the dog? there a stalking horse? There are

Conservative MPs who are unhappy with David Cameron. Many of them

have been unhappy with him for a long time and are thinking about

what may or may not happened after 2015. The new fact is that there is

a growing number of MPs who are beginning to think it is possible

the Conservative Party might not win the next general election. They

are coming together and thinking about what might happen after 2015,

so people are jockeying for position. If I understand that Mr

Cameron is not a good block with favours among the Tory backbenchers.

But with the referendum speech, he made them happier than they have

been for a long while. So why would anybody announce a threat to his

leadership just when he has done something they have been desperate

for him to do for ages? It seems an inopportune moment. Even the

closest supporters of the calendar would have meant that last weekend

was not the best moment for this to become public. That is what we call

British understatement. However, the argument is this. When David

Cameron ceases to be leader of the Conservative Party, they don't want

it to be an automatic Boris Sheerin. They want a potential candidate

from the back benches who is not tainted by coalition, who is not an

Old Etonian, who has a good rags- to-riches narrative. That is my

strongest pitch for what some MPs believe. But why it Adam, who has

never been in the Cabinet and is unknown in the country. Why has it

coalesced around him? We are talking a small group of people

here. A handful is the best description. I think the reason it

has come around him is because he ticks those boxes. He is not

coalition, he has a rags-to-riches narrative story. I hate to use this

phrase, but some people do - the colour of his skin, there are

references to Obama and all those I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the house

I will have further such meetings today.

Is it right that a mother in my constituency may not, because of

his Government's bedroom tax confirmed by his minister, be able

to provide for her son serving in the armed forces a whole MORI

bedroom when he returns? reforms to housing benefit we are

putting in place, and I would gladly look at the case that the

honourable lady says, but the reforms we are putting in place

have a very clear principle at their heart. There are many people

and thought -- in private rented accommodation who do not have

Housing Benefit, who cannot afford extra bedrooms, we need to get

control of housing benefit. We are spending �23 billion on housing

benefit and we have to get that under control.

Does my right honourable friend welcome today's news that

university applications for UK universities are up 3.5% this year,

their highest ever level for disadvantaged students as well?

makes a very important point about the figures released this morning.

After all of the concerns expressed about the new way of paying for

university finance reducing the number of students applying to

university, the number of 18 year- olds has gone up and it is now

level with where it was in 2011, which is higher than any year under

the last Labour government. Miliband!

In October, the Prime Minister told me that when it came to the economy,

I quote, the good news will keep coming. After last week's growth

figures it obviously has not. What is his excuse this time? A as the

right honourable gentleman nose, GDP in the third quarter of last

year went up by 0.9%, and as forecast by the Office of budget

runs -- Office of Budget Responsibility 8 fell in the 4th

quarter by 0.3%. Only Honourable Members opposite could it cheer for

that news. I think that honourable gentleman should listen to the

Governor of the Bank of England who said, our economy is recovering

more slowly than we might wish, but we are moving in the right

direction. The fall in unemployment numbers clearly backs that up.

an extraordinarily complacent answer from the Prime Minister. Let

us understand the scale of his failure on growth. They told us in

autumn 2010 mad by now the economy would have grown by over 5%. Can

the Prime Minister tell us by how much the economy has actually grown

since then? There is nothing complacent about this Government,

that is why we are cutting corporation tax, investing in

enterprise zones, a million ends up -- internships have started. -- a

million apprenticeships have started. There will be 1 million

new private sector jobs. In the last year alone, half a million

private sector jobs, the fastest rate of job creation since 1989. Do

we need to do more to get the banks lending and businesses investing?

Yes, and under this Government we will. Just for once, why doesn't he

give a straight answer to a straight question? Growth was not

5%, as he forecast, but the part- time Chancellor is about to give

him some advice, I have to say to the part-time Chancellor you should

spend more time worrying about our economy and less time worrying

about diverting high-speed rail routes away from his constituency.

We have had Flat lining... He shakes his head, but what does his

council leader say? Your MP... Ennis, you are a distinguished,

practising barrister. You wouldn't have behaved like that in the

courts, don't behave like that in this chamber. Calm yourself and be

quiet, ma'am. Mr Ed Miliband. Growth was not 5% but 0.4%, and a

Flat lining economy means that living standards are falling. His

excuse is that other countries have done worse than us, can he confirm

that since the spending review more than two years ago, out of 20 major

G20 economies, Britain has been 18th out of 20 for growth? On high-

speed rail, which goes right through the middle of the

Chancellor's constituency, we are proud of the fact that this

Government has taken the decision to invest, just as this Government

is building CrossRail, the biggest construction plan anywhere in

Europe. He asks about other European economies, the fact is if

you listen to the European Union, the OECD or the IMF, they all point

out that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major economy

in Europe this year. I have to last, what is his plan? It is a three-

point plan - more spending, more borrowing, more debt, exactly the

things that got us into this mess in the first place. We have got

used to that kind of answer from the Prime Minister. He promises a

better tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. That is the reality. He

could not deny the fact that we are 18th out of 20 countries, worse

than the USA, Canada, Germany, France. That is because of his

decisions. Last week the chief economist of the IMF said this, if

things look bad at the beginning of 2013, which they do, and he was

talking about the UK, then there should be a reassessment of fiscal

policy. After two years of no growth, can the Prime Minister tell

us whether he thinks he should do anything differently in the next

two years? First of all, I would say he should listen to the

managing director of the IMF, who said this: When I think back myself

to make 2010 when the UK deficit was a 20% - when you were in

Arthur's! - and I tried to imagine what the situation would be like

today it knows such fiscal consolidation programme had been

decided, I shiver. That is what the IMF says about the plans of the

last Labour government. He raises the issue of growth. Order. It is

not acceptable to shouts down either the Prime Minister or the

leader of the opposition, and the public have a very low opinion of

that kind of behaviour. Let's hear the questions and the answers.

Prime Minister. He raises the issue of America and American Growth, the

fact is that I our recession was longer and deeper than the

recession in America. The biggest banking bust was not an American

bank, it was a British bank. He may want to talk about tomorrow because

he does not want to talk about yesterday when the two people

responsible for the regulation of the banks and the performance of

the economy are sitting right there on the opposition benches.

Once again, a completely incomprehensible answer, Mr Speaker.

Basically, the answer you did not want to give is that it is more of

the same, more of the same. That is not working. He mentions borrowing,

he is borrowing �212 billion more than he promised. Last week he told

the country in a party political broadcast that he was, I quote,

paying down Britain's debts. But the debt is rising and he has

borrowed �7.2 billion more so far this year compared to last year.

One to just admit it is hurting but it just is not working? -- one to

just admit? If he thinks there is a problem with borrowing, why does he

want to borrow more? The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that

Labour's plans would basically adds �200 billion to Britain's borrowing.

He has made absolutely no apology for the mess they made of the

economy, his whole message to the British people is give the car keys

back to the people who crashed the car in the first place. They didn't

regulate the banks, they built up the debts, we are clearing up the

mess that he made! He is borrowing for failure, that is the reality.

And he is borrowing more for failure, that is the reality of his

record will stop here is the truth, they said they would balance the

books, they hadn't. They said there would be growth, there isn't. They

said Britain is out of the danger zone, it is not. Hasn't you run out

of excuses for the fact that, on his watch, because of his decisions,

this is the slowest recovery for 100 years? He talks about failure,

we are dealing with year after year of failure from the party opposite.

They did not regulate the banks, they built up the debts, they had a

totally unbalanced economy. What is happening under this Government is

a million private sector jobs, unemployment down, the fastest rate

of business creation in recent history, we are clearing up the

mess they made. They are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past

because they have not learned the lessons, which is why the British

public will never trust them with the economy again. Mr Andrew

Griffiths! Like the Prime Minister, I want to

see a fresh settlement in Europe. German beer drinkers pay 13 times

more duty than British drinkers, Spanish drinkers... British

drinkers pay nine times more duty than Spanish drinkers and 10 times

more than Italian drinkers. Will he take the Chancellor for a pint and

do something for British pubs and British publicans? My honourable

friend quite rightly speaks up for Burton, and I remember visiting

that great brewery with him during the last election. I am sure the

Chancellor will have listened very carefully to what he said. It is

very important we also tried to support the pub trade in our

country, and the government has plans for that as well.

Thousands of my Blackpool constituents in poorly insulated

homes fear sky-high cold-weather bills. The Government Green deal

has 7% interest charges with only five households signed up for it.

