26/03/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/03/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks, and welcome to The Daily Politics. The Government set a


welfare cap trap for Ed Miliband - Labour will back it, but can they


get back on the front foot after last week's budget?


Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage square up to each other for the first of


two debates on Europe - who'll come out on top? Born clever, born


stupid? Should our genetic make-up play any part in education policy?


Mmm - looks good, doesn't it? But it's bad for you. Right? Is the


Government giving us "unbelievably stupid" healthy eating advice?


All that coming up, plus Prime Minister's Questions at noon. And


with us for the duration, two of Westminster's big cheeses - the


tangy yet mellow blue Anna Soubry and the smooth but sharp red Emma


Reynolds. Welcome to the programme. First this morning, hundreds of


schools across England and Wales are closed today because of a one day


strike by members of the National Union of Teachers. They're


protesting against the UK government's changes to pay and


conditions including a new performance-related pay structure


and tougher pension package. We're joined now by the general secretary


of the NUT, Christine Blower. Welcome to the programme. Seven


unions are involved in talks with the Government, why is the NUT the


only one going on strike? Well, we are one of only three of the unions


which has a dispute, so the others would not be in a position to go on


strike because they are not involved in a dispute with the Government. We


are, and we have been for two years or so. We are involved in talks, but


we feel that insufficient progress has been made. We were offered these


talks way before Christmas. We stood down the action that we were there


to take in November and February as well. But although the talks have


started, we are not seeing the progress that we need to see. Which


is why we are taking action today. Hugely disruptive of course. The


Department for Education says it will hold back the education of


children, and rummage the reputation of the profession. What is your


response? I think what is damaging to the profession is the fact that


Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, says that two out of five teachers


coming into depression -- coming into the profession, leave by the


end of their 50 year. We cannot manage with a profession where that


many people are leaving. -- of their fifth year. They are leaving because


primary classroom teachers are having to work 60 hours a week. And


this is not work which contributes positively to their teaching. And


also we do not think that classroom teachers can work until they are 68.


These are contributory reasons for why we are on strike today. I think,


I know, from some of the figures that I have read, that we have the


support of many, although I accept not all, of parents. But we feel


that this was a time when we had to take this action. You say you have


the support of parents, a poll by populous last year found 70% either


opposed the strikes or found teachers should not be allowed to


strike at all. That is not an overwhelming endorsement? I have to


tell you, if you pick out one poll, you may get that view, but if you


have been speaking to people recently, you will see that that is


not generally the margin at all. One thing we have been doing, which is


nothing at all to do with strike action, is that for the past six


weeks we have been on the streets on Saturday mornings, talking to


parents and the general public about not the issues which are in the


trade dispute but other issues, which we think are very serious


problems, in terms of education policy. Like, for example, the --


the fact that teachers will no longer have to be qualified, fact


that schools are opening in places where we do not need them, like free


schools, but local authorities are not in a position to open schools


where there is a schools prices crisis. So we have a coincidence of


interests with the general public and parents across a lot of these


policy areas. Before we move on, in terms of support, the Department for


Education says well under a quarter of schools are closed, compared to


60% in the last strikes. It is the lowest level of support for a


national strike since 2010. There are reports, as you will know, from


the NASUWT, one of the other big unions, which have accused your


union of threats, insults and attempts to intimidate teachers to


join the action - is there any truth to that? You would have to deal with


them about that matter. I am not going to comment on it. If there had


been problems with any of my members, I would have expected them


to have been brought to my attention, and they have not. So, I


really cannot comment. Of course we expect members of trade unions to


behave in a proper fashion towards each other. Will you try and get to


the bottom of this? It is a leaked internal e-mail from the NASUWT. So


I presume there is some evidence there? If she wants to get in touch


with me, that is fine, and we will deal with it. But it has not been


brought to my attention. What is the attitude of Labour


towards this college we think this strike is highly disruptive for


parents, obviously, but more importantly for children, who are


missing a day of school. We know that attendance is highly correlated


with attainment. We need kids to do well at school. I think there has


been a breakdown on both sides, with Michael Gove saying that teachers


are the enemies of promise, that is not going to help in any


negotiations. But also I do think that the trade unions need to come


around the table and continue with these talks. So you would rather the


NUT have not gone on strike today? I would rather they were still


negotiating around the table. Could relations between the Education


Secretary, Mr Gove, and the unions be any worse? I do not think they


are in a bad state at all. Michael Gove's policies are exhausting and


demoralising teachers, says the deputy general secretary of the NUT.


Firstly, I am not sure if Labour is actually condemning this strike, and


I think they ought to be clear. Secondly, the fact that the NUT is


the only trade union representing teachers which is taking this action


speaks words about the NUT. They are the last great dinosaur of the


teaching professions. I used to be a shop steward for the NUJ, and I


always made sure that I took my team with me, and represented my members.


Taking strike action should be an absolute last resort. I do not know


the figures, but I think I am right in saying that the majority of


people did not take part in the vote, and of them, therefore, you


get a fraction of the NUT actually supporting strike action. But that


is the law as it stands. Absolutely, but it shows the validity of it,


which is even more undermined. I have just told you our position, I


was very clear about it. I do not want them to be on strike today, I


want them to be around the table. But I also think the Government has


done an awful job on this, and Michael Gove is playing political


games. The kids and parents are paying the price. Why is he saying


things like enemies of promise? It is the fact that the other unions


are at the table, doing the right thing, which I think is telling. The


NUT has gone on strike, ticketed schools which want to look at


becoming academies. That is the reality of a union which is living


back in the 1970s. Take the union's own diary, it now reveals government


data, primary school teachers are working nearly a 60 hour week. A lot


of our teachers are working very hard, it is a lot, and they find it


a very rewarding job, but you have got to get the balance right. I go


into my primary schools in my constituency, and I speak to heads


and teachers... Do you think 60 hours is too much? I have not seen


the analyst, -- the analysis, so I cannot comment. It is tough, but you


have got to accept that our schools are doing a brilliant job, and we


are seeing real progress as a result of the reforms we have made. We will


have to leave it there. Now, it's a week since George


Osborne unveiled this year's Budget. The next day's headlines, and the


polls, suggested it was a good day for the Chancellor and a pretty


awful one for Labour leader Ed Miliband. So what happened next?


