13/01/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The junior doctors' strike ended this morning,

but the dispute with the Government is far from over.

Both sides are talking tough this morning after action which saw more

than 4,000 operations cancelled, with another strike planned

for later this month unless a deal can be done.

As David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn get ready for PMQs live at noon,

we'll be looking at how their top teams will stick together

over tricky issues like the EU referendum and Trident.

When gentrification arrives in your town or city,

The singer VV Brown tells us why she doesn't want it on her street.

magazine that's got David Cameron as guest columnist,

and Diane Abbott talking about her hair.

I guess it is not the Economist! You guessed right, it is called the

Stylist. and with us for the whole

of the programme today a minister and shadow

minister who regularly grace the front pages

of the glossy magazines. In John Hayes' case, that magazine

is Civil Service Monthly, it's Leicestershire

And Rutland Life. But it's the kind of exposure

Jo and I would kill for, rather than being tucked

away on daytime TV. First today, let's talk

about the junior doctors' strike which officially came to an end

at eight o'clock this morning. Around 16,000 doctors

took part in the action. NHS England said 39% of

junior doctors reported for work, who were asked not to strike

by the BMA. were cancelled as a result

of the dispute. The next proposed strike

is a 48-hour one beginning on 26th January,

with plans for emergency care only. for a full withdrawal of labour

from 8am to 5pm, which could affect

emergency services. Let's have a listen

to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt What's next for your negotiations

with junior doctors? Well, I hope they succeed.

I mean, we want to settle this, but it was a very

unnecessary strike. to make sure

there isn't another strike? And off he cycled into the horizon!

John Hayes, the Government has been highlighting again that stroke and

newborn baby deaths are higher at the weekends, when it says fewer NHS

staff are on duty, but it has been pointed out that it is unlikely that

it is junior doctors who would be involved in these, it would be

consultants. Seven studies over the last five years suggest that

mortality is greater on weekends. And that is not just related to

care, I guess, treatment and care are a key part of that. I have used

the NHS all my life, and a core principle is provision free at the

point of need, and need happens on Saturdays and Sundays too. But does

the weekend cover has to be as full as during the week? I think it does,

on the basis that people have strokes, heart attacks, agencies at

the weekend, so we need to make sure that do not bear worse than if they

had those things on a Monday or Tuesday. That seems to be a core

principle. How can anyone disagree with wanting to ensure that people

are treated in the same way that they would be if they had a heart

attack on a Monday? We don't have the same level of cover during the

weekend, we have not had for ever, I assume. We don't at the moment, but

I think the Government needs to negotiate properly with the doctors

on this. Apparently, we have managed to get an agreement in Scotland and

Wales, so it is possible to get agreement, and I think that is the

key thing we want to see, both sides coming together, let's lower the

temperature, calm down and see both sides coming together to get an

agreement. Nobody wants to see more industrial action. White with able

to get agreement in Wales and Scotland and not in England? The

discussions are ongoing, we hope we will be able to get an agreement.

Strikes are not necessary. My question is, why has it come to a

strike in England, and not in Scotland and Wales? Some of it has

been about a misunderstanding and misinformation. Who is to blame for

that? Basic pay will go up by 11%, the maximum number of hours they

have to work will be reduced. The dispute seems to be about overtime

payments and so on and so forth. But what we are looking for is

something, as you said, a seven-day NHS with care spread across the

whole week. But why wouldn't an intelligence bunch of people like

doctors, who have all got degrees, training, all smart, why would so

many of them, given the scale of support for the strike, why would

they misunderstand the Government's offer? I said there was

misunderstanding and misinformation, and some of the information has not

been entirely helpful, but let's move on. I think some doctors have

not yet realised that the total deal will reduce the total number of

hours that they have to work, but their basic pay will go up, and what

we are trying to achieve here is a system which is bearer to doctors

and two patients. That is what we are doing. -- fairer to doctors and

to patience. Some doctors are working 90 hours, a lot of that is

at weekends, over which they get a multiple rates of pay, some can earn

four times the basic rate. The Government's changes will reduce, I

think it puts a cap on 75 and stops these massive raids being paid - is

that the right thing to do? The doctors feel that doctors working at

weekends, which will have an impact on the quality of care, if they are

saying that, we have to take those concerns seriously, but for me the

most important thing... At the moment, some doctors, not a huge

number but some are working over 90 hours a week, including a lot of

weekend work. The proposed changes will reduce that to a maximum well

below 90. Isn't that a sensible thing to do, even if some of these

doctors actually lose out on the pay front because they do not get these

multiples of their basic pay? I want to see a deal in the end, and if the

doctors and the Government can come to a deal, everybody would I accept

that, but what is important is that we have to avoid industrial action

in two weeks' time, so I am keen for the doctors and the Government to

get around the table, through ACAS and David dolled. Why doesn't

Government just, under the auspices of ACAS, why doesn't it just called

the doctors backing unconditionally? I think there will be further

discussions of the kind you describe. The proposals to reduce

the maximum to 72 hours, very substantial reduction. The doctors

are saying, will there be safeguards that it will stick? Andrew is right,

part of the problem is because of the complex overtime rates, it is

based on different rates of pay at weekends, some doctors feel they may

be worth off. The total bill for doctors does not fall, Andrew, and

we believe the majority of doctors will be better off. So a lot of the

doctors would dispute that, that it would be more than a small number

who is pay would fall, but they will lose automatic pay rises as well.

