14/09/2011 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/09/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Through the morning, this is the Daily Politics. Coming out in the


next 90 minutes of public service broadcasting at its finest: More


gloomy news on the economy with an extra 80,000 out of work, the DPM


says he has a plan, but can it deliver growth? The unions are


spoiling for a fight over pensions with ballots for strike action this


autumn. Can disruption to public services be prevented?


The shrinking British house, they are being built up to one-third


smaller than the recommended size. We are certainly not getting any


smaller! We well as the housing minister what is going to do about


it. Everything goes with HP Sauce! And why do things always taste


worse with the bad stuff taken out? What has happened to Houses of


HP Sauce! I am not that much of a fan. I like it but it is not


something I cannot live without! Probably some continental staff.


You'll have chips just to have the HP Sauce with them. Before all of


that, Prime Minister's Questions at noon, and joining us for the


duration today, shadow Olympics Minister and Labour MP for Dulwich


and West Norwood, at least for now, Tessa Jowell. And the Housing


Minister, whose constituency is getting bigger under the boundary


changes, no doubt to cope with all these houses he is not building,


Grant Shapps. He is here to celebrate that you found out! -- he


is here to celebrate that and his birthday. What is it like to be 21?


It is not my birthday until November. It looks like the


government is heading for a confrontation with public sector


unions over reforms to pensions. Unison has announced it is


balloting for strike action, as is the Fire Brigades Union. This was


Dave Prentis at the TUC conference this morning. Today, Brendan Barber


has convened a meeting of all public service unions to look at


uniting, co-ordinating industrial action when the talks fail, and in


moving to industrial action, I commit Unison to work as one with


our sister Unison's GMB and Unite. -- unions. Today, as general


secretary of Unison, I give formal notice to 9,000 employers that we


are now balloting for industrial action. Grant Shapps, are we brace


ourselves for a winter of discontent? Well, I really hope not.


It sounds like it, though. I do not think it is the way forward. I do


not think it is going to solve anything. Even Labour, with their


close connections to the unions, are urging them not to do this.


There is no need for it at this stage. The government has never


been through this kind of hardship, none of your ministers have


experienced like the strikes this country used to have. I do not


think you have to live through the 1970s in order to be able to deal


with it. The political mood is completely different, and the


unions would be misjudging that mood, not least because there is no


support in the country. Almost everybody, in the private and


public sectors, you are sharing a lot of the pain with the sluggish


situation that we have got globally. I think striking will only make it


worse. I do not think they will have the backing of the people.


is that because of that political mode that the Labour Party is not


exactly wholeheartedly supporting this strike action, as we saw with


Mr Miliband yesterday. important thing is that negotiation


continues, and that it is negotiation in good faith,


responsible, decent negotiation between the employers and the trade


unions. The unions told Mr Miliband that the negotiations were a sham,


that is the deeply held belief of the unions involved in the


negotiations. I think that is right, Andrew, I think that is the view


that the unions have, and it is for the government now to get those


negotiations back on course. Because, you know, we are talking


about millions and millions of public sector workers who are, for


many people in this country, the most important people in their


lives. These are not people to take strike action likely, but they are


at risk of being driven to the edge of being able to stand the


intransigence of the Government. the negotiations are a sham, which


I think he seemed to concede, and it is what the union leaders and


activists believe, why wouldn't you back them going on strike? Well, I


do not think... I have, in government, been responsible for


these negotiations, and in local government before that, and the


best thing is not to provide a running commentary on negotiation,


but for both sides to be serious, as I am absolutely sure the unions


are. There will always be a few people, both on the employers' side


and on the union side, was spoiling for a fight. I do not believe that


represents the overwhelming number of trade unionists, and I think


that the onus is now on the employee has to show the unions


that they are serious about negotiation. I think the


Government's stepped in May of imposing a 3.5% surcharge on


pension contributions at a time when negotiations were under way


was very unwise and provocative. the Fire Brigades Union, they have


announced they are balloting members for a strike. The Fire


Brigades Union is in the grip of the hard left. What are you going


to do if the fire brigade goes on strike? You have not that the Green


goddesses any more. Well, look, we had that quite protracted strike


under the previous government. I hope they do not join us. The Green


goddesses were not deployed then. You think you can survive without


them? It was a long strike, and we survive them. Very skilfully


handled by John Prescott. He knows a thing or two about the unions.


knows a lot about negotiation. upshot of that strike is that it


turned out to be a very long and protracted strike and largely


pointless. It could have been discussed through negotiation. I


would not comment either on the detail of the negotiation, because


we are not in the room, it is unhelpful to give a running


commentary of negotiations that are going along, and I think most


people in this country recognise that people are living a lot longer.


I quoted this statistic before that I welcome somebody to check or


challenge, but everyday life expectancy in this country is


raised by the Towers. It is a confusing statistic. -- eight hours.


You have to do something about it. OK. With your shadow of Olympic


portfolio around two, why are we having to pay Tube drivers who are


already on a basic salary of �43,000, a basic salary, �1,800


bonus simply to turn up during the Olympics? Well, the fact is that


this is a decision, incidentally, of Transport for London. I know


that, but do you agree with it? important thing is that this is not


a no-strike agreement. This is compensation for the extra hours.


No, it is not compensation. It is a bonus for turning up. Their basic


is 43,000. If they work longer hours, they will get overtime at a


higher rate. Andrew, I sincerely think that describing it as a bonus


for turning up during the Olympics is misrepresenting this payment.


Why do they need anything? Because they will be working longer hours.


The pressure of demand will be much greater. And it is important that


the Underground Service runs smoothly. You are the minister, I


will ask you. No. My view is that overtime is fine, but we do not


need bonuses like this to try to avert action which should not take


place anyway. I understand that. If I was a trade union leader, seeing


this, I would say �1,800 just for turning up? Let me finish the


question, this lot, your government are a soft touch. The militants,


you give in. I think that most people realise that the coalition


could be accused of lot of things, but not being a soft touch. If you


look at... I disagree with that, hold on a minute, if you look at


the deficit reduction measures we have put in place. I mean in terms


of strikes. Every single one of those measures as an implication,


and often on people's jobs as well. People have been taking very


difficult decisions as well. I look after areas of local government,


and we have not seen strikes and a wide scale. That is my point, you


have not been tested. We have made cuts. No doubt he will be in the


weeks ahead, you will keep us in a job. I will be getting my back out


again. I am up for it. It is not cold


compared to where I come from. I want to let you into a TV secret.


This studio may look big on television, but that is thanks to


the use of a wide-angled lens. The same lens is used by estate agents


and housebuilders when they are showing off properties. Funny, that,


because it turns out that you build up an average 15% smaller than the


recommended size, and some are as much as one-third of the size they


should be. There are even rumours that they buy especially small


furniture for their show homes, a bit like in here. They learned all


their tricks from the telly, you know. Now we know where this lot


are moonlighting, for estate agents! Grant Shapps, it is a


serious point. Architects are saying that new homes are not big


enough for families. Is there anything you can do about it?


think there is. It is a real problem, I think, by the way. Homes


should be big enough to live in. It is important enough to have enough


space to bring up families. I agree we need bigger homes. One of the


first things I did was scrap something called the density


targets. That is something slightly different, which has not led to


housebuilders signing up to a building homes... No, that is not


true, homes are now being built figure in the last six months or so.


