12/12/2012 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/12/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, Foulkes. This is the Daily Politics. Something is clearly


rotten at the heart of our banking system. HSBC, Britain's biggest


bank, has just been slapped with the biggest-ever banking fine, over


�1 billion for money laundering involving drug cartels. And rogue


regimes, and terrorists. The US Department of Justice accused the


Bank of having an astonishing record of dysfunction.


Westminster has been besieged by the lovers of a pint, who today


want to get rid of the so-called beer escalated you to.


Has the Government jilted the gay My passionate belief is that the


second most precious thing in life is the right to express yourself


freely. And we will be looking at moves afoot to get the law on


All that and more coming up and the next 90 minutes. With us for the


duration on the 12th of the 12th of 2012 -- scary! We have some up and


coming stars of the political firmament. Nick Hurd, son of


Douglas. He is minister for civil society. You won't find much of


that in here! According to the Daily Mail, he has modelled for the


Boden catalogue. Is that true? is true. He won't know what that is,


but I do. And we also blessed by the shadow


business secretary, a male model in his own way, Chuka Umunna. He


apparently sang the Mr Bean theme tune. Is that true? It is, with


several other people. That is my claim to fame! I got two right in a


row! First, the banks. British banks are creating headlines for


all wrong reasons. HSBC has been fined more than �1 billion, yes, I


said billion, not million, for helping launder money for Mexican


drug cartels and rogue states such as that nice place, North Korea,


which has just launched a missile. Standard Charter has been fined


almost �200 million for sanctions- busting on behalf of nice regimes


like Iran and Libya. City traders have been arrested for allegedly


fixing the London interbank rate, LIBOR, for which Barclays has


already been fined almost �300 million. And the tax payers had to


fork out �270 million to Northern Rock customers because the bank


couldn't keep its paperwork in order. That only leaves the co-op


unscathed. Good old co-op! HSBC turned a blind eye to money


laundering by drug cartels, terrorists and regimes in Cuba,


Iran, Libya and Burma. It was the Bank of choice for Mexican drug


gangs. They used the bank so often they build special boxes to fit


into HSBC's teller slots. How could this happen to a British bank? You


used to be with Flemings, another British bank. Her who behaved a lot


better. The fundamental problem here at the root of all this is


that banks were regulated very badly. Gordon Brown has admitted


that. The regulatory regime in which banks operated was far too


lax. I think there is also another problem, the way in which bankers


are paid, it is all about maximising short-term profit. But


we are now taking a serious approach to regulation, which we


haven't had for 30 years. It wasn't the rules. The problem was that


people were breaking the rules. This is a matter of criminality!


Absolutely. That is the particular issue here. In relation to Northern


Rock, I don't think it is. And ask you about HSBC. It has to be


criminality if you are money laundering for grown -- drug


cartels in Mexico. I'm amazed nobody has gone to jail over this.


Ditto. To say that we should have had better regulated banks is


nonsense. Many, including Ed Balls, agree that the political consensus


which was Pro a light touch regime was wrong at the time. But the


important thing for us is to rebuild trust and confidence in the


British banking sector. It is going to take a long time. It will, but


there is a national interest in this. Increasingly, people have


been talking about it being a London problem, of the back of


LIBOR, PPI misselling, interest rates and so on. We have got to


resolve this. I am proud that we have the world's global financial


services sector here in London, but we have got to maintain that


position. We are particularly seen with the regulators in New York,


seeking to make political capital out of London's position. Do you


think they are picking on us? think there was definitely a hint


of that in respect of Standard Chartered and the New York


regulator. There were sources close to the Fed and close to the


Treasury in the US who looked not very favourably on the attitude


adopted. Standard Chartered was found guilty of sanctions busting


for a nice places like Iran, Burma and Libya. I am not defending any


of the Rhondda whatsoever. I am simply making the point that we


have a leading financial services centre here and we have got to


maintain that position and rebuild trust and confidence. It isn't just


an issue for regulators. It is an issue for the leaders of the big


banks themselves. This isn't just a few rotten apples. We need to


fundamentally change the culture of our institutions. Most of the HSBC


wrong doing took place between 2002 and 2010. He was chief executive of


HSBC for most of that time? I... Mr Green? That is right. Stephen Green.


And what does he do now? He is a trade minister. How can you have a


trade minister who presided over a bank, chairman from 2006-2010, when


all this was going on? He has got to account for himself. He regrets


it, he says. He hasn't accounted for himself. He is open to


accountability on that. I like Stephen Green. I think he is a good


chap. There are a lot of people who say it that they think he has done


a good job as trade minister, but he could have put this issue to bed


if he had come to the House of Lords as many were asking and dealt


with questions on this topic. But he hasn't allowed people to


question him, to hold him to account. That's the problem.


left with a pension pot of... Anyone like to guess? It's not


small. Over half a million a year, probably. �19 million pension pot.


According to my notes here. And this is a man who was chairman of a


bank that turned a blind DI to money laundering by drug cartels,


terrorists and regimes in Cuba, Iran, Libya and Burma. Ordinary


people watching this programme, struggling to make ends meet as


their fuel bills go through the roof, will be saying, there is


clearly one law for these kinds of people, a totally different law for


me. There is a huge amount of anger at the banks, and this will only


throw more petrol on the flames. is on the banking reform committee.


Northern Rock taking 270 million from the taxpayer, on top of the


billions already given to bail them out. It is stupidity. It is lack of


information, typical of the way in which the banks were operating at


the time. We need to get regulatory framework, and we are making


progress. On this northern Rock issue, and people have been seeing


stories about them having to pay out this money, why, given that the


Government knew about this in October, would it not factored into


the forecast and provided to the OBR to factor into their forecasts


of public sector debt? That is one for the Treasury. I don't know the


answer. They wanted to keep it out of the public view? Do not think of


the Treasury knew about it, they should have factor that in? With


the greatest respect, I am not taking any lessons from a Labour


politician about failure to regulate the bank's! We need to


conduct a proper inquiry and see what comes out of that. It is an


unprecedented litany of disasters in the banking sector. Household


names like HSBC, Barclays. I don't think we have heard the last of


them. You have on this programme, because Jo has a much more


important subject. Not a good day for the banks, and also not for


beer. What would motivate 1,000 angry men and a few women to


descend on Westminster on such a winter's des? The rising price of


beer, of course. The government's alcohol duty escalator increases


the price of the tax on beer by 2% per year more than the rate of


inflation. CAMRA's chief executive is in Westminster. I notice the


signs behind you. I believe they are the signs of pubs that have


shut. Is that correct? They are indeed, and some of hour


campaigners are here today. These are people who have lost their


local pubs, and one of the reasons for those pub losses is undoubtedly


the high rate of tax we are paying. We would like to see the escalator


scrapped. Excuse me for using a hackneyed phrase. We are all in


this together. Why shouldn't be a drinkers pay a little more? No one


is saying they shouldn't pay their fair share. But what is happening


is that they are paying 2% every year above the rate of inflation.


