20/01/2016 Daily Politics

Morning folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.

He's outlawed raising income tax, national insurance or VAT

but is the Chancellor about to raid your pension payments?

The migration crisis brought over a million people to Europe last year

- could changes to EU rules give more of them the right

A quarter of the world used to be painted pink -

is it time for Britain to relinquish the last vestiges of its Empire?

And after Labour and the pollsters made their excuses for getting

we countdown the best political excuses.

I didn't do a great job this morning, I had a brain

What I may need to do is face up to that and then move on.

Brain fade is a regular occurrence on The Daily Politics!

All that in the next 90 minutes and with us for the duration two

politicians whose excuses weren't good enough to miss today's show,

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Owen Smith, and Treasury Minister,

First this morning - are changes about to be made

The Daily Mail splashes this morning with the claim that one and half

million people could lose out on what its calling a "stealth tax

raid to punish prudent savers" in the March Budget.

And the i newspaper warns of a "Pension Pot Raid

to Cut Back Deficit", with claims that the Chancellor

is poised to reduce pension relief for higher rate tax payers

Well - is there any truth in these stories?

Who better to ask than a Treasury Minister?

Should strive as and savers be rewarded rather than punished at the

moment? The position is, as a government, is

that we announced that we were going to review the application of

pensions tax relief, we have made a number of changes over the last

Parliament in terms of focusing it away from the very highest earners.

It but in terms of what is going to be announced at the budget, I'm

always interested to see lots of speculation in the press, but it is

very clear... Is it speculation or briefing?

It is speculation. We announced that we would look in the round at

various radical options in respect of pensions tax relief and we are

continuing to do that but no decisions have been made. If there

is a decision that is made to change that that will be announced at the

budget on March 16. There has not been much more that I can say other

than that. You didn't answer the broad question, should strive as and

savers be rewarded at the moment rather than punished? If you look at

what we are doing at the moment as a government in terms of courage in

saving and in terms of a new savers allowance, taking lots of savers out

of income tax altogether, we've done a lot to help savers at a time when

interest rates are low. That has not been helpful to a lot of savers. We

have taken steps to help. Nobody wants to punish anybody, but it is,

of course, right that we look in a very careful and consultative way at

the way pensions tax relief works. It is a big part of our tax system

and we need to insure that it is effective in terms of encouraging

saving, and it is going in the right place.

So you want to encourage saving, but you have said yourself just now that

you're looking at proposals that perhaps might move away from higher

rate taxpayers. You've had this consultation. Is introducing a flat

rate of tax relief on pensions contributions one of the options on

the table? It is one of the options set out in

the consultation. You are considering it?

That is no news, sorry not to give you and exclusive.

Justice said it on the table. This was one of the options going

back to the July budget in terms of looking at it so it is not a new

thing. Higher rate taxpayers would lose

out, wouldn't they? We are considering various options,

but as I say, in terms of having an understanding of winners and losers

we are looking at the options but it depends.

Should it be on the table, should it even be there to raid the pension

pots of higher income tax payers? I think it is always sensible when

you have a large part of the tax system, and depending on how you

measure it, pensions tax relief results in something like ?34

billion of tax being foregone from the Exchequer.

That is a lot of money, isn't it? To see if that is justified and see

if it is working properly. Most of it goes to higher rate

taxpayers. Yes, that is true and you would here

argue much from the likes of the Institute of fiscal and, they are

quite supportive of the current structure and make the argument that

it should be at the marginal rate because those are the people who pay

more tax -- fiscal studies. Then there is the counterargument that is

made that it should be better targeted and that one should depart

from that principle. Apologies for giving and on the one hand, on the

other hand answer. Sure. These other type of things we are open and

transparent about, but we're looking at them and we will then make a

decision on the basis of the that results.

Can you understand why already there are people on your own side who have

claimed that that would be very unconservative? And they are worried

about it. Even Mark Garnier on the Treasury Select Committee said it

would be bad politics. Are they right?

It depends. In a way it's an argument about an announcement of a

policy that we haven't made. But what you have done...

We have not set out the details, so it is a hypothetical question.

You have two national newspapers who believe it is on the table and add

me to delete they have not been sourced in terms of names, except

for Mark Garnier. They obviously believe there is a strong sense this

could happen and it would give the Treasury an awful lot of money that

could be used to pay down the deficit. So you can understand why

it is something that we are looking at, rightly or wrongly all stop

you've imposed a lifetime allowance on pensions, again, hitting the

aspirational again, you could say and cut the amount you can save each

year into a pension so that would just be the next stage, to have a

flat rate on tax contributions that would hit higher rate taxpayers.

The point I would make is that it is right that this tax relief is

reviewed. There are potentially some quite radical reforms that are out

there. But we're not rushing into any particular decisions. Of course,

we would want to have an understanding as to who would win

and who would lose from that. It may well be that if you invite me back

I'll be back here after the 16th of March.

But then we will all know! What would be the point of that!

To explaining saggy what we've done and why it is fair and right but we

need to take the decision first. You say it is a radical proposal so

to some extent you think it is controversial, or it would be for

your own party and your own aside. At is it also notching, because by

your own party and your own aside. legislating to stop raising income

tax, National Insurance and VAT, you have straitjacketed yourself in the

Treasury and don't have any other options to get money apart from

stealth taxes like this? I don't think that is fair. What are the

options? The OBR set up the fiscal statement

in September. We are on course according to the OBR to have a

budget surplus in 2019-20 of ?10 billion, which gives us a little bit

of a buffer in terms of our target of making sure we have a surplus.

But that is what the OBR is predicting. We are determined to

deliver on that plan. Do you support the idea of a flat

rate, it is redistributed in that sense?

A rare moment of agreement between David and myself, I

A rare moment of agreement between worth looking at. We need to look at

what they are proposing. The stories in the papers are quite different,

the Daily Mail stories about the stealthy way in which they have

adduced the overall pension pots that you can hold, which I think is

broadly a good progressive measure from the government -- they have

reduced. Why is it stealthy? He announced it in the budget.

He did it quietly, you could have ?100 million in the pension pot when

Labour left off all stop it has gone down progressively. They didn't

really trumpet it, so it was stealthy in that respect, it was not

the headline of any budget. Alistair Darling didn't shout from

the rooftops when he cut it. We described it as progressive but

the current government have been a little bit more reticent about it.

They have been open about it. It will affect higher rate taxpayers

and cheese off the Daily Mail as we have seen this morning. We are much

more comfortable with the notion that you do target pension tax

relief for the wealthy in this country. It is only about 50,000 -

60,000 battle the latest change affects. You didn't do injuring 13

years in power. We should have done more.

You still allowed people at the highest rate of tax to deduct that

on their pension payments. I wasn't in parliament than.

Know but it was your party. The bulk of the 34 million it cost the

Exchequer to give this tax relief goes to the wealthier people of this

country. Labour did nothing about that in 30 years.

You are right, it is 70-30, lower basic rate taxpayers get about 30%

of the benefits, and yet they pay around 70% of the relief of the

overall amount and we should have done more to address that.