Why doesn't the Government just call them in or get a cast to do so

unconditionally? -- Acas. We think the strikes are unnecessary, and

absolutely right that it should be dealt with in dialogue, but there

has got to be movement both ways, and we are saying we are prepared to

talk, we are asking them to say they will not strike. A question to you,

are you happy now that John McDonnell has said that Labour will

now automatically support strikes wherever action is called in

whatever circumstances? Labour has always supported the right of people

to take industrial action. You know that is not what I am asking! This

is about supporting people who go on strike automatically, in whatever

circumstances. Are you happy that is the programme? He said that Labour

would now have absolute solidarity with all actions taken by the trade

union movement. Do you agree with that? He is expressing solidarity

with people on strikes. Absolute solidarity with all actions. What I

think is important for an industrial dispute, for politicians not to

raise the temperature on them, because the key thing is we want

people in disputes, whether in the NHS or the public or private sector,

to be able to get round the table and have proper meaningful

negotiations. That wasn't the question, do you want to answer, or

shall I move on? It is your show! Now in normal political times,

ministers and shadow ministers like John and Jon here

wouldn't even consider deviating from the official

party position on all the big subjects

of the day for fear of a stern ticking-off

from the whips, and the understanding

that if they strayed too far from the line,

they would be out of a job. But with the upcoming EU referendum

and a vote on Trident threatening to divide both the Cabinet

and the Shadow Cabinet, So what happens

when party leaders loosen the rules

of collective responsibility? Usually, those MPs who sit

on the frontbench, or who are shadow

ministers or spokespeople, are expected to vote with their

leader and follow the party whip. Those who don't are expected

to resign or are sacked. But the Prime Minister has said

he will suspend this Cabinet collective responsibility

ahead of the EU referendum. This means that ministers will be

able to campaign for either leave Ministers won't be able to make

the case for leaving the EU until the Prime Minister's

renegotiation is completed. They won't be free

to set out their thinking on either the front or backbenches

during a debate on the EU. And their special advisers

won't be able to help unless they do so

in their spare time, all of which has led critics

to say there won't be

a level playing field for those arguing

to leave and remain. Labour's Shadow Cabinet

has its own divisions, Before the summer recess,

Parliament will be asked whether to update

Britain's nuclear deterrent. and its recent election manifesto

was in favour. So can the Labour front bench

take a collective position and then whip its MPs

one way or another? Well, we can talk now

to the academic Professor Tim Bale. He is at broadcasting house, give us

the historical precedents for when collective responsibility has been

loosened. The most obvious and most relevant is during the referendum

campaign on the EEC back in 1975 when Harold Wilson realised that the

party was split and had to let ministers campaign on either side of

that. There are other situations in which collective responsibility has

been loosened at the margins, but never so obviously as that. And

would you see that, from a historical point of view and today,

as from a position of weakness because a leader cannot keep the

cabinet with him? Absolutely, that is the only reason the Government

would choose to do this, because Cabinet collective responsibility is

incredibly important in the constitution, the Government has to

be seen to be speaking with one voice, or there is no legal

responsibility or accountability. Prime Ministers only do this in the

most desperate of circumstances when they cannot guarantee that, unless

they do it, they will not have people resigning left, right and

centre. How unusual was it in the vote on air strikes to have the

opposition with the leader supporting one policy and the Shadow

Foreign Secretary actually standing at the dispatch box and espousing a

different one? Well, not completely than usual across the range of

issues, but for foreign policy and defence, it is extremely unusual. It

is perfectly possible for parties to treat things as free votes, but they

normally only do that on issues of morality, social policy, not

something as crucial as the defence of the realm. What about a situation

where someone might have to return to the backbenches if they were a

front bench spokesman, to state a view that was contradictory to the

leader of their party? Very uncommon indeed, no examples spring to mind,

very unusual to do that. Do you think it will change in the future?

Is this the beginning of a think it will change in the future?

the weight leaders of political parties actually hold votes and

the weight leaders of political whether they whip or persuade their

backbenchers or members of their Shadow Cabinet or

backbenchers or members of their them? I don't think so, because

backbenchers or members of their public and other governments expect

to see the government and to some extent the opposition

to see the government and to some one voice, that is what our

adversarial Parliamentary democracy is built on. Tim Bale, thank you.

John Hayes, you must be relieved that you can carry on as security

minister, you are pretty Eurosceptic? I am and I would not

pretend to be anything other than that. You have known me a long time.

