20/11/2013 Daily Politics

Good morning, this is the Daily Politics. Plans to re-organise the

army come under fire from conservative backbenchers. The

Defence Secretary's less than happy. He thinks they're putting the army

at risk and flirting with the enemy. We'll be talking to the Mutineer in

Chief. Shocking revelations this week about

Labour. No, I'm not talking about the Chairman of the Co-operative

Bank. The two Eds have never been to the pub together.

Most people want to play the property game. Trouble is, a lot

can't afford to. We'll be talking to one man who thinks cutting stamp

duty could help. And we'll be explaining why the good

people of Hull are celebrating. All that and more in the next 90

minutes. Including Prime Minister's Questions. And with us for the

duration, two men described as Westminster's fiercest attack dogs -

Conservative Party Chairman, Grant "Rottweiller" Shapps and Labour's

own pit bull, Michael Dugher. They look quite cuddly to me. Not as

cuddly as Molly. Welcome to the Daily Politics kennel. Now, first

this morning, let's talk about the army because Conservative MP John

Baron is a leading a small troop of fellow Tory MPs in a rebel amendment

to the Defence Reform Bill aimed at halting plans to increase the size

of the reservist force from 19,000 to 30,000 by 2018. The Government

wants to increase the number of reservists to help fill the gap

created by cuts to the regular army, which is being shrunk by 20% over

eight years. It is going down from around 102,000 to around 80,000.

This morning Philip Hammond had this warning for anyone wanting to pause

the recruitment of reservists. If it was carried, it would prevent us

from rolling out the offer that we are making for reserve first stash

better pension, allowances and training, investment in kit, and

that would be damaging. I am very much up for a debate about how we

are managing the reserve list programme. Parliament is interested,

I would expect to be scrutinised, but I do not think that pausing that

programme in anybody's interest. we hope to speak to the Tory rebel,

John Baron, but we seem to have lost him at the moment. So I will come to

you, Grant Shapps. Isn't the problem that the Government has started to

cut the size of the regular army but not yet increased the size of the

reservists, reservist recruitment is falling. There is a ?38 billion

black hole in the defence budget, when we came to power, you have to

do something about it. There is an argument between you about the size

of the black hole, but that was capital spending. To keep the troops

is current spending. We have to run the country and afford what we are

doing. We might have the fourth biggest defence in the world, but

these days you need drone 's, technical equipment, things like the

massive aircraft carriers, which are massive investments in themselves.

Wars are not necessarily fought in the same way with boots on the

ground, but increasing number of reservists, which used to be called

the TA. Now is not the time to have a vote in the Commons which prevents

the second part, which is all the vote would do, prevent us from

recruiting the reservists, which would be. We know you can cut the

army, governments of both political persuasions have done that for

years. We have no way of knowing that you can increase the

reservists, particularly because you will be asking them to do more and

be better trained than the old Territorial Army, meaning employers

need to give them more time. You can't guarantee you can deliver.

There are no absolute guarantees in life. The army can be an incredible

career. For reservists, they can be of enormous benefit to the

businesses employing them. I think businesses want the skills that

allow releasing them to be reservists will bring back. This

vote today is completely the wrong thing, simply for the reason that we

are set on this trajectory, the Army has accepted it, they have already

scaled back... the Army has no choice but to accept it, we live

under democratic control. It is not Labour policy to keep the regular

army at 100,000? We built it up to over 100,000. Grant Shapps was a

little confused. The government themselves have said they are not

making these changes for reasons of finance but for proper defence

reasons. We support these reforms, but all that is happening today, and

I think Philip and has mishandled this, all of us in Parliament have a

duty to the armed forces and defence, to make sure these

important changes go through and are manageable and feasible. It is all

right, but it is boilerplate. Under Labour, there would still be a curt

of around 82,000 in the Army, you would it attempt to hire these

reserve lists. -- there would be a cut to around 82,000 of the regular

army, and you would attempt to hire these reservists. We are getting

political criticism for doing this. It would be much more convenient

just to let it go through. But your Conservative former Defence

Secretary, only a couple of years ago, in my view, rightly, said you

cannot basically cut of the regular forces without having a very clear,

robust, transparent policy... You are saying the same thing. You are

voting against your own policy. Philip Hammond has refused to come

to the house to provide assurances... We have not had those

reinsurer service, that is all we are asking for -- we have not

heard... Had those reassurances. Since U2 are dancing on the head of

a pin, let's go over to somebody who disagrees with you. -- since new two

are dancing. John Baron, what are you trying to achieve? Paws on the

Army recruitment plans generally, because we want time for Parliament

to scrutinise the cost effectiveness and viability of these plans. Time

to pause, it needn't be a long delay, but the bottom line is,

pause, because so many things are going wrong. We have to check

whether the plan stacks up. We have widening capability gaps, rising

costs, reservist recruitment targets being badly missed, and that is

before we talk about the Herculean assumptions within the plans to make

the Army reserve ironwork. What you to Philip Hammond 's response to

what you are doing? He says you are doing down morale against the

reserve forces, and as a former Army officer you should know better than

most that any pause will leave a serious hole in our defence? There

are no shortage of scare stories. We have been told we are trying to

scupper the plans, we are trying to create Victorian age armies. All

untrue. Two years ago there was a very simple plan. Hold on to the

regulars until these reservists can take their place. Now it has

changed, we have an increasing capability gap between letting the

regulars go and recruiting reservists. With these amendments,

if successful, we are saying, let's pause and re-examine the plan, let's

make sure it stop up -- stacks up. When you say you want to re-examine

the plans, is that because you want to stop cuts to the Army's forces?

The debate today is about the reserves. At the regulars to one

side. A great bar of them have gone already. Recruitment of the regulars

is much easier than recruitment to the reserves stop let's pause on the

Army Reserve plans for a short period, examine these rising costs,

which could lead to false economies, examine the poorer recruitment

record which could lead to widening capability gaps. Parliament should

be scrutinising decisions that increasingly look flawed and that

they might lead to false economies. That is what we are trying to do.

