18/06/2014 Daily Politics

Good morning and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Islamic jihadists threaten to plunge the Middle East into chaos.

Is this really the best way to stabilise the region?

The Government promised to reduce net migration to below 100,000

Is it any wonder the public are cynical?

More than 100,000 people have signed a petition to ban puppy farming.

And forget Spain versus Chile, we will bring you the real match

All that coming up in the next 90 minutes and on the pitch

for the duration, in goal and trying not to let any more in, former

And coming up hard on the left wing, the Shadow Environment Secretary

First this morning, Iran's odds of winning the World Cup are 2500/1,

but who cares if Britain and America want to be your best friend?

The country that was once an international pariah is now

at the receiving end of diplomatic advances from the United States,

Britain and other Western countries who are trying to see off the threat

Their success threatens peace and stability in the entire region.

The Prime Minister is chairing a meeting of the

Here is Jo Co to explain how we got here.

For more than a decade Britain was actively

engaged in a series of conflicts that became known as Blair's wars.

In 1999, British forces took part in a multinational force in Kosovo

to hold back Slobodan Milosevic's forces.

British troops were also active on their own in Sierra Leone

in 2000 when rebels threatened to overrun the country.

Then in 2001, following on from the September the 11th attacks, Britain

took part in a multinational force against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Whilst all of these conflicts were controversial,

there was a reasonable level of support in the country.

Iraq in 2003, however, changed all of this.

Hundreds of thousands marched against the war and the country

The recriminations over that conflict continue to this day,

overshadowing Britain's foreign policy ever since.

It certainly hung over David Cameron's intervention in Libya.

Following UN Security Council authorisation in 2011,

Britain contributed to policing a no-fly zone over the country and

many suggested Mr Cameron had found a new template for waging military

campaigns by enabling the rebels to carry

on the offensive. The situation in Syria, however, showed the limits

In August last year the Commons rejected the Prime Minister's call

for military action against President Assad following

Speaking the morning after the vote the Chancellor George

Osborne said there would now be "national soul-searching about our

Joining us now is that Douglas Murray joining us from the Henry

Jackson Society, named after the famous American. If there is a known

regional player that could intervene, it is only America. It is

not going to be Europe or Britain, it is only America. Should America

do anything? It should, but it depends what the circumstances are

under which it could make things better. There is a problem from

outside the region at the moment which is we tend to be reading it

outside the region at the moment if it is about us. This is a

particularly British virus at the moment. This is not about us, it is

about forces beyond our control and beyond America's control unless

America can get some kind of regional agreement that could work.

It is difficult to see what kind of thing that would be. It is not just

an Iraq problem, it is a regional problem from the Levant and the

Mediterranean through to the goal. It is fundamentally sectarian Shia

war, sectarian war between two different religious groups. They

each have their proxies, Saudis on one side on the other. Isn't the

lesson of history that it is better to stay out? You could take that

interpretation. There is a great problem for countries like ours and

America which see humanitarian suffering of the kind that has gone

on in Syria for several years and want to do something about it. The

something must be done syndrome. At the other end we have got the

limitations of our capabilities. They were demonstrated by the fact

there were obvious things people thought we could do in Libya, but it

was very hard to see what we could do in Syria. There is the difference

between our desires and our capabilities. As for the Sunni and

Shia issue, for some time there has been a risk the region would clarify

along those lines. That is what has been attempted to be postponed, that

that should be put off. It is possible we cannot put it off any

longer. That has come about because of the clarification which has come

inside Syria in recent years. The regional players have all been able

to act out their proxy wars. But they are coming closer to home and

that is why this is such a disturbing situation. There is no

appetite in this country for any kind of intervention whatsoever.

Loo-mac you saw that very clearly from Tony Blair's intervention. A

lot of these type of things are seen through the prism of the Iraq

intervention. William Hague made it clear we were not contemplating any

kind of military intervention. He said our response was political to

work out what was happening in Iraq and we had a humanitarian role. But

he made it clear we were not looking at military intervention. What about

the North and the autonomous region of Kurdistan? It is the only really

successful part of the country. Would we offer that any protection?

He made it clear he was not ruling out all intervention everywhere for

ever. I know what he said. The Kurdish area has been very

successful and one of the Foreign Office ministers met with their

regional Government. They have a representative in London. You are

telling me things I know. It is our job to try and support the

democratic Governments in Iraq and Kurdistan and we have to look at

protecting them if it is within our capability. What is Labour's policy?

The terrorists creating mayhem in Iraq at the moment need to be

stopped. It would be slightly strange if Labour said we back the

brutal terrorists as they sweep through Iraq. We take it for granted

you are against them, what is your policy? I do not disagree enormously

with the Government about this. We need to support the Iraqi Government

in making sure they can tackle this issue properly. What does that mean?

We said we will support them in terms of tackling terrorism. We need

to make sure the Government in Iraq can put themselves together by being

less sectarian. If you look Read the latest dispatches from Baghdad that

is not happening. The army is becoming more and more a wing of the

Shia party. You say we back the Iraqi Government in dealing with

this terrorism. In what way do you back it? The Government have talked

about providing support. What kind of support? Support that is not

troops on the ground. But what? The Western powers have talked about

providing some capability that might assist. What should the British do?

We support them in that. We have been clear on the Labour side as

well as on the Government side that we do not support sending troops

back in. I understand that. There is a limit to the support we can give.

These two answers that Conservative and Labour have given this programme

showed the collective irrelevance of British political parties in what is

happening in Iraq. The reality is we have a huge and widening chasm

between what we say we would like to do and what we are able to do. You

cannot have successive governments diminishing our armed forces. We

lower our armed defence capabilities, yet always ramping up

the rhetoric of what we wish to achieve at war. You will simply have

a situation like now where we cannot do very much. This is not about

capabilities, this is about the appetite of wanting to get engaged

and a bit of humility in the political class and in public about

being sure if we intervene, we are going to make things better and not

worse. The debate on Syria last year, the real reason there was not

an appetite to do things was because people were concerned and were not

sure about what intervention we could take that could make things

better. That is a perfectly mature response. Would it not be more

honest to say to the British people, because of what has happened in the

past and Iraq hangs over like a dark shadow on British foreign policy,

because of the fact we have slashed our armed forces and reduced our

capability, there will be horrible things happening there, but other

than humanitarian aid there is very little that we can do. Would that

not be honest? The Foreign Secretary was honest. He made it clear we were

going to provide political support to the Iraqi Government. I have no

idea what that means. On the counterterrorism side we have

expertise so we can provide advice. And we can provide significant

humanitarian aid. And we can provide significant

about that. The fact is the biggest ally is the Iranian Revolutionary

guard. Its commander is already in Baghdad, we are told, with 67 of his

top advisers. There were reports a couple of days ago that they had

basically taken over control of the Iraqi forces because the American

trained Iraqi forces were useless. That is his ally. When the league he

was in exile he spent time in terror ran. They are the ones who matter.

