28/10/2015 Daily Politics

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.