How much support you have? About 25 colleagues had signed on the

Conservative side. I understand Labour will support this amendment.

They have supported our previous debates on this, general debates.

There was a general debate only three or four weeks ago at the

Government could not muster one single vote on it side because it's

refused to answer questions. They have not come up with the answers,

that is why we are in this position. We have asked them to put a stop to

their plans for a short period while Parliament scrutinises things and

plans carefully on behalf of the taxpayer but also on behalf the

country. Thank you very much. You couldn't make it up even if you

were a fiction writer. The scandal that has been unfolding this week

about the former Co-op Bank chief, the Reverend Paul Flowers, embroiled

in a rent boys and drugs scandal involving the bank, the Methodist

Church and the Labour Party. But that is not the only thing that has

been troubling Labour this week. Trouble's brewing at Labour HQ at

Brewers Green. Every home brewer knows that getting the fermentation

right is key to success, No extremes or variations. Everyone working

together. But Labour are not getting it at all right at the moment.

Leaked e-mails show that there's trouble at the top between the two

Eds, Miliband and Balls. And then there's the shocking news that

they've never even been to the pub together. What do they do? Pint of

bitter, anyone? So will the new head brewer, Spencer Livermore, serve up

an enticing mix? He's taking charge of Labour's general election

preparations but his appointment effectively sidelines the party's

general secretary, Iain McNicol, who's so unhappy he's apparently not

talking to Ed Miliband. Add to the keg the ales of Paul Flowers, the

former Chairman of the Co-operative Bank, and it's no surprise that the

Labour party are struggling to come up with a brew they can palate

themselves, let alone sell to the general public. So is it worse than

flat. Is it downright bitter? Joining me now is Atul Hatwal, the

editor of Labour Uncut. Welcome to the programme. How bad is

it between the two Eds? It is not at the level of Tony Blair and Gordon

Brown, but it is difficult and deteriorating. The personalities are

bashing, are substantive policy differences. This is quite a serious

fault line. It is an open secret that they do not agree on

everything. If they can't find agreement over substance, is this

more important than agreement on personality? You have to get on with

the people you work with, you don't have two get on with them but you

have to have a decent working relationship. There is an open

secret that the teams, more than the individuals, are at loggerheads. One

of the things Ed Miliband wanted to do at the start of his leadership

was to express contrition for what he perceives as one of the past

public spending stakes for the last Labour government. Ed Balls was not

his first choice. Ed Balls has vetoed this, absolutely not, the

focus has to be on the Tories are not on the public spending plans.

That is a... An important distinction. Despite everything with

Cameron and Osborne ahead of Miliband and balls in the polling, I

think the fallout from that disagreement is coming through. Does

that mean he is trying to shore up his side and support his team by

bringing in Spencer Livermore? Spencer Livermore is a very

interesting appointment. There was a very famous falling out in 2007 over

the election that never was. Spencer Livermore 's appointment says that

Ed Balls will be on the outside loop during the general election

campaign, and particularly interesting is that if, when looking

at the succession for the Labour Party and who might be the next

leader, Yvette Cooper is the current favourite, Ed Balls' Y. She

potentially won't have a prominent role in the election campaign that

she might have done otherwise. The Spencer Livermore campaigners Ed

Miliband taking control of Labour HQ. Let's go back to the Co-op

Bank. When Labour knew the real reasons Paul Flowers had to resign,

why did it not inform the Co-op group? Well, I'm not aware that we

did know what was going on. The Labour Party in Bradford discovered

it and in London they knew about it. I knew it was part of a

deteriorating situation. I'm not sure that is correct, I don't know

if Labour nationally new one -- what had gone on. We were shocked when we

saw the reports, which is why we acted immediately to suspend him. Is

there not a case for investigating a cover-up, because Mr Flowers was

instrumental in staffing Labour's coppers with Josh? -- coffers with

dosh? He meets Mr Miliband on March the 6th this year and in April, 1.2

million is given to the Labour Party at a very good interest rate. And

then end of a 1.2 million at the same time is given from a trust

which is effectively part of the Co-op Bank. You telling me there is

no connection? We've had a relationship with the Co-op movement

for 100 years. We bank with them. Thousands of businesses and he was

watching this programme bank with them. But you are happy to be cosy

with a man who by this time was clearly a flawed character. This was

a man who to all intents and purposes was a method minister --

Methodist minister. The Tories were all over the Co-op is like a cheap

coat six months ago. We took the sky at face value. He was a church

minister. You had a cosy relationship will stop -- with Paul

Flowers. Why did Ed Miliband put him on their business Council when it

was clear he had no knowledge of business? He was chairman of a

bank, we didn't know about his allegations of criminality. He was

chairman of a bank who did not even know what the balance sheet was. But

we didn't know about any of these allegations. This appeared in a

select committee. When asked what was on the balance sheet, he said 3

billion. Turns out it was 47 billion. Why would you put someone

on an advisory council for business like that? We have all kinds of the

ball on these councils. I would rather have a relationship with the

Co-op Bank then all these shadowy businesses. The Co-op is now owned

by hedge funds, 70%. You cannot compare the Co-op Hank historically

to those banks that destroyed the economy. You are talking about the

serious allegations this weekend - the moment we were aware of that we

acted and we suspended him from the party. And now you have a bank

account owned by hedge funds. Egg balls got ?50,000 as well. An

unprecedented amount. How is that unprecedented? He got ?50,000 to his

office. We've not had anything from the Co-op Bank in over a year, by

the way. Nothing like the scale that was going to conservative offices

before. It was consistent with the rules. People get donations all the

time. Who else has got 50,000 from the Co-op? I'm not aware, but what

is your point? There is no significance to it. Why did Mr

Miliband's office regarded as a nightmare? This was adapt e-mail

from someone you should have known better. -- a daft email. I lived

through the interesting relationship between Gordon Brown and Tony

Blair. You cannot compare it. I work with Ed Balls and Ed Miliband very

closely and they get on extremely well. They have a good working

relationship. Do they agree with absolutely every aspect of policy or

time? Of course there are discussions, as there will be

between George Osborne and David Cameron. They didn't agree over HS2,

did they? That is not true will stop -- that is not true. They don't

agree over the third runway at Heathrow. You are asking between

their relationship now. Mr balls is in favour of the third runway and Ed

Balls threatened to resign over a third runway. You cannot get a

cigarette paper between them on policy. This is Miss chief. --

mischief. I work with both closely and they get on extremely well.

