10/11/2015 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

David Cameron sets out his EU renegotiation demands.

He says achieving them is not "mission impossible" and that he'll

campaign to stay in a reformed EU with all his heart and soul.

The Government's Trade Union Bill - which tightens up strike rules -

The leader of the RMT union joins us live.

The start of Sunday trading in the '90s.

George Osborne wants to see more of it, but his plans for further

relaxation could be in jeopardy, as the SNP decides it will join

Tory rebels to vote against the plan.

And as Finland adopts official national emojis -

including people in a sauna - to promote the country

on social media, should the UK do the same?

And if so, what images should we use?

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today Gordon Brown's former trade minister -

and a former head of the CBI - Digby Jones.

First, let's just take a look at another story around this morning,

that the head of the NHS in England, Simon Stevens, has apparently

warned George Osborne that he's in danger of breaking his pledge

According to the Times, Mr Stevens has told the Chancellor he needs to

stump up more cash for the NHS to make up for cuts to social care

Should George Osborne find that money? In the short term there will

be bankruptcy in the next two years. No politician in any party can

afford to have that on their watch. Should he telescope it forward so

over the parliament it is the same spend, but he brings it in now, I do

not think he will have a choice. The problem is it is hypocrisy from

everybody who always talk about how a bit more money will fix this and

the moment anybody talks about reform, anybody left of centre says

you want to privatise it. Whoever said that? All they say is it cannot

go on like this. There was a little girl born this morning at Saint

Thomas's over the river and she has got one in three chance being alive

in 100 years from today. If it is a boy it is one in four. You cannot

have a system that was created in a different world that the different

demographic, with different health care and different issues, and saved

through political ideology it will be OK if you give it more money. It

will not. You agree that we have to look at a different way of doing it

and it cannot be a purely taxpayer funded service? On Question Time,

people say tax the bankers, you could do that, but it will not be

sorted. It is an enormous shift in what is expected for how many people

in a competitive. Environment It cannot go on like this. Should he

fix it urgently now to get him over a hump? He has not got a choice, but

it does not fix the issue. One issue is about how we fund the NHS in the

long term and there are cuts to other departmental spending on

social care and public health campaigns to cut down on anything

from obesity and healthy eating which make the NHS's job more

difficult. It is a mix. If you are going to fix it, you have to fund it

differently. Secondly, prevention is better than cure. Get people

thinking more on health care, get a lot of public education out there.

The problem for the public sector and number 11 looking at the issue,

if you keep saying I will ring fence this and that and the cost of that

goes up, and you ring fenced it, everything else has to, by

definition, because you have only got a port of 100%... Hence the

After Xi Jinping's state visit to the UK last month, sales of what

At the end of the show Digby will give us the correct answer.

Oakbank you. You are welcome, we aim to please.

So the letter outlining the Prime Minister's demands

for reform of the European Union has arrived in Brussels.

David Cameron wants the plans discussed at a big summit in

December, but whether he's able to reach an agreement before holding

Mr Cameron will say the mission is big, but not impossible,

First up, he wants to boost Europe's economic competitiveness,

open up the single market and secure international trade deals.

Next up, the PM wants to exempt the UK from the concept

of ever closer union, have no more powers transferred to Brussels and

give national parliaments a bigger say.

Then David Cameron wants those countries like the UK who

don't use the euro to be protected from eurozone countries acting as

Finally the big one, which many believe will be

impossible, restricting EU immigrants access to benefits,

For many European nations this is a step to far, however with

the government publishing figures showing 43% of EU migrants receive

benefits in the UK, it's a seen in London as a crucial issue.

Earlier this morning David Cameron gave a speech outlining his plans,

afterwards he was asked about the timescale of the negotiations.

I have, since the election, been patiently meeting with European

But as well as patient, as well as wanting to get on with it,

Europe has got a lot on its agenda at the moment, not least the Syrian

crisis and all the ramifications that has, but I hope we can make

I have done everything possible to try and make that happen.