You didn't do anything. Let me be very clear, I wasn't in

government at the time and I'm in a position now, I can answer if you

want for previous Labour chancellors or I Kantele what I think we should

do. I agree with David it is worth something worth looking at -- I can

tell you. Whether we should use the money to try and have a surplus of

10 billion at the end of the Parliament, I think there are

smarter and more progressive ways they could use that money, they

could use it to write some of the other iniquities in the pension

system, the fact in the 50s are losing out. They could aggressive

more clearly some of the losers out of the single state pension. In

terms of the flat rate I think it is potentially an interesting idea if

they can get properly progressive and if they can guarantee that the

losers will not have a detrimental affect. You will get an announcement

of where we are. It is perfectly possible we will decide not to go

ahead with any significant reform in this area. You will hear an update.

We need to move on. Yesterday the President

of the European Council, Donald Tusk, confirmed that

a proposal on Britain's reformed membership of the EU would be

tabled at next month's But reports this morning

that there are plans to change EU rules on refugees could make life

more difficult for David Cameron as he attempts to make the case

for Britain to stay in Europe. Under current rules -

known as the Dublin Convention - refugees have to claim asylum

in the first European country But the "first country of entry"

principle is under pressure - with southern European countries

such as Greece and Italy accused of failing to register the 1.1

million migrants that have passed through on the way

to northern Europe. European Council president

Donald Tusk has warned that Europe faces "grave consequences" if it

can't agree a new system by March. While Britain is currently signed up

to the Dublin Convention it has an opt-out on justice and home

affairs rule changes. But concerns that huge numbers

of migrants who may have arrived - and are still arriving -

in the EU could end up in Britain won't help David Cameron meet

the Conservatives' manifesto commitment of reducing net migration

to tens of thousands. Net migration currently

stands at 336,000 - so what might any rule changes mean

for the Prime Minister's attempts We're joined now by Kate Hoey

co-Chair of Labour's campaign to Leave the EU - Labour Leave -

which launches today. Labour Leave, it is called. Let me

come to you first, David Gauke. With the government look kindly on

changing the Dublin agreement? The principle behind the Dublin

agreement, in other words that you claim asylum in your first country

that is safe is the right one. You wouldn't change it?

We need to look at the particular details and there are maybe aspects

of the proposal that are... It is not a detail, it is a principal.

What we are told is that the commission is going to propose that

they end that principle that you are automatically have to seek asylum in

the first country you arrive in. What would the Government's

attitudes beta that kind of change? We have to look at the whole

proposal -- attitude towards that kind of change. The principle

behind, you claim asylum in your first safe country, is one that we

think is sensible. It is better than otherwise. They would have to be

something significant that is when the package for us to be enthusiast

it about that. If you don't want to change it and others do do you have

a veto to stop it? My understanding is that we would be able to opt out,

or not opt in to those arrangements but we would have to see what the

proposed the what the precise proposal was. We would not have a

veto? It is important to remember we are not in Schengen, so there may be

a different arrangement for those countries outside Schengen as

opposed to those that are inside Schengen. How many asylum seekers

have been sent back to the European country in which they landed under

the Dublin agreement? I don't have that number. It is quite hard to get

the figures, as is often the case in these matters, it looks like it is

under 1000 year. So it is demeaning is. a fifth a fact. In fact that

there is a principle here which exists. The point being that they

may be people who, if you scrap the principle, and this is one thing we

would need to look at, a rescue could be more people might travel to

the UK on the assumption that they might be able to... But the Dublin

agreement applies to everyone but the Germans are not implementing it.

What we need to have an understanding of is there will be a

behavioural change where people are more likely to come to the UK if

that does not apply. Isn't it unfair given that it clearly government's

policy to campaign to stay the European Union, that for purely

geographical reasons, Greece and Italy have to bear the brunt of the

million arrivals and we do nothing to share the load? Isn't there a

case to change the rules? I think your point about the United Kingdom

does make a big contribution towards for example humanitarian help. That

is in Syria. We don't take many migrants. But the issues are linked.

Our humanitarian contribution in Syria and Turkey for example, is

enabling more people to stay. But it's not. There's never evidence of

that. There's 2000 day arriving. What difference is the Syrian or

Turkish aid meaning? Where not even aware the Turkish money has been

spent. There's no sign of it on ground. There's 2000 arriving. What

difference is it making? If we're not active and provide support in

the region, the risk of there being more refugees coming to Europe is

likely to increase. That is unquantifiable. There was 1 million

last year. But they could be higher. Whatever the number, you're not

taking any. Correct? In terms of fairness, we did take 5000 Syrian

refugees... From Syria. At one of the wealthier members of the EU is

to put more money in than any other member state in terms of that

humanitarian support. We are making a fair contribution. How many Labour

MPs do you think will support this? I won a bet. I thought that would be

your first question. We are in a minority within the PLP. What we

have discovered just from the short time since the launch today, we have

huge support from members of grassroots and Labour supporters,

more importantly. Let me come back to my question. How many Labour MPs?

This referendum will not be one to leave the EU by MPs. I understand

that. Since you correctly guess my question, it means you've had plenty

of time to think about the answer. Roughly how many? We will have the

same number as we had two voted and supported a referendum whether

Labour leadership didn't want it and roundabout 25, 30. That is

irrelevant, because the campaign will be one by ordinary members of

the British public. That but I understand about referendum. It's

not just MPs who get to vote. Even I understand that. You must be pleased

John Mills, your biggest private donor, once Jeremy Corbyn to allow a

free vote on EU. Do you think you'll get one? Of course, the

Conservatives are given free vote and the idea Labour wouldn't would

be nonsense. John Mills led the campaign in 1975 to leave the common

market. He has been long-standing supporter. You think you will get a

free vote? Absolutely. I hope not and I'm committed to staying in

Europe. Therefore, I hope we decide, as a party and I'm confident we

will, our position is clear and therefore we have a weapon vote.

Why, when the Conservatives are in government? Because... MPs know

their constituents and the vast majority, the majority of Labour

supporters, many of whom went on voted for Ukip precisely because of

this issue and we want to win them back, our party is about

reconnecting with voters, the idea we didn't want a referendum and as

soon as we are back in opposition be agreed to one, two days later, now

we would say we were we want a whipped vote is democracy at the

window. The reason the Tories are having a free vote is because they

couldn't possibly whip their party because they are divided on this

issue. The Labour Party is not. We have a handful, less than 10% of the

PLP. At the moment. Therefore we are in a luxurious position of knowing

what our party critical position is and are able to have a position.

It's very interesting... It's mandate we both stood on. I did not.

I want to a fundamental change. What I would say is Jeremy Corbyn, our

leader, is perfectly relaxed about the Labour campaign and he and John

McDonald spent loads of airtime in the same lobby as those of us... I'm

relaxed about it, too. I still think we have a very clear position. Can I

just clarify this. The government position is that there will be a

government policy, almost certainly in favour of staying to remain.