People like you told me exactly the same thing about Mr Brown and Mr

Blair any time we raised it. Is it add? You would always play it down.

Of course, it turned out that it was much worse than even we bought. I

think people knew exactly what the relationship was. Forgive me for

being a bit quizzical about it. How other Tories?

Now, are the Tories out of touch? Does the party detract young voters,

like you and me? Does it have a problem with its image? Surely not!

Here's what one of your colleagues had to say yesterday. Nick Bowles

has always been one for regional board. I don't agree with him. I

travelled around the country all the time working hard with people all

across this country will stop we are unequivocal plea backing the

north-south rail line which does not have the support of Labour. A member

of your own Government says voters think conservatives like you are

aliens from another planet. I just don't agree with Nick on this. In

the end, you have to appeal as a party, as a Government, as people

who want to run the country. You have to appeal, which is why we are

looking to win seats everywhere. I confidently addict we will win in

Berwick-upon-Tweed next year. -- confidently predict. The fact is, in

Scotland, in northern cities, in much of Wales, you are aliens. In

Wales, we have been winning seats back. We have far more now than we

did in the previous parliament. In Scotland, I was just talking

yesterday too, admittedly, one MP, and we have a number of seats in

Scotland which have been coming our way. We've seen that in elections

for the Scottish Parliament. You got the same percentage of the boat as

you did in 1997. Well, as you know, percentage of the vote is not what

determines Parliamentary constituencies. Andrew, I'm not

trying to spin use online. You are no longer a national party. You are

a party of the South. That is not true. In my map of the country, we

are to win more after the next general election and I can hope for

a 300% increase. I will bet you now you will be lucky to hold on. You

will be lucky to win two more seats in Scotland. 50 quid. You're on. In

the north of this country, in Wales, when I look at the map of the

country, we have many constituencies, we have lots of

places where we very much hope to win next time. Our message is

simple. If you are the kind of person who works hard, wants to get

on in life, this is the Government for you. Conservatives on your side.

"Buenos dias a todos mis amigos". Good morning to all my Spanish

friends. We, at the Daily Politics, are a friendly lot. And we've been a

little disturbed by this disruption to European harmony.

That's Spain's RV Romon Margalef being challenged by the Royal Navy

in what officials say was a "significant incursion" into

Gibraltar's territory. Well, we would like to calm these choppy

diplomatic waters with a bit of news for the Foreign Office. Lean closer.

They're only after one thing. Yes, "la taza de la politica cada

dia!" They must have spotted one in our Gibraltar office. Well, sadly,

we'd like to help the diplomatic situation, but tough - there's only

one way we'll cede control of one of these beauties. And that's to listen

to Senora JoCo. We'll remind you how to enter in a minute, but let's see

if you can remember when this happened. What you have failed to

observe, which I must point out in all modesty, is that they would be

the first person in Number Ten to have a science degree will stop --.

A dialling tone. And that's quite an achievement. It's one thing to dial

a conversation, it is another to translate accurate digital

information. I don't know why they used a clip

with my co-presenter! I did one on telephones as well.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug, send your answer

to our special quiz email address - that's [email protected]. And you can

see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.

I did just give the name the way, didn't I? BBC compliance will be all

over it. Anyway, we still have to pick the names out of a hat. Let's

have a look at what is happening at Big Ben. Yes, Prime Minister's

Questions is on its way. If you'd like to comment on proceedings you

can email us at [email protected] or tweet

your thoughts using the hashtag #bbcdp - we'll read some out after

PMQs. And that's not all - Nick Watt from The Guardian is here. What is

going to happen? Well, Nicolas Bowles, the son of Jack Bowles, said

Tories are still seen as a party of toffs. His father was decked --

director of The National Trust. And then obviously the embarrassment of

this e-mail sent by Ed Miliband's chief economic adviser describing Ed

Balls as a nightmare. Those are the gags. One substance, if I was Ed

Miliband I would want to get back to the main theme - cost of living.

I am sure we would all want to associate ourselves with the Prime

Minister's tribute. We will always remember their service to our

country. MPs from across the house will have grave concerns about the

nightmare unfolding at the Co-operative Bank. Does the Prime

Minister share my sense of disbelief that a person such as reverend

flowers, responsible as he was for such large sums of money, was ever

appointed chairman, and what can he do to find out how on earth that

happened? Constituents across the house will have people who hold

Co-op bonds read about what will happen to their investment. The

first priority is to safeguard this bank and make sure it is safeguarded

without using taxpayers' money. That must be the priority. The Chancellor

will discuss with the regulators what is the appropriate form of

enquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong. But there are lots of

questions to be answered. Why was reverend flowers judged suitable to

be chairman of the bank, why won't alarm bells rung earlier? -- why was

Reverend Flowers judged suitable? It is important that anybody with

information provided to the authorities.

