26/03/2014 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, and welcome to The Daily Politics. The Government set a

welfare cap trap for Ed Miliband - Labour will back it, but can they

get back on the front foot after last week's budget?

Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage square up to each other for the first of

two debates on Europe - who'll come out on top? Born clever, born

stupid? Should our genetic make-up play any part in education policy?

Mmm - looks good, doesn't it? But it's bad for you. Right? Is the

Government giving us "unbelievably stupid" healthy eating advice?

All that coming up, plus Prime Minister's Questions at noon. And

with us for the duration, two of Westminster's big cheeses - the

tangy yet mellow blue Anna Soubry and the smooth but sharp red Emma

Reynolds. Welcome to the programme. First this morning, hundreds of

schools across England and Wales are closed today because of a one day

strike by members of the National Union of Teachers. They're

protesting against the UK government's changes to pay and

conditions including a new performance-related pay structure

and tougher pension package. We're joined now by the general secretary

of the NUT, Christine Blower. Welcome to the programme. Seven

unions are involved in talks with the Government, why is the NUT the

only one going on strike? Well, we are one of only three of the unions

which has a dispute, so the others would not be in a position to go on

strike because they are not involved in a dispute with the Government. We

are, and we have been for two years or so. We are involved in talks, but

we feel that insufficient progress has been made. We were offered these

talks way before Christmas. We stood down the action that we were there

to take in November and February as well. But although the talks have

started, we are not seeing the progress that we need to see. Which

is why we are taking action today. Hugely disruptive of course. The

Department for Education says it will hold back the education of

children, and rummage the reputation of the profession. What is your

response? I think what is damaging to the profession is the fact that

Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, says that two out of five teachers

coming into depression -- coming into the profession, leave by the

end of their 50 year. We cannot manage with a profession where that

many people are leaving. -- of their fifth year. They are leaving because

primary classroom teachers are having to work 60 hours a week. And

this is not work which contributes positively to their teaching. And

also we do not think that classroom teachers can work until they are 68.

These are contributory reasons for why we are on strike today. I think,

I know, from some of the figures that I have read, that we have the

support of many, although I accept not all, of parents. But we feel

that this was a time when we had to take this action. You say you have

the support of parents, a poll by populous last year found 70% either

opposed the strikes or found teachers should not be allowed to

strike at all. That is not an overwhelming endorsement? I have to

tell you, if you pick out one poll, you may get that view, but if you

have been speaking to people recently, you will see that that is

not generally the margin at all. One thing we have been doing, which is

nothing at all to do with strike action, is that for the past six

weeks we have been on the streets on Saturday mornings, talking to

parents and the general public about not the issues which are in the

trade dispute but other issues, which we think are very serious

problems, in terms of education policy. Like, for example, the --

the fact that teachers will no longer have to be qualified, fact

that schools are opening in places where we do not need them, like free

schools, but local authorities are not in a position to open schools

where there is a schools prices crisis. So we have a coincidence of

interests with the general public and parents across a lot of these

policy areas. Before we move on, in terms of support, the Department for

Education says well under a quarter of schools are closed, compared to

60% in the last strikes. It is the lowest level of support for a

national strike since 2010. There are reports, as you will know, from

the NASUWT, one of the other big unions, which have accused your

union of threats, insults and attempts to intimidate teachers to

join the action - is there any truth to that? You would have to deal with

them about that matter. I am not going to comment on it. If there had

been problems with any of my members, I would have expected them

to have been brought to my attention, and they have not. So, I

really cannot comment. Of course we expect members of trade unions to

behave in a proper fashion towards each other. Will you try and get to

the bottom of this? It is a leaked internal e-mail from the NASUWT. So

I presume there is some evidence there? If she wants to get in touch

with me, that is fine, and we will deal with it. But it has not been

brought to my attention. What is the attitude of Labour

towards this college we think this strike is highly disruptive for

parents, obviously, but more importantly for children, who are

missing a day of school. We know that attendance is highly correlated

with attainment. We need kids to do well at school. I think there has

been a breakdown on both sides, with Michael Gove saying that teachers

are the enemies of promise, that is not going to help in any

negotiations. But also I do think that the trade unions need to come

around the table and continue with these talks. So you would rather the

NUT have not gone on strike today? I would rather they were still

negotiating around the table. Could relations between the Education

Secretary, Mr Gove, and the unions be any worse? I do not think they

are in a bad state at all. Michael Gove's policies are exhausting and

demoralising teachers, says the deputy general secretary of the NUT.

Firstly, I am not sure if Labour is actually condemning this strike, and

I think they ought to be clear. Secondly, the fact that the NUT is

the only trade union representing teachers which is taking this action

speaks words about the NUT. They are the last great dinosaur of the

teaching professions. I used to be a shop steward for the NUJ, and I

always made sure that I took my team with me, and represented my members.

Taking strike action should be an absolute last resort. I do not know

the figures, but I think I am right in saying that the majority of

people did not take part in the vote, and of them, therefore, you

get a fraction of the NUT actually supporting strike action. But that

is the law as it stands. Absolutely, but it shows the validity of it,

which is even more undermined. I have just told you our position, I

was very clear about it. I do not want them to be on strike today, I

want them to be around the table. But I also think the Government has

done an awful job on this, and Michael Gove is playing political

games. The kids and parents are paying the price. Why is he saying

things like enemies of promise? It is the fact that the other unions

are at the table, doing the right thing, which I think is telling. The

NUT has gone on strike, ticketed schools which want to look at

becoming academies. That is the reality of a union which is living

back in the 1970s. Take the union's own diary, it now reveals government

data, primary school teachers are working nearly a 60 hour week. A lot

of our teachers are working very hard, it is a lot, and they find it

a very rewarding job, but you have got to get the balance right. I go

into my primary schools in my constituency, and I speak to heads

and teachers... Do you think 60 hours is too much? I have not seen

the analyst, -- the analysis, so I cannot comment. It is tough, but you

have got to accept that our schools are doing a brilliant job, and we

are seeing real progress as a result of the reforms we have made. We will

have to leave it there. Now, it's a week since George

Osborne unveiled this year's Budget. The next day's headlines, and the

polls, suggested it was a good day for the Chancellor and a pretty

awful one for Labour leader Ed Miliband. So what happened next?

Here's Jo Co. Now, with a year to go before the

general election George, Osborne has set out a full throttle Budget. The

Chancellor gave pensioners the opportunity to spend their pension

pots when they want and on whatever they choose - even on a fast car

like a Lamborghini. Ed Miliband appeared to stutter and stall in his

response to the Budget. But Labour have now indicated that they won't

oppose the pension changes, and today the Labour leader will drive

his MPs through the yes lobby to support the Government's welfare

cap. But what do the public think? Well, Labour are still ahead, but

their poll lead has been cut back - the Tories have their foot on the

gas and are now as little as 1% behind. That's prompted a number of

back seat critics to tell Mr Miliband to get a grip on the wheel

and a sense of direction. And now there's another headache for the

Labour leader. Latest figures show that inflation has fallen to 1.7% -

is Mr Miliband's "cost of living crisis" mantra running out of road?

Emma Reynolds, what do you make of this latest poll from YouGov which

shows that less than a fifth of voters see Ed Miliband as a Prime

Minister in waiting? The only polls which count are in May this year,

and in the general election next year. We have got some very bold

policies, if anyone has got direction and vision, it is Ed

Miliband, not David Cameron. The Labour Party, like other parties,

would not spend thousands of pounds on this kind of poll... Polls go up

and down. All parties spend money on polls. Not only does it seem that

only a fifth seed him as a Prime Minister in waiting, but fewer than

half of Labour voters see him as a Prime Minister in waiting just why

do you think that is? I think Ed Miliband is the only party leader

who has the ideas, the values and the policies to address the problems

that people face across the country. Why don't the voters agree with

you? We had the second worst election defeat in the last 100

years in 2010. We are in contention for the next general election. We

have framed the debate around the cost of living, despite what the

inflation figures say, people are facing a real score ways. -- a real

squeeze. So why are a fifth of people only seeing Mr Miliband as a

Prime Minister in waiting? If you were winning the argument is, why

are the people not responding? Ed Miliband has been clear, and we

know... Not clear enough! The next general election will be close, and

we have been honest about that. People are less tribal than they

used to be. Unfortunately people do not trust politicians like us, and

we can have a wider discussion about that. We are working hard to get our

message across. There is a long way to go before the general election in

2015. I am confident that we have got the right policies, we have got

a leader who is determined to make Britain a better place to live. What

I was trying to find out was why this was not cutting through to the

voters. David Lammy, a colleague of yours in the Labour Party in the

Commons, says, we, the Labour Party, have not crossed the Rubicon yet to

be regarded as a government in waiting. Do you agree with that? No,

I totally disagree. We are the only party out of the three big parties

which has ideas about an energy price freeze, a jobs guarantee, a

real vision about improving people's lives in the UK. Obviously, we have

to that message to people, and obviously, polls go up and down. At

the moment they are just going down. Well, I do not agree with

David. I think that colleagues in the Labour Party should not be

talking like that, they should hold their nerve. Of course polls go up

and down, we know that. Let me come to you, Anna Soubry. The Chancellor

set this welfare trap for Labour, putting a cap on welfare spending,

but they did not fall for it. They are going to vote for it. And it is

meaningless anyway, it is only the amount you are already spending on

welfare, excluding the job-seekers allowance and pensions, and then it

is inflation linked for the years ahead, there is nothing to it? No, I

do not agree with you at all. Forgive me, the description of it

being a for Miliband are your words, that is not what we are on about. It

is not about trying to trap Labour. That is what the spin people were

saying at a briefing last week. That is why we speak to them. It was

clearly seen as a trap. But they have not fallen for it, they voted

for it. They say one thing, I think they are all over the place on the

Basingstoke. But going back to the welfare cap, I listened to Iain

Duncan Smith on the radio this morning, and I think it is the right

thing to do. The great British public do not know the huge amounts

of money which are spent on welfare. What we saw in the last government

was huge increases in welfare spending, but without any proper

debate and without people either understanding it, or, more

importantly, agreeing to it. Get to the point of the cap. Welfare

continues to rise. Yes, but if Labour are true to their commitment,

which is to abolish what they call the bedroom tax, what we call the

spare room subsidy, they will have to explain that, they will have to

go into the House of Commons and deal with that argument. This cap

has more holes in it than the cheese were going to be talking about

later. It does not include state pensions, all any government has to

do is get a majority in the House of Commons. Mr Blair could have done it

at any time, it is just you are not used to a majority. And there is 2%

wiggle room in it as well. You can be up or down 2% before you even

have to go to the Commons. But it is the right thing to do, isn't it? I

believe it is. We cannot live any longer in a society where our

welfare budget is spiralling out of control. The welfare cap will be set

at 119 million per 1516. That is to take account of inflation. But you

are not cutting the welfare budget then, are you? What we're saying is,

you put that cap there so you did a responsible thing. It is an

inflatable cap, it goes up every year. You keep interrupting me. It

ensures you are held to account. When people hear those figures and

compare them to the amount of money spent on schools, 51 billion is

spent on schools, and when they find out how much is being spent on

welfare... But you are increasing it. Emma, is Labour committing

itself to caps in future years as well? We are committed to a cap. You

have committed to be 119 billion the 2015 and 2016. What about after

that? I think it is right that inflation is taken into account. We

will wait to see what the detail is. We are committed to the cap and

taking into account inflation. Your problem is, if you are going to

stick to your promise, you cannot stick to those figures, so you to go

back to the House of Commons and the argument. I'm willing to have a

large about what this means in practice. It means tackling the

underlying causes of increases in the bill. Housing benefit is going

up even for people in work because they are not earning enough in work

in wages and because rents are increasing because of the housing

crisis with a shortage of homes. So why cut the affordable homes budget

by 16% and then be surprised that housing benefit is increasing? It is

about getting people into work. Of course it is, but it is also about

rent amounts and people being paid enough. The Chancellor's big

announcement was to build what is being called a new garden city in

Kent. This is a promise to build 15,000 homes. How is this different

from a press release from the community 's department in 2012 that

promised 20,000 new homes in that same place? Now it is down to

15,000. It is all smoke and mirrors. I've no idea. I don't know about a

press release in 2012. My point is, there is nothing new. This is a

commitment. Well, the commitment in December 2012 was that there would

be 20,000 homes. Now there is the actual detail of it. It is a

downgrade to 5000 fewer homes. Even I worked that out! I did know about

2012 press releases. Why not? You are running the country. I'm not

responsible but every single press release published by Parliament.

Well, they're weighing in and limbering up for the big fight.

Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg meet for the first of two contests -

tonight's on LBC radio - to debate Europe. The in versus out showdown

seems to have got the UKIP leader excited. I've waited 20 years to

have a proper debate on national media about whether we should be a

member of the yuan not. -- the EU or not. It's like going to a party,

sometimes you asked, will it be good? Or will it be flat? We don't

know. I hope we can stick to the arguments. But it will be fun. Nick

Clegg was more tight-lipped. Yes, I'm looking forward to it

enormously. Thank you. So did we mention the TV debate

between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage is at 7pm next Wednesday here on BBC

Two? I think we may have done. But what would you ask them? For your

chance to be part of the studio audience on the night and put your

question to the two party leaders, email the question you would like to

ask to [email protected], or tweet it using the hashtag

#europedebate. Who do you want to win? I don't really care. I'm a

passionate pro-European. I believe jobs would be at risk, and

investment, if we were to leave. However, I also know most of my

constituents don't really care either way who wins this debate

because what they are facing every day of their lives is a cost of

living crisis, they worried about their energy bills, are worried

about putting food on the table. Many are resorting to food banks.

Deliberately care about a debate of our membership of the youth? --the

EU? You have said you are passionate about being pro-European. Surely

then you will support Nick Clegg. I think there's a distraction from

important issues. It is an important issues and I've said I do agree with

the pro-European argument. So you would rather Nick Clegg one. I don't

really care but I do agree we are better in the European Union than

out of it. So we will take that adds that you sort of support those

arguments. One reason why we have a problem with the idea that

politicians can be trusted is that we don't give a straight answer. Of

course I want Nick Clegg's views on Europe to win. I don't agree with

his party's policy on Europe in the sense that he will not give us a

referendum, but this is absolutely the debate I want. Only we will

deliver a referendum, because Nigel Farage can't. I want a healthy

debate and I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you also want a

proper debate about the union. I'm in favour of our partnership. But I

want a debate. I tell you what, it's on to night. So why doesn't David

Cameron take part? I don't think he should have to take part, otherwise

we would Ed Miliband and God knows who else. If these two want to have

a debate, that's up to them. I want to have a referendum so that this

country finally has a proper, informed debate about the union. We

get the reforms that we want, we put it to the people. In my opinion, the

people of Britain will vote in favour of staying within their

European Union because most of us are sensible and moderate and we

will see the benefits. Who are your fellow Conservatives MPs wanting to

win? Idaho. -- I don't know. Because there is a divide within your party,

is in there? The media often comment on this but I don't think the media

really understand the backbenches. People say we are against the EU. It

is not as simple as that. There are a significant number of us who are

in favour of our membership. Of course some want us to leave. So it

is a deep divide. This is a rehearsal for tonight? We have to

leave it there. Now, a survey out this week revealed

the great British tea round is on its way out. 2.5 million workers

claim they are simply too busy to put the kettle on and wait around to

make tea or coffee for everyone. A third said they would rather just

make themselves a drink and get back to work, the selfish so-and-sos. And

to avoid making a cuppa for others, they'll even go so far as to make a

rubbish cup of tea so they're never asked again. That probably explains

why Jo's tea is undrinkable. Well, we'd like to do our bit to reverse

this shocking trend - and regular viewers will know where this is

going - by giving you the chance to win something that you'll be so keen

to show off to colleagues you'll end up making round after round. Yes,

it's the Daily Politics mug. And it works for tea and coffee. We haven't

tested it with other liquids. We'll remind you how to enter in a

minute, but let's see if you can remember when this happened.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug, send your answer

to our special quiz email address - that's [email protected]. And you can

see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.

It's coming up to midday here - just take a look at Big Ben - and that

can mean only one thing. Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.

If you'd like to comment on proceedings, you can email us at

[email protected] or tweet your thoughts using the hashtag

#bbcdp - we'll read some out after PMQs.

And that's not all - fresh from Manchester's victory in that soccer

match last night, Nick Robinson is here.

# Blue moon, you saw me standing alone...

You changing jobs, Nick? Are you a commentator? Sports pundit. Not that

I care, but let's have a listen to what you had to say. What is your

prediction of the score? I'm going to settle. 6-1 would do me. Did you

say which way round? I heard Robert Preston being interviewed about

Arsenal's manager as well. Having you guys got day jobs? We have, but

we like to spread our wings. What about tonight, that is the biggest

battle. You are asking a man United if they want Liverpool to win. So

did Manchester United not win last night?

I shall have further such meetings later today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What assurances can the Prime Minister

give to residents in West Lancashire that localism will give them a fair

chance against greed and profit, when it comes to their wish to end

hazardous waste dumping, given that there is no evidence of need, a

promise it would end in 1995, and a community, including its MP, were

repeatedly saying, no more dumping. Those the Prime Minister really

believe in localism? I do believe in localism, which is why we got rid of

a lot of the regional strategies and organisations. We did a number of

things that local councils have been asking for, in terms of empowering

them, not least giving them a duty of competence, so that they can act

where necessary. On that specific issue, I will look at it and write

to her. I know my Right Honourable Friend

will be as concerned as I am about potential job losses at Honda in my

constituency. Will he work with myself and my colleague for South

Swindon to help at this difficult time? I completely understand My

Honourable Friend's concern, and we will be working with local partners

to minimise the impact of these job losses. Honda have assured us that

they are committed to the long-term success of this plant in Swindon,

which I have been to, and it is a remarkable plant. I know Honda

remains committed to the UK, and we will work with the local council and

local people to make sure Swindon continues to have a strong and

successful economic future. Mr Edwin van!

-- Ed Miliband! This morning, we learned that the energy company SSE

will be freezing its energy prices for 20 months. Would we be right to

assume that the Prime Minister believes that this price freeze is

unworkable, impossible to implement and probably a communist plot? It is

hugely welcome in our country that energy companies are cutting and

freezing bells. As ever, with the Right Honourable gentleman, he has

failed to read the small print. This is what SSE say about why they have

been able to cut bills in this way... Yes. This is what they say.

The decisions taken by the Government to reduce the costs of

the environment levy were a crucial factor... That is what is happening

under this government. And what a contrast, with the doubling of the

gas bills and the 50% increase in electricity bills when Labour were

in power. So, Mr Speaker, over the last six months, we have obviously

misunderstood the Prime Minister. He is the champion of the price

freeze! That is what he wants us to understand. Week after week, he

denounced Labour 's call for an energy price freeze to help families

and businesses, and now, apparently, he supports a price freeze. Can he

explain why a price freeze was wrong six months ago, but it is the right

thing to do today? What we have done is reduce the costs of energy

charges, so that companies are able to their bills. -- to cap their

bills. Since I made the announcement about rolling back the costs of

green charges... We must be able to hear both the questions and the

answers. You're right, Mr Speaker, they shout about him in support in

here and then they brief against him outside. That is what happens. This

is what happened since I made that announcement. For dual fuel users,

British Gas have cut ?50 off bills, ScottishPower, ?54 off bills, aeon,

?54, EDF, ?65 off bills, and the other three have all announced that

prices will not go up further in 2014. So, can I thank him for the

opportunity to demonstrate how this part of our long-term economic man

is as successful as all the other parts? But once again, Mr Speaker,

he shows how totally out of touch he is. The OBR it self says that energy

prices are rising by more than double the rate of inflation. That

is the reality. But I am interested in his position now on price

freezes, because the Energy Secretary said this morning, I will

tell them what is weak, it is not standing up to the energy companies.

The Energy Secretary, who I see over there, the Energy Secretary said

this morning that he was calling on other suppliers to do the same and

freeze their bills. Is it now the Prime Minister's policy that we

should freeze bills? It is our policy that bills should be, and

bills are being capped by this government. That is what is

happening just when we come to the small print, let's have a look at

what Scottish southern said about the Labour policy. I will tell you

what is weak. Week is not having an economic policy. Week is not

responding to the budget. Weak is having no long-term plan for

Britain. That is what is weak. This is what SSE safe. They say, on

Labour policy, it does not appear to include a clear commitment or a

long-term solution to reduce the costs of supplying electricity and

gas. An externally imposed 20 month price freeze would not reduce the

cost of supplying energy. That is what SSE say. And that is why I

assume I have found a Labour business supporter. He is called

John Mills, and this is what he said about Labour's policy yesterday. EZ,

I do not think the Labour Party would do that if it were in power.

If they cannot convince their one business supporter, how can they

convince the country? Mr Speaker, he is not the Prime Minister at all, he

is the PR man for the energy companies. That is what he is. Bills

are rising. And what is clear is that his argument against a freeze

has been totally demolished today. A price freeze for households and

businesses is feasible, workable, and it will happen under a Labour

government. And all of this shows he just does not get the cost of living

crisis which is happening around this country. Can he confirmed that

the OBR it self has said that over the course of this Parliament,

living standards will be falling, and it is the first time that has

happened since the war? Isn't it great, after a week, we have finally

got to the Budget! He has finally got something to say about the

Budget. He might want to explain why he has voted against a Budget that

has a ?7 billion cut for energy prices for businesses and consumers

around the country. Why did they vote against that? Is he is

concerned about the cost of living? Why did they vote against a personal

allowance of ?10,500? If they are concerned about the cost of living,

why did they vote against giving pensioners the right to spend their

own money as they choose? If you care about the cost of living, why

did you vote against abolishing the savings tax, paid for by the poorest

people in our country and no not a clue about how to help working

people. No clue about the Budget. Not for the first time, calm down,

dear, calm down. Or should I say, for the benefit of the Chancellor,

eyes down, dear. Eyes down, dear. The truth is that living standards

are falling over this Parliament. And he talks about what the

Chancellor did on energy. It is classic give with one he introduced

a carbon price floor, and now he wants credit for giving part of it

back to families and businesses. Let's try him again - can he

confirmed that page 87 of the OBR document says that living standards

are falling over the Parliament, yes or no? The figures he quotes time

and again at this dispatch box say... Order! Let's hear the

answers. Of course we were made poorer by the great recession which

they presided over. I am happy to compare the record on the cost of

living any time. We are cutting income tax for 25 million people.

They voted against it. We have taken 3.2 million people out of income tax

altogether, they voted against it. We voted to freeze council tax, they

voted against it. We are freezing fuel duty, they voted against it. We

are cutting spending so we can cut taxes for hard-working people - they

have voted against every single change. Their vote against the

Budget last night will go down in the history of this Parliament as a

massive own goal for Labour. He will go down in history as the Prime

Minister who cut people's living standards over the course of this

Parliament, and he cannot deny it. He cannot solve the cost of living

crisis, Mr Speaker, when he does not think there is one. He will not

freeze energy bills, because it has nothing to do with government. The

thing you can always rely on with this prime minister, he will always

stand up for the wrong people. What is happening under this government

is, inflation is falling, unemployment is coming down, 1.3

million more people in work, 400,000 more businesses we are helping this

economy recover from the ravages that it was left under Labour. That

is the truth, Mr Speaker. Everyone can see that we have a plan for a

better future for our country, and everyone can see, he is flailing

around, a man with no plan, and increasingly, no future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Children with cancer are being denied new life

saving drugs because of out of date rules governing clinical trials,

allowing companies to exclude children even when the drugs could

treat childhood cancer. Will he'd join with me to try to get these

rules changed, to give families hope? I am very happy to listen to

his suggestions. He and I both support the Cancer Drugs Fund, which

has made a huge difference, but I am happy to listen to his suggestion.

Can I have some calm, please? Mr Speaker, beer and bingo may not

exactly be the bread and circuses of our age, but as leading lights of

the coalition rush forward to express their love for them, will

the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the snobbish and

disdainful comments made by his party chairman? Can I thank the

Honourable Gentleman for once again advertising the fact that this

government is cutting the tax on bingo, and quite right, because

their industry was decimated by Labour. Can I thank him also for

pointing out the Chancellor's approach of cutting the duty,

because we want to back responsible drinkers, and because we back the

pub trade. Yes, I am sure the Right Honourable gentleman sitting

opposite enjoys a game of bingo, it is the only time he ever gets close

to number ten. Mr Speaker, yesterday, in the

all-party group, we heard a powerful and moving account of the effects of

post traumatic stress disorder. Will my Right Honourable Friend join me

in paying tribute to Simon and Louisa, who completed their epic run

from Leeds to Parliament yesterday, to support their organisation which

seeks greater research into this. As well as being one of the hidden

costs of armed conflict, it affects thousands of people who have been

the vicar hymns of rape, sexual assault and other life changing

trauma, . -- the victims of rape. I am happy to join him in paying

tribute to the many people who achieved so much through their run.

Organisations like combat stress to an extraordinary job in our

country. We have to face up to the fact that because of the conflicts

in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will have many all people -- many more

people needing our help long into the future. That is why I think the

Chancellor's decision to take the money from the LIBOR finds and use

that to back military charities like this is very far-sighted. The 25th

anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster is less than three weeks

away, and the fresh inquests are due to start. Does the Prime Minister

agree with me that it is a scandal that some police officers who were

on duty on the day of the disaster are refusing to co-operate with the

investigation, and can he say what he will do to prevent such a

situation happening again? He knows the IPCC is investigating all of

these complaints. In addition, families can complain to the

tribunal as well. Letters have been written to asked that police

officers provide all the information they can. Does the Prime Minister

agree we should assist in investment to ensure a competitive and

sustainable future? We should certainly do that. We have seen a

huge recovery in our automotive industry. If we look at component

supplies and manufacture for the industry we have some huge success

stories. The programme in the budget of helping energy intensive

industries will obviously help some of the companies involved, but the

broader help, the ?7 billion I referred to earlier, will help all

businesses involved in automated supply. One month ago I asked about

ambulance response times and the Prime Minister read out an answer

that did not and so the question at all. Since then, an elderly

Darlington woman was left for more than four hours vomiting blood

before an ambulance arrived. This time can I please not have a

preprepared answer. Can we please have some action? I'm very happy to

look at the case the Honourable Lady mentions. She says she does not one

that but I think that is the right thing to do, to see what this

individual case involved. What we have in all areas are waiting times

that ambulances are meant to meet. I'm happy to look what happened and

this case and whether lessons can be learned. With consent is breaking

out in support of budget measures to help those providing for themselves,

will my right honourable friend join me in seeking a new consensus

against imposing taxes on houses that have risen in value but whose

owners may well be retired? What we want to see in our system is a fair

tax system. Under this Government, the rich have paid more in tax,

specifically, more in income tax, than in any year they ever did under

Labour. We've made sure we raised taxes fairly, not least through sax

duty. -- stamp duty. 70% of stay at home mums say going back to work

does not add up because of rising childcare costs leaving them worse.

With maternal employment rates going down on his watch, why is he doing

nothing to help with the issue of rising childcare costs before the

general election? We are helping childcare by giving 15 hours. That

is happening and that this Government, in this Parliament. 15

hours of free card can -- childcare and nursery care but three and

four-year-olds. This aid is not enough, it is more than Labour ever

provided. The Shadow Chancellor will be out in a minute briefing against

it! Mr Speaker, the whole world has watched with grave concern events in

the Crimea and the amassing of Russian troops on the eastern border

of the Ukraine. Coming on top of other instability in the world,

Styria -- Syria, northern Africa, is it not time the Prime Minister may

be thought about reversing some of the deep and damaging defence cuts?

We will review the National defence strategy on the four-year rolling

basis we established. I think that is the right thing to do. In terms

of defence spending, we started top to five -- we still have big top

five defence spending of any country in the world. Would set out 160

billion to spend on equipment. We would not be able to do if we had

not taken difficult long-term decisions at the start of this

Parliament. Over 80% of spending on transport infrastructure will be on

London in the south-east, with nearly ?5,000 per head with

Achenbach with ?250 in the north-east. This gross disparity

does nothing to help constituencies like Middlesbrough pursue ambitions

the growth. Should not the distribution be more equitable

across the region 's? When I look at what this Government has done in

terms of transport infrastructure, in the North of England, we spent 8

billion on transport in the North of England in the first two years of

this Parliament. The modernisation of the Tyne Wear Metro, a new Tyne

Crossing, 850 million to upgrade the A1 and feasibility studies to

improve the A1 north of Newcastle - all proposals put forward under this

Government. We are rebalancing our economy, we are investing in

infrastructure and we're making sure the North of England gets its fair

share. And employment in my constituency has fallen by over 20%

in the last 12 months. With inflation recently falling as well,

that is providing welcome our upward pressure on living standards. Would

my right honourable friend therefore agree that we should take no lessons

from the persistent negativity of the party opposite talking our

country down? We should stick to our long-term economic plan. An absolute

key part of our long-term plan is helping business to create the jobs

that our country needs. We got 1.3 million in work, 1.7 million more

private-sector jobs compared to 2010. What that means the people is

the safety and security of having a payback get at the end of the week

so they can support their families. That is what is changing our

country. Despite what the Government have said about cutting energy

costs, 71% of people in North Tyneside survey say they are still

worried about their bills and want a full price freeze now. Will a Prime

Minister listened to the people of North Tyneside and meet that demand?

The most important thing we can do is to help the energy companies

reduce bills by rolling back the costs of these green levies and

charges. It is only since we done at that we'd seen energy company after

energy company reduce the costs for people's bills. We went to see a

more competitive market with more players. These things were having to

correct from the disastrous stewardship of the Department of

energy when the right Honourable Gentleman was in charge. Eg,

thousands of lives are needlessly lost in this country because we

diagnose their cancer is far too late. The all-party group on cancer

and the wider cancer community has successfully lobbied the Government

to make sure local and national NHS authorities are measured by one year

survival rates, in order to promote early diagnosis. The Government

deserves great credit the listening, but twice now, at late notice, the

publication of the one-year figures has been postponed. Will the Prime

Minister do what he can to ensure that we meet the next deadline? On

the specific point my honourable friend says, yes, we will be

publishing those important figures in June. What we're doing in terms

of cancer is backing the NHS with extra money. We have a cancer drugs

find which has helped over 44,000 people since this Government came to

office. There is no cancer drugs find in Wales made available for

people, but it is here in England. We are spending 750 million on

cancer services but he is absolutely right about early diagnosis. That is

why it is important to make sure we doing everything we can with GPs to

make sure it is diagnosed earlier. The whole House will be well aware

of the contribution to the immense suffering of thousands of innocent

victims across the UK made by the Gaddafi regime's state sponsorship

by a terrorism and the supply of arms sent over many years to

republican groups. Does he agree with what he previously said, that

the issue of compensation from Libya remains a priority for this

Government? Willie agreed to meet with me to review the case under

discussion? -- will he agree? The Libyan operatives Rian --

authorities are in no doubt about the importance we are placed on

that. It is difficult to make progress on this issue given the

situation but I am happy to meet with the Honourable Gentleman to

discuss that. Does the boy minister welcomed the change from the last

Labour Government which talked loosely about British jobs for

British workers? 90% of new jobs went to foreign nationals. This

Government has the at -- let the success of its economic plan do the

talking. Last year, nearly 90% of new jobs went to British workers. My

honourable friend is absolutely right. Last year, employment went up

by 425,000 people. 420 by thousand more breadwinners earning for their

families. I believe 80% of those jobs went to British nationals.

There is much more we are aiming to do. We have more announcements this

week is -- about the creation of jobs and apprenticeships. We want to

make sure young people are available and train for those jobs. That means

improving schools and skills and investing in apprenticeships.

Westminster is awash with the rim of the Government is considering an

amendment to the hunting act. -- with the rumour. Will the Prime

Minister confirm his commitment to the coalition agreement which only

allows for a free vote on the repeal of the legislation? It's a good

moment to talk about rumours. As she knows, proposals were made on a

cross-party basis to the Environment Secretary about an amendment to the

hunting act that would help in particular upland farmers deal with

the problem of fax -- fox predation on their land. I regret to say I

don't think there will be Government agreement to go forward. Members are

in a state of high excitement but one hopes that is because of the

honourable member. I thank the Prime Minister for visiting my

constituency of Tewkesbury during the recent floods. We met in a

village which blood is very badly and yet there are plans to build

3500 houses in that very area. Will the Prime Minister look at

strengthening the planning guidance he gives with regards to flooding?

Willie gives stronger guidance to the Environment Agency? -- will he

give? There is a big difference between the rhetoric and what is

happening. I know my honourable member's constituency has suffered

repeatedly from flooding and I have visited to discuss this with local

people and businesses. Any future developments have to comply with the

National planning policy which makes clear that inappropriate development

in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Secondly, in 95% of

cases where the Environment Agency objects to planning on flood risk

grounds, the final decision is in line with agency advice. When the

salary of bankers have gone up five times the rate of ordinary workers

and the top 100 chief executive officers are reigning 133 times the

average workers employed in their companies, is it not right those on

the higher incomes are contributing the most intact? With that in mind,

will he then rule out any consideration of a further cut in

the highest rate of tax for the richest 1%? We said that is not a

priority, but I agree with the Honourable Gentleman that the rich

should be paying more in income tax and making a bigger contribution.

Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. In a way,

that is what is interesting about the Labour arguments. They can't

talk about jobs because there are more of them. They can't about

inflation because it has gone down. They've got one argument you --

left, which is about fairness. But actually, inequality is at its

lowest level since 1986, there are a million fewer people in relative

poverty then when they were in the Cabinet. Half a million fewer

children in poverty. The facts show this is not only a Government that

is delivering recovery, it is a Government delivering it in a fair

way as well. I never Prime Minister is acutely aware it is coming up to

30 years anniversary of the appalling carnage at the Temple in

Amritsar. I wonder what more can be done to last bring someone to

justice for the appalling events that across India. My honourable

friend is right. What happened in Amritsar Bedi is a gay lead to a

tragic loss of life. It remains a deep source of pain. -- in Amritsar

30 years ago lead to a tragic loss. He is so keen on boasting. If the

proud of the back so many elderly people are no longer able to get

assistance, essential assistance, because of the policies being

pursued by this Government? Why is it that a Cabinet made up of so many

multimillionaires are so indifferent to the needs of people are the most

vulnerable in our society? I remember when Labour gave pensioners

a 70 by p increase. Don't think we've forgotten about that. Don't

think we and the rotten about the abolition of the tempi income tax as

well. It is this Government that has taken 3 million of the poorest

people out of tax. We are putting money into the social care system

because we protected the NHS. That is a record that compares favourably

with the party opposite. In the week of my 50th birthday, it is the 50th

anniversary of a new town. Will you join me in congratulating Ken

Williams for helping me to organise the anniversary? Also, my first

apprenticeship fair which will see more apprenticeships on top of the

3000 we've already had since this Government came to power. I publicly

wish her a very happy 50th birthday. I also wish everyone in our town are

happy birthday and thank her for the kind present she gave me the

monopoly sat with Redditch as its basis which was a very kind gift.

I'd better put that into the register of members' interests. She

is absolutely right about the importance of apprenticeship fares.

We 1.6 million already trained and it is one of the most important

things we can do to provide a strong future bride country.

So, that was familiar territory between the two frontbenchers,

talking about energy price freezes, sparked off one of the big energy

companies, SSE, freezing its prices into next year. And Mr Miliband

wanted to know if that was a good idea, why was his idea of an overall

energy price freeze not a good idea? And so it went on, back and forth.

But I guess it was a repeat of many exchanges that we have had on the

front benches? Our viewers reflected the conversation between the two

leaders about energy prices. Well done, head, says Sara Evans in

Surrey. She says she has never seen a leader of the opposition have such

an influence on a private sector company. But another one says, the

arguments were spurious. A fry sprees imposed by a government is a

totally different thing from an announcement by a private company.

-- a price freeze. This one says David Cameron continues to be

economic with the truth regarding the true cost to the British people

of the cost of living. Philip Jones says, Ed Miliband shows the change

he is influencing in the UK by rightly raising the issue of energy

price freezes. But Robert says, if I remember rightly, Ed Miliband was

the Energy Secretary who left us with the big six energy companies,

rather than a functioning free market. So, the cost of living issue

is still the Labour Party's main attack line on the government? It

is, and I think that announcement by SSE will have come as a massive

relief to Ed Miliband this morning. The media were beginning to build up

a narrative which said Miliband was in trouble. His poll weightings were

not good. The reaction to the Budget was widely regarded as poor, well

delivered, but free of content. There were think tanks and other

pressure groups related to the Labour Party, who were beginning to

say, the plans for the Labour manifesto look too quiet, not bold

enough. Along comes a market announcement which highlights the

single most popular thing he has ever announced, the energy freeze,

gave him the chance to revive that, to revive the attack on David

Cameron about it, and regardless of whether you think David Cameron had

answers or did not, and plenty of my colleagues in the press gallery

thought he did pretty well, that is not the point. Tonight on the

evening news, Ed Miliband will be talking about a price freeze, he is

associated with it, it is a popular issue, it is something the public

care about. So that for me is a net gain for the Labour leader, because

otherwise, they might have been talking about his leadership. Can

the cost of living crisis line from the Labour Party last all the way

until the election? We are just reflecting the concerns that we here

in my constituency and across the country. There are 350,000 people

resorting to food banks, which, frankly, for a country which is

supposed to be one of the richest in the world, is an indictment on this

government. Yes, I think it will be a recurrent theme. Over the next

couple of months, and in the private sector it has already happened,

wages are set to be starting to rise more quickly than prices, so will

that affect things? We want that to happen. But is there not a risk that

that will undermine the potency of your position? No, because people

are already ?1600 a year worse off under this government, because wages

are not keeping up with price rises. That is the simple truth just

so, I do think it is still a very potent argent. And I think the fact

that SSE have announced a price freeze today is due to our

announcement in the autumn. I do not think there would be so much public

focus on this had Ed Miliband not said in his conference speech that

we were going to introduce a price freeze on energy. Will it not be a

problem for the Conservatives, that although things may now be moving in

the right direction, by the time of the election, that by most measures,

people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010? I think, if

I may say, as somebody with a very marginal seat, what I find is that

when you talk to people, they did not expect anything other than that

things were going to be tough, given where things were in 2010. If we

look at the polling, truthfully, Labour should be storming ahead.

Anyone old enough to know what polls tell us when governments do things

which are tough, the opposition does well. And I genuinely could not

believe the weekend's polls, because Labour should be storming ahead. I

do not want to get into the personality stuff about Miliband,

but one reason why they are not is because people realised it was going

to be really tough, they have supported what the Government is

doing in taking those really difficult decisions, and they know

they are going to have some pain, but they will slowly begin to see

the fruits of it. If I may say so, I think the real test is not whether

you as an individual are better off in 2015, it is whether the prospects

for your children and your grandchildren are better than they

were in 2010. That is what I find on the doorstep. I think people get

that. There are senior figures in the shadow cabinet who have been

saying to Ed Miliband, enough already, you are right about living

standards, but stop banging on about just that. There is real pressure

within the party for him to have more of an offer about the future.

But politicians always have to make the calculation, particularly

opposition politicians, that when we are bored, the political classes,

the public may be only just about to hear something for the first time.

And I think for the moment, he will be thinking, this is still working

for me. And also, we forget, there is effectively an extra year, we

have five years till the election, we are still more than a year away.

So there is a fidgeting as amongst politicians and journalists around

Westminster, who by this kind of time would be expecting to write

stories about, when is the Prime Minister going to call the election,

what are the campaign topics? But it is still quite a long way away. So,

I think this argument is going on behind the scenes in the Labour

Party. Is there a danger that this sounds like a one trick pony? Do

they have two talk more about the future? The phrase from Chuka

Umunna, which he has tried to get up and running, and troubled a little

bit, I think, about Agenda 2030. Is that an attempt to have a Labour

answer? The debate behind the scenes is, when is it right to switch to

start that move? I do not think it is one or the other. I think it is

both. What we need is an economy which delivers for working people,

and our argument about this current recovery is that it is fragile, and

it is based on consumption. It is not based on better business

investment, which has been very, very sluggish. Hold on, that is not

true until the end of the year. It has picked up but it has been very,

very sluggish. I understand that, but the problem for you is that

every time you identify a weakness in this recovery, and you have a

number of them, events have then conspired to put the weakness

right. The recovery is now sustainable, nobody denies that.

Everybody believes it will last through the election, and business

investment is now clicking in, it rose by 8%, and it is thought that

it will rise by another 8%. The cost of living crisis, as you call it, is

one thing, but is there not the danger that a lot of people still

blame you for the squeeze in living standards? I would remind and that

in 2010, when she won her marginal seat, the economy was growing,

unemployment was coming down. This is the problem, if you believed

this, -- if people believe this, then you would not have these

results in the polls. When you talk about the cost of living crisis,

people think, hang on, I am not going to blame the Government for

this, it reminds them of your failings. It throws up the fact that

in reality, you guys do not have any credibility on the economy, which is

the single most dominant factor, and actually, people do not know what

you would do which would be different. I think the next election

will be won or lost on what both parties will say about what they are

going to do in the future on the economy. I think Chuka Umunna is

right to speak about Agenda 2030. It is going to be about what we are

promising for the future. Can we just establish that it is true that

come the election next May, you will be fighting on living standards

being lower than they were in 2010? No, you are wanting me to say that

and admit that. That is what the OBR says, which is what you base your

economic plans on. If I may, I do not know what it is kind to be like

then. But I do not think it is as simple as that. One of the biggest

drivers I am finding is that it is not just about me here now today,

and that was the power of the deficit, was that people understood

that those who would suffer as a result of the mess that Labour made

of the economy was actually our children and grandchildren. Final

thought? Not connected but worth noting, the Prime Minister, who had

talked about amending the law on hunting in order to allow farmers to

get packs of dogs in, now says he has not got government support,

which is code for, the Lib Dems will not wear it. It is just not

necessary. We have got other important things to do. We look

forward to seeing how PMQs appears on the Ten O'Clock News tonight. And

I shall be doing the debate. Will you not be watching the football?!

More importantly, I shall be looking at how the Ten O'Clock News watches

events in the Max Clifford trial today. I will be interested in how

the Ten O'Clock News covers it. That is all I am saying. Next, what

happens when you give a packet of cornflakes a good shake costume in

the words of the Mayor of London, it will be easier for some cornflakes

to get to the top. Not a revelation, but Boris's comments last year

caused a stir, because he was talking about IQ, and allowing the

brightest to be able to flourish, particularly in relation to grammar

schools. He went on to say that differing IQ levels in the

population are "surely relevant to a conversation about equality". So are

we condemned by our genes to success or failure? In our soapbox this

week, the geneticist Professor Steve Jones gives his take.

When I was 11, I was given a genetic test. It was 1955 and this, the

double helix, had only been discovered two years earlier. In

fact, the idea came from the 1944 education act which set up the 11

plus examination. It was based on the idea there was a pool of natural

talent in British children was being missed. They did not have DNA

sequencing machines but they had tests which they thought would do

the job. Find the odd word out. Firm, rough, solid, hard. Complex

shapes to move around, difficult sums. In fact, the idea goes back to

Charles Darwin's cousin, who in 1869 wrote a book called him Redditch

re-genius which said more the same thing about intellectualism and even

about wrestling. Boris Johnson today thinks most differences in

intellectual levels are inborn. In his words, the harder you shake the

pack, the easier it will be for some complex to get to the top. That is

based on a deep misunderstanding of genetics. It is about the

interaction between nature and nurture which is more subtle than it

seems. Education policy has no need to bow down to the merciless treat

of genetics, because, however important DNA might be,

environmental factors such as teachers are always involved. Any

plant breeder wanting to identify the best genes always keeps the

subject in exactly the same environment. British schools

certainly cannot do that. Steve Jones joins us now. This is

fascinating. Which is more important? They always work

together. The irony is, the more you understand about nature, DNA, the

more important nurture, the environment, seems to be. People get

worked up about IQ and it is certainly heritable. Nobody really

cares about height but it is highly inherited. About 80% of the

variation in a population is genetic. But the average height of

children has gone up three inches since the Second World War. That is

the environment. The average height of privately educated children is

more than that of state educated children. That is not genetic. Is it

overstated? A former adviser to the Education Secretary said it is all

about genetics, it is the ITU take from your intelligent or not

intelligent parents that really counts. -- the IQ you take. Many

people would certainly think that. One of the most strongly inherited

attributes is bank balance. To go to a really good school like eating you

don't just have to be clever, your parents have to be rich. I went to a

perfectly reasonable state grammar school. My brother failed that exam

and went to a secondary modern and went to a bricklayer. Would you

agree with Boris Johnson we should reintroduce grammar schools to allow

the most intelligent to thrive? No. I don't think the grammar school

system worked particularly well. The comment you made about, Nvidia says

bring back their secondary moderns is very important. I spent most of

my school in a comprehensive and it was not a particularly good one. I

had a good time and I was lucky. I managed to get to a big university.

That was in the past. We talk too much about the past rather than what

is happening now. I look at the way abroad are my own children and what

I've expected of them. -- the way I've brought up my own children. I

just want them to maximise their potential, do the best they can. It

fascinates me that children change. I don't want to talk too much about

my own daughters, but we all have experiences in our lives of people

who did not pass the 11 plus or were not in a certain place, and by the

time they get to 14, they can be different. Or people who were stars

at 11 burn out and buy a levels they are not in the same place. I don't

know if there is a period back to a theory on that. -- a theory on that.

When you are 11 and you didn't pass and you went to secondary modern, I

think these are pretty awful terms. There were many who were then almost

condemned to that. But the bank balance is important. And without

that, many in your party feel the hidden pool is not being discovered.

I do agree with that. I think the many years the banks have determined

how well people do. I was lucky enough to get into Oxford. I was at

a state school. Most of the people I knew at Oxford did not go to state

school. They are totally overrepresented. One of my best

friends said to me that what her private school taught her with

intellectual confidence. It is a great shame that state school kids

are still so underrepresented at the best universities. What is the cause

that not enough state school pupils are competing against the much

smaller percentage of pupils at private and public schools? I don't

think many state schools know how to prepare their kids for the

interviews. I think the private schools most have a separate

industry going on to prepare their kids. I think we need qualified

teachers in our classrooms, we need to attach -- attract the brightest

and best. You guys had 13 years to sort that out. In four years, we

made huge strides. I think you are letting unqualified teachers in the

classroom which is the wrong thing. If you come to constituencies like

mine and see the huge progress being made... I took Michael Gove to a

school in my constituency and it still blows me away. The real

progress they've made is because they are able to become an academy.

It has put teachers in charge. We will have to leave it there. We have

a clip that you might remember. Have a look at this. Honestly, you lot.

What are you putting into your body is? Let me show you. Come on. This

is the amount of fat in that whole pizza. There are 17 cubes of sugar

in that drink. It could lead to heart disease, type two diabetes and

cancer. Let's get food smart. Anna, what are your aims? It is to educate

people. Make people aware of some of the things that are in their food

that are not necessarily good the user that people can make better

choices. That was our Guest of the Day, Anna

Soubry, on the programme last year when she was a public health

minister, launching the government's healthy eating campaign Food Smart.

Now, though ministers in the Department of Agriculture have

branded the Department for Health campaign "unbelievably stupid" for

undermining home grown producers of dairy products by encouraging people

to swap cheese in their diet for alternatives which are lower in

saturated fat. A fridge magnet produced by the campaign reads:

"Reduced fat cheese, if you please." Well, you'll be glad to hear that we

have not been scared off by that warning on this programme. Joining

us is the artisan cheesemaker Tim Jones. And his cheese, Lincolnshire

Poacher. These cheeses are delicious and varied. As part of a balanced

diet, they would be good for anybody. That is the important part.

You told us not to be this stuff. No, I didn't. The campaign says,

leave off-the-shelf butter, cream, cheese, full fat milk. I didn't say

that. We want people to eat a healthy, balanced diet. We don't say

you must not do this. What we're giving people is information. Let's

get real about this. This campaign is because we have a serious problem

in our country with overweight people. A third of our children

leave primary school overweight or obese. We need to redress that. My

point is, your advice may be wrong, because the campaign leaflet says

you should leave butter, cream, cheddar cheese, full fat milk and

ice cream on the shelf. Earlier this month, Cambridge University

researchers said giving up butter or fatty meat is unlikely to improve

health. That is a recent binding. So your advice could be wrong. Of

course it could be wrong. There is still a real debate about it. But

the one thing you cannot deny is we have a problem with overweight. So

the government has the duty to help people to make educated choices. The

government does not have a duty to give wrong advice. You recommended

reduced back -- that Greek yoghurt. Every time you see reduced VAT,

there is more sugar. No should -- not always. The government has put

labelling so we give people real information about sugar and salt. It

is a great shame to include cheese in this group of products. Cheese is

such a nutritious product. It is good the people and children, for

their bones and teeth. When you compare it to the other products you

are talking about, they are completely different animals. We

mustn't get sidetracked by that. When I was the Minister for Public

health, and I do have two advice on the advice of my officials, but I

met with the cheese industry. You use salt and some people who are

keen to reduce salt said, therefore we need to attack cheese. But if you

are making cheese you will have a higher level of salt. What do you

make of the official advice, we should reduce full fat cheese for

reduced fat? I think it is a sad world. I think if we had a lifeless

block of half fat cheddar sitting on a plate it would pale into

insignificance compared to the cheese we have. I personally would

not want to eat it. I'd rather not eat it than have a small amount of a

delicious cheese. I don't either and I suspect a lot of people watching

this programme agreed. But we're talking about people who are

overweight and abuse. Don't eat Artisan cheeses necessarily in small

amounts. Don't you think the debate has gone back to sugar? It should go

to sugar. There's just time before we go to find out the answer to

Guess the Year. Anna, hit that button. It was 1972. We'll be back

tomorrow.