24/04/2013 Daily Politics

Politics. How long does it take to expel a terrorist suspect? The Home

Secretary will tell the Commons what she will do next as the latest

attempt to remove Abu Qatada is thwarted.

It is eight months until restrictions are lifted on

Bulgarians and Romanians wanting to work in the UK, but how many will

come? We will ask the Immigration Minister.

After weeks away from the despatch box, David Cameron and Ed Miliband

square up to each other again at last. We will bring you Prime

Minister's Questions, my and uncut as always.

If the government doing enough to protect Britain's green and pleasant

land? -- is the government doing enough? We badly need to build more

houses, we only have one countryside, one England, and we

must protect it. All that coming up in the next 90

minutes of the very finest public service broadcasting. Included in

the price of the licence fee! Joining us for the duration, MPs

representing beautiful parts of Immigration Minister, Mark Harper,

and from Pontypridd, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, Owen Smith. It is

almost 20 years since hate preacher Abu Qatada, we have to insert the

word hate preacher every time you mention his name, arrived in the UK

from Jordan on a false passport. For the last eight years, the UK

Government has been trying to deport him back to Jordan, where he has

been convicted of terrorism offences. Both Labour and the

Conservatives have had a lack of success. One year ago, the current

Home Secretary said he was on his way home. We have obtained from the

Jordanian government the material we need to comply with the ruling of

the European Court. I believe the assurances we have gathered will

ensure that we can soon put Qatada on a plane and get him out of our

country for good. He is still here, and the Court of

Appeal turned down a request to have an earlier decision by the Special

Immigration Appeals Court to block his deportation referred to the

Supreme Court. It is keeping the lawyers in a job! You still with me?

The bottom line is he is not going anywhere fast, at least for now.

That is the harsh truth? It is fair to say it has taken longer than the

Home Secretary hopes last year. She is determined to keep going. We have

the legal route, and she said yesterday we will ask the Supreme

Court if we can appeal directly on a point of law, but we have been

continuing discussion with the Jordanian government and the Home

Secretary in a statement shortly will be setting out further

developments in that area. Even if the Jordanian government says, if we

can get it written in stone, we will not use evidence against this man

obtained by torture, won't it have to go through the court process

again? It will be necessary to do that. He will be here for another

millennium. The previous government had difficulties with this, the Home

Secretary is focused. If you listen, she will be setting out things

further developed with the Jordanians. I think she would admit

it has taken longer than hoped. We thought we had dealt with all the

issues that there were in the legal area about the assurances we got

from Jordan last year, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission came

up with an extra thing which was not anticipated. I understand the

reasons why we are where we are. It is reported in some papers this

morning that the government is considering a temporary resigning

from the European Court of Human Rights to get this guy out, and then

rejoin, is that an option? I saw those stories as well, that they are

stories. I am asking whether there is truth in them. The Home Secretary

will set out the process we will follow today. I can't set out any of

that before she says it. It is a big step. Is that seriously an option?

Ask me when she has made her statement and I can comment, it will

become clear. Nick Clegg, your deputy Prime Minister, he said, to

reason they made a speech arguing that the idea of leaving the

convention should be on the table, I will not be on the -- it will not be

on the Cabinet table while I am sitting at it. I will not avoid the

question, but I want to answer it properly when she has made her

statement. Given that Labour also failed to get rid of this chap, what

would you do now that was different from the government? , the first

thing they should have done, and it has been difficult, but the

government compound the difficulty by choosing last year to repeal the

European ruling over Qatada. The difficulty we had was the European

process being pursued. They got to the point that the European Court

ruled we could not deport him. Theresa May had a choice about

whether she would repeal that or choose to go back to the British

courts. Why didn't you appeal the European decision? The decision was

taken to proceed because we thought we had dealt with the issues and the

concerns about Jordan. These issues are with British courts.

European Court made the final ruling, this is the ultimate

arbiter. Why didn't you, as you can do, there are procedures, appeal

against the European court ruling? The issue thought to be at the heart

of this was about the treatment he would get if you went back to

Jordan. Those are the issues we felt we had properly dealt with. Would

not have been better to go to the European Court? I'm not shaders

helpful to do these things in hindsight. Both your governments

have failed to get rid of this guy that everybody agrees has been a

real danger to the welfare of this country. The courts agreed in their

ruling that he was a dangerous man and made the point they did not

think they needed to consider that. In 2009 when Labour was in power,

the highest court in the land ruled unanimously that he could be sent to

Jordan, why didn't you just send him? There were, as there still are,

concerns about the way he would be treated. That was the principal

issue. We were engaged in dialogue with Jordan, we did not have the

necessary... You had a unanimous ruling by the high as judges in the

land in 2009 that it was okayed to send him back. They were fine with

it, why didn't you? We knew that the European process had to be pursued.

We got to the point into the current government where they had the option

not to go back to Europe. You missed the biggest opportunity. They

failed, that is quite clear, but you missed the one opportunity we had to

send him back. It is what the French and Italians have done before the

European process even starts, their top courts rule, they got rid of

them. The appeal in the European Court would have bought that. The

current government is effectively hoisted by its own petard. The fact

that they did not appeal has allowed the Court of Appeal to say

yesterday. Worse, the reality is that Qatada could be out on the

street. Turning this into a party dingdong is not very sensible. This

has been a challenge for both parties. It has challenged both the

bus. I think the House, MPs and the country will want the Home Secretary

to be successful, she will pursue the twin track approach. Why don't

you work together? You are nitpicking his policies after

completely failing, he has also failed. Rather than scoring party

political points which should both be filed under F for failure, why

don't you work together to see something that might work? Let's see

what to Reza may have stooped say. 12 months ago she said she would

have him on a plane. Another party political point. She is the Home

Secretary. Many Home Secretary's did not get rid of him. You should admit

your failure and you should show more humility, given your failure.

Successive governments have failed to deport him, successive

governments know he is dangerous. We were pursuing a process through

Europe which the government should have pushed to an endpoint, they did

not because they thought their strategy would deliver results.

How many people from Bulgaria and remain the will come to work in

Britain when employment restrictions are lifted at the end of the? No

one, including the Immigration Minister, who joins us, knows, or

they will not tell as if they do. The ambassadors for these countries

yesterday told as they thought that no more than 35,000 countrymen would

arrive in 2014. That seems quite a lot. Other predictions are higher

and the government is worried enough to consider limiting access to new

migrants to benefits, health and housing.

Romanians and Bulgarians have been able to travel to the UK without a

visa since 2007, when they joined the EU, but there were restrictions

on what type of jobs they could take. Come January one next year,

those temporary restrictions will end, and Bulgarians and remain Ian's

will have the same rights to work in the UK and claim benefits or NHS

care as any other EU citizens. The government says it has not produced

an official estimate of how many to expect, aware that Labour's

prediction that only minimal numbers would arrive from countries

including Poland in 2004 proved very wide of the mark. This week, a BBC

survey found that one present of working age Romanians and 4.2 % of

Bulgarians are working -- looking for work in the UK in 2013 or 2014.

Migration watch UK says those percentages work out at 150,000

Romanians and 200,000 Bulgarians actively coming -- considering

coming here to work. David Cameron says he wants to make sure that

people only come to the UK for the right reasons, and ministers are

looking at the test to prevent anything to risen, with possible

limits access to welfare, health fair -- healthcare and housing. You

could leader Nigel Farage has just come back from a fact-finding

mission to Bulgaria -- UKIP leader. How many Bulgarians do you think

will come to the UK? I think a lot. What is a lotta? -- what is a lotta?

Several hundred thousand people over the next few years, although I think

that could prove a conservative estimate. If just four in 100 of the

people in Bulgaria and remain you came to Britain, that would be 1

million people. But it is a guess, you don't know? Why at a time when

we have 1 million of our own young people out of work should we take

the risk? It makes no sense, it is not in the national interest.

I have watched the film of your trip to Bavaria, what struck me was most

of the people you spoke to said they had no intention of coming to the

UK, including a group of young students? Were you surprised?

just for in 100 come from Bulgaria and remain you, that would be 1

million people. -- if just four in 100. Some people said they would

come, and a well respected priest thought significant numbers would

come. The complete unknown quantity is what will happen. If you look at

that community in Bulgaria and remain you, you will be looking at

three and 4 million people living in real poverty excluded from society.

Although the Roma people you spoke to did not want to leave their

homes, they probably feel the UK was not paved with gold in the way it

once was in their mind. Let's take your estimates, what would you do if

you were in power between now and next January to deter people from

coming? If I was David Cameron, I would come to Brussels and I would

say, look, we are very happy to be part of something where we have the

free movement of goods, services and capital, but we cannot have the

unrestricted free flow of people between countries with huge poverty

problems and relatively far better off countries like ours. What would

you propose? That we do not have an uncontrolled opendoor from next

year, that we go back to operating a sensible work permit scheme and

tightening people to come to Britain to work but does not entitle them to

the social security system. Bearing in mind the restrictions have been

lifted after a period of time of transition, those same restrictions

could be placed on Brits working abroad? They could be, that is

right. But for everyone Britain working at the 26 European Union

member states, there are four or five in United Kingdom. We have

opened the doors to unrestricted migration and we have a massive

oversupply in the unskilled labour market in the country. But you would

be prepared to see those same restrictions and work permits placed

on Brits working across the rest of the EU? Of course, we have to have

common sense. France and Germany and Luxembourg and the Netherlands, this

free flow of people was not a problem. We have now let in

incredibly pro-countries and I am minded to say in the case of Romania

that London is currently going through a remain Ian crime epidemic,

that is a fact that nobody dares to talk about but it is there and it is

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 57 seconds

real, we need to restricted. When I We apologise for the temporary loss

of subtitles. You admitted that you went to a lap-dancing club. Is that

what you do always on your trips? Yes. Unwittingly, a chap who was a

candidate for the French presidency, after the group Christmas party,

took a load of us out. I had no idea where we were going and we

were taken into one of those establishments. You're an innocent?

I wouldn't describe myself as such, no. I would say this, I haven't

been to one since, but whether you like it or not, it's a perfectly

legal activity. Thank you. He never told me about that. There was a

reason for that. All the times I've been going there. That's why I go

there once a month. You are working there? Oh, he's a brave man! On the

BBC. Mark Harper, MigrationWatch thinks 50,000 Bulgarians will come.

The ambassadors of the two countries put it at 35,000.

Newsnight had its own figure, which was higher than Newsnight implied

in the press release. The honest answer, Nigel doesn't know and

neither do I. A ballpark?There are eight other European countries. The

difference between the last accession, there are eight others

who have transitional controls like France and Germany. They are all

taking their controls off at the end of the year. The idea that

anybody can accurately forecast who is going to come to another

European country, which one they'll come to, I just think is a fool's

evidence. I perfectly understand that. You, the Home Office, as the

National Institute of Economic and Social Research -- you the Home

Office asked the National Institute of Economic and Social Research,

but you asked them not to produce any estimates, not even the kind of

Bank of England inflation side which is a fan. You asked them to

produce no estimates. If they have no numbers how could you ever

manage to work out the potential impact? That was a Foreign Office

thing. I accept that. It's the British Government. They came back

and said they couldn't put a forecast on. They actually said

that. You asked them not to do it. They said it was not possible, but

the committee, the independent body of economic experts who advised the

Home Office, we commissioned them to work on this and they told us

they didn't think was helpful or possible to put a range around the

numbers for some of the reasons set out. I think on the issues it's

better to be straight, than trying to produce an accurate forecast,

rather than making up a number that proves to be wholly inaccurate.

Sure. I know of know policy -- of no policy that doesn't proceed on

the basis of at least some assumptions on numbers and the

reason why they are feared to give us a projection, is because your

Government made such a mess of it last time around. I think that's

probably true, to be blunt. Mark's been honest. We don't know.

have to lie down in a dark room. I got a straight answer to a straight

question! The last Government quite clearly underestimated how many

people were going to come from the accession countries last time

around. We saw far more people. We were straightforward that we should

have implemented transitional controls. Because the other had

done it too. It's the point this was the one place to come to.

should have introduced a points basis. Great. I'm grateful for that

answer. UKIP, I to think, need to be called to account, because at

the Eastleigh by-election they produced a leaflet that 29

Bulgarians and Romanians would be coming. That would be everybody.

Exactly. They suggested that all 29 million were coming. UKIP are not

here to defend themselves, so back to you. In the approach, from the

Government, to the Bulgarians and Romanians, having the freedom to

come here from the early 2014 onwards, would yours be different

from the Government? Yes, is the reality. Not different in terms of

transitional controls. We think they need to keep those in place.

They go in a year. They do.What would you do between now and then?

We need to make sure that where we know the system is currently being

exploited and in particular that's by employers and landlords who are

at agencies who are bringing people to the UK, quite often to be put

into poor accommodation on low wages, that there needs to be a

tightening of the scrutiny of those sorts of agencies and those sorts

of landlords. I think there needs to be much greater control on abuse

of the national minimum wage, giving local authorities the

ability to try and police the local national minimum wage and things to

make it less attractive. What do you say? I've seen a lot of the

work we are doing with the immigration enforcement teams,

where we absolutely do that. We have cracked down on the beds and

sheds operations, where you get landlords housing lots of people.