Am I operating on the assumption that you will be campaigning to come

out? I will not make a statement today because I think it would be

wrong to make a today because I think it would be

negotiations are going on today. Firstly, I think it

negotiations are going on today. Prime Minister has given this

freedom and Prime Minister has given this

the referendum. Who said that it was right to give people the collective

responsibility? It was Margaret Thatcher. Why was it wrong for

Labour in the eyes of Mrs Thatcher and the Tories then, and right for

you to do it now? You have to gauge the decisions in the circumstances

they are made. At the moment, there are circumstances where the Prime

Minister has accepted the status quo is not an option. That assumption

that the status quo with the European Union, our relationship, a

principle of a closer union is something the Prime

principle of a closer union is not accept, identify except it

either. People not accept, identify except it

but I will be free to speak just as he is. What could the Prime Minister

bring back from these negotiations? I mentioned closer union. He has

said he will do that. For a very long time there was an assumption

that this project was moving to a destination which was essentially a

federal Europe. But the something which underpinned most of the

arguments we had from the pro-Europeans. If you bring this

back to no way of a closer union, will that change of mind? I will

have a look when it happens. What do you

make of these reports that whereas ministers can still say nice

friendly Europhile things, that they have been instructed not to have

anything Eurosceptic in their speeches? The Prime Minister has

said we will have a free hand once the negotiations are completed. I

know the Prime Minister very well. You can say Eurosceptic things at

the moment? It would be absolutely wrong for anyone to declare that

hands before the referendum. As I understand it it would not stop

ministers from saying overall European Union is good for our

country. Would you be vetted? Bag I am not vetted. I am the one who does

the vetting. Would you say bad large the European Union is bad for our

country? I would come to that conclusion when we have seen the

results of the renegotiations which I am pleased the Prime Minister is

engaged in. I support businesses and that is what he is doing.

Let's carry on with this theme of collective responsibility. It is

your turn now! Parliament will decide whether or not to renew

Britain's nuclear deterrent in the next few months. Will the Shadow

Cabinet support that or oppose it? Sam-macro we have not had a

discussion about it at the Shadow Cabinet. We do not know for certain

there will be a vote in Parliament. I have read different briefings.

There has not been an announcement. We will have to have that discussion

in the Shadow Cabinet. As your package pointed out, the position of

the Labour Party at the moment, the manifesto we fought the last

election on and what we call in the Labour Party rule book, the party

programme which is our policy, is to support a continuous nuclear

deterrent. That will stay the party's policy and commitment,

until, or it may not be, changed at some point in the future. If that

vote is in the next few months, what will the party say? We will have to

have a discussion. We know that Jeremy feels phrase strongly about

that issue and people have to respect that and people have to

respect his mandate, but from a Labour Party policy rule book point

of view, the policy is to support a continuing nuclear deterrent and

that can only be changed by two thirds vote at the party conference.

In your mind, what should happen? You say you have not had a

discussion that if your official party policy is to renew Trident,

isn't that the position you will take in that vote? We will have to

have those discussions in the Shadow Cabinet. I suspect everyone in the

Labour Party will be mindful there are people on different sides of

this argument and we will probably find somewhere of accommodating

everyone's point of view. Will it be a single click to decision one way

or another when that vote comes? We tried to get a collective decision

on Syria and we were not able to say that maybe the territory we are in,

to be perfectly frank, these are issues for the Chief Whip, the

leader and the Shadow Cabinet as a whole to discuss. After the vote on

Syria where we saw Hilary Benn standing at the dispatch box

supporting strikes and Jeremy Corbyn and others in the Shadow Cabinet

against, the line from the leaders of this was that would not happen

again but you are saying it could over Trident? The leaders' office. I

do not know who that is, but I'm saying the position of the party is,

and the Shadow Cabinet will have the debate, because Jeremy has very

strong views and it is important we respect him. Could you imagine some

Shadow ministers supporting Jeremy Corbyn's line and arguing against

your manifesto policy and some Shadow ministers arguing in the

chamber for policy you were elected on? It could well happen. These are

the considerations... Is it desirable? It is not desirable but I

suspect it is inevitable. These are the decisions we will have to take

in mind when the Shadow Cabinet discusses this matter. There is a

policy review and it is important that the policy review listens to a

range of evidence and people have an opportunity to put in those views to

that policy review. Do you support the existing methods of changing or

making Labour Party policy? Yes. So would use a port the NEC having more

power? I am a member of the National executive. Should it have more

power? I think the National executive should have more

authority, it should have more authority over decision-making and

the future direction of the party. I think we as NEC members need to be

more accountable and that is something I feel strongly about. But

ultimately, the Labour Party policy is decided through the National

policy Forum, people are elected from different constituents, we

should look at ways to improve it and it goes to the party conference

where the collective voice of the affiliate members are heard. That is

important because there are a lot of trade union members who work at

Rolls-Royce in the East Midlands and elsewhere, who will be affected by a

government deciding whether or not to go ahead with renewing new

Trident. Those voices have to be heard in our debate. They have

already been stating their support for renewing Trident and protecting

those jobs. Do you think Steve Rotherham is the right person to

represent backbench Labour MPs? Steve is a good guy. I am a

representative of the front benches on the national executed. There are

moves to remove him. That is a decision for the backbenches in the

PLP. I am nominated by the Shadow Cabinet to represent the

frontbenchers. How the backbenchers want to elect their representatives

should be a matter for them. Should Jeremy Corbyn was a private

secretary Bibi representative? There are people concerned who are wearing

two hats. I do not represent them. But you have an opinion? I am not a

backbencher so it does not concern me. Directors at the frontbenchers

on the NEC. Lucky you! Directors enter the frontbenchers on the NEC.

-- I represent. Now, as you sit round the breakfast

table, eating your macrobiotic fruit smoothie - or, in Jo's

case, a full English - According to one Labour member

of the House of Lords, he's called Dave Watts,

there is a "London-centric hard left political class who sit around

in their ?1 million mansions eating their croissants at breakfast

and seeking to lay the foundations I wondered why the two Johns bought

in croissants this morning. Anyway, if you belong to this

croissant-munching political class from London or elsewhere,

alongside your French pastry you probably need a fortifying

beverage as you plan the revolution. And a fortifying beverage

needs a fortifying mug. But we don't give these away to any

old revolutionary socialist. Oh no, they have to enter

the Guess the Year competition Other resolutions are available of

course. We'll tell you how to enter

the competition in a moment but first can you guess

when this happened? to making a reality

of the European institution. # And lead you through the streets

of London... # Police think the bomb contained

about 10lb of explosives, more than in others

in London recently. # Bye-bye, baby,

baby, goodbye # Bye-bye, baby,

don't make me cry To be in with a chance of winning

a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our

special quiz email address - Entries must arrive by 12.30 today,

and you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess

The Year on our website - It's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben - Yes, Prime Minister's Questions

is on its way. And that's not all -

Laura Kuenssberg is here. Welcome back. In the absence of any

on-air resignations today, so Welcome back. In the absence of any

Still time! Still another Welcome back. In the absence of any

until we come off air, what do we think will be the subjects which

will dominate the front bench exchanges today? It will be

surprisingly the Labour leader does not bring up the junior doctors

strike. This is a huge moment, the first time in decades that doctors

have walked first time in decades that doctors

dispute. That said, Jeremy Corbyn has surprised us before. He does not

always choose what people see as the obvious subject. It

always choose what people see as the high-risk position for government

but fascinating that they are very bullish on this. Are they? One thing

has happened is in the last 48 hours, when you hear ministers

talking about it, you hear that this was in the manifesto, people voted

for it, say we have every right to be shone through. There has been

some modulation in their language. It is high risk for them. High risk

for both sides and even higher risk if you are patient, especially at

the weekend. There is a window here, not just before the next strike in

two weeks, but the third strike that is planned in February, which would

be a strike when junior doctors do not even supply emergency cover. My

senses the government does not want to get to that because that is a

huge risk. I think both sides are very aware that public opinion. It

is like quicksilver. It moves so fast. The government can impose

this. They do not need consent from the BMA. Do they need to? It is

clear that they believe that they may have to do that in the end. One

of the BMA's issues, one of the problems with it is they think the

government have been hostile in this. They have always been dangling

that over their head. Clearly, there is a lot of bad faith on both sides.

The junior doctors which call them junior doctors, they are actually

doctors, it is just too differentiate them from the

consultants, if it was imposed on them, it would be a new era of bad

feelings on the NHS. Indeed, and some people who are close to this

would look back and say some of the mistakes were made under previous

governments where the BMA almost got their way. They joked about it being

the most powerful union in the land, but Jeremy Hunt actually, he managed

to fall out with GPs, he managed to fall out with consultants and now he

has managed to fall out spectacularly with junior doctors. I

don't think anyone wants to get to that stage of imposition but someone

was suggesting to me yesterday, this will end one of two ways. Either the

BMA moderates, as they see it, managed to close down the BMA

radicals, as they see it. Or the government will have to end up

imposing the contracts. Do we know what the viewers on the Tory

backbenches as to how Mr Hunt is handling this dispute? I think

people are pretty solid in the view that doctors will have to back down.

I do think many people would hold up how this is all played up over a

long period of time. Don't forget, this dispute has been rumbling on

for ages. Very few people I think would say that this has been an

excellent example of how to handle these things. There are such strong

feelings on both sides of this. If you think about the NHS with David

Cameron, it was part of his massive attempt to rebrand the Conservative

Party. This is the thing I care about beyond anything else, and age

yes, all of those slogans. Lets see what happens.