We are saying scrap the escalator. The attacks shouldn't go up by more


than the rate of inflation. The government's figures show that over


the next two years, they are expecting their beer tax revenue to


fall while beer drinkers are still paying through the nose. That


doesn't look like good politics to me. You are complaining about the


price of beer, but according to the campaign for real-ale and the


editor of the Good Beer Guide, real-ale has never been in ruder


health. Breweries are opening. They have managed to buck the trend on


the double-dip recession because there is a surge of the number of


brewers coming onto the scene. are here to talk about the overall


beer market, and of course pubs. If you look at the whole of the UK,


not just real ale, that has just declined massively over the last 20


years, and it continues to do so, so if we are going to get


investment back into the market place and back into jobs, we need


to see some support for the brewers, but more importantly, when we are


seeing so many pubs closing, and we're talking about an industry


that supports a million jobs, there is a real opportunity here for the


Government to show some support for a great British industry and invest


in British jobs. The chairman of the all-party Save the pub group,


you were not doing very well. could ask other people. You can ask


CAMRA members. We are campaigning on a number of issues. The unfair


rates of beer duty is one of them. Today we are here to talk about


beer duty. The increase escalator doesn't make sense. It is stifling


business, closing pubs. What we are calling for today is common sense.


It doesn't make sense to have an escalator introduced in a


completely different economic environment in 2008, when inflation


was different and the cost of living was different. This is doing


damage to a great British industry, and doing damage to pubs who can't


absorb the extra costs. But it is your Chief Secretary to the


Treasury that keeps putting it up. Have you spoken to Danny Alexander


about this? I have indeed, and I raised it in Treasury Questions


yesterday. He said it is being looked at, and we are trying to


push the case. Alistair Darling left us with a strange situation,


criticised by Conservatives and Liberal Democrat MPs when it was


introduced, and now being imposed by Labour MPs. This is a tax that


no longer makes sense. We are going to do everything we can. There are


well over 1,000 CAMRA members giving a very clear message that


the beer duty escalator is bad for British pubs, and we hope we met


that they will see sense. Just before we go, is it true you are


only allowed in your supporters to have tea and biscuits before they


meet the MPs? The beer is saved for later? Everybody will get a good


old pint of real-ale on CAMRA later! Probably a wise move. Well


done for asking. Sorry about that. Cheers to both of you! We do the


same, tea and biscuits before and Do you support this campaign?


I'm a big fan of CAMRA. They were concerned about the issues which


affect pubs, and it's more complex than the beer duty in terms of


Wyatt public houses are struggling. There is lots of social factors,


not least the price of booze in the supermarkets. This escalator was


introduced by a Labour. Would you like to scrap it? What I do know is


that the Government is very sensitive to the cost of living


issues in relation to council tax, fuel duty. Rail fares. At some


point, you do have to recognise there are difficult decisions to be


taken. The escalator may be one of them. CAMRA is furious with a


government at the moment because they would introduce a statutory


code to govern the relation between tenants and large pub companies and


they have remained on so many of their commitments. That needs to be


dealt with. The seal on anniversary in January when the Government


promised to help small pubs which are shutting and they have not done


yet. Secondly, where pubs are closing, going under, you often see


supermarkets moving straight in because you don't need to change


the planning laws. On the review of the beer duty, we support the


review. Would you like to see it scrapped? Our commitment to reduce


VAT to 17.5% would cut the price of beer by 5p. That actually mean


something to people. We are supporting the review. Thank you,


gentlemen. Time, as they say. Do you think anybody who watches


this programme earns millions of pounds? I don't know how much


people in here. I don't know. Enough of this. Now, you bunch of


lazy, stay-at-home, silly, nothing better to do than watch the useless


Daily Politics, numpties. Watch this. Oi, now you watch it!


Insulting me is possibly a criminal offence. And if that doesn't spook


you, the sight of Peter Tatchell dressed as a policeman and with a


Pantomime Dobbin is definitely enough to scare the horses. Section


5 of the Public Order Act was written 26 years ago to tackle


football hooligans by making it a criminal offence to use insulting


words or behaviour. It's united unlikely bedfellows in a campaign


to reform it, after cases of a Christian arrested for saying


homosexuality was a sin. A fine later quashed for a teenager who


said woof woof to some labradors. And a student arrested for saying


to a police officer, "Excuse me". Do you know your horse is gay?


is insulting. You on nicked! remember I had been here before in


a fictional context. I once did a show called Not the 9 o'clock News,


some years ago, and we did a sketch where grief these Jones played


Constable Savage. A racist police officer to whom I, his station


commander, is given a dressing-down for arresting a black man on a


string of ludicrous charges. The charges for which he was arrested


worthies. Walking on the cracks in the pavement. Walking in a loud


shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness. And one of my


favourite, walking around all over the place. He was also arrested for


urinating in a public convenience. And the looking at me in a funny


way. Who would have thought that we would end up with a law which would


allow life to imitate art so exactly if? It's often used to


arrest people for expressing opinions and beliefs. And we think


that is dangerous. It is not compatible with a free and


democratic society. We are delighted the cross-party group of


MPs are supporting the appeal and we have the backing of both the


current director of Public Prosecutions and the formal one.


Perhaps the Government's only concern is appearing to licence


insulting police men. Right I'm The horse was nodding in agreement.


Anyway, Giles Dilnot there. And we're joined now by the Liberal


Democrat President, Tim Farron. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.


You want to see insulting removed from the Public Order Act, why?