Now you are allowing the more house building. Criminality is also a

concern and the Romanian Prime Minister on Newsnight acknowledged

and that's why we are working with the Metropolitan Police and the

Romanians and with the Home Office on dealing with that. Are you

making sure that people are paying the minimum wage? There are few

rights. They are in a different country and there are employers who

can cheat and break the law by offering them less. We are making

sure that the rules are followed. How many prosecutions have there

been in the last two years? When the minute numb wage was set up,

the focus was on getting the money for the people concerned. That's

what we have concerned. Labour only wanted prosecutions to be a last

resort. What we are looking at -- There haven't been any for two

years. And there weren't in the previous years. How many

prosecutions were there under the 13 years of the Labour Government?

I don't have the precise number but it was into hundreds. It's ten.

Because it was designed for recovering the money for the

workers. Can I ask you this on the broader question of the Labour side,

when you apologise for your immigration policy in a sentence

could you tell our viewers what you are apologising for? I think I did

a moment ago, that we didn't put in place transitional orders.

talking about the broader issue, what are you apologising for?

fact we didn't put in place controls and thus allowed more

people to come to the UK than we were anticipating. That had a big

effect in certain areas of the country on terms and conditions for

British workers and resulted in some people being exploited. I want

to get it clear that the only thing or major thing that you got wrong -

It's quite big. It's for not putting the transitional controls

in for the eastern Europeans? That's it and not introducing a

point-based system earlier and not understanding that not having the

transitional controls would have resulted in a larger number than we

anticipated. We got the numbers wrong. When you came to power there

were just over 300 immigrants coming into this country -- sorry

300,000 every year. I'm doing the gross, not the net figure. By 2008,

it was 590,000 a year. It's almost doubled. Was that Government

policy? No, I don't think it was. I know it's been suggested lots of

times by opponents that there was a clear attempt to try and use cheap

labour or migration. It happened my accident? Well, we had a

significant number of people, the big jump was in 2007 and 2008, as I

recall from the numbers. Broadly speaking, the numbers -- You were

up to 516,000 by 2002, before the eastern Europeans came in. Was that

explicit -- was it Government policy to double? The net number

doesn't fluctuate. The net number does. It went from 62,000 when you

came into power to 238,000 by 2004. If you want to go back from the

Romanians, it was 160,000. I'm not arguing about the number. I'm

asking you was that Government policy? I wasn't in Government, but

as far as I know, no. It happened by accident? I think we were a

booming economy in a Europe where there is free movement. We were

also booming in terms of education and therefore a large number of

those people were of course students. All right. I don't

understand whether you think it's a good or bad thing or apologise or

be proud of it. We'll come back to it. It's an issue that divides the

nation like no other. Other like it weak and strong and others are in

between. North of the border 40% like sugar in it. That could

explain a lot, but only a quarter of Yorkshire people have a sweet

tooth. It's a complex business, but one thing that unites us, you like

to drink tea from this lovely mug. Indeed, we have that pleasure every

morning. We'll remind you how to enter in a moment, but let's see if

you can remember when this happened. It's a snip at �8,500.

# Got brass in pocket... # My heart went bang, bang.

# They got a message from the Action Man

# I'm happy, hope you're happy too... #

# I'm going underground # While the brass bands are

playing... # # Ato theic... # Cruise missiles

are fitted into the defensive strategy and are designed to deter

an aggressor. The lady's not for turning!

To be in with a chance of winning that Daily Politics mug, send your

answer to our special e-mail The tougher competition was the one

where earlier we intentionally of course switched around the

Bulgarian and Romanian flags, so they were the wrong way. We wanted

to test how many would spot it. Quite a few did. Only two out of

100,000. You are as bad as our graphics department. We'll look at

Big Ben. It's a beautiful spring day. It's almost the warmest of the

year. Prime Minister's questions, which doesn't happen very often

these days, which means we don't get to meet Nick as often as we

would. It's been a long while. Not many more until June. What will

today dominate? I think the interesting choice for Ed Miliband,

does he go for the economy? He those the Prime Minister knows the

GDP figures and already will know what we learn tomorrow, is the

economy in a triple-dip? Unemployment up three months

running and the IMF. Or, does he delay that attack and talk about

what Labour are talking about in the House of Lords, which is

health? In the House of Lords, service to our country. This

mornings I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,

and I will have further such meetings later today.

The whole house will wish to associate themselves with his

tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie Webb, we pass on our deepest

condolences to his family and friends. Even after tax Chambers,

labour market statistics show that real earnings will have dropped

�1700 since the last general election. Knowing about hard-working

families across the country are getting hit hard in the pockets,

does the Prime Minister wants to show any remorse or indeed apologise

for giving millionaires a tax cut, including him? The people who should

be apologising created this mess in the first place. Specifically on his

point, we will be asking the richest in our country to pay more in every

year of this Parliament than they ever did in any year of his

parliament, that is the truth. Amess. My mother was very sad about

the death of marriage -- Baroness Thatcher, but you was delighted that

my right honourable friend has committed our party to a referendum

on our relationship with the European Union. Given that my mother

will be 101 next Thursday, she wondered if the referendum could be

brought forward? Can I first of all... Can I first ball sent my

regards to your mum, and wish her a long, happy and healthy life, and

reminder that if she votes Conservative in 2015, she will have

the in out referendum that the country deserves. Ed Miliband!

join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Jamie

Jonathan Reynolds -- Jamie Jonathan Webb of first Battalion the Mercian

Regiment, he showed the most courage and bravery. People are hearing

today about patients waiting on trolleys in a indeed, in some cases

for more than 12 hours, and one hospital pitched a treatment tent

outside its premises. What does the Prime Minister have to say for those

patients waiting hour upon hour in AMD? This government believes in our

NHS and is expanding funding in the NHS, we will not take the advice of

the party opposite to thought that increases in NHS spending where

responsible. That is their view. We will go on investing in our NHS, we

need to make sure that with a million extra patients visiting a

indeed each year, that we continue to hit the important targets that

people get treated properly. Prime Minister is singularly failing

to meet the targets he has set himself. The number of people

waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency is nearly

three times higher than when he came to office. First he downgraded the

accident and emergency target and now he is not hitting that. As he

approaches his third anniversary as Prime Minister, he needs to explain

why an accident and emergency crisis is happening on his watch. For the

whole of last year we met the target for accident and emergency

attendance. If you take the number of occasions on which it was

breached, 15 times in the last year, that is lower than the 23 times it

was breached when he was in power and -- power in 2008. There is one

part of the country where Labour has had control of the NHS for the last

three years, Wales, where they have not hit an accident and emergency

target since 2009. Perhaps he would apologise for that? Ed Miliband!

