30/10/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

President Obama declares Hurricane Sandy a major disaster in what

could be America's costliest natural disaster, ever. We have got

a latest. With a backbench rebellion on the

cards over the EU's budget, David Cameron has another foe to contend

with. Yes, Tony Blair's back and he wants to be president - of Europe.

Would it be a good idea? Can small farmers survive higher

production costs? We'll talk to Lib Dem President,

Tim Farron. And should MPs expect to be served

wine of hotel or private members' club standard? Or make do with

supermarket plonk? Wine critic, Jilly Goolden, and Labour MP,

Austin Mitchell, take the Daily Politics taste test.

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is

the broadcaster, publisher and former Conservative candidate, Iain

Dale. Now, America has been waking up to the damage caused overnight

by Hurricane Sandy, one of the biggest storms ever to hit the US.

At least 16 people are thought to have died and more than 16 million

people are without power across America and Canada, and President

Obama has declared a major disaster in New York where fires have broken

out and a power sub-station has exploded. They're calling Sandy a

'superstorm' and it's predicted it could cause up to $20 billion in

damage, making it one of the costliest natural disasters in US

history. Campaigning ahead of next week's presidential election has

been suspended and there have been reports this morning that the vote

could be delayed. Here's what President Barack Obama had to say

yesterday. I am not worried at this point

about the election, I am worried about the families and worried

about first responders, the impact on the economy, transportation. The

election will take care of itself next week. Right now, my No 1

priority is to make sure we are saving lives, and search and rescue

teams will be in place and people will get the food, water and

shelter they need in case of emergency. We will respond as

quickly as possible to get the economy back on track.

Iain Dale, he says the election it will take care of itself, but will

it? He is concentrating on people who have been affected, and sadly

died. But its power is still down next week, can the voting go ahead?

I suspect there will be one or two buildings are they might have to

change, but I think this is an interesting opportunity for Barack

Obama. He has got everything to gain by having a strong response to

this crisis, in contrast to that of George Bush a few years ago.

could fall into that trap of George Bush? Mitt Romney cannot win on

this, he cannot do anything and be shown to be a man of action, Barack

Obama can. During the debates, Mitt Romney has come back into the game.

In the polls, there is little to put between them? There is only 10

Swing State that matter. Ohio is the main one. I don't think that

has been affected by the storms. The reaction from the people of

Ohio will be interesting and I think Barack Obama has been getting

stronger verb. It does not matter what the rest of the country thinks,

it is what these tend Swing State think. The moment they will be

focusing on the emergency and the response.

Now it's time for our Daily Quiz. The question for today is: The

authorities at Westminster want to raise �3 million from commercial

activities on the Parliamentary estate. So what new ideas are they

considering? Are they thinking of: Turning the speaker's residence

into a luxury boutique hotel? Hiring out Big Ben as a Hollywood

film set? Trebling the cost of food in the

canteens? Offering a romantic dinner for two

over the despatch box? David Cameron and Nick Clegg could

be serving up the food. At the end of the show, Iain will

give us the correct answer. Now yesterday, Tony Blair, said

something in Berlin which might either set your heart beating a

little faster or cast you into a deep depression, depending on your

view. So what's he suggesting? Tony Blair wants voters across Europe to

elect a new president of the EU in order to increase its democratic

legitimacy. In a speech in Berlin yesterday, Mr Blair warned that

people across the EU will become alienated unless reforms are made.

He said; "A Europe-wide election for the presidency is the most

direct way to involve the public". Three years ago the EU created a

new position - president of the European Council, with Tony Blair's

name briefly in the frame for the new post. The job spec includes

chairing regular meetings of European Heads of State and helping

to set the general political direction and priorities of the EU.

But Tony Blair didn't get enough support and this man, the former

Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy, got the plumb job instead.

Now Mr Blair says either that job or the post of President of the

European Commission, currently held by Spaniard, Jose Manuel Barroso,

should be directly elected by voters across the European Union.

That's led to plenty of speculation that Tony still fancies a big Euro

job. And we've been here before. Let's have a look at the then

Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in the House of Commons in

2008. He's imagining the response of the then Prime Minister, Gordon

Brown, to the appointment of President Blair.

We can all picture the scene after a European Council sometime next

year. Picture the face of our poor Prime Minister, as the name of Tony

Blair is placed in nomination after one Prime Minister after another.

