11/02/2013 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Monday is often a pretty quiet day

here at Westminster with MPs making their way back to work from their

constituencies all over the UK. But today is not one of those days. We

are expecting a big announcement on how the Government plans to fund

the long-term care of the elderly, which was a huge row at the last

General Election. All the signs are that ministers will cap the amount

any one individual will have to pay. And the row about horse meat

getting into burgers and other types of food is still

reverberating around Westminster. It is not yet a food safety issue

but we are being told to brace ourselves for bad news to come. The

UK Government has put out a report saying that an independent Scotland

would have to reapply to Europe, NATO and have to renegotiate a

whole fist of international And the starting gun has well and

truly been fired in the Eastleigh by election, with the big parties

at each other's throats in the All that in the next hour. And our

special guest of the day is Axelle Lemaire who last year became the

first ever member of the French Parliament for the new constituency

of Northern Europe, which includes Let's start with horse meat, so to

speak. Although many of us would probably rather not. The

Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to tell MPs

in the House this afternoon that there is likely to be more

unwelcome news about the wrong kind of meat getting into British

supermarkets. Romania is investigating claims that one of

its abattoirs is responsible. And Mr Paterson says he thinks a

criminal conspiracy could be involved. Reports today we have had

from France looks as if it might have been pinned down to two

abattoirs in Romania. Obese speaking to the authorities later

today to establish that. -- I will be speaking. I hope this fleshes

out the criminals. It is unacceptable that British consumers

are being sold something marked as one thing but actually is something

else. With us now is Anne Macintosh, who chairs the Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs Select Committee. Do you trust the Food Standards

Authority and your own government advice to carry on eating beef

products? Personally, I would like to see the whole trade suspended

until we know where the food - where the meat and processed and

frozen foods are coming from - and it is accurately labelled. So, you

do not trust? That is a big word. The Irish FSA started testing in

November. Our own FSA were informed of that. We cannot understand why

the UK FSA did not start testing in November. It appears there was a

news report over the weekend where the Minister of Agriculture in

Romania believes the product testing has to be undertaken for

content and that the label matches the content, he believes that has

not happened. If the project checks have not taken place, -- product

checks have not taken place, those meat should not be imported into

the EU. Before we know the facts about the meat produced or made in

Romania, are you saying it safe to me eat those products? At the

moment where there is no query about British produced products. We

have 100% traceability. If you buy fresh meat with the red tractor

sign and go back to having a roast at the weekend and eating it during

the week, I believe we should be buying British for the moment.

Would you want see a suspension of beef products at this point until

tests have established exactly what is in them? To answer your question

very accurately, at this precise moment, and no. It would be too

dramatic. If I am correct, some horsemeat was found in some

industries in Northern Ireland back in September last year. I think all

the different EU member states are concerned. The French Agriculture

Minister spoke of international criminal organisations. What it

shows is how complex the network of suppliers has become. In this

particular case, it could be up to seven or a big players, based in

Cyprus, Holland, France, Luxembourg being involved. So, we have to

answer that the controls are effective. But, they are not. The

EU Commission already Brewis the band live horse exports from

Romania. It needs to be confirmed that the contaminated source is

from Romania. If that is the case, I think it is wrong to ask the food

industry in this country - France, Ireland everywhere else - to go to

the huge costs of these tests were me could be sourcing fresh meat

from France and other countries which are not contaminated. If it

proves the source of contamination is Romania and the Ministry of

Agriculture in Romania agrees they have not conducted the product

checks at Port of exit, they are breaking EU regulations on

labelling. Do you think the Government is on top of this?

Government has done as much as it could in the circumstances. They

have not done what you are advising - banning the sale of the items

until we have the results of the tests. The Secretary of State has

agreed to ban. I do not want Britain to act unilaterally, even

though we are still importing the meat. There are reports that six

French supermarket chains have withdrawn meals by Findus. If it is

not the horse meat itself but a trace of the drug that is given to

horses and should not be in the food chain, then there might be a

health safety risk. At this moment, we have no idea. The level varies a

lot depending on where the horse meat was found, in which country,

where it comes from. It is impossible to tell now. Should we

make a whole ban on all meat? is a labouring crime and if the

Romanians accept they have broken labelling regulations... At the

moment we were all saying it is a labelling issue. They are selling

meat, which is a horse, and passing it off as beef. That is a trade

description problem. EU regulations cover this, which would lead to a

temporary suspension, and to we get to the source of contamination.

