12/06/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. Do you feel squeezed? And I know I do. I blame Jo.

Unemployment is down, but only by a little. And if you have got a job,

the top boffins say the value of your pay packet has fallen more in

the current economic downturn than ever before. William Hague is off to

Washington to talk about Syria. Could relations with Russia get

chilly? Will it be colder at PMQs or will it be hot, hot, hot? We will

have the actioned at midday. We will have grunting, shunting and sweaty

MPs on the programme too! I can hardy wait!

All that and more in the next 90 minutes of value for money TV. There

is no danger of closing us down! Don't hold your breath.

I hope it doesn't give anyone ideas, Made in Chelsea and Towie eat your

hearts out. We have Michael Howard joining us today and current Shadow

Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander. Welcome to both of you.

Thank you. Let's take a look at the economy

because the latest unemployment figures were released this morning.

They show the unemployment rate effectively unchanged at 7. 8%.

There were 2. 51 million unemployed people in the quarter to April. Down

5,000 from the previous year so only a little. But down 88,000 from a

year earlier. A report today however by the Institute of Fiscal Studies

says that UK workers have experienced an unprecedented fall in

wages. They mean in real terms. A third of workers in the same job saw

a wage cut or a freeze between 2010 and 2011. The IFS says that's

because some people have been willing to accept less money in

order to hold on to their jobs. And it has been a feature of this

recession and current economic circumstances that wages have been

flat, but unemployment has not risen by as much as many expected. Michael

Howard, putting aside the economics of the pain of these freeze in

living standards or cut in living standards causes, is it not a big

political headache for the coalition to go into an election period with

living standards still not rising? Well, we've two years to go before

the election, but people understand what is happening all over the world

and if you look at the figures today, of course, unemployment is

far too high and we want it to come down, but compared with what is

happening in the rest of Europe, we are doing relatively well and people

understand that and 1. 3 million jobs have been recrated in the

private sector since the last election. Three jobs in the public

sector for every one lost in the public sector and I think people

understand that there is a trade-off between accepting a real terms cut

in wages and keeping your job or losing your job and for most people,

it is a better deal to keep their job.

What do you say to that, Douglas Alexander? I don't think it is a

trade-off between willing to cut your wages and getting employment

back. Of course, times are tough. And I felt when I looked at the

figures they confirmed what we know. Both families are struggling to get

by. But that we continue to have a significant unemployment crisis in

the country. Of course, we welcome any small drop in unemployment, but

unemployment today is higher than it was in 2010 and so we need to see

measures that will get the economy moving forward because there is a

correlation between a stagnant economy and the fact that

unemployment is high. Compared to our European partners, the situation

is not that bad? Well, it depends which countries you look at.

Name me one and let's do it. The eurozone is facing difficulties.

Even Germany, the IMF is saying we will grow twice as fast as gerpany

this year -- Germany this year. no one is saying we are off to the

races. This is the weakest recovery since economic statistics were

invented. It is the politics of it that interests me. Labour has been

able to do comparisons with other countries in which unfavourable to

the record of the coalition. I'm just wondering if the terms of trade

are beginning to change now and that comparisons in a general sense that

recovery is underway are going to be to Labour's disadvantage.

When Michael started, he said all around the world. From 20007 to

2010, the Conservatives want wanted to imply this was the responsibility

of Gordon Brown. So tough are the economic circumstances confronting

George Osborne, every Conservative spokesman says, " It is difficult

everywhere." Are global conditions tough? Of course, they are. But on

the other hand, I would say if you look at the level of growth of the

United States economy since the crash that there are lessons in

terms of what is the right balance You know America as well as I do.

Unemployment has not gone as high because of the flexibility of the

labour market. I have never said it was all created

by Gordon Brown. Of course, there was a worldwide economic crisis. Our

problem was we were in a much less strong position to deal with it

because of the situation over which Gordon Brown presided. Had we

started saving during the good times asked in, I suggested we should in

the 2005 general election, we would have been better erequest ipd to

deal with the -- better equipped to deal with the downturn.

Let me put this to you, Douglas Alexander - when the pollsters ask

the question do you mean Ed Miliband and Ed Balls could manage the

economy better than Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, only 24% said they

could. This month, it is down to 19%. What's happening? These numbers

move around... They do, but always down. Of course, it will be tough

for any leader or Shadow Chancellor to build confidence. Margaret

Thatcher's numbers were below Jim Callaghan's. It didn't stop Margaret

Thatcher becoming Prime Minister. Even Gordon Brown's numbers before

1997 were below that of Ken Clarke's. So you are not worried?

I'm not complacent. I am giving you two examples.

I am not complacent. I have given you two examples of where one party

has taken over in both cases because of the authority of Government is

judged to be in a position of having credibility, but can lose the

election. I the want to show you a clip from

an interview I did on the Sunday Politics, don't worry, it is no the

Alex Jones. This was an interview. George Osborne is going to announce

his cap in two weeks time. Our plan is to include it.

So pension spending would be included in the welfare cap? That's

our plan. A straightforward answer. We were

taken back because we don't often get them. Since then Labour said

they would keep the pensions triple-lock which is a way of

ensuring by various metrics that pensions go up by a descent amount,

if not by one metric you chose a higher metric. Of how can you have

pensions capped and support the triple-lock? Well, because pensions

are going to be part of your long-term fiscal planning and you

can set pensioners policy, but you need to have regard to the long-term

fiscal sustainability. So the cap doesn't preclude you from having

policy specific in relation to aspects of Government expenditure,

but in that sense, that's the job of the Government which is to manage

both your short-term commitments against your long-term

sustainability. Mr Miliband told us the caps for the

first three years, he with would cap welfare spending over three years.

If you put a cap on welfare spending and it includes pensions, but you

are obliged to increase pensions by about 2. 3%, if you are hitting the

cap and you are obliged to increase pensions by it. T.5%, pensions are

not included in the cap and you can have one or the other? The first

year, the election will take place in year. Ed said we would accept the

starting point of the Conservative numbers for the first year. In terms

of the three year cap that follows, there is a process we will follow,

not least to hear what George Osborne says when he brings forward

his own cap, but we will set how to reconcile commitments that we make

in relation to pensions and other areas of public expenditure in due

course with a longer term fiscal horizon.

Let me try one more time. I don't understand how you can say, " We

will cap welfare spend ing and pensions will be included, but we

will increase pensions by 2. 5% even if it means breaking the capmed."

Well, in what circumstances did Ed say even if it means breaking the

cap. He said we hold on to the triple-lock at present.

At present? Well, that remains our policy. We will set out our policy

position in the manifesto. Part of the manifesto will contain that cap

which will take a three year horizon and these can be reconciled.

