04/07/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. Democracy in Egypt is over. It lasted no more than a year.

Last night, soldiers arrested the man the people elected President

after decades of military rule. To wild celebrations, in Cairo's

main square. So what happens now, and why are

these young people, liberal secular and pro-democracy cheering on the

Army as it mounts a military coup. At home, ministers tighten the rules

on immigration. How ever if Equitablive are the rules and are

they tight enough? And who's upset the speaker and just

what have they done wrong? The administration of this matter

has been woefully inadequate and frankly utterly incompetent. I've

not known a worst example during my tenure as speaker.

Was he talking to you? ! No, it was you! Me?Yes. Better not be.

All that in the next hour. With us throughout the programme, Melanie

Phillips. This is from the blurb in her book, once a Guardian feature

writer, she changed her mind on practically everything and emerged

to champion the high moral ground at the Daily Mail. That's what your

publishers say about you? I'm the publisher of my own book you see. I

wrote that blurb. I'm an e-book publisher, thank you for the advert,

wasn't expecting that, but thank you. Cheque's in the post.

The big news story of the day - the military coup in Egypt. Yesterday,

soldiers arrested President Mohammed Morsi, the country's first freely

elected leader. The President's opponents had been camped out in

Cairo's main square for days and the move sparked wild celebrations. Army

chiefs say they are suspending the constitution which had been improved

by a referendum just last year and are promising to hold new elections

after a brief transition. Within the last hour, the Prime

Minister has given his reaction. We have we never support the

intervention by the military, but what now needs to happen, what we

need to happen now in Egypt, is for democracy to flourish and for a

genuine democratic transition to take place and all parties need to

be involved. That's what Britain and our allies will be saying to the

Egyptians. With us from Tahrir Square is the BBC's Ben Brown. Ben,

we saw the wild celebrations, the pictures of Tahrir Square being

full. What is the atmosphere like there now?

Much quieter, Jo, than it was last night. Feels rather like the morning

after the night before. Last night, that square was absolutely packed

with tens of thousands of people and when they heard the announcement

from the Head of The Armed Forces that effectively, they were taking

over or there was going to be a new interim president taking over and

that Mr Morsi was out of power, the people in the square went absolutely

crazy, setting off fireworks, firing their green lasers into the night

sky. Today, a lot quieter, a few people down on the square. The

Egyptian Air Force actually a few minutes ago did a rather dramatic

celebratory flypast over the city. Nine jets trailing red,

black-and-white smoke, the colours of the Egyptian flag, so a

celebration from the military, of course. The people here in the

square have not described this as a military coup. They say it was

people power that forced out Mohammed Morsi, but Mr Morsi's

supporters in the country say he was this country's first democratically

elected lead leader. Only a year ago he was elected with more than 50% of

the vote and now he's been pushed out of power, they say, by a

full-scale military coup. Thank you.

We are joined by Jack Straw. He was Foreign Secretary from 2001-2006.

Welcome to to Richard Ottaway too. Should we regard this as a military

coup? Yes, because it is a military coup and the Middle East editor,

Jeremy Bowen, has been saying exactly that. No two ways about it.

Of course, there is obviously quite a lot of popular support for this,

but we should be very clear indeed that if you have democratic

elections and no-one said they weren't democratic when they took

place a year ago, you need to respect the result, even if it is

the result you don't like and so, a very clear message has to go out.

Whatever the reality we have to accommodate now, we can't pick and

choose the results of elections. We support the democratic principle

because it's the best long-term way of ensuring stability and prosperity

for people and that has to be the message for the people of Egypt.

you regard it as a military coup, as Jack Straw described it? Yes, I do.

Democracy really has gone out of the window here at the moment. I think

there have been misunderstanding on all sides. I think the President,

President Morsi, has decided he'd rule, rather than govern. The people

have expected quick results which haven't been possible to achieve and

I think the real mistake was when the constitutional court over

overthrew or decided that the elections to the lower House were

uncontusional and President Morsi didn't have fresh elections. That

was the moment it started to go wrong. How long before the young

people largely secular, liberal, as Jo was saying, who were cheering the

demise of Mr Morsi last night, how long before the Army's knocking on

their doors and starting to pull out their toe nails and stick catting

prod in them? I'm afraid the default setting of the Egyptian military is

not necessarily cattle prod, but it's to rule by that kind of method.

And Richard is right to say that Morsi's error was to rule, not to

govern, and not to recognise that if you are in a democracy, you give

vent and power to the will of the majority, but you also are very

careful about the rights of minorities and the rights of

individuals who disagree with you. That's how you get a balance, as we

have in this country. But this is not a military take-over is not a

solution. Does the British Government recognise the military?

As William Hague said this morning, we recognise states, not Government.

