17/07/2013 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/07/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Daily Politics. Shocking failings in the NHS put 11


hospitals in special measures, but who's to blame - this government or


its Labour predecessor? Or both? David Cameron warned was the next


big scandal waiting to happen - so he waited three years to do anything


about it. Today we finally get a bill to regulate lobbying.


Boris wants to turn it into the 33rd London borough, but Heathrow wants a


third runway - the airport's boss joins us live.


And you thought the Heathrow flight path was loud? We'll measure noise


levels in the Commons as political temperature rises. Order, order.


There is still far too much shouting.


All that coming up in the next 90 minutes of scorching hot political


debate. And keeping cool in our air-conditioned studio this morning


is Westminster's hottest political talent. Labour's Chuka Umunna, he's


the Shadow Business Secretary, and the Planning Minister, Nick Boles.


Welcome to you both. First this morning, yesterday's damning report


into serious failings in NHS hospitals continues to resonate here


at Westminster. Indeed, the terms of the political debate may have


changed with the Health Secretary trying to position himself as the


champion of NHS patients rather than the NHS itself. Thousands may have


met an early death in the 14 hospitals concerned, but what really


seemed to matter in the Commons was who was to blame. Rob the last


government left the NHS with a system covering up weak leadership,


and failed to prioritise compassionate care. This system's


reputation, this is uncomfortable for honourable members, mattered


more than individual patients. Targets mattered more than the ball.


At health questions, the Health Secretary claimed this was an


historical report about the past. I measures. Most viewers, if you asked


them, is your treatment good treatment, from the NHS, they would


say, yes, I get a good service. Were there failings? Clearly. But in this


report, there is a claim that Labour ministers, colleagues of mine in


government, deliberately and wilfully sought to cover up failings


in the NHS. Nowhere in this report, I would happily handed to Nick Boles


now, we know what page it is on, but nowhere in this report didn't say


there was evidence that that happened. A lot of this relates to


more salad tea. Andy Burnham, he was one of a number of Labour Health


Secretary is, in 2009, asked for a proper investigation into those


hospitals with high mortality rate. That was produced in April 2010, I


believe, and identified hospital trusts which needed to be looked at,


50 of them. Do you feel ashamed or at least disappointed that all of


these serious failings in the health service still existed after 13 years


of Labour government? I would not claim that every element of NHS


service provision was perfect under my government, and I am disappointed


that failings impacted on families and would have caused upset. People


died because of inadequacy of care, in many cases. Sir Bruce Keogh and


the NHS has said in defence of this wild claim of 13,000... I did not


say 13,000, I understand that it is controversial and it is not in the


report, but many people died because of inadequate care. That happened in


Mid Staffordshire. Professor Brian John and, he says labour ignored his


findings about high mortality rates. We don't accept that. We


commissioned in 2009, Andy Burnham asked the NHS to look into high


mortality rates. Professor Brian Jarman said he e-mailed Andy Burnham


and said there were an alarming number of patient deaths, therefore


that was a red flag . Are Ness Thornton said it would be more


appropriate to take it up with the Care Quality Commission -- Baroness


Thornton said. Andy Burnham looked at the hospitals where there were


high mortality rate. This is an independent review, produced and


commissioned by the Government, and it has not shown any findings that


Andy Burnham did not act properly. Tame side get a very bad press in


this. It is claimed that Labour ignored a whistleblower in 2005,


warnings to Parliament in 2006, a coroner 's report in 2006 and


warnings from Andrew Lansley, when he was the Shadow health minister,


in 2009. Both wary as the evidence to back this up? The way in which


these hospital trusts were identified was based on mortality


figures. It may have got worse under this government. Am I saying the NHS


was perfect during my party's time in government? No. Even if we spent


the whole of the GDP on the health service, it would never be perfect,


but after all the money spent, after the feeling in this country that he


helped service is, quote, the envy of the world, that so many people


should be dying from substandard care? It is the question of the


numbers. Anybody dying is a matter of regret. You would not want that


to happen to anyone, it does not matter how many numbers. But what


Sir Bruce Keogh says is that, on the whole, the NHS had massively


improved after decades of neglect. You would have seen this in the


Sunday papers, there has been an attempt to deliberately smear one


individual on the Labour front bench at the moment, Andy Burnham, because


they have TV tested him, he is one of our most effective communicators.


Let me come on to Nick Boles. Stephen Dorrell, the former


Conservative Health Secretary, said that patients listening to what


happened yesterday will think it is divorced from any focus of what is


important to them, the quality of care delivered by the health


service. But your party decided to play politics. I don't think it is


playing politics to say that when concerns were raised by patients and


health service workers that they were not adequately considered or


brought into the public domain. It is not Conservatives that were


running the Care Quality Commission, are Ness Young was appointed by the


last government and the regulator, Bill Moyers, they have both said


that there was a real pressure. It derived from the approach of the


last government that they could manage the NHS, which is a total


error. You cannot manage show an organisation of that size. You


guarantee the funding, which the Labour Party would not do, by the


way, we stand up for patients' interest. If you weren't playing


politics, why was this figure of 13,000 deaths allowed to be briefed


out at the weekend to all the major Sunday newspapers when we know that


Sir Bruce Keogh said it is clinically meaningless and


academically reckless to use such statistical measures? Nobody ever


sent me a piece of paper is saying, 13,000 deaths. I am very junior and


not a health minister, but you would have thought we would all have been


told that. If you see David Cameron's statement following Mid


Staffordshire, he said, the author of the report does not blame any


specific policy, does not blame the last Secretary of State for health.


He says we should not seek scapegoats. Yet you are seeking to


scapegoat Andy Burnham. We are trying to hold the Labour Party and


its last Secretary of State for health responsible for a system


whereby they wanted to manage the NHS, they wanted to resist any


attempt to show that things were not working in the NHS. That will never


work. They need to take responsibility. The Labour Party


does not take responsibility for anything, they need to take


responsibility. Two of the places getting a bad rap, Basildon and


Tameside health trust 's, they are two of the worst. Since you came to


power you have cut 128 nursing post at Tameside and over 300 from


Basildon. Severn Trent have cut front-line staff by 1117.


Professor Keogh said there is absolutely no financial reason for


these decisions. My trust in Lincolnshire is in special measures


and as a result of this report it is urgently trying to recruit 200 extra


nurses. The government does not any more tell them what they should do


with their money. They have a responsibility to spend it


responsibly and we have a responsibility to show everyone if


things are going one as a result of poor management. Baroness Young


claimed that David Cameron misrepresented her comments. She


asked him to correct it. But her quota is on the record. -- her quota


is on the record. Now, get your ear defenders ready.