me give him the figures. In 2009/ ten, people waited longer than four

hours in AMD. -- in accident and emergency. It was 888,000 people --

888 people. We had more doctors and nurses than ever before in the NHS

when we were in power. Part of the problem is that his replacement for

the NHS Direct service is in total chaos. He has a patchwork,

fragmented service where over Easter 40 % of calls were abandoned because

they were not answered. What will he do? If everybody wants to remember

the labour record in the NHS, they have to read the report into the

Stafford hospital! -- the Labour record. He mentions the fact... The

number of people waiting a long time for NHS operations, that number has

come down since this government came to office. Since this government

came to office there are 1 million more people walking into accident

and emergency, half a million more people having inpatient treat once,

and the fact is that waiting times are stable or down, waiting list are

down, the NHS is performing better under this government than it ever

did under Labour. What happened at Stafford was terrible, and those

others talked about that on the day. But, Mr speaker, -- Mr Speaker, what

a disgraceful slur on the NHS to place after 1997, and the doctors

nurses that made that happen. The main reason why he is failing to

meet his accident and emergency target month after month is because

he decided to take �3 billion away from the front line in a top-down

reorganisation that nobody wanted all voted for. As a result, there

are 4500 fewer nurses than when he came to power. Can he explain how it

is helping care in the NHS to give nurses that P 45s? He is clearly in

complete denial about what happened in the NHS under Labour. Let me just

remind me -- him what his spending plans. He was asked whether he

stands by his comment that it is irresponsible to cut NHS spending,

he said, I do. That is Labour's official policy, to cut spending on

the NHS, just like they are cutting NHS spending in Wales, waiting times

are up, waiting list are up and quality is down. That is happening

in the NHS under Labour. He mentions what we have done in terms of

reorganisation. That will see �4.5 billion extra put into the front

line compared to the cut is from Labour.

He is the guy that cut NHS spending when he came to office and was told

off by the head of the UK statistics authority for not being straight

with people about it. Accident and emergency is the barometer of the

NHS. This Prime Minister might be totally out of touch, that barometer

tells us it is a system in distress. According to the Care Quality

Commission, one in ten hospitals do not have adequate staffing levels.

During the winter, every hospital was at some point operating beyond

the safe level of bed occupancy. Hospitals are full to bursting. He

is Prime Minister, what will he do? His answer is to cut NHS spending,

we are investing. Let me give him simple facts about what has happened

to the NHS under this government. 6000 more doctors under this

government, 7000 fewer managers under this government, a million

more treated in accident and emergency, half a million more day

cases, mixed sex wards, commonplace and the Labour, virtually abolished

under this government. Infection rates at record low levels. Waiting

times for inpatients are down, waiting times for outpatients are

stable. This is all happening under this coalition government, a far

better record than he could boast. People up and down the country will

have heard this is a Prime Minister with no answer for the crisis in

accident and emergency across the country. There is a crisis in

accident and urgent the, he has cut the number of nurses, the NHS

helpline is in crisis and he is wasting billions of pounds on a

top-down reorganisation he promised would not happen. The fact speak for

themselves. The NHS is not safe in his hands. Let us examine the NHS in

the hands of Labour in Wales. The NHS budget is being cut by eight %.

Last time the urgent cancer care treatment was met in Wales, 2008.

Last time accident and emergency targets were met, 2009. The Welsh

ambulance service has missed its caller target for the last ten

months. There is no cancer drugs burned. That is what you get under

Labour in the NHS - longer waiting lists and all the problems we saw at

the Stafford hospital would be repeated again. James Wharton.

Yesterday figures showed this government has reduced the deficit

by a third. Does the Prime Minister agree that to borrow and spend

more, as the Shadow Chancellor has confirmed would be the Labour

Wallasey, would risk squandering this programme? He is absolutely

right. These are very tough times, but we have got the deficit down by

a third, there are 1.25 million extra private sector jobs and we

have seen a record creation of new businesses in our country. The

differences between the two parties is we believe in cutting our

deficit, it is their official policy to put it up. If they did that it

would be higher interest rates, more businesses going bust, harder times

for homeowners. Angus Robertson. government is right to prioritise

the combating of sexual violence in conflict, but the Prime Minister

would have more credibility if he did not accept hundreds of thousands

of pounds and private dinners at Downing Street from Mr Ian Taylor.

His company has admitted dealings with a notorious Serb war criminal

who was indicted for, and I quote, wilfully causing great suffering,

murder, wilful killing, rape and other inhumane acts. Will the Prime

Minister stop hosting Mr Taylor at Downing Street and give the money

back? Let me thank him for what he says about the Foreign Secretary's

very commendable efforts to make sure that rape and sexual violence

are no longer used as weapons of war and conflict. The government is

putting a huge impetus behind this. I think it is totally regrettable he

tries to play some kind of political card and the rest of what he said.

Mr Lee Scott. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that helping

people who want to work harder is the right wing to do? Taking them

out of tax altogether is the right thing to do, and making work pay is

the right thing to do, and not insulting them, as some politicians

have done, by calling them trash? This government is on the side of

hard-working families. We have kept interest rates low, frozen council

tax, cut income tax for 24 million people, taken more than 2 million

people out of income tax altogether, our welfare reforms, sadly not

supported by the party opposite, making sure that work always pays.

Sharon Hodgson. The daily Telegraph today reports that 1 million people

have been declared fit for work by the DWP. Does this include people

like my constituent, Michael Moore, who despite multiple illnesses and

disabilities was declared fit for work in July? Mr Speaker, Michael

died in February this year aged just 56. I am very sorry on behalf of the

whole House on the death of her constituent, but I would have

thought that she and everyone in this House would accept it is

necessary to have racist and to check who is available to work and

who is not available. The whole point of the appointment and support

allowance programme is we judge those people who can work but need

extra help and those who can't work who should also be looked after. I

find it extraordinary that heads are shaking in the party opposite, I

thought it was the Labour Party, not the welfare party! Amber Rudd. It is

essential that this government continues with much-needed welfare

reform. It is having a really crease that effect in Hastings, with

unemployment falling. Could I urge the Prime Minister to stay on this

track and make the difficult decisions when he has two for the

difficult decisions when he has two for that in this country as not to

listen to the voices which only have one thing to suggest a - Row,

borrow, borrow. I think she is absolutely right. Since the

election, the number of people out of work benefit has fallen by

270,000. It is absolutely essential that we continue with programmes to

boost enterprise but also to make work pay. We should not listen to

the party opposite on issues like the benefit, which the Shadow

Chancellor was on the radio last week saying that �26,000 was

unfair. I think people across the country will be incredulous that is

pay is up by 27%. Tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy

corporations and the ordinary members of the public have got to

pay for it. When is the Prime Minister going to represent all of

the people in the country and not just his privileged chums? I tell

you what this Government has done, it's taken two million off the

lowest-paid people out of income tax altogether. It's delivered a

tax cut for 24 million people. It has frozen the fuel duty, it's

freezing the council tax up and down the country. If people want to

make an impact they should vote Conservative on May 2nd to make

sure they keep their council tax down. Can I congratulate the Prime

Minister on his support for the exhibition on modern slavery in the

Upper Waiting Hall? 200 years after it being abolished, modern slavery

continues. It's the second most lucrative crime in the world. Can

he confirm that his Government will continue to engage in this?

