06/01/2014 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Chancellor gets 2014 off to a cheery start with a warning that

another ?25 billion needs to be cut from public spending to balance the

nation's books. As stormy weather and flooding

continue to cause problems across the country, the Government's

climate change envoy says more should be spent on flood defences.

Criminal barristers in England stage a walk-out to protest against cuts

to legal aid. And will the party leaders agree to

another set of TV debates ahead of the general election next year? And

will Nigel Farage get his own podium? We'll talk to the UKIP

leader. All that in the next hour and to

kick off our coverage for 2014 we asked for the best and brightest

from the three main parties. They couldn't be with us so we've had to

settle instead for Conservative MP Tim Loughton, Labour's Lucy Powell,

and Julian Huppert for the Liberal Democrats. Welcome to you all. Let's

start with the stormy weather that has been battering the UK over the

holiday period. Strong winds and large waves are expected to cause

further coastal flooding today. There are about 120 flood warnings

in place in England, Scotland and Wales. In today's Guardian newspaper

the Government's special envoy on climate change says Britain needs to

face up to a radical change in weather conditions and invest much

more in flood protection. This morning the Environment Secretary

Owen Paterson said. Under different -- difficult circumstances, the

government will be spending more this period and that is why we have

extended the programme up until 2020. We will look to protect

another 165,000 properties up to 2015 and another 300,000, should the

plans be stuck to. Should the government be spending even more

after the Christmas and New Year we have just experienced? The

government is spending more than ever before, but we do need much

more. How much more. We are seeing a change in climate, changes in the

weather patterns which are bringing more storms. It is no accident it is

the stormiest December we have had for 40 years, or something. Where we

used to have protections when we have floods one in ten years, now

huge amounts of money are needing to be spent to protect London and the

country. We do need to try to reduce these problems because if we emit

the way we are we will see this being a huge problem. You have a

coastal constituency, should the government be spending more? Will we

see more storms like this? Whatever your view on climate change is, we

are staying more extreme weather. We will be building more houses as well

and we make sure we don't build them on flood planes. It has continued

over the last few years hasn't it? We have to make sure the money being

invested that the money the developers are getting that that

money does go into flood protection. It is reducing the flood planes. My

constituents are fairly well pebble dashed not only from the coastal

threat but a river burst its bank in my constituency into the airport. It

is a false economy not to make sure there is adequate protection. New

Year, a would Labour spend more money? You have to look at a budget

across Defra. We have Owen Paterson who does not relieve climate change

is happening, so he has not been prioritising these issues. We do

need more investment in flood defences, but we also need to look

up the bigger issues around climate change, and look at how many of

these homes can be better protected through insurance. But the moment,

many of them cannot get insurance. It is something we can and now with

a water bill going through Parliament at the moment. Lucy

Powell has repeated what Labour's Environment Secretary has said, it

is because he is a sceptic on climate change and not focused on

flood defences in the way he should be? It is a complete red herring.

Extreme weather conditions are happening now and are likely to

continue. The fact we are spending more money on flood defences, the

fact Owen Paterson spends a lot of his Christmas going round seeing

areas affect did buy it. It is happening, whatever the cause. We

have got to make sure that with house-building we are going to have

to have a lot of that money spent on adequate flood defences for those

new houses and for existing communities vulnerable to flooding.

Do you see it could be a prevention if you don't feel the storms will

continue with the regularity that has been said? You only need to come

to our constituencies to see the damage that has been cause. But that

is the symptom and not the cause. That is why more money is going on

to make sure we have rubber flood defences. Is it right the

Environment Agency is cutting 1500 jobs? Environment Agency does a

whole range of things. Coming back to the comment about climate change,

whatever you think about climate change, we are seeing more extreme

weather events. That is because it is a changing climate. It is

obvious. They argue climate change is not happening, we are just seeing

changes in the weather! We need more action. You are right in terms of

planning issues. Too many houses were built on flood planes without

defences that were necessary. We have to take steps to deal with it

urgently. It will need more money. I am just saying it is a red herring.

There is a problem, we have to deal with it now. Let's leave that there.

Now it's time for our Daily Quiz. The Education Secretary Michael Gove

has got into a bit of a spat with Baldrick from Blackadder, otherwise

known as Sir Tony Robinson, over the origins of the First World War. What

does Baldrick think was the cause of the First World War?

At the end of the show we will ask to see if anyone can remember their

Blackadder. So while the government is trying to deal with the current

storms, let's look at a more long-range forecast for the

political weather in the year ahead. This morning, George Osborne brought

us all firmly back to earth by saying the government will need to

find an extra ?25 billion of cuts to bring the deficit under control, the

Chancellor said the welfare budget will have to be looked at again

although he played down the prospect of an end to some of the universal

pension benefits. If 2014 is a year of hard truths for

our country, it starts with this one, Britain should never return to

the levels of spending. We either have to return rowing to the

dangerous levels that threatens our stability, or raise taxes so much.

Government will have to be smaller and so will to the welfare system.

Others things we can predict with certainty is that in March Mr

Osborne will be presenting his penultimate budget before the next

general election, all eyes will be on how he'll try to neutralise the

cost of living debate which Labour has been able to attack the

government with. There'll be high pressure on all the main parties in

May for the European elections. UKIP's Nigel Farage has said he's

aiming to blow the other parties away and top the poll, a result that

could cause squalid conditions in the Conservative Party. Potentially

the biggest event not just of this year but of the last few hundred

years is the Scottish Independence referendum in the autumn. The polls

are currently in favour of Scotland staying in the union, however Alex

Salmond's SNP believe there is all to play for. And could there be more

heavy weather ahead for the coalition? Both sides are already

looking to differentiate themselves from each other, will those voices

calling for an early split become louder, or will it just be a storm

in a teacup? In the last few minutes, Nick Clegg

has been giving his reaction to George Osborne's react should to the

cuts to the welfare system that are needed. It is driven by two very

clear ideological impulses. One is to remorselessly cut back the state.

Just cut back the state. And secondly, and that is what they have

said now, I think they are making a monumental mistake in doing so, but

they said the only people in society, the only section of society

which will bear the burden of further fiscal cuts of a

working-class poor. George Osborne is making a mistake by stating he

wants to take ?12 billion more in benefits cuts after the next

election if he is still Chancellor? It was a -- mistake to think

everything was solved and we can carry on with the regime we had

before. We are still borrowing ?100 billion a year. There is large-scale

public support for the further reining in of welfare, as long as it

has been done fairly. If we are serious about making sure this

government and this country is living within its means, welfare

spending has to be part of the savings. And at a time, let's

remember when we are seeing big increases in employment, 1.2 million

jobs since the last election. That is the best route to increase --

decrease Walther spending. You don't think it is a mistake to make

another one point -- ?12 billion of cuts to the welfare bill? If you are

making cuts in the household, you look at the biggest goals first.

Welfare is still the biggest hill. We need to make sure we are making

savings and making them fairly. Whose fault is it the government is

on course to borrow ?111 billion this year? You need to be asking

Lucy that. You have been in government since 2010 and George

Osborne has failed to deliver on all of the measures he set out in his

first emergency budget, in terms of deficit reduction, in terms of debt

falling as a proportion of GDP and eliminating the structural deficit.

Whose fault is it this government is still having to borrow ?111 billion

this year? It is the extent of the problem we inherited and what is

going on in the rest of the world. We have cut the deficit why more

than a third. It is taking longer to balance the books than George

Osborne predict did and more than any of us would have liked. But we

took over a huge deficit and a shipwreck of an economy. The fact

the Eurozone, with whom we trade with a lot has been performing

sluggishly. The surveys today say it is likely we will have the highest

improvement in manufacturing across Europe. Everything Labour predicted

has not happened. We have got growth back, unemployment is falling and

has fallen consistently. Consumer spending is up, there is a recovery.

Labour got it wrong. Not at all. There wouldn't be growth? There

hasn't been growth. There wasn't a triple dip recession. We did not

predict a triple dip recession. He will find what we are saying on

every measure George Osborne set himself on 2010, he has failed. He

said the deficit would he gone by 2015. We know that the deficit won't

even be halved by 2015. He said we would have 7.6% of growth. We now

know we are looking at 2.5% growth over that period. This is why

families across the country are paying the price for the stagnant

growth over three years. Families up and down this country are paying the

price for that stagnant growth through prices going up much

faster. You would have added to the deficit and therefore in turn added

to the debt by spending an awful lot more and risked... No, we said we

would have halved the deficit by 2015, which is more than this

government will have achieved in the same period. Let's go back to George

Osborne, he said 2014 will be a year of hard truths. I find that pretty

appalling. He wants to come to my constituency and meet families who

are making hard choices and hard truths in their lives every day.

Having to choose whether to go to food ranks, or heating their homes.

Having to choose to pave the childcare waiting for a text message

that morning to see if they have work on their 0-hours contract.

Would you be making more cuts? The welfare bill needs to come down, but

it needs to come down by getting people back to work. Reduce the

number of in work benefits we pay like introducing a living wage.