The look of gloom on his face. The nauseating prose oozing from every

Government. The rapid revelation of a majority view agreed behind

closed doors when he was excluded. Never will he regret a more no

longer being in possession of a veto. The famous dropped jaw almost

hitting the table as he realises there is no option but to join in

and the awful moment when the motorcade of the President of

Europe sweeps into Downing Street. The gritted teeth and bitten nails,

the Prime Minister emerging from his door with a smile of

intolerable anguish. The choking sensation as the words, Mr

President of forced out of him. And then, once in the Cabinet Room, the

melodrama of when we you hand over to me, all over again. Hilarity in

the House of Commons. We're joined now by Jacob Rees-Mogg,

he's a Conservative MP who sits on the European Scrutiny Committee,

and by Roger Liddle, who speaks for Labour on Europe in the Lords and

used to be Europe advisor to Tony Blair. Why is it a good idea?

Because we need a Democratic breakthrough in Europe. People

complain about the Commission being unaccountable and remote. They

complain of Brussels institutions are a long way away. We need some

way of making Europe accountable for what it does. Tony is right,

the way to do that is have a direct election for the President. Would

you support him for the role? not likely to happen before the

earliest, 2020. Could you imagine him doing it? I think he would beat

brilliant at it, yes. I don't think he Best it is the reason he is

proposing it. Because it is the right thing for Europe, given the

problem of accountability, given Europe needs to integrate more.

Isn't that the problem? If there were presidential elections, if

there were rallies in all 27 countries, can you imagine it,

setting people's hearts aflutter and thinking you could believe in

it? What is the turnout in Parliamentary elections? I think

25%. It is because people do not see Europe as a country to which

they are loyal, to which they have feelings which make democracy work,

to which they have a patriotic urge. They do for elections in the United

Kingdom. It is crucially important. You would have a situation where

the votes of other Europeans would decide how the United Kingdom was

governed. It would give it an appearance of legitimacy, but it

wouldn't be legitimate for the British people. They would want to

govern themselves. It is a cover, rather than a reality. Until we

have a feeling across Europe, we are one people, which is much

further off than 2020, having a Democratic system, it won't have

any validity. What would you say to a person, even if you could

directly elect them, wouldn't give people the feeling they are in a

federal set-up? I do believe loyalties will remain for a long

time to the nation-state. I am not disputing that. But I do think this

proposal for an election of the President would and live in

European politics. It is part of a view of politics which is different

to the kind of what I would describe as, the old fashioned

Westminster model due, that Jacob has. What I want to see is more

democracy at all kinds of different levels. European level and local

level. I don't think Westminster is the only game in town. The

traditional members of Parliament who have spent all their time

trying to get there, thing Westminster is the only game in

town. Let's go to the French view this work -- perspective. We have a

French journalist now, would it excite people in France if there

was a sort of a new European President? What is interesting, it

we don't talk about it in France. But the topic comes back very

regularly in the UK where it seems to be a titillating question. We're

talking about more democracy in Europe. Of course, we are all a

were we need more democracy. But, if we are talking about an EU

President is because we need charisma. We already have a

President of the Commission. you saying the present one is not a

charismatic? I am very pro-European, but no, he does not have charisma.

It is interesting Tony Blair is coming up. If he could, he could

apply to the Bank of France, he is a candidate for everything. Do you

think he would get support in France? I think, what would an EU

President do? He would be a symbol, he would be an Honorary President.

What we need is a great historian, perhaps. I would love to have seen

the Polish historian doing the job, except he is dead. Perhaps in

Britain, George Steiner who is an extraordinary European, educated in

France, worked in the US and is a professor in Cambridge. I can think

of many great men and women. We need a symbol and charisma, rather

than another politician in Brussels. This is the idea to replace all

have one of the Rolls elected, who would you vote for, put forward if

the role came up? By don't want the role to exist and if it did, I

don't want the United Kingdom to be part of it. The hammer-and-sickle

has just come up on top of its new flag. And not sure I want much of

these European singlets -- symbols. Do you agree, saying it might make

Britain's more interested in Europe? It is a preposterous idea.