Not British forces. It was perfectly clear that the British would leave

Iraq and put a timeline on that. It was obvious the Government would

want to look for friends and there was only one friend in the region.

One Iraqi politician said, you are our friends, the Iranians are our

brothers. I looked shocked and he said, we can choose our friends, but

we cannot choose our family. An example of how very much larger this

could yet become is that the head of the forces you have just alluded to,

was involved in a plot to assassinate an ambassador in

Washington. America is now dealing directly and indirectly with these

people. These people were very recently involved in a plot on

American soil and America realises it has to cooperate with the

Iranians on this. This is nobody's idea of a good time, but the

situation in the region is so serious. It is a geopolitical

situation. The lines on the map that we see in that part of the Middle

East were put there by the British and French imperialists during the

First World War. They have survived quite a while, but it is over now.

Yes, it will not meet the centenary. One of the things that can be done

to salvage this, the point about the Kurdish region is very fair. The

most important thing is the one bit of the success story, the autonomous

Kurdish region, should be protected. I think the Kurdish people can

protect themselves. They have extraordinarily good fighters and

they have done things in recent days that they see as being in their

interests. It may be the case that if it was threatened, some kind of

international force could be given as an assurance to protect those

areas. In the meantime, the most we can hope is

areas. In the meantime, the most we can hope what happened with ISIS is

what happened before is the locals, including the sectarian groups,

become so disgusted by the behaviour of ISIS that they turn against them.

There is a genuinely popular uprising. That is not going to sort

out the regional problem of which this may just be the start of. Our

politicians out of touch with public opinion on immigration? According to

the British Social Attitudes survey, almost half the population now

believes that a decade of mass migration has not only harm to the

economy, undermined British culture, and that the persistent public

anxiety over immigrant numbers is something the main political parties

ignore at their peril. Well, we have got the man who until a few months

ago was immigration minister, Mark Harper. We will talk to him in a

moment, but here is what Penny Young of the National Centre for social

research, who produced this survey, told me yesterday. It is a mixed

picture. On research, who produced this survey,

told me yesterday. It is some things, attitudes to immigration are

much harder. People are much less relaxed about migrants having the

same legal rights as settled residents. Nevertheless, these

figures obscure a lot of differences within the publishing. One of the

most striking views is that if you have got a degree, you are very

positive about the impact of immigration on the economy and the

cultural life of the population. Everybody else sees a negative

effect. So there are two sections within the British public with very

different views. Mark Harper, why are you failing to

hit your immigration target? It is very simple. Non-EU immigration, we

are on track and have made considerable progress. To be honest,

the surprise was that the EU numbers went up, and not from some of the

Eastern European countries that people were concerned about, but

from the traditional European countries like Spain, Portugal and

France. And a lot of that is driven by the economic performance. We have

been frank about it. We do have to look at the rules about free move it

and when people can claim benefits when they come here. That will be

part of our renegotiation of our terms of membership, which we will

put the people in 2017. What bit of mass unemployment in the Eurozone

did you not know about when you came up with these targets? When the

target was set, I was not in the team. My understanding was that the

numbers were broadly in balance so that the bulk of net migration to

Britain in the past had been from outside the EU. But it was clear

that the Eurozone was in crisis. That was why you formed a coalition

government. It was clear that there was substantial unemployment across

the Eurozone. There was also free movement coming in from Eastern

Europe. You knew the situation. It can't have been a surprise to you

that a lot of Europeans would want to come to Britain, and yet you went

ahead and gave us a target that you are now telling us you knew you

could not meet. I am not saying that.

are now telling us you knew you could not meet. I am not saying The

important thing from that survey is that people do still want

immigration reduced. But you failed. We need to deal with the EU part of

the picture. We have dealt with the non-EU part. We have made a dramatic

impact on where new jobs are going. Since the election, three quarters

of all those new jobs are now going to British citizens. In the five

years running up to the crash, less than 10% off new jobs being created

went to British citizens. That is behind some of the concerns in that

survey. We both think the jobs being created are not benefiting British

citizens. You promised that immigration would be below 100,000.

The latest figures we have are over double that. Is 212,002 much? The

target is in tatters. They have failed. Is it too much? Didn't agree

with having a target in the first place. We have said from our time in

office that we got something is wrong on immigration. But with

respect, I am not asking about that. I am asking, is 212,000 net

migration to much? We would not have chosen a net migration target. But

is it too much? Or is it too few? It is the government's target, it is

not a target we would have chosen. Forget it as a target. Assume the

target does not exist. Just answer a simple question. Is a net increase

of 212,000 people coming here too much or too little? I don't think

you can say it is too much or too little. It depends on the needs of

the country. I can say it is too high. You can become a slave to

figures that you choose, as the current government have. They failed

to meet the target they set themselves, but they also failed to

deal with illegal immigration. There are less checks at orders now they

are not getting rid of foreign criminals. We also did things wrong

when we were in office. I want to acknowledge that. But you still

can't give me an idea of numbers. People's concerns about this relate

to the impact on their own lives. People are concerned about numbers.

That came out in the British Social Attitudes study. And you can't give

them a number. People are concerned about the impact of those coming in

on their communities. I got this on the doorstep when I knocked on

doors. The reality is that people are particularly interested in the

impact this has on their lives and the potential job chances of their

children and local services. If you get those issues right, the concern

abates. I put it to you that your failure to get anywhere near a

target that you said you would reach is just another reason why the

British people don't trust you on this. I have been straightforward

about the bit we have hit, which is non-EU migration, and I have in

frank about the area where we haven't and I have said what we need

to do about it. We have passed on immigration act which will lead to

tightening up the rules on people who are in Britain who should not

be, people who have overstayed their welcome. It is easier to get rid of

foreign criminals. That only matters at the margins. That will not make a

huge difference to the numbers. The stuff about making it more difficult

to Britain will, because if you are here illegally, we can remove you.

You will not be able to get somewhere to live. How could you be

here illegally if you are an EU citizen? For EU citizens, you have

to have a job or be self-sufficient or be a student. There are people

who are causing problems, for example by begging. We can remove

them. People are concerned about the restrictions on Chinese coming in.

