09/01/2013 Daily Politics

Good morning folks! Welcome to the Daily Politics. We have been doing

this for 10 years. It's my first day back at the coal-face here at

Westminster. So it's a Happy New Year from me!

Yes, of course I've already been here for two days! Some would be

talking about shirkers and strivers! Anyway, today's top

stories! Huge changes are being planned to

the way prisoners are supervised after they get out of jail. Private

companies may take over from the probation service for all but the

most dangerous offenders. And they'll be paid by results.

The actor, Geoffrey Palmer, will be taking a look at plans to stick a

high-speed railway through the heart of the Cotswolds where he

lives. And guess what? He's none too keen.

It's the first Prime Minister's Question Time of the New Year of

course! So stand by for the resumption of political hostility

that we've all so sorely missed over the season of good will.

And, it's happy birthday to us! Yes the Daily Politics is 10 years old

this week! We'll be looking back at some of the highlights of the last

decade. And, like all 10-year-olds, throwing an enormous strop if the

cake and presents aren't good enough.

All that in the next hour and a half. Prime Minister's Questions is

at noon of course. And joining us throughout today's programme is the

Treasury Minister, Sajid Javid, and the shadow Secretary for Work and

Pensions, Liam Byrne. But first, today the Government's

telling us how it plans to make private companies take over the

supervision of most ex-offenders once they leave prison. The role of

the traditional public probation service will be scaled back and it

will now only deal with the most violent of them. The new companies

will be paid by results, in an effort to reduce the hundreds of

thousands of crimes currently committed each and every year by

prisoners who have just got out of jail. This was the Justice

Secretary, Chris Grayling, earlier this morning.

Very often people walk out of the front door of a prison, �46 in

their pocket. Either with no support, or with the Probation

Service in a few days. I want them going straight on to a new rehab

course, if that is what they need, or if they dropped out of school.

We start to help them get their lives back together again.

Has the Probation Service failed to do its job properly? I wouldn't put

it like that, but if you look at the reoffending rate as a country,

it is probably one of the worst in the world. It is almost 50% of

people in terms of all prisoners released. If you look at people

convicted for 12 months or less, it is as high as 60%. It is

unacceptable, so we have to look at better ways. What Chris has talked

about, and the former Justice Secretary talked about, is have

rehabilitation, and these things we should be looking at. On those

figures, you would argue they have not done their job, or you wouldn't

be looking at this radical new approach? It would be unfair to say

it is all to do with the Probation Service. We have to look at new

ways of doing things. That means widening the scope of people who

can provide rehabilitation services, bring in the private sector and

charities. Also this approach of payment by results. Let's look at

payment by results. Why do you think that it will do a better job?

It sets the right incentives. If you get charities and private

sector groups involved, given the right incentives they can bring

about results in the criminal justice system we will be looking

for. They will get paid. It is a bit like the work programme put in

place. It has been criticised formed failing to meet its own

modest targets. Are these the sort of models you want to emulate?

is not fair. The work programme has just come into place. Then there is

800,000 people on it. It is bringing results. Let's look at the

reoffending rate so. It is even worse than you said. 90% of those

sentenced in England and Wales in 2011 had offended before. There

needs to be a rethink? Payment by results is an answer that can work.

What troubles us about this announcement is it is a bit of a

big bang approach to something that is high risk. Chris Grayling has

shut down a couple of important pilots. He has gone straight for

this kind of model, that he, as the minister put in place on the work

programme. It failed disastrously. The Government set its own minimum

performance standard at the work programme, with people needing to

be got into jobs. Only two people out of every 100 got into jobs.

you backing the idea of the versifying... The theory can work.

It is the practice. The devil is in the details and Chris Grayling has

a track record as a dodgy builder. Be very, very cautious about this.

Cancelling the pilots in the way we saw this morning is a mistake.

Proceed with caution. Let's go to harry Fletcher, who has been

listening to this, he is from the union that represents probation

staff. I'm not sure how much you heard about that, but let's look at

reoffending rates, because it was brought up by the minister. In 2011,

90% of those sentenced in England and Wales had offended before.

Doesn't this show the Probation Service as it stands has failed?

Ministers are confusing prisoners who got 12 months or less with

prisoners to got 12 months or more. Anybody under 12 months does not

get any assistance. The fact Chris Grayling has said this morning, in

future they will get assistance. The bad news is, the decision to

outsource two thirds of existing probation work, when the Ministry

of Justice's own statistics show that last year, we were set about a

dozen targets and we exceeded or hit absolutely everyone of them,

including reducing reoffending by the amount required by the Ministry

of Justice. The Probation Service has already been in receipt of

awards for excellence. The timing of this is bizarre. We have a

public sector organisation that is doing very well. But it is being

punished by the threat of privatisation. Why would you be

outsourcing on the basis of those results? It is nice to hear Liam is

welcoming the theory of this. so Harry's point. They have just

received an award for excellence and being touted abroad as a public

service to follow. The reoffending rate say it all. We need to look at

a new way of doing this. It is only sensible to look out new providers,

and frankly, have a bit of competition. There is nothing wrong

with competition in public services. If it leads to new ideas, it is a

good thing. Better results is a good thing, and value for money is

good as well. If the proposal was that Probation Service should work

in partnership with the private sector, we already work in

partnership with the private sector with tagging, that would be OK. But

they want to outsource two thirds of the work. And probation trusts

won't be able to bid for bat, it is a private sector monopoly. We have

spoken to the Ministry of Justice who has said you will be able to

bid for the work. If you are going to be able to bid for the work

alongside other providers, it is a level playing field? I want to see

the detail. Before Christmas I was being told quite clearly that the

probation trust wouldn't be able to bid for the work because it would

put public money at risk. If there has been a reversal, it is good

news. But we need to see the detail before we can announce further. If

this is a fair competition, and in the past competitions in the

justice sector has not been fair, Prison Service, maintenance

contracts, outsourcing of bail beds, that would be a different matter.

But our experience has been the actual process of competition is

not fair. What about the idea of payment by results, what do you

think about that? It would work if we were in a situation where the

economic climate it is very positive. The best way of getting a

criminal out of crime is to get them into work. The problems we

have is the vast majority of the people we deal with are illiterate.

They have problems with drugs and alcohol and they have more than two

mental health issues. We have to deal with those problems first.

Then we can look at pat ways to work. But there aren't the jobs out

there and if 50 people applied for one job and five of them are

criminals, I know who won't be shortlisted. That is the difficulty.

How do you measure a result if you pay someone? Is it someone who

comes out of prison never has to reoffend again and the company get

paid? Or do you cut the number of re offences, bearing in mind people

reoffend many times. How do pay the company? Part of the reason for

this announcement and the consultation as a result of that,

is to look at these ideas and get him put on this. But reoffending is

one of the measurements. If you can get that down, it is key. The.

