14/10/2013 Daily Politics

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Daily Politics. A thawing of

diplomatic relations. And not just between the Mayor of London and the

Chancellor, as Boris and George meet in Beijing to love bomb the

Chinese. 600,000 economically inactive EU migrants are in the UK

according to a study published this morning. Are they taking more in

benefits and from public services than they are contributing in

taxes? President Obama versus Congress. Still no agreement as the

impasse that has shut down the US government continues. Thursday's

deadline threatens another economic crisis. It is the job everyone is

talking about. At Westminster at least. We will put the candidates

to replace Nigel Evans as Deputy Speaker through their paces. That

is in the next hour. With us for the first part of the programme

today is Colleen Graffy, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

and associate professor of law at Pepperdine University based here in

London. Welcome to the programme. You are thousands of miles away on

the other side of the world and who should you bump into, but a fellow

senior Conservative politician. Boris Johnson and George Osborne

are in China. The timing of their visit apparently a complete

coincidence. If you believe that, you believe anything. Boris is

drumming up business for London and the Chancellor for the whole of the

UK. The visit marks a thawing of relations with Beijing after David

Cameron met Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who is a

strong critic of the Chinese regime, last year. This morning, the

Chancellor was asked whether Britain had promised his hosts that

there will be no more meetings with the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minister

said in the House of Commons he has not got any plans to meet the Dalai

Lama. He has met the Dalai Lama. He does not have plans to meet him

again. I do not think diplomatic and economic relations are entirely

intertwined. The economic relationship between these two

great nations is getting stronger and stronger. Everyone wants a

slice of the cake when it comes to the Chinese investment. Is that a

sign of demise in the US? And absolutely not. President Obama

took this pivot to Asia and the absolutely not. President Obama

reason was the United States is focused on the potential that is

happening in Asia. The problems and there to hear is what you do about

human rights. Not only that, but also the environmental record. The

United States looks at this talk of the rise of time as a superpower

has been premature. They have demographic, human rights and

environmental issues. You still want the trade, but you need

something to deal with the other issues. The Chancellor said that

the two are separate in some ways. The Prime Minister met the Dalai

Lama, but that should not stop investment and trade missions going

ahead. If they are connected, why did China cut-off relations because

he met the Dalai Lama? They are clearly connected for China. Even

though we are trying to separate them. I understand why lucrative

trade is a potential. If you go to China, and you see the growth is

astonishing. The image of tiger needs to change. They are cutting

edge. What they are doing is amazing and we have catching-up to

do. Some of the concerns might be for example, do you want them to

engage in building nuclear power plants question mark they should be

a question -- plants? There should be a question about that. Security

issues must be being raised. But Great Britain could capitalise on

the expense and reluctance you are Great Britain could capitalise on

expressing on behalf of the US. His it is a matter of time are finding

ways. These institutes cropping up all over the United States

ways. These institutes cropping up associated with universities. They

sound fantastic. They have a lot of money. Self- censure should when

universities want to invite the Dalai Lama -- self-censorship. They

feel the pressure. That would be my concern. Walk would be the leverage

if they are engaged in building nuclear power plants -- what would

be? Britain's relationship with Europe is often rocky, shall we say.

The latest report from the European Commission on the effects of

migration on our social security system is unlikely to help it. In

fact, the headline figures will have had people spluttering into

their cornflakes. The report says that over 600,000 inactive EU

migrants are living in the UK. That is the equivalent of a city the

migrants are living in the UK. That size of Glasgow. However, the

European Commission says that figure includes school pupils,

retired people and those taking time out to raise children, not

just job seekers. That figure has significantly risen - up from just

over 430,000 just six years ago. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson,

has responded by calling for a delay in migrants' access to

benefits. And the Department for Work and Pensions has said they are

strengthening the habitual residence test and limiting how

long some migrants can claim benefits. However, some question

long some migrants can claim whether this is the correct

approach. One pro-Europe think tank, the Centre for European Reform,

says the great majority of EU immigrants come to Britain to work.

says the great majority of EU Who is right? Are they a help or

hindrance to the economy? Jonathan Todd, welcome to the programme. The

European Commission has been critical of reports about this

600,000 figure, pointing out they are not all people out of work. But

you say they are not earning money and therefore not contributing to

the economy. You have to bear in mind that the percentage is much

lower than the percentage of UK nationals that are inactive. 30% of

European Union migrants, compared to 43% of UK nationals that are not

active. The majority come to the UK to work and contribute more to the

welfare system than they take out, because they tend to be younger

than the average population and of working age. They pay more in

taxation than receiving welfare benefits. You do accept there has

taxation than receiving welfare been an increase in numbers of

economically inactive European Union migrants? There has been a

big leap, taking into account about how much you say they contribute in

taxes. There is a big leap in the number of European Union migrants

in the UK. When you consider these people are net contributors to the

UK welfare system, the more you have, the better off the system is.

