17/10/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning. This is the Daily Politics. Today's top story:

Unemployment is down, falling by 50,000 between June and August to

just over 2.5 million. Charities claim disabled people will be worse

off when the government introduces its new Universal Credit next year.

We'll talk to Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband square up for the first Prime

Minister's Questions for a month - we'll have all the action live from

noon. And are our cinemas ripping off

customers with the price of popcorn? We'll hear from George

Galloway, who's leading a one-man crusade to cut the cost of a night

out at the flicks. What else has he got to do? Well,

it is a very important role. All that to come before one o'clock.

It's almost as exciting as the Great British Bake-off final!

What's that? Something to do with baking cakes. Actually, it's more

exciting. And with us for the duration, we're joined by the baked

alaska and strawberry cheesecake of British politics - Jim Murphy,

Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary, and Steve Webb, the Liberal

Democrat work and pensions minister. Which is which, I have no idea.

Welcome to you both. Let's kick off with the latest unemployment

figures, which showed another fall in the number of people out of work.

The number of people out of work now stands at just over 2.5 million.

That is the count of people claiming unemployment benefit. Are

you surprised that total employment in this country, despite the fact

that the economy has barely grown at all since this coalition came to

power, is now higher than it was in the boom year of the Labour

government? There are some peculiarities about this recession

and double-dip recession we are in. There are issues about inflation

and employment, the number of people in disability benefit. Any

reduction in unemployment is good news for those who have found work.

But it is not so enjoyable for folk who have yet to find work to hear

politicians are celebrating the cut in unemployment. My worry is that

the folk who have been at work for longest are getting -- the folk who

are out of work for longest are getting further away from a job.

People get stuck at in benefits. We are not going back to the '80s. It

was not your fault, you were not in government then. In the '80s,

people got lost out of work. And they stayed on benefit, and being

on benefits ended up becoming the norm in the family. I worry that

behind the headlines, there is a big increase in the number of

people who are long-term unemployed. When you have to 0.5 million

unemployed in the Labour Force Survey, there are always bad trends

within that for the long-term unemployed. The official growth

figures can be revised as well. Given that there is no growth, and

88,000 increase in full-time employment is remarkable. 170,000

fewer people on out-of-work benefits, and youth unemployment

down 62,000. There is a substantial number of temporary jobs. That is

better than no jobs, of course. 125,000 are part-time. Of that, we

don't know how many are voluntary and how many involuntary. I am not

here to say this is dreadful news. However, rather than celebrating it,

understanding what is happening inside these figures is complicated.

People who were out of work 12 months ago are not budging. There

is a problem there for all of us. I cannot fix it in opposition, but

these guys have to do more. Let me come to Mr Webb. I put it to you

that the reason why the unemployment figures are better

than they should be, given the overall state of the economy, is

that Labour has become very cheap in this country. Real wages have

not been rising. They have not kept pace with prices, and it is a

bargain to employ people these days. But the price you pay for that is

because real wages are not rising, there is a shortage of demand in

the economy, and that is why it is not growing. Firms, rather than

getting rid of people, are holding on to them through tough times

because they think things will get better. If you thought we were

going to Helen and cut with the economy, you would just sack people.

-- If you thought we were going to hell in a handcart with the economy.

People say, how do you square than number of people in work? These

figures are hot off the press. Firms are keeping people because

they believe there is a point in keeping them, because they can see

things are starting to pick up. there are also keeping them because

they don't need to give them pay rises. The labour market is so weak

that they don't need to give them pay rises, even at a time when

prices have been rising, and at things on which people have to

spend their money, food, fuel, have been rising fast. Headlining for

Asian, which includes food and fuel -- headline inflation has come down.

It is better that we have people in jobs, yes, with modest pay rises,

than in past recessions, when people have shed workers because

they have no confidence in the future. We are all waiting on the

growth figures now. We are. Let's see if it matches Steve's has this

month. Nothing personal, but what I have heard this morning among some

government ministers is that they are almost a uncorking the

champagne. He when you get good news about employment month after

month, it is good news. I thought they weren't allowed to drink

champagne in the age of austerity! Inside these figures, there are

parts of the country where things are just tougher. It is true that

the figures in the north are not great. The North and Scotland are

having tough times. That needs to be addressed. Thank you Fryatt

opening salvo. And now for number two on the list.

Barack Obama has fought back against his Republican rival Mitt

Romney, as the two men step up the fight to be America's next

president. The two men appeared on live TV last night for their second

of three presidential debates. Here's a flavour. The unemployment

rate is 7.8% now. If you take into account people who dropped out of

the workforce, it would be 10.7%. We have not made the progress we

need to make to bring people back to work. That is why we have a five

point plan to bring 12 million jobs in four years. Mitt Romney says he

has a five point plan. He has a one point plan, and that is to make

sure that folks at the top player by a different set of rules. That

has been his philosophy in the private sector, his philosophy as

Governor and as a presidential candidate. Jim Murphy, you were up

till the wee hours? I was, to about 4 o'clock this morning. I fell

asleep at one point, which is maybe why I look so tired. Our make-up

artist has done wonders. You don't look at all tired. But then she has

me to practise on every day. Enough about your make-up, gentlemen. On

President Obama, Heath lost last time in the present debate. Did he

step up to the mark? Is the first debate, he seemed bored. He almost

seemed as though it was bad- mannered of Mitt Romney to

interrupt him, whereas we saw a different Barack Obama last night

and early this morning. We did not see the Obama of the previous

election, where there was a sense of him sitting on a hill with

remarkable optimism. There was a sense of "if I did not do the

things I did for the car industry, Ohio would be in difficulties". He

swung some punches last night. He was winning points. To continue the

boxing analogy, it was not a knockout. It is the third debate

that has significance. This is potentially the decider. When it

comes to the electoral colleges, it is conceivable that the person who

wins the vote does not win the college and does not become

President. The snap poll that was done by CNN did put President Obama

ahead, although not by much. But on issues like jobs, taxes and

healthcare, they put Mitt Romney ahead. What is your feeling about

it now? What strikes me about the first debate is, you have been

president for four years. You have been cloistered and treated with

reverence, and suddenly, you are both candidates in a room. It took

Obama time to adapt to the fact that he is President, but he is now

a candidate. It was a culture shock to go out of that cocoon as

President in to these debates. By the second one, he had worked it

out. He had gone from his lecturing mode to being more of a visionary.