That was last week's PMQs, of course, which got pretty noisy - but


just how noisy? Order, order, there is still far too much shouting on


both sides of the chamber. The Prime Minister, I think, is concluding his


answer. Tessa Munt and Alan Cairns, two backbench MPs were there.


Look at Tessa Munt, what are you holding? That is my iPad, it is a


decibel monitor. I will be using it today, I don't believe it will be


any different from normal. You will be using this app on our behalf to


measure how noisy it was. How noisy was it last week? I put the decibel


count on the iPad and it crossed the 100 mark for the first time. It was


a most intimidating environment last week, it was an absolute bearpit.


100 on the decibel count is apparently just short of a power


drill. If that is on a persistent basis, you can imagine. A jet flying


over is 103 decibel is, that is the noise you are putting up with and


the noise the party leaders have to fight against. Did John Bercow


struggle to keep everything under control? I think it is sometimes


quite difficult, it is almost impossible to be heard. You will


hear him call for order repeatedly. It gives some indication. It is


quite difficult to get us to pay attention. I don't do any shouting,


I think it isn't dignified and unnecessary. It is the last one of


the term this Wednesday, I would imagine there is no question there


will be some shouting. Whose fault is it? Tessa Munt says she does not


shout but whose fault is it that they get to that level of crescendo?


The week before last, the Prime Minister won convincingly and... So


the issue would accept that context and therefore, last week, the Labour


Party came out and it was simply survival for Ed Miliband and come on


that basis, the whips had probable eyes that probably organised louder


voices to support him. If you are on the opposition and your own side


behind you are silent, it must be the most lonely place in the world


and that's the purpose of the noise behind, to show support for your own


site, for your leader, and to give him confidence. You are shaking your


head, Tessa Munt. It's childish, pathetic. I would rather hear what


they say. I struggle to listen to the little speakers I have on the


back of the seats. You can't hear a word said. People on television here


it better because they have the equipment. But it is pathetic, and I


think it just is despicable, really, because it makes the whole thing an


absolute playground. It doesn't give us any respect of politicians. If


you did that in the council chamber, there's no question you would be


thrown out. That's what should be happen. We should listen, have


respect, because how does anybody expect us to get respect if we don't


behave in a sensible grown-up manner? How louder do think it will


be? I think some people might be frightened of being named by the


speaker, and I think it will probably get to about 90 today.


think higher than that. All right, we have taken nap addiction. Come


back to us after PMQs. Thanks. Now, before the last election, David


Cameron said that Lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen.


Well, he turned out to be quite a clairvoyant. Today the government


publishes a bill to regulate the business of lobbying and try to put


an end to the perception that politicians are cabs for hire.


Here's Jo Le Taxi. Very good. Yes, the debate about lobbying was


reignited earlier this year when Conservative MP Patrick Mercer was


one a of a number of parliamentarians caught on camera


offering themselves out as hired consultants. I could normally


wrong-doing but resigned the Tory Whip following the Panorama and


Daily Telegraph sting back in May, prompting calls for the government


to take action. The Coalition Agreement had promised to regulate


lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists.


Over three years later, the government are today publishing a


bill that would set up this statutory register and introduce new


measures to reform party funding The move comes at a time when David


Cameron is facing pressure over decisions to drop plans for plain


cigarette packaging and a minimum price for alcohol. With the


opposition claiming he has been lobbied by his election strategist


Lynton Crosby, whose firm has been advising tobacco giant Philip Morris


International. And Labour are also under fire over their links to the


trade unions and claims that Unite has been trying to fix parliamentary


selection processes. Andrew. Thanks for that. David Cameron thought


lobbying was going to be the next big scandal. Why did he hire a


lobbyist as his election strategist? Mr Crosby is an expert strategist


and has run a series of elections for the Australian Prime Minister,


and for Michael Howard. And Boris Johnson's election campaign. What he


does in his other time of his own business. He is employed by the


Conservative Party, not by the government. Secondly, he's only


employed for one day a week and thirdly, the Conservative Party pays


him. He will call for paper, calls the tune. The Prime Minister decides


what he will do with his time. The unions on the other hand, are paying


the Labour Party and have a secure place in the Labour Party's


constitution, they vote for the leader and policy. There is a


fundamental difference between these two situations. Will Lynton Crosby


is that one day a week between now and election? If his time increases,


he will be able to less work for other people and more work for the


Conservative Party. A lobbyist, it becomes your full-time study just?


Should he? He doesn't lobby the Prime Minister, ministers. If


anything, we tried to lobby him to make sure he understands why our


policies are important. How do you know he hasn't lobbied ministers?


Because the Prime Minister has made it clear he's never lobbied him on


any other subjects... He's not made it clear he hasn't had a discussion


about tobacco with Mr Crosby. said he has not been lobbied. Have


you ever had a discussion, Chuka with a union leader about any of


your policies? Have they ever had a role in the election of your leader?


Yes, he would've lost to David Miliband but for hit their boat. We


are paying a relatively modest sum to an election strategist. There was


a big difference. It's not one of the great secrets of British


politics that the unions have been influencing the Labour Party. A


level political science, we learn that. What influence if any Mr


Crosby, with his lobbying, has had on your government policy? We have


been very clear he's employed by the Conservatives for one day a week to


provide election strategy advice. The does not have any role, not any


contact with civil servants. He's not lobbying and is not allowed to.


I think there is an important distinction to be made between big


tobacco, alcohol, commercial interests, and trade unions which


represent millions of working people. Many people working in the


studio. There is an important distinction but the key thing here


is transparency and accountability. The extent to which the Labour Party


has contributions from the unions is on public record. The problem with


lobbying, this argument Nick is making, we'd paid Lynton Crosby to


coming to us and we will be him, I've never heard of anybody


suggesting that. Transparency and accountability, will this bill the


government is introducing today, we are putting down amendments to this,


to makes sure all of the lobbying companies in the country fully


disclose who their clients are and the extent to which they get money


from them. Secondly, to ensure people like Lynton Crosby are also


covered by these rules. The idea he won't have any impact on policy


whatsoever is ludicrous. Let me put that to him. Will Lynton Crosby's


list of clients the public as a result of this bill? The rules will


apply to all people who are lobbying on behalf of companies in the UK.


we will see the company 's he has? don't know the details of the bill.