Those Cabinet ministers who don't agree with that can go their own way

for the duration of the referendum. Will Shadow Cabinet members be

allowed to do that if they don't agree with the party line? I'm not

in charge of that, am I? My view is we should have a whipped vote. A

settled Labour Party policy, pro-European, and I think we should

have a clear position, unlike the Conservatives. So if shadow

ministers disagree with the party line should not be allowed? That is

my view. We did a clear pro-European position and deflect responsibility

and stick together and vote for Europe. I kind of stitch up but in

the establishment and Labour? Unfortunately, it'll be the public

to decide and the last thing they want the moment is a stitch up

between politicians cosy at Westminster out in the country the

mood very very different. Kate, you about a moment ago when his people

in the country would decide the referendum. Self-evidently right. It

is our job, I think, to provide leadership. You are trying to do

that by making a case for us leaving Europe and I'm being clear, the

Labour Party which you're a member of come in a minority, is going to

make a case to the country and say we should stay. And we are finding,

across the country now, Parliamentary parties are wanting to

have that debate, inviting people. We need to have that debate. We have

never had that debate in the party really, since the end of the Neil

Kinnock error. Is it your view, as I understand it, you had 200,000 new

members since Jeremy Corbyn became leader, not since you lost the

election but a lot after that, so are there any indications of what

the attitudes towards Europe? We are finding genuinely that new people

coming in at a very different attitude to this idea that the EU

was all about workers rights. Social Europe is finished. The EU project

is on its way out. What are you game planning for the timing of the

referendum? We are still game planning for a July but it's more

likely to be September. The Prime Minister wants a piece of white

paper to be put through as quickly as possible. I think tuna. June

would be too near. All right. -- I think tuna. We will see a lot

between now and then. Any cabinet members which might come over to

your side? One or two. Which ones? It's not my place to decide. Current

Cabinet ministers would like to be able to campaign? Yes. We will think

about that. You have to go and ask them.

Now - the bookies now have Donald Trump as their firm favourite

to win the Republican nomination and last night he got another boost

- the endorsement of the former governor of Alaska

and vice-presidential candidate - Sarah Palin.

Are you ready for a Commander-in-Chief...

You ready for a Commander-in-Chief

who will let our warriors do their job and go kick ISIS' ass?

Ready for someone who will secure our borders

to secure our jobs and to secure our homes?

I'm here to support the next President of the United States,

Now - despite a petition with over half a million signatures calling

for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK -

and a parliamentary debate in which he was branded

"an attention seeker", a "fool", a "buffoon",

a "demagogue" and a "wazzock" - Mr Trump will still be free to come

That caused the new York times a few problems and NBC and CBS.

But he won't be able to get hold of one of these.

That's right, because if you look at the small print on our website

carefully, you have to be a UK resident to qualify and be able

MUSIC: C'mon Everybody by Led Zeppelin

# I want your love, I want your love #

I'm going to drive off in this little thing now.

MUSIC: We Don't Talk Anymore by Cliff Richard

# It's so funny how we don't talk anymore #

Now, we exist to promote and to protect

MUSIC: Can You Feel The Force by The Real Thing

We bring them down if they don't keep this promise.

MUSIC: Ain't No Stopping Us Now by McFadden and Whitehead

# Ain't no stopping us now, we've got the groove

# There's been so many things that's held us down

# But now it looks like things are finally coming around. #

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz email address

Entries must arrive by 12:30pm today, and you can see the full

terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website

But you have to be resident in Britain. You do. I can feel a

challenge coming on. It's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben - It's a glorious cold bright winter

's day here. Prime Minister's Questions are a few moments away.

Laura is with us. We can't work out what Jeremy Corbyn is going to go on

today? Today there were protests in Westminster and Jeremy Corbyn is no

stranger to that and what many young people were protesting about today

where the abolition of grants to loans,, the conversion which George

Osborne brought in in the summer and it's likely Jeremy Corbyn will raise

theirs. There was an opposition they debate in the house yesterday I

believe we're Labour MPs raised the issue and, in a sense, it pushes

lots and lots of buttons for him, and speaks to many of his concerns

about generational fairness, it's something he has found, currency

with young people in terms of a future for them and it's quite a

difficult sell for the government, the sort of trick is for want of a

better word, student at the bottom of the end of the income threshold

and their family will get bigger loans. But they are already getting

loans for their fees. I think the Scottish Government reined back on

grants, as well. The problem there was the poorer students, though they

got fees, that's a future payment they may, doesn't stop them going to

university, but they need something to live on and it was the grant

which allowed them to live. Indeed, it was one of the very carefully

controversial packages of the coalition raising fees, but raising

the amount of support people at the bottom got and the coalition would

always trumpet what they see as a success as they raised fees but

poorer students did not stay away from university. The concern now is

those poor students who are still entitled to grants lose them all

together, and we would inevitably see a gradual change where poor

students started to stay away from university. It may well be Jeremy

Corbyn is hard to predict, last week I said it would be incredible if you

didn't raise the junior doctors strike and he didn't. He can hardly

raise this week since there's been an abeyance while negotiations are

going on. Indeed. I think it is watching you may pick up your

advice. It brings a lot of bells for Mr Corbyn and gives the government

some problems. If the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle over? I thought that was

until yesterday, yet another name popped into my inbox. On days 16. Do

you want to check your phone while we're chatting? What are they been

saying the last 25 minutes before I sat down in the studio. Would you

like to consider your position? Not yet. What name came in? Now you're

asking me. The names are now completed with somebody who will not

be the Shadow Cabinet, and additional appointment to the front

bench. There you go, even the Tories know. The Prime Minister will... You

are 50% right. The Prime Minister, whatever he is asked, will somehow I

suggest work in the latest unemployment figures. It would be

surprised if he didn't and which Prime Minister would not want to

trumpet what our record employment figures and, in a sense, not only is

it a record label want to boast about, but also something very

difficult for the Labour Party. We know from yesterday's report about

what went wrong into the election, one of the things Ed Miliband did

not do was win back voters trust on the economy. These figures suggest,

under this government, the economy is improving therefore making it

harder for Labour to pull back its power and resonance on that issue.

It's interesting, as the labour market tightens, average earnings

are not showing much sign of life. It's going up by about 2%. It is OK,

when inflation is effectively zero, but it's not huge, is it? Remember,

when one of the gambles the government is taking is the private

sector will pick up the slack in terms of wages. Let's see what's

coming up and go straight to the Commons.

I shall have further such meetings later today. Gareth Thomas. If you

have worked hard for a company and helped it succeed, surely you should

be allowed to benefit a little from the profits that that company makes.

Does the Prime Minister think it is time for companies like Sports

Direct to follow the example of the best businesses and give share a

small percentage of the profits? We have encouraged companies to have

profit-sharing arrangements and we took action in previous budgets to

do that, but we are going further than that to make sure there is for

the first time in our country a national minimum wage, which will

come in in April this year. That means, for the lowest paid people in

this country on the minimum wage it will be a 7.5% pay rise in April

under a Conservative government. Mr Speaker, with mounting global

economic uncertainty, it was comforting to see this morning's

figures showing record UK employment. In this new age of kind.

