04/12/2013 Daily Politics

Morning, folks. This is the Daily Politics. It's George Osborne's big

day tomorrow. As we speak, he's probably limbering up in front of

the mirror, rehearsing his Autumn Statement. We'll be looking ahead to

what the Chancellor might have in store for us under his hard hat, or

maybe up his orange donkey jacket. And we'll be analysing the

government's latest plans for Britain's infrastructure.

No PM at PMQs today. It's the B team instead. Stay tuned for Nick Clegg

versus Harriet Harman. What are the odds of George Osborne

appearing with his new pet, Lola, tomorrow? If you fancy a flutter,

we'll have our very own bookie on hand.

And how do you deal with problem families? One police commissioner

has a radical approach. I think these families should have

an intensive programme of intervention, teaching them basic

skills and making them positive members of the community.

All that and more coming up in the next ninety minutes. A veritable

warm-up act, an hors d'oeuvre, if you wish, ahead of tomorrow's big

autumn statement feast. And joining us for the festivities, two amuse

bouches, former Employment Minister, Mark Hoban, and Shadow Leader of the

House of Commons, Angela Eagle. Welcome to you, both. You nearly

made me German! I know, you've been promoted. And you can now join

coalition with the social Democrats. Now without further ado, let's take

a look at the big economic picture ahead of George Osborne's big day.

He's delivering the Autumn Statement tomorrow, you know. Be live here

from 10:45am on BBC Two and the news channel. -- it will be live. Jo's

been up all night crunching the numbers and wondering what Brucie

Bonuses the Chancellor might have up his sleeve.

Not many of those! his sleeve.

Not many George Osborne is gearing up for his very own generation game

tomorrow so what will be the items shooting along the treasury's

conveyor belt? Well, the Chancellor should be in pretty buoyant mood as

growth has finally returned, with GDP likely to be up 1.4% this year

and 2.3% next year. It means the UK is the fastest growing economy in

the G7 group of developed countries, but that doesn't mean an end to

austerity. The deficit hasn't even been reduced by half, and may not be

eliminated until the end of the next parliament. So what is he likely to

announce? Well, first up there are the green levies. The government is

expected to announce that the cost of the Warm Homes Discount will come

off people's bills and go into general taxation instead, at a cost

of ?300m a year. -- 300 million pounds a year. Next, there's Nick

Clegg's universal free school meals for Primary School children to pay

for. That will cost the Treasury ?600 million a year from September

2014. Then there's the marriage tax allowance promised by the Tories.

Allowing couples to transfer up to ?1,000 of their income tax personal

allowance from April 2015 will cost ?700 million a year. The Chancellor

is also likely to cap business rates at 2% in England and Wales next year

instead of being linked to inflation. That cap could cost the

Treasury more than ?300 million next year. With all these extras to pay

for, it means one thing we can be fairly sure of, there won't be any

major tax cuts announced by George Osborne before the next election.

Andrew, back to you. I'm not release apprised. --

surprised. Thanks, Jo. There's really no need to tune in tomorrow,

but you better, because we know where you live. And as if by magic

we've been joined by a Liberal Democrat MP. Ian Swales, welcome. If

this is a decent recovery that is getting going, why is business

investment at 6% less than last year? It takes a while for business

investment to work its way through. And for people to make decisions.

What we have seen is business as being more optimistic. We have seen

the products of that because more people are in work in the private

sector has created 1.4 million jobs since May 2010. While business

investment has fallen, we need to look at the broader economy. That is

making progress and the announcement tomorrow will help to strengthen

business confidence. You say broader economy, if you exclude business

investment, but experts fell by ?3 billion in the last quarter.

If you look at the survey that came out over the last few days, there is

strong progress in construction and optimism around manufacturing. The

underlying data is positive. That is why we have the fastest growing

economy in Europe and in the G-7. And net bank lending is down. You

have to recognise that businesses are looking at their balance sheets.

Small businesses as well. Not many. If you look at what is happening in

the real economy, the fact we're seeing more people in work and what

jobs created is a clear signal that the private sector is growing and

recovering. The two real features are that median pay is at what it

was in 2003 and productivity is down 5%, that is the real economy, not

taken sugar boom that is being stalked up. -- stalked up. You have

to take out the private sector and gas from that picture. Why? Because

they have distorted productivity in the past. But we're seeing tangible

signs of growth and improvement. And we should welcome that. It is part

of a long-term move that the government has taken to tackle the

deficit. You must be proud of this country is now the fastest growing

economy of the G7? It is good that growth has returned but we have only

had one third of the growth that George Osborne promised in his first

budget. What we have had is the slowest recovery from a recession in

100 years. And it is now speeding up. And that is to be welcomed. You

cannot stay in recession for ever. What we have had is a government

that choked off recovery by cutting too much at the beginning of its

time in office. And we now have to ensure that we have basis in a

recovery. And we do that by looking at the cost of living crisis and

wondering what people are not feeling better off. That is because

they are worse off. We never had a recovery in economic history where

people have not benefited from it. This recovery is distant. Hold off,

how is household spending rising then? -- this recovery is different.

Because of debt. But there is no evidence that the extra debt is

anywhere near the explanation of 2.5% increase in house spending.

There is no correlation there. We have a recovery that is not making

people better offer. People are ?1600 a year worse off, on average.

What is the mystery that? -- the measure of that. Prices have risen

for 40 out of the 41 months that the government has been in power. That

is part of the problem on the other part of the problem is that the

employment recovery is in very low paid employment, or part-time work.

We have a crisis of underemployment where one in five people in

part-time jobs want to take on more hours. But they cannot find them. We

often find that is the case. But you definition of living standards is to

compare the rise in wages with the rising prices. That is whether or

not people are better off. Prices are rising more than wages and that

has been true for a while. But the broader measure of living standards

is household disposable income, which takes into account everything.

When you do it that way, in the broader measure, what happens to

living standards then? If you have some figures, give them to me and we

will talk about it. You do not have the figures for household disposable

income? I do not know the entirety of the ONS figures. But the broad

measure of littering standards is not -- living standards is not...

