18/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Islamic jihadists threaten to plunge the Middle East into chaos.


Is this really the best way to stabilise the region?


The Government promised to reduce net migration to below 100,000


Is it any wonder the public are cynical?


More than 100,000 people have signed a petition to ban puppy farming.


And forget Spain versus Chile, we will bring you the real match


All that coming up in the next 90 minutes and on the pitch


for the duration, in goal and trying not to let any more in, former


And coming up hard on the left wing, the Shadow Environment Secretary


First this morning, Iran's odds of winning the World Cup are 2500/1,


but who cares if Britain and America want to be your best friend?


The country that was once an international pariah is now


at the receiving end of diplomatic advances from the United States,


Britain and other Western countries who are trying to see off the threat


Their success threatens peace and stability in the entire region.


The Prime Minister is chairing a meeting of the


Here is Jo Co to explain how we got here.


For more than a decade Britain was actively


engaged in a series of conflicts that became known as Blair's wars.


In 1999, British forces took part in a multinational force in Kosovo


to hold back Slobodan Milosevic's forces.


British troops were also active on their own in Sierra Leone


in 2000 when rebels threatened to overrun the country.


Then in 2001, following on from the September the 11th attacks, Britain


took part in a multinational force against the Taliban in Afghanistan.


Whilst all of these conflicts were controversial,


there was a reasonable level of support in the country.


Iraq in 2003, however, changed all of this.


Hundreds of thousands marched against the war and the country


The recriminations over that conflict continue to this day,


overshadowing Britain's foreign policy ever since.


It certainly hung over David Cameron's intervention in Libya.


Following UN Security Council authorisation in 2011,


Britain contributed to policing a no-fly zone over the country and


many suggested Mr Cameron had found a new template for waging military


campaigns by enabling the rebels to carry


on the offensive. The situation in Syria, however, showed the limits


In August last year the Commons rejected the Prime Minister's call


for military action against President Assad following


Speaking the morning after the vote the Chancellor George


Osborne said there would now be "national soul-searching about our


Joining us now is that Douglas Murray joining us from the Henry


Jackson Society, named after the famous American. If there is a known


regional player that could intervene, it is only America. It is


not going to be Europe or Britain, it is only America. Should America


do anything? It should, but it depends what the circumstances are


under which it could make things better. There is a problem from


outside the region at the moment which is we tend to be reading it


outside the region at the moment if it is about us. This is a


particularly British virus at the moment. This is not about us, it is


about forces beyond our control and beyond America's control unless


America can get some kind of regional agreement that could work.


It is difficult to see what kind of thing that would be. It is not just


an Iraq problem, it is a regional problem from the Levant and the


Mediterranean through to the goal. It is fundamentally sectarian Shia


war, sectarian war between two different religious groups. They


each have their proxies, Saudis on one side on the other. Isn't the


lesson of history that it is better to stay out? You could take that


interpretation. There is a great problem for countries like ours and


America which see humanitarian suffering of the kind that has gone


on in Syria for several years and want to do something about it. The


something must be done syndrome. At the other end we have got the


limitations of our capabilities. They were demonstrated by the fact


there were obvious things people thought we could do in Libya, but it


was very hard to see what we could do in Syria. There is the difference


between our desires and our capabilities. As for the Sunni and


Shia issue, for some time there has been a risk the region would clarify


along those lines. That is what has been attempted to be postponed, that


that should be put off. It is possible we cannot put it off any


longer. That has come about because of the clarification which has come


inside Syria in recent years. The regional players have all been able


to act out their proxy wars. But they are coming closer to home and


that is why this is such a disturbing situation. There is no


appetite in this country for any kind of intervention whatsoever.


Loo-mac you saw that very clearly from Tony Blair's intervention. A


lot of these type of things are seen through the prism of the Iraq


intervention. William Hague made it clear we were not contemplating any


kind of military intervention. He said our response was political to


work out what was happening in Iraq and we had a humanitarian role. But


he made it clear we were not looking at military intervention. What about


the North and the autonomous region of Kurdistan? It is the only really


successful part of the country. Would we offer that any protection?


He made it clear he was not ruling out all intervention everywhere for


ever. I know what he said. The Kurdish area has been very


successful and one of the Foreign Office ministers met with their


regional Government. They have a representative in London. You are


telling me things I know. It is our job to try and support the


democratic Governments in Iraq and Kurdistan and we have to look at


protecting them if it is within our capability. What is Labour's policy?


The terrorists creating mayhem in Iraq at the moment need to be


stopped. It would be slightly strange if Labour said we back the


brutal terrorists as they sweep through Iraq. We take it for granted


you are against them, what is your policy? I do not disagree enormously


with the Government about this. We need to support the Iraqi Government


in making sure they can tackle this issue properly. What does that mean?


We said we will support them in terms of tackling terrorism. We need


to make sure the Government in Iraq can put themselves together by being


less sectarian. If you look Read the latest dispatches from Baghdad that


is not happening. The army is becoming more and more a wing of the


Shia party. You say we back the Iraqi Government in dealing with


this terrorism. In what way do you back it? The Government have talked


about providing support. What kind of support? Support that is not


troops on the ground. But what? The Western powers have talked about


providing some capability that might assist. What should the British do?


We support them in that. We have been clear on the Labour side as


well as on the Government side that we do not support sending troops


back in. I understand that. There is a limit to the support we can give.


These two answers that Conservative and Labour have given this programme


showed the collective irrelevance of British political parties in what is


happening in Iraq. The reality is we have a huge and widening chasm


between what we say we would like to do and what we are able to do. You


cannot have successive governments diminishing our armed forces. We


lower our armed defence capabilities, yet always ramping up


the rhetoric of what we wish to achieve at war. You will simply have


a situation like now where we cannot do very much. This is not about


capabilities, this is about the appetite of wanting to get engaged


and a bit of humility in the political class and in public about


being sure if we intervene, we are going to make things better and not


worse. The debate on Syria last year, the real reason there was not


an appetite to do things was because people were concerned and were not


sure about what intervention we could take that could make things


better. That is a perfectly mature response. Would it not be more


honest to say to the British people, because of what has happened in the


past and Iraq hangs over like a dark shadow on British foreign policy,


because of the fact we have slashed our armed forces and reduced our


capability, there will be horrible things happening there, but other


than humanitarian aid there is very little that we can do. Would that


not be honest? The Foreign Secretary was honest. He made it clear we were


going to provide political support to the Iraqi Government. I have no


idea what that means. On the counterterrorism side we have


expertise so we can provide advice. And we can provide significant


humanitarian aid. And we can provide significant


about that. The fact is the biggest ally is the Iranian Revolutionary


guard. Its commander is already in Baghdad, we are told, with 67 of his


top advisers. There were reports a couple of days ago that they had


basically taken over control of the Iraqi forces because the American


trained Iraqi forces were useless. That is his ally. When the league he


was in exile he spent time in terror ran. They are the ones who matter.


