18/01/2012 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, this is the Daily Politics.

Talking tough on welfare - the Government says it will push

through its reforms whatever opposition the Lords might throw up.

Many peers have spent the last week trying to scupper Iain Duncan

Smith's bill and the battle's not over yet. We'll be talking to the

man in charge. Poor old Ed. He's been taking a lot

of stick from his buddies in the unions. Will his week get any

better when he faces the PM across the despatch box?

We'll be asking if this puts you off visiting Westminster.

And stop burying your head in the sand. Rosie Boycott tells

politicians to wake up when it All that coming up in the next 90

minutes of "we've never been nominated for a BAFTA award"-

winning television. And with us for the duration, we have a couple of

political giants. At least I think they are. We believe Iain Duncan

Smith is the Work and Pensions Secretary, and we think Andy

Burnham is the Shadow Health Secretary. Unfortunately, though,

Wikipedia is down for 24 hours and the programme production staff have

no idea who is who and what is what. With their only research engine

down, I'm told all our researcher have gone down the pub. Anyway,

welcome to both of you. First this morning, let's talk

about the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada because yesterday, the

European Court of Human Rights blocked the Government's attempt to

depart Mr Qatada back to Jordan. The militant cleric, who's been

described as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, is

currently being held at a high security prison in Worcestershire.

By Iain Duncan Smith, the Government wants to deport him.

I suspect public opinion wants to deport him. The Labour Party wanted

to deport him in power, and British judges want to deport him. Why

would we let the European Court of Human Rights stock that? Because

whether you like it or not, and a lot of people don't like it, we are

bound by the Convention. There is the root... It is a disappointing

result, a deplorable individual, a supporter of terrorism, he should

go back. I think we have the route to appeal. They are looking to see

whether they can appeal. appeals hardly ever work. I agree.

It is a mess. You go to the full chamber for by an appeal and

overwhelmingly they are turned over. -- don't work. A 5% chance. Let's

assume we lose the appeal, what do we do next? You have to keep him

under arrest. Then go back to the European Court and say you are

infringing his European -- human rights. We are proposing to reform

the relationship with the convention and that is something

the Home Secretary is bringing forward. One of the ways ahead in

due course is to modify the way it's worked so we don't have these

decisions. They are not living in the real world, this court, they

are still living in a world where terrorism was an occasional affair.

We have a very dangerous man, supporter a very, very dangerous

people, every body in Britain wants him out, we have to find a way of

getting this man back to where he came from and face their judicial

process. The European Court said you can't deport people back to

countries where there's a good chance of them being tortured. The

British said OK, we understand that, so your government negotiated a

deal with Jordan to get commitments from the Jordanian government that

people would not be maltreated. Correct. Now the European Court

says that not enough. There's a chance he may face a trial in which

some of the evidence will have come about by torture. They have changed

the goalposts and when they do this, this is why there's a head of steam

against the European Court in this country now. Maybe. It is a

disappointing result. I read it more positively perhaps than you

have done. The court accepted those bilateral agreements between the UK

and Jordan. They said we accept that, but if the commitment has

been given that evidence will not be directly used in respect of Abu

Qatada, if it had been derived from torture. What they on helpfully

then said was that because the system over there, torture is so

prevalent, there's some evidence that may have been gained that way,

we can't be certain it won't be used. If I was a Home Office

minister now, I would now go back to the Jordanians and say, give us

a cast-iron guarantee that no evidence will be introduced derived

from other cases that could be categorised in that way and then go

back to the European Court and say now we have the final assurances,

this is the route and we get a verdict. What the Government wants

to do is set the framework so when they appeal, they have strong

grounds to appeal. That may be one of the solutions. The judges taking

this decision have to think again. They are extrapolating away from

the agreement made an coming up with some kind of possible IFS and

buts. Yesterday they also made a different judgment about the

state's and right to hold people in prison for life. Life meaning life.

That is a sign they are listening to public opinion and the

representations of government. It is easy to knock the court and so

they are hope for us, but I thought the couple have run into gave

grounds for hope. I don't think they are listening enough. It is

like a swallow which doesn't... They make the occasional good

judgment. My concern and the concern of the Government and of

your government is that too often, they make judgments like the one

yesterday which are almost dancing on the head of a pin. We had an

agreement with Jordan. There was plenty enough for us to have got a

right decision from them and yet again they failed. When Abu Qatada

was arrested, because he was thought to be plotting to blow up

the Christmas market in Strasbourg, which is packed with people, and

that is what they thought he was doing, he was found to have

�175,000 in cash on him. Why has he been on welfare all these years?

Why have taxpayer has been paying his welfare when he has �170,000 in

cash? If he has money and capital, he will not be available for the

income related supports. He is getting hundreds of pounds a week.

Hundreds of pounds. I know, and the reality is we are trapped in this

position because he is incarcerated but still living outside a prison.

He ends up being able to be supported. This is a man with

�175,000 and a hard working taxes of British people were paying him

hundreds of pounds a week in welfare. Nobody would justify that.

We are dealing with a suspected serious international terrorist.

They get their money from a range of sources and it is not easy for

the benefits system to track down all of the global funds he has

access to. He was found with �175,000. These networks have

millions at their disposal. How can the benefits system track all of

that movement? We are dealing with a very serious individual. We are

getting closer to getting the right result. You don't mind paying the

welfare? I said I did. Why did you do it? Under the rules, he avoids

the rules. The man is able to work the system to his benefit. Which is

why we are trying to reform it. will come on to that later!

Imagine flying from Rio and landing at Boris Island on the Thames

Estuary. It's the stuff dreams are made of, and according to the Mayor

of London, it's not far off reality. Support for a new airport on the

Thames Estuary is apparently gaining increasing support from

ministers. Here's what Boris Johnson had to say earlier this

morning. If you're going to expand your capacity and businesses making

that case very powerfully to the Government, George Osborne is in

China, he understand very clearly the need to communicate with the

big growth the economies of Asia and Latin America, if you're going

to do that, you have to look elsewhere.

Well, I'm now joined by Bernard Jenkin, who is the Conservative MP

for North Essex, and the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman,

Julian Huppert. How enthusiastic is the Prime Minister about this idea?

I think he has come to realise that a policy of no new runways in the

south-east will strangle London as an international city and turn

London into an international backwater. We have one major

airport with two runways, Heathrow, competing with Frankfurt, with

three runways, Paris with three runways. We are simply going to

lose all of that aviation business and the people who travel on those

routes to other European countries. It would be a disaster for the UK.