Here's Jo Co. Now, with a year to go before the


general election George, Osborne has set out a full throttle Budget. The


Chancellor gave pensioners the opportunity to spend their pension


pots when they want and on whatever they choose - even on a fast car


like a Lamborghini. Ed Miliband appeared to stutter and stall in his


response to the Budget. But Labour have now indicated that they won't


oppose the pension changes, and today the Labour leader will drive


his MPs through the yes lobby to support the Government's welfare


cap. But what do the public think? Well, Labour are still ahead, but


their poll lead has been cut back - the Tories have their foot on the


gas and are now as little as 1% behind. That's prompted a number of


back seat critics to tell Mr Miliband to get a grip on the wheel


and a sense of direction. And now there's another headache for the


Labour leader. Latest figures show that inflation has fallen to 1.7% -


is Mr Miliband's "cost of living crisis" mantra running out of road?


Emma Reynolds, what do you make of this latest poll from YouGov which


shows that less than a fifth of voters see Ed Miliband as a Prime


Minister in waiting? The only polls which count are in May this year,


and in the general election next year. We have got some very bold


policies, if anyone has got direction and vision, it is Ed


Miliband, not David Cameron. The Labour Party, like other parties,


would not spend thousands of pounds on this kind of poll... Polls go up


and down. All parties spend money on polls. Not only does it seem that


only a fifth seed him as a Prime Minister in waiting, but fewer than


half of Labour voters see him as a Prime Minister in waiting just why


do you think that is? I think Ed Miliband is the only party leader


who has the ideas, the values and the policies to address the problems


that people face across the country. Why don't the voters agree with


you? We had the second worst election defeat in the last 100


years in 2010. We are in contention for the next general election. We


have framed the debate around the cost of living, despite what the


inflation figures say, people are facing a real score ways. -- a real


squeeze. So why are a fifth of people only seeing Mr Miliband as a


Prime Minister in waiting? If you were winning the argument is, why


are the people not responding? Ed Miliband has been clear, and we


know... Not clear enough! The next general election will be close, and


we have been honest about that. People are less tribal than they


used to be. Unfortunately people do not trust politicians like us, and


we can have a wider discussion about that. We are working hard to get our


message across. There is a long way to go before the general election in


2015. I am confident that we have got the right policies, we have got


a leader who is determined to make Britain a better place to live. What


I was trying to find out was why this was not cutting through to the


voters. David Lammy, a colleague of yours in the Labour Party in the


Commons, says, we, the Labour Party, have not crossed the Rubicon yet to


be regarded as a government in waiting. Do you agree with that? No,


I totally disagree. We are the only party out of the three big parties


which has ideas about an energy price freeze, a jobs guarantee, a


real vision about improving people's lives in the UK. Obviously, we have


to that message to people, and obviously, polls go up and down. At


the moment they are just going down. Well, I do not agree with


David. I think that colleagues in the Labour Party should not be


talking like that, they should hold their nerve. Of course polls go up


and down, we know that. Let me come to you, Anna Soubry. The Chancellor


set this welfare trap for Labour, putting a cap on welfare spending,


but they did not fall for it. They are going to vote for it. And it is


meaningless anyway, it is only the amount you are already spending on


welfare, excluding the job-seekers allowance and pensions, and then it


is inflation linked for the years ahead, there is nothing to it? No, I


do not agree with you at all. Forgive me, the description of it


being a for Miliband are your words, that is not what we are on about. It


is not about trying to trap Labour. That is what the spin people were


saying at a briefing last week. That is why we speak to them. It was


clearly seen as a trap. But they have not fallen for it, they voted


for it. They say one thing, I think they are all over the place on the


Basingstoke. But going back to the welfare cap, I listened to Iain


Duncan Smith on the radio this morning, and I think it is the right


thing to do. The great British public do not know the huge amounts


of money which are spent on welfare. What we saw in the last government


was huge increases in welfare spending, but without any proper


debate and without people either understanding it, or, more


importantly, agreeing to it. Get to the point of the cap. Welfare


continues to rise. Yes, but if Labour are true to their commitment,


which is to abolish what they call the bedroom tax, what we call the


spare room subsidy, they will have to explain that, they will have to


go into the House of Commons and deal with that argument. This cap


has more holes in it than the cheese were going to be talking about


later. It does not include state pensions, all any government has to


do is get a majority in the House of Commons. Mr Blair could have done it


at any time, it is just you are not used to a majority. And there is 2%


wiggle room in it as well. You can be up or down 2% before you even


have to go to the Commons. But it is the right thing to do, isn't it? I


believe it is. We cannot live any longer in a society where our


welfare budget is spiralling out of control. The welfare cap will be set


at 119 million per 1516. That is to take account of inflation. But you


are not cutting the welfare budget then, are you? What we're saying is,


you put that cap there so you did a responsible thing. It is an


inflatable cap, it goes up every year. You keep interrupting me. It


ensures you are held to account. When people hear those figures and


compare them to the amount of money spent on schools, 51 billion is


spent on schools, and when they find out how much is being spent on


welfare... But you are increasing it. Emma, is Labour committing


itself to caps in future years as well? We are committed to a cap. You


have committed to be 119 billion the 2015 and 2016. What about after


that? I think it is right that inflation is taken into account. We


will wait to see what the detail is. We are committed to the cap and


taking into account inflation. Your problem is, if you are going to


stick to your promise, you cannot stick to those figures, so you to go


back to the House of Commons and the argument. I'm willing to have a


large about what this means in practice. It means tackling the


underlying causes of increases in the bill. Housing benefit is going


up even for people in work because they are not earning enough in work


in wages and because rents are increasing because of the housing


crisis with a shortage of homes. So why cut the affordable homes budget


by 16% and then be surprised that housing benefit is increasing? It is


about getting people into work. Of course it is, but it is also about


rent amounts and people being paid enough. The Chancellor's big


announcement was to build what is being called a new garden city in


Kent. This is a promise to build 15,000 homes. How is this different


from a press release from the community 's department in 2012 that


promised 20,000 new homes in that same place? Now it is down to


15,000. It is all smoke and mirrors. I've no idea. I don't know about a


press release in 2012. My point is, there is nothing new. This is a


commitment. Well, the commitment in December 2012 was that there would


be 20,000 homes. Now there is the actual detail of it. It is a


downgrade to 5000 fewer homes. Even I worked that out! I did know about


2012 press releases. Why not? You are running the country. I'm not


responsible but every single press release published by Parliament.


Well, they're weighing in and limbering up for the big fight.


Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg meet for the first of two contests -


tonight's on LBC radio - to debate Europe. The in versus out showdown


seems to have got the UKIP leader excited. I've waited 20 years to


have a proper debate on national media about whether we should be a


member of the yuan not. -- the EU or not. It's like going to a party,


sometimes you asked, will it be good? Or will it be flat? We don't


know. I hope we can stick to the arguments. But it will be fun. Nick


Clegg was more tight-lipped. Yes, I'm looking forward to it


enormously. Thank you. So did we mention the TV debate


between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage is at 7pm next Wednesday here on BBC


Two? I think we may have done. But what would you ask them? For your


chance to be part of the studio audience on the night and put your


question to the two party leaders, email the question you would like to


ask to [email protected], or tweet it using the hashtag


#europedebate. Who do you want to win? I don't really care. I'm a


passionate pro-European. I believe jobs would be at risk, and


investment, if we were to leave. However, I also know most of my


constituents don't really care either way who wins this debate


because what they are facing every day of their lives is a cost of


living crisis, they worried about their energy bills, are worried


about putting food on the table. Many are resorting to food banks.


Deliberately care about a debate of our membership of the youth? --the


EU? You have said you are passionate about being pro-European. Surely


then you will support Nick Clegg. I think there's a distraction from


important issues. It is an important issues and I've said I do agree with


the pro-European argument. So you would rather Nick Clegg one. I don't


really care but I do agree we are better in the European Union than


out of it. So we will take that adds that you sort of support those


arguments. One reason why we have a problem with the idea that


politicians can be trusted is that we don't give a straight answer. Of


course I want Nick Clegg's views on Europe to win. I don't agree with


his party's policy on Europe in the sense that he will not give us a


referendum, but this is absolutely the debate I want. Only we will


deliver a referendum, because Nigel Farage can't. I want a healthy


debate and I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you also want a


proper debate about the union. I'm in favour of our partnership. But I


want a debate. I tell you what, it's on to night. So why doesn't David


Cameron take part? I don't think he should have to take part, otherwise


we would Ed Miliband and God knows who else. If these two want to have


a debate, that's up to them. I want to have a referendum so that this


country finally has a proper, informed debate about the union. We


get the reforms that we want, we put it to the people. In my opinion, the


people of Britain will vote in favour of staying within their


European Union because most of us are sensible and moderate and we


will see the benefits. Who are your fellow Conservatives MPs wanting to


win? Idaho. -- I don't know. Because there is a divide within your party,


is in there? The media often comment on this but I don't think the media


really understand the backbenches. People say we are against the EU. It


is not as simple as that. There are a significant number of us who are


in favour of our membership. Of course some want us to leave. So it


is a deep divide. This is a rehearsal for tonight? We have to


leave it there. Now, a survey out this week revealed


the great British tea round is on its way out. 2.5 million workers


claim they are simply too busy to put the kettle on and wait around to


make tea or coffee for everyone. A third said they would rather just


make themselves a drink and get back to work, the selfish so-and-sos. And


to avoid making a cuppa for others, they'll even go so far as to make a


rubbish cup of tea so they're never asked again. That probably explains


why Jo's tea is undrinkable. Well, we'd like to do our bit to reverse


this shocking trend - and regular viewers will know where this is


going - by giving you the chance to win something that you'll be so keen


to show off to colleagues you'll end up making round after round. Yes,


it's the Daily Politics mug. And it works for tea and coffee. We haven't


tested it with other liquids. We'll remind you how to enter in a


minute, but let's see if you can remember when this happened.


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


to our special quiz email address - that's [email protected] And you can


see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.


It's coming up to midday here - just take a look at Big Ben - and that


can mean only one thing. Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.


If you'd like to comment on proceedings, you can email us at


[email protected] or tweet your thoughts using the hashtag


#bbcdp - we'll read some out after PMQs.


And that's not all - fresh from Manchester's victory in that soccer


match last night, Nick Robinson is here.


# Blue moon, you saw me standing alone...


You changing jobs, Nick? Are you a commentator? Sports pundit. Not that


I care, but let's have a listen to what you had to say. What is your


prediction of the score? I'm going to settle. 6-1 would do me. Did you


say which way round? I heard Robert Preston being interviewed about


Arsenal's manager as well. Having you guys got day jobs? We have, but


we like to spread our wings. What about tonight, that is the biggest


battle. You are asking a man United if they want Liverpool to win. So


did Manchester United not win last night?


I shall have further such meetings later today.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. What assurances can the Prime Minister


give to residents in West Lancashire that localism will give them a fair


chance against greed and profit, when it comes to their wish to end


hazardous waste dumping, given that there is no evidence of need, a


promise it would end in 1995, and a community, including its MP, were


repeatedly saying, no more dumping. Those the Prime Minister really


believe in localism? I do believe in localism, which is why we got rid of


a lot of the regional strategies and organisations. We did a number of


things that local councils have been asking for, in terms of empowering


them, not least giving them a duty of competence, so that they can act


where necessary. On that specific issue, I will look at it and write


to her. I know my Right Honourable Friend


will be as concerned as I am about potential job losses at Honda in my


constituency. Will he work with myself and my colleague for South


Swindon to help at this difficult time? I completely understand My


Honourable Friend's concern, and we will be working with local partners


to minimise the impact of these job losses. Honda have assured us that


they are committed to the long-term success of this plant in Swindon,


which I have been to, and it is a remarkable plant. I know Honda


remains committed to the UK, and we will work with the local council and


local people to make sure Swindon continues to have a strong and


successful economic future. Mr Edwin van!


-- Ed Miliband! This morning, we learned that the energy company SSE


will be freezing its energy prices for 20 months. Would we be right to


assume that the Prime Minister believes that this price freeze is


unworkable, impossible to implement and probably a communist plot? It is


hugely welcome in our country that energy companies are cutting and


freezing bells. As ever, with the Right Honourable gentleman, he has


failed to read the small print. This is what SSE say about why they have


been able to cut bills in this way... Yes. This is what they say.


