29/02/2012 Daily Politics

Morning, folks. This is the Daily Politics. Is the Coalition

disintegrating before our very eyes? Or is it all political

posturing to save Nick Clegg's skin? It is said public spats over

health and House of Lords reform are fuelling mistrust between the

two Coalition parties. We'll be asking, can the coalition stay the

course? Employers are expected to urge the Government to alter its

work experience schemes after complaints that young people are

being exploited. It's a leap year, it's February 29th. Who will be

asking who the questions at PMQs? We'll have all the action at midday.

And, as part of its campaign against government cuts, one of

Britain's biggest unions calls for civil disobedience during the

Olympics. All that and more coming up in the next 90 minutes. With us

for the duration we've bagged ourselves a couple of cheap interns.

Signing up to the unpaid Daily Politics work experience programme

this week are Foreign Minister Jeremy Browne and Shadow Cabinet

Office Minister Michael Dugher. us then! You see we have not opted

out of any government work programme so far. But then we

haven't opted into anything either. And if you've been a tad confused

about the Government's different work programmes, don't worry. So

are we. The Employment Minister, Chris Grayling, is trying to put

people straight about the whole thing this morning. Representatives

from dozens of companies are meeting Mr Grayling to discuss

concerns about the schemes. Several firms have already withdrawn from

certain programmes after protests that unemployed young people are

being exploited. We are joined now by Michael Bradley, from Right to

Work, who has been campaigning against these schemes. Welcome to

the Daily Politics. Who pays your salary? I am paid by trade unions

and campaign groups, who give donations against the Right to Work

campaign. Are you a full-time employee of the Socialist Workers'

Party? I get money from them. Socialist Workers' Party, its

policy is against parliamentary democracy. Is that right? It is for

a revolutionary, Marxist overthrow of the Government? I would argue we

are for real democracy. Parliamentary democracy does not

represent people very well. believe in the revolutionary

overthrow of the British political system? I believe ordinary working

people should have the ability to control their lives. That is a

revolution you would like? The sort of thing that is going on in Egypt

at the moment. I do not think it went too well for you there. He

said, given you back rank, let me just get the right quote... Of he

who does not work does not eat? Probably Lenin. He would have

supported these work-experience schemes. There are 1 million

unemployed young people in this country at the moment. It took

protests outside McDonald's and Tesco's to have a serious debate.

The sort of thing we saw with claimant after claiming showing

letters they had received from the DWP to show these schemes are

corrosive. We need to have a serious debate. That is a serious

point. It took the protests to get this into the public debate. It was

not the Labour Party, nor the Lib Dems. It certainly was not the

Conservatives. It took the demonstrations. The scheme was

working. People were getting opportunities they would not

otherwise have got. It has not come into public debate in a way that

has worked well. It has made a number of big companies to have

second thoughts about Ted. I find this hugely frustrating. I spend a

lot of time in Asia as a Foreign Office minister. People are looking

for real opportunities in life. They are trying to establish

themselves in working life. These schemes are what young people need.

What a great opportunity to get work experience and no more about

it! What is wrong with it? Nothing wrong with training schemes and

work experience. Do not coerce people on to the schemes. Why can't

they receive a minimum age for doing a 30 L week? McDonald's has a

turnover of �15 billion. It is hoped this will lead to a job, at

least on a minimum wage or better. Companies like Tesco's have decided

they will allow a minimum wage. Despite government figures of 50%

success rate, there is no real evidence of this battle. The only

examples we have are the for 200 people who went on to the scheme

that Tesco and 300 you got a job. Everybody is in favour of training

schemes and work experience. Do not coerce people. What would be wrong

with a bit of coercion? These people are living on benefits that

the rest of the tax payers pay. Ed Miliband has said we cannot have a

something for nothing society. It has to be something for something.

What is wrong with saying, if you're taking benefits, we were not

take them away but we would like you to do some work experience. We

think that could lead to a job. are in favour of work experience.

The New Deal was a tougher scheme. The reason why it is really

important is it is not just about skills for work, it is about soft

skills - making sure that people are not losing the habit of getting

up in the morning and arriving at work. It has to be a proper pathway

to a real job. Labour keeps on saying mess. You cannot guarantee

that work experience will lead to a real job. You can say, if it gives

you some of the softer skills about the work force, then it will help

you. It is not an apprenticeship. What you can also do is make sure

there when people are on a placement, they are not locked in

for too long just doing the placement. They need time to do a

proper job search as well. cannot Micra manage that! You can.

You can have an agreement between the JobCentre, the job-seeker and

the employer. If someone still has time to look for a full-time job,

if they get offered a job they can come off the placement. No one

objects to any body campaigning. You do not just campaign or stand

outside shops you think are behaving badly over work experience.

You invade them. You tried to close them down. You break the law.

agree with the statement made by Len McCluskey. If working people

are not being represented by politicians, they should have the

right to take industrial action and they should have the right to civil

disobedience. Do you really think it's right? You have put forward

your case. You could stand outside McDonald's, Tesco's, or whichever

shop has attracted your ire and you could speak to people going in. You

could hand out leaflets. You could shout. You do not do that. You

intimidate people from going in. Correct? The LEA fitting process it,

putting placards outside, is what is going on. If there had not been

an occupation of Tesco's or McDonald's, we would not be sitting

around this table. The usual political discourse that should go

on in this country, those of ordinary people have been abandoned.

You think you are within your rights to disrupt trade and to

intimidate customers? intimidation at all has gone on.

There is long tradition in Britain dating back to the suffragettes and

so on. If politicians do not represent you, you have to take

industrial action or take action ourselves. Is this the start of a

revolutionary moment? It is a process in British society with

health, pensions and taxes, ordinary people were not take it

anymore. Britain's biggest union has threatened to disrupt the

London Olympics as part of its battle against cuts to public

sector pensions. Len McClusky, the General Secretary of Unite, urged

other unions opposed to the Coalition's pension plans and

austerity measures to also target the Olympics. He also called on the

public to back the unions by engaging in all forms of civil

disobedience within the law during the Games. Well, this is what the

Conservative Chairman, Baroness Warsi, said - that Len McCluskey's

comments were appalling. Comments like this have far reaching

ramifications, not just in relation to the culture they create in the

country at a time when the Olympics are on time and on budget and

everyone is preparing for this celebration. We do not want people

looking at Britain and thinking, well I be said? Will the service's

work? And to send out these messages in this year are deeply

irresponsible, hugely selfish. I am delighted that some members from

the Labour Party are beginning to come out and distance themselves. I

would like to see it Ed Miliband condemn these comments and distance

himself from them and ask Len McCluskey to retract them. Are you

distancing yourself from these comments? Last night, Tessa Jowell,

the shadow Olympics Minister, made the position absolutely clear. I

made a comment on Twitter this morning. Ed Miliband has made his

position clear, that it is totally unacceptable. Len McCluskey is the

General Secretary of Unite. The policies of Unite are up to the

union. As Jeremy Brown is implying, the financial links between Labour

and Unite are clear. They have the biggest financial backer. If you

think it is so disposal, get him to retract them. People like Jeremy

says we're in the pockets of the unions where we agree with them. We

have made it clear, we do not think it is acceptable. It is not in the

interests of Unite members. We are not going to cut links with people

who work the factory floors, work in hospitals. Kid you not say, we

are financed by the union but we do not agree with what it says?