We have made it clear that we intend to work with the new Government to

try to bring about a democracy. Can I just pick up on a point that Jack

was making there. These young people in Tahrir Square are enthusiastic

and secular. The truth of the matter is, over 70% of Egypt is Islamic and

voted for Islamic Parties in the one time they had a chance. Particular

political the working case and the rural. I think the young people are

still in for a big shock. They mange they have a result, but in the

long-term... That was the point of my question to Jack.

The fact is though, that the Muslim Brotherhood, the party was elected,

a lot of people don't think the elections were quite as transparent

as Jack Straw has made out, they've governed very badly and they have

instituted a lot of the Islamic things that these young folk don't

like. I mean, the country could be heading, either for a

straightforward military dictatorship or a Civil War?

could be heading for a number of things, including an Islamic

Republic, an Islamic regime. But the mistake being made by my colleagues

here and by the Prime Minister and the President of America is to

confuse elections with democracy. I mean you are quite right that

overturning an elected result, the result of an election, is not good.

But the idea that elections bring democracy is simply false, as we

have heard. Mr Morsi was governing uncontusionally. The people opt

streets were reacting to what they saw as the progressive imposition of

Islamic tyranny, which had been facilitated by the naivety and

stupidity of the British and American Governments which looked at

Mr Mubarak and helped lever him out and installed the Muslim Brotherhood

on the basis of the Muslim Brotherhood as people we can do

business with. They are Islamic fundamentalist fanatics and people

are reacting against that. Sounds like an argument in favour of

oligarchs. Richard nor I don't believe elections equal democracy.

However, you may not have spotted this, but you can't have democracy

without elections. It's a necessary but not a sufficient component of a

democratic system and, one of the real tragedies is, they had

elections, they are not perfect but they are relatively free, no-one

denied the mandate that Morsi achieved. Plenty of mistakes were

made. He won?He did win, fair and square. With the backing of the

American President. Leave that fact out. It's important.I believe the

future of the Arab world depends critically on there being democratic

Governments installed. It's not happening though, is it? But the

elections bring to power Islamic fundamental... Melanie, so what are

you going to do? Are you going to send the tax in, whenever you go get

a democracy you don't like, this was a failure, included a mistake made

by me, Palestinian territories, we had elections and I kept saying to

people, you could end up with the wrong answer, Hamas and we did.

mistake after another from your Government and the Americans.

can't say there shouldn't be elections. Sorry about this, what

you have to say, even in this country we sometimes get Governments

we don't like. There shouldn't be elections until you have free press,

free judges, free police officers. This country took hundreds of years

when before we got to the point of elections. What about the interim?

You will have people in charge who're undemocratic regimes which

are not nice and you have elected regimes which are nice. What do you

make of the Egyptian Army? In many ways, it's similar to the Chinese

Army, runs its own businesses, it's very important as as part of

Egyptian society, it's a way Egyptians make your way up if you

work hard. They are not going to give this up, are they? I was out in

Egypt before the elections and met President Morsi before he became

President. I have to say, Melanie, if you think President Morsi's a

fundamentalist, you've got a big shop coming. Just go and visit the

other hardliners. What a shame Mr Mubarak went. You think that's a

shame? Absolutely. He was dreadful, but what came after him was worse

and what will come after this will be worse. What I discussed with

President Morsi was health, transport services and religion

doesn't come into this stuff in providing basic fundamental

services. That's why the Americans, rightly, decided they were people

they could do business with. Jack Straw, can I ask you to step back a

bit. If we look at the borders of this part of the Maghreb and into

the Lavant, they were all drawn, just half a mile from here, in the

office where you use Yahoo!ed to work by Mr Sykes, the Brit and Mr

Pickle, the Frenchman. That survived in various ways. -- used to work.

Are we seeing this Syrian war tipping into Lebanon with these

events in Egypt, is that the Sykes Pickle settlement beginning to

unravel? Look, the Sykes Pickle settlement was never a proper

settlement because during the First World War, we made three

contradictory sets of undertakes, this agreement was to carve up the

Arab world, Maghreb, Lavant between France and the UK. There was letters

which basically said it was handed over to the Arabs and then the

Balfour one which said we'd create a state of Israel. We created the

stability, that said that's getting on for 100 years ago. What is

happening now? We have to do our best to ensure that there is

relative stability there and I just say to Melanie whose argument in

favour of authoritarian regimes is refreshingly honest if nothing else,

that one of the reasons you have had a rise of not just thes Muslim

Brotherhood but also the Salifies, is precisely because people's wish

to have a say and for prosperity was held down by the regimes like

Mubarak and you reap what you sew in this life, Melanie. Easy agree.

That's why you have the problems. agree and I'm the first person to

support the desire for true democracy among a proportion of the

population. When you say I support authoritarian regimes, you know

that's a can cheap jibe. I'm saying that you in your naivety are setting

the authoritarian regimes against democracy. What you have brought

about is, through the appearance of democracy, elected dictatorships.