We don't have to hold our referendum until the end of

2017, but I am keen to secure these changes to get on with it and I will

Just on referendum timing to put the press out of their agony, I can

The first you will hear about the timing of the referendum is after I

Anything you write before then, you can write what you like, it might be

true, it might not be true, but the only time you will know is when

Let's talk now to our political correspondent Eleanor

Many critics of the Prime Minister, and Eurosceptics within the

Conservative Party, will say this is a figleaf from David Cameron

disguising the fact he cannot really negotiate anything substantial. Yes,

some are saying it will be easy for David Cameron to achieve all these

demands because they say it is a trivia list of demands that will be

easy to achieve. Some, whatever David Cameron once, for some it will

never be enough. There are some Eurosceptics he will never be able

to please. The criticisms are that in David Cameron's demands there is

no emergency brake, no cap on the number of EU migrants that can come

here, no opt out on specific policies the UK could opt out. Some

are saying it will be very easy for David Cameron. He himself is saying

it is a big, but not impossible task. He is going to approach the EU

referendum is the biggest question we will ever face at the ballot box

in our lifetimes. He is going to face it practically, not

emotionally, and he will be using his head and not his heart. After

the emotion of some of this or not, what about restricting EU migrants

access to in work benefits here in the UK. Is that the critical one for

most people? That is absolutely the critical one, but it is also the

great unknown. Will those demands to restrict migrant benefits make a

difference? David Cameron is making this the central plank of his

re-negotiation argument. The stakes are high on this and he is putting a

lot of eggs in this basket. Some are saying it will not make a

difference, it is not good enough and others are saying it is

important and it will be difficult for him to sell across the European

Union to those leaders from countries like Poland. They say it

discriminates against their own citizens. You could have a Polish

worker and a UK worker doing the same job in Britain side-by-side but

being paid a different amount because one would be able to get in

work benefits and the other would not be able to. David Cameron has

used a figure today and he says around 40% of EU migrants get

benefits and two thirds of them are getting in work benefits.

Interestingly, that figure has come from Downing Street and not the

Treasury and not the Department of Work and Pensions and it is a figure

we have been unable to clarify. We are trying to work out how they have

calculated it, but we have not had any luck. Experts are also

struggling. It is clear this will be the most politically divisive idea

and it will be the hardest to sell across the European Union. The

president of the European Parliament, Martin Schultz, has put

out a response saying he has strong doubts about the legality of a

four-year ban on access to benefits. He said he would wait to see what

specific ideas the British Government would come up with. The

stakes are high on this one and David Cameron is putting a lot of

We've been joined by the former Conservative MP Laura Sandys,

who chairs the European Movement,

and by Ukip's trade spokesman William Dartmouth.

Laura, even if the Prime Minister reaches agreement on all of these

issues, will anything have substantially changed with our

relationship with the EU? It will have, but it would not be just for

us. Some of these reforms are about changing other countries'

relationships with the EU as well. Some are specifically about the UK,

but others, on the democracy site and allowing greater power for

Parliament, will be for everybody in Europe. What will be so different

that I will be able to immediately tell, for example the protection of

the single market? Those things are not tangible in terms of a great

change in our relationship to the EU. They do not look fantastic on a

leaflet going through our door, the retail offer as such. But they are

important in shaping Europe so that it is a more inch in with our

political settlement and how we see the world going forward. We have got

Denmark and a huge amount of payment interests and the Dutch and the

polls and many of the Baltic states. Do you think it will be enough, if

not to satisfy you and your colleagues, but to satisfy more of

the British public? No, this negotiation is trivial. What he is

asking for does not amount to anything. This negotiation is a sure

ride which demeans the office of Prime Minister. I have to agree to

disagree with your colleague. Fiddling about with benefits is a

very little idea and it shows the paucity of the Prime Minister's

demands that he considers that fiddling about with the benefits can

be described as the little one. You are either in the political European

Union or not. A serious negotiation would ask for an end to borders and

repatriated. It was party policy before David Cameron became leader.

What do you say to that? For many of your conservative colleagues in

Parliament they will feel the same. There are people who whatever the

Prime Minister was either asking or getting would find it not enough. In

many ways this has been set up by those people who want out whatever.

It is not a problem. We are moving forward and every organisation

should be going through a reform programme. We should be demanding

the best in the institutions we sit at the top table with. We have got a

clear set of questions to ask the European Union and I hope we get

quite a lot of what we want. Listening to both you and Laura, who

is right? Is this shopping list meaningless? Or is it important in

the broader sense of changing the whole direction? It depends on the

Jewry that would judge the word trivial and reform. If this is a

party political exercise where you have the leader of the Conservative

Party trying to sort out his backbench, it is not trivial. How

does it look to you? The problem is I stand for business and we have got

the European Union that is marching forward by the day. You have got

India wanting your lunch and China wanting your dinner, you have got a

global competitive environment. You have got 520 million people living

in peace for the first time. You have got a democratic, capitalist

home for people who came out of the yoke of communism, a fabulous

achievement, and yet you have got economies inside the European Union

who think they can build a sustainable, competitive, global

economy by inputting BMWs and exporting a common farming policy.

