01/12/2013 Sunday Politics North West

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 top. The Mayor of London says

inequality and greed are essential to spur economic activity. The

speech And in the north`west, the face`off

over fracking. In the last generation,

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 not with the party's MPs and its

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

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

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.

Hello I'm Arif Ansari, coming up in the North West: Face`off over

fracking ` the row over shale gas hots up. My guests this week are

Andrew Gwynne, the Labour MP for Denton and Reddish. And Sajj Karim,

one of our three Conservative members of the European Parliament.

Andrew, Labour has been setting out its energy policies this week, where

do you stand on fracking? The extraction of gas is an important

part of equal energy mix, but that can't be at the expense of nuclear

power, it can't be at the expense of renewables, or of carbon capture and

storage. We do have some concerns about shale gas extraction, and we

think there needs to be put in place a proper regulatory framework and

proper testing done so that we have the assurances that if and when

shale gas extraction is done on an industrial scale that those

communities affected by that can have the full assurance that it is

safe and secure. Sajj Karim, where do you stand? I have been receiving

representation of your constituents across the board, particularly from

the area is likely to be affected. There must be an evidence `based

approach to this, and we must make sure that as part of that approach

health and safety issues that are being raised by constituents, which

regularly in relation to how their localities are being affected, our

break at the top. Knows our fears, would they? Fears rather than

evidence. That is why I say we must make sure that we take an evidence

`based approach. One that brings in the fears that constituents are

raising and we deal with those fears on an evidence base rather than a

speculative base. Those against fracking face of gigs police in

Salford this week as pensions rose over the possible of shale gas. Igas

was preparing for test drilling not fracking, but protesters say they'll

fight the company every step of the way because of environmental

concerns. Euan Doak has more. Barton Moss in Salford. The latest

stand by protestors opposed to fracking and the most

confrontational so far in the North West. No one what fracking in the

UK! The nature of this protest is different. Seasoned campaigners from

Balcombe in Sussex have set up camp near the site and they are being

supported by a cross section of local people. I am quite surprised

to find a wide range of people that are here, from all age groups, for

instance in our first meeting we fed a wide range of environmental groups

coming down. Lay people, people from the local area, people from all

across Manchester. Though small in number, the determination of the

protestors to stop the lorries from getting led to tussles with police

and there were five arrests this week. The site itself is bordered by

the airport on one side and the M6 two behind it. Three quarters of a

mile to the east a housing estate and two schools. And its from there

that local people have come to support the protestors. I am very

worried about the health impact The impact in a general sense on people

's lives from the noise, but more than anything else the possibility

of emissions from the process that will affect their quality. We have

the quality down there already and this will make it worse and some of

the chemicals are toxic and make the dangers.

