16/10/2013 Daily Politics

Good morning and welcome to The Daily Politics.

It's politicians versus the police, as chief constables refuse to

discipline officers after the independent watchdog questions their

honesty and integrity. House prices may be bouyant, but

house building isn't. But who has the remedy, the government or

Labour? Nick Clegg says it's time to think

more imaginatively on drugs. Does that mean contemplating

decriminalising some of the them? And the excitement builds. MPs are

voting now for a new deputy speaker, with the result expected within

hours. If you still fancy a flutter, we'll bring you the odds on the

runners and riders. Are you excited? Kind you feel it? Have you put any

money on it? All my savings! No, I haven't but a penny.

And joining us for the duration today, the newly appointed shadow

housing minister Emma Reynolds, and a man who stubbornly refuses to be

reshuffled - Pensions Minister Steve Webb. Welcome to the programme.

Now, if this is how the police treat a cabinet minister, what chance is

there for an ordinary member of the public? That was how to reason may

reflected on the behaviour of police officers whose honesty and integrity

is questioned in a report from the IPCC. Deborah Glass, deputy

chairwoman of the IPCC, said officers from the West Midlands,

West Mercia and Warwickshire forces had acted in pursuit of a political

agenda when they organised a meeting with former Chief Whip Andrew

Mitchell, who was trying to clear his name after being accused of

calling police at the Downing Street gates plebs, an accusation he has

always denied. This morning, the president of the Association of

Chief Police Officers insisted most police officers are doing a good

job. These events do damage confidence in policing, but I am

sure that thousands of officers day in day out are giving a good

service. They will be just as troubled by this. Joining me now,

begin server to MP David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary and a

friend of Andrew Mitchell. And from Birmingham, we're joined by Ron Ball

who is the Police and Crime Commissioner for Warwickshire.

The Home Secretary said yesterday that if this is how a politician is

treated, what hope does a member of the public have? Issue right? I

think the problem is the other way round. Because it is an ex-cabinet

member, I think the police officer would not be treated the same way.

These police officers totally misrepresented what happened at

their meeting and we would not have known that unless Mr Mr -- Mr

Mitchell taped the meeting. They were out to get him from the start.

There was a thorough investigation supervised by the IPCC which was

then put to three senior officers in three senior -- in three different

forces who came to a conclusion on the facts. That is a fair and open

process. At any time, the IPCC could've taken over. They decided

not to. They washed their hands of it and then made an inflammatory

statement. Well, the police investigated themselves as they

usually do. The IPCC looked at this and said, in the end, they had not

shown honesty or integrity. What is wrong with that conclusion? I don't

see where they have the evidence for that position. They were the

findings of three senior officers. So where is the evidence and the

legal action? The police came out of that meeting with Mr Mitchell and

said that they were -- said he wouldn't tell them the words he'd

actually used with police at the Downing Street gates. We now know

from a transcript of a recording exactly what Mr Mitchell had told

them. They totally misrepresented what Mr Mitchell had said. Well,

I've looked at the transcript and I cannot see where that misleading has

actually taken place. And that was what the investigation by the IPCC

bank. Those officers are now in a difficult position. The outcome of

the investigation is that no action will be taken. Now they are being

put on trial by the IPCC in the media and have basically been found

guilty and have no opportunity to clear their names. Some will think

they are lucky to have their jobs, since they are in positions of

public trust and they clearly abused that trust. Would you not elected to

represent as, the people? Isn't that your job? You are speaking out for

the Chief constables, you are representing them, not the people

who elected you. I think I'm very much representing the people who

elected me who want to see fairness and justice. We sacked three police

officers in the last month, mainly through the proactive work of our

anti-corruption teams. We take a hard line in the integrity, but it

is also about fairness. So these officers have not been treated with

fairness. Rubbish. It is unusual, because we actually have hard

evidence of what was said in the meeting and outside the meeting. We

also have the documents published by the Federation saying what they

intended to do, and they were setting out to bring down Andrew

Mitchell. So I'm afraid Mr Jones describes the process as their - it

was not fair, it wasn't intelligent, it wasn't justice. And

as a result, Deborah Glass was entirely right to criticise them.

What do you say to that, Mr Jones? I wish to point out yet again the

incompetence of the IPCC. I was only complaining about another incident

today about the way the IPCC operated. Clearly, we are seeing an

abuse of process by the deputy chair of the IPCC. Having supervised it,

let somebody else make the decision - if she'd have made the decision

she would've had the same facts and the same legal advice and would not

have been able to make a different decision. She is letting somebody

else carry the can for making the decision, and then giving her own

opinion, is grossly unfair. The IPCC should've taken a song from the

start, shouldn't it? Well, they have very few staff. There are three

types of investigation. One is a supervised one, which is what we

have here, where the IPCC keeps an eye on it but the police carry it

out. Implicitly, it trusts the police to do it properly. Then there

is a managed one, with more involvement. Then there is an

independent one, which they do themselves. Here, the IPCC trusted

the police, as the public do, and this demonstrates that unfortunately

the police cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. Senior

officers are trying to protect their own forces from embarrassment. It's

a disgrace. When you listen to Mr Jones, do you think your party's

plan for elected police commissioners is working? Well, I'm

afraid your implicit comment that he's been captured by the people he

is supposed to be keeping an eye on is absolutely right. Mr Jones, let

me come back to you. I sense this is the crux of this. At this meeting,

the police representatives there said, well, what did you say to the

police at Downing Street? And Mr Mitch still -- Mr Mitchell said he

had said something he should not have said, but I did not use the

word plan. -- the word "pleb". That is on record. Then they come out of

the meeting and said, he would not tell us what he said. They lied to

us. Correct? That was fully investigated and looked at in great

detail. Three senior police officers came to the view that there was

insufficient evidence to levy any charges. That was the process. I

have not looked at it myself. There is series of ways of interpreting

the comments that were made. Personally, in terms of the officer

of the West Midlands, I have not seen anything that would suggest he

misled in any comment here is made subsequent to the interview. This is

almost a unique circumflex stands where we have the exact facts on

video tape. There is a clear line here, it is also clearly

premeditated. And they did not know had -- they did not know the meeting

had been recorded. What you've got here is a real problem, because what

is the standard of probity we are applying? All three officers are

people who are trusted. They can arrest you, they can charge you.

They probably will after this! I drive very carefully bees days! They

go into court and give evidence against you. You require these

people to be intrinsically honest. You do not want them to be willing

to go out and mislead the public because it serves their political

interests in an explicit campaign to bring down an elected cabinet

minister. That makes this a very high profile issue. What terrifies

me is, what chance does a young 16-year-old who bases this on the

street on a Saturday evening have to get back? Bob Jones, thank you for

joining us. Emma, who do you think has been

treated unfairly year? I think Andrew Mitchell has had to wait too

long for the investigation. I think it is extremely worrying that the

IPCC has then said the investigation did not draw the proper conclusions.

I do think questions need to be asked about police investigating the

police. In this situation, that does not seem to have been affected. Last

October, Yvette Cooper called the Andrew Mitchell to be fined for the

incident. Was she wrong to do so? Well, there were things that we

bought at the time and we now think differently. Having seen the

transcript of what happened, it does change our understanding of the

event. I would say we have a different position in terms of what

we think happened. We haven't quite got to the bottom of everything. To

be fair, when the facts change, we change our mind. That is the

question, did you believe that he had used the word pleb? Do you think

they would try to fit a narrative? We thought he had sworn at a police

officer, and it appears that is the case. He did not swear at, you swore

in front of the police officer. -- he swore. The reason Andrew Mitchell

resigned - this is my understanding of what happened at the time - he

said at the time that he felt he lost the support of the Conservative

Party and that is why he resigned. Do you think they should apologise,

those police officers? I think they should seriously consider

apologising. I think the transcript is pretty clear about what was said

in the meeting. Bob Jones is wrong? This does demonstrate again that the

police should not be investigating the police. There is too much of a

conflict of interest there. What do you think of Bob Jones defending? He

says he has read the transcript and he has a different interpretation of

that meeting, despite the fact the officers we discussed said Andrew

Mitchell refused to say anything about what he said in the

altercation. What do you think? He has his position on this issue. I

think there are serious questions bees police officers now need to and

said, and I think, above all of this, the IPCC has to be the

superior body. That is what they are there for. What I worry about with

all of this is, not only have there been very serious allegations of

malpractice, but this is now a big argument, and what does the public

think? This is a labour Police Commissioner. I know Bob Jones

extremely well and I think he is doing very well across the West

Midlands on all sorts of issues. But on this? I'm not comfortable with

the position that the three police forces are taken.

Would you like to see Andrew Mitchell back in government? He is a

very good minister that he has lost his career. He has apologised for

the swearing and what happened and rightly so but it is a quarter of a

million quid we have spent and we are still going on about it. It

needs a line drawing under it. There are hundreds of officers. What you

think should happen to the officers involved? If they have misled... The

vast majority of officers are reliable and confident. Sometimes a

small number of people drag the whole thing down this is what seems

to be happening in this. Thank you. The average house price in the

United Kingdom is a culture of ?1 million. It is a new record. There

is a 3.8% increase over the year with huge regional variations. The

supply of new houses is still sluggish and it is taking young

people longer to get their own home. The opposition are battling it out

for the best policies to alleviate housing shortage.

Housing is becoming a political battlefield. What has been going on?

In the last full financial year, fewer than 108 thousand new homes

were completed in England. That is the lowest on record. The picture

has started to improve in recent months. House-building starts are up

7% compared with the year before but still well below pre-economic crisis

levels. Labour leader Ed Miliband presented his plans to deal with the

housing problems at the party conference last month. He promised

the Labour government would build 200,000 new homes a year by 2020.

And to achieve that he said developers would have to build on

any land they own with planning permission or risk having it

confiscated. The government hopes its help to buy scheme will

stimulate the housing market but Labour have criticised the policy

saying the government backed mortgages risk creating a bubble.

Andrew. Thank you. Mr Webb, when the

coalition came to power in the first financial year, 2010-11, there were

111 thousand housing starts in England. How many have there been in

the last financial year? You have just seen Jo has given you the

figures. There has been a decline and now the economy is picking up. A

year ago we had unemployed builders, we had land with planning

permission that builders were not willing to build on and we had

people who were desperate to buy houses. What we have done now is

made sure the developers have already got planning permission are

building. People are now starting to buy for the first time so we have

turned a corner but this is coming after decades of insufficient

house-building. The latest figures we have are up to June this year.

How many houses were started in the year to June? You tell me. 111,000,

110 to March. This is the latest official figures we have. Can you

remind viewers how may houses were started in your first year? What is

happening now is acceleration. The house-building industry is

accelerating. That is why the economic growth figures are picking

up. You need to define the word accelerate for me. In the first

financial year 111,000 houses were started. In the year up to June

2013, the latest figures we have, 111,000 houses were started. It is

the same number. Explain the definition of acceleration. There

was a dip and now it is starting to recover. What we need to see is

people able to buy new houses. The government's Help to Buy scheme is

in two bits. The first is to aim people to buy newly constructed

houses. Whereas across the country as a whole house prices in many

places are not rising very fast, London and the south-east are rising

fast. But there is not this great housing bubble going on. We are now

in the financial year 2013-14, what would be a healthy figure four

housing starts this year? It will be well up on 110,000. Pick a figure

out of the air. We are seeing not only first-time buyers getting into

the market but one of the other barriers was people wanting to sell

the house and buy a new house and they could not do so because people

could not get a deposit together. In 1997, 98, there were 156,000 starts.

Ten years later, before the financial crash, how many did Labour

start? I do not know the answer. It was 170,000. So after ten years of

boom you managed to increase the number of starts by 14,000, ten

years of economic growth and you only added to it. One of the reasons

why there is a huge housing shortage in this country is because of all

the years in power you never built anything like the right number of

houses. I would have our record over their record any day. We built 2

million houses. What needs to be done now is over 200,000 houses a

year should be built. You never heard that figure? That is right, we

should have built more. You had 13 years to do it. Firstly, we have put

this centre stage of our agenda for the next Parliament. Maybe we did

not give it the priority it deserved. Secondly, we have outlined

ambitious plans in order to put pressure on developers who are

sitting on land with planning permission. Where is the evidence

for that bit people have land but not developing? You say it is the

case, where is the evidence? It is clear that there are developers

sitting on land with planning permission in different local

authorities and they are not building. You asserting it does not

make it to be so. What you want, a piece of paper? Yes, I want an

investigation. The OFT investigated and could not find evidence. Kate

Barker had a major investigation and concluded the industry did not have

overly large land banks. The home builders Federation pointed out the

local latest -- latest local government report on this. There are

three, the OFT, Barker report and Local Government Association who all

say they have no evidence for what you claim. I would ask you to give

me some evidence. We are working very closely with local authorities

and there are local authorities in different parts of the country who

are telling us this is a problem. I am sure there are individual

examples but I cannot find evidence that this is the case. Since you are

making it a key part of your claim, can you give me any? It is clear

that the market is not working and there are not enough houses being

built. We are working closely with local authorities who tell us this

is a problem. This is not the only part of the solution that we are

suggesting. We have set up a commission chaired by Sir Michael

Lyons who has great experience in these matters. He used to be the

chief executive of Wolverhampton City Council in the 80s. He is

looking at how we can develop further these plans. We think we

need to be much more ambitious than this government. This government has

presided over slumping housing completions, the lowest since the

1920s in peace time. You need to kick-start the building of housing.

You can trade statistics till the cows come home. The key thing is

helping people to get their foot on the housing ladder which too many

have been unable to do. Also freeing up land where builders have got

permission and it has not started yet and what the government has

managed to do is to unlock a dozen house-building sites which is why we

are seeing construction on the up now. We will keep an eye on these

figures. Now, the Conservative party has a

policy, believe me! Just the one! They promise to raise the personal

tax allowance to ?12,500. Sound familiar, Steve Webb? The Liberal

Democrats have accused their coalition partners of stealing their

policy. How dare they? We know how you feel about good ideas being

stolen. It has been brought to our attention that other television

programmes may have mimicked our entirely original idea of having a

mark with the programme's name on it. ITV's Loose Women, sky News Adam

Boulton and our colleagues at BBC Breakfast macro. He does not look a

day older than he was when I gave him his job at Sky News. But we

still have our unique selling point because we are giving hours away. We

will remind you how to enter in a minute but see if you can remember

when this happened. Mystical Sun, did you have any regrets? --

mystical Sun. To be in with a chance of winning a

Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address.

You can see the full terms and conditions for best year on our

website. It is coming up to midday here. It

is Wednesday, it is noon, it means Prime Minister 's questions -- Prime

Ministers' Questions. And Nick Robinson is here. You have got the

dreaded party conference lurgy, also known as drinking too much! An

interesting set of statistics today, a big fall in employment by the

job-seeker's allowance cut and average earnings, which we thought

would show some signs of life are still flat. That is the intriguing

thing. The battle we saw played out in the party conferences, Labour say

it is all about the cost of living, the Tory party state is about the

economy. I guess this will be played out in Prime Ministers' Questions.

The Prime Minister will say employment is at a record high. He

will say you did not see that coming and the truth is no one thought

unemployment would be as low as it is now. On the other hand, the

Labour leader will say not only has the rate of increase of earnings has

gone down, not only is it lagging inflation for 39 months in a row out

of 40, but there is also the fact in the public sector there has been an

actual fall in people's earnings. It is not less than inflation it has

gone down by not .5%. That is the first time ever in the statistics --

0.5%. It is a striking statistic about the extent of the squeeze on

people's earnings. It is the economy again for Prime Ministers'

Questions? That is my guess. And Ed Miliband was criticised by his own

people for changing the subject. The message he has got is once you say

something, you have to say it again and again until people aboard in the

hope that the public will notice. The comparison with the standard of

living, the real picture is the household disposable income. I

suspect the Prime Minister is not always across his statistics and

will not know that. There was a debate a few months ago about the

figures on the household income whether they were going up or not.

The Treasury said they were going up. There was a question about

whether they were going overall up across the economy. Or were they not

going up her head. You get a detailed breakdown. That will not

happen! Crudely speaking, the Prime Minister cannot deny there is the

squeeze on people's earnings. The question that hangs over both their

assertions is whether the government of either party will make a

difference to those statistics. It is interesting that this business of

recovery and living standards dominates the political agenda. I

remember talking to Labour ministers when the crash began and they were

terrified about a rise in unemployment. Now it is like an

implement is fine. Let's go to the I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others and I will have further such meetings later

today. I'm only hoping that Sheffield United will follow their

lead. Mr Speaker, we will all have heard from constituents who, while

struggling to make ends meet, have taken out payday loans and then

found themselves trapped in spiralling debt with excessive

charges and escalating interest. Yesterday, all the major national

consumer and debt advice organisations came together in

Parliament to launch a charter calling for the top regulation of

payday lenders. The charter is backed by members representing every

party in this House. Will the Prime Minister added his support? Can I

commend the Honourable Gentleman for the honourable work he does on

payday loans and tough regulation? It is absolutely right we get things

right in this area. This month, the Government published reports showing

that the problems in this market persist. That is why the Financial

Conduct Authority has made a series of proposals using powers to ban

loans and adverts it does not approve of, limiting the number of

attempts payday lender can take money out of, and all other

proposals. We continue to look at the issue of a cap but we do have to

bear in mind what has been found out in other countries and through our

own research about whether a cap would prove effective. But it is

right that we regulate this area. Can we have a full and transparent

assessment about whether the Guardian's involvement in the

Snowdon affair has damaged Britain's national security? Does my

right honourable friend agree that it is bizarre that for some, the

hacking of a celebrity phone demands a prosecution, but leaving the

country vulnerable is opening a debate? I commend my honourable

friend for raising this issue. The plain fact is that what has happened

has damaged national security, and in many ways, the Guardian admitted

that when they agreed to destroy the files they had. So they know what

they are dealing with is dangerous for national security. It is up to

select committees in this House if they want to examine this issue and

make further recommendations. I join the Prime Minister in sending

warmest congratulations to the England team on their victory last

night and getting to the World Cup finals. My commiserations to Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland. Today's economic figures show a

welcome fall in unemployment. They also show that prices have risen

faster than wages, and that is 39 out of 40 months that living

standards have fallen since he became Prime Minister. We'll

reconfirm what everybody knows, that there is a cost of living crisis in

this country? Let me welcome his welcome for the unemployment

figures. Not everyone in the House would have been able to study them,

but it is good news. Numbers in work are up 155,000. Unemployment is down

18,000. Women's unemployment and youth unemployment is down. And

vacancies are up. And, crucially, the ball in the claimant count is

41,000 this month alone. That is the fastest ball in the number of people

claiming employment benefit since February 1997. Of course, we all

want to see living standards improve, and last year disposable

income increased, but the way to deliver on living standards is to

grow the economy, keep producing jobs and cut people 's taxes. There

are almost 1 million young people still out of work and yak -- and

record numbers of people working part time you cannot find full-time

work. That is no cause for complacency. The British people will

be surprised to hear the Prime Minister telling them their living

standards are rising when they know the truth: Under them, living

standards are falling month upon month upon month. One of the reasons

is rising energy bills, which one leading charity reports today is one

of the things driving people to food banks. In light of that, does the

Prime Minister think the energy company as if each's decision to

raise bills by 8.2% is justified? -- the company SSE. There is absolutely

no complacency, we need more young people in work, we need more jobs.

But one remarkable thing about these figures is they show for the first

time thereof 1 million more people in work than there were when this

Government came to office. And let me remind the right Honourable

Gentleman of something he predicted in October 2010. He said the

Government have a programme which will clearly lead to the

disappearance of 1 million jobs. That was his prediction, he was 100%

wrong and he should apologise to this House of Commons. Of course, we

all want to see energy prices come down. That's why we're putting

people on the lowest tariff. The one thing that will not work is a price

column, and that is what he is recommending. The person who should

be apologising is this Prime Minister for the cost of living

crisis facing millions of families. Let's talk about SSE. On their

website they say they have one strategic priority, and they call it

a dividend of session. It is not to get bills down, not to be on the

side of the consumer. So it is make up your mind time for the Prime

Minister. He sided see on? -- whose side is he on? We are on the side of

the people. That is why we have frozen council tax and lifted 2

million people out of tax. Let me make this point about living

standards. If you want to help with living standards, the best way to do

that is to cut taxes. You can only cut taxes if you can cut spending.

He has opposed every single spending cut we are proposed. Even now comedy

wants to spend more money. More spending, more borrowing, more debt.

It is the same old Labour. Isn't it striking that the one thing the

Prime Minister doesn't want to talk about is energy prices? He can't

talk about it, because he has no answer. Let's have an answer on the

energy price freeze. Can you confirm that opposing the freeze, he has on

his side the big six energy companies, and supporting the

freeze, we have consumer bodies and small energy producers and the vast

majority of the British people? Is an energy price freeze was such a

great idea, why didn't he introduced that when he stood at this precise

spot as energy secretary? It is not a price freeze, it is a price con.

He is not in control of worldwide gas prices, which is why he had to

admit the next day he could not keep his promise. That is the truth. The

reason he does not want to talk about the economy is because he

hasn't got a credible economic policy. He can't explain why did up

as falling, the economy is growing, unemployment is going down. I have

to say to him, given his problem is no credible economic policy, he

doesn't help them sell by having a totally incredible energy policy. I

thought you might get to the record of the last Government. They've been

floundering and beds blame the last Government and green levies. Let's

talk about them. Who was it you said, go blue, boat Green. There was

it who said, I think green taxes as a whole need to go up. It was him as

leader of the opposition. He's been talking about my record as energy

secretary. So I look back at the record on the energy bill of 2010.

Did he oppose the energy bill of 2010? No, you supported the energy

bill. You could say, Mr Speaker, two parties working together in the

national interest. Does he not feel faintly embarrassed that in five

short years he's gone from hug a husky to gas a badger? The only

embarrassing thing is this tortured performance. He wants to talk about

the record of the last Labour Government. Let me remind him, they

doubled the council tax, they put up electricity bills by half, they put

up petrol tax 12 times and they increased the basic state pension by

a measly 75p. When it came to the low paid, they got rid of the 10p

income tax ban altogether. They absolutely no economic policy and

that is why the former economic Chancellor said this. I'm waiting to

hear what we've got to say on the economy. Well, I think we should

give up waiting because they are a hopeless opposition. He talks about

the last Labour Government. I will tell him what happened. Living

standards up ?3700 over the last years of the Labour Government.

Living standards down ?1500 under him. This is the reality of Britain

under this Prime Minister booed by -- under this Prime Minister. Even

if you are in work, you are worse off. He is in total denial about the

cost of living crisis. If he wants to debate the last Labour

Government, I say, bring it on. They crashed the economy, they bust the

banks, they doubled the national debt, and I have to say to him,

today, on the day we can see their 1 million more people in work in their

country, that is 1 million people -- reasons to stick to the plan that we

have, 1 million reasons to keep reducing the deficit, and 1 million

reasons to say, more borrowing, more spending, more debt - that is the

same old Labour. Never again! Mr Stephen Gilbert. Thank you. Last

night, you presented an award to the nieces of Alan Shearing, their World

War II code breaker who helped this country win World War II. The

Government indicated in July it would move to bring a pardon to his

infection -- to his conviction. Can my right Honourable Gentleman tell

me when this pardon will be granted? Firstly, let me pay tribute to what

he did for this country. It was remarkable and crucial to winning

the war. What happened to him was completely wrong, and looking back,

everybody knows that. The specific of the pardon I'm happy to look at,

but above all we should praise him and the people who worked for him.

The Prime Minister embraced the need to cut pseudo- green biofuel

mandates which effectively hijacked food conductivity -- productivity.

Today, a 7% cap is being proposed as opposed to the 5%. That difference

could feed 68 million people a year. What ever it is he making to

actively avert this compromise against the fight against world

hunger? Let me pay tribute to the honourable member for the work he

has done on this issue. Biofuels should not undermine food

production. A 5% cap on fuels was one of the key components of this

campaign, which I support. That is what we are pushing for and I hope

we will be successful. Mr Speaker, the use of contaminated

blood products by the NHS in the 1980s, exposed 5000 people to

hepatitis C and some 1200 others included in that number to HIV as

well. Of those 1200, just over 300 are still alive. There has never

been an apology or a public enquiry. Would my right honourable friend,

who has an outstanding record in seeking to close historic wrongs of

the past, meet with me and one of my affected constituents, and look

again at the issue of a public commitment that this is the last

historic scandal and ensure that these people are treated fairly by a

state which wronged them in the first place? Can I thank my right

honourable friend for raising this issue in the way that he has. I also

have constituents who have been affected by this appalling thing

which happened in our country. In 2011 in January, we announced a

package of measures to provide support for those affected. Not

least because there have been change in the outcomes for those with a try

the -- those with HIV and hepatitis C. I hope there is more we can do to

bring this sad chapter to a close. The Prime Minister will know of the

many injustices which have been meted out by ATOS in the last two

years. The latest victim was a farmer and a butcher in Bolsover who

went to ATOS in December 2012 and was stripped of his benefit. For 11

months he waited for an appeal. And then his aggressive cancer took his

site, took his hearing and then last Friday took his life. Isn't it time

that we put an end to this system where people who are really

suffering should not be allowed an appeal, having to live on ?70 a

week, him and his widow. Two things the Prime Minister should do, one,

with immediate effect make an ex-Gracia payment to his widow to

cover the suffering, the pain and the loss of income. And secondly,

abolish this cruel, heartless monster called ATOS. Get rid of it!

The honourable gentleman quite rightly raises a desperately sad

case and I am happy to look at it and look at the specifics of the

case he raises. I think everyone who has constituency surgeries knows

that and we have to improve the quality of decision-making about

this issue. Where I would take issue with him, I think it is important

that we carry out proper assessments and whether people are qualified for

benefits or not qualified for benefits. That is why before members

opposite shout out about this, that is why they started to look at work

capability. The question was heard and heard I think with great

courtesy and the answer must be heard. The Prime Minister. That is

why when they were in government the last government did look at work

capability assessments and judge the proper way that people should be

receiving benefits. There are appeals to the system but I am happy

to look at the individual case. The Arctic 13 comprises of six dish

citizens including Alexander Harris, the friend of my daughter. I am

really concerned that their ecological protest about grey Wales

is being misinterpreted as piracy because no one wants the scrutiny of

the environmental work they are doing. I think we need to follow

this case extremely closely. The Foreign Office Minister had a

meeting which I'm sure she attended and we are daily seeking updates

from the Russian government about how these people are being treated.

Last week, in answer to question on his marriage tax policy the Prime

Minister answered that all married couples paying basic rate tax would

benefit from this move, this was not correct, was it, Prime Minister?

What I said was he married couples allowance tax is available to all

who are on basic rate tax. Anyone who has a unused tax allowance is

able to transfer it between a husband or the wife. It comes back

to a very simple principle which is we want to back marriage in the tax

system and not just of the party opposite did, back tax in the

inheritance tax system, we want to back marriage for less well off

couples. If the shadow chancellor wants to raise another point of

order, I am very happy to stick around and hear it out!

I had originally intended to raise the issue of the a 14 with my right

honourable friend but an important announcement was made today by the

Supreme Court, who unanimously turned down the appeal for

prisoners' rights. Also importantly, reasserted that it is the role for

this Parliament to make the decision. Can my right honourable

friend ensure that we will not be voting for prisoners' rights in this

Parliament? Can I think my honourable friend for forsaking the

issue of the A14. The Attorney General fought this case if front of

the supreme court. He made a compelling and forceful argument and

this is a victory for common sense. My views on this issue are

well-known. I do not believe that prisoners should have the vote and I

believe it is a matter for this House of Commons. The Supreme Court

has stood up for common sense and Chrissy. This issue has nothing to

do with the European Union and we can already rise that this result.

The number of people helped by food banks in 2012-13 was tripled

compared with the previous year. Is the Prime Minister proud of this

achievement? Well food bank usage went up ten times in the last Labour

government. What I want to see is helping all families with their

living standards. That is why we should recognise the fact we are

getting more people into work. We are growing our economy. We are

keeping interest rates down and crucially, we are cutting taxes,

four things which are vital for living standards and you would never

get from a Labour government. In September, solid hull's ambulance

service moved to a make ready system and today there are no two man and

didn't is based in the borough. Several of my constituents have been

left for totally unacceptably long periods waiting for an ambulance to

take them to hospital. Talking to ambulance chiefs is like a dialogue

of the death. Will the Prime Minister agreed to meet with me to

see what can be done before a constituent dies waiting for an

ambulance to come? I share my honourable friend's concern about

response times for ambulances. We have to task the NHS with how they

best meet those targets. What matters most is swift attendance to

people who need it. I am happy to arrange a meeting with her and

health ministers. I know the West Midlands ambulance service is

looking at ways to improve the ambulance service.

The Prime Minister will know that yesterday the Independent Police

Complaints Commission published a damning report into events which

occurred involving the former government chief whip. This report

goes to the heart of the issue of integrity is and ethics of the

police. Does he agree with the Home Secretary, who in her evidence to

the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, said it was right that

the relevant Chief Constable should apologise to the right honourable

member for Sutton Coldfield and wrong if the relevant officers did

not face disciplinary proceedings? I agree 100% with what the Home

Secretary said yesterday and I think we should be clear about what we are

discussing here. Whole case of what happened outside Number Ten Downing

St is with the CPS. What is being discussed here is the fact that the

former chief whip had a meeting with Police Federation offices in his

constituency where he gave a full account about what happened. He left

that meeting and they claimed he gave no account at all.

Unfortunately, this meeting was recorded so he has been able to

prove what he said was true and what the police officers said was

untrue. That is why the right honourable gentleman was absolutely

right. He is owed an apology. Conduct of the officers was not

acceptable. These things should be properly investigated. Crucially, it

is absolutely right for his committee to discuss this with the

Chief Constable is concerned and try to get to the bottom of why better

redress has not been given. Can I congratulate the Prime

Minister on taking 2 million out of income tax but note the 1.3 million

earning -- who have been sucked into the higher rate. Can I urge him to

Matt Crown can I urge him to deliver it and ease the squeeze on the

middle classes? We have taken 2.7 million people out of income tax

altogether because we have lifted the first ?10,000 of what you can

earn before you start paying taxes. This means some on the minimum wage

working full-time, someone on the minimum wage has seen their tax bill

come down by something like two thirds. I want to see taxes cut for

all, but the only way we can continue to do that is to get the

deficit down not listen to the party opposite who even today are making

massive commitments to more welfare spending and public spending which

would mean more taxes, higher borrowing and more of the old

Labour. Does the Prime Minister consider it

is a source of shame that on his watch the Red Cross has announced

that it will be distributing food to British families for the first time

in 70 years? What the Red Cross are choosing to do, and it is their

choice, is to work with Fare Share, which is an excellent charity which

makes sure supermarkets do not waste food and make it available to people

who need it. That is worthwhile. We need to see a raising living

standards which we will get if we keep growing the economy, getting

more jobs, cutting people's taxes and we keep interest rates and

mortgage rates low. Those are the four things this government is

delivering which we would never have delivered if we had listened to a

word on the front bench opposite. Yesterday I presented a petition to

the Department of Health calling for ?420 million hospital redevelopment

in Brighton Kemp Town. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that

this money would make a real difference to patients across Sussex

and the hard-working staff at my local hospital? I understand the

business case for the redevelopment for the Centre for teaching trauma

and tertiary care at the Royal Hospital of Sussex is being

considered. This government decided not to cut the NHS but to put extra

resources into the NHS and I am sure when it is considered an

announcement will be made. Tax cuts for millionaires. Tax cuts

for the wealthiest companies in this country. A bonus bonanza in the

city, at the same time as millions are denied the right to work and

those people who are hard-working in work have had their pay cut by

?1500. When is this government made up of privileged privately educated

millionaire ministers going to do something and get in the real world

instead of being the political front of the hedge fund is of the bankers

in the city? We all know who gave the most bonuses to the bankers, it

was the people who allowed the banks to go bust in the first place. This

government is taking 2.7 million people out of tax, compared with the

disgrace of the government he was in which scrapped the 10p income tax.

We all appreciate that government requires hard choices about

priorities. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a generous basic

state pension based on a triple lock should have greater priority and

more generous benefit payments? I think my honourable friend makes an

important point and I am proud of the fact that last year the basic

state pension went up by ?5 30 a week. We have the inflation figures

for September. We can say that the basic state pension will go up by

the rate of inflation next year. The party opposite committed to an

earnings increase in the basic state pension would not see anything like

that. They are choosing to operate welfare by 2.7% where we think it

should be what I 1%. We have the priority is to stand up to people

who have worked hard, done the right thing, who have saved during their

lives, who deserve dignity in retirement. We will never let our

pensioners down. This week, the Office for National Statistics

reported that house price inflation in London was running at 8.7%. Does

the Prime Minister agree that it is inevitable that the mortgage

guarantee scheme will feed the property price bubble? I do not

accept that for a moment we want to help people get on housing ladder.

The Labour Party is standing against those people. I have to say to the

honourable lady that if you look at house price increases outside London

and the south-east, it is a 0.8% increase. We want to help people get

on the housing ladder and achieve their dream of home ownership.

Clearly the party opposite do not care for them.

The Prime Minister will know in my constituency, some businesses are

almost paying enough in business rates as they are paying in red.

What steps will they take to persuade local councils to use the

powers this government have given them to reduce those rates and make

the right choices to support hard working people? I know he is a real

champion for small business on this issue. The first thing we need to do

is get the bill passed through the House of Commons. That will cut the

national insurance bill of every business in the country,

particularly helping small businesses. It means single traders

need to take on three people without paying any national insurance at

all. That is the most important thing. We will continue to look at

the business rate system, encourage councils to make sure they do

everything they can to apply the discounts where they are verbal and

work on this issue. Under this government Wales -- wages have

fallen. When is the Prime Minister going to take personal

responsibility for this? What the honourable gentleman has to do is

look at disposable income as well as wages. Because this government has

cut taxes before they pay taxes, disposable income is rising. If you

go on attacking spending cuts and you go on asking for more and more

spending, everyone will know, with Labour you have more borrowing, more

spending, more taxes, it is the same old Labour. I am very happy to look

at what my right honourable friend says. I am a champion for the low

paid for people who want to work hard and improve their

circumstances. We should look at national insurance. The priorities

for small businesses to take people on. There are a million extra people

in work. If two or three quarters of those jobs are full-time jobs. The

economy is getting stronger, more people are getting into work and we

need to encourage that rather than set it back.

So, that was dominated by the argument the living standards, which

is becoming a common theme. Mr Miliband was talking several times

about a crisis of living standards in the country, Mr Cameron arguing

that the recovery is now underway. Mr Miliband then brought in energy

prices and his plan for a freeze which is part of the argument on

living standards. Mr Cameron did not quite over Mr Miliband on the green

levies that were introduced when Labour was in power, because Mr

Cameron had voted the most of them at that time. I think we had a taste

of the argument between now and the general election on this issue, this

is what will dominate the discourse between the major parties. Let's

hear what you had to say. Reviewers e-mails were all about the cost of

living issue. It seems Ed Miliband has really grasped the agenda with

his target on the cost of living. Once again, he batted David Cameron.

This was from Colin: Ed Miliband may have some valid points to make, but

he continually fails to deliver them in a coherent manner. Damian says:

Why has Ed Miliband harped on about youth unemployment again? Didn't it

soar under Labour and food banks began? This was from Ian Whiteley:

Ed Miliband knows he is on a winner his energy price free is, going on

it for a second week. He wiped the floor with David Cameron. We now

find out they've voted for green taxes. And finally: Raising the tax

threshold does not automatically help people out of poverty because

people who are really poor were already below the tax threshold.

Only 19 more months of this! Ed Miliband has been told to bang on

until people listen, and they did bang on. The same phrases, the same

quotes, from both parties. We knew there would be the trading of stats,

unemployment down and living standards. But there was also the

battle of two quotes. From David Cameron, he was able to remind Ed

Miliband that he predicted the disappearance of 1 million private

and public sector jobs. Today's statistic shows that has not been a

disappearance, there has been the creation of an extra 1 million jobs.

On the other hand, Ed Miliband was able to remind the Conservatives,

Paul Lamy blame green levies and the former energy secretary, he was able

to quote that David Cameron and George Osborne said at the time they

wanted to see more green taxes, not fewer. So in a sense you are seeing

their positioning through statistics". The coalition, if it is

to have a hope of doing well at the next election, you're going to have

two be able to a rise back to point to a rise in living standards. It is

about what people are left with after tax. The threshold used to be

6500 and they want to move it up to 10,000. The reviewer who said that

poor people don't pay tax, a full-time job on the minimum wage is

still on income tax, so that is why the Lib Dems are keen to see if we

can go further. So not taxing people on the minimum wage has to be an

important part of it. To win the election, given the kind of

constituencies both you and the Conservatives tend to win, people in

the middle part - in but just around the average - they are going to have

to feel that, after the pain they've been through of this belt

tightening, by 2015 or even next year, they're going to have to feel

that things are getting better, aren't they? I think the fact that

wage growth has been so low is historically very and usual. As the

economy starts to pick up I think wages will start to pick up. If we

can combine out with record low interest rates, we have to keep the

mortgage rates low. Cutting the income tax bill, job security, that

could be the sign of a strong economy. If you step back from the

party politics, the unemployment figures look better than many

predicted. Not just Labour, but many thought they would be higher. I

think the government itself feared it would be higher. But average

earnings are not growing by much. Isn't it honest to say that both are

connected? What employers have basically said is, I'm not going to

fire you, although there is not a lot of work around, but I'm not

going to increase your pay either. We welcome any improvement in the

employment figures, but the truth is, many of these new jobs were

hearing about our part-time jobs. A minority of them, actually. Well, a

lot of people who are working part-time want to be working

full-time. With respect, that wasn't what I was asking. I was trying to

get you away from the party line. It is penetrated off in this country

which we've never had in a recession before, that - and it may be a

result of the more liberal, Labour markets which started under the

Tories - as a nation, we decided, win not going to have the big rise

in unemployment we would normally expect when there is then no

economic growth, but only because we're not going to let people's

wages rise in terms with prices. I agree and I think it has been

different to previous recessions. One reason it has been battered

during the recession we just come out of if industrial relations. --

one reason it has been better. There was an agreement between trade

unions and their employers that in order to keep people in work, in

some cases they were working much shorter hours. That was difficult

for them, but they preferred to do that and come out the other end.

Now, with the recovery happening, that is not yet feeding through into

people's pockets. Soaring energy prices but also prices rising faster

than wages. If they have hopes of doing well at the election at all,

people have to feel better. The interesting thing is the cost of

living squeezed it not begin during the recession. It started before the

recession. If you look at the figures between 2003 and 2008,

people do not have a fall in living standards, but they started to

become on hitched from the rate of growth in the economy. Living

standards were rising about half the rate of the growth in the economy,

so something was already happening. Was it due to globalisation? The

cost of living crisis has been a subject in American politics for now

much longer than a decade. So this is not just a recession issue, not

just a how do you get out of the recession? Now, the police are in

real trouble, aren't they? It was quite striking that the Home

Secretary, a woman who is herself naturally cautious in a job where

the office holder is usually very careful not to enter disputes

between police services and a member of the public, did enter that, and

now David Cameron has gone further. He has said to serving chief

constables that they owe Andrew Mitchell an apology and they

should've disciplined their staff. It is a confrontation the like of

which I cannot recall between the top of government and the chief

constables, and not one, but three, major police forces. They will give

evidence next week in the House of Commons. We get a sense of what

their defence is now. It is not that their officers didn't do anything

wrong, they are basically saying they did do something wrong, but it

wasn't enough for is to be able to discipline them. I think the view

from Westminster on all sides is that they are backing Andrew

Mitchell. They are saying it is not good enough. So the Prime Minister

wants the police to apologise to Mr Mitchell. How long before somebody

calls on the Prime Minister to apologise to Mr Mitchell? There is

of course a gap. He has very carefully I thought in his answer

explained that gap. What he said is, we still don't know what happened on

the gates of Downing Street. That is the subject of a separate

investigation which has not yet reported back. So that day may come.

If the Crown Prosecution Service decide to prosecute officers who

were at the gates then the Prime Minister may very well find that he

is under pressure to apologise. It's not looking good for the police. No,

but if you are following the details, it is quite possible that

police officers lied, as the police watchdog claimed, about what Andrew

Mitchell told them in a meeting. It is quite possible, given the

evidence we've seen, that there was a conspiracy to bring Andrew

Mitchell down. It is quite possible those things are true, but that the

police officer at the centre of this allegation still insists that they

heard him say plebs. And that Mehmet -- that may never be resolved. It

may not be provable. Now, Nick Clegg has said he's

"frustrated" with the Conservatives' failure to look at drugs policy in a

more open and imaginative way. And Mike Barton, Chief Constable of

Durham Constabulary, is the latest police chief to call for the

decriminalisation of drugs. So what should we do? Baroness Meacher is

the chair of the All Party Group on Drug Policy Reform. In her soapbox,

she argues that the existing laws aren't working. Drugs are

everywhere. People have always used drugs to change the state of their

mind but since our drugs laws were introduced in 90s and one, we have

had an explosion of drugs used in this country -- 1971. This suggests

to me the drugs law is not working. Today, young people are shifting

from traditional drugs to synthetic copies of these, so-called legal

highs although many are in fact banned. New legal highs are

appearing on the market in the UK every week. The 1971 misuse of drugs

act cannot cope with our modern poly- drugs use culture and our

web-based drugs market. We are now out of step with the rest of the

Western world. 20 US states have legalised cannabis for medical use

and two have legalised it altogether. In Europe, Portugal and

the Czech Republic decriminalised possession and misuse of drugs more

than ten years ago and many European countries have softer drugs laws

than we do. 77% of our members of Parliament now agreed on the need

for reform. Mike Barton, Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary is

the latest top police officer to come out in favour of

decriminalisation on the possession and use of all drugs. Nick Clegg

supported the Home Affairs Select Committee's call for royal committee

on drugs policy. I do not think we are winning the drugs war. We are

banging our heads against a brick wall. I find it frustrating that

coalition partners are not looking at openly imaginative policies. I

would like to see the decriminalisation and possession of

all drugs. Secondly, we should not regulate herbal cannabis. Keep it

separate from the dangerous stuff. This would keep our young people

much safer. And Molly Meacher joins us now. It

has been suggested before there has been decades of discussion about it,

why do you think now litter clique, you cited some strong support from

the leg and the chief police officer in Durham, do you think that will

change anything -- some strong support from Nick Clegg. We have had

some is strong drugs policy and even Ban Ki-Moon has called on all states

to look at drugs policy. In this country we have very tough drugs

policies. They do not work. They are dangerous. They drive young people

into the hands of illegal drug dealers. They cut the drugs and sell

the toughest things they can find. But decriminalisation seems

politically unpalatable. Before run election it is tricky. I have great

respect for political parties. It is something all parties should be

thinking about and I believe they all are thinking about it. You

mentioned Portugal and 20 states in the US. What is the experience in

Portugal? Has it been a success? In my view it certainly has. How are

you measuring that? The numbers of young people using drugs are lower

in Portugal whereas nearby in Italy the numbers have gone up. You have

to think about an upward trend in drug use across Europe in 50 years.

Portugal have bucked the trend. Now all political parties in Portugal

support the decriminalisation policy. They certainly did not in

the beginning. Hasn't general drug use gone down here as well? That has

been recently a small drop in cannabis use. Why? Because young

people are shifting in droves to so-called legal highs, very

dangerous substances. We have a very bad dangerous situation in this

country and we have got to change. The problem is imagining the

culture. People often refer to Holland and Amsterdam and imagine

people smoking pot, cannabis, walking up and down the street.

Would the whole culture which surrounds strokes then be even more

rows than it is now? Definitely not. The interesting thing about the

Netherlands is the use of heroin has almost disappeared in the

Netherlands. We have 0.8% of people using heroin and they have 0.1%.

That is important because heroin is dangerous. Will Nick Clegg support

decriminalisation and try and get this on the agenda by the next

election? We should be looking at what other countries are doing and

with Liberal Democrat influencing the Home Office, that is what we are

doing, looking at other countries and having evidence -based policy.

The current policy is not working so we should look at other countries

are doing. What are you hoping that Norman Baker will achieve? Is this

an issue he will come to blows with Theresa May over? It is clear that

the current policy is causing harm and we have to find an evidence

-based way of moving forward. We have to take it away from the

political knock-about to see what damage is doing and try and do it

better. Will Labour put their money where their mouth is on this issue?

We are not in favour of decriminalisation. I think it would

send out a bad signal to young people to say, these drugs, it is OK

if you take them. One thing I agree with is there is a real problem

around legal highs and some of these substances are much more dangerous

than cannabis and other lower grade drugs. We do not have an effective

policy to deal with those legal highs. I am not blaming the current

government. It is a sophisticated develop man in drugs unfortunately.

Lots of young people are dying from legal highs. Are the drug laws

working? The war against drugs, will it ever be one? We have had the same

approach since 1971. If you are saying it cannot be won, should we

change the law? Should we change the approach? I am not sure that

overhauling the entire system is the right answer but I agree it is not

working properly. I was interested in your report that you talk about

the legalisation in 20 states in the United States with regard to

medicinal use of cannabis. There are lots of people who are suffering

from debilitating diseases whose lives could be made much better if

that were to happen in the UK. That is not official Labour Party policy

but I am very sympathetic to that suggestion. Do you think it will

change? This government has have considered this issue of

decriminalisation for a year. Europe is moving. The UK is moving

carefully. Thank you. Does watching the daily politics

constitute a legal high? A high, but it like that! I guess that is a no.

15 Tories hope to be on the short list for the canvases and -- candid

date of Croydon South. You might get these stockings and the breaches

although you do not get them any more but there is a rather nice

black silk gown for a vital role at the heart of government. MPs will

vote on a new deputy speaker of the House of Commons. Will it be Brian,

Simon, Nadine Gary? We will check that the bookies' thoughts but first

he is how they performed under some stringent questions.

Which language can also be used in some formalities of the parliament?

French. Ancient Norman French. Norman French is the word. Who is

the MP for Ashton under Lyne? Ashton underlying? Indeed. You can say you

don't know. It is David Hayes Labour MP. How did short money get its

name? I think after a former Labour minister will stop would you care to

have a guess which one? Lend short? Edward Short came up with the idea.

What is a money bill? It is when we passed a measure to spend money.

That may not be right but it is the best thing I can come up with? Who

is the captain of gentlemen of arms? That is not your question. Answer

it, Henry. The gentleman Usher of the court. The government Chief

Whip. There was one last one. What is the procedure on a member asking

the chair whether they can undertake a bush tucker challenge? You do not

know that? I do not know either! This is my favourite question. Simon

Burns, which member stupid, sanctimonious dwarf? That is cruel

and you know it! There you have it, the runners and

riders. Alex Donohue is here from Ladbrokes with the full SP, that is

starting price for you and me. Eleanor Laing is the favourite at

five quarters. We have Gary Streeter...

Nadine Dorries is the rank outsider. It is a certainty she will lose but

not a certainty that Eleanor Laing will win? We have had one yet Nadine

Dorries, 50p is the only stake. Eleanor Laing was odds-on. There

were a few big debts which came on for her when we mentioned her. A

massive gamble came in on Henry Bellingham after the hustings. We

think it is a two horse race between the two at the top. So Henry

Bellingham is the one to watch. Absolutely. That is interesting. Is

it an important post? It is important because the Deputy Speaker

does preside over the business of the Commons for quite a lot of time.

How have you voted? I have not voted yet because I came to this

programme. I will vote for Eleanor Laing. She has a great, quiet

authority. She looks the part and she is quite moderate and I like her

style. I will vote for Gary Streeter but I think Eleanor has done very

well. No Lib Dems? No, they said Lib Dems will vote for the first time

and have seven Conservatives on the ballot paper! It is interesting that

it is held under PR. It is time to put you out of your misery and give

you the answer for Guess the Year. It was 2011. Press that red button,

Emma and we will see who has won. Well done, Andrew, a nice name you

have there. That is it for today. Thank you to our guests for being

good sports. The one o'clock News is starting on BBC One and we will be

back tomorrow at noon. You will be back. I do not get everything right.