Harry made, I am glad he is welcoming competition. In needs to

be a level playing field. But also, as Harry said, up until now, people

that have been convicted for less than 12 months have not received

any rehabilitation help. But that wasn't the role of the Probation

Service. It is good to see the Government will include such people.

If we are going to get the reoffending rate down, we need to

include all offenders. Well, there were furious exchanges in the House

of Commons yesterday as MPs debated whether or not to cap increases to

benefits and tax credits to less than the level of inflation.

In other words, a real-terms cut. The Government won the vote,

insisting that it would be unfair to people who work hard and who

have seen their own pay hardly rising, if they did anything else.

Here's Jo. The Government's victory last night

means that most working-age benefits and tax credits will now

increase by 1% every year up to 2015. Because inflation is expected

to be considerably higher, that'll mean a real-terms cut for people

receiving payments including jobseeker's allowance, income

support and maternity pay. The Work and Pension Secretary, Iain Duncan

Smith said the move was fair because it brings the increase in

benefits closer to the rise in average earnings, which was 1.4%

last year. Mr Duncan Smith says he believes that this will all save

the taxpayer as much as �2 billion a year by the end of the Parliament.

Which is essential if the Government is going to cut the

welfare bill, which is �195 billion and projected to keep on rising.

Labour opposed the move in angry scenes in the Commons, arguing that

by the Government's own admission it would hit women, single parents

and disabled people. Let's take a look at some of last night's debate.

If you look at it over the period since the beginning of the

recession, payments for those in work have risen by about 10% and

for those on benefits have risen by 20%. What we're trying to do over

the next few years, get that back into a fair settlement and

eventually it will go back on to inflation. We want to create and

hand back society, not a handout society. It does not help those on

lower earners by cutting taxes and recycling their hard-earned money

on benefits. It is not Britain's millionaires picking up the tab, it

is working families. This is a 'The Strivers Tax Bill, pure and simple.

What would he say to the policeman in my constituency... Is it fair

that people out of work have seen their benefits go up by 5.2%. My

salary has been frozen when I risk my life every day. That is what

this bill is about. I am ready to say what we did wrong, I have not

heard a word to say what they have done wrong. It is intolerable to

blame the unemployed for their poverty and our deficit. That is

why I'm voting for the amendment and against this rotten bill.

Bill is part of a war waged by the rich, who are doing all they can to

divide individuals answer communities against each other. It

is a reckless and dangerous measure which is likely to be massively

counter-productive and destabilise already struggling groups in

society and push them into greater despair and desperation.

billion over this Parliament of savings have been opposed by the

opposition. It is equivalent of adding another �5,000 of debt for

every working family in the country. We hear much about taxing the rich,

yet in this Parliament, the richest will pay more in tax than under any

single year of the previous Government. More tax on capital

gains, more stamp duty, is available to avoid and have a tax

and more when they take out their pension policy.

That gives you a flavour Abbott was A lively debate. Sajid Jafid, the

Chancellor at the Tory conference talked about people getting up

early to go to work and passing by houses where curtains were drawn,

people were asleep, living on benefits. He obviously didn't like

that. It was an implication of exiefrz, so why on the changes have

-- skivers, so why on the changes have you made people will be poorer

and the year after that �534 poorer? Firstly, in those working

families, they would only be poorer if you looked at the changes in

isolation and that wouldn't be right. Those are library figures

and net figures. It isn't. I have to confirm what he has said. These

are for the �280 worse off that is from the House of Commons Library,

which I've looked at and that includes the personal allowance and

the figure of �534 worse off is from the Institute of Fiscal

Studies and includes the rise in the personal allowance. You'll find

it only includes a change in the personal allowance that was

announced in the Autumn Statement. It does not include the change in

the personal allowance. It includes all. There is also the VAT increase

going up. There's a council tax freeze. There is change in fuel

duty. On the tenth anniversary I was going to do my homework.

sure you do that. These include the personal allowance changes, which

do help, overall these families who you are talking about, walking past

the curtains of those who are supposedly not going to work, they

will be worst off? Well, I know you always do your homework. I've done

mine, but we won't get into that. The figure I have is the average

family will save because the personal allowance changes. �594,

for all the changes in the entirety a year. That is a significant

saving and then you have a council tax freeze and the increases in

fuel duty that did take place. There are other changes taking

place in the tax and benefits system that are helping working

families and we have to look at them in the round. There is a wider.

The tax credit system, which was part of the changes debated

yesterday was so widespread that under the previous government nine

out of ten families with children were receiving some kind of tax

credit. Nine out of ten families, that is. With universal credit a

lot less people will receive the benefits in their entirety, a lot

less families, but it will be targeted at people that need the

help and set up in a way that those families will be better off by

taking a job. So you can't have a system of welfare where nine out of

ten are receiving tax credits. We have changed that. It will be six

out of ten. We have got to have a welfare system that is better spent

and better targeted towards families. Can we establish that

these working families that the Chancellor was so keen to support,

as a result of the changes in yesterday's Bill, they will be

worse off? You can't have changes to the welfare system when tax

credits are such a big chunk, to which tax credits, as the system

has been set up, go to working families, without having an impact

on those recipients. The Chancellor is hitting the person walking in

street and the ones behind the curtains who are not working? He

has hit both, hasn't he? We are having a big change to welfare.

That was the importance of the Bill yesterday to try to bring about

savings and it's affected families both on tax credits and JSA.

does Labour support a 1% cap on people who go to work in the public

sector, but not a 1% cap for those who are getting benefits? Because

we set the 1% cap sudden be an average. So for those at the very

top of the income spectrum, we have said they shouldn't get a rise at

you will. Sure, but they're not. For those at the very bottom, there

should be an exemption. We always said there should be a value for

the public sectors under �21,000 and that's why you have Labour

councils introducing living wages for Dinnerladies and teaching

assistants, those who are paid the very least. 1% on average. A lot of

people in the public sector and protection for those at the bottom.

Even so, if I can give you the figures from recent years, if you

look at the benefit rises. Take 2009. Benefits up 5%, pay went up

1.5%. 2010, benefits 1.1%, payment up 0.5%. 2011, benefits up 3%, pay

up 2.5%. 2012, benefits 5.2%, payment up 2.3%. Every year in

recent history if you've been on benefits you have done better than

getting a pay rise. This is very important argument. Two points in

response. First, we always look not just at wages, but at the family

income. I personally want family income to rise faster when

someone's in work than when they're on benefits. That's why we wanted

tax credits to rise. But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

actually froze the rise in tax credits and that's 3,5,000 people

in his constituency and 11,000 in mine. The Bill squeezed them

further. What that means is that those people who are in work are

getting hit twice, they are hit by wages that are stagnating and hurt

by tax being squeezed. My second point is, now think about what is

coming in the years ahead. So, in the years that this Bill is in

effect, actually earnings are forecast to grow by the Office for

Budget Responsibility by between 3% panned 4%. That's -- and 4%. That's

earnings. That is absolutely right. If you look at the OBI. That's not

right. Outlook, earnings will grow. Public sector. Firstly, as this

government will tell you, basing any policy on OBR is fool's gold.

That's why they're in a mess. Public sector pay is frozen or

rising by 1% overall for the future. Private earnings are rising by less

than 2% at the moment. There is no - I know of no business currently

planning 3% or 4% pay rises. Tell me one. Let me bring you back to

this. That's why tax credits need to be protected. At a time when

wages are squeezed you need tax credits to take up the slack. It's

this government that is actually freezing tax credits and proposing

to squeeze them at a time that the very richest in our country are

being given a �2,000 a week tax cut. We can't see how that is fair.

knows that's wrong. Frankly, he is wrong. You set it up. He knows

about the tax cuts for the richest is completely wrong. He said tax

credits sudden go up. He voted against this Bill yesterday, so

really you need to explain how you are going to fund the changes.

There is up to �5 billion of savings to get the changes. How

will you do that and at the same time cut the deficit? Keeping in

mind, that Liam was the Cabinet Secretary responsible for spending

in the previous government and he left the note to the new government

saying, "There's no money left." He might have thought it was a joke. I

think it was a rare moment of honesty. Let's see more now and

tell us how you will do that. you wish you had never left that

note? It's a good joke, but it's haunted you. These notes go back to

Churchill in the 1920s and a little later on. There's an old tradition

of them. They are normally kept private. Only one successor has

meant it. I left a Budget that I co-wrote with Alistair Darling

which would cut the deficit in four years. The basic point is this - �3

billion a year is being handed back to Britain's top-rate taxpayers.

That's complete rubbish. It's an HMRC figure. It's not. They say

it's the static costs. Let him explain why he thinks it's not

right. I understand this. Let him explain why. What he conveniently

wants to ignore are behaviourial changes when you have a tax change.

When you have a tax change people change their behaviour. HMRC's

study said when you take behaviour into account it's about �100

million, not �3 billion. That's why if you want to tax the wealthiest

you need to do it in a way where it's not easy for them to avoid it,

stamp duty and changes in personal pension contribution allowances and

changes in capital gains tax and that's what we have son, so each --

son, so each year the wealthiest are paying more. We'll come back to

this. We have to move on. Very interesting. I did a lot more

homework than I needed to! Hold onto your socks for a moment - we

have an important announcement.. FANFARE

Yes, as you know each week we give away a prize that the rich and

mighty can only dream of. Yes, the Daily Politics Mug! But in honour

of our 10th birthday - have we mentioned its our 10th birthday? -

for one week only we've bust the budget, stuck a happy birthday

sticker on the side of it and we've got permission from the head of

finance to give away not one, but two! Oh, how eBay will groan! Sajid

and Liam have already got theirs - they're quick off the mark these

Treasury boys. But now two of you can try and join a club that is

surely unique. Let's see if you can remember when this happened.

# Everybody, move feet and feel united... #

# I will go down with this ship # And I won't put my hands up and

sursurrender... # -- and surrender... #

# I don't know what it is # That makes me feel like this

# I don't know who you are # But you must be kind of

superstar... # The people have spoken for the

# Danger, danger Lots of clues there. To be in with

a chance of winning one of our special special mugs, look at it,

send your answer to our special address: You can see the full terms

and conditions on the website. they can't guess what that year's

going to be, they should be banned from watching. Thereby cutting our

audience to close to zero. It's coming up to midday. There's Big

Ben behind me there. It's only meaning one thing, Prime Minister's

questions and also that Nick Robinson is here. Haby knew year.

Welcome back. -- happy new year. Welcome back. A cheap one. That's

all we can afford. The cheque isn't in the account yet! We have this

relaunch of the coalition on Monday, that's what Labour called it. We

read in this morning's papers that there's another document where they

mark their own homework. Even marking their own homework, we are

told, they failed on 70 promises. Thanks to a rather good political

photographer called Steve Back who has an extremely long lens, he

managed to get one of the political advisers to the Prime Minister,

Patrick Rock, who was carrying documents along, who said he might

have well as stapled it to his forehead and posted it to the

Cabinet. Which said and I quote, "I think the danger of bad headlines,

about the Government failing to meet certain targets, can be

avoided by simply publishing a document without any fanfare on the

Government's website." I don't think that plans going quite to

plan. "We might be accused of slipping out the difficult points a

couple of days we got more favourable coverage." It's just

possible! I wouldn't wish to predict. Only by churlish people.

Or people of an unkind disposition. Was there always the plan to

publish this? Well, the coalition document, they saw that this week.

No, marking your own homework? don't know about that. You have not

seen it. It talked about cutting the deficit. Welfare reform. I was

gob-smacked by it. Were you on holiday? I was working, watching

him, which is work! What about this new document, you must have had

input into this? I haven't seen such a document. I have seen the

coalition document, mid-term review which talks all about the successes.

What about 6% growth by 2012, failed. Cut the deficit by lots

more, no we only got 25% and it's rising again. Living standards

still being squeezed by as much as 1920s. Will it have all that in?

think the document would say that given the Interance that we had,

the world's largest deficit that we have done a damn good job of

putting the country back on its feet and also of cutting the

deficit and bringing back prosperity back to Britain. Is that

eight out of ten? Over to Prime This morning I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others and an additional to my duties, I

will have further such meetings today. The as the Prime Minister

agree if public servants are having a 1% pay rise, it is only fair that

those on benefits should be given the same increase? I think he is

entirely right. These are difficult decisions. But they should be made

in the context of the fact that over the last five years benefits

have gone up by 20%, average earnings are only up by 10%. It is

right to have a 1% cap on out-of- work benefits, a 1% cap on tax

credits and the 1% cap on public sector pay. What is inexplicable is

the position of the party opposite to support a 1% public sector pay

cap, but one more for welfare claimants. It is not fair, not

right and they should think again. Mr Speaker, can the Prime Minister

tell us that why am Monday when he published his mid-term review

committee failed to publish his audit of coalition broken promises?

We will be publishing absolutely every single auditor of every

single promise, or 399 pledges set out in the mid-term review. Unlike

the party opposite, this will be full, frank and completely on

varnished and will see it this afternoon. Let me perhaps remind

him of some of the pledges. We said we would cut the deficit, it is

down by 25%. We said we would cut immigration, it is down buys 25%.

We said we would rebalance the economy, one million public-sector

jobs. He is going to have to do better than that. Because this is

what his advisers said. Key said, they shouldn't publish the secret

ordered because it had problematic areas and V2 and favourable copy,

and identified broken pledges. It is a far cry from the Rose Garden.

