:00:48. > :00:52.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Monday is often a pretty quiet day
:00:52. > :00:55.here at Westminster with MPs making their way back to work from their
:00:55. > :00:58.constituencies all over the UK. But today is not one of those days. We
:00:58. > :01:02.are expecting a big announcement on how the Government plans to fund
:01:02. > :01:05.the long-term care of the elderly, which was a huge row at the last
:01:05. > :01:09.General Election. All the signs are that ministers will cap the amount
:01:09. > :01:12.any one individual will have to pay. And the row about horse meat
:01:12. > :01:14.getting into burgers and other types of food is still
:01:14. > :01:19.reverberating around Westminster. It is not yet a food safety issue
:01:19. > :01:22.but we are being told to brace ourselves for bad news to come. The
:01:22. > :01:25.UK Government has put out a report saying that an independent Scotland
:01:25. > :01:33.would have to reapply to Europe, NATO and have to renegotiate a
:01:33. > :01:36.whole fist of international And the starting gun has well and
:01:36. > :01:46.truly been fired in the Eastleigh by election, with the big parties
:01:46. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :01:49.at each other's throats in the All that in the next hour. And our
:01:49. > :01:52.special guest of the day is Axelle Lemaire who last year became the
:01:52. > :02:00.first ever member of the French Parliament for the new constituency
:02:00. > :02:05.of Northern Europe, which includes Let's start with horse meat, so to
:02:05. > :02:07.speak. Although many of us would probably rather not. The
:02:07. > :02:10.Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to tell MPs
:02:10. > :02:13.in the House this afternoon that there is likely to be more
:02:13. > :02:15.unwelcome news about the wrong kind of meat getting into British
:02:15. > :02:19.supermarkets. Romania is investigating claims that one of
:02:19. > :02:26.its abattoirs is responsible. And Mr Paterson says he thinks a
:02:26. > :02:32.criminal conspiracy could be involved. Reports today we have had
:02:32. > :02:36.from France looks as if it might have been pinned down to two
:02:37. > :02:42.abattoirs in Romania. Obese speaking to the authorities later
:02:42. > :02:47.today to establish that. -- I will be speaking. I hope this fleshes
:02:47. > :02:53.out the criminals. It is unacceptable that British consumers
:02:53. > :02:56.are being sold something marked as one thing but actually is something
:02:56. > :03:00.else. With us now is Anne Macintosh, who chairs the Environment, Food
:03:00. > :03:03.and Rural Affairs Select Committee. Do you trust the Food Standards
:03:03. > :03:08.Authority and your own government advice to carry on eating beef
:03:08. > :03:16.products? Personally, I would like to see the whole trade suspended
:03:16. > :03:21.until we know where the food - where the meat and processed and
:03:21. > :03:29.frozen foods are coming from - and it is accurately labelled. So, you
:03:29. > :03:33.do not trust? That is a big word. The Irish FSA started testing in
:03:33. > :03:40.November. Our own FSA were informed of that. We cannot understand why
:03:40. > :03:44.the UK FSA did not start testing in November. It appears there was a
:03:45. > :03:54.news report over the weekend where the Minister of Agriculture in
:03:55. > :03:55.
:03:55. > :04:01.Romania believes the product testing has to be undertaken for
:04:01. > :04:09.content and that the label matches the content, he believes that has
:04:09. > :04:15.not happened. If the project checks have not taken place, -- product
:04:15. > :04:23.checks have not taken place, those meat should not be imported into
:04:23. > :04:32.the EU. Before we know the facts about the meat produced or made in
:04:32. > :04:38.Romania, are you saying it safe to me eat those products? At the
:04:38. > :04:43.moment where there is no query about British produced products. We
:04:43. > :04:48.have 100% traceability. If you buy fresh meat with the red tractor
:04:48. > :04:53.sign and go back to having a roast at the weekend and eating it during
:04:54. > :04:58.the week, I believe we should be buying British for the moment.
:04:58. > :05:04.Would you want see a suspension of beef products at this point until
:05:04. > :05:11.tests have established exactly what is in them? To answer your question
:05:11. > :05:17.very accurately, at this precise moment, and no. It would be too
:05:17. > :05:22.dramatic. If I am correct, some horsemeat was found in some
:05:22. > :05:28.industries in Northern Ireland back in September last year. I think all
:05:28. > :05:37.the different EU member states are concerned. The French Agriculture
:05:37. > :05:42.Minister spoke of international criminal organisations. What it
:05:42. > :05:48.shows is how complex the network of suppliers has become. In this
:05:48. > :05:54.particular case, it could be up to seven or a big players, based in
:05:54. > :06:00.Cyprus, Holland, France, Luxembourg being involved. So, we have to
:06:00. > :06:07.answer that the controls are effective. But, they are not. The
:06:08. > :06:13.EU Commission already Brewis the band live horse exports from
:06:13. > :06:19.Romania. It needs to be confirmed that the contaminated source is
:06:19. > :06:24.from Romania. If that is the case, I think it is wrong to ask the food
:06:24. > :06:28.industry in this country - France, Ireland everywhere else - to go to
:06:28. > :06:32.the huge costs of these tests were me could be sourcing fresh meat
:06:33. > :06:36.from France and other countries which are not contaminated. If it
:06:36. > :06:41.proves the source of contamination is Romania and the Ministry of
:06:41. > :06:46.Agriculture in Romania agrees they have not conducted the product
:06:46. > :06:49.checks at Port of exit, they are breaking EU regulations on
:06:49. > :06:53.labelling. Do you think the Government is on top of this?
:06:53. > :06:58.Government has done as much as it could in the circumstances. They
:06:58. > :07:08.have not done what you are advising - banning the sale of the items
:07:08. > :07:08.
:07:08. > :07:17.until we have the results of the tests. The Secretary of State has
:07:17. > :07:25.agreed to ban. I do not want Britain to act unilaterally, even
:07:25. > :07:31.though we are still importing the meat. There are reports that six
:07:31. > :07:35.French supermarket chains have withdrawn meals by Findus. If it is
:07:35. > :07:41.not the horse meat itself but a trace of the drug that is given to
:07:41. > :07:47.horses and should not be in the food chain, then there might be a
:07:47. > :07:50.health safety risk. At this moment, we have no idea. The level varies a
:07:50. > :07:56.lot depending on where the horse meat was found, in which country,
:07:56. > :08:03.where it comes from. It is impossible to tell now. Should we
:08:03. > :08:11.make a whole ban on all meat? is a labouring crime and if the
:08:11. > :08:15.Romanians accept they have broken labelling regulations... At the
:08:15. > :08:20.moment we were all saying it is a labelling issue. They are selling
:08:20. > :08:27.meat, which is a horse, and passing it off as beef. That is a trade
:08:27. > :08:31.description problem. EU regulations cover this, which would lead to a
:08:31. > :08:36.temporary suspension, and to we get to the source of contamination.
