18/01/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/01/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, this is the Daily Politics.


Talking tough on welfare - the Government says it will push


through its reforms whatever opposition the Lords might throw up.


Many peers have spent the last week trying to scupper Iain Duncan


Smith's bill and the battle's not over yet. We'll be talking to the


man in charge. Poor old Ed. He's been taking a lot


of stick from his buddies in the unions. Will his week get any


better when he faces the PM across the despatch box?


We'll be asking if this puts you off visiting Westminster.


And stop burying your head in the sand. Rosie Boycott tells


politicians to wake up when it All that coming up in the next 90


minutes of "we've never been nominated for a BAFTA award"-


winning television. And with us for the duration, we have a couple of


political giants. At least I think they are. We believe Iain Duncan


Smith is the Work and Pensions Secretary, and we think Andy


Burnham is the Shadow Health Secretary. Unfortunately, though,


Wikipedia is down for 24 hours and the programme production staff have


no idea who is who and what is what. With their only research engine


down, I'm told all our researcher have gone down the pub. Anyway,


welcome to both of you. First this morning, let's talk


about the radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada because yesterday, the


European Court of Human Rights blocked the Government's attempt to


depart Mr Qatada back to Jordan. The militant cleric, who's been


described as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, is


currently being held at a high security prison in Worcestershire.


By Iain Duncan Smith, the Government wants to deport him.


I suspect public opinion wants to deport him. The Labour Party wanted


to deport him in power, and British judges want to deport him. Why


would we let the European Court of Human Rights stock that? Because


whether you like it or not, and a lot of people don't like it, we are


bound by the Convention. There is the root... It is a disappointing


result, a deplorable individual, a supporter of terrorism, he should


go back. I think we have the route to appeal. They are looking to see


whether they can appeal. appeals hardly ever work. I agree.


It is a mess. You go to the full chamber for by an appeal and


overwhelmingly they are turned over. -- don't work. A 5% chance. Let's


assume we lose the appeal, what do we do next? You have to keep him


under arrest. Then go back to the European Court and say you are


infringing his European -- human rights. We are proposing to reform


the relationship with the convention and that is something


the Home Secretary is bringing forward. One of the ways ahead in


due course is to modify the way it's worked so we don't have these


decisions. They are not living in the real world, this court, they


are still living in a world where terrorism was an occasional affair.


We have a very dangerous man, supporter a very, very dangerous


people, every body in Britain wants him out, we have to find a way of


getting this man back to where he came from and face their judicial


process. The European Court said you can't deport people back to


countries where there's a good chance of them being tortured. The


British said OK, we understand that, so your government negotiated a


deal with Jordan to get commitments from the Jordanian government that


people would not be maltreated. Correct. Now the European Court


says that not enough. There's a chance he may face a trial in which


some of the evidence will have come about by torture. They have changed


the goalposts and when they do this, this is why there's a head of steam


against the European Court in this country now. Maybe. It is a


disappointing result. I read it more positively perhaps than you


have done. The court accepted those bilateral agreements between the UK


and Jordan. They said we accept that, but if the commitment has


been given that evidence will not be directly used in respect of Abu


Qatada, if it had been derived from torture. What they on helpfully


then said was that because the system over there, torture is so


prevalent, there's some evidence that may have been gained that way,


we can't be certain it won't be used. If I was a Home Office


minister now, I would now go back to the Jordanians and say, give us


a cast-iron guarantee that no evidence will be introduced derived


from other cases that could be categorised in that way and then go


back to the European Court and say now we have the final assurances,


this is the route and we get a verdict. What the Government wants


to do is set the framework so when they appeal, they have strong


grounds to appeal. That may be one of the solutions. The judges taking


this decision have to think again. They are extrapolating away from


the agreement made an coming up with some kind of possible IFS and


buts. Yesterday they also made a different judgment about the


state's and right to hold people in prison for life. Life meaning life.


That is a sign they are listening to public opinion and the


representations of government. It is easy to knock the court and so


they are hope for us, but I thought the couple have run into gave


grounds for hope. I don't think they are listening enough. It is


like a swallow which doesn't... They make the occasional good


judgment. My concern and the concern of the Government and of


your government is that too often, they make judgments like the one


yesterday which are almost dancing on the head of a pin. We had an


agreement with Jordan. There was plenty enough for us to have got a


right decision from them and yet again they failed. When Abu Qatada


was arrested, because he was thought to be plotting to blow up


the Christmas market in Strasbourg, which is packed with people, and


that is what they thought he was doing, he was found to have


�175,000 in cash on him. Why has he been on welfare all these years?


Why have taxpayer has been paying his welfare when he has �170,000 in


cash? If he has money and capital, he will not be available for the


income related supports. He is getting hundreds of pounds a week.


Hundreds of pounds. I know, and the reality is we are trapped in this


position because he is incarcerated but still living outside a prison.


He ends up being able to be supported. This is a man with


�175,000 and a hard working taxes of British people were paying him


hundreds of pounds a week in welfare. Nobody would justify that.


We are dealing with a suspected serious international terrorist.


They get their money from a range of sources and it is not easy for


the benefits system to track down all of the global funds he has


access to. He was found with �175,000. These networks have


millions at their disposal. How can the benefits system track all of


that movement? We are dealing with a very serious individual. We are


getting closer to getting the right result. You don't mind paying the


welfare? I said I did. Why did you do it? Under the rules, he avoids


the rules. The man is able to work the system to his benefit. Which is


why we are trying to reform it. will come on to that later!


Imagine flying from Rio and landing at Boris Island on the Thames


Estuary. It's the stuff dreams are made of, and according to the Mayor


of London, it's not far off reality. Support for a new airport on the


Thames Estuary is apparently gaining increasing support from


ministers. Here's what Boris Johnson had to say earlier this


morning. If you're going to expand your capacity and businesses making


that case very powerfully to the Government, George Osborne is in


China, he understand very clearly the need to communicate with the


big growth the economies of Asia and Latin America, if you're going


to do that, you have to look elsewhere.


Well, I'm now joined by Bernard Jenkin, who is the Conservative MP


for North Essex, and the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman,


Julian Huppert. How enthusiastic is the Prime Minister about this idea?


I think he has come to realise that a policy of no new runways in the


south-east will strangle London as an international city and turn


London into an international backwater. We have one major


airport with two runways, Heathrow, competing with Frankfurt, with


three runways, Paris with three runways. We are simply going to


lose all of that aviation business and the people who travel on those


routes to other European countries. It would be a disaster for the UK.


