$60 billion to support projects in the country. washed in journal live at 7 a.m. >> one of the things that the early american wife was taught to do, she supported her husband's career, it usually through entertaining. dolley was both socially adept and politically savvy. she could structure for entertainment's in such a way that she could lobby for her husband under the guise of entertaining. she also thought it was very important to create the setting with in the white house, almost like a stage, for the performance of her husband and the concept -- the conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> a first ladies dolly madison. we will follow her journey, the wife of the fourth u.s.

president james madison. we will include your calls and tweets on dolly madison, monday at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> during question time on wednesday, british prime minister david cameron and opposition leader debated over bonuses for bankers. the government will form -- welfare reform policy, and housing benefits. this is just over an hour. >> questions to the prime minister. >> thank you. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. i shall have further such meetings later today. >> over to a half thousand households are affected by the veteran tax. the housing federation -- thousands of disabled people

have no chance -- no chance but to cut back further. will the prime minister adopt this policy? >> let me be absolutely clear. this is not a tax rip-off let me explain to the labor party. a tax is when you earn some money, the government take some of that money away from you, that as a tax. only labor can call the benefit reform but tax increase. let me be clear to you. pensions are exempt. people with severely disabled children are exempt. people who need a round-the- clock care are exempt. those kinds of people are all exempt. as a basic issue of fairness, how can it be fair that people and housing benefits in private residences do not get a better subsidy whereas people in social housing do. that is not fair. we are put in at right. >> thank you.

it was published yesterday that over the last 20 years, there has been a 137 cent increase -- if we are going to stop this awful condition from inflicting more people, we need to eat that much more in preventing this disease and in research in particular. will he outline to the house what the government is doing to help with the measure? >> i think my honorable friend raises something that is of concern to everybody in this house and everybody in this country. nobody knows when a relative could be afflicted by this condition. the point she makes is right. this is a disease. we should be thinking about it as a disease in the way we try to crack cancer or heart disease. that is why this government is increasing the amount of money going into medical research so we can try to prevent dementia in more cases. there are many other things we need to do in terms of providing the care in hospitals.

we also need to make sure we have more from the communities so we all learn about how to deal with people who have dementia. >> i would like to ask the prime minister an individual case that has been raised with me. john worked in east london and is worried about what is happening to his living standards. his salary is 1 million pounds. he is worried about proposed regulations, but his bonus may be capped at just 2 million pounds. can the prime nestor tell us what he will do for john? what i would say to john and everybody liked john is under this government, bonuses are one-quarter of what they were when his labor was involved. i will take lots of letters from

lots of people, but i do not have to listen to this man. i know the prime minister does not want to do with the facts. he sent his chancellor to europe in order to argue against the bonus tax. he says because he thinks it will be bad for the city of london. who led the negotiations? it was a member of the european parliament. what did she say? she said, "we have managed to produce a deal that will strike the right balance for the majority of bankers to take risk -- risky, responsible decisions. why is the prime minister the only person who thinks is ok to have bigger bonuses for bankers. as ever, he is completely wrong.

we have some of the toughest rules on bonuses and transparency of any major financial center anywhere in the world. when they were in charge, where were the rules? we will not listen to them. there is an important issue. there are some important british national interests. we are responsible for 40% of the eu's financial services. those industries are here in our country and we ought to make sure that they go on contributing to our exchequer. we want to make sure that international banks go on being headquartered here in the uk. we think that matters. the right honorable gentleman might want to just pose and play politics, but we care about these things. we also want to make sure that we can put in place the very tough ring-fence around our retail banks so that the complete shambles that he presided over can never happen again. >> this is the man who in opposition said:

"there will be a day of reckoning" for the bankers. now he sends his chancellor to fight against the bonus cap in brussels. what did he say? was he arguing that there should be more regulation of the banks? no. oh, he says he was. let's see. what did he say? david cameron, "a conservative economic strategy", march 2008. i have it here. he said: "as a free-marketeer by conviction, it will not surprise you to hear me say" that the problem of the past decade has been "too much regulation". there we have it. i think john the banker will take heart that the prime minister is straining every muscle to help him. now, let me ask the right honorable gentleman about the

cases of the hundreds of thousands of disabled people who will lose an average of £700 a year because of his bedroom tax. is he going to fight for them, like he is fighting for john the banker? >> first of all, let us just remember what happened in 2008, when the right honorable gentleman was sitting in government-the biggest banking bust in our history, the build- up of the biggest deficit in our history. all the mess that we have to deal with now was delivered by him and his henchmen in 2008. before we go on to the spare room subsidy, let him get to his feet and apologise for the mess that he left in this country. apologise! >> mr speaker- >> order. i know that there are people who do not like it if question time runs over. personally, it does not matter to me at all.