We are starting to see an improvement. -- build bigger. Those


density targets were put in place by John Prescott when he was in the


office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that actually forcing lots


of homes into a very small space is a bad idea. People need space to


live and grow, and we are supportive of the idea of making


them larger, against which you have the economics of time to produce


enough homes. There is a balance to be struck. Is there anything you


can do to stop housebuilders building what the architects are


saying is an average three-bedroom home in the UK which is 88 square


metres, shorter than the minimum size? Some of them are even smaller


at 74 square metres, missing 22. That is a whole room, isn't it?


That is right. What can you do to stop that? First of all, let's let


the local areas decide what is the right kind of size. We want those


targets set in neighbourhoods. If you are in the centre of London,


Kensington and Chelsea has the densest housing in Europe, then


they will set one kind of prescription. But actually, out in


a more rural area, they may say that we want larger properties. I


think you can be flexible about it. This is why we need planning reform,


which is a big row going on at the dead, and that is tied up with the


subject. Tessa Jowell, if you get rid of the density quotas and


ratios, you live in a densely populated part of London, your


constituency is there. People still want some space between homes. Is


there still the problem of not enough land to build on? There is


certainly a shortage of land. There is also a shortage of decent


housing. It is not just that there is a great pressure to build more


homes. It is probably one of the great crises of the time in which


we live. We've got 2.5 million homes in the 13 years that we were


in government. -- we build. short of the target. Of course it


is, but you have to invest through incentivise in developers, but also


making money available to local councils. You also have to bring


already owned council homes up to decent standard. We were very


successful in that. Four out of 10 were in poor standard, fell below


the decent standard measure in 2002, which was down to one in 10 by the


tyre we got to 2010. We still have this shortage. You are saying the


issue is a planning issue, but the architect Hussain it is not a


planning issue. They say there is enough room for these houses to be


built, you are not using brownfield site on sites which are already


available. I suspect at the end it is to do with economics, it is a


question of the cost of land and the cost of building. We are clear


that people should have space to live and grow, and that means doing


things like ending the practice of garden grabbing, which became a


very big thing, and we will change that policy to say that it should


not be the expected norm. It means that people do not end up with


space and gardens, room to expand. The homes that are built on those


locations are, of course, very small by definition. There are a


whole bunch of things you need to do. OK, thank you.


Unemployment has reached almost 8% of the labour force, just over 2.5


million people out of work, 80,000 of those, sorry, 800,000 young


people under 24. It is the largest increase in unemployment in over


two years, further evidence of the sclerotic state of the economy.


What to do? This morning the Deputy Prime Minister has been writing a


prescription for growth, and Jo has Nick Clegg has put his hard hat on


today, warning of even tougher times ahead. Telling his audience


the situation is even worse than six months ago. But he has a plan.


Not a new plan B, but a speeding up of the national infrastructure plan,


which the DPM says will lay the foundations for long-term growth.


He has said that this represents a gear change, rather than a change


of policy. With 40 projects given special priority, including new


train lines, high-speed broadband and improvements to motorways and


the National Grid. He's promising to pull levers, but the question


remains - can he fix it? Government is not helpless. The coalition


Government is not reluctant. That's despite the darkening global


picture and the need to stay on top of the deficit, we'll do whatever


it takes to return our economy to health. Whether driving co-


operation abroad, or pulling the right levers at home. Tessa Jowell


and Grant Shapps are still with us. We are joined by Mark Littlewood,


the director of Institute of Economic Affairs. Grant Shapps how


much new money is in this programme? I think I read the whole


of the speech and what he was saying, there are important


projects. He outlines 40 of them, where the plans are already kind of


there. Everyone knows we need, for example, upgrades in broadband to


high speed in this country and carry out some of the rail projects,


but actually they are clogged down in Whitehall and don't move ahead


at the speed they should. What he was talking about is the


responsibility on all of us, ministers like me, to breakthrough


that log-jam in Whitehall and get the projects moving and use the


force of Government to make sure we get the infrastructure in place.


There's no new money? Well, again, actually, alongside this, Danny


Alexander was saying to ministers where you have money left over in


your budgets don't go away, but spend is on the projects, so we'll


make sure this is the focus and any money goes into delivering these


quickly. That is old money being spent differently. So there is no


new money? Being absolutely straight. There is a huge deficit.


If we don't cut it, we're in big trouble. We are not looking to


assign new money but get the work done quicker. At a time when we


have a crisis in housing and growth, that is your fellow minister who


told the Commons that on 5th and the Deputy Prime Minister says the


situation is even worse than six months ago and unelployment is


rising at a faster rate than the eurozone or America and the growth


figures are likely to be dire, the coalition's response is to bring


forward some infrastructure plans? That's it? The response is not to


raise yet more debt, because we have seen in repeated countries, in


Spain, fort gal and Ireland and Greece, what happens if all you do


is add to debt and if you look at the stimulus packages that went


ahead in France and Germany and in the States, they are in the same or


worse pictures that we are in right now, even having added further to


debts, so we don't think that is the answer. We think it's to


prioritise the spending. President Obama in his first stimulus package,


announced a number of jobs like this, that were new stimulus


programmes, rather than bringing forward of what was already in the


pipeline, and in the end American unemployment rose. He's had to come


back with a new package of stimulus measures and we don't know what


impact that will have. Why would you think simply bringing these


things forward would make any difference? I think that kind of


demonstrates the point about simply adding to the debt. What happens is


you end up putting pressure on long-term interest rates. Are you


doing it? It's expenditure that we already said we planned to do over


the period, but isn't happening as fast as we would like. We think we


can put the pressure on and break threw the Whitehall log-jam and get


it done. By the way, this is working in as much as Britain


borrowed at the lowest-ever rate - or had investment in bonds at the


low-est rate this week, because people believe that we are a


sustainable economy. If it's so cheap to borrow and it is


historically cheap to borrow, why don't you borrow more and build


more roads, bridges and tunnels? Here is one simple fact - we have


arguments about tuition fees and investment in the police and those


pensions on the union stuff we were talking about, we have a �43


billion interest on the debt that we pay a year. We could do anything


of these things if we didn't have that debt. The priority for paying


down that debt trumps everything else. Mark, is this going to make


any difference to the economy? I wouldn't hold your breath that -


I'm not, believe me. If this is the Government's strategy for growth,


don't expect to see the growth forecasts graded upwards in virtue


of Nick Clegg bringing about greater efficiency of putting


cables in the ground and doing that this year rather than next. I'm


delighted if he's found a better way to make Whitehall more


efficient, but that doesn't constitute a strategy for growth.


Grant Shapps is right, the deficit being gotten under control is a


necessary condition. What else needs to be done? You remember when


Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister we were promised the great


repeal act, the biggest war on red tape and the greatest recalibration


between the individual and the State since 1832. Red tape and


regulation has increased under the coalition Government. Not even


including the EU. Whitehall directives have increased. Now, it


is a challenge to get growth into the British economy, with the US


hitting the buffers and the eurozone public a problem, but


there's also a choice. The coalition Government is not making


some of the tougher decisions it could in slashing back red tape and


putting the minimum wage up next month. You can make those decisions,


but you can't then claim that economic growth is the overriding


priority. Other things appear to be the priorities. All right. The


Government seems to think bringing forward infrastructure is part of


this solution. You think deregulation on a large scale is


the solution. What say you? I think both have pairt to play, unlike --


part to play, unlike the Government, we would create a fund for


infrastructure projects and very particularly training young people


through a further tax. A windfall tax on bankers' bonuses which is


estimated to bring around �3.5 billion. There is a combination


here and all over the papers today you saw the Westfield. You would


get 3.5 billion simply from taxing them? Yes. At what rate? I thought


it was much smaller than that. in one year you get 1.75 billion.


The Government have set a lower rate, which means that the tax -


the bankers' tax will yield less. We would do it differently and also


introduce a short-term cut in VAT, in order to boost demand. Although


the original VAT introduced by us was scoffed at, we saw retail sales


increase. I want to very quickly just say, take the Westfield


shopping centre in East London. Traditionally, higher than the


national average levels of unemployment. 900 million worth of


investment six years ago, with withstood because they decided they


could stick with it, which withstood the downturn, but coupled


with the investment of public money in regenerating the Olypmic park.


Also making that site now a site which in legacy will be a site for


business to invest. I wish they had called it Eastfield. It is


Westfield in the east. The point is that 18,000 jobs, but not just jobs


- Only 2,000 locally. But that will change. If this worked, why did


your Government cut infrastructure spending by 50%? We used PFI in


order to fund it. No, no, in the plans that you come ut -- out with


in 2009. You cut it going forward by 50%, so if it's such a good


thing, why do it? Government investment in infrastructure, but


the point I'm making to you and using this as an example is that


that is an example about how Government enables the regeneration


and making it worthwhile, the investment, by clearing this


contaminated brownfield site and invests very heavily in


apprenticeships so you begin to get a trained workforce available. The


retailers at Westfield have formed their own retail academy. I don't


want to dwell on that. It's only one part of the country in the


capital. It's not relevant to Manchester or Birmingham. I want to


come to you. It's a model that others can follow. What do you say


to Mark that you are actually increasing regulation? Far from a


bonfire, it's growing like topsy? If I want to bring something new in


I have to follow this one-in one- out rule. I have to scrap something.


The first thing I did was scrap the awful Home Information Packs.


is not a bonfire, but standing still. Things go on all the time.


Actually, to say this is all over is completely untrue. We are


passing through Parliament, because democracy is a slow process, the


very first piece of legislation from my department. It involves


quite a lot of legislation, which is scrapped in the process. It


hasn't even got through Parliament yet, but it's in the works and it's


happening. Actually, it's right. It's in your department and it's


been one of the better ones, but it isn't happening across Whitehall


and my concern is I don't believe that there is a single senior


Cabinet minister whose head is on the block for this. A massive


bonfire was promised. It is true that your rule has stemmed the flow.


The burden of regulation is growing less quickly than it was were the


previous Government, but that ain't enough. It actually has to be cut


back seriously and you need to go through with a red pen and


basically torch most of the stuff. I think that the sort of people in


Government seem to realise this needs to be done. There some sort


of good intention there, but there hasn't yet been the political will


to do that on a serious scale. have to leave it there. Thank you


Mark, you two have to stay! Lock the doors! We come to the moment,


when we give away the mug. It's much-beloved by viewers and


politicians alike, I can tell you. In fact, it's almost as sought-


after a a Parliamentary constituency with a decent majority.


Are there any left? After this week, not quite!, we can't give away a


safe seat in our competition. Sorry about that, Tessa, but a mug would


be a good consolation prize? certainly would. Even we are not


allowed to take them home. We'll remind you how to enter in a moment,


but let's see if you can remember when this happened. The Republican


nomination for 1980 also seems more than usually a prize worth going


for. # Video killed the radio star... #


# Oliver's army is here to stay... # I can't, I can't, stand losing


# I can't, I can't stand losing... # Are you pleased to see it back?


Very much, yes. # It's trag di$$NEWLINE# It's hard


to bear... # I don't think anyone would share the view that there is


mounting chaos. # I will survive


# Oh, as long as I know love I know I'll stay alive... # Well, to be in


with a chance of winning the mug send your answer to our special


That opening piece by a rather young Martin Bell was maybe


misleading, or maybe not. It's a trick. You have to decide. It's


coming up to midday. We'll look at Big Ben. There it is behind us.


Lovely morning this morning, actually. It can only mean one


thing - Prime Minister's questions on its way and James is here. You


are from Nick Clegg. You were there? I was. How did it go?


Warmish response. Lots of academics and economists in the hall. They


were left scratching their heads. His message was we need to make


sure that the Government spends its capital budgets on time, but not


actually rush them forward, so all the talk of acceleration is not


going to happen. He's saying we are not going to make the same mistakes


as previous governments over spending on the Jubilee Line here


in London and they want to make sure the things happen on time.


Some people thought it was motdest in ambition, that perhaps the


Government has -- modest in ambition, that perhaps the


Government has to do more. Governance over the years, there


was an implication that if he presses the right buttons the


Government machine will click into action. Many previous Government


ministers will explain that that ain't how it works? That was his


ambition. He said he's going to have a meeting and Danny Alexander


will knock heads together and make sure the projects get spent on time.


We wait to see if it happens. Minister's questions. What do you


think Mr Miliband will go on if suggested the economy last week. I


was utterly wrong. I would suggest perhaps the economy might be raised


by him. He has pegs. The Alistair Darling book is now history.


manage it might get an airing. If he cannot today stand up and say,


"This is what my party believes should happen on the economy ",


when can he? He has to go on an a day when unemployment is now rising


than fat -- faster than the United States or the eurozone, he has to


go on it? I'm absolutely sure that he will and the fact that one in


five young people are now out of work and that families are being


squeezed in a way that view can ever remember. Also, feel more


pessimistic about the future. go and find out. Over to the House


Grieving families are waiting months and years for inquests to be


concluded, longer than anywhere else in the country. They have


Minister instruct the Justice Secretary to sack the incompetence


Tayside Coroner? I will certainly look at the particular case that


the honourable gentleman razors. have been reforming coroners


services and putting money and resources into them to try to make


them more effective, but I will take up the individual case that he


makes. Mary MacLeod. Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister give us an


update on his recent visit to Russia, especially in relation to


the tragic murder of Alexander Litvinenko, whose widow lives in my


constituency? It caused a risk to public safety. Would he meet with


her to give her an update? My right honourable friend the Foreign


Secretary spoke to Alexander Litvinenko's widow before I


travelled to Moscow, and let me be clear that the British government


has not changed its the one jot about how wrong it was for that


murder to take place and how we need a proper explanation of what


happened and he was responsible, and we want justice for that family.


We have not changed our view, but I think it is right, at the same time,


to try to build a better relationship with Russia across a


whole range of issues. We have common interests in trying to grow


our economies and trade, common interest in working together on


issues like the Middle East peace process. I made sure when I went to


Russia that I did not just raised the Alexander Litvinenko case but


other human rights cases, including another case, with the Russian


President and with others. I think that is the right way to conduct


international relations. Mr Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, today's


figures show that unemployment is up by 80,000. Does the Prime


Minister still think the British economy is out of the danger zone?


Well, first of all, let me say that these unemployment figures are


disappointing figures, I do not want to hide from that. Every last


job as a tragedy for that family, and I want to do everything I can,


and his government will do everything it can to of those


people back into work. That is why we have 360,000 apprenticeships


starting this year, that is why we have 10,000 extra university places,


and that is why, in the Work Programme, we have the biggest


welfare-to-work programme this country has seen since the 1930s.


But at the same time, let me say to the right honourable gentleman that


it is right that we get on top of our debt and deficit, and today of


all days it shows the danger of getting into a position that other


European countries are in, where the whole credibility is being


questioned. Ed Miliband. Mr Speaker, people are going to dress the Prime


Minister on results. They do not want to hear his been about the


Work Programme. Youth unemployment is up by 78,000 on today's figures.


Even after his work programme has started. What young people and


their families are has been his, where are the jobs? The Work


Programme is the best way to help young people and indeed all people


back into work. Now, of course, as I have said, these figures are


disappointing, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that since the


election there are 500,000 more jobs in the private sector, and


employment overall. There are 300,000 more people in work than


there were one year ago. There is not one ounce of complacency in


this Government about the need to do more to help people back to work.


We have a growth plan that includes cuts in Corporation Tax, freezing


the council tax, cuts in petrol duty, introducing the Beatle Growth


Fund, making sure we have enterprise zones in every part of


our country, but we will be adding to that programme so we help people


get back to work. -- Regional Growth Fund. He and his government


are the byword for complacency in this country on the issue of


unemployment! Youth unemployment was falling at the general election,


and it has risen on his watch, it is his responsibility. Women's


unemployment, too, is at its highest level since 1988. And, Mr


Speaker, he is making the situation worse by cutting the childcare tax


credit. How does it make sense, when unemployment is rising for


women, to cut the support that helps them back into work? Let me


remind the honourable gentleman that youth unemployment went up by


40% under the last Parliament. 278,000 more young people


unemployed when he was sitting in the Treasury and breaking our


banking system and bankrupting our economy. That is what people


remember. Now, when it comes to childcare, what this government is


doing and we are the first government to do it is making sure


they are 15 hours of reach out care for every four-year-old and every


three-year-old, and we have extended that to every two-year-old.


We have focused the tax credit system on the poorest people in our


country so that child tax credits are going up by �290 this year and


next for those who need the most. But let me say to the honourable


gentleman that on a day when France and Germany are meeting to stop


Greece go bankrupt, he must be the only person in the world he thinks


you spend more to get out of a debt crisis. Ed Miliband! Mr Speaker, it


is no wonder he does not want to talk about the British economy and


what is happening here, because of what is actually happening. And not


for the first time he is wrong in what he says at the dispatch box.


Youth unemployment was falling at the general election, and now it is


rising. Now, why is it not working, Mr Speaker? The reason is because


his claim that the Chancellor's central claim that you could cut


the public sector and the private sector would make up the difference


is not happening. For every two jobs, for every two jobs being cut


in the public sector, less than one is being created in the private


sector. Isn't that the clearest sign yet that his policy just isn't


working? So now we have it, Mr Speaker. He wants to tell us about


the golden inheritance left by the last government! The fact they


completely bust our banking system, the fact they doubled the National


debt, the fact they gave us the biggest budget deficit in Europe


that we are still recovering from. And he cannot even be consistent


inside one day. This is what he said yesterday to the TUC. He said,


you cannot spend your way to a new economy. Just 24 hours later, he


has changed his tune all over again. No wonder the last Chancellor of


the Exchequer said they have no credibility whatsoever.


Miliband! The Mr Speaker, what an insult to the people up and down


this country who have lost their jobs! He does not even try to


answer the question about his central economic strategy to cut


the public sector and make the private sector make up the


difference. It is not happening! And the truth is, Mr Speaker, look


at what has happened over the last year. Britain has grown slower than


any other EU country apart from Portugal and Romania. Now, can the


Prime Minister tell the country, and tell the people who have lost


their jobs, what he is going to do differently over the next year


compared to what he did over the last year? Let me correct him on


his facts. This year, Britain is actually growing faster than


America. That is something he does not choose to tell us. But look,


let me and said... Let me answer directly... Order! The Prime


Minister's answers must be heard. The Prime Minister. Let me answer


directly this point about an employment in the public sector.


All governments right now are having to take difficult decisions


about cutting public spending. Anyone standing here would have to


make those decisions. This government is reducing the welfare


bill and is cutting and his reforming public sector pensions.


If we were not taking those steps, you would have to make deeper cuts


in terms of the rest of the public sector. He would be having even


more unemployment, that is the truth. When is he going to learn


what I thought he said yesterday, you cannot spend your way to a new


economy? Is that still is be a 24 hours later? Ed Miliband!


Speaker, so the message to all those people who have lost their


jobs is the Prime Minister is not going to change course. The


Chancellor of the Exchequer has lashed himself to the mass. -- Mass.


Not for the first time, perhaps! Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, youth


unemployment is at its highest level for 19 years. Women's and


employment is at its highest level for 23 years. -- and employment.


The highest level since the last time there was a Tory government.


It turns out he is just like all the others. For him, unemployment


is a price worth paying. It is this government that is cutting


corporation tax, that has frozen the council tax, that cut the


petrol duty, that started the regional growth fund, that ended


the jobs tax, that has the biggest apprenticeship programme in decades,


and that has increased capital spending compared with what Labour


left. The truth is, Mr Speaker, it was the last government that Rob


young people of their future by piling up the debt! It is this


government that will deal with our debts and give them back their


future. Kris Hopkins! Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister will be


aware that the consultation on the draft national planning policy


framework will come to an end next month. Can he confirm that the


Government's proposals will ensure that local residents will be at the


forefront of decision-making and important green spaces will retain


their existing protection, and that this will not become a developer's


charter? I can certainly give him that assurance. The fact is we do


need reform. The current system is too slow, too bureaucratic, and it


does not give local people are not of a save. What we're doing is


replacing a vast 1,000 page bureaucratic guide with something


which is much shorter. Local development plans will mean that


local communities and local people have a far greater say in what is


developed and where. We are not changing the rules are national


parks, one green belts, on areas of outstanding natural beauty. Net the


say this to everyone in a house, because there should be cross-party


support in the house. That let me say. Today, the first-time buyer


with no support from their family is aged 37. I think that is wrong.


We need to build more houses to help more young people get and the


housing ladder. Mr Robert Flello. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week


the Prime Minister told this House that there are 25,000 police


officers in back office jobs, but a Majesty's Inspectorate of


Constabulary said that there are less than a thousand police


officers and PCSOs in those jobs. Week after week, this house he is a


litany of evasion, inaccurate answers and arrogant put-downs from


the Prime Minister. We want a proper answer, so let's give the


Prime Minister a chance today. Is it the inspectorate or is it the


Prime Minister? We won't get an answer. I think the honourable


gentleman is confusing two things, and that is the number of police


officers who are not our frontline duties and the number of police


officers who are actually in back office roles, like IT or a jar.


Those are the figures that I gave, those are the figures that are


right, and what is so complacent about the party opposite is they


are not prepared to consider any reforms to try to get more police


on to the front line, on to our streets. Dr Sarah Wollaston. I know


the Prime Minister is serious about tackling violent crime, antisocial


behaviour and over one million hospital admissions in England per


year for alcohol related conditions. Will he meet with me to discuss the


evidence that we need to go further on minimum pricing, availability


and particularly the marketing of alcohol to young people? And I am


very happy to meet with the honourable lady, who has made it a


lot of speeches and written a lot of articles about this issue, about


which she feels passionate, and she is right in many ways that actually


there is a problem of binge drinking in our country, and a lot


of it is related to very low cost alcohol, particularly in


supermarkets. What I want to see is an end to that the discounting,


rather than perhaps the way for which he suggests, but I'm happy to


meet and discuss this vital issue. Angus MacNeil. A poll last week


show that 60% of Scots want oil revenues devolved to Scotland.


the Prime Minister agree with 68% of Scots, or does he not? Well...


