:00:43. > :00:48.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Can anyone stop
:00:48. > :00:52.Syria's dictator from killing his own people on an increasingly large
:00:52. > :00:56.scale? Delegates at an international conference in Tunis
:00:56. > :01:00.are hoping to ratchet up pressure on Damascus to agree a ceasefire.
:01:00. > :01:03.They are expected to call for humanitarian workers to be given
:01:03. > :01:08.urgent access to Homs and other areas where Syrians are being
:01:08. > :01:12.attacked. We will have the latest. At the Speaker of the House of
:01:12. > :01:16.Commons of the tax payer is being fleeced for the cost of trees at
:01:16. > :01:21.Portcullis House. In an interview he defends his timekeeping at PMQs
:01:21. > :01:27.and declares himself a happy man. The Tories are having an awayday.
:01:27. > :01:33.Yes, they are. We will be asking what they should be talking about.
:01:33. > :01:43.And we will be revealing the longest ever word to hit Hansard.
:01:43. > :01:51.
:01:51. > :01:56.Why does that remind me of an episode of Blackadder? All will be
:01:56. > :02:00.revealed. That and much more in the next hour. With us for the duration,
:02:00. > :02:04.Nick Watt of the Guardian and Peter Oborne of the Telegraph. Let's
:02:04. > :02:10.start with the ongoing row over the Government's work experience
:02:10. > :02:15.programme. The High Street shop can Brant said it had decided to
:02:15. > :02:23.suspend the Government's mandatory Work Programme while the Government
:02:23. > :02:28.clarifies its scheme and introduces other youth employment initiatives.
:02:28. > :02:32.-- Poundland. The picture is rather confused. Let's see if our
:02:32. > :02:39.correspondent Louise Stewart can enlighten us. What has hound land
:02:39. > :02:43.done? You are right. It is very confusing I spoke to the company
:02:43. > :02:47.earlier and they said can we get back to when we are 100 % sure
:02:47. > :02:51.which scheme we are pulling out of! They have said they are pulling out
:02:51. > :02:56.of one of the Government's work programmes. It seems to be their
:02:56. > :03:00.problem with it is the fact that there could be if somebody signs up
:03:00. > :03:04.for one of these schemes to get them back into work, there could be
:03:04. > :03:08.sanctions imposed which would mean if they decided not to continue
:03:08. > :03:13.with the scheme after a week or two, they could end up losing some of
:03:13. > :03:17.their benefits. Poundland said to me they believe it is wrong that
:03:17. > :03:20.people have to work for their benefits. They say they will
:03:21. > :03:25.continue to offer voluntary work schemes, they say it is successful
:03:25. > :03:29.and they have had over 1,000 people who want to get into retail and
:03:29. > :03:33.they want to offer some of them jobs, but they are concerned about
:03:33. > :03:38.elements of the Government scheme. This comes on the back of other big
:03:38. > :03:42.retailers also voicing concerns about it. We tried to get
:03:42. > :03:47.clarification from the relevant government department. Have you
:03:47. > :03:50.been more successful? I have been calling them all morning. They said,
:03:50. > :03:54.yes, Poundland have confirmed they are pulling out of one of the
:03:54. > :03:58.schemes but they will continue to provide work experience on a
:03:58. > :04:02.voluntary basis. But then the Employment Minister Chris Grayling
:04:02. > :04:06.came out this morning. He has been defending the scheme. We were going
:04:06. > :04:09.to do an interview with him but he seems to have pulled out. He
:04:09. > :04:14.defended the scheme saying it was a good way for people who have been
:04:14. > :04:19.out of work to get back into work and for young people to get work
:04:19. > :04:26.experience. He says he has a meeting on Wednesday with C E Ls
:04:26. > :04:31.from some big companies. Greg's voiced their concerns last night on
:04:31. > :04:36.Newsnight. The chief executive there will be meeting Mr grayling
:04:36. > :04:39.and leaders from Matalan and Waterstone's. These are all
:04:39. > :04:43.companies which have expressed concerns about some elements of the
:04:43. > :04:47.Government's scheme. I think politically what this says is that
:04:47. > :04:52.some companies are getting cold feet, if you like, about being
:04:52. > :04:57.involved in these schemes. There have been terms bandied around of
:04:57. > :05:01.slave labour. Tescos were involved in that earlier in the week. Some
:05:01. > :05:04.companies are getting cold feet about being involved in the schemes.
:05:04. > :05:09.Thank you, I think you have clarified it as well as you can in
:05:09. > :05:14.the circumstances! Peter Oborne, is this government losing its grip?
:05:14. > :05:20.This is a scheme which has support from all of the coalition. Labour
:05:20. > :05:27.is not against it. The public overwhelmingly supports it. There
:05:27. > :05:31.is a well-organised come -- campaign against it but the public
:05:31. > :05:36.think if you are on benefits and there is a chance of work
:05:36. > :05:40.experience, you should take it and yet it is a complete Horlicks.
:05:40. > :05:44.do not know what has happened but judging by the report we have had
:05:44. > :05:50.their and judging by what I heard on the today programme, Poundland
:05:50. > :05:54.seems to be not objecting to the cock-up by the Government, it seems
:05:54. > :05:58.to be taking a principled stance by what the Government is doing. This
:05:58. > :06:04.is an elected government. It has the support of the opposition and
:06:04. > :06:11.there is an element of compulsion to the workfare scheme. As far as I
:06:11. > :06:15.read it, pounds land, the chief executive of it, is taking a
:06:15. > :06:19.principled objection to that part of the scheme. Shouldn't he have
:06:19. > :06:23.worked it out before he signed up to it? We do not know the full
:06:23. > :06:29.facts. It sounds like he has gone off and joined, not the Labour
:06:29. > :06:33.Party but the Socialist Workers' Party. It looks like Poundland is
:06:33. > :06:38.taking a far left point of view that we should Molly coddle people
:06:38. > :06:42.who are out of work. Good for Pam bland but I do not think it is
:06:42. > :06:46.appropriate for a chief executive of a public company to take that
:06:46. > :06:52.view -- good for Poundland. looks like companies are running
:06:52. > :06:56.scared of the campaign. They say they are pulling out of a mandatory
:06:56. > :07:00.scheme when it is a voluntary scheme and there is a reason why
:07:00. > :07:04.they call netminder a tree which is somebody took part in this scheme,
:07:04. > :07:08.worked in Poundland and then after three weeks left and sued the
:07:08. > :07:12.Department for Work and Pensions sake I had been forced to take part
:07:12. > :07:16.in it. The DWP had to admit that this person had been wrongly
:07:16. > :07:20.advised. It is voluntary that you take part but it is Monday tree
:07:20. > :07:23.that you lose your benefit if you pull out of it. I think the problem
:07:23. > :07:26.for Poundland is they are the victims of a very effective
:07:26. > :07:33.campaign saying essentially people are being forced to work for
:07:33. > :07:39.virtually nothing. The governors say it is voluntary. In a
:07:39. > :07:43.recession... You only lose your benefits if you take part and
:07:43. > :07:49.withdraw. A lot of people would say if you turn this down, you're not
:07:49. > :07:52.sure you should get benefits. point is, we are in a recession.
:07:52. > :07:58.These big stores are having to fight for every single customer. It
:07:58. > :08:02.does not look good for them if their stores are being occupied.
:08:02. > :08:07.looks like a blatant political intervention, caving in to fire
:08:07. > :08:10.left pressure from Poundland and I think that is reprehensible and
:08:10. > :08:15.disgraceful. We may not have clarified it but struck -- some of
:08:16. > :08:19.us have strong opinions! Urgent talks are due to take place
:08:19. > :08:24.in Tunisia later today to try to force the Syrian president to call
:08:24. > :08:27.a ceasefire and allow humanitarian aid into the country. Fighting is
:08:27. > :08:30.continuing around the city of Homs and the Red Cross said it had
:08:30. > :08:35.received no response from the Syrian government for its request
:08:35. > :08:38.for a pause and the fighting to allow aid to be taking in.
:08:38. > :08:42.Commentators have expressed fears that because China and Russia are
:08:42. > :08:47.not attending a conference, the chances of a breakthrough Arslan.
:08:47. > :08:52.Just before we went on air, I spoke to the BBC diplomatic correspondent
:08:52. > :08:57.Jonathan Marcus. He is in the Tunisian capital of Tunis. I began
:08:57. > :09:03.by asking him what the conference was trying to achieve. The genesis
:09:03. > :09:07.of this conference is really the blockage of the United Nations, the
:09:07. > :09:10.Chinese and Russians have vetoed any combined effort of the UN
:09:10. > :09:15.Security Council. This conference is trying to get around that
:09:15. > :09:18.roadblock. It has three main aims. One is to issue an urgent call to
:09:18. > :09:22.get humanitarian assistance in two cities like Homs which are under
:09:22. > :09:26.attack by Syrian government forces. They will need an immediate
:09:26. > :09:30.ceasefire to do that. Secondly, they want to try and encourage the
:09:30. > :09:34.Syrian opposition forces, they want to engage the Syrian National
:09:34. > :09:38.Council, the main opposition grouping. They are likely to
:09:38. > :09:41.recognise it as a legitimate representative of Syrians who want
:09:41. > :09:45.a change in their society. Interestingly, not the
:09:45. > :09:48.representative, they want it to become more inclusive, to put down
:09:48. > :09:53.better routes in Syria itself. And thirdly, there will be an attempt
:09:53. > :09:57.to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime, both by focusing and
:09:57. > :10:01.co-ordinating sanctions, but also by putting the regime on notice.
:10:01. > :10:05.You will remember yesterday a un Human Rights Commission report was
:10:05. > :10:09.delivered which alleges war crimes have been committed by a senior
:10:09. > :10:13.Syrian officials and there is a responsibility to the highest
:10:13. > :10:18.levels in Damascus. The message that will come from here is they
:10:18. > :10:22.are on notice. Evidence is being collected. What they are doing is
:10:22. > :10:27.being closely watched and there will be a day of reckoning at some
:10:27. > :10:32.point mackerel in the future. they think they can do all of that
:10:32. > :10:36.in a meaningful way without the involvement of China and Russia? Do
:10:36. > :10:42.they expect China and Russia to look the other way or block what
:10:42. > :10:46.they are doing in practice? I think it will work up to a point. The
:10:46. > :10:51.problem is diplomatic sanctions is a cumulative process, it is a
:10:51. > :10:54.question of taking time and clearly time is not on anyone's side. I
:10:54. > :10:59.think the difficulty is this meeting is essentially watching
:10:59. > :11:02.from the sidelines. The real events are tragically taking place on the
:11:02. > :11:06.ground in Syria. You have to remember that this is a regime in
:11:06. > :11:11.Syria which is fighting for its survival. It believes its back is
:11:11. > :11:15.to the wall which we have clearly seen in Homs and elsewhere. It
:11:15. > :11:18.needs to do what is required to maintain itself in power. It is
:11:18. > :11:22.also important to realise that there are significant groups of the
:11:22. > :11:25.population in Syria who may not be happy with what is going on at the
:11:25. > :11:31.moment but perhaps they are still willing to give President Bashar
:11:31. > :11:35.al-Assad the benefit of the doubt. They prefer the guy they know to
:11:35. > :11:38.the potential chaos which might come after. Is a hugely complex
:11:38. > :11:43.situation and that complexity is one of the reasons why outside
:11:43. > :11:47.military intervention is not been cancelled as it was in Libya.
:11:47. > :11:52.was Jonathan Marcus in Tunis. We are now joined him in London by Bob
:11:52. > :11:57.Stewart from the commander of UN forces in Bosnia now a Conservative
:11:57. > :12:02.MP, and Mousab Azzawi of the Syrian Network for Human Rights. Let me
:12:02. > :12:06.start with you, Mousab Azzawi. Humanitarian aid, some kind of
:12:06. > :12:12.temporary ceasefire, it does not sound to me like that will be
:12:12. > :12:17.anywhere enough to please the rebels in Syria? No, at all, that
:12:17. > :12:22.is not enough because it is not realistic. The regime methodology
:12:22. > :12:27.is to accept every initiative and then emptied. If the regime will
:12:28. > :12:33.accept that, it will not be a permanent solution to deliver
:12:33. > :12:38.humanitarian aid for those pockets of geographical places with people
:12:38. > :12:44.trapped there. Many people died every day because they do not have
:12:44. > :12:50.fuel, they do not have clean water, they do not have fluid or access to
:12:50. > :12:55.healthcare. This is not enough and I do not think it will not be
:12:55. > :12:58.accepted for a temporary remedy for the crisis -- they do not have food.
:12:58. > :13:03.What would you be telling this organisation to do? I would be
:13:03. > :13:06.telling them to do three steps. The first step is the humanitarian
:13:06. > :13:11.corridors which needs to be done through the United Nations with a
:13:11. > :13:15.very clear plan to deliver this aid. The second thing which is buffer
:13:15. > :13:19.zones with the borders with Turkey to allow the Syrians who are end
:13:19. > :13:23.trapped to flee to a safe haven. The third step which might be
:13:23. > :13:28.controversial is the no fly zone because the biggest proportion of
:13:28. > :13:33.the Syrian army is waiting for the right moment to desert the army but
:13:33. > :13:37.they do not want to be easy targets. How do you know that? Basically,
:13:37. > :13:41.there are signals coming from those ordinary people who serve in the
:13:41. > :13:45.army. They are not professional soldiers. They are just ordinary
:13:45. > :13:49.people serving in the army to do their national service the two
:13:49. > :13:53.years. They tell their families we are waiting for the moment to
:13:53. > :13:58.desert the family -- to desert the army but we do not want to be easy
:13:58. > :14:02.targets for the military aircraft as happened in August last year.
:14:02. > :14:06.Six officers deserted the army with their tanks, they were very easy
:14:06. > :14:11.targets. That is the key solution to sort out the Syrian crisis as I
:14:11. > :14:18.see it. Bob Stewart, I do not get the impression that we in the West
:14:18. > :14:25.are anywhere near a no-fly zone or a safe haven on the border with
:14:25. > :14:28.Turkey? That is correct. The big problem, of course, is that the
:14:28. > :14:33.Security Council of the United Nations requires a resolution and
:14:33. > :14:39.there are two people on the permanent Council, Russia and China,
:14:39. > :14:42.that won't agree it. In order to set up humanitarian operations at a
:14:42. > :14:47.United Nations level, you have got to have a Security Council
:14:47. > :14:51.resolution. Even if we had the UN on side on this, I'll be even up
:14:51. > :14:55.for those? I'm not sure who I am talking about, the British, the
:14:55. > :15:01.French, the Americans in a presidential year? Are they going
:15:01. > :15:07.to put a no-fly zone over Syria? Are they going to back UN troops
:15:07. > :15:11.going into a safe haven with the border with Turkey? There is no
:15:11. > :15:16.wish for us to get involved in this situation. And indeed, it may be
:15:16. > :15:21.time in my view for the Arabs to start doing a little bit more.
:15:21. > :15:27.Who'd you mean by the Arabs? I mean Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Their troops
:15:27. > :15:33.are not going to fight. But why is it always ask? As a politician, I
:15:33. > :15:37.am saying, there is a limit. Each time we going, what is our national
:15:37. > :15:41.interest in going in there? Apart from the fact we have a
:15:41. > :15:45.humanitarian desire to try and stop people dying and that is quite
:15:45. > :15:49.right, but it is us again, the Americans. If people turn to us and
:15:49. > :15:54.say, can you do it and the answer is, I don't think we can. I suppose
:15:54. > :16:04.we could if we put more money into it but that is it. Again, more
:16:04. > :16:05.
:16:05. > :16:11.money is required. Defences at its It sounds to me that the brutal
:16:11. > :16:17.reality is, if you are hoping for help from the West, you will be
:16:17. > :16:20.disappointed. The point is that any open civil war in Syria will not be
:16:20. > :16:25.limited to the band a series of Syria. The risk for the Western
:16:25. > :16:30.powers, if they leave this crisis without supporting the Syrians and
:16:30. > :16:37.facilitating the transition to democracy, this civil war is easily,
:16:37. > :16:42.because of the tribal clans interlinking, it may move to the
:16:42. > :16:47.neighbouring countries quickly. Then, if they pay $100 for a barrel
:16:47. > :16:57.of oil now, they will pay $400, because it is easy to move to Saudi
:16:57. > :16:59.
:16:59. > :17:04.Arabia. There are signals coming from those tribes in Syria. They
:17:04. > :17:08.are saying, if you are going to fight on a sectarian background, we
:17:08. > :17:13.will fight with you. That is something we do not want to see.
:17:13. > :17:20.Peter Oborne, rightly or wrongly, there is no appetite to intervene,
:17:20. > :17:27.is there? Yes. I think the West miss reports what is happening in
:17:27. > :17:32.many ways. Absolutely, there is a popular uprising against President
:17:32. > :17:36.Assad. And he is absolutely a frightening dictator and becoming
:17:36. > :17:41.more so. But it is worth remembering that he has a lot of
:17:41. > :17:48.popular support. How do you know? have looked at surveys from the
:17:48. > :17:55.Russians, for instance. They say 60% of people are defined -- behind
:17:56. > :18:04.him. That suits the Russian narrative. Yes, but I do not think
:18:04. > :18:07.we should assume that the Russians talk nonsense. But there are two
:18:07. > :18:11.different things. That is an interesting we writing of what is
:18:11. > :18:19.going on in Syria to say that President Assad has support. What
:18:19. > :18:21.is sustaining him is an alliance with his tried and the Sloaney
:18:21. > :18:29.middle classes, who are uneasy about what is going on. The reason
:18:29. > :18:32.why Russia are saying they do not support action is because they were
:18:32. > :18:35.badly burnt by what went on in Libya and they do not want to
:18:35. > :18:39.sanction an action against Syria because they thought it would be a
:18:39. > :18:45.simple military operation, and it turned into regime change. Russia
:18:45. > :18:47.do not want a repeat of that. do you say to Peter Oborne, who
:18:47. > :18:53.says that President Assad is more popular than we report him to be in
:18:53. > :19:03.the worst? This is not correct. We rely on evidence and statistics. In
:19:03. > :19:04.
:19:04. > :19:08.Syria, there are 1200 villages and towns. Last Saturday, more than 684
:19:08. > :19:16.places off demonstrations existed. The total number of demonstrators
:19:16. > :19:22.in a country in which 60% of the population is under the age of 18,
:19:22. > :19:32.was more than 1 million in all the cities. There is no spare city
:19:32. > :19:35.
:19:35. > :19:43.whatever. There is a very small Shiite community. 20%? No, less
:19:43. > :19:52.than one in 1000. President Assad's supporters are less than 1%, that
:19:52. > :19:58.tried it. They do exist. But many of the people who participate in
:19:58. > :20:02.the uprising are also from that stride. It is not true that it is a
:20:02. > :20:07.sectarian issue. The most important thing is to stop people dying. That
:20:07. > :20:16.is the most crucial thing. We all agree with that, but how? That is
:20:16. > :20:22.what the conference should be thinking about. So you are saying
:20:22. > :20:28.we have to get rid of him? They remain in power by mowing down
:20:28. > :20:33.their opponents. There are a lot of reports. Again, there is over-
:20:33. > :20:38.simplification of the conflict from the start. There has not been a
:20:38. > :20:42.civilised opposition movement. We have had armed men from the start.
:20:42. > :20:47.Al-Qaeda did those atrocities in Damascus a couple of months ago. I
:20:47. > :20:52.am sure they are involved with that now. This is not true. The main
:20:52. > :20:56.body of the revolution, which is named the Syrian revolution General
:20:56. > :21:00.Commission, comprises 200 Revolutionary members on the ground.
:21:00. > :21:04.They are similar to the French Revolution. They have stated, we do
:21:04. > :21:09.not have links with any fundamentalists. We do not like Al-
:21:09. > :21:12.Qaeda. We have to leave it there. Let's hope it works out better than
:21:12. > :21:16.the French Revolution. Now, cast your mind back to the
:21:16. > :21:21.days of Super tomatoes, trampled fields and even an accusation that
:21:21. > :21:25.we had a Prime Monster. That was the GM debate of the 1990s, but
:21:25. > :21:29.have things moved on since then? The men in white coats are still
:21:29. > :21:39.quietly at work and preparations are almost complete for a new GM
:21:39. > :21:48.