Let's be clear, Andrew, the Labour Party was in government for 13


years. We had Bernie Ecclestone giving Tony Blair �1 million and


surprise surprise, Tony Blair turns around and does not ban cigarette


advertising in the sporting events. Oh please, come on. Of course, it's


taken three years. Andrew. didn't you do it in 13 years?


tobacco advertising for example, we banned billboard advertising, banned


smoking in public places, banned smoking advertising in sport, and


actually come as a result of some of the issues raised, Tony Blair said


at the time, it wasn't so much what happened but we introduced so many


of the disclosable switch mean people know what he contributed. Let


me finish. Why didn't you introduce a lobbying register? Let me finish


my sentence. Answer my question. As a result of the rules we


introduced, we do now know what is paid to political parties and all so


there are certain rules where overseas companies can no longer


contribute into election campaigns which didn't exist under the


Conservatives. Are there more things we can do? Of course there are but


why we're putting down amendments to this bill but to say nothing


happened about transparency in 13 years is nonsense. Do you think


there should be a requirement that trade unions, we have to count an


audit of its membership to prove its accuracy? I think there is an


independent audit of their members and they are not carrying about at


themselves. It will be interesting to see how they propose doing it and


who will fund it but transparency and accuracy of membership figures


for trade unions is a good thing. I don't think they will disagree with


that but let's look at the detail. What does Lynton Crosby get for one


day a week? I don't know but is an expert man and I'm sure he charges a


lot more than I do, to be frank. It's so sought after, its backstory


so compelling, it's so often the topic of conversation for television


viewers up and down the country that, naturally, it now has its own


Wikipedia page. Of what do I speak? Well, the trusty Daily Politics mug,


of course. We've had nothing to do with this page. We wouldn't blow our


own mug's trumpet. We'll leave it to our many fans and followers to do


that. In fact this one's a mock-up. And we're in good company because


Chuka here has a famous wikipedia page. Everyone loves my page.Now


the page used to include the flattering quote "may end up as the


UK's Barack Obama". Chuka has made it absolutely clear that he had


nothing to do with putting that quote on the page. Transparency.


Nothing, nothing, nothing. In fact, Chuka has criticised journalists who


have compared him to the US President. So it couldn't have been


him, could it? I have never compared to the US president though I have


once or twice head Barack Obama saying he is really American's


Chuka. Now, our mug doesn't need bigging up because we know that


hundreds of you will compete to win one in Guess The Year. Particularly


after that introduction. We'll remind you how to enter in a minute.


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 61 seconds


But let's see if you can remember next government. And I am, indeed,


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


And you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our


website. I'm going to let you do that next time. It's coming up to


midday here. Just take a look at Big Ben. Another glorious sunny day here


in Westminster. I hope it's lovely where you are, too. It is PMQs. The


final one before the summer recess. We should be in for some fireworks.


Nick Robinson is here. I think the situation in Albania may come up.


Maybe? Maybe the NHS and lobbying? No, really? The only thing that is


equally predictable is the noise level, unless the speaker has


decided to intervene. What's intriguing about this is how the


Tories have decided in recent weeks to increase the pressure on Labour,


to increase the volume. If you saw the tactics Jeremy Hunt used


yesterday, they are very similar to what David Cameron did two weeks ago


to Ed Miliband on the trade unions in PMQs, to come from nowhere, Bell


to your opponent around the head, get your backbenchers screaming


behind you, in order to say, we are all together on this. -- belt your


opponent. That is believed well for the Tories. They have done it on


welfare, the trade unions. And the NHS. I am blaming Len McCluskey for


this hot weather, by the way. always his fault! Tactically, what


do you do if you are Ed Miliband? Last week, they reacted, they were


organised, the whips were there. The tribal loyalties reasserted


themselves. The question is whether you try to equal the noise or tried


to take the heat out of it and appear statesmanlike. Since this is


the last PMQs until September, let's go to the last PMQs until September.


Thank you, Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings... I had meetings


with ministerial colleagues and People using Scunthorpe General


Hospital today are asking for reassurance. Given Serb Bruce Keogh


says now is not the time for hasty reactions or recriminations, will


the Prime Minister committed the resource and support as well as the


challenge to ensure that the Scunthorpe Hospital delivers


high-quality care across all departments? Let me echo what he


said about the Keogh reporter. It is a good report and it says that even


those hospitals which have been investigated, in many instances they


delivered care. This government is putting the money in, �12.7 billion


extra over this Parliament. We will help those hospitals that are


challenged to make sure they provide the best they can in the NHS.


I am sure you will be as delighted as I am to know that unemployment in


Watford has fallen once again to the lowest level since the end of 2009.


I hope that the Prime Minister will agree with me that this is a good


example of government policy is a good example of government policies


to small businesses working, because they are the ones that provide the


thousands of jobs and apprentices shown at the Watford jobs fair two


weeks ago. He is right, today 's unemployment figures are welcome and


they show a very significant fall in the claimant count, 20,000 in the


last month. It is encouraging, and some of that is because of the extra


resources we put into apprenticeships. Over 1 million


people have started apprenticeships in this Parliament. I hope the fall


in unemployment will be welcomed across the House.


The vast majority of doctors and nurses working in the NHS perform to


a very high standard, day in, day out. But everybody in the country


will be concerned that some hospitals are letting people down.


Sir Bruce Keogh's report found frequent examples of an adequate


numbers of nursing staff. Will the Prime Minister tell us what he is


doing to ensure adequate numbers of nurses? The Keogh report is


excellent. When you have a problem of high mortality rates,


relatively, in some hospitals, it is important to hold an investigation,


get to the truth and then take action to deal with that. We are


putting �12.7 billion into the NHS. Over the course of the last year we


have seen an extra 900 nurses in our NHS. That backs up the 8500 extra


clinical staff since this government came to office.


But the reality is thereof 4000 fewer nurses than when the Prime


Minister came to power. One of the issues raised in this report was


about nursing staff. It was also reflected in the Francis report


about benchmarks for the numbers of nursing staff. If there are over


4000 fewer nurses, is that helping or hindering sorting out these


problems? He makes the link between the 11 hospitals put into special


measures and nursing numbers. He might be interested in the figures.


