16/12/2015 Daily Politics

It's the final PMQs of 2015, so all eyes on the House

With both David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn wanting

to give their troops something to cheer about before the Christmas

break, no doubt David Cameron will bring up another drop

in unemployment, down over 100,000 this morning.

The PM's then off to Brussels, where he'll be attending a dinner

Britain's membership of the European Union.

We'll be asking if Prince Charles should be given access

to confidential documents so that he's properly briefed.

And there's another reason to stay tuned because we'll be giving away

a special edition festive Daily Politics mug.

Yes, the season of goodwill is upon us.

We've even dusted off the Daily Politics Christmas tree

to add a bit of festive cheer to proceedings.

With us for the duration, we've bagged two of Santa's little elves.

In charge of children this Christmas - that's a tough job -

And in charge of Santa's grotto, the Shadow Housing Minister,

MPs will decide today whether fracking should be allowed

under National Parks and other protected sites.

Campaigners have accused the Government of a U-turn after it

promised an outright ban on fracking in environmentally sensitive areas.

Earlier, I talked to the Liberal Democrat leader,

I asked him since the regulations governing fracking won't see it

happening in the National Parks, what's the problem? The point is it

will start close to National Parks. The fact it is happening underneath

them would be a huge reputational risk when it comes to the marketing

and promotion of Britain's most significant National Parks. I'm

bound to have an interest in this given that two of them are in my

patch, but across the country it will be problematic. I have to say

it also comes on the back of a couple of weeks ago, the Government

ending the carbon capture and storage programme. That is the

programme which made to some people at least shale gas tolerable. The

reality is that shale gas without carbon capture and storage is not a

long-term runner, either environmentally or in a business

sense. What we are seeing today is the kind of landscape issue, issue

that will be damaging to the visual landscape, and indeed to our

National Parks' integrity. The government proposal would not

destroy or spoil the aesthetics of the landscape in the way you've

described. National Parks. Begin at a wall, generally speaking they

evolve. You drive up the M6and up to my constituency and it is not urban

sprawl and suddenly appears Windermere. It is beautiful

mountains, hills and lakes and beautiful landscape. And then the

National Park begins. And it gets even more beautiful, dare I say.

Doing this a kilometre outside a National Park is pretty outrageous.

We're not just talking about National Parks, areas of outstanding

beauty, allsorts of sites that are culturally all visually, or in terms

of biodiversity significant. This is damaging to our natural environment.

It also comes on the back of the government undermining the business

and environmental case for shale gas and I will vote against it. I take

the point about carbon capture, but are you not persuaded by the

chairman of the task force on shale gas Chris Smith who said it could

cut reliance on coal and reduce emissions. He also said since the

ending of the carbon capture and storage scheme that that is not the

case now and we are in a situation where shale gas's attractiveness

from an energy point of view and indeed from an environmental point

of view has been completely dismantled by George Osborne's

removal of the funding for carbon capture and storage. It is very

clear that it was thought that shale gas was potentially a less damaging

fossil fuel than some of the ones we are using. Without cc yes it's in

the same place and it's not a long-term bet. Any business person

thinking to make a long-term investment in shale gas would not

sensibly do that now. -- CCS. Amber Rudd told the House of Commons

there would be an outright ban on fracking in National Parks, sites of

special interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. What has

happened? Strategically we are in the same place. We believe that

shale gas is a bridge to a low carbon future. It's going to make

sure we have more secure imagery and be great for the economy. -- secure

energy. What has happened to the outright ban? There will be no

fracking under National Parks as a result of the regulars and is we are

voting on in Parliament today. They will be close to National Parks. --

regulations. We're making it very clear, rather than scaremongering

Tim Farron is trying to engineer. There will be no fracking under

National Parks. Strategically we are in the same place and this is good

news in terms of having a secure energy future. Has this ban been

overturned? Has this been a U-turn? Tim Farron has had a lapse of

memory, it was Amber Rudd who wanted to do what the Government is now

doing. They were only stopped by Letta, making sure legislation was

changed to put the proper safeguards for the environment in. Personally

I'm not against fracking in principle -- Labour's. As long as

you have Ian Brown mental safeguards. There should be no

fracking in or under National Parks. We debated that in January and it

should not be changed. So in that sense this is an about turn Aggers

there will be fracking near National Parks, and the way Tim Farron has

described it, you are going to see evidence of drilling when driving

towards areas of outstanding natural beauty. I have a constituency that

has areas of outstanding natural beauty. We will have in this country

the best environmental safeguards around fracking and the extraction

of CO2 gas. That should give comfort there will be no fracking under

National Parks. We will take the best safeguards to make sure the

environment is protected. You have axed funding for carbon capture and

storage technology which was seen as crucial for building a shale gas

industry that would be acceptable. You are clueless and confused on

energy policy. You have not got carbon capture and storage policy

under way and kicking the legs from underneath the solar industry.

Clueless and confused? The Labour Party wants it both ways, on the one

hand they say they support the bridge to the low carbon future, but

on the other hand they are trying to vote against this, which is about an

outright ban. This is carbon energy, you want to give the green light the

full go-ahead to fracking in the week that the last coal mine in

Britain closes on Friday. Are you in favour of fracking? I said earlier

on I'm happy to see fracking some honest there is sufficient... You

have not put the proper safeguards in place. What safeguards do you

want? You have not put in place yet the sort of rewards that have to

come to the areas that have to put up with fracking in the future.

Let's deal with carbon capture. Why would you axed the funding for

carbon capture and storage technology if you want to go ahead

with fracking and creating a shale industry? The most important thing,

as I said, is we have the best environmental regulations that we

can have. That is where we will end up. Strategically we are in the

right place as we should be. I have not heard from the opposition

parties anything other than the usual scaremongering over how to go

ahead with building this energy security future. There is a panic by

the government, faced by the National Grid last month telling

industry users to scale back what they are using because they are

worried about the lights going out, not having enough power in the

country because you haven't got a clear enough plan or the investment

to get the new energy generation online. That's the real problem.

In just a few minutes, it'll be the final PMQs of 2015.

Doesn't time fly when you're having fun.

And don't panic if you don't feel up to political speed -

maybe you've been aboard the Space Station for the last 12

months and have only just landed back on Planet Earth.

As a special treat, our JoCo here has the Daily Politics review

I liked that introduction. It's the most sought-after stocking filler of

the season, The Daily Politics review of 2015.

Remember January - David Cameron and Nick Clegg

were still running the country together but revving up

The polls pointed towards a hung parliament -

It was the Conservatives who emerged with the overall

The Lib Dems were reduced to a rump of just eight MPs.

Nicola Sturgeon's tartan army conquered Scotland.

Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage all resigned,

although the Ukip leader later un-resigned.

And the surprises kept coming after the election,

as backbench outsider Jeremy Corbyn swept to victory

And since then, the Government has made some big decisions.

They decided to cut tax credits, only to be pushed into a U-turn

They decided not to make a decision on expanding Heathrow Airport.