:21:48. > :21:52.wheat field trial in Hertfordshire. Imagine the perfect fruit - not
:21:52. > :21:58.just began juicy, but actually better than nature itself could
:21:58. > :22:03.provide. That was the idea. In the late 1990s, two letters struck fear
:22:03. > :22:08.into the hearts of public and media alike - GM. Campaigners wrecked
:22:08. > :22:13.crops and took their protests to Number 10. Tony Blair was AGM fan,
:22:13. > :22:19.as were many of his ministers, but there was one unbeliever. I think I
:22:19. > :22:26.was a lone voice. I found I had no other ministerial support. I found
:22:26. > :22:30.myself isolated. But I resisted. That could have been the reason why
:22:30. > :22:36.I was sacked. Despite the protests, Labour allowed the commercial
:22:37. > :22:40.planting of GM maize in 2004. But the firm behind the project pulled
:22:41. > :22:45.out shortly afterwards. So is the former minister happy with where we
:22:45. > :22:53.are now? I think we are in the right place in the sense that there
:22:53. > :22:58.is now much greater concern about the possible long-term effects of
:22:58. > :23:02.GM, and therefore there is an inhibition against spreading it
:23:03. > :23:07.indiscriminately across the world. There are checks and balances. And
:23:07. > :23:11.that is right. GM crops have never been grown commercially in this
:23:12. > :23:15.country, but that is not the end of the story. This is one of a tiny
:23:15. > :23:22.number of scientific trials currently under way in the UK. The
:23:22. > :23:27.scientists here hope they can change the way we think about GM.
:23:27. > :23:32.This is roughens their research in Harpenden. They are tried to create
:23:32. > :23:37.a breed which will be resistant to greenfly. This new approach is
:23:37. > :23:42.taking naturally occurring genes which occur in other plants, and
:23:42. > :23:48.immobilising them in a way that mimics what happens in nature,
:23:48. > :23:54.because at some plants do deter insects from landing on them. So we
:23:54. > :23:57.have taken it to a new level. We call it a Green GM. The work they
:23:57. > :24:01.are doing is cutting edge, but these scientists believe that
:24:01. > :24:03.Britain is running to catch up on what could have been a
:24:04. > :24:10.technological and economic opportunity. We have exported
:24:10. > :24:18.thousands of jobs over the years to the US and South America that we
:24:18. > :24:23.could have had at a time when, from an economic point of view, we are
:24:23. > :24:27.hoping to develop economic growth through technology and innovation.
:24:27. > :24:37.But is that a reason to pursue something which has consistently
:24:37. > :24:38.
:24:38. > :24:44.divided public opinion? difference is not for its own sake.
:24:44. > :24:49.If it is not doing something useful, we should take a sceptical view.
:24:49. > :24:54.has never been a place in the world where the consumer, given the
:24:54. > :24:59.choice of being able to say, we live by it or not, as uniformly
:24:59. > :25:03.said, we will not touch a GM product. So the argument goes on.
:25:03. > :25:08.The science of GM may be moving into a new future, but the debate
:25:08. > :25:15.is always likely to be influenced by its past.
:25:15. > :25:21.The government's former chief scientist David King is with us now.
:25:21. > :25:23.You were broadly in favour of proceeding with GM experiments and
:25:24. > :25:29.moving to their commercial exploitation. Tony Blair was in
:25:29. > :25:32.favour. The then science minister, Lord Sainsbury, was in favour.
:25:32. > :25:37.Given these powerful and well- informed voices, how did you manage
:25:37. > :25:43.to lose to a coalition of the Daily Mail and the Greens? Firstly, yes,
:25:43. > :25:48.I was in favour. Lord Sainsbury and I were clear about this. We were in
:25:48. > :25:53.favour, but within a regulatory environment in which each new food
:25:53. > :25:57.product was carefully regulated. The line we took was, don't ban the
:25:57. > :26:01.technology, ban the products that might be risky to the environment
:26:01. > :26:07.or to human health. A reasonable line, but you still lost the
:26:07. > :26:14.argument. Unfortunately, I think the argument was initially framed
:26:14. > :26:18.as a result of a very vigorous campaign of advertising by one
:26:18. > :26:23.company in the GM field, Monsanto. And this created a backlash against
:26:23. > :26:30.this rather brash American company that seemed to be taking over the
:26:30. > :26:35.world of agriculture and plant foods. The issues around
:26:35. > :26:40.environmental and human safety got caught up in that. But if you
:26:40. > :26:45.examine those issues, they were not dealt with in the sort of detail
:26:45. > :26:53.that one might expect, except to show that no GM products in the
:26:53. > :26:58.market has yet shown any negative impact effects. So even though GM
:26:58. > :27:05.food is now quotidian in the US, there is no evidence, you say, of
:27:05. > :27:11.any detrimental effect on Americans' health? Correct. The
:27:11. > :27:15.United States and South America, Canada and Mexico, that entire area
:27:15. > :27:21.has gone heavily over to GM products for the simple reason that
:27:21. > :27:28.those products are very efficient at producing good crops. You can
:27:28. > :27:33.produce resistance to disease. You can also produce resistance to
:27:33. > :27:39.drought and flooding. There are real advantages in this very
:27:39. > :27:46.refined technology. I would also point out that most of the soya
:27:46. > :27:51.that we can get in the world is now produced by GM techniques. It is
:27:51. > :27:59.difficult to buy soya anywhere in the world that has not got a large
:27:59. > :28:05.percentage of GM products Dinnet. - - in it. Rightly or wrongly, the
:28:05. > :28:08.other side of the argument won. Is it the blunt truth now that
:28:08. > :28:13.although we at one stage as a country were not at the cutting
:28:13. > :28:18.edge, but pretty well into the science, but we have fallen so far
:28:18. > :28:24.behind now that we will not catch up? There is a good argument to be
:28:24. > :28:29.made around that. Britain invented molecular biology. We were the
:28:29. > :28:32.leaders in this field. Two companies, Unilever and Astra
:28:32. > :28:37.Zeneca, invested heavily in second- generation products which would
:28:37. > :28:41.give health to people who ate them. All of that has been closed down.
:28:41. > :28:45.But that strength in the science base of molecular biology still
:28:45. > :28:50.exists. If there was a change in public opinion, I think the
:28:50. > :28:53.situation would change. The other factor that is important - while we
:28:53. > :28:57.can say that we know of no human being who has suffered from eating
:28:57. > :29:02.GM products, we know of many who have suffered from not having
:29:02. > :29:08.availability of GM products. I am referring largely to the developing
:29:08. > :29:13.world, where GM products could have met malnutrition problems that
:29:13. > :29:21.still massively exist, especially after 2007, with the big food price
:29:21. > :29:24.rises that have occurred. Now, the Speaker of the House of
:29:24. > :29:29.Commons has entered the row over a dozen fig trees which are being
:29:29. > :29:34.rented at an office block for MPs at a cost to the taxpayer of
:29:34. > :29:39.�30,000 a year. Writing in Westminster's House magazine, John
:29:39. > :29:42.Bercow declares that the contract to supply and maintain the trees in
:29:42. > :29:47.Portcullis House should be terminated as soon as possible. We
:29:47. > :29:51.wanted to speak to a correspondent live from Portcullis House, but the
:29:51. > :29:57.powers that be will not let us in because Parliament is not sitting
:29:57. > :30:01.today. And why should they? After all, it is only our Parliament. We
:30:01. > :30:05.paid for the building. This is a democracy. But we are not allowed
:30:05. > :30:09.it. Anyway, we probably cannot manoeuvre there because of the
:30:09. > :30:19.trees. But we are joined by Vicki Young on College Green. She has
:30:19. > :30:25.tons of room to manoeuvre. What is This does date back to when the
:30:25. > :30:29.building was put up. The fig trees cost �30,000 a year. The tax payer
:30:29. > :30:34.is renting them from a company which goes towards the upkeep. John
:30:34. > :30:39.Bercow is making it clear that the contract should be terminated as
:30:39. > :30:42.soon as possible. It is up for review in September. In the last
:30:42. > :30:46.hour, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has waded into the
:30:46. > :30:50.argument. He said it is right that the whole of the public sector
:30:50. > :30:54.should be looking at cutbacks and Parliament should be no different.