But worthy debates illuminating? Do they really matter? Yes, the Poles

did a job for Mitt Romney last time, so in that sense, they did. But,

not wanting to be too cynical about Nick Clegg's game changing TV

debate, but in the end, the Liberal Democrats did not get as many seats

as they thought. An extra million people voted Liberal Democrat who

had not previously. I met people on the doorstep who said, I like your

guy on the telly last night. So they do make a difference. I don't

like the debates. They will be a common practice now in the UK. And

they will become law that the campaign is about. With Cup finals,

you have the pre-match build-up, the match itself, the post-match

analysis and then straight away, you are back in to a pre-match

warm-up. At least it is what the candidates say and it is not

mediated through third parties. could learn from last night, where

it appeared to be genuinely independent voters who were asking

real questions. It was a better format. The last one was much more

stiff. They were stuck behind the podiums. I liked watching them roam

around more, almost touching confrontational. It is theatre.

Nick Clegg proved at the last debate that he could make himself a

player. He was not just the third party guy in the corner. And

because he did well without notes, he became a player. Ed Miliband

spoke without notes at the conference speech for an hour, so

that will benefit him. I think we can learn from last night's debate

in the UK, with real people asking tough questions, with a Moderator

interrupting when possible. Gerry Ford could not have done it

last night. He could not walk and talk at the same time. I have not

mastered that yet. The universal credit is the

government's flagship Welfare Reform Policy. It has already got

its critics. Today the former Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson

joined them, claiming in a report that up to half a million disabled

people and their families could be left worse off.

He from October, next year, some of the biggest benefits including

income support, income based jobseeker's allowance, housing

benefit and child tax credits will be combined into one universal

credit. The scheme, which the government says is the biggest

welfare reform for 60 years, is the brainchild of Work and Pensions

Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and is intended to make work pay by

insuring that benefits are reduced at a consistent rate as earnings go

up. But Barras Tanni Grey-Thompson has today published a report backed

by several charities, concluding that the group likely to be most

affected his disabled people. It claims that over time, 100,000

families with disabled children stand to lose up to �28 a week, and

116,000 disabled people who work will be at risk of losing �40 a

week. It also says that many disabled people plan to cut back on

heating and food bills because of the changes. But the government

said the report is highly selective and could result in irresponsible

scaremongering. The Department for Work and Pensions insisted that

there will be no cash losers under the universal credit, and said many

disabled adults and children would Yvette get more support than at

present. Here is the welfare minister, defending the reforms.

We are introducing Universal Credit, which has a much simplified system,

which people will be able to understand. Lots of disabled people

will actually benefit, because we are focusing our money particularly

on the most severely disabled. There will be transitional

protection for people so there are no cash loses, it is misleading to

suggest there will be. If someone changes their circumstances, that

is the same as the current position, but there will be cash protection

in the sense that there is transitional protection. I am

concerned the scaremongering and there is going round, because it

will make disabled people unnecessarily frightened.

We are joined by the Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson. The government

has promised that the Universal Credit, which wraps up a number of

benefits that are paid at the moment, will be fairer, Burma,

simpler and there will be less fraud and error. They say no one

will lose out. What do you say? And a report says that up to 450,000

disabled people will be worse off. Disabled children, disabled people

in work, and also severely disabled people who live on their own and

don't have any hope. It is a very challenging time, but it could

actually pressure the cost elsewhere, on to local authorities,

and could actually cost us more in the long run. Could you explain how

in your view these hundred and 50,000 that will lose out, why will

they lose out? Are people could be losing anywhere between 28 and �50

a week. For someone who has a disabled child, the cost of

childcare is incredibly expensive, it makes it difficult for them to

go into work. For someone who is severely disabled who lives on

their own, he uses the money for someone to care for them, they

could lose that. Why would they lose it, though? As I understand it,

the credit was meant to wrap up the existing payments. Why will they

lose the money? They will visit in the changeover, because the severe

disability premium is disappearing. The government says that it pays

for the extra cost of disabled people, that doesn't cover the

additional extra costs of being disabled and living on your own.

Steve Webb, was it the intention of the welfare reforms to make 150,000

disabled people worse off? No, and they will not. First of all,

disabled -- Universal Credit is not about cuts, it is about extra. It

is putting more money... A all chancellors like to spend less

rather than more! But in the context of spending less, defined

over 2 billion extra to help people in low wages, including people in

work, all of us want to see disabled people able to work and

able to do so, this means you will keep more of what you earn. But it

is true for everybody? In is particularly relevant for disabled

people. If you are doing a part- time job, or you're in out of work,

the system is much better. response we have had from 3500

disabled people doesn't match up with that. They're saying the money

they currently get, the dads think they will get it within the new

system. There are lots of things in Universal Credit which are good,

but the reporters four recommendation to a round children,

child care, and we think we can help the government moved to where

they want to be. Your report says that half a million disabled people

will be worse off. But your own department, in its impact

assessment, said that around 800,000 disabled households would

be worse off. That was in November 2011. One question is, if you put a

whole thing in tomorrow, what would it look like? The money spent on

disabled people is the same overall, roughly 800,000 disabled people

will gain. Do people who would get less are protected, so the cash

amount they get is protected, and that is the point. Of course Tanni

Grey-Thompson is right to raise awareness of these issues, but our

worry is people read the headline, disabled people lose cash. Your

money is protected, all of this is coming in over the years, it is

gradual. Let me get this clear. Are you saying that if you are disabled,

whatever the disability, if it qualifies for some form of welfare

payment, when this credit comes in, we will not be worse off? The that

is what I'm saying. The Universal Credit replaces it the other system

of credits. The cash amount will be protected, this is being done over

a series of years. He is live on air, he has said it! That is great

if you're currently on the benefit. It is not there for a new claimant,

people can have the same level of impairment on different levels of

support. Doesn't that always happen in a transition? I just... What do

you say it to the claim that your report looks at various things, and

you may well have found problems with his Universal Credit, I am

sure the government will have to read it carefully, but there seems

to be an element of scaremongering. You talk about disabled people

having to cut back on food, 80% said they would cut the amount on

heating. People will be contemplating suicide. Children's

futures will be redeemed. Have you gone too far? Are that is what

people have said to us. We're at parents saying they would consider

putting their disabled child in two residential care because of the

debt they would slip into. I think it is important that been raised

this with disabled people, so they know the changes are coming. I also

think it is important that we did this research. It is not me sitting

in my office thinking about disabled people, we need to have

facts to go back to the government. Jim Mate, I wanted to hear the

report coming out and the government's response, but just a

clarification, his Labour in favour of Universal Credit? We think it is

a good idea, we were looking at it in government. But importantly, it

is how you then design it. Politicians of all parties have got

to talk and carry this argument Caerphilly, because people watching

today would genuinely be worried. I think Tanni Grey-Thompson has done

a great job at highlighting some real concerns, I think the

government has got to listen to disabled people themselves, from

their perspective. Because there is a genuine worry. The government has

now got to respond. But I assume you have a gut to get together, the

two if you, and compare notes. think people sometimes imagine that

policies are disabled people are made in some sort of ivory tower.

