22/06/2011 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, this is the Daily Politics.

It's one year since Boy George unveiled his emergency budget.

We'll be looking at how "austerity Britain" is shaping up. The

Chancellor is spending more than his predecessor and he's racked up

a record deficit for the first two months of the new financial year.

You'd better shape up cos you need a loan. Greek jokes aside, things

are looking serious in the eurozone. We'll have the latest.

Order, order, in the House of Lords! The Upper House is looking

for a new speaker. If you want the job, you propbably need to be posh

and you have until tomorrow to apply. -- probably.

And just how sexist is the beautiful game? We'll be talking to

one MP who's not happy with the FA. Maturity and common sense go hand

in hand in the adult game, and me playing for the parliamentary

football team, or any other lady playing in a park match, should not

be caught up in rules designed to Yes, all that and more coming up in

the next 90 minutes of cartoon capers. And with us for the

duration, Westminster's answer to Statler and Waldorf. They're a

couple of Muppets, you know! The former Conservative Leader, Michael

Howard - he's now a Lord. And the former Chancellor, Alistair Darling.

He's still a humble MP. Welcome to you both. Now first this morning,

we're not one to labour a point, but we know a U-turn when we see

one. And yesterday, despite bluff to the contrary, the Government

announced yet another U-turn, this time over sentencing policy. We

covered it on the programme yesterday. This is what the Justice

Secretary, Ken Clarke, had to say I have done many U-turns in my time

and they should be done with purpose and panache when you have

to do them. I actually don't think this is a U-turn at all. I don't.

Let me explain. The opposition front bench has taken some sort of

tickling powder! I have been listening with bated breath for the

best part of 20 years to the Secretary of State. Michael Howard,

did you feel a tiny bit sorry for him? Well, I don't think... He

doesn't need... Good question! doesn't need people to feel sorry

for him, that would be the last thing he wanted. I welcome the

changes, I think they are good for the victims and potential victims,

and good for the integrity of the criminal justice system. Do we

resigned ourselves to having jails that are stuffed to come as a day?

It doesn't. A -- stuffed to capacity. When I said prison works,

we build more prisons and build more capacity. One of the problems

now is that although Labour talked tough on crime and the prison

population continued to increase, the capacity was not increased.

There seems to be a game going on between the two camps, tougher and

tougher, who is the winner at the moment? Crime did fall by the time

we left office so that was good. Prison is part of that. I think

what matters is what works and Ken Clarke did come up with some

interesting ideas when he first announced this policy. If we can

stop people going to prison in the first place, there is a lot of

evidence that once people start going to prison, they will go back

again and again and again. This isn't about -- this is an about

turn. David Cameron said yesterday it was a U-turn. What is more

interesting in some ways, certainly as we are about to discuss the

economy, if I was in the Treasury at the moment, I would say that is

�100 million gone. If you add that to what has happened on the NHS,

where there has been a spectacular U-turn and we have a dog's

breakfast of an administration, or the Forestry sell-off, the Treasury

must be worried that the savings they were promised a few months ago

will be increasingly difficult to get. I get the sense that you feel

it was a missed opportunity, you were quite sympathetic to the

points of view put forward by Ken Clarke, am I right? Back in the

days when I used to practise law, when you were in the High Court and

someone was found guilty and the convictions were read out, you

would cost -- often find this person would start defending in

their teens, they were sent to young offenders' institution...

you bring yourself to say Ken Clarke was right? No, he made a

mess of what he was doing in the sense of the way he presented the

policy. Substance was fine, presentation was clumsy? If people

have offended, if they have done something wrong, they need to go to

prison and we need to be tough. There was tough on crime, and also

tough on the causes of crime, and trying to divert people out of that

prison system makes sense. On the issue of savings, he still has to

come up with a substantial saving. Where will he get it from? I think

there are things that can be looked at. He is making some changes to

the legal-aid system. I think there are certain areas where it would be

possible to save more money on legal aid. The practice of giving

legal aid for criminal proceedings in Scotland is a bit more stringent

than that which exists in England and there are different

interpretations... Will that balance the figure? It would help.

There would be other efficiency savings that could be produced. I

am not sitting with the Justice Department's budget. You know the

terrain very well. �100 million is a lot of money. We will leave it

there. Now, this time last year, the

Chancellor, George Osborne, was dusting down his red box and

preparing to deliver his emergency Budget. The economy one year on is

the topic of the opposition day debate in the Commons this

afternoon. So how is Boy George's austerity plan shaping up? Over to

you, Anita. Exactly one year ago today, George

Osborne delivered the coalition government's emergency Budget. He

warned that it was happening at a moment when "fear about the

sustainability of sovereign debt was the greatest risk" to economic

recovery. He needed to be "tough" to get the deficit under control.

But how strong has he really been? At the time of the emergency Budget,

the forecast for public sector borrowing in 2010-11 was �149

billion. And the outcome - �143 billion. So on that score the

economy looks on track. But what about public borrowing this year? A

year ago, the forecast was �116 billion. That was subsequently

increased to �122 billion. And with figures for two months of the

financial year in so far, it's by no means clear that even the higher

figure will be right. Net borrowing in April and May last year was

�25.9 billion. And in the same months this year, �27.4 billion. So

borrowing is actually higher so far this year than last year. And in

the medium term, getting the deficit down requires economic

growth. The emergency Budget forecast growth in 2011 of 2.3%.

The forecast now, 1.7%, according the Office for Budget

Responsibility. And even lower according to some independent

forecasters. The Chancellor says he has no Plan B, but is his Plan A

Thank you. We have got a former Chancellor and the former Shadow

Chancellor with us. Let me start with Michael Howard. Spending is

still rising, the deficit is increasing and the national debt is

soaring, what is going right? Everyone agrees the cuts have yet

to be put into effect and yet to make an impact. I don't think you

can make judgments on a month-by- month basis. This is a five-year

project and I think you only have to look at the way in which the

markets are treating British credibility to see that it is on

track. How borrowing rate is 0.25% above Germany's. In terms of

credibility in the markets it is working. We have had very good

employment figures, half a million extra jobs created in the last year.

There is much to be pleased about, but we had the most awful

inheritance, as you know, and I think it was necessary to take the

action which the Government is taking to deal with that. He has

been chancellor for 12 months and every month during that 12 months

he has spent more than the preceding year and are Gordon Brown

and Alistair Darling. Be Kizzy it takes time for the measures to be

put into effect. -- because it takes time. Many require

legislation. You can't expect but I ducked the pain is still to come?

In many respects a package right. It is interesting, isn't it, that

what the opposition are saying is borrow more. It will be interesting

to see whether Alastair agrees with Ed Balls's latest proposition,

which is that the VAT increase should be reversed. Are you taking

away my gunpowder? Teeing it up for me. I want to come to that in a

minute. If, as we know from the figures, I have them here, as I

said to Michael Howard, spending is still rising, up 5%, the deficit is

still increasing and the national debt is going through the roof, the

Ed Balls criticisms that the economy slowed because we are

cutting too fast too soon isn't borne out by the figures. I think

there is something bigger at play. Ever since the new government was

elected from last May, they have been saying that there will be

substantial cuts and it is probably the fear of what is about to happen

that is depressing economic activity. Why? If you are a

businessman, would you think about taking on more people at the

moment? You probably wouldn't because you would say everybody is

telling me how bad it is going to be, there will be less spending

power in the economy. A lot of commentators have made the point

that you can actually talk down activity. Michael is right, when

people say one or two commentators uttering the review of what has

happened over the last 12 months and they are saying it has not been

so bad. A lot of the actual cuts were only supposed to come in from

this April and they will gradually build up. I do agree with Michael,

and if the figures had been the other way I would make this point,

you have to watch month-by-month figures. But there is now a growing

consensus that growth will be less than George Osborne said 12 months

ago, the IMF has said if this carries on, a Plan B will have to

be looked at. If you get low growth, you will get higher borrowing and

higher debt and that is now a real possibility. But this year, 2011-

2012, George Osborne plans to cut public spending by the 0.6%. How

much less... How much less would you have cut it by? As I have said

you, it is a matter of judgement as to how fast you bring down the

deficit. 0.6% is not fast. Expressing it percentage terms it

might not seem that way. Let's go back ticking clock's problem. He

has to find another �100 million. He will not find it through getting

people out of prisons. A government and it spends on pensions, public

services, defence and so on. As anyone who has ever run a

department will tell you, �100 million... The big problem is the

Government's strategy from the start was to eliminate the

structural deficit during the course of this Parliament. The risk

is if you go too fast -- too far too fast, you suppress growth and

it becomes more difficult to get your borrowing ground -- down.

you agree with Ed Balls that VAT should be cut temporarily back to

17.5%? What he is doing is simply giving an example of the sort of

thing the IMF was talking about. He is talking about tax breaks for

people as well as perhaps more quantitative easing if that is

necessary. He is not alone in that. Does he have your support been

saying VAT should be cut? He has my complete support in saying that

George Osborne's approach runs the risk of derailing the recovery.

Come on, you're just an MP now, you are not in government. An honest

answer would be appreciated. Do you agree with Ed Balls that VAT should

be cut to 17.5%? It is a matter of judgement as to what you actually

do. I will not second-guess everything Ed Balls does. I am not

asking you to second guess, I am asking whether you agree or

disagree. I am surprised by your reluctance, it is a simple question.

I agree with his analysis that if you take too much money out of the

economy, you run the risk of developing the economy. That has

always been my position. He is not alone in that, other commentators

are making the same point. You seem reluctant to support Ed Balls on

this full up I am not. Then support him! I do support him... He he will

not saying you support his specific plan to cut VAT to 17 were 5%.

is a matter of judgement as to what you do to support the economy. I

support the critique he has mounted in relation to that and I will not

second-guess the individual judgments. It sounds like a no.

It sounds like that to me, but viewers will make up their minds.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded the

growth forecasts for this year and next year. One of the main reasons

why it is the incredible squeeze on living standards at the moment. The

poorer you are, the tighter the squeeze. There is a danger that

this is a vicious circle and you won't get the growth that you need.

You have to take tough action to deal with the problems we inherited.

No doubt you are going to ask about Greece later on in the programme.

Greece is an abject lesson in what happens if the Government spends

more than it can afford. You then have a horrible consequences, which

we can see. Back in 2005, in the 2005 general election, I warned

that the Labour Government was spending too much. More than the

country could afford. I spelled out exactly what cuts in spending

should take place. I want to move on. You mentioned Greece, so let's

move to my favourite musical. won't start singing. As you have

been hearing, whatever the trials and tribulations have been it for

the UK economy, spare a thought for Greece. Last night, George

Papandreou won a confidence vote in the Parliament. The struggle has

started. He is seeking to push through further unpopular austerity

measures to avoid defaulting on a country's debts. As MPs cast their

votes, thousands of protesters gathered to show their disquiet,

putting it mildly. Tim Willcox is in Athens. He survived that touch

and go vote. That does not guarantee that he will be able to

pass the austerity measures. are right. Most commentators

thought that he would pass the confidence vote last night and in

the end he did with the majority of 12. Far more difficult for him and

a far more difficult thing politically is to push through the

latest austerity package next week. 28 billion euros worth of austerity

measures, involving the selling-off of state assets, utilities like

electricity and water and this caught behind me. -- Court. There

will be more job losses and higher taxes as well. The protesters were

accepting that the vote would go his way, but they are adamant that

they don't want to sue the state crown jewels being sold off to the

highest bidder just to pay the interest on the debts that they

blame the eurozone for. normally see protests, and

sometimes they are a vocal minority, but does this represent the mood in

Greece at the moment? Not entirely. Having been here just a couple of

days it is interesting. A lot of private sector workers have taken a

lot of pain in the last couple of years. They have been told their

salary will be hard, take it or leave it. Many people have suffered

a lot. They have looked at the public sector workers and thought

they have a cushy number, and that there are too many people doing not

quite enough for the country. There is a divide between public sector

and private sector workers here. Last night it was interesting. It

was not the fat cats of the public sector losing their cushy jobs,

paid well with good pensions. There were more middle-class people there,

very worried about what the austerity package would mean for

them. A real cross-section of people last night. No real violence,

none of the anarchy that we have seen in recent weeks. The police to

disperse them with tear gas. I think that George Papandreou will

have a tough job on his hands to get this through. I have been

speaking to the Finance Minister who took Greece into the euro in

2001. He said he had no regrets about doing that. He said it was

like giving a family first class tickets and I asked if they could

afford it and he said they did have bought it for a while with great

growth. He said that the bail out package from the IMF and the ECB

was too much pitched towards austerity and not growth. That is

why he thought the latest austerity package would be good for growth.

Thank you very much. Very clear. While Anita was on the line to

Athens, the Associated Press have reported that the German Chancellor,

of course they will be the ones putting up the money if there is

another bail out, Angela Merkel is warning that full-scale

restructuring of Greek debt would have an controllable consequences

on the financial markets. -- uncontrollable. Berlin are still

holding out. We are joined by MEP, Daniel Hannan. We also have our

guests of the day. Regardless of what the Chancellor is saying, is

there not a widespread expectation that at the end of the day, after a

second bail out, or a third, that Greece will default? An almost

universal expectation. The only people that deny it, or pretend to

deny it, of the eurozone finance ministers. Unbelievably they are on

the verge of committing another 80 billion on top of the 110 billion

euros committed 13 months ago, which we were told was a one-off to

get Greece through the liquidity crisis. Those bail out have not

been useless, they have been actively harmful. The result is

Greece now owes more money. The debt has been spread from a small

number of bankers to the taxpayer is in general. The more we defer

this problem, the worse the reckoning when it comes. Greece got

a massive bail out last year, 110 billion euros. Since then, the

price of Greek debt has been through the roof. Greece still

cannot borrow. The only people lending to the Greeks of the

European Central Bank and the IMF. The price that they had to pay,

cutting the size of the state, not once there was servant has lost a

job. The privatisation programme, nothing has been privatised. Is it

time to get real and realise we have to bite the bullet? There are

two things here. Firstly, Greece has to make fundamental structural

changes to the economy. The balance between public and private sector,

competition and so on. It is not as simple as saying, OK, let's cast

them adrift. Let the eurozone put them out. I was not saying that. I

was simply saying they would have to default on the debt. As things

are going at the moment, at the likelihood of practical default, in

terms of running things over and extending the repayment, that looks

inevitable. That is why I think it would be far better... Firstly,

Greece have to play their part, but the eurozone in particular has to

realise that if you have a single currency, it comes with

consequences. The stronger people have to help restructure the weaker.

That has appeared in the United States. Yes, but that is one

country. That is right. But we have the fix that was adopted when the

euro was put in place. We just about got away with it in the good

times, but in bad times it is coming unstuck. That is why I have

argued in my article in the Times that the eurozone has to accept

that if you want a single currency to last, then you have to do

something and play an active part in making the necessary changes in

Greece, but not just in Greece, other countries, too. Michael

Howard in his article in the Times this morning, at he asked the

question of whether the eurozone could survive in its current form.

He did not quite answer that but he did raise the question. What is

your opinion? When you consider the future of the eurozone, you have to

take into account the extent to which there is an almost, and

perhaps you can delete the world almost, irrational commitment on

the part of political leaders, not on the part of the people living in

the eurozone, but on the part of many of their political leaders, to

keep the eurozone in being as it is, regardless of the consequences.

They see it as an absolute touchstone of their European dream.

I fear that their countries, their populations, will play a very heavy

price for this. It is the sort of thing that Daniel and I warned

about all those years ago, when we were opposing our entry into the

euro. One thing I want to say about what Alastair has said, he alighted

at the beginning of his response to you. First of all he said EU, then

he said the eurozone has to play its part. The eurozone certainly

has to but the EU does not. In my article I make it clear this is

about the eurozone. I have read it. 12.5 billion and all of the bail

out, the European stabilisation mechanisms, which is twice as much

as we saved in awe of the cuts. That is true, and also because of

our IMF commitment, and as I say in the article, it is in our interests

to have a stable euro. It is in our interests that European Union gets

through this crisis. It might have been better if we turned the clock

back 11 years, if there had been a smaller core of eurozone countries.

Then they could have got into a state that others might have wanted

to join. That did not happen. The problem now is that we have got

Greece on the edge of default, with huge exposures to French and German

banks, and other banks in Europe as well. The idea that if Greek --

Greece does default, but it will be confined to Greece, and not

spreading into Ireland and Portugal, that is like allowing human beings

to go bust and hoping for the best. We have drawn that analogy. Let me

ask you, Daniel, a lot of people is said that the single currency could

not work unless there were fiscal transfers. So a single fiscal

policy as well. Some people are now arguing for that. Does that put

Europe at a severe Crossroads? puts it at odds with its own

population, as Michael said. Rather than saying it has not been

successful for European integration increase, instead they are saying

it is successful and let's have more. We need fiscal union,

economic union. It would be nice to hear some acknowledgement from all

of the people in Britain that 10 years ago wanted to take us into

the euro, which would have put us into this precise as if not worse,

I have yet to hear it from Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, any

of the people that sat there telling us we would be finished if

we did not join. Free advice but don't hold your breath. Are you all

Euro-sceptics? I am not in that camp. You were prow not to take us

into the euro. -- proud not to take us into the euro. Yes, but I am not

in favour of joining it. Have you ever been? No. You were in the

Treasury when Gordon Brown said that everybody was in favour.

have to go to PMQs and we will talk about it during that. It is time

for the Guess The Year quiz. Worryingly, we have some

competition. President Obama is getting in on the act. Look at this

mug. That should put all of those Birthright doubts to rest. In case

it does not, look at the back. That is his birth certificate. What sort

of mug would not believe that? You don't want to waste your time

spending $20 on one of those. What you want is one of these. I am

afraid that my Paisley birth certificate is not on the back, and

neither is Anita's London one. We were both born in Inner Mongolia

and we will not tell you about it. And we don't want to tell you how

old we are! First, can you tell us # The time has come for me to hang

my head in shame. Their ashes have been piled up in

the amounts of Auschwitz and the fields. Their blood Christ to

heaven. But their voice cannot be # Just running scared.

# Age place we go. ICN by parachute, the rebels have struck along the

coast within Havana. -- by C and by OK, to be in with any chance of

winning the mug, please send your answers to this e-mail addressed.

For terms and conditions, please go to the website. It is almost no day.

Big Ben. That can only mean one thing, Prime Minister's Questions.

Kevin Maguire from the Mirror. What does Ed Miliband go on? Which U-

turn does he choose? I think you should choose military. Army, navy,

air force, all attacking David Cameron. He says you do the

fighting and I will do the talking. I would make David talk about

defence cuts today. That would be interesting from a Labour

opposition leader, arguing Tory weakness from defence. Take the

battle to David Cameron. We know there is a lot of unease on the

Conservative benches on those cuts. David Davies is saying that Britain

is no longer a military power. wonder what has happened to the

money, then. How much unease is there on the Labour benches about

Miliband's personal poll ratings? His opponents that have never

backed him have become more vocal and those that supported him are

going quiet. Would you agree with me that whatever happens, well, as

things stand at the moment, Ed Miliband will lead his party into

the next election? Likely but not I was unaware of that event, but I

wish you a happy anniversary. I'm sure the whole House would wish to

join me in paying tribute to craftsman Andrew Found that the

Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Corporal Lloyd Newell

from the Parachute Regiment and private Gareth Bellingham from the

3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. They were talented, brave and

dedicated soldiers who made the bottom at sacrifice overseas for

the safety of British people at home. We send out our deepest

condolences to their families, friends and colleagues of Dr this

morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others

and I shall have further such meetings later today. Kerry

McCarthy. I thank the prime minister for that response and can

I associate myself with the moving tributes he has just paid. A year

ago with the Chancellor stood up to deliver his first Budget. Given

that on the Government's own assessment, the efforts will have a

statistically insignificant impact on child poverty, can I recommend

the prime minister watches the BBC documentary bought kits to find out

how the other half lives and can I ask him if he regrets allowing his

chance that to take money away from families with children rather than

the bankers who caused a crisis? High I will look at the programmes

each honourable lady mentions, but even at a difficult time, this

money put more money into the poorest families, we have frozen

council tax and we have taken steps to help working families and the

budget and the subsequent Budget, neither of them raised Child

poverty because of the steps we took. We inherited a complete mess

from the party opposite, but we are dealing with it in a way that

protects families. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this country

will not be contributing a penny towards the Greek bail-out other

than what we contribute to the IMF? The honourable lady is right, we

are senior members of the IMF, we sit on the IMF board, we have

responsibilities as members ofs of the IMF it. We were not involved in

the first Greek bail-out, we are not members of the eurozone and we

will not become members of the eurozone as long as I am standing

here. I don't believe the European financial mechanism should be used

for Greece and we don't think that is appropriate and I don't believe

that should happen. Ed Miliband. Can I join the Prime Minister in

paying tribute to craftsman Andrew Found from the Royal Electrical and

Mechanical Engineers, Corporal Lloyd Newell from the Parachute

Regiment and private Gareth Bellingham from 3rd Battalion the

Mercian Regiment. They all served their country with dedication and

bravery and our hearts go out to their family and friends. Armed

forces date is also coming up this Saturday and that is an opportunity

to remind us all of the service that is provided by the armed

forces in Afghanistan, Libya and all around the world. It is a

moment to recognise the service they provide with honour and

courage for our country. We support the mission in Libya, but in the

last week both the First Sea Lord and the Commander in Chief Air

Command have raised concerns over the prospect of an extended

campaign. Can the Prime Minister take this opportunity to assure the

House that sufficient resources are in place to maintain Britain's part

in the mission at the current rate of engagement? Can I join the right

honourable gentleman in paying tribute to our armed forces, I am

particularly looking forward to our Armed forces Day on Saturday, when

we will celebrate the contribution they make to our national life and

the enormous and that they do to keep us safe. In terms of Libya,

similar to the mission in Afghanistan, it is funded out of

the reserve so it does not put additional pressures on the defence

budget. I have sought assurances and received them from the Chief of

Defence Staff General Sir David Richards that we are capable of

keeping up this operation for as long as it takes. I think that is

vital and I would argue that the pressure is building on Gaddafi,

time is on our side, not on Gaddafi's side. When you look at

what is happening in Libya, you see a strengthening of the revolt in

the West, more people deserting Gaddafi's regime, growing

unpopularity of his regime and other coalition holding strong,

time is on our side, pressure is growing and I believe we will take

it to a satisfactory conclusion. am with the Prime Minister that we

should keep up the pressure on the Libyan regime and we do provide

powerful support for the mission. But don't the concerns that have

been expressed by members of our armed forces point to something

very important, the need to look again at the Strategic Defence and

Security Review precisely to make sure that we have the right

capability and we have the right focus. The Foreign Secretary

described the Arab Spring as a more important event and 9/11. But the

National Security Strategy published last year doesn't mention

Libya, Egypt or Tunisia. Isn't it right, in the light of the changes

we have seen, to look again at the Strategic Defence and Security

Review to make sure we can sustain the conflict in Libya? I am

grateful for the question, because it is important. One of the reasons

for having a National Security Council that its weekly is all the

time to ask if we have the right resources, do we have the right

strategy. We have had a review of the national security and Defence

Review over the last year. For point I would make is this. That

strategic Defence Review did actually put in place mechanisms to

say we may well be fighting two conflicts at the same time fault

but it also put in place the necessity of having a very flexible

armed forces say exactly the sort of operations we are fighting and

dealing with in Libya. The point I would also make it as it does seem

to be strange, having not had one for 10 years, to then want to have

two Strategic Defence Reviews within one year. We have got the

right flexibilities in our armed forces, they are performing

magnificently in Libya. If anything I would like to speed up the

implementation of the strategic Defence Review because so much of

the new equipment we are looking to have in terms of drones and things

like that, it would be helpful to have them now. Far from being the

wrong strategic posture, it is right and it is good we are putting

it in place. I think it will come as news to the wider defence and

security community that there has been a review of the original

Strategic Defence and Security Review. If there has been a review

since the Arab Spring took place, why doesn't the Prime Minister

publish the results of that review? Let's have a consultation with the

experts who know about these issues. There is clear concern across the

military about some of these issues. Let me ask the Prime Minister, and

let me say this to this in all sincerity. When our military chiefs

raised concerns and raised legitimate concerns about the

conduct of our operations, surely it is not the right thing to say

you did the fighting and I will do the talking. In retrospect, was at

that very crass and high-handed? -- wasn't that. I have huge respect

for the people that run hour armed services, they do in incredibly

good job, they are very professional and they are involved

in the National Security Council, they were involved in the drawing

up of the National Strategic Defence Review will but the only

point I have made is when you are at war, and we are in Afghanistan

and Libya, it is very important, whether you are a political or

military leader, to think very carefully about what you are about

to say. Can I ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of the

decision abruptly made to close the Passport Office in which, which has

obliged a six year-old boy to make 200 mile round trip to an interview

and another constituent to travel to Newcastle. Is this acceptable?

will look very closely at the point my honourable friend raises. But in

the modern age, we have all sorts of ways of carrying out interviews

that don't necessarily involve people having to travel to a

passport my office. Her what matters is having an efficient

service so people can get the documentation they need. Given the

number of U-turn as the prime minister has made, including on

sentencing, NHS reform, Forestry sell-off and school reforms, it is

a wonder that he knows which way he is facing. But will he now have the

Prime minister. I did not get all of that. That is the trouble but a

dark it is a reminder of the importance of government

backbenchers keeping calm and quiet, not least so that prime minister

Count hear properly. It would probably also help if you

didn't read out the whip's it at the start of the question. I think

the question was about the important point about women and

pensions. What I would say is this. I do think it is right to have the

equalisation of men's and women's pension age at 65 and that is going

ahead. I also think it is important to raise the pension age to 66

because the fact is people are living longer and our country, that

is a good thing, but we have to make sure we can pay for good

pensions for the future. It seems to me the alternative is to stick

your head in the sand, end up with a situation where you either end up

cutting pensions or building up debts for our children that would

frankly irresponsible. This government is taking difficult

decisions, but I think they are the right ones. Does the Prime Minister

agree there is still too much homophobia in sport, especially

football, and the event he is hosting later today in Downing

Street will go some way to tackling that prejudice. Her I completely

agree with my honourable friend and I am delighted to be hosting a

party for Britain's lesbian, gay and Trans ended community in

Downing Street today. One of the issues in sport is Hamp few out

players there are end all sorts of sports, and I applaud those who are

coming tonight, and I hope that will encourage schoolchildren to

recognise homophobic bullying is completely unacceptable. If the

Prime Minister is serious about tackling the issue of runaway

fathers, which he said last week, why is he making it harder for

single mothers to get maintenance payments by charging them extra

child support? We are going to go on funding a child support a

mechanism and it is right that we do. But I don't think it is wrong

to ask people to make a contribution to that. Taxpayers

currently are putting in a huge amount of money, they will go on

putting in money, but to ask people to pay the wharves -- towards the

cost does not reduce the impact of what I said. People that walk away

from their responsibilities and don't fund their children, that

should not be allowed to happen in Britain today. Next year, it is the

centenary of the death of Captain Robert Scott on the Antarctic. Does

my right honourable friend recognise that this brave, historic

son of Plymouth left a significant scientific legacy which is still

today helping to form the world's environmental agenda? I thank my

honourable friend for raising this issue and it is an important

centenary coming up and I am pleased so much is going on across

the country to celebrate that, particularly in Plymouth. I would

make a point that it is not just the scientific discoveries that are

important, it is the inspirational figure, the adventure -- adventurer

and and -- explorer, that incredible sense of adventure he

had that inspires young people today. The Prime Minister has been

forced to abandon his original plans on sentencing. Will he now

changed his mind on the proposal to prevent police holding the DNA of

those arrested but not charged with Per and he had we will look

carefully at the issues of DNA. I have to say to the right honourable

gentleman, we inherited an unacceptable situation with a DNA

database that had grown out of control and without proper rights

for people. We have put in place a better system, there is always room

to see if it can be improved, but we made a big step forward from the

mess we're at were left by the last government. It is a bit lace --

late to be looking at the proposal, it is in the House of Commons. Let

me explain his own policy to the Prime Minister. Around 5,000 people

each year are arrested on suspicion of rope and not charged. -- rope. I

know he wants some help from the Home Secretary. In certain cases,

these individuals have gone on to commit further offences and be

convicted as a result of the DNA being held on a national database.

But his proposal is that for those arrested and not charge, the DNA

will be disposed of straight away. discard the DNA of those arrested

but not charged? By Nova mack is some concern -- I know there is

some concern. The more noise, the greater the difficulty in getting

Order. I understand, Mr Speaker, there is some worry that in this

Government we actually talk to each other! This is clearly not the case.

The Shadow Chancellor raises this issue. It is perfectly clear that

the Shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour Party don't

speak to each other at all. And I have the proof, Mr Speaker. Because

this week he made a huge announcement on a massive VAT cut,

and yet it was only... JEERING. us focus on an answer to the

question and then we will move on to the next question. Mr Ed

Miliband. Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker... Let me give this lesson to the

Prime Minister... STEERING. It will be better to talk to his colleagues

before they perform the policy, not afterwards. Instead of listening to

the Home Secretary, why not listen to the rape crisis representative?

With the reporting of rapes on the increase and conviction rates still

shockingly low, the evidence this database provides is vital. The

more of this data we hold, the more chance we have of catching rapists.

Sue says this really is a no- brainer. Mr Speaker, this is

another policy on crime that is callous, not thought through and

out of touch. Why doesn't he think again? First of all, if he actually

understood the policy, he would no... If he understood the policy

he would know that the police are allowed to apply to keep DNA on the

commuter, not something that he mentioned. -- computer. He comes up

with some idea, gets it completely wrong in the House of Commons, and

we will find afterwards that he has given us a partial picture. That is

what his questions are all about. Not surprising he does not want to

talk. The hands of the Prime Minister must be heard. The Prime

Minister. -- the answer. I am not surprised that he does not want to

talk about the issues that his party has been putting forward this

week because I don't suppose his party have talked. Order. We need

to simmer down. As a parrot, I am appalled at the party opposite

burgeoning our children with ever more unsolicited debts. The party

opposite of putting fees for word with their tax cuts and spending

commitments, on which the VAT cut is the latest. Order! The

honourable gentleman will now resume his seat. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. There are 400 avoidable deaths of people with epilepsy and

other conditions. I ask for an immediate referral to the tertiary

specialist, and in education support for children with an

assessment so that they can fulfil their potential. Could the Prime

Minister and meet with me, the Joint Epilepsy Council and

Professor Helen Cross, to progress these provisions which will not

only save costs but also lives? I would be delighted to meet with

her and Helen Cross, who I know well. She works at Great Ormond

Street and is an absolutely brilliant clinician, and someone

that I know well. I am keen to improve the support that we give to

people with epilepsy. One of the steps that we are taking is putting

in place more personal budgets and more single assessments, which I

think will help with epilepsy. My understanding is that there are

many good things in her bill, but there is some concern that it could

have too much of the medical approach to special educational

needs. I have some sympathy with that but I know many professionals

have their concerns about we could talk about that when we meet.

my honourable friend tell the House what the results have been? What

would a proposed cut in VAT do to the British economy at this stage

in the cycle? I do think my right honourable friend raises an

important point. Making a uncut to VAT right now, when the concerns

are about deficit would be insanity. -- unfunded cut. Labour's Plan B

stands for bankruptcy. The Prime Minister frequently tells us that

we are all in this together. Can he explain why banks are being

rewarded with a �2 billion tax cut on their obscene bonuses and

parents of disabled children are being penalised with the benefit

cut of �1,400 per year? How is that fair? I tell you what this

Government has done, which has put in place a �2.5 billion bank Levy,

raising more than Labour's bonus tax, every single year. If members

opposite want to see irresponsible people are earning a lot of money

paying proper taxes, perhaps they can explain this. Why did they

voted in as the measures on disguised earnings in the Finance

Bill that would raise �800 million from people that are giving loans

to themselves to dodge taxes? I think that is probably a detail but

the leader of the Labour Party was not really aware of. While of

course we should not be making a unilateral contribution to the

Greek bail-out, does the Prime Minister not agree that we have

something that would help regenerate the Greek economy and

put right a 200 year wrong, and that is to give the marbles back?

am afraid I don't agree with the honourable gentleman. Order. I want

to hear the Prime Minister's views on marbles! The short answer is

that we are not going to lose them! Is the Prime Minister aware that

670,000 people, two-thirds of home according to his Government

equality impact assessment have a disability, will lose up to �13 per

week because of his changes in housing benefit and occupancy

roles? This is a complete betrayal of his Chancellor's promise not to

balance the budget on the backs of the poor. I have looked carefully

at this issue and I know there are concerns. The point and make his

first. It is right that we Reform Housing Benefit. The cost of got

out of control, raising two 22 billion. The cost of housing

benefit should reflect the size of the family not the House. But we

have made an exception to people that have carers so that an

allowance is made in the housing benefit. It is no good saying you

are in favour of welfare reform and cutting the costs of welfare but

never being able to find a single part of the bill that you agree

with. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming a new report by the

mobility Reform Group? They show how through partnership working

they can deliver wheelchairs that transform young people's lives.

Will he meet with me and the ambassadors to discuss how the

Government can take this forward? know that charity well, they are

excellent. I will certainly arrange a meeting for him. The point we

want to make on wheelchairs is that we want to the health care reforms

to give greater choice for GPs and patients so people can get the

wheel chair of their choice, at the time they needed, rather than just

having to take what you are given. Over five years there have been no

mistakes made in the setting of school examination papers. Since

the 16th May this year there have been 10 mistakes made. What does

the Prime Minister intend to do for those among the 250,000 young

people affected, who lose either the University of choice or the

university at all because of this staggering incompetence?

honourable gentleman is right and this is not an acceptable situation.

We have discussed this and we are taking a strong course to make sure

this does not happen again. former Labour Secretary of State

Lord Hutton has described current proposals on pension reform as the

best chance we have to deliver sustainable system which is fair to

both scheme payers and the taxpayer. Does my right honourable friend

agree with me that when it comes to these major long-term issues, we

should build the broadest possible consensus? Will he seek the support

of both sides of the House for the proposals? I thank my honourable

friend for the question and for the way that he puts it. The point is

this. The Hutton Report is a good report. It is not about attacking

and downgrading public sector pensions. It is a way of making a

big public sector pension affordable into the long term. It

is respecting all of the accrued rights that people have. We need to

win the argument here on the basis of fairness. It is right for the

taxpayer to put money into public sector pensions, but we do need to

know they are affordable for the long term. The steps that Lord

Hutton puts forward are absolutely right and I hope the party opposite

will take a responsible view and recognise that we need to make this

change for the long-term good of our country. 18 months ago one of

my constituents required knee surgery and was pleased to hear he

only had to wait six weeks. In our needs another operation and has to

wait 10 months. He is in agony and unable to walk. He is angry and

wants to know if this is what the Prime Minister meant when he said

the NHS was safe in his hands. you give me the case, I will look

at it. We have not changed the waiting-list targets which have

been in place in the NHS for a long time, in particular the two week

target which is part of the NHS constitution. -- 18 week target.

Waiting times have come down. The lesson is this. If it was not for

this Government putting in �11 billion extra, money that the party

opposite does not support, all waiting times would go up. On July

18th last year, the economic Secretary to the Treasury stated

with regard to the decision to sign Britain up to the eurozone bail-out

mechanism that, and I quote, where these decisions were taken by the

previous Government, this Government judges them to be an

appropriate response to the crisis. Does this remained a Government's

position? I know my honourable friend is pursuing this issue with

his normal boggart tenacity. The facts of this case of very clear. -

- are very clear. The Government signed us up to a European

financial mechanism which we are having to pay out under. This

Government has got us out of it by tougher glaciation in Brussels so

that we don't have to contribute after 2015. -- tough negotiations.

Can I express condolence for those soldiers that have fallen in

Afghanistan? Those that serve are the lines of our country and we

must do everything we can to repay the debt of gratitude that we owe

them. The October, 2010, STS are has been overtaken by events and

the world is a different place. Will he do the right thing for the

armed forces and the country and order a new chapter to this

outdated review? I respect of the honourable gentleman said, and

particularly his fitting tribute to the armed forces. I think the idea

of totally re- opening the defence review at a time when our armed

forces are engaged and doing such a fantastic job is actually the wrong

one. I make this point. What the defence review was all about was

making sure that we have flexible armed forces so they can be

committed to different parts of the world and they get the backing they

need. It was about getting rid of the main battle tanks in Germany

and Britain money into the enablers and the forces of the future. That

is what the defence review is about. Libya shows that it is working and

we should stick with it. Will my right honourable friend welcome the

campaign for high-speed rail campaigning outside Parliament

today to bring thousands of much- needed jobs to the Midlands and the

North, to help address the North- South divide? Will he confirm that

it will come to Yorkshire? I can happily confirm all of those things.

I do believe if we really are serious about trying to rebalance

our economy, make sure we get growth across the country and not

just in the South East, then the time for high-speed rail has come

and that is why it has my strong support. The Secretary of State for

Wales has said she is prepared to be sacked because of opposition on

high-speed rail. I prefer to focus on the fact that in one year as

Welsh Secretary, she has secured something that 13 years of your

Welsh Secretary never achieved, which was the Elettra vocation of

the line between Paddington and Cardiff. -- electrification.

agoraphobic man from Middlesbrough received so much money from state

benefits that he set up his own illegal loans company. He received

a staggering amount of money in benefits, according to the judge at

his trial. We should reform the benefits system. You are absolutely

right. The people that sent us here what us to sort out the welfare

system so that it is available for people that genuinely need help,

but if you can work and you are offered a job, you should not live

your life on welfare. We voted for it but what a pity that the party

opposite talked about it but did not have the guts to back it.

people know that Rochdale is the home of co-operation. Next year is

the United Nations International Year of co-operatives. Will the

Prime Minister consider visiting Rochdale to show support for mutual

isn't in the 21st century? I know the Prime Minister's record of

visiting Rochdale and what can happen when he gets there. I am a

strong supporter of co-operatives and mutuals. They have a huge role

to play in our economy and in the provision of public services, and

we will be making some announcements about that, maybe in

Rochdale, in the months to come. Earlier this year, the Prime

Minister demonstrated strength of character to talk about the issue

of multiculturalism. In view of the fact that I have a Christian first

game and seeks surname, I try to combine the best of my traditional

Indian values with my English values. We can learn a lot from our

Indian partners, many of whom define themselves by their

nationality first and foremost, regardless of religious and ethnic

background. I pay tribute to my honourable friend and the work that

he does on this issue. It is vital as a country that we build a

stronger national identity. People clearly feel that of course you can

have all sorts of different religious identities and cultural

identities, but it is very important that we build a strong

British identity and he is living proof of that. Tomorrow the

European Parliament will decide whether to reduce the EU carbon

reduction target by 30% in 2020. According to reports, the vote will

be very close but it will not pass because one Conservative MEP out of

25 will vote to for the 30% target alone. Will they honour the

agreement and vote for the target tomorrow? We are committed to the

30% target and nothing will change that. I will do a deal with the

honourable lady. I will work with my MEPs if she works on hers. In

recent months that they have voted for a higher its EU budget, you EU

taxes, and they even voted against scrapping first class air travel

for MEPs. Perhaps she would like to fly over and give them a talking

to? Last but not least. With the National Audit Office estimating

the cost of criminal reoffending to the economy at �10 billion per year,

does my right honourable friend agree with me that the need to

reduce offending levels on the unacceptably high rates we

inherited from the last Government must be the focus of a penal

policy? My honourable friend has considerable experience because of

his career before coming to this place. We inherited a system

whereby each prison place cost �40,000, half of prisoners reoffend

within a year of getting out, half of prisoners are wrong drugs, and

10% of foreigners that should not be in this country in any event.

The key is to make sure that we reduce costs and reform prisons,

He went on the military and the complaints of the top brass in

Britain. Then he came back and almost an issue from left field

because no one was expecting it, on keeping their DNA of those who have

been arrested on rape, but not convicted. We will come back to

that issue in a moment. Before we do that, let's hear what you

thought. By and large, more positive about

Ed Miliband than I can remember for a long time. Last week it was due

to a good performance, and this There are tweets from political

correspondent and they have been quite positive. As for your

comments, very thoughtful. Charles says David Cameron was equivocal

about when that Britain would pay for the Greek bail-out, he should

be much clearer about whether there is a possibility on Britain being

made to contribute. Colin, when our scoring the first question, did

Cameron never categorically say the UK would not give money to Greece

in future bail-outs? Gym, last week Miliband had to prove he was a

bruiser to silence the critics, this week he is using Libya to show

he is a statesman and the Tories are not necessarily the natural

party of the military. Jacqueline says, I am disgusted at the

absolute weakness of the Labour MP talking about U-turns, this

government listens. What is the point of having green papers if you

don't debate them? Charles, why do the gunman shout and yell if there

is an awkward question on new terms and pensions, it is an obvious

stage-managing tactic. The Prime Minister stated we were at war with

Libya, I thought it was humanitarian action. Was it just a

slip or can we expect something else next?

Interesting. He certainly did say we were at war. Two walls. Michael

Howard, we have had the First Sea Lord speaking out, we have had the

air Chief Marshal speaking out, head of the RAF, and we have had

the Chief of the General Staff speaking out, head of the army. As

the Telegraph says, that prime minister surely must accept

something is going badly awry when such a senior officers feel obliged

to vent their so far -- have done their frustrations. It is easy for

senior officers to in effect ask for more. That is what they are

doing. The challenge for anyone who is saying we ought to redo the

Strategic Defence Review is where are you going to find the money? We

know we have to tackle the deficit. Every department has to play its

part in achieving that objective. The defence department is one such

department. As I have heard Liam Fox say many times, if you accept

the amount of money which is available for the defence

department and you do a strategic Defence Review, you come up with a

Defence Review which the Government announced an published and is

implementing. That is the challenge for those who seek to criticise,

where is the extra money going to come from? As one Labour MP pointed

out, not Mr Miliband, the Defence Review did not mention Tunisia or

Algeria or Egypt or Libya. Yes, but that doesn't mean we haven't been

performing our role in accordance with the limitations imposed by the

United Nations Security Council resolution very effectively in

Libya in partnership with other countries. We are not doing it on

our own and we are doing it pursuant to wait Security Council

resolution and we're doing it effectively. The Air Chief Marshal

says these huge demands on the RAF and in the morale among MN is

fragile. The RAF's ability to conduct future operations will be

compromised if the Libyan conflict lasted be on September. Well, let's

hope there aren't any unknown future operations. We didn't think

there... I remember when the prime minister was Leader of the

Opposition, he told us you could not impose democracy from 30,000

feet. Within a few months, Eurofighter jets are dropping bombs

from over 15,000 feet. Not seeking to impose anything on anybody, we

are seeking to protect civilians. I believe that if his action had not

been taken and we had seen a bloodbath in Benghazi, as we

absolutely would have seen, public opinion would have been horrified

and would have said to the Government, what did you do to stop

it? It was noteworthy that Ed Miliband, in the course of his

questioning of the Prime Minister, maintained his support for the

mission in Libya. If you maintain that support, certain consequences

flow from it. Alistair Darling, would it be fair to say that if

Labour had won the election, and he had remained as Chancellor, as you

had agreed he would, Labour would have had to have done a Defence

Review which, in strategic terms, would not have been that different

from the one the coalition has done. Of course we would. There are long-

term problems in the MoD particularly in relation to

procurement. Also, successive governments have always anticipated

that we would be doing less in defence, not more, but then events

come along, whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan, now Lydia, which means

we are committing troops and there is a cost to that. Like Michael, I

agree that we could not have stood by and let a bloodbath occur in

Libya. However, interesting listening to David Cameron, there

is no doubt that our policy has moved from that. He was talking

about time being on our side and it was only a matter of time before

Gaddafi when. We will be pleased when Gaddafi goes, but that

suggests we might be in this for quite a long time, which brings me

to the Chiefs of Staff, who are saying that if you commit British

forces, whether they are unable or air forces, for a long period, that

comes that is a - at a cost. There is no saying it comes from the

Reserve, that his public expenditure, just as much as if it

came out of the MoD Leger. There has been a degree of mission creep.

The other thing that worries me is that every time we say we should

not be and this alone, if you look at who is engaged in Libya at the

moment, it is basically as and the French. We can't carry on becoming

engaged that way. That is not to say we stand aside, if we are faced

with another similar situation, nobody can put up with that, but I

think that chiefs of staff are making good boy. If Gordon Brown

had said you did the fighting, I'll do the talking, he would have been

pulverised. That was a silly thing of David Cameron to say. The second

three questions were on the issue of the DNA samples. Do you think,

given that he went on a specific problem with cancer patients last

week as a result of the welfare reforms, is it now his tactic to

pick something quite particular that involves a detailed knowledge?

He is operating on the assumption that the Prime Minister is

sometimes not so good on the detail. No, it is David Cameron's Achilles

heel. We saw it the previous week with 7,000 cancer victims who would

lose money, David Cameron was not on top of it, and he was struggling

to date. He is very stylish, but sometimes this substance is more

difficult. I think Ed Miliband, who is not always stylish but knows the

detail, is going to work away at that. He got under the prime

minister's skin. I suspect, before Prime Minister's Questions, David

Cameron will be breaking out into cold sweats, worrying about those

details. I want to pick up before we left off before PMQs. I said,

would you accept that from what we know now, despite the criticisms,

it is as certain as it can be that Mr Miliband will lead Labour into

the next election? You were not quite as certain, explain what you

mean. I think it is likely he will, but I don't think it is certain.

There is so much background noise in Parliament about it, right from

the beginning. A majority of MPs did not support him. I know some

who supported him who now regret it. Some quite senior, some people and

the Shadow Cabinet. He is on a kind of Probation, really. The Labour

constitution in opposition is very different. In power you need 20% of

MPs to sign for somebody else. It is only 12.5%... Let me get

Alistair Darling's reaction. I think he will lead us into the next

election. I supported his brother, but I have been very clear that

once we had the election result, it was elected and he deserves to be

backed. As Michael will testify, once a leader is elected, he is

entitled to get the support of his whole party. I don't have time for

people going around murmuring in the background. It would put us out

of a job! I am not necessarily against that! Do you think

unemployment is high enough? sure you could get a job somewhere.

We need to move on. Kevin Maguire, thank you.

Now, here's a question - is the beautiful game sexist?

Cricket is not! Up Well, one female MP certainly thinks so. She's been

booted off the parliamentry football team because she's of the

fairer sex, and she ain't too happy about it. Here's Tracey Crouch, the

MP for Chatham and Aylsford, with Today's grassroots football

promotion for boys and girls is incredibly successful. Youth

development forming a key part of the County FA's development

programme so more and more girls than boys are playing organised

football every weekend. -- girls and boys. However girls growing up

in the 1980s were not supposed to play football. Except I did, I love

football, I played it in the garden, in the street and against the shop

wall. The only time I did not play it was at school when I was not

allowed to play football. At primary I would try to play at

break time, but I was told it was not ladylike. Then I went to an all

girls' secondary school where it was all hockey and netball. It

wasn't until I went to university that I played my first 11 aside

match competitive league and then when I graduated I continued to

play 11 aside, including, an occasion, for the parliamentary

football team. But since I got elected last May, I have been

unable to play for the 11th azide team and have been limited to five-

a-side. It is still good fun and good exercise, but it is not great.

I support age restrictions, the walls are there to protect

youngsters. At 13 girls and boys are physically different and they

haven't developed the skills to play football maturely. However I

do think that once you get over 21 and you are a more mature

footballer, the rules should be reviewed, especially for amateur

Immaturity and common sense go hand-in-hand in the adult game.

Knee playing for the parliamentary football team or any other lady

playing in a pub or a charity match should not get caught up in roles

that are designed to protect 13- year-old girls. -- and rules.

Tracey Crouch is with us now. Without meaning to be dismissive at

the marvellous players in Parliament, why have they even

registered on the FA's radar? FA provide the opportunity for him

pays to plead that play football on a regular basis. A maybe begins

legend teams or charity teams. They provide the venues and referees so

they have to abide by the FA rules. Has it always just been the boys

that les? No. When I was a researcher for Michael Howard, I

used to play for the parliamentary football team. It is ironic that

now I'm an MP, I am not allowed to Why have they changed it? Do they

explain the discrepancy? The rules around mixed football are set by

FIFA and the FA have to abide by them. There are rules for mixed

football which protect young people playing against each other, and

those rules are right. It is right to protect 13 year-old girls and

boys. The fiscal differences mean that you have to use those rules.

You are not a burly bloke, aren't you worried that they will flatten

you? No. It is a competitive game but it is one of skill. You don't

need to be burly to play well. know that you are a big football

fan. Is this that Raiders of right and proper? At raiders. I am

totally on her side. -- outrageous. The don't sit on the fence!

there anything you can do about it? Why is that Blatter setting the

rules? It was the first time that I heard it was FIFA in charge. That

hardly encourages you. The parliamentary football team started

off as fun, and now it has reached the situation where it is

nonsensical that Tracey cannot play. The ride them to change the rules.

That always works. -- bribe them. And you could wear tighter shorts?!

Who takes up your position? Where do you normally play? The right

wing or centre forward. So you are fast? I used to be. Who does it

now? One of the chaps, I suppose. I have not been able to play since I

was MP. Since the election I have not been able to. Is there anything

you can do apart from coming on the programme and telling us it is

rubbish? I hope that the FA see sense. It is not an association

football match. It is a charity match or a friendly. I don't think

the FA rules should apply to those games. Speaking of FA rules, it

stay with us. There is another thing going on at the moment,

football-related. What about nationalism? Yesterday they

announced that there would be Team GB football teams competing at

London 2012. Not greeted with universal pleasure. Phil Pritchard,

you are not doing cartwheels? was historic agreement between all

of the Football Association's, but nobody had told the Scottish and

the Welsh. It would be a disaster. It sets an example that we do not

want to be replicated for World Cups and European football. I urge

the Olympic Committee to forget this and to leave Team GB alone.

When did you last qualify for World Cup? We are going back a few years

but we are hopeful for the European Championships. Scotland has not

made that bad a start. We are looking forward with positivity

with that one. Apart from making you feel sad, at my point is that

there could be some Scottish players that would like the chance

to play on an international stage. Kenny MacAskill once called England

football team the Great Satan. There is fantastic rivalry between

four of the home nations of the United Kingdom. I think that most

Scottish footballers accept it is all about independence of the

football teams. Scotland being able to compete in Europe, that is the

pinnacle of our game. Maybe a few administrators and nations care

about football at the Olympics. But nobody else really gives a fig.

am glad you said fake. Thank you. Let's turn to our Scottish

representatives. Team GB? I think there is an important point here.

There are people that would like to stop Scotland and Wales and

Northern Ireland competing and just to have the British team. There is

a philosophical argument. All things British. Listing to the guy

from the Olympics this morning, he sounded unconvinced about whether

or not there was an agreement to do this. I am Welsh. I have long

thought we should have Team GB. There are so many brilliant players

from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland that have never had the

chance to play in a European Championship or the World Cup. I

think that Team GB could win it. don't think that football should be

part of the Olympics, actually. That is another debate. If it is

going to be part of the Olympics, it should be Team GB. Hold the

front page. The House of Lords is having a busy week this week,

believe it or not. Yes, Peers have been debating their own future.

They are always interested in that. Nick Clegg wants to turn it into

the senate of 300 members. Their rapid hundred at the moment. Peers

have also been mulling over who would be the new Speaker. -- there

are 800 at the moment. What does the job entail? Tension is rising.

No, it is! Did you know there was an election in Westminster soon?

You would be forgiven for not having heard of it. It is a done

your contest. Nominations close for the post of Lords speak of. What do

they do? This is Mr Bercow. We know his job and his famous cry of order.

You will not hear much of that from this lady. Baroness Hayman's role

as the current Speaker of the House of Lords is rather different to

demand that sits in this chair. That is not just because he sits in

a chair and she sits on a Woolsack. Yes, a sackful of wall. In the

Commons, the Speaker can call members to speak, he can rule on

points of order, he can select amendments on bills to be discussed,

and he has the power to chop a member out of the chamber. The

Lords Speaker can do none of that. The idea being they do not need

such robust hand on the tiller. Here, she is limited to chairing

debates, offering advice on procedural matters, acting as

ambassador to the work of the house. You will not hear her doing this.

Or do. The Government Chief Whip as no business what forever shouting

from a sedentary position. Order! The Honourable Gentleman will

remain in the chamber. That is because in the Lords the Speaker

cannot discipline any of the members. I am not entirely sure she

is even allowed to wake them up. history teacher used to sound like

the Speaker. Rupert Redesdale, Liberal Democrat peer, and

crossbench peer Lady de Sousa join us now. I am running but I am not

going to vote for myself. I do not believe the Speaker should have any

power. I am running to make sure that my fellow peers don't forget

that the House of Lords is self- regulated and should remain so.

Your campaign is to get no votes. I expect it is going pretty well?

can say it is almost 100% successful. I was standing in the

lobby and somebody said they were going to vote for me precisely

because they are not happy with the idea of a speaker getting power,

because that is a route for the executive to get power in the House

of Lords. Frances D'Souza, what do you think the job should entail?

feel passionately that the job is to do without reach. A lot of

people out there don't know what the House of Lords does. I think

there is a sterling job to do. An ambassador role, but really a

representational role. If you want to talk to Europe, who do you call?

That sounds a bit grand, but in the case of the House of Lords and you

want to talk to them, who do you call? Actually you need the Speaker

because they are the link with the outside world, a link to you, the

other parliaments and the House of Commons. I think that is worthwhile.

Who would you like to vote for? will not tell you who. I will give

you a clue. I am standing. One vote will go to me at least and it may

well come from me. Just because you are standing, that is not a clue.

It is not a clue with Rupert Redesdale. I have just been trying

to persuade my colleagues on my right that what he might be able to

do with his second vote is vote for me but he is not that convinced.

am clear that I will vote for you if you save that you will not take

any further powers as Speaker. house will decide on powers but I

have Furness said and I firmly believe that the job is an outward

facing one. -- firmly said. Will Nick Clegg get Lords reform?

question is whether we will get Lords reform? No. I think that his

way will be got in maybe about 10 years' time. I am not saying that

he won't get it, but it will take more time, I suspect. He will

probably be commissioner in Brussels by them. What do you

think? I think they could debated. I will be voting for reform but

whether it takes place, I doubt it. That option would not win. You want

his vote, don't argue! Thank you to both of you for being such good

sports and for joining us from the House of Lords. That is it. Have

you got a candidate? I don't know yet. The names are not in until

tomorrow. And you have not got a vote. Only a matter of time. Lord

Darling, that has got a ring. We will give you the answer to Guess

The Year tomorrow because we ran out of time, for a change. Thank