06/12/2012 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. It really is bleak

mid-winter. And don't expect any jingle bells until 2018. George

Osborne says austerity is now here to stay until 2018. That's getting

close to a lost decade. And it includes some cold, hard medicine

to swallow on taxes and benefits. We'll be asking, is Britain really

still a AAA bet? Amid all the gloom, the Chancellor gave his strong

backing for fracking. But is shale gas the answer to all our energy

problems? Environmentalists aren't so sure. What's the point of

reshuffles? A parliamentary committee has been asking just that

question. Apart from keeping the Daily Politics in work, do they

actually achieve anything? And, hark, the MPs sing! Here's a

Parliamentary Ding Dong Merrily on High you just can't afford to miss.

Yes. All that and more coming up in the next hour of public service

broadcasting at its austerity best. I think you'll find that this

programme's AAA status is not under threat. But then we never had one

in the first place. And with us we have the A Team. From Labour, we're

blessed by their Treasury spokesman, Chris Leslie, and from the Liberal

Democrats, Stephen Williams, who chairs his party's backbench

Treasury Committee. And the Tory? There is no one. They could not

give as anyone for the top of the programme but they promised one

will come later in the show. We can hardly wait. Now, first this

morning, let's briefly talk about the West Coast Mainline, because

Virgin Trains has been confirmed as the operator of the West Coast main

line for the next two years. The company had lost the franchise to a

rival but the bidding process was scrapped after serious flaws were

found in the system. The transport secretary asked Sam Laidlaw to

produce a report on the process and today he gave his response. I do

not hide from the seriousness of his findings. They make extremely

uncomfortable reading. They caused serious problems for the bidding

firms, including first group. They must and will be acted upon. The

department will ensure that all future franchise competitions are

delivered with a clear timeline, rigorous management and the right

quality assurance. We shall also create a simpler and clearer

structure for rail franchise competitions. They announced a two-

year contract with no competition goes to Virgin. It is that fair?

suppose they have no choice. Someone has to run the trains. I'm

not sure what they could have done. how much they have been paid in

order to continue that process. fare money is going to the tax

payer and not virgin. What tax payers will be worried about is the

cost of the problems over the bid. Can we really afford that kind of

mistake? I hope someone will be accountable, whether ministers or

officials in the Department of Transport. Someone has to be held

to account. It has had a knock on effect in other parts of the

country. I represent Bristol. Our franchise is up for renewal. That

has been stalled while the Department looks at the whole

franchise programme. There is great uncertainty. He deplane? Much is

made of the civil servants. -- who do you blame? The that is why we

need someone else to look into it. I'm not chairing a particular

inquiry. I do want to buy Dec who is to blame. Someone needs to hold

their hands up. No one ever seems to hold their hands up these days.

I want to ask you about the Labour policy and whether they will

nationalise the railways. Ministers decided to change the franchise

policy. Do you think ministers should hold their hands up? It is a

different team of ministers since the decision was made. Maybe the

ministers who made that decision should appear before the relevant

parliamentary committee and a camp for themselves. Her eye it agreed

with that. -- and account for themselves. I do agree with that.

You have Theresa Villiers and Justine Greening. The extent to

which they were involved in this massive cock-up, witches Of

phenomenal cost to the tax payer. We need to hear from them as well.

Nationalisation or not? There are no plans to do that but we need to

get a grip of the situation. We have seen what has happened in the

past with the East Coast main line. We need to squeeze every pound of

tax payers money. Back to the economy and the fall-out from

yesterday's Autumn Statement. Let's turn without further ado from that.

It felt more like a winter statement. Jo has the economic low-

down. Yes, Andrew. The OBR downgraded its forecasts for

economic growth. They now think that the economy will shrink by

0.1% this year with only modest growth of 1.2% next year. Then 2%,

2.3% and 2.7%. On borrowing, there was one bit of positive news for

year than it was last year. But, ignoring special one-off factors,

they now think the country will have to borrow more than they did

when they published their last forecast in March. �120 billion

this financial year, falling to 112 billion next year, and then lower

again in each subsequent year. And, on debt, the OBR says the

Chancellor will miss his target of having net debt, as a share of GDP

falling by the end of this Parliament. It will peak in 2015/16

at 79.9% and will only start falling in the following year. That

has led the Fitch ratings agency to The credit rating is important, as

is the market. That matters because, if you do not have credibility -

you cannot show the world you can pay your way - interest rates go up

for the Government and taxpayers have to pay more to fund the debt.