very grateful. This is a very serious issue and I pay tribute to

the all-party group in the both Houses and to Anthony Stein who has

campaigned long and hard on this issue. Anyone who thinks that

slavery was effectively abolished in 1807 has another think coming. I

would urge members, if they haven't seen this exhibition in that

chamber in the House of Commons, to go and see it and to see all of the

different ways that people can be trapped into slavery and it is

notable, this is not just people who are trafficicked from eastern

Europe or elsewhere. There are examples of slavery of British

citizens in this country, being put into forced labour. There is more

for Government to do. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be kind

enough to tell the House how much he will benefit personally from the

scrapping of the 50 pence tax rate? As I've said before, I will pay

every appropriate tax, but like everybody else, every single

taxpayer in this country is benefiting from the rise in the

personal allowance that we've put in place. Everyone can benefit from

a freeze in the council tax. Everyone can benefit from what we

have done on fuel duty and everyone would pay the price of another

Labour government. The Government's cap on benefits has already

incentivised 8,000 people back into work. Doesn't this demonstrate how

important welfare reform is, getting people back to work and

making work pay? A policy opposed by the party opposite. I Mihajlovic

honourable friend is absolutely right. The measures on reform, like

the benefit cap and the 1% increase, making sure that people are

available for work, making sure that you can't get jobseeker's

allowance unless you take proper steps to find a job, all of these

are being fairness in our country and making work pay. What is

interesting about all of them, even the proposal to stop paying housing

benefit of sometimes up to �100,000 to a single family, every single

one of those welfare changes has one thing in common, opposed by the

party opposite. On the subject of jobs, last week 21 Tory MEPs voted

against their EU admission trading scheme, meaning that British

industry will face much higher energy prices than their European

competitors, threatening jobs and investment. When will the Prime

Minister get a grip of his party and stand up for British business?

I thought the honourable gentleman might start by thanking the

Chancellor for the move taken in the Budget to help very important

businesses in his constituency, with excessive energy costs, but

clearly the milk of human kindness is running a bit thin with the

honourable gentleman. I have to say, if we are going to get into

lectures about MEPs, perhaps he could get his to stop voting

against the British rebate! Prime Minister will be aware last

week three people in Cumbria were arrested for apparently blowing the

whistle in the public interest over the actions of the Police

Commissioner. Will he agree with me that this is a threat to freedom of

speech, an outrage in a democratic society and intervene to make sure

there is an independent investigation? I'll look at this

case. In general, we should support whistleblowers and what they do to

help improve the provision of public services, but I'll look and

get back to him. The wilful neglect of residents in their care homes is

a crime, but too often victims and their families don't get any

justice. Time and again we have seen injury, abuse. Sometimes we

have seen death. Why don't we have a law that's fit for purpose on

your third anniversary? He's right to raise this issue. We have seen

over the last few years some frankly shocking examples of not

just malpractice, but crime taking place in our care homes and there

are a number of investigations under way. I think one of the most

important things to do is make sure the Care Quality Commission is up

to the task of investigating these homes properly and has really

robust structures in place. That wasn't what we found when we got in.

In terms of making sure the criminal law is available, it is

already available. When there are bad examples the police and the

prosecuting authorities can intervene and they should do so.

people have died using DNP, a highly toxic herbicide band for use

as a slimming drug, but available online alongside other dubious

products. What commitment can the Prime Minister give that he'll work

across Government to make sure this trade is stopped and in so doing

help to prevent the deaths of more young people? This morning I read

the tragic case of the girl who died from taking this substance.

One can only think of the heartache her family and other families go

through when things like this happen. I will very care fly look

at what she says. This isn't an easy issue, because the substance

is banned as a slimming drug, but it is legal as a herbicide, as I

understand it. We have to look carefully across Government about

what we can do to warn people about these things. Was the Prime

Minister consulted on the decision to reject the appointment of

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson to the chair of Sport England? These

decisions are made by the secretary for media and sport quite rightly

and she's reached a very good decision. The armed forces and

their covenant is something that members on this side of the House

are proud of. The Prime Minister will be aware of the community

covenant, launched by the British Legion to which 300 local

authorities have signed up to. Sadly not mine in Enfield nor

another 132. Would the Prime Minister join me in urging these

councils to sign this covenant locally and help support work

across the constituency and in particular before Armed Forces Day?

I'm grateful to my friend for raising this issue. My local

authority in Oxfordshire was one of the first to sign up to the

community covenant, with all the skpopblts we feel we have station -

- responsibilities we feel we have. I would urge all local authorities

to look at this. It covenant is a real breakthrough for our country

in a way we can all show respect for what they do and I would

commend the fact that this Government is using the LIBOR fines

to help fund some really powerful elements of the covenant, so it

means people in the economy are paying for some of those who behave

the best. Can the Prime Minister explain the postponement of certain

pilots and is this the beginning of the unravelling of this unworkable

and unfair welfare reforms? pilots are going ahead, starting in

parts of the north-west of England. I think it's very important that we

do have proper pilots and evaluations of pilots. We want to

learn the lesson of some of the failures of the Tex credit system

brought in in a big bang and ending up with big disaster. It's right we

are piloting and, but as the Secretary of State -- but the

Secretary of State says the programme is on target and budget.

Council taxpayers in Essex pay �5,000 for the local leader and his

cronies to attend the Conservative Party Conference. It's one of

hundreds of dodgy transagencies using council credit cards. --

transactions using council credit cards. Does the Prime Minister

agree that such misuse of public money should be the subject of an

independent inquiry? Obviously, it's important on these issues that

they are looked into. I'm sorry to disappoint my honourable friend.

Frequently we are in agreement, but on this issue I think if people in

Essex want good value for money it's very important to back the

Conservatives. The Prime Minister thinks the food banks are a good

example of big society. Last year, 7,400 people in Stoke-on-Trent

needed them, including 2,600 children just to stop them starving.