There is no question of fresh meat. That would have to be tested.

Romania appears to be in breach of EU regulations. It is a technical

point, where they should have checked the contents of the meat

before it left Romania, to go into free circulation across the

European Union. This is a massive scale. I agree. It may have

happened in Romania. It may have happened in another country

tomorrow. The controls in this country have increased by a third

in the last three years because this is linked to cuts in the jobs

being carried out by public authorities. To me, it is a direct

consequence of public policies. this country, we do tests. This can

be reviewed. In this country, we do tests on a risk basis. Until now,

there has never been a risk of this nature. Scotland would face massive

legal uncertainties in the event of a vote in for independence,

according to a report published today by the UK Government. The

report cites the evidence of a number of legal experts, including

Sir David Edward from the Edinburgh Law School and it suggests that

Scotland would have to renegotiate 14,000 international treaties,

including membership of NATO, the International Monetary Fund, and

the European Union itself. The report is pretty specific, saying:

There is no prospect that an independent Scottish state would

automatically become a new member of the EU upon independence because

there is no explicit provision for this process in the EU's own

membership rules. Neither would an independent Scotland automatically

inherit the UK's opt-outs. This was Lord Wallace, the Advocate General

for Scotland, a little earlier this morning. It would not be

automatically inherit the terms of membership currently enjoyed by the

UK. It would not inherit any of the opt-out in relation to the euro nor

would it to inherit big UK budget rebate of some �3 billion to the

British tax payer in 2011. As Sir David has said, all that is certain

is uncertainty. With us now is David Mundell, the Scotland Office

Minister, and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola

Sturgeon. It is an unusual move to publish legal advice. Why have you

done it? It is basic to the big debate we are having in Scotland,

about what is best for our future. Our report today, as well as

setting out legal opinion, starts with the positive case that

Scotland gets the best of both worlds by being part of the United

Kingdom. We decide things here in Edinburgh which affect day-to-day

things like education and health. We have the UK economy and the

security from being part of a huge stake like United Kingdom. What we

then go on to argue is that, should Scotland decide to go its own way,

what implications flow from that? It is clear to us, with leading

experts backing up a position, that Scotland would be a new state. It

would be go sheared its place in the world. The rest of the UK would

continue and be part of institutions like the European

Union and the United Nations Security Council, the IMF and so

much more. We have stated that. key thing is that we have a

starting point for the many arguments we're going to have over

the next 18 months and this is a new way of putting this forward.

The SNP have accused you of a near colonial approach. Arguing the UK

is a continuing state and an independent Scotland would have no

right to trade. What do you say to that? I was very disappointed by

the tone of those remarks and the way they were put forward. That is

not what has characterised the debate so far. We are setting out a

simple legal reality. Here is our view of the situation were Scothern

to become independent. We, in Scotland, would negotiate to be

part of the European Union. We would not have the UK's opt outs

automatically, as that clip with Jim Wallace has just shown. We

would not have a place at the top table in the United Nations, the

IMF and so many other places. That is a legitimate part of the debate

and we must fully discuss it in Scotland. Is it an attempt to

frighten people into the status quo? There were no doubt be lawyers

who would argue the opposite. good legal argument will have lots

of different sides to it. The way we have set out the argument today

establishes very clearly that the leading experts in this field

agreed the basis on which Scotland would become the new state and the

rest of the UK would continue as the existing UK state. That has

profound implications. To duck away from that would be unfair to people

in Scotland and would be a disservice to the debate. We will

listen to others put their views forward. We have the legal

framework which is clear. From that, we understand the politics and

negotiations which would arise should scrub and decide it is to be

independent. $:/ENDFEED. -- That was a predictably arrogant

position pulled a UK government to take, the notion that if Scotland

takes a democratic decision to be independent, Scotland is left with

nothing. These are the legal voices. It is not political. This is legal

advice. This is a legal opinion. It is an opinion. Yes, it is produced

by eminent experts but I can quote you other eminent experts to take

the opposite view, who argued that Scotland would be equal.

International law in this area is not clear. These matters will be

settled by negotiation and agreement. I listened this morning

to BBC Radio to one of the authors of this opinion and he accepted

that very point, at the timetable the Scottish government had set out

for negotiations was realistic. He said that the issue of EU

membership, although it would require negotiation, it would not

be difficult. That the treaty issue would not cause any problems or the

dog I am not sure if that was what the UK government intended to come

across with today. Can I just go back row to the only stages when

this was being talked about? Alex Salmond spoke about his seamless

transfer in terms of Scotland's entry into the EU. He may be right,

you may be able to renegotiate exactly what you want, but it is

not a scene is transferred, it is it? It is uncertain. The real doubt

comes from David Cameron's in out referendum. If Scotland votes yes,

there will be a process of negotiation, firstly with the UK

government before we become independent in 2016. Of course we

would be required to negotiate the terms of... So it is not a

guarantee? We will be arguing about the euro and the rebate and a

continuation of the status quo of our relationship with Europe but we

have to come back to be sensible, political, commonsense argument.

Surely we are not arguing it is not in the interests of Scotland to

remain in the European Union but also it is not in the overwhelming

interests of Europe to keep Scotland as a member? It would make

no sense to put Scotland outside of the European Union simply for us to

negotiate our way back in. Nicola Sturgeon, let's put that to Axelle

Lemaire. Is it in the European Union's interest to have Scotland

as a new state? I think you are right to put the question like this.

In the end it will be a political decision. There is what public

international law says and opinions are not always consistent on that

issue. You can also look at what the Canadians have said about the

impact of Quebec independence on their renegotiations of the

treaty's. There is also the political reality. In the end, what

other member states would look at is, what would the real impact of

Scotland B? What would France be looking at? What would they do in

terms of looking at Scotland in the future if it became an independent

state? I suppose trade and commercial interaction between the

two countries and how long would it take to renegotiate, for example,

judicial matters, a corporation matters, would it affect the people

and the proceedings of criminals? All of this would probably have to

be dealt with in very practical terms. Would that take time?

suppose this depends on what the member states want to do. Michael

Moore, briefly. In terms of the assets of the UK, are you prepared

also to take on all of its liabilities such as the UK national

debt, if we are going to follow the line in terms of whether Scotland

becomes independent? What we have said, the key UK institutions,

which are governed by the UK parliament and its laws, would

remain part of the rest of the UK and of course Nicola and others may

argue they want to continue to have a relationship with the Bank of

England to continue to use the currency, although I point out we

already have the pound in Scotland, why we need to become independent

to get it again it is beyond me. The key issue, of sharing out

liabilities and so on, there would have to be an equitable

distribution of that. We acknowledge that today in the

report. One point about the attitude we are adopting, it is

highly curious that we would have a Scottish government SNP position

that suggests that as a result of the votes taken in Scotland, the

rest of the UK might be thrown out of the UN Security Council, the EU,

the IMF and other international organisations. People elsewhere in

the UK will have cause to reflect on that. The key thing to remember

is we have a straightforward legal starting point set out for us today

and much of this is negotiations... This just reinforces my basic view.

We are better off as part of the UK. We get the best of both are worlds.

Nicola Sturgeon, a law firm in Scotland has put out a report today

saying that more businesses are asking for their own legal advice

before what there is a decision on the referendum. Do you agree even

businesses in Scotland are uncertain and unsure about

planning? There is debate under way in Scotland. The Scottish

government has made a substantial contribution to that debate today

in the report about the macro- economic framework in Scotland. The

businesses I speak to one that kind of information and the Scottish

government a working hard to make sure they get it, so people in

Scotland can make a positive and informed choice, not just listen to

scaremongering from the UK government and those advocating the

no vote. Thank you both very much. The relationship between France and

Britain has always been complicated, to say the least. Sometimes closest

allies, sometimes sworn enemies and although not quite as bloodthirsty

as in certain periods of history, our recent political past has

certainly had its ups and downs. These days however, some experts

detect a thawing between Paris and London. A coming together of our

national interests. But can we keep the entente cordiale? Here's David

Welcome to France's 6th biggest cities. You might know it as London

but more than 300,000 French people live here and they call it home,

which is more than Bordeaux and Strasbourg can say, but it is not

just here. Newcastle United had a team almost entirely made up of

French players and in return, David Beckham has gone to Paris version

man. Could this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship? -- Paris

send your man. Relationships are good, there is a lot of co-

operation and collaboration on Mali, for example. The two countries co-

operated a great deal on many international issues, like Libya

and Iran, so there are very many things that the general public are

not necessarily aware of and maybe why should they be. But days and

Francois were not always so friendly. -- Dave. David Cameron

praised his former rival, Sarkozy. Yes, but things have decidedly gone

from frosty too much warmer. Francois hollow on speaks English,

they can communicate directly. -- Hollande. And whisper it quietly,

we might becoming a bit more like the French and they might becoming

a bit more like us. Both countries have got rid of their empires. They

have become more and middle-of-the- road, normal-sized European

countries, and they have both become more global. The a British

are more willing to embrace globalisation but the French have

also become more global. -- the British are more willing to embrace.