The decisions taken by the Government to reduce the costs of


the environment levy were a crucial factor... That is what is happening


under this government. And what a contrast, with the doubling of the


gas bills and the 50% increase in electricity bills when Labour were


in power. So, Mr Speaker, over the last six months, we have obviously


misunderstood the Prime Minister. He is the champion of the price


freeze! That is what he wants us to understand. Week after week, he


denounced Labour 's call for an energy price freeze to help families


and businesses, and now, apparently, he supports a price freeze. Can he


explain why a price freeze was wrong six months ago, but it is the right


thing to do today? What we have done is reduce the costs of energy


charges, so that companies are able to their bills. -- to cap their


bills. Since I made the announcement about rolling back the costs of


green charges... We must be able to hear both the questions and the


answers. You're right, Mr Speaker, they shout about him in support in


here and then they brief against him outside. That is what happens. This


is what happened since I made that announcement. For dual fuel users,


British Gas have cut ?50 off bills, ScottishPower, ?54 off bills, aeon,


?54, EDF, ?65 off bills, and the other three have all announced that


prices will not go up further in 2014. So, can I thank him for the


opportunity to demonstrate how this part of our long-term economic man


is as successful as all the other parts? But once again, Mr Speaker,


he shows how totally out of touch he is. The OBR it self says that energy


prices are rising by more than double the rate of inflation. That


is the reality. But I am interested in his position now on price


freezes, because the Energy Secretary said this morning, I will


tell them what is weak, it is not standing up to the energy companies.


The Energy Secretary, who I see over there, the Energy Secretary said


this morning that he was calling on other suppliers to do the same and


freeze their bills. Is it now the Prime Minister's policy that we


should freeze bills? It is our policy that bills should be, and


bills are being capped by this government. That is what is


happening just when we come to the small print, let's have a look at


what Scottish southern said about the Labour policy. I will tell you


what is weak. Week is not having an economic policy. Week is not


responding to the budget. Weak is having no long-term plan for


Britain. That is what is weak. This is what SSE safe. They say, on


Labour policy, it does not appear to include a clear commitment or a


long-term solution to reduce the costs of supplying electricity and


gas. An externally imposed 20 month price freeze would not reduce the


cost of supplying energy. That is what SSE say. And that is why I


assume I have found a Labour business supporter. He is called


John Mills, and this is what he said about Labour's policy yesterday. EZ,


I do not think the Labour Party would do that if it were in power.


If they cannot convince their one business supporter, how can they


convince the country? Mr Speaker, he is not the Prime Minister at all, he


is the PR man for the energy companies. That is what he is. Bills


are rising. And what is clear is that his argument against a freeze


has been totally demolished today. A price freeze for households and


businesses is feasible, workable, and it will happen under a Labour


government. And all of this shows he just does not get the cost of living


crisis which is happening around this country. Can he confirmed that


the OBR it self has said that over the course of this Parliament,


living standards will be falling, and it is the first time that has


happened since the war? Isn't it great, after a week, we have finally


got to the Budget! He has finally got something to say about the


Budget. He might want to explain why he has voted against a Budget that


has a ?7 billion cut for energy prices for businesses and consumers


around the country. Why did they vote against that? Is he is


concerned about the cost of living? Why did they vote against a personal


allowance of ?10,500? If they are concerned about the cost of living,


why did they vote against giving pensioners the right to spend their


own money as they choose? If you care about the cost of living, why


did you vote against abolishing the savings tax, paid for by the poorest


people in our country and no not a clue about how to help working


people. No clue about the Budget. Not for the first time, calm down,


dear, calm down. Or should I say, for the benefit of the Chancellor,


eyes down, dear. Eyes down, dear. The truth is that living standards


are falling over this Parliament. And he talks about what the


Chancellor did on energy. It is classic give with one he introduced


a carbon price floor, and now he wants credit for giving part of it


back to families and businesses. Let's try him again - can he


confirmed that page 87 of the OBR document says that living standards


are falling over the Parliament, yes or no? The figures he quotes time


and again at this dispatch box say... Order! Let's hear the


answers. Of course we were made poorer by the great recession which


they presided over. I am happy to compare the record on the cost of


living any time. We are cutting income tax for 25 million people.


They voted against it. We have taken 3.2 million people out of income tax


altogether, they voted against it. We voted to freeze council tax, they


voted against it. We are freezing fuel duty, they voted against it. We


are cutting spending so we can cut taxes for hard-working people - they


have voted against every single change. Their vote against the


Budget last night will go down in the history of this Parliament as a


massive own goal for Labour. He will go down in history as the Prime


Minister who cut people's living standards over the course of this


Parliament, and he cannot deny it. He cannot solve the cost of living


crisis, Mr Speaker, when he does not think there is one. He will not


freeze energy bills, because it has nothing to do with government. The


thing you can always rely on with this prime minister, he will always


stand up for the wrong people. What is happening under this government


is, inflation is falling, unemployment is coming down, 1.3


million more people in work, 400,000 more businesses we are helping this


economy recover from the ravages that it was left under Labour. That


is the truth, Mr Speaker. Everyone can see that we have a plan for a


better future for our country, and everyone can see, he is flailing


around, a man with no plan, and increasingly, no future.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. Children with cancer are being denied new life


saving drugs because of out of date rules governing clinical trials,


allowing companies to exclude children even when the drugs could


treat childhood cancer. Will he'd join with me to try to get these


rules changed, to give families hope? I am very happy to listen to


his suggestions. He and I both support the Cancer Drugs Fund, which


has made a huge difference, but I am happy to listen to his suggestion.


Can I have some calm, please? Mr Speaker, beer and bingo may not


exactly be the bread and circuses of our age, but as leading lights of


the coalition rush forward to express their love for them, will


the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the snobbish and


disdainful comments made by his party chairman? Can I thank the


Honourable Gentleman for once again advertising the fact that this


government is cutting the tax on bingo, and quite right, because


their industry was decimated by Labour. Can I thank him also for


pointing out the Chancellor's approach of cutting the duty,


because we want to back responsible drinkers, and because we back the


pub trade. Yes, I am sure the Right Honourable gentleman sitting


opposite enjoys a game of bingo, it is the only time he ever gets close


to number ten. Mr Speaker, yesterday, in the


all-party group, we heard a powerful and moving account of the effects of


post traumatic stress disorder. Will my Right Honourable Friend join me


in paying tribute to Simon and Louisa, who completed their epic run


from Leeds to Parliament yesterday, to support their organisation which


seeks greater research into this. As well as being one of the hidden


costs of armed conflict, it affects thousands of people who have been


the vicar hymns of rape, sexual assault and other life changing


trauma, . -- the victims of rape. I am happy to join him in paying


tribute to the many people who achieved so much through their run.


