01/12/2013 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne

announces a ?50 cut to annual household energy bills. We'll talk

to Lib Dem president Tim Farron ahead of the Chancellor's mini

budget this week. Net immigration is up for the first

time in two years. Labour and the Tories say they want to bring it

down, but how? Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper joins us for the

Sunday Interview. The harder you shake the pack, the easier it will

be for some cornflakes to get to the be for some cornflakes to get to the

top. The Mayor of London says inequality and greed are essential

to spur economic activity. Schools Minister David Laws says

standards need to accepts the housing situation in the

capital is now a crisis. Another week, another strategy? Can this one

deliver? And with me throughout today's

programme, well, we've shaken the packet and look who's risen to the

top. Or did we open it at the bottom? Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh

and Sam Coates. All three will be tweeting throughout the programme

using the hashtag #bbcsp. So, after weeks in which Ed Miliband's promise

to freeze energy prices has set the Westminster agenda, the Coalition

Government is finally coming up with its answer. This morning the

Chancellor George Osborne explained how he plans to cut household energy

bills by an average of fifty quid. What we're going to do is roll back

the levees that are placed by government on people's electricity

bills. This will mean that for the average bill payer, they will have

?50 of those electricity and gas bills. That will help families. We

are doing it in the way that government can do it. We are

controlling the cost that families incurred because of government

policies. We are doing it in a way that will not damage the environment

or reduce our commitment to dealing with climate change. We will not

produce commit men to helping low-income families with the cost of

living. Janan, we are finally seeing the coalition begin to play its hand

in response to the Ed Miliband freeze? They have been trying to

respond for almost ten weeks and older responses have been quite

fiddly. We are going to take a bit of tax year, put it onto general

taxation, have a conversation with the energy companies, engineered a

rebate of some kind, this is not very vivid. The advantage of the

idea that they have announced overnight is that it is clear and it

has a nice round figure attached to it, ?50. The chief of staff of

President Obama, he said, if you are explaining, you're losing. The

genius of this idea is that it does not require explanation. He would

not drawn this morning on what agreement he had with the energy

companies, and whether this would fall through to the bottom of the

bill, but the way he spoke, saying, I am not going to pre-empt what the

energy companies say, that suggests he has something up his sleeve. Yes,

I thought so. The energy companies have made this so badly for so long.

It would be awful if he announced this and the energy companies said,

we are going to keep this money for ourselves. I do not think he is that

stupid. The energy companies have an incentive to go along with this

don't they? My worry is that I am not sure how much it will be within

the opinion polls. I think people might expect this now, it is not a

new thing, it is not an exciting thing. Say in the markets, they may

have priced the ten already. If by Thursday of this week, he is able to

say, I have a ?50 cut coming to your bill. The energy companies have

guaranteed that this will fall through onto your energy bill, and

they have indicated to me that they themselves will not put up energy

prices through 2014, has he shot the Ed Miliband Fox? I think he has a

couple of challenges. It is still very hard. This is an answer for the

next 12 months but did is no chance announced that Labour will stop

saying they are going to freeze prices in the next Parliament. He

will say, I have not just frozen them, I have done that as well and I

have cut them. When people look at their energy bills, they are going

up by more than ?50. This is a reduction in the amount that they

are going up overall. Year on 0 will be for George Osborne. He will

have to come up with something this time next year. The detail in the

Sunday papers reveals that George Osborne is trying to get the energy

companies to put on bills that 50 has been knocked off your bill

because of a reduction by the government. He is trying to get the

energy companies to do his political bidding for him. It will be

interesting to see if they go along with that, because then we will know

how cross the arm with Ed Miliband. Let's get another perspective.