Not British forces. It was perfectly clear that the British would leave


Iraq and put a timeline on that. It was obvious the Government would


want to look for friends and there was only one friend in the region.


One Iraqi politician said, you are our friends, the Iranians are our


brothers. I looked shocked and he said, we can choose our friends, but


we cannot choose our family. An example of how very much larger this


could yet become is that the head of the forces you have just alluded to,


was involved in a plot to assassinate an ambassador in


Washington. America is now dealing directly and indirectly with these


people. These people were very recently involved in a plot on


American soil and America realises it has to cooperate with the


Iranians on this. This is nobody's idea of a good time, but the


situation in the region is so serious. It is a geopolitical


situation. The lines on the map that we see in that part of the Middle


East were put there by the British and French imperialists during the


First World War. They have survived quite a while, but it is over now.


Yes, it will not meet the centenary. One of the things that can be done


to salvage this, the point about the Kurdish region is very fair. The


most important thing is the one bit of the success story, the autonomous


Kurdish region, should be protected. I think the Kurdish people can


protect themselves. They have extraordinarily good fighters and


they have done things in recent days that they see as being in their


interests. It may be the case that if it was threatened, some kind of


international force could be given as an assurance to protect those


areas. In the meantime, the most we can hope is


areas. In the meantime, the most we can hope what happened with ISIS is


what happened before is the locals, including the sectarian groups,


become so disgusted by the behaviour of ISIS that they turn against them.


There is a genuinely popular uprising. That is not going to sort


out the regional problem of which this may just be the start of. Our


politicians out of touch with public opinion on immigration? According to


the British Social Attitudes survey, almost half the population now


believes that a decade of mass migration has not only harm to the


economy, undermined British culture, and that the persistent public


anxiety over immigrant numbers is something the main political parties


ignore at their peril. Well, we have got the man who until a few months


ago was immigration minister, Mark Harper. We will talk to him in a


moment, but here is what Penny Young of the National Centre for social


research, who produced this survey, told me yesterday. It is a mixed


picture. On research, who produced this survey,


told me yesterday. It is some things, attitudes to immigration are


much harder. People are much less relaxed about migrants having the


same legal rights as settled residents. Nevertheless, these


figures obscure a lot of differences within the publishing. One of the


most striking views is that if you have got a degree, you are very


positive about the impact of immigration on the economy and the


cultural life of the population. Everybody else sees a negative


effect. So there are two sections within the British public with very


different views. Mark Harper, why are you failing to


hit your immigration target? It is very simple. Non-EU immigration, we


are on track and have made considerable progress. To be honest,


the surprise was that the EU numbers went up, and not from some of the


Eastern European countries that people were concerned about, but


from the traditional European countries like Spain, Portugal and


France. And a lot of that is driven by the economic performance. We have


been frank about it. We do have to look at the rules about free move it


and when people can claim benefits when they come here. That will be


part of our renegotiation of our terms of membership, which we will


put the people in 2017. What bit of mass unemployment in the Eurozone


did you not know about when you came up with these targets? When the


target was set, I was not in the team. My understanding was that the


numbers were broadly in balance so that the bulk of net migration to


Britain in the past had been from outside the EU. But it was clear


that the Eurozone was in crisis. That was why you formed a coalition


government. It was clear that there was substantial unemployment across


the Eurozone. There was also free movement coming in from Eastern


Europe. You knew the situation. It can't have been a surprise to you


that a lot of Europeans would want to come to Britain, and yet you went


ahead and gave us a target that you are now telling us you knew you


could not meet. I am not saying that.


are now telling us you knew you could not meet. I am not saying The


important thing from that survey is that people do still want


immigration reduced. But you failed. We need to deal with the EU part of


the picture. We have dealt with the non-EU part. We have made a dramatic


impact on where new jobs are going. Since the election, three quarters


of all those new jobs are now going to British citizens. In the five


years running up to the crash, less than 10% off new jobs being created


went to British citizens. That is behind some of the concerns in that


survey. We both think the jobs being created are not benefiting British


citizens. You promised that immigration would be below 100,000.


The latest figures we have are over double that. Is 212,002 much? The


target is in tatters. They have failed. Is it too much? Didn't agree


with having a target in the first place. We have said from our time in


office that we got something is wrong on immigration. But with


respect, I am not asking about that. I am asking, is 212,000 net


migration to much? We would not have chosen a net migration target. But


is it too much? Or is it too few? It is the government's target, it is


not a target we would have chosen. Forget it as a target. Assume the


target does not exist. Just answer a simple question. Is a net increase


of 212,000 people coming here too much or too little? I don't think


you can say it is too much or too little. It depends on the needs of


the country. I can say it is too high. You can become a slave to


figures that you choose, as the current government have. They failed


to meet the target they set themselves, but they also failed to


deal with illegal immigration. There are less checks at orders now they


are not getting rid of foreign criminals. We also did things wrong


when we were in office. I want to acknowledge that. But you still


can't give me an idea of numbers. People's concerns about this relate


to the impact on their own lives. People are concerned about numbers.


That came out in the British Social Attitudes study. And you can't give


them a number. People are concerned about the impact of those coming in


on their communities. I got this on the doorstep when I knocked on


doors. The reality is that people are particularly interested in the


impact this has on their lives and the potential job chances of their


children and local services. If you get those issues right, the concern


abates. I put it to you that your failure to get anywhere near a


target that you said you would reach is just another reason why the


British people don't trust you on this. I have been straightforward


about the bit we have hit, which is non-EU migration, and I have in


frank about the area where we haven't and I have said what we need


to do about it. We have passed on immigration act which will lead to


tightening up the rules on people who are in Britain who should not


be, people who have overstayed their welcome. It is easier to get rid of


foreign criminals. That only matters at the margins. That will not make a


huge difference to the numbers. The stuff about making it more difficult


to Britain will, because if you are here illegally, we can remove you.


You will not be able to get somewhere to live. How could you be


here illegally if you are an EU citizen? For EU citizens, you have


to have a job or be self-sufficient or be a student. There are people


who are causing problems, for example by begging. We can remove


them. People are concerned about the restrictions on Chinese coming in.


