01/12/2013 Sunday Politics Wales

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

Later in the programme: Carwyn Jones to spur economic activity.

Later in the programme: Carwyn Jones has launched a public awareness

campaign on presumed consent organ donation, exactly two years to the

day before the Welsh Government's new system becomes law.

day before the Welsh Government's 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 08

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 2004.

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. 10,000

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 and on the Sunday Politics Wales: Are we suffering from PISA

panic as we await the next set of results which measure international

education standards? And the Welsh Government launches a

public awareness campaign on the change in law where people will be

presumed to be organ donors after death. Joining me throughout today's

programme are two AMs, Plaid Cymru's Simon Thomas and the Conservative

Suzy Davies. Let's start with the news that George Osborne has

announced plans that the government will cut and of -- average energy

bills by ?50 a year. It really is the hot topic at the moment, and he

has put down a marker. You are quite right, people are talking a lot

about it and he has put a sensible idea into the debate. Perhaps to

neutralise the information the Labour Party has brought out. We all

remember their promise which has since been identified as a con. The

idea of price freezing you talk about, it seems this week that the

government have been asking the energy companies to do just that.

That has been denied. Conversation always take place and if there is a

situation where the energy companies are saying, we can actually keep

prices down provide d hold prices don't go up too much, that is to be

applauded. They are also looking at the level of green taxes and

spreading it through general taxation where would be noticed as

much, that does not affect the less well-off people who have been quite

naturally complaining about the cost of energy bills. Simon Thomas, your

party outlined a specific policy on energy at the conference. Looking at

how the Conservatives and Labour are squabbling over what to do, what do

you think's you get ?50 from one and ?60 from the other. What is

important is we retain subsidies for this -- for the poorer people to get

installation. We must ensure that continues. If this money is coming

from that scheme, we must make sure the government does make sure the

money is there for the poorest households. In the long term, we're

not going to solve this. All this is a gimmick unless we solve the

fundamental problem which is that six companies have a kind of

monopoly. I work closely together, Camru say, and it looks strange how

the prices go up in similar time. We have to have a new entrant in the

market and encourage new people to come into the market. A Welsh

company could be established, which is the policy we floated at the last

conference. Two years from today, Wales will

become the first country in the UK to introduce a system where people

will be presumed to have agreed for their organs to be donated after

death. The so-called system of presumed consent will come in to

force on the first of December 2015, and as part of the countdown, the

Welsh Government has launched a campaign to raise awareness of the

changes. To kick that off, this family were

joined by two men more suited to the Cabinet table than the dinner

table, the health minister and the First Minister. This little girl is

five, but before her first birthday she had had to liver transplants and

heart surgery. Donated organs saved her life, and that is why her

parents Nathan and Laura decided to take part in the Welsh government's

campaign to make more people aware of the changes to the law on organ

donation. It has saved her life and saved a life of the family. Without

that donation, without somebody taking that little box, or in the

future of remaining in and opting in, she would not be here. She is a

lovely cheeky five-year-old now. We are very thankful for that. The

Welsh government has launched a website teacher in the stories of

families like this one. But that isn't the only way the government

want to spread the message that the law is changing. The First Minister

once families to have a discussion about families donating their organs

when they get together around the table for Sunday lunch. I was there

when the law went through the assembly, many hours of scrutinising

the bill. It got through, that scrutiny was right and proper, but

it shows that we can make a real difference in Wales to people 's

lives. We're not the first country to do this, but we are the first UK

nation to do this. We want to say, look, this system will help many

people. People can opt out if they want to, but the outcomes will be

fantastic in terms of more and more people having the get of life. The

health minister says the information campaign aims to make sure everyone

in Wales is aware of the changes in the law to any system which will

presume feeble consent -- people consent to organ donation. One MP is

against changing the law but wants to see more organ donations. The

government have decided to go with changing the law. I'm opposed to it.