:08:36. > :08:41.There is no question of fresh meat. That would have to be tested.
:08:41. > :08:44.Romania appears to be in breach of EU regulations. It is a technical
:08:44. > :08:49.point, where they should have checked the contents of the meat
:08:49. > :08:54.before it left Romania, to go into free circulation across the
:08:54. > :08:58.European Union. This is a massive scale. I agree. It may have
:08:58. > :09:02.happened in Romania. It may have happened in another country
:09:02. > :09:08.tomorrow. The controls in this country have increased by a third
:09:08. > :09:14.in the last three years because this is linked to cuts in the jobs
:09:14. > :09:19.being carried out by public authorities. To me, it is a direct
:09:19. > :09:27.consequence of public policies. this country, we do tests. This can
:09:27. > :09:31.be reviewed. In this country, we do tests on a risk basis. Until now,
:09:32. > :09:34.there has never been a risk of this nature. Scotland would face massive
:09:34. > :09:37.legal uncertainties in the event of a vote in for independence,
:09:37. > :09:40.according to a report published today by the UK Government. The
:09:40. > :09:43.report cites the evidence of a number of legal experts, including
:09:43. > :09:45.Sir David Edward from the Edinburgh Law School and it suggests that
:09:45. > :09:47.Scotland would have to renegotiate 14,000 international treaties,
:09:47. > :09:56.including membership of NATO, the International Monetary Fund, and
:09:56. > :09:59.the European Union itself. The report is pretty specific, saying:
:09:59. > :10:01.There is no prospect that an independent Scottish state would
:10:01. > :10:04.automatically become a new member of the EU upon independence because
:10:04. > :10:09.there is no explicit provision for this process in the EU's own
:10:09. > :10:15.membership rules. Neither would an independent Scotland automatically
:10:15. > :10:21.inherit the UK's opt-outs. This was Lord Wallace, the Advocate General
:10:21. > :10:23.for Scotland, a little earlier this morning. It would not be
:10:23. > :10:30.automatically inherit the terms of membership currently enjoyed by the
:10:30. > :10:35.UK. It would not inherit any of the opt-out in relation to the euro nor
:10:35. > :10:40.would it to inherit big UK budget rebate of some �3 billion to the
:10:40. > :10:45.British tax payer in 2011. As Sir David has said, all that is certain
:10:45. > :10:47.is uncertainty. With us now is David Mundell, the Scotland Office
:10:47. > :10:54.Minister, and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Nicola
:10:54. > :10:59.Sturgeon. It is an unusual move to publish legal advice. Why have you
:10:59. > :11:04.done it? It is basic to the big debate we are having in Scotland,
:11:04. > :11:08.about what is best for our future. Our report today, as well as
:11:08. > :11:13.setting out legal opinion, starts with the positive case that
:11:13. > :11:17.Scotland gets the best of both worlds by being part of the United
:11:17. > :11:23.Kingdom. We decide things here in Edinburgh which affect day-to-day
:11:23. > :11:27.things like education and health. We have the UK economy and the
:11:27. > :11:33.security from being part of a huge stake like United Kingdom. What we
:11:33. > :11:38.then go on to argue is that, should Scotland decide to go its own way,
:11:38. > :11:43.what implications flow from that? It is clear to us, with leading
:11:43. > :11:47.experts backing up a position, that Scotland would be a new state. It
:11:47. > :11:51.would be go sheared its place in the world. The rest of the UK would
:11:51. > :11:55.continue and be part of institutions like the European
:11:55. > :12:04.Union and the United Nations Security Council, the IMF and so
:12:04. > :12:07.much more. We have stated that. key thing is that we have a
:12:07. > :12:12.starting point for the many arguments we're going to have over
:12:12. > :12:18.the next 18 months and this is a new way of putting this forward.
:12:18. > :12:22.The SNP have accused you of a near colonial approach. Arguing the UK
:12:22. > :12:30.is a continuing state and an independent Scotland would have no
:12:30. > :12:34.right to trade. What do you say to that? I was very disappointed by
:12:34. > :12:39.the tone of those remarks and the way they were put forward. That is
:12:39. > :12:44.not what has characterised the debate so far. We are setting out a
:12:44. > :12:50.simple legal reality. Here is our view of the situation were Scothern
:12:50. > :12:56.to become independent. We, in Scotland, would negotiate to be
:12:56. > :13:00.part of the European Union. We would not have the UK's opt outs
:13:00. > :13:05.automatically, as that clip with Jim Wallace has just shown. We
:13:05. > :13:09.would not have a place at the top table in the United Nations, the
:13:09. > :13:14.IMF and so many other places. That is a legitimate part of the debate
:13:14. > :13:18.and we must fully discuss it in Scotland. Is it an attempt to
:13:19. > :13:26.frighten people into the status quo? There were no doubt be lawyers
:13:26. > :13:31.who would argue the opposite. good legal argument will have lots
:13:31. > :13:34.of different sides to it. The way we have set out the argument today
:13:34. > :13:38.establishes very clearly that the leading experts in this field
:13:38. > :13:43.agreed the basis on which Scotland would become the new state and the
:13:43. > :13:48.rest of the UK would continue as the existing UK state. That has
:13:48. > :13:52.profound implications. To duck away from that would be unfair to people
:13:52. > :13:56.in Scotland and would be a disservice to the debate. We will
:13:56. > :14:01.listen to others put their views forward. We have the legal
:14:01. > :14:06.framework which is clear. From that, we understand the politics and
:14:06. > :14:16.negotiations which would arise should scrub and decide it is to be
:14:16. > :14:20.
:14:20. > :14:24.independent. $:/ENDFEED. -- That was a predictably arrogant
:14:24. > :14:28.position pulled a UK government to take, the notion that if Scotland
:14:28. > :14:35.takes a democratic decision to be independent, Scotland is left with
:14:35. > :14:42.nothing. These are the legal voices. It is not political. This is legal
:14:42. > :14:46.advice. This is a legal opinion. It is an opinion. Yes, it is produced
:14:46. > :14:52.by eminent experts but I can quote you other eminent experts to take
:14:52. > :14:56.the opposite view, who argued that Scotland would be equal.