Organisations like combat stress to an extraordinary job in our


country. We have to face up to the fact that because of the conflicts


in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will have many all people -- many more


people needing our help long into the future. That is why I think the


Chancellor's decision to take the money from the LIBOR finds and use


that to back military charities like this is very far-sighted. The 25th


anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster is less than three weeks


away, and the fresh inquests are due to start. Does the Prime Minister


agree with me that it is a scandal that some police officers who were


on duty on the day of the disaster are refusing to co-operate with the


investigation, and can he say what he will do to prevent such a


situation happening again? He knows the IPCC is investigating all of


these complaints. In addition, families can complain to the


tribunal as well. Letters have been written to asked that police


officers provide all the information they can. Does the Prime Minister


agree we should assist in investment to ensure a competitive and


sustainable future? We should certainly do that. We have seen a


huge recovery in our automotive industry. If we look at component


supplies and manufacture for the industry we have some huge success


stories. The programme in the budget of helping energy intensive


industries will obviously help some of the companies involved, but the


broader help, the ?7 billion I referred to earlier, will help all


businesses involved in automated supply. One month ago I asked about


ambulance response times and the Prime Minister read out an answer


that did not and so the question at all. Since then, an elderly


Darlington woman was left for more than four hours vomiting blood


before an ambulance arrived. This time can I please not have a


preprepared answer. Can we please have some action? I'm very happy to


look at the case the Honourable Lady mentions. She says she does not one


that but I think that is the right thing to do, to see what this


individual case involved. What we have in all areas are waiting times


that ambulances are meant to meet. I'm happy to look what happened and


this case and whether lessons can be learned. With consent is breaking


out in support of budget measures to help those providing for themselves,


will my right honourable friend join me in seeking a new consensus


against imposing taxes on houses that have risen in value but whose


owners may well be retired? What we want to see in our system is a fair


tax system. Under this Government, the rich have paid more in tax,


specifically, more in income tax, than in any year they ever did under


Labour. We've made sure we raised taxes fairly, not least through sax


duty. -- stamp duty. 70% of stay at home mums say going back to work


does not add up because of rising childcare costs leaving them worse.


With maternal employment rates going down on his watch, why is he doing


nothing to help with the issue of rising childcare costs before the


general election? We are helping childcare by giving 15 hours. That


is happening and that this Government, in this Parliament. 15


hours of free card can -- childcare and nursery care but three and


four-year-olds. This aid is not enough, it is more than Labour ever


provided. The Shadow Chancellor will be out in a minute briefing against


it! Mr Speaker, the whole world has watched with grave concern events in


the Crimea and the amassing of Russian troops on the eastern border


of the Ukraine. Coming on top of other instability in the world,


Styria -- Syria, northern Africa, is it not time the Prime Minister may


be thought about reversing some of the deep and damaging defence cuts?


We will review the National defence strategy on the four-year rolling


basis we established. I think that is the right thing to do. In terms


of defence spending, we started top to five -- we still have big top


five defence spending of any country in the world. Would set out 160


billion to spend on equipment. We would not be able to do if we had


not taken difficult long-term decisions at the start of this


Parliament. Over 80% of spending on transport infrastructure will be on


London in the south-east, with nearly ?5,000 per head with


Achenbach with ?250 in the north-east. This gross disparity


does nothing to help constituencies like Middlesbrough pursue ambitions


the growth. Should not the distribution be more equitable


across the region 's? When I look at what this Government has done in


terms of transport infrastructure, in the North of England, we spent 8


billion on transport in the North of England in the first two years of


this Parliament. The modernisation of the Tyne Wear Metro, a new Tyne


Crossing, 850 million to upgrade the A1 and feasibility studies to


improve the A1 north of Newcastle - all proposals put forward under this


Government. We are rebalancing our economy, we are investing in


infrastructure and we're making sure the North of England gets its fair


share. And employment in my constituency has fallen by over 20%


in the last 12 months. With inflation recently falling as well,


that is providing welcome our upward pressure on living standards. Would


my right honourable friend therefore agree that we should take no lessons


from the persistent negativity of the party opposite talking our


country down? We should stick to our long-term economic plan. An absolute


key part of our long-term plan is helping business to create the jobs


that our country needs. We got 1.3 million in work, 1.7 million more


private-sector jobs compared to 2010. What that means the people is


the safety and security of having a payback get at the end of the week


so they can support their families. That is what is changing our


country. Despite what the Government have said about cutting energy


costs, 71% of people in North Tyneside survey say they are still


worried about their bills and want a full price freeze now. Will a Prime


Minister listened to the people of North Tyneside and meet that demand?


The most important thing we can do is to help the energy companies


reduce bills by rolling back the costs of these green levies and


charges. It is only since we done at that we'd seen energy company after


energy company reduce the costs for people's bills. We went to see a


more competitive market with more players. These things were having to


correct from the disastrous stewardship of the Department of


energy when the right Honourable Gentleman was in charge. Eg,


thousands of lives are needlessly lost in this country because we


diagnose their cancer is far too late. The all-party group on cancer


and the wider cancer community has successfully lobbied the Government


to make sure local and national NHS authorities are measured by one year


survival rates, in order to promote early diagnosis. The Government


deserves great credit the listening, but twice now, at late notice, the


publication of the one-year figures has been postponed. Will the Prime


Minister do what he can to ensure that we meet the next deadline? On


the specific point my honourable friend says, yes, we will be


publishing those important figures in June. What we're doing in terms


of cancer is backing the NHS with extra money. We have a cancer drugs


find which has helped over 44,000 people since this Government came to


office. There is no cancer drugs find in Wales made available for


people, but it is here in England. We are spending 750 million on


cancer services but he is absolutely right about early diagnosis. That is


why it is important to make sure we doing everything we can with GPs to


make sure it is diagnosed earlier. The whole House will be well aware


of the contribution to the immense suffering of thousands of innocent


victims across the UK made by the Gaddafi regime's state sponsorship


by a terrorism and the supply of arms sent over many years to


republican groups. Does he agree with what he previously said, that


the issue of compensation from Libya remains a priority for this


Government? Willie agreed to meet with me to review the case under


discussion? -- will he agree? The Libyan operatives Rian --


authorities are in no doubt about the importance we are placed on


that. It is difficult to make progress on this issue given the


situation but I am happy to meet with the Honourable Gentleman to


discuss that. Does the boy minister welcomed the change from the last


Labour Government which talked loosely about British jobs for


British workers? 90% of new jobs went to foreign nationals. This


Government has the at -- let the success of its economic plan do the


talking. Last year, nearly 90% of new jobs went to British workers. My


honourable friend is absolutely right. Last year, employment went up


by 425,000 people. 420 by thousand more breadwinners earning for their


families. I believe 80% of those jobs went to British nationals.