And it's been a year of Euro headaches for David Cameron,

as he's struggled to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU.

He's off to Brussels tomorrow for the final European Council

Let's talk about Europe since there is a big summit meeting coming up

tomorrow. Sam Gyimah, clarify what is the status of the Government

demand that there should be a four year curb on in work benefits for

migrants, where are we with that? It is still very much a demand, still

very much on the table for negotiation. The Prime Minister is

at a meeting tomorrow in Brussels to talk about this but that's not going

to be the final showdown as it were. There is another in February. I know

that. It is contrary to rumours and very much on the agenda as the Prime

Minister said in his letter to Donald Tusk only in November that

using this as a way to curb migration is very much a key part of

the renegotiation plan. And if looks likely you don't get that, as Poland

has said it won't go along with it, as have others, but Poland in

particular, what will you do? Let's be clear what we are asking for. We

are asking 4-for years before migrants are entitled to benefits.

We think that is ambitious but realistic. If you don't get that

what would you do? I'm quite confident that in the spirit of

negotiations Poland has said no. If Poland says no that's the end of it.

We have not finished negotiating. If Poland says no, as have others, you

don't get it. Do you say, that is a deal-breaker? Or do you fall back to

something else? As has been said this morning there is going to be

known to the meetings tomorrow. This will be raised, this is the only

thing on the menu. I'm confident the Prime Minister will be able to

deliver an outcome. If he doesn't what is the fallback? The big thing

for all of us, MPs and the public, at the end of this there will be an

in-out referendum and we can make up our minds. I understand that, you

are playing for time. Back to the question, if you don't get the four

year curb what is the fallback position? What would be acceptable?

We have stated it is something we are going to be negotiating for very

hard. You don't have a fallback position? The Prime Minister will

negotiate, I'm not going to second-guess the Prime Minister in

an a TV studio. Prime Minister said he was fixable on the issue. If

someone comes up with another way of achieving it, obviously we would

look at it. Curbing migration by looking at a pull factors is very

much a part of our renegotiation plan. And one alternative that has

been raised is what has been called an emergency brake, that there will

be times when governments, because of the substantial influx of

immigration, you could say, hold on there are too many coming in to cope

with at the moment from elsewhere in the EU and we will put an emergency

brake on it for a time-limited period. Would you accept that if

that brake could only be committed with Brussels's approval that would

not be acceptable -- only be permitted. I've stated what our

objective is, if someone can come up with another way of achieving it we

should look at it. I'm looking at one, emergency brake has been a

possible fallback position, it has been mooted in Brussels and talked

about. If a British government could only put the brake on with the

approval of Brussels, would that be acceptable? I don't want to answer

hypothetical questions, you can come up with four, five, six hypothetical

questions about what if, what if, but what is clear is we have stated

our position and the Prime Minister is still in negotiations and we

should allow him to finish. What economic evidence and research

evidence can you produce that shows that even if you got the four year

curb on migrant benefits that it would have more than a marginal

impact on immigration? I don't think it is just a question of economic

benefit, it's a question of what the British people want. I was saying

what economic research evidence is there that even if you got what

you're for it would have any noticeable impact on EU migration to

this country? What I think about as an MP is to reflect what my

constituents want. I'm not asking about your constituents. That's

fine, that is important to you but I'm looking at the substance of the

issue, regardless of what anybody wants. Is there any published

evidence that shows that this would have a material impact on numbers

coming to this country? The point is as a point of principle saying that

people should contribute before they can access... Let's say you are

right on the principle, can access... Let's say you are

evidence it would have the impact you think it would have? I think it

is something we should be looking to do if the British public want that.

This is not about arguing the toss between economists, this is about

going into a negotiation and reflecting what the British people

want, in terms of a reformed European Union. So you have put out

the centre piece of jewellery negotiation strategy and issue on

which you cannot cite a single piece of research, which shows it would

have an impact? We have put out a centrepiece of our negotiation

strategy what the British people want, action on immigration, an end

to an ever closer union... But you cannot cite to me what impact it

would have because there has been worked on it at. I am sure there

will be one piece of evidence the other would-be -- the other way. You

don't know whether it has an impact or not? Is there any negotiation in

history where you have made a major demand and you have no idea what the

impact, even if you got your way, would be? You know that it is one of

four demands, firstly a stop to an ever closer union, I think that is a

big demand, making sure that not being part of the Euro we are not

penalised, that is a big demand, competitiveness is a big demand and

ultimately the referendum will be about our future prosperity in 50 to

100 years' time, so it is not the only plan. Brussels is launching

this idea of a paramilitary border force, which could going to

countries and man the border is whether the southern state once it

or not, are you in favour of that? I have no idea of whether it will work

or not. It is a new idea, think it is a measure of how desperate they

are to try and do something to do with the huge flows. The real action

that is required is to try and stop some of these flows of migrants at

source. That is a long-term plan. I come back to this issue, there will

be a 2500 border force, a German idea, it will be equipped with

helicopters, they will be armed, they will have droned, coastal boats

and they could go in for example to Greece where a lot are coming,

whether the Greek government asks for it or not. Are you in favour of

it? They have been talking about doing this and Britain has tried to

be a part of it to stop smugglers from northern Africa, it seems to me

a sound idea. It is a sound idea. In the end, it won't work unless we

deal with some of the root problems of why a lot of the refugees... I

understand, nutrient you come up with how to do that now, it would

take a long way to see. Nobody can wave a magic wand over the troubles

in the Middle East. Should Britain be part of this border force? I

don't we have an obligation to be part of it. I know, but should we?

Since you are asking me, we are debating this the first time, we

have no obligation, we are not part of the Schengen agreement. If we

want to make a contribution as good members of the European Union, the

government should consider that. Should we? Identity we should be.

Our main alliance in terms of border security is with Nato and I think it

should remain so. The Prime Minister has said we will take part in it. I

think in terms of where we are, we are out of Schengen, and if Schengen

countries want to operate in a certain way to send a border force

to Greece, that is up to them. In terms of our security and Borders

sits with Nato, in terms of our security we have more control over

our borders. Andrew, forgive me, in a way this is all detail. The

serious thing is we who we are a mess over the negotiations. At the

moment the lead ship of the argument for Britain's place in Europe is

going by default. It should be led by David Cameron and he is not doing

it. Now should the heir to the throne be

given access to confidential documents so that he's

properly briefed? Well, a Freedom of Information

request from the campaign group Republic has found out that that's

exactly what is happening. And they're not best

pleased about it. They've even dubbed Prince Charles

"essentially a minister Let's talk now to their chief

executive Graham Smith. Caucus to your campaign to get the

information released. It is a fairly routine Freedom of information

request -- talk us through your campaign. While Cabinet members

tried to resist disclosure of what is called the precedent but,

essentially the manual for the Cabinet on how they manage the

Cabinet and deal with Cabinet papers, and buried in that document,

and they have only released first four chapters so far, buried in that

is this revelation that as is routine, all papers are sent to

Prince Charles. Is it a great revelation? The Queen gets this

information as head of state, he is the heir to the throne, so will

people be that surprised, will they care? I think there are a number of

problems, because firstly Charles is not the head of state, even the

monarchy's own website says he has no constitutional position as such.

