31/10/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/10/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning. This is the Daily Politics. "Continuing as we are is


not an acceptable option". So says Tarzan, who has emerged from the


political jungle to issue a not very pleasant message for the


government on its economic strategy. He wants bolder action to be taken


on growth, infrastructure, an airport and energy. We'll be


finding out exactly what he wants when we talk to Lord Heseltine


later in the programme. Talking of energy the Conservative


Energy Minister, John Hayes, appears to have had enough of these.


But is he blowing just a lot of hot air?


We'll be looking at the political shenanigans being played out over


Europe ahead of the vote tonight on the EU budget.


And forget bob-a-job week, or learning about knots. Politics is


I used to do Bob Bird job. A way you in the Scouts?


I was a cub. We showed the wrong wind farms. It


is the onshore wind farms he has a problem with.


Yes all that and more coming up in the next 90 minutes of truly


terrifying TV, which frankly this programme is every week, not just


on Halloween. And with us for the duration we have Count Dracula and


Van Helsing. I leave you to decide which is which. The Business


Minister, Michael Fallon, and the Shadow Welsh Secretary, Owen Smith.


Welcome to you both. Now first today enough is enough. No we're


not coming off air now. We're going to talk about wind farms, because


the Conservative Energy Minister, John Hayes, doesn't appear to like


them very much. He's apparently ordered a new analysis for the case


of onshore wind farms which he says should form the basis of future


government policy, rather than, "a bourgeois left article of faith


based on some academic perspective". I think you can see where he's


coming from. Anyway, does he have a point? And is everyone happy? Well


not his boss, we're told, the Energy Secretary, Ed Davey. And not,


I suspect the Liberal Democrat MP, Andrew George, who joins us now.


What is your reaction? I think John is as entertaining as ever with his


usual panache. Your picture, as you were showing of offshore wind is


not the issue. We did clarify that. The issue of onshore wind is a bit


of a dog whistle issue for some Conservatives. They object to the


matter. The Government policy remains as it is, 20% of energy


supply from renewable sources by 2020. I thought it was a 30%.


you are, 30%, it goes up. Be very significant amount of VAT will come


from wind. Most of it will be wind? The most significant and economic


the efficient method by which you obtain renewable energy is from the


wind and onshore wind is the most economic of all. If it is economic,


why does it need a huge subsidy? does not need a huge subsidy.


is so economic why does it need a guaranteed twice -- Prize, twice


the guaranteed rate? It gets a lower subsidy than any renewable


energy. His is hydro electric power. It gets less than any of the other


new forms of renewable energy. All I would say is planning matters are


matters that need to be determined on their merits. How much energy,


as we speak, is being generated by wind power? At the moment, I do not


know the actual figure. As we speak at 11:15am this morning is 6%. Your


target is to get to 30% in eight years. From all renewables.


most of it will come from wins, can you do that? It is a challenge, but


it is one the Government wants to take on. Is it a challenge now John


Hayes has said it is not in your policy any more? He is talking from


a personal perspective. No, he is the Energy Minister. He is not


spouting Government policy. What is Government policy on wind farms?


is to encourage renewables of all kinds, to meet the target Andrew


has described. You said wind is 6%, it has been increasing over the


next few years. We do not set a target from each renewable sectors,


we want them all. Is it Government policy to build a more onshore wind


farms? These things are determined locally. It is not for the


Government to determine where a wind farm should be. But whether


his consent, we welcome the contribution wind makes onshore and


offshore. The Government policy is for 1000 wind farms. If it is down


to localism, which is what you seem to be saying, what happened if


every locality said we do not want to wind farms? How would you need


your target? There would be the contribution from offshore wind and


other sources. There are already onshore wind farms, and there will


be more of them, but it is for the local community to decide if they


want these things. In some areas of the country, it is windier than


others. Then there are 3,000 onshore wind turbines at the moment.


The Government is planning another 4,000. Of course, locals can be


overruled. I ask again, after John Hayes, is it Government policy to


build another 4,000 onshore wind farms? It is Government policy to


encourage onshore, offshore, all types of renewable. We're not


saying we have to have 4,000 onshore wind farms by a certain


date, these things have to be determined locally. And locals on


never overruled in these matters? They can be overruled, but it


depends on each case, on the merits of each application. They are over


ruled on they? Of course. So it is not all down to the locals? What


the Government are doing is undertaking a review as to how we


ensure the communities that are closest to the wind farms gain


additional benefit. You have an open goal here. Can you get


anywhere near your renewable target if you do not build the 4,000 plant


onshore turbines? That is a target and it is very laudable. You have


not answered my question. I have wind farms in my constituency...


Can you meet the target if you do not build 4,000 more onshore wind


turbines? There are many ways that target can be met. A target of


4,000 is in the plan, and it is down to the locals to decide.


Smith, shoot. I am none Budweiser as to the Government's policy.


thought it was just meat. -- none the wiser. We have Ed Davey saying


he is in favour of more wind farms and Michael Fallon sitting on the


fence and getting splinters in the studio. Painful, he's used to that.


Government policy was to try and increase the volume of onshore wind


power. We know it is the cheapest and most developed of the renewable


facilities we have. We know it makes sense. The Government will be


in power -- were we in power, would be sending more signals we need


more wind power and need to invest in a renewable sector, apart from


the shambles from the Tories and the Lib Dems.


Now the Taxpayers' Alliance have published figures today showing


that trade unions received �113 million of taxpayer subsidy last


year in direct payments and through staff being paid to work on union


business. The unions say this is money well spent with union


representation helping to reduce absenteeism and increase


productivity. We asked the TUC to come on and discuss the issue but


no one was available, we also asked for a pre-recorded interview, but


no-one was available. No one is at home. But we can now speak to


Matthew Sinclair, from the Taxpayers' Alliance. How do you get


to the figure of �113 million? built up by going to public sector


organisations across the country, NHS trusts, councils, Government


departments, and asking how many trade union staff they were


allocating, and what payments they were making. It is an underestimate,


because a lot of organisations were not recording how much time they


were giving to the trade unions. The TUC dispute that figure, but


even if you take the figure at face value, it works at a 25p per public


sector worker per week. That does not sound like bad value. That is


an underestimated figure. Look at the 25p a week. What Francis Maude


wants to cut this to his 0.1% of the public bill. We have huge


arguments about much smaller sums of money. It is an enormous subsidy.