Consensual politics does my Right Honourable friend agree that every

member of this house should welcome the news that from North Yorkshire

to North London Britain is back in work?

My honourable friend is absolutely right. Over the last year, we've

actually seen more people in work in every region in our country. That is

something that is welcome. The unemployment figures this morning,

which the House might not have had time to see, are very welcome. The

unemployment rate is now the lowest rate in nearly a decade at 5.1%. The

unemployment rate is now lower than it was at the start of the

recession. The latest figures show unemployment falling by another

99,000. And we have today in our country the record number of people

in work ever in our history and a record number of women in work.

Since I've become Prime Minister 2.3 million more people in work, and I'm

sure that is something the whole house can welcome. Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, it's nice to get such a warm welcome.

HECKERLING. If you will allow me for one moment.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House where in his election

manifesto he put his plan to abolish maintenance grants for students?

First of all, people will recognise no welcome for the thousands of

people who found work in our country, what a depressing

spectacle. In our manifesto we said we would cut the deficit and we

would uncap student numbers, and we've done both.

Jeremy Corbyn. There is not such joy in Port

Tolbert and other places that have lost steel jobs and they want their

government is their industries. The Prime Minister has form in terms of

student maintenance grants because the Conservative manifesto there was

no mention either... Are you done? Let me very gently say to the

dedicated Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary...

Compose yourself, man. Being a statesman does not include

chuntering. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker forced up as I was

saying, the Prime Minister has form here because there was no mention of

tax credit cuts in the manifesto either. This proposal will affect

500,000 students, not in his manifesto. I have a question from a

student by the name of Liam, who says: I'm training to be a

mathematics teacher and will now come out at the end of my course to

debts in excess of ?50,000, which is roughly twice as much as what his

annual income would be. Why is Liam being put into such debt?

What I would say to Liam is he is now in a country where the

university system has more people going to university than ever

before, and more people from low-income backgrounds going to

university than ever before. In addition, what I'd say to me, and I

wish him well, is he will not pay back a penny of his loan until he's

earning ?21,000. He will not start paying back in full until he's

earning ?35,000. And our policy is actually going to put more money in

the hands of students likely, which is why we are doing it. By contrast,

the Labour policy, which is to scrap the loans and scrap the fees, which

would cost ?10 billion, would mean going back to a situation where

people went out, worked hard, pay their taxes for the elite to go to

university. We are on capping aspiration and he wants to put a cap

on it. Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm pleased to say Liam is trying to be a maths teacher which might be

able to help the Prime Minister because he did say he was earning

?25,000, which is more than ?21,000, if that is a help. In 2010 his

government, in 2010, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister's government troubled

tuition fees to ?9,000, defending it by saying they would be increasing

maintenance grants for students from less well-off backgrounds. They are

now scrapping those very same grants they used to boast about being

increased. Where is the sense in doing this? Why are they abolishing

those maintenance grants? The sense in doing this is we want

to uncap university places, so as many young people in our country who

want to go to university can go to university. And that's what we are

doing. Before too much shouting from the party opposite, when they were

in government it was Labour that introduced the fees and loans

system. Given this is the week we are meant to be learning the lessons

of the last election, let me read a lesson from someone, frankly, I

rather miss, Mr Ed Balls, who wrote this this week in the Times higher

education supplement. He said this: we clearly didn't find a sustainable

way forward for the financing of higher education. If the electorate

think they have the answers for the future they will support you --

think you have the answers. When they were in government they

supported fees and loans, when we were in opposition we made the

mistake that they did. If you want to be on the side of aspiration, if

you want to be on the side of more university students and help people

make the most of their lives, the system we've got is one that is

working and the numbers prove it. Jeremy Corbyn.

Mr Speaker, that is from the very same Prime Minister who is taking

away the grants that are designed to help the poorest with our society

and give them access to higher education. I want to ask him about

one particular group that are being targeted by this government, student

nurses, not mentioned in the manifesto, the repayments that

student nurses will have to pay when they qualify amount to an effective

pay cut of ?900 for each nurse. Why is he punishing them when we need

these nurses within the NHS? First of all there are 6700 more nurses

than when I became Prime Minister, but the facts are these: the Labour

Party does not want to base up to difficult decisions but let me give

him this one statistic. Today, two out of three people who want to

become a nurse can't become a nurse because of the bursary system. So,

by introducing the loans nurses will get more money, we will train more

nurses and bring in fewer from overseas. It's good for nurses, it's

good for the NHS and good for our country, and it's only a Labour

Party that is so short-sighted and anti-aspirational that it can't see

it. Jeremy Corbyn!

The Prime Minister and I would probably agree that we need to be

spending more and directing more resources in dealing with the mental

health crisis in this country. I've got a question from somebody who

wants to help us get through this crisis by becoming a mental health

nurse. It's a woman called Vicky from York, and she has a very real

problem. I wouldn't have been able to or chosen to study to be a mental

health nurse without a bursary for the following reasons: I'm a single

month I need support for childcare costs and have debts from a previous

degree, I'm a mature student of 33 and wouldn't take on further debts

which would be impossible for me to pay back and be fair on my daughter.

She is somebody who we need in our NHS. We need her as a mental health

nurse. We are losing her skill, her dedication, her aspiration to help

the Anne Tyler community. Two out of three Vickys who turn up

who want to be nurses are turned away by the current system, so we

are bringing people in from Bulgaria or Romania, or the other side of the

world, to do nursing jobs we should be training British people to do.

The British people want to train as nurses, the NHS wants those nurses,

this Government will fund those nurses, so help let's them train and

improve our health service. Jeremy Corbyn!

The problem is, you are expecting Vicky and others like her to fund

themselves by paying back a debt, or paying back from their wages in the

future. I don't think she has been very reassured by the Prime

Minister's answers today, unconvincing to her. However, he

wasn't very good at convincing the honourable member for Lewes, nurse

herself, I would have struggled to undertake my training given the

changes to the bursary scheme. Nine out of ten hospitals currently have

a nurse shortage. Isn't what he is proposing for the nurse bursary

scheme going to exacerbate the crisis make it worse for everybody

and our NHS less effective than more effective? What is his answer to

that point? I will give him a direct answer, which is we're going to see

10,000 extra nurse degree places because of this policy. Because we

are effectively on capping the numbers that can go into nursing. I

have to say, Mr Speaker, this week has all been of a piece, a retreat

of the Labour Party into the past. We've seen it with wanting to bring

back secondary picketing, wanting to bring back flying pickets, we've

seen it with the idea of wanting to stop businesses paying dividends and

with the absurd idea that nucleus of rings should go to sea without their

missiles. Anyone watching this Labour Party, and is not the leader,

it's the whole party, they are a risk to national security, a risk to

economic security, a risk to our health service and to the security

of every family in our country. CHEERING

SPEAKER: Edward Aga. Yelena Gloucestershire and the East

Midlands continue to be a powerhouse of jobs and growth attracting

investment from the UK and beyond and we are rightly proud of the

success of our local businesses in Charnwood. Does the continued

ability to attract foreign investment help -- be helped or

hindered if secondary picketing were reintroduced? The East Midlands is a

powerhouse of our economy and we've seen employment in the East Midlands

go up by 17,000. When businesses look at whether to invest in

Britain, whether their overseas businesses, or indeed British

businesses, they want to know we are going to have good labour relations

and not a return to the 1970s of secondary strikes and flying

pickets. It is extraordinary for a party that spent so long trying to

cast off that image of being in favour of these appalling industrial

practices has now elected a leader and is backing a leader who would

take us right back to the 1970s will stop

SPEAKER: Angus Robertson. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

World attention on the conflict in the Middle East is focused on Syria

and Iraq, and much less so on the catastrophe in Yemen causing

thousands of people to lose their lives and millions of people to lose

their homes. Can the prime Minster tell the House what the UK

Government is doing to support peace in Yemen?

