23/03/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The authorities in Brussels say two brothers who were known to them


are amongst those responsible for the Brussels attacks.


A third unsuccessful airport bomber also linked to the Paris attacks


As Europe reels from the third serious attack in 15 months,


this time striking the de-facto capital of the European Union,


does passport-free travel inside the EU make us more


The Chancellor confirms that he's cancelled proposed changes


to Personal Independence Payments for disabled people,


but he's already broken his own spending limits on welfare,


so how will he make the promised savings?


And, with friends like this, who needs enemies?


When it comes to attacking the Government, why Conservative MPs


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole


of the duration today, Housing Minister Brandon Lewis


So, Belgian authorities have identified two of the bombers


responsible for yesterday's attacks as Khalid and Brahim el-Bakraoui.


They were both known to the authorities.


They have both been jailed for serious crimes involving AK-47s.


And both are linked to the prime suspect in the Paris massacre,


Salah Abdeslam, who was detained in Brussels last week.


A third man pictured at the airport but whose bomb did not apparently


detonate has been named as Najim Laachraoui,


a 24-year-old who is reported to have travelled to Syria in 2013.


He's thought to be the Paris bomb maker, and has just been arrested


in the Anderlecht district of Brussels.


He is thought to have made the suicide belts as well. Reports are


that he was arrested in Anderlecht this morning.


Do we know for sure yet or not whether the man in the right hat has


been arrested and Mac white hat? We don't know for sure. We had reports


and our ago that he had been, that was widely reported in the Belgian


media, and now those reports are being withdrawn, so he may well not


have been arrested, which would be a blow for the Belgian authorities who


have already been hugely criticised for their failures of intelligence


both in the run-up to the Paris attacks in November and these


attacks in Brussels yesterday. This is a key suspect. As you said, his


DNA was found in one of the houses that was used by the Paris


attackers, he is very closely linked to the Paris attacks, and


significantly he travelled to Hungary last year before the Paris


attacks with Salah Abdeslam. He was arrested on Friday, the police in


France and Belgium had been looking for him, he escaped from Paris after


those attacks, the only one of the attackers who got away. He slipped


into Belgium, he was hunted for four months, he was caught last Friday,


and ever since he has been interrogated while he is awaiting


extradition. There is a theory that the accomplices close to Salah


Abdeslam put forward any other attacks they were planning because


they knew he was being interrogated and might well give them names and


addresses away, might expose them to the police, so because these attacks


in Brussels were only four days later, perhaps there is a link


between that arrest and what happened yesterday. It would seem


that the Belgian authorities need some kind of victory quite quickly


to restore their credibility. We learned that the man was at the


police shoot out in Brussels ten days ago, part of the Salah Abdeslam


manhunt, the man that they now have for the Paris bombing, he got away,


not only that it seems he found a new address, access to guns and


explosives, and in just over a week it was at the airport with two other


suicide bombers. Yes, critics of the Belgian authorities will say they


have been huge intelligence failures. They are not as on top of


what terror suspects there are in this city as, for example, British


intelligence agencies and counterterror police are in the UK.


It is difficult, they would say, because some areas of the city of


Brussels, with high Muslim populations, are difficult to


penetrate, they don't have much human intelligence on the ground.


They have not done well. The first raid where it seems he may have


escaped, although they raided the property, they were not expecting to


find terror suspects, but it seems extraordinary that a couple of them


could escape pretty much at the back while the police came to the front.


It seems a bit basic. There have been failures, and the Belgian


security forces have been described as the weak link in the European


fight against terror. On big brothers, with the famous gloves on


only one hand, which is hugely significant, we now learn, I have


not had this confirmed, but one of them was jailed for nine years in


2010 for firing at police with an AK-47 during a robbery, and the


other was jailed for five years in 2011 for carjackings and also


touting an AK-47. I don't know what the question is to you now, having


just read that out! One of the points is that a lot of the people


involved in the Paris attacks and these latest attacks appear to have


criminal records for a variety of crimes. Salah Abdeslam was one of


them. He maybe got further radicalised in prison. You are


right, one of the brothers, who was using a false name, had rented a


flat in an area of Brussels which was raided last week, he was


responsible, it seems, for the metro attack yesterday. The brothers


carrying out the operations, but he was the one who attacked the Metro


station, his brother was the one who attacked the airport, if you


remember the CCTV image, the three of them pushing the trolleys, he was


in the middle. Huge questions for the Belgian police, security


agencies, judiciary about how it deals with these people and the


wider question is, they knew there was a cell in Brussels that was


partly responsible for the Paris attacks, they were trying to track


them down, it now seems that the number of terror suspects in


Brussels and in Belgium was much larger than anything they had


anticipated before or anything they had expected. We have partly seen


the results of that yesterday. A sad day in Brussels, many questions


remain to be answered. We are just getting confirmation that the


Belgian media is now backtracking on staying that the suspect in the


white hat, also wanted with his DNA found in the Paris bombing, they are


backtracking on whether or not he has been arrested, it seemed that he


has not been. Joining us now from Brussels


is Ukip's defence spokesman Do you think it was right to start


making political capital out of what was happening before the Belgian


authorities had even had a chance to count the number of dead? I don't


believe I was making political capital. I have been talking about


open borders for the last year, nobody was listening. We live in a


media world, something happened and the media call you up straightaway


and want to know a comment, so this is the world we live in. I have been


talking about this for over a year, open borders. Do you want to take it


back, now you can give a more considered response? Everything I


have said yesterday, I have said over months, and I stand by it. Two


of the suspected suicide bombers, the brothers, were Brussels


residents, so what did Schengen have to do with that? These people that


were arrested last week and who carried out this attack yesterday


seemed to have had free range, moving about freely through Europe,


with open borders, they have been across to Syria on several occasions


to be trained, and anybody who thinks open borders is not a part of


this is naive and quite dangerous. If they had Belgian passports, they


would be able to move between European countries regardless of


Schengen. Correct? I worked in Calais last year, and this year, and


passports are quite easily gained, they can change their identity


within minutes. Whatever passport they were using, and they were


probably using false passports, they are easily gained. We know one of


the people who was arrested with Salah Abdeslam did come in on a fake


Syrian passport into the EU. But even if we were outside the EU,


would we not still face that problem? We would have to be alert


to the possibility of fake Syrian passports or fake European


passports, and we cannot always be sure that we will be, there are some


sophisticated fakes around. If we had our own sovereignty and borders,


we controlled our borders, we can check who is coming in and who is


going out. If they have got a Syrian passport... Interpol and other


agencies can gain intelligence. It one of the German defence ministers


have said nearly 50% of the member states don't pass intelligence. What


do you say to that, Rachel Reeves? We are not part of Schengen, so we


do control our borders. Not for people with European passports. We


are not part of Schengen. But with a European passport you can come to


this country. But your passport is checked, you cannot just cross the


board without any checks. But that would be true whether we were in or


out. The point is we do control our borders because we have passport


controls. People can come and work in this country, but you are still


checked at the border will stop that would be true if we were in or out


of the EU. If one of these people who has been trained by Islamic


State comes to Europe, then gets a European passport, it will be more


difficult to stop them coming in. How would we know? That would be the


case if they got a fake passport and came directly to the UK. This is an


argument for strengthening the border police, better control and


ports and airports, so we know who is coming in, we are checking


everything robustly. It is not an argument about our membership of the


EU. What do you say to that? I agree. One of the problems with the


argument that Ukip made, apart from the crassness of the timing... It


was disgraceful. But the reality is, if somebody has a fake passport, the


challenge of dealing with that is the same if you are in or out of the


EU. We have the ability to share information, it is a strength. What


intelligence are we sharing? Being part of Europe, even as of today and


yesterday, we are offering support... We do that anyway. That


intelligence sharing is done at a bilateral level. Brussels


intelligence shares with our intelligence services, we share with


French, that is not an EU process, that is a bilateral arrangement, and


surely that will continue in or out of the EU. It could do, but part of


our renegotiation, some of these countries might want to change the


agreement. Why would they stop sharing intelligence? We are far


closer sharing with the United States and Canada, and we were not a


member of the United States or Canada.


The point that is being me doesn't stack up. We have control of our own


borders because we are not part of Schengen. The ability for submitted


to come to this country because of being part of Europe is a false


statement. We haven't got control in the sense that if someone presents


an EU passport at our borders and we regard it as kosher, as a bona fides


passport, you can't stop them coming in. That's the same whether we are


in the European Union or not. You could stop them if we weren't in the


EU. If you're travelling abroad, if you've got a genuine passport, you


would be allowed to go into that country regardless of whether or not


it is part of the EU. The argument they are making simply doesn't stack


up. You've heard what our guests are saying. I'll give you a final word.


What is disgraceful as allowing terrorists free movement across


Europe. Terraces begin to our country, and I'm from the port of


call and we had 18 migrants that came in through Hull. We need to


check our borders. There are seven member states now who've reinstated


their borders because they are frightened to death of what's


happening with terrorism. Mike Hookem in Brussels, thanks for


joining us this morning. Conservative MPs rallied around


George Osborne as he closed the Budget debate and explained that


he'd listened and learned, cancelling changes to


Personal Independence Payments for the disabled, as well as


the so-called tampon tax And he had warm words


for the departed Work and Pensions Secretary Iain


Duncan Smith, as he tried But has the unravelling of last


week's Budget left the Chancellor in the naughty corner,


and what does it mean for his plans The Conservative Party Manifesto


promised to keep spending on working-age welfare,


so that excludes pensions, But George Osborne is already


on course to breach the cap next year, set at some ?115.2 billion,


with spending on working-age welfare forecast to be over ?4


billon more than that. And by the end of the Parliament


the overspend is predicted But the Budget says that will be put


right in the Autumn Statement, However, the new Work


and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb said on Monday there were no further


plans for welfare cuts other than those already in the pipeline,


and confirmed the changes to Personal Independence Payments,


or PIPs, that prompted the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith


will not go ahead. The Chancellor was hoping the PIP


changes would save ?1.3 billion So will the Chancellor press ahead


with further cuts to welfare or abandon his welfare cap and break


a manifesto promise? In the Commons yesterday,


he reiterated what Stephen Crabb had Well, my right honourable friend


said yesterday exactly We have no further


plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial


savings legislated for by Parliament two weeks ago, which we will


focus on implementing. George Osborne in the House of


Commons yesterday. Brandon Lewis, the Chancellor said he was sorry


that Ian Duncan Smith had resigned but he didn't apologise for the


policies that drove him to that resignation. Should he have done? I


think in outlining as he did yesterday the fact that we have


said... As he has done before, actually. He outlined yesterday that


he had listened to colleagues and people across the House and it's a


good thing we've got a government that is bred to listen and make


changes. So in your view he has apologised for the policies? They


were the wrong policies to pursue? He outlined last week what the


government's policy was. Having listened to colleagues and listen to


people across the country and right across the House, making those


changes, it they have been clear we will not move forward. Was a clear


message. We are listening to people and making decisions a stomach


information and taking the budget process seriously. Democracy in


action. It is clear, then, that there will be no welfare cuts in


this Parliament? You can confirm that? You've just seen on the clip


their, there are no plans other than what was voted for a few weeks ago.


No plans to leave it open. I want to know and the viewers want to know,


are they going to be no further cuts to welfare in this Parliament? Well,


not just because I'm not the Secretary of State for the DWP or


the Chancellor, we've got four years left of this Parliament, so there


are several fiscal positions with all Autumn Statement and budgets to


come through. The OBR will report back up the Autumn Statement and


then the Chancellor will have to ally where we are with regards to


the welfare cup. But there are no plans for further welfare cuts. So


you can't rule it out? I accept your not a Chancellor Angela Merkel in


the department... You might be after this programme! But you can't rule


it out? We've got four years of Parliament left and none of us know


what the economic... What we are very clear about is that we would


need to get the deficit under control, which has led to difficult


decisions, but I'm very pleased we got a government that listens to


people and is making decisions based on the thing of the information in


front of it. How will people trust what George Osborne says if you're


sitting here today saying, "There are no plans at the moment but there


could be because of your commitment to the welfare cup"? He's also had


to U-turn on tax credit changes and do the same on the changes to PIP.


If you are disabled person and you are watching this, you will think,


even now, my future is still uncertain in terms of future


finances, it is if there are going to be no further cuts, how is George


Osborne going to meet his welfare cup by the end of the Parliament?


Firstly, to be very clear for vulnerable and disabled people in


that position, not only have we spent 3 billion more in the last few


years than we had in 2010, spending for disabled people goes up every


year in this Parliament. But it doesn't go up in the way it has been


and that was the point. The changes were going to mean that that


increase would be lower. But answer the question about how he is going


to meet his welfare cup. Let me answer the point you made about how


people will have trusts around the welfare cup. We are determined to


get that deficit and debt down and protect the most honourable but I


think people will like the fact that we have a government that listens to


people and has responded to that. How is George Osborne GoToMeeting is


welfare cup by the end of the Parliament? We've already predicted


that we will have a very clear surplus by the end of the


Parliament... BIF S have said that is going to be very difficult but as


it stands at the moment, you are going to breach that cap and you are


not going to make the savings that George Osborne hopes to because of


the changes to PIP being scrapped so as I say, he's either going to


breach his welfare cup on the figures we have now or he's going to


make further cuts. Which is a? We will outline at the Autumn Statement


where we are in terms of the welfare cup. We are also very clear we will


show that surplus in 2021. Used said he's not going to make further cuts


so where is he going to meet his welfare cap? We are talking about


the welfare cap. How is he going to meet his welfare cap if he is or do


bridging it by 3.2 billion, at the 1 billion he was going to say from


PIP. Where is he going to take it from if he's not going to do make


further cuts to the welfare budget? There are no further plans to the


welfare budget. He is going to breach his welfare cup. The


Chancellor will assess where we are and make a statement about where we


are with the welfare cap and have to make a statement to Parliament about


the changes going forward. We have responded positively to what people


have outlined. I think it is very clear that people appreciate having


a government that listens to people and makes changes fall the most


vulnerable people in society. You supported the welfare cap when it


was introduced to stop I still in favour of it? I think there should


be a cap on welfare spending but we would go about controlling the cost


of Social Security in a very different way from the Tories. We


never signed up to the specific numbers in the welfare cap that the


government... Yours would have been higher? We said in the last


parliament that we would have cancelled the bedroom tax, so that


would have meant higher spending on social security but it would have


been the right thing to do. How much I would it be, bearing in mind it is


already a massive budget and the predictions are to go up to 230


billion. I think it stands at 220 billion in the next two years. If


you look at the reasons why Social Security spending is increasing,


it's because the Government are not getting enough disabled people back


into work. There are too many people in low paid work, relying on tax


credits and universal credit to make en suite -- make ends meet. The


employment figures have been good but so many jobs, about 25 descent


of jobs, are paying less than the living wage so people are relying on


benefits to make up the money. And if you look at house-building, it is


at a record low, which means that the housing benefit bill is going up


because rents are going up. So if you want to control the cost of


Social Security, do it by ensuring there are more good quality jobs, by


ensuring that more people are going out to work, being paid a wage they


can afford to live on, and ensure there is housing... Is that what you


are going to do? Let me help you little bit with where you might be


able to find the money. How many houses would you have to build in


order to bring the housing benefit bill down enough to bring George


Osborne within his cap? We are up to 10,000 to get for house formation.


We are aiming to build a million homes. Is that going to mean you are


going to bring housing benefit down enough? If we build more homes we


get more people into the web of their own home. The lowest level of


house-building in this country was when John Healey was the housing


minister in 2008-9. We have to venture because we have PMQs coming


up in a few minutes but at the moment, I can't quite see how George


Osborne is going to meet his welfare cap.


I will ask him for you. Here at the Daily Politics,


we pride ourselves on our loyalty. Loyal to BBC values,


loyal to each other and, But not everyone rates


loyalty so highly. Apparently, Jeremy Corbyn's allies


have ranked every Labour MP by their loyalty to the leadership


and then divided them into five groups, from a core group of those


closest to Mr Corbyn down And Rachel is reported to be


in the hostile group, along with the London mayoral


candidate Sadiq Khan and the Labour Now, Rachel, we don't think


of you as a hostile woman. In fact, we trust you so much, we've


even lent you a Daily Politics mug. Please don't betray our


trust by stealing it. And if you're a loyal viewer,


you could win your own mug. # We don't need your


money, money, money # It ain't about the


ch-ching, ch-ching #. # I think I wanna marry


you # We could have had it


all # You had my heart and soul in your


hands # You'd understand why I want


you so desperately # Right now I'm


looking at you and I can't believe # Security just can't fight them


all # I'm in my Speedos trying


to tan my cheeks To be in with a chance of winning


a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz


email address, that's Entries must arrive by 12:30pm


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, and that can mean only one thing:


Yes, Prime Minister's Questions PMQs will take place to the backdrop


of the developing story because it is far from over and a lot more will


be coming out. How does that constrain Mr Corbyn? I think it


means certainly the tone at the beginning of Prime Minister's


Questions will be very sombre and the Home Secretary is also to make a


statement later today. So I think as ever on these kinds of occasions,


when there is a very upsetting, dangerous, difficult situation in


one of our new neighbours, or frankly any of these events around


the world, it does set the tone and their four restrict Mr Corbyn.


However, there has also been an extraordinary few days politically.


The most extraordinary few days the government has faced so far and


whether or not he will mention that, there is a huge amount for him to go


on. Many Labour MPs were disappointed that he didn't mention


IDS earlier in the Commons. There will be difficult for him to make


that tradition but strange if he didn't. After the Primus and Leader


of the Opposition say what they have to say, it will likely move on to


the whole business of the IDS resignation, the government pulling


out of its welfare changes, the hole that is now the Chancellor's budget.


You and I have sat here on many occasions saying, we would all


expect Jeremy Corbyn to raise this issue or to go on this particular


thing, and then he hasn't. That said, Labour have, they would say,


and it is true that they have continually raise the question of


measures to raise visibility payments... John McDonell made a


huge response to that yesterday. Jeremy Corbyn also mentioned that in


his response to the budget. So I thing we can expect questions on


welfare. Whether or not Jeremy Corbyn inflates that web of


complaints that with political difficulties...


A Belfast prison of the died last week as a result of injuries caused


by a bomb placed under his vehicle. A murder investigation is under way,


a man has been charged, but we should offer our condolences to the


family and friends. Let me also briefly update the house on the


attacks yesterday in Brussels. Details are emerging, but at least


34 people were killed and many others injured. Daesh claimed


responsibility, following their attack in Istanbul. We are aware of


for British nationals injured, and we are concerned about one missing


British national. We face a common terror threat and I am sure the


whole house will join me in expressing our solidarity with the


people of Belgium. I spoke to the Belgian Prime Minister yesterday to


pass on our condolences, our police and agencies are doing everything


they can to support. We have increased police patrols and border


screening here. The Home Secretary will make a statement later setting


out the steps we are taking. Britain and Belgium share the same values of


liberty and democracy, the terrorists want to destroy


everything that we stand for, but we will never let them. I had meetings


with ministerial colleagues and others this morning, and I shall


have further such meetings later today. Bombers aim for public


reaction and this unity. Can we disappoint them by uniting for hope,


not hate? He is absolutely right to say that. These people packed their


explosives with nails to kill as many innocent people, women and


children, as they could, and we should unite in condemnation, stand


with the people and Government of Belgium and with all countries


afflicted by this appalling menace and say they shall never went. I


wish to support the words just said by the member for Worthing and the


Prime Minister in solidarity with the people of Belgium and the


victims of the horrific attacks that have taken place in Brussels and


Ankara in the last few days. We pay respect and tribute to their


families and friends and enormous respect to the emergency services of


all the nominations for the huge work they have done to save life. We


must defend our security and values in the face of such outrages and


refuse to be drawn into a cycle of violence and hatred. We take pride


in our societies of diverse faiths, and creeds, and we will not allow


those who seek to divide us to succeed. My right honourable friend


will respond on behalf of the Labour Party to the Home Secretary. I also


joined the Prime Minister in sending my deepest condolences to the man's


wife and daughters, the people of Northern Ireland chose to follow the


path of peace when they widely adopted the Good Friday agreement,


the actions of an unrepresented few should not change the course


supported by the overwhelming majority of people. On a different


subject altogether, last week I got a letter from Adrian, he said, I am


disabled and live in constant fear of my benefits being reassessed and


stopped and being forced onto the street. Could the Prime Minister do


what the Chancellor failed to do yesterday and apologise to those who


went through such anguish and upset during the threat of cuts in their


personal independence payment? Let me thank the right honourable


gentleman for what he said about the terrorist attacks in Belgium and for


what he said about Northern Ireland and the fact that we have achieved


so much peace and progress in that valuable part of the UK. Turning to


the issue of disability benefits, as I said on Monday, when you are faced


with having to take very many very difficult decisions, including many


spending reductions, as we were after becoming the Government in


2010, you do not always get every decision right. I am the first to


admit that, and on every occasion that happens it is important you


learn the lessons of. But we will continue to increase spending on


disability benefits, which will be ?46 billion more a year by the end


of this Parliament, to pay to I became Prime Minister. Government


figures published only this morning showed the number of people with


disabilities and homeless is now up by 39% since 2010. 300,000 more


disabled people are living in absolute poverty. That is why people


like Adrian are very worried, there has been big disarray in the


cabinet, so can the Prime Minister now absolutely, categorically rule


out any further cuts to welfare spending in the lifetime of this


Parliament? Simply, yes or no? Let me respond to the point he made. He


talked about the number of people in poverty, we have seen poverty fall


over this Parliament. Secondly, he referred to the regrettable rise in


homelessness, with figures out today, but it is still 58% below the


peak that it reached under Labour, that is important. They talked about


the number of disabled people, this is a Government committed to


supporting the disabled, but in the last two years there are extra


293,000 disabled people who got it to work. We want to continue as we


have set out in our manifesto to close that this ability gap. As for


the question about further welfare reductions, let me repeat a


statement that the new secretary made on Monday, the Chancellor made


on Tuesday. I dealt with these issues on Monday. If he does not ask


the questions, I get the answers, even if he had not given the


questions, but we are not planning additional welfare savings other


than the one that we set out in our manifesto and that are in train. My


question was actually about the poverty of people with disabilities,


which the Prime Minister did not answer. In his failure to explain


how he would fill the hole in his Budget left by the change of heart


on the IP, the Chancellor said, we can absorb such changes. If it is so


easy to absorb changes of this nature, why did the Chancellor and


the Prime Minister ever and answered in the first place? Will he now


listen and learn and withdraw the ?30 a week cut to disabled ESA


claimants, which is Government is pursuing? The changes have been


through both Houses of Parliament, and it is important to note that


employment and support allowance for the most disabled, the support


group, are up by ?650 a year under this Government, we have increased


the higher rate of attendance allowance, carers allowance, the


enhanced rate of PIP, because a stronger economy should support the


most disabled people, and that is what we have legislated to do. If he


wants to get on to discussing black holes, I say, bring on the argument,


because we inherited an 11% Budget deficit from the Labour Party. Under


this team of ministers and this Chancellor, we have cut that deficit


by two thirds since we became the Government. From Labour, all we have


had is more proposals for more spending, more welfare, more taxes,


more debt, all of the things that got us into the biggest mess with


the biggest Black hole in the first place. If it is also fine and dandy,


why did the member for Chingford feel it necessary to resign as Work


and Pensions Secretary, complaining that the cuts being announced were


to fit arbitrary fiscal targets? He said they were distinctly political


rather than in the national economic interest. If the -- in the initial


announcement he proposed cuts in PIP, then changed his mind.


Is the honourable member right when he says it was a political decision?


After seven or eight years of economic growth, it is right to be


targeting a surplus, as a responsible Government put aside


money for a rainy day. I do not want to be part of a Government that does


not have the courage to pay off our debts and leave them instead to our


children and grandchildren. That is the truth. What is dressed up as


compassion from the party opposite just means putting off difficult


decisions and asking our children to pay the debts we were not prepared


to pay ourselves. I don't know why the shadow leader of the house is


shouting at me. We have got an interesting document, the


spreadsheet of which Labour MP is on which side. The honourable lady


shouting, but it says here... She is neutral but not hostile. The Chief


Whip on the other hand is being a bit quiet.


Mr Speaker... There are five categories. We have core support,...


I have got all the way. We have got poor support,... You can include me


in that lot. They have -- the Chief Whip is being quiet because she is


in hostile. I thought I had problems!


If I could invite the Prime Minister to leave the theatre and return to


reality... The reality is he has presided over a Budget that


unravelled in two days and now contains a 4.4 billion black hole.


He may wish to consult the Chancellor on get another change of


heart on this matter. Could he now consult the Chancellor and tell the


country who will pay for this black hole? Will it be cuts or tax rises?


Where we'll be cuts fall, where we'll be tax rises take place? 4.4


billion has to be found from somewhere. Suddenly the king of


fiscal rectitude speaks! He may have noticed the Budget passed last night


and it cuts the deficit in every year of this Parliament, it delivers


a surplus by the end of this Parliament, and none of that will


change. He talks about this Budget,... Hold on, hostile shout,


that's right, but neutral but not hostile, you have to be quiet, I


think. Hands up who is core support plus?


Anybody else? I would tell you what this Budget did, it had a million


people out of income tax, it saw more money for our schools, it


helped the poorest people to save, it cut taxes for small businesses,


for the self-employed, it made our economy stronger and our country


fairer, and it will help this country do better.


The truth is it was a Budget that fell apart in two days. Many people


with disabilities went through the most unbelievable levels of stress


and trauma after the attempt to -- after the PIP announcement was made.


There are still people going through stress and trauma. I am not sure


those members opposite that are shouting so loudly at the moment


have any idea what it is like to try and balance a Budget at home when


you do not have enough money coming in, the rent is going up and the


children need clothes. Order. There is too much shouting on both sides


of the house. Stop it. The public are bored stiff by it. The right


Honourable gentleman will finish his question, we will have an answer,


but no shouting from members of any grouping. The Budget has do mean


something for everybody, however poor and however precarious their


lives are. This Budget downgraded growth, downgraded wage growth,


downgraded investment, the Chancellor has failed on debt


targets, on deficit targets, as the official figures have shown. The


fiscal rule is failing. The Treasury Select Committee scrutinised it,


they could not find any credible economist who backed it. Can the


primaries to find anybody that backs a Budget and a policy that is a


Budget with a big hole in it and downgrades everything a forecast


that they set themselves before the Budget was made?


He's a bit late because the budget passed through this House with large


majorities on every single vote. Let me remind him, this is


a government that is spending more on the disabled than in any year


under the last Labour government. We are spending more on the most


disabled, including the most disabled children in our country. We


got more disabled people into work and ever happened under Labour and


what we see with this budget is the background of an economy that is


growing, employment at a record high, investment that is rising,


businesses that are creating jobs in Britain, that is the envy of other


European economies. And it's because we got a strong economy that we are


able to provide this support. That is what you concede, Britain getting


stronger and the Labour Party a threat to the economic security of


every family in our country. I'm sure the Prime Minister is as


appalled as I am that incidents of anti-Semitism are on the rise. Does


my right honourable friend agree with me that all organisations,


public and private, should root out anti-Semitism without hesitation? I


completely agree with my honourable friend. Anti-Semitism is an absolute


cancer in our society and we should know that when it grows, it is the


signal of many even worse things happening to ethnic groups and


different groups all over our country. There is, sadly, a growth


of anti-Semitism in our country and we see it in terms of attacks on


Jewish people and Jewish students and it absolutely has to be stamped


out. We should all, all of us, whatever organisation we are


responsible for, make sure that happens. We do see a growth in


support for segregation and four anti-Semitism in the heart of the


Labour Party and I would say to the lead opposite it is his party, he


should sort it out. Order! This sort of gesticulation


across the chamber... Order! Is way below the level and the dignity of


the senior members of the front bench on either side. Terribly


tedious. Cut it out. Angus Robertson. When terrorists attack


Russells or Paris or London or Glasgow, we are as one in our


condemnation of these atrocities, as we equally condemn the killings of


your CDs, of Kurds, of Syrians and Iraqis by other extremists. -- of


Yazidis. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who work here and abroad in


the face of the ongoing terrorist threat. Will the Prime Minister


confirm that absolutely everything is being done to help the Belgian


authorities and the people of Belgium in the wake of the Brussels


tax? I can certainly confirm that. In my conversation with the Belgian


Prime Minister, I made a number of offers about policing and


intelligence assistance that we could give, particularly high-end


expert and technical capabilities. There are already some intelligence


officers embedded with the Belgian authorities and strong police to


police co-operation. Clearly the Belgians could be with an


unprecedented situation in their country. We stand ready to do


anything more that we can and we are examined all the capabilities we


have here to see what more we can do to safeguard our own country. A


defining characteristic of a democratic society is our trust in


our institutions and democratic oversight by parliamentarians of


those who work so hard to keep us safe. We have that oversight with


our police, we have that oversight with our security services. We don't


yet have that with UK special forces under the intelligence and security


committee or the Defence Select Committee. Will the Prime Minister


address this? I'm afraid I just part company with the right honourable


gentleman on this one. We have put in place I think some of the most


extensive oversight arrangements for our intelligence and security


services. They do a remarkable job and, of course, the police are


regular record to account both locally and nationally. I think the


work our special forces do is absolutely vital for our country.


They are subject to international law, as everyone else's in our


country, but I do not propose to change the arrangements under which


these incredibly brave men work. In England, this government has


delivered better GCSEs, better A-levels and a better chance of


getting into university than Labour in Wales. Would my right honourable


friend agree with me that members opposite have no right to criticise


our education policies when their own education minister in Wales has


had to issue a public apology for the failure of his own? I think my


honourable friend makes an important point. What we've seen in England,


and we should praise the teachers who worked so hard to deliver these


results, but it's the result of rigour in standards, independents in


our schools and accountability for results. And when we look at Wales,


we don't see those things in place so I would urge the Welsh Assembly


Government and urge Welsh people when they've got a choice that these


elections to make sure that they vote for parties that but education


reform, education standards, education rigour and education


accountability first. In 1992, the oil tanker Bray ran aground on the


coast of Shetland. It was carrying tonnes of crude oil which spilled


into the seas and on our shoreline. It caused economic and environmental


devastation. Since a report into that disaster, we have had an


emergency pump stationed in the Northern Isles. It is our protection


against ever being blighted in that way again. The Maritime and


Coastguard Agency now wants to take that talk away. There will be no


finance for it after September. Will the Prime Minister look again at


that decision and will he give an undertaking to the people of


Shetland that he made in 2014 not to leave them exposed in that way


again? The writer will gentleman makes a very important point and my


understanding is that the one told that has been there, sustained off


the coast of Scotland, has played an important role in the past. The cost


is between two and ?3 million the year and it is currently used very


sparingly, so it is right to look at the right way to deliver the service


in the future. Alternative options will take time to develop and


implement, which is why we've announced that this will be funded


until the 30th of September 2016 and will have to make a decision on


provision in due course and I'll keep him in touch with those develop


on. -- developments. We believe in doing the right thing and that's why


it's absolutely right that the proceeds of crime are returned to


the local communities that have been the victims of crime.


Staffordshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, Matthew Ellis, is


calling on community groups in Cannock Chase to apply for grants


from his proceeds of crime fun. Does my right honourable friend agree


that this shows that our excellent Conservative Police and Crime


Commissioner is delivering real value for the people of


Staffordshire? I think she makes an important point. I think Police and


Crime Commissioners Ruby now have bedded in properly as a means of


bringing up police to account. I think the a committee recently said


that they provide clarity for policing and are the most vibrant


public as providing accountability. When they bring forward ideas like


using the process -- proceeds of crime light she says, they should be


rewarded at the ballot box. The list of Cabinet ministers who have


resigned since the premise expresses full confidence in them is extensive


so does the Prime Minister still have full governors of the


Chancellor? Of course because he is the one working as part of a team


that has delivered the fastest-growing economy in the G7,


2.4 million people in work, inflation that is virtually zero,


wages that are growing, an economy that is getting stronger. The House


of Commons library confirms that this year, our net contribution to


the EU will increase by over ?2.6 billion. I think it is actually 2600


?27 million. Prime Minister, should that money be spent supporting


people in Bulgaria and Romania or should it be spent in this country


supporting our vulnerable and disabled people? What I would say to


my honourable friend is, our net contribution to the EU accounts for


about just over 1p in every pound that is paid in taxes. So as we


enter this vital debate, we have to work out whether we believe that


that sort of investment, 1p out of every pound, is worth the jobs and


the investment and the growth and the security and the safety and the


solidarity that we get through working with our partners. I will be


on the side saying that I think that it is and he is clearly going to be


on the side saying that he thinks that it isn't, but we should have a


polite and reasonable debate as we go about this. What I would stay,


which I'm sure he will welcome, is we have, of course, limited our


contributions to the EU budget because we set an overall budget


which is falling over the next six years. The reason our contributions


vary as part of it is generated determining on the success of your


economy. Because our economy has been growing faster than others in


Europe, we been making a slightly larger contribution than we


otherwise would be. My constituents Susan suffered not only the death of


her son but the unexplained circumstances in which this


occurred. This meant a 12 year battle with the authorities in


Belgrade, where this happened. The UK coroner has now ruled this as


murder so would the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary meet with the


family and do what can be done to get a proper investigation to


resolve the question marks that remain and achieve justice for


Peter? I'm not aware of the case the honourable lady mentions but it is


important that hurt constituent gets proper resolution in this matter and


I'll make sure she has a meeting with Foreign Office ministers to


discuss it. JP Morgan Chase, sun-seeker, Cobham lush and many


other local businesses are supporting the inaugural mid Dorset


apprentice ship and jobs fair. I know the Prime Minister will be


warmly welcomed if he happens to be free. It is on the 15th of April in


Wimborne. I know the Prime Minister will warmly welcome the news that


unemployment in my constituency is down by more than 60% but will he


ensure that we are not complacent and that we secure the vital


infrastructure needed to get good quality jobs in Dorset and across


the south-west? He is absolutely right. One of the reasons why we've


managed to get our unemployment rate down to around 5% and we've seen 2.4


will he and more of our fellow countrymen and women into work is


because we've seen businesses recover and apprenticeships are


taking place as part of the 3 million target for adventurous we


have in this Parliament. Academics, civil society and the Scottish


Government have all condemned the government's anti-lobbying clause in


new grant agreements. How can the Prime Minister promote transparency,


democracy and freedom of speech overseas when this clause is


clamping down on those principles here in the UK? I would answer very


simply that I want to see taxpayers' money going to good causes, rather


than in lobbying ministers and MPs and spending money here. That's what


they should be spending their money on. That it is worth making the


point that we are only one day away from what would have been separation


day for Scotland. Had that happened, there wouldn't be money for


charities, there wouldn't be money for anything. Pubs are the beating


heart of many communities across the UK. Will the Prime Minister join me


in welcoming the support given to pubs in successive budgets, join me


for duty frozen pint in the Crown Hotel in my constituency and tell


the House more he can do to support this vital part of our economy? I


thanked him for his kind invitation. I think we've seen in budget after


budget this government supporting the pub industry is such an


important part of our economy and such an important part, particularly


of rural communities. I can make one announcement today which is that


subject to the usual conditions, will be extending pub opening hours


on the 10th and 11th of June this year to mark Her Majesty The Queen's


90th birthday. I'm sure that will be welcome right across the House. If


you compare my constituency to the constituency of the Prime Minister


and the Chancellor, you will find that I have four times the number of


youths unemployed, more than double the disabled claimant count and an


average weekly wage of 20% less. Are these the reasons that the Prime


Minister and Chancellor never had the compassion to realise that the


disabled cuts were so obviously wrong when everybody else did? I


give him one further opportunity - will he apologised to my


constituents who have been scared witless over the past week?


Obviously there remain challenges in his constituency but the claimant


count is down by 16% in the last year alone but at the claimant count


has fallen by 50% since 2010 and the claimant count but he is visibly


mentioned has fallen by 12% in the last year. That has been because we


have a strong economy, businesses want to invest in our country, we


are supporting apprenticeships and we are making sure that growth is


delivering for people and in just two weeks, the national living wage


will come in, giving the poorest people in our country a ?900 a year


pay rise and that will be tax-free because we are lifting the tax


threshold in our country. Does my right honourable friend the Prime


Minister - is my right elbow friend the Prime Minister aware of the


remarks of Sergei Lavrov this morning that we should put aside our


differences, that terrorist should not be allowed to run the show, and


will he agree with me that we should be stronger if we could work


together but to do that we are going to have to have a better


understanding of Russian security? What I would say is, of course we


want to work with everyone we can to combat terrorism but when it comes


particularly to what is happening in Syria, it is vitally important that


the Russians stopped any attacks and do not restart any attacks against


moderate Sunnis, moderates in opposition, which clearly have to


form a part of our country. You cannot in the end defeat terrorism


simply through use of guns and missiles. You defeat terrorism


through governance and good working democracies cause in that way,


people can see their own interests being represented by the countries


in which they live. The former Work and Pensions Secretary described the


cuts to personal independence payments for the disabled as


divisive, unfair and against the national interest. The Chancellor's


U-turn suggests he now agrees. Can the Prime Minister explain how on


earth he allowed this to happen in the first place? Well, it's good to


have an intervention from someone who I think is neutral but not


hostile. I'm sure if she keeps going, she could join core group


plus. She'd be very welcome in core group plus. I'll tell you what this


government has done - it has increased spending on disability


benefits, it's seen 293,000 more disabled people into work in the


last two years, 2.4 million more people into work. That is bringing


the country together. We've got a growing economy that is delivering a


fairer society. My right honourable friend will have seen the recent


OECD reports on literacy and numeracy in England. Based on data


from 2012, it ranks our teenagers as bottom out of 23 developed countries


for basic maths and reading. A damning indictment of 13 years of


Labour's education policy. Doesn't this show... Order! The honourable


lady is entitled to ask a question. The same goes for every other


member. Doesn't this show why a more rigorous curriculum and more


autonomy for schools to succeed are vital to turn around the life


chances of the next-generation? My honourable friend makes an important


point, which it is worthwhile benchmarking your education system


against other advanced countries. And what we've seen in recent years


is that the competition is very tough but when you let other


countries that are succeeding, whether it is the Republic of Korea


or Finland, they have well-paid teachers, they have proper


accountability systems for results, they have a rigour in terms of their


discipline and that is exactly what we are introducing in our country


with the new curriculum coming in right now. The women of this country


are tired of waiting, waiting for equal pay, waiting for an end to


maternity and pregnancy discrimination and waiting for a


fair deal for pensioners. It is 2016. Can I ask the Prime Minister


how much longer? The honourable lady is absolutely right to raise these


issues and it is good that the pay gap is now at a historic low. It is


almost evaporated for under 40s, but there is more to be done in the


public sector and the private sector to bring that about. On the issue of


pensions, what we've introduced is a pensions system which will benefit


many, many women in years to come because we've got a single tier


pension without a means test, operated for prices, earnings or


2.5%. We were only able to do that because we raised the pension age,


saving over the long-term something like no 5p. A difficult decision but


the right one because it means we can look our pensioners in the eye


and know they are getting security in their old age. -- something like


?0.5 billion. If we are going to meet the target for apprenticeships


to which the Prime Minister referred, the whole public sector


needs to play its part. Will the Prime Minister and ensure that every


part of the public sector invests in training our young people so we have


the skills the country needs? He is right to raise this. It is a very


stringent target, getting 3 million apprentices trained in this


Parliament. We are going to have to see those large companies that have


put their shoulders of the wheel on this agenda to continue to do so,


but there are two sectors where we need to do better. One is in the


public sector, where we need more public sector organisations to get


behind apprenticeships, and we need to make it simple and attractive for


small businesses to start training apprentices again. That is what my


right honourable friend, the Member for Grantham, is doing and we all


need to work very hard to do this by the end of the Parliament. If the UK


votes to leave the EU in June, does the Prime Minister believed that the


EU institutions will respond vindictively? It's a very difficult


question to answer. I think that if we were to vote to leave, I do think


we should be naive about believing that other countries would


automatically cut us some sort of sweetheart deal. I think if you just


take one industry as an example, take farming. Our farmers now know


they have duty-free, quota free, tax free access to a market of 500


million people. Were we to leave, can we really guarantee that French


farmers or Italian farmers or Spanish farmers wouldn't put


pressure on their governments to give us a less good deal? I don't


think we can and that's one of the many reasons I think we are safer,


more secure and better off in a reformed EU. In April 2015, the


Prime Minister said that there should be a new Carlisle principle


to ensure that other parts of the UK do not lose out by Scottish


devolution. Could the Prime Minister confirm that this principle will


apply, who will review the position and when will it report and who will


it report to? He is absolutely right and I think this is important,


particularly for constituencies like his, very close to the border, to


make sure that decisions that are made, quite sensibly and rightly, by


devolved parliaments and assemblies don't disadvantage the rest of the


UK. That was the principle set out and the Chancellor will report


regularly on that as he updates the House on his fiscal plans. I trust


that the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a critical


meeting of the board of Tata in Mumbai on Tuesday. I will be flying


out to Mumbai with the general secretary of community union to make


the case for British Steel. That meeting will be deciding the future


of the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency. Will the Prime


Minister join me in exhorting Tata to stand with that plan and to


secure the future of the Port Talbot steelworks? I absolutely give him my


backing on that. A team of ministers met yesterday to discuss all of the


things that we can do to get behind the steel industry at this vital


time. It is an extremely difficult market situation with the massive


global overcapacity and the huge fall in steel prices but the areas


where we've taken action already, and will continue to look at what we


can do, and that is stated compensation so we can secure the


energy costs, greater flexibility over EU emissions legislation. We've


done huge amount in terms of public procurement, which can make a big


difference our steel industries, and all of those things and more, and


making sure that tartar and others understand how valuable we believe


this industry is to the UK and as a government, within the limits that


we have, we want to be very supportive and helpful.


Jeremy Corbyn went on benefits for the disabled, linking it to


homelessness, he wanted to know why it was rising, especially the poor


and disabled numbers will stop he traded statistics with the Prime


Minister. He then broadened it out into a general attack on the Budget


and how the figures would now add up, given that the Government will


not go ahead with other welfare cuts. He then ended with the Prime


Minister falling back on a gimme, this list of Labour MPs, there are


now five categories, they are divided into whether they are


hostile or friendly, poor support or hostile, to Jeremy Corbyn. The Prime


Minister said, you are core friendly, you are caught hostile,


put up your hands all of whom are core support, and the Tories put


their hands up. That is how the mother of Parliaments came to an end


today. A lot of viewers thought Jeremy


Corbyn missed an open goal in terms of mailing the Prime Minister on the


changes. John Wakefield said, he was right to be shooting at camera and


on his Chancellor's attempt to give tax cuts to the well off at the


expense of the poor and disabled. Ian said, Jeremy Corbyn kicked the


ball hard, it ricocheted off Cameron's crossbar and into his own


net. He started OK but Cameron back at him away and started enjoying


himself. Stephen said, Jeremy Corbyn asked him what he knew about


hardship, this from a man who was privately educated and lives in an


expensive property in Islington. John said, how long can the


Conservatives bang on and on about the debt they were left by the Brown


Government? Am I missing something or is PMQs is supposed to be the


Prime Minister answering questions, not attempting a bad stand-up act?


There has been a demonstration of a disabled lobby in the Central Lobby


of the Commons. Literally just outside the chamber. There has been


a couple of dozen people angry about what has happened with the


disability cuts, they have gone to protest. John McDonnell has gone out


to address them. That is a science that Jeremy Corbyn picked the right


issue today. But whether he actually managed to get very far with the


Prime Minister is a different question. Think about the last week,


that should have been one of the worst PMQs that David Cameron has


ever faced in his six years as Prime Minister, but at the end, he was


cracking gags, he looked like he was in charge and enjoying every minute,


partly because of the list you were talking about, and what will make


its way into the coverage is an unfortunate week that was sent by


one of the Labour backbenchers during that session, who was already


in the hostile category, John Woodcock, no stranger to this


programme, I will not use the language... I am glad to hear that!


Watched by Her Majesty The Queen and young children and students learning


about politics. I shall paraphrase his description of what just


happened. It was a something something something disaster, the


worst week for David Cameron since he came in, and that stupid


something something list makes us look like a laughing stock. That is


his view of PMQs come up on the Labour backbenches, but that is what


will be picked up. He has deleted it, but it is doing the rounds. The


dangers and the lights of social media, very little stays private for


long. He was probably try to send it as a direct private message, a slip


of the finger. How do you know? Moving along! Which of the five


categories are you in on on the list? The list is disappointing. All


Labour MPs have been in the chamber, trying to hold the Prime Minister


and George Osborne to account for these cuts. There has been a lock to


hold them to account for. Exactly, and a list like this which


categorises us... Who has drawn it up? It is disappointing. The people


which are hostile to the Conservatives, all Labour MPs are


trying to get another Labour Government and get rid of the


Tories, so I wish that the leader's office, if it comes from there,


would concentrate on holding the Tories to account, rather than


trying to divide the Parliamentary Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn's office


say they do not have knowledge of the list. Do we know who drew it up?


The suspicion it was people in and around his circle, the suggestion


that it was the former Labour MP who is now his political secretary.


Whoever did it, it was apparently drawn up in January. If you think of


those early days in the year, when things were more bumpy for Jeremy


Corbyn around the pantomime around the reshuffle... Can we rule out


Tory dirty tricks? My colleagues in the lobby who got hold of the list


have got a pretty good track record. They think it is an internal list?


Which category argue M? In January, I had just come back from maternity


leave, I had been off work for six months, so I am not sure how hostile


I was. I am not sure what I was doing that has so upset somebody.


Hostility at a distance. The only people this benefits the


Conservatives, and Labour have been working incredibly well together on


asking some of those difficult questions, and these lists have no


place. In the hostile column, I do there with annoyance or a sense of


pride? I want there to be a column which is the Labour MP 's column,


and I want us to work together. You have made that point, but are you


happy or sad to be hostile? I am sad there is such a list, it is totally


ridiculous. It gave the Prime Minister a get out of jail card. It


got them off the hook. I don't want to agree with everything that John


Woodcock wrote in that sweet, but it does make us look silly and a


laughing stock. Maybe not entirely off the hook, because when the


Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if there would be any


more welfare cuts, the Prime Minister's reply was there would be


no more cuts other than what is in the manifesto. The manifesto


included ?12 billion of welfare cuts. Is that still Government


policy? He outlined that today, it backs up what I said, Parliament


voted on some welfare cuts, there is no more planned beyond what is in


the manifesto. So there will be 12 billion pound of welfare cuts and


they will be on the working poor? We have been clear that we will always


ensure it pays to work and we will protect the most vulnerable. I am


quoting Iain Duncan Smith. He said they had already made ?22 billion of


cuts in welfare for the working poor, and because you have ring


fenced pensions, the NHS, the 12 billion was coming out of cuts to


the working poor. Never mind where they come from, can we get you to


confirm that there will still be ?12 billion of welfare cuts in this


Parliament? The Prime Minister has been clear, we will deliver on our


manifesto pledge, and on the legislation we passed. So, yes? We


have to get the debt down, that involves reducing the Budget. Where


will it come from? As has been outlined, getting more of those


people back into work. That 12 billion assumes you add another half


a million or so jobs by 2020. That is in the projections. Where will be


12 billion come from? We have got an Autumn Statement coming up. As the


Chancellor outlined, in light of the decisions made, responding, we will


feedback on that, --. We have got to get the deficit down, we will


deliver on our manifesto. Give me an idea that if there are still 12


billion of cuts on the cards on welfare, which by a process of


elimination will be largely on the working poor, where will it come


from? I don't accept the second part of that. Answer the first part. I am


not going to prejudge or be tempted into prejudging. We are in the same


situation as we work during the election. I asked people like you


again and again, where of the 12 billion coming from, the answer was


none, now you are giving me the same answer. We will deliver on our


manifesto pledge, protecting the most vulnerable, but I cannot


prejudge the Autumn Statement. At the Treasury Select Committee, it


was said that the government will Mrs welfare cut by ?20 billion over


the course of this Parliament and the factors you can't cut social


security spending without hurting the most vulnerable. Social security


spending goes to people who are disabled and who are out of work and


to an low pay, so the reality is it is going to hurt poor people. One


thing worth noting through all of this, in the end, he might have had


to resign to do it, but Iain Duncan Smith's actions did get ministers to


commit to not raiding the welfare budget any further. If the 12


billion a commitment or not? Much of the 12 billion cuts have actually


been agreed and legislated for and this is part of the legislation that


has gone through. Not all of it but the real question this week has been


about whether or not the DWP would be expected to cough up the ?4


billion of savings. That is a no and it was a very nifty move by the new


Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions.


It's not entirely clear whether or not the Chancellor wants to go that


far. Laura, thank you very much. When you are quoting these MPs,


you've got to be very careful. Ending violence against women has


been a priority but there is no strategy for tackling violence gets


men or boys. The former editor of Loaded magazine


Martin Daubney thinks something It's time to face up to an ugly


truth. It's not just men who can murder and violently attacked their


partners. This has recently been brought into grim focus with the


horrific murder of David Edwards, violently stabbed to death by his


wife just eight -- of just eight weeks, Sharon. Women murdering men


in Britain is still mercifully rare. Last year, 19 men died at the hands


of their partners or ex-partners, compare to 81 women. However, the


number of women convicted of domestic abuse as more than


quadrupled in the last ten years, to almost 5000 cases in 2014-15.


Indeed, according to the male domestic violence charity, for every


three people who suffer domestic abuse, two will be female and one


will be male, and the Office for National Statistics claims that half


a million men suffered Partner abuse in the last year. But the true


figure may be even higher. While more women suffer partner abuse than


men in Britain, it is estimated that 10% of men tell the police, as


opposed to 26% of women. Such statistics shatter the false


narratives that only women get battered, men are never victims and


women never attack. But while ending violence against women and girls is


rightly a governmental priority, there is no similar strategy to


tackle violence against men and boys. At least half a million


battered men and murdered men, and David Edwards, do they not matter


solely because they had the bad fortune to be born male?


Martin joins us now. Welcome to the Daily Politics for stock doesn't it


make more sense that more resources are being put towards, teen violence


against women when clearly the statistics show that more women are


victims? Absolutely and that is what is happening right now. Nicky Morgan


announced ?80 million of additional funds to combat violence against


women and girls, and it is amazing that that piece of strategy is one


of the best pieces of legislation in living memory. It is an awesome


piece of government and it just doesn't include men and boys. That's


the point of my film. It directly doesn't include men and boys because


it was formed to combat violence against women and girls. At the


moment these men don't have a voice or anywhere to go. There is


certainly not the funding to do this. The Mankind initiative needs


40 grand to give its phone lines open and it can't get the money. Why


doesn't it include that because the figures clearly show that men also


the victims of domestic partner abuse? The focus is clearly on the


larger side of this, women who suffer, but for men as well, we do


fundamental advice line and local authorities who bid to provide the


services can use the money for male support. Can you tell me how much of


that 80 million quid will be helping men? You said none of it so you


sounded like you knew. Do you know that none of it is going to men? May


be an official answer might be clearer because I've looked at the


legislation and I think it's nothing but I'd like to know if it's


nothing. The cool authorities this money. They will use the money and


it will be for them to look at what they need in the area, so they can


use it for support for men. Which means they could make the decision


not to use it to support men. The problem is that hostels for work and


children are closing. 34 have closed in the last few years. I'm the


patron of leads Women's Aid. Women are being turned away every day.


Local authorities have got a reducing budget and women's hostels


are closing. There are still 4000 refuge places to protect, rightly


so, abused women. There are 25 for men. But you would want to take away


the money and resources that go to women? Women's hostels are closing


so it is hard for councils to fund yours. You are trying to raise


awareness. Do you think that part of the problem is that men, certainly


historically and traditionally, still view it as a stigma to talk


about these issues in a way that means it's not cutting through? Of


course. Men talk about their feelings and it is viewed as them


being less of a man. But what I want to say is that strong men reach out


for help because you can't just die in silence. What I want to do is to


get the message across. Yesterday I found out that it is women calling


these helplines for men because the men still feel the stigma and the


shame. It is mothers, daughters, sisters, girlfriends, because the


men feel disenfranchised and is empowered but when you talk about


this issue on the streets... I'm here making a movie about domestic


violence against men and the women I told about it were laughing. It is


still seen as some sort of joke. It doesn't really exist and when it is,


we will sweep it under the carpet. It is like domestic violence against


women in the 1970s. It's like we are in a state of denial. It is time to


face up to it. Do you think you are the right person to be campaigning


on this? People might say, well, it's all right, you use to edit a


labs' Madoc -- a lads magazine. Do you think it will finally get to an


end but not through people like you? Anybody that has the voice is


somebody. It is easy to shoot the messenger. I want people to listen


to the message and Jamie Benn. Men listen to me because of my dubious


heritage. Young men, lads, listen to people like me, not politicians. If


they're told by men they kind of admire, or at least they listen to,


that it's OK to talk out, I don't care if I get the flak. I just want


these men to pick up the phone and get help. Rachel, do you think it is


an issue that needs to be addressed, as well as the issue about domestic


violence towards women? Absolutely. I pay tribute to you for speaking


out about these things because you are right that people use to brush


domestic violence against women under the carpet and just say, it's


just normal and acceptable... And he won't do it again? Or, if he's had a


difficult day at work or a few too many drinks but he loves you really.


We have to end it there. Thanks very much. Very interesting.


There's just time to put you out of your misery and give


The year was 2011. Rachel, press the buzzer, which matches your dress.


I notice you didn't try to pronounce that name! How is the wee bairns?


Nine months now. Doing well. BBC One carrying the news shortly. We will


be here on BBC Two again at the same time tomorrow. Until then, thanks


for watching and bye-bye.


Download Subtitles