All right. Richard, an attempt to look at the wider picture now -

these countries that were created, you can see how artificial they are

because they are straight, so you know someone draws on the map. You

have Iran standing to the east of all this, a major player in Syria

and in Lebanon, on the border with Israel, we have Civil War in Syria,

we have Jordan on its knees because it cannot afford to look after these

refugees and they are destabilising it. We could be on the brink. We

have had a military coup in Egypt and we could be on the brink of

Civil War there. This region is unravelling, I would suggest to you?

In total turmoil and was intervention, Melanie and I

fundamentally disagree with you, we are facing a major configuration

where the people are trying to express their views. It's not a

spring or uprising, it's a change. It's a fundamental change. You are

right to point to Iran pulling the strings with Hezbollah. The

Palestine Israel question is off the agenda now at the moment. Jordan is

really struggling. The king is doing his best at the moment. One rule and

one thing that comes out of this, the rule we are going to learn from

history is you have to stay ahead of the curve and this is a man busting

a gut here to stay ahead of the curve and to do the right thing and

hold on to the country. We are leaving the country, but we are not

leaving the region, are we? We'll look at Syria in more detail. Next

weekend, MPs will debate whether they should be given a vet if ever

the British Government decides to send weapons to the opposition. In a

moment, we'll discuss the vexed issue of arming the rebels, but

first, Adam will bring us up-to-date the United Nations estimates that

90,000 have been killed and nearly 2 million have become refugees. A

fortnight ago, the White House confirmed that Assad had used

chemical weapons. The Obama administration also said it was

upping its support for the rebels, who are massively outgunned. The UK

is still providing them with non-lethal assistance such as

armoured vehicles and body armour. Next week, MPs will debate whether

they should be given a vote if the British government bans to go any

further. There are still questions about who the rebels are. The BBC

has seen mounting evidence of Sharia law in some of the areas that they

hold, including the execution of a 14-year-old boy for blasphemy. All

sides came in for criticism from our guest of the day on question Time

last month. She said the real issue was Iran and got this reaction when

she said it was a country that That is the problem, the defeatism

of the British people against a clear threat to this country's

interest. It was all smiles at the G8 summit.

All they can read agree on is where the regime and rebel should meet for

peace talks in Geneva, which seem to be slipping further and further into

the distance. Richard Ottaway and Jack Straw are

still with us. Do we know who the rebels are in Syria? We know a lot

of who the rebels are, a lot of them are sensible, some of them are not.

Some of them give us very great cause for alarm. One of the reason

why I am a reluctant... Not wholly opposed but reluctant to see us

arming the rebels, I certainly would not vote for it if there was a vote

tomorrow, I am not clear what controls there would be on the

weaponry. Is David Cameron being naive in his apparent support for

the rebels, non-lethal support as he would call it? No, I think it is a

sensible humanitarian gesture, as long as it is non-lethal support.

The difficulty is knowing what is non-lethal and what is lethal. Is

training people with weapons lethal support? I think David Cameron is

driven by Basic instinct, to try to stabilise the region and he will do

what ever he thinks necessary. The humanitarian case has been appalling

but we are now seeing images of sharia law being used, the execution

of a 14-year-old boy is equally shocking. What does it do to your

mindset when dealing with the Syrian situation? There are good rebels and

bad rebels and the trouble is finding a distinction between the

two. The whole region is fragmenting and I agree that bundling in a few

cases of rivals will not help things at all. We should only do something

in Syria if we think it would improve the lives and prosperity of

the people of Syria. Gesture politics is long gone here and there

is no obviously should. Maybe just doing nothing is the right solution.

Is it the right decision? I think I absolutely agree, we are looking at

two hideous alternatives in Syria. Assad is a hideous situation and we

can all see what a terrible butcher and tyrant he is. He has run a

regime which is a sponsor of international terrorism against

Western interest, so he is terrible. What opposes him is as

bad, if not worse, probably worse, insofar as the intentions towards us

are concerned. It is a bit like what I was saying earlier about

authoritarian regimes. We are facing... Looking at the Middle East

region, facing a situation where there is no good option. It is only

a series of what is the least worst option. It is a hideous choice but

from our point of view there is no point in getting involved in arming

people who might themselves be extremely dubious and not in our

best interest to arm, and secondly, those arms may fall into the hands

of people who are really a threat to us. Should the government be

supporting the rebels at all? No. view is that in the whole region, we

should only ever be involved if there is a clear advantage to our

national interest. It is not the case that we are doing nothing.