If there was no reform whatsoever, I believe Europe is not fit for

purpose, for the United Kingdom and for medium and small business, but I

would vote to stay in a reformed Europe. A reformed Europe is not on

offer. Can I just ask, for business, we are

just about to finalise the digital single market. The service and

single market, totally to the UK. You guys always go polemic. You all

about either yes! No! Can't you understand, the average

businesswoman or businessmen in Britain actually looks at this

holistically and they look at this in competitive terms. There are some

great stuff going on. Can I just say that John Cridland, the head of the

CBI is all in and he thinks he represents the voice of business

people as well. You never bought a house by offering the vendors are

whole asking price on day one. The CBI have been engineered into that

is where they are. They need to take a deep breath, go back to their

roots and go back to when the democratically elected Prime

Minister of the country will come back to the people, he will tell you

what it is. Those who wish to leave the EU will often cite Norway as an

example to follow. But people do cite it. Maybe not you, but people

do. Do you accept that even from Norway's perspective, certainly at

an official level, the Foreign Minister wrote that Britain should

not choose his country as an example as they still have to accept freedom

of movement and accept directives from Brussels. This idea of being

outside the EU but still in the broader economic area, you would

still be subject to those restrictions. We do not put forward

the blueprint of either Norway or Switzerland or for that matter

Iceland. We are the fifth largest economy in the world and providing

we don't have politicians like David Cameron who sells the past before it

is begun, we would be able to negotiate a much better arrangement.

Can I answer your second question? The fact is, in the European Union,

we have 8.24% of the votes that the Council of ministers. If Turkey gets

what the Labour Party wants, it will be fewer. We have less than 10% of

MPs, we have one out of 28 commissioners. Also, in the councils

of the world, particularly in trade, our voice is muted as one out of 28.

The short answer to your question is, both Norway and Switzerland have

better arrangement than we did but we can do better than either of

them. What is extraordinary is the idea we are pushed around by the

dastardly foreigners when we are in the EU and the day we come out of

the EU, we are so strong, so powerful, have so much leveraged

that we will be able to get this phenomenal deal. One or the other.

First of all on day one we could reactivate our seat at the World

Trade Organisation. We no longer have to... One thing, on that, what

does make you think, and you're so convinced that Brussels would

negotiate for us such a great deal. Why would they, if we had pulled

out, which they don't want us to do. I would like to point out that the

three biggest exploits exporters to the UK do not have a trade deal. It

is not absolutely necessary. In practice, because we run a very

large deficit, it is about ?687 billion since we joined, trade deal

is not necessarily but it is absolutely inevitable because it is

in the economic interests of Brussels for there to be one. Let me

briefly move on to the issue of accessing in work benefits. You said

that as trivial. Is that important in your mind? Is in work benefits

could be limited to the four years? Reform should go further than this.

One of the companies I chair, we cannot get enough engineers. We have

job offers out to Indian university graduates, who cannot get a visa,

because the government wants to cut down on immigration. And yet we have

people from Eastern Europe who are sitting at our factory gates saying

give us a job. As they write. Yes, but the point is, if we are looking

at this as global competitiveness for the European Union, we should be

saying to those people who have no skill in Europe, I'm not going to

give you money to subsidise you for growing crops,

give you money to subsidise you for money to skill you up and then you

are fro welcome to come money to skill you up and then you

At the moment, you are not fit money to skill you up and then you

purpose. Is it achievable? It is not achievable under the

purpose. Is it achievable? It is not principal of European Union. It is a

cornerstone. It would be principal of European Union. It is a

discriminatory. Is David Cameron to get four years or

would he have to impose the same restrictions on British citizens? I

think those negotiations will restrictions on British citizens? I

to be had. The polls do not want a lot of those very talented skilled

people to come to the UK. We have to be clear about the migration issue

and that is Brexit will not be clear about the migration issue

barriers up. ... All you do is put a condition of immigration on skill

rather than nationality. Lord condition of immigration on skill

Jones made an important point condition of immigration on skill

is this, because we have opened doors to 450 million people

is this, because we have opened member states of the European Union,

it means the whole weight of immigration control. People from

outside the EU. For immigration control. People from

engineering graduates can either not get here or get hit with great

difficulty and that is a key point. In fact, that is why our slogan is

out of the EU and into In fact, that is why our slogan is

will have to end it there. Thank you.