Disabled people scrips are in and out of that department constantly.

-- disabled people's groups. Come back and see us after you have had

the dialogue! Now, for the big news this week. The German Chancellor

Angela Merkel, Greece's favourite politician, she is a bit hacked off

with our dear Prime Minister. According to the magazine Der

Spiegel, she likens David Cameron and our glorious country to be

grumpy Muppets. The ones who are constantly grumbling from the

sidelines! Angela Merkel is apparently fed up with David

Cameron's approach to Europe, the air macro is a surprise! How can we

help? We have just the thing. We have a Daily Politics mug, build,

of course, with freshly brewed it English Breakfast tea. If you want

to get your hands on one of these, all you need to do it is when our

Guess The Year competition. Can you More than 2000 stations will be

closed. The most dramatic effect is When are you taking up residence in

Number 10? I don't know, much too To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your It is coming up to midday, let's

take a look at Big Ben. That can only mean one thing. Prime

Minister's Questions is on its way. Nick Robinson is here. I watched

your love-in with Alex Salmond! I was in the Middle East. People

talked of nothing else. I always thought of you and I ASBOs Muppets!

Which is which? But older! I have two words to you, Andrew Mitchell.

Interesting choice for Ed Miliband. I would be amazed if there wasn't a

reference to him, but I would be surprised if you do it head-on. The

danger for an opposition leader, in a story that is causing a huge

embarrassment to the government, the act of using it up front can

rally the whole of the government benches to support the guide. So

why would be saying, I probably won't some good jokes, make it look

awkward, but if you do it head-on, the danger is that Cameron has to

back him, at the back benches have to back him, in a sense it makes it

harder. Curiously, sometimes when you are faced with an open goal, it

is more to the got to know where to put the ball! But it is not just

Labour, even a former Tory whip was having a go. My Right Honourable

Friend, who I might say is sorely missed as Chief Whip,... Could he

give an assurance to my constituentss in its field that

services will not be damaged by these changes, and bought to the

point, that stations like Lichfield Trent Valley, badly in need of

improvement for disabled access, one might find that any new works

are delayed as a consequence? we see no delays in investment, I'm

always grateful to my honourable friend, who is always trying to be

helpful. There have been various reports

that there is a larger number of cabinet ministers are unhappy that

Andrew Mitchell is still on the front bench, still in his job as

chief whip. Can you corroborate that? There is certainly a number

of Cabinet ministers who were amazed he was not fired, and pick

anybody else and had done the same thing would have been out. There

are others who were not urging the Prime Minister to fire him, but

cannot see how he gets away from this story and cannot see how the

conversation goes when he has to halt in the Tory MP and say, you

have to behave well in public, you know! My sense is that the Prime

Minister has decided he will not give his party's opponents are

scalp now. The interesting question is whether, in a few months' time,

whether the Prime Minister might start to think again about whether

there is not an important shift he needs to make. But this was the one

reshuffle - he has only had one reshuffle - this was the one man to

take them through to the next election. It would be obvious, but

what government stranding his do it after a quiet time, Boxing Day... I

am not saying that I know anything, but I get the sense that they will

not let Mitchell go now, but they know he is not necessarily

guaranteed to be in his job till the next election. He hasn't got

that much support in the back benches, or even the front benches,

but some Tories are furious for the Police Federation, they believe it

is the Police Federation that has kept it going. In the Times

yesterday, a Labour MP, a fascinating article, siding with

Andrew Mitchell! If you talk to politicians up either side, they

will tell you that the Police Federation is about the fiercest,

most scary Union, although it isn't officially a union, you will ever

face. The Home Secretary's, they had sought to ritually humiliate

them at their conferences. They often sat them in front of a slogan

implying that they are in favour of slashing the police. At these guys

fight tough in -- for their members. There is no doubt in my mind that

the federation think that the public will be bored, may not even

be sympathetic to stories about pay and regulation, but if you talk

about plebs, the public are on your side. So it has cut through!

does. The Police Federation are still locked in a battle about

their own pensions, their own pay and conditions. Some conditions

that an independent report suggested were pretty generous.

we should look to Mr Miliband, and see if he goes for truncal. Why not

find another subject about the We pay tribute to the following.

Sergeant Jonathan coops of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical

Engineers. Captain James Townley of the Royal Engineers and captain

Carl manly of the Royal Marines. Once again, we are reminded of the

immense danger our armed forces operate in top hold our safety and

security. Their families and the whole country should be proud of

their heroic service, and we will always remember them. I am sure the

house will also join me in paying tribute to PC Fiona Bone and PC

Nicola Hughes, who were killed, brutally murdered in the line of

duty on 18th September. The whole country has been shocked and

saddened by the loss of these two young dedicated officers. Our

thoughts are with their families and colleagues at what must be a

very difficult time. I also know the House will join me in sending

our condolences to the family of Malcolm Wicks, who sadly passed

away on 29th September. All sides of this House will remember him as

a real gentleman, a man of integrity and compassion who put

his constituents first and work to cross party lines and was a decent

man. He served the house with great distinction for 20 years and will

be missed by all who knew him. We must also pay tribute to another of

Parliament's great characters. It is hard not to believe that he is

not sitting in front of me, Sir Stuart Bell. He was hugely popular

across the house and was honoured for his services to Parliament. We

will remember him as a passionate and dedicated member of the house,

whose kind us again transcended the political divide. We send our

sympathies to his wife and family. This morning, I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further such

meetings later today. Come ISAs it all honourable and right honourable

members with the Prime Minister's tribute to the members of the armed

forces and police who have died in the service of our country and to

their families. We in this house and the people of Middlesbrough and

Croydon North will miss Sir Stuart Bell and Malcolm Wicks. Last week,

the Prime Minister promised that work would always pay, but this

morning, Baroness Tanni Grey- Thompson and the Children's Society

have revealed that his current plans for universal credit next

year will mean that up to 116,000 disabled people in work could lose

as much as �14 a week. Doesn't it say everything about how this

divisive Prime Minister always stands up for the wrong people,

while at the same time handing huge tax cuts to 800,000 people, nearly

over �1 million a year? He will penalise some of the bravest

strivers in the country. honourable gentleman raises an

extremely serious issue. The money that is going into disability

benefit will not go down under universal credit, it will go up.

