:00:42. > :00:45.Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. It's good news for
:00:45. > :00:49.women, low-paid workers and the self employed, so says the
:00:49. > :00:52.government, who will this afternoon introduced a new flat-rate state
:00:52. > :00:58.pension. Critics say people will have to work longer and contribute
:00:58. > :01:02.more to get the money. Steve Webb insists the new system will be
:01:02. > :01:06.fairer. Will David Cameron give us a referendum on Europe or not? This
:01:06. > :01:10.morning he seemed to indicate it could be on the cards, but only
:01:10. > :01:13.once he had renegotiated our relationship.
:01:13. > :01:17.The Falkland Islands will get a referendum. In March, they will get
:01:17. > :01:21.to decide if they want to remain British or not.
:01:21. > :01:31.And what is it a name? We will be asking if you can tell a
:01:31. > :01:32.
:01:32. > :01:35.politician's personality from how All that in the next hour. With us
:01:35. > :01:41.for the first half of the programme, we are joined by the former Labour
:01:41. > :01:48.security minister, Admiral Lord West. The Daily Politics Laura very
:01:48. > :01:53.own TV anchor, I cannot write those jokes! In Miley, French troops are
:01:53. > :01:56.fighting extremists linked to Al- Qaeda. -- MI High. The Prime
:01:56. > :01:59.Minister stressed that no British troops would be deployed on the
:02:00. > :02:09.ground, but explained how Britain was supporting the French mission
:02:10. > :02:10.
:02:10. > :02:14.in other ways. I offered the use of two transport planes because France
:02:14. > :02:24.is a strong ally and friend of Britain, but what is being done
:02:24. > :03:03.
:03:04. > :03:08.mayor is a very much in favour of Al-Qaeda there have been a thorn in
:03:08. > :03:11.our flesh for some time. They have been involved in hostage-taking,
:03:11. > :03:16.and they use that money to pay for comms equipment and other things.
:03:16. > :03:21.They get drugs coming in from South America which go into Europe. It is
:03:21. > :03:26.quite an governed, some of it. We knew they had naught Mali, but now
:03:26. > :03:30.they are moving into South Mali, and it is a good thing that
:03:30. > :03:33.something is happening. So you support the French, can they be as
:03:33. > :03:39.confident as saying it is only a matter of weeks before we deal with
:03:39. > :03:43.the threat in that part of Mali and then we are out? The French do have
:03:43. > :03:47.bases across parts of Africa, unlike any other Western country.
:03:47. > :03:52.The danger with these things, rather like in Afghanistan, when we
:03:52. > :03:56.went in, it was right that we went in, we did take Al-Qaeda apart and
:03:56. > :04:00.stop them using terrorist training camps. We then stay there, and that
:04:00. > :04:04.is when you start getting problems. It is easy to miss the fact that
:04:04. > :04:07.you should get out and leave them to it, and I think the French may
:04:07. > :04:11.get their fingers caught if they are not careful. The Prime Minister
:04:11. > :04:15.is right that we should not get our troops involved, but we should
:04:15. > :04:19.support them with transport aircraft and things like that.
:04:19. > :04:21.that should be the extent of it. Absolutely. We have already heard
:04:21. > :04:26.that one of the planes has been delayed because of technical
:04:26. > :04:29.problems. They are very good aircraft, I am sure it will be got
:04:29. > :04:32.round very quickly. I was surprised the Prime Minister said we would
:04:32. > :04:36.share intelligence with them, because we do share intelligence
:04:36. > :04:40.with the French and a lot of people on anything to do with terrorism.
:04:40. > :04:42.We have worked very closely with all of our allies on anti-terrorist
:04:42. > :04:47.staff, I would hope that is happening all the time, and I'm
:04:47. > :04:51.sure it is. A United Nations back international calls from other
:04:51. > :04:55.parts of the region is expected, but not until the autumn. That
:04:55. > :04:58.could be the difficulty, the French may have to fill that gap. That is
:04:59. > :05:04.the problem, they could find themselves caught up there, and
:05:04. > :05:08.that might be unpopular. I have seen various reports calling this
:05:09. > :05:13.Hollande's war, whereas Lydia was Sarkozy's war. I think he needs to
:05:13. > :05:20.be quite careful if they are getting their fingers in the
:05:20. > :05:25.grinder. But I'm glad they have taken the action, this influences
:05:25. > :05:28.on the whole of the Sahel, an area of worry and concern. I remember
:05:28. > :05:33.talking about it when I was security minister, saying we had to
:05:33. > :05:38.be very careful, and it has grown as a threat, I think. It is now
:05:38. > :05:44.time for our daily quiz, and the question for today is, which of
:05:44. > :05:49.these four are somewhat surreal images is the odd one out? At the
:05:49. > :05:54.end of the show, will find out the correct answer. Do you know what
:05:54. > :05:58.your state pension will be when you retire? If you do not, do not worry,
:05:58. > :06:03.as the system is being replaced with a new system which is meant to
:06:03. > :06:06.be simpler. Anyone who retires after 2017 can forget all the
:06:06. > :06:12.complexities of basic state pension and second state pension. There
:06:12. > :06:17.will be just one single payment for each state pension of. The current
:06:17. > :06:20.basic state pension is �107.45 per week. But most people will receive
:06:20. > :06:26.either a second state pension or a means-tested Pension Credit which
:06:26. > :06:32.would bring their income to at least �142.70. But from 2017,
:06:32. > :06:36.pensioners will receive a single state pension of �144 per week, as
:06:36. > :06:40.long as they paid the full national insurance. The government says it
:06:40. > :06:43.will cost the public purse the same amount, but it will be simpler to
:06:43. > :06:46.administer and there are to those with small pensions. Earlier I
:06:46. > :06:52.spoke to Pensions Minister Steve Webb and began by asking him why he
:06:52. > :06:55.thought it would be simpler. At the moment, we probably have one of the
:06:55. > :06:59.most complicated pensions systems in the world. We have a basic
:06:59. > :07:02.pension that most people get, the state second pension that some get,
:07:03. > :07:07.and then many people do not get enough from that, so they get
:07:07. > :07:11.Pension Credit on top. It is baffling, and if you are at work
:07:11. > :07:15.today, and you want to plan for retirement, you have not got a clue
:07:15. > :07:20.what the government will pay for you. Now there is a basic minimum,
:07:20. > :07:23.and then when you are deciding what you want to save for their age, you
:07:23. > :07:27.know where you will stand. Who is going to benefit the most from
:07:27. > :07:32.these changes? So we are spending the same overall. Some will get
:07:32. > :07:35.more than they would have done, some will get less. Whom are they?
:07:35. > :07:42.The beneficiaries are particularly mothers in their late 50s he spent
:07:42. > :07:49.homer time with their children, which damaged their state pension.
:07:49. > :07:53.-- who spent time at home. Millions of workers face paying more tax
:07:53. > :07:57.through increased national insurance contributions if they are
:07:57. > :08:00.part of occupational schemes. is true, and those are mainly
:08:00. > :08:05.people who work in the public sector who pay less national
:08:05. > :08:08.insurance than other workers now and get lay state pension. They
:08:09. > :08:12.will pay the same national insurance in the future and get the
:08:12. > :08:15.same state pension as everyone else. Although their national insurance
:08:15. > :08:19.will go up a bit, their state pension will go quite substantially,
:08:19. > :08:24.so it is a good deal for public sector workers like those. Guineas
:08:24. > :08:28.current economic times, when unions are battling with the government
:08:28. > :08:31.about pension schemes and contributions, you are asking
:08:31. > :08:35.public sector workers to pay more out of their salary now, even
:08:35. > :08:39.though they may benefit later. So they will have to spend more out of
:08:39. > :08:44.their salary to pay for your changes. So we are talking about
:08:44. > :08:48.2017 at the earliest, and what will happen to those people, nurses and
:08:49. > :08:52.teachers, is then national insurance will rise by 1.4%, but
:08:53. > :08:58.their pension potential, instead of building up the 107, they will have
:08:58. > :09:02.a chance to build up to 144. If that was an investment, it would be
:09:02. > :09:08.a fantastic investment. What about these public sector workers facing
:09:08. > :09:12.higher taxes? Are the unions behind the scheme? I have already started
:09:12. > :09:15.conversations with the unions, and we will go on having that dialogue.
:09:15. > :09:19.None of this changes the pension they will get from their public
:09:19. > :09:23.service team. If you are a teacher or nurse, nothing we are announcing
:09:23. > :09:27.today changes the pension you get from that scheme. You'll pay more
:09:27. > :09:31.national insurance for a bigger state pension. How much money does
:09:31. > :09:34.the Treasury get from these changes? So what happens is reduced
:09:34. > :09:38.national insurance for people who have opted out of the state scheme
:09:38. > :09:42.been terms of rebates runs into many billions of pounds. That is
:09:42. > :09:45.not money we are spending, so it is a windfall to the Treasury, who
:09:45. > :09:54.will have to decide how to spend it, but we are not spending it on
:09:54. > :09:57.bigger pensions. How would you like to see that money come back as
:09:57. > :10:00.windfall being spent? If you're asking for teachers, for example,
:10:00. > :10:05.to pay more in terms of contributions, why not suggest some
:10:05. > :10:08.of that money goes back into education? Just to be clear, the
:10:08. > :10:12.teachers to pay more national insurance will get a bigger pension
:10:12. > :10:18.at the end, so they are in a good position. How would you like the
:10:18. > :10:21.money spent customer kit will be 2017 at the Alise Post -- at the
:10:21. > :10:25.earliest, and it is not my role to speculate on how that money will be
:10:25. > :10:29.spent. It will be available to the Chancellor of the day. We have
:10:29. > :10:33.heard from the IFS, they agree with you in the short term that there
:10:33. > :10:36.will be benefits for many people, but in the long term, 30 or 40
:10:36. > :10:40.years, people will be receiving a smaller pension relative to what
:10:40. > :10:45.they might have got and that in the basic state pension and second
:10:45. > :10:48.state pension, they will lose out. So the IFS are talking about the
:10:48. > :10:52.middle of this century, that sort of timescale, and we will be
:10:52. > :10:56.spending a much bigger share of national income on pensions after
:10:56. > :11:01.these reforms, but the rate of growth will be slow. We have got an
:11:01. > :11:04.ageing population, we will have to spend more on health, more on care,
:11:04. > :11:08.more on pensions, and what this helps us to do is have a measure of
:11:08. > :11:11.fiscal control decades down the line. For the first 20 years,
:11:11. > :11:17.something like that, we are spending pretty much the same as we
:11:17. > :11:21.are now. With us now is Ros Altmann, director-general of SAGA. Do you
:11:21. > :11:26.welcome these proposals? I very much welcome these proposals. They
:11:26. > :11:30.are not perfect, but they are a huge step forward and long overdue.
:11:30. > :11:34.We have the most ridiculous pensions system that virtually
:11:34. > :11:37.nobody understands, and even the DWP itself often says it is so
:11:37. > :11:42.complicated they cannot work out what your entitlement is going to
:11:42. > :11:46.be. You cannot carry on like that, and the current system penalises
:11:46. > :11:50.any money whose saves and a private pension, potentially, because it
:11:50. > :11:54.rely so heavily on means-testing. There is a fear that public sector
:11:54. > :11:58.workers will have to contribute more, well, they will have to
:11:58. > :12:01.contribute more, a bit more in terms of contributions. Isn't that
:12:01. > :12:07.going to be quite difficult for those people in the current
:12:07. > :12:11.climate? Well, first of all, at the moment, anyone in a final-salary
:12:11. > :12:14.type pension scheme, including public sector workers, gets a
:12:14. > :12:18.discount on their national insurance, because they are not
:12:18. > :12:22.contributing for the full state pension. In future, the potential
:12:22. > :12:26.is that they will no longer get the discount. How that will be handled,
:12:26. > :12:31.we have to wait for the detail, but there is the possibility they might
:12:31. > :12:36.have to pay up to another 1.4% national insurance, but that is in
:12:36. > :12:39.exchange for a much higher state pension. For which she will have to
:12:39. > :12:44.work longer. Well, the age when you get the state pension was already
:12:44. > :12:50.rising. Whether we had this new system or not. They would end up
:12:51. > :12:55.having to work longer. So the increase in the number of years for
:12:55. > :12:59.which you work to state pension age was already set, that is not
:12:59. > :13:04.changing directly as a result of these reforms, and most public
:13:04. > :13:09.sector workers will already have 30-35 years anyway, otherwise they
:13:09. > :13:14.wouldn't have a full working career. Now, we have already had some of
:13:14. > :13:19.our viewers writing in, worried about contributions that they have
:13:19. > :13:26.made into the second state pension. None of those contributions that
:13:26. > :13:30.have been paid up until now will be lost, will they? For up until 2017.
:13:30. > :13:33.No, what the government is saying is that it is not everyone who will
:13:33. > :13:38.have 144 and some people will be brought down to it and some people
:13:38. > :13:43.will be moved up to it. Anyone who was already entitled to more than
:13:43. > :13:46.144 and has paid extra will have that protected. So there will be a
:13:46. > :13:51.transitional period where, instead of getting one payment, people will
:13:51. > :13:56.still get extra above the 144, but it will be the case to anyone who
:13:56. > :14:01.has not got as much as that minimum level will be increased to that,
:14:01. > :14:06.which is mostly women. You know, most men already have more than
:14:06. > :14:10.�144 per week. Most women actually now have less. So it will bring
:14:10. > :14:14.forward the time at which men and women state pension will be
:14:15. > :14:20.equalised. Do you think This is a good idea? His is a practical
:14:20. > :14:23.proposal and solution to what is a complicated system? Well, at the
:14:23. > :14:29.devil is in the detail, and I have not been able to look at that, but
:14:29. > :14:33.anything that simplifies things it is complicated, and sometimes there
:14:33. > :14:37.is a bit of cant about talking about these things in government.
