12/12/2012 Daily Politics

Morning, Foulkes. This is the Daily Politics. Something is clearly

rotten at the heart of our banking system. HSBC, Britain's biggest

bank, has just been slapped with the biggest-ever banking fine, over

�1 billion for money laundering involving drug cartels. And rogue

regimes, and terrorists. The US Department of Justice accused the

Bank of having an astonishing record of dysfunction.

Westminster has been besieged by the lovers of a pint, who today

want to get rid of the so-called beer escalated you to.

Has the Government jilted the gay My passionate belief is that the

second most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself

freely. And we will be looking at moves afoot to get the law on

All that and more coming up and the next 90 minutes. With us for the

duration on the 12th of the 12th of 2012 -- scary! We have some up and

coming stars of the political firmament. Nick Hurd, son of

Douglas. He is minister for civil society. You won't find much of

that in here! According to the Daily Mail, he has modelled for the

Boden catalogue. Is that true? is true. He won't know what that is,

but I do. And we also blessed by the shadow

business secretary, a male model in his own way, Chuka Umunna. He

apparently sang the Mr Bean theme tune. Is that true? It is, with

several other people. That is my claim to fame! I got two right in a

row! First, the banks. British banks are creating headlines for

all wrong reasons. HSBC has been fined more than �1 billion, yes, I

said billion, not million, for helping launder money for Mexican

drug cartels and rogue states such as that nice place, North Korea,

which has just launched a missile. Standard Charter has been fined

almost �200 million for sanctions- busting on behalf of nice regimes

like Iran and Libya. City traders have been arrested for allegedly

fixing the London interbank rate, LIBOR, for which Barclays has

already been fined almost �300 million. And the tax payers had to

fork out �270 million to Northern Rock customers because the bank

couldn't keep its paperwork in order. That only leaves the co-op

unscathed. Good old co-op! HSBC turned a blind eye to money

laundering by drug cartels, terrorists and regimes in Cuba,

Iran, Libya and Burma. It was the Bank of choice for Mexican drug

gangs. They used the bank so often they build special boxes to fit

into HSBC's teller slots. How could this happen to a British bank? You

used to be with Flemings, another British bank. Her who behaved a lot

better. The fundamental problem here at the root of all this is

that banks were regulated very badly. Gordon Brown has admitted

that. The regulatory regime in which banks operated was far too

lax. I think there is also another problem, the way in which bankers

are paid, it is all about maximising short-term profit. But

we are now taking a serious approach to regulation, which we

haven't had for 30 years. It wasn't the rules. The problem was that

people were breaking the rules. This is a matter of criminality!

Absolutely. That is the particular issue here. In relation to Northern

Rock, I don't think it is. And ask you about HSBC. It has to be

criminality if you are money laundering for grown -- drug

cartels in Mexico. I'm amazed nobody has gone to jail over this.

Ditto. To say that we should have had better regulated banks is

nonsense. Many, including Ed Balls, agree that the political consensus

which was Pro a light touch regime was wrong at the time. But the

important thing for us is to rebuild trust and confidence in the

British banking sector. It is going to take a long time. It will, but

there is a national interest in this. Increasingly, people have

been talking about it being a London problem, of the back of

LIBOR, PPI misselling, interest rates and so on. We have got to

resolve this. I am proud that we have the world's global financial

services sector here in London, but we have got to maintain that

position. We are particularly seen with the regulators in New York,

seeking to make political capital out of London's position. Do you

think they are picking on us? think there was definitely a hint

of that in respect of Standard Chartered and the New York

regulator. There were sources close to the Fed and close to the

Treasury in the US who looked not very favourably on the attitude

adopted. Standard Chartered was found guilty of sanctions busting

for a nice places like Iran, Burma and Libya. I am not defending any

of the Rhondda whatsoever. I am simply making the point that we

have a leading financial services centre here and we have got to

maintain that position and rebuild trust and confidence. It isn't just

an issue for regulators. It is an issue for the leaders of the big

banks themselves. This isn't just a few rotten apples. We need to

fundamentally change the culture of our institutions. Most of the HSBC

wrong doing took place between 2002 and 2010. He was chief executive of

HSBC for most of that time? I... Mr Green? That is right. Stephen Green.

And what does he do now? He is a trade minister. How can you have a

trade minister who presided over a bank, chairman from 2006-2010, when

all this was going on? He has got to account for himself. He regrets

it, he says. He hasn't accounted for himself. He is open to

accountability on that. I like Stephen Green. I think he is a good

chap. There are a lot of people who say it that they think he has done

a good job as trade minister, but he could have put this issue to bed

if he had come to the House of Lords as many were asking and dealt

with questions on this topic. But he hasn't allowed people to

question him, to hold him to account. That's the problem.

left with a pension pot of... Anyone like to guess? It's not

small. Over half a million a year, probably. �19 million pension pot.

According to my notes here. And this is a man who was chairman of a

bank that turned a blind DI to money laundering by drug cartels,

terrorists and regimes in Cuba, Iran, Libya and Burma. Ordinary

people watching this programme, struggling to make ends meet as

their fuel bills go through the roof, will be saying, there is

clearly one law for these kinds of people, a totally different law for

me. There is a huge amount of anger at the banks, and this will only

throw more petrol on the flames. is on the banking reform committee.

Northern Rock taking 270 million from the taxpayer, on top of the

billions already given to bail them out. It is stupidity. It is lack of

information, typical of the way in which the banks were operating at

the time. We need to get regulatory framework, and we are making

progress. On this northern Rock issue, and people have been seeing

stories about them having to pay out this money, why, given that the

Government knew about this in October, would it not factored into

the forecast and provided to the OBR to factor into their forecasts

of public sector debt? That is one for the Treasury. I don't know the

answer. They wanted to keep it out of the public view? Do not think of

the Treasury knew about it, they should have factor that in? With

the greatest respect, I am not taking any lessons from a Labour

politician about failure to regulate the bank's! We need to

conduct a proper inquiry and see what comes out of that. It is an

unprecedented litany of disasters in the banking sector. Household

names like HSBC, Barclays. I don't think we have heard the last of

them. You have on this programme, because Jo has a much more

important subject. Not a good day for the banks, and also not for

beer. What would motivate 1,000 angry men and a few women to

descend on Westminster on such a winter's des? The rising price of

beer, of course. The government's alcohol duty escalator increases

the price of the tax on beer by 2% per year more than the rate of

inflation. CAMRA's chief executive is in Westminster. I notice the

signs behind you. I believe they are the signs of pubs that have

shut. Is that correct? They are indeed, and some of hour

campaigners are here today. These are people who have lost their

local pubs, and one of the reasons for those pub losses is undoubtedly

the high rate of tax we are paying. We would like to see the escalator

scrapped. Excuse me for using a hackneyed phrase. We are all in

this together. Why shouldn't be a drinkers pay a little more? No one

is saying they shouldn't pay their fair share. But what is happening

is that they are paying 2% every year above the rate of inflation.