:14:56. > :15:01.International law in this area is not clear. These matters will be
:15:01. > :15:05.settled by negotiation and agreement. I listened this morning
:15:05. > :15:09.to BBC Radio to one of the authors of this opinion and he accepted
:15:09. > :15:13.that very point, at the timetable the Scottish government had set out
:15:13. > :15:17.for negotiations was realistic. He said that the issue of EU
:15:17. > :15:22.membership, although it would require negotiation, it would not
:15:22. > :15:27.be difficult. That the treaty issue would not cause any problems or the
:15:27. > :15:34.dog I am not sure if that was what the UK government intended to come
:15:34. > :15:39.across with today. Can I just go back row to the only stages when
:15:39. > :15:44.this was being talked about? Alex Salmond spoke about his seamless
:15:44. > :15:50.transfer in terms of Scotland's entry into the EU. He may be right,
:15:50. > :15:55.you may be able to renegotiate exactly what you want, but it is
:15:55. > :16:00.not a scene is transferred, it is it? It is uncertain. The real doubt
:16:00. > :16:05.comes from David Cameron's in out referendum. If Scotland votes yes,
:16:05. > :16:09.there will be a process of negotiation, firstly with the UK
:16:09. > :16:14.government before we become independent in 2016. Of course we
:16:15. > :16:19.would be required to negotiate the terms of... So it is not a
:16:19. > :16:23.guarantee? We will be arguing about the euro and the rebate and a
:16:24. > :16:28.continuation of the status quo of our relationship with Europe but we
:16:28. > :16:33.have to come back to be sensible, political, commonsense argument.
:16:33. > :16:37.Surely we are not arguing it is not in the interests of Scotland to
:16:37. > :16:41.remain in the European Union but also it is not in the overwhelming
:16:41. > :16:47.interests of Europe to keep Scotland as a member? It would make
:16:48. > :16:54.no sense to put Scotland outside of the European Union simply for us to
:16:54. > :16:58.negotiate our way back in. Nicola Sturgeon, let's put that to Axelle
:16:58. > :17:02.Lemaire. Is it in the European Union's interest to have Scotland
:17:02. > :17:09.as a new state? I think you are right to put the question like this.
:17:09. > :17:13.In the end it will be a political decision. There is what public
:17:13. > :17:18.international law says and opinions are not always consistent on that
:17:18. > :17:23.issue. You can also look at what the Canadians have said about the
:17:23. > :17:28.impact of Quebec independence on their renegotiations of the
:17:28. > :17:34.treaty's. There is also the political reality. In the end, what
:17:34. > :17:39.other member states would look at is, what would the real impact of
:17:39. > :17:42.Scotland B? What would France be looking at? What would they do in
:17:42. > :17:47.terms of looking at Scotland in the future if it became an independent
:17:47. > :17:54.state? I suppose trade and commercial interaction between the
:17:54. > :17:59.two countries and how long would it take to renegotiate, for example,
:17:59. > :18:03.judicial matters, a corporation matters, would it affect the people
:18:03. > :18:09.and the proceedings of criminals? All of this would probably have to
:18:09. > :18:13.be dealt with in very practical terms. Would that take time?
:18:13. > :18:19.suppose this depends on what the member states want to do. Michael
:18:19. > :18:24.Moore, briefly. In terms of the assets of the UK, are you prepared
:18:24. > :18:29.also to take on all of its liabilities such as the UK national
:18:29. > :18:35.debt, if we are going to follow the line in terms of whether Scotland
:18:35. > :18:40.becomes independent? What we have said, the key UK institutions,
:18:40. > :18:45.which are governed by the UK parliament and its laws, would
:18:45. > :18:48.remain part of the rest of the UK and of course Nicola and others may
:18:48. > :18:52.argue they want to continue to have a relationship with the Bank of
:18:52. > :18:57.England to continue to use the currency, although I point out we
:18:57. > :19:03.already have the pound in Scotland, why we need to become independent
:19:04. > :19:07.to get it again it is beyond me. The key issue, of sharing out
:19:07. > :19:12.liabilities and so on, there would have to be an equitable
:19:12. > :19:16.distribution of that. We acknowledge that today in the
:19:16. > :19:21.report. One point about the attitude we are adopting, it is
:19:21. > :19:24.highly curious that we would have a Scottish government SNP position
:19:24. > :19:29.that suggests that as a result of the votes taken in Scotland, the
:19:29. > :19:34.rest of the UK might be thrown out of the UN Security Council, the EU,
:19:34. > :19:38.the IMF and other international organisations. People elsewhere in
:19:38. > :19:44.the UK will have cause to reflect on that. The key thing to remember
:19:44. > :19:50.is we have a straightforward legal starting point set out for us today
:19:50. > :19:57.and much of this is negotiations... This just reinforces my basic view.
:19:57. > :20:02.We are better off as part of the UK. We get the best of both are worlds.
:20:02. > :20:07.Nicola Sturgeon, a law firm in Scotland has put out a report today
:20:07. > :20:11.saying that more businesses are asking for their own legal advice
:20:11. > :20:13.before what there is a decision on the referendum. Do you agree even
:20:13. > :20:19.businesses in Scotland are uncertain and unsure about
:20:19. > :20:24.planning? There is debate under way in Scotland. The Scottish
:20:24. > :20:29.government has made a substantial contribution to that debate today
:20:29. > :20:32.in the report about the macro- economic framework in Scotland. The
:20:32. > :20:36.businesses I speak to one that kind of information and the Scottish
:20:36. > :20:41.government a working hard to make sure they get it, so people in
:20:41. > :20:44.Scotland can make a positive and informed choice, not just listen to
:20:44. > :20:49.scaremongering from the UK government and those advocating the
:20:49. > :20:52.no vote. Thank you both very much. The relationship between France and
:20:52. > :20:54.Britain has always been complicated, to say the least. Sometimes closest
:20:54. > :20:57.allies, sometimes sworn enemies and although not quite as bloodthirsty
:20:57. > :21:01.as in certain periods of history, our recent political past has
:21:01. > :21:05.certainly had its ups and downs. These days however, some experts
:21:05. > :21:08.detect a thawing between Paris and London. A coming together of our
:21:08. > :21:18.national interests. But can we keep the entente cordiale? Here's David
:21:18. > :21:25.
:21:25. > :21:29.Welcome to France's 6th biggest cities. You might know it as London
:21:29. > :21:33.but more than 300,000 French people live here and they call it home,
:21:33. > :21:38.which is more than Bordeaux and Strasbourg can say, but it is not
:21:38. > :21:42.just here. Newcastle United had a team almost entirely made up of
:21:42. > :21:48.French players and in return, David Beckham has gone to Paris version
:21:48. > :21:55.man. Could this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship? -- Paris
:21:55. > :22:02.send your man. Relationships are good, there is a lot of co-
:22:02. > :22:05.operation and collaboration on Mali, for example. The two countries co-
:22:05. > :22:11.operated a great deal on many international issues, like Libya
:22:11. > :22:20.and Iran, so there are very many things that the general public are
:22:20. > :22:29.not necessarily aware of and maybe why should they be. But days and
:22:29. > :22:35.Francois were not always so friendly. -- Dave. David Cameron
:22:35. > :22:40.praised his former rival, Sarkozy. Yes, but things have decidedly gone
:22:40. > :22:48.from frosty too much warmer. Francois hollow on speaks English,
:22:48. > :22:52.they can communicate directly. -- Hollande. And whisper it quietly,
:22:52. > :22:57.we might becoming a bit more like the French and they might becoming
:22:57. > :23:02.a bit more like us. Both countries have got rid of their empires. They
:23:02. > :23:10.have become more and middle-of-the- road, normal-sized European
:23:10. > :23:14.countries, and they have both become more global. The a British
:23:14. > :23:20.are more willing to embrace globalisation but the French have
:23:20. > :23:24.also become more global. -- the British are more willing to embrace.
