12/09/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning. This is The Daily Politics. The President of the

European Commission has called for the EU to be turned into a

federation of nation states. In his annual address to the European

Parliament, Jose Manuel Barroso also called for a eurozone banking

union, a mechanism for all 6,000 banks in the eurozone. It will

probably put him on a collision course with the City of London.

The families of the Liverpool supporters who lost their lives in

the Hillsborough stadium disaster have begun examining thousands of

previously unreleased documents, which they hope will challenge the

official version of what happened. The Prime Minister will address the

Commons on the issue while we are on air. And spare a thought for Mr

Cameron - Boris appears to have stolen his thunder. Will Ed

Miliband do the same at PMQs? And we have sent Adam to the tower.

That's what makes the pendulum swing.

So, all that and more coming up in the next 90 minutes of pure TV gold.

Joining us for the duration, a couple of chaps of undisputed

integrity and standing - at least, that's what it says here. David

Willetts, the Universities Minister, and Douglas Alexander, the Shadow

Foreign Secretary. It also says they have an advanced understanding

of markets, and good economic knowledge. Well, actually, it does

not say that of them. This is the advertisement which is going to

appear on Friday in the Economist for the job of Governor of the Bank

of England. Fancy that, either of you? I think it is great that we

are opening up the process of recruiting for this post. We are

barely into the programme, and you answer a totally different question.

Of course, if you might wish to apply yourself, you could give it a

go. It was a Scot who founded it. And it was an Englishman who

founded the bank of Scotland. Do you fancy it? I am happy in my job,

although I would like to lose the title Shadow. Very well paid.

feeling more interested, but I think actually I should stick with

government. Complete waste of time, that. Let's see if we can do better

on transport. Later today, the new Transport Secretary, Patrick

McLoughlan, will be giving evidence to the Treasury -- to the Transport

Select Committee. He will have a lot to talk about. A runway or not

at Heathrow? The West Coast Main Line - should Mr Brunson hold on to

it? And the little issue of the high-speed rail line. Joining us to

talk about all of that and a few other things, we have the former

Welsh secretary Cheryl Gillan, who was in the Cabinet until last week,

and who indeed sat beside David Willetts. We have got Mr Alexander

keeping your part, for health and safety reasons! We normally have a

Oliver Letwin between us! Before I come on to some of these issues,

leaving the Cabinet - do you think you were treated unfairly? Not at

all. The joy of being a Prime Minister is that you can decide who

you have in your Cabinet. There is no secret, David has always said

that he wanted a Welsh MP to be the Welsh Secretary. I had done the job

for seven years in opposition. He also knew the difficulty that I

have with this project, HS2. I have nothing to regret, quite the

reverse. What was the conversation? I am not going to go into all the

tittle-tattle surrounding that. is interesting. Why did he say he

wanted you to go? He said he had always known that he wanted a Welsh

MP eventually, which is white. Don't forget, we have had

tremendous success in Wales, building up from no MPs at all to

three, and then eight. We topped the polls in the European elections.

We have proved that we can see Labour off in Wales. Labour has had

a stranglehold on Wales for a long time. Was he's sipping a glass of

wine when he fired you? Listen, I have answered so many questions on

this, I am not going to discuss... I am not going to discuss anything

that went on in my exchanges with the Prime Minister. I have always

been a good number of our party, and of the Cabinet, and I have no

intention of talking about those things which are between a Prime

Minister and an ex-Cabinet minister. It is my job to try. I have no

doubt it will come out one day. I am not that sort of politician,

either. I am not really that sort of politician. What does the future

hold for you now? Is your political career now simply condemned to

being on the backbenches, or even worse, the House of Lords? Well,

first of all, you're not necessarily condemned to the

backbenches. Quarter to the longest serving woman on our benches, only

the sixth woman Cabinet minister that the Conservative Party has

produced.. Only six? Does that include Mrs Thatcher? It does!

Under was the youngest woman minister in John Major's government.

That is quite an amazing statistic. And I am only 60, and I mean only

60. I think If you're going to say that women are on the scrapheap

when they get to 60, then there will be a lot of us that will

disagree with that. Absolutely! question was not to do with gender,

it was about what happens to a politician like you when you're no

longer in the Cabinet, and probably will not be again. Well, you never

say never. But secondly, I think you have got to remember that every

MP represents a constituency, and unlike in Wales, where a

constituency MP has a first-past- the-post Assembly member, and all

of those list Assembly members to do the same job, there is plenty to

do. HS2 is of course, really key. It is planned to go through your

constituency. Absolutely, right through the middle. What do you

feel? Do you think HS2 will go ahead? I very much hope it will not.

There are two reasons - first of all, it is not a good value for

money project. Secondly, by the time it will be built, not only

will it have destroyed some precious environment, but I think

the world of work and the way we do business will have changed. We are

talking 2026-36. Therefore, I think at the moment, particularly with

the current economic conditions in this country, and it looks as

though we're going to be in this economic downturn for quite some

time, I would like to see the money and the efforts which we are

expanding on that put in too much quicker things, better projects,

for example, the project that I pushed for in Wales, the

electrification of those lines down to Swansea, which will mean so much,

and that link into Heathrow. I would like to see the new Transport

Minister, who was a good friend of mine, giving a fresh think on this.

Do you think he will? I hope so, we shall see. He is giving evidence at

2:30pm. The challenge for Patrick McLoughlan is to come in and have a

fresh approach. There have been stories that the Government is not

quite as committed to this as has been made out, what do you feel?

watched the Chancellor yesterday, and I tweeted, lukewarm. I detected

less certainty about this project. It has been one of the flagship

project, it was a Labour project. I was in as fast as I could do object

to it when Labour announced it. I discussed it at length in

opposition with the then Shadow Transport Minister, and I was quite

convinced that it would either not go ahead, or it would go ahead on a

different route. There is no value to constituencies such as mine,

because there is no stop in Buckinghamshire. If it was going to

Milton Keynes, maybe there would be a different attitude, although

ultimately, I have to say that if we go to designate something as an

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, I think we should be looking after

that. Is the Government completely committed to this?

Yes, it is. I respect Cheryl Gillan's constituency issue, I

understand it. But this is exactly the kind of infrastructure we need

to be investing in for the future of our country. Why? Because I

think that people, however advanced the economy is, people want to move

around, to meet physically. In terms of the future of our great

cities, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, this is absolutely crucial.

But I can get to Manchester in 90 minutes. -- I can get to Birmingham.