Visitors, yes. There is also discussion within government about

the quality of people coming over. What would the figure be that would

be enough to fill the industries unit, and not the people you don't

want? The point on the Chinese issue is confusing. We also mentioned

people speaking English. One of the big changes we have made is that you

can't now come to Britain from outside the EU unless you can speak

English. But you can stop a Polish person -- you can't stop a Polish

person coming in. Your constant mea culpas, but inability to give us any

numbers or any idea of what you think the scale of immigration

should be is why people do not trust you either. I think people are

concerned about the impact on their communities and life chances of

immigration. They think they are not allowed to talk about it. You

encourage them not to. We made mistakes in office. That is why we

have to encourage these debates. If I say to people, we are going to

stop agencies recruiting abroad, we are going to improve the enforcement

of the national minimum wage, will make sure that businesses who

recruit abroad because they need a skilled person that they can only

get from abroad also has two other apprenticeships at home... It

depends on the economic circumstances of the time. What

matters to people is the impact this has in their communities. Do all

Labour politicians think they should apologise for what happened in terms

of numbers? Quite a few politicians like Tessa Jowell have said there

was nothing to apologise for, and that it led to economic both. So

Labour are not quite unified. People have different views within parties

and across parties about these issues, but Ed Miliband has been

clear. We have accepted that we made some mistakes, we need to go

forward, realising that what matters is putting right the abuses that

result from people coming into the country and in act that has in local

communities on housing, services and jobs.

Now, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, continues his visit to

Britain today. Yesterday, he indicated that he was prepared to

pony up some Chinese dosh on HS2 and nuclear power stations? What did he

get in return? A signed copy of a script for Downton Abbey and a

Charles Dickens DVD box set. Do those foreign office types know

nothing? Mr Lee's favourite British TV programme is the Daily Politics.

But fear not, if you are watching from a foreign office desk, a Daily

Politics mug to pass on to Premier Lee can be yours and a major

diplomatic incident can yet be avoided. We will remind you how to

enter in a minute. Let's see if you can remember when this happened.

This is a winning policy, and it is a policy we believe in.

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

[email protected]. It is coming up to midday here. Just

take a look at Big Ben. It is a Wednesday, which can mean only one

thing, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way. If you would like to

comment on proceedings, try to be polite! You can e-mail us at

[email protected]. We will read your comments out after PMQs. And when he

is not busy to be with us, Nick Robinson is here. Thought I would

pop in. I see dark clouds behind Big Ben. I have just come from

Liverpool. The sun was beautiful and shining this morning. The Lib Dems

are talking about a referendum? The Times have a story considering that

they are shifting -- considering Times have a story considering that

shifting their position. Lots of cold water is being poured on this

from the Lib Dem cold water is being poured on this

senior Liberal Democrat I spoke to said this is not likely. That is a

way of saying that the story is right that they are thinking about

it. But they would only want to do it in return for a big offer from

the Conservatives. If we give you a backing in the House of Commons,

what do we get act? The dark cloud you referred to when you were in

Brussels last week was of course Iraq, each bizarrely did not come up

at all at Prime Minister 's questions. It is not as if it is a

place we have invaded. Oh, no, we did. Twice. Surely it will come up

this week, because it would look surreal if this event can go on for

half an hour each week and a nor the important issues of the day. It was

remarkable that it did not come up, but maybe it did not come up last

time because British politicians have little useful to say about it.

They are also scared about talking about it.

They are also scared about talking Tony Blair's comment. There is a

great desire to say Blair is a fool. But engaging with the argument

that was raised, that was something that very few wanted to do. Douglas

Alexander for Labour has walked the Blair tightrope rather elegantly

earlier in the week, saying that while it was absurd to claim that

the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the problem now, allegedly

Tony Blair's view, it was equally absurd to say it was only the doom

with what happened 11 years ago. Let's find out.

I spoke yesterday to my constituent, who was anxious because Hassan's

passport had not arrived on time. Given the dreadful level of service

she described she was shocked to find the passport agency returned a

surplus of ?73 million. What does it say about the values of this

Government that the Chancellor is making a profit over one of my

constituent's misery? What I would say to any constituent of any MP in

this house, because it is an important issue, is that anyone who

needs to travel within the next week and who has waited more than three

weeks will be fast tracked for no extra cost so they can get their

passport in time. I do not want anyone to miss their holiday because

of these difficulties. We have seen a 15% increase over the last week in

the number of passports being processed, but we need to go faster

and we need to hire more people. Is the Prime Minister aware of the

growing sentiment that as the publication of the Chilcott report

has been so long delayed the ancient but still existing power of

backbenchers to commence the procedures of impeachment should now

be activated to bring Mr Tony Blair to account for allegedly misleading

the house on the necessity of the invasion of Iraq in 2003? I would

say to my right honourable friend it is important we see the results of

the Iraq enquiry. It has had access to all of the papers, officials and

ministers. Frankly, if the Iraq enquiry had started when this party

and when the Liberal Democrats had suggested, then we would have seen

the Iraq inquiry published by now. But members opposite, including the

leader of the opposition, voted against starting the Iraqi enquiry

on no fewer than four occasions. Mr Speaker, all of us will have been

appalled by the images of the brutal aggression of crisis that has spread

across Iraq, terrorising its citizens and undermining its fragile

democracy. Iraq is facing fundamental threats to its integrity

and stability. Can the Prime Minister provide the house with the

latest assessment of the situation in Iraq. And following the

appearance yesterday of the president Al-Maliki, can he say what

more he believes can be done to encourage a more inclusive and

representative Government which is essential for the future of Iraq?

The leader of the opposition is right is that one of the things that

needs to happen is the Iraqi Government to take a more inclusive

approach. I can tell the house the latest reports indicate fighting is

continuing on one front and the oil refinery is currently under attack

by ISIS. There is a large-scale recruitment not only of Shia

militias, but also other young recruits to the Iraqi armed forces

and it is vital that precedes and that ISIS is pushed back by the

Iraqis. But the key thing to recognise is when you get this

combination of poor governance of ungoverned spaces and support for

extremism, that provides an opportunity for terrorists and we

have to address this on each of those three France, supporting the

Iraqi Government. This crisis is not just affecting Iraq, but has

consequences for the whole world. Can he tell us the extra measures

the Government is contemplating to ensure British nationals in the

region cannot return here and engage in violent extremism or terrorism?

Can he say what the Government is doing to prevent people in this

country becoming radicalised and travelling to the region to fight?

Our approach to this issue must be based on a hard-headed assessment of

our national interest and most important is how to keep our

citizens safe at home. The leader of the opposition asked about the

actions we are taking, and we will be legislating in this Parliament to

make the planning of terrorist attacks overseas illegal in the UK.

