29/06/2011 Daily Politics

Good morning, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. We have had the

rethink on sentencing, but his Ken Clarke's Bill still too soft on

criminals and too hard on those wanting justice? Protests on the

streets of Athens as Greek MPs prepare to vote on the austerity

package. Are we will bring you the latest, live. The Argentines had

been ramping up the rhetoric of what they call Las Malvinas. We

will be asking a Falklands MP how worried he is. And Blur drummer

David Rowntree is going to be telling us why the Government's

housing changes could do more harm than good. A government argues they

can move into shared properties, but there are not properties

available. For vulnerable people to move into shared accommodation with

All of that coming up in the next hour and a half. And, of course,

Prime Ministers questions. For the duration we have a top team. For

the Conservatives we have police and Justice Minister Nick Herbert.

From Labour, the Shadow Leader of the House, Hilary Benn. Welcome to

you both. There seems little prospect that

tomorrow's strikes by public sector workers can be averted. Just as

well that Tory MP didn't take that better, otherwise he would be out.

Teachers in England and Wales and civil servants across the UK are

due to walk out in a dispute over pensions. Among them, in Grecians

and customs staff, the ones that allowed him the Islamic extremist

who was banned from this country. UK Border Agency has advised

travellers not to fly tomorrow. The Labour leader has spoken out

against the action, calling on both sides to continue to negotiate as

opposition leaders usually do we aim these circumstances. Will you

be crossing a picket line tomorrow? I shall be at work. I think while

negotiations are continuing, the strikes are a mistake. But the

Government has handled this really badly. For tell him how. Pensions

are really important to a lot of people. You've got to negotiate.

It's no good pre-empting Lord Hutton's report. It's absolutely

not clear in relation to teachers' pensions whether what you are sick

-- seeking to do is about deficit- reduction or an issue with the

affordability of the scheme. Ministers have repeatedly refused

to answer the question. Maybe you would like a shot at answering a?

think he is trying to have it both ways. We are certainly not pre-

empting Lord Hutton's report. That is why we asked John Hutton to do

this work, to look at the affordability of pensions. Of

course people are living longer, that a good thing. But as a

consequence, the cost of public sector pensions has risen

substantially. It has increased by a third in the last 10 years to

well over a �30 billion. We've got to strike a fair balance between

the taxpayer and those that are benefiting from schemes. That's why

we are saying that we think across the board, in terms of public

sector pensions, it is important that we achieve that rebalancing.

But the talks continue and that is important. Maybe what Hilary Benn

has in mind, neither Frances Maude on the Today Programme or Justine

Greening was able to answer it this morning. The Hutton Report shows

the cost of public sector pensions as a percentage of GDP going all

the way into the future, it actually falls. It falls from now

until the end of the graph. So, why cannot be unaffordable if it is

falling as a share of national resources? Because people are

living longer. But that is factored into the equation. They are living

longer and the cost has already risen by a third over the last 10

years. You have already seen a situation where there is an

existing imbalance over what the taxpayer is paying him and what

people are paying themselves. That has widened considerably. But it

falls by a third again, just so that there is no confusion, it

falls from just shy of 2% of GDP, down to 1.4%. That's about a third.

But Lord Hutton looked at the figures and said there was an

unfairness that needs to be dealt with. I'm sorry to push she won

this, it's quite important. People are going on strike tomorrow. --

I'm sorry to push you on this. It shows there is a substantial fall,

and there may be other reasons for reforming pensions, even Labour has

said there should be some changes, but on the issue of affordability,

if it is falling substantially as a percentage of GDP, from now until

about 2030, why have you got to do as much as you do? Well, Lord

Patten was clear that we had to. That graph is from the Hutton

Report. You can't partially quoted him, he also said there was a need

to take action. We already have this imbalance. Three-quarters of

the workers are not in the public sector. Their taxes have been

funding the increase in payments that needs to be made because

people are living longer. The tax payer has picked up a bigger share

of the burden. It simply to ensure that we have fairness going forward

across the board. It's also a question of making sure that we

continue to have really good public sector pensions which will be

better than those you get in the private sector, that will still be

a defined benefit. That's why it's important that the unions continue

to sit down and discuss this. I thought there was a general

agreement that it needs reform. got around my question by saying

that you were going to work, but the common security guards are

probably going to go on strike. As you go to the Commons tomorrow,

will you cross the picket line? will be standing in the House of

Commons at 11:30am tomorrow, asking George Young... So you will? The

Labour leader in Wales, the First Minister Carwyn Jones, he has asked

Cabinet ministers in Wales not to cross picket lines. He does go on

to say that ministers will continue their work across Wales. I don't

know how you square that? Well, it's for each individual to take

their own decision. In relation to the strikes taking place tomorrow,

we have been very clear. While negotiations are continuing,

because it is the only way this will be resolved, striking is not

the right thing to do. Now, the snappily named legal aid sentencing

and punishment of offenders Bill for England and Wales will be

debated by MPs this afternoon. It was the scene of a serious road

traffic offence last week, Wensum accused the Justice Secretary of

performing a skidding U-turn. Anyway, the manoeuvre as they did

some, but not all critics. -- placated some.

Ken Clarke has done all of the big jobs in government, but he's never

faced such a tricky balancing act. On the one hand, he is under orders

to reduce the amount of cash we spend on banging people up. But he

also has to reduce the number of prisoners, court costs and

reoffending. The initial plan to allow prisoners to serve half their

sentence if they plead guilty nearly caused a riot on

Conservative backbenchers. It led to a hasty rethink of the situation.

Then it was announced that house holders would have new rights to

defend themselves against intruders. Despite all of that, some of Ken

Clarke's right-wing critics are still unsatisfied, concerned that

he still wants to scrap indeterminate sentences, hold fewer

defendants on remand arm send fewer of those convicted to prison.

Britain's solicitors are also uneasy. They are concerned about

his other cash saving initiative, cutting �350 million from the legal

aid bill, including most civil cases, things like medical

negligence. Here is Desmond's -- Desmond had some of the Law Society.

It will reduce social cohesion, it will make our society a much less

fair place to live. It will close off access to justice for many

hundreds of thousands of citizens. The Law Society has put forward a

package of cuts worth more than Ken Clarke is looking for, yet he will

not engage widows to debate the wisdom, merits or otherwise of

those cuts. By the merest coincidence we have the Justice

Minister here to talk about such matters. A triumph for our planning

department. The first they have had this year! Ken Clarke says it is OK

to hit a burglar with a poker and that the all lady can stab and 18

year-old. -- an old lady. Can I? Why cannot the old lady do it?

old lady cannot stand and 18 year old unless there is reasonable

cause. If she wakes up in the middle of the night and there is a

burglar in her house, there is a knife by the bed, she stabs him.

That is OK now? What we have always said is if a burglar comes into

your house, they cross a line. Across a physical line, but in the

view of most of the British people, they cross another line as well. We

think it is right that people, when they seek to defend themselves,

should know that the law is on their side. That they can use force

to protect themselves will stop in these circumstances, an old lady

can stack and 18 year-old? I'm not sure what circumstances you are

saying. -- Stan at an 18 year-old. The law should be on her side if

she is trying to defend herself. If it is the person whose home was

invaded, when the they were arrested and dealt with idyllic in

credit -- an appropriate manner, we want to send a clear message that

we expect that the law should be on the side of the law-abiding.

these circumstances, can Anita do it? Do what? Stab and 18 year-old

that breaks into her home. You just ask it in that fashion. Excuse me,

Minister. The Justice Secretary is the one that has given the examples.