Would you increase taxes? We said we would look at pensioner benefits so

the winter fuel allowance. There are things we have said we will look at

that are hard choices. That will only bring you a couple of hundred

million. Let's have a look at ?25 billion worth of cuts, a substantial

figure. Would you raise taxes? Would you reinstate the 50p top rate of

tax? We have not said yet. You ought to be careful before you start

crowing about your economic record. 2015, another coalition between the

Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, would you take...

No, just imagine! Would you agree to another ?12 billion of cuts to

welfare? I do not think it is worth speculating over that sort of thing.

The Conservatives are making clear they would do that. I do not think

the approach that George Osborne has to the state is that it has to be

permanently smaller. We have to balance the books, I agree, but does

that not mean a permanently smaller state. This marriage tax allowance

that the Conservatives are pushing, about ?700 million, a lot of

people... That is ideological, not economics. It certainly is economic.

But you just said it is tiny. Let's look at the bigger picture. Can I

just come back on what was said earlier? Labour are in an easy

position, they said they would have cut the deficit by spending less,

but you never get any specifics. I think that is fascinating, because

we have to get some specifics. I used to be leader of an opposition

group on a council and it is easy to say, I would do it better, but we

have to say exactly what we would do, and I have not seen that from

Labour. The system fell apart for Labour, it is odd to blame the

doctors for the fact that the patient has not got up. The real

problem was the collapse in 2008, and we finally see our way out of

that. I wish it had happened sooner, but I have heard nothing other than

hope from Labour. Look at the welfare budget, I am not asking you

to say what the manifesto will be, but Nick Clegg has said he would

only sanction going back to the welfare budget if the Government

began by removing the winter fuel payments from wealthy pensioners? Do

you agree with that? It seems very odd to say you take money from the

poorest in society while providing extremely rich people with benefits

like that. We have to have that stronger economy, and we need a

fairer society, which means supporting people at the bottom.

That is why we have pushed to take so many people out of tax, and we

would like nobody on minimum wage pay any tax. That would be a huge

step towards a living wage. There is more we can do, a mansion tax so

that people with a lot of capital pay more. Would that be a red line

in the sand for you? It does not work. It just does not bring in the

sort of money that they think it will. There are many other things

that we can do before that. What about protection for pensioners?

David Cameron and George Osborne have kicked off an election cycle by

saying, we are going to protect pensioners, we are going to protect

the triple lock, and there has been no discussion about means tested

benefits. Are they right? I have a high pensioner population in my

constituency, and it is an important issue. We were right to bring in

this triple lock and give... But post-2015, is it right to retain

its? Old on, we have said quite rightly that we will maintain it for

at least the next five years, for the term of the next Parliament, and

that is right. We need to give stability to them. What about means

tested benefits? That is something we will have to look at, I'm quite

relaxed on that, and in constituencies like mine, there are

pensioners who have retired with good pensions who are getting a lot

of the free bonus schemes which are essential for many people but not

essential for some. It is something we need to look at. It is only fair

that we should do that. It is crazy to pay heating allowances to people

living abroad as well. A blokes like David Cameron and George Osborne may

want to keep that, or that is what they will say. -- it looks as

though. Will you protect the triple lock posts 2015? We have said we

will protect it. Post-2015? Yes, we have said we will protect it.