Is the Thames estuary the answer? It will take decades to build and


that the vast cost. This will be capitalised by the private-sector,


I have no doubt. There are three win-win Win Crew murkier. Building


at Heathrow is not an option. This is a -- the best environmental


option for it airport expansion in the south-east. Secondly, it will -


- sustain London and the south-east as an international centre. Third,


it will maintain our leadership of the aviation sector. It will take


time, but it is the best option. win-win-Winup deal. Not in the


slightest, this is a fantasy for Boris. It is not really a workable


solution. We are certainly going to stay opposed to it. Most of the


Conservatives I've spoken to have been as surprised by the sleek out


of Number Ten. -- this league. They have been saying they are against


it. It is not the right place from an environmental perspective. It is


very damaging. Whether you look at the animal life or carbon dioxide.


It is almost right next to the SS Montgomerie, a sunken Liberty ship


with over 3,000 tonnes of munitions. If that explodes, it will be


devastating to the whole area. You would not build a new airport quite


next we ship that might explode. This is far off reality? The Lib


Dems won't let this happen even if Nick Clegg allows the consultation


to go ahead. The Department of Transport has been dedicated to the


expansion of Heathrow and Stansted for the last 50 years. They are a


prisoner of the vested interests, particularly the airlines and the


operators. It is time for new thinking because Heathrow is not a


sustainable option in the long term if we are going to remain in this.


It is another Sujit vantage to developing the Thames estuary which


may or may not be Boris Island. We will wait and see. Her or Bernard


Ireland! Thank you very much. I am not worthy. But the economic


regeneration of the Thames estuary has been a great challenge facing


successive governments for decades. This is the great opportunity for a


new airport to lead the regeneration of the Thames estuary.


Do we need a new airport? The country's natural demand for air


travel is set to expand to 260 million passengers a year. There is


still capacity around a number of airports. We should not focus on


just the south-east. As planes become bigger and bigger, you can


fit more passengers on without having to build new runways or new


terminals and having all of the damage that involves. It is not


needed. They are run much better things we can do with that money to


improve our connectivity. Let's connect ports with high-speed rail


so we can move freight that way. This is simply a fantasy. Borrowers


will talk about it quite a bit until the elections and then it


will go very quiet. -- Boris will talk. That is rubbish. Thank you


boats. Iain Duncan Smith, is this just the stuff dreams are made of


all is the Government considering it? It is an idea that has been


around a long time. We go back to Ted Heath. This sort of thing


should have been... In principle, I think it is a very good idea to see


whether it is feasible both environmentally and financially.


What is clear is Heathrow as an airport, in a modern city the size


of London, is in the wrong place. You would not put an airport there


if you have to. We all accept London will require greater


transport, the question is how you will manage that. The fact that the


chancellor and prime minister have both said let's have a look at that


means it's worth looking at. Is it worth looking at? When I heard


about Boris Island, I thought we were putting him in exile! I


thought Boris Johnson gave the game away on the radio this morning. He


said my mates Dave and George have sorted it out for me. This is all


about the London election. It is all about doing Boris a favour. To


bring it ahead of the aviation strategy, this is not the way to do


things. The Lib Dems are crying foul. This has to be taken with a


massive pinch of salt. What about Heathrow? We saw the case for the


expansion of Heathrow and the Government set its face against


that, but it has set its face against this. They said there


should not be an expansion of capacity in the south-east. If this


is true, it is a massive U-turn anyway because they have set their


face against Heathrow and if they are doing this, I don't know, it is


in chaos. I it is straight forward. It is an idea that is worth looking


at. Her but will it ever happen? There's every possibility it will


providing all of those features stack up. In any big project, the


reality is, as Bernard said earlier, London is one of the big global


cities and yet we have a very diverse area of airports. What does


it do to Heathrow? You have got an airport. There are jobs. You get


nothing but problems right now coming out of Heathrow. You set


your face against that. You guys work for an extended run way which


would cause massive environmental problems. What about the people who


live in the Medway towns? reality of this is that it has to


be taken into consideration. But it is worth thinking about. It is


difficult for people who live near Heathrow, but most people who went


to live venue they were living near a big airport. You don't want to


carry on spreading a big airports. You are spreading the misery.


may be a way of consolidating so it is worth looking at. You guys did


not use your imagination very much. It has been a topsy-turvy week for


Iain Duncan-Smith's welfare group. The Government faced stiff


opposition from the Peers and was defeated in the Lords three times


last week. This week the Government is getting tougher.


The grand old Secretary of State, Ian Duncan-Smith has been marching


his troops up the hill of welfare reform. Last year it total spending


on benefits and pensions was �201 billion. 52 billion of that was


spent on benefits of people of working age. He has come under


attack from the House of Lords. Last week Labour and crossbench


Peers inflicted three separate wounds on the welfare bill,


rejecting plans to limit payments to those with serious illnesses and


to young people. Last night the Cabinet defeated another amendment


from the former paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson on changes to


disability benefits. Disability Living Allowance is being replaced


by the Personal Independence Payment, which involves a more


rigorous assessment. The Government says its plan will cut the


disability costs by 20%. Baroness Grey-Thompson had wanted ministers


to hold trials before replacing the delay, but this proposal was


defeated. But Mr Duncan-Smith is not out of the woods yet, the bill


is back in front of the Lords on Monday when they will debate his


plans for an annual cap. We are now joined by the former


paralympian and crossbench peer, Tanni Grey-Thompson. Welcome to the


Daily Politics. Thank you. Do you believe there are some people are


currently getting DLA that probably do not need it, and there is a case


for a tougher assessment? I think benefit fraud is only 0.5%, so I


think there are probably some people who are pulling the wall and


I think there is a tiny minority of people who are right on the edge.