They have both realised they are rather small and they need to work

with each other and the EU if they wish to shoot the global

environment. There is however an elephant in the room. It begins

with the letter E and ends with the letter you. If the British seem to

be on the brink of leaving at the EU, they cannot expect to have

close relations with Paris because the EU is fundamental to France's

existence. If Britain decides to stay within the EU, then we can

look forward to a fairly friendly and happy relationship between

London and Paris. It depends on Britain's relationship with the EU.

The Brits and the French has blown hot and cold for centuries. The

channel may separate us but these days, London and Paris could be

closer than you think. Here to test the state of British-

French relations, Axelle Lemaire, and Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin.

We need to be cautious. This is not the new settlement or the new

relationship. We are still waiting to see what the new relationship

will look like that he intends to negotiate in the next parliament.

And Britain could still end up paying more than it has done in the

past, even though the overall budget comes down? It will

certainly go up, yes, by billions. What is going to be interesting is

how this plays a politically. Are these relatively modest and

symbolic victories going to be enough to mollify sentiment in the

country or were people focus on the substance? We would like to see our

contribution going down. At the moment, our contribution will be

more than our overseas aid budget, which is already going up. One of

the things that was clear from budget negotiations was that

Germany was the key player. Angela Merkel decided to side with David

Cameron and France were sidelined. Yes, very political. They are two

Conservatives. Angela Merkel is entering an important political

period for her and she has to be with other Conservative leaders who

can support her in her campaign, so clearly from the outside, the

impression is that both Britain and Germany are exporting their

austerity. Again this is a political decision but the impact

on the people living in Europe will be huge because they do benefit

from the money being spent in Brussels. What does that do to

Anglo-French relations is clearly it is Angela Merkel and David

Cameron verses Hollande? This is wide their results of the German

election will be very important, and the British ones as well --

this is why the results. But I do not think it has a huge impact in

the short term. But Europe could be at the heart of the difficult

bilateral relationship. I can see it from Paris, in parliament. And

that is new. My colleagues are now very annoyed and get upset easily

whenever we mentioned the British, because it is, they keep asking for

more and more and more, they want to play by their rules, we are in

Europe, it should be decided together for. You are threatening

Anglo-French relations, particularly with the referendum?

We had very strong relations with the front before we joined the

Common Market and even if we were to leave, we would continue to have

strong relations -- strong relations with the French. France

and the UK are the two countries in Europe that understand that hard

power and soft power are two sides of the same coin. Other countries

have this idea that soft power can trump American Hot power but France

is one of the few countries that understand, unless you are backing

up your soft power, ultimately with military deterrence, you are not a

very strong countries. That puts France and Britain on the same page

in terms of foreign relations. Let's have a look at the list of

powers that could be repatriated. Some of the suggestions that could

be made, the working-time directive, more policing and criminal justice

measures, an emergency brake on new laws that affect financial services.

Judicial corporation includes the European arrest warrant. Thanks to

that, I think it is up to 13,000 criminals who are arrested every

year in one country and sent to another. When you had the bombings

in London, it took only a few days to get one of the authors of the

attacks sent back to London, whereas it would have taken ten

years before that warrant was put into place. That is what Europe is

advocating. I do not agree. We have extra-judicial treaties with lots

of countries. If France wants to be obstructive about it, that is

another matter. It is the reality of how it works. Extradition works

by Corporation and not a central judicial authorities. --

cooperation. The feeling is that these apparently very obvious good

things are put into the treaties but they are actually an end in

themselves, they are trying to create a union for which there is

no support. There is an element of self- deception, pretending you can

be a sovereign state and more and more included into Europe. But this

is about how strong the chances are for a UK government to repatriate

those powers? What about of the working-time directive? Would

France agree for Britain to opt out? I agree with Axelle Lemaire

that this is a forlorn hope to pick and choose treaties. We need to

develop a different kind of membership. There are those who

might be in the euro, in the political federation... It is

already the case. We have got the What about countries have in the EU

that are not going to be in the euro? Getting all religious about

the existing treaties and saying it is irrevocable, it is all about the

language. She is saying it could be disadvantageous to Britain. Most of

our trade is externally outside the European Union. That trade is

growing. We do not have the same figures will start 60% of the

British export... That is a bogus number. I challenge that. Well

under 50% of our manufactured goods were exported to the European Union.