Downing Street put out comments in response. They have rebuffed your

claims that there is no evidence that benefit tourism are tracks

European Union migrants. Hence the argument for doing nothing about it.

You ripping Commission has asked the UK Government for over three

years to have figures to back up the claim -- the European

Commission. They have still not been able to give us figures. You

would have read it yourself in the Daily Telegraph. They do not have

figures to back up that claim. Obviously, if there were evidence

of systematic abuse of benefits by a EU migrants, we would be prepared

to look at the system and see if rules had to be changed. There are

safeguards already to prevent benefit tourism. You are taking

legal action against the British Government against plans to

strengthen curbs against that. We are taking legal action because the

UK is not applying the European Union rules they agreed to. They

are applying their own rules on top of that and therefore they are

unfairly depriving people, many of whom have worked in the UK for many

years, of benefits. Other countries have concerns. They tend to be

different to the concerns of the UK. In the Netherlands, they are most

concerned about the exploitation of European Union migrants and the

social legislation not been properly applied. In Germany, the

main concern is unemployed people from poorer member states, becoming

a burden for some of the larger cities in Germany. It is not the

same concern as in the UK. One of the plans is that migrants would

have to be resident in Britain for between six and nine months before

being entitled to some benefits. What problems do you have with

that? The portray is that -- the point is they cannot stay for more

than three months unless they can prove they have sufficient

financial means to not be a burden on the UK. If they are not working

and they do not have financial means, they cannot stay in the UK

for longer than three months under the European Union law. You say the

Government have not got the figures. Did they say they will provide

them? We have been waiting for over three years to get the figures. We

were promised them earlier this year. They still have not delivered.

Thank you very much. John Springford is with us. He has

written a report on benefit tourism. We are joined by Stewart Jackson, a

Conservative MP. The Government has not provided figures, which means

there probably are no figures to back up their claim that benefit

tourism attracts these people to the UK. There is anecdotal evidence

that is the case. I think they should have provided it. When I

moved my bill, we were promised we would have a toughening up and the

habitual residence test. You will would have a toughening up and the

not hear me say it often, I am broadly sympathetic to some of the

complaints of the European Union because the Government should be

ahead of this. That is said, -- because the Government should be

that said, it is not the business, defending, it is saying people --

to people you should exercise your treaty rights and be studying,

looking for work. If you're not, you should leave this country. They

say many of the figures, it is a myth, a perception, it is not the

reality. They have figures to back up what they say. You make it sound

as if we are talking about millions of people but when you compare it

to the British population it is live. They have not contributed. If

you are a pensioner from Portugal, you have not contributed. If you

are a schoolchild, nobody would expect you to contribute. But the

children have to be housed and have health care and have school places.

The strain in hot spots like Peterborough, my constituency, is

acute. That is where we are right to say there is an element of

benefit tourism, particularly from -- from the Czech Republic and

Slovakia. Who is right? I do not -- from the Czech Republic and

think there is much evidence of this. Part of my report I put out

tried to look at the number of people classed as a benefit tourist,

and that is where the 0.8% figure comes from. We looked at European

Union mights in Britain. We could only find that 0.8% of those

migrants after a year's residents are taking up Jobseeker's Allowance.

If they were benefit tourists, you would expect them to get on the

unemployment role as quickly as possible. The data is not robust.

The Government has routinely said that they are not collecting

figures on child tax credits sent abroad. It is higher when you look

at child benefit. The figures are not as high as perhaps some people

would expect. After year's residents, too 0.1% on child

benefit, 1% on child tax credits. 20% in the UK for each. We simply

do not know how many European Union migrants are in the country. I

would contend the situation will get worse, not least the

differential in earnings between a Romanian worker and a UK household

differential in earnings between a income is so huge, people will come

and when they do not find work, they will access benefits, which is

what the Government needs to look at.

These at two relatively small countries. But they are in many

cases living in abject poverty. I countries. But they are in many

wouldn't say that, but they are Porro. The things we know about

Central and Eastern European migrants to Britain is they tend to

be young, entrepreneurial people who want to come and find work. They

tend to be relatively highly educated. It seems to me that

Romanian and Bulgarian migrants aren't going to change that picture.