Figures released on Monday show half a million disabled people


might lose in the transition to the Personal Independence Payment. I


worry about them because we might be making short-term payments, and


that is why I wanted an in depth trial, but by removing it at the


lower rate, we could be pushing them into having much higher care


needs. They could be putting a bigger bill on the NHS. The aim of


saving money might cost us more in the long run and that is a real


worry to me. Since you can get delay without a medical evaluation


and once you get it, you get it effectively forever, why would you


think that fraud is so low? I think it is a complex form to fill in. I


had to fill one in and I have been reassessed, not recently, but a


while ago. Come pennies make money out of helping you. I disagree with


that. That is not a positive way forward. DLA is by no means perfect,


but it helps a huge number of disabled people with the recognised


extra costs of being disabled. Public transport is not great. I


can only drive an automatic car which is more expensive. It costs


disabled people more or to be in work and there is a great deal of


discrimination against disabled people. Delay is kind of buying


people's rights. I would love to be in a position where we do not have


to buy that at all. You have got the Secretary of State here. What


would you like to say to him? it right for disabled people. We


hear an awful lot about the people with the broadest shoulders will


bear the brunt of austerity and cuts and I am not feeling too many


impinge manse and things that I am experiencing. But I am getting


hundreds of e-mails from disabled people and organisations who are


terrified they will be ghettoise and pushed out of society and there


is nowhere for them to go. We need reform, but we have to be convinced


this is the right reform and I do not believe it is. What do you say


to that? First of all the Personal Independence Payment will be making


sure that those who need the benefit, which is based on care and


mobility, they will still remain as criteria. Those who need the


benefit will get it. We will see more people with more severe


conditions get better level of settlements, so people will gain as


well as lose. Do you accept only a small number of people are cheating


the system? There is a different way of looking at this. Fraud


represents a certain amount of money, but there is another area as


well. Because in DLA people get 70% for their lifetime and I never


looked at again and most are never looked at in the first place, what


happens is there has been a whole series of overpayments, roughly


about �600 million. It is a significant amount of money that is


going to people who we think do not need as much or who do not need


that money. Yet others inside DLA are legitimately complaining they


do not get enough to support their care needs and their mobility. The


purpose of the reform, which we are consulting on, will continue to


consult on, are all about saying the balance of this is to make sure


we have a sustainable allowance for people who are disabled. She quite


rightly said there is discrimination and people take a


dim view of people getting benefits, but half of the problem is their


view is there are people who are getting it who should not. Personal


independence payments will be able to say, we have got a system which


is very robust, which will give to people who need the right money and


now you can respect that benefit. That respect will be required and


you can say, I do not mind giving my money because it is going to the


right people. That is the balance. Your response? I would like to ask


about the half-a-million people who might lose out through the process.


What about these have a million people if we really find they are


losing out if they are being discriminated against, if they are


losing their jobs? Will they be allowed to have some support.


point about the half-a-million losing out his we also do not talk


about those who will be gaining from this. Well half-a-million lose


out? If they are not eligible under the criteria. If their condition


changes, if it gets worse, they will get a higher level of payment.


The criteria that we believe that level of people are not necessary


in on DLA, we believe there are others support areas for them. They


may be eligible for that. DLA right now if we do nothing to it is set


to grow to well over 2 million. The cost will spiral. It is already


over 12 billion. It is not being respected. I have one question here


because I have got and the sitting on my left. The last Government


wanted to reform delay and they have an opportunity to support our


reforms. Yet again they voted against them last night not saying


what they would do in their place. The Labour opposition is to decide


whether it is in support of welfare reform or whether it is going to


cop out. We support the case for reform and we have said that. The


public are with you when it comes to tackling fraud, waste, or giving


people benefits who do not need them. But Tanni Grey-Thompson makes


an eloquent case. You go beyond that line and you take help away


from people who desperately need it. I am hearing those fears and


concerns in my surgery. From my own policy perspective, you are a man


of compassion and integrity, how can you possibly take money off


them when people are recovering from cancer, you cannot take a time


limit for that. How can you give them the extra worry of worrying


about their benefits. ESA was a benefit you left behind and you


already allowed for cancer sufferers to have it taken off


completely. We have brought cancer patients in on a number of areas.


You have overturned the Lords. you take ESA and say, we will take


you out on your condition, why can't you do it on every other


condition? It is different. Cancer takes people out of the workplace


and give them lots of extra costs. Car parking, the hospital, the


stress. That is over the line. would love to let us continue, but


we have got Prime Minister's Questions and thank you to Tanni


Grey-Thompson for joining us. You through a little fire into our


studio, come back again. Spare a thought for the poor old


Education Secretary. First he suggests an ace and should give the


Queen and new royal yacht to lift our spirits. But then he should bat


said it should be privately funded. Then he finds out his plan to send


a copy of the Ken Jones Bible with a forward by himself to every


school and the country has fallen by the wayside as well. He had to


find private funding for that. Michael, if you are watching, there


is one thing the Queen and every school in the country needs, a


Daily Politics mug. If you are clever enough you could win 23,000


of these and send one to every school in the country. That would


take some time. We have only got about 10. Is he sending these


Bibles to everybody who can pay for a job? Everyone can pray they will


never have a Labour Government again. We will remind you how to


enter in a minute, but let's see if Cynthia Diane pain. 193. The pain


# The only way is up, baby, you and me now. # We have been invaded by


some people who we hope to be removing very shortly.


# You had to sneak into my room just to read my diary. # For a


stock # Every time I see you, something happens to me.


Like a chain reaction, between you and me.


My heart starts missing a beat every time. #.


How youthful those politicians looked in that film. To be in with


a chance of winning a Daily Politics Macca centre answer to our


It is coming up to midday, let's take a look at Big Ben. It is a


very gloomy day in London. There is a good Scottish word for that.


does that mean? Yes, Prime Minister's questions is on its way


and that is not all. Nick Robinson is here. We will do it with


subtitles in future. That should happen every week. I am pretty sure


Mr Miliband will agree with that. PM queues is a test of his


leadership. The year has been defined by the questions about his


leadership. But it was just before Christmas when I got some flak from


people in the Labour Party because I suggested he had had a rough time.


That was the moment in which people in his own party started to say


they were worried. I think he wants to get back to good, solid, raising


the issue questions. I suspect his advisers will say keep it low-key.


It is about not losing, but the intriguing question for Cameron is


does he try and tease him about Labour's economic policy or do the


Tories take the view it might be working for Labour and avoid it


This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others


and I shall have further such meetings later today. The prime


minister will be aware of the very strong uptake of Academy Schools in


Gloucester, but is he aware of the enormous differences and funding


which put Stowe School is at the bottom of the league table in terms


of the lax a funding? I welcome the Government's move towards a


national funding formula, but will he look at the serious situation in


Gloucester in regards to those schools? Who my honourable friend


is quite right, we need to sort out this problem even before looking at


national funding formula. It is a funding formula we inherited and I


believe it is flawed and that is why we are reforming it. The


Secretary of State has met with Academy heads in his constituency


and will discuss with him how we can deal with this problem. The


growing evidence is that Academy Schools are not just good for the


pupils who go, but by raising standards and aspirations in those


areas, they are raising the standards of all schools.


Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister told us that unemployment would fall in


each year of this Parliament. Today, unemployment rose for the 6th month


in a row. Does he think it has anything to do with his government?


The Government takes absolute responsibility for everything that


happens in our economy and I take responsibility for that. Any


increase in unemployment is disappointing and it is obviously a


tragedy for the person who becomes unemployed and can lead to real


difficulty for that family and that is why we are taking so much action


to help people to get back into work. If you look at the figures


today, it is noteworthy that while the increase in unemployment is


usually unwelcome, there's still an increase in the number of people


employed, another 18,000 people in work. That shows we need more


private sector employment, you need to move further and faster on that


agenda. It is also noteworthy that there's a small decrease in long-


term unemployment and I hope that shows that schemes like the work


programme we are introducing are beginning to have an effect. But we


need them to go further and faster, there's not one ounce of


complacency in this government, we will do everything we can to get


people back to work. Doesn't the Prime Minister understand, when he


boasts about rising employment, it shows how part of touchy is? -- out


of touch. In some parts of London, 100 people are chasing three


vacancies. That is the situation people are facing. Can he confirm


that under his policies, far from things getting better over the


coming year, he expects things to get worse and unemployment to rise


to 2.8 million? Forecasts are no longer set out by the Government,


they are set out by the Independent office of a budget responsibility.