We are saying scrap the escalator. The attacks shouldn't go up by more

than the rate of inflation. The government's figures show that over

the next two years, they are expecting their beer tax revenue to

fall while beer drinkers are still paying through the nose. That

doesn't look like good politics to me. You are complaining about the

price of beer, but according to the campaign for real-ale and the

editor of the Good Beer Guide, real-ale has never been in ruder

health. Breweries are opening. They have managed to buck the trend on

the double-dip recession because there is a surge of the number of

brewers coming onto the scene. are here to talk about the overall

beer market, and of course pubs. If you look at the whole of the UK,

not just real ale, that has just declined massively over the last 20

years, and it continues to do so, so if we are going to get

investment back into the market place and back into jobs, we need

to see some support for the brewers, but more importantly, when we are

seeing so many pubs closing, and we're talking about an industry

that supports a million jobs, there is a real opportunity here for the

Government to show some support for a great British industry and invest

in British jobs. The chairman of the all-party Save the pub group,

you were not doing very well. could ask other people. You can ask

CAMRA members. We are campaigning on a number of issues. The unfair

rates of beer duty is one of them. Today we are here to talk about

beer duty. The increase escalator doesn't make sense. It is stifling

business, closing pubs. What we are calling for today is common sense.

It doesn't make sense to have an escalator introduced in a

completely different economic environment in 2008, when inflation

was different and the cost of living was different. This is doing

damage to a great British industry, and doing damage to pubs who can't

absorb the extra costs. But it is your Chief Secretary to the

Treasury that keeps putting it up. Have you spoken to Danny Alexander

about this? I have indeed, and I raised it in Treasury Questions

yesterday. He said it is being looked at, and we are trying to

push the case. Alistair Darling left us with a strange situation,

criticised by Conservatives and Liberal Democrat MPs when it was

introduced, and now being imposed by Labour MPs. This is a tax that

no longer makes sense. We are going to do everything we can. There are

well over 1,000 CAMRA members giving a very clear message that

the beer duty escalator is bad for British pubs, and we hope we met

that they will see sense. Just before we go, is it true you are

only allowed in your supporters to have tea and biscuits before they

meet the MPs? The beer is saved for later? Everybody will get a good

old pint of real-ale on CAMRA later! Probably a wise move. Well

done for asking. Sorry about that. Cheers to both of you! We do the

same, tea and biscuits before and Do you support this campaign?

I'm a big fan of CAMRA. They were concerned about the issues which

affect pubs, and it's more complex than the beer duty in terms of

Wyatt public houses are struggling. There is lots of social factors,

not least the price of booze in the supermarkets. This escalator was

introduced by a Labour. Would you like to scrap it? What I do know is

that the Government is very sensitive to the cost of living

issues in relation to council tax, fuel duty. Rail fares. At some

point, you do have to recognise there are difficult decisions to be

taken. The escalator may be one of them. CAMRA is furious with a

government at the moment because they would introduce a statutory

code to govern the relation between tenants and large pub companies and

they have remained on so many of their commitments. That needs to be

dealt with. The seal on anniversary in January when the Government

promised to help small pubs which are shutting and they have not done

yet. Secondly, where pubs are closing, going under, you often see

supermarkets moving straight in because you don't need to change

the planning laws. On the review of the beer duty, we support the

review. Would you like to see it scrapped? Our commitment to reduce

VAT to 17.5% would cut the price of beer by 5p. That actually mean

something to people. We are supporting the review. Thank you,

gentlemen. Time, as they say. Do you think anybody who watches

this programme earns millions of pounds? I don't know how much

people in here. I don't know. Enough of this. Now, you bunch of

lazy, stay-at-home, silly, nothing better to do than watch the useless

Daily Politics, numpties. Watch this. Oi, now you watch it!

Insulting me is possibly a criminal offence. And if that doesn't spook

you, the sight of Peter Tatchell dressed as a policeman and with a

Pantomime Dobbin is definitely enough to scare the horses. Section

5 of the Public Order Act was written 26 years ago to tackle

football hooligans by making it a criminal offence to use insulting

words or behaviour. It's united unlikely bedfellows in a campaign

to reform it, after cases of a Christian arrested for saying

homosexuality was a sin. A fine later quashed for a teenager who

said woof woof to some labradors. And a student arrested for saying

to a police officer, "Excuse me". Do you know your horse is gay?

is insulting. You on nicked! remember I had been here before in

a fictional context. I once did a show called Not the 9 o'clock News,

some years ago, and we did a sketch where grief these Jones played

Constable Savage. A racist police officer to whom I, his station

commander, is given a dressing-down for arresting a black man on a

string of ludicrous charges. The charges for which he was arrested

worthies. Walking on the cracks in the pavement. Walking in a loud

shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness. And one of my

favourite, walking around all over the place. He was also arrested for

urinating in a public convenience. And the looking at me in a funny

way. Who would have thought that we would end up with a law which would

allow life to imitate art so exactly if? It's often used to

arrest people for expressing opinions and beliefs. And we think

that is dangerous. It is not compatible with a free and

democratic society. We are delighted the cross-party group of

MPs are supporting the appeal and we have the backing of both the

current director of Public Prosecutions and the formal one.

Perhaps the Government's only concern is appearing to licence

insulting police men. Right I'm The horse was nodding in agreement.

Anyway, Giles Dilnot there. And we're joined now by the Liberal

Democrat President, Tim Farron. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

You want to see insulting removed from the Public Order Act, why?