How has the Prime Minister achieve this fiasco? I hope he will welcome

the Green deal, it gives house holds the opportunity to cut bills

and costs without absolutely no upfront costs. He should be

encouraging his constituents to do that. It has only just begun. The

energy company obligation also provides the opportunity to help

insulate some 230,000 homes to be compared with 80,000 under Warm

Front. Instead of talking down these schemes, he should encourage

his constituents to take them up. Mr Adrian Sanders. Two men have

drowned in stormy seas off Torquay in separate incidents this week,

despite best efforts of brave lifeboat crews and the co-

ordination of the coastguard. How can the Prime Minister reassure

local fishermen, who pay significant amounts of duty on

taxes on their patch, that if the coastguard station is closed, the

risks they take will not increase? He makes an important point, and it

is a good moment to pay tribute to the closed garden to the incredible

work, the very difficult and dangerous work, that they do. It

has not been about reducing the number of boats are active stations,

it is about the co-ordination centres and where they are best

located. That is an important point to make. Dave Watts. Why is it the

case that the Prime Minister is frightened to go and visit a food

bag? Could it be that if he visited one he would see the heartless

Britain that he is creating? Only after there was discussing with the

person who runs the foodbank in my constituencies, which I will be

visiting very shortly. He pointed out to me it was established five

years ago and it is worth remembering that food bank used

went up 10 times under the last Labour government. I think instead

of criticising people who run third banks we should be thanking them

for the work they do. I am sure the Prime Minister will

join me in praising all those who work in the search and rescue

Service. Can I ask the Prime Minister to intervene personally in

our battle to save the Portland search-and-rescue helicopter and

ask his ministers to come down to Dorset to listen to those who work

in his life savings service before it is cut? Repeated requests have

so far been ignored and I would have four-day visit would be the

This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the search and rescue

services across the country. Hour reforms aimed to improve response

times by 20%. I am sure the ministers will listen to what he

said. Prime minister, since you came into office, unemployment in

Dumfries and Galloway has risen by over 15% and youth unemployment has

risen by 9%. My right honourable friend has made reference to your

words in respect of "good news will keep coming". Would the Prime

Minister be good enough to explain to a house and my constituents

exactly what is his definition of good news, especially in view of

the economy that shrank at the end of last year, and that that will

lead to further economic failure? If you look at Scotland, in

Scotland unemployment has fallen by 14,000 this quarter. It has fallen

by 10,000 since the general election. The number of people

employed in Scotland has gone up. We have raised the tax thresholds,

so 180,000 people in Scotland have been taken out of income tax

altogether. There is more to do, but that represents progress.

Syria, it is now clear that the Syrian people would be better off

if China and Russia had not blocked effective action authorised by the

United Nations. Can my right honourable friend say what we are

doing to try to help the people of Syria? My right honourable friend

the International Development Secretary has visited the Syrian

border and senior refugee camps for herself. I believe Britain is the

second-largest donor for aid and help into those refugee camps. He

is right to say that one of the biggest things that could happen is

for the Chinese and Russians to reconsider their positions and

recognise that transition at the top of Syria would be good for the

whole of that part of the world, and good for Russia as well. We

should work with the opposition groups in Syria to put pressure on

the regime, not least through sanctions, and also provide aid and

help for those who are fleeing it. There is a school of technology

that serves a growing population in some of the most deprived wards in

the country. It is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Will the

Prime Minister acknowledge that the real reason for the latest delay in

the proposed PFI funded scheme in my constituency and others is

because the banks, who have continued to pay themselves huge

bonuses, refused to lend the money on the 25 year term demanded by his

Education Secretary? Will he speak in plain language, may be in Latin,

to the Education Secretary? We need a new school. I will leave the

Latin to the mayor of London, but I will certainly have a word with the

Education Secretary. If you look at school capital budgets as a whole,

they are equivalent to what the previous Labour government did in

its early terms. In terms of the banks, the funding for lending

scheme from the Bank of England, the evidence shows that that is

having an effect on lowering interest rates. We are reforming

PFI, but we are also offering infrastructure guarantees, which

the Treasury has never done before, to help projects go ahead.

nothing is more important in early years education than the people

delivering it. Does the Prime Minister agree that raising the bar

and elevating their status will add prestige to the profession and give

children the best possible start in life? Are my honourable friend is

right. I pay tribute to what the Department of Education at produce

yesterday in terms of a series of proposals to expand the

availability and affordability of child care, while also making sure

there is a quality offer that. If we look across Europe and see

countries that have very good and affordable childcare, there are

lessons we can learn. To those who say that changing the ratios are

wrong, look at the ratios in countries like Denmark or France.