Miliband refused to commit this morning. I think we are clear that

we support the triple lock. So the state pension will rise at 2.5% with

wages or prices, whatever is the highest? What we have got to look at

is how this is the table in the long run, so you have to look at means

testing some of the additional support that pensioners received

that, as Tim says, many do not need. We also need to look at how we can,

you know, continue to make sure that the retirement age is sustainable

over that period of time as well. You have got to look at how the

Pensions Bill is sustainable as well, but Labour will take no

message here from the other parties. When we came into office in 1997,

many, many, many pensioners were living below the poverty line. That

situation has, frankly, largely gone, in the sense that

pensioners... How much did the state pension rise during your time in

office? At times not enough. 75p! There were other measures we brought

in to ensure that pensioners... It did not rise under Labour very much

at all. It has gone up 21% against earnings going up 8%. We will have

to leave at there, we will have endless time to discuss economic

plans over the next few months. My my criminal barristers have walked

out of court in England this morning in a protest against changes to

legal aid. The government says reforms would cut ?200 million from

the ?2 billion per year legal aid bill. Lawyers argued the cuts, which

could see these four by 30%, will reduce the representation available

to defendants. -- the fees. The Justice Minister said it was up to

the profession to get its house in order. There are challenges at the

moment, too many lawyers chasing too little work, crime is going down,

but that is a matter for the legal sector to sort out for itself. My

responsibility is to the hard-working taxpayer who funds the

legal aid bill, and my responsibility is to ensure that

those people who qualify for legal aid to have proper representation,

and I'm confident that that will happen. With us now is Sarah Forshaw

QC, a criminal barrister leads the southeastern circuit and represents

3000 lawyers. Welcome to the programme, what is the problem with

these changes? It is really about removing quality from the criminal

justice system, and what has happened is that since 2007, when

the rates were set by an independent body and everyone agreed to them,

the rates for criminal state funded lawyers have been successively

slashed over the years. If the recent proposals come into force,

what it means for the criminal bar is that the fees will have been cut

by 41% in real terms over the last six years, 41%. Now, if that

happens, the best criminal advocates will move out of the criminal

justice system, they will diversify and do something else. But what it

means for the public is that the specialist advocates who prosecute

and defend the most serious cases in the country will no longer be doing

the job. There are not, actually, any good applicants coming into the

system for the sort of day they are getting. That makes it sound as if

money is the overriding reasons for those sorts of lawyers and

barristers and solicitors who take on legal aid work, that is the

reason they do it. Actually, the reason... Nobody comes into criminal

law to make money, everyone knows that. If you want to make money, you

can earn ten times what criminal lawyers are in any other sphere of

law. We do it because it is formidably important to society. For

example, to prosecute the most serious murders and the most serious

terrorist cases, and also to defend. And for that, we at the

criminal bar accept state funded fees, provided those state funded

fees do not become completely unsustainable for the self-employed

bar. Tim Loughton, that does sound like a very plausible argument, this

is a fundamental right, isn't it, for people who cannot afford to pay

for their own defence? You know, in many instances, it is going to be

cut to levels that decent lawyers will walk. Well, it is crucial we

have legal aid, nobody is suggesting we should abolish it, but we spend

?2 billion per year on legal aid at the moment, it is virtually the most

lavishly financed legal aid system in the world. Is it? We spend twice

what they do in New Zealand, three times what they spend in Canada.

They have a similar system to us. That is utterly misleading, and it

is the mantra of the Ministry of Justice, every time this is raised.

It is utterly misleading, and I will tell you for why - you cannot

compare apples and pears, and that is what you are doing. In this

country, we have an adversarial system, we have jury trial, and it

means, actually, that you pay more for prosecution and defence

investigation June because of the jury trial. If you compare

like-for-like, and in fact an independent body have done just

that, we are tenth cheapest out of 14 European countries. The countries

I quoted have similar systems to our own, that is the point. Tenth

cheapest out of 14 if you compare cost per head of legal aid, because

of course we have a bigger population in this country. We have

had a huge rise in legal costs. The department for justice cannot be

immune for the savings we have to make in public saving. We were

financing an awful lot of cases that have been brought on spurious

grounds as well. We have simply got to make savings. We have still got

rather a lot of barristers doing criminal work earning more than

?100,000 per year. They are not on the poverty line. I'm afraid that is

misleading, there have been some grossly misleading figures being

peddled... Do you accept the perception, and maybe it is wrong,

is that barristers are hardly even in this line of work are badly paid?