:30:54. > :30:57.There are issues, if you're going to get rid of them, they belong to
:30:57. > :31:01.this company, they would have to get them out of the building and
:31:01. > :31:04.someone said you would have to take the roof off of Portcullis House.
:31:05. > :31:09.But I think they will be going cheap and you could get one for
:31:09. > :31:14.your living room. I could do that, I would just have to put a hole in
:31:14. > :31:19.the ceiling of my living room! Can explain why these trees cost so
:31:19. > :31:23.much? We don't actually own them so the problem is this money is not
:31:23. > :31:28.going towards the taxpayer at the end of the day even owning them. It
:31:28. > :31:33.is some thing where people say it was signed off by officials many
:31:33. > :31:37.years ago. That will be the problem to get out of if it is a contract
:31:37. > :31:41.which cost more to get out of. It is up for review in September and
:31:41. > :31:47.John Bercow is strongly hinting that some changes will have to come
:31:47. > :31:51.about. And finally, will I understand the Speaker has some
:31:51. > :31:54.views on party conferences. What is he saying? He basically said that
:31:54. > :31:57.Parliament should be sitting in September and if the conferences
:31:57. > :32:01.are going on, they should be held over the weekend so they should
:32:01. > :32:05.start on a Friday and go on Saturday and Sunday. He says MPs
:32:05. > :32:09.should be working in their workplace in September which is
:32:09. > :32:13.what most people expect given that they go on their holidays in July.
:32:13. > :32:17.I do not think that will be popular. Particularly because the parties
:32:17. > :32:23.make a lot of money out of the conferences with the stalls and so
:32:23. > :32:28.one. We will have to see if that changes in the future. Thank you.
:32:28. > :32:32.People watching this must think, you rent fig trees? You rent a
:32:32. > :32:38.tree? Does anybody in the country do that except parliament and you
:32:39. > :32:43.rent it for 30,000 quid a year. Who is the landlord of these trees? I
:32:43. > :32:47.would like to get into this business. I do think Speaker per
:32:47. > :32:52.cow is in charge of the House of Commons and these views of
:32:52. > :32:57.annoyance, he was responsible for these -- this contract. Micheal
:32:58. > :33:05.Martin would have been speaker at the time, Portcullis House went up
:33:05. > :33:10.in 2001. As Speaker he is responsible for every conference --
:33:10. > :33:17.aim -- every contract. That idiot Micheal Martin was probably
:33:17. > :33:21.responsible. There was that huge hubris of the House of Commons as
:33:21. > :33:25.the political class that they regarded themselves above reproach,
:33:26. > :33:30.worthy of the best of everything. think it reminds us of an era when
:33:30. > :33:33.the taps were on and there was not a great deal of monitoring money
:33:33. > :33:38.which will spend. George Osborne has this lovely story that he
:33:38. > :33:42.decided he would say something like �5,000 by not having the designated
:33:42. > :33:46.Christmas tree in the Treasury and he went down the road and spent 20
:33:46. > :33:51.quid on a Christmas tree. The health and safety rules meant that
:33:51. > :33:56.only one person was in -- able to put the start on the top of the
:33:56. > :34:00.tree and that had to be the permanent secretary. Can I just
:34:00. > :34:09.point out that Speaker burka has spent several thousands of pounds
:34:09. > :34:15.of money on his portrait -- John Bercow. People have been able to
:34:15. > :34:20.see a picture of the Speaker. Maxwell famously half inched the
:34:20. > :34:29.wind from the House of Commons cellar. There are things the
:34:29. > :34:35.general public would be amazed at about. Portcullis House has a
:34:35. > :34:40.portrait of almost every third-rate politician. We may joke about the
:34:40. > :34:44.Speaker but one thing he is really doing is holding this executive to
:34:44. > :34:49.account. In this interview he said he made George Osborne answer
:34:49. > :34:52.questions for three hours because he was so angry with him for the
:34:52. > :34:56.way the Autumn Statement had been leaked out before. The excepted do
:34:56. > :35:00.not like it because he is making them be held to account. If anyone
:35:00. > :35:04.is interested in several fig trees, I would get your bid in now because
:35:04. > :35:09.I have a sense they will not be there for much longer. No one has
:35:09. > :35:12.any record of them producing figures but that is another matter.
:35:12. > :35:15.They have been lots of things happening this week but the only
:35:15. > :35:19.things MPs have been talking about is the rest of the MP for Falkirk,
:35:20. > :35:26.Eric Joyce, who is alleged to have started a bit of a fracas in House
:35:26. > :35:29.of Commons bar on Wednesday night. That is what happens when you
:35:29. > :35:32.subsidise cheap drink. You are watching pictures of Mr Joyce
:35:32. > :35:37.leading central London police station in a car late last night.
:35:37. > :35:41.He was charged in the end. No doubt our guests would like to talk about
:35:41. > :35:46.the alleged incident but first, let's take a look back over the
:35:46. > :35:53.last seven days of proper politics. Here is Max with the Week in 60
:35:53. > :36:02.Seconds. The week began badly for Andrew
:36:02. > :36:07.Lansley. Date you dare lie to me! Another battle, this one between
:36:07. > :36:11.the men who resigned for personal reasons as Liam Fox and David Laws
:36:11. > :36:15.disagreed about whether the low- paid or business should be the
:36:15. > :36:20.beneficiary of the Chancellor's largesse at next month's budget.
:36:20. > :36:24.Professor Les Ebdon is the new man charged with trying to make higher
:36:24. > :36:29.tuition fees at universities fairer. His appointment is seen as one up
:36:29. > :36:33.for the Lib Dems. RBS announced that it lost a
:36:33. > :36:37.further �2 billion last year. As yet, the money has not been found.
:36:37. > :36:42.Big losses in a very strange way are a sign of success.
:36:42. > :36:46.And finally, a girl from West Norwood with a lovely voice caught
:36:46. > :36:50.the attention of an ancient willow read baronet from Ealing. I shared
:36:50. > :36:58.her disappointment that her speech was cut short by what she called
:36:58. > :37:02.the suits. Now, he has been charged so my
:37:02. > :37:07.learned friends are telling me to be careful what we say but no one
:37:07. > :37:12.is talking about anything except Eric Joyce. They have been over the
:37:12. > :37:22.years plenty of fracas in the Strangers' Bar which is normally
:37:22. > :37:26.fairly quiet but this is something which by all accounts was a truly
:37:26. > :37:36.spectacular outburst. Five policemen carted him away. The
:37:36. > :37:36.