In terms of politics, and frees up their resources to campaign on,


that can buy everything in Westminster and twice over. It is


an enormous amount of money in a specific interest group. What does


that interest group do? Is it a waste of money to look after and


represent employees in the public sector, and of course there are a


union representatives in the private sector. Is it a waste of


money, they shouldn't be represented at save the public


purse a lot of money in terms of dispute resolution, training take


up and health and safety? I do not think there is anything wrong with


people being represented. My organisation is to represent the


taxpayer's interest. But if you are representing someone, it shouldn't


be paid for by someone else. It Union staff are representing their


members, they should pay for it. If you are working for the trade union,


you should be paid for by the trade union. Taxpayers shouldn't have to


pick up the bill, particularly when unions use resources for strikes,


fight necessary reforms to pensions and necessary control in public


spending. There is nothing wrong with a lot of what trade unions do,


they have a legitimate function, but all those legitimate functions


are being paid for by taxpayers, which frees up their own resources


which should be used to pay for things like representation and be


spent on political campaigns and functions that shouldn't be having


the bill picked up by taxpayers. New don't disagree with what they


are doing in terms of representation? Do you agree with


the research commissioned by the Department for business, that in


2007, those union representatives save the public purse between 170


million and 200 million a year. That looks like it is saving money?


If you look at the kind of estimates being found on official


estimates of the full scale of this, not just the ones we could pin down


to specific organisations. And the range is lower than the estimates


of the cost of this. In terms of cost benefits, unless you take the


high end of the range, it does not justify this as a spending item.


Beyond that, a lot of what they are claiming, it will lead to lower


sick leave, but there is far more time off in the public sector than


in the private sector and there is also more sick leave. Why don't


union just pay for this? Public sector and private sector employers


think it is good use of public and private sector money to facilitate


the employment of Union... Private sector pay for their own?


public sector pays for people because they know it saves them


money. It is not new, this is the second time the TaxPayers' Alliance


have announced this alleged 113 million in November. It is


interesting when the governments are in trouble on all sorts of


issues. Should they be rolling out this 100 and think -- 113 million


as nonsense. In 2007, they are reviewed it and said it saves them


money. I don't think the TaxPayers' Alliance are disagreeing the


functions are useful and could bring down costs to the public


sector, but why don't the unions' pay for it? It is not like they


don't have many of their own? theory the unions could pay for it.


They should. Public sector and private sector employers who pay


for facility down -- time had done so since the early 1990s when this


was established in law by the Tory Government in 1992. They have done


so because they think it is a good use of public or private money.


They've been think it is good because it allows for proper


representation of the workforce, a proper channel of engaging with the


workforce, it reduces costs a recruitment and lost hours,


sickness. It is clear why they do it. If they did nothing it was


worthwhile, it would stop. It has got out of hand. What has got out


of hand? The mound of union activity on the public sector pay


roll. The school's budget is used to finance teachers who are not


teaching, but sitting in a union office negotiating on behalf of


their members but not doing any teaching. The school's budget


You should be paying teachers to teach, not to sit in a union


offices. Watch out, animal hunters, Tarzan


is back. Yes, Michael government intervention Heseltine has returned


to the police could jungle with his new Treasury Commission report


which promises to leave no stone unturned. At this moment I shall


turn to Jo and she will give you an exposition of what is in the


Heseltine report. But I am lost for words. Our computer has got stuck.


I have offered to whack it with a spanner but they said no. It is


probably being powered by windmills which is why we cannot use it.


Onshore ones. So, Mr Heseltine says, your government does not have a


strategy for growth. commissioned this report. We asked


Michael Heseltine to do this. He has come forward with a whole range


of ideas which we are going to follow up. He wants to go further


and faster for growth and so do we. You go and have a major


restructuring of local government. He has put forward different ideas.


You can go to a unitary authority which is what he is suggesting.


There is nothing stopping a council orate group of councils coming to


us and wanting to take out a layer of bureaucracy. He recognises what


we are doing on local enterprise partnerships as the key to growth.


We are doing that as well. A un favour of handing 58 billions of


pounds of Whitehall cash -- are you win favour? We are already handing


money to cities. We have eight core cities and City deals at the moment.


We invited 20 to apply in the second wave of this week. He is


suggesting we should transfer more of the skills budget down from


central by Jim down to the cities and local enterprise partnerships.


Are you going to give more power to local enterprise partnerships?


have already given their money. much? 24 million over the last two


years. They are getting core funding now. They are coming


forward with their growth plans. It is for them to tell central


government what their priorities are. Michael Heseltine, he wants


them to have 58 billion. That is a different scale. I gave them money


for their capacities and own resources to finance themselves. He


says they should have more control over government spending programmes.


That is only a couple of billion. think it is more than that. Do you


favour coming out with an aviation policy this side of the election


which he has called for? We need to look carefully at the issue of


where hub airports should be. We think there should be a hub airport.


We think that should not be done by politicians by somebody independent.


We have asked Howard Davies. Michael Heseltine is saying it


should come out before the election. It is a simple question. Do you


think that should happen on not? are not responding to the entire


report today. What the Chancellor has said it is he is going to set


out his response in the Autumn Statement on 6th December and tell


you what we are going to do with each of the recommendations.


Michael Heseltine is impatient for growth and so are we. That is


because you have not had any. economy is growing now. Where were


you last week? How since your government came to power we have


had 0.6 % growth. Whereas, in June 2010 you predicted almost 6% growth,


or the OBR did, say you are out by a factor of 10. It was an


independent forecast. But you depend on it. You drop the cuts on


the basis of a projected 6% growth, you have had a 0.6. I don't think


anybody knew just how prolonged the problems in the eurozone would be


and some of the fall-off in growth we have had in the rest of the


world. Nobody predicted that. come on. The recession lasted


longer than anybody thought. It turned out that boom-and-bust was


far worse than anybody estimated. The big news is we are growing now.


