14/09/2011 Daily Politics

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