Tony Blair is putting the cart before the horse. There is not

political union. The job only has importance if there is political

union. Down the road, the eurozone might come together, it would be

logical to have fiscal union and and political union. We should have

no part of that. But if they want Tony Blair, they can have him.

they need to solve the problems now? Of course they need to solve

the problems. A lot of decisions are taken in Brussels, trade

relations with the rest of the world are done through the EU and

not through the member states. Competition policy, the single

market. Could I say, this is not just Tony Blair's idea. One of the

key supporters of this is the German Christian Democrat Union,

Angela Merkel's party. The strongest and most important party

in the European Union. Conservatives here have said

Britain shouldn't be part of it even if there is a close

integration or a two track Europe. They should recreate the post of

Holy Roman Emperor and give it to the Queen and everybody would be

happy. If it did come about, you get a feeling it would be ex-prime

ministers and presidents who would end up applying. We could see

Sergio Berlusconi, Jacques Chirac. How much credibility? Police

commissioners as failed politicians are applying for the job. Give it

to Victor Hugo. It is interesting, we're talking about this in Britain

and only in Britain, because I think Britain has the policy about

Europe is totally in a mess. then is it being talked about here,

bearing in mind you would argue the centre of gravity has moved to a

Euro sceptic views. A lot of people would support that. Why is that

idea coming from here, even though you mentioned about the Christian

Democrat party in Germany, we don't hear a big surge of support for

Tony Blair is 58. He clearly thinks he has another big job in him. If

there were a President of Europe, even though I do not support his

policies, he would be good at it. If you want somebody who is

charismatic, why not Tony Blair? Why not Boris Johnson? Key while

being cynical. These jobs exist. -- you are being cynical. They are

important jobs affecting daily lives. They affect the daily lives

of people in Britain. Who would have appointed Herman Van Rompuy

over Tony Blair? Could we get somebody a better quality?

could not get anybody who is worse. While it do we not just fire one

and save the money? There is a case for merging the jobs but they are

powerful jobs. The point of the debate is to make them

democratically accountable. You are staying with us and coming back at

the end of the show. Thanks. We have mentioned one money-spinning

scheme dreamt up by the Parliamentary authorities. This is

another. To save cash, officials to compile Hansard, the transcription

of everything said in a House of Commons and House of Lords, that

they will no longer give away hardback copies. It will save �1

million a year. Some MPs are unhappy, including Jacob. This is

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 50 seconds

Quentin Letts to explain. He we are in the Parliamentary

archives with all the ancient statutes stacked up. This is animal

skin. If these are impressive, what about this little job? The Daily

Hansard, thousands of words ensuring we have an accurate,

verbatim report of what our legislators say. Pretty good. MPs

have the ability to tidy up a little bit of what they say. Some

of their hesitations get taken out. John Prescott's words used to be

given major surgery by Hansard. It does not capture the atmosphere of

the Commons. When people give Russia's laughter, it just says

"laughter". But these daily publications capture the arguments

to reduce these laws. It catches ministers' answers. They cannot get

off the hook after this. Hansard employers dozens of reporters and

sub-editors with brilliant shorthand skills. You should seek

their fingers flying across this tomography keyboards. They turn

this round in record time, and it is online. The and people from

Hansard are really keeping the side up. Well played, lads. Jacob Rees-

Mogg is still with us and is one of 90 MPs who still receive

traditional hardback volumes of Hansard. Important to have that

accurate transcript of what is said in a House of Commons, but do you

have to have it in his very heavy hardback copy? You don't have to,

and I will be sorry to see it go. Is it essential to our democracy?

Probably not. The Hansard reporters turned every day, into silk purses.

They are amazing. It is a record that can be kept permanently rather

than a temporary entry on the internet. I will be sorry to lose

it. You don't think it will save as much as a million pounds? All the

work is done, the Hansard reporters of her. It is put into order daily

so that is done. It is updated weekly -- weekly to make any minor

corrections. It is just a bit of cloth binding and printing. It is

hard to believe each one of those Orleans cost �350. This is

expensive to publish? The retail price is �105. As a publisher, I

can tell you the cost of producing these, a normal hardback book, �20

and the Prince cost is probably a couple of pounds. That is because

they are mass-produced. These, several hundred copies, less than a

1000. You have a gold leaf on the front. They are fine looking. I

have a collection going back to 1945. Where do you put them? They

are in a garage in Essex. I'm waiting for the day I own a country

home! I got given them by NOP, they used to send them to every MP

whether they wanted them or not. He gave them to me because he never

looked at them. How often do you pick up your leather-bound Hansard?

