28/10/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/10/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron's off to Iceland later today to meet with his


He wants to talk about his renegotiation of Britain's


And according to this morning's papers he wants to warn voters that


life outside the EU is no land of milk and honey.


But before he leaves there's just the small matter


Jeremy Corbyn says he's not going to gloat over the Government's


defeat on tax credits, but might he just be tempted to mention it?


We'll bring you all the action live at noon.


The Lib Dem leader's just been to see the migrant crisis first-hand,


and Tim Farron's got his first question to the Prime Minister.


And we'll be talking to the MPs who represent what are said


to be the happiest place in the UK, and the most miserable.


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole of the


programme today two MPs who are in the happiest place in Westminster.


No not the bar in the House of Lords after a hard night's work defying


I mean of course the Daily Politics studio, the Disneyland


It's the housing minister Brandon Lewis and the shadow minister


without portfolio, Jonathan Ashworth.


They wanted to give him a job but they didn't think what he could do.


First today let's talk about the Prime Minister, because


after PMQs he's off to Iceland for an annual conference with


And Downing Street says he's going to use


the occasion to directly address the alternatives to Britain remaining


in the EU ahead of the referendum on membership which is due to take


The official position of Mr Cameron, who is leading the renegotiation


with other EU members, is that he rules nothing out if fellow leaders


But today the Telegraph reports that he will warn voters that life


outside the EU would not be a "land of milk and honey".


He claims exit could cost the country hundreds


Number 10 has also released a series of statements including one


from the Norweigan prime minister urging Britain to reject their style


Norway is a member of the European Economic Area


Well this message was apparently aimed at those campaigning


for a British exit, so let's get some reaction now


from the Conservative MP Steve Baker from the Vote Leave campaign.


Steve Baker, the chairman or one of the members of your campaign group


says number ten appear to have dropped any semblance of neutrality.


Is that how you see it? I think the terms of debate are changing. As I


Javid said, you need to be prepared to walk away from negotiation and is


big coming less clear the prime in history 's ruling anything out. Is


he in panic mode? I think they are worried but not panicking. The


spokesman for the Vote Leave said Downing Street was in a panic. I


think there are a range of views but as a Conservative MP are loyal to


the Prime Minister at every possible subject I can be. I have a great


deal of faith in David Cameron. Downing Street sources say leaving


the EU, not necessarily a land of milk and honey. Would you prefer him


to say that staying in might not be either? I think it might be a good


idea if he said staying in might not be the land of milk and honey. I


hope he will ask Iceland if they will join the European year of -- EU


today. It is unlikely a country like Norway or Iceland would join the EU


like it is today. But we believe with the UK having an economy four


times as big as them, we can get a British option. Is he right to be


warning against the virtue is of the UK following the Norwegian model?


The Norwegian model has its downsides but not as bad as people


suggest. Estimates vary but some say Norway only has to adopt 10% of


European Union proposals. There is a conversation to be had about the


status of Norway, but nobody in our campaign is campaigning we adopt


that model or the Swiss one. We think, as our biggest exports of


European Union, we are in a strong and powerful position to negotiate


for a British deal. Even in Norway themselves they say it is not the


ideal option at all. You pay for all the regulations and you have no


says. They don't have no say. Think about the code that deals with


fish, based in Norway and the Norwegians chair it. They produce


the global rules which are handed down to the EU and the EU hands them


onto the way. The reality is that Norway, if they are influencing


those rules are a global level they have more instruments than if they


were represented by the EU in the same body. For many of us we believe


that Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world, is capable of


retraining its influence and power in world affairs and regulations,


leaving the European Union. Steve Baker, thank you.


Brandon Lewis, the Prime Minister says he rules nothing out when it


comes to Europe. So why is he ruling out the Norwegian option? I think he


has also been very clear about the concerns around staying in Europe as


it is. I think what David has said by the way through his consistent,


we need a renegotiation in the best interests of the country. There was


nothing in the briefing that came out of Downing Street warning of the


dangers of staying in? What the Prime Minister had said on numerous


occasions as we need to get that we negotiation. We don't want to be


part of where Europe is going. Why is he ruling out the Norwegian


model? I think he has had clearly all the way through we will look at


all options. He is looking at what is going on across Europe. It is


about getting the right deal, the right deal for Britain as Steve


said. I think we need to to bring that renegotiation board. Nobody


will consciously agree with the wrong deal, it may be the wrong deal


but nobody will consciously agree with that. The Prime Minister is


meant to be neutral until he doesn't renegotiation and then tells us we


can all make up our minds. Why is he pre-empting the debates, is the


beginning to panic? Not at all. The Prime Minister doesn't panic, he has


always delivered the right thing for this country, in Europe and on the


wider scale forced what we will see in the next few months as those


renegotiation is going forward. When we get to next year we will have the


opportunity to see exactly where we end up. And as you said, in 2017


people will get a chance to have their say. What is wrong with a


variation of the Norwegian model? We will see what comes through with the


renegotiation is. What is wrong with that? We are being briefed by


Downing Street is not right. I'm asking you what is wrong with it? It


is about looking at what is the right deal for us. It might be we


can get a renegotiation that gives us what we want a staying part of


the European Union. Being part of the European Union is hugely


important, for tourism and energy. But we need to have on the right


terms. Let me try one more time, what would be wrong with a version


of the Norwegian model if we voted to come out of the EU? I think we


are a long way from voting to come out of the EU. The ultimate problem,


we have to know exactly what we are voting on. Until the renegotiation


is finished, we are in a hypothetical situation. I would


rather wait and let the Prime Minister to those renegotiation,


make a recommendation to the British public and we all have our say. When


will Jeremy Corbyn start campaigning to keep us in? We have a Labour


campaign to keep us in, led by Mr Johnson. When will Jeremy Corbyn get


involved? We have not heard him say much since he became leader? He has


endorsed Allan Johnson's campaign and said the Labour Party will be


campaigning to stay in the EU. It's his heart in it? The last time I was


on your programme I found out I was not even born in 1975. I wanted you


to remind our viewers of that. Jeremy Corbyn said we will campaign


as at the Labour Party to stay in the EU. Our campaign is led by Allan


Johnson. Labour MPs on the whole will campaign to stay in the EU. We


have a handful of MPs who are more sceptical, but the split in the


Labour Party are not in the scale of those in the Tory party. I'm sure


Jeremy will be campaigning alongside Mr Johnson and me and Hilary Benn


and other members of the Labour Party. You are sure of that? I


and other members of the Labour very, very confident of it. LAUGHTER


Have you got your fingers crossed? Not at all. I will be campaigning


with Jeremy on the streets. You can join us.


with Jeremy on the streets. You can Prime Minister to rule out the


Norwegian option? Because if he fails in the renegotiation. I know


we are not even contemplating it, fails in the renegotiation. I know


according to Tories, but he could fail in the renegotiation. If he


does and he can't get any changes, the Norwegian option, version of,


suited for Britain, would have to be on the table? I have to upfront say


we are talking about a Prime Minister who has succeeded for his


country in the negotiations he has done in Europe over the last few


years in the previous Coalition Government as well. He has a track


record that gives me confidence Government as well. He has a track


he will deliver for our country. The decision will be for the British


public not politicians. They will get a chance to have their say.


But before they were in coalition Thank you.


But before they were in coalition with the Conservatives the leader of


the Lib Dems used to get to put a couple of questions to the Prime


Minister every week at PMQ 's, not any more. Today will be the first


opportunity Tim Farron has had to ask a question of David Cameron. The


Lib Dem leader is just back from Lesbos in Greece where he has been


viewing the migrant crisis first-hand. He intends


viewing the migrant crisis question today to push the Prime


Minister on a proposal to accept refugees from Syria. And we can


speak to him now in the Central Lobby. Tim Farron, welcome to Daily


Politics. You want the government to commit to taking 3000 Syrian child


refugees. How did you get to that figure? The save the children


recommend the UK Government take 3000 unaccompanied children, some of


whom will be as young as six, who are currently refugees within


Europe. That sounds a very reasonable request. There are other


things I could ask the government to do, which I would love them to do to


play a fuller and better part in a more humane and leading part in


dealing with the refugee crisis. This is a manageable, clear figure


that Save The Children have come up with. It is worth bearing in mind


these are children who are incredibly fungible. 13,000


unaccompanied children in Italy last. 400 of those we have no idea


where they are now. The threat to those young people from exploitation


and worse is extreme. The UK will be doing something of huge humanitarian


benefit and playing its part in the European team, if you like, if he


was to accept that Save The Children request. How many adult refugees do


you think the UK should take as a result of this crisis? I think the


figure on the table at the moment, the 20,000 the government under


great pressure have taken from the camps is one we need to keep


monitoring and check they are taking any or many so far. But I think one


of the things most shameful from my experience yesterday, was not a


single one of the families who I met yesterday, desperate but


inspirational people, will be able to provide peace and stability and a


home for them. You would like to take some from the mainland question


mark 12,000 individuals from within Europe. Which would be the UK opting


into the EU system. Every year? At the moment that is what we have on


the table. It won't go away if we put our head in the sand. This is a


growing problem. It is worth bearing in mind, we often hear phrases


bandied about by Ukip and conservatives saying Britain is only


a small island. Can I point out to them that Lesbos is about the same


size as the Isle of Skye. It is a very small island. It is taking


300,000 refugees, desperate people. 94% of those people are designated


as refugees independently verified. This is not a case of migrants


taking advantage of this system. This is people fleeing the war in


Syria and persecution and threaten the lives of them and their children


in other parts of the region. Britain is at the moment not being a


team player, not being the leader in humanitarian aid it has in years


past. It is about time we played up to our heritage as a country that


plays its part when you have crises like this. When the pictures we have


just seen were posted on your party's Facebook page, do you accept


there was a fair amount of criticism? Someone on your page


actually said they risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean and their


first taste of European culture is a Lib Dem MP using their woe for a


publicity stunt, is less a publicity stunt? That is nonsense. I was there


yesterday stood with other people from Save The Children and other


charities as one of the boats came in. I thought I could stand in my


jeans on my shirt and watch all lend a hand. I went and went at hand.


What about your reception today in the House of Commons? What you think


it will be like? Goodness knows. If I get a question today, I know I am


against 642 individuals who do not share my politics. I thought you


were guaranteed a question today? I do not think there is any certainty.


I am told I should get one today. The Liberal Democrats, it has with


the case, our job is to be on the side of the outsiders. We are an


outsider outside this place and inside this place. If I get a


question today I will press the Prime Minister to step up to the


mark and do the right thing by desperate people, doing the things


we would do for our children if we were faced with similar


circumstances. If I get the chance to ask, that is a kind of thing I


will be going for. I think we have the idea, we will be looking out for


you. According to the Daily Politics


calendar it's now day three of the constitutional crisis


following the Lords decision to vote down government plans to cut working


tax credits. The skies haven't fallen in,


although it has been raining rather But it has left the government


threatening to clip the wings of the unelected upper chamber,


and plenty of questions remain out how the handling of this flagship


policy went quite so badly wrong. Well to remind us


of the whole story, here's JoCo. In their election manifesto the


Conservatives said they would find The Government didn't make it clear


where they would find the savings, although appeared to rule


our cuts to tax credits paid to In his summer Budget the Chancellor


outlined ?4.5bn of cuts to Working Tax Credits -


benefits paid to people in work. He said


a new minimum wage increase and a higher tax allowance would mean most


families would not be worse off. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies


calculated that from next April 3 million families


would lose ?1,300 a year. A majority of MPs voted in favour


of the changes three times. But this week the House of Lords


defeated the government in two separate motions


and demanded a rethink. The Government accused peers


of over-reaching, saying the defeat raises


"clear constitutional issues". But the Chancellor has now said


there will be "transitional measures" to lessen the impact of


the changes, with the detail set out Meanwhile, the Government has asked


former cabinet minister Thomas Strathclyde to lead a review


of House of Lords conventions. Thank you, JoCo. You were warned by


every think-tank that knows about this, including Tory leaning think


tank 's, you were warned by a number of your own backbenchers, either Sun


newspaper, you were warned by the Mayor of London who was a


Conservative not to proceed with the way the Chancellor was planning. Yet


you did. You're now in a complete mess why? The reality is this two


different issues going on, the change in the way the economy works,


which is what House of Commons was voting on when we looked at tax


credits, higher wages, lower welfare, but separately, the second


issue is around an unelected chamber. I will come onto that. I


will come onto that. I'm talking about the substance of the issue not


the process or the constitution. That's what matters to people out


there who consider tax credits going. They are not high earners in


the first place. Why did you ignore all these warnings? We were very


clear and the Chancellor made his position very clear that we are


looking to move our economy to a new place which means we have to make


difficult decisions in this period of time to make sure we get to the


point where we have a higher wage economy, lower taxes. But you are


taking the tax credits away before the higher wages come through. And


even when they do, they do not compensate for the loss in the tax


credits. Everybody point that out, it was clear from the beginning you


were going to hit those at the lower end of the income scale. Let's take


the Institute for Fiscal Studies outline as a good example. It does


not look at the picture, does not account for not just the increase in


salaries coming through, the reduction feel duty, a real-time


reduction in council tax, but when you look at the entire economy,


actually it's a much better place. I'm sorry, that is just not true.


The House of Commons library research shows this, which takes


into account the rise in tax thresholds and the rise in what you


now called the National minimum wage. When you take that into


account, poorer families on tax credits, working families, are outed


by about ?1500 a year. For people like that, it is a tonne of money.


That is a lot of money but it does not take into account some of the


other changes in the economy in terms of the reduction of fuel,. You


don't control that. No, but as the wider picture for the economy. Are


you seriously telling me that poorer families... You don't control the


world tax. Are you seriously telling me that families, when you include


the tax credit changes, you include the rise in the minimum wage, in the


tax threshold, there still ?1500 worse off. I knew telling me the


fall in fuel prices will compensate for that? No, the figures you are


quoting to not take account of the entire economy. The tax picture of


what family or individual has in their life. At the moment, we're


looking at fuel duty as one example, council tax reducing in


real terms, people are seeing a different position to what some of


those... You know none of that comes near compensating the


those... You know none of that comes will lose most. Your own side is


telling you that. Your own think tank is telling you that.


telling you that. Your own think supporting media are telling you


that. And you will have to change, won't you? There are also people out


there as well won't you? There are also people out


rightly exactly as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have


done, that we need to change the economy. That is the third time you


have said that. economy. That is the third time you


also said clearly he will listen to what people say.


also said clearly he will listen to that now. This week. He will come


back in the Autumn Statement that now. This week. He will come


deal with transitions because we do need to move to that position where


deal with transitions because we do we have higher wages and lower


taxes. OK, that is the fourth time. Labour is obviously against this.


You are against it, voting against it, of course. Let me ask you. Does


Labour have any policy for welfare reform? Our position at the moment


if we are reform? Our position at the moment


It is the start of a parliament. The reform? Our position at the moment


canoe no policy? We do. We are opposing -- at the moment you have


no policy? In the welfare bill, we opposing -- at the moment you have


opposed for example the reduction in the benefit cap.


opposed for example the reduction in what you are against but what are


you in favour of bigger so favour that means you're against welfare


reform as seen by the Tories. Is it possible to have Labour inclined


welfare reforms and can you give is an indication of


welfare reforms and can you give is be? We won't have a fully developed


policy having just lost be? We won't have a fully developed


in May where we got hammered and we have 4.5 years until the next


election. Can you contribute to the debate with your idea? We will have


to look at where we are in four years' time, with Universal Credit


coming, the national living wage, which we do support. That would


change the welfare landscape the 2019-20, so we will have to look of


the impact of that. Let me come onto my second question. You are


committed, as I understand it, to balance the current budget, not the


overall budget, but the current budget. The cut in tax credits,


right or wrong, it is designed to contribute to the balancing of the


current budget, tax credits, the spending, not investment, if you are


against this, ?4.5 billion, where would you find it to continue with


the balancing of the current budget? We would have to make different


choices and ask ourselves, should we be increasing the inheritance tax


threshold to ?1 million. That is 1 billion. Yes, we have the lowest


corporation tax, do we need to reduce it down to 18p or 20p? That's


something we could look at. The last time I looked, you were in favour of


that. No, no, no, we have asked question about whether we should


reduce corporation tax down to 18p, so there are other options. . . It


isn't a 4.5 billion. Over a Parliament? Over a year. You need to


find it to balance it every, the current budget you're committed to


balancing. You could probably find money by making different choices on


what the Chancellor is making. I understand that. That's why I'm


interested in what he would do. You could take away pension tax relief


for those on higher rates. That's a possibility but not something we are


currently looking at. I thought you were having a debate. I'm just


trying to help you out. I'm throwing Latin. I've advised you to join the


Shadow cabinet I'm helping you the debate. I hope you come to a


National Forum and Parbat in. OK, I have got to stop it there.


The fluky beneficiary of a drastic elevation.


No, I'm not describing our two guests of the day.


I'm not even talking about me and JoCo.


No, these were the cruel words of the novelist Martin Amis,


describing the leader of her majesty's opposition Jeremy Corbyn.


In his not-at-all snobbish piece in a Sunday newspaper,


Oxford-educated Mr Amis noted that Mr Corbyn secured only two E-grade


A-levels before dropping out of his course at North London Polytechnic.


You can almost hear the smears as he wrote these words.


Well Jeremy, if you're watching as you wait to head into the


Commons chamber, we can't help get you that first in PPE from Oxford.


But we could help you prove you've got a sense of humour,


and all you need to do is enter to win a Daily Politics mug.


It's guaranteed to fend off criticism from New York-based


There's enough people with that exam from Oxford, I'm sure.


Yes, Jeremy we'll tell you how to enter in a minute, but first do you


MUSIC: Je t'aime by Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin.


I, Charles, Prince of Wales, do become your liege man


MUSIC: Something In The Air by Thunderclap Newman.


MUSIC: Bad Moon Rising by Creedence Clearwater Revival.


MUSIC: In The Year 2525 by Zager Evans.


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


answer to our special quiz email address - that's [email protected]


Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website -


It's coming up to midday here - just take a look at Big Ben -


It's still working but maybe not for long if you read the papers.


Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.


And that's not all - James Landale is here.


What will Jeremy Corbyn, do you think, talk about in this PMQs? Al


be amazed if he does not go on tax credits. It's an open goal, fruitful


territory, and Labour thinks there's lots of questions to be asked. What


the Chancellor has done no say, I'm not going to tell you anything until


the Autumn Statement next month so there is one month where Labour can


put pressure, ask questions, seek reassurances about how the decision


will be made, what kind of accommodation to lessen the impact


of these cuts, so that's the territory I imagine he will be. Our


people speculating that David Cameron will talk about the


Norwegian option today to get a story running that he is now party


pre-in this referendum, already taking sides, ruling out things he


said he would not rule out to try to get the flak away from tax credits?


No, it's a broader position in the Government. It's a reflection of


number ten's doubts about the efficacy of the in campaign up and


want to get debates rolling. They are getting worried. Secondly, they


want to get the out debate focused where they wanted, namely what if,


what happens if the UK leaves the EU, what happens then? The doubt,


risk, uncertainty. The Government will be happy to spend the next year


and a half talking about Norway, Switzerland, any kind of complicated


mixture of countries, as long as the debate is in that territory whereas


the out campaign will be about cost and control, so that is what they


are trying to do. It means the Prime Minister steps off the fence,


doesn't it? Even before we have any idea what his renegotiation is going


to achieve, he is arguing we should not take this option. It is the


existing Prime Minister's position that he wants to remain in the EU


that is reformed, so I think it's a recognition of not putting it eggs


in one basket with renegotiation. You can't just say, we got to take


the benefit rules, change language when it comes to the EU. He's got to


make a broader argument about why he is in principle, from a broad point


of view, need a positive reason to be a member of the youth. I take it


they are worried the out campaign is gaining ground, the in campaign is


kind of not taking off? Yes, the launch of the other day was not seen


in Tory circles as being a great success. I think they feel they have


to get out there and make that argument. There are members of the


out campaign who have, shall we say, personal relations with number


ten would have not always been favourable? And they get under the


skin of some people at number ten said as a sense of pushing back


until bit against the outcome. Who could you be talking about? Will


Jeremy Corbyn continued to crowd sources questions? Who knows? Stop


smiling. Last week, I think his office felt it worked effectively to


use a punter question to reduce a subject and allow him to follow up


depending on what Mr Cameron said. It was more effective than trying to


bring the Prime Minister down. I think it's an effective tactic with


PMQs because it is difficult for the Prime Minister to get nasty and lose


his temper as he can do sometimes if he asks the question on behalf of


someone affected by this tax credit cuts. If the follow-ups people want


to hear, isn't it? Yes, and Jeremy followed up well. Lastly, the Prime


Minister said he was delighted by the tax credit cuts. What an own


goal on behalf of the Prime Minister. I bet he was kicking


himself for that. Let's go to the House of Commons for PMQs.


I know the whole house will wish to join me and paid tribute to Michael


Meacher. He died suddenly last week and we send our condolences to his


family and friends. Michael dedicated his life to public


service, diligently representing his constituents for a staggering 45


years. He was a passionate advocate of the causes he believed in,


including the environment, and he was able to put these into practice


as a minister between 97-2003. This house and our politics are poorer


place without him and I know colleagues from all sides of this


chamber will remember him with affection and miss him greatly. Mr


Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and


others, and in addition to my duties in this house to have further


meetings today. Can I associate myself with the sympathies expressed


by the Prime Minister. Will my right honourable friend join me in


celebrating that one in ten of the world's tractors are built in


Basildon? Yanuyanutawa not an Airbus A380 flies without a part built in


Basildon. And it is attracting investment from well renowned


organisations such as the Royal Opera house. All of this is leading


to job creation and opportunity. Will he therefore do all he can to


ensure that Britain remains a great place to do business and prosper in


the? -- prosper in. Basildon has place to do business and prosper in


special place in my heart. I didn't know all those statistics, but it


now has an even more special place. I can to him that the long-term use


claimants is down by 24% of the last year. He spoke about what a great


place Britain is to do business. We are now six in the rankings in the


world for the best place to setup and to run a business. I know the


Leader of the Opposition, not least because his new spokesman is


apparently a great admirer of the Soviet Union, will be pleased to


start the day with tractor statistics.


Thank you, Mr by associating


Thank you, Mr remarks the Prime Minister made


about Michael Meacher? On behalf of the Labour Party, his constituents


and the much wider community, our condolences to his family. I spoke


to them last night and asked how condolences to his family. I spoke


and sent me a very nice message, which if I may, I will read out.


Quite brief but very poignant. They said, when I was young one of the


things he frequently said to me was that people went into politics


because their principles and they wanted to change things to make


things better, but in order to get into power they would often


compromise on their principles and that this could happen again and


again until, if they eventually did get into power,


again until, if they eventually did become so compromise that they would


do nothing with it. Michael was a decent, hard-working, passionate and


profound man. He represented he his constituency with diligence for 45


years. He was a brilliant environment minister, as the Prime


Minister pointed out. He was totally committed to parliamentary democracy


and this Parliament, holding government or governments to account


and he was a lifelong campaigner against injustice and poverty. We've


remember Michael for all those things, we express our condolences


and express are some these to his family at this very difficult time.


His will be a hard act to follow, but we will do our best.


Mr Speaker, following the events on Monday evening, and the belated


acceptance from the Prime Minister of the result there, can he now


guaranteed to The House and wider country that nobody will be worse


off next year as a result of cuts to working tax credits?


What I can guarantee is we remain committed to the vision of a higher


pay, low tax, lower welfare economy. We believe the way to make


sure that everyone is better off is to keep growing our economy, keep


inflation low, keep cutting peoples taxes and introduce the national


living wage. As for changes, the Chancellor will set them out in the


Autumn Statement. I thank the Prime Minister for that, but the question


I was asking was quite simply this. Will he confirm, right now, that tax


credit cuts will not make anyone worse off in April next year?


What we want is for people to be better off because we are cutting


their taxes and increasing their paid, that he is going to have to be


a little patient, because although these changes passed the House of


Commons five times, with ever enlarging majorities, we will set


out our new proposals in the Autumn Statement and you will be able to


study them. Jeremy Corbyn.


Mr Speaker, this is the time when we asked questions of the Prime


Minister on behalf of the people of this country. Thank you.


Mr Speaker, if I may continue. People are very worried about what


is going to happen to them next April. So what exactly does the


Prime Minister mean, is considering it, there is an Autumn Statement


coming up? We thought he was committed to not cutting tax


credits. Is he going to cut tax credits or not, are people going to


be worse for next in April next year? You must know the answer.


First of all we set out in our election manifesto that we would


find ?12 billion of savings on welfare. Order, there is too much


noise in the chamber. Order! A bit of calm. The questions must be


heard, and the answers must be heard. The Prime Minister.


Thank you Mr Speaker. It is an important point because every penny


we don't save on welfare is savings we have to find in the education


budget or in the policing budgets, or in the health budget. The second


point I would make is the cause of what has happened on the other


place, of course we should have a debate about how to reform welfare


and how to reduce the cost of welfare. I am happy to have that


debate, but of course it is difficult to have that debate with


the honourable gentleman, because he has opposed everything all welfare


change that was made. He doesn't support the welfare cap. He doesn't


support the cap on housing benefit. He doesn't think that any change to


welfare is worthwhile. I have to say, if we want a strong economy and


we want growth, we want to get rid of our deficit, we want to secure


our country, we need to reform welfare.


What we are talking about our tax credits for people in work. The


Prime Minister knows that, he understands that. He has lost the


support of many people in this country that are actually quite


synthetic to his political project. Some of the papers who supported him


have come against on this. He did commit to ?12 billion worth of cuts


in the welfare budget repeatedly refused to say if tax credits would


be part of this. In fact he said they want. Can he now give us the


answer we are trying to get today? Answer the question.


The answer will be set out in the Autumn Statement when we set out our


proposals. I have to say to him, it has come to quite a strange set of


events when you have the House of Commons voting for something five


times, when there is absolutely no rebellion among conservative members


of parliament, or indeed amongst Conservative peers and the Labour


Party is left offending and depending on unelected peers in the


House of Lords. We British politics a new alliance. The unelected and


the unelectable. SHOUTING. Mr Speaker, it is very


interesting the Prime Minister still refuses to answer the fundamental


question. This is not a constitutional crisis, this is a


crisis for 3 million families in this country, for 3 million families


in this country who are very worried about what is going to happen next


April. Just before the last election, the former Chief Whip, now


Justice Secretary, said in answer to a question on the BBC world at one,


are you going to cut tax credits? The answer was, we are not going to


cut them. Why did he say that? What I said in the election is that


the basic level of child tax credits would stay the same. At ?2700 per


child it stays exactly the same. The point is this, if we want to get our


deficit down, if we want to secure our, me, if we want to keep on with


secure growth, we need to make savings on welfare. Even with his


deficit denying, borrow forever plan, presumably he has to make some


savings in public spending? If you don't save any money on welfare, you


end up cutting the NHS, you end up cutting even more deeply police


budgets. Those are the troops. One is he going to stop deficit denial,


get off the fence and tell us what he would do?


Mr Speaker... A moment ago, the answer is a need to be heard, the


questions need to be heard. The man is going to ask his question and it


will be heard. If it takes longer, so be it.


Thank you Mr Speaker. I've five times asked the Prime Minister today


whether or not people will be worse off if they receive working tax


credits next April? He still hasn't been able to answer me or indeed


many others. Can I put him a question I was sent... CHEERING


Mr Speaker, it might be very amusing to members said, but...


I was sent this question by Karen: Why is the Prime Minister punishing


working families? I work full time and earn their living wage within


the public sector. The tax credit cuts will push me


the public sector. The tax credit hardship. Can he give a cast-iron


guarantee to Karen and all the other families who are very worried what


guarantee to Karen and all the other is going to happen next April to


therein come, is going to happen next April to


make ends meet, could give them the answer today, I hope you will. I ask


him, for the sixth time, please give us an answer to a very


straightforward, very simple question.


What I would say to Karen is this, if she is on the living wage,


working in the public sector, next year in April she will benefit from


being able to earn ?11,000 before she pays any income tax at all. It


was around ?6,000 when I became Prime Minister forced up if she has


children, she will benefit from 30 hours of childcare every week. That


is something that has happened under this government. But above all, she


will benefit because we have a growing economy, because we have


zero inflation, because we have two million more people in work, because


we will train 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, and that is the


fact. The reason the Labour Party lost the last election is they were


completely un-trusted on the deficit, on debt and on a stable


economy. And since then the deficit deniers have taken over the Labour


Party. That is what happened. When you look at their plans, borrowing


for ever, printing money, hiking up taxes, it is working people like


Karen that will pay the price. taxes, it is working people like


2010. And this taxes, it is working people like


delivered the M6 taxes, it is working people like


in my area when it's completed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me


that the Conservatives are insuring Morecambe is back open for


business? I remember visiting his constituency and looking at the very


important roadworks that were being put in place which will up the port,


help when we bring in nuclear power station and the other


steps he wants to see, I can tell him the long-term youth claimant


count in him the long-term youth claimant


by 30% in the last year, him the long-term youth claimant


from our growing economy. Angus Robertson. We associate ourselves


with the condolences expressed by the and the Leader of the Opposition


about Michael. Last week I asked Prime Minister Erdogan tragic


circumstances of Mike O'Sullivan, from north London, a disabled man


who took from north London, a disabled man


assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. We know 60


investigations had taken place into suicide


investigations had taken place into of benefits, but the


investigations had taken place into not been published. The Prime


Minister said to me last not been published. The Prime


he would look very carefully at the specific question about publication.


Will he confirm when these findings will be published? I will write to


him about this but my memory from looking into this afterward is there


are very good reasons why we can't publish the specific report he talks


about because it has personal and medical data in it which would not


be appropriate for publication. If I got that wrong, I will write to him


but that's my clear memory of looking into his question after last


week. Tim Salter from Stourbridge in the West Midlands was 53 when he


took his life. The coroner ruled a major factor in his death was


greatly reduced living almost destitute. His sister said if of


honourable people who will be affected the worst. The DWP need to


publish these reviews. The Prime Minister says he is concerned about


the views of the families involved. The families say the findings should


be published. Really publish them? 3 million families will have their


child tax credit is cancelled. We knew the answer to these questions.


Let me correct on its last point. Under the proposals we put forward,


those people on the lowest levels of pay where protected because of a


national living wage and those people on the lowest incomes where


protected because we were protecting the basic award of a child tax


credit in 2007 and ?80. The other part of the question is a bit I've


already answered but I'll send them a letter if I got it wrong, they


were too many personal and medical details for that to be published. I


think they is an important consideration that in deciding


whether to publish something. I'd like to ask the Prime Minister about


Ruby, one of my youngest constituents, just one-month-old.


Why should she faced the prospect of spending their entire working life


paying off the debt would have been built up by this generation? I think


Ruby is right, when we became the Government, one in ?4 spent by the


Government was borrowed money. We had one of the biggest budget


deficit anywhere in the world and it's always easy for people to say


put off the difficult decisions, don't make any spending reductions,


but what they are doing is burdening future generations with debt. What I


would say to the Labour front bench, that is not generosity, that is


actually selfishness. I think the lady must have misheard but Mrs


Sharon Hodgson. We know about the broken promise about tax credits but


for the final nail in the coffin of compassionate Conservative there's


be hammered home everywhere to scrap universal infant free school meals


in the spending review, taking hot meals out of the mouths of innocent


name with infant children? Will he guarantee now not to scrap universal


infant pre-school meals slowly does not go down in history as David the


Denis Thatcher? I'm immensely proud it was part of the Government would


introduce this policy 13 years of a Labour Government and did they ever


do that? -- dinner snatcher. Do you remember the infant free school


meals, Labour Party? I'm proud of what we have done and we will be


keeping it. CHEERING


Thank you. Mr Speaker, my right honourable friend has demonstrated


considerable leadership in ensuring Britain is the second-largest donor


of aid in Syria. There is another crisis going on which the world is


largely forgetting. In Yemen is an ongoing war, 1.4 million people


forced to flee their homes, 3 million face starvation, half a


million children are at risk from malnutrition and the president of


the International Red Cross has said in Yemen, after five months, we're


in the same position as we are in Syria after five years. Please can


we do more? He's absolutely right to raise this and we have been involved


in trying to help the situation right from the start, as in Syria, a


major contributor in terms of humanitarian aid. We've made it


clear all parties should engage without conditions and in good faith


in peace talks to allow Yemen to move towards a sustainable peace and


that needs to be a piece based on the fact that all people in Yemen


needs proper representation by their Government. There are similarities


with Syria, which is having a Government on behalf of one part of


the country, never a sustainable solution. How dare anyone in this


House earning ?74,000 a year tell families their combined income of


?25,000 is too much and they need to give something back to balance the


economy? Did the Prime Minister accused the listener 's manifesto


because he knew he wouldn't be elected? -- refused to put this in


his manifesto. When I became Prime Minister, nine out of ten families


were getting tax credits, including MPs. That's how crazy the system we


inherited was. We would use that during the last Parliament, opposed


of course by Labour and the SNP, 26 out of ten families. Our proposals


would take that down to five out of ten families but these are not


proposals on their own but accompanied by a national living


wage, for first time. By allowing people to air and ?11,000 before


paying tax, for the first time, those sorts of measures will help


the thought of family she talks about. The Prime Minister spoke


about conference about the plight of young people in the care system. Can


he answer what the garment will do to improve the chances of these


young disadvantaged children and give them opportunities as they move


forward in their lives? The most important thing we can do is to


speed up the adoption system so more children get adopted. What we have


seen since I've been Prime Minister is an increase in adoptions but,


because of one or two judgments, it slipped backwards a bit and need to


work very hard to make sure more children get adopted. For those who


can't be adopted, we need to make sure our residential care homes are


doing the best possible job they can and that's why today I can announce


I've asked the former chief executive of Barnardos, an excellent


public servant, who I worked with at the Home Office, to conduct an


independent review of children's residential care reporting to the


Education Secretary at myself so we can take every step to give these


children the best start in life. Redundant steelworkers such as those


in Wrexham pay national insurance contributions and played by the


rules. Why then is this Government limiting mortgage interest support


for them in the future and making them pay twice, once through


national insurance and once through paying back a loan? Isn't that type


of action and irresponsible Government like his should not be


pursuing and isn't it an example of compassionate conservatism dying? He


refers to a temporary recession measure on mortgage payments which


was continued for five years but he does give me the opportunity to say,


as I promised I would last night, to update the House on what we're doing


to help the steel industry which is important to his constituency and,


on energy costs, we will refund the energy intensive industries for the


full amount of the policy costs they face as soon as we get the state


aided judgment from Brussels. I can confirm that payment will be made


immediately and throughout this Parliament, far more generous than


what has been proposed by the party opposite. Graham Evans. I have had


hundreds of e-mails from constituents regarding the Northern


Powerhouse and I have just chose one. John e-mailed me to say, not to


listen to lead of the opposition with his strategy of higher


spending, higher borrowing, debt, but instead to stick to the


long-term debt, but instead to stick to the


that does the Prime Minister agree debt, but instead to stick to the


with John? I do agree. He has demonstrated more sense in his


Melbourne leader the opposition did in his six questions. Not only have


we seen an economy growing, 2 million more people in work,


inflation that is low, living standards are rising, but actually,


680,000 fewer work less household and 480,000 fewer children in


workless households. If you want to measure the real difference is the


growth in the economy is making, think of those children and


households and the dignity of work. Last weekend was the first


anniversary of the death from cervical cancer of the girl aged 23.


In June 2013, she was concerned to ask for an early smear test was


refused because she was under 25. As has been highlighted, her family


have now written an open letter to the Prime Minister. Can I ask him


not to offer here a reflex repeat of the rationale for current screening


age policy, but to reflect on the questions raised about how this


translates into refusing smear tests to young women like this and to


consider the age related level since it was increased in 2004? He raises


an absolutely tragic case and our thoughts go to her family and


friends. He raises an important case because the UK National screening


committee set the age of 25 and my understanding is the reason for that


is not a resource is based decision, but because of the potential adverse


medical consequences of carrying out screening routinely below that age


that there would be a number potentially false positives because


of actually anatomical changes were to go on at that age full that


of actually anatomical changes were reason, not of resources decision.


It who fear they have a family history


and ask for a him on that specific issue.


Yesterday the EU said we can no longer have filters on the Internet


to protect our children from indecent images. I want to know what


the Prime Minister is going to do to make sure our children remain


protected. I think it's absolutely vitally important we enable parents


to have that protection for their children from this


to have that protection for their Internet. Like her, when I read my


daily main was morning, I spotted over


daily main was morning, I spotted so hard to put in place these


filters but I can reassure her because we actually secured an opt


out yesterday so we can keep our family friendly filters to protect


children and I can tell our House we will legislate to put our agreement


with Internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so


our children will be protected. Tim Farron. Mr Speaker, can I associate


myself with the Prime Minister 's early remarks about the late Michael


Meacher, a decent man, a good MP, and an extremely effective


Environment Secretary. Yesterday I visited the refugee camps on Lesbos


and there I met families that were inspirational, and desperate run


alongside at a charity workers I found there. I am ashamed we will


not offer at home to a single one of those averaging families. My ask the


Prime Minister this question? Will not offer at home to a single one of


those averaging families. My ask the Prime Minister this question? With


the aggrieved with the save the children plea that we take as a


country 3000 vulnerable and accompanied children some as young


as six? Let me again welcome him to his place for them it's good to see


such a high turnout of his MPs. LAUGHTER


. Let me answer him directly. We have taken a decision as a country


to take 20,000 refugees and we think it is better to take them from the


camps instead of taking them from inside Europe. I repeat again today


that we believe we will achieve 1000 refugees brought to Britain and


housed and clothes and fed before Christmas, specifically on his


question, though, about 3000 children and the proposal made by


save the children, I have looked at this very carefully and there are


other experts to point to the real danger of separating children from


their broader families and that's why to date we have not taken that


decision. As he begins his negotiations on our reformed


relationship with the European Union, in earnest, will my right


honourable friend confirmed to our partners and the British people that


no option is off the table, all British options will be considered,


including the option of a relationship such as that of Norway


if it's negotiable and within our interests? I can certainly confirm


to my honourable friend that no options are off the table and, as I


have been clear, if we don't get what we need in our green


negotiation, I will absolutely rule nothing out but important, as we


have this debate as a nation, we are very clear about the facts and


figures and the alternatives, because some people are arguing for


Britain to leave the EU, not all people, and have pointed to the


position of Norway saying it's a good outcome. I would guide very


strongly against that, Norway actually pays as much per head to


the EU as we do and take twice as many per head migrants as we do in


this country, but they have no seat at the table, no ability to


negotiate. I'm not arguing all those who want to leave the EU say they


want to follow the Norwegian pass, but some do, and I think it's


important in this debate we are absolutely clear about the


consequences of these different actions. Willa Prime Minister


congratulate my 17-year-old constituent on her 3800 named in


addition to get the exam board for the first time to accept women


composers on the syllabus. Will he tell us is he a feminist? If


feminism means that we should treat people equally, then, yes,


absolutely. And I'm proud of the fact I have got sitting around the


Cabinet table, a third of women on something we promised and something


we delivered. Can I congratulate her, above all, for her achievement


in terms of this eve petition. It sounds thoroughly worthwhile and her


constituent and have done a good job. Andrew Turner. The NHS England


knows that the Isle of Wight's clinical commissioning group is a


significant outlier in relation to its allocation targets. Can my right


honourable friend confirm that progress is being made to identify


the factors affecting the island? Really benefit from amendments to


the new CCG formula? What I can say to my honourable friend is its right


that assistance on allocations are made independent of Government and


not by Government and so that is how the formula is reached. I can also


tell him is an independent review of the funding formula underway and we


expect to see its recommendations later this year but these things


should be done in a fair and transparent way. The Prime Minister


will remember meeting my constituents, Neal Shepherd and


Sharon Wood, nine years ago this week. Neil took their children on


holiday to Corfu and the children tragically died of carbon monoxide


poisoning. The family's dearest wish is no other family suffers this


heartbreaking tragedy they have endured. Tomorrow in the EU


Parliament there will be a vote on a recommendation that the commissioner


brings forward legislation to improve carbon monoxide safety and


fire safety for tourism premises in the EU. Can I ask the Prime Minister


that is MPs supported and if that motion falls, will he instigate


legislation nationally in this country? First of all, I do remember


the meeting we had and the great bravery of the parents after their


terrible loss. Wanting to go on and campaign to make sure others did not


use children in the way they had. I will look carefully at what you said


about the European Parliament as for legislation in this country, we have


strict regulation on particular things about fire resistant


materials but I will look carefully at that too. Question 14, closed


questions. Prime Minister,... We said at a long-term plan for the


Midlands making its future engine for growth for the whole of the UK


and across Government we are working with business leaders and local


authorities to progress this ambition. I thank him for his


answer. The Northern Powerhouse will help millions but it's the West


Midlands which is the only region in the UK which has a trade balance


surplus with China and its Greater Birmingham which is the fastest rate


of private-sector job creation in the UK since 2010. So will the Prime


Minister now ensure, in the national interest, but the West Midlands


secures the best devolution deal possible? I think we have huge


potential here to secure massive devolution to the West Midlands


first ball I would say to everyone concerned they will be left out by


the Northern Powerhouse, I think the West Midlands is in a perfect place


to benefit both from the success and growth of London and of course a


rebalancing of our economy towards the North of England. In terms of


the West Midlands, we look forward to the West Midlands combined


authority coming forward with its plans and what I would say to these


areas contemplating devolution and devolution deals, the more you can


put on the table, the builder you can be with your vision, the bolder


response you would get Government. Can I tell a the Chancellor the


strong support of the parties, businesses across the West Midlands,


for a properly funded and significant devolution deal to


strengthen the economy, boost productivity and get the brown site


redeveloped to tackle congestion so we can transform the West Midlands


with more jobs, better skills, quick transport links and new homes? I'm


glad to hear from the honourable gentleman what an opportunity there


is in the West Midlands to work across party to get the very best


deal across all these authorities because, as I said, the more we can


get the local authorities to come together and work together, and put


their ambition and vision on the table, the better response they will


get from the Government. Simon Burns.


Does my right honourable friend agree with me that bullying in the


workplace is reprehensible? Can he tell me whether the Government is


planning any review of the legislation with a view to extending


it to this chamber? Given that my right honourable friend has been


called for a primaries as questions at 12:38pm, I would have thought any


hint of bullying was clearly overemphasise in every conceivable


way. He suffers no disadvantage and that's a good thing but bullying in


the workplace is a problem and we do need to make sure it is stamped out


and dealt with and that should apply in Parliament as elsewhere. Urgent


question. It started late today, PMQ 's. It


lasted almost 38 minutes, 37 minutes. Jeremy Corbyn today with


his strongest performance yet. Many thought it was his best outings so


far. He got away from crowd sourcing his questions until the last one.


The other five were on tax credits and particular on the issues, will


anybody lose out and particular on the issues, will


changes. That is the question he asked the Prime Minister again and


again. Quite clear the Prime


only ask generally, not specifically about


only ask generally, not specifically have ruled they are not


only ask generally, not specifically welfare and then


only ask generally, not specifically to commit suicide. Then we saw Tim


Farron asking questions about migrants after his trip to one of


the Greek islands. We will find out what our panel thought in a minute,


but firstly, what did you think? One viewer said however passionate


Jeremy Corbyn may feel about tax credits, does it show a singular


lack of imagination to credits, does it show a singular


question six times? Another says Jeremy Corbyn saying he was using


the same effective tactic Michael Howard did, making the Prime


the same effective tactic Michael Minister looking dodgy when he


avoids answering a straightforward and simple question especially when


ceremony are affected. Another said he is very good at ranting and


propaganda but unable to answer a civil question on tax credits.


Another says, politically this is the most important and exciting time


in a generation. Didn't feel that reflected. The EU, the House of


Lords and tax reform. As for tax credits, I hope some day would make


the argument it credits, I hope some day would make


behaviour rather than play the system.


behaviour rather than play the Thank you. We have got in the last


Wednesday of November not just the Autumn Statement but the


comprehensive spending Autumn Statement but the


lays out the plans of government spending over the next three


financial years to stop there must be great danger for George Osborne


now that this substantial statement, as important as the budget in many


ways, will be hijacked for his need to change tax credits? He will do


everything possible to make sure it's not, but clearly


everything possible to make sure be the dominant theme running up


until that moment. The problem may have is there is now a gap for


Labour to say what they are going to say, which we saw from the Leader of


the Opposition this morning. Clearly learning as he does all these Prime


Minister's Questions, asking the same question six times, sticking


with one issue, allowing himself a little bit of freedom to make his


own point. What I thought was interesting from the Prime Minister


is he is trying to develop a bit of a defence, which is not just wrap it


in the headlights, that saying, if these are choices, if you don't make


these cuts to welfare, if you stick to the spending plans as is, you


have to find the money from elsewhere, health, education and so


on. That is something the Tories and government want to develop as much


as they can, so they can say it is a choice. This is not just a free hit,


do you want to hurt working people not question that there are broader


implications. Is the chance left only with the option to tweak, take


away some of the rough edges? Or does he have time to do something


more radical restaurant there has been a lot of talk from the Adam


Smith Institute, to the Institute of economic affairs, about moving to a


negative income tax? That it would be simpler, fairer and concentrate


the money on the working poor. Is it too late for a fundamental change


like that? I would be surprised if it went down that route. People I


speak to, they are pretty sure they are know what they are going to do


but not telling us yet. I think there is enough flexibility already


built in the system to reduce the surplus target, extend the surplus


target, come up with another form of mitigation elsewhere, in terms of


May be looking at the National, the mixed thresholds. That is expensive


for the yes, very offensive, none of these things are cheap. That is the


point they will make. What I find interesting is, the point you


make... We're not just talking about tax credits, we're talking about an


extraordinary spending review that is coming up. I'm curious to see how


the government goes into that, making the broader argument for


saying look, they've done five years of low hanging fruit. The spending


cuts that are coming now are going to be tough, they are going to bite.


How do they get into that argument, making that defence of Saint from


the conservative viewpoint you have to make those cuts to secure the


economic future? At the moment there is still a certain amount of


uncertainty about whether to go for that argument in a full throated way


or if you should make an argument then the cuts are not as bad because


we will compensate for this, that and so on? The Prime Minister was


asked six times if anybody would lose out from the tax credit


changes. Six times he didn't answer that specific question. Why not?


I think it comes back to the conversation we had prior to


questions itself, which it is not a simple and straightforward


situation. You have to look at the wider picture, there are choices to


be made and it is how we change that. It is not straightforward


situation. We have to deal with that conjugated, difficult situation of


changing the economy. And looking how we look at welfare. That gets us


into a much stronger economic position in the medium term and long


term. The e-mail that was read out about the hey Rob will --


behavioural change, is there something in that? If you look at


those figures where people would lose out, if they worked... Quite


often affects part-time workers. If they worked a couple of extra ours


on the new wage, that would compensate for the withdrawal of tax


credits. Is there something in that? The problem is it depends on your


individual circumstances. If you are a single earner on 15,000, if you


get a few extra hours, for every extra ?1 you earn you are losing


about 70p in your tax credits, so actually it doesn't... It is not


compensating for the hit. You are still losing out. If you are a


parent you would get more hours of free childcare. These are the


arguments put forward. That is a fair point, but my understanding


from the analysis is only 10% of tax credit recipients will benefit from


this expansion in childcare. The problem is, a bit like the question


you put to be very reasonably... George Osborne now has a problem. In


law, because of his fiscal charter, he has to hit a surplus in 2019. He


also has to find about seven - ten billions worth of tax cuts which the


Tories promised that the last election, which has not been scored


into the budget, the recent Redbook and he has to make a decision, is he


gone compensate everybody who is losing out? That is a loss of 4.5


billion, or is he going to phase it in? I don't think he does know what


he is going to do. I don't think he can give a guarantee there will be


the losers. Whatever, people will lose out, I think. The truth is a


Prime Minister didn't answer the question because people are going to


decide? -- going to lose out, we're not sure how many, but there will be


losers. It seems to me that Chancellor is paying a longer game.


He knows there will be losers, they have done the sums, but because he


hopes of what will be favourable changes, with people working more,


doing more hours, they will get the national living wage, they will come


off an element of tax credits, that by 2020 it will be all over and we


won't be arguing about this by then, even though there were short-term


losers. That is clearly his strategy. Some people in the


government think they have the short-term tactics wrong, the timing


is wrong within that five-year period. What has happened is some of


the cuts are front-loaded and some of the compensatory elements come


into far down the line. It is very hard to argue when someone's tax


credits are going to be removed next April, to say there will be a ripple


effect. It is a very hard argument to make. I think that is where I


think people say the government should change the timing, but stick


to the argument. That is where the nerves are coming in? Yes. Thank


you, James. What should you do if you make a


mistake was mugged on up, move on and try not to do it again. That has


or has been mine and Andrew's approach. Although we never make


mistakes? That means they are not learning from their mistakes. Here


is the soapbox. The Comet was


the world's first jet airliner. But British pride soon turned to


horror when two De Haviland jets An extensive investigation showed


that the accident was a result of metal fatigue caused by the repeated


pressurisation of the cabin. This information was shared with


De Haviland's rivals Boeing In aviation,


lessons are learned all the time. Each aircraft is equipped with two


indestructible black boxes If there is an accident,


the boxes are excavated, the data analysed, and the system,


crucially, is adapted. And that means the same


mistakes don't happen again. Last year, the accident rate


for major airlines was one crash But compare this with healthcare,


where clinicians often spin and conceal mistakes because


of the fear of litigation And that's why preventable medical


error is one Failure is inevitable


in a complex world. Politicians, businessmen,


even scientists are going to get things wrong, but what are we going


to do with these mistakes? Do we spin them, do we shun them or


do we harness them After all, if we don't know where


we're going wrong, Is it really can parable, machines


and people, when you use your planes analogy with health care?


and people, when you use your planes I think is universal, you learning


from mistakes, fundamental I think is universal, you learning


beings learn and institutions learn. A good metaphor is marginal days,


which is how we credit so much success in our Olympians, winning by


crate into its component parts, and improving on various components 1%.


crate into its component parts, and Aerodynamics, the design of


crate into its component parts, and bike. Using antibacterial hand


gels, things sound small but Achaemenid


affect and equipment of continual improvement which can only happen if


you look improvement which can only happen if


assumptions rather than trying to defend yourself, that can be


revolutionary. I'd love to see it in hospitals, schools, and in politics.


revolutionary. I'd love to see it in Everyone has to agree what the


mistake is and whether it was a mistake. Isn't that the problem in


politics? And hospitals, because doctors try to spin the mistakes,


and say, instead of we have confessed to killing somebody


because our procedure was wrong, they blame it on the unusual


symptoms of the patient, complications. You don't think those


are valid sometimes, those arguments? No, because the


information is pushed a deep underground. One hospital in Seattle


adopted the marginal gains approach and are open and honest about their


mistakes. Somebody came in and are open and honest about their


not resuscitate wristband because the nurse was colour-blind, so they


added text to the wristband and change the ergonomics of the


equipment. The system adapted and there was a 74% reduction in


insurance liability premiums. there was a 74% reduction in


is a method which requires intellectual honesty and a


is a method which requires Those are quite clear examples in


aviation and health care but if we look at the umbrella over the top


which is politics, the political system we exist and are at the


moment, there will always be a difference of opinion as to what is


a mistake and what is an alternative way of doing things. So let's change


the idea of a mistake to a suboptimal outcome, all political


outcomes are sub optimal unless we have a confession which we don't.


International developer and, often decisions are made on how to help


the poorest in the world on the basis of narrative, glossy


magazines, great websites. So there was a scheme to improve education in


rural Kenya and they sent a lot of English-language textbooks which


sounded great, the material looked wonderful but a group of economists


went in and tested it and found the kids didn't speak in dish well


enough, so they tried something else. That outcome is an opportunity


to reimagine how you can improve those outcomes so they tried


deworming medication and the results were stellar. It improved


everything. Unless you become some after we can't improve. When have


politicians not learned from their mistakes? I wonder if George Osborne


has been sub optimal. What would your suggestion be it to improve


that outcome? I think there's a lot in this, you have got to fall down


in order to learn to get back up. There is something there. There's a


difference between what we privately will look at to make sure we have


the best outcomes and changing them compared to what you will publicly


be passing on and disagreeing on. A lot of the biggest arguments between


Jonathan and I will be whether somebody's made a mistake in the


first place. I think that's right but also politicians have got to


admit when they've made a mistake and part of our culture is jumping


on gas, you said something different. That prevents the culture


where you can be honest. Nick Clegg said he was sorry. John McDonnell


changed his mind. Those good things to do politically? A good analogy


here is economic sway economists, even the best in the world, that


they have to learn from the data which helps them to adapt and yet


it's the highest reputation economist measured by how often TV


studios make the worst predictions because when there is a predictive


error they use their creative and intellectual energy to spin that


data to defend their prior assumptions and that's why they


don't learn from their mistakes. That's what we need in politics,


people to adapt. Politicians always defending their assumptions. They


spin the sub optimal outcome and that a tragedy. Whoop about the next


economist which comes onto the programme. Who is that? Thank you.


Of course you are, you've been watching the Daily


But how satisfied you are with your life may also depend


on where you live, according to a report by a think-tank called


It found that the happiest place to live in the UK


was the Outer Hebrides, where residents have high levels


of life satisfaction despite having among the lowest average incomes.


The most miserable place was said to be the city of Wolverhamton


The most miserable place was said to be the city of Wolverhampton


in the West Midlands, where a lack of opportunity is said


Well we're joined now by two MPs who represent those areas, and I assume


are therefore the happiest and the unhappiest people in the Commons


Angus, why is your constituency part of the happiest place in Britain? I


think the scenery, the beautiful beaches, the way people get on with


each other. The general clubs, church groups, choirs, a number of


things. There's a high value on knowing each and having a laugh with


people. Why come to London, I will see 10,000 people and not know any


of them in a day. On the island I will know everybody and have a chat


and a laugh. It's generally very friendly. Emma, why is your place


the unhappiest? I totally reject the findings. You won't be surprised to


hear me say that. I'm not in the least bit miserable. Nor are the


people of Wolverhampton who tend to be very open, very friendly, very


welcoming to people who are visiting Wolverhampton full submit a great


thing is gunning for us. We've had a massive investment by Jaguar Land


Rover and a big factory on the outskirts of my constituency.


There's lots going on in Wolverhampton, for example, one of


the best civic halls, and dolled up OK, I will take your word for it. We


got to cut this short. PMQs overrun. My suggestion is you should twin the


two places. We have an SNP Government in the Hebrides which


makes a huge difference. OK we will have to go.


There's just time to put you out of your misery and give you


I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big


Jo's off gallivanting on the continent.


Download Subtitles