10/06/2011 The Record

Hello and Welcome to the Record Review. The PM is for turning. This

week it's been Ken Clarke's sentencing policy. David Cameron

says he's listening to the people. But Labour doesn't quite see it

like that. After another week of chaos from this coalition, is it

any wonder that the Archbishop of Canterbury is now on his knees in

despair? One man has been talking quietly to all the top people in

the Coalition and he tells us it's working like a well-oiled machine.

This coalition has proved remarkably stable, united and very

effective in terms of quick, firm decisions. Also, two new MPs

celebrate their first anniversary with some frank things to say about

life at Westminster. And politics meets art - we reveal the paintings

the politicians choose for their offices. But first, there was no

shortage of items filling David Cameron's in-tray this week. First,

the Prime Minister gave apparent concessions to the Liberal

Democrats on changes to the NHS. Next, the liberal plans of the

Justice Secretary, for a 50% cut in sentences for offenders who plead

guilty early, was unceremoniously dropped by David Cameron. On

Thursday, Labour totted up the U- turns and wondered what had

happened to the Coalition's agenda for public service reform. Back in

February the Prime Minister proclaimed we will soon publish a

White Paper setting out our approach to public service reform

that will signal the decisive end of the old-fashioned top-down model.

Bold words, soon, decisive. What's happened? Nothing. First it was put

off until May. Now, we hear, it's been delayed until July because of

another coalition split. One Lib Dem official said, "Nick does not

want there to be any sense that the public sector can't be a provider

of good quality public services." We can all feel another pause

coming on. Finally, Baroness Thatcher famously possessed no

reverse gear. This Prime Minister has a car stuffed full of them and

a reverse gear as well! It does make us wonder what exactly goes on

inside Number Ten when the Prime Minister approves of all these

policies only to reverse in the opposite direction scattering his

Cabinet colleagues in the way. So after another week of chaos from

this coalition, is it any wonder that the Archbishop of Canterbury

is now on his knees in despair? the question of the Archbishop, I

haven't seen the full text of what the Archbishop has said. I hope he

has found time to balance any criticism of the coalition with

commendation for some of the things we have done. The 0.7% of GMI

commitment on overseas aid making sure the poorest people in the

world don't bear the burden of solving our problems. I hope he

also finds time to commend, to commend our action on the pupil

premium, taking lower income people out of tax. The Archbishop said

that the coalition was rushing things through which nobody voted

for. You could turn the coin over and say in a Parliament where no

one party has a majority there is much less likelihood of that

happening. Hilary Benn poking some fun at the Government. Sir George

Young fighting back after the Archbishop of Canterbury has said

no-one voted for the Coalition. Well, no-one did vote directly for

a Con-Lib Dem Coalition. But that's what we've got and could in fact

have all the way to the Spring of 2015. But, regardless of its

policies, has this two-party coalition, something pretty unusual

in UK politics, actually been working effectively? A detailed

study of the way the Coalition has been operating in the power

corridors of Whitehall is being carried out by London University's

Constitution Unit. The project's led by the constitutional expert,

Professor Robert Hazell. When he came into the Record Review studio,

he told me about the way his team had gone about its research. Well,

this is a 12-month study. We began in January. Over the spring, we

have interviewed 90 people, mainly in Whitehall, in Cabinet Office, in

Number Ten... This is at all levels of seniority? These are all pretty

senior people. In three case study departments in Whitehall, which are

DEFRA and DEC and the Department of Communities and Local Government.

And in Parliament, we have interviewed a lot of MPs on the

Conservative and Lib Dem benches and also in the House of Lords we

have interviewed a lot of Conservative and Lib Dem peers.

have all got our own ideas about Coalition Government and academics

have had theories about how our Coalition Government might work.

What surprises would you say there have been in the year of Coalition

Government that we weren't really expecting at all? I think the big

surprise for the British people, who were pretty prejudiced against

coalitions, and thought that they would be weak and indecisive, is

that this coalition in its first year has proved remarkably stable,

united and very effective in terms of quick, firm decisions, some of

which admittedly they are now going wobbly on, but no-one can say this

Government has been indecisive. large part of the strength of the

coalition has been the two people at the top, Cameron and Clegg?

Absolutely. That relationship is crucial and they do get on famously

well together. They have very regular meetings every Monday

morning and they also chat together on Sunday evening and sometimes

they have an additional meeting during the week. Every one else at

the top, especially at Number Ten and Cabinet Office, takes their

tune from Cameron and Clegg and so around them they have top advisors

who also get on very well together and have very, very regular

informal dealings with each other, some of them several times a day.

little bit of resentment from Conservative MPs that the Prime

Minister, the leader of their party is doing so much talking to a

Liberal Democrat? Of course. That is a natural outcome of a coalition,

that the backbenchers feel excluded because their frontbench as it were

has got into bed with someone else. In both parties it is important for

the leadership also to keep closely in touch with the Parliamentary

Party and with the party outside. Do you think that has led to more

rebellions than would have been expected because of that point?