I shall have further such meetings later today. The Royal College of

Midwives has called the government's plans to cut nurses' student grants

appalling. The Royal College of Nursing says they are deeply

concerned. Meanwhile, the honourable member for Lewis who is a nurse so

she would have struggled to undertake are training giving the

proposed changes to the bursaries scheme. Why does the Prime Minister

still think he is right to scrap grants for students nurses? For the

very simple reason that we want to sit more nurses in training and more

nurses in our NHS. We believe there will be an additional 10,000 nurses

because of this change, because the facts are today that two out of

three people who want to become nurses cannot because it is

constrained by the bursaries scheme. Moving to the new system, those

people will be able to become nurses. Andrew Griffiths! Mr

Speaker, the number one responsibility of any government is

the protection of its people. Does the Prime Minister agree with me

that the nuclear deterrent and our membership of Nato are key to our

defences, and that any move that would put it at risk would

jeopardise our national security? My honourable friend is absolutely

right. It has been common ground on both sides of this House of Commons

that the cornerstone of our defence policy is our membership of Nato and

our commitment to an independent nuclear deterrent, which must be

replaced and updated. They are necessary to keep us safe, and at a

time when we see North Korea testing nuclear weapons, with the

instability in the world today, we recommit ourselves to both Nato and

our independent nuclear deterrent, and I think the party opposite has

got some very serious questions to answer. Jeremy Corbyn! Thank you

very much, Mr Speaker. This week, the Prime Minister rather belatedly

acknowledged that there is a housing prices in Britain. He announced ?140

million fund to transform 100 housing estates around the country,

which actually amounts to ?1.4 million per housing estate, to

bulldoze and then rebuild. My maths is perfect! This money, Mr Speaker,

is a drop in the ocean. It isn't even going to pay for the

bulldozers, is it? What we have done is doubled the housing budget, we

are going to be investing over ?8 billion in housing, and that comes

after having built 700,000 homes since becoming Prime Minister. We

have got over 250,000 more affordable homes, and here is a

statistic he will like - in the last Parliament, we build more council

houses than in 13 years of Labour government. Jeremy Corbyn! Well, Mr

Speaker, he has not thought this thing through very carefully.

Because every estate that he announces he wishes to bulldoze will

include tenants and people that have bought their homes under right to

buy. Will those people, the leaseholders, will they be

guaranteed homes on those rebuild states that he is proposing to

build? Luck, of course, I accept this isn't as carefully thought

through as his reshuffle! Which I gather is still going on, it hasn't

actually finished yet! Of course, what we want to do is go to

communities where there are sink estates and housing estates that

have held the ball back and agree with those local councils, agree

with those local people and make sure that local tenants get good

homes, make sure homeowners are housed in new houses. That is

exactly what we want. Look at what we have done on housing, we reform

the planning rules, they opposed them. We introduced help to buy,

they opposed it. We introduced help to save, they opposed it. They have

nothing to say about people trapped in housing estates who want a better

start in their life. Mr Speaker, I noticed the Prime Minister did not

give any guaranteed to leaseholders on estates, and so there is another

probably larger group on most estates that I have a question to

ask him on behalf of, a tenant by the name of Darryl, who says, will

be Prime Minister guarantee that all existing tenants of the council

estates earmarked for redevelopment will be rehoused in new council

housing in their current communities with the same tenancy conditions as

they currently have? We are not going to be able to deal with these

sink estates unless we get the agreement of tenants, unless we show

how we are going to support homeowners, how we are going to

support communities. But isn't it interesting, Mr Speaker, who here is

the small C Conservative who is saying, stay in your sink estate,

have nothing better than what Labour gave you after the war? We are

saying, if you are a tenant, you have the right to buy, here is help

to save, we will help you out, and that is the fact of politics today,

a party on this side of the house that wants to give people like

chances and they Labour opposition that says, stay stuck in poverty.

Jeremy Corbyn! Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister does not seem to understand

the very serious concerns Minister does not seem to understand

council tenants have when they feel they are going to be forced away

from the community where they live, where their children go to school,

and their community is so strong. But there is another area where the

Prime Minister might be able to help us today. His party manifesto said

everyone who works hard should be able to own a home of their own. So

will families earning his so-called national living wage be able to

afford one of his discount starter homes? I very much hope they will,

because also, as well as starter homes... As well as starter homes,

we're having shared ownership homes, and so if you take... When I became

Prime Minister, a young person trying to buy a home needed ?30,000

Prime Minister, a young person for that deposit. Order, I apologise

for interrupting, I say to for that deposit. Order, I apologise

honourable lady, the member for Bishop Auckland, who aspires to be a

stateswoman, that is not the appropriate behaviour, shrill

shrieking from a sedentary position, I want to hear the Prime Minister's

answer! You needed ?30,000 for a deposit on a home, and that is now

down to ?10,000 because of schemes we have introduced. I want people to

own our own homes, so let's consider this issue - we are saying to the

1.3 million tenants of housing as a station is, we are on your side, you

can buy your own home, why does he still oppose that? -- housing

associations. Well, Mr Speaker, I hope this word hope goes a long way,

because research by Shelter found that families on his

because research by Shelter found living wage will not be able

because research by Shelter found afford the average starter home in

98% of local authority areas in England. So there is only the 2%

that may benefit from this. So instead of building more affordable

homes, isn't the Prime Minister branding more homes as affordable?

Which is not a solution to the housing crisis. Will he confirm that

home ownership has actually fallen since he became Prime Minister?

There is a challenge of helping people to buy

There is a challenge of helping is what helped to bike was about,

There is a challenge of helping which they opposed, help to save,

which they opposed. Isn't it which they opposed, help to save,

question about the 1.3 million housing association tenants. No... I

want what is best for everybody, let's put it like this, he owns his

home, I own mind, why won't we let those 1.3 million own their homes?

What are you frightened of? Prime Minister...

When the noise disappears... Order! The Leader of the Opposition. I

thank the Conservative backbenchers for their deep concern for the

housing crisis in this country, it is noted. The Prime Minister gave no

assurances to tenants, no assurances to leaseholders, no assurances to

low-paid people who want to get somewhere decent to live. Can I ask

him one final question on this? And it is a practical question that is

faced by many people all around this country who are deeply worried about

their own housing situation and how they are going to live in the

future? It comes from Linda, who is a council tenant, who is a council

tenant for the last 25 years. And she says, I will eventually look to

downsize to a property suitable for our ageing circumstances. Due to the

Housing Bill being put through Parliament at present, if we

downsize, we will have to sign a new tenancy agreement. If we stay, we

face having to pay the bedroom tax and debt. If we downsize, we lose

our secure home. It is a real problem that Linda and many like her

are facing. If she was in the Prime Minister's advice Pirro, what advice

would he give her? The first thing I would say to Linda, we are cutting

social trends in this Parliament, so she will be paying less in rent. The

second thing, if she is concerned about the spare room subsidy, it is

not paid by pensioners, a point that he fails to make. The other point I

would make to Linda, the other point I would make to Linda and all those

who are in council houses or in housing association homes, is that

we believe in giving you the chance to buy your own home and are helping

you to do that. Isn't it interesting what this exchange has shown? We

have a Labour Party who have got a housing policy that doesn't support

home ownership, just as they have got a defence policy that does not

believe in defence, just as we have got a Labour Party that does not

believe in work and they Labour leader who does not believe in

Britain! Mr Speaker, as someone who grew up

in social housing, may I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to tear

down poor quality, soulless high-rise estates and replaced them

with affordable homes? Will he seize this opportunity to make sure these

new homes are attractive, well designed places where people will

actually want to live for generations to come? I think my

honourable friend is absolutely right. If Labour wanted to have a

constructive opinion, they would come along and say, how can we help

knock down these sink estates, rebuilds new houses, help people to

own their own homes? That is what you are going to see, Mr Speaker, in

this Parliament, one side committed to opportunity, life chances,

helping people get on, and another side wanting to keep people trapped

in property. Angus Robertson. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The

economic and intellectual contribution of college and

university graduates to the UK is immense. The Smith Commission said

the UK and Scottish Government should work together to explore the

possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international

higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher

education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic

activity for a defined period of time. Why did the UK Government this

week unilaterally rule out a return of a post study work visa without

stakeholder discussions and before key Parliamentary reports? What I

say to the honourable gentleman is we have an excellent scheme that

covers, of course, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

to say to world students that there is no limit on the number of people

that can come and study in British universities, as long as they have

two things, an English-language qualification and a place at the

university. That is an incredibly generous and open offer. And there

is no limit on the number of people who can stay after they have

graduated, as long as they have a graduate level job. I think that is

a clear message, that all of us, whether involved in the Scottish

Government, the Northern Ireland or Welsh or UK administrations, should

get out and sell around the world, it is a world beating of, we want

the brightest graduates to study here and then work here, what a

great deal! Thank you. The return of post study

visas is supported amongst others, all of Scotland's 25 publicly funded

colleges, the University of Scotland, the representatives of

higher education organisations, many other organisations and businesses,

all parties including the Scottish Conservative Party, so why does the

Prime Minister think they are all wrong and he is right? For the

reason I have given. I think the clarity of our offer is world

beating. The disadvantage of inventing a new post-work study

route, where you are effectively saying to people coming to our

universities, it is a key to stay with a less than graduate job,

frankly, there are lots of people in our own country

desperate for those jobs and we should be training them up and

spilling them up. We don't need the world's brightest and best to come

here and study and then to do menial jobs which actually, that is not

what our immigration system is for. What we want is a system where

people can come here, study and work and that is the system we should

keep. Would the Prime Minister join me in

praising the fact that Aldi are building a distribution centre in my

constituency. It is situated off one of the busiest trunk roads in the

south-east of England. Could I ask my right honourable friend if he

would encourage the Department of Transport to take a review of that

road to ensure it can cope with the increase of traffic being generated

by the expanding business activity in my constituency. I certainly join

him. The claimant count down in his own constituency has fallen by 39%

since 2010 and this is welcome news. I will take up the point he says

because obviously, we will only continue to attract investment ever

make sure our road and rail network is.

The Prime Minister will be aware that last week this House discussed

the equalisation of the state retirement age between men and

women. Can I ask him, does he feel the outrage of a generation of women

born in the 1950s, who feel robbed and cheated out of their state

pension, and will he give an undertaken, giving the unanimous

decision of this House, to ask him to look at further improvements to

transitional arrangements that he will do so? I know this is an issue

that many colleagues have been written to and there are some

important cases to look at. What I would say is we looked very

carefully at this at the time and decided no one should suffer more

than an 18 month increase in the time before they were expecting to

retire. I would also say that if you look at what we are putting in place

with the single tier pension starting at ?150 a week, combined

with the triple lock that we have, I think we have a very good settlement

for pensioners. It is affordable for the taxpayer

and generous for the future. By the 8th of January, within a period of

just eight days, parts of London had exceeded the annual limit for

nitrous dioxide pollution. Giving this medically serious news, will

the Prime Minister and ensure that the Department for transport's

current consideration of airport expansion prioritises air pollution

concerns? And will he pledge never to expand Heathrow Airport while

nitrous dioxide levels are risking the health of millions of people?

I think my right honourable friend is absolutely right to raise this.

There are problems of our quality and air pollution, not just in

London but elsewhere in our country, and that is one of the reasons why

we decided to delay the decision about airport capacity expansion,

because we need to answer the question about air-quality before we

provide the answer to that question. That is what the Environmental Audit

Committee, recommended to this government. They said on air

quality, the Government will need to re-examine the commission's findings

in light of the air quality strategy. The point she makes is

being taken on by the Government. Can I say to the Prime Minister, he

has answered the honourable member for Edinburgh East for the

transitional arrangements for women born in the 1950s, it is not

acceptable. As he is talking to other EU leaders, can he ask why

some countries are not in lamenting the changes to 1944, and an -- can

he look at what Italy, the Netherlands and Germany did about

their transitional arrangements to protect the people who have been

affected? What other European countries do is a matter for them.

We have the ability to make sovereign decisions about this

issue, that is entirely right. What we have decided to do is put in

place a pension system that is long-term affordable for our

country, but also sustains a very strong basic state pension right

into the future. That is what strong basic state pension right

single tier pension will make such a difference to people in

single tier pension will make such a and the triple lock never put in

place by Labour, we all that my silly increase to the

pension we had under Gordon Brown, that can never happen again under

our arrangements. Since 2010, my constituency has seen

the generation of 200 new businesses, with a 240 minute pound

investment in Bracknell town regeneration, falling employment is

of genuine possibility. Does the Government agree with me that it is

the Government's sound stewardship of the economy that has led to this

economic success in the Bracknell constituency? I'm delighted to hear

the news from Bracknell. We have low interest rates, inflation right on

the floor, real wages growing so people are feeling better. People

are investing in this country in huge numbers in terms of inward

investment. Business investment has been going up

investment. Business investment has confident about the future of our

economy, and all of that is based on a long-term economic plan of dealing

with our debts, getting our deficit down and making this country where

people can start a business, run a business, expanded business and

therefore create jobs and prosperity for all of our people.

Over the last four years, excess winter death figures

from the ONS had shown a staggering 117,000 people have died

unnecessarily as a result of the cold. 43,000 people tragically died

last winter. I wonder of the Prime Minister agrees with me that not

only is that appalling, it is also avoidable. Can I ask the Prime

Minister why he thinks so many people are dying needlessly in our

country and what he will do to stop that happening? I think the

honourable gentleman is right to raise this. The winter death figures

are published every year. They are standing rebuke to all governments

about what more needs to be done. First of all, we have maintained the

cold weather payments. They may kick in as the cold weather continues.

There are also the winter fuel payments. The increase in pension

going up by prices, earnings or two but 5%. We also have falling energy

prices because of the falling oil price. I agree they're not falling

as fast as I would like and that is why I think it is right that we have

this competition commission enquiry into the energy industry, to make

sure it is a fully competitive industry. It has come a long way.

When I became Prime Minister, the independent energy companies were

just 1% of the market. There are now 15% of the market. The big six are

being broken down through competition. All of those changes,

plus home improvements, all of those things can make a difference.

Implementation of the Iran nuclear deal, in which a dish to play in the

sea was crucial is imminent. Can my right honourable friend inform the

House what steps are being taken to ensure that Iran abides by its side

of the deal? I think my honourable friend is absolutely right about

this. Now pay tribute to the Secretary of State John Kerry for

the incredible work he did, but also the Foreign Secretary who was by his

side all the way through, negotiating what is a very tough and

difficult deal. Where we have got to lose the adoption Day for this deal

was in October, and since then, Iraq has started shipping 12.5 tonnes of

enriched uranium to Russia. Now we're getting close to what is

called the implementation date for this deal for this deal. The key

point is Iran has granted the International atomic agency

unprecedented access to make sure it is doing all the things it said it

would do in this deal. As I said, it is a good deal, it takes Iran away

from a nuclear weapons, but we should enter into it, with a very

heavy heart and a very clear eyed, and a very hard head, in making sure

this country does everything it it would.

When the Government pushed through their changes to undergraduate

funding for years ago, they said that providing maintenance grants

for the poorest students was key to the participation in higher

education. No mention was made in the Conservative manifesto of ending

those grants. Is it completely unacceptable to make that

fundamental change tomorrow, by the back door with -- without a vote in

this House. The issue has been fully debated in this House. Despite all

the warnings from the party opposite, more people are taking

part in higher education and more people from lower income backgrounds

are taking part in higher education and I am confident that will

continue to be the case. Thanks to this government's

long-term economic plan, unemployment in North West

Leicestershire now stands at an all-time low of 522. This Saturday,

East Midlands airport will hold jobs fair with 350 positions available.

Will the Prime Minister join with me in wishing all the businesses in

North West Leicestershire Mossop first in recruitment and retention

that the Leader of the Opposition? -- more success in recruitment and

retention. I'm delighted to hear there are only 522 people are

unemployed in his constituency. May I praise him and all the people who

have run jobs fairs in their constituencies which have made a

huge difference in people finding opportunities. Since 2010, 60 4% of

the rising public sector -- private sector employment has taken place

outside London and the south-east. This is in growing terms a balanced

recovery and we need to keep working to make sure it is.