There is a great deal of non-lethal support. It is doing quite a lot of

Anshuman a Terry and aid. Slightly more hopeful news from the region --

Iranians. There is a chance that we can. I am not naive about Iran.

did not get anywhere four-year is? We were getting somewhere. -- you

Americans got what they didn't want, Ahmadinejad. We have got to get Iran

to this peace conference which is planned in Geneva. What did you mean

when you said Iran should be neutralised? Green I meant that, the

threat should be neutralised. It is stunningly naive and we have been

negotiating with Iran one way or another for a very long time. We

have given them the one priceless gift they wanted, time to make their

lot of alarming evidence that they don't want nuclear energy just for

peaceful purposes. We have a former British Foreign Secretary here,

seeming to question that Iran has a nuclear programme for weapons

purposes, is that what you are saying? My instinct about Iran is

that they are building a civil nuclear programme and they want the

intellectual capacity to make a nuclear weapons programme as well,

but there is no evidence, not from the IAEA, not from the Americans,

quite the reverse from the Americans, which says there is a

smoking gun here. Much less of a smoking gun then there was in

respect of Iraq or Libya. Are you saying they are not involved in

building a bomb as we speak? I don't know for certain but there is no

evidence they are involved in building a bomb at the moment.

halfway between these two. The IAEA, which I went to the other day, is a

very cautious organisation and they will not say they are building a

bomb unless they can hold up a bomb. That isn't going to happen. But they

are saying there is quite a lot of supporting evidence that they have

gone beyond the civil programme, into a nuclear capacity. You said

neutralised but you did not say how. We only had sanctions that started

to bite quite recently and that was a terrible mistake. Military action

always much be an absolute last resort. You only take military

action if the alternative is worse. Neutralise means we have to remove

the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The war?No, which means no

longer talking to them. Which means excluding them from the Society of

civilised nations, which we have not done. Will it make a difference?

Absolutely. They must know that there is a big stick that we are

wielding, the Americans, it is only the Americans who matter. The United

States publishes a National intelligence estimate, they

published one in 2007, saying that they judge that Iran had abandoned

its development of nuclear weapons programmes in 2003 and saw no

evidence it was being brought back. That has not been countermanded

since. I accept there is ambiguous evidence about the enrichment of

uranium but that does not equal a bomb. Are you satisfied that the

government has committed itself to the idea there would be a vote in

parliament before arms could be sent to Syrian rebels? Absolutely, Andrew

Lansley, leader of the house, said it in undeniable terms, that there

would be a vote. The debate is slightly academic. And a vote that

the government probably would not win. It depends what is proposed.As

always. Thank you, gentlemen. The Government has been promising

more action on immigration this week - clamping down on landlords renting

to illegal immigrants and charging non-European migrants to use the

NHS. Today, ministers have been talking about tightening up on the

rules on soldiers who might want to bring family members into the UK. In

a moment we'll talk to the Immigration Minister about the

changes but first, Jo's going to take us through the coalition's

attempts to reduce net migration. The Conservative Party's 2010

Manifesto stated: "We will take steps to take net migration back to

the levels of the 1990s - tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of

thousands". To achieve this, the coalition has introduced a number of

measures to reduce non-EU migrants. Since 2011 they have imposed an

immigration cap stipulating that only 20,700 non-European workers can

enter the UK each year. The rules surrounding visas for non-European

students have been tightened and hundreds of colleges stripped of

their rights to bring international students to the UK. They have also

introduced new rules for the families of migrants from outside

Europe - you must earn a minimum of �18,600 if you want to bring a

spouse or partner into the country, more if you have children as well.

Today this has been extended to cover members of the Armed Forces.

And yesterday, proposals were unveiled that could see non-EU

migrants forced to pay at least �200 a year to access the NHS. Despite

proving controversial, these measures appear to be working. The

most recent figures showed a drop in net migration of 89,000 to 153,000

in the year ending September 2012. But they can't do anything about the

number of European immigrants and with restrictions due to be lifted

on Romanians and Bulgarians entering the country at the end of the year,

could we be set to experience a rise again?

I'm now joined by the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee

Keith Vaz, and the Immigration Minister Mark Harper. Mark Harper,

you have extended the family migration rules, you want to bring

in your spouse, to cover the Armed Forces. You set a salary limit of

�18,600 a year. Which is higher than the basic salary of a regular

soldier. We looked carefully at that. After three years in the Armed

Forces, most member will be earning higher than that number. We have

done two things. When we brought the rules in last year, we deliberately

did not bring them into the Armed Forces because the Home Office and

Ministry of Defence wanted to make sure we would not disadvantaged

people, articulate those who serve overseas. When we brought in the

rules that apply to the Armed Forces, those who are already on a

path to a settlement, who have applied for a Visa, will be dealt

with under the old rules. It applies to new people who join and we have

very good and transitional arrangements which will be made

clear to service personnel. If you are in phase one training on �275 a

week, it rises to �17,767 after a year. You have been serving your

country and you have set a limit higher than what they are learning.

The rules should apply to everybody who wants to bring a foreign

national spouse into the United Kingdom, they apply to everybody

else in the UK. Once you have been in the Armed Forces for three years,

your salary will in able you to do that and we think it is fair and

reasonable. If you are an officer you can do it, but if you are a

squaddie, you will not be able to. Once you have been in the Armed

Forces for three years, you will be earning more than the salary level.