:37:36. > :37:40.broken windows. It is a magnificent mess. It is interesting that
:37:40. > :37:44.Parliament has really changed with the sitting hours. In the old days
:37:44. > :37:48.it would not start until after lunch and it would be going until
:37:48. > :37:51.10 o'clock at night and there would be votes and people would be
:37:51. > :37:55.drinking late at night. That has changed since parliament started
:37:55. > :38:00.sitting earlier. This has gone back to an era we thought we had moved
:38:00. > :38:05.on from. Eric Joyce is a decent man. I suspect he has got a problem and
:38:05. > :38:09.we should not really be... I think it is a very sad story. Lots of
:38:09. > :38:15.people get these sorts of problems. I'm not going to mention names, we
:38:15. > :38:19.know who they are but I think he needs help rather than... I agree.
:38:19. > :38:23.For Westminster is hopeless at noticing this. Indeed, it looks the
:38:23. > :38:27.other way and offers you another drink. Quite right.
:38:27. > :38:31.Andrew Lansley and the health reform, Peter, does the health
:38:31. > :38:36.reform get through in the end. It is back in the Lords where it seems
:38:36. > :38:39.to be ravaged by guerrilla warfare at every turn. Does it get through
:38:39. > :38:46.in the end bruised and battered and does Mr Lansley get through bruised
:38:46. > :38:49.and battered as well? I thinks so. At the end of the day, you can look
:38:49. > :38:53.at Andrew Lansley and I think he is a well-meaning man and I think he
:38:53. > :38:56.passionately cares for the health service. I think a lot of
:38:56. > :39:02.opposition comes from vested interests. The BMA is a vested
:39:02. > :39:07.interest of the worst kind. It opposed the original formation of
:39:07. > :39:11.the health service. I think Mr Lansley may well win three. His
:39:11. > :39:14.reforms are supported by the Labour Party. The Labour Party is
:39:14. > :39:18.opportunistically causing mischief but basically it supports bringing
:39:18. > :39:22.markets into the health service. You get the feeling that a lot of
:39:22. > :39:27.Tories, whatever their views on the reforms of health think we have got
:39:27. > :39:33.welfare to reform, education reform, deficit to cut, I wish we had never
:39:33. > :39:36.been down this road? Yes, they have mixed emotions. They are annoyed
:39:36. > :39:41.with the Liberal Democrats who signed up to the Bill eight days
:39:41. > :39:44.before it had its final reading. Nick Clegg described it as a fusion
:39:44. > :39:48.of Liberal Democrat and Conservative thinking. But on the
:39:48. > :39:51.other hand they are worried that if this Bill does become an Act of
:39:51. > :39:54.Parliament, three years before the general election, every single
:39:54. > :39:58.problem which happens in the NHS, and there will be problems because
:39:58. > :40:03.of the inevitable squeeze on spending and the ageing population,
:40:03. > :40:10.with every problem, Labour will say I know what caused that, this bill.
:40:10. > :40:13.It is the Greens' spring conference. They are in Liverpool. The Deputy
:40:13. > :40:18.Leader Adrian Ramsay joins us now. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:40:18. > :40:22.Thank you for joining us from our BBC offices up there. You must be
:40:22. > :40:25.very enthusiastic about the Government's economic policy. You
:40:25. > :40:29.do not believe in economic growth and that is precisely what the
:40:29. > :40:34.Government has achieved, no economic growth. You're at one with
:40:34. > :40:37.Mr Osborne? Far from it. The Government's policies are
:40:37. > :40:40.increasing the gap between rich and poor and what the Green Party is
:40:40. > :40:45.saying is we can and must be protecting the services that
:40:45. > :40:48.vulnerable people rely on. There is a �2 billion a year that we could
:40:48. > :40:52.be getting in if we clamp down on corporate tax avoidance, make
:40:52. > :40:55.people pay the taxes that I do and that is about the same amount of
:40:55. > :40:59.money that was taken out of public services in the deficit reduction
:40:59. > :41:02.last year. The Green Party is alone in politics in saying there is a
:41:02. > :41:08.different approach from the one the Government is taking in slashing
:41:08. > :41:12.and burning things. You say you want to allow negative growth to be
:41:12. > :41:17.feasible. Your leader, I'm not sure you call her the leader, Caroline
:41:17. > :41:21.Lucas has said economic growth is becoming an economic, you do not
:41:21. > :41:26.believe in growing our economy, do you? We are making a very serious
:41:26. > :41:29.point about how you measure success in the economy. If you make it
:41:29. > :41:34.clearly based on GDP, you're treating all economic activity as
:41:34. > :41:38.the same, whereas some like building a school a good, other
:41:39. > :41:42.economic activity like clearing up after a car crash is bad. Lots of
:41:42. > :41:46.economists are saying we need a far greater range of measures to see if
:41:46. > :41:50.our economy is successful. A far more sophisticated approach which
:41:50. > :41:54.looks at the level of inequality in our society, the impact of the
:41:54. > :41:57.Environment on health and well- being. Even David Cameron said he
:41:57. > :42:01.things well-being should be a measure of economic success. My
:42:01. > :42:05.question is what is the Government doing in taking on board advice to
:42:05. > :42:08.make that happen in practice. Their policy on cutting public services
:42:08. > :42:13.and building over the green belt and destroying public spaces is
:42:13. > :42:18.taking us in the wrong direction. Your policy statement also says
:42:18. > :42:23.there must be an optimum population for the UK, what is an optimum
:42:23. > :42:27.population? What we need to do is make sure that all our policies are
:42:27. > :42:32.about living in harmony with the planet and we need to have a debate
:42:32. > :42:37.about population levels and lots of respect. But what should be, what
:42:37. > :42:41.is an optimum population as I don't have those figures to hand myself.
:42:41. > :42:47.But your party policy says you need one and it must be introduced to
:42:47. > :42:52.the UK so what is it? It is one of the factors about living within the
:42:52. > :42:56.sustainable means of the planet. What is it? I cannot tell you of
:42:56. > :43:01.the top of my head. We need to make it easier Thrupp whole world, it is
:43:01. > :43:05.not just about population within the UK, but it is about the whole
:43:05. > :43:08.world. We need to make sure we are promoting birth control and women's
:43:08. > :43:12.writes in developing countries, we need to make sure we are reducing
:43:12. > :43:15.the gap between rich and poor globally, getting the food to where
:43:15. > :43:18.it needs to be, rather than countries exporting foods which
:43:18. > :43:23.they cannot afford to buy themselves, that we are taking
:43:23. > :43:27.seriously the fact that we need to feed the world. We need a very
:43:27. > :43:30.different economic policy if we are to do that. Thank you. Enjoy
:43:30. > :43:34.yourself in Liverpool. You may or may not know that the
:43:34. > :43:40.Tories are holding an away day today. I'm sure you did not know,
:43:40. > :43:44.why would you care? In leafy and I emphasise the word leafy,
:43:44. > :43:51.Portcullis House. Yes, that is right! The one with the expensive
:43:51. > :43:56.trees in it. Last night, they all went out for dinner, 300 of them.