If you look at the average, there are those making an awful lot of

money. That is only because, I am afraid, people are fooled by the

misleading figures that are put out. You have to read the small print,

and what impact is happening is that 75% of state funded barristers earn

less than ?50,000. Now, that is the business turnover, because they are

self employed. When the Ministry of Justice puts out figures like

?100,000 per year, I am afraid it includes 20% VAT. Because we

self-employed, that goes straight back to the government, so you can

have those figures before it is taxable. Should we be making these

cuts? There is agreement we need to save money and the legal aid

budget, and the Labour manifesto said they would cut legal aid to

protect frontline services. The question is how to do it, and there

are expensive cases, and you could save a lot of money if the courts

system worked more smoothly. That is where there is waste, isn't it? I

spent some time in a local magistrate court, and it could be

run more effectively and efficiently. There are other ideas

which are worth looking at, insurance to deal with fraud

trials, using restraint assets to pay for legal aid, which you cannot

do at the moment, and the French system where money held by law firms

is looked after by the government, and the difference in interest rates

is used to fund legal aid, raising hundreds of millions of pounds per

year. So this policy is wrong? We fought to improve it from the

original proposals, and it has changed, but I would like to see

more work on the alternative so that we can find other ways of paying for

it so that the taxpayer does not pay as much. We do need to keep the

important role of legal aid in many areas. What would your constituents

think about this? Do they feel this is a fundamental right that needs to

be protected, or that savings needed be made in the same way as other

parts of public life? Absolutely savings need to be made and Julian

has outlined a number of good ideas. But I see a number of constituents,

poor constituents, who need legal advice and can no longer get it

because they no longer qualify for legal aid or there are situations

where they have to pay some up front fee to do it. As an MP I am getting

more people coming to me for legal advice, which I cannot offer them

because they are no longer getting legal aid. I would support the cuts

to the overall budget, but what we are seeing on this government is

they are losing the professionals across the board. They ploughed on

with NHS reforms despite Doc has telling them not to do it, they did

the same in education, and now with barristers. Do you remember those

heady days in 2010 when Cleggmania was at its height? When the Lib Dem

leader was propelled to new heights after a series of good performances

on the new leaders' TV debates? Well after that, there were many in the

Conservative Party who questioned the wisdom of agreeing to the

debates. So will they happen again? Labour made it clear that Ed

Miliband would take part and Nick Clegg said they would be up for it.

Here's a reminder of what they looked like. Who do you want to be

your next Prime Minister? There is a lot to this job, but I know how to

run the economy. You are hearing desperate stuff from someone in a

desperate state. You have heard from Labour and Gordon Brown but if you

earn ?20,000 or over, you are considered rich. We are not as a

nation going to be able to balance the books, fill the black hole in

public finances unless we do it with fairness. We have got to support the

recovery until it is fully established and then Mike plan comes

into place. But to take money out of the plan now for ideological

reasons, you put the economy at risk. He tried to frighten people

saying the Conservative Party would take away benefits, we will keep the

winter payments. He is trying to frighten people and he should be

ashamed. Here they go again. We are desperate to get this country

through the recovery and that is what I intend to do, but it is up to

the people to decide and it is your decision. That was Gordon Brown and

that was then. Joining this little television

debate is the UKIP leader Nigel Farage. Should Nigel be allowed to

take part? The more I speak to people in my patch, the more the

detail does not closer scrutiny. UKIP, when you read the small

print, you will see it is hot air with a charismatic and teeming

person in charge and not much else. Nigel, they were billed as debates

between people who could be Prime Minister. How anybody thought the

Liberal Democrats who had not been in power since Lloyd George could

produce a Prime Minister is beyond me. So that failed the test. Deputy

is a bit better than you have managed? Policy has changed since

2010. We have seen radical changes in Scottish and Northern Ireland

politics. In 2009 when UKIP came second in the Euro elections, we

were told it would not happen in domestic elections. But this year we

got a quarter of the vote. UKIP is a significant force in reddish

politics, polling double where the Lib Dems are. Frankly, to exclude

UKIP from these debates would bubbly give the benefit of the underdog,

because it would look like the political class closing ranks on

itself. Do you think the Green party leader, Natalie Bennett be in these

debates themselves? They have an MP, they run Ryton Council, but the

overall share of the national vote is about 2%. New have two sets and

sensible markers and barriers. In America, there is a law on this. If

you are polling at 15% of the vote, you are allowed to take part. Would

you be happy to have Natalie Bennett? I don't think they are a

political party. I can see why Nigel is desperate to be in there. It is a

party with a leader and nothing else. They might want to ditch me by

then. We have just heard from the CBI that membership from the EU

rings in ?3000 per person a year into this country. People realise

UKIP are bad that the country and working against our own

self-interest. I can see why Nigel desperately wants to be in and does

not want other parties to be in as well. He has not said he does not

want them in. Ed Miliband is keen and to be relaxed about Nigel Farage

being in there, but I can see why it would harm the Conservatives more

than Labour? The important thing about what Ed Miliband and Douglas

Alexander have been saying is we need to resolve this issue. We're

not far away from the election, 18 months to go. Everyone needs to get

round the table and sort it out. David Cameron was keen on the

debates when he was in opposition, and he seems a lot less keen on it

now. Will these debates happen? Who will be on them? Do you think they

should happen? I think they are a good thing. Initially, Ed Miliband

said yes, I think Nigel should be involved. After the South seals

by-election when we got 20%, he has changed his tune. -- South Shields.

There is a big shift from Labour. Do you support the idea of Nigel? It is

a bit of a stretch to have somebody in the leader's debates who does not

have an MP in Parliament. I am not about stifling the debate, but you

will get other parties saying if Nigel is there, we have an MP and

run some local government, why aren't we included? These are issues

that need to be resolved. The public want a debate between people who are

likely to be running the country. That is what we saw last time and

they did bring the last general election alive. As much as we might

not like the format. What is interesting with the polling is 14%

of people think it should be between the Conservative and Labour leaders.