Unlike in his day, these forecasts are not fixed and fiddled by


ministers, they are set out by independent economists. What the


Government's responsibility is to do everything we can to help people


into work. That is why we have the work programme that is helping 3


million people, the youth contract that will get a private sector jobs


for 160,000 young people, that is why we have work experience for


250,000 young people and half of those are off benefits within two


months. That is 20 times better value than the Future Jobs Fund.


There's no boasting about anything. What we have is growth in the


private sector, contraction in the public sector, but Lee need to get


the economy moving and key to that is having low interest rates that


his plans would put at risk. doesn't seem to understand. The


reason the OBR figures matter is that they show over the next year,


unemployment will get worse not better on his policies. Nothing he


can say can deny that. That long list of policies, according to the


OBR, will make no difference. Let's talk about young people. In the


last year, can he confirm that we have now 147,000 young people out


of work for more than six months? That is double what it was a year


ago. An increase of 100 to descend. Why has he allowed it to happen? --


102%. Her over the last year, unemployment amongst young people,


measured by the Independent Labour Organisation, the proper way of


measuring, is up by 7%. It is not the 40% increase we had under


Labour, but it is far too high. We need to help those young people


into work and that is what our programmes are doing. Let me make


this point because it's important. There's a fundamental difference


between the way this government measures youth unemployment and the


way the last government did. This is important. His government


counted young people who were on jobseeker's allowance but in any


form the scheme as not unemployed. This government is saying until you


get a permanent job, we will measure you as unemployed. That is


not complacent, that is frank and straightforward and what we never


got from them. It really is back to the 1980s. A Tory government... A


A Tory government blaming unemployment on the figures. No


wonder he has rehired Lord Young! The employment secretary in the


1980s. On long-term youth unemployment, he's wrong on the


facts. Long-term youth unemployment, which has that scarring effect on


young people, desperate for work, out of work for more than six


months, that has doubled. That has doubled in the last year. However


much he twists and turns, can he confirm that central fact? It is up


by 102% -- 102%. Love I have explained the figures. If you look


at the number of young people out of work for longer than 12 months,


that number is starting to go down. That is not nearly enough, far more


needs to be done, but that is what the work programme is all about and


that is what he needs to understand. There's a context. If we want to


get unemployment Dell, we have to keep interest rates down and we've


had own reminder on what happens if you don't have a plan to get on top


of your deficit and get your economy moving. That is what he


doesn't understand. What you have is a government that is absolutely


clear about its plans and an opposition that has absolutely no


idea. Last year he marched against the cuts, now he tells us he


accepts the cuts. And yet... And yet today he is telling us he wants


to spend more and borrow more. He is so incompetent, he can't even do


a U-turn properly. Her he is simply... Mr Speaker... The House


must try to calm down. Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, I know he doesn't want


to talk about the young people out of work in this country, because


he's embarrassed by his record on what is happening, but he owes it


to them to tell the facts as they are about what is happening to them.


I come back to this point. The prime minister said that long-term


unemployment among young people is going down. It is not going down,


it is going up. He mentions the work programme. He introduced it


with great fanfare in June. What has happened to long-term youth


unemployment since he introduced his work programme? Let me give him


the figures. I will give him the figures exactly. There are far too


many young people who are long-term unemployed. There are 246,000 young


people unemployed for over a year. That is down 11,000 on the last


quarter. That is not enough, we want to do more, but it is because


we have the work programme, because we have used contract, because we


have 400,000 apprenticeships, because we have got 250,000 people


going into work experience, we make a difference. Why doesn't he come


up with something constructive instead of knocking everybody down?


I will tell him what he should do. Yeah. Yeah. Because wide is


unemployment rising? Why is unemployment rising? Because he is


cutting too far and too fast. It is his record, however much he twists


and turns, it is his record, that is why unemployment is going up.


What we have is women's unemployment are the highest since


the last time there was a Tory government. Youth unemployment the


highest since the last time there was a Tory government. And


unemployment since the last time there was a Tory government. Isn't


the truth, the defining characteristic of this government


is it stands aside and does nothing as thousands of people find


themselves unemployed? Mr Speaker, to be Fairford -- to the honourable


gentleman, he does actually changed course every day. He is an expert


in changing course. Labour's Shadow Chancellor said two days ago, my


starting point is we are going to have to keep all the cuts. That is


what he said. Then Labour's deputy leader said yesterday, we are not


accepting the Government's cuts, we are totally opposed and we are


fighting them. He is flip-flopping on a daily basis. No wonder


Labour's founder... At a time when the nation needs strong political


leadership, Labour offers nothing. The Pru prisoners pragmatic


approach to wealth and Enterprise have all gone. Instead there is a


vision and leadership vacuum. What total adequate to estimate of what


My right honourable friend will be aware that I recently raised the


case of my late constituent Mr Martin Pratt with the Armed forces


Minister, as also he will be aware of the excellent fighting fit


report written by my honourable friend the member for South West


Wiltshire dealing with post- traumatic stress disorder among


veterans. Due to the stigma often attached to mental illness, many


veterans wait years before seeking help. I hope my right honourable


friend can tell the House what plans the Government has in this


area. My honourable friend is entirely right to raise this issue.


The mental scars that people who served this country often receive


can be every bit as deep as the physical scars and it is not


something we have always accepted and understood properly. That is


why the report by my honourable friend for the member for South


West Wiltshire is so important, as someone with real experience and


understanding of this. We have implemented almost all of its


recommendations, we have launched the 24 hour helpline, we are


introducing the enhanced mental health assessments for service


personnel and the veteran month -- veterans information service we


hope to get up and running in April this year. Her with a tragic


accident involving the cruise ship Costa Concordia, and with the 50


plus liners the same size or bigger which will visit the dock of green


knock on the Clyde in the coming months and years ahead, does the


Prime Minister still think it is the correct decision to close the


Clyde coastguards decision? Good God! Her the case in Italy is


clearly tragic and our hearts should go out of the people who


have lost loved ones, people from countries across the world. We need


to wait and see what the exact cause of the accident was before we


jump to conclusions about any changes in regulations or other


things that need to be changed. If there are changes that need to be


made, including to the issue he raises, we will look at it of


course. The Prime Minister has very kindly undertaken to bring forward


a comprehensive water bill early in the next parliamentary session.