You haven't reconciled this clear conflict and you will do that by the

manifesto? You are not in a position to say individually as a policy,

include policies on pensions. Michael Howard, there is pit falls

in the road Labour is going down because all politicians are

frightened of the grey vote because people vote, the older they are. But

actually, isn't Labour being more realistic in saying if we are going

to have overall caps, we are going to reduce public spending and old

aged pensioners will have to be included? Well, Labour's numbers

don't add up for the reasons you explained. But what Ed Balls and Ed

Miliband have said, there is an interesting article in the Times in

which what they have said has been analysed and says they have accepted

the fundamental Conservative argument that you can't spend your

way out of these difficulties. You can't spend your way out of the

downturn and everything they have been saying over the last three

years is nonsense when they have opposed every cut put forward.

Yous don't agree. That's not an authoritarian voice on

Labour's policies. Chief Executive of the NHS is up in

front of the Public Accounts Committee today. He looks to have a

tough time. Figures obtained by Steve Barclay, show hospital chefs

paid a total of �2 million to 52 people in secret severance payments

to whistle-blowers. This could contradicts sir David's evidence to

the committee previously when he said he only knew of a one off

payment. Well, joining me from the lobby is the MP who uncovered the

figures, Steve Barclay. Thank you for coming on to the programme,

Steve Barclay. Is this incompetence or conspiracy on the part of Sir

David Nicholson? Well, it begs the question either he should have known

and why didn't he? His deputy, lots of hospitals making these payments

were aware of this. So why did the boss not know? Or he did know and it

is even more worrying because it appears he hasn't been straight with

Parliament and when he appeared before the committee last time he

said he wasn't aware the garaway Walker case was a whistle-blower

case and he had to correct his evidence because he admitted he had

been told. Do you think this is a case hes can't remember? Well, it is

not just that because he gave a commitment to investigate this and

what the Department of Health statement last night confirmed was

despite telling Parliament he would take this seriously, he would

investigate whether indeed it was a one off, he did nothing about it. So

why didn't he investigate it when he gave a commitment to part to do so?

And on what basis did he ignore that undertaking. Jeremy Hunt decided the

gagging clauses are going to be no longer, but in this particular case

these were judicially mediated settlements and they go outside the

remit of what the Government was talking about banning. How big do

you think the problem is? Secretary of State deserves credit

because he has put these within the remit. The loophole has been closed.

Oh, he has? Jeremy Hunt acted quickly. The statement for

Parliament which was not followed up. But the culture associated with

Sir David Nicholson. The 2 million spds is a -- the �2 million is the

tip of the iceberg. Seven hospitals are refusing to say how much they

paid out through the secret payments. So the Secretary of State

deserves credit. If we want to change the cull do you remember of

the NHS -- culture of the NHS and have a culture where people are open

and willing to speak out on patient safety issues, we have to look at

the behaviour of Sir David and whether he is right for that new

culture. Do you think his position is

untenable? I thought it was untenable after Mid Staffs and I

thought he should have gone then. He is in today before Parliament for

the NHS IT programme, a programme that wasted billions of pounds of

your viewers money and he was not just the accounting officer for that

programme, he was the senior responsible owner for it. There is a

catalogue of errors linked to Sir David and if we are going to change

the culture of the NHS and take on board the lessons on Mid Staffs and

the question is, is he the right man for another year to remain in his

post? Steve Barclay, thank you very much. Michael Howard, should he just

go now? I think we should wait to see what and says he has, if any, to

the questions that Steve Barclay has eloquently post. Very serious

questions, very serious situation. I have no idea what Sir David

Nicholson would say in answer to those questions but we will see what

he does. The two choices are either he didn't know and he should have

known or he is part of the conspiracy. Let's wait and see what

he says? What is your reaction? I agree with Michael, he should be

able to give his cancers on the substantive issue on whether public

money should be spent in terms of gagging orders --his cancers. We

tried through the NHS Constitution to write in the prevention of this,

but at the Francis report touched on this, at a local level and in

individual trusts, there was a culture where this was acceptable,

and there was a case put to us for Jeremy Hunt to look at how

individual trusts are open to this and how much is being paid. Is it

rather he didn't know about it and contradicted his own evidence? If

you don't know, you don't know, you don't say there was a 1-off payment

and then it is subsequently revealed there were 52 of these sorts of

orders. Should the man at the top who presided over this, should he

stay? I believe in the old maxim that she should afford somebody the

opportunity to and set those questions before passing judgement.

He will be before Parliament, let's hear what he has to say.

Thank you. Now, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has been meeting

the US Secretary of State John Kerry today to discuss the conflict in

Syria. The UK Government has said President Bashar Assad must give up

power to bring an end to the violence that has seen 80,000 people

killed in the last two years and want to pave the way for a political

transition. Washington is still struggling to organise a peace

conference and President Obama has at his team to look at all the

options. Michael Howard, should the West on the Syrian rebels? -- arm.

It is a desperately difficult situation. I think we sometimes have

to recognise that not every problem has a solution. I am not in a

position to make the judgements that are necessary to give a yes or no

answer to that question. I think William Hague was right to press for

a European embargo to be lifted, so that arming the rebels is an

option, and there may well be circumstances in which it would be

right to use that option. Whether those circumstances have yet arisen,

I just am not, I think, qualified to judge. It is a very, very difficult

situation and the risk of broadening this conflict, of bringing in other

states in the region, of having a kind of proxy war between Russia and

the West, the risks are enormous, so this is an area where we have to be

cautious. It might at some point be the right option but I can't judge

whether we have reached that point. Your position, Douglas Alexander, is

that we should not on the rebels. I'm not convinced by the arguments

the Government has made. This is an appalling situation of human

suffering and there are no easy options for William Hague, or in

Washington back here in London, so I do not question the motives of the

Government but I do the judgement of lifting the arms embargo at that

point, because we were weeks away from this Geneva two conference, as

it is called. One of the consequences of lifting the embargo

is uncertainty in the mind of the rebels, if they don't turn up at the

peace conference, they will be unable to secure Western arms in the

future. There are concerns from the Russians themselves, and the kind of

questions that we need and insisted that we have not heard, how can we

guarantee these weapons and do we know the intents and the tactics of

the rebels? How do we avoid a proxy war with Russia or Iran, fought out

in Syria? And even worse to contemplate, sectarian war across

the Middle East, because there is a sectarian aspect of this conflict

now. But already they are worried in Jordan. Israel is beginning to feel

the heat on the border. So we are there, aren't we? So I struggle to

answer the question that the Prime Minister will need to answer in

these circumstances, which is how will the provision of more

sophisticated weaponry de escalate rather than escalate the conflict?