Joining me now from Kendal in the Lake District is the president of

the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Good

morning. Let me ask you this, the coalition is rowing back on green

taxes, I do comfortable with that or is it something else you will rebel

against? I am very comfortable with the fact we are protecting for the

money is going. I am open to where the money comes from. The notion

that we should stop insulating the homes of elderly people or stop

investing in British manufacturing in terms of green industry, that is

something that I resolutely oppose, but I am pleased that the funding

will be made available for all that. You cannot ignore the fact that for

a whole range of reasons, mostly down to the actions of the energy

companies, you have prices that are shooting up and affecting lots of

people, making life hard. You cannot ignore that. If we fund the

installation of homes for older people and others, if we protect

British manufacturing jobs, and raise the money through general

taxation, I am comfortable with that. It is not clear that is going

to happen. It looks like the eco-scheme, whereby the energy

companies pay for the installation of those on below-average incomes,

they will spin that out over four years, not two years, and one

estimate is that that will cost 10,000 jobs. You're always boasting

about your commitment to green jobs, how do square that? I do not believe

that. The roll-out will be longer. The number of houses reached will be

greater and that is a good thing. My take is that it will not affect the

number of jobs. People talk about green levies. There has been

disparaging language about that sort of thing. There are 2 million people

in this country in the lowest income families and they get ?230 off their

energy bills because of what isn't -- because of what is disparaging

the refer to as green stuff, shall we call it. There will be more

properties covered. We both know that your party is being pushed into

this by the Tories. You would not be doing this off your own bad. You are

in coalition with people who have jettisoned their green Prudential

is? -- credentials. You have made my point quite well. David Cameron s

panicked response to this over the last few months was to ditch all the

green stuff. It has been a job to make sure that we hold him to his

pledges and the green cord of this government. That is why we are not

scrapping the investment, we are making sure it is funded from

general taxation. I am talking to you from Kendal. Lots of people

struggle to pay their energy bills. But all these things pale into

insignificance compared to the threat of climate change and we must

hold the Prime Minister to account on this issue. Argue reconciled to

the idea that as long as you're in coalition with the Tories you will

never get a mansion tax? I am not reconciled to it. We are trying to

give off other tax cut to the lowest income people. What about the

mansion tax? That would be potentially paid for by another view

source of finance. That would be that the wealthy... We know that is

what you want, but you're not going to get that? We will keep fighting

for it. It is extremely important. We can show where we will get the

money from. I know that is the adamant. That is not what I asked

you. Ed Balls and Labour run in favour of a mansion tax, have you

talked to them about it? The honest answer is I have not. It is

interesting that they have come round to supporting our policy

having rejected it in power. So if Labour was the largest party in

parliament but not in power, you would have no problem agreeing with

a mansion tax as part of the deal? If the arithmetic falls in that way

and that is the will of the British people, fear taxes on those who are

wealthiest, stuff that is fear, which includes wealth taxes, in

order to fund more reductions for those people on lowest incomes, that

is the sort of thing that we might reach agreement on. You voted with

Labour on the spare room subsidy. Again, that would be job done in any

future coalition talks with Labour, correct? I take the view that the

spare room subsidy, whilst entirely fail in principle, in practice it

has caused immense hardship. I want to see that changed. There are many

people in government to share my view on that. So does Labour. The

problem was largely caused Labour because they oversaw an increase in

housing costs both 3.5 times while they were in power. The government

was forced into a position to tidy up an appalling mess that Labour

left. You voted with Labour against it, and also, you want... No, I

voted with the party conference Let's not dance on the head of the

ten. Maybe they voted with me. - on the head of a pin. You are also in

favour of a 50% top rate of income tax, so you and Labour are that one

there as well? No, I take the view that the top rate of income tax is a

fluid thing. All taxation levels are temporary. Nick Clegg said that when

the 50p rate came down to 45, that was a rather foolish price tag

George Osborne asked for in return for as increasing the threshold and

letting several million people out of paying income tax at the bottom.

So you agree with Labour? In favour of rising the tax to 50p. I take the

view that we should keep our minds open on that. It is not the income

tax level that bothers me, it is whether the wealthy pay their fresh

air. If that can be done through other taxes, then that is something

that I am happy with. -- their fair share. Given your position on the

top rate of tax, on the spare room subsidy, how does the prospect of

another five years of coalition with the Tories strike you? The answer

is, you react with whatever you have about you to what the electorate

hand you. Whatever happens after the next election, you have got to

respect the will of the people. Yes, but how do you feel about it? We

know about this, I am asking for your feeling. Does your heart left

or does your heart fall at the prospect of another five years with

the Tories? My heart would always follow the prospect of anything

other than a majority of Liberal Democrat government. Your heart must

be permanently in your shoes then. Something like that, but when all is

said and done, we accept the will of the electorate. When you stand for

election, you have got to put up with what the electorate say. I have

not found coalition as difficult as you might suggest. It is about

people who have to disagree and agree to differ. You work with

people in your daily life that you disagree with. It is what grown ups

do. A lot of people in your party think that your positioning yourself

to be the left-wing candidate in a post-Nick Clegg leadership contest.

They think it is blatant manoeuvring. One senior figure says,

this is about you. Which bit of the sanctimonious, treacherous little

man is there not to like? What can I see in response to that. My job is

to promote the Liberal Democrats. I have to do my best to consider what

I'd defend to be right. By and large, my position as an MP in the

Lake District, but also as the president of the party, is to

reflect the will of people outside the Westminster village. That is the

important thing to do. Thank you for joining us. David Cameron has said

he wants to get it down to the tens of thousands, Ed Miliband has

admitted New Labour "got it wrong", and Nick Clegg wants to be

"zero-tolerant towards abuse". Yes, immigration is back on the political

agenda, with figures released earlier this week showing that net

migration is on the rise for the first time in two years. And that's

not the only reason politicians are talking about it again.