Is the Thames estuary the answer? It will take decades to build and

that the vast cost. This will be capitalised by the private-sector,

I have no doubt. There are three win-win Win Crew murkier. Building

at Heathrow is not an option. This is a -- the best environmental

option for it airport expansion in the south-east. Secondly, it will -

- sustain London and the south-east as an international centre. Third,

it will maintain our leadership of the aviation sector. It will take

time, but it is the best option. win-win-Winup deal. Not in the

slightest, this is a fantasy for Boris. It is not really a workable

solution. We are certainly going to stay opposed to it. Most of the

Conservatives I've spoken to have been as surprised by the sleek out

of Number Ten. -- this league. They have been saying they are against

it. It is not the right place from an environmental perspective. It is

very damaging. Whether you look at the animal life or carbon dioxide.

It is almost right next to the SS Montgomerie, a sunken Liberty ship

with over 3,000 tonnes of munitions. If that explodes, it will be

devastating to the whole area. You would not build a new airport quite

next we ship that might explode. This is far off reality? The Lib

Dems won't let this happen even if Nick Clegg allows the consultation

to go ahead. The Department of Transport has been dedicated to the

expansion of Heathrow and Stansted for the last 50 years. They are a

prisoner of the vested interests, particularly the airlines and the

operators. It is time for new thinking because Heathrow is not a

sustainable option in the long term if we are going to remain in this.

It is another Sujit vantage to developing the Thames estuary which

may or may not be Boris Island. We will wait and see. Her or Bernard

Ireland! Thank you very much. I am not worthy. But the economic

regeneration of the Thames estuary has been a great challenge facing

successive governments for decades. This is the great opportunity for a

new airport to lead the regeneration of the Thames estuary.

Do we need a new airport? The country's natural demand for air

travel is set to expand to 260 million passengers a year. There is

still capacity around a number of airports. We should not focus on

just the south-east. As planes become bigger and bigger, you can

fit more passengers on without having to build new runways or new

terminals and having all of the damage that involves. It is not

needed. They are run much better things we can do with that money to

improve our connectivity. Let's connect ports with high-speed rail

so we can move freight that way. This is simply a fantasy. Borrowers

will talk about it quite a bit until the elections and then it

will go very quiet. -- Boris will talk. That is rubbish. Thank you

boats. Iain Duncan Smith, is this just the stuff dreams are made of

all is the Government considering it? It is an idea that has been

around a long time. We go back to Ted Heath. This sort of thing

should have been... In principle, I think it is a very good idea to see

whether it is feasible both environmentally and financially.

What is clear is Heathrow as an airport, in a modern city the size

of London, is in the wrong place. You would not put an airport there

if you have to. We all accept London will require greater

transport, the question is how you will manage that. The fact that the

chancellor and prime minister have both said let's have a look at that

means it's worth looking at. Is it worth looking at? When I heard

about Boris Island, I thought we were putting him in exile! I

thought Boris Johnson gave the game away on the radio this morning. He

said my mates Dave and George have sorted it out for me. This is all

about the London election. It is all about doing Boris a favour. To

bring it ahead of the aviation strategy, this is not the way to do

things. The Lib Dems are crying foul. This has to be taken with a

massive pinch of salt. What about Heathrow? We saw the case for the

expansion of Heathrow and the Government set its face against

that, but it has set its face against this. They said there

should not be an expansion of capacity in the south-east. If this

is true, it is a massive U-turn anyway because they have set their

face against Heathrow and if they are doing this, I don't know, it is

in chaos. I it is straight forward. It is an idea that is worth looking

at. Her but will it ever happen? There's every possibility it will

providing all of those features stack up. In any big project, the

reality is, as Bernard said earlier, London is one of the big global

cities and yet we have a very diverse area of airports. What does

it do to Heathrow? You have got an airport. There are jobs. You get

nothing but problems right now coming out of Heathrow. You set

your face against that. You guys work for an extended run way which

would cause massive environmental problems. What about the people who

live in the Medway towns? reality of this is that it has to

be taken into consideration. But it is worth thinking about. It is

difficult for people who live near Heathrow, but most people who went

to live venue they were living near a big airport. You don't want to

carry on spreading a big airports. You are spreading the misery.

may be a way of consolidating so it is worth looking at. You guys did

not use your imagination very much. It has been a topsy-turvy week for

Iain Duncan-Smith's welfare group. The Government faced stiff

opposition from the Peers and was defeated in the Lords three times

last week. This week the Government is getting tougher.

The grand old Secretary of State, Ian Duncan-Smith has been marching

his troops up the hill of welfare reform. Last year it total spending

on benefits and pensions was �201 billion. 52 billion of that was

spent on benefits of people of working age. He has come under

attack from the House of Lords. Last week Labour and crossbench

Peers inflicted three separate wounds on the welfare bill,

rejecting plans to limit payments to those with serious illnesses and

to young people. Last night the Cabinet defeated another amendment

from the former paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson on changes to

disability benefits. Disability Living Allowance is being replaced

by the Personal Independence Payment, which involves a more

rigorous assessment. The Government says its plan will cut the

disability costs by 20%. Baroness Grey-Thompson had wanted ministers

to hold trials before replacing the delay, but this proposal was

defeated. But Mr Duncan-Smith is not out of the woods yet, the bill

is back in front of the Lords on Monday when they will debate his

plans for an annual cap. We are now joined by the former

paralympian and crossbench peer, Tanni Grey-Thompson. Welcome to the

Daily Politics. Thank you. Do you believe there are some people are

currently getting DLA that probably do not need it, and there is a case

for a tougher assessment? I think benefit fraud is only 0.5%, so I

think there are probably some people who are pulling the wall and

I think there is a tiny minority of people who are right on the edge.