We can with all the people taking part in this conflict to encourage

them to get round a negotiating table, as they have done recently in

order to bring about what business is Aryan Yemen, a government that

can represent all of the people. You've got to make sure that both

Sunni and Shia are properly represented in their country and

that's the only way we can meet our national interest to back a

government in Yemen that will drive the terrorists, including Al-Qaeda

meet Arabian Peninsular, AQAP, out of Yemen, because they have been and

they are a direct threat to the British citizens of Britain.

Angus Robertson. Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen

including a large number by the Saudi air force using British built

planes with pilots trained by British instructors dropping British

made bombs and co-ordinated by the Saudis in the presence of British

military advisers. Isn't it time for the Prime Minister to admit that

Britain is effectively taking part in a war in Yemen that is costing

thousands of civilian lives, and he has not sought Parliamentary

approval to do this? I think the right honourable

gentleman started in a serious place but then seriously wandered off. It

is in our interests that we back the legitimate Government of Yemen and

it's right to do that. We have some of the most stringent arms measures

controlled in the country anywhere in the world but to be absolutely

clear, we are not a member of the Saudi led coalition. Additional two

personnel are not directly involved in the coalition operations,

personnel are not carrying out strikes, directing or conducting

operations in Yemen or selecting targets and not involved in the

Saudi targeting decision making process but, yes, do we provide

training and advice and help in order to make sure countries do obey

the dorms of humanitarian law? Yes, we do. Thank you. The recent floods

in the North of England have caused untold misery to people,

householders, farmers, livestock and also what we need is a long-term

strategy for floods, and I know the Prime Minister has done a lot of

work across the country, some rivers need to be dredged, some need to be

slowed down and we need to manage the floodwaters in a better way.

Along with our long-term economic plan, can have a long-term plan on

floods? We absolutely can do and that's exactly what the environment

and agriculture secretary is doing. We have an unprecedented six-year

commitment of ?2.3 billion but as important as the money, is making

sure we have a joined up approach to dredging in some places, building

flood barriers in others, managing the water in landscapes, including

farming practices in a holistic way to use all the resources we had to

reduce the likelihood of floods. There is concern on all sides about

the recent rather patchwork approach to constitutional reform. We need a

new act of union, one which sets out the rules and responsibilities so

that the process of devolution by consent will be both fairer and more

comprehensive. Really meet with me and other members of the

constitutional reform group to discuss the new union? We come from

all the parties including experts such as Lord Lisvane, the former

clerk Robert Rogers. I'm very happy to meet with the honourable lady.

She has great expertise in this area. What I believe, I think there

would be common interest in what we're trying to do with the

Government is find a devolution settlement that works for all of the

devolved nations of the UK. Including importantly for England as

well. I think we've made some very good progress with a further

devolution measures we've had in Scotland and in Wales, the

maintenance of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland, if a further

mother measures we can take I'm happy to see them. I don't believe

simply writing things down in one place will solve the problem but I'm

happy to meet with her. Does he agree with me that our nuclear

deterrent only works against our nation 's enemies if our nuclear

submarines are equipped with nuclear missiles? And those who do not

believe that have a defence policy inspired by the Beatles's yellow

submarine and while they may twist and shout, their current leader

certainly needs help. I congratulate my honourable friend on his

ingenious question. There is a comic element to sending submarines to see

without missiles in but it is absolutely serious because the

deterrent has been on a cross-party basis, a key part of our defence and

making sure we have got the ultimate insurance policy which we support on

this side and should vote on in this House and all I can say, when it

comes to the Beatles, I suspect the Leader of the Opposition prefers

back in the USSR. CHEERING

. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just under two weeks ago, a 16-year-old boy was

murdered in a knife attack in my constituency. I'm sure the whole

House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to

Charlie 's friends and families. Given that knife crime in London

rose last year and the number of teenage deaths peaked to its highest

level in seven years, what action will be taken to make sure we don't

return to the days when knife crime in London are affecting young people

is merely a fact of life? He speaks for the whole House and I'm sure the

whole House will want to be with in spirit, the family and friends of

Charlie who lost his life in this attack for that there's nothing

anyone can say that will give them the comfort that they seek. What I

would say is we have toughened the law in terms of knife crime offences

and the level of custodial sentences people are getting for those crimes.

The police have done a huge amount to try and crack down on knife crime

and that's why it has fallen by 17% since 2010 but there's still more in

terms of educating children and young people about the dangers of

carrying a knife. The carrier of this crime ends up the victim of the

attack often so we also need better education. Does the Prime Minister

agree with me that encoding people in this country to learn the English

language has a unifying effect? It AIDS integration and helps to create

national identity and social cohesion and therefore should be

promoted. He is absolutely right. I think the most important thing in

our country is to make sure that everybody can take advantages of the

opportunities in our country to work, get training, go to

university. This is an opportunity country but there's no opportunity

for people if you don't speak the language. That's why we are

targeting money at those people very often women who have been stuck at

home sometimes by the men in the House and make sure they can get

their English language skills they need. Let me make one other point

because this is so important. When I sat in a mosque in Leeds this week,

a young person said how important it is that in mammas speak English

speakers if you have young people, sometimes it's big English

themselves but not Arabic, they need someone to guide them away from ices

and their poisonous rhetoric so speaking English is important for

Avril and, in mammas included. Young people in Southampton have seen

themselves frozen out of the living wage and housing benefits and face

the downgrading or closure of the colleges and sixth form colleges

many of them get their qualification from and now we see the ending of

maintenance grants for those young people who want a good university.

