25/01/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning, folks. This is the Daily Politics. The Governor of the

Bank of England says, do not despair, or crises come to an end.

Is that the best he can do? There is more bad economic news this

morning. According to provisional figures, the economy shrank by 0.2%

in the last three months of 2011. We will have the latest on what

that might mean. Despite the economic gloom, the Prime Minister

is ahead in the polls. He will be taking on Ed Miliband at midday.

And he'll be taking on the European Court of Human Rights. This

afternoon he is off to Strasbourg to demand changes to the way the

court operates. And everyone seems to think lobbying is a dirty word.

We will be talking to one man who claims it is actually a noble

So, all of that and much more coming up in the next 90 minutes.

That is before half the Cabinet Probably not for skiing, although I

bet a few of them get a couple of slopes in. But they are going to

sort out the world economy... That will not take them along(!) With

its port the duration are a couple of politicians. They are not

carrying ski gear. They are more interested, according to the Daily

Mail, in beach volleyball. With us we have the employment minister

Chris Grayling and the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne.

Is it true that there is a strong interest in beach volleyball among

ministers? There is no doubt that if you live in the Cabinet Office,

the hottest ticket is having an office overlooking Horse Guards

Parade. According to the report, politicians and bureaucrats have

spent �26,000 on 410 tickets, all of them on beach volleyball?

don't think it is for the politicians, but it is for the

Olympics staff. It is their choice, they seemed very keen. I have no

idea why. You must have some idea! It is a mystery to me. Let's turn

our attention to Alex Salmond. In a couple of hours he will be

outlining his proposals for a referendum on independence. I'm

joined by Stuart Maxwell, a member of the Scottish parliament. He is

from Alex Salmond's SNP. Speaking for yourself and not for Alex

Salmond or the Scottish Executive, run by your party, of course, what

question are all questions would you like to see on the ballot

paper? I would like to see a straightforward question about

whether or not the people of Scotland want to vote yes or no to

independence. That is my position, my colleagues' position, my party's

position and Alex Salmond's position. If it is your position

and the position of the Labour and Conservative parties, even the

Liberal Democrat party, I assume that is what we will get? Well, of

course, the consultation will launch this afternoon. We will lay

out the question we want to see. We will also ask the people of

Scotland what they want. It is clear this is a democratic process.

We have to listen to the people and see whether or not there really is

widespread demand for not just an independence question, but perhaps

a second question on further powers. That is a matter for the people

involved in the consultation. would you judge what Scottish

opinion is on this matter of whether there should be more than

one question? Well, obviously the consultation this afternoon will be

launched. We will have several months of people having the chance

to put their views to the Scottish parliament. I think that will show

a very widespread opinion. We have also got meetings and campaigns

been launched by civic Scotland, trade unions, voluntary

organisations and others, saying that they want to take part. They

have a strong opinion and I am sure there will also contribute to the

debate. I think we will get a clear position about what they want to

save. Is it accepted that you can have views on the nature of the

referendum, the question, who should preside over it to make sure

it is fair and free, but in the end you need the support of the

Westminster Parliament to avoid a legal challenge? I don't agree with

that. I think we can have the referendum and it is quite clear

that has already been proven in that the 2010 paper issued by the

Scottish government. But I think it is a red herring. If the UK

government wished to pass a section 30 order, as it is called, and take

away any doubt of legality, we are quite willing to accept this. We

have said many times, go-ahead, give the Scottish parliament the

power to carry out the referendum, legally, but do not attach any

strings. If they are worried about legality, they should pass power to

the Scottish parliament. It is the strings they want to attach that is

the problem. At the weekend, the Professor of Law at the University

of Glasgow and at the University of Edinburgh, and I think we agree you

cannot get higher authority than that in Scotland, they both said it

was clearly a reserve power and that Westminster had to have the

final say. Well, the constitution clearly is a reserve power. There

has never been an argument about that. The issue is whether or not

the Scottish parliament could ask questions of the Scottish people

and find out what their views are. A consultative referendum, in other

words. That has always been a position, it is the position of

many experts in Scotland and it is within the power of the Parliament

to do that. It is a bit of a red herring. Nobody wants to argue

about these things. Go ahead and give the Scottish parliament powers.

Just don't try to dictate the terms along with those powers. I want to

bring in our guests in London. Chris Grayling, what is the

Government redline? Will they allow more than one question on

independence? David Cameron has been very clear. This is a matter

for the Westminster Parliament. We accept that the question needs to

be put. But we have also said that we think there needs to be a yes or

no question put sooner rather than later, so that the issue can be

addressed. It is not one where Scotland is going to benefit from a

long, drawn-out process, with huge amounts of uncertainty. Yes or no

is what you insist on? What is the Labour position? It is a big

question. I don't think we should muck about. We should get on with

getting the question put to the people of Scotland. I think it

should be one question on the ballot paper. Let's not muddy the

waters, let's come to a clear and rapid view. Mr Maxwell, if the

Scottish government executive proceeds with what you have just

called a consultative referendum, if you do that, would you not then

have to return after you tried to negotiate independence and have a

binding referendum, a second referendum by the Scottish people

to agree on what you have negotiated? No, another red herring

and another scare story about multiple referendums. One single

referendum would empower the Scottish people are at her you just

said it would only be consultative. A consultative referendum, that

cannot be enough for independence? I'm sorry that I have to let you

know that virtually every referendum that has been held in

the UK has been consultative. The AV referendum last year was

consultative. But the results are not ignored. It is just a legal

technicality. That is normal process. Even after you have done

the deal and negotiated terms, which might be very different from

what was discussed in the first referendum, you would not go back

to the Scottish people to get approval? Correct? The Scottish

people would have made their decision that they wanted

independence and a positive vision for Scotland. I think that is what

they will do. One referendum, clear enough. Thanks for joining us.

Let's turn our attention to the armed forces. A group of MPs have

called it grotesque and shocking about 40% of redundancies amongst

servicemen and women are to be compulsory. Current civilian

redundancies at the Ministry of Defence will be voluntary. The

defence select committee also wants to know why people cannot be

retrained. Chris Grayling, that does sound and fair, if civilian

staff are allowed the flexibility and not military staff? -- unfare.

That's not actually true. Philip Hammond has said this morning that

is wrong. We have to make reductions in the Ministry of

Defence and the armed forces. There are more posts going into a

civilian area. We are looking to make sure that, where possible, any

changes come through voluntary redundancy. There are not enough

people coming forward. That puts you in a position where you have to

take other measures. We would rather the whole thing was done

voluntarily, certainly offering people the opportunity to retrain

in other areas. That is something we are doing across government,

looking at how people can have an opportunity to go elsewhere.

are you being more successful with civilian staff? There are quite

significant shortages in particular areas. Some people need to be

highly trained, like bomb disposal experts. But why are not enough of

the military staff are being offered the retraining? We are

offering retraining where we can. You ask why eat fewer people are

coming forward for voluntary redundancy from the military side,

it is because fewer people are coming forward. We cannot dictate

how many people come forward for voluntary redundancy. We just have

to respond to the situation as it arises. What about the second part?