Figures released on Monday show half a million disabled people

might lose in the transition to the Personal Independence Payment. I

worry about them because we might be making short-term payments, and

that is why I wanted an in depth trial, but by removing it at the

lower rate, we could be pushing them into having much higher care

needs. They could be putting a bigger bill on the NHS. The aim of

saving money might cost us more in the long run and that is a real

worry to me. Since you can get delay without a medical evaluation

and once you get it, you get it effectively forever, why would you

think that fraud is so low? I think it is a complex form to fill in. I

had to fill one in and I have been reassessed, not recently, but a

while ago. Come pennies make money out of helping you. I disagree with

that. That is not a positive way forward. DLA is by no means perfect,

but it helps a huge number of disabled people with the recognised

extra costs of being disabled. Public transport is not great. I

can only drive an automatic car which is more expensive. It costs

disabled people more or to be in work and there is a great deal of

discrimination against disabled people. Delay is kind of buying

people's rights. I would love to be in a position where we do not have

to buy that at all. You have got the Secretary of State here. What

would you like to say to him? it right for disabled people. We

hear an awful lot about the people with the broadest shoulders will

bear the brunt of austerity and cuts and I am not feeling too many

impinge manse and things that I am experiencing. But I am getting

hundreds of e-mails from disabled people and organisations who are

terrified they will be ghettoise and pushed out of society and there

is nowhere for them to go. We need reform, but we have to be convinced

this is the right reform and I do not believe it is. What do you say

to that? First of all the Personal Independence Payment will be making

sure that those who need the benefit, which is based on care and

mobility, they will still remain as criteria. Those who need the

benefit will get it. We will see more people with more severe

conditions get better level of settlements, so people will gain as

well as lose. Do you accept only a small number of people are cheating

the system? There is a different way of looking at this. Fraud

represents a certain amount of money, but there is another area as

well. Because in DLA people get 70% for their lifetime and I never

looked at again and most are never looked at in the first place, what

happens is there has been a whole series of overpayments, roughly

about �600 million. It is a significant amount of money that is

going to people who we think do not need as much or who do not need

that money. Yet others inside DLA are legitimately complaining they

do not get enough to support their care needs and their mobility. The

purpose of the reform, which we are consulting on, will continue to

consult on, are all about saying the balance of this is to make sure

we have a sustainable allowance for people who are disabled. She quite

rightly said there is discrimination and people take a

dim view of people getting benefits, but half of the problem is their

view is there are people who are getting it who should not. Personal

independence payments will be able to say, we have got a system which

is very robust, which will give to people who need the right money and

now you can respect that benefit. That respect will be required and

you can say, I do not mind giving my money because it is going to the

right people. That is the balance. Your response? I would like to ask

about the half-a-million people who might lose out through the process.

What about these have a million people if we really find they are

losing out if they are being discriminated against, if they are

losing their jobs? Will they be allowed to have some support.

point about the half-a-million losing out his we also do not talk

about those who will be gaining from this. Well half-a-million lose

out? If they are not eligible under the criteria. If their condition

changes, if it gets worse, they will get a higher level of payment.

The criteria that we believe that level of people are not necessary

in on DLA, we believe there are others support areas for them. They

may be eligible for that. DLA right now if we do nothing to it is set

to grow to well over 2 million. The cost will spiral. It is already

over 12 billion. It is not being respected. I have one question here

because I have got and the sitting on my left. The last Government

wanted to reform delay and they have an opportunity to support our

reforms. Yet again they voted against them last night not saying

what they would do in their place. The Labour opposition is to decide

whether it is in support of welfare reform or whether it is going to

cop out. We support the case for reform and we have said that. The

public are with you when it comes to tackling fraud, waste, or giving

people benefits who do not need them. But Tanni Grey-Thompson makes

an eloquent case. You go beyond that line and you take help away

from people who desperately need it. I am hearing those fears and

concerns in my surgery. From my own policy perspective, you are a man

of compassion and integrity, how can you possibly take money off

them when people are recovering from cancer, you cannot take a time

limit for that. How can you give them the extra worry of worrying

about their benefits. ESA was a benefit you left behind and you

already allowed for cancer sufferers to have it taken off

completely. We have brought cancer patients in on a number of areas.

You have overturned the Lords. you take ESA and say, we will take

you out on your condition, why can't you do it on every other

condition? It is different. Cancer takes people out of the workplace

and give them lots of extra costs. Car parking, the hospital, the

stress. That is over the line. would love to let us continue, but

we have got Prime Minister's Questions and thank you to Tanni

Grey-Thompson for joining us. You through a little fire into our

studio, come back again. Spare a thought for the poor old

Education Secretary. First he suggests an ace and should give the

Queen and new royal yacht to lift our spirits. But then he should bat

said it should be privately funded. Then he finds out his plan to send

a copy of the Ken Jones Bible with a forward by himself to every

school and the country has fallen by the wayside as well. He had to

find private funding for that. Michael, if you are watching, there

is one thing the Queen and every school in the country needs, a

Daily Politics mug. If you are clever enough you could win 23,000

of these and send one to every school in the country. That would

take some time. We have only got about 10. Is he sending these

Bibles to everybody who can pay for a job? Everyone can pray they will

never have a Labour Government again. We will remind you how to

enter in a minute, but let's see if Cynthia Diane pain. 193. The pain

# The only way is up, baby, you and me now. # We have been invaded by

some people who we hope to be removing very shortly.

# You had to sneak into my room just to read my diary. # For a

stock # Every time I see you, something happens to me.

Like a chain reaction, between you and me.

My heart starts missing a beat every time. #.

How youthful those politicians looked in that film. To be in with

a chance of winning a Daily Politics Macca centre answer to our

It is coming up to midday, let's take a look at Big Ben. It is a

very gloomy day in London. There is a good Scottish word for that.

does that mean? Yes, Prime Minister's questions is on its way

and that is not all. Nick Robinson is here. We will do it with

subtitles in future. That should happen every week. I am pretty sure

Mr Miliband will agree with that. PM queues is a test of his

leadership. The year has been defined by the questions about his

leadership. But it was just before Christmas when I got some flak from

people in the Labour Party because I suggested he had had a rough time.

That was the moment in which people in his own party started to say

they were worried. I think he wants to get back to good, solid, raising

the issue questions. I suspect his advisers will say keep it low-key.

It is about not losing, but the intriguing question for Cameron is

does he try and tease him about Labour's economic policy or do the

Tories take the view it might be working for Labour and avoid it

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others

and I shall have further such meetings later today. The prime

minister will be aware of the very strong uptake of Academy Schools in

Gloucester, but is he aware of the enormous differences and funding

which put Stowe School is at the bottom of the league table in terms

of the lax a funding? I welcome the Government's move towards a

national funding formula, but will he look at the serious situation in

Gloucester in regards to those schools? Who my honourable friend

is quite right, we need to sort out this problem even before looking at

national funding formula. It is a funding formula we inherited and I

believe it is flawed and that is why we are reforming it. The

Secretary of State has met with Academy heads in his constituency

and will discuss with him how we can deal with this problem. The

growing evidence is that Academy Schools are not just good for the

pupils who go, but by raising standards and aspirations in those

areas, they are raising the standards of all schools.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that unemployment would fall in

each year of this Parliament. Today, unemployment rose for the 6th month

in a row. Does he think it has anything to do with his government?

The Government takes absolute responsibility for everything that

happens in our economy and I take responsibility for that. Any

increase in unemployment is disappointing and it is obviously a

tragedy for the person who becomes unemployed and can lead to real

difficulty for that family and that is why we are taking so much action

to help people to get back into work. If you look at the figures

today, it is noteworthy that while the increase in unemployment is

usually unwelcome, there's still an increase in the number of people

employed, another 18,000 people in work. That shows we need more

private sector employment, you need to move further and faster on that

agenda. It is also noteworthy that there's a small decrease in long-

term unemployment and I hope that shows that schemes like the work

programme we are introducing are beginning to have an effect. But we

need them to go further and faster, there's not one ounce of

complacency in this government, we will do everything we can to get

people back to work. Doesn't the Prime Minister understand, when he

boasts about rising employment, it shows how part of touchy is? -- out

of touch. In some parts of London, 100 people are chasing three

vacancies. That is the situation people are facing. Can he confirm

that under his policies, far from things getting better over the

coming year, he expects things to get worse and unemployment to rise

to 2.8 million? Forecasts are no longer set out by the Government,

they are set out by the Independent office of a budget responsibility.

