03/09/2014 Daily Politics

be next to be beheaded. The chilling threat from the so-called Islamic

State jihadists who released another video last night. David Cameron has

been caring another meeting of COBRA. It is clear the government's

options are limited. We will be asking if government

plans to tackle home-grown terrorism will have any effect.

Expect a Broads -- expect events abroad to dominate politics today.

It'd likely to be a sombre affair. -- it is likely. This man wants to

modernise the House of Commons but do politicians wish John Burkholder

was history? -- John Burke out. Joining goes or Business Minister

Matt Hancock. The terrorists of Islamic State say

they have beheaded a second journalist called for two. It was

orchestrated in much the same way as the first video, a man with a

British accent holding a knife and making threats against the US and

now Britain. He says the next to be murdered will be a British hostage.

The family of the hostage have asked us not to name the hostage and we

respect them but the family is from Scotland. Other than the usual words

of outrage and condemnation, there has been no specific British

reaction, no formal statement after the meeting of the emergency

committee. I'm secretary Philip Hammond said this. We have looked

very carefully at the options to support the legitimate government of

Iraq and Kurdistan in defending themselves against the threat from

ISIL and if we judge air strikes could be beneficial, we will

consider them. We make no decision to do so at the moment. With us now

is the BBC's world affairs editor. When you see these videos, it makes

Islamic State look powerful and threatening. But could it be they

doing this because these American air strikes are having an effect

their positions? I am sure. They are not the organisation they seemed to

be in June when they captured one of the major cities of Iraq, Mosul. And

the Iraqi army, which we have been training and arming at such expense

run away. That has not happened since. The business of sending over

drones and missiles has had a good effect on keeping the ISIL, which we

seem to be saying now, which irritates me, but there response is

down. Dashed their response. They are in trouble. If you have got

people who are decent and innocent journalists and you have a knife,

you can take off their heads, imagining you are doing it with

complete power. One day, that guy and several of the others will be in

The Hague, in the night -- in the International Criminal Court. I hope

I am not too old to cover that. I hope you can cover it as well. They

may be extremist ideological is -- and ideological living in their

world, do they think American foreign policy will change, what can

they achieve? We say that, but I have just come back from

Afghanistan. I was talking about the same kind of thing. People wanted to

join up with Islamic State. They see it very differently. They think they

just keep on and they tough enough, countries like Britain and America

will go away, which is what has happened. Historically, written and

America have been fiercely involved in Afghanistan -- Britain. Then they

had to get involved again and they forgot about it. We are on our third

turn around. So they are not far wrong in saying they might be able

to just get rid of us. It will not happen by scaring goes and it will

not happen by putting their heads of innocent people on video. I watched

some of those videos and it was disgusting. -- by scaring goes. It

gets our attention when it is a British and American hostage, but

this is part of the course. It could be symbolism. I was reading that in

this town, and Islamic State, every Friday, there are now public

executions and beheadings in the square. And the dead are mounted on

a crucifix as a warning to local residents to do what they are told.

So this is what they do. This is what they do. You must not just

think it is only happening in Rakka, or Syria, Syria and Iraq, it could

now spread to Afghanistan. That is what this group of thrillers we were

talking to have been saying -- gorillas. It is happening on a daily

basis in Nigeria. Northern and north-eastern Nigeria. I do not want

to say they are spreading all over the world and they will get to us,

it is not like that. But there are black holes on the map that these

people are able to infest. That is what has happened. Matt Hancock, if

that is what they do, what should we do? If air strikes are effective,

should we join the Americans in these air strikes? That decision has

not yet been made. But in terms of the individual written hostage, we

are looking at all options -- British. But as well as looking at

what options we can take abroad, we also have to do everything we can to

defend people at home. We will get to that. I am concentrating on the

situation in what we used to call in Iraq and Syria. Which they now call

Islamic State. What are the options there? You say you are looking at

all options but that is meaningless. What is the opposite of that, we are

not looking at any options? What are the options? It would not be

appropriate to go into the individual militarily and other

options available. But what we do know is that the impact of the US

air strikes has been, the effect of that has been to prevent this

advance -- military. So we support the US while not taking part in

these air strikes ourselves. Also, the Kurds have got a role to play in

this. Should we are on them? We supporting them. I cannot make a

decision like that on this show. -- should we macro to them. There is

also a big humanitarian aspect. The humanitarian crisis is serious. Of

course, and we spend a lot of money trying to do that. It does not

address the issues I have raised. I understand the government has not

come out and said anything. Jack Straw, distinguished former Foreign

Secretary for a Labour government, he said he supported Britain joining

American air strikes. Could that become Labour Party policy? We are

not far away from that. The European Union is involved in funding and

giving military assistance to the Kurds and we support you on that. We

support the Americans in their air strikes and a decision has yet to be

made as to whether Britain should take an active part in that but we

will not commit to boot is on the ground. Ed Miliband has set out the

parameters on which we should set a decision. So on the basis of, will

it be perfect, is its proportionate? There is no point doing something

for the sake of being seen to be doing something, it has to be

effective and genuine. But the evidence is that these air strikes

are effective which is why the Islamic State are starting to kill

hostages. So you think Labour could be moving in the direction of

supporting British air strikes, along with the Americans and serving

weapons to the Kurds? In a wider context, we also have to be

multilateral in our approach. There has to be a political solution and

the major players in that area... What does that mean? We cannot be

one country and a friend deciding to take action somewhere. It has to be

some sort of international consent and within a coherent plan. The

French President, for example, has just called for an international

conference at the United Nations which is the right and to do. Have

to bring the major power brokers to the table to make sure there is no

more funding of ISIS. This is the French President that is refusing to

arm Ukraine but selling warships to Russia? Multilateral cooperation.

You work with the powers. Frankly, we can all pick holes in friends you

may have but real politics is about bringing the power brokers to the

table and finding a proper solution. One of the things that has been

remarkable about this has been the reluctance of President Obama to get

involved. And when events strike him into getting involved, the moment he

can take his total out of the water again, he does it. Exactly. This is

the big rob them. Everybody can see we are only doing it just for a very

short time -- this is the problem. We will light a number of rockets

and then we will say, let's get out of here and finish with this place.

You can hear the wreath in the voices of generals and politicians

-- relief. Leaving Afghanistan, what could be better? Actually, that is

an invitation for these things to happen again. It cannot just be an

in and out policy. It has got to be, we have to commit ourselves to

building up these black holes into proper state again and we have to be

there -- states. Not necessarily with soldiers, that is not a good

idea, but with our attention and our cheque-book. And friends. There are

others, they have cheque-books and they have people and they have an

insight we do not necessarily have. Let's get this clear, they also have

an axe to grind. This is a Sunni and Shia sectarian war. With the Saudis

and Iran, they are proxies. We sell these weapons to Saudi Arabia but

they do not seem to want to use them. They are not there to be used!

The pattern is shifting. Iran is a lot closer about Iraq now than Saudi

Arabia. These things that have got to be with very carefully but they

have to be dealt with on the basis that we are permanently involved in

one way or another. Not patrolling the streets with squaddies. But with

our minds and our hearts. And understanding the region. Yes. Thank

you very much, always a pleasure. How do we deal with the terror

threat at home? A number of new proposals have been announced by the

government to prevent what the government called the gaps in our

armoury. But there are concerns about whether the new measures

strike the balance between keeping us safe and protect civil liberties.

-- protecting. , Theresa May, raise the terror

threat level from substantial to severe. That means that an attack in

Britain was highly likely. It is estimated that around 500 British

nationals have travelled to Iraq and Syria, to fight for militant groups.

The government is focusing its attention on what happens if they

come home. On Monday, David Cameron announced a series of new measures

to the Commons, including enhancing the government the radicalisation

programme and forcing airlines to hand over more information about

passengers coming to and from conflict zones. The government

answer to control orders, which can be used to deal with terror suspect,

will be toughened up, and there is going to be statutory powers for

police to seize passports from terrorist suspects attempting to

leave the UK. Perhaps the most controversial proposal, cross-party

talks on legislation to prevent fighters from coming back to the UK

by removing their passports. This could prove difficult as there are

warnings that the move may go against international law. Before we

get the individual proposals, in your mind, what is it that has

turned 500 or so, that is a conservative estimate, 500 British

citizens into jihadis, who are fighting in Syria and Iraq and many

of whom would like to bring that home of terrorism back here. -- that

brand of terrorism home back here. Different reasons for different

individuals, one of the heart of it, that we have got to do long-term, as

well as short-term measures that we will talk about, is make sure that

we have a strategy that tackles this sort of radicalisation. Right from

the start and from the grassroots. Has it not been there until now?

Until a couple of years ago, the approach of the UK authorities was

that when an ideology is looking like a violent ideology, then that

is the time to engage. But I think very strongly that we have got to

start before that. Things like the active teaching of and self

confidence in British values across the whole school system. That is

really important, to try to bring people together. And to try to... To

essentially strengthened nation-building in our own nation.

Of course, that is not going to be a panacea, and in this area, nothing

is. But you can take action earlier and you can take action to

is. But you can take action earlier and you can take action try to

prevent some of these people moving towards violence, before they are

indoctrinated with a violent ideology. Sounds like there has been

a gap, there was the prevent strategy, with hindsight should more

money have been put into that? It is not necessarily about money, the

previous Prevent strategy was targeted at those who had a violent

extremist ideology. We have changed that to be a strategy to deal with

those who have an extremist ideology whether it is violent or not.

Because we know that an extremist attitude is one thing that can lead

to violent acts and this kind of thing. That was a major gap, I

think, we have put it right at a strategic level, but cascading that

through all schools, making sure schools are self-confident about

British values of tolerance and openness and Beardsley of

nonviolent... Nonviolent resolution. The so-called Trojan horse.

Sometimes you have got to tackle two. Looking at the proposals put

forward, do you support the idea that fighters coming back from Syria

and Iraq should be prevented in some way of re-entering the UK by for

example having passports taken away? There is a superficial attraction,

the Tories have built that up by the briefing over last weekend but I do

not think... I cannot believe they ever thought they would be able to

do it when it comes to somebody who is only a British citizen. If you

have another nationality, taking away somebody's nationality, their

passport... Sending them back to their country of origin. Yes, but if

somebody is British and only British and trying to come back, if you take

away their passport you are making them stateless and we do not agree

with that, we have not agreed with that since the 1960s and there is a

reason for that: If we were to do it, countries across the world would

do it, we would end up with a whole lot of guys in the Islamic State who

have nowhere else to go anyway. David Anderson, the counterterrorism

adviser, has said that, on the BBC. Why has David Cameron even hinted at

being able to do something about preventing British citizens, sole

British citizens, from re-entering the UK, when there are so many legal

difficulties in international law. He was clear in his statement on

Monday that you cannot move passports, some people have dual

nationality. -- that you can remove passports for people who have dual

nationality. We have taken steps in law to make sure that we can remove

British citizenship from those that are naturalised. What about sole

British citizens, he said he would work out proposals, he told MPs, UK

nationals, that were suspected of being involved in terror act, were

going to be prevented from re-entering the UK for a period of

time, how can that be done and where will they go? Where will they be?

Sitting in an airport in Turkey... I do not understand what you are

doing. It is all very well saying that you are going to do something

but what do you intend to achieve? The attack, which... That is not the

attack. What would you accept, to prevent those UK nationals coming

back to Britain? What matters is protecting people at home.

Absolutely. That means not having people as far as is possible coming

back and being free on the streets of Britain. There are ways that you

can tackle that, and obviously, making sure that you can do that in

a way which complies with international law, that is

important. But the idea that we cannot take those steps, should not

look at those debts, in order to look at -- in order to protect

people here, is absurd. There are steps you can take: We have been

arguing with you, as we know, about these control orders, Tpims. A rule

about you stay here and we can keep an eye on you. We think that they

had been watered down so much... Nobody is under one at the moment.

Was it a mistake for the government to drop control orders? These can be

put on terror suspects to restrict them in all sorts of ways. No,

because they were restrictive... We decided they needed changing. Did

you decide they were too tough? Well, there were ways in which they

were not working, people could abscond from them. They needed

tackling. There is a new measure... Another one absconded in a Burka!

They are a joke! Clearly, we have got to make sure that these things

work effectively. How many people are under one at the moment? None.

That is the correct answer! And there is 500 jihadi 's fighting in

Iraq. If you have a jihadi that has gone to Syria, of course you cannot

put them under anything. Why are the ones that have come back not been

put under this order? You cannot know... If somebody travels through

Turkey, then there is not necessarily the ability to know

where everybody... We try to establish what the government is

going to do to stop a jihadis leaving Syria, coming to Turkey and

from Turkey humming back to Britain... What do you do with them

when they arrive at Heathrow? These things are extremely difficult. For

instance... You could prosecute them. If they have gone to Syria and

waged war, they have committed a crime. You could start with that for

example. I apologise for the sadistic notion of this analysis

here... LAUGHTER Your partners are saying something

similar, the Liberal Democrats. If somebody goes to Turkey, and we do

not know if they have gone into Syria, that makes the situation more

difficult. Believe you me, we are determined to act and put in as much

protection as possible subject to defending the very values of

tolerance and liberty which we are fighting for at the same time. I'm

not completely clear about what can and cannot be done but we we can

expect much more on that, coming up very shortly in prime ministers

questions. It is a pretty grim morning, we will try to cheer

ourselves up and turn to something completely different.

News has reached us here at the Daily Politics that

a certain Anthony Blair, you may remember him(!), he led the Labour

Party once upon a time, has picked up a gong at the flashy GQ Awards.

I think it stands for gentlemen 's quarterly...

Richest former Prime Minister? Well, of course, he would win that award!

No: he's won philanthropist of the year.

I'll just pause a moment so that can sink in.

No wonder they like him in Kazakhstan!

Now I'm afraid we are unlikely to ever win such an accolade

for our generosity here at the BBC, we don't just give things away

We cannot afford it! We do not have anything to give away! If you want

to win one of our special mugs, you have got to work for it!

We will remind you how to win in a moment, but first, let's see if you

remember when this happened... All dressed up and nowhere to go...

You have a history of anti-Semitism... Homophobia... How

come you will not apologise, you gutless coward!

To be in with a chance of winning a daily politics mug, you do not have

to win. It's tough year! Just send the answer to the special quiz

e-mail address, below: It's coming up to midday here,

just take a look at Big Ben, yes, Prime Minister's

Questions is on its way. And that's not all!

James Landale is here. Now obviously we expect events

abroad to dominate PMQS. But since we last saw each other

James, David Cameron's had to deal I am today leaving the Conservative

Party and joining Ukip. APPLAUSE This has not been an easy decision.

I have been a member of the Conservative Party for all of my

adult life. It is full of wonderful people who want the best of Britain.

My local Conservative Association in Clacton is thriving. It brims with

those that I am honoured to call my friends. The problem is, many of

those at the top of the Conservative Party are simply not on our side.

They are not serious about the change Britain so seriously needs.

Yes, not just the defection of Mr Carswell, to Ukip, but the resigning

of his seat, and calling a by-election to fight in the Ukip

name, an opinion poll has suggested yesterday that he would win by the

narrow margin of 32 points. I think we could fire that under the L, for

landslide! Clearly he is the bookies favourite. -- file that. What is the

mood on the Tory backbenches, in terms of their attitude towards

Douglas Carswell? Pretty angry. One MP last night said that Douglas

Carswell, 1992 committee, said he had not just stab the Prime Minister

in the back, he had stabbed everyone in the back, and the man who said

that was widely applauded. The Conservative Parliamentary party, we

will not see many more defections like him. The significance... How

much it changes the narrative, how much it focuses the attention of

politics back to the Conservative Ukip battle at a time when the Prime

Minister wanted to get off that and focus on the economy. The

Conservatives, the real worry that some of them have, what impact does

it have on those voters that they need if they want to secure a

majority next time? Soft labour, soft Lib Dems, nonvoters, all of

those voters who by and large the polls suggest are not attracted by

debates within the Conservative Party about Europe and battles with

Ukip. That is what is worrying strategists for the Conservatives.

How are they going to handle this by-election, October nine, the

birthday of the Prime Minister! We shall be carrying it live, after

this week, this is what we do these days with the by-elections. You were

on the last one. LAUGHTER

You had better take your energy pill! I would love to be there! How

are they going to handle this. Everybody seems they will lose and

probably lose badly. Who are they going to get to make the feudal

gesture of standing against Douglas Carswell? How are they going to

handle it -- feudal gesture. -- futile. They will fight reasonably

hard to put on a reasonable show, I will not throw the kitchen sink, but

the lesson from the by-election in Europe, that cost them a lot of

money, they won it but it cost them a shed load, something over ?100,000

which is a lot of money in the election cycle. Will Lynton Crosby

want to direct that kind of resource to one seat like that? Probably

not, they cannot vacate the field. That would be unlikely. They will do

their best not to draw their attention to that. They want it done

quickly. What about Boris? You may be silly, but he is not that silly!

What is the significance of what Douglas Carswell has done? There was

a sense that... Hold on a moment, I will hold that question, we will go

to PMQ 's. It appears to have been carried out

by a British citizen. Our thoughts are with the British hostage and his

family, there ordeal cannot be imagined. But this country will

never give in to terrorism. Our opposition to ISIL will continue at

home and abroad. It is important we are clear about the nature of the

threat we are facing. It makes no distinction between culture, country

and religion, the only way to defeat it is to stand firm and to send a

straightforward message. A country like ours will not be cowed by these

barbaric killers. If they think we will weaken in the face of their

threats, they are wrong. It will have the opposite effect, we will be

more forthright in the defence of the values, liberty and a law,

freedom and democracy that we hold dear and I am sure a united message

to that effect will go forward from this house today. Mr Speaker, this

morning, I had meetings and in additions to my duties in this

house, I will have further meetings today -- in addition. Chi -- can I

endorse what the Prime Minister has said about the American hostage? Can

I say to the Prime Minister that some years ago, he said he wanted to

prevent the Conservatives banging on about Europe, what has happened? A

lot of things have changed in Europe, not least the Eurozone

crisis which had eased that is beginning to appear again and this

has created enormous tension within the union. Those countries within

the Eurozone that need further integration and those outside the

Eurozone that want a more flexible relationship with Europe. It is

right to debate these matters in this house but above all, it is

right to include the British people. And my plans, they will have a

decisive say before the end of 2017. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Other Prime

Minister join me in congratulating businesses in Basildon and XXXX who

have been -- who have reduced on employment by 36% -- in Basildon and

XXXX. Is this roof the economic LAN is working? -- proof. In the East of

England, the number of people in work is up by 400,000 since the

election, private sector employment has increased, business and

investment has increased, and the news we have about the GDP figure

revisions shows since 2010, this country has grown faster than France

and Germany and any major economy apart from Canada and the United

States of America. There should be no complacency because the job is

not yet done but our long-term plan is working and it is the way to

secure a better future for our country. I joined the Prime Minister

in expressing the universal sense of revulsion at the barbaric murder of

Steven Sotloff and in expressing deep concern about the British

hostage Dean held. This will be a terrible time for his family --

being held. People across the country will be thinking of them.

This is a pattern of murderous behaviour I20 macro of the innocent.

Christians, easy-to-use, anybody who does not agree with their vile

aetiology. -- by ISIL. -- ideology. This must strengthen our resolve to

defeat them and have -- and he can be sure of our full support in

standing firm against them. Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition?

We should send a united message. What has happened to the hostages

some far and what may happen again in the future is a par and barbaric

-- borrowed. We will not waver in our aim of defeating terrorism and

that is not something that divides this house politically, it is

something that everyone and I -- and I suspect the entire country agrees

with. The pattern of killing will shock people across the world full

does he agree that we and countries in the region have a vital

humanitarian and security interest in overcoming ISIL? What progress is

being made to mobilise other countries including Turkey, Saudi

Arabia, Qatar and the Arab League against ISIL? The way the Leader of

the Opposition is approaching this is right. This is a crisis in which

we are there to help the people on the ground and the countries in the

region that want to solve this crisis. This is not a Western led

intervention. We have the Kurds defending communities including

minority communities from the horrors of ISIL. The government of

big doubt needs to get itself together to represent the country.

Then we can do more to make sure this appalling organisation feels

the pressure of international and local condemnation. We should using

all the assets we have, focusing on humanitarian aid and saving people

from hunger and persecution. Using political and diplomatic pressures

to make sure a government in Baghdad can represent the country and

working with others so pressure is put on. If we continue like that,

asking how can others in the neighbourhood do their work, how can

we help them and best event our national interests and keep people

safe at home? That is the right approach. I agree with the Prime

Minister and building that partnership is vital. Working with

the UN is a key part of building the legitimacy of the alliance. In

addition to the UN Security Council resolution has to know last couple

of weeks, what plan does he have two use the UK's chair of the Security

Council to build international consensus? We have used the UN to

put pressure on ISIL by making it clear people should not provide

resources sanctuary these people, they should be cut off. That has

been the approach. What we do have an opportunity through the UN to

marshal international support for the view that this ISIL so-called

Islamic caliphate is unacceptable and needs to be squeezed out of

existence. We should aim to get the maximum support through the UN for

Messieurs -- measures being taken. In Britain, people will have been

shocked and disgusted there were British voices on the visitor you --

on the video. The Prime Minister announced a relocation powers to

suspected terrorists and he has our full support for this. Can he

confirm this will go ahead and can he give an indication of the

timetable? I can confirm it will go ahead and it will require

legislation. We need to put the independent reviewer of terrorism,

to put his advice into action. He has spoken of it combination of

exclusion and relocation and that needs to be introduced into the

terrorism prevention and investigated. We should do this on a

cross-party basis to send the clearest message and urgency is the

order of the day. The best way to deal with terrorists is criminal

prosecution and if that is not possible, strict restriction on

their movement. On Monday, he also proposed the possibility of locking

British citizens returning to the UK. Can he say more about whether he

believes this is legally a list -- legally permissible and if there are

plans to take this forward? The short answer is, yes, but it will

take work. We already have the power when people try to return to the UK,

if it is a foreign national, we can exclude them even if they have lived

here. Dual nationals can be stripped of their British citizenship and

excluded. A naturalised British person, you can and our new laws

strip them of their British nationality. -- under. There is a

cap when somebody has been born and raised as a British citizen like the

individual from high Wycombe who wanted to return to do harm to our

country, the best thing to do is to gather evidence, prosecute,

convicted and imprisoned. But there could the occasions when we need to

exclude so we should fill that gap and I believe it is legal and

possible to do it. We will look at the practicality and legality of

proposals. Can he revisit the case for strengthening the prevent

programme in terms of revolt -- in terms of resources and community

engagement? That is essential to prevent people being indoctrinated

into this poisonous ideology. We do need fast action to build alliances

across the world against ISIL and strong and considered action at home

is what the world needs, is what the British people expect, and in

pursuing this course, he has our port. Prevent, what we have done is

to divide up the different elements. One part is about community

confusion best led by the Department For Culture and communities and the

other part best run by the Home Office. But what we need to be clear

about is that it is not enough to target those who reach violent

extremism, we need to go after those who promote the extremist narrative

that gives the terrorists and the men of violence support for what

they do. It is not unlike the Cold War were we did not just pursue

those who wanted to do all such harm, we also had to challenge those

who gave them succour. That is what we need to do in the struggle which

I think will last for decades, and we need to show resilience and unity

in pursuing it. In this Parliament, our coalition government has

increased health spending in England by over ?17 billion a year. As a

direct consequence of that, a block grant to Scotland which supports NHS

funding in Scotland has increased by ?1.7 billion a year. Does he agree

that this gives the lie to Alex Salmond's propaganda about the NHS?

He is absolutely right, because of the decisions we took, long-term

decisions after a careful assessment to increase spending, that has given

extra money for Scotland to spend on the NHS so that gives lie to one

claim. His second claim that somehow, the government, however

ties parts of the NHS in Scotland is complete nonsense. -- could

privatise. The only person who could do that is Alex Salmond and you can

tell somebody has lost the argument when they start telling ludicrous

lies about what he could do himself! There have been worrying reports

about a rising malnutrition and children going back to school

hungry. The government is rolling out free school meals but that will

not solve food property. In the past, I have felt he has not taking

this seriously, will he acknowledge this is a problem and a national

scandal and it is his job to do something about it? It is well -- it

is welcome all infants will have free school meals this week. That

will be welcome and down the country and 99% of schools are providing

those. -- up and down. The wet -- the best way is to get more people

into work, and we are doing, and to make sure the economy grows and

delivers for hard-working people. I know Labour wants this narrative

about inequality and let me give statistics to show why it is not

true. There are 300,000 fewer children in poverty than when Labour

were in office. Inequality in our country has gone down and not up.

One of the most serious causes of poverty, long-term youth

unemployment, is lower than when this Government came to office, that

is how we are changing people's lives. Does he agree their friends

in the Middle East is share a commitment to peaceful change? --

who share. From Palestine, to the elected governments of Kurdistan and

Libya and they must by now be finding British support

inconsistent, fragmented and not strategic, is it not time for a more

strategic strategy? I do not agree with the honourable gentleman. This

Government has massively increased engagement with Middle Eastern

states. Everybody knows our view is in favour of democracy and human

rights and the building blocks of democracy. We do not believe you can

drop democracy out of the back of an aeroplane, it needs to be built. We

engage with all those states in order to maximise not just our

influence but the chance of regional stability in that vital area. Does

the Prime Minister share public concern that terrible abuse can

happen to children, most recently the 1400 sexually abused girls in

Rotherham? Yet directors of social services and other senior officers

pay no penalty and often move on to higher paid jobs. Surely if the

contracts of the people at the top mean they cannot be sacked in such

circumstances, may be the contracts need looking at?

I agree entirely with what the honourable lady has said, what we

see in Rotherham is shocking, it demonstrates a failure in the local

government system there, in the children's services department and

in policing and all of those issues need to be addressed, which is why I

have asked the Home Secretary to chair a group of ministers about how

we learn lessons even before we get the enquiry fully underway. Where I

think the honourable lady is absolutely right, local authorities,

when they employ these people, should look carefully at contracts

and make sure that if people do not do the job properly they can be

removed, it is absolutely vital. You cannot police all of this from

Whitehall, local government has responsibility for the people it

employs and should hold them to account. Can I concur with the Prime

Minister's earlier comments on the appalling barbaric behaviour and say

that we all stand right behind him. If net migration into the UK

continues at present levels, we can fill a sissy the size of Leeds every

three years. -- city the size of Leeds. This is not only

unsustainable but potentially destabilising. Does my right

honourable friend agree with me that the sooner we adopt a Visa only

system for all foreign nationals, including those from the EU,

allowing the sovereign parliament to decide who settled here, the better.

First of all can I thank my honourable friend about what he says

about the stand that we must all take against terror and terrorism

and Isil. We have done a huge amount to restrict migration from outside

the European Union. Figures are down by almost 30% since we came to

office. We have closed down 700 bogus colleges and introduced an

academic limit. We must do more. Freedom of movement is an important

principle but it is not an unqualified right and it should not

be the freedom of movement to claim benefits. We should also make sure

that when new member states join the European Union we do not necessarily

have transitional controls which simply last for a number of years,

we should have transitional controls which make sure they will not have

full access to markets until their economies are of a radically

different size and shape. Angus Roberts on. The most recent UK

Ambassador to NATO, Dame Marriot Leslie, has today said that an

independent Scotland would be welcome in NATO and that she is

voting yes on the referendum. -- Angus Robertson. Earlier this year,

the Prime Minister gave a commitment on Scottish television to take part

in a programme with undecided voters before the referendum. Will he be

doing that or will he be running away just as he ran away from the

First Minister in a debate? On the television programme on sky

television I offered them a date and a format, but they seemed to run

away themselves, that is a great pity.

On NATO, I prefer to listen to Lord Robertson, secretary-general of

NATO, knee is absolutely clear that Scotland will be better off inside

the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom will be better off with

Scotland. The problem with the right honourable gentleman, when it comes

to all of the big questions, currency, position in NATO, position

in the European Union... They have not been able to provide a single

credible answer. Does the Prime Minister agree with

me that it is unacceptable to prevent the sale of kosher goods and

goods made in Israel, as this conflict is the policy of the

Israeli government with Judaism and leads to a rise in anti-Semitism.

What assurances can be given that this government is going to address

boycotts and anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. We have been very

clear that we do not support boycotts, we do not support measures

that are intended to delegitimise the state of Israel, which has a

right to exist. We argue it has a right to peace within its proper

borders. I do think he makes an important point: We should be

absolutely clear, you can criticise Israel and the Israeli government

for its actions. Without being anti-Semitic. But we have seen in

recent weeks is a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in this country

and that is unacceptable as I said on Monday. Could refer the Prime

Minister to events in Rotherham: Does the Prime Minister agree that a

common thread in the awful picture from Rotherham that has been

referred to earlier, and the dreadful plight of the young boy

this week, is that the relevant authorities can all too often be

driven by considerations other than the best interest of the child? To

reflect this sad lesson for all of us, will you agree to amend the

modern slavery Bill, to provide for independent child guardians who

would be charged with reflecting the best interests of the child to all

of the relevant authorities and services? I'm very proud of the fact

this government is introducing the modern slavery Bill, it is a girl I

support and I shall look carefully at specific suggestions made.

Commenting briefly on the other point: To be fair to the authorities

involved, in the case of the young boy, they all want to do the best

for the child, that is what they are thinking of, but what happened is

that decisions were taken that were not correct and did not shine with a

sense of common sense and that fortunately has been put right. What

all of us in public life and public office have got to do is look at

legal requirements but also make a judgement, and those judgements can

sometimes be all-important. If the respected Hampshire Police can use

the European arrest warrant to create an injustice, can my right

honourable friend have any confidence that other member states

with less well-developed legal systems will not use the arrest

warrant for worse purposes in future? What I say to my honourable

friend, I respect his arguments, police have got to make their

judgements and as I have just said, they do not always get them right.

The question we must ask ourselves in this house: We have got to think

about a situation potentially where a terrorist has attacked this

country and is on the run through Europe to other countries. And how

quickly we want to be able to get that person back in front of our

courts to face British justice. This is not an imaginary set of

circumstances, this is exactly what happened in 2005, after the dreadful

London bombings. We do need to think about this. I'm all for making sure

that powers flow from Brussels to London and they have in the case of

Justice and home affairs where we have repatriated over 100 measures.

I also want to be a Prime Minister who can British people in the eye

and say that we will keep you safe from serious crime and crime and

terrorism and have people back in front of British courts as soon as

possible. We now know that in the event of separation, Scotland would

no longer... That was a good laugh... ! LAUGHTER

Would no longer have a formal currency with the rest of the UK. In

response, the First Minister has said that an independent Scotland

would default on its share of the national debt. What would be the

consequences of such a direct was approached towards the people of

Scotland? It is one of the most chilling things that has been said

in this referendum campaign, that a separate Scotland would consider

defaulting on its debt. We know what happens if you do not pay your

debts, nobody will lend you any money unless you pay a punitive

interest rates. We all know what that means for homeowners, much

higher mortgage rates. For businesses, crippling interest

rates. Those are the consequences of what the separatists are proposing.

We need to get that message out loud and clear in the coming days. Fall

of the reasons that have been given, if we were to lose the union, that

would not only be a disaster for Scotland, but a national humiliation

of catastrophic proportions. But hats we have been a bit complacent

up until now. I urge the three party leaders, in the next three weeks, to

drop everything else and stand shoulder to shoulder to fight for

the union that we love and believe in. I think my honourable friend...

Order, please, Mr McNeil, you are a thoroughly decent chap, but you are

a very over excitable individual. You should calm down, you aspire to

be a statesman, try behaving like one! Now, the Prime Minister. I

agree with my honourable friend about the importance of this

referendum, what I would say is that I think the leaders of the parties

in this house have all put aside their differences. And they have

said, in spite of the political differences we have, we all agree

about one thing. Not just that Scotland is better off inside the

United Kingdom but that the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland

inside. Perhaps as well as being leader of the Conservative Party and

Prime Minister, as the member of Parliament for an English seat, I

say on behalf of everyone in England and I believe in Wales and Northern

Ireland, we want Scotland to stay! CHEERING

Prime Minister, we are all very aware of your interest in the Middle

East and particularly Iraq, and since we were last here,

particularly the last 24 hours. Muscle, Christians have been

displaced, threatened with beheading, they have been told,

convert or die. -- in Mosul. Surely we should do more, and there should

be additional sanctions against Isil. We should do everything we can

to protect persecuted minorities including Christians and the

Yazidis. We have been delivering him and Terry on eight through military

assets, through RAF aeroplanes, working with others to make sure

they are protected. As part of that strategy we should work with the

Kurdish and others to make sure that Isil can be beaten back and to make

sure Christians and others are not persecuted. Increasing numbers of

British families are leaving the UK like the family of Ashya King

because they think they will get a fair trial in family courts abroad

rather than here. Should Parliament look at the reasons for this? We do

regularly debate in this house, family law. This government has made

some amendments to family law of the long debates within government and

within this house and it is arguing that there should be further

parliamentary opportunities. There are backbench days and other

opportunities to raise these issues. Given that that they present given

to him from the member for Clacton, how many more birth day surprises is

he expecting from his Tory backbenchers? LAUGHTER

I'm sure I shall be getting allsorts of pleasant surprises on my

birthday! LAUGHTER These do not spoil it by letting me

know what they are! LAUGHTER CHEERING

-- please, do not spoil it by letting me know what they are!

LAUGHTER Scotland is important, many are

concerned that Alex Salmond and the Yes campaign have failed to provide

a plan B issue of currency should Scotland become independent. Does

the Prime Minister agree with me that the voters of Scotland need to

know what plan B is before they vote, and if they cannot get a clear

answer, they should say, no thanks, to separation. My honourable friend

makes a good point, those of us who believe in the United Kingdom can

answer all of these questions, we can answer what the United Kingdom

will look like in the future. Those arguing for separation have not

answered these questions, their most recent effort to say that somehow

Scotland would go one using the pound sterling but not be part of a

monetary union, that got a rebuff yesterday from the European

Commissioner, he said that on that basis, they would not be able to be

members of the European Union. Yet again, another piece of the puzzle

completely falls away. Peter Hain. Isn't the truth that

Isil will not be beaten without air strikes in Syria as well, and that

means engaging, however unpalatable, with the regime in Iran, as well as

the Saudis, and perhaps a route to resolving the bitter and dangerous

Sunni conflicts in the region, because ultimately, Isis poses a

bigger threat to the nations in the region than it does to us. A couple

of points, I respect your views, first of all, I would argue that

brutality Bashar al-Assad has been one of the things that has helped to

generate the appalling regime which is represented by Isis. -- I would

argue that the brutality of Bashar al-Assad. The second thing, what we

want to see, we are consistent across the piece on this, democratic

government, pluralistic and representing all of their people

taking place. We want to see that in Iraq, which is why we support the

Prime Minister in his attempts to build an inclusive government, and

we should support attempts in Syria to have a democratic transition to a

regime which can represent everyone in Syria. Jihadi crimes committed in

the names of this state... BOOING I welcome the plans announced by my

right honourable friend, to seize British passports from dual

nationals and remove rights of residency in the UK from foreign

nationals known to have been fighting with Isil in Iraq and

Syria, to keep such people from committing terrorist atrocities in

the UK. What progress has the government made concerning jihadi 's

with only British citizenship who might insist you and believe have

forfeited their right to return to the UK, even though they may be

rendered stateless and deprived of citizenship. -- have forfeited their

right to return to the UK. -- my constituents believe. News right to

say, people across the country, not just Dudley South, take a basic view

that if you leave this country, you travel to the heart of Iraq, you

declare you are in favour of some so-called Islamic State, and that is

the country you want to be a part of, that you should forfeit

effectively your right to come back. -- he is right to say. People feel

that, they feel it deeply, that is why they should say that we need to

look at this, not just exclude foreign nationals, not just British

citizenship, but those British citizens that make the statements

should be stopped from coming back to this country. Diana Johnson. My

constituent, Christine Nicholson, is trapped in northern Iraq, unable to

travel home. -- Christian. Will you look at his case and see what more

can be done to expedite his return, as well as issuing new travel

documents if necessary? I'm very happy to look at the Honourable

Lady's case and I'm sure that the Secretary will have been listening

to that and let me take the opportunity to commend the work the

Foreign Office commission do, often armed bank, supporting those who get

stuck in different countries and indeed, supporting families whose

loved ones have been taken hostage. We are focused upon Iraq today, but

since I have been Prime Minister, there have been hostages taken in

countries like Nigeria and Somalia. We often do not hear about that

work, because it is better to keep names and identities from the

public. It is very important to know that when this happens, meetings of

COBRA are held. I take a personal interest in each and every one of

these cases to work out what we can do to help bring people home and

resolve dreadful complex situations. Libya is in disturbance, Gaza,

Israel, the appalling illegal annexation of Crimea by a blood and

a Putin, and yet we have not had a proper opportunity to discuss this.

Is it time now for a two-day debate, and before the house rises for the

party conference recess, a full debate to discuss these matters? I

think my honourable friend is right, we live in a very troubled

and difficult world with huge changes taking place, as you have

mentioned, some of the specific areas. In consultation with the

leader of the house, there is going to be a full day 's debate as soon

as next Wednesday, which will give honourable members the chance to

speak about these issues. I'm sure there will be other subsequent

opportunity to look at the specific questions he has raised.

Horrific, vile and disgusting abuse suffered by children in my

constituency should never put have been allowed to happen, the victims

do not have the support they have, the minerals are on the streets.

Child sex exploitation is not just an issue in Rotherham, it is a

national issue. I Would like to commend the

Honourable Lady, she is right to speak in a way that she does, this

has affected not just Rotherham, there was a dreadful place in

Oxford, near to my constituency, of a very similar nature, with similar

failings in the systems. As I have announced, the Home Secretary will

be leading this committee of ministers to draw together the

response, and the announcement of the person who will lead the broader

child abuse enquiry is going to be made in the coming days.

This is vital. We have got to ask a series of questions about how

individual services have failed. There is the issue of whether these

problems were ignored, echoes of concerns about racism and political

correctness, but I also think that there is a big concern that

sometimes, the police and other agencies were ignoring these people,

because they somehow felt they were beyond the pale. That offends all

our senses of human decency, that none of these people, none of these

children should be left behind by the society. Last but not least,

Menzies Campbell. My right honourable friend, will be aware

that often when hostage cases arise, there is a suggestion that

ransom should be paid. Should those who advance that case take account

of the fact that the money achieved by Iran Sim is not distributed among

the impoverished citizens of Gaza, rather, it is used to purchase

weapons, to finance the training and maintenance of those who are willing

to use them, and otherwise to advance the malevolent objectives of

terrorism. -- the money achieved by ransom. There is no doubt in my mind

that the many tens of millions of dollars that Isil have raised from

ransom payments is going into promoting terrorism including

terrorism affecting our own country. At the G8, I launched an initiative

to try to get other countries to sign up to a very clear doctrine

that in the case of terrorist kidnap, no ransom should be paid.

Britain continues with this policy, America continues with this policy,

but we need Juri Ide to make sure that other countries are good to

their word. -- but we need to redouble efforts. So the first Prime

Minister's Questions comes to an end and it was a quiet and sombre

affair. I cannot remember a time when exchanges were heard in such

silence which is only fitting given a British citizen is a risk of being

beheaded in Iraq at the moment. There was largely front bench

unanimity on the situation in the Middle East. A statement of support

from Ed Miliband. Questions about various matters which the Prime

Minister has not yet and said but he said that he would. Ed Miliband is

calling on Britain to use its position on the UN Security Council

to position on the UN Security Council

bring international pressure to bear on this. It did not take us further

forward on any British response to events and -- in Iraq or to help

this country would handle the return of jihad is but the Prime Minister

thought it was permissible to take away the passports of those who had

been fighting for the Islamic State. We come back to that in a minute. --

jihadis. The second issue was Scotland, with MPs on both sides

raising issues for the Prime Minister. What about by the fact the

polls are narrowing and the realisation on the pro union side

that they need to get their act together. The prime Minster made

arguments and he was asked, should all the party leaders not drop

everything for the next two weeks and campaign in Scotland? He thought

it was a good idea to give it up by Verity. He did not suggest himself

and Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg should go to campaign for the union

-- give it a priority. Viewers were commenting on the UK

response to crisis. This set, Cameron and Ed Miliband should be

applauded, a reminder we are stronger united and -- undivided, I

hope Scotland was listening -- this message says. A lot of people are

code that. -- echoed. How about charging jihadis with treason when

they return, they says? David says, if these executioners do have

British passports, we should not prevent them from entering the UK

again, we want them under observation and is not running loose

slitting throats of hostages. And this, both the Prime Minister and Ed

Miliband talked about defeating terrorists, with what? Only

humanitarian aid? They are in a deluded and parallel world, in fear

of something. James, the Prime Minister floated

the idea over the weekend and it was mentioned again that one possible

option would be for those richest citizens, pure natural born British

citizens who have gone to fight for Islamic State, that we would not let

them back in -- British. A number of legal authorities said we could not

get away with that. He said he still thought it was legally promote --

permissible, what do we know? I have been asking, why is the government

thinking this is a possibility? One reason is that the law is not clear.

There is not much case law, there is uncertainty about what the court

would say if it were to be tested. So there is uncertainty. It is not

clear whether you are talking about you when conventions, European,

domestic law. The second point is -- UN conventions. The second point is

that a UN convention said, do not make people stateless. But there are

certain circumstances when a state can render somebody stateless. So if

you have done something seriously prejudicial to your own state. The

question is, does that exception give them some room for manoeuvre?

Or that any areas where you could? -- of their areas. Prime Minster

gave us a clue. -- of any areas. He talked about people who leave the UK

and to pledge allegiance to another country. If we reach a stage where

the caliphate, the Islamic State, is given recognised legal status, that

could become the state to which somebody could be deprived of the

House macro citizenship and told, that is now your state. -- British

citizenship. The Prime Minister believes it is possible. If it was

possible to stop these people coming back in, should we not do that? It

is not possible. I do not know what lawyers he has been talking to, it

is not what David Anderson says and he is that adviser on terrorism. We

had a discussion about the importance of international law, you

cannot pick and choose. Most people watching this would be less

concerned about international law and more concerned these people have

beheaded American and British citizens and that they will come

back and do us harm. Laws do not always keep a safe on the streets of

this country. So if it was possible to prevent these people coming back

in, should we not try to do that? This is a battle between ideologies.

It is a battle to keep our streets safe! We are not to lose our central

ideology will stop the Prime Minister said about the importance

of a rule of law. -- ideology. The rule of law is to keep you pull safe

in our churches, streets, underground, not a UN convention

knows about -- nobody knows about. -- to keep people safe. If they have

pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, why should they be let back

in? We should prosecute these people for treason. If people have been

waging war elsewhere, they should be put on trial in this country. We

cannot have across the world... It is no good for there to be a group

of people who are stateless. It does no good. But they have pledged

allegiance to the Islamic State. If that is what they like, let them

stay. Do not let them back into this country, what is wrong with that?

The Islamic State is not a recognised state. So you are saying

we should start bring up on people's nationality? -- giving got.

Other countries will also do that. When we send back people, people

will say, we are not having them. A lot of people will think, if people

are coming back to bombers, why should they get their nationality

back? -- to one is. I understand, but you cannot make people

stateless. There would be anarchy. Countries would say, I do not like

the look of you, where will they end up? They will be members of the

Islamic State! So you are saying we should chuck out to people we do not

like the look of? They will end up in the Islamic State who will have

nothing to lose but to fight for that. We have not thrown them out,

they went there of their own volition to form a caliphate of my

dear -- of medieval barbarity. Why should we let them back in? I am not

saying anybody wants to let them in or I have any sympathy with it, but

the law is the law. We have been signed up since 1966 and we have

agreed with the rest of the world that you cannot make people

stateless because it is no good for an individual country or the welfare

of the world for people to be stateless. If they were to blow up

their citizens? We will arrest them and prosecute them. That did not

work in 77, some of them were trained in terrorist camps in

Afghanistan and they came and did us harm -- 7/7. We have to gather

evidence and ring them to law because in the end, the law is a

protection for everybody. It is more important and it can protect us and

we must not undermine it I putting out, in my view, putting out

superficial briefings to get a political hit -- by putting out. It

is not sustainable. One final thing, you think it is an affront to human

rights we do not let these people back into this country, but you are

prepared to put them under a form of internal ex-oil -- internal

ex-I'll, which is what your control orders would do. -- eternal Exiles.

Why is that not an affront to human rights but letting them back in is?

If somebody has a British nationality, we cannot and do an

agreement that has stood good for 50 years. It is a compromise that needs

to be made. So you can compromise? Of course, because it is the duty of

a state to protect its citizens. The main way you do that is to have a

respect for the law. Is this now under serious consideration, given

the number of legal authorities, and the voice of the lip -- and the

voice of the coalition parties, that it is not a runner? Thank goodness

and is not attorney general. We need to look at all options. If I can

just finish. We need to do everything we can to protect British

citizens. That is the first duty of any government. If that requires

changing the law, of course we should do that. If that requires

looking into the detail of long-standing international

agreements, we need to do that. But should we explore every option to be

able to keep people who have gone and declared their allegiance to an

international body that likes to think of itself as a state, although

not recognised as a state, and of course we should. Because the

priority for everybody in government has to be to protect British

citizens. Is that difficult? Yes, it may well be difficult, but should it

be seriously considered and not thrown away as an idea? Of course it

should. Has this Government, if you are going to go down that road and

you have heard from Emily the roadblocks in the way, does this

Government have the backbone to take on the British legal establishment,

the European legal establishment and the United Nations legal

establishment? We have made progress in some areas

already, getting rid of Abu Katahdin, four years we were told it

was not possible, legally, and yet Theresa May managed to do it. -- Abu

Qatada. Have you really got the backbone to take on these three

powerful establishment? Have we got the backbone to protect British

citizens on the streets, yes, and we will not be put out by knee jerk

negativism. The most important thing that came out of the queues, the

full support from the Labour leader for the action that we are taking.