There is much more we are aiming to do. We have more announcements this


week is -- about the creation of jobs and apprenticeships. We want to


make sure young people are available and train for those jobs. That means


improving schools and skills and investing in apprenticeships.


Westminster is awash with the rim of the Government is considering an


amendment to the hunting act. -- with the rumour. Will the Prime


Minister confirm his commitment to the coalition agreement which only


allows for a free vote on the repeal of the legislation? It's a good


moment to talk about rumours. As she knows, proposals were made on a


cross-party basis to the Environment Secretary about an amendment to the


hunting act that would help in particular upland farmers deal with


the problem of fax -- fox predation on their land. I regret to say I


don't think there will be Government agreement to go forward. Members are


in a state of high excitement but one hopes that is because of the


honourable member. I thank the Prime Minister for visiting my


constituency of Tewkesbury during the recent floods. We met in a


village which blood is very badly and yet there are plans to build


3500 houses in that very area. Will the Prime Minister look at


strengthening the planning guidance he gives with regards to flooding?


Willie gives stronger guidance to the Environment Agency? -- will he


give? There is a big difference between the rhetoric and what is


happening. I know my honourable member's constituency has suffered


repeatedly from flooding and I have visited to discuss this with local


people and businesses. Any future developments have to comply with the


National planning policy which makes clear that inappropriate development


in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided. Secondly, in 95% of


cases where the Environment Agency objects to planning on flood risk


grounds, the final decision is in line with agency advice. When the


salary of bankers have gone up five times the rate of ordinary workers


and the top 100 chief executive officers are reigning 133 times the


average workers employed in their companies, is it not right those on


the higher incomes are contributing the most intact? With that in mind,


will he then rule out any consideration of a further cut in


the highest rate of tax for the richest 1%? We said that is not a


priority, but I agree with the Honourable Gentleman that the rich


should be paying more in income tax and making a bigger contribution.


Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. In a way,


that is what is interesting about the Labour arguments. They can't


talk about jobs because there are more of them. They can't about


inflation because it has gone down. They've got one argument you --


left, which is about fairness. But actually, inequality is at its


lowest level since 1986, there are a million fewer people in relative


poverty then when they were in the Cabinet. Half a million fewer


children in poverty. The facts show this is not only a Government that


is delivering recovery, it is a Government delivering it in a fair


way as well. I never Prime Minister is acutely aware it is coming up to


30 years anniversary of the appalling carnage at the Temple in


Amritsar. I wonder what more can be done to last bring someone to


justice for the appalling events that across India. My honourable


friend is right. What happened in Amritsar Bedi is a gay lead to a


tragic loss of life. It remains a deep source of pain. -- in Amritsar


30 years ago lead to a tragic loss. He is so keen on boasting. If the


proud of the back so many elderly people are no longer able to get


assistance, essential assistance, because of the policies being


pursued by this Government? Why is it that a Cabinet made up of so many


multimillionaires are so indifferent to the needs of people are the most


vulnerable in our society? I remember when Labour gave pensioners


a 70 by p increase. Don't think we've forgotten about that. Don't


think we and the rotten about the abolition of the tempi income tax as


well. It is this Government that has taken 3 million of the poorest


people out of tax. We are putting money into the social care system


because we protected the NHS. That is a record that compares favourably


with the party opposite. In the week of my 50th birthday, it is the 50th


anniversary of a new town. Will you join me in congratulating Ken


Williams for helping me to organise the anniversary? Also, my first


apprenticeship fair which will see more apprenticeships on top of the


3000 we've already had since this Government came to power. I publicly


wish her a very happy 50th birthday. I also wish everyone in our town are


happy birthday and thank her for the kind present she gave me the


monopoly sat with Redditch as its basis which was a very kind gift.


I'd better put that into the register of members' interests. She


is absolutely right about the importance of apprenticeship fares.


We 1.6 million already trained and it is one of the most important


things we can do to provide a strong future bride country.


So, that was familiar territory between the two frontbenchers,


talking about energy price freezes, sparked off one of the big energy


companies, SSE, freezing its prices into next year. And Mr Miliband


wanted to know if that was a good idea, why was his idea of an overall


energy price freeze not a good idea? And so it went on, back and forth.


But I guess it was a repeat of many exchanges that we have had on the


front benches? Our viewers reflected the conversation between the two


leaders about energy prices. Well done, head, says Sara Evans in


Surrey. She says she has never seen a leader of the opposition have such


an influence on a private sector company. But another one says, the


arguments were spurious. A fry sprees imposed by a government is a


totally different thing from an announcement by a private company.


-- a price freeze. This one says David Cameron continues to be


economic with the truth regarding the true cost to the British people


of the cost of living. Philip Jones says, Ed Miliband shows the change


he is influencing in the UK by rightly raising the issue of energy


price freezes. But Robert says, if I remember rightly, Ed Miliband was


the Energy Secretary who left us with the big six energy companies,


rather than a functioning free market. So, the cost of living issue


is still the Labour Party's main attack line on the government? It


is, and I think that announcement by SSE will have come as a massive


relief to Ed Miliband this morning. The media were beginning to build up


a narrative which said Miliband was in trouble. His poll weightings were


not good. The reaction to the Budget was widely regarded as poor, well


delivered, but free of content. There were think tanks and other


pressure groups related to the Labour Party, who were beginning to


say, the plans for the Labour manifesto look too quiet, not bold


enough. Along comes a market announcement which highlights the


single most popular thing he has ever announced, the energy freeze,


gave him the chance to revive that, to revive the attack on David


Cameron about it, and regardless of whether you think David Cameron had


answers or did not, and plenty of my colleagues in the press gallery


thought he did pretty well, that is not the point. Tonight on the


evening news, Ed Miliband will be talking about a price freeze, he is


associated with it, it is a popular issue, it is something the public


care about. So that for me is a net gain for the Labour leader, because


otherwise, they might have been talking about his leadership. Can


the cost of living crisis line from the Labour Party last all the way


until the election? We are just reflecting the concerns that we here


in my constituency and across the country. There are 350,000 people


resorting to food banks, which, frankly, for a country which is


supposed to be one of the richest in the world, is an indictment on this


government. Yes, I think it will be a recurrent theme. Over the next


couple of months, and in the private sector it has already happened,


wages are set to be starting to rise more quickly than prices, so will


that affect things? We want that to happen. But is there not a risk that


that will undermine the potency of your position? No, because people


are already ?1600 a year worse off under this government, because wages


are not keeping up with price rises. That is the simple truth just


so, I do think it is still a very potent argent. And I think the fact


that SSE have announced a price freeze today is due to our


announcement in the autumn. I do not think there would be so much public


focus on this had Ed Miliband not said in his conference speech that


we were going to introduce a price freeze on energy. Will it not be a


problem for the Conservatives, that although things may now be moving in


the right direction, by the time of the election, that by most measures,


people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010? I think, if


I may say, as somebody with a very marginal seat, what I find is that


when you talk to people, they did not expect anything other than that


things were going to be tough, given where things were in 2010. If we


look at the polling, truthfully, Labour should be storming ahead.