But they are the most likely by far to become the next Prime Minister.

Although having a coalition, you can see why it worked for the three

parties? When people are asked the question should UKIP be involved in

these debates, 50% say they should be. There is a danger of course, the

lesson from last time is Nick Clegg had set those debates and did not

translate in terms of MPs, did it? In the end, how much can you hope to

benefit from it? I will say this, UKIP was consistently at 7% in the

polls until 20 ten. Overnight we fell to 3.5% and then we stayed

there. It damaged is quite badly. I am making the case we are a real

part of British politics. If we are still polling double them what the

liberal democrats are, then we should be involved. I think we are

getting to hunger up on the debates. They are a small part of the

election campaign. -- to hunger. They started off, Nick Clegg did

well. They did not agree with him enough to vote for him at the

election because he lost seats. Got minimal votes. They ended up in

government. That is another debate. I have no problem with Nigel being

part of those debates. The more spotlight is put on what they stand

for and some of the dubious characters standing for UKIP around

the country, the more Nigel might come to think it was in such a good

idea. You are staying with us for the next discussion.

The start of 2014 removed restrictions on Romanians and

Bulgarians working in the UK. The government wants to stop them

claiming benefits and accessing the NHS for the first three months.

David Cameron wrist straight it is aimed by restricting the number of

EU immigrants by striking a deal with his fellow EU leaders. There

are good parts to movement within the EU. Many British people take the

advantage of going to live and work elsewhere. And there are people with

skills coming to Britain and contributing to our economy. The two

things have gone wrong, one is movement to claim benefits, we need

to crack down on that. And secondly, what has gone wrong, and I think the

people who founded the EU, did not think this would happen is that the

scale of the movement has been so big. Could that have Lib Dems

support? It is a ridiculous idea and he and the Home Office should focus

on doing things correctly, like ringing back the exit checks. It is

a bad idea in so many ways. There are millions of Brits who live

overseas. You get into some tit for tat, which Brits would be evicted

from Spain to come back here. I think many in the Conservative Party

are panicked by UKIP. David Cameron is panicked. All sorts of weird

machinations. It is a self-defeating strategy. It helps UKIP, but it is a

bad idea. We benefit as a country for people coming here to work and

contribute. And fiscally, we get more money from taxes. Do you agree

with a policy to restrict access to benefits by new migrants from the

EU? It is reasonable that when somebody comes into this country

they have to wait for a period. I have no idea with sticking to the

rules to stop people abusing that free movement. But free movement

does benefit us. Do you agree with him? I don't. I am in favour of free

movement with in the EU, but it cannot be completely free. It is a

cornerstone of the European Union. It is how the European Union was set

up, free movement of people. Are you saying you want to change that? That

is how the EU was set up. We have 28 nations with a lot of Eastern

European nations. We never envisaged those sorts of economic migration

pressure is back in the early days of the founding of the EU. That is

why I think the founding EU principle was right, which is why it

should be changed. I have signed the amendment that we should delay

opening our doors. It is not whether it is right or wrong, but is it

possible? It is impossible. Had they kept the club to about 15 members,

this would not have become an issue. Julian makes the point it's go and

retire and live in Spain, we have a reciprocal deal with the health

service and France. As soon as we open the door to the poor

countries, the former communist countries, it was obvious what was

going to happen. What has happened? The government thought 13,000 people

a year would come and 800,000 came in the first two years. The baulk

area and Romanian issue, Tim talks about how poor they are, yes. But

Bulgaria have become full members of the European Union with complete

open access to this country. The argument we are making is we could

extend work permits to people from these countries, but it is

irresponsible with high youth unemployment. Who in Europe would

listen to David Cameron? David Cameron is one of the biggest

advocates of free movement. We have spent the last few months going

round European capitals seeing ministers and what is interesting is

the number of them who said we were wrong to let in some of these new

accession countries. We need to limit the way we have free

movement. Which country. It should have happened before January the

1st. I believe we should defy the EU and say we are going to have

restrictions now. There are a number of countries across the EU who are

sympathetic... Who is that? I have been to Scandinavian countries. They

want to limit that elements? We should never have accepted those

countries on that basis. If we cannot re-negotiate membership with

the EU in the future, we need a referendum. It is something which

Nigel is in danger of completely undermining. Your leaders have

apologised for opening the doors, as they say, to Eastern European

migrants from other parts of the EU. What do you say to David Cameron's

suggestion that you can limit the free movement of people within the

EU. Does Labour agree? You cannot under the existing treaties. Would

you like to change it? There are other things you can do now that

would limit the free movement of people in terms of the types of jobs

available, we have recruitment agencies in these countries, only

advertising jobs in Britain in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria because

they are looking for low-wage, low skilled workers. We need to drive up

wages and skills in this country and change the outlook here, so you

cannot have undercutting that we have at the moment with temporary

agency workers being paid less than what are largely resident workers.