They are not leather-bound. OK, the hardback poppy -- cocky Qamar how

often do pick it up and refer to it? I like looking through and

seeing what people had to save. Seeing if there are things that I

can repeat. You could do it if it was the paper bound? The difficulty

is, you would have to bind them together yourself. On the they are

all on the internet now, so it is no problem. It is harder to flick

through the internet. By am in favour of books. It is good for

looking at something specific when you are not sure of that date. But

it is not so good for flicking through a general discussion.

won't be running a campaign? but I will make a contribution

towards them. If you pick up any random volume and open a random

page, there is some interesting stuff in there but not worth �1

million a year. In the months since the Government

launched a consultation into how gay civil marriage might be

introduced into law, there has been deep disquiet on back benches and

grassroots in the Conservative Party. At first opponents seemed to

tackle the idea on moral grounds but now many are suggesting there

is a broader and more dangerous strategy point for the Prime

Minister personally. Giles has been looking at whether the gay marriage

policy might get jilted at the altar after all.

Indeed a year since the civil partnership Act, over 50,000 gay

couples have celebrated a public declaration of their commitment.

Many of them, for the sake of convenience, or refer to themselves

as married and refer to each other as husbands or wives. But they are

not. The Government wants to change that and allow gay marriage. It is

a change the PM has backed. I don't support gay marriage in spite of

being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a

Conservative. But there has been significant opposition, which has

seen a coalition Government face down by a coalition for marriage,

who say it was not in either party's manifestos, has not been

asked for, is now widely supported and politically upsets many

grassroots Conservatives. They rare thing about this particular

political argument is, the argument for gay marriage and the argument

against it, is essentially the same. That if the laws and protections

provided by a civil partnerships are essentially the same as those

provided the marriage, those in favour say, what is the difference,

why make a fuss? Those again say, why do you need it? It comes down

to the definition of one word. Those against who gathered at this

party conference dislike redefining marriage. To them it is between a

man and woman. It is fair to say Conservatives on both sides wish it

had not been raised in the face of bigger priorities, but those who

think dropping it will give third opponents the nasty party label.

The and those against say even gay and lesbian couples in polling

distrust the Prime Minister's motives. Fewer than half thing Mr

Cameron is sincere in his commitment to gay and lesbian

rights. They think he is playing politics with marriage. We think he

is playing politics with marriage. A lot of people think he will say

anything to get a vote. On an issue like gay marriage, I think he stood

up and is taking a risk, and I think a lot of people who may not

agree with him on the substance of the issue of gay marriage. If he

fights for this and keeps saying he believes in it because it is right,

it is a quality and encouraging gay people into relationships which

rewards stability. I think a lot of people, not necessarily sympathetic

to his position will admire David Cameron more at the end of that.

declared, because he believed in it he was going to introduce same-sex

marriage. And to rub salt into the wound on the day the consultation

ended, Mr Cameron said the will of the Government will prevail. Not

one response has been opened. the Prime Minister jilt the policy,

be forced apart by grassroots disapproval? Can he tell the

doubters this is not a marriage of $:/STARTFEED. David Cameron said of

marriage it is something I feel passionate about and if it is good

enough for straight people like me, it is good enough for anybody.

agree. Once we have left the ECHR. But David Cameron is promising

guarantees and saying that religious freedom will be protected.

Because there doesn't have to be religious marriage He can't deliver

that. We have pressure groups and individual MPs who are saying the

first vicar or ministers to refuse to marry a gay couple, will be

straight to the European courts. Once we leave the European courts,

I think it is right if a couple want to be together, the community

and their family, they have a right to marriage. Why did you say...

while religious freedom is compromised You said gay marriage

is for the metropolitan elite. support gay marriage, I was at

Iain's civil part sip. Not a gay marriage. I would like to see Iain

and John marry if they want to. But there smub, Parliament does not

reflect the view of the peoples. I think gay marriage is it. If the

public want it, we should deliver it. I want it. But I'm not sure the

public do. The polls show they do. If the show that, fine. I will give

you a personal experience. I have entertained in my own home almost

200 of my activists and there are about five who supported it. The

polls may show people support it. You say Conservative grass roots

don't. No. I think David Cameron is taking us into a lot of trouble as

a party. Why did the Labour Party not do this? Sometimes in politics,

politicians have to lead public opinion. You're telling me that?

Indeed. That is what David Cameron is doing. I think you miswhrauns

the Government want to do. It is not about religion o' is --

religious freedom. David Cameron said there would be no on tkwaigs

for any -- obligation on any religious organisation to do.

cannot deliver that. The first vicar who refuses to marraway gay

couple. Churches won't be allowed to do it. Even those who want to do

it. Let's move.... Ed Miliband has muddyed the water, because he said

he thinks that churches should be allowed to if they want to. That is

hen your point about the court of human rights comes in. But the

legislation will prohibit churches from carrying out gay marriages.