And nobody doubts the seriousness of the situation. I have for many

months argued that ultimately Russia is the key to this. Resident Assad

is hugely reliant on Russia, not just in terms of diplomatic support

but military as well. So I welcome the steps that John Kerry has taken

in flying to Moscow. At the end of the day, if were going to see this

conference happen, we need about the Russians and the Americans

delivering both sides to this conflict. But people like you have

been saying that for over two years and while you have gone on and on

about diplomacy, it has failed 100% and 80,000 people have died. What do

you say to a Syrian family that have been beleaguered by the dictator

President Assad that you are not going to help them defend

themselves? Syria is awash with arms at the moment, the idea that there

are no weapons for the rebels in Syria is not true. You have to ask

the question, do you want to be providing service to and missiles,

anti-tank artillery and other equipment to a group of rebels --

surface to air missiles push up today's good guys can all too easily

come -- become tomorrow's wrongdoers. There seems to be two

problems about sending arms, one is what Douglas Alexander just said, we

are not sure who they might end up with and the second, I would suggest

that the Kremlin has made it quite clear they will match whatever we

send. Those difficulties are there. So I think there is only one point

we all agree on, and we're not going to answer, the only point I disagree

with Douglas on is I still think it was right to lift the EU embargo so

the option remains, because all of the difficulties to which you refer

are absolutely there and they are horrendous, but this is a rapidly

changing situation, and there may be circumstances in which helping

supply arms, some arms, to the rebels would be the right thing to

do. I am not saying we have reached it yet. What would those

circumstances be? Give me a sense, in your mind, what they would be?

Hypothetically, you could arrive at a situation where a particular need

was identified for a particular set of weapons which would actually help

the rebels from being crushed. I am not saying it will exist, but it

could. Let's follow the logic of that position. Even if Bashar

al-Assad goes, and we all want him to go, the likely scenario is the

continuation of the Civil War and the next chapter beginning. In that

sense, we cannot get away from the fact that the only way you can have

a sustainable Syrian state is ultimately through politics. The

only way you can have any hope of getting to that politics is to bring

the external factors in. You may never get to back to politics until

the civil war has run its course. Bashar al-Assad was to go, it may

transform the situation. It may not bring complete peace over tonight --

overnight, but it may bring about change. But the Alawite will just

fight the dead? They nowhere to go. I would hope they wouldn't. I am not

saying all of the problems would disappear overnight, but it would be

a huge change. It is a really difficult situation. It really is.

He is rich, he is good-looking and they call him the Special one. Jose

Mourinho arrived back at Chelsea this week and said he wanted a new

nickname, the Happy one. But answer me this, is he really happy? How

much more happy would he be with this? Yes, with this mug. You could

look tanned, gorgeous, Portuguese and happiness. I think you need to

read it over your head! There are still some copy in it. All you need

to do is listen carefully to Jo. You can enter the Guess The Year

competition in a minute but let's see if you can remember when this

North Sea gas. The one pure stroke of luck the British economy has had

in a century. Drop out of school, school education

Per pound here in Britain and in # This is dedicated to the one I

love. To be in with a chance of winning

the Daily Politics mug, send your entry into the email address. You

can see the full terms and conditions on the website.

It is coming up to midday, let's have a look at the Big Ben. It is a

grey day in London, it has been all week. Prime ministers questions is

on its way and Nick Robinson is welcomed back. I noticed that they

are now raising this issue of select committee chairman, which has come

up because of Tim Yeo's position. Putting aside the Sunday Times

sting, hasn't it has been the case that this man who chairs the

renewable energy committee of the House of Commons also has full

directorships in renewable energy. You may say that. I couldn't

possibly comment. That is exactly what the Speaker and other people

have been talking about, which is is it right that select committee

chairs, who have a higher status than I did a few years ago, they get

paid as well, is it right they should have external interests? It

is not against the rules, but it is a conflict of interest. These are

influential figures both in the questioning they can do people in

business and in public life and the of subjects that are for select

committees -- the choice of subjects. We are likely to see a

change, Tim Yeo may be the last to have that many business interest.

the last Labour Government, John McFall was chairman of the Treasury

select committee, one of the most powerful select committees in the

House of Commons. If he had been a director of Goldman Sachs at the

same time, it would have been rather strange. Perfectly reasonably, it

would have seemed strange. Having previously served as a minister, the

ministerial code is extremely tough in terms of conflict and everything

else and my senses the Speaker and others may look at the code of

conduct the ministers, given the significant status and influence of

chairs. Michael? I hope it is not an overreaction. I think the key point

is there shouldn't be outside interest related to the select

committee. The chairman of the select committee is a director of a

company that has nothing to do with his select committee, I don't see

anything wrong with that as long as it is properly declared, but I do

think it is difficult for the chairman of a select committee, or

perhaps even a member of a select committee, to have an outside

interest which is directly related to that. And for which they are

remunerated? Well, the members are not the chairman. No, I mean

remunerated by the outside interest. Prime Minister's Questions coming

up, we don't have many these days, two in a row, like a London bus!

are being spoiled. I think it will be intriguing to see if it is the

opposition leader's questions, David Cameron used the last one to try and

question Ed Miliband on child benefits and what Labour were saying

about their spending priorities. I won't be surprised if the Prime

Minister raises the interview you did with the shadow Chancellor Ed

Balls in which he seemed to suggest he would cap pension spending. The

Tories see that as an own goal and I think what David Cameron would like

to exploit is that, with unemployment going down, he will

raise the fact that one of the reasons it might be under control is

the fact that people are taking a real hit in their pay packets and

people are having their real income squeezed and their standards of

living squeezed, and therefore it might not be so such good news for

people. It is difficult for politicians on the right and the

left, to say we should have more rise in wages, but there might be

more unemployment. Or people should actually take a cut in living

standards. But more people will be in jobs, it is a Catch-22. It is,

but Labour will want to say, that is hurting people and if there are

additional things Government are doing, row prices and energy prices

and so on, which are adding to that sense of a squeeze on peoples

standards of living, that is uncomfortable for them and bad for

incompetent management of the NHS, 256,000 patients were forced to wait

in the back of ambulances as accident and imagine departments

couldn't admit them. Why does the Prime Minister think the best way to

deal with this is to fine hospitals �90 million for his Government's

failure? But what this Government is doing is putting �12. 7 billion

extra into the NHS, money that would be cut by the party opposite and

because of that extra money and because of the reforms, waiting

times are down, waiting times for inpatients and outpatients are both

down, hospital acquired infections are down, a mixed sex wards have

been abolished in our NHS, that's a record we can be proud of.

INAUDIBLE Can he confirm that the Conservative

Party's commitment to renegotiation and a referendum and has he...

and a referendum and has he... and a referendum and has he...

INAUDIBLE On behalf of the whole House can I

welcome my honourable friend back to the House of Commons? And it is good

to see him making a strong recovery and being in such strong voice

today, as well, Mr Speaker. He makes an important point, on this side of

the House, well in this party, we are committed in an in/out

referendum before the end of 2017, but there has been a staggering

silence from the party opposite. Half of the Shadow Cabinet support a

referendum and the other half the don't. Well, they will have their

chance on 5th July, they can turn up and vote for a referendum in the

United Kingdom. THE SPEAKER: Mr Ed Miliband.

On Syria, the Prime Minister has our support to use the G 8 to push all

members to provide humanitarian assistance to alleviate the crisis

that is happening there, but on the arms embargo, he said last week and

I quote "if we help to tip the balance in that way, there is a

greater chance of political transition succeeding." Given that

Russia seems ready to supply more weapons to Syria, does the Prime

Minister think it is in any sense realistic for a strategy of tipping

the balance to work? Well, first of all, can I thank him for raising

this issue and say he is right, we should use the G 8 to try and bring

pressure on all sides to bring about what we all want in this House which

is a peace conference, a peace process and a move towards a

transitional Government in Syria. I am delighted to tell the House

President Putin will be coming in advance of the he G 8 for meeting in

Downing Street when we can discuss this. It is important because we

have recognised that the Syrian national opposition are legitimate

spokes people for the Syria people. It is important we help them. We

give them technical assistance and training and advice and assistancele

all those things we are doing and that does tip the balance to make

sure that President Assad can see he cannot which this by military means

alone and he should be at the negotiations which should take place

for a transitional Government. My question was specifically on the

liftings of the arms embargo and the supply of weapons to the Syrian

rebels. How, last week, he also told this House, and I quote, " Clr

safeguards to ensure that any such equipment would only be supplied for

the protection of civilians." Can he tell us what safeguards those are?

And how in Syria, they would be enforced? Well, first of all, let me

try and say again about the arms embargo, the point about lifting the

arms embargo which applied to the both the regime and the official

Syrian opposition is to send a message about our intentions and

about our views to President Assad, but we have not made a decision to

supply the Syrian opposition reque -- with weapons, we are giving them

advice and technical help and we have systems in place to answer his

second question to make sure that sort of non-lethal equipment like

transport and things like that doesn't get into the wrong hands. Of

course, we do. THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband.

things. Look, first of all, we all support the idea that he we should

focus on the peace conference and making the peace conference happen.

The Government has put its energy into the lifting of the arms embargo

and not in the peace conference. I quoted hisses words, no the about

non-lethal equipment, but about the supply of lethal equipment. Now, he

gave an assurance to this House, in the circumstances of supplying

lethal equipment there would be safeguards and the question was what

would those safeguards be and I didn't hear an answer and maybe he

can tell us that and will he when he replies confirm that if he takes a

decision to arm the rebels in Syria, there will be a vote of this House

on a substantive motion in Government time with a recall of

Parliament from recess if necessary? First of all, on this issue of the

peace conference, we all want to see a peace conference come about, the

question is how are we most likely to put pressure on the parties to

attend the peace conference? Going back to the first thing he said

about the Russian decision to arm the regime, the Russian regime has

been arming this regime for decades and frankly, it is naive to believe

anything else. That, I think, is important. On the issue of

safeguards, we are not supplying the opposition with weapons. We are

supplying them with technical assistance and non-lethal equipment.

We made no decision to supply the opposition with weapons, so that is

the answer to that issue. On the issue of this House of Commons, as

the Foreign Secretary made clear, as I have made clear, I have always

believed in allowing the House of Commons to say -- a say on these

issues. I think that was right when it came to Iraq. It was right when

we made the decision to help the opposition in Libya and it would be

right in the future for that to it to happen. We have made no decision

to arm the rebels in Syria. On the Government plan to double the

size of our reserve forces, has the Prime Minister considered the role

retired Ghurkhas might play in this? How they are allowed to settle here,

many gush cas said they would welcome an ongoing connection with

the British Army, but there is no tradition of recruiting them. It

won't happen by magic, would he authorise an initiative to cre cut

them? One of the p ways we can build up this larger reserve we want to

see funded and fully equipped at 30,000, is to make sure those who

served in the regular Army, that we have better opportunities for them

to serve in the reserves and the point he made about the gur das cas,

I am -- Ghurkhas, I am sure the Defence Secretary will look at that

and see what can be donement of I don't know if the Prime Minister

watched Panorama's programme on Monday night, but I'm sure he will

be aware of the subject. The programme confirmed what many of

youing us already knew that thousands of people in this country

have been subjected to blacklisting. It has been compared to McCarthyism.

I think it is worse Than that. It is secretive and it is behind closed

doors and many people who run a -- who are on a blacklist don't know

they are on a blacklist. Can I ask the Prime Minister to call for an

urgent inquiry into this practise which I refer to not as McCartism,

but as McAlpinism. I didn't see the Panorama on Monday

night. I will ask for a report on it, but the Government not only does

not support blacklisting, but has taken action against it.

Can I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to my constituency

to support the furniture making industry. The hard-working staff he

made are best helped into these tough times by protecting their

pensions and capping benefits rather than by protecting benefits and

cutting pensions as the party opposite would do. I well remember

my visit to my honourable friend's constituency. What people want to

know in this country is we're going to cap welfare and get on top of

welfare bills, but protect pensioners who have worked hard all

their lives and I've done a little bit of due diligence on the the

party opposite's policy. They announced they wanted a welfare cap

and I thought that's interesting, that's progress. Would they cap the

welfare bill for those in work? they would not. Would they cap

housing benefit? No, they wouldn't. The one thing they want to cap

pensions is pension -- the one thing theys want to cap is pensions. Of

more of the something for nothing culture that got this country in a

mess in the first place. THE SPEAKER: Mr Ed Miliband.

Speaker, today's fall in unemployment of 5,000 is welcome.

But can the Prime Minister explain why today's figures also show that

three years into his Government, living standards are continuing to

fall? Well, first of all, I think it is

worth actually announcing to the House what the unemployment figures

today show because they show employment, the number of people in

work, in our country going up. They show unemployment going down. And

they show, I know the party opposite don't want to hear good news, but I

think it is important we hear it. And the claimant count, the number

of people qlaming unemployment benefit -- claiming unemployment

benefit has fallen for the seventh month in a row. What is interesting

is over the last year, while we've lost 100,000 jobs in the public

sector, we've gained five times that amount in private sector employment.

The figures do show some increase in wages, but obviously, real wages

have been under huge pressure ever since the boom and bust under which

his presided. Bau what is good for people is that under this

Government, we're cutting their income tax this year.

THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband. There speaker, he is into his fourth year

as Prime Minister and his excuse for falling living standards is don't

blame me, I am only the Prime Minister! It is not good enough and

if he doesn't understand that because of his failure to get growth

in the economy, wages are falling for ordinary people. He wants to

tell them they are better off, butle actually they are -- but they are

worse off. Can he confirm that today's figures show after

inflation, since he came to power, people's wages have fallen on

average by over �1300 a year? you might have noticed the figures

announced by the institute Institute for Fiscal Studies are from 2008

when he was sitting in the Cabinet. While he was Energy Secretary, the

economy got smaller. This shrank month after month after month. Under

this Government, we see over 1. 25 million more private sector jobs. A

good growth in private sector employment this year. That is what

is happening. Of course, living standards are under pressure and

that is why we are freeze freezing council tax. Look, the Shadow

Chancellor is shouting away as ever. Perhaps...