Trade with the rest of the world is growing much faster. Why are we

letting the tail wag the dog? Less than 10% of our GDP is exported

directly to the European Union. Should Britain renegotiate to a

position that is better for Britain and still play a leading role in

the European Union? No controls over horsemeat. Why would the other

EU states have to pay for something the British do not want to pay for?

What am trying to say is, it would have huge consequences, not only on

trade relations but every single thing that has been built up over

50 years between your country and mine. A few years ago, the

President said, we might have to give Britain a special status. Just

a month ago, it was talked about allowing Britain to have a

different relationship put up no, he said, leave it Europe.

different relationship. We might have a much more bilateral

relationship with our European partners and have at present. We

need to look at this with an open mind. The idea that we're going to

Sunday join the euro and the in federal Europe is not going to

happen. -- Sunday. The question is, how do we skin this particular cat

so we can be amicable and friendly? What do you think about Anglo-

French relations? At bilateral level Cup we're just like an odd

couple. Arguing. At European level, the consequences could be very

serious. I would not be fighting for a yacht owned sake. Back in

Paris -- for your own sake. Back in Paris, I am one of the last ones to

say, Britain has to stay in Europe. Keep working with them. They say,

it is over. We will look at other countries. It all depends by what

you mean about in Europe. I do not imagine for his second that we were

not have a strong relationship with our European partners, whatever we

do with the treaties. Thank you for being out guest of the day. Now it

might be the last week before MPs head off for another well-earned

short recess, but there is no sign of a wind-down here in Westminster.

This afternoon, there is going to be not one, or two but three

statements in the Commons. David Cameron reports back on the

weekend's European summit, Jeremy Hunt makes a statement on changes

to social care and Owen Paterson will update MPs on the horsemeat

scandal. Tomorrow, the chair of the inquiry into the abuse at Stafford

Hospital, Robert Francis QC, gives evidence to the Health Select

Committee. Also on Tuesday, MPs and peers will brave the cold to take

part in a Westminster tradition - the annual pancake tossing race

before party political warfare breaks out again. On Wednesday,

nominations close for the Eastleigh by-election caused, of course, by

Chris Huhne's resignation. And then on Thursday evening, MPs can escape

the slog and toil of Westminster for a week as they begin February

David Cameron will stand up. He will head up a victory. Will it be

seen that way? It well. When he first announced he wanted cuts in

the EU budget, it seemed an uphill task for the Prime Minister. He has

come home and managed to get it. On the back of announcing an in/out

referendum, plenty peopling his party will be very happy. -- people

in his party. By their that means his problems with Europe will go

away, probably not. Euro-sceptics tend to start asking for more.

this the end of David Cameron swears on Europe? You will get the

big old slap on the back today from Tory Euro-sceptics. Not long ago

did we think it would be impossible. The budget for the EU for they next

seven years is a nine with 11 zeros after it. If you are a Euro-sceptic

Tory, that is still too high. You will get a slap on the back but it

is not enough. That is unless we move to the middle of the Atlantic.