Visitors, yes. There is also discussion within government about


the quality of people coming over. What would the figure be that would


be enough to fill the industries unit, and not the people you don't


want? The point on the Chinese issue is confusing. We also mentioned


people speaking English. One of the big changes we have made is that you


can't now come to Britain from outside the EU unless you can speak


English. But you can stop a Polish person -- you can't stop a Polish


person coming in. Your constant mea culpas, but inability to give us any


numbers or any idea of what you think the scale of immigration


should be is why people do not trust you either. I think people are


concerned about the impact on their communities and life chances of


immigration. They think they are not allowed to talk about it. You


encourage them not to. We made mistakes in office. That is why we


have to encourage these debates. If I say to people, we are going to


stop agencies recruiting abroad, we are going to improve the enforcement


of the national minimum wage, will make sure that businesses who


recruit abroad because they need a skilled person that they can only


get from abroad also has two other apprenticeships at home... It


depends on the economic circumstances of the time. What


matters to people is the impact this has in their communities. Do all


Labour politicians think they should apologise for what happened in terms


of numbers? Quite a few politicians like Tessa Jowell have said there


was nothing to apologise for, and that it led to economic both. So


Labour are not quite unified. People have different views within parties


and across parties about these issues, but Ed Miliband has been


clear. We have accepted that we made some mistakes, we need to go


forward, realising that what matters is putting right the abuses that


result from people coming into the country and in act that has in local


communities on housing, services and jobs.


Now, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, continues his visit to


Britain today. Yesterday, he indicated that he was prepared to


pony up some Chinese dosh on HS2 and nuclear power stations? What did he


get in return? A signed copy of a script for Downton Abbey and a


Charles Dickens DVD box set. Do those foreign office types know


nothing? Mr Lee's favourite British TV programme is the Daily Politics.


But fear not, if you are watching from a foreign office desk, a Daily


Politics mug to pass on to Premier Lee can be yours and a major


diplomatic incident can yet be avoided. We will remind you how to


enter in a minute. Let's see if you can remember when this happened.


This is a winning policy, and it is a policy we believe in.


Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address,


[email protected] It is coming up to midday here. Just


take a look at Big Ben. It is a Wednesday, which can mean only one


thing, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way. If you would like to


comment on proceedings, try to be polite! You can e-mail us at


[email protected] We will read your comments out after PMQs. And when he


is not busy to be with us, Nick Robinson is here. Thought I would


pop in. I see dark clouds behind Big Ben. I have just come from


Liverpool. The sun was beautiful and shining this morning. The Lib Dems


are talking about a referendum? The Times have a story considering that


they are shifting -- considering Times have a story considering that


shifting their position. Lots of cold water is being poured on this


from the Lib Dem cold water is being poured on this


senior Liberal Democrat I spoke to said this is not likely. That is a


way of saying that the story is right that they are thinking about


it. But they would only want to do it in return for a big offer from


the Conservatives. If we give you a backing in the House of Commons,


what do we get act? The dark cloud you referred to when you were in


Brussels last week was of course Iraq, each bizarrely did not come up


at all at Prime Minister 's questions. It is not as if it is a


place we have invaded. Oh, no, we did. Twice. Surely it will come up


this week, because it would look surreal if this event can go on for


half an hour each week and a nor the important issues of the day. It was


remarkable that it did not come up, but maybe it did not come up last


time because British politicians have little useful to say about it.


They are also scared about talking about it.


They are also scared about talking Tony Blair's comment. There is a


great desire to say Blair is a fool. But engaging with the argument


that was raised, that was something that very few wanted to do. Douglas


Alexander for Labour has walked the Blair tightrope rather elegantly


earlier in the week, saying that while it was absurd to claim that


the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the problem now, allegedly


Tony Blair's view, it was equally absurd to say it was only the doom


with what happened 11 years ago. Let's find out.


I spoke yesterday to my constituent, who was anxious because Hassan's


passport had not arrived on time. Given the dreadful level of service


she described she was shocked to find the passport agency returned a


surplus of ?73 million. What does it say about the values of this


Government that the Chancellor is making a profit over one of my


constituent's misery? What I would say to any constituent of any MP in


this house, because it is an important issue, is that anyone who


needs to travel within the next week and who has waited more than three


weeks will be fast tracked for no extra cost so they can get their


passport in time. I do not want anyone to miss their holiday because


of these difficulties. We have seen a 15% increase over the last week in


the number of passports being processed, but we need to go faster


and we need to hire more people. Is the Prime Minister aware of the


growing sentiment that as the publication of the Chilcott report


has been so long delayed the ancient but still existing power of


backbenchers to commence the procedures of impeachment should now


be activated to bring Mr Tony Blair to account for allegedly misleading


the house on the necessity of the invasion of Iraq in 2003? I would


say to my right honourable friend it is important we see the results of


the Iraq enquiry. It has had access to all of the papers, officials and


ministers. Frankly, if the Iraq enquiry had started when this party


and when the Liberal Democrats had suggested, then we would have seen


the Iraq inquiry published by now. But members opposite, including the


leader of the opposition, voted against starting the Iraqi enquiry


on no fewer than four occasions. Mr Speaker, all of us will have been


appalled by the images of the brutal aggression of crisis that has spread


across Iraq, terrorising its citizens and undermining its fragile


democracy. Iraq is facing fundamental threats to its integrity


and stability. Can the Prime Minister provide the house with the


latest assessment of the situation in Iraq. And following the


appearance yesterday of the president Al-Maliki, can he say what


more he believes can be done to encourage a more inclusive and


representative Government which is essential for the future of Iraq?


The leader of the opposition is right is that one of the things that


needs to happen is the Iraqi Government to take a more inclusive


approach. I can tell the house the latest reports indicate fighting is


continuing on one front and the oil refinery is currently under attack


by ISIS. There is a large-scale recruitment not only of Shia


militias, but also other young recruits to the Iraqi armed forces


and it is vital that precedes and that ISIS is pushed back by the


Iraqis. But the key thing to recognise is when you get this


combination of poor governance of ungoverned spaces and support for


extremism, that provides an opportunity for terrorists and we


have to address this on each of those three France, supporting the


Iraqi Government. This crisis is not just affecting Iraq, but has


consequences for the whole world. Can he tell us the extra measures


the Government is contemplating to ensure British nationals in the


region cannot return here and engage in violent extremism or terrorism?


Can he say what the Government is doing to prevent people in this


country becoming radicalised and travelling to the region to fight?


Our approach to this issue must be based on a hard-headed assessment of


our national interest and most important is how to keep our


citizens safe at home. The leader of the opposition asked about the


actions we are taking, and we will be legislating in this Parliament to


make the planning of terrorist attacks overseas illegal in the UK.