THE SPEAKER: Excessive noise in the chamber. Members must not shout at

the Prime Minister anymore that anyone should shout at the Leader of

the Opposition. There are 1. 25 million more private sector jobs

under this Government and that's a good record.

No answer from this Prime Minister on the living standards crisis that

is facing families up and down the country. And you know, it is no

wonder what his side are saying about him. This is what the

honourable member for Leicestershire north-west wrote about him at the

weekend. I know they don't want to hear it, it is like being in an

aeroplane. The pilot doesn't know how to land it. We can either do

something about it or sit back, watch the inflight movies and wait

for the inevitable." I couldn't have put it better myself about this

Prime Minister. The reality is this - day in, day out, what people

see... Just calm down. Just calm down. Day in, day, the crimson tide

is back. What people see is prices rising, wages falling, while the

Prime Minister tells them they are better off. Hes claims the economy

is healing, but for ordinary families, life is getting harder.

They are worse under the Tories. Only someone who wants to talk down

our economy could pick a day like today. More people in work.

Unemployment down. Youth unemployment down. The claimant

count down, not one word of respect for that good agenda on jobs. Now,

he talks about aeroplanes, he talks about aeroplanes, the former Home

Secretary, never mind getting on aeroplanes, this is what he said

about the right honourable gentleman's leadership. He said

this. "We are going nowhere. He hasn't got on the aeroplane because

he hasn't got a clue. Last December, the whole lot

Shropshire welcomed the Government support for a new direct rail link

from Shropshire to London. However, this week, network rail have blocked

virgin's bid. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that Network

Rail should not get in the way of Shropshire people and economic

progress. We want to see more direct links like the one who speaks and

more direct links to Lancashire and Blackpool. One of the issues the

rail network is battling with is a short bus of capacity and that will

bring more capacity to make more of these direct links possible and I

was discussing this with the transport secretary yesterday and we

should make progress. Last week, the Prime Minister could not confirm

that taxpayers would not subsidised foreign buyers property in the UK.

Perhaps he could instead clarify whether his help to buy scheme will

see taxpayers help fund purchases of second homes on holiday cottages?

Let me try and give the honourable lady some satisfaction. First of

all, this scheme is for people's only home, it will have a mechanism

in place to make sure that is the case. The second thing is, of

course, which is important, is that in order to take part in this

scheme, you have to have a As a former pensions manager, I was proud

that this Government announce... THE SPEAKER: This is very

discourteous, let's see what the honourable gentleman has to say.

Thank you Mister Speaker. As a former pensions minister, I was very

proud when this Government introduced a triple lock on the

state pension which increased by �234 in its first year to every

pensioner in the land. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that

under the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut or cap pensions, all of our

pensioners will lose that increase and their standard of living will

fall sharply? I think my honourable friend is absolutely right. What we

have done under this Government is but a cap on welfare that families

can receive but have been as generous as we can with pensioners

who have worked hard during their lives and want to have dignity and

security in old age, that is why we have the triple lock. And because we

now know that the party opposite want to cut the pension, because

they are putting a cap on pensions but not welfare, just this morning,

the shadow Foreign Secretary was on television this morning challenged

about the triple lock and said it was their policy at present. At

present. Given all of the U-turns we have had in the last week from the

party opposite, I don't think that will last a very long. Wilbur Prime

Minister congratulate Bolton Wanderers football club for doing

the right thing by rejecting sponsorship from a payday loan firm?

And will he also joining and do the right thing --join in and do the

right thing and give local authorities the power to ban these

predatory loan sharks from our high streets? I hear absolutely what he

says and I wish Bolton Wanderers well for their future. What I would

say we need to do is give more support to credit unions in this

country and that is one of the best ways of addressing this whole

problem of payday loans and payday lending. I also hope he will welcome

the fact that over the last year, unemployment has fallen fastest in

the north-west of our country. is National carers week, Wilbur

Prime Minister join me in paying tribute -- Wilbur Prime Minister

join the... THE SPEAKER: Order. If the session

has to be extended to accommodate the rights of members, it will be

extended. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Wilbur

Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the huge commitment that

carers make day in day out for caring for frail family members,

friends and partners, often without financial assessment and sign up to

the recommendations of Prepared To Care? I think the honourable member

speaks for the whole house and the whole country in embracing

Britain's carers, they did an amazing job and if they stopped, the

cost to the taxpayer would be phenomenal, so we should do what we

can to support our carers and make sure they get the proper respite

breaks they need to carry on doing the wonderful work they do. Why have

the numbers of supply teachers in secondary schools in the last year

increased by a staggering 17%? not have the figures for that, but

what I would say is that we have protected the amount of money that

goes into schools per pupil so that schools do have the money to employ

the teachers they need. Since 2010, unemployment and Brentford and I of

work has fallen by 6.9%. And youth unemployment has fallen by 19%. Does

this not show that our economic plan is working? I think the honourable

lady is absolutely right. We see today a growth in employment, a fall

in youth unemployment and most importantly, yes, we are losing jobs

in the public sector, because we had to make cuts to the public sector,

but while we lost over 100,000 jobs in the last year, we have gained

five times as many as that in the private sector. The shadow

Chancellor as ever wants to give a running commentary. Let me just

remind the House what he said, because I think this is one of the

most important quotations in the last ten years of British politics.

Quote-macro do I think the last Labour Government was profligate and

spent too much? No, I don't think there is any evidence about". That

phrase will be hung around his neck forever. 500 homes in my

constituency were flooded in November. Residents in my

constituency are terrified that their homes and businesses are now

worthless because this Government has failed to replace the flood

insurance scheme. It is also cutting over �200 million from flood defence

works. Why is this Prime Minister selling my constituency down the

river? I can give the honourable gentleman some welcome news, which

is we had to extend the period of the scheme so we could continue

negotiations, but I am confident that we will put in place a proper

successor to that scheme and an announcement will be made quite

soon. The company in my constituency made lava lamps and have been making

them for 50 years and make very large exports to Germany. They have

run into a problem with a reclassification of the product and

I wonder if I could send all of the information to the Prime Minister

and end list his support for this very innovative company operating so

well within our country? I am very happy to receive the information

from my honourable friend. It is important that we get British

exports up. If we move from one in five of our small businesses to one

in four exporter, that will wipe out the trade deficit. The accident and

emergency at Ealing Hospital is one of four he is closing in north-west

London, so I welcome the Health Secretary's review, but with waiting

times at a nine-year high, ambulances being diverted and the

risk of death, will he acknowledged that these closures are not a

serious option if the NHS is safe in his hands? The point I would make,

as he knows, the Health Secretary has asked the IRP to submit a full

review of the proposals. Whatever decision is reached, these proposals

are not due to a lack of central Government funding, because

north-west London will receive �3.6 billion this year, that is �100

million more than a year before, and if we had listened to the Labour

Party, who said that more NHS spending was irresponsible, then his

hospitals will be having �100 million less. Will the the Prime

Minister join me in congratulating the China Britain business Council

and its inspirational vice-chairmen for organising a seminar which more

than 60 businesses in Watford attended last Friday about exporting

to China? I think they should be congratulated on this initiative.

am very happy to extend my praises to the business Council. If we look

at the evidence over the last few years, there is a significant

increase of British exports to China and a big increase of Chinese direct

investment into the UK, and all of this is welcome and we need to see

it grow even further. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he understands

the importance of the creative industries to the economy of this

country, and that they need to be buttressed by adequate intellectual

property rights? Is he also aware that his intellectual property

minister, that tourney handed sons of toil the fifth Viscount Younger

of Leckie recently said in relation to Google, " I am very aware of

their power, I am also very aware that they have access for whatever

reason to higher levels at Number Ten than do I". Isn't that a

disgraceful comment? THE SPEAKER: Order! Order! The

honourable gentleman's question, which refers to a distinguished

constituent of mine suffered from the disadvantage of being too long.

The Prime Minister. First of all, I agree that the creative industries

are very important for Britain's future. If we take the music

industry, it has had a record year in terms of sales. One in every four

album sold in Europe is made in the UK, and it is something we can be

very proud of. We do have to get the intellectual property regime right,

that is why we are legislating and we have taken action to extend the

life of copyright protection to 75 years, which has been welcomed

across the industry and I simply don't accept what he says about my

ministers. Indeed, the minister most responsible for this is the

honourable member for Wantage, whose father was a noble by Harold Wilson.

So that doesn't fit. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the

hard work of the honourable member for South Holland and the deep

things -- the things for ensuring that the kind of decisions taken at

local level concerning wind turbines remain local. However, many of my

constituents in south-east Cornwall are becoming increasingly concerned

that our green fields are becoming solar fields. Should decisions

regarding solar fields be subjected to the same planning laws as wind

turbines? First of all, I join her in praising the excellent work done

by The Right Honourable member, carried on by the Minister, The

Right Honourable member for Sevenoaks, they have done a good job

of bringing some sanity on the issue of onshore wind. On solar panels,

this Government did substantially reduce the feed-in tariffs to make

sure that this industry was not over subsidised, because all of these

subsidies end up you will's bills. Glenfield Hospital has the second

best survival rates for children's heart surgery in the country. Will

the Prime Minister ensure that the quality of care, including survival

rates, which is what matters most to parents, is central to any decision

about the future of these services? I think the honourable lady is

absolutely right. The Health Secretary will make an announcement

shortly about the issues safe and secure, children's heart operations.

We have to be frank that we cannot expect really technical surgery like

children's heart operations to be carried out at every hospital in the

country. As the parent of a desperately ill child wanting to get

the best care for that child, you need to know you're getting

something that is the world best for technical operations. You cannot get

that everywhere but clearly the conclusion that this process,

started in 2008, hasn't been carried out properly, so we need to make a

restart. Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, Britain became an

exporter of cars for the first time since 1976. If this trend continues,

the UK will produce an all-time record of 20 million cars by 2017.

Isn't this an example of a high value upscaling and putting the

great back into British manufacturing and exports?

honourable friend is absolutely right, this is a good example of a

British industry that is succeeding. If you look at Honda, Nissan and

Jaguar Land Rover, there is really good news in the automotive sector.

What we now need to do is make sure we get behind that sector and

encourage them to have as much as their supply chain onshore as

possible. That is beginning to happen and I'm hoping the progress

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 47 seconds

change? After all of the talk of the last few weeks, the iron discipline

we were going to hear about, the welfare cap they were telling us

about, test one, failure. avoidance is rightly at the heart of

the G8 agenda, could my right honourable friend tell the House

what advice he might have received on this issue from either the leader

of the Labour Party or the international lobbying shadow

Chancellor? It is this Government that is putting aggressive tax

avoidance at the heart of the G8 agenda and what do we hear this week

from the Labour Party? They give tax avoidance advice to their donors.

That is what they have been doing. �700,000 of tax avoided because of

what Labour advised their donor to do. He asked me to calm down and

frankly I cannot, because this is money that ought to be going into

the health service, into education, it ought to be going into training

young people, so let me challenge him. Will you give the money back?

Yes or no? Will you give... It is very simple. This is what the Labour

leader said. In the Guardian, so it must be true. The 2nd of April. "

tax avoidance is a terrible thing. He said that if everybody approaches

their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax

affairs, we would not have health service. We would not have an

education system. That is the shameful state of the Labour Party

today. This week is parents week, but the Prime Minister show support

for the 7 million unpaid carers across the country and invest one

billion from last year's underspend into social care, as we have placed

we will do, so averting the Government made prices in a Andee

and social care? We could start with the money from Labour's tax

avoiding. That is money that should be going into the care system and

into the National Health Service. This Government has put 12 points �7

billion extra into our NHS. That is how we are supporting carers and

hospitals -- club one 7 billion. She can have a word with her leader.

we approach the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, will the

Prime Minister join with me in recognising the challenges we face

in continuing to bring oil and gas ashore from the North Sea, the

skills and dedication of those who do it, and the paramount importance

of safety in ensuring we can continue to exploit these

resources? I certainly join my honourable friend in praising the

North Sea oil and gas industry. It is a real jewel in the crown of the

United Kingdom economy. I think what is encouraging is that this year, we

are seeing a growth in production as a number of new fields and projects

come on stream, but he is absolutely right to say that at all times,

safety and security are absolutely and on and on.

Then Ed Miliband went on living standards and the fact they are

still being squeezed. We have discussed that too. Ireland not sure

what we are going to -- I am not sure what we are going to do for the

next 25 minutes. The e-mails were on those subjects. On Syria, all three

party leaders need to avoid unnecessary procast nation on Syria,

the hottest place is in hell are reserved for those who in times of

great moral crisis maintain their neutrality.

This is from James. " We heard we would not interfere in Syria. Please

do not arm these people. It will make things worse. Do we never

learn?" Ian White Whitely, "The first clash was statesmanlike and

the second clash was more like it. The flash of temper from David

Cameron showed him under pressure on the xwhe. Xh Ed Miliband recovered

from last week's disaster and won. There were no answers from David

Cameron." Ed Miliband, this is from Helen Manning, "Ed Miliband would

rather talk about Syria today, Ed Balls' faux pas at the weekend about

pensions being capped. Even Ed Balls couldn't believe what his lips were

saying by the look on his face." That's according to Helen. This is

from Alan, item I am and sick and tired of hearing Conservative

politicians making up that pensioners are hard workers and

people receiving benefits are getting something fromming in --

something for nothing. I worked hard as a children 's nurse until I

became ill and I paid into the pot too." Le, the Prime Minister was

watching the programme or at least one of his people were. The Prime

Minister said, " We know the party opposite want to cut the pension."