They still have huge shortages, fill them with the staff that don't

want to go. We are clear in saying that we are offering retraining

wherever we can. Obviously not enough. If you are having to make

that number of people, 40%, redundant and there are that many

vacancies, there is a mismatch? There is never the case where every

individual is suitable for every vacancy. But we are doing

everything we can. Why would we pay somebody off if we can retrain

them? I don't know, I think that is the question. Of course, we will

try to do that. Liam Byrne, there is a practical reality here. Labour

supports the cuts, as they stand, presumably? Reductions need to be

made, but this is a cross-party House of Commons select committee

and it is a pretty damning indictment. Yes, using the words

grotesque and shocking. It is frankly letting the troops down. I

have met senior officers that have looked at what is happening and

have taken successful jobs in the private sector. They say there is

not the kind of retraining opportunities to help them take

roles that are available in the MoD on of the civilian side. The

Government cannot be complacent. We need to step back, that that the

detail of the report and perhaps take on board recommendations.

be fair to Chris Grayling, he said that not enough people were coming

forward for voluntary redundancy. What do you do in that situation?

When the report is saying that troops are being let down and not

given enough opportunities to retrain and potentially fulfilled

roles within the MoD, the Government should not dismiss it

out of hand. It should sit down with the committee and see if there

is more that the Government can do. Britain's national debt is at a

record high. It is one trillion pounds. That is almost as much as

Jo's expenses! In a nutshell, the Governor of the Bank of England

said it is not looking pretty, but don't worry, it will be OK in the

end. He did not say when the end might be. The IMF has weighed in as

well. It is not just Britain that is doomed. It says the rest of the

world economy is going to suffer, especially the eurozone, where it

predicts a recession. Jo, bring us up to date.

This morning, the Office of National Statistics announced that

the UK economy shrank by 0.2% in the 4th quarter of 2011. That is

down from 0.6% that the economy grew between July and September.

The bad news seems unlikely to stop here. Yesterday, the International

Monetary Fund revised down its forecast for the UK 2012 growth,

from 1.6%, down to 0.6%. At least we are not alone. The IMF forecast

for growth in the eurozone has also been scaled down from 1.1%

expansion, the eurozone economy is now projected to shrink by 0.5%. In

a speech yesterday, the Bank of England governor Mervyn King struck

a downbeat note, saying that the path of recovery is likely to be

arduous, long and uneven. But, in case these gloomy figures are

getting you down, he added that there is no need to despair.

Earlier, George Osborne gave his reaction. Well, they are

disappointing figures about what happened to the economy at the end

of last year. They are not entirely unexpected because of what is

happening in the world and they eurozone crisis. They are similar

to what our independent forecasters predicted in November. Now, Britain

has substantially built up debts over the last 10 years. We are

dealing with those. But the truth is, dealing with the problems is

made more difficult by the situation in the eurozone. Clearly,

what is happening at home is also affected by what happens abroad.

Joining me now is our Economics Correspondent Hugh Pym. There has

always been this talk about a double-dip recession. Does that

I don't think it looks inevitable. We have just had this preliminary

figure of 0.2. It could be revised when subsequent data comes in. We

are in the current first quarter of 2012. It looks possible that that

might be slightly negative. Then you would have two in quarters of

negative declining output. That is technically a recession but it

could be zero or 0.1. I think what economists will say is it is

consistent with a flat economy, the economy not lurching back as it did

in 2008 / 9 but not rebounding. It is almost stalling, moving ahead in

a lacklustre fashion. George Osborne blames the eurozone for

many of the problems here in Britain and that does not look like

it will be sorted any time soon, does it? Yes, indeed. For France

and Germany, their 4th quarter figures will show something

negative as well, so Britain was not alone in having declining

output in the 4th quarter of last year. Although the IMF is

forecasting a eurozone negative situation this year, the IMF still

thinks the UK will grow slightly. But does not help the UK in the

sense that we do do a lot of trade with the eurozone. A solution of

some sort to the debt problem is seen as hugely important for the

eurozone, as -- and the UK because of our trade. There is no sign of

an imminent solution. All these forecasts I have been referring to,

assume that the euro hangs together and they muddle through somehow.

Thank you. We are joined now by Louise Cooper, an old friend of

this programme. It is fair to say, is it not, whatever the rights and

wrongs of the government's policy, the inability of the eurozone to

sort out its own problems is acting as a drag across the European

Union? Without a shadow of a doubt. To be fair to Osborne and Cameron,

I don't think policy makers in the UK are in charge of the UK's

destiny any more. Really, it is all about the eurozone. It continues to

be Ns. We do not have the details of how the bail-out funds will work.

The S F -- the GSM, the new bail- out fund, it is supposed in place

by July, do we have much detail,? No. The Greek debt swap talks which

was supposed to happen and we were promised it would be done in the

next couple of days, the latest I have heard we have a deadline in

the middle of February. They have got to do it by March 20th, in fact

they have to do it before then to get the legality is struck. Yes,

Greece has 14.5 billion euros bond maturing on March 20th and they do

not have 14.5 billion euros tucked down the back of the sofa. Joe it

does. -- Jo does. I'm generous like that! They have got to get back

together. I was on the tube with a friend of mine who has been in the

city for 30 years and the view from the financial markets is a great

deal will be done. He said he thought the chance of a default was

70 %. That is not what people in the markets think at the moment.

Greece has not gone away. All these problems have not gone away. We in

the UK are so badly affected by what is happening in the eurozone.

Chris Grayling, what happened to George Osborne's march of the

makers? June 2010, emergency budget, the Chancellor - Britain will be

borne aloft by the march of the makers. What happened? We are

looking to create an environment where we can build manufacturing,

where we can get research and develop ment, we have made changes

to the corporate tax system, the truth is, over the last few months,

as the Office of Budget Responsibility has said, first we

had the big rise in global commodity prices and are the last

two months we have had the eurozone crisis. I sat with a group from

Liverpool who said from their perspective, when the eurozone

crisis started become visible and a major problem, it was as if a break

was put on to commercial and investment in new property.

Although we are not part of the eurozone, we are affected by it.

but there can be no much of the makers when industrial production

fell 1.2 %, that is the collapse of the makers. We have to do

everything we can to encourage and stimulate growth. Can we accept

that so far the march of the makers has not happened? We can accept

that the march of the makers remains a priority for us and it is

not much and as fast as we would wish. It is a bit like the Italian

army, they are marching in reverse, to get into a stereotype. The truth

is, none of our economy is performing in the way that we wish.

If you look at Germany, today's figures actually lower than the

most recent German economic forecast for their own economy.

They are predicting a drop even greater than ours. The National

Loan guarantee Scheme which is supposed to help small businesses,

how many loans has it guaranteed? do not know because I am not in the

Treasury. You're just telling me about what businessmen liveable

were telling you. We cannot find out what it has done at all. Are

you aware that it has done anything was that what has the Local

Enterprise Partnership done? They are running all round the come tree.

What have they done? They are to encourage investment -- all around

the country. We have seen investments still coming into the

UK. That is not the Local Enterprise Partnership. What has

the regional growth fund done? are providing funds for

manufacturing businesses. If you take the north-east, for example,

the regional growth fund has provided investment capital been to

research and development facilities, into the chemical industry, for

example. We are pulling every lever that we can. How much has the

regional growth fund given to the north-east of England? From memory,

it is about �50 million. That is it? And we have debts of a trillion.