It's important to be courteous and polite. It's not wise to insult

people. What we're talking about is not the banter we have been

discussing, but the rights of people of deeply-held convictions

to express them in a way not meant to be abusive, not meant to cause a

public order offence, but is simply likely to rile those who take

different positions. I have the National secular Society and the

Christian Institute in my office not long ago arguing for the right

to defend and insult one another. They should be allowed to do so.

when that drug Oxford student insulted the police force, by

telling the police officer that his horse was gay, he was then arrested

for making homophobic remarks. If you change the law, this stuff

could not happen anyway? response to this, there is no

offence which has been committed in the last few years under this

political heading which would not have been easily prosecuted under

abusive behaviour, incitement to violence, anything already in

existence in the law. The issue is protecting freedom of speech, not

reducing the powers of the police. But this is a much coarser nation

than it used to be. The traditional British politeness and civilised

behaviour has gone out of the window. You only have to drive

around London. The House of Commons. Drivers are here behaved the way

drivers used to be paid in New York. Are you sure you want to make his

even more of a rude society? think the issues the police are

concerned about over whether they can apprehend people who are

causing difficulty, they are unfounded concerns because the law

already allows people to be arrested for abusive behaviour,

violent, threatening behaviour and so on. Even an intentional in salt

is something different. We're talking at the freedom of speech

for people with political, religious, philosophical

convictions to be able to say things which are in the face of

other people. We have a right to offend and a duty to accept that

offence and a free society. What to say about courtesy is different. I

agree with you. Western society as a whole is losing very important

basic manners that we once had. It's a sad thing but it is not

affected by the Government of any colour deciding to prevent free

speech. If we take a rift out of the Andrew Mitchell playbook, and

call some body a pleb, that is Ruud and stupid to do. But should not be

illegal in your view, is that right? I'm not sure. The

interpretation of existing law, intentional insults it would be

something which is potentially actionable. If somebody perceives

there had been insulted, I, as a Christian, being insulted by some

body saying there is no God, get over it, I should be able to live

for that. If somebody is an atheist, and has offended by me saying they

are going to hell, something like that, they have got to live with

that. It's an honest exchange of views. Let's see it your

parliamentary colleagues agree. not sure we are that course as a

society. Shakespeare and Chaucer they were pretty bad. I'm going

back a bit. It may be nice inside the Carlton Club. I work in the

House of Commons and it pretty tough. There is a clear issue here.

Which is why we are consulting on it and reviewing the conclusions.

The word insulting leads to challenges. Would you go along with

this? I think the Home Office need to look at it. All right. We are

not convinced over the need to change this. We will listen to the

campaigners on it but I think you can have freeze speech without

needing to insult people. -- a free speech. It's about where you

personally feel insulted? It's a difference between are being

deliberately offended by somebody else for so we have the equal

marriage issue this week and those sides should be expressed without

worry of being prosecuted. We will keep you posted. Thank you. Now,

he's a man of principle who achieves what he wants to do. And

he prevails in the end because he's honourable, decent, a great British

hero. Who could Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband's spin doctor, possibly be

talking about? Wel,l Wallace of Wallace and Gromit fame. The

cartoon character that Times cartoonist Peter Brooks has

compared to the leader of the Labour party. Unable to shake off

the perhaps unfavourable comparison, the Labour leadership team have

decided to embrace it. "He's got a nice dog" says Mr Miliband. And

Wallace, or Ed Miliband, also reveals in an interview for Grazia

magazine what he bought his wife Justine for her birthday. Jewellery,

perfume, underwear perhaps? No, he bought her a coffee machine. Used

for. -- used for. Well, Mrs Wallace, I mean Mrs Miliband, if you're

watching, we've got the perfect accompaniment for a coffee machine.

We'll remind you how to enter in a minute. But let's see if you can

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 41 seconds

It is twice the size of Trafalgar Square. It's quite is twice the

height of Nelson's Column in the # You've got a lot to answer for #

Baby, I love you. # You've got a lot to answer for...

Lots of guessing in the studio here. To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz email

addres. And you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The

Year on our website. Maybe I can get one? I only work here! It's

coming up to midday here. Just take a look at Big Ben. It's a cold but

rather nice winter's day in London town. PMQs is on its way. Nick

Robinson is here. They is is the first chance for Labour to spell

out what they would do to the benefit cuts or are joining the tax

credits are because, crucial to the argument, an argument about

language. The Treasury, George Osborne, wants to talk about

capping benefits. Are they are going up but not that fast. Labour

are saying, 60% of the people affected are working families, it's

a real terms cut say you should talk about cuts to tax credits. The

Shadow work and pension secretary has called it a shirkers tax. You

listen to these exchanges today, and remember this battle about

language is entirely to do with the politics of whether you regard this

as unfair. If you describe the policy which never it fits into a

TV graphic or sound bite. Led to go Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning

I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall

have further such meetings later today. Can my right honourable

friend confirm that the fall in youth unemployment figures is the

largest since records began? And will he meet with me to discuss how

employment opportunities in Tamworth, including youth

employment, can be promoted still further?

I would be delighted to meet with my honourable friend to discuss the

business situation in Tamworth, but he is absolutely right. This

morning's figures show the largest quarterly fall in youth

unemployment on record. 72,000 fewer people unemployed this

quarter. There is no room for complacency, still far too many

people long-term unemployed, but in these figures we can see 40,000

more people in work, they can seize up, unemployment down by 82,000,

and the claimant count down. Over 1 million extra private sector jobs

under this government. Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker... Mr

Speaker, today's fall in unemployment and rising employment

is welcome. Part of the challenge remains the stubbornly high level

of long-term unemployment. Does the Prime Minister agree that this

remains a fundamental importance, for the country as a whole? I do

agree, and as I mentioned in my first dancer, long-term

unemployment remains stubbornly high. The good news is that long-

term youth unemployment is down by 10,000 this quarter, so that is

encouraging. Long-term unemployment for others is still a problem,

which is why the work programme and getting the work programme right is

so important. Clearly there is more to do. He said on 18th January,

unemployment will get worse not better. Perhaps he would like to

withdraw that. Mr Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister recognises

that long-term unemployment is still a challenge. I want to ask

him about the people who were doing the right thing in finding work. In

his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor decided to cut tax

credits and benefits, and he said it was the people with the curtains

drawn who would be affected. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many

of those hit actually in work. fact is this, that welfare needs to

be controlled, and everyone who was on tax credits will be affected by

these changes, because we have to get on top of the welfare bill.