We will make sure our policing and intelligence resources are focused

on this part of the world and the danger of British people travelling

there and becoming radicalised and returning to the UK. We have taken

away passports, using the new powers we legislated for in the last

Parliament and we will continue to do everything we can to keep our

country safe. I want to talk about Iran and its role in this crisis. We

support the announcement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary

to reopen the British embassy in Iran and the dialogue started by the

Foreign Secretary, but the challenge we face in Iraq is although Iran

opposes ISIS, the Iranian regime in the past has shown it does not

support a vision for an inclusive and democratic state in Iraq. Can he

give this house the current assessment of the willingness and

intent of the Iranian regime to plate can -- to play a constructive

role? First of all, it is important to re-engage with dialogue with Iran

and that is why we are planning to reopen the embassy. It should be

done on a step-by-step basis. It should be done with a very clear eye

and a very hard-headed because we know of the appalling things that

happened to our embassy in 2011. Two people who say there is

inconsistency having dialogue with Iran and at the same time

recognising how much they have done to destabilise the region, I would

say we need to take a consistent approach with all the players in

this region. We support the voices of moderation, the voices that

support democracy under the rule of law. We need the Iranian Government

to play that role as well as everyone else. The broader context

is the wider Sunni and Shi'ite schism across the region. Does he

agree it is not just Iran but other significant countries across the

region that have a huge responsibility not to take steps

that will further fuel the sectarian conflict? That includes support for

extremist groups. Will the Prime Minister make clear in his

conversations with all parties it will fuel the conflict. Whatever we

are looking to do, whether it is to support the voices of moderation and

democracy in Syria, whether it is trying to help the Iraqi Government

closed down this ungoverned space in Iraq, or the conversations we have

with other regional players, it is important we are consistent with

that engagement and we oppose extremism, terrorism and violence.

When it comes to the support we have given to rebels in Syria that we let

through the official Syrian opposition who are committed to

those things and not extremism and terrorism and our engagement with

the Saudi Arabians, with Qatar and the Emirates and others is all on

the basis that none of us should be supporting those terrorists are

extremists. I want to ask about the humanitarian situation. We have

British allies in the region, such as Jordan, who are already dealing

with a huge refugee crisis. Britain is doing a good job of providing

humanitarian support for those in refugee camps. But there are more

refugees outside the camps and inside the camps. What further

practical measures does the Prime Minister believe we can take to

support companies like Jordan and Lebanon? We remain when it comes to

Syria, the Syrian refugee situation, we remained the second

largest bilateral aid donor anywhere in the world. We are providing

shelter, food, clothing and support for the millions of people who have

been made homeless. When it comes to supporting neighbouring countries,

we have given direct help to Jordan. The increase of the population in

Jordan and Lebanon is equivalent to almost 15 million people coming to

the UK. In terms of the Iraq humanitarian situation where there

is an emerging problem because of people being displaced because of

the ISIS, murderous regime, we have already announced ?3 million of

humanitarian aid to people displaced in that region and we will be

increasing that two ?5 million. Britain will be playing its role for

those, through no fault of their own, have been displaced by

conflict. I hope he will continue to look at what more can be done to

those outside the refugee camps. Everything we are seeing across this

region begs a fundamental question about whether it can develop a

politics where people live alongside each other as citizens rather than

dividing along ethnic or religious lines. Does he agree that while we

can and should provide assistance to make that happen, in the end it is

about the political will of those in the region that will determine

whether this happens or not? I agree, it would be a mistake to

believe the only answer to these problems is the hard attack of

direct intervention. We know that can create problems in itself. But I

also disagree with those who think it is nothing to do with us and if

they want to have some sort of extreme Islamist regime in the

middle of Iraq it will not affect will. The people in that regime are

also planning to attack us here at home in the UK. The right answer is

to be long-term hard-headed, patient and intelligent with our

interventions. The most important intervention is to make sure these

governments are fully representative of the people who live in their

countries and they close down the ungoverned space and they removed

the support for the extremists. We have to help in Iraq, Somalia,

Nigeria and Mali because these problems will come back and hit us

at home if we do not. This week, construction begins on Watford's

University technical college sponsored by an education trust.

Students will receive first-class academic education and real

preparation for real jobs in the real world. Would the Prime Minister

in courage and young people in Watford to explore the opportunities

that this wonderful new school will offer? I know we are doing all we

can to help get the Watford University technical college ready

in September so students can start to benefit. Having visited these

technical colleges in Harlow and Staffordshire, I think they

represent filling in one of the missing links in our education

system that was left after the Second World War where we helped the

Germans establish good technical schools, but did not put them in

place in the United Kingdom. I am very proud to be leading a

Government that is putting that right. Three large GP practices in

the most deprived areas of north-east Yorkshire are facing

crisis. In England we are at least 10,000 GPs short. Labour is

promising a maximum 48 hour wait to see a GP. What is he promising?

First of all, in order to provide more GPs, we need to provide money

and this Government has increased spending on the NHS when we were

told by the party opposite it was irresponsible. We have 7000 more

doctors, more nurses and more midwives, but 19,000 fewer

bureaucrats. It is vital in providing the health services that

we need. Will he welcomed the happy news that the river we are in the

midst of a volunteering week of action renovating a park closed in

2009, but now reopening thanks to the determination of local

residents. Will he welcomed all the jobs, community spirit and real ale

that will bring? I am delighted to welcome the real ale and recommend

they take advantage of the 1p cut not just in this budget, but in the

previous budget. I know people in Avonmouth have suffered from air

pollution and I am happy to discuss that with her. We are seeing a

growth in terms of community pubs and that is all to do good. We

introduced the community right to bid that has enabled a number of

communities to take hold of these facilities. In its recent report the

sea QC praised the start of the hospital in Woolwich for being kind

and respectful. Does the Prime Minister remember that one year ago

before being stopped by judicial review his Government were proposing

to close the A department in the neighbouring Lewisham Hospital which

would have added massively to the pressures on the already

overstretched Queen Elizabeth? The most important thing with our health

services to raise good service when we see it, but to recognise that

when you see poor service, we see it, but to recognise that

when you see it has to be turned around. We are clear about the

turnaround work being done in many of our hospitals that were left for

year after year under Labour. But the House might be interested to

know that the average amount of time you wake in A was 77 minutes when

Labour were in power. It is now 30 minutes under this government. Can

the Prime Minister advise my constituents what action the

government is taking to ensure that areas of regeneration such as

Colindale in my constituency received the necessary public

service infrastructure to support the increasing population? My

honourable friend makes an important point.

honourable friend makes an important bonus have helped to make sure the

local authorities can put bonus have helped to make sure the

infrastructure. We have strengthened new planning guidance to ensure that

infrastructure is provided support new developments. As a result of the

recent award of the Thameslink franchise, there will be new rolling

stock on the line. By the end of 2018, there will be over 3000 more

seats on trains running through Hendon at peak times, it I hope is

welcome to his constituents. What does the Prime Minister believed the

underlying causes for the ?2 billion deficit forecast for the English

National Health Service trust for next year, and what are his

remedies? The estimates being made today are being made on the basis

that we have set challenges for the NHS in terms of making efficiencies?

After four years in government, they have met those in efficiency

challenges every year under this government. And that money has been

ploughed back into better patient care in our NHS. The question for

the NHS in British politics today, I would argue, is, why is it in Wales,

where Labour are under control, where 8% cuts have remade in the NHS

budget? They might be yawning opposite, blog but they are not

yawning in Wales, because they are stuck on waiting lists, desperate

for treatment. Will my right honourable friend join me in

congratulating the England women's football team? They have had success

in the World Cup qualifiers. On and off the pitch, women are delivering

for England, with more women in employment, more women setting up

businesses. So will the Prime Minister confirmed that in our

long-term economic plan, we will ensure that women can continue to

score the goals for the UK economy and that no one is left behind? I am

happy to join my honourable friend. As a keen fan of not just the

England football team, but also the England cricket team, I have the

pleasure of having representatives of the England women's football and

cricket team in Downing Street recently. I said they seemed to put

us through considerably less heartache, stress and worry when

qualifying for these major competitions, and indeed in the

cricket team's case, when they are winning the Ashes. There is good

news to celebrate, which is that e-mail employment is at a record

high in our country. There are nearly 7000 more women at work --

female employment. We are seeing more female staff in businesses. We

are making sure it is fairer for women in terms of pensions. We have

a good record, but there is more to be done. Exactly 20 years ago to the

day, gunmen went into a pub in my constituency and killed six men.

Amid widespread claims about pollution and police cover-up. The

families have never received truth and justice. Only two weeks ago, the

police ensured that the police ombudsman's investigation was

stalled. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all UK police

services must cooperate fully with their oversight authorities, both to

the letter and in spirit, to ensure that families that I represent

received truth and justice? I agree with the honourable lady that

everyone should cooperate with the police ombudsman. I believe the

police ombudsman system in Northern Ireland is now a model that other

countries are looking to follow. It was something I discussed recently

with the Taoiseach in terms of what happens in the Republic of Ireland.

We have a system there that works. We have enquiry teams which are also

working, but I hope the work can continue between the parties in

Northern Ireland to discuss the ideas for flights parades and the

past. I hope everyone can come together and sort these issues out

-- flied parades. In Jillings and rain, youth unemployment is down,

unemployment overall is down, business creation is up. Does the

Prime Minister not agree that this shows that our long-term economic

plan is working? And will he join with me in welcoming the new

creation of a university technical college in Medway, which will ensure

that our future generations have the right skills to succeed in life? I

am delighted to say to the honourable gentleman that it is

welcome that youth unemployment, which has been too high for too long

in our country, is down by 25% this year in his constituency, and

long-term youth Honor Blackman is down 41%. He makes the point about

-- used term unemployment is down. I want to see a technical college in

every town so that we give young people the opportunity of a good

technical education if that is what they choose. And those schools must

be well funded, well resourced and also partnered with organisations

that can bring their expertise to bear. How is his campaign going to

stop Mr Juncker? It is a simple issue of principle. Much more

connected to the principle than the name. The principle is this, and I

think it will be shared on every side of the house. The members of

the European Council, who are the elected Prime Minister 's and

presidents, under the treaties, we should choose who runs the European

Commission. I don't mind how many people on the European Council

disagree with me, I will fight this to the very end. And what I would

say to my colleagues on the European Council, many of whom have expressed

interest in views about both this principle and this person, if you

want reform in Europe, you have got to stand up for it. If you want

change in Europe, you have got to vote for it. That is the message I

will take, and that is the right message for our country. Last year,

a Cabinet Office minister said relocation of staff out of expensive

London offices to other regions continues to be high on the agenda

to deliver the savings needed. Will the Prime Minister look to move some

of those jobs to Redcar in Cleveland, where we have low-cost

offices, affordable housing, school places, people ready to work and a

great lifestyle? My honourable friend makes an important point

about the relocation of jobs. Of course, we want to see that develop.

I know it was disappointing about the changes to the insolvency

service in Stockton last year. One of the reasons that happened was

there has been such a sharp fall in bankruptcy and company closures,

which is a welcome development. Overall, employment is rising in the

north-east. It rose by 47,000 last year, but we have to make sure we

generate not just by that sector jobs, but where we can, locate a big

sector job different parts of the country. We continue with that

programme. How many people from this country are fighting for ISIS, and

what risks do they pose to the UK? The estimates that have been given

so far are that around 400 people from the UK have taken part in

fighting with ISIS, but those numbers are based around what is

happening in Syria rather than what is happening in Iraq, where we have

considerably less information. Together with the Home Secretary and

others, I have turned meetings in Whitehall to make sure our

intelligence, security and policing services are focused as sharply as

they can on to this Robben. The estimates are now -- this problem is

a greater threat to the UK than the return of jihadis from the

Afghanistan or Pakistan region. We need to do everything we can to keep

our country safe. What it is good news that the budget deficit has

been cut by a third, there is still much more to do. One way of helping

our country live within its means is to send back all the convicted

criminals who are foreign nationals and who are costing British

taxpayers millions of pounds each year to keep in our prisons. All too

often, attempts to send year to keep in our prisons. All too

criminals ask the blood by human rights legislation. -- the attempts

are scuppered by human rights legislation. What plans does the

Prime Minister have put an end to this ludicrous state of affairs? I

agree that we need to do more on this front. We have removed around

20,000 foreign national offenders since this government came to

office, but the number is built to high. I have a lot of individual

ministers to individual territories, particularly those with the highest

number of foreign offenders, countries like Nigeria, Jamaica,

Vietnam, China, to make sure we make progress on returning these

prisoners. We also need to use the prisoner transfer agreement within

the European Union, because that could lead to a large number of

prisoners being returned to Poland. If we get a Conservative government

after the next election, we will have a substantive reform to the

Human Rights Act, which is not working properly for Britain. Last

month, the National Health Service missed its cancer treatment target

for the very first time. What does the Prime Minister have to say to

patients and their families who have had to put their lives on hold,

waiting for vital treatment to start? There is not a family in this

country that is not affected by cancer and the difficulties of

making sure you get the treatment you need as fast as you can. We have

a series of targets for cancer treatment, and we are meeting almost

all of them. We have seen an increase of around 15% in terms of

the number of people being treated for cancer. And we have introduced

that never existed the previous government, the Cancer Drugs Fund.

She will know people in her constituency, just as I know people

in my constituency who are getting medicines that they need that they

never got before. The Prime Minister will know that the economic recovery

in Essex has been led by the private sector, with Essex firms creating

thousands of new jobs and exporting across the globe. Will he come and

Essex businesses and support their efforts to export more by looking

favourably upon our plans to upgrade our interest, both our road and rail

network across Essex? As I have said before, where Essex leads, the rest

of the country follows. In terms of economic recovery, private sector

growth, entrepreneurialism, employing more people, that is what

the economy needs. That is what our economic plan is delivering. Last

week, we saw that record in crease in employment. This week, we saw

inflation fall to a five-year low. I had successful meetings yesterday

with the Chinese premier, fanning ?14 billion worth of important deals

that will bring jobs, growth and investment to this country. We have

to keep working on every aspect of our plan, including exports. The

former Prime Minister Sir John Major made a strong case for looking at

our constitutional arrangements, whatever the outcome in September in

Scotland. Will he accept that devolution in England outside London

is very much unfinished business? If our great cities like Birmingham

want to remain economic engines, they require radically reformed

funding structures and our regions require strategically elected direct

mayors. As the honourable lady knows, I am a fan of directly

elected mayors, but the people of Birmingham had their chance to make

that decision and they voted not to have one. I hope people will see

successful mayors in London, Liverpool, Bristol and other parts

of the country, and they will see that there are benefits from that.

But I agree with her that even if we don't move to a mayoral system,

there is more we can do through city deals, local enterprise

partnerships, devolving some of the funding in Whitehall further down

towards cities and regions. What is welcome is the fact that her party

has not decided to tear up local enterprise partnerships in its party

review. It is good that we have cross-party agreement on how to

drive devolution to our great cities around the country. On behalf of my

burnt wood constituents, may I thank the Prime Minister for his swift and

effective action in giving a posthumous honour to my constituent

Stephen Sutton? But with the economic plan now working well, how

can we build on that, and how can we build on the legacy that Stephen

Sutton set for giving to charitable purposes? Stephen Sutton was an

inspiring individual. His zest for life, even as he was suffering from

a difficult and progressive cancer, was extraordinary. He raised the

huge amount of money for Teenage Cancer Trust and raised it around

the world as well as in the UK. It is right that our honours system

happily rewards people that give to charity, that give of their time

from the bottom to the top. There is probably more we can do to make sure

that our honours dust reflects what the British public want, which is to

say giving and generosity and compassion rewarded. The Prime

Minister may recollect that a few months ago, at Prime Minister's

Questions, I asked him to meet the victims of a drug. There are over 50

of them coming to Parliament today. I would ask if he would see them,

look at the document we have produced to show that the committee

of medicine in new about the fact that this drug was causing

deformities in babies, and nothing was done about it. I would ask him

to then consider a public enquiry. I do not think I will be able, I'm

afraid, today, to see the people she's bringing to the House of

Commons. I'm happy to another conversation with her about what can

be done and to understand about what more can be communicated to these

people. In welcoming the Chinese premier, Mr Lee, to this country,

and in recognising that China is one of the greatest export markets for

Britain, can ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices to unblock

the barrier to the export of pigs' feat for human consumption, which

will bring thousands of pounds -- pigs' feet? I will certainly take up

my honourable friend on that issue. I recall on a previous visit to

China, we unlocked the export of big as' seem to China, so we made

progress -- pigs' seaman. So I will look carefully at pig feet, and if

exports can be allowed and jobs can be promoted, I would be happy to

help. Notwithstanding the serious problems as well, does the Prime

Minister share my concern about the crisis in South Sudan, where 4

million people are facing famine? What steps are being taken to

implement the peace process? I was discussing this issue yesterday with

the Archbishop of Canterbury, who very bravely had been with local

church leaders to a town which had been subject to some of the most

serious fighting. It is a very different part of the world to what

we were discussing earlier, but some of the same rules apply. We need a

government that governs on behalf of all the people in that country, and

does not try to divide the country along ethnic lines. We will do what

we can, and when we talk about intervention in this country, it is

intervention through diplomacy, aid, assistance and advice, and we will

continue with that. Is my right honourable friend aware that at the

conference this weekend in Athens of the national chairman of the select

committees, with delegates from all parties, but also chairman of the

European Parliamentary committees as well, the British delegation

defeated an attempt to treat the word euro scepticism as equivalent

to xenophobia and racism? And furthermore, that on the question of

the procedure, the unprecedented procedure relating to the proposed

appointment or election of Mr Juncker, the conference also agreed

with the British delegation that this was an unprecedented and

unacceptable and unsuccessful procedure? No surprises that my

honourable friend was successful in this negotiation on behalf of

Britain. There is support right around Europe for the concept of the

Council of ministers making these choices. But as I say, it requires

the elected by ministers and presidents to vote in the way they

believe. We have been slightly delayed, but there are

accommodations I want to make. On the Prime Minister's watch, five

GPs' surgeries face closure in my bar and 98 nationally. Is this what

the Prime Minister meant when he promised to protect the NHS? When I

said we would protect the NHS, I meant just that. We are spending

?12.7 billion more on the NHS, which Labour said was responsible for what

we have 7000 more doctors in our NHS by 3000 more nurses, over 1000 more

midwives in our NHS. But there is something we have less of. We have

19,000 fewer bureaucrats, and that money has been piled into patient

care, including improving primary care around the country. The people

of Newark have enjoyed becoming better acquainted with the Prime

Minister this past month. I regret to inform the Prime Minister that

the town of South well in my constituency was again flooded last

week. Would the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to support

my proposal that those parts of Nottinghamshire that was severely

affected by the floods of 2013 received similar grants to those

parts elsewhere in the country flooded at the beginning of this

year? Firstly, I welcome my honourable friend to his place in

the House of Commons after a long, arduous but well fought and positive

by-election campaign. My honourable friend makes an important point.

There are parts of the country in Nottinghamshire, but also elsewhere

that flooded during the course of 2013. They were not eligible for

some of the payments that were made subsequent to the flooding, support

for householders, farmers under the proposals. We are looking at whether

we can put back to the beginning of the 2013 financial year the

eligibility criteria for that flood work. I will look at it carefully

and talk with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for

local government and communities, and see if we can resolve this issue

for my honourable friend. which is a bit longer than normal.

While it was taking place, there have been two developments in Iraq.