I like the 90 minutes, it gives me a chance to have a cup of coffee

and read the papers. Indeed, I might not have to go to Birmingham

so often if you gave me a proper broadband, the kind of broadband

the South Koreans have - why do you not give me that instead? We can

put you in a siding for half-an- hour if you wish! But the evidence

is that this does not reduce the need for people physically to meet,

all that carries on. I have to say, really, for the great cities

outside London, this really is essential. The Public Accounts

Committee looked at this project, and one of the things that was

really interesting was that nobody has yet sturdy what would happen

the �32 billion, at 2011 prices - it is going to be a lot more than

that - what would happen if that money was spent on things like

super high-speed broadband? We have proved that people can survive

without travelling too much. We have kept people out of central

London throughout the Paralympics and the Olympics very successfully.

His Labour still committed to this? It is. Let me try to answer both of

these points. One of the difficulties of sinking that kind

of capital into broadband is that frankly, the technology has changed

rapidly over the last decade, in terms of how to deliver a super

broadband. Secondly, the future is that the West Coast Main Line is

simply filling up. We face a choice - are we going to do what has been

the traditional British approach, of patching up and mending, like we

did to the West Coast Main Line, basic are performing open-heart

surgery on a Victorian railway? Or do we recognise that we have got a

challenge for the cities of Manchester and Leeds...? You will

be on the benches of the House of Lords by the time this happens.

years! If we are serious about rebalancing the economy, we need

that investment. Why does it help the North making it easier for

people to travel to the south? It will just make it a huge suburb of

London? No. Frankly, it connects these areas to the rest of Europe.

Frankly, all of the economic studies indicate greater

connectivity is going to be one thing which Britain needs in the

future. We will have to leave that subject there. Earlier this morning,

the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, appeared in front of the

education Select Committee, where he was being grilled about the GCSE

grading fiasco. The Welsh Government has ordered the

regrading of English papers following a review, something

English students will not be getting. The Education Secretary

said this was a big mistake by the Welsh government.

I think the decision by the Welsh Education Minister is irresponsible

and mistaken. I think he has undermined confidence in Welsh

children's GCSEs, and I think he should think again, after having

made what I regard to be a regrettable political intervention

in what should be a process free from political meddling. Why is it

a mistake from the Welsh government? I think it could be,

because, if there is no regrading by an independent organisation,

such as Ofqual, I think people will look at this cohort of Welsh

students and say, there was something not quite right, not

comparable with English students. I think Leighton Andrews has always

been quick out of the stocks to attack the Westminster government,

but let's face it, Labour has been in charge for 13 years in Wales,

and educational results have been going down and down. You said

regrading, are you suggesting by another body, you would like to see

that? I would not like to see regrading of all of those exams. I

tend to agree with Michael Gove, because I think they should be left

as they stand.. What about the misery for the students who feel

their chances have been harmed? don't think they have. I think

right across the board, if they were treated in the same way, that

would be a different matter. But to separate out English and Welsh

students, there are already difficulties over comparing the two,

and this will make it worse for those Welsh students. But children

have been treated differently already with grading happening

during the year. It has been a shambles. Michael's comments this

morning revealed that he does not understand devolution. The Welsh

Education Minister has the right to make this determination. Secondly,

I think it reinforces the urgency of there being much greater clarity

as to who ultimately holds the responsibility. In opposition,

Michael was at pains to say, it is ministers to decide. At the moment

he is seeking to shelter behind Ofqual, and suggest this is a

matter without any political involvement. But is it not a matter

I'm going to have to leave ill there but thank you very much

Cheryl Gillan. A pleasure. Today is a day of important

announcements about the euro. This morning the German Constitutional

Court gave its backing to the European Stability Mechanism,

saying it wasn't unconstitutional. It will be used to support

countries in the eurozone that get into trouble - plenty of candidates

there. The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel

Barroso, set out the EU's plans on banking union across the eurozone.

That's not all. He's also called for a small matter of a federation

of European states. What can he mean? Let me try to explain. One of

the main causes of the crisis in Europe has be that smaller

countries have been overwhelmed by the bad debts their banks have

built up. The European Central Bank will take over many of the

responsibilities that individual countries's central banks had. The

idea is that the massive resource of the ECB will be enough to put

out the fires. It also means that other powers will be centralised.

President Barroso wants the European banking authority to

become the principal regulator of banks in the eurozone. Britain will

not be directly involved, because it doesn't use the euro, but bank

ers in London are worried that the newly empowered ECB will mean more

meddling from Europe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George

Osborne, says he favour as banking union as long as Britain isn't part

of it, but can he make sure the City of London isn't damaged? In

his annual State of the Union address President Barroso explained

what the EU was doing. Today the commission is proposing legislative

proposals for a single supervisery mechanism for the eurozone. This is

the stepping stone to the bank union. The crisis has shown that

while banks became transMarshall rules and oversight remained

national. And when things went wrong it was the taxpayer who is

had to pick up the bill. Over the past four years the EU has

overruled the rule book for banks. But mere co-ordination is no longer

adequate. We need to move to common supervisery decisions, namely

within the euro area. But he didn't limit himself to talking about the

proposed banking union. He also set out ambitious plans for the future

of the EU. The present European Union must evolve. And let's not be

afraid of the words. We will need to move towards a federation of

nation states. This is what we need. APPLAUSE A deep and genuine and

economic monetary union can be started under the current treaties,

but can only be completed with changes in the treaties. So let's

start it now, but let's have the horizon for the future present in

our decisions of today. So the President of the European Union

calling for a federal Europe. Are you up for, that Douglas Alexander?

It certainly seems to indicate a change from the language

historically used by the President of the Council and the commission

about closer union. We need to find out what Jose Manuel Barroso, the

other members of commission and indeed yore leaders of the European

nations see as the way forward. If it does suggest a move away from

the theology of ever-closer union, that does suggest there may be a

Will be of significance I don't understand that. Surely a federal

union and closer European are the same things? He is using the

language of confederation. didn't. He used the language of

federation, which is very different. It is completely different from

ever closer union. Let's be clear what he means. The responsible

course is not to jump to our own conclusions gou see what he says

and other European leaders say. We've had indications from

Chancellor Angela Merkel that change will be necessary. Let's see

what emerges in the months ahead. But no-one is proposing a single

unitary European superstate. That's never been on the cards. And the

Rome treaty of ever closer union never implied that. Many Euro-

sceptics would argue that that is the case. That's up to them but I

know from history. That part of the Treaty of Rome was drafted by

federalists. They want ever closer union. I don't understand why you

think that what he is calling is for in anyway delivering a closer

union of a federal state. You don't rule out being part of this?

not clear what you are asking is, to rule out. Could you see Britain

being part of a federal Europe? not clear how he is defining her

terms. Are we proposing to leave the European Union? No. Is the

European Union going to change? I expect. So is there any appetite

among the political parties for further integration of the European

Union? There is frankly not. said he is not calling for a

superstate - he would say that - but a federation of nation states

to tackle our problems. You could say the fact that he is stating

nation states recognises the reality, which is that Britain

doesn't want to see itself integrated into a European

superstate. Nor do many other countries. If he was to get his way

the treaties would have to be renegotiated. What would you do?