He's the one that said it's OK to hit a burglar with a poker and for

an old lady to stab at 18 year-old. I defer to the Justice Secretary in

all things. The law should be on your side, you should be allowed to

use force in protecting yourself should somebody coming to your

property and put you in fear of... You should leave it at that?

intend to clarify that, to make sure, beyond doubt, that the legal

position is backing what reasonable people want to see. Can I suggest

that you should leave it at that broad definition, and not going to

old ladies stabbing 18 year-olds all whacking burglars with pokers?

There will be debate as we introduce the measures. There is a

strong view in the country that we need to address the balance. I

think that the people want to see a clarification. That is what we are

seeking to give. Let's move on to another issue with strong views, is

is still the Government intention to cut the prison population

question not no. The Prime Minister was clear. When he gave his speech

and we launched a consultation, the response to the consultation, we

said that it was not the ambition to cut their prison population. We

need to stabilise at. Ken Clarke has said there are too many people

in prison? You can make this point, the rates of reoffending not so

high that if you go into prison, an adult offender leaves after a year,

half of them are likely to reoffend. It's breaking that cycle. Half of

all crime is committed by people that have already been through the

criminal justice system. That a problem with what happens after you

have been to prison. I don't understand how Ken Clarke can save

them are too many people in prison in this country and it is not your

intention to cut that? We want to stabilise it. By definition, that

would still leave too many. If there is too many, you are going to

stabilise it, you will leave too many. The prison population is who

the court sent to prison. The important thing is that we deal

with the cycle of reoffending. We are putting people in prison, they

are not being properly rehabilitated, they are reoffending.

Reoffending rates, in some areas, where rising under the previous

government because the prisons were so full. But you're not going to

cut that? We are looking at purposeful regimes of work in

prison, that a drugs treatment to get people off drugs in prison. We

are looking at a radical system of payment by results. So we pay

people to get prisoners going straight, rather than just walking

out of prison and reoffending. All of these things are the right way

to reduce the prison population and make the population say they are.

Ed Miliband said he was not going to criticise Ken Clarke for being

soft on crime when the Tory backbenchers were. Then he said he

should be sacked for his comment about rape sentences. What is

Labour policy? I think we had just heard it from Nick, about the

complete state of confusion that is the Government policy on Criminal

Justice. Can we get to your confusion? No, there is no

confusion on our part. On the question of reasonable force to

defend our homes, the law has been very clear for a long time. It

seems to me that what Ken Clarke has said this morning has just

created confusion. As your question demonstrated, is the Government's

aim today that it is going to change the existing law? Or was Ken

Clarke just trying to restate the law? It would be helpful to have an

answer. Let's ask the minister. do think Darryl areas where the law

itself may need changing. There have been these attempts in the

past to give greater clarity. We don't think there has been public

confidence that the law is on their side. I think the public do wish to

see a change. So the law will be changed? What is Labour's position

on sentencing? Did you agree with Ken Clarke's original changes?

the 50% reduction, no, we didn't. The Prime Minister forced him to

abandon those. But they were fundamentally about trying to save

money. We don't agree with the changes to demand. We think it

should be left to the courts to decide whether someone should be

Do you think in retrospect that the previous government put too many

people in jail? No, the courts decide who should go into prison.

We made a number of changes including more community penalties.

I do believe, as a former prisons minister, if you can improve public

confidence in community penalties, we do need to tackle the problems

of reoffending. I think when people see people out on community

sentences, doing work in the community, that helps to build the

confidence. The fundamental truth about our record in government is a

crime felled by 43 % after years and years of people saying you can

do nothing about crime. That is a very solid record of achievement.

The worry now is the government is put in its deficit reduction

against protection of the public. We are already seeing signs that

the crime rate in London is rising. I think they are in a state of

utter confusion and I think they have made a mistake in proposing

originally the 50 % reduction and I think they made a mistake on remand

sentencing and the changing public perception. People will not forget

the fact that Labour mismanaged the prisons in failing to provide

enough capacity and you are forced to release 80,000 prisoners early.

18 days early. People went on to commit serious offences during that

time, including the murder. We have got to get some sense back into the

system, the community penalties you talk about have not been rigorous

enough and that is one of the reasons why there is a drift of

people into prison sentences. We have got to reform the system and

do so in a sensible there -- a sensible way which focuses on

reoffending. We have to leave there. Thank you.

There has been some pretty fiery rhetoric coming from the

Argentinians in recent weeks about the status of what they call Las

Malvinas and we call the Falklands. Argentina has always claimed the

islands but this flare-up in the dispute has been -- has prompted

David Cameron to reiterate the British position that the islands'

sovereignty is non-negotiable. Here is the Argentine President last

week. TRANSLATION: Just in the last few hours, the Prime Minister of

the United Kingdom, in what has been defined by the Argentine

foreign ministry, as an arrogant gesture, and what I define as an

expression of mediocrity and almost stupidity, he used the words. To

refer to our islands as if you can put an end to our history. I want

to tell you in the name of all Argentines that the Argentine

people do not believe in. When it comes to the sovereignty of our

islands. We are going to get them back through international rights

and three peas. They should have no doubt. So, have no doubt, we are

going to get them back. With us now is Dick Sawle who has something to

say about this, a member of the Legislative Assembly of the

Falkland Islands. It is pretty fiery at the moment, are you

sleeping comfortably in your beds at night? I think we all sleep

comfortably knowing we have a strong defence in the Falkland

Islands and I do not think there is a likelihood of any military action.

What we saw on the screen just now is the rhetoric we get from

Argentina on a very constant basis. It is coupled with some high brass

concerns in the military as well. I will quote you something that

Admiral -- Admiral Sandy Woodward said, without American support the

Falklands, the reclaiming of which cost 253 brave British lives, are

close to being indefensible. He thinks there is little that can

be done. I do not know, really, but I doubt that Argentina is that

capable of mounting any military action against the Falklands. We

have four typhoons, a type 44 destroyer, a minesweeper and forces

on the ground. We are a lot better defended now that we wearing 1982

and I think that defence is pretty secure. So the man who knows the

lie of the land, Admiral Sandy Woodward is wrong? No, he is

talking from a different perspective. I'm talking of someone

who lives -- I am talking of someone who lives on the islands.

Was he talking about the loss of aircraft carriers? A few others

have been relating it to cuts which have been proposed by the

government. So, you're not worried about military action but are you

worried about diplomatic actions. I know you were in New York recently.

It does seem like the international tide of opinion may be turning on

the future of your islands. I think it is the opposite. I think the

tide is turning in our favour. We are going out into the

international forum, we are speaking more vocally about our own

position and our wishes which are the most important thing. The thing

is, America has been a good ally in these things. On 7th June in New

York, they signed a declaration calling on the UK and Argentina to

begin negotiations about the sovereignty of the Falklands. It

does not sound like a done deal. That message from the United States

has not changed since about 1940. It is the same message they have

been putting out for many years. Let's bring Hillary Benn in on this.