:23:24. > :23:27.They have both realised they are rather small and they need to work
:23:27. > :23:33.with each other and the EU if they wish to shoot the global
:23:33. > :23:39.environment. There is however an elephant in the room. It begins
:23:39. > :23:44.with the letter E and ends with the letter you. If the British seem to
:23:44. > :23:49.be on the brink of leaving at the EU, they cannot expect to have
:23:49. > :23:54.close relations with Paris because the EU is fundamental to France's
:23:54. > :23:58.existence. If Britain decides to stay within the EU, then we can
:23:58. > :24:03.look forward to a fairly friendly and happy relationship between
:24:03. > :24:09.London and Paris. It depends on Britain's relationship with the EU.
:24:09. > :24:12.The Brits and the French has blown hot and cold for centuries. The
:24:12. > :24:15.channel may separate us but these days, London and Paris could be
:24:15. > :24:18.closer than you think. Here to test the state of British-
:24:18. > :24:28.French relations, Axelle Lemaire, and Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin.
:24:28. > :24:50.
:24:50. > :24:54.We need to be cautious. This is not the new settlement or the new
:24:54. > :24:58.relationship. We are still waiting to see what the new relationship
:24:58. > :25:02.will look like that he intends to negotiate in the next parliament.
:25:02. > :25:07.And Britain could still end up paying more than it has done in the
:25:07. > :25:13.past, even though the overall budget comes down? It will
:25:13. > :25:18.certainly go up, yes, by billions. What is going to be interesting is
:25:18. > :25:23.how this plays a politically. Are these relatively modest and
:25:23. > :25:28.symbolic victories going to be enough to mollify sentiment in the
:25:28. > :25:32.country or were people focus on the substance? We would like to see our
:25:32. > :25:37.contribution going down. At the moment, our contribution will be
:25:37. > :25:41.more than our overseas aid budget, which is already going up. One of
:25:41. > :25:45.the things that was clear from budget negotiations was that
:25:45. > :25:53.Germany was the key player. Angela Merkel decided to side with David
:25:53. > :25:57.Cameron and France were sidelined. Yes, very political. They are two
:25:57. > :26:01.Conservatives. Angela Merkel is entering an important political
:26:01. > :26:06.period for her and she has to be with other Conservative leaders who
:26:06. > :26:12.can support her in her campaign, so clearly from the outside, the
:26:12. > :26:16.impression is that both Britain and Germany are exporting their
:26:16. > :26:21.austerity. Again this is a political decision but the impact
:26:21. > :26:26.on the people living in Europe will be huge because they do benefit
:26:26. > :26:30.from the money being spent in Brussels. What does that do to
:26:30. > :26:35.Anglo-French relations is clearly it is Angela Merkel and David
:26:35. > :26:39.Cameron verses Hollande? This is wide their results of the German
:26:39. > :26:43.election will be very important, and the British ones as well --
:26:44. > :26:49.this is why the results. But I do not think it has a huge impact in
:26:49. > :26:55.the short term. But Europe could be at the heart of the difficult
:26:55. > :27:00.bilateral relationship. I can see it from Paris, in parliament. And
:27:00. > :27:05.that is new. My colleagues are now very annoyed and get upset easily
:27:05. > :27:09.whenever we mentioned the British, because it is, they keep asking for
:27:09. > :27:14.more and more and more, they want to play by their rules, we are in
:27:14. > :27:19.Europe, it should be decided together for. You are threatening
:27:19. > :27:23.Anglo-French relations, particularly with the referendum?
:27:23. > :27:30.We had very strong relations with the front before we joined the
:27:30. > :27:35.Common Market and even if we were to leave, we would continue to have
:27:35. > :27:41.strong relations -- strong relations with the French. France
:27:41. > :27:45.and the UK are the two countries in Europe that understand that hard
:27:45. > :27:51.power and soft power are two sides of the same coin. Other countries
:27:51. > :27:56.have this idea that soft power can trump American Hot power but France
:27:56. > :28:00.is one of the few countries that understand, unless you are backing
:28:00. > :28:05.up your soft power, ultimately with military deterrence, you are not a
:28:05. > :28:10.very strong countries. That puts France and Britain on the same page
:28:10. > :28:14.in terms of foreign relations. Let's have a look at the list of
:28:15. > :28:20.powers that could be repatriated. Some of the suggestions that could
:28:20. > :28:30.be made, the working-time directive, more policing and criminal justice
:28:30. > :28:32.measures, an emergency brake on new laws that affect financial services.
:28:32. > :28:37.Judicial corporation includes the European arrest warrant. Thanks to
:28:37. > :28:41.that, I think it is up to 13,000 criminals who are arrested every
:28:41. > :28:47.year in one country and sent to another. When you had the bombings
:28:47. > :28:51.in London, it took only a few days to get one of the authors of the
:28:51. > :28:56.attacks sent back to London, whereas it would have taken ten
:28:56. > :29:02.years before that warrant was put into place. That is what Europe is
:29:02. > :29:09.advocating. I do not agree. We have extra-judicial treaties with lots
:29:09. > :29:16.of countries. If France wants to be obstructive about it, that is
:29:16. > :29:22.another matter. It is the reality of how it works. Extradition works
:29:22. > :29:25.by Corporation and not a central judicial authorities. --
:29:25. > :29:29.cooperation. The feeling is that these apparently very obvious good
:29:29. > :29:38.things are put into the treaties but they are actually an end in
:29:38. > :29:43.themselves, they are trying to create a union for which there is
:29:43. > :29:48.no support. There is an element of self- deception, pretending you can
:29:48. > :29:53.be a sovereign state and more and more included into Europe. But this
:29:53. > :29:58.is about how strong the chances are for a UK government to repatriate
:29:58. > :30:06.those powers? What about of the working-time directive? Would
:30:06. > :30:10.France agree for Britain to opt out? I agree with Axelle Lemaire
:30:10. > :30:14.that this is a forlorn hope to pick and choose treaties. We need to
:30:14. > :30:18.develop a different kind of membership. There are those who
:30:19. > :30:28.might be in the euro, in the political federation... It is
:30:29. > :30:37.