Before Parliament takes a few day off for recess, MPs have a last

chance to debate the contentious Trade Union Bill today, as the

government legislation goes through report stage and third reading.

The Business Secretary Sajid Javid has said the Bill is necessary

to stop "endless" threats of industrial action.

But trade unions, civil liberties groups and even some council leaders

are against the measures - which include imposing a minimum

50% turnout in strike ballots and allowing employers to use agency

Labour is staunchly opposed - as Jeremy Corbyn made clear

when he addressed the TUC conference in September.

They are declaring war on organised Labour in this country ever since

they won the general election, albeit with 24% of the electorate.

We have to oppose it and recognise what they are doing. The burdens

they are placing, as one Tory MP admitted, are actually the strategy

which was used by General Franco in Spain on his control of the trade

unions in Spain. Trade unions are an essential and valuable part of

modern Britain. 6 million people voluntarily join trade unions and I

am proud to be a trade unionist. That is why we will fight this bill

all the way. We've been joined by Mick Cash,

the general secretary of and by the Conservative MP

Nadhim Zahawi. Aside from a few concessions, it

looks like these proposals are going through. You have lost the battle?

Not really. Yesterday we saw an announcement from George Osborne to

cut 30% from government spending and what we are trying to do is take

trade unions out. We are not going to stop here. We will continue

fighting. How will that fight manifested itself? I wouldn't rule

nothing out or rule nothing in. We are all working people, seeking to

defend jobs, security, safety and pensions and will become

increasingly angry at what the government is trying to do to

restrict their fundamental right to strike. Even David Davis your

colleague has called this bill over the top. He compared it to something

from General Franco's regime, oppressive? I don't agree with that.

Over the last ten Tube strikes, half of those would not have met the

threshold. Let me give you a quick example. This will hurt part-time

workers, shift workers, people on lower pay who would lose hold a's

work if Nick and his union, they have every right, but what we are

saying is, let's make this fair. If you reach the threshold, if you can

convince enough of your members to vote for strikes, not 11% or 10% at

times, where you actually disrupt the workforce, that is unfair. I

think this is about fairness and getting the trade unionists to work

really well and fairly, not calling strikes randomly and hurting those

on low pay, hurting those in most need who will lose a whole day 's

work because they work shifts or work night. You are not the only

workers involved in this debate. There are people who cannot get to

work because of strike action. But I will not take a lecture from a

millionaire. Answer the point about fairness? Take the latest situation

around London Underground and the tube strike. Boris Johnson announced

the night Tube in November 2013. In March 2015 he decided to come and

talk to us as a trade union and save from September 20 15th we are going

to introduce night to be. He didn't give us any time to talk about what

the real implications were. Your mate Boris had to turn round and

withdraw the deadline because he got it wrong, completely and utterly

wrong. He is now actually saying we don't need it in immediately. He

forced our members to have to go to industrial action to try and get a

decent set of worklife balance is sorted out where we didn't have to

do that. So don't lecture me when you have got the Mayor of London...

You have every right to withdraw labour. All we are saying is it has

to be fair and that has to be a threshold. In areas where it really

does matter. That Goldsmith has asked for it to be upgraded. It

really should work. You are hurting the whole of London. We turn round

and your threshold, we turn round and get 50% which we did with

Network Rail dispute this year, ... At this moment in time we have

reached the threshold. Why then in those circumstances have got a

mandate of over 50% of workers voting for industrial action? IE

then turning around and saying we will get agency workers? That is a

different point. We have a situation where we have a mandate, you have a

mandate, you have been elected by people... And they have got a

mandate. But then to turn round and say we should ignore that

mandate... The average person watching this will think you should

go into politics because you don't question. You immediately move to

the fact that you think this is wrong, they think this is right.

What you didn't answer was a question that the average person

watching this would want to know, which is, if you got over the 50%, I

think most people here would say, have your strike and have the row.

What really annoys people is when a very small minority of people, use

-- you cause staggering disruption. That is the person you annoy, the

average Joe out there who cannot get to work and finds it unfair. What

Joe asked is answer the charge that is not fair. You said I am not going

to take lectures from millionaires. Who said that you should? Let me put

one of the points to Nadhim Zahawi, on the 50%, that is one issue. You

put that in the manifesto and to one extent you have a mandate for that,

but why all the other parts of the bill which Mick was referring to.