I think it is a serious mistake. We have to look at the most effective

way. I would rather see them focus on more intensive care beds and more

specialist nurses, these are the areas where they would make a real

difference. I am not doing that, and I think information is going to be

one part of what they can do. Having said that, it is a move in the right

direction. As a result, this family have been able to have that

difficult decision about whether they would want to donate their

organs in the future. Over the next two years, the Welsh government want

many families to do the same. The First Minister that talks about the

debate continuing even though the law has been passed. It is going to

be different and difficult. It will, I remember the debate. The

government set aside I think up to ?10 million for the information that

is needed will stop this comes in after 18. So students need to be

aware of it. There is a lot of work to be done here. It is the assembly

that has ratified the law and it was a majority vote. We took the view

after a lot of careful consideration that the Welsh public as a whole

were ready for this kind of presumed consent. Now we have to make sure

people are aware that they can still join the register, but if they

really don't want to donate organs, they have to make that known either

formally but also to their family and friends, because there is a safe

guard back, if you have made your views clear to family and friends,

that will safeguard your body in the event of a nastier accident

whatever. You said the Welsh government were ready for it, but

you went, where you? You voted against it. I voted against it for a

very specific concern. If there was a situation where people presumed to

know everything there was to know about a particular act, that is

never going to happen in real life, regardless of how much money the

government puts up and however efficiently it is communicated all

stop there will always be someone who doesn't know, and then there is

a genuine question about whether they can be deemed to have consent.

Despite that, I wanted to vote for it. One specific reason prevented me

doing that. It is a situation where somebody is going to be a live donor

but doesn't have the mental capacity to understand their organs are being

taken from them from someone else's benefit. There is a UK law

protecting them but I took the view that really that protection should

have been incorporated into this bill, and because it wasn't, I

thought it was an incomplete bill and was flawed and I couldn't

supported. I asked Mark Drake said on Friday when I caught up with

him, should the debate come to an end now that the law has been

passed? Is that not because a discussion needs to be had. The more

people that talk about it, I suppose the more people know about it. It

depends what you mean by debate. I think the debate in terms of whether

it is right or wrong, churches and faith views are very strong, of

course. People with those views must opt out of this, they must state

their views, they do not want deemed consent. So a bit of debate and

discussion helps to spread the news. I accept that not everyone will know

the ins and outs of every law, but as a society, we are right to make

this presumption and we have to have the safeguards in place, calls. --

of course. And we saw the benefits, because we can now have a wider

range of organ donations and better provision within Wales.