Anyone old enough to know what polls tell us when governments do things


which are tough, the opposition does well. And I genuinely could not


believe the weekend's polls, because Labour should be storming ahead. I


do not want to get into the personality stuff about Miliband,


but one reason why they are not is because people realised it was going


to be really tough, they have supported what the Government is


doing in taking those really difficult decisions, and they know


they are going to have some pain, but they will slowly begin to see


the fruits of it. If I may say so, I think the real test is not whether


you as an individual are better off in 2015, it is whether the prospects


for your children and your grandchildren are better than they


were in 2010. That is what I find on the doorstep. I think people get


that. There are senior figures in the shadow cabinet who have been


saying to Ed Miliband, enough already, you are right about living


standards, but stop banging on about just that. There is real pressure


within the party for him to have more of an offer about the future.


But politicians always have to make the calculation, particularly


opposition politicians, that when we are bored, the political classes,


the public may be only just about to hear something for the first time.


And I think for the moment, he will be thinking, this is still working


for me. And also, we forget, there is effectively an extra year, we


have five years till the election, we are still more than a year away.


So there is a fidgeting as amongst politicians and journalists around


Westminster, who by this kind of time would be expecting to write


stories about, when is the Prime Minister going to call the election,


what are the campaign topics? But it is still quite a long way away. So,


I think this argument is going on behind the scenes in the Labour


Party. Is there a danger that this sounds like a one trick pony? Do


they have two talk more about the future? The phrase from Chuka


Umunna, which he has tried to get up and running, and troubled a little


bit, I think, about Agenda 2030. Is that an attempt to have a Labour


answer? The debate behind the scenes is, when is it right to switch to


start that move? I do not think it is one or the other. I think it is


both. What we need is an economy which delivers for working people,


and our argument about this current recovery is that it is fragile, and


it is based on consumption. It is not based on better business


investment, which has been very, very sluggish. Hold on, that is not


true until the end of the year. It has picked up but it has been very,


very sluggish. I understand that, but the problem for you is that


every time you identify a weakness in this recovery, and you have a


number of them, events have then conspired to put the weakness


right. The recovery is now sustainable, nobody denies that.


Everybody believes it will last through the election, and business


investment is now clicking in, it rose by 8%, and it is thought that


it will rise by another 8%. The cost of living crisis, as you call it, is


one thing, but is there not the danger that a lot of people still


blame you for the squeeze in living standards? I would remind and that


in 2010, when she won her marginal seat, the economy was growing,


unemployment was coming down. This is the problem, if you believed


this, -- if people believe this, then you would not have these


results in the polls. When you talk about the cost of living crisis,


people think, hang on, I am not going to blame the Government for


this, it reminds them of your failings. It throws up the fact that


in reality, you guys do not have any credibility on the economy, which is


the single most dominant factor, and actually, people do not know what


you would do which would be different. I think the next election


will be won or lost on what both parties will say about what they are


going to do in the future on the economy. I think Chuka Umunna is


right to speak about Agenda 2030. It is going to be about what we are


promising for the future. Can we just establish that it is true that


come the election next May, you will be fighting on living standards


being lower than they were in 2010? No, you are wanting me to say that


and admit that. That is what the OBR says, which is what you base your


economic plans on. If I may, I do not know what it is kind to be like


then. But I do not think it is as simple as that. One of the biggest


drivers I am finding is that it is not just about me here now today,


and that was the power of the deficit, was that people understood


that those who would suffer as a result of the mess that Labour made


of the economy was actually our children and grandchildren. Final


thought? Not connected but worth noting, the Prime Minister, who had


talked about amending the law on hunting in order to allow farmers to


get packs of dogs in, now says he has not got government support,


which is code for, the Lib Dems will not wear it. It is just not


necessary. We have got other important things to do. We look


forward to seeing how PMQs appears on the Ten O'Clock News tonight. And


I shall be doing the debate. Will you not be watching the football?!


More importantly, I shall be looking at how the Ten O'Clock News watches


events in the Max Clifford trial today. I will be interested in how


the Ten O'Clock News covers it. That is all I am saying. Next, what


happens when you give a packet of cornflakes a good shake costume in


the words of the Mayor of London, it will be easier for some cornflakes


to get to the top. Not a revelation, but Boris's comments last year


caused a stir, because he was talking about IQ, and allowing the


brightest to be able to flourish, particularly in relation to grammar


schools. He went on to say that differing IQ levels in the


population are "surely relevant to a conversation about equality". So are


we condemned by our genes to success or failure? In our soapbox this


week, the geneticist Professor Steve Jones gives his take.