But the point about constituent and Conservative grass roots, what

Nadine is saying and the reason some people think David Cameron

didn't make as big an issue is because it is divisive for

Conservatives. Do you accept that? Nadine might be right in her party,

I would like to think that is not reflected across the country. I was

the first gay candidate to tell the selection committee I was gay and I

got a 66% endorsement. There were people there that were unhappy

about having a gay candidate. I think I won them around. Hang on a

second. In some areas there is still a lot of work to do on

thisish yuerbgs not just with Conservative activists, you could

go into constituency Labour Party and have the same issue. This is

something where the three party broadly agree. There are some

people who disagree for religious reasons. I respect that. What is

good for straight people is good for gay people. How diadviceive

would bit would there be -- devicive would it be for your party.

Some of the people who said that were parents of children who were

gay. And who embrace the notion of their children being in a civil

partnership, but it is, people do for their religious aspect don't

agree. Four million Christians said they would no longer vote

Conservative. If you believe everyone who says I will never vote

for a political party again because of one issue. Do people say they

will because of it It carries the same weight. People vote on a

number of issues. If David Cameron leaves gay marriage as his legacy

as Prime Minister, that will be... He will have done a great job.

will be hard for Conservative core voters to vote. He has made an

issue of it and if he doesn't stick to it, he will lose more

credibility. That is his choice. If David Cameron continues, maybe he

will be seen as something who drivers his point home, but it will

be the wrong point and will have lost us votes. You said you were in

favour of gay marriage. personally am but I'm not

personally in fave of alienating our entire Conservative vote.

is a simple thing you can say to people who are against gay marriage,

if you have a problem wit, don't marraway homosexual. Do you not

believe in freedom. I believe compromising the opinions of one

group is not right. It is no compromising any religious views.

We know what the consultation says. You have not seen the bill. You

don't know what is in it. It is hypeth thetical to say churches

If you believe in it, shouldn't you lead your constituency? I hope it

is going to be a free vote issue. It is. I think Ed Miliband is going

to represent his. I think it should be a free vote. I am going to stop

it there. You can kiss and make up after the programme. Ministers have

said that 100,000 ash trees have been destroyed to try to prevent

the spread of the deadly chalara fraxinea fungus. A ban on the

import of ash trees came into force on Monday and an expert tree

disease taskforce has been established. But in the Commons

yesterday, Labour accused the government of being asleep on the

job and failing to act quickly enough.

And we are taking the threat posed by Chalara fraxinea, or ash dieback,

C Risley. We have imposed a temporary ban on imports and

restrictions of moments of ash trees in consultation with industry

and pursed risk assessment. The band will be affected before the

start of the main UK planting season. Preceding this ban, the

Horticultural Traders Association urged members to follow a voluntary

moratorium throughout this period, which has been well observed.

risk facing the UK from ash dieback is apparent. Experts fear it is the

biggest threat to British treasons 25 million trees were killed by

Dutch elm disease 30 years ago. It is disappointing the Secretary of

State announced a ban in Staffordshire instead of in person

to this house. We welcome the ban, but the question is, why did it

take so long? Ash dieback was found last February in Buckinghamshire.

Why did ministers sit back, cross their fingers and wait until the

disease was found in the wild in June? Why did the Horticultural

Traders Association act before the Government? Why did they

consultation on an import ban on Ashe starts only on 31st August.

is the disease was intercepted there has been monitoring, tracing

forward movements from plans from infected nurseries and inspecting

trees in the The City of infective sides to ascertain whether disease

and may be present in the wider environment. It is an enormous task

and involves over 1000 sites. It is ongoing. It is as a consequence of

that the 100,000 trees that have been destroyed have had to be taken

now. This episode is a terrible indictment of the Government, but

also of the opposition. De Horticultural Traders Association

warned about this disease in 2009, so neither of you houses have

worked hard enough and fast enough. Will the Minister reverse the trend

of vipers and cuts he is making to the Forestry Commission so we have

the resources to tackle this problem properly? She is not

correct in what she said. I have already explained at the sequence

of events and I have explained we have not in any way reduce the

resources available to plant health Susana Mendonca has more on this,

let's join her now outside Parliament. As we will hearing,

this Chalara fraxinea, or ash dieback has the potential impact of

being devastating on our ash tree population in the UK. In Denmark,

90% of ash trees have been destroyed. Labour don't think the

Government has been going far enough. I'm joined by the shadow

environment secretary and the Conservative MP for Hexham. Mary,

you were saying you do not think the Government has gone far enough.

They have banned the import of these ash trees and are cutting

down the effect of ones, is that not enough? We welcome the ban, but

why did it take ministers so long to act? This was found in a nursery

in Buckinghamshire in February. At the Horticultural Traders

Association implemented their own voluntary ban before the Government

had started consultation. They waited until it was found in the

wild in June and brought the ban in yesterday. It is too little too

late and another sign of incompetence we are used to from

this Government. What do you make of that, that the Government was

sleeping on this and should have acted sooner? She would say that.

We visited 1000 sites in the last eight months and cuts down 100,000

trees and destroyed them. It is significant. You have to consult

with the businesses he will be involved in importing and the

Government has done that consultation, and then banned all

importations. That cannot happen overnight. There is also the

problem of it not just being the importation, it is something that

can be airborne. You look at examples in East Anglia and there

is evidence it is an airborne transfer from the Continent on

ongoing basis. We cannot do anything about that. This is also

something that has baffled and obstructed repeated countries over

the last 10 years, because it has been going for more than 10 years.

There are other countries being affected by this, Denmark and is

this something wider than just what the Government can do? Absolutely

not. My have asked the minister to publish the scientific evidence to

show it is airborne. When ministers and MPs say it is airborne, they

are creating cover for themselves as an excuse for inaction. There is

evidence. And there is no evidence, I have had spoken to scientists

over the weekend. It can be brought in either on birds or on people's

jackets. The country was disease free last autumn and scientists

were on the alert. And the trees scientists have had their budget

cuts from 10 million down to seven. We heard David Heath saying it is

not the case, in terms of research there has not been a cut that has

led to this. Is this just about politics? David said about the cut

to plant health, but he did not respond to my challenge about

Forest Research reduced from 12 million down to 7 million. Also

seven offices have closed and people have been laid off.

Regardless whether the cuts have resulted in this, there will be

people in your constituency who will be worried about this and may

be cuts to Forestry budgets may have caused this? There is no

evidence to this. Tree and plant health budgets have been maintained.

More money is being spent than ever before on this issue. In my

constituency, I have a number of forests and I met with the Forestry

Commission in the summer and they are working on this. Sadly, we have

to leave it. If people are worried, there is a new Act created way you

can submit any examples if you can find it. -- application.

As the cost of food goes up and household budgets get squeezed,

spare a thought for Britain's small farmers. They're facing a real

struggle to survive this winter. The wet summer devastated fodder

crops so they're facing huge bills to buy extra animal feed. And they

say they're also under pressure from supermarkets keen to keep

their costs down. Sunday Politics North West reporter, Peter Marshall,

reports from Cumbria. We've been joined from Plymouth by

Mum it is an industry that is in the blood. Hill farming has been

through tough times in the past. This is a market in North Yorkshire.

Harry Hutchinson is among those looking for livestock. For the last

30 years he has farmed the hills. The cost of production is far above

what it cost the consumer to buy. We're not getting paid enough for

it. Does he believe some would go hungry to have enough money to feed

their livestock? Every hill farmer you talk to will put his stock

before himself. It has to come first, that is what we do. Prices

are holding up this autumn, but there is an expensive winter ahead.

The wet summer has devastated productions so farmers will have to

buy additional fee. On a Lancashire, Cumbria border, Robert Pennington

has 200 sheep to get through the winter. A lot of farmers will go

out of business. There was a lot of feet been sold at �60 a bail, how

can farmers make a living out of that. The price -- price of grain

is going up. It is going to be a very tight year. These may not be

the best of times, but most in the industry accept they are not the

worst of times. Images from the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak are in

our memories. And the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution

gave out nearly �30 million in aid. Amounts paid out to farming

families in hardship this year are smaller, but pressure is mounting.

We have cases in England and Wales where welfare officers have carried

food hampers in their cars so encases of extreme hardship, when

families don't have anything on the table, we can provide food and

supermarket vouchers as well. changes in the Common Agricultural

Policy being negotiated, it is a critical time. Some upland farmers

fear there will be changes to subsidy schemes which will make

life harder still, for them. It is crucial the payments available to

the hill farmers are able to come to those farmers, and they are able

to choose what they can do with them. What farmers do is, they use

those payments to produce food. Government's commitment to the

Cumbrian uplands prosperity Plan, which will bring new facilities to

farming communities is welcomed. Despite tough times, there is

confidence in the future of the industry.