He is covered by very privileged secrecy laws, completely exempt from

Freedom of information commie has unique access not only the ministers

but also to all of their Cabinet papers, and we know that he wants to

lobby ministers to change public policy on a range of different

issues. You say you know that, hang on, give me some examples of where

policy has changed, if you know it, as a result of his interference? One

other very quick point and then I will come onto those examples. We

also believe there is reason to believe that he also influences laws

to affect his own interests as Duke of Cornwall. A lot of the course,

there are still a lot of publicity around the monarchy. According to

the Guardian, we know that he is lobbying ministers, we know from

former ministers that have spoken to the BBC last year that he is seeking

to change public policy. Very difficult to pinpoint specific

policies that are under change because it is all under wraps. As

you said, you made a claim that he has influenced policies that

directly affect him and the sovereign, but a statement from

Buckingham Palace on the matter, he has not affected any. If you believe

that statement, they have not turned down anything come in terms of Bill

or legislation. Bedene two because what happens is the Duke of

Cornwall, Prince Charles, is able to directly influence the legislation

process at the very early stages of those discussions, and that is why

there is a long list of laws that specifically exempt or privilege the

Duchy of Cornwall on whether it is land ownership, planning,

environmental protection, a whole host of laws that give them specific

privileges for which there is no legitimate reason. So clearly there

are some influence going on behind closed doors.

Thank you berry much. Your reaction, is it regrettable that this has been

made public? I think it is much do about nothing, it is long

established practice that the Queen as head of state... Yes, the Queen.

And in this case the heir to the throne does do, and I think that is

a long established practice and I don't see the problem. Are you

pleased it has been made public? It is good it has been made public,

personally I can see little justification for this but little

harm in it as well. Should Prince Charles have access? I can see

little harm in it, the question comes when he actively uses his

access to influence particular policies, and this is why Freedom of

Information Act and provision is so important, and I would be against

watering them down as your government now wants to do.

Now, have you finished all your Christmas shopping?

Still struggling with what to get that special person in your life?

It's OK, JoCo - I've already got your magnum of sparkling

Of course, if you're stuck, there's always the special gift that

And this week we have a special one-off Christmas edition.

This little number could be worth zillions on eBay come the New Year.

But that's not all we're giving away today, oh no.

We're also giving our lucky winner the number one best-seller

And, to see how it works, John and Sam have one too.

If you get bored during PMQs, you know what to do.

To win this mug though, and that book, first you'll have

MUSIC We can never be free in Brent until South Africa is free too.

The world is watching, and we have got something to show them.

To be in with a chance of winning this Christmas Daily Politics mug

and the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book, send your answer

to our special quiz email address - that's [email protected].

Entries must arrive by 12.30pm today, and you can see the full

terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website -

Generous, aren't we? It is not like you have anything else to do, just

read the terms and conditions! LAUGHTER

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 - Laura Kuenssberg is here.

Let's talk about the European summit coming up tomorrow night, the big

dinner. What do you know? You know what has been really interesting to

me in the last 24 hours, obviously we have been trying to talk to

people close to what is going on, there is a sense to me that there is

almost a set of nerves that the domestic political situation, David

Cameron has put himself on this book over this benefit promise, but the

rest of the negotiations, there has been progress. They are not done,

signed off or sealed. The Europe Minister David Liddington said the

technical talks are complete, but it is my understanding that is a

technical interpretation of where things are out. Yes, there is sound

and fury around the benefits issue because the public rightly cares

about it. One of the tangible issues as well. Indeed, and it was in the

Conservative manifesto. For Eurosceptics it is an ideal stick to

knock David Cameron around the head with, but there is from, sessions I

have had with people, a bit of concern that most people would say

countries within the Euro and outside the Euro, big fundamental

economic questions about how that works for the next ten, 20, 30, 50

years, and that is not quite getting the political bandwidth that maybe

it deserves. There has been progress there but it is not done. But it

also cannot be fully answered, because we know that the German

Chancellor and the French president want to move to a more integrated

Eurozone, but they are not going to do so before either of their

elections in 2017. Until we see the nature of the Eurozone it is hard to

find the relationship between the Eurozone and the rest of us.

Absolutely, this is all like juggling water. There are so many

machinations, and not only just the number of countries involved, not

only the number of issues involved, not only the fact that EU regulation

and law as it exists is already showing competitive but there is a

juju amount of crystal ball gazing. The number of potential machinations

are strawberry. Also of course in a negotiation process we might find

that one bit in one of the hideously named baskets gets exchanged for

another bit that is in one of the other hideously named baskets.

Basket swap! Maybe that is the new thing the 2016. We heard political

cross trussing, maybe baskets swapping will be the next thing. The

complexities of this are enormous. How far they get in benefits is not

the best representation of where this debate is and it is very fluid.

But the political focus, that is right there, and there is a huge

guessing game going on as to where we will get in all of that. Have you

had any guidance as to what the Prime Minister hopes to achieve at

this dinner? The big thing for Downing Street it is it is political

momentum. Officials have been working very hard trying to get some

things on all of these issues and there has been some progress. The

technical official bit has gone as far as you can go before the bosses

say actually I will agree to that bit. You sort out the

technicalities. Wren what David Cameron is trying to do the next 24

to 36 hours is create a sense of political momentum that can unblock

the difficult logjams on this. If you think each lido will have in

front of them a sort of menu of options, as many as ten options I

understand in each of the different four categories. So that is 40. That

is a long night. That will give me something to say in the next couple

of days, 40 different things, and they will sort of essentially agree,

or start to agree a pick and mix. I see. So I could do that bit about I

couldn't do that bit, but there are shreds of information coming out

here and there, a good source in the European council yesterday suggested

to me that a six-month benefit ban was a starting point. We will now go

over to the final Prime Minister's Questions of 2015. Here is the Prime

Minister. We all watched his exciting take-off

yesterday and is the first Briton to visit the International Space

Station it signals a landmark in this country's involvement in space

exploration. I'm proud the government took the decision to fund

it and we wish him the best of luck. This morning I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this

House I will have further such meetings later today. Richard

Graham. I welcome today's falling on a month the -- unemployment.

Stalking is a horrible crime. AGP in Gloucester and resident in

Cheltenham was harassed for several years by a stalker who slashed her

tyres, hacked her water pipe, cut off her gas and put via items in her

letterbox. She and her family suffered. The judge said if he could

give more than the maximum five years he would have done. My

honourable friend for Cheltenham has raised sentencing guidelines with

the Justice Secretary. Would my Right Honourable friend the Prime

Minister today give his support for greater flex ability where it is

clear a stalker is a real menace? -- flexible itty. I agree with my

honourable friend that stalking is a terrible crime. We have introduced

to Muqrin you stalking offences during this parliament and I will

make sure the honourable member for Cheltenham has his meeting with my

Right Honourable friend the Justice Secretary. I cannot comment on the

case without looking at it in more detail but we are taking the

necessary action and will continue to do so. On unemployment I'm sure

the whole house will want to welcome the fact there are half a million

more people in work in our country in the last year alone. We have had

wages growing above inflation every month for a year. The claimant count

is at the lowest level since 1975. I'm sure this will be welcomed right

across the House. SPEAKER: Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I start by wishing you, and all Members of

the House and all of the staff here and major Tim Peake, who is not on

the planet at this time... LAUGHTER

A very happy Christmas and a peaceful New Year.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the number of days that

patients are being kept in hospital because there is nowhere safe to

discharge them to has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. On

the 4th of November I asked him if he could guarantee there would be no

winter crisis in the NHS this winter. He didn't answer then, I

wonder if he would help us with an answer today.

First of all let me join the Right Honourable gentleman and be clear I

don't want to wish him the season's greetings, I want a full happy

Christmas for the Right Honourable gentleman and everyone in the House.

He asked specifically about the NHS and let me answer specifically about

the NHS. The average stay in hospital has fallen since I became

Prime Minister from five and a half days, to five days. One of the

reasons for that is we kept our promise is on the NHS, we put an

extra 12 billion in in the last Parliament and we will be putting

?19 billion in cash terms in the NHS in this Parliament. Jeremy Corbyn.

Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I did say happy Christmas. But maybe

the Prime Minister wasn't listening at the time. As always! If he is so

happy about the state of the national health service, could he

explain why he's decided to cancel the publication of NHS performance

data this winter? There was a time when the primers to was all in

favour of transparency. It's not that long ago. In fact, it was 2011

when he said," Information is power, it lets people hold the powerful to

account, giving them the tools they need to take on politicians and

bureaucrats. Is it because the number of people who have been kept

waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency has gone up fourfold that

he doesn't want to publish these statistics?

First of all, the data he quoted in his first question was not published

before this government came to office. That's right! And let me

quote him some data about the NHS: let me take an average day today

compared with five years ago when I became Prime Minister. On an average

day in the NHS today there 4400 more operations. There are 21,000 more

outpatient appointments. Yes, there are challenges in a any but there

are 2100 more people seen within four hours today than five years ago

-- challenges in A There is more data published in our NHS and there

ever was under Labour. Mr Speaker, there are huge pressures

on the NHS and they are largely due to the pressures on the adult care

system which is under enormous pressure at the moment but there has

been huge cuts in adult social care because of cuts in local government

funding. The NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens has called for a

radical upgrade in prevention of public health. With the Prime

Minister agree with me that cutting these crucial services is indeed a

false economy? First of all, we are increasing the

money that is able to go into social care by having the 2% precept on the

council tax so that local councils can spend more. But I notice that

the Right Honourable gentleman mentioned Simon Stevens, our NHS

plan is Simon Stevens's plan, the NHS for the first time got together

and wrote their plan. They asked us for ?1 billion, we are committed to

the plan, unlike Labour in the last election and we funded it upfront

and that is why we see a bigger and better NHS -- ?8 billion. None of

this would be possible, including the action on social care we are

taking with the Better Care Fund, none of it would be possible without

the growing economy we have and the more jobs being created.

Mr Speaker, the problem is to do with adult social care for stop this

morning the NHS Confederation said on BBC Radio 4, and I quote, "Cuts

to social care and public health will continue to pile more pressure

on hospital and will worsen deficits in the acute sector." What was

announced on social care in the Autumn Statement falls well short of

what was needed. The health foundation estimates a funding

shortfall of 6 billion will be in place by 2020. How is the Government

planning to me that shortfall? I'm glad the Right Honourable

gentleman listens to the Today problem, he might bother to go on it

one day. A bit of cans bouncy would be welcome. If he wants to swap

quotations -- transparency. This is what the chairman of the Local

Government Association says, the Local Government Association has

long called for further put civility in the setting of council tax, and

today's announcement will go some way to allowing a number of councils

to raise the money needed. -- flexible at evil stop 1.5 billion

more in the Better Care Fund announced today is good news. It is

this government that funded the NHS, they didn't, it is this government

that set up the Better Care Fund, they opposed it, this government at

the strong and growing economy, and I note that question four and still

but they welcome for the unemployment figures.

Mr Speaker, the issue of adult social care and cuts in local

government spending are very much the responsibility of central

government. Can he confirmed that NHS trusts are forecasting a deficit

of 2.2 billion this year, and indeed I understand that the Prime Minister

as part of the Oxford anti-austerities movement will be

concerned about this, but his own local health care trust is

predicting a 1.7 million deficit. There is a problem of NHS funding.

Has he forgotten the simple maxim that prevention is cheaper and

better than cure? How can he possibly complain about

NHS funding when his party didn't commit to fund the Stevens plan? We

are spending ?19 billion more on the NHS, money that wouldn't be

available if we'd listened to the Labour Party. He says that social

care is a responsibility of government. Everything is a

responsibility of government, but in fact it is local councils that

decide how much to spend on social careful stop with the Better Care

Fund they have more to spend. But I challenge him again, how do we pay

for the NHS? We pay for it by more growth, more jobs and more people

having a livelihood. Is he going to welcome back at Christmas time, or

doesn't he care about the reduction in unemployment? SPEAKER: Jeremy

Corbyn. Mr Speaker, I have a question from

Abby. Abby wants to train to be a midwife and she says, I'm 28 years

old, this year I left my successful career to go back into university to

retrain as a midwife. I already have a debt of 25,000 from my first

degree, well over half of my cohort have studied a first degree in

another subject and many of my fellow colleagues have children and

partners with elderly parents and mortgages. Many people were put off

by the lack of financial support and massive debts. In the spirit of

Christmas, will the Prime Minister have a word with his friend the

Chancellor who is sitting next to him, it could be done very quickly,

to reverse the cuts in the nurse bursary scheme so that we do get

people like Abby training to be midwives which will help all of us

in the future? First of all I want Abby to train as

a midwife and I can guarantee the funding will be there for her

training. There are thousands more midwives operating in the NHS today

than when I became Prime Minister. He mentions the question of nurse

bursary is. The truth is today two out of three people who want to

become nurses can't do that because of the constraints on the system and

our new system will mean many more doctors and many more nurses.

Already we have got 10,000 more doctors in the NHS since I became

Prime Minister and 4500 more nurses. At all of this is happening, Mr

Speaker, because the economy is growing, because the deficit is

falling, unemployment is coming down, you could fill up a tank of

gas at less than ?1 a litre, wages are going up, Britain is getting

stronger as we go into Christmas because our economy is getting

stronger too. Anne-Marie Drozdz thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday

colleagues from across the House formed the Armed Forces covenant

scrutinising the support of the government's fulfilment of support

to servicemen and their families. With the primaries to join me in

praising the bravery of With the primaries to join me in

Forces especially in my constituency at this festive time when many are

separated from their loved ones. And can he reaffirmed his personal

commitment to the House for delivering his Armed Forces Covenant

in practice and in full? I thank my honourable friend for her question.

