03/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles