22/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning, folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Supreme Court says rules which stop thousands of British


citizens bringing their foreign spouses to the UK do not


contravene human rights law, but they are still defective.


This British man was released from Guantanamo Bay and paid


compensation by the British Government.


But he went on to join Islamic State and carried out a suicide bombing


There's plenty on the agenda today, as our political masters meet


for their regular bout of PMQs - live and uninterrupted


And as elections approach in Northern Ireland,


will political peace reign once the polls close?


Or are we heading for further stalemate?


All that in the next 90 minutes, and with us


for the duration are the Northern Ireland


Secretary James Brokenshire and the Shadow International Trade


First this morning, let's head over to the Supreme Court which has been


considering the Government's income rules which apply to British


Several couples have been challenging these rules through the


Supreme Court and it to the High Court. Our correspondent Dominic


Casciani is there at the Supreme Court. Doiminic, I will come to the


defective bit in a minute, but in principle is this a victory for the


Government? I think even though in technical terms they have lost, and


I dare say James Brokenshire with you in the studio will be one


pleasantly surprised and pleased by this judgment given his former


involvement in immigration policy, but what this


amounts to is an endorsement by the Supreme Court, our highest judges,


to be very controversial policy, saying British citizens who wanted


to bring in a foreign spouse from outside the EEA, that they had of a


minimum income to bring that in an sponsor that arrival of ?18,600. And


they have been called escape generation, lots of criticism of


this, people saying that it was a breach of their family life, of


their human rights, but the Supreme Court today has ruled in effect that


the Government has the power to set that minimum income level, and


although it has a harsh effect on some families, it is an entirely


legitimate exercise in order to help control immigration. OK, so the


court has ruled they are illegal in principle and this has been through


the High Court, the appeals court and now the Supreme Court. But the


7-member team at the Supreme Court also said they were using, in their


words, defective, so what will the Government now have to do to make


sure they are not just legal in principle, but not defective? There


are two key issues, Andrew. Firstly, how the rule has dealt with


children. The court has said when immigration officers are assessing


each case of each family that wants to be reunited to settle in the UK,


the immigration officers have to do more to dig into account the best


interests of children including exceptional circumstances -- take


into account. That may tip the balance of allowing a settlement


depending on the nature of what is going on in that family. Secondly,


the court says effectively that although the minimum level itself


has been set on a rational basis, at ?18,500 or thereabouts, there needs


to be wider consideration of the entire circumstances of a family,


so, for instance, if you own a house or have other assets, should that be


taken into account for the final decision on whether they can stay?


In essence it means the rules would need to be tweaked here and there


and in practical terms means it would almost certainly benefit some


of the wealthier families caught up in this. We hear tales of bankers in


America for instance who cannot come over to the UK to join their


British, but in practical terms it will not have a lot of satisfaction


to many families caught in this from the polar end of the spectrum,


including many families from Asian backgrounds across the UK -- poorer


end of the spectrum. Doiminic, thank you for summing up what has been


happening in the Supreme Court. James Brokenshire, in principle the


Supreme Court accepts this but it sounds like you will have to change


the operation of the rules? Certainly we will look at the


judgment in detail, what the judges have said, but it is right, from


what we have just heard, that the court has said the rules are


compliant with article Eight, the right to a family life. That was the


primary test in relation to this particular case. It is worth


underlining why these rules were introduced in the first place. About


fairness to the UK taxpayer, in other words that people coming here


to settle had a minimum income in order to support themselves. As


ministers we took advice from the body of experts advising ministers


on a range of issues in relation to immigration. And they came up and


endorsed this figure, ?18,600, but also in relation to higher figures


were children were involved. You need to be earning more if you have


children? That is right. In other words it goes to about ?22,400 with


one child and slightly higher thereafter, again in relation to


that reliance on the state. Saw the court has sided with the Government.


In principle, but has criticisms of the organisation. But what is your


view on the principal? Is it right from the Government to set a minimum


income level before you can bring a foreign spouse into the country? I


think the Supreme Court has given a very well reasoned judgment,


actually. They have conceded the principle, which I think is right.


That is that if you are a British citizen and you want to marry


somebody from abroad and bring them here then you should be able to


support and accommodate them without recourse to public funds. It is your


decision to get married. It is your decision to get married, but you


could also go to live in their country, if that is how you want to


conduct your family life, so I think it is reasonable to say that you


should not be putting that additional burden on the state, but


the Supreme Court has been absolutely right to speak about the


way in which this may discriminate against poorer families and the way


in which we must take into account the needs of children. And I am


pleased James has acknowledged that and said the Government will look at


that again, I think that is the right approach. It was a good


judgment and should now be studied carefully and implement it. Once we


leave the EU, can you tell us, with this rule


apply to British citizens marrying EU citizens? There is a completely


different arrangement that exists regarding EU citizens, you are


right. Well, there is no arrangement... I know this has been


a point of issue raised... That is why I am raising it. Can we tell at


the moment? At the moment we are looking at the whole immigration


policy. We have not reached a determination in respect of that but


it is precisely these issues that obviously us being able to take back


control allows us to relook at some of these themes. A brief word? I


think we have at the moment and unbalanced system with preferential


treatment given to people from the European Union. One of the


consequences of leaving the EU is that system might become more


egalitarian. It will certainly have to be addressed. Indeed. We will not


have time to address that this morning, though, Jo... Yes.


It's emerged that a British man who joined the so-called


Islamic State group, and who died in a suicide bomb


attack in Iraq on Monday, was a former prisoner at Guantanamo


The terrorist, named by the group as Abu Zakariya al-Britani,


is believed to have detonated a car bomb in a village south of Mosul.


The 50-year-old, also known as Jamul-Uddin al-Harith,


was suspected of terrorism by the Americans but freed


He was also reportedly paid up to ?1 million in compensation


The 50-year-old was born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester, later


changing his name to Jamul-Uddin al-Harith after converting to Islam.


Shortly after 911 he travelled to Pakistan and was later seized by


American forces, there was taken to Guantanamo Bay where he was held for


two years accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative. He was one of at


least 16 British detainees. He was eventually released in 2004. US


interrogators found he provided useful information on Taliban


interrogation techniques. On his return he was reportedly awarded


compensation by the British Government as part of a settlement


to detainees. In 2014 he crossed from into Turkey volunteering to


fight for IS but claiming his knowledge of Islam was basic. They


eventually blew himself up in a car bomb attack near Mosul on Monday.


Was this man be monitored by British security services? I am unable to


comment on individual security aspect and indeed we are unable to


confirm whether this individual was involved in the way you have


described, but what I can say is this Government has done more than


any in terms of the powers we have introduced to stop people being able


to travel out to get involved in Jeff Hart. We introduce powers to


seize passports -- to get involved in Jihad. And we have used the royal


prerogative to do that. I pay tribute to the work of our security


agencies in keeping our country safe and doing all they do to prevent


travel where that is identified. But if you have put all those things in


place to protect the British people, how was it possible for Iman held in


Guantanamo accused of being an Al-Qaeda operative -- a man held.


Then being able to join IS? As I say, I cannot comment on the


specifics and I am sure there were a number of factors, but I can see


there is a huge amount of effort undertaken by our security and


intelligence agencies. So it was a security failure? I do not think you


can comment in that way. I think clearly steps are taken by our


agencies and also at the border as well. You have information used for


passengers who travel on airlines to better identify but it is a question


of what the facts may or may not have been in this case and I do not


think they can jump to any judgments. But you were the security


minister in 2014 of course when this man did leave the country, so you


would be any perfectly good position to be able to advise people about


whether the proper security precautions were taken or whether,


as I say, it was a failure, because he managed to leave the country? Jo,


as I have said I cannot comment on the specific factors on this case.


Do you know them? We do not comment... But this happened on your


watch, James Brokenshire, and people will not want to think you are


evading the question because the straightforward point here is that


people might expect for detainees from the camp, and of course people


were not tried after they had left, but people accused of being Al-Qaeda


operatives, even if there is a ten year lag, there might be a red flag


if someone was trying to leave the country, for example, particularly


heading for an area like Syria in 2014 when you read the security...


There are a few thinker. Where there is evidence we will prosecute for


terrorist offences. -- there are a few things here. And there are when


certain thresholds are met things to stop people travelling again. There


is also ongoing work from the security and intelligence agencies.


So it depends on thresholds and the individual factors of a case. But


would you broadly say that was a failure if someone like that had


been able to get out of the country and go to fight in Syria? I think it


would depend on the individual factors and circumstances, what that


individual had disclosed, and indeed what information was held. So it is,


yes, the work that the agencies do the monitor, as they do in relation


to subject of interest, but I think it is important not to jump the


judgment but knowing that, yes, rigorous work is undertaken when


there is information to stop people travelling, when it is thought they


are travelling out to become involved in Jihad. When this man was


released in 2004 David Blunkett them Labour minister at the time said, I


don't think will find anyone released in the announcement today


will actually be a threat to the security of the British people. What


do you see now? It was absolutely wrong and it sticks in my croc as I


am sure it does to everyone who heard the news of this man. Given a


settlement from the public funds of the British Government at that time.


I understand one has to see that settlement was to avoid a court case


in which the Government believed security information would be


revealed. That is important, isn't it? And that of course keeps us all


safer. Whilst I understand it I think it is really galling that


someone like that was given that settlement and clearly there was a


failure at that time of information coming back from Guantanamo. It does


us no good to have people held without trial. It does us no good to


have people tortured and we must absolutely stand-up for that


principle. It was wrong Guantanamo should have been constructed. Lieber


got the balance wrong at the time? Yes, we got the balance wrong in not


making sure people were properly monitored and kept in check --


Labour got the balance wrong at the time? Where people monitored for a


period of time are forever, people ask why they were given


compensation? I want to pick up on one point on how the law has


changed. The Justice And Security Act to be able to have evidence that


was sensitive and touched on national security issues that was


not able to be put into evidence because it would have been public at


that time, and therefore we are now in a position to defend cases we


were not able to defend previously. Why did the British taxpayer give


him ?1 million? , I cannot comment on confidential settlement and court


cases but I can say that, yes, cases were settled in the past, because


otherwise we would have had to disclose publicly highly sensitive


information and that was why we changed the law. There were


certainly cases settled and that was because of this factor of having to


the school 's national security... Trials are held in camera? At that


stage the rules were different -- having to disclose national


security. In other words, certain sections of a trial that are able to


consider highly sensitive information in a way not possible


previously, this was a gap in the way the courts operated and that was


why we still bet on why the situation is very different now


About 850 people considered a national security threat have gone


to fight with IES, half of whom have returned to the UK. What precautions


are put in place for them? -- IS. It is a question of the way in which we


use data to monitor people coming back, advanced passenger


information,... Not 450, but security services do not have the


money. There could be more. The security services do an incredible


job. That is not the point. Why we have invested heavily into their


work and given extra powers to disrupt. It is important to


recognise the incredible work they do every day to keep us safe. We


appreciate that. Now, we're told the Prime Minister


has full confidence in her Business Secretary,


Sajid Javid, over the issue That is always a worry if you are


the minister concerned if the Prime Minister says that.


Mr Javid has been accused of misleading party colleagues over


the effect of a business rate revaluation which could leave more


than a quarter of companies facing higher bills.


The Government has dismissed claims that they underestimated


potential rate rises, but some Tory MPs have


One of those is former Conservative Chairman


Grant Shapps and he joins us now from central lobby.


As the government been misleading you on business rates? Yes,


certainly in my constituency because I received a letter at the weekend


which suggested from ministers that business rates for companies in my


area would go down by about 1.5% but actually I discover in the heart of


my constituency in a not very well of and salubrious part of the


constituency there are businesses about to be wiped with a ?1000 or


3000 -- 1000 - 3000% rise. I am very concerned. It is certainly at odds


with the reassurances we have been given. When Sajid Javid says that


business rates will fall in some areas in England do you accept these


figures? No. This has been poorly handled. I think I know what has


happened. I used to be in the community is the parliament and our


officials said to us this is on the domestic rates. These have to be


revalued. We told them politely we would not do it. Domestic rates have


not been reviled for 24 years in England and they should have


followed the same examples with business rates than we would not be


in this mess -- not been revised. It is going to raise about ?1 billion


or more. The statistics that have been sent out have in the case of my


constituency been very misleading and do not take into account the


businesses will try to challenge the new rates are many will be


successful -- and take that into account. Your statistics are so


dodgy you cannot convince your own site. It is important to recognise


these changes are about fairness, dealing with values and property


that were last valued at the time of the financial crash. That is at the


heart of this. These are revenue neutral. Increases are to do with


the number of businesses there. The revaluation itself in more has to be


revenue neutral. It is important to recognise 600,000 businesses are


being taken out of this tax altogether. 500,000 facing rises of


up to 300%. That is why the Business Secretary has introduced


transitional arrangements, that there is a separate fund work around


?2.3 billion to ease this process. It is that sense of fairness on how


property values have changed. If it is going so swimmingly and is so


fair and you have already got this package that is going to be put to


use why is that talk of further compensation in the budget? You have


got the ?2.3 billion. There is talk of more. We recognise the issues and


listening carefully. Should you not have listened carefully before


proceeding? It is important to note that it is about the increase in


those valuations that lies behind why these changes are being brought


about and how listening to the issues that have been raised we will


be asleep you focused on the implementation of the transitional


relief. It is not true the cap is 300%, it is 3000%. If you were rates


exempt before but the property value happens to have gone up you can go


from paying ?100 to being several thousand pounds a year. It is all


very well to say this is because the rateable value has gone up but if


you are at the rateable value has gone up but if you are a


hairdressing company or the noodle bar in Hatfield in a very run down


area then the value of the property has nothing to do with the ability


of your business to generate sufficient profits to pay that kind


of increase, 1000, 2000, 3000%. The system is not fit for purpose.