It is right, as all of us get ready to spend time with our families this

Christmas there will be many in the brave armed services who will not be

able to because they are serving abroad or at home. We should wish

them the very best as Christmas comes. In terms of the military

covenant it is one of the things I'm proudest of that we did in the last

five years, putting that into law, and every year adding to the

military covenant, giving veterans priority in health care, increasing

funding for veterans' mental health service, prioritise and school

places for children. Every year we've made progress on the Armed

Forces Covenant and every year I stand at this dispatch box and will

continue to do so. Angus Robertson. The Prime Minister will meet shortly

with heads of state and governments of the European Union. Will he heed

the advice of John Major and stop flirting with leaving the European

Union, which would be in his words very dangerous and against our

national interest? I will be getting the best deal for Britain. That is

what we should be doing. This government was the first to cut the

EU budget and veto a treaty and bring back substantial powers to

Britain. We have a great record on Europe and will get a good deal for

Britain. We were reminded that there is a very strong majority in

Scotland to remain within the EU. The Prime Minister has failed, I

know his side doesn't like to hear it, but he has failed to give any

guarantees that Scotland won't be forced out of the EU by the rest of

the UK. Does he have any idea of the consequences of taking Scotland out

of the EU against the wishes of voters in Scotland? This is a United

Kingdom and this is a UK issue. I would say to him, why is he so

frightened of listening to the people and holding this historic

referendum, passed through both of these houses in the last week. Get a

good deal for Britain and trust the people. The Prime Minister has

visited RAF Waddington in my constituency and would wish all the

service personnel and their family well as they carry out operations

throughout the Christmas period. Given we are now conducting air

strikes over Syria, why is our country now not at the highest level

of threat? Let me join him in praising those at RAF Waddington who

are doing such a vital work. As he will know, the threat level is set

in this country not by politicians but by the joint terrorism

assessment centre. They set it at severe, the second-highest level. I

confirm what I said on 26 November, the UK is in the top level of

countries threatened by Daisy Makro. The highest level is that we believe

an attack is imminent. But that would be for JATAC to set and not

ministers. Last night, Donald Trump reiterated that one of the

communities would not be allowed into America because of religion,

seemingly unaware of how divisive this is. We have legislation that

stops people entering the country if it is not believed to be in the

public good. Should we be making exceptions for billionaire

politicians? Let me join the honourable lady in being proud of

representing a country which I think has some claim to say we are one of

the most successful multiracial, multi-faith, multiethnic countries

anywhere in the world. There is more to do to bring opportunity and fight

discrimination. I think it is right that we exclude people if they are

going to radicalise and encourage extremism. I disagree about Donald

Trump. I think his remarks are divisive, stupid and wrong. If he

came to our country, it would unite as all against him. By the time the

house next meets, many people will have started their New Year 's

resolutions. For many that will be to give up smoking. Given that

Public Health England has recently stated that e-cigarettes are 95%

safer than tobacco and half of the population is unaware of that, will

he highlight the role that e-cigarettes can play in helping

people give up tobacco? As somebody who has been through this battle a

number of times, eventually relatively successfully, lots of

people find different ways of doing it. For many e-cigarettes are

successful. We need to be guided by the experts. We should be looking at

Public Health England. It is promising to see that 1 million

people are estimated to have used e-cigarettes to help them quit. We

should be making clear that this is a very legitimate path for many

people to improve their health and the health of the nation. During the

referendum, the Prime Minister pledged to deliver carbon capture

and storage at Peterhead, reiterated in the Tory manifesto. On the eve of

the Paris climate talks, he pulled the plug. Which is the greatest

betrayal, of Scotland, of the manifesto or of the entire planet?

The greatest success is the Paris climate change talks. I would like

to pay tribute to the Secretary of State who was one of the key

negotiators who helped deliver this global goal which is so much better

than Copenhagen and better even than Kyoto. On carbon capture and

storage, in government you have to make tough choices and decisions

about technology that works and technology that isn't working. We

are spending the money on innovation and energy storage, an small nuclear

reactors and other things, energy heat systems for local communities

that will make a difference. We made the right choice. This Friday,

sadly, sees the closure of Britain's deep coal mine in my constituency.

Will my right honourable friend join me in thanking the hundreds of

workers who will be working there final shift this Friday. Also,

praise the thousands of workers whose bravery and hard graft over 50

years has helped warm our homes, power factories and keep our lights

on? I think my honourable friend speaks very strongly for his

constituents. I join him in thanking people who've worked so hard at that

mine and elsewhere. It is a difficult time. As part of the

closure process we have ?80 million to ensure that the miners received

the same package as the recently closed mine at Busby. Can I just

tell the honourable members opposite, this is the official

policy of the Labour Party. We must take action to keep fossil fuels in

the ground. That is their policy. We have also seen they have a policy of

reopening, is. Are they going to open a big Colin the ground and sit

there and do nothing? What a metaphor for the leadership of his

party? -- to open a big hole in the ground. Alison Pulis. The Prime

Minister promised during the election campaign that he would not

restrict child benefit to to children. Not only has he reneges on

that, he has been asked a number of time and has not been able to

explain how he will do this. Will he dropped this and the rape laws?

There is no question that anyone who has a child through rate losing

their benefit at all. Is my right honourable friend aware

that thanks to the Chancellor's detection of the police budget, 108

more police officers are being recruited to protect the people of

Hampshire. While there is more to do in tackling crime in Rowell areas,

would he agree that this is an important step in prioritising the

front line and the Home Office and Hampshire Constabulary have made

real progress in making our police more effective and resilient? It was

the right decision to make sure we have this

the right decision to make sure we By the end of the spending

settlement it is an increase of ?900 million in cash terms by 2020. I am

delighted there will be more officers on the street in Hampshire.

You cannot find the NHS, the Home Office, the police unless you have a

growing economy with more jobs and people paying taxes. A strong and

stable economy. That is what is happening in Britain today. In his

farewell speech, the outgoing director of the British museum said,

the British Museum is perhaps the noblest dream that Parliament has

ever dreamt. A collection free to all, native or foreign, where every

citizen has the right to information and were all enquiry will be outside

political control. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership

working with museums and like those in Birmingham, will not happen

unless museums and galleries continue to be funded properly? Let

me join her in paying tribute to the British Museum, a jewel in the

cultural crown, and also to Neil MacGregor, who gave it such

extraordinary leadership. Given her heritage, she might be amused by the

fact that when they took that brilliant exhibition on Germany, I

took Angela Merkel, and later on they poached Neil MacGregor to look

after their museums. I do want to see the British Museum Comp Lea to

all of its partnerships, not just across the united kingdom and also

internationally. She will have seen in the Autumn Statement that they

got a funding settlement with which they were rightly pleased. According

to Oxfam, the UK has donated a generous 229% of its fair share of

aid in support of Syrian refugees. The highest proportion of the G8.

Worldwide, only 44% of what is needed has been donated. Does the

Prime Minister agree that it is critical that other countries step

up to the plate as the UK has more than done? Would he update the house

on progress in support of Syrian refugees? I agree with my honourable

friend. Written is doing its moral duty in terms of funding refugee

camps. We are holding a conference bringing the world together to make

sure there is more funding in future. In terms of the number of

refugees we have resettled, I promise to resettle 1000 by

Christmas. I can confirm today that we have met our commitment. The

charter flights arrived yesterday at Stansted and Belfast meaning that

over 1000 have been settled. Another flight is coming today. We're making

sure that these people get health care and education and I want to

thank all those who have worked so far, including the right honourable

member for Watford, because I said Britain would do its duty and with

these 1000 we have made a good start. Three years ago, the Prime

Minister couldn't have been clearer, his EU renegotiation would mean

retaining control over social and employment law, is he still seeking

that? I always find it hard to satisfy the honourable gentleman. He

joined the Conservative Party when we weren't committed to a referendum

and left after we had committed. I'm not surprised that he is giving his

new boss as much trouble as he gave me. With that, I wish them both a

very festive Christmas. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The triumphant Star Wars

saga began life at Elstree Studios in my constituency. It continues to

produce hits... SPEAKER: the honourable gentleman is banging on

eloquently about Star Wars and I want to hear it. Will the Prime

Minister join me in pledging support to the thriving film industry making

such a valuable social and economic contribution in my constituency and

across the United Kingdom? He raises an important point. This is not only

very exciting for children and parents who are looking forward to

this film but it is being made in Britain with many British actors and

technicians showing the strength of the British film industry. Also,

backed by the British government and taxpayers with excellent resources.

Let me say, as I have worked with him in so many ways, I know that he

will never join the dark side. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Resign! Despite

ongoing efforts of the Scottish steel task force, my constituents

are starting to receive redundancy notices. Will the Prime Minister put

pressure on the EU now to reach a quick decision on permitting the PII

compensation scheme and if this permission is granted, will be also

commit to implement the scheme as soon as possible to provide

breathing space for our steel sector and to give hope for my constituents

this Christmas? The honourable lady is absolutely right to raise this.

We are working hard to try and get the energy in sensitive industries

plan, firmed. As soon at is cleared, money will be available for British

still making companies. We expect this to be in place no later than

April 2017 but it should be much earlier than that and we are working

around the clock to try and help it happen. I'm sure the house will want

to send condolences to those involved in

As my honourable friend's constituency neighbour I was shocked

by what happened in Abingdon and my heart goes out to the family of

those who suffered. She is right to ask the question about offensive

weapons and how available they are and I'm happy to look at that. I

also think with that attack and the Leytonstone attack, although

unrelated, it is right also to look at the resources that are police

have in terms of equipment they have. There is a very different

usage pattern for tasers across the country and this is something the

Home Secretary, Metropolitan Police and I are discussing. There is

nothing I believe more passionately than in the union, and yet with

Scottish National is, English votes for English laws and various

powerhouses and city deals and the creation of numerous other measures

that may threaten the union, what is the Prime Minister's vision for that

union and holding the four countries together. Would he please come and

speak to the union all-party group at some stage in the future. But

even more importantly, would he help with the campaign throughout the

union because we are better together?

Like the honourable gentleman I'm passionate about our United Kingdom

and I believe we can make it stronger by accepting that it is a

partnership of nations and a partnership of nations where we

should treat each other with respect. I don't want to listen to

the SNP. They don't want a partnership, they want a separation.

At one of the things that is so strong about the United Kingdom and

that I think other countries frankly are quite jealous of is we have

demonstrated that you can have multiple identities, you can be

proud of being an Ulster man and a Britcom you can be proud of being a

Hindu and a Scot, you can be proud of being both Welsh and British ball

so we've solved one of the problems the rest of the world is grappling

with and that's why we should keep our United Kingdom together. Mr

Speaker, as we approached the festival marking the birth of

Jesus... SPEAKER: There was some noticeably eccentric jesty chelation

from you, Mr McNeil but calm yourself. We must hear the

honourable gentleman and he will be heard. Mr Speaker, as we approach

the festival marking the birth of Jesus Christ, may ask the Prime

Minister send out a message of support to those millions of fellow

Christians around the world who are suffering persecution. May I also

remind him once again to remind British people that we are a country

fashioned by our Christian heritage, and it is that heritage which has

resulted in our giving refuge to so many of other faiths over 70

centuries. But we will not tolerate those who abuse our freedom to try

to inflict their alien and violent fashion is upon us here,

particularly in the name of Islam? First of all let me join him in

saying we should do everything we can to defend the rights of

Christians to practice their faith the world over. That is an important

part of our foreign policy and let me commend also Justin Welby, the

Archbishop of Canterbury, for the excellent work he does on the basis.

I believe that Britain is Christian country and the fact we

have an established Christian country and the fact we

understand the place of faith in our national life makes us a more

tolerant nation and better able to accommodate other faith groups in

our country. That's why as I said earlier in this session I think we

should be proud of the fact that this is one of the most successful

multiethnic, multi-faith, multi-religion democracies anywhere

in the world, and that is not in conflict with our status as a

predominantly Christian country, I think it's one of the reasons we

have done it. Prime Minister, I know the Prime Minister is aware of the

flooding that has taken place in my constituency and the damage to the

town of Cockermouth. I've had a call from a constituent this morning to

say insurance companies are refusing to pay or help my constituents until

they have paid the excess in full. Does he agree with me that this is

absolutely outrageous? Some of the excesses are up to ?10,000, and what

can be done to ensure they fulfil their operations to my constituents?

She's absolutely right to raise will stop the Minister for

government policy of the Right Honourable member for West Dorset,

had meetings with the insurance companies to make sure this sort of

practice doesn't happen. That's the first point. The second is we have

announced putting money into the community funds that will form

hardship funds to help people potentially who don't have

insurance. The third and vital thing is the establishment of a flood

decision made by the last government to make sure people have insurance.

We have come to the end of the final Prime Minister's Questions of 2015,

no more until the first or the second Wednesday, I think it's the

first Wednesday in January will stop you will have to wait until then.