Will he end the uncertainty for water customers and industry alike


by publishing the draft Bill now so we can have proper parliamentary


scrutiny? High can say to right honourable friend that we will be


publishing a draft water bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the


coming months. As she knows, there are many important parts to this


water bill can't one part that stands up is the prommers we have


made and the funding we have supplied to help cut water bills in


the south-west from �50 in 20th April 13. This has dresses and


historic unfairness where people have been a south-west felt they


had paid unfair charges to provide clean beaches. In America, six


directors from the bail dealt Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae company


have been taken to court for gross mismanagement. The FSA in this


country say they can't bring enforcement action against the


Royal Bank of Scotland because they don't have legal tender. Will the


prime minister consider introducing a legal sanction of strict


liability into his draft Financial Services Bill so those responsible


for the banking crisis will be taken to task? After all, we are


all in this together. honourable gentleman makes an


important point and the whole point about overhauling the financial


services regulation is it gives us the opportunity to look around the


rest of the world, see who has tougher penalties and work out


whether we can introduce them to our system. That is why we will


introduce this bill with a major overhaul of how the FSA and the


Bank of England work and deal with the regulars Tree system that was


A year ago the Prime Minister told me the reason for the new health


bill was, simply this country does not have a European levels of


success. Now we know that that is not the case, will the Prime


Minister pleased shelf the disruptive Bill which is struggling


in another place, go back to the coalition agreement and built up


from there? I have great respect for my honourable friend, but I do


not agree with him. With the help build a huge exercise was


undertaken which the Deputy Prime Minister and I both played quite a


large role in in listening to health professionals, nurses, to


understand what they most wanted to see in the NHS reform bill and that


is what we are delivering. He says it is not the case we have outcomes


that are less than some parts of Europe. I am afraid it is the case.


In some cases we could be doing a lot better. To argue the case the


NHS simply needs money and not reform, I do not believe is right.


In the north-east unemployment amongst women is rising at twice


the rate of men. Where does the Prime Minister think the women's


place is? In the home, the workplace or the JobCentre? I want


to see many more women have the opportunity to be in the workplace.


What you have seen in the figures, of course there is a disappointing


increase in unemployment amongst women, but since the election there


are 59,000 more women in work today than there were at the time of the


last election. That is why we are boosting childcare to help women


into work. We are introducing through universal credit support


for all women with childcare for work and by lifting over 1 million


people out of tax, the majority of whom are women, that helps women


enter the workforce. That is what I want to save. Last week, I met a


couple in Redditch who were appalled that a family unless were


getting benefits than they were and they were working full-time


questing knight does he think it is fair? Let me say this about the


benefit cap. We owe it to people who work hard and pay their tactics


to make -- taxes, that it is fair. You would have to earn �35,000 in


order to achieve a certain standard of living and I believe the


benefits cap is fair and that is why we are going to introduce one.


Some of the most vulnerable people in our society, cancer and heart


patients, will be financially penalised as a result of the


measures going through the Lords. Is it any wonder people say it is


the same old Tories and the Tories are the nasty party? I do not


accept what the honourable gentleman says. The whole point


about employment and support allowance is there are two groups.


There are those who cannot work and need help and many people will go


into that group and were received that benefit for us long as they


need it. If you look at what we have said and look at the report,


there will be more cancer sufferers getting benefits and fewer people


facing the face-to-face interview. He shakes his head and should look


at the evidence before asking the question. I was shocked to discover


that mainstream, terrestrial television carries adverts for


bingo at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, 35 hours and 55 minutes each week


is dedicated to live casino and betting Gaming. It has been


classified as Tele shopping. At a time when there are trillions of


pounds worth of personal debt in this country and we are encouraging


people to be moderate in their expectations, with the Prime


Minister protect consumers Colored children and the vulnerable from


this kind of activity? Order, order. The question was too long.


honourable lady raises an important issue about gambling advertisements


on television. I am in favour of the regulation and trying to allow


businesses to get on and succeed. Betting advertising and gambling


programmes were not permitted until the last Government allowed them.


They are regulated by Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority.


But it is not just a question of regulation, it is the question of


responsibility for those companies concerned. If you enjoy watching a


football match, you see quite aggressive advertisements on telly.


The companies have to ask themselves whether they are


behaving responsibly. On the subject of gambling in Hackney we


have 90 bookies, three times the national average. Will the Prime


Minister listened to the debate that took place yesterday and


instruct his ministers to support the private member's bill before


the size which would give local authorities more planning powers


over bookies? I will look at the debate she mentions and look at the


ideas in it. We are all for giving local authorities greater powers.


Will the Prime Minister agree with me that in this 30th ear of the


Falklands War or the actions of the Argentine Government are wholly


deplorable? Will he remind Argentina that they lost the


Falklands War and it is up to the Falkland dares to determine their


own future? First of all, it is very important we commemorate the


Falklands War on this year, the 30th anniversary, and we remember


all those who served and those who gave their lives and did not come


home, we should remember all those people this year. We are clear that


the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people


themselves. If they want to remain part of the United Kingdom, they


should be able to do so. I am determined we should make sure our


defence and everything else is in order, which is why the National


Security Council discussed this issue yesterday. We support the


Falkland Islanders right to self- determination. But the Argentinians


have been saying I would argue is far more like colonialism. These


people want to remain British and the Argentinians want them to do


something else. Hear, hear. We have seen a rise in unemployment to data


over 3000 in my constituency, a 16% increase in the past year. When


does the Prime Minister expect unemployment to start falling?


forecast is set out by the Office of Budget Responsibility and it is


for them to make the forecasts and they expect unemployment to be


lower at the end of this Parliament and for implore met -- and plummet


to be higher. We are doing everything we can to help the


constituents into work. The apprenticeship schemes, the work


experience, and we are keeping interest rates low so that our


economy can grow. Closed questions. Number 10, Mr Speaker.


honourable lady raises an important issue about the working time


directive and its effect on the NHS. Nobody wants to go back to the time


when junior doctors were working 90 hours a week, but we have all seen


in our constituencies that the working time directive has had a


bad effect on the NHS and particularly on training programmes


for junior doctors and that is why the Government is discussing this


issue with the Royal Colleges and others to make sure we have


flexibility. I thanked the Prime Minister for his answer. Does he


share widespread concerns coming from the medical profession that


whilst we wait for lengthy EU processes, where it has not been


decided what they are going to discuss, we are seeing a critical


undermining of junior doctors? We are seeing a roach and of the Peter


professionalism and putting patient care and patient lives at risks.


What steps can he take to make sure we sort this out quickly? This has


got nothing to do with the single market. This has got to do with how


we run our health service and particularly when it has an effect


on training programmes, often in rural areas where we do not have


large hospitals. What we can do is the Health and the business


secretaries are committed to revising the directed at an EU


level to deliver the best, safest service to patients and will work


urgently to bring that about. Denis MacShane. Is the Prime


Minister aware that every single medical problem at the hospital in


my constituency is related to weekend working by exhausted at


junior doctors? Far from this director have been a problem, it is


a solution to the fact we have had far too many exhausted doctors in


charge of patients. I do not doubt, well, in fact, I do doubt, what the


honourable gentleman says. I cannot believe every problem is down to


that. The local hospital in my constituency in Chipping Norton was


threatened with massive downgrading partly because of the working-time


directive because they could not supply the training modules for


junior doctors. This seemed a classic example of the card being


put in front of the horse. We have to determine what hospitals we want


and then thinking about the working models. I welcome the announcement


of closer co-operation between financial centres in Hong Kong and


London. Does the Prime Minister agree this helps highlight the


opportunities for trade in Asia and the importance of promoting this


country to the commitment of free trade and showing this country is


open for business? My honourable friend makes a vitally important


point. Clearly the markets in Europe are going to be difficult.