People are going to come here while there is a framework, work for them

to do and well paid work to them, but not well paid work to British

people. You have got to change those loopholes and take on things like

bang masters who are bringing in groups of people under Djourou S.

Landlords who are putting a dozen people in a small flat, conditions

we should not be allowing workers to work in in this country. Yesterday

Nigel was read a part of the rivers of blood speech, was Nigel Wright to

say he agreed with the central principle of that? No, not at all,

absolutely not. My grandfather came near to this country from Ireland,

and when he came to this country in the 1940s, he was treated like he

was a leper. And now everyone celebrates the Irish traditions and

culture, and everyone wants to be Irish. Immigration is a long

tradition of this country, it always comes with problems, that is why you

have to manage it carefully, and why you have to look at the issues that

drive that immigration and how you can, you know, mitigate the impact

that it has an... The mistakes that Labour say they made themselves? Do

you wish you had and said that? If those words had been used, I would

not up and said the same way. I was read a piece of a speech that said

if people cannot get hospital beds, if people cannot get jobs, right,

then there will be unhappiness within communities. If you go to

Boston in Lincolnshire, as an example, the accident and emergency

waiting limits have doubled, British people are discriminated against if

they want to get jobs working in the fields, because the gangmasters have

the business, and it suits the big landowners to have cheap labour. You

begin to understand and realise why immigration is now the most

important problem in this country. It is the inflammatory language

which you are now endorsing which sews fear and scaremongering. We get

this from Anna Soubry and people like you, but the fact is that we

should put the interest of British workers first, and we have not done

that. It is not just the language, it is also the facts. If we did not

have foreign workers in the NHS, there would not be people to staff

the hospital beds. The NHS would not run without people. We had this

scaremongering about Romanians and Bulgarians, ridiculous stories about

blood is appearing on New Year's Day, millions and millions. How many

came? The BBC found four people. -- floods. There is a huge amount of

scaremongering, and there have been lots of studies that we benefit in

terms of taxes paid by migrants. We are net positive. We should be doing

more with school places and stuff, but we do benefit.

2014 is a crunchy. And with the referendum on independence due to be

held on September the 18th. -- a crunch year for Scotland. 16 and

17-year-olds will be able to cast a Bolt, and the BBC will follow 50

young people to track how they are thinking. -- will be able to cast a

vote. The closer I am to my government,

the happier I will be. I am definitely a no, M Lil -- let's

clear that up! I want to get more information. A lot of the time we

are kind of forgotten about, and it is so nice to be able to step up and

how people listen to what we think. Ultimately, it is our future.

Currently we have free health care, free university fees, and I do not

know why we would risk list with an expensive gamble. For the first time

in the history of the UK, 16-year-olds will have a vote thanks

to the decision of the Scottish Parliament. It is a difficult task

to get information about the referendum. There was not a lot of

information given to young people. There is a stigma attached to

thinking about politics. A lot of people I know are embarrassed to

talk about it, it is not the done thing. I have not decided which way

I am going yet. I am willing to take bribes from either side!