:30:37. > :30:45.already the case. We have got the What about countries have in the EU
:30:45. > :30:51.that are not going to be in the euro? Getting all religious about
:30:51. > :30:57.the existing treaties and saying it is irrevocable, it is all about the
:30:57. > :31:03.language. She is saying it could be disadvantageous to Britain. Most of
:31:04. > :31:13.our trade is externally outside the European Union. That trade is
:31:13. > :31:21.growing. We do not have the same figures will start 60% of the
:31:21. > :31:26.British export... That is a bogus number. I challenge that. Well
:31:26. > :31:31.under 50% of our manufactured goods were exported to the European Union.
:31:31. > :31:37.Trade with the rest of the world is growing much faster. Why are we
:31:37. > :31:43.letting the tail wag the dog? Less than 10% of our GDP is exported
:31:43. > :31:50.directly to the European Union. Should Britain renegotiate to a
:31:50. > :32:00.position that is better for Britain and still play a leading role in
:32:00. > :32:00.
:32:00. > :32:07.the European Union? No controls over horsemeat. Why would the other
:32:07. > :32:13.EU states have to pay for something the British do not want to pay for?
:32:13. > :32:17.What am trying to say is, it would have huge consequences, not only on
:32:17. > :32:22.trade relations but every single thing that has been built up over
:32:22. > :32:27.50 years between your country and mine. A few years ago, the
:32:27. > :32:33.President said, we might have to give Britain a special status. Just
:32:33. > :32:42.a month ago, it was talked about allowing Britain to have a
:32:42. > :32:46.different relationship put up no, he said, leave it Europe.
:32:46. > :32:49.different relationship. We might have a much more bilateral
:32:49. > :32:54.relationship with our European partners and have at present. We
:32:54. > :32:57.need to look at this with an open mind. The idea that we're going to
:32:57. > :33:04.Sunday join the euro and the in federal Europe is not going to
:33:04. > :33:10.happen. -- Sunday. The question is, how do we skin this particular cat
:33:10. > :33:15.so we can be amicable and friendly? What do you think about Anglo-
:33:15. > :33:25.French relations? At bilateral level Cup we're just like an odd
:33:25. > :33:26.
:33:26. > :33:34.couple. Arguing. At European level, the consequences could be very
:33:34. > :33:39.serious. I would not be fighting for a yacht owned sake. Back in
:33:39. > :33:45.Paris -- for your own sake. Back in Paris, I am one of the last ones to
:33:45. > :33:50.say, Britain has to stay in Europe. Keep working with them. They say,
:33:50. > :33:54.it is over. We will look at other countries. It all depends by what
:33:54. > :33:58.you mean about in Europe. I do not imagine for his second that we were
:33:58. > :34:03.not have a strong relationship with our European partners, whatever we
:34:03. > :34:07.do with the treaties. Thank you for being out guest of the day. Now it
:34:07. > :34:10.might be the last week before MPs head off for another well-earned
:34:10. > :34:13.short recess, but there is no sign of a wind-down here in Westminster.
:34:13. > :34:16.This afternoon, there is going to be not one, or two but three
:34:16. > :34:18.statements in the Commons. David Cameron reports back on the
:34:18. > :34:21.weekend's European summit, Jeremy Hunt makes a statement on changes
:34:21. > :34:28.to social care and Owen Paterson will update MPs on the horsemeat
:34:28. > :34:31.scandal. Tomorrow, the chair of the inquiry into the abuse at Stafford
:34:31. > :34:41.Hospital, Robert Francis QC, gives evidence to the Health Select
:34:41. > :34:43.
:34:43. > :34:46.Committee. Also on Tuesday, MPs and peers will brave the cold to take
:34:46. > :34:48.part in a Westminster tradition - the annual pancake tossing race
:34:48. > :34:51.before party political warfare breaks out again. On Wednesday,
:34:51. > :34:54.nominations close for the Eastleigh by-election caused, of course, by
:34:54. > :34:57.Chris Huhne's resignation. And then on Thursday evening, MPs can escape
:34:57. > :35:07.the slog and toil of Westminster for a week as they begin February
:35:07. > :35:13.
:35:13. > :35:18.David Cameron will stand up. He will head up a victory. Will it be
:35:18. > :35:23.seen that way? It well. When he first announced he wanted cuts in
:35:23. > :35:28.the EU budget, it seemed an uphill task for the Prime Minister. He has
:35:29. > :35:34.come home and managed to get it. On the back of announcing an in/out
:35:34. > :35:39.referendum, plenty peopling his party will be very happy. -- people
:35:39. > :35:45.in his party. By their that means his problems with Europe will go
:35:45. > :35:50.away, probably not. Euro-sceptics tend to start asking for more.
:35:50. > :35:54.this the end of David Cameron swears on Europe? You will get the
:35:54. > :36:00.big old slap on the back today from Tory Euro-sceptics. Not long ago
:36:00. > :36:06.did we think it would be impossible. The budget for the EU for they next
:36:06. > :36:10.seven years is a nine with 11 zeros after it. If you are a Euro-sceptic
:36:10. > :36:15.Tory, that is still too high. You will get a slap on the back but it
:36:15. > :36:21.is not enough. That is unless we move to the middle of the Atlantic.