We are seeing a freezing effect across the European Union, but the


rest of the world economy is growing and we need to get out


there and sell to those markets. Exports to China were up by 20%


last year. The arrangement the Chancellor has come to, which will


make London one of the great trading centres, is one important


breakthrough. Could the Prime Minister clarify what the coalition


Government's position is on inheritance tax? In my constituency


we have received, if the Tories were governing alone, it would be


cutting inheritance for millionaires and they would pay for


it by reducing public spending even more, is that true? Deposition on


inheritance tax is covered in the coalition agreement. Last week on


the Syrian border I met Syrian army deserters who refused to kill their


fellow-citizens and a small child winded by that regime. If things


there are to get better, the world must stop selling arms to Syria.


What evidence does the Prime Minister have of the country


shipping arms to that regime? honourable gentleman makes an


important point. We need to lead the way in making sure we tighten


the sanctions, the travel bans, the asset freezing on Syria. In terms


of who is helping the Syrian Government to a press their people,


there is growing evidence Iran is providing a huge amount of support


and there have been interceptions of shipments by Turkey which is


interesting in this regard. Hizbollah is also an organisation


that is standing up and supporting this wretched time into his killing


so many of his own people. -- erected tyrant. There are reports


from international aid agencies saying the crisis in the Horn of


Africa was made worse by the delay in the international community


responding. There is a similar crisis now threatening in West


Africa. What will the Government do to ensure a speedy international


response? He raises a very important point. My understanding


is the British aid effort was very swift at getting aid into the Horn


of Africa and was leading the pack in terms of the extent of the


response, but also the speed at which it went in. The Horn of


Africa is very difficult to deliver aid to, not least because of the


control of Al-Shabab, a terrorist organisation, in large parts of


Somalia. I will make sure we learnt any lessons. On 26th October I


raised the case of my constituent who was killed outside her home by


a driver under the influence of drugs. The Prime Minister met the


family to talk about the case to change the law so we can deal with


drug driving. Can he update the House on the progress? I pay


tribute to the work my honourable friend is carrying out on this


issue. It is important we take the issue of drug driving seriously. We


are committed to making the drug- testing equipment available for use


as soon as possible in police stations. The Casey is making that


you need an equivalent law to drink driving is a strong one and we are


examining its and we need to look at whether there will be an


opportunity in the second legislative session to take forward


this opera to edit. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that


yesterday's ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that Abu


Qatada cannot be deported? Will he agree to initiate all-party


discussions focused not on rhetoric about ripping up the Human Rights


Act, but how in practice this court could operate more proportionately,


so that rights are respected, but the safety of the public is always


paramour? I agree wholeheartedly with what the honourable gentleman


is saying. It is difficult to understand because huge efforts


have been gone to buy the British Government to have deportation with


assurances agreement with Jordan to make sure people would not be


mistreated. In this case the European Court of Human Rights has


found he was not going to be tortured, but they were worried


about the process of the court case in Jordan. A country like Britain


that has got such a long tradition of human rights it should be able


to deport people who mean us harm. We are not just going to have


strong rhetoric about it. I am going to Strasbourg next week to


make the argument that this is a good time to make reforms to the


European Court of Human Rights and make sure it acts in a more


proportional way. On 26th March, 2010, a two-and-a-half year-old boy


it was kidnapped from his home in Cannock Chase and taken to Thailand


by his mother. Six months later his father tracked him down in a remote


village, finding his son could not speak, had his teeth broken and


bruises all over his body. He believes had he not got him back


then, he would have been sold. Each year in the UK, over 500 children


are kidnapped in certain circumstances. With the Prime


Minister meet with me to discuss what the Government can do to help


parents of abducted children alike Joe? My right honourable friend is


right to raise this case. It is an appalling case and any parents


cannot help but be chilled to the bone about what happened to this


poor boy. It is vital we put in place the best possible


arrangements. I very much hope we will be able to legislate for the


National crime agency and make sure it is properly resourced. It is


vitally important when these appalling acts happened we get on


top of them right away. The early effort is vital in saving these


children. When does the Prime Minister expect to be cross-


examined by the Leveson inquiry? Does he not agree that the British


people deserve an answer as to why he appointed one of Rupert market's


top lieutenants, Andy Coulson, to the heart of the British


Government? I will be delighted to appear at the Leveson inquiry


whenever I am invited and I am sure other politicians will have exactly


the same at Bute and I will answer all the questions when it happens.


It is good to see the honourable gentleman on such good form. I


often say to my children, there is no need to go to the National


History Museum to see a dinosaur, come to the House of canons at


I think that was a joke from the Prime Minister! Ed Miliband used


all of his questions on the unemployment figures out today. He


kept it quite low key, sticking to the facts. That was probably the


tactic of the day given the controversy around his leadership


at the moment. We are going to hear what you told us first.


The vast majority of e-mails were about unemployment and the


discussion between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the


Opposition. The argument was a score draw, although Ed Miliband


saying it is back to the 1980s, he has a point. Matthew, better from


Ed Miliband, unemployment, particularly long-term youth


unemployment, is solid ground. Damien from Manchester, Ed Miliband


moans that unemployment is rising but it was always tight. It was


just his government hid the figures. Patrick, I am getting frustrated by


V debate on youth unemployment. I'd turned 27 and have been out of work


for nine months and there's no support for people like me. Colin


in rugby, I can't believe David Cameron is trying to play with


statistics to dampen the impact of the latest unemployment figures.


Cuts to public spending will result in job losses. Why does he feel the


need to hide behind excuses? And about Ed Miliband, pointing out the


Labour Party... OK. Nick, there seemed to be a


change of tactics from the Leader of the Opposition today, not going


for the scripted one-liners he hopes you will pick up for the news.


Let's stick with the facts, let's grill on Lomu -- unemployment and


keep it low-key. That's right, low key and factual and something


people care passionately about, and about something he cares


passionately about and he knows unemployment is likely to rise in


the next year. Also striking, and we see it better in here, we have


an enormous green, watched the other bed next to him. Silent. A


lot of nodding and shaking of heads, but the actions he took in the past,


which the Prime Minister described as like watching a man with to read


syndrome, and then apologised, he was not shouting out, flatlining


about the economy, he was quite different. There was a deliberate


attempt to take some of the steam out of it. But David Cameron had up


his sleeve a joke at Ed Miliband's expense about not even being able


to conduct any do you turn. I think the Labour leadership will think


they made a bit of progress, but there is a long way to go. Could


you sum up what Labour policy is towards the cuts? We said it was


wrong to go too far and too fast and that remains our position. But


the Government have set a course, they have set spending plans for


this Parliament and we are seeing the consequences of those plans.


are -- we are seeing growth stagnating, unemployment going up.