This is what they said, we should throw open the doors to enable the

public to hold politicians to account. So, have another go. It is

a simple questions. Was it his decision not to publish the audit.

I quote from his adviser, "it would overshadow favourable coverage..."

it is early in the year, so calm down. You had difficult times ahead.

Was it his decision not to publish the ordered? It is my decision it

is being published this afternoon. Is this really the best he can do?

He has had a week, sitting in the Canary Islands with nothing else to

think about. He cannot ask about unemployment because it is falling.

P cannot ask about business creation because it is rising. He

does not want to talk about the deficit because we have got it down

for a start he cannot ask about welfare because he knows he is on

the wrong side of the argument. Speaker, the only people on the

wrong side of the arguments are him and his Chancellor, who are trying

to divide the country. Let's see if we can get a sneak preview of the

secret Audit. We have not seen it, but can we get a sneak preview.

This is what the coalition agreement said, "we will stop top

down reorganisations of the NHS". I think we can all agree it is a

promise that has been broken. Can he confirm that is on the list?

What will be Virk, 5,000 more doctors in the NHS, 6,000 fewer

managers. But he talks about wanting to divide the country, the

division is this, two parties that have come together in the national

interest to take the difficult decisions, and one party that

refuses to apologise for the past, refuses to talk about the deficit,

has no economic policy to think of. That is the division in British

politics. I have to say, if he cannot even admit he has broken his

promise on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, I don't

have high hopes for the secret Audit. Let's talk about another

broken promise, this time on women. He's had this in his modest way,

"he said we want to make sexual inequality history. That needs a

serious commitment, clear policies and clear leadership". Will the

secret audits acknowledge another broken promises that the changes he

is making... I think the part-time Chancellor should calm down. Will

he admits that the tax and benefit changes he is making are hitting

women three times as hard as men? There are more women in work than...

There is excessive noise in the chamber. The questions from the

opposition must be heard and the answers from the Prime Minister

must be heard. He will be able to see when this document is published,

there are more women in work than at any time in our history, pension

reforms are helping women and of public-sector -- public sector pay

freeze that excludes the lowest paid is helping women and we are

helping women with extra childcare. Mr Speaker, what a contrast between

a Government that is prepared to publish every piece of information

about every pledge and what has been achieved. And the party

opposite that cannot apologise for the mess they left this country in.

After that answer, it is no wonder he did not take any questions from

women jealous from his relaunch a press conference. -- journalists.

Let's turn to his biggest broken promise, the chancellor hits hard

working people and the most vulnerable with his strivers tax.

At the same time he is giving this April, a massive tax cuts to

millionaires. If his audit is going to be a candid assessment, won't he

have to admit he has broken that symbolic promise that we are all in

this together? He knows the facts about the top rate of tax. His move

to 50 pence Mensa millionaires paid 7 billion a less in taxes, than

they did previously. Under this Government, the top rate of tax

will be higher than it every year than under his Government. Let's

have an audit of his promises. He promised us a costed deficit-

reduction programme. Nothing. He promised us proper reforms of

welfare. Nothing. He promised us how he would show how he would have

a new policy and tuition fees. Nothing. I have audited all of the

Government spending programmes and I have identified one where waste

is appalling. The �5 million of money that goes to his party every

year. We get nothing from it. Speaker. Mr Speaker, the more he

blusters, the less convincing he is. He is cutting the top rate of

income tax at by an average of �107,000 for everyone earning over

�1 million in Britain. At the same time he is raising taxes on

everyone else. He is a PR man who cannot even do a relaunch. Halfway

through his Parliament, we know they are incompetent, break their

promises and other nasty party is back. If is perfectly clear what

has happened since the start of this year. It is this Government

that is setting out its plans for the future. It is his party that is

on the wrong side of the argument on welfare. It has nothing to say

about the deficit, no credible policy on the economy. He has a

shadow Chancellor who will knock back, but cannot sack. Nothing has

changed in politics, nothing has changed in labour. Does he agree

with me, that we should be cutting taxes for hard-working people in

Basildon it rather than taking money away from them, only to

return their own money through tax credits? He is entirely right. He

will know in April, every working family will see a �220 tax cut as

we left the tax threshold further. Everyone will benefit. In our view,

what we should be doing is cutting people's taxes, rather than take

more in taxes and recycle it through the massive tax credits

business. That is what we believe on the side of the house. Isn't it

a clear example of how out of touch this Prime Minister is, that while

the overwhelming majority of the public want to maintain the ban on

fox and stag hunting, that he actually plans to repeal it. Can he

tell us why? As I explained before Christmas, I have never broken the

law, and the only little red purse I pursue these days are in this

house. -- pests. Does the Prime Minister accept... Order, order. I

am sure the House wishes to hear the words. Does the Prime Minister

accept that under this Government that we brought in an 11% rise in

the child elements of the tax credit, followed by a 5% rise and a

recent rises build on those, meaning a cash increase of �470 in

the child elements of the tax credit, under this Government?

makes an important point on how we focused help on those most in need.

Because we have lifted the income tax threshold, someone a minimum

wage who works full-time has seen their income tax bill cut in half

under this Government. We are on the side are people who want to

work hard, get on and provide for their families. There are more than

one million children living in poverty who do not qualify for a

free school meal. Several children's charities are concerned

that number will increase when the Universal credit is introduced.

Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to allay their fears by

giving a guarantee that any child who qualifies for a free school

meal under the current rules, will keep the entire Commons when the

rules have changed? I will look carefully at what he says. By

universal credit will actually be extending help to more people and

more families, because it will be helping those people who are only

able to work a few hours a week, and helping them with childcare as

well. It is good to see the Prime Minister out running over Christmas,

and setting the pace on welfare reform. For I have been out

training for the London Marathon to raise funds for my local children's

hospice. Will he join me in praising or the fund raisers and

volunteers for local hospices, and reaffirmed Government support that

schemes like the capital fund for hospices, which my local hospice

are currently applying? First of all, can I wish him every good luck

for the London Marathon. It is more than I am capable of, I can

reassure him. We are continuing to support children's hospices by

carrying on with the �10 million funding. We have added an

additional �720,000, by making �60 million of capital funding

available to adults and children hospices. In the coalition

agreement, a full audit of which will be published today - we will

be demonstrating how we will fulfil our pledge for a per patient

funding system for palliative care. It will help or hospices. Can the

Prime Minister confirm that single mum, Magee from my constituency,

who works all the hours she can in Tesco, but does not earn enough to

gain from the new tax allowances, will, after these changes to tax

credit and Universal Credit, be a staggering �1,255 a year worse off?