:43:56. > :44:01.The mind boggles. 300 Tories at dinner in the same place. One of
:44:01. > :44:06.the MPs we spoke to could not remember where the dinner was held
:44:06. > :44:11.but he thought it was over the river and good fun. We tried to get
:44:12. > :44:16.hold of today's agenda but to no avail. We have made up our own.
:44:16. > :44:19.First, how to achieve the biggest U-turn since the poll tax and ditch
:44:19. > :44:24.the health bill. Next, how to make the Chancellor
:44:24. > :44:28.George Osborne a real Tory hero and deliver tax cuts in the Budget.
:44:28. > :44:31.And then be pressing question which always gets them going, should they
:44:31. > :44:36.be nice or nasty to our European neighbours.
:44:36. > :44:40.And then be difficult one, working out whether Nick Clegg is a goody
:44:40. > :44:44.or rave baddie. To answer all of these and more
:44:44. > :44:49.systemic questions, I'm joined by the Conservative MPs Matt Hancock
:44:49. > :44:54.and Peter Bone. Welcome to both of you. I remember you used to go away
:44:54. > :45:02.on away-days. Was it good for you? Was a lot of group hugs and paint
:45:02. > :45:11.balling? No. No group hubs but self deprecating humour was the key to
:45:11. > :45:15.it all -- group hugs. We talk about our coalition partners as well. In
:45:15. > :45:21.the sporting language that stop was there a lot of agreement in the
:45:22. > :45:27.wigwam of trust? It was the Portcullis House of trust today.
:45:27. > :45:31.What did you discuss? We are not going to go into what was in a
:45:32. > :45:36.private meeting but it was a bigger picture than the one you mentioned.
:45:36. > :45:42.It is about showing Conservative values in action. For instance, how
:45:42. > :45:48.to tackle Labour's something for nothing culture which a lot of our
:45:48. > :45:52.politics -- policies are aimed at. Why do need an awayday if you are
:45:52. > :46:02.doing that? We have got to come together from time to time. I'm
:46:02. > :46:03.
:46:03. > :46:07.sure you do it at the BBC. I tried Did you get an answer as to whether
:46:07. > :46:12.Nick Clegg is a goodie or a bad day? It came up, but I am not sure
:46:12. > :46:19.what the consensus of opinion was. What is your opinion? You know that
:46:19. > :46:22.I think the coalition is there for a purpose. But Nick Clegg?
:46:22. > :46:29.coalition should be got rid of. Nick Clegg has been brave in
:46:29. > :46:35.leading his party to oblivion. These two are telling us nothing.
:46:35. > :46:40.They are not telling us a lot, but I understand their predicament. The
:46:40. > :46:47.BBC is every bit as given to these self surging... I have never been
:46:48. > :46:51.to one. The Conservatives have made real progress. 15 years ago, when
:46:51. > :46:54.there was a Conservative awayday, it would be at an ancient Hotel in
:46:54. > :46:59.Eastbourne. And they would all be lined up in their embarrassing
:46:59. > :47:06.woollies. Look at Peter and Matt, beautifully turned out. The only
:47:06. > :47:11.person with a woolly is Peter. But where is Mrs Bone? The government
:47:11. > :47:16.is telling us that she is more on- message than you these days.
:47:16. > :47:21.was there in spirit. Last night, that was probably the view of our
:47:21. > :47:25.host, that Mrs Bone was more on- message than I sometimes am. What
:47:25. > :47:31.was the consensus on the Health Bill and Mr Langley? There is
:47:31. > :47:37.strong backing. There is strong backing for getting this bill
:47:37. > :47:44.through, because it will improve outcomes for patients and put power
:47:44. > :47:52.in the hands of doctors. By you have not convinced anybody. This is
:47:52. > :47:56.why there was strong support... We have strong support to get this
:47:56. > :48:01.bill through. But when you fought the election, the polls showed that
:48:01. > :48:05.on a matter of who you could trust with the NHS, you were on even
:48:05. > :48:09.Stevens with Labour. At one stage, you were even ahead. Now you are
:48:09. > :48:12.back to your historic gap. People trust Labour much more than the
:48:13. > :48:19.Conservatives on this, because of these reforms. Didn't you talk
:48:19. > :48:24.about that? The biggest cheer of the night and the most applause was
:48:24. > :48:28.for Andrew Lansley. But that was a sympathy gear. No, it wasn't. When
:48:29. > :48:33.you are trying to reform a state monopoly, you will get interested
:48:33. > :48:37.groups opposing it. It is clear that we are doing something in the
:48:37. > :48:41.interest of the patients. It is unpopular, so the idea that we just
:48:41. > :48:46.do popular things is nonsense. Didn't the three Cabinet ministers
:48:46. > :48:50.who had briefed Conservative home with their reservations, didn't
:48:50. > :48:58.they speak up? Or almost all of the Cabinet were there, and there was
:48:58. > :49:01.strong support. Andy polling is not conclusive on this. What matters is
:49:01. > :49:06.improving the health service, getting rid of a lot of the waste.
:49:06. > :49:10.It is conclusive that you have lost the trust of the people on the
:49:10. > :49:16.health service. If you want to look at polling, you should look at all
:49:16. > :49:19.polling. There are poles that say, or would you trust Labour any more?
:49:19. > :49:25.And they are level pegging. More importantly, it is about whether we
:49:25. > :49:29.are improving the NHS so that it is free at the point of use, and
:49:29. > :49:39.available to everybody. Can you give us any indication as a result
:49:39. > :49:40.
:49:40. > :49:45.of this awayday, which seems to just be an excuse for a dinner...
:49:45. > :49:48.Of a new direction you might be taking? Was there any concern
:49:49. > :49:52.expressed that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor listened too much
:49:52. > :50:01.to the Lib Dems and not enough to the people at this awayday? Are I
:50:01. > :50:04.do not think that was brought up. Why not? It is what you think.
:50:04. > :50:10.my table seemed to be an awful long way from where the Prime Minister
:50:10. > :50:13.was sitting. I wonder why. No idea. But we were talking about running
:50:13. > :50:20.the country, not the Liberals, because they are irrelevant.
:50:20. > :50:26.would not be in government without them. He said there was lots of
:50:26. > :50:30.talk about the Lib Dems. You should get your story straight. I did not
:50:30. > :50:35.say there was much talk about them. Maybe you should spend more time
:50:35. > :50:39.within the wigwam of trust. broader point is that the Liberal
:50:39. > :50:44.Democrats support the Government in doing what needs to be done in the
:50:44. > :50:52.national interest. A party believing in the national interest
:50:52. > :50:56.- it will never catch on. I think it was a waste of time. I suspect
:50:56. > :51:03.that there is a divide in the leadership between Cameron in
:51:03. > :51:08.particular and his troops. They feel neglected. But the love here
:51:08. > :51:12.between Peter and Matt does show that the mood is much less scratchy
:51:12. > :51:18.than at the end of last year, when there was real anger over the
:51:18. > :51:22.Europe vote. People like Peter were delighted when David Cameron will
:51:22. > :51:27.do that veto. That was the biggest cheer, actually. When it was
:51:27. > :51:32.mentioned about the veto, that was the biggest cheer of the awayday.
