21/11/2012 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics. Today's top story:

Fighting continues in Gaza. Israeli war-planes and naval forces

hit dozens more targets overnight while Hamas continued to launch

missiles against Israel. There is still talk of an Egyptian-brokered

ceasefire. And the Americans are encouraging it. But it hasn't

happened yet. And it will not be helped by the fact that within the

last hour a bus has been blown up in Tel Aviv. The Church of England

Synod is now in crisis session after failing to pass a motion to

allow women to become Bishops. Should Parliament now step in to

force compliance with equality legislation? MPs are back at

Westminster after their short break, and that means Prime Minister's

Questions! Hoorah! It's the highlight of our political week!

We'll find out what Ed's got in store for Dave in half an hour's

time. And after that, should fat people pay more than fit people for

their healthcare? Former Apprentice Katie Hopkins says they should.

Frankly, if you don't care about your health or body, as a taxpayer

funding the NHS, Nauta wife. -- nor do I. All that in the next hour or

so, and much, much more. And joining us throughout is Defence

Secretary Philip Hammond and Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry.

Welcome to you both. But first, a senior Bishop was on the radio this

morning insisting that the Church had not 'committed suicide' over

its failure to allow women to become Bishops. An interesting way

of putting it, suggesting perhaps that he doesn't exactly think it's

a great leap forward either. The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury,

Rowan Williams devoted much of the last decade to trying to persuade

the Church to accept the move. This morning he expressed his sadness.

whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological

principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a

great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to allow wider

society. Worse than that, it seems that we are wilfully blind to some

of the trains and priorities of that wider society -- the trends.

We have some explaining to do. We have, as a result of yesterday,

undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility. Do you agree with

that? The Church of England has lost a measure of credibility?

think the Church faces some difficult challenges ahead. It is

not just on the ordination of women, but a series of big divisive issues

which the Church has to resolve and heal. It has to find a way forward.

Otherwise it will find itself marginalised. It will find members

of the church with strong views on one side or other of the arguments.

Increasingly, they will be attracted to splinter groups, so it

is essential that the Church of England finds a way of recovering

the middle ground and becoming a mainstream of Anglican thought in

this country. So you were disappointed by the result? It is

disappointed the Church was in crisis. You must have a view.

Downing Street are disappointed. think this is a matter for the

Church. It's not for me to say they should have decided one way or

another. But this is clearly not going to go away. This debate will

continue, and it will continue to damage the church, and that is bad

for society, whether one is a member of the Church of England or

not. Philip Hammond says it is it not for him to say, but this is a

critical issue. The church itself says, or Rowan Williams does, that

it was wilfully blind to the trend of modern society. Do you agree?

I think it is terribly sad. The majority of people in the Church of

England one there to be women bishops. I got a message from my

local church saying they had messed up and that they would try and fix

it. I think people feel very sad about this. A tiny minority have

seized the agenda and of forcing their views on the majority of the

Church of England, and listening to Rowan Williams speaking, you can

sense his sadness, and I feel it as well. You say, Philip Hammond, it's

not for you to decide in that sense, but what do you think it has JUN to

the moral authority of the Church? Rowan Williams does not hold back

when it comes to commenting on political issues. Do you think they

have lost some moral authority because of this? I think they have.

The main thing that undermines the moral authority of an organisation

like the Church is when it doesn't have a clear, defined view that all

its members can get behind. When there is an ongoing debate in any

organisation, the same is true of a political party. If there is an

ongoing debate about what an organisation stands for it is

difficult to project a moral authority to those outside. I think

it is clear what the Church of England stands for. The question is

who should be the senior people preaching it in the church. Most

people supported it. And also the main tenants of the Church, they

all agree with those, it is a question of should women be bishops

or not, and that is a question for the Church to resolve, but the

irony is the majority of the Church wanted it but a minority have

managed to take the agenda. thought the interesting thing was

perhaps a lesson for politicians. It was the House of Laity that was

more conservative with a small c than the bishops all clergy. We

sometimes sense that in Parliament as well. Politicians are willing to

move in a certain direction but have a sense that the Community,

the electorate they represent, is less keen to move on things. What

can Parliament do? And should it do anything? There was a suggestion

from Chris Bryant to stop appointing bishops, or Frank Field

threatened to introduce a motion from the church to be removed from

equality legislation. Should Parliament be doing this? I don't

think the Church as a real problem, but it is a problem for them to

resolve. Then we have all been in organisations that have been faced

with an impassive about how they go forward over the difficult issue.

They will resolve it in time. It may take time, but they will

resolve it. We have to support them to do that but we should not try

and intervened and impose a solution. The Church of England is

a strange vehicle. It is the established church, so if the

Church of England leadership wants assistance from Parliament, we

should listen, but we have to wait and see how they will resolve this.

Clearly this will not do. Thank you both. The bloodshed continues in

both Israel and Gaza. This morning there was an explosion on a bus in

Tel Aviv. At least 10 people have been hurt but perhaps not seriously.

Arab Media Reporting as much as the Western media that it was a

terrorist attack. No one yet claiming that they did it.

Overnight, Israeli jets attacked dozens of targets inside Gaza

itself. Rockets are still being launched from there into Israel.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki- Moon and US Secretary of State,

Hillary Clinton, are out there trying to help the Egyptians broker

a ceasefire. But there is no sign of one yet. Jo has the background.

The killing in Gaza and in Israel has dominated the headlines and the

television screens over the last week. The latest flare-up of

violence started in September. Palestinian militant groups in Gaza

increased cross-border rocket fire and Israel responded with air

strikes. Israel says it holds the Hamas movement, which runs Gaza,

responsible for all attacks emanating from there, even if it is

other militant groups carrying them out. The violence escalated on 10th

November after Palestinian militants fired an anti-tank

missile at an Israeli jeep patrolling the Israel-Gaza border.