I joined the Prime Minister in paying tribute to warrant Officer

Ian Fisher of 3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment, who died serving

his country and all of our thoughts are with his family and friends. Can

the Prime Minister tell us how his campaign is going to save the

Chipping Norton children centre? -- children's centre? I support

children's centres across the country, but in spite of difficult

decisions made across the country, the number of children's centres has

reduced by around 1%, and like all MPs, I fight very hard for services

in my constituency. They are going around saying that children's

centres are safe and there is no threat to them. But things are so

bad he has even signed a petition in his own area to save his local

children's centre. Is the petition addressed to his local Tory

council, or is he taking it right to the top? There are more people using

children's centres than ever before in our country. The figures are,

because he does not want to give them, there are 3000. The point I

will make is this, the government can hold its head up high because we

are increasing the money that is going to local councils for

children's centres, that is what is happening under this Government. We

all wish him luck in his fight as a local MP. Imagine what he could

achieve if he were Prime Minister of the country. I think we have

established these double standards in Oxfordshire. Let's take another

example. In Tory Essex, their proposal... I know they don't care

about children's centres, but they should listen. In Tory Essex, their

proposal is to cut it 11 centres and downgrade 37, with the hours they

stay open falling from 50 week to as little as five. So fewer centres,

fewer staff, few hours. How is that doing what he promised before the

election, to protect and improve sure start? For the first time

ever, 15 hours of childcare for every three and four year-old in

this country. That never happened under Labour. Free childcare hours

for every disadvantaged two year-old, that never happened under

Labour. And tax free childcare under this government is coming, that

never happened under Labour. And we have upgraded the child tax credit

by ?420. That is what is happening. Let me be clear, one policy we won't

adopt, labour's policy of funding more hours through the bank levy. I

will tell you why. They have already spent its ten times over. There it

is. Jobs guarantee, VAT cuts, more capital spending. This isn't a

policy, it is a night out with Reverend Flowers!

Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker... Let's talk about the people he associates

with. Let the house, down. I am concerned, as always, about

backbenchers, and backbenchers who wants to speak should be

accommodated. -- left the house calmed down. He has nearly taken

five -- he has taken nearly ?5 million from a man whose company

raked and they are just the people I can

talk about. Didn't the Planning Minister have it right yesterday

when he said this, the single biggest problem facing the

Conservative Party is being seen as the party of the rich? How

extraordinary that, on today of all days, he wants to talk about the

people he associates with and takes money from? This bank, driven into

the wall by this chairman, has been giving soft loans to the Labour

Party, facilities and donations to the Labour Party, trooped in and out

of Downing Street under the Labour Party, still advising the leader of

the Labour Party, and now we know that, all along, they knew about his

past. Why did they not bring to the attention of the authorities a man

who has broken a bank? I think we can take it from that answer that he

doesn't want to talk about his Planning Minister. Where is the

Planning Minister today? Only last January, he was praising him to the

rafters, saying he was leading the debate. I think the House should

hear more from him. He says the Tory party stand for people who work for

private equity and make a tonne of money. He is right, isn't he? We

have finally found a public enquiry he doesn't want. He comes to this

house and asks for enquiry after enquiry into the culture and

practices of those and bad, but when it comes to the Co-op Bank, he is

absolutely frightened of it. An interesting week to talk about

people on the front bench. He has referred to his own Shadow

Chancellor as a nightmare this week. I'm sorry, I hate to say I told you

so, but I have said this for three years. That is not the most

interesting thing in this fascinating exchange of e-mails.

Labour's head of strategy - yes, they have one! - replied, when did

built to last become part of our thing? Their policies, I agree, are

built to self-destruct in about five seconds. What he has shown

comprehensively today is he has no answers on the cost of living crisis

facing families up and down the country. That is the truth. His

close friend the Planning Minister is right.

He says, many people don't like the Tory party and don't trust their

motives. He says the Prime Minister is not the man to reach them. What

he is really saying is that this Prime Minister is a loser.

What this proves, Mr Speaker, he can't ask about the economy because

it is growing. He can't ask about the deficit because it is falling,

he can't ask about the number of people in work closet is rising. He

can't even ask about banking because he is mired in his own scandal.

Order, the answer must and will be heard. Too weak to stand up to his

trade union paymasters, and his Shadow Chancellor. We know it would

be a nightmare, that is why we are dedicated to making sure that the

British people do not have to live through it.

My right honourable friend will recall visiting the London Gateway

ports in Thurrock, but is he as upset to hear that I am that Unite

are picketing the potential clients of that port, and encouraging sister

unions to block ships that will dock there. Is this not more evidence

that they cost jobs, not save them? Visiting the London Gateway port is

one of the most compelling things I have seen in recent years about

Britain's industrial relations, it is an extraordinary investment which

will be of huge importance, bringing jobs directly and indirectly. She is

right about union intimidation and bully boy tag X. It is right that

Unite and the Labour Party take part in that review. -- bully boy

tactics. I am sure he will agree that the victims of terrorism

deserve not just sympathy with our full support and help and must be at

the core of any process dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. Even

the very worrying statement by the attorney general for Northern

Ireland overnight, made on his own account and behalf and without

consultation, does he agree that there can be no question of an

amnesty for any terrorist atrocities and crimes, and that all victims of

terrorism deserve truth and justice? Let me agree with what he said,

which is the words of the Northern Ireland attorney general are very

much is own words, not at the behest of anyone else. The Government has

no plans to legislate foreign amnesty for crimes committed during

the Troubles. Richard Haass is currently consulting with all the

Northern Ireland parties on issues from the past, as well as the

atrocities. The General Synod is meeting today

and will hopefully find a way to enable women as soon as the to be

consecrated as bishops in the Church of England. If this is successful,

will my right honourable friend and the Government support amendments to

the Bishops' Act, to ensure that women can be admitted to the House

of Lords as soon as possible rather than new women bishops having to

queue up behind every existing diocesan Bishop before we can see

women bishops in Parliament? He follows these matters very closely.

His question is extremely important. I strongly support women

bishops and I hope the Church of England takes this key step to

ensure its place as a modern church in touch with society. There is a

seniority rule for bishops going into the House of Lords. The

Government is willing to work with the church to see how getting women

bishops into the House of Lords can be achieved as soon as possible.