The company Igas already operates in the North West and say the drilling

at Barton Moss is to understand the geology of the area more and whether

they may find methane or shale gas. This is about trying to reassure the

public that we as an industry are behaving in a safe and

environmentally responsible manner. We recognise the concerns about the

water resource. A point of building and constructing the well is to

ensure that we do not in any way introduce foreign bodies into those

aquifers. Campaigners are worrying test drilling could lead to

fracking. As the lorries over more women in the coming weeks, the

protests are likely to continue Sajj Karim, what is your view of the

protests question mark as long as the protester within the agreement

of the war, that is absolutely fine. It is essential that as part of any

democratic says people are able to raise their concerns. Oliver, having

said all that, it is absolutely essential that we do concentrate our

efforts on the evidence that is coming forward and if we allow the

environmental impact studies to be studied in great detail, and then

take an approach, keep in Parliament health and safety concerns. I do not

understand what you're worried about, all of the major studies have

said that it is safe. I can only repeat what I have said before, that

we must make sure that all the studies and the evidence that is

coming forward from them are taken into account, will be making

decisions as to whether we will proceed with this or not. Is the

Coalition government to keen on fracking in your view? I don't think

it is at all, we are taking the right approach. We are being very

cautious and saying, let's have the environment studies, let's make sure

we take an evidence `based approach in the, it would be quite

irresponsible to give the green light or a red light without having

considered all of the facts that exist here. I am not sure what the

safety issues are. Part of the problem is that there has not been

any major testing. But of course, people's experiences from elsewhere

around the globe sure that there have been concerns. Firstly the

pollution of ground water is a concern,

pollution of ground water is a but there are the regulatory system

is quite different. Absolutely but there it is chicken and egg. We must

have UK regulatory system in place in this country and we do not have

that yet. That is one of the reasons why Barbara Keenan is absolutely

correct in raising her constituent's concerns, because this

site in Salford is very closely heavily built`up area. Many of the

areas in the United States where there has been shale gas extraction

are in parts of the country that are nowhere near two major centres of

population. Of course when you are looking at doing this in a country

like the latest kingdom, you have to be absolutely correct that you do

not have polluted water courses you do not have meeting leaking out and

you do not create the tremors. It could potentially be quite good for

the people of Salford, couldn't it? If they go ahead with fracking and

the plan is that local people benefit financially from that, it

could be good for the community There is a lot of it's there, and we

have got to get through the first set of hurdles and that is to have a

proper regulatory system in voice in order to understand exactly what

fracking means for the communities, whether it is a routine duties or

rural communities. But I do think there is one important point. And

that is that unless we have the regulatory system in place this is

not going to be a game changer for the cost of living prices for gas

and electricity bills in this country. Not in any sense of the way

that I think this government thinks it might be. We have got to have a

proper mix of renewable energy, nuclear energy and the proper mix.

Sajj Karim, briefly, is there a possibility that we will not be able

to start fracking because the campaigns will keep destructing

every time they try to make a start? It is important that we realise that

this is one of the better decisions that there's going to be having an

impact not only on our economy but for the latest kingdom as a whole

and we must keep everything in perspective on that basis.

And there'll be a series of special reports on fracking on North West

Tonight this week, including from Ohio, where Peter Marshall's been to

assess the impact there. That's this week at half past six on BBC One.

"Has Britain Robbed its Children?" Strange question you might think.

But that's the view of one sixth former from Blackburn who reckons

his generation are suffering most from austerity and has won an essay

competition run by the New Statesman magazine. So on Lancashire Day Conor

Hamilton took us on a tour of the county to make his case.

Indymedia, young people are often portrayed as being selfish and

irresponsible. Although generations must pick up the pieces. I think it

is the other way around. I think the older generations have left too

little for those who have come later. Let's see what waggish

effects. You are invited on the flag is ready to partake of a waggish

hotpot. Did you think young people are at a disadvantage? I think they

are at a disadvantage because there aren't the same jobs that there once

was. It would be nice to see young and old mix more freely together.

Young people are missing out completely. They don't have the same

sort of life as we have. That life, according to the mayor of the Ribble

Valley, has just as many challenges. I have lived through the war, we had

things like rationing. They have it easier in some ways, immaterial

goods which are much more available. But the challenges we have our

different. So what are the challenges? First of all we have the

increasing cost of housing. Then we have the cost of education. Finally,

we have the impact of austerity and the national debt. All these things

together are combining to affect my generation's outlook. The immediate

outlook for these GCSEs students at a local school led them to prepare a

meal for added that to get as part of the course. I would like to think

that I will go to university, but obviously the fees that exist are so

high. They're always worries about getting a job. I want to go to

university and I have my future planned out. I am looking forward to

it. Not everyone is optimistic and that worries the Bishop of

Blackburn. The government can do more than that at the moment to help

young people, especially. How effective is the church to help

young people? I do not think we are very effective at all. We have much

to learn. If you look at the number of churches who do things for young

people it is smaller than it should be. I have heard from young people

and all people alike, and one thing that struck me is that everyone has

expressed concern over my generation's future in one form or

another. The question remains, what our politicians going to do to make

my generation's future more secure? We are also joined by Angus Hansen

from the intergenerational foundation, a charity that promotes

the interests of young people. Thank you for joining us. How are young

people doing in this region? The other generational foundation did a

study of different regions and find that the north`west was the fourth

worst out of the 12 regions in the UK. They had been particularly badly

when it comes to housing costs, as Connor said, there being cruelly in

relation to democracy, the average age of a councillor in the

north`west is over 60. They are doing cruelly English into

unemployment, it is very high on employment rates. It is not just

about how badly young people are doing, it is about, as Conor said,

the relationship between how badly they are doing and how well the

older generation of being relatively. It really is about

fairness between generations. Is there a wider gap in the north`west

and is in other parts of the country? Yes, there is. And housing

is one example. Any increase in house values is unequivocally a

transfer from young to all. The north`west has been very pure at the

building of new housing and housing costs are particularly expensive in

the north`west. You think that most of this comes down to the fact that

the north`west has certain economic and social factors, which we often

hear about, or is there something specific that is facing young people

in this region? It is a combination of things. We have looked at all

sorts of things, environmental damage and so on, and fill some

areas where the north`west does particularly well. In GCSE results

does better than average, spending on research and development, it is

doing better than most of the rest of the country. So it is not all

bad, it has a better dependency ratio, that is to say that there are

fewer older people to support in the north`west in relation to

population, so it is not bad. Andrew, do you agree that younger

people are being harder hit? I think that Conor's pieces very pertinent,

because there is an issue about young people and their role in

society and the highlight some very broad points. I think as politicians

we have got to give that generation a vision of hope for the future and

that is why I am very proud that we will be standing at the next

election on the ticket of having a new job guarantee. Youth

unemployment is a huge issue in my constituency and in many other

communities in the north`west. We have got to give young people more

training opportunities, obscure the population but also, he is

absolutely right, it is things like housing and living costs. The affect

all generations but the disproportionately hit the youngest

the hardest. Do you feel that the government austerity programme has

hit them harder than you would have liked them to? There is an issue

here because it was a very easy target in many respects to hit the

students with university the tuition fees being able, it was a very easy

hit to take away the education maintenance allowance. Do you think

they were deliberately targeted In a way that no government would be

able to remove the free bus pass or remove the winter fuel allowance to

the same extent as the young people have been hit. To put it crudely, it

is because young people is proportionately do not fought in the

same numbers as elderly people, so as a political hit it as much easier

to take things away from the young people, unfurling, because of course

we are our society for tomorrow They will be the taxpayer of

tomorrow. Do you agree, Sajj Karim, that young people have been unfairly

targeted? I think Conor is a fine example of a young person getting

involved with a view to try and improve things, I actually spent the

whole morning that Conor's School and indeed quite some time sat with

him and his colleagues from his class discussing a number of

issues, including participation from young people. I think it is

important. I see things across the European Union. I see the effect

that the current crisis is having on young people and places like Spain,

in Greece in Italy, where we have 50% unemployment among the years. I

look at what is happening in the UK and the numbers of extra jobs that

we have been able to create for young people. What did you see the

Conor when he said to you that the conservative and Lib Dem government

as head of harder and more unfairly than the older generation? Actually,

Conor did not say that to me at all. Conor was making some very powerful

point in the work that he has done. And in the discussions he has had

with me. About making sure that we have a greater engagement with young

people in the political processes. And he was being polite to you but

clearly he does believe... I don't think he was. That is the thrust of

his argument, I have read his essay. It is the point that Andrew is

making no, that politically it is too difficult to hit the older

generation because they are more likely to vote. That is not the

sense that I had it all. They were a very bright bunch of kids. The fact

of the matter is, we have got to ensure that our young children have

the opportunities to get ahead in life, whether that is the education

and whether that is to training Why would you answer the question that

I'm putting to you? I'm trying to. What we have got to do is make sure

that our young people have that opportunity, and what we're seeing

is that young people have got to carry on either in education or

training until the age of 18 as either a minimum. That is the

responsibility, that is a contract that we're getting to young and

seeing, we are willing to work with you. Let's work together on this. We

have far too many young people who have dropped out of the education

system simply because the government of the day has said to them that it

is right for you to sit back and do nothing to improve your condition.

Let me go back to Angus. Is there a solution to this? Is there anyway

that younger people 's voices will be heard for a locally? It is not

true that patronising approach. The younger people have clearly been

shattered by the baby boomers, fiscally. By taxes and benefits and

so on. We need to look again at things, not through a class or lens,

the lens of intergenerational fairness, to see that it is not just

young people losing out because things are tough, they are losing

out because we, and I am one of them, we need baby boomers have

taken too much. Too much in pensions and national debt and so on. There

really is an intergenerational conflict here. Thank you very much

indeed. Time for the rest of the week's news

now, here's Elaine Dunkley with 60 seconds. Rochdale Council's

investigating former Co`op Bank chairman Paul Flower's period as a

councillor there. Mr Flowers was Vice Chairman of Social Services

during an alleged Satanic abuse scandal.

The father of a woman murdered by her ex`boyfriend welcomed the

expansion of a scheme to tackle domestic abuse. Clare's Law allows

people to check if their partners have a history of violence. It's

being rolled out nationally after a pilot in Greater Manchester. There

was no reason that these lads should have anonymity. Especially at a cost

of someone's life. They can move from one partner to the next.

An independent review's started into the Isle of Man's health service.

Senior consultants raised concerns over standards at Noble's Hospital.

A record`breaking turnaround ` Wirral council's been taken out of

special measures after making improvements in double`quick time.

And Blackpool's received more than ?300,000 for a new visitor centre,

bird hides and other work at Marton Mere Nature Reserve.

You might remember in the past we've covered the campaign to keep open

the A and E department at Trafford General Hospital. Well this week it

was officially downgraded. Andrew, you still believe that is a mistake?

It is a mistake because we are currently going through process of

looking at hospital services across the whole of greater Manchester and

actually as we enter this winter, which many people are suggesting is

going to be a very difficult time for them in the National Health

Service, in the departments across the country are frankly at crisis

point, I worry that this downgrade at Trafford General Hospital is very

short`sighted because I think that many of the hospitals surrounding

the area are really going to struggle to pick up the pieces of an

AMD crisis that has David Cameron's fingerprint all over it. Has the

government made a mistake? These particles will point and not really

faded when it comes to dealing with the issues of peoples lives. We have

disputed ?250 million extra in the NHS in order to cater for the very

severe winter that we are to have. This will lead to 3000 extra jobs,

2500 extra beds. If you're talking about the travel Hospital in

particular the actual change of status started a the actual change

of status started another Labour government in the maternity units

were taken away. I had other local councillors were extreme hard to try

and preserve it as best as we possibly could and eventually it had

decayed `` take a decision that they could not pursue legal actions. Well

an inquiry was launched last month into the finances at Arrowe Park

Hospital in Wirral. Here's what the Chief Executive there had to say

this week about balancing the books. The whole of the NHS is facing a

huge challenge and we are having, the hospital does not work in

isolation and we are having to work with health care colleagues across

the whole of the will health economy when looking at how we do things

very differently. Given that we have rising demand for health care and

less resources available. How worried are you when you hear about

things like that? It is absolutely imperative that of all the areas

that we have we make sure that the NHS is operating. In a manner that

actually delivers a service for which we expect it to be working in

an absolutely a star basis. Andrew? It has taken all year for this

government to recognise they have had a summer AMD crisis and I fear

for the NHS in the winter. And is listed on the government making

mistakes and the pressure the NHS is under? Yell at the pressures the NHS

is under our guide to adult social care, ?2 billion to get out of the

adult social care budget, and this is now finding its way to the front

door of accident and emergency departments. Thank you very much. To

Andrew Quinn and Sajj Karim. And next week's the last programme

before Christmas. We'll be looking at the government's troubled

families programme. Join me then, but for now I'll hand you back to

Andrew Neil. picked out. People thought he was

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.