27/01/2016 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Government's under fire about it's tax deal with Google.

The US search engine giant has agreed to pay ?130 million in back

tax and interest, which sounds a lot but perhaps isn't when you consider

Google books several billion in British revenues every year.

Italy Could be about to strike a much tougher deal even

though Google Italy is much smaller

You won't need a search engine to find out who'll be starring

Call me Dave and Jezza face each other across the despatch

Campaigners want to lower the age you can vote to 16.

We'll be talking to one political expert who thinks it should be

Why should JoCo be deprived of the vote?

And have you booked your summer holiday yet?

If not, how about a Brexit to Brussels?

Believe it or not there's a new holiday rage for

That is the kind of thing we would go on. We would be the first ones

there. And the only ones. All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole of the duration is the Arts

Minister, Ed Vaizey. We have to be nice to him,

because otherwise he'll be He is in fact the longest

serving Arts Minister ever. And with us also, the Shadow Women's

and Equalities Minister, We have to be nice to be her

because otherwise it Kate's one of three Shadow Women

and Equalities Ministers Now, since we have a Culture

Minister with us lets talk licence fee and the over 75s,

because the BBC is exploring plans to persuade pensioners who currently

don't pay the licence fee Is that a good idea? It is up to the

BBC who are now responsible for the free TV licence. I got an e-mail

from a constituent who said they would willingly pay the licence fee.

I have had conversations with other pensioners who said they would not.

It is within the BBC's right now it is responsible to ask people if they

want to make a voluntary contribution. And you would be

comfortable with that? There is a campaign fronted by celebrities who

want to persuade those over the age of 75 to pay. We reached an

agreement with the BBC that they would take on the free television

licence and if they want to ask people to make a contribution, that

is fine. Are you worried about complaints from pensioners who feel

they might be under pressure? No, that did not occur to me. I get a

lot of e-mails about the BBC, people care passionately about the BBC and

they want to have a say in it. We have had the second largest

consultation on the BBC and this will be part of that debate. They

care about it and many of them will be unhappy about the decision which

is palming off welfare decision for the government and giving it to the

BBC. It is right the BBC has wholesale responsibility for its

financing and part of that is free TV licences for pensioners. Why

didn't the government make that decision? We said the BBC was to

take it on and they would be free to remove it or free to engage with

people over the age of 75 and ask them to make a contribution. But it

is the government that is accountable to voters. It is

accountable to Parliament and it is also accountable to people through

the payment of the licence fee. People have to pay it and the BBC

has a direct relationship with the licence fee payer. Andrew quipped

that somehow I have some say over his future, but the BBC should be

independent of government and one of the ways that goes is by the

financing through the licence fee rather than through general

taxation. Which services do you think the BBC should cut to fund

this? Minister should not tell the BBC what services to cut. But this

decision has been foisted on the BBC. It should decide which ones it

wants to maintain and which ones are the most effective. It moved BBC

Three online and the justification for that was that more and more

people are going online to view. Let's get ahead of the curve and

have a well-established brand we moved online which is aimed at

younger viewers and learn lessons about engaging with people online.

Did you support that initial decision and agreement as Ed Vaizey

calls it between the BBC and the government for the BBC to fund the

over 75 is? It is important to recognise the BBC is a public

service broadcaster and we have to make sure it is on a sustainable,

financial footing and that is a government responsibility. We all

rely on the BBC is independent, impartial and informative. As far as

this initiative for the over 75s is concerned, it might be quite

bureaucratic to implement and the gains might be marginal, but this is

my concern about the transferring of the funding onto the BBC and they

have to find money somewhere, if this starts to exclude marginalise

pensioners. Many of them find the television a lifeline, they cannot

get out of the House, they need the BBC and we need to be careful about

the impact of these changes. A campaign by celebrities to persuade

pensioners, do you think that would be seen by somebody is bullying? I

hope it would not be seen as bullying and I hope nobody would be

offended when I say that some pensioners could be confused, they

might not get the message clearly, they might not understand it is

voluntary, they do not have to make a contribution. I am concerned and I

understand why the BBC are looking at every single possibility to raise

money, but this could impact on vulnerable people.

What about other pensioner benefits? In the run-up to the election Labour

said they would be reviewing pension benefits that were given right

across the board. Should it be looked at again? If I am on this, we

were not very great about pensioner lifestyles, we were miserable

leading up to the election. People in their 60s and 70s are living a

very different life. Should they still get those benefits? It is

important we should review the way benefits are structured for older

people, how we should support people who carry on working in their 60s

and 70s, to gain from their employment, and to make sure they

get income for retirement. We have to make sure that those who are

finding it most difficult to save for retirement are properly

protected. I am in favour of a full review. We are four and half years

away from an election, let's use that time to get it right.

Now, it's coming up to the end of January and the spectre

of the looming tax return is weighing heavily upon many of us.

Working out tax is such a tiresome affair.

It's happy days, however, for Google, who have come to a deal

with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to pay ?130 million

Let's talk to our political correspondent Vicky Young

The Chancellor began by hailing this deal is a major success, but now it

looks like they are on the back foot. If Jeremy Corbyn tries to

tackle the Prime Minister on this he will be desperate to get David

Cameron to repeat that phrase, is it a major success? Do they believe it

is? Labour are trying to pin this on ministers. They are saying there

should be no such thing as mates' rates for big companies. Labour are

asking all sorts of questions about what meetings the government and

Google had. The bottom line is we do not know much about the deal. It is

HMRC that deals with all of this and it is by its nature very secret, so

it is hard to establish what rate they might be paying and how they

came to this deal. The politicians might shout about it on both sides

of the House, but isn't it the case that this is a done deal? HMRC has

done a deal with Google and they have signed a clause and it cannot

be changed unless they find that Google has broken the law. 130

million, job done. That is right, and we heard from Boris Johnson who

said that although it is not much money, they have done nothing wrong

and it is the law that needs to change. George Osborne will say he

has brought in a new tax on diverted profits and is trying to tackle all

of this. What would look bad would be if Italy and France got more

money out of Google, that with then make the HMRC here look pretty bad.

But it is the corporation tax, the system that the UK has and the

Treasury Select Committee has said it will look into all of that and

the chairman is saying the UK tax laws are to old. The Chancellor said

it was a success, and Boris Johnson said it was derisory. Who is right?

HMRC conducted a tax audit with Google dating back to 2005. What is

right is the Chancellor has introduced the diverted profits tax

which means going forward Google will pay tax on profits are

generated in the UK in a proper way. The diverted profits tax is

something other countries have started to copy. The point about

France and Italy is well made in that there is not a developed

country that is not wrestling with these digital companies that have a

global presence. The UK has taken the lead in the OECD saying we have

to sort this out. But is not right that under this deal, up until now,

Google will not pay the diverted profits tax? It has just come in.

The future? So any profits that have been diverted are not covered by

this deal? Going forward it will pay it and under this audit by HMRC we

have seen ten years back tax being paid. Is it all back tax or is it

interest? Are there penalties? This is a confidential agreement in the

sense that companies reach agreement with HMRC about the right level of

tax they should pay and they reach it on the basis of commercial

reasons. If it included penalties, the amount of tax would go up

hugely? You can argue the granular point. But HMRC has gone through a

very... I am arguing it. Everyone will have a view on what Google

should pay fairly. What I should say is the process is right. It should

not be for ministers to say what a company should pay. It is HMRC

conducting an audit, going through the books and reaching an agreement.

When you reach an agreement, there may be issues to do with interest

and penalties and there will be calculations about if this came to

court and the expense and time involved. All sorts of issues. I

understand that. Would it be a major success if it turns out that France

and Italy, where Google is much smaller, a quarter of what it is

here, ended up getting a lot more money out of them? I will not

speculate on what France and Italy will get. People are talking as if

the Italians have secured a fantastic settlement. No, they have

not, but they are quite far down the road. We have an agreement with

Google to pay taxes, we have a diverted profits tax that people are

copying and we have taken the lead in international forums saying we

need changes in the international tax laws to cope with companies who

are able to move quite freely around the globe. In 2014, Google's

revenues out of the UK were almost ?5 billion. This is separate from

the deal. It paid 30 million in corporation tax. 5 billion in

revenues, 30 million in corporation tax. Is that a success? Those of you

watching the news will have seen HMRC explaining some of the

calculations made effectively to criticise the settlement and not

based on an accurate understanding of tax laws. The National tax law is

even more complicated. I am confident HMRC went through a very

thorough investigation. It is an independent process. I am not sure

that it is fair that a company makes revenues of almost 5 billion in

Britain pays only 30 million in tax. We want companies to pay their fair

share of tax. The Chancellor was criticised in some international

forums where they said he was messing with international tax

treaties, but he went ahead with it because he thinks it is the right

thing to do and that is being copied by other countries around the world.

Google will pay its fair share of tax going forward and we are in the

lead in international forums. Out of 5 billion, the Exchequer got

30 million. Is that fair? Google's European tax -- headquarters are in

Ireland with a low level of corporation tax. In Australia,

Google's Asian headquarters is in Singapore. We are getting into lots

of detail. I am not privy to it all. But we know that Google... Let me

ask you. Has this agreement with HM RC, as it established that Google

now has a permanent establishment in Britain? That is a very technical

point. That was presumably part of the debate about whether Google is

paying its fair share of tax. Does it doesn't it... You can ask the HM

RC on what basis... You visited the headquarters. We have a picture.

This is the new headquarters, because their existing one isn't big

enough. This is the proposed headquarters in King's 5000 people.

The one they have at the moment is split between two sites. -- proposed

headquarters in King's Cross. Is it not incredible but anybody planning

to build a bigger headquarters cannot for tax purposes have a

permanent establishment? I went to visit what is known as the Google

campus because I was supporting an organisation which supports... Did

it look permanent? Was it a pop-up headquarters? An organisation called

creative England which does a lot of work supporting our fantastically

successful creative industries around the UK. You are asking me a

technical point. It doesn't look that technical. It looks like a

massive headquarters. HM RC have conducted an extensive audit. There

is a new tax regime, which was controversial with some companies

and in some international forums, but the Chancellor went ahead

because he recognises that the company -- public want to see

companies like this paying their tax. The fact is that, since 2005,

Google has been following the principles of how you measure

taxable profits that it agreed with the last Labour government. So, if

Google isn't paying enough tax, it is as much Labour's fault. As I

understand, the first questions were asked in 2000 and Margaret Hodge,

the Labour chair of the Public Accounts Committee in the last

Parliament, really took up the mantle. She isn't in government. The

principles that Google followed in paying tax worth agreed by the last

Labour government. You made the wrong agreement. A lot of time has

passed since 2009 and, while I welcome steps to toughen up and

agreed internationally a more robust tax regime, we have to recognise

that circumstances and learning and understanding of Google's

operations, it was quite a new company in 2000. Did you make a

mistake? I have no idea whether that tax regime was appropriate at the

time. I think we can all agree it is not appropriate now. It was a tax

regime agreed by the last Labour government which allowed Facebook, a

multi-billion dollar corporation, to pay corporation tax of ?4000 in

2011. It is derisory. Nobody could defend that. What is really

important, having obviously set up the tax regime that haven't

understood at the time the way in which some of these international

online, really without much in the way of material, I think perhaps

none of us, accountants, tax people, the Treasury, governments, perhaps

didn't understand, and perhaps the companies themselves didn't fully,

how they would knit to the tax regimes. What I think is important

now is that there is credibility in the tax system. As a taxpayer, my

constituents feel that this is really pretty insulting. We pay our

taxes. Our small businesses pay taxes. Ballet companies pay taxes.

They look at this and they think it is a deal for the rich. -- family

companies. What would you do differently? We need to be sharper

about getting the right deals. HM RC uses its top experts... Perhaps it

needs to invest more in its expertise. We have lost substantial

numbers of experts in HMS seed and we don't have any transparency. --

HM RC. The government is hotly defending the privacy of Google's

tax affairs, but it has to be balanced with public belief. You

allowed a double Irish and a Dutch sandwich. Can you still do that? I

think we got rid of the double Irish. I don't know if we have the

Dutch sandwich. I was taught the other day that the human brain can

accommodate 4.7 billion books but I can't accommodate whether we have

the double Dutch sandwich. I think we have raised hundreds billion

pounds in tax, backdated tax, thanks to the experts in HMRC.

The so-called bedroom tax has been declared discriminatory by Court

of Appeal judges, following a legal challenge by a domestic violence

victim and the family of a disabled teenager.

They had argued that the spare room subsidy,

which reduces housing benefit for social housing tenants

with a "spare" bedroom, is discriminatory.

The Government says it's to appeal against the decision.

Do you back the government decision to appeal this? As a member of the

government, I obviously backed the government decision. I haven't seen

the judgment so I don't know on what basis it was made and how it was

found to be discriminatory, but clearly Iain Duncan Smith and his

team and the government as a whole doesn't agree with this judgment. It

is within its rights to appeal. Why? We are talking about two but

vulnerable -- two small but vulnerable groups, disabled children

who need an overnight room to state and victims of domestic violence who

need a safe sanctuary. We are talking about thousands in the

former, 300 in the latter. Could they not be an exception? There are

a range of exceptions... But not for these people. There are exceptions

for vulnerable children... There is not an exemption for disabled

children who need an overnight carer. You are saying it is still

fair to make them pay. I haven't seen the details of the judgment and

I don't know on what basis this was taken to court or on what basis the

Court of Appeal made its judgment. I am used to reading judgments in

areas I am responsible for the. There may be issues in the judgment

to do with process, in terms of how it was introduced, which the

government may have to look at. The government has made a firm statement

early on that it doesn't agree with this judgment and it wants to appeal

and it clearly thinks it has grounds. How do you think it looks

to the public when the government said it wants to protect the most

vulnerable and people would judge that these two groups are among the

most vulnerable, and yet they cannot be exempted from this paying off a

spare room subsidy or a bedroom tax, whatever you want to pay it, because

the government thinks it has to fit in to its broad range of welfare

plans? What the government is doing, which I think has overwhelming

support, is to reform welfare. That is in terms of capping the amount of

benefits which people get, and I think there was support for the

spare room subsidy... But these groups... There something like

400,000 homes which under occupied. We want to have a system, and people

have looked at under occupancy for many years, we ought a system which

encourages people who are under occupied their house to look for

other accommodation. I can't comment on the specific details of the case.

I haven't seen the judgment. I assume the government are appealing

because they think they are right to appeal.

Now, the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, told the House

of Commons yesterday that, contrary to reports,

he has not become, quote, "a sandal-wearing,

I'm glad he felt the need to clear that up.

He was responding to a question from Conservative backbencher

Phillip Davies, a man who, I think it is fair to say,

is not known for wearing sandals nor munching muesli.

But, here at the Daily Politics, it got us thinking.

We don't care if you've swapped your shiny brogues for

Or if you've ditched the full English for a healthier alternative.

Or, indeed, if you've swapped your fully caffeinated

We believe that it's not what you drink, it's

Yes, what better way to sip your organic dandelion tea

But whether you're vegan or not you'll have to enter our Guess

the Year competition to get your hands on one.

We'll remind you how to enter in just a minute but,

first, do you know when this happened?

So far, 11 MPs, both Labour and Tory, have stood down or been

forced out because of the expenses saga.

# Is falling down on all that I've ever known...#

# I don't know what's right and what's real anymore

# And I don't know how I'm meant to feel any more...#

# When there's no one left to fight

# Boys like him don't shine so bright

# He's out on the town tryin' to find trouble...#

Indigenous British, the people who have been here...

# When life is a bitter pill to swallow

# You gotta hold on to what you believe...#

# We gotta fight fight fight fight fight for this love

# We gotta fight fight fight fight fight for this love...#

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

send your answer to our special quiz email address, [email protected].

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

and conditions on our website, bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics.

Just take a look at Big Ben, and that can

Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.

What is likely to dominate the front bench exchanges? I think there is a

nice big parcel of a gift which George Osborne tied up with a big

fat ribbon at the end of Davos, especially for John McDonnell and

Jeremy Corbyn today, this deal with Google, which he tried to claim as a

victory. It was an HM RC deal. By George Osborne claiming a victory,

he put himself in the story and then, over the coming days, as

politicians in all parties and the public looked more closely at the

scale of the deal, ?5 billion in revenues and ?130 million in back

taxes, there is a question about the smell tax and I think it is

inevitable Labour will raise it. They think they are onto something

and they will push it and push it began as a campaign. I understand

later that a letter will go to the government calling on the National

Audit Office to investigate. Europe is increasingly moving up the

agenda. What do you hear on the latest that the government hoped for

the timetable to get it in by the end of June but might not? The 23rd

of June is the date to pencil into your diaries for people who are sad

enough! It would be wise to have an eraser ready to take it out. The

stumbling block, as we have known for some time in these negotiations,

is the question of getting an agreement which looks anything like

the Prime Minister's promised to ban benefits for EU workers in the UK

for four years. In the other parts of the renegotiation, there is a way

through, no final agreements. Officials this week are frantically

going backwards and forwards between Brussels and London trying to find a

way through on welfare. If that can be done, and there is a belief in

government that it can indeed be done, because nobody wants to talk

about this around the EU for any longer than necessary. They have

bigger fish to fry. There is no guarantee will that, if you keep

going on and on, that you end up with a bit agreement. The government

is hopeful, it is possible, but they have been very careful in the last

seven days to row back from what is the beginning of the year was

probably public overconfidence, things like the Chancellor saying it

was falling into place. They will still need to get it through

Parliament. If Labour was to vote against it in June, and the Scottish

Nationalists don't want the end of June, and the number of Eurosceptics

peeled off, because they believe that the longer they wait for the

referendum the better their chance of winning, they might not get it

through for June. This sounds like all of us obsessing about ridiculous

process but it matters enormously. There is a lot of chatter about this

in the corridors of the House of Commons. If Labour could be

persuaded or see it in their interests to give the government

maximum embarrassment on this, to go alongside the Scottish Nationalists,

and there is concern in Northern Ireland and Wales also about this

timetable, because of the elections, if they could be persuaded it would

be fun and larks to embarrass the government on the timetable, they

could do it. Will Labour vote for the end of June as a referendum

date? The longer we are in an uncertain situation, the worst that

is for the UK economy, so I don't think it is about fun and games. I

think it is about what is in the interests of the country. That is

what we will have to discuss. I want to see what the deal is. But you

would have a preference for sooner? I think a protracted campaign is bad

for the UK and the business. That is the view among the majority of the

PLP. I think Alan Johnson would be very unhappy about the delay. There

are people nibbling around the edges of this. We have got the ballot

paper. This is what we will get to vote, whatever the date is. I have

got one for Ed Vaizey. Fill it in. But the deal hasn't come back! This

is like a secret ballot, dear Ron The Daily Politics. We won't tell a

soul. -- here on The Daily Politics. What have you voted? You are not

going to wait for the deal to come back. You have both voted to remain.

That is because my unswerving confidence in the Prime Minister and

the fantastic deal he will bring back. David Cameron always wanted to

maintain public opinion but there was a chance he might change his

mind at the last minute. Can we believe that given that, day after

day, he is sending more and more, close to saying... He can't wait to

come out and start campaigning to stay in. He just wants to get on

with it. He will take a very personal, forward, leading role in

the campaign. While the other side is under continued question about

how they would have as their leader, if indeed there is one leader, I

think it is clear that the leader of the end campaign will be the Prime

Minister. This is why there is that, what sounds like process but is

rather important, but this spat about the timing.

Let's see if Europe comes up. It is right our whole country should

stand together to remember the darkest hour of our country. Last

year, I said we would build a national memorial in London to show

the importance Britain places on sharing the memory of the Holocaust.

This will be built in Victoria Tower Gardens and will stand beside

Parliament as a permanent statement of our values and will be somewhere

for children to visit for generations to come. I am grateful

to all those who have made this possible. This morning I had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my

duties in this house I shall have further such meetings later today. I

echo the Prime Minister's sentiments regarding Holocaust Memorial Day. We

must never forget. The North Sea or an industry on which many people in

my constituency are dependent for their livelihoods is facing very

serious challenges at the current time. The government has taken steps

to address the situation, but more is required if the industry is to

survive and thrive. Will my right honourable friend assuming that he

recognises the seriousness of the situation and he will do all he can

to get the industry through these very difficult times? My honourable

friend is right to raise this, I recognise the seriousness of the

situation. The oil price decline is the longest in 20 years and this

causes difficulties for the North Sea and we can see the effects in

the east of England, in Scotland, particularly Aberdeen. I am

determined we build a bridge to the future for all those involved in the

North Sea. We will help the world-class sector export expertise.

We announced 1.3 billion of support last year and we are implementing a

review and I will be going to Aberdeen tomorrow where we will be

saying more about what we can do to help this vital industry at this

vital time. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the

opposition, could I welcome the remarks the Prime Minister has just

made about Holocaust Memorial Day. It is the 71st anniversary of the

liberation of Auschwitz and we have to remember the deepest, darkest

days of inhumanity that happened then and genocides that have

happened since and educate another generation to avoid those for all

time in the future. I thank the Prime Minister for what he said.

Independent experts have suggested that Google is paying an effective

tax rate on its UK profits of around 3%. Does the Prime Minister dispute

that figure? Let's be clear what we are talking about. We are talking

about tax that should have been collected under a Labour government,

raised by a collected under a Labour government,

I do dispute the figures he gives. It is quite rightly that this is

done independently by HMRC, but I am absolutely clear that no government

has done more than this one to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive

tax avoidance. No government, and certainly not the last Labour

government. Mr Speaker, my question actually was if the Prime Minister

thinks an effective tax rate of 3% is right or wrong? He did not answer

it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described this arrangement as a

major success, while the Prime Minister's official spokesperson

only called it a step forward. The Mayor of London described the

payment is quite derisory. What exactly is the government's position

on this 3% rate of taxation? We have put in place a diverted profits tax

which means this company and others will pay more tax in future. More

tax in future than they ever paid under Labour were the tax rate for

Google was 0%. That is what it means. Let me tell him what we have

done. We have changed the tax law so many times that we have raised an

extra 100 billion from business in the last parliament. When I came to

power banks did not pay tax on all their profits, allowed under Labour,

stopped under the Tories. Companies could cut their tax bill, allowed

under Labour, stopped under the Tories. Companies could figure

accounting rules, allowed under Labour and stopped under the Tories.

We have done more on tax evasion and tax avoidance and Labour ever did.

They are running to catch up, but they have not got a leg to stand on.

Mr Speaker, it was under a Labour government that the inquiry began

into Google and in addition as a percentage of GDP corporation tax

receipts are lower under this government than they were under

previous governments. I have got a question here, Mr Speaker, from a

gentleman called Jeff. You might well laugh, but Jeff actually speaks

for millions of people when he says to me... Can you ask the Prime

Minister is as a working man of over 30 years whether there is a scheme

that I can join that pays the same rate of tax as Google and other

large corporations? What does the Prime Minister say to Jeff? What I

say to Jeff is that his taxes are coming down under this government

and Google's taxes are going up under this government. Let me say

something, something he just said was factually inaccurate. He says

corporation tax receipts have gone down, they have gone up by 20% under

this government because we have got a strong economy with businesses

making money, employing people and paying taxes into the exchequer. If

like me he is genuinely angry about what happened to Google under

Labour, maybe he should start by calling Tony Blair. You can get him

and JP Morgan. Call Gordon Brown, you can get him at a Californian

bond dealer. Alistair Darling is at Morgan Stanley. There is other

people to blame for Google not paying their taxes. We are the ones

who got them to pay. The problem is, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister

is responsible for government and therefore is responsible for tax

collection. Mr Speaker, Google made profits of ?6 billion in the UK

between 2005 and 2015 and is paying 130 million pounds in tax for the

whole of that decade. Millions of people this week I'm filling in

their tax returns to get them in by the 31st. They have to send the form

back, they do not get the option of 25 meetings with 17 ministers to

decide what their rate of tax is. Many people going to their HMRC

offices or returning them online this week will say this, why is

there one rule for big multinational companies and another for ordinary,

small businesses and self-employed workers? All those people filling in

their tax returns will be paying lower taxes under this government. I

have to say, he can if he wants criticise HMRC, but their work is

investigated by the National Audit Office and when they did that

they've found the settlements they reached with companies are fair.

That is how it works. The Shadow Chancellor is pointing. The idea

that those two right honourable gentleman would stand up to anyone

in this regard is laughable. This week they met with the unions and

they gave them flying pickets. They met with the Argentinians and they

gave them the Falkland islands. They met with a bunch of migrants in

Calais and said they could come to Britain. They never stand up for the

hard-working British people and British taxpayers. Mr Speaker, we

have had no answers on Google, we have had no answers on Jeff, can I

raise with him another unfair tax policy that does it affect many

people in this country? This morning, the Court of Appeal ruled

that the bedroom tax is discriminatory because of its

impact... I do not know why members opposite find this funny because it

is not for those who have to pay it. The ruling is because of its impact

on vulnerable people, including victims of domestic violence and

disabled children. Will the Prime Minister now read the judgment and

finally abandon this cruel and unjust policy which has now been

ruled to be illegal? We always look very carefully at judgment on these

occasions, but our fundamental position is that it is unfair to

subsidise their rooms in the social sector if you do not subsidise them

in the private sector where people are paying housing benefit. That is

a basic issue of fairness. It is interesting that the first played he

makes is something that could cost as much as ?2.5 billion in the next

Parliament. Who will pay for that? Jeff will pay for it. People handing

in their tax returns will pay for it. Why is it he wants to see more

welfare, higher taxes, more borrowing, all the things that got

us into the mess in the first place? We have not had any answers on

Google or the bedroom tax. I ask the Prime Minister this, shortly before

coming into the chamber I became aware of the final report of the

United Nations panel of experts on Yemen which has been sent to the

government and it makes disturbing reading. It says, I quote, it has

documented that coalition forces have conducted air strikes,

targeting civilians and civilian objects in violation of

international humanitarian law, including cabs for internally

displaced persons, civilian residential areas, medical

facilities, schools and mosques. This is a disturbing report. Will

the Prime Minister launched immediately and inquiry and a full

review into the arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and suspend those

arms sales until that review has been concluded? We have the

strictest rules for arms exports of almost any country anywhere in the

world. We are not a member of the Saudi led coalition. We are not

involved in their operations, British personnel are not involved

in carrying out strikes. I will look at this report as I looked at all

other reports, but arms exports are carefully controlled and we are

backing the legitimate government of the Yemen not least because

terrorist attacks planned in the Yemen would have a direct effect on

people in our country. I refuse to run a foreign policy by press

release, which is what he wants, I want one in the interests of the

British people. The explosion of spurious legal

claims against British troops including those pursued by a law

firm who has contributed tens of thousands of pounds to the Shadow

Defence Secretary, undermine the ability of our Armed Forces to do

their job. Will the Prime Minister join me in repudiating the disdain

this shows that our brave service women and men? I absolutely agree

with my honourable friend. We hold our service personnel to the highest

standards, and that is right, but it is quite clear there is now an

industry trying to profit by spurious claims. I am determined to

do everything we can to close this bogus industry down and we should

start by making clear we will take action against any legal firm we

fight to abuse the system to pursue is fabricated claims. That is

absolutely not acceptable. May I begin by associating the Scottish

national party with the comments of the Prime Minister in reference to

the Holocaust Memorial Day, and I commend governments across the UK

for supporting the Holocaust commemoration trust. Does the prime

ministers agreed that there is no justification for discrimination or

and fairness towards women in the private sector, public sector or by

government? Let me welcome what the right honourable gentleman says

about the Holocaust educational trust. I remember as a new

constituency MP meeting them and seeing the work they were doing in

my constituency. They work hard around the clock. This day is

particularly important for them. I would urge colleagues who haven't

visited Auschwitz, it is something you will never forget, no matter

what you have read or films you have seen or books you have read, there

is nothing like seeing for yourself. In terms of wanting to end

discrimination against women in the public sector, private sector, and

in politics, absolutely. I welcome what the Prime Minister has to say

on both accounts. He is aware of the state pension inequality which is

impacting on many women and that this parliament voted unanimously

for the government to immediately introduce transitional arrangements

for those women negatively affected by pension equalisation. What is the

Prime Minister going to do to respect the decision of this

parliament and help those women who are affected, those born in the

1950s, who should have had proper notice to plan their finances and

retirement? First of all, the equalisation of the retirement age

came about on the basis of equality, which was a judgment by the European

court that we put in place in the 90s. When this government decided,

rightly in my view, to raise the retirement age, we made the decision

that nobody should suffer a greater than 18 month increase in their

retirement age, and that is the decision this else took. In terms of

ending discrimination in the system, I would say that the introduction of

the single tier pension, at ?165 a week, is one of the best ways we can

end discrimination because so many who are retiring will get much more

under this pension which, under this government, is triple lock

protected, so they will get inflation earnings or 2.5% and never

again a derisory increase. Our prisons could still beat centres of

radicalisation. We'll be Prime Minister look at all measures

including those from the all-party report on preventing young people,

troubled young people, from falling into the jaws of these dangerous,

screwed up, predatory extremists? It is very disturbing that, when people

are in our care, when the state is looking after them, that, on

occasion, they have been radicalised because of what they have erred in

prison, either from other prisoners or perhaps, on occasion, from

visiting imams. We need to sort the situation out. The Justice Secretary

has put in place a review. I will look carefully at her report. We

must look at making sure that prisoners and the radicalise rather

than made worse. Since the Chancellor took control of the

public purse, he has utterly failed to get the deficit under control,

and to date this year he has borrowed over ?74 billion to plug

the gap or, to use the vernacular that his party is bond, for a

hypothetical independent Scotland, a monumental black hole in his books.

Is he now likely to reach the target by the year of something in the

region of ?9 billion? Will the Prime Minister finally concede...

SHOUTING I don't wish to be an guide to the

honourable lady, but I think we have got the gist.

SHOUTING That was a polite way of saying that

the honourable lady had concluded. I would say that the Chancellor and

the economic strategy this government has pursued as cut the

deficit in half from the record level we inherited and soon it will

be down by two thirds. We are meeting what we want to see in terms

of debt falling as a share of GDP. What a contrast with a situation

which Scotland would be facing if Scotland had voted for independence

in just six weeks' time. We have actually seen a collapse of 94% of

oil revenues. Because we have the broad shoulders of the UK, that

collapsed in the oil price and the taxation won't affect people in

Scotland but, at Scotland dream independent, it would be a very dark

day indeed. -- had Scotland been independent. I recently helped a

mental health -- mental health forum where I broad service users and

commissioners together to explore how we could improve mental health

services. And I welcome the Prime Minister's Wiese and announcement on

increased funding for mental health services? -- recent announcement.

His commitments are a clear indication of our desire to have a

revolution in mental health services in Britain, and he has delivered

some commitments on that. I am grateful to what my honourable

friend says. There is further to go by this government is investing more

in mental health, we have introduced waiting times. Young people

suffering episodes of psychosis should be seen within two weeks.

There is funding, parity of esteem, waiting time, but there also needs

to be a bigger culture change, not just in the NHS but across the

public and private sectors so mental health commissions are given the

attention they deserve. From this April, a woman who works full-time

stands to lose thousands of pounds in tax credits if she becomes

pregnant with her first child. When will this prime ministers stop

attacking working people? Forwarding like that, we are making sure that

this year they can earn ?11,000 without paying any income tax. If

they are on low wages, the minimum wage, they get a 7% pay increase

because of the national living wage. For the first time, there will be 30

hours of free childcare for those people. That is what we are doing

for hard-working people. Do we need to look at reforming welfare? Yes,

we do. If the honourable gentleman read the report into why his party

lost the election, not the one that they published, the secret one that

we read over the weekend, it is by endlessly arguing for higher and

higher welfare the British public rightly concluded that, under

Labour, there would be higher taxes. I warmly welcome the Prime

Minister's words on creating a national memorial to the victims of

the Holocaust. Tonight in Harrow, representatives of the whole

community will come together to listen to be people who survived the

Holocaust, because that is the only way we can really preserve their

memory. My right honourable friend is rightly alluded to the wonderful

work of the Holocaust educational trust in allowing literally

thousands of young people to visit Auschwitz and see for themselves

first-hand. Will he commit the government to continue funding the

Holocaust educational trust so that many thousands more can see the

horrors of the Holocaust? I certainly can make that commitment.

We have funded it by over ?10 million since I became Prime

Minister. It does excellent work. I think there is a real need now, as

tragically the remaining Holocaust survivors are coming to the end of

their lives, many of them are now speaking up in the most moving and

powerful way. I will be sending some time today with some of them,

recording their test dummies, which must be part of our memorial --

testimonies, we must capture that for generations to come. In 2013,

the energy and climate change select committee recommended extending the

retention of business rates to include new build nuclear power

stations. The centre for nuclear excellence is in my constituency and

the new build is a vital for our economic prosperity. Given the

government cuts to Cumbrian councils, does the Prime Minister

agree that, if we are to truly build a northern powerhouse, our local

authorities must retain all from nuclear new-build? We are committed

to the new nuclear industry. We are obviously making good progress with

Hinkley Point but we need to see another big station go ahead. I will

look carefully at what she says about business rate retention and

business rates more broadly, but the most important thing is to have an

energy infrastructure that allows for the delivery of new nuclear

power stations. That is the position on this side of the house. A closed

question. This government is committed to regenerating coastal

towns and ensuring that everybody, regardless of where they live, as

access to high quality public services and the best opportunities.

On this question, Ian Paisley. I beg your pardon, Mr Vickers first. I

thank the Prime Minister for his reply and I recognised the

initiatives that the government has taken. He will know that many

coastal towns like Cleethorpes suffer from poor educational

standards. We have many high performing academies who are trying

to reverse that and to ensure that our young people have access to

sports, arts and culture at the highest level. The council are

currently preparing a report with the private sector. Will he commit

the government to work with the council to deliver regeneration to

Cleethorpes? Nobody could silence the voice of the number! I think my

honourable friend is right and I am happy to look at that proposal with

him. We have to make sure we tackle both failing schools and coastal

schools, and there are some in coastal areas. One of the issues is

making sure we get talented teachers and leaders into those schools, and

that is what the national leaders of education service is all about.

Wratten Island is the only inhabited coastal village town in my

constituency. No British Prime Minister has ever had the privilege

to visit. I hope that the Prime Minister will make a plan to visit,

which has considerable economic needs. I am the first British by

Minister to visit many parts of the country. The first to go to

Shetland! I fear that, if I were to visit, many people might like me to

stay there. But I will bear it in mind. Rugby is the fastest growing

town in the West Midlands with work underway to provide 6200 much-needed

new homes at the Rugby radio site, but my constituents are keen to

ensure that public services keep pace with developers and

particularly to seek more services at the local hospital. Does the

prime ministers agreed with the NHS chief executive that district

hospitals such as this play an excellent role in the NHS? I am a

believer in district general hospitals and I know what a strong

support of Saint Crossed he is. I know there is a dedicated outpatient

facility there. We are going to achieve these very aggressive

house-building targets that we put forward, there will be more houses

built in most our constituencies. As far as we can, we will try to

welcome that, that is important, and to make sure that the infrastructure

is provided. Not everybody is as satisfied as the Chancellor with

what, for Google, is loose change to cover their tax liabilities. On

Monday, the honourable member for ABBA valley called on the government

to make companies publish their tax returns. In that way, we can all see

how they make the journey from their tax profits to their tax bill. Does

the Prime Minister agree? I want to wonder whether the right honourable

lady whether raised this issue when she sat in the Labour cabinet, when

Google were paying no tax. What we have is a situation where we make

the rules in this house and where HMAC ether to enforce them. That is

the system that we need to make work. -- H MRC. As cancer survival

rates continue to improve, and given that this is cancer talk week, will

my right honourable friend join me in welcoming a new state cancer

information centre due to enter at Royal Bolton hospital, and praise

the commitment of Midland cancer care, Bolton hospice, and the local

cancer commissioning group, who are all making this happening is to mark

--? Everybody in this house knows a family member who has been touched

by cancer. The good news is that cancer survival rates are improving.

We need to make sure they improve across all cancers, not just the

best-known ones. What he says is that this is not just an issue for

the NHS but all of those because IT bodies which also want to campaign

and act on helping cancer sufferers. --. In 2014I wrote to the Prime

Minister asking him to join the Scottish Government and Highland

Council in taking forward a city deal for Inverness. Highland Council

have submitted a detailed plan on the region for young people. Will be

Prime Minister committed to giving this the green light in the coming

weeks? We are committed to examining the city deal with Inverness, as we

have made good progress with Aberdeen. I think these bring

together the best of what the Scottish Government can put on the

table but also the best of what the UK Government can put on the table

because, without wanting to be too political, the two governments

working together can do even more. Could I thank the Prime Minister for

meeting the deposed mould even Prime Minister -- president on Saturday?

Will he work towards an international consensus on targeted

sanctions so that the regime of the Maldives may reconsider their

appalling human rights record and their record on democracy? It was an

honour to meet with the former president, who I think did an

excellent job for his country in cutting out corruption and turning

that country around. He suffered terribly by being in prison and it

is good that he is able to get out to seek medical treatment, but we

want to see a change in behaviour from the government of the Maldives,

to make sure political prisoners are set free, and we are prepared to

consider targeted action against individuals if progress isn't made.

Let's hope that diplomatic efforts will lead to the changes we want to

see, but Britain, and our allies, including Sri Lanka and India,

watching situation carefully. 46% of five-year-old children in Bradford

suffer from dental decay compared with 28% across England, and less

than half the children living in Bradford district has seen a dentist

in the last two years. Given the cost of treating toothpick care --

tooth decay, they exceed the cost of prevention, would the Prime Minister

look at dental provision in the area? If you take a view across the

country, before 2010, we had huge queues around the block when a new

NHS dentist turned up was there were not enough. They may not and shake

their heads, but that is what happened. Some of us can remember.

We have seen a big increase in NHS dentistry, but I will look carefully

at the situation in Bradford. As my right honourable friend knows, a

task force is set to deliver its report on a resilient railway to

Devon and Cornwall. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet with me

and a number of colleagues to make sure that Network Rail and the task

force is enough for two studies, the electrification of the line and the

reduction in journey time is necessary to do this? I had an

excellent meeting with the south coast -- south-west peninsula task

force and I will make sure that I continue to liaise closely with

them. We need to find an answer and we need to find the funding. We

can't have happen what happened in the past, where a problem on our

Railways led to the peninsula being cut off. Would be Prime Minister

join me in congratulating my constituents, Dominic and Rebecca

from Mitcham, on the birth of their daughter, Alice. Like every parents,

they want their daughter to have better opportunities than they had

but, with average London house prices increasing by ?40,000 in 2013

alone, and the average house in London being now worth over half ?1

million, does he understand their fears and Alice will never have the

chance they had to buy her own home in the area she was born in? I want

to help Alice and many like her get on the housing ladder, which is why

we are introducing shared ownership, which brings housing in reach of

many more people. It is why we have helped by London, which is twice as

generous as the rest of the country. It is why we selling off the most

expensive council houses and rebuilding more affordable homes. --

help to buy London. These are all under the guidance and drive of Zac

Goldsmith, who will make an excellent...

SHOUTING That is the best chance of a home,

to have a Conservative mayor and a Conservative government working hand

in glove. Someone experiencing a mental health crisis who goes in

desperation to A needs prompt specialist help. Can I welcome my

right honourable friend's recognition of psychiatric liaison?

Does he agree that 20 47 psychiatric liaison in A is an important step

towards self-esteem? We are seeing more mental health and psychiatric

liaison in our A We need overtime to see it in all. So often

people are arriving not in the right setting, where they should be

looking after. Whether it is getting people with mental health conditions

out of police cells or making sure they are treated properly in prison

or, crucially, when they arrived in A, make sure they get this

treatment is very much part of our plan. I commend the Prime Minister

for his remarks about Holocaust Memorial Day. In honouring the

memory of those murdered by the Nazis, we provide the best candidate

to extremism and anti-Semitism anti-Semitism in our age. The

biggest challenge Europe today is the predicted 3 million refugees who

will flood into Europe. Does he agree that the only way to challenge

a crisis of that magnitude is by starting working with our European

colleagues at the heart of a united Europe? Would you take this

opportunity to welcome in and provide a home for the 3000

unaccompanied children, as recommended by save the children?

Where I agree with the right honourable gentleman is the

importance of taking action to help with this crisis. No country in

Europe has been more generous than Britain in funding refugees, whether

they are in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan. Where I don't agree with

the right honourable gentleman is thinking that the right answer is

for Britain to opt into the EU relocation and resettlement schemes.

Let me tell him as for why. We said we will resettle 20,000 people in

our country. We promised 1000 by Christmas. Because of the hard work

of the honourable member for Watford, we achieved that. If you

add up all that Europe has done under its relocation scheme and its

recent resettlement scheme, they have done less than we have done in

the UK. Yes, we should take part in European schemes when it is in our

interests, helped to secure the external European border, but we are

out of the Schengen agreement, we keep our own borders and, under this

government, that is how it will stay.

The Prime Minister referred to those in the calorie count as a bunch of

migrants. We welcome back to that in a minute. As expected, the Leader of

the Opposition went on the tax settlement. It will make the news

tomorrow as well. Jeremy Corbyn raising the question of whether the

HMRC has really raised as much as it could have done over a tax

settlement that goes back to 2005 with a company that generates

billions of pounds every year. The Prime Minister retorted it had not

paid any tax under Labour and I guess the general line of the

government is 130 million is better than nothing. It went back and

forward a bit like that. Let's hear from our experts and a minute.

First, let's hear how you reacted. The tax settlement angered many of

our viewers. Thomas said, can I pay 3% tax on my earnings? Somebody

said, love it, ten minutes in and Cameron is losing his rag. Someone

says, I would like to pay the same rate as Google.

Michael says labour and Jeremy Corbyn are returning to the spiked

agenda. The Prime Minister handled this attack with ease. John Glenn

says, it is becoming pitiable. I feel sorry for Jeremy Corbyn, camera

and savages him every week and makes him look ill suited to the role.

Somebody says, you cannot equate Google in 2009 and Google today,

that shows how bad he is at fairness. And the Prime Minister's

use of the phrase a bunch of migrants. Chuka Umunna says it is

inflammatory and unbecoming of his office. Diane Ah but said it was

callous. Was that appropriate language? We often have debate about

the language used by Prime Minister and other prominent politicians,

particularly in the cauldron of the House of commons with a lot of

pressure and hundreds of MPs baying at you. It is an excuse for not

debating the real issue. Should we allow people count in Calais to come

to this country? The Prime Minister is getting it right in terms of

immigration policy. He is helping people in the camps in Syria. We

have got a huge overseas aid budget. But was it regrettable language? We

always talk about language, people have their views and the Prime

Minister said he did not agree with Jeremy Corbyn that the people camped

in Calais should come to this country and be given a free pass.

Does that include unaccompanied children? There was talk that

government may agree to unaccompanied children coming in? I

have seen that talked and I gather it is being considered. I do not

know if there was a conclusion reached. There are a range of issues

you have to take into account, the law of unintended consequences, but

the government will look at this issue. I can see in some way where

the Google story goes because Apple, Amazon, Facebook are in the line for

the same sort of treatment and I guess HMRC will come under pressure

to be tougher with those that are still outstanding. But given HMRC is

bound not to release the details of how it has calculated the 130

million, I am not sure where this story goes next. In terms of new

events and consequences of all the political anger, it is not clear

either. But a spikier Jeremy Corbyn today succeeded in keeping this

going, it will go for another 24 hours. It winds up members of the

public, there is no question about that. At the same time David Cameron

was very well prepped for that attack. It was inevitable he would

go on that. Reading out the list of the senior members of the former

Labour government now working for financial firms was designed to

embarrass Jeremy Corbyn. The attack was Labour did not do anything about

this either. But it is the kind of issue where Labour think they can

make some ground by keeping the issue going and saying they are on

the side of the ordinary person saying, this is not fair. The

government needs all the money it can get. There was an implication

the government was too close to Google and there was a lot of

personal contact. But it may be a bit of a stretch to think that the

closeness has resulted in a lower tax bill. Indeed. Jeremy Corbyn was

almost suggesting there talking about contacts between the firms

that there was some kind of interference. I agree, that is a bit

of a stretch. It would be a great story if it was true. Yes, it would,

but when you look at the lifestyle of the story, it is a mistake for

George Osborne to claim it was a victory. He put himself in the story

and ask for the credit and it turns out not to have been such a triumph

after all in the public mind and he is left with a difficult position,

it is difficult politically to claim credit for something and when it

does not turn out to be such a try and say it is nothing to do with me.

Did Number Ten distance themselves? After the coverage at the weekend

they were not going to go on the record and say it was a marvellous

success. As ever, these things are sometimes overdone. If George

Osborne had not tweeted it, it would not have been politicised in the

same way? They would have been a bit of a rumpus, but not in the same

way. Yvette Cooper has raised as a point of order the Prime Minister's

remark, a bunch of migrants. I thought it was surprising he used

it. I thought he was in full flow and probably a bit angry and

sometimes you say things you do not need to. Having just announced the

Holocaust memorial to then say a bunch of migrants, he will be

particularly jarred. I was also surprised by Jeremy Corbyn not

taking a segue to react to that, given he had been in the camps and

have called for unaccompanied children to come here and for

Britain to be more generous. Did he miss an opportunity? I was shocked

when I heard the Prime Minister say it, it was offensive, hurtful,

divisive. It is not the first time we have heard David Cameron slip up

in this way. I appreciate what you say about the heat of the moment,

but this kind of language when you are a Prime Minister is so important

to get it right. Jeremy Corbyn is also under pressure in the heat of

the moment. But I think we were all really taken aback and silenced.

Except Jeremy Corbyn had been there and he had seen these people in the

camps. The Prime Minister has not been there. There is the question

about whether we should not be more generous about our treatment of

unaccompanied children, some of whom were in that camp. I think we should

be speaking out really clearly from a moral position about our

obligations towards those very vulnerable children at every

opportunity. What Jeremy saw in the camps will have brought home to him

about the horror of what those children are going through. We

should be looking for opportunities across all parties to use the right

language and to develop policies to bring these children here as quickly

as possible. The run-up to the referendum, even the negotiation and

up to the February summit and beyond, the backdrop of developing

events in Europe could be horrendous and particularly horrendous for

those who want this country to stay in Europe.

There is no question this is in minister 's mind. That is part of

the reason they are trying to get this deal done in February, partly

because the expectation is that, in coming months and through the

summer, the huge volumes of people and the distress that we see night

after night on our television screens is not going to get better,

and it may get worse. Politically, the situation is so much more acute

now, now that we also see the kind of chaos and suffering in European

capitals. This is no longer what we see, a question about people

moving... In the Balkans. Indeed, places the British voters are

familiar with, places they might have been on holiday. That might

sound crass, but this is part of the population that ministers are aware

of, the broader canvas of what is going on in the world when we choose

whether to stay or leave the EU, in a lot of people's minds, that will

be more significant than the campaigns themselves.

Now, how old should you be before you're allowed to stick an X

on a ballot paper and stick it in a box?

Well, like the UK most people around the world are allowed to vote

Some buck the trend and opt for 21, like Cameroon for example.

Others, like Austria, have recently lowered

Some people want to do the same here, but should we in fact be

Here's political journalist Samual Hooper with

Going to university used to signify growing up,

leaving the family nest and taking your first steps

as an adult but, for a growing number of today's students,

Many of today's students want to turn university campuses

and students' unions into safe spaces, where

dissenting and controversial ideas are banned and free speech

is suspended for their mental safety.

MUSIC: Teenage Kicks by The Undertones.

Student activists have taken to banning

clapping in meetings, claiming that it triggers anxiety,

and some are now even demanding the airbrushing

or rewriting of history to remove any reference to controversial

figures from the past, like Cecil Rhodes.

Students here in the Oxford union voted last week to remove his statue

If students want to be treated like emotionally fragile children,

do they not forfeit the right to have a

We don't let children drink, smoke or drive.

Ironically, there is currently a push to lower the voting age

in the UK, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to take

But, since this generation of students feel harmed

by hearing dissenting opinions or the mere act of public debate,

rather than talking about lowering the voting age, shouldn't we be

I am assured that you are over the age of 25, at least. What age would

you raise the voting age to? It is an interesting question, and I am

not the only one who has brought this up. After a number of

high-profile incidents on American the respected American law professor

and blogger Glenn Reynolds suggested raising the age to 25, which was

after we saw Yale students go berserk over a flash in the pan

drama over Halloween costumes. We saw the university of Missouri drum

the team out of his job and then he insisted -- they apologise that he

go and apologise for male privilege. Does that justify a campaign to

raise the voting age? If you look at the background of these demands for

trigger warnings and safe spaces, students saying that they feel

emotionally fragile, they are encountering an opinion which goes

against their views, akin to being physically punched in the face. They

take it as if they are incurring emotional harm. I am saying, if you

believe you are incurring emotional harm, maybe wait a few years before

you enter the rough world of politics. It is heavy punishment on

all young people of 18-25, denying them the right to vote because of a

handful of student unions behaving liberally. I watched some of the

youth Parliament earlier, and you saw some of the brightest 16 and

17-year-olds you will ever see. Something seems to happen when you

hit the age of 18. I don't know why, something goes crazy and... We say

it is only a few students, but we take our view from America and this

problem is getting a lot bigger in the US. People's careers are being

ended, people's curriculum is limited. You were there inside the

Oxford union. They make a point of inviting controversial speakers, and

they have done over the decades, from Nick Griffin, Marine Le Pen, OJ

Simpson, which I suggest is encouraging free debate. Let's put

the point Ed Vaizey, who was laughing, about what happens when

you turn 18. Do you think people are responsible enough at age 18? The

thesis seemed to be developing that, given your experience of the youth

Parliament, you could have the vote for 16-18 and then lose it and get

it back at 25! I think people are responsible at 18. Kate and I go to

our secondary schools and talk to 16 -- sixth formers. They are extremely

articulate. I wouldn't go to 16, but I totally understand people who

campaign for it. I don't think it is a ridiculous suggestion. I am happy

with the status quo. I think 18 is right. But you meet a lot of

articular and intelligent people younger than that, just as you meet

people who are older who are not. There have been these examples of a

liberal activity, depriving students of free speech, trying to stop

Germaine Greer, for example, coming to Cardiff university because of her

views on transgender people, and the debate over the Cecil Rhodes statue.

Is this an indication that there is a lack of maturity among students,

that they are trying to clamp down on free speech? I don't think it is

a new thing. There have always been controversies in universities over

who will be invited and given a platform, and that is part of

exploring boundaries and debating issues. We shouldn't forget that the

government is effectively clamping down on free speech in in

universities with some of its counter extremism proposals. I don't

think it is age related. It is a matter of getting the balance right.

Now, how do you like to spend your annual leave?

Are you like our Kate here, who enjoys sipping sangria

Or are you, like our Ed, more of an opera in Tuscany sort

Or would you rather spend your holidays somewhere

# Get your passport and your bikini You need a holiday, come see me

# I know you're tired of the same old scenery

# And I could change all that so easily

# Go wild, do your thing, yo, take a chance

# I'll take you to the South of France, like Cannes

And they should have never, ever, ever been in the country.

# There's just a few days in the year

# Plus I've got car So let's ride that...#

And that means saying no to Donald Trump.

Thank you everybody, thank you.

# If you ain't doing nothing let's fly away

# If you ain't doing nothing let's fly away

# We can go to the club or hide away

# We can do what you want to, baby...#

Well, one travel company has raised eyebrows by offering a ?2,370

package holiday to the European Parliament ahead

And as you saw, there are separate trips on offer to North Korea,

Israel and Palestine, Iran and the US in November

The travellers will spend their time not relaxing

on the beach, but instead having meetings with politicians

Nicholas Wood, the Director of Political Tours, joins me now.

Exactly why would I pay ?2500 to hang out in Brussels? Good question.

One could ask why people watch this programme. The same kind of people

come on our tours. Is it that bad? It is! Did this programme give you

the idea? I used to be a journalist and I had family who would come and

visit me in the Balkans. They found it fascinating. What would an

average night out in Brussels be on this trip? It is five days long...

Five days! You could go to Thailand for that! Some people enjoy opera

and beaches and other people like learning how the world ticks. It is

almost like having your own personal correspondent. You can go and get

access to P2 sacred places you might not be able to normally. -- access

to places. Andrew wants to go. Put his name down.

JoCo wants to go to North Korea. Could you arrange that? I got you a

present from Cuba. Where is mine? We can be bought. How much would you

pay not to see a European Parliament debate? How many people go on these

trips? Detours are quite small. You can't take a bus load of people...

Basically, you are trying to replicate what journalists do. We

take small groups between six and ten people and you get access to

people involved actively in politics. You have senior

correspondents working with you. It really brings the news to life. It

is like a seminar on tour. It is called Political Tours, the clue is

in the name. There are other package tours available. Monte Cristo, Romeo

and Juliet. The answer to Guess The Year was 2009. Could one of you

press the button? That was done tentatively. Carol and Gregory in

Reading, well done. -- Caroline Gregory. You have won a political

tour to North Korea as well as a mug. The one o'clock news is

starting on BBC One. I will be here tomorrow with all the usual

political stories of the day. Bye-bye.