-- Imams. Whatever primers they got it into young people trying to make

their way in life? We have record numbers going to university, record

numbers taking on apprenticeships, record numbers in work for that

today the unemployment figures show a record low in the unemployment

rate amongst those people who have left school and I would say one of

the reasons why a Labour MP in this south of England is as rare as hen

's teeth as big as they talked down our country and opportunity in it. I

would like to thank the Prime Minister for launching the delivery

board on Monday evening at number ten, men and women experts in their

sectors coming together to deliver the 3 million apprenticeships by

2020. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it will be a great

thing if, when students across our country log onto the website, they

are informed about the opportunities of degrees as well as the more

traditional agrees? That's Mac degrees. One reason is if you become

an apprentice, that is not locking out a chance of doing a degree later

in your career. The opportunities for learning and learning are

getting great. The second reason it's so important, in schools,

teachers are very well equipped to tell people about degree

opportunities because that's the route that they've taken, A-levels

and suchlike. But we need to improve the information in schools so people

can see the opportunities for apprenticeships, in some cases, then

leading onto degrees. My 24-year-old constituents Loria is in need of

stem cell donor. The campaign is attracting global support and on

Saturday, the O2 Centre in Manchester will run a drive to get

as many people as possible on the bone marrow register. When the Prime

Minister join me at this event on Saturday and send a message of

support to those working to keep her alive? I certainly will join the

honourable lady in supporting this campaign. It had meetings with the

bone marrow organisations in number ten Downing St to support the

matching campaign and I'm sure, by her raising it in this way, many

others will want to come to this event and support it in the way she

suggests. The Prime Minister is aware that a number of colleagues

and I await his response to our request made in November for a

meeting regarding his Ewood negotiations to discuss the

importance of this Parliament being able to stop any unwanted taxes

regulations or directives which goes to the core of the issue like the

Borders control, business regulation. Will he meet with us

prior to the next meeting? I'm having a range of meetings with

colleagues about the European issue. I'm sure that I will be covering of

many in our Parliamentary party as possible. I've always felt he has

slightly made up his mind already and wants to leave the EU whatever

the result. I don't want to take up any more of this time than is

necessary. LAUGHTER

Mr Jonathan Edwards. The UK Government is a cheerleader for

China to be awarded market economy status because it wants the City of

London to become a major trading centre for the Chinese currency. It

would be nigh on impossible to impose tariffs on Chinese deals

despite their strategy. If there's not a classic case of once again the

Westminster Government putting the bankers of London before

manufacturing workers in Wales and the rest of the UK? I think the

honourable gentleman is wrong both on content and approach. The two

issues are separate. There are market economies that Europe still

puts dumping tariffs on, we did that recently with America and we've done

in the past with Russia, so we should take these issues separately

and continued to pursue robust action against China, exactly what

we are doing, based on the merits but in terms of a close ablation

ship, trading relationship with China, I want to help the Welsh

businesses including companies like air bus to break into Chinese

markets and make sure we get the best of British jobs, manufacturing,

exports. That's what we want in our relationship with China. Speaking of

Airbus, the Mersey region which straddles the England Wales border,

is one of the most dynamic industrial areas of the country.

Will my right honourable friend welcomed the establishment of the

all-party Mersey group which has been formed to promote the economic

success of the region and really urge his ministerial colleagues and

the Welsh Government to cooperate with the group and its work? First

of all, let me join my honourable friend in welcoming this new group.

I think is important, when you look at the development of the Welsh

economy, to think about how the North Wales can benefit from growth

in the north-west of our country and the links between the North West and

Wales, which this group will examine. HS2 and what happens crew

will be of vital part of that process but I'm happy to talk

further with him. Will the Prime Minister operate and speak for the

whole of the House, the unconditional unequivocal support of

the British people for the people of the Falklands Islands to their

rights, their British right, to self-determination and that will not

be undermined in any way by some kind of accommodation or

negotiations in which the people of the Falkland Islands may have an

enormous say and have no veto. They should have a right to determine

their own future. CHEERING

The honourable gentleman has put better than I could. The people of

the Falkland Islands have spoken in-out referendum and will maintain

the status quo and as long as they want that, they have a guarantee

from me and I find it quite extraordinary that the Labour Party

now want to look at trying to change the status and giveaway something

people absolutely considered to be their right and that will never

happen as long as I'm in Downing Street. Thank you. As a former Cub

Scout leader, I'm pleased to say that Scouting is thriving in Harrow.

This year marks the centenary of the formation and founding of Cub

Scouting across the UK. Will my right honourable friend join me in

congratulating the 150,000 young people who participate in Cub

Scouting every week in the UK, congratulate and thank the leaders

who give up their time voluntarily to enable young people to have

adventures in a safe environment and call on more people to volunteer as

leaders as part of the big society movement? I absolutely agree with my

honourable friend, the Scouts are a great part of the big society and we

provided them and other uniformed youth groups with over ?10 million

of funding since I've been Prime Minister to help them do the

excellent work they do. I had a letter recently from their grills,

the chief scout himself, looking at what we can do the welcome has

centenary and give this fantastic organisation a big centenary boost.

-- Bear Grylls. The Prime Minister should be aware that Sheffield

Masters announced this morning and last of 100 jobs in this crisis hit

industry. Many of those jobs will be in my constituency. We have had lots

of words, hand wringing and crocodile tears from the Prime

Minister and the ministers in this chamber. About the job losses across

the steel industry. Can you tell me when he's actually going to do

something to support world-class companies like Sheffield 40 Masters?

First of all, we have taken action including the action on energy bills

which will save these industries ?400 million in this Parliament. The

honourable gentleman chose to inject a bit of politics into this, let me

inject some back. When the Labour Party were in power, what happened

to employment in the steel industry? It was cut by 34,000, cut in half.

Where were the carve outs from the energy bills them? Where were these

special arrangements for taking votes in Europe we put in place?

Where were the rules for making sure that we buy which steel here when it

comes to public procurement as we will for HS2, the carrier programme

and also if he is interested in Sheffield 40 Masters, he might want

to have a word with his leader about something called a Trident

submarine. CHEERING

Mr Speaker. We don't yet know who will headline Glastonbury the summer

but we do know that, as things stand, they will not have anywhere

to do their banking as this world-famous town is to lose all

three of its remaining banks within 12 weeks of each other. Will he join

me in encouraging those banks to think again and otherwise to make

sure that they need their responsibilities under the banking

protocols? I will certainly make sure that happens and arrange a

meeting with the Treasury minister to discuss this issue. We have huge

challenges because of the growth of Internet banking but important in

towns, market towns I represent, we have a physical presence on the high

Street. The Prime Minister may be aware about Julie Pearson, young

Scottish woman who died in November and was allegedly beaten and raped

before her death. I've met the family recently and I hope the House

will offer condolences. They are struggling to get authorities to get

the autopsy report. Will he look at this case to put pressure on the

Israeli Government and authorities and the family than can move on and

get justice for Julie? I'm not aware directly of this case, but I will

certainly take it up on her behalf with the Israeli authorities because

important our constituents get answers on this matter. Perhaps I

could have a meeting with Foreign Office minister so they can discuss

it but we have good relations with Israel and use them to make sure

when people need answers, they get them. Order.

It is 12:36pm, Prime Minister's Questions over run as a usually does

these days. It has come to an end. Jeremy Corbyn, as Laura accurately

predicted, went first of all on student grants, the change of

student grants into loans, we will talk about that in a minute, and

moved onto bursaries for nurses, both issues are linked and used all

six questions on these two issues. I will come back to that and get

reaction from our panel when we have heard what you thought of it.