He used the phrase... You do not know what you are getting in. White

he said, " that is interesting, Prime Minister, we will look at what

you come up with. He said that he would give the

government his full support, that was much stronger language. My

instinct, it is interesting what you said about the nuances and potential

loopholes and possible ways around, my instinct is that when they look

at this, they will decide, it is actually a melting to hi to climb.

And one reason why, Europe, I hate to mention it. There is a European

dimension to this, there is now a legal concept of EU nationality.

There is a fear that if you render somebody stateless and say they are

no longer a British citizen, they could go to the courts and they

complain they are an EU citizen and by depriving them of British

citizenship, they are deprived of the European Union citizenship and

that is a matter for the European courts. The Germans, the French, the

Spanish, the Italians, they all face the same problems.

Are we eating too much meat? I probably am, and everything else! On

Monday scientists told us we should restrict diets to two portions of

red meat and seven of poultry every week. That is not all.

And that's not all, top boffins estimate greenhouse gases from food

production will go up 80% if meat and dairy consumption continues to

Here's the writer Bryan Appleyard's soapbox.

I'm standing in the middle of a perfectly delicate farm, the kind we

like to think produces all of our food, but that is not usually true,

we often look back on the past with moral revulsion. How could the

Victorians send the poor to the workhouse? How could people in the

1960s, 70s and 80s turned their back on the sexual abuse of children by

celebrities? How will we be found morally disgusting? One way might be

in the treatment of animals. The animals on this farm are well

treated and free to roam, but that is not the case for most of the

animals we eat, they are tortured for their entire lives, living in

near darkness in tiny cages and pens. Overdosed with drugs to make

them grow quickly and they suffer continuous pain as a result. The

quality of the meat produced is appalling. You may think this is sad

but unavoidable. The world population is growing at people need

to be fed. But in fact, factory farming of animals massively reduces

the amount of food available for people. An area the size of Western

Europe is now planted with cereals, to feed these industrially farmed

animals, completely unnecessary. Feeding the cereals to humans would

eliminate all world food shortages. Land is daily stolen from the very

poor to give very low-grade meat to the relatively rich. The only reason

we torture animals to death in factory farms is because the rich of

the world like to eat meat, however bad it is. People in the future will

see this as barbaric. Brian, from the Sunday Times,

joining us now. Looking at solutions, are you advocating that

more people should look at vegetarianism as a real option on a

much broader scale? Or, a lot less meat? Vegetarianism is a red

herring, we are talking about the treatment of animals. It is cruel,

most people who witnessed it are traumatised, and it is also

fantastically inefficient. The conversion of crops to animal food

is at 3% efficiency! We are currently growing an area the size

of Western Europe, just to grow food for the animals. If there was less

demand for the meat, there would not be the call for mega- farms, the bad

treatment of the animals. Could you look at it that way? It would go up

in price, of course, that would cut demand. That is the big problem, it

is the price. Able are demanding cheaper food, we pay less for food

than we did 20, 30 years ago, as my mother always tells me. That is

market failure on a global scale. -- we are demanding cheaper food. Free

market in the developed world -- developing world has shown the way

forward. Do we need to persuade consumers to pay more, is it

possible? One way or another they are going to have two anyway,

because the price is going to go up anyway, because so much land, a lot

of land is being taken for biofuels as well. That is going to happen

anyway. This has been a political problem that is almost completely

insoluble, people demand meet, especially the American diet, the

hamburger, spreading further and further across the world. -- meat. I

cannot imagine why, it is disgusting. You are not in fashion

there. It is a badge of honour, being able to afford meat, it is a

sign that you have joined the middle class, it is a status symbol. I'm

not saying it is simple, just at the moment, the methods of eating, the

diet, what kind of timescale are you talking about in terms of price

rises. -- the methods of eating, the diet, it is catastrophic. What kind

of timescale are you talking about in terms of price rises? It can be

pretty quick, we are racing towards a crash crisis point. What about if

you go on a diet, involved eating a lot of meat. No he is like an

elephant, if you have ever heard of that... They never forget! That was

the only comparison I wanted to say. I'm certainly not doing it right

now. A quick look at what happened to John Bercow, a few minutes ago,

after promised as questions. In light of your statement last Monday,

I would be very grateful if you could clarify something, that is,

the status of the letter that you sent to my right honourable friend,

the Prime Minister... Given that there is a pause, and we cannot

anticipate the outcome of that Paul's, what are you going to do, Mr

Speaker, about the letter? Will you be withdrawing it until after the

polls has been completed and decisions have flown from that, or

will it float around in number ten until a relevant point? Why were the

recruitment consultants prevented from telling the advisory panel

which he referred to that the candidate, Carol Mills, was under

two investigations by the Senate? Is it not the case that the recruitment

consultants did not originally recommend that Carol Mills be

considered? Unfortunately, but fairly predictably, the honourable

gentleman is wrong. He is wrong on both counts. I set out the position

very clearly on Monday afternoon, it was my responsibility and privilege

to respond with courtesy and in detail two points of order on that

occasion, sadly, it was a disadvantage to the house, the

honourable gentleman was not present at that time. If he was, he chose

not to rise to his feet. He has done so now, I have given him an answer.

It is very clear. I think that the house will want to proceed with its

business. That was the speaker, this is all a row about a new clerk of

the house that John Bercow would like to appoint from Australia.

Instead of what MPs think is a collection of very qualified people

within the House of Commons. We can go to College Green. We are joined

by the chairman of the speakers fan club... ! LAUGHTER

Daily Mail columnist, Quentin Letts. Where are we now, where is

this great thing going? PMQ 's went all right for John Bercow. Most of

it was very sombre. It was going on with the foreign affairs. Then there

was the difficult exchange of points of order, John Bercow handle that

extremely badly, you could almost sense his authority wintering like

chicken bones, terrible! Short passage of play for him when he was

being questioned why Conservative backbenchers. He treated them with

scorn and sarcasm and downright rudeness, not the way to do it, I do

not think. He had a bad five minutes. Where do we go from here?

We will go into further detail about how he was trying to nobble the

selection of the new clerk of Parliament. What he was trying to do

was stiff parliament, this is the speaker of the House of Commons,

behaving like this. We will get further into the detail of it. I

suspect in the end he will survive but his authority is in a terrible

state and it is doing nothing for the dignity of Parliament. Sounds

like the police are coming for him or for you, we shall leave it and we

shall let the law take its course! Guess... 2010 is the answer! Press

that big red buzzer! Who has one? Raj from Harrow!

Thank you to all of the guests on the programme, the one o'clock News,

BBC One. I shall be here again tomorrow, as usual, with all of the

big stories of the day. I shall not be joining you, I'm afraid. She's

taking a holiday, but you can count on me! I shall be back on Friday.

Goodbye. about the breeding habits of

Icelandic shellfish is back. OK, OK, it's ACTUALLY about

the warm-beverage preference