That is why we are restricting the increase on out-of-work benefits,

and it is also the reason why we are restricting in-work benefits.

But what we have also done is increase the personal allowance,

because on this side of the house, we believe in cutting people's

taxes when they are in work. He is raising the taxes of people in work,

and he didn't answer the question. The answer is, despite the

impression given by the Chancellor of the us Cheka, over 60% of those

affected a Ren work -- the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is

the factory work on a night shift. It is the cleaner who cleans the

Chancellor's office while his curtains are still drawn and he is

still in bed! The chancellor calls them scroungers. What does the

Prime Minister call them? He just said that we are not cutting taxes

for people in work. Someone who is on the minimum wage and works full-

time will see their income tax bill cut by 1 1/2 under this Government.

-- Cat by a half. This Government will say to working people, you can

earn another �3,000 before you even start paying income tax. That is

why we have taken 2 million people out of tax altogether. He should be

welcoming that. This is the party for people who work. His is the

party for unlimited welfare. course, he is just wrong on the

detail. The Institute for Fiscal Studies table says quite clearly

that, on average, working families are �534 a year worse off as a

result of his measures. I notice he wants to get away from what the

Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week, and we know what the

Chancellor was trying to do. He was trying to play divide and rule. He

said his changes, and I quote, "were for people living a life on

benefits, still asleep while their neighbours go out to work." but it

turns out it just wasn't true. It is a tax on strivers. Will the

Prime Minister now admit that the Chancellor got it wrong and the

majority of people hit are working people? He says that we haven't got

the detail right. We know his approach to detail is to take a

2000 page report and accepted without reading it! That is his

approach to detail. I am surprised the shadow chancellor is shouting

again. We learned last week, like bullies all over the world, he can

Order, order! I want to hear the Prime Minister's answer. Order!

Let's hear it. Specifically answer the leader of the opposition's

question. He mentioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies figure.

They do not include the personal allowance increase put through in

the Budget. They do not include the Universal Credit changes which will

help the working poor. Under this government, we are lifting the

personal allowance, taking millions out of tax, standing up for those

who work. He only stand up for those who claim. I must say, Mr

Speaker, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon

Club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you

He doesn't want to talk about the fact, but let's give him another

one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our

society will be getting a massive tax cuts next April. An average of

�107,000 each for people earning over a million pounds. Mr Speaker,

is the prime minister the only person left in the country Rue

cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts

to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?

The tax rate for the richest under this government will be higher in

every year than it was for any year when he was in government. He

obviously has a short memory, because I explained to him last

week that under his plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid �7

billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising

taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the

rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is the choice that

he has decided to make. Because the facts are these: Over the last five

years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%. People

out of work have seen their income go up by 20%. At a time when people

accept a pay freeze, we should not be increasing benefits. And yet

that is what he wants to do. A party that is serious about

controlling welfare isn't serious about controlling the deficit

either. From the first part of his answer, he is claiming to be Robin

Herd. I don't think that is going to work. He is not taking from the

richest in giving to everybody else. And didn't the business Secretary

give it away? This is what he said: "what happened was some of their

donors, very wealthy people, stamped their feet. So they

scrapped the mansion tax and went ahead with a 50p tax cut." Mr

Speaker, they look after their friends, the people on their

Christmas card list. Any well, they hit people who they never meet and

whose lives they will never understand. His donors put him when

he is, pay him every year, determine his policies. But it is

perfectly clear, Mr Speaker, what the Labour Party's choice is. Their

choice is more benefits paid for my more borrowing. They should listen

to the Labour trade minister who said this: "you know what you call

a system of government way you say, oh, we're in trouble, we will go

and borrow low then give it to people. It is called Greece. Close

they are not serious about the Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the

Prime Minister join me, and I am sure, the whole house, in sending

our deepest sympathies and condolences to nurse Jacintha

Saldanha who died this week. Does anybody wishing to support the

family by donating to the King Edward VII hospital fund, and

urging the press to preserve the privacy of this family. I am sure

the whole house and indeed the whole country will join the

honourable lady and join me in paying tribute to this nurse, and

giving more our sympathies and condolences to her family. She

clearly loved her job, cared deeply about the health of her patients,

and what happened is a tragedy. There will be many lessons to be

learned, and that echo what she said about the press keeping their

distance and allowing his family Is the prime minister still

intending to introduce the snoopers charter, euphemistically known as

the communications and data Bill? Does he realise that he will be

spying, his government, on more people in Britain than even all the

press barons put together? Where did he get this advice and idea

from? Was it down at Wapping? Was it his friends down there? Tony?

I really believe on this issue the Honourable Gentleman is wrong. This

is an important issue, and I feel is very strongly. As Prime Minister,

you have to take responsibility first and foremost for national

security and people's safety. Data communications, this is not the

content of a phone call, it is the fact a phone call took place, is

used in every single terrorist case and almost every single serious

crime case. The question in front of a house of Commons and indeed

the House of Lords is simply this: Because we currently have that data

for fixed and mobile telephony, what are we going to do as

Telephony increasingly moves over the internet? We can stand here and

do-nothing and not update the law. The consequence will be fewer

crimes solved, few were terrorists brought to justice. I do not want

to be the prime minister who puts this country into that position.

The Government's proposals on judicial review conflict with

article 29 of Magna Carter 1297. Does the Government proposed the

We don't intend that, but I am sure that he would understand... Order!