:36:21. > :36:24.They were not be happy. Some people were never be satisfied. How rough
:36:24. > :36:31.would be between the coalition partners with the Eastleigh by-
:36:31. > :36:35.election? Pretty rough. Whoever wins this is going to be pretty
:36:35. > :36:39.instructor for the Liberal Democrats. The entire strategy for
:36:39. > :36:46.the 20 -- the 2015 gen election will be to try to run countries
:36:46. > :36:48.like this - many by-elections. -- general election. Chris Huhne will
:36:49. > :36:53.add the different factor to this time but it will tell people what
:36:53. > :36:57.they might face in the next few years. What about you, Michael
:36:57. > :37:03.Savage? All the polls are in the margin of error between the Tories
:37:03. > :37:07.and the Liberal Democrats. The big factor is Labour. If they can get a
:37:07. > :37:13.credible candidate. That could really hit the Lib Dem vote. That
:37:13. > :37:18.could be crucial in a race that is within 3% - the usual margin of
:37:18. > :37:23.error. On the issue of social care, it is the first time we have had a
:37:23. > :37:26.cap announced. Like it or not, it is a step forward that a Labour is
:37:26. > :37:32.saying it is a small step forward the start do you think in the end
:37:32. > :37:37.the parties will rally behind it? It is a step forward. At least
:37:37. > :37:41.they're doing something - something that has dogged political parties
:37:41. > :37:47.for years. Nobody has really been able to get to grips with it. There
:37:47. > :37:52.will have to be a lot of looking at the detail to see whether where
:37:52. > :37:57.there Labour will get behind it or pushing for something else. What do
:37:57. > :38:02.you think, Michael Savage Eye in terms of support? There is a
:38:02. > :38:07.problem on the Tory side. George Osborne made his name as Shadow
:38:07. > :38:11.Chancellor promising them that inheritance tax threshold would go
:38:11. > :38:15.up to �1 million was up the reality is, it'll be over a decade after he
:38:15. > :38:20.made that promise with no change to the inheritance tax threshold,
:38:20. > :38:25.which is being used to pay for this deal. A very difficult for a lot of
:38:25. > :38:29.toys to swallow. Do you think the Government has got a grip on the
:38:29. > :38:34.crisis over horse meat? It is incredibly difficult to get a grip
:38:34. > :38:40.on. Now waiting for test results which will come back on Friday. The
:38:40. > :38:44.chances of this being an isolated incident appear unlikely. The
:38:44. > :38:49.problem is cities across Europe. The Government will struggle. It
:38:49. > :38:52.will be very hard to get ahead of this issue. So, today, the
:38:52. > :38:56.Government will set out how they think people in England should pay
:38:56. > :38:59.for social care in their old age. At the moment, around 30,000 to
:38:59. > :39:02.40,000 homeowners are forced to sell their houses each year to pay
:39:02. > :39:08.for social care. And those with more than �23,250 in assets,
:39:08. > :39:12.including the value of their house, do not get any state help. This
:39:13. > :39:15.whole area is highly controversial. You may remember all those posters
:39:16. > :39:20.about a Labour death tax at the last election when they suggested
:39:20. > :39:23.that some of the money might come out your estate after you died. So
:39:23. > :39:27.last year the economist Andrew Dilnot presented the findings of
:39:27. > :39:30.his independent Commission on Funding of Care and Support. He
:39:30. > :39:34.said that individuals should not really have to contribute more than
:39:34. > :39:38.�35,000 to their care in the course of their lifetime. But the
:39:38. > :39:42.Government is expected to announce today a figure closer to �75,000.
:39:42. > :39:46.This will, however, be the first time there is any kind of cap on
:39:46. > :39:49.the amount you'd have to pay. At the moment - theoretically - it is
:39:49. > :39:53.limitless. All this might cost the Treasury around �800 million a year
:39:53. > :39:57.and the steer is that this might be met by freezing the thresholds at
:39:57. > :39:59.which inheritance tax begins to bite. Labour has described the move
:40:00. > :40:02.as a small step forward, but the National Pensioners Convention is
:40:02. > :40:08.not as easily impressed - describing the announcement as
:40:08. > :40:15.about as credible as a Findus lasagne. Speaking to the BBC this
:40:15. > :40:21.morning Jeremy Hunt explained why he was announcing the policy.
:40:21. > :40:25.is costing around �1 billion a year. It is a very big step. As a
:40:25. > :40:28.government, we want to back people who have worked hard all their
:40:28. > :40:33.lives, saved and done the right thing. The worst thing that can
:40:33. > :40:37.happen to those people is to find by a cruel twist of fate, they have
:40:37. > :40:41.to do the one thing they want to do least of all - will lose their own
:40:41. > :40:45.home. This is not the whole solution. There are lots of other
:40:45. > :40:52.things we need to do to make Britain a great country to grow old
:40:52. > :40:55.in. This is one thing that worries people for most. 30,000 to 40,000
:40:55. > :41:00.people every year having to sell homes to pay for social care costs.
:41:00. > :41:03.We want to find a way to end that. I have been joined by Labour's
:41:03. > :41:06.former health minister Hazel Blears, the Liberal Democrats' Stephen
:41:06. > :41:12.Lloyd and the Conservative MP, Stuart Andrew, for the rest of the
:41:12. > :41:16.show. There was talk of people having to sell their homes in the
:41:16. > :41:21.past. Are we now saying beyond 2017 no one will have to sell their
:41:21. > :41:25.homes into old age? This worries thousands of people across the
:41:25. > :41:30.country. We have seen significant numbers of families getting very
:41:30. > :41:34.anxious about what will happen to elderly relatives. This is actually
:41:34. > :41:38.the first step on a journey to solving that. It will not stop were
:41:38. > :41:42.put an end to people having to sell homes to pay for care.
:41:42. > :41:47.significantly reduces the number of people having to sell homes. That
:41:47. > :41:51.is very important. As Andrew Dilnot said himself this morning, it is a
:41:51. > :41:57.huge step in the right direction. It should be welcomed. G welcome
:41:57. > :42:02.it? To say it is a huge step forward is an exaggeration. It is a
:42:02. > :42:09.small step. The level of capping concerns me. When Andrew Dilnot did
:42:09. > :42:12.his report, he said 35,000, absolute maximum 50,000. He said
:42:12. > :42:16.the on that it would not help people who had a lot of money. If
:42:16. > :42:21.you say 75,000, that is the equivalent of 10 years in
:42:21. > :42:25.residential care. Most people go into residential care for three,
:42:25. > :42:30.four years and then they die. Most people on small incomes will have
:42:30. > :42:40.to pay just as much as they do now. They were not be helped by this.
:42:40. > :42:41.
:42:41. > :42:45.that too high, as a cab? -- at a cap. We'll know it is a really
:42:45. > :42:50.serious issue and I take my hat off to the coalition. I would have
:42:51. > :42:55.preferred this to be lower, to be honest. The top end talked about by
:42:56. > :43:03.Andrew Dilnot was 50 to 60. The coalition have battled really hard
:43:03. > :43:08.on this. The have Kuyt inheritance tax for three years. -- we have cut
:43:08. > :43:12.inheritance tax. That is a brave decision. If it is too high, the
:43:12. > :43:18.Government were not the pain - the state will not be paying - or
:43:18. > :43:25.helping people fund their care. -- be paying. It will be covered quite
:43:25. > :43:28.easily across England in terms of people. The insurance companies
:43:28. > :43:37.will come up with something for starboard is not the case that
:43:37. > :43:40.everyone will have to pay �75,000 by a long shot. -- come up with
:43:40. > :43:46.something. That will sound like a lot of money that they will have to
:43:46. > :43:53.put up. We are facing one of the greater social tonnages in a
:43:53. > :44:00.generation cut at the time we have the greatest economic challenge. --
:44:00. > :44:05.the greatest social changes. The figures he suggested of the 25,000
:44:05. > :44:11.to a 50,000 were based on 2010 figures. When it comes into effect,
:44:11. > :44:15.it will be around 61,000. That is above what he wanted but it is a
:44:15. > :44:19.step in the right direction. This might be a step in the right
:44:19. > :44:23.direction. Andrew Dilnot looked at the economics around residential
:44:23. > :44:28.care. He did not look at any issues around community-care, which is a
:44:28. > :44:33.huge matter of concern to people. Take Alzheimer's, there at 800,000
:44:33. > :44:37.people with it. It will go up to 1 million in the next three years.