Do you think there is reason to be concerned? The first responsibility

of the government is to make sure the Falkland Islands are properly

protected. We saw what happened when they were not, when a

dictatorship launched the invasion all those years ago. The government

has got that responsibility and they must exercise it because they

are very clear that as long as the Falkland Islanders wished to remain

British, and they do, we will defend them in that right. When you

have military top brass saying it could the indefensible, do you also

wish they would allow you to do the talking and they just did the

fighting? I understand that there is comment about this which is

related to wider defence issues but I agree with Hillary, our duty is

to ensure the Falkland islands can be defended. We need to make clear

that the sovereignty of the islands is not negotiable and have a clear,

firm, consistent government approach to that and make it clear

to all on the international stage, including Argentina, and then to

make clear that we want to engage with Argentina on other issues. I

think that clarity of purpose is also important. For David Cameron

has been clear that the Americans, you say it is a position they have

held for some time, in view of the fact there was an invasion, their -

- they could be clearer? I cannot speak for the Americans but I can

speak for our government. We have sought to give our firm position

which is the sovereignty of the islands is not up for discussion.

Again, the entire country is assigned -- behind us. I used

slightly irked that the country, with which you have stood so

ardently shoulder to shoulder in international adventures, is taking

this line that it is open to negotiation? I think probably we

ought to remember that there was a great deal of help, as we know, in

retrospect, given by the United States when we sought to reclaim

the Falkland Islands so I would not want to characterise my response in

that way. I also visited Washington and met quite a few politicians

there and to a man, they were extremely supportive. Thank you for

coming to see us. Why we have been talking about the

Falklands, there have been more clashes outside the parliament in

Athens where the austerity Bill is being debated. If it is not going

to work outside, we can also report according to the AP wires out of

Athens that a Conservative deputy with the opposition has said she

will break with her party and back the crucial austerity measures.

That gives it a better chance of getting through. It is very close

up the moment with 300 deputies in the Athens parliament. No doubt,

the new leader of the IMF will be watching that. A very impressive

French finance minister. She used to be a synchronised swimmer.

not know that, and drew! Public service broadcasting tells you what

you need to know. Fierce battle is also receiving this afternoon for

the most sought-after of prizes. It is a gladiatorial contest of wills.

We are hoping for a British champion, perhaps that Scottish

track. Quiet please, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to halt the

Daily Politics mark aloft. Keep your eye on the ball. Come on,

Andy! I meant you! Let's see if you Flyovers ensure that no traffic

Fine weather was ideal for this jamboree. It was like watching a

Now, you are showing off if you tried to identify the pianist. He

is a clever boy. To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics

mug, send your answer to our e-mail address, [email protected]. Full

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

Now it is coming up to midday here. We can take a look at Big Ben.

Prime Minister's Questions is on its way. There is also a chap in

the studio I do not quite recognise. I just thought I would pop in! I am

making a documentary, Andrew. did not send flowers. Flowers, did

they not come? I am making a documentary about tax spend on BBC2.

I am surprised he is talking to us! Interesting for Ed Miliband today,

will he go on strike do you think? I do not think he will go on giving

up all his six questions on it, but he does know if he does not mention

them he will be held up by the backbenchers and the Prime Minister.

My guess is he will find a way to say, I am not in favour of these

strikes, but I blame the government for cocking up the negotiations.

Then he will want to move on. He is in a desperately uncomfortable

position. If he did not say what he said, he would be accused by the

Tory media and the Tory party of being a friend of the unions and he

only got his job because of the unions. If he does say what he says,

he risks upsetting the unions. is always difficult, those of us

who remember Neil Kinnock's position, it is always difficult

for a leader of a Labour opposition to position themselves when it

comes to major national strikes. Extraordinarily difficult. You're

talking about the miners' strike. It was agony for a Neil Kinnock.

They used to be a game if you wanted to tell who was really new

Labour, the people who was a Blairite, the people who said in

private we took the wrong side on the miners' dispute. We are nowhere

near that sort of dilemma. It is relatively easy for Ed Miliband to

stand with parents and say, this is difficult for you, but it could get

difficult. The thing that people always have to remember is the

Labour Party was founded by the unions, it is not just some had

drunk, that is how they were founded. It is a profound question

on how they take that position. They will want Ed Miliband and his

advisers to say, just get on and negotiate. What other Low Hanging

fruit would there be for the Labour leader if he did not use all his

questions which are busy and he will not do it all on strikes?

front page of the Times today suggested that burglary rates have

gone up, but the head of the Metropolitan Police in London, that

Ken Clarke the Justice Secretary has said this and the temptation to

say crime going up while police budgets squeezed, pretty tempting I

would have thought, at a time when the Labour Party wants to increase

the discomfort of Ken Clarke on this whole issue of law and order

that you are talking about, without necessarily having an argument

about sentencing. The difficulty with having that argument is some

people would say, I seem to remember you in the leadership

contest saying you would back the government when they took a more

liberal approach to sentencing. If you want to continue encouraging

Tory backbenchers to cause trouble, police and crime. Let's go to the

By two, Mr Speaker. What does my right honourable Friend say to the

teachers at my constituency first school, who are putting the welfare

of parents and children first by not striking to borrow? I would

congratulate them for doing the right thing and keeping the school

open. I don't think there is any case for industrial action tomorrow,

not least because talks are still ongoing. It is only a minority of

unions that have taken the decision to go ahead on strike. What I want

to see tomorrow is as many mums and dads as possible able to take their

children to school. What I would say is this. What we are proposing

is fair. It is fair to taxpayers, but it is also fair to the public

sector. Because we want to continue strong public sector pensions. Ed

There are currently 163 statutory organisations within the National

Health Service. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many there

will be after his top-down reorganisation? All I can tell the

Honourable Gentleman... What I can tell the Honourable Gentleman is

that the health reforms that now have the support of the Health

Minister will see a reduction in bureaucracy because we are getting

rid of Strategic Health Authorities and we are getting rid of primary

care trusts. Let me give him the answer to the question. The number

is going to go up from 163 to 521. Pathfinder consortium, health or

well-being boards, shadow commissioning groups, a authorised

commissioning groups, national commissioning boards, PCT clusters,

clinical networks and clinical senates. Mr Speaker, is this what

he meant by a bonfire of quangos? If he looks at the figures of

savings he will see where savings come from, �5 billion savings

through the reduction of bureaucracy. What we inherited was

a situation where the number of managers was going up four times as

fast as the number of nurses. What has happened since we took over,

the number of doctors has gone up, the number of bureaucrats has gone

down. I'll tell him about our record on the NHS. More doctors and

nurses than ever before. The shortest waiting lists ever. The

highest patient satisfaction ever. Now, he says that it is going to

save money. But he's refused to publish the figures accompanying

the new amendments to the hospital of how much he's going to spend.