If you as a stupid question, you get hasty Bonanza! The fact is that


the whole of the United Kingdom, rightly, has invested in the North


Sea. The whole of the United Kingdom should benefit from the


North Sea. I think we should do everything possible to keep the


United Kingdom together, because we are stronger, England, Scotland,


Northern Ireland and Wales, than we ever would be separately. Mrs Helen


Grant. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we need more


I completely agree. The current figures are simply not good enough.


Only 14% of FTSE 100 company directors are women. We should do


far better. We have some experience from the problems and the problems


we had in our own party and the need to take much more pro-active


action to make sure we have a better balance at the top of


politics and at the top of the boardrooms as well. Aren't the most


vulnerable people in the care of the Health Service those silent


voitions who live in residential homes -- voices, who live in


residential homes? Will he express his regret that the reduction of


number of inspections is 70%, because money was moved from


inspection to bureaucracy? Doesn't this again prove that the National


Health Service is not save in the hands of the Nasty Party? I think


the report that is released today makes a very important point about


the future and work of the Care Quality Commission and I think it's


important that it focuses on inspections and making sure that


standards are high. Rather than simply, on a process of


registration and bureaucracy. I look forward to see the


Government's response, but I think it's a very good report. Was my


Right Honourable friend taught at whatever school he happened to


attend, that one of the key functions of Parliament over the


sentries has been -- centuries has been to diminish what historians


call the over-mighty subject? In the 18th century -


LAUGHTER THE SPEAKER: I want to hear the


honourable gentleman's views about the 18th century.


In the 18th century it was the Indian naybobs and in the 19th


century it was the ruthless industrialists humanised by


shaftsbury. In the 20th century it was the trade union leaders tamed


by Lady Thatcher. Today, the allmighty subject is the bankers.


In the United States the federal authorities are prosecuting a wide


swathe of the top banks. When is that going to happen here? Well,


first of all, the Right Honourable gentleman obviously had a much


better aide indication than I did. That is apparent. Also, very good


to hear him say something very positive about Margaret Thatcher.


That is also good. I think the serious point that he's make ing is


right, that we need to see responsibility from our bankers. I


support what Vickers has said in terms of the reforms that we need


and to answer his question directly, if people break the law, no matter


where they come from or who they are, they should face the


consequences and be punished. does the Prime Minister think of


local authorities encouraging developers to put in planning


applications not on greenbelt, but greenfield sites in order to use


the new homes bonus to balance their budgets? I have the


completely original and shocking view that these matters should be


matters for local people and local authorities. I think in the past we


have had far too much central direction. I think people in


Derbyshire should make up their own mind, through their local council,


about what planning should take place and where. That's the agenda


this Government is going to follow. I'm sure my Right Honourable friend


would have noted the very sound advice recently that in order for a


Government to operate effectively there should be complete unity at


the top. With this in mind, could he assure the House and country he


does not feel the need to re-write a Budget 48 hours before it is due?


I can confirm that these discussions these days take place


in a proper way and between the two partners in the coalition and it's


not a battle between number 10 and 11. It's nothing like going to the


dentist and there is no need for anaesthetic when there is a meeting.


I'm all all parties in the House have welcomed the news that


Mikeical Brown has been found living under an assumed name in the


republic of Dominica. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what steps


this Government is taking to bring Mr Brown to face justice? We like


to extend the countries that we have these treatities with and I'll


look into the case and get back to the honourable gentleman. While we


are at it, perhaps we can search for the individual donor to the


Labour Party. I gearplg there was only one and e-- gather there was


only one and he was called Alastair Campbell. Will the Prime Minister


join me in congratulating Burnley football club, who, in partnership


with a local university, have delivered the first university of


football business in the UK, which has generated immense interest


among the young people in the country and across Europe. I with


will happily praise the work of the club. I've been very struck in this


job of the privilege you get of seeing different football clubs


working not just on their own football skills, but on inspiring


young people not only here, but around the world. There is a huge


role for football to change people's lives and I fully support


what our clubs do. Contrary to the answer last week, can the Prime


Minister confirm that the winter fuel allowance this year will be


�50 less for the over-60's and �100 for the over-80's. Age UK say it's


a cut. Does he agree? That payment will be as set out by Labour in


their March Budget, one that he supported, but at the same time the


increase in the cold weather payments is actually going to be


maintained throughout this Parliament. Small and medium-sized


enterprises are vital around the country. But sadly the cost of new


regulations put on businesses under the previous Government amount to a


starringering �90 billion a year. - - staggering �90 billion a year.


What is the Prime Minister doing to tackle that unacceptable burden on


British businesses There's an unacceptable burden in terms of


regulation and so what this Government does specifically on the


retail sectors, we have removed 257 regulations. We have the new one in,


so any minister wanting to introduce a regulation has to


abolish one first. All regulations are up on a website for everyone to


challenge to see what is still necessary and what we can get rid


of. The Prime Minister will be aware that right across the whole


of the United Kingdom, we have some excellent industries, businesses,


trained staffed within those companies, but because of the


decision to put off banking reform until after the next election,


surely that will have a detrimental effect on the companies and it will


cause a major difficulty? The point I would make is that we ask


professor Vickers to look at this issue and he recommended


legislating in this Parliament, but introducing the reforms at the same


time as the changes elsewhere in 2019. That is exactly what we are


going to do. But at the same time, it seems vital that we address the


issue of the failure of banks to lend enough money, particularly to


small businesses. That's why we put in the Merlin agreement in place


and that's why bank lending is not going down, as the Shadow


Chancellor is wrong about, as with everything. It's going up. With


with the closure of the Derbyshire building society headquarters in my


constituency, perfectly situationed to take the Green Investment Bank,


with the move from Derby to Nottingham and the Post Office


sorting centre and other offices and with the closure of another


company and the potential closure of bombardier, would the Prime


Minister encourage his Secretary of State to look at sending more Civil


Service jobs to Derbyshire so that we can have more employment in the


area? She makes an important point. I know that there are real concerns


because of what has happened at Bombardier and let me say this, on


the issue of the Green Investment Bank, I know there are going to be


many bids to house this excellent institution. On the issue of


Bombardier, let me say this - I think it's encouraging to hear that


the Department of Transport is looking into the possibility of


upgrading an existing fleet of their diesel trains to enable them


to run using electric power. This could be a good breakthrough. The


fact is, about the previous contract and we have discussed this


in the House before, it was established by the last Government.


We had to follow those instructions. That's why that contract had to be


awarded elsewhere, but we looking to the future of the company and


Derby and we want to make sure this is a bright future. Last week, the


Prime Minister told the honourable member for South Derbyshire he


would do everything he could to help Bomb yardier, but the British


train building industry is hanging in the balance now, as a result of


the plan to build trains in Germany, rather than in Derby. Can I ask the


Prime Minister if he will meet me and a cross-party delegation from


Derby to discuss how to review the contract and it is possible to


review it, in order to secure the future of the industry and keep


Bombardier in Britain? We want to keep it in Great Britain and the


company working and that's why I've just said there is this new


opportunity. This should be set in the context of the fact that we are


putting a lot of investment into our rail industry. �14 billion into


network grants for Network Rail. 3.8 billion for Crossrail. 750


million for high-speed II. This is a Government that wants to do more


for our railway industry and wants to do more more Bomb yard --


bombardier were so badly left down. Campaigners on the right want to


get rid of the 50 pence tax rate and those on the left want to


juggle with VAT. Will the Prime Minister agree that the most fair


way to maintain confidence in the economy is to stick to the


Government's policies, but accelerate the process of raising


the tax threshold to �10,000? have made and I'm grateful to my


friend for thinks question, but we have raised the perm allowance


significantly in our budgets and taken over one million people out


of tax altogether and committed to going further. On that tax, we


should look at the evidence of this. We are going to find out soon just


how much money this tax is raising. Let's look at it and see whether


it's a good way of raising money or not. Prime Minister, when the


Croydon riots hit our borough on that terrible Monday night, there


were, at most, 100 police officers on the streets, including some very


young Community Support Officers, facing mobs, hundreds and hundreds


strong. The result being that my borough was undefended, it was


burnt, it was looted. Can I put it to the Prime Minister, not as a


partisan point, but as a sensible point, that when the facts - when


the criminal facts change in England, following the riots, a


sensible Government would pause for thought and change its mind and the


last thing it would do is reduce police numbers? Firstly, I came to


visit Croydon and met with him and met with a number of people, who


had seen some shocking things happen in that borough, that must


not be allowed to happen again. Let me say to him, even after the


changes we are making in police funding, the police will be able to


surge in a way that they did in Croydon and did in Tottenham and in


Manchester and in Salford. The problem on the night of the riots


was that surge didn't take place soon enough. I think he's confusing


the response to the riots in the immediate circumstances and what is


happening to police funding. The police have assured me they will be


able to deliver as many police on to the streets of London as they


did when they got control of the riots. Following the question from


the honourable member from Keighley, would the Prime Minister agree to


meet other organisations to reassure their members that the


proposed changes to the planning system don't represent a blank


cheque? I'm very happy to meet anyone to discuss this. I know the


National Trust have specifically met already with the planning


minister and have had a lot of reassurances about what the


planning changes mean. Let me a it again - because we'll have stronger,


local plans, that gives local people a greater ability to decide


what is in the local plan and what is out of the local plan. At the


same time, having a presumption in favour of sustainable development


will cut a lot of bureaucracy in the system. We are not changing the


rules for greenbelt or ANOBs or special sites of scientific


interest and all the rest. I do think people need to focus on that,


because what we need to happen is sensible, sustainable development


to go ahead, without the bureaucracy and topdown system, but


with all the reassurances that people need. Last week the Prime


Minister told this House that the number of young people not in


education, employment or training was coming down. In actual fact the


published figures show that over the last three quarters it has


risen by 27,000. Would the Prime Minister like to take this


opportunity to correct the record? I think he'll find what I actually


said was that the number of 16-18- year-olds who are not in employment,


education or training has come down. Indeed, they have come down and


that is a step forward, but if you look at the overall number of youth


unemployment it has gone up and that is unacceptable and that's why


we need the work programme, we need the more apprenticeships and more


university places and it's that, that this Government is putting its


money into. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating all the


winners in last night's women in public life awards, including the


excellent Mary Mears in Brighton and Hove. I will certainly join my


honourable friend in doing that and congratulating the winners. As I


said to my honourable friend, the member nor Maidstone, I think we


need to do more to promote women in public life, whether in politics or


local Government. This party took some steps, I think frankly we


still have more to do, because there are many organisations in our


country where we don't have equality of opportunity, where we


need to have that, and it's not enough just to open the door and


say it's able to let everyone in. There are occasions when you need


to take positive action in order to get this done. Now that the Prime


Minister has committed himself fully to backing the boundary


changes, which will reduce the number of MPs in this House, and


ensure that Prime Minister's questions reflects the subject that


has been most debated in the corridors of Westminster over the


past number of days, will the Prime Minister now commit to delivering


on the other pledge that he and his colleagues made, before the


election, which was to deal with the scandal of people who are


elected to this House who do not take their seats and continue to be


paid millions of pounds in allowances, included the equivalent


of short money, which they can use for party political purposes,


whilst we have to use it for Parliamentary purposes. Please give


us a vote to deal with that. Firstly, on the boundary review,


what we are looking at here is trying to make sure a basic


fairness, which is that every seat in the House of Commons should be


the same size. Today, what we have, is you have got some seats that


have as many as 90,000 voters and some seats, including some in Wales,


that have as few as 40,000. How can that be fair? On the issue in terms


of Northern Ireland and the issue he raises, I haven't changed my


view and I think it's an issue that needs addressing. In Kenya last


week the father of my constituent was killed and his mother was


kidnapped and remains missing. What steps are the British Government


taking to assist in the return of Mrs Tebbett and the apprehension of


the murderers? We are doing everything we possibly can on this


desperately tragic case. I chaired a meeting of cobra about this


yesterday to make sure we are co- ordinating everything the


Government does. The Foreign Secretary has met with the family


today. I think on some of the cases it's not right to air all of the


issues in public, but I can reassure him, the family and all


that know the family, we'll do A prime minister was talking about


a growth strategy, because growth is something he has that precious


little of. We saw the parameters of what will dominate this autumn and


into the conference season, the economy taking stage. We will hear


from our guests in the moment. Concern about unemployment figures


is reflected in about 90% of the e- mails. Diane Road, we do not want


excuses, we want action to tackle unemployment, not more pain of


tuition fees and austerity. Ian sex head, a winner for Ed Miliband,


clear questions, a very funny crack at the Chancellor. I cannot imagine


what he was referring to. David Cameron could not answer the


question without referring to the last government. From Mark Allen, a


definite win for Miliband, Cameron repeating questions and looking


rattled. This is far more to win in Manchester, as ever, Mr Cameron


chooses not to answer the questions about the economy and unemployment.


People need a boost. But we had this also from John in Welwyn


Garden City, Ed Miliband used his questions correctly for PMQs and


was on a par with David Cameron, but Labour still have a problem


arguing the economy because they have not pushed their alternative.


This is from Trevor in Lancashire, discussing and employment, she and


Mr Cameron have reminded Mr Miliband that if his party had not


allowed net migration to rise to 200,000 per year, unemployment


would not be as high as it is now? From Martin in Wolverhampton, David


Miliband, Freudian slip, Ed Miliband has no credibility. The


problem we have is a lack of productivity and wealth creation.


The Chancellor lashed to the mast. An interesting turn of phrase.


something to stare that! -- sniff at! Have we seen the parameters of


the British political debate this autumn, the coalition on the back


foot over the economy, because of the lack of growth and the huge


squeeze on living standards? Labour on the offensive, now, because they


see a big opportunity. As we also know from the poll in the Times


this morning, the public is not yet convinced that Labour or Mr


Miliband in particular knows what to do about the economy either. Is


that what will dominate the conference season? Yes, we are in a


holding position at the moment where you have the political mood


and the public mood beginning to say, we buy the idea that the


deficit needs to be reduced, but we are looking to see what more the


government and everybody else can do to promote growth, find jobs.


That is a question that Ed Miliband was asking of the government. It is


a question that is being asked across government, which in


government, by the city, everybody is saying, what more can you do? We


had a speech from Nick Clegg having half a crack at it. The government


is promising more. Nick Clegg was talking about what he had set up,


and we are going to hear more from David Cameron at the party


conference, or from George Osborne at the Autumn Statement. 29th


November. Can the government get through this period and come up


with something? We heard David Cannon at Prime Minister's


Questions repeating his list, cutting corporation tax, etcetera


etcetera. -- David Cameron. But the government is clearly aware that


that list is a holding pattern and they have to do more. If there is a


plan for growth, or at least if plans are taking centre-stage, she


endured apartments come in Malta that? -- shouldn't your department


come in more to that? I was looking at the figures, there are 330


houses with planning permission, but they are not being built.


think the figure is smaller, but any house which has planning


permission at not being built needs to be got going, and we are looking


at ways to manoeuvre or put pressure on housebuilders to start


building. Shouldn't it be time- limited, if you get planning


permission? That is my... That is one possibility, but let me also


said that half of the house builders are very small businesses.


If you force them to build when they cannot, you send more


businesses bust and make more people unemployed. Government is


complex, they are inter-related facts, but the unemployment figures


today were not what you would want to say. For everybody who has been


experiencing that, you know, along with the MPs who have been


experiencing the thought of it, it is a difficult process. The


difference is, which was not mentioned there, is that


unemployment is below where it was 18 months ago at the election. Are


they million private-sector jobs have been created. There is, I


think, just a glimpse of the idea that if you can create sufficient


dynamism in the economy, then there is a way through this, and adding


to the debt, spending more public money is the opposite to that. That


is the way to get into more mess and higher repayments. There are


750,000 long-term empty properties in Britain. I can tell you exactly,


we have put �100 million into a fund to make announcements any day


now about how we expect that to be spent by local communities to help


bring those homes back into use. Some homes are empty because people


are moving around and that sort of thing, so the true figure is lower,


but I absolutely back that 100%. Either way, putting 2.5 billion


into the decent homes programmed which Tessa was mentioning earlier.


We are keen to see that fish, and that makes homes more habitable as


well. -- See that finished. Why do you think so many Labour voters do


not think Ed Miliband is prime ministerial material? I think that


is changing, and I think that... I think that what Ed is doing, and


over the last six months, he is developing an account of Britain


from which policy flows, from which position as for the Labour Party,


focusing on the pressure for families that do not consider


themselves to be rich, do not consider themselves to be poor, the


pessimism about the prospects that people feel, about their own


children. But also recognising, in very tough terms, the need to


address the deficit. When will that be reflected in public opinion? The


poll in the Times this morning is disastrous reading for him, among


his own supporters. Andrew, it is not disastrous. 40% of Labour


voters do not think he is prime ministerial material. Labour


voters! I hope that I will come back many times over the next three


years and you will say that position changed. Absolutely


clearly. Now, there is a second point I wanted to make, having


answered that question, which is that you know a Prime Minister is


on the ropes when they start reeling off lists, but what David


Cameron has got to think about... He was truly terrible today, and he


is actually a pretty slick and self-confident PMQs performer, but


the other story today is how the Conservatives have been deserted by


women voters. And there is a very important point here. I mean, I am


doing a speech at the launch of some research we have done on the


modern British family later today with Britain Thinks. You know,


having set in a number of these focus groups, are what these


mothers are playing back is what Ed Miliband is talking about. Now, the


Tories, we know, are very worried about the decision of women, and


David Cameron's performance to date did absolutely nothing, scoffing at


the cost of childcare, which is the means by which women are able to


work and make their family afford everything they need. What was


that? Don't go on? I didn't say anything, but she is not to turn it


into a monologue! James, the one thing that was not mentioned at all


at PMQs, and it is the dark cloud hanging over us all at the moment,


is the eurozone crisis, which could be heading towards the end game now.


That is the other issue which could hang over the way the crash of


Lehman Brothers did over the party conference season. That is the


other thing. I saw Bloomberg reporting yesterday that there is


now a 98% expectation that the Greeks will default. And you have


got Chancellor Merkel pleading with them, saying, don't even raised the


issue, don't speculate about it, to try to calm the markets. This is


the cloud hanging over the government at the moment, because


if that goes as badly as the worst case scenarios are, that would


force the government to change all its parameters. At the moment,


there is a debate about finding growth and what the government can


do, but if the eurozone goes down and you have another 2008 Mark Two,


then all the parameters change, and the government at the moment are


trying to plan ahead, see if they can foresee how they could get out


of that. The EC and the worry is genuinely there, but at the moment


they say, what can we do? -- but the fear and the worry. Apart from


George Osborne try to encourage fiscal unity. As long as he is not


part of it. Thank you for that, James. Watch this space over the


weekend. Over the past few weeks, thousands


of us were last seen him and we pay for our gas and electricity entries.


Most of the big energy companies have put prices up, but did you


know that you are also paying for many of the Government's green


initiatives through your energy bills? We sent Matthew Sinclair of


the TaxPayers' Alliance and the author of a new book on green taxes


are a former power station to give us his take on a rising energy


When you open your electricity and gas bill, are you aware of just how


much of that cast is the result of attempts to cut greenhouse gas


emissions? Are you prepared, can you afford the drastic rises in


prices that are coming as a result of draconian climate change


regulation? To meet our environmental targets, we need to


invest more in the energy sector than Germany, France and Spain put


together. Aim for all that investment means higher profits for


the energy companies. -- paying. Paying for higher profits means


higher bills. �200 billion just does not come cheap. Independent


analysts think the huge investment needed in the energy sector is


going to drive a more than 50% rise in real terms in deal of your


household bills. Even if we use energy more efficiently, we are


still looking at more than a third increase in our bills, and we have


to pay for the extra insulation it takes to be more a vision. Despite


the huge cost, this enormous that of does very little to affect


global warming. Our paltry share of global emissions, less than 2% of


the total, is almost meaningless, particularly if we are just


exporting those emissions, moving their missions and jobs from


Runcorn to Ryan Donk does not aim for the climate. Politicians make


all these measures less cost- effective by picking losers. The


most expected sources of income like solar panels debt by far the


most subsidy. It would be more sensible to focus on research for


now and then deploy these new sources of energy when they are


affordable. Big businesses make billions in windfall profits.


Governments levy hefty green taxes. It is consumers who pay the price.


The people who will be hit the hardest of the poor and the elderly.


They are the most vulnerable families in Britain, and it is


simply wrong for politicians do and then the bill for this expensive,


corrupted and failing agenda. Particularly at a time when there


are so many other pressures on their finances. They cannot afford


Matthew now joins us. The point you made is that we need to focus on


research before we actually adopt the forms, but with predictions


that the light may go off soon, isn't it crucial we look now and


that we use them rather than wasting more time on research?


should be separating out two challenges. One of keeping the


light on and then cutting emissions. Keeping the light on doesn't have


to necessity any of the big costs which talking about here. The


amount that needs to be invested in repolice station pts and renewal in


the reports I was talking about there, is much less than the amount


needed to meet targets. Offshore wind that is costing all the money


there. I was trying to set out a plan that looks as more at how we


can develop new options and make clean energy cheaper, rather than


making dirty energy more expensive. Even if we are willing to pay more,


other countries aren't. Saying we need everyone to take up the more


expensive sources is vanity that doesn't get us anywhere, because we


are less than 2% of the global total. In terms of the viewers and


the e-mails about the costs, would it be better from the punters'


point of view if it was made clear what percentages are going towards


green taxes? Would you be in favour of more transparency on people's


bills? I think that would be great, because people don't know. How many


people could even tell you the European Union emissions. All the


policies have never really been debated. There has never been the


contentious debate as in Australia and the United States and Canada


and as a result that means people are not aware. They rate it as the


most important economic issue, more important than the eurozone, than


any other. Even so if we researched in some of the other forms and you


put more transparency on the bill so people could see how much was


going towards that, you have to accept that over the years not


enough has been invested into our energy supply so we are all having


to pay for it now and we have to get on with it? It's a fiction to


say that Britain's energy sector isn't fit for purpose. It's only -


Enough has been invested? It's only not fit for purpose if you have the


idea that we need to generate more energy by 2020 in renewables. What


Britain did was invested a huge amount in gas and there is a


relatively affordable - we can all find the problems, but we had a


relatively affordable way forward in the dash for gas that happened


and a relatively low emissions way forward. We stand out as being low


renewables and it's the word that is driving up the huge costs.


you a climate change sceptic? think it's real and I think that


man makes a contribution to it. I'm no scientist but I'm willing to


debate on that basis. The problem is the cost and failure of the


policies. On the cost issue, Grant Shapps, Matthew has outlined it's


the number one issue, does that surprise you? That is what people


are most worried about? It doesn't surprise me at all. I have to take


issue with one or two of the ideas raised. Solar power, for example,


even without the Government's subsidy, the feed tariff, is a win


for hundreds of my constituents who have got solar panels on their roof.


There has been a scheme that every single council house has got the


offer and people have taken it up and it's giving them money off


every year. What about the tariff, which is an incredible amount


compared to the price of the energy and the other subsidies.? We know


that it only saves at the high level to get the industry kick-


started and it will come down in future years. Up until next April


is the best time if you are thinking of putting cells on the


roof. The point is this - houses account for 27% of all the Co2 and


buildings is 50%. So unless you grapple with the problems of


climate change, but by the way, will be here longer than the


economic problems now. Do you accept that basically people's


bills are going to go up something like �300 a year, the average bill,


as a result of the Government's green energy policies? No, I don't


think that is right. According to one of the senior policy advisers


to David Cameron, he says that is what is going to happen in a leaked


memo. I can always take a line out of those. He goes on to say, "The


policies are set to add �300 a year to the average household fuel


bill." Put them together. We have heard there is a generous feed-in


tariff available for solar and quite generous for others like


heating on the roof also. If you put the two things together, I've


just said it's possible my constituents are experiencing �200


year improximity by going for solar. You can offset the rises. That's


all right for some. It's not all right for the most vulnerable


families who will be hit. talking about my council tenants,


who have had the scheme done through third parties. They are


fitting the panels and letting the householders get the money for it.


Everybody else is paying for that and they don't necessarily want to.


That is the point. They want to see how much is added on to my bill to


pay for your council tenants' benefits of having that energy and


they don't want to pay up to �300 a year. No-one wants to pay more


money. You agree that others around the country are paying for that?


have to get to a position in the country where we decarbonise the


energy supply and you can only do that by taxing the really dirty


things and giving advantage to the things that are really clean like


solar. It's perfectly sensible and people can mitigate some of the


rises by very inexperiencive things like a �15 metre on your window


sill to be clear whether you have left things switched on and I think


those could be practical and help people. Briefly, Tessa, isn't the


problem and the challenge over the next 20 years we'll have a decline


in our own gas supply and what will we do? That has to be addressed. I


think that Matthew - We can't do both, can we? No, but what we have


to address now and people watching at home are thinking not about what


is going to happen in 20 years, but how they'll pay the bill that will


come through the door at the end of this month. There are six million


people in this country who are in fuel poverty. Regrettably the


Government are winding up under the legislation Consumer Focus which


represents consumer interests in relation to the fuel companies.


whole debate here is largely meaningless. Neither Consumer Focus


nor the green deal are going to make a big difference to the


majority of consumers who will see mass jif upgrades in their bills


and -- massive upgrades in their bills and that can't be offset.


There will be a third increase. I'll have to stop you there. How


many of you are old enough to remember this?


# English beef and Irish stu # For every meal, we know of course,


everything goes with HP Sauce ...." "$$TRANSMIT This traditional


British sauce was named HP, after the inventor who was a


Nottinghamshire grocer heard it was being served in the Houses of


Parliament. It was said to be a favourite of Harold Wilson's when


he wanted to be thought of as a man of the people and questions were


asked in Parliament when production was re-located from Birmingham to


the Netherlands. The Netherlands?! That was a few years ago. Now, it's


US owners have -- its US owners have caused fresh controversy by


tinkering with the restcy. It is still made from tomatos and


tamarind and molasses, but the amount of salt has been cut, in


line with Government targets. It's good to see the deregulation agenda


is going strong! We are joined by Geoffrey Robinson. He's a fan of


the sauce. Many of us are. One of the Midlands MPs who campaigned to


keep production in the UK joins us, when it was going to Holland, and


it is now owned by the Yanks, but we need to test it ourselves, so


John come on in. This is from the executive dining room. We'll remind


ourselves of the taste of the original sauce. Right, now. Let me


just check this out here. Come on, Jo, get stuck in. I've been looking


forward to this. This is the new stuff. I need to get the original


first. Can I have one? Of course you can. I need one there. The old


stuff, definitely better! It's spicier, I think. While we are


tasting all this and you all have to try this. This is an important


consumer test. We did give a chance for the owners to speak. The owners


are now Heinz of the 57 varieties, to defend themselves and they said


this: this very minor change to our famous recipe was made in November


last year and rigorous consumer tests confirmed there was no


significant difference in flavour between the old and the new recipes.


Can you taste the difference? you for that, Heinz. There went the


way of coke, I would like to remind you. What is the story here? It's a


very sad one. I think the reduction of salt is just silly. We are all


in favour of that, but to take it out of a recipe which is long-


established and written there. remember the bottle used to have


the labels in French. It was great. They are now in Birmingham mews


seem and the whole country is becoming an archaeological


industrial site instead of industry, but there is a serious issue, apart


from the salt, ownership of British assets and the subsequent move


abroad. This is the nanny state gone mad, Tessa. I can see the


Daily Mail headline now! You have ten seconds to defend yourself.


not continue to sell both and mark one quote low salt.". There is a


difference. I don't know whether I can tell it is less salt. It's


silly. It's consumed in small quantities. I'm hungry enough this


lunch time to eat either. It may enhance the flavour of soups and


stews and hash browns. They called it Wilson's gravy for a while.


have to move on, but we have put it back on the map and it's time to


put you out of your misery. Ronald Reagan going for the Republican


nomination was the clue. The answer was of course, 1979. Even though


Martin mentioned that 1980 date. You have to pick a winner. The


winner is Richard Scott from Dunstable. Richard, the mug is


yours. That's it for today. We thank all of your guests. We praise


HP. Special thanks to Grant and Tessa for being our guests. We are


Download Subtitles