Advice to ministers is to be straightforward. Let's not carry on


telling people that is revenue neutral when it is going to raise an


extra ?1 billion. Let's not send out people table saying they are going


to see a fall in rates when they are going to see a rise. Let's make sure


we are on the side of small businesses who generate all the


wealth in this country. Other than calling for a review of business


rates does Labour have a policy? We need to understand exactly what has


gone on because James said this is revenue neutral yet the Chancellor


in the budget last year said he was putting ?6.7 billion to ensure that


business rates would come down. Either he has broken that promise or


it is revenue neutral. The point is that what the government has not


done in publishing the figures, and that Grid Grant was talking about,


it has not included either the 2% factor for inflation or the appeals


adjustment, which is when like when the airlines overbook seats because


they know, from the government's point of view, they know that the


appeals that will come in will reduce their revenue by about 5%. We


are 7% shy and those of visual figures and James needs to be


honest. If it is revenue neutral as you claim, it does not bring revenue


to the tragedy, at the time when it needs it, why bother? It is about


fairness. Values of property. You are making more enemies than


friends. Why bother? It is the sense of overall furnace with businesses


where the property value has increased. Recognising businesses


not paying at all. The money that sits behind all of that. 6.7 billion


of the 600,000 businesses, recognising the contribution that


small business makes. Sajid Javid is the Communities Secretary, not the


Business Secretary. He was the Business Secretary, we are just slow


catching up! Now, all eyes will be on Copeland


and Stoke-on-Trent Central tomorrow and the crucial


by-elections taking place. I'll be up all night


with results over on BBC One. Stoke, as you all know,


is home to British pottery-making. But, whatever the result there,


you can be sure of one thing, that the exclusive and strictly


limited supply of Daily Politics The Staffordshire Potteries may be


home to a 200 year-old tradition of Josiah Wedgwood,


Royal Doulton, the finest bone china But none of those terms can be


applied to Daily Politics stoneware. But wherever they're


from and whatever they're made from, Yes, there is only one way you can


get your hands on one of these, by entering our Guess the Year


competition, and there He does amuse and entertain


so many people, including my children,


who would be heartbroken I am today introducing


a new National Living Wage. # I must have called


a thousand times #. # Cos the players gonna play,


play, play, play, play # And the haters gonna hate,


hate, hate, hate, hate # Baby, I'm just gonna shake,


shake, shake, shake, shake # Heartbreakers gonna break,


break, break, break, break # And the fakers gonna fake,


fake, fake, fake, fake #. 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 12:30pm


today, and you can see the full terms and conditions


for Guess The Year on our website - Yes, Prime Minister's


Questions is on its way. And we've also been


joined by John Pienaar. I have no idea where to go. So much


the front benches could talk about. All I would suggest for the Prime


Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in the shadow of these


two crucial elections. Absolutely. On the eve of polling if you were


going to guess what was going to come up, the perceived strong cards,


you would expect Jeremy Corbyn to look for a way to attack on the NHS,


in particular an issue in Copeland, and you would expect a reason made


to attack Jeremy Corbyn as a reader and human being, but that is pretty


much what she does every week. The business rates story is bubbling


along nicely. I think whatever is going to be offered as sweeteners to


those people affected, that is going to be held back probably until the


budget. We are also waiting to see whether the Ronald Fidler case comes


up. The suicide bomber, who went from Guantanamo Bay. Jeremy Corbyn,


the leader of the party defending both by-elections. Labour holds both


seats. Normally when you are the opposition you do not worry about


you losing by-elections eats. Precisely. The fact we are having


this conversation about what is going to be happening in Copland and


Stoke, by the normal rules it should be a slam dunk for Labour. It shows


you there is a problem on the Labour side. No one would deny that it


exists. Start with the opinion polls, 14 points behind the Tories,


then 16, then 18. Theresa May even went to Stoke. We thought the Tories


were leaving it for you cap. To try to win. You will get exotic the


rising that the Tories might be dark horse the race. We would be


surprised. Much shorter odds in Copeland. The NHS has been an issue


in Copeland. Talk of the maternity hospital closing, having to go to


Carlisle. If I was Jeremy Corbyn perhaps I would make Copeland the


priority. When you mentioned those issues, in Copeland there is the


hospital future that is in question, you have Sellafield, this debate is


huge. As far as Jeremy Corbyn is concerned that is a negative. It is


coming back to his doorstep. Although his line on nuclear power


is softened when you talk to people randomly around the constituency in


Copeland, it is all people seem to want to talk about. If I was to say


Brickhouse you would know why. I would say it is another beautiful


constituency. That is true. I say that because that was the last time


the constituency held by an opposition party was lost in a


by-election. That was 1960. It is really unusual. Really unusual for


an opposition party to lose a by-election in a seat it is holding.


Absolutely. When you go back to the past or years example of a governing


party winning a seat in 1982, the other side, split between the social


democratic and Labour Party. It is complicated by the dynamic around


the Sellafield nuclear plant and the issue of nuclear power which clouds


the water in national terms. The local Labour Party said in the


north-west constituency that they were so pro-nuclear you could see


them glow in the dark. They are trying to make a clear distinction


between the liberal bill-mac local Labour Party... Let us go to the


House of Commons. Mr Speaker, last year the campaign


group Fighting Cuts at the hospital were due to deliver a strong


petition to Downing Street, but they were turned away at the gates and


told, today is not a good day. Comeback after Thursday. How can the


Prime Minister justify this disgraceful dismissal of the people


of Corb Lund? -- Copeland. The petition was indeed delivered and


accepted by Downing Street yesterday so I suggest to the honourable lady


she considers what she said in her question, but I am aware of the


issues raised around West Cumberland Hospital, and I am aware of those


because the very good Conservative candidate in Copeland, Trudy


Harrison, has indeed raise those issues with me, and made very clear


she wants to see no downgrading of services at West Cumberland


Hospital, she has made that clear to me and the health ministers. Thank


you, Mr Speaker. I have constituents concerned about the new funding


formula. Can I be assured that when deciding on funding for our schools


we will look at costs such as the apprenticeship levy and things like


that to ensure they have the money they need to educate our children? I


thank my honourable friend for raising this. The question of


schools funding and the system we have is important. I think the


current system is unfair, not transparent and out of date and that


has been the general view for some time now. The problem is it cannot


support the aspiration of all our children to get a great education


and we do indeed want to see children being able to get the


education they deserve that ensures they can go as far as their talent


and hard work take them. The Labour Government did nothing to address


the funding system and we are looking at that funding system. It


is... It is a consultation and I am sure the comments my honourable


friend has raised will be noted by the Secretary of State for


Education. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When hospitals are struggling to