Interest rates in the economy go up, as do mortgage rates. One thing we

have been able to do as a government is keep those rates very

low because the world has confidence in us. Of course you

need to have tax rises and spending restraints. If you do that too

quickly, it will backfire. What we learned yesterday was our economy

has contracted this year. It has not grown at will. George Osborne

is borrowing more. The national debt is going up. His plan has

failed. I think if you are in a deep hole, you should stop digging.

Well, joining us from College Green, are two of Britain biggest economic

brains - Larry Elliott from the Guardian and City AM's editor,

Will Britain lose its AAA rating? Does it matter? Let's take these as

two separate questions. We could be going back into a dip in the 4th

quarter. That will be the time we will probably lose our AAA rating.

I think probably early next year. There is a good chance we could see

a double-dip recession. The economy could shrink again. There are two

or three really important factors. The OBR forecast for growth in the

next four, five years are too optimistic. There will be a

resurgence -- it is based on a resurgence of gross but I think

that is wrong. If my forecast is right, the national debt will be

even higher and deficits even higher. We are bound to eventually

you -- you lose the credit rating. Without the Bank of England pushing

down artificially the cost of government borrowing, the debt

would be much higher and much higher in the years ahead. It is

quantitative easing that has saved the AAA rating up until now. That

will not go on for ever. I think we will lose it. What is your for you?

I think there is a very good chance we will. -- ate your views. George

Osborne said he would get the economy growing. He said he would

get on top of Britain's debts and he would safeguard the AAA rating.

He has failed on the first two. The economy has flat lined and a

deficit reduction programme is of course. Yesterday's figures showed

only 50% of it well. The third element, maintaining the AAA rating

- he is hanging on to that by the merest of threads. Prospects for

the economy are quite bleak. Does it matter if we lose the AAA

rating? I would suggest that France has lost it and it still seems to

be there. America has lost its rating and is financing its debt.

Does it matter? I do not think it matters any more. Credit agencies

have been discredited in recent years. I do not think it matters to

match. It matters psychologically and shows the Chancellor has failed

to get control of public finances. We need to go through a wasted

decade when it comes to growth. I do not think it was inevitable. The

Chancellor could have booked through policies to really

transform the economy and boost competitiveness. Unfortunately,

that has not happened. We still have increasing national debt and a

very high government spending share of the economy. All these negative

factors are tracking down gross. Also the zombie companies which are

kept alive by very low interest rates and quantitative easing. The

Government has not taken the right measures. The overall picture is it

inherited a terrible situation from the previous government. Does it

matter? If it means that interest rates go up and the value of gilts

therefore goes down, that will affect banks balance sheets?

think D'Arblay is the new AAA because so many other countries

have been downgraded. -- AA. I do not think it matters one jot

whether Britain has a AAA or AA rating. Politically, it will matter

a great deal because the Chancellor has almost made this a fetish of

his time at number 11. It would be a very significant blow to the

Chancellor. I do not think the economic impact would be as great

as people think. The Chancellor had the choice yesterday. He could have

increased the austerity programme in the short-term to insure the AAA

rating was met. He said, rather than raise taxes or cut spending by

an additional 17 billion, which she would have had to do to bring down

debt on track, it would have been total economic madness. Final

question to both of you. It was a complicated autumn statement

yesterday. Partly because of the jiggery-pokery about borrowing and

deficits. Now you have had the night to go through the figures,

what has jumped out to let you which was not immediately apparent

when it was unveiled yesterday? -- jumped out at you. I am very

suspicious that deficits have gone down. It has become much harder to

compare it like for like. The Chancellor has fallen foul of the

disease that contaminated the previous Chancellor which was due

constantly change the rules. I think that is very disappointing.

There is over ambitious growth forecasts. I think the forecast is

wrong. Without that, you do not have the revenues and deficits.

Everything collapses. You end up with much bigger problems they will

realise. Constantly pushing back austerity, it used to be a seven-

year programme and now is a four gear programme. That is not

plausible. -- it four a year programme and now is a seven-year

programme. What has jumped at it you in the light of day? Two-and-a-

half years ago, George Osborne said that 92% of the recovery work on

the deficit would be done in this Parliament. Today it is only 52%.