Last year, the Energy Secretary scrapped support for under the

renewables obligation for new onshore wind projects, which will

impact the three minute pound investment by Nissan at their wind

farm in my constituency. -- ?3 million. Does the Prime Minister

realise that his attacks on clean energy our debt to mental --

detrimental to businesses like Nissan? We had some extensive

exchanges about this at the liaison committee yesterday. If you look at

onshore wind, we will see another 50% increase in onshore wind

investment during this Parliament. If we look at offshore wind, Britain

has the biggest offshore wind market anywhere in the world. If we look at

solar, Britain has the fourth largest solar installation of any

country anywhere in the world. And my new favourite statistic, 98% of

those solar panels have been installed since I was Prime

Minister. This is all good news and means we have a genuine claim to be

leading a renewables revolution. Every single subsidy you give to

these technologies is extra money that we put onto people's bills

making energy more expensive. It is right that we seek a balance between

decarbonising our economy but making sure we do it at a low cost to our

consumers and the people who pay the bills. That is what our policies are

about. With the numbers of workless

households in the UK at an all-time low, and with 1.4 million children

being taught in schools ranked good or outstanding since 2010, does my

right honourable friend agree with me that the marker for one nation

government is not the amount of money we spend on benefits, but is

what we do to tackle the root causes of poverty?

My honourable friend is absolutely right. As far as I can see, Labour's

only answer to every single problem is to spend more money. It ends up

with more borrowing, more spending, more debt, all the things which got

us into this problem in the first place. Our approach is to look at

all the causes of poverty, all the things holding people back. Let's

fix the sink estates, let's reform the failing schools, yet give people

more childcare, let's deal with the addiction and mental health problems

people have, and that way we will demonstrate that this is the

Government and party helping people with their life chances where Labour

just want to stick people where they are!

The draft Wales Bill contains provisions which reverses the 2011

settlement which was overwhelmingly endorsed in the last Welsh

referendum. Unless amended, the will be an upper -- opposition sparking a

crisis. Why is this government treating Wales like a second-class

nation? What this government has done is first of all hold a

referendum, so the Welsh Assembly has those lawmaking powers.

Secondly, the first government in history to make sure there is a

floor under the Welsh level of spending, never done by a Labour

government. And now in the Wales Bill, we want to make sure we give

Wales those extra powers. We are still listening to the suggestions

made by him and the Welsh Assembly Government, but this government has

a proud record, not only of devolution for Wales but in delivery

for Wales. $30 oil is great for petrol prices,

but it is potentially catastrophic in other respects. If it goes on

like this, we risk seeing regimes under pressure, dramatic corporate

failures and financial default, enormous financial transfers out of

our markets to pay for other country's deficits, a possible

collapse in share prices and dividends for pensions, and a

liquidity problem in our banking sector. May I invite the Prime

Minister to initiate an urgent review across Whitehall, to assess

the effects of continuing low oil prices on our economy and beyond,

and in particular, work out how we can avoid the destruction of our own

oil industry in the North Sea? My right honourable friend makes an

important point, which is this very big move in the oil price. It has a

highly beneficial effect for all our constituents are able to fill up

their cars for less than a pound a litre, and that is a very big

increase in people's disposable income and Holywell come. A low oil

price is good for the British economy which is a substantial

manufacturing and production economy -- wholly welcome. We need to look

carefully at how we can help our own oil and gas industry. He did mention

one other calamity which is it has led to a complete and utter collapse

of the SNP's policy. Recent press reports suggest...

Recent press reports suggest that although some on the Government's

backbenchers would agree with me, despite the fact that my background

would be what the Prime Minister would consider to be menial,

would be what the Prime Minister important to have a reduction on

would be what the Prime Minister This government refuses to bring

this industry under scrutiny. Can the Prime Minister ensure that his

government will take a review of this dangerous, addictive and

ever-growing problem? We have looked at this problem and this industry

and we did make a series of changes including planning changes, but we

keep this important situation under review.

Whilst the floods over Christmas word bad for many areas in the North

of England and Scotland, cold Valley residents were hit the hardest.

?2100 and 3000 businesses flooded, Bridges lost, schools flooded and a

tip of asbestos which has led keeping 20 families out of their

homes -- the colder Valley. Will the Prime Minister meet with me to

discuss how we can help to discuss the damage, the shortfall in future

flood schemes and the rebuilding of Todmorden high school as well? My

honourable friend and I have discussed Todmorden high school but

I think we should meet again and discuss it again. First of all may I

say mice of these and the sympathies of the whole house go out to those

people and businesses which are flooded. Many people in his

constituency and that that picking a time of year. We will do everything

we can to help people get back on their feet. There is a large flood

investment programme and the maintenance investment programme

which has been protected in real terms but there are number of other

infrastructure pieces of work that needs to be done. I would commend

the highways agency which have been quick to examine roads and in some

cases have taken over repairs to local authority roads because they

have the capacity to act and act quickly. As I said last week, the

army was in faster, the money was distributed faster, the EA worked

faster and round-the-clock but there are always more lessons to learn to

demonstrate we want to get these communities back on their feet as

soon as possible. PMQs comes to an end, surprise that

Jeremy Corbyn did not go on the junior doctors' strike which

happened yesterday, with another one coming up, but instead chose to go

on housing,