12/10/2011 Daily Politics

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