We have to deal with the consequences of those plans. We


will have to face up to difficulties. It is jobs. What Ed


Balls and Ed Miliband said last weekend about paid in the public


sector, it is basically about jobs, preserving as many jobs as possible.


Labour will make jobs our top priority this year. Everything we


do has to be about jobs because this is the Government's big


failure. They haven't grasped what is happening out there to places


like my constituency where I have parents and grandparents, every


week, saying what are we going to do for my son and daughter? That is


what we are experiencing in our constituencies and that is what we


will push away on all year. Let me ask you again, what is Labour's


policy towards cuts now? By just explained that. I will go further.


You didn't come up with respect. You went on about jobs, it would be


surprising if the Labour opposition at a time of 2.6 million unemployed


did not go on about jobs, that is different from a policy. What is


your policy? A just said. -- I just said. Ed Miliband said they should


change course. We have set out a plan for a banker's bonus tax to


pay for jobs for young people. That is the policy we have on the table.


It is a costed policy. They were wrong to scrap our Future Jobs Fund,


they were wrong to scrap the education maintenance allowance.


They are now desperately trying to scrabble around to deal with what


they are facing. You would not reinstate them? We said they were


wrong to do it. Will you reinstate them? They have set a spending plan


for this Parliament so what can we do? We can't say we won the world


we wanted a couple of years ago. They have put these plans in place


and damaged young people's job prospects. We have to face up to


that reality. What was the change in policy announced by Mr Balls and


Mr Miliband last week? It was about public sector pay. They said that


although it is difficult, it is the right policy because that enables


us to ensure as many people as possible are helped to stay in jobs


in the public sector. Right now, this is the problem. Acceptance of


the pay freeze. Accepting a pay freeze was the change? That was it?


We have to face up to the mess at George Osborne is creating. That


was it, that was the one change? That was the change. That's all?


are accepting the circumstances the Government has created. We have to


work in the real world, the world George Osborne has created. At the


moment, the Government is borrowing about �125 billion a year, but


you're urging it to borrow more because you think the cuts are too


fast and too deep. But in 2015, if you were to meet, even though the


Government's policy is to win the election, due even if that policy


is not a massive success, borrowing will be less than 102 �5 billion.


But you are saying you were not -- would not borrow any Mawtus --


reinstate some of the plans. You were borrowed more now from a


higher plateau. If I could get a word in! Let me explain. You have


had a lot of words! They've made the wrong choice. No, no! I am


trying to lay out the choices so that our views as can see what your


answers are. Answer the question. The choices they made were the


wrong choices. I will argue strongly they were false economy.


If you cut EMA, the money we spent on DNA... That is not the answer.


The few cut EMA, you have to give people benefits, you have to


subsidise them to do unproductive things. If you cut the Future Jobs


Fund, you have young people going on to the benefits system. It is a


false economy, the wrong choice. If you cut schools for the future...


will have one more go. At the moment, borrowing is very high but


you want to borrow more. By 2015, borrowing will be less, but use a


borrow more. That is the point. We will not just borrow more money to


fulfil all these promises, we can't do that, that would be


irresponsible. We now have to face up to the world that has been


created by this government, a world of no growth, where the deficit and


borrowing is even higher and a world where more and more are


paying for the cost of failure. I don't understand point. I will


not be a referee! What is interesting about what has happened


this week, and what the Labour Party have found difficult, is


whether to signal their as a significant change in policy or not.


I think Andy Burnham is not only being clear, but he is right that


it actually one thing changed. The shadow Chancellor said the Labour


Party would back a cap on public sector pay if it was a way of


preserving jobs. It was chosen as a signal, if you like, that Labour


understood there were some difficult decisions and that in


addition, he repeated it and said something in his party conference


speech that many people did not notice. He could not pledge to


reverse the coalition's cuts because he didn't know the state of


the public finances. His answer to your question would be wait and see.


We might borrow more, we might not. The reason the Labour Party has got


itself into difficulty, some people behind the scenes have been saying


hugely important speech, changed everything, our attitude is


different, others say we have not changed very much at all and


frankly the Leader of the Opposition seemed to endorse that


view by using the phrase too fast and too much. Let me ask you this,


Iain Duncan Smith. I want to come back to disability payments. The


Macmillan Cancer Support, which has a very well established and highly


regarded charity, estimates that 7,000 cancer patients, too sick to


work, will see their income drop by �94 a week from April. What do you


say to that? It is not correct. Let me explain. Viewers will be


confused. We are talking about the contributory end of this benefit.


This contributory level starts if you have savings of �16,000. When


you reach �10,000, you will start to get the income related, when you


get to �6,000, you are fully on income related benefits. It is not


an absolute like that. People will be sliding into the income related


as they reduce their savings. Vicki point is I think it is right, after


a year in which you have received benefits, we ask you to use some of


your savings because the taxpayer simply can't go on paying money to


people who have savings and don't want to use them. Use some of your


savings and when you get to a level, average savings for British


families of �450. Most people will not be touched by this. With


regards to this, we have done everything Macmillan asked. More


people will go on to the support group if they can't work and the


support group is beyond a contributory point. Macmillan's


research discovered two thirds of cancer patients get a drop of


income simply following the diagnosis. They skip meals to save


money, they are scared of losing their homes. The point about this


is if they don't have the income, they will go straight on to the


income related benefit and if they are too ill to work, which will be


a large number, they will go straight on to the income related


benefits. There is a sliding scale even if they have savings. As you


reduce those savings, you go on to the income related benefits. For


most viewers, this is the real point. If you have savings, after a


year, all we are asking is that you dip into some of those savings and


as you reduce them, then you will go back under the income support.


Frankly, what happens here is that people who made a contribution can


expect to receive a certain amount of support and then at some point


taxpayers need to know it is not an open-ended... We have run out of


time. If Nick Nairn are watching, you will have seen Iain Duncan


Smith's reply. -- if mack Millom are watching. We can post your


reply be viewed the Merlot - We can release youth. NK, ago.


Cross-party talks began yesterday to try to reach a consensus on a


long-term settlement for funding social care in England. At the


moment older people with savings are expected to pay an unlimited


amount towards their own care costs. But many people who moved into care


homes are forced to sell their houses. The journalist Rosie


Boycott saw how the system worked, or failed to work, when her father


developed Alzheimer's and now works for the Alzheimer's Society.


The issue of who should pay for adult, social care has been ignored


for far too long. There are hundreds and thousands of elderly


people suffering from dementia who are simply not getting the kind of


care they should. Unlike being in hospital, being cared for at home


when you have got dementia, means taking care of all sorts of


fundamental, human needs like watching, getting dressed, going to


bed, doing your shopping, getting your food together, going to the


toilet. These are things everybody needs to maintain their dignity.


