28/11/2012 Daily Politics

Good morning, Foulkes. This is Daily Politics. And it is time,

gentlemen please. Supermarkets might be banned from offering buy

one, get one free deals on alcohol in their attempt to cut binge

drinking. Will it work? Government says, yes, we will

protect the green belt, but we need to build millions of new houses,

and they have to go somewhere. We ask how they can do it. It is Prime

Minister's Questions in just half- an-hour. What has Ed got it up his

sleeve for the PM this time? And we meet the man who wants to cancel

Christmas. Buying somebody a gift often obliges them to buy back you,

and if they are skint, they can't afford it, that his pain, not joy.

What a cheery chap! I am still expecting a present from you.

already bought it! All that coming up in the next hour and a half of

public service TV at its finest. Joining us today, the Minister for

education and schools, Matthew Hancock. And the shadow Justice

Secretary, Sadiq Khan. David Cameron will be handed Lord Justice

Leveson's report into the standards of the press. Tomorrow he will

stand before the House of Commons and tell them what he plans to do.

It is a big moment for the Prime Minister, and you will not be able

to please everyone, even on his own side. The papers are universally

opposed to independent state regulation. The victims of phone

hacking of press intrusion are adamantly against the industry

being left alone to run its own affairs as it has so far. Many MPs

have already made up their minds. The Labour front bench a say that

pretty much nothing Lord Leveson says should be adopted, but they

haven't seen it. This morning, a letter is going around signed by

more than 80, mostly Tory, MPs, opposing any kind of statutory

regulation. We believe the statutory regulation should be an

absolute last resort. It would mean effectively state licensing of

newspapers. We moved away from that in 1695. On the table are sensible

proposals put forward by Lord Black to have a voluntary scheme whereby

all newspapers would sign up to it, where it could pro actively

intervene, levy fines, and its decision would be binding. That is

a much better way to proceed than introducing laws. Conor Burns MP.

We are joined by Lib Dem leader -- deputy leader Simon Hughes. Do you

believe that self-regulation has failed? Yes. And would you be

prepared to back state regulation, and new law? We have to be very

clear that people don't misunderstand, this is not

regulating the press so there is a body that tells the press what to

do. This is a regulation like we do for financial services or for fair

trade off for you, the broadcasters, which is allowing you to get on

with your job but having a statutory system which makes sure

that when there are complaints, there is a system in place.

hacked off campaign say that doesn't go far enough, and it won't

insure that the press carry out -- don't carry out the sort of

malpractices that have happened in the past. What you say to that?

Let's see what Lord Justice Leveson says. He has heard all the evidence,

including from the Campaign for the victims, Milly Dowler's family and

many others. They are clear that we cannot go on as we are. Things have

to change. The press have had the chance to put things right and have

failed. There is a poll in today's papers which show that that is

reported -- supported by the overwhelming majority of the

British people. So I think we have to wait to see exactly what Lord

Justice Leveson says tomorrow, but I am clear that the sort of

concerns that the victims, the Milly Dowler family for example,

have are redressed, because in the past they have not been able to

clear their name, to prevent abuse. We need to make sure there is a

right to redress guaranteed in the future. Are you worried about

reports that David Cameron and Nick Clegg could come out with different

views in response to Lord Leveson? All three party leaders agreed that

the Leveson Inquiry should be set up. There was consensus to do this

and who should conducted. I hope that when all three party leaders

have had a chance to read the report, there will be a consensus

about what we do, and that we will be a will to support the level some

recommendations. That is what I hope. But there are reports that

Nick Clegg is preparing a separate speech, that he could go into the

chamber after David Cameron's response to the proposals and say

something quite different. Liberal Democrats are an

independent party. This is not governed by the coalition agreement.

We will form our own agreement, our own opinion when we see the report.

We haven't heard yet where the Prime Minister is likely to land.

Whereas the Prime Minister going to land, Matthew Hancock? I imagine he

will read the report. Will he adopt the proposals? He only really fell

short of saying that he would adopt it unless it was completely bonkers.

Even if it included new laws and statutory regulation. He reads the

report for the first time, we understand, straight after PMQs. He

is allowed access from 12 o'clock, but I imagine he will be busy for

the first half an hour. Say you are saying he is likely not to adopt

the proposals? No, I am saying that he is likely to read it before he

decides. He will have had time to look at it by early tomorrow

afternoon. He has 24 hours. What you think you will do? I think he

will make a judgment based on what he has seen. What can I say? What

happens when you receive a report like that and you are the prime

Minister is that you have to consider it very carefully, and you

are given 24 hours in order to be able to think of your appropriate

response. But it might be observed for some people. It cost �3.9

million to set up, they have been 184 witnesses. It would be silly

for him not to adopt any proposals put forward. It would be absurd for

him to prejudge it. We have heard from the victims about what

happened. There are already legal case is going on, because one lot

of what happened is already illegal under existing law. It is not

surprising that he wants to wait and have a look at what is in the

report before setting out his position. It is not only

understandable, 80 has also very sensible. Do agree with some of

your senior Conservative colleagues warning that any new law to

regulate the press would require returned state licensing of papers.

I personally would need a lot of convincing that we need to have

stayed licensing, and statutory regulation. But I want to see what

the report says. The most egregious problems in the culture of the

press are already being prosecuted, and there are already laws around

what you can put in a newspaper. We will have to look at... But only if

you're a person with money. It is ME if you have means that you can

afford to take a newspaper to court. That is what would change if a new

law was passed. Let's see what laws are proposed. It is true that

access to lawyers is expensive. There are many ways to skin that

cat. Labour have stated what you want to do. You would support a new

system of regulation? We have not said we are going to give the

Leveson Inquiry a blank cheque. But unless the report is bonkers, we

would probably follow the recommendations. David Cameron has

formed a view, which is am less Leverton is bonkers, he will follow

the regular it -- and regulations. I have shared a platform with Simon

many times when I have agreed with him. Three things - they could be

an independent monitoring system for the press, it should be

compulsory, so that editors can't walk out of the PCC and refused to

play ball and there has got to be proper redress for victims of this

sort of stuff. If you have and nine-year-old Gill, sister of the

bereaved student who dies in a road accident, who was photographed

crying, in breach of PCC guidelines. A photograph lifted of a deceased

child from Facebook, published. It is not against the law, but it is

against the PCC guidelines. An example where by statutory

underpinning would help. Do you agree with that, Matthew?

certainly agree that redressed needs to be stronger. There is

enormous agreement over lots of things, but the question is how you

make it happen under the consequences of how you do that. As

Lord Justice Leveson has said, he is considering the evidence, he is

an extremely smart man, and no doubt he will consider all of these

questions. Matthew, you are a smart man as well. We have had many

select committee reports, enquiries, investigations. What you believe?

Are I believe I would like to look at the evidence before coming to a

snap judgment. Define bonkers. What would be bonkers? The system has

failed to regulate the banks. What makes you think it can regulate the

newspapers? Statutory underpinning is very important... Statutory

underpinning is regulation. What we are saying is that they need to be

independent, compulsion and redress. Nobody is accusing our judges of

being political hacks. Nobody is accusing solicitors... But there is

no democratic accountability of judges. We lobbied for... Not we,

you. Politicians. You lobbied. should wait and see what the judge

says. Before we go, newspaper editors are worried that in the end,

whatever his set-up, if it does have some sort of statutory backing,

if it is in law that they will have some may looking over their

shoulder on a daily basis, every time they write a story, it will

have to be checked, is that the reality of it? There is a

widespread campaign amongst the editors to try to have no change.

And I understand where they're coming from. They, like everybody

else, have to be subject to discussion by Parliament,

Parliament deciding what to do. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to help

us decide what to do. He's been Tia taking evidence and deciding what

to say. You are saying it would happen? I think he is highly

intelligent, a very robust report, I assume we will want to support

all that he proposes. I assume that, and I hope that that commands

general support across Parliament. Simon, then queue. The BBC can

reveal six copies of letters and were delivered to Downing Street

about an hour ago. He won't have time to read them, because Prime

Minister's Questions are coming up. Blockers are already offering

�1,000 for a copy! The Government are looking at

putting a minimum price on alcohol. It is already something the

Scottish government is trying to do, although it is the subject of a

legal challenge and an EU competition law. Could it turn the

tide on a culture of a responsible drinking? Jo Coburn has tottered

over to her podium. If that's libellous!

The Government is looking at banning buy one, get one free deals

on alcohol, and introducing a minimum price per unit of 45p. This

would mean that the price on the Public health experts wanted a

minimum of 50p per unit. A Sheffield University study said

this would see a dramatic fall in binge drinking, which they think

would fall by more than 10%. And they said that moderate drinkers

wouldn't be nearly so badly hit. People no harm themselves by

drinking to excess would have to spend another �120 per year to keep

up their habit. There are a million alcohol-related violent crimes, and

1.2 million at alcohol-related hospital admissions last year. Some

believe that a minimum Farkhod prize would cut hospital admissions

by nearly 100,000 over a five-year period, and help prevent something

like 3,000 early deaths. The Treasury could also suffer with a

reduction in tax revenue. When Canada introduced a similar minimum

price, they lost 8% in revenue. The Scottish government has already

opted for the 50p minimum price. The Bill completed its stages in

the Scottish Parliament, but is not yet on the statute books, as it is

Could this prevent some fools drinking themselves half to death?

Or is it a measure that will simply hit people who simply enjoy a

couple of quiet drinks and don't want to pay a fortune for it? Miles

Beale from the wind and trade spirit Association is with us, also

Eric Appleby, from Alcohol Concern. The government says alcohol-related

health problems and crime costs cost us �21 billion. Can we afford

not to do this? There's only real one model that is the evidence for

the government introducing a minimum unit price, and it's been

pretty heavily discredited. It won't work in real life. It's the

Sheffield University model. The report on Monday question the

underlying assumptions pretty heavily. We don't think it will

work. We also think it penalises most of us who are moderate

drinkers. We think there are plenty of other ways of achieving the

right result, which is to reduce consumption. We are making quite

good progress. In Canada, they introduced it in 2010, it reduced

alcohol consumption by 8%, including a 22 % fall in high-

strength beers, which are thought to be a cause of the chaos in our

town centres on a Friday and Saturday night. It's not really

comparable. There was provision there and they had a monopoly

provider. Not really the same background we have in the UK with a

free market. It's not a good comparison. Eric Appleby, the real

disposable income in this country is that it well below. People have

really had to tighten their belts. Electricity prices are going

through the roof, food prices are going through the roof, now you

want to slap alcohol prices through the roof - why? They won't go

through the roof. This is a targeted measure at particularly

groups of young drinkers and the very heavy drinkers, vulnerable

groups who are buying the cheap, strong those? The average drinker

will hardly feel the effect of this. It is targeted at dealing with the

problems and not the general population. It is a targeted

measure. It's not at all. Minimum unit pricing would apply to

everyone. If it came in at 50p, two thirds of the products you see on

the supermarket shelf would be affected, prices would go up. Even

at 45p it is over half. To give you an example, 50p minimum unit price

would put up a bottle of vodka from around �9 to �13.13, a pretty hefty

increase. What would you say to that? I don't know which

supermarkets he is going around, but the only ones to get that level

of impact would be the ones where they are piling high that she

bloggers and the cheap white ciders. If you walk around the supermarket,

you can see it's not going to impact on the vast majority of

products. And the important thing is it's not going to impact at all

and people going out for a drink in the local pub, it will have no

impact on pub prices. Matthew Hancock, you won a Home Office

minister in 2010 and said the government, quote, had no intention

of introducing minimum unit pricing. What changed? March, 2011? The

evidence is very strong. How do they find out where the costs are?

The costs are in our A&E units and police stations every weekend. It's

a consultation. It's a consultation on the price so that we can look at

the debate that happens and see where the appropriate price level

is. But this isn't a measure that will impact on those, wider than

those who won in the most vulnerable circumstances. For

instance, you joked about BBC One. Your taste in wine of far too

expensive to be affected. You've not seen the average price of a

bottle of Blue Nun! What is the price on average of wine sold in

supermarkets? It is �5. Which means a lot of people are buying wine for

less than �5. They will be affected by this measure. People who want to

have some wine on a table at the weekend, they can't afford a lot,

may be one of life's little luxuries. You are going to put the

price of, food prices up 30 %, energy prices up 20 % and now

you're going to put up the price on a bottle of wine - why? In terms of

a targeted measure on the strong ciders, the strong lagers and on

excessive consumption, then the impact... You've got to look at the

big picture and the impact of the cost of this, not only to

individuals but also to the state through the NHS. Why wasn't it in

your manifesto? We have ideas all the time. We've known about this

long before you wrote the manifesto. You look at the evidence and what

is working. The new New the evidence before you came to power.

The evidence is obvious in the streets of our cities every weekend.

Do you not get out? I represent Newmarket. It's not a great place

on a Friday night. This is... You've got to look at the evidence.

You've got to keep looking at it. That's why we consult on the

measure, not least because, as you say, there is a serious problem

here and it needs to be addressed. The idea that you shouldn't look to

Canada for ideas, I don't agree with it. The Prime Minister said,

it seems to me that what we should do is what we suggested before the

last Budget. Try to target the problem drinkers and problem drinks.

This is a blanket rise. You didn't have it in your manifesto, the Home

Office said two years ago that you weren't going to do it, you had no

intention. The Prime Minister said you should target rather than a

blanket. You are doing the opposite of all of that. And no, the Home

Office didn't say we weren't going to do it. What bit of no intention

of introducing minimum unit pricing dump I understand? They didn't say

they wouldn't, they said they had no intention. We looked at the

evidence. So the words are meaningless! No, they are an

accurate description of the situation. You have no intention of

increasing VAT to 25 %, is that meaningless because you could do

it? It's a ridiculous argument. When I say we have no intention to

do something, that means we have no intention to do something. When I

say we absolutely won't do something, that means we absolutely

will do something. No, you explained that. Any time a

politician says, we have no intention, we know not to take a

blind bit of notice. Labour opposed this measure in Scotland, which is

a little bit ahead of the curve. Are you going to increase drinks in

London, England? We agree there should be a minimum price on an

alcohol unit. I welcome the conversion from Matthew. For very

good reasons. The presentation talked about some of the challenges

we face. I think a minimum unit... He's changed his mind and you have

one policy for Scotland and one for England. No, we think it's a good

idea. The you opposed it in Scotland. A You can change your

mind. The Scottish Labour Party opposed it. We agree with what

Theresa May has announced today with the consultation and the price.

The minimum unit has already been decided by your government, last

March. Today is about the 45p. Quickly, final thought. It just

won't work in practice. I'm surprised that the Labour Party

supports it when it's clearly going to hit those on the lowest incomes

far hardest. The other thing worrying us is the idea you might

BAM the 3 ft to offers, which is penalising people for being

sensible shoppers. A final thought from you. It's not a blanket

measure. It is targeted. The evidence is irrefutable, which is

why doctors, nurses, police and local authorities want to see it.

After that, you probably need some kind of fortifying beverage!

Perhaps you are looking around for a wee dram of something. You know

that here on the Daily Politics, we like to help and we will send you a

Daily Politics mug that you can fill up are practically anything

you like. Tea, coffee, hot chocolate or, as some do, half a

bottle of Blue Nun. We will remind you had to end in a minute. Let's

see it you can remember when this I am not going to exploit for

political purposes my opponent's I fought and won 12 parliamentary

elections. I tottered it up. 329,000 people voted for a Labour

# We'll always be together, however far it seems.

The # We will always be together, To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail

What ABBA terms and conditions? will tell them later. I've got them

just here somewhere. It's coming up to midday. Let's take a look at Big

Ben. Prime Minister's questions, so what's in store for David Cameron

today? Plenty of economic news this week which Ed Miliband could go one,

the Leveson Inquiry coming up tomorrow and Nadine Dorries, she's

back from the jungle, maybe she's planning an appearance. Let's not

forget there are thousands of people clearing up from all the

flooding, they might feel they deserve a mention because they're

going through a terrible time. Before... The Work Programme we

want to talk about, before we do, is there still a possibility that

Mr Cameron will go up and give his opinion on the Leveson inquiry

tomorrow? The mere threat of it will probably be enough to

concentrate minds inside Number 10. It is unlikely but yes, Nick Clegg

could say, I speak as a party leader, I speak as someone who has

a different view from the Prime Minister, who has failed to reach

agreement in government about what should happen. The Work Programme,

this was the idea that you would get companies... It was ramped up a

lot, you'd get companies to try and put people back to work. We seem to

have spent millions of pounds and hardly anybody is in a job after

six months. It's one of these pieces of news that the leader of

the opposition is likely to seize on. The top of politics is talking

about almost nothing else but the Leveson Inquiry. Surprisingly, the

truth is there is no point Ed Miliband asking about it now

because the Prime Minister will brush him off. I think it's likely

he does talk about economic news. One of the parts of bat bat will be

irresistible for Labour is to say, look, for two years, like we've

been warning about the failure of programmes for the long-term

unemployed, the figures show that They will say they need to finish

the programme and so on and so forth. But Ed Miliband will be able

to sing long time unemployment going up, this scheme does not work.

Nadine Dorries, heavy lobbying, I'm being told. Not necessary by her

but friends of hers to the Speaker, saying she has come out of the

jungle especially to be here today. Give her a chance to ask a question.

Will the Speaker fall for that, do you think? Do you think the speaker

is ever worried about inviting coverage of himself? He is a self-

effacing character, I don't think he will fall for that! Although the

Leveson Inquiry is dominating the media classes, we've got the Autumn

Statement next week as well. The leader of the opposition may want

to set things up for that. Exactly. He knows as well as the report,

some of the previews an interview shows will be looking ahead to the

Autumn Statement. In a sense, he wants to frame the debate and say,

actually, the debate is next week, he will claim it for Labour, it's

about government failure, failure to deliver on its economic targets,

failure to deliver its Work Programme. George Osborne and David

Cameron will not agree with that. Has Labour welcomed the new

Canadian central banker? What is interesting is Ed Balls had no

notice he was going to be appointed but he instantly welcomed him

warmly. He dropped in the statement that he knew him and obviously had

known him as sitting Minister and adviser to Gordon Brown. He had a

really widespread welcome. Let's go I am sure the House will wish to

join may in expressing our sympathies for the victims of the

flooding in recent days, and forgiving our praise to the police,

the fire service, the ambulance service, good neighbours,

volunteers, the Environment Agency, and all those who have done things

to help those in distress. Mr Speaker, I have had meetings this

morning with my colleagues and will do so later today. The whole House

will of course endorse the words of the Prime Minister in paying

tribute to our fantastic emergency services in responding to the

terrible floods and those who have been victims of it. Mr Speaker,

tomorrow sees the publication of the leather some report. Does my

right honourable friend agree with me that those should be victims --

those who were victims were treated unfairly, and that the status needs

updating? My honourable friend is exactly right. The status quo is

unacceptable and needs to change. This Government set up the Leveson

Inquiry because of unacceptable practices in parts of the media and

because of a failed regulatory system. I look forward to reading

the report carefully. I think we should try to work across party

lines on this issue, and it is right to meet with other party

leaders about this. What matters most, I believe, is we end up with

an independent regulatory system that can deliver and in which the

public will have confidence. Speaker, I associate myself

entirely with the Prime Minister's remarks about the victims of

flooding. All of my sympathies and the sympathies of this side of the

House go to those victims, and our thanks go to the emergency services

and Environment Agency for the fantastic job they do. I would also

associate myself with his remarks about the levels and report which

will be published tomorrow. -- the Leveson Inquiry report. This is a

once in a generation opportunity for change, and I hope this House

can make it happen. When the work programme was launched in June 2011,

the Prime Minister described it as the biggest and boldest programme

since the Great Depression. 18 months on, can he update the House

on how it is going? I can update the House. Over 800,000 people have

taken part in the work programme. Of those, over half came off

benefits, over 200,000 people have got into work because of the work

programme. But I think it is worth remembering that the work programme

is dealing with the hardest to work cases there are in our country.

These are people, adults who have been out of work for over a year

and young people who have been out of work for over nine months. And

on that basis, we need to make further progress, but it is the

right programme. But Mr Speaker, the scheme is aspires to create

sustained jobs for people, and in a whole year of the programme, out of

every 100 people, just two got a job. That is a success rate of 2%.