will say that. Labour Party campaigns relied and healthily on

funding from the union. We have seen the Labour Party checked with

the unions before tabling amendments, questions in the House

of Commons to make sure that the unions approve of what Labour is

doing in the House of Commons. The idea that there is a distance

between the union that made Ed Miliband the leader of the Labour

Party and Ed Miliband being able to act freely from the union, no one

believes that. Donors do things that political parties do not like.

The Labour Party have vastly more money than the Liberal Democrats

because they get huge amounts of tied donations from the unions. It

comes with votes at Labour conferences, selection of the

Labour leader. There are tens of thousands of politicians around the

camp a -- country who have put themselves forward so to help with

the Olympic Games. The fact that Unite wants to sabotage the games,

along with the Labour Party... do not think you can say that.

have an honest relationship with a number of trade unions. I will not

apologise for the historic links of the Labour Party with working

people. It is an honest relationship. We can say, we do not

agree with you. It is not right for the country. Ed Miliband has made

that clear. We have made our position absolutely clear. What

will you do as a government with the disobedience and strikes?

will put contingency measures in place. A lot of people will have

cause for great alarm. We need to make sure they remain a celebration.

Millions of people want the Games to be a success. Now, the evenings

are getting lighter, the weather is getting warmer, spring is in the

air. So, it's time for the political party spring conferences!

Even I do not have to go to them. But, as the Conservatives meet this

weekend, and the Lib Dems get ready to assemble next weekend, the

tensions between the parties have once again risen. The last few

weeks have seen coalition waters get ever more choppy. Other parties

drifting apart? In the latest Lib Dem intervention on a Health Bill,

Nick Clegg wrote to MPs and peers of principle for more amendments.

He said we want to see changes made to the Bill. The official spokesman

of the Prime Minister said, we do not see any need for any further

significant changes to the Bill. Another story is the House of Lords

reform. It is a totemic Lib Dem policy. Over 80 Conservative

backbenchers will try to scupper the introduction of elected peers.

Lord Matthew Oakeshott said the Conservatives could kiss goodbye to

propose changes to constituency boundaries that could favour the

Conservatives. There are other clouds on the horizon. The

Government is calling for the European our Convention of Human

Rights to be rewritten. Many Lib Dems are happy with how it operates.

I am joined by Philip Davies and Andrew George. Should Nick Clegg

really be conducting, effectively, a campaign against government

legislation, when he is the Deputy Prime Minister in terms of writing

to Lib Dem peers and MPs about concessions under members to the

No, his responsibility is to support the Government. Those of us

who want to disagree we sit on the back benchers. -- backbenches. He

can't be part of the Government when he wants and part of the

opposition. Andrew George, isn't this all posturing? There are no

real concessions? This was to save his own skin? I think there have

been some important concessions. It's made the bill less bad, but

not good enough yet to pass. I disagree with Philip. I think one

of the great things about this being the first coalition in living

memory is that we are in unchartered waters and I think it's

great that we are having debates in open rather than behind closed

doors of the Cabinet and that in fact it enables the whole country

to take part in the kind of debates which really - that allow

Parliament to hold the Government to account. What happens to

collective responsibility then? Well, is that such an important

thing, or is it more important to make sure there is genuine debate

in the country and people can see the process by which political

decisions are taken? I don't think it damages the coalition or the

strength of the Government. I think the Government is doing a very good

job and I think it's doing a doubly good job because it's enabling open

debate. Collective responsibility isn't that important and on Lords

reform there are many who won't support those proposals? Well, yeah,

but we are backbenchers. We are not part of the Government. We are not

picking and choosing as a minister what we'll support and what we are

not. That is the job and that is what we intend. Rather than running

a Government within a government. How important is the reform?

not sure it's as important as some people make out and I think that,

my own personal opinion, is that we should approach the opinion of

Lords reform considering first what we want, if we want, a second

chamber. It's only after we have answered that question, what do we

need a second cham ber for, is it for -- chamber for, is it for

scrutiny, then in which case some of the options under the reform

proposals coming out of Government I think will actually cause debate

across the parties. Briefly, in the next election would you like to see

joint coalition candidates? Philip Davies? Absolutely not, no.

Gentlemen, thank you. Speaking of unsurprising stories, we just heard

two there. The Prime Minister has condemned Len McClusky now. That is

also filed under least surprising story of the day. We are joined by

let's call them the coalition eJanke lists. -- evangelist. The

Conservative MP, Nick Boles. I was trying to think of that American

movie, where there was the great evangelist there and he talked in

tongues. Held snakes. You've not done that. No. Let's see if we can

help you here. On this Health Bill now, with Nick Clegg and Shirley

Williams with this posturing letter, it's licence dissident isn't it?

think what British people want us to do is get on with the bill and

get it into law and get on the job of improving the NHS and dealing

with the big challenges that are coming up, integrating social care

and healthcare to make a real difference. It's licenced dissent,

isn't it? The House of Lords has to pass legislation and they are

entitled to put forward amendments and I think the Prime Minister's

made clear that so long as they are about clarifying the intent that is

already in there in the bill, not changing the fundamental measures,

then that is something - That's undergraded the role of competition.

We had the health minister telling Nick Robinson on the news last

night he's had a complete rethink about the role of competition. That

is not clarifying, but rewriting? It's not true. That's what he said.

It's always been clear that what works in competition and what works

with the reforms that the last Government brought in, was on fixed

price and the LSE did research and discovered that helps increase

standards. What doesn't work is competition on price. The original

draft of the bill perhaps wasn't as clear as it could have been on that.