Eight of the 11 hospitals identified actually have more nurses today than


in 2010. If, for instance, you take the hospital in Scunthorpe that was


just mentioned, although that is on the list of the 11 hospitals,


thereof 100 extra nurses working there than three years ago. When it


comes to clinical staff, ten of the 11 hospitals have higher numbers of


clinical staff. In the Francis report, Francis did not support


mandatory nursing numbers. All well-run hospitals will have the


right number of nurses and doctors and care assistant. One of the


purposes of these reports is to make sure hospitals are better run.


That his reforms are diverging money from patient care and across the


health service the number of nurses is falling -- but his reforms are


diverging money from patient care. On deaths from cancer, the


government planned legislation on plain cigarette packaging, he


changed his view after he hired Lynton Crosby, who also happens to


work for big tobacco in the shape of Philip Morris. Are we really


supposed to believe it is a coincidence? It is clear he does not


want a proper conversation about the health service. He had not done his


homework on nursing numbers. He asks about plain packaging on cigarettes.


Let me be clear, the decision not to go ahead for the time being is a


decision made by me and the Health Secretary. If you don't agree with


the decision, you can attack me for making it. Funnily enough, it is the


same decision made by the last government. I have got here the


latter that the former health Secretary of State roads to a


minister explaining why he wasn't going ahead. He said this, this is a


letter to the honourable member for Dulwich, he said, no studies have


shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the


number of young people smoking. Given the impact the plan would


have, we would need strong and convincing evidence to go ahead. To


summarise, if his attack on me is that we are not doing something he


decided not to do, I would suggest a different line of questioning.


Once again, the Prime Minister doesn't know his fact. In February


2010, my right honourable friend in his tobacco strategy set out quite


clearly that he was in favour of having plain cigarette packaging.


That quote is from earlier. Here is the difference, my right honourable


friend moved to that position in February 2010. He used to be in


favour of plain cigarette packaging, then changed his mind.


Can he now... Can he now... Can he now and so the question that he has


not answered four weeks - has he ever had a conversation with Lynton


Crosby about plain cigarette packaging? I will answer, he has


never lobbied me on anything. But if he wants a lobbying scandal, why


doesn't he try the fact that the trade unions by aye his policies and


candidates, they even bought and paid for his leadership. The whole


of the country will have heard those same weasel words he is sticking to.


He can't deny that he had a conversation with Lynton Crosby


about this issue. Even by the standards of this Prime Minister,


this is a disgraceful episode. His own honourable member of the Totnes,


they described it as a day of shame for this government. He is the Prime


Minister of Benson and hedge funds is, and he knows it! Can't you see


there is a devastating conflict of interest between having your key


adviser raking it in from big tobacco and then advising you not to


go ahead with plain packaging? this on a day when this government


is doing something they never did for 13 years, publishing a lobbying


bill. Let us remember why we need one. We had former Labour ministers


who describe themselves as cabs for hire, we had Cabinet ministers


giving passports for favours, a Prime Minister questioned by the


police under cash for honours. They are in no position to lecture anyone


on standards in public life. Isn't it remarkable on the day of a


massive fall in the claimant count, a fall in unemployment, a rise in


employment, he has nothing to say? Last year he said this, next year,


unemployment will get worse not better, under his policies. Isn't it


time to admit you were wrong? The reality that he cannot admit is


against the advice of every major public health organisation, he has


caved in to big tobacco. That is the reality about this Prime Minister,


and he knows it. It is Andy Coulson all over again. He is a Prime


Minister who doesn't think the rules apply to him. Dinners for donors,


Andy Coulson and now big tobacco in Downing Street. He always stands up


for the wrong people. The reason his leadership is in crisis is he can't


talk about the big issues. We are getting to the end of a political


session where the deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is


down, welfare is capped, Abu Qatada is back in Jordan. This country gets


stronger every day, every day, he Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know the


Prime Minister will want to thank those fantastic NHS staff who are


rolling up their sleeves and doing everything they can to Jews avoided


the early deaths. They are asking the Prime Minister for minimum unit


pricing in order to help them do that job. To stop people falling


into addiction in the first place. Minimum pricing is falling into


death row, will the Prime Minister give it a reprieve until we know the


outcome of the Sheffield report and the Scottish reports, at least?


fights a strong and noble campaign on an issue that she cares a great


deal about. What we are able to do is introduce something... Order, the


question has been asked, let's hear the answer. We can introduce


something the last government never did, to say it should be illegal to


sell alcohol to lower the price of duty plus VAT. That is something, in


all the binge drinking problems we had under Labour, they never managed


to do. In February I asked the Prime


Minister if he thought it was fair that Mr and Mrs Goodwin, both


registered blind, should pay bedroom tax? He promised to look into the


case. His family wrote to the Prime Minister but did not receive a


reply. Why didn't the Prime Minister keep his word? I will look urgently


at this case. I reply to honourable members' correspondence right across


the house, and I always will. In terms of the spare room subsidy, we


put into place fair rules where it does not affect pensioners and


people who need that spare room. I have is when I write back, there is


one question I won't be able to answer, which is we still don't know


whether the party opposite are going to replace this, because they will


not give us an answer. This summer, when Labour members are


in Blackpool on their Unite beach towels, can they assure me that his


government, free both from week leadership and Len McCluskey, will


not put into law the welfare benefits as a human rights? He makes


a good point. Last week there was a rare piece of candour from the


Labour Party. They now have a welfare reform they are in favour


of. They want to make welfare are human rights. That is the policy of


the Labour Party. They oppose the welfare cap, they oppose getting the


deficit down and they want to make benefits a human rights.