And the Government estimates... I don't know why the part-time

Chancellor is chuntering. He was telling of the Work and Pensions

Secretary in Cabinet yesterday for the failure of the work programme!

And the Government estimates that without the work programme, the

basis on which they did the tender, five out of every hundred would get

a job. Isn't the their historic first to have designed a welfare-

to-work programme way we are more likely to get a job if you are not

on the programme? I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, I

listen carefully to what he said, and what he said was wrong. He said

only 2% of people on this programme got a job. That is not correct.

Over 800,000 people have taken part, and over 200,000 people have got

into work. If you look at the specific figure he was referring to

yesterday, which is those people continuously in work for six months

when the programme... He is only looking at a programme that has

been going for a year, and that figure is 19,000 people. He should

listen to the CBI. They say: The work programme has already helped

to turn around the lives of thousands of people. These other

people Labour left on the scrapheap. He should be apologising! I think

that is as close we get to an admission that I was right and he

was wrong, Mr Speaker. He boasted that his flagship policy, the work

programme, was about tackling the scourge of long-term unemployment.

Can he confirm that since the work programme was introduced in June

2011, long-term unemployment has risen by 96%? Let me give him the

employment numbers. 1 million more private sector jobs over the last

two years. Since the last election, 190,000 fewer people on out-of-work

benefits. Just in the last quarter, employment up by 100,000,

unemployment down by 49,000. And while we are at it, let's just

remember Labour's poisonous legacy. Youth unemployment up 40%, women

and employment up 24%, 5 million on out-of-work benefits. That's the

legacy we are dealing with, and we are getting the country back to

work. I wish for once, Mr Speaker, he would just answer the question.

I asked him a simple question about whether long-term unemployment had

gone up by 96% of, and the answer is yes. And while he is talking

about Labour programmes, let's talk about the Future Jobs Fund. Last

Friday, the Government introduced an interesting document. He spent

two years rubbishing the Future Jobs Fund. What do these documents

say? He said the scheme provided net benefit to participants, their

employers and society as a whole. In other words, it was a success.

And he rubbish the programme, and it helped 120,000 young people into

work. His work programme has only helped 3,000 people. They shout,

what does it cost? We cannot afford not to have young people in work.

Isn't the truth, he got rid of the Labour programme that was working

and replaced it with a Tory one that isn't? Once again, he is

completely wrong, and let me give him the figures. Our work

experience programme is in half of the young people taking part

getting into work. That is the same result as the Future Jobs Fund, and

it cost 20 times less. That is the truth. Our programme is good value

for taxpayers' money, is getting people into work. He wasted money

and left people on the dole. Speaker, the more he blusters, the

Reddin he gets, the less convincing years. We know in real time what

happened in yesterday's Cabinet. They were at each other like rats

in a sack. The Chancellor is blaming the Work and Pensions

Secretary. The Work and Pensions Secretary, he is blaming the

Chancellor for the lack of growth. And the Prime Minister, he is doing

what he does best - blaming everyone else for the failure. And

isn't this the reality? Their failure on the work programme is a

product of their failure to get growth and a failure of their whole

economic strategy? He worked in a government where the Prime Minister

of the Chancellor could and be in the same room as each other! Rats

in a sack doesn't even do it! Why don't we look at what he has

achieved on welfare this week. Once again, this week, Labour voted

against the welfare cap. Now today, they are asking us to vote on a

motion in front of this House on welfare. Last night, this motion

specifically said they wanted further reform of welfare. Today,

the motion has mentioned nothing about reform of welfare. The truth

is there regains the benefit cap, against a housing benefit cap,

against the work programme. They are officially the party have

something for nothing. I will tell him the reality, Mr Speaker... His

welfare programme is failing. His welfare reform programme is failing.

Because there isn't the work, and his economic strategy is failing,

and that is the reality. He has a work programme that isn't working,

a growth strategy that is not delivering and a deficit that is

rising. It is a Government that is failing, our Prime Minister that is

He just can't keep his cool when he knows he is losing the argument, Mr

Speaker. It is the British people that are paying the price they his

failure. What we can see is a leadership that drowning. This

Government has cut corporation tax, scrapped the jobs tax, backed the

regional growth fund, funded 1 million apprenticeships, is

rebuilding our economy, sees a million more people in private

sector work. We are putting the country back to work. Their party

wrecked it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister join me in

congratulating the Milton Keynes based Formula One team on winning

the world championship for three years in a row? Another fine

example of British technological innovation. I am delighted to

praise and paid tribute to the Formula One team based in his

constituency which sadly beat the Formula One team based in my

constituency! But it is a remarkable fact that if you look at

all of the Formula One cars, wherever they are racing in the

world, almost all were built, designed, Engineer here in Britain.

It is an industry in which we lead the world, and we should be proud

of it. The Prime Minister must have studied his Government's own report

which shows that the Future Jobs Fund had a net benefit to

participants, employers and society, and given this report, and given

that youth unemployment is now higher in Leicester that it was at

the general election, why did he tell me a year ago that the Future

Jobs Fund provided a just and I quote, phoney jobs. Youth

employment went up 40% under the last Labour government. But the

fact that the Future Jobs Fund are these. If you take the figures for

Birmingham, 2% of the placement under the Future Jobs Fund were in

the private sector. The rest was in the public sector. And the cost of

the scheme was 20 times higher than the work experience placement which

is doing just as well. THE SPEAKER: Order! The right

honourable lady must be heard. Government is consulting on the

compensation people will get if HS2 goes ahead. It is critical for

people in my constituency. I ask the Prime Minister if he will give

me a personal undertaking that he will study the proposals for the

final package is the consultation and compensation and be sure that

those people whose homes, businesses and lives will be

disrupted by this scheme if it goes ahead are both fairly and

generously compensated. I will absolutely give that undertaking, I

will look carefully at the scheme. We are consulting at the moment.

The proposals were put forward are as good as the scheme that HS one,

and better than the compensation scheme for previous motorway

developments. There is an advance purchase scheme for property

purchase to simplify the process for property owners in the

safeguarded area. There is also a voluntary purchase scheme to allow

homeowners outside the area to have their homes purchased. Am willing

to discuss with her and others how we can make sure this scheme works

properly for people. On Monday, the police and crime commissioner Bob

Jones and the Chief Constable Chris Simms called for a fair policing

for Birmingham and the West Midlands. West Midlands arguably

has the highest policing needs outside London. How can the Prime

Minister hoped to build a one nation it areas like Birmingham and

the West millions -- West Midlands lose 800 frontline police officers,

and low crime areas like Serie get extra bobbies on the beat? Don't we

all deserve to live in Safe Communities? Yes, we have asked the

police to make funding reductions, and they have been able to do that,

keeping a higher proportion of bobbies on the frontline, which

actually has been effective, taking people out of back-office jobs, and

at the same time, crime has fallen and public confidence in the police

has risen. We are asking the police to take difficult decisions, but

they are delivering. I would like to congratulate the coalition

government on introducing regulation to protect the welfare

of wild animals performing in travelling circuses. Yet this House

voted overwhelmingly for a complete ban in 2011. While we wait for a

draft bill to be published, will the Prime Minister committed to

introducing legislation so that his ban can be introduced in this

Parliament? Just that, but I think my honourable friend is absolutely

right. We have changed the regulations even in advance of

legislation so that the will of this House can be met. Petrol

prices in this country are amongst the highest in the EU, and diesel

prices the very highest. Given that the Prime Minister is introducing

minimum limits on alcohol pricing, can he turn his mind to a maximum

limit on alcohol duty, and start reducing the price of petrol and

diesel for hard-pressed families? The honourable gentleman makes an

important point, and because of the changes we have made, petrol and

diesel are 10 p less per litre than they would have been. That is the

effect of this government, and we want to go on making that progress.

Could I thank my right honourable friend for visiting yesterday. My

constituency has been severely affected by the flooding. The

people want to know how they are now going to get insurance at

affordable rates for flooding, particularly given that many of

those homes have been blighted. Would he joined the impressing the

Association of insurers to stop grandstanding, get down to the

table, thrash out a deal so that my constituents can get the insurance

I enjoyed visiting his constituency with him yesterday, seeing at first

hand the appalling damage done by the floods. Speaking with local

people, the emergency services and the Environment Agency about all

the work that is being done to protect more houses in future. We

do need to address the insurance issue. Negotiations are under way.

I do want us to get a resolution so insurance companies actually

provide what they are meant to, which is insurance for people

living in their homes to want proper protection. I thank the

Prime Minister for his expressions of sympathy for the family of my

elderly constituent who died in the floods. I joined him in expressing

sympathy to all those, I think there are four people who have died

in the floods. But will the Prime Minister immediately reverse the 30

% cuts that he's made in flood defences in the past two years, and

what part will he play on the issue of flood insurance for those who

live in flood risk areas? Let me join the Honourable Gentleman in

paying tribute to his constituents who have had to bear some truly

terrible floods. The pictures from St Asaph aware of floods of

biblical scenes. I know the emergency service of have performed

extraordinary feats to rescue people. On the issue of flood

defence spending, the government is planning to spend over 2 billion

over the next four years. That is 6% less than over the previous four

years, but we believe that by spending the money better and by

leveraging money from private and other sectors, we can increase that

level of flood defence spending. There spending that is already

under way will protect an additional 145,000 homes between

now and 2015. But if we can go further then of course we should.

Over 3 million people a year fall victim to postal scams, telephone

calls and e-mails, making false promises of lottery wins come of

windfalls and inheritances. Is my right honourable friend aware that

�3.5 billion per year is lost by UK consumers, and will he commit to

working with the Home Office to amend existing legislation to

protect the predominantly elderly and vulnerable victims? It's an

important point. This is a growing area of crime and criminology that

is taking place and taking advantage of people using the

internet, but often people who are very vulnerable. That's why as part

of the National crime agency, we are setting up a new unit dedicated

to tackling this problem. It will work across agencies to catch

criminals and take the steps she speaks about. A moment ago, the

leader of the opposition asked whether or... Long-term

unemployment had risen by 96 % since the Work Programme was

introduced. He did not receive an answer. Is it a case that long-term

unemployment has risen by 96 % since the Work Programme was

introduced? I have given the figures for the Work Programme.

800,000 people taking part, 200,000 people getting work. And this is

against a background where over the last quarter, unemployment is

coming down, the rate of youth unemployment is coming down and

there are more people in work. That is a record we can build on. A free

press is a necessary counterbalance to a strong state. The British

people also have an inherent sense of fairness. Therefore we do not

need to restrict the press. We need to focus on redress when the press

Cross on an acceptable line. With that in mind, will the Prime

Minister look at the whole question of access to justice in this

country, so that the ability to use the law as we already have on LIBOR

and defamation are available to everyone, not just the rich and

famous? The I think my right honourable friend makes an

important point about access to justice. But one of the key things

that the Leveson Inquiry is trying to get to the bottom of is, how can

you have it strong and independent regulatory system so that you don't

have to wait for the wheels of the criminal justice system or the

LIBOR system to work? People should be able to rely on a good

regulatory system to get the good redress they want. Whether that's

prominent apologies, finds for newspapers or the other things that

are clearly some necessary. Department of Education is

proposing to close down its Runcorn site, with a loss of 220 jobs at

least. It is in the 27th most deprived borough in the country.

Can I ask the Prime Minister how this is going to help unemployment

and social deprivation in my constituency? It's a pity his

Secretary of State refused to meet me on this matter. I know the

Honourable Member has met the permanent secretary of the

Department of Education to discuss this, and I will certainly discuss

this with the Secretary of State. There will be consultation with

affected staff and other local MPs, but let me make this point because

it is important. We all know you have to try and find savings in

department overhead budgets in order to maximise the money that

goes into the schools. What this government has managed to do is to

maintain the per pupil funding. I'm sure that Honourable Members

thinking about it would think that's the most important thing for

our schools, children and education system. A last year, more than

10,000 men in Britain died from prostate cancer, the silent killer.

Survival rates have increased from 20 % to 70 % because of earlier

diagnosis and better drugs. Can I ask if he will join me in welcoming

the campaign this month to raise Mel -- male health awareness and

champion British leadership in cancer research? I not only joined

him in praising the campaign, but also praised his efforts that are

looking tentatively under his nose in terms of that regard. It is an

important campaign because it raises awareness about cancer, it

raises awareness about cancers including the one he mentioned that

sometimes people are worried about mentioning and talking about. Also

things like the cancer drugs fund, that makes sure we get the drugs to

the people that need them are also important, too. I once represented

a seriously injured car-crash victim who was hounded and put

further by an irresponsible press. When he set up the Leveson Inquiry,

the Prime Minister said, I accept we can't say it is the last chance

saloon all over again. We've done that. Will the Prime Minister, for

the victims, for the The Camp blue macro and the Dowlers, keep his

word? I think he is right, as is my Honourable Friend the Member for

Crawley, is saying that uppermost in our minds should be the victims

of the press intrusion and the invasions into privacy and the

appalling things that were written about them and their families. What

we owe them as a regulatory system that will work for them, that the

public will have confidence in, and that is what we hope the report

will produce. Leaving home before it is light, returning from work

when it's dark. Hard-working families in Rossendale and Darwen

have a gross household income of just �25,000. Does my right

honourable friend think it's right that their neighbours living on

benefits currently earn more? makes an important point mackerel.

Only this week we have yet again had a vote on our welfare and

benefits cap, which most people would see as generous at �26,000.

Once again, Labour have voted for unlimited welfare. We have long

memories. We can remember that under Labour, some families were

getting up to �100,000 of housing benefit. They did nothing about it

because they believe in something for nothing. Since the Prime

Minister announced aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant, why

is his own government now itself actively promoting aggressive tax

avoidance by cutting the tax on multinationals that open a finance

company in the tax haven from the current 23 % to just 5%? How can we

be one nation when the government is on the side of the tax dodgers?

I think he has misunderstood. We are introducing a general anti-

avoidance rule. Something which he, in 13 years of Labour government,

never managed to do. We will do it in three. We were all inspired by

the amazing London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. It gave an

incredible summer of sport. But it's so important to get people

involved in grass roots and community sport. Will the Prime

Minister meet with me, with the sport and recreation Alliance, the

Community Sports Partnership Network and Sport England, to

discuss the initiative, the first of which is receiving in my

constituency. I am happy to meet about this issue. I do think it's

important that we take the legacy of the Olympics and turn it into

increased rates of participation. Yes, working with the organisations

he is speaking about, but also recognising the many heroes and

heroines around our country who run the Saturday-morning football clubs,

rugby clubs, cricket clubs. I think it's those clubs that provides a

much of the answer for getting more sport into our communities and

schools as well. Will the Prime Minister, like me, welcomed the

ceasefire in Gaza last week and regret all those who died as a

result of the conflict, but also recognise that fundamentally the

future of the Middle East lies with peace and justice for the

Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, the West Bank or in refugee camps?

We have to recognise the Palestinian people. Accordingly,

tomorrow, will the British government cast our vote at the

United Nations in favour of Palestinian recognition without any

preconditions, such as suggesting they should not have access to the

International Criminal Court as an independent, recognised nation?

welcome the fact there is a ceasefire and that that conflict

has ceased. I don't go all the way with him on the rest of his

question. But the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement in a few

moments about it. I don't want to steal his thunder. But it is

important we use our vote to try to peace process that works is when

Israelis and Palestinians come to the table and talk through the

final stage issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, Borders. When

they did themselves. We can wish for all we want at the UN. In the

end, you've got to have direct talks between the direct parties to

get the two states solution we want. The Prime Minister will be aware

that on the order paper for tomorrow's business, there is a

debate in my name to mark the 40th anniversary of the expulsion of

agents by IED Amin from Uganda and their rival to the UK. Because of a

need for a statement on the Leveson Inquiry, it is likely that my

debate may not take place now. I and the community at large fully

appreciate the circumstances. However, would the Prime Minister

acknowledged the importance and the need for having such a debate and

also, would he do whatever he can to ensure that I am given another

debate as an as possible? I think the reaction of colleagues from

across the house shows that he speaks for the whole house and I

believe the whole country in wanting to speak up for the Ugandan

Asians who came to our country in the 1970s, who has made the most

fantastic contribution to our national life. It's very good to

see, I remember meeting his parents and how proud they are of him,

second generation coming to this country, sitting in the House of

Commons and speaking up so well on these and other issues. While I

don't have control of the House of Commons agenda, sadly, I very much

hope that the people that do will listen carefully to the point he

made and the schedule this debate as fast as possible. Can the Prime

Minister confirm that as a result of his part in the 50p tax rate,

8000 people earning over �1 million will next year gain an average of

�107,500. Whose side is he on? 45p, the top rate of tax will be

higher under this government than in any of the 13 years of the last

government. That is the fact. The richest in our country will

actually be paying more in terms of income tax in every year of this

government than in any year of that government. In Harlow, Comet has

made shop staff redundant and there are transport logistics staff at

risk. Many are suggesting there has been malpractice. Would he ask the

Business Secretary to investigate this and ensure that anyone who has

lost their job get the proper support and help they are entitled

to? I'm happy to look at what he says. What has happened at Comet is

a tragedy for those people who work there. I will talk to the Business

Secretary about it and see what can be done in the way that he suggests.

Last week, the Prime Minister told me and the House that the

government was investing an extra �900 million to combat tax

avoidance. In fact, as HMRC will confirm, no such investment is

taking place. It is facing a 15 % cut in its budget. Is the Prime

Minister guilty of fact avoidance or fact deviation? This government

has put 900 million into the specific measures of tax getting

hold of tax avoidance. All these schemes grew up under years of a

Labour government. They never did a general anti-tax avoidance. They

presided over a system where people in the city were paying less tax

than their cleaners. It took this government to sort it out. Can I

wore my right honourable friend not to be remembered as the Prime

Minister who introduced state regulation of the press. A free

press is an essential part of a free democracy. Would he agree with

me that state regulation of the presses like pregnancy. You are

just either pregnant or not pregnant, you have state regulation

or you don't. There is no alternative Third Wave. Where I

would agree with my Honourable Friend is that a free press is

absolutely vital for a free democracy. We should recognise all

the press has done and should continue to do to uncover

wrongdoing, to stand up to the powerful. This is vitally important.

Whatever changes we make, we want a robust and free press in our

The government is cutting child benefit to support... To 100,000

families who look after disabled children. Whatever our views on how

our economic problems were brought about, surely it cannot be right

that children who were the poorest and most venerable pay the most for

this economic policy? We think it is the right step to take because

those with the broadest backs should be bearing the greatest

burden. We have frozen child benefit but other families but we

have increased the child tax credit And that brings us to the end of

Prime Minister's Questions. It is all a kind of warm up for

tomorrow's Leveson Inquiry report. The exchange between the two front

benches was dominated by work, unemployment and by the various

schemes. Figures out for the Government on its work programme

are not that great, so Mr Miliband went on that, as Nick Robinson said.

Mr Cameron fought back by saying that the Future Jobs Fund, Labour's

scheme, had been expensive and not a great success either. A lot of

statistics thrown about there. First we will hear from you and

what you had to say. Lots of the males in response to the work

programme statistics. Even by his recent standards, that was a woeful

performance by David Cameron. His refusal to answer a direct question

only increases the public distrust. It is incredible how negative Ed

Miliband years. And this: Under Labour, it paid not to work, and

under Cameron's Conservatives, it pays to work. John Wakefield and

London says, David Cameron's future work fund may be cheaper than the

last government's policy, but at least the last government's policy

actually worked. Those being employed are mainly getting part-

time jobs only. And for those of you asking about why members of the

Labour front bench were wearing red ribbons, that was to mark worldwide

AIDS Day which takes place on Saturday. But they were wearing the

ribbons today? Yes, the fight against HIV campaign, running this

week. Nick Robinson, the Tories are ramping up the rhetoric on welfare

and on various things to do with that. Labour reads the polls, it is

a difficult subject. Mr Cameron called then the party have

something for nothing twice. Chancellor is probably about to

announce further welfare cuts, and then say to Labour, what do you

want to do? It seems likely the cap on housing benefit could come down.

They could be some reduction in the rate of increase of benefits.

Remember they go up in April, and usually at this time of year, the

Chancellor tells us by what rate they will go up. It is likely to be

less than the rate of inflation for those people out of work. So what

the Tories want next week to be about is a row about what future

cuts to make in welfare. What a Labour wanted to be about his, hold

on, you told us he would bring the deficit down, and you haven't.

Indeed. What will Labour do about welfare, Sadiq Khan? It is part of

the policy process as you do Europe towards 2015. I interviewed Liam

Byrne last Sunday. It is not yet clear the direction Labour wants to

going. We're in favour of welfare reform. Our welfare-to-work

programme, the New Deal, Future Jobs Fund, getting people out of

welfare and into work, making it a requirement upon somebody to get a

job interviews, making it incumbent upon you to do certain things. The

system is still not perfect, and that is why we support Universal

Credit. But we recognise that housing costs vary around the

country, so one-cap won't work. If you live in Rotherham, the cost of

your housing is far cheaper than if you live in Tooting. To have a

universal cap applying to both doesn't work. And housing benefit

recognises this by having different levels. So we agreed the need to be

a reform. The problem is the consequences of the Government's

plans, both of the transitional arrangements and the fact that

their IT system won't work... That's unusual! There is a big bang

approach, which is why you heard reports that Ed Miliband alluded to,

arguments between Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne yesterday. Their

promise of the deficit going down hasn't happened because of long-

term unemployed and zero growth. Maybe you have more in common than

the debate would suggest. If only it were true. Saying you are in

favour of welfare reform is all motherhood and apple pie. When it

comes to a vote in the House of Commons about what we are going to

do, that is what matters in politics, and last week, again, it

was about the eighth time I have voted in favour of a cap on

benefits so that people who are out of work cannot take home more than

the average family takes home in work. I think it was about the

eighth time I had to vote in favour of that because Labour keep on

voting against it. It came back from the House of Lords, we had to

vote on it again. But Labour are putting up every possible barrier.

We are absolutely reforming welfare to make sure that work always pays.

We are piloting the Universal Credit. Of course IT is difficult,

but it is on track. And we are going to reform welfare so that we

don't have something for nothing culture. Everybody knows that,

under Labour, these things got worse and worse. I was going to

move us on to the Leveson Inquiry. I won't ask one thing. Excuse me, I

am in charge, and I have no intention of letting you be in

charge. Which probably means I will, under your language. This work

programme the Government has made so much off. Sometimes in PMQs, you

can get the figures wrong. Let's take the 14 month, the longer

figure, so we give you the benefit of the longer period. The figures

are that 800,000 people have gone into some kind of work under this

programme. But only 31,000 are still in a job after six months.

The Government had assumed that even with no programme, 5% would be

in a job after six months, so you had a better chance of getting a

job by not going into the program then going into it. That's not the

case. It is very difficult in politics, and unhelpful in the long

term, to base an argument on inaccuracies. So when Ed Miliband

said only 2% of people... Let me answer the question! He made a

mistake. I haven't. Answer my question. Let me answer the

question. A quarter of people have gone into a job. How many have been

in for six months is a growing number, but because the programme

only started 14 months ago, it takes time to get people in and to

keep them in work for six months. And that 31,000 figure you

mentioned has gone up in the last two months from the 12 month figure

to the 14 mother-figure, gone up much faster than earlier, because

when you get a programme of the ground, it takes time to get going,

but then it is rising more rapidly. But the key point is, should we

have a system to try to get people off benefit and into work that pays

a result? Of course we could. the key point is that only 3% of

people who have gone into this programme end up in a job that

survives after six months. That is the key point. And the cost of this

have been 475 million to date. It works out on average at �14,000 per

job. If we talk about the cost of it, the cost to the taxpayer per

job is just over �2,000. Because we pay by results, if the result of

poorer, the taxpayer pays less. That was the argument about the

Future Jobs Fund. Would we like youth unemployment... Is hasn't

worked, Matthew, just Fessey up! will come back to it when we have

18 months of figures, and we will see. We shall see the proof of the

pudding shall be in the throwing it away. A final word on the Leveson

Inquiry, Nick. The Prime Minister played an almost entirely straight

bat, but he did open the door to all-party talks. Miliband has been

talking about it. What will that actually mean, all-party talks?

There are certain areas in which all party talks have been a ruse to

make sure that nothing is done at all. Party funding, reform of the

House of Lords, nothing done. One exception has been the issues of

MPs' expenses, where there was a deal to set up this new independent

regulator. A couple of see ya folk on both sides of the House of

Commons put to me, do we really want a regulator for the press on

the model of the Parliament regulator for expenses? In other

words, someone who is recruited precisely because they know nothing

about the place they are regulating. That gives a sense of independence,

but can produce an arrangement that doesn't quite satisfy anybody at

all. We need to move on. Lord Justice Leveson unveils his

reported 1 o'clock tomorrow, and the Prime Minister will be in the

Commons by have passed two. He will be there for 90 minutes to take

questions from everybody. It is a very, very big moment in politics,

even if press regulation bores you at home. It is a defining time for

the relationship between politics and media. A Government Minister

has suggested more than 1,500 square miles of land should be

built on in England over the last 20 years -- next 20 years to meet

the demand for new houses. The Housing Minister, Nick bowls, says

we should increase the proportion of country we build on. Although he

insists we would protect the green belt and stop a whole load of what

he called pig ugly developments being stuck up by Lady builders. --

lazy builders. We are saying clearly that we are going to

protect the green belt, but if people want to have housing for

their kids, want people to be able to bring up their kids in a small

house with a garden, we have to build more on some open land.

much? Not a lot. We have in England about 9% of land is developed in

any way. So 91% is not. All we need to do is build on probably another

2% or 3% of land, and we will solve our housing problem. How many

houses is that? Over time, another one of 2 million houses. With us

now is John Hoad from the Campaign to Protect Rural England. He says

we need to build a 12% as opposed to the current 9%. That doesn't

sound too dramatic? I think it sounds very dramatic, actually. The

figures are problematic. Current urbanisation impact on around 12 to

13% of our land. And we are talking about the most pressured parts of

the country, south-east and south- west. If you throw-in National

Statistics, it doesn't sound so bad. Why are we talking about those

areas in particular? Is it the only place it could go? The pressures

the development for new housing, which are really there, are in the

South East and South West primarily. If you look at the North and the

Midlands, we have plenty of brownfield land. We have got enough

land to build 1.5 million houses at the moment, so why don't we use

that first? We have been given an assurance that green belt land will

not be built on. They mixed messages all the time. Can we

really protect greenfield and green belt land? I don't think so. Our

own research shows we have 80,000 houses being proposed on Green Belt

land at this point in time in local planning authority plans. Matthew

Hancock, mixed messages they? protection on the Green Belt will

stay, nick Bowles made out very clear. But the key point he was

making is that we have a shortage of housing in this country. And no

one disagrees with that. You have to follow that through to the

conclusion. If we need more housing, we need to build more houses. That

may sound like a statement of the obvious, but houses have to go

somewhere. But what about the pressure on houses in the south-

east and south-west? Weeny to make sure that our children and

grandchildren have houses they can afford to live in. We have to do

that in the same way as protecting what is best, for instance the

strengthening of areas of outstanding until Beauty and other

protected areas. One thing that hasn't had enough of an earring is

that the housing that has been built over the last decade, a lot

of it is too ugly. We needed to be in keeping and where local people

wanted. In my constituency, have one town that doesn't want more

housing, and I have to towns where it is widely accepted that growth

is good news. So we need to respond to what local people want, and say,

let's put a housing where people welcome it and not put it where

people don't want it, and have much more local responsiveness and more

I agree that that is what the planning system does. But why have

we got the planning minister rubbishing the planning system and

saying the solution is to release loads and loads of greenfield land,

when we've actually got existing sites sitting there waiting to be

developed? But it's the economy and the state of it that is stopping

that is happening. Why do we have these smoke and mirrors about

releasing green belt and greenfield land? Isn't that what everyone

says? The economy matters enormously. The guarantees from the

Treasury for housebuilders and the support for the finance to try and

unlock what we are planning has already been given is an important

part of it. But if we need more housing, and we are all agreed on

that, then housing does have to be built somewhere. Why not use that

first before going on to the green fields? We are working on doing

that as well, but is it enough over the next 20 years? The people are

right to be concerned about what Nick Boles will be singing in

Newsnight. There are mixed messages. You are against ugly buildings, we

all want beautiful buildings. Two months ago Dr Abril Matthew, you've

had an hour and a half. Two months ago you announced that homeowners

could build anything in their garden up to eight metres big,

Permitted Development. You wanted a revolution. Local councillors...

They will be ugly buildings, not beautiful. One of the reasons when

you speak to developers they are not building is because the

economic environment, they haven't got the confidence. You talk about

lecturing future grandparents about the importance of housing. Imagine

if you on a greenfield site. Once you've built on it it is gone,

there is no U-turn from that. It's a responsibility to make sure you

will build sensibly on brownfield sites and not on the green field

sites. Nick Boles has confused matters by lecturing these guys in

the sense you have to build on the 3% additional land, when there are

spaces in urban areas, there are under-used facilities, brownfield

sites. Not enough is being done to stimulate developers to build

Louis Walsh has won �400,000 from the Sun in his libel case. Let's

see if we can cheer ourselves up. The sound of Christmas. It's not

even December yet. All over Britain, people are stealing time from their

employers, pulling out their credit cards, which are already Max doubt,

logging on to buy their Christmas presents. Mothers will have to

think about getting the turkey ordered, dads will be stocking up

on cheap booze before the supermarkets run dry and the Tories

slap a minimum price on it. A festive season to look forward to

with lots of lovely presents under the tree. Political division and

economic division Wigan, we all look forward to it - we can't wait.

What is that? Bah humbug! Here is Is it time to ban Christmas

presents? Festive gift giving has lost its meaning. It risks doing

more harm than good. We can't prioritise our finances and leads

us all feeling obliged to buy a long list of packed for a long list

of friends that we know they will never used. Of course, this is

about changing culture not the law. It isn't a curmudgeonly Bar humbug

about getting rid of presents and a victory for the kids. It's about

the ever-widening circle of friends, family, colleagues and teachers

that we all must x4. -- must buy a four. I believe gift-giving

originally developed as a form of social banking., that marriage a

coming of age ceremonies. Then, older members of the community gave

gifts to people starting out in life. Then as they age they cycled

it back, focusing the cash to the people who most needed it. But with

Christmas, I give to you, you give to me - it doesn't do the job. I'm

sure some of you are thinking, Scrooge, what about the joy of

giving? Yes, that does exist. I'm afraid it can occasionally be just

a little bit selfish. Because buying somebody a gift often

obliges them to buy back four U. And if they are skint and can't

afford it, that his pain not joy. Finally, there's the risk of not

prioritising our finances. Imagine affluent Janyk here has spent �20

to buy her struggling cousin, John, this novelty Christmas hat. John in

return feels obligated to spend �20 to buy back these boots. It is a

zero-sum game. The net result is John has spent �20 of his money by

in this hat. He would have probably preferred to spend it paying off

his debts of beating his children. So for some this Christmas perhaps

the best gift of all is releasing them from the obligation of buying

for you. -- paying off his debts or feeding his children. You not just

want to put the atom bomb under them with the saying, don't buy

anything for Christmas. This message for me isn't for Christmas,

it's all year round. I've been talking about this since back in

2007. This isn't about stopping people spending money. This is

about stopping people spending money on a necessary things, on

tact, on the stress that people have at Christmas. One of the

biggest causes of debt, the number of people who cycle, they spent an

entire year getting out of last Christmas' debt, only to get in

Dead Again. Yes, by your presents for your kids and spouse. But when

it comes to feeling obligated about buying people stuff they won't use

and then obligated them to buy back for us when they don't want to,

isn't it time we gave it a break. If you want to spend the money,

grade, go to the high street but by something unique and will use, or

give the money to charities who are desperately struggling at the

moment. The best gift right now, if you are about to buy 20 people who

you know will never used you get something for Christmas, tell them

that you are not. Tell them you are putting it into a charity's coffers,

were you know it will make a difference. This is about

redressing the soul. What is the point of this gift-giving? It isn't

just a tick box in exercise. Given that this is a government that

wants to dictate the alcohol price two-bit shops and dictate what

offers they can make, this must appeal for you, BAM Christmas

presents... Or do you have no intention of banning Christmas

presents? We will never do that. Not whilst... I will never vote to

ban Christmas. I always think the Roman Christmas presents is you

should give something you'd like to deceive yourself. I don't like

receiving tatty presence. So get you a bra and knickers, you will

both be happy. Too much! I presume this doesn't apply to Labour

either? It doesn't. Do you have any friends? This time of year, people

are members of Christmas clubs, the number of those who go to loan

sharks close up, those who use pay- day loans goes up. Maarten's key

point is people borrowed disproportionate amounts at this

time of year and it is very stressful. And there is peer

pressure to give a good enough gift to somebody else. You have the

people who don't need the money who are saying, I'm affluent, I want to

help you, I'm going to give you a big present. But pride then

obligate sued to buy one back that you can't afford.Excluding

How many people in your kids' class do you give presents to? Your own

children? They will still have something under the tree? An orange,

maybe. We used to get a candle for Christmas. If it was really cold

and sometimes we would like it! only thing I have about giving

gifts for children is we have inflationary gift-giving going on

and peer pressure in schools. I sat in a cafe, I remember hearing a 16-

year-old talking to her aunt, asking to intercede with the

parents, because her parents wouldn't buy her a limousine trip

around London for her and all her friends. She said, it's only a

couple of hundred quid a head. It's that level of expectation. I think

we need to rein back. Yes, I can put you out of your misery and give

you the answer to Guess the Year. Do you know the answer? I think

It was 1984. I owe you that bottle of cheap fizz. I'm not an alcoholic,