This Parliament has been the most rebellious we have ever seen, in

fact in the first nine months of this Parliament there have been

more rebellions on the Government benches than in the first four

years of Tony Blair's first Government. So there is an

extraordinarily high degree of rebellion. One of the key findings

that you have discovered is that the Lib Dem identity has been lost

as a result of this coalition. What do you think the Liberal Democrats

can do about that? I think it is very difficult for them. In the

coalition agreement, they did really well and in an analysis that

we did of the two manifestos against the coalition agreement

shows the Lib Dems got more of their manifesto, 75%, into the

coalition agreement compared with the Tories who only got 60% in. So

in terms of the underlying policy for this Government, it is arguably

more Lib Dem than Tory. But the public I think will never see how

much influence the Lib Dems have because they are making lots of

small wins across the whole of Whitehall most of which are

invisible to the media and to the public. The Lib Dems, there is an

inherent problem here. As the Lib Dems try to show their distinct

identity, that must come at a slight cost to the stability of the

coalition? It's a classic dilemma for coalitions that they have to

demonstrate unity in Government, but enable both the parties also to

demonstrate their distinctive identity to the public, especially

as we look to the next election. It is much harder for the junior

partner. Do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake by pressing on with

the AV referendum and Lords reform? It was a mistake, particularly on

the AV referendum. I have been warning if they held the referendum

on the timetable which they did it was going to be lost. The main

reason why they suffered that defeat was reckless haste. On Lords

reform, they partly learnt the lesson and they are going very slow

on that, in that it took a year for them to publish their proposals.

They are now going to be considered by a Joint Committee and that may

take another year. What did you notice about divisions between

members of the Cabinet? The Cabinet, we haven't found many divisions

across the coalition divide. Interestingly, several of our

interviewees said to us the strongest disagreements in this

Government have been between ministers of the same party.

Examples given, and these aren't secret, are the big tussles there

have been between Ken Clarke as Justice Secretary and Theresa May

as Home Secretary over justice versus security and law-and-order

kind of issues, or on the Lib Dem side between Chris Huhne, batting

for climate change, and Vince Cable, batting for business. There's an

obvious tension between these two. That reminds the Lib Dems are

sprinkled across - I think they have 22 ministerial posts - across

the departments. Do you think it would have been better if they had

one or two departments that would have been exclusively Liberal

Democrat? Would that have worked? That is a really good question.

That is something we are going to explore much more in the next phase

of our project. You are quite right, the Lib Dems did decide at the

beginning of this Government to go for breadth rather than depth. And

as a result of that breadth, it is really difficult for them to

demonstrate significant impact on specific areas of policy so that if

there is a reshuffle, and if I were offering advice to Nick Clegg, I

think I would say if you can, regroup your ministers in much more

concentrated areas so that you can show to the public where the Lib

Dems are making a difference. Another finding that you have made

is that the Deputy Prime Minister's office is under strength. What can

be done to make amends there? largely it has been strengthened in

terms of numbers, but Nick Clegg's team will never be as senior or

experienced as the people in Number Ten and that's their underlying

difficulty so it is never going to have the same clout as Number Ten

working for the Prime Minister. And I think all that Nick Clegg can do

is look for support from some of the people in Number Ten, which he

does get, but also carve out for himself very clear strategic

priorities which the public can know and understand. Do you think

the Liberal Democrats have enough time? 2015, the next general

election, have they got enough time to turn things around because

electorally they have just had a bit of a mauling in the recent

local elections? It's always difficult for the junior partner

and the junior partner in a coalition suffers electorally

because they can't distinguish themselves sufficiently to the

electorate. But they have got four years. If they do begin to carve

out some very clear strategic priorities so that they can go to

the electorate in 2015 and say, "Look, this is the difference that

we have made, in this area, this area and this." At the moment, if

you look at the Lib Dem website and you see the policy documents where

they analyse the difference they have made, when I last looked they

had 140 different items. They are never going to convince the

electorate if they have that many policy items. On the general

political landscape, because there's two parties in Government

and one party in opposition, does that change the dynamics on every

issue and how the public perceives it because you have one main party,

namely Labour, that is in opposition each time, do you think

that has an effect on how the public perceive each issue?