We will make sure our policing and intelligence resources are focused


on this part of the world and the danger of British people travelling


there and becoming radicalised and returning to the UK. We have taken


away passports, using the new powers we legislated for in the last


Parliament and we will continue to do everything we can to keep our


country safe. I want to talk about Iran and its role in this crisis. We


support the announcement made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary


to reopen the British embassy in Iran and the dialogue started by the


Foreign Secretary, but the challenge we face in Iraq is although Iran


opposes ISIS, the Iranian regime in the past has shown it does not


support a vision for an inclusive and democratic state in Iraq. Can he


give this house the current assessment of the willingness and


intent of the Iranian regime to plate can -- to play a constructive


role? First of all, it is important to re-engage with dialogue with Iran


and that is why we are planning to reopen the embassy. It should be


done on a step-by-step basis. It should be done with a very clear eye


and a very hard-headed because we know of the appalling things that


happened to our embassy in 2011. Two people who say there is


inconsistency having dialogue with Iran and at the same time


recognising how much they have done to destabilise the region, I would


say we need to take a consistent approach with all the players in


this region. We support the voices of moderation, the voices that


support democracy under the rule of law. We need the Iranian Government


to play that role as well as everyone else. The broader context


is the wider Sunni and Shi'ite schism across the region. Does he


agree it is not just Iran but other significant countries across the


region that have a huge responsibility not to take steps


that will further fuel the sectarian conflict? That includes support for


extremist groups. Will the Prime Minister make clear in his


conversations with all parties it will fuel the conflict. Whatever we


are looking to do, whether it is to support the voices of moderation and


democracy in Syria, whether it is trying to help the Iraqi Government


closed down this ungoverned space in Iraq, or the conversations we have


with other regional players, it is important we are consistent with


that engagement and we oppose extremism, terrorism and violence.


When it comes to the support we have given to rebels in Syria that we let


through the official Syrian opposition who are committed to


those things and not extremism and terrorism and our engagement with


the Saudi Arabians, with Qatar and the Emirates and others is all on


the basis that none of us should be supporting those terrorists are


extremists. I want to ask about the humanitarian situation. We have


British allies in the region, such as Jordan, who are already dealing


with a huge refugee crisis. Britain is doing a good job of providing


humanitarian support for those in refugee camps. But there are more


refugees outside the camps and inside the camps. What further


practical measures does the Prime Minister believe we can take to


support companies like Jordan and Lebanon? We remain when it comes to


Syria, the Syrian refugee situation, we remained the second


largest bilateral aid donor anywhere in the world. We are providing


shelter, food, clothing and support for the millions of people who have


been made homeless. When it comes to supporting neighbouring countries,


we have given direct help to Jordan. The increase of the population in


Jordan and Lebanon is equivalent to almost 15 million people coming to


the UK. In terms of the Iraq humanitarian situation where there


is an emerging problem because of people being displaced because of


the ISIS, murderous regime, we have already announced ?3 million of


humanitarian aid to people displaced in that region and we will be


increasing that two ?5 million. Britain will be playing its role for


those, through no fault of their own, have been displaced by


conflict. I hope he will continue to look at what more can be done to


those outside the refugee camps. Everything we are seeing across this


region begs a fundamental question about whether it can develop a


politics where people live alongside each other as citizens rather than


dividing along ethnic or religious lines. Does he agree that while we


can and should provide assistance to make that happen, in the end it is


about the political will of those in the region that will determine


whether this happens or not? I agree, it would be a mistake to


believe the only answer to these problems is the hard attack of


direct intervention. We know that can create problems in itself. But I


also disagree with those who think it is nothing to do with us and if


they want to have some sort of extreme Islamist regime in the


middle of Iraq it will not affect will. The people in that regime are


also planning to attack us here at home in the UK. The right answer is


to be long-term hard-headed, patient and intelligent with our


interventions. The most important intervention is to make sure these


governments are fully representative of the people who live in their


countries and they close down the ungoverned space and they removed


the support for the extremists. We have to help in Iraq, Somalia,


Nigeria and Mali because these problems will come back and hit us


at home if we do not. This week, construction begins on Watford's


University technical college sponsored by an education trust.


Students will receive first-class academic education and real


preparation for real jobs in the real world. Would the Prime Minister


in courage and young people in Watford to explore the opportunities


that this wonderful new school will offer? I know we are doing all we


can to help get the Watford University technical college ready


in September so students can start to benefit. Having visited these


technical colleges in Harlow and Staffordshire, I think they


represent filling in one of the missing links in our education


system that was left after the Second World War where we helped the


Germans establish good technical schools, but did not put them in


place in the United Kingdom. I am very proud to be leading a


Government that is putting that right. Three large GP practices in


the most deprived areas of north-east Yorkshire are facing


crisis. In England we are at least 10,000 GPs short. Labour is


promising a maximum 48 hour wait to see a GP. What is he promising?


First of all, in order to provide more GPs, we need to provide money


and this Government has increased spending on the NHS when we were


told by the party opposite it was irresponsible. We have 7000 more


doctors, more nurses and more midwives, but 19,000 fewer


bureaucrats. It is vital in providing the health services that


we need. Will he welcomed the happy news that the river we are in the


midst of a volunteering week of action renovating a park closed in


2009, but now reopening thanks to the determination of local


residents. Will he welcomed all the jobs, community spirit and real ale


that will bring? I am delighted to welcome the real ale and recommend


they take advantage of the 1p cut not just in this budget, but in the


previous budget. I know people in Avonmouth have suffered from air


pollution and I am happy to discuss that with her. We are seeing a


growth in terms of community pubs and that is all to do good. We


introduced the community right to bid that has enabled a number of


communities to take hold of these facilities. In its recent report the


sea QC praised the start of the hospital in Woolwich for being kind


and respectful. Does the Prime Minister remember that one year ago


before being stopped by judicial review his Government were proposing


to close the A department in the neighbouring Lewisham Hospital which


would have added massively to the pressures on the already


overstretched Queen Elizabeth? The most important thing with our health


services to raise good service when we see it, but to recognise that


when you see poor service, we see it, but to recognise that


when you see it has to be turned around. We are clear about the


turnaround work being done in many of our hospitals that were left for


year after year under Labour. But the House might be interested to


know that the average amount of time you wake in A was 77 minutes when


Labour were in power. It is now 30 minutes under this government. Can


the Prime Minister advise my constituents what action the


government is taking to ensure that areas of regeneration such as


Colindale in my constituency received the necessary public


service infrastructure to support the increasing population? My


honourable friend makes an important point.


honourable friend makes an important bonus have helped to make sure the


local authorities can put bonus have helped to make sure the


infrastructure. We have strengthened new planning guidance to ensure that


infrastructure is provided support new developments. As a result of the


recent award of the Thameslink franchise, there will be new rolling


stock on the line. By the end of 2018, there will be over 3000 more


seats on trains running through Hendon at peak times, it I hope is


welcome to his constituents. What does the Prime Minister believed the


underlying causes for the ?2 billion deficit forecast for the English


National Health Service trust for next year, and what are his


remedies? The estimates being made today are being made on the basis


that we have set challenges for the NHS in terms of making efficiencies?