Order! I would like to hear this. The point we are making is that the

extent of judicial review has massively increased in recent years,

and we think that there is an need for her recent rules to extend the

costs of judicial review so that the costs are covered. Then we can

maintain access to justice, but speed up the wheels of government a

little. Will the Prime Minister answer the

question he was asked three times by my Right Honourable Friend, and

dodged a few moments ago? Willie confirm the majority of households

will be hit by the real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits are

working household? The point I made is bigger than that. Everyone on

working tax credits will be affected by the fact we are only

increasing them by 1%. But the fact is we have to control welfare to

deal with the massive deficit we were left by the party opposite,

and there is a choice in politics. You could either control welfare

bills, or you can say no to a welfare cap, no to the controller

of welfare, borrow, build a power deficit and put us back where we

came from. At the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister began

by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to

make the justice and security bill acceptable on secret courts. But he

ended the session by appearing to say that he wouldn't accept those

amendments. Could you clarify which We want this to pass through

Parliament, having listened to the excellent points through the House

of Lords, I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching the disease

of the Shadow Chancellor of not being able to keep his mouth shut

for longer than five seconds. We will listen very carefully. The

fundamental choice is to make sure that these proceedings are

available to judges and they should make a decision. The Environment

Secretary this week described went to a bines as any appropriate

technology which matured in the Middle Ages. Does he agree? Why

not? The we are making serious investments in that renewable

energy. We have set up a subsidy which stretches the tomb 2017 and

that's why the renewable Energy capacity of this country has

actually doubled in the last two years under this Government. Will

he agree with me that not only has this Government had to deal with

the catastrophic budget deficit which we inherited it from the

former prime minister but also, as the figures reveal today, a tidal

wave of emigration deliberately fostered by the Labour government

concentrating on putting these two issues right are the most important

issues facing this government for security for the people of this

country? He makes an important point which is emigration was out

of control under the last government. Net migration ran at

over 200,000 a year, 2 million across a decade. Under sensible

controls we have put in place, it's fallen by a quarter in recent years

also what is interesting about this, you can have proper control of

immigration while also saying to the world other universities are

open to foreign students to come and study here, and as long as they

have an English language qualification and a degree place in

university, there's no limits on the numbers which can come.

Controlling immigration, but making sure the best and brightest come to

Britain. Iceland had a huge economic difficulties and rejected

austerity and has seen a recovery driven by domestic demand.

Unemployment is 2.4% lower than the UK. Those with children receive the

most support in Iceland. Will he congratulate them on working hard

to turn things around and does he think is anything he can learn from

Iceland? I think if the case for an independent Scotland is a makers

more like Iceland, I'm not sure that will recommend itself to the

voters. Britain and Iceland have very good relations and I will make

sure it remains to be the case of. Can I welcome the fall in youth

unemployment in Hastings, where it has fallen steadily for the past

nine months and is at its lowest since May 2010. Will he consider

the continuation of youth contracts are so that can continue?

grateful for her point. We will continue with the apprenticeships

which have reached over one million under this government but also with

the youth contract and work experience because we are seeing

large numbers of people going into work experience coming off benefits,

finding a job and finding it's a very good start to a working career.

On the day unemployment in Scotland show the largest fall at in four

years, it is the as shocked as I am by reports in the newspapers that

some of JobCentre managers were actively encouraging employers to

convert paid vacancies in to unpaid work experience placements to

satisfy dw p targets? Will he condemned this practice and ensure

it ceases immediately? He makes an important point. We want work-

experience places to be additional places, encouraging more people to

get appealing for work so they have a chance of getting a job but it's

good he welcomes the fact employment in Scotland as increased

27,000 since the election and unemployment has fallen by 19,000

this quarter, so we are making progress. Would the Prime Minister

join me in welcoming the progress that has been made around the

country since the autism Act 2009 in supporting adults with autism?

And following the recent National Audit Office report, would he join

me in encouraging his ministerial colleagues and local authorities

across the country to accelerate his progress next year when the

adult autism strategy is due to be reviewed? May I pay tribute to my

friend who was instrumental in getting a landmark act on to the

statute books. The impact of it continues right up to this day and

beyond. We want all adults living with autism to live recording lives

within a society which accepts them up. The review of the strategy is

coming up next year between March and October. It is vital it is a

cost government at but and I will make sure this is dealt with in a

co-ordinated way. The Green Investment Bank was due to be given

new borrowing powers in three years' time. But, in a few other

chances abject failure to meet that borrowing target, because it was

predicated on meeting those borrowing targets set by the

Government, is he still committed to giving borrowing powers to the

Green Investment Bank and, if so, when? This government has set up a

Green Investment Bank within two years whereas the party opposite

did nothing about this for 13 years. Even at a time of fiscal difficulty,

because of the mess we were left in, we put �3 billion into this, so

right now it doesn't need to borrow because it has the money to invest

and I think what is needed is the equity risk finance and that's

exactly what the Green Investment Bank will provide. He goes to

summer tomorrow. Has he noticed -- a summit. Has he noticed that the

European Parliament is a parliament for the EU ensuring democratic

legitimacy for the EU? Does he agree with this? What really say to

the other leaders when he goes to their summit tomorrow? I do agree

with him on this one. It is actually the national parliaments

would provide the real democratic legitimacy within the European

Union. When we are discussing banking union, it is to this House

that we should account. It is to this size that represents our tax

payers are that we should account and I always bear that in mind her

when I am negotiating as I will be tomorrow at the European Council.

Can the Prime Minister confirm the Autumn Statement revealed to the

Government is now borrowing to London �12 billion more than it

previously planned to? -- to London �12 billion? -- �212 billion. The

party opposite was disappointed that borrowing would come down this

year but this is the fact. Prime Minister has rightly said we

are locked in a global economic race. Does he share my concern that,

having the highest aviation taxes and the world, makes it harder for

business to compete? And it increases the cost of living? Will

he ask the Treasury to conduct a full review? I very much understand

the point. Obviously, I get lobbied regularly by countries around the

world particularly Commonwealth countries about their passenger

duty also we don't have plans to commission a further research

because we have just complete -- completed a thorough consultation.

We have limited the rise of it until 2013 so the rates have only

increased by a �1 for the majority of passengers but I will bear in

mind very carefully what he says. The Autumn Statement did not

include a forecast of child poverty as a result of the policies

announced. Can he confirm it will be published soon? Could he tell

the House whether he really believes his policies will increase

or reduce child poverty in Islington? We want to see a lasting

reduction in child poverty and I think we need to have a policies

which address, not only whether people are just above or below the

poverty line, are but policies which address the causes of poverty.

