07/06/2013 Daily Politics

Daily Politics. As evidence grows that the Syrian regime is using

chemical weapons against its own people, so does pressure on Britain

and the West to help the rebels. We'll talk to one MP urging the

Prime Minister to seek Parliamentary approval before we do. Who's right

about A&E in England? Ed Miliband or David Cameron? After their spat at

Prime Minister's Questions we'll try to establish the facts. After a big

week for the two Eds, is Labour on the road to economic credibility or

has it just stopped digging the hole it's in? We'll put that to rising

Labour star Liz Kendall. Take a look at this little beauty. Top speed?

49mph! Fast! But what's happened to Government plans to raise the limit

Queen might have visited New Broadcasting House this morning but

here in Millbank. We've got Fleet Street royalty. Polly Toynbee of The

Guardian. And Anne McElvoy, of The Economist. Welcome to you both.

Let's start with the lobbying scandal. The BBC Panorama

investigation that started it all was finally broadcast last night.

Controversy has raged all week with one MP and three peers alleged to be

implicated in wrong-doing. And the announcement that the government

would introduce a long-awaited lobbying register. Conservative MP

Patrick Mercer resigned the Tory whip after claims that he broke

Parliament's lobbying rules. Here's a clip of Mr Mercer, talking to a

fake lobbyist, in the BBC sting. mention something about getting

traction with the FCO? Well it all could do for what he thought was a

lobbyist. I mean, what is guilty of, no doubt, will come out in time, but

shouldn't he really be charged under that the trades description act for

making out that all-party groups of MPs matter at all? That is possibly

true, but it's still an unpleasant and greasy site to see that.

Basically, hawking his wares. Whether or not they are as he

describes, he put his hand up to his ear when the guy says it's not that

easy when clearly he's not sure what is talking about but, nonetheless,

the appearance you are trading favours is bad enough, and the

preparedness to do so is certainly contravention of his duties as an

MP. Whether he could bring home the bacon would've been a problem for

him. He would have had the money in the bank by then. And that's the

problem. I think he should be done for crass stupidity. Anybody that

stupid should not be allowed to enter the Commons. That's a high bar

there. For 20 years now, any lobbyist going into the Commons with

loads of money is certainly from the Sunday Times. Certainly. A fake

somebody from somewhere. Wouldn't you say that coming from 1 million

miles away? He had not even bothered to look it up to see if it existed

or not? That would be the real purpose of a register. If you had a

register and somebody approached you, you could check it on the

register. That's the reason why the register never get off the ground

because it really helps people trying to do a deal. It doesn't help

the rest of us very much. government, which is do nothing

about the register for three years, now Russia is one outcome and then,

from its own point of, quite cleverly links to bashing union

financing of the Labour Party. Extraordinary because when Labour

was in partly dashed party, Jack Straw and others were determined

this would be done fairly in a cross-party agreement and it never

happened because they could not get that and now suddenly, this

government says, let's wallop labour and leave it at that. It is at the

unfair. If we are going to have a fair and decent and clean system of

party financing, it ought to be state funded. It is the lesser of

many evils. I think we have to go for that and a great between the

parties. I'm told Mr Clegg is happy to go along with this bit of union

bashing because he's fed up when he goes back to Sheffield being

constantly verbally beaten up by the local government public sector

unions there. It's turned into a kind of anti-unionist. It's amazing

what too much contact with the trade unions can do to the left. I'm not a

fan of state funding and I think it has a lot of head and looks and

crannies of its own which can become problematic, but I'm not sure the

register as it is conceived will stop this thing happening again.

Let's see what happens. I suspect people are disappointed Mr Mercer

gets to stay in the House of Commons for another two years. And does not

have to resign his seat straightaway and can carry on doing its own

expenses. Last month the EU lifted its arms embargo on Syria with

Britain and France making the case that they should open up the

possibility of arming Syrian rebels. And the argument for that is growing

stronger as more evidence emerges that the Assad regime has used

chemical weapons against its own people. But MPs from all parties who

fear the consequences of any such intervention are putting pressure on

the Government to commit to a vote in the House of Commons before a

decision is taken. Here's one of them, Conservative Julian Lewis,

asking David Cameron about the issue at Prime Minister's Questions on

Can the Prime Minister confirmed that he will recall Parliament

before any action is taken to arm the Syrian opposition during the

recess? I have never been someone who is wanted a stand against the

house having to say on any of these issues, and I've always been someone

early on to make sure that Parliament is recalled to discuss

important issues, let me stress, as I did on Monday, no decision has

been taken to arm the rebels, so I don't think this issue arises, but,

as I say, I support holding that vote on Iraq. In my premiership,

Wenger was the issue of Libya, I recall the issue of Libya, I

recalled as soon as I possibly could and I know it has to have a vote,

but this issue does not arise at present because we have made no

decision to arm the rebels. Well, that the Minister yesterday

answering Julian Lewis who joins us now. Andrew Lansley added a bit.

Tell us, Julian, as we sit here this morning, on the issue of arming the

rebels, what have you got? I am wholly opposed to arm in the rebels

and that is for the same reason I was in favour of previous military

intervention. I didn't mean on the subject but what have you got in

Parliamentary terms? Do you believe the government cannot do it unless

it puts it before the house and gets a vote? I believe the government

could proceed without a vote but they would be unwise to do so and I

also believe that if they put it to a vote, the portability if they

would lose. What did you get from the leader of the house yesterday?

The implication from David Cameron was I will recall the house if we

are in the summer recess. Andrew Lansley, the leader of the house,

suggesting there would be a vote. How bankable are these commitments?

I don't know, I wasn't at that session yesterday. But my

understanding is we are slowly decreasing the wriggle room of the

government. If the government thought they were going to be able

to get this through behind Parliament 's back, during the

recess, they will have to think again. The implication is that the

government could still have some wriggle room? I think they could

proceed to give the arms to the rebels and then seek Parliamentary

approval after it was a say to complete -- once it was done.

this becomes a major issue in the summer recess, when Parliament is

down, should Parliament be recalled before the government proceeds to

arm the rebels? Yes, that was the point of my question to the Prime

Minister on Wednesday. But you don't think you have a clear answer to

that? He is moving closer to the position I want to take wishes to

say the rebels will not be sent arms by the British unless and until

Parliament has voted in favour of it. But he has not said it

explicitly yet. Why should Parliament be called for arming the

rebels? It's in a different category from Britain sending troops to Iraq

or Afghanistan or even troops to Syria. I think on the president of

what happened in Libya, you can see what was presented parliament them,

as a no-fly zone, turned out in reality to be an active air to

ground campaign on behalf of one side in a civil war and we had a

vote on that. No one so far is suggesting that the British armed

forces get involved in Syria either from the air or on the ground.

that case, the government is dammed if it does or doesn't. If it

proposes simply to hand over arms without having any sort of presence

as to how the people will be instructed to use them, how they

will be used in conflict, and who will get their hands on them, if

they simply say, we are going to parachute a great supply of lethal

military equipment and let them get on with it, I think you would

typically find it didn't work out like that. This would be the foot in

the door towards military intervention or otherwise it's even

more stupid than I think the government's declared policy at the

moment is. A lot of people wouldn't argument that a lot of people would

not argue, if we went to war, they need arms, but I'm sure the Foreign

Office sees it this way, that this is the commons trying to determine

foreign policy. I think they need to express a view and have an

opportunity to express it on a proposal to assist one side in a

Civil War where our deadliest enemies, Al-Qaeda, are fighting on

the side we are proposing to assist and the people who they are trying

to overthrow, have got a stock of deadly nerve gases, which would more

likely than not, fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda. A lot of Conservative

backbenchers agree with you? Definitely. You could join the

labour this came to a vote. If you join Labour and some Liberal

Democrats, too, the government may not get this policy through

Commons. That is exactly my view. I believe what is going to happen is

that Labour, if the government is unwise enough to try and circumvent

Parliament, Labour will probably make some of its opposition day time

available and then we could have a debate on the basis that this should

not proceed without Parliament being recalled first and what's more, I,

and I know plenty of other people in the Conservative and Liberal

Democrat parties, would be happy to co-sponsor a motion of that sort.

Brought by the Labour Party and before the summer recess? On a

cross-party basis, simply that the Labour Party would facilitate it as

having the time to have the debate, which Parliament should certainly

have anyway and which I'm sure the government would want to do if it

thought Parliament was on its side. It seems to me that the Prime

Minister is room for manoeuvre is getting more confined. Events have

made it so it's hard to avoid bringing this before Parliament,

even in a recess and it's by no means clear he could win a vote if

it did go before the Commons. think you properly wouldn't and what

he said in the Commons was merely a pledge. It's interesting because it

opens up a whole lot of questions which you suggested. Should we have

a vote in Parliament every time we sell weapons to anybody? We sell

weapons to everybody, Saudi Arabia. If we had a proper open discussion

about that, I think a lot of our arms sales would come a stop. What's

being proposed now, I totally understand and I completely

sympathise with Cameron's feelings. We must do something when we see

appalling things happen and go in there and support the good guys but

I agree with Julian, it's not practical. This is an interesting

Parliamentary technicality. It's important but does not answer the

question which is really the vital one, which is what to do about

Syria, the situation with President Assad. Coming from the American

perspective, the leaders in all this, Barack Obama is looking like

Clinton in Bosnia, allowing a budget on a massive scale, and the rise of

Al-Qaeda and this it seems to me, seems to be the more important

point. I'm worried about binding the hands of the executive and

Parliament is not staffed with experts on this and related issues.

Like these Arabian experts who told us about the Arab Spring. And a

great game in Afghanistan. OK, we have to leave it there. This issue

will obviously be important. It remains unresolved, Syria, and I

reserve the argument. Will you come back and tell us of development?

Yes, of course I will. I'd be happy to do that but I want to make this

one thing clear, in the case of a rock, the whole point was to keep

chemical weapons away from Al-Qaeda. If we assist them to take over in

Syria, we will be bringing them closer to having chemical weapons.

That worked in a block because they did not have any. Thank you. Too

many of us find ourselves cruising along the motorway over the speed

limit. The government announced in 2011 it would consider setting a

limit at 80. Since then, they have gone very quiet about it. We have

been finding out if history can tell us why that might be.

There was a time when going for a drive was an expensive luxury, done

for the sheer hell and fun of it. An age when life wasn't about traffic

wardens and congestion. What hasn't changed almost from the start of

motoring is our habit of driving fast and the political rows about

controlling our need for speed. This is a 114-year-old speeding ticket

issued for the crime of clocking over four miles an hour. By 1903,

cars were more powerful and 14 mile an hour limit was raised to 20.

There was a terrific fight. The fight was an interesting one, a

class fight. These rich aristocrats, for the first time, came into

conflict with the police who were their natural allies. Suddenly they

were breaking the law. The police were imposing speed traps.

This conflict wasn't just between motorists and the law, but between

motorists who have always been split over speed.

I divide it into, on the one hand, the Jeromy Clarkson s of the world

who want to go as fast as they can. And, those who believe that, yes,

indeed, they are drivers and with light the road to suit them, but

they also realise they are citizens and they do not want to mow down

children. They feel responsible. This 1901 French car can go a

surprising lack, 49 miles an hour. When it was in use, what kept the

speed gun wasn't the law as the state of the road. Today, that is

still true, despite ever more powerful cars, congestion on

overloaded roads and motorways is a bigger deterrent to speeding down

the law. Politicians today are no more inclined to enter the speeding

debate than in 1903. Being the Minister of death is the

last thing any politician wants to do. You have to be a bold or foolish

position to advocate raising the speed limit on motorways -- foolish

politician. There could be an appalling crash by large numbers of

people will be killed and you will be in the firing line.

Coming up hard against facts like that, you can see why ministers and

the motorist might rather hanker for driving along at 20 in the sunshine.

Joining us in the studio is former Top Gear presenter and motoring

journalist Sue Baker. Welcome. Should the speed limit to be raised

to 80? It is sensible it should be. Any law which is disregarded by 50%

of the population is bad law. It would bring us into line with most

of the rest of Europe where 81 mph is the permitted speed limit on

motorways. But wouldn't more people die?

There is the fear of that. The reason cars crash is because they

are too close to one another, speed in itself is not dangerous. Cars in

close books imitate, that is dangerous. We need to enforce the

suggested new law. Correction-macro cars in close proximity, that is

dangerous. We need to get more discipline in lanes.

You say speed doesn't cause crashes. But 1.4% of all crashes in Britain

result in a fatality, but 2% on the motorways. I would suggest that is

because cars are going faster. Faster, but in close proximity.

You don't want people tailgating, holding lanes, getting other drivers

frustrated. I like the nanny state. When did

that happen? The petrol heads are libertarians, seat belts and speed

limits are dreadful. Very few politicians who have made an impact,

they have brought in speed limits and seat belts which have saved

lives and made a real difference to huge numbers of people. Anyone who

wants to be the Minister of death, I don't recommend it.

I am sceptical. People ignoring driving at 80 when there is a 70

speed limit. Then if you raise the speed limit, people will chance it,

that is what behavioural psychology tells us. In Germany where there is

a higher speed limit, this is a regulated general society. The

modern car can go very fast and people will do that. The idea you

can enforce people not driving in the middle lane sufficient to offset

this is a dream. We are better off where we are.

The difference in Germany is many motorways have no top speed limit.

The speed differential between people doing a comfortable speed of

80 miles an hour, and 150 in supercars, that is the problem.

Most of the crashes are around the 80 mph.

A lot of people drive between 70 and 80 on the motorways because they

have a feeling the police will let them do it. That you have to be

above 80 before the police will call you over. What is to stop the idea,

if AT is the official limit, then 80-90 is acceptable.

Let us enforce a sensible law. We are cutting police numbers now.

The report today is talking about speed cameras. The libertarian press

were against speed cameras but they have done very well. The RAC says

the king at data, crashes were cut by more than a quarter after cameras

were put in place. Those 20 -- but those figures, in

those counties, accident rates have gone up. You can draw what you like

from those statistics. I am sure if it was 80... I would

try not to exceed the limit. I don't use the car very much, I nearly

always go by train. What about you? My worry is with a higher speed

limit, I would want to go slower. I must confess I have gone over the 70

speed limit. Why aren't you on Top Gear? Because I am not Jeromy

Clarkson! We had better leave it there.

Now, no question which party has dominated politics this week. For

the last seven days, it's been all about Labour. This week was a double

"Edder" as we were treated to big speeches from Balls and Miliband,

with the same broad underlying message: Labour won't be lax with

your tax. On Monday, the Shadow Chancellor talked about the need for

"an iron discipline" on spending control and hinted that Labour's

would not be radically alter George Osborne's "very tough spending plans

from this year's Spending Review". Adding: "They will be our starting

point." On welfare, Mr Balls stated that wealthy pensioners should no

longer receive the winter fuel allowance, which critics saw as a

move away from the principle of universal benefits.

On Wednesday, it emerged that Labour would not reverse the Government's

decision to means test child benefit.

Yesterday, it was his leader's turn to sell the tough message announcing

a three-year cap on structural welfare spending.

Exactly how the cap will work in practice, its level, and who might

be directly affected, remains to be seen.

What do we make of this? Is this a significant week for Labour? Has it

moved in a different direction or has it done some major U-turns? It

is a pretty significant week for Labour.

We can see from your headlines, cat welfare spending. Universal

benefits, no longer in favour of those, after resistance to George

Osborne and getting rid of child benefits for higher earners. We can

see repositioning here. At launching his weakness particularly on

benefits, the welfare system and spending. Whatever he said, he has

not been able to address. He is moving in a different direction. How

far can he take his own party? And make it coherent?

How significant? Very significant they have accepted what was

inevitable, on spending. Within that, they can move plenty of things

around, they can put more into benefits, whatever they want within

that year. Also, it is important to remember, it doesn't include

investment. Gordon Brown is important role on that.

Borrow for capital investment. I am sure they will come in with

something like 1 million new homes over the period of the parliament,

still less than Harold Macmillan built. Huge investment for growth,

jobs, apprenticeships. You worry about the chipping away of

the universal benefit principle. The winter fuel allowance was never

universal. The idea of giving someone like me in winter fuel

allowance is plainly daft. As for child benefit, for better off

families. If you were coming in now, what government in its right mind

would say, the first �2.3 billion I spent would be giving it to a

handful of the richest families. It is straightforward.

Not just the richest families but the middle.

The top 10%. In London and the south-east, it

affects a lot of people who are on �50,000 a year.

They are still the top 10%. Because we live in the bubble we do, we

forget the medium is now 21,000 -- the median.

How much do you think this was focus group driven? The polls show Labour

consistently ahead, but not kind to welfare, benefits, which tend to get

people going in the run-up to elections, people were not sure

about what Ed Miliband's position worth. It's interesting that Polly

says he has room for manoeuvre on benefits. I think it leaders

manoeuvre too much, he's back where he started. If he says, I'd take

this on board and I will put a cap on things but I want to move things

around and raise benefits, I think he loses the political edge of this

message which is, I am realistic about public finances. Housing

benefit is the one benefit... needs to build a lot more homes.

He's not going to bring in rent control, is he? They probably will

have to do. I think you could say, no rent can rise for a few years

above inflation. And that, over time, would bring down housing

benefit. And then you would stop building builder to let. No one has

ever managed to get the money out of pension funds to do that. It never

happens. But to building?The government. As shoot a social

programme, not directly, directly, authorities, housing associations.

They are the people... There will have to be a rise in the housing

stock. Labour and the Tories can come up with different ways but that

seems to be the only way to get out of the housing shortage. It's one of

the things people will cast their vote. Probably not the last

election. Even though Labour's record is poor. This government

managed to build even fewer. That's extraordinary. Public opinion is in

favour of borrowing for growth. They are in favour of borrowing for

growth in housing. This week, a poll says Labour are only 4% behind on

who is best to manage the economy. When Tony Blair went into the 1987

election, he was 7% behind. Also 30 points ahead in the polls. Lots of

other compensatory policies. Are you clear that, hasn't Labour actually

said that they will accept the 2015 current spending tax? I'm pretty

sure about it. I have not seen it in black-and-white. They don't know

what they're going to get. We have got Ed Balls on the Sunday Politics.

On your behalf, all will be crystal clear. No doubletalk of there.A

sense of irony there, I don't know. I think he was clear this week on

more than it has been in the past. was hoping to interview Liz Kendall

today. The up-and-coming Labour star, but it doesn't look like we

have her, but we will continue because economic policy was not Ed

Miliband's argument of choice at Prime Minister's Questions this

week. I wonder why? Instead, the Labour leader went on the attack

over waiting times in Accident and Emergency departments in England

which hit a nine-year high in the first quarter of this year. Here's a

reminder of Wednesday's argument about the issue.

Two years ago, during the Prime Minister's listening exercise on

health service he said this, "I refuse to go back to the days when

people had to wait for hours on end to be seen in A&E, so let me be

absolutely clear, we won't. " what is gone wrong? We are now meeting

targets for accident and emergency. There was a problem in the first

quarter this year which is why the medical director of the NHS will be

holding an investigation. The crucial factor is this. Over the

last three years, there is 1 million more people walking into accident

and emergency unit every year. independent King 's fund says the

number of people waiting more than four ours is higher than at any time

for nine years. Can he explain to the countrywide A&E waiting times

fell under Labour and have gone up under his watch? The fact is, we are

now meeting our targets. That's what happened in the House of Commons

over A&E. We are joined now by someone who can shed a light on all

of this. Ruth Dalby, a senior fellow at the Nuffield trust who knows a

thing about this. Welcome to the programme. Ed Miliband has talked

about a crisis in A&E. Is there one? I think the A&E department across

the country are under severe pressure. We know that they have

been struggling to meet their four-hour A&E waiting times since

last summer, so it's to the same that this peaked between January and

March this year and they failed to meet the target. They went from 5%

of people waiting longer than five hours and went up to 6%. It's true

to say that since the 12th of May, it has improved dramatically so the

big question is, can this be sustained? Would it be fair to say

it was a cold winter? Wintertime, more people use A&E. And as

stretched into spring, winter, and there's been a seasonal problem but

now the seasonal problem seems to be largely over? That is possibly true.

I think the underlying factor is that, over time, more people have

been gradually using A&E for a whole variety of reasons. It is not true

to say that this is simply down to the GP contract which was

renegotiated in 2004. Some have claimed this meant out-of-hours care

suddenly collapsed and everybody poured into A&Es but it's not true.

Out of hours in some areas have been a problem and people feel at easier

to get A&E departments, but it's a whole complex set of reasons behind

this. Including factors like older people who inevitably have more

health problems who can't have it sold in primary care. A lot of young

children come into A&E and that's because parents are worried and need

reassurance and also 30-year-olds coming in for all sorts of reasons

as well. The underlying trend is more people are coming in and the

real challenge is they are having to be treated with flat budgets.

Another explanation is immigration, a lot of immigrants to this country

who come from countries where they don't have a doctor, and they

haven't arranged their own GPs, so when something goes wrong with them

and their families, the natural place for them to go is A&E. Is that

a factor? There's no evidence to suggest not happening on a major

scale in the NHS. Locally, in some areas, it could be a problem where

people are not registered with GPs or may find it hard and, in some

hospitals, in areas, they will put GP services inside A&E departments

to improve it but on the whole, it's just not true. The Prime Minister

has made a great deal of how bad things are in Wales on waiting times

and so on. Wales is run by Labour, obviously, and hasn't done most of

the reforms the English health services gone through. Are things

bad in Wales? It's under pressure, it's also got financial problems,

and problems in its A&E departments. It's difficult to make

direct comparisons. They have an older population, more deprived

population, and in many parts of Wales, it's quite rural, so they

have different problems but whether you can pin it on a specific flavour

of government, I'm not sure. Thank you very much for marking our card

on that. We have sold the technical problem, partly and let's have a

look at Liz Kendall in Leicester. There has been a sound problem.

She's having to hold an earpiece to her ear. Can you hear me? I can, as

long as I held it like this. Let me begin on the waiting times. It was a

cold winter, more people went to the A&E departments, breaching of the

targets, but it's back on track again for some it has come down

again to the target, so it's not a crisis, is it? A&E is a barometer as

to how the rest of the NHS is doing and if you listen to independent

experts like the Nuffield trust and the NHS Confederation, they say

there are real stresses and strains on the system which has been caused

a lot by the pressures on social care, so elder people who could be

capped at home healthy and independent, are ending up in

hospital. Real problems with the new 111 number and issues around

staffing cuts, specifically nurses. In Leicester we've had real problems

in A&E. My local clinical commissioning groups say those are

the reasons for those problems and my concern has been that we were

warned the government back in January about the pressures on it

and it was only on the 9th of May that the government wrote to people

saying, where are your action plans? It's too little too late. But it's

back on target now. Well, we will see. We have been speaking to people

and we'll see. We will see whether those improvements are sustained and

also when we come to the next winter, whether the real changes we

need, to put much more support in the community under home, joining a

social care, has been done. Do you have any evidence anybody died?

have not talked about people who may have suffered from the A&E crisis,

but what we do know is waiting in A&E are at their highest for nine

years, cancelled operations and trolley waits are the highest for

nine years. Given that the A&E target is only 5% of people should

have to wait more than four hours, what happened at the worst period

was 5.9%, it increased, you say no one died but as the party presided

over the mid-Staffs tragedy, don't you do more humble on this matter?

300,000 people are waiting more than four hours in A&E and that is not

acceptable. How many died mid-Staffs? What happened in

mid-Staffs was utterly appalling and unacceptable and we need to learn

lessons from that. I think there were things from there which are

also relevant to the A&E crisis. You need enough properly trained staff

but ultimately, what you need is to transform the system so we have more

support for elderly and vulnerable people at home and if the government

has spent the last three years focused on proper forms instead of

this wasteful talk down reorganisation, we would be in a

better place now. What is different for Labour's policy position today

than it was last weekend? I think we have set out some really fundamental

reforms to the Social Security system. It will help people work, to

reform housing benefit, to tackle issues in incapacity benefit, and

encourage more parents of young children to get work ready before

their children are aged five. We are really looking at the root causes of

the increase in the welfare bill. And trying to set forward some

proper reforms that will make it better for people to work and have

the opportunities to have a good living standard for their families

and to tackle low pay. I think Ed sent out some really... Give me an

example of where you are different last weekend. Housing is a real

issue. Ed said before we came too late to the housing issue in

government and we have set forward some strong proposals about how we

can start shifting spending money on housing benefit into house-building.

Investing in the future rather than... I don't know what that means

in terms of policy. What it means is, we want to get new powers to

local councils to negotiate better deals of landlords, see proper

affordable housing for people, I also think we have put forward some

clear proposals on it. Something the government has failed to do. We also

want to look at reforming incapacity benefit and the tests that there are

for people with disabilities who can work and we have said we want to

take action on low pay. That's what the government is doing.

government is never done that. talking about incapacity benefit.

Their tests are not working. When 40% of people who repeal those

decisions are people with disabilities and they are being

repealed and they are upheld, the system is not working. We want to

work with disability groups to focus on the people who can work and what

skills they can offer and having a proper work programme. Here in

Leicester, we had a great work programme which was scrapped. The

new work programme here is not working for people locally. It's a

big change. Can you clarify something for me because it's not

quite clear. Will Labour accept current spending plans for 2015-16?

They have got to be our starting point. So you will accept them?They

have got to be our starting point. Will you accept them? They're 30

colonic policy means they are borrowing much more than they

originally planned. We have got to take difficult decisions and they

will be our starting point. interested in this phrase, "

starting point". So will you accept the 2015-16 spending plans you will

inherit? It's got to be our starting point. As the shadow... Can't you

say the word accept? Why can't you say the word accept? Maybe you

don't? You seem to have picked on a formulation of words to try and get

you off the hook of saying you actually accept the spending plans.

You will understand, Andrew, what the government predicted what would

happen to the economy two years ago is fundamentally different to what

we have now. What they predict in June could be the reality of the

economy in two years time but as a shadow health minister for older

people, we have to do take what the government said as a starting point

and look at how we make different decisions about priorities and

spending within those limits and that's what we have said and that's

what we'll to do. You have now accepted the winter fuel payment

should be means tested, and child benefit should be means tested.

Anything else you have in mind which should be means tested?

I really agree, further 5% of the that. We will come forward with more

detailed Persaud 's goals -- proposals but this shows if you had

to make a decision, in terms of the winter fuel payment, with all the

other pressures in the system, payment to the richest 5%, is an

indication of our approach. I don't think you are in a position

to tell me. If you promise to come back to tell us first, we promise to

get you a proper sound system! So, lots going on this week. In case

you missed any of it, here's a reminder of the week in just 60

seconds. The week began with allegations of

three lords lobbying. Claims of wrongdoing were denied but to be on

the safe side the government announced plans to introduce a new

register. And they thought it was time to look at union membership and

political donations. Again. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls sketched out

some new ideas on the economy. The idea of axing winter fuel payments

for pensioners. And ruling out bringing back child benefit for the

better. The House of Lords that the government gave marriage plans.

There will be increased pressures for polygamy.

There were tantrums after Nick Clegg through his plans to relax rules on

child out. Nick Clegg got his way on childcare,

is that a surprise? That is a surprise in one. The

deregulation of childcare did run a very long time. In the end, it has

been batted out of court. What does it tell us about the state

of the coalition? It shows you the Lib Dems are good at putting a brake

on bonkers ideas. The idea one childminder could look

after six under two-year-old children.

There is a real problem. All he has done, there is not another solution

for childcare. That wasn't a solution. The problem

has not been sold but one thing has been stopped.

It wasn't a solution. This will be a good battle ground at the next

Now, you might have thought that was your lot for this week, but no,

because there's more. You lucky people. This morning, the Prime

Minister has been to sunny Stirling. Hardly Ibiza but, by the look of it,

he'll still be topping up the tan. His companion this time, not Sam

Cam, but Ruth Davidson, the embattled leader of the Tories in

Scotland. Mr Cameron has been addressing the party this morning,

and here's what he had to say. Our United Kingdom 's history has

always been one of shared endeavour. Proud in our individual

identities but working together for a common good. We saw it when our

soldiers brought together under one flag on the beaches of Normandy.

When our doctors came together to build our NHS. In the scientific

breakthroughs we have made together, through television and

penicillin. And last summer as athletes around Britain, no matter

where they were from, draped themselves in one flag. There is so

much more still to come. Why wouldn't we want to face the future

together? There is no challenge we face together where breaking up

Britain is the right answer. David Cameron. I'm delighted to say

that Ruth Davidson, Tory leader in Scotland, joins us now from

Stirling. Why won't you give the party

faithful a debate on whether or not the Scottish Parliament should have

more powers? We have asked Lord Strathclyde to

bring forward proposals and asking the party to feed into. When those

proposals are brought forward, they can be the focus for debate.

Wouldn't he have liked to hear the party faithful with their views at

conference, so he could sweep up the mood of your party?

We have invited people within the party.

Why no debate? There is an open question Time

session so people can ask anything they like. Presumably the

constitution will come in that. In terms of a debate, you need emotion,

firm proposals. Tom Strathclyde has not completed his work. Those

proposals will be taken to our members.

Don't you owe it to the Scottish Conservative members? You won the

leadership of your party campaigning against further powers for Scottish

Parliament. You have now set up a commission to look at further

powers. You have changed your mind, shouldn't your members have their

say? They are having their say. Not a

debate. Are you afraid? Not at all. What is important to remember is,

between now and the referendum, we will have a report from Tom

Strathclyde, serious proposals brought forward to debate. We have

three conventions each year for our members to bring forward things.

have you changed your mind? In terms of, the last few years, we have seen

the constitutional debate live on. The stresses majority government has

put on. And in terms of someone in the Scottish Parliament every day,

we see where those stressors show the Parliamentary system are

wanting. In terms of Post a referendum, if we win it, we need to

have a constitutional settlement which people in Scotland are happy

with. Stable, devolved government. Sir Alex Salmond does not come back

in five years or ten years agitating for another referendum. We need to

make sure it is a settlement which meet the aspirations of people in

Scotland. A stable settlement. When your party voted your leader on the

visible you wouldn't draw a line in the sand on any more powers being

transferred to Scotland, it turned out that line was actually in the

sand and easily washed away. When people were voting in the

Parliamentary and leadership elections, it was a lot more on

other issues as much as the situation at issue. Correction-macro

constitutional issue. We saw the Prime Minister arguing for a United

Kingdom but without a united party. A lot of things were discussed will

stop a lively leadership campaign. What I am doing is bringing forward

a mechanism for people from different parts of the spectrum in

our party to feed into Tom Strathclyde. I look forward to the

work his commission is doing. You say you have kept the Scottish

Conservative party going. It has had some stability. The stability of the

graveyard. You are dead in the water.

When I took over, we had 19 years of decline, that is difficult to turn

around overnight. The party is in better shape to fight elections. We

are building a policy platform, with an energy review policy. Rural

policy. Bringing in all of the talents we have in the party. And

seeing improvements in terms of polling and research.

Let me give you the figures. 1997, you had 18% of the vote, lost every

seat in Scotland. 2005, 16%. 2010, 17%. The latest shows you around

16%. I repeat, you are dead in the water, this is the end.

I took over in November 2011. To build a strong policy platform to

take our message to the people of Scotland. In 2011, we got 12.9% in

the first, 13% in the second. worse than the 1997 general

election. As I say, when I took over, we wanted to build for the

future to change the face of the Scottish Conservatives. A third of

our councillors elected had never been involved in councils before. We

are bringing in new people, new candidates for future elections.

There is a lot of structural reform. I don't see any difference on the

ground. You have got no MPs in 1997. Since then, you have added one. In

other words, in 15 years, you have added one MP. Leading Tory

strategists here say you are only targeting three seats at the next

election in Scotland for Westminster and you have hopes of winning only

two. You have gone from zero, 21, Tattoo by 2015. At this rate you

will end up with an overall majority in Scotland by 21-80.

Correction-macro 2180. There hasn't been a UK general

election since I took over. We are laying the groundwork. How many

seats? I want to win as many as I possibly can. I have worked that one

out. We need to see what happens in the referendum, in terms of bringing

forward new faces in the party to fight the election for us, and to

bring this blog -- policy platform. So we have a party which is fit to

fight. Do you think you will face a

leadership challenge? That is up for someone else. I am the first given a

mandate by the members of our party, one member, one vote. A

lively leadership election. The people of my party wanted me to be

here. We are confident in the future.

Thank you for joining us. That's all for today. Thanks to our