We are coming into line with those, and we can provide more affordable

childcare so that people who want to work are able to because they

can find the child care they need. The British government has today

accepted the proposals of the Electoral Commission in relation to

the independence referendum. Amongst those recommendations is

that the UK government and the Scottish government should jointly

agreed to clarify what process will follow the referendum for either

outcome. Given that the UK Government and Labour Party have

called for the full acceptance of the Electoral Commission

recommendations, will the Prime Minister today give a commitment to

work with the Scottish government in advance of the referendum to

come up with this joint position? welcome the fact that the SNP have

accepted what the Electoral Commission found. They were worried

that it was a biased question. So it is good that they have accepted

that. Of course we will work with the Scottish government in

providing information, but we will not pre- negotiate Scotland's exit

from the UK. It is his party that wants to break up the UK, and it is

for his party to make the case. Would my right honourable friend

confirm that the 2 million plus surge in net immigration under the

last Labour government has resulted in severe housing shortages,

critical overstretch in our infrastructure and one household in

20 who don't speak English? Would he agree with me that it is in the

interests of all British citizens that we get a grip on our borders?

My honourable friend is right. If you take up the last decade, net

migration to the UK was running at over 200,000 a year, 2 million a

cross a decade. That is the equivalent of two cities the size

of Birmingham. It was too far and too high and the last government

bears a huge responsibility for not taking responsible decisions. We

are dealing with bogus colleges and bogus students, and the level of

net migration has come down by a quarter. We need to do more in

terms of making sure that while we welcome people who want to come

here and work from within the European Union, we take a tougher

approach to make sure people are not abusing our benefit system. The

immigration minister is working on this issue. Last week, the Prime

Minister described blacklisting as an unacceptable practice. Why is he

still blacklisting food banks by refusing to have the decency to

visit food banks to listen... To actually speed? The other side may

find it funny, but thousands of families don't. Will the Prime

Minister visits a food bank to actually speak to the people who

use them? Maybe we need to modernise the system so that if you

get a whip's question, you can get it on a tablet or an iPad so that

you can change it as Question Time proceeds. I look forward to having

those discussions with the people who operate food banks and those

who use them. Use of them grew ten times under the Labour government,

and instead of attacking them, we should praise the people who give

their time to work in these organisations. After a huge

community campaign, a hospital in Kendal was identified as the site

for a new radiotherapy unit. In order to deliver this vital service,

we need flexibility over the tariff for radiotherapy factions. Would

the Prime Minister meet me to see how we can achieve this?

honourable gentleman makes an important point about the tariff

and changes to the terror. I will arrange for him to meet with the

Health Secretary to discuss this. I know from visits to Cumbria how

important the hospital he mentions is to local people. This week's

announcement on the second phase of HS2 was welcomed in Manchester and

the whole of the north of England. But if this project is really going

to make an impact on the North- South divide, wouldn't it make

sense to have won a hybrid bill, and built north to south as well as

south to north? I am glad there is an all party welcomes for high-

speed rail. It is important that we get this done. The best way of

delivering the legislation, the leader of the house will come

forward with our plans at the appropriate time. I worry that if

you change the plans for building the bridge, you delay the overall

project. My concern is that it is going too slowly. Last week, Graham

goblin was convicted in cost of dangerous driving and causing the

death of my much-respected constituent, Paul stock, while

disqualified, and insured and speeding. Mr goblin has previous

convictions for driving without insurance and while disqualified.

He said he was not subject to the laws of our land. The current

maximum sentence for this crime is two years. My constituent's widow

believes it is time for Parliament to recognise the danger caused by a

serial disqualified drivers, and to increase the maximum sentence for

dangerous driving. Would my right honourable friend asked the Justice

Secretary to look urgently at both these issues? For a right

honourable friend can tell from the response around the house that this

concern is shared widely. And at around the country. The previous

government and this Government both worked to try and increase the

penalties associated with drivers who have ended up killing people

through their recklessness and carelessness. I will arrange for

him to meet with the Justice Secretary. It is important that we

give our courts a sense that when there are appalling crimes, they

can take exemplary action. That is important in a justice system.