Let me finish. I want you to answer. Wages not rising as fast as prices

hurt people. That is clear. But there are other factors that

determine household income. When you include all the factors, people had

been taken out of tax altogether, low interest rates, and so one, the

repayment for mis-selling from the banks, $80 million alone -- ?80

million alone. If you remove that, what happens? You tell me. You don't

know. I'm not a compendium of knowledge on every statistic.

Household income is the key statistic and you do not know that.

When you look at that, household incomes have been rising and that

has to explain... Are you trying to claim, Andrew... ? That has to

explain why consumer spending is rising. You are trying to claim that

there is not a cost of living crisis? I am not saying that at all.

Millions of people out there are worried about putting food on the

table at the end of the month. You have exploded away in a statistic.

I'd talk to my sedition is she went, and people are failing to address --

I talked to my constituents out and about and the government is not

addressing their robins. I am merely trying to explain why consumer

spending is rising even at a time when wages are not rising in league

with prices. Energy prices are hurting them particularly. I would

be happy to send you the prices if it will help with your education. Do

you support the idea of giving help to marriage through tax? First of

all, it is important to note that we have at ?600 into the pocket of

every basic rate taxpayer through the tax cuts which the Lib Dems have

fought so hard for, which explains Tom Mack we have done that. Yes, but

we did not specifically mention that. Marriage, the Liberal

Democrats do not support that and we do not believe the government should

get involved in incentivising different forms of lifestyle. Being

part of the coalition, we will be supporting it through the house. Are

you unhappy that so many people are being dragged into a tax bracket,

40% bracket, which was never designed for them. As a simple

mathematical thing, by increasing the threshold at the bottom, if you

do not change the 40% threshold, you give more benefits to the better

off. By pulling down the threshold, we give the same benefits to

everybody and we feel that is the right thing to do. So now you only

have to earned ?42,000 a year and you immediately faced a marginal

rate of tax of almost 42% when you include national insurance? Are you

comfortable with that? Clearly, the country has been in an economic

miss. Giving money away on tax is a difficult thing to do. -- economic

mess. The government has chosen to give the same amount to higher rate

taxpayers but we have not given extra to them. Why is a Conservative

led government more anxious to increase the threshold even further

under Lib Dem pressure, as we understand, and do nothing for that

squeezed middle? When you came to power, 3 million people were in the

40% bracket. We have heard that real wages are not rising and yet that

figure, it is not like people are getting paid more and being dragged

into the 40% bracket, it is that you have frozen the bracket and by the

next election, 5 million people will be in the bracket. What concerns me,

how do people want low earnings prosper at the moment? And we have

talked about it, we have cut taxes to improve disposable income. And

they think it is right that we focus on cutting taxes for those on low or

average incomes. The average income in my constituency is ?24,000 and my

constituents have benefited from this increase. I think it is the

right choice to make you have limited room to manoeuvre. You're

comfortable with the idea that under your government, the number of

people paying the 40% marginal rate has increased from 3 million to 5

million. In the south of England, people on ordinary incomes are on

40%. The average in my constituency is 40% and they have benefited from

the decision to increase the personal allowance. The other thing

that this government have done with the tax system is give a huge tax

cuts to people at the very top. Today, we heard a message from China

that there would be no tax cut for middle-class families by the end of

this Parliament. That was the point I was making. But what they have

done is cut taxes for those in the very top tax brackets, those earning

130R says in pounds. Whilst everyone else is facing this incredible

squeeze. It is a funny priority. You have to look at it in the round.

Yes, we have cut the high rate but there are other other loopholes that

we have closed down. Why? The reason was because it was very clear that

people were suffering. -- it was very clear that the Labour

government kept the rate during the time they were in office, and if you

increase the higher rate, it does not have the impact on tax take that

the Labour government thought. It is better to have a competitive rate

that will get people investing. But the higher rate I'm not giving money

back, and money is being taken from people on lower incomes. It seems an

odd priority. If you look at the burden of fiscal responsibility. We

are focusing on the highest income members of the government. This

government has done a great job in taking more money from the rich in

increasing capital gains tax and increasing the amount libel against

pensions. Labour thought it was OK to put ?750,000 a year into a

pension and get full tax relief. As far as the highest rate of tax is

concerned, I agree. Labour left it at 40% except in their last months.

It is now 5% higher than it was for the entire period of labour's

offers, apart from the very last month. I think we have a taste of

what is to come. But we're not going to leave it there.

Worried about what to get your loved one for Christmas? Well, if you're

feeling flush, the Government's selling more of the nation's assets.

It's a stake in the cross-Channel rail firm Eurostar on offer, but be

quick because the French and Germans are apparently eyeing it up. It's to

help pay for ?375 billion worth of spending on roads, railways and

other building projects. Here's what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury

had to say a little earlier. As icy at, this plan is a blueprint for

Britain from which we will literally build the foundations of our future

prosperity. -- as I see it. Whether they are investors, project managers

or engineers, getting behind it and helping to deliver it, as it is a

plan that delivers for our long-term investment, as we have seen from the

insurance sector, and ultimately, it is a plan that will lead to

sustainable, long-term growth and help us build a stronger economy in

a fairer society where everyone can get on in life. Danny Alexander

talking about the infrastructure plan. Mark Hoban, isn't this just a

revised list of aspirations that we heard about before? There are no

firm commitments but it is just what he hopes to achieve. The

announcement today has been to support the ?100 million we set out

with very clear priorities set out today. Improvements to the A50 and A

40. This is to tackle the infrastructure deficit we inherited

from other governments. What it is just that your track record so far

hasn't been very good? -- but it. They have put out a press release

saying that but you did say you would get ?20 billion of investment

from the pensions industry. How much has been pledged so far? 1 billion.