Maybe he can tell me this. These figures are available. How much is

he going to be spending on making NHS staff redundant? Let me give

him the figures on the costs and benefits of reducing the

bureaucracy. This is the question he asked. This is the answer he

will get. Changes will have a one- off cost of �1.4 billion over the

next two years. But over �5 billion will be saved in total during this

Parliament. Over a ten-year period there will be net savings of �12.3

billion. Add to that the fact that we are putting �11.5 billion extra

into the NHS and he fought the last election pledging to cut debt.

didn't answer the specific question asked. How much is he spending on

making NHS staff redundant? The answer is �852 million. That is

being spent on making NHS staff redundant. Now, can he guaranteed

his house that none of those staff will be rehired to do their old

jobs at his new quango? What we are steering is implementing... We are

implementing the �20 billion cost savings that were set out by the

party opposite when they were in government. But the difference is

that we are going on with putting more money into the NHS, money that

the party opposite does not support, so that there will be more nurses,

more doctors, more operations and a better NHS compared with cuts from

the party opposite. Mr Speaker, let me and ask the question again

because he didn't answer it. People are very concerned that he is

creating a whole new set of quangos. Will he tell us this simple

question, can he guarantee that none of the people being made

redundant will be rehired tutu their old jobs at his new quangos?

It's a simple question, yes or no. I know that he has this

extraordinary vision of how the NHS is run. It's not the prime minister

who hires every person in any organisation in the NHS. The

difference between this coalition government and the party opposite

is that we are investing in the NHS, putting resources into the NHS,

reforming the NHS in a way that is supported by the Royal College of

Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, Tony Blair, Lord Dowes

I, most people working in the NHS, but not the party opposite. Order!

The decibel level is far too high. The Prime Minister should not have

to shout to get itself heard. whole country will have heard that

he has admitted they are spending �852 million on making people

redundant. And he can't even promise they won't be rehired to do

their old jobs. Is it the truth that the Prommers note of doubt

reorganisation, he's doing it. He promised a bonfire of the quangos,

is creating more. He promised a better deal for patients and things

are getting worse. What people asking up and down this country is

what is he doing to our NHS? What the whole country will have noticed

is that at a time when people are worried about strikes, he can't ask

about strikes because he's in the pocket of the unions. What the

whole country will have noticed is that, at a time when Greece is

facing huge problems over its deficit, he can't talk about Greece

because his plan is to make Britain like Greece. What the whole country

will have noticed is, at a time when the economy is the key issue,

he can't talk about the economy because of his ludicrous plan for

tax cuts. That is what we say. Week after week. He has to talk about

the micro because they can't talk Order! ORDER! I appeal to the house

to calm down and reflects on what the public thinks of this sort of

Would the Prime Minister agree with made that a Conservative -- may

that it is unusual to see the Conservatives putting money into

the NHS, while Labour would want to cut it? I hope it is in order to

talk about Labour's record in Wales. Because what we are saying, if

anybody wants to know what would happen to the NHS under Labour,

they can look at Wales, where they are smashing the NHS budget and

they actually seeing more people waiting for longer. That is what

happens when you get a Labour Party running the NHS. Ian Lucas.

true, David! The leader of the opposition's tariff helped create

300 more jobs in Wrexham in earlier this year. But today, because of

his government's reversal of policy, the renewable Energy Association

say that solar generation and the jobs and growth linked to it are in

turmoil. Who knows better? Him or British business? I think anyone

looking at what this government is doing in terms of renewable energy

can see a massive investment in renewable energy. The �3 billion

going into the Green Investment Bank, the massive incentives given

under the renewable heat initiative. What we did have to dig or stop the

abuse... We had to stop the abuse of solar power, where clearly the

Ray Shead was not setting the right way. Anybody looking at industry

can see eight huge boost from this Despite the gravity of the

financial situation, against which the Bank of England is preparing

contingency plans, has the Government also got a team working

on the details of a new treaty, if, as seems probable, the European

Union us to be considerably Could I first of all say, on behalf

of the whole house, to the father of the house, what great pleasure

it gives me to refer to him as the right honourable gentleman after

his many years of service in this house. What I would say to the

Honourable Gentleman is that we have quite rightly used the

opportunity of the new treaty change been put forward to protect

Britain's interests and get us out of the bail out mechanism for the

future. If new proposals:, we had used the opportunity again. Right

now, the priority must be to work for stability in the euro-zone, not

least because 40% of exports go to European countries. Britain is

playing a constructive role in making sure that happens. Does the

Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the idea

of introducing a marriage tax allowance is patronising drivel?

The Deputy Prime Minister and I... We agree about many, many things.

But it is actually set out in the coalition agreement that this is

one area where I do not agree. I had a strong supporter of the

institution of marriage. I think it would be a good idea to recce dies

it in the tax system. -- recognise it in the tax system. Six migrant

workers were arrested in my constituency, all of whom had

national insurance numbers and work paying national insurance. Why

can't we prevent illegal workers from being issued with national

insurance numbers and the first place, or at least flag them so

that the Border Agency knows that these people are not allowed to

wear? By a Honourable Friend makes an extremely good. But grow. As he

knows, or the application process for adults does include an identity

check and the precondition that the individual is entitled to work. But

national insurance number should not be issued to those with no

entitlement to whip. But this is happening and we are looking

closely at the idea of marking national insurance numbers in the

way that he suggests. That you, Mr Speaker. At a time when the NHS is

under financial pressure and people in Wirral are being hit by steep

rises in prices, please will the Prime Minister tell me if he agrees

with his friends on that side of the house who think that costly tax

breaks for those that can choose private health care should be a

priority? The short answer is no, I The Prime Minister will be aware

that core inflation for small business is at its highest level

for three years. Will the Prime Minister recognise that problem,

but especially tell us what else he can do it to increase demand, which

remains, at best, very sluggish. I'll tell my Honourable Friend what

we have done to help the economy. This year, a key problem for

business is the cost of fuel. We've cut fuel duty, abolish the

escalator and put off the RPI increase for next year, making a

difference of about six pence per gallon. With the banks, we have the

Merlins agreement for extra lending to small business. We have also cut

small business corporation tax. We have helped on business rates. This

is a very small business-friendly government. Four years ago the

Prime Minister said that the extremist organisation Hizb ut-

Tahrir should be banned immediately. He promised to do just that in this

house, elsewhere and even in his election manifesto. Why has he not

done what he has promised so many times? Will he go back to Downing

Street and Balham this organisation? We have taken action

against extremist groups. We are looking very carefully at Hizb ut-

Tahrir. In my view, what they have said goes well beyond what a legal

organisations it says. That is has to be done under the law. Given

that Lord Hutton, the former Labour pensions minister has described the

current position on public sector pensions as completely untenable,

would my right honourable friend agree that it is unacceptable for a

small minority of trade unions to be disrupted thousands of people

across this country? -- disrupting. I think my Honourable Friend is

right. This is the issue they don't want to talk about on the other

side of the house. It is a small minority of unions that have gone

ahead with action. I think it is irresponsible, I don't think it's

fair and I think what we are proposing is fair. He makes the

point, quite rightly, that it was Lord Hutton, a former Labour

minister, who has written an extremely good report, Making the

simple point that as we live longer, which is good news, we are going to

have to contribute more to public sector pensions and work for longer.