From this week, due to his welfare changes, the food banks have been

forced to restrict food only to families with children and only to

people over the age of 65. Isn't it true the Prime Minister has failed

Britain and highs big society is overwhelmed? I'm disappointed if

what the honourable gentleman says, because it was the last Government,

in 2003, that gave to the Trustle Trust, really the organisation

behind Britain's food banks, gave them a Golden Jubilee award for

voluntary service. This is what, and I'm glad to see in his place

the member for Sheffield Brideside, he said that it was enhanced

quality of life for other in the community. Of course, these are

difficult times and of course food bank use went up ten times under

Labour, but I think we should praise people that play a role in

our society rather than sneer at them. The Chief Executive of

Cumbria County Council is to leave the authority with an agreed

package. I believe it will be substantial and run into hundreds

of thousands of pound. Would the Prime Minister agree that this and

similar arrangements are difficult for the public to accept and are

certainly not good use of taxpayers' money? I would agree

with what my honourable friend says. We do now require councils to

publish their pay policies and councils should all be voting on

these deals so they can vote against excessive deals. That's

something that ha changed under this Government. I would urge all

councils on whatever political persuasion, to look at what they

can do to share chief executives and finance directors and to come

pain their back-office costs. Everybody knows whoever was in

Government right now, public spending reductions would have to

be made. Let's make them by taking it out of the back office, rather

than the front line. Is the Prime Minister aware the Scottish

liquidation last weekend and 600 people have lost their jobs? The

majority are in my constituency. The Tories closed the deep mines in

the 1980s. Will he stand behind the district today or will it just be

the same old Tories? I'm very happy to look at what she says. We want

to support all of our industries in Britain, including the coal

industry whether it's in Scotland or England. Obviously, in Scotland

since the election, the number of people in work has gone up, but we

need to see that go further and faster and I'm very happy to look

at the particular industrial example she gives. On Monday my

right honourable friend came to Derbyshire to support our council

candidates for the next election. But at the same time, he visited a

manufacturing company. Does he not agree with me that to get

manufacturing companies to continue to export and expand their exports

such as the ones in my constituency, is our best way out of recession?

think my honourable friend is absolutely right. The forn tour

manufacturer that I went to visit and see sales increase by 25%, is

going into new markets and investing and it is doing all of

the things this Government is backing and supporting we want to

back many more firms doing exactly that. Her wider point is also right.

People in her area, who want to see another year of a council tax

freeze need to vote very carefully on May 2nd. Will the Prime Minister

give careful consideration to the recommendations of the

environmental audit Select Committee's report on bees and

pesticides and will he, on morbgs of next week, give his -- Monday of

next week, give his Government's backing on the more forium of three

certain pesticides? -- moratorium of three certain pesticides? I am a

life patron of the Bee Keepers Association in Oxfordshire. I have

been neglecting my duties, that I haven't been able to give her a

better answer today, but I know how important the issue is. If we don't

look after the bee populations very serious consequences will follow.

Today sees the publication of the all-party Parliamentary cycling

groups' report, Get Britain Cycling. Calls from leaderboard from the

very top. Will he look at the report and make sure he produces a

good action plan and give his commitment to leaderboard to --

leadership to get Britain cycling? Order. I can't for the life of my

think both members -- sides groan when the honourable doctor gets up.

The House should heed what he says. We should be doing much more to

encourage cycling and I think the report has many good points in it.

I would commend what the Mayor of London has done in London to

promote cycling and I hope local authorities can follow his lead in

making sure that we do more. the Prime Minister tell the House

whether the deep shade of red that he turned when asked the question

by the honourable member for Ogmore, as to whether he had been consulted

on the appointment of Tanni Grey- Thompson, was in place of an answer

"yes"? We have got an excellent new head of Sport England and Sport UK.

That is what matters. These are decisions for the Secretary of

State. They are absolutely right that she takes them. Does the Prime

Minister agree that you do not solve a debt crisis by borrowing

more? And that for the party to have any credibility they need to

acknowledge the mess they made, apologise to my constituents and

just say sorry? My honourable friend is absolutely right. On this

side of the House we know we have to get borrowing down. Frankly, in

the last week what we have seen is the right honourable gentleman in

his true colours. Too weak to stand up to the Shadow Chancellor and too

weak to stand up to the backbenchers on welfare and the

unions on just about anything. It's a week in which he said goodbye to

David Miliband and hello to George Galloway. No wonder Tony Blair said,

they're fellow travellers, not health, A&E, nurses getting their P

45's. The Prime Minister was drawing unfavourable comparisons with Labour

running the health service in Wales. We have a Welsh MP on, and a person

whose constituency borders Wales, but first, your e-mails.

Lots of e-mails. Ed Miliband was put today says one person from Bury

Saint Edmunds, quoting statistics and generally thrashing around to

launch a punch on David Cameron. The NHS in Wales is clearly an Achilles

heel for Labour. Someone from Milton Keynes says they should tell David

Cameron take seven years to train a doctor, so how can he claim there

are more doctors since he got in? As to judge the whole of the NHS in

Staffordshire, it is cheap and insulting. The NHS trust agreement

proved under Labour after 18 years of the Conservatives. James says

that people died at the Stafford hospital and the leaders of two

parties are squabbling over who is the least inefficient, that is

another tragedy. Tom says, the only time I hear about the NHS crisis is

chewing Prime Minister's Questions. I think it is not from government

failing but from pool and inadequate administration at local level.

The Home Secretary Theresa May is on her feet, making a statement on Abu

Qatada, the long-running soap about the terrorist we can't get rid of,

or terror suspect, before the BBC lawyer pulls me down. It is longer

running van Mousetrap. -- van Mousetrap. I think from Theresa May

we will get a sense of yet another deal with the Jordanian government

designed to assure the court that the Jordanians in the future would

not allow just torture but would not allow evidence obtained from torture

to be used in their court process. I think she will be outlining the way

in which the government thinks they have made progress with the

Jordanians, but it would still mean the whole process has to start again

through the courts. Abu Qatada's lawyers will have to appeal to the

appeal Court, possibly the Supreme Court. If there is a welcome to what

she announces, there will be a long way to go. You told us it would be

health, and it was. But I said it might be on the issue of the

so-called section 75, the regulations about future, in

inverted commas, privatisation of the NHS. I thought Ed Miliband might

bring that in as well. Obviously the point is about A&E weights, it is a

very immediate experience for people sitting here in this studio. -- A&E

waiting times. We have been talking about our experience. He called it

not a health crisis but an A&E crisis. The Prime Minister can say

that waiting list for ordinary operations are down, so on that part

of the record the government has not caused a problem in the way that we

possibly all thought would happen given the squeeze on NHS funding,

but clearly it is the case that A&E waiting times are going up. Beyond

the argument about resources, there is an interesting debate about the

way A&E is changing in our lifetime, the attitudes of people not to go to

their family doctor as a first port of call but you tend to want to go

to A&E. Either it is because of working times, they are immigrants

to the country and do not have a family doctor, it is not just a

resource issue. It is also about the way we all have our attitudes.

ask the Minister, why has the needing to wait for over four hours

in A&E gone from 340,000 people to 888,000 people? One of the things is

the increasing demand for the A&E servers. It is not obvious why that

should be, I think Nick has probably put his finger on it about the way

that people use the service. The Secretary of State has talked about

getting the help service and how it operates to be more focused on

people's needs and to have it work in terms of non-emergency care as

well. Clearly, A&E should not be the first port of call for things other

than accident and emergency. This is not a small increase, it is a

doubling. When I was looking at some of the pressures on the ambulance

service and about A&E myself, asking the ambulance trust what they

thought were behind the increases, partly it was a good understanding

that they did not have, but partly it was cultural and when people

think it is appropriate to use A&E, when they think it is appropriate to

call an ambulance as opposed to making their own way. If that was

the case it would be a linear change over years? If you are driving a big

increase in demand, it is how you respond. That is a challenge for the

health service to deal with at a local level as well as national.