The government haven't come up with the evidence all the figures. Even

their own MPs are saying they should have come up with some strong

anecdotal evidence. It does seem like there needs to be more

anecdotal evidence. It does seem information. I wonder whether, are

individuals asked when they receive a benefit what their nationality is?

That's the point. One of the things the government said is they don't

routinely check that. It's bonkers. The other is, if you are British and

living in Spain, can you immediately claim benefits? You can claim

living in Spain, can you immediately benefits but it differs for

different EU countries. In France and Spain you can. And you can still

claim benefits from here if you are a pensioner, although that's being

tightened up. You certainly can. A lot of these benefits systems have

the contributory principle. It means you pay some money in to a pot and

then you can draw that down over time. Whereas British benefits

aren't like that. The Spanish are tougher. You have to register when

you are moving, getting married and changing jobs. They've used the free

movement directive legislation in a quite Draconian way in Spain,

because of their youth unemployment. Let's come back to the basic

principles. If you take the information that is out there,

critics can rightly claim that David Cameron, whose pledging to

renegotiate EU rules governing and if it's for migrants, is campaigning

on a problem that is either very small or doesn't really exist. It

does exist. Almost 40% of children in primary schools in my

constituency don't speak English as their first language, maternity

service are under pressure, housing. In terms of a cost benefit analysis,

for every one person we recruit, a decent person wants to make money

for themselves and send money back to, say, Romania, there's a

low-wage, low skilled British person who's not getting benefit, skills

and training. That is the problem, it's the services that migrant

families use. They may well be someone in a family earning a decent

wage but the school places, the strain on health services, that's

where local people are feeling the pain of this. There may well be

areas... There are, aren't there? Daily e-mail well be. -- there may

well be. If you are saying there is no resource implication for that for

teaching children to speak English... I am not saying there are

no resource invocations, the question is what you do about it. Do

no resource invocations, the you try to prevent them from having

no resource invocations, the access to the services or try to

expand the services in order to be able to educate them? Who pays for

that? Migrants themselves, they are net contributors to the UK

Treasury. Use some of that money. But the services at the moment are

under that strain. Is their claim to the argument that one should delay

benefits that come to migrants. More time should elapse before EU

migrants can claim those benefits? Are we talking about services? What

are we going to do, are we going to prevent children from having their

education? What is the logical conclusion to that argument? The

government has to look at that small number of local authorities where

the problem is most acute and set up funding for them. But you are right,

we need to delay benefits. We need to make it clear that you are coming

to the UK to work or study or be self-employed. But you are not going

to be allowed to do so because it is in breach of the EU rules. How are

they at breach here and not in breach of the EU rules. How are

Spain? You said there are more onerous conditions in other

countries. Because they've had the political will to change and nuance

the free movement directive in a way that we have not in this country.

Can we do what they are doing, if they are not being prosecuted? I'm

sure it is about the interaction between the social welfare system

and EU law. So in Spain, because you have to pay into a pot, then it's

harder to get benefits straightaway. Whereas in Britain,

you just receive benefits based on your need. We need to look at the

you just receive benefits based on contributory principle. We are the

third most generous benefit payers out of all the 27 countries. People

make a rational decision, if they are not in work than they are going

to be in a relatively good and strong benefits regime from their

point of view. But you will just beyond £70. Your potential earnings

in work are much higher. The biggest incentive is clearly to come to

work, not to languish on benefits. If you think British politicians can

be bloody-minded, try America. There, a row between the Democrats

and the Republicans, or at least some of them, has closed down large

parts of the Federal Government. Worse still, the US could be forced

to default on its debts unless a compromise is reached by Thursday,

and so far, talks have failed to produce a solution. The fight

started over Obamacare, the President's dream of health

insurance for all. And it could have an impact on these shores as well. A

taste of America right here in the heart of London. Unfortunately, life

where this stuff comes from ain't quite so sweet. America is in a bit

of trouble right now. Government gridlocked, workers sent home and

the possibility of the world 's greatest superpower defaulting on

its debt, which, I don't want to get too technical here, is a bad thing.

But how did it get into this state and what does it mean for us? The

Republicans, who control the upper house of the US Congress, have

Republicans, who control the upper refused to pass a budget, which

means large swathes of the federal government have been forced to

close. It started with Obamacare. The president's plan for a universal

health insurance scheme for all Americans. Obamacare for many people

in the US is a symbol of a fundamental shift of the political

philosophy towards socialism. Socialism is a nasty word in the US.

Whether it is a good idea or bad, and I think many Americans,

certainly those of us outside America, think it's a good idea,

that is almost beside the point. They have been talks, but if

Republicans and Democrats failed to reach a deal, the US could also hit

its borrowing limit, and that's dangerous for all of us. NEETs

hitting the debt ceiling is a bit like hitting your credit card limit.

If it hits it then it will have two stop spending on a whole number of

things. Nobody knows which things those be or how they will be

prioritised in spending. The worst thing that could happen for the rest

of the world would be if the US Government stopped paying the

interest on its outstanding debt. I think that is very unlikely but it

could be very nasty scenario. And none of it is good news for us. If

you imagine US companies now potentially having to send staff

home because of the US work is not working, that can trickle back to

us. Perhaps orders from British companies aren't coming in because

they are not needed in the US. That is the first instance, purely

through our trade flow. And the other is through what potentially

can happen to the US Government bonds. If the US do default, the

value of these bonds will fall. That could mean that the pension funds of

ordinary people well outside the US can be affected. So how might it pan

out? Predicting it is hard. The best way that it could resolve itself

would be a short-term agreement, a continuing resolution to enable the

government to pay its bills for certain things. Like social

security, interest on the debt. That would have the time limit attached

to it. That would give more time for negotiations. It has undoubtedly put

Republicans and Democrats in the spotlight. Unless the deal is done

soon, it might not be the kind of Fame politicians normally crave.

Colleen Graffy, we gaze away from a Fame politicians normally crave.

very dangerous moment? Yes, this could actually happen. I know it

sounds like the Republicans are being obstinate and under this, but

we had to understand that the underlying issue is that we are

spending money we don't have. We've got a $17 trillion debt. So the

Republicans are saying, enough, we can't keep on raising the debt

limit. Part of that is that Obamacare is another entitlement

that the Republicans and many say we cannot afford. Is that... The

initial cause of the stalemate was this opposition to Obamacare, which

is really a sideline to what is at stake here. The Republicans... It's

connected because it's an entitlement that you can't put into

the box once you let it out again. But it's been agreed. Yes, but Obama

did not do a very good job of negotiating it because he did not

get one single Republican vote. It's connected. The Republicans probably

overreached in pulling that as part of that. But now the Democrats are

overreaching by saying that they want to now cut back on this thing

called the sequester, which is that there is that there's

across-the-board cuts if they don't negotiate a proper budget. Now the

Democrats are overreaching, and they thought they had an agreement over

the weekend. Susan Collins, a respected moderate Republican

senator, had come up with a very good compromise and it was

dismissed. They are looking over the brink. Will they pull back? Will

this face-off diminish as Thursday looms and they will agree? The

Republicans will rollover? No one knows. However, the bond market

tomorrow will be responding. That will put a lot of pressure on

members of Congress. I think that Obama to a certain extent is

enjoying this because it is giving a black eye to the Republicans. He

will hope that this means in the mid-term elections in November, that

he will be able to get a majority in the house will stop it now it is

going to look really bad for him because he is not showing leadership

in getting this negotiating them. But minds will be focused when

people look at the effect globally. How dangerous is it for the global

economy? It is, because people you invest in the United States because

they have confidence in their investments. If we default, that

changes the whole calculation is an investment in the United States.

That has repercussions globally. We just heard the steam Lagarde over

the weekend saying that this is very serious indeed. -- Christine

Lagarde. Hopefully America will pull back and commit. What else can

happen between now and then, who is going to move? They look at the

effect on growth in America and worldwide, will both sides realise

it's just not worth it? They will probably want something, each side

will want something. There are some areas where they will not

compromise. There's this thing called a medical tax device, which

is something both sides agreed on, which would have been an easy thing

to agree on. But Obama had said no to that. So now they are playing

hardball, thinking that they've got the votes in order to not

prevent... To prevent the Republicans from getting anything

they want. It's a game of chicken. It will go right up to the end. So

far, the moderates who put forward a proposal, it was not accepted over

the weekend. It will be interesting to see what happens. It's scary to

see. Time now to look at what's on the political agenda this week

Tomorrow, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, appears in front of the

Home Affairs Select Committee over why one of the world's most wanted

Al-Qaeda terror suspects, Anas al-Libi, who was captured in Libya

by US Special Forces last weekend, was given asylum in Britain. Tuesday

also sees the latest appeal in the row over Government plans to go

ahead with the HS2 high-speed rail project. The Supreme Court will hear

appeals by objectors to the scheme. On Wednesday, the result of the

election for the new Deputy Speaker will be announced. Wednesday also

sees the results of a ballot on strike action by post office workers

in the communications Workers Union. On Thursday, the report by the

Government's Social Mobility Tsar, Alan Milburn, will be published. The

former Labour Health Secretary was appointed by Nick Clegg as an

independent reviewer of social mobility. Joining us now are Craig

Woodhouse, political correspondent on The Sun, and Kate Devlin from The

Herald. Joining us from our Westminster

studio is Craig Woodhouse, political correspondent on The Sun,

and Kate Devlin from the Herald. We have Boris Johnson and George

Osborne in Beijing. Of racing in from the same hymn sheet? That

remains to be seen. It is an important and serious trip. Lots of

announcements and hopefully a lot of investment for the UK, which is

what the commission wants. Interesting they are there together

and there are suggestions that many in the coalition did not want to

see Boris Johnson alone getting the credit. Are they cross, Craig

Woodhouse, that Boris Johnson is out there, George Osborne, both

rivals to succeed David Cameron. Is it about who must come out best?

Possibly. There is the suggestion that Boris Johnson did not know the

Chancellor was going over. A little strange as they are run a joint

ticket this afternoon. You would wonder if Downing Street would be

nervous if they got together over dinner. It is about investment for

Britain, and whether that is a London, or Manchester, it has to be

a good thing. You would like to be a fly on the wall in the

restaurant! What about Labour repositioning? It is probably not

quite going as they wanted. It is possibly a fair year. -- fairly if.

Last week we had frontbenchers and it created an expectation, people

taking over the important jobs you may be had something different to

say, it does not look like it on what they said about free schools.

Tristram Hunt had to make an apology for his comments that they

were just four a vanity project. It has created a difficult first week

for those who took over serious jobs. A purge of the Blairites is

how it was labels. But some said it was a move to the centre. This is

par to the problem with the reshuffle -- part of the problem.

Ed Miliband, announcing price controls, bringing back socialism.

Suddenly you have the purge of the Blairites is a mixed message. It

was a sacking of those who were disloyal and replacing them with

loyal ones. It has left them in a tricky position. Rachel Reeves

saying they will be tougher than the Tories on welfare. We would

have to wait and see what they would come up with that is tougher.

They must have been told that welfare is where they are weak. The

Tories have been telling them that for a year. Lots of articles in

newspapers have been telling them that. This was not the biggest

surprise. It is something that they seem to have maybe potentially made

a hostage to fortune for themselves by suggesting they will be tougher

than the Tories. It seems to me that that is something that would

be difficult to keep. On the cost of living, Labour seemed to be

setting the agenda. It seemed to be uncomfortable for David Cameron,

having to respond to the energy price freeze. The this is the great

challenge. It is perfect politics. The big challenge for the Tories is

to find a way of suggesting they are on the same side as people. We

will cut your energy bills. A simple six words. Explain why that

is wrong and you cannot do it in six words, and that is the

challenge for the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats, who are

trying to show themselves as the party of fairness. They are not in

the debate. The Liberal Democrats said that you cannot do anything

about bringing energy bills down. It is a message that the public do

not want to hear, even if it is true. The coalition wants to be

able to rise on a growing optimism in the economy. We will see

unemployment figures, which they are hoping will be good. They need

to see wages rising and that is where we will feed it in our

pockets, rather than reacting in horror when we open and energy bill.

Labour's new Cabinet line-up were out and about over the weekend. One

of the fresh faces on show was former TV historian, Tristram Hunt,

who is now Shadow Education Secretary. In a newspaper interview

he apologised for making derogatory comments about free schools. Later,

he spoke to Andrew Marr to clarify the party's position. First here he

was back in 2010. £250 million allocated for building

schools for the future is under threat by the Department of

Education to fund vanity projects for a under-employed professionals

to set up Swedish schools. If you are a group of parents,

entrepreneurs, teachers, interested in setting up a school, the Labour

government will be on your side if it is an area where they need

school places. I've been joined now by Labour's Meg Hillier, the former

Children's Minister and rgw Liberal Democrat MP Duncan Hames for the

rest of the show. He is eating his words? The reality is that free

schools are opening. But what is clear about what Tristram Hunt said,

which is good news, is that we want qualified teachers and standards to

be maintained and proper financial scrutiny. Try to get the details of

a budget of a free school in your area and it is impossible. Labour

supports them. Tristram Hunt has made it clear. He apologised for

what he said and they now support the policy. If you listened to

Stephen Twigg, it is not so different from what we were saying

before. The position has not changed as much as that. Maybe the

position of Tristram Hunt has changed. In my area we have one

free school, and we are saying... I am supporting any school that

provides a good education. Even in an area where there are places.