What the Lords have done, they've made that clearer. We have accepted

it in the Commons. If they need slightly different language to make

it even clearer, than that won't cause any problem. Is there anyone

who wants to keep this on the road? The coalition is very important for

the national interest. This country is teetering on the brink of a

disaster. Many European countries have slipped over that brink. We

have not, because two parties came together to do some very difficult

things. One of the difficult things and you agree in principle, but the

coalition agreement doesn't lay down what the proposals would be,

House of Lords reform. How many Conservative backbenchers will

oppose the reform? I think there will be clearly some rebellions. I

don't think there will be so many that it threatens our majority. We

are hoping that the Labour Party will support the reforms, given

they have - Will they support Nick Clegg? Our manifesto commitment was

for 100% elected House of Lords. I think we need to reserve judgment

until we see what the proposals are from the Government. We don't know

what the Government proposals are. 80% over a period of time will be

elected and a chamber of 450. is a massive change. There are

different views. I know that. What about your views? We are saying

it's not unreasonable to wait until the Government puts the proposals

out there. Would you be in favour of an elected chamber in which -- a

second chamber in which 80% is elected? Our manifesto commitment.

Never mind that. I'm asking you. It's 100%. Your view? I'm saying

that my view is that we stood on a manifesto and some of us -

haven't made up your mind? Yes. are the Government. We'll wait to

see the proposals. Our manifesto is 100%. Depressing, isn't it? Not

even in favour of democracy. We'll let our viewers pick up on that.

Why not talk about your manifesto? It's such a reactionary party.

puttier manifesto in the bin and broke the promises. You had your

chance to answer the question. Let me ask you this - was it -- the

boundary changes that the Conservatives are keen on, was the

deal with the Lib Dems, was the AV referendum for the boundary changes

or is it the House of Lords for the boundary changes? I haven't been

involved in any deals. You are getting as bad as him. I support

the changes on their own merits. understand that. It's better to

have fewer MPs. You see, on the Sunday Politics, we had this debate

between Matthew Oakeshott and Philip Davies there and Matthew

Oakeshott said if you don't give us reform of the House of Lords we

won't give you the boundary changes. He speaks for himself. I understand

that. What I'm trying to ask was, what was the prid pro quo? I'm in

favour of AV referendum. Oh, no. listen. I'm in favour of AV and the

boundary changes and Lords reform and I voted for all three. There

was no deal. There is no trade-off. I support all three independently.

The Conservatives I have spoken to -- I just voted for what I believed

in. Some have thought that the boundary changes had been in return

for the AV referendum and you've had that. Is that true or not?

don't know whether they think that or not. I think it's the

understanding in the Parliamentary party, but we have a commitment in

the programme of Government for the coalition to bring forward a bill

on the House of Lords reform. We had a commitment in our manifesto,

as did the others, for a democratic chamber. It was not Lords reform,

so even if your party can't deliver Lords reform you still think you

should get the boundary changes? Yes, because as Jeremy said they

are independent in themselves. Matthew Oakeshott is a licenced

grenade thrower for the party. They don't make party policy. They are

out there to broaden the envelope of debate. I wasn't holding him up

as the font of all wisdom. opportunity -- there's only four

Prime Ministers alive and I had the opportunity to talk with John Major,

which was a privilege and I asked him about the coalition. He thought

it was the better than when he was Prime Minister. We'll leave it here

and move on. Gentlemen, thank you. We'll move on to something a little

lighter. Now, as it's the 29th February, I'm going to read the

next link. There's been uproar after it's been reported in the

Daily Mail that Woking Borough Council has spent �30,000 on

Diamond Jubilee mugs for all their primary schoolchildren, despite

being heavily in debt. Mugs indeed! Especially when all they really had

to do if they wanted a piece of high-class crockery, that could be

passed down from generation to generation to help remember a

golden age, was of course... Enter the Guess the Year competition.

Someone who I imagine will be quite cross to hear about this is the

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles. You may remember after we discussed

him last week, he tweeted this, "I claim my tag, cough up at AF Neil."

We are pretty strict about giving away mugs. You've all been warned,

but just this once. Eric Pickles we got your request, so I'm proud to

present you with a mug for your big lunch. I could not be happier. Let

us check where it is made. I hope it's a British mug. I could not be

happier! I regard this as the pinnical of political success!

said he couldn't get a mug unless he came on the programme.

Apparently I'm going to be reminding you how to enter, but

let's see if you can remember when this happened.

# Bad boys, stick together, never sad boys... #

# Give me your money just give me your money #. It's like toy money.

Not impressed. Too heavy in my purse.

# I hopped into my car... # MUSIC # What a feeling

# I can have it all, now I'm dancing for my life... #

# Gold, always believe in your soul # You've got the power to know... #

So, to be in with a chance of winning the mug send your answer to

our special quiz e-mail address: You can see all the conditions -

yawn, yawn - six committees have looked at it. Go to the website! It

will be up on the screen somewhere! 23 boxes have been ticked. Let's

move on. It's coming up to midday. We'll look at Big Ben. It's Prime

Minister's questions. There it is. That's not all. Nick is here after

his splin did interview last night with the health -- splendid

interview with the health last night. The competition -- the

Health Secretary last night. The competition will be there. All MPs

will have been told talking about Len McClusky as much and as often

as possible. It's a gift to the coalition. I think there will be a

contest between two stories. Maybe the gift that keeps on giving.

suspect it will. Len likes a turn of phrase. People tell us we

shouldn't be like Greece. What's wrong with Greece? The food is

great and the weather superb and they have general strikes. Len is a

man with a lively turn of phrase, but if you were sitting in Ed

Miliband's office at the moment you might think he would have thought

more carefully before opening his mouth. I watched the interview on

the news with the Health Secretary. He seemed to do and this might be a

slight exaggeration, but a U-turn in regard to competition, but just

as a viewer, watching him, he seemed to me to be - to say a

broken man would be an exaggeration, but he seemed subdued and exhausted

and how did I ever get into this? He's weary of it. There has been

more scrutiny for this bill. The number of days and amendments. It's

a record. They thought they were through and more amendments now.

The change on competition, be clear, is over years not days, weeks or

months. What he is saying when he became Shadow Health Secretary he

thought you could have competition on price and he was persuaded after

becoming Health Secretary that that was a bad idea and in theory at

least the competition is on quality only. We'll see if it is four times

According to Revenue and Customs, some families earning just 13,000

ear bullies over �1,000 a year in tax credits from April. -- a year

will lose over �1,000 a year. Did he mislead the public? What we have

done is increase tax credits for the lowest paid people in our

country. We have lifted over a million low-paid people out of

income tax altogether by raising the personal allowance. If he is

worried about taxation issues, he should have a word with Ken

Livingstone, and asked if he will pay his taxes. Many Irish people

were moved by what the Prime Minister said about Bloody Sunday.