They were not be happy. Some people were never be satisfied. How rough

would be between the coalition partners with the Eastleigh by-

election? Pretty rough. Whoever wins this is going to be pretty

instructor for the Liberal Democrats. The entire strategy for

the 20 -- the 2015 gen election will be to try to run countries

like this - many by-elections. -- general election. Chris Huhne will

add the different factor to this time but it will tell people what

they might face in the next few years. What about you, Michael

Savage? All the polls are in the margin of error between the Tories

and the Liberal Democrats. The big factor is Labour. If they can get a

credible candidate. That could really hit the Lib Dem vote. That

could be crucial in a race that is within 3% - the usual margin of

error. On the issue of social care, it is the first time we have had a

cap announced. Like it or not, it is a step forward that a Labour is

saying it is a small step forward the start do you think in the end

the parties will rally behind it? It is a step forward. At least

they're doing something - something that has dogged political parties

for years. Nobody has really been able to get to grips with it. There

will have to be a lot of looking at the detail to see whether where

there Labour will get behind it or pushing for something else. What do

you think, Michael Savage Eye in terms of support? There is a

problem on the Tory side. George Osborne made his name as Shadow

Chancellor promising them that inheritance tax threshold would go

up to �1 million was up the reality is, it'll be over a decade after he

made that promise with no change to the inheritance tax threshold,

which is being used to pay for this deal. A very difficult for a lot of

toys to swallow. Do you think the Government has got a grip on the

crisis over horse meat? It is incredibly difficult to get a grip

on. Now waiting for test results which will come back on Friday. The

chances of this being an isolated incident appear unlikely. The

problem is cities across Europe. The Government will struggle. It

will be very hard to get ahead of this issue. So, today, the

Government will set out how they think people in England should pay

for social care in their old age. At the moment, around 30,000 to

40,000 homeowners are forced to sell their houses each year to pay

for social care. And those with more than �23,250 in assets,

including the value of their house, do not get any state help. This

whole area is highly controversial. You may remember all those posters

about a Labour death tax at the last election when they suggested

that some of the money might come out your estate after you died. So

last year the economist Andrew Dilnot presented the findings of

his independent Commission on Funding of Care and Support. He

said that individuals should not really have to contribute more than

�35,000 to their care in the course of their lifetime. But the

Government is expected to announce today a figure closer to �75,000.

This will, however, be the first time there is any kind of cap on

the amount you'd have to pay. At the moment - theoretically - it is

limitless. All this might cost the Treasury around �800 million a year

and the steer is that this might be met by freezing the thresholds at

which inheritance tax begins to bite. Labour has described the move

as a small step forward, but the National Pensioners Convention is

not as easily impressed - describing the announcement as

about as credible as a Findus lasagne. Speaking to the BBC this

morning Jeremy Hunt explained why he was announcing the policy.

is costing around �1 billion a year. It is a very big step. As a

government, we want to back people who have worked hard all their

lives, saved and done the right thing. The worst thing that can

happen to those people is to find by a cruel twist of fate, they have

to do the one thing they want to do least of all - will lose their own

home. This is not the whole solution. There are lots of other

things we need to do to make Britain a great country to grow old

in. This is one thing that worries people for most. 30,000 to 40,000

people every year having to sell homes to pay for social care costs.

We want to find a way to end that. I have been joined by Labour's

former health minister Hazel Blears, the Liberal Democrats' Stephen

Lloyd and the Conservative MP, Stuart Andrew, for the rest of the

show. There was talk of people having to sell their homes in the

past. Are we now saying beyond 2017 no one will have to sell their

homes into old age? This worries thousands of people across the

country. We have seen significant numbers of families getting very

anxious about what will happen to elderly relatives. This is actually

the first step on a journey to solving that. It will not stop were

put an end to people having to sell homes to pay for care.

significantly reduces the number of people having to sell homes. That

is very important. As Andrew Dilnot said himself this morning, it is a

huge step in the right direction. It should be welcomed. G welcome

it? To say it is a huge step forward is an exaggeration. It is a

small step. The level of capping concerns me. When Andrew Dilnot did

his report, he said 35,000, absolute maximum 50,000. He said

the on that it would not help people who had a lot of money. If

you say 75,000, that is the equivalent of 10 years in

residential care. Most people go into residential care for three,

four years and then they die. Most people on small incomes will have

to pay just as much as they do now. They were not be helped by this.

that too high, as a cab? -- at a cap. We'll know it is a really

serious issue and I take my hat off to the coalition. I would have

preferred this to be lower, to be honest. The top end talked about by

Andrew Dilnot was 50 to 60. The coalition have battled really hard

on this. The have Kuyt inheritance tax for three years. -- we have cut

inheritance tax. That is a brave decision. If it is too high, the

Government were not the pain - the state will not be paying - or

helping people fund their care. -- be paying. It will be covered quite

easily across England in terms of people. The insurance companies

will come up with something for starboard is not the case that

everyone will have to pay �75,000 by a long shot. -- come up with

something. That will sound like a lot of money that they will have to

put up. We are facing one of the greater social tonnages in a

generation cut at the time we have the greatest economic challenge. --

the greatest social changes. The figures he suggested of the 25,000

to a 50,000 were based on 2010 figures. When it comes into effect,

it will be around 61,000. That is above what he wanted but it is a

step in the right direction. This might be a step in the right

direction. Andrew Dilnot looked at the economics around residential

care. He did not look at any issues around community-care, which is a

huge matter of concern to people. Take Alzheimer's, there at 800,000

people with it. It will go up to 1 million in the next three years.

Most of those people have to pay for community care and it is means

tested. This does nothing to address that. I take your point.