On Tuesday, we'll find out where Wales sits in the PISA rankings, the

global education league table. When the last results came out three

years ago, Wales had slipped down. The focus this year will be on

mathematics - Wales lagged behind most other countries, coming 40th in

the subject in 2009. Tim Cox from the NASUWT teaching union joins us

from our Cardiff newsroom camera. We've heard much discussion about

these results, which we won't get until Tuesday. Do you think we're

getting carried with the importance of these results? Absolutely, we

need to see this imbalance. It is a very, very narrow focus that these

PISA tests have, and PISA themselves say you shouldn't take everything

about your education just from this narrow test. For example, a recent

test survey suggested that the UK's education system was the second best

in Europe and the sixth best in the world. That is not what PISA

suggest? ! No, but as I say, they are very narrow and you need to look

at the board which of the curriculum as a whole and whether that delivers

the required needs within Wales, within the UK. The people who come

out very well in their stash Singapore -- in this gash Singapore,

Hong Kong, China - they've recently, they are to look at the creative

elements of our curriculum because that is what is missing within this

system. They focus on the core and therefore they focus and do well in

these kinds of tests. If you just want to do the PISA tests and teach

to them and drilled to -- and drilled children in is test, you can

do better, but does that give you what you want out of an education

system? Does it give you the rounded, creative people is that we

create within our system now? From what your union says, there is an

Welsh government advice on PISA and how to teach it. Teachers may wish

to focus on the kind of material featured in those tests but your

union is suggesting they focus on a broader curriculum. So are you

telling them to ignore what the Welsh government tell them to do on

PISA? Well, the Welsh government have started the initiative in terms

of the literacy and numeracy framework, and that is a good idea

as long as there is the support for teachers to deliver on that. The

evidence so far is that has been very little training for teachers in

the classroom on actually how to deliver that new framework. Teachers

will naturally focus on things which are in the correct in -- in the

curriculum in Wales, because, by and large, that is how they are

measured. If you want to basically outsource your curriculum and

qualification framework to the OECD and teach to their tests, that is a

decision you can make armour but we don't do see -- we don't believe in

our union that that is in the favour of a broad curriculum. Do you think

that is what the Welsh government have done? We think they have taken

a balanced approach, but if they are sending out the PISA tests to drill

pupils in them, we don't think that should be the focus of the education

system. It doesn't mean to say that you ought to narrow your curriculum

to focus on the PISA elements. Looking ahead, the results come out

on Tuesday. A quick glance at the papers this morning suggests that UK

countries as a whole have stagnated, with Wales performing

worse than other countries in the UK. If that is a price to you? -- is

that a surprise to you? Know, because, again, PISA focus on very

narrow things. Wales is very good at dealing with additional needs and

languages, special needs. That is not some we wish to lose. You pulled

in those cohorts are included in the PISA tests. -- the pupils in those

cohorts. We had no idea if those pupils are put in the tests in other

countries. It is difficult to find the sample sizes in the cohorts that

are taking these tests. If you want to follow PISA, then fine, but we

don't think that is in favour of the rounded, creative people that come

out of our education system. Don't be so focused and narrow on what

PISA tells you, because they are just one voice amongst many and we

need to have a breadth of discussion around the whole of the education

service. Simon Thomas, just react to that? Some valid points that. But it

is the Welsh government which voluntarily went into the PISA

education system and asked us to judge them by this system, saying

they wanted to be in the top 20 x 2015. So I think as opposition

parties, we are right to see how they have done just two years before

that deadline. There may be a narrow focus in aspects of PISA, but it is

valid within a UK focus. It is broadly the same type of education

throughout the UK so we can compare like with like with PISA and we

fallen behind our sister nations, so we need to be aware of that. And the

third point is I viewed PISA as a kind of temperature test. It tells

us the symptoms, it tells us something is wrong with the

education body politic. It doesn't tell is the full diagnosis. There

are some issues around the descriptive kind of approach in

Singapore. At other countries in PISA are more creative, like the

land. So we need to think about how we do better, and it is not just

PISA who measures that. They do it very differently in Iceland. Did

these results cause you concern? Do we need to change the whole system?

We need to look at how we teach in Wales at the moment. There is a

saying that knowledge is power but actually it is the application of

knowledge that is powerful. When you look at the Welsh economy and some

of our disadvantaged areas, I don't get the sense that they are getting

the best of our education system at the moment. It is not just PISA that

identifies that. Other reports have said that deprived areas are not

doing the best but their most able and talented students. Looking

across the world for different solutions is no bad thing, as far as

I'm concerned. Anything we can do to improve the level of creativity the

that we have in our syllabus is a good thing, and the UN recently

concluded that creative thinking in syllabuses have gone down over the

last 20 years. So it is not accurate to think that we are thinking

creatively enough syllabuses at the moment, even though the emphasis has

been on skills for some time. There is a disconnect between what is

happening and we would like to be happening at the moment. Tim Cox,

just respond to some of the things you've heard? Well, it is

interesting looking at Scandinavian countries. The respect and the

conditions for their teachers, I believe it is then land where people

want to become a teacher burst, and if they can't become a teacher then

they have to become a doctor. We don't hold teachers in this country

in that kind of regard, with that status. We haven't got the

conditions in which they are able to empower the pupils. If you turn

around to a pupil and denigrated their work and told them they were

rubbish and they had to do it better, teachers would get sacked

the doing that, but it is all right but politicians aren't other people

the education sphere to knock what teachers do without giving them the

support and the tools to work with, and particularly in Wales, it has to

be said, the necessary funding to make sure they are able to deliver.

Thank you for joining us. We know the results come out on Tuesday.

What are you expecting? Hugh Lewis said he doesn't expect much

improvement. Yes, and I think all the experts have said things will be

flat-lining or marginally improving. Mathematics is one of the ones with

done we kissed in. -- the weakest in. We do need to professionalise

the education system. We've got a Masters coming in to build the

professionalism of teachers, to raise the teachers' status. But

also, we need a recognition that this is one of the things we can get

right in Wales. It is completely devolved to us, it is in the hands

of the Welsh government. Do you think improvement can be made?

Certainly, both of us are on the committee scrutinising government

policy on education. There is plenty of space. Time now for a quick look

back at some of the political stories of the week in 60 seconds.

An MP called for a modern transport system but North East Wales to

ensure economic growth for the area. The Labour MP said the current

infrastructure was creaking at the seams.

The health Minister congratulated and villains stabbed after October

figures showed the Ambulance Service he did targets for responding to the

most urgent calls for the first time in 18 months. However, figures also

showed a deterioration in NHS performance on waiting times for

treating the most urgent cancer patients.

David Jones joined the Scottish independence debate, warning that a

yes vote in the referendum would be a huge gamble and truly into the

unknown to the people of Scotland. He said the government's plans fail

to answer important questions about the consequence of a yes vote.

And Roger Williams spent a month growing his moustache for November

to support research into prostate cancer. He lost it in seconds on

live television. Suzy, we had the Ambulance Service

has lost -- has met its target of meeting emergency calls within eight

minutes. That is something your party in the assembly had made some

capital off. It is not about making capital from it. The government has

done it, let's see how long it can go on for. I don't think getting it

right this wrong time -- this one time is an indication that the

government has got it right. The government is reviewing ambulance

times. There may be value in that. There's been a pretty poor approach

to this in past years for far too long. Thank you for coming in. We

to this in past years for far too 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 40p 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.