The regional growth fund first tranche was about a billion pounds

but that is spread around the country. Has Labour got a policy on

this? Of course. We have put a plan. To add to our debt? In the medium

term, debt has got to come down but that job is harder to get the

medium debt down if you have dole bills going through the roof. You

have dole bills, housing benefit, incapacity benefit going up by

nearly �8 billion higher than originally expected. That does not

make a debt easier to pay down, it makes it harder. You asked where

the makers have gone, they have gone to the back of the dole queue.

We have unemployment in this country going up faster than

America, France, Germany and Japan because in the last year the

economy has been stalling and now it has gone into reverse. The only

reason we did not go into recession last year is because we were

exporting our way. We do think the government has got to change course

and they should listen to the IMF he said the government should

consider changing course. How much would you add to the debt?, in the

upcoming financial year how much would you add? Some methods would

be self financing. A cut in VAT would be temporary so that would be

12 billion a year, in order to get a medium term position implies.

What would the reaction of the markets be if the British

government did that? At the moment, the UK is in a lovely position of

being able to borrow very cheaply. Last week, 50 year government debt

actually yielded below 3% for the first time other. If you have to

buy 50 year gilts, you would get less than 3% back a year. That is

astonishing. At the moment, there was a gilt auction yesterday,

massively oversubscribed. Investors at them and a love buying UK debt.

If we ever threaten that, then we are in a very dire position. What

you mean threaten it? The trouble with debt figures is when the

economy starts -- starts to slow down, they explode very quickly.

Far more so than any politicians and a forecast. You look at Greece,

Ireland, Portugal, the debt forecast started here, the economy

started slowing down, they ballooned really quickly. You have

to avoid that. We do not want to be the next Italy and Spain. We have

to avoid that. Louise Cooper, thank you. We have Prime Minister's

questions, we cannot be late for that!

The more this -- the more perceptive among you might have

noticed that tonight is Burns Night. I'm sure Alex Salmond's decision

that line his plans for a referendum have nothing to do with

that at all! He once the referendum on the anniversary of Bannockburn,

a mere coincidence, I say. A very happy Burns Night to you all.

Across the globe many a patriotic Scot will no doubt be sinking a

couple o' wee drams as well as addressing and feasting upon the

haggis. What you might not know is that a similar tradition exists

here in our small corner of Westminster. Yes, in time-honoured

tradition, I shall now perform "An Address to the Mug". Little John,

bring on the mug. Never heard before! Fair fa' your honest,

sonsie face, Great chieftain o' the MUG-race! Aboon them a' ye tak your

place, Painch, tripe, or thairm, Weel are ye wordy o' a grace As

lang's my arm. How my supposed to follow that?! I have no idea what I

just said. I thought you where Flint in Gaelic. -- fluent in

Gaelic. To be honest, the tray is pretty weird with the greenery.

do not get this on Sky News, you know. We have grown it in the Daily

Politics green house. Carry on! am not doing this in any accent

except my own! To win a chance -- to get a chance

of winning a mug, you can enter our competition. Seed you can guess

when this happened. -- see it you If the police stand for sanctions

and penalties, you should stand for help and love. Hugging a hoody is

And to be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug, send

your answer to our special quiz e- mail address. Full terms and

conditions for Guess the Year are on our website.

It is coming to midday here. Let's take a look at Big Ben. It can only

mean one thing as it is a Wednesday, Prime Minister's Questions and also

Nick Robinson of the BBC. What will happen? Of course, the economy. One

thing that will be interesting is that Ed Balls, the shadow

chancellor and who knows, Ed Miliband are seizing on some

remarks made by the IMF. We had the report yesterday, warning of a

1930s style crisis on Monday. Yesterday, our economics editor was

quoting someone in the IMF saying there may be a case for the UK to

slow down in order to support growth. We now have the words used

in the injured the -- in the year and they are very interesting. To

the extent that these countries - he is talking about Britain and

Germany - to the extent that these countries have plausible medium-

term plans, they can slow down and it would help. So we do not need to

cut as deep as we were? He answers - we have some room to do something

if needed, yes. He doesn't then go on and say,

Britain may have a particular problem because having set out a

plan, there is a price incredibility. If you deviate from

the plan. But three times when pushed, he says, yes, Britain does

have some flexibility to promote some growth. Liam Byrne mentioned

it before you came on. I did not know you had mentioned that but it

will start a bit of a debate. People find Westminster politics

complicated enough, there is IMF politics as well. Traditionally,

the boss of the IMF is a former politician. They deal with politics,

they do not fall out with the government. I do not expect

Christine Lagarde to say anything unhelpful when she meets George

Osborne, particularly as she needs hundreds of millions of dollars

from countries like the UK to have a bigger IMF fund but it is

interesting but IMF economists are saying, look, Britain, there is a

bit of space to do something here. What is your reaction, Chris

Grayling? I think we have to be enormously careful. If we were to

lose the confidence of the markets, and bear in mind we have

exceptionally low interest rates, any interest -- any increase in

interest rates would lead to greater pressures on the public

finances. It would lead to higher mortgage rates where those rates

are variable and the market, where people are looking to sign up to

fixed rates. I think it is a dangerous path to tread. Even with

the sanction of the IMF? As we heard a moment ago, if we get the

markets wrong, the consequences for Britain are massive. I do not

personally believe that this is the moment for Britain to announce we

should increase borrowing. I think you read between the lines, you can

see what he is trying to say, do you take that as an endorsement to

some extent of Labour's position on the economy? They are very

significant remarks. The government is having to borrow extra because

it has undershot its growth forecast. 158 billion is a lot of

money. And you add up all the years. In a body's language. Our message

is simple, there is flexibility there. If he did change course, you

can maintain market flexibility because you have a better story

about tax revenues coming in. This morning, I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others. The Prime Minister frequently

claims that he is not complacent about the tragedy of youth

unemployment. Can he tell the House why his youth contract scheme still

has not started? Well, the youth contract scheme will make a big

difference to young people because it will, over the course of the

coming years, have 160,000 places for people on private sector firms.