would be very interesting to know how many members of the public know

that the Lib Dems are in Government. What they see is a Government led

by David Cameron. So, I suspect for a lot of the public we have a Tory

Government. That's another difficulty for the Lib Dems in

convincing the public that they are having an impact and to some extent,

sometimes they have to come out almost in opposition to the

Government of which they are members. Finally, history is not on

the Liberals side, when they have taken part in peacetime coalitions,

it has been a complete disaster for them at the next election. That

must be weighing heavily on the minds of Nick Clegg and his senior

Lib Dem colleagues? Indeed. The Liberals, as they were, have been

in coalition three times in the last century or so. And on each

occasion it's led to a split in the Liberal Party. The key lesson for

Nick Clegg, what he's got to watch out for, is that when the party

becomes uncomfortable about being in coalition, the rot as it were

starts from the tail not from the head. So it's the members of the

party or the Parliamentary Party who become really unhappy and begin

to split away and he needs to keep his party and his parliamentary

colleagues strongly on board. Professor Hazell. It's one year on

for the class of 2010, and the Hansard Society has just published

a survey of the attitudes of the new Commons intake. MPs complain of

being overworked and unimpressed with some of Parliaments'

procedures. Many have taken a big pay cut. Our reporter Emma Murray

asked the Conservative MP Simon Hart and the Commons' first Green

MP, Caroline Lucas, if they'd known what they were letting themselves

I did know it was a pretty weird and wonderful place. It has lived

up to that assessment. What shocked me most is the amount of time that

MPs have to waste, whether it is sitting in the chamber for hours on

hours on the offchance they might get the speaker's eye or and the

queuing up in order to vote much we calculated over the lifetime of a

four-year Parliament MPs could be wasting 250 hours waiting to go

through the aye lobby or the no lobby. That inefficiency has been

shocking. I think most of my voters expect me to be in the chamber

listening to debate. Standing around talking to colleagues while

you are waiting to vote, which is the last thing we do often in the

day's work, isn't a bad use of time. I'm an evolutionist, not a

revolutionist. Many new MPs complained about being overworked.

Can you be effective when you are working a 74-hour week? We went

into it with our eyes open. It's tough. I'm not whingeing about it.

It's an exhilarating place to work. Yes, it's demanding. Yes, it's long

hours. It's not particularly socialable from a family point of

view. We'd like to think it's valuable work. Valuable work for

the people we represent. If we didn't like the hours which we were

going to work we shouldn't have applied for the job in the first

place Can you be effective? I too take nart debates and sit and

listen to debates. To wait six hours not know if anything you will

get into a debate day after day is not, I would contend a good use of

time when you have constituents contact you on issues. I think the

issue here is how we organise our time. The way Westminster does it

is not very efficient. You wouldn't look at any other institution in

this country and think thiss with a good way of acting. The amount of

hours we work are many. That is not a surprise. I do think we should be

looking at other ways ever operating. For example, I attracted

much mirth when I suggested the idea of job sharing for MPs. I'm

serious about. It more women could get involved. Younger people could

get involved we could make this job a meaningful and febgive job rather

than it being the boys late at night. It's an old boys club. That

needs to change. I don't think I'm that old. I don't see it as a club.

I think what we do, it's prot duct. Are we providing value-for-money?

Are we doing what they want us to do? Sometimes, when we have

conversations like this it looks pretty self-indull gent. We spend

years trying to get elected, we get elected and then we complain about

how the system doesn't work. It does work quite well. There are

quite a lot of checks and balances in there which make sure in the end,

no matter how frustrating it is, it stops us making stupid decisions.

Well, mainly stops us taking stupid decisions. We have to be cautious

about saying, it's all rubbish, let's get rid of it because we

kfplt I'm not saying it's all rubbish or get rid of. It I say

look at reforms that I proposed. We have had debates in Westminster

Hall we will have a debate on the floor of the House. There is

concern about how we make Parliament more efficient and more

effective. I hope that translates into effective reforms very soon.

There is going to change? I'm sure it can change if the political will

is there. I might have to work on him first.

The views there of two spring chickens in the Westminster

farmyard. Now, a look at some of the other

stories around Parliament in the last seven days.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has given details of the new

National Crime Agency, which will replace the Serious Organised Crime

Agency, set up only five years ago. It'll cover drugs and gun crime,

and will also have responsibility to tackle the exploitation of

children on the internet. National Crime Agency will be a

crime fighting organisation. It will tackle organised crime, defend

our borders, fight fraud and sieb cyber crime and protect children

and young people. The Government is pushing ahead with American-style

plans for -- that nobody wants much they are dogged by chaos and

confusion. There is no sign the Home Secretary has got a grip.

A financial crisis at the care provider Southern Cross prompts

some peers to attack the involvement of private companies in

the care sector. Given the latest revelation that is Southern Cross

traded the care of older people for short-term profit. Given the

revolution that the quality care commission failed to come to the

help of suffering people in a home in Bristol, can I urge him to take

the most urgent steps, as soon as possible, to relieve the suffering

of people old and frail and dependant, who are currently

suffering much neglect? problems besetting Southern Cross

are an object lesson in the dangers of market failure attending the

privatisation of public services. The newest Royal of all, but could

the phone messages of Kate Middleton, before she became the

Duchess of Cambridge, have been hacked into?

A Labour MP alerts the Prime Minister. The Metropolitan Police

are in pocession of paperwork that details the dealings of Jonathan

reest. It strongly suggests that on behalf of News International he was

illegally targeting members of the Royal Family, senior Pol Pot

titions and high level terrorist informers. In the case of phone

haging, which is illegal and wrong, there have been prosecutions, there

have been imprisonments. If that is where the evidence takes them, that

is what will happen in the future. A home grown crisis of a rather

green nature. Can we convince everyone that the

British cucumber is safe to eat, following the E-coli outbreak in

Germany? Despite British produce being perfectly safe many farmers

are seeing a fall in sales of 30% to 50%. Some are on their way to

bankruptcy. Account Government redouble their efforts to fair

access tolts 150 million euros of EU compensation and for Russia to

lift its unfair ban on UK cucumbers. I share his concern about UK

cucumber producers. All the evidence is that it's perfectly

safe to eat them. Sir George Young rallying to the

defence of the British cucumber. Food for thought.

From Whitehall to the Whitechapel Art Gallery.

Did you know the government owns a massive art collection, worth many

millions? The art is used to adorn the

offices of Ministers and Mandarins. Yet the public, which owns the

collection, has never seen it. Until now.

Five exhibitions over the coming years are going to be put on around

the country. Emma Murray has been down to the

first exhibition in East London to take a look at what we've been

buying all these years. From 16th century monarch arks to 21st

century politicians. Where the political elite are to be found so

too is art. Now, for the first time, in its 113th year history, a small

slice of the government art collection is open to the public.

The exhibit features work choosen by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

and Culture Minister. Labour's Lord Mandelson and Lord Boateng have

also made selections from the government's pieces. I asked Daniel

Herman where the connection lies between art and politics? I think

politics and art has long been a connection. We can't think of

politics without art. Ever since the Romans who had their heads of

state embossed on coins, do we have picture politics. Of course, there

is a strong connection between what you put up in your room. What you

put up in an official building and how you carry yourself and how you

represent yourself. It's about putting your best foot forward.

This particular painting is very popular because it is by one of the

best British artists of the post- war generation. It shows a scene of

post-war austerity. A group scene of lots of people aseming at the

Lancashire Fair, the painting was painted in 1946. It was acquired by

the government art collection for �120. Even though it's quite a

substantial sum of money at the time has been a tremendous

investment. These paintings are ambassadors for Britain. This is is

the first of five displace and is on at the Whitechapel Art Gallery.

It will finish in the Ulster Museum in Belfast.

You're watching the Record Review, after a week when the coalition

government found itself under double attack from

and the Archbishop of Canterbury., cooling and Labour.

The Duke of Edinburgh is 90, and MPs and peers have been paying

tribute. Prince Phillip is the longest-

serving Royal consort in British history.

He's spent more than six decades talking to people, all kinds of

people, on, literally, thousands of official Royal visits, sometimes in

his own right, but often alongside the Queen.

The Duke has made several hundred speeches and is, perhaps, best

known for his quirky, unpredictable comments, some of which might be

called 'politically incorrect'. His world-renowned Duke of

Edinburgh's Award Scheme has helped children achieve skills and self-

reliance. The Prime Minister described the Prince's naval record

and his great support for environment charities. He has a

down-to-earth no nonsense approach that the British people, I believe,

find.endearing. Of course, many of us who give public speeches would

be honoured to have a book published of our most famous

sayings. There have been several published of his. My own favourite

was when, after a long flight, the eager to please official asked him,

"how was your flight?" He replied, "have you been on a plane, you know

how it goes up in the air and comes back down again, well, it was just

like that". I would like to go on for longer I'm reminded about his

remark about certificate mons who overrun. The Duke put it, "the mind

cannot absorb what the backside cannot endure". With that in mind

let me give the final say to the person who knows him best of all

Her Majesty the Queen. She said in a speeched he had been, "her

strength and stay all these years" that she and his whole family and

this and many other countries owe him a debt greater than he would

ever claim or we shall ever know. The Duke has been a Prince amongst

consort is a King amongst characters. His unique turn of

phrase has become a-loved feature of modern British life. There are

two repeatable examples that I want to share with the House today. To

the matron of a hospital he visited in the Caribbean he commented, "you

have mosquitos, I have the press". I think that's a sentiment which

many of us should share at various times in politics. Legend also has

it that following the Coronation in 1953 he turned to Her Majesty and

say said, "where did you tkpwhaet hat?" We should, in this House, and

we do, feel gratitude, respect and pride for Prince Philip's service

to his country and to recall that he is indeed part of that

remarkable generation that served with distinction during the war,

who did their duty and just got on with it then with the rebuilding of

Britain afterwards. He certainly is, Mr Speaker, a formidable man and

refreshingly does not suffer fools gladly. As I know to my cost.

2001 he was invited, as I think was the Prime Minister and others

elected, it was our tenth anniversary yesterday, we were

invited to Buckingham Palace and the Duke of Edinburgh came up to

Panjit and said, "what did you do before you got this job?" He said,

"I worked in a trade union". The Duke of Edinburgh immediately

replied, "bugger all then". To which, he thought he could

retaliate with force said, "what did you do before you got this job"

to which he replied, "fought in the Second World War". There are

occasions when I think a little bit of humility from this House towards

his Royal highness is appropriate. In a BBC documentary for his 90th

birthday I understand the Duke says of his role, "it's all been trial

and ror," as his son says in the programme, "that view is typical of

him, he is modest about himself". While the Duke of Edinburgh may

indeed be modest his achievements are not. For many people, all over

the world, the words Duke of Edinburgh are linked with the award

scheme which carries his name. While confounding all the

stereotypical views we hold of someone facing his tenth decade,

the Duke retained his bounce and interest in life. His robust sense

of humour added a welcome informality to official occasions.

A reported conversation at a press reception to mark the Golden

Jubilee in 2002 went something like this, "who are you?", "I'm the

Editor in Chief of the Independent". "what are you doing here?" "you

invited me, sir ." "well, you didn't have to come". He likes to

cut to the heart of the matter. The current Bishop of Norwich the Duke

asked him, "are you happy clappie?" To hi he reresponded "no, I'm

smells and bells". I'm pleased to say following this robust exchange

This week saw a special sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly at

Stormont. David Cameron became the second Prime Minister to address

the Assembly since the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The Prime

Minister was driven to Stormont, on the outskirts of Belfast on

Thursday afternoon meeting officials as he arrived before

stepping inside the famous and historic building. A short walk

through Stormont and then, Members of the Assembly got to their feet

as the Prime Minister entered the debating chamber. David Cameron

first struck a historical note. I also say what an honour it is to

stand here and speak in this historic chamber? Of course, I

recognise this is not a place without controversy. In the past,

it was for some a guarantee of their place within the Union. For

others, a symbol of a state and a system from which they felt

excluded. I don't intend to ignite that debate, but I am reminded of

the words of King George V in 1921 and his appeal to all Irishmen and

women, "To stretch the hand of forebearance and conciliation and

to forgive and forget." It was time to revive the private sector and

attract investment. Northern Ireland is too dependent on the

state. Three quarters of your GDP is accounted for by state spending.

At a time when we are dealing with the biggest budget deficit in our

peacetime history, that is unsustainable and has to change. We

recognise the difficulties facing Northern Ireland as you chart a new,

more sustainable economic future, it requires us in Westminster to

act responsibly. That is why we made sure that Northern Ireland did

proportionately better than other parts of the UK in the Spending

Review. By the end of this Parliament, the Northern Ireland

Resource Budget will have gone down by 6.9%, that is 1. And he

concluded. 7% a year. Let us work together to make devolution a

success. Let us work together to revive the economy. Let us work

together to build a shared future. In working together, be assured

that you have a Prime Minister, a Secretary of State and a Government

that will always stand by the people here in Northern Ireland.

Thank you. APPLAUSE David Cameron. Now they're springing up in ever

greater numbers. And they're increasingly important for the UK's

energy mix. But are wind turbines friendly for us if we're near them?

Peers have been told that there's growing evidence that wind turbines

are having an adverse effect on those who live in their shadow.

Wind farm noise differs from other continuous forms of noise for

example the noise from a nuclear power station. It has a rhythmic

pulsing quality with a vibrating effect which many have found too

invasive and disturbing to live with. It can quite obviously

seriously damage people's health. My experience is that people mind

very much indeed at this persistent noise. It is painful, it is harmful.

I recently was at one station and it has larger wind turbines but far

fewer of them which is the way that they tend to, the movement is going

at the moment, less individual turbines but larger ones which are

much more efficient. I walked around that wind farm and I have to

say I can't remember hearing the noise while being at the site. I am

sure they do on occasions, there is those noise issues, but I would

suggest that noble Lords here stand by them and see what noise there is.

It is extremely low. Certainly far less than a main road. It is

bizarre that the environmental worriers support this programme

when what it does to the visual environment as has been pointed out

is quite appalling. I object to the fact that they are described as

"wind farms". I think the farms and the farming community contribute

enormously to our environment and to our visual environment. These

objects are quite the opposite, they scar, I think we need a new

collective name. I think "wind blight" is one that could be used

in the future. Views about wind turbines. Talking about heat and

light, Prime Minister's Questions was back on Wednesday after a two-

week break, so no shortage of issues for Ed Miliband to focus on.

The Labour leader claimed the criminal justice policy was in a

"total mess" following news that David Cameron had blocked the plans

to give 50% reductions in sentences to criminals who plead guilty early.

The Labour leader said he knew why David Cameron was in effect

"tearing up" Kenneth Clarke's original proposal. We read in the

newspapers today that the Prime Minister's torn up the Justice

Secretary's proposals because he felt he had to step in and I can

see why. There is widespread public concern around this country about

this proposal to cut by 50% the sentencing for those who plead

guilty. I just ask the Prime Minister again, the consultation

ended in March. The Justice Secretary was advocating the policy

two weeks' ago. Has he torn it up, "yes" or "no"? I think the right

honourable gentleman ought to do something more useful than read the

newspapers. One response to the consultation paper came from his

Shadow Justice Secretary, the man sitting next to him, who said this

in response to the consultation paper. He said this: "It is a

perfectly sensible vision for a sentencing policy entirely in

keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that Labour

followed in Government." Why the sudden U-turn? Mr Speaker, he knows

and the whole country knows he is in a total mess on his sentencing

policy. Just like on all of his other crime policies. I now want to

ask about another area where he is in a complete mess. Can the Prime

Minister tell us why he has made such a mess of his health plans?

I'm not surprised he wants to move on. On the first subject he was

found guilty. And as regards NHS reforms, the Prime Minister again

quoted the words of Labour's John Healey, the Shadow Health Secretary.

This is what he said: "Looking at the evidence of what works,

listening hard to those who know the NHS and learning from the views

they get, that is not rocket science, it is simply good

Government." So, what he calls a shambles, his Shadow Health

Secretary calls good Government. He is not in command of the ship.

did he tell the Royal College of Nursing a year before the election?

There will be no more of those pointless top-down reorganisations

that aim for change and instead bring chaos. Why did he say that?

If he wants to look at what is happening in the NHS, there is only

one part of the country that is controlled by neighbour, that is

Wales. In Wales, waiting lists are massively up and health spending is

being cut. That is what Labour would do to the NHS. Mr Speaker, I

will tell him why he made promises that he then broke because he is

shameless and he will say anything. And the second reason he's made a

mess of the Health Service is because he didn't think the policy

through. Last June, he ordered the NHS to stop enforcing Labour's 18-

week waiting time target. As a result of that, the number of

patients waiting more than 18 weeks has gone up by 69%. Why did he

scrap that instruction to enforce the waiting time target? I think

the best that can be said about this performance is obviously...

Quite rightly, he wasn't thinking about politics on his honeymoon.

Look, the point I would make is waiting times, what matters is the

time people wait. Medium waiting times are down. That is what's

happened in the NHS, that is something he misled the House of

Commons about a fortnight ago and still hasn't...

THE SPEAKER: Order. I know the Prime Minister will be a follower

of parliamentary protocol and he won't suggest the Leader of the

Opposition misled the House of Commons. I am sure he will withdraw

that remark. I'm grateful. He gave an interesting use of facts

in terms of waiting times which are down in the NHS. David Cameron and

Ed Miliband with the weekly ritualistic exchanges. Backbench

MPs raised a variety of subjects with the Prime Minister. One

focused on the age of magistrates compared with the age of Kenneth

Clarke, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Why do magistrates

have to retire at the age of 70 when the Lord Chancellor who

appoints them is 71 this year? point I would make to my honourable

friend is, it is important - and I speak of somebody whose mother

serve as a magistrate - it is important you get turnover in the

magistrates so new come can come in. He's only been in his job for a

year. He is doing a superb job and I can tell you there is plenty more

fuel in his tank. Abroad, and a Conservative asks about the

worsening situation in Syria. Speaker, we are reminded on a daily

basis that not everyone in the world is as fortunate as us in the

freedoms that we enjoy in this country. In particular, I would

like to highlight the horror of the images of the 13-year-old boy who

was tortured by forces of the Syrian government in the recent

weeks. Will the Prime Minister give me his assurance that he will use

every influence he has to ensure the international community condemn

the activities of the Syrian government and the demand that

their reign of terror ends? I think the honourable lady has spoken for

the whole House in what she said about those dreadful pictures of

that poor boy. There are credible reports of 1,000 dead and as many

as 10,000 detained and the violence being meted out to peaceful

protesters is completely unacceptable. Of course, we must

not stand silent in the face of these outrages, and we won't. We

have frozen assets and banned travel by members of the regime and

we have added President Assad to that list. We need to go further

and today, in New York, Britain and France will be tabling a resolution

at the Security Council condemning the repression and demanding

accountability and humanitarian access. If anyone votes against

that resolution, or tries to veto it, that should be on their

conscience. And time for a comment about

football. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with me that

there should be no place for corruption in football, given the

re-election of Sepp Blatter has brought FIFA into disrepute further,

will he take this opportunity to voice his support for those who are

calling for the reforms we need to show Mr Blatter the red card?

feel personally I have seen football governance at an

international level and I wasn't that impressed by what I saw.

FIFA's reputation is now at an all- time low and obviously the election

with one candidate was something of a farce. It has to become more

transparent and more accountable. They have to prove that they are

capable of doing the job that they are meant to. Change has got to

come from within football and I am sure the FA will want to play a

very major role in helping to bring that about. David Cameron. Now who

chooses what gets debated in Parliament? Well, historically,

it's the Government, apart from Opposition Days. But in the last

year there's been a change in the rules. And ordinary MPs, in the

form of a Backbench Business Committee, also get to decide on a

section of the timetable. First, individual MPs have to make their

own pitch to the committee. Here's the former Shadow Home Secretary

David Davis arguing on Tuesday why time must be found for a debate on

super-injunctions. The last time I spoke to this committee I was here

to talk about prisoner votes. That was a pretty clear-cut

straightforward black-and-white issue. This is absolutely the

opposite. I am looking at Mr Hemming, he knows it is the

absolute opposite. We have a series of competing rights and privileges

which have now become confused in the last five or ten years after

the effects of judicial law-making effectively on the back of the

Human Rights Act. It's an area where Parliament rather than

Government should have or at least as well as Government should have a

major say. We have got so little time and we are never sure when it

is going to be taken away from us and the first day we have isn't

until 23rd June. It is very topical. The Government will be setting up

in short order two Joint Committees. I think one's already set up. One

on privacy and one on the super- injunction issue. I think it is

important that Parliament rather than Government effectively sets

the criteria by which those committees will address their task

and they will be reporting within a year so they will be set up shortly.

That is the primary deadline if you This committee can only allocate

the time given to it by the government. That is limited,

especially in the chamber. I know you want a whole day, if we were

able to offer you two to three hours would you take it? I would

say no. This is to point to have an effect. If it can't have that

effect I'd rather steal that time from somebody else.. I'm a big fan

of what the backbench committee does and the new role it created

for Parliament. I wouldn't want to take us and use time effectively

when someone else could use it effectively. Another pitch as an

MPs argues argues for time for a debate on the proposed new high-

speed rail line between London and Birmingham. Those directly affected

in their own constituency have as yet formed a view. This is �30

billion plus project, more expensive than replacing Trident.

If you ask the House 550 members wouldn't have a view. We are keen

to have the profile that a debate in the chamber would give us, a

three-hour debate in the chamber. You pressed us to have a votable

motion. The transport Select Committee inquiry into the business

case and the national consultation it would not be appropriate for the

House to divide until after the consultation. The need to put that

issue out into the public domain, in a high profile way, is

absolutely urgent. The Attorney General, Dominic

Grieve, has rejected calls for an inquest into the death of the

government scientist Dr David Kelly. The scientist was at the centre of

a huge row between the BBC and the Labour government over the use of

intelligence on Iraq. The Hutton Inquiry in 2004 found

that Dr Kelly had committed suicide, but a group of doctors says there's

plenty of evidence it wasn't suicide.

Dominic Grieve spoke first about the large amount of paperwork he'd

received concerning Dr Kelly's death. Having given all the

material that has been sent to me the most careful consideration, I

have concluded that the evidence that Dr Kelly took his own life is

overwhelmingly strong. Further, there is nothing I've seen that

supports any allegations that Dr Kelly was murdered, or that his

death was the subject of any kind of conspiracy or coverup. In my

view, no purpose would be served by my making an application to the

High Court for an inquest. Indeed, I have no reasonable basis for

doing so. There is no possibility that at an inquest a verdict other

than suicide would be returned. Attorney-General's decision

substanciates the post-mortem and toxicology reports and published by

the Ministry of justice last October in the interest of

maintaining the public support. We accept the Attorney-General's

decision today on the basey he has carefully and clearly outlined his

detailed reasons for not applying to the High Court to request an

inquest into Dr Kelly's death duer duh to the lack of new compelling

evidence that Dr Kelly did not commit suicide. As a member of the

Foreign Affairs Committee that took evidence from Dr David Kelly I

never doubted he committed suicide. I leave Lord Hutton was right on

this even though his conclusions on the war have been challenged. I

have known the Attorney-General for many years. I know he would have

done a thorough job. Will he accept that the evidence on this is clear

and it a's's time to bring closure to that matter and move on.

questioned Dr Kelly two-days before he died, I formed the view that a

very distinguished public servant was deeply distressed by the

situation in which he had placed himself. Although I'm wholly

unpersuaded by any of the theories put forward as an alternative to

suicide could the attorney spell out what he thinks would be lost by

allowing the process of inquiry to be completed by an inquest?

first problem I have to say is that there is no basis on which the High

Court could possibly order an inquest. In my judgement, if I were

to go to the High Court and make such an application it would be

dismissed. Dismissed I would say, on the basis of my reasoning, with

a certain amount of irritation. Would the Attorney-General agree

with me that his statement today should put to bed some of the

outrageous speculations that members of our security forces

might have murdered Dr Kelly? On Monday, a Labour peer spoke of

the bravery of women who served in the Special Operations Executive,

or SOE, during the Second World War. The women were deployed behind

enemy lines and lived as ordinary citizens while helping the

Resistance. Agents for the SOE were taught how

to get out of handcuffs with a pencil, and how to kill with their

bare hands. They acted variously as couriers, wireless operators

saboteurs. They found places for planes to land, bringing more

agents and supplies. They established safe houses and worked

with resistance movements to disrupt the occupation and to clear

the paths for the allied advance. They did these things after given

wartime pressures, my lords, a very brief period of training.

Apparently, they had each been told, when recruited, that there was a

50% chance of personal survival. Yet, my lords, to their credit off

they went. They became the unofficial meeting place for SOE

people on leave. I do know that one brave woman stayed on over two

years after the war had finished. Every night she drank her two gins

and tonics and ate her dinnerment she never asked for or was given a

bill. That was the way that small hotel honoured our heroes. It is a

pity that those in charge never saw fit to do the same. My LordS, is it

too thriet put right this wrong? There are a number of memorials

around the country. Actually, what we sneed a memorial for all the

women in the SOE, not just those who were recognised post hue

mousely. I felt a great deal of shame when Eileen Nern was found by

herself, no family and the local authority in Torquay had to bury

her. What an indictment on a nation that owes so much to such a small

number. Comparison with the French may be difficult because the war on

their soil. They recognised the work of women. The key message was

universial reinforced throughout the museum. The service of these

women was of the highest order and undoubtedly militarily. I have seen

the brief displays where SOE agents, men and women were trained, barely

a mention of women. My LordS, it is clear that the outstanding

dangerous and sometimes deadly service of these women needs to be

recognised and at the highest level. I ask the Minister to consider

reevaluating the medals awarded to these women, both alive and post

hue mousely to be sure they reflect the highest military contribution

possible. We need tone sure there is a permanent archive in place.

Otherwise, we will forget. At this small regional museum every sheet

on the display about the women have these words - I'm refrain to our

youth. Now, when a grandmother talks to you of the resistance here

in the lot, watch her eyes. If she shares her story, they'll tell you

she is always 20. Listen to her. The Business Secretary, Vince Cable,

has again been criticised for failing to force banks to lend

money to small businesses. Some months ago, Britain's four

biggest banks agreed to increase lending in an arrangement known as

'Project Merlin'. New figures show the banks are

already falling short of their lending targets by several billion

pounds. Vince Cable faced MPs on Thursday

during questions to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

There is a genuinely difficult problem here of trying to get

previously highly over extended banks to lend to small and medium-

sized businesses. The Secretary of State was very critical of the last

government's performance on this issue much he said the banks ran

ring around that government. Given that the first indication of

Project Merlin show a 2.2 billion pound shortfall between what the

banks are doing and what the government agreed they would do,

how would he describe the performance of his government on

bank lending? Of the lending banks two of them have met the targets.

Which demonstrated that the demand is there for banks that are able

and willing to change their culture of lending. Where we have taken on

the arrangements which the last government had was bringing in the

private banks, which are not owned wholly or partly by the taxpayer,

into this agreement. They are taking it seriously. We are making

it clear that we expect this agreement to be delivered and the

volume of lending to SME's will increase. Is he ready to do a

little more than monitor this situation. In particular, not allow

banks to get away with the excuse that the demand isn't there, when

it's the price of the loan and the terms attached to it that so often

is too difficult for struggling small businesses who need the

credit? The Minister must realise that the agreement is a busted

flush. No good coming from it. The continued failure of the banking

sector to meet the minimum targets set, continued net, no new lending

is not acceptable the terms and conditions, as his own member has

said, under which the loans are made are really very penal very

often. Can't he get into that? No point monitoring it. We want him to

examine what is going on and come forward with concrete proposals to

improve it. We finish with the very first

speech of the newest Member of Parliament.

Jon Ashworth was recently voted in as MP for Leicester South.

By tradition, Mr Ashworth's maiden speech acknowledged the work of his

predecessor, Sir Peter Soulsby, and also contained plenty of

interesting facts about his constituency. My constituency can

boost of much cultural and sporting heritage. The 6 '30s playwright

grew up there. I believe at one time the singer Engelbert grew up

in Leicester South as well. Mr Ashworth, please release me