Unlike in his day, these forecasts are not fixed and fiddled by

ministers, they are set out by independent economists. What the

Government's responsibility is to do everything we can to help people

into work. That is why we have the work programme that is helping 3

million people, the youth contract that will get a private sector jobs

for 160,000 young people, that is why we have work experience for

250,000 young people and half of those are off benefits within two

months. That is 20 times better value than the Future Jobs Fund.

There's no boasting about anything. What we have is growth in the

private sector, contraction in the public sector, but Lee need to get

the economy moving and key to that is having low interest rates that

his plans would put at risk. doesn't seem to understand. The

reason the OBR figures matter is that they show over the next year,

unemployment will get worse not better on his policies. Nothing he

can say can deny that. That long list of policies, according to the

OBR, will make no difference. Let's talk about young people. In the

last year, can he confirm that we have now 147,000 young people out

of work for more than six months? That is double what it was a year

ago. An increase of 100 to descend. Why has he allowed it to happen? --

102%. Her over the last year, unemployment amongst young people,

measured by the Independent Labour Organisation, the proper way of

measuring, is up by 7%. It is not the 40% increase we had under

Labour, but it is far too high. We need to help those young people

into work and that is what our programmes are doing. Let me make

this point because it's important. There's a fundamental difference

between the way this government measures youth unemployment and the

way the last government did. This is important. His government

counted young people who were on jobseeker's allowance but in any

form the scheme as not unemployed. This government is saying until you

get a permanent job, we will measure you as unemployed. That is

not complacent, that is frank and straightforward and what we never

got from them. It really is back to the 1980s. A Tory government... A

A Tory government blaming unemployment on the figures. No

wonder he has rehired Lord Young! The employment secretary in the

1980s. On long-term youth unemployment, he's wrong on the

facts. Long-term youth unemployment, which has that scarring effect on

young people, desperate for work, out of work for more than six

months, that has doubled. That has doubled in the last year. However

much he twists and turns, can he confirm that central fact? It is up

by 102% -- 102%. Love I have explained the figures. If you look

at the number of young people out of work for longer than 12 months,

that number is starting to go down. That is not nearly enough, far more

needs to be done, but that is what the work programme is all about and

that is what he needs to understand. There's a context. If we want to

get unemployment Dell, we have to keep interest rates down and we've

had own reminder on what happens if you don't have a plan to get on top

of your deficit and get your economy moving. That is what he

doesn't understand. What you have is a government that is absolutely

clear about its plans and an opposition that has absolutely no

idea. Last year he marched against the cuts, now he tells us he

accepts the cuts. And yet... And yet today he is telling us he wants

to spend more and borrow more. He is so incompetent, he can't even do

a U-turn properly. Her he is simply... Mr Speaker... The House

must try to calm down. Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, I know he doesn't want

to talk about the young people out of work in this country, because

he's embarrassed by his record on what is happening, but he owes it

to them to tell the facts as they are about what is happening to them.

I come back to this point. The prime minister said that long-term

unemployment among young people is going down. It is not going down,

it is going up. He mentions the work programme. He introduced it

with great fanfare in June. What has happened to long-term youth

unemployment since he introduced his work programme? Let me give him

the figures. I will give him the figures exactly. There are far too

many young people who are long-term unemployed. There are 246,000 young

people unemployed for over a year. That is down 11,000 on the last

quarter. That is not enough, we want to do more, but it is because

we have the work programme, because we have used contract, because we

have 400,000 apprenticeships, because we have got 250,000 people

going into work experience, we make a difference. Why doesn't he come

up with something constructive instead of knocking everybody down?

I will tell him what he should do. Yeah. Yeah. Because wide is

unemployment rising? Why is unemployment rising? Because he is

cutting too far and too fast. It is his record, however much he twists

and turns, it is his record, that is why unemployment is going up.

What we have is women's unemployment are the highest since

the last time there was a Tory government. Youth unemployment the

highest since the last time there was a Tory government. And

unemployment since the last time there was a Tory government. Isn't

the truth, the defining characteristic of this government

is it stands aside and does nothing as thousands of people find

themselves unemployed? Mr Speaker, to be Fairford -- to the honourable

gentleman, he does actually changed course every day. He is an expert

in changing course. Labour's Shadow Chancellor said two days ago, my

starting point is we are going to have to keep all the cuts. That is

what he said. Then Labour's deputy leader said yesterday, we are not

accepting the Government's cuts, we are totally opposed and we are

fighting them. He is flip-flopping on a daily basis. No wonder

Labour's founder... At a time when the nation needs strong political

leadership, Labour offers nothing. The Pru prisoners pragmatic

approach to wealth and Enterprise have all gone. Instead there is a

vision and leadership vacuum. What total adequate to estimate of what

My right honourable friend will be aware that I recently raised the

case of my late constituent Mr Martin Pratt with the Armed forces

Minister, as also he will be aware of the excellent fighting fit

report written by my honourable friend the member for South West

Wiltshire dealing with post- traumatic stress disorder among

veterans. Due to the stigma often attached to mental illness, many

veterans wait years before seeking help. I hope my right honourable

friend can tell the House what plans the Government has in this

area. My honourable friend is entirely right to raise this issue.

The mental scars that people who served this country often receive

can be every bit as deep as the physical scars and it is not

something we have always accepted and understood properly. That is

why the report by my honourable friend for the member for South

West Wiltshire is so important, as someone with real experience and

understanding of this. We have implemented almost all of its

recommendations, we have launched the 24 hour helpline, we are

introducing the enhanced mental health assessments for service

personnel and the veteran month -- veterans information service we

hope to get up and running in April this year. Her with a tragic

accident involving the cruise ship Costa Concordia, and with the 50

plus liners the same size or bigger which will visit the dock of green

knock on the Clyde in the coming months and years ahead, does the

Prime Minister still think it is the correct decision to close the

Clyde coastguards decision? Good God! Her the case in Italy is

clearly tragic and our hearts should go out of the people who

have lost loved ones, people from countries across the world. We need

to wait and see what the exact cause of the accident was before we

jump to conclusions about any changes in regulations or other

things that need to be changed. If there are changes that need to be

made, including to the issue he raises, we will look at it of

course. The Prime Minister has very kindly undertaken to bring forward

a comprehensive water bill early in the next parliamentary session.

Will he end the uncertainty for water customers and industry alike

by publishing the draft Bill now so we can have proper parliamentary

scrutiny? High can say to right honourable friend that we will be

publishing a draft water bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the

coming months. As she knows, there are many important parts to this

water bill can't one part that stands up is the prommers we have

made and the funding we have supplied to help cut water bills in

the south-west from �50 in 20th April 13. This has dresses and

historic unfairness where people have been a south-west felt they

had paid unfair charges to provide clean beaches. In America, six

directors from the bail dealt Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae company

have been taken to court for gross mismanagement. The FSA in this

country say they can't bring enforcement action against the

Royal Bank of Scotland because they don't have legal tender. Will the

prime minister consider introducing a legal sanction of strict

liability into his draft Financial Services Bill so those responsible

for the banking crisis will be taken to task? After all, we are

all in this together. honourable gentleman makes an

important point and the whole point about overhauling the financial

services regulation is it gives us the opportunity to look around the

rest of the world, see who has tougher penalties and work out

whether we can introduce them to our system. That is why we will

introduce this bill with a major overhaul of how the FSA and the

Bank of England work and deal with the regulars Tree system that was

A year ago the Prime Minister told me the reason for the new health

bill was, simply this country does not have a European levels of

success. Now we know that that is not the case, will the Prime

Minister pleased shelf the disruptive Bill which is struggling

in another place, go back to the coalition agreement and built up

from there? I have great respect for my honourable friend, but I do

not agree with him. With the help build a huge exercise was

undertaken which the Deputy Prime Minister and I both played quite a

large role in in listening to health professionals, nurses, to

understand what they most wanted to see in the NHS reform bill and that

is what we are delivering. He says it is not the case we have outcomes

that are less than some parts of Europe. I am afraid it is the case.

In some cases we could be doing a lot better. To argue the case the

NHS simply needs money and not reform, I do not believe is right.

In the north-east unemployment amongst women is rising at twice

the rate of men. Where does the Prime Minister think the women's

place is? In the home, the workplace or the JobCentre? I want

to see many more women have the opportunity to be in the workplace.

What you have seen in the figures, of course there is a disappointing

increase in unemployment amongst women, but since the election there

are 59,000 more women in work today than there were at the time of the

last election. That is why we are boosting childcare to help women

into work. We are introducing through universal credit support

for all women with childcare for work and by lifting over 1 million

people out of tax, the majority of whom are women, that helps women

enter the workforce. That is what I want to save. Last week, I met a

couple in Redditch who were appalled that a family unless were

getting benefits than they were and they were working full-time

questing knight does he think it is fair? Let me say this about the

benefit cap. We owe it to people who work hard and pay their tactics

to make -- taxes, that it is fair. You would have to earn �35,000 in

order to achieve a certain standard of living and I believe the

benefits cap is fair and that is why we are going to introduce one.

Some of the most vulnerable people in our society, cancer and heart

patients, will be financially penalised as a result of the

measures going through the Lords. Is it any wonder people say it is

the same old Tories and the Tories are the nasty party? I do not

accept what the honourable gentleman says. The whole point

about employment and support allowance is there are two groups.

There are those who cannot work and need help and many people will go

into that group and were received that benefit for us long as they

need it. If you look at what we have said and look at the report,

there will be more cancer sufferers getting benefits and fewer people

facing the face-to-face interview. He shakes his head and should look

at the evidence before asking the question. I was shocked to discover

that mainstream, terrestrial television carries adverts for

bingo at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, 35 hours and 55 minutes each week

is dedicated to live casino and betting Gaming. It has been

classified as Tele shopping. At a time when there are trillions of

pounds worth of personal debt in this country and we are encouraging

people to be moderate in their expectations, with the Prime

Minister protect consumers Colored children and the vulnerable from

this kind of activity? Order, order. The question was too long.

honourable lady raises an important issue about gambling advertisements

on television. I am in favour of the regulation and trying to allow

businesses to get on and succeed. Betting advertising and gambling

programmes were not permitted until the last Government allowed them.

They are regulated by Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority.

But it is not just a question of regulation, it is the question of

responsibility for those companies concerned. If you enjoy watching a

football match, you see quite aggressive advertisements on telly.

The companies have to ask themselves whether they are

behaving responsibly. On the subject of gambling in Hackney we

have 90 bookies, three times the national average. Will the Prime

Minister listened to the debate that took place yesterday and

instruct his ministers to support the private member's bill before

the size which would give local authorities more planning powers

over bookies? I will look at the debate she mentions and look at the

ideas in it. We are all for giving local authorities greater powers.

Will the Prime Minister agree with me that in this 30th ear of the

Falklands War or the actions of the Argentine Government are wholly

deplorable? Will he remind Argentina that they lost the

Falklands War and it is up to the Falkland dares to determine their

own future? First of all, it is very important we commemorate the

Falklands War on this year, the 30th anniversary, and we remember

all those who served and those who gave their lives and did not come

home, we should remember all those people this year. We are clear that

the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people

themselves. If they want to remain part of the United Kingdom, they

should be able to do so. I am determined we should make sure our

defence and everything else is in order, which is why the National

Security Council discussed this issue yesterday. We support the

Falkland Islanders right to self- determination. But the Argentinians

have been saying I would argue is far more like colonialism. These

people want to remain British and the Argentinians want them to do

something else. Hear, hear. We have seen a rise in unemployment to data

over 3000 in my constituency, a 16% increase in the past year. When

does the Prime Minister expect unemployment to start falling?

forecast is set out by the Office of Budget Responsibility and it is

for them to make the forecasts and they expect unemployment to be

lower at the end of this Parliament and for implore met -- and plummet

to be higher. We are doing everything we can to help the

constituents into work. The apprenticeship schemes, the work

experience, and we are keeping interest rates low so that our

economy can grow. Closed questions. Number 10, Mr Speaker.

honourable lady raises an important issue about the working time

directive and its effect on the NHS. Nobody wants to go back to the time

when junior doctors were working 90 hours a week, but we have all seen

in our constituencies that the working time directive has had a

bad effect on the NHS and particularly on training programmes

for junior doctors and that is why the Government is discussing this

issue with the Royal Colleges and others to make sure we have

flexibility. I thanked the Prime Minister for his answer. Does he

share widespread concerns coming from the medical profession that

whilst we wait for lengthy EU processes, where it has not been

decided what they are going to discuss, we are seeing a critical

undermining of junior doctors? We are seeing a roach and of the Peter

professionalism and putting patient care and patient lives at risks.

What steps can he take to make sure we sort this out quickly? This has

got nothing to do with the single market. This has got to do with how

we run our health service and particularly when it has an effect

on training programmes, often in rural areas where we do not have

large hospitals. What we can do is the Health and the business

secretaries are committed to revising the directed at an EU

level to deliver the best, safest service to patients and will work

urgently to bring that about. Denis MacShane. Is the Prime

Minister aware that every single medical problem at the hospital in

my constituency is related to weekend working by exhausted at

junior doctors? Far from this director have been a problem, it is

a solution to the fact we have had far too many exhausted doctors in

charge of patients. I do not doubt, well, in fact, I do doubt, what the

honourable gentleman says. I cannot believe every problem is down to

that. The local hospital in my constituency in Chipping Norton was

threatened with massive downgrading partly because of the working-time

directive because they could not supply the training modules for

junior doctors. This seemed a classic example of the card being

put in front of the horse. We have to determine what hospitals we want

and then thinking about the working models. I welcome the announcement

of closer co-operation between financial centres in Hong Kong and

London. Does the Prime Minister agree this helps highlight the

opportunities for trade in Asia and the importance of promoting this

country to the commitment of free trade and showing this country is

open for business? My honourable friend makes a vitally important

point. Clearly the markets in Europe are going to be difficult.

We are seeing a freezing effect across the European Union, but the

rest of the world economy is growing and we need to get out

there and sell to those markets. Exports to China were up by 20%

last year. The arrangement the Chancellor has come to, which will

make London one of the great trading centres, is one important

breakthrough. Could the Prime Minister clarify what the coalition

Government's position is on inheritance tax? In my constituency

we have received, if the Tories were governing alone, it would be

cutting inheritance for millionaires and they would pay for

it by reducing public spending even more, is that true? Deposition on

inheritance tax is covered in the coalition agreement. Last week on

the Syrian border I met Syrian army deserters who refused to kill their

fellow-citizens and a small child winded by that regime. If things

there are to get better, the world must stop selling arms to Syria.

What evidence does the Prime Minister have of the country

shipping arms to that regime? honourable gentleman makes an

important point. We need to lead the way in making sure we tighten

the sanctions, the travel bans, the asset freezing on Syria. In terms

of who is helping the Syrian Government to a press their people,

there is growing evidence Iran is providing a huge amount of support

and there have been interceptions of shipments by Turkey which is

interesting in this regard. Hizbollah is also an organisation

that is standing up and supporting this wretched time into his killing

so many of his own people. -- erected tyrant. There are reports

from international aid agencies saying the crisis in the Horn of

Africa was made worse by the delay in the international community

responding. There is a similar crisis now threatening in West

Africa. What will the Government do to ensure a speedy international

response? He raises a very important point. My understanding

is the British aid effort was very swift at getting aid into the Horn

of Africa and was leading the pack in terms of the extent of the

response, but also the speed at which it went in. The Horn of

Africa is very difficult to deliver aid to, not least because of the

control of Al-Shabab, a terrorist organisation, in large parts of

Somalia. I will make sure we learnt any lessons. On 26th October I

raised the case of my constituent who was killed outside her home by

a driver under the influence of drugs. The Prime Minister met the

family to talk about the case to change the law so we can deal with

drug driving. Can he update the House on the progress? I pay

tribute to the work my honourable friend is carrying out on this

issue. It is important we take the issue of drug driving seriously. We

are committed to making the drug- testing equipment available for use

as soon as possible in police stations. The Casey is making that

you need an equivalent law to drink driving is a strong one and we are

examining its and we need to look at whether there will be an

opportunity in the second legislative session to take forward

this opera to edit. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that

yesterday's ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that Abu

Qatada cannot be deported? Will he agree to initiate all-party

discussions focused not on rhetoric about ripping up the Human Rights

Act, but how in practice this court could operate more proportionately,

so that rights are respected, but the safety of the public is always

paramour? I agree wholeheartedly with what the honourable gentleman

is saying. It is difficult to understand because huge efforts

have been gone to buy the British Government to have deportation with

assurances agreement with Jordan to make sure people would not be

mistreated. In this case the European Court of Human Rights has

found he was not going to be tortured, but they were worried

about the process of the court case in Jordan. A country like Britain

that has got such a long tradition of human rights it should be able

to deport people who mean us harm. We are not just going to have

strong rhetoric about it. I am going to Strasbourg next week to

make the argument that this is a good time to make reforms to the

European Court of Human Rights and make sure it acts in a more

proportional way. On 26th March, 2010, a two-and-a-half year-old boy

it was kidnapped from his home in Cannock Chase and taken to Thailand

by his mother. Six months later his father tracked him down in a remote

village, finding his son could not speak, had his teeth broken and

bruises all over his body. He believes had he not got him back

then, he would have been sold. Each year in the UK, over 500 children

are kidnapped in certain circumstances. With the Prime

Minister meet with me to discuss what the Government can do to help

parents of abducted children alike Joe? My right honourable friend is

right to raise this case. It is an appalling case and any parents

cannot help but be chilled to the bone about what happened to this

poor boy. It is vital we put in place the best possible

arrangements. I very much hope we will be able to legislate for the

National crime agency and make sure it is properly resourced. It is

vitally important when these appalling acts happened we get on

top of them right away. The early effort is vital in saving these

children. When does the Prime Minister expect to be cross-

examined by the Leveson inquiry? Does he not agree that the British

people deserve an answer as to why he appointed one of Rupert market's

top lieutenants, Andy Coulson, to the heart of the British

Government? I will be delighted to appear at the Leveson inquiry

whenever I am invited and I am sure other politicians will have exactly

the same at Bute and I will answer all the questions when it happens.

It is good to see the honourable gentleman on such good form. I

often say to my children, there is no need to go to the National

History Museum to see a dinosaur, come to the House of canons at

I think that was a joke from the Prime Minister! Ed Miliband used

all of his questions on the unemployment figures out today. He

kept it quite low key, sticking to the facts. That was probably the

tactic of the day given the controversy around his leadership

at the moment. We are going to hear what you told us first.

The vast majority of e-mails were about unemployment and the

discussion between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the

Opposition. The argument was a score draw, although Ed Miliband

saying it is back to the 1980s, he has a point. Matthew, better from

Ed Miliband, unemployment, particularly long-term youth

unemployment, is solid ground. Damien from Manchester, Ed Miliband

moans that unemployment is rising but it was always tight. It was

just his government hid the figures. Patrick, I am getting frustrated by

V debate on youth unemployment. I'd turned 27 and have been out of work

for nine months and there's no support for people like me. Colin

in rugby, I can't believe David Cameron is trying to play with

statistics to dampen the impact of the latest unemployment figures.

Cuts to public spending will result in job losses. Why does he feel the

need to hide behind excuses? And about Ed Miliband, pointing out the

Labour Party... OK. Nick, there seemed to be a

change of tactics from the Leader of the Opposition today, not going

for the scripted one-liners he hopes you will pick up for the news.

Let's stick with the facts, let's grill on Lomu -- unemployment and

keep it low-key. That's right, low key and factual and something

people care passionately about, and about something he cares

passionately about and he knows unemployment is likely to rise in

the next year. Also striking, and we see it better in here, we have

an enormous green, watched the other bed next to him. Silent. A

lot of nodding and shaking of heads, but the actions he took in the past,

which the Prime Minister described as like watching a man with to read

syndrome, and then apologised, he was not shouting out, flatlining

about the economy, he was quite different. There was a deliberate

attempt to take some of the steam out of it. But David Cameron had up

his sleeve a joke at Ed Miliband's expense about not even being able

to conduct any do you turn. I think the Labour leadership will think

they made a bit of progress, but there is a long way to go. Could

you sum up what Labour policy is towards the cuts? We said it was

wrong to go too far and too fast and that remains our position. But

the Government have set a course, they have set spending plans for

this Parliament and we are seeing the consequences of those plans.

are -- we are seeing growth stagnating, unemployment going up.

We have to deal with the consequences of those plans. We

will have to face up to difficulties. It is jobs. What Ed

Balls and Ed Miliband said last weekend about paid in the public

sector, it is basically about jobs, preserving as many jobs as possible.

Labour will make jobs our top priority this year. Everything we

do has to be about jobs because this is the Government's big

failure. They haven't grasped what is happening out there to places

like my constituency where I have parents and grandparents, every

week, saying what are we going to do for my son and daughter? That is

what we are experiencing in our constituencies and that is what we

will push away on all year. Let me ask you again, what is Labour's

policy towards cuts now? By just explained that. I will go further.

You didn't come up with respect. You went on about jobs, it would be

surprising if the Labour opposition at a time of 2.6 million unemployed

did not go on about jobs, that is different from a policy. What is

your policy? A just said. -- I just said. Ed Miliband said they should

change course. We have set out a plan for a banker's bonus tax to

pay for jobs for young people. That is the policy we have on the table.

It is a costed policy. They were wrong to scrap our Future Jobs Fund,

they were wrong to scrap the education maintenance allowance.

They are now desperately trying to scrabble around to deal with what

they are facing. You would not reinstate them? We said they were

wrong to do it. Will you reinstate them? They have set a spending plan

for this Parliament so what can we do? We can't say we won the world

we wanted a couple of years ago. They have put these plans in place

and damaged young people's job prospects. We have to face up to

that reality. What was the change in policy announced by Mr Balls and

Mr Miliband last week? It was about public sector pay. They said that

although it is difficult, it is the right policy because that enables

us to ensure as many people as possible are helped to stay in jobs

in the public sector. Right now, this is the problem. Acceptance of

the pay freeze. Accepting a pay freeze was the change? That was it?

We have to face up to the mess at George Osborne is creating. That

was it, that was the one change? That was the change. That's all?

are accepting the circumstances the Government has created. We have to

work in the real world, the world George Osborne has created. At the

moment, the Government is borrowing about �125 billion a year, but

you're urging it to borrow more because you think the cuts are too

fast and too deep. But in 2015, if you were to meet, even though the

Government's policy is to win the election, due even if that policy

is not a massive success, borrowing will be less than 102 �5 billion.

But you are saying you were not -- would not borrow any Mawtus --

reinstate some of the plans. You were borrowed more now from a

higher plateau. If I could get a word in! Let me explain. You have

had a lot of words! They've made the wrong choice. No, no! I am

trying to lay out the choices so that our views as can see what your

answers are. Answer the question. The choices they made were the

wrong choices. I will argue strongly they were false economy.

If you cut EMA, the money we spent on DNA... That is not the answer.

The few cut EMA, you have to give people benefits, you have to

subsidise them to do unproductive things. If you cut the Future Jobs

Fund, you have young people going on to the benefits system. It is a

false economy, the wrong choice. If you cut schools for the future...

will have one more go. At the moment, borrowing is very high but

you want to borrow more. By 2015, borrowing will be less, but use a

borrow more. That is the point. We will not just borrow more money to

fulfil all these promises, we can't do that, that would be

irresponsible. We now have to face up to the world that has been

created by this government, a world of no growth, where the deficit and

borrowing is even higher and a world where more and more are

paying for the cost of failure. I don't understand point. I will

not be a referee! What is interesting about what has happened

this week, and what the Labour Party have found difficult, is

whether to signal their as a significant change in policy or not.

I think Andy Burnham is not only being clear, but he is right that

it actually one thing changed. The shadow Chancellor said the Labour

Party would back a cap on public sector pay if it was a way of

preserving jobs. It was chosen as a signal, if you like, that Labour

understood there were some difficult decisions and that in

addition, he repeated it and said something in his party conference

speech that many people did not notice. He could not pledge to

reverse the coalition's cuts because he didn't know the state of

the public finances. His answer to your question would be wait and see.

We might borrow more, we might not. The reason the Labour Party has got

itself into difficulty, some people behind the scenes have been saying

hugely important speech, changed everything, our attitude is

different, others say we have not changed very much at all and

frankly the Leader of the Opposition seemed to endorse that

view by using the phrase too fast and too much. Let me ask you this,

Iain Duncan Smith. I want to come back to disability payments. The

Macmillan Cancer Support, which has a very well established and highly

regarded charity, estimates that 7,000 cancer patients, too sick to

work, will see their income drop by �94 a week from April. What do you

say to that? It is not correct. Let me explain. Viewers will be

confused. We are talking about the contributory end of this benefit.

This contributory level starts if you have savings of �16,000. When

you reach �10,000, you will start to get the income related, when you

get to �6,000, you are fully on income related benefits. It is not

an absolute like that. People will be sliding into the income related

as they reduce their savings. Vicki point is I think it is right, after

a year in which you have received benefits, we ask you to use some of

your savings because the taxpayer simply can't go on paying money to

people who have savings and don't want to use them. Use some of your

savings and when you get to a level, average savings for British

families of �450. Most people will not be touched by this. With

regards to this, we have done everything Macmillan asked. More

people will go on to the support group if they can't work and the

support group is beyond a contributory point. Macmillan's

research discovered two thirds of cancer patients get a drop of

income simply following the diagnosis. They skip meals to save

money, they are scared of losing their homes. The point about this

is if they don't have the income, they will go straight on to the

income related benefit and if they are too ill to work, which will be

a large number, they will go straight on to the income related

benefits. There is a sliding scale even if they have savings. As you

reduce those savings, you go on to the income related benefits. For

most viewers, this is the real point. If you have savings, after a

year, all we are asking is that you dip into some of those savings and

as you reduce them, then you will go back under the income support.

Frankly, what happens here is that people who made a contribution can

expect to receive a certain amount of support and then at some point

taxpayers need to know it is not an open-ended... We have run out of

time. If Nick Nairn are watching, you will have seen Iain Duncan

Smith's reply. -- if mack Millom are watching. We can post your

reply be viewed the Merlot - We can release youth. NK, ago.

Cross-party talks began yesterday to try to reach a consensus on a

long-term settlement for funding social care in England. At the

moment older people with savings are expected to pay an unlimited

amount towards their own care costs. But many people who moved into care

homes are forced to sell their houses. The journalist Rosie

Boycott saw how the system worked, or failed to work, when her father

developed Alzheimer's and now works for the Alzheimer's Society.

The issue of who should pay for adult, social care has been ignored

for far too long. There are hundreds and thousands of elderly

people suffering from dementia who are simply not getting the kind of

care they should. Unlike being in hospital, being cared for at home

when you have got dementia, means taking care of all sorts of

fundamental, human needs like watching, getting dressed, going to

bed, doing your shopping, getting your food together, going to the

toilet. These are things everybody needs to maintain their dignity.

