19/12/2012 Daily Politics

Morning, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. Relations between

police and the Government have hit a new low after startling

developments in the row over Andrew Mitchell. He was the trauma of --

former chief whip. He now demands an inquiry into the affair that

cost him his job after new allegations about the role of the

police. A police officer was arrested on suspicion of misconduct

in public office, something to do with the Mitchell affair, we are

told. The government will announce that

it is pulling almost half our troops out of Afghanistan next year.

Does it make military sense or are we just cutting and running?

Councils in England will find out how much cash they are going to get

from central government later. Not a lot, I suspect, in these

straitened times. Will town halls be able to maintain council tax

freezes? Should we give MPs an early

Christmas present, a pay rise? We will hear from the former civil

servant who thinks that. expenses scandal was born in part

from the fact that MPs' salaries have been fudged for far too long.

All that coming up in the next 90 minutes of public service

broadcasting at its very finest. To help us with his broadcasting tour

de force, we scoured Westminster for two of the finest political

minds in the business. But we couldn't find them! We settled

instead for the International Development Minister, Alan Duncan,

and the Shadow Scotland Secretary, Margaret Curran.

Let's turn our attention to the latest twist, more than a twist, a

dramatic development, in the row over the former Chief Whip Andrew

Mitchell. He has now demanded a full inquiry after new revelations

have emerged about the affair that cost him his job. You will recall

he stepped down in October after the press got hold of details of an

altercation with a police officer in Downing Street, it was about

getting his bike through the main gates. It has now been alleged that

a police officer has posed as a member of the public and falsely

claimed to have witnessed the event. Number Ten says the allegations are,

quote, exceptionally serious. In 20th September 12, Andrew

Mitchell was involved in an argument with the police about

whether he was allowed to take his bike out of the main gate in

Downing Street -- September 2012. The police account of the incident,

leaked to the press, accused Mr Mitchell of calling the police

plebs. He admitted losing his temper and swearing but maintains

he never used the word plebs. After much pressure... Pressure he was

forced to resign as chief whip in October. Channel 4 News and

Dispatches last night alleged another police officer posed as a

member of the public and falsely claimed to have seen the events,

which he then e-mailed to his MP, John Randall, Mr Mitchell's deputy

chief whip. The Mel claimed there were other witnesses, including

tourists. -- de Gmail claimed. But T C -- CCTV footage does not show

crowds of people watching and listening. The Metropolitan Police

Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe made clear it was an ongoing

criminal investigation and that there was more to this than meets

the eye, and he hopes people will support his actions once they hear

the full story. The Police Federation, the organisation

representing most officers, made a lot of the running on the story and

called for Andrew Mitchell to resign. The Metropolitan Police

Federation this morning said it unequivocally and categorically

refutes any allegation that it was part of a conspiracy to unseat a

cabinet minister. They have declined our request to be

interviewed on the programme, but here is Ken McKay of the West

Mercia Police Federation speaking back in October just before he met

with Andrew Mitchell. I don't represent the Metropolitan Police

officers. But we think the issue of integrity is significant. Society

demands that police officers are honest and we should expect the

same standards of Cabinet ministers, somebody is not telling the truth

and we have to resolve this. you at risk of being accused of

being political over an issue that has been gone over enough? This is

absolutely not a political campaign of any sort. This is about

integrity of police officers. We have officers' notes being

described by a Cabinet minister as not being accurate. I would like

that issue resolved. It is really as simple as that. That was the

Police Federation back then. They are quieter this morning. In a

moment we will speak to David Davies, a friend of Mr Mitchell,

but first let's look at the CCTV footage first shown on Channel 4

last night. This is Mr Mitchell on the left, he is going over to go to

the side gate, having been told he can't go to the main one. The

police log says this is when he Airth -- issued expletives about

the police and call them plebs, but the CCTV does not look as if they

are even talking as he goes out the gates, he does not look back, no

body language suggests... It is not conclusive but no body language

suggests the exchange took place then, as the Police Lock said.

This is outside Downing Street, we can't be absolutely sure it is

7:30pm but it is that night, there is nobody there, but the police log

said several members of the public were present and that members of

the public looked visibly shocked and somewhat taken aback by the

language he used. As you can see, there is one person. We blotted

them out. But there certainly was not a crowd, as the police lock --

log suggested, although we need to establish the timing of the CCTV.

But taken together there is at least prima Farsi evidence that the

police log does not quite stand up on that CCTV. We are joined by

Conservative MP David Davies, a friend of Andrew Mitchell. Brian

Paddick, the former Metropolitan Police commander of, also joins me

in the studio. You have spoken to Mr Mitchell, what is his frame of

mind? He wants an inquiry and to be vindicated, frankly. He admitted to

swearing but none of what he calls the toxic language. We are now in a

position where he was somebody -- where somebody masqueraded as a

civilian deliberately to put him in a bad light. In the midst of all

this we see that the actual log, at least be think it is, the one in

the newspapers, makes claims about the existence of a crowd which is

simply not there. I have looked at the footage which you have just

shown, there was no footage at any points around when Mr Mitchell left.

The timing of the second CCTV bit that we showed, showing almost no

one outside Downing Street, you believe that timing is coterminous

enough with what was going on inside the gates? A minute or two

either side. There were one or two people walking by, nobody seemed to

stop except one person turned and looked, I am not sure if that was

the exact time, but that was it. They looked in the way that any

tourist might look at Downing Street. There is no crowd that. The

idea of a crowd being outside the gate and being visibly shocked is

simply nonsense. I'd like you to imagine if this was in a court of

law, what a defence lawyer would do with a policeman in the witness box

with his evidence with something that was plainly wrong in the

middle of it. Let me come on to the e-mail in a moment, let me stick

with the CCTV. If you go back and read the police log, it is quite a

long walk, if you read that and then watch the CCTV, does it not

raise real questions about the voracity of the police log?

looks implausible, it does not look like it fits at all. As you already

pointed out, a position where Andrew Mitchell is supposed to have

verbally assaulted the police, if you believe the log, he was walking

away from the policeman for most of that period, he is looking at the

gate, not turning to make any comments, he is simply walking away.

It does not seem to add up. Let's put it no higher than there are

doubts about the police log now in the light of the CCTV. Let's turn

to the witness, it was this witness and the e-mail which paid such Jake

-- played such a crucial part in Mr Mitchell losing his job, it is what

really got the Prime Minister's attention. We now understand this

witness is a serving policeman and has told Channel 4 that he does not

stand by the e-mail that he wrote. He appears to be in the same group,

the diplomatic Protection Squad, as the people in Downing Street. He

may even work in the same place. We don't know, but he might. He is in

a group which includes the same people, certainly. We don't know

why he did it, who put him up to it, although there is an intimation

that somebody date in Michael Crick's commentary last night. We

don't know where he got the information. His e-mail is very

similar to parts of this log. It looks almost identical in parts.

You have to wonder where that came from. If you take these bits of

evidence together, as we have been discussing with you this morning,

we did not be fair at least to raise the question that there is a

potential conspiracy by certain police officers against a cabinet

minister? I hate to use the word conspiracy, it has legal meanings,

but it certainly looks like collusion of some sort. This is

what the inquiry need to establish. I have heard to complain before

about surveillance States, we live an estate where pretty much

everybody's telephone, text and the Mail records are available to the

police. They should be able to work out who talked to who in a matter

of days or, at most, weeks. There is no reason why it should take

long to verify. And establish what the goings-on were. I don't want

you to go away, I want you to come back in in a moment, but before you

do, one more question. You say Mr Mitchell wants an inquiry, what

kind of inquiry are we talking about to get to the bottom of this?

I'm perfectly comfortable with a police inquiry so long as it is

clearly fair and independent and does not treat the police as

different from Mr Mitchell. would carry it out? I don't mind.

You might have the Met Police carry it out. They would be investigating

themselves? Under IPCC supervision. Or possibly another police force,

that is what normally happens in these circumstances. From my point

of view the key issues are it has to restraint -- Swift, we have to

resolve this issue before Mr Mitchell's career disappears into

history, and it has to be fair. David Davies, I would like your

reaction. I turn to Brian Paddick, a former senior officer in the Met

Police. What do you make of this? Certainly there seemed to be an

element of doubt raised by the CCTV. There is no audio track, Mr

Mitchell has said some of the things he said were under his

breath, even the comment that he admitted to, and it could possibly

be that even when he is walking away that he could be saying these

things. We don't know. He can't be saying them under his breath if the

police lobby is accurate, it says that members of the public were

visibly shocked. -- if the police log is accurate. That is a separate

issue, the members of the public who were shocked... They could not

be shocked because they did not hear him. That is the thing. If the

CCTV is from the right time, it does not show any body outside the

gates, or one person walking back and forth. That seems to be

inconsistent with what is in the police log. The things we can be

certain about are that there is a definite question over whether

members of the public were present and shocked by what was said.

can also be sure if the fall-back position is he was muttering that

toxic phrases about plebs and you should know your place and all the

rest of it, if he is muttering under his breath, even if they had

been people there, they could not have heard him. -- even if there

had been people. We don't know how loudly he was saying them. You said

he could have been muttering them, but I am saying that if the police

log says he was muttering them, the other parts of the log that members

of the public were visibly shocked could not stand up. Is that not

right? From a CCTV we cannot concludes that he did not say the

things he is alleged to say, there is no soundtrack. We can't see his

lips moving or not moving. We have to rely on other evidence as far as

VAT is concerned. Where there is a question of doubt is whether the

members of public were outside and were shocked, because the CCTV

appears to have shown none. We will lose David Davies in a moment, so I

will go back to him. If the CCTV is coterminous with events, it means

the police log is clearly wrong, and if it is wrong on that it could

be wrong about other things? would like you to think about what

would happen in a court of law of a defence lawyer was questioning the

policeman. Did you make this up? Why did you say people were shocked

when nobody was there? The evidence would be torn to shreds, Brian

knows that. He has seen that sort of thing happen elsewhere. I am a

phrase it causes a great shadow to forgo their this piece of evidence

Alan Duncan, you were a colleague of Mr Mitchell. Tell me what you

make of it. He was my Secretary of State for two-and-a-half years.

I've known him for 35 years and my judgment is solid. If he says that

all he said, I believe him. He has been through the mincer for two

months and I agree with every single word but David Davis has

just said in his analysis and in his call for an inquiry. It turns

out to be the case a Cabinet minister has lost his job because a

serving police officer has false abide evidence in any mail to the

Deputy Chief Whip, this is a scandal and a disgrace and it needs

a full inquiry that David Davis and others are calling for. We have got

to get to the bottom of this and I don't quite simply understand what

position Brian was trying to adopt just now. An inquiry is going to

take place and we shouldn't prejudge that inquiry. No one is

prejudging it but we are raising the issues of the inquiry has to

address. Let me come to Margaret Curran. We are looking at the

possible, a potential collision of various elements of the police

against a Cabinet minister. This is an extraordinary development in a

story which is astonishing. I'm sure people across the country will

be aghast at that possible outcome. What really concerns me is why did

it take Channel 4 documentary to bring this all-out? We have had

some words from Number Ten Downing Street for that do you think they

handle it properly at the time? There was an inquiry carried out by

Jeremy Heywood. Yes, let's face it, Andrew Mitchell have stayed there

for months defend himself with the support of Number Ten, so I don't

think there is any criticism here. They had the CCTV footage. The

investigation included a review of the CCTV evidence. They will have

seen that do so why didn't they make the most of that footage?

remember there was nothing in the CCTV which in any way suggested

that Andrew Mitchell had behaved badly at all. It was inconclusive.

Margaret Curran, the Labour Party has dined out on this because it is

playing to a narrative that this Government is run by a bunch of

posh, out of touch lads who looked down on the rest of us. I think we

have to stop using the word pleb until we get to the bottom of this,

correct? I still think the Government is run by a posh, out of

touch lads are but it's not just about what Andrew Mitchell said

will the at your party conference, the word pleb was everywhere.

were making a huge fund it at the expense of a minister which may not

be true. We need to establish the facts. I don't know if it's true or

not. You have admitted there are serious doubts. In terms of our

criticism of the Government, that might have been an illustration of

it, but the substance of that still remains. Nonetheless, that's the

main point. What's happening here is very serious but it's not just

about did they exam the CCTV images properly. It looks as if the

witness statements were not properly taken. It's an incumbent

inquiry. It does seem as if it wasn't done properly. CCTV is open

to interpretation. What is not, if it is true, if this so-called

witness turns out not to have been there and a serving member of the

same part of the police that were on the gate, it's very serious.

This is just a theory. We don't know. We have to wait for the

inquiry. My theory is, these guys on duty in Downing Street at the

time, though and their mate, who was part of the same outfit, wasn't

there, and for some reason, that person then masqueraded as a member

of the public and repeated the story. That is a possible

explanation for what has taken place. To talk about a conspiracy

amongst the police to unseat the Cabinet minister is wrong. It over

the top. What about collusion? is, at best, a few officers

discussing with each other how best to get this into the public domain.

What about leaking the log to the press? Do Bernard Hogan-Howe said

there is more to this than meets the eye. Mr Mitchell says it's got

no confidence in the police but has full conference in Bernard Hogan-

Howe investigating his own officers. There is much to meet the eye to

this. We have run out of time. Thank you. Now Alan, what would you

like for Christmas? Don't tell me yet. Margaret? How about a pay

rise? Well, that's exactly what our next guest, former civil servant,

Martin Narey, thinks you should get. You'll have the chance to thank him

in a minute. But first, here's his It's Christmas at Westminster. But

there's little evidence sign of warmth towards MPs. If you years

have passed since the expenses scandal which damaged the

reputation but the ghost of it remains. Last month, a jury found

that Margaret Moran falsely claimed �53,000 of expenses. Denis McShane

was forced to leave this place after being proven to be both a

fraudster or and a forger. And more recently, Nadine Tories took part

in I'm a celebrity. MPs are give plenty of material to those who

think they are already pretty So, although this is a time of

giving, it might appear time for an ex civil servant who has had his

fair share of runnings with MPs to argue we need to pay MPs more. A

We pay them a �65,000 a year. That is much more than the average UK

salary. But it's much less than we pay thousands of individuals in

jobs much less important. I know of one talented local councillor who

has abandoned her ambitions to enter Parliament, because she knows

many of her officials in more than an MP. The reality is, the expenses

gamble Osborne, in part, from the fact that MPs' salaries have been

fudged for far too long. MPs have to hold Government to account.

Ministers who are on multi-million- pound apartments, are drawn from

their ranks. Too many people from all political persuasions think,

for a job which offers little security and involves a persistent

scrutiny of everything they do, the �65,000 in year is not enough. We

are going to have to be more And Martin Narey joins us now. How

much more generous would you like their salaries to be? I wouldn't

like to put a figure on it, but I think we should pay MPs nearer to

the salary of GPs, �104,000. Head teachers in London, �112,000.

Certainly a lot more than 65,000. You are worried that Parliament is

not going to attract enough talented individuals for that do

you think that is already happening or is that a prediction for the

future? It might already be happening. I know people who are

decided not to go for parliament. We know one third of the 2010

intake lost more than �30,000 to into Parliament. People may have

done that when it was a job which offered status but now it's a job

which involves being held in contempt. Before the 2010 election,

I chaired a debate with three MPs. Ed Balls, David Willets and David

Laws also Ed Balls was a Kennedy Scholar at 20 treat. A 24, David

Willets was heading a monetary unit in the Treasury. A 23, David Laws

was a President of JP Morgan. We won't get people of that colour but

at �65,000 a year. Do you agree? It's to do good for an MP to talk

about salaries, particularly in the residual climate of expenses, so

first of all, Martin, Foyle seasonal generosity of spirit. I'm

not expecting a pay rise. I would say, if we're going to have a

parliament of Merit, in the long term, we will have to approach this

issue in the spirit of enlightenment and ask what is going

to underpin a working Parliament which can serve the needs of this

country. Mia denigration is not going to achieve that. Do you agree

with that? Do no, this is my only income. I live a reasonable life.

It's not the most privileged life but I have a good standard of

living. You need to be careful with the odd would that the only talent

you won't attract are people who can get better paid salaries. We

get people who perhaps come through ordinary working life, not

necessarily achieving the greatest in society, but has a great deal to

offer in terms of parliamentary life. And also, if I could quote

Tony Blair, talking about his son going into Parliament, he said by

far and away the biggest factor in determining this for an individual

would be your vocation. It's a cause, not a career. If you only

judge it on a salary, I think you're in for a big disappointment

because the motivation for this job is gone. Why have the salaries

slipped behind council leaders, head teachers? No government, MP,

wants to suggest they want to be paid more. I don't know. Some of

the behaviour in the expenses scandal was indefensible. It's the

case MPs were told their expenses would be treated liberally because

their salaries were so low. I was a senior civil servant. By the time I

left, I was earning far more than MPs. In the Department of help

alone right now there are 40 civil servants earning �150,000 a year,

but MPs have to hold people like that to account. Thank you so much.

Now, you're all set for your big day out. You've got your best

outfit on and your winning smile, as you grip and grin your way

through that line-up of Westminster's leading political

lights. And what did the Queen get from her loyal Cabinet as her

Jubilee present? 60 coasters. Very useful, no doubt, in protecting the

palace Chippendale from those unsightly coffee rings. I certainly

hated when my Chippendale gets coffee rings. I thought they were

dancers, actually, the Chippendales? But, really, we can't

help thinking that Her Maj would have preferred one of these. That's

what she really wants. Sadly, she'll have to wait for another

anniversary. But you don't have to. Because this fine gift, almost

certainly not by Royal Appointment, can be delivered to you. And all

you have to do is win our Guess- The-Year competition. We'll remind

you how to enter in a minute. But let's see if you can remember when

# Freedom, freedom, give me some To enact legislation of this kind

of thing that before Parliament at the moment is like throwing a match

# Take my hand, don't be afraid, I want to prove every word I say...

# Hay, a little girl, Mamma, I'm so hot to handle now...

# I Love You Baby and if it's quite all right, I Need You Baby, to warm

the lonely nights... # Trust in me when I say...

# 0, pretty Baby, don't bring me down, oh, pretty Baby, let me love

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

answer to our special quiz email address. And you can see the full

terms and conditions for Guess The This programme is full of coasters.

It's coming up to midday here. Just take a look at Big Ben. There it is

behind me. Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way. There's no

Nick Robinson today but we've found another Nick. The Guardian's Nick

Watt joins us. We have got to go I am sure the whole House will wish

to join me in sending our best wishes for Christmas to our brave

armed forces in Afghanistan, to their families who will be missing

them and to service men and women around the world, you are always in

our thoughts. We owe you a deep debt of gratitude and send

heartfelt thanks at Christmas time. This morning I had meetings with

ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties and a

house, I will have further meetings today.

Can I thank my right honourable friend for his comments about

wishing a merry Christmas to our service families and their

families? Could he also tell me what progress has been made by Sir

John Holmes in his review of medals, especially for those who served on

the Arctic convoy? I thank my honourable friend for his remarks

about our troops. On the issue of medals, which has gone on for a

very long time, I am delighted to tell the house that we have reached

a resolution. I asked Sir John to conduct a review not just into

medals in general but to look at one of the most important cases.

More details will come from the Ministry of Defence in the New Year,

egg -- including how veterans can reply, but on the Arctic convoys,

Sir John has recommended, and I agree, there will be an Arctic

convoy A* met all. I am very pleased that some of the brave men

of the Arctic convoys will get the recognition they so richly deserved

for the dangerous work they did. On Bomber Command, Sir John concluded

they had been treated inconsistently with those who

served in Fighter Command and he has recommended, and I agree, that

they should be awarded a Bomber Command Class. I pay tribute to my

right Jean-Marc Ayrault -- to my right honourable friend to have

complained over these issues and I am glad that we have reached a

resolution. Ed Miliband. I want to start by joining the

Prime Minister in paying tribute to our troops in Afghanistan, who

continue to show such courage and bravery. It is particularly

important at this time of year to remember them and, indeed, their

families, many of whom will be separated from them. They are in

our thoughts. I want to welcome the Government's expected announcement

today on reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan during 2013,

we await that statement. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how

many British troops and civilian staff will be left in Afghanistan

after the 2014 deadline, and can he confirm they will be under Afghan

LED command? I join him in welcoming what our troops do. At --

specifically on Afghanistan, we must decide about the draw down of

trips between now and the end of 2014, and what the Defence

Secretary will announce his because of the success of our forces and

the Afghan national security forces and the fact we are moving from

mentoring at a battalion level to a brigade level by the end of 2013,

we will see troops come home in two relatively even steps, 2013 and

2014, leaving probably around 5200 troops at the end of 2013, compared

to the 9000 we have now. It is good to pay tribute again to them, many

going back for tour after tour. Many of those I have spoken to have

been impressed with the Afghan national forces. PO's 2013, we have

said there will be nothing like the number of troops now, we promised

the Afghan that we would provide an officer training academy that they

have specifically asked for and we are prepared to look at issues

above and beyond that, but that is the starting base line.

Can I thank the Prime Minister for that answer? Given that thousands

of British troops will still be in harm's way in Afghanistan, can he

say what specific effort the government is making with the

international community to match the continuing military efforts

with the greater diplomatic efforts which I know he and I both think

are important? This is what gives us our best chance of leaving

behind an inclusive and durable political settlement in Afghanistan,

which is so important. He is entirely right. As well as a

military track, there has always been a political and diplomatic

track. After 20th December 14 there will still be some troops involved

in returning equipment and dealing with logistics. -- after December

2014. We will not be leaving Afghanistan in terms of our support

and help for the Afghans, we will contribute �70 million a year to

help pay for the Afghan national security forces, we will have an

aid programme in excess of �170 million a year for Afghanistan. In

terms of the diplomatic track, the thing we are most focused on his

bringing Afghanistan and Pakistan together. I have personally hosted

two meetings between the presidents, I hope to host more meetings in the

New Year. I spoke to present Karzai this morning to encourage him to

keep working on this vital relationship so that Pakistan and

Afghanistan can see they have a shared interest in a stable future.

I want to turn to another issue and recognise the work of thousands of

volunteers helping out in our nation's food banks, and the

millions of people donating food to them. Is the Prime Minister as

concerned as I am that there has been a sixfold increase in the last

three years on the number of people relying on food banks? Let me echo

what he said about volunteers, people working hard in our

communities, part of what I call the big society, to help those in

need. It is a good time of year to thank our volunteers and what they

do, but I share his concern about people struggling to pay the bills,

struggling to deal with their budgets. The most important thing

is to get on top of inflation, and inflation is coming down, to get

more people into work and out of poverty, and we see 600,000 more

private sector jobs this year, and we are helping those families by

freezing the council tax and by making sure that we help families

with the cost of living. Mr Speaker, we both paid tribute to

the work of the volunteers, but I never thought the big society was

about feeding hungry children in Britain. The problem is that

working people are turning to food banks. One headteacher of a school

rated at standing by a Ofsted said that even children with a parent or

parents in work are often struggling with the trades between

heating their homes, buying their children cloves or buying them

booed. -- rated outstanding by Ofsted. Two-thirds of teacher new

staff providing pupils with food or money to prevent them going hungry,

according to one study. Why is this happening and why does it appear to

be getting worse on his watch? need to do more to help the poorest

in our country, that is why we have lifted the personal tax allowance

and taken 2 million of the lowest paid people out of tax altogether.

If you take someone on minimum wage who works full-time, because of the

tax changes we have made, their income tax bill has been halved. I

would also make this point, because of the decisions we made in this

Government to increase the child tax credit by �390 ahead of

inflation, we have helped those families with their bills and win

continue to do so in the future. -- and will continue.

I am afraid they are sounding very out of touch with families up and

down the country. The problem is what the Chancellor did not tell us

in the Autumn Statement, his tax will be hitting working families

who rely on tax credits. The reality is that in the third year

of his government, more children are going hungry and more families

are relying on food banks. Isn't it the clearest indictment of his

Government's values that while low and middle-income families are

being hit, at the same time he is giving an average of �107,000 tax

cuts on people earning over �1 million. What is out of touch is

denying the fact that we had a deficit that by his government that

we are having to deal with, that is what we have had to do. We are

doing it at the same time as cutting taxes for the poorest in

the country, increasing child tax credits and freezing the council

tax to help those families. When it comes to the top rate of tax, the

richest in our country will pay more in tax and every year of this

government than any year of his government. He might not like those

facts but he can't deny them. The problem is nobody believes any

more. -- believes him any more. We know who he stands up for. Where

was he last weekend? Back to his old ways, partying with Rebekah

Brooks. No doubt both looking forward to the Boxing Day Hunt, Mr

Speaker. But before he was elected, the Prime Minister said, unless you

can represent everyone in our country, you cannot be a One nation

party. That was then, this is now. Everyone now knows he cannot be a

One nation Prime Minister. It would not be Christmas without

the repeats, and that is all we ever get from the honourable

gentleman. I'll tell him what we have done this year, we said we

would take action on jobs, we have 600,000 more private sector jobs.

We said we would help with the cost of living, we have frozen council

tax for the third year in a role. We said we would deal with the

deficit, we have cut it by a quartet. What has he told us about

the deficit this year? Nothing? About welfare? Nothing. About his

education plans? Nothing. The fact is that he has absolutely nothing

to offer except for the same old something-for-nothing culture which

got us into this mess in the first place. Rob Wilson.

Trust and the police is an essential part of a just and

democratic society -- Trust in the police. Will the Prime Minister

therefore seek... I apologise for interrupting, members must now come

down. Both the questions and the answers must be heard. -- members

must now calm down. Will the Prime Minister seek personal assurances

from the commission of the Metropolitan Police that no stone

will be -- Knowstone will be left unturned to get to the truth about

allegations that a serving police officer fabricated allegations

against a member of the cabinet? First, let me say, again, at

Christmas time, it is right to pay tribute to brave police officers

who look after us around the clock and do an extremely good job. But

his point is important, a police officer posing as a member of

public and sending an e-mail to potentially blacken the name of a

cabinet member has to be seriously investigated, it is a serious issue.

The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting a thorough and well

resourced investigation to get to the truth as quickly as possible.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission will supervise the

investigation and I think we should allow them to get to the truth.

David Anderson. Despite what the Prime Minister just said in

response to our leader, the facts on diseases such as rickets and

tuberculosis being on the increase in this country, food banks are

increasing, kids are going to school hungry and we have a

stagnant economy. Is the Prime Minister proud that his policies

are taking this country back to the 1930s?

I would hope that the honourable gentleman and his constituency

would be celebrating today the fact that Nissan has announced another

�125 million investment into our country. This is one of the biggest

and most successful car plants anywhere in Britain. Yes, we face

tough economic times, but we have over 1 million new private sector

jobs. Last year and this year saw some of the fastest rates of new

business creation. Yes, there are tough times and have choices, but

our economy is rebalancing and we should recognise that -- tough

times and tough choices. In March we introduced a local green space

was it -- designation to protect green space is not just for newts

and landscape painters are but also urban and suburban areas. Can you

reassure local councils that they can and should use this new

designation and it has not been undermined by any recent

pronouncements? I would reassure my honourable friend that the national

planning policy framework will be put in place. It was 1000 pages

long, now just 50 pages long. That is our planning framework. We are

giving greater power and delivery to local authorities. And also to

have neighbour that plans so that these decisions can be made where

they should, more locally. I have in my hand a genuine suicide

note from a constituent of mine who sadly took his own life after he

was informed that he was no like -- no longer entitled to DSA

disability benefits. Across the UK, over 1000 people have died only

months after being told this. This is 2012. We are supposed to be a

civilised society. We should be looking after the disabled citizens

here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister will listen to the 62,000

people who signed Pat's petition and finally, finally, please, or do

an assessment of all changes hitting disabled people in this

I will look carefully at the tragic case he brings to the House and our

thoughts go to his family. The actual money we're putting into

disability benefits over the coming years is going up and not down but

I think everybody knows and accepts we need to have a review of

disability been at -- benefits. Some people have been stuck on

benefits and have not been reviewed year after year after year. That is

the view of charities and the Government as well. As we approach

Christmas, will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating the fact

that there are more people in employment this Christmas than

there ever has been in this nation's history? The honourable

lady makes an important point and, after all, the Leader of the

Opposition said back in January, unemployment was going to go up. He

stood at the dispatch box and said that but, the fact is, unemployment

has come down, employment has gone up, a record fall in youth

unemployment in the last quarter, all of those things are welcome as

we see such a growth in the private sector because everyone knows we

have to rebalance the economy where we shed some jobs in the public

sector but we need to grow the private sector and that's what's

happening. Merry Christmas, Mr Thank you. People realise the Prime

Minister has a Dickensian view for the UK. Workhouse for the many. But

why is he limiting welfare benefits for parents caring for adult

children? With disability? Can we have an explanation from Ebenezer

I think it was a case of Mary Christmas and happy speaking

opportunities in the new year. We have not restricted disability

benefits but put more money into disability benefits. That is what

this Government is doing but what I would say to the honourable

gentleman, we have taken difficult decisions to increase tax credits

by 1%, public sector pay by 1% and out of work benefit by 1% but it's

a tough decision which needed to be taken. Last week, the published

census figures reveal the previous government presided over the

largest wave of emigration our country has ever seen. Yet, next

Christmas, our borders will be thrown open even wider to

potentially limitless immigration for the 29 million people who live

in Romania and Bulgaria. Will my Right Honourable friend look

seriously at triggering the the national interest clauses buried

deep in the EU directives to stem this new flow, especially for those

with criminal records or of those who seek access to the benefit

system? Let me echo what he said in the first half of his question. The

last government allowed a completely under control system of

migration where we saw net immigration of 200,000 the year, 2

million people across a decade, two cities the size of Birmingham

staying in our country every year and not one word of apology for the

mess they left. He makes an important point as the transitional

controls come of the accession countries. I will look carefully at

what he says. We have rules to restrict access to benefits. We

will go one to make those as robust as possible. I mentioned the

national interest clauses in a statement on Europe on Monday. I

think those can only be triggered if there are emergency conditions

but I will look carefully at what he said. One month ago, the PM told

the House the universal credit put in place work incentives for people

on all levels of income. Why does the Department now say that

universal credit will mean working women will consider giving up work?

That's not the case at all. Universal credit means, because we

are bringing different benefits together, people will always be

better off in work and always be better off working extra hours.

That is what we're doing. They had 13 years to sort out these poverty

traps and a completely failed. constituent is currently stuck in

Cuba despite having a British passport. I wonder if the Prime

Minister could encourage the Cuban authorities to look with compassion

and speed to try to get him back home for Christmas with his family?

I quite understand why my honourable friend raises this case.

He was born in Cuba, entered the UK, but obtained a British passport in

1997. We are in regular contact with the Cuban authorities who have

advised him he should expect to receive his Cuban passport this

week which will enable him to travel. Ultimately, this decision

rests with the Cuban authorities have but the British will continue

to assist him and keep in touch with him. In April, the Prime

Minister said energy efficiency would be place at the heart of

government policy. On Monday this week, the Government's alone up

fuel poverty advisory group warned that there could be over 9 million

house sales in fuel poverty and that is 25% of all households in

Stoke-on-Trent. Can the Prime Minister tell us and tell me why,

from next year, expenditure on his programmes for low income

households will be halved that of 2010-11? I know she has an interest

in this matter but the green deal is a bigger programme being brought

in. Labour have promised to abolish fuel poverty altogether in their

2005 manifesto and yet, it went up. That actually what happened but,

what we have done, we are investing in the warmer front scheme,

maintain the winter fuel payments, increased cold weather payments,

making money available to help people, and the green deal and the

Eco scheme are some of the biggest ones introduced in this country.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the shadow Health Secretary but any

increases in expenditure of the NHS would be, as he put it,

irresponsible? He makes an important point. Some people and

House of Commons might have missed this because, in a recent health

debate, the Health Secretary after the shadow Health Secretary, does

he stand by his comment that it is irresponsible to increase NHS

spending? What did the shadow Health Secretary reply? He said,

yes, I do. It may be Christmas time and the shadow health secretary is

a gift that keeps on giving. Speaker, last week 100 young

homeless people came to this House for the first ever young homeless

People's Parliament. I'm grateful to you for being President --

present. I'm grateful for the support. But they were excellent

young people giving powerful personal testimony as to why they

have become homeless and sending out, in no uncertain terms, what

they expect from us in this House for that can I ask the Prime

Minister this question? Above all, they want their voice to be heard.

And they agreed that they would seek a meeting with the Prime

Minister. Will the Prime Minister received a delegation of those

young homeless people? Can I join you in welcoming the fact they came

to Parliament to make these points. I will listen very carefully to

what they have to save. The truth is, we have seen housing benefit

increase by 50% in recent years and, even under our plans, housing

benefit will continue to increase. What we need to do in Britain is

build more homes. Build more homes in the private sector and the

social sector. That is the vital task ahead of us and I pay credit

to be planning ministers and others to make this happen. The closure of

the original state sponsored lifeline helicopter service to the

Isles of Scilly two months ago has prevented significant challenges to

islanders, medical services and the economy. But local people and other

stakeholders are working together to find solutions. Would the Prime

Minister be prepared to meet a small delegation of islanders and

myself in order to explore what assistance the Government can

provide them in their Al of desperate need? He makes an

important point. Proper transport links to the Isles of Scilly are

vital. Other providers are looking to fill the gaps left by the

helicopter service. This would provide the most long-term

sustainable option rather than government subsidy but obviously we

have to look at all the options. This is part of other country which

is connected to the mainland. It is necessary to have a meeting, of

Order. Let's have a bit of order. When the Great Train robber stole

�2.5 million from the Royal Mail, they were sentenced to 30 years in

prison. Yet, when our bankers get caught fraudulently taking billions

of pounds from poor people throughout the world, they walk

away with fat pensions. How can we ever be in anything together as

long as we tolerate powerful villains who what to privileged to

be put behind bars? This is why at the weekly review into the LIBOR

scandal recommends a series of changes including their being

criminal sanctions and I think where people have broken the law

they should face that full force of the criminal law. What punishment

we should design for the people who sold our gold at half price is

another matter altogether. Dementia is a condition, a terrible

condition that destroys lives. Will my Right Honourable friend, the

Prime Minister, join with me in commending Warwickshire County

Council and local health care partners on developing of the

excellent Coventry and Warwickshire dementia programme which is

providing an excellent service to dementia sufferers and their

carers? I'm happy to John a Honourable friend in paying tribute

to his county council. -- to join my honourable friend. We must do

more to combat dementia. This is a disease, not just a natural part of

ageing and we need to increase the research which goes into dementia,

improve the care people getting hospitals and care homes and makes

sure there is more dignity, but this is something where all

communities that to come together and make more dementia friendly

communities and that's where we can lead the way by bringing

organisations together as they have obviously done in Warwickshire.

It's interesting the Prime Minister said that those to break the law

should feel the full force of it as the Prime Minister's local and has

illegally hunted foxes with dogs. Can he remind the House how many

times he has ridden with the hunt, whether he used his own horse, or

whether he borrowed a horse for a friend? I can happily put on record

but I have never broken the law in Could I reassure my honourable

friend that those in my constituency who are most strongly

in favour of reforming benefits focusing more on those who need

them, are take me away from those who don't, are those who live on

council estates who are fed up with working long hours to subsidise the

lifestyle for those who don't go to work. I think they Honourable

friend makes an important point. We made three do that will decisions.

We said a 1% pay freeze on the public sector, a 1% increase on

that working benefits, and a 1% freeze on tax credits. The party

opposite support the 1% freeze on public-sector pay, that is progress,

but they don't support the 1% increase on welfare benefits. They

think people out of work, their income should go up faster than

people who are in work. That's why they are so out of touch with the

nation and why they don't deserve to be in government. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. With his neighbours in trouble over phone hacking and the

local hunt, he finds himself stuck alone over Christmas watching films

on TV. Which one of these will he fancy watching? The Grange who

stole Christmas, star and the chance of the Exchequer? The

Muppets Christmas Carol starring the Lib Dem members of the Cabinet.

Or it's not a wonderful life for I think he will have to swap out

from Wallace and Gromit and had a Muppets Christmas Carol instead. I

have got one suggestion that, full of Christmas cheer. Everybody knows

the Shadow Chancellor does a brilliant job playing Santa Claus

at a Christmas party every year. He does an excellent job. Why not give

everyone an early Christmas present, make the arrangement permanent and

Order, order. The House should hear the voice of Bacon. Thank you. Does

he agree with the increasing numbers of informed commentators

who believe that the ring-fencing of investment banking subsidiaries

of commercial banks will not work properly and what is required is

complete separation? The Government has looked at this issue very

carefully. Obviously we commissioned the report which came

up with the idea of ring-fencing. I think that is right. What we want

to make sure is that, if a bank fails, it can fail safely without

tax payers having to stump up the money to sorted out. That would be

a major advance and something the whole country would support.

Speaker, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will be aware of the

welcome news this morning that the Attorney General's application to

quash the Hillsborough verdict was upheld by the High Court. He will

understand that this now will involve the Hillsborough families

and a great deal of legal costs to make sure they are properly

represented. Will he agreed to waive the VAT on the CD, the

proceeds of which will go directly to the families? First of all, can

I join the Right Honourable gentleman in welcoming the decision

made today. The Hillsborough families have long wanted to have

up this new inquest. I think it's very good the system has moved

relatively rapidly since the statement and debate in this House

to help bring it about. I received representations about the

Hillsborough families single for the a chance of the Exchequer is

currently on the other side of the Atlantic but as the First Lord of

the Treasury, I think I can confidently predict a decision

which will go down well in Merseyside. As this is the season

of goodwill and humbug, will the Prime Minister confirm that, for

the greater part of the peerage of the last Labour government, the top

rate of tax was 40p, and the gap between rich and poor widened, and

left nearly 4 million children living below the poverty line.

makes an extremely good point. He could have added to that for that

they left a record deficit. They saw youth unemployment double, made

a complete mess of the economy, had an open-door immigration system and

have never apologised for one word of it. Many people perhaps watching

our proceedings are very interested in the issue of fuel poverty. They

may have been a little confused with the Commons the Prime Minister

made too much Honourable friend for Stoke-on-Trent. Will he confirm,

let's be transparent, that a body which advises up to 9 billion house

sales, a record since records first began, of people suffering from

cure poverty, will he explain to the House and to our constituents

as we approach Christmas what is the Government prepared to do about

this horrible scandal of fuel poverty? He is entirely right that

this is a scandal. It needs to be dealt with for that the figures he

gives I don't believe are correct. The figures I have, in a 2012, it

expected there would be 3.9 million households in fuel poverty but we

are committed to tackling fuel poverty. That's why we have

maintained the winter fuel payments, increased the cold weather payments

and kept the increase permanent. Investing in the warmth and scheme,

the warm home a discount and the For the the front bench promised to

abolish a few poverty but they put And that's it. The final PMQs of

Ed Miliband went on the draw down of troops from Afghanistan. There

will be a statement after PMQs, we will cover some of these issues

before 1pm. The Prime Minister told us it is effectively two equal

steps, over 5000 troops will come home next year, so by the end of

2013 there will be 5200 left, they will come home in 2014. PO's 2014,

he says Britain will have no combat role at all but we might be helping

to operate an opposite training academy, which is what the

Government had so wanted over there. Mr Miliband is largely in agreement

on Afghanistan, so then he moved on to food banks in the run-up to

Christmas. He said there were six times the reliance on food banks

now than before. The Prime Minister did not confirm that but he did not

disputed. Them they had an argument. Mr Miliband also mentioned that the

Prime Minister had been seen with Rebekah Wade at the weekend. On the

Andrew Mitchell thing, just to let you know what else we learned, the

Prime Minister said that it was a very serious issue, particularly

this e-mail from what now looks to be a serving police officer. The

Metropolitan Police were doing, quote, a thorough and well

resourced investigation. We have subsequently learned there are now

30 police working on this investigation into what has been

known as plebgate, and it is being supervised by the IPCC, the

Independent Police Complaints Commission. So they are some of the

news lines which have come out. While we were on air, the Pollard

report on Newsnight has been published and I will give you a few

details in a moment, but first, your reaction to PMQs.

There was a strong response to the issue of food banks raised by the

Labour leader, Ed Miliband. John and Leeds, rather than the Prime

Minister thanking volunteers for giving out food to those who can't

afford to eat, the Prime Minister of the 7th richest country on earth

should hang his head in three -- in shame.

Diane says that Cameron's finely- tuned rhetoric conceals the truth,

but nothing can hide be back to that more and more people are

suffering, ordinary people as well as the poor and vulnerable.

Bill in Doncaster asks whether Ed Miliband can do Prime Minister's

Questions without mentioning the rates in -- the cuts in the top

rate of tax which affects a tiny number of people and is neither

here nor there in terms of deficit reduction.

James can sell asks why Ed Miliband can't ask a question which is not

about welfare? It needs changing, merry Christmas.

That was not me, that was the end of the e-mail!

Our viewers were particularly impressed by your comments before

PMQs. They agreed with every word you said, they said they were

insightful. I will let you carry on. I thought we saw a strong David

Cameron, a not so strong David Cameron. The strong David Cameron

was on Afghanistan, when Miliband simply raise the issue, because

Philip Hammond is making a statement as we speak. He says that

they are taking down troops, but there is a strategy to mentor and

trainee Afghan National Army. There are huge questions about how well

that is going with all the green on blue incidents. But there is the

political and diplomatic strategy, trying to get Pakistan and

Afghanistan talking. When I travelled with the Prime Minister

to Afghanistan, he set up a meeting between President Karzai and the

President of Pakistan. Where he was not so strong, one of those e-mails

to Jo said the Prime Minister's finely-tuned rhetoric. I fear that

his finely tuned antennae were not so strong when Ed Miliband asked

him about the third bank, a sixfold increase, and he said, that is a

wonderful example about the Big Society. Ed Miliband hit back and

said, I never believed Big Society was about feeding hungry children.

I am sure the Prime Minister will want to think about whether

invoking the Big Society, the nation coming together, whether you

want to talk about that when there are, clearly, very hungry children.

A at Christmas time you think about this issue more, perhaps, than in

the rest of the year, and it begs a lot of questions about whether

there are gaps in our very exhaustive Welfare State. It calls

into question issues about parenthood, our kids going to

school not having had breakfast, some of those basic things. I am

not denying the issue, but equally I think there are big issues around

it. Britain is not as rich as it could end should be, we are picking

up the pieces are of an illusory period of economic growth and we

are getting blamed for a lot of the difficult medicine we are having to

administer to clear up the mess. There are complicated factors in

this important issue, to which we should be incredibly sensitive.

I visited a Food Bank in my Glasgow constituency last week. What was

interesting is the people were reporting that a number of people

were in work and beginning to use those banks. They say there is a

step change in the type of people using such facilities. One of the

issues we have pressed the Government on as they are not

collecting figures about the use of big banks, and they need to, they

need to start understanding why people are using them. What is a

foodbank? People can go and essentially be giving booed, often

on perishables. -- given food? Perishables from supermarkets?

allotted it is donations, -- a lot of it is donations, often churches.

There is an exponential growth in this. What we need to do is at

least tried to beef ban about some of the experiences of people who

are on the receiving end of this. - - at least tried to be found. There

are reports about mothers with three kids, it is not the

stereotypical issue, people think about drug addicts, people who

can't get their act together or find food, these are ordinary

families really beginning to struggle. We are all one paycheck

away from pretty serious poverty. The Guardian broke the story that

the Prime Minister had been seen with Rebekah Wade? It was my

colleague, Patrick Winter. It has not been denied? The story stands?

They very quickly admitted it was the case. About two years ago I had

the story about the original Christmas party where they met,

these centres around the houses for about 10 days and I think they have

learned their lesson that it is best to be transparent. Rebekah

Wade is under arrest and being charged, we can't focus on the

details, but on a range of things. Is it wise for the Prime Minister

to speak to somebody who has been charged? Everyone is innocent until

they are proved guilty. A lot of people go to court, you can still

talk to them. I have not seen the details of the story. Shall we are

letting it tell you? It was a social event in a place called

Chipping Norton. -- shall we let Nick Watt tell it to you? The it

was the grandson of David Astor, his birthday party. They were at

the same party, so what? I am asking if you think it is wise,

given the history? I think the point my colleague Patrick Winter

was making in his story is that this is at the moment the Prime

Minister is having to make decisions about what to do with the

Leveson inquiry. It was a social event, it wasn't a formal meeting.

There are no implications for anything in terms of public policy.

Is he meant to turn his back on her and be rude? He is a very cordial,

polite manner. I think he should have got on his horse and ridden

away... Was it that big a drawing room?! While we were with Prime

Minister's Questions, the Pollard report, Nick Pollard, an editor of

Sky News, he has been investigating the Newsnight decision to drop the

Jimmy Savile inquiry. There are a number of inquiries going on at the

moment, this is on dropping the Jimmy Savile story on Newsnight.

That was a couple of months ago, it seems like years ago but it was not

that long ago. The Pollard report concludes that it was a flawed

decision to drop the investigation and it plunged the BBC,

particularly its top management into, quotes, chaos and confusion.

They found it very hard to deal with it. However it also concludes

that BBC bosses did not put pressure on the programme to drop

the expose, but it says that some staff knew about, quote, the darker

side to support as they prepared to tributes to him. -- the darker side

to Jimmy Savile. The report is critical of George Entwistle, who

has now gone, and the deputy editor of Newsnight, Stephen Mitchell, has

resigned. There will be a new editor of Newsnight in the New Year.

An attempt to revitalise Newsnight and a new editor will happen in the

New Year. Helen Boaden, the head of news who has kind of been on

gardening leave, not quite, she will return to her job. That will

be a popular decision in the BBC News rooms. The most important

thing the report says is that there was no improper pressure not to run

the Newsnight film. People assume that Peter Ripon, the former editor

of Newsnight who made the decision not to to do the Jimmy Savile

programme, that he was presented with the ITV programme. He was not.

He was presented with a much earlier version, that is the most

important thing. Who could have said, we are not running it now but

we will put more effort in? -- he could have said. The report says

there are silos in the BBC and we all have to work more closely

together. The mistake Peter Ripon made later was when the Sunday

Times was putting in Freedom of Information requests, why didn't

people in an editor of another programme and ask them to just look

at the film's. -- why didn't he pour in an editor. I think the

nation was aghast at the Jimmy Savile issue, but there is another

dimension, the credibility of the BBC. Part of what people like about

Newsnight, perhaps we don't like it so much, is it does hold the

political class to account and it is seen as objective and credible,

as, indeed, other BBC programmes... Would you care to mention any

names?! Daily Politics, the Sunday Politics, this week. Your present

is in the post. There are obviously challenges for us, but I think the

public think that. If you are beginning to think, I'm not

terribly sure they have done that properly and credibly, that is a

very serious charge. If you can rescue that and revitalise

Newsnight, the shake-up, it needs This is clearing at the stables

because, without which, Newsnight would not survive. They are doing

their utmost. They are trying to restore the integrity of Newsnight.

Of course, the issue of Jimmy Savile has not just about the BBC

but children's homes, and all sorts of things, over 400 people have

come forward saying, over the last 30 years, they were abused by Jimmy

support. This is a massive issue and that is where the focus now has

to be. Very briefly. The one BBC executive who has been saying for

years, we have got to get out of it is Steve Mitchell, the deputy head

of news. He's the one taking early retirement. My interview with Jimmy

support on Channel 4, 1995, has been uncovered of. It is on a

YouTube. I will put the link on Twitter this afternoon for the at

that time, I knew nothing about it but, watching it now, it's very,

very interesting. Nick, thank you very much.

The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles will make a statement in

the House of Commons this afternoon announcing how much money central

government will give to local councils in England next year. For

the third year in a row, the Government is offering additional

funding to councils which agree to freeze council tax bills. But some

councils insist the extra money isn't enough and say they will have

to increase council tax to protect services. This morning I spoke to

Sir Merrick Cockell, the Chairman of the Local Government Association.

I asked him whether he thought that more councils might raise bills

next year. Clearly, I get to talk to a lot of

councils and some very well run councils are having real

difficulties. They may have been able to freeze it for the last few

years but are having real difficulties with their budgets

next year and be on that. That is down to social care, the cost of

our population getting older, more people getting older, whose cost of

care falls to local councils. Many people think that we only clean the

streets and do other things but we are responsible for many essential

services including care for the elderly and it's a rising budget.

In eight years' time there will be allowed vast funding gap and many

councils are preparing for that now. We should not underestimate the

difficulty in balancing budgets. But those budgets for things like

social care would not have to be cut if Eric Pickles is right in

saying councils could afford to freeze their council tax if they

cut out lavish expenditure. honestly, lavish expenditure is

history now. I lead one of the council's one of the arrangements

in west London, at the very forefront of sharing services,

driving a totally new way of providing public services but, even

been a revolution these in this, the savings we are finding our

across the three councils, in three years' time, will be about �50

million a year, about half of what we have got to find in the last

spending round. However efficient you are, this is not something you

can just do by getting rid of sparkling water. You have got to do

that as well. Find different ways of providing public services.

Duncan, do you think Eric Pickles is being deliberately controversial

by saying they could freeze the council tax by cutting out lavish

expenditure? No, he's an experienced politician. You think

lavish expenditure could be cut? What is trying to do here is to

appreciate a quarter of government spending goes to government

councils, so they will have to carry the burden. He's trying to

make sure but the spending announcement they will make this

afternoon is fair and not politically loaded, which, in the

past, a lot of us thought the spending rewards will have been. It

will be fair between north and south, counties and counties, urban

and rural, and we don't want to play party politics but this to be

fair and equitable although it's going to be tough. I don't think

that's realistic because the greatest charge will be that you

been desperately unfair. 20% of cuts is disproportionate. The

Government is failing this test. You talk about lavish expenditure.

We saw it this week in a letter to the Government. Many artists in the

north-east say the autistic -- artistic function of the local

government is lavish. The council tax benefit cuts, put on to local

government, is taking money from the poorest families. It's the

poorest local authorities taking the biggest share of the cut for

the what about people paying the council tax? Do you back the

freeze? We don't want people to pay They say they will have to cut

things like social care. They are cutting it by 20% and then say you

can't put on any council tax freeze. In Scotland, they are playing the

same trick. The impact of that is very serious cuts in local

government and that's the reality. They are carrying a

disproportionate cut which is affecting the poorest. They are

carrying the burden of a disproportionate cut. The

Government is saying you have got to keep the council tax frozen but

we won't give you additional money as we did last year, so they are

squeezing it again by another 1%? Social care, the big important

things, will be cut. He's not saying you must freeze it but he's

trying to give people an incentive so they can. Less of an incentive

than last year. Yes, but it's not because we want to do these things.

We inherited it. Do you can only do things with the money you have. If

we were to borrow more national, interest rates would go up were to

be deeply painful to individuals and businesses. So far we have

managed to keep it low what is a very significant thing. There are

some very difficult things to balance her. Pain is not nice but

you can't conjure up money out of thin air. The inheritance we

received is a painful one of four that we are trying to sorted out.

Don't blame us for what we're trying to sort out. At the minimum,

you should make sure it is even- handed. Tenor local authorities

with the most deprived committees are being cut by eight times more.

Conservative councils are amongst those who will defy the Government

and may go ahead and raise it. There's a level of local government

autonomy. They are democratically accountable. It's up to them.

you. The Prime Minister spoke about Afghanistan during Questions. And

in the last half hour, the Defence Secretary has given more details

about the next phase of withdrawing British troops from the country.

Let's listen to what he had to say. By the end of 2013, we expect that

UK forces will no longer need to routinely men to the Afghan

national army below brigade level. -- mentor. This is a move up from

our current Battalion level mentoring and is a reflection of

improving Afghan capacity and is in line with Chicago milestone. As the

Prime Minister has just announced, a progressive move to brigade level

monitoring will also allow us to make further reductions to our

force levels from the 9,000 we will have at the end of this year. Our

current planning envisages a reduction to around 5,200 by the

end of next year. This number is based on current UK military advice

and is in line with the NATO strategy agreed at Lisbon and the

emerging planning. It also reflects the real progress being made in

Helmand province. We will keep his number under review as the plan it

firms up and other allies make decisions in the new year. Let me

be clear, Mr Speaker, this reduction is possible because of

the success of the Afghan national security forces in assuming a

leading role. That was the Defence Secretary. He calls it a successful

so we won't know that until we have gone. There's a bit of that but

this illustrates a transition from the focus on defence to development.

The ministry in which I sit. To give you wants to stick. A decade

ago, there's almost no children in school in Afghanistan thanks to the

Taliban. Now there is nearly 6 million. 40%, girls. We will be

there for the long term. We have pledged up to 2017. We will spend

millions of pounds a year so that transition put us into a new phase

which is making a positive difference in that country. They

can't be there it all hell breaks loose. I thought was interesting

when the Prime Minister said PMQs is about political developments. We

need to keep the diplomatic and political exchanges developing

because there is still very challenging issues there. We hear

about young girls being shot. It's not like we're just turning our

back on that part of the world. We still want to engage with them.

shall see, 5,000 troops going next year. Coming down to 5,000, the

year after that, when we will be out of our combat role in

Afghanistan, the Government says. Now there's just time before we go

to put you out of your misery and give you the answer to Guess The

Year. Yes, Enoch Powell's Rivers Of Blood speech. Any ideas, Alan or

Margaret? Without looking. A 68? looked. It was 1968. Alan, push

that buzzer. The year after I was You are the winner. Well done.

Thank you. We Wish You a Merry Christmas. Our final PMQs edition