the subject of food safety, can the Prime Minister confirm that traces

of stalking horse have been found in the Conservative party food

Somewhere in my briefing, I had some very complicated information

about the danger of particular drugs for horses entering the food

chain. He threw me completely with that ingenious pivot! The

Conservative Party has always stood for people who want to work hard

and get on. I am glad or that all of those behind me take that

seriously. As my right honourable friend sets forth on his specific

mission to Algeria, will he, with his great historical knowledge,

bear in mind that when Philippe sent his eldest son to a Algeria in

the 1840s Mac, on a similar venture, it took a century, massive

casualties, the overthrow of the Third Republic and the genius of

General de Gaulle to get the French army back out of the North African

desert? Order! I think we want to hear the

Prime Minister's answer to this question. I can reassure my right

honourable friend, I am only planning to visit Algiers rather

than anything else, but I am sure the events to which he referred, if

he had put that in an urgent question, he would have got a

Last week, the Prime Minister said he was paying down Britain's debt,

but on his watch, it will go up by �600 billion. Will he take the

opportunity to correct the record? We have got the deficit down by a

quarter. To get on top of your debts, you have to get on top of

the deficit. That is stage one. But it is worth reminding ourselves why

we are having to do this in the first place. Who was it who racked

up the debts? Who racked up the deficit? Who gave us the biggest

deficit of any country virtually anywhere in the world? It was the

Government he supported. If the Prime Minister agrees that a

shortage of engineering skills is one of the greatest avoidable

threats to our prosperity and security and that the participation

rate of women in engineering is scandalously low, will he

encouraged his colleagues to look favourably on my bill to inspire

young people to take on the challenging and well-paid careers

in engineering, whether it is graduates or apprentices? I will

certainly look carefully at the bill that my honourable friend puts

forward. In the recent UCAS data released today, an encouraging sign

is that the number of people studying engineering and computer

science has gone up radically as an early sign that the steps that have

been taken over recent years by governments of all parties to try

and raise the status of engineering are beginning to have an effect.

His government has just introduced two new taxes which will cost

people wanting to build their own home between 25 and �35,000 per

family. Why is he choosing to put a block on the aspirations of young

people who want to build their own home? Were we are encouraging

people to build their own home and buy their own home, not least by

the reform of the planning system that has seen the planning guidance

go from 1000 pages to 50 pages. That is why we also encourage the

right to buy. If honourable member has opposite one to help, they

might want to talk to the Labour authorities that continually

blocked people from buying their council housing association homes.

Would my right honourable friend wish to congratulate and

engineering company in my constituency, who have taken

advantage of the capital allowances announced in the autumn statement

and purchased a �1.3 million machine that will create six new

jobs and a number of components for Jaguar cars that was destined for

the forest? I certainly don't my friend bhangra in welcoming that

investment. The campaign he has launched in Burnley did have an

effect in bringing forward these proposals on capital allowances. It

is clear that a lot of businesses do have money locked up in their

balance sheets that we want to see invested, and these allowances are

good way of encouraging businesses to bring forward that sort of

investment. David Bresnan is severely disabled and has a medical

need for an extra room in his home. Why is the Government he leads

taking �776 a year away from him in order to pay for a tax cut for the

richest? We put in place a �13 million discretionary fund to help

in particular cases like the one he raises. But we have an overall

situation where the housing benefit budget is �23 billion. That is only

�10 billion less than their entire defence budget. It is not good

enough for members opposite to oppose welfare cut after welfare

cut to propose welfare spend after welfare spend while they realise

that we are dealing with the mess they left. Does the Prime Minister

agree that when the leader of the opposition talks about the economy,

he sounds just like a Victorian undertaker looking forward to a

hard winter? And does he not accept that you cannot get out of a debt

crisis by borrowing more money? honourable friend makes a good

point. The economy we inherited was completely unbalanced. It was based

on housing, finance, government spending and immigration. Those

were four incredibly unstable pillars for sustained economic

growth. We have had to do a major recovery operation. It is still

under way, but you can see, in the new jobs created, in the private

sector businesses expanding, that we are making progress. George

Galloway. Following yesterday's announcement, will the Prime

Minister Adam bright for the house the key differences between the

hand chopping, throat-cutting jihadists fighting the dictatorship

in Mali that we are now to help to kill, and the equally bloodthirsty

jihadists that we are giving money, material, political and diplomatic

support to in Syria? Has the Prime Minister read Franken stein, and

did he read it to the end? Well, some things come and go, but one

thing is certain - wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the

world, he will have the support of the honourable gentleman! Order!

Last but not least, Craig Whittaker. We can definitely do without them.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he will be taking

seriously the Liberal Democrat ministers who are queueing up today

to resign their posts after voting against the Government in last

night's vote? Clearly there is a profound disagreement about this

issue. I would say to everyone in the House of Commons who voted for

a nova sized house of Commons and unequal constituency boundaries

that are both costly and unfair, they will have to justify that to

That has dominated by the usual meat and drink of the economy,

growth, the deficit and so on, between Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron.

We did not predict they would do that, we were too busy talking

about his stalking horse to the Tory leadership. The Prime Minister

was teased about that particular stalking horse. Not the most

interesting of PMQs. Harriet Harman, sitting beside the leader of the

opposition, started tweeting about a campaign she is on to try to save

a hospital. If they didn't find it boring, how did you?

They didn't say so if they did. It was all on the economy. Clare says

I don't think one single Miliband question was answered. David

Cameron might not realise but as soon as he gets on to the banging

on about Labour's thoughts, people stop listening. The Tories have

trashed the recovery, the debt and the deficit, and I know they are

rising, unlike David Cameron. One viewer said it was the

strongest performance from Ed Miliband on the economy for a while,

but another said that Miliband chose the wrong theme, his

questions were labelled and his attempt to embarrass the Chancellor

was ill-timed and badly executed. Es has lots of easy targets, the

Lib Dem ministers, the economy in triple dip recession, yet he seems

unable are finding a short, sharp punchline. If he can't do well now

he will never be any use in the job. And this one to finish off with,

love to go up -- love to James Landale, Wenders's Nick Robinson

retire?! That was from Mrs Landale! Let's come back to this stalking

horse. All this stuff has been in the paper about Adam a free day, is

he behind that or rather people behind him behind that?

understanding is that the chain of events was that it emerged somehow,

we don't know precisely how, and wants a bit of it emerged then his

camp, if I can call them that, a handful of MPs made a tactical

decision that if it was going public it might as well be fully

cocked, not half-cocked. They got some details about the approach

they might take. That is how it got out. Whether it is the right

strategy I will leave to others to judge. To be honest, I didn't take

it seriously even though it was in three Sunday papers, and yet I have

read an excellent newsletter, I am sure we all read it, he has

appointed a PR person, a press officer...? I know that one

journalist has been approached in the past to see if they can help

write some speeches and things? What we are talking about his after

2015, we are not talking about any pre-emptive strike, it is about

what will happen afterwards. He is the MP for Windsor, Wright, a self-

made businessman, he has been very successful, he entered Parliament

in 2005, he has been there for a while, but some people say he has

disappeared without trace, he has not made much impact? There are

many, many Conservative MPs who agree entirely with that, they

think the idea is ludicrous. Your microphone has gone off, I am told.

It has fallen off. Many people said he has disappeared without trace,

he has not made an impact in Parliament that he was expected to?

Most care that it -- Conservative MPs would agree, they found the

idea of him potentially being leader ludicrous, but they did not

to find a ludicrous that next time around it should be an

establishment shoo-in, there should be a candidate from the backbenches.

My guess is that there will be a very large field, next time around,

of many people, some of them more plausible than others. What do you

make of this? It is very strange. I think the Taiwanese animation we

saw is the level of seriousness that it deserves. The Prime

Minister out polls the Conservative Party, he is very popular, he is

demonstrating clear leadership on issues like defence and foreign

party, he will lead the party into the election which every

Conservative MP should be focused on winning, getting a majority

Conservative government. I am confident he will be Prime Minister

of a majority Conservative government in 2015. The famine was

making his big pitch with the European intervention last week and

you must be absolutely furious. He was putting a brave face on it

today, but his whole weekend was ringed with this potential

leadership coming out into the open. People will think this is a turning

point. It is people talking about the Prime Minister's weakness and

vulnerability. People will now think there is no smoke without

fire when it comes to division and weakness and... Are you in any

doubt, really, that Mr Cameron will lead the Conservatives into the

next election? I suspect you will, but it does him no favours to have

these much more Alban... It used to be the case that stalking horses

were few and far between, to have this so soon and out in the Open is

unprecedented. The counter conspiracy theory is that when you

are in a position of strength, you have given a big speech on Europe,

you have more command, that is the moment that you start naming people

who might be presumptuous enough to think they might replace you.

We will leave it there in case those stalking horses end up in

Tesco burgers! Allegedly. Is it just allegedly?! My legal adviser

will deal with all inquiries. In recent weeks, videos have appeared

on the internet showing people in the London borough of Tower Hamlets

being subjected to abuse and told they should get out of a Muslim

area. The actions of these so- called patrols has been widely

condemned by the local Muslim community. For our soapbox this

week, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has been out on the

streets of Whitechapel. His report begins with language that may

offend some viewers. You are walking through a Muslim

area dress like a fag, mate. You need to get out of here. The words

of a tiny band of self proclaimed Muslim vigilantes in East London.

They allegedly seek to enforce Sharia law by harassing men who

seem to be gay... This is a Muslim area. Women deemed to be dressed

immodestly and people seen drinking alcohol. No alcohol is allowed.

main victims of these bullies were local Muslims.

These so-called patrols took place in these streets, where diverse

communities, for the most part, co- exist without trouble. The

condemnation from the Muslim community has been swift and

commendable. In one sermon delivered in East London Mosque,

the vigilantes were denounced as complete bigots who had contravened

rather than enforced Islamic law. There has also been criticism from

the Muslim Council of Britain. Now the challenge to Muslim

organisations is to show their commitment to equality by closing

their draws to homophobic hate preachers and by supporting an end

to the ban on same-sex marriage. Most Muslim people do not seek to

impose their personal beliefs on others. While they may not approve

of homosexuality or gay marriage, equally, they do not approve of

homophobia, nor do they believe the law should discriminate against gay

people. For them, discrimination is not a Muslim value.