The overall amount of money will go from one point �35 billion last

year to �1.45 billion in 2015. Under the plans, both recipients

will lose out unless their circumstances change. All current

recipients are protected by the scheme. This is a choice we have

made that future recipients, we will increase the amount we give to

the most severely disabled children. And there will be a new low amount

for less disabled people. We are increasing the overall amount of

money, focusing on the most disabled. That is the right

approach. May I congratulate the Government on the early

introduction of the adjudicator bill? Farmers in the Third World

and developing country producers desperately need protection from

what have been described by the Competition Commission as bully-boy

tactics of the supermarket buyers. In view of that, could I ask how

quickly it will be before the government introduces this

important measure? We are making progress with introducing this

measure. It is an important measure. It is important to stand up for

farmers so that they get a fair deal from supermarkets. On occasion,

there have been unfair practices, things like retrospective discounts

that have sometimes been proposed. Mr Ed Miliband. I joined the Prime

Minister in paying tribute to the six servicemen that have died since

the House last met. Lance Corporal Dwayne groom of first Battalion

Grenadier Guards, sergeant Gareth Thursby and Private Thomas role of

third Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment, Sergeant Jonathan coops

of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Captain James

Townley of the Court of Royal Engineers and captain Carl manly of

the Royal Marines. They all died heroically serving our country.

They showed bravery and sacrifice, and our condolences go to their

family and friends. I also joined him in pay tribute to PCs Fiona

Bone and Nicola Hughes. They remind us of the dangerous work our police

officers do day in, day out in the line of duty. Fair bet is a great

loss due Greater Manchester Police have -- their death is a loss to

Greater Manchester Police, their communities and their families. I

also thanked the Prime Minister for his generous comments about the two

Labour colleagues we have lost since we last met. Stuart Bell was

the son of a miner and a long- standing member of this house. He

was passionate about European issues and served with distinction

as a Church Commissioner. His death was sudden, his illness diagnosed

just days before he died. The condolences of this side of the

house and the whole house go to his family. And on Malcolm Wicks, he

was one of the deepest thinkers in this house. He was a brilliant

minister. I know from my time as the Energy Secretary what a

brilliant minister he was. He also faced his illness with the utmost

bravery. He knew what was going to happen to him, but carried on

writing, thinking, talking and engaging with the work of this

house. My last conversation with him was before our party conference,

where he talked passionately about politics as he always did. Our

condolences go to his family. The unemployment figures today are

welcome, particularly for youth unemployment. I am sure we all

agree that there are too many people still looking for work, and

the number of people out of work for a long period over a year

remain stubbornly high. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he

believes the fall in unemployment is not yet been matched by the

figure for long-term unemployment? I thank the right honourable

gentleman for his generous remarks about those who have fallen, those

brave police officers and the colleagues we have lost. In terms

of the unemployment figures, this is a good piece of news that should

be welcomed. A number of different things are happening. Employment is

up by 212,000 this quarter. Unemployment is down by 50,000. The

claimant count has fallen by 4000. Since the election, that means

there are some 170,000 fewer people on out-of-work benefits. These

figures show that there are more women in work than at any time in

our history. The overall level of employment is now above where it

was before the crash in 2008. We still have huge economic challenges

to meet. We are in a global race. We need to make a set of reforms in

our country to education, welfare and the private sector, but this is

positive news. Unemployment is still too high, partly because of

the increase in unemployment that took place at the time of the crash.

But we need to do more to deal with long-term unemployment, and that is

why the work programme has helped thousands of people already. We are

prepared to spend up to �14,000 on one individual long-term unemployed

person to get them back into work. We do have the measures in place to

tackle this scourge. withstanding that, youth

unemployment, long-term unemployment and long-term youth

unemployment are all higher than when he came to office. On the

particular issue about long-term youth unemployment, he cut

attributed to the craft are happened four years ago, because it

has been rising over the last 18 months. It remains a big concern.

The number of people out of work for more than a year is continuing

to rise. Does he agree that the longer young people remain out of

work, the greater the damage not just now, but to their long-term

prospects and the greater the damage to our economy? Of course he

is right. The longer people are out of work, the worse for them and the

economy. That is why we have the youth contract and the work

programme, the biggest back-to-work programme since the war. He

mentions the problem of long-term unemployment. In the last two years

of the last Labour government, long-term unemployment almost

doubled, so we should hear about that before we get a lecture. In

terms of helping young people, under this Government, 900,000

people have started apprenticeships. We are backing apprenticeship

schemes and are reforming the school and welfare system so that

it pays for people to get jobs. We face enormous economic challenges.

We have to rebalance our economy. The state sector was to be, the

private sector was too small. Since the election, 1 million new private

sector jobs have happened, which makes up for the loss of jobs in

the state sector. We have a huge amount more to do - reform welfare,

reform schools, boost the private sector and Britain can be a winner

in the global race. On long-term unemployment, there are more people

out of work for longer than at any time for two decades. That is

happening on his watch. Let me turn to one group who are losing their

jobs as a result of government policy. A year ago, he told me a

"there is no reason for there to be fewer frontline police officers".

Can he tell the House how many frontline police officers have lost

their jobs since the election? percentage of officers on frontline

duties has gone up. Frankly, who weather won the last election was

going to have to reduce police budgets. They were committed to

reducing police budgets. We have had to reduce police budgets. We

have increased the percentage because we have cut paperwork and

taken difficult decisions about pay and allowances. It is remarkable

that while the percentage of officers on the frontline is up,

crime is down. I really hope, just for once, we would get a straight

answer. All the Prime Minister needs to do, they were like this -

all the Prime Minister needs to do is take a leaf out of the Police

Minister's book. On Monday, he told the House the truth. He said there

are 6778 fewer frontline police officers than when he came to power.