This was an issue for all governments. I am pleased the

Government is starting. To say it is a huge step forward is a massive

exaggeration. 30 years or so ago when social care was split off from

health care... That is the problem for Alzheimer's sufferers. I am on

the all-party group for dementia. It will all change. A partner is a

community matron. She knows the issue of dementia is really

profound. It will make a difference with joining up of health care over

the next three years without a shadow of the doubt. We support the

bill? When you talk about dementia, we all have experience in our

families. We are finding that people are having to cope. The

community care issue is central. It is being cut by the same amount.

Local authorities are facing cuts of �1 billion for community care.

Where did you put the cap? I would like to see was what was the regime

recommended by Andrew Dilnot. You cannot do it by cherry picking. --

originally recommended. How would you have paid for it? We have had

clear policy set out today. How would it be funded by the Labour

Party? To come from inheritance tax is a good thing. We oppose it being

at �1 million. We thought that was a vote grabber. That has gone.

We have a fine balancing act ended is difficult. It is disappointing

we have to freeze the in terror -- inheritance tax threshold again. I

hope in the future, we can revisit that. Actually, the freeze will

affect about 4,000 people forced of this announcement will help 400,000

people. But you have not been able to keep your promise on something

that was a major boost for Tory voters? It is extremely

disappointing. Was it be wrong decision? That is the problem we

are facing. How do we fund long- term care for a growing and ageing

population and help people keep their homes at the same time? That

is far more pressing than the inheritance tax.

Well, the Liberal Democrats have fired the starting gun on the

Eastleigh by-election. They are not hanging around in the race to find

someone to represent the seat which, of course, has been left vacant

after Chris Huhne's spectacular fall from grace. It is all

happening in just three weeks and we should get to know what the full

list of candidates is in the next 24 hours or so. It is not the first

time this seat has been at the centre of the national attention,

of course. We have had by-elections there before, as the Sunday

Politics' man in the South remembers.

In the days of steam, Eastleigh was known as a railway town. Now the

airport is the biggest local employer and the by-election

bandwagon will drive past new suburban estates. The constituency

stretches down to the sea. Including the home of Hampshire

cricket. If David Cameron cannot take back as seed that once boasted

that 10,000 Tory majority, big questions will be asked -- a seat.

But what might stop him is the depth of local Liberal Democrat

organisation. They know the territory well. In the election for

Police Commissioner, a Lib Dem topped the polls in this area. It

has not always been like this. In 1994, Eastleigh's industrial roots

were strong enough to give Labour hope. Then it was a three-way

marginal, with Gordon Brown joining Jack Straw on the Eastleigh

doorsteps. This was the dying days of the Major government. Nigel

Farage barely registered. Now UKIP could make a big dent. If the

Conservatives were to lose it would put tremendous pressure on

Cameron's leadership and lead to questions about what is the point

of the coalition. Similarly you will get the same range of

questions for the Lib Dems if they were to lose this. Lots of Lib Dem

MPs will be fearful they will face a similar challenge in their

constituencies, so why are we in coalition with a party that is our

main challenger? This is massive in terms of national politics.

Labour admit they are a long shot but Ed Miliband it needs to prove

his appeal in the south and canned draught in support from the nearby

cities of Southampton and Portsmouth. -- and can Drafting

support. The timing is set for a result to remember.

You can find out more information on the by-election, including

details of the candidates who have been selected so far, on the BBC

website. Joining us now, one of the candidates from that 1994 by-

election, now the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. We won't talk about

how young you were then. Not a single grey hair! Absolutely. Why

do you think the Lib Dems have gone for such an early date? They

probably want the battle over and done with as quickly as possible.

We are relishing the fight. Our candidate has been there for a good

number of years and we look forward to welcoming her to the House of

Commons after 28th February. Will it be a clean fight? Yes and it

will also be very close. We have a dedicated local team in Eastleigh.

We hold all the seats in the council. They are very well known.

They focus on the issues constituents care about. I think it

will be very close. It is obvious to all of us it is between the Lib

Dems and the Tories. The opinion polls showed Labour up nine points,

UKIP up 12 points. And interestingly, the Lib Dem vote

falling and the Tory vote falling. In Eastleigh. No. Is it in

Eastleigh? Or not? Or this is becoming an even more interesting

by-election. Who'd do you want to win, Hazel Blears? And they will be

scrapping it out between them. I feel like I am intruding on private

grief. The only winner is the Labour Party. If Cameron doesn't

win, it is another round of speculation about his leadership.