Although homophobia and Islamaphobia are different, the gay

and Muslim communities share a parallel experience of prejudice,

discrimination and hate crime. Victimisation of Muslim people is

wrong, so, too, is the victimisation of gay people. We

have a common interest in working together to create a more tolerant

and just society. Equality for all, hatred of Phnom. -- hatred of none.

Peter Tatchell joins us in the studio, along with the Faith and

Communities Minister Baroness Warsi. Is it right to say that women --

that Muslims are more commonly the victims rather than perpetrators of

harassment? Yes, and these vigilantes are predominantly

tackling fellow Muslims, we should stand against these bullies.

there any truth in the suggestion that there is a wider issue of

homophobia and, perhaps, even sexism among British Muslims?

think I must congratulate the organisations who came out and

condemned this. It is pleasing and heartening for me to see so many

organisations come out and condemn this so clearly. But what was said

at the end of Peter's video, this is an issue which both communities

have to face together. I have said on many occasions is the strength

is when a white person says racism is wrong, a straight person says

homophobia is wrong, and when a non-Muslim person says Islamaphobia

is wrong. But what about homophobia? Do you think it is a

bigger problem, perhaps, for British Muslims than in the wider

community? There is a challenge with a lots of these communities

about how we'd discuss the issue of homosexuality. -- with a lot of

these communities. Personal religious belief has to be

separated from discrimination, homophobia and the law of the land.

The more we can make that argument that of course, people of faith can

have a fake position on how they view homosexuality or

heterosexuality, they must openly condemn homophobia. What is your

anecdotal experience you have heard in terms of attitudes within the

British Muslim community towards things like when they are talking

about homophobia and sexism? Muslim community is not uniquely

homophobic or sexist, there are some in that community like all

others. Some polls indicate there may be high levels of homophobia

and sexism in some sections of the Muslim community, but not all, by a

long shot. I find disappointing that the Muslim Council of Britain

in 2008, after many years of dialogue I had with them, agreed

that from that moment onwards they would not support discriminates to

off. They could not approve of homosexuality but they would not

support laws discriminating against gay people, yet the day they are

working with Christian fundamentalists to oppose equal

civil marriage. I am really sorry that they have taken that stands. I

accept their right to disagree with gay marriage, but as Baroness Warsi

said I don't think it is right to Peter is right that many faith

communities have concerns about the position the Government is taking,

and it is right for us to have a dialogue. I have said openly that

providing we have the right safeguards in place so that no

faith institution will be forced to conduct same-sex married within

their religious institutions, they the positions or faith communities

can then move forward and say, we have a theological position, but we

have a position in terms of the law of the land. The two have to be

separated. Moving on to the gangs that were shown in those films,

what needs to be done? Firstly, the community itself has to condemn

this. I was delighted from the outset that local mosques and

community groups condemned it. They are appalling. If you watch the

YouTube clips of them, late at night, in the dark, approaching a

woman, criticising her dress, criticising alcohol, we have a

police force and a set of laws in this country. They are the same for

everybody. We do not need vigilantes on our streets behaving

in that way. It is right that the police have made arrests. They need

to be made an example of. One of the concerns from the Quilliam

Foundation think-tank, they have said they fear that these incidents

could increase. Do you agree? don't think these incidents are

isolated. I have had reports over many years that in parts of east

London, local Muslims have been harassed by fundamentalist Muslims

within their own community, trying to enforce strict dress codes, bans

on alcohol and severe harassment of men and women either known to be

gay or perceived to be gay. That has been going on for a long time

and I don't think sufficient action has been taken. But I am delighted

that a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned

this particular patrol. Do you think this is a sign of things to

come? I don't agree. I think the picture painted is quite

sensationalist. I agree with what Peter has said, that there are

pockets of people - I faced it in Luton - I turned up and they told

me I should have been dressed with my face covered. There are usually

about half a dozen egotistical, attention-seeking no jobs, the only

way to describe them, who will come together. But they represent nobody.