They can open anywhere they want, not where the places are needed,

and that is the problem with them. A are you saying Tristram Hunt has

taken the policy to fork -- too far and you would only support them in

certain circumstances? What qualifies as an area of need? In

south London, there has been a problem about secondary school

provision in one area. I met somebody setting up a free school,

they just wanted a good school in the area. In my area, we have had a

new academy and a free school Open. We will take what is on offer if it

provides the right education. It is not easy, but let's say Labour is

supporting free schools where there is need and you can debate about

whether there is a need. It they are they, they will stay. Tristram

Hunt has been on a crash course at the labour retraining free school!

They are proving a success. 174 Ready and more soon. The majority

in areas represented by Labour MPs. -- already. Labour should have

welcomed this all along. Tristram Hunt has seen the light, has the

welcomed this all along. Tristram rest of the party? If they are a

good school and where it is needed, I would welcome it, whoever is

good school and where it is needed, providing it. If you have them

where there is no need for places, that is a waste of public money.

There are point is that it is up to parents and organisations are --

the point is. It is not down to the Government to tell them where to

set them up. We are looking at budgets. The issue is cost, if you

over providing areas and have under provision in others. There are

areas where you have too many schools in one area and not in

another in the same county. If there are plenty of places but

terrible schools, what you do? You have to make sure you are improving

them. Sometimes the Government forces them to become another type

of school. We get obsessed with structures. We need good quality

teaching, making sure the results are good. The Chief Inspector of

Schools said that. What about unqualified teachers? It happens in

the private school system. Should they have qualified teachers? Free

schools will have qualified teachers and unqualified teachers,

if that is what they want. It has teachers and unqualified teachers,

happened in the independent sector of the years. Real experts in Sport

and science and other areas teach in schools without qualifications

and a huge leap successful. Is that a dangerous precedent? I agree with

making it easier for people to come into the profession. But a

qualification and standard of teaching is important. We adopted a

policy which Labour announced support for that teachers in free

schools should have qualified teaching status and that is

something we would like to see. What about the issue of choice? The

argument is about places primarily. If there are places, should you

have a free school? Should it be only where there is a shortage of

places? The take up of places at these new schools will demonstrate

if that has occurred in places where they are needed. I went past

one this morning, the Oasis South Bank academy. I looked in the

window and I saw a young black boy getting one-to-one tuition from his

teacher. It was 8:15am. He was not there under obligation, he was

hungry to learn. That school should be proud they give him this

opportunity to learn. I am proud we have given at school the

opportunity. That just -- that does not just happen in free schools.

They all provide tuition at the beginning of the day. Labour are

jubilees started the academies, which the Conservatives have taken

on and to support free schools? Do you agree, it is an obsession with

structures and creating a divide where there is not one? It has not

been about structures, it is more powers to head teachers to see how

they think it is best fit to organise their schools. And taking

away those things that have given rise to ridiculous grade inflation

in some cases which are not a reflection of the ability of

children. At least now they have powers to do what is in the best

interest of their students. More changes are announced this week.

The cost of living and the energy bill discussion. When it comes to

fuel prices, your Energy Secretary made it clear they would do nothing

about the rocketing prices and cannot. I noticed the Liberal

Democrats were criticised for telling the truth in that piece

earlier. Fossil fuel prices keep going up. We use so much of it in

the energy system, it forces up prices. The only long-term way to

get the bills down is to use energy more efficiently through greater

insulation. Or you could abandon the green taxes. They are a tiny

part of the bill. The increase announced this week by one company,

£15 of that increase, per year, for a family, could be put down to

these green taxes. A lot of those are not about supporting green

sources of energy, but funding support for those paying their

bills, up to £135 a year on the warm homes discount and for the

bills, up to £135 a year on the poorest families to have help with

bills. We have to have a debate about this. A large part of the

increase is about world commodities. An increasing portion of the bills

is down to the green taxes. He said they are not. They are. In a few

years, they will be one-third of the average bill. We need to be

honest about that. We would all the average bill. We need to be

agree we need to help to subsidise those in fuel poverty, poor people,

elderly people, to make them more fuel-efficient. If you do not do

anything about green taxes, what can you do to bring the bills down?