Does he believe that the proposal from the conservative free

enterprise group, supported by 42 of his MPs, to put VAT on food and

children's clothes, shows the true face of the party he leads? I don't

support that policy. I recently joined a credit union in my

constituency which will help a lot of people to ensure they don't have

to go to payday lenders. What more can the Government do to encourage

credit unions and anybody who has a few pounds to spare to put away, to

take the trade away from all four payday lenders? I'm grateful to my

honourable friend for raising this issue. The Government thinks credit

unions are a very big part of the answer to the problems of payday

lending. We've invested a lot of money into credit unions. We are

also regulating properly for the first time payday lending through

the new regulator and we are prepared to look at all the steps

that can be taken will stop --. The Prime Minister will be aware that

save the children has highlighted the importance of early years of

children's development. Does the Prime Minister accept that the

closure of sure start centres is having a negative impact? I would

challenge those figures. The pot of money for children's centres was 2.3

billion in 2012 but it is going up to 2.5 billion in 2014. There are

3000 children centres open. Only 1% have closed. I think the Government

has an excellent record on this front. Now that the changes to

Enfield A and maternity services has been given a green light by

local GPs, can the Prime Minister confirm that Enfield is getting

increased primary care funding and that the hospital is getting 20 47

access to urgent care? 24/7 access. I understand the strategy has been

implemented and the hospital will provide a service that gives access

to GPs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Increases in primary care

funding is part of our plan to expand the NHS. We'll Prime Minister

join me in congratulating the good people of Hull for winning the city

of culture 2017? I'm absolutely delighted to join with the

Honourable Gentleman and everyone in Hull in celebrating this great

award. I think it is a very exciting opportunity. We will be able to

celebrate the birthplace of Wilberforce. Philip Larkin was the

librarian. Peter Mandelson is the hype -- high Sheriff, but everybody

has their cross to bear! I'm sure it will be a huge success for Hull and

for Humberside more generally. 600 new business start-ups have

registered last year. In preparation for small business Saturday on the

7th of December, would my right honourable friend meet with me to

discuss a review of business rates to encourage future growth,

especially in London where rates are very high? I'm very happy to discuss

this issue with my friend who always stand up the small businesses and

enterprise. I think it is a real success story, an excellent 4000

businesses are running. We are running a Government scheme which

has got off the ground very quickly. There are concerns about business

rates and I am happy to discuss those without. May I encourage all

colleagues to take part in small business Saturday? It is a brilliant

initiative which worked very well in the US. Does the Prime Minister

agree with his planning minister back when modern Britain looks at

the Conservative Party, they see old-fashioned monolith? We've had

interesting interventions from front bench is past and present. A tweet

has just come in from Tony McNulty, the former Labour security minister,

saying, the public are desperate for a PM in waiting who speaks for

them, not a leader of the opposition indulging in partisan Westminster

Village knock-about is. So, I would stay up with the tweets. I referred

to the House of registers of members interest. Order! I want to hear the

words being spoken. I referred the House to the register of members

interests that I recently returned a delegation to Israel. On both the

Israeli street and in the corridors of power, Iran remains a number-1

issue of concern. The French president visited Israel earlier

this week to discuss this matter with Israeli counterparts and

appears to a clearly understood the legitimate concerns. When will our

Prime Minister be visiting Israel to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue

and other regional concerns? First, I thank the Honourable Gentleman for

his question. I know there are many in his constituency who care deeply

about this issue. I will never forget the visit I made as leader of

the opposition and I look forward to visiting, I hope, next year. When I

went to Israel, I also visited not only occupied East Jerusalem is but

other areas of Palestine as is proper. But I do understand the

concern is ready to have about the potential Iranian nuclear weapons.

That is why I spoke to the President last night to make clear that we

want an outcome to bees talks which takes a run further away from the

nuclear weapons. -- these talks which takes Iran further away.

Surely there is some merit from the Northern Ireland Attorney General

that rather than a occurring -- rather than incurring huge expense

and effort chasing crimes committed decades ago where the evidence is

difficult to establish, the justified grievances of victims

should be addressed in other ways so that Northern Ireland can move on

from its hideous past. I have great respect for the right Honourable

Gentleman's views on this issue. I do think it is important to allow

Richard to do his work on parades and flags and dealing with the past.

Clearly, the dealing with the past part is the most the gold of the

three will stop -- the most difficult of the three. The police

should be able to bring cases if they can. It is dangerous to think

you can put some sort of lock on that. But we are all interested in

ways for people to reconcile and come to terms with the past so they

can bring together a shared future for Northern Ireland. The people and

businesses of Suffolk are driving economic growth in the East of

England Show. But they are increasingly fearful that the

proposed A14 road toll will put it at a serious disadvantage compared

to other counties. Can I ask my honourable friend if he will

seriously be considered the current proposal? -- seriously reconsider.

The important point is, we want new roads to be built. There are

shortages on capital expenditure will stop that is why I think the

idea of having a toll for some new roads is an idea properly work --

worth looking at. People coming to terms with their loss have no terms

or rights in this country to paid employment leave. Many other falls

back into work party soon after the death of a child. Will the Prime

Minister look into extending to give parents the legal right to have time

to grieve? I'm very happy to look at that. Having suffered this

experience myself, as a member of Parliament it is possible to take

some time to stand back and have a look at what has happened because

colleagues are ready to step in and do what they can. This is a very

important point, let me look at it and get back to him. As I told my

honourable friend when I last looked at this issue, if we want a proper

deterrent, we need the best, that means a permanent at sea gesture.