But it is threatening. That is why it has to be challenged. The police

have to be educated to make sure they deal with this. One of the

biggest criticisms until now has been that the community does not

come out and say, not in my name. With this incident - I think the

police can do more, when I was egg in Luton and threatened by these

individuals, officers came up to me and said, you do realise they have

a right to protest? And I said, that is fine, but I have just been

harassed and bullied by a set of idiots and I would like more

response done that! From my experience, I have been attacked in

east London on three occasions by people will have professed to be

Islamic fundamentalists who have used quotes from the Koran to

physically assault me and abuse me because I am gay. I am not

suggesting that is a widespread view, but I have had personal

experience of it and I know many other day people, particularly gay

Muslims in east London, who are terrified of being discovered by

these extremists. And when I went to East London last year to support

the Muslim community against the EDL, I was physically threatened by

a small group of fanatics. Thankfully, some Muslims Kate to my

defence. So it is not a universally bleak picture. Have a will you vote

on gay marriage? Providing I can get the legal safeguards which I

have been speaking to Maria Miller about and providing the faith

communities on the right page, I will be voting for gay marriage.

Now to immigration. If you are watching this programme in Bulgaria

and Romania, and we know many of you do, the immigration minister

here, Mark Harper, is keen to point out that the streets of Britain are

not paved with gold, contrary to popular opinion. According to

reports earlier this week, the Government is so worried about a

possible influx of migrants from the two countries that it is

considering a negative advertising campaign in an effort to keep

people away. Surely not? Welcome to Great Britain. Home to

great weather. Great shopping. And you are guaranteed a great

welcome. Britain - sure you wouldn't rather go to France?

Well, if that doesn't put you off coming, nothing will. Is it true

that you are going to make adverts to deter the Bulgarians and

Romanians from coming to Britain? would not believe everything you

read in the papers. What we are actually up to is what the Prime

Minister talked about at Prime Minister's Questions. I am chairing

a committee of ministers across government to look at what people

who come to this country, both those who come legally and

illegally, how easy it is to access public services and make sure we

are not seen as a soft touch. That does not just apply to Romania and

Bulgaria, it applies to everyone. Are you considering devising ways

of deterring Romanians and Bulgarians from coming here?

not in the way that was characterised in that video. If

people from Bulgaria and Romania come here and work and contribute,

we don't want people coming to this country who just use it to claim

benefits and live off the state. But before I come on to that, are

you considering devising ways of deterring them from coming in the

first place? We want to make sure people have an accurate view of

what the deal is here. It is not a soft touch for benefits. So you

are? We will not do stuff like that. Will you take out ads in Bulgaria

and Romania? Were have not even thought about it. But you might?

are doing the serious work of looking what our rules are for

access to public services, benefits. We have started at work. I have no

specific announcements to give you today on your programme. I will

announce it in Parliament first. But we are doing serious work.

have not quite answered what I was asking, but let me move on. If a

Romanian or Bulgarian comes to this country to work, whether they get

worker or not is another matter, but they come to live here - do

they have automatic access to the NHS? At the moment, if somebody

comes here to work, they can access the health service on the same

basis as someone who lives here. We are considering whether that is

right. Under the European rules, if you come here, you are not supposed

to be a burden on our health service. The NHS is a national

service, not a national one. So we are looking to see if we have

sufficient protections in place. Her but as things stand, if they

come, they can access the NHS on the same basis as you all right?

For if you come here to work and you pay National Insurance

contributions, you have access to the NHS. If they get a job when

they come here, but it is quite a low-paid job, as they tend to be,

as they take jobs we don't like doing or minimum-wage jobs, are

they entitled to in-work benefits from the get go? He depends. If

they are in work and paying National Insurance contributions,

they will become eligible for contributory benefits. A will they

become eligible for working tax credit? Will they get child

benefit? That depends whether you have a National Insurance

contribution record. If you do, yes, you are entitled to it. We are

looking at not just what our rules are, which are quite tough, it is

looking at what our rules are compared to why European neighbours

to make sure that if someone is making a choice about where they

come and what they get from the state, we want to make sure we are

not the easiest country. Sam is like there are a lot of reasons for

coming. You asked an interesting question interviewing Eric Pickles

a few weeks ago about what the numbers will be. I suspect that the

Government have actually got a projection. They always estimate

when these transitional controls come out. And yet we need freedom

of information questions to find out what they are. So can I

respectfully ask, what is the figure? I have been very

straightforward. The government is not in the business of making

speculative forecasts. You were. You can do a Freedom of Information

request. Eric Pickles said he had a figure, but he did not believe it.

But you should project what the impact will be. Our independent

advisory committee looked at this and said trying to come up with a

forecast is not sensible. There are so many variables. But they got it

right. Labour got it wrong. We have run out of time. In guess the year,

what was the year? 1985. Richard Waddington from Romania... No,