If the Liberal Democrats don't win, all of the Lib Dems will be having

anxiety attacks. What is the tactic from Labour? We you lie low and try

to keep out of it? Or try to get as many votes as possible from the Lib

Dems? The Labour Party does not Lilo it in by-elections. We will be

out there. -- will not lie low. People will know the Labour Party

has got a proper, credible programme. But with these two, it

will be like a dog fight! A gentlemanly contest? My opposition

in Eastbourne is a Conservative. We battle it out locally but I am a

holy signed-up member of the coalition. Today's example of

social care, we are taking the decisions that Labour avoided for

30 years... What about stuff that UKIP leaflets to Tory doors? That

would be a good tactic? I think you could do have an opportunity but I

know that Nigel did not stand and a suspected didn't because he knew

that he would not win. We have chosen by the end James, a Serbian

district councillor in Surrey -- Dian Jones, a serving councillor.

What was interesting was, of those considering voting for UKIP in the

constituency, there more more Labour and Lib Dem voters than Tory

voters considering voting for UKIP. We have seen UKIP get significant

percentages in the last three by- elections. Don't write us off.

UKIP could take plenty of Tory votes, handing victory to the Lib

Dems. Nigel is right. UKIP could take some votes from all parties.

We are encouraging people to remember the facts. If they want an

MP to represent them, which is what they are doing, and they want an MP

to stand up for renegotiating terms in Europe, they need to vote for a

Conservative camp because that is the only way they will get what

they really want. If they vote for UKIP, they a -- are ending up with

no voice whatsoever in Europe. For if we have an example of the

coalition. The anti-Europe line and the pro-Europe line. And you are in

government together. You are scrapping it out yet you are in

government at the same time. On the doorstep, grown-up people like

politicians working together for the greater good. But you will not

be doing that for this campaign. A but the government is dealing with

the most catastrophic... People want to know what you stand for.

Pupil premium, economy, jobs, apprenticeships... And the

electorate to realise we are two a separate political parties who have

come together to run a government in the national interest, and they

do get that. Be fully expect that when an election comes, of course

we will be fighting it out. The Lib Dem voters voted Lib Dem because

they wanted DEC to wish him fee scrapped and a very different

programme and many of them of very disappointed -- they wanted to see

tuition fees scrapped. Every single councillor in the constituency on

Liberal Democrat, you can mobilise your troops quickly. Isn't that why

you went for an early date? And then you can blame Chris Huhne and

move on? We are focusing on the reasons for all the councillors in

Eastleigh, which is that we have be dedicated local team who put the

constituencies of Eastleigh first above everything. I think that is

what people want. I think it will be a close fight but I am confident

we will win. Nick Clegg is already campaigning today. He has got time

to go and campaign in Eastleigh but David Cameron will not have that

luxury. He is busy running the country. Masses of us are happy to

go to Eastleigh. He disagrees with Maria Hutchings on virtually

everything! Don't say David Cameron for goodness sake! Shouldn't it be

a three-way marginal with Labour coming second? We shall see. maybe

we will get a great result. I am an optimist! The people of Eastleigh

will not be interested in third and fourth. They want to know who will

represent them well in parliament and there is no doubt that Maria

Hutchings is the right person. the Conservatives don't win

Eastleigh, do you except the prospects for David Cameron look

grim? Not at all. This will be a battle between the two parties that

are in the coalition at the moment and that has no bearing whatsoever

on the next general election at this stage because we are mid-term

whatever happens. Some Tories feel that phrase comes from a

Conservative, who feels that if the Conservatives cannot win Eastleigh,

what chance do they have of a majority? I would not accept that.

One of my suits, and Northern, open one, which we won, and I am

convinced we can work hard to win this way that we need to win in the

north -- one of my seats, an urban, northern one. If the Conservatives

win, what are the prospects for Nick Clegg? We are going to win. It

is a good and dedicated team. They put the people of Eastleigh first

and I think the people will respect that. What do you have to do to

maintain the momentum of UKIP? next morning after the last three,

the media have said, gosh, what a surprise how will UKIP did. I say

what the space. We will campaign on some big national issues, such as

the opening of the doors from a Bulgaria and Romania, for which

these three parties do not have an answer. What is a good showing?

came second end of the room. We came second in Middlesbrough. We

got 15% of the votes in Corby -- we came second in Rotherham. We have

the high is starting point UKIP have ever had. We could surprise

everybody. Thank you to all four of you. The one o'clock news is

starting over on BBC One now with the latest of all the political