The green subsidies come and we need a mix in the energy economy,

must not go on any longer than absolutely required. What we are

doing is increasing transparency so people will be moved on to the

doing is increasing transparency so cheapest tariff, which is not

happening at the moment. We also need to know how much money the

happening at the moment. We also energy companies make at of the

green tariffs. We need a proper debate about this. The Labour Party

gave for the popular freezing of bills. It is working, but it will

not work when the lights go out and the unintended consequences go

through the floor. We need a cross- party policy. The issue about bills,

we need to take steps. When we see commodity prices drop, bills do not

drop. The price goes up when the gas wholesale price goes up but not

down when it drops. You have to look at the investment of energy

companies. What is wrong with freezing energy prices for 20

months? I heard the announcement from the company last week who said

that having frozen energy prices they were now increasing them and

they would be frozen for another 12 months before they are increased

again. People know the Government, forcing a freeze, it will be

preceded by a big increase and after. Back is the problem. This is

why you need a 20 year approach. The problem with the Government

discussion about forcing people to be on the lowest tariffs, we saw

that thrown out of the window the moment that was announced. The

market is not working. We need to open it up to new entrants, so we

get different suppliers to run a challenge to the big companies.

It's recognised as an area of outstanding natural beauty, the

South Downs National Park boasts some of the UK's most beautiful

landscape. But it's hosting a growing controversy too, because

Brighton and Hove Council last week lodged a planning application to the

park authorities to build a permanent site for travellers

alongside an existing temporary site. And in this usually quiet

corner of Sussex, the debate is raging. This is a quiet beauty spot

in Sussex, but it is also the centre of a fight about who can live here.

If we have a permanent site, we all have a home. I know a lot of the

community say, well, they are travellers, why don't they want to

travel? We can't travel, you are not allowed, you pull into a camp and

you get evicted. We want our children raised the way that we have

been raised, in our community and society. It shouldn't be illegal to

want to react our kids the way that we were brought up. This extended

family of Irish travellers has been living in the Brighton area for

decades. Now they seek some stability, so their children can

attend school and have better access to health care. So they are eagerly

waiting for the decision about building a permanent travellers site

at Holstein, after Brighton and Hove City Council submitted plans to the

South Downs National Park authority. Families can stay for up to three

months at the existing transit site here. But the city council was to

create 12 permanent pitches on that here. But the city council was to

field. Future residents will have to sign a lease, pay rent and council

tax, like all social housing tenants. No one is saying this is

going to be a single solution that solves all problems, but it's going

to help. We have local permanently based families on the transit sites.

Moving them onto a permanent site will release spaces and increase our

capacity. This will reduce the pressure on open spaces. But there

is strong local opposition. There are concerns about water pollution

and the impact on local infrastructure. Our objection to

this site is not anti-traveller. Many people have been accusing us of

being somehow racist to say this. It is not, it is about the

practicalities of this particular site. It is the wrong proposal in

the wrong place. It is a national park. People fought long and hard to

get that designated. Regional targets for traveller pitches were

scrapped last year, and now each council is responsible for

identifying the need for sites in its own area and meeting those

needs. A public consultation on the proposals is likely to start in the

next few weeks. Meanwhile, three generations of this family hope that

their dream of living together at a permanent site will become a reality

soon. Have Brighton and Hove been braving their decision? They've been

a pain in the backside. They have effectively put a site at the

entrance to Brighton and Hove saying all sorts of an cup and some welcome

here. My constituency, which neighbours it, have had the knock-on

effects of that. We've had people from all around the country

alighting on Brighton and Hove and other parts of Sussex, seeing us as

a soft touch. I've no problem with legitimate traveller sites, we have

one in my constituency which has been absolutely fine and people

recognise it and respected. What I can't go along with his the enormous

amount of illegal encampments, where we get people coming from other

parts of the country, alighting on sports fields, cricket grounds and

parks, causing mayhem and leaving a mess for those council tax payers

who have to pick up the bill afterwards. But there is a legal

obligation for councils to find sites that are appropriate. We need

to take our fair share. Are you? One thing we have just done last week is

agreed with the other districts in West Sussex that we are going to set

up a transit site. All the districts are going to pay for that. That

gives the police more powers when groups of travellers come along and

illegally set up a camp in the most inappropriate place. They can move

them onto somewhere legitimate. They have to go somewhere. You campaigned

against a site in your constituency in 2008, before you became an MP.

Why? I don't think that was a sight. There is a site in my constituency

which does not have planning permission. The council was

consulting about suitable locations. There have been some suitable

locations in Wiltshire, but there were also some suggest which were

unsuitable. That one was in a flood plain. We do need legitimate transit

sites, if we are able to ensure there is somewhere at acceptable for

these people to go to, when otherwise we would find them on

cricket pitches and other unsuitable locations. As I understand it, this

one in the footage we've seen, the proposal is for 12 permanent caravan

pitches and 21 in a proposal is for 12 permanent caravan

Descriptions of it as a super camp... We do need to recognise that

we do need to have some legitimate provision of transit sites if we

don't want them cropping up in provision of transit sites if we

places which would not be appropriate. We've had a number of

sites and happy that have been very well managed. They have been clever

sites and happy that have been very ways of working to try and make sure

we help the people on illegal ways of working to try and make sure

encampments to move to proper sites. One of the big problems is,

especially in London, a lot of the sites were sold off years ago. It's

very difficult to find them in more dense areas, which is presumably why

people are moving to every is like Sussex. It's all down to local

areas. There's got to be a proper approach, otherwise travellers are

pushed from pillar to post, families are broken up and causes

difficulties for the local community. It needs coordination

from the government and local authorities working together. We

have a duty to house people, but it's got to be done in a way that

works for everybody. There's an election in the House of Commons on

Wednesday. All MPs can vote but only MPs from the Government's side can

stand. The election is for the role of Deputy Speaker. At least seven

Conservative MPs have thrown their hats in the ring. But no Lib Dem has

joined the race, although there is still just time. Joining us now from

our Westminster studio are two of those candidates, Eleanor Laing and

Simon Burns. Welcome. Good luck. We've got some questions for you. We

need to ask you your knowledge, first, we want to hear your pitch.

You've got 30 seconds. I am passionate about democracy, the

dignity of the House of Commons and about its vital, essential role as

the forum for a national debate. I would like to be part of the

speaker's team, not just to keep order in the chamber, but to stand

up for the rights of the backbenches, to hear the voice of

the backbenchers against overbearing governments. Thank you very much.

Simon, can you be as disciplined? Given my 26 years in the House of

Commons, I have a House of Commons in my veins, both as a backbencher,

six years on a select committee, as a whip in particular. I've been able

to work with colleagues, to understand what makes them tick,

what makes Parliament tick. I believe I've got a lot to offer in

ensuring that one has a fair House of Commons, where backbenchers are

able to get their point of view and hold the government to account, and

also be firm in a land hundredweight. -- light handed way.

Eleanor Laing, we will stop with you. -- start with you. What are the

titles the deputy speakers are officially known by? The senior one

is the Chairman of ways and Means. The next one is the first deputy

chairman of ways and Means. The third one is the second deputy

chairman of ways and Means. Very good, all correct. Simon Burns, the

Chiltern hundreds is one of the ways to stop being an MP. Can you name

them? The Chiltern hundreds? They are a mythical place that is an area

of profit for the Crown, which to files you from being an MP. I admire

you for that explanation. You didn't give us the names. It is Stoke,

desperate and burn. Well done far having an answer.

Eleanor Laing, what would the Speaker do in the event of a tied

vote? He would cast his casting vote on the side of the status quo, or

the government of the day. Very good. Simon, the 1911 Parliament act

limits the power of the Lord's to two sessions. What is the date of

the second Parliament act which two sessions. What is the date of

limits the power of the Lords to one session? 1949. Gosh! Well done! You

are both very good. We will go to the personality questions. This is

for Eleanor Laing. Who is the MP for Ashton under Lyme? Dennis Skinner.

It's David Hayes, Labour MP. What is Andrew Lansley's official title, by

which he is paid an official salary? Lord President of the council.

That's somebody else, Nick Clegg. It is Lord Privy Seal. That means your

next question, who is the current Lord President of the Council? It's

the leader of the House of Lords. No, it's Nick Clegg. This is why we

are practising. This is my favourite question. Simon Burns, which Member

of Parliament called the current speaker a sanctimonious dwarf.

That's cruel, you know it was me! What are your relations like with

the Speaker? I get an all right with John, we've been friends for a long

time, long before we were in the House of Commons. Simon Burns, I'm

sure relations have much improved. We have very little do with each

other, except in the chamber. We will work together professionally if

the cards are dealt that way. Thank you for being such good sports. Good

luck. Who do you fancy as deputy speaker? They are pretty impressive

at answering those questions. We will be hearing from all of them

before the election. Apparently they are going to be speaking to the

Parliamentary Labour Party. There's a hustings denied, there are seven

in the race. I think we've only got one woman deputy in a team of four

at the moment, that is something to perhaps they're in mind as well.

What about you? The two favourites are the two you've just had. I'm a

great friend of Eleanor's. The one who's got the edge is Henry

Bellingham, he is the only one who who's got the edge is Henry

can say that MySQL back ancestor who's got the edge is Henry

assassinated Prime Minister, so the executive had better not mess with

the chair in future! That's all for today. Thanks to our

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

be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories of the

day. Join me then. Bye-bye.