After four years in government, they have met those in efficiency


challenges every year under this government. And that money has been


ploughed back into better patient care in our NHS. The question for


the NHS in British politics today, I would argue, is, why is it in Wales,


where Labour are under control, where 8% cuts have remade in the NHS


budget? They might be yawning opposite, blog but they are not


yawning in Wales, because they are stuck on waiting lists, desperate


for treatment. Will my right honourable friend join me in


congratulating the England women's football team? They have had success


in the World Cup qualifiers. On and off the pitch, women are delivering


for England, with more women in employment, more women setting up


businesses. So will the Prime Minister confirmed that in our


long-term economic plan, we will ensure that women can continue to


score the goals for the UK economy and that no one is left behind? I am


happy to join my honourable friend. As a keen fan of not just the


England football team, but also the England cricket team, I have the


pleasure of having representatives of the England women's football and


cricket team in Downing Street recently. I said they seemed to put


us through considerably less heartache, stress and worry when


qualifying for these major competitions, and indeed in the


cricket team's case, when they are winning the Ashes. There is good


news to celebrate, which is that e-mail employment is at a record


high in our country. There are nearly 7000 more women at work --


female employment. We are seeing more female staff in businesses. We


are making sure it is fairer for women in terms of pensions. We have


a good record, but there is more to be done. Exactly 20 years ago to the


day, gunmen went into a pub in my constituency and killed six men.


Amid widespread claims about pollution and police cover-up. The


families have never received truth and justice. Only two weeks ago, the


police ensured that the police ombudsman's investigation was


stalled. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all UK police


services must cooperate fully with their oversight authorities, both to


the letter and in spirit, to ensure that families that I represent


received truth and justice? I agree with the honourable lady that


everyone should cooperate with the police ombudsman. I believe the


police ombudsman system in Northern Ireland is now a model that other


countries are looking to follow. It was something I discussed recently


with the Taoiseach in terms of what happens in the Republic of Ireland.


We have a system there that works. We have enquiry teams which are also


working, but I hope the work can continue between the parties in


Northern Ireland to discuss the ideas for flights parades and the


past. I hope everyone can come together and sort these issues out


-- flied parades. In Jillings and rain, youth unemployment is down,


unemployment overall is down, business creation is up. Does the


Prime Minister not agree that this shows that our long-term economic


plan is working? And will he join with me in welcoming the new


creation of a university technical college in Medway, which will ensure


that our future generations have the right skills to succeed in life? I


am delighted to say to the honourable gentleman that it is


welcome that youth unemployment, which has been too high for too long


in our country, is down by 25% this year in his constituency, and


long-term youth Honor Blackman is down 41%. He makes the point about


-- used term unemployment is down. I want to see a technical college in


every town so that we give young people the opportunity of a good


technical education if that is what they choose. And those schools must


be well funded, well resourced and also partnered with organisations


that can bring their expertise to bear. How is his campaign going to


stop Mr Juncker? It is a simple issue of principle. Much more


connected to the principle than the name. The principle is this, and I


think it will be shared on every side of the house. The members of


the European Council, who are the elected Prime Minister 's and


presidents, under the treaties, we should choose who runs the European


Commission. I don't mind how many people on the European Council


disagree with me, I will fight this to the very end. And what I would


say to my colleagues on the European Council, many of whom have expressed


interest in views about both this principle and this person, if you


want reform in Europe, you have got to stand up for it. If you want


change in Europe, you have got to vote for it. That is the message I


will take, and that is the right message for our country. Last year,


a Cabinet Office minister said relocation of staff out of expensive


London offices to other regions continues to be high on the agenda


to deliver the savings needed. Will the Prime Minister look to move some


of those jobs to Redcar in Cleveland, where we have low-cost


offices, affordable housing, school places, people ready to work and a


great lifestyle? My honourable friend makes an important point


about the relocation of jobs. Of course, we want to see that develop.


I know it was disappointing about the changes to the insolvency


service in Stockton last year. One of the reasons that happened was


there has been such a sharp fall in bankruptcy and company closures,


which is a welcome development. Overall, employment is rising in the


north-east. It rose by 47,000 last year, but we have to make sure we


generate not just by that sector jobs, but where we can, locate a big


sector job different parts of the country. We continue with that


programme. How many people from this country are fighting for ISIS, and


what risks do they pose to the UK? The estimates that have been given


so far are that around 400 people from the UK have taken part in


fighting with ISIS, but those numbers are based around what is


happening in Syria rather than what is happening in Iraq, where we have


considerably less information. Together with the Home Secretary and


others, I have turned meetings in Whitehall to make sure our


intelligence, security and policing services are focused as sharply as


they can on to this Robben. The estimates are now -- this problem is


a greater threat to the UK than the return of jihadis from the


Afghanistan or Pakistan region. We need to do everything we can to keep


our country safe. What it is good news that the budget deficit has


been cut by a third, there is still much more to do. One way of helping


our country live within its means is to send back all the convicted


criminals who are foreign nationals and who are costing British


taxpayers millions of pounds each year to keep in our prisons. All too


often, attempts to send year to keep in our prisons. All too


criminals ask the blood by human rights legislation. -- the attempts


are scuppered by human rights legislation. What plans does the


Prime Minister have put an end to this ludicrous state of affairs? I


agree that we need to do more on this front. We have removed around


20,000 foreign national offenders since this government came to


office, but the number is built to high. I have a lot of individual


ministers to individual territories, particularly those with the highest


number of foreign offenders, countries like Nigeria, Jamaica,


Vietnam, China, to make sure we make progress on returning these


prisoners. We also need to use the prisoner transfer agreement within


the European Union, because that could lead to a large number of


prisoners being returned to Poland. If we get a Conservative government


after the next election, we will have a substantive reform to the


Human Rights Act, which is not working properly for Britain. Last


month, the National Health Service missed its cancer treatment target


for the very first time. What does the Prime Minister have to say to


patients and their families who have had to put their lives on hold,


waiting for vital treatment to start? There is not a family in this


country that is not affected by cancer and the difficulties of


making sure you get the treatment you need as fast as you can. We have


a series of targets for cancer treatment, and we are meeting almost


all of them. We have seen an increase of around 15% in terms of


the number of people being treated for cancer. And we have introduced


that never existed the previous government, the Cancer Drugs Fund.