That will be far better than the failed future jobs fund, which, in

some cases, had over 97% of jobs placed in the public sector. It

will be up and running this year and make a big difference to young

people. Mr Speaker, today is the anniversary of the birth of the

great Scottish poet Robert Burns. Does the Prime Minister agree that

-- with his impassioned plea for the unity of our nation when he

says in his poem, the Britain still, to Britain true, a man ourselves,

United. For never but to buy British hands, made British wrongs

I'm grateful to the Honourable Lady for her question. The point she

makes is a good one. Burns Night will be celebrated not just across

Scotland, but across the whole of the United Kingdom and, indeed, in

many parts of the world. When I hear the Scottish nationalists, who

are so keen to leave the United Kingdom, yet so anxious about

having a referendum, perhaps they should remember his words, the

cowering beastie, what a panic Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, we are 18

months into his government and today's figures show the economy is

not growing, it is shrinking. What has gone wrong with his economic

plan? Well, these are extremely difficult economic times. These are

disappointing figures. They are not unexpected figures. They are what

the Office of Budget Responsibility for past at the end of last year. I

will be frank with the Honourable Gentleman. They reflect the

overhang of their debt and deficit. They reflect the higher food and

fuel prices that put a squeeze on household income towards the end of

last year. Yes, they also reflect the crisis in the eurozone that has

frozen Europe's economies. The forecast for France, Germany, Spain,

Italy, for the end of last year, forecast as greater decline or, in

many cases, as great a decline. This is the year where we have to

take further action to get the economy moving. The most important

thing is to have a credible plan to get on top of the deficit which has

given us the lowest interest rates for over 100 years. Mr Speaker,

people are fed up with his excuses about what is happening in our

economy. He blames the eurozone. Growth has been flat-lining in our

economy since well before the eurozone crisis. In fact, since his

spending review in autumn 2010. What has characterised the

Government's approach throughout this period? Total arrogance. In

his first Budget, the Chancellor painted a glowing picture of what

his policies would deliver for the economy. He said his policies would

deliver a steady and sustained economic recovery with falling

unemployment. We have a shrinking economy and the highest

unemployment in 18 years. Mr Speaker, how bad do things have to

get in our economy to shake him out of his complacency? As usual, he

writes the question before he listens to the answer. I didn't

trust say that this is an issue of the eurozone. -- didn't just say

that this is an issue of the eurozone. It's an issue of debt,

deficit, a squeeze household incomes and issues affecting many

other economies. He talks about our policy, we remember his policy, no

more boom and bust. He gave us the biggest boom and bust that we are

having to recover from. There is not one ounce of complacency. That

is why we are cutting corporation tax, we scratch Labour's jobs tax,

we have traduced record sums... Order! Both the Prime Minister and

the lead role of the opposition must be heard. We are doing all of

these things. The party opposite has only one answer, to deal with a

debt crisis by borrowing more and adding to debt. That is his answer.

That would wreck our interest rates, wreck the economy and make things

much worse. Mr Speaker, he says there is not one ounce of

complacency. But he and his Chancellor of the byword for self-

satisfied, smug complacency. That is the reality. He talks about

borrowing. He is failing not just on unemployment, not just on growth,

but on borrowing as well. Because of his failure on growth and

unemployment, he is borrowing �158 billion more than he forecast. And

now we know, he said unemployment would fall, it is not. He said the

economy would grow, it hasn't. He said we are all in this together,

we are not! When will this Prime Minister face up to the fact that

it is his policies that are failing the country. Our economy grew last

year. But he cannot find it in himself... There are more people in

work today than there were at the time of the last election.

house must calm itself. We were given clear instruction yesterday

at 5:00pm that the shadow chancellor said that the Government

should listen to the IMF and change course. At 7pm, the IMF told us

what we should do. They said this, we do not think that fiscal

consolidation adds to the problem. Fiscal consolidation is part of

resolving the problems facing the UK economy. That is the truth, Mr

Speaker. There are two parties in this country taking responsibility

for clearing up the mess. There is one party refusing to take

Sir Fred Goodwin has recently been censured by the FSA in their report

into the RBS shambles. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when

the honours forfeiture committee will be sitting to consider

stripping this man of his ill- deserved knighthood? The they will

be meeting, as I understand it, this week. It will be considering

all the evidence, including, as I have said before, the Financial

Services Authority report into RBS and what went wrong, who was

responsible for what went wrong. Speaker, I seem to get more

reaction from Labour than their own leader. Does the Prime Minister

agree that in Scotland the people are sovereign. They have the right

to determine their own constitutional future as they see

fit? Of course, this is an issue for the people of Scotland. I think

that we should bring forward the date when we put the question to

the Scottish people on whether they want to stay in the United Kingdom,

which I ideally hope that we do, or whether they want to leave. I think

the point everybody needs to understand is that options for

further devolution and changes across the United Kingdom are

matters for of the United Kingdom, matters that the United Kingdom

May I put it to the Prime Minister that for Britain to commit still

more funds to the IMF would, in effect, be providing he subsidy to

Germany? Because it is still not fully supporting its own currency,

while benefiting from its appreciation. The right honourable

member makes an important point. Of course, the IMF, the managing

director Christine the guard, she is in London today. Our message has

been clear that they should not be a question of committing further

IMF funds until the eurozone itself has shown that it is

comprehensively going to stand behind its own currency. I think if

you read Christine Lagard's speech last night in Germany, she made

absolutely clear that the role the IMF is to support currencies and

not countries. The Prime Minister said about his flagship health bill,

and I quote, we have the Royal College of GPs, physicians, nurses,

people working in the health service supporting changes we are

making. Can the Prime Minister give the house and update on the support

for his bill from the medical profession? I have certainly

learned that when it comes to the NHS you should always expect a

second opinion. Conceivably even a third opinion. The point is this.

Them are thousands of GPs across the country, not just supporting

our reforms, they are actually implementing our reforms. Let me,

if I may, give him one example of a supportive GP. Order! Honourable

Members should not be yelling out. The question was asked, the answer

will be given and the answer will be heard. I think they want to hear

from this one particular GP who hails from Doncaster. He said this

when he was the acting chairman of the Doncaster GP commissioning

group. He said, becoming one of the first national pathfinder areas is

a real boost for Doncaster. I think what is good for Doncaster is good

for the rest of the country. Speaker, how out of touch is he

about what is happening in the NHS? Let me tell him what the medical

profession is saying. The latest survey of the Royal College of GPs

says that 98% of GPs want the Bill withdrawn. The Royal College of

Nursing have said, and I quote, the turmoil of proceeding with these

reforms is now greater than the turmoil of stopping them. Now, the

Prime Minister said in his famous listing exercise, change, if it is

to endure, to really work, should have the support of people who work

in the NHS. We have to take our nurses and doctors with us. Mr

Speaker, if he wants to hear the voice of doctors and nurses across

the NHS, why doesn't he listen? seems to be out of touch with what

is actually happening in Doncaster. He asks what is happening in the

NHS. Let me tell him what is happening in the NHS. 4000 extra

doctors since the election. 100,000 more patients treated since the

election. In-patient and out- patient waiting times lower than

they were at the election. �7 billion of the �20 billion already

saved. And, at the same time, we have got hospital and quiet --

hospital acquired infections at lowest-ever levels. That is what is

happening in the NHS. It would listen to him we would be cut in

funding in the NHS, scrapping reforms and the NHS would be

getting worse, not better. I'll tell him what is happening in the

NHS. Waiting lists at the, morale down, and his own health select

committee, majority Conservative committee, what do they say about

the reorganisation? They say that it will be disruption and

disruption -- destruction that hinders the ability to create

savings. This is a pill nobody wants. It is opposed by doctors,

nurses and patients. Before the election, he said no more top-down

reorganisation. That is what he said. Isn't it time that he kept at

least one promise? Put aside his pride and arrogance and drop this

unnecessary and unwanted bill. know that he panics and backs down

at the first time of a trade union saying no. But this government does

not. Of course, if you introduce choice, if you introduced

transparency, competition, if you say that the private and voluntary

sectors should play a greater role, of course you face a challenge. But

that it is what doing the right thing is sometimes all about. Let

him remember what his Health Secretary said when he was in

government. He said about a GP commissioning, he said this, the

change will put power in that hands of local GPs to drive improvements

in the area so it should give more power to their elbow than they have

at present. That is what I would like to see. What a shame that they

talk about it in government, but they don't have the guts to face

down opposition when they are in Following the death of 167 workers

in the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea, this country developed a

world leading safety case regime for offshore oil and gas which is

now threatened by regulations from the European Union. Will he use his

best endeavours to back his department for energy and climate

change to persuade the rest of the European Union but what we need is

no more regulation... Sorry, Mr Speaker. Not regulation but a

directives, which can be implemented flexibly? I think my

honourable friend makes an important point. I well remember

the Piper Alpha disaster and the huge suffering and loss of life

that that caused. Things that day we have put in place and absolutely

world-leading system of regulation and I will do everything I can to

support the climate change secretary to make sure we get a

result in Europe which means we can go on for the right regulations for

the North Sea. On the 2nd May 1920 10, the Prime

Minister said the test of a good society was how it cared for the

frail and vulnerable, even more important in difficult economic

times. Will the Prime Minister not defending the basics sense of

decency of the British people if he persists next week with proposals

to take away up to �94 per week in employment and support allowance

from up to 7,000 recovering cancer patients across the country? What

our plans envisage is actually more people, with cancer, will have the

greater level of benefit and fewer people will actually face the face-

to-face interview. That is the case. As he knows, there are two types of

employment and support allowance. On the support group, you get that

money forever for as long as you need it, as long as you are unable

to work. Many people with cancer will go straight into that group

and quite right, too. I know my right honourable friend

was aware that the Coryton oil refinery in my constituency went

into protective administration yesterday, and while the future is

uncertain, it is by no means bleak. Does my right honourable friend

agree with me but what is needed now to protect the 1,000 jobs the

refinery provides, is the full support of the customers and

suppliers and for accurate reporting of the situation. Will

the Prime Minister agree to ensure that and it with all relevant

ministers to discuss what further action the government can take to

secure this important is this? My honourable friend is absolutely

right to raise this issue and is right to mention the importance of

the customers and suppliers and the role that they play. I will

certainly ensure that he meets with ministers as appropriate. I think

the key thing is the role of the administrator and the administrator

has made it clear that its immediate priority is to continue

to operate the refinery operations at Coryton and other sites owned

the UK, while the financial position is clarified and all the

restructuring options are explored. We are confident that the

administrator is doing all that it can but we will keep on the case.

The existing UK controls on the movement of terrorist suspects that

today. This includes the case of suspect CD, of whom Mr Justice Owen

said that his appeal last year, relocation is a necessary and

proportion at measure to protect the public from an immediate and

real risk of a terrorist rated -- related attack. Could the Prime

Minister tell the House wide his government supporter that

relocation power at the court hearing last year, but has since

legislated to remove it and to give freedom to suspect CD and others

like him, to come to London in the run-up to the Olympic games?

think most people across this house realise that the control order

regime needed reform. It did not have public confidence, nor did it

have confidence of many people in the police and security services.

We have reformed it, we have worked with the police and security

services, we have put in all the resources they believe are

necessary to make sure our country is kept say.

Following the renewable energy subsidy review, will the Prime

Minister ensured tax payers that this government will focus its

support on technologies which are cost-effective and reliable like

biomass, rather than inefficient, costly, large-scale offshore wind

farms? My right honourable friend will know that the review

obligation banding review consultation has just closed. It

was proposing targeting only the most cost-effective onshore wind

farms, recognising that it is now one of the more mature and cheaper

technologies and we should increase support insubstantial biomass which

is reliable, cost-effective and help us to meet our renewable

energy targets. On Friday, Holocaust Memorial Day

commemorates the liberation of the concentration and extermination

camp at Auschwitz. What can the Prime Minister do to ensure that

all of our society understand the depravity of the era of Nazi evil

and learn the lessons of it for the present?

I think the honourable lady has a long record of supporting the score

speaks for the whole house and the whole nation in raising it and the

importance of it. I met with representatives of the Holocaust

Education Trust yesterday and met with a Holocaust survivor who story

was truly inspiring about what he had seen and gone through as a

young boy and then coming to Britain and becoming an Olympic and

Commonwealth contender. It was a fantastic story. We need to ensure

that these stories are told in all of our schools right across the

country. That is the work of the Holocaust Education Trust added his

work I strongly support. I wonder if the Prime Minister is aware that

if one takes the whole of Lancaster, average household income after tax

is a little above 26,000. And my constituents want a fair

deal. They also want a fair deal for those who work and pay for

benefits. I think the honourable gentleman speaks for many people

that when we say proposal for a cap on benefits at �26,000 is fair. It

is a cap which allows people to receive �500 a day. A week. His

constituents ask themselves, is it right that my hard-earned taxes,

when I am learning less than that money, is going to support people

on benefits. I have to say how disappointing it was that after the

Labour Party said it would support a cap, the announcement was made on

the BBC. We were all told they would support a cap but in the

Other Place they voted against it. What a complete act of hypocrisy!

Following today's media reports, can the Prime Minister explain why

ministerial advisers and senior civil servants continued to attend

networking events with lobbyists who paid several thousand pounds to

attend, despite the fact that the Cabinet Office had deemed this to

be a breach of the Civil Service Code and previously issued a ban on

attendance? The point I would make it is unlike under the previous

government, there is actually a proper system for declaring the

interests of special advisers and ministers. That did not used to be

the case. It is now. My right honourable friend will

have noted that the government proposed benefits cap excludes war

widows, the disabled and those claiming working tax credit. Does

it not agree with me that my constituents on the same wage as

the number of Lancaster Fleetwood referred to, deserve to know they

have a government who will do the right thing and support the local

communities? I think the honourable gentleman speaks very powerfully

about this issue. That is why a benefit cap is fair. He is also --

it is also important to recognise that we are excluding from the

benefit cap those entitled to working tax credit, some want with

a disability living allowance and we have always said there will be a

hardship fund, a grace period and a way of helping those families to

cope with this cap and to make sure, where possible, we get people into

work because the real shame is there are millions of children who

live in households where nobody works and indeed, that number

doubled under the last government. The Prime Minister has said and I

quote: It would be a personal betrayal if banks failed to

increase lending to businesses. Yet, last week, the Bank of England

stated that businesses are still not getting the investment they

need from the banks. Have the banks betrayed the Prime Minister or has

the Prime Minister betrayed businesses? What I have done is put

in place the Merlin agreement which led to an increase in bank lending

last year. What we now have in place is a massive credit easing

programme that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement,

that will kick in this year and make sure the banks are doing what

banks ought to do in a free enterprise economy and low into

businesses large and small. -- loan at to businesses.

I am sure there will be families with children who may have

difficulties with the new benefit regime. However, would the Prime

Minister care to comment on the feelings of elderly couples, who

have spent their entire life working for this country, paid in

to the state pension system and are now existing on about �7,000 a year,

rather than �26,000 a year. I think my honourable friend next a

very good point, and the fact is, if you look at the figures today,

there are still families in London who are receiving housing benefit

worth over �50,000 a year. Each one of those families he is taking up

the hard-earned taxes of many working people, earning far less

who could not dream of living in houses like those. Point he makes

are pensioners is right. I'm proud of the fact that this government

will be increasing the basic state pension from �5 a week, starting in

April, because we believe in dignity and security for our

pensioners in old age. What does the Prime Minister make

of the National Audit Office slating of his flagship work

programme. They say the government has totally overestimated the

number of people they will put back to work. This is not a work

programme as much as a Doesn't Work programme. Instead of just reading

the press release, he should read the National Audit Office report.

It praises the government for introducing a scheme in such a

short period of time. The basic point that the National Audit

Office is making is the work programme is not put in taxpayers'

money at risk, it is putting the providers at risk and that is a

different way of doing things. It is about payment by results,

getting better performance, value for money, things that his

government never provided. Like my honourable friends earlier,

many of my constituents in Dudley South work extremely hard for

modest salaries. Given that many people think the benefits cut

should be set at a lower level than �26,000, does my right honourable

friend agree with me that the party opposite is completely out of touch

by voting to make it higher? think my honourable friend makes a

good point will start let me just remind the right honourable

gentleman what he said at the beginning of this year. This was

January 2012 on the today programme. I am not against the cap. If he is

not against the cap, why could he not get his Labour peers to vote

for the cap in the House of Lords? What is he, weak, incompetent or

both? On 14th December I asked the Prime

Minister about cutting benefits for disabled children and he replied

and I quote: First of all, we are not cutting benefits for disabled

children. I wonder whether since that time, he has checked his facts,

and discovered on 12th December, if two days before I asked this

question, his coalition members in the Lords voted against the

protection of benefits for disabled children under the new universal

credit, resulting in a loss of �1,300. I will give the Prime

Minister another go. How does this fit in with we are all in this

together? The honourable lady is wrong. Bit

money that is going into universal credit for the most disabled

children is not being cut. She is plain wrong about that. He is into

it interesting that all of the questions we get from all of the

members opposite are always calling for more spending. They have learnt

absolutely nothing about the mess they landed this country and.

British Airways have announced an agreement that they will takeover

BMI and although this is being challenged under competition rules,

what assurances can a Prime Minister give that the landing

slots at Heathrow from regional airports will be protected if this

is allowed to go ahead? honourable gentleman makes an

important point which is important to his constituents as well. I will

look into this issue about landing slots. I know how important this

issue is for regional airports and I will get back to him.

Can I ask the Prime Minister why he wants the NHS hospitals to handout

up to half of their beds to private patients? That is not what the

reforms do at all. What the reforms do is ensure that you can have some

private sector and voluntary sector activity going on within the NHS.

Before they all... Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should

quieten down for his second and listen to what his own Health

Secretary said. His Health Secretary said this: For the

private sector but its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS

patients, which I feared most people in this country would

celebrate. Again, that is what he said in government, but since they

got into opposition, they have taken up a position of just

supporting the producer interest, total irresponsibility, total

short-termism. I stand by what is set in 2007, pity you could not

stick by it. It is not my obligation to stick by any of these

matters. Priti Patel. The Prime Minister will be aware of

the brutal murder last year of my constituent, the Heath, in Germany.

The murder trial is set to start in March this year. It will last for a

couple of months. Will the Prime Minister next sure the government

will do everything possible to support his mother, Mary Heath, to

deal with the ever-increasing financial costs she faces to see

justice for her son? Where honourable friend is absolutely

right to raise this case. First of all, can I offer my sincere

condolences to Mary Heath and her family following the tragic death

of her son, Lee, last year. I know this will be a distressing time for

them as they travel to Germany. A Foreign Office will do all it can

to support Mary and her family. I have been impressed with what the

Foreign Office has done in cases like these. I will make sure this

is carried through. 25 % of our constituents suffer

from muscular skeletal diseases. The National Audit Office and the

Public Accounts Committee believe that we could get better outcomes

for these people at lower costs if a clinical director was appointed

to co-ordinate things in the National Health Service. Will the

Prime Minister agreed to see charities representing these people

with me in the near future? I will certainly look carefully THE

honourable gentleman necks. One of the points of the NHS reforms that

is not fully understood his that the idea of having public health

budgets properly ring-fenced, probably funded with directors of

public health in each area, which will be able to help with many of

these areas. My constituents in the King's would

entirely agree with the government's proposed benefits cap.

They believe that nobody should earn more in benefits than hard-

working families. Does the Prime Minister not agree with make that

it is a damned disgrace that the Labour Party are opposing and

trying to wreck this important measure? Order. Moderation in the

use of parliamentary language and indeed, using parliamentary

language is much to be preferred. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think my

honourable friend makes an important point. This is an

important decision that a house of Commons has got to make. We were

told that the Labour party would support a cap on benefits, they

have said that repeatedly and yet when the challenge comes, they duck

the challenge and refused to support the cap. They will have

another chance when the legislation comes back to this house. It is no

good shaking his head. His own peers voted against the cap in the

Lords. People in this country will not understand why they are taking

A bit rowdy at the end, as the speaker brings Prime Ministers

questions to the end. Ed Miliband split his questions into two, first

on the economy and then to National Health. He stayed away from the

Kappun housing benefit. Many of you, I think, and it seems to be the

consensus of commentators, Ed Miliband putting in a stronger

performance this week than he has in recent weeks, having the Prime

Minister on the ropes a couple of times. Quaye to a bit of criticism

for the Government's responses on the economy and on the NHS. But

there were also responses saying that Ed Miliband's message might be

right, but there is something wrong with the messenger. John in Leeds

says, why is it that what Ed Miliband says sounds right but it

is not yet making any impact? As a Labour Party member, I'm beginning

to think it is not the substance that is the problem, but the man

saying it. Colin agrees, it's not that he cannot shoot at the open

goal in front of him, it's that he cannot reach the target and score

his political points. When it comes to the economy in general, quite a

few people that agreed with Richie Hicks. How many more times are we

going to hear the Prime Minister blame the previous government for

the country's problems? The excuse is 18 months old and starting to

win very thin indeed. When it came to the NHS government reforms, if

David Cameron can only find one GP in Doncaster that supports the

Health Bill, and we thought that as well, isn't it time he's cracked

it? Someone should tell him it takes six years to train a GP, and

all of them started training under Labour. John Wakefield in London,

if we cannot trust David Cameron and George Osborne with the economy,

considering they will be borrowing �150 billion more, how can we ever

trust them with the NHS? Geoff in St Ives, Ed Miliband didn't perform

as well as he might. Cameron's defence of his NHS policy on the

basis of what one doctor thinks was called -- quite frankly pathetic.