A more traditional PMQs for the season of tradition, Mr Corbyn the

Leader of the Opposition went back to asking a series of questions also

only in his final question did he crowd source it to Abby but it was

within his theme because she is a midwife and his questions had been

about the NHS. Removed from the bed blocking crisis, the lack of social

care, the cuts in social care, whether the increase in the local

government precept would be enough to make up for the cuts. He thought

not. There was some detailed questions from Mr Corbyn we didn't

quite get full answers from the Prime Minister. Donald Trump got a

mention as well, not very popular in the House of Commons. He lost in the

Supreme Court his appeal to try and stop the offshore wind, the

Aberdeenshire golf course he has built, the reaction to that is he

called the Scottish Government foolish, small-minded and with a

parochial mentality. Given what he called the Mexicans the Scots have

got off quite likely! What did our viewers make of it? They were not

quite so insulting, our viewers. Noel on Twitter said Shirley David

Cameron -- Jeremy Corbyn can't wish me Corbyn Americus was without his

words being distorted. Did Diane Abott go to sit by Jeremy Corbyn for

moral support? On the substance Jeremy Corbyn was weak. To argue the

NHS is underfunded when not committing his party to fund it is

pathetic. Labour relying on the magic money tree and not hard

choices. Jo says politicians cannot all be wrong and nor can they all be

right but by listening to David Cameron one would think the NHS has

no problems at all. Jeremy Corbyn comes over as more believable, and

surely has ended 2015 on a winning note. And this from Luke on Twitter,

this is the first Cameron-Corbyn PMQs I properly watched. Have to say

Cameron is bossing it, Corbyn seems out of his depth also when many

people saw the rise of Mr Corbyn this summer and his subsequent

victory but this was an interregnum, a short, brief period in British

politics before a return to more normality. When you have seen that

today it doesn't look like it's true, does it? This is the shape of

British politics now. Certainly for some time that it depends on who you

talk to post up one MP said to me the other day they are

characterising this year as having been a completely extraordinary year

in politics and allsorts of things happened that were unpredictable. He

went on to say that next year, maybe what he described as a year of the

unthinkables where we might have something completely unexpected on

the European Union, which would have consequences in the way that Angus

Robertson suggested, if UK decided to leave. There are people inside

the Labour Party who are planning for a leadership contest, they are a

minority. Not much on the paper you would call a concrete plan but that

is under consideration by people. There is a sense somehow that the

last few months have been extraordinary, but next year maybe

equally extraordinary. We are at a sense that is not an interregnum, it

seems to have settled down a bit. I don't think we should love ourselves

into a sense that next year things will carry on as they have done.

Presumably, we focus very much on Jeremy Corbyn and his leadership and

understandably so. One thing we said during the election is it is about

competence versus chaos and that was derided in some quarters. What we

have seen is the Labour Party descend into chaos immediately post

the election. Ukip is a party of chaos. Whatever configuration we are

in next year I'd see a scenario in which Labour moves from being a

party of chaos to a party of competence, Corbyn or no Corbyn.

What do you say to that? You may competence, Corbyn or no Corbyn.

have the best insight into that but some people's chaos is other

people's recognition of differences. Recently we had the free vote on

Syria which reflected differences of view widely held in the public,

including in your party. That was part of what we were saying about

politics and needing to be done differently. I think it has been

welcomed. I think today we saw again quite an understated style, and I

think by not being so combative, to being more reasonable, one of your

viewers said he was believable. I think that has allowed him to make

some headway, particularly when he does quote from ordinary people it

reinforces the sense that he is in touch, he's expressing what people

are really feeling. He's doing OK at Prime Minister's Questions and

winning on things like tax credits for single climb-down and

backpedalling because of that sort of approach. One of the interesting

things if you stand back from the weekly joust between those two men,

David Cameron hasn't really looked under very much pressure since the

General Election. This government is doing lots of things not

particularly well. They have had some individual successes and some

individual huge problems like the mess over tax credits that they got

into. But there are a lot of areas where in a more traditional era they

might be under real pressure. Today, for example, David Cameron is in a

high-stakes renegotiation trying to do something nobody has really

managed to do before with the rest of the EU. It's not going entirely

according to plan and yet he got through that session and the last

few days and the last few weeks relatively un-rattled by all of

this. As an observation, the Government is not doing everything

brilliantly well and have taken some big risks, they don't look under

pressure really. Are we right to think that Mr Cameron and Mr

Osborne, they would quite like to get the referendum out of the way

next year rather than wait until 2017? There is no question about

that, they desperately want to get this, in June if they can. That is

their preferred date. They think that is still possible, because they

hope and it does look feasible that they could be a deal in February.

That would give them the four months required to have a decent period of

debate. Could they have it in June? I was told the ritual commission

didn't like the idea of a referendum campaign taking place while the main

elections in local government in England, the Scottish Parliament and

the Welsh assembly and Northern Ireland. It would certainly be

complicated. But that is their hope, their preferred option. To do it in

June? To do it in June. Even with the polls narrowing as they have?

They sense that the longer they leave it the more they risk it is.

They want it in June before next summer's migrant crisis gets

underway. Indeed and other European leaders want its too because then

you get into the convocation of French and German elections in 2017

-- complication. There is a desire to do it quickly. It is pencilled

into the diary as a political hope in as far as this government is

concerned. Given the complexities of it all that we were discussing

before Prime Minister's Questions there is nothing certain about it

happening. If there is another migrant crisis September could be an

even worse time because you have the whole summer of these same pictures

again. Were you surprised to learn, that the hospitals are running up a

deficit of 2.2 billion and the Government's response to that is to

force them to borrow the money? The demands on our health service are

immense. The starting position is committed to fund the Stevens plan,

that is not a plan generated by the Government, it is the independent

chief executive of the NHS, which we have done. Except they are in a

deficit of over 2 billion now and 21 NHS trusts and ten foundation

Hospital trusts have had to borrow ?500 million from the government.

Traditionally this was done as a grant, it was done through the

public dividend capital, but they are now having to borrow and pay

interest to be able to pay this month's doctors' salaries, this

month's nurses' salaries and this month's administration salaries. Is

that sensible? We fully funded the Stevens plan. If there is a need to

get short-term capital and there is a proper structure in place to do so

by all means that is fine. It's not capital, its running costs. Doctors

a bust of the salaries are not capital. They need extra funding --

doctors' salaries. They are borrowing money and they will have

to pay it back. Is that feasible? What the Prime Minister said in

Prime Minister's Questions, we should be looking to fund this,

there might be short-term pressures in which case we should put in place

the appropriate structure for them to get together the funds they need

so that they can treat all of those people in winter who need care

immediately and that is what we should be doing. The Government must

hope that it is absolutely right about climate change and that this

winter stays as mild as it is. Because, if we had a severe winter

like four or five years ago with already a deficit of over two

billion and the deficit would soar in the NHS.

There is no question there is an enormous strain on the health

service and the figures that Jeremy Corbyn was bringing up, some

hospitals having to phone the bank manager... The bank manager being

Jeremy Hunt. The central problem is that, if you talk to ministers, they

believe that the Simon 's plan, put together by the boss of the NHS,

will, in two or three years, in theory, start to deliver the money

back as well as making a system that should be more joined up, function

better, where you don't have crazy things like an elderly person being

stuck in hospital because there is nobody to take them home or make

sure they are OK in their own house. The crunch is the time lag. If the

savings you can get from the NHS and quite significant reforms that most

people in government would say it have to happen, if they can't be

delivered for three or four years, there will be a tricky point in the

interim. We shall keep an eye on that. Merry Christmas. I was meant

to bring mince pies but I didn't have time. Can I have a colouring

book was to mark you didn't bring mince pies! I think you will find

that is the prize, before you give it away. OK. I will get Jo one for

next year. Happy Christmas. Should motorists over

the age of 70 be retested Currently those over 70 must fill

in a self-assessment form every three years to renew their licences,

however Benjamin Brooks-Dutton, whose wife was killed by an elderly

driver who mistook the accelerator for the brake, has started an online

petition calling for over-70s to be It's received over 200,000

signatories, here's his soapbox. And our cars reach a certain age,

they have to have a regular MOT, so why don't we? -- after our cars. In

the court case against the 83-year-old driver who struck and

killed my wife three years ago, his defence barrister admitted that in

this country we don't have a system to properly check the fitness of

people to continue to drive over a certain age. His barrister stated

that the driver was on a three-year licence renewal and his doctor did

ever suggest he shouldn't continue to drive, a fact which amazed the

court. He was actively encouraged to continue doing so. When drivers turn

70, they have to reapply for their driving licence every three years

simply through assessment. Nobody checks a person's ability to

continue to drive, nobody checks their hearing, eyesight, skills or

ability to stop. In fact, when a person has passed their driving

test, their decision to keep driving into old age is mainly self

regulated. Those suffering heart rhythm problems have two inform the

DVLA but those who suffer heart attacks do not. It is family and

friends who carried the burden of explaining to relatives that

potentially they are a risk to themselves and others. It is never

easy to tell somebody you love that they should probably stop driving

and it can be very damaging to relationships. I want the law to

change. I want this issue relationships. I want the law to

shifted from personal to policy. It is time to drop self-assessment and

introduce official retesting for drivers over 70. Nobody wants to

cause death on the roads and nobody wants to damage a relationship with

somebody they love. It's not that big and ask. Motorists over 70

already have to reapply for their driving licence every three years

and our cars have to have an annual MOT, so why not drivers?

What has been the response to your campaign? It has been overwhelming,

with over 200,000 signatures within a couple of weeks. The most

important thing is that so many people over 70 have got in touch.

After the first response of saying, I don't want to have to take a test,

and they have read the book into it, a lot of people have said, I think

this is a good idea, I want to know I am safe on the road, I don't want

to cause an accident, I don't want to take it that far before my

fitness to drive is judged. What about politicians, in terms of green

-- in terms of agreeing to be test? You are the first two politicians I

have spoken to. Would you sign up to what Benjamin is calling for, a

proper test for the suitability to drive for over 70s? I am sorry about

what you have had to go through and congratulations on your campaign.

You have 200,000 signatures which I believe means your issue has to be

debated in Parliament, which will happen by the minister responsible

in the transport department. I will speak to him directly. I think you

deserve it constructive engagement. So you will speak to the Minister

responsible? I will speak to the Minister responsible. And you will

be in touch with Benjamin. We will have to check about whether 200,000

signatories qualifies for a debate. I'm not sure. Certainly... I welcome

that. Would you support it? I will do the same without Shadow Secretary

of State. That a very serious report that you did. You have been through

a hell of a lot with this so good on you for picking it up. There has to

be a strong case for this. Something I think would benefit from a wider

public debate, Parliament, public debate and possibly proposals from

government for doing that. Whether 70 is the right limit, whether 80 is

the right limit... But the principle that people lose their faculties

when they get older, and the fact that they're so many horror stories

about experiences like yours, suggests that this is something we

should look. A significant number of over 70s have got in touch with

Benjamin saying that they themselves would not like to be judged on that

basis. Are you surprised it is self-assessment, just happy to fill

in a form, and your eyesight isn't tested? Not really, because people

of all ages become complacent after they passed their driving test. They

don't drive as well as they should. Perhaps they lose faculties. I think

this is a particular case for a group of older people, which is your

argument, and I think we should take a Sirius look at it. Benjamin you

alluded to the fact that it might not be popular with people being

told that they have to have a test or they may not be physically

suitable for driving after 70. Also, it could be isolating for old

people. This is something that guarantees their independence. And

70 isn't old any more. That is not old these days. What I have done

with the case I put forward is completely mirroring what is in

place with the DVLA. At the moment, you have to reapply for your driving

licence every three years from 70. I have to assume there is a good

reason for that. A paper recently suggested shifting that 80. The

biggest reason I could find was because it might save ?1.8 million a

year, which isn't much if you look at how the state is to care for

people like me and my son when we have been through this. I am

mirroring that at the moment. This is open to debate. It is a big issue

and I think it can't be just an isolated thing. There are many ways

to retest people. At the moment, nobody is arguing against

self-assessment every three years, so it is just making it a more

thorough version of that. I don't see why people would have an issue.

Who do you think should pay for it? Should it be drivers themselves or

the government? There are many creative ways to look at this. If

you look at the price comparison industry, insurers, they all look,

they all pay for the acquisition of those customers. There are ways and

means but it needs to be debated. Do you think it would be unpopular with

elderly voters? It is a new regime. John made the point about what

really is the limit, 70, 80, whatever. We have to go through all

of those. If it is done in the right way, and that is why there should be

a discussion, something could be done. Thank you.

Now, before PMQs, you may remember we set John and Sam a little task -

we gave them copies of this and asked them to get

Well, let's see how seriously they took their task.

Some looked confused at the start but John got cracking. It didn't

take long for the creative juices to start flowing. Sam decided Jeremy

Corbyn's bid was read. Even our esteemed political editor got in on

the act. A lovely treatment of the picture involving lots of real

balloons. As you can see, there was a lot of thinking as our guests not

to grips with the task. The result was a veritable cornucopia of

colour. Towards the end, Laura got a bit bored and started playing with

her phone. Probably doing her Christmas shopping. She knows what I

want. We are joined now by the illustrator

behind the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book. Welcome. Why Jeremy Corbyn? I

can clear up the thing with Laura and her phone. She was using the

Jeremy Corbyn Which is also available. You revealed her great

secret. Why Jeremy Corbyn? When it was Cameron King or Corbyn,

unfortunately I am an illustrated of long standing but I can't quite get

Cameron King. I have long standing but I can't quite get

jacket potato and put a tie on him. Have you attempted to capture things

about him in this colouring book? We have tried to move away from the

image of him... A lot of suggestions earlier on was that he has terrible

dress sense. We have done a page to dress Jeromy, the option... Oh, well

done. You have got him a superman. You have the bullying uniform, you

can have a pearly king, you can win the Scottish vote with a kilt. --

you have the Burlington uniform. Has it been selling well? 'S very well.

You will be getting one of those in your stocking. That is next year's

Christmas presents sorted. There's just time to put you out

of your misery and give Sam, push that big red buzzer

and pick the lucky winner. It is Peter rain bird from

somewhere. I think you need is to get in touch with us to tell us

where so we can send you the prize. Somewhere in the country of nowhere.

The News at One is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories

Jo's off Christmas shopping in Strasbourg.