24/04/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/04/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


Download Subtitles