:51:32. > :51:42.Everybody in the room cheered the Prime Minister. The veto that he
:51:42. > :51:46.then reneged on? He then said yes. No, he didn't. Well, it allows me
:51:46. > :51:50.to say goodbye to itchy and scratchy. I have never been called
:51:50. > :51:53.Scratchy. I have called you It chief.
:51:53. > :52:03.Now for the most difficult question of the day other than which one is
:52:03. > :52:03.
:52:03. > :52:08.itchy and scratchy. Can any of you pronounce this? Neither can I. I
:52:08. > :52:12.can, but I am not trying it live on air. But I know a man who can.
:52:12. > :52:16.requirement not to be rude about judges only applies to judges in
:52:16. > :52:21.this country. It does not apply to judges in the European Union. So
:52:21. > :52:23.let me be rude about them. Let me indulge in the
:52:23. > :52:28.floccinaucinihilipilification of judges of the European Union. Let
:52:28. > :52:32.me quote from the Book of Amos about judges of the European Union.
:52:32. > :52:36.We know their manifold transgressions and our mighty sins.
:52:36. > :52:40.They afflict the just, they take a bribe, they turn aside the poor at
:52:40. > :52:44.the gate from their right. These are the judges of the European
:52:44. > :52:48.Union. Her Majesty's government is right to stand up to them. They do
:52:48. > :52:51.not deserve their money and it is iniquitous that they have allowed
:52:51. > :52:56.themselves to be judges in their own cause. It is a breach of
:52:56. > :52:59.justice and ought to be criminal. come Rees-Mogg in the House of
:52:59. > :53:04.Commons. That is the longest ever entry in Hansard, that word. For
:53:04. > :53:12.those of you who have no idea what Hansard is, here is Quentin Letts
:53:12. > :53:17.without to Z of Parliament. -- our to Z of Parliament.
:53:18. > :53:22.The letter H is for Hansard, available at 7:30am every day. This
:53:22. > :53:26.publication records what is said in the Houses of Parliament by our
:53:26. > :53:31.legislators. Parliamentary reporting only goes back to
:53:31. > :53:34.Napoleonic times, when William Cobbett, that terrific journalist,
:53:34. > :53:40.decided it was an outrage that the people did not know what went on in
:53:40. > :53:46.Parliament. He produced glorified histories of law-making in the
:53:46. > :53:50.British Isles. In 1811, he sold his interest to Thomas Curzon Hansard,
:53:50. > :53:55.son of the printer who served the House of Commons. Slowly, you get
:53:55. > :54:01.the arrival of verbatim reporting in the House of Commons. The people,
:54:01. > :54:05.at last, could find out how the laws were being reached at. Here we
:54:05. > :54:13.are in the parliamentary archives act room, with all the ancient
:54:13. > :54:18.statutes stacked up. This is vellum, animal skins. But if these are
:54:18. > :54:23.impressive, what about this? The Daily Hansard. Thousands of words,
:54:23. > :54:30.ensuring that we have an accurate verbatim report of what our
:54:30. > :54:34.legislators say. A pretty good. MPs have the ability to tidy up a bit
:54:34. > :54:38.of what they say. Some of their hesitations get taken out. On
:54:38. > :54:42.Prescott's words used to be given major surgery by Hansard. It does
:54:42. > :54:45.not always capture the full atmosphere of the House of Commons.
:54:45. > :54:51.When there is terrible raucous laughter, it just says laughter.
:54:51. > :54:55.When people are heckling, you just get "interruption". But this daily
:54:55. > :55:00.publication catches the arguments that are used in Parliament to
:55:00. > :55:05.produce these laws. It also catches ministers' answers. They can't
:55:05. > :55:09.wriggle off the hook after this. Hansard employs dozens of reporters
:55:09. > :55:13.and sub-editors with brilliant shorthand skills. You ought to see
:55:13. > :55:18.their fingers flying across the stenographer keyboards. They turn
:55:18. > :55:23.this thing around in record time. It is now online, too. At a time in
:55:23. > :55:32.our history when journalism has a slightly spotty reputation, the
:55:32. > :55:42.people from Hansard are keeping the side up. Well played, lads.
:55:42. > :55:47.Jacob Rees-Mogg is with us now. What does this would mean?
:55:47. > :55:52.habit of estimating that something is worthless. What was the word,
:55:52. > :55:57.remind me? Give me the Latin derivation -- the Latin derivation.
:55:57. > :56:05.I can't, not of hand. I don't always have to give the etymology
:56:05. > :56:11.of every word I use. It comes from a word meaning a piece of wall and
:56:11. > :56:17.a trifle and another word meaning nothing and another word meaning
:56:17. > :56:24.something insignificant. Everyone knows that. I could not give a
:56:24. > :56:29.straw. That is the literal interpretation. Why did you not use
:56:29. > :56:33.a small a word? I did not think of it. Floccinaucinihilipilification
:56:33. > :56:37.came to mind, as it does from time to time. But it often come to your
:56:37. > :56:43.mind? It is one of those words I have known since I was a schoolboy.
:56:43. > :56:48.When it comes to your mind, is their room for anything else?
:56:48. > :56:50.particularly pointing out that we wanted to indulge in the
:56:50. > :56:57.floccinaucinihilipilification of the European Court of Justice,
:56:57. > :57:02.which is the key point. The ECJ ruled to their own benefit that the
:57:02. > :57:06.pay rises of European officials had to go through, and that included
:57:06. > :57:11.their own pay. This is against one of the most important principles of
:57:11. > :57:17.justice that you should not be a judge in your own cause. Thankfully,
:57:17. > :57:24.using this odd word has got some attention to that tremendously
:57:24. > :57:29.important point of corruption in the law courts of Europe. You have
:57:29. > :57:33.made that point. The Big Issue I want to know - did the Hansard
:57:33. > :57:38.people have to ask you to spell it? No. And Saab are fantastic, as
:57:38. > :57:43.Quentin Letts was saying. They improve my speech. They take out
:57:43. > :57:48.the um-ing and ah-ing and make what one said make better sense.
:57:48. > :57:54.spoke at this Tory dinner last night. I did. It was just on the
:57:54. > :58:00.other side of Lambeth Bridge. Whereabouts? On the other side. The
:58:00. > :58:03.Plaza Hotel. You spoke as a new MP. What was your message? My message
:58:03. > :58:07.was that the Conservatives are wonderful and the Liberals are not
:58:07. > :58:12.as good. So it was controversial with the audience. It was a hard-
:58:12. > :58:16.hitting message. Do you expect promotion afterwards? I do not
:58:16. > :58:23.think so. Why aren't you in the government? Because I am a
:58:23. > :58:27.backbencher. I love representing the county of Somerset. How many
:58:27. > :58:37.more letters does your favourite word have an
:58:37. > :58:45.antidisestablishmentarianism? 1. Correct. He is good. I do not want
:58:45. > :58:49.to show off. We have now run out of time. We have used such big words.