It's important to be courteous and polite. It's not wise to insult


people. What we're talking about is not the banter we have been


discussing, but the rights of people of deeply-held convictions


to express them in a way not meant to be abusive, not meant to cause a


public order offence, but is simply likely to rile those who take


different positions. I have the National secular Society and the


Christian Institute in my office not long ago arguing for the right


to defend and insult one another. They should be allowed to do so.


when that drug Oxford student insulted the police force, by


telling the police officer that his horse was gay, he was then arrested


for making homophobic remarks. If you change the law, this stuff


could not happen anyway? response to this, there is no


offence which has been committed in the last few years under this


political heading which would not have been easily prosecuted under


abusive behaviour, incitement to violence, anything already in


existence in the law. The issue is protecting freedom of speech, not


reducing the powers of the police. But this is a much coarser nation


than it used to be. The traditional British politeness and civilised


behaviour has gone out of the window. You only have to drive


around London. The House of Commons. Drivers are here behaved the way


drivers used to be paid in New York. Are you sure you want to make his


even more of a rude society? think the issues the police are


concerned about over whether they can apprehend people who are


causing difficulty, they are unfounded concerns because the law


already allows people to be arrested for abusive behaviour,


violent, threatening behaviour and so on. Even an intentional in salt


is something different. We're talking at the freedom of speech


for people with political, religious, philosophical


convictions to be able to say things which are in the face of


other people. We have a right to offend and a duty to accept that


offence and a free society. What to say about courtesy is different. I


agree with you. Western society as a whole is losing very important


basic manners that we once had. It's a sad thing but it is not


affected by the Government of any colour deciding to prevent free


speech. If we take a rift out of the Andrew Mitchell playbook, and


call some body a pleb, that is Ruud and stupid to do. But should not be


illegal in your view, is that right? I'm not sure. The


interpretation of existing law, intentional insults it would be


something which is potentially actionable. If somebody perceives


there had been insulted, I, as a Christian, being insulted by some


body saying there is no God, get over it, I should be able to live


for that. If somebody is an atheist, and has offended by me saying they


are going to hell, something like that, they have got to live with


that. It's an honest exchange of views. Let's see it your


parliamentary colleagues agree. not sure we are that course as a


society. Shakespeare and Chaucer they were pretty bad. I'm going


back a bit. It may be nice inside the Carlton Club. I work in the


House of Commons and it pretty tough. There is a clear issue here.


Which is why we are consulting on it and reviewing the conclusions.


The word insulting leads to challenges. Would you go along with


this? I think the Home Office need to look at it. All right. We are


not convinced over the need to change this. We will listen to the


campaigners on it but I think you can have freeze speech without


needing to insult people. -- a free speech. It's about where you


personally feel insulted? It's a difference between are being


deliberately offended by somebody else for so we have the equal


marriage issue this week and those sides should be expressed without


worry of being prosecuted. We will keep you posted. Thank you. Now,


he's a man of principle who achieves what he wants to do. And


he prevails in the end because he's honourable, decent, a great British


hero. Who could Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband's spin doctor, possibly be


talking about? Wel,l Wallace of Wallace and Gromit fame. The


cartoon character that Times cartoonist Peter Brooks has


compared to the leader of the Labour party. Unable to shake off


the perhaps unfavourable comparison, the Labour leadership team have


decided to embrace it. "He's got a nice dog" says Mr Miliband. And


Wallace, or Ed Miliband, also reveals in an interview for Grazia


magazine what he bought his wife Justine for her birthday. Jewellery,


perfume, underwear perhaps? No, he bought her a coffee machine. Used


for. -- used for. Well, Mrs Wallace, I mean Mrs Miliband, if you're


watching, we've got the perfect accompaniment for a coffee machine.


We'll remind you how to enter in a minute. But let's see if you can


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 41 seconds


It is twice the size of Trafalgar Square. It's quite is twice the


height of Nelson's Column in the # You've got a lot to answer for #


Baby, I love you. # You've got a lot to answer for...


Lots of guessing in the studio here. To be in with a chance of winning a


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


addres. And you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The


Year on our website. Maybe I can get one? I only work here! It's


coming up to midday here. Just take a look at Big Ben. It's a cold but


rather nice winter's day in London town. PMQs is on its way. Nick


Robinson is here. They is is the first chance for Labour to spell


out what they would do to the benefit cuts or are joining the tax


credits are because, crucial to the argument, an argument about


language. The Treasury, George Osborne, wants to talk about


capping benefits. Are they are going up but not that fast. Labour


are saying, 60% of the people affected are working families, it's


a real terms cut say you should talk about cuts to tax credits. The


Shadow work and pension secretary has called it a shirkers tax. You


listen to these exchanges today, and remember this battle about


language is entirely to do with the politics of whether you regard this


as unfair. If you describe the policy which never it fits into a


TV graphic or sound bite. Led to go Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning


I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall


have further such meetings later today. Can my right honourable


friend confirm that the fall in youth unemployment figures is the


largest since records began? And will he meet with me to discuss how


employment opportunities in Tamworth, including youth


employment, can be promoted still further?


I would be delighted to meet with my honourable friend to discuss the


business situation in Tamworth, but he is absolutely right. This


morning's figures show the largest quarterly fall in youth


unemployment on record. 72,000 fewer people unemployed this


quarter. There is no room for complacency, still far too many


people long-term unemployed, but in these figures we can see 40,000


more people in work, they can seize up, unemployment down by 82,000,


and the claimant count down. Over 1 million extra private sector jobs


under this government. Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker... Mr


Speaker, today's fall in unemployment and rising employment


is welcome. Part of the challenge remains the stubbornly high level


of long-term unemployment. Does the Prime Minister agree that this


remains a fundamental importance, for the country as a whole? I do


agree, and as I mentioned in my first dancer, long-term


unemployment remains stubbornly high. The good news is that long-


term youth unemployment is down by 10,000 this quarter, so that is


encouraging. Long-term unemployment for others is still a problem,


which is why the work programme and getting the work programme right is


so important. Clearly there is more to do. He said on 18th January,


unemployment will get worse not better. Perhaps he would like to


withdraw that. Mr Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister recognises


that long-term unemployment is still a challenge. I want to ask


him about the people who were doing the right thing in finding work. In


his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor decided to cut tax


credits and benefits, and he said it was the people with the curtains


drawn who would be affected. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many


of those hit actually in work. fact is this, that welfare needs to


be controlled, and everyone who was on tax credits will be affected by


these changes, because we have to get on top of the welfare bill.