The country's biggest oil refinery to the north-west of Baghdad is now

in flames. The country's biggest oil refinery

to the The militant tried to take it, they got part of it, Iraqi army

helicopters have fought back. It looks like they have reclaim it, but

it is at a cost of a huge part of the oil refinery. Secondly, the

battle of Baghdad has not yet begun. But the battle of the Cooper is well

underway, 40 miles to the north. The militants have taken huge chunks of

that town and we understand the battle is raging there. If the

militants take that town, the future of Baghdad could be next in line.

Unlike last week when it didn't get a mention at all, the events in Iraq

dominated the exchanges between the two frontbenchers. There is a

bipartisan approach on this. The exchanges covered what the latest

assessment was. The leader of the house went on to ask about what was

happening to any British national fighting there and what we were

going to do about that. It then came on to Iran in its role and the work

Britain was doing to bring humanitarian aid to that troubled

part of the world. Let's hear what you made of it all.

Lots of response to the situation. Helen Manning says, hearing all the

useless rhetoric about Iraq and Iran from Ed Miliband and David leaves me

cold. From Tim, why doesn't the Government explain how we are

threatened by the conflict? Paula Hendry said, the discussion across

the dispatch box was refreshing. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband had

an adult interaction. This from Alec Aitken, I want all of the youths who

have travelled to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and to wait

red flagged and anyone fighting in these countries should be exiled.

Peter Clatworthy says the fact of the matter is if these sets want to

redraw the boundaries in the Middle East and want to massacre each other

in the process, there is nothing we can do about it, except at the level

of the United Nations. There was a related question from the father of

the house fairly early on which was about enacting powers of

impeachment, not something you hear about very often. It is true the

house still has those existing privileges of impeachment because

they have to be formally abandoned for them to be obsolete. That would

require legislation and no legislation has been introduced.

Adam Price, legislation has been introduced.

Adam a former MP, and ten other MPs Adam a former MP, and ten other

including Alex Salmond, Boris Johnson and Nigel Evans declared an

intention to table a motion calling for an impeachment of Tony Blair

regarding the invasion of Iraq. It was tabled by Parliamentary

authorities in November, 2004, but in the end was not debated in that

session because the motion did not have precedence in terms of business

of the house. It would be unlikely that Peter Tapsell would have any

influence in terms of enacting the powers now, but they are there. The

last case was in a team of six. American powers were derived from

those powers. It was 1806. That is impressive. Other than that of the

two frontbenchers can gather round some generalised statements, what

did we learn today? We did not learn a great deal. There was what people

may regard as a grown-up exchange of views on Iraq, but it highlighted

that Britain's Road is pretty marginal. Ed Miliband's last

question sound that up and he would say no bad thing. It is up to the

people in the region to find a solution. That was in contrast to

Peter Tapsell and the impeachment of Tony Blair. But we know the

Americans are considering military action, but there was no mention of

military action and whether we should block it or participate in

it. There was talk about diplomacy and humanitarian aid which could be

given another boost, ?5 million. And that new relationship if it becomes

that with Iran. But I got the sense that it captured both the importance

of the issue and the impotence of Britain. Throughout this particular

dispute, particularly in Lebanon and then in Syria and now in Iraq this

has not been just an issue for the people who live there, this has

become a proxy war. This has become a proxy war which the Saudis, the

Kuwaitis, Qatar and Iran have now got involved in. There are

geopolitical implications. This is not just an issue which will be

resolved by the people who live in these countries. Know, and the US

resolved by the people who live in considering what it is going to do

and William Hague was asked about that earlier in the week and said we

would support what the that earlier in the week and said we

were doing in the sense we would not get involved in it, but we

were doing in the sense we would not back them up. Without knowing what

they were going to do? The question raised there and in one of the

e-mails was the question about the threat to Britain. The key thing is

those British citizens who have gone to fight in those countries and

making sure they do not come back radicalised. If we have information

that someone has been out in the killing fields of northern Iraq,

playing their part in that killing, they will now be pretty battle

hardened and well-trained and we know there are coming back, put

aside the issue of those we do not know, what should we do with that

person? If they are a naturalised British citizen? Yes. If they were

not born a British citizen the Home Secretary has powers to remove their

citizenship and stop them coming back. We have used that power. If

they are British citizens we do not have that option for, if they are

born here, we should use our intelligence services to know about

them. If they have committed criminal offences, and you heard the

Prime Minister talking about making it an offence to do this abroad, we

have to use our intelligence services. What does that mean? We

have to understand if they are a threat. Clearly they are a threat if

they have been in the killing Fields. What more of a sign do you

want? We have to use our intelligence services. We need to

focus on where the risk is highest. I would suggest that is the 400

people out there now. It is a difficult problem. And it is a

problem that all parties have grappled with. The current

Government removed some of the controversial powers for tracking

people and there is an issue about whether we have got the right powers

and strength. But I think it is tremendously difficult when people

come back. We have to engage in these communities and make sure

radicalisation, to the extent that it happens, is challenge. It has

already happened. These people are out there. In some of the ISIS

videos you can hear North of England accent. Some of them are apparently

doing the killing as well. A lot of people will think, watching this

programme, whether it is legal or moral, a lot of people think if they

attempt to come back in, they should not be allowed back in at all or

they should be taken in and stuck in the slammer until we work out what

to do with them. There are issues about whether we have the correct

powers. You cannot do that without having the correct powers. Control

orders? We were concerned about them being abolished. I think in the

circumstances you have to be clear that you have the right powers. The

fact is if there are 400, the worst-case 700 make their way back,

incredibly well-trained and battle hardened and quite fearless, the

idea that the security forces should just monitor them, my understanding

is to keep on monitoring with our resources you need ten or 12 people

a day from the security services to do that. We have not got these

people. That is why we will have a revival about powers and so

violence. In the Guardian there is an argument about what are the core

powers of surveillance? Someone from the Home Office argued it was legal

and rightly legal to scan e-mails of people who come from abroad. His

argument was it was the only way you will pick up that noisy traffic. But

the state does not have the resource to take named individuals and

monitor them all. Others would say that is a breach of Civil

Liberties. I think we will have a debate in Parliament. A new law

planning a terrorist offence overseas is a new offence in itself

is being planned. There will be control orders and a debate about

electronic surveillance. Should be an offence to go and fight for

another terrorist group? I think it should. I think going in and

fighting already can be. I think the Prime Minister is thinking about the

planning and preparation. If you have been abroad and you have been

taking part, you may have committed offences already. He was talking

about making sure the planning and preparation is also a crime.

Surveillance is important. Security services have no interest in reading

e-mails, but people use social media to plan and commit these offences.

That is clear. I was speaking to a senior security guy recently who

said he agreed with the assessment. That is if Edward Snowden has not

already stopped us doing what we need to do. But there is a big

counter argument they are having their hands tied behind their back

at the very time the threat is increasing. I am sure this will not

go away. Just before we move on, a Liberal Democrat minister has

confirmed senior figures in the party are discussing whether they

should back a referendum on Britain's membership of the European

Union and we heard reports today the party had been due to discuss this

at a meeting last night, but it is only a preliminary meeting, but this

could change that policy. Now,

Britain is a nation of dog lovers. We all know about Andrew

and his Molly. But campaigners are trying to get

the Government to change the law to ensure that the puppies we buy are

not mass produced in puppy farms. They want to ensure that puppies are

kept with their mothers and not sold via pet shops, newspaper ads,

websites and private dealers. Here is TV vet Marc Abraham with

his soapbox. Most of us lavish love on our pets. Zoe's owner certainly

does, but Zoe still bears the scars on the first years of her life on a

puppy farm. Unfortunately, if you buy a puppy without seeing its mum,

for example at a pet shop, not only will you most likely be unwittingly

contributing to a trade that is detrimental to dog welfare, but you

will probably end up back in a place like this, with a very sick dog as

well. Young puppies like these guys need their mums. But puppy farmers

separate them far too early. They often also ignored guidelines about

health testing, maximum frequency of litters, keeping them in poor

conditions, failing to socialise them before selling them on without

vaccination or worming. Put simply, at the farms like this, dogs are

bred in large numbers with little care for their welfare, health or

happiness in an effort to maximise profits. Poppy farmers often sell to

pet shops, just one reason why it is such a bad idea to buy your new

companion from such a place. They also use the party dealers,

advertising newspapers and when selling directly will arrange to

meet at places such as pubs or service station. This way you never

see the conditions in which the puppies being bred. One of the

simpler than most effective steps deeper can take to stamp out puppy

farming is by banning the sale of puppies in pet shops. In this day

and age, there is no justification for this practice. We need greater

regulation and much better inspection of the breeders. It is

time for local authorities to enforce guidelines that puppies are

only sold when they are seen with their mother. Puppy farming is

cruelty, and it is time to stop it. And Marc Abraham joins us now. How

big a problem is this? How many puppy farms are there? Some are

licensed, some are unlicensed, so it is impossible to give an exact

figure, but there are enough to cause a huge overproduction of dogs

in this country. We have puppies being produced on a massive, battery

farming scale. And we have held the rescued dogs Ian Poulter sleep every

day. This is not right in the 21st century -- we have rescued dogs who

are healthy being put to sleep every day. There is demand, but it is the

wrong demand. People are impulsive. They see celebrities with a French

bulldog, and the puppy farmers are rubbing their hands. People do not

go for the family pet that will last 15 years any more. People go for a

pet that will look good in their handbag or on Facebook, and get rid

of it in a year's time. They are not committing to pet ownership as they

once used to. What can the government do? You talked about

having guidelines to say that you cannot buy from an unlicensed puppy

farm. Is that in place, or is it what you want? DEFRA's own

guidelines say that you should always see the pop with the mum, yet

they always see the pop with the mum, yet

are not willing to enforce this. They are ignoring their own

guidelines, which is crazy. Also, local authorities have the

guidelines, which is crazy. Also, local authorities powers to amend

those restrictions, yet in research we conduct did, over 50% came back

saying they did not realise this. It is time for ministers to commit to

something positive and say, let's stamp out puppy farming, look after

the rescued dogs of this world and the responsibility of breeders.

There should be a comprehensive solution to this. It is a growing

robin, and many of the puppy farms in the UK -- many of the farms are

in Wales and it is a growing problem. The government are looking

at how to increase the requirements. The law is

enforceable. Some of those pictures, I don't think those conditions would

have asked any kind of welfare test by any licensed operator. Beneath to

be a comprehensive solution. We need to see how the Welsh solutions work.

It is something we ought to be looking at dealing with, because it

is a serious problem. Shouldn't the pet shops just be told not to take

these? It is already the case within the law that you have to have a. My

own local authority just revoke the licence of two breeding

establishments in my constituency, so they can take action. Local

authorities have to enforce the law. They do inspections, and they can

look at the conditions the dogs are in. We have to finish there. Thank

you for bringing attention to this. People can go to our website for

more information. Join the debate and the petition. Good luck.

MPs work hard in their constituencies when they are not

representing their constituents in Parliament, they are beavering away

on the ground. But you know that. Helen Goodman is the MP for Bishop

Auckland in County Durham, and in her constituency is a village called

Ingleton. So when she gave a speech at the village fair, she thought she

would drop in some local knowledge to show how in touch she is with the

constituency. But there is another Ingleton, 70 miles away in North

Yorkshire, and she mixed up the two. Locals were perplexed by the

waterfalls and big caves she praised in her speech. I am not surprised!

Luckily, we have two hard-working constituency MPs here today, and

they could not possibly confuse towns in their constituencies with

others, or could they? We thought we would find out. It is the

constituency quiz. Let's start with you, Maria Eagle. Your constituency

is Hales would -- Halewood. But there is also a blast in Watford so

which Garston does the River corn run through? That is not mine.

Correct. It is in Watford. And in which Garston did ask Ron Jeremiah

Horrocks, who predicted the transit of Venus across the sun in 1639,

live? I can't say I know the answer to that. We know Jak Jones was

warning Garston. I am being told that all these questions are wrong,

and we are just wasting our time. So let's not bother. I could tell you a

lot about my constituency. I am told that your questions are incorrect.

In my constituency, I have two villages, both called Staunton. So

you have to be sure not to model them up. It was a good idea, but

unfortunately, the research team have been redeployed to western

Baghdad as I speak. Surely you would know if it was your constituency. If

I get asked open things, I usually take the view that people do not

want a long, complicated speech. They just want to thank the people

that are there, and then get the thing going. The real danger is with

boundary changes, when you suddenly get a chunk of land that did not

choose to be yours. I apologise to the people of all these

constituencies. Now, time to put you out of your

misery, unlike me. I'm just going into mine.

I will put you out of your misery in a minute! Here is the answer to

guess the year. The year, which we often get to tell

you, was 1999. I said 2000. At least, we hope it is 1999. Thank

you, Maria. For pressing the buzzer. Colin Bates in Birmingham, well

done. Thank you to all of our guests,

particularly Maria and Mark. One o'clock is is now on BBC One. And

unlike Jeremy Paxman, we are not taking early retirement. We will be

back tomorrow. Bye-bye.