:00:47. > :00:53.Good afternoon. Welcome to The Daily Politics. Planning a
:00:53. > :00:58.conservatory? Fancy a fancy car gadge? David Cameron and Nick Clegg
:00:58. > :01:02.hope you are. Also on the table, plans for more affordable homes. We
:01:02. > :01:06.will ask if it is enough. Labour don't think so, they have been
:01:06. > :01:11.talking about their own plans for economic growth this morning - roll
:01:11. > :01:15.on the wealth tax. They have flown the flag for Britain and inspired a
:01:15. > :01:18.nation. Have our Paralympians changed our opinions towards
:01:18. > :01:22.disabled people. Nicola Sturgeon will fly the flag for Scotland,
:01:22. > :01:27.hoping to win the argument for Scottish independence. We will talk
:01:27. > :01:32.to her later. Giles is enjoying the sunshine outside. I am. I am
:01:32. > :01:35.looking on the bright side. I am looking for economic growth. I will
:01:35. > :01:44.talk to three entrepreneur, that despite the recession, are leading
:01:44. > :01:49.the way. Who would have thought it - it was down to flooring, phone
:01:49. > :01:53.apps and fruit cakes. With me is the journalist and author Melanie
:01:53. > :01:59.Phillips. Welcome to the show. First today, let's start with a
:02:00. > :02:05.question - are burglars brave? Yes, brave! That is what a judge said
:02:05. > :02:09.yesterday when sentencing a burglar at Teesside Crown Court. He
:02:09. > :02:16.reportedly told the criminal it took a huge amount of courage to
:02:16. > :02:22.burgle a house, and he said that prison rarely does anybody any good.
:02:22. > :02:28.This morning the Prime Minister gave his reaction. It is a
:02:28. > :02:33.despicable crime. You know, I am very clear that people who
:02:33. > :02:38.repeatedly burgle should be sent to prison. I have not seen this
:02:38. > :02:42.specific case. Judges sometimes say things - you have to read the full
:02:42. > :02:48.context. It is not bravery, burglary is a hateful crime. People
:02:48. > :02:51.sometimes say it is not a violent crime, but if you have been burgled,
:02:51. > :02:55.you feel it is violent. This is high the Government is changing the
:02:56. > :03:01.law, to toughen the rules on self- defence, saying householders do
:03:01. > :03:11.have the right to defend themselves. We had a case the other day. I will
:03:11. > :03:13.
:03:13. > :03:18.have to look at what the judge said. Well the Prime Minister in no doubt
:03:18. > :03:25.about what should happen to burglars - what do you think about
:03:25. > :03:31.what the judge said? It was a comment so dafr you had to read it
:03:31. > :03:36.three times. As the Prime Minister said, burglary is never brave. One
:03:36. > :03:40.cannot imagine what was in this judge's mind. The judge was within
:03:40. > :03:47.his rights not to send the guy to prison. The sentencing guidelines
:03:47. > :03:52.allow him not to improz a -- impose a custodial sentence. He was
:03:52. > :04:01.impressed by the fact the guy has turned around his life, apparently.
:04:01. > :04:09.Well, the judge is entitled to his opinion, but the rest of us are
:04:09. > :04:15.within our rights to be cynical. Pretty damning about the whole
:04:15. > :04:20.prison service? For the hapless populous who is being burgled is it
:04:20. > :04:24.takes a burglar out of the environment. If he explained the
:04:24. > :04:28.burglary about this man being able to turn his life around, would a
:04:28. > :04:33.community sentence, a fine and being monitored ever be enough to
:04:33. > :04:38.substitute a jail sentence? cannot put wupbs in the position of
:04:38. > :04:43.the judge. He did set out those reasons to some extent. It is a
:04:43. > :04:46.matter of judgment. If you have a serial burglar, I am afraid I am
:04:46. > :04:53.cynical about someone turning their life around. Many people would
:04:53. > :04:57.agree with you. The other issue is self-defence. We had the other
:04:57. > :05:03.issue on intruders. The law says reasonable force can be used. Was
:05:03. > :05:07.that reasonable force? I believe so. Again one does not know the full
:05:07. > :05:10.detail, but as far as one could see the householder in question
:05:10. > :05:14.encountered burglars breaking into his house. He happened to have a
:05:14. > :05:19.shotgun. He used what came to hand to defend himself, his property and
:05:19. > :05:22.his life, as far as he was concerned, against intruders. That
:05:22. > :05:26.is a perfectly reasonable supposition for him to make that he
:05:26. > :05:30.was at risk. The law allows him to make that assumption. Therefore he
:05:30. > :05:35.did not commit a crime. Should he have been arrested and held?
:05:35. > :05:39.don't think so. I think that was a heavy reaction by the police, who
:05:39. > :05:44.seemed not to have understood quite what had happened in this
:05:44. > :05:50.circumstance. It obviously it stiblgs in the core for someone who
:05:50. > :05:55.has been -- sticks to the core for someone who has been burgled. The
:05:55. > :05:58.law is very clear - you must not assault, attack or fire upon a
:05:58. > :06:04.burglar, if for example he has turned his back and is fleeing,
:06:04. > :06:10.because that is revenge. If you genuinely think your life, limb and
:06:10. > :06:14.property are under attack you are entitled to take whatever
:06:14. > :06:22.reasonable defence is at hand. David Cameron and Nick Clegg want
:06:22. > :06:28.you to add a conservatory to your house. They want to boost it by
:06:28. > :06:32.easing planning. The Prime Minister and his deputy have been setting
:06:32. > :06:36.out the proposed changes. Under the new rules, homeowners would be able
:06:36. > :06:44.to make more changes to their homes without planning permission.
:06:44. > :06:48.Conservatives and other single -- conservatorys rather than
:06:48. > :06:53.Conservatives! They can be built four metres away
:06:53. > :06:56.from detached houses. From 2015 they will be doubled. Bigger
:06:56. > :07:01.extensions will be doubled though. The Government wants more new
:07:01. > :07:05.houses to be built. They are reducing obligations on some
:07:05. > :07:10.developers to build affordable homes. There'll be more money for
:07:10. > :07:14.the FirstBuy scheme. The aim - to kick-start the
:07:14. > :07:18.building of 75,000 new homes. The boost is needed because the
:07:18. > :07:21.construction sector is the worst performing part of the economy. It
:07:21. > :07:25.shrunk by 9% in the first half of the year. This is what the Deputy
:07:25. > :07:29.Prime Minister said this morning. What we are doing today is we're
:07:29. > :07:37.doing a bunch of things to create more homes, more affordable homes
:07:37. > :07:40.and more jobs. We are doing that by removing some of the bureaucracy
:07:40. > :07:43.and hassle - and getting house builders to put shovels in the
:07:43. > :07:49.ground. We are helping people with their first time mortgages. We are
:07:49. > :07:53.putting up �300 million to build up to 15,000 affordable homes to.
:07:53. > :07:57.Bring 5,000 empty homes back into use and really importantly, we are
:07:57. > :08:03.putting up �10 billion worth of Government guarantees to house
:08:03. > :08:07.builter sos they can lower the cost that they face and get them
:08:07. > :08:11.building again. Nick Clegg explaining the plans. Will it be as
:08:11. > :08:16.simple as the coalition hopes? The Government will find out changing
:08:16. > :08:22.the planning system does not always work as as plans. Eric Pickles is
:08:22. > :08:28.being taken to court by a council who says he has broken his own
:08:28. > :08:33.rules by letting local people say what gets built where. The site for
:08:33. > :08:37.a decisive battle between the war of the roses, now Teweksbury is
:08:37. > :08:42.fighting the Conservative Community Secretary. It is over proposals to
:08:42. > :08:46.develop a nearby village. Two different builters want to
:08:46. > :08:51.build two new developments, side by side, right here. Overall, it is
:08:51. > :08:58.about 1,000 new houses, a couple of offices, a community centre and
:08:58. > :09:01.some sport pitches. It it's all in the shadow of the highest point in
:09:01. > :09:06.the Cotswold. Locals are furious. There's been enough building going
:09:06. > :09:11.on here. It is time to put a halt on it. The village has grown so
:09:11. > :09:16.much over the past 20 years and the facilitys can not take any more.
:09:16. > :09:21.Objections like that led Teweksbury Borough Council to oppose the
:09:21. > :09:25.application last spring. The developers then won an appeal,
:09:25. > :09:28.which Eric Pickles backed in July this year. Now the council are
:09:28. > :09:32.going to the High Court to challenge the Government's decision.
:09:32. > :09:37.The case should be heard in a few months' time. Councillors didn't
:09:37. > :09:42.want to talk to us for legal reasons. The local MP was happy to
:09:42. > :09:45.vent his theory. I want to see it change so local people who know the
:09:45. > :09:49.area, who know how many houses are necessary, they actually have
:09:49. > :09:52.something to say. I thought we were going down that road. I think the
:09:52. > :09:57.Government indicated I wanted to go down that road. We have to push it
:09:57. > :10:01.in that direction. If Eric Pickles was here now, what would you say?
:10:01. > :10:05.would perhaps better not repeat it. There is the issue. The Government
:10:05. > :10:09.wants more stuff built, yet at the same time has told communities they
:10:09. > :10:14.have more power to stop things being built. Planning experts can
:10:14. > :10:19.see trouble on the horizon. I think a lot of people I speak to do
:10:19. > :10:25.realise you cannot just say, no I do not want any development, but
:10:25. > :10:30.clearly you will have NIMBYism, you will have banana build nothing and
:10:30. > :10:34.nothing near me any time. That is the problem. That is kind of what I
:10:34. > :10:39.found here. You know who the biggest bananas are here? The
:10:39. > :10:49.people who have moved into brand new houses which have just been
:10:49. > :10:51.
:10:51. > :10:54.built. We like that, "Banana." With me is Clyde Loakes, we are
:10:54. > :10:58.joined also by Stephen Littlechild from the Institute of Economic
:10:58. > :11:01.Affairs. Welcome to both of you. Starting with you, the planning
:11:01. > :11:06.process has been the block on building new homes? That is not so.
:11:06. > :11:11.We are a ten-year high with councils planning planning
:11:11. > :11:15.applications for new houses: We have 400,000 new homes ready to get
:11:15. > :11:20.off the blocks. We have enough for the next three years if we didn't
:11:20. > :11:23.do any more planning applications. Why aren't they being built?
:11:23. > :11:26.Developers are sitting on their hands. I think they are waiting for
:11:26. > :11:30.the Government to make the announcement, like today, where
:11:30. > :11:37.they can maximise and get more profit out of their schemes, rather
:11:37. > :11:43.than reflexing on the mixed, sustainable communities we at local
:11:43. > :11:48.councils want build. Is ate a myth that they have been the -- it has
:11:48. > :11:51.been a myth that they have been the block to reform. There will be a
:11:51. > :11:57.range of different reasons why they would not have been developed yet.
:11:58. > :12:02.We have in Britain one of the most complex planning systems you could
:12:02. > :12:06.design. In other European countries you can almost move from the
:12:06. > :12:09.drawing board to the first shovel in the ground in a number of weeks.
:12:09. > :12:14.Here it can take years. We have to be realise tick about the lands we
:12:14. > :12:18.have available. It is all right if you are on the property ladder, you
:12:18. > :12:24.are sitting pretty. If you are not on it there is not enough stock. We
:12:24. > :12:28.only have about 10% of the entirety of this country developed. We can
:12:28. > :12:34.do a lot more building without any worries that all our green and
:12:34. > :12:38.pleasant land is not destroyed. Isn't that the point, successive
:12:38. > :12:42.Governments have not built enough homes. Shouldn't there been a
:12:42. > :12:46.quicker planning process? We have a good planning process in this
:12:46. > :12:50.country. 400,000 plots ready to go. The real issue here is what
:12:50. > :12:54.developments are not doing. They are stalling. They are waiting to
:12:54. > :12:57.maximise profits. The issue is about the liquidity of the mortgage
:12:57. > :13:01.and finance markets that allow people to get that first step on
:13:01. > :13:05.the ladder. We are here, as local councils, long after the developers
:13:05. > :13:08.have gone. We know the sorts of developments we want to have built.
:13:08. > :13:14.We should have every justification. We are accountable to local people
:13:14. > :13:21.to make those decisions and take those schemes forward. We have a
:13:21. > :13:27.system which encourages nimbyism. It is rational to be a NIMBY, as in
:13:27. > :13:36.that exact. If you own a �500 million house you will be against
:13:36. > :13:45.the low -- �500,000 house you will be against it. The choice is not,
:13:45. > :13:52.do you want this field built on or not, it is, if you do we'll lower
:13:52. > :13:57.your council tax. We have to have a better compensation culture. What
:13:57. > :14:02.do you think in terms of a case of lack of demand, rather than
:14:02. > :14:08.planning - blocking the process, before we get on to the question of
:14:08. > :14:12.NIMBYism? Well, I think that planning laws may well need
:14:12. > :14:16.reforming, may need streamlining. I cannot really see that the planning
:14:16. > :14:21.issue is the key issue. As I understand it, as we have heard,
:14:21. > :14:25.there are many other issues which are preventing house builders from
:14:25. > :14:30.building. For example, the commitment they have to build
:14:30. > :14:34.affordable housing. It is a good thing? It may or may not. It is
:14:34. > :14:39.holding them up. The comparison with France - France is very
:14:39. > :14:45.ruthless, but France can afford to be ruthless. It is an enormous
:14:45. > :14:48.country. We have an overcrowded country. This lady in Teweksbury.
:14:48. > :14:52.Look at that wonderful scenery, look at that fantastic environment
:14:52. > :14:57.they have. There is a limit to house building beyond which one
:14:57. > :15:01.loses ameem knittys. We don't have enough homes because there are
:15:01. > :15:05.400,000 plots which have been designated for homes which are not
:15:05. > :15:15.built on. There is also brownfield development, which is not happening,
:15:15. > :15:17.
:15:17. > :15:21.for a variety of reasons. Will this We are not going to see enormous
:15:21. > :15:26.GDP growth because a handful of people start building
:15:26. > :15:30.conservatories in their back garden. It smells of panic by the
:15:30. > :15:38.Chancellor. He is desperate to get the economy kick started. He
:15:38. > :15:41.doesn't want to take the moves he has to take to do that. So he is he
:15:41. > :15:47.is encouraging house building, a few conservatories will kick start
:15:47. > :15:52.house building, it is crackers. Even if people are able to build
:15:52. > :15:58.conservatories and extensions is the demand there? Is there a
:15:58. > :16:02.backlog of people saying, "We don't want to move, we want to invest in
:16:02. > :16:08.our homes?". There is a reason why permitted development is as it is
:16:08. > :16:15.and that's to protect the eye the amenity of neighbours. That's to
:16:15. > :16:21.ensure quality in the pllds and to stop -- bllds -- bllds and to stop
:16:21. > :16:25.our gardens being developed in a fluffy way. It is a naive view to
:16:25. > :16:29.suggest that's going to stimulate growth.
:16:29. > :16:35.The Government introducing the national policy framework this year.
:16:35. > :16:42.The fact that the new prosals are come come -- proposals are coming,
:16:42. > :16:45.is that an admission that didn't work? This is, I think for a
:16:45. > :16:51.Conservative dominated Government an extremely difficult issue. We
:16:51. > :16:55.have seen Tewkesbury, that's Tory heartland where the whole issue
:16:55. > :16:59.surrounding Heathrow and the third runway goes to the same issue. You
:17:00. > :17:04.have You have got two problems, it is not just that people don't want
:17:04. > :17:07.a load of building next to them, if we build the houses we need in the
:17:07. > :17:10.United Kingdom, you will see property prices fall. If you own a
:17:10. > :17:13.descent property, you could suffer as a result.
:17:13. > :17:18.That brings us to another point. The Bank of England is keeping
:17:18. > :17:20.interest rates at the same level at 0.5%. You just raised the point if
:17:20. > :17:25.outside London particularly in the South East, house prices start to
:17:25. > :17:30.fall, is it the right strategy of the Government to be encouraging
:17:30. > :17:35.first-time buyers to take on deposits even if they are getting
:17:35. > :17:39.help with paying mortgages for the first few years. If prices come
:17:39. > :17:46.down, these people could find themselves in difficulty? First-
:17:46. > :17:51.time buyers are in difficulties and that is an unfortunate fact and we
:17:51. > :17:59.need more affordable housing. We need ways in which first-time
:17:59. > :18:05.buyers can be encouraged to buy houses. Because the way people,
:18:05. > :18:08.families are splitting up. More people are living alone. What was
:18:08. > :18:13.one household becomes two or three households and there is the issue
:18:13. > :18:16.of immigration and all these things feed into this housing problem. You
:18:16. > :18:21.can't isolate housing problems. The lack of housing and say, "We just
:18:21. > :18:24.reformed the planning laws." You have a bunch of very controversial
:18:24. > :18:28.social policies wrapped up in this. I am going to have to say goodbye
:18:28. > :18:30.to you two. Thank you very much.
:18:31. > :18:35.Ed Miliband and the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, have been
:18:35. > :18:40.setting o out their ideas on the idea. They have been arguing that
:18:40. > :18:50.the recession demands a new look. This is what Ed Miliband had to say
:18:50. > :18:50.
:18:51. > :18:56.earlier. It was harder for New Labour to be
:18:56. > :19:06.the party to reform it. And that is the key for us in the future. Today,
:19:06. > :19:07.
:19:07. > :19:12.clear about the role of markets, we can more confidently with the
:19:12. > :19:21.people who see that the rules need to change. Urgent if we are to
:19:21. > :19:27.tackle the issue of redistribution. We We won't compete if we remain a
:19:27. > :19:30.low wage, low skill economy. Joining me now is Shadow Treasury
:19:30. > :19:35.Minister, Chris Leslie. This morning, we have been hearing terms
:19:35. > :19:39.from the Labour leadership about moving from redistribution to
:19:39. > :19:44.predistribution, what is that? you have got to look at it through
:19:44. > :19:49.the prism of the current environment we're in. We are in an
:19:49. > :19:53.economic climate where clearly growth is not coming to fruition.
:19:53. > :19:57.We are worried that we are not going to have the revenues coming
:19:57. > :20:02.into the exchequer in the way that they used to do and in those
:20:02. > :20:06.circumstances as Labour politicians, we want to create a fairer society.
:20:06. > :20:10.How do we do that? It won't be as simple as using tax receipts in
:20:10. > :20:14.order to distribute those to create a fairer society.
:20:14. > :20:19.So Labour are moving away from a tax credit system? No, we want to
:20:19. > :20:23.still do that. If we get a return to economic growth, we want to make
:20:23. > :20:26.society as fair as we can. The question we have to ask is - are
:20:26. > :20:32.there ways of looking at other aspects of society, for example?
:20:32. > :20:35.Descent quality skilled jobs that pay well. That have descent quality,
:20:35. > :20:39.circumstances for employees... Everyone wants that? They do.
:20:39. > :20:43.What are you going to do? What's the magic bullet that Labour has
:20:43. > :20:46.got? The point the leader of the Labour Party is making this morning,
:20:46. > :20:51.it is not just about the Government spending money, it is about
:20:51. > :20:54.industry. It is about employers changing behaviour, having a better
:20:54. > :20:58.relationship with their staff, and improving the quality of the
:20:58. > :21:01.workplace for example. Whether that will create jobs, I
:21:01. > :21:05.don't know, it sounds like Labour has come to the conclusion there is
:21:05. > :21:07.no money left to spend. Also you are considering a wealth tax on
:21:07. > :21:13.high value properties, very much the Liberal Democrats policy. What
:21:13. > :21:19.is a high value property? Where would you put it at? You are a few
:21:19. > :21:23.steps ahead. Vince Cable was speculating about whether we should
:21:23. > :21:26.have a mansion tax. Ed Balls says this is something you
:21:26. > :21:30.have sympathy. Ed was asked and we want to see the
:21:30. > :21:33.details. It is an interesting proposition. We don't have the
:21:33. > :21:37.details of whether it will be one off or whether it is something he
:21:37. > :21:47.thinks needs to think. The Shadow Chancellor would like it
:21:47. > :21:50.
:21:50. > :21:54.to be a a permanent tax? Poor old Vince has various various lasus
:21:54. > :21:58.thrown around him. The Shadow Chancellor put an offer to Vince
:21:58. > :22:03.Cable, let's discuss these things. What do you like about it?
:22:03. > :22:08.thing we have got to do is recognise we would keep the 50
:22:08. > :22:11.pence top rate of income tax as a prefer rable way of having a fairer
:22:11. > :22:15.tax system. You would keen the 50 pence top
:22:15. > :22:20.rate of tax and you would be sympathetic to the idea of tax on
:22:20. > :22:25.unearned wealth? Because the Government have cut that 50 pence
:22:25. > :22:29.rate to 45p and they are looking to other people to pay the gap,
:22:29. > :22:33.pensioners and ordinary working people. And we think that's unfair.
:22:33. > :22:39.If the Business Secretary has got a suggestion about other fairer ways
:22:39. > :22:46.of raising taxes, well we'll hear what he has got to say.
:22:46. > :22:49.The suggestion is on properties above �2 million. Well... With the
:22:49. > :22:53.greatest respect, we don't know. Would that be palatable? We will
:22:53. > :22:57.look at the details, but there are disadvantages to sometimes looking
:22:57. > :23:01.at what you might called fixed assets. You can find people who
:23:01. > :23:07.have high value capital assets, but don't have liquid income in order
:23:07. > :23:11.to pay charges upon that. This was one of the arguments had about
:23:11. > :23:16.council tax banding. If you end up with circumstances where a widow
:23:16. > :23:20.who perhaps had a family background with great income, finds herself in
:23:20. > :23:27.a family property, but can't pay the tax, you have got to be
:23:27. > :23:31.sensitive to circumstances where some people... This is politically
:23:31. > :23:36.motivated. It looks as if you read it and this is an overt flirtation
:23:36. > :23:40.with the Liberal Democrats at a time Labour thinks the coalition is
:23:40. > :23:47.in trouble because you are not putting your money where your mouth
:23:47. > :23:51.is? We have put our money where our mouth is saying we want a bank
:23:51. > :23:54.bonus levy. We think it is wrong to have changed the 50 pence, if the
:23:54. > :24:03.Government ministers want to propose tax changes, put the things
:24:03. > :24:07.on the table. It is an odd way to make tax changes. Has Vince Cable
:24:07. > :24:12.had talks with Ed Balls? The phone is there. We are waiting to see
:24:12. > :24:17.what he has to say. So you have asked the department
:24:17. > :24:22.department to have the meeting with Vince Cable? I haven't, but the
:24:22. > :24:25.invitation is a very public one. There was good news for the
:24:25. > :24:29.coalition Government, the World Economic Forum World Economic Forum
:24:29. > :24:33.survey said the UK has risen from tenth to eighth in the terms of
:24:33. > :24:38.global competitiveness. It is an indication that the supply reforms
:24:38. > :24:41.are working? The evidence is scant. We saw the OECD change their
:24:41. > :24:47.prediction today about what the growth is going to be in the UK.
:24:47. > :24:53.They thought it was going to be plus... On a competitive... They
:24:53. > :24:58.are saying the economy is going to shrink by 0.7%. This is the biggest
:24:58. > :25:01.fall that they are predicting of any developing country.
:25:01. > :25:04.It would be dangerous when the figures come out? The Government
:25:04. > :25:08.will try their best to find evidence to the contrary. The facts
:25:08. > :25:11.are that the economy is in recession and that we really need
:25:12. > :25:15.action now. They are blaming the planning planning system. They are
:25:15. > :25:21.blaming other changes, but the stimulus that we need now to the
:25:21. > :25:27.economy that's missing. It is interesting to to hear Chris
:25:27. > :25:32.Leslie saying that the tax system is not right way of redistributing
:25:32. > :25:37.wealth. That they are looking at the idea of a wealth tax?
:25:37. > :25:41.Government is correct, they are all over the shop and there is
:25:41. > :25:44.incoherence. But I am confused about where Labour is at the moment
:25:44. > :25:49.because they seem to be trying to argue different things at the same
:25:49. > :25:53.time, but the thing that leaps out, whether it is redistribution or
:25:53. > :25:58.predistribution or tax credits or a wealth tax, Labour is still hung up
:25:58. > :26:01.on this business of fairness, equalling taking money away from
:26:01. > :26:06.people who are wealthy, or wealthy to people and giving it to people
:26:06. > :26:12.who are poorer. I am in favour of a fair society, but for a fair
:26:12. > :26:17.society, everyone starts at the same level. The problem is they
:26:17. > :26:22.don't all start at the same level and we don't have a fair society.
:26:22. > :26:25.The problem our country faces is we need wealth to be created and I
:26:25. > :26:28.can't hear from the Labour Party at the moment how they're going to
:26:28. > :26:32.help create that wealth. I can't hear it from the Government either
:26:32. > :26:35.actually, but I want to hear it from the Labour Party.
:26:35. > :26:41.When Vince Cable returns the call do let us know.
:26:41. > :26:44.After a summer of Olympic glory, we're revelling in the success of
:26:44. > :26:48.our Paralympic champions who've been raking in the gold medals and
:26:48. > :26:50.changing the way we view disability - well that's the hope. But should
:26:50. > :26:53.the achievements of Paralympic athletes change the way we approach
:26:53. > :27:01.the cuts to disability benefits? Susana Mendonsa has been finding
:27:01. > :27:10.out. They are impressive achievements that have been
:27:11. > :27:14.transforming perceptions. Britain's gold rush brought questions about
:27:14. > :27:17.cuts to benefits. They have been able to fulfil their
:27:17. > :27:22.aspirations. Without these, who knows what could have happened.
:27:22. > :27:27.People need to understand that the people they are seeing on the front
:27:27. > :27:33.of papers or on the TV screens are just one group of disabled people.
:27:33. > :27:36.People would just think anyone can be the next whoever wins the
:27:36. > :27:39.athletics. Around this table in a South London
:27:39. > :27:44.cafe, a group of people with muscular dystrophy are here to
:27:44. > :27:47.debate the changes. First up, Incapacity Benefit. Over two
:27:47. > :27:51.million people who used to claim that have been getting reassessed
:27:51. > :27:54.for the employment and support allowance which you only receive in
:27:54. > :27:59.full if you are deemed unfit for work. The estimated saving �2
:27:59. > :28:07.billion a year. Those assessments led to protests like this one
:28:07. > :28:11.outside the IT firm, ATOS, 38% of people who appealed had their fit
:28:11. > :28:15.for work assessments overturn. There are concerns about who is
:28:15. > :28:19.conducting the assessments. Isn't it right that people who can
:28:19. > :28:24.do some work should be encouraged into work which is what the
:28:24. > :28:27.Government wants to see? Yes. If disabled people can work, they
:28:27. > :28:34.should work and that should be something that's encouraged, but it
:28:34. > :28:39.is making sure that the transition procedure is right.
:28:39. > :28:46.It has got to get a good approach to get people to work if they can
:28:46. > :28:49.and that's the crucial word, "If they can." Because many disabled
:28:49. > :28:53.people need assistance. The other change will be to the
:28:53. > :28:57.Disability Living Allowance which will be replaced by the Personal
:28:57. > :29:01.Independence Payment at an estimated saving to the Treasury of
:29:01. > :29:05.�2 billion. An issue the Prime Minister was questioned about at
:29:06. > :29:09.PMQs this week. His decision to cut Disability
:29:09. > :29:12.Living Allowance will prevent disabled people participating in
:29:12. > :29:16.sport and threaten the legacy of the London Games.
:29:16. > :29:20.We are not cutting the money that's going into supporting disability.
:29:20. > :29:24.We are reforming the system and replacing Disability Living
:29:24. > :29:27.Allowance with a Personal Independence Payment and it is
:29:27. > :29:32.about recognising people's needs. We know it will be more means-
:29:32. > :29:36.tested. The burden of disability shouldn't be on everyone around
:29:36. > :29:39.them. It almost stops people from wanting to be successful.
:29:39. > :29:44.Now the Disability Living Allowance has been around for 20 years,
:29:44. > :29:48.unchanged. The cost has trebled during that period. Isn't it right
:29:48. > :29:52.that the Government should replace it with something more affordable?
:29:52. > :29:57.Cost is going to increase and due to the natural increase in
:29:57. > :30:00.population and numbers of disabled people. So it is not - that's not
:30:00. > :30:04.the right argument to bring down the cost.
:30:04. > :30:11.The Paralympics reignited the debate, but what will the legacy
:30:11. > :30:14.We're joined now by the Labour MP, Dame Anne Begg. Welcome to the
:30:14. > :30:24.programme. Do you think first of all, watching the achievements of
:30:24. > :30:29.Paralympians has changed people's I hope so. I hope it will be long-
:30:29. > :30:33.lasting. We've all been amazed at the abilities they have shown. I
:30:33. > :30:37.think, because there has been an increase in disability hate crime
:30:37. > :30:44.over recent years, that those sort of things, the assumptions made
:30:44. > :30:49.about disabled people, they must be scroungers and must not be trying
:30:49. > :30:55.are dissipated. I hope they see the person beyond the disability.
:30:55. > :31:00.a taboo subject - disability and benefits? I think it has given the
:31:00. > :31:07.people a vow cab bri to use. One problem was people were making sure
:31:07. > :31:12.they would not offend anybody and were rendered inarticulate. The
:31:12. > :31:17.Channel 4 coverage has busted a lot of those kind of myths. It has
:31:17. > :31:24.allowed people just to talk to people with disabilities and say
:31:24. > :31:34.the sort of things, they could say to a blind person, gosh, you should
:31:34. > :31:35.
:31:35. > :31:41.have seen that, or stay to someone who cannot walk, "Step over here."
:31:41. > :31:46.Do you think that? I hope so. I think it has changed people east
:31:46. > :31:51.perceptions in a very dramatic way. I think that most people had no
:31:51. > :31:58.idea that very seriously disabled people could be capable of such
:31:58. > :32:04.feats of strength and courage and achievement. And as Anne says, I
:32:04. > :32:11.think it certainly for the period of the Paralympics it has enabled
:32:11. > :32:16.people to talk about disability. Once the Paralympics, whether this
:32:16. > :32:21.mood fades away, we'll have to see. What about it makes people think,
:32:21. > :32:28.well look at these people achieving these amazing things in sport, they
:32:28. > :32:33.don't need that much help? I think that is an absolute danger. On the
:32:33. > :32:37.other hand there is an element of truth in it. It is a danger because
:32:37. > :32:42.many, if not most disabled people could do those things. I could not
:32:42. > :32:47.do those things. The Paralympians themselves, one forgets they live
:32:47. > :32:54.with appalling levels of hardship, frustration and physical infirmty.
:32:54. > :32:59.But on the other hand it does tell us that with the will to overcome
:32:59. > :33:03.the demoralising belief that we are victims of life rather than taking
:33:03. > :33:07.life by the horns and we can make something of it, it does tell us
:33:07. > :33:12.that with the right attitude it is possible in certain circumstances
:33:12. > :33:16.to overcome that. And through that prism the Government may be
:33:16. > :33:21.struggling to sell its message then on disability reforms, but seeing
:33:21. > :33:28.it the way it has just been outlines there, are they as
:33:28. > :33:35.controversial as some people say? It is more than attitudes, it is
:33:35. > :33:40.physical barriers. So David Weir - I don't know if he gets Disability
:33:40. > :33:45.Living Allowance - he is qualified for it. He needs an adapive car. He
:33:45. > :33:49.still cannot get on to most of the London Underground. He has an
:33:49. > :33:53.adapted house. All that costs money. It is not cheap. The fear for most
:33:53. > :34:01.disabled people is the money they get now which allows them to travel
:34:01. > :34:05.to the training grounds, that money will stop. When it stops, their
:34:05. > :34:12.independence stops. It is so emotive... It is all about the
:34:12. > :34:15.assessment, isn't it? That is right. Even Paralympians have needs that
:34:15. > :34:19.cost money. The position the Government come from is they are
:34:19. > :34:22.troubled by people who don't have that degree of need and
:34:23. > :34:28.nonetheless... Are we talking about a lot of people here? Are we
:34:28. > :34:32.talking about that many people? think a lot of that - the fallacy
:34:32. > :34:37.around disabled people, things like Disability Living Allowance is paid
:34:37. > :34:39.to those out of work and some of the confusion comes with the
:34:39. > :34:44.employment support allowance, which is the benefit changing at the
:34:44. > :34:51.moment which has caused a great deal of anger. In that case it is
:34:51. > :35:00.often the assessment. I had a constituent who had motor neurone
:35:00. > :35:05.disease, lost his job and then was assessed as being fit for work.
:35:06. > :35:09.That is why many feel persecuted, they think the system is there to
:35:09. > :35:14.take the money away from them. All the talk about cuts makes them
:35:14. > :35:17.think the Government is coming after the benefit they depend on to
:35:17. > :35:22.lead an independent life. That is the group of people there is focus
:35:22. > :35:27.on in terms of taking away potentially some of their
:35:27. > :35:32.allowances on the basis of an assessment, where there are clearly
:35:32. > :35:36.mistakes being made because of the types of people carrying out the
:35:36. > :35:41.assessments don't have the qualifications. What are you asked
:35:41. > :35:45.to do to find out if you are eligible? The last thing it does is
:35:45. > :35:49.assess your capability for work. That is done by a work provider if
:35:49. > :35:56.you are found you are fit for some work. That is where it gets
:35:56. > :36:00.complicated. You talk about the different groups. But it's -
:36:00. > :36:07.despite changes the Government claim to have put in place, it is
:36:07. > :36:12.still very musm a tick box. It -- much a tick box. It asks if someone
:36:12. > :36:16.can move an empty box across a distance. Therefore in the
:36:16. > :36:19.assumption if you do it once you can work 40 hours a week in a low-
:36:20. > :36:24.paid job. The two don't go together. That is part of the problem. It is
:36:24. > :36:29.not assessing people's ability to get work, hold down a job and be
:36:29. > :36:33.employed. Because employers very often discriminate against people
:36:33. > :36:40.as well. Thank you for joining us. We have now been joined by viewers
:36:40. > :36:44.in Scotland who have been watching First Minister's questions from
:36:44. > :36:49.Holyrood. The Scottish political editor joins us now. It has been
:36:49. > :36:53.reshuffle up in Scotland too, hasn't it? And new bills brought
:36:53. > :36:57.in? The legislative programme announced including a bill for a
:36:57. > :37:04.referendum - the legislation will go ahead. The referendum will be in
:37:04. > :37:08.2014. It is that which has caused controversy. Nicola Sturgeon moved
:37:09. > :37:12.from health to infrastructure, with a remit on the constitution and
:37:12. > :37:19.questions to the First Minister today, it was said to be
:37:19. > :37:24.downgrading the economy. It was an obsession of the SNP. Salmond
:37:24. > :37:27.taking a different tack, saying the economy was the number one priority
:37:27. > :37:32.for every single member of the Government, but at the same time,
:37:32. > :37:37.within that, they believed it was legitimate to argue economic
:37:37. > :37:40.priority is advanced by going down the road to independence. In terms
:37:40. > :37:44.of the economy, George Osborne, the Chancellor, I understand, is
:37:44. > :37:48.speaking to the CBI in Scotland this evening. What sort of
:37:48. > :37:50.reception will he receive? I think good. The CBI are saying in a
:37:50. > :37:55.statement, that they are issuing this afternoon, that they believe
:37:55. > :38:00.that independence will be damaging, that the very fact of a debate
:38:00. > :38:04.taking place they would regard as an aspect which causes worry and
:38:04. > :38:08.concern to business. I am sure George Osborne will emphasise that
:38:08. > :38:12.point as well. He will face some criticism and question marks over
:38:12. > :38:16.his own conduct of the economy - a point that Alex Salmond was keen to
:38:16. > :38:20.draw. He is saying to Labour, who were challenging on the business of
:38:20. > :38:24.independence, saying what is so wonderful about the situation in
:38:24. > :38:29.Scotland? Claiming the Scottish Government had claimed to mitigate,
:38:29. > :38:33.in his view, some of the damaging aspects and arguing they could do
:38:33. > :38:37.more if they had full control of the economy. Alex Salmond, as you
:38:37. > :38:40.say may want to focus on the economy at the moment, but we've
:38:40. > :38:49.had the latest in referendum talks, haven't we? Nicola Sturgeon has
:38:49. > :38:53.just come out of those. Have we any news? Nicola Sturgeon meeting Mr
:38:53. > :38:56.Mundell. A statement says they were construction, there was momentum
:38:56. > :39:01.and further talks next week between the Secretary of State and Nicola
:39:01. > :39:07.Sturgeon. My guess is we are heading towards a deal where there
:39:07. > :39:12.is a single yes or no to independence. I guess that is the
:39:12. > :39:19.situation. My belief is it is only that that the Government will give
:39:19. > :39:23.sanction to. Having another question on the ballot paper.
:39:23. > :39:27.you very much. I believe we can talk now to Nicola Sturgeon, who in
:39:27. > :39:33.the reshuffle, has been given the job of heading up that independence
:39:33. > :39:40.campaign. Can you hear us here? can hear you, yes. You have come
:39:40. > :39:43.out of talks with David Mundell is one question agreed? We have not
:39:43. > :39:46.got to the point of agreeing anything yet. We had good
:39:47. > :39:50.discussions this morning. I will meet next week with the Secretary
:39:50. > :39:54.of State for Scotland. I hope we'll make further progress in those
:39:54. > :39:57.discussions to pave the way for a meeting that we hope will take
:39:57. > :40:00.place between the first minister and the Prime Minister in the next
:40:00. > :40:04.few weeks. I am very confident that we can reach agreement. I think
:40:04. > :40:08.there is a will on both sides to get the process issues out of the
:40:08. > :40:11.way so we can get on with the debate that really matters. That is
:40:12. > :40:16.the debate about why Scotland would be better off as an independent
:40:16. > :40:21.country. Is it right that in that meeting the argument now has been
:40:21. > :40:25.criticised that if you agree to one question on the ballot paper, then
:40:25. > :40:30.you will get that legal basis that you need to hold that referendum
:40:30. > :40:33.and make it binding. That is the argument. If you agree to that it
:40:33. > :40:38.is sorted? With respect. I am not trying to evade your question. I
:40:38. > :40:41.will not go into the detail of the negotiations under way live on
:40:42. > :40:47.television. That would be discourteous and not helpful to the
:40:47. > :40:51.process. Give us a hint of where it is going? We are focusing on issues,
:40:51. > :40:54.for example issues around the timetable that we would require to
:40:54. > :40:57.agree for a section 30 order to go through. Both Parliaments, there
:40:57. > :41:04.are issues around the franchise. There are issues around the timing
:41:04. > :41:07.of the referendum. So we are discussing all these issues,
:41:07. > :41:11.including issues around the question or questions. So, all
:41:11. > :41:16.these things are being discussed. We have always been very clear that
:41:16. > :41:19.a fundamental principal is that there should be no strings attached
:41:19. > :41:23.by Westminster. Referendum should be made and built in Scotland. But
:41:23. > :41:28.I was pleased with the nature and the tone of the discussions this
:41:28. > :41:31.morning. I look forward to continuing to pick up the pace of
:41:31. > :41:34.these discussions, make further progress and pave the way for the
:41:34. > :41:37.meeting between Alex Salmond and David Cameron. It sound from your
:41:37. > :41:41.tone at least, even if you cannot tell us about the negotiations,
:41:42. > :41:46.that some progress is being made. One of the other issues is giving
:41:46. > :41:51.the vote to 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland. Now, the signals over the
:41:51. > :41:55.summer in the papers that Westminster were alive to that - is
:41:56. > :41:59.that true? Well, again I was very pleased with the nature of the
:41:59. > :42:04.discussion. So it is a yes? It is one of the issues we are making
:42:04. > :42:08.progress on. I have to be clear that nothing, as yet, is agreed. It
:42:08. > :42:12.would be wrong for me to go into the detail yes, that is one of the
:42:12. > :42:16.issues where I think we are making progress. We have always argued
:42:16. > :42:20.that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote, not just in this
:42:20. > :42:25.referendum, but all elections. you have any doubt about taking
:42:25. > :42:28.this job. If you lose the referendum, you'll have to quit?
:42:28. > :42:31.believe for my entire adult life that Scotland should be an
:42:31. > :42:36.independent country. If we are to have a strong economy we need
:42:36. > :42:39.access to resources F we are to make people more prosperous, we
:42:39. > :42:43.need to have control over the levers that determine that. To
:42:43. > :42:47.tackle poverty we need tax and benefits. I am thoroughly looking
:42:47. > :42:50.forward to this. The key part of my responsibilities is economic
:42:51. > :42:55.recovery. There is a big link between getting our economy growing
:42:55. > :43:01.and the powers we have as a Parliament. We are talking about
:43:01. > :43:06.the Paralympics. Did you feel proud to be part of Team GB? I thoroughly
:43:06. > :43:13.enjoyed watching and cheering on team bb. The debate about
:43:13. > :43:17.independence -- Team GB. The debate about independence is not just
:43:17. > :43:22.about identity. I thought it was all about identity. The social
:43:22. > :43:25.union between Scotland and England is beyond any doubt. This is a
:43:25. > :43:29.debate about the economic and political powers that we need in
:43:29. > :43:34.Scotland to have a stronger economy, to be more prosperous and to be a
:43:34. > :43:40.fairer society. That is what the debate is about. The SNP and Alex
:43:40. > :43:47.Salmond and you have always framed your arguments in this idea of
:43:47. > :43:56.identity. This idea - wasn't that dented by the idea that Sir Hoy and
:43:56. > :44:00.Andy Murray draped in the Union Jack,? I don't think they... I am a
:44:00. > :44:04.proud and patriotic Scot. I believe two things - I believe you can be a
:44:04. > :44:08.proud Scot and not support independence. I believe you can
:44:08. > :44:12.feel British and support independence because independence
:44:12. > :44:15.is about political and economic powers. It is about forging a
:44:15. > :44:19.relationship of equals between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
:44:19. > :44:24.That is the debate we'll have in the next couple of years. I am
:44:24. > :44:30.determined it will be an honest and positive debate, an upbeat debate.
:44:30. > :44:34.I am thoroughly looking forward to it. Which can tell. Enjoy your new
:44:34. > :44:37.job. In terms of what the Government wants to do, in terms of
:44:37. > :44:43.defending the union, do you think they have a difficult job? They may
:44:43. > :44:46.be making it easier if the SNP is going to put its money where its
:44:46. > :44:51.mouth is and have a question on the ballot paper. Something they have
:44:51. > :44:57.tried to avoid. They feel given the choice independence or no, the
:44:57. > :45:00.Scots will say "No." What a lot of inco-her rant rubbish from Nicola
:45:00. > :45:04.Sturgeon. She is proud to be Scottish and British. The whole
:45:04. > :45:09.point about the SNP is they wish to divide Scotland from England. They
:45:09. > :45:15.wish to dissolve the union of Scotland and England. That is what
:45:15. > :45:20.Britain is. So they want it both ways. They cannot potszable in
:45:20. > :45:24.today's climate bring -- possibly in today's climate bring themselves
:45:24. > :45:28.there - it is rubbish. It is complete nonsense. My overall point
:45:28. > :45:33.is, the underlining point was not brought up, obviously by Nicola
:45:33. > :45:38.Sturgeon, is it's not simply for the Scots, the right of the Scots
:45:38. > :45:42.to vote on independence - English voters should. What they will vote
:45:42. > :45:46.on is not independence for Scotland, it is the break-up of the United
:45:46. > :45:50.Kingdom. Well, we have a another couple of years to talk about this.
:45:50. > :45:54.The Government wants to build its way out of recession. Labour thinks
:45:54. > :46:04.a wealth tax might do the trick. Some businesses are doing very well
:46:04. > :46:11.
:46:11. > :46:18.We spent so much of our time trying to get time trying to get out of
:46:18. > :46:22.politicians how to stimulus growth. Your company makes phone apps and
:46:22. > :46:32.has a fantastic bakery and you restore floors. You started your
:46:32. > :46:32.
:46:32. > :46:37.place, what is it sex million downloads a -- -- six million
:46:37. > :46:41.downloads. We felt the the smartphone market
:46:41. > :46:45.was booming, even though the economy was in downturn, the phone
:46:45. > :46:49.market was in upturn. It has been a great experience.
:46:49. > :46:53.What's the secret to setting something like that up? Was it the
:46:53. > :47:00.fact that you had experience of industry, but you hadn't done it
:47:00. > :47:03.yourself or was it this is a country where entrepreneurism is
:47:03. > :47:09.fostered? Every experience is a good experience. You just need to
:47:09. > :47:14.have the bravery and the courage to take your ideas and believe in your
:47:14. > :47:19.concepts and push it through. It is to have the courage to set-up
:47:20. > :47:25.on your own. You are so busy baking cup karks,
:47:25. > :47:30.it is -- cakes, it is almost, "Recession, what recession?".
:47:30. > :47:34.were always busy from almost day one and we didn't realise there was
:47:34. > :47:39.a recession. It sounds silly. We were always busy.
:47:39. > :47:43.With a �5 million turnover, that's successful stuff. Of the other two,
:47:43. > :47:50.you are employing a huge number of people, that's 120 people. Every
:47:50. > :48:00.time you put on a new shop, you can say, "I'm generating employment. ".
:48:00. > :48:04.Each new shop will have 0 to 5 new -- 20 to 25 new hires.
:48:04. > :48:09.There is nothing like the employment on that scale? No, we
:48:09. > :48:13.have five people that we employ, but we've reached our capacity. We
:48:13. > :48:19.have grown over the last couple of years. We are at that stage now
:48:19. > :48:23.where we need to make the next step up. Is that where your business is
:48:23. > :48:27.or is the climate as such that means you couldn't employ more?
:48:27. > :48:30.it is a bit of both. We are taking on as much work as we can do. It is
:48:30. > :48:35.not because there is not work out there. It is because we have
:48:35. > :48:38.reached our capacity. We are at that stage where we need to look at
:48:38. > :48:42.employing more people. You played a lot of football and
:48:42. > :48:52.then you went to university and you set-up a flooring company. As you
:48:52. > :48:54.
:48:54. > :49:03.Yes. Do you think this country is somewhere that fosters entra
:49:04. > :49:06.present entrepreneurism? I think so. Where are this? It is looking at
:49:06. > :49:12.the risk and getting help with the finance.
:49:12. > :49:16.Is that because we have created a climate where the risk is dangerous
:49:16. > :49:23.and real or we are fairly cautious? There is a little bit of concern
:49:23. > :49:27.and it is funding. It takes a a lot of money to start a business, but
:49:27. > :49:34.the more the Government can help will be beneficial.
:49:34. > :49:37.One thing the Government can do for someone like you that would make
:49:37. > :49:41.life easier? Business rates are really, really high if you have
:49:41. > :49:47.shops. What about you two, National
:49:47. > :49:51.Insurance Contributions? We employ a small number of people. There is
:49:51. > :49:55.employers National Insurance Contributions we have to pay every
:49:55. > :50:00.time we take on a new member of staff. We have to factor that into
:50:00. > :50:07.our budget. Because we deal a lot with the consumer, is the level of
:50:07. > :50:13.VAT at moment. Would you agree VAT is a problem? It is. NI is
:50:13. > :50:19.important. I think small companies should have no NI for companies
:50:19. > :50:23.with less than ten people. Good growth stories. Good messages
:50:23. > :50:29.to politicians about what they can. We are not awash with cup cakes and
:50:29. > :50:32.that's because somebody forgot! Never mind, Jo.
:50:32. > :50:36.After the excitement of the reshuffle died down, in the House
:50:36. > :50:40.of Commons ministers started getting their feet under the table
:50:40. > :50:43.and got down to business in their new departments. Patrick McLoughlin
:50:43. > :50:46.the new Transport Minister was in position yesterday for a Labour-led
:50:47. > :50:49.debate on rail fares. For nearly 20 years he has been a whip and by
:50:50. > :50:59.convention, whips don't speak in debates so he finally got to break
:50:59. > :51:03.his silence. The rising cost of rail travel is now adding to the
:51:03. > :51:06.financial pressures facing many households, that's a fact. I would
:51:06. > :51:14.hope there can be agreement on that. It is something we are all hearing
:51:14. > :51:18.from our constituents. I also hope that we can agree on a second basic
:51:18. > :51:24.proposition the level by which rail fares increase should not be left
:51:24. > :51:30.to the private train companies to determine. It is why we have
:51:30. > :51:35.regulated and unregulated fares o those tickets which most people
:51:35. > :51:40.rely having their annual increase capped, but the reality is the so-
:51:40. > :51:44.called cap on annual fare rise isn't a cap at all. When the
:51:44. > :51:49.Chancellor stands up as he does and says that fares won't rise by more
:51:49. > :51:53.than 1% above inflation or whatever percentage it might be, he can't
:51:53. > :51:57.deliver that chitment in ticket -- commitment in ticket offices
:51:57. > :52:02.because the cap is an average and train companies have the
:52:02. > :52:05.flexibility as they like to call it to increase fares by up to 5% above
:52:05. > :52:10.the called cap. I would like to tell the House what
:52:10. > :52:13.a great honour and privilege it is to return to the dispatch box in a
:52:13. > :52:17.proper speaking role after some 18 years.
:52:17. > :52:23.Although I have to say to the honourable lady, I haven't expected
:52:23. > :52:25.to make my first transport speech quite so quickly. Can I add one
:52:25. > :52:30.thing to the list of things he should worry about and think about
:52:30. > :52:33.which is the fact that often we think of commuters as being wealthy
:52:33. > :52:38.people going in and out of the commuter districts outside London
:52:38. > :52:46.to jobs in banks. Many in my constituency are actually people on
:52:46. > :52:50.the minimum wage and for them, the �5.10 or �5.20 maybe prohibitive
:52:50. > :52:53.for them going to work. Can you work with the Department of Work
:52:53. > :52:58.and Pensions to make sure those people have a real opportunity to
:52:58. > :53:02.work? I will accept that there is a lot of people who commute in are on
:53:02. > :53:08.small wages and the transport part of the cost of transport is a very
:53:08. > :53:12.large part of their income. And we do have to bear that in mind. The
:53:12. > :53:19.honourable member is, of course, supporting a motion today which
:53:19. > :53:24.would remove the flexibility of rail prices for the rail companies.
:53:24. > :53:28.How confident is he that the Government will be able to electify
:53:28. > :53:32.more of the railways than the nine nine miles managed in three
:53:32. > :53:34.parliaments previously? honourable gentleman must not under
:53:35. > :53:38.estimate the achievements of the last Government. He said they
:53:38. > :53:44.electified nine miles. He is wrong. They electified 13 and I am coming
:53:44. > :53:50.on to that a little later on in my speech. I wonder what he would say
:53:50. > :54:00.to one of my constituents who told he had to give up his job in London
:54:00. > :54:00.
:54:00. > :54:06.because he could no longer afford the rail fare to get there. More
:54:06. > :54:10.people are using the railways than at any time since 1929 as I said on
:54:10. > :54:13.a lesser network. But the honourable lady is right to express
:54:13. > :54:16.those concerns and I am concerned about people who are having to
:54:16. > :54:24.spend so much of their income on their transport costs and it is
:54:24. > :54:33.something which I hope we can look at and hopefully in some areas see
:54:33. > :54:43.some improvements in due course. Yes, I wonder how Patrick
:54:43. > :54:47.
:54:47. > :54:49.McLoughlin will enjoy his new job. We're joined now by the Green MP,
:54:49. > :54:51.Caroline Lucas and by the Conservative MP, who also spoke in
:54:51. > :54:54.the debate, Brian Binley. Your constituency is Northampton South.
:54:54. > :54:58.What's the annual cost for somebody coming into London? It is just
:54:58. > :55:03.under �6,000 if you take in the annual rail fare, the Underground
:55:03. > :55:07.addition and the parking fee. Of course, many people will have to
:55:07. > :55:13.park at the railway station before they get on to a train. The train
:55:13. > :55:17.will go to the villages. That's in many cases over 25% of their
:55:17. > :55:22.disposable income. It is high. If the fares go up
:55:22. > :55:26.another 11%, what effect will have that? It will have a massive effect.
:55:26. > :55:29.The Government want us to build more houses to cater for those
:55:29. > :55:32.people who can't afford houses in London and the South East. That
:55:32. > :55:37.means people who haven't got a great deal of money.
:55:37. > :55:44.So should they cap the fares? drive out inefficiency in the rail
:55:44. > :55:48.services. It is not only a case of consumer or taxpayer, McNulty made
:55:48. > :55:52.it clear there was a lot of inefficiency that we haven't driven
:55:52. > :55:55.out and the franchising process has helped them increase fares rather
:55:55. > :55:58.than drive them down. The idea is to increase fares to
:55:59. > :56:02.pay for improved services. Is that happening? I don't think it is
:56:02. > :56:05.happening and it is interesting to listen to Brian because we agree
:56:05. > :56:09.about the problem, the high fares that are pricing people off the
:56:09. > :56:12.railways and making it difficult for people to find jobs, but when
:56:12. > :56:17.Brian says the solution is to make private companies more efficient,
:56:17. > :56:20.it is the privatisation process which has become inefficient. Lots
:56:20. > :56:26.of money has been drained out of the system in profits and in
:56:26. > :56:29.dividends and come complexity. Are there certain operators that
:56:29. > :56:33.are worse than others? It is across-the-board because of the
:56:33. > :56:43.nature of the privatised system that you have to have so much back
:56:43. > :56:47.
:56:47. > :56:51.room process. The back room costs have gone up 56%. If you look at
:56:51. > :56:55.train companies they are putting the profit into the business.
:56:55. > :57:01.Why are there foreign State owned railways being able to take profits
:57:01. > :57:04.out of our system and plough them into our own? I thought your
:57:04. > :57:07.comments were eloquent yesterday, but you have got a problem because
:57:07. > :57:15.that's part of the problem of the European Union and the very open
:57:16. > :57:20.market. May I say something? It is raised
:57:20. > :57:26.that the EU wouldn't let us do it. As long as you allow other train
:57:27. > :57:32.companies use the tracks, you certainly can have your railways in
:57:32. > :57:35.100% public ownership. The Dutch are doing it. The irony is on this
:57:35. > :57:39.issue we are, you know, stopping ourselves from having a really good
:57:39. > :57:44.rail system. We are allowing other companies from other countries to
:57:44. > :57:50.get the the profits out of our system.
:57:50. > :57:57.Do you think we should put it back in public ownership? Of course not.
:57:57. > :58:01.The EU liberalisation programme introduced in 2010 was based very
:58:01. > :58:07.much on the British privatisation programme and that's where
:58:07. > :58:15.Caroline's problem lies. I go with McNulty. We have allowed through
:58:16. > :58:19.the franchising process to allow franchiseees to increase prices
:58:19. > :58:22.higher than they should have been increased and I want to see the
:58:22. > :58:26.Government drive inefficiency out and have the prices lower.
:58:26. > :58:30.I'm going to have to stop you there because we have run out of time. We
:58:30. > :58:40.didn't have time to give you the answer to Guess The Year yesterday.
:58:40. > :58:47.The year was 1971 and the winner chosen at random is Andrew Ellmore.
:58:47. > :58:50.Congratulations, Andrew. Thanks to all our guests.