The issue of immigration has come into sharp focus because of concerns

about the number of remaining ins and Bulgarians that can come to the

UK next year. EU citizenship grants the right to free movement within

the EU. But when Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, the

government took up its right to apply temporary restrictions on

movement. They must be lifted apply temporary restrictions on

end of this year. According to the 2011 census, about one eyed 1

million of the population in England and Wales is made up of people from

countries who joined the EU in 004. The government has played down

expectations that the skill of migration could be repeated. This

week David Cameron announced new restrictions on the ability of EU

migrants to claim benefits. That was two, send a message. That prompted

criticism is that the UK risks being seen as a nasty country. Yvette

Cooper joins me now for the Sunday interview. Welcome to the Sunday

Politics, Yvette Cooper. You criticised the coalition for not

acting sooner on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria but the

timetable for the unrestricted arrival in January was agreed under

Labour many years ago, and given the battle that you had with the Polish

and the Hungarians, what preparations did you make in power?

We think that we should learn from some of the things that happened

with migration. It would have been better to have transitional controls

in place and look at the impact of what happened. But what preparations

did you make in power? We set out a series of measures that the

Government still had time to bring in. It is important that this should

be a calm and measured debate. There was time to bring in measures around

benefit restrictions, for example, and looking at the impact on the

labour market, to make sure you do not have exploitation of cheap

migrant Labour which is bad for everyone. I know that but I have

asked you before and I am asking again, what did you do? We got

things wrong in Government. I understand that I am not arguing.

You are criticising them not preparing, a legitimate criticism,

but what did you do in power? Well, I did think we did enough. Did you

do anything? We signed the agency workers directive but too slowly. We

needed measures like that. We did support things like the social

chapter and the minimum wage, but I have said before that we did not do

enough and that is why we recommended the measures in March. I

understand that is what you did in opposition and I take that. I put

the general point to you that given your failure to introduce controls

on the countries that joined in 2004, alone among the major EU

economies we did that, should we not keep an embarrassed silence on these

matters? You have no credibility. I think you have got to talk about

immigration. One of the things we did not do in Government was

discussed immigration and the concerns people have and the

long-term benefits that we know have come from people who have come to

Britain over many generations contributing to Britain and having a

big impact. I think we recognise that there are things that we did

wrong, but it would be irresponsible for us not to join the debate and

suggest sensible, practical measures that you can introduce now to

address the concerns that people have, but also make sure that the

system is fair and managed. Immigration is important to Britain

but it does have to be controlled and managed in the right way. Let's

remind ourselves of your record on immigration. The chart you did not

consult when in power. This is total net migration per year under Labour.

2.2 million of net rise in migration, more than the population

of Birmingham, you proud of that? -- twice the population. Are you proud

of that or apologising for it? We set the pace of immigration was too

fat and the level was too high and it is right to bring migration down.

So you think that was wrong? Overruled have been huge benefits

from people that have come to Britain and built our biggest

businesses. -- overall. They have become Olympic medal winners. But

because the pace was too fast, that has had an impact. That was because

of the lack of transitional controls from Eastern Europe and it is why we

should learn from that and have sensible measures in place now, as

part of what has got to be a calm debate. These are net migration

figures. They don't often show the full figure. These are the

immigration figures coming in. What that chart shows is that in terms of

the gross number coming into this country, from the year 2000, it was

half a million a year under Labour. Rising to 600,000 by the time you

were out of power. A lot of people coming into these crowded islands,

particularly since most of them come to London and the South East. Was

that intentional? Was that out of control? Is that what you are now

apologising for? What we said was that the Government got the figures

wrong on the migration from Eastern Europe. If you remember particularly

there was the issue of what happened with not having transitional

controls in place. The Government didn't expect the number of people

coming to the country to be the way it was. And so obviously mistakes

were made. We have recognised that. We have also got to recognise that

this is something that has happened in countries all over the world We

travel and trade far more than ever. We have an increasingly globalised

economy. Other European countries have been affected in the same way,

and America, and other developing countries affected in the same way

by the scale of migration. I am trying to work out whether the

numbers were intentional or if you lost control. The key thing that we

have said many times and I have already said it to you many times,

Andrew, that we should have a transitional controls in place on

Eastern Europe. I think that would have had an impact on them level of

migration. We also should have brought in the points -based system

earlier. We did bring that in towards the end and it did restrict

the level of low skilled migration because there are different kinds of

migration. University students coming to Britain brings in billions

of pounds of investment. On the other hand, low skilled migration

can have a serious impact on the jobs market, pay levels and so on at

the low skilled end of the labour market. We have to distinguish

between different kinds of migration. You keep trying to excuse

the figures by talking about the lack of transitional controls. Can

we skip the chart I was going to go to? The next one. Under Labour, this

is the source of where migrants came from. The main source was not the

accession countries or the remainder of Europe. Overwhelmingly they were

from the African Commonwealth, and the Indian subcontinent.

Overwhelmingly, these numbers are nothing to do with transitional

controls. You can control that immigration entirely because they

are not part of the EU. Was that a mistake? First of all, the big

increase was in the accession groups. Not according to the chart.

In terms of the increase, the changes that happened. Secondly in

answer to the question that you just asked me, we should also have

introduced the points -based system at an earlier stage. Thirdly there

has been a big increase in the number of university students coming

to Britain and they have brought billions of pounds of investment. At

the moment the Government is not distinguishing, it is just using the

figure of net migration. And that is starting to go up again, as you said

in the introduction, but the problem is that it treats all kinds of

migration is aimed. It does not address illegal immigration, which

is a problem, but it treats university graduates coming to

Britain in the same way as low skilled workers. If Labour get back

into power, is it your ambition to bring down immigration? We have

already said it is too high and we would support measures to bring it

down. You would bring it down? There is something called student visas,

which is not included in the figures, and it does not include

university graduates, and it is a figure that has increased

substantially in recent years. They come for short-term study but they

do not even have to prove that they come for a college course. They do

not even have to have a place to come. Those visas should be

restricted to prevent abuse of the system and that is in line with a

recommendation from the Inspectorate and that is the kind of practical

thing that we could do. Can you give us a ballpark figure of how much

immigration would fall? You have seen the mess that Theresa May has

got into with her figures. She made a target that it is clear to me that

she will not meet. I think that is right. She will not meet it. Can you

give as a ballpark figure by which we can judge you? If she had been

more sensible and taken more time to listen to experts and decide what

measures should be targeted, then she would not be in this mess. You

cannot give me a figure? She has chosen net migration. She has set a

target, without ifs and buts. I think it is important not to have a

massive gap between the rhetoric and reality. Not to make promises on

numbers which are not responsible. OK, you won't give me a figure.

Fine. Moving on to crime. 10,00 front line police jobs have gone

since 2010 but crime continues to fall. 7% down last year alone. When

you told the Labour conference that you do not cut crime by cutting the

police, you were wrong. I think the Government is being very complacent

about what is happening to crime. Crime patterns are changing. There

has been an exponential increase, and that is in the words of the

police, in online crime. We have also seen, for example, domestic

violence going up, but prosecutions dropping dramatically. There is a

serious impact as a result of not having 10,000 police in place. You

have talked about the exponential increase in online and economic

crime. If those are the big growth areas, why have bobbies on the beat?

That would make no difference. It is about an approach to policing that

has been incredibly successful over many years, which Labour introduced,

which is neighbourhood policing in the community is working hard with

communities to prevent crime. People like to see bobbies on the beat but

have you got any evidence that it leads to a reduction in crime?

Interestingly, the Lords Stevens commission that we set up, they have

reported this week and it has been the equivalent of a Royal

commission, looking at the number of people involved in it. Their strong

recommendation was that this is about preventing crime but also

respectful law and order, working with communities, and so they

strongly took the view with all of their expertise and the 30 different

universities that they have involved with it, that on the basis of all

that analysis, the right thing was to keep bobbies on the beat and not

push them cars. Instinctively you would think it was true. More

visible policing, less crime. But in all the criminology work, I cannot

find the evidence. There is competing work about why there has

been a 20 year drop in overall crime and everybody has different opinions

on why that has happened. The point about neighbourhood policing is that

it is broader than crime-fighting. It is about prevention and community

safety. Improving the well-being of communities as well. Will you keep

the elected Police Commissioners? Big sigh! What the report said was

that the system is flawed. We raised concern about this at the beginning.

You will remember at the elections, Theresa May's flagship policy, at

the elections they cost ?100 million and there was 15% turnout. You have

to have a system of accountability at the police. Three options were

presented, all of which are forms. So you have to have reform. It is

not whether to have reformed, it is which of those options is the best

way to do it. The commission set out a series of options, and I thought

that the preferable approach would be collaboration and voluntary

mergers. We know they won't volunteer. There have been some

collaboration is taking place. I think the issues with police and

crime commissioners have fragmented things and made it harder to get

collaboration between police forces. Everybody is asking this

question, just before you go. What is it like living with a nightmare?

Who does all the cooking, so I can't complain! Says Miliband people are

wrong, he is a dream cook? He is! In a speech this week, Boris Johnson

praised greed and envy as essential for economic progress, and that has

got tongues wagging. What is the Mayor of London up to? What is his

game plan? Does he even have a game plan and does he know if he has one?

Flash photography coming up. Boris. In many ways I can leave it there.

You'd know who I meant. And if you didn't, the unruly mop of blonde

hair would tell you, the language. Ping-pong was invented on the dining

tables of England. Somehow pulling off the ridiculous to the sublime.

It is going to go zoink off the scale! But often having to speed

away from the whiff-whaff of scandal. Boris, are you going to

save your manage? There's always been a question about

him and his as role as mayor and another prized position, as hinted

to the Tory faithful this year at conference, discussing former French

Prime Minister Alan Juppe. -- Alain Juppe. He told me he was going to be

the mayor of Bordeaux. I think he may have been mayor well he was

Prime Minister, it is the kind of thing they do in funds -- AvD in

France. It is a good idea, if you ask me. But is it a joke? He is much

more ambitious. Boris wants to be Prime Minister more than anything

else. Perhaps more than he wants to be made of London. The ball came

loose from the back of the scrum. Of course it would give great thing to

have a crack at, but it is not going to happen. He might be right. First,

the Conservatives have a leader another Old Etonian, Oxford,

Bullingdon chap and he has the job Boris might like a crack at. What do

you do with a problem like Boris? It is one of the great paradoxes of

Tory politics that for Boris Johnson to succeed, David Cameron must feel.

Boris needs David Cameron to lose so that he can stand a chance of

becoming loser. -- becoming leader. And disloyalty is punished by

Conservatives. Boris knows the man who brought down Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Heseltine, who Boris replaced as MP for Henley, never got

her job. In 1986, she took on the member for Henley, always a risky

venture. And why might he make such a jibe, because he's won two more

elections than the PM. Conservatives like a winner. Boris, against Robert

expectations, has won the Mayor of London job twice. -- public. He

might've built a following with the grassroots but he's on shakier

ground with many Tory MPs, who see him as a selfish clown, unfit for

high office. And besides, he's not the only one with king-sized

ambition, and Boris and George are not close, however much they may

profess unity. There is probably some Chinese expression for a

complete and perfect harmony. Ying and yang. But in plain black and

white, if Boris has a plan, it's one he can't instigate, and if David

Cameron is PM in 2016, it may not be implementable. He'd need a seat and

it wouldn't be plain sailing if he did make a leadership bid. My

leadership chances, I think I may have told you before, or about as

good as my chances of ying reincarnated as a baked bean. Which

is probably quite high. So if the job you want with Brown-esque desire

is potentially never to be yours what do you do? He is, of course, an

American citizen by birth. He was born in New York public hospital,

and so he is qualified to be President of the United States. And

you don't need an IQ over 16 to find that the tiniest bit scary.

Giles Dilnot reporting. Helen Lewis, Janan Ganesh and Sam Coates are

here. Is there a plan for Boris and if so, what is it? I think the plan

is for him to say what he thinks the Tory activist base wants to hear

just now. He knows that in 18 months time they can disown it. I think he

is wrong, the way the speech has played has a limited number of

people. He has cross-party appeal. He has now reconfirmed to people

that the Tories are the nasty party and they have been pretending to be

modernised. Is it not the truth that he needs David Cameron to lose the

2015 election to become leader in this decade? It is very interesting

watching his fortunes wax and wane. It always seems to happen in inverse

proportion to how well David Cameron is doing in front of his own party.

There is no small element of strategy about what we are doing

here. The problem with Boris is that he's popular with the country, but

hard-core supporters. This was an hard-core supporters. This was an

appeal to the grassroots this week. He is not the only potential

candidate. If we were in some kind candidate. If we were in some kind

of circumstance where Boris was a runner to replace Mr Cameron, who

with the other front the? I think it will skip a generation. The recent

intake was ideological assertive. I do not buy the idea that it will be

Jeremy Hunt against Michael Gove. I then, that generation will be

tainted by being in government. It is interesting, what is he trying to

pull? He is ideological. He does not believe in many things, but he

believes in a few things quite deeply, and one is the idea of

competition, both in business and academic selection. He has never

been squeamish about expressing that. We do make mistakes sometimes,

assuming he is entirely political. Look at all the Northern voters who

will not vote for the Tories even though they are socially or economic

will not vote for the Tories even the Conservatives. I do not think he

helps. Who in the Tories would help? That is a tough question. To

reason me has also been speaking to the hard right. -- Theresa May. I

have been out with him at night It is like dining with a film star

People are queueing up to speak to him. Educational selection is one of

the few areas that he can offer He has gone liberal on immigration as

are made of London would have to. Good morning. Coming up this week,

the schools Minister David Laws says attainment among poor people in

North East schools is unacceptable. We have an exclusive interview. With

me to discuss education issues are...

First, the loss of NPower jobs in Sunderland. With energy bills rising

and Labour promising a price freeze, the job losses come at a politically

sensitive time. James Wharton who represents four the `` Thornaby has

been warning politicians not to score points at this time. We have

seen a lot of politicians making quite cheap populist points to try

to win over easy votes about energy prices and electricity companies.

The reality is that full `` that will impact on jobs, share prices.

These are not easy issues to resolve.

Let's talk to our politicians here. James Wharton says you are playing

politics. It is ironic that the Prime Minister has decided to come

round to Labour point of view in asking the energy companies to

freeze bills. I do not think we can call it a cheap point any more.

People have high bills to pay, and they need as much help as they can

get. If we did not have privatised energy companies in the first place,

it would be easier to make the changes.

Labour is not going to scrap the privatisation of these businesses

however? That is right, but we have published a green paper that looks

at all of the different ways that we can fix the market during the 20

month period when bills would be frozen. I am going to stop you

there. Labour was right to point out these job losses in the north`east

say something about these companies. You cannot fix the energy

market. That is the real problem. If we are going to do something about

energy prices, we need to do something significant. I think the

best opportunity is something like fracking. Since fighting came into

the United States, energy prices have fallen by about 20%. That sort

of thing can make a real difference. Some people like the idea fracking,

some people it. I do not want to debate that. But these jobs and the

behaviour of the company, is the behaviour of NPower indicative of

their behaviour to customers as well? Ethic it says and points out

that in the north`east we are dependent on too small a of large

employers. Some in the private sector is, some public. `` I think

it says. But there are lots of new private sector jobs being created.

Automotive jobs, renewable jobs. The Conservatives are right that there

is a bit of jeopardy here. If you mess with the markets, you hit

companies like NPower. I do not think it is a fair claim to make. In

the run`up to 1997 when Labour were proposing to have a tax on the

profits of utility companies, the Tory government at that time said it

would be a disaster, the energy companies will respond badly, but

those things it did not happen. We were able to carry that out. It did

not have a negative effect. We do need a supply of good jobs in small

businesses in the North East. That is something I am passionate about.

But the position on quayside, we have seen closures of key

employers. `` Teesside. This week saw a prison in the North

East taken over by a private company.

In the Northumberland countryside, a landmark for over 40 years. Each MP

Northumberland. `` `` HMP Northumberland. Sodexho has

taken over the running of this prison. They want to cut jobs. They

are talking about the redundancy of front`line prison staff, prison

officers, principal officers, who will go away from the supervision of

prisoners on the ground. There could be a riot , anything. This woman has

lived near the prison for 12 years, she is worried about the future. How

will they were staff managed to control these prisoners? There could

be an escape. Sodexho did not want to be interviewed, but said...

If we can bring in new ideas, bring in benefits, that is fine, but that

must be on the basis that there are enough officers to ensure its

safety. Prison takeovers are something new

and there is a `` there is apprehension here.

Are people right to be worried? I do not think they need to be worried.

We are used to having public services provided by people in the

public sector. GPs, dentists, they are all private. As long as things

are controlled and regulated in the proper manner, this could deliver

better services for less and that sounds like something that is worth

looking at. If this saves money for the

taxpayer, is more efficient, it is good news? It is putting profit

ahead of public safety. It is all very well for Sodexho Justice saying

it will be safe and secure, but we have seen the new prison at oak`wood

receiving an appalling report the inspectorate.

The last Labour government ended up with private prisons. We have not

got off lenders roaming the streets. `` off `` offenders. Serco is under

investigation by the fraud squad for potential criminal activity. This is

the sort of thing we are dealing with.

Is this just about the dogma of privatisation? I do not think so.

The last Labour government pursued privatisation. There are lots of

examples where there are superb public services provided by public

servant `` private companies. Neither one nor the other is

dogmatically right. Public services provided by public employees is not

necessarily always the late thing either. `` always the right thing

either. The prison Governors Association have told me that

prisons in the public sector now are operating on a benchmarked system

now. Every year, schools and colleges in

our region seem to celebrate better results. But secondary schools in

our region are below average compared to similar schools and

other region. `` in other regions. Is it time for radical action?

These pupils in Durban speak French. Results here at this community

School are on the up. But in other parts of the North East and Cumbria,

it is a less positive picture. There are big issues for the North East,

we still have a long way to travel in terms of matching the performance

of other regions. This goes inspectorate, Ofsted,

shares those concerns. It says... As the North East and Cumbria aims

to improve education, one area they are looking at very closely is

London and schools like this one. Here in the capital, results are

gone from being among the worst in the country to among the best. Some

put that down to a scheme called London challenge. London challenge

is about school to school support and offering challenges to head

teachers. You could be directed to schools in London where the

expertise lay so you could improve your school's potential. It was very

ambitious, saying there is nothing we cannot do? Absolutely. Those lead

advisers questioned those headteachers and those schools have

improved. The London challenge ran for eight years and saw the biggest

improvement among pupils from hard up families. No teachers in the

North East are campaigning for a similar approach here. It is

important that they have coordination so that schools can

work together. The expertise is here already. You would like to see extra

money from the government to help with this? I think it will need

extra money if it is going to be effective. We do not need huge sums

of money. But we do need some additional funding if we are going

to buy that time that we need for people to work together effectively.

But with Ofsted demanding rapid improvement, that time to improve

may be in short supply. We spoke to the schools Minister

David Laws. It does worry me that some parts of the country have a

lower proportion of good and outstanding schools. We want all

parents to be able to access a good or outstanding school and where

there is a shortfall in this, we need to take action. Ofsted has gone

into Northumberland because it is so worried. If it finds the council is

at fault, would you take action? If we find that our local authority is

failing in its duties, we will take action. We would expect to make a

judgement about whether a particular authority is capable of improving,

whether it has a strong plan for improving. One wider concern is the

attainment, or lack of attainment, by three school meal pupils. `` free

school meals. The premium that we have Britain has only been for a few

years. `` that we have put in. We are expecting a massive improvement

in the performance of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. In

many parts of the North East, attainment by disadvantaged young

people is just not good enough. It is unacceptable to us.

Who is to blame for that, is it the schools, the local authorities? We

understand why it is difficult for those schools. Often those

youngsters are not getting the right support in the home environment. But

the experience of London shows that even when youngsters playing into

the school environment fireman `` bring into the school environment a

lot of problems, the school can do a lot about that. Here in London, we

have had a revolution in the performance of disadvantaged

youngsters with many of them doing just as well as those from more

normal backgrounds. That is the type of improvement they expect to see

throughout the country. Michael Gove has talked about a culture of

defeatism, do you think that is the problem? I am not going to comment

on every school or part of the North East, because I know that there are

lots of schools with real aspiration and passion, but sometimes there can

be communities with a tradition of economic decline and households

where nobody has gone into higher education and sometimes teachers in

those areas tell me they have great difficulty in getting aspirations at

the right level. Parents and schools need to work together with the

government. There are good schools in the

north`east, but there appears be a problem, what is to blame? There are

good schools, but it is a problem. We have lots of unemployed young

people and yet we have skills shortages. Unless we do something

about it, we will find those jobs are taken by workers from abroad.

What can we do about it? We need a schools challenge in the North East,

that was recommended by the recent review. But without the money

available to London. There is enough money in the system. The sums of

money that are required are available. It has to be the very top

of the agenda and all of us have to be involved. This is needs to be

involved with local schools. Acting as mentors, guiding the curriculum,

giving apprenticeships. It is hard to avoid the conclusion

that our council 's shoulder the blame here? `` that our councils. It

is very rich of David Laws to point the finger. It is ironic that the

London challenge was set up by a Labour government. In the North

East, there are some areas that do not perform as well as other areas,

but on balance, we do better than our neighbours in Yorkshire and the

Humber. In your area of Stockton, 24% of pupils on free school

meals... It is not acceptable to point the finger at councils. David

Laws is talking about children arriving at school ill`prepared. Yet

we have seen cuts to sure start. Underinvestment in school supports

services. The educational maintenance allowance scrapped. The

connection service has been devastated. And 500 fewer teachers

in North East schools. None of those things are exclusive to the North

East. But it is worse here. What they should is where there is a

focus, there are solutions and improvements that can be put into

place. At the end of the day, we have to take local responsibility.

Local authorities who have that responsibility have to take the lead

for driving the North East schools challenge. That is what they must

do. There are some political issues but

will always arose passions. `` arouse.

Cumbria County Council is planning to cut all subsidies for buses.

Added 70 services are likely to disappear. `` aren't 70 services.

Does the Minister think it is right that a London`based company wants to

place two wind turbines bigger than the London eye in our region?

The issue of apprenticeships was debated. They have only been at work

for a year, but now a review commissioned by Labour says police

and crying commissioners should be abolished. `` Police and

and crying commissioners should be picked out. People thought

touching on eugenics and things like that. That is all we have time for.

Thank you. What rabbit has George Osborne got up his sleeve? And

what's David Cameron up to in China? All questions for The Week Ahead. To

help the panel led, we are joined by Kwasi Kwarteng, Tory MP. Welcome to

the Sunday Politics. Why has the government been unable to move the

agenda and to the broad economic recovery, and allowed the agenda to

stay on Labour's ground of energy prices and living standards? Energy

has been a big issue over the last few months but the autumn state and

will be a wonderful opportunity to readdress where we are fighting the

ground, the good economic news that we delivered. If you look at where

Labour were earlier this year, people were saying they would they 5

million people unemployed. They were saying that there should be a plan

B. He is not in the Labour Party? Elements of the left were suggesting

it. Peter Hain told me it would be up to 3 million people. Danny

Blanchflower said it would be 5 million people. So we have got to

get the economy back to the centre of the debate? Yes, the game we were

playing was about the economy. That was the central fighting ground of

the political debate. We were winning that battle. Labour have

cleverly shifted it onto the cost of living. It is essential that the

government, that George, talks about the economy. That has been its great

success. I do not think this has been a week of admitting that Labour

was right, plain cigarettes packaging, other issues. If you look

at the big picture, where we are with the economy, we have the

fastest growing economy in the G-7. Despite Labour's predictions, none

of this has happened, none of the triple dip has happened. The British

economy is on a good fitting. That is a good story for the government

to bat on. You say that people have stopped talking about the economic

recovery, but it is worse than that, people have stopped talking about

the deficit? As long as people were talking about the deficit, the

Tories were trusted. But people have forgotten about it. This country

still spends ?100 billion more than it raises. Yes, I am of the view

that the deficit, the national debt, is the biggest question facing

this generation of politicians. You are right to suggest that the

Conservative Party was strong on this. That head, not deficit, is not

going to come down in the foreseeable future? It is rising.

This is a test that George Osborne is not going to pass. We know what

is coming in the Autumn Statement, it is lots of giveaways, paying for

free school meals, paying for fuel duty subsidies. We are still talking

about the cost of living, not changing it actively wider economy.

There might be extra money for growth but it is not clear what will

happen to that. If it is time for giveaways, let's speak about Labour.

I have never been a fan of giveaways. Fiscal prudence is what

our watchword should be. Look at the headlines. Each time, the deficit

figures, the debt figures, were always worse than predicted. This

year it will be significantly better. I think that is significant.

Any kind of recovery is probably better than no recovery at all. When

you look at this recovery, it is basically a consumer spending boom.

Consumer spending is up, business investment is way down compared with

2008, and exports, despite a 20 devaluation, our flat. Let's get one

thing straight, it is a recovery. Any recovery is better than no

recovery. Now we can have a debate about, technical debate about the

elements of the recovery. It is not technical, it is a fact. There is

evidence that there is optimism in terms of what are thinking...

Optimism? If I am optimistic about the economy, I am more likely to

spend money and invest in business. So far you have not managed that?

Exports have not done well either? Exports are not a big section of the

British economy. But of course, they are important. But given where we

were at the end of last year, no economist was saying that we would

be in this robust position today. That is true, in terms of the

overall recovery. Now the PM loves to "bang the drum abroad for British

business" and he's off to China this evening with a plane-load of British

business leaders. And it's not the first time. Take a look at this

Well, you might not think exports unimportant, but clearly the Prime

Minister and the Chancellor do. They are important, but they are not what

is driving the growth at the moment. We used to talk about the need for

export led recovery is, that is why the Prime Minister is going to

China. Absolutely, and he's doing the right thing. Do we have any

evidence that these tend of trips produce business? The main example

so far is the right to trade the Chinese currency offshore. London

has a kind of global primacy. London will be the offshore centre. Is that

a good thing? I have no problem at all with this sort of policy. I do

not think that Britain has been doing this enough compared with

France and Germany in recent years. I am optimistic in the long term

about this dish -- about British exports to China. China need machine

tools and manufacturing products. In 20 years time, China will be buying

professional groups, educational services, the things we excel at.

All we need to do is consolidate our strengths, stand still and we will

move forward. The worst thing we can do is reengineer the economy towards

those services and away from something else. We have a lot of

ground to make up, Helen? At one stage, it is no longer true, but at

one stage you could say that we exported more to Ireland, a country

of 4 million people, than we did to Russia, China, India, Brazil, all

combined. I believe we form 1% of Chinese imports now. The problem is

what you have to give up in exchange for that. It is a big problem for

David Cameron's credibility that he has had to row back on his meeting

with the Dalai llama. This trip we have been in the deep freeze with

China for a couple of years. This trip has come at a high cost. We

have had to open up the City of London to Chinese banks without much

scrutiny, we have had to move the date of the Autumn Statement, and

there is no mention of human rights. It is awkward to deal with that all

in the name of getting up to where we were a few years ago. A month

after strong anchor -- one month after Sri Lanka, where he apologised

three human rights abuses, this is difficult to take. Do we have any

idea what the Prime Minister hopes to do in China this time? I am not

sure there is anything specific but when you go to these countries,

certainly in the Middle East China, they complain, why has the Prime

Minister not come to see us? That is very important. High-level

delegations from other countries go to these places because the addict

-- because they are important export markets. You might look at the Prime

Minister playing cricket over there, and wonder, what is that for? I do

not mind the Prime Minister Rajoy cricket. This is a high visibility

mission, chose that politicians in Britain care. You are part of the

free enterprise group. It had all sorts of things on it like tax cuts

for those on middle incomes or above the 40% bracket, tax cuts worth 16

billion. You will get none of that on Thursday, we are agreed? No. But

he does have two budgets between now and the election and if the fiscal

position is using a little bit, he may have more leeway than it looked

like a couple of months ago. Yes, from a free enter prise point of

view, we have looked at the tax cuts that should be looked at. The 4 p

rate comes in at quite a low level for people who, in the south-east,

do not feel particularly wealthy. They are spending a lot of money on

commuting, energy bills. The Chancellor has been very open about

championing this. He says that the 40p rate will kick in at a slightly

higher rate. Labour had a bad summer and the opinion polls seem to be

narrowing. Then they had a good hearty conference season. The best.

Has the Labour lead solidified or increased the little, maybe up to

eight points? If it is a good Autumn Statement, or the Tories start to

narrow that lead by the end of the year? If they go into 2014 trailing

by single digits, they cannot complain too much. That gives them

18 months to chip away at Labour's lead. But do they do that chipping

away by eight bidding Labour or do they let time take its course and

let the economic recovery continue, maybe business investment joins

consumer spending as a source of that recovery, and a year from now,

household disposable income begins to rise? That is a better hope than

engaging in a bidding war. Be assured, they will be highly

political budgets. That's all for today. The Daily Politics is on BBC

Two at midday all this week, except on Thursday when we'll start at

10:45 to bring you live coverage and analysis of the Chancellor's Autumn

Statement in a Daily Politics special for BBC Two and the BBC News

Channel. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.