And we are joined from our Aberdeen studio by two students involved in

Generation 2014, Martin Close and Erin Fyfe-McWilliam. Welcome to both

of you, the spotlight is on Scotland this year, how exciting is the

referendum for you? I think it is a breakthrough for our generation,

because we are kind of scene as, like, teenagers who are not

interested in anything like this, and it is good to show people, like,

what we can decide on. Is it a topic of discussion amongst you and your

friends? Amongst my group of friends, yes, but whether that is

echoed through the rest of our age group, I would be a bit sceptical of

that. So you do not think it is generally a topic of conversation

for people of your age? I wouldn't say that, no. But for my group of

friends, we talk about it on a great deal of aces, I would say. Why are

you opposed to independence? I do not think we have enough information

on it, and I do not think the Government has thought through it

enough. The other countries who have become independent, they have had a

more thought through plan, and they have been more certain of what is

going to happen afterwards. We are not at that point yet. Martin, you

are in favour, how would you answer those fears? Well, I would say that

we are in a world right now that isn't very... Not a lot of things

are guaranteed in the world. A lot of countries that have gone

independent, I would say, have done it from a lesser informed position

than we are right now. I would say that the information is out there,

and a lot of people want to get off their backsides and start

researching about it. What the positives for you about

independence? That we would be able to govern ourselves, that we would

be in control of our fate, we would be able to choose which direction we

would go, instead of having its decided for us by a government that

we did not elect. What do you think it would do, or what do think these

UCU of the referendum has done in terms of Scottish identity? -- the

issue. I think we are known for having big house, but we need to

kind of, like, listen to our head and decide whether it is going to

benefit us. Economic league, it could go terribly wrong, because 300

years ago, when we were independent, England did help us, and we are now

getting back on our feet economic league as a nation. -- economic

league. Do you think it is right that 16-year-olds will have a vote

on something as fundamental as this? Definitely, we are going to be the

ones who will be around to enjoy or suffer the consequences of the way

we vote, so I think, and everyone voting, we have the biggest stake in

it. Well, it is certainly going to be an exciting time over the next

few months, thank you to both of you, and you can follow these two

and the others in Generation 2014 on BBC News online.

So politics is back from the Christmas break, what is on the

cards? In Parliament this week, Michael Gove and his ministerial

team will be taking education questions from 2:30. Tomorrow Nick

Clegg gets his regular grilling in the Commons with Deputy Prime

Minister is questions, there is the first Prime Minister's Questions of

the year on Wednesday from noon, and the Environment Secretary will be

taking questions from MPs on Thursday. Blood defences, of course,

are high up on the agenda. -- flood. We are joined by Isabel

Hardman and Kevin Maguire, happy New Year to both of you. The Prime

Minister and the Chancellor tried to seize the agenda at the start of the

year, how worried will they be by the Ashcroft Powell saying that 37%

of those who voted Tory in 2010 say they will not, with half defecting

to UKIP? I think they should be quite worried, certainly the MPs

are, but one of the other lines from that is that voters might trust the

Conservatives with the economy, but they trust Labour with the family's

futures, and that is quite worrying for the Tories. The Chancellor and

the Prime Minister need to get on the front foot to say, this is what

we're doing to make sure the cost of your life is not going up. Kevin, no

opposition leader with personal ratings as low as Ed has ever won an

election, so said somebody over the weekend, I, but who! Is a clear

majority for Labour or the Tories unachievable? -- I can't remember

who. Ed Miliband is a drag on his party, and they would be further

ahead with somebody else, but he is there. Trying to look head, we are

using an old maxim, this is uncharted territory now because of

the coalition. It is difficult to predict what will happen, although I

just feel that neither of the big parties have made that breakthrough.

What will they need to do, Isabel Hardman? What does the coalition

needs to do? Will there be more differentiation? They will stay

together right up until the campaign, it might be difficult, but

will differentiation now become the mantra for this year, for the Lib

Dems and the Tories? I think it already has. They have become quite

used to being public about the disagreements on welfare, human

rights and immigration, and they are more comfortable with that. In

Justice, Chris Grayling and Nick Clegg are happy to express

differences of opinion without it getting personal. In other

departments, it is more difficult because there is animosity between

Michael Gove and some Lib Dem ministers, for example, which is

entertaining from our point of view, but not quite as good for the smooth

running of government. Entertaining is important! Looking at

pensioners, because David Cameron and George Osborne have made such a

big play at the beginning of the year about protecting pensioners,

does it put Labour in a tricky position? Labour is the only party

who would means test the big benefits, the winter fuel allowance

for higher rate taxpayers. It was rather shambolic yesterday with

David Cameron, I thought, because the cock crowed three times, Andrew

Marr asked three questions about whether he would guarantee universal

bus passes, TV licences, the winter fuel allowance, and he would not,

and later that afternoon Downing Street's spin doctor said, well, he

is minded to keep them. They do not know where they are, and if the

Chancellor will be pushing for deeper cuts in welfare, social

security 12 billion, a lot of extra money to come, you could abolish

jobseeker's allowance, carers and maternity pay and you would not be

anywhere near that. If he is going to the pensioners' benefits and the

state pension itself, going up, he's going to have a big problem.

Thank you very much. Just time before we go to find out the answer

to the quiz, can you remember it's? What does Baldrick think caused the

First World War? I just wanted to raise those again,

anyone know the answer? C! Very good... It is the one thing you

cannot do in British politics, criticised Blackadder, it is the

worst mistake you can make! We will end on consensus and Blackadder,

thank you very much, thanks to my three guests, Tim, Lucy and Julian,

and all the others, too. Tomorrow we will have Charles Kennedy, join me

then. From all of us here, bye-bye.