Will the Prime Minister joined... Order, let's have some order. Mr


Campbell must be heard. Will he join with me in wishing a speedy recovery


to the right honourable member for North Belfast, Mr Nigel Dodds, who


was injured when seeking to resolve problems in his constituency during


the recent unacceptable disturbances? Will he also join with


many in Northern Ireland who want to see an initiative headed up by Dr


Richard Haass from the USA and the considerable effort and goodwill


that will be required to resolve all of the outstanding issues which have


been plagued by violent opposition for too long? Everyone was concerned


to hear about the honourable member knocked over in his constituency and


I gather he is now improving. We look forward to welcoming him back


to this House. On this issue, it's very important we see responsibility


on all sides in Northern Ireland and we do take steps in making sure


these marches can go ahead in a way which respects the fact that


communities must be good neighbours to each other. That's what's


required and I know we will help in any way we can. Overall, over 4500


foreign national offenders were removed from the UK in 2012 and the


rate has remained consistent by then that the number of foreign nationals


in England and Wales is still too high and while it is lower than at


the election, we can do more and which is why the Justice Secretary


is looking to secure transfers with countries in the high as the portion


of offenders. Foreign national offenders will be deported except in


exceptional circumstances but I do think everyone can celebrate the


removal of Abu Qatada who went back to Jordan and can I congratulate the


Home Secretary on her hard work? the Home Secretary has deported Abu


Qatada, something the previous government failed to do, will he do


all he can to send foreign nationals in prison in our country back to


prison in their own country and saving British taxpayers hundreds of


millions of pounds as a result? absolutely agree about this issue


and the fact it requires real drive from the centre of this government


and which is why we held a national meeting on this, why we are trying


to sign compulsorily agreement with Albania and Nigeria and I will make


sure these issues are raised in meetings with foreign national


prisoners to be returned. We shouldn't rule out steps, including


helping countries like Jamaica, with around prison regimes so it easier


to return people. It's a major priority for the government and they


want us to do better. The Prime Minister claims he did not know that


Lynton Crosby worked for a tobacco company but he's the heart of Tory


party strategy. Why is he developing a bad habit, perhaps an addictive


one, of turning a blind eye as to who his advisers actually work for?


Let me explain, the role of Lyndon Crosby is to advise me about how to


defeat a divided and useless Labour Party. And I have to say, on the


basis of today's evidence, I'm not sure he's really necessary. In my


Welsh constituency... Order, we must have a question from Mr Davies.


my Welsh constituency, patients have to wait 36 weeks for treatment. Next


door, English constituencies wait 18 weeks. What lessons does the Prime


Minister believed the government can learn from how the NHS has been


managed in Wales over these years? There's a very clear lesson which is


going to vote Labour. You can see what's happening in Wales, where


Labour are in control of the NHS, they cut the budget by 8%, and, as a


result, you can now see in Wales, they haven't met a single waiting


time targets since 2009. Meanwhile, in England, we are increasing


spending on the NHS. The Shadow Chancellor keeps pointing at the


Health Secretary, but here's the man who said it would be irresponsible


to increase spending on the NHS. If you want to do better, you need to


move the two people next to you, and you need to do it fast. Order.


Flynn should be heard with courtesy. Will the Prime Minister study the


precise meaning of the word" question" and" answer" and the need


for a link between the two? Following the record number of


unanswered questions, and the record number of preprepared party


political diatribe last week at question Time. A demeaning spectacle


which changed him and his office. Can he give me an answer today to


this question. Which is relevant and courteous? I'm assuming that one was


quite complicated for a whips question is how we obviously thought


of it himself, but this government is far more transparent than its


predecessors about the information be published, the public spending


data, far more transparent than the last government. I'm pleased to say


unemployment in Northampton North continues to go down. Does the Prime


Minister agree with me that today's jobs figures prove that this


government's economic policy has not led to the disappearance of 1


million jobs which was a forecast made by the leader of the


opposition? I do think it's extraordinary, on this day there is


a fall in unemployment at the leader of the opposition had nothing to say


about it. He hasn't asked a full set of questions about the economy since


February because he knows that our policies are working, Britain's


economy is mending, and he's absolutely right, the forecast was


made that, we would not make up for the loss of public sector jobs with


jobs in the private sector. They are shouting because they don't want to


hear good news about falling unemployment. People do want to know


about more businesses, and the economy making progress. Too much


shouting on both sides of the House. How many of the Conservative


Party's millionaire donors asked the Prime Minister to cut the 50p top


rate of tax? That was definitely a whips hand-out, no doubt about that


one. Let me explain to the honourable lady and it dashed an


important distinction... Order, calm down. The top rate of tax and this


government is higher in every year than in any year under the previous


government. The way it works in her party is that trade unions give


Labour money which buys the policies, the candidates, the MP,


even the leader. I'm not surprised they are worried about the product


they ended up with. Enfield has the early advantage of a welfare cap for


the last three months. With JS a falling twice the rate of the rest


of the country. With youth unemployment at a lower level, the


lowest since early 2009, can the Prime Minister ensure where Enfield


leaves, the country follows. I paid tribute to the people in Enfield to


find jobs. The welfare cap is not only bike because it would be wrong


for people out of work to be able to earn more than a typical family in


work, but people seeing a welfare cap coming down the road, are


finding jobs and that's good news for them and the economy. Would


Adrian B Croft, being asked to provide a report on government


regulars, is the doughnut for the party? That is he a donor for the


party? I think his report was an excellent report. In terms of


encouraging enterprise, jobs. Wealth creation. Let me explain one more


time, there is a big difference, if you are a trade union and you give


money to the Labour Party, you can pick the candidates and vote for


them, you can pick the leader and vote for him, pick the policies and


vote for him. I was elected by a one member, one vote membership system.


He was elected by a trade union stitch up. Thank you, Mr Speaker.


Any government should be able to introduce a reasonable cap on very


high claims for taxpayer funded benefits but if we are all in it


together, then why is the government resisting the introduction of a cap,


sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds, individual case is the


government resisting the introduction of a cap, sometimes


hundreds of thousands of pounds, individual cases over �1 million,


farm support system? This government has the huge amount of tax reform to


make sure people pay their taxes they owe. And of course, we always


look at the Common agricultural policy to make sure it's fair.


Speaker, in order to save the Prime Minister time, I was a member of the


Unite union since the age of 16 as an engineering apprentice, and I'm


quite happy to debate who spent their youths more productively. On


the 26th of June, in response to a question from my honourable friend


from Ealing North, on the Tory dinners for donors, the Prime


Minister said he would be happy to publish the Gold report. Is there a


reason he hasn't done so, is because he hasn't done so, is it because


he's ashamed of the fact his party has had more donors than a late


night kebabs shop? It's a time when we ought to remember the donation of


Mr Mills. �1.6 million to the Labour Party, who got advice about how to


dodge his taxes. When they get an answer to when you're going to pay


the money back, I will answer his question. While still hoping the


Prime Minister will agree with the CBI and me and withdraw support for


HS2, he will remember last November giving me an undertaking that people


who are disrupted by this project will be generously compensated. It's


here where, on phase one, HS2 has not yet the basic consultation and


on current plans, won't do for three months. Really please intervene,


speed up the process, before those constituents and other peoples whose


lives are affected, are totally ruined? She's absolutely right to


raise this. We will set out further consultation later this year. We are


committed to a very generous and fair compensation scheme. Matters


relating to compensation are important which is why we must make


sure we get the decisions right but the Transport Secretary will be


happy to meet with hair and discuss her constituents concerns. The Prime


Minister has certainly been helping the Jersey registered companies with


their ex-sports. Perhaps he could tell the House whether the reason he


took a man with him to Kazakhstan was because he donated �300,000 to


the Tory party. -- exports. Let's remember which government it was who


will make sure Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, pay taxes properly,


it's this one. I will tell you directly why I took him to


Kazakhstan. His company employs tens of thousands of people in this


country, it's investing billions into the North Sea, and major


British energy company and I'm proud of the fact that we fly the flag for


British energy companies and so, when I finished taking them to


Kazakhstan, I will take them to India, China, Malaysia. We are not


embarrassed about business, industry, enterprise and jobs on


this side of the House. We want more Angela Merkel, have they examined


the evidence that it is the existence of the European single


currency, which is a major cause of despair which is now sweeping across


southern Europe, and threatens democracy of Portugal, Spain and


Greece? When I meet with Angela Merkel, we often discuss the single


currency. I think it's important that, whatever 1's personal views


about the single currency, and I never want Britain to join it, we


have to respect those countries which are in the single currency and


want to make it work. I believe there's an opportunity for Britain,


at the same time is doing that, to argue that the European Union itself


needs to change. We need make this organisation where members of the


single currency can be comfortable and members want not, can be


comfortable also. I think Angela Merkel understands that. I think the


Prime Minister from Italy, who I will be meeting with straight after


the session, understands that, as well, which is why it is achievable


to get a better settlement for Britain, and one we can get in a


referendum by the end of 2017. Prime Minister failed to say next


week when it's going to give back the stolen cash given to the


Conservative Party. When will you give it back? I have to say, the


whips hand out have been very active this week. What we need to see is


when are we going to get the payers money given back from Mr Mills's


donation? Never mind a donation which happened 20 years ago. This


happened at 20 weeks ago. One of the first activist government was to


bring a request to fund a security measures in Jewish free schools.


Parents in Hendon in my constituency where paying for this additional


security measures from their own pocket. After the last government


refused to help. As his funding arrangement ends in 2015, can I ask


them to support my campaign for the Education Secretary to continue with


this scheme? I will look very carefully about my honourable friend


says. I'm a strong supporter of free schools and also, the community


Security trust which has provided a lot of security for schools. My


right honourable friend, the Education Secretary, will be happy


to look to see how we can continue to give support. Given the scandal


of price-fixing in the oil and gas industry, is currently being


investigated by the European Union, does the Prime Minister agree with


me that it's important to be absolutely transparent about the oil


and gas companies that Lynton Crosby's firm represents? Have they


got nothing to say about unemployment, improving education,


capping welfare? It pains me to point this out to the honourable


lady but she has received �32,000 from affiliated trade unions. Let me


explain the difference. With Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party gives


them money to help us get rid of labour. That's the way it works.


With the Labour Party, the unions give you money and that's the way it


works. And yet she says this. On her website, " I'm a member of Unison


and Unite and I rightly raise trade union issues in Parliament." That is


will be heard. Many water companies in England are


paid huge dividends. They've avoided paying tax and are not properly


accountable. And proposing an annual increase of �80 a year on water


rates. With the primers to make sure no public subsidy is given to Thames


Water or any other water company which puts the profits and its


shareholders had the interests of ordinary ratepayers and the tax


payers of his undermine? Let me be clear, I've always had companies


should pay the tax they owe. I don't want to comment on individual


companies but that is the case. Any support from government must be


targeted to benefit customers bills and provide value for taxpayers.


There is merit in the Thames tunnel proposal and we need to look back


carefully because it would be a benefit for London, for his


constituents, and for everybody in London but I sure we will use


everything at our disposal to get the best deal for London, and for


taxpayers. Did the Prime Minister asked Lynton Crosby... ? We can run


through this one again. Let me have another go at explaining it. It


works like this. The Conservative Party gives Lynton Crosby money and


he helps us attack the Labour Party, right? But trade unions give


money to the Labour Party. The other way round. For that, they buy your


candidates. They buy your MPs. They buy your policies and even give you


this completely hopeless leader. Last but not least, Andrew


Griffiths. My constituent was diagnosed with cervical cancer at


the age of 25 when she had her first smear test. Sadly, she had to have a


hysterectomy. We'll Prime Minister join me in congratulating her on her


drop your pants and save your life campaign, to raise awareness of


cervical cancer? Willingly agreed to talk to the Health Secretary about


her wish to bring the age at which young people can have a smear test


down from 25 down to 20? I paid tribute to his constituents for the


bravery in raising this campaign and speaking so frankly about it. This


screening programme we have had in the NHS has been one of its greatest


successes in terms of early diagnosis of saving lives and we


should always be asking what the latest evidence is for the screening


programme and when it should start and I'm sure my right honourable


friend will want to talk to him of this session. We will not see the


light can until the 13th of September. The NHS and lobbying


dominated the exchanges between the front benches, and also the


backbench exchanges with the Prime Minister. It was another rowdy


house, very noisy, we will give you the exact decibel count a little


later. The Prime Minister was in a kind of boisterous mood, I think,


would be the best way to describe them. We will see what it means in a


second. Let's find out what you thought. Ian Whiteley said, a win


for Dave, although Ed landed a couple of blows.


The Prime Minister for Benson and Hedges was a good one. He should


have stuck to the Keogh reports and left Lynton Crosby to the


backbenches. Jim from Nuneaton, by linking to a


hospital care to nursing staff numbers, Cameron had Miliband in a


tight corner by explaining that the worst hospitals had more staff than


three years before. Another viewer says, I can't tell of Miliband is


waving or drowning. For once, David Cameron has found


the right way to answer a question with an answer which is relevant to


the question. A good set of questions from Miliband. Cameron's


claims are not justified. PMQs is nothing more than


prearranged soundbites and preplanned noise. At the end of


term, Ed Miliband had a very good day, clearly highlighting his


difficulty when dealing with facts over spin, validating the difference


between what Keogh said and what the Tories have spun. Jacqueline says


that David Cameron plays with words. Obviously he had a conversation


about the cigarette packaging. Nick, summer recess, we are right in


the middle of the electoral cycle. The polls don't help us too much,


one Pole said Labour were 11 points ahead, then another one said that


Labour and the Tories were neck and neck. Although it is not exactly


clear what is happening, the Tories head to this recess in a better mood


than they thought a couple of months ago? Much better. You describe David


Cameron as boisterous. His backbenchers were cheerful. The


opposite is the case at times with Labour, they looked alarmed at


times. Organised, but not looking as cheerful. Why are they cheerful?


