:00:38. > :00:37.saying goodbye to viewers on BBC Two.
:00:38. > :01:59.Welcome. coverage of this debate. We're
:02:00. > :02:00.Now, first today, let's talk about migration.
:02:01. > :02:03.Figures out this morning show that net migration to the UK has hit
:02:04. > :02:08.The difference between the number of people coming to live in Britain
:02:09. > :02:11.and those emigrating was 336,000 in the 12 months to the end of June.
:02:12. > :02:14.The total is 82,000 higher than in the previous year.
:02:15. > :02:16.It means the government has slipped further from its target
:02:17. > :02:35.of getting net migration down to the "tens of thousands" by 2020.
:02:36. > :02:44.it was meant to be of course by 2015, and indeed the target is
:02:45. > :02:47.actually receding into the distance. Andrew Lansley, wouldn't the
:02:48. > :02:51.government just be better to give up on this target? It is not easy to
:02:52. > :02:56.see how it is going to be done, is it? Because when you set a target,
:02:57. > :02:59.in principle you should do is use targets for things that you can
:03:00. > :03:05.control, and to some extent this turns out to be something they don't
:03:06. > :03:08.appear to be able to control. I have only seen the numbers this morning,
:03:09. > :03:12.but unless I'm missing something, there was both a significant
:03:13. > :03:15.increase in the numbers coming here from elsewhere in the European
:03:16. > :03:21.Union, and that is principally for jobs. And as things stand, the
:03:22. > :03:24.renegotiation with the EU may reduce some of the incentives that he would
:03:25. > :03:26.come the jobs, but if they are coming hither jobs and get a
:03:27. > :03:32.national living wage in years to come, that is pretty attractive. We
:03:33. > :03:36.are doing well in job creation. But I think there was also a significant
:03:37. > :03:40.increase in the numbers coming here from outside the European Union.
:03:41. > :03:49.Which is that we are meant to be able to control. There are still way
:03:50. > :03:55.over 100,000, tens those well over 100,000 from outside the EU coming
:03:56. > :03:59.in. We do have to look inside this big number and say what is going on.
:04:00. > :04:02.If people are coming here in order to fill jobs where we don't have
:04:03. > :04:08.people domestic league table or unwilling to do those jobs, that is
:04:09. > :04:10.a good thing. You can see in the long-term economic forecasts what a
:04:11. > :04:17.benefit that could have, in terms of overall output. And the same, I
:04:18. > :04:21.think personally, it's pretty much true for those who are coming here
:04:22. > :04:26.and then going home for higher education purposes. But actually you
:04:27. > :04:31.can even take those numbers out and you have still got a significant
:04:32. > :04:39.increase. There is a sense where this all began six years ago of, how
:04:40. > :04:45.do we cope with population increases on this scale? Something of the
:04:46. > :04:49.order of 1% of increase in population a year. This is not
:04:50. > :04:54.really tenable in the long run. The government clearly came nowhere near
:04:55. > :04:58.that its target of 2015. We agree it is pretty unlikely from what we have
:04:59. > :05:02.seen so far it is not going to hit it in 2020. At the moment you are
:05:03. > :05:05.looking at it and saying what will be the difference between not the
:05:06. > :05:08.only thing in prospect at the moment is the change to migrant benefits
:05:09. > :05:15.and in work benefits for those coming from elsewhere. I think that
:05:16. > :05:17.will make all the difference? No, I don't.
:05:18. > :05:19.Now, let's talk about yesterday's Spending Review, or the
:05:20. > :05:21.Chancellor's Autumn Statement, whatever you prefer to call it.
:05:22. > :05:25.You might be forgiven for thinking Christmas had come early.
:05:26. > :05:27.Springing out of the Chancellor's Christmas stocking, an extra ?27
:05:28. > :05:30.billion, allowing the Chancellor to perform all sorts of magical tricks.
:05:31. > :05:33.Let's have a look at what he had to say, in detail.
:05:34. > :05:35.That windfall from the new OBR forecast allowed
:05:36. > :05:38.the Chancellor to reverse plans to introduce ?4.4 billion worth of tax
:05:39. > :05:47.credit cuts that were supposed to be introduced this year.
:05:48. > :05:50.It means George Osborne will breach his own welfare cap
:05:51. > :05:53.in the early years of this parliament, before tax credits are
:05:54. > :06:04.phased out by 2018 and replaced by a Universal Credit payment.
:06:05. > :06:06.It wraps up six different welfare payments.
:06:07. > :06:16.The day-to-day expenditure of government departments will fall
:06:17. > :06:19.20 billion, on average, by 2020, but the burden isn't equally shared.
:06:20. > :06:21.The departments for transport, energy, business and the environment
:06:22. > :06:24.are the biggest losers, with their day-to-day budgets falling by
:06:25. > :06:34.The NHS, education, defence and foreign aid budgets were protected.
:06:35. > :06:38.The NHS will receive an up front cash injection of ?3.8
:06:39. > :06:41.billion above inflation next year, as part of the ?8 billion extra to
:06:42. > :06:52.A new apprenticeship levy of 0.5% on company payrolls
:06:53. > :06:54.from April 2017 will raise ?3 billion a year, and fund three
:06:55. > :07:06.From next April, the basic state pension will rise to ?119.30 a week.
:07:07. > :07:08.The Chancellor gladdened the hearts of police officers
:07:09. > :07:11.by promising there would be no real-terms cuts to police budgets
:07:12. > :07:14.in England and Wales, but forces will be expected to make efficiency
:07:15. > :07:39.And, despite difficult financial circumstances, George Osborne still
:07:40. > :07:42.plans to have eliminated the deficit, and be running a ?10.1
:07:43. > :07:55.First of all, the Spending Review takes the
:07:56. > :07:57.necessary decisions to make sure that Britain stops borrowing, runs
:07:58. > :08:04.And that involves difficult decisions on spending and tax
:08:05. > :08:06.and particularly on day-to-day spending, in order to
:08:07. > :08:10.invest in the long-term and invest in our NHS and our police.
:08:11. > :08:13.And my central judgment is that by taking those decisions, no more, no
:08:14. > :08:17.less, there is light at the end of the tunnel for Britain and we can
:08:18. > :08:27.Well, this morning, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell
:08:28. > :08:29.said his party wasn't completely satisfied with George Osborne's
:08:30. > :08:45.We had three targets in terms of Labour's campaign - one was to
:08:46. > :08:56.Unfortunately, it is only a partial victory.
:08:57. > :08:58.It is a bit George Osborne-ish, as usual.
:08:59. > :09:01.He is going ahead with the Universal Credit cuts and that means
:09:02. > :09:04.families still losing out, as they get shifted on to Universal Credit.
:09:05. > :09:06.On average about ?1,000 but people with disabilities,
:09:07. > :09:08.for example, about ?2,500 and loan parents ?2,500.
:09:09. > :09:11.So partial victory on that but we'll keep on campaigning to try
:09:12. > :09:19.And with me now, the Shadow Treasury spokesman,
:09:20. > :09:22.Rebecca Long-Bailey, and Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation, a
:09:23. > :09:24.nonpartisan think tank, which works to improve the living standards
:09:25. > :09:33.Andrew Lansley is, of course, still with us.
:09:34. > :09:42.Let me come to you first, Thurston, the Chancellor will not be talking
:09:43. > :09:47.about taking away tax quotes between the now and the end of tax credits
:09:48. > :09:51.and universal credits comes in between now and 2018. What happens
:09:52. > :09:56.to those people that the Chancellor had targeted in July but is no
:09:57. > :10:00.longer targeting in universal credit? That is not quite right,
:10:01. > :10:06.Andrew. What the Chancellor did yesterday is a very welcome return
:10:07. > :10:13.to his plans. The tax credit cuts, that is welcome because it will
:10:14. > :10:17.offer reassurance... What happens when me get universal credit? In
:10:18. > :10:22.terms of using tax credits taking people away with more than two
:10:23. > :10:25.children, are going ahead. Then we turn to universal credit and what is
:10:26. > :10:29.that, and the Chancellor has maintained the cuts to universal
:10:30. > :10:33.credit that were set out in the summer budget, leave those place. As
:10:34. > :10:39.the Chancellor said in his statement, there are no changes to
:10:40. > :10:43.those cuts. So when it moves to universal credit, the cuts that
:10:44. > :10:47.would have affected people if the Chancellor had proceeded with his
:10:48. > :10:53.July statement, they will affect these people, come universal credit?
:10:54. > :10:56.Most of those cuts will affect people in universal credit and they
:10:57. > :10:59.will obviously happen in a slightly different way but in slippers
:11:00. > :11:04.plastic terms can be yes. Most of those cuts will take place in
:11:05. > :11:11.universal credit that the point that that system is full and up and
:11:12. > :11:17.running. So pay and delay -- pain delayed? The Chancellor listened to
:11:18. > :11:21.people who said the transition, that taking tax credits away next April
:11:22. > :11:25.at a point where there has not been an increase in the income tax
:11:26. > :11:27.personal allowance, where all the additional childcare is not in place
:11:28. > :11:32.and particularly where people are not being paid at the national
:11:33. > :11:35.living wage, that created a transitional problem. Of course what
:11:36. > :11:38.he has dealt with is the transitional problem, by taking away
:11:39. > :11:41.that additional reduction in people's income until such time as
:11:42. > :11:47.there are these other compensating benefits. What do you say to that?
:11:48. > :11:52.Let's look at the compensating benefits, the national living wage
:11:53. > :11:55.is a farce, to say the least. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has
:11:56. > :12:00.claimed it is arithmetically impossible to commentator these
:12:01. > :12:07.families's losses. It is a farce. You say, it is going up to ?9. The
:12:08. > :12:11.last Labour manifesto, ninth and 30, let me finish the question, the last
:12:12. > :12:16.Labour Party manifesto in May of this year promised it would only go
:12:17. > :12:23.up to ?8. Green it is certainly welcome. Is it a farce or is it
:12:24. > :12:26.welcome? Can't be both. It is not possible to compensate them by
:12:27. > :12:30.increasing the national minimum wage. That may well be true but that
:12:31. > :12:34.is a different point. I am just trying to work out how a national
:12:35. > :12:39.minimum wage of over nine quid could be a farce when the one you promise
:12:40. > :12:41.to make at only eight quid is not a farce. The question was linked with
:12:42. > :12:46.how it would deal with these families. They need more than an
:12:47. > :12:49.increase in the national living wage quite frankly, they need a clear and
:12:50. > :12:54.cob rancid industrial and economic strategy. That is just political
:12:55. > :12:58.rhetoric, all politicians talk about that. By how much do you think the
:12:59. > :13:02.national minimum wage should be by the end of this Parliament? We need
:13:03. > :13:07.to look at other options available, and we should not just focus on the
:13:08. > :13:12.national minimum wage. Forgive me, I am come I am asking you how much you
:13:13. > :13:17.think, if ninth and 30 is not enough, and many people would say it
:13:18. > :13:23.is not, how much do you think the national living wage, how much do
:13:24. > :13:27.you think it should be by the end of this Parliament? A good Chancellor
:13:28. > :13:30.would not simply focus on increasing living wage as a means to improve
:13:31. > :13:34.people's living standards, they would look at all options in terms
:13:35. > :13:39.of improving housing, assessing the levels of rent people are providing.
:13:40. > :13:44.We saw none of that in yesterday's statement. If you take Andrew
:13:45. > :13:53.Lansley's point, and then get the 2018-19, the threshold has been
:13:54. > :14:00.raised, and the move towards the ?9 30 minimum wage is underway. What
:14:01. > :14:06.difference does that make to the people moving on to universal credit
:14:07. > :14:10.who will then lose a bit? That is a good question, and I disagree with
:14:11. > :14:13.both Rebecca and Andrew, because the national living wage is a big deal,
:14:14. > :14:19.the increase is large and it will have a big difference to people who
:14:20. > :14:23.are on that. But it is also wrong to say that that and the personal
:14:24. > :14:26.allowance changes and any childcare changes will make a large difference
:14:27. > :14:30.to the losers from universal credit changes coming in this Parliament.
:14:31. > :14:34.That is for a number of reasons, people who are losing from universal
:14:35. > :14:38.credit on: The then wage. People who are losing from universal credit
:14:39. > :14:43.don't pay very large tax bills in general so don't get the same
:14:44. > :14:46.benefit from the changes to the personal allowance was not prior to
:14:47. > :14:49.the statement, our analysis said we were expecting those changes to
:14:50. > :14:54.possibly compensate within the region of ten, 15, 13% of the
:14:55. > :14:58.losses, we're not talking about eradicating them. The argument that
:14:59. > :15:04.this will allow these losses to be wiped out doesn't hold. So it is
:15:05. > :15:07.still pain delayed? It is moving from a situation where we have
:15:08. > :15:12.relatively large, something like six out of ten people on tax credits, to
:15:13. > :15:15.a position where under universal credit it will still be something
:15:16. > :15:22.like five out of ten? Torsten will probably know. There is a reduction
:15:23. > :15:25.in the number of people who are dependent on the income being set by
:15:26. > :15:28.the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think this is a very positive move,
:15:29. > :15:31.moving to a place where people know that work is their work, their
:15:32. > :15:37.income, left in their pockets is actually the basis upon which their
:15:38. > :15:40.household income is established. Andrew is getting to the core
:15:41. > :15:43.argument that people should be making for these universal credit
:15:44. > :15:46.changes take in place, that is a principled view that people in work
:15:47. > :15:50.should be receiving less support from the state over time. We don't
:15:51. > :15:54.agree with that but that is an argument, but that is not an
:15:55. > :15:58.argument being made by many. The Chancellor this morning on the Today
:15:59. > :16:05.programme said nine out of ten people who were on tax credits in
:16:06. > :16:08.2010, he thought that was wrong. The Chancellor took away in the last
:16:09. > :16:12.parliament from the higher earners. The system that is left is
:16:13. > :16:14.supporting work incentives and child poverty for the core working
:16:15. > :16:17.population on learning comes in our country and that is why we are
:16:18. > :16:30.seeing these changes now having a real effect. Does Labour still I
:16:31. > :16:34.support the working tax credit We are assessing the pilot. There are a
:16:35. > :16:38.number of alarm bells ringing. I understand that. Do you think you
:16:39. > :16:42.will come out against it? I think we need to take a strategic overvu.
:16:43. > :16:46.There are elements that could be taken as positive steps forward but
:16:47. > :16:50.in terms of the ongoing management that families face in terms of
:16:51. > :16:55.finances, I think many people struggle. Would you make any changes
:16:56. > :16:58.to tax credits? We would reverse the Government's current proposals to
:16:59. > :17:02.cut tax credits. They have done that themselves. They have already done
:17:03. > :17:07.that. The proposals they put forward were a partial step and we welcome
:17:08. > :17:10.that. As John has outlined. What I asked you, was not what the
:17:11. > :17:13.Government is doing, would you make any changes to tax credits? We would
:17:14. > :17:20.reverse the Government's proposals in full on tax credits, but that has
:17:21. > :17:22.to be done hand-in-hand with a long-term economic strategy that
:17:23. > :17:27.would require invest in industry. At the moment we are seeing, in temples
:17:28. > :17:30.devolution, the creation of a Wild West industry where regions will be
:17:31. > :17:37.competing against each other. There will be a race to the bottom in
:17:38. > :17:40.business rates. The social care precept announceside worrying, local
:17:41. > :17:44.authorities will be left in a position where they will be left to
:17:45. > :17:46.float on their own and bring in their own income. We'll leave it
:17:47. > :17:48.there. Well, what did the papers make of it
:17:49. > :17:50.all? And joining me now from College
:17:51. > :17:53.Green, two of Fleet Street's finest, Sam Coates from the Times and Nick
:17:54. > :18:01.Watt from the Guardian. Sam Coates, the Chancellor got a
:18:02. > :18:06.pretty decent press this morning but it is usually on Day 2 that we find
:18:07. > :18:10.out things that he didn't want us to know. How is that going? One of the
:18:11. > :18:15.reasons George Osborne had a pretedy good day yesterday is that he had
:18:16. > :18:19.?27 billion of funny money to play with, money that he didn't know he
:18:20. > :18:25.had in July. Two-thirds of which has magiced into his account because of
:18:26. > :18:28.modelling changes by the Office for Budget Responsibility, presumably an
:18:29. > :18:32.error by the Office for Budget Responsibility in judgment of he is
:18:33. > :18:35.placing an awful lot on those changed forecasts in order to be
:18:36. > :18:39.able to fulfil a wish list that seems to have kept most of his
:18:40. > :18:43.backbenchers happy. The money to pay for tax credit U-turns, the money to
:18:44. > :18:44.stop the police cuts have all come from this. The important point is he
:18:45. > 0:11:50made a big decision. In the