Is it becoming increasingly clear that eurozone support for Ireland

is conditional on them saying less in their referendum? Will the Prime

Minister's support Ireland whatever it decides? We are certainly very

good friends of the Republic of Ireland and the people of the

Republic of Ireland. It is their choice to sign the treaty and their

choice to have a referendum on that treaty. People's views in a

referendum should be respected. Speaker, before turning to other

matters, does the Prime Minister agreed that the allegations by

Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Leveson Inquiry about

widespread corrupt behaviour at the heart of the pressure and police a

devastating and such behaviour can have no place in the national

institution of our country? Does he further agree that this underlines

the importance of the police inquiries which should get to the

bottom of the allegations without fear or favour and the Leveson

Inquiry itself? I completely agree with the right honourable gentleman

about this issue. There is all- party support for the Leveson

Inquiry, which needs to get on with its work which it is conducting in

a thorough way. Also proper support for the police inquiry. Of course

there is always a debate about what is right for newspapers to do to

get stories in the public interest but it is hard to think of any

circumstances in which it is right for police officers to take money.

Can I thank him for that answer? On the Leveson Inquiry, can I ask in

the weeks and months ahead to ensure that none of his senior

ministers do anything to undermine its work? Would he accept that the

Education Secretary was billed judge to say last week that the

inquiry is hoeing a chilling effect on freedom of expression? -- is

having. Will he disassociate himself with these colleagues and

urge his colleagues not to undermine the Leveson Inquiry?

answered this question last week. The Education Secretary, as the

rest of the Cabinet fully support the Leveson Inquiry. They wanted to

proceed with the very important work it does. That is the position

of the Education Secretary and the position of the entire government.

I do thank the Prime Minister for that answer. The Education

Secretary said the big picture is there is a chilling atmosphere

towards freedom of expression which emanates from the debate around

Levison. I hope the Education Secretary will have heard the words

of the Prime Minister of the start let me move on from one area where

I hope they can be cross-party agreement to an area where there is

not. On Sunday, the man who ran the NHS for six years, said about the

prime minister's bill, it is a mess. It is unnecessary. It misses the

point. It is confused and confusing and is setting the NHS back. Why

does the Prime Minister believes that with every week that goes by,

there are more damning indictments of the NHS bill? Let me make one

further point Macro about the Leveson Inquiry. What my right

honourable friend, the Education Secretary was saying, what is

important for all of us in this House to say, while these inquiries

are going on, I think it is important for politicians who come

on and benefit at times when the press is less hard-hitting than in

recent years, it is important for us to say we support a free,

vibrant, robust press. That is an important point and that is what he

is saying. Turning to the health reforms, the right honourable

gentleman did actually say something last week that I agreed

with. He said the NHS will have to change because of the rise of the

age of the population, to -- because of the rise in long-term

conditions and the rise in expectations and cost. He is right

it has to reform. The problem for the Labour Party is they are

against the money that needs to go into the NHS, which they say is

irresponsible. They supported competition and choice in the past

but they do not support it any more. Mr Speaker, he seems to have

forgotten the question I asked. It was about Nigel Crisp, who ran a

health service for six years. He was the chief executive of the

National Health Service. He says the bill is a mess and confusing.

Let me ask about somebody else who appeared on the Conservative

Party's platform of the spring conference in 2010. He hosted a

Health Secretary's health speech and he advised the Labour

government and he is a GP at the head of the clinical commissioning

group in Tower Hamlets. He said, we care deeply about the patients we

see every day. We believe the improver we all want to see in the

NHS can be achieved without the bureaucracy generated by this Bell.

They say no. This man is in charge of a clinical commissioning group.

Isn't it time you recognised he has lost the confidence even of the GPs

he says wants to be at the heart of his reform? There are 8200 GP

practices covering 95% of the country implementing the health

reforms. That is what they want to see happen. He asked me if I will

be sent to those people who run the NHS over the last decade. -- I will

listen. Let me give him a selection of people and what they think of

competition. Log das I said, the right competition for the right

reasons can drive us to do more. This is what John Hatton said. They

do not want to listen to Labour ministers! Competition can make the

NHS more equitable. That is the view of a Labour Secretary of State.

What about an adviser to the last government whose specific date

looked at competition. He said, the measure the effects of competition

have not been trivial. The introduction of competition within

the NHS could be credited with saving hundreds of lives. The truth

is, he does not want to listen to past Labour ministers because he is

taking a totally opportunistic position in opposition to their

spell. -- this Bill. The reason we think that 95% of GPs are now

having to implement part of these changes is that he has imposed them.

One doctor the text -- addresses this in the last line of his letter.

He says, your government has interpreted our commitment to

patients and support for the bill. It is not. 98% of the Royal College

of GPs oppose the bill. I have to say, it is hard to keep track of

opposition to this Bill. In the last seven days alone, the Royal

College of Physicians have caught their first emergency general

meeting in their history about the Bill. He has lost the support of

the British Geriatrics Society and the Royal College of paediatrics

and Child Health. Every week that goes by, more and more health care

organisations come out against this Bill. Can the Prime Minister gives

that has a list of significant health organisations who are still

wholehearted supporters of the Bill? He specifically said... It

this is important. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.

Let's hear the answer. He said that 98% of GPs oppose the reforms.

was the figure. Beth we give him the actual figures. There are

44,000 members of the Royal College of GPs. Out of a total of 44,000,

just 7% responded opposing the Bill. 7%! What about the Royal College of

physiotherapists? 50,000 were College of physiotherapists, 2%.

2%! I know that is enough for the unions to elect to leader of the

Labour Party but that is about as far as it will go. Mr Speaker...

They are obviously well trained today, Mr Speaker. Let me tell them,

their support for the Health Bill is digging their own burial at the

next general election. Now, I did ask him a specific question. I know

by now he does not like to answer the questions. I asked him a simple

point, who supports this Bill? No answer came from this Prime

Minister. Let me refresh his memory as to who opposes the Bill. There

is no need for the Deputy Prime Minister to be smacking. He

supports the Bill. He supports it, Mr Speaker. There is firm

leadership for you. Mr Speaker, let me refresh his memory as to those

who want the Bill withdrawn. The Royal College of GPs, the Royal

College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal

College of radiologists, the Faculty of Public Health, the

Chartered Society of physiotherapists, the Community

Practitioners and Health Visitors Association and the Patients'

Association. Mr Speaker, doesn't it ever occurred to him... Mr Speaker,

doesn't it ever occurred to him but just maybe they are right and he is

wrong? -- that just may be. didn't mention the National

Association of primary care, the Association of Chief executives and

voluntary organisations supporting the Bill, the foundation trusts

network supporting the bill. Lord Darzai, Labour minister. For weeks

in a row of the NHS questions but not a single question of substance

- not one. All about process -- process and politics. We all know

it is leap year. Maybe just this once and get to ask the question.

We all know what he is against but what is he for? Thank you Mr

Speaker. In my area, there are plans for 120 metre high wind

turbine is between the beautiful villages just than a mile apart.

Does the Prime Minister agree that such giant turbine should not be

built so close to residential areas without local people having a say?