All right, are you in favour of an interventionist industrial policy


as Michael Heseltine calls? We have an industrial strategy which Vince


Cable set out in a speech a month ago. That means more collaboration


on research and development in each sector, it means looking at the


skills gap in each of the sectors, so yes, we have... Are you in


favour of an interventionist policy? I am not sure what the


differences. We do not want to pick winners but we want to help each


sector pick its own winners and focus on what needs to be done on


partnership with government. This is probably your second own goal of


the day. I am trying to think of questions to ask you. You must love


all this? No, we do not love it. What Heseltine has pointed out is


the reality that we do not have a growth strategy in this country. I


think it is broadly agree with what we have been saying for the last


two years which is a, you do need an active industrial strategy. You


do need government to intervene. You do need to have not got rid of


the RDAs. The supreme irony of Michael Heseltine saying you have


got it wrong, you have to have money is spent in the regions.


the contrary... He believes you should have an interventionist


government. Can I ask you, is a Labour in favour of passing �58


billion of Whitehall spending through the local enterprise


partnerships? We are in favour of much greater emphasis on regional


growth. I understand that, that is like saying you are in favour of


motherhood and apple pie. Are you in favour of giving �58 billion of


Whitehall cash to the local enterprise partnerships? You would


not expect me to say now worth around in favour of 58, 57 off �43


billion. What we are in favour of his money being spent at a local


level by effective organisations. That is what we had when we had


Regional Development agencies right across the country which had real


powers and real resources. This is an important point, unfortunately,


the government got rid of those things. What Michael Heseltine was


saying is they got it wrong. have made a point twice already.


I'm sure it is a good point but it is not one I am asking. We will


move on. We know when we are beaten. We will be talking to Tarzan


himself, Michael Heseltine, live after Prime Minister's Questions.


Now, Darth Maul, Greedo and Boba Fett, D you-know-who they are? They


are not members of the European Central Bank. Apparently they are


something to do with a lucrative movie franchise which started in a


galaxy far, far away. Star Wars creator George Lucas has sold his


film production company Lookers fell to the Walt Disney Company in


a deal worth �2.5 billion -- Lucasfilm. Is nothing sacred? Some


things cannot be bought so cheaply. Let me assure you you will never


see this. Stormtroopers! I have one thing to say to Mr Disney, they are


not the mugs you are looking for because they are not for sale at


any price. But if the force is with you, dear viewer, one of these fine


interstellar receptacles can be beamed to you at no cost. All you


have to do is enter our guest the Year competition. Are we will


remind you how to enter in a minute. Let's do a bit of our own time


travelling. See if you can remember Respect, tolerance, the family, try


If you are handing on the torch, to give somebody us the opportunity,


make sure the torches burning To be in with a chance of winning


an intergalactic Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special


quiz e-mail address, [email protected] and you can see


the full terms and conditions on our website,


bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics. Now it is coming up to midday here. Let's


take a look at Big Ben. That can only mean one thing, Prime


Minister's Questions is on its way. Nick Robinson is already here.


Welcome. Tell us about this European vote, there is a big row


building up in the Commons today. Those who remember their history


will remember in the 1990s, the Tory party pretty much fun apart on


the issue of Europe and the Labour Party helped them, even though they


were led by an avid pro-European, John Smith. I think the leadership


of the Labour Party are inspired by Smith's example, urged by the


Guardian editorial today and others, don't fait with the Euro-sceptics


and the Tory rebels. The Labour leadership is sane, forget that.


Nobody remembered in 1997 that the Labour Party were playing with the


Euro-sceptics. They remember the chaos in the Tory ranks. What the


Labour Party want today is to try and alive with the Tory rebels and


defeat the government on the issue of the EU budget. A what is it they


want, freeze on the budget already cut? They want a real-terms cut.


The government have talked of the policy of having a real-terms


freeze, in other words, goes up with the rate of inflation, but the


rebels and Labour Party are saying that is not good enough. It is an


argument between you room realism and fundamentalism. The government


are saying, of course we would like to cut the budget but we will never


get it. We might be able to build an alliance in terms of a real-


terms freeze. The rebels are saying, forget that, we want it cut. There


are a mix of motives. One is to give the Government a bloody nose


and the other is a cost free advertisement that Labour does not


want to spend your money. If Labour vote with the rebels, could the


government lose? They could if there are enough of them. Into


simple terms, government majority of 68, the key is he turns up? Who


is in the House of Commons on the relevant day? The second key thing


is devoted against the government if you are a Tory or do you


abstain? If I was the Tory whips I would say do not put a smile on the


face of Mr Bowles and Mr Benn abound tonight. -- Mr balsa and Mr


Miliband. Isn't there something you could do like catch-up on eight DVD


box set. There are enough rebels on the issue of Europe. All the


opposition -- if all the opposition parties were here and if all the


rebels vote against the government, the government can be defeated. It


does not mean they will be. Labour were responsible for the last time


the EU budget was fixed and agreed to a doubling of the contribution,


now you are calling for a reduction in the Budget, how does that work?


Circumstances have changed. We know that we have got austerity right


across Europe. We have governments right across Europe asking people


to take tough decisions and tighten their belts and we think it is


appropriate that in these changing circumstances, our government


should go to Europe. It is smart fiscal policy. If the rest of


Europe insists on going ahead with an increase and Mr Cameron wield


the veto, will Labour support it? It is a shame we have got to the


stage when David Cameron is so isolated in Europe. The Swedes are


taking an even tougher line. I have just read what the European


Minister has said. They want a bigger cut. So do the Dutch. He is


not isolated. That is not the question I asked. If he is forced


to stop a real-terms increase going through, we used support him


wielding the veto? We will look at that at the time when we see what


comes out of the negotiations. you calling for a cut? We are


calling for a real-terms cut. there is a real terms increase,


which is what the majority want, and Mr Cameron says no, I will veto


it, surely biologic if you are calling for a real-terms cut, you


should support the veto. Let's see what happens when he comes back to


Europe. Can I say, very straight forward. We will be arguing tonight


for a real terms... I understand Want to pay tribute to those who


have lost their lives a deep debt of gratitude. Their dedication,


professionalism one never be forgotten by our nation. And our


condolences are with their family, friends and colleagues.


Our had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in


additional duties in this house I will have further meetings later in


the day. I am sure the house will want to associate itself with the


remarks from the Prime Minister of our brave service personnel. Will


the Prime Minister confirm if he cannot get a good deal for Britain


in the EU budget negotiations, he will use the veto? And reject any


advice on this matter from those who gave our rebate away? I can


absolutely give him that assurance. This Government is taking the


toughest line in these budget Nick positions of any Government since


we joined the European Union. At best we would like it cuts, at


worst, frozen. I am prepared to use the veto if the do not get a deal


that is good for Britain. It is within our interest to get a deal


because a seven-year freeze would keep bills down compared to annual


budgets. Labour's position is a one of opportunism. They gave away half


the rebate, sent the Budget through the roof, now they want to posture


rather than get a good deal for Britain. We can see right through


it. Mr Ed Miliband. Can I stop by joining the Prime Minister are


paying tribute to corporal David Hope cannot and corporal Channing


day of the Royal Medical Corps. It is a reminder of the danger troops


based on a daily basis on our behalf. They both showed the utmost


courage and bravery and our condolences go to their family and


friends. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to get a mandate from


this house for a real-terms reduction in the EU budget which he


says he wants over the next seven years. He could take to the talks


in Europe. Why is he resisting that opportunity? I think the whole


country will see through what is right opportunities and. People


have not forgot the fact they gave away half our rebate in one ago as


the Asian. They agreed a massive increase on the EU budget under


their Government. And they have not even put down their own resolution


on this issue. The nation will absolutely see straight through it.


He is playing politics, he is not serving the country. Ed Miliband.


When it comes to consistency, he seems to have forgotten what he


said as leader of the opposition just four months before the last


General Election. This is what he said. I would have thought they


would be interested what the Prime Minister said when he was leader of


the opposition. "at a time when budgets are being cut in the UK,


does the Prime Minister agree in reviewing the EU budget, the main


purpose should be to push for a real-terms cut". That is what he


said in opposition. When it comes to opportunism, this Prime Minister


is a gold medallist. At a time when he is cutting it the education


budget by 11%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%,


how can he be giving up on a cut in the EU budget before the talks have


begun? We have to make cuts in budgets because we are dealing with


a record debt and deficit. If he wants to talk about consistency,


perhaps he can explain why his own members of the European Parliament


voted against a budget freeze we achieved last year? Perhaps he can


explain why the Socialist group in the European Parliament he is such


a proud member of, are calling, not for an increase in the Budget, not


for a freeze in the Budget, but for a 200 billion euros increase in the


Budget. And they want to get rid of the rest of the British rebate. Is


that his policy? Ed Miliband. good to see the Crimson tide...


Order, order. Government backbenchers, including ministers,


are preaching majority. They have got to tackle their behavioural


problems before it is too late. Ed Miliband. He is getting very angry,


maybe that is because he is worried about losing the vote this


afternoon. MEPs voted the same as his on the motion before the


European Parliament 10 days ago. The reality is commonly cannot


convince anyone on Europe. Last year he left the December


negotiations with a veto and an agreement a went ahead anyway. He


had thrown in the towel before these talks had begun. He cannot


convince European leaders comedy cannot convince his own


backbenchers. He is weak abroad, he is weak at home, it is John Major


all over again. His position is completely incredible. He says he


wants a cut in the EU budget, but he does not sanction a veto. We


have made it clear we will use the veto, as we have used it before. I


will ask him, will you use the veto? Order. I won't be using the


veto. I will ask the Prime Minister to respect Parliamentary procedure


in these matters. The south-east region is often regarded as the


engine driver of the British economy. But the Solent region


faces challenges, particularly with the announcement of job losses at


Ford last week. Will he agree with me, the case for a city Deal for


Southampton and Portsmouth is particularly compelling? I do think


it is particularly compelling, we make sure Southampton has a City


dealer. I understand they are on the list. The news from Ford was


disappointing. It was a blackspot in an otherwise strong performance


by the British automotive industry. We will be working with Southampton


City Council to help everybody find jobs. May I ask a straightforward


question that should command a straightforward answer? In the


forthcoming police and crime Commissioner elections, it is


predicted the turnout will be as low as 20%. Does the Prime Minister


think it gives them Democratic legitimacy? I want the turn out to


be as high as possible, but I recognise in new elections for a


new post, it is a challenge. It is a challenge when you have dedicated


Labour MPs resigning from his house to stand as police and crime


commissioners. One thing the commissioner will be able to make


is that since crime is down by 20%. Lincolnshire has benefited from


announcements that will boost the local economy. A Kimberley Clark


announced the closure of their factory in Barton-upon-Humber in my


constituency with a loss of up to 500 jobs. Can he assure me


everything possible will be done by the Government to attract a new


business to the area? I can give him that assurance. It is sad news


for the workers at Barton-upon- Humber. The local council is


working closely with Jobcentre Plus and the company to establish a


local task force and the Government will support employees and try and


find alternative employment. Following a report in the


Hillsborough disaster and the phone hacking scandal, self regulation of


the press, by the press is no longer acceptable to the public.


More than three-quarters responding to recent polls back an end to


media self-regulation. Prime Minister, your ministers have been


briefing against Lord leathers and. Whose side are you on? Members must


adhere to the proper procedures of this House. I think we should wait


for the report to come out. A lot of work has been done. I want to


see a robust regulatory system. What happens most of all, as I said


in a house last week, is to make sure it newspapers get things wrong,


they can be fined, journalists can be investigated, and there are


prominent apologies. We know what a regulatory system should look like,


we don't have one now but we need one for the future. I would like to


echo the Prime Minister's tribute to our armed forces and fallen


comrades. We owe their families and loved ones are a huge debt of


gratitude. Last week we saw the sentencing of former staff of


Winterbourne View Hospital who were found guilty of ill-treatment and


neglect. I had hoped this would bring closure and a sense of


justice to the victims and their families. But we have learnt


patience from Winterbourne View have been -- may have been subject


to neglect and ill-treatment elsewhere. Does the Member for


Sutton and Cheam think they should be subject to a corporate


prosecution? I pay tribute to what he said it on armed forces. On the


issue of Winterbourne View, anyone who saw those pictures about how


very vulnerable people were being treated, would be absolutely


shocked. And just like me, they would want to make sure the law


will go exactly where the evidence leads. But there needs to be


further prosecution, then there should be. It was shocking what


happened and we should judge for our society on a vulnerable and


needy people and what happened was an acceptable. Ed Miliband. It is


welcome the British economy is in a long as did Paul -- double dip


recession since the war. And nor Heseltine said today "the message


idea is the UK does not have a strategy for growth and job


creation". Who does the Prime Minister blamed for that? What


Michael Heseltine said is the coalition is fundamentally on the


right track. He said, I praise its work for the industrial strategy


plans, pioneering city devolution and the revelations in education


and tackling unemployment. That is what Michael Heseltine said. We can


keep trading quotes, but I think he is making a bigger.. It is an


excellent report. What he is saying is over decades in our economy, it


became too centralised, and regions and nations fell behind,


manufacturing half as a share of national income during the last


Government. And during the boom years, in the West Midlands there


were no net a new private sector jobs. He is dealing with the big


issues. What a pity or he can do is stand up and read out a quote.


says Lord Heseltine's report says they are on the right track.


Goodness knows what it would have said if he thought they were on the


wrong track. He's said there is no strategy for jobs and growth,


deregulation, his chosen approach is not the answer. Let me turn to a


specific area of the report. Recommendations 61. He says, "the


Government needs to set out a definitive and unambiguous energy


policy." This is an appropriate day to be considering this


recommendation on energy. It is good to see the business secretary


on the bench. I'm sorry the growth Committee he is on his so one


memorable, he cannot remember it. This is an appropriate date to


consider these recommendations will I am enjoying this, Mr Speaker. His


energy secretary says he is against wind farms and enough is enough.


Whilst his... The order. Let me say to the Government backbenches. It


is straightforward. They either calm down or the session it will be


extended, at whoever inconvenience that involved. It is incredibly


straightforward. His energy minister says he is against wind


farms and enough is enough while his energy secretary says he wants


them. Who speaks for the Government, the Energy Secretary or the energy


minister? Today the jokes has been bad and the substance is bad also.


I tell you why it is a good day to talk about energy policy, because


today Hitachi are investing �20 billion in our nuclear industry.


Today is a good day to talk about energy because there is more


investment in renewable energy under three years of this


Government's ban under 13 years of their Government. It is a good day


to talk about energy policy because we have got a Green Investment Bank


up and running. There has been no change towards renewable energy. We


have a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects coming


through. We are committed to those. All parties will have to have a


debate in his house and outside this House about what happens once


the targets are met. And he ought It is very simple for the Prime


Minister will stop you have one minister who says he is totally


against wind farms and he has won a minister who is totally gunk hoe


for wind farms. He has a wind turbine on his house, I thought he


would be in favour. Lord Heseltine says in his report there are people


resistant to his ideas. We know who they are, the Chancellor and the


Prime Minister. The evidence over the last two years is de Regulation,


sink or swim. His answer is not the answer. Lot Heseltine is right and


they are wrong. I have got one thing to say, not you, Mr Speaker


but he, he is no Michael Heseltine. Order! Order! I want to hear Mr


Swales and I feel sure the people of red-carded. Thank you, Mr


Speaker. The Russians want to award a prestigious medal to Arctic


convoy veterans. The governments of Australia, Canada, the USA and


Canada have agreed, the UK government have refused. Will the


Prime Minister get this decision reversed so my constituent get the


recognition that they reserve -- deserve. I have every understanding


which is why we have asked Sir John Holmes to conduct this review into


medals and important cases of which the Arctic convoy is probably the


most pressing. He is getting on The Foreign Secretary said


yesterday that the rules of this House require that ministers answer


questions. Sir, There is a stash of embarrassing emails, isn't there?


Adam Smith has to publish every single one of his emails and ended


up resigning. Why won't the Prime Minister publishes emails? Can he


really be a fit and proper person to judge on the future of press


regulation if he will not come clean with the British public?


There is another rule of this house which is if you insult someone in


this house you do an apology. I have to say, I am still waiting.


The fact is, it is this government which set up the Leveson Inquiry


and I gave all the information that Leveson asked to the inquiry.


Owl and the pussycat is a coffee- shop in Larne in my constituency.


They have just had their business rates hyped-up by 700 % and the


council is coming up with the money -- coming for the money even though


they have not yet heard the appeal. This is not unique to Wales, can


the Prime Minister come to the rescue? I have every sympathy with


the business he mentions. Business rates are a devolved issue. This is


something which needs to be taken up with the Welsh Assembly


Government. In England we have halved rate relief -- doubled rate


relief to help small businesses. We have given councils new powers to


levy discounts. I think that is the right approach to England and he


will want to take their case to Wales. In 2007, the Prime Minister


identified Lewisham Hospital as one of 29 hospitals he would be


prepared to get into a bare knuckle fight over. On Monday, it emerged


that Lewisham's a Andy and maternity services could end up


paying the price for financial failures elsewhere in the NHS --


accident and emergency. Which side of this bare knuckle fight is he


on? The fight we are on is increasing the resources going into


the NHS. We have extra money is going into Lewisham and she is on


this side of cutting money into the NHS. What we have done is set out


that there will be no changes to NHS confederation's unless they


have the support of local GPs and unless they have strong public and


patient engagement, unless they are backed by sound clinical evidence


and they are backed by patient choice. Those sort of trustees


whenever there under the last government. They are there now.


light of last it's positive growth figures, does the Prime Minister


agree with me that policies requiring yet more spending, more


borrowing and more debt halve the precise opposite of what our


country needs. My honourable friend is entirely right. The news last it


was welcome that the economy is growing, unemployment is coming


down, inflation is coming down, the rate of small business creation is


going up, there are a million more people employed in the private


sector that there were two years ago and the one absolute certainty


is the worst approach and Michael Heseltine confirms this, would be


to see more spending, more borrowing and more debt because


that is what got us into the mess in the first place. The party


opposite have only one growth plan and that is to grow the deficit.


condolences -- condolences on the death of my constituent, Corporal


Channing day. She always wanted to join the armed services. She wanted


to save lives. Imagined how it felt for the injured soldier to see her


going to help. She was soon return to the family who love their dearly


and the community who are very proud. The community of Northern


Ireland salute her courage, bravery and heroism. Would you agree with


me that army medics are often the unsung heroes of conflict and will


he agree to meet with me and my colleagues to discuss the


implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland?


of all, I would be very happy to meet him and his colleagues to talk


about it. I have spoken to the First Minister and deputy First


Minister in Northern Ireland. I know there are issues about


implementing the covenant but I would be happy to have that meeting.


He spoke very movingly about Corporal Channing Day. They do a


tremendous job. It has been a huge privilege for me to meet the medics


in Afghanistan. British forces are receiving the best care. Question


number 8. Kettering hospital will retain its accident and emergency


and maternity services. Any suggestion otherwise is


scaremongering of the worst kind. Kettering has the 6th highest


household growth rate in the whole country and accident and emergency


missions are up 10 % year on year. Given that Kettering General


Hospital has been at the very heart of the local community for well


over 100 years, but local people deserve a clear assurance that our


much loved and badly needed local hospital has a bright future ahead


of it? I gave my honourable friend the strongest possible assurance


and the point I have made, as I have made it to the honourable lady


opposite, is there cannot be any changes and as there is full public


consultation, and as there is the support of local GPs and strong


public and patient engagement. In the case of Kettering, that does


not on the agenda. Any suggestion by the opposition is scaremongering


of the worst kind and I can see they are at it again. It has been


emphasised again and again on all sides of the house, on the


importance of skills to promote economic growth. The why did the


number of apprenticeships start to fall last year? The number of


apprenticeships under this government are about 900,000. It


has hugely increased. government recently announced plans


to extend the freeze on council tax for a third year. Unfortunately,


the Labour-run city of York council increased council tax by 2.9 % at


has moved with remarkable speed to confirm a 2% increase next to you.