May I realise -- reassure my right honourable friend that excellent

answer will remain on my website for as long as it takes the pledge to be

filled. I notice he uses the words "conservative only". Only reassure

the House that never again will the Dems allowed to obstruct or delay

the signing of the contract, and will he undertake to sign those

contracts at the first possible opportunity? Firstly, investment in

our nuclear deterrent has not ceased. We're taking all necessary

steps to make that main gate decision possible. We've had the

alternative study which did not come up with a convincing answer. I don't

think I would entirely satisfy my honourable friend even if I gave him

a submarine to park off the coast of his constituency. I rather fear that

is true. If the Prime Minister aware that,

according to the Economist, Britain is now 159th lowest in the world in

terms of British -- business investment, just behind Paraguay and

what Marla? -- and Guatamala? Can you please tell how is when, under

his esteemed leadership, Britain can expect to catch up with them? I can

only conclude the right Honourable Gentleman has been out on a night

with the reverend flowers. In the first six months of this year,

Britain has received more investment than any other country anywhere in

the world. Has my right honourable friend taking the advice opposite,

what would have been the impact of fuel and the impact this would have

had on families? If you look at the cuts and freezers in fuel duty that

we have made, fuel duty would be 30p a leader -- a litre higher. It would

be a nightmare. His own education Department says he has closed 578

children centres. How is this protecting sure start? Well, I gave

him the figures. There are 3000 such centres ( -- open and only 1% have

closed. Ashton Manor Brewery in my constituency has invested ?10

million in creating lots of jobs. The OECD has upgraded the forecast

for Britain while downgrading the global forecast. Is it my honourable

friend's view that reducing debt is the way to get the economy moving,

not getting more debt like the party opposite? I'm grateful to my

honourable friend and what he says. If you look at the OECD forecast out

this week, you see a massive increase in the forecast for UK

growth over the next couple of years. The party opposite don't want

to talk about the economy. Because they told us we were then to lose a

million jobs. We gained a million jobs! The nightmare of the Shadow

Chancellor wants to talk about everything else! Let me just remind

him of this important point. This is relevant to the issue of debt. Ken

Livingstone said this: Gordon Brown was borrowing ?20 billion a year at

the height of the boom in order to avoid having to increase taxes

because he wanted to increase public spending. It was an act of

cowardice. That is the daymare. We are also hearing ranting from the

nightmare! Order! Order! The Honourable Lady has a right to but

her question and to be heard when she does so. That is what is going

to happen. The Housing Association is landlord to some of the poorest

in my constituency. It recently voted its chief executive in

noncontractual redundancy payoff of ?397,000. Will the Prime Minister

join me in condemning the board's action and asking it to be repaid

and invested in much-needed tenant services? I'm very happy to look at

the case because some of these payoffs are completely unacceptable.

We need to make sure local authorities properly take

responsibility for stopping such payoffs. In other parts of the

economy, we are making sure that if people are re-employed having taken

these payoffs, they have to pay back the money. Does my right honourable

friend agree that a key element of the success of the plan for the

reserves would be if my right honourable friend could join

together with the leader of the opposition and inspire employers

that the success of this plan, because there is no other plan, is

in the national interest? I completely agree with my right

honourable friend. This is an important programme for the future

of the country. I understand concerns about this, but if we pass

the amendment, that would simply stop is investing in our reserves

and improving our reserves rather than changing the overall stance. I

have noticed Labour are staying Dashti Burdett a statement today -

-- they put out a statement today that they are not calling that any

specific programmes to be shelved. I think it is naked opportunism. Can

the Prime Minister explain to this House why he deleted his pledge from

the website? What we promised is we would not cut the NHS and we

haven't. We made absolutely clear before the last election we would

have to make difficult decisions, but it is because of those difficult

decisions deficit is coming down, employment is growing, our economy

is doing better, and if we followed the advice of the party opposite we

would have more spending, more borrowing, more debt. Order!

The questions came from all over the place. We got to name-calling about

who bankrolled the parties and the people they mix with. We got an

historic first, the first tweet to be tweeted during PMQs actually read

out in almost real time. Former Labour minister Tony McNulty

tweeted... It was slightly critical of Mr Ed Miliband. Lo and behold,

the Prime Minister had a copy. Obviously somebody is in their

monitoring between. Somebody handed it to the Prime Minister. We will be

quoted, next week! The viewers agreed, it was a bit all over the

place. John in Leeds said, Ed Miliband has been driven into a

corner with the questions he can ask, he is unable to talk about the

economy because it is improving, if he speaks about the banks he is on

dangerous ground. Will from Oxfordshire, just awful. The team at

choreographed David Cameron's performance must realise it is

getting worse and worse. Jackie in Bristol says that those men should

grow up and stop throwing stones at glasshouses, what a pointless

exercise. No wonder nobody wants to vote and Russell Brand never has.

Another e-mail says could somebody tell the Speaker to stop ruining the

atmosphere of PMQs by rudely interrupting party leaders in full

flow? Geoffrey says the fact that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have never

been to the pub together shows what chaos there would be if Labour came

to power. I thought it was interesting the number of issues

that came up that we had already discussed, it was like a replay of

the Daily Politics! Nick, what did you make? It was a bit all over the

place, but there was a very important announcement by the Prime

Minister saying there will be an investigation into what went on at

the Co-op. You have the chairman of the bank, approved by the FSA, who

did not note the size of their assets. He thought it was ?3

billion, it was ?47 billion. The Co-operative Bank is part of the

co-operative movement which is part of the Labour Party. Ed Balls got

money from the movement. Reverend Flowers' appointment was approved by

the FSA, which was set up by the last government and is no longer in

existence. It didn't even go to a second interview. The person

involved in improving Reverend Flowers got a job on the Co-op

board. I think he had a pretty rigorous interview to get onto the

board, but not to be made chairman. He is intelligent but does not know

much about banking. Rather than going on who is bankrolling whom,

they should stick with living standards?

He asked about Sure Start. David Cameron confirmed there are just

over 3000 Sure Start centres, he did not say that around 578 have been

closed and he promised not to close Sure Start centres. That is a cost

of living issue. The cost of nursery places has gone up 30%, families are

on average ?1600 a year every year... It is a cost of living

issue. What can you tell us about this enquiry into the Co-op? The

Prime Minister will ask the Chancellor to work with the

regulatory authorities. People trust this bank. It has always been the

bank which claims to do ethical banking. It now transpires that they

were doing very seemingly unethical loans at low interest rates to

organisations. Organisations without the balance sheet or the assets to

support alone. Clearly there is a question to answer. If this is the

mess that Labour R.N. With their own banking arrangements and facilities

and between Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, can you imagine what it

would be like if they were running the country? -- if this is the mess

that Labour is in with their own banking arrangements. I assume it

will not be a party political enquiry? It is very important for

people who invest with that bank and bank with them know that a bank

which seems to have gone off track is brought back on, to reinsure

interest is -- reassure investors. The people who bail it out will help

would capitalise the balance sheet and will end up owning 70% of the

Co-op Hank. After what has happened this week, these hedge funds may say

that the bank is tarnished, the brand is in real trouble,

particularly since its unique selling point was the ethical nature

of its business. If these hedge funds do not proceed with the

recapitalisation, which is about ?1.5 billion, the Bank of England

will have to they lit out? I don't want to preserve the Tate further

issues for the bank, but it is clear that rings have gone wrong -- I

don't want to precipitate. The takeover of Britannia, it then

seemed to go into further difficulty. How do you end up with

leading figures as Reverend Flowers, as it turns out, seems to have known

nothing about banking. We need to understand that. I don't think you

are a Co-op MP, you are a Unite MP? I am a member of a trade union, like

many people, some of whom vote Tory. I bank with the Co-op. The party has

historic relations with the Labour Party, questions need to be asked.

If it is not to be a political enquiry, there is a really good

story from the Guardian, the Co-op Bank have had around 30 meetings

with one of your ministers, Mark Hoban. Presumably it will involve

that content? Reign I don't far -- I don't think Mark Hoban has taken

huge loans. The Britannia deal did not work well. Then it went for the

630 Lloyds branches. That is what Mark Hoban was meeting them about.

Then we discovered this huge hole, Lloyds discovered it. When Lloyds

started the due diligence process at the early stages, can this bank

afford these branches? It discovered it couldn't. The Portuguese chief

executive of Lloyds Bank discovered there was a huge hole in the balance

sheet. Labour is on the defensive on the Co-op, its funding and so on,

but why do so may hedge funds give you money? We ask people to support

the party. Thousands of ordinary people join up, but also businesses

and investors. Why? Because they want to see this country being

pro-business, pro-jobs, and growing. It does not matter whether you give

is ?1 or ?1 million, you don't get... You don't buy a policy, you

don't... Hold on a second. You don't buy dinner at Downing Street? You

don't get to choose candidates or the leader. So you get nothing for

it? Let me take you up on that. The hedge funds give you millions of

pounds, but you say it does not buy policy, but you then cut the tax on

hedge funds. We have introduced a... Why did you do that? We have

introduced a ?2 billion annual tax levy on banks, more than you guys

did. You say they cannot buy policy. I am not saying there is a

correlation, a causation, but I look on the one hand that you are getting

millions of pounds from hedge funds, and earlier this year you cut the

tax on hedge funds. Ordinary people will think, hey, there has to be

something going on? This is a big business in Britain. Hedge funds,

the City, all of that. We have been very clear that banks need to pay

and contribute more, they are paying ?2.5 billion more each year. By and

large, banks do not give you money. You only RBS, you are not getting

money from Lloyds and Santander. I was asking about hedge funds. You

said you can't buy policy. If I am hedge funds, I give you ?1 million,

a few months later, I am off to the races, you cut my taxes. You can't

buy policies by giving money. There was the tax cut. That is different

from a system where you select the leader, install candidates... Unless

you are the person who was the head of JCB, unless your name is Adrian,

the venture capital who wrote a report on hiring and firing. What

the Prime Minister was doing was giving an opportunity to donors to

write report that were then being considered for policy, in many

cases. If you are telling me that companies like JCB, an enormous

British success story, don't on their own accounts disburse...

Deserve... Their helicopter is put at the disposal of the Prime

Minister. I think we will have to leave it there. Nick, I will see you

on Sunday morning on the Sunday Politics. Your cheque will be the

post, blank as usual. Not the Co-op! Fatboy Slim and some rather nice

fish and chip shops. Philip Larkin, John Prescot, and the

Humber Bridge. Would Hull ever get the international status it

deserved? This morning, the people of the city chewed their collective

fingernails, hanging on the words of Culture Secretary Maria Miller as

she announced who would be chosen as the UK's City of Culture 2017. It

was Hull. So were they pleased? RAUCOUS CHAIRING. -- CHEERING. I do

think they might have been pleased. And Hull's most famous MP, former

Home Secretary Alan Johnson, joins us now from Central London. Sorry,

John Prescott! It is good to see you in the daylight, Alan! Wider using

Hull got it? It was a terrific bid. It was not just detailing all the

great cult shall heritage, whether Andrew Marvell, Larkin, the Hull

Truck Theatre, The Beautiful South or any of that, but it is focusing

on the future, how City of Culture can create jobs and regenerate the

city. Hull has not had it easy recently? It was the biggest port in

the world, and the fishing industry collapse. They have been struggling

back from that. It is good in its own right to be a city of culture,

but you think it is a contributor towards the economic regeneration of

the city and the surrounding area? It is part of a plan. Whether we

have it or not, this would go on. A gallery, bringing HMS illustrious

into the city, the fruit market is being regenerated in terms of arts

and crafts at that rep. I think this is why the judges unanimously

supported Hull, it fits into that plan. We did not just bid for City

of Culture and there is nothing out there, it is a real vision for the

future. We have a little test, let's see how up you are. I think you will

do all right. Which poll it was the librarian at the University of hole

for 30 years? Philippa log in. -- Philip Larkin. Which pop and top the

charts in 1986 with their single Caravan Of Love. Housemartins. Which

Hull born actress is probably best known for being on the BT adverts?

Maureen Lipman. I hope... Hope Michael Portillo is watching! You

can see the personification of culture in the person before you.