On 14 November 2012, Israeli intelligence carried out a targeted

air strike in Gaza City, killing a Hamas military commander as part of

a wider series of air strikes. For the first time Palestinian

militants have been able to reach as far as Tel Aviv, using Iranian-

made missiles. The Israelis have responded deploying interceptor

missiles and stepping up air strikes in what they are calling

Operation Pillar of Defence. In the last week, the conflict has cost

the lives of at least 138 Palestinians and five Israelis. The

world now waits to see whether peace talks in Cairo will produce a

ceasefire or whether Israel will initiate a ground invasion. Let's

speak to the BBC's Gaza Correspondent. We have had those

reports of the bomb attack on the bus in Tel Aviv. What will this do

to chances of a ceasefire? It could be again changer. It's not just

report, it has been confirmed. In the last 15 minutes we have had a

massive response from Israel. I was on the roof of the office when

seven or eight missiles piled into an area about a kilometre from

where I'm sitting now. Huge explosions, massive plumes of smoke

mushrooming into the sky. We understand they hit an area which

is actually a football and athletics stadium, about one

kilometre from where we are. So an immediate response from Israel to

the bus bomb. Hamas has claimed responsibility and it has been

broadcasting statements from the mosques saying that it managed to

get one of the operatives to throw a bomb on to the bus. We heard the

sound of celebratory gunfire in Gaza when it happened. Things feel

like they could escalate dramatically. So no, violence is

escalating. What about the chances of diplomacy in terms of Egypt

being a key to a ceasefire? I think you are right, Egypt is the key. We

have been told there will not be any ceasefire finalised until we

hear the Egyptian President announced it. We thought it was

close last night but it did not come. Then we had a massive Israeli

attack overnight in Gaza with more than 100 hits. Israeli navy shells

pounded Gaza for much of the late evening yesterday, and then there

were more airstrikes overnight. When this all started and Hamas's

top military commander was killed a week ago, Hamas said it might

respond not just with rocket. Today it seems to have proved that it is

able to do that, and you cannot stress how much the issue of bomb

attacks on buses in Israel's biggest metropolis has on the

Israeli Psyche. It could go if two ways. Israel may escalate its

operation, and it does seem to have hit back quickly, or you could say

that this is Hamas try to put pressure on Israel to say they need

take us seriously and get a deal done. Thank you very much. Philip

Hammond, what role has the British government played in trying to

bring about the ceasefire? We are encouraging both sides to engage in

a process of achieving a ceasefire so we can stop the bloodshed and,

of course, it is a bit of a plaintive cry, but the age-old cry

for progress towards 82 states solution, which is the only way of

revolving -- resolving the problem in the long term. We know the

Secretary General is out there, and Hillary Clinton is out there, one

of her final acts as secretary and that in the illustration. Who do we

have help -- helping? We don't have anyone in the ground in Gaza, but

clearly we have diplomats on the ground. We do not have anyone else

I'm aware of, but the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that we

will encourage this process and encourage the Egyptians to act as

brokers, as it were. Your correspondent talked about the

symbolic significance of attacks on buses in Tel Aviv and, and the fact

of this attack this morning will make it almost impossible for the

Israeli leadership to engage in the ceasefire process. Whoever has done

this has deliberately made it much harder to achieve a ceasefire today.

We will see if that is how it pans out. Does the British government

have a view on what the shape of a ceasefire should be? That is beyond

the literal meaning of the words. Hamas should stop firing rockets

into Israel. Israel should step back from any plans, ground attack.

But do we have anything beyond the literal meaning? Then we need to

get back to the Middle East peace process. We have a new American

President. We have to take this opportunity again to reintegrate

this process. The ceasefire will have to be fleshed out by more than

that. It will require more commitments from the Israelis and

further commitments from Hamas. Does the Labour Party have an idea

of what the ceasefire should be shaped as? It is really important

that the rocket stop being fired from Gaza. That is really

important.Favour, I understand that, but how it should be shaped be on

that? The Israelis won the shelling to stop, and Hamas and all the

people in Gaza won the gates opened, and if they can be opened and trade

and aid can going, we can close the tunnels, and then there will be

some way of being able to do something. The Israelis invaded a

few years ago in order to stop the rocket attacks. Clearly did not

work and it has continued. There Right. But if the Israelis are to

be asked to stop the blockade, which is what you are suggesting,

what will Hamas give in return? They need to stop the shelling.

That is not enough for Israel. Stopping the shelling will mean,

the rockets, will mean that Israel will stop the shelling and call off

the ground invasion. But Israel is not going to agree to taking away

the blockade unless they get something watertight in return.

What should that be? They are closing the gates and everything is

coming through the tunnels. The stuff coming through the tunnels,

that's not coming through at all. I heard a couple of giraffes came

through the tunnels a couple of weeks ago. With respect, I've asked

the Secretary of State and I haven't had an answer from him

either, what should Israel demand or insist on return if the blockade

is to be lifted either in total or partially? If the blockade is

lifted, Toda or partially, then things will go through the gates

and Israelis will be able to monitor what goes through. In what

way? Because they go through the gates. You can't get anything

through by sea. If the blockade is lifted, but Gaza Strip could take

anything it wanted by sea. I ask again, because it's an important

matter, the ceasefire is more than just a seizing of firing, but the

quid pro quo be? It has to be that the fighting stops, that people

calm, and we have to have... In the end, there has to be a political

solution. Nothing has happened but two years. Be Israel, interesting

words from the Secretary of State about the impact this terraced bus

bomb may have, if Israel does decide that in its view there is no

terms of the ground attack, in your view, would that be illegal under

international law? I think that you can defend yourself but you have to

do it in a proportion that way. History has shown us that if there

is a ground attack, that hundreds of people died. That isn't what I

ask you. I'm answering the question but you need to listen.

listening and I don't hear an answer. As a Shadow Attorney

General, do you believe they ground-attack would be illegal

under international law? Your shadow Foreign Secretary has said

that Israel should act in accordance with international law,

so therefore would a ground attack be illegal under international law?

A only if it was deemed and international law to be

proportionate. History has shown us that when they had a ground attack

before, hundreds of civilians died. The question then is, is that

proportion it? Let me bring in Manuel Hassassian, he has been

listening to this, he is the Palestinian ambassador to the UK,

and also the former adviser to be former Israeli minister in Gaza,

deal messing. Does the Palestinian Authority, based on the West Bank,

do you have any authority at all in the Gaza Strip over Hamas?

given the split that has taken place since 2007, the Palestinian

National Authority does not have any control on the security of Gaza,

it is in the hands of Hamas. What is your attitude towards... I know

you condemn the Israeli attacks on Gaza, but can I ask you, and you

obviously don't want a ground attack either, but what is your

attitude towards the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel? Actually, we

have to understand that these rocket attacks came as a result of

air strikes, as a result of the blockade, as a result of

humiliating the Palestinians. what is your attitude towards it?

All of the killings, these were instigated... What is your attitude

towards the rocket strikes, do you support Hamas in sending rockets

into Israel or don't you? There is no support or not support. This is

a situation where Palestinians of being killed, innocent Palestinians.

We want total cessation of this violence. We need this truce to

work out in order to salvage the situation and get the Israelis back

on the negotiating table. Israel has obviously done a lot more

damage to Gaza man Hamas has managed to do to Israel, so why

don't you agree to a ceasefire now? The Israeli government was explicit

in saying why it would... Going back to give the discussion you've

had, I think it's unfortunate that the Palestinian ambassador birds

not condemned by a ring of rockets towards civilians. I think it

should be noted that Israel is doing everything in its power to

avoid civilian casualties. To the question... Everything... Hamas is

launching rockets every day on civilians. The term at

proportionate retaliation by Israel, only yesterday one missile that had

90 kilograms of explosives, hit an apartment building it one of

Israel's biggest metropolis that. What is proportionate to this?

Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. Both sides can come on

and you can trade these facts from your point of view. I'm trying to

get a better understanding of what you are now prepared to do. If a

ceasefire can be negotiated by Egypt with the help of the

Americans and it stops the firing, what is the next stage? Hamas will

want the blockade lifted, never mind the attacks on Gaza. What

would Israel require in return for lifting the blockade? There are two

things essential for not only the end of this cycle of violence but

the Prevention of the next cycle of violence. One thing is, be complete

cessation of firing from the Gaza Strip towards Israel. We have not

initiated it. 120 missiles were fired towards Israel before that.