I don't think he is going to help. Maybe the part-time Chancellor is

taking over the Home Office. Another promise broken. They are

not just breaking their promise, it is their conduct as well. This is

what the mayor of London said. order. It will just take longer to

get in a backbenchers who wish to participate, as opposed to shouting

and screaming in a juvenile fashion, because I will have to extend the

session. The drop the -- the leader of the opposition will be heard,

and the Prime Minister will be heard. This is what the mayor of

London, his new best mate, said last year at the Conservative Party

conference. "I reckon we need to make it clear that if people swear

at the police, they must expect to be arrested". He says from a

sedentary position that he did not say that. Maybe he will tell us

what he actually did say. According to the official police report, "a

man claiming to be the chief whip called the police plebs and told

them they should know their place, and used other abusive language".

Can the Prime Minister tell us, did the chief whip use those words?

What the Chief Whip did and said were wrong. I am clear about that.

That is why it is important that the Chief Whip apologised. That

apology has been accepted. order. I said a moment ago that the

leader of the opposition must and would be heard. The same goes for

the prime minister. What the Chief Whip did and said were wrong. That

is why it is important that he apologised. That apology has been

accepted by the officer concerned and by the head of the Metropolitan

Police. That is why this Government will get on with the big issues

about helping Britain compete and No straight answers on the Chief

Whip! It is a real issue, abusing a police officer. Just because a

police officer has better manners than the Chief Whip, he doesn't

mean he should keep his job. If a York in a city-centre abused a

police officer, ranting and raving, the chances are they would be

arrested and placed in the back of a police van. And rightly so. The

Prime Minister would be the first in the queue to say it was right.

But whereas it is a night in the cell but then, it is a night at the

Carlton Club for the Chief Whip. Isn't that the clearest case there

could be a total double standards? This apology has been accepted by

the police officer, accepted by the head of the Metropolitan Police, it

is clearly not going to be accepted by the leader of the opposition,

because he doesn't want to talk about what we need to do in this

country to get out deficit down, because he has got no plans. He

doesn't want to talk about building on our record on unemployment, but

he is input -- approach to welfare caps. He wants to discuss these

issues because he has nothing serious to say about the country.

Here is the most extraordinary thing. They say that I practise

class war, and they go around calling people plebs! Can you

believe that? It is good to see the Cabinet in their place come are

supporting him in public, but in the newspapers, what are they

saying in private? His position is untenable, in other words, he is

toast. That is the reality. He is the truth about this government.

What everybody else loses their jobs, the Chief Whip keeps his. If

you are a millionaire, you get a tax cut. If you are everybody else,

Order! Order! I am very worried about your health! You're shouting

in a bizarre manner, calm yourself, They are totally out of touch with

this government, one rule for everybody else. Now we know, he

wrote those questions yesterday, before unemployment fell. He

obviously wasn't listening earlier, so let me remind him. Employment is

up 212,000, that is a success. Unemployment, down a 50,000 of this

quarter. The claimant count down, that is a success. He comes to this

house, he has written out his clever political questions, he

doesn't care what is really Or the! -- order! Mystic Lynn

Over two weeks ago, April Jones was abducted when playing with her

friends in my constituency, a well behaved, quiet town to stop well

Mike honourable friend at the Prime Minister Trinny in paying tribute

to the amazing way in which the people in the town have come

together and committed to the ongoing search for April. I will

certainly join my honourable friend in doing that, I think the whole

country has not only been shocked by these appalling events, but also

the whole country, frankly, has been lifted and incredibly

impressed by the response of this community and everything everybody

has done to help the police, helped the emergency services. We have

seen a whole community come together, not just in grief, but in

action, to help this family. At the energy summit last year, he prized

faithfully he would take action to help people reduce their energy

bills. Can he tell the House and the country how that is going?

have encouraged people to switch, one of the best ways to get your

energy bills down. And I can announce that will be legislating

so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their

companies -- customers. Something Labour didn't do in 13 years.

Closed question, Dr Julian Lewis. know that my honourable friend will

be delighted to know that the answer is yes, we are committed to

retaining an independent nuclear deterrent based on the Trident

missile system, that is why we have continued with the programme to

replace the vanguard scheme of. That is indeed an excellent answer.

Given that apart time nuclear deterrent would be dangerously

destabilising, with the Prime Minister confirm -- would be Prime

Minister confirm that the British Trident successor submarines must

and will operate on the basis of continuous at sea deterrence?

think he is absolutely right to raise this issue. One of the key

elements are the credibility of our deterrent has been the fact it is

continuously at sea. It is something the Royal Navy take

immense pride in, being able to deliver that without a break for so

many years. Having met some of the crews, it is incredibly impressive

what they do. I pay tribute to them up for the service they provide. It

is a key part of our deterrent. a parliamentary answer to my friend

from Wrexham yesterday, the government said, "we remain very

concerned by continuing reports of Rwandan support for the M23 rebels,

who are killing, maiming and creeping in east Congo." so why did

the chief whip authorised the payments of �60 million of British

taxpayers' money to Rwanda as his parting shot on his very last day

as international development secretary? I would like to wish the

honourable gentleman habit that date for yesterday. -- happy

birthday. I'm sorry I wasn't invited! It is a very important

Haydn that he raises. -- important Haydn. Ryan Day is a continuing

success story, a culture that has gone up from genocide and disaster

to being a role model in lifting people out of poverty in Africa. --

Rwandan. I am proud that we have continued to invest in that success,

but we should be proud and firm with the Rwandan regime that we do

not accept that they should be supporting it militias in the Congo

or elsewhere. I have raised this issue personally with the President,

but I believe that investing in Rwanda's success as at an African

country showing you can break the cycle of poverty, is something we

are right to do. A today, the unemployment figures show a

reduction of 62,000 in the number of 16 to 24 year-old out-of-work

for the three months to August, and employment is now at the highest

level since records began in 1971. I'm sure the Prime Minister will

want to commend the economic policies of this government to the

whole house, rather than more borrowing and spending from

opposite. Mark Bent makes an important point, what we need is an

important rebalancing of the economy -- my honourable friend.

That has more than made up for the job losses in the public sector.