provide essential care, why is the Prime Minister's Government cutting


the number of beds in our National Health Service? Thanks to the


medical advances, the use of technology, the quality of care,


what we see in hospital stays is actually the average length of time


for staying in hospital has virtually halved since the year


2000. Let's actually look at Labour's record on this issue. In


the last six years of the last Labour Government, 25,000 hospital


beds were cut, but we don't even need to go as far back as that.


Let's just look at what was Labour's policy before the last election.


Because before the last election, the Right Honourable member, a


former Shadow Health Secretary, said, what I would cut our hospital


beds. Labour policy to cut hospital beds. Mr Speaker, back in 2010 there


was the highest ever level of satisfaction with the health service


delivered by a Labour Government. The BMA tells us, Mr Speaker, that


is doctors, that 15,000 beds have been cut in the last six years, the


equivalent of 24 hospitals, and as a result we have longer waiting times


in A, record charges and more people on waiting lists. The Prime


Minister claims the NHS is getting the money it needs, so why is it one


in six of A units in England are set for closure or downgrading? I


will tell the honourable gentleman what is happening and what has been


happening since 2010 in A 1500 more emergency care doctors, which


includes more Andrew Neil consultants, 2400 more paramedics,


-- more emergency consultants. What the NHS... He speaks about what the


NHS needs and what it needs is more doctors and we are giving it more


doctors. What it needs is more funding and we are giving it more


funding. What it does not need is a bankrupt economy, which is exactly


what Labour would give it. Mr Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister


by one in six A units are currently set for closure or


downgrading. She did not answer. One of the problems, and she well knows


this, is that ?4.6 billion cut the social care which has a knock-on


effect, and her friend, the Tory chair of the Local Government


Association, Lord Porter, has said, and I quote, "Extra council tax


income will not bring in anywhere near enough money to alleviate the


growing pressure on social care. Two weeks ago -- social care." Two weeks


ago we found out about the sweetheart deal with Tory Surrey.


When will the other 151 social department in England get the same


as the Surrey deal? The right honourable gentleman refers to the


questions he asks me about Surrey County Council two weeks ago. Those


claims were utterly destroyed the same afternoon. So rather than


asking the same question, he should stand up and apologise. Mr Speaker,


far from apologising it is the Prime Minister who ought to be reading her


correspondence and answering the letter from 62 council leaders


representing social services authorities who want to know if they


are going to get the same deal as Surrey, as they are grappling with a


crisis that has left over 1 million people not getting the social care


they need. Mr Speaker, we opposed the Tory cuts in the NHS which


involved scrapping of nurses' bursaries because we believed it


would dissuade people from entering training. We were told it would


create an extra 10,000 training places in this Parliament. Has this


target be met? There are 10,000 more training places available for nurses


in the NHS, but the right honourable gentleman talks about the amount of


money being spent on the NHS. It is this Conservative Government that is


putting the extra funding into the NHS, and I remind the right


honourable gentleman, I remind the right honourable gentleman that we


are spending ?1.3 billion more on the NHS this year than Labour


planned to do if they had won the election. Mr Speaker, my questions


were about the social services funding to pay for social care. No


answer. My questions were about the number of nurse training places


being brought in. No answer. In reality, 10,000 fewer places have


been filled because there are fewer applications. There is a problem in


building up for the future. In addition, the Royal College of


Midwives estimate is shortage of 3500 midwives in England, and the


Royal College of Nursing warned the nursing workforce is in crisis. If


fewer nurses graduate in 2020 it will exacerbate what is already an


unsustainable situation. Will the Prime Minister at least commit


herself to reinstating the nurses' bursary? He asked me a question


about nurses' training places which I answered. I have to say to him, if


he doesn't like the answer he gets, he cannot just carry on asking the


same question. If I have answered it previously. He is talking about all


these issues in relation to what is happening in the NHS. Let's just


look at what is happening in the NHS. We have 1800 more midwives in


the NHS since 2010. We have more people being seen in A since 2010.


We have more operations every week in the NHS. Our NHS staff are


working hard, providing a quality of care for patients up and down the


country. What they do not need is a Labour Party policy that leads to a


bankrupt economy, because Labour's policy, you spend money on


everything which means you bankrupt the economy, and have no money to


spend on anything. That does not help doctors and nurses, it does not


help patients, it does not help the NHS and it does not help ordinary


working families up and down this country. Mr Speaker, yes, let's look


at the National Health Service. Let's thank all those that work so


hard in our National Health Service, but recognise the pressures they are


under. Today the married to re-foundation trust finds nurses are


so overstretched they cannot provide the high care needed for patients at


the very end of their lives -- the Marie Curie Foundation. It prevents


patients from having the dignity of dying at home. There is a nursing


shortage and something should be done about it such as reinstating


the nurses' bursary. Mr Speaker, her Government has put the NHS and


social care in the state of emergency. Nine out of ten NHS


trusts are unsafe. 18,000 patients per week are waiting. Mr Speaker, I


repeat the figure. 18,000 patients a week are waiting on trolleys in


hospital corridors. 1.2 million of them very dependent... Mr Speaker,


it seems to me that some members do not want to be concerned about the


fact there are 1.2 million elderly people not getting the care that


they need. The legacy of her Government will be blighting our NHS


for decades. There are hospitals, fewer A departments, fewer nurses


and fewer people getting the care they need. We need a Government that


puts the NHS first, and will invest in our NHS. First of all I have to


say to the right honourable gentleman that he should consider


correcting the record, because 54% of hospital trusts are considered


good or outstanding. Quite different from the figure he has shown.


Secondly, I will take no lessons on the NHS from the party... Oh, the


deputy leader of the Labour Party says we should take lessons on the


NHS. I will not take any lessons from the party that presided over


met staff's hospital, and what happened at that hospital. --


Midstaff. They say we should learn lessons. I tell you who should learn


lessons. The Labour Party, who still fail to recognise that if you are


going to fund the NHS, and we are putting more money in - there are


more doctors, more operations, more hospitals. If you're going to fund


the NHS you need a strong economy. Now we know that Labour have a


different sort of phrase for their approach to these things. Remember


they used to speak about boom and bust. Now it is borrow and bankrupt.


We must get through backbenchers' questions and the answers to them.


Brendan Cox will meet with the Duchess of Cornwall to launch plans


to bring communities together over the weekend of the 17th and 18th of


June to mark the first anniversary of our colleague's death. It is for


more than 10 million people across the country to come together as


communities and neighbours for events such as student parties and


picnics and bake off. Will the Prime Minister join me and agree that such


event is a moment of national reflection but also celebration in


our communities and it will be a fitting tribute to Jo? And as she


herself said it will remind us that we have far more common with


ourselves than things that divide us. I am happy to agree with him


that what is becoming known as the great get-together is a fitting and


important tribute to our late colleague Jo Cox and I would like to


commend her husband Brendan and I am sure everybody would like to do so,


for the work he has done. It is important we remember there is more


that brings us together than divides us. This opportunity at this point


of national reflection and celebration of the strength of our


communities is important as we face the future together. We stand at


momentous times for this country and it is important we remember that


being united makes us strong, we should recognise the things that


unite us as a country and as the people, the bonds that we shared


together, and this is a very fitting tribute to our late colleague. In


recent days the Prime Minister has said that it is a key personal


commitment to transform the way that domestic violence is tackled. It is


hugely welcome that she has called for ideas about how the treatment of


victims can be improved and more convictions secured against abusers.


Combating violence against women and preventing domestic violence is the


aim of the Istanbul convention which the UK has yet to ratify. Does she


agree with members across this house that the convention should be


ratified as a priority? He has raised a particularly important


subject. It is one that I take particularly seriously. I worked


very hard on it as Home Secretary and I continue to do so as Prime


Minister. Over 400,000 victims of sexual violence in the last year. We


signed up to the Istanbul convention and are committed to ratifying it


and that is why we supported the members bill in principal at second


reading and that committee stage. The measures we have in place in


many ways go further than the convention but I am very clear that


we need to maintain this momentum and that is why I am setting up a


ministerial working group to look at the legislation and how we can


provide good support for victims and to look at the possibility of a


domestic violence act in the future. This Friday the Commons will


consider a bill on the Istanbul convention and government ministers


have been working very hard with my colleague who has cross-party


support for her bell. Given the importance of this issue and the


Prime Minister's personal commitment she has outlined again today will


she encourage members to support the bill and discourage any attempts to


use Parliamentary tactics to stop it? I am very happy to join him in


that. The minister for vulnerability has had a number of constructive


discussions with the member for Banff and Buchan and tabled mutually


agreed amendments which the government will be voting for this


Friday and I hope that all born Friday will be supporting those


measures. It is an important bill which the government has been


supporting and I hope it will they support across all parts of this


house. Residents in the village of highly in my constituency are


concerned by the 4000 homes proposed under the Greater Manchester spatial


framework more than doubling the size of that village. What


assurances can she give to my constituents that the green belt is


safe with this government? I am happy to give that commitment. The


government is very clear that the green belt must be protected. Very


clear that boundary should only be altered when local authorities have


fully examined all other reasonable options and if they go down that


route they should compensate by improving the quality or


accessibility of the remaining green belt land so that can be enjoyed. I


know the particular issue he has raised and I believe the framework


led to quite a number of responses. There was a lot of interest in the


consultation. I am sure all those views will be taken into account.


Last week the all-party group for children of alcoholics launched a


manifesto for change. 2.5 million children are growing up in the home


of a problem drinker. I did as well. These children are twice as likely


to have problems at school, three times as likely to commit suicide,


four times more likely to become an alcoholic yet 138 local authorities


have no plan to support these children. All the Prime Minister


work with the all-party group to establish the first ever government


strategy to tackle both hidden problem that blight the lives of


millions? She has raised an important issue and I know she


recently spoke very movingly about her experience and I am sure members


recognise the devastating impact that addiction can have on


individuals and their families. This is an important issue for her to


raise. It is unacceptable that children bear the brunt of their


parents' condition. It is important than the government is committed to


working with MPs and health professionals and those affected to


reduce the harm of addiction and give people the support they need


and we will be looking carefully at the proposal she has raised.


Question nine. It is absolutely appalling when people tried to make


a business out of dragging our brave troops through the courts. In the


case of Northern Ireland 90% of deaths were caused by terrorists and


it is essential the justice system reflects this. It would be wrong to


treat terrorists more favourably than soldiers or police officers and


that is why as part of her work to bring forward the Stormont House


bill we will make sure that investigate of bodies are fair,


balanced and proportionate soul veterans are not unfairly treated or


disproportionately investigated. It does not go as far as I and others


would like. There is no prospect of new credible evidence coming forward


against our veterans of the troubles up to 40 years after the event and


yet people are starting to use the same techniques in Northern Ireland


against them as were used against veterans of Iraq. Surely the answer


has to be a statute of limitations preventing the prosecution of


veterans to do with matters that concerned prior to the date of the


Belfast Agreement. As he knows this is an issue that we are looking at


as part of the Stormont House agreement. We are ensuring that the


investigative bodies responsible for looking at depths during the


troubles will operate in a fair balanced and proportionate manner.


We want cases to be considered in chronological order. We are going to


be consulting fully on these proposals because we want to make


sure we get this right. The new local housing allowance cap for


social tenants when introduced in 2019 will hit people on low income


in my constituency really hard. In Maidenhead the allowance will often


exceed the average rent but in Merthyr Tydfil not so. This will


mean that tenants including many older be bought will be expected to


find almost ?500 a year towards the rent. Will she acts to introduce


clear guidance to at the very least exempt older people from these cuts


and ensure that the local housing allowances in line with local rents?


Yes. I believe local authorities are in a position, they have a fun they


can exercise discretion in relation to this matter. There will be


incidences across the country and there were some steps taken to


ensure that particularly vulnerable people were not affected as you


suggest. The lack of large-scale vaccine manufacturing has been


described for our country as a national security issue. Which will


take many years to build up. Will she look into what more the


government can do to address this highly critical health and defence


concerned? She is right to raise this in the context she has. The


government takes it very seriously. Being able to ensure we can scale up


vaccine production in the event of a pandemic is very important to


national security. The precise details are confidential but I can


assure her we have provisions in place to make sure that urgently


needed vaccines are available in the UK at short notice including in the


event of pandemic. As a contingency we are funding a ?10 million


competition to establish a world leading centre on vaccine


manufacturing but it is only part of the picture because we have one of


the most successful vaccination programmes in the world backed up by


?300 million. Last night Bristol council said its budget very


difficult decisions very difficult because of the abject failure of the


previous murmur to get a grip on the finances. It has taken a Labour


mayor to face up to the challenge but government cuts are making his


job almost impossible and it is doing more with less. We did our


bit, will the Prime Minister meet with the mayor of Bristol to discuss


the funding deal that the people of Bristol deserve? I understand the


Communities Secretary has had such a meeting to discuss the issues she


raised. 17 years ago my constituent received a phone call that no parent


should ever have to take. The collar told them that their daughter


Kirsty, who was backpacking in Thailand, had been brutally


murdered. The tie as warranties are due to close the investigation into


her murder but as yet her case remains unsolved, her killer remains


free and her parents have not justice or closure. Can I ask her to


push the Thai authorities to use DNA techniques to bring the killer to


justice, to endeavour to provide more support to families who have


lost loved ones abroad and finally to ensure that Kirsty's personal


effects are at last returned home to her parents from Thailand? I am sure


the whole house would offer condolences to the family and


recognising the trauma they have been through as a result of the


killing of their daughter. It is obviously not for the British


government to interfere with police investigations that take place in


another country but I understand the Foreign Office has been providing


support and our embassy in Bangkok will continue to raise these issues


as it has been with the Thai government and I am sure the Foreign


Office will keep him updated. In the Lancaster house speech she said of a


future trade agreement with the EU that no deal for Britain is better


than a bad deal for Britain. In the spirit of consistency will that


appeal to any future trade goals she Asians with the US? By Mike


President Trump has said that America comes first -- negotations.


We will be ensuring when we negotiate trade deals they will be


good deals for the UK. In the same sex marriage act we took the power


subject to consultation to give humanists in England and Wales the


opportunity to celebrate marriages as they do in Scotland. We have had


the consultation with 90% approval and there has been referenced in the


Law Commission which has concluded. And she gave her attention to laying


there is order and giving humanists same rights in England as they enjoy


in Scotland? This is an issue he has been following closely over recent


years. He recognises this is an important area of law and complex


and we want to make sure the proposals are considered properly


which is why the Ministry of Justice is examining the differences in


treatment that exist within marriage law so that the differences can be


minimised and I am sure he will agree it is right and fair to


approach it that way. My constituent's chances of survival


from buying the Attic cancer were no better than his mother's who died 40


years earlier. A disease soon to become the fourth biggest cancer


killer in the UK -- pancreatic. Will she championed a significant


increase in spending on pancreatic cancer researcher, which lags behind


that of other cancers? He has raised a very important point which


obviously is of particular relevance in the case of the constituent


referred to. It is the case that pancreatic cancer is one that is


very difficult to deal with and to treat and there has been a lot of


attention over the years on certain cancers, like breast cancer, bowel


cancer, prostate cancer, but I am sure it is important the appropriate


attention is given to cancers which are more difficult to deal with like


pancreatic. In February 2008 the brother of one of my constituents


was unlawfully killed in the Ukraine. His Ukrainian wife is


clearly implicated in his death. Earlier this year a coroner in Devon


ruled that he was tricked into standing on a carriageway before


being run down by a car with stolen license plates and death was


immediate. Every time an investigating officer makes progress


with this case and the Ukraine they are replaced. This has happened ten


times and the case has stalled. And I implore her to raise this case


with the Ukrainian Prime Minister so we can get justice and closure for


Barry's mother, brother and the family? I am sure that the whole


house will join me in offering condolences to the family following


his death in 2008. I understand he has discussed this case with the


Foreign Secretary. It is not for the British government to interfere in


the legal processes of another country but the Foreign Office has


been regularly raising this case with the Ukrainian authorities and


will continue to do so and I understand UK police have assisted


the investigation on a number of occasions and all information from


the UK coroner will be passed on and I am sure the Foreign Office will


keep him updated. Tens of thousands of disabled people on the


portability scheme have had their cars removed by this government. In


November a minister said they were looking at payments to keep their


car pending appeal. Next week my constituents will lose her car. Can


the Prime Minister of the house on the progress of this review to help


Margaret and thousands like her? He raises an issue about the way these


assessments are made and the implications of decisions being


taken. He referred to a review in relation to payments and the moat


ability elements of that and I will write to him with further details.


It was a gear this week sends a hospital was closed due to fire


safety concerns. There are no community gets locally within St


Ives, Penzance or Saints just or rural areas in between. Campaigners


agree that there is valued Community Hospital needs to be opened a urgent


priority. Will she apply some pressure to NHS property services


and Cornwall NHS managers to get the building work done and open these


community beds? This is obviously a concern for his constituents and he


is right to raise it. He will recognise the first priority must be


to ensure patients are being treated in a safe environment and I


understand the local CCG and the NHS have been working to ensure that


community hospitals are fit to deliver that expectation in


Cornwall. A review has been undertaken into the repairs needed


to bring the Community Hospital up to a safe standard and the CCG will


be looking at the entrance at facilities and needs once the local


plan has been agreed and then Health Secretary has heard his


representations. The government business rate hike could devastate


the local economy in migrating constituency. Brighton Pier is


facing a 17% increase, the world end pub, a hotel a 400% increase. Does


she recognise Brighton will be disproportionately affected and will


she set up a discretionary fund to support small businesses and agreed


to a full review of the whole system? Business rates are based on


the rental values of properties and the rental values of properties


change over time going up and down and it is right that rates changed


to recognise that. That is the principal of furnace that underpins


the business rates system. We want to support businesses and recognise


that for some business rates will go up when these revaluations take


place which is why we have put significant funding in place for


transitional relief but I recognise there has been particular concern


there will be some small businesses that are particularly adversely


affected by the result of this evaluation and that is why I have


asked the Chancellor and the Communities Secretary to make sure


there is appropriate relief for those cases hardest-hit. She gave a


sympathetic answer to the honourable friend for the new Forest. Can I put


it to her that for many of us there is something profoundly wrong with a


criminal justice system which can pursue veterans will risk their


lives for this country, 40 years on after any possibility of new


evidence, while at the same time is capable of paying out ?1 million to


a terror suspect. In relation to this issue in Northern Ireland, we


are... The issue with the legacy bodies was part of the Stormont


House agreement and we are working to deliver on that agreement. As I


said, the overwhelming majority of our armed forces serving in Northern


Ireland served with great distinction and we owe them a huge


debt of gratitude. The situation at the moment is there a case is being


pursued against officers who served in Northern Ireland. We want to see


developing a legacy body, a proportionate fair and balanced


approach. We recognise the majority of individuals were the result...


Were at the result of the hands of terrorists. The Prime Minister


pledged to end the burning injustice of so few working-class boys going


to university. Can she tell me how cutting every single secondary


school in Rochdale, Trafford and Manchester through the new schools


funding formula is going to do anything other than make that


injustice even worse? We want to ensure through the education system


that we have a good school place for every child. And the Conservatives


in government we have seen 1.8 million more children in good or


outstanding schools. We are looking at the funding formula for schools.


We are listening to the comments made. Everybody across this house


will recognise that for some time it has been said the existing funding


formula is not transparent and is fair. But I can assure that our


education policy is about ensuring every child has the opportunity to


go as far as their talents and hard-working Ed Balls them to do. --


enables. You saw what a cut run means for a town and club like


Sutton. With Wimbledon out of the picture wonder if she will join me


in teen graduating Sutton for such a spirited performance on Monday and


in wishing Lincoln well to keep the non-league spirit alive in the next


round. He must be heard. Finally come gradually to and thanking


arsenal for their generosity and allowing Sutton to keep a little bit


of an extra slice of the FA Cup pie. Any reference to pie. I am happy to


congratulate Sutton on the extremely good run that they had in the FA


Cup. It is important and makes a huge difference to local areas when


their football club is able to progress to that extent and is able


to be up there with the big boys and do as well as they did and I am


happy to congratulate Lincoln city on the success may have shown and we


wish them well for the future. Finally, Michelle Thomson. The green


investment bank is currently being sold. Some reports suggest that the


contract could soon be concluded. This despite the U:K.'s dated focus


on research and development and the fact that no realistic guarantees


have yet been given as to the continuation of the proper


headquarters and board based in Edinburgh. Will she commits to


looking again as to why a sale at this time is not in the best


interest of Edinburgh or the green agenda or the UK taxpayer? Before I


respond I also am apologies. I am sorry to the member for Stroud and


mixing him up with the member for Lincoln. I was obviously getting


carried away with the football fever. In relation to the green


investment bank, I will write to her with response to the questions she


has raised. The Prime Minister has applied a very straight bat. We will


leave it there. The Speaker although hers in the


cricketing metaphor, which at least raised overall tone. Don't even go


there! It is at least a proper sport. I will come onto the NHS in a


minute but a developing news story here... Caroline Lucas, the Krhin


member for Brighton, raised the question of business rates. Small


businesses in her community, some of them faced some high-rises -- the


Green member for Brighton. The Prime Minister said she had asked the


Chancellor and the community secretary, Sajid Javid, for "Proper


relief." That suggests to me something is in the pipeline on


that. We heard earlier from Grant Shapps on this programme. Mr Corbyn


went with the NHS, he had a number of figures to throw out the Prime


Minister about hospital bed cuts, about the lack of doctors and


nurses, taking away the nurses' bursary, 62 Council leaders writing


to the prime ministers saying they did not have enough for social care.


And the Prime Minister of course as is often the case on PMQs, had her


own statistics, not often relevant to his. There was a kind of passing


statistics across the front benches there from both sides. We will go


back to the political invocations of this in a minute, but first, what


did our viewers make of the exchanges? They were not that keen


on the bandying about of statistics because they could not really follow


them, perhaps like the rest of them. John Baker from them instead, says


the Prime Minister clearly had her feathers ruffled on the NHS, could


not answer any of Jeremy Corbyn's questions and looked uncomfortable.


Her response was just to attack Labour. I suppose that is her job.


Another one, what is the truth? I have very little confidence in most


of the politicians in Westminster and PMQs only endorses this feeling.


Ten Bassett, not the most stimulating PMQs, the Prime Minister


displaying confidence, but I do wish the NHS was no longer a political


football. We all agree citizens want and deserve great health care.


Rather than fight I would like to see some consensus. Edward Buxton,


he says Jeremy Corbyn is replaying the Labour Party's strategy from the


losing 2015 election campaign, keep banging on and on about the NHS. All


right. John, Mr Corbyn certainly got the NHS onto the agenda here for


Prime Minister's Questions. But I wonder, given the importance of the


two by-elections we were discussing earlier, did he do enough, in a way,


to get it onto the agenda so it can be big in the news tonight, big in


the papers tomorrow, so that people in Stoke and in Copeland think it is


high up the agenda again? I am not sure he succeeded in doing that.


There was no particular punch through moment of revelation or


blood on the floor at the end of it. He did get the NHS to be the main


subject of dispute in that regard it was mission accomplished, but then


we got into, as you say, a crossfire of statistics, which I suspect from


evidence already as well would have left many bamboozled and excluded


from the substance of the debate. On both sides I think that was largely


the case, and they were preaching to the converted. But Jeremy Corbyn did


set out to get this as the main subject of dispute and succeeded in


doing that. Theresa May was not left empty-handed or there is no


ammunition. She came back, as we expected, with an attack on Labour's


economic competence, a round of ammunition that will always be happy


to backfire. When the leader of the opposition said nine out of ten NHS


trusts are unsafe, what did he mean? I am not sure where that figure came


from but the figure that really struck me in the exchange, and if I


were Gillian Trout, the one I would be plucking out for the people of


Copeland, that figure where she was saying, we have 80,000 more


midwives. If we have 18,000 more midwives, why are you closing the


maternity unit in the West Cumberland Hospital and shifting it


40 miles to Carlisle, and as a doctor and blue light ambulance


driver who has done that journey from West Cumberland to Carlisle,


she knows just what that means. You are referring to the Copeland


by-election there, making your point. In fairness, I will get you


to respond briefly. Units allegation in regard to the closure of the unit


that I do not think is true. I know a lot of scaremongering is around --


Barry has made an allegation in regard to the closure of the unit.


This is why our candidate in Corb Lund has been campaigning on this


and pointing out that we are the ones sticking out for the NHS -- in


Copeland. But she could not confirm one way or another whether that


closure would take place. It is uncertain. Yes and regarding the


birthing units, midwifery led, consultant led, it is these issues


were our candidate is campaigning and sticking it for the


constituency. When Mr Corbyn said nine out of ten NHS trusts are


unsafe but did not explain, Barry not quite sure what he meant, but I


am pretty sure that what he did mean is that they are unsafe in the sense


that nine out of ten trusts this winter have broken the normal


operational rule that no more than 85% of hospital beds should be


occupied. You keep a margin because of the unforeseen. If there is an


infection, delay, winter flu, whatever, nine out of ten have


breached that rule will stop in that sense they are unsafe and that is


not good. We know the pressures the NHS is under which is why I


certainly pay tribute to the NHS staff working so hard, but it is


also the fact we have put in the additional consultant into A I


want to come back... You may have done that, but nine out of ten NHS


trusts this winter were above... They had more than 85% of beds


occupied, and to minimise risk of infection, delays in getting


treatment, they are not meant to breach that limit. In that sense


they are unsafe. I would say to you that this has been a very pressured


winter, which we do understand, and we are slow to recognise that. That


is why we have been putting in place additional steps, why actually in


terms of the way in which additional funds have been coming into the NHS


that has been factored in in a different way to front-load some of


that investment. But it is right to say there are more A consultants


there. And coming to this issue of beds it is also worth recognising we


treat people is different now. The length of stay, which about 15 years


ago was around eight days, is now about five days. Also looking at the


Labour Party on this, they actually saw this as a success in terms of


closures... She actually said when she was... The length of stay may


have sorted but the length of time you have to wait to get in is


getting longer and longer under this Government. Waiting lists are rising


on a number of fronts. That is true, isn't it? That is why we have


invested in the NHS, something the Labour Party said they would cut.


They were not going to invest in extra support and funding. They


cannot get in because there are not enough hospital beds. Germany on a


per capita basis has almost twice as many beds as we do in hospitals and


in Germany you will find none of the waiting list is equivalent to what


you have to wait for in this country, none. BBC recently had a


number of reports from German hospitals. Every health system has


its own faults, but in Germany and even in France, the degree of


waiting times to get these things done nothing like they are in


Britain. And we see huge pressures in the NHS with an ageing


population, more levels of... The German population is ageing even


more. They have a demographic time bomb no. With the serious issues


presented in A, that is why we have put more doctors into A, why


we have been taking steps to support individual NHSs under pressure and


why we continue to invest in the NHS, something the Labour Party said


they would not do. A quick word from you. Can I say over the last five


years of the Tory Government ?20 billion was taken out of social


care. We are ?4.6 billion short of what social care needs now and that


is the extent of the cuts. That is what is causing the problem. The bed


blocking... If you cannot get people out of hospital you cannot get them


into hospital. I think our viewers are probably reeling from the


statistics. Let's give them a break. While we were on PMQs, Mr Blair's


office made a statement, as Mr Tony Blair. That is interesting. Yes, you


will remember during question time the Conservative MP Julian Brazier


invited the Prime Minister to rise to the debate of the story,


prominent in a number of newspapers this morning, particularly the Daily


Mail. The story of Ronald Fiddler, the Isis suicide bomber who it


turned out had been a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, was returned to this


country then heavily compensated by the Government at that time. Much


outrage in the Daily Mail, certainly an echo of that on the Government


side as well, and Tony Blair, and although Theresa May did not rise to


this, Tony Blair has. Whilst PMQs was on a committee released a


statement in his office who said it was actually the Conservative


Government in 2010 and not his repeat this compensation to Ronald


Fiddler. He was probably working his way through the system... It was the


coalition Government in power when the money was paid out. Does it


confirm a figure? The figure is ?1 million, as you can see. He has more


interesting things to say as well about the Daily Mail. Yes, he points


out that at the time of the detention the Daily Mail was arguing


for the release of Guantanamo Bay detainees on the basis they were


being held for an extended period without charge, and this is a fact.


He also argues in the statement that we now have in the last few minutes,


that the then opposition party, the Conservatives, then in -- known


Government, were also echoing those calls, and he said this. "Those Who


demanded their release should not be allowed to get away with telling us


it is a scandal." And the Daily Mail campaign for his release. It will be


interesting to read that one in the Daily Mail tomorrow. Good to have


you with us, John. Let's pick up on another issue raised at PMQs.


The Prime Minister was asked about ongoing police investigation is into


the Trouble is in Northern Ireland. It was Julian Lewis who put the


question to Theresa May, and he joins us from the Central lobby


know. What is it you are calling for? I am calling for a break-out


from this endless cycle of investigating and reinvestigating


cases where there is no prospect of credible new evidence coming


forward, and what we need to do is to draw a line under it by bringing


in a statute of limitations that would prevent the further attempts


to drag ex-service personnel through the courts, up to 40 years after the


events which are being investigated over and over again, and for which


they have never been persecuted. But as you know these police legacy


investigations into killings that occurred during the Troubles are


looking at paramilitaries and also security forces. Would it be right


to stop those, in terms of the families that were affected? My


concern has to be about the welfare of the Armed Forces. It is bad


enough that people have to go into situations of extreme danger when


they are serving their country. It is completely unconscionable that


they should be dragged through endless processes on the basis of no


credible evidence, and therefore we need to put an end to this matter,


just as we have put an end to the similar behaviour in Iraq when the


lawyer said it couldn't be done. It could be done and it has been done.


Well, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland


is of course James Brokenshire, who's still with us.


What will you do about it? I think there are concerns about the whole


issue of legacy in Northern Ireland. This touches on victims as well


obviously as well as personnel and police. The Stormont agreement two


years ago set process to have a balanced fair and equitable system.


We want to move forward with that. We think it provides the most


effective way of dealing with these issues. To ensure... But should


officers still be investigated or should there be a cut-off point?


Ultimately I think it comes down to the issue of evidence, and the


police and prosecutors looking at it in that way. They are independent of


government and rightly so. But you yourself are quoted in the papers at


the end of January. You criticise the legacy investigations for


disproportionately focusing on members of the security forces. You


stand by that? I think the whole system is not effectively balanced.


That is a concern that was reflected in the Stormont house, and actual


concept of proportionality that was born within it. That is why I do


support that coming forward, that is why we have been working with the


parties in Northern Ireland, recognising justice is devolved in


Northern Ireland, to get agreement so we can actually see this moving


forward for the benefit of everybody, who frankly the system is


letting down. But the figures do not necessarily bear that out. If 70% of


those legacy investigations are directed towards reviewing killings


caused by paramilitaries, not of security forces? 90% of those who


died during the Troubles were at the hands of terrorists. Only 10% were


involved in some state -based link. But is it right to pursue those?


Ultimately this is for the police and prosecutors. I believe in the


rule of law... But you have waded in by giving your view. I said it was a


question of having that proportionately balanced system that


the Stormont has set forward and I want to step forward, to get into


the public consultation to ensure we give confidence to everyone being


able to take this forward. We have literally 30 seconds. What is your


response to James Brokenshire? Will you push this? Learn from what they


did in South Africa. Time comes when you have to say enough is enough for


all concerned. Cut-off date should be the date of the Belfast agreement


and anything relating to matters before that should be


non-prosecutable. The end, finished and good riddance. And otherwise? I


think we have run out of time. There's just time to put you out


of your misery and give Not that long ago! Slam that button


and we will find the winner. Matthew Mott, from London. You have the


answer, well done, you win a month. -- you will win a mug.


The News at One is starting over on BBC One now.


Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big


I've searched the world to find these extraordinary people.


I woke up and I could suddenly just play the piano.


The human body is unique within nature.


And the most extraordinary people on the planet


are those who are helping to unlock its mysteries.


Download Subtitles