But if you are saying these are proper commitments to spending, we

have heard ?20 billion was going to come from the pensions industry and

Angela Eagle is right. ?1 billion has been pledged that is a massive

gap in terms of the money needed. How do you convince our view is that

the money from anywhere is actually going to be signed and sealed and

put on the table? Well, if you look at the plan we publish today, it

takes us to 2030 and beyond. There are steps you need in place to

release that investment. So, for example, ?1 billion guarantee an

ounce today for work at a Battersea on the Northern line. That is

guaranteed and I think it will help unlock investment from others. That

is 1 billion but we have heard all this from the Government. In 2011,

40 priority projects were announced but only a handful have been

completed. That is right, isn't it? But 90% of the announcements made

are on track. You cannot build major motorways overnight. It does not

help... But you need to start them, don't you? We have 1 billion from

the pension industry and we have a handful of the 40 prior projects

which were priority projects. Only a handful of them, a small handful,

has started. You talk about the revolution but where is it? You have

to have planning permission is, you have to draw up lands... So are you

being honest with you was? Yes. The ONS compared quarter three figures

2013 with quarter three figures in 2012. New infrastructure fell by 7%

and is 8% down on last year and fell 13% in 2012. You are going in the

wrong direction? You are going back with! You cannot just conjure this

up from thin air! What we heard was a very poor pipeline of projects and

we have strengthens that pipeline. He is right on that. Over the last

40 years, UK infrastructure has fallen behind the rest of the

world, as was concluded, and Labour refuse to get to grips with such

projects. We have actually invested a lot. How much? We put it up from

1% up to about 3%. But capital spending is now higher as a

percentage than in your time in office. We have a load of free

announcements and this Government make a vain, glorious comic huge

announcements about ?375 billion of capital investment and they hope

nobly will notice none of it is actually there. -- glorious, huge. I

think 1% of it, the announcements made last year by Danny Alexander,

have started. If you look at the detail of this announcement today,

most of what is announced is going to start in the next Parliament or

future Parliament, so it hasn't properly been concluded yet.

Government needs to stop issuing press releases and actually start

delivering on the projects it keeps announcing and re-announcing just

before the Budget or the Autumn Statement. What do you say to that?

What you have to do for businesses, and people are prepared to invest in

infrastructure projects, is to set out a long-term horizon so they can

plan for it. They can make those decisions. So that is why if you

look at what insurance companies have pledged, they want to know

those project going to be there so they can see a path towards that,

and what we're doing is providing in that direction about what our

priorities are, and investment, not by just ensuring us, but also

investment here in the UK. But they announced a cut to infrastructure

investment... They cut our plans on infrastructure investment in 2010 by

nearly 13 billion, so they cut a whole load of them, and then they

realised they had made a mistake and have been trying to play catch-up

ever since. It is not just me that says that, it is the CBI and a lot

of... But, Angela Eagle, it is true, you did cut capital spending,

didn't you? We are spending more in this Parliament than the previous

government. How much was Alistair Darling cutting? We were going to

make significant cuts. Pretty much what the Government is doing! But

what they did when they came in was actually cut far too deep in

infrastructure investment, realised they had made a mistake couple of

years later, and they have never recovered momentum. You cannot have

it both ways. You cannot say that you are going to make cuts if you

were re-elected and then complain we have made cuts. You have spent

several years trying to catch up with the mistakes you made in 2010

and the result is we are falling behind with Emperor structure

investment. It is going the wrong way and we are spending less this

year. -- infrastructure. We have a load of very sort of huge PR

announcements and virtually no activity. That's just talk about

this. You say what businesses want its planning and consistency, a

chance to make long-term investments. What about the A14?

What happened to your consistent approach to that piece of

infrastructure? Well, we have announced the improvements and what

we have done is accepted that the taxpayer should pay the cost and it

will not be through road tax. But you scrap the plans to expand in

2010, saying the ?1.3 billion tag was too high. Then you said you

would get 20% of the costs through tolls, then you said it wouldn't

happen, and now you are going to get ?1.5 billion, as you say, so, more

expensive than it would have been in 2010. What sort of consistent

approach does that show? We need to look at the overall spending and

future projects. There is huge commitment in the East of England

and we are doing the right thing to build that road. We have got the

details now, Ian, of a dramatically reduced subsidy for onshore wind

farms. We have been saying for a while that offshore wind is where

most of the powerful come from and I am pleased to see that it is

rebalancing and we will see bigger subsidies. So it was wrong to have

all those subsidies for that? Not wrong. Now we have the numbers we

can see the different incentives needed and the balancing that needs

to be done. I'm very concerned, particularly for energy investment,

the inconsistency there and I'm concerned with politicians meddling.

And since Labour have announced a price freeze, the National Grid says

half projects are now on hold. -- half of project. You are doing this

as a sop to them, aren't you? I think the way we have dealt with

renewables and subsidies is to make sure we get a market started when

that market gets going, it is right to let the market function as it

should do by removing that subsidy. That is exactly what is happening on

renewables here. It is good economically and politically as

well. Enqueue. Look behind you! -- thank you.

There's a man in Number 11 Downing Street who thinks we've turned the

corner economically. Happy days are here again. The future's as fluffy

as George's new pet puppy, Lola, a cute little "bishon frise" dog to go

with your cute little "fuel-bill freeze". Well, whether you believe

that's true or not, there is one thing to have you yapping with

happiness. This week, we're busting our own budget and giving you not

one but two - count them - two Daily Politics mugs. Is that my lipstick

or yours? Double the joy for you and your significant other. You won't

get that from the Autumn Statement! We'll remind you how to enter in a

minute, but let's see if you can remember when this happened.

# I'll be glad all over new sick macro glad all over.

Within five years according to all of the most significant engineers,

we should be travelling through the tunnels.

# In the daytime # Girl, I want to be with you...

# It's over # It's over.

And here, touching that famous bag, comes Mrs Wilson. Welcome to BBC Two

from where it all began here in studio A in Alexandra Palace.

A stroll down memory lane! Well, for some of our guests, anyway!

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

to our special quiz email address - [email protected]. And you can see

the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year on our website, at

bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics. Looks pretty easy to me! The queue

was Douglas Hume, and then Harold Wilson. One coming out, one going

in. Don't make it easier! It's coming up to midday here - just

take a look at Big Ben - and that can mean only one thing. Yes, Prime

Minister's Questions is on its way. Well, not exactly Prime Minister's

Questions. Deputy Prime Minister 's questions. If you'd like to comment

on proceedings, you can email us at [email protected], or tweet

your thoughts using the hashtag #bbcdp. We might even read some out

after PMQs! And that's not all. James Landale is here. What have you

got for us? I was looking at this energy story and it is clear there

are going to be substantial cuts in subsidies for solar and wind. But we

were told they would be a corresponding increase in support

for offshore wind. I have had a look at all the figures and there is no

change to the planned prices for the first four years. There is only

support from 2018, 2019. For four years. But it doesn't look as if it

is quite so much as Bill. If onshore wind doesn't get subsidy, doesn't

that make it known economic? No. There will continue to be onshore

wind farms and solar farms. We are reaching that point where a a lot of

energy firms will think, frankly, Onshore wind is guaranteed at more

than the market price. Is it going to get twice the market price? It

will still be subsidised. Were not talking about anything else.

As I was saying, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Prime

Minister who has been visiting China. I am sure the whole house

will wish to join me in offering condolences to the family and

friends of those killed following the helicopter crash in Glasgow on

Friday evening. I visited the site yesterday and was able to see the

recovery operation first-hand. I pay tribute to the outstanding bravery

of all the emergency services involved. This morning I had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further

such meetings later today. I would like to associate myself with those

comments made by the deputy Prime Minister after the tragic events in

Glasgow. Sunderland is facing cuts of ?42 million following cuts in

health funding. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is right to

divert NHS funding from areas of high need? NHS England is now in a

position to make some of those big judgements. But to have questions on

what money goes where in the NHS from a party that still does not

agree with our protection of the initiates budget -- the NHS budget,

we are putting 12.7 billion pounds of extra money into the NHS. I would

be interested to know if her party agrees. With the Deputy Prime

Minister John me in congratulating the London borough of favouring

which has re-homed many overcrowded families as a result of the

government welfare policy. I would like to join with my honourable

friend to congratulate the borough of favouring for the excellent work

they have done. Overcrowding is a real problem. Many families are

living in overcrowded properties. And the party opposite has now

answer to some of these fundamental problems. That shows the bankruptcy

of ideas. I would join the deputy minister in conveying our deepest

sympathy to the families of the nine people who lost their lives in a

tragic accident in Glasgow. I've paid tribute to the brave work of

the emergency services and the remarkable response of the people of

Glasgow. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us compared to last

winter, will this winter's household energy bills be lower or higher's

Fain would be higher. -- they would be higher if we had not taken the

action that we have. I would simply point out that her party's

economically illiterate policy... In fact her energy spokesperson said

just two days ago well, you cannot control energy prices. So there we

have it. You do not need me to point out that your policy is a con your

energy spokesman has done it for you. He has not answered the

question. As always, we will get through however long it takes. He

has dodged and not answered the question I asked. The truth is that

household energy bills are not going down, they are going up. As for the

measures, the ?50 they talked about, it is not enough to stop bills

rising. But of the ?50 can he tell us the how much will come from the

profits of the energy giants? I know her a piece of paper says I did not

answered the question, but I actually did. Bills will on average

be ?50 lower than they otherwise would be. That is pretty simple. We

have done that by adjusting the policies whilst adhering to our

green commit men's. Our government policy has an influence on energy

bills. Her party's Wallasey is pure fantasy. -- policy. He said he

answered the question but he has not. He has not stood up this

dispatch box and admitted that as a result of his government's policies

energy bills are going up. He has not admitted that. What he is trying

to hide is that not 1p will come from the profits of the energy

giants. They are tiptoeing round the energy giants allowing them to put

up their bills. When it comes to standing up to the rich and

powerful, this government is weak. But when it comes to hitting the

most vulnerable in our society they have got no qualms at all. Last week

at that dispatch box the Prime Minister said that disabled people

are exempt from the bedroom tax. That is not true. Will the Deputy

Prime Minister apologise and put the record straight. The honourable lady

talks about standing up to vested interests. This in the week that we

discovered that the great courage of the later leadership to stand up to

their trade unions, guess what, all too difficult. -- Labour leadership.

Order. This house should be the bastion of free speech. Neither the

Deputy Prime Minister for the Right honourable and Leonard lady must be

shouted down and we will keep going with this session as long as it

takes for proper order to be observed. It should be the bastion

of political parties free of vested interests. It is high time that the

Labour leadership to what they say and stand up to their trade union

paymasters. She should stand up to her bosses first. I suggest that he

leaves it to us to worry about our party members. Especially as so many

of them used to be his. Given that for over 90% of people hit by the

bedroom tax, there just is not a smaller property for them to move

to, what would he have them do this Mac -- what would he have them do?

Under their government housing benefit to people in the private

rented sector was provided only on the basis of the number of rooms

needed. We apply exactly the same rule to those in the social rented

sector. For the reasons we heard earlier at the same time we have

many thousands of families in overcrowded properties and 1.8

million households still on the housing waiting list. Like so many

other things we are sorting out the mess that they left behind. He knows

that there is no comparison between what we did and what he is doing.

Our change was only for a new payments. Their bedroom tax hit

people who have lived in their property for years, who cannot

afford the charges and have nowhere to go. He stands there and always

says that the Lib Dems are making a difference in government. They

certainly are. Without the Lib Dems there would be no bedroom tax.

Without the Lib Dems there would be no travelling of tuition fees.

Without the Lib Dems there would be no top-down reorganisation of the

NHS. He says he is a brake on the Tories but even I know the

difference between the break and the accelerator. He is the very best

deputy Conservative Prime Minister. Without the Liberal Democrats there

would not be a recovery. Mr Speaker... We have our differences.

Order. Order. The answer will be heard. We have our differences on

this side of the House but the one thing that unites us is we would not

have gone on a prawn cocktail charm offensive sucking up to the banks

which created the problem in the first place. We would not simply say

to our children and grandchildren, you can pay off the debts of this

generation. No one on this side of the House would have broken the

British economy in the first place. He talks about the recovery and

there might be recovery for the rich but for everyone else there is a

cost of living crisis. When it comes to being a loyal deputy to a Tory

Prime Minister he will go to any lengths, make any promises and sell

out any principles. The truth is if you want to freeze energy bills and

scrap the bedroom tax it is not going to be the Tories, it is never

going to be the Lib Dems, it has got to be the Labour Party. They're not

a government in waiting and not even an opposition in waiting. It is a

two month before the next general election. We still have no clue what

the Labour Party would actually do. We know a few things, and energy

coal which would see prices go up. No apology for crashing economy in

the first place and a total failure to stand up to trade union bosses.

If they cannot manage to come up with some sensible policies, if they

cannot manage their own party, why should anyone think they can manage

our country? This weekend is a small business Saturday and I will be

supporting local firms in my constituency. I welcome the

reduction introduced in terms of corporation tax and national

insurance contributions but what more can be done to reduce business

rates? My honourable friend should wait for the autumn state in. Small

business Saturday is a worthwhile event. Of course the last government

planned to end small business rates relief. We reversed that. Another

example of this side of the House standing up for small businesses let

down by that side of the House. Tenants, councils, housing

associations, welfare charities and disabled groups are against it. Lib

Dem party policy is against it. Even Danny's dad is against it so why is

the Deputy Prime Minister the last man standing in defending the

bedroom tax? A policy as unpopular as Margaret Thatcher's poll tax?

Everyone except that when you make a change from one system to another

there are hard cases that need to be dealt with compassionately. That is

why we have travelled the discretionary housing payment. Could

he have a word with his welfare spokesperson who recently declared

that the Labour Party would be tougher on welfare than the

Coalition. Yet they opposed ?80 billion worth of welfare savings. As

you will know more than many, they have failed to provide and have

created a lamentable failure. Today, they are holding a road show to tell

my constituents about phase two of their proposal. Will my right

honourable friend work with his colleagues in government to assure

that HS2 provide decent information and compensation to everyone

affected as quickly as possible? I know he has strong views on this.

I'd agree with him that not only for compensation should be available,

but also the right level of information provided, and the phase

to root consultation that started in October is due to end in January,

and there are some 36 places where people can make their views known.

-- says two of the root consultation. It is a very important

part of the wider revamping and modernisation of our infrastructure

on which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be speaking shortly.

There are more young people out of work in the Black Country, so will

he extend the use scheme to that part of the country? And if he will

call an urgent meeting to get the deal scheme sorted out, too? I agree

and we are working flat out to do so. But the principle idea of making

sure less power is in Whitehall and more power and resources and freedom

to use resources are allocated to local communities and Local

Enterprise Partnerships and authorities is something we are

determined to push through in his part of the country as elsewhere.

Can I welcome any reduction in the incentive after within our total

commitment for renewables? As he knows, and achieve secretary to the

Treasury will confirm this, we have adjusted the prices as far as they

apply to onshore wind and solar panel installation is because we

believe it is viable now to do so. But it made it more attractive for

further investment in the offshore industry in which we are already a

world leader and must maintain our world lead, not least for benefits

to parts of the country like the north-east, all of which, by the

way, would be blighted by an illiterate energy policy. Is he

aware that on average women working full-time have seen their earnings

fall by nearly ?2500 since the election? And does he think the

married man's tax allowance is the best way to help women who are

paying the price of his government? The honourable lady knows the

respective views in the coalition on the so-called marriage tax paid, at

I would point out to her... I would point out that it is this Government

which has ended the injustice of women being short-changed in the

pension system, it is this Government raising the point that --

at which people pay income tax and it is this Government that is

finally providing more affordable childcare places which weren't

provided over the last 13 years under Labour. The ruble equivalent

of waiting for Godot is waiting for high-speed broadband! -- the rural

equivalent. 82% of promises in my constituency will be connected by

the end of 2016, so we have been assured. The sad fact is that over

8000 properties will not be and will be in the so-called lost 10%. So

will he now commit the funds which have been set aside to be deployed

to finish the job? We don't want complex bidding systems, we don't

want to match funding and we just want the job done. Mr Speaker, we

are investing, as he knows, ?3 million already and extending the

coverage of superfast board banned in Devon and Somerset as part of the

current rural broadband programme. Over 10,000 promises are expected to

be covered by the project by the end of the year and 74,000 by next July.

On his point, the so-called final 10%, we announced a quarter of ?1

billion to extend coverage further by 2017 and hear what he says and

the plans will be set out in further detail shortly. Two companies who

are major investors in the north-east of England have said that

if we leave the EU, it will be of great damage to investment. Would he

agree with me that leaving Europe is bad for business and for jobs? I am

sure I speak for most people on all sides of the House that it would he

is -- a spectacular act of suicide. By some estimates, over 3 million

jobs are dependent one way or another in this country on our

membership of the European Union. People have welcomed the

Government's brave decision to raise the cap on benefits but when their

earnings are 23,900 before tax, they understandably still feel you can be

better off on benefits than in work. Will my right honourable friend look

at lowering the overall benefits cap or regionalising it so that it

always pays to work wherever you live? We have not taken an approach

of regionalising the benefit cap. I now that is advocated by the party

opposite, though very few details have been provided from them so

far. So we have taken a national approach and we therefore set it at

a national average, ?26,000, if you like, after tax, equivalent to

35,004. The vast majority of people in the country think that is fair.

That you should not be able to see benefits more than if you were to

work. I would be very interested to know whether the party opposite

supports or does not support this highly popular measure? The

Government has been pushed into action on business rates by

Labour... But just as energy bills will still rise this winter,

business rates must still go up why an average of ?250 next year. Does

the Deputy Prime Minister agree that nothing less than Labour's planned

cuts and a freeze to business rates will do? The only thing this

coalition government has been pushed into, which is what she said, by the

party opposite, is rescuing the economy after the disastrous state

it was in! We had to pull the economy back from the brink because

that is where they left it. We have had to do emergency surgery to the

banks because they sucked up to the banks, we have had to fill the

black: The public finances because they created it. -- the black hole.

IMO is anxious to be helpful! So in the spirit of friendly corporation,

I have given advance notice of my question. -- I am always anxious.

Given the Deputy Prime Minister is only at the dispatch box today

because the Prime Minister is in China drum and up more orders for

British business, can the Deputy Prime Minister please tell the House

what was the common market share of world trade when the UK joined in

1973? And what is the EU share of world trade today? The EU share of

world trade today is around 20%. I would merely say to him in an

equally friendly spirit, in which I know the question was intended, was

that the Prime Minister has been advocating a new EU-China trade deal

precisely because the European Union remains, notwithstanding all the

other changes in the world, a very powerful trading block on the world

scene. Last week, Goldman Sachs placed a value of Royal Mail shares

at 600 and 10p each but just two months ago, they advised the

government that investors would walk away if they sold that more than 300

and 30p. Does he believe he has secured value for money for

taxpayers? Is my right honourable friend has explained, this is

another example of us doing something which they worked while

they were in government. -- which they avoided. The price of sale was

independently recommended to us and was actually at the highest point of

the range, which was provided to us by independent advisers. Two weeks

ago, Harrow Council officers closed down an unlicensed HMO with 11

unrelated adults living in a three bedroomed property, each paying ?160

a week in rent to a rogue landlord. It is now investigating a further

100 cases. Would my right honourable friend not agree that it is time we

criminalised rogue landlords to protect the vulnerable? I am

appalled to hear about that example, yet again, of rogue

landlords behaving unacceptably. Local authorities, as he knows,

including in Harrow, have strong powers to tackle rogue landlords and

we expect them to make full use of those. We have put forward a

commitment to look at property conditions in the private rented to

and we will shortly be announcing which local authorities will receive

a share in ?3 million of funding to help them tackle rogue and criminal

landlords. Thank you. When he signed the coalition agreement, with its

commitment to giving more power to parents and pupils to choose a good

school, did he ever envisage it would lead to a situation where

Conservative controlled Hammersmith Conservative controlled Hammersmith

Fulham Council is currently threatening to close a successful

and popular Sullivan primary school rated good white Ofsted against the

overwhelming opposition of the parents, governors, pupils and local

residents in order to have the site over for a free school? My right

honourable friend, the Secretary of State for education, is here, and I

am sure he will want to write to you on that specific case. But one of

the things this Government has done is remove the bureaucracy and

centralisation of our school system to make sure the parents and

teachers of free to teach in the classroom and parents have a greater

running in the role of our schools. With the reference back to the

recent question from the honourable gentleman, perhaps not my honourable

friend on this issue on Bury North, with the Deputy Prime Minister not

agree that the coalition is concerned on Europe, actions

actually speak louder than words? And would he agree that the

Chancellor's decision sometime back to assist the Irish economy, the

Foreign Secretary's very sensible conduct on the European internal

government or of you, and the Prime Minister's own words this week in

China, that he wants to recommend we stay in, that this is a great boost

of confidence for people like him and me? Down the line, Liberal

Democrat pro-Europeans? It is always a joy to hear the mischievous wit

and wisdom of my right honourable friend, and, as he knows, we are as

one of the European issue. We need to, of course, reform the European

Union and strip away bureaucracy where that can be done and make it

more transparent and more efficient, but we'll so need to

continue to exercise British leadership in the European Union. --

we also. Figures from the National Health Service show that an

additional 600 thousand people used Accident Emergency departments

last winter, an increase of 11% since 2010. And it looks set to get

much worse this winter. Why? I don't think it is very helpful to the

millions of people working in the NHS to talk down there and -- there

are -- their admirable efforts. He might be interested to know that the

last time the right honourable member sitting over there, when he

was secretary of health, the average waiting time was 77 minutes and we

have cut that in half to 33 minutes. Last week, the NCA arrested six

individuals around the allegations of match fixing in the English or

league. Can my right honourable friend assure me and the House of

every possible measure been taken by the three bodies, the FA, the

Gambling Commission and the NA, to look at the gambling situation? Yes.

It is a rather good example of the work of the NCA and it is exactly

why it was established. To look at these complex cases and work with

different agencies across different jurisdictions and make sure any

suspicion of corruption in that game was removed. The Deputy Prime

Minister will be aware of the case I am raising with him now and it is a

matter of liking to address. A woman fled violent and abusive

relationship in Italy. She is now in Wales and since then, the High Court

had ruled that she is to return to Italy on Monday. Given that, they

ask the Prime Minister -, sorry, the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure

that the authorities realise that arresting her would be proportionate

and it would be little short of a bomb -- abominable to take that boy

into care pending the outcome of proceedings?

It is a desperately sad case. I would love to be able to pronounce

on it on a human level but ministers cannot comment or intervene in cases

that have been before the courts whether in this country or abroad.

I'm sure that the foreign and Commonwealth office will be able to

provide consular assistance to the woman including providing details of

English speaking local lawyers. It may surprise the Deputy Prime

Minister to learn that the Liberals have a reputation of advocating a

European referendum but not following that through. Will he now

put that right by encouraging his liberal colleagues in the House of

Lords to support our EU referendum? He and I joined forces in a lobby

back in July 2011 to legislate for the first time for a referendum

which for the first time guarantees in law that if the rules of the

European union change, if there is water transfer of sovereignty --

more transfer of there will be a referendum. That is our guarantee in

law to the British people that a referendum will take place when

circumstances determine. I understand his party is having a

debate to change that position. My honourable friend for Glasgow North

wanted to know whether the British taxpayer got value for money on the

sale of the Royal Mail. Yes or no? Our judgement is yes. Easy though it

might be to make snaps. -- snapshot judgements about the value of the

company on any one day, we are determined to take a long-term view

and not score short-term political points. As the acting Prime Minister

not been outstanding today? If you are listening on the radio you might

have thought he was the right honourable member for Whitney. I

think he is turning into a Tory. Can I test that theory? One of the

immigration bills was signed by 60 MPs calling for the transitional

arrangements for Romania and Bulgaria to be continued. Does he

agree with that? I am glad he has not raised his morbid obsession with

the early demise of the Prime Minister! I want to thank him for

his next double-edged, amid just there. The Prime Minister and the

whole government made a series of announcements last week where we are

tightening up the access to benefits of those migrants coming from other

parts of the European union to this country. I believe we should detect

and defend the principle of the freedom of movement. But the freedom

to move to seek work is not the same as the freedom to claim. That is the

distinction where now making. And prime ministers questions comes

to an end. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Berg stood in front the Prime

Minister. So Harriet Harman stood in for Mr Miliband. The exchanges began

with a clash over energy prices. Not unusual! And then quickly descended

into straight abuse about the respect of the merits of the Labour

Party and the Lib Dem 's. Some professional, in a second. First we

can hear from the voters. It was entertaining and lively! It was very

lively. One said it was refreshing to say Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman

for a change. Another said that Harriet gave the deputy minister

some stick, she was great. Saying that Harriet Harman smacked blaming

of Nick Clegg for allowing Conservative policies to go through

will hit home. Another saying, loved it, more of them both at the end

use. -- at prime ministers questions. One tweet saying as the

Speaker been given an early Christmas present? He cannot top

purchased that tying himself. -- he cannot have. Hewlett-Packard have

announced that they are cutting 1100 jobs in Bracknell, Sheffield and

Warrington. So even with the recovery some companies are still

cutting back. On this energy proposition, Labour has been selling

the terms of trade. A clear retail offer of just freezing prices should

he get into power. Are they still missing something? There is this

idea that bills will now not arrive as quickly as they would have done

because we know these are being taken off. Green levies are being

taken off. What happened was in the process of trying to agree a deal of

precisely how much money they could take off energy bills, there was

discussion with energy firms about what that would mean in the future

for prices. Some energy firms took that to mean, are you asking us to

make a pledge. But the government said we are looking for you to say

we will not raise our prices as a result of these particular green

levies. If you talk to ministers about this they do not expect the

?50 less than you might have expected to trump the Labour policy.

They hope it will neutralise it is a political issue so that they can

move on and shift the debate that to the economy. So they can say all

well and good to talk about prices and that is an issue but there is a

broader issue about the economy. And this is what the government have

said, what are Labour are going to say? So it is an attempt to shift

the debate. But if you vote Labour you would get an energy price freeze

and vote Conservative, prices would still go up? Well I think the Labour

price freeze is a bit of a con. Ed Miliband and his energy spokesman

have both said that energy prices could still go up. We have said that

we will cut the part of the energy Bill that government can control.

Everyone has announced an investigation into it and everyone

agrees the energy market is not working properly. There is something

wrong with the way in which the big six are able to put up prices. What

is wrong with saying, it will take us about 20 months to sort out this

market. Everyone agrees that it is a mess. And during that 20 months we

will just freeze the prices. What is wrong with that? You have got to

invest in energy infrastructure and capacity. But what we do need to do

is make sure the energy market is competitive. Under Ed Miliband's

watch you saw him move from a competitive energy market dominated

by the big six, we need to get more challengers coming into the market.

We need a more competitive market. Labour's price freeze is a con.

Why? Ed Miliband speaks about the price freeze but he has said if

international wholesale prices go up, you can expect prices to go up.

He said if there was a major shock to energy prices, and of course that

is a prudent thing to say. All bets would be off in that case. But

within a normal fluctuation of the market, they would be frozen. What

is wrong with that? And if the energy companies rushed to put up

their prices before the freeze, that just shows that they have got too

much power? I think that is why we need this competitive energy market

rather than one dominated by these six players. Well you have been in

power for four years, you're taking your time it. It is part of a

problem, the way that privatisation was done by the previous

Conservative government. It is now clear that having what is known as

horizontal and vertical integration, that you have companies that

generate and sell to themselves as retailers, that is what needs to be

dealt with. It is why Caroline Flint has said that in that 20 months we

will look at how we can make the industry more competitive by forcing

energy companies to sell into a central pool. So there will be much

more competition in prices. We have got to look at how all of that is

done and 20 months price freeze gives us the chance to reset the

energy market so we can improve competition. Well your energy

spokesman has said he will not wake them up. Why not? We think at the

moment that having the energy pool is a good way of creating more

competition in the market more quickly. If things change we made

need to look at other policies. Our intention at the moment is to have

this price freeze, to recognise for example, they have put up prices by

10% this year on average. It is not 10% on average. EDF brings it down.

But it is a lot. A lot more than wages. It is a lot and the point is

there is no good taking of green levies. He had done that. And what

Nick Clegg would not admit today was at Chile that even after all the

announcements they have made, prices are going to be ?70 higher next year

on average for consumers than they would have been. During the time

when the, was going to buy the Lloyds bank branches, how many times

did you meet with the people at the Co-op? Well I have no recollection

of meeting the Reverend Flowers, for the record. I met, twice in that

period. How many phone calls did you have with him? Based on the

records, about ten phone calls. People think you basically where a

cheerleader for the Co-op getting these branches. We had an interest

in that transaction but the decision was made by both Lloyds and, and

where the responsibility of the boards of years. You said you had an

interest, was that your interest that if the banks agreed to do it,

you wanted that to go ahead? Well it was a decision that the two banks

had to take. Where you are in favour of the Co-op getting these

branches? Mode and the Co-op made their choice that they wanted to

sell both branches to the Co-op. So you were? Ultimately what happened,

before when the Co-op brought Britannia, in this case the deal did

not go ahead. The thing that struck me most about today was little talk

about the economy, very little about the autumn statement. It was all

slightly retro. Very fashionable! Well, how should the Government

tackle the most difficult families in Britain? This Police and Crime

Commissioner has an idea. This isn't just about economic

poverty, it is about a poverty of ambition. Grandmothers in their 30s,

sons and daughters who know nothing different, children ingrained

increment amity. These families are in and out of

prison. They bounce around the court system generation after generation.

The kids graduate into drugs, crime and then fail at school. These

families cost us dear financially and emotionally.

I think these families should have an intensive programme of engagement

and intervention. Teaching them basic life skills, have to be a

positive member of their community. This would be done over a

deliberately long-time friend, sending people to residential

centres. This will be better and cheaper than sending people to

prison over and over again. -- long time frame. We have got to do more

than sending social workers into people's homes to get them out of

bed. Prison hasn't worked, so what are we going to do? There is an idea

that takes people out of their local environment into residential centres

for more intensive engagement. These families are going to go through a

daily, highly structured new routine. This routine will help them

break the habit of offending and hopefully the habit of a lifetime.

There is something about discipline. Doing it in a different

place, having a fresh start. Trying again. I these families to have a

better life. They need to break some habits, drugs, anti-social

behaviour, definitely crime. This is an opportunity for them to start

again and I'm really mean it. They need to move on. -- I really mean

it. And Adam Simmonds joins us now.

Welcome. You say prison hasn't worked in the cases you are talking

about what you are proposing sounds similar to prison. What makes you

think your idea will work? I think what we have to in this country is

that police arrest people, they go to prison and they come out, and if

you are on an order, you reoffend. Reoffending is too high. We have

looked in Northamptonshire at families who go into prison but then

go back when they come out. But you are putting them into an army boot

camp where they will be told not to smoke, not to drink. Isn't that just

like prison, which you have admitted has failed? It is not like was on.

It is deliberate and controlled. You take them out of their community who

finds them difficult to cope with and into this centre. Not every

family is a criminal but they have a son or daughter who needs help to

break that cycle. Michael Howard set up boot comes in 1977 and Colchester

closed after a year. It was claimed a failure. We're not proposing to do

that. Deals with the Government's current agenda have a few strands,

and one of those was to take individuals and families out of an

environment and put them into a much more controlled environment where

they have a regular routine and they have wraparound services, social and

education services. But how can you do it? How can you lock up an entire

family, which is essentially what you're doing? Is it legally allowed?

This is not about locking people up... You are still removing them

from their home forcibly and putting them somewhere else. How can you do

that? Part of it might be a magistrate 's licence, so this is

part of your condition, for example. My issue with trouble families is

that sometimes it is very easy to get 50% of them back into work and

they were not really trouble families in the first place. The

people we have the most problem with are those who have a lifestyle

ingrained increment our tea, and that is what we need to break. -- in

criminality. You have said it will be cheaper than prison but the

glasshouse, the one in Michael Howard's scheme, was dubbed the Home

Office Hilton, posit cost people ?850 each week, more than a luxury

hotel. -- because it cost people. It is a very expensive way of doing it.

It is a different decade and we are going to do things differently. We

are having a cost per family and right now we are sending young

people to young offenders institutes and they get the stigma and don't

necessarily come out any different than when they went in. The whole

point of this is to save lives and change people's direction of

travel, and, in the long-term, that makes the community safer. But in

the long-term, is removing them from their communities and dumping them

on to an army base really the way to turn them into contributing member

's of society? Because if you look at it what was being done by one

woman, she is dealing with them in their homes? It is about taking

individuals out of their local environment and putting them into an

environment where they have a much more controlled regime, as we do

with drug addicts right now, and it is about working with them. But the

difference with this is it is done for maybe two years. So you wrap

services around for a long time and see the change.

I am not against having this support to break generational habits and

families but it is very expensive upfront, although it saves money if

it is successful over the long-term. It may work for some and it might

not work for others. You have to try it and see what works. Is that there

has been so many cuts to local services by this Government, where

we have 15 thousand fewer police officers. A lot of this prevention

work and into community work is being taken away because of costs

and by local police force say they are worried they are becoming just

an emergency service. There had to cut the number of people they can

get out on the beat, neighbourhood policing is beginning to be

destroyed. All of that kind of effect of these huge cuts we have

had makes that kind of work even harder. Isn't prevention better than

cure? What is is talking about is using a fairly blunt instrument to

deal with a problem that could be prevented. Isn't that the way to go?

Let's not forget that crime is falling. One thing that strikes me.

I have been to project where you take people out of their

communities, and I've visited a project in Winchester where they

took somebody who was a persistent offender out of their community and

did a lot of work to rehabilitate them and change that person's life

and turned it around. So what I think Adam is talking about strikes

accord with many projects out there where you work with an individual

but the challenge is, how do you do it with a family?

What would happen if George Osborne wore a polka-dot pink bow tie for

tomorrow's Autumn Statement? Or if his new puppy, Lola, joined him at

the dispatch box? Well, for one thing, somebody would make a lot of

money. Because it seems you can bet on anything these days. Some of

these bets are frivolous but some can give you a bit of an insight

into a speech with more than a little riding on it. Alex Donohue,

from the bookmaker Ladbrokes, will be following events. He's on College

Green now. Tell me, what are you looking for tomorrow? We have a big

list of phrases from, as you say, the serious to the not so serious,

and people will be looking at the odds and ticking them off. I think

if he says Belinda that any time, a lot of people will be making a lot

of money! -- Bullington club. It is not going to happen! But we do know

he will definitely use the word deficit, won't he? Yes. You have to

stake for pounds just to win a Pound back so very short odds. China is

another one. Hard-working families. The interesting thing here is that

in recent years, the odds are that term used to be a lot shorter but

perhaps as times are changing, the odds are changing as well, and we

don't think years is likely to say hard-working families as in recent

times. -- we don't think he is as likely. What about Ed Balls? How

many times as he going to say" cost of living"? Ah! Where do we start

to?! You have to stake ?10 to win one. I think that looks like the

bank of the day that Ed Balls will say that. If he says living

standards, does that count? I think enquirer Ewood be the word there.

What odds are you going to give me on George Osborne being replaced

before the next election? This puts him in fairly safe standing, 5-1. We

think you will probably be OK. And what odds will you give him on

wearing a blue tie? The favourite, 6-4. The odds on no tie is 100 to

one. I think he will stick to his trusty blue or purple. He likes

purple as well. But his 3-1. He is obviously not going to appear with a

little dog at the dispatch box but what sort of odds would you give me

on him finding a way to appear with it at some stage during the day?

That is the picture everybody wants to get but we think you probably

won't bring the dog into play. It is very cute and would make a lovely

picture but 50-1. A bit of an outsider that the dog shows its

curly head tomorrow! Well, know, he wants good pictures, doesn't he?

Years guaranteed to get on the front page with a lot of puppy dog like

that! There might be a terrible mistake happening! Flashlights! Are

a lots of people going to bet on this tomorrow? Probably ?5,000

worth. Average stakes is ?5 to ?10, so nothing major and nothing that

will make or break us. It is just a bit of fun! It is less than Jo's

hourly rate! Thank you so much! Are you going to have a flutter

tomorrow? I might get odds on how many U-turns there will be by the

end of the year. But that is a subjective thing, whether the dog is

there or not! I think it is a good bank on hard-working families.

Now, it's time to put you out of your misery and give you the answer

to Guess The Year. 1964 was the correct answer. Mark, press that big

Red Button there. OK, that's all for today. Thanks to

our guests. The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One now. We'll

be back tomorrow at 10:45 - yes, 10:45 - for live and uninterupted

coverage of George Osbnorne's Autumn Statement. We'll have the build-up,

the big announcement and all the reaction. So get your pork pies,

your sarnies and your pack of Irn Bru in for our three-hour-plus epic!

Goodbye.