When I was 11, I was given a genetic test. It was 1955 and this, the


double helix, had only been discovered two years earlier. In


fact, the idea came from the 1944 education act which set up the 11


plus examination. It was based on the idea there was a pool of natural


talent in British children was being missed. They did not have DNA


sequencing machines but they had tests which they thought would do


the job. Find the odd word out. Firm, rough, solid, hard. Complex


shapes to move around, difficult sums. In fact, the idea goes back to


Charles Darwin's cousin, who in 1869 wrote a book called him Redditch


re-genius which said more the same thing about intellectualism and even


about wrestling. Boris Johnson today thinks most differences in


intellectual levels are inborn. In his words, the harder you shake the


pack, the easier it will be for some complex to get to the top. That is


based on a deep misunderstanding of genetics. It is about the


interaction between nature and nurture which is more subtle than it


seems. Education policy has no need to bow down to the merciless treat


of genetics, because, however important DNA might be,


environmental factors such as teachers are always involved. Any


plant breeder wanting to identify the best genes always keeps the


subject in exactly the same environment. British schools


certainly cannot do that. Steve Jones joins us now. This is


fascinating. Which is more important? They always work


together. The irony is, the more you understand about nature, DNA, the


more important nurture, the environment, seems to be. People get


worked up about IQ and it is certainly heritable. Nobody really


cares about height but it is highly inherited. About 80% of the


variation in a population is genetic. But the average height of


children has gone up three inches since the Second World War. That is


the environment. The average height of privately educated children is


more than that of state educated children. That is not genetic. Is it


overstated? A former adviser to the Education Secretary said it is all


about genetics, it is the ITU take from your intelligent or not


intelligent parents that really counts. -- the IQ you take. Many


people would certainly think that. One of the most strongly inherited


attributes is bank balance. To go to a really good school like eating you


don't just have to be clever, your parents have to be rich. I went to a


perfectly reasonable state grammar school. My brother failed that exam


and went to a secondary modern and went to a bricklayer. Would you


agree with Boris Johnson we should reintroduce grammar schools to allow


the most intelligent to thrive? No. I don't think the grammar school


system worked particularly well. The comment you made about, Nvidia says


bring back their secondary moderns is very important. I spent most of


my school in a comprehensive and it was not a particularly good one. I


had a good time and I was lucky. I managed to get to a big university.


That was in the past. We talk too much about the past rather than what


is happening now. I look at the way abroad are my own children and what


I've expected of them. -- the way I've brought up my own children. I


just want them to maximise their potential, do the best they can. It


fascinates me that children change. I don't want to talk too much about


my own daughters, but we all have experiences in our lives of people


who did not pass the 11 plus or were not in a certain place, and by the


time they get to 14, they can be different. Or people who were stars


at 11 burn out and buy a levels they are not in the same place. I don't


know if there is a period back to a theory on that. -- a theory on that.


When you are 11 and you didn't pass and you went to secondary modern, I


think these are pretty awful terms. There were many who were then almost


condemned to that. But the bank balance is important. And without


that, many in your party feel the hidden pool is not being discovered.


I do agree with that. I think the many years the banks have determined


how well people do. I was lucky enough to get into Oxford. I was at


a state school. Most of the people I knew at Oxford did not go to state


school. They are totally overrepresented. One of my best


friends said to me that what her private school taught her with


intellectual confidence. It is a great shame that state school kids


are still so underrepresented at the best universities. What is the cause


that not enough state school pupils are competing against the much


smaller percentage of pupils at private and public schools? I don't


think many state schools know how to prepare their kids for the


interviews. I think the private schools most have a separate


industry going on to prepare their kids. I think we need qualified


teachers in our classrooms, we need to attach -- attract the brightest


and best. You guys had 13 years to sort that out. In four years, we


made huge strides. I think you are letting unqualified teachers in the


classroom which is the wrong thing. If you come to constituencies like


mine and see the huge progress being made... I took Michael Gove to a


school in my constituency and it still blows me away. The real


progress they've made is because they are able to become an academy.


It has put teachers in charge. We will have to leave it there. We have


a clip that you might remember. Have a look at this. Honestly, you lot.


What are you putting into your body is? Let me show you. Come on. This


is the amount of fat in that whole pizza. There are 17 cubes of sugar


in that drink. It could lead to heart disease, type two diabetes and


cancer. Let's get food smart. Anna, what are your aims? It is to educate


people. Make people aware of some of the things that are in their food


that are not necessarily good the user that people can make better


choices. That was our Guest of the Day, Anna


Soubry, on the programme last year when she was a public health


minister, launching the government's healthy eating campaign Food Smart.


Now, though ministers in the Department of Agriculture have


branded the Department for Health campaign "unbelievably stupid" for


undermining home grown producers of dairy products by encouraging people


to swap cheese in their diet for alternatives which are lower in


saturated fat. A fridge magnet produced by the campaign reads:


"Reduced fat cheese, if you please." Well, you'll be glad to hear that we


have not been scared off by that warning on this programme. Joining


us is the artisan cheesemaker Tim Jones. And his cheese, Lincolnshire


Poacher. These cheeses are delicious and varied. As part of a balanced


diet, they would be good for anybody. That is the important part.


You told us not to be this stuff. No, I didn't. The campaign says,


leave off-the-shelf butter, cream, cheese, full fat milk. I didn't say


that. We want people to eat a healthy, balanced diet. We don't say


you must not do this. What we're giving people is information. Let's


get real about this. This campaign is because we have a serious problem


in our country with overweight people. A third of our children


leave primary school overweight or obese. We need to redress that. My


point is, your advice may be wrong, because the campaign leaflet says


you should leave butter, cream, cheddar cheese, full fat milk and


ice cream on the shelf. Earlier this month, Cambridge University


researchers said giving up butter or fatty meat is unlikely to improve


health. That is a recent binding. So your advice could be wrong. Of


course it could be wrong. There is still a real debate about it. But


the one thing you cannot deny is we have a problem with overweight. So


the government has the duty to help people to make educated choices. The


government does not have a duty to give wrong advice. You recommended


reduced back -- that Greek yoghurt. Every time you see reduced VAT,


there is more sugar. No should -- not always. The government has put


labelling so we give people real information about sugar and salt. It


is a great shame to include cheese in this group of products. Cheese is


such a nutritious product. It is good the people and children, for


their bones and teeth. When you compare it to the other products you


are talking about, they are completely different animals. We


mustn't get sidetracked by that. When I was the Minister for Public


health, and I do have two advice on the advice of my officials, but I


met with the cheese industry. You use salt and some people who are


keen to reduce salt said, therefore we need to attack cheese. But if you


are making cheese you will have a higher level of salt. What do you


make of the official advice, we should reduce full fat cheese for


reduced fat? I think it is a sad world. I think if we had a lifeless


block of half fat cheddar sitting on a plate it would pale into


insignificance compared to the cheese we have. I personally would


not want to eat it. I'd rather not eat it than have a small amount of a


delicious cheese. I don't either and I suspect a lot of people watching


this programme agreed. But we're talking about people who are


overweight and abuse. Don't eat Artisan cheeses necessarily in small


amounts. Don't you think the debate has gone back to sugar? It should go


to sugar. There's just time before we go to find out the answer to


Guess the Year. Anna, hit that button. It was 1972. We'll be back




Download Subtitles