We do want to see a balanced energy policy. There are two changes we

are making which will be welcomed. We are cutting the subsidy to

onshore wind. It has been over subsidised and wasteful of public

money. When the localism at fully comes into place, it will give

local communities a greater say over issues like wind turbines. We

try to do that earlier by abolishing the regional special

strategies the last government put into place. We lost back case in

the court and we need the localism act to come into force. The Prime

Minister answered the question to might honourable member for

Hammersmith with a little more abuse than we wanted. Does he

recognise there are 200 couples in his own constituency who will lose

working tax credit, possibly to the level of �3,800 or more? Can he say

how would he answer those couples We have had to take difficult

decisions because of the deficit. In taking those we have protected

the poorest families by increasing the child tax credit. We have also

held the poorest, who are in work, by lifting one million people out

of income tax. The question is back to Labour. You left us with this

mess. What would you do about it? This summer, in my constituency as

Gloucester, as everywhere around the country, people will be looking

forward to the start of the Olympic Games in our country. A great

opportunity to celebrate ow well the UK manages the great global

events, but not everybody sees it as that sort of an opportunity. The

General Secretary of Unite sees it as an opportunity for a general

strike. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that nothing could be

further from the spirit of the Olympics? Nothing could do more

damage to the reputation of our country? Thank you. I think my

honourable friend speaks for the whole country when he says what the

General Secretary said "I'm calling upon the general public to engage

in civil disobedience." Let's remember, it's the biggest, single

donor to the party opposite, providing around one third of their

money and had more role than anybody else in putting the right

honourable gentleman in his place. It's not good for them just to put

out a tweet. They need to condemn this utterly and start helping.

top-down re-organisation of the NHS, no reduction in front-line police

officers, and no cuts to tax credits for low-income families.

Why does the Prime Minister find it so hard to keep his promises to the

British public? We promised to increase spending on the NHS. We

are boosting spending. We promised the cancer drugs fund and it's

10,000 people who have had extra drugs through the fund. We promised

to have doctors growing faster than the number of brewer cats and since

the election the number -- bureaucrats and since the election

the number is up. That's what coalition policies are doing for

the Health Service. Will the Prime Minister close the loophole for

multi-national companies that allows the migrant cap to be

flouted using Inter company transfers, or is this another

policy that would fall victim to the curse of Nick Clegg? I think on

this one my honourable friend is being unfair. We do have a tough

migrant cap for migrant workers. Business said how important it was

to have intercompany transfers, but only at relatively high salary

levels. That is what we have put in place. I think that demonstrates

that over time we'll be able to both control immigration, but do so

in a way that doesn't damage business. We now know that the

Government was made aware of fraud allegations at A4E before the Prime

Minister appointed that company's chairman as his family Czar. As the

Prime Minister is in danger of requiring a reputation for ill-

judged personal appointments, bill he tell the House what independent

checks he believes should be carried out before such

appointments are made and whether any were carried out in respect of

Emma Harrison? Let me be absolutely clear. I was not aware of any

allegations of irregularities when she became an adviser to the

Government on troubled families. At the time she was appointed there

were no formal investigations into A4E, just the company's own probe

into irregularities. I do think this issue needs to be properly

dealt with. I'm concerned that subsequent to her appointment

information needed to be passed up the line more rapid l to ministers.

I've asked the Cabinet Secretary -- rapidly to ministers. I've asked

the Cabinet Secretary to look into it. He perhaps might want to put

into his question that Emma Harrison was given a CBE by the

last Government. Of course, all of the allegations that are being made

are all intercontracts that the Government handed out. A little

more transparency about that might be a good thing. Will the Prime

Minister join me in paying tribute to the courage of Paul Conroy who

was injured showing the world the horrors of the Syrian regime and

thanking all those who helped to secure his safe possessage to

Lebanon? I certainly join the honourable lady. It is very

important, the role that the media do in being in very difficult

places, like in Homs, in Syria, to brick the truth and news to the

world -- bring the truth and news to the world. That is what Paul

Conroy was doing. I pay tribute to him and above all pay tribute to

the very brave people who helped to get him out of Syria, many of whom

have paid an incredibly high price. I can tell the House that Paul

Conroy is now safe. He's been in our embassy in Beirut in Lebanon.

He's been properly looked after and I'm sure that soon he will want to

come home. Last October the Chancellor announced a new policy

called credit easing. Can he tell us how many businesses have been

helped? The Chancellor said at the time of the statement that the

policy would be in place at the time of the Budget that is what

will happen. THE SPEAKER: Order: Thank you, Mr Speaker. High streets

across the country, including those in low soft in my constituentcy,

are facing tough trading conditions at present, including the prospect

of a 5.6% increase in business rates. Can the Prime Minister

outline what the Government are doing to support traders, to enable

hem to grow their businesses and to create jobs? I think the honourable

gentleman is right to raise this. There are real concerns about the

hollowing out of some of the high streets and number of empty

properties. What we have done is doubled small business rate relieve

schemes and that has helped an estimated 330,000 small firms and

removing legal red tape requiring rate payers to fill in paperwork to

claim that relief, which Labour refused to do in office. Also,

working with Mary Portas, we have a whole plan to try to help the high

street, and it is vital for towns and cities across the country.

Prime Minister may have seen the headlines in the newspapers today

that the happiest people live in Northern Ireland? As the major

party of Government for the last five years, we in the DUP are not

surprised by that. One thing that overshadows that happiness of

course is the high and escalating price of petrol and diesel, which

is the highest, not only in the United Kingdom, but the highest in

the European Union. Can the Prime Minister bring happiness to all

parts of the United Kingdom by agreeing to do away with the August

fuel tax rise and reduce fuel allowances as soon as possible?

delighted to hear that the people of Northern Ireland are the

happiest in the United Kingdom. I have to say that their

representatives in this House don't always give that impression! Maybe

I've been missing something! We recognise that families and

businesses are continuing to feel the pressure from very high prices.

We cut fuel duty and scrapped the automatic stabiliser. That has made

prices six pence lower than they would have been under previous

plans, but clearly we are impacted here by the high oil price. This

week the Government took tough action on unacceptable tax

avoidance. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the principle of

paying a fair share of tax should apply to both banks and former

mayors of London? I think he makes an important point, whether it is

Barclays bank or frankly it is Ken Livingstone, people should pay the

proper amount of tax and I hope that HMRC will look carefully at

all these cases. Frankly, for Londoners, many of whom live in

Labour-controlled areas, with high Labour council taxes, will be

pretty angry about what they have seen and probably say that Red Ken

has been caught red-handed. The IFS has reported that the Government's

tax and benefit changes will hit families with children five times

higher than those without. Is this what the Prime Minister means by

the most family friendly Government ever? Is it fair or is it just

another broken promise? What this Government has done is increase tax

credits for the least-well-paid to lift people out of tax and

introduce free nursery care for two, three and four-year-olds and expand

for those families. All those things have made a difference.