What traps people into poverty? Of course, not enough money is part of

it, not enough jobs is another and that's why today's news on

unemployment is so welcomed but we need to look at all of the things

which trap people in unemployment which includes family breakdown,

drug abuse, alcohol abuse and unemployment. As he knows, Plymouth

is a global leader in the Marine Science Engineering Research. I

very much welcome the initiative by the Government to spend more money

on at the science base. Would he be willing to meet with me and

Plymouth members of Parliament and businesses, to discuss how they

could become involved in the small cities super broadband initiative

and will help us to rebalance our economy and attract private

investors? I'm a very happy to meet with him. I know he stands up

strongly for Plymouth a's economy. On the science budget, we made a

decision at the start of this government, to freeze the science

budget rather than cut it, and I'm sure that was the right answer and,

since then, on broadband, I will look carefully about what he says

about it. I'm sure he will be glad to know Devon and Somerset have

been allocated over �33 million it to deliver a super-fast broadband

and we're working hard to make sure those plans are on track because

it's important for cities and rural areas, as well. The Prime Minister

and members of this House will be fully aware of the serious threat

posed to democracy by dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.

The police have stated there is evidence of loyalist paramilitary

involvement in some of the protests in Northern Ireland this week. It

included a murder attempt on police officers protecting my constituency

office. Will he not only condemned as reprehensible assault on

democracy from those who style themselves as loyal, and willing

agreed to meet with me and my colleagues, the justice minister

for Northern Ireland, to discuss the grave security situation?

absolutely join her in condemning the violence we have seen on the

streets of Belfast. In no way are these people being loyal or

standing up for being British for the violence is unjustified. I

agree completely with what he said about the attack on the police

officers. We should pay tribute to the work the Police Service of

Northern Ireland do. I know the whole House would like to express

our solidarity with the honourable lady and her colleagues who have

been intimidated in recent days and a ball is happy to meet with MPs

from Northern Ireland. But I am always happy to meet with MPs and

Northern Ireland. Will he congratulate my two young

entrepreneurs who have taken the initiative to start the Cornish

cheese company and a passion company in my constituency? Does he

agree this is just the sort of business initiative we need to see?

I'm delighted to John honourable lady in congratulating the

entrepreneurship -- joined the honourable lady in congratulating

the entrepreneurship. I'm looking forward to pasting that cheese. I

shouldn't maybe, because of my weight. The rate of start-up of a

new businesses in this country is at a record high and because we

need a rebalancing between the public and private sector, we need

this to continue. In opposition, the Prime Minister said he wanted

this government to be the most family a friendly government this

country had ever seen. Why is the cutting maternity pay for working

mothers? First of all,, what can honourable lady to the House of

Commons and congratulate hair on her recent a by-election a success?

We have had to take difficult decisions about welfare in and out

of work. So we put a cap on 1% of all the working benefits including

the one she mentions but, above all, on this issue, the right thing is

to cut the tax as a people in work rather than take more in taxes and

then redistributed through tax credits will stop we want to cut

taxes on those who work and that's what we are doing and there will be

more of it to come. Over the last five years, benefits have risen

twice as fast as salaries for that does he agree that whilst we have a

duty to the least well-off, it cannot be fair that people out of

work enjoy bigger increases in living standards than those who

work hard day and night to support themselves and their families?

put that extremely clearly. Many people in our country have seen a

pay freeze year after year after year. And yet welfare benefits have

gone up. So, in politics, we face a choice. Do we go on putting those

benefits up, which actually is not helping those people who are on the

pay freeze in work, or do we take a tough decision? We have taken a

tough decision. The only welfare minister Labour had called

honourable member for Birkenhead, said there approach simply is not

serious and once again, he is it right. May I congratulate the Prime

Minister and the UK government on following the lead of the Scottish

government and parliament in introducing equal marriage, minimum

pricing by alcohol and the smoking ban up previously pulled up given

that unemployment is now lower in Scotland and the rest of the UK,

will he follow the lead of the Scottish government by introducing

a more cohesive measure for growth? There is an extra �300 million for

the Scottish government to spend and so it they want to spend that

on the shop already measures, they can, but I'm happy to say, when

good policies are introduced in any part of the UK, we all have the

opportunity to follow them. Statement. We'll return to that in

a moment. We saw the new dividing line in British politics. The

uprating of benefits. The Government said they could only go

up by 1% in the next three years. Now opposed by the Labour Party.

There is a clear division there. It turned a little nasty. The Prime

Minister described Ed Balls as a bully. He's probably do not before.

But he's probably done that before. He was asked whether he had wrecked

If only we could all draw a shroud over what we did at university!

They have picked up on the debate. He was looking to me to make the

point! You couldn't afford a restaurant, could you? I was very

well behaved at university. Viewers also interested in the debate. The

benefits discussion. This from Jacqueline in Keynsham. I am tired

of being called a scrounger because I can no longer work. The

Chancellor and the Prime Minister going on about drawn blinds and

curtains is alienating a part of disabled society that has no choice

in the matter. This from Helen Manning: Ed Miliband's continued

reference to Sherpas not workers is so monotonous. He stands on the

side of benefit claimants. Michael firm: David Cameron always quotes

benefit claimants in percentages to make sure it sounds like people are

getting more. But it only just covers the price rises. And this

from Jeremy Clarke: Why aren't they are asking about the bank has yet

again? Nick, there was a factual argument we are trying to get to

the bottom of. The leader of the opposition said that if you only

increase in work benefits by 1%, that is a cut in real terms. The

Prime Minister then said, that doesn't include this huge rise in

personal allowances, so that particularly people on lower

incomes will find that a huge chunk of their income won't be taxed at

all. On first sight, I thought they had both made mistakes, but I have

just check with the Treasury teams to see if they can provide some

information. Ed Miliband said that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has

said that the average loss, if you took into account everything, was

�533 for families. In fact, Labour's own press release

yesterday only applied to couples where only one person learns. The

Government is increasing personal tax allowance. If there are two of

you getting at, that obviously increases your income at the same

time as a cat in real benefits level is curbing it. Five and and

�34 is a figure that applies. The Prime Minister then claimed...

what about fuel duty and all the rest of it? The Prime Minister

claimed that this didn't include personal allowance, but I think it

did. It would be remarkable if the Institute of Fiscal Studies, trying

to do distributional analysis of the impact of all the changes that

have been introduced, given that the increase in personal allowances

one of the biggest and most expensive tax changes of all, I

would be amazed if they didn't include that. I think that is

absolutely right. So it is a question of what you include in the

calculation. You can see, in very simple terms, the Institute of

Fiscal Studies produced tables the day after important statements. How

you win the bottom 10th, are you when the top 10th? If you are in

the bottom five, below the average, you lose. The people just above,

some of them again as a result of the personal tax allowance, of

which counteracts that cap in the benefit levels. And the people at

the very top lose because there was a different measure for pension

taxes. But they lose because of a whole range of other steps as well,

that the coalition government has taken. But in a sense what this was

proving is partly what I was saying before, which is that language is

crucial. That a viewer who roti in and said, and sick of his language.