And an end to the firing of shelling towards Israel. The second

thing would be to create a mechanism that would prevent or at

least minimise the rearmament of Hamas on the border between Egypt

and Gaza. If there would be a mechanism, but now the Egyptians

are respectfully trying to sort it out. If there would be a mechanism

that would stop the rearmament of missiles to Gaza... This would end

this violence and prevent further ones. Mr ambassador, is the PAC,

are you prepared to help in the context of a ceasefire, are you

prepared to help stopping further Rockets getting into Gaza? We are

ready to help, and we are ready to stop the violence if Israel end its

occupation. What do you mean by occupation? Your Israeli guest has

forgotten that almost 1100 people have been injured and more than 140

innocent Palestinians have been killed. The infrastructure in Gaza

is being destroyed, journalists of being attacked. I understand that

but I'm trying to move on from that. I'd be grateful if you could answer

my question. What would you be prepared to do to stop the further

rocket attacks getting into the Gaza Strip? Israel should stop its

F-16s and Apaches in hitting innocent civilians and targets that

have nothing to do with Hamas or the rockets. What's the answer to

my question? We want to end its violence as soon as possible

because we have higher stakes than the Israelis. All of these

casualties or what, being under siege, and a blockade and being

humiliated? Enough is enough. had enough, too, we've run out of

time. When you listen to both of them, you realise how difficult it

is. There is no attempt even to engage on the issues that need to

be engaged on. You and I are just agreeing what many much greater

statesman than as have discovered over the years. That this is one of

the great intractable problems of our age. How to get this Middle

East peace process, the two state solution which almost everybody

agrees is an obvious way to go forward, how to turn that into a

reality. The two states solution has been overtaken by the fact that

the Palestinians are now deeply divided into the West Bank,

represented by the ambassador from the Palestinian Authority, and

Hamas... Hamas and the Palestinian authorities hate each other as much

as they hate the Israelis. This is a very complex situation and there

are other actors waiting in the wings. I'm sorry, I know that you

are not going to like this but in the end there is no military

solution. The fact that nothing has happened but two years just means

we've screwed the lid down on a boiling pot and it is bound to keep

erupting like this. The only solution in the end is for there to

be a settlement. Without that, this problem will always continue.

move on. In about 10 minutes it will be time for Prime Minister's

Questions. Now that MPs are back at Westminster after a week off, to

recharge their batteries, they really needed their batteries

recharged. They'd been back all of five weeks! It's a tough job, isn't

it? Yes. Ministers don't get the break. Soon after that, the Prime

Minister will be jetting off to Brussels to take part in

negotiations over the EU budget. He will need to recharge his batteries

for that one! With any country able to veto the deal, he'd better look

forward to quite a few late nights sessions as they try and hammer out

a deal. Which bit of kit should he really be taking with him?

Obviously it's a Daily Politics mug full of coffee. To get him through

all of these all my tears, that would help. But if you don't win

one, I'm afraid you can't take one. We will remind him now to enter,

this is how you do it. First, when # But things ain't quite that

There was no doubt in my mind that we will win the Cold War. Why do

you say that? I think the general opinion in the world is turning in

# You're So vain, you probably think this song is about to. --

# People. All-day the Israelis have been

pouring enforcement into the Golan Heights, where the original Syrian

a strike is more than matched by To be in with a chance of winning,

send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address. You can see

the full terms and conditions on Let's take a look at Big Ben. It's

nearly made date. Prime Minister's questions in a moment. Nick

Robinson is with us now. A couple of weeks since PMQs. I can't make

up my mind what I think they will go one. An obvious one would be to

do the Budget, Ed Miliband talked about it. Although not obvious in

the sense that both frontbenchers say they think the same thing about

the Budget, so perhaps it wouldn't get anywhere. Another possibility,

will the Leader of the opposition want to talk about what you've been

talking about, Gaza? Not just because from time to time the

leader of the opposition wants to say, this is the most important

thing that's happening in the world, we should talk about it, but the

Palestinian cause is very close to the hearts of many people in the

Labour Party. I remember that Tony Blair got into more trouble, almost,

by backing Israel during the Lebanon more war and he had bad

back in America over the Iraq war. There was more anger when he was

seen to give the green light to the bombing of they've moved. There

will be many people in the Labour Party who are very uncomfortable

about what's happening in Gaza. It may be that Ed Miliband chooses to

voice that. And that set of borrowing figures out for October.

The government now borrowing more money last month that it did in

20th October 11. That is assuming that these figures that came out

for the first time are accurate. I can't tell you how many discussions

we've had in this studio based on figures that turned out not to be

right. Particularly on growth. Borrowing forecasts have always

been dreadful. The Treasury has a terrible record of the forecast. I

don't know, you might think there would be that in the run-up to that

important Autumn Statement. It's one of those days where there's no

obvious news story for Ed Miliband. But there are a lot of markers he

could put down. Finally, I predicted it last time I was on but

I was wrong, all leaders of the opposition have a final mark if

it's a quiet day, try and get this one running. There may be something

on a cause dear to his heart, health, for example. You couldn't

rely out energy prices. difficulty is rhetorically David

Cameron would say to him, I've done what I said I would do. Labour and

others are deeply sceptical about whether the words will mean what

they say in practice. But it's not easy to prove it. Essentially, at

this stage it is one man's word against another. It's not until BCB

energy bills. That is the first time we will know. Europe forms the

A whole House will wish to join me in sending our sympathies to the

family of Captain Waugh to Barry. He was described as a fantastic and

engaging soldier -- wall to Barry. Our nation must never forgive --

forget his service or sacrifice. This morning I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in the

house I will have more the meetings later today. Can I join the Prime

Minister in paying tribute to captain Barry and all of our

soldiers working in Afghanistan. In Stoke-on-Trent, libraries are

closing, teachers are being laid off and youth clubs are shutting

their doors. Given that public funds are so precious, Mr Speaker,

does the Prime Minister think it was a good use of taxpayers' money

to waste �100 million on the farcical police and crime

Commissioner elections in November? I think it is good that right

across the country we are now going to have local law and order

champions who will stand up for the public and make sure we get a good

deal from the police. I have noticed that Labour have two

criticisms aren't Police and Crime Commissioners, on the one hand week

spent too much money, and on the other we didn't spend enough money

promoting it. I'm prepared to accept one criticism all the other,

but not both. The British government borrowed from investors

a record low levels saving taxpayers millions of pounds this

week. Does he see this as more evidence that the economic plans

are working? My Honourable Friend makes a good point that because of

the fact we have a credible plan to get on top of debt and deficit and

show how we will pay away in the world, we have record low interest

rates which were described by the Shadow Chancellor as the key test

of economic credibility. Mr Speaker, can I start by joining the Prime

Minister in paying tribute to Captain Barry. He showed the utmost

courage and bravery, and all our thoughts and condolences are with

his family and friends. Can I also express my deep sorrow about the

loss of life and suffering in Israel and Gaza in recent days,

including the latest appalling terrorist attack on a bus in Tel

Aviv. Mr Speaker, there is widespread support on all sides of

the house for an immediate and durable ceasefire being agreed in

Israel and Gaza. So will the Prime Minister set out, in his view, what

are the remaining barriers to the ceasefire agreement now been

reached? First of all, can I say how much I agree with the Right

Honourable Gentleman about the appalling news of the terrorist

attack on a bus in Tel Aviv. Can I also express our deep concern at

the intolerable situation for people in southern Israel and the

grave loss of life in Gaza. He asked specifically what more we can

do to help bring the ceasefire about. I think that all of us,

right across the European Union, including America and beyond, need

to be putting pressure both on the Israeli Prime Minister than all of

those that have contacts with Hamas to de escalate, to stop the

fighting, to stop the bombing, and that is what I have done. I spoke

twice to the Israeli Prime Minister over the weekend, wants to the

President of Israel and my Right Honourable Friend the Foreign

Secretary is working hard on this to persuade both sides that we need

a ceasefire. Then beyond that, we need proper discussions about the

future of Israel and Palestine. Speaker, I agree with the Prime

Minister, and he is right to say that any such ceasefire deal can

only be turned into permanent peace if there are meaningful

presumptions of negotiations between the states about A2 state

solution. This weekend as shown us that there is neither piece or a

piece process. The reality is that the international community does

bear some responsibility for the abject failure of having those

meaningful negotiations nine years on from the promise of the road map

to peace. Can he set out to the House what steps beyond the hoped-

for ceasefire need to be taken to put pressure on both sides into

kneeing -- meaningful negotiation? First of all let me agreed that we

need we need a process put in place, and we need to do everything we can

to persuade Barack Obama that this should be a leading priority for

his presidential term. But I would make the point that whilst we all

want the process and we all want this piece, in the end, peace can

only come about by Israelis and Palestinians sitting down and

talking through the final status issues. They have to discuss

borders, Jerusalem, refugees. In the end, as Barack Obama is fond of

saying, and by the degree, we cannot wanted more than they wanted.

-- and I agree. We cannot want it more than they want it. We need

them to talk through these final- status issues. But Mr Speaker, that

is completely right, but we have to use every means at our disposal to

pressure sides into those negotiations because the reality is

that the confidence that they can be that state solution is dwindling

month by month. There will be an opportunity to support the course

of the 2up state solution later this month, recognising enhanced

Observer priority. We have supported this because we think it

will strengthen the moderate voices within the Palestinian to want to

pursue the path of politics and not violence. Can I urge the Prime

Minister to consider opting this position in the days ahead? First

of all, let me greet with the first part of what he said, that

confidence is dwindling -- let me agree. That is why there is such a

sense of urgency amongst the international community. This could

be the last chance for peace. The facts on the ground are changing.

It is so much in Israel's interest to push for the solution that we

should keep up the pressure. On the issue of a potential vote at the

United Nations, it is our view, and the Foreign Secretary said this out

yesterday, that the Palestinians should not take it to the un in the

short term and we have urged them not to do that. If we do that, we

have to consider the right way to vote. But in the end, we will not

solve this problem at the United Nations. This problem will be sold

by Israelis and Palestinians sitting down and negotiating and

there may be dangers from pushing it too early at the un in terms of

a cut-off of funds for the Palestinian Authority and all the

other consequences that could follow. So in the end, let's get

negotiations going rather than discussions at the United Nations.

A if the Prime Minister wants to send a clear message that Scotland

and England belong together. Should he not be doing his best to make

sure that the principal road from London to Edinburgh is a modern

dual-carriageway and doesn't become a country lane? My Right Honourable

Friend makes a very attractive spending bid for the Autumn

Statement, and whilst my Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor is

not here, I'm sure of the Treasury colleagues will have listened

closely. The Prime Minister claimed Universal Credit would bring about

the most fundamental and radical change to the welfare system since

it began. Given that the Government's propensity for

shambles, can he guarantee that the second phase of Universal Credit

will be implemented in 20th April 14 and not delayed? Universal

Credit is a good Reform and I thought it was welcomed across the

house because it was going to put in place proper work incentives for

people at all levels of income and it is also highly progressive in

channelling money to those who need it most. I can 10 look the

Honourable Lady that it is on time and long credit -- on budget and it

will have a pilot scheme starting Mr Speaker, the person responsible

for the murder of Bheki Edwards in my constituency has not been

brought to justice because incriminating evidence was excluded

as part of a court process. Would my Right Honourable Friend join our

calls for a thorough review of Code C of the Police and Criminal

evidence Act so terrible situations like this don't happen if in

future? Fire will look carefully at what my Honourable Friend has

raised and the specific case -- I will look carefully. And also the

Police and Criminal evidence Act. It is important that all

information that can be put in front of a court is put in front of

a court so it can reach the correct Cuts in frontline police together

with cuts to police pensions and conditions of service has led to

96% of the police force believing that this government does not

support them. Does the Prime Minister think that is a problem,

and if so what will he do about it? This government strongly supports

the police service and what they do. These are people who go out every

day and put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us say. Frankly,

whoever was in government right now would have to be making cuts to

police budgets. But if we look at what is happening in policing, we

have seen a number of neighbourhood police going up. The percentage of

police on the front line has gone up and we see the number of police

in back-office roles going down. Crucially, crime is down and

satisfaction with the police is up. So people don't have to wade

through hundreds of bamboozling tariff plans, will Prime Minister

confirm that this Government will legislate to ensure people can

access the best deals, something the leader of opposition failed to

do as energy secretary? I am delighted to tell my honourable

friend that having stood at the Despatch Box and saying we wanted

to ensure that people got access to the lowest tariffs, that is exactly

what we have achieved. If there are colleagues opposite to have a doubt

about this, let me quote the Labour shadow energy minister who said

this about the change, it means some of the most expensive deals

would go, being able to reduce the number of tariffs will help people

get a clearer picture of what is happening, and that can only be a

good thing. That is the sort of endorsement that I welcome.

Speaker, the government promised that there should be no rationing

in the NHS on grounds of cost alone. Can the Prime Minister tell us

whether he has kept the promise? The promise we have kept is that we

have said we would increase NHS spending every year under this

government, and in England that is what is happening. In Wales, of

course, there is a massive cut in the NHS because it is run by Labour.

First of all, Mr Speaker, there are 7,000 fewer nurses in the NHS than

when he came to power. But I was asking a very specific question

about the promise made by the then Health Secretary, and I know you'd

sacked him and he is now leader of the house, but he promised a year

ago that there would be no rationing on the grounds of cost

alone. This is what the President of the Royal are pathologists --

ophthalmologists said. He said this: primary care trusts are not

following a government guidelines. Half of health commissioners are

restricting access to cataract surgery. I don't think you should

ask for help, you got rid of him from the post. Can the Prime

Minister tell me why, for the first time in six years, the number of

cataract operations actually fell last year? What I can tell him is

that under this government the number of doctors is up, the number

of operations is up, waiting times are down, that is what is happening

because we took the responsible decision. He quotes Primary Care

trusts. Of course, we are abolishing Primary Care trusts and

putting that money in the frontline services. That is what is happening

under this government. They believe, he believes, that increasing

spending on the NHS is irresponsible. We think it is the

right thing to do. Mr Speaker, once again, he has no clue about the

detail. He has no idea what is actually happening on the ground.

Give him credit, Mr Speaker, he did make history this week. He has got

his very own word in the Oxford English Omnishambles. He is basted

-- wasted millions of pounds on a top down reorganisation that nobody

wanted or voted for. Just like he wasted millions of pounds on Police

Commissioner elections. He doesn't listen, he's out of touch, and last

Thursday the people of Corby spoke for the country. Last Thursday the

people of Humberside spoke of a There is more. Because the former

Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, said this. This is not

just about the police. This is a referendum on everything this

Government has done - on health, education, the local authorities.

People took the first opportunity to kick him out. On the subject of

making history this week, I think the leader of the Labour Party made

some history this week. He told his conference he wanted to be Disraeli,

he told them he wanted to be Margaret Thatcher. He said on

Europe, he's more eurosceptic than Bill Cash. Then he went to the CBI

and said he loved Europe even more than Tony Blair. He has

impersonated more politicians than Rory Bremner. But this time the

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my right honourable friend, the Prime

Minister, agree with me that a free press is one of the cornerstones of

a true democracy, and that any attempt to muzzle newspapers, such

as the excellent Kent Messenger Group in my own constituency,

should be strenuously resisted? Honourable Friend makes an

important point. I joined him in my admiration for the Kent Messenger

Group and all they do. It is important because the problems we

have had in our newspaper industry have not really been about regional

and local titles that perform an incredibly important function in

our democratic system. I think we all have to wait for the Leveson

inquiry report and study that carefully and then respond to what

he said. Allow me to present a tale of two companies. The first is a

comic company in my constituency who pays seven people and pays

every penny of tax on time. Amazon UK brings in revenue of up to �4.5

billion and yet last year paid less than �1 million in tax. Will the

Prime Minister follow the example of the French government, which has

issued a back claim for unpaid tax against Amazon, or will he allow us

to draw our own conclusions about whose side he is on? I think that

is an important point about making sure that companies make their

contributions and tax payments in our country. We have put an extra

�900 million specifically into the Inland Revenue to try and make sure

that we do probably get individuals and companies to pay their taxes. I

announced yesterday that one of the key priorities of the G8, which I

will be chairing from January, in County Fermanagh in Northern

Ireland in June next year, one of the priorities will be to make sure

we get proper international agreements so that companies pay

their taxes properly. Could I highlight to my right honourable

friend a free school which is opening in Wolverhampton this year?

This will be in one of the most deprived wards of Wolverhampton and

will provide a re-electable social mobility for young people. It is a

tangible advert for what this government is doing in terms of

education, and he's more than welcome to visit. That's a very

kind invitation. I held a recent meeting at Number 10 for all of the

78 free schools that have been established over the last two-and-

a-half years. We are making good progress. I want to see many

hundreds of free schools established between now and the

next election. Whereas the last government managed 200 academies in

13 years, we've done 2000 in two- and-a-half years. Academies, pre-

schools, we want to give this agenda the biggest possible boost

we can. Question number seven, closed question. I look forward to

visiting Scotland soon and will obviously look carefully at whether

I can visit the Honourable Gentleman's constituency. A few

months ago he came to my constituency and was going to give

me the opportunity of taking him around. One of the areas I was

going to take him to was the shipyard, where I had my

apprenticeship as do many years ago, he would probably have been in

short trousers. But outside the door of that shipyard on a Thursday

was a man called the tally man, who was a loan shark. He charged half a

crown, which is 12 and a half pence, a week per pound for the loan he

would give the shipyard worker. Today we are hearing all about...

Can we have a question? Now. question is, you hold one of the

great offices of the state, so does the Prime Minister. What is he

personally going to do to drive these sharks out of our economies?

I did enjoy my visit to true love. I may be offered to the Honourable

Gentleman then that I would happily share a platform with him to defend

our United Kingdom. For some reason the invitation got lost in the post.

I make the offer again. He makes a serious point about pay-day loans.

We have seen the OFT report, which is a preliminary report. I think we

do need to take action. That is why we are giving the Office of Fair

Trading a new power to suspend a consumer credit licence with

immediate effect where there is an urgent need to protect consumers.

The OFT report shows many companies are not sticking to the guidelines

set out and that is not acceptable. Has he seen the recent experience

study which showed that Milton Keynes is the area of the UK best

placed to lead economic growth, with forecasts of 3.1 % in the next

year? My Honourable Friend is a great spokesman for Milton Keynes

and has welcomed me them many times. It does have a successful economy

based largely on small and medium- sized enterprises. One of the

things we need to change in Milton Keynes and elsewhere is to get the

housing market moving again. I'm convinced that is an important part

of driving recovery in our economy. Many young apprentices receive very

low wages. The youngest only �2.60 per hour. So is it fair for the

Prime Minister to take away housing benefit from young people who

simply cannot live with their parents but are trying really hard

to build a future for themselves? This government strongly supports

the growth of apprenticeships. We've seen something like 1 million

new apprenticeships under this government. On the issue of housing

benefit, which I know is an important issue, I think where

there is a problem, and this is something that needs proper

attention, is we do seem to give some young people a choice today

which is if you are on jobseeker's allowance you can have access to

housing benefit, whereas if you are living at home and trying to work

you can't. We need to recognise that the signals we sent through

our welfare system are in many cases sending a negative signal to

young people. Is it still the Prime Minister's intention that this

should be the greenest government ever? Yes, it is. It is this

government that in record time has established a green investment bank

which is now in Edinburgh and starting to make loans. I'm sure

the Prime Minister agrees with me that a government spokesman

describing the children's Commissioner's report into child

abuse today as hysterical is extremely unhelpful. Victims of

abuse already find it difficult to come forward, including those who

were reduced by Cyril Smith in Rochdale. On that issue, will the

Prime Minister now help these victims by publishing all the

police files on that Smith and ensure a police investigation takes

place into all the allegations and into any cover-up? On the first.

Barbara, it's a very serious issue that is being examined. It is an

interim report that we need to study closely. It has some

extremely disturbing findings. We need to give every encouragement to

the commissioner, to make sure that the final version of the report is

produced. On the specific issue he raises, which is a very serious

allegation about a former member of this House, I understand that

Greater Manchester police have confirmed they will investigate any

allegations of sexual abuse involving the late Sir Cyril Smith,

that happened from 1974 onwards. I would say to all members of this

house, particularly in the light of what has happened in the last few

weeks, if anyone has information and facts, then take them to the

police. That is the way we should Businesses are helping to cut the

borrowing deficit by paying tax on their profits, but some

multinationals appear to be paying very low amounts of UK corporate

tax, like Starbucks and Amazon. I wonder if the Prime Minister could

tell the House whether he thinks this part of the tax code needs

investigating? I think it does. I've asked the Treasury to do that.

They are looking as hard as they can at what can be done. There are

clearly some things that one can do nationally. But because we live in

a competitive, global economy where companies can move capital around,

move their headquarters around, move money around, you do need

greater international agreements. We come to an important national

agreement with Switzerland, which is going to recover billions of

pounds in tax for our country, but we need to work hard, and that is

where the G8 can help, to make sure we get a fair share of tax from

companies, particularly given the fact that Britain is doing its part

to cut rates of tax down to the most competitive in the world.

Prime Minister quite rightly praised the wonderful work of

London's emergency services during the Olympics, Paralympics and Her

Majesty's Jubilee. Does he share with me the concern of the London

public that the numbers of fire stations that are threatened with

closure, in particular the one in Clapham old town in my constituency,

and would he joined the campaign to save it and would he also agree

that it's not right to choose a fire station to close it, simply

because it is on very expensive land? This is an issue for the

berne macro as well as for the government. I will look closely at

what she says. We all have to recognise that the most important

thing in terms of the emergency services is the time it takes for

them to get to an incident. While all of us as constituency MPs on

naturally focused on the bricks and mortar items of whether it is

ambulance stations or fire stations or indeed other facilities, what

really matters for our constituents is how quickly do the emergency

services get them and how good is the service when they do? Does my

right honourable friend share my deep disappointment, and I know

that of many on all sides, that yesterday the Church of England

failed to make proper provision for women bishops? A sad day for our

national Church and our national character, particularly given that

42 out of 44 diocese had voted overwhelmingly in support of women

bishops. And it's not the consequence of the Bolt, not the

danger of the Church of England being in some disestablishment, but

simply does interest. I think my right honourable friend speaks with

great expertise and knowledge. On a personal basis, I'm a strong

supporter of women bishops and I'm very sad about the way it went

yesterday. I'm particularly sad for the Archbishop of Canterbury,

because he saw this as a major campaign that he wanted to achieve

at the end of his excellent tenure of that office. It's important for

the Church of England to be a modern church in touch with society,

as it is today, and this was a key step they needed to take. The Prime

Minister promised that his start-up loan scheme would provide 2500

loans to young entrepreneurs to get their business ideas off the ground.

Only 43 loans have been granted. Why hasn't he delivered on his

promise? The start-up loans Initiative is a very strong one. I

want to look at putting more resources into it because I think

there is a major demand for it. At the same time, there is the

Enterprise Allowance Scheme that originally was only available after

people had been unemployed for three months. Under this government

is going to be available from the first day of being unemployed.

Looking back to the 1980s, many people used the scheme to start up

their first business, their first rung on the ladder. Those are the

sorts of people we want to help. Angela Watkinson. Would the Prime

Minister join me in congratulating Draper's Academy in the most

deprived ward in my constituency, sponsored by the Drapers Company

and Queen Mary College London, in only its second year it has become

the fastest improving school in the whole country and is a wonderful

example of the government's academy scheme. I certainly join her. I

think one of the strengths of the Academy programme is getting

sponsors like the Drapers Company, like businesses and other

organisations to get behind the school and help change the culture

and help improve it. That is why last week we set a new target for

academies taking over failing primary schools. We think academies

shouldn't be restricted to secondary schools. We want to see

sponsored academies taking over primary schools where results

aren't good enough. Everyone can focus on there are schools in some

inner-city areas that because of effective Academy sponsors are

doing better than schools in some of the leafy suburbs. We could use

this change to drive at aspiration and achievement across our

education system. Following his answer to the Honourable Member for

Banbury, given that the Church of England is the established Church,

would he consider what this Parliament can do to ensure that

the overwhelming will of members of the Church of England and of this

country is respected? I will look carefully at what he says. But what

I would say is the Church has its own processes and elections, hard

for some of us to understand. We have to respect individual

institutions and the decisions they make. But it doesn't mean we should

hold back and saying what we think. I'm clear that time is right for

women bishops, it was right many years ago. They need to get on with

it and get with the programme. But you do have to respect the

individual institutions and the way they work, while giving them a shop

abroad. A cut in this country's EU budget rebate, which was agreed to

buy the last Labour government, is now costing taxpayers �2 billion

every single year. Will the Prime Minister please confirm that in the

forthcoming budget negotiations, he will not agree to any further

reduction in this rebate? I can certainly give that assurance. The

rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher is an incredibly important

part of Britain's position in Europe, and making sure we get a

fair deal. It is extraordinary that the last government gave away

almost half of that rebate. We've never heard one word of apology or

regret for the fact that however hard we fight in Europe, and we are

fighting incredibly hard this week for a good deal, they cut away our

feet by giving away half the rebate. Could I congratulate the Prime

Minister on his very wise decision to bring the G8 summit to County

Fermanagh? Could I confirm to the Prime Minister that the enthusiasm

with which that decision has been received with in the manner, but

could I ask him that he believes it would be possible to bring further

prestigious events to Northern Ireland in future? I will look at

that. I believed it really is the right decision for the G8 to be

based in Northern Ireland in June. What was interesting yesterday,

standing with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in

Northern Ireland, talking about the situation, something that would be

unthinkable 20 years ago, to have that sort of event with so many

world leaders coming to Northern Ireland. I think it will be a great

adverse -- advertisement for Northern Ireland and for everything

that people in Northern Ireland at -- can achieve. Does the Prime

Minister agree that the UK' retention of its triple-A status

when France lost its this week, shows that the UK retains the

confidence of international markets because of the difficult but

necessary decisions that we are taking? That's a good. Barbara,

which is because we have set out a clear plan, we are able to have low

interest rates, able to have international confidence, which is

the absolute of the proper growth A rather subdued Prime Minister's

Questions to date. -- today. Ed Miliband divided his six questions

he is allowed. He divided them into two. The first part was on the

situation in Gaza. There is largely frontbench consensus on that. Then

he came back and ask some questions on the NHS, which Martha -- rather

surprised us in the studio. It is not an issue which is on the agenda

this week. Dog that didn't bark until the question at the very end

was the upcoming Brussels summit on the European budget and prisoners

There seems to be more inquiries about what happened then than there

is today. There wasn't really a clear threat will way through the

Israeli Palestinians. Mr Cameron must wish he should go on a foreign

trip every Wednesday after his awful performance at the Despatch

Box, says one commentator. Mr Miliband wrong-footed the Prime

Minister with clever questions on the Palestinian issue. Never buy

Roberto beneath -- never mind Roberto Di Matteo, Ed Miliband is

not worthy of leading his team. So much ammo he could have fired, but

he came up with wishy-washy questions. A feeble performance. Jo

Moore in the Netherlands says David Cameron is grabbing at straws when

he has to refer to John Prescott failure to win in Humberside.

Surely an average of 50% of people voting does not give the Prime

Minister any right to boast, after all it was his brainchild to have

the elections. Martin Bristow from Wolverhampton. How does Labour get

away with the charge that they would be spending less on the NHS

than the government is now? David Cameron annihilated Ed Miliband. Mr

Austin in London says David Cameron said there would be lower bills for

consumers, but experts say there is likely to be a levelling process

that will result in this -- new, so-called low tariff costing more

than the current one. This is the risk, as some people see it. Before

I bring in the panel, let me show you the latest pictures from Gaza.

They were taken within the last hour or so. A series of explosions.

The level of violence there does not really appear to be coming down

on either side. Very serious explosions in the centre of an

urban area in Gaza. Still no word yet on any ceasefire, as these

pictures clearly illustrate. And if you're just joining us there has

been a terrorist attack on a bus in Tel Aviv this morning. About 17

people injured, but it seems none seemed to have two serious injuries,

fortunately. No fatalities, anyway. It is strange to go on the NHS in a

way, given that we have a Brussels budget that will dominate the news.

As you saw, David Cameron was prepared to tease Ed Miliband with

the elaborate joke about whether he is Disraeli or Margaret Thatcher.

That is because Ed Miliband went to the CBI and said he would stand up

for Britain staying in Europe, but a couple of weeks ago he voted with

the hardline Euro-sceptics in the Conservative Party to embarrass and

defeat the government on the EU budget. You can make a case that

both are consistent, but the reason he did not go was because he knew

that David Cameron would be waiting for him on that. Therefore he has

taken a study done by the Royal College of ophthalmologists and

said that there was evidence that the first Labour had made about the

NHS budgets has a real impact. In other words, people are being

denied operations they ought to have, cataract operations.

Sometimes in Prime Minister's Questions, viewers don't see this

way, but they are about putting down markers, not just getting a

victory on the day all raising morale. They are about putting a

marker down, asking a question to refer back to. And you can put

something on the agenda as well. It may not ignite, but it could be a

slow burner. One Gaza, some of the things were the same, but there was

a difference. Ed Miliband was saying that Labour would support

the Palestinian Authority, going into the United Nations and

applying for statehood. Remember the Palestinians are not officially

recognised as a state. This would be seen by Israel as a deeply

provocative act and it would be likely to be vetoed by the United

States. Up until now, the British government have not so they are

against, they said they would not if I were you. What they are asking

for is enhanced observer status. The Palestinians themselves have a

problem with the state because of it is the P A that go there, it

won't include Hamas and Gaza. And what about the boundaries of the

state? What about the 400,000 settlements. The underlying thought

was they should get President Obama involved, but not the slightest

sign he wants to get involved, not least advised by his outgoing

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She won't be there long, but she

realised when her husband was president, Sheikh found no deal was

done -- she put in at a lot of work and found no deal was done. We will

put all this energy in and you get nowhere. There is a huge symbolism

that has not dawned on London that this is the first president who,

after winning an election or getting re-elected, chose to go to

south-east Asia. Because this is the Pacific President, that is the

whole thrust of the second term, the sources in Washington Tel-Me

will be to face to the Pacific. He visited Thailand, Cambodia and

Burma. And Burma, for special reasons, but all three have borders

with China. There was a huge announcement, largely ignored here

in London, that the Secretary of State for Defence in the Pentagon

has announced that from now on 60% of US naval assets and will be in

the Pacific. 40% will be elsewhere, including the Atlantic, instead of

50/50. Whether we like it or not, this is a superpower Batty's

repositioning its focus. -- Batty's repositioning. I think that's right.

The US has responded to the strategic challenge posed by China,

and the fact, whether we like it or not, that the Loat -- most likely

flashpoint for any confrontation involving China and its neighbours

in the coming decades is likely to be in the South China Sea where

there are scores of disputed islands and areas. I think we

should be positive about this. The fact that the US is willing to rise

to this strategic challenge is something that NATO should

celebrate. It means we in European NATO have to do more in our own

defence and near abroad, which includes North Africa and the

Middle East. We would not be able to respond to the strategic

challenge posed by China if China had chosen not to do that. This is

a sensible division of labour, as it were, among the NATO alliance. I

do not know if this is being discussed at the MoD, but if it

looks as though Gaza is not containable. In other words, it is

drawing in and possibly over spilling into the Syrian conflict,

then it becomes a strategic threat to the United States. In no longer

stays as another flashpoint in this long-running regional problem, it

becomes something more serious. have to see the Israeli and Gaza

problem in the context of a wider Middle East. There is the

continuing stand-off with a ramp, the chaos in Syria -- Iran, and the

chaos in Syria. I think that the United States will believe it

always has a sufficient strategic leverage with his rare to prevent

Israel from doing something -- Israel to prevent them from doing

something that leads to a strategic disadvantage. It does have pretty

strong leaders in terms of Israel. It I hear what you say. I think

there are a lot of people, a lot of European friends of America who

wish the Americans would focus on the Israel and Palestine conflict

again. I hear what you say about Barack Obama having other things to

do, but we should be saying loud and clear, please get involved in

this and usual authority. He shows no inclination to do so.

understand that, but isn't European of friends need to tell him. Today

-- today, he gets only 10% of imported oil from the Middle East,

the US. By the time Barack Obama leaves the White House he will get

no oil from the Middle East. It changes America's geopolitical

focus. The Attorney General has refused to intervene in the case of

an SAS soldier jailed for 18 months for possessing a pistol he said was

given to him as a "gift" after service in Iraq. Last night,

Sergeant Danny Nightingale's wife handed in a petition to Downing

Street. Her husband pleaded guilty to the offence, but claims he

suffered medical problems affecting his memory, and didn't remember

having the weapon. Our Defence Correspondent, Jonathan Beale,

joins us. The thank you for coming onto the programme. Where does the

sergeants case now rest as we speak today? As I understand it, this

afternoon his wife and his lawyers will be lodging the appeal at the

High Court. They want the sentence quashed, and they want him out on

bail. They say he was essentially forced to plead guilty in this

incident, and let's look at the mitigating circumstances, which did

come up in his court martial, which is the first of all he did not pack

the weapon. It was given to him as a gift while he was serving Iraq.

He had to go back early from Iraq to organise the funeral of two of

his comrades. He was then locked up at a secure location. That said, he

was then it moved around and ended up in military accommodation that

was outside of the line, in other words not a secure location, not

just this 9 mm pistol, but also it more than 300 rounds of ammunition

double found in a container under his bed. -- that were found. He

said he suffered memory loss and he was on a gruelling charity marathon

run in Brazil in 2009 where he fell into a coma and he has suffered

memory loss. He said he forgot he had begun. But clearly the evidence

is fairly damning, and there is a prohibited weapon found which was

not in a secure location. That said, the Defence Secretary clearly feels

the heat of a growing public campaign for his release. I think

there are some in uniform he would ask the question if this was the

right way to go about justice. In other words, should this man who

has given so many years' loyal service to the British Army, who

has been a key seven for the SAS, should he have got a custodial

sentence -- key servant. He could have got five years. If you or me

had a gun in our cupboard and ammunition under the bed, we would

have been looking at a sentence longer than five years. There is

mitigating circumstances and they were looked at, but there are still

people who question whether he should have been locked up.

Jonathan, thank you very much. You mentioned the defence secretary and

he sits here now. You asked the Attorney General to review the

conviction. Why? We also share a sense of frustration in the case. I

have no power to intervene. The service prosecution authorities

Independent as is the judicial system. But there is a test which

has to be applied before a prosecution is brought, whether in

a military court or civil court, about whether it is in the public

interest. And particularly in the case of a service prosecution, in

the interest of the service, for the prosecution to be brought. I

wanted to be sure in my own mind that that test had been properly

applied. I take that test to be contextual. Given that plenty of

people have popped up, ex-military men, and said they had done

something similar in the past, I wanted to be sure that the context

of military service and what goes on, whether it was right or wrong,

what actually goes on in practice. Whether that had been taken into

account. Did you get the Did you get that reassurance?

wrote back to me to say it was not appropriate for him even to review

the application of that test because we were yesterday, and we

are still this morning, within the appeal period. We all know it is

very likely that an appeal will be lodged. So the case is in some

case... Were you disappointed by the response of the Attorney

General? I'd hoped I would get some reassurance one way or the other,

but I understand that the Attorney General has responsibilities within

the judicial process. He obviously has to take them seriously.

were you concerned or even surprised that the Attorney General

issued a press release, went public on your inquiry within minutes of

telling you he would intervene. It was an instant response. He clearly

felt it was necessary for him to state publicly that he was not

getting involved in a process that was still potentially before the

courts. I understand that the Attorney General has two hats. He's

a politician and a member of the cabinet, but he's also a senior

officer within the judicial structure. He clearly felt it was

necessary to do that. The team knew that when you wrote to him, but you

were still hoping for some progress on what you clearly regard as a

vital issue. To be clear, I wasn't expecting the Attorney General to

make a public response. I was asking for private advice and

guidance on this particular matter. Where we are now... Did you ask him

publicly or privately? Did you tell the press that you were going to

get in touch with the Attorney General? And I didn't make any

secret of that fact. So the public knew he'd been asked and he just

answered publicly. The issue now is we hear from Jonathan that an

appeal will be lodged this afternoon. There's huge public

interest in this case. It would be in the public interest if this

appeal for expedited, so we get an answer through the proper judicial

mechanism as quickly as possible. Was your request of the Attorney

General partly motivated by what you felt was dismay in the armed

services about what has happened to Sergeant Nightingale? The question

has been raised with me by members of the armed forces, whether the

public interest test had been properly applied by the service

prosecution authority. That is why I sought the Attorney General's

advice on that matter. Where are you on this? It's an absolute

offence to own or to be in possession of a firearm and not to

have it decommissioned. The rules are that you get five years unless

there are exceptional circumstances, whether a civilian or member of the

armed forces. We have very strong rules in this country because we

don't hat -- want to have weapons on the street. The armed forces

have always known it's an absolute no-no that to have weapons that you

haven't deactivated. I have sympathy for this gentleman but he

had a weapon that haven't been deactivated, that he'd moved to

several places. He had bullets under his bed. The place he was

living in was not secure. Neither the bullets nor the weapon had been

deactivated. Are you aware of the special circumstances his lawyer

pleaded? I am. I understand he has had difficulty since that marathon

but he was still a serving officer, so he was sufficiently sound to be

able to be serving in the SAS. Clearly one needs to... In the end,

this is a matter for the courts to decide. I have to say I think

yesterday you made a grave mistake because you had asked the Attorney

General to look again at a case where a decision had already been

made. He had pleaded guilty, he'd been convicted, he'd been sentenced.

You know as well as I do that since the glorious Revolution, since

James the second, there has been a separation between the executive

and the courts. If we allow governments to intervene in the

courts and say, we don't like that, have another sentence, this guy

should be let off, you are undermining our entire system. I

think it's posturing. Emily is a lawyer and is sounding exactly like

a lawyer. They do get tremendously pompous about protecting the

integrity... You did politics at university. What I was seeking from

the Attorney General was reassurance on a specific point.

Not asking him to review the sentence or conviction or the wider

case. I was asking him specifically whether in his view the service

interest test had been correctly applied. I did that after talking

to a number of people who'd raised issues with the, including taking

informal advice from a legally qualified people who thought that

that was an interesting question and appropriate question to ask.

I'm told on legal advice that the sergeant could be let out of

licence, pending the appeal. That of the services prosecution

authority should not be allowed to oppose the appeal. And that both of

these decisions are under the remit of the Attorney General. Would you

support him taking these decisions? On the first point, you talked

about him being in a military prison. The sentence he has been

given as one of Military Corrective Training. He could have been

sentenced to a prison term, which would have been served in a

civilian jail. So this is not a prison term. She should he be

allowed out on licence? In the normal course of events, after

quite a short period in that facility he will be allowed out,

initially for days and then for longer periods of time. It is not a

prison sentence. I and he's not been dismissed from the services.

It is a retraining programme. have to move on.

The nation's finances are broken and yet we are spending ever more

money and health care to treat avoidable diseases. Our NHS is

these -- based on need and not ability to pay. But if you eat too

much, smoke, drink and don't exercise, who should pick up the

tab when your body fails? Katie Hopkins thinks it's time for more

Sit in any doctor's surgery, hospital waiting room, A&E

department and there's one thing you can be sure of. Crowds of

people. The old, the young, the rich, the poor, all seeking help

from the NHS. The National Health Service was created in 1948 to

bring free medical treatment for all. 70 years on, times have

changed yet the NHS still provides this service. We now live in a

country that offers ever greater amounts of toys. These choices

include how we live our lives and how we choose to look after a row

bodies. With strong emphasis on health education from an early age,

we are now better equipped than ever before to make the right

choices on food, diet, exercise and Isn't it time we took

responsibility for our own actions? Isn't it time we paid a price for

the choices we make? The latest figures show a quarter of adults in

England are classified as obese. Around three in 10 boys and girls

are classified as either overweight or obese - 20 % of people say they

take walks of 20 minutes less than once a year or never! As a taxpayer,

I do not want to fund NHS treatment for people that refuse to take

exercise. If you choose to smoke, why should I help fund your lung

cancer treatment? If you choose to overheat, why should I pay for your

operations? NHS demand is overwhelming. It is time to limit

NHS provision. If you choose to kill yourselves through your own

actions, then you opt out of free medical treatment and you should

foot the bill for yourself. Frankly, if you don't care about your health

or your body, then as a taxpayer Katie Hopkins has no doubt run to

the studio in Plymouth. Can you hear me? I can. How would the

alternative work? Who would decide who gets treated and who gets

turned away? I'd been overwhelmed by e-mails and texts from people

saying that it has been far too long that the taxpayer has been

supporting people's poor health choices. It is time that people

were made accountable for the choices that they make regarding

their health. Who would decide who gets that access to health care?

It's time we started to add a premium to people. If you choose to

eat yourself into obesity, you pay a premium. If you choose to smoke

yourself into lung cancer, you pay a premium. But who would decide who

is too fat to get free health care or who has smoked too much or drunk

too much - he would make the decision? Wherever the funding sits,

whether that was PCTs or whether it needs to be done centrally, the

funding decisions need to be made in order to make people accountable

for the choices they make. At the moment, we are allowing people to

take very poor decisions about their health and are expecting the

taxpayer to pick up the tab. That cannot continue while we have

queues and queues of people on waiting lists that deserve to be

treated. Should lifestyles choices affect your access to health care?

If there is a clinical basis for it then sometimes, but I think the

case that is being made here... If people's lifestyles choices have

led to them being in a condition where treatment is not going to

work for them or it's going to be higher risk then clearly there is

already a sense in which some of those lifestyles choices do affect

their health care treatment available. But should people who

drink too much and eat too much be forced to pay for it? We have a

system where there treatment is free at the point of need. That's a

decision we have made. We recognise that the National Health Service,

free at the point of need, is one of the cornerstones on which our

modern society is built. If you go down this route, where do you stop?

What about kids who don't do their homework, they don't get any help

with further education later on - where do we start with this

process? It is costing an awful lot of money. Do you think it would

have an effect if people who were drinking every Saturday night and

were a vast burden on all the emergency services, if they were

made to pay for their regular trip to the hospital, do you think it

would stop them drinking? Before I answer this, I declare an interest

in this. The point is, if you start saying, if you've eaten too much,

drunk too much or smoked too much, you should pay more for the

National Health Service, then how about if you have a wonky Jean and

nevertheless insist on having a child who the chances are we'll

have some sort of disability - should you pay more then? What if

you are jumping off cliffs and a bit of rubber - should you be

paying more then? In the end, the great benefit of the NHS is we are

all in it together and we pay equally and all get the benefit of

it. It's one of the great things about being British. Katie, you are

running every day to stave off that obesity. Should I pay for your

arthritis treatment later on? we are all in it together. We are

not all in it together. People who eat healthily are contributing to

their own personal health care. What about skiers and people who go

horse riding? They are very dangerous activities and cost a

fortune if you break your neck. can pick those examples but I'm

talking about people we district nurses are having to spend time

going into their homes because people can't get out of their homes

because of their obesity. Ambulances that cost �120,000 just

to move someone that is severely obese. We have to take action and

we have to stop people who are investing in their health from

queueing behind people who really don't care. We have no more time.

The Guess The Year and so, that's Thank you to all of our guests

today. The news is starting over on BBC One. I will be back tomorrow at