But at the very moment when an elderly person is feeling most


vulnerable they are being asked to pay huge sums to receive care that


is not even adequate. I know after looking after my dad just how much


care people with dementia needs. As the disease escalates you need more


and more. In bad's is in the end we had round-the-clock carers. The


Bills were getting horrendous. Then he went into a home, which we paid


for us well. He spent his last 18 months there being well cared for.


We were lucky we had the money to be able to do that. But many people


are now paying in excess of �100,000 for poor quality care and


that is only going to get worse as all local authorities are having


their budgets continually carp. This affects us all. If we can keep


people in their homes and look after them, then they do not need


to go into hospital or a care home, so it is a false economy to cut


down on the social care budget. Last summer the deal not Commission


provided the best solution we have seen so far on how to fund adult,


social care, but will the Government really listen? Right now


we do not know. It is good the political parties are coming


together to talk about this issue, but it is vital that people with


dementia deserve the care and respect that we can give them 10


families should not be left to cope with this horrible illness alone.


They should not be punished as well. Rosie Boycott joins us now. You


mentioned the Don not commission and they came up with a good plan.


What are your views on the cap? think the cat that has been


proposed, �35,000, is a reasonable sum. Certainly that would pay for a


lot of care and after that you do not need to be penalised. But there


are so many problems with care. One is it should be classed as an


illness. Forgetting to feed yourself or forgetting to get out


of bed is not the social problem, that is a medical problem. Right


from the beginning we are assessing this wrongly. That has always been


the case. It is not just recently. Alzheimer's is on the health and


social care divide because it is a medical, degenerative condition,


but the consequences are you need help with daily living, so you need


social support. That really exposes the cruelty of the current system.


But there are a lot of false economies. The longer you can keep


someone at home, the cheaper it is. I completely agree. I tried to make


a big change. This is by far and away the most urgent public policy


challenge facing the country. The most vulnerable people get wiped


out physically, emotionally and financially by their condition.


Iain Duncan-Smith, let's go to the cap. Is that something you would


like to see? �60,000 had been looked at. That is a different cap.


That was a figure that came out about a cap on head costs. We are


going to consult on this. The deal not report is a big breakthrough in


terms of trying to find out what we are going to do about care in the


home, and what will happen if people have to go into care homes.


I am talking to Andrew Lansley at the moment. If we can all coalesce


around there's, figure out the best way forward, economics come into


play, but it is important to see the balance. The economics of this


is incredibly important. Just one week of all dementia patients in


hospital would relieve the NHS of �80 million at a stroke. It is


getting worse, it is so important. We all live longer. It will be like


Sure Start for the end of lives. a consensus lightly? We would all


want to reach some kind of consensus. There had been some


reports that they were looking at a bigger cap. But �35,000 would be


per person, so it is �75,000 per couple. It would still blow a


massive hole in the savings of my constituents. Let's be realistic


about this. It is definitely a step forward. We should have talks about


it to see if we can come to an agreement. These are all things


that have to be debated. The Government is trying to be as


positive as possible about the report, it is having discussions


with ministers and all-party groups. You have got to do this. It does


not have any respect of which party you are in. We are all possibly


likely to end up their and our parents as well. It seems


extraordinary that Government after Government takes a football into


the next set of long grass. I will not go over does Coles today, but


for older people they are looking to us to raise our game and to


agree to do something. Have you dropped the compulsory levy idea?


There is a case to say that care of older people should be provided in


the same way that we provide other support in this country. That's how


we provide the NHS and the benefits we are talking about earlier. What


we are saying is in elderly care, I am not saying I was uniquely right,


but do not rule it out. It is more unfair than saying the most


vulnerable people pay massive amounts towards their care. There


is a suggestion for more public money. They looked at �1.7 billion


a year. We do like to see more of money being put into it? More money


would undoubtedly help, but we need the whole package. People with


Alzheimer's are not asking for any different deal. It is a disability


and it needs careful stock this system is going backwards now, not


forwards. Councils are increasing the charges on people. Whether you


are in the postcode lottery... going to have to stop you.


Someone is shedding in my ear. The National Security Council met this


morning and it talked about nothing but the Falklands. It was the only


matter on the agenda. They know something we do not. There has been


talk around Westminster that Parliament is seen by the public as


closed and unwelcoming. How preposterous. How anyone can find


the armed police and the airport security scanner and welcoming is


beyond me. What do they want? Bean bags and a hug from MPs. The


portcullis logo that has been plastered all over Parliament for


hundreds of years is being seen as the culprit. Is it an imposing


relic or a harmless tradition? We sent Adam out for a rebrand.


For centuries the portcullis has graced pretty much everything


around here, from the buildings to the uniforms of the staff. But this


week an adviser to the Speaker said that the legendary logo is putting


up the public. The symbol is hardly a welcoming one. I know it has a


great history, but it is seen by the public as a gate to keep people


out. One MP was astonished. I was astounded about how you described


the portcullis and our history. Frankly, is your aim Disney on the


Thames? I do not understand where you think you are taking us. Let's


put this to the test with some visitors from abroad outside the


Parliamentary Bookshop. Would this put people off? No, I'm here. I am


visiting and I am loving it. You do not find this scary? Are you trying


to get me to say it is scary? looks like a prison, super imposed


with the Crown. It is not like a symbolic thing with power for the


parliament. Should they change it? Definitely. Change it to what? We


asked this designer for some advice. One of the most fantastic bits of


the Palace of Westminster is Big Ben. I know it is used on all the


postcards on Oxford Street to talk about London, but that is the focus


of Parliament for most people. It has time. If you set that alongside


the portcullis and you build the Palace of Westminster into it as


well, it becomes less dominant, but it starts to work as an identity


and it becomes approachable. Nice idea, but the parliamentary


authorities say there are no plans for a rebrand. It looks like a new


logo is a no-go. It is the way he tells them. This


suggestion has come from the speakers Advisory Council on Public


Engagement. Given that the Speaker redesigned his own crest with a


rainbow flag and a ladder, do you think you should be allowed


anywhere near rebranding? These repressions never work. Did the oak


tree work? And consider near four Royal Mail? The portcullis is great


and Parliament is very open. A you need a new logo? No, and there is


not an organisation out there who would not die to have a logo as


recognised as that. It is ridiculous. Do you need to make


Parliament a bit more welcoming? do hope people will come in, but


that is not the reason why they might not come. I think the glass


in the gallery is a bit too much. was against that, but that was


because of terrorism. Check people properly when they come in. I was


never in favour of that. agreement after 90 minutes! Time to


give you the answer to our guess the Year competition. It is as Ed


Miliband said, back to the 80s, the answer is 1988. That is all for


today. That due to our guests, Iain Duncan-Smith and Andy Burnham. See


Download Subtitles