Which New Zealand novelist won this year 's man Booker prize? Eleanor

Catton. Who painted three studies of louche and Freud recently sold for

?142 million? -- of Lucian Freud. That was Francis Bacon. They became

the first woman to conduct the latter night of the BBC Proms this

year? Marian Alsop. And which star of the only way is ethics is

appearing on this year 's I'm a celebrity? It's good to know pop --

politicians have their finger on the pulse. Apparently his name is Joey

Essex. Did he change his name by deed poll? Who knows. Alan, are you

going to get stuck into this city of culture? Yes, in a sense, the hard

work starts here. We had look what has happened in Londonderry and we

will try to emulate that. Now, buying a new home is an

expensive business what with mortgage fees, moving costs and

legal costs, not to mention the cost of the House itself. But if you're

buying a place for ?125,000 or more then you'll also have to write a

cheque to the Treasury to pay Stamp Duty Land Tax. Home owners have to

pay a percentage of the total purchase price, but as the value of

properties rise, many are finding themselves with a bigger and bigger

Stamp Duty bill. The think tank the Taxpayers' Alliance wanst to see it

cut. In this week's soapbox, their chief executive, Matthew Sinclair,

explains why. You can't buy a real House with

Monopoly money. It often takes years to assemble and deposit. So why does

the taxman make it that much harder? Stamp duty used to be 1% of

the value and only paid on above average properties. Now, people have

to pay 3% on ordinary family homes, not just made their mansions. --

Mayfair mansions. With rising House prices, more of us are being stung

by these higher rates. Purchasing a little greenhouse of our own is

becoming more unaffordable. It is the largest cheque we will ever

write but it does not raise a lot of revenue. It is only about 1% of the

taxes the Government takes in one year. The reason is obvious. Fewer

people move as costs rise. So you could cut stamp duty with very

little impact. Even in the most affordable parts of the Monopoly

board, like Old Kent Road, punitive rates still apply. Stamp duty makes

it much harder for young people to buy a home and start a family. It

discourages elderly people from downsizing. It distorts the House

market so much that two major recent reviews of the tax system called for

it to be abolished. It makes it harder for people to move to new

places for new jobs. In this game, the only winner is the taxman.

Increase the threshold, reform the structure, or simply cut the rates.

However he does it, it is time for the Chancellor to cut this unfair

double tax. Let's pick up on your point about public finances. I think

people would argue that points. ?6.9 million collected last year, ?7.7

million predict this year. It is not going to pay back all the deficit,

but in austerity times, it is a lot of money. But it is a tax on

transactions. The more people move, the more get paid. Therefore, what

we've done by putting in place high rates is discourage people from

moving. There was powerful new evidence coming out that shows

higher stamp duty rates mean lower numbers of transactions. That means

they undermine their own revenue. The higher the rates get, the fewer

the transactions, the more you are trying to take a big chunk out of a

smaller pie of transactions. The impact on revenue would be much more

limited. Those figures are billions not million. I looked at this when I

was housing minister will stop in order to try to find out whether it

was possible to encourage enough additional activity that the

Treasury still got the money. The truth is, 6 billion is not small

change. What about the point that if you lowered it, you would get more?

When we modelled it, we never found that that was the case. I think

there are lots of taxes that we would rather get rid of, but the

truth is we have to do that by cutting expenditure and carrying on

the programme of deficit reduction. Since you were housing minister, we

have for the first time in all its evidence to give us a concrete sense

of how the number of transactions responds really strongly to the

stamp duty rate. Given that there are so many other things people do

when they move, so many purchasers, so many other transactions that

create tax receipts, it does not mean there will be no cost of doing

this. But there are loads of ways... We think ultimately it should be

abolished. But in the meantime, there would be nothing wrong

whatsoever with increasing the threshold and cutting the rates,

reforming the crazy structure. It was a big issue with the

Conservatives before the last election. George Osborne promised to

abolish stamp duty for almost all first-time buyers. I think this was

the 2007 policy. The previous Government brought that in and then

ran for a while. Actually, we found it was costing the Treasury quite a

lot. One interesting thing is that things like the Help To Buy scheme

coming in which is helping people get onto the housing ladder, that

has a much higher impact. Whenever we modelled it we've not managed to

show that the Treasury would still collect the money. It is an

interesting issue. A year ago, one option we had was to do something

around stamp duty for first-time buyers will stop if we're honest,

this is a symptom of something that is wrong with the housing market. We

need to bask increase supply. That is the thing. But while we're

waiting for that to come along... Well, house-building completions are

now at their lowest peace building levels since the world war. They've

gone on 29% in the last year. When George Osborne told the Cabinet,

we're going to have a nice at all housing price boom - we don't want a

House price boom, we want a house-building boom. It is not true

to say we are building fewer houses. Actually, this does happen

to be an area I know something about. Remember all those e-mails

that came out? 150,000 new homes have been built and planning

permission is up. The 1920s lowest holding level was the level from

your Government beforehand. I agree we need to build more and that is

something we are doing. You did not have a great record in 13 years.

Most Labour politicians would agree that you did not build enough. Back

chaps, can we expect any movement on this in the autumn statement? --

Grant Schapps. There is a very practical Help To Buy scheme so that

now people don't have to stump up ?60,000. They can get a deposit with

?10,000. Where going to tax people and then were going to say, but you

can borrow more money from the bank to work up for it. It is of long way

from taking responsibility. We need to do something about this cost.

Thank you. Now, it's time to put you out of your misery and give you the

answer to Guess The Year. It was 1979. Grant, would you press that

red button now, please. Ken Clarke! But with no last letter on there.

Here is Andrew in 1976 talking about the breaking up of written.

It is not quite as simple as the budding tartan shapes would make us

believe. Who is that? OK, that's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The

One O'clock News is starting over on BBC One now. We'll be back tomorrow

at noon with all the big political stories of the day. We'll be joined

by Nicola Horlick, the business woman who was once described as

Superwoman. So do join us then. Bye bye.