She will know people in her constituency, just as I know people


in my constituency who are getting medicines that they need that they


never got before. The Prime Minister will know that the economic recovery


in Essex has been led by the private sector, with Essex firms creating


thousands of new jobs and exporting across the globe. Will he come and


Essex businesses and support their efforts to export more by looking


favourably upon our plans to upgrade our interest, both our road and rail


network across Essex? As I have said before, where Essex leads, the rest


of the country follows. In terms of economic recovery, private sector


growth, entrepreneurialism, employing more people, that is what


the economy needs. That is what our economic plan is delivering. Last


week, we saw that record in crease in employment. This week, we saw


inflation fall to a five-year low. I had successful meetings yesterday


with the Chinese premier, fanning ?14 billion worth of important deals


that will bring jobs, growth and investment to this country. We have


to keep working on every aspect of our plan, including exports. The


former Prime Minister Sir John Major made a strong case for looking at


our constitutional arrangements, whatever the outcome in September in


Scotland. Will he accept that devolution in England outside London


is very much unfinished business? If our great cities like Birmingham


want to remain economic engines, they require radically reformed


funding structures and our regions require strategically elected direct


mayors. As the honourable lady knows, I am a fan of directly


elected mayors, but the people of Birmingham had their chance to make


that decision and they voted not to have one. I hope people will see


successful mayors in London, Liverpool, Bristol and other parts


of the country, and they will see that there are benefits from that.


But I agree with her that even if we don't move to a mayoral system,


there is more we can do through city deals, local enterprise


partnerships, devolving some of the funding in Whitehall further down


towards cities and regions. What is welcome is the fact that her party


has not decided to tear up local enterprise partnerships in its party


review. It is good that we have cross-party agreement on how to


drive devolution to our great cities around the country. On behalf of my


burnt wood constituents, may I thank the Prime Minister for his swift and


effective action in giving a posthumous honour to my constituent


Stephen Sutton? But with the economic plan now working well, how


can we build on that, and how can we build on the legacy that Stephen


Sutton set for giving to charitable purposes? Stephen Sutton was an


inspiring individual. His zest for life, even as he was suffering from


a difficult and progressive cancer, was extraordinary. He raised the


huge amount of money for Teenage Cancer Trust and raised it around


the world as well as in the UK. It is right that our honours system


happily rewards people that give to charity, that give of their time


from the bottom to the top. There is probably more we can do to make sure


that our honours dust reflects what the British public want, which is to


say giving and generosity and compassion rewarded. The Prime


Minister may recollect that a few months ago, at Prime Minister's


Questions, I asked him to meet the victims of a drug. There are over 50


of them coming to Parliament today. I would ask if he would see them,


look at the document we have produced to show that the committee


of medicine in new about the fact that this drug was causing


deformities in babies, and nothing was done about it. I would ask him


to then consider a public enquiry. I do not think I will be able, I'm


afraid, today, to see the people she's bringing to the House of


Commons. I'm happy to another conversation with her about what can


be done and to understand about what more can be communicated to these


people. In welcoming the Chinese premier, Mr Lee, to this country,


and in recognising that China is one of the greatest export markets for


Britain, can ask the Prime Minister to use his good offices to unblock


the barrier to the export of pigs' feat for human consumption, which


will bring thousands of pounds -- pigs' feet? I will certainly take up


my honourable friend on that issue. I recall on a previous visit to


China, we unlocked the export of big as' seem to China, so we made


progress -- pigs' seaman. So I will look carefully at pig feet, and if


exports can be allowed and jobs can be promoted, I would be happy to


help. Notwithstanding the serious problems as well, does the Prime


Minister share my concern about the crisis in South Sudan, where 4


million people are facing famine? What steps are being taken to


implement the peace process? I was discussing this issue yesterday with


the Archbishop of Canterbury, who very bravely had been with local


church leaders to a town which had been subject to some of the most


serious fighting. It is a very different part of the world to what


we were discussing earlier, but some of the same rules apply. We need a


government that governs on behalf of all the people in that country, and


does not try to divide the country along ethnic lines. We will do what


we can, and when we talk about intervention in this country, it is


intervention through diplomacy, aid, assistance and advice, and we will


continue with that. Is my right honourable friend aware that at the


conference this weekend in Athens of the national chairman of the select


committees, with delegates from all parties, but also chairman of the


European Parliamentary committees as well, the British delegation


defeated an attempt to treat the word euro scepticism as equivalent


to xenophobia and racism? And furthermore, that on the question of


the procedure, the unprecedented procedure relating to the proposed


appointment or election of Mr Juncker, the conference also agreed


with the British delegation that this was an unprecedented and


unacceptable and unsuccessful procedure? No surprises that my


honourable friend was successful in this negotiation on behalf of


Britain. There is support right around Europe for the concept of the


Council of ministers making these choices. But as I say, it requires


the elected by ministers and presidents to vote in the way they


believe. We have been slightly delayed, but there are


accommodations I want to make. On the Prime Minister's watch, five


GPs' surgeries face closure in my bar and 98 nationally. Is this what


the Prime Minister meant when he promised to protect the NHS? When I


said we would protect the NHS, I meant just that. We are spending


?12.7 billion more on the NHS, which Labour said was responsible for what


we have 7000 more doctors in our NHS by 3000 more nurses, over 1000 more


midwives in our NHS. But there is something we have less of. We have


19,000 fewer bureaucrats, and that money has been piled into patient


care, including improving primary care around the country. The people


of Newark have enjoyed becoming better acquainted with the Prime


Minister this past month. I regret to inform the Prime Minister that


the town of South well in my constituency was again flooded last


week. Would the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to support


my proposal that those parts of Nottinghamshire that was severely


affected by the floods of 2013 received similar grants to those


parts elsewhere in the country flooded at the beginning of this


year? Firstly, I welcome my honourable friend to his place in


the House of Commons after a long, arduous but well fought and positive


by-election campaign. My honourable friend makes an important point.


There are parts of the country in Nottinghamshire, but also elsewhere


that flooded during the course of 2013. They were not eligible for


some of the payments that were made subsequent to the flooding, support


for householders, farmers under the proposals. We are looking at whether


we can put back to the beginning of the 2013 financial year the


eligibility criteria for that flood work. I will look at it carefully


and talk with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for


local government and communities, and see if we can resolve this issue


for my honourable friend. which is a bit longer than normal.


While it was taking place, there have been two developments in Iraq.