But we are not talking about benefits for the disabled, although

I know it does affect employment support allowance, which some

people who are disabled depend upon. People who are officially

designated unable to work are not affected. But this language of are

you talking about a cut pre-tax, a Shericka Orest driver, the details

are complicated. Both sides are competing for language that works

for them. Labour and now opposed for both the 1% up rate for both

out of work and in-work benefits, correct? We are opposed to the

package. If they maintain this huge tax cuts for people earning

millions of pounds... The tax cut for the very rich. If they maintain

that at the same time they are putting in a 1% cap, it is

something we will vote against. This is a complicated area. I think

the Chancellor committed a huge strategic error first of all in

trying to do a divide and rule of the nation, and second of all

trying to do a divide and rule between the so-called strivers and

shirkers. Even if you take the argument that there are people in

receipt of benefit, six out of 10 families affected by this being

working families. But the issue of the people who are out of work, I

look at the people I come across in my constituency, in my constituency

frequently I meet young people in families who have come back from

university, graduated from college, and cannot find work at the moment.

They are doing a constant stream of work experience placements,

internships. And in terms of there being this division, the party of

strivers or shirkers. Maintaining this massive tax cut for the top 1%,

if there is any division, you have a party of the 1% and a party of

99%, everybody else. That is the real division here. What do you say

to that? What I was struck by was a couple of things. I was pleased to

see Ed Miliband open his account by welcoming the very good employment

figures. I think he did it through gritted teeth, but it is good but

the opposition can welcome what is clearly good news. It is not

through gritted teeth. I have 15 people chasing every job vacancy in

my constituency. So when I say these figures are will come, I mean

it. We're so used to the negative stuff, it was welcome to hear him

welcome that. But you are right, that reflected the big dividing

line which will run through to the next general election. It is not

just about this specific package. This is now the third successive

opportunity that Labour have had to embrace some form of welfare reform,

and they are clearly not. Because we don't want to give the top 1% a

�107,000 tax cut. That is what you are putting through at the same

time. At the same time, that you were implementing these cuts, barer

thousands of families who are suffering because of what you were

doing, enjoyed giving people early millions of pounds a tax cut in the

order of �107,000. That is not fair. We can have a ding-dong about that.

A think most people watching would be turned off by that exchange, as

they are by most of these arguments. What is your message to families in

your constituency who will be affected by this, then? The rich

are going to be paying a much greater share of the total tax bill

than they did in any year when you were in power. That matters to

people. And the Prime Minister is also right in that you cannot argue

with the fact that we are taking a lot of people out of tax. Our

message to working families is we are on your side. We are cutting

taxes. We are trying to reduce the cost of living for you. We are

busting a gut to try to get the economy going. But we will reform

the welfare system because we think the public are above that, because

they think it is unsustainable. They don't think it is fair that if

people in work are seeing salary increases less than the increase in

benefits for people out of work. knew these are complicated, but

people care. The �534 average loss that Ed Miliband talked about that

is only for one-earner couples. And it does include the latest increase

in personal tax allowance. What the Treasury say is, yes, it doesn't

include the previously announced increase. That comes in this April.

So if you look at the measures that were announced last week, and them

alone, you get your 500 and and �84 It is the dividing line, and I want

to step back and give people a flavour of the argument. You always

take the tough argument! Nick is going to stay with us. The Prime

Minister has been making a statement about the murder of the

Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane in 1989. It was one of the more

controversial killings of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult

reading. It sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as

identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane, supplying a

weapon and facilitating its later disappearance, and deliberately

obstructing subsequent investigations. The report also

answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the

role of ministers at the time. Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was

not, and I quote, "and overarching state conspiracy to murder Pat

Finucane". But while he rejects conspiracy, he does find, quite

frankly, shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir

Desmond says he is "left in significant doubt as to whether

Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the Ulster Defence

Association in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands

of involvement by elements of the state". Part of the Prime

Minister's statement there on Pat Finucane. Nick, we know from

previous inquiries that the state colluded in the murder of this

Belfast solicitor. We know it was a murder witnessed by his wife and

three children. What have we learned today that we didn't know?

I thought that phrase we heard was important, that phrase about

significant doubt. What he is saying is that Pat Finucane could

have been alive today if it hadn't been for the decision of some in

the security services of Northern Ireland to collude in his murder.

It wasn't just, that he was going to be murdered anyway and they

happened to know about it and didn't blow the whistle. But it

appears to be that the statement says he could have survived were it

not for a decision of someone within the state, within the

security services, to effectively end his life because he was seen as

sympathetic to the IRA. That is extraordinarily serious. It is

interesting that the Prime Minister wants to draw this distinction

between collusion and conspiracy. I think he is trying to defend the

upper reaches of politics and the upper reaches of Whitehall and the

civil service in Northern Ireland at the time from saying that they

sat at a desk, as it were, and said, it is time to eliminate this man.

Clearly that is why he is saying no conspiracy. But collusion means

that there were people, and not just one or two, who knew, were

involved in the murder of a man What is the official position that

the British state, they knew this man was going to be killed by

terrorists, on the other side and did nothing to stop it? Or of the

British state worked with terrorists on the other side to

help kill him? I used to work at Panorama one are made an award-

winning film about Ryan Nelson, double agent, and he was within

loyalist terrorism but being run by the security services. In a sense,

he not only new the targets that the terrorists were choosing but

was involved, I think, in advising her they might want to target so

someone at the heart of the organisation was working for the

British state. That's how serious it was. It wasn't seriously not

bothering. Looking the other way. And the scandal which came out

thanks to that programme, and later in more detail, into what Brian

Nelson did, is at the heart of this. We now know that clearly does

report got further than previous inquiries. The Labour Party back

the family in a saying it's not enough, a full inquiry, in which

everything is made public is needed force up Tony Blair promised in at

2001 if they judge appointed London and Dublin and there was a case to

answer, a public inquiry into his death would be held. No public

inquiry under Labour was ever held. Why not? We couldn't come to an

agreement with the family under the auspices under which the inquiry

would take place. By the time we left government, they changed their

position and they were trying to bind a framework for an inquiry

which would work for the family. What did the Prime Minister say he

was going to do as a result of these findings? Has he said is

going to be a public inquiry? have also been on air! You have got

your iPad telling you. He says the review finds actions by employees

of the state actively facilitated the killing, said the Prime

Minister. The language is quite careful. He said the review found a

relentless effort to refute the ends of justice after the killing

and found army officials provided the MoD but highly misleading and

inaccurate information. That is deeply shocking. We understand

there will be no public inquiry. think the family will be dismayed

at that it. If you were just heard that statement. Particularly given

the point of that and Nick made. All the family will know is that,

were it not for the actions of people involved with the state, he

could still be there today. I need a quick reaction from you. We are

being told that the Prime Minister's statement is that this

to be no public inquiry also why not? We have and listen to the

statement now. I have not read the report. -- we have not listen to

the statement now. The key thing is the family. Did the Prime Minister

apologise? He said, I'm deeply sorry. We should be clear about the

distinction. This report which has revealed quite a good deal and has

shocked the Prime Minister and many other people, this was about

reviewing existing evidence. The call for a public inquiry was that

a further evidence could be unearthed and it could be done in

public and the family could see for themselves the evidence rather than

having to rely on someone they would regard as an agent of the

British state to draw a conclusion on the actions. There will be lots

more on the BBC News Channel. Thank you for being with us today pull

that we need to move on. Now, it has been described as David

Cameron's Clause 4 moment. Yesterday, a Conservative Culture

Secretary, stood up in the House of Commons and spelt out the

government's plans to give gay people the right to marry. We'll be

discussing those plans in a moment. But first, here's actor, Simon

Callow, out on the streets of Soho When I was born in 1949, gay men

and women lead secret lives. They lived in fear of arrest and

imprisonment. But gay people started to emerge in the Senate

Criminal Shadows, the world was changing, and homosexual love which

is part of humanity itself, began to become part of normal life. When

I was 18, gay people were at last allowed to have sex. Legally. I was

still illegal at 18 but things were Up to a point, but gay couples were

still denied the basic legal provisions which extended not only

to married couples but also to common-law spouses. Then came the

astonishing breakthrough of civil partnership. A huge leap forward.

Marriage in all but name. But, in a very important sense, the name of

marriage is what marriage is. A symbolic moment, a big step forward

for the relationship. An ideal blessing. This is what many gay

If David Cameron's big society means anything, it means not just

inclusiveness, but mutual respect. And a guarantee of that respect,

Should institutions in which we can all participate fully. The Prime

Minister has with incredible clarity and boldness expressed

himself in favour of gay marriage. There are those in his party who

resist this change, as they have resisted every single social change

harking back to a golden age, golden for a few perhaps. But the

dark ages for money. The poor, women, people from other races,

-- the dark Ages for many. I deeply love my partner. For better or

worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and In Health, till Death

do Us Part. The change in the law will set the seal on a love and

make sure we are fully part of the And Simon Callow is with us now.

Welcome to the programme. You said in that film there the Prime

Minister had boldly expressed themselves in favour of gay

marriage but yesterday afternoon, we got the details of the

Government plans which would make it illegal for gay people to marry

in the Church of England and Wales. Are you disappointed? It's

bewildering. More than disappointed. I don't have the ambition to be

married in a church, but there must be many Church of England ministers

who are strongly in favour of gay marriage, to marry somebody in a

church would be a criminal act is an astonishing if medieval idea.

I'm bewildered, frankly. Were you under the impression that the

Government's plans would allow you to marry in that church of England?

That was the impression given the question up it was carefully

unclear. Nobody ever made but absolute commitment and we knew

there would be huge pressure from the backbenchers also it is a small

symbol of saying, yes, but not absolute equality. Just as a civil

partnership said you can get married up to a point, because

you're not really like everybody else. There's a thing says the same.

To make it clear, the Church we filmed you in yesterday, you would

not be able to marry there, even if the clergy supported it? Indeed,

that's the case. It's a very bizarre thing. What has gone wrong?

What I liked about the film was it tell the story of how society's

attitude to homosexuals t has changed enormously. I think where

we are now is with the Prime Minister who believes passionately

in marriage wants to open it up. But not in the Church of England.

We want to do something which was possible. You don't think it's

possible? We were under the impression that if the clergy in

certain churches were in favour, you would be able to marry there?

There is a very delicate balance to be strong between a desire to open

up marriage to same-sex couples without make made compulsory. There

is clear pressure from backbenchers but I would be surprised if there

wasn't from the Labour backbenchers, because I don't sense your position

on this is on party lines, at all. It is more one faith lines for the

you can't underestimate the strength of this feeling.

Politicians have got to reflect and respect that. It's the balance.

What is Labour's position on this? The Shadow Cabinet will be

supporting moving towards gay marriage and we would have liked to

have had a situation with churches happy to carry out the ceremonies,

being able to do that. There is an issue for the Government and the

Church of England. Part of the problem is, it's a bit of yes and

No position they have adopted. In some senses, the Prime Minister has

a problem. He has a large part of his party who hearken back and seek

a Britain we had in the 1950s when we were different. There is a

political issue death. There are Labour MPs like this as well.

plus women bishops, they are moving to a place where we want to outlaw

this. I want to hear Symons response. You said there was a

strength of feeling amongst many Conservative backbenchers about gay

marriage? We understand many people are frightened it will be

compulsory for churches to marry gay people. I personally have no

desire for it to be compulsory. This is a protective advice but it

seems an extreme one, to me. To introduce the criminal element.

afraid it's coming up to 1:00pm. Now, it's time to put you out of

your misery and give you the answer to Guess The Year. The return of

the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. The unveiling of the Millennium

Dome. The answer was 1996. Nick She must have known about the Stone

of Destiny. OK, that's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The