Clear division, Andrew. Mark Bradley says yet again the Prime Minister

didn't answer Jeremy Corbyn's questions but because of the lack of

leadership and teeth from Jeremy Corbyn the prime Minster walked over

the Labour leader. Richard Stanley said, finally a week where Jeremy

Corbyn has scored some good blows against David Cameron. Bigging the

Prime Minister into a hole on details around student fees and NHS

nurses worked well, and let the Prime Minister struggling with

prescriptive dancers. David Kidd said Jeremy Corbyn stumbles over his

questions and is no match for David Cameron when it comes to debating on

his feet -- scripted answers. Totally and ineffective. Katherine

Jenkins says the prime and is the's declarations appear callous even

when trying to appeal to normal people, while Jeremy Corbyn appears

ever more confident appearing the strongest and fairest leader

challenging the government and speaking up for the public.

Thank you. Is to Corbynista still using his crowdfunding technique.

Today was Lee and Vicky, he's not using it all the time, he's got rid

of the idea of going through all of Prime Minister's Questions with

questions source from the public but it is clearly a useful device and

humanises the issues. It is useful he is using it. Today we saw these

are good strong issues for Jeremy Corbyn and have cut through with

lots of people around the country, changes happening to people's lives,

no question. Is one of the e-mails suggested, the Prime Minister was

not really put under very much pressure by Mr Corbyn and the manner

in which he asked the questions. Again something we have discussed

before, he's not really very much into the follow-up, the art of the

follow-up. The AdLib follow-up. There was a

good question, why wasn't this in the manifesto, the Government wants

to make a change affecting thousands of students and it wasn't in the

manifesto but he sort of let it go in a sense. One final thought,

interestingly, we are seeing the Tories coalescing and sticking to

and carving out this attack line we are going to hear again and again

and again, different to how they approached Jeremy Corbyn before

Christmas about the idea of going back to the past, Labour not just

looking inside itself but looking back to the bad old days of the 70s

and 80s, and you heard it with planted questions on nuclear weapons

and secondary picketing, and Nigel Dodds from the DUP raising the issue

of the Falklands. Indeed. David Gauke, the Prime

Minister said in 2010 we must always look after poorer students. That's

why we are keeping bursaries. What has changed? The position is that we

think that in order to ensure we can properly fund record numbers of

people going into higher education, that the best value for money

approach of doing this is moving towards a loan system that we think

this still ensures that people have got access to the funds they need

whilst going through university, and in terms of the balance between the

taxpayer and the student, or more to the point, someone who has had the

benefit of higher education, we are clear that there needs to be that

shift. When did you change your mind?

Well, this is an issue we have always looked at.

You have always been in favour of bursaries, and indeed you justified,

by you I mean your party and ministers at the time, justified the

trebling in tuition fees by an increase in student grants to help

poorer students live through their time at university. So, what's

changed and when did you change it? We were clear when we fought the

last General Election that we needed to find further savings in public

spending. You didn't mention this one.

We are looking at the budget for the Department for business, innovation

and skills, this is a substantial part of that budget.

Why didn't you put it in the manifesto? Once we had won the

General Election we looked at all of the areas of public spending to see

where we felt there were as savings and here we felt there was a

significant saving that could be made that enables us still to do

something very important, which is take the cap on the number of

students away. Let's get this right, we went into

the selection with all previous statements from Conservative

ministers extolling the virtues of bursaries and saying how important

it was, even with rising fees, that bursaries help put students to go to

university. In that election campaign you never mentioned that

you were thinking of going from bursaries to loans, it wasn't in the

manifesto, so how were we to know this is what you would do?

We were very clear about the principles behind it. ...

You were not very clear. We were very clear we would find

savings in public expenditure. We gave those numbers and we talked

about departmental spending, that we were going to find ?13 billion from

that. You didn't tell us beforehand, did

you? We didn't make that decision until

subsequently. If it is such a good idea why

haven't you put it through a committee? This is a big change for

lots of poorer students. Why haven't you even had a debate in the House

of Commons about it? It's perfectly reasonable to do this

through a statutory instrument. It absolutely isn't. You have been

doing it repeatedly with issue after issue. Tax credits. The power that

we used to take this through on a statutory instrument was a power

given to the Government in an act of Parliament passed by a Labour

government in 1998. This is a complete red herring, we never used

it as widely as you have done to bring through major changes.

Can I just make the point, David Gauke, that it wasn't in the

manifesto, you gave no inkling that this was a potential change, that if

you were elected you would do. And yet you still wouldn't debate it in

the House of Commons. It is surely worth more than a statutory

instrument that you can show through in a committee.

There was a vote in the House of Commons on this, as we can have an

opposition Day debate. Only thanks to us. The idea that somehow this is

concealed... I come back to the point. The very power that we were

using, it was announced in the budget, there is no concealment

here. The power to take this through by a statutory instrument is a power

that a Labour act of Parliament gave us. Why does that make it right? I'm

making the point that if Owen is going to criticise that it's

outrageous that we used a statutory instrument for this Labour gave us

the powerful stop we didn't use this for financial measures like this,

that's the truth, we didn't use it for anything as substantial. We are

talking about a bit of process now and I'd like to get back to the

substance. This is a big policy change that will affect lots of

people's lives when they go into higher education in the years to

come and it's interesting and worth knowing that this plan was on the

shelf and discussed and considered by Vince Cable and David Willis

under the coalition and they shied away from doing it at that time. I

understand Nick Clegg was nervous about going that far because of

everything around tuition fees. In a sense it was something that was on

the shelf that the Conservatives knew about, that when they got back

in everybody was scaring about savings and they could take this

back of the shelf and get savings pretty much that were easily

deliverable monopoly Dibley easy, but easily deliverable. Even so just

after the election there was a tussle in the business department

about whether this was the right way to go but it did make its way into

the budget. -- but not politically easy. I want to talk about the issue

we have been discussing. I don't, because we've already done it and

David Gauke has had a number of difficult questions. I don't think

anyone can say we have not grilled him. It would be nice to comment on

big Government's policies. You have been and I'm asking about Labour's

policies. The policy was cutting tuition fees from 9000 down to 6000

and the policy in Wales is we believe in lower tuition fees, we

have a 3000 feet in Wales and we have maintained it under the Welsh

government educational grants including the Educational

Maintenance Allowance for 16-19 new role is. The crucial issue we have

got to address is the fact that 500,000 students, the poorest ones

who benefit presently from ?3500 grants each year, are going to be

not ?40,000 in debt at the end of their university but ?53,000 and the

Government is going to save money on the back of the poorest. Their own

impact assessment concedes, Andrew, that it is going to diminish female

participation in higher education, diminish what is a patient from

black and ethnic minorities and diminish participation by the

disabled, that is his Government's assessment.