Let me stress, the reason we are doing this is not in any way to

undermine public sector pensions, but to safeguard good, defined

benefit systems for the future. In my view, there is a contract

between taxpayers and public sector workers saying, you work in the

public sector, will support to an Is the Prime Minister aware of the

concerns that have been expressed about the new arrangement of the

repatriation of the bodies of our servicemen and women killed

overseas on active service, following the transfer to Brize

Norton, and can he tell the House what facilities will be put in

place for the families of the bereaved at Brize Norton, and to

allow the public there if to express their condolences to our

fallen? I'm aware of the issue because Brize Norton is in my own

constituency. A lot of thought has gone into how to do this in the

right way and a lot of care and thought will go into how to look

after the families. I think it is also right that we should mark the

passage from Wootton Bassett, soon to be Royal Wootton Bassett, to

Brize Norton as well. constituency is home to an army

barracks and isn't it the time but we should give service personnel

priority when it comes to housing? I think my honourable friend makes

an important point. We have put the military covenant into law for the

first time. That is important to make sure that military personnel

are not discriminated against but I think it is right that every

council should look at what they do to help those who serve our country

and it is what my local council does in west Oxfordshire, because

of Brize Norton and I would encourage others to do the same. We

have the new policy of first by direct where we are helping first-

time buyers on to the housing ladder and I'm pleased to see the

Housing Minister is making sure this policy is taken round to the

different army and other military bases to make sure military

personnel can take advantage of it. This week is the first anniversary

of the backbench business committee. Over the last year, does the Prime

Minister think that Parliament has become better at holding the

government to account and if he does, can we offer our health to

unlock some of the legislation that has stuck in the legislative

pipeline? Let me congratulate the backbench committee over the last

year. I think it has made a difference in Parliament. I think

it is quite right that the House of Commons can choose to debate a

subject of its choosing, on a motion of its choosing, at a time

of its choosing. He has discussed a range of issues from the very

mundane to be quite obscure. It has, if you like, it has been a year of

bread and circuses. I think it is a good idea, I want to see it go on

working and I would like to take some credit that it was this

government that gave up the power and allowed this to happen.

People in Devon, earned around �2,964 less than the UK average,

yet our average water bill is the highest in the country and well

above the national average of �356. Does the Prime Minister agree with

me at the third option outlined in the recent DEFRA consultation

suggesting a government subsidy of �50 per household for the South

West, would go a long way to writing this unfairness? This issue

of excessive water bills in the south-west has been an issue for

many, many years and I am proud of the fact that within a year it is

this government which has decided to grip it. We are determined to

lower water bills for households in the south-west. We have pledged

that in the Budget. We will publish a White Paper in November.

The crisis at Southern Cross has raised fears of the viability of

the residential care sector. Will the Prime Minister inject some

urgency into his government's review of companies which provide

care services? We need a belt and braces plan to stop the elderly

worrying about the place that they call home. I think the Honourable

Gentleman makes an extremely important point and many of us,

myself included, have care homes in our constituencies run by Southern

Cross and are extremely concerned about what has happened and what is

happening. I can tell him that the health department and the Treasury

and the business department are following this closely. We do have

powers to make sure we regulate these places probably. Local

authorities have the powers to takeover the running of care homes

if necessary. I believe we are planning for contingencies in the

correct way. Given the high cost of petrol which

is crucifying motorists in Harlow across the country, with Mike

honourable friend support the fair fuel UK campaign and urged oil

companies to reduce petrol prices at the pump in line with market

prices and review the three pence increase next January? I want to

see every chance for lower prices do pass on to the consumer. What

the government has done is taken its necessary measures, the 1 p cut

in fuel duty this year, the pudding of of the RPI increase, the

abolition of the fuel escalator that the party opposite put in

place, all of those things will make a difference. Also, we took

part in the release of oil stocks, together with Americans, which has

seen the oil price come down but we need to make sure we have a good

competitive sector that passes on price cuts through the country.

As if the review of the air passage contingency continues, does the

Prime Minister accept there is an urgency in the situation,

especially in my constituency of South Antrim, given that the levy

on a long haul flight whereas our competitors have a levee of just 3

euros. The airlines link between Northern Ireland and New York,

something urgently must be done now. I understand a point the honourable

gentleman necks and I know it is of personal concern to him. I do

understand, when I went to Northern Ireland, people are explained the

importance of maintaining the air link direct between Northern

Ireland and the United States, absolutely vital for the long-term

economic health of this province. The Chancellor has spoken to people

in Northern Ireland about it and we are reviewing the options and we

will clear a path forward. My right honourable friend will be

aware that our colleague, Lord Bates, is currently walking from a

limpet in Greece to London, a journey of 4,000 miles to raise

awareness of the Olympic truce. Will the Prime Minister he ensure

that when the UK government table sits resolution for observance of

the Olympic truce to the United Nations General Assembly later this

year, will add to it specific proposals for peace and

reconciliation so we will maximise this historic opportunity? I'm sure

the whole house would like to congratulate Lord Bates for his

great feat. Sorry about that! Accidental, apologies for that. We

will be promoting a fresh calling for the continuing

observance of the Olympic truce for the 2012 games. We want to make the

most of this historic opportunity and we are considering other

initiatives to promote the spirit of the trees and the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office are engaging with embassies worldwide -- the

trees. A wet parents up-and-down the land

be horrified to know that under their proposals, person convicted

of raping a child will not automatically be put on the Bard

list of working with children in the future? What we have done in

terms of vetting and barring, is removed a huge number of people who

were not a risk to children, but we do want to make sure the system

works well so that anyone who has criminal convictions is barred.

Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister believe that the drugs policy has

been failing for decades, as he said in 2005, and does he agree

that the government should initiate a way of alternative ways including

tackling the global drugs dilemma? I do not believe we should be

legalising any drugs which are currently criminal, but I do

believe the drugs policy has been a failure over recent years. I think

there has been insufficient attention to two key areas,

education on one hand, but also treatment on the other. One of the

ways to collapse the drugs market is to have a more effective

treatment system and in this country in particular, we have

spent too much time on heroin replacement and methadone, rather

than trying to get people clean and clear up all the things in their

life which caused them to take drugs in the first place.

Has the Prime Minister himself been involved in seeking a solution to

the appalling problems in Sudan, and given the United Nations

concern, about 60,000 people being displaced, as well as other huge

humanitarian problems, will he use his influence on the eve of

independence, to ensure that north and south are seen to work

together? I think as the right honourable gentleman knows, we are

deeply involved in trying to seek a successful outcome to this process.

We find a lot of the talks process which has been ongoing. The Foreign

Secretary has visited the country, as has the Africa Minister. Britain

has done a huge amount to ensure that the CPA is fully implemented

and there is a peaceful settlement between the two countries. Clearly,

there is more work today. What does the Prime Minister think

is more fair and progressive, the coalition government's policy of

safeguarding benefits and the public sector or Labour's �1

billion smash and grab on private pension funds which contributed

directly to the demise of defined benefit schemes in the private

sector? I think my honourable friend makes an extremely good

point. 26 minutes into Question Time, not a squeak from the party

opposite about strikes of pensions or the need for reform. Because

they are all paid for by the trade unions, they cannot talk about this

issue. What that coalition government is doing is right. We

are saying, we want to have a defined benefit system in the

public sector. We want to ensure that all those accrued rights are

kept and those accrued rights you will still be able to take at the

age you were allowed to take them. For those people currently in a

final-salary scheme, when they get those benefits, they will be based

on their final salary, not the final salary now, or when the

reforms go through, but before -- final salary when they retire. They

have been so much myth and misinformation put around by those

in the trade unions, it is important to put on the record in

the house. Compared with the same period last

year, crime overall in London is up, including a 15 % rise in robbery

and an 18 % rise in burglary. At the same time, the mayor for London

is budgeted to cut 1800 police officers. Is this the right time to

do this and will the Prime Minister get a grip in London? First of all,

overall crime is falling. It is according to both the British Crime

Survey and the police recorded crime statistics. We are doing a

huge amount to help people right across the country, including the

London to deal with crime. The publication of crime maps, the

introduction of Police Commissioners, making sure we have

the proper powers necessary and perhaps because he is a London MP,

let me bring him up to date with operation target, which is running

in the Metropolitan Police. On average, 1,200 officers deployed

every day, they have been 4,000 different activities, 2000 arrests

but it is early days but there has been a drop in offences from week

to week from most serious offences, violence, knife crime, street

robbery and residential burglary. That is, they do not like to hear

an answer when it shows the police are doing their job. Prime

Minister's Questions is principally for backbenchers. Mr Graham Evans.

On the eighth of June 1944, a relative of mine was shot down

while dropping notes needed supplies to the French Resistance.

Today he lives in a Normandy Joel jarred with the crew of his Halifax

bomber. Does the Prime Minister agree with me battered his right

and proper that this nation should remember the sacrifice of 55,000

members of Bomber Command who gave their lives to rid Europe of Nazi

tyranny? I think it is absolutely right that we remember those who

served in Bomber Command and I recognise there is a lot of work to

make sure that is done. As someone who has visited one of the

Commonwealth War Graves ceremonies in Normandy recently, it is a

brilliant thing the way they are kept up and the work that is done

to make sure relatives can visit their fallen heroes.

During the last Labour government, millions of pensioners in this

country, including my grandmother who is in the gallery today, saw

the quality of life improved vastly, with measures such as the winter

fuel allowance, pension credits and a free bus pass. What message does

the Prime Minister have for these women in this country who are now

seeing their daughters have to work harder and longer for less money

and some of them having less time to prepare for the state pension?

What I would say to her constituency and all pensioners is

this government is reforming pensions so we are going to be

paying a more generous state retirement pension. Because of the

triple lock, someone retiring today will be �15,000 better off over the

rest of their life than they would be under the plans we inherited. We

have kept for free bus pass, we have kept the free television

licence, we have kept the other benefits and I believe we are being

fed by Britain's pensioners. The Prime Minister eluded earlier

to the contract between taxpayers and Public servants, there is a

contract between tax payers and MPs as well, does he agree that we

should be in the vanguard of reforming our own pensions, so we

can look our public sector constituents in the face?

absolutely agree with the honourable lady. In this house, we

are public sector workers as well and we should be subject to exactly

the same changes we asking others to take on. The increase in

contributions should apply to the MPs' system, even though it is a

system where we already pay in a lot. We are saying across the board,

the increase in pension contributions are right to create a

Well, Prime Ministers questions comes to an end. Not many to go

before the summer recess. The leader of the opposition using the

technique he's used over the past couple of weeks of trying to burrow

into some detail in the hope that the Prime Minister is not across

the detail, which he was not in the past couple of weeks. This time he

was asking about what will happen to the number of quangos in the NHS

after the reform. And the cost of redundancies, which he put at �852

million. Asking if any of those people would be retired. It's a

tactic that he has employed for several weeks. We will be

discussing whether British is effective or not. The Prime

Minister said, you don't want to talk about strikes, but you are

talking about the detail. We'll see what the panel makes of this new

approach by the leader of the opposition. First, we'll see what

you made of it. You can kind of tell when the energy has gone out

of PMQs, people want to talk about anything except the exchange

between the leaders. Today, the actions of the speaker have caught

your imagination. The Speaker stopping the Prime Ministers bd was

rude, says Alex Ross. The speaker needs to realise his position is to

beat neutral, we are fed up by your interruptions, says another viewer.

Then that that was before the rebuke about standing up for the

backbenchers, suggesting that the prime minister's answer was too

long. Ed and the Labour party are on the wrong side of the debates,

says a viewer from Kent. Mr Cameron, people want to know the answer to

the question, not what you think of Ed Miliband. I thought it was the

end of Punch and Judy politics, said Andrew from Manchester. This

one, why does Ed Miliband start every question with committee

hasn't answered the question? -- he hasn't answered the question.

do we make of this tactic? It's a way of unsettling the Prime

Minister, in a way it does work, he didn't know the answer to the

question. That's the tactic, but what is the strategy? Is he trying

to say to the public that the Prime Minister doesn't know how to do his

job? It seems to me that he's not playing with the grain, there isn't

an obvious point to make. Clearly, there is a Labour line of attack,

people will be sympathetic, the idea that the Government is making

things up as it goes along, that you turning is a problem. But I

found myself pretty puzzled by that line of attack. Clearly, it allows

Labour to keep the story of the NHS going. I'd be very surprised if

it's picked up widely in the media. If it is, and a sure the Labour

Party will be given the credit for raising it. It's a frustration for

Ed Miliband, sometimes. He has done quite powerful lines of attack, on

the NHS and the first place. Quite often, people picked it up and the

newspapers and gave him no credit. He left an open goal, in not asking

about the strikes. It was easy for David Cameron to go on and say that,

because he knows that every journalist has to write about the

strikes. Why leave yourself vulnerable to the criticism?

did he talk about them? He spoke about the strikes yesterday, at the

weekend. The idea that we don't want to talk about it, Andy Burnham

has asked that it should question on the strikes. The Government has

made such a mess. Why not use PMQs? A Ed Miliband has made his position

clear, he thinks the strikes at a mistake, he thinks the Government

should be negotiating. What it showed again is that the Prime

Minister doesn't know the detail, and secondly, on the NHS, he gave

an absolutely categorical promise there would be no or top-down

reorganisation. That is exactly what we are getting. Twice he could

not answer the question, can you promise that the people you are

paying off will not be rehired? He knows he can't answer, because that

is what is going to happen with everything that he is bringing in.

Let's take that issue. The leader of the opposition said it is

costing �852 million to make a number of people redundant. Can you

guarantee that these people will not be rehired in some way? If you

had won the election, you would be making people redundant in the

health service. We don't know what the numbers would be, undoubtedly

you would have to do that, given the Alastair Darling plan. You

would not be able to give that commitment either. You would have a

redundancy bill and you could not say that you would not hire any of

these people. It's a kind of non question. I disagree. You would say

that? I disagree with your privates. We would not have had a top-down

reorganisation of the type the Government is engaging in, -- with

your premise. The stop-start, we are not going ahead, we are going

ahead, we are not creating new bodies, we are having to create

shadow bodies, it is one big mess. I you saying your government would

not have made any redundancies? That is by point. David Cameron

embarked on one course of action, then he was forced to screech to a

halt. He is literally making it up as he goes along. All of the bodies

that Ed Miliband listed in action - - asking the question, they are

having to be created or having their lives prolonged because the

Government has made a complete mess of what the Government is doing to

the NHS. Having done a massive U- turn on the NHS, they are having a

proliferation of quangos. This was a government, like every other

government, promising a bonfire of the quangos. On Mr Miliband's

figures, you're doubling or trebling the number of quangos.

What is that about? This double, there you have it. He has just

admitted that they would be able to answer the question that Ed

Miliband was put into the Prime Minister in this tactic of asking

these points of detail. I agree with Nick, I don't think it is

successful. It means he's not addressing the big issues, it is an

instantly forgettable Prime Ministers questions. I think it is

completely the wrong strategy for him. It kind of unsettled the Prime

Minister. I don't think it does. The luck on his face, it was almost

news to him about the number of quangos that will be in the NHS

after these reforms are done. have established that the Labour

Party can dance a written question. -- couldn't answer its own question.

They were looking for an admission from the Labour Party that they got

things wrong, a stance that they are willing to change, that they

are listing to the country, that the leader is willing to take big

decisions. And he is flogging all of that, so I think Ed Miliband is

doing himself a great deal of harm. There is clearly a long-term

objective, to undermine David Cameron's claim to love heat NHS,

or at least to be acting as if he does love the NHS. In that sense,

I'm sure that Ed Miliband is determined to say that we are not

at the end of the NHS story, simply because the Government made a U-

turn. He wants to keep insisting that David Cameron is to blame,

don't blame the doctors or the deficit. In that sense, it's clear

that he wants to keep the NHS running. I still slightly struggle

to see what his hopers, and it might not be his only Test, making

it into the news, because it is not his only Test, but making it into

the news with the questions he asks the Prime Minister. I could be

proved wrong. The we will watch the news tonight and see if he makes it.

Most journalists came in today thinking they had to do something

on the strikes. Let's just have a look, while we have been going on,

events have been unfolding in Athens. I think we can get live

pictures. This is where violence has broken out again. The BBC's

Correspondent Jon Sopel, we spoke to him yesterday on the programme.

I have just been reading his blog. He says it is a much more brutal,

hostile atmosphere than it was yesterday. There was quite a lot of

violence them. There have been some real clashes, tear gas. He has

described it as looking like frozen ice wafting in front of Parliament.

They tried to put up roadblocks to stop MPs or deputies, as they are

called in Athens, getting into Parliament to vote. Some pretty bad

scenes this morning. We don't expect the result for another hour.

It looks like we will, with a majority of five, that the

Socialist government will probably get its way. It's quite clear that

it hasn't got its way with a lot of people in Athens. Whether they will

be able to implement the reforms, the austerity package, that is

another big message. The markets are pretty confident it will go

through. The euro is looking quite strong this morning. European stock

exchanges have risen. I was struck by how the Prime Minister wants to

keep talking about Greece, for domestic political reasons. He

wants to say to the country, that is what it could be like if we were

not doing what we are doing. His opponents will say that is nonsense

on economic grounds and they will claim it is nonsense on political

grounds, that there is a perfectly good way of reducing the deficit

without getting up people's pensions and its legitimate for

people to strike. I was struck by the fact that on the eve of his

protests, he would quite like people to pick his was an

alternative and that he stands against this chaos. The events in

Athens, if they go wrong: Even if they go right, from the

Government's point of view, it could have a contagious effect

across Europe. Is it right that no side of the house bothered to raise

the Greeks situation in Parliament today? Well, it is self evidently

nonsense to try and argue that there is a comparison between what

has happened in Greece and what we are seen in the United Kingdom. --

what we are seeing her in the United Kingdom. We have discussed

the bail out, we had a statement from the Prime Minister after the

EU summit. Sometimes we are a little bit parochial and Prime

Ministers questions? I disagree that it is nonsense. I think if you

look at Dublin, if you look at Lisbon, Athens, if you look at what

those economies are having to go through, what happens if you leave

decisions until too late, you allow public sector spending and debt to

rise unsustainably, what is forced on you is much deeper spending cuts.

What the Greek people are reacting to are things like closing the

numbers of schools, big cuts in health spending, state-owned

employees in Greece that are having 30% cuts in pay. It is a reminder

that choices are inescapable, that we have to deal with the deficit

and keep confidence in our economy. If final brief word from Nick?

think there are some Euro-sceptic backbenchers who think that what is

happening in Rhys could have an effect on Europe, and it is being

ignored. I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had agreed it is

not a conversation to have in public, it is one that you have in

private. We will leave it there. We will keep a cross events in Greece.

If we get the vote whilst we are there, we will put it to you.

A survey published this morning shows that more than half of

councillors are worried about the strain on public services caused by

cuts to housing benefit. That before I change takes place in the

new year. From January, many people will have to move into shared

accommodation instead of having their own place because of cuts to

housing benefits. David Rowntree, drummer in the band Blair, no

upturned Labour activist and solicitor, told me why he thinks

it's not a good idea. -- the band Everyone knows how important it is

to have some way you can call home. But the Government are trying to

push through drastic cuts in housing benefit for those between

25 and 35. They are calling it extending the shared accommodation

rate. Around 60,000 people are going to be affected. They are

going to lose about half their benefits, about �40 a week. Of

course, landlords are not going to reduce rent, so people are going to

be forced to move. The Government argues that they can move into

shared properties. But there simply aren't the properties available.

For vulnerable people to move into shared accommodation with strangers

simply isn't suitable. Many will end up homeless and on the streets.

They include people who have been homeless and are trying to get back

on their feet. Dads who are separated and trying to carry on

seeing the children. Pregnant women thrown out by their partners. One-

in-five is disabled and many more All these people have had to

struggle to get the homes they live in. Those homes and the security

they provide are at risk from these cuts. The government says they need

to save money but we will end up spending more if people become

homeless. People at the sharp end will not have a secure place to

rebuild their lives. These people often struggled get their voices

heard and I do not believe the most vulnerable should bear the brunt of

the cuts. The government says we are all in it together but some

people seem to be more in it than others. I believe the government

should think again. Homelessness is already rising and I for one, do

not want to see a return to the David joins us now. At the moment,

there are lots of young people who do not qualify for housing benefit

and they find themselves having to share houses, that is just an

extension of that, isn't it? What the government is proposing that

60,000 of the most vulnerable people are turfed out of their

accommodation. One of five of them are disabled, they often people

made crisis in their lives and they are people who can ill-afford to

move at all, let alone the forced to share low-grade accommodation

with other people they do not know. Are you objecting in general to the

fact that people on low incomes or on housing benefit are having to

share or in particular, this sub- group you talk about, those with

disabilities? I am objecting to the state of housing in the country. We

are in a disgraceful situation. The Tories are planning a change in the

housing benefit rules which were essentially turf 60,000 of the most

vulnerable people and society out of their homes. We will talk about

the specific cases of the disabled, we have Nick here stop you must be

leaving the the charge against this. Let me ask you another question

before you takeover altogether! The fact is, there are lots of people

out there who were not on housing benefit to do not qualify for

housing benefit, who face the same situation. We are talking that

pensioners who have to take cuts, we are in a dire state in this

country, cuts have to be made, what about the young as well as the old?

That is the Conservative Office Central Line. Nick, you must be

leading the charge against these cuts. You are taking over this

interview again, David! Neck, let me ask you another question. David,

it is not nice. On the issue of the most vulnerable, there has been a

piece of research coming out from another charity saying that they

are also worried that those people having to share accommodation.

vulnerable are exempted from this proposal specifically. What we know

is that people who are Carillion showed accommodation, receipt of

housing benefit, two-thirds of those would be entitled to it. They

are exercising a choice to be in shared accommodation. If you are

not in receipt of housing benefit, if you are working and clearly

struggling, and you cannot possibly expect that you can afford

accommodation to be living on your own and you are going into shared

accommodation, as young people do, particularly in places like London

because the prices, why should we expect that the state should be

subsidising people to be in their own accommodation. The whole

housing benefit system has spiralled out of control. We are

paying benefit up to absurd levels, up to �100,000. If it has had a

very inflationary effect and it is simply not fair. You stated that

position clearly but I want you to be categoric on this programme,

that subsection that David is talking about that Shelter is

worried about, that councils are worried about, those who have

disabilities or mental health issues, you are saying in no way

ever, under your stewardship are they going to be forced to share

accommodation? The vulnerable are excluded. We have to look at these

things clearly on a case-by-case basis. The principal stance and

there is a transition fund to assist people when necessary. We do

not believe anybody is going to be made homeless by this policy. This

is a good example of the sort of decisions that were not taken by

the previous government. They have to be taken both to ensure we have

a grip on spending, because the costs are spiralling out of control

but also on the grounds of fairness as well. A lot of people watching

this will say, I might quite like to be in a flat of my own as well

but the state is not paying me to be in a flat of my own. For let me

come back to, David, as well as former -- being formally in Blur

and as a solicitor, you are also a Labour activist, under the Darling

plan, there would be cuts as well, isn't it opportunistic to make this

a political issue because your party would do similar things?

disagree that we would do similar things. Let me take you back to the

answer that nobody would be made homeless, how can you say you are

going to shift 60,000 people out of their accommodation, force them

into shared accommodation which does not exist but nobody would be

made homeless? We do not believe that is the case. We have done the

impact assessments. We have a transition fund to address these

issues. 1.8 billion cups. feedback we have been having is it

is possible to accommodate people in revised accommodation. Of course,

we do not want to make people homeless. Half of the councillors

who were asked said they are concerned that in your emotive

language, they would be turfed out into the streets. We do not

believe... Are the council has not telling the truth? There have been

charities which have said that their definition of homelessness is

not the same one that your eye would be applying. Very, very

briefly, Hilary Benn, your thoughts on this? I think there is genuine

concern about what the impact of this will be. I am not convinced

that the government has thought through the context of this. I

think we should listen very carefully to those who have

expertise, particularly in relation to those who are vulnerable and say,

has the government really thought this through? Are people not going

to end up on the streets because we do not want to go back to what it

was like in the 1980s when we last had a Conservative government.

Now, are you nostalgic for the smoke filled rooms of the past? I

didn't think so. We are not talking at last year's coalition

negotiations either. A cross-party group of MPs want the government to

review the complete ban on smoking in pubs and clubs. They say the ban

has hit licensed premises, 7% of which have closed in the three

years since the ban came in. Whether there is a link is another

matter. I am joined by the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. Thanks

for joining us. I am in the hot seat at the moment! If it sets on

fire, and I allowed to stand up? don't think so. Let's get to the

first question. The smoking ban, the Office of National Statistics

brought out a poll in March of this year and they said City 3% of

smokers want to give up smoking, 81 % of smokers want to -- 81 set of

the public agree with smoking ban. Why change it? When I voted for the

smoking ban, I argued there was a logic of having some smoky rooms

with proper ventilation. What we have our ramshackle sheds in

gardens. For me as a non-smoker, it would be nice to go into the garden

of a pub and not breathing smoke. Eight get silly when you have these

ramshackle devices, he did with these very environmentally

unfriendly heating devices. Your visual exercise off the bar full of

smoke is not what is proposed, it is ventilated smoking rooms.

you sure the impact is as wide as you suggest? A Department of Health

report said implementation had gone well, 41 % reported a positive

impact on the company, only 3% negative. Generally, it has been

good. I support the general smoking ban. I think there is an argument

for having ventilated smoking ruins which is sort of what we are

getting but it is a shambolic system at the moment where you have

these lean tos and sheds in gardens and they are heated by heating the

air. There has to be a better way than doing that. Although the

smoking ban has caused problems, it is not just the smoking ban. For

instance, the fact that people get very cheap alcohol from other

places, that has an effect as well. You have to look at the issue of,

do we accept the silly situation we have at the moment with shacks and

strange marquees in gardens or should we say, let's be realistic,

not around the Barca the visual you have got behind me would not be

what we are talking about but why not consider the option of having

ventilated smoking rooms? What about the staff who have to work

there? You would not have the staff at the bar where there is smoke,

they would be popping in and out of the room. For people like me who

are non-smokers it would be nice to go into a pub and not go through a

gaggle of smokers at the entrance. Thank you and thank you for being a

good sport. It did not set on fire so I am quite happy! Green screens

are good things! OK, don't get carried away.

Where are you on this, Hilary Benn? I voted on the smoking ban and I

would leave it as it is. As John has said, there are gardens. People

have made their own arrangements. People have found their way around

it. There are bigger changes affecting people in pubs and clubs,

including the availability of much cheaper alcohol in supermarkets.

There has been a move away from pubs, I'm not sure you can get a

link between pub closures and the smoking ban? I don't think that is

the only factor. It may be a factor in part but the overwhelming

evidence of the benefit of the smoking ban, the damage it has cost

the NHS, I stand by what I did when I voted for it. And you voted for

it as well? No, I did not. My understanding is the government do

not wish to review this. I voted against the smoking ban because and

the end, I was unhappy about telling people what they should do.

One of the things that was an overriding argument for many people

is as Hilary described, the staff and the health of the staff which

is something I had to wrestle a bit. If the opportunity arose again, I

would think hard how I would vote in future. Time to pick you out of

your misery. We can give you the Guess The Year answer. Castro

taking power was a clue, so was the British Collection and the opening

of the M1. It was a 1951 -- the British election. The Tories' won

by a landslide. It is a while since you have won by a landslide, choose

the winner. Who reads it out? read it out. In case you read the

address, we will all be in jail. Chris Sauber from London, you are

the one. He was playing the piano in that clip? Maybe it was Russ

Conway. We can showed pictures from Greece. There is a lot of violence

and tear gas. We are told the vote itself will not come in the

parliament until at least another 20 minutes. The BBC News Channel

and BBC News will give you that result. Tune in for that. Very

nasty scenes of the right place outside the Greek parliament.

That is it for today. Thank you for our guests, Hilary and neck. We