Why didn't Ed Miliband go with the quotes from the IMF? It's an

argument that will play out over the next few days. Christine Lagard

is in town and we will hear more from her. It is thanks to Nick that

we have these. I have been reading them. What he says his, if the

economy is doing worse, let automatic stabilisers work in the

UK. That is already happening, the increase that you referred to,

growth slower, welfare payments rise. Then he says, you can go

further than that, which is what you want to do. If growth is really

dismal, you may decide that you are going to go a bit more slowly about

the discretionary part of the Budget, those cuts, and for the UK

there is some indication that has happened with respect to the

revision and potential output. That means that the output is not as

high as they thought it would be. If I was a Labour spin doctor, that

is very significant ammunition. I would have expected the leader of

the opposition to use that. Very significant comments. But Nick

Robinson has only dug them out of the business unit, where the

transcript is not quite complete. He did not have the transcript.

are better informed than the leader of the opposition! He has only just

come in. How did you know? I got the briefing when I came in. It was

made clear on the Ten O'Clock News last night that the IMF has said

the exact words that have now been dug out. These are significant

comments and it reinforces the point we have been making. When the

economy has begun to plateau and has now gone into reverse, the

Government has to look at the facts and change course. I suspect we

have covered these institutions for long enough, the World Bank and the

IMF, this will now be fudged. Christine Lagard will say something

which fudges what he has just said. It already has been. The Prime

Minister quoted another IMF spokesman on Sky News last night,

who seemed to say the reverse, that you should not do it. Well, what he

said was that fiscal consolidation is important. Everybody in town

agrees. The question is the pace. What you have is a significant

comment from a chief economist saying that you can think about

being a bit more flexible. He is also a very good Economist.

hesitate to do a fact guide on the IMF, there are economists, there is

the chief economist and the more political side. Christine Lagard,

former French finance minister, I'm not suggesting that she doesn't

know economics, but her task is to make friends with Treasury

ministers to get them to do what the IMF wants to do. What I have

learned over the years, and it is also true of other organisations,

they did not go to war with ministers. They didn't go to war

with Gordon Brown and they are not going to war now. You might think

that puzzling, because their policies are different. They

generally don't do it. But the words that the chief economist of

the IMF is saying that there are dangers for Britain in credibility

in changing approach. But there would be gains. He's very explicit

that if you went a bit slower in the short term there would be

growth gains. Two different comments from two different people.

But we heard earlier from somebody with a clear view on the markets.

We need to be tremendously careful to be sure that we do not take

steps that undermine the confidence that currently exists in the

markets and the business community that are sorting out our problems.

That is the key point that David Cameron is making. We don't believe

you saw up -- solve a crisis based on debt by borrowing more. We are

dealing with difficult circumstances internationally and

it is of paramount importance that we retain the confidence of the

markets. If we were to lose that and find ourselves in the position

of some other European countries, it would be disastrous for of us.

You may want to carry on on the economy, but I think surprisingly

it was not the economy that was the main point of Prime Ministers

questions, it was that the Prime Minister looked extremely

vulnerable on the NHS. He tried to laugh off the party had lost the

support of the Royal College of Nurses and of doctors, he said,

sometimes you need a second opinion. Not many people laughed. You saw

Labour backbenchers pointing at the backbenchers looking nervous. He

tried the line about 80 p in Ed Miliband's constituency. He looked

to me like he was going to go back to the office and say, we had a

problem. He's lost the Select Committee, he's lost the

representatives of the professions, but he is committed to plough one.

Part of the problem of the backbenches is that a lot of them

have never quite signed up to it. Or they didn't realise they had

signed up to these reforms. They certainly didn't. It's not the

manifesto they campaigned on. Roughly the point I was trying to

make. We sit in the studios and pink, what a great advantage that

members of parliaments have, they have constituents, they look at

their own local hospitals and people say, it is quite difficult.

Or rather stronger language. get the impression from some

Conservatives that they wish they had never gone down this road in

the first place. Chris Grayling, I have got to the bottom of why you

could not tell me how much money had been guaranteed under the

National Loan guarantee Scheme for businesses. Shall I tell you why?

Well, probably because it was launched a month ago. It hasn't

even started yet. It was only announced in the Autumn Statement.

I've also got to the bottom of why we do not know how much money the

Business Finance Partnership has doled out so much -- so far. That

doesn't started either. I don't think you mentioned the business

finance partnership. I mentioned one of the others. Don't you think

you need to get a wiggle on? Unemployment is rising. You need to

get moving. Some practical examples of what we're doing, the new

Enterprise Allowance is helping thousands of people move into self-

employment around the country. What we're doing in enterprise zones is

effectively giving a tax incentive to people setting up new businesses.

We are moving ahead as fast as we can. The tax changes I mention to

the corporation tax system that gives an incentive to people to

invest in intellectual property in the UK, there has been up and

running for months. Are you going to begin next mayor of Birmingham?

He laughs, nervously! I was expecting a different question, but

you may have noticed I have my hands rather full with making sure

that Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan-Smith... Well, Birmingham

was the first to vote. It looks like they will vote for directly-

elected mayors. You are in favour. But you will not run yourself?

have not given it a thought. A Yes, you have! You may have noticed that

welfare is quite a busy brief at the moment. I am in favour of a

mayor in Birmingham. I do think it is time that people in Birmingham

took control of the City's destiny. Too much power is in the hands of

the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. I will campaign for a "yes" vote.

Avid viewers of the Daily Politics will not need reminding that the

notion of Boris Johnson being mayor of London was broken on this

programme by me. The reason was because I didn't take the idea very

seriously. It all came true. And It is like the mayor of Chicago,

mayor earn. I think we will take If I need advice, I will come to

you. My invoice will follow! Now, now that we have planned Liam

Byrne's a future career, in 2010 David Cameron said lobbying was the

next big scandal waiting to happen in Westminster. Last week, the

Government published its long awaited plans for a statutory

register of lobbyists. But will it achieve anything and is there

anything wrong with lobbying? Mark Adams says it is a crucial part of

My name is Mark and I am a lobbyist. Actually, there is no such

organisation as a lobbyist anonymous. We do not need to be

ashamed of what we do. Lobbyists pay an important part in the

democratic process and we should be proud of it -- lobbyists play an

important part. In reality, my job is quite simple. I advise clients

on how to make their case most effectively to government. I

explain to them how they can exercise their democratic right to

try and influence policy decisions. There are many misconceptions about

lobbying. I rarely meet ministers or Members of Parliament on behalf

of clients. And I never hang around in the shadows here at the House of

Commons. Lobbying is a fundamental democratic right, laid down in the

Magna Carter. Imagine a world in which governments take decisions in

locked rooms in Whitehall, refusing to hear from outside lobbying

interests. It is essential here that governments here from those

affected by its policies and laws. However, there is legitimate public

concern that lobbyists can, in some circumstances, undermine the

democratic process. That is why I believe we need effective

regulation of the lobbying profession. Like the majority of

other lobbyists, I signed up to our profession's code of conduct, with

strict rules of behaviour and a publicly available Register of my

clients. No system of regulation is perfect, but I see no reason why

statutory regulation would be any more effective. If politicians are

to be called to account by those they serve, it is an important that

we have effective lobbying. The very suspicious when politicians

tried to regulate and limit it. And Mark Adams joins us now. You

made a strong case there for the importance of lobbying and

lobbyists, and the democratic right to influence policy decisions, but

that is where people are suspicious. What is involved in that

influencing of policy and decisions, where does it cross the line?

think I made it clear in the film but actually, what we do is we

advise clients on how to make their case must effectively to

politicians, civil servants and the like. I think we have to have some

faith in our politicians in this. Clearly, we present our case from

the side of our clients. They will here other cases from other sides

of the argument and they should make up their own decisions. If

people think they are swayed by a long lunch on a day at the races, I

don't think we have enough faith in these guys to do their job. That is

where I think, there are people out there, also politicians, David

Cameron has talked about this being the latest scandal to happen, that

days at the races and lunches, is that being seen as buying? But they

declare that. The Prime Minister is right. I suspect he is not quite

right in saying it has only happened, it happened towards the

end of the last Labour government. Some of us were in discussions with

previous governments about register of meetings. I think it is right

that politicians and senior civil servants have to declare the

hospitality they receive. That is the way it should be regulating

this with an openness on the part of politicians and frankly trusting

them. Well, trust in politicians is something which has been slightly

diminished by the public's perspective, mainly as a result of

the expenses. How often do meet lobbyists, Liam Byrne? I'd rarely

meet them. I have worked in business in most of my career and I

have often felt that business should be more confident in ring up

politicians and making the points. We do think the government should

get a move on and introduce a register which was talked about.

This is the register of people saying they are a lobbyist?

point is that we want to increase the level of trust in politics and

we think that where there are confidence building measures like

this, do not hang around. Do you agree with David Cameron Crowe's

but would it be the next scandal to happen? It could be and we are

trying to make sure it would not be. Mark Adams also in a register would

just be a list of names, it is like an encyclopaedia, isn't it? What it

would be is that people who are around Westminster are there and

transparent. If they are recommending -- representing

clients, we know they do it. There is a register but there are people

who operate outside it. I think the bigger reform there we have done

already is to publish in detail a list of ministers' meetings. I

remember in opposition try and get access to ministers' diaries and

the wall shut down. It was the way it operated. In it is still quite

hard because I have tried to get your diary and it is still hard.

Send it to Liam Byrne afterwards! Can live very briefly ask Liam

Byrne, unions, should they be included? I have a lovely quote

from Bob Crow he says the idea that trade unions should be bracketed in

with the chances and schmooze us from the lobbying world is a great

insult. I don't think Labour's links with the trade unions are

secret because we debated in public and people know who is affiliated

and who is not. I do not think the unions should be different from any

other organisation. I do not think they can claim somehow that they

are different. Union links are transparent already but lobbyist

links are not. It is about bringing complete openness to the picture.

Thank you. Following his bout at Prime

Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister is jetting off this

Rosberg, preparing another battle about reforming the European Court

of Human Rights -- Strasbourg. Joining us from Central Lobby, the

human rights lawyer Anthony Lester and the Conservative MP Andrea

Leadsom. This court has a backlog of about 160,000 cases, some of the

judges had either no or very little previous judicial experience, it is

in need of reform, is it not? So what should be done? First of

all, as far as the judges are concerned, there needs to be much

more transparent rules about who can be a judge, much better

scrutiny, much better public scrutiny, in order to improve

quality all round. The British model is the best one where we

advertised, we then have an independent body looking and we

then make recommendations. As far as the backlog is concerned, much

of that, about a third, is caused by countries like Russia, the

Ukraine, Turkey which do not show a proper respect for the rule if the

law. Some of this is caused by countries like Italy which have

repetitive cases and do not bring themselves into line probably.

There is an urgent need which is recognised, I think, by a British

judge for ways of tackling this. They have said they will get the

backlog down within five years. I am on the commission on a Bill of

Rights for the UK. We have made recommendations supporting David

Cameron's proposals. So, Andrea Leadsom, if we get changes along

these lines, will that do it? could do. Certainly, improvements

and reform is what David Cameron will be talking about today. What

we have to do is get a point where we do not have a backlog of 150,000

plus cases. I get letters from constituents all the time saying

they have an appeal at the human court and it will be a month before

it is even considered. It is not fit for purpose so it has to change.

What the Prime Minister also wants is that where the British courts,

up to the Supreme Court, have taken a clear decision on a particular

matter within their competence, that more times than not, European

courts should leave there, not get involved? What do you say to that?

I think that is a very difficult idea. It might work in the United

Kingdom because we have a really good judicial system. By and large

our judges produced results which are entirely compatible with the

convention. But if you're going to turn the Strasbourg court into a

court which starts criticising other country's judges for being

unreasonable, but is not a good way of getting a partnership between

Strasbourg and those countries. I worried that in other parts of

Europe, there are 46 countries and 800 million people, it is important

that you are entitled way your domestic remedies have failed,

still to go to Strasbourg. The key thing is to get good quality judges,

get rid of the backlog and their ISA finally, the other thing is,

this whole system was started by Sir Winston Churchill and the

Conservative Party. There commitment is tested. Andrea, had

to put the chances of reform? would put them pretty high. I think

all countries see the need for reform, it is a question of what

and how far. Some countries have a good track of human rights records

but other countries do not. You cannot use this for everyone else's

national failures. The One o'clock News is desperate for your camera

so we have to leave there. We can go to James Landale who is in

Strasbourg where he has the camera all to himself. We have a rough

idea what David Cameron is going to ask for, but other British going

there with hopes of success or simply to lay out their stall?

I think they are coming here with some hope of success. That is why

the tone of the Prime Minister's speech will be quite moderate. It

is not designed to appeal to newspapers like the Daily Mail. It

is designed to win allies in that building. The Prime Minister sees

there is an opportunity for reform. The problem is this will take a

long time. Britain has the rotating presidency for just a few more

months. Then the Albanians take over. Any reform of this place

takes a long time. What Parliament Ferring say there should be

reformed but no one has said how. The Prime Minister has not said

about how he will get rid of the backlog. I think we have still got

a long way to go on this. There is a problem here, there are 47

members of this court, they will need to agree to any changes, and

we have had the President of the court he was a British judge saying

he thinks the court is doing pretty well and does not need any reform

at all? Yes, there is a huge institutional reluctance I think,

to move swiftly on this. There is, however, some consensus that some

reform needs to happen. The most persuasive argument the Prime

Minister has got, is saying if the court does not reform, he will

undermine support for human rights for places where there are genuine

problems. This is the start of a long process and I think it is very

unlikely to satisfy all the critics back home who say it is not about

reform, it is about ultimately withdrawal. Should the court here

really decide on things like giving prisoners the vote in the United

Kingdom. Thank you. The Prime Minister is on his way to

Strasbourg. There will be an hour- long documentary on Human Rights on

BBC2, probably before the end of February since it is pretty topical

and we had better get a move on. I had better write most of the

script! Time to put you out of your misery with Guess the Year. The

answer was 2006. You get to choose a winner. You dig deep. It is Brian

Sylvester from Nantwich in Cheshire. Well done, Brian. The special mug

is yours. That is it for today. We thank all of our guests. Special

thanks to Chris Grayling and Liam Byrne for being our guests of the

day. We will be back tomorrow at noon. We are an hour-long Daily

Politics on every day except Wednesday when we are 90 minutes.