Incidentally, she didn't mention she is sponsored by the Unite union

and she could have taken this opportunity to condemn their leader.

Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Order. Let's here Mr Metcalfe. Since it

broke over working -- work experience, has the Prime Minister

had any businesses and/or organisations come forward to

support this very important and publicly popular initiative that

will help young people get the skills they need to get into work?

I think my honourable friend is entirely right. The whole country

wants to see more young people given the opportunity that work

experience provides. The good news is since this row has been going on

in the pages of our newspapers, we have actually had expressions of

interest from 200 small and medium- sized employers who want to get

involved in this programme. I think it's time for businesses in Britain

and for everyone in Britain who wants to see people have work

experience stand up against the Trotskyites of the Right to Work

campaign and recognise the deafening silence from the party

opposite. Happily, Mr Speaker, I am able to welcome the Prime

Minister's commitment to the reform of the European Convention on Human

Rights and the powers of the European Court on human rights.

Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to allow this House a

proper debate whenever the declaration is published? Will he

ensure that once again the principle of subsiduary is

respected and the British courts have a proper say on what goes on

in this country? I do want to see it get a fairer hearing. That is

what was contained in the speech I made at the Council of Europe,

about the reform of the court. So it doesn't become a court of the

fourth instance, so someone has been in front of a local court, the

Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and then to the ECHR. We have

do have proposals for reform. Clearly, what is debated in this

House we now have the backbench committee that has a large number

of days in this House and perhaps they will give over time - not

enough I hear - they've got more than enough and they can make over

a day for that. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best

ways to deliver on our commitment to the fairness agenda is to go

ahead as quickly as possible in implementing the coalition

agreement to raise the tax threshold to �10,000? What the

coalition agreement commitments us to is real increases in that

threshold. We have achieved that in budgets over the last two years. In

spite of the difficult conditions we face in the economy. I do think

it's a good idea to lift people out of tax. It particularly helps low-

paid people and low-paid women. MoD is buying tankers from South

Korea, when the work could be done here. The MoD says and I quote, "It

will not consider wider employment industrial and economic factors in

procurement." Why wouldn't this complacent Prime Minister stand up

for world-class British industry? do stand up for world-class British

industry. As I said, when I travel the globe I'm happy to have Rolls-

Royce on an aeroplane with me. It's just a pity when I do so I get

attacked by the Labour Party. the Prime Minister aware of the

tragic death of my constituent, Penny Heggarty? Her husband

believes that his wife's death is just one example of cyst stemmic

management failures of the local NHS Trust? Will the Prime Minister

assure him and other constituents that recent work to improve the

management will continue and that this Trust will be turned around?

can certainly give that assurance. Firstly, I'm sure the whole House

will want to send the deepest condolences of the family. I know

my friend the Minister of State for health has het local MPs. Clearly,

patients have got the right to expect far better standards of care.

I know that the CQC and Monitor have raised concerns about

standards at the Trust. As he says, it is being turned around, but that

work needs to be undertaken with all speed.... Bedroom tax as

grossly unfair and shows the UK Government simply failing to listen

to the voice of reason put forward by housing professionals, social

landlords and individuals. Does the Prime Minister accept that widows

and widowers, left in the family home can lose up to 25% of their

housing benefit support if he continues with this? Is it just

he's unfeeling or just determined to get his way? The Irish ewe is

this - we need to reform housing benefit. If we hadn't done anything

about it it was expected to cost over �24 billion a year. As his own

welfare spokesman, the member for Birmingham said, they would

scarcely believe it is could costing the UK that much. That is

too high. I'm getting slightly frustrated with the statements in

principle of reform. They said they are in favour of a benefit cap, but

they vote against it. They say they are in favour of welfare reform,

they oppose it. They recognise housing benefit's out of control,

but every attempt to deal with it, they frustrate it. On this Leap Day

when men throughout the country will be nervously hoping that their

girlfriends might make a commitment to them, can I ask the Prime

Minister to give romance a nudge and to remind us and to confirm

with us that the reforms through the welfare system will always,

always support hard-working families? I was wondering where she

was going with that for one moment or two. She is absolutely right. It

is a Leap Year, where all things can happen. The absolute thing is

both through the tax system and welfare system, we should encourage

families to come together and stay together and celebrate commitment.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the entry clearance office in Abu

Dhabi has rejected an application by Mrs Makood John to come from

Pakistan to attend her granddaughter's wedding in

Manchester? Would he specify what kind of employment a 72-year-old

woman who does not speak English and has never left Pakistan is

liable to be obtaining in my constituency, where unemployment is

10.6%? Will he overrule this mad decision and allow her the

opportunity to attend her granddaughter's wedding? If the

Home Secretary has said - SPEAKER: I'm sure you are bringing

this to an end. You have been very lucid. I'm bringing this to an end.

If the Home Secretary has whispered to him that she can appeal, the

wedding is on 2nd April and the appeal procedure is too slow to

make that possible! To answer the question, I wasn't aware of the

individual case. There are hundreds of thousands of people who travel

between Pakistan and Britain every year. We do have to have tough

controls to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, but I would

suggest that he takes up the case individually with the immigration

minister, who has a superb grip on these issues and will be able to

give him some satisfaction. Under Tony Blair's regime we could sleep

safely at night, because we knew Lord Prescott could take over if

Tony Blair is incapacitated. What would happen if the Prime Minister

is so? I've been waiting for some time, because I know that my

honourable friend has asked this question to almost every single

Cabinet minister, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who I think

replied that he seemed to have a more bid fascination with the end

of the leader of the party. All I can say is, I have no plans to be

incapacitated. Further to the question - to the answer that the

Prime Minister gave to my friend on the Leveson Inquiry, he's obviously

that we need -- absolutely right that we need a free press. But they

will not thank him if he goes along with the chairman of the PCC in his

proposal to use the defamation bill to legislate for a new system. That

bill is coming forward in September. This would preement -- pre-empt the

Leveson Inquiry. I've absolutely no intention of pre-empting the

inquiry in anyway at all. I think if we look back to the debate we

had, both the leader of the Labour Party and I said it was important

to trust Leveson to get on with the job to give every single that we

want -- signal to be able to adopt what is recommended. I think there

is an understanding, but given that there is that understanding, I

repeat, it's important that honourable members on all sides

stress the importance of a free press in the health of our

democracy. Hard-working families in my constituency are absolutely

surprised that a benefit cap for some �26,000 is being opposed by

the party opposite. Will my right honourable friend agree with me, we

will always make work pay and provide benefits for those unable

to work? I'm delighted that he caught your eye, because today is

the day that the welfare bill becomes an Act. For the first time

we will have a proper cap on welfare, supported by this side.