That is why we are restricting the increase on out-of-work benefits,


and it is also the reason why we are restricting in-work benefits.


But what we have also done is increase the personal allowance,


because on this side of the house, we believe in cutting people's


taxes when they are in work. He is raising the taxes of people in work,


and he didn't answer the question. The answer is, despite the


impression given by the Chancellor of the us Cheka, over 60% of those


affected a Ren work -- the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is


the factory work on a night shift. It is the cleaner who cleans the


Chancellor's office while his curtains are still drawn and he is


still in bed! The chancellor calls them scroungers. What does the


Prime Minister call them? He just said that we are not cutting taxes


for people in work. Someone who is on the minimum wage and works full-


time will see their income tax bill cut by 1 1/2 under this Government.


-- Cat by a half. This Government will say to working people, you can


earn another �3,000 before you even start paying income tax. That is


why we have taken 2 million people out of tax altogether. He should be


welcoming that. This is the party for people who work. His is the


party for unlimited welfare. course, he is just wrong on the


detail. The Institute for Fiscal Studies table says quite clearly


that, on average, working families are �534 a year worse off as a


result of his measures. I notice he wants to get away from what the


Chancellor of the Exchequer said last week, and we know what the


Chancellor was trying to do. He was trying to play divide and rule. He


said his changes, and I quote, "were for people living a life on


benefits, still asleep while their neighbours go out to work." but it


turns out it just wasn't true. It is a tax on strivers. Will the


Prime Minister now admit that the Chancellor got it wrong and the


majority of people hit are working people? He says that we haven't got


the detail right. We know his approach to detail is to take a


2000 page report and accepted without reading it! That is his


approach to detail. I am surprised the shadow chancellor is shouting


again. We learned last week, like bullies all over the world, he can


Order, order! I want to hear the Prime Minister's answer. Order!


Let's hear it. Specifically answer the leader of the opposition's


question. He mentioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies figure.


They do not include the personal allowance increase put through in


the Budget. They do not include the Universal Credit changes which will


help the working poor. Under this government, we are lifting the


personal allowance, taking millions out of tax, standing up for those


who work. He only stand up for those who claim. I must say, Mr


Speaker, I have heard everything when the boy from the Bullingdon


Club lectures people on bullying. Absolutely extraordinary. Have you


He doesn't want to talk about the fact, but let's give him another


one. He is hitting working families, and the richest people in our


society will be getting a massive tax cuts next April. An average of


�107,000 each for people earning over a million pounds. Mr Speaker,


is the prime minister the only person left in the country Rue


cannot see the fundamental injustice of giving huge tax cuts


to the richest while punishing those in work on the lowest pay?


The tax rate for the richest under this government will be higher in


every year than it was for any year when he was in government. He


obviously has a short memory, because I explained to him last


week that under his plans for the 50p tax rate, millionaires paid �7


billion less in tax than they did previously. The point of raising


taxes is to pay for public services. We are raising more money for the


rich, but where he is really so profoundly wrong is the choice that


he has decided to make. Because the facts are these: Over the last five


years, people in work have seen their incomes go up by 10%. People


out of work have seen their income go up by 20%. At a time when people


accept a pay freeze, we should not be increasing benefits. And yet


that is what he wants to do. A party that is serious about


controlling welfare isn't serious about controlling the deficit


either. From the first part of his answer, he is claiming to be Robin


Herd. I don't think that is going to work. He is not taking from the


richest in giving to everybody else. And didn't the business Secretary


give it away? This is what he said: "what happened was some of their


donors, very wealthy people, stamped their feet. So they


scrapped the mansion tax and went ahead with a 50p tax cut." Mr


Speaker, they look after their friends, the people on their


Christmas card list. Any well, they hit people who they never meet and


whose lives they will never understand. His donors put him when


he is, pay him every year, determine his policies. But it is


perfectly clear, Mr Speaker, what the Labour Party's choice is. Their


choice is more benefits paid for my more borrowing. They should listen


to the Labour trade minister who said this: "you know what you call


a system of government way you say, oh, we're in trouble, we will go


and borrow low then give it to people. It is called Greece. Close


they are not serious about the Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the


Prime Minister join me, and I am sure, the whole house, in sending


our deepest sympathies and condolences to nurse Jacintha


Saldanha who died this week. Does anybody wishing to support the


family by donating to the King Edward VII hospital fund, and


urging the press to preserve the privacy of this family. I am sure


the whole house and indeed the whole country will join the


honourable lady and join me in paying tribute to this nurse, and


giving more our sympathies and condolences to her family. She


clearly loved her job, cared deeply about the health of her patients,


and what happened is a tragedy. There will be many lessons to be


learned, and that echo what she said about the press keeping their


distance and allowing his family Is the prime minister still


intending to introduce the snoopers charter, euphemistically known as


the communications and data Bill? Does he realise that he will be


spying, his government, on more people in Britain than even all the


press barons put together? Where did he get this advice and idea


from? Was it down at Wapping? Was it his friends down there? Tony?


I really believe on this issue the Honourable Gentleman is wrong. This


is an important issue, and I feel is very strongly. As Prime Minister,


you have to take responsibility first and foremost for national


security and people's safety. Data communications, this is not the


content of a phone call, it is the fact a phone call took place, is


used in every single terrorist case and almost every single serious


crime case. The question in front of a house of Commons and indeed


the House of Lords is simply this: Because we currently have that data


for fixed and mobile telephony, what are we going to do as


Telephony increasingly moves over the internet? We can stand here and


do-nothing and not update the law. The consequence will be fewer


crimes solved, few were terrorists brought to justice. I do not want


to be the prime minister who puts this country into that position.


The Government's proposals on judicial review conflict with


article 29 of Magna Carter 1297. Does the Government proposed the


We don't intend that, but I am sure that he would understand... Order!