:14:37. > :14:44.There is a real problem that we are all living longer. That is good
:14:44. > :14:48.news! I am about to get to pension age. Far too young! It is very
:14:48. > :14:51.immediate for me. Therefore, we are in a period of austerity, and they
:14:51. > :14:55.are going to be able to get money for the Treasury now in the short
:14:55. > :15:00.term and then look into the future, and one needs to look at the detail,
:15:00. > :15:04.and I think it is important not to run a gonadal where people have
:15:04. > :15:07.spent money and paid for something. That is something that is to move,
:15:07. > :15:12.and occasionally we have seen things like that change, and that
:15:12. > :15:16.must not happen. Pensions are very important to individuals, long-term
:15:16. > :15:24.planning, and some people do not make any provision, and they are
:15:25. > :15:30.going to be in a very difficult The government argues this will
:15:30. > :15:35.give people some certainty. That is the point at the heart of this,
:15:35. > :15:41.which is that ultimately everyone, especially younger generations, for
:15:41. > :15:51.whom this will be more of a reality, everyone will know what the deal is.
:15:51. > :15:51.
:15:51. > :15:55.When you reach state pension age, you will get �144 a week and that
:15:56. > :16:03.is it. If you want to live on more than that, you have to do something
:16:03. > :16:06.about it. Because of means testing at the moment, many moderate
:16:06. > :16:14.earners end up finding they have wasted their money by saving
:16:14. > :16:19.because they are replacing means- tested benefits that their
:16:19. > :16:29.colleagues didn't bother saving. It is not fair and it puts people off
:16:29. > :16:30.
:16:31. > :16:39.saving. I don't think it is fair. At the end of this year,
:16:39. > :16:41.restrictions on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania will be lifted.
:16:41. > :16:43.Yesterday, speaking to Andrew on the Sunday Politics Show,
:16:43. > :16:46.Communities Secretary Eric Pickles admitted that the Government had no
:16:46. > :16:54.idea how many immigrants may arrive from these countries and that any
:16:54. > :16:57.influx could cause big problems. wasn't confident in figures. I have
:16:58. > :17:02.asked for a further explanation, and when I have got that and I feel
:17:02. > :17:08.confident about the figures, I will talk about the figures. Does the
:17:08. > :17:14.figure you have been given worry you? When I am confident about the
:17:14. > :17:19.figures, I will express my confidence or worries. But do you
:17:19. > :17:24.accept that this could present another major increase in housing
:17:24. > :17:31.demand in a country where there is already a major housing shortage?
:17:31. > :17:36.Given that we have got a housing shortage, any influx from Romania
:17:36. > :17:42.and Bulgaria is going to cause problems. It will cause problems
:17:42. > :17:47.not just in terms of the housing market but also on social housing
:17:47. > :17:51.market, but one of the reasons I am not prepared to start a scare story
:17:51. > :18:00.going is that I think we need to be reasonably confident about the
:18:00. > :18:03.figures. Well, our reporter David Thompson is on the green to discuss
:18:03. > :18:06.the issue further with Conservative MP Stewart Jackson and Sunder
:18:06. > :18:12.Katwala, Director of the think tank British Future. It seemed to be the
:18:12. > :18:16.elephant in the room that nobody seems to know the numbers. Philip
:18:16. > :18:21.collarbone as a Conservative MP, and he estimated there can be as
:18:21. > :18:26.many as 300,000 people coming into the country after December. Eric
:18:26. > :18:32.Pickles dismissed that figure, but as we heard he didn't seem able to
:18:32. > :18:36.give his own numbers on what that might be. I am joined by Stewart
:18:36. > :18:46.Jackson, the Conservative MP, who has a bill coming up on Wednesday
:18:46. > :18:47.
:18:47. > :18:52.to try to limit the numbers on immigration, and Sunder Katwala,
:18:52. > :19:01.Director of the think tank British Future. We don't want to make the
:19:01. > :19:05.same mistakes as in 2004, importing low wages, low-skilled workers. We
:19:05. > :19:11.have not done a proper analysis of the impact on the employment market,
:19:11. > :19:13.the delivery of core public services and community cohesion and
:19:13. > :19:19.to is incumbent on the Prime Minister and Eric Pickles to
:19:19. > :19:22.reassure people that we will not have huge numbers, potentially 29
:19:22. > :19:26.million people from Romania and Bulgaria having three access to
:19:26. > :19:36.this country, and that they will not have a significant impact on
:19:36. > :19:36.
:19:36. > :19:41.the market. How was it that Eric Pickles is unwilling or unable to
:19:41. > :19:45.say how many people will come here? It is fine if they are not putting
:19:45. > :19:48.the number out because they have not dumb are correct studies yet,
:19:48. > :19:54.but it will happen so it is important to do the projections and
:19:54. > :19:59.the work. Last time the government lost trust in 2004 because it was
:19:59. > :20:05.not expecting the scale of what happened. Otherwise it might have
:20:05. > :20:09.done the preparation better. This will be different because Polish
:20:09. > :20:14.people could come to Britain but they could not work in Germany or
:20:14. > :20:20.France. We have to work out - we have not got crystal ball - how
:20:20. > :20:23.many people we think might come to Britain, to which areas, and if
:20:23. > :20:27.there are aspects of the system that need to change. It is
:20:27. > :20:32.difficult to change the rules of the EU without the bigger debate of
:20:32. > :20:37.whether we want to be in it. can have your bill in parliament on
:20:37. > :20:42.Wednesday, not only that, this is EU law and you can't do anything
:20:42. > :20:46.about it. For the thing is that my view is it is not the same as 2004
:20:46. > :20:51.because there was no political will by the Labour government then to
:20:51. > :20:57.vary the free movement directives. We can review it on the impact on
:20:57. > :21:05.the economy, on public good, public security, the impact on the health
:21:05. > :21:08.service. It is not set in stone. It is a live piece of EU Law. My bill
:21:08. > :21:13.was not a completely get rid of the free movement directives but to
:21:13. > :21:17.look at it from a British perspective so there is plenty
:21:17. > :21:22.ministers can do. Foreigners as they can bring in a scheme to make
:21:22. > :21:27.sure we know who is in the country, look at criminal records, and look
:21:27. > :21:30.at agricultural producers. What has to happen to make Romania and
:21:30. > :21:35.Bulgarian immigration work for Britain? Having an independent
:21:35. > :21:44.study of what you are expecting will happen, looking at the policy
:21:44. > :21:49.areas that you know are open. Then we need to work out how we can
:21:49. > :21:53.manage the pressures. The bigger debate of whether we want to be in
:21:53. > :21:58.the European Union or not, this will happen in January and the
:21:58. > :22:01.political parties need to have that debate so it is handled in the
:22:01. > :22:05.interests of British society. We know that Polish people came here
:22:05. > :22:10.and worked hard and did something for the economy but we were not
:22:10. > :22:19.expecting that. Back to you in the studio. Before
:22:19. > :22:26.you go, it is it's snowing? If just a little bit. This is not Duncroft.