you saying the huge rise in people waiting for over four hours is a

consequence of cutting the frontline resources? I think there has to be

some connection between resources being deployed and those sorts of

changes, and the Prime Minister has been pulled up by the office for

National statistics for being a bit injudicious in his use of

statistics. Finish on the A&E, then I will come to Wales. There was a

big announcement by the Welsh health minister yesterday about dealing

with this. It is about bed blocking, getting people through the

system so people sitting in A&E for longer periods, because there are

not beds available, which is why we are trying to get social care more

aligned with the health service, there is the simple thing of

demographics. We have an ageing population, more people living at

home, being kept well through better use of medication. Then they reach

crisis point, at that point they go to A&E because they have reached

crisis point, the point at which they need real... I also think there

is an issue around GP's and the issue around getting an appointment

with a GP. It seems to be a complex number of reasons for the ANDA --

for the A&E figures. Let's come on to Wales, the Prime Minister's case

is basically that Labour runs the health service in Wales and it is

going to hell in a handbasket. he is wrong. He is wrong about the

numbers in terms of the cut, for several reasons. The Welsh

government deploys the many it is given by the Parliamentary in

Westminster. David Cameron has cut the budget of the Welsh National

Assembly by �2 billion. Tough decisions have been made within

Wales because of the overall envelope being cut. Within Wales,

the government took a decision to increase spending on education and

cut by one % spending on health. Because, we felt, in Wales, that

having tripled spending and wealth over the period of the Labour

Government, our priority ought to be education. That is not doing too

well either. We need to make significant improvement. Our

hospitals under all sorts of measures are doing extremely well.

MRSA in Wales is significantly better than England. Cancer survival

rates... Waiting times worse. dishonest with the number. The

comparative between England and Wales is fundamentally different,

always has been. The starting point of waiting times in Wales is

different. The moment I hear comparators, I am in trouble. How do

you back-up the Prime Minister's case? I have a number of

constituents registered with GPS in Wales who are told they have to use

the GPL Wales, and they do not want to because they think the service is

worse. We have had to make difficult decisions and government across a

range of issues, we have chosen to spend on the health service. In

Wales, the Welsh Labour government has chosen to cut spending, there is

an argument over how much but he has admitted the cut. As you have in

England. I think that is an interesting comparison. We have a

Labour Government in the part of the UK which has chosen not to spend on

health, we have prioritised it. of the interesting developments in

devolution is that you can make eternal comparisons. We are not

privatising in Wales, for example, as in England. Nick Robinson?

phrase not safe in her hands, use about Margaret Thatcher, Ed Miliband

deployed it. He must have thought quite carefully about it. We know

that David Cameron used the health service... I can't get a word in

next nation mark we know that he used it as a key way of saying his

Conservative Party is different to hers. We know the Labour Party want

to prove that is wrong. It is quite an important moment. Ed Miliband

could have waited a year, but to use that phrase today, not safe in his

hands, it is a potent race for anybody in politics and marks the

sense that Labour have had for a long time that this is a real

Achilles heel for David Cameron and shows people's actual experience of

healthcare feeds in, they will have something they can use against the

Tories. David Cameron called them the welfare party, not the Labour

Party. Thank you very much, we will see you next year, depending on when

the next PMQs is! I am missing him already!

Has building is near its lowest level for decades. Homes for rent

and purchase have become unaffordable to many and the

construct gin industry is in desperate need of a boost. The

government is trying to get builders building. But are these efforts

putting green fields and rule spaces at risk? Former Poet Laureate Andrew

Motion is president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Here is

Land is a precious resource and we need to look after it and build on

it wisely. We have made good progress in the last few years.

About three quarters of houses built now are put up on Brownfield sites,

previously developed land. The government says its planning reforms

will protect the green belts and areas of outstanding beauty, making

the most of every square inch of Brownfield land and allowing local

people to take part in the decisions affecting them, but there is on --

incontrovertible evidence that this is simply not true. Developers will

build a number of houses they think they can sell profitably. If they

must build them on Brownfield sites they will, but they prefer to build

on open fields. 80,000 homes have recently been built on green belt

land, with them a number of retail and industrial parks. Some people

hold the view that we simply need to build, build anything, anywhere, but

this is incompatible with localism. It will destroy swathes of

countryside and result in a backlash making it harder for this country to

build the homes we need. We know that we need to build more houses

and we are trying to engage constructively with government about

how to get them built, including through our work on neighbourhood

planning. We believe we can build new houses, houses in which people

actually want to live and that we can protect our countryside. We can

and should do both, we need to do both. When you concrete over green

spaces, that is England gone. England is finite, it is beautiful,

we are the guardians of that. We are passionately in favour of housing

where it is needed, but must this always be in our beautiful,

pressures, irreplaceable countryside just because it is more profitable

with us now. Andrew, you said yourself, we need more housing. Is

it time to look at all evaibl land that perhaps at least some of it

should be -- available land, that perhaps at least some of it should

be given up? The obvious place is brownfield sites, because there are

so many available. We don't need to start smoothing concrete on

greenbelt areas until we have used those brownfield sites.

Historically, in this country, we have always been rather good, so

that's the place to begin. There are literally thousands of them

waiting to be used. For various reasons, it's easier and handier

for developers go for the greenery. They can build bigger houses and

maximise profits. They don't have to worry about the objections of

local people in other terms in the same sort of way and so on. There

is no infrastructure there. Once you've done it, you can't obviously

retrieve that bit of England again. It's gone forever. What do you

think of the Government's approach in preventing that happening and

trying to encourage builders to develop brownfield sites that are

available? There's not nearly enough encouragement of that.