:44:37. > :44:42.Most of those people have to pay for community care and it is means
:44:42. > :44:46.tested. This does nothing to address that. I take your point.
:44:46. > :44:51.This was an issue for all governments. I am pleased the
:44:51. > :44:55.Government is starting. To say it is a huge step forward is a massive
:44:55. > :45:00.exaggeration. 30 years or so ago when social care was split off from
:45:00. > :45:06.health care... That is the problem for Alzheimer's sufferers. I am on
:45:06. > :45:10.the all-party group for dementia. It will all change. A partner is a
:45:10. > :45:13.community matron. She knows the issue of dementia is really
:45:13. > :45:18.profound. It will make a difference with joining up of health care over
:45:18. > :45:23.the next three years without a shadow of the doubt. We support the
:45:23. > :45:28.bill? When you talk about dementia, we all have experience in our
:45:28. > :45:34.families. We are finding that people are having to cope. The
:45:34. > :45:39.community care issue is central. It is being cut by the same amount.
:45:39. > :45:48.Local authorities are facing cuts of �1 billion for community care.
:45:48. > :45:55.Where did you put the cap? I would like to see was what was the regime
:45:55. > :46:01.recommended by Andrew Dilnot. You cannot do it by cherry picking. --
:46:01. > :46:06.originally recommended. How would you have paid for it? We have had
:46:06. > :46:16.clear policy set out today. How would it be funded by the Labour
:46:16. > :46:16.
:46:17. > :46:21.Party? To come from inheritance tax is a good thing. We oppose it being
:46:21. > :46:31.at �1 million. We thought that was a vote grabber. That has gone.
:46:31. > :46:35.
:46:35. > :46:40.We have a fine balancing act ended is difficult. It is disappointing
:46:40. > :46:45.we have to freeze the in terror -- inheritance tax threshold again. I
:46:45. > :46:51.hope in the future, we can revisit that. Actually, the freeze will
:46:51. > :46:56.affect about 4,000 people forced of this announcement will help 400,000
:46:56. > :47:00.people. But you have not been able to keep your promise on something
:47:00. > :47:05.that was a major boost for Tory voters? It is extremely
:47:05. > :47:13.disappointing. Was it be wrong decision? That is the problem we
:47:13. > :47:17.are facing. How do we fund long- term care for a growing and ageing
:47:17. > :47:23.population and help people keep their homes at the same time? That
:47:23. > :47:26.is far more pressing than the inheritance tax.
:47:26. > :47:30.Well, the Liberal Democrats have fired the starting gun on the
:47:30. > :47:33.Eastleigh by-election. They are not hanging around in the race to find
:47:33. > :47:36.someone to represent the seat which, of course, has been left vacant
:47:36. > :47:40.after Chris Huhne's spectacular fall from grace. It is all
:47:40. > :47:45.happening in just three weeks and we should get to know what the full
:47:45. > :47:48.list of candidates is in the next 24 hours or so. It is not the first
:47:48. > :47:50.time this seat has been at the centre of the national attention,
:47:50. > :47:53.of course. We have had by-elections there before, as the Sunday
:47:53. > :47:58.Politics' man in the South remembers.
:47:58. > :48:01.In the days of steam, Eastleigh was known as a railway town. Now the
:48:01. > :48:06.airport is the biggest local employer and the by-election
:48:06. > :48:12.bandwagon will drive past new suburban estates. The constituency
:48:12. > :48:16.stretches down to the sea. Including the home of Hampshire
:48:16. > :48:22.cricket. If David Cameron cannot take back as seed that once boasted
:48:22. > :48:28.that 10,000 Tory majority, big questions will be asked -- a seat.
:48:28. > :48:34.But what might stop him is the depth of local Liberal Democrat
:48:34. > :48:38.organisation. They know the territory well. In the election for
:48:38. > :48:44.Police Commissioner, a Lib Dem topped the polls in this area. It
:48:44. > :48:48.has not always been like this. In 1994, Eastleigh's industrial roots
:48:48. > :48:54.were strong enough to give Labour hope. Then it was a three-way
:48:54. > :48:59.marginal, with Gordon Brown joining Jack Straw on the Eastleigh
:48:59. > :49:05.doorsteps. This was the dying days of the Major government. Nigel
:49:05. > :49:10.Farage barely registered. Now UKIP could make a big dent. If the
:49:10. > :49:13.Conservatives were to lose it would put tremendous pressure on
:49:13. > :49:17.Cameron's leadership and lead to questions about what is the point
:49:17. > :49:22.of the coalition. Similarly you will get the same range of
:49:22. > :49:25.questions for the Lib Dems if they were to lose this. Lots of Lib Dem
:49:25. > :49:30.MPs will be fearful they will face a similar challenge in their
:49:30. > :49:35.constituencies, so why are we in coalition with a party that is our
:49:35. > :49:39.main challenger? This is massive in terms of national politics.
:49:39. > :49:43.Labour admit they are a long shot but Ed Miliband it needs to prove
:49:43. > :49:48.his appeal in the south and canned draught in support from the nearby
:49:48. > :49:52.cities of Southampton and Portsmouth. -- and can Drafting
:49:52. > :49:54.support. The timing is set for a result to remember.
:49:55. > :49:58.You can find out more information on the by-election, including
:49:58. > :50:01.details of the candidates who have been selected so far, on the BBC
:50:02. > :50:05.website. Joining us now, one of the candidates from that 1994 by-
:50:05. > :50:10.election, now the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. We won't talk about
:50:10. > :50:14.how young you were then. Not a single grey hair! Absolutely. Why
:50:14. > :50:20.do you think the Lib Dems have gone for such an early date? They
:50:20. > :50:25.probably want the battle over and done with as quickly as possible.
:50:25. > :50:30.We are relishing the fight. Our candidate has been there for a good
:50:30. > :50:35.number of years and we look forward to welcoming her to the House of
:50:35. > :50:40.Commons after 28th February. Will it be a clean fight? Yes and it
:50:40. > :50:45.will also be very close. We have a dedicated local team in Eastleigh.
:50:45. > :50:49.We hold all the seats in the council. They are very well known.
:50:49. > :50:53.They focus on the issues constituents care about. I think it
:50:53. > :50:58.will be very close. It is obvious to all of us it is between the Lib
:50:58. > :51:04.Dems and the Tories. The opinion polls showed Labour up nine points,
:51:04. > :51:11.UKIP up 12 points. And interestingly, the Lib Dem vote
:51:11. > :51:17.falling and the Tory vote falling. In Eastleigh. No. Is it in
:51:17. > :51:23.Eastleigh? Or not? Or this is becoming an even more interesting
:51:23. > :51:28.by-election. Who'd do you want to win, Hazel Blears? And they will be
:51:28. > :51:32.scrapping it out between them. I feel like I am intruding on private
:51:32. > :51:37.grief. The only winner is the Labour Party. If Cameron doesn't
:51:37. > :51:41.win, it is another round of speculation about his leadership.
:51:41. > :51:47.If the Liberal Democrats don't win, all of the Lib Dems will be having
:51:48. > :51:53.anxiety attacks. What is the tactic from Labour? We you lie low and try
:51:53. > :52:00.to keep out of it? Or try to get as many votes as possible from the Lib
:52:00. > :52:06.Dems? The Labour Party does not Lilo it in by-elections. We will be
:52:06. > :52:10.out there. -- will not lie low. People will know the Labour Party
:52:10. > :52:20.has got a proper, credible programme. But with these two, it
:52:20. > :52:25.will be like a dog fight! A gentlemanly contest? My opposition
:52:25. > :52:32.in Eastbourne is a Conservative. We battle it out locally but I am a
:52:32. > :52:37.holy signed-up member of the coalition. Today's example of
:52:37. > :52:45.social care, we are taking the decisions that Labour avoided for
:52:45. > :52:50.30 years... What about stuff that UKIP leaflets to Tory doors? That
:52:50. > :52:53.would be a good tactic? I think you could do have an opportunity but I
:52:54. > :52:59.know that Nigel did not stand and a suspected didn't because he knew
:52:59. > :53:09.that he would not win. We have chosen by the end James, a Serbian
:53:09. > :53:12.
:53:13. > :53:17.district councillor in Surrey -- Dian Jones, a serving councillor.
:53:17. > :53:22.What was interesting was, of those considering voting for UKIP in the
:53:22. > :53:27.constituency, there more more Labour and Lib Dem voters than Tory
:53:27. > :53:32.voters considering voting for UKIP. We have seen UKIP get significant
:53:32. > :53:37.percentages in the last three by- elections. Don't write us off.
:53:37. > :53:43.UKIP could take plenty of Tory votes, handing victory to the Lib
:53:43. > :53:47.Dems. Nigel is right. UKIP could take some votes from all parties.
:53:47. > :53:52.We are encouraging people to remember the facts. If they want an
:53:52. > :53:57.MP to represent them, which is what they are doing, and they want an MP
:53:57. > :54:00.to stand up for renegotiating terms in Europe, they need to vote for a
:54:00. > :54:05.Conservative camp because that is the only way they will get what
:54:05. > :54:12.they really want. If they vote for UKIP, they a -- are ending up with
:54:12. > :54:16.no voice whatsoever in Europe. For if we have an example of the
:54:16. > :54:22.coalition. The anti-Europe line and the pro-Europe line. And you are in
:54:22. > :54:27.government together. You are scrapping it out yet you are in
:54:27. > :54:31.government at the same time. On the doorstep, grown-up people like
:54:31. > :54:35.politicians working together for the greater good. But you will not
:54:35. > :54:41.be doing that for this campaign. A but the government is dealing with
:54:41. > :54:47.the most catastrophic... People want to know what you stand for.
:54:47. > :54:50.Pupil premium, economy, jobs, apprenticeships... And the
:54:50. > :54:54.electorate to realise we are two a separate political parties who have
:54:54. > :54:59.come together to run a government in the national interest, and they
:54:59. > :55:04.do get that. Be fully expect that when an election comes, of course
:55:04. > :55:07.we will be fighting it out. The Lib Dem voters voted Lib Dem because
:55:07. > :55:14.they wanted DEC to wish him fee scrapped and a very different
:55:14. > :55:21.programme and many of them of very disappointed -- they wanted to see
:55:21. > :55:24.tuition fees scrapped. Every single councillor in the constituency on
:55:24. > :55:28.Liberal Democrat, you can mobilise your troops quickly. Isn't that why
:55:28. > :55:33.you went for an early date? And then you can blame Chris Huhne and
:55:33. > :55:38.move on? We are focusing on the reasons for all the councillors in
:55:38. > :55:41.Eastleigh, which is that we have be dedicated local team who put the
:55:41. > :55:46.constituencies of Eastleigh first above everything. I think that is
:55:46. > :55:53.what people want. I think it will be a close fight but I am confident
:55:53. > :55:56.we will win. Nick Clegg is already campaigning today. He has got time
:55:56. > :56:03.to go and campaign in Eastleigh but David Cameron will not have that
:56:03. > :56:07.luxury. He is busy running the country. Masses of us are happy to
:56:07. > :56:14.go to Eastleigh. He disagrees with Maria Hutchings on virtually
:56:14. > :56:23.everything! Don't say David Cameron for goodness sake! Shouldn't it be
:56:23. > :56:29.a three-way marginal with Labour coming second? We shall see. maybe
:56:29. > :56:33.we will get a great result. I am an optimist! The people of Eastleigh
:56:33. > :56:37.will not be interested in third and fourth. They want to know who will
:56:37. > :56:41.represent them well in parliament and there is no doubt that Maria
:56:41. > :56:44.Hutchings is the right person. the Conservatives don't win
:56:44. > :56:50.Eastleigh, do you except the prospects for David Cameron look
:56:50. > :56:54.grim? Not at all. This will be a battle between the two parties that
:56:54. > :56:57.are in the coalition at the moment and that has no bearing whatsoever
:56:57. > :57:03.on the next general election at this stage because we are mid-term
:57:03. > :57:07.whatever happens. Some Tories feel that phrase comes from a
:57:07. > :57:13.Conservative, who feels that if the Conservatives cannot win Eastleigh,
:57:13. > :57:20.what chance do they have of a majority? I would not accept that.
:57:20. > :57:24.One of my suits, and Northern, open one, which we won, and I am
:57:24. > :57:34.convinced we can work hard to win this way that we need to win in the
:57:34. > :57:36.
:57:36. > :57:42.north -- one of my seats, an urban, northern one. If the Conservatives
:57:42. > :57:46.win, what are the prospects for Nick Clegg? We are going to win. It
:57:46. > :57:50.is a good and dedicated team. They put the people of Eastleigh first
:57:50. > :57:56.and I think the people will respect that. What do you have to do to
:57:56. > :58:01.maintain the momentum of UKIP? next morning after the last three,
:58:01. > :58:05.the media have said, gosh, what a surprise how will UKIP did. I say
:58:05. > :58:11.what the space. We will campaign on some big national issues, such as
:58:11. > :58:16.the opening of the doors from a Bulgaria and Romania, for which
:58:16. > :58:20.these three parties do not have an answer. What is a good showing?
:58:20. > :58:29.came second end of the room. We came second in Middlesbrough. We
:58:29. > :58:32.got 15% of the votes in Corby -- we came second in Rotherham. We have
:58:32. > :58:41.the high is starting point UKIP have ever had. We could surprise
:58:41. > :58:45.everybody. Thank you to all four of you. The one o'clock news is
:58:45. > :58:47.starting over on BBC One now with the latest of all the political