:22:26. > :22:32.Before we move on, the last government was criticised for not
:22:32. > :22:35.preparing Great Britain well enough when people from Poland were coming
:22:35. > :22:41.over from work. Do you think we need to look more closely at this
:22:41. > :22:45.now? I think the scale was not anticipated and we need greater
:22:45. > :22:53.clarity of what is involved. There is no doubt people in this country
:22:53. > :22:58.are concerned and worried - are people really making claims when
:22:58. > :23:01.they are working that they could not get in their own country? What
:23:01. > :23:07.impact will that have on my children? These people are willing
:23:07. > :23:11.to work for a lot less here because they are relatively poor. These
:23:11. > :23:15.issues worry people and we need greater clarity of the truth so we
:23:15. > :23:19.can then make decisions about what to do across-the-board to try and
:23:19. > :23:24.resolve that. Do you agree with Stewart Jackson, who was saying
:23:24. > :23:30.Britain should be looking to change the directives or restrict what
:23:30. > :23:33.people can claim when they come here? I wouldn't go as far as
:23:33. > :23:38.saying that blankly. We need to look at the totality and make
:23:38. > :23:43.decisions about how to protect our own people and people in this
:23:44. > :23:50.country, and what the best thing to do is. I'm also interested in what
:23:50. > :23:56.other countries in Europe do. I don't think we want to be out of
:23:56. > :24:06.step with that, because otherwise clearly they will come to us rather
:24:06. > :24:07.
:24:07. > :24:10.than going to other countries to work. We need to be clear.
:24:10. > :24:13.In two months' time the people of the Falkland islands will decide in
:24:13. > :24:15.a referendum whether they want to remain British. The islands have
:24:15. > :24:19.belonged to Britain since 1833. Recently Argentina has been upping
:24:19. > :24:21.the pressure on Britain to give them up. But more than 30 years
:24:21. > :24:25.since we fought to protect them from Argentine invasion, is there
:24:25. > :24:35.really a case for us to keep hold of the Falklands? Susana Mendonsa
:24:35. > :24:36.
:24:36. > :24:39.has been speaking to one man who We went to war over them and they
:24:39. > :24:43.are still proving a source of tension between Britain and
:24:43. > :24:47.Argentina, but as the people of the Falkland Islands prepare to vote on
:24:47. > :24:52.whether they want to stay British, some people think it is time to
:24:52. > :24:56.consider giving the islands up. the end, a deal will have to be
:24:56. > :25:01.done, just as this whole thing began because the Conservative
:25:01. > :25:05.government in the day was trying to do a deal with the Argentinians.
:25:05. > :25:10.after war broke out in 1982 there was little prospect of a deal with
:25:10. > :25:14.Argentina. Government papers from the time offer an insight into the
:25:14. > :25:19.impact of the invasion. When you sift through these documents, you
:25:19. > :25:23.get a real sense of how important the Falkland Islands were to
:25:23. > :25:27.Margaret Thatcher. She talks about the moment when she found out the
:25:27. > :25:31.islands had been invaded and describes it as the worst moment of
:25:31. > :25:35.her life. He was some correspondence between herself and
:25:36. > :25:40.Ronald Reagan, and she basically tells him that she would do the
:25:40. > :25:44.same if Alaska had been threatened in the same way. While she enjoyed
:25:44. > :25:51.American support back then, the UK's international interests could
:25:51. > :25:57.now be damaged for its support for the British outpost. The cost of
:25:57. > :26:03.Obama's attitude to the British Empire is not what Ronald Reagan
:26:03. > :26:08.and Margaret Thatcher would have put together, and this is a long
:26:08. > :26:14.running difficulty. Apart from that, colonialism at the UN has a rather
:26:14. > :26:18.toxic word. It doesn't do the current British attitude any good
:26:18. > :26:23.and it doesn't do our trade prospects for the future any good
:26:23. > :26:27.in Latin America. Recent oil exploration in the Falklands has
:26:27. > :26:33.led to increased tensions with Argentina. Last year this stand-off
:26:33. > :26:38.was caught on camera between David Cameron and Argentina's President.
:26:38. > :26:43.She accused Britain of 19th century colonialism, in an open letter that
:26:43. > :26:49.received this response. It is 30 years ago, for heaven's sake the
:26:49. > :26:53.Cold War ended 25 years ago - can we move on a bit? Then there is the
:26:53. > :27:03.question of how much it costs to maintain a military presence in the
:27:03. > :27:14.
:27:14. > :27:20.Falklands. The MoD put it at more Nobody is asking us whether we want
:27:20. > :27:27.to continue paying the money to defend the Falklands, or to offer
:27:27. > :27:37.this continuing lifestyles to them into perpetuity. For the Falklands
:27:37. > :27:37.
:27:37. > :27:40.war ended in 72 days, but the war of words over its future continues.
:27:40. > :27:43.Well our guest of the day, Admiral West, defended the Falkland islands.
:27:43. > :27:48.In fact his ship, HMS Ardent, was sunk during the 1982 conflict.
:27:48. > :27:52.We're also joined by the Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn. What is your case
:27:53. > :27:59.for keeping the Falklands? I think the people who live there, and
:27:59. > :28:02.indeed I have a friend over who runs a farm - one of the fifth
:28:02. > :28:06.generation who live there - and the people who live there firmly wished
:28:06. > :28:10.to remain in the circumstances they are at the moment with a
:28:10. > :28:14.considerable amount of local government control but also under
:28:14. > :28:19.the overarching control of the UK and the Queen. That is what they
:28:20. > :28:22.want and I think they have a right to self determination. This talk of
:28:22. > :28:29.colonialism, if you look historically the Spanish settlers
:28:29. > :28:36.in South America who revolted from Spain in 1816, they embarked on a
:28:36. > :28:41.major piece of colonisation, up into the northern part towards
:28:41. > :28:47.Paraguay, almost fighting against Chile. They sent an armed party to
:28:47. > :28:51.the Falkland Islands and they were the colonialists innocence.
:28:51. > :28:57.shouldn't they have a right to self-determination? They can have a
:28:57. > :29:02.vote, and I have no doubt they will vote to remain British. Some issues
:29:02. > :29:06.need to be discussed. Britain is very keen on self-determination for
:29:06. > :29:11.the islanders but has spent the last 40 years preventing the Jay
:29:11. > :29:17.Goss islanders from returning to their own territories so there is
:29:17. > :29:23.double standards there. Low as concentrate on the Falkland Islands
:29:23. > :29:27.themselves. If they vote, isn't that the end of the story?
:29:27. > :29:31.because relations with Argentina will be difficult, a possible
:29:31. > :29:38.blockade, and that relations with the whole of Latin America. Other
:29:38. > :29:42.situations like this, for example the dispute between Finland and
:29:42. > :29:46.Sweden were sorted out by some degree of joint administration
:29:46. > :29:51.while retaining the nationality. It has been done with hung Kong, to
:29:51. > :29:56.some extent Gibraltar. There is another way forward other than
:29:56. > :30:01.spending more money and a potential catastrophic conflict which will
:30:01. > :30:05.damage our relations. Do you see a conflict being on the cards? I hope
:30:05. > :30:15.not, but the more the rhetoric built up There is that danger.