That is why David Gauke was asked some tough questions, can I get

clarification from you now you have had your say, is it Labour policy to

abolish tuition fees and if not what level would you set them at? Jeremy

Corbyn has said it is his omission to abolish tuition fees and we are

considering how to do that and when we put forward the manifesto for the

next election that will be a consideration for stop didn't you

tell me you were not abolishing tuition fees and you kept them in

Wales? My previous answer was that at the last election Labour's posy

was to cut from 9000 down to 6000 and the leader says he wants to open

access to higher education and he believes that means Labour needs to

look at tuition fees and abolish tuition fees, and we've got to

consider seriously how we move towards making higher education

accessible to more young people, in particular from the lowest income

households. I'm afraid we are away over... We are going to stop. We

have other things to do, that's it, stop! Start! The bell has rung. Very

brave, Andrew! Go! Christine Ariza, the MP for Neath, after my appalling

memory lapse earlier summer minister for legal aid, cease and desist.

Thanks very much! Now - we used to boast an Empire

on which the sun never set - now just a few "overseas

territories" remain. But is it time to relinquish

control of these? Journalist Richard Norton-Taylor

thinks that the Union flag should be lowered on the Falkland

Islands and Gibraltar - Approaching the planet for the first

time, aliens may wonder what on earth the Union Jack

is doing flying on an island 3,000 miles away from Britain,

and also on a large limestone rock Successive British governments have

claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands

but the claims are far from solid. And shortly before the invasion

of the Falklands by the Argentinians in 1982, the Thatcher government

offered an arrangement whereby Argentina would get sovereignty over

the islands and Britain would lease And the islanders would be promised

uninterrupted enjoyment And then, even after the invasion

in 1982, the Thatcher government was prepared to do a deal,

negotiate over the islands. In strict treaty terms,

Britain's claims to Gibraltar, the Rock of Gibraltar,

are stronger because the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht ceded the rock

to Britain in perpetuity, Even so, despite this,

the British governments in the past have been prepared to discuss

sovereignty arrangements, joint sovereignty,

for example, with Spain. It cannot be beyond the wit

and imagination of democratic governments to abandon

an anachronistic notion of false The Rock of Gibraltar

and the Falkland Islands have no It is time, indeed it is well

beyond time, to negotiate in the name of territorial

integrity and common sense. And Richard Norton

Taylor joins us now. Welcome. You agree with Jeremy

Corbyn in terms of discussions on both of those? He said something for

the first time last Sunday I've been talking about this quite a long

time. Do you agree with him the Falkland Islands have a right to

self-determination? Yes. On the basis of that, the one to stay as

is. Self-determination is not same as giving up the British colonial

status. It happened in many other countries. Minorities who have

self-government, certainly, and it guarantees they can preserve their

way of life which has been suggested in the Gibraltar context too,

actually. Part of any agreement, one should have, talks first with

Argentina and the Spanish government over Gibraltar, is to have some

agreement whereby the Argentina 's would have to look after their own

indigenous population not on the mainland, not just the islanders.

That can be part of a deal in the interests of the minorities in

Argentina and indeed Spain, as well as in Gibraltar and the folder. Is

it time we negotiated with Argentina the Falklands? No, it's very clear

that there is an established printable self-determination. I

think this is a peripheral issues and... Jeremy Corbyn talked about

it. He was asked a question about it and did not raise it. Universal

Credit, cuts to bursaries, all of those are much more important

subjects for the country. I think, our opinion as Labour about the

Falklands, it is self-determination, it's for the people of the Falklands

to stay part of Britain and if they want to, they should do. They should

be reasonable accommodation with Argentina, Jeremy Corbyn said. Is he

right? I think our position is clear. It should remain part of

Britain. What does he mean by reasonable accommodation? He was

simply saying at the Falklands is raised once more by the Argentinian

government, we should reasonably engage in discussions with them and

of course that's right, however, our principal position has to be it for

the people of the Falklands to determine whether they want to be

part of or Argentina or independent. Their view is clear they want a part

of the UK and therefore they should remain part of the UK. He was asked

about it counted as a veto and he wasn't clear about that. In fact,

today Nigel Dodds wanted clarification. I think they should

have a veto. It's for them to determine whether they want to

remain part of the UK but I genuinely do think, and I know why

the Tories want to talk about this, going back to the past, the 1970s

etc, but it is peripheral. Jeremy answered the question honestly,

however, it's not the main topic of conversation. It's a peripheral

issue? It's not as urgent as other issues like the economy or Trident

or whatever but it's an important issue and there will be negotiations

on time. Maybe when I'm past retirement, even more past

retirement age, but it's going to happen sooner. Should David Cameron

we willing to negotiate? No, I agree with what Owen has said in terms of

respecting the self-determination of the islanders, but where it is

important is it does reveal something about Jeremy Corbyn. Owen

Smith is normally done that for you. The big dispute between the UK and

any other part of the world, Jeremy Corbyn seems to be on the side of

the other part of the world. He was asked the question did not bring it

up, though. Thank very much. So yesterday they

made their excuses. The Labour Party tried to explain

why it lost the General Election and Pollsters tried to explain why

they were predicting might Ed Miliband might

become Prime Minister. But how do those compare

with the great political excuses At five, it's Natalie Bennett

with her mental brain fade. Er, we're looking at a total

spend of 2.7 billion... Having a brain fade is arguably

the most honest excuse of today's top five and she did

have a massive cold. In at number four, it's the UKIP

front man Nigel Farage with a novel excuse for being late

to a meeting in Wales. More creative than to blame

the traffic, he had an excuse It took me six hours and 15

minutes to get here. What it does have to do

with is a country with a population going through the roof chiefly

because of open door immigration and the fact the A4 is not

as navigatable as it used to be. Down to three, it's Gordon Brown

with that 2010 classic. JEREMY VINE: Someone

has handed me the tape. Let's play it and see

if we can hear it. GORDON BROWN: 'She's

just a bigoted woman'. He said sorry and had

an excuse up his sleeve. This was me being helpful

to the broadcasters with my microphone on, rushing into the car,

because I had to get At two, it's Aston Villa's number

one fan David Cameron. He said, well, he forgot which team

he supports which may well be true because a few months later he also

forgot his daughter after Sunday He remembered to take

the President Xi, though. And at number one, the then

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson with the irrefutable excuse

as to why the badger cull targets The badgers have

moved the goalposts. Those pesky little badgers always

interfering with the goalposts. What's the most embarrassing excuse

you've had to make? I've never had to make an embarrassing excuse. You

haven't? I once left an event because I wanted to go and watch

England play football and I said I had to look at Stirling matters

because Raheem Sterling was a star player at the time. Can you do

better than that, please? Similar to David Cameron, my mother once left

knee in a pram outside the butchers and got on the bus and went home

before she realised. How could you do that, say that about your own

mother? What is your excuse for Labour spending ?600 on chicken

suits during the election campaign? Money well spent. We should have

spent more. What was the year? Guess which year it was. It was... 1979.

The winner is Nick from Hertfordshire. Well done. On the

Falklands, Michael Foot was very robust. Yes, he was. In that famous

speech, he did better than Margaret Thatcher. On a Saturday morning. No

time to talk about Gibraltar properly. Sorry about that.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

We'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories