:00:41. > :00:45.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:45. > :00:50.Let battle commence - again Over welfare reform. The Government's
:00:50. > :00:54.facing another tough day in the House of Lords. This time over its
:00:54. > :00:57.plan to cap welfare benefits. The minister in charge insists no one
:00:57. > :01:04.will be plunged into poverty over his proposals. But many peers
:01:04. > :01:09.disagree. Do councils have a moral duty to freeze council tax? The
:01:09. > :01:12.Government thinks so. But surprise, surprise, not all councils agree.
:01:12. > :01:18.Power to the people. We'll be looking at one scheme designed to
:01:18. > :01:23.put the energy companies in their place. And we'll be asking why MPs
:01:23. > :01:26.seem to be so grumpy about their grub.
:01:26. > :01:31.All that in the next 60 minutes of public sector broadcasting at its
:01:31. > :01:39.finest. Yes, I hope you're sitting comfortably with a cup of tea and a
:01:39. > :01:42.sarnie, because from now on we're on air for a whole hour! And with
:01:42. > :01:46.us for the first half of the programme today we have the money
:01:46. > :01:48.saving expert, Martin Lewis. Welcome. Now first today let's talk
:01:48. > :01:51.about bankers' bonuses and Stephen Hester's in particular. Because
:01:51. > :01:55.yesterday the Labour leader, Ed Milliband, said the boss of RBS
:01:55. > :02:05.should not receive a bonus this year. It's been reported that a
:02:05. > :02:11.bonus of �1.5 million is on the cards. Shouldn't he get his bonus
:02:11. > :02:16.this year? It is in his contract. And the problem with bonuses, we
:02:16. > :02:22.need to be talking about long term, entrepreneurial equivalent seat. It
:02:22. > :02:27.is not the billions of pounds that is giving it out, it is what we are
:02:27. > :02:32.rewarding. At what I would like to see from Stephen Hester, once he
:02:32. > :02:36.has the Bank shipshape and back to the stock market, he can have a big
:02:36. > :02:43.bonus as a reward for performance. But while it is still publicly
:02:43. > :02:53.owned, it is distasteful. But when you are looking at many issues all
:02:53. > :03:03.
:03:03. > :03:08.the time, we have pay-day lenders PPI, �9 billion being paid out and
:03:08. > :03:14.Ed Miliband chooses to talk about this �1 million. There are lot of
:03:14. > :03:20.bigger things to be focusing on than this man's salary. You don't
:03:20. > :03:26.think it is symbolic and for the public, because it does not have as
:03:26. > :03:30.many zeros as you talk about? symbolic. If he is doing a good job,
:03:30. > :03:34.and they don't look at the corporate positioning of RBS, but
:03:35. > :03:38.if he is doing a good job, to punish him because he is running a
:03:38. > :03:42.public bank is wrong. But the bigger picture isn't about his
:03:42. > :03:48.bonus but the entire structure of bonuses in the city and what we are
:03:48. > :03:51.rewarding them for. It is probably distasteful he is getting his bonus,
:03:51. > :03:57.but there is a lot more worse things going on in the financial
:03:57. > :04:02.sector that I would like to see Ed Miliband and David Cameron talking
:04:02. > :04:05.about. We will hear more from the Government on that and executive
:04:05. > :04:09.pay. Now it's time for our daily quiz.
:04:09. > :04:12.The question for today is which of these is NOT a complaint made by
:04:12. > :04:18.MPs and their aides about the quality of the food in Parliament.
:04:18. > :04:22.Is it: a) That the chips haven't been arranged in a tower formation?
:04:22. > :04:26.B) That the caviar is too rich? C) That the scrambled eggs are too
:04:26. > :04:31.watery? D) That the salami is too thick?
:04:31. > :04:34.We'll give you the answer at the end of the show. It's been a bit of
:04:34. > :04:36.a roller-coaster of a ride for the Welfare Reform Bill which is
:04:36. > :04:39.currently under scrutiny in the Lords. Later today peers will
:04:39. > :04:43.debate controversial proposals to introduce a �26,000 cap on
:04:43. > :04:46.household benefits. Opponents of the plan, an alliance of Church of
:04:46. > :04:54.England bishops and Liberal Democrat peers, are hoping to win
:04:54. > :05:01.some concessions from ministers. This is what the Work and Pensions
:05:01. > :05:05.Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, had to say earlier this morning.
:05:05. > :05:10.These families are dependent on benefits. What we are saying if you
:05:10. > :05:14.are dependent on the state, the state has a right to say on behalf
:05:14. > :05:19.of taxpayers, there is a limit to the amount of money you are able to
:05:19. > :05:23.receive. Most people out there working that �35,000 a year before
:05:23. > :05:27.tax is a reasonable amount to live on because many of them have to do
:05:28. > :05:32.the same. They live in houses they can afford and sometimes travel
:05:32. > :05:38.long distances to work. I do make this offer to the Lords clearly, we
:05:38. > :05:41.are not about punishing people. We have said we would have
:05:41. > :05:44.discretionary measures to make sure this does not punish but we will
:05:45. > :05:49.these people into this. We have a year before the cap will hit. They
:05:49. > :05:54.need to trust us on this, as Paddy Ashdown has said, he has supported
:05:54. > :05:58.us so far and I hope he will support us again. We are determined
:05:58. > :06:04.not to punish people, but get this benefit system back on kilter to
:06:04. > :06:10.help people get back into work. am joined by the employment
:06:10. > :06:14.minister, Chris Grayling and the Labour Baroness. He will accept
:06:14. > :06:17.people will have to move because of the cap, that is the whole idea,
:06:17. > :06:22.moving to more for double accommodation. How can you be sure
:06:22. > :06:27.it won't cause homelessness? We are talking about the level of income
:06:27. > :06:32.which is equivalent to a salary of �35,000. Homelessness is a very
:06:32. > :06:38.evocative word. But the reality is, we are talking about people in
:06:38. > :06:41.poverty who are homeless on the streets and not people getting the
:06:41. > :06:45.equivalent of a �35,000 a year salary. We are asking people on
:06:45. > :06:51.relatively low incomes, doing the right thing, working hard and
:06:51. > :06:58.paying taxes to support a welfare- state. We don't think we should
:06:58. > :07:02.expect those people to support those people supporting people on a
:07:02. > :07:08.salary of �35,000 when most of them aren't getting that. The Government
:07:08. > :07:12.has made that very clear as to what is acceptable to tax payers. But is
:07:12. > :07:16.it acceptable to taxpayers to have people literally put out on to the
:07:16. > :07:20.streets, and that is what the Children's Society and some of the
:07:20. > :07:27.bishops are saying, is that acceptable? You say out on the
:07:27. > :07:31.streets, people in work and earning and on salaries a less than �35,000,
:07:31. > :07:34.they are making decisions on where they can afford to live. I don't
:07:34. > :07:40.see why people on benefit should be in a different position to those
:07:40. > :07:43.working. There could be a level of homelessness were some, less well-
:07:43. > :07:48.off families, either in work or not in work, but claiming benefits
:07:48. > :07:55.could be without a home? I don't accept that principle of
:07:55. > :08:00.homelessness. People haven't got a place to live, they cannot afford
:08:00. > :08:04.the place they are living in in central London and cannot get into
:08:04. > :08:09.a home in an outlying Borough, they will be classified as homeless?
:08:09. > :08:13.we had people bringing in from the state be governed of a �35,000 a
:08:13. > :08:18.year salary. That is the same as many people working on much lower
:08:18. > :08:23.incomes than that, who find housing options and saw themselves are. Why
:08:23. > :08:28.should somebody on benefits be any different to that? Why should they,
:08:28. > :08:32.Patricia Hollis? I'm not against a benefit cap if it is fair. But this
:08:32. > :08:36.is not fair because it does not compare like with like, as the
:08:36. > :08:41.Lords Government minister acknowledged. Although it may be an
:08:41. > :08:46.average wage of �500 a week, as Mr grayling said, it excludes from
:08:46. > :08:51.that other forms of income like child benefit. So a family man with
:08:51. > :08:55.three or four children may have another 50 to �60 a week on top of
:08:55. > :08:58.that 500. And the Bishop's amendment would compare like with
:08:58. > :09:02.like and take the child benefit out of the benefit cap which would
:09:02. > :09:06.protect something I 100,000 children from the risk of being
:09:06. > :09:12.made homeless. Do you accept that, the measurement does not include
:09:12. > :09:16.other areas of income and average family might get? The Bill does not
:09:16. > :09:21.set the level of the cap, it requires the Bill to make reference
:09:21. > :09:26.to average earnings. We have formed a view that the captured be set as
:09:26. > :09:34.a level of �26,000 a year, which is equivalent to the average earnings
:09:34. > :09:39.in this country. Do you not accept in the words of David Freud, your
:09:39. > :09:43.Tory minister in the Lords, when he said on 23rd November, I
:09:43. > :09:46.acknowledge we are not comparing like with like. If you were, you
:09:47. > :09:55.would accept the Bishop's amendment and you would have much more
:09:56. > :10:00.support for the cap? As a non politician, this is obvious. Some
:10:00. > :10:05.way you have to work out should it be set at average earnings or
:10:05. > :10:10.average income? Average income takes into account the family size.
:10:10. > :10:13.The point about the benefit cap is it hurts those families would a
:10:13. > :10:18.large number of children. If you are going to compare, you have to
:10:18. > :10:23.compare like with like, take into account the family income with
:10:23. > :10:27.somebody in work, with the family income of somebody on benefits.
:10:27. > :10:32.is according to the Children's Society, the Bill will penalise
:10:32. > :10:37.people with larger families, that is true isn't it? We are setting A-
:10:37. > :10:41.level for the cat that is the equivalent of �26,000. You think
:10:41. > :10:45.that is fair but we have now established you are talking about
:10:45. > :10:49.one particular set of figures and you are talking about a different
:10:49. > :10:55.set. On that basis, people with larger families will be penalised
:10:55. > :11:01.more? Self-evidently, if you have more children, your life costs more.
:11:01. > :11:07.But we have taken the decision in principle it should be capped at
:11:07. > :11:11.�35,000 a year. Should child benefit come out? We have said we
:11:12. > :11:15.will look as we did with the housing benefits, putting in
:11:15. > :11:19.transitional arrangements. We have provided local authorities with the
:11:19. > :11:23.money to do with transitional arrangements in the benefit system.
:11:24. > :11:29.But we have set a clear point of principle and we will stick by that.
:11:29. > :11:33.An arbitrary figure of 500 is not a point of principle. I don't object
:11:33. > :11:38.to a benefit cap, but I want the playing field to be level and your
:11:38. > :11:41.colleague has said it is not level. If you accept the amendments today,
:11:41. > :11:47.and make the playing field levelled you will have support. Labour
:11:47. > :11:52.appears, you will support it? supporting the Bishop's amendment.
:11:52. > :11:57.He will support the Government's cabbage that amendment is set?
:11:57. > :12:04.will support it if the amendments to date, because bed and breakfast
:12:04. > :12:07.for homeless people can be �100 a night. If the Government makes a
:12:07. > :12:14.benefit Catfirth, I am happy to support it. It is the right thing
:12:14. > :12:19.to do. -- benefit cap Firth. Christopher grayling has just set
:12:19. > :12:26.out, everybody has to move, defending on your definition of
:12:26. > :12:30.homelessness. -- BEA 10 -- depending. You cannot support it on
:12:30. > :12:40.the basis people will move house because that is what is going to
:12:40. > :12:42.
:12:43. > :12:50.happen. It brings high rents. It is difficult to get A3 bedroomed house
:12:50. > :12:52.in the private sector for less than �300 a week. You have Labour
:12:52. > :12:58.support if you take on those amendments, what will the position
:12:58. > :13:05.be? As Nick Clegg said yesterday, if you include child benefit in the
:13:05. > :13:11.cap, it becomes potentially thousands of pounds higher.
:13:11. > :13:16.does not. How can it not? A family with four children will get an
:13:16. > :13:21.additional �59 a week whether they are in work or out of work. All we
:13:21. > :13:26.are asking on the Child Benefit Amendment, it is to compare like
:13:26. > :13:31.with like. Your minister is a good man and has acknowledged we are not
:13:31. > :13:35.comparing like with like. Can I come to one issue, in terms of
:13:35. > :13:39.public support, it is overwhelmingly in favour of the cap,
:13:39. > :13:45.as suggested by the Government. Labour could find itself on the
:13:45. > :13:51.wrong side of this argument. Labour supporters are in favour of it.
:13:51. > :13:55.Outside London, there is less of a problem. Private sector rents in
:13:55. > :13:59.London of three times higher than my city of Norwich. People outside
:13:59. > :14:04.London won't appreciate the pressures of housing costs in
:14:04. > :14:08.London. Most people on housing benefit are not those affected by
:14:08. > :14:12.the cat. They are pensioners, or they are in work and getting
:14:12. > :14:17.housing benefit. In terms of regional variation, it is quite a
:14:17. > :14:21.critical issue when you are talking of caps of any side? One of the
:14:21. > :14:28.problems is this policy and the media coverage tends to be eight or
:14:28. > :14:32.London getting �100,000 of benefits the year. My concern about this,
:14:32. > :14:36.the people we want to help of those families who are in work, lose
:14:36. > :14:39.their job and we don't want to tell them to move house after five or
:14:39. > :14:44.six weeks because they can no longer afford it. When you look at
:14:44. > :14:48.all financial issues, the biggest problems are about change,
:14:48. > :14:53.transition and that is what we have to protect. Rather than make policy
:14:53. > :14:59.for those eight or 10 families who are anomalies in the system. It is
:14:59. > :15:06.how we deal with the change for people when they lose their job and
:15:06. > :15:09.it does worry me. This has been costed by the Government and it is
:15:09. > :15:16.their attempt to bring down a huge bill in the welfare, where would
:15:16. > :15:18.you get the money from? The two big amendments today, the homelessness
:15:18. > :15:25.amendment and the Child Benefit Amendment come to about �270
:15:25. > :15:29.million. Eric Pickles has been throwing nearly 250 million at
:15:29. > :15:34.local authorities urging them to restore a weekly bin collection. It
:15:34. > :15:44.is all about political and moral choices. Might do believe Chris
:15:44. > :15:45.
:15:45. > :15:51.Grayling is making the wrong I don't believe we should be
:15:51. > :15:55.providing two people more than an income of �35,000 a year.
:15:55. > :16:00.should make that cap fare so you don't penalise families with
:16:00. > :16:08.children and make vulnerable children bear the cost of your on
:16:08. > :16:13.fairness. Do you expect to lose tonight? I certainly hope not.
:16:13. > :16:18.hope not, but do you think you will? I can't anticipate the vote.
:16:18. > :16:23.If we do lose, we will come back and seek to overturn the defeat in
:16:23. > :16:29.the Lords. If there is one thing we get hot
:16:29. > :16:34.under the collar about, it is fuel bills. The Big Six energy companies
:16:34. > :16:42.receive more than 4 million complaints last year alone, so, if
:16:42. > :16:50.so many of us are on have become what can be done? -- so many are
:16:50. > :16:55.unhappy. We done to it be great if we could tell the power companies
:16:55. > :17:00.how much we want to spend on electricity and gas?
:17:00. > :17:04.Believe it or not, that day could be coming, but only if we all stick
:17:04. > :17:07.together and embrace the concept called collective switching.
:17:07. > :17:13.collective switching would work is a group of consumers would come
:17:13. > :17:18.together, we don't know how many, using the tools of social media to
:17:18. > :17:22.do so cheaply, they would decide what sort of offer they want from
:17:22. > :17:27.their energy company, that would be displayed through the social media
:17:27. > :17:32.organisation, and then it is up to the companies to meet their demands.
:17:32. > :17:38.It is a simple way consumers could gain power over the energy
:17:38. > :17:43.companies and set the terms they want. How easy would it be? If
:17:43. > :17:46.people power can make a foul mouth American rock band Britain's
:17:46. > :17:56.Christmas number one, then getting some money knocked off your
:17:56. > :17:57.
:17:57. > :18:03.electric bill should be a piece of cake. John was so fed up with X-
:18:03. > :18:08.factor music hogging the charts, he used social media to catapult Rage
:18:08. > :18:13.Against the Machine into the top slot. He sees no reason the power
:18:13. > :18:17.companies shouldn't get the same treatment. It worked because we had
:18:17. > :18:24.one solid thing that we all agreed with, and one reason we wanted to
:18:24. > :18:30.come together to get something done using Twitter and Facebook, so can
:18:30. > :18:35.this be applied to switching? Yes, I think it can. For this particular
:18:35. > :18:40.subject, there are people who will want better deals from what they
:18:40. > :18:46.are getting so there is no reason why not. That is a great reason for
:18:46. > :18:51.people to get on board and want it happen. It is not just consumer
:18:51. > :18:54.activist interested, the government is also taking a closer look and is
:18:54. > :19:01.broadly supportive, but have the power companies really been having
:19:01. > :19:11.a laugh at our expense? I would debate that, because we have to
:19:11. > :19:12.
:19:12. > :19:21.remember the energy costs only count for about 50% of Babel. The -
:19:21. > :19:26.- the bill. Like Heaton not, they might have to put up with it.
:19:26. > :19:32.enough consumers come together and make these demands, they will have
:19:32. > :19:35.to respond. Maybe, but if this is to become a reality, it looks like
:19:35. > :19:42.people might have to seize the power.
:19:42. > :19:51.Joining me now is not grow Laura Sandys, MP for South Thanet, and a
:19:51. > :19:57.member of the Energy Select Committee. Is this a viable option?
:19:57. > :20:03.I think so, but to be frank I think this is in many ways a tactic. We
:20:03. > :20:08.have got to have a fundamental reform of an industry that looks
:20:08. > :20:13.very 1970s. It is geared up to the producer and none of it is
:20:13. > :20:17.orientated around the consumer. These mechanisms are important but
:20:17. > :20:22.I hope Ofgem and the government make some fundamental reforms and
:20:22. > :20:26.bring them into the 21st century. We will come back to the collective
:20:26. > :20:30.switch in a moment, but on the broader issue we have spoken
:20:30. > :20:40.endlessly on this programme about reforming energy companies, if that
:20:40. > :20:43.
:20:43. > :20:48.is possible, trying to bring prices down, so why hasn't it been done?
:20:48. > :20:57.the government is in the middle of doing it. Ofgem is in the middle of
:20:57. > :21:07.the pricing policy. Gosh, again! Why don't we have a light bulb
:21:07. > :21:14.
:21:14. > :21:18.moment? -- hour. We have one of those, a kilowatt version. It is
:21:19. > :21:22.not about the name of the measure, it is about the fact that comparing
:21:22. > :21:29.it is a nightmare. The most important thing to understand is
:21:29. > :21:34.that the big problem is nobody mentioned pricing until I put my
:21:34. > :21:38.hand up when we were sitting with David Cameron. The big energy
:21:38. > :21:46.companies didn't, everybody wanted to talk about encouraging people to
:21:46. > :21:51.switch. We have seen prices come down from the Big Six on gas or
:21:51. > :21:59.electricity, not on both. Currently, typical standard tariff, after the
:21:59. > :22:07.price drops, �1,320 a year for the typical home. 1020 is the cheapest
:22:07. > :22:12.on the market, that is for nothing. Old people penalty. Aren't the
:22:12. > :22:16.government trying to say let's do the simplest things first? I agree
:22:16. > :22:20.pricing is crucial. We are not really giving the consumer the
:22:20. > :22:26.tools to make those pricing decisions because it is opaque. We
:22:26. > :22:30.are not putting enough pressure on the Big Six, not introducing enough
:22:31. > :22:36.new companies into the market to bring competition. This is where
:22:37. > :22:44.the reform comes in, and I hope it delivers. I don't agree it is
:22:44. > :22:49.opaque. Go on a comparison site and put in your details - but this is
:22:49. > :22:56.what I was about to say - we have a savvy internet generation who are
:22:57. > :23:01.able to do this. For there are barred Messaging problems, such as
:23:01. > :23:10.they say you will save �300, whereas you are preventing your
:23:11. > :23:15.bill from rising �300. There are some people we are penalising, and
:23:15. > :23:19.that is where collective pricing would be useful. We sold these
:23:19. > :23:23.companies to the stock market. Their job is to make money for
:23:23. > :23:27.shareholders and it is politicians and regulators who need to put the
:23:27. > :23:33.prices down. Companies are not clear where they are making their
:23:33. > :23:37.profit. What were need is in many ways greater liquidity in the
:23:37. > :23:43.market, more companies, companies that want to work with consumers
:23:43. > :23:48.rather than working for producers. Let's come back to the tactic, will
:23:48. > :23:53.it work? How many people would be needed for it to work? I don't
:23:53. > :23:58.think you would get cheaper tariffs by using collective purchasing, but
:23:58. > :24:04.I think you would get a long-term relatively cheap tariff, whereas
:24:04. > :24:09.you would still win by moving to the cheapest tariffs regularly. My
:24:09. > :24:14.eyesight is used by 12.3 million people each month. I'm sure we have
:24:14. > :24:22.talked about doing this, but I don't want to be liable. If the
:24:22. > :24:27.energy companies do something wrong, who is liable? Me or them? All so,
:24:27. > :24:33.the energy companies then follow each other on pricing survey will
:24:33. > :24:38.start to move with that crowd pricing as such. The structure of
:24:38. > :24:43.the industry is so 1970s, it needs to make sure it is working on
:24:43. > :24:47.behalf of the customer. If this crowd sourcing could make the
:24:47. > :24:52.company's wake up, and understand there is a different world out
:24:52. > :24:57.there, that would be helpful. have seen, even in terms of
:24:57. > :25:04.restricting freedom of the internet, it can work. How many people would
:25:04. > :25:09.you need? I think you could get this working with 10, 20,000 people,
:25:09. > :25:15.but the concept that someone goes on Twitter and says let's do this,
:25:16. > :25:23.that will not work with mass. You have age Concern doing it, websites
:25:23. > :25:32.like mine, we would try to provide it if the opportunity was there.
:25:32. > :25:35.This is coming from Chris Huhne, not the other way round. Ed Davey
:25:35. > :25:41.is salivating over collective purchasing on a lot of issues but
:25:41. > :25:47.we must not confuse that with group buying. This works with heating oil,
:25:47. > :25:53.the forgotten on regulated sector, people living in rural areas bulk-
:25:53. > :25:58.buying their heating oil, but there is a long way for this to work on a
:25:58. > :26:04.mass scale. The good start to look at communities having their own
:26:04. > :26:10.distribution companies and that is really exciting. Thank you. A
:26:11. > :26:18.heated debate! There is a busy week in store, and
:26:18. > :26:22.who better to look ahead to it than Polly Toynbee and Ben Brogan. Can I
:26:22. > :26:30.start with you, Polly. Will Labour find itself on the wrong side of
:26:30. > :26:35.the argument on welfare reform if the Peers don't back the cap this
:26:35. > :26:40.evening? Popular opinion says 26,000 is definitely enough for
:26:40. > :26:43.anyone on benefits, especially if they are out of work. It sounds
:26:43. > :26:48.reasonable but with these things often written on the back of an
:26:48. > :26:51.envelope, what plays well with the public may end up working badly.
:26:51. > :26:56.People will be horrified by stories of large numbers of families who
:26:56. > :27:01.have been thrown onto the street, having to move miles, their
:27:01. > :27:05.children repeatedly taken out of schools as they are moved on. I
:27:05. > :27:11.think the public is more generous spirited than this Government gives
:27:11. > :27:16.them credit for. It is easy to stir their mum with Daily Mail type
:27:17. > :27:21.anecdotes of scrounging families, but when the reality hits home were
:27:21. > :27:26.very worthy family is being thrown out of schools and jobs, public
:27:26. > :27:30.attitudes may change. Even though the polling has consistently said
:27:30. > :27:34.not, there is not that sort of sympathy out there that the
:27:34. > :27:39.government's argument, that they should be on the equivalent of a
:27:39. > :27:45.working family, �35,000 a year, has been pretty effective. If Labour is
:27:46. > :27:50.not clear run where it is, as far as welfare is concerned, it looks
:27:50. > :27:53.like it is trying to face both ways. In the long run what matters is
:27:53. > :28:00.government policy and the government getting it right. If
:28:00. > :28:05.they get it wrong this time, I think they will find, and this has
:28:05. > :28:09.been shown time and time again, when people see the effect they
:28:09. > :28:15.usually get shocked and appalled and start swinging back to a more
:28:15. > :28:23.generous attitude, towards people who have fallen down on their luck.
:28:23. > :28:29.Who is right? Is Iain Duncan-Smith right, saying not many people will
:28:29. > :28:33.be thrown out of their homes? Or is it true that many children will be
:28:33. > :28:39.made poorer and a lot of people will be evicted from their homes?
:28:39. > :28:45.At the moment it doesn't look like the public is wobbling at all, but
:28:45. > :28:52.some Liberal Democrats are clearly wobbling. How much irritation is
:28:52. > :28:55.there among senior Conservatives? There is something terribly
:28:55. > :29:03.synthetic about this debate within the coalition. One gets the
:29:03. > :29:07.impression that Nick Clegg's reservations are really about
:29:07. > :29:10.giving Nick Clegg something to show to his troops. We will get
:29:10. > :29:16.concessions at some point, there will be a sweetener thrown out by
:29:16. > :29:21.the government, and Nick Clegg will be able to say "once again the Lib
:29:21. > :29:26.Dems have been able to take off the rough corners". The politics are
:29:26. > :29:31.straightforward - this policy is not designed to please people like
:29:31. > :29:36.Polly or me, it is really about millions of families who earned
:29:36. > :29:40.�26,000 a year, and look at people who don't and get benefits
:29:40. > :29:48.equivalent to that. Two-thirds of Labour members are keen on this
:29:48. > :29:52.policy, and so is the public. The politics at the moment effect David
:29:52. > :29:55.Cameron and Nick Clegg more than Ed Miliband. Iain Duncan-Smith and
:29:55. > :30:05.Chris Grayling made it clear they will force this through so what
:30:05. > :30:05.
:30:05. > :30:10.will it do for relations between The House of Lords is a tricky
:30:10. > :30:14.place at the moment, it is overcrowded and not reformed. It
:30:14. > :30:18.would be a foolhardy minister whether it be Chris Grayling or
:30:18. > :30:22.Iain Duncan-Smith, with a bit of blustering they can get stuffed
:30:22. > :30:25.past appears at the bottom of the corridor. In the end, the
:30:25. > :30:29.Government will find a way of making this legislation palatable
:30:29. > :30:32.and it will get through. But the House of Lords will continue to be
:30:32. > :30:36.a problem between now and the end of the session in spring, there
:30:36. > :30:42.will be more rows with the House of Lords and the Government may have
:30:42. > :30:47.to jettison some of its legislation. Ed Miliband has had a personal
:30:47. > :30:52.relaunch and a relaunch on economic policy. He has had no impact on the
:30:52. > :30:57.pulse. One poll indicated they had fallen behind the Conservatives. It
:30:57. > :31:02.does not bode well does it? He is not doing as well as Labour would
:31:02. > :31:07.like to be doing. It is worse than that isn't it? He is not doing any
:31:07. > :31:12.worse than David Cameron was doing when he was first elected leader of
:31:12. > :31:16.his party at about the same time. Labour crashed out at the last
:31:16. > :31:22.General Election, 29%. Now they are almost level-pegging with the
:31:22. > :31:27.Tories. They are ahead enough to make it clear the Tories could not,
:31:27. > :31:33.as things stand, be sure of winning a majority. We wouldn't know which
:31:33. > :31:40.would be the biggest party, it is too close to call. Not too bad 18
:31:40. > :31:49.months after such a disaster. Yvette Cooper becoming woman?
:31:49. > :31:54.hard to say? One of Ed Miliband's strands says that there is not
:31:54. > :31:58.another clear contender. Yvette Cooper has been around, she is
:31:58. > :32:04.experienced. There is no devastating, obvious person waiting
:32:04. > :32:08.in the wings. What about you Ben Brogan? The difficulty for Labour
:32:08. > :32:12.is there is no one rushing forward to volunteer to take over from Ed
:32:12. > :32:16.Miliband. Yvette Cooper is doing well and is the favourite at the
:32:16. > :32:22.moment. But I think we have a long way to go and Polly is right, the
:32:22. > :32:27.polls at the moment help Ed Miliband. Things aren't as bad for
:32:27. > :32:34.Labour as they appear at judging by Ed Miliband's performances. It will
:32:34. > :32:38.be a while before Ed Miliband screws up its courage to do
:32:38. > :32:41.something about him. And as if by magic I've been joined by the
:32:41. > :32:51.Conservative MP, Pritti Patel, the Labour MP, Lisa Nandy and by the
:32:51. > :32:55.Liberal Democrat MP, Tessa Munt. Then Brogan St the opposition on
:32:55. > :33:02.welfare is synthetic and the Liberal Democrats are only doing
:33:02. > :33:05.this to please their own supporters. Is that how you see it? I think it
:33:05. > :33:12.is absolutely essential that something is done about the welfare
:33:12. > :33:17.system. Do you agree with the cap? I do broadly. There are many of my
:33:17. > :33:22.constituents, the majority of my constituents would love to have
:33:22. > :33:27.�35,000 a year income. Are you annoyed with Lord Ashdown? No, he
:33:27. > :33:31.is making a good point. We need a safety net for those who find
:33:31. > :33:35.themselves perhaps a less mobile and six. We also need to make sure
:33:35. > :33:45.the people who have a problem in their life, and it is not a
:33:45. > :33:52.systemic problem in their lives. You lose your job, we shouldn't...
:33:52. > :33:57.We need a shoulder. Deal agreed with these beers tonight? They can
:33:57. > :34:01.do what they like. If we can make changes, it is going to happen.
:34:01. > :34:05.have heard these arguments being set out, and there is every chance
:34:05. > :34:10.the Government loses tonight because of what appears to. Do you
:34:10. > :34:14.think there should be concessions? I was on the Welfare Reform Bill
:34:14. > :34:17.Committee in the House of Commons last year. I have clear views of
:34:17. > :34:22.the direction of travel when it comes to reforming the welfare
:34:22. > :34:30.state. It is inevitable when legislation goads to the Lords it
:34:30. > :34:36.is going to be shaken about and there will be a debate. I don't
:34:36. > :34:40.think, what concerns me is the artificial tone in terms of, let's
:34:40. > :34:46.pick a row here and seek concessions, which I think has been
:34:46. > :34:49.as predictable as Ben Brogan said. But at the same time, it is very
:34:49. > :34:53.valid to have the debate to make sure the right safeguards are in
:34:53. > :34:58.place. It is the biggest reform in 60 years, so we have to make sure
:34:58. > :35:02.the welfare state is a safety net and people don't fall through it.
:35:02. > :35:09.Labour's position, Patricia Hollis saying they agree with the cap, you
:35:09. > :35:14.agree with the cap at �26,000. If their work some other concessions
:35:14. > :35:19.made for vulnerable families as you see it? The real danger is whether
:35:19. > :35:23.it will work in practice. And like many other policies that have come
:35:23. > :35:26.out of this coalition, those on the front line dealing with
:35:26. > :35:33.homelessness and welfare and getting people into work has been
:35:33. > :35:39.part of it. It will do nothing but push people... They have been doing
:35:39. > :35:43.her masses of work on this. They're not at the end of the phone when
:35:43. > :35:48.the family is being made homeless. And under this crude attempt to cap
:35:48. > :35:55.benefits, more people will be pushed into poverty, children will
:35:55. > :35:58.go into poverty. Extra households will be added to the homelessness
:35:58. > :36:05.waiting list. It will cost more in the long run than the cost to do
:36:05. > :36:08.nothing. Labour has said it won't be cost-effective. But the bishops,
:36:09. > :36:15.the Children's Society and other charities are saying there will be
:36:15. > :36:23.thousands of children pushed into poverty. Is it acceptable? It is a
:36:23. > :36:29.sweeping generalisation. It is what they say. There are children living
:36:29. > :36:32.in poverty were there is acute worthlessness. Chris Grayling is
:36:32. > :36:38.trying to get rid of the issue of worthlessness and change the
:36:38. > :36:44.culture of welfare and around the benefit system. No children in this
:36:44. > :36:50.country should be living in poverty. The benefit system and the system
:36:50. > :36:53.needs changing, there is no doubt about that. Some of those families
:36:53. > :37:02.are in work, so what is the Government doing to help people who
:37:02. > :37:06.are in work, out of poverty? People believe work should pay and your
:37:06. > :37:11.Government has no solution to that problem. This system will enable
:37:11. > :37:15.VAT. Alongside reforms of benefit and welfare, we had the work
:37:15. > :37:20.programme which has focused on getting individuals back into work
:37:20. > :37:23.and training programmes as well. will have to move on.
:37:23. > :37:26.Well, welfare isn't the only sticking point for the Coalition.
:37:26. > :37:29.There are plenty of other flash points coming up over the next few
:37:29. > :37:31.weeks which are going to provide some big tests. Tomorrow the Health
:37:31. > :37:34.Select committee, which has a majority of Conservative and
:37:34. > :37:36.Liberal Democrat members, will publish a report which will be
:37:36. > :37:39.highly critical of the Governments plans. The Committee says NHS
:37:39. > :37:41.trusts are resorting to cutting services to meet their budget
:37:41. > :37:45.targets, even though the Health Secretary had pledged that would
:37:45. > :37:49.not happen. There could be further wrangling when the bill returns to
:37:49. > :37:52.the Lords next month. On Wednesday the Prime Minister visits
:37:52. > :37:55.Strasbourg to give a speech at the Council of Europe, where he'll tell
:37:55. > :37:59.European human rights judges to stop interfering in British law.
:37:59. > :38:01.But the Lib Dems warn a 'nuclear option' pulling out of the court's
:38:01. > :38:06.jurisdiction on a temporary basis unless changes are agreed, could
:38:06. > :38:09.fracture the Coalition. Last week's announcement that a consultation
:38:09. > :38:13.over a possible Thames Estuary airport will go ahead angered lots
:38:13. > :38:18.of Lib Dems. The Lib Dem Transport Minister, Norman Baker, said any
:38:18. > :38:21.expansion would be "irresponsible environmentally". And the Liberal
:38:21. > :38:23.Democrats are also pushing for a mansion tax on properties worth
:38:23. > :38:33.more than �2 million, which the Conservatives are fiercely opposed
:38:33. > :38:40.
:38:40. > :38:46.to. Let's go back to health. Viewers might be forgiven for
:38:46. > :38:51.thinking this is almost done and dusted. Here we are coming back to
:38:51. > :38:57.criticisms from and into the -- influential select committee. This
:38:57. > :39:01.cutting of services, is it what you envisage? No, but I think we did
:39:01. > :39:06.stop the whole process last year. We make quite a lot of changes at
:39:06. > :39:11.that point. And what happened in the Lords, it is another set of
:39:11. > :39:16.questions. Shirley Williams has some technical questions about how
:39:16. > :39:19.various bits and pieces will work. It is quite right. The
:39:19. > :39:24.responsibilities of the Secretary of State have to be clarified and
:39:24. > :39:27.various other technical things we would like to change. The House of
:39:27. > :39:32.Lords are not limited on the amount of time they can spend on these
:39:32. > :39:36.things. How worried are you hospitals are cutting services? In
:39:36. > :39:44.order to meet the savings required of them to make over the next four
:39:44. > :39:48.years, efficiencies of �20 billion, pocketing services? Is that what
:39:48. > :39:53.Liberal Democrat voted for? there is always a conflict between
:39:53. > :39:58.localism, letting people locally do it, which is what we feel should
:39:58. > :40:02.happen. We feel strongly people should have a say in the services
:40:02. > :40:06.offered locally and the GP is the person he knows what I might need
:40:06. > :40:10.and what anybody else might need. But there is a conflict. Nationally
:40:10. > :40:15.we might want to say don't cut services, you have to do this and
:40:15. > :40:19.have to do that. That is interfering. But we cannot sit
:40:19. > :40:24.where we are because changes are happening already. The NHS
:40:24. > :40:30.shouldn't stay static in the way it was 10 and 20 years ago. It is
:40:30. > :40:34.never perfect. But we need to get the best for the patients. No one
:40:34. > :40:38.would disagree with that. Do you agree with Stephen Dorrell, the
:40:38. > :40:43.former Conservative health secretary. His committee have come
:40:43. > :40:48.back and said, you cannot manage those savings and carry out a huge
:40:48. > :40:53.overhaul of how the NHS is run at the same time? I am appalled by the
:40:53. > :40:58.suggestion. I'm not sure if it is right. I don't have a hospital in
:40:58. > :41:02.my constituency, but I have plenty of examples of lack of patient care.
:41:02. > :41:06.Central to these reforms, and I think this is important, it is
:41:06. > :41:10.about the modernisation of the health service to make the change
:41:11. > :41:15.in the population and meet the needs of the individuals. From my
:41:15. > :41:19.experience, as Ice Edge don't have a hospital, my local health service
:41:19. > :41:23.has been dominated by bureaucracy, by management and red tape, as
:41:23. > :41:27.opposed to frontline care. Stephen Dorrell wrong? He is wrong
:41:27. > :41:32.and the Government shouldn't take any notice of him? You cannot apply
:41:32. > :41:36.that across the board. He is that share of the health select
:41:36. > :41:39.committee and will have done research. Sweeping generalisations
:41:39. > :41:44.from someone who has a relative expert and has listened to the
:41:44. > :41:50.concerns, the pause we have had and the concerns raised by Lady --
:41:50. > :41:55.Labour, is now saying fundamentally it won't work? I don't know the
:41:55. > :41:59.details of that. From the experience but I have had, and they
:41:59. > :42:04.know what I need from the NHS for my local area, I want the money to
:42:04. > :42:08.go to the front line. Even if hospitals are saying they have to
:42:08. > :42:14.cut services to make their savings? The shouldn't be cutting their
:42:14. > :42:19.services. The select committee's job is to hold Government to
:42:19. > :42:25.account. They should test what they see is inadequacies in the system.
:42:25. > :42:29.If that makes hospital stand up and say, no we shouldn't. It is time
:42:29. > :42:33.for the management to reassess what they're doing. Andy Burnham came on
:42:33. > :42:38.the programme and said they are supporting this idea of changing to
:42:38. > :42:41.GP commissioning. So, Labour is backing these proposals. Are you
:42:42. > :42:47.surprised that this late in the day they are coming back to an argument
:42:47. > :42:52.saying that actually perhaps it cannot be done? The risk is the
:42:52. > :42:56.Bill makes the situation you have just described, worse. Hospital
:42:56. > :43:01.having to cut services to find efficiency savings. Some hospitals
:43:01. > :43:06.have managed to find those savings haven't they? The Bill, potentially
:43:06. > :43:09.makes the situation worse, that is why the Royal Collinge Best Royal
:43:09. > :43:15.College of Nursing has come out and said they are against it. It is
:43:15. > :43:19.hard to find anybody who isn't. The risk is, what to do under the model
:43:19. > :43:23.proposed by the coalition is to add another layer of bureaucracy and
:43:23. > :43:28.bring in private companies who can cherry-pick the services they want
:43:28. > :43:33.to deliver and leave the state to pick up the rest. That's why there
:43:33. > :43:36.are so many expert voices united in opposition to it. It is why there
:43:37. > :43:40.has been such a row about it in the Commons and the Lords. The
:43:40. > :43:45.Government shouldn't be pushing through such fundamental change so
:43:45. > :43:50.quickly. Although Labour does support the idea of GP
:43:50. > :43:56.commissioning? We support the idea GPs are the best place to
:43:56. > :44:01.understand... GPs are private. are self-employed. It is the
:44:01. > :44:06.private sector at work. We have accepted that GPs are the right
:44:06. > :44:13.people to be choosing services for their patients. The their private
:44:13. > :44:20.business already. We are going to do more about health tomorrow.
:44:20. > :44:24.Let's move on to the European Court of Human Rights. Is there any
:44:24. > :44:30.realistic chance David Cameron can reform that called? I see no reason
:44:30. > :44:34.why not. The MEPs think he would be difficult? It is difficult because
:44:34. > :44:39.of the voting model. But the point is, the Prime Minister is going
:44:39. > :44:43.there on Wednesday. It is a line in the sand moment. We have the
:44:43. > :44:46.chairmanship of the Council of Europe for the first time in 25
:44:46. > :44:51.years, it would be missed opportunity for our Prime Minister
:44:51. > :44:54.not to go out there and say, we have to look at, not just our
:44:54. > :44:59.relationship, but set the tone of whether relationship needs to go in
:44:59. > :45:04.terms of judgment and safety Europe, stop meddling on a lot of our legal
:45:04. > :45:08.decisions in the courts over here. David Cameron's position is clear,
:45:09. > :45:12.if he does not get his way, would you back the idea of Britain
:45:12. > :45:17.withdrawing from the court's jurisdiction? I don't think it is
:45:17. > :45:22.going to happen. Would you back it, because there is debate whether he
:45:22. > :45:27.would get reform? I would contribute to the bait. It would be
:45:27. > :45:31.making the case as to why we need the reform. -- debate. We all
:45:31. > :45:35.supportive of human rights legislation. Nobody is talking
:45:35. > :45:39.about ultimate withdrawal. But we are talking about making sure
:45:39. > :45:42.British Parliament is sovereign in terms of many of his decisions and
:45:42. > :45:46.Europe stops a Medellin. And the Council of Europe and the Human
:45:46. > :45:56.Rights Court are more transparent in their own decision-making as
:45:56. > :46:02.
:46:02. > :46:07.Will the Liberal Democrats be backing this line of attack?
:46:07. > :46:12.essence, we would support the Court of Human Rights and we would not
:46:12. > :46:18.want to go to the point where we would be withdrawing. But people
:46:18. > :46:24.have suggested you would be... That would be a problem for us. A what
:46:24. > :46:28.about Labour? Labour did a lot for this in government so there is a
:46:28. > :46:32.level of democracy here that is quite often lost. It is important
:46:32. > :46:36.we remember that when we go around the world, whether it is a
:46:36. > :46:40.Conservative-led government or not, and we tell other countries that
:46:40. > :46:45.they should adhere to a human rights standards, we can do that at
:46:45. > :46:49.the same time as arguing that somehow we should be exempt.
:46:50. > :46:54.can understand that people would be frustrated that courts made the
:46:54. > :47:01.decision here and then it was overruled. Politicians don't do
:47:01. > :47:06.enough to go out and explain what is behind those rulings. It is
:47:06. > :47:11.right that we don't send people to countries where they will be
:47:11. > :47:15.tortured or killed, and that is a do the other parties largely share.
:47:15. > :47:21.This weekend Eric Pickles told councils they have a moral duty not
:47:21. > :47:26.to raise council tax this year. However, a number of authorities
:47:26. > :47:31.are choosing to reject the government offer and opt for a rate
:47:31. > :47:37.increase. Brighton and Hove is looking to raise rates, and Jason
:47:37. > :47:41.Kitcat from the council joins us now. Make your case - why should
:47:41. > :47:47.people from Brighton and Hove have to pay more? The government are
:47:47. > :47:52.reducing our funding by 33% over four years so we are trying to
:47:52. > :47:58.protect services, proposing 57p a week more for the average household
:47:58. > :48:05.in this city. We think that is a small contribution. But what about
:48:05. > :48:09.the central government money - you say it is less. There is an offer
:48:09. > :48:14.for this year and next year. there is a one year only offer and
:48:14. > :48:20.it is a gimmick because you end up worse off than if you didn't take
:48:20. > :48:25.it. We would be �5.4 million worse off over two years and the grant is
:48:26. > :48:29.only worth �3 million so it is not a good deal. That is why many
:48:29. > :48:37.authorities have now stopped and said to Eric Pickles this is
:48:37. > :48:43.another attack on the freedom and financing of local authorities.
:48:43. > :48:47.are you setting the rate at 3.5%, is it because anything beyond that
:48:47. > :48:51.and there would be a referendum? Were reset our rate last year, it
:48:51. > :48:55.was the understanding that there would still be capping powers, and
:48:55. > :48:59.only the last minute did Eric Pickles changed that to the
:48:59. > :49:02.referendum option. Now the electoral commission have so there
:49:02. > :49:07.are not the correct regulations in place so we couldn't hold a
:49:07. > :49:11.referendum even if we wanted to. not because you are frightened you
:49:11. > :49:17.would lose? It wasn't even on the cards when we were making that
:49:17. > :49:22.decision. Giles is in the Central Lobby. Over to you. It to his
:49:22. > :49:26.interesting but not only did Eric Pickles used the phrase moral duty,
:49:26. > :49:36.he also said raising council tax would be a kick in the teeth to
:49:36. > :49:40.hard-working households. What is the point of alleviating
:49:40. > :49:45.the burden on households for one year when the next year they may
:49:45. > :49:53.have to pay even more if they took your grant? That is not necessarily
:49:54. > :49:56.the case. 140 councils will be taking the freeze so the
:49:57. > :50:03.overwhelming majority get the message, they know that they can
:50:03. > :50:06.make sense of it. The assumption that Jason Kitcat wrongly made was
:50:06. > :50:10.that the council does nothing in that year to make further
:50:10. > :50:16.efficiencies. He is assuming it simply stands still, that
:50:16. > :50:21.everything is frozen for the years ahead. So you are saying to freeze
:50:21. > :50:26.council tax, and the next year when you have this larger short fall,
:50:26. > :50:33.don't do it by increasing, but cut out. Many councils have been saying
:50:33. > :50:37.for ages they are cut to the bone. We are giving �27 billion in
:50:37. > :50:44.support to councils for other local services. The average council get
:50:44. > :50:50.something like �2,100 per household for funding services. Brighton and
:50:50. > :50:56.Hove, a unitary authority, it gets significantly more because it has
:50:56. > :51:00.more demand on its services. We are targeting the money to where it is
:51:00. > :51:04.most needed, but equally there is an obligation on households to
:51:04. > :51:08.continue pressing for savings and have a look at the money that
:51:08. > :51:13.councils have got in their bank balances in reserves. The there is
:51:13. > :51:16.no doubt that some local authorities could cut waste without
:51:16. > :51:23.affecting frontline services, and focusing their mind some that is
:51:23. > :51:26.not a bad thing. Councils have been doing that not least because of the
:51:26. > :51:31.cuts in funding the government has imposed upon them. This year
:51:31. > :51:38.councils will do their level best to avoid an increase in council tax,
:51:38. > :51:40.but the so-called offer of help is only for one year. That is why
:51:40. > :51:45.Conservative-run Surrey County Council are saying you might have
:51:45. > :51:49.short-term gain but it will be long-term pain. There are some Tory
:51:49. > :51:55.authorities as well as Labour ones that are saying that in the end we
:51:55. > :52:00.have the balance of what we want to provide for people. It is a cheek
:52:00. > :52:05.of Eric Pickles who has done this unfairly so bigger cuts on the
:52:05. > :52:10.deprived authorities. At the same time the government put up VAT, so
:52:10. > :52:14.people need to take what he is saying with a pinch of salt. It is
:52:14. > :52:22.interesting that it is not just opponents of the government in
:52:22. > :52:31.local authority doing this. You mentioned sorry, Southend, this is
:52:31. > :52:41.difficult stuff is what they are saying, and they are asking if you
:52:41. > :52:46.could change your minds about it and they are councils of your party.
:52:46. > :52:50.We talk annually to the councils, we consort with them on the
:52:50. > :52:55.settlements and there is nothing you on that. I am happy to talk to
:52:55. > :53:01.anyone. There are only about three Tory councils talking about that.
:53:01. > :53:10.We have worked hard to find money to assist council tax payers. The
:53:10. > :53:15.council tax doubled under Hilary's government. I don't think that the
:53:15. > :53:21.ordinary voter will thank any Council for turning away money
:53:21. > :53:30.which could save them �75 a year. You would have been under the same
:53:30. > :53:35.sorts of pressures. Yes, but we would not have allocated them out
:53:35. > :53:39.in the unfair way the government has done. If Bob is saying that he
:53:39. > :53:48.will not make it a one-off that would be great, but it is not clear
:53:48. > :53:58.what the government stance is. have said so far we can do the
:53:58. > :54:04.funding of this for one year. Many councils are well able to cope.
:54:04. > :54:14.will be coming back to this. Now, importantly the big topic of
:54:14. > :54:30.
:54:30. > :54:37.the day - let's find out the answer Which one of these was a complaint
:54:37. > :54:42.made by MPs about the food in their parliament? The answer is that the
:54:42. > :54:48.caviar is too rich. That is the right answer, so the others are
:54:48. > :54:56.complaints logged in the catering sub-committee about the quality of
:54:56. > :55:02.food in the 19th eating and drinking establishments. Can I just
:55:02. > :55:05.say, that complaint is not about me. What is most bizarre is not about
:55:05. > :55:11.how they found the time to complain, it is what they are complaining
:55:11. > :55:17.about because the food is very nice. You yes, and it is also subsidised,
:55:17. > :55:27.isn't it? Not as much as it might be. I sit on the Administration
:55:27. > :55:27.
:55:27. > :55:33.Committee. I will discover who did the chips! We have to recognise
:55:33. > :55:38.that in Parliament, and I'm sure you covered it last week, we are
:55:38. > :55:43.paid generously but my team, I have three-and a-half staff and a budget,
:55:43. > :55:49.and they are not paid very well... At but they are not complaining
:55:49. > :55:53.about the food either. The do have to make sure the people who work in
:55:53. > :56:01.London for far below the celery outside of Parliament are able to
:56:01. > :56:07.feed themselves. We have made your point. Do you like the food? I eat
:56:07. > :56:13.there all the time. And I eat the chips! I on that note, may I bring
:56:13. > :56:20.my glamorous assistant in. Where going to ask how you like to read
:56:20. > :56:25.your chips, Pritti Patel. Because we are all starving at the end of
:56:25. > :56:30.the show. That is the tower formation, and that is what one
:56:30. > :56:37.particular MP would like to see on his plate. We also have a little
:56:37. > :56:43.posh holder for the chips. I just like mine in a reasonable sized
:56:43. > :56:47.bolts. Can't you tell by my size?! The what is the best meal you have
:56:47. > :56:55.had in the Commons? You wouldn't get away with serving that portion
:56:55. > :57:00.of chips in Wigan at a fish-and- chip shop! The what would you say?
:57:00. > :57:04.That there aren't enough? Nobody in the right mind would serve chips
:57:04. > :57:14.like that. The quality in the House of Commons is absolutely fine.
:57:14. > :57:16.
:57:16. > :57:21.would you recommend we try? soup is out of this world. I have
:57:21. > :57:27.never heard any complaints about the cake. No, they haven't
:57:27. > :57:32.complained. I'm surprised they raised a lot of complaints about
:57:32. > :57:38.the food. He should always have the ability to complain. We don't want
:57:39. > :57:45.you to leave unhappy - please, have a chip. Don't be shy. You are
:57:45. > :57:55.obviously dying to have won. We didn't think about ketchup. We are
:57:55. > :57:57.
:57:57. > :58:02.going to have our complaint book on the programme. Chips and gravy.
:58:02. > :58:06.do you have that? If you complain too much, they will take the
:58:06. > :58:12.subsidy away and that would be a shame. The to is not a problem for
:58:12. > :58:17.us. I have always thought that the passes we have, I have always
:58:17. > :58:23.thought this should be graded and we should be paying a full price
:58:23. > :58:28.and those on a lower salary should be paying less. That is reasonable,
:58:28. > :58:33.particularly for staff. I have been around during the summer recess. My
:58:33. > :58:39.constituency is not that far from London. What, getting your meals?
:58:39. > :58:48.No, because I can pop in or out, but a lot of staff tend to go