Order! I would like to hear this. The point we are making is that the


extent of judicial review has massively increased in recent years,


and we think that there is an need for her recent rules to extend the


costs of judicial review so that the costs are covered. Then we can


maintain access to justice, but speed up the wheels of government a


little. Will the Prime Minister answer the


question he was asked three times by my Right Honourable Friend, and


dodged a few moments ago? Willie confirm the majority of households


will be hit by the real-terms cuts to benefits and tax credits are


working household? The point I made is bigger than that. Everyone on


working tax credits will be affected by the fact we are only


increasing them by 1%. But the fact is we have to control welfare to


deal with the massive deficit we were left by the party opposite,


and there is a choice in politics. You could either control welfare


bills, or you can say no to a welfare cap, no to the controller


of welfare, borrow, build a power deficit and put us back where we


came from. At the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister began


by saying that the Government would accept crucial Lords amendments to


make the justice and security bill acceptable on secret courts. But he


ended the session by appearing to say that he wouldn't accept those


amendments. Could you clarify which We want this to pass through


Parliament, having listened to the excellent points through the House


of Lords, I think the Leader of the Opposition is catching the disease


of the Shadow Chancellor of not being able to keep his mouth shut


for longer than five seconds. We will listen very carefully. The


fundamental choice is to make sure that these proceedings are


available to judges and they should make a decision. The Environment


Secretary this week described went to a bines as any appropriate


technology which matured in the Middle Ages. Does he agree? Why


not? The we are making serious investments in that renewable


energy. We have set up a subsidy which stretches the tomb 2017 and


that's why the renewable Energy capacity of this country has


actually doubled in the last two years under this Government. Will


he agree with me that not only has this Government had to deal with


the catastrophic budget deficit which we inherited it from the


former prime minister but also, as the figures reveal today, a tidal


wave of emigration deliberately fostered by the Labour government


concentrating on putting these two issues right are the most important


issues facing this government for security for the people of this


country? He makes an important point which is emigration was out


of control under the last government. Net migration ran at


over 200,000 a year, 2 million across a decade. Under sensible


controls we have put in place, it's fallen by a quarter in recent years


also what is interesting about this, you can have proper control of


immigration while also saying to the world other universities are


open to foreign students to come and study here, and as long as they


have an English language qualification and a degree place in


university, there's no limits on the numbers which can come.


Controlling immigration, but making sure the best and brightest come to


Britain. Iceland had a huge economic difficulties and rejected


austerity and has seen a recovery driven by domestic demand.


Unemployment is 2.4% lower than the UK. Those with children receive the


most support in Iceland. Will he congratulate them on working hard


to turn things around and does he think is anything he can learn from


Iceland? I think if the case for an independent Scotland is a makers


more like Iceland, I'm not sure that will recommend itself to the


voters. Britain and Iceland have very good relations and I will make


sure it remains to be the case of. Can I welcome the fall in youth


unemployment in Hastings, where it has fallen steadily for the past


nine months and is at its lowest since May 2010. Will he consider


the continuation of youth contracts are so that can continue?


grateful for her point. We will continue with the apprenticeships


which have reached over one million under this government but also with


the youth contract and work experience because we are seeing


large numbers of people going into work experience coming off benefits,


finding a job and finding it's a very good start to a working career.


On the day unemployment in Scotland show the largest fall at in four


years, it is the as shocked as I am by reports in the newspapers that


some of JobCentre managers were actively encouraging employers to


convert paid vacancies in to unpaid work experience placements to


satisfy dw p targets? Will he condemned this practice and ensure


it ceases immediately? He makes an important point. We want work-


experience places to be additional places, encouraging more people to


get appealing for work so they have a chance of getting a job but it's


good he welcomes the fact employment in Scotland as increased


27,000 since the election and unemployment has fallen by 19,000


this quarter, so we are making progress. Would the Prime Minister


join me in welcoming the progress that has been made around the


country since the autism Act 2009 in supporting adults with autism?


And following the recent National Audit Office report, would he join


me in encouraging his ministerial colleagues and local authorities


across the country to accelerate his progress next year when the


adult autism strategy is due to be reviewed? May I pay tribute to my


friend who was instrumental in getting a landmark act on to the


statute books. The impact of it continues right up to this day and


beyond. We want all adults living with autism to live recording lives


within a society which accepts them up. The review of the strategy is


coming up next year between March and October. It is vital it is a


cost government at but and I will make sure this is dealt with in a


co-ordinated way. The Green Investment Bank was due to be given


new borrowing powers in three years' time. But, in a few other


chances abject failure to meet that borrowing target, because it was


predicated on meeting those borrowing targets set by the


Government, is he still committed to giving borrowing powers to the


Green Investment Bank and, if so, when? This government has set up a


Green Investment Bank within two years whereas the party opposite


did nothing about this for 13 years. Even at a time of fiscal difficulty,


because of the mess we were left in, we put �3 billion into this, so


right now it doesn't need to borrow because it has the money to invest


and I think what is needed is the equity risk finance and that's


exactly what the Green Investment Bank will provide. He goes to


summer tomorrow. Has he noticed -- a summit. Has he noticed that the


European Parliament is a parliament for the EU ensuring democratic


legitimacy for the EU? Does he agree with this? What really say to


the other leaders when he goes to their summit tomorrow? I do agree


with him on this one. It is actually the national parliaments


would provide the real democratic legitimacy within the European


Union. When we are discussing banking union, it is to this House


that we should account. It is to this size that represents our tax


payers are that we should account and I always bear that in mind her


when I am negotiating as I will be tomorrow at the European Council.


Can the Prime Minister confirm the Autumn Statement revealed to the


Government is now borrowing to London �12 billion more than it


previously planned to? -- to London �12 billion? -- �212 billion. The


party opposite was disappointed that borrowing would come down this


year but this is the fact. Prime Minister has rightly said we


are locked in a global economic race. Does he share my concern that,


having the highest aviation taxes and the world, makes it harder for


business to compete? And it increases the cost of living? Will


he ask the Treasury to conduct a full review? I very much understand


the point. Obviously, I get lobbied regularly by countries around the


world particularly Commonwealth countries about their passenger


duty also we don't have plans to commission a further research


because we have just complete -- completed a thorough consultation.


We have limited the rise of it until 2013 so the rates have only


increased by a �1 for the majority of passengers but I will bear in


mind very carefully what he says. The Autumn Statement did not


include a forecast of child poverty as a result of the policies


announced. Can he confirm it will be published soon? Could he tell


the House whether he really believes his policies will increase


or reduce child poverty in Islington? We want to see a lasting


reduction in child poverty and I think we need to have a policies


which address, not only whether people are just above or below the


poverty line, are but policies which address the causes of poverty.


What traps people into poverty? Of course, not enough money is part of


it, not enough jobs is another and that's why today's news on


unemployment is so welcomed but we need to look at all of the things


which trap people in unemployment which includes family breakdown,


drug abuse, alcohol abuse and unemployment. As he knows, Plymouth


is a global leader in the Marine Science Engineering Research. I


very much welcome the initiative by the Government to spend more money


on at the science base. Would he be willing to meet with me and


Plymouth members of Parliament and businesses, to discuss how they


could become involved in the small cities super broadband initiative


and will help us to rebalance our economy and attract private


investors? I'm a very happy to meet with him. I know he stands up


strongly for Plymouth a's economy. On the science budget, we made a


decision at the start of this government, to freeze the science


budget rather than cut it, and I'm sure that was the right answer and,


since then, on broadband, I will look carefully about what he says


about it. I'm sure he will be glad to know Devon and Somerset have


been allocated over �33 million it to deliver a super-fast broadband


and we're working hard to make sure those plans are on track because


it's important for cities and rural areas, as well. The Prime Minister


and members of this House will be fully aware of the serious threat


posed to democracy by dissident republicans in Northern Ireland.


The police have stated there is evidence of loyalist paramilitary


involvement in some of the protests in Northern Ireland this week. It


included a murder attempt on police officers protecting my constituency


office. Will he not only condemned as reprehensible assault on


democracy from those who style themselves as loyal, and willing


agreed to meet with me and my colleagues, the justice minister


for Northern Ireland, to discuss the grave security situation?


absolutely join her in condemning the violence we have seen on the


streets of Belfast. In no way are these people being loyal or


standing up for being British for the violence is unjustified. I


agree completely with what he said about the attack on the police


officers. We should pay tribute to the work the Police Service of


Northern Ireland do. I know the whole House would like to express


our solidarity with the honourable lady and her colleagues who have


been intimidated in recent days and a ball is happy to meet with MPs


from Northern Ireland. But I am always happy to meet with MPs and


Northern Ireland. Will he congratulate my two young


entrepreneurs who have taken the initiative to start the Cornish


cheese company and a passion company in my constituency? Does he


agree this is just the sort of business initiative we need to see?


I'm delighted to John honourable lady in congratulating the


entrepreneurship -- joined the honourable lady in congratulating


the entrepreneurship. I'm looking forward to pasting that cheese. I


shouldn't maybe, because of my weight. The rate of start-up of a


new businesses in this country is at a record high and because we


need a rebalancing between the public and private sector, we need


this to continue. In opposition, the Prime Minister said he wanted


this government to be the most family a friendly government this


country had ever seen. Why is the cutting maternity pay for working


mothers? First of all,, what can honourable lady to the House of


Commons and congratulate hair on her recent a by-election a success?


We have had to take difficult decisions about welfare in and out


of work. So we put a cap on 1% of all the working benefits including


the one she mentions but, above all, on this issue, the right thing is


to cut the tax as a people in work rather than take more in taxes and


then redistributed through tax credits will stop we want to cut


taxes on those who work and that's what we are doing and there will be


more of it to come. Over the last five years, benefits have risen


twice as fast as salaries for that does he agree that whilst we have a


duty to the least well-off, it cannot be fair that people out of


work enjoy bigger increases in living standards than those who


work hard day and night to support themselves and their families?


put that extremely clearly. Many people in our country have seen a


pay freeze year after year after year. And yet welfare benefits have


gone up. So, in politics, we face a choice. Do we go on putting those


benefits up, which actually is not helping those people who are on the


pay freeze in work, or do we take a tough decision? We have taken a


tough decision. The only welfare minister Labour had called


honourable member for Birkenhead, said there approach simply is not


serious and once again, he is it right. May I congratulate the Prime


Minister and the UK government on following the lead of the Scottish


government and parliament in introducing equal marriage, minimum


pricing by alcohol and the smoking ban up previously pulled up given


that unemployment is now lower in Scotland and the rest of the UK,


will he follow the lead of the Scottish government by introducing


a more cohesive measure for growth? There is an extra �300 million for


the Scottish government to spend and so it they want to spend that


on the shop already measures, they can, but I'm happy to say, when


good policies are introduced in any part of the UK, we all have the


opportunity to follow them. Statement. We'll return to that in


a moment. We saw the new dividing line in British politics. The


uprating of benefits. The Government said they could only go


up by 1% in the next three years. Now opposed by the Labour Party.


There is a clear division there. It turned a little nasty. The Prime


Minister described Ed Balls as a bully. He's probably do not before.


But he's probably done that before. He was asked whether he had wrecked


If only we could all draw a shroud over what we did at university!


They have picked up on the debate. He was looking to me to make the


point! You couldn't afford a restaurant, could you? I was very


well behaved at university. Viewers also interested in the debate. The


benefits discussion. This from Jacqueline in Keynsham. I am tired


of being called a scrounger because I can no longer work. The


Chancellor and the Prime Minister going on about drawn blinds and


curtains is alienating a part of disabled society that has no choice


in the matter. This from Helen Manning: Ed Miliband's continued


reference to Sherpas not workers is so monotonous. He stands on the


side of benefit claimants. Michael firm: David Cameron always quotes


benefit claimants in percentages to make sure it sounds like people are


getting more. But it only just covers the price rises. And this


from Jeremy Clarke: Why aren't they are asking about the bank has yet


again? Nick, there was a factual argument we are trying to get to


the bottom of. The leader of the opposition said that if you only


increase in work benefits by 1%, that is a cut in real terms. The


Prime Minister then said, that doesn't include this huge rise in


personal allowances, so that particularly people on lower


incomes will find that a huge chunk of their income won't be taxed at


all. On first sight, I thought they had both made mistakes, but I have


just check with the Treasury teams to see if they can provide some


information. Ed Miliband said that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has


said that the average loss, if you took into account everything, was


�533 for families. In fact, Labour's own press release


yesterday only applied to couples where only one person learns. The


Government is increasing personal tax allowance. If there are two of


you getting at, that obviously increases your income at the same


time as a cat in real benefits level is curbing it. Five and and


�34 is a figure that applies. The Prime Minister then claimed...


what about fuel duty and all the rest of it? The Prime Minister


claimed that this didn't include personal allowance, but I think it


did. It would be remarkable if the Institute of Fiscal Studies, trying


to do distributional analysis of the impact of all the changes that


have been introduced, given that the increase in personal allowances


one of the biggest and most expensive tax changes of all, I


would be amazed if they didn't include that. I think that is


absolutely right. So it is a question of what you include in the


calculation. You can see, in very simple terms, the Institute of


Fiscal Studies produced tables the day after important statements. How


you win the bottom 10th, are you when the top 10th? If you are in


the bottom five, below the average, you lose. The people just above,


some of them again as a result of the personal tax allowance, of


which counteracts that cap in the benefit levels. And the people at


the very top lose because there was a different measure for pension


taxes. But they lose because of a whole range of other steps as well,


that the coalition government has taken. But in a sense what this was


proving is partly what I was saying before, which is that language is


crucial. That a viewer who roti in and said, and sick of his language.


But we are not talking about benefits for the disabled, although


I know it does affect employment support allowance, which some


people who are disabled depend upon. People who are officially


designated unable to work are not affected. But this language of are


you talking about a cut pre-tax, a Shericka Orest driver, the details


are complicated. Both sides are competing for language that works


for them. Labour and now opposed for both the 1% up rate for both


out of work and in-work benefits, correct? We are opposed to the


package. If they maintain this huge tax cuts for people earning


millions of pounds... The tax cut for the very rich. If they maintain


that at the same time they are putting in a 1% cap, it is


something we will vote against. This is a complicated area. I think


the Chancellor committed a huge strategic error first of all in


trying to do a divide and rule of the nation, and second of all


trying to do a divide and rule between the so-called strivers and


shirkers. Even if you take the argument that there are people in


receipt of benefit, six out of 10 families affected by this being


working families. But the issue of the people who are out of work, I


look at the people I come across in my constituency, in my constituency


frequently I meet young people in families who have come back from


university, graduated from college, and cannot find work at the moment.


They are doing a constant stream of work experience placements,


internships. And in terms of there being this division, the party of


strivers or shirkers. Maintaining this massive tax cut for the top 1%,


if there is any division, you have a party of the 1% and a party of


99%, everybody else. That is the real division here. What do you say


to that? What I was struck by was a couple of things. I was pleased to


see Ed Miliband open his account by welcoming the very good employment


figures. I think he did it through gritted teeth, but it is good but


the opposition can welcome what is clearly good news. It is not


through gritted teeth. I have 15 people chasing every job vacancy in


my constituency. So when I say these figures are will come, I mean


it. We're so used to the negative stuff, it was welcome to hear him


welcome that. But you are right, that reflected the big dividing


line which will run through to the next general election. It is not


just about this specific package. This is now the third successive


opportunity that Labour have had to embrace some form of welfare reform,


and they are clearly not. Because we don't want to give the top 1% a


�107,000 tax cut. That is what you are putting through at the same


time. At the same time, that you were implementing these cuts, barer


thousands of families who are suffering because of what you were


doing, enjoyed giving people early millions of pounds a tax cut in the


order of �107,000. That is not fair. We can have a ding-dong about that.


A think most people watching would be turned off by that exchange, as


they are by most of these arguments. What is your message to families in


your constituency who will be affected by this, then? The rich


are going to be paying a much greater share of the total tax bill


than they did in any year when you were in power. That matters to


people. And the Prime Minister is also right in that you cannot argue


with the fact that we are taking a lot of people out of tax. Our


message to working families is we are on your side. We are cutting


taxes. We are trying to reduce the cost of living for you. We are


busting a gut to try to get the economy going. But we will reform


the welfare system because we think the public are above that, because


they think it is unsustainable. They don't think it is fair that if


people in work are seeing salary increases less than the increase in


benefits for people out of work. knew these are complicated, but


people care. The �534 average loss that Ed Miliband talked about that


is only for one-earner couples. And it does include the latest increase


in personal tax allowance. What the Treasury say is, yes, it doesn't


include the previously announced increase. That comes in this April.


So if you look at the measures that were announced last week, and them


alone, you get your 500 and and �84 It is the dividing line, and I want


to step back and give people a flavour of the argument. You always


take the tough argument! Nick is going to stay with us. The Prime


Minister has been making a statement about the murder of the


Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane in 1989. It was one of the more


controversial killings of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.


should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult


reading. It sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as


identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane, supplying a


weapon and facilitating its later disappearance, and deliberately


obstructing subsequent investigations. The report also


answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the


role of ministers at the time. Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was


not, and I quote, "and overarching state conspiracy to murder Pat


Finucane". But while he rejects conspiracy, he does find, quite


frankly, shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir


Desmond says he is "left in significant doubt as to whether


Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the Ulster Defence


Association in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands


of involvement by elements of the state". Part of the Prime


Minister's statement there on Pat Finucane. Nick, we know from


previous inquiries that the state colluded in the murder of this


Belfast solicitor. We know it was a murder witnessed by his wife and


three children. What have we learned today that we didn't know?


I thought that phrase we heard was important, that phrase about


significant doubt. What he is saying is that Pat Finucane could


have been alive today if it hadn't been for the decision of some in


the security services of Northern Ireland to collude in his murder.


It wasn't just, that he was going to be murdered anyway and they


happened to know about it and didn't blow the whistle. But it


appears to be that the statement says he could have survived were it


not for a decision of someone within the state, within the


security services, to effectively end his life because he was seen as


sympathetic to the IRA. That is extraordinarily serious. It is


interesting that the Prime Minister wants to draw this distinction


between collusion and conspiracy. I think he is trying to defend the


upper reaches of politics and the upper reaches of Whitehall and the


civil service in Northern Ireland at the time from saying that they


sat at a desk, as it were, and said, it is time to eliminate this man.


Clearly that is why he is saying no conspiracy. But collusion means


that there were people, and not just one or two, who knew, were


involved in the murder of a man What is the official position that


the British state, they knew this man was going to be killed by


terrorists, on the other side and did nothing to stop it? Or of the


British state worked with terrorists on the other side to


help kill him? I used to work at Panorama one are made an award-


winning film about Ryan Nelson, double agent, and he was within


loyalist terrorism but being run by the security services. In a sense,


he not only new the targets that the terrorists were choosing but


was involved, I think, in advising her they might want to target so


someone at the heart of the organisation was working for the


British state. That's how serious it was. It wasn't seriously not


bothering. Looking the other way. And the scandal which came out


thanks to that programme, and later in more detail, into what Brian


Nelson did, is at the heart of this. We now know that clearly does


report got further than previous inquiries. The Labour Party back


the family in a saying it's not enough, a full inquiry, in which


everything is made public is needed force up Tony Blair promised in at


2001 if they judge appointed London and Dublin and there was a case to


answer, a public inquiry into his death would be held. No public


inquiry under Labour was ever held. Why not? We couldn't come to an


agreement with the family under the auspices under which the inquiry


would take place. By the time we left government, they changed their


position and they were trying to bind a framework for an inquiry


which would work for the family. What did the Prime Minister say he


was going to do as a result of these findings? Has he said is


going to be a public inquiry? have also been on air! You have got


your iPad telling you. He says the review finds actions by employees


of the state actively facilitated the killing, said the Prime


Minister. The language is quite careful. He said the review found a


relentless effort to refute the ends of justice after the killing


and found army officials provided the MoD but highly misleading and


inaccurate information. That is deeply shocking. We understand


there will be no public inquiry. think the family will be dismayed


at that it. If you were just heard that statement. Particularly given


the point of that and Nick made. All the family will know is that,


were it not for the actions of people involved with the state, he


could still be there today. I need a quick reaction from you. We are


being told that the Prime Minister's statement is that this


to be no public inquiry also why not? We have and listen to the


statement now. I have not read the report. -- we have not listen to


the statement now. The key thing is the family. Did the Prime Minister


apologise? He said, I'm deeply sorry. We should be clear about the


distinction. This report which has revealed quite a good deal and has


shocked the Prime Minister and many other people, this was about


reviewing existing evidence. The call for a public inquiry was that


a further evidence could be unearthed and it could be done in


public and the family could see for themselves the evidence rather than


having to rely on someone they would regard as an agent of the


British state to draw a conclusion on the actions. There will be lots


more on the BBC News Channel. Thank you for being with us today pull


that we need to move on. Now, it has been described as David


Cameron's Clause 4 moment. Yesterday, a Conservative Culture


Secretary, stood up in the House of Commons and spelt out the


government's plans to give gay people the right to marry. We'll be


discussing those plans in a moment. But first, here's actor, Simon


Callow, out on the streets of Soho When I was born in 1949, gay men


and women lead secret lives. They lived in fear of arrest and


imprisonment. But gay people started to emerge in the Senate


Criminal Shadows, the world was changing, and homosexual love which


is part of humanity itself, began to become part of normal life. When


I was 18, gay people were at last allowed to have sex. Legally. I was


still illegal at 18 but things were Up to a point, but gay couples were


still denied the basic legal provisions which extended not only


to married couples but also to common-law spouses. Then came the


astonishing breakthrough of civil partnership. A huge leap forward.


Marriage in all but name. But, in a very important sense, the name of


marriage is what marriage is. A symbolic moment, a big step forward


for the relationship. An ideal blessing. This is what many gay


If David Cameron's big society means anything, it means not just


inclusiveness, but mutual respect. And a guarantee of that respect,


Should institutions in which we can all participate fully. The Prime


Minister has with incredible clarity and boldness expressed


himself in favour of gay marriage. There are those in his party who


resist this change, as they have resisted every single social change


harking back to a golden age, golden for a few perhaps. But the


dark ages for money. The poor, women, people from other races,


-- the dark Ages for many. I deeply love my partner. For better or


worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and In Health, till Death


do Us Part. The change in the law will set the seal on a love and


make sure we are fully part of the And Simon Callow is with us now.


Welcome to the programme. You said in that film there the Prime


Minister had boldly expressed themselves in favour of gay


marriage but yesterday afternoon, we got the details of the


Government plans which would make it illegal for gay people to marry


in the Church of England and Wales. Are you disappointed? It's


bewildering. More than disappointed. I don't have the ambition to be


married in a church, but there must be many Church of England ministers


who are strongly in favour of gay marriage, to marry somebody in a


church would be a criminal act is an astonishing if medieval idea.


I'm bewildered, frankly. Were you under the impression that the


Government's plans would allow you to marry in that church of England?


That was the impression given the question up it was carefully


unclear. Nobody ever made but absolute commitment and we knew


there would be huge pressure from the backbenchers also it is a small


symbol of saying, yes, but not absolute equality. Just as a civil


partnership said you can get married up to a point, because


you're not really like everybody else. There's a thing says the same.


To make it clear, the Church we filmed you in yesterday, you would


not be able to marry there, even if the clergy supported it? Indeed,


that's the case. It's a very bizarre thing. What has gone wrong?


What I liked about the film was it tell the story of how society's


attitude to homosexuals t has changed enormously. I think where


we are now is with the Prime Minister who believes passionately


in marriage wants to open it up. But not in the Church of England.


We want to do something which was possible. You don't think it's


possible? We were under the impression that if the clergy in


certain churches were in favour, you would be able to marry there?


There is a very delicate balance to be strong between a desire to open


up marriage to same-sex couples without make made compulsory. There


is clear pressure from backbenchers but I would be surprised if there


wasn't from the Labour backbenchers, because I don't sense your position


on this is on party lines, at all. It is more one faith lines for the


you can't underestimate the strength of this feeling.


Politicians have got to reflect and respect that. It's the balance.


What is Labour's position on this? The Shadow Cabinet will be


supporting moving towards gay marriage and we would have liked to


have had a situation with churches happy to carry out the ceremonies,


being able to do that. There is an issue for the Government and the


Church of England. Part of the problem is, it's a bit of yes and


No position they have adopted. In some senses, the Prime Minister has


a problem. He has a large part of his party who hearken back and seek


a Britain we had in the 1950s when we were different. There is a


political issue death. There are Labour MPs like this as well.


plus women bishops, they are moving to a place where we want to outlaw


this. I want to hear Symons response. You said there was a


strength of feeling amongst many Conservative backbenchers about gay


marriage? We understand many people are frightened it will be


compulsory for churches to marry gay people. I personally have no


desire for it to be compulsory. This is a protective advice but it


seems an extreme one, to me. To introduce the criminal element.


afraid it's coming up to 1:00pm. Now, it's time to put you out of


your misery and give you the answer to Guess The Year. The return of


the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. The unveiling of the Millennium


Dome. The answer was 1996. Nick She must have known about the Stone


of Destiny. OK, that's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The


Download Subtitles