We have been joined from Plymouth by Mary Talbot rose from the small

farms Association and Tim Farron. Mary, small farms are being

squeezed from all sides by rising costs and supermarkets demanding

they cut prices. Can they survive? They can, the great thing about

British agriculture is there is huge diversity. The important thing

is the West -- in the West Country is most farms are family owned.

They have a future as long as one or maybe more family members can

find employment off the farm and bring income into the farm. As you

report said, prices are being squeezed, profit margins for

farmers are constantly squeezed. We have energy costs rising and then

we had this horrific weather, not in this country but all over the

world. Extremes of climate, so the yields are down all round.

Farron, people don't want to pay high prices. Some people will pay

for small organic produce to support their local farms, but

people are suffering and don't want to pay higher prices. There is no

way around it is there? Farmers are at the bottom end of the supply

chain. In the middle you have supermarkets do with power. It is

an obvious and clear example of a broken market. When you have a few

huge retailers, a large number of not so well known but equally

powerful processors, and thousands of not very powerful farmers doing

the hard work. It is easy for the big four supermarkets to take the

profit and give less than cost Do you agree? Yes they have a

little cabal or a war going on between them. They watch each other

like hawk. Once we were more sustainable. This is one thing the

Government should do, put a lot of effort behind farming and try to

explain to the public that we have become more self-sufficient and we

don't need to imimportant food. When you say sustainable, are you

talking about Government subsidising small farmers? That is

a big political issue, but they need to negotiate hard on the

common agricultural policy. There is a lot of negotiations going on

at the moment. There is a lot of uncertainty as to when it will be

introduced and what the deal will be. I think it should favour small

farmers. But one thing I should say the bureaucracy needs to be cut out.

Do you agree with that. How much should government do, would you

like to see further subsidies? There is a lot of support. There is,

but more? I it it has to be targeted. This is the hind crisis,

our ability to feed ours has dropped and we see more farmers go

out of business and we import more. It is about make sure you pay

farmers for the work they do. In Cumbria our tuerism - Toucheism

industry is worth �3 billion a year and the farmers back that and they

get paid nothing for that. Is a view that says why should we

subsidise an industry that can't support itself? I was brought up on

a small farm and my sympathy is with the farmer. When we joined the

European community, we made a decision that farming would be

looked at as an industry. The French and the Germans made a

different decision and they support their small farmers in a way

British governments never have. Not just by subsidy. It is too late to

turn the clock back. If you're a small dairy farmer producing milk

at 62 pence a litre, you can't compete with huge farms that can do

it. Aren't economies of scale something we have to face and admit

that food produced on a big scale... That is why they have gone out of

business. Because they can't compete. Don't farmers have to be

realistic. We are talking about economies of scale, competition,

you can't compete with price, so perhaps more farmers should just

pack up and go and do something else. A lot of them have packed up

and done something else. The other thing is farmers need to realise

they have transferable skills. And many farms that I know don't

survive purelyen what they produce or the live stock they produce.

They have to diversify within that business, or they send a family

member out to bring in income from outside. I went on holiday in Italy,

they get huge subsidies on the farms to re-create holiday homes,

big subs Deux would you like to see that sort of subsidy, up to 80%

they were telling me they were getting to diversify. You look at

what happens, since foot-and-mouth, there have been diversification in

areas that can do it. Some farms are so out of way that it is not

possible. In the end, on a positive note, the world population will

increase, because of the growing middle grass in the develople world,

the demand for food will double. It is a good time to be a farmer. I

want the UK to be at the table, rather than dropping behind and

having to import. Thank you for joining us. Now apparent think

palace of Westminster is in dire need of repairs and over the summer

rumours were rife that MPs might have to move out for a radical

overhaul of the building. James Landale has lerpbdz this won't

happen, because it would cost too much. James, how likely this a

temporary evacuation? It is still a possibility. At the meeting of the

body that runs Parliament, House of Commons commission, there was an

attempt by a senior member of the committee to kill off the idea on

the grounds it would do Parliament's reputation too much

damage to spend billions and I mean billions, De Kamping the whole of

Parliament while the whole place is renovated, but that idea was

resisted. The idea is still on the table. But what the MPs think is

before they consider doing that, they have to have proper business

plans so they know what the costs are and can make a business case

about value for money to voters, who may think it is not a good idea.

But they post pond any final decision for at least a year when

they do more work on what is possible and how much would it cost.

But they say there is a real problem, the place is full of

asbestos, it is a fire risk, it is 150 years old and it has not been

touched. Now, I don't know if you have had a chance to speak to MPs,

or any get any feel of support, it would be very disruptive to to move

everyone? Well MPs would be able to stay at their new office block. One

idea doing the roundss and this is a possibility, you swap, you kick

the Lords out of their ends, the MPs sit in the House of Lords and

you swap and do vice ver Alex Salmond all you are doing is moving

out one -- and you do vice versa. All yo doing is moving one out. One

option somebody said was the idea of filling a space that is next to

portcullis house, loads of different places where they could

do is. But they haven't made a decision yet. Well it doesn't sound

as bad ace first thought. Alcohol and politics, they complement each

other like strawberries and cream. That is why it is important to the

House of Commons authorities to dish out a new contract to provide

wine in the watering holes that the supply should be of hotel or

private club standard. Can members tell the difference? Are they that

discerning? In a moment we will find out. Before we whet your taste

buds, a note of caution, Jim Hacker. Good evening Constable. Can I see

your licence? Yes certain Lu. you -- aren't you Mr Jim Hacker?

Yes. What seems to be the trouble. Any reason you were drive sog

slowly? I didn't want the curb to - - kerb to hit. I didn't want to hit

the kerb. I have a silver badge somewhere. I see. Perhaps constable

Evans will drive. I will drive. you're in a proper state to drive.

Don't drink, well not while my husband's driving. And now we have

been joined by the Labour MP Austin Mitchell and the wine critic, Jill

Ji Golden. So how good are you at deciding what is quality and what

is less quality wine. I have drinks here. I will give you Jacob Rees

Mogg the white one. You can take these two here and I'm going to

give you Austin Mitchell, not that I actually talk to you about

whether you prefer white or red, you're going to have the red.

is a shame, I like white. If we had more time I would swap. But it is

pleasing everyone. Jilly, we start with white and I'm going to keep

the sparkling. I will sacrifice. First, Jacob Rees Mogg, try No 3.

And would you as well Jilly. This has been worked out with great

precision. Let's see if Jay xob and Jilly can tell the difference

between. -- Jacob. That is what wine snobs do. No 4. You can try

your other one. Have you swallowed No 3? Yes. Go on then. All right.

Jacob Rees Mogg, which do you think is the posh plonk and which is the

less posh? I have no idea. First... I don't understand why they think

you can't buy decent wine on the high street. It is a good question,

you can buy good wine on the high street. I have to challenge you for

saying posh plonk and none posh. Supermarkets have brilliant wine

and lot of it is posh. Most of us drink it. They matching what you

can get in pricing with this. not get from it the supermarket? It

would be cheaper. Which did you like more? I liked three more than

four. Three of course is the �1995 bottle, that is a more -- �19.95

bottle. That is more up market than No 4. Are both obscure Italian

grape varieties. I think the peck Ricoh from Marks and Spencer is

gorgeous and ten pounds cheaper. I like the other one, but it is a

more quirky wine. Let's strie Austin Mitchell on the road. --

let's try Austin Mitchell on the red. I think the lore classes will

be worse than the upper classes in this. How does that taste? It is

all right. Try number six. Although he has said now he prefers the

white. Do the red. That is number six. Which one do you prefer?

prefer number six. Well Jilly, yet again. Discerning tastes. Well yes.

A man of the people, Austin. I only drink New Zealand wine from

supermarkets, because it is cheaper and better. Tell him which is which.

You have preferred the wine merchant wine. The expensive one.

Yes. It's �20 I wouldn't buy it. How much is the other one?

number five is �10. And that is from Marks and Spencer. Is it �10

better? If I had my troubles I would get plenty of that. Now I get

a chance to try them. I haven't been given which is which.

House of Commons had magnificent cellars. And then sold. Bob Maxwell

sold our wine. Sold it to himself didn't he Of course he did. Or gave

it to his friends. That is extraordinary, that is a clean

sweep for the whine merchants. But these are both English sparkling

wines which I am keen on. Marks and Spencer provided the others.

the Marks and Spencer, the English one is glorious. This one which is

from a neighbouring vine yard is �29. You all vote for the high

street. The high street wine for house of commons. People are

discerning about quality. Get the sewer market. We still have to pay.

It is not as if they're free. answer to our quiz and the question

was what is Parliament thinking doing about doing to save money. We

will have to give you answer tomorrow. Sorry thank you to all of

you. All our guest and the wine in the studio and for being our guest