It was one of the questions I asked we looked at income through the

Armed Forces. This is most unfair but my constituents have had to put

up with this since the rules changed. The average salary in

Leicester is 16,000. You are now allowed to fall in love, you are

allowed to get married, at you can't bring your spouse in unless you

reach that limit. I thought it was a booming migrant city of

entrepreneurs and hard-working successful people? You're not paying

them enough restaurant I don't do them the pain. I don't work for the

BBC so they have to take what they some are working very long hours to

get up to that limit. I don't think there was abuse under the old

system. Mark and his government extended the length of time people

had to stay here before they could get indefinite leave and claim

benefits. I think it was the right thing to do, to make it a longer

probation or period, and that is the way you deal with abuse --

probationary period. I think the service personnel will have years

and years of misery without their spouses before they come in and that

is very sad. Let me make it clear why Twell made the changes. You can

fall in love and marry whoever you want. If you want to bring your

family to the UK, we are just asking you to support them, rather than the

taxpayer. The reason we set the salary level, it wasn't a made up

figure, we got the migration advisory committee to do some

research on it. You have to stand on your own two feet. We had a debate

in the House of Commons and there's a debate in the House of Lords this

afternoon. Lots of Labour MPs didn't like it and said it was unfair.

Interestingly, and Keith's challenged the Labour frontbench on

this, the Labour frontbench don't seem to be disagreeing with this. I

think they know it's the right thing to do and it's popular. It's about

making people being able to support themselves. In general, is the

Government on the right track on immigration? In general I think they

are. I mean, it's a very serious problem that we now face, due to

many years of wilful neglect and worse, in just ignoring the terrible

strain put on the country by accepting too many people. The

Government is trying to bite the bullet. I'm not sure about the

arcane details of precisely what salary levels should be and so on,

but the minister makes a perfectly reasonable case about the point

people standing on their own two feet, we should say welcome to them.

We should say welcome to immigrants, immigration enriches the life of a

nation. I myself am the grand child of immigrants, but we all have to

understand that there comes a point where a society simply can't take so

many people. Keith Vaz, there is a general mood in the country that

we'd like a break from mass immigration, which is what we had

during the Labour years? The 26 years I've been in Parliament,

there's always been the issue of immigration. Thest not something

new, Melanie. People have always said there's too many people coming

in, I declare my interest as a first generation immigrant, I was nine

when I came here. Immigration's hugely benefitted the UK, however,

it's the detail that's going to cause so many difficulties. Are you

against the principle under Labour? It rose to over a net immigration

into this country of over 250,000, sometimes higher than that. As a

growth figure, it was over 500,000 a year. The Government want to bring

this down, it was a manifesto pledge of theirs, is that right or wrong?

It's right under Labour and under this Government as well. The system

of immigration is still broken. It was Theresa May who said only in

March of this year that the body that was administered to look after

immigration, the UK Border Agency was closed, secretive and defensive.

That hasn't changed in four months, it's the administration that's the

problem. You can avoid my broader question, but is it right to be

cutting net migration by roughly the ballpark figure that the Government

is attempting? No, it isn't right because, at the Prime Minister said

in the leaked letter today, what's happened on education is that fewer

students want to come into this country. As a result of that, he's

suggesting, or somebody in Number Ten is suggesting that people should

be allowed to go to our schools and pay to go to our schools when they

come from abroad. The proper universities in this country have

had a record intake of foreign students? They have.Public schools

have been closing which you allowed to flourish under Labour? I didn't

because I wasn't the minister. were an avatar for Labour?

committee's made it clear that under successive Governments, they had not

done enough about abuse. This is changing and the issue is cutting

down on abuse, welcoming people and there's common ground on this

between Mark and I, those who make a contribution should be allowed to

come to our country. Those who come illegally... Sometimes you don't

know it until they arrive? I'm not in favour of the amnesty, for

example. People would never have known you were going to make a

contribution until you got here. At the border we probably would have

said, don't let him in, and what a mistake that would job! You would

have noticed the skills I would have contributed and immediately let me

and my sisters in! But the fact is, let's take the politics out of

immigration. I think... Really?Yes. There's a lot of common ground.

We'll all be pushing up the Daisies before that happens. The only party,

an anti-immigration party, is UKIP. The rest there's common ground.

Melanie's right. We welcome immigrants, but people want a system

that's under control. We want people coming here to contribute. The

points we made in the consultations yesterday about making people come

here to study and about make making contributions to the Health Service,

that's right, stopping people being able to rent property if they don't

have the right to be here is right, so it discourages those who're not

having a trying be here. We have rules on family migrations, you can

come here and you have to stand on your own two feet, don't expect the

taxpayer to contribute for you. and sausages are two things you

never want to see being made. The European Parliament in a surprise

move yesterday passed a Bill that will have a huge effect on energy

Bills for the next 40 years. It will force up the price of carbon

allowances and the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. That's not been a