But at the very moment when an elderly person is feeling most

vulnerable they are being asked to pay huge sums to receive care that

is not even adequate. I know after looking after my dad just how much

care people with dementia needs. As the disease escalates you need more

and more. In bad's is in the end we had round-the-clock carers. The

Bills were getting horrendous. Then he went into a home, which we paid

for us well. He spent his last 18 months there being well cared for.

We were lucky we had the money to be able to do that. But many people

are now paying in excess of �100,000 for poor quality care and

that is only going to get worse as all local authorities are having

their budgets continually carp. This affects us all. If we can keep

people in their homes and look after them, then they do not need

to go into hospital or a care home, so it is a false economy to cut

down on the social care budget. Last summer the deal not Commission

provided the best solution we have seen so far on how to fund adult,

social care, but will the Government really listen? Right now

we do not know. It is good the political parties are coming

together to talk about this issue, but it is vital that people with

dementia deserve the care and respect that we can give them 10

families should not be left to cope with this horrible illness alone.

They should not be punished as well. Rosie Boycott joins us now. You

mentioned the Don not commission and they came up with a good plan.

What are your views on the cap? think the cat that has been

proposed, �35,000, is a reasonable sum. Certainly that would pay for a

lot of care and after that you do not need to be penalised. But there

are so many problems with care. One is it should be classed as an

illness. Forgetting to feed yourself or forgetting to get out

of bed is not the social problem, that is a medical problem. Right

from the beginning we are assessing this wrongly. That has always been

the case. It is not just recently. Alzheimer's is on the health and

social care divide because it is a medical, degenerative condition,

but the consequences are you need help with daily living, so you need

social support. That really exposes the cruelty of the current system.

But there are a lot of false economies. The longer you can keep

someone at home, the cheaper it is. I completely agree. I tried to make

a big change. This is by far and away the most urgent public policy

challenge facing the country. The most vulnerable people get wiped

out physically, emotionally and financially by their condition.

Iain Duncan-Smith, let's go to the cap. Is that something you would

like to see? �60,000 had been looked at. That is a different cap.

That was a figure that came out about a cap on head costs. We are

going to consult on this. The deal not report is a big breakthrough in

terms of trying to find out what we are going to do about care in the

home, and what will happen if people have to go into care homes.

I am talking to Andrew Lansley at the moment. If we can all coalesce

around there's, figure out the best way forward, economics come into

play, but it is important to see the balance. The economics of this

is incredibly important. Just one week of all dementia patients in

hospital would relieve the NHS of �80 million at a stroke. It is

getting worse, it is so important. We all live longer. It will be like

Sure Start for the end of lives. a consensus lightly? We would all

want to reach some kind of consensus. There had been some

reports that they were looking at a bigger cap. But �35,000 would be

per person, so it is �75,000 per couple. It would still blow a

massive hole in the savings of my constituents. Let's be realistic

about this. It is definitely a step forward. We should have talks about

it to see if we can come to an agreement. These are all things

that have to be debated. The Government is trying to be as

positive as possible about the report, it is having discussions

with ministers and all-party groups. You have got to do this. It does

not have any respect of which party you are in. We are all possibly

likely to end up their and our parents as well. It seems

extraordinary that Government after Government takes a football into

the next set of long grass. I will not go over does Coles today, but

for older people they are looking to us to raise our game and to

agree to do something. Have you dropped the compulsory levy idea?

There is a case to say that care of older people should be provided in

the same way that we provide other support in this country. That's how

we provide the NHS and the benefits we are talking about earlier. What

we are saying is in elderly care, I am not saying I was uniquely right,

but do not rule it out. It is more unfair than saying the most

vulnerable people pay massive amounts towards their care. There

is a suggestion for more public money. They looked at �1.7 billion

a year. We do like to see more of money being put into it? More money

would undoubtedly help, but we need the whole package. People with

Alzheimer's are not asking for any different deal. It is a disability

and it needs careful stock this system is going backwards now, not

forwards. Councils are increasing the charges on people. Whether you

are in the postcode lottery... going to have to stop you.

Someone is shedding in my ear. The National Security Council met this

morning and it talked about nothing but the Falklands. It was the only

matter on the agenda. They know something we do not. There has been

talk around Westminster that Parliament is seen by the public as

closed and unwelcoming. How preposterous. How anyone can find

the armed police and the airport security scanner and welcoming is

beyond me. What do they want? Bean bags and a hug from MPs. The

portcullis logo that has been plastered all over Parliament for

hundreds of years is being seen as the culprit. Is it an imposing

relic or a harmless tradition? We sent Adam out for a rebrand.

For centuries the portcullis has graced pretty much everything

around here, from the buildings to the uniforms of the staff. But this

week an adviser to the Speaker said that the legendary logo is putting

up the public. The symbol is hardly a welcoming one. I know it has a

great history, but it is seen by the public as a gate to keep people

out. One MP was astonished. I was astounded about how you described

the portcullis and our history. Frankly, is your aim Disney on the

Thames? I do not understand where you think you are taking us. Let's

put this to the test with some visitors from abroad outside the

Parliamentary Bookshop. Would this put people off? No, I'm here. I am

visiting and I am loving it. You do not find this scary? Are you trying

to get me to say it is scary? looks like a prison, super imposed

with the Crown. It is not like a symbolic thing with power for the

parliament. Should they change it? Definitely. Change it to what? We

asked this designer for some advice. One of the most fantastic bits of

the Palace of Westminster is Big Ben. I know it is used on all the

postcards on Oxford Street to talk about London, but that is the focus

of Parliament for most people. It has time. If you set that alongside

the portcullis and you build the Palace of Westminster into it as

well, it becomes less dominant, but it starts to work as an identity

and it becomes approachable. Nice idea, but the parliamentary

authorities say there are no plans for a rebrand. It looks like a new

logo is a no-go. It is the way he tells them. This

suggestion has come from the speakers Advisory Council on Public

Engagement. Given that the Speaker redesigned his own crest with a

rainbow flag and a ladder, do you think you should be allowed

anywhere near rebranding? These repressions never work. Did the oak

tree work? And consider near four Royal Mail? The portcullis is great

and Parliament is very open. A you need a new logo? No, and there is

not an organisation out there who would not die to have a logo as

recognised as that. It is ridiculous. Do you need to make

Parliament a bit more welcoming? do hope people will come in, but

that is not the reason why they might not come. I think the glass

in the gallery is a bit too much. was against that, but that was

because of terrorism. Check people properly when they come in. I was

never in favour of that. agreement after 90 minutes! Time to

give you the answer to our guess the Year competition. It is as Ed

Miliband said, back to the 80s, the answer is 1988. That is all for

today. That due to our guests, Iain Duncan-Smith and Andy Burnham. See