Partly the list which the Prime Minister gave out, the deficit is


down. Compared to 2010.Abu Qatada has gone home, the European


referendum private member's bill the other day, it does not get them


closer to rest the random but it has cheered them up and got them onside.


The economic news is possibly the most important, which is it is a


little bit better than it was. Everybody is waiting for the next


GDP figures, but if it confirms that not only was there no trouble dip,


there was no double-dip, it feels like relatively good news. The


Tories feel better about themselves, which is why David Cameron has


spurned a mini reshuffle which was down for tomorrow. It was going to


involve, I am told, a widespread reshuffle underneath the Cabinet to


prepare for a Cabinet Mac Pro reshuffle ahead of the election, but


the Prime Minister thought, why disrupt the good mood? A reshuffle


upsets some people you fire, disappoint those who do not get


promoted and you perhaps upset those who feel passed over. And yet the


fundamental feature of British living standards at the moment is


they are still in decline. We saw worse than expected inflation


figures, last week, and although average earnings rose a bit, 1.7,


earnings are still not keeping pace with prices. I would suggest that


for all the bluster and boisterous behaviour and so on, the


Conservatives can't really feel good about themselves until living


standards start to rise again. It is very difficult to win an election


with living standards in decline. Nobody is pretending we are out of


the woods, but employment is growing and jobs have been created in a way


that has surprised all of us, I don't think anybody would expect


that jobs would come through as constant -- consistently as they


have. Families are still feeling squeezed. The only answer to that is


the one which we have been pushing since 2010. We have to get


government borrowing down, jobs growing and we have to help


businesses export. Those are arguments being made very


effectively in Prime Minister's Questions by the Prime Minister, and


it is just showing signs that it might work. That is why I think


there is room for optimism, but no sense of comfort about where we are.


Lynton Crosby was mentioned a lot, the Australian lobbyist and election


Guru now working for the Conservatives. He is expected to


lead the Conservative election campaign, to be the chief adviser,


come 2015. He has just been door step to buy a television crew.


Did you ever lobby the Prime Minister on tobacco? The Prime


Minister has said everything that needs to be said on that issue.


Well, that was a piece of seminal television! It took the debate on


enormously! You may mark! I've now got six seconds of Lynton Crosby, I


was told this morning I only had four! Six seconds of public service


broadcasting at it finest! At least we know what he looks like now! You


out to get Crosby because you are frightened of him? I don't think we


are frightened of him. He has sharpened up the Tory act, you can


data the resurgence of Mr Cameron two when Mr Crosby got stuck into


providing strategy. The big issue is about their potential conflict and


what conversations the Prime Minister has had with Lynton Crosby


in respect of tobacco. Time and time again, we saw it in the exchange is


now in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister has been asked, have


you had a conversation involving any mention of tobacco with Lynton


Crosby? Time and again, you has failed to answer. You are right in


the sense that Crosby undoubtedly has changed the way in which they


are seeking to campaign. My prediction is that we will see the


most vile, nasty and personal campaign in the lead up to this


election. We have 95 weeks to go. I think it will be the most vile we


have seen in political history. You have seen the kind of personal


remarks and smears that have been heaped on Andy Burnham over the last


48 hours. Actually very different to when the Prime Minister gave his


statement on Mid Staffordshire. I think we will see more of that. I


understand that is the way Mr Crosby does things. But the reason for


junking the policy... There were two policies, and the reason for junking


the minimum pricing for alcohol policy and the policy for having


plain packaging for cigarettes could be that the Prime Minister has


succumbed to lobbying from Mr Crosby, that is a possibility. We


have no evidence. The other reason could be that Mr Crosby gave advice


in a get the barnacles off the ships strategy, get rid of politics


involving posh boys telling ordinary people what to do. That second


reason, you can agree or disagree with it, but it would be an entirely


legitimate piece of political advice to give, correct? That may or not be


the case, I don't know. But if they will go down the politics of smear


route, I don't actually think... are smearing the Prime Minister by


saying he is in the pocket of big Tobacco. He needs to answer the


question. I have lots of years in the pockets of big Tobacco. Pension


and Dell -- bends -- Benson and Hedge fund is, I believe was said.


We are talking about the decibel levels in the House of Commons, but


I think we have a general problem in British politics at the moment. Does


this type of thing, the politics of smear, the shouting you see in the


House of Commons, encourage more people to engage with politics or to


walk away from it? One of the challenges for both parties in the


lead up to the general election is, is the way we conduct ourselves and


do our politics going to encourage people to take an interest and vote,


or will it switch them off? I think people are more political than ever


but I think one of the big problems we have is that they are switched


off party politics more than ever. A lot of people watching this


programme will watch it because they like PMQs, but a lot of people


don't. Reign I don't think the suggestion that Lynton Crosby simply


said to get rid of these policies because it is a way of pursuing a


Tory election strategy free of distractions gets him or the Prime


Minister quite off the hook. Mr Crosby is in the room and is in


effect wearing two have, one is the paid representative of what Labour


calls big Tobacco, the large tobacco firms, particularly Philip Morris,


if he is in Norris but happens to be there on one occasion because he is


being paid for by the Conservatives, there is not transparency about why


he is giving the advice he is giving and on whose behalf. The sooner he


takes a full-time position with the Tories, if he is doing their


election campaign, the better, I would imagine? The Lib Dem leader


Nick Clegg is also saying that he is not a government policy adviser, but


here's highly influential with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.


In part, that is about telling them what not to do, policy wise. It just


happens that one of the things he told them not to do, because it


would be a destruction, was in the interest of one of his paid clients.