Why bring in agency staff, why have rules that they have to tweak their

details of strike action weeks in advance. That then tipped it over

the fairness barrier? You have got to allow business and the

infrastructure of our country to be able to manage, if they can, through

agency staff then they should be able to do that. All of that. It is

in depicting code. Well putting it in legislation so we actually make

it rock-solid to the point that Digby is making, so the average

viewer sees this as being fair. It is all in the picketing code. Mr

McCluskey is prepared to agree plans for a double threshold strike

providing the government allows online voting. Would you agree to

that compromise? At the end of the day we have to look at the whole

package. That has been a sticking point when I have interviewed other

colleagues. Online voting is the key. That deals with one issue but

it does not deal with the other stuff you mentioned which is all

about trying to stop and new trusts and stop of having the right to take

industrial action. With all due respect...

Which bit is stopping you? If you get the 50% turnout, you can go

ahead with your strike. What is written into the bill is the legal

wording. What you can put on the ballot paper, what notice you have

to give. That is all in the picketing code. You know this. It

has allowed lawyers to turn round and in Judd the trade unions once

you have got a mandate. If you turn around and say we just won the 50%

stuff, that would be a different debate. You are putting other stuff

in. Is there room for compromise. ? If there was compromise on some of

the issues may be in the picketing code, then you would get the trade

union on board. Would you go to online voting? This is not like

Internet banking. If you make a mistake on Internet banking, your

bank can make recompense. If your boat goes, it is gone. We have to

make sure it is robust. I think we have got the right legislation. Once

we get it through we will find goods trade unions, and you have every

right to represent your members and people have every right to withdraw

labour, it will be a fair system for our country. We all want to do

better. I want to do better for those people who are working shifts,

who are taking low pay. Those people hurt the most when people go on

strike because they lose a whole day's wage packet. That is what this

is about. I will have to finish it you.

Might be worth checking, because the rules have changed.

Now people must register to vote individually rather than being

listed on a form filled in by one member of their household.

Anyone not on this new list by December the 1st could find they

Ministers say it's all about accuracy,

Labour say it's about something far more sinister.

You would think there was an election.

Actually, this Birmingham MP is knocking on doors worried

his voters might not have made it onto the electoral register.

In fact, nationally they say up to a million people could lose

their right to vote because they don't know the rules are changing.

If it carries on as it is going, we are going to find lots

of people lose out and it will be one of these great

post election scandals when we see what happens to the missing voters.

In England Birmingham has the highest number of names that

used to be on the electoral roll who are not on it now.

Nearly 57,000, more than 7% of the city's voting population.

It is more than 67,000 in Glasgow and just under 44,000

But the Government insists the new system will provide a more accurate

in particular are closely reflecting on what is going on.

That is because at the next general election the number

They will be using the new electoral roll to decide how

Here in Birmingham the constituency lines will look very different.

If the numbers of voters in a particular constituency are deemed

artificially reduced, because people have wrongly been removed from the

register, then that will affect the calculations for boundary changes

and those will work in favour of the Conservative Party.

That is not about improving or extending democracy,

that is about rigging an election system to favour one party.

The government says it will have given local authorities

an extra ?3 million to help with registration and every household

will have been contacted nine times by the local council.

Ten if you include Labour who do not want to leave anything to chance.

And we've been joined by the minister for constitutional reform

John Penrose, and by Labour's Gloria de Piero,

who is the shadow minister for voter registration.