Everybody is affected by these changes. Everyone on tax credits

will be affected by the fact there is only a 1% increase. Everyone on

out-of-work benefits will be affected by the fact there is only

a 1% increase. But the question is, if we are saving �5 billion through

these changes, which I believe our fair, how is it the party opposite

would fill in as �5 billion black hole? Would they take it off the

NHS? Take it off the defence budget? It is time we had some

questions from the party opposite. Can I thank the coalition

Government for allocating �10.7 million to Edinburgh Super

connected city with. It will revolutionise internet use been

part of my constituency. But like constituents are frustrated at

Edinburgh council's year-long procurement process. What can we do

It's vitally important that everyone has access to broadband

and increasingly we have the overwhelming access to superfast. I

suspect that Edinburgh City Council has seen some of the same problems

that councils up and down the country have seen about getting

state aid clearance. We now have that for broadband in England, but

I'm happy to look at his situation, but that's been one of the problems

that has been holding back this vital programme. You shouldn't have

to fill in long forms from the Revenue, you're working, you need

help, we want to help you. I'm sure the Prime Minister recognises his

words to families receiving child benefit. How many families could

face a fine for not filling out a long tax form? The point about the

child benefit change is that 85% of families who receive child benefit

will go on getting that benefit. But the question we all have to ask

is, is it right for people earning �20,000 or �30,000 to go on giving

child benefit to people earning �70 or �90,000? We don't believe it is

right, but apparently the Labour Party think it's right to give

child benefit to millionaires. We don't think that's a good use of

money. The Prime Minister rightly recognises that there needs to be a

new relationship between this country and the EU. He has said,

and I agree, that the British people must be offered a real

choice with regard to our continued membership. I hope he can confirm

to the House that it's his intention to seek a fresh

settlement and then to seek the consent of the British people to

that settlement. I can confirm that is exactly what I believe this

country should do. I think it's the right thing for Britain, because I

think it's right that we are involved in the single market, we

are active players in the EU, but there are changes we would like in

our relationship that would be good for Britain and Europe. I think

because of the changes taking place in the eurozone, which is driving a

lot of change in the EU, there's every opportunity to achieve that

settlement and then seek consent for it. A college of Lord March

land's said he likes foreign travel, meeting foreign leaders, but he's

not too keen on the detailed policy of his new job, I wonder if the

Prime Minister knows anybody else like that? Is that - all morning

he's had to this of that -- had to think of that! It's important that

we ministers in both Houses who are linking up with the fast-growing

countries in the world and that's why our exports to China are up 50%

and to India 50% and we are connecting Britain with the fast-

growing parts of the world. Bearing in mind that Bills that may be

thought to effect the Royal prerogative require the sig -- sig

indication of the -- the signature of the Queen at second reading, can

the Prime Minister tell us whether he has yet heard from the Palace

whether if regards any of the major constitutional changes proposed in

the suck succession to the crown bill is intruding on the Royal

prerogative or on the corn nation both, which the Queen took? -- core

nation oath, which the Queen took? Throughout the process of bringing

forward this proposal, which is a proposal that the heads of all the

Commonwealth realms have also signed up, throughout that process,

there's been very, very thorough contact between Number Ten and

between the Palace. All of the issues are settled and agreed.

People in high flood risk areas cannot understand why the

Government has effectively abandoned efforts to reach

agreements with the industry and fear they will not be able to

insure their homes after June 2013. Why is the Prime Minister fiddling

while the country floods? I'm happy to put the honourable gentleman

right. The discussions are still under way. They've made very good

progress. I'm confident that we will reach an agreement, as he said.

The current agreement doesn't run out until June this year. I'm

regularly updated on the discussions. I know from my own

constituency, which has been subjected to regular flooding, just

how important they are. We have put in an extra �120 million in terms

of flood defences and I think everyone can now see that the flood

defence work that has been done over recent years has made a

significant difference when we have had high levels of rainfall.

the Prime Minister confirm to the House that disability benefits are

being uprated as usual and will not be subject to changes? She is

entirely right. Disability living allowance, which is the key benefit

received by disabled people, is not subject to the 1% cut. The cap is

for benefits that are for people in the in-work benefits area. It's

very important we go on paying disability living allowance in the

way we have been. Can the Prime Minister confirm that my

constituent who is a nurse, as well as a single father to two children,

will lose �400 a year as a result of the Chancellor's cuts to child

benefit and other benefits? result of the cuts to child benefit

are that the best-off 15% families in this country will no longer

receive child benefit at all. That is what is going to happen. That

safes around �2 billion a year and again, Labour has now voted against

83 billion of welfare changes. You have to start filling in the blanks

of where you are going to make up this money. I think it is right

that we say to people earning �60 up to �80,000 or more you shouldn't

be receiving child benefit. It's not an easy decision. The

Government is about making decisions and frankly opposition is

frankly about making them too. I recommend that the Prime Minister

takes a look at Monday's excellent backbench debate on corporate tax

avoidance and can I ask what he hopes to achieve on this vital

issue at the G8? I will certainly look closely at the debate and read

the Hansard, because this is a vital issue for not just our

country, but it needs to be settled internationally. That is why I've

put the issue of corporate tax avoidance at the heart of the G8

this year. We are also looking closely at what we can do here in

the UK. Further to the question from my friend in Hacky South, may

I ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number

of families who are still unaware they are no longer aware to child

benefit, particularly bearing in mind the bill will come through the

nation's letterboxes in April 2015?! Obviously, we have written

out to 800,000 families. There's been a huge advertising cam tape.

This has been properly covered right across the media. I have to

say, it's absolutely extraordinary, in a week when Labour are

complaining about difficult welfare decisions for people who are in

work and for people who are out of work, they also want to make a

priority of opposing taking away child benefit from people earning

�100,000 or �150,000. You really have to start taking some

responsible decisions about how we deal with our deficit and get our

economy under control. Will the Prime Minister join me in

congratulating the businessman and entrepreneurs and staff who work at

the job centre in my constituency, whose efforts over the last two-

and-a-half years have ensured that unemployment in my constituency is

down by a quarter since last election? I will certainly join my

honourable friend. People in our job centres in the country do an

excellent job helping people to find work and to make sure they get

all the help they need. The fact is that the unemployment rate today is

now lower than the rate that we inherited at the last election.

Over the last year, job creation in Britain was faster than in any

other G7 country. We still have a long way to go to rebalance the

economy, to get the growth in the private sector that we need.

However, we are on the right track. One million new private sector jobs

over the last two years. The fastest rate of new business

creation for decades. There are good signs that the economy's

rebalancing. We need to encourage that by staying on top of our

deficit and getting the deficit down, rather than just giving in on

every decision as we have seen today from the Labour Party.

According to the Children's Society, up to 40,000 soldiers, 150,000

teachers and 300,000 nurses will lose out as a result of his

decision to cut tax credits and other benefits. Why are hard-

working people like this paying for his economic failure?

honourable lady needs to remember why we are having to take the

decisions in the first place. It's to deal with the record budget

deficit for the mess left by the Labour Party. That is the

background to this. But the real question about public sector

workers and soldiers and teachers and people who work in our public

services, they are being restricted to a 1% increase, so why on earth

does the Labour Party think that people on out-of-work benefits

should see their incomes go up faster? That is the question you

need to answer. We are being fair, because we are restricting the

increase on tax credits, on public sector pay, but also asking the

same of those on out-of-work welfare. What we see that is unfair

is backing the public sector pay increase, but wanting welfare to go

through the roof. It's wrong and not fair and Labour must see they

have to change their mind. Last week I visited TH White Group and

herd about their healthy order book and recruitment plans for this year.

However, like many British employers, they cannot find enough

engineers to hire. Britain's universities lead the world in

teaching science and engineering and yet we have an annual short

fall of 60,000 graduates and nine out of ten post-graduate students

in those subjects are from overseas what more can we do to plug this

critical skills gap? I think she is entirely right and we have to

tackle this problem at every level. That means making sure we are

teaching maths and science and stem subjects properly in schools and

there are signs that the number of people taking those subjects are

increasing. We need to make sure that universities are properly

funded and tuition fees will make sure that is the case. We also need

to raise the profile about engineering and that's one of the

reasons why we introduce the �1 million prize for engineering. That

combined with the 34 university technical colleges will help to

make sure we train the engineers we need for the future. It's more

important than ever in Northern Ireland that we seek to continue

moving forward, away from violence. We need to create stability and I'm

sure the Prime Minister will agree that full participation in and

support for the political and democratic process by everybody, so

the people's issued can be addressed and politicians address

those is vital. In that context and the context of what is happening,

will the Prime Minister agree to meet with us to discuss the

forthcoming legislation in Northern Ireland, so we can look at measures

to increase democratic participation by people in deprived

communities, look at the deplorable state of the electoral register in

Northern Ireland, which is in a bad state and also deal with the

discrimination against elected members of this House from Northern

Ireland, who play by the rules while others get money while not

taking their seats? All that needs to be addressed. I agree to meet.

We have a meeting with a number of members of his party straight after

to talk about the issue of how to make sure we can cover the military

covenant. He makes a number of points. I would throw back that

part of the challenge to him and his party, as to others, we need to

build a shared future in Northern Ireland, where we breakdown the

barriers, barriers of segregation that have been in place for many,

many years and I think that is part of the challenge to take away many

of the tensions that we have seen in recent days. Just in case

anybody was ever in any doubt, could the Prime Minister confirm

who he is closest to politically? Is this Lord Tebbit or the Deputy

Prime Minister? I managed to get through Christmas without spending

any time with either of them. I am closer to all Conservatives than I

am to anyone from any other party. Yesterday the Secretary of State

for Health received a report recommending that the downgrading

of maternity services and closure of the A&E department at Lewisham

hospital, does the Prime Minister recall the coalition promise to end

the enforced closure of A&E and maternity services? If this is not

to be on the list of broken promises will he ensure that these

closures do not go ahead? What the Government and I specifically

promised is that there should be no closures or no re-organisations

unless they had the support from the GP commissioners and unless

there was public and patient engagement and evidence. Let me be

absolutely clear. Unlike under the last government, when the closures

and changes were imposed in a top- down way, if they do not immediate

those criteria they will not happen. The Prime Minister will remember

that this House gave the green light to stem Cel research some

years ago. We now find that the court of justice of the EU is

hindering progress by bringing into question the patent researches.

Will the Prime Minister do what he can to clear the block snadges

blockages? He makes an important point, because it's a competitive

advantage that we have in this country, that we took difficult

decisions about stem Cel research. It's important that we continue to

lead in that area, not only for economic and scientific reasons,

but because we want to make sure that people with long-term

conditions, that children with disabilities and other concerns,

that we crack those problems for the future and without that level

of research I don't believe we shall. I'll look carefully and

write to him with an answer. Is the Prime Minister proud of the growth

of food banks across this country, including in my own constituency?

Has he visited one and if not, will he? I'm proud of the fact that in

this country there are one million more people in work than they were

when this Government came to office, that we have made sure that the

lowest paid are not paying income tax, that we protected the poorest

families in our country. I'm proud of all of those things. But unlike

him, I don't look down or talk down at people who work hard in our

The first Prime Minister's Questions of 2013. Just two more

years of back to go until the next election. The leader of the

opposition went on this about to be published Government marking of its

own homework. What promises it kept, what it hasn't. It did not deliver

it with the mid-term assessment and Monday afternoon. But it is coming

out this afternoon. No doubt that is what will dominate tonight, as

we seek what promises the Government has kept. Interesting Ed

Miliband went on that rather than continuing the argument yesterday

on capping of welfare payments. We will ask why he did that in a few

moments, but first we get what you thought of it.

The Ed Miliband might have gone on something different, but dealers

focused on the welfare debate. A lady in Manchester so this

Government is only hitting workers on low incomes. My husband as a

civil servant and has not seen his wage rise for two years. I am a

carer for a disabled daughter. This from Ray Jones in Kent. Today

I witnessed again, Ed Miliband going on about broken promises when

he chooses not to recognise the world is a different place than

when those promises were made. Jacklin says, someone needs to be

putting a stop to the campaign of hatred with shirkers and strivers

nonsense. Mr Miliband does little to inspire confidence.

Another man says, Ed Miliband had an open goal, had six attempts but

missed the goal. And David in Blackburn, but 13

years I have held the view that previous governments have the most

incompetent collection of ministers ever assembled. Now, I am not so

sure. Interesting scene, on the one hand

you have the Government worried about some aspects of the welfare

debate. Hence a couple of questions allowing the Prime Minister to say,

we're not freezing that benefits, we're not freezing VAT benefit,

pensioners will be fine. Ed Miliband went on the publication of

the document about promises kept and promises broken. It was a gift

Ed Miliband could not resist. You open your newspaper this morning,

and there is the story that Government tried to bury, an

assessment of their own broken promises. In a sense, when you are

leader of the opposition, sometimes you have to go with the news. I

think that his wife. But but sides are nervous. There is no doubt that

Labour, they have fought very hard on the idea of welfare. He will be

seen as being a friend of shirkers and not workers. Plus the Tories

are nervous. A whole series of planted questions by Government

whips, allowing the Prime Minister to produce these facts as PMQs was

going on. We are not hitting the disabled, we are not hitting

pensioners. It suggests to me, along with their abandonment of the

wording of workers and shirkers. You won't hear them using it any

more. David Cameron and Nick Clegg made it clear that they won't use

it. You're getting a nervousness on both sides of politics, as they

tried to grapple with this will Furman them. Does this mean you

will desist from using this language? I have used it before

reporting a conversation I had on a doorstep in my constituency.

said at the Labour conference, many people on the doorstep at the last

election felt too often we were for the shirkers and not the workers.

The new told the London School of Economics last year, we are the

party of workers, not shirkers. Who are the shirkers? There are people

in Britain who we do not think are doing enough to get a job. What I

was doing was reporting conversations I had on the doorstep

in my own constituency. What we won't do is use this as a political

strategy in the way George Osborne tried to do when he presented his

wealth or built. This well For our rating Bill is not needed. Non-

Labour Government comes to Parliament. George Osborne wanted

to frame this in unnecessary legislation to force the vote so he

could try and present Labour as on the wrong side of an argument. What

he forgot to tell the House when he presented the Budget, is that

overwhelmingly, this bill hits tax credits and 68% of the people hit

are in work. We did a lot of that at the beginning of the programme.

You were worried Labour was seen as a party of shirkers and not workers,

why was that? I heard those conversations from my constituents.

Why do people think that? I think there is the sense we did not move

fast enough to reform incapacity benefit. We introduced some

important changes. We wanted to test it, and get it right. The

Government went on a different approach, and now we have the chaos

in the work capability assessment. They moved to fast before getting

the foundations strong. This is an important debate and we have said,

there is a Labour way to bring down spending, there is a Tory wait. The

Labour way his -- the Tory rate is to hit her working people. Up to

the crash in 2008, employment rose in this country, unemployment

wasn't rising. But the welfare bill still rose. The wood two parts of

the welfare bill, it went up by �70 billion. Overwhelmingly it was

pensions and tax credits. We make no apology for and reducing tax

credits. But my point is, you were saying that if only unemployment

would come down further, if there was more people in work, we would

cut the welfare bill. You had more people in employment, and the

welfare bill rose under Labour. What happens to out-of-work

benefits? GSA, BSA, income support and housing benefit fell by �7.8

billion. But the welfare bill rose, even at the time of rising

employment and living standards, over all, you increased spending on

welfare. You can have the semantic conversation or you like. Pensioner

went up by 30 billion ANH tax credits went up by nearly 30

billion. We think those are good things. I understand, but it does

not automatically follow, as the experience of the last Labour

Government has shown, just because unemployment is falling and

unemployment is rising, welfare goes down. We think there are good

parts to the social security system, tax credits and pensions. Tax

credits mean you are better off in work. Tax credits have been cut so

hard you are better off... could earn �60,000 a year and get

tax credits and the you? You could earn �60,000 a year under Labour

and get tax credits for stopped giving it is right? We said over

the last couple of years there should have been an increase in the

Tax credits have been hit so hard, you are better off on benefits than

you are in work. Working families are being forced to pay. During the

last decade, welfare spending in real terms went up by 45%. It

represents a total today one in every �3 that is raised in taxes.

It was a Budget out of control. When Liam used divisive language

talking about shirkers... Please let me answer. You had trouble

answering the question, I want to help out. The problem is, he did

and want to acknowledge the reality. I wish he would be honest again

when he was talking about there being no money left. I want him to

acknowledge the welfare budget was out of control. If you are going to

deal with the largest deficit of any industrialised country when we

came to power, you have to deal with the welfare budget. If this is

you helping him out, what are you like when you are being unhelpful?

This is a debate we might have to have until 2015. What I thought was

interesting about the debate yesterday was David Miliband's

contributions. He stood up and said, I don't want any more to have an

argument that says if Labour is opposed to a welfare cap, that it

is in favour of higher deficits and more borrowing. I want to have a

debate about what changes you want to make. It is an interesting

debate. If Labour are going to say they are uncomfortable with this 1%

blanket cap on a series of benefits and tax credits as well, and

certain Liberal Democrats like Charles Kennedy us saying, we want

to amend the Bill. Are there things they would like to cut more in

order to allow tax credits to rise with inflation. Pension benefits,

for example. On the front pages today, he I am doing a programme on

Radio Four at 8pm tonight. Do you means test winter fuel allowance or

the bus pass? Is that a debate you want to get going? We want to bring

down out of work benefits. More people should be got into work.

That is what is happening. They can only be two years you can spend on

JSA. We have said there is a cap on the amount of time you can spend on

JSA. It you cannot get a job, we will invest in making sure there is

one for you. It is a clear message we want to send. We are the party

of work. Bringing down unemployment is how you make welfare savings

first. It is only the start of what is going to be a big debate. Nick

Robinson, thanks for being with us. Mind you Cup. -- my new Cup.

If you are watching this in Birmingham and want to get to

London in a hurry, help is at hand. The Government is planning to build

a new high-speed line connecting the capital and the West Midlands.

But you'll have to wait until 2026 to use it! Later this month, the

Secretary of State for Transport is expected to announce the route for

phase two of the scheme connecting the East Midlands, Manchester and

Leeds. But the High Speed Rail scheme or HS2 as it's known, has

its opponents. Former cabinet minister, Cheryl Gillan, described

it as a cancer at the weekend. And campaigners have gone to court to

get the project delayed, altered or stopped. Nowhere has opposition

been as vigorous as in the Chilterns, where the actor,

Geoffrey Palmer, lives. We asked him to explain why he's so opposed

I had lived in the Chilterns for nearly 50 years. Lovely countryside

and an Area of Outstanding, natural beauty. It is quiet and peaceful.

But it will mark the on much longer if Mr Cameron thrusts a high-speed

railway from Birmingham to London through it. It will cost equivalent

of 60 hospitals. It would be the most expensive railway in the world

and the single most expensive infrastructure project undertaken

by a British Government. Do we need it? The Government, having lost the

business and Baron mental arguments, last year the Transport Secretary

said the reason she was giving the project to go ahead is because we

were sitting on a capacity time bomb. If we don't act now, the West

Coast Main Line will be full. But now we know her figures were wrong.

Just last month, after several appeals under the Freedom of

Information Act, the Government was forced, reluctantly to disclose the

true, official figures. They show that in 2011, during the evening

rush-hour from 4pm until 7pm on weekdays, long-distance trains

leaving Euston station had, on average, just over half of their

For me, that's it. End of story. We don't need it. So, Mr Cameron, stop

this vanity project and leave our Jeffrey Palmer couldn't have been

clearer and here with us is Stephanie Boston the director of

Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside. There is political

commitment to this project. Is your campaign effectively over? It's

going to happen. Absolutely not. Please don't think for one minute,

despite the fact we have been called NIMBYs we are not anti-high

speed rail. You just don't want it through your area? We don't believe

that the current route is the right route for a number of reasons.

Indeed, even in April this year, at a Public Accounts Committee, which

was reviewing the lessons that could be learned from HS1 the major

projects authority highlighted this project as being on amber and red.

That means viability is actually in question. Now, that report has not

been released, despite a letter to Frances Maude, signed by 12 MPs and

despite many requests from many other people. We have not had

access to that. It seems that the Government are ploughing ahead.

They are not considering all the other proposals that have been put

forward. Where would you like the route to go? The best route we can

currently see is the Heene row hub route. That still goes through the

Chilterns, but it's in a tunnel, and it provides more connectivity

and the connectivity that was originally specified by the

Government, is it picks up on Crossrail and at strad Ford to go

to Europe and it goes -- Stratford to go to Europe and it goes north

to Birmingham, which are on the current route and west as well. Can

I just add one more point? This Heathrow hub route is also

partially privately funded, so I don't know why we are looking at

spending all the taxpayers' money when actually there is a better

route. It's supported by the institute of directors and Unite

and the investors. Why are you ploughing on ahead, to use

Stephanie's words, when there is a much better and viable alternative

that won't cost as much? I respect Stephanie's case and she is

standing up for her region. And the country. But as they said, she is

not against HS2 as a concept. We could debate the particular route

all day long, but the important thing is, which I don't think came

through in the clip, there is going to be a capacity problem.

Projections do show that by the mid-2020s there will be a capacity

issue on the West Coast Main Line. Why do the figures show something

completely different? Long-distance trains leaving Euston on week days,

between 4pm and 7pm, only 52% of seats were occupied on peak trains

it went down to as low as 34%? That is not capacity. We are looking

ahead to 2026. You are saying it's going to be right up to 100%?

course. It's been growing. If you look at the trends in the last

decades, it's been going up. Not just on the West Coast Main Line,

but across the country. The question really is that we are

going to need new capacity in the UK and when we develop that

capacity should we have traditional rail lines that are outof date, or

modern rail lines -- out of date, or modern rail lines like the

countries we are competing with? You are both West Midlands MPs? Is

the money well spent here, Liam Byrne, bearing on mind it won't be

online until 2026? Of course. There are already huge capacity issues

within the West Midlands. It's the cross-roads of the country and

unless you can get trains through it, then it has a knock-on impact

on the rest of the country. I do think this is a vital bit of

infrastructure. With one condition, which is that they don't build a

marshalling yard taking out a third of the industrial land in the city

of Birmingham, which is in my constituency. That site is better

developed more thousands of jobs. Overall, this infrastructure is

right. I think HS2 and their leaderboard needs to do a --

leadership, needs to do a better job about listening. There are big

concerns about the hub in London. Also concerns in Birmingham. Let's

try to get as much support as possible behind the route and lock

it down and let's get on. We need it, but they need to listen to

valid concerns. Stephanie, what do you say to that? I do believe that

we shouldn't modernise the country and my group do as well and so do

many people, but it's how we do. Aat some point we will reach

capacity, but we have time to consider how to do it right. This

is the biggest infrastructure project in the history of the UK.

We must investigate every option and there are voices clamouring to

the Government to say, why rush this through? Why deposit this

hybrid Bill within the five-year term? Is it a legacy project for

David Cameron? Is that why? If you look at the environment assessment

we have not, considering this is going through a major consultation,

we have not covered them proper. We'll have the results on the

judicial reviews at the end of the month. There are bet are routes for

the rest of the country. Thank you very much for making your case. So,

its been 10 years and something like 1,500 programmes since we

first brought you the Daily Politics. We've lived through boom,

we've lived through bust. We've seen Mr Blair and Mr Brown ride off

into the sunset and a coalition of former enemies emerge. There have

been Budgets, election campaigns and periodic outbursts of loathing

across the Despatch Boxes that would make your hair curl. Thank

you for watching, if you've stuck with us throughout the last decade.

And, just to celebrate this landmark in public service

broadcasting, well, maybe, more of a bump than a landmark, here are a

Good morning, folks. It's a new year and new term at Westminster

and a new look to the BBC's political programmes. Welcome to

the first-ever edition of the Daily Politics. Joining me is George

Osborne. Straight to the first caller. It's Bill. The one piece of

advice I would give to Bill is there are some pretty clever

financial products which enable you to, in effect, pass on your home or

the value of your home to your son or daughter and then get personal

care paid for by the State. I probably shouldn't be advocating

this. And with these people, expect the unexpected! How we provide

education and opportunity for children with learning difficulties

and disabilities is vitally important. What I want to know is,

do you want David Cameron to be Tory leader? When the time comes

then I'll make my position absolutely clear. I got in

Parliament in 2001. Give me a break! Andrew and Jenny were in

confident mood. Under 20 minutes. That's optimistic. It's one mile.

Our flowers Andrew and Jenny were wilting. Well, we waited and waited.

And there they were, plucky, but pathetic. The cookies are four of

the Tory policies that you have stolen. David Cameron gets a policy

and 24 hours later it's in tatters. It's in pieces. Because you stole

it. Would you like to be Prime Minister? I'm very, very happy. No,

no, no. I'm very happy. They are shouting, yes. I'm very, very happy

doing what - you know and I know how lucky am to be in the job I am.

Lucky, lucky, lucky, Boris. We are joined by Peppa Pig. The question

to the Labour Party is you have all the Civil Servants and all the data.

We have a mug for you. Have a bite of that Oh, yeah. Delicious! It's a

glorious day opposite Parliament here in the heart of Westminster.

Oh, yes, and the studio's also run out of power. I told Anita to get a

shilling. I'm wearing a frock with no pockets for change, so sorry

about that. I'm sometimes mistaken for a former England team football

manager, but one thing you'll never mistake me for is a Liberal

Democrat. We are celebrating the coalition's first birthday with a

cake. Would you like to join in? That's what Lord Prescott thinks!

Welcome to the new all-singing and dancing Daily Politics. I know you

and Mr Osborne like to play up differences, but when you drill

into the figures you are not that far apart. When I talked about the

equivalents the viewing figures plummeted so I'll not get into that

again. The bonus tax will raise much? I haven't got quite the - I

know we have worked out that figure. I'll have to get back to you on

that. Cup, saucer or thorm os! -- thermos! # Happy birthday to you.

# Happy birthday to you. # Happy birthday dear Daily

Politics. # Happy birthday to you!

Did you bake that? Nick Robinson knew there would be cake. Are you

ready, one, two, three. I'm covered in glitter! This is why Nick has

come. I've been given a knife, but I've been told not to use it. Who

is going to answer that question?! What a wonderful cake. We'll have

that now. You have have to answer the quiz. Time for the result of

the Guess the Year competition. Very, very easy this week, really.

Yes, it was... 2003. You press the buzzer, Liam. Look behind. Two

winners. Emma and Lynne. Of course, we have two winners. Nick, thank

you for coming in to share. Thanks to all the viewers who sent

birthday wishes on our tenth anniversary. Will we let the guests

have a piece of cake? We will, but it's capped at 1%! We are dividing

it equally. Except for pensioners and the disabled. Happy birth,

Andrew? Thank you. And to you too. Thanks to all of the guests over