-- next year. Can Mike right honourable friend agree that the


city of York council should look again? The government has made


money available so councils can freeze their council tax fought the


third year in a red. This demonstrates we are wrong side of


people who work hard and want to get on and struggle to pay the


bills. All councils should look at the money available and recognise


that a council tax freeze is in the best interest of all our citizens.


When did the Prime Minister become aware of the plans to close fought


at Southampton and Dagenham and was the where of those plans went his


government awarded a large sum of money from the regional growth fund


to that company just a few days earlier? Obviously, these issues


were discussed and we work closely with all the automotive companies


in the United Kingdom. The news from most of them, from Nissan,


Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover has been extremely positive. What happened


at Ford in Southampton is very regrettable but we must do


everything we can to help those people into work.


I am delighted the economy is finally growing and green growth is


a key part of this. He is the Prime Minister still committed to this


being the greenest government ever, particularly when it comes to his


policies on renewable energy? under this government that we have


seen more investment on green energy in three years than we had


13 from the party opposite. The Green Investment Bank that we


promised, that is up and running. The carbon plans we spoke about


foreign players. This is a Green government and it is sticking to


its promises. -- the plans are in place. The number of people waiting


more than four hours in accident and emergency units has doubled.


There are plans to close Central Middlesex Hospital, Ealing Hospital,


Lewisham and a suspect Kettering hospital as well, if constituents


had to end up in casualty they would have to wait longer for


accident and emergency services. have to say, I could not be any


clearer about the future of Kettering hospital and for him to


say that is scaremongering of the worst kind. Let me tally him what


is happening at the hospitals which serve his constituents. In May 2010


there were 52 patients waiting longer than 12 months. How many are


there now? None under this government will start that is what


is actually happening. We are putting the money into the NHS and


Further to the result on 18th October, on the contentious


decision at the Royal Regiment of the Royal Fusiliers, it would the


Prime Minister meet with me and other interested members from


across the House to discuss this issue? I am always happy to talk to


colleagues about this issue. I know the Ministry of Defence and


Secretary of State is. He knows we have to make difficult decisions to


be done place about the future structure of the army. Clearly, we


have a to make some difficult decisions about regiments and


battalions and in that, we were guided by trying to save as many


regiments and cap badges as possible. The Defence Secretary


will continue going on listening to recommendations.


Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes to child benefit


due to be introduced in January this year, next year, but the cost


of that, the overall cost is very much over �100 million? The changes


that we are making to child benefit, where we are taking child benefit


away altogether from people earning over �60,000, that will save around


�2 billion. It is necessary to take tough decisions in order to deal


with the massive deficit, bigger than Greece, bigger than Spain,


that his party left us. I find it completely inexplicable why the


party opposite, that say they want those with the broadest backs to


share some of the burden, oppose the idea of taking child benefit


away from people over 60, 70, 80, 90,000. I do not see why the front


bench there should go on collecting their child benefit when we have to


make such difficult decisions. Will my right honourable friend


joined me in congratulating might - - accompany my constituency for


their Queen's Award. Does he agree this is the finest example of


business on the up? I think the honourable lady next at -- makes a


good point. We need to go further and faster and that is what Michael


Heseltine's excellent report is They were saying on wind power,


Investment to meet the 22 Beavon -- 2020 target was on target. The main


exchange between the two front benchers, it was split into three


and three. Normally the leader of position does all six questions. --


leader of the opposition. He was talking about the European budget.


Labour wants a real-terms increase in the European budget. Mr Cameron


says he will settle for a real term rise. The leader of the opposition


moved on to the Michael Heseltine report. We will be speaking to him


in a few moments for stomp and then brought in a wind farms, as we know


the Government's party is not totally clear on that. We will get


a reaction in a minute, but we want to know what you thought.


Lots of Commons. Diane from Cornwall said, "pour


from David Cameron who lost his temper under pressure from Ed


Miliband. He did well by splitting his questions and seems to have


continued for where he left off before the recess".


Ian Whitely, "Ed Miliband trounced David Cameron and the EU position


on the budget will stop Ed Miliband it is showing he is more interested


in putting Labour before the country".


Robert, "David Cameron has been dealt a blow from the opposition he


finds him at odds not only in Parliament but within his own


party". "I enjoyed the you are no Michael


Heseltine comment from the Prime If you could see his face, he would


be smiling. What do we make of this? We are seeing how the leader


of the Labour Party has decided to try to repeat what happens to John


manger. He brought up John manger - - John Major from the 90s. The


truth is, there is no comfortable middle ground between the two. What


the Tory backbenchers want, which is a wholesale rejection of what


Europe stands for and a cut in their budget, is not what any


diplomat or businessman will tell you is possible. What people will


remember is it the Tory party is in disarray. He is equal on the issue


on wind farms, trying to pull the coalition parties apart. John Smith


used this tactics in the 1990s to make life awkward for John Major,


in which Tony Blair was the great inheritor of. Why isn't the Prime


Minister going to Brussels to talk about a real-terms cut in the EU


budget? We have to deal with the budget we have got, and it is


expanded. Neighbour just waved through an 8% increase. If it has


expanded, cut it. We wouldn't be in this mess it you had exercised some


proper control over it. He waved through an 8% increase last time.


It has got out of control and we are Di -- trying to cap it. We have


to do with the budget we have got. It is not a huge chunk of the


overall resources of the European Union? 1%. Because we are having to


inflict cuts at home on domestic spending priorities, we are saying


to parts of the private sector, you have had a pay freeze. We have to


persuade other governments to get the budget under control. That


means there will be some cuts in some areas of the Budget. No one


really believes, I suggest that if Labour was in power they would be


going to Brussels arguing for a real-terms cut in the Budget, not


pro-European Ed Miliband? We can only rely on the evidence we have


got. Last July the voted for a real-terms cut in the Budget. Our


MEPs voted for a cut in the Budget now. The Tories used to believe,


when in opposition, they should be a cut in the budget in real terms.


Now they are arguing for a 5% increase. You have done the same


thing, called for cuts in opposition, but go along with


increases in Government. The world has changed. We have austerity, you


keep telling us we need to make cuts. We are going round in circles.


Back to Nick Robinson for some common sense. Also, we will be


going to Michael Heseltine. Europeans read the same opinion


polls. Ministers get the same advice from diplomats whether they


are Labour or Conservative switchers, the alliance's don't


exist to deliver a cut. You don't deliver anything it you don't get


people on your side. No matter how many vetoes, you have to reach an


agreement or lead. These guys are doing what the Tories did before


and the Tories are doing what Labour did before. And that is what


happens. It will keep on happening the sometime until there is a way


through. The interesting thing on the Michael Heseltine peas, there


is a deeper thing I think that is interesting. But there is no doubt


Michael Heseltine wrote a script that was helpful in the short term


to Ed Miliband. No great strategy, indecision on airports and a mess


on energy policy. But his long-term policy is an interesting challenge


to all politicians. What he is saying is, Britain should be more


like Germany. There should be an industrial strategy driven by the


Government. They should be a strong series of business organisations.


He talks about the possibility of forcing, by law, business has to


join the Chamber of Commerce. And he talks about having the powerful,


local organiser it -- Local Enterprise Partnerships, which


would spend and allocate the money. It is a reshaping of the British


state along dramatic lines. The Lib Dems used to argue to scrap the


business department. The Conservatives were always split


between people like Michael Heseltine and the free market. The


Labour Party have been interesting decision, and there were a lot of


speeches that sounded like this, but they did not do it. Now I


believe the man of the moment can join us now from Birmingham. Lord


Heseltine, welcome to the Daily Politics. I don't know whether you


heard that, but do you want Blighty to be more like Germany, as Nick


Robinson was saying? No, I want it to be every other capitalist


economy. Germany is not special, it is the same. We are the ones out of


step. Whether you look at America, the Asian tigers or the European


competitors, they all have a system of Government which devolved power,


broadly to their local city states. They all have industrial strategies


designed to help their industries win. All right, I wondered, why did


it take you six months to come up with all of this, since I have


listened to you talking about this for the past 25 years? Andrew, you


have not seen the report, I suspect which is 220 pages and a 40 page


Amex would 89 recommendations, covering a wide range of Government


and local authority and private sector activity. It has been quite


a task. And if I say so, a privilege. But the Government to


have the guts to have the Civil Service report to look at


everything they are doing and produce a report without trying to


influence it, it is a Government of confidence. Why do you think a


free-marketeer like George Osborne asked you to do this report?


Perhaps because he does not believe in the simplicity of your


definitions. It was the Prime Minister who instigated it. It was


George Osborne and Vince Cable to whom I have to report. They know my


form, as you know my form, so it is not in the least bit surprising


that what I have said is consistent with what I have said over the last


30 years. They knew all that. They were interested in my ideas.


Whether they carry them out, is for them. Let's look at your ideas. You


talk about English local Government. Talking about it being too


fragmented and you call for a major restructuring of local Government.


Is the Government's up for this? You did it with Peter Walker, do


you think this Government is up for another restructuring of local


Government? Don't let's get carried away. I'm talking about allowing


counties, if they want, to become unitary as opposed to two Tear. A


few of them have done it. The legal position entitles them to do it. I


am saying under the pressure of public spending constraints, as you


can save between 10 and �15 million a year accounted, if they want to


do it, they should. But whether conurbations of coming together,


they should be encouraged to do it and they should have the choice of


having a mayor to figurehead it if they want is. Those are not going


to cause, in my view, certainly in the conurbations, it is already


happening. On they are moving to a wider authorities in the model of


Manchester. On the unit trees, I am saying if they want to do it, let


them do it. Do you believe these Local Enterprise Partnerships, of


which I would suspect 99% of people have never heard of and have no


idea what they do. Are they really ready to take �58 billion of


taxpayers' money? That is the arguments, Andrew, which all my


life has led central Government to say No They are not. It has two


permutations. They are doing it badly, so we will create a quango


and take it away from them. Housing went that way. People say, why


don't you let the chambers do this. We say they are not up to it,


therefore we have another quango. If they are not doing it well


enough, if they are not strong enough, help them become strong.


What you have got to get hold of is the dynamism of English cities and


the states around them. That is how a capitalist a economy works.


criticise the Government for putting off the decision on airport


expansion or runway expansion, particularly in the South East.


They have kicked it into touch by giving it to someone who won't


report until after the election. You need to think they should take


the decision quickly, if not immediately. What you don't tell us


this, where do you think it should go? Should -- where should the


extra runway capacity be? I don't criticise the Government. The


Government has an honourable commitment not to provide a third


runway at Heathrow. They made that in the election campaign. They have


said we cannot break R-word. -- R- word. They have said they will


delay any further decision until after the next election. I am


pointing out that compatible with that, they could speed up the


process without taking a decision finally until after the next


election. It is not a criticism of the Government. Can I take this


whole issue? It is tedious. The moment it you repute -- produce a


report like this, if the journalists can find a gap between


the word I use and the word the Government used, it becomes a


monumental divide and a crisis. I reject that totally. Strike the


word criticism and let me ask you, I am not criticising you for not


saying in your report where the runway should be, I am asking you


as a man of public affairs who follows these things, what is your


view about where the extra runway capacity should go in the south-


east? Can I be a little humble, without the facts and figures and


costs, I would hesitate to answer your question. That is why the


government set up the Davies report. Exactly, let's wait to see what it


says. The they will not be until 2015 witches I thought the point


you're making that they should do it sooner. Even that is not true.


They can provide information before 2015. It is the decision that wants


to wait until after the election because they look will not break


their election promise and you should be praising them for that.


am not asking them to break anything, and simply asking if you


took the decision and if they were not breaking their promise, what


should that decision be? I know when I am beaten on this. We will


move on. NEWLINE never beaten, Andrew! I am enjoying it Eva in --


it even so. 89, there we go... is this another failure?


actually is a criticism that you could not round it up to 90. Let me


plead guilty. It has got to wade through 89 of these to decide,


which won? The Prime Minister and Chancellor are watching now, which


one, two or 3D say it should give priority now from the 89 to do now?


I would say to the Prime Minister, that you have got the loneliest and


most difficult job in the country and you are at the mercy of world


events which you can only partially influence. The battering of leaders


of politics today by the incessant 247 news coverage is frightening.


But if it could bring himself to recognise that the growth of the


economy is the overarching responsibility and the biggest


opportunity and therefore, put himself at the front of the pursuit


of growth, with all the type of support systems that I indicate,


that would be to me, a transformation of what has happened


in this country Thrupp my life. We are not talking that short-term


things here. This is something I think Britain should have done


historically. Michael Heseltine, we will have to leave it here. It is


good to see back in the limelight. It is like the old days again and


you are enjoying it. And always with you. It is symbolic that he


unveiled the report in Birmingham and not London, I think that was


ace and -- a sensible thing to do. When you opened the report with the


picture of Jo Chamberlain, the old city creators of wealth, the people


who ran cities and did not care what London thought, he wants a


return to that. It was interesting. He is basically saying England


needs to be more a Wales and Scotland in terms of its


organisation also Wales and Scotland have unitary councils and


they have governments who tend to go out and back for their economy.


England has a mess of councils. Some my unit tree and someone not.


I do not think that is right. In Scotland, I do not know about Wales,


is all power is centralised in Edinburgh now, not London. Glasgow


and Aberdeen, he wants them to have the power. Is that a criticism in


Wales as well? There is always a few there is too much


centralisation. Michael says there is not a scintilla of a gap between


him and George Osborne, there is a gaping chasm on this. He is arguing


for devolution, if you like, throughout England. He is arguing


for a regional growth strategy and for him to turn round and say the


Prime Minister needs to recognise that growth did to be the primary


priority for this government, that is a criticism. He did not answer


that but he answered my question about the two or three general


things with a general statement on growth. Ultimately, he is talking


about statelet intervention where this government believes the state


crowds out private sector enterprise. The Easter Fallon will


have the final word. -- Michael Fallon. We have to look hard at


ourselves and we have done that. We will go through these


recommendations. He has only just produced it. We will go through


these one by one. All that stuff is something we heartily endorse. All


ministers are as impatient as Michael is to get this country


growing again. You have not worked out how to do it. The have worked


it out. We want local growth. He does not recommend going back to


the regional bureaucracies that Owen had. He wants city regions,


local enterprise partnerships which we are doing. A lot of things we


are doing he wants us to accelerate and we will look at the


recommendations. Thank you for staying with us. Are a pleasure. A


Hezza Andrew contest. Do you get time 1/2 when you stay for extra


time? Over to you with your toggles and wobbles. Warbles, actually.


Do you get your Waples in a twist when it comes to parliamentary


process -- woggles. We have got just the team for the bob-a-job.


The Scouts have invaded Westminster. They are taking on MPs in a quiz


today. It is to mark the launch of their citizenship project. We can


cross to College Green and talk to Scout leader Peter Jeffries, Scout


Imogen Woodhall in the middle and MP Graham Evans who is co-chair of


the All Party Parliamentary Scout group. Graham, can we tell -- can


you tell us more about this? It is an opportunity for scalps to come


into Westminster and test their politics with politicians -- for


scalps to come in. Will your Scouts Way you're scalps get a badge?


will have a good time. They will understand more about the world


around them and how to engage in the political process. It does seem


to tie in with what they are doing in schools at the moment, young


people and citizenship, is that the idea to link it educationally?


is absolutely right and it is all credit to the scouting movement.


Education, in my view, with politics, has been lacking in


recent years, along with the teaching of history. I think


politics, history and citizenship go together. You have just had


Michael Heseltine and he was a minister in the 1970s, in the Ted


Heath government. How many people actually know that? It is about the


general public engaging in the vitally important subject of


politics. Imogen, do you think it will work, do you think it sounds


interesting? I think it sounds interesting and it will work


because not many young people know about Parliament, so it is a good


opportunity. What are your first impressions of being out


Westminster? Maybe you have been here before, looking around


Parliament? It is very big! There are a lot of them, they'll go and


hide in there, don't they, Graham? Yes, we do. What is the best way,


Peter, of trying to make this accessible to young people like


Imogen? One of the really important things for Scouts like image and to


understand is how this affects their lives. Rather than being a


far away context, what is it in their local communities, how can we


become more active, with our local authorities and local MPs so


everyone can understand more about what people are thinking about the


world around them. Taking the whole day into account, we are going to


quiz Imogen and Graham. Graham, be very scared. We are going to start


with you, Imogen. My first question is Leader of the Opposition? Think


Wallace and Gromit. If that is a clear. Is that an unfair clue.


we allowed to give hints along the side. Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband.


many houses of parliament are there? Imogen, do you know? Two.


well done, you can get a bonus point if you name them both.


House of Lords and Commons. Well done. You have got a very deep


voice, Imogen! How old do you have to be to get the vote? 16? Well,


some people think so. 18. Yes! We will give you 2.5. Graham, no help


for you. Who was British Prime Minister when Abraham Lincoln was


the President of the United States. Pass. Yes, it is quite hard. It was


Lord Palmerston. I should have known that. But you did not. What


does LIBOR stand for? LIBOR is the interest rate which banks agreed


between each other. It is, but do you know what it stands for word


for word? No, pass. It is the London Interbank offered Rate. And


which British animal linked the founder of the Society of Friends,


a 60 No 5 comedy by playwright Ben Jonson and a Whig politician born


in 1756. Which animal links those? Blackadder? No! You have not done


very well. We did make them quite tricky. Peter, do you have the


Daily Politics mug there? I have. Who wins this after those


questions? I think we can fairly and squarely say Imogen. You get a


Daily Politics mug. Sorry, Graham, there is nothing for you at all.


The story of my life! Thank you for joining us.


Black had a? When was that an animal. He was never a Prime


Minister. Time to guess the year, the answer was Michael. Michael --


the answer was 2000. Michael, press the red button. Who is the lucky


winner? I do not know why they have What do you think about this idea


of getting Scouts in and doing political engagement? One of my


sons is a car and the other is a Brownie. It is a great initiative.


Young people have not been voting in great numbers. Do you think they


should have the vote at 16? There is an argument that that because


they are not paying taxes. You were in favour of anything we are not in


favour of. So stop it, you two! are going to stop the petty


bickering and bring it all to an end. Thank you to all our guests


who appeared today. The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One. I


Download Subtitles