There is an awful lot of pain still to come. That was not be easy to

sell at the next election. In the OBR report, in their scaled down

forecasts, they have pursued consumers will get into more debt

over the coming years. That seems a very optimistic forecast. I think

consumers are debt saturated and want to pay down their debts. The

chances of consumers borrowing their way back to prosperity are

With us now is the Treasury Minister, Sajid Javid. I am glad

you made it. Was this a budget for growth

yesterday? Yes, it was, it deals with a biggest problem, the size of

its deficit. The government is still dealing with that challenge,

the deficit is still coming down which is important, to keep on

creating jobs. How come, the official and unofficial estimates

say it will add 0.1% in 2013, another 0.1% to growth in 2014?

Those forecasts, the these are our independent. They say anything done

yesterday will add 0.1% to growth next year. That is a Budget for

growth? It is. You have to think about the alternative. If this

government didn't deal with this problem of deficit, we would lose

confidence. If interest rates went up by just 1%, the average mortgage

payment would go up by �1,000 per annum. But we have lost our triple-

A status. You have made deficit reduction and

cutting the amount of borrowing the centre of your economics - G.

Absolutely. In June 2010, you told us in the five years afterwards,

until 2015, you would borrowed a total of �22 billion. Do you know

the figure? Now, you are going to borrowed �539 billion in these five

years. That is �217 billion more than you envisage only two years

ago. You are planning to borrow 67% more than you said you were

borrowed 2 1/2 years ago, expect again how you're dealing with

borrowing? First of all, before you can deal with a stock of debt, you

have to deal with a rate of borrowing. The deficit in two years

is already down and will keep falling in cash turns and as a

percentage of GDP. You mentioned 2010. Let us look back. Since that

time, the independent report said the assessment of the shape Britain

was in has turned out to be a lot worse. The recession the country

faced in 2009 was a contraction in GDP, the worst since the Second

World War. An on going euro crisis. And a peak in oil prices in 2011.

Britain is a global trading economy. The IMF downgraded forecasts for

every single country and Britain is not exempt. However tough it is,

this government is dealing with the challenges. If there was a plan by

an alternative government that was going to mean even �200 billion

more of borrowing, spending and debt, how would that change your

numbers? You have put borrowing at the heart of your strategy. How can

you credibly claim to be getting on top of borrowing when you are

planning to borrow �200 billion more than you said you would 2 1/2

years ago. It is out of control, five had and �39 billion you will

borrow. Because we are dealing with a deficit. You need to deal with

the rate. When this government came to power, that deficit was �159

billion, the highest of any industrialised country. That was

then, you said you would get on top of that. Instead you are borrowing

over �100 billion more than Alastair Darling had said.

we're getting on with cutting the rate of borrowing. A I will try one

more time. I don't understand how you are cutting the rate of

borrowing when you just added City 7% to the map you said you would

borrow? I can explain, the deficit, the amount you borrowed every year,

that was �159 billion. It was �121 billion last year. This year before

cost is �108 billion. It is over �120 billion if you account on a

like-for-like basis. You can selectively take what you want. The

report... It shows if you take these things out. I think you're

missing the point. The budget deficit is falling. That means the

rate of borrowing is falling. would suggest that, given the shed

loads of dosh which have been borrowed by his government, for

Labour to credibly say you would borrow even more is absurd. We have

got to deal with the borrowing situation. But, ultimately, the

government is failing. What is the alternative? He talks about his

priorities. Ours would be growth. It is a fundamental truth the

government seems oblivious to, if you don't have a healthy economy

generating new revenues for the Treasury, reducing welfare costs,

you'll see borrowing getting higher. But, you would borrow more?

debt will increase. But you would borrow more. There are certain key

short-term investments necessary to stimulate the economy. We talked

about for achieve revenues -- 4G. We could talk about the E E banker

bonus Levy, pay restraint, which is necessary. The �3 billion giveaway

to the wealthiest and people. is a propaganda tool you are using.

When you look at what is happening, the Minister has made a decision

about what he regards as the Ellesse dusty of taxation. --

elasticity. One quick point, if you'll let me. They have been

against every spending cut this government has introduced. They are

against every tax rise. Somehow they think by some miracle they

will balance the books. Of course we need to make adjustments. We

have said topper cent. With Yorke NHS cuts, I suppose? How much is

the Home Office budget going to be going down as a result of your

extra borrowing? You must be glad you joined this coalition, it is

going well for you!? Actually, what joins us together, there are things

we disagree about, it is the central purpose of getting the

country back on track. If you are comparing a forecast with actual

figures. The forecast has been blown completely off course. But

the actual trajectory of the budget is coming down. We are no closer to

borrowing the books -- balancing the books. Are you any closer to

balancing the books? Yes. Absolutely, we are. You said that

the deficit would be �60 billion by 2013. That was a forecast. A You

are now telling us it is �112 billion, twice as big. The nation

is still borrowing less than the year before and the year before

that. You can't say it is dodgy. can. Including that capital receipt

from the auction which is happening next year, that is entirely normal

in accounting turns. I can state a few more minutes. Let us move on,

do not go away. The shall we carry on? The report

says the economy will decline again in his 4th quarter. We all know

that in January. The OBR can be wrong, usually more optimistic than

pessimistic. If you look at what the Chancellor said in 2010, he

said, he would be judged by meeting his debt reduction target by 2015.

That has been abandoned. He said he would get the structural deficit

into balance by 2015. That has been abandoned. He said that he would

maintain our triple-A credit rating. I would suggest on the basis of

history that will soon be abandoned as well. I do not agree with your

overall analysis. I take your general point which is all linked

to a slower rate of growth. You are surely not suggesting a government

controls its growth rate. We have a huge influence on growth but we are

open economy, 50% of our exports are with the EU. We are impacted by

the rest of the world when they have problems. We have got to deal

with the challenges we face, confront them head on. You can be

like the previous government and hope everything goes away. You talk

about fiddling the figures, Gordon Brown set his targets and then he

came up with his own figures. learn from the best. You learned

from the master. Are you challenging the independence of the

OBR? I am challenging its competence. Is Chris challenging

it? I don't think so. The you can ask me any question you want. Also,

we have talked about the growth figures and deficit. Ordinary

people what they want is jobs, over 1.2 million private sector jobs

have been created in the last two years. In the last 10 years of

Labour, do you know how many were created under Labour? It was about

600,000. The private sector has created more jobs than Labour

created in the last 10 years. wanted to ask if he was in the room

with the Chancellor when he decided to look at the statistics on

borrowing this year and post that revenue at 3.5 billion, to also

post in the profit from the banks in public ownership, to also posed

in -- poster in... Let me finish. I want to know the answer. If I would

said -- it if I said I was there, it would be a fiction. This

fictional meeting. Chris knows full well the OBR has to credit all the

decisions made by the government. The way government gives these

statistics... Are you happy that the benefits including working

benefits on people below average income has, will rise at below 1%

when inflation is double. And the things these people have to spend a

big chunk of their income on, food, heating, will rise by a lot more

than 1%, are you happy with that? Of course I am not happy with that.

These are difficult things. When you go into politics, you don't

think your life will been spent making easy decisions and to take

difficult decisions over all in the best interests of the party --

That is what the Conservative manifesto of 2010 said. The Liberal

Democrat manifesto said we would have a broad tax perk for people in

work. That is what the coalition government is doing. The only tax

cuts Conservative support up for the very rich. Do you believe that?

We thought the tax cut for Middle Britain was the way forward.

that would you believe? That is what a lot of his colleagues would

still like us to believe. Because they're not in a coalition, they

cannot do it. I do not own whose name the press release was issued

in. It was actually issued as a mistake. It had to be withdrawn.

Why will Labour not tell us whether they will support a 1% rise in

uprating of benefits? We have not seen the bill yet. Hold your

horses! When you look at what the Chancellor is doing, it is a

political trick. He is trying to say that Labour tradition a cares

about the poorest in society. -- traditionally carers. They are

going to say, how do you feel about real-terms cuts? You must vote

against it. I have a very bitter taste in my mouth. You must vote

against it. How can you be called the Labour Party and vote for

something like that? I accept it is very distasteful, what they are

doing. Excuse me. We have already done what they are doing. If it is

that distasteful, will you vote against it? If we see the bill, we

will vote against it. Can I ask about what is in the Bill? We have

run out of time. We have run out of time. Next time I'll get you the

proper press release. Some Prime Ministers use reshuffles all the

time to shake things up. The politics of promotion and demotion

can cause big problems though, perhaps, that is why David Cameron

held off for more than a year before moving his ministers around.

Today, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee are

asking how effective reshuffles actually are. In a moment, we will

be hearing from Chris Mullin, who has been giving evidence. But,

first, here's a flavour of the wonderful world of reshuffles.

morning. Are you ready for a new Music Sign O, the hokey pokey. -- #

Good to be back, Mr Mandelson? Third time lucky. A lovely day for

a walk around Whitehall. I am honoured and very much rigging

forward to getting on with the job. And the former Labour MP, Chris

Mullin, is with us now. What is the point of reshuffles? There are too

many of them. I was the 6th African minister. There were nine in 13

years. There were 13 Europe ministers. There were eight Work

and Pensions Secretary has been 10 years. That is quite a complex

subject to get your head around. Health and education has been

turned inside out on an annual, biannual basis. It is not good for

government. In terms of policy, if you are looking for consistency and

stability, the figures you have just reeled off, you get neither.

It is destabilising and demoralising for those concerned.

The present government has been more sensible. I have only met the

Prime Minister once since I left Parliament, about six months after

the election. There is only one piece of advice I would offer due -

the Prime Minister - and that was not to have annual reshuffles. He

waited two years to have his first reshuffle. Let's welcome viewers

from Scotland who have just joined the Daily Politics. They are

talking about reshuffles. When reshuffles happen, it is not

because there is a change of policy, it is usually because it is forced

upon prime ministers politically - either someone has done something

and you have to get rid of them and that forces a reshuffle. Do you

think it is forced upon a leader? Sometimes it is. An individual

Secretary of State gets himself into trouble, like Liam Fox, and a

mini reshuffle has to be held. You do not have to throw all the pieces

into the air and sea where they land. Unfortunately, in recent

years, they have got into the habit of annual reshuffles. The media

stars to speculate months and weeks in advance. What is that like for

ministers' careers? There is lots of briefing about who will go and

unbearably it does not happen the way the press predicts. How

destabilising is that? Very destabilising. If you are presiding

over a big department, you need to get to know the subject. If you are

only going to be there the year, you have just reached a point where

you might be useful when the man in Downing Street says, you are gone.

Often the department has to start all over again. That seems

ridiculous. There are subjects which are pretty difficult and the

Treasury is one of them - getting a head around all those figures. We

do say people should stay for at least two of to three years? I was

first reshuffled 11 years again. -- ago. I was told to walk up Downing

Street. I went into the office of Tony Blair. He was doing the

reshuffle. By the time he had got to the junior level, he said, I

would like you to go to the Cabinet Office. I said, thank you very much,

Prime Minister. He said, actually... I said to him, everyone will say

that, when they? He said, you are one of the only people who has said

they will take what they are given. People do actually argue with the

Prime Minister as he is trying to grapple with his dozens of

appointments. It shows that prime ministers are either week when

giving news they do not want to here or there are ministers who

fight their corners. There were reports that Iain Duncan-Smith did

not want to move when the Prime Minister wanted him to move. Is it

hard to tell colleagues they are out? I think Tony Blair got quite

experienced at it. He used the phrase, Surrey, Chris, I am going

to have to let you go. I'm sure he said that to everyone. I actually

turned down my first offer. He said, it is only for a few months and

then I will find you something more in the Home Office of Foreign

Office. I fell for that. Do you think it would be better if people

were experts? In other countries, you do need some expertise before

you take on health or education. Do you think there should be a level

of qualification before you are given a ministerial post?

painful lesson we have all learnt is it is not a meritocracy. It

depends how friendly you are with your party leader as to whether he

picks up the phone or not. I do not think the Prime Minister goes

through everyone's CVs and says, this person has done this and

spoken on that while in opposition and they should go there. That is

how business with work but not politics. With the Liberal

Democrats come up we have fiftysomething. They are turning

them all through. Everyone gets a go. That is probably good for

pensions, it is it not? I am afraid at this point we have to reshuffle

you out of the studio. It has happened the fog but I will come

back. -- happened before. He went in to resign and David Cameron said,

you're doing a great job, thank you for coming to seamy and he walked

out. I said to Tony Blair, he said, we are not very good at this, are

we? I thought, who is the week? Some good news, energy giants have

found a cheap ways of supplying electricity. A nice big fracking

plant might well be coming to a town, village or slice of green and

pleasant land near you. I can hardly wait. Giles has been to

visit a village who are a little less pleased. Underneath the arches,

a dream of gas is under way. Not far from this viaduct, near the

village of Balcombe in Sussex, there happens to be a 20-year-old

oil drill shaft, which drilling company Cuadrilla has planning

permission until September next year, to survey for shale gas and a

test frack. To nearly all the residents of Balcombe, that does

not smell right. It is not so much that this Sussex village is sitting

on a goldmine of shale gas. That is what the drilling company wants to

find out. The community has had to come to an opinion about a fairly

new process that many others know The process involves underground

explosive fracturing of rock strata and, if suitable gas pockets are

there, driving that gas out, by pumping water in, lots of water.

What has sent shockwaves through this village is, when it was tried

in Blackpool last year, it caused two earthquakes. The Government

halted test fracks as a result. Now they seem keen to lift that ban.

Balcombe is worried. The increased risk of pollution, the increased

risk of traffic which were becoming past my house. The risk to the

environment. The risk of earth tremors. Generally, I am very

concerned about it as a whole. in the US, shale gas extraction is

transforming their energy dynamic. The UK Government may want the same.

We are not America. We are a watery country. Just to have something

like fracking, it seems that a last resort for the Government to go

ahead with this. I cannot believe we have not be searched any other

alternatives. -- researched. Balcombe is a blooming traditional

English country village. You would be forgiven for thinking they would

be upset if you asked to build anything near - or under them.

is an issue that affects the whole of the UK. People do not realise

how serious a problem this is. Cuadrilla say Balcombe should not

flap. Their focus in on Lancashire and have no current plans to test

frack. Balcombe stresses the liquid nature of the word current. And, as

other areas may well be perched on shale beds, they seem to have built

a platform as campaigners not against a development but a whole

technology. I really pity people in other countries. They have had

lives ruined. Whatever engineers and geologists say, some have these

companies are ruining people's lives. Are you prefer that not to

happen in the UK. -- I would prefer. For those in Balcombe, and nearby,

the hunt for cheaper gas is a bridge too far. Joining me now is

the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas, and Dan Lewis, who is energy

adviser for the Institute of Can we go back to the big picture,

we import 49% of our gas, forecast to rise up to send the cent. -- 70%.

The nuclear programme is off to a very slow start. We needed to buy a

lot of gas. Do we actually wanted to buy it at a premium from abroad,

or exploit our own revenues, get some tax revenues and regional

development opportunities? It is posing the wrong dilemma. If we go

down another dash for gas, we will see higher energy bills, we all

seek our climate emission reduction targets busted. The actual question

is whether we go for a big investment in offshore wind, or gas.

A report this week showed if you went down the offshore wind route,

we would get 70,000 more jobs, look -- we would have lower fuel bills,

and emissions. Why has the dash for gas not resulted in higher prices

in the United States, they are now a third of Europe's? They let me

correct one thing, George Osborne is making up facts as he goes along.

It is not the gas -- not the case, gas prices have doubled in the US.

Not natural gas prices. Yes, they have. They are falling in the

United States, I promise you. That is why industries are relocating

there. If you listen to the chief executive of Bloomberg, he is

saying gas prices have come down. Irrespective of that, in the UK, it

is the case a big investment in offshore wind would get our bills

done much more effectively without the negative side effects. Can we

really import what has happened in the United States? If you take

North Dakota where one of the big shell gas fields are, if you look

at North Dakota, it has 10 people per square mile. In England, 1,000

people per square mile, often more. Can you really do in this small

island what they have done in a Continent? We are not going to do

anything on the same scale. On natural gas prices, it depends on

your starting point. Prices four years ago were the same as the UK.

They Arnaud three times lower. The starting point which Caroline chose

at the beginning of the year, they have doubled, but they are still

three times lower than here. cannot try to compare the US price

system two hours. We need to look at prices in the UK. If you look at

our overall energy bills, gas is driving up bills which is why they

are so expensive. Not just me, CBI, a butcher bank, they are all say it.

If I could come back on that, we need to do the same thing as

America were in large amount of Shell Gas is de coupled from

natural gas and oil prices. what about climate change, we are

forgetting this, we will bust our legally binding emission reduction

target. It doesn't matter what is happening in America. The UK has

legislation. Let us concentrate on the UK. The committee on climate

change cut abruptly said if we go down this route we will not meet

the targets in our legally blinding -- binding legislation. My response

is to get the moratorium lifted and find out more. A serious point is

this is an economy in trouble. Incidentally, you are going to have

used yelled -- going to have to use a shell gas... We are going to have

to go. Thank you very much for that. I have never felt more redundant in

my life. The Chancellor has got this shale

gas bit between his teeth. He really thinks this is important.

And he has overcome the objections of the Liberal Democrats, am I

right? I think he has. It was interesting to hear this debate

that went on. We needed to get away from just focusing on just what

alternative energy is. Wind energy plays an important role but if we

have a supply of gas using the new technology available, to use our

own resources, to try and bring down the price of gas,... So you

are in favour? I am, yes. And your party lost the argument? A over

wind, there has been an argument between the Secretary of State and

Ed Davey and his junior David -- junior minister. But, you hit the

nail on the head by saying we need to be wary of fracking. In North

Dakota, there is plenty of land where you can risk perhaps

contaminating the water table. In Cumbria, you would have to be very

careful. There will be lots of protests.

Does Labour have a policy on Shell Gas? We recognise we always have

some gas in the mix. You have to try to grow the renewable side of

things, we were disappointed they dropped that target... Are you on

fracking? There are safeguards, the toxicity of Chemicals plant into

the ground, watching the water table, model train what happens. It

will cause structural change to the earth beneath. With proper

safeguards, which should go without saying. You would be in favour?

safeguards are a critical point. We need at least a year to measure

what is happening in the ground before obtaining a licence for

fracking. A report did say that this was a red herring. 125,000

fracks in the United States last year. The environmental protection

agency says that not one has contaminated the ground water.

we have our own environmental standards which I would hope are

quite high. Now, enough of the doom and gloom. Let's have a little bit

of Christmas cheer. Because, last night, there were lords a leaping,

and some melodic sounding MPs. Yes, Parliament's Got Talent, you know!

But don't worry, they're not gearing up for the next reality TV

show. The Parliament Choir, yes, Parliament has a choir, has been

singing its heart out at its annual carol service. And we sent Susana

to St John's Smith Square to see if they were any good. # Ding Dong

merrily on high. Recognised them? These are parliamentarians united

in song, with a conductor as chief whip. We are under the control of

the conductor. Her there is a great deal of solidarity about what we do.

They come from all sides of the political spectrum, about one third

are at MPs and peers. A time of year when they like to get into the

Christmas spirit. 12 years since the choir started, it can pull in a

decent crowd. If we have come a long way from the

days when we used to basket with a few mince pies. -- busk it. I am

doing a duet with a Tory! Bernard Jenkins. That is a bit weird. It is

quite nice. The thing about music is it just brings everybody

together, and lifts everybody's soul, however bad your day, however

angry you feel about the Chancellor's Budget, this is an

occasion to saying, to enjoy, to the Christmas tree. Come on then,

give us a song. A contender. But who is the best sinner? Bernard

Jenkins has a fantastic Boyce, we all turned around to listen to him.

He is a member of her own party, is buried party-political reason?

is simply perhaps more rehearsed. Time for the scores now. A I would

probably give Bernard nine out of 10, he is pretty good.

Carol line is a very strong sinner. -- singer.

Lord german? He leads the choir so I had better give him eight! Let us

hear him then? You know the words but I am going to sing the third

first and I did remember the words. A likely tale. Here is the real

thing. Doesn't it make you want to roast a chestnut!

We're joined now by Alexander L'Estrange, who is a choir master!

Do you think they are any good? sounded pretty nice, what did you

think? I thought they surprisingly sounded quite good. What would you

give them? Some definite sevens. Would you like to have a go

conducting them? It would be a lot of fun. Which of the individuals

did you like the best in turns of their voice? I rather liked Lord

German. Our Ranya view in this quiet? -- Are any of you in this

choir? Then I was in my school choir. Her

you were talking about your colleague, Bernard Jenkins, who has

a lovely voice. He has an excellent voice. His sister was a

professional singer. Bernard was a constituent of mine for a while. He

certainly has a great voice. I thought David was excellent as well.

For could this be the key to more cross-party harmony if they sang

together more regularly. Music is a metaphor for politics and everyone

coming together. Singing in community choirs is great. Lots are

doing stuff they are learning by beer -- ear.

You could put the Autumn Statement to music! A bleak midwinter!

Thank you very much. That's all for today. Thanks to our

guests. The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now. I am

on, after Question Time, talking about the royal baby, and social

mobility, with Tony Parsons. Discussing reinvention with