:30:15. > :30:21.you think there is a conflict on That did not think they are capable
:30:21. > :30:26.or would intend to do military action. I believe the islands are
:30:26. > :30:30.well enough defended. It the airfield was captured, we would be
:30:30. > :30:34.incapable of taking it back, and that is a different issue, but I
:30:34. > :30:40.think the danger with raising the rhetoric, and the reason that she
:30:40. > :30:46.is doing this is because she is very unpopular with in Argentina.
:30:46. > :30:50.She has got mid- term elections coming up, they have got huge
:30:50. > :30:54.problems in their economy, their training ship was impounded. She
:30:54. > :30:57.has had to hire a British plane to visit other countries because if
:30:57. > :31:01.she flew in one of hers, it would be impounded, because she has
:31:01. > :31:07.messed up the economy so much. It is a way of taking people's eyes
:31:07. > :31:10.off that. And that may suitor in that case. If you use that rhetoric,
:31:10. > :31:16.the problem is you might get a splinter group who would do
:31:16. > :31:20.something stupid, and rather like back in 1982, when Galtieri used
:31:20. > :31:25.this as a way of taking people's eyes of the dreadful things, then
:31:25. > :31:29.you end up with 22 of your boys being killed, as I did. Not for the
:31:30. > :31:32.first time as a leader tried to use diversionary tactics, so it is in
:31:33. > :31:37.her interests to escalate this, and it makes it difficult for the
:31:37. > :31:40.British government. In the same way that it was in the interest of
:31:40. > :31:44.Margaret Thatcher to divert away from economic issues. There is a
:31:44. > :31:48.letter being produced by five Nobel Peace Prize winners who suggest
:31:48. > :31:52.that without changing the question of nationality, there is room for
:31:52. > :31:56.discussion and debate as the UN have called for. Why can't we
:31:56. > :32:00.respond to that at work on that basis, rather than upping the ante
:32:00. > :32:05.and spending more money and arms? Couldn't you start negotiating?
:32:05. > :32:10.do not think we are upping the ante, I think they are. But we are not
:32:10. > :32:16.even discussing it. The police said we will not discuss the nationality
:32:17. > :32:21.aspect, and there will be a referendum there. -- we said. When
:32:21. > :32:25.the despotic regime collapsed and they became democratic, there was
:32:25. > :32:29.an opportunity for them to extend a hand, build up close links, and
:32:29. > :32:33.they did not do that, and that is so unfortunate, and instead they
:32:33. > :32:37.are looking and thinking, gosh, they have got quite a lot of money
:32:37. > :32:42.from the fishing revenue, there might be oil, we are broke, there
:32:42. > :32:48.is going to be this referendum, and all of these things are raised the
:32:48. > :32:52.issue. What about the issue of oil revenues? It has not been found, so
:32:52. > :32:56.let's hold on that, but it would be a benefit to whichever companies
:32:56. > :32:59.get hold of the concessions, and the tax income, and we get very
:32:59. > :33:03.little at the moment from the Falklands. There's obviously a
:33:03. > :33:07.possibility of some kind of arrangement where a number of
:33:07. > :33:11.people could exploit the oil reserves. In 1989, some Falkland
:33:11. > :33:15.Islands councillors started a dialogue with Argentina. Is it the
:33:15. > :33:19.end of the world if we have a dialogue with a very large
:33:19. > :33:22.neighbouring country? When did benefit the Falkland islanders to
:33:22. > :33:26.have a bit more certainty that they are not going to have his perennial
:33:26. > :33:35.threat because it suits the Argentinians domestically? -- when
:33:35. > :33:41.did. She and David Cameron and the government holed out at hand? --
:33:41. > :33:45.shouldn't. Not when they are doing what they are doing. Although this
:33:45. > :33:49.sort of follow along, South America, a lot of them do not like the
:33:49. > :33:54.Argentine. Chile and Brazil are not against the UK to the extent that
:33:54. > :33:58.people might say they are. Pinochet supported Thatcher, the current
:33:58. > :34:05.Chilean government would not. are much moe pro than people might
:34:05. > :34:10.Reports in the papers, defence chiefs preparing contingency plans
:34:10. > :34:15.to defend the Falklands, additional troops, another warship. Coming up
:34:15. > :34:17.to the referendum, because of all the talk, the loose Talk From the
:34:17. > :34:23.President of the Argentine, I think it makes sense to have
:34:23. > :34:27.contingencies in place. The Falkland islanders pay big chunk of
:34:27. > :34:30.their defence costs. If it did happened, if oil were found, they
:34:30. > :34:34.would be able to pay all of it. It is right we should defend these
:34:34. > :34:40.people, because we are able to do it. In the case of Hong Kong, we
:34:40. > :34:45.could not have done it. We could do it, and I think it is right.
:34:45. > :34:47.that note, I will say goodbye to Jeremy Corbyn and Lord West, thank
:34:47. > :34:51.you. Over the weekend, there was more
:34:51. > :34:55.discussion about Britain's place in Europe. Eric Pickles increase the
:34:55. > :34:59.pressure on the Prime Minister, saying that the UK should remain a
:34:59. > :35:02.member of the EU at any price and that he would vote against his
:35:02. > :35:05.party on the issue if you felt it was in the national interest. David
:35:05. > :35:09.Cameron was doing the rounds this morning and was asked about the
:35:09. > :35:13.thorny issue of a referendum on membership. He told John Humphrys
:35:13. > :35:17.he wanted to give the British people a referendum, but only in
:35:17. > :35:21.the right circumstances. There are opportunities for us to make
:35:21. > :35:25.changes, and when we make those changes, a new settlement, we
:35:25. > :35:30.should make there is consent for that settlement. I will be setting
:35:30. > :35:34.out exactly how in my speech, but I'm not against a referenda. Are
:35:34. > :35:42.you in favour? In some cases, particularly in this case. The
:35:42. > :35:46.principle should be this. If you are fundamentally changing the
:35:46. > :35:49.relationship in Europe, then you should be having a referendum.