They've taken the brakes of that. I can see you are shaking your head,

but it is manifestly the case. There are examples everywhere.

do you say to that? You have taken the brakes off, otherwise people

wouldn'ting building? I don't agree. The most important thing we have

done, which is the opposite of what Andrew has said, is to remove the

regional strategies, so local councils have much more control

over where houses are built and they can properly balance the need

for housing, which Andrew acknowledged is required, against

where you put it. We'll come on to the who makes the decision. Is it

protected completely, greenbelt from development? We haven't

changed the extent to which it is protected. Why does Andrew Motion

say that's not the case? In the planning policies, greenbelt land

retains that specific protection. It doesn't mean you never build on

a green field everywhere, but Andrew is right, you want to build

on brownfield sites and there will be requirements to build on areas

not previously developed and those decisions should be made by elected

councillors who can balance the need for housing and development in

their local communities with the protection of the countryside.

you think building on brownfield sides should be exhausted first

before the options of building on green fields and open spaces are

looked after? They have to be taken locally. Some areas will have a

range of brownfield sites which they can use in those cases. Some

areas will not. The decisions need to be taken locally to balance

properly the competing priorities. You don't want someone in Whitehall

making all the decisions. Are they, Andrew Motion? If what you were

saying would be true, we wouldn't be bothering to have this

conversation. In every direction and everybody you talk to and in

every part of the country, there are brakes taken off building on

green sites and there are houses being put on greenfield sites,

where there is no need, because there are so much brownfield area

available to them. The idea that local people are involved with this,

or theoretically they are, but it's not happening. The National

Planning Policy Framework, that catchy title, has actually run into

some confusion in terms of what local people really have power over

in terms. It is all very well you saying it's up to local people, but

it isn't. If you are a local person who has an objection and there are

thousands of them around the country who have that objection and

you turn to the local planning officer and ask them to wade in and

the local officer and council, all the local operations around them,

they don't have the material in the planning law to defend their

position. They are not going to get listened to. That is the problem.

It's a very good point. Clearly, local councils have the power and

have to look at the demand for housing and the needs for the local

community and have to have a plan. If the local council hasn't done a

good job and hasn't got a plan, then it is vulnerable to developers

coming along and saying they want to develop houses, but local

authorities have the ability to do a plan and look at the needs of the

local community, to decide where they want houses and businesses

developed. If they've got that, they can ensure that the

development takes place in those areas and they can robustly defend

themselves from developers who might wish to build elsewhere.

Briefly, the planning minister claims the shortage can be

addressed with as little at 3% Morland being opened up. Do you

agree with that? Honest answer is, I haven't looked at the figures in

the same level of details, so I don't know. I resume he's correct.

The lowest level of house building since the 1920s. Labour didn't

build either? It's not true. Lower levels. Less than 100,000 this year.

The gap between the rhetoric and reality -- Would you open up

greenbelt? I think Andrew is broadly right. Under the last

Labour Government we needed to exploit brownfield and now the

Government has shifted the goal posts. Thank you all. We said we

would take you back to the Home Secretary. She has been telling MPs

what she plans to do about Abu Qatada. There does seem to have

been a breakthrough. We'll check if it is. We'll listen to what she

told the Commons a few moments ago. I can tell the House that I have

signed a comprehensive mutual legal assistance agreement with Jordan.

This agreement is fully reciprocal and offers considerable advantages

to both countries and reflects our joint commitment to tackling

international crime. It covers assistance in obtaining evidence

for the investigation and prosecution of crimes in either

country and provides a framework for assistance in the restraint and

confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The agreement also includes

a number of fair-trial guarantees. These will apply to anyone being

deported from either country. I believe these guarantees will

provide the courts with the assurance that Abu Qatada will not

face evidence that might have been obtained by torture in a retrial in

Jordan. There we have it. Quite a major announcement. Clearly it's in

the pipeline in case the court decision did go wrong. A new deal

or treaty being done by Jordan, which will give certain guarantees

as to the types of trial, fair trial-a -- fair-trial agreements,

but obviously crafted with Abu Qatada in mind. The Home

Secretary's view seems to be that this should satisfy the courts. It

does mean, Mark Harper, that you will have to go back to the special

immigration court and begin the process again? It means the Home

Secretary needs to make a further decision about deporting Abu Qatada,

which depending on whether she certifies it as having an appeal

right, means he does have some legal after news. It's not the

beginning, but there's a further legal process, but what she has set

out with this treaty that has been agreed, which is far wider ranging

than just this case. It's about the close co-operation on dealing with

a whole range of international crime-fighting measures, but it

should mean there is now no legal obstacle and the one legal obstacle

that was remaining, about the concern of using evidence, this

will be Jordanian law, so it's a robust measure and it addresses the

concern that the court had. It has to be approved by the Jordanian

Parliament, but it's not a huge issue. Both parliaments. It will be

laid in ours too. She has made clear that he's not on the plane

tomorrow, as a result of this. She will now have to issue an order

under these new terms for him to be deported. He will doubtless appeal

again to the Special Immigration Appeal Court. If he loses there he

will then appeal to the Appeal Court and if he loses, he'll appeal

to the Supreme Court and if he loses there, he'll appeal to the

European Court, correct? Not all of those will necessary have to happen,

but there is a legal process. My understanding is, because quite a

lot has been argued about before, it's not going to take as long as

it has. It would be prudent to say it's not going to be -- It's months

at least? I suspect so. The Home Secretary is clear, we were doing

the twin-track process on legal and the negotiations. She has a good

announcement on that today and we'll continue the case to remove a

dangerous man from the United Kingdom. I assume you welcome this?

Let's hope it works. Nothing has so far. You are absolutely right.

Let's hope it works and this is sufficient to satisfy the courts

that he would have a fair and just trial. The question that occurs to

me is why are we waiting until today to unveil this? Why wasn't

this unveiled prior to the Court of Appeal? It was clear. It was signed

in March, but the Jordanians have had elections and it was only

yesterday that the new government was approved by the Parliament and

obviously when one is dealing with international relationships it is

quite proper to observe the formalities. As soon as possible

after that the Home Secretary has set out the details. This has to go

before Parliament. I assume Labour will vote for it? We want Abu

Qatada to be deported so we'll absolutely vote for something that

is going to achieve that end. Let's hope it's successful. You said you

would come back to it after the Home Secretary's statement. What is

the British Government's position on possible, temporary withdrawal

from the European Court to get this man out? It's quite clear from what

she said that we want to follow the process that is in place. We are

going to deal with the constraints we have with the law. We think we

have addressed them. We think this will be successful. Are you worried

that the goal posts could be changed again? The original

objection was that he might be tortured. You have got agreement

from Jordan on that. Then a new objection, but he might now be

prosecuted facing evidence obtained under torture. You hope you dealt

with that. Will there be a hattrick on this? I hope this will be it.

It's always a bit difficult when you have lawyers involved, so they

don't think of anything else, so we think we have covered this. It's

comprehensive and it changes Jordan's law as well. We think we

have done the work. It won't be immediately, but the process is

under way and we are determined to be successful. Did you imagine

temporary withdrawal? I think we want to focus on the steps the Home

Secretary has set out today. It's a good plan. I'm glad it's got the

support of the Labour Party and I hope we're successful in removing

him. Let's look at the details before we sign up. Christmas in

Oman for Abu Qatada? I'm not going to put a timeframe around it, but

we're determined to get it done and the Home Secretary's focused on

being successful. OK. We'll leave it there. The lawyers will be

burnishing their fees and briefs. We'll put our viewers out of their

misery and the answer to Guess the Year is 1980. Let's pick a winner.

Give that to Mark. You press the button and we'll find out the

winner. Congratulations, Keith. The winning year was 1980. Well done,