great success so far. It's largely been irrelevant. They are trying to

change that. It seeks to make businesses pay for the CO 2

emissions and they'll pass on the Cos to the consumer. That would be

us, by which point we won't feel so enthusiastic about it. The vote ends

over the future of the EU oo else energy and climate change policy and

the climate change commissioner, Connie Hedegaard joins us now from

Brussels -- E U's commissioner. Why are you pushing up the costs at a

time when it's on its knees? We are not pushing up costs, we are taking

care that despite the Christ sits in Europe, we are not making it free,

making it cost nothing to pollute. I think most Europeans would agree

that that would not be a wise future strategy for Europe. What we are

trying to achieve is that the price to pollute will come back to what

they were last fall. It's extremely important to get the proportion

right. So far the scheme's been ineffective because the price hasn't

mattered, it's down to five euros I think, a metric tonne of CO 2 and

maybe even lower, so it doesn't affect it. You can only get the

industries to produce less CO 2 if you charge them a lot more for doing

it. So by definition, your same to make it more expensive to do

business in Europe? It. So by definition, your same to

make it more expensive to do business in Europe?

We want to put a price on pollution. It's clear that if I say we should

take care that the price is not coming too close to zero, that the

price costs more than if it was at zero. I'm not sure that's bad for

industry. When we analyse in the commission which sectors have the

potential in Europe in the coming years, to create the jobs we so

badly need in Europe, which sectors come out? Communication, health and

the green sector, renewables, energy efficiency and waste handling. That

has actually been proven through the crisis that the green sector has the

potential really and has done and made a contribution to net creation

of jobs. So I would say if there is an incentive to produce greener,

cleaner, more efficient products, on the other hand is what this whole

discussion is all about, then it can stimulate innovation in our

countries and create growth and export possibilities for Europe. I

simply do not buy the claim that if we had a decent price on polluting

with CO2 that it's a negative effect for jobs. It's not. But Europe is

awash with unemployed people and even before you eve... Not because

of climate policies. Let me finish the question. But that is extremely

parent to get it right -- important to get right... Even before you add

to the price, European energy costs are the highest in the world.

Germany's 40% higher than the average, this country's lost its

almum-in industry because of the costs. French companies are

investing in America now, being built in the East Ohio Valley. In

BASF, one of the biggest producers of chemicals, now unvesting in the

US, not in Germany, you are forcing industry to leave? !

No. It's simply wrong. Although it was a very, very long question for

someone who's supposed to interview, but take the steel sector that you

mentioned, we have just analysed that very carefully in the

commission, together with the steel sector. Why does the steel sector in

Europe have problems? They have it because they have Sa surplus

capacity, they have too much capacity. Some people, like

yourselves, tend to argue that that's because of climate policies,

but what is the reality - the reality is that the steel sector up

until this very day has benefitted economically from the European

emissions ratings scheme, even the steel sector would admit that after

the exercise exercise we have been through with them. My point is that

yes we are in very challenging times in Europe. It's incredibly important

to create the jobs. It's not a purpose in itself to give people

higher bills for anything, but if I were going to choose, should we

lower taxation and pricing of Labour or should we do it with energy and

resources, I believe that most Europeans would agree, it is

probably a very good idea for Europe to become more energy efficient as

almost no region in the world imports as much of its energy as we

do in Europe. How would we bring down that kind of cost? Last year,

every day in Europe, we paid 1 billion euros for our oil, our

imported oil. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an incentive to become

more energy and resource official, bring down that kind of cost and

instead invest in activities and industries in Europe? That is

pacically at the core of of what we are trying to do. OK, I had a long

question, but you were allowed a long answer. What's more important

to you, capping CO2 emissions or getting jobs for the 25 million

people in Europe who don't have jobs? A very good question. To me

it's not an either or. We have to get out of the economic crisis and

create the jobs. It's not so that we can say, let's do that first and

then some five, ten, 15 years from now when we have nothing else to do

hopefully, then we could come to our climate challenges and resource

challenges. We have to do it intelligently - we

do that by trying to find the instruments, the tools, where we can

both do something good for our economy and create the jobs we need

and at the same time also do it in a way that's not harming the climate

policies. Unfortunately, climate change is getting worse, so that is

also a crisis that we need to attend to as part of the economic

challenge. Sorry, I haven't got time to pursue you on your claim there

that climate change is getting worse. We have to leave it there,

come back and see us soon for another interview. Will you do that?

Yes, you are welcome. Bye-bye. a good day.

I think that's a yes! The speaker of the House doesn't have an easy job.

No, I don't envy him. One minute you are keeping across the mind

numbingly boring detail of a Parliamentary legislation detail,

the next you are trying to keep the House in order while hundreds of MPs

yell at each other. So speakers develop a bruising and robust style.