The country's biggest oil refinery to the north-west of Baghdad is now


in flames. The country's biggest oil refinery


to the The militant tried to take it, they got part of it, Iraqi army


helicopters have fought back. It looks like they have reclaim it, but


it is at a cost of a huge part of the oil refinery. Secondly, the


battle of Baghdad has not yet begun. But the battle of the Cooper is well


underway, 40 miles to the north. The militants have taken huge chunks of


that town and we understand the battle is raging there. If the


militants take that town, the future of Baghdad could be next in line.


Unlike last week when it didn't get a mention at all, the events in Iraq


dominated the exchanges between the two frontbenchers. There is a


bipartisan approach on this. The exchanges covered what the latest


assessment was. The leader of the house went on to ask about what was


happening to any British national fighting there and what we were


going to do about that. It then came on to Iran in its role and the work


Britain was doing to bring humanitarian aid to that troubled


part of the world. Let's hear what you made of it all.


Lots of response to the situation. Helen Manning says, hearing all the


useless rhetoric about Iraq and Iran from Ed Miliband and David leaves me


cold. From Tim, why doesn't the Government explain how we are


threatened by the conflict? Paula Hendry said, the discussion across


the dispatch box was refreshing. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband had


an adult interaction. This from Alec Aitken, I want all of the youths who


have travelled to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and to wait


red flagged and anyone fighting in these countries should be exiled.


Peter Clatworthy says the fact of the matter is if these sets want to


redraw the boundaries in the Middle East and want to massacre each other


in the process, there is nothing we can do about it, except at the level


of the United Nations. There was a related question from the father of


the house fairly early on which was about enacting powers of


impeachment, not something you hear about very often. It is true the


house still has those existing privileges of impeachment because


they have to be formally abandoned for them to be obsolete. That would


require legislation and no legislation has been introduced.


Adam Price, legislation has been introduced.


Adam a former MP, and ten other MPs Adam a former MP, and ten other


including Alex Salmond, Boris Johnson and Nigel Evans declared an


intention to table a motion calling for an impeachment of Tony Blair


regarding the invasion of Iraq. It was tabled by Parliamentary


authorities in November, 2004, but in the end was not debated in that


session because the motion did not have precedence in terms of business


of the house. It would be unlikely that Peter Tapsell would have any


influence in terms of enacting the powers now, but they are there. The


last case was in a team of six. American powers were derived from


those powers. It was 1806. That is impressive. Other than that of the


two frontbenchers can gather round some generalised statements, what


did we learn today? We did not learn a great deal. There was what people


may regard as a grown-up exchange of views on Iraq, but it highlighted


that Britain's Road is pretty marginal. Ed Miliband's last


question sound that up and he would say no bad thing. It is up to the


people in the region to find a solution. That was in contrast to


Peter Tapsell and the impeachment of Tony Blair. But we know the


Americans are considering military action, but there was no mention of


military action and whether we should block it or participate in


it. There was talk about diplomacy and humanitarian aid which could be


given another boost, ?5 million. And that new relationship if it becomes


that with Iran. But I got the sense that it captured both the importance


of the issue and the impotence of Britain. Throughout this particular


dispute, particularly in Lebanon and then in Syria and now in Iraq this


has not been just an issue for the people who live there, this has


become a proxy war. This has become a proxy war which the Saudis, the


Kuwaitis, Qatar and Iran have now got involved in. There are


geopolitical implications. This is not just an issue which will be


resolved by the people who live in these countries. Know, and the US


resolved by the people who live in considering what it is going to do


and William Hague was asked about that earlier in the week and said we


would support what the that earlier in the week and said we


were doing in the sense we would not get involved in it, but we


were doing in the sense we would not back them up. Without knowing what


they were going to do? The question raised there and in one of the


e-mails was the question about the threat to Britain. The key thing is


those British citizens who have gone to fight in those countries and


making sure they do not come back radicalised. If we have information


that someone has been out in the killing fields of northern Iraq,


playing their part in that killing, they will now be pretty battle


hardened and well-trained and we know there are coming back, put


aside the issue of those we do not know, what should we do with that


person? If they are a naturalised British citizen? Yes. If they were


not born a British citizen the Home Secretary has powers to remove their


citizenship and stop them coming back. We have used that power. If


they are British citizens we do not have that option for, if they are


born here, we should use our intelligence services to know about


them. If they have committed criminal offences, and you heard the


Prime Minister talking about making it an offence to do this abroad, we


have to use our intelligence services. What does that mean? We


have to understand if they are a threat. Clearly they are a threat if


they have been in the killing Fields. What more of a sign do you


want? We have to use our intelligence services. We need to


focus on where the risk is highest. I would suggest that is the 400


people out there now. It is a difficult problem. And it is a


problem that all parties have grappled with. The current


Government removed some of the controversial powers for tracking


people and there is an issue about whether we have got the right powers


and strength. But I think it is tremendously difficult when people


come back. We have to engage in these communities and make sure


radicalisation, to the extent that it happens, is challenge. It has


already happened. These people are out there. In some of the ISIS


videos you can hear North of England accent. Some of them are apparently


doing the killing as well. A lot of people will think, watching this


programme, whether it is legal or moral, a lot of people think if they


attempt to come back in, they should not be allowed back in at all or


they should be taken in and stuck in the slammer until we work out what


to do with them. There are issues about whether we have the correct


powers. You cannot do that without having the correct powers. Control


orders? We were concerned about them being abolished. I think in the


circumstances you have to be clear that you have the right powers. The


fact is if there are 400, the worst-case 700 make their way back,


incredibly well-trained and battle hardened and quite fearless, the


idea that the security forces should just monitor them, my understanding


is to keep on monitoring with our resources you need ten or 12 people


a day from the security services to do that. We have not got these


people. That is why we will have a revival about powers and so


violence. In the Guardian there is an argument about what are the core


powers of surveillance? Someone from the Home Office argued it was legal


and rightly legal to scan e-mails of people who come from abroad. His


argument was it was the only way you will pick up that noisy traffic. But


the state does not have the resource to take named individuals and


monitor them all. Others would say that is a breach of Civil


Liberties. I think we will have a debate in Parliament. A new law


planning a terrorist offence overseas is a new offence in itself


is being planned. There will be control orders and a debate about


electronic surveillance. Should be an offence to go and fight for


another terrorist group? I think it should. I think going in and


fighting already can be. I think the Prime Minister is thinking about the


planning and preparation. If you have been abroad and you have been


taking part, you may have committed offences already. He was talking


about making sure the planning and preparation is also a crime.


Surveillance is important. Security services have no interest in reading


e-mails, but people use social media to plan and commit these offences.