Opposed by that side, but backed by the overwhelming majority of people

Picking up on some remarks the Education Secretary made about

saying how Levison was intimidating proper journalism. We moved on for

the 4th week in a road to health. A lot of bounding back and forth as

to who supports and does not support the Bill. This is what you

thought? Or those points were reflected. Ed Miliband totally

mastered David Cameron for the 4th successive week. The Prime Minister

quote 8000 GP practices in favour of his attempt to privatise the NHS.

This is less than 20%. There are 40,000 practices in the country.

Just rights, the real problem is that all sides are twisting facts

to support themselves. No one is offering proper proof as to whether

the bill is good on not. Ed Miliband was elected as a civil

libertarian. We have seen attacks on the Government. We see him today

eight leading an attack on Michael Gove and compressed freedom. Alan

is saying, Ed Miliband is becoming a one-trick pony. He has found the

only thing he thinks he can make headway on - that being house.

on the logistics, but what is the timetable for the Health Bill?

are waiting to see if the House of Lords will reach the amendments

tonight. This is what the Liberal Democrats have asked full. It is

not sure if they will be reached tonight. If there was a big defeat,

and it would have to be a big one, one that the gunmen want to take

back to the House of Commons to reverse, we would have to take it

right back. If the guerrilla warfare continues but does not blow

the built in an important part, when do we expect this to finish

its parliamentary Jenny and get the Royal Assent? Essentially, this

week and next week but the end of the process provided the Government

does not suffer a major defeat. Prime Minister could not say what

the members the Government would table in response to the pressure

from Nick Clegg. Some are uncontroversial and have been

agreed. There is a dispute from lawyers. Department of Health

lawyers say it is not. Shirley Williams is pushing to say surely

there is somewhere we can give ourselves protection. At this stage,

we cannot be sure whether the detail is enough to win over the

sceptics in the House of Lords. Shirley Williams is in her 50th yet

of active politics. People are dancing to the tune of Baroness

Williams. If she is on side, Liberal Democrat peers will go with

her. If she is not on side, Nick Clegg will lose the vote at his own

party conference. She has enormous power. They must be dancing in the

aisles on the Tory backbenches. is an interesting theme. Ed

Miliband has talked about health for for month -- for weeks running.

We had the phrase, cursive Clegg, we had Peter Bone, who usually

makes a joke about his wife. This week he said, what happened if the

Prime Minister is incapacitated? What Nick Clegg become acting Prime

Minister? What is the constitutional answer to that?

theory, there was always a debate about whether Margaret Beckett for

the acting Prime Minister. She was Acting Leader of the Labour Party

for a period. It is effectively up to the Cabinet to agree who they

regard as their leader and therefore the Prime Minister. Nick

Clegg would be unlikely to get the accent, and less it was for a day

or two. It is interesting that is not clear. If, God forbid, there

should be a terrible terrorist attack on the Prime Minister and we

should lose our Prime Minister, in the United States it is quite clear

what would happen. It was less clear when Ronald Reagan was shot.

In the French and German constitution's it is quite clear

what happens. We do not know what would happen. Isn't that dangerous?

Nick Clegg said, the convention is that the Cabinet would elect the

person they regarded to be acting Prime Minister. What if the Cabinet

could not meet? After 9/11, the Cabinet could not meet in the

United States. Nick Clegg is quite skilful in as. When terrible

unemployment figures come at, Cameron 12... Nick Clegg will be

the Deputy Prime Minister. I am trying to discuss the serious issue

of succession in the event of a major national tragedy. You went on

to Party politics. I guess I should move on. There is a procedure for

who take certain decisions. I was talking to a very senior civil

servant the other day about the fact, there was a scene in the last

episode of Spooks. It was the decision of a minister about

shooting down a plane. Civil servants trained ministers for the

tension of that sort of situation. Could you make that decision?

Although there is a theoretical chain of hierarchy, the Prime

Minister, Defence Secretary, Home Secretary, after the tests it is

found that certain people would be unavailable on the phone. They were

not all that good in a dry run. the United States it is clear that

only the President could take that decision. In the aftermath of 9/11,

the President was not available. It became a real issue. If another jet

approaches New York, Washington, could we shoot it down? Dick Cheney

was incapacitated. Who could take that decision? They are big issues

that matter in extra mess. Let's move armfuls DUP the Tory Party

would want William Hague to do it. -- let's move on. We did not mean

to talk about this. In America and France, you were talking about the

succession of the head of state. I think the Deputy Prime Minister

deputises for the Prime Minister, as the name would suggest. In time

you would expect the leader to be from the larger of the two parties

in the coalition. How would you sum up the condition of the coalition?

Pretty good. We are governing effectively in the national

interest. We have a huge economic clout that is hanging over as the

start we have a problem with our deficit. -- over us. Some people

come together in the national interest. Do you think it would

survive the duration until 2015? read lots of newspaper columns St

it might last a few months and then collapse. Some said it would

collapse in 2011. Some said it would collapse in 2012. Now it says

it would collapse in 2013. I will list some commentators if you like.

The Telegraph, the Spectator, the recent Spectator. There are a lot

of people who have a vested interest in the coalition failing.

No party won the last general election. The two parties have come

together to govern in the national interest. We do not agree on

everything. According to Reuters, the Industry Minister of Argentina

has said it is time the country stopped importing UK goods in

protest at Britain's position on the Falkland Isles. What is your

response to that? I want us to have cordial relations with Argentina. I

do not want there to be a tit for tat on-trade. Anyone in a

supermarket can see Argentinian wine on the shelves. Many people

enjoy buying that. It would be unfortunate if we got into that

situation. Do you have your headline for tonight? William Hague

is going to be the next acting Prime Minister. We worked it out,

didn't we? Should we have an English parliament? It is not top

of everyone's agenda, apart from the English Democrats. He ate his

Robin Tilbrook. -- here is. Back in 1998, Labour began the process of

devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since then, the

only part of the United Kingdom not to have its own voice is England.

Opinion polling now shows that we English are increasingly conscious

of being English. Overwhelmingly, we are looking for an All-England

solution to the unfairness is of devolution. I say that means an

English parliament. Colchester was once the capital of the Roman

province of Britain. This is the Roman wall and legend has it this

is the very spot on which the Civil War cannon, known as hunted empty,

had its great fall. The Government has now set up a modern Humpty damp

tea in the shape of its West Lothian coalition. It intends they

will propose and -- ate vote of English votes for English lords.

The fall of English votes for English laws will leave only two

workable constitutional options. Either an English parliament and

government within the federal UK or independence for England. If the

British Unionist establishment does not soon respond to growing English

resentment, then the window of opportunity for a federal United

Kingdom will close. The only option would beat independence for England.

If that happens, then the United Kingdom would be as dead as the

die-hard royalist officers who were shot on this spot in 1648 by a

firing squad of English Colchester is the fabled come lot

of King Arthur and may have been where the original round table was.

I say that England now needs a real round table, around which to build

a consensus on England's future. Just like the Scots did with their

Scottish constitutional convention. The key to that convention was the

Scottish claim of right, whichage knowledged the sovereign will of

the Scottish people. I agree with that principle. We need to apply it

to England. The people of England are the sovereign to any English

Democrat. Robin is with us now. Has the publicity surrounding Scottish

independence helped your cause? think it has. I think it's focused

people's attention on the fact that England's left out of the current

devolution settlement. Do you think that will increase over - if it

goes on for two years, that campaign, there will be more focus

and you'll exploit that, if you like? Yes. We wouldn't say exploit,

because what we have been campaigning about this is what we

want, ten years ago. We are finding that people are more aware of the

issues, they've woken up to the fact that there is that difference.

For instance, last year, we had the whole business of tuition fees and

that is coming into effect now. People are aware that Scotland is

still free and not in England. Some will be required to pay �9,000 a

year here. You have said in your film the research by the think-tank

IPPR and people are feeling perhaps for the reasons you've laid out,

being English, but it's not the same as wanting to advocate for an

English Parliament? I think that's right, but you have to bear in mind

we are a relatively small party and very little resources apart from

what we put into it ourselves and what we are arguing is a big issue,

with the establishment parties having had much more ability to

argue it and more access to the media. I think what is happening as

people become aware of the issue, people are becoming more and more

that they want something done. necessarily as far as an English

Parliament. For instance, the West Lothian question and the Commission

has been set up to look at that, would that not be enough to address

that issue of Scottish MPs are voting on matters that don't effect

their constituents? It's quite an interesting reflection on the way

the Commission has been set up. Firstly, if you look at the

membership of the Commission, hardly any of them could be

characterised as being English. The terms of reference of the

Commission itself, it doesn't mention England. By calling it the

West Lothian question you are trying to disguise the fact it's

actually an English question being looked at, not some sort of

Scottish question. Well, Michael Dugher, do you think the wishes, as

Robin said, people want something done, though they are not sure what.

The issued are missed, looking at this is the wrong angel and lots of

people have written in regard -- angle and lots of people have

written in about being concerned in England. There are issues in terms

of English identity and I think it's income bent on all the

mainstream parties to engage with those legitimate concerns and

grievances. In terms of the English Democrats, I'm in Barnsley. We have

a Labour-led council which is doing very well. The neighbouring council

is run by an English Democrat mayor and he's a basket case as a -- and

it's a basket case as a local authority. There is a seriousness

to this. You have to be careful what you vote for. Because the

Labour councillors on the council are making it so. They've been

causing difficulties for many years. Some of them went to prison in

Donnagate and we have a mayoral system in place. Is it an issue we

don't want to look at? Or is this something that is simmering?

think it's a legitimate issue and it's a good subject to discuss. The

problem the United Kingdom has is there is such a balance, 84% of

people live in England. I don't think there is a big appetite for a

whole parallel English Parliament, but whether we can look at trying

to get the system to work better so it recognises all four component

parts of the country, that is a good debate to have. Thank you. If

Scotland goes for devo -max then it can't be ignored. We move on,

because we are very international. Apparently he's the bookies'

favourite to be the next President of France. He's in town meeting Ed

Miliband and Mr Miliband won't be the only person Francois Hollande

will want to shmooze. What Ireland the UK and Latvia all have in

common, they are one constituency with a seat in the National

Assembly of France. The seat of deputy for northern Europe is up

for grabs in June for the first time and any French citizens living

in the ten countries are able to vote. Some of you are thinking,

good Lord, was Joan of Arc not a sign and Waterloo and Trafalgar not

enough? London a constituency in the French National Assembly you'll

be telling me they are selling bri, in there next. Throwing that aside,

this is probably why the French presidential election candidate,

Francois Hollande is in town. He would like them on board, because

there are more French living in London than there are in Lille or

Bordeaux or Strasbourg. That's important because London's home to

half the French in this new constituency. Or maybe Francois

Hollande wanted to meet Ed Miliband and as he is, but not the Prime

Minister. Where does Nicolas Sarkozy first come? Yep, the UK.

Perhaps for his rival it seems the UK is an easy does it. He's a man,

not a woman! We have Agnes Poirier. He always marks our cards on such

matters. London, as it was in the last elections, is a big part of

the campaign. Has there been much campaigning? Here. I wouldn't know,

because I vote in France. I love the pilgrimage. You just came to

see us? I'm based here. Do you know about the candidates? Yes.

women? Does the National Front have a candidate too? I don't think so.

They probably wouldn't get many votes in London. I know of the two

candidates, but it's not only for London. It's for the ten countries.

It's Britain by which we mean largely the London area, indeed

central London, Ireland, Scandinavia and the Baltic states,

but the overwhelming number are based in London? Yes. It's one seat

for northern Europe. Covering half a million people? Yep. Explain why

Francois Hollande policy of the top rate of tax of 75% would attract

French Londoners who fled France because of the high rate of tax?

did surprise quite a few people when he said everyone who earns

more than 1 million euro a year will be taxed 75%. He did create a

surprise there. Ecalled it the patriotism tax, so we'll see.

you are so that you are up the road to Geneva, Monaco and London. It's

all good news for London? All the well-educated civilised French

people will pour into our capital city? Look, you know, with the

recession you might come to such a decision too. It is quite daring to

say we'll tax the rich by 75%. I just point out, minister, that

the socialist Francois Hollande is only proposing this for 150,000

euros or 45%, which in practice is 7% less than your coalition

Government pree sides over? Bishop presides over? Do you like that.

The Budget next month and subconstituent ones will address

all tax issues. Agnes, I smts that Nicolas Sarkozy is narrowing the

gap with Francois Hollande -- notice that Nicolas Sarkozy is

narrowing the gap with Francois Hollande, with the Le Pen vote?

They has led a robust and even vicious campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy,

in the sense that he's extremely critical and he has asked former

enemies from his own party to come and - It's still all to play for?

It's extremely open. Again, you have got Le Pen and another man.

75% from Labour? I don't think so. I got an answer there. I'll quit

while I'm ahead. Come back and see us. You are our election

correspondent. That's it. Thanks to all the guests. The answer to Guess

the Year was 1983. We'll pick the winner tomorrow. So many of you