But there is more we need to do to tackle youth unemployment, long

term unemployment, but these figures should be welcomed.

constituent of mine loftiest left - - lost his leg in Afghanistan then

lost his disability allowance. The Prime Minister promised to look

after ex-servicemen and women. What has happened? I have insisted on a

special car out for limbless ex- servicemen, they will be separately

looked after through the Ministry of Defence. This house agrees that

it did mean to politics when negative campaigning, designed to

scare vulnerable people, is used. A campaign to save our hospital were

now hospital is not closing is possibly the worst example of that

I have ever seen. But my honourable friend grieve me that Labour's

Campaign in Corby is a disgrace? -- was my honourable friend agree with

me? He is entirely right. A Labour MP after a Labour MP is trooping up

to Corby and claiming that hospital isn't safe, and they know it is

simply not true. The local newspaper is now backing up the

fact that this hospital is being invested in by this government

because unlike the party opposite, you are going to stay there for a

very long time! And the reason... Do reason you are going to stay

there... The reason you are going to stay there is the reason this

country is in a mess because of the borrowing, spending and debt did

you delivered. So get yourself comfortable. Why will the Prime

Minister... Over here! Why will the Prime Minister not publish all the

texts come e-mails and other forms of correspondence between himself

and his office and Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson and News

International? So that we can judge whether they are relevant. Is it

because they are too salacious and embarrassing for the Prime

Minister? I wouldn't smile. When the truth comes out, the Prime

Minister will not be smiling. Or is it because there is one rule for

the Prime Minister and another for the rest of us? Before answering

this question I would like everyone to recall that the member macro

stood up in this house and read out a whole lot of the Leveson

information that was under embargo, he wasn't meant to read it out.

Much of which turned out to be untrue, and he has never apologised.

Until he apologises, I am not going I hope that house will have the

self-restraint and courtesy to hear Employment levels in Wales have

increased by 40,000 in the last quarter, not least because of the

contribution... Will the Prime Minister are welcome me in

welcoming the extension that has created 8000 new businesses?

will certainly during my honourable friend. The new enterprise

allowance gives people who have become unemployed at the chance to

set up their own business, their own enterprise. Under the current

rules, they have to wait three months before being able to access

that programme, but under our plans, they will be able to get that from

day one of becoming unemployed. I was to see new businesses starting

up in our country, to build on the record of last year, when more

businesses were established in Britain that at any year in our

history. When in opposition, at the Prime Minister said, "all too often,

when questions are put to ministers, the answer is met as a not me,

governor, shrug of the shoulders. *" SOCA and the promise to tell us

which one of his ministers will take responsibility of the West

Coast Main Line? De Transport Secretary can do this house and

made a full statement and gave a full apology -- came to this house.

Can we ever remember a minister from the party opposite about

apologising for anything? Returning to the Trident issue, has the Prime

Minister looked at the severe cost pressures facing defence at the

very moment Trident replacement has to be paid for? Frigate, airplanes,

unmanned aircraft, army vehicles, all need paying for at much the

same time. This has to come out of the defence budget. Will the Prime

Minister keep an open mind on how exactly to replace our nuclear

deterrent? The list of things that he goes through it are all

programmes that are fully funded and properly going to be invested

in because this government has sorted out, as he knows, the

defence budget. What I would say to him about the deterrent is I don't

believe that we would save money by adopting some alternative nuclear

deterrent posture. If you are going to have a deterrent, it makes sense

to have something that is credible and believable, otherwise there is

no point having one at all. There are record levels of support for

the British Union. In a recent poll, the Prime Minister will no that

only 7% of the population of Northern Ireland want a united

Ireland, that only rises to 32% in 20 years' time. But the Prime

Minister agreed that the agreement he signed up to this week, to

ensure there is a single, decisive question asked of the Scottish and

British Union, that it is now up to him and his house to unite in a

campaign to maintain sustained I am delighted to answer in the

most positive way I can. I am pleased we have reached an

agreement with the Scottish government, a single, simple

question on the referendum, so we can put beyond doubt the future of

the UK. I hope everyone will vote to keep the UK together. I know

this will have cross-party support. I have always wanted to share a

platform with Ian Paisley. Maybe I will get my chance! Recently a lap-

dancing club has been granted a licence. It doesn't matter if it is

a Wembley sized incinerator or a lap-dancing club in a beautiful

market town, there is no weight in planning the law. With the Prime

Minister agree that it is time there was a planning law so that

when a catastrophic applications come Fordwich blight the

environment people living, which distresses people to a great degree,

their voices should be heard. speaks for many people about the

frustration the planning system can sometimes deliver. We have changed

the licensing laws to give the planners greater power to alter or

licences, and that can apply to the sort of the premises she refers to.

The second thing is, and our plans be broken right made their plans

which give greater control to residents about the shape of their

community. I would encourage her to take up the issue with the

department. Could I thank the prodigious that there tributes? On

the theme of policing, as the house has heard, there are nearly 7000

from one police which have now disappeared from our system. -- a

frontline police. Will the Prime Minister give me a straightforward

answer, in what is my last question in this house, and give a

commitment there will be no more cuts whatever happens to policing

it? And nobody wants to prejudge the wisdom of the Greater

Manchester electric, but I wish to honourable gentleman well if he is

successful. The point I would make is the point the police force would

make to him, "the effectiveness of policing can only be measured by

the reduction in crime." Crime is down 12% in Greater Manchester.

They rise difficult decisions, and the Labour Party was committed to

even greater cuts than we have it delivered. Turkey is, can we crack

down on the paperwork? -- the key is. Can we cut crime? The answer is

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Mr Wicks. Isn't one way

we can honour his memory to continue to improve our national

health service so that more people beat cancer and don't have their

lives tragically cut short? honourable friend speaks for the

whole house in what he says about Malcolm Wicks. I understand he

often used to drive Malcolm home to Croydon after the vote, and Malcolm

refer to your car as the cab. And the fare was apparently a bottle of

wine at Christmas. We will make sure the Inland Revenue lay-off

that, but it is a good arrangement. He is right. One of the greatest

things we can do to remember Malcolm is ensured the continued

success of the cancer drugs fund, which has helped thousands, and

make sure people get urgent treatments as well as urging drugs.

The Secretary of State of Education said this weekend that if there

were a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU, he

would vote to leave. A third of the Cabinet to agree with him. How

would the Prime Minister vote? don't want an in-out referendum,

because I am not happy with us leaving the European Union. But I

am not happy with the status quo either. I think the majority of the

country wants a new settlement with Europe, and that settlement being

put to fresh consent. That will get a ringing endorsement from the

British people. Does my right honourable friend

agree that there was no structural deficit at the top of the boom, as

claimed by the Shadow Chancellor? My right honourable friend makes an

important point, which is that in the IMF report out this week, it

shows that the structural deficit in 2007 at the height of the boom

was 5% of our GDP, or �73 billion. The shadow Chancellor said there

was no structural deficit. This demonstrates how little they have

learnt. We have talked about our plans for the British economy, how

we will help it compete and succeed. Their plans are to go on a giant

march with their trade union paymasters. That is how the leader

of the opposition will be spending his weekend, the most lucrative

That overrun a bit. There were a couple of perfunctory exchanges on

unemployment, a hugely important issue, but it was not the one they

all wanted to pop about. That was Andrew Mitchell. It did not take

long for the leader of the opposition to get onto that. They

were looking at the government attitude to the police and police

numbers. Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip, was sitting on the front

bench. He may have responded from a sedentary position. We are still

trying to check that out. Let's hear from what the voters thought.

The viewers all talked about Andrew Mitchell. Tony in West Berkshire

said the remark caught our attention, but the dishonesty is

the point. The minister may have apologised and the officer may have

accepted it, but there is still the matter of who is lying. Jack says

Ed Miliband has a point. The Chief Whip has failed to confirm what he

said and should be sacked. Fill in Doncaster says Andrew Mitchell

behave badly, but this is a mountain out of a molehill. Colin

says Sean Ed Miliband realises that the more he goes on about the Chief

Whip's behaviour, the more difficult it is the David Cameron

to get rid of him. Antoni says Ed Miliband is trying to milk a mouse

by pursuing the Chief Whip. Can you do that? I have never heard that

expression. Put the image away. What do you make of it all?

well, you said before that sometimes when the goal is open, it

is hard to score. I don't think he slotted it in the net. On the other

hand, Ed Miliband will know that this has resonance as a story. It

is easy to understand. The viewers' e-mails reflect that. They think he

either said plebs, or he didn't. Someone was accusing someone of

lying. So it in one sense, he can't help but win on that. But, and this

is an important but in the psychology of Westminster, if you

put the ball in the back of the net on Prime Minister's Questions,

those faces behind the Prime Minister Goh glum. They were

cheering by the end, not because they support Andrew Mitchell, not

because they think David Cameron should keep him in the Cabinet, a

but because there was a little slip of the tongue by Ed Miliband, where

he talked about everyone losing their jobs when Andrew Mitchell

keeps his. He allowed the Prime Minister to say hold on, you

weren't listening. Unemployment has gone down. It was a little thing,

but it means that as David Cameron goes back to his office and is

surrounded by people talking about the Mitchell thing, they will feel

better than they thought they would feel before they went in.

Murphy, this has been a running sore for the Conservatives. It

angers a lot of Tory backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. At the

Conservative conference, Cabinet ministers were openly critical of

Andrew Mitchell, which does not happen often. I wonder where the

story goes from here? Politics is so unpredictable. It is one of the

rare beauties of politics. Your viewers might not since this, but

in Parliament, the Chief Whip has to be seen and not heard. He is not

a news story. That's right. It is a small thing, but an important thing

for the theatre of Parliament. When Ed Miliband was talking about it,

the minimum the Chief Whip was doing was shaking his head. He is

voluntarily putting himself back into it by virtue in responding

that way. How does it work out? If David Cameron sacks him, it is a

week sacking. So I suspect he will try to cling on to him. But this is

not just about who lied, the Chief Whip or the police. They can't both

be telling the truth. It also gets into real communities, living rooms

and pubs across the country. It is one of those things people

genuinely talk about spontaneously. The longer he is there, the more

that conversation will continue, none of which is good for the

Conservative Party. I am not paid to give the Tory party advice.

Would you like to be? No. For does your own side pay you to give

advice? No one listens! But I would have dispatched him weeks ago. The

Prime Minister standing up for the wrong people. You stand up for

someone who went to the same posh schools as you. Are they makes?

public perceive it that way. They have a similar background. That is

toxic for the Conservative Party, which has been trying to change its

image. There is this thought of, did Andrew Mitchell shout out a

comment? You might think of course he did, because Ed Miliband reacted.

Famously, Tony Blair wants reacted to a heckle in Prime Minister's

Questions which was not made. He was taunting William Hague about

which countries supported Tory policy on Europe, paused as

suddenly went, Norway? No one had anyone in the chamber Saynor way.

We went back over the tape, and nobody did. I am not saying Ed

Miliband made it up. There may have been a heckle, but now we are all

asking about it. I was racking my brains while watching that. Maybe

you have heard people talking about Andrew Mitchell. I have only had

three or four e-mails about it. People have just moved on. He

should not have done it. He was stupid to do it. But in terms of

real people contacting me, which they do about all sorts of stuff...

Are you saying our viewers are not real people? It is one of those

things that emanates from Westminster that people talk about.

Maybe that is because it is an accessible story about a prominent

person swearing at a police officer. I don't know what it is about this

story. Despite your constituents, it has taken off. I do get the

impression that Mr Mitchell lives to fight another day... Last week,

it was the Telegraph editorial. People were saying, we are not

going to have the Daily Telegraph sacked on ministers. Now they will

not have Ed Miliband sack their ministers. The line now is not just

that somebody like. The line now from Mr Mitchell and the government

is, they misunderstood. Nobody is lying, they just misunderstood.

last thing they want to do is get into a detailed conversation about

who said what, possibly because if he had really lost it, he might not

have a clue what he said. It is possible that he can't remember

what he said. I am like that out of the newsroom quite often.

Politicians often fight the last war. David Cameron is interested in

Tony Blair's memoirs. They reflect the former Prime Minister saying, I

should not have led Peter Mandelson go when I did. I did it because the

press hounded me. I think David Cameron has thought, I am not going

to make that mistake. He may well be making a different mistake,

which is that he may be holding on to someone who is toxic for the

Tory brand. There we leave it. Dwayne Fields was brought up in

Hackney, east London. One night, he got into a fight. A Gunn was pulled

on him. It was fired twice, but he was not hit. This made him take a

different turn in life. He became the first black British man and the

second black man in the world to reach the North Pole. Now he has

his sights set on the South Pole. He wants to help inner-city

teenagers to make them realise that they can do something, too. For him,

getting them out into the countryside is the key, which he

argues means more funding for youth groups. Here is his soapbox.

This is something you hardly see, a young black man enjoying the

countryside. When I am out here training, I hardly ever see any

young people enjoying the countryside, let alone black people.

I am not tried to say everyone should go to the North Pole. I want

to encourage them that their choices in life are not limited to

being a rapper, Sports personality or a footballer. I want to get them

out into the countryside as a way of opening up their world. They

think it is not for them, but that is because they don't see it. I was

born in Jamaica and loved it. I would run around in the forest all

day. No one would see me for hours. When I came to London, I had a

small concrete backyard to run around in. It was crowded. School

was not much better. It was painful and tedious. We did camping trips,

but that was about it. We hardly ever saw a different way of life,

or even new one existed. I lived in a difficult part of London. The day

I was shot at twice over nothing made me want to do something

different. That is why I decided to go to the North Pole. I want

teenagers to realise that they can do something, too, and getting out

into the countryside is a great way to show that the world has more to

offer them. I love the countryside, because you are out of the city,

away from the noise. It opens a new up to a different way of living. In

the countryside, you see big houses. People have time to say hello and

smile at you. Here, you can relax, focus, think about decisions you

want to make. It gives you something to do, keeps you away

from trouble, away from your peers and the pressures that come with it.

You can't survive on your own in the wilderness. It helps you learn

to rely on other people. You are not just thinking about yourself or

your own needs. The only way to encourage more young people into

the countryside is to increase the funding to youth groups like army

cadets, Sea cadets, Scouts. Increasing funding rather than

cutting is the way forward. Unless we start giving more opportunity

and choice to young teenagers, their worlds will remain narrow,

and they are more likely to choose Looks lovely out there in the

countryside! Or what made you think of trekking to the north pole of

you had had that terrible incident? In surely, it wasn't about trekking

to the North Pole, it was about doing something different to what I

would normally do. -- initially. It came up through Ben Fogle and James

Cracknell, I heard them on BBC Breakfast say they wanted to go to

the South Pole. I thought, that is as different from my normal life as

I could get. They directed due to the North Pole instead! What do

your friends say? You described eloquently, the contrast with city

life, do your friends to feel the same way? It is strange, initially

it was really difficult for them to come to terms with why I wanted to

go. As soon as they realised that I had a passion borders, they started

to follow, because passion is contagious. So they started to

follow my lead, or one of two of them came out into the countryside

and enjoyed it would meet. In general, they are City folk. But

they did comment and say, they understand why a lot -- I love the

countryside. Do you think more money should be given to help kids

living in urban areas, in cities, to go to the countryside? They do

city farms to give kids a taste of the countryside. I think funding

needs to be put into it. When you are in the countryside it is

totally different to the lifestyle that you live in the city. You have

space to think, you have silent for a change. Not many people get to

experience what silence feels like. You are alone, you have time to

think about issues come up problems, challenges you might face and

possible solutions. Do some of your friends think it might be boring? I

often hear this idea that when you have kids, the AD up thank you for

living in the countryside. It is not seen as a cool thing to do

until people experience it. That is just belief. When you bring a group

of young people into the countryside, they see the benefits,

I have seen it with my own eyes. I have spoken tickets, their reaction

is, there is nothing out there. It is just the sticks. The fact is, we

knew what out there, you enjoy it, they enjoy it, they want to go back.

Do you think people will say that this is not the most critical think

-- think we should be spending money on? A I disagree. To prepare

young people are adult life, it is about getting them out into the

wilderness, giving them a small challenges, allowing them to

overcome challenges as a group and a small community, and then bring

them back to the city. It line to up to face other challengers.

do you think? This idea that enthusiasm is contagious is great,

hopefully people who are watching get that sense today. Would you put

money into it? We can chat afterwards and see how we could do

that. One of the wider point is the way in which a lot of children get

an experience of the countryside would be three uniformed

organisations, the guides, the Scouts, a lot of that still happens,

but a reduction in the involvement, I remember I was about nine or 10,

but I can still remember it, lighting a fire. That is my only

experience. Is there a problem in psychology, the children are

cosseted, letting them roam freely... We I have seen it all

work, I live in a south Gloucestershire village commit is

quiet at night, the primary school there is twinned with the a school

in inner-city Bristol. Tickets from the inner city school came out and

really enjoyed the experience. It - - the kids. It just needed a bit of

initiative. Maybe you should talk about these opportunities! Not to

be done in the home! You can see the stars at night.

Have you got your popcorn? We have! We are talking cinemas. Someone

picks these things are too expensive and wants to take action

to stop but who is the man who He is taking on the US Senate.

not now, nor have I ever been, and oil trader. He has taken on Big

Brother. But now George Galloway is turning his sights on a cinema near

you and their prices. Fighting for your fizzy pop, at dishing out flak

for your savoury snack. His weapon? An early day motion in Parliament.

An adventure guaranteed to tap your height and purse-strings. George

Galloway, taking on cinemas in his new blockbuster. This time, it is

We had joined now by George Galloway. He has embarked on a

crusade to cut the cost of a night out at the cinema. I heard you say

you have never had popcorn. What got you into this? I had to buy it

for my kids, and it is a 1,000% mark-up. I went to watch the

terrific new, very Scottish movie, Braved a. It is a wonderful, feisty

film. But you cannot drag your kids crying, I want popcorn, it is a

1,000% mark up, you have to buy it. Then I started looking at ice cream,

Coca-Cola, it is absolute profiteering. They throw you out if

you bring your own. In Westfield, which is where I went, you would

get banned from the whole of that brought. Not just London. My friend

in New York brought his dude in come the end up getting arrested,

because he tried to bring it in -- brought his food in it. What is the

price of a big bucket of popcorn? How much would you pay for that?

Depends if you get one of these meal deals! You don't know this!

You don't know the price of milk! You would get it for about �8.50

Foster I'm vegetarian, I don't get a hard dog! -- hot dog. I think it

is �4.99. No, it is �4.40. However, in the Odeon, according to the

watchdog, it is a five per M25 pence. Oh I am now the country's

expert on these matters! It looks awful to me. But kids love it.

can make at home! The kids were saying, dad, dad! But I didn't want

to pay that price. But what is to be done? I think the OFT, or which

macro, somebody... We need some kind of public pressure. A people

may not realise they are being ripped off. They are in such a

hurry to get into the cinema that they soon forget. Why not have, for

example, private enterprise outside the cinema, a selling popcorn? You

will not get banned or jailed for bringing it in. Why should they be

allowed, effectively, because they are licensed premises, they are

effectively private clubs, they can exclude you or banlieue, had you

taken from the premises. -- have So you tabled an early-day motion?

Yes, Sir Peter Bottomley... This is the 4th interview I have done on

this! I salute your indefatigability. I well remember

that the next time I go to the Cinema! We haven't got time to pick

the winner for Guess The Year, but we will do it tomorrow. The answer