That is clear. I was speaking to a senior security guy recently who


said he agreed with the assessment. That is if Edward Snowden has not


already stopped us doing what we need to do. But there is a big


counter argument they are having their hands tied behind their back


at the very time the threat is increasing. I am sure this will not


go away. Just before we move on, a Liberal Democrat minister has


confirmed senior figures in the party are discussing whether they


should back a referendum on Britain's membership of the European


Union and we heard reports today the party had been due to discuss this


at a meeting last night, but it is only a preliminary meeting, but this


could change that policy. Now,


Britain is a nation of dog lovers. We all know about Andrew


and his Molly. But campaigners are trying to get


the Government to change the law to ensure that the puppies we buy are


not mass produced in puppy farms. They want to ensure that puppies are


kept with their mothers and not sold via pet shops, newspaper ads,


websites and private dealers. Here is TV vet Marc Abraham with


his soapbox. Most of us lavish love on our pets. Zoe's owner certainly


does, but Zoe still bears the scars on the first years of her life on a


puppy farm. Unfortunately, if you buy a puppy without seeing its mum,


for example at a pet shop, not only will you most likely be unwittingly


contributing to a trade that is detrimental to dog welfare, but you


will probably end up back in a place like this, with a very sick dog as


well. Young puppies like these guys need their mums. But puppy farmers


separate them far too early. They often also ignored guidelines about


health testing, maximum frequency of litters, keeping them in poor


conditions, failing to socialise them before selling them on without


vaccination or worming. Put simply, at the farms like this, dogs are


bred in large numbers with little care for their welfare, health or


happiness in an effort to maximise profits. Poppy farmers often sell to


pet shops, just one reason why it is such a bad idea to buy your new


companion from such a place. They also use the party dealers,


advertising newspapers and when selling directly will arrange to


meet at places such as pubs or service station. This way you never


see the conditions in which the puppies being bred. One of the


simpler than most effective steps deeper can take to stamp out puppy


farming is by banning the sale of puppies in pet shops. In this day


and age, there is no justification for this practice. We need greater


regulation and much better inspection of the breeders. It is


time for local authorities to enforce guidelines that puppies are


only sold when they are seen with their mother. Puppy farming is


cruelty, and it is time to stop it. And Marc Abraham joins us now. How


big a problem is this? How many puppy farms are there? Some are


licensed, some are unlicensed, so it is impossible to give an exact


figure, but there are enough to cause a huge overproduction of dogs


in this country. We have puppies being produced on a massive, battery


farming scale. And we have held the rescued dogs Ian Poulter sleep every


day. This is not right in the 21st century -- we have rescued dogs who


are healthy being put to sleep every day. There is demand, but it is the


wrong demand. People are impulsive. They see celebrities with a French


bulldog, and the puppy farmers are rubbing their hands. People do not


go for the family pet that will last 15 years any more. People go for a


pet that will look good in their handbag or on Facebook, and get rid


of it in a year's time. They are not committing to pet ownership as they


once used to. What can the government do? You talked about


having guidelines to say that you cannot buy from an unlicensed puppy


farm. Is that in place, or is it what you want? DEFRA's own


guidelines say that you should always see the pop with the mum, yet


they always see the pop with the mum, yet


are not willing to enforce this. They are ignoring their own


guidelines, which is crazy. Also, local authorities have the


guidelines, which is crazy. Also, local authorities powers to amend


those restrictions, yet in research we conduct did, over 50% came back


saying they did not realise this. It is time for ministers to commit to


something positive and say, let's stamp out puppy farming, look after


the rescued dogs of this world and the responsibility of breeders.


There should be a comprehensive solution to this. It is a growing


robin, and many of the puppy farms in the UK -- many of the farms are


in Wales and it is a growing problem. The government are looking


at how to increase the requirements. The law is


enforceable. Some of those pictures, I don't think those conditions would


have asked any kind of welfare test by any licensed operator. Beneath to


be a comprehensive solution. We need to see how the Welsh solutions work.


It is something we ought to be looking at dealing with, because it


is a serious problem. Shouldn't the pet shops just be told not to take


these? It is already the case within the law that you have to have a. My


own local authority just revoke the licence of two breeding


establishments in my constituency, so they can take action. Local


authorities have to enforce the law. They do inspections, and they can


look at the conditions the dogs are in. We have to finish there. Thank


you for bringing attention to this. People can go to our website for


more information. Join the debate and the petition. Good luck.


MPs work hard in their constituencies when they are not


representing their constituents in Parliament, they are beavering away


on the ground. But you know that. Helen Goodman is the MP for Bishop


Auckland in County Durham, and in her constituency is a village called


Ingleton. So when she gave a speech at the village fair, she thought she


would drop in some local knowledge to show how in touch she is with the


constituency. But there is another Ingleton, 70 miles away in North


Yorkshire, and she mixed up the two. Locals were perplexed by the


waterfalls and big caves she praised in her speech. I am not surprised!


Luckily, we have two hard-working constituency MPs here today, and


they could not possibly confuse towns in their constituencies with


others, or could they? We thought we would find out. It is the


constituency quiz. Let's start with you, Maria Eagle. Your constituency


is Hales would -- Halewood. But there is also a blast in Watford so


which Garston does the River corn run through? That is not mine.


Correct. It is in Watford. And in which Garston did ask Ron Jeremiah


Horrocks, who predicted the transit of Venus across the sun in 1639,


live? I can't say I know the answer to that. We know Jak Jones was


warning Garston. I am being told that all these questions are wrong,


and we are just wasting our time. So let's not bother. I could tell you a


lot about my constituency. I am told that your questions are incorrect.


In my constituency, I have two villages, both called Staunton. So


you have to be sure not to model them up. It was a good idea, but


unfortunately, the research team have been redeployed to western


Baghdad as I speak. Surely you would know if it was your constituency. If


I get asked open things, I usually take the view that people do not


want a long, complicated speech. They just want to thank the people


that are there, and then get the thing going. The real danger is with


boundary changes, when you suddenly get a chunk of land that did not


choose to be yours. I apologise to the people of all these


constituencies. Now, time to put you out of your


misery, unlike me. I'm just going into mine.


I will put you out of your misery in a minute! Here is the answer to


guess the year. The year, which we often get to tell


you, was 1999. I said 2000. At least, we hope it is 1999. Thank


you, Maria. For pressing the buzzer. Colin Bates in Birmingham, well


done. Thank you to all of our guests,


particularly Maria and Mark. One o'clock is is now on BBC One. And


unlike Jeremy Paxman, we are not taking early retirement. We will be


back tomorrow. Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles