12/10/2011 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/10/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Coling up in the


next -- coming up in the next 90 minutes, more questions for Liam


Fox about his personal life and the role of his friend, Adam Werritty.


Can the Defence Secretary survive this drip, drip, drip of


allegations? young people who are feeling the


brunt. We will look at why the so- called baby busters face an


uncertain future. The Human Rights Act is a threat to


the British way of life. But is it all a bit afcat flap?


-- of a cat flap. And have you ever one of these


through the post? Well, the Government could be making it


easier for private parking operators to fin you. We will --


fine you. We will ask the Transport Why indeed? It is the question of


the day. Coming soon!


Coming up in the next 90 minutes, with us for the duration, the newly


appointed Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham and arriving at high-


speed in his electric car, he is on time for one, the Transport


Secretary, Philip Hammond. Papers are full of the details of


Adam Werritty. The stories focus on the nature of Mr Mr Werritty's role


and he accompanied the minister on trips.


There are claims in the Sun newspaper that Conservative


spokesman misled journalists about the details of a break break-in at


Liam Fox's London flat. At the time it was reported from Fox was alone


when it was broken into. It emerges now and has been confirmed by Mr


Fox himself today that he had a male friend staying in his spare


room that evening. He denies it was Adam Werritty and he rejects any


suggestion that he sought to mislead the police about the


incident. Reporters caught up with him as he left London for a meeting


in Paris this morning. REPORTER: Should you resign?


should carry on doing the job that I'm meant to do, the job I'm


capable of doing. REPORTER: Don't the people deserve


answers to questions, Dr Fox? That's why we have an inquiry set-


Dr Fox, how was Adam Werritty paid? Dr Fox this morning. Philip Hammond,


who was funding Adam Werritty? don't know. I've read the same


speculation in the Press that you have done, but the Cabinet


Secretary is conducting an inquiry. The Prime Minister made it clear he


wants to know the facts and that inquiry will deliver him those


facts. Do we have the right to know who


was funding Mr Werritty? I think given the circumstances, we do need


to understand exactly what was happening, exactly how Mr Werritty


was funding his lifestyle and his trips and I'm sure that that will


come out in the course of the work that the Cabinet Secretary is doing.


And if he refuses to do so, is that not fatal for Dr Fox?


You're speculating here. My understanding is that Liam Fox and


Adam Werritty are collaborating fully with the inquiry that the


Permanent Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary... That's not my


understanding, Mr Hammond. I had spoken to someone who had spoken to


Mr Werritty as you know. He hasn't spoken himself, but I spoke to


someone last night and he made it clear to him he would not give the


names of those private individuals who have been funding him. Well,


look we're speculating now. No, no, that's not speculation.


We're speculating as to what is or isn't going to be disclosed in the


course of this investigation. Let me put it to you again. If the


information about who is funding Mr Werritty is not given by him, if he


refuses, is that fatal? Well, the Cabinet Secretary will make his


report. If his report indicates to the Prime Minister that important


pieces of information have been withheld, that will be a factor


that the Prime Minister will weigh- in making his decision.


Do you accept that someone who seems to be travelling around the


world with the Defence Secretary, who has constant access to the


Defence Secretary in his office here, who fixes up meetings for the


Defence Secretary, we have a right, do we not, in a democracy to know


who is bankrolling that individual. It maybe innocent. It may not be,


but the principle is we have a right, agreed? Well, Adam Werritty


clearly is a friend of Liam Fox. He met up with Liam Fox when he has


been abroad on official missions. I don't think it is right to say he


travelled with him. He met up with him.


On 18 occasions? He met up with him. He might not have been on the same


plane, but he must know where he is going.


He travelled separately to a destination and clearly, one of the


questions of legitimate public interest is how Adam Werritty's


business affairs work and whether they are in anyway linked to what


Dr Fox does and Dr Fox was very clear about this in his statement


in the House of Commons yesterday. Well, he wasn't clear. When asked


about the finances was that Mr Werritty was quote "not dependant


on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income." What does


that mean in English? He was not benefiting financially from any of


these meetings. I would understand it as he wasn't being paid per job,


but he could have been on a retainer? As opposed to a


transactional piece of income? Andrew, you are trying to second-


guess the questions that I'm quite sure the Cabinet Secretary will be


asking and will be reporting to the Prime Minister on. These are the


things that he will be wanting to get to the bottom of. Liam Fox has


admitted that he has made mistakes in allowing his personal


relationship to get too close to his professional duties. The


Cabinet Secretary has to confirm to the Prime Minister that there has


been no impropriety. You say that Liam Fox has been open


and honest, but the BBC put 17 questions to the Defence Secretary


such as if Mr Werritty isn't and never has been an adviser, why was


it necessary for him to sit in on political meetings abroad, such as


Washington, May, 2011. No answer. Well, I suspect... Does he have to


answer that? I don't think he has to answer it to the BBC. The


questions have to be answered in the context of the inquiry that the


Cabinet Secretary is answering. I don't think anybody has to subject


themselves to trial by media when there is a process being conducted


by the highest civil servant in the land who whose integrity and


determination to get to the facts is unimpeachable.


The ministerial rule book says it shouldn't be the Cabinet Secretary


doing that investigation? Well, the Labour Party called for Sir Gus


O'Donnell to investigate. The Prime Minister has asked Sir Gusto donl -


- Sir Gus O'Donnell to investigate. Why you call for Sir Gus O'Donnell


to investigate? I don't know. That's Jim Murphy would have to


confirm that. Is Dr Fox hanging by his


fingernails? I think he is. I don't take any great delight in saying


that, but I think he is. A day after, tw days after making a


statement in the Commons in you are still the centre of the storm, it


it starts to look difficult, indeed. There is just so many unanswered


questions here. At the beginning Liam Fox said these were wild and


baseless allegation. Well, clearly they weren't.


He has not dealt straight from the outset.


Mr Werritty will not tell us, the British people, through the Cabinet


second, or the -- Cabinet Secretary or the BBC or hover, where his


money comes from, isn't that fatal for the Defence Secretary? It has


got to be in the public domain. We have got to have a clear answer


about whether Mr Werritty profited from the meetings. We have to have


an answer to that question in clear terms.


We have to have an answer to that question. We clearly need, the


Cabinet Secretary to confirm ta Mr Werritty -- that Mr Werritty did


not profit from the meetings. That's clear. The sources of his


private income are not necessarily something that need to be...


can you tell he profited unless you know the source of his income?


Cabinet Secretary will need to know. He is attending 18 meetings around


the world, this is his business life was being involved in all this.


So clearly all of his private income income needs to be looked at.


We are speculate, but the Cabinet Secretary is a man of unimpeepable


integ gretty. It he comes to the conclusion there has been no ip


prop try tee, -- impropriety, I hope the Labour Party accept that.


But it will be the Prime Minister's's decision in the end.


Government ministers are warning that its shake-up of the NHS in


England could be killed off if members of the House of Lords get


their way this afternoon. Peers including Lord Owen, Lord Owen who


we spoke to yesterday tabled an amendment which would refer


discussion of one part of the Bill to a committee, a move which the


Government says puts the Bill at risk. Now we have the new Shadow


Health Secretary here. Have they brought you back in to save the


NHS? Well, I will do my best. But it is in peril. The NHS is in the


danger zone because of the decisions this Government has taken.


The great... But... The great mistake that Mr Cameron made was


allowing his Health Secretary to dig in with this unwanted and


dangerous reform when in fact the Health Service needed to be getting


on with the big big challenge it faces which is the financial


financial challenge. The combination of the financial


challenge with this reo means they plunge the NHS into chaos.


Well, you say that, except now, it is the case that Labour would back


GP commissioning if the Government drops its Bill is that right?


came into the job at the weekend and I wanted to move things on. I


wanted to make a genuine offer to Mr Lancely. When we were in the


Government, we wanted a greater role for clinicians. We had a


programme called Practise Based Commissioning. It was going to be


the hallmark of our next stage of reforms that we had clinicians for


involved. I have no objection to the principle. What I object to is


this Bill which goes way beyond that principle.


OK... And drives a coach and horses through the National Health Service.


The GP commissioning was very much the centrepiece of the reform and


now you're saying you back that centre piece of that reform so


you've changed the position. It was called an unnecessary top, down


reorganisation by Labour. Now you're saying as an offer, you're


going to back GP commissioning if the Government drops its Bill. You


back the reform? It is a constructive and genuine offer. Mr


Lansley is in a difficult position. He can't get his Bill through


Parliament. I came into the job at the weekend and I said, "The best


thing you could do for the NHS, if we were to put the NHS first, the


best thing to do is to drop the Bill altogether." And that's what


Labour peers will vote for today, but we don't want to plunge the NHS


into an abyss. Which it would. W-we will work with them to establish


GP-led comirking. -- commissioning. It was something I could have


supported when I was Health Secretary. What I am amazed by is


the reply I've had. I put the offer on the table and the offer still


stands. The Health Secretary has written back with a petulant rant...


Tell us what it said? It is unbelievable.


It said no, basically? He goes into a complete political rant. Given


where we are, you know, surely now people want to see politicians


working together for the good of the NHS. To have the the Health


Secretary so dug in this this way, so oblivious to what people are


saying, I can only take from this letter that he sent to me that the


man has lost the plot. Hang on Andy Burnham, you say he lost the plot,


but you are asking him to drop it which would plunge the NHS into


chaos? No, no, because GP-led commissioning can be implemented


through the current legal structure in the National Health Service. It


is quite possible, indeed it would be better for the NHS because you


could have it in place within weeks and you would make savings. You


would not have all the unnecessary costs of this reorganisation. That


is the offer. Mr Lansley should should accept it.


Andy Burnham is right, there has been this ruse that if the peers


don't go with the Government today, that it will kill off the Bill. It


won't kill off the Bill at all? would create a delay that would be


fatal. No, it wouldn't. No, it wouldn't,


Philip Hammond. Lord Owen said extra scrutiny of the Bill would be


done by December, plenty of time for it to complete its


Parliamentary passage. understanding from discussions I


had with the business managers in the House of Lords this would be


fatal to the Bill. It is a Parliamentary tactic.


Burnham talked about the threat to the NHS as he calls it. The the


real threat to the NHS is Labour's refusal, even now, to commit to the


additional funding that we have committed to the NHS. They would


take away still �30 billion over the lifetime of this... Can I


correct you? Can I correct you? Andy Burnham described as


irresponsible our commitment to ring-fence NHS funding.


A brief answer, Andy Burnham. I'm sorry, you better take that


back because I didn't. I did a deal before the election to secure the


front-line of the National Health Service. We secured the front-line


in the police and in in schools and the National Health Service. I said


I would spend some of that money, ring-fenced for the NHS on social


care because hospitals wouldn't function if Local Government was


stripped of the funds to help older people get out of hospital. I


suggested a transfer, at your Spending Review you did the same


thing. You are going to have to continue


this argument later on! Amp the After the programme. We have to ask


you whether you have to take it What was this about Chris Huhne


accusing you of speeding? He must read a piece in the Mail on Sunday,


which referred to the fact I had some now expired speeding points.


Haven't we all? Unfortunately Chris Huhne inserted the word "recent".


Did he not apologise? He has apologised to me, yesterday. I am


sure he has. Unemployment reached a 17 year high,


more joined the ranks of those out of work. Bringing the total to 2.5


It is more evidence of the continued poor performance of the


British economy, no sign of growth picking up. But there is one group


that seems to be suffering badly and that is the young. Youth


unemployment reached 900 -- 991,000. A worrying figure of a Government


that has pledged to end what David Cameron has called the scandal of


youth unemployment. The measure of unemployed 16-24 year olds is the


highest since current records began in 1992. Their long-term prospects


are also not good. A report yesterday claimed a generation of


"baby busters" born in 1993 will be 25% worse off than their parents.


This week TUC research also revealed that workers in the


lowest-income sectors are among the worst hit by recent unemployment,


including sales and bar staff. The riots this summer led some


commentators to claim that a lost generation is emerging. But the


Government has pledged action with work academies covering industries


such as construction and hospitality, offering training and


a guaranteed job interview at the end. The figure is slightly lower


than the predicted headache headline of 1 million, but that may


only be weeks away. I'm joined now by Matt Whale who is 19 and


unemployed. He's also one of the campaigners recreating the Jarrow


march of 1936 when over 200 men walked from the north east to


London to protest against unemployment and poverty. The


current march is making its way through Harley near Rotherham.


Thanks for joining us, how long have you been unemployed? I had


just finished a temporary job and before that I was eight months. For


over a year without long-term employment. We have outlined the


prospects which don't look great. We are looking at the figures,


coming up to a million. How do you friends and family feel about the


statistics? How worried are you? Everybody is worried, morale is low


with young people as it is. We have had tuition feels -- tuition fees


trouble. Another job situation for well-paid jobs is unattainable but


thousands of kids as well. We have absolutely no future at the moment.


What about the situation in Hull itself? What is happening in your


home town? David Cameron said we would see a situation where private


injury would take over from the public sector. 1000 jobs had just


gone from BAe Systems just outside of Hull. 1000 manufacturing jobs,


it means young people in the city had been given this opportunity to


get into work. We are the second highest for youth unemployment and


it will only rise would the current public sector cuts with the local


authority, the biggest employer in the regions. What do you want the


march to achieve? We want the reinstatement of the BMA and the


scrapping of tuition fees. Social housing to be built. Scrapping up


the work there schemes and the Academy's which had been announced


which will offer no future for young people. No guarantee jobs,


the reopening of youth services and the sustainable jobs to be created


rather than bailing out the banks. Philip Hammond, are we headed for 3


million unemployed? I hope not, these are disappointing figures.


But confidence in the economy, consumer confidence and investor


confidence has taken a massive knock as a consequence of what is


going on around the world, particularly the eurozone. Until we


have recovered their confidence we won't see the benefits coming


through up a stable platform that has been created by the plans to


reduce the deficit that had been set out and of working that had


interest rates at record lows. You need confidence to get economic


growth. These figures are already out of date, the in the take us to


August. Given what we know about the way the economy has not been


growing, is pretty clear that figures on already worse. It will


get worse before it gets better? are facing some tough times. And


the Chancellor made that clear. it will get worse before it gets


better? I won't predict where unemployment is going, Botnets not


used site of the context. We have 124,000 more full-time jobs in the


economy than we had this time last year. Although the current trend is


in the wrong direction, it is not entirely bad news. But not to keep


growth -- pace with the growth in the labour force. Private sector


job creation outpaced the private sector job losses until February.


What has gone wrong? Businesses in the UK have got cash. The they


won't invest it? They have large balances but they won't invest it


because of weak consumer demand and weak confidence. We have a climate


of uncertainty around the world. The Chancellor has said, the


eurozone needs to make a decision about what it's doing about Greece.


In needs to capitalise its bail-out fund, in needs to recapitalise its


banks in order to create the certainty that will allow business


confidence to be restored and investments to resume. At the most


economists will say it is going to get worse before it gets better.


That seems to be the trend and the growth. But the early heads up on


growth figures for this quarter, the third quarter, don't look great


either. Isn't this a global phenomenon to some extent? You can


criticise where the growth strategy is working or not, but throughout


the Western world there is an unemployment problem? It has been a


global crisis since 2007. A conveniently the Conservative said


it was domestic policy. Now they're saying it is the eurozone. The


crisis we have seen has developed over the summer. We're talking


about no growth in the economy for a year. Of course it has played a


part, but so have the decisions he you have taken. The decision to


scrap that you should jobs and has put people out of work. The


decision to remove the educational maintenance allowance has put


people out of education and training. The decisions have added


to these figures and when we said to far, too fast, that is what's we


meant. We always accepted there was an important global dimension to


what happened. A charge against the previous Government is they make


matters worse in the UK by irresponsible borrowing at the top


of the boom when they should have been repaying debt. Mr Cameron and


Mr Osborne called it a tough settlement, and they would be


sticking with those spending limits. You will wahhabism after the event.


-- you were wise after the event. Shall I give you that figures from


your Government? When you came to power, its �624,000 Best 6024000


out of work. And then it rose. did a lot during our time in


Government to get young people into education and youth unemployment


down. When the financial crash came, of course the numbers of young


people went up. Even before that you had not got back to the 1997


figure. We tried to get young people into jobs to help them.


is what we are doing. It's not a good time to be young and looking


for a job in Britain? Look at any country in Europe and use


unemployment is too high, in much higher percentages in other


countries. It is a serious problem, we are tackling it with 250,000


additional apprenticeships, technical training colleges, work-


experience places. Now on Monday the Prime Minister


announced the citizenship test should be toughened up and include


questions on British History. Now we have with us here two men who


are not mere citizens but a Secretary of State and a shadow


Secretary of State, so they should be able to answer these questions -


shouldn't they, Jo? Can we do a Assistant.


Yes. Now raise your hands if you have the right answer - I'll not


have any shouting out. The Magna Carta was signed in


Philip Hammond's constituency of Runnymede. But when - and I want


That June 15th, 15. If you don't know when the Magna Carter was


signed in your own constituency! It wouldn't have been right for


daytime television. Who was Henry VIII's first wife?


Don't you watch television? The one he got rid of.


He got rid of a lot. She wasn't British? She was Spanish,


Catherine of Aragon. Who won the Battle of Naseby?


Neither of you know who won the Battle of Naseby.


The Roundheads? Well done. Who led the army?


Was it Oliver Cromwell? I think that would have counted as well.


You make or may not qualify as British citizens. You may or may


not qualify as British citizens, but you're performance wasn't good


enough to win one of these! A contest which I'm afraid you're


disqualified from entering anyway. For the rest of you, we'll remind


you how to enter in a moment. But first see if you can remember when


did this happen? There is flash # I am just a teenage date back


baby. # Out of reach, so far.


It was the smugglers who decreed we We have customers from the ethnic


mix and age group and we have no problem at all.


They must be more to politics than the constant media pressure and


exposes that has dogged me over the To be in with a chance of winning a


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


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. The first PMQs since the three


party conferences, what will dominate? I think Ed Miliband will


have to talk about the economy. While most people around


Westminster will expect him to seize on the Liam Fox the first and


ask questions, there are dangers about that. There isn't a smoking


gun and it looks like you are throwing around questions without


claiming victory later on. It will be damaging and dangerous they Ed


Miliband. Again he will seize on unemployment figures and that


things are those in the country care about. Let's go over to the


And Marine David Fairbrotherment our thoughts and sympathies should


with their families, their friends and their colleagues.


This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others


and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further


such meetings today. Mr Speaker, the whole House will


want to endorse the Prime Minister's words about our heroic


service personnel and their families. Most of us will want to


see the earliest possible withdrawal of our combat troops


from Afghanistan. But on another issue, what is the Prime Minister


going to do about that group of women already in their late 50s who


have seen their State pension age rise from 60 to 64 and now face a


two year further increase from 64 to 66. The coalition had to reform


the pensions system, but this anomaly needs addressing..


friend is right to identify, of course, it is right to equalise men


and women's State pension ages. That's been a long-term goal shared


across the House of Commons. It is right to raise the retirement age


to 66. We know there are a group of people affected by the transition


and some people are having to potentially work for an extra two


years. We are looking at what transitional help we can give to


this group of people and we will be making an announcement shortly.


THE SPEAKER: Ed Miliband. Mr Mr SPeabg, can I -- Speaker, can


I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to servicemen. These were


exceptionally courageous men who died serving their country and our


deepest condolences go to their family and friends. Mr Speaker, a


year ago during our exchanges, the Prime Minister justified his


economic policy by saying, "Unemployment would fall this year,


next year and the year after." Given that unemployment has risen


by 114,000 today, isn't it time he admitted his plan is not working?


First of all, these are very disappointing figures that have


been announced today and every job that is lost is a tragedy for that


person and for their family and that is why this Government is


going to do everything it possibly can to help get people into work.


That is why we have the work programme which is the biggest back


to work programme since the 1930s. It is going to help 2.5 million


people. That is why we have Welfare Reform to make sure it pays for


people always to be in work. That is why we are reforming our schools,


including raising the participation age to 18, so we end the scandal of


16 and 17-year-olds left on the dole the. And that is why we have a


record number of apprenticeships, 360,000 this year, but I accept we


have got to do more to get our economy moving, to get jobs for our


people, but we mustn't abandon the plan that has given us record low


low interest rates. Mr Speaker, the same script month


after month. It is not working. Doesn't he realise today's figures


show it isn't working and it is his failure that means today in Britain


we have nearly one million young people out of work. Why doesn't he


accept some responsibility for doing something about it?


I accept responsibility for everything that happens in our


economy. I just sometimes wish that people who are in Government for 13


years would accept some responsibility for the mess they


made. What this Government is pledged to


do is everything we can to get our economy moving. That is why we have


cut petrol tax and corporation tax, why we are reforming the planning


system, why we introduce the regional growth fund, why we are


forcing the banks to lend money, why we have created 22 enterprise


zones. He wants us to change course on reducing our deficit. If we


change course on reducing our deficit, we would end up with


interest rates like Spain, Portugal and Greece and we would send our


economy into a tail-spin. Mr Speaker, I want him to change


course so he has a credible plan to get people back to work in this


country. You see, what the Prime Minister what, the Prime Minister


doesn't seem to understand is that month after month, as unemployment


goes up, the number of people claiming benefit goes up, the costs


go up and fewer people are in work and paying taxes. To have a


credible plan on the deficit, you need a credible plan for growth and


he doesn't have one. Now, it is not just young people who are suffering,


can the Prime Minister tell us when was the last time that unemployment


among women reached the levels it has today?


First of all, he is wrong in his figures. There are 50,000 more


women in work than there were at the time of the election. There are


actually 239,000 more people in work at the time of the election.


There are 500,000 more credible and private sector jobs, but he asks


about a credible growth plan. I would ask - where is his credible


growth plan? Why is it that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer


said this, "If you don't have a credible economic plan, you are


simply not at the races." THE SPEAKER: Order. Whatever people


think of what is being said on either side of the House, they must


not shout their heads off. The Prime Minister and the Leader of


the Opposition will be heard and that'sted end of T -- end of it.


Our plan is supported by the CBI, by the IOD, by the business


organisations, by the IMF, by the OECD, he cannot get support from


his own former Cabinet m the former Home Secretary says this, "I think


the economic proposition that Labour puts at the moment is


unconvincing." If he he can't convince his own party, how can he


convince the country? Mr Speaker, and the Conservative


chair of his Select Committee says his policies on growth are


inconsistent. He can't convince him, can he? Typically he didn't answer


the question on women's unemployment so let me tell him.


Women's unemployment is at its highest level since 1988. Since


1988 the last time there was a a Conservative Government in power.


Mr Speaker, I have to say instead of apologising four months late to


my right honourable friend for saying, "Calm down dear. Scwths he


should be appolyjicing to the women of this country. Last year, in his


Budget, the Chancellor announced a flagship policy on growth. He said


the national insurance holiday for start-up firms would help 400,000


businesses. Account Prime Minister tell this House how many businesses


have actually taken part? 7,000. Right and on the issue and on the


issue and on the issue of women in work, of course, of course, of


course, I want to see more women if work and there are 50,000 more


women in work than at the time of the last election, but it is this


Government that introduced free childcare for all vulnerable two-


year-olds. That it extended the childcare for three and four-year-


olds. That has increased the Child Tax Credit by �290 and for the


first time, announce that had we will be giving childcare to all


people working less than 16 hours. Helping thousands, hundreds of


thousands of women and families out of poverty into work and into a


better life. That is what we're doing, but the question he has got


to address, is the big picture which is this - he can't convince


the former Home Secretary, the former Trade Minister, the former


chancellor that he has got any idea of what to do with the economy and


the reason why is if he adopted his plan, we wouldn't be working with


the IMF to sort out the eurozone, we would be going to the IMF to ask


for a loan. In case he hadn't realised, when


the Chancellor says 400,000 firms will benefit and only 7,000 are, it


should tell him something! LAUGHTER


It should tell him his policies aren't working. That policy is not


working. His plan isn't working. Why doesn't he just for once agree


with us, cut VAT and put more money into people's pockets. Help the


construction industry get moving and invest in getting young people


back to work by having a bankers bonus tax. When is the party


opposite going to learn? You cannot borrow your way out of a debt


crisis. They left us, they left us the


biggest deficit, the most leveraged banks, the most endebted house Hodz


and what is -- households and what is their answer - to borrow more


money? Digby Jones said this, he described the Labour leader's


speech at the conference as a divisive and a a kick in the teeth


for the only sector that generates wealth and pays the tax and creates


the jobs this country needs. That is what a Labour minister said


about a Labour policy and that's why he has no credibility


whatsoever. Mr Speaker, what a terrible answer!


And yes, and yes, and yes, I will take on, I will take on those


companies in this country who aren't doing the right thing like


the energy companies and we're seeing change today in the energy


sector because of what I said. Now let me say to him... Now let me


just say to him, let me just say to him. On the day of the worst... On


the day of the worst... On the day of the worst unemployment figures,


on the day of the worst unemployment figures in 17 years,


the Prime Minister is is fighting to save the job of the Defence


Secretary by his doing nothing to save the jobs of hundreds of


thousands of people up and down this country. It is one rule, if


you are in the Cabinet, it is another rule for everyone else!


Well, the last Labour leader thought he had saved the world. I


think after this, this Labour leader is Walter Mitty. What they


have got to do is accept some spont for the mess what -- responsibility


for the mess that you made of this economy. You are the party that


borrow too much, that spent too much, that left us with the


unregulated banks, that left us with the mess that we have to clear


up and when you see those two, sitting on the frontbench, who


worked for so long in the Treasury, you have to ask yourself, you


wouldn't bring back Fred Fred Goodwin to sort out the banks, why


would you bring them back to sort out the economy?


THE SPEAKER: The House will want to hear Sir Peter Tapp sill.


As my right honourable happened to notice that since I put the point


to him last month the head of our service Fraud Squad, has publicly


deplored the fact that no senior British bankers have been


prosecuted for their ill sponsor -- ill responsibility and has urged


that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to


empower his office, to prosecute such offenders in the future.


I think it is important that inquiries are conducted into what


went wrong at RBS and HBOS because clearly we are left clearing up a


mess that the responsibility of others have left. If there is room


for crim criminal criminal prosecutions there should, our job


is to regulate the banks and the financial institutions properly and


that's why we put the Bank of England back at the heart of this


job. Mr Speaker, will the Prime Minister


publish a full list of all the ministers and Downing Street staff


who since May 2010 met Mr Werritty in in either an official and social


capacity, including whether he himself, as Prime Minister, has met


him? I'm happy to look at that.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Order.


Would my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, agree that in


light of difficult times encountered by some of my


constituents, working for BAe, it is even more important that this


Government continues its excellent support for investment and for the


development of typhoon and in new unmanned aerial assistance vehicles.


concern and that's why we have put in place plans for an enterprise


zone on both sides of the Pennines to help with that important


business. BAe is a great British company. There is a huge forward


order book for it, not least from our defence defence Budget, I will


do everything I can to support that company including promoting its


exports abroad where I had conversations with the Japanese, I


will be talking to the Saudi Arabians and others to make sure


this great British company goes on Imperial Health Care Trust which


offers outstanding clinical care and research in three major


hospitals in west London is being forced to make 5% per annum cuts


for five years, 25% of its �900 million a year budget. How does


that fulfil the Prime Minister's promise not to cut health services


to my constituents? We are increasing NHS spending throughout


this Parliament. It is a complete contrast to the party opposite


policy. They have a new health spokesman. I was worried I wouldn't


have the same quantity of quotes, but he has not disappointed. He


said this "it is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real


terms." that is their position, it is irresponsible to increase health


spending. We disagree. Too many children in Britain today live in


families that don't provide them with the loving and stable


environment they deserve. That has led to many of our most social


pressing problems. Will a Prime Minister agreed this Government


needs to do all it can to help some of Britain's most problem families?


I completely agree with him. If you look at the evidence, some of the


most troubled families in our country get a huge amount of


interventions from the police, social services, education and the


rest of it. But no one is really getting in there to turn those


families around, give them a better chance. We are establishing a new


unit under the leadership of Louise Casey, who has been a superb


official over the last decade and we will be putting huge resources


into turning around the 120,000 at most troubled families in our


country. Or we can make a difference to those families and


then reduce the burden they place on the taxpayer at the same time.


Will the Prime Minister instruct our ambassador in Kiev to make


representations on behalf of the Government and Parliament about the


appalling show trial of prison sentences handed down on the former


Prime Minister. Prime ministers do make mistakes! They to lose


elections as she did. She has been put on trial for policy decisions


she took. Make it clear the Ukraine won't be able to open membership


talks with the EU because of this disgraceful act, Stalinist show


trial? We agreed the treatment of the former Prime Minister is


disgraceful. The Foreign Secretary has made a strong statement. The


Ukrainians need to know if they leave the situation as it is it


will severely affect their relationship, not only with the UK


but with the European Union and NATO. Small business and not more


Government debt is due to -- key to job creation. Will the Prime


Minister join me in welcoming the support from Bedfordshire


University, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper


and 100 business leaders in my constituency to set up a mentoring


scheme to support early-stage businesses in Bedford? Canny work


with me to see if it can be replicated in other towns across


the country? This Government recognises it will be small


businesses that will provide the growth, jobs and wealth this


country needs. That is why we have an agreement with the banks to


increase lending to small businesses, we are providing a


great relief for small businesses. We have the one in, one out rules


for regulation and I applaud all levels at a local level giving


small businesses the support they need to grow.


Responding to the science select committee support on forensic


science, a Home Office minister says we don't agree with the


committee's report. It mistakes and number of significant points. Given


the Home Office's financial case was 50% adrift and they now agree


with the argument the national archive should be protected, will a


Prime Minister urgently intervene and review the decision to close


the FSS because the profession is now losing key scientific staff


from the country and from the profession? I will look at what he


says, but I look at this decision at the time in some detail, having


known well the Forensic Science Service when I worked in the Home


Office many years ago. The evidence was pretty overwhelming that


actually the model wasn't working and change was needed. That is what


has happened and sometimes it is better to make that change rather


than endlessly review it. The Prime Minister inherited a welfare system


where families were able to claim �2,000 a week in housing benefits


and some fan of -- families are worse off working than those on


benefits. What can the Prime Minister do to help those hard-


working families in share would who get out of bed and work hard


because of their self pride and responsibility? I think he speaks


for most in the country when people say what they want is a welfare


system that will do the right thing. We are putting in place a cap so


you cannot have these absurd amounts of money going in housing


benefit to individual families. As he says, sometimes �2,000 a week.


Universal credit will make sure it is always worthwhile people working


and worthwhile working harder. To the party opposite that now claim


after a decade of giving people something for nothing, let's see if


they are prepared to back that by voting for a tough caps in the


welfare bill. If a minister breaks the


Ministerial Code, should they keep their job? The ministerial code is


clear, it is for the Prime Minister to decide whether someone keeps


their job. In the case of the Defence Secretary, it is important


when the leader of the opposition has called for an inquiry by the


Cabinet Secretary, when I have established an inquiry by the


Cabinet Secretary. Let us allow the Cabinet Secretary to do his work,


establish the facts and then a decision can be made. I think the


Defence Secretary has done an excellent job clearing up a


complete mess he was left by Labour. Retirement ages have to go up but


the timetable in the pension spell is too fast for women. I was


pleased to hear the Prime Minister say you was looking at transitional


arrangements and I hope it will slow down the increase of


retirement age for many women. have looked at this issue, we will


be making an announcement shortly. I think we have to look at the most


difficult cases where people have quite an extra amount of working


time they would have to do. He it is right, and the must look at the


big picture to equalise men and women's pension arrangements and


moved to 66, given the extra longevity we enjoy as a country.


Given that I hope he will be pleased when the announcement is


made. Of the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition are on


record in supporting gender equality for future Royal


successions. Will the Prime Minister update the house on the


consultation he and the Deputy Prime Minister are having with


other Commonwealth leaders about this issue? Does he not agree it is


better we resolve this matter before, rather than after any


future Royal children are born? certainly believe this issue should


be sorted out, I am on the record as believing that. Across the house


there has been widespread support. In terms of the consultation I have


written to the heads of state, the prime ministers of the other roles


concerned and we will be having a meeting about this. It is not an


easy issue to sort out. For many of them there may be issues and


worries about starting a Parliamentary and legal process.


But it is an issue we should get sorted and I am delighted to play a


part in doing that. Does the Prime Minister agree with the reasons


advice from the shadow Treasury minister who said what we must not


do and cannot do is pick good winners and losers and conceived


such a simplistic sinners and winners a model, which shows a


distinct misunderstanding of business? She makes an important


point. The greatest need in our economy is to generate wealth and


jobs and investment. What was in labour did at their conference?


They launched a big attack on British business, which is what is


going to help us out of these difficulties. Was the Prime


Minister a were before today his chief spokeswoman was a former


colleague of Mr Adam Werritty? whole issue is being looked at by


the Cabinet Secretary. He will produce his report and I ask people


to have a little patience, there are questions be answered and then


we can move ahead. Is my Right Honourable Friend aware,


nearly 40 members from the side of the House have signed an amendment


in my name requiring that all offenders convicted of using a


knife in a threatening or endangering fashion, will receive a


custodial sentence? And not just those over 18. Will he consider


supporting this amendment? I will look closely at what he says and I


know the Justice Secretary is doing this. We want to move ahead with a


mandatory sentence for adults and we will look at the arguments he


makes. Sir John Major said four days ago the Government should use


the Euro crisis as an opportunity to loosen EU powers over Britain.


His first priority was the common fisheries policy. When is the Prime


Minister going to take his advice and tell the European Union Britain


intends to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Commission? I always


listened to his advice. What Britain desperately needs to do in


the short term, is get behind the solution to the eurozone crisis. It


is having a chilling effect on the whole of the European economy and


the American economy as well. I do accept that at the same time as


doing that, it is going to be important to get some safeguards


for Britain as eurozone countries go ahead and sort out their


problems. We need safeguards to make sure the single market goes on


working for the United Kingdom. Edward engineering advice 25 new


jobs in the town at JobCentre plus have got 249 jobs on offer. Does


the Prime Minister agree it would be further good news if he kept the


pressure on and encouraged businesses in Wales to advertise


even more jobs? We will keep the pressure. It is worth making the


points that in spite of the difficulties there are half a


million new private sector jobs in the economy compared with at the


time of the elections. We need all of the things that help businesses


expand and grow to be in place and bank finance is one of those things.


We have the Merlin agreement which is increasing lending to small


businesses. We have credit easing to make sure we look at other ways


of expanding credit in our economy. This week I had the privilege of


meeting two men from the ready for work campaign, impressive people


campaigning against rising youth unemployment. Can the Prime


Minister tell us what has happened to his bow from earlier this year


to reverse the trend. Can he tell the House when he last met a young


unemployed person? What has been happening is it has been going up


since 2004. It went up in the growth years as well as in the


difficult years. We need a comprehensive strategy that deals


with all of the problems of youth unemployment, including the fact


there are too many people leaving school aged 16, who spent 13 years


under a Labour education secretary. They need to take some


responsibility for others, the left school without qualifications to


help them get a job. We need better education, a welfare system that


helps people into work, and the work programme that does not


provide phoney jobs. And recent TaxPayers' Alliance report reveals


that 38 union leaders are were remunerated at over �100,000 each,


including Derek Simpson argue night. He received over half-a-million


pounds. -- of unite. Does he agree it is time for union boss of pay


restraint? They always listen to the trade unions, but they will


never listen to the taxpayers alliance. They don't want to hear


about excessive pay in the public sector, local Government or in the


trade unions. This is another question the Prime Minister won't


want to answer. Can he get a grip of his back benches following last


night's debacle in this chamber relating to business in this house


on 17th October. Doesn't he understand the perception in the


real world is some MPs would like to talk about their own pensions


instead of discussing a 22 year olds in justice and the deaths of


96 men, women and children? We are going to protect the time but that


absolutely vital debate. On the issue of NP's pensions, we have to


show restraint at a time when the rest of the public sector is being


asked to show restraint. Because of what happened last night there will


have to be a debate but it won't eat into the time of the important


debate he mentioned, I know many members care deeply about. Can he


tell the House what action he is taking to reintroduce rigour into


our education system and end the ridiculous situation under the last


Government when 22% of students study proper, academic studies?


think the education secretary is doing a superb job in focusing


schools on results, including English and maths, making sure we


look at the English Baccalaureate which includes the core subject


that employers and businesses valued. And doing some


straightforward things like making sure punctuation and grammar count


when you do an exam. Considering the Prime Minister met


with a family yesterday, will he reflect on the Commons made on the


Taoiseach relating to that meeting and the outcomes and the agreements


made at the Weston Park talks in 2001, up by both governments there


should be an independent public inquiry? Of course I have reflected


incredibly carefully on what was said yesterday. I have reflected on


this whole issue for many months since becoming Prime Minister. I


believe the right thing for this family, for Northern Ireland, and


for everyone in the United Kingdom is not to have another costly and


open-ended public inquiry, which may not find the answer. But


instead, for the British Government to open up and tell the truth about


what happened 22 years ago. We don't need an inquiry to do that.


That is why the Northern Ireland Secretary will be making a


statement explaining how we will do this, who will be involved. In the


end, the greatest healer is the truth, frank acknowledgement of


what went wrong, and apologies. Let's not have another Savell


protest to get there, let's do the right thing.


Will he join me in welcoming the news it seems Gilad Shalit will be


released in the next few days and this could go a long way for peace


in the area? I am grateful for him raising this. I think if any one


reflects on what that young soldier has been through for those weeks,


months, years, it is something I think anyone in this house would


find difficult to contemplate. If it is the case he will be coming


home soon, I wish him and his family and everyone in his real


It was familiar territory for those of you who followed the debates at


the party conferences recently. I am not sure we learned anything new.


We saw the Justice Secretary, Mr Clarke and the Home Secretary, Mrs


May sitting together. You couldn't have put a cat's whis ter between


them -- whisker between them, I think! Like lion and the lamb, they


laid out and peace has broken out at least for the cameras today! We


will hear from our specialist, by the way the Prime Minister quoted


from yesterday's Daily Politics about an ex-Labour Home Secretary,


Charles Clarke, saying that he didn't understand or that the


labour economic policy did - he did not mention the Daily Politics.


Miliband was asking about the economy on unemployment figures.


Jane in Surrey saved, "David Cameron, clearly rattled at PMQs


and had to resort to abuse again calling Ed Miliband, Walter Mitty."


Another viewer saying, "David Cameron is acting like he is in


Opposition." This from Diane "the best thing the coalition can do is


stimulate consumer confidence." Another viewer said said "Ed


Miliband had a great opportunity, but he blew it big time." This is


from Simon who says "when will Ed Miliband and Labour accept that the


plan is working? Yes, it is painful, but necessary." This from Stephen


Wiltshire in Cheltenham, "it is all good and well Labour moaning about


unemployment. Their record wasn't great. It shows how two-faced


Labour has become.". In a sense the die is cast. The Government will


not change its its fiscal policy and we know what Labour says it


would do if it was in power. So events are going to determine this


debate, aren't they? What we saw today in four minutes flat a


complete upsum of the party conferences with John Bercow added


in which we missed. He saw Ed Miliband retort, but we need to


have a better plan involving greater spending and David Cameron,


saying how going to pay for it? We heard it during the party party


conference seasons. On. We are nine days away from the grand bargain to


save the eurozone. A week on Sunday, you have the European heads of


Government meeting in Brussels to determine how on earth thet pullth


put -- they will put together the rescue package, but how we regulate


the City of London and whether or not we will see any measures being


imposed on us. It is important and yet that wean really a -- wasn't


really a subject that took off in the chamber.


We reran the easy debates. You saw the favourite movements. Ed Balls


with his hands movements referring to slow-growth.


Is that what he means when he does that? Flat lining. I haven't seen


him on the dance floor! I saw Nick Clegg looking solemn


with his tie undone. He used to smile and look


adoreingly at the Prime Minister, now he just kind of looks at his


nails and looks straight ahead. We saw some other bits. PMQs is


interesting for the stuff outside the leaders, the change on


Hillsborough I thought was quite significant. I am not sure that MPs


come out terribly well looking if they are seen to be talking about


their pensions rather than the issues. And some interesting stuff


around you with healthcare. And health funding.


You liked the soundbite, Philip Hammond, that you can't borrow your,


what was it... You can't borrow your way out of debt.


You liked that, didn't you? It sums up neatly the problem that Labour


has. They rail against the economic policy that George Osborne has set


out, that is reducing the deficit. But their only alternative is


things like cuts in VAT. Hold on. Borrowing more money.


Failing to acknowledge that the underlying problem here is a debt


problem. This is not like some of the crisis we have had in the past.


So if you like the soundbite, you can't borrow your way out of a debt


crisis, why are you in the process of borrowing �0.5 trillion now?


in terms of the Government's borrowing? You are about to borrow


�0.5 trillion more. You are borrowing your way out of a debt


crisis. Andy, we inherited an enormous deficit. Let him answer.


Never mind that. Just answer my question. If you can't borrow your


way, why are you continuing to borrow your way? Remember reducing


the deficit. Year on year we are reducing it.


There were record borrowing figures rinetly.


-- recently. It can not be reduced to zero


overnight. You are cutting the deficit every


year, that's the plan, but you are adding to borrowing every year.


debt will go on increase as we go continue to borrow a declining


amount each year until we have in 2014/2015 eliminated the deficit.


Ed Balls is proposing that we should increase the amount each


year, making our debt increase more quickly.


You are borrowing more each year and that's why you are adding �0.5


trillion. We are borrowing less each yearment. Yearment.


You are still borrowing more. Let me ask you, the Government says


it will borrow �122 billion which is a huge amount of money. It is


about 10% of our GDP. Some suggest it will be �125 billion. How much


more would you borrow? Borrowing is going up as Ed Miliband said today.


We know that. How much more would you borrow for the stimulus?


would have a growth plan because growth would bring down the need to


borrow. They are paying young people to have them doing nothing


on the dole. That's what this money is paying for, to have people out


of work. You cannot have no plan for growth in jobs.


Are you therefore saying you will have a fiscal stimulus that will


not add to borrowing, is that what you are saying? Yes, because we've


said. It is not a stimulus then.


It would be paid for by a bonus tax on the banks.


That's not a stimulus? We would a specific proposal to get young


people back to work paid for by a bonus tax on the banks.


That's not what Ed Balls is calling for.


It is not a fiscal stimulus. Balls is calling for a cut in VAT.


The missing bit is confidence in the UK's credit worthiness, if we


were to go down the route of more boa owing to buy our way out of


this crisis, we would have our credit rating collapsing, interest


rates rising... People are paying VAT on fuel.


All right, let me move on, I'm puzzled by both your positions.


Let's get back to Mr Werritty. Where are we now after that


exchange, after what we know, where do you think we go from here?


it was interesting if Prime Minister's Questions when the


subject came up and David Cameron was asked about it, there wasn't a


huge cheer of support. In the House on Monday, there was a feeling that


Liam Fox was on top of the situation. There wasn't a great


deal of a sense of him being ahead of the game.


It has changed now, hasn't it? has a bit. There are a couple of


key oints, from everything -- points from everything that we have


seen in the public domain so so far, there is nothing that cause him to


resign. If he goes, it will be because of something that has yet


to come out, likely to be something to do with how Adam Werritty made


his money, whether or not he benefited from his relationship


with Liam Fox and I think this is the test the Government are trying


to frame as the key question question whether or not Adam


Werritty directly benefited in a tran actional -- transactional


sense by by knowing the Defence Secretary, by by introducing the


Defence Secretary to key figures. Do we know if he had access to more


than Dr Fox? Did he use his access to Dr Fox to go round Whitehall


getting access? Have you met him since you became a minister? Not to


my knowledge, unless I met him in a social situation.


I haven't had a meeting. I was on Liam Fox's team when he


was Shadow Henght and a-- Health Secretary and Adam was an intern. I


know him, but I haven't met him since I have been a minister,


certainly. You wanted to get Hillsborough off


your chest. I was pleased that Steve Rotherham raised it. Because


there was an extraordinary event in the House last night. I have been


working on this issue for a number of years and over the summer there


was an e-petition, 10,000 people signed -- 140 people signed it, a


statement of solidarity to the Hillsborough families who faced


insults as they faced their campaign for truth and justice.


That swept this issue back to the Commons and it was due to take


place last Monday. A Tory backbencher objected to the


timetabling of that debate because he wanted more time to debate his


own pension. The Government did say and made a commitment that it would


overturn that. One MP wants to debate his pension and 140,000


people can't have their debate on Hillsborough. It is an unbelievable


state of affairs. This is a backbench who routinely


objects to timetabling motions. Who is it? Chris Chope.


The Prime Minister made clear that the Government is going to protect


this business so we can have the debate.


A final thought from you, Sam. I thought thought it was a school


draw, but it didn't change the political direction much.


We have got your letter, Andy, we are running out of time.


What he did in the Commons is going to back fire on him a lot. My


statement related to their commitment to the election to


increase health spending in real terms. They didn't do that that at


the Spending Review, they protected it at inflation. They didn't do


what they were pledging to do at the general election. He will rue


reading that quote out in the House of Commons. You would not have


protected it. You have had your final words now..


Now, last week, we heard a lot about a cat called Maya, she was in


the news because the Home Secretary claimed her owner owner couldn't be


deported because her owner had a cat.


Theresa May Said this is an example of why we should get rid of the


Human Rights Act. This provoked a spat after Clarke used -- Ken


Clarke used colourful language to tell Theresa May that she was wrong.


Why are so many people keen to get rid of the Act.


Patrick O'Flynn tells us why he What do you think when I say the


words, "Human Rights Act."? Well if opinion polls are to be believed,


the reaction of most of you will be You may not know this, but Winston


Churchill dreamt up the European Convention on Human Rights after


the Second World War. He wanted to ensure that totalitarian regime


could spend up and oppress their peoples. That convention is now


enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act and many cases


brought under it, end up here. But there are a few problems with that.


Our Supreme Court is not Supreme at all. It remains Junior to the


European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That's where judges of


variable quality make decrees that inflamed British public opinion.


And our own public officialdom are so scared of being sued under


provisions of the Human Rights Act, they make crazy concessions. Like


bringing a police van miles to transport a defendant just a few


yards to a court house. Delivering hot food to a criminal perched on


someone else's roof. # I don't want to change the world.


That is why I would like to see the Human Rights Act scrapped and


Britain withdraw from the European Court. Instead we need a British


Bill of Rights, just like David Cameron promised us before the last


General Election. Now, last week we heard a lot about


Won't it ultimately be the same? rehab various players in this. We


have public officialdom bearing ridiculously on the side of caution


in avoiding having cases brought against them. The worst player in


all of this is the European Court of Human Rights, which is a bunch


of former polytechnic lecturers from the Balkan states, telling us


about our human rights regime. But the Human Rights Act itself seems


to have allowed judicial activism to make right that was supposed to


be held in the balance. Were a British Bill of Rights change that?


It wouldn't necessarily change would it, the European Court of


Justice you have just outlined. It wouldn't make a difference.


should be out with the European Court of Human Rights. The


convention itself is a flexible instrument. David Cameron thought a


British Bill of Rights could be framed with a more balanced towards


responsibilities as well as rights that would restrain liberal judges,


albeit of a higher quality than the Strasbourg judges. They will be


pleased to hear that. It is not a high bar to get them across. They


could still interpret the law, judges, the way they see it. They


could still take into account those human rights elements if they saw


fit, even under a British Bill of Rights. The bill could be drafted


in such a way to balance the responsibilities and the rights of


the innocent, which is something Alan Johnson was talking about in


the Commons, in relation to the DNA database. We have the liberal left,


pouncing on that cat and trivialising things, but not


answering why you have a failed asylum seeker able to run over a


child and leave her dying in the road and not be deported. And the


Somalian who murdered the British police officer, Sharon


Borysoglebski, he was not deported. The liberal left don't think these


things are worth addressing. Wouldn't it go further, wouldn't


Britain or the UK have to withdraw from the EU altogether in order to


escape, as you would see it, from the European Convention on Human


Rights? My many pro-European friends tell me it is not right. In


any event that wouldn't be a problem for me. The Daily Express


wants Britain to lead the European Union. But it is not something


necessarily the Government will entertain. Something has to happen


that is very unlikely to, which is withdrawing from the EU altogether


at the moment? That is not what David Cameron said before the


election when he framed the British Bill of Rights. Let's get to the


cat, who was right? The claim from Theresa May it was used, she was


used as part of the arguments for this Bolivian immigrant who had


overstayed, to stay longer Clarke, claiming their right to a family


life? Everybody sees there is abuse of the Human Rights Act, the treaty


on Human Rights. It is dealing with what are obviously abuses, were


common sense dictates we go one way and the courts interpret the Human


Rights Act, or ultimately the treaty to take us another way. The


Government is determined to tackle that situation, so we get


commonsense and comes. That sounds reasonable, but how do you achieve


it? How do you achieve that commonsense without overhauling the


whole system? The Prime Minister has set up a Commission which is


looking at all aspects of the Human Rights Act. It's one not be


reporting for a long time. It will report back and then set out how we


intend to go forward. In the meantime, the Home Secretary is


clear that were incremental things can be done to improve the way the


system works, to minimise the wrong and comes, if you like, she will do


that. Let's get back to the original question, was Ken Clarke


right, was it nonsense to use the example of the cat, or was Theresa


May right? I don't think it was nonsense. The point Theresa May was


using was an absurd example. she? Yes, the existence of a


jointly owned cat, supposedly proved the existence of a family


relationship. That in turn gave a right to remain. That seems like,


too many people... Most people reading a tabloid newspaper, would


see this as ridiculous. So Ken Clarke was wrong? I think he was on


this occasion. When he neighbour was in power, there were also


criticisms of the Act? Misinterpretations of the Act


brought it into disrepute. You are right to point the finger at the


European Court. Prisoners voting rights, I cannot defend that. Where


I disagree is to say you get rid of this Act and these rights


altogether. These are right Britain cemented in Europe after the Second


World War. They belong to everybody. If you got rid of the Human Rights


Act, British people could still seek to have those rights and


forced at European level. They were brought in to save people the time


and the cost of going to Strasbourg. The right not to be tortured is an


amiable, the right to a family life is caveat it. They are different


rights. What I meant was, everybody has a right to a family life.


there is no caveat to torture. There is to a family life. The


judges never take the second part in two considerations. I agree with


you on that. Patrick, what is your response? I would like to see an


interim, very simple merger -- measure while the clever craftsman


and lawyer sort it out, which it would be, if we were to pay human-


rights the legal work at the rate of the minimum wage, then these


lawyers who have made so much money over the last few years could prove


to everyone and the British public they are in it for idealism and


justice. I can sign up to that, too. Can you all signed up to that?


will put it to be just a secretary. It is the justice secretary's


budget that will benefit from this. A lack the ideas of lawyer's being


on the minimum wage. One of the judges in the European Court is a


TV presenter. We could do that. Guilty!


You are fired. If you are a driver you live in


fear of wheel clampers. The good news is the Government is going to


do away with them, but the bad news is, you may get a ticket and a


hefty fine instead. This is what happened to one motorist.


We had been away on holiday and when we came back there was a lot


of post behind the door. One of these letters was a letter from a


company called G20 four. They were demanding �75 for parking in a car


park for more than three hours. I frequently go to Wickes, but never


more than 15 or 20 minutes. I knew it was wrong, I felt the company


was like these camping organisations, just put out penalty


charges and hope people pay them. We contacted the parking firm


mentioned, they declined to comment. Luckily Mr Smith could prove he was


parked somewhere else at the time and the fine was eventually waived.


But only after he rode to the store's chief executive. -- wrote.


Is it a growing problem? It is. Lots of tickets are issued


automatically by cameras. Some of the letters are very threatening,


they threaten credit reference agencies, debt collecting. But


although they look official, there is no mandate. What kind of car


parks are we talking about? Service areas, large out-of-town


superstores and private land. you need to pay the ticket to get


out in the first place? No, these are places you can park for a short


time, two to three hours when you are buying a kitchen. People take a


lot of time choosing, exceed the time limit. Then through the post a


few weeks later, they get a ticket through the post. What is the


Government's planning to do that will make it worse? We are glad


wheel-clamping is to be scrapped. But we have got to tackle ticketing.


We estimate 3 million private tickets are issued every year. It


is an automated process. It is a huge privilege parking companies


have to access drivers' names and addresses. But it is not regulated


by the law, except by a trade association code of practice,


signed up. He think it will get worse? We think it will grow


because clamping is ending. thought you ending the war on


motorists? The first important thing to say is we are scrapping


wheel-clamping. Thanks for that, what about this? The problem with


wheel-clamping is immediate. People feel they have to pay up because


they cannot move their car. Stock filibustering an answer the


questions. You can disputed afterwards. It's people have been


charged �90 for staying two hours. Land owners, this is not just a


cheap parking sites, it is big stores, university campuses, all


these people have to be able to deal with non-compliant parking.


The way they have to do with that is by issuing an having contractors


who will issue tickets. What we are going to do under the act that has


just passed the Commons, just gone through the Commons is to regulate


through the BPA, with an appeal scheme through the BPA, the conduct


of companies authorised to issue tickets. If they don't comply with


the code of conduct, which the Home Secretary will have to approve,


they won't be able to access the DVLA database. There will be a lot


of aggravation before that. cannot accept a trade association


arbitration process. It has to be fully approved. It will be approved


by the Home Secretary. Is that good enough? Not for us, we wanted it


regulated. Be needs to be independent and transparent. At the


moment we don't feel it does the job. Vat on petrol and the war on


motorists! That's it for today. Many of you got the competition


right. We are still printing out your entries to choose the winner.


2001 was the answer, we will pick the winner tomorrow. We thank all


of our guests. We will be back tomorrow afternoon as usual with


Download Subtitles