Douglas Alexander was on TV there are morning. That would be the Daily

Politics! Challenged about the triple-lock, that would be me, he

said, it was... Shall we go?He said the triple-lock was their policy at

present. This is a the Prime Minister, quoting you saying at

presentmed. Given all the U-turns we have had said the Prime Minister in

the past week from the party opposite, I don't think at present

it will last long. He is just trying to make mischief. The Prime Minister

might have cate better served preparing his answers on Syria.

Why did you say at present? Because you were implying the position has

changed or was going to change and I was saying clearly our position

remains the same. I challenged to you could reconcile

having a cap on pensions spending and support for the triple-lock?

is possible that you can set out specific policies in relation to

pensions while recognising that you need over a longer time to have a

fiscal framework thatting you can defend, explain and that keeps the

public finances in order. But when you say the triple-lock is

your policy at present, does that mean it could change? Well, it

remains our policy. I believe it will remain our policy, but I'm not

going to write a manifesto this morning, you wouldn't expect me to.

We are committed to providing the same level of support that we have

on many areas and we want to do that within that fiscal framework.

It is the conversation that no one in politics wanted to happen for

years. The driver of welfare costs in Britain are pensions. Pensioners

don't want to hear it. People are the writing the e-mails as I speak

telling me they paid all their lives, the thing that is

unaffordable is the cost of old people. No one wants to talk about

it, but it is true. There is more and more of them. The cost is going

up. The triple-lock is costing them much, much money than they budgeted

for. That's the lock that said that he pensions would rise either

inflangs or 2. 5%. Remember the argument that Gordon Brown was

locked in this argument with Barbara Castle and she was a fighter for

pensioners rights whether the link that Margaret Thatcher broke between

pensions and earnings should be restored. The coalition decided to

go one step further, not just restoring the link with earnings.

The problem they have got that they don't like talking about because it

deep deeply -- it is deeply, deeply unpopular, this does look

unaffordable. With the size of the population, the growing size of the

elderly population. Michael Howard, what do you make of

Douglas Alexander's formulation? The formulation of triple-lock at

present? I don't think Nick is right in saying that no one wanted to talk

xw this ard or do anything about. What the Government has done is

raise the retirement age and that's an important element of this

problem. And Mr Miliband mentioned that

Labour would have to continue to look at this? The IFS produced

figures today, the number of pensioners who are working. The

number of people over 60. Four million people over 65 are

working or have come back into work which is a record number? As I am a

pensioner pensioner! I am still working. I disclose my interests...

You are doing all these young people out of a job. Touch wood, stay

vigorous in their 60s and 70s, it is a good thing. I think that's an

important element and that's the Government doing something right.

had a policy statement from the Prime Minister on the help to buy

homes, but he has been criticised that it could be used to buy second

homes or frorners to use it to buy homes. The Prime Minister said the

scheme is for people's only home which I rather complicated, but he

must mean that you can only have one home, you can't use it it for a

second one. To take part in the scheme you have to have a credit

record and a credit record in this country which I guess he is counting

out people from abroad coming here to do this? When the Chancellor

announced this in his Budget, the potential of a subsidy to people's

mortgages up to purchases of �650,000. He was asked by Ed Balls,

the Shadow Chancellor, "Are you going to use this to subsidise

second homes?" You could see people's eyes lighting up and George

Osborne hadn't got an even and week after week in Prime Minister's

Questions David Cameron has not had an answer. They have used this

formula of only home. I have been tweeting George Osborne's spokesman

who seems to imply that have you had two homes you couldn't apply for it,

not just buy a second home, you couldn't use it to apply for a new

first home. You would be ruled out if there are two home-owners or a

three or four home-owners, you couldn't apply for this or indeed

somebody from a... The devil will be in the detail.

Why is it taking a it so long? devil is in the detail. How do you

prove whether someone has one or two homes? Last week at Prime Minister's

Questions, the formulation was it is a statement that's going to come

from George Osborne and I think they realised they the didn't want to go

through another week with the Prime Minister looking as if he didn't

understand what is a key part of the Government's agenda.

significance of this, Andrew, there are some economists now referring to

the possibility of a housing back to boom like the boom in the 80s or the

Barber boom by were intib rattly I think neared booms ahead of general

elections. The The reason this is controversial

is not simply whether money might be given to people who don't need it,

but whether money is being used to artificially engineer a boom. Of

will follow up on this, but it sounds like he hasn't answered the

questions on this. Well, are until you know how it works. It maybe the

intention. I mean what was interesting, when words are used

that are words that you wouldn't normally use because some civil

servant... Like only home.I keep hearing the word "intention". It is

the intention Or at present. LAUGHTER

Sorry! At present we are going to have to move on! Nick, thank you

very much. Jo. We are heading to Dover, sadly

not or a booze cruise, but Europe is on the mind of councillor Suzanne he

Evans who defected from the Conservatives to UKIP. Here is her

take on why Britain needs to say p A place that needs no introduction,

a symbol of British independence and freedom. I'm at the lighthouse in

Dover just 21 miles from France and Europe. For centuries, the English

Channel defended us against invasion in the threat and of control by

major powers in Europe, but today, politics has rendered it all but

irrelevant. I find it appalling that we give �55 million to Europe every

day more than we get back. Here in our own country, 2. 5 million of us

are unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of us are relying on

foodbanks to survive. And we are still �900 billion in debt. That

money should be spent sorting out money should be spent sorting out

money should be spent sorting out our own problems. But it is not just

the money, it is the interference. I sometimes think there must be a

group of bureaucrats thinking, " What can we do to screw up people's

lives today?" Often their schemes are laughable, but when they

threatened to take us to court because we insist that EU migrants

should prove they live in Britain before they can claim benefits then

it goes beyond a joke. We have given away too much power. Yes, a

referendum it promised by the Tories in four years time and only then if

we vote them in as a majority Government in 2015 and talk of

trying to repatriate powers is just that. Existing treaties make this

impossible. I think we are better off out of Europe and that's why I

have joined UKIP. The inability of the Conservative Party leadership to

connect with issues on the doorstep just made the decision all that

easier. I know there are plenty of other people voters and politicians,

who are sick of the Lib/Lab Con and they are ready to make a similar

journey. Suzanne is with us, who else in your

old party is greater Falla? Councillor Rod Scott has resigned

from the party and has announced he is joining UKIP. Any others? Not so

far, but I live in hope. Why have you left the party that is in power

and can actually make a difference and job to a fringe party that

hasn't got a single MP and is probably never going to be in power?

I don't think the current Government, the Conservative party,

has the will to make a difference. A referendum in four years' time,

2017, if David Cameron really wanted to get out of Europe, he would put

the legislation on the table now, whether he thought he was going to

win or not. The truth is, he's not interested and want us to stay in.