John, let's look at the figures. As of May when the figures were last

collated there were 1,000,858 322 missing voters, voters who had yet

to put themselves through the individual register. What grounds

have you made since May to close that figure down? We have not got

official figures, but we are getting returns in and I cannot give you a

final number yet. Is it half? I cannot give you a fair answer, but

after all that effort which you just mentioned of contacting people nine

times, we will have worked out who has moved house or died, or who is a

genuine voter and they will be registered and they will be able to

vote in May. If they are not, we can reregister them online in three

minutes. It would be a huge failure if anything two that number remained

not on the register. It would be a huge failure if people were not on

the register. We have to find people who are not registered at all, it is

not a question of crossing them off, there are groups out there who need

to be persuaded to vote and to get on the register, otherwise our

democracy is not complete. They are making a huge effort. The

independent body set up by Parliament, and what is the point of

setting them up if you ignore at their advice, do not limit it and do

not bring forward the transition to individual registration until

December. They have said you would risk losing electors and those are

the figures you have seen. I have no doubt that those numbers have fallen

now. I was doing a quick search on Google and in Camden there are only

ten days left for inclusion and there are 8000 missing. My own

constituency is about 650. But it is people in private, rented housing

and people who moved on a lot, often people who Abu Ghraib because they

can get mortgages because they are at risk. Why did you bring it

forward because you did not have to and you were advised not to? You

already mentioned the Association of Electoral Administrators, they

thought it was a good idea. There are important elections coming up

next year, the London Mayor, the Scottish parliament, local elections

in England and the Welsh assembly. We need to have an accurate register

for those elections as much as anything else. After you have

contacted people for nine times... How many times can you contact

people? I moved house in London where I am in the private, rented

sector. I started paying my council tax in July. There was a reasonable

time to data match me and nobody contacted me, I never saw a letter,

I called them a couple of weeks ago to check what was going on. I am a

living, breathing example, I am alive and kicking. We can testify to

that. No one contacted me. But you are not on the register at the

moment. You are a different kind of problem and we need to find people

like you who are not on in the first place. If you are not on it, I

cannot cross you off? What about the issue of ghost voters. A lot of

these people are bogus, so there will be appearing up of the

register. If you had given it extra year, you would have given it the

time to knock off the bogus ones, reregister the ones who were likely

to fall off. It is common sense. We do not want to lose people who want

to vote. We have had 18 months and we have had a long time. I think you

are confusing people who are on the register who might be wrongly

crossed off. You cannot cross them off because they are not on there in

the first place. I have spoken to Labour MPs and I have even gone as

far as saying gerrymandering. If Labour voters do not sign up, it is

good news for the Tories. It is bad news for any Democrat if the genuine

elector does not sign up. But the by-product would be a benefit

because many of these are in Labour constituencies. Kensington and

Chelsea is not exactly a left constituency and it is one of the

places with the top number missing. I know it is an fashionable to say

that the Lords have a say in this. I listen to the debate in the Lords

and they do know what they are talking about. They are from all the

different parties. Some of the speeches from the Liberals and

Labour were extremely good on this. I am crossbench, so I do not have

any political act in this, but the bit I could not understand was the

time issue. I cannot see why it has become party political. We want 100%

inclusivity. We want to stop people voting early and often. We want to

stop fraud and we want to make it as representative as possible. That has

to be in the interest of all Democrats. I cannot see why we have

now got this polemic situation where some people are saying the Tories

are doing this, it is disgusting. Others are saying you are not doing

this because you are a labour. Why can't we say, come together, we will

give you more time, and we will do this together. If you did that, and

you put some money into root it out to make sure those who were cheating

and pretending to be others go to prison, and the people who are lost

in this, I cannot imagine anybody would be lost in the system if they

were an MP, but there you are, I would like to think this is in the

interest of everybody. You would need more time, but in return you

ought to join together. Is this about the boundary review? This is

what Labour will be saying, that the outcome of the individual boat

registration drive determines the boundary review. To the extent we

want the boundary review to be based on accurate voter rolls, but it is

also about the elections next May. If we do not get this right... You

need to have a clean that list for those May elections which are

important for Jeremy Corbyn. So, give them extra time. We will lose

voters. There were 7000 in Camden. It is just not good enough. You

could register students in halls of residence, another problem. We have

pushed out quite a lot of money to help everybody do the checks.

Everyone could take a box in the halls of residence. We have run out

Now, should shops be allowed to stay open for longer on Sundays?

The Government thinks so, but about 20 Conservative MPs

are unhappy with the idea of any relaxing of Sunday trading hours.

The proposed changes would only affect England and Wales,

but the SNP, who are concerned about what that could mean for the wages

of UK company staff in Scotland, have now said that they would vote

And that's potentially a problem for David Cameron

Here he is answering a question to Labour's Susan Elan Jones back in

Let me just give the honourable lady and the House

two examples of where I don't think the current situation works.

You have got these restrictions on opening hours for many stores,

somebody is shouting what about families, many stores that families

would like to shop in and you have to go to these stores and you have

to walk around for hours before you are actually allowed to

The second point I would make is that you can shop on Sunday.

You can shop anywhere on Sunday, you can do it on the Internet and I

think it is time to modernise our approach,

to give families more choice and to help create jobs at the same time.

And we're joined now by Conservative MP Philip Davies,

And we did ask the SNP for an interview, but they weren't

And by Hannah Bartel from the SNP. You are now opposing plans to relax

Sunday trading hours. Do you sense and government scalp? What we send

is an issue that shows shop workers need to be protected and we are a

large group in the Westminster parliament and we were elected by

the Scottish people and we have been approached by people who have got

concerns about a creep on Sunday trading and it becoming

standardised. Shop workers will not be able to have protection for their

Sunday pay premium. This is only in England and Wales, what has it got

to do with Scotland and the SNP? If large retailers start operating as

normal on across Britain, it will become another day of work and there

will not be any protections. I do not see how it is, because they are

people. That is an excuse. My MP in the Midlands of England, would you

take exception to him coming up to Edinburgh and telling you what to do

with your shops. Answer the question. I take exception

with your shops. Answer the Answer the question. Hundreds of

thousands of people Answer the question. Hundreds of

tax credit cuts. What do you object to? Meet in Scotland telling you

what to do? to? Meet in Scotland telling you

the government and there is not a justifiable reason for the SNP

making mischief as the I have been very clear, as has the

SNP. We want to protect shop workers. The irony is, if the plans

had come in earlier, we would not have got to vote on this. This does

affect people in Scotland. have got to vote on this. This does

English votes for English laws which have got to vote on this. This does

has only just come into play. What say you, Philip Davies?

has only just come into play. What shameless. Basically, the SNP have

come with a game plan to Westminster which is to prove to the voters in

Scotland, that they are a more effective opposition to the

government and labour. That is their simple game plan. To be fair, they

have done a pretty good job of it so far. I'm just pointing out that is

absolutely shameless behaviour. They have looked at this and thought, we

will end up in a situation where Labour will favour had a chance to

defeat the government and they blew it. We have full deregulation of

Sunday trading hours in Scotland, absolutely full deregulation of

Sunday trading hours. In England and Wales, all we are asking for is to

give our local authorities the opportunity to vary them if they so

wish. The SNP with full deregulation are coming along claiming to be the

supporters of workers when workers in Scotland can work or through

Sunday without any restrictions. That is true. There is a different

system in Scotland and shop workers or big supermarkets and shops can

choose what they want to do. That retailers work across the UK. If we

move to a situation where we have Sunday trading and Sunday is just

another day and there is no protection for those workers... But

what is there in place now for that? We have paid protection for people

who work on a Sunday and a standardised system across the UK

with no protection and no legislation, if the Tories want to

bring forward paid protection, we willing to discuss that. It is not

just Hannah Bardell and those on the SNP dentures, there are those in

your own party who are not happy with this so you cannot lay the

blame with the SNP? There is a distinction between people having

objections and people acting shamelessly. They are shameless. You

are not arguing from a shop opening point of view. The 20 who are

betting against it have a legitimate objection to it. By the way, I'm not

need of your sides but I look at it and think you are doing this from

party politics. The 20 backbenchers who will rebel doing from principle.

The Conservatives have a consultation out at the moment which

makes a mockery of the system. We started sticking our noses into

every single thing which which you have full devolution rights over,

you would be in uproar over it. This was the Tories idea, English votes

for English laws, do you think it is working well? The system is flawed.

All it provides is an English veto for English laws. It does not stop

anyone else from voting on them. It stops people imposing things which

England doesn't like. This has illustrated the deficiency in the

English votes for English laws system because it does not deliver

what it does on the tin. This was not in the manifesto, the relaxation

of Sunday trading hours? I don't know. I am interested in what is

right and what is wrong. So you can understand why they met be against

it. The polling shows no demand. The bosses big stores and the

Association of convenience stores are opposed. Why you pushing this?

Look at Tesco. We have the Serbs situation that the Tesco express can

open any hours it likes because it is a small shop and the big Tesco

can only open for six hours. The workers being treated differently is

one thing but Tesco's don't mind because they charge customers more

in a Tesco express than they do in a big Tesco. Hannah who says she is

supporting working people and people on tight budgets, she's actually

making sure that those people have to pay more for their shopping they

otherwise have to if they could go to a bigger shop which charges a

lower price. It is about a package of measures which work. Many of

these people will be affected by the tax credits cuts. To then put in

place legislation which potentially means it will affect their Sunday

premium, and by the way, when USDAW did their survey 70% said they would

not work. But shops could stay open and compete, that is the reality.