:35:49. > :35:53.have just said the referendum is changing -- the relationship is
:35:53. > :35:57.changing, so it follows that there will be a referendum, and the
:35:57. > :36:02.question that follows that, whether it be and in Out referendum? You'll
:36:02. > :36:06.have to wait for the speech for the full details. But you are not
:36:06. > :36:10.ruling that out. I want to give people a proper choice. If we had
:36:10. > :36:13.an in-out referendum tomorrow, or very shortly, I do not think that
:36:14. > :36:17.would be the right answer, for the simple reason that we would be
:36:17. > :36:21.giving people a false choice, because right now a lot of people
:36:21. > :36:27.would say, well, I would like to be in Europe but I'm not happy with
:36:27. > :36:35.every aspect of the relationship. That is my view, so I think an in-
:36:35. > :36:40.out referendum today is a false choice. I have been joined by
:36:40. > :36:44.Conservative MP Margot James, Labour MP Pat McFadden, and Greg
:36:44. > :36:49.Mulholland of the Liberal Democrats. Would you like to see an in-out
:36:49. > :36:53.referendum? Not at the moment, but I do think the ultimate referendum,
:36:53. > :36:57.it looks likely that we will have one at some point, and it will have
:36:57. > :37:01.to address the issue. When you think it should be? Well, it is
:37:01. > :37:05.unlikely to be this side of the next general election, so we would
:37:05. > :37:10.be looking at after 2015, and I am concerned that will create a huge
:37:10. > :37:14.amount of uncertainty which might affect investment into this country
:37:14. > :37:18.by global corporations. What do you think business at the moment is
:37:18. > :37:22.thinking? We have spoken to global businessmen over the last few weeks
:37:22. > :37:26.to say, without that certainty, they cannot plan, they do not know
:37:26. > :37:29.whether to base their companies here, or parts of their companies
:37:29. > :37:36.here. Is David Cameron making a huge mistake not giving that
:37:36. > :37:38.certainty? Exactly, that is the point. Business do not want that
:37:38. > :37:42.uncertainty, and I am very concerned about foreign investment
:37:43. > :37:45.into this country. We are the number-one destination for foreign
:37:46. > :37:50.investment in the whole of Europe, and we want to hang on to that, it
:37:50. > :37:54.is very much in our interests to hang on to that position. What do
:37:54. > :37:57.you want David Cameron to say? want the Prime Minister to confirm
:37:57. > :38:03.that Britain's place should be at the heart of Europe and that we
:38:03. > :38:08.should be using our position as a very important member of the EU to
:38:08. > :38:12.influence, to get changed. I agree that change is needed, but also to
:38:12. > :38:16.drive forward the market which is so in the interests of this country.
:38:16. > :38:20.How confident are you that he can renegotiate Britain's relationship
:38:20. > :38:26.with the EU? I think there are areas where there is a chance of
:38:26. > :38:31.renegotiation. Which ones? Do you want to see, as some have said, an
:38:31. > :38:34.effective veto a financial services regulation, and also of the Working
:38:34. > :38:41.Time Directive? Financial services and the Working Time Directive are
:38:41. > :38:45.areas I would like to see a loosening of EU power, yes. That is
:38:45. > :38:49.possible, Pat McFadden, to renegotiate our relationship, to
:38:49. > :38:54.repatriate powers in those areas? do not think the agenda set out by
:38:54. > :38:58.that fresh Start group is going to be achieved. I think the
:38:58. > :39:02.Conservatives are either being naive or perhaps even dishonest
:39:02. > :39:08.about the amount of repatriation, renegotiation that we are likely to
:39:08. > :39:13.see. Our objective should not be to go along with a menu which, if you
:39:13. > :39:18.like, dissolves the common rules. Our objective should be different,
:39:18. > :39:22.it should be to reinforce the single market, to press for a
:39:22. > :39:27.growth agenda, around things like transport, communications. The
:39:27. > :39:31.future for the UK and Europe has to be about how to get growth and jobs,
:39:31. > :39:35.and my fear about the current discussion is that it is bringing
:39:35. > :39:39.uncertainty, casting doubt over our relationship with the EU. It is
:39:39. > :39:44.about inward investment, but it is also about businesses here. They
:39:44. > :39:49.want to know the future, too. Should the Labour Party promised a
:39:49. > :39:55.referendum before the next election? I am not keen on having
:39:56. > :39:59.this referendum. Our tour. I think it will lead to uncertainty. I am
:40:00. > :40:04.certainly not keen on announcing it when we do not know what the future
:40:04. > :40:07.shape is, what the question is. Even David Cameron has not told us
:40:07. > :40:13.whether he is proposing a referendum on a renegotiated
:40:13. > :40:17.package... Well, that is what he has implied. Or whether it is a
:40:17. > :40:21.simple in-out question, as many people want. I think there's a lot
:40:22. > :40:26.of nostalgia about this discussion. They would like to see the UK as
:40:26. > :40:30.some kind of island version of Switzerland or Norway. I do not
:40:30. > :40:34.believe that is the right economic or political future for the UK.
:40:34. > :40:39.Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 election promising and in that
:40:39. > :40:42.referendum. Will Nick Clegg promise that now going into 2015? We will
:40:42. > :40:48.have to see what commitments are made when the manifesto is written.
:40:48. > :40:52.But if you promised it in 2010, why not in 2015? Can we be clear what
:40:52. > :40:56.the coalition has achieved? It is the first time this has ever been
:40:56. > :40:59.achieved, and if there are any transfers of powers to Brussels,
:40:59. > :41:03.there will be a referendum. That has never happened before, and that
:41:03. > :41:07.has been delivered through the coalition agreement. I think that
:41:07. > :41:10.is very important, and I think it will be better to reiterate that
:41:10. > :41:14.message to the British people and get on with dealing with the
:41:14. > :41:18.economic crisis here and supporting the situation in Europe. So you do
:41:18. > :41:21.not personally want a referendum. You think it would lead to
:41:22. > :41:25.instability. If there was any suggestion of transfer of powers,
:41:25. > :41:29.there would have to now be a referendum, and that is right, but
:41:29. > :41:33.this is not the right time to be talking about an in-out referendum,
:41:33. > :41:37.because we are in the middle of the most serious economic crisis since
:41:37. > :41:41.the Second World War. The priority for the country, the government and
:41:41. > :41:45.business is for us to deal with that. You say they are areas that
:41:45. > :41:50.could be renegotiated, and if not, where would you stand then?
:41:50. > :41:54.most fertile ground lies in the areas where it is not just Britain,
:41:54. > :41:58.it is other member states, it would be in their interests to have a
:41:58. > :42:01.reduction in some of the influence over the social chapter, over the
:42:01. > :42:05.Working Time Directive and that sort of thing. There is no
:42:05. > :42:09.indication from the leading lights in the commission and in the
:42:09. > :42:12.Parliament to say that would be achievable. If you open Pandora's
:42:12. > :42:15.box for one country, you would have to do it for all member states.
:42:15. > :42:20.think it is a bit premature to write off the chances of getting
:42:20. > :42:24.powers back from the EU. I do agree that it is going to be difficult,
:42:24. > :42:29.and the Commission are not going to want to see a reduction of Central
:42:29. > :42:32.Powers, but there are, as I say, some areas where other member
:42:32. > :42:38.states in whose interests it would be to have less Brussels's
:42:38. > :42:41.interference. But there is no guarantee. No. If the powers are
:42:41. > :42:47.not repatriated, which are like to see Britain come out of the EU or
:42:47. > :42:51.stay? No, I would not want to see Britain come out of the EU. So you
:42:52. > :42:56.do not agree with Eric Pickles that we should stay at any price?