Exactly. My heart sinks when I hear. This euro has to sort out the

eurozone. Where there are things we can work together, like the

environment, we should. The last thing we need is another agonised

debate on all this theology about federalism. Why don't they do the

things they can do, get out of the things they shouldn't be doing, and

give us break about the continuous debate about how Europe is

organised and its constitution. Floss appetite for that in Britain.

The real crisis in the eurozone and its finances. All its efforts

should be on that. Isn't it likely that Mr Barroso, who doesn't speak

for anybody expect the politician, he wasn't elected by anybody, isn't

it likely he may not get his way with all the EU members, but the

logic of Economic and Monetary Union for the eurozone members is

that they will become much closer and much more integrated? I think

that is likely. The only difficulty I would have with David's

characterisation is this. There may be genuine and profound

consequences to that greater integration within the eurozone for

the other members, the non-euro members of the European Union. If

you have a country of Germany's standing saying we want fundamental

treaty change across the whole of the European Union, of course that

has implications do. We regard that as a priority in of course we don't.

On the other hand it may be coming towards us. That is why we need to

understand where the commission is and the other countries are.

European-wide banking regulations which are proposed, not popular in

Germany. Legislation will go before the Parliament in Strasbourg. That

doesn't cover us legally, but it is bound to affect the City of London.

What are you going to do about that? It is very important that we

protect the interests of the City. We've a, it's a big thing that for

the eurozone to work it needs a banking union. One of the many

reasons the Conservative Party said we should stay out, they didn't

want to be part of that. They need to make it work. Our job in Europe

is to protect the principles of single market, so it applies across

the European Union, including countries like ourselves not in the

eurozone. You have this massive regulator on the other side of the

Channel regulating the banks of the biggest economies in Europe. All

part of the eurozone. In economies where our banks operate. And yet

you will have almost no say on what those bank regulations will be.

They will have to decide what they do for the eurozone. On anything

that affects us the single market will apply. I have to say, one of

the reasons why I'm optimistic that we can continue to protect our

interests is that it is so clearly in the interests of the free

trading members of the eurozone, Germany and some of the northern

European countries in particular, for the single market to include us

and for us to be a voice of the free markets. It is clear. They

want our voice at the table of the single market and we are not part

of the eurozone. In legal terms what matters is the relationship

between the European Central Bank and the European Banking Committee,

which continues to affect the City in a profound way. In political

terms the real question, is do the European countries talk demust a

way that if we can legally defend - - do the European countries caucus

in a way that if we can legally defend our status. From there

Friday we'll be bringing you Daily Politics Europe, giving you the

latest news and views on what's going on in the corridors of power

in Brussels and Strasbourg. I have to stay here and Jo gets to go to

Strasbourg. Didn't he do well? Just come back

from New York. Andy Murray's first Grand Slam this week, beating that

other Scot, Novak Djokovic. LAUGHTER Yes, it was an all-

Scottish final. It was in the bar around the corner. Forget about

leaping the net and climbing into the crowd or other showy acts.

"Muzza" paused only to grab his watch, so he could comply with his

rather large sponsorship deal with a certain maker of timepieces. Not

to be outdone our Daily Politics mug this week is sponsored by Andy

Murray. You can see his true Brit side is displayed, patriotic Ilkley

-- patriotic ally. If you are from Dunblane or Dagenham we'll give you

full sovereignty over this mug. Who are you calling a mug! Let's

see if you can remember after all Everybody wants to know who shot

How do you feel about Mr Mugabe's victory? I think it stinks and the

British stink with it because you've just give an victory to

A bit of Abba there. To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail

address. You can see the full terms and

conditions on our website. I've just been told there is no

WiFi on standard class on the trains.

Is that because you are not in standard class?

Maybe shoe look at that before you invest in high-speed trains. Can

let's look at Big Ben. Prime Minister's Questions on its

way at noon. James Landale is with us. Hillsborough dominating the

news this morning. Events in Libya also making it. Lots of economic

news around as well, some of it heavily to the coalition, like

unemployment. Some of it not at all helpful, in that debt is on the

rise again. A tricky one for Ed Miliband today. Because of the tone

of Prime Minister's Questions, afterwards the statement for

Hillsborough, so I think there'll be a temptation for him to choose a

subject which perhaps is less confrontational than usual. He

could talk about the situation in Libya, Afghanistan. There are

foreign themes he hasn't looked at recently. He could go back on the

growth front. Debt. This is the continuing theme, the economy.

know the Autumn Statement is going to be 59 December. And there is

obviously this question this morning about whether the

Government is going to meet its target for reducing debt by the end

of the Parliament. He might wait until he gets the latest figures,

which are out soon. This is the kind of day when you choose

something left of field. Maybe something on health. Maybe

something on the universal credit, another thing that Labour have been

pushing hard on this week. I would expect him to go in an unexpected

condition. The usual hammer and tongs would be tricky, if you know

that in just 20 minutes you are going to have to be statesman like

and talk about a serious issue. this issue of spending is, you give

this regional development fund �1.5 These were courageous man. We are

for ever indebted to them. I'm sure the renaming of the clock tower

today, following the campaign led by my friend, as the Elizabeth

Tower. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and

others. I will have further such meetings in this House today. I,

too, pay tribute to our troops who have died. It is far braver people

than we who were have died. The statistics out today show that the

number of female redundancies is rising over the last few months. In

addition, we now have nine government departments, with not a

single woman minister. I know the Prime Minister likes to think of

himself as much... -- as butch... He told us so last week in this

very House. But what has the Prime Minister got against women? First

of all, what I would say to the Honourable Gentleman is that the

unemployment figures today have a number of very encouraging figures

in them, including the fact that women's employment, the number of

women in employment is actually up by 128,000 this quarter, which is

up to 150,000 compared with the time of the last election. I think

that is encouraging. Obviously, the way that we have treated public

sector pay, and the public sector pay freeze, protecting low-paid

people especially, that has actually helped women. But do we

need to do more to help women to work? Yes. Do we need to do more to

help with childcare? Yes. Do we need to encourage more women into

politics? Yes to that as well. Local businesses and the

industrious people in my constituency, South Ribble, are

doing their bit in helping the economy to recover. Will the Prime

Minister join me in condemning the irresponsible threats of Co

ordinated strike action by the trade unions, which do nothing but

undermine the efforts of my constituents? My Honourable Friend

is absolutely right to speak up for her constituents, who work hard and

do the right thing. Today's figures show an extra one million private

sector jobs since the election, which shows our economy is

rebalancing. She is right to say that the trade unions provide a

threat to our economy. The party opposite has received �12 million

since the Honourable Member became leader of the party from the three

unions who are now threatening a general strike. I have to say to

him, they have threatened a strike to stop our fuel supplies, to

disrupt the Olympics, now, they threatened a strike to make the

economy. When he stands up, I think it is time for him to say he will

take no more money from the unions while they are making these threats.

Mr Speaker, can I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the

two servicemen. Both of them showed the utmost courage and bravery, and

our thoughts are with their family and friends. Can I also join him in

celebrating today the renaming of the clock tower as the Elizabeth

Tower. It was done with all-party support. It is a fitting tribute to

the service that Her Majesty the Queen has shown to this country. Mr

Speaker, the fall in unemployment today is welcome. But all of us

will be concerned that the number of people out of work for more than

a year stands at 904,000. That is its highest level for 17 years.

Does he agree with me that this is a particularly troubling statistic,

because the longer someone is out of work, the harder it is for them

to get back into it, and the more damage is done to them, their

families and to the economy? agree with him about the dangers

and the threat of long-term unemployment. It is what to put in

front of the House the full figures today. Unemployment is down by

7,000, employment is up by 236,000 over the quarter. It is significant,

because it is a real time, live figure, the claimant count, which

was down 15,000. And as I have just said, when you look at the private

sector jobs number, which is vital when we think we need to rebalance

the economy, there are more than one million net new private sector

jobs over the last two years. The long term unemployment figure is

disturbing, that is what the work programme is designed to deal with.

We got that programme up and running within a year. It has

already helped 690,000 people. The key part of it part -- Two part of

it is that we paid training providers more to help the long-

term unemployed into work. He talks about the work programme, but not

only is long term unemployment at its highest level for nearly two

decades, but over the past 12 months, we have seen a 247%

increase in the number of young people on the dole for more than a

year. That is happening throughout the country. Mr Speaker, is this

not the clearest evidence so far that his work programme just is not

working? I do not accept that. On the youth unemployment picture, it

is disappointing that youth unemployment is up 7,000 over the

quarter. But the youth unemployment figures include young people in

full-time education. If you look at the picture of the number of -- of

the number of young people actually in work, that figure is actually up.

In terms of the youth contract itself, that is now up and running.

65,000 young people have taken part in work experience programmes,

which were criticised by some people sitting opposite and some

trade unions. But actually, within 21 weeks, half of them have been

taken off the unemployment register, by finding proper work. I think

that is very encouraging, it is about 20 times more cost-effective

than the Future Jobs Fund, which it replaced. I have to say, to all of

the young people looking for work around the country, that sounds

like a rather complacent answer. The reality is that because of his

failure on long-term unemployment, borrowing - the key test he set

himself - is up 25% in the first four months of this year. He is

borrowing �9.3 billion more in the first four months of this year than

last year. That's �1.6 million in this up mack of PMQs. And we gather

today that the Government may miss the overriding economic test which

he said himself, which is that debt will be falling at the time of the

next election. Isn't the fact that he is failing the very test he set

himself the surest sign yet that his plans are just not working?

First of all, there is absolutely no complacency in this government

about the issue of youth employment or long term unemployment. That is

why we're putting so much energy into the apprenticeship programme.

We have seen 457,000 apprenticeships starting in the

last year, a record figure, and something we want to build on in

the years ahead, with �1.5 billion invested. He raises the issue of

borrowing. In the last two years, this government has cut the deficit

by a quarter. If he is concerned about borrowing, why does he have

plans to put it up? There are many ways you can reduce borrowing. The

one way you cannot reduce borrowing is to increase spending and

increased borrowing, which is what he tells us to do! Mr Speaker, the

reality that this Prime Minister cannot get away from is that for

2.5 years, borrowing is rising on his watch. That is the reality,

borrowing is up. It is up 25%. �9.3 billion in the first four months of

this year. When he gets up to reply, maybe he can tell us whether the

reports this morning that the Government is not going to beat it

-- its target that debt will be falling by the end of this

Parliament is correct? The it is this government which has cut the

deficit we inherited by a quarter. That's what we have done in two

years. Normally, Mr Speaker, at this stage in the proceedings, I

say that the party opposite has not got any plans. But on this occasion,

I can reassure the House, they have got some plans. They have got a new

plan, it is called pre-distribution. I think what that means is that you

spend the money before you actually get it. I think you will find that

is why we are in the mess we are in right now. Mr Speaker, I will tell

him what it is about - it is an economy which does not just work

for a few at the top, but works for everybody. And it is not about a

Prime Minister who cut taxes for millionaires while raising taxes

for everyone else. And perhaps when he gets up to reply, he can answer

the question which he so far has not answered - is he going to be a

beneficiary of the 50p tax cut? This is an economy which has

generated one million new private sector jobs. I know he does not

want to talk about pre-Distribution, but I have done a little work, Mr

Speaker. I can tell him about his new guru. His new guru is called, I

am not making this up, the man who invented free distribution is

called, I am not making this up... Order! Members on both sides need

to calm down. I am surprised they do not want to hear from their new

guru. He is called Mr J Hacker. And his recommendation is that we spend

an extra �200 billion, borrow an extra �200 billion, in this

Parliament. I have discovered his new book, which is published by

Princeton University Press, and it is called, The Road To Nowhere. He

does not need to read it. He is there already. That may complement

the Prime Minister on such a butch answer. And what a week it has been

for Mr Butch. He has briefed against the former Transport

Secretary. He was knocking back the claret whilst asserting the Welsh

secretary. And when it came to the environment secretary, she was

sacked because she was too old, and replaced by a man who was older.

The reality is this - the Prime Minister is going to have to answer

between now and April, and he did not answer the question, as to

whether he is going to get that top rate tax cut, a tax-cut for

millionaires by millionaires. The reality is this - their plan is

fading, they stand up for the wrong people. Plan A is not working, he

should change course. On a day when we hear that this

economy has created one million net new private sector jobs, all we

have learnt from the Labour Party is that they have learnt nothing.

They are still committed to the spending, the borrowing and the

debt that got us into this mess in the first place. That's the truth

and they cannot hide it from the British public.

This year is the tenth anniversary of breast cancer campaign's Wear It

Pink Day. But there is still much more to be done, including early

identification of this disease, at all ages. Will the Prime Minister

meet with the chairs of the parliamentary groups and the

leading charities for further We've made big leaps forward in

terms of advancing the action on breast cancer. There is still more

to be done. I payen tribute to the thousands up and down our country

who not only wear those ribbons but take part in so much campaigns, so

much fundraising and awareness raising. I would be delighted to

have her at this meeting. Rochdale is proud of its link with the Royal

Regiment of Fusiliers. The decision to act the Battalion was taken by

Ministers, not the professional leadership of the Army. Morale at

an all-time low in the armed forces why won't the Prime Minister

reconsider? These are very difficult decision as we move

How best to structure that Army to maintain as many cap badges and

historic regiments as possible in all the United Kingdom. We defend

those decisions but if people want to come forward with alternatives

we will always listen to them. Would the Prime Minister agree with

me that the improvement in the balance of trade figures are

welcome and demonstrate we can balance our economy by expanding

our trade with the rest of the world as well as Europe. The trade

figures out yesterday showed the biggest cash decline in the trade

deficit for 20 years. As I have said many times, we do face great

economic difficulties in this country and across Europe. But we

are seeing a rebalancing of the economy, a growth in terms of

private sector employment that I've talked about. Manufacturing now

accounting for a growing share of the economy rather than a shrinking

share. A big increase in exports, particularly to the fastest growing

parts of world. We need more of that alongside small business

creation and entrepreneurs in order to rebalance our economy and make

it stronger for the future. Before the election, the Prime Minister

promised a moratorium on hospital closures. Last year he told me

Ealing Hospital would not close without the support of doctors and

patients. So why are the doctors and patients having to march on

Saturday to keep our hospitals open? Let me say again to the

honourable gentleman, who quite rightly raises this issue, there

are no plans to close Ealing Hospital. I understand the trust is

planning a capital programme of �4 billion for 2012-13, which includes

refurbishing some wards. It proposes a merger with north-west

London hospitals is a matter for the trusts them. It is clear that

reconfiguration of frontline services is a matter for the NHS.

As he knows, any proposed changes to clinical services has to be

subject to the foretests of support from GP commissioners, strengthened

public engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support

for patient choice. He is right to raise this issue but this is how it

should be approached. THE SPEAKER: Nick Gibb. CHEERING

Thank you Mr Speaker. My constituent has crumbling vertebra

and is in constant pain and can only walk short distances. She is

87. She applied for the renewal of her Blue Badge but like many others

was turned down due to the way the new national Blue Badge improvement

service is implemented locally will. The Prime Minister intervene to

ensure that the scheme is being implemented fairly and

appropriately across the country? will look very carefully at the

case that my right honourable friend mentions, because I think it

is important that this reform is carried out properly. I think all

of us as constituency MPs get two sorts of complaints. Sometimes from

people who see people have the Blue Badge who don't merit it, but also

those who want the Blue Badge, do deserve it and can't get it. Can I

pay tribute to my right honourable friend for his long work on

educational standards and believing in true rigour in schools. He seen

many of his ideas mutt into practice and that's what we come

into politics to achieve. The Adam we areity affair should

have taught important lessons to Ministers about becoming too close

to their outside advisers. Now it appears his climate change Minister

may be making similar mistakes. Given media reports today, does the

Prime Minister have the same complete confidence in his climate

change Minister as he had in his former Defence Secretary?

climate change Minister is doing an excellent job. I want to put that

on the record. I've consulted with Cabinet Secretary over this issue.

The Permanent Secretary at the Department of Energy and Climate

Change has commoned this issue. The Cabinet Secretary has examined it

too and I don't see a need for a further inquiry on that basis. The

key point I would make is that the individual in question was hired by

civil servants after a properly run Mr Speaker, this month marks the

40th anniversary of the expulsion of Asians from Uganda by Idi Amin.

They came to this country with nothing but the clothes on their

backs. But they picked themselves up and soon integrated they'll into

the fabric of Britain. Will my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister join me in commending this community and also the Conservative

Government of the time, which had the courageous decision to let them

in, notwithstanding the enormous amount of opposition both in the

House and in the country at large? I think my honourable friend is

absolutely right to raise this. The Asian who is have come from Kenya

and Uganda have made an extraordinary contribution to this

country. It was an absolutely right decision to welcome them here as

happened in the 1970s, and those that opposed it I believe were

profoundly wrong. I would say to him, who is from that background,

what an incredible achievement for someone from that background to get

within a generation to come to Parliament and make such a

distinguished contribution. Speaker, last week's reshuffle was

clearly a painful experience for many, but can the Prime Minister

advise us why he recommended knighthoods for five of his

redundant male Ministers but there was no nothing like a Dame...

actually take the view that when people come into public life and

work hard in opposition and in Government and make a contribution,

that is something that we should recognise. It shouldn't only be

Permanent Secretarys that receive these honours. We should also be

prepared to honour Ministers should have worked hard and served their

country as well. Our armed forces... THE SPEAKER: Order! The honourable

member must be hear. Our armed forces are always willing

to do what we ask of them, without complaint, but there'll be a

detrimental impact on individuals' training, deployment opportunities

and R&R if we ask them to keep this country going in the face of

strikes. Isn't this another reason why those unions should think

again? I think my honourable friend makes an extremely good point. I do

hope that these trade unions who are meeting and discussing this

appalling idea of a general strike think again and think of the go

good of our economy rather than their selfish interests. She makes

an important point about our armed forces. I want to put on record

again what a fantastic job they did with the Olympics and Paralympics,

stepping up to the plate. From everything I saw from the Olympic

Games our armed services were pleased to play that role. There

are times we can call on them and they'll be pleased to serve. Many

of us are shocked and sad and that child poverty in the UK is so

severe and widespread that Save The Children have felt it necessary to

launch their first ever appeal for British children. Members opposite

attacked Save The Children and even accused them of publicity seeking

will. The Prime Minister take this opportunity to distance himself

from those comments, and support the report which led to this

appeal? I'm a strong supporter of Save The Children. They do an

excellent job. Look, as long as we recognise that the sort of poverty

that we tragically still have in Britain is very different from the

poverty of people surviving on $1 a day in sub-Saharan Africa, as long

as we respect the differences between those types of poverty it

is right that GGOs and charity groups campaign in TUC as well as

overseas. In a Commons debate last year on rural broadband I

highlighted how poor the service is in pend approximately, including in

the village of New Church, which might be unique in the country for

having particularly poor service when it rains. Does the Prime

Minister share my joy at plans to cut the red tape which is holding

back fast broadband? I join my honourable friend in his campaign

to make sure all our communities have access to from fast broadband.

It is not just an issue of money, and this Government is putting the

money in. There are planning issues, because some councils have held up

giving permission to the necessary cabinets and other things which

have to be put at place at street and village level. That's why our

planning reforms announced by my right honourable friend the

Communities Secretary are going to sweep away that rocks I -- sweep

away that bureaucracy. Despite the Prime Minister's Valient efforts,

does he not realise that denying thousands of our disabled

constituents adequate levels of benefit is merely underlining the

fact the Tories really are the nasty party? I simply don't accept,

even the premise of the right honourable gentleman's question. We

are not cutting the money that's going into disability benefits..

The question is is how best to reform those disability benefits so

disabled people get access to the benefits that they require. Anyone

who has looked at disability living allowance or has had to fill in

those forms knows it needs reform. The reform has been led by many

disability groups who want to see something much more related to

people's disability and faster to access as well. Will my right

honourable friend join me in celebrating a major inward

investment by the Chinese firm Huawei, who are investing �1.3

billion over five years to create 700 jobs in the UK and encourage

them to come to Wycombe? I welcome the investment by Huawei. I met the

chairman yesterday in Downing Street. I'm afraid to say some of

the jobs from going to be created I very much hope in Banbury, but with

investment of this scale I'm sure there'll be opportunities around

the rest of the country. They are coming here I believe not for the

weather but because we've got highly trained engineers, excellent

universities, a leading floel the telecoms and mobile industries and

they think this is a Government that's open for business. Can I ask

the Prime Minister to explain why in the previous Parliament members

of either House who were shown to have deliberately abused the

expenses system were quite rightly forced to face the full rigour of

the law, but why is it in this Parliament the same proven

dishonesty flults the restoration of ministerial office and a seat at

the Cabinet table? I think if the honourable gentleman is referring

to my right honourable friend the Minister who is attending Cabinet,

and is a Minister of State in the Department for Education, he made

very clear the mistakes he made in terms of the expenses system. He

resigned from the Government. Speaker order! The Prime Minister's

As I have said in the past, I do think it is right to give someone a

second chance. Does my right honourable friend agree with the

managing director of euro craft in Dudley who contacted me about the

Government's plans to sweep away unnecessary health and safety red

tape, that at least years of regulation are being replaced bay

single concept called common sense. Isn't it common sense to remove the

head an ache for low listen risk businesses and won't this

deregulation help businesses to grow? We've got 3,000 regulations

in our sights that we believe can be radically scaled down or reduced.

We've made good progress already. We believe there is more we can do

to exempt particularly small firms from regulation. I think the new

Minister in the business department will be pressing ahead with the

full support of the Secretary of State down this very important

agenda. Four years ago the Prime Minister

gave the support to High Speed 2 as provide an alternative for short-

haul flights and therefore a third runway at Heathrow. As he is

dithering over Heathrow, is he dirting over H is 2? No, I fully

support HS2 and I believe it is something that needs to go ahead

for the benefit of our country. Following the reshuffle there's

been speculation in the press that some new appointments indicate a

shift away from our green agenda. Would my right honourable friend

like to take this opportunity to Scottish these scurrilous

allegations and reaffirm our commitment to being the greenest

Government ever? Can I first of all congratulate the

honourable lady on her new role The Treasury she has every ability to

make sure this Government delivers on its green commitment. What I

would say to her is that this Government that has set up a Green

Investment Bank, with �3 billion to spend. It is this Government that's

committed 1 billion to car ban capture and storage. We have the

first incentive scheme for renewable heat. The mass roll-out

of smart metres and we are the first Government to introduce a

carbon price. Thank you Mr Speaker. In 1993 the chairman of the

Conservative Party Norman Fowler said if the �365,000 given to the

Tories by Asil Nadir was stolen, that money will be returned now

that Asil Nadir has been convicted of theft does the Prime Minister

agree with his party's former treasurer that it is tainted money,

it shames the Conservatives, they have a moral duty to give it back?

When is the Prime Minister going to go in his pocket and get the

What I would say to the Right Honourable Gentleman is, what about

that �12 million that his party has taken from the trade unions, who is

threatening to bring the country to threatening to bring the country to

its knees?! Order. This government does indeed

aspire to be the greenest government ever. With that in mind,

can the Prime Minister assure me that before any decision is taken

to extract shale gas from Fylde, a full investigation and assessment

will be undertaken to ensure that the environment is protected?

Studies have been done regarding the tremors which we had in

Blackpool last year. A full, independent review has been carried

out. But I can assure him that any future shale gas production would

have to meet stringent environmental standards. It would

have to follow deep consultation with local communities, and it

would have to fit within overall This came from one viewer - the

Prime Minister is in a funny land, if he thinks there are more jobs

now than when he came to office. I am unemployed, and on the much

heralded work programme. The only jobs are part-time or temporary. My

employment plan is a joke. This one says, when his David Cameron going

to answer questions, instead of passing off lists and spin in his

party's favour? But this one says, Ed Miliband is once again wrong-

headed. Debt would have been far worse had Labour won in 2010, we

would have had to have borrowed more. David Cameron is right,

Labour's pre- distribution is nonsense. This one says, is butch

the only retort Miliband can come up with? And this one says, why

didn't David Cameron answer the question about the top rate tax?

David Willetts, there is no growth in the economy, there has not been

for three quarters. Real living standards are still falling. And

once again, the deficit is rising - is there anything left of Plan A?

There is an absolute commitment to bring down government borrowing,

which we are delivering. We are 25% of the way through that. You are

not, that is not correct. You cut the deficit by 25%, compared to the

previous year last year. The deficit is now rising. The first

four months of this year, you borrowed more than you did in the

first four months of last year - the deficit is rising again. Let's

see what the new figures are in the Autumn Statement. But I think the

challenge of course is to get growth at a time when the whole

world economy is suffering. Today, you had both the overall statistics,

the one million new jobs, and you also had a great example of how we

can attract inward investment with the massive �1 million investment

we have just secured. We are rolling up our sleeves to do

everything to keep the economy growing, in a hostile economic

environment. But part of Plan a, part of the reason why we have to

go through all of this pain, was that come the next election, you

could begin to see not the deficit, which would already have been cut,

but actual total debt begin to fall. You had projected that debt would a

fall between the financial year ending 2015 April and 2016 April,

debt would be falling as a percentage of GDP. All the latest

forecasts are that that is not going to happen, and that was the

fundamental part of Plan A. fundamental part of plan a was to

make sure that we have low interest rates and did not get into the kind

of financial crisis that we have seen across the eurozone. When we

were elected, our interest rates were the same as Spain's. Now, our

interest rates are down below 2%, compared with 6% in Spain. This

affects families and businesses. We will be projecting government

borrowing and debt again in the Autumn Statement. Let's wait for

the Autumn Statement. You say that Plan A is the reason why interest

rates are so low - I would suggest to you that the real reason has

been because of the Bank of England and quantitative easing. 36% of all

the debt issued by this country is now sitting on the balance sheet of

the Bank of England. The Bank of England's credit card has bought

the Government's credit card, is that not right? Quantitative easing,

we can have an active monetary policy because at the same time,

the markets know that we have got a grip on the public finances. They

cannot do quantitative easing effectively in Spain or Italy,

because people do not have confidence that the government

there has got a grip on the finances. You are buying your own

debt. The Government is responsible for the Bank of England's balance

sheet. At the end of the day, Her Majesty's Treasury stands behind

the balance sheet of the Bank of England, and you have placed 36% of

total debt, your debt, and you are then responsible for that balance

sheet. It is like me saying, here is my Mastercard, I have got �5,000

on it. What I will do is, I will transfer it to my American Express.

It is absolutely the right thing, having the Monetary Policy which is

active and energetic, it is the right thing to do in these

exceptional circumstances. But one reason why we can have that active

military policy is that people can have confidence in what we're doing

in the public finances. The two things go together. Yes, absolutely,

when the economy is facing these challenges, getting the money out

into the economy, holding down interest rates. And the danger for

Labour's position is that you do not know what the tipping point is.

Your policy is to expand the deficit and to get a bit more of a

Keynesian stimulus, but you have no idea how much you can do before

interest rates start to soar. In these circumstances, the tipping

point, it is not a great nation, rates could suddenly shoot up.

we do know is that confidence is haemorrhaging in the fundamental

judgment which was made at the beginning of this Parliament By

George Osborne. You cannot deal with the deficit if there is no

growth in the economy. You're right, there is a judgment between taking

demand out of the economy, whilst sustaining growth. I think it was

the one decision adopted by the Government at the beginning of the

parliament effectively to talk down the prospects for the British

economy, which, at the time, was growing, and unemployment was

falling, and to draw immediate comparisons with Spain, Greece and

Italy. We now have only two European economies, Italy and the

United Kingdom, who have suffered a double-dip recession. We can be

certain that the approach of the Government, which has been the

centrepiece of the strategy, is failing, and has failed. That

requires, I believe, the Government to take a different approach, and

it may be, as we have seen in The Guardian this morning, that the

expectation of reaching -- breaching the fiscal mandate will

cause them to think again. But at the moment, an emblem it is too

high, there is no growth, and as you have said, �9 billion more

borrowing in the first quarter of this year than last year. That is

not a plan which is working. James, is their increasing concern in

government circles about the economic strategy? This economic

strategy was meant to have delivered some results by now.

Growth was meant to have returned. And by 2014, we were meant to be

growing, the pain would be over, and we're off to the races in the

2015 election. That whole electoral-economic strategy is gone.

Absolutely, and I think the Government recognises that, which

is why the entire agenda now is growth, growth, growth. They know

that more has to be done. The problem is, whenever you speak to

somebody in government, and you say, you are still banking on some

growth returning at some point, hoping that the third quarter

figures will be more positive, they always say to you, once the GDP

figures change, the political figures will change, too.

Everything will be sorted out. they are running out of time.

Whenever I ask ministers, what is it which is going to turn the

corner, what is actually going to change? I have to say, it is not a

question to which you get a satisfactory answer. This is why we

saw in PMQs, the Prime Minister was asked twice, is happily going to

meet its debt target? And twice he failed to answer that question. I

think his failure to one so that question, and to reaffirm it as the

Government's target, will allow that to carry on running. Douglas

Alexander, you were out at the Democratic convention in North

Carolina, and you wrote an article with David Miliband, about the

lessons to be learned from Barack Obama and the Democrats. It was

quite a long article, but I did plough through it. I would not say

800 words is particularly long. seem a lot more than that! Surely

you could have summed it up - the real lesson from the Democrats is

the importance of a charismatic leader. I don't think so. There

were many lessons, as I tried to draw out in the article. But one of

the corps troops between British and American politics is that the

economy is front and centre, right now. But in Britain, we have an

economy which is contracting, the Americans have got an economy which

is growing. That is the central challenge, which, as well as other

lessons, will continue to be the centrepiece of our conversation

which is, how to get growth in the economy. Would you accept that the

Democrats would be in a much worse position for this coming election

if they did not have someone with the charisma of Mr Obama leading

them? To be honest, the talk in the bars in Charlotte was that actually,

former President Bill Clinton had actually... But he is charismatic,

too. So, I would not draw that central reach. What Bill Clinton

did, very effectively, was to destroy the claim on the right,

which we see both in the British Government and in some

Conservatives supporters, that actually they have got a fiscally

credible strategy. The Shadow Foreign Secretary does not think

President Obama is charismatic, but apart from that, what came across,

I thought, was that it takes more than four years to sort out the

mess when you have lost control of the public finances. That was the

central argument put by Bill Clinton - you need more than four

years to sort it out. I think that was a very powerful argument.

need the right strategy, not the wrong plan. You said Mr Clinton's

demolition of the economic credibility of the Mitt Romney plan

was a masterclass - who could do that in Britain for you? I think

the facts in Britain are speaking for themselves. You have just said

it - the economy has not grown for three-quarters, the deficit is

rising, not falling, the debt target is not go to be met. All of

us have a responsibility to give the facts to the British people,

that Plan A has failed.. Rather than me, should that not be Ed

Balls? He did it to the TUC only yesterday. He got booed. I would

have thought you would have been intrigued that when he said we

needed rigour and discipline in the public finances, certain delegates

chose to boo. The I personally think he was absolutely right to

say what he said. I applaud Ed Miliband for having the courage to

say that in front of the TUC, as well as in other organisations.

Keeping the American analogy, as you know, there is a major school

teacher strike on in Chicago at the moment, the first time in a

generation, and the man who runs a Chicago is a former Chief of Staff,

he is out to reform the teaching unions, and to reform education in

the city, which has got an appalling education system - it is

a big embarrassment to Mr Obama, who has not said a word, but how

big a potential this winter to the In terms of the position, Ed

Miliband has been clear in saying he doesn't want these strikes. I'm

happy to repeat that today. We don't believe it's the right

approach for the trade unions to anticipate strikes, but we are

deeply concerned from some of the noises we are hearing within

Government that along with the snow, the Royal Wedding and the... It is

for trade unions to decide what lines toe use. I don't want a

labour strike. Is there any grounds for a general strike? I don't think

the case has been made in Britain, no. How relishing is the Government

over the public sector union outcry? I think it's a double-edged

sword for them. They like the politics, the fact that makes tough

questions for Labour. Equally they know they don't want to get into a

fight where it feeds the narrative of this is the Government that

can't do things, that it is not sorting things. They know that the

idea of restraint within the public sector is electorally popular with

many people, particularly those who work in the private sector. But

equally there are many within the coalition, remember one or or two

Liberal Democrats formed this coalition too. They don't want to

get on the wrong side of public sector voters, students and others,

who've traditionally voted for them as a party. There's a nervousness

about it but I think there is no question of any doubt within

Government this is what they are going to do. Is it not hypocritical

for the Government to say that if the unions do go on strike and

cause disruption that you are going to bring in the military, just at a

time when you are savaging the numbers in the military, cutting

the Army down to 373,000 from 106,000? Are you serious about

that? As the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's Questions, there

is as we know the military will come in and serve. There are no

plans to change the arrangements with the military. I thought James

was overanalysing this. People don't want a general strike. It

would be outrageous for the public sector for a general strike. Of

course we value public services but when you look at the pay in the

public services, I think really it would be completely wrong for them

to go on strike. That's a strong feeling across the country. We

understand it and the Labour Party don't. You were not allowed to

criticise James on this programme. He is a national treasure, Mr James

Landale. We are going to release you now, my little treasure. He is

going to stay actually. Just for today. In the last few minutes,

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, had apologised to the families of

the 96 people who died at the Hillsborough stadium. He said on

behalf of the Government and indeed of our country, I am profoundly

sorry that this double injustice has been left uncorrected for so

long. Although he did say the report had found no evidence that

the Government tried to conceal the truth about reports. An independent

report condemns the responses of the police. Mr Speaker, over all

these years questions have been raised about the role of Government,

including whether it did enough to uncover the true. It is certainly

true that some of the language in the Government papers published

today was insensitive. But having been through every document and

every Government document, including Cabinet minutes will be

published, the panel found no evidence of any Government trying

to conceal the truth. At the time of the Taylor Report the then Prime

Minister was briefed by her Private Secretary and the defensive and I

quote, close to deceitful behaviour of Yorkshire officers was

depressingly familiar. It was clear that the then Government thought

that the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire should resign. As the

honourable member has rightly highlighted Governments then and

since have not done enough to challenge publicly the unjust and

untrue narrative to sought to blame the fans. Third and perhaps most

significantly of all the Bishop of Liverpool's report casts new

evidence which casts doubt over the original evidence. The coroner

believed victims suffered asphyxia leading to unconsciousness within

seconds and death within minutes. As a result he asserted that beyond

3.15pm there was no actions that could have changed the fate of the

victims. By analysing post-mortem reports the panel found that 28

people did not have obstruction of blood circulation and 31 have

evidence of heart and lungs continuing to function after the

crush. This means that individuals in those groups could have had

potentially reversible asphyxia beyond 3.15pm, in contrast to the

findings of the coroner and a subsequent judicial review. James,

first of all the apology. Very clear. How significant is that do

you think for families? I can't prejudge how the families are going

to respond to this but clearly the Prime Minister has gone as far as

he was able, making it clear that he makes as Prime Minister a

profound apology. For two things. One element was the behaviour of

the emergency services and the police and others while it was

happening. That last shocking fact, that there were people there who

could have been saved, with reversible asphyxia and perhaps not

enough was done on that front. The second point is the scale of the

cover-up. He talks of 164 official statements being changed. Of the

police taking blood samples from dead children to see if there was

alcohol in their system. To see if that could in anyway transfer the

blame to them for behaviour on that day. The impression is that the

Prime Minister's given a shocking account of what this report says

and from the Government's point of view, a total apology, but not for

any Government actions. We heard that in his statement. No. He was

clear, they hadn't concealed any of the evidence. But deeply

distressing, those are the words of the Prime Minister and the

testimony, but what the families want is justice. What does justice

look like? We've heard now this evidence that statements were

altered. What do you think justice looks like? We'll see what has

emerged. The families got sight of this documentation at 9.30am. We

pay tribute to the families of the 96 who in the face of an apparent

disengagement of politicians from all political partys in the past

kept going and showed persveefrpblts I hope they feel a

sense of vindication today for a more than two decades-long struggle.

It will criticise the Prime Minister every day of the week if I

think he is getting it wrong. I think he got it right today in

offering a comprehensive apology. What the families have maintained

is that today is about truth. What they want next is justice. What

that may mean is the re-opening of the inquest. There was a deadline

set that the inquest would only look up until 3.15pm on that

afternoon. I would expect it may well be that people will say we

need the re-opening of the inquest. That's matter for the families.

Prime Minister did hint at that. He said the Attorney General is going

to have another look at this and dropped a hint that was his view

that the inquest should be re- opened. What about the emergency

services and the police? It reflects very badly on the police

as an institution doesn't it? don't know what's in the report but

it is clearly a powerful report. I agree with what Douglas Alexander

said. We have to understand the importance of the families today.

They have all of our respect for the persistence they've showed. The

Bishop of Liverpool and the excellent work he's done. There are

lots of lessons from. This as people now have for the first time

the ul evidence, which have not been shown before, there'll be a

whole range of issues that get opened up. This is a very

chastening incident for the entire nation. We do all need to learn the

lessons. Do you think, Douglas Alexander, that someone will be

held to account in that sense? You are right, today is about the

families and their response and uncovering the testimony we haven't

seen before. Or sit now, has the time passed and it has all been

laid to bare and that will be enough? One of the mothers of the

victims said for us justify is accountability. We've seen the hope

of the families that it will lead to greater accountability. Like

David, I can't prejudge where this will now go but I do think there's

a strong possibility that the inquest will be re-opened. Whether

there are other procedures that follow on from that I don't know,

but I welcome the fact hopefully the families will feel today that

at least the search for information is over T search for justice may

well continue. In terms of this never happening again, a cover-up

like this couldn't, could it? hope not. That's one other

important thing from. This this is also about openness and

accountability. I think all of news our different ways in public

service, we do need to remember that we are held to very high

standards that. Must include open access wherever possible to

decisions we take and why we took them. James? It wouldn't be

possible, as today everybody has mobile phones. As we've seen in

recent riots and demonstration this is incident would have been covered.

The amount of film of what had happened would have been

instantaneous. It was a different era. You are right. One of the big

criticisms at the time or in the initial report was that Liverpool

fans were criticised and the blame was pushed on to them, that they

had come in this a drunk and disorderly fashion, that they had

pushed into the terraces one or two tickets. We would have almost

video... I can't think of another example in our public life where it

appears that the establishment came together and blamed the victim

force a tragedy. That's been the root toifpb justify felt on

Merseyside for two decades. It is not just they wanted to understand

the appalling sequence of events. They also wanted the narrative of

what happened that afternoon to change. Hopefully that will change

as a result of today. James. Thank you very much. Pleasure. We'll see

you soon. Not soon enough.

At this point of the programme we had hoped to speak to a

representative of the Respect Party about the news that their leader

has resigned, blaming a breakdown in trust at senior levels. However,

George Galloway's office refused and the press office wouldn't

return our calls. We know when we're not wanted. We always like to

think the best of people on this programme. We always give people

the benefit of the doubt. We don't always, but sometimes we do.

LAUGHTER We are sure Respect aren't just trying to shut this story down,

so I would like to invite on air a representative from Respect to come

on our show tomorrow. We look forward to hearing for you.

The answer to Guess The Year was 19806789 David, just bash that big

red thing there. David Fouracre from balm, you win

this fancy Andy Murray mug. -- from Birmingham. I don't know

what kind of mug you are getting. Thanks to all of our guests.

There'll be more coverage of the Hillsborough statement and reaction

in Liverpool on BBC One with the one o'clock news.