John Bercow had a go at the Secretary of Defence Philip Hammond

when he refused to produce notes. One thing is for certain, if you get

told off by John Bercow, you stay told off by him. Here is a look at

him. Woefully inadequate and frankly utterly incompetent. I've not known

a worst example as my tenure as speaker. Although the Secretary of

State's expressed himself in understated terms, I hope he feels a

sense of embarrassment and contrition at what has been a total

mishandling by his Department for Which the right honourable gentleman

is solely responsible. If we could tackle this problem,

then... I say to the honourable member for Bridgwater, be quiet, if

you can't be quiet, get out. You are adding nothing, you are subtracting

a lot. It's rude, it's stupid, it's pompous and it needs to stop.

She tends 20 behave as though every exchange is somehow a conversation

with her. If the Government had wanted - don't shake her head - if

the Government wanted to put the honourable lady up to answer, it

could have done. It didn't. What I say in all courtesy to the

honourable lady is, sit there, be quiet and if you can't do so, leave

the chamber, we can manage without you.

Mr Stuart, I'm going to say it to you once and once only, you are far

too excitable, be quiet and calm down and - order! If you can't,

don't shake your head at me! If you can't, leave the chamber.

Leave the studio, Andrew, John Bercow - calling Phillip

Hammond incompetent and Ian Liddle-Grainger stupid - amongst

others. So what do MPs think of his robust style in the House? Rob

Wilson is the Conservative MP for Reading East. What do you think?

Yesterday I think it was a high point because I think he did the

right thing, he said it in a way that was not too angry and to

robust. Generally, there is a suspicion with John Bercow that he

fails to have a balanced and unbiased view of the house. In the

sense that he takes on Conservative MPs and ministers to a greater

degree than he does Labour shadow ministers and MPs. Is that just your

view sitting there as an MP? You have any evidence? I produce a six

monthly survey which clearly shows that John Bercow has intervened in a

quite robust way on Conservative is about 65% of the time, when we only

have about 46, 40 5% of the MPs. He does so to a much less degree with

Labour MPs. There is a record to look at. Melanie, are you a fan of

the speaker? Not really, my impression has been that he shows

partisan ship towards the Labour side. Also, the extract that you

showed showed him breaking members of Parliament for being excitable.

One of my problems with him is that he is very excitable. He seems to

sort of lose it very often, and this does not do well for the speaker's

whole stature. The speaker should be above the fray. The great speakers

in my experience, Speaker Thomas and Betty Boothroyd sale Serena Leon.

You never felt that Betty Boothroyd was scrapping in the benches --

serenely on. John Bercow does try to champion the backbenchers. Has he

not modernised it? He has taken control, perhaps you don't like the

style but he has done rather a lot for Parliament. He has changed since

2010 when the new government came in. He uses urgent questions a lot

more since then, to hold the government to account. A massive

increase in urgent questions which is difficult for the government to

deal with. You ask yourself, why didn't he do that when he first came

in? All right, but getting ministers to come to the house and demanding

answers in principle, is a good thing. It is and many backbenchers

welcome that. He has made changes that benefit backbenchers to that

extent. Sometimes you get the feeling that the wave of

unpopularity on the Conservative benches is that they are obsessed

about this idea that he is biased, rather than what he's doing in terms

of his role for the house. I think if he is partisan, that is a very

significant reason why it people would not take kindly to him. The

fact is coming in May well have done some very good things in terms of

Parliamentary procedure, I am prepared to give him all credit for

that. But is this going to be one of the great speakers of our time? I

think the answer is no. He does have the potential to be a great speaker,

he is very articulate, able and bright. The way he puts things can

be very credible. But I think he lets himself down obviously with his

temper. Do you think the public think this is the kind of speaker

they want? I don't think the public view the speaker in one way or

another, I think they look on Parliament as a bear pit of

uncivilised, out-of-control, making noises to each other and are

irrelevant to the lives and prosperity of ordinary people.

the speaker trying to combat that? think Melanie is watching the odd

big debate and prime ministers questions but most of the time it is

perfectly civil and people debate in a civil way. You could have fooled

It will be an unusual evening in Westminster tonight - not least

because a large number of MPs will actually still be here on a Thursday

night - but also because a number of Conservatives are having a barbecue

with the Prime Minister at Number ten. Is it an end of term party? No,

it's all a bit of a Tory Party bonding session ahead of a Private

Members' Bill. James Wharton MP will bring his Europe Referendum Bill to

the Commons on Friday, but why him? And why are Tories so keen on it?

Giles has been following the action, and the MP from the start.

Every year Parliament has a lottery. The backbench winner doesn't get

money, but the prize is influence and a chance to change the law.

Welcome to the world of Private Members Bills, and in a

controversial twist, this year the draw was done in reverse order.

but not least and the winner of the it was drawn, I was leaving my flat

in London to go back to the constituency on expectation of

anything exciting happening that day. I got a phone call from the BBC

as it happens and be present at, congratulations, you have come top

of the private member 's ballot. I won't repeat what I said but it made

my feelings quite clear. I realised then, my phone began to ring off the

hook. Because anyone topping the bill gets instantaneously offered

advice on what to take on, whether they want it or not. A very busy

morning of TV and radio interview started which only stopped about

midday, when David Beckham announced he was retiring. But bend how you

will, this year any Tory who won was going to be asked to take on one

thing - a Europe referendum. Once you have, the next thing then is to

find sponsors for your bill. There will be a list of sponsors and a

good range of sponsors with some senior parliamentarians throwing

their weight behind the bill. I hope that will be enough weight to

support the Conservative party to take it through. I am grateful for

what he says and I would urge all colleagues to come to vote for this

bill. Be under no illusions this is the Conservative Party making PR

trying to do a number of jobs to draw a clear line between themselves

and the Lib Dems on Europe, and hoping to embarrass Labour into

whether they would commit to a such a vote. The PM wanted to sponsor the

vote but he can't. Any ministerial involvement would make it Government

business. What's rather odd is that when the bill has it's first reading

it's called a dummy bill. All we need to present is the dummy pill

which shows the indication of what we want to bring forward. European

Union referendum Bill. Friday the 5th of July, the whip was

interfering a little. More on whips in a minute but meanwhile, one

backbencher has been getting creative - she sees the Referendum

Bill as a badge of honour. I have been making badges, I am one of the

12 sponsors of the bill. This is something that we can deliver as

backbenchers. If my e-mail inbox is anything to go by, it is certainly

something that the British people want. It's a feeling that has

galvanised Conservatives to get on board and it never hurts to get some

last minute guidance from a former whip. I think work with everyone,

don't just work with the usual suspects on both sides of the

argument. Look beyond what is happening on Friday as well. Most

people probably think it is done and dusted on Friday. In many ways, it

is the start of the process. It will very much set the tone for how

things go forward. I would personally avoid getting too many

amendments, ones that look too supportive in later stages. You

don't want to get this bill hijacked. I think it was a smart

move not just accepting the bill as it was, picking sure it was your

bill rather than just the government's bill. -- making sure.

And there's one last ploy, given MPs have left Westminster by Friday.

Have a party the night before to persuade colleagues to stay. Make

sure people don't drink too much the night before because it could go

very badly wrong the next morning. Drinking too much in Westminster?

That will never happen. I'm now joined from Brussels by the

Conservative MEP James Elles. You talk about, it is time to say enough

is enough and that the remaining pro-Europeans in the Conservative

party should stand up and be counted. How many of them are you?

Judging by a poll in the open Europe a few days back, when it was asked

how many people would like to vote in favour of the status crawl across

the country, they said 37 in favour and 47 against. -- the status quo.

When you look at the conservatives who make up the 47%, it said 39%

would be Conservative supporting the status quo. I think there are many

more conservative voters who would be happy to vote for remaining in

the European Union without going into renegotiation or repatriations.

What percentage of the Conservative Parliamentary party do you think

have your views on Europe? I think very few, there are not that many in

the European Parliament either but it does not stop the European

parliamentarians saying what he believes in and what many of his

people and supporters say to me, as they were last weekend. Are you a

dying breed, a pro-European Conservative? I think it has been a

bit like red squirrels being chased out of the woods by the grey

squirrels. I think the red ones will come back because for time it will

be appreciated. We have been through an extremely difficult economic

situation. A lot have been able to make a lot of capital. If you look

at the bitch and of where our country should be and with who we

should be, I think ying in the European Union will still appeal to

the majority of the British people -- I think being in the European

Union. Is the Conservative party now explicitly Eurosceptic and James

else is in extremely -- James Elles is in an extreme minority? I think

it reflects a large proportion, probably the majority of

Conservative voters. As for the public in general, it is a close

call. I am baffled about this bill. What everyone thinks about the

necessity or desirability of a referendum, as far as I understand

it, this bill has minimal chance of getting through because the Lib Dems

would be against it. Even if it did get through, legal advice is it will

not buy into the next Parliament anyway. I am confused as to whether

this is not anything more than a PR stunt -- will not bind the next

Parliament. Would you vote for a referendum Bill, would you vote for

repatriation of powers back to London? I would be in favour of a

referendum because I think it has been shown in Ireland and Denmark,

where they have had similar anti-European movements, they have

had votes at every stage of the changes in the treaties. Euro

scepticism is less in both of those countries, so we need a referendum.

The Irish were forced to have the referendum again because it does not

suit Brussels. Nothing is normal in Ireland, you would probably say. If

you look at our case, we need and in out referendum. I would be happier

to have that attached to the changes in the treaties. When there is a

significant change in the constitutional management of our

country. We had it in 1995 and because we haven't had it since

then, whatever government has been in power, there has been an enormous

amount of frustration and people want their say. Will you stand for

election again next? I won't be, but I would like to touch on something

millennium has said, the nature of this debate. If it were -- Melanie

has said. If it were the referendum would cure our economic ills, that

would be an important issue. But if you look at the problems we have in

infrastructure investment or the way many factoring industry has

disappeared, these are not things which are European questions.

have to stop there, thank you for joining us.

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'clock News is