We will see if he survives over the summer. Thank you. It might as well


rain until September. I remember when he went to arrest and in rails


unasked for some asparagus tips and she came back and said, we haven't


got any but we do have some Benson & Hedges. Good one. I've not had that


one before. We could get you a gig somewhere else. Now earlier we asked


two MPs to measure the noise levels in the commons during PMQs. We will


get them to do stand-up comedy next time. Tessa Munt and Alun Cairns


join us now again from Central Lobby. How loud was it? 89. It was


quite loud but didn't quite cross the 90 mark I suggested. It was more


subdued in last week. There was cautioned a little bit by the whips


not to be too loud about, as I said earlier, last week there was a web


operation to come out in strong support for Ed Miliband and then we


retaliated on our side. Your decibel reading was the same as the food


blender so pretty noisy. What about you Tessa Munt? Somebody was looking


over your shoulder because it wasn't from you, to say you hit 92?


actually went to 95 and 96 and then 97. Oh my goodness. Yours was lot


higher. That is Liverpool Anfield football ground which can get to 98.


It was terrifically loud. You were sitting at the back and I was the


front. My Lib Dem colleagues were quieter but I had some extremely


noisy colleagues behind me. Allah coalition partners. You're blaming


the Conservatives. -- oh, you are blaming your coalition partners.


They were in full song behind me. I suspect my gadget picked them up


clearly. Where you out of the chamber, only getting 94 question


mark. I suggest the reason it went high at the front is because the


noise came from the other side, rather than from our side but I


think the important issue to recognise if it's a terrible


environment to ask a question and a difficult environment to answer it,


and that's why each side is basically trying to put the other


side. That's not the purpose of PMQs. The purpose is to scrutinise


the Prime Minister. He told me it serves the purpose, Tuesday night is


the time of the week he gets to know everything which is going on in


every department in case the question comes up. OK, thank you


very much for being our noise level watchers and have a good summer


break. Is that what you do with your Tuesday night? Absolutely, I do


symptoms from the Commons din over their long summer break, well, they


could spend some time under the Heathrow flight path. That's where I


live. According to a government report, noise pollution levels of at


least 57 decibels affect almost 260,000 people living near the


airport. But Heathrow insists it needs a third runway and today is


making its submssion to the Davies Commission on airport capacity. It


conveniently won't report until after the next general election.


Heathrow's Chief Executive, Colin Matthews, has got on his soapbox for


travelling nearly half a million flights. Heathrow is how the world


's conscience come to the UK and how the UK connects to the world. --


continents. They bring trade, which brings economic growth, which brings


jobs, and the world economy is changing. The fastest growing


economies are the most distant ones today and the UK is in the global


competitive race to win in those marketplaces before our competitors.


We are one of the world 's most successful airport and, unlike other


UK airports, we had the scale to compete with Paris, Amsterdam,


Frankfurt, and Dubai. We bring transfer traffic from right across


Europe to Philip Long haul aircraft every single day of the year. That


makes them efficient, economically viable, and means we fly long-haul


routes we wouldn't otherwise have flown from the UK. But there is no


more room here to put on new flights to many of the world 's


fastest-growing economies. The choice for government is this, do we


build on the strength of Britain has had to many of the world 's


fastest-growing economies. The choice for government is this, do we


build on the strength of Britain has had to throw or close it and at and


new airport would. Closing Heathrow as the Mayor would suggest would


cost 100,000 jobs and be bad news and thousands of businesses which


are based around Heathrow in the last 50 years want more


international links on their doorstep, not fewer. Today we have


put forward new options for a third runway at Heathrow. Our proposals


show how we can add more flights at Heathrow and still improve the


environmental performance of the airport and with new aircraft


technology, we show how we can have more flights and reduce the amount


of noise. The debate is complex and there is no easy answers but


Heathrow is more convenient for passengers, better placed for


business and will deliver economic growth more quickly and cost less so


Welcome to the programme. During the enquiry into terminal five, in 1999,


BAA said they did not want a third runway so what's changed? People


recognise just how important it is to the UK that we have direct


connections to economies around the world. Those economies which are


growing, China, India, they are a long way away and you can't take a


shorthaul flight there, you can't take a train and you have to have


long haul flights. We trade 20 times more with countries whom we have


direct, rather than directing in transit. There's an element of trust


for people living under the flight path, your proposal doesn't rule out


a fourth runway, so your plan has no limit? There is a trust question and


Dubai can airport commission taking an objective data driven view of


what's best for this country. -- and we welcome. It is fundamentally a


political decision. I think the economic cycle. We need the growth


but noise is a real issue. It impact on local people is an issue and


therefore it's right we choose the best option. But you can't rule out


plans for a fourth runway in ten years time? I don't know on what


basis someone historically said that because it's not our decision. It's


a government decision which says what is our aviation policy. We are


making our case today to the Davies Commission and we look forward to


them coming to view. We think there's good evidence to say it


matters to the UK. Over 700,000 people live under the current flight


path. You mentioned the environmental impact. If a third


runway was used to capacity, it would lead to 220,000 extra


aeroplanes flying over London every year emitting 23.6 million tonnes of


CO2 every year. If you want the globally low carbon solution, you


would put your most efficient hub as close as possible to London. If you


want low carbon solutions, you would definitely have your best hub as


close as possible to London. In terms of noise, it's a real issue.


We can drive noise down with a third runway because aircraft are getting


quieter, we can develop operating procedures which means less of a


noise reaches the ground and we can improve the scheme on the ground.


third runway at Heathrow, no efforts and bats, that's what David Cameron


said before the last election. have you said up a commission which


is considering a third runway at Heathrow? We are looking at all the


options. Like many commitments made in the manifesto, we are going to


stick to my commitment until the next election. And beyond, and wait


for the Davies Commission to report. It's overwhelmingly in our


country 's national interest to have a hub airport capable of connecting


us with a growing market of the world. You would like to see a third


runway? We don't know where to put it. What about expanding Gatwick and


Stansted where you have more room? They are all options we are looking


at. They have intense political difficulties attached to them, as


does the third runway at Heathrow. None of these things are easy. None


of them is politically comfortable, but all of us, as parties, have to


grapple with it and I think we all agree the Davies Commission is the


right way to get very high quality objective answers. Lynton Crosby,


let's think of him, is this another barnacle you have to get off the


boat? We have a clear policy which we are going to maintain. We will


only look at it again once we have the full advice from the Davies


Commission in 2015. After the next election, which is kicking it into


the long grass. It's not, it's a huge important project and it's


important we look at it thoroughly. Labour has flip-flopped on this. The


issue is, the difference between our position, we don't have an automatic


preference for a third runway but the shame of this is it a classic


example of the big infrastructure decision where you need cross-party


agreement and we reached it two and half years ago... I hate to


interrupt you but we have to do is leave it. Just time to give you the


result to Guess the Year. The answer was 1970. James Fletcher is the


Download Subtitles