the more noise and disruption there is, the longer it will take and the longer we will be here. it is very simple. >> i notice that the prime minister has a new tactic, which is to ask me questions during our exchanges. all i can say is that it is good to see him preparing for opposition. the home secretary shakes her head. i am looking forward to facing her when they are in opposition. let me ask the prime minister another question, because he did not answer the one about the bedroom tax. he talked earlier about the hardship fund. let us look at the facts about the fund. some £25 million of it has been allocated specifically to help disabled people hit by the bedroom tax, but how much do his own figures show he is taking from disabled people? the answer is £306 million. will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people hit by his bedroom tax will get no help from his hardship fund? >> first, the whole house, and

the whole country, will note that there was no apology for the mess left by the labour party. let me tell the right honorable gentleman that his figures on the spare room subsidy are completely wrong. the last thing he said before sitting down was that we are cutting the money going to disabled people. that is simply not the case. in 2009-10 the money spent on disability living allowance was £12.4 billion. by 2015 it will be £13.3 billion. there is no cut in the money going to the disabled. this government are protecting that money, in spite of the mess he made. on the spare room subsidy, pensioners are exempt, people with disabled children are exempt and anyone who needs help around the clock is also exempt. as he is fond of reading out letters from constituents, let me read from one i got on this

issue from a pensioner: "we are expected to find up to an extra £60 per month out of our pensions for having extra bedrooms." of course, they are not, because they are pensioners and are therefore exempt, but they have been terrified by the right honorable gentleman's completely irresponsible campaign. >> i think what that means is that there was nothing in the briefing on the question i asked. let me just make it clear, because the prime minister obviously does not understand it. his own impact assessment-he might like to read it, by the way-states that 420,000 disabled people will be hit by the bedroom tax by an average of £700 a year. that is £306 million. the money in the hardship fund allocated to disabled people is just £25 million. it is basic arithmetic. will he admit that the vast majority of disabled people will get no help from the hardship fund and will be hit by his bedroom tax? >> the right honorable gentleman is completely wrong,

because anyone with severely disabled children is exempt from the spare room subsidy- >> order. members must not shout at the tops of their voices at the prime minister. the question has been asked, it was heard and the answer must be heard. >> the right honorable gentleman completely ignores the fact that anyone with severely disabled children and anyone who needs round-the-clock care are exempt from the spare room subsidy. the point he has to address is this: we are spending £23 billion on housing benefit. that is up by 50% over the past decade. that is £1,000 every year for every basic rate taxpayer. we say that it is time to reform housing benefit, and it is only fair that we treat people in social housing in the same way as we treat those in private rented housing. he has no proposals to do anything about welfare, other than to put up borrowing. >> i think that we have established today that the prime minister does not understand his own policy.

it is shameful to do this and not even understand the impact on the people of this country. he pulls out all the stops to defend the bankers and their bonuses, but he has nothing to say to the disabled people being hit by his bedroom tax. he stands up for the wrong people. it is no wonder his back benchers and the country think he is totally out of touch. >> what we have heard today is what we hear every single wednesday. the opposition will not support one single change to welfare. they will not support reforms to housing benefit. they did not even support it when we took housing benefit away from people charging £100,000 a year. they would not support changes to child benefit. they will not support any changes to disability living allowance. they will not support changes to council tax benefit. they have opposed £83 billion of welfare saving. that is the point.

they have to admit that their policy is to put up borrowing. they have nothing to offer, only debt, debt and more debt. >> i call mark pritchard. >> thank you, mr speaker. forgive me, mr speaker, i was taken by surprise and my question might surprise some members even more. on 8 march we celebrate international women's day. will the prime minister join me in calling on the indian and pakistani governments to do more to uphold the rights of women and to advance the gender agenda? >> my honorable friend is absolutely right to raise this. there are some particular issues we should really focus on. female genital mutilation is a completely unacceptable practice that we need to deal with right across the world, but including here in the united kingdom, and we will be making an

announcement about that. we should also do more to crack down on the completely unacceptable practice of forced marriages. forced marriages are still taking place right here with people involved from the united kingdom, and we need to do more to put a stop to it. >> i have been asked by the good people of whitburn to open a food bank for west lothian. i am very proud of these people who are pulling together as community, but i have to say that i carry a sense of absolute shame that this government are driving people, even working people, more and more to have to use food banks. i can see people waving this away. it is a question of morality. the government must surely look after the poor as well as look after the rich. >> i welcome people making this contribution in our country, as the last labour government did by giving the organisation that founded food banks a prize and an award for its work. i point out to the honorable gentleman that the use of food banks went up 10 times under labour, but one thing labour