Michael Howard, are you sad to see people like Suzanne leave the

Conservative party? I am sad to see anyone leave the Conservative party.

I agree that the way in which the EU works at the moment is

unsatisfactory in many respects. you agree that the Conservative

party no longer has the will to make a difference? Of course I don't,

David Cameron has indicated clearly a determination to change the way we

trade with Europe to make it a better European Union not only for

us, but for every other member states of the European Union. And I

think he should be given the opportunity to try and negotiate

that. And in 2017, we can all make up our own minds as to whether we

want to stay in or not. I think the question is how realistic is it

going to be to renegotiate those treaties? We will all have the

opportunity to make a judgement of whether he has succeeded or not. I

don't know how we will vote. If we haven't made some significant

changes, I may well vote no. But I think it is reasonable for the Prime

Minister to be given the opportunity to see whether he can make those

changes and we are the only party that is promising to give the

British people a say on this issue. But the gamble hasn't worked has it?

That promise has been made and UKIP has done better than at any other

time in recent election results. all know that at this stage in

parliament, parties like UKIP do very well for all sorts of different

reasons. If the Liberal Democrats went in Government, they would be

hoovering up by-election after by-election. That is the way our

politics works in the mid-term. I think when it comes to the general

election, and we do conservatives will be able to say very clearly,

vote us back, we will do our best to renegotiate and you will then decide

in 2017 whether on those terms you want to stay in or leave. I think

that is a compelling argument. even, in your own backyard if you

like, the county council elections in Folkestone and hide, there were

three UKIP gains and one Green game. What should you do? How would you

woo back Suzanne? The one thing I would like to see is a legislated

commitment to holding that referendum. I would very much like

to see the Private members Bill, which is going to have its second

reading next month, on the statute book. Because you don't believe it

will happen without it? I believe it will happen without it but I am

aware there are a number of people who are sceptical about that and do

not trust what politicians say, and I think it would be a very good

thing indeed if that commitment is on the statute book before the

general election. Would that make a difference question mark now, if you

want to woo me back, and that is unlikely, you would have to get it

through now. Let's have it on the same day as the General Election.

Douglas Alexander, is Labour going to offer the British people and

in-out referendum at the next General Election? We are not

convinced that it is in the national interest, so we have taken the

position we have taken. Can you rule it out question mark can you rule

out for us here, bearing in mind -- can you rule it out? It is never

wise to say never. We will never rule out the possibility of a

referendum in the future, dependent on changes we have not yet seen and

circumstances that we don't at present envisaged. We are on the

other hand clear that the sovereignty act on the table at the

moment, part of the statue, which allows for a referendum if there is

a significant transfer of sovereignty, so it is not in

principle an objection to referendum but the priority has to be economic

recovery and the biggest issue of the General Election is going to be

the economy. You are not united on this. I have had several Labour

senior figures say we need a referendum. Of course there are some

in the party's ranks who have supported a referendum but I would

argue that even they overwhelmingly see a referendum as a mechanism of

securing fresh consent for British membership. It is not, as we have

seen a game from Michael's comments, because our party split as well,

Michael says he would vote against, Philip Hammond says he would vote

against, Michael Gove said he would vote against, the Prime Minister

cannot tell us how he would vote. And I am not that surprised that

Suzanne and many other former Conservative colleagues are deeply

unconvinced that the strategy the Tories are choosing to pursue.

Red-faced, puffing politicians, they were out in force last night. Some

of them were dragging their colleagues to the left, others

desperately pulling to the right. What is new, I hear you cry? This

time, it was the annual Charity tug of war. Giles Dilnot grabbed the end

of a rope and he joined in. Westminster is traditionally fall of

�1 ceremony, it is not short of a few people blowing their own trumpet

too, but this event is neither of these things -- full of pomp and

ceremony. The annual Parliamentary tug of war pits teams of the fit and

healthy, or the unfit and foolhardy in my case, in one of life's less

dignified sporting endeavours. My back might never recover, but let's

see how this goes. In short, not very well. We lost

2-1, but nobody was really there to watch us.

Here is the contest they have been waiting for, your elected

representatives against unelected representatives of the Lords. MPs,

cross-party, all pulling together. And now they go. As in Parliament,

the upper chamber has less power than the Commons and first blood

went a bit predictably to the MPs, but second round and suddenly their

Lordships showing the strain fought back.

Not for many a year have the Lords actually won any of the tug of wars

they have done. This could be important, they actually won one. It

is 1-1. But despite a titanic effort from certain peers, it was

eventually the MPs that one, although the mean were gracious in

defeat. We were waiting for the final Paul and suddenly it was over.

We came a close second. There is a cover for winners to drink to the

only occasion where it is OK for politicians to pull a few strings

for money. We are joined now by people who were

both there last night. Just tell the nation, what was the result last

night? Alex? It was 2-1 to the House of Commons. In previous years, it

has been 2-0, so things have slipped. You looked as though you

were praying to the heavens for strength, it didn't work. We were

trying every technique and the best is to look straight up into the sky

but we were slightly disadvantaged, because the Commons weighed in at

one time, and we weighed in 130 kilograms less. A tonne?But all is

fair in love and tug of war. Commons team weighed a tonne, that

is what subsidised dining does for you. They are normally the

lightweights. Once again bringing wait to reduce politics. But most

importantly, we raised almost �150,000 for Macmillan cancer.

everybody thinks is a great cause. Did the Commons team actually

intentionally put weight on for this? Actually, the team captain's

face dropped to the ground when he found out I have lost weight since

last year but he still put me in as the anchorman, but he wasn't happy.

What training did you do for this great event? A few pints and a pie.

That is tough. They even put beer into the trophy and they were very

gracious in allowing us to share it with them. Was it your beer?It was

COBRA. Andrew, you can take part next year.

I have been there and I have been one of those shouting. They have

teams of cheerleaders. Alex, what do you put your unusual victory down

to? Grit and determination. That can't be true. Either that or the

Cobra beer. Another plug for the Cobra beer. Is

this the first time you to have taken part? No, I have been in

Parliament for seven years and have taken part every year and we did win

one year, I can remember that. let you down? No one lets us down,

this is a simulation of what happens between the houses in real life,

when we defeat the Government in the House of Lords, it goes back to the

House of Commons and it comes back to us and we send it back again.

we always win. Very diplomatic. You don't always

win, it was unusual. We were to let you go, you need to get in training

for next year. That we better.

More pints and pies. Now to put you out of your misery with the answer

to Guess The Year. The answer was 1967. Douglas, if you press the red

button. And look behind. There you go, Philip Thomson. From a beautiful

part of the world. That is it for today, thank you to all of our

guests. The news is starting over on BBC One, I will be back tomorrow at

noon with all of the big political stories of the day. Where will you