:42:56. > :43:03.not exactly sure what he said, but you asked me a straightforward
:43:03. > :43:08.question, what I want to leave the EU, and the answer is no. Eric
:43:08. > :43:13.Pickles said that the UK should not stay in the EU at any price, sorry,
:43:13. > :43:16.should not stay. Of course not at any price, but there are
:43:16. > :43:21.negotiations going on all the time between member states and the UK
:43:21. > :43:26.and Brussels, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister will achieve enough
:43:26. > :43:29.in order for most people to be comfortable with the idea that the
:43:29. > :43:33.benefits of EU membership outweigh the risks of withdrawal. Don't you
:43:33. > :43:37.think it is right for the government to be pushing for a
:43:37. > :43:42.better, better sort of relationship as far as Britain as concerned? If
:43:42. > :43:47.it can repatriate powers, then it should. I think Margaret is right
:43:47. > :43:52.to say that the way that the EU advances national interest is to
:43:52. > :43:55.build alliances, to reach agreement with those who have not common
:43:55. > :44:00.interests, but the government's stands in the last two years has
:44:00. > :44:03.been moving away from that. We seem very semi-detached in European
:44:03. > :44:08.discussions, we seem not to care about that, and the whole thing is
:44:08. > :44:11.now being governed by internal political considerations, fear of
:44:11. > :44:15.the rise of UKIP, and what we have got here now is a tension between
:44:15. > :44:18.the domestic interests of the Conservative Party and the national
:44:18. > :44:22.interests of the country, and it is in the national interest to stay at
:44:23. > :44:27.the heart of these discussions. is Monday, so what has this week
:44:27. > :44:30.got in store at Westminster? This afternoon the NHS chief executive
:44:30. > :44:33.and medical director appear before the Public Accounts Committee to be
:44:33. > :44:38.quizzed on efficiency savings in the health service in England.
:44:38. > :44:41.Tomorrow sees the start of the trial of Chris Huhne and his ex-
:44:41. > :44:46.wife on charges of perverting the course of justice. Wednesday sees
:44:46. > :44:56.the launch of the Conservative bright blue group's new book, with
:44:56. > :45:01.the title Tory Modernisation, expected to suggest relaxing
:45:01. > :45:04.planning, and permitting profit- making companies to run schools. On
:45:04. > :45:08.Thursday, William Hague will make a key speech during a visit to
:45:08. > :45:12.Australia. On Friday, the Bishop of Liverpool will host a summit of
:45:12. > :45:22.large cities to challenge what he says is the Government's unfair
:45:22. > :45:22.
:45:22. > :45:31.distribution of local authority Joining us, all the right from the
:45:31. > :45:34.Independent and James Forsyth from the Spectator. -- Oliver Wright.
:45:34. > :45:39.There is mounting concern about what the Prime Minister is going to
:45:39. > :45:43.say and how the party will react. We have known the date of this
:45:43. > :45:47.speech for ages, but there are still hasn't been a meeting of the
:45:47. > :45:52.Conservative political Cabinet about what David Cameron will say.
:45:52. > :45:56.We know they are meeting on Wednesday, but we know the speech
:45:56. > :46:00.is already written. Why has this been trailed for so long? Wouldn't
:46:00. > :46:07.it have been better to have just given a speech without the debate
:46:07. > :46:11.beforehand? I think that is right. David Cameron is a Conservative
:46:11. > :46:14.Euro-sceptic in the old sense of the word, whereas much of his party
:46:14. > :46:19.is far to the right of him, and frankly they would be perfectly
:46:19. > :46:27.happy to see Britain out of Europe altogether unless he can negotiate
:46:27. > :46:30.some radical changes, which I think it is quite some clear whether he
:46:30. > :46:35.wants or he is prepared to do. There it is the key, if you like,
:46:35. > :46:45.the pivotal moment in terms of whether Britain can actually
:46:45. > :46:48.
:46:48. > :46:55.repatriate these powers, and basing the whole speech on a larger if
:46:55. > :46:59.makes it difficult. The mainstream Tory opinion on Europe wants a
:46:59. > :47:03.different relationship with the EU, and he needs to at least be
:47:03. > :47:08.prepared to suggest that if the EU will not give you what you want you
:47:08. > :47:11.have to be prepared to leave. That is a Rubicon David Cameron is not
:47:11. > :47:14.prepared to cross because he is concerned about what the
:47:14. > :47:20.international reaction would be, but it is hard to see how he will
:47:20. > :47:27.get what he wants if his opening line of negotiation is we really
:47:27. > :47:32.want to stay in the EU, but please can we have some powers back?
:47:32. > :47:37.of this leads to talk of Europe, exactly what David Cameron wants to
:47:37. > :47:41.avoid. Yes, but it has come back and you can't help but feel David
:47:41. > :47:45.Cameron has put himself into a position where this is going to be
:47:45. > :47:48.one of the most dominant arguments in the run-up to the next election,
:47:49. > :47:54.and being in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are much
:47:54. > :47:59.more disposed to Europe than him, that spells all sorts of problems.
:47:59. > :48:02.It is possible that David Cameron, as he said this morning in his
:48:02. > :48:08.interview, is in tune with what the majority of the British public
:48:08. > :48:14.thinks, but not in tune with what the rest of his party thinks.
:48:15. > :48:20.about the television debate? Could it happen, but earlier - is that
:48:20. > :48:25.right? Yes, I think we will see the Tories are pushing for a David
:48:25. > :48:30.Cameron Ed Miliband head to head for the new broadcasting rules
:48:30. > :48:33.chicken, so you would not have to include the Lib Dems or UKIP.
:48:33. > :48:38.this is because David Cameron said it might take over the whole
:48:38. > :48:43.campaign? It requires the Conservatives, and their strongest
:48:43. > :48:49.card in the next election is who do you want to be Prime Minister -
:48:49. > :48:55.David Cameron or Ed Miliband? They will try to write the Lib Dems out
:48:55. > :49:03.of the script. The interesting thing which we may see is a change
:49:03. > :49:07.in format of the debate. Last time there were a lot of rules, but this
:49:07. > :49:11.time aids to both their leaders think their guy is good at town
:49:11. > :49:17.hall debates with more interaction with the audience. David Cameron
:49:18. > :49:22.has been going round the country doing his talks, and people close
:49:22. > :49:26.to him say that when he does this directly he connects with the
:49:26. > :49:30.audience and they are both pretty convinced they guide will trump the
:49:30. > :49:36.other guy. We might see a more innovative way forward which will
:49:36. > :49:45.be better than last time. So on thing to look forward to. I will
:49:45. > :49:47.let you go. Thank you. Only last week Nick Clegg and David Cameron
:49:47. > :49:53.were standing shoulder-to-shoulder reaffirming their commitment to the
:49:53. > :49:56.Coalition. But today sees a test of that unity. A Labour amendment in
:49:57. > :49:59.the House of Lords this afternoon will seek to delay plans to redraw
:49:59. > :50:02.parliamentary constituencies until 2018. And Lib Dem peers are
:50:02. > :50:05.expected to support it, scuppering Conservative hopes of obtaining a
:50:05. > :50:08.20-seat advantage over the other parties at the next election. So,
:50:08. > :50:10.are the boundary changes now a dead duck? Or can the PM persuade
:50:10. > :50:20.Democratic Unionists and Scottish Nationalists to support it in the
:50:20. > :50:25.Commons? I have my three MPs first ball. Margot James, if this goes
:50:25. > :50:32.through the efforts to change the boundaries are over. And we are not
:50:32. > :50:35.so optimistic as we were, and it is quite courageous. It still requires
:50:35. > :50:38.many more votes to elect a Conservative government than a
:50:38. > :50:43.Labour government. The system is wrong and we are trying to reduce
:50:43. > :50:48.the number of MPs, which has a lot of public support, and it looks
:50:48. > :50:51.like we will be defeated by draconian laws this afternoon.
:50:51. > :50:57.you think you will be on the public's side when you vote to
:50:57. > :51:01.reduce the number of MPs to 600? certainly did we are acting in the
:51:01. > :51:05.interest of the country because the boundary changes were introduced at
:51:05. > :51:09.the wrong time and they were the wrong set of proposals, which were
:51:09. > :51:13.there to simply advantage the Conservative Party rather than to
:51:13. > :51:18.deal with the genuine issue that Margot James has said there, the
:51:18. > :51:25.number of votes. I said all way through, I tabled an amendment when
:51:25. > :51:30.this was going through the House of Commons doing exactly what was done
:51:30. > :51:34.today, and this is the right thing to do. It was an absurd time to
:51:34. > :51:38.push it through, before the next general election. We need a
:51:38. > :51:45.sensible, longer review with more sensible rules and I think we could
:51:45. > :51:52.get more agreement. Gerrymandering going on? At some not. The boundary
:51:52. > :51:58.commissioner has been sitting for two years. Surely within a
:51:58. > :52:03.parliament there is time. At the moment it is not fair and we have
:52:03. > :52:08.too many MPs, we are trying to reduce the constituencies and make
:52:08. > :52:14.them more often equal size. What do you say to that? The rules are
:52:14. > :52:18.simply not there to deal with, as I say, the problem is that the rules
:52:18. > :52:23.were far too prescriptive and tied the hands of the Boundary
:52:23. > :52:27.Commission and exempted some islands and not others. The have
:52:27. > :52:31.been accused of opportunism because it has been a gift for you, keeping
:52:31. > :52:37.the rules and the boundaries as they are because potentially the
:52:37. > :52:41.Tories could have gained 20 seat at the next election. The important
:52:41. > :52:45.thing about the amendment is that it is not just a Labour amendment,
:52:45. > :52:50.it has support from at least some of the Liberal Democrats, some
:52:50. > :52:54.Welsh nationalists, and some crossbenchers so there is a broader
:52:54. > :52:58.view to do this before the next election. You admit there is
:52:58. > :53:03.nothing wrong with unequal constituencies though? What
:53:03. > :53:06.troubled me in the draft proposals was there was no account taken of
:53:06. > :53:13.traditional community boundaries so you had seats crossing city
:53:13. > :53:17.boundaries all over the place. We need to be wary of one point - the
:53:17. > :53:20.Conservative Party are desperate to construct an alliance with
:53:20. > :53:25.nationalists, unionists, any alliance they can to get this
:53:25. > :53:29.through the House of Commons. We have got a referendum on Scottish
:53:29. > :53:33.independence coming up and I do not want to see any kind of backstairs
:53:33. > :53:36.deal between David Cameron and the SNP which is not in the interest of
:53:36. > :53:41.the country to push through something which he believes is in
:53:41. > :53:46.the interests of the Conservative Party. I can't conceive of any such
:53:46. > :53:54.deal. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister are dedicated to
:53:54. > :53:59.maintaining the Union. Do you think there will be any offer? Yes, we
:53:59. > :54:04.are very keen to get these boundary reviews through, for the reasons I
:54:04. > :54:11.said. What's could be offered? implication was some deal over the
:54:11. > :54:15.referendum and I can't believe that would come to pass. Let's go back
:54:15. > :54:20.to the coalition agreement - the deal was that you would back this.
:54:20. > :54:24.The deal was we would back a redrawing of the boundaries but we
:54:24. > :54:29.did not specify the rules and if you look at the coalition agreement
:54:29. > :54:35.it says there a lot of areas where we will do something but not how we
:54:35. > :54:40.do it. I don't necessarily think backbenchers should. We should be
:54:40. > :54:43.clear that reform of the House of Lords, which has one of the few on
:54:43. > :54:47.elected chambers and the world, one of only a handful of countries, it
:54:47. > :54:51.still has people in there simply because their parents and the
:54:51. > :55:01.Conservatives wouldn't back that. I'm afraid it was quite right when
:55:01. > :55:03.
:55:03. > :55:11.it likes of Wigan -- when the Nick Clegg said we would not back the
:55:11. > :55:15.changes. We can go back - was everything in the coalition
:55:15. > :55:19.agreement right? Was it specify sufficiently? I would say not
:55:19. > :55:23.necessarily but they did a very good job in the limited time they
:55:23. > :55:33.had. Is it right the boundary changes have been delayed? We are
:55:33. > :55:39.
:55:39. > :55:43.dealing with the economic crisis, it is. Earlier in the programme, we
:55:43. > :55:53.set the following quiz. The question was which of these four
:55:53. > :55:57.images is the odd one out? So does anybody know the correct answer?
:55:57. > :56:05.One hasn't got any drawing in but I suspect it is more complicated than
:56:05. > :56:09.that. You are right, in that. Let's have a look at that so-called
:56:09. > :56:15.signature in the corner. This is the signature of the new Treasury
:56:15. > :56:19.Secretary in the United States. The others are our Rome doodles of his
:56:19. > :56:29.signature. It does looks like the ridiculous. One person who might be
:56:29. > :56:32.able to talk about this signature is the Chairman of the British
:56:32. > :56:38.Institute of Graphologists, Adam Brand, who joins us now. What can
:56:38. > :56:41.you say about this? And it has a lot of meaning. Signatures are the
:56:41. > :56:44.public image, and when you are looking up personality through the
:56:44. > :56:51.handwriting you do need to see the handwriting and not just the
:56:51. > :56:56.signature. A man's signature has settled down by the time he is 18
:56:56. > :57:00.or 19, but if you look at the way the loops have formed, they are
:57:00. > :57:07.known as arcades, a bridge type structure. This is someone who
:57:07. > :57:12.wants to hide his motive. It is quite a secretive type of writing.
:57:12. > :57:20.The let's have a brief look at some of the other signatures. We can see
:57:20. > :57:24.David Cameron, the Prime Minister. What does that say to you? If you
:57:24. > :57:34.look at the first letter of each name, when you look at the capital
:57:34. > :57:36.
:57:36. > :57:42.letters, look at the power of the D against the C. Small writing like
:57:43. > :57:49.that in the middle zone is a sign of consideration. You can read so
:57:49. > :57:57.much into somebody's signature? Let's look at Ed Miliband next, the
:57:57. > :58:05.Labour leader. Short? That is a sort of "everybody knows who I am"
:58:05. > :58:10.because it is illegible. Is that how you would describe him?!
:58:10. > :58:16.angle at the top of the second stroke, in the upper zone, that
:58:16. > :58:20.means somebody has quite strong ideas. The other thing is that he
:58:20. > :58:25.has an element of self- confidence because of the area underneath the
:58:25. > :58:31.signature. If very briefly, Nick Clegg. What is this screaming out
:58:31. > :58:37.to you? You see how disconnected it is, so again he wants to make
:58:37. > :58:42.public impact. Disconnected writing comes from people who are quite
:58:42. > :58:47.intuitive. The problem is this is just a signature, but writing is