refused to do, which we have done, is to allow job centres to point people towards food banks if they need them. the last labour government were worried about the adverse publicity, and they put that worry before the needs of people up and down the country. >> does the prime minister agree that we cannot borrow less by borrowing more, that we cannot deal with the deficit left by the last labour government by increasing our debts, and that the shadow chancellor's plan for doing so is both financially and morally bankrupt? >> my honorable friend makes an important point. the policy of the official opposition is to borrow less by borrowing more. it is completely incredible. that is why the leader of the opposition comes here week after week and asks all sorts of questions but will never mention his borrowing policy. it is an extraordinary point, but the leader of the

opposition has a policy he is so embarrassed about that he cannot tell the house of commons. >> david nicholson showed wilful and culpable ignorance while more than 1,000 people died needlessly in the nhs. how can the public have any confidence in the administration of the nhs while this man remains? will the prime minister not sack him immediately? >> what i would say about david nicholson is that he has very frankly and very candidly apologised and acknowledged the mistakes that were made. that is an important point, because everyone has to think of their responsibilities with regard to the dreadful events that happened at the staffordshire hospital, including the fact that part of the problem was people following a very top-down, target-led agenda which led to patient care being put on the back burner. david nicholson has made his apology and wants to get on with his job of running an excellent national health service, and other people, frankly, should be thinking of

their positions too. >> will the prime minister welcome my honorable friend the member for eastleigh and agree with me that even governing parties can win marginal by- elections if they stick by their leader through thick and thin and campaign hard for a stronger economy and a fairer society? >> i will certainly welcome the new member of parliament for eastleigh-for the period of this parliament. i am sure that he will enjoy making a contribution to our debates. i note very carefully the rest of my honorable friend's question. >> this time last week, the prime minister told me that he would not force gp commissioners to put health services out to tender. by the end of last week, doctors, nurses and the academy of medical royal colleges, as well as nearly 250,000 members

of the public, had said that they did not believe him. was yesterday's withdrawal of the nhs competition regulations down to his government's incompetence or to the fact that the public and professionals do not trust him and believe that he is about to privatise the nhs? >> with respect to the honorable lady, there is an attempt to create an entirely false argument. the aim is to ensure that the rules for procurement and diversity in the nhs fully respect the position that was put in place by the last government and that has been repeated under this government. we are putting that beyond any doubt. what i would say to her is what i said last week: what are we to be frightened of in making sure that in our brilliant nhs there can be a full contribution from private sector companies and voluntary and charitable bodies? that position was in the manifesto on which the honorable lady stood at the last election. in case she has forgotten, i will remind her of what it said: "we will support" --

i thought that labour members would like to hear their manifesto. it said: "we will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the nhs in the provision of care, particularly where they bring innovation- such as in end-of-life care and cancer services". what happens is that when the labour party goes into opposition, it becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. >> a report to monitor recommends the closure of acute services and most emergency and maternity services at stafford. will my right honorable friend meet me and colleagues to discuss the serious impact that that would have on access to services for people throughout staffordshire, including the two new signals regiments that we will be welcoming in 2015? >> i have discussed that issue many times with my honorable friend and am happy to speak to him again. the trust continues to face serious financial challenges

that are putting at risk its work to improve services for patients. as is required by the legislation, monitor will consult the secretary of state for health and others before making the final decision to go ahead with the matter that my honorable friend raises. if he wants to discuss it with me or the secretary of state for health, i am very happy to have that conversation. >> this week, the centre for economics and business research reported that one in 10 people in newcastle has borrowed money to pay for food. from april, 20,000 of our poorest households will be asked to find up to £125 per month to pay for the council tax benefit cut and the bedroom tax. will the prime minister confirm whether, at the same time, he will benefit personally from the millionaires' tax cut? >> first, let me address the issue of the spare room subsidy in newcastle specifically. there are 9,000 people on social housing waiting lists.

across the country, 250,000 people are living in overcrowded accommodation and would love to have access to a house with more rooms, while 386,000 people are living in under-occupied housing. the labour party does not want to recognise that reality and has absolutely nothing to offer in terms of reform. >> last year, more than 100 women were killed by men in the united kingdom. we know that domestic violence happens behind doors across the entire country. will the prime minister take the opportunity of international women's day to pay tribute to the outstanding work of wiltshire police in trialling new ways of reducing this appalling crime and to the victim support centre in devizes, which provides services for those who suffer in my constituency? >> i am happy to do that. fighting domestic violence is an important part of international women's day, as my honorable friend says. i commend not only the police

in wiltshire, but the local authority because it has done very good work to bring all the agencies together to ensure that there is a joined-up approach to cracking this difficult problem which, as she says, has often been hidden from view. >> a recent report by the tuc suggested that wages in this country have been depressed by 3% since you came to power. sorry, i meant the tories, not you, mr speaker. given that fact and the cuts to welfare, why is it that bankers, spivs and speculators can get away with stuffing their pockets with £50 notes under the guise of bonuses? when will the prime minister get a grip of the fat cats? if he is not going to get a grip, he should let my right honorable friend the member for doncaster north into his seat and he will get a grip. >> i remind the honorable gentleman that when his

honorable friends were in charge, the bonuses were higher, the banks were going bust and there was no proper regulation. that is why we are dealing with the mess- he can try and wave it away, but the right honorable members for doncaster north and for morley and outwood were sitting in the casino when the wheels stopped spinning and the country nearly went bust. >> does the prime minister welcome the action taken today by the office of fair trading to ensure that payday lenders behave responsibly and fairly? >> my honorable friend raises an important case because a number of payday lenders have been behaving in a completely irresponsible way. the oft is putting 50 firms on notice over their behaviour, and requiring them to take specific actions or face fines or have their licences revoked. the oft is also consulting on referring the entire sector to the competition commission. action is being taken and i commend the oft for what it has done. >> rotherham college of arts and technology has just had a cut of 280 places for 16 to 18- year-olds.

that is a 10% cut, despite rotherham being a youth unemployment hot spot. with rising youth unemployment and a flatlining economy, why is the prime minister denying the young people of rotherham an education? will he explain why he is cutting taxes for millionaires while young people have no future? >> let me just tell the honorable lady that in her region, employment is up by 21,000 this quarter, and by 74,000 since the election. we have taken 192,000 people in her region out of tax altogether, and youth unemployment has fallen since the election. >> like many others i welcome last week's figure showing that annual net migration has fallen by a third since the general election. does the prime minister agree that that shows that the government are ending uncontrolled immigration while

the labour party has opposed every single step we are taking to bring it down? >> my honorable friend makes a worthwhile point and we have taken action right across the board to deal with the completely unacceptable situation we inherited. under the last government, net migration ran at more than 200,000 people a year, which meant 2 million over a decade. that is two cities the size of birmingham coming and staying in our country under their completely busted and bankrupt system. we have cut that net migration by a third by taking a series of steps, none of which the opposition have supported. we hear that tonight we are going to get one of those fake apologies from the leader of the opposition. i suspect it will be every bit as real as his completely fake apology for the mess he left the economy in. >> after the riots the prime minister offered people in croydon reassurances about public safety. under the latest tory proposals, however, every police station in croydon north will close down and there will be fewer police officers than the wholly

inadequate number that existed immediately after the riots. is that another broken promise? >> first, the honorable gentleman's figures are wrong. the number of neighbourhood police officers in london is up from 895 to 3,418. crime is down in the met, and he should welcome that rather than criticise it. >> the lord said, "go forth" and in eastleigh labour came fourth. the prime minister has observed that ukip is a party of "nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists" yet his deputy chairman says that the conservatives should form an electoral pact with ukip. how are the talks going? >> first, i commend my honorable friend on his splendid waistcoat.

i am sure that if he reveals it a little further we will see that-yes, all right; enough already. it was a good, honest and fair fight in eastleigh, but i want to be absolutely clear that the party that is meant to challenge as the opposition in our country went precisely nowhere. >> my constituents in dumfries and galloway are demanding that big businesses pay their full taxes. likewise, they are determined that individuals should pay all their taxes. the prime minister has said that he will pay all taxes due in the proper way. next month, will that include any tax at the new 45p rate, which he has cut from 50p? >> first, i welcome the fact that the honorable gentleman supports the government's g8

initiative on tax transparency, on which we are going to make some real progress. the reason for replacing the 50p rate with the 45p rate is that the 50p rate was not raising proper money. indeed, it raised £7 billion less. that is probably why for 10 years in office the labour party never put it in place. that is also why under this government the 45p rate will be a higher rate than ever it was when the two croupiers were sitting in the casino. >> the widely disputed economic benefits of hs2 may or may not be realised in 20 years' time. however, the blight, fear and anxiety the project generates hit my constituency on 28 january with the announcement of the extended route. i now have constituents who cannot sell their houses, businesses uncertain about their future and the potential loss of a £500 million private sector investment set to generate 7,000 jobs in 2016. can my right honorable friend ensure that representativesf