The one thing the Prime Minister did say in that clip and he mentioned

the Internet, this argument belongs to the 19th century, because

actually, when you think about the Internet provides 24/7 access to

shopping, someone somewhere has to get globally competitive as --

competitive. There are people who think Sunday is a day of rest. There

is higher churchgoing in Italy, Ireland, all of these countries

which have deregulated Sunday trading. There is a discussion to be

had and the Conservatives are showing this through. It is ill

thought through. Have you had talks with the 20 Tory rebels? Not

specifically with myself. We are just aware that they are unhappy.

You will not join forces? Nope, we have made our position clear.

Now, What's the best way for a country to represent itself?

Many take great pride in their national anthem and flags.

We had our memorable display of hospital beds to represent

And now the Finnish government claims to be the first country in

the world to commission emojis to help with their national branding.

For those of you who haven't stepped into the brave new world,

emojis are images often used in text and online communication.

So let's take a look at how the Finns have chosen to

The first image isn't, before any of you suggest it, me and Andrew

According to wikipedia the sauna is a substantial part

of Finnish culture with over three million of them for Finland's five

Moving on, this is the headbanger, which pays tribute

Apparently, it is dark in Finland and so is the music.

There's a small headbanger living inside of each Finn.

And finally, there's the good old Nokia phone

Before the days of iphones and Galaxys it was the market leader.

To tell us why Finland's decided to do this I'm joined by

Pauliina Stahlberg, the Director of the Finnish Institute in London, and

on the internet though I'm afraid without any emojis, by Professor Vyv

Evans who's a Professor of Linguistics at Bangor University.

Welcome to both of you. What has prompted Finland to do this? Finland

loves Christmas. Santa Claus is from Finland. We love our Advent

calendar. Our emojis will be our Advent calendar this year. There

will be 24 of them being released on the 1st of December. To any of our

viewers who do not know, can you explain the origins of emojis?

Emojis started in Japan. They were released in 1999, 176 of them.

Initially, they were localised to the Japanese Internet mobile sector.

And then, in 2011, they became widely available globally, when

Apple first incorporated them as standard in the digital keypad in

mobile computing devices so smartphones, iPads and so on. In

2013 they became more widely available when they were installed

in android. I'm now about 6 billion of them incredibly are sent every

day by the world's 2 billion smartphone users. So why the choice

of symbols? It did make us laugh with the sauna symbols but obviously

very important to fins? Although we are seen as being very serious, we

do have emotions! Emojis portray emotions. Finnish people are very

tech savvy and we love texting. We do not love showing emotion so we

like to send text messages one-on-one intimately. So this is a

way of us getting deeper and getting to grips with our emotions and

sharing them with the world as well. You think they were apt, the

head-banger, the saunas and the Nokia? Gas. So they are

representative. What has been the response of your countrymen and

women? They love them stop they are releasing more and we are having

discussions about what they could be. There will be a very famous

novel winner, our Formula One driver who does not display his emotions

very much. I think I might know who that is! I cannot tell you. Are they

right to attach so much significance to these? Alike that they are

emotional but do not want show their emotions. 70% of the world's usage

on a daily basis relates to emotions. Big brands are using

emojis. They have a range of functions. Charities who deal with

abused children have bespoke once. They are used in video gaming. They

have a wide range of applications beyond mobile communication. And I

think they do have an important value in terms of branding. It is

clear from my research that it is the young really, the under 25 age

group, especially in the UK who are in the vanguard of emoji usage. That

doesn't surprise me. We will look at some suggestions.

We've also been asking our viewers for the best emoji representations

Let's take a look at them now and I apologise for the quality of these,

The weather, the Royal family. I was thinking about what I would do. The

Royal family, yes. I would not do the weather. We will pass over the

rugby and the cricket! The Premier League is the most successful soccer

so you would probably do something with that. And also individual

sports, cycling, rowing, we are brilliant at. Something in sport.

The weather features again. I cup of tea and the Union Jack. Patriotic.

And let's have a look at this one. And finally more to my taste

some beer from @alexjbutcher. I'm not sure about the TV. That is

universal. 60 or 70 years ago we would be talking about postage

stamps. People flocked to universities say something to do

with university would be a good one. And we do have the three-time world

champion Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton! Let's not have aroused

about who has the best Formula One drivers. They have better rally

drivers. They do. And emoji suggestions

on facebook included a sinking ship, There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. I was the Minister of

have to quickly pick an answer. I would say Manchester City. No, it

was the ear. Goodbye. Join us on BBC One for a truly epic

night of entertainment,