:00:05. > :00:08.This week on the Politics Show: It promises to be one of the
:00:08. > :00:13.biggest strikes in British history, but have both sides made avoidable
:00:13. > :00:15.disruption inevitable? We'll ask the TUC General Secretary why he's
:00:15. > :00:20.determined to press ahead with Wednesday's walkout over public
:00:20. > :00:23.sector pensions when talks seemed to be making progress.
:00:23. > :00:26.And Francis Maude, one of the ministers leading the negotiations,
:00:26. > :00:32.joins us to answer charges that his rhetoric has inflamed, rather than
:00:32. > :00:35.calmed, the dispute. And what about Labour? We'll ask
:00:35. > :00:43.Shadow Chief Secretary Rachel Reeves if her party will support
:00:43. > :00:48.the day of action. A yes or no answer will do.
:00:48. > :00:52.With the economy flatlining or even sliding towards a possible new
:00:52. > :00:56.recession, I'll report on how the Chancellor can boost growth while
:00:56. > :01:01.sticking to his plans to reduce the deficit.
:01:01. > :01:04.In London, how constituency boundary changes could affect the
:01:04. > :01:14.capital's make-up. And the proposed relaxation of
:01:14. > :01:19.
:01:19. > :01:22.licensing laws for music venues, is With me for the programme today are
:01:22. > :01:30.Jackie Ashley, who's a political commentator for the Guardian, and
:01:30. > :01:33.Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of the Sun. First the news.
:01:33. > :01:36.The Chancellor has been giving more details of his plans to make
:01:36. > :01:40.billions of pounds available in bank loans to businesses. The
:01:40. > :01:43.Government will act as a guarantor for the loans to small and medium
:01:43. > :01:47.sized enterprises. It comes as George Osborne is preparing his
:01:47. > :01:50.Autumn Statement this week. Labour says the so called "credit easing"
:01:50. > :02:00.plan doesn't go far enough, as our business correspondent Joe Lynam
:02:00. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:04.The eurozone crisis is having what the government calls a chilling
:02:04. > :02:08.effect on the British economy which could in theory lead to a complete
:02:08. > :02:12.seizing up of bank lending to companies here. But as the
:02:12. > :02:15.Chancellor prepares to unveil his Autumn Statement, he was still
:02:15. > :02:18.confident that his deficit reduction plan was going to work.
:02:18. > :02:23.We have got a deficit reduction plan that has brought us record low
:02:23. > :02:26.interest rates, it has turned us that AAA credit rating. We are
:02:27. > :02:32.absolutely going to stick to that plan because that is what is
:02:32. > :02:35.helping Britain weather this storm and is also helping us lay the
:02:35. > :02:39.foundations of a stronger economy. To do that he gave us more detail
:02:39. > :02:44.on credit easing, his plan to boost lending. The Government would act
:02:44. > :02:48.as a guarantor for lending by banks to small firms, by enabling lenders
:02:48. > :02:52.to pass on cheaper borrowing costs to companies. A second programme
:02:52. > :02:55.would see the government taking a stake in investment funds which
:02:55. > :02:59.make loans to medium-sized companies, and the third idea hopes
:02:59. > :03:03.to create an alternative to traditional bank loans by
:03:03. > :03:08.encouraging firms to send -- sell bonds to the market. Although the
:03:08. > :03:12.Treasury said the skins will not affect the deficit, Ed Balls said
:03:12. > :03:17.it still would not be enough to boost growth. It was a big choice a
:03:17. > :03:21.year ago. We were out on a limb in advocating a different approach.
:03:22. > :03:25.Actually, increasingly, the IMF, business organisations,
:03:25. > :03:31.Conservative MPs are all seeing that the plan has not worked. It
:03:31. > :03:34.has led to more borrowing, we need a different course. On Tuesday the
:03:34. > :03:39.Chancellor will set out the rest of the measures aimed at helping a
:03:39. > :03:43.flagging economy. At the same time the Office for Budget
:03:43. > :03:47.Responsibility, which he set up, was likely to say just how weak
:03:48. > :03:50.that economy is. Her 100,000 more jobs could be cut in
:03:50. > :03:53.the public sector, according to an independent forecasting group. The
:03:53. > :03:56.Ernst and Young ITEM Club says the Government has been conservative in
:03:56. > :03:59.its estimate of the number of job losses required to meet spending
:03:59. > :04:03.cuts. It expects the predicted losses over the next five years to
:04:03. > :04:06.be increased from 400,000 to around 500,000.
:04:06. > :04:09.A search is continuing for five Russian seamen who are missing
:04:09. > :04:13.after their cargo ship sank in gale force winds off the coast of
:04:13. > :04:17.Anglesey. Two crew members were rescued from the sea, a third has
:04:17. > :04:20.also been recovered, but his condition isn't known. The ship,
:04:20. > :04:23.the Swanland, was carrying 3,000 tonnes of limestone. Last year, the
:04:23. > :04:26.same ship was grounded off the coast of Cornwall.
:04:26. > :04:35.A four-year-old girl has been killed in a motorway crash
:04:35. > :04:41.involving several cars and a lorry near Birmingham. Second girl in the
:04:41. > :04:43.same car was seriously injured. Six other people were taken to hospital.
:04:43. > :04:49.A man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by
:04:49. > :04:52.dangerous driving. Iran's parliament has voted to
:04:52. > :04:54.downgrade diplomatic and economic ties with the UK in retaliation for
:04:54. > :04:57.Western sanctions imposed over Tehran's nuclear programme. If the
:04:57. > :04:59.bill is passed, the government will downgrade ties within two weeks,
:04:59. > :05:02.forcing the British Ambassador out of the country. This move comes
:05:02. > :05:07.less than a week after London banned all British financial
:05:07. > :05:10.institutions from doing business with their Iranian counterparts.
:05:10. > :05:13.That's it from me. Thank you.
:05:13. > :05:19.There will be much finger pointing in the Commons on Tuesday when the
:05:19. > :05:24.Chancellor delivers his Autumn Labour and the coalition on how to
:05:24. > :05:30.manage the economy. But are the differences really that great? Do
:05:30. > :05:33.you think there is a sense in which it is convenient for both Tories
:05:33. > :05:37.and Labour to exaggerate how far apart they are? To an extent, if
:05:37. > :05:41.you look at the figures, there's not much difference between the
:05:41. > :05:44.amount both sides would be spending, but you have to take into account
:05:44. > :05:52.the Conservatives were dragged kicking and screaming to where we
:05:52. > :05:56.are now by the Lib Dems. A lot of the measures we are seeing, which I
:05:56. > :05:59.call Plan A class... Jobs and infrastructure. They have been
:05:59. > :06:03.pushed by the Lib Dems, I don't think George Osborne by himself
:06:03. > :06:09.would have done them. You are now seeing the Lib Dems, who are more
:06:09. > :06:17.naturally in tune with Labour, have been making some headway. Do you
:06:17. > :06:21.buy that analysis? I'd do. If you look at the numbers, the total
:06:22. > :06:26.spending package of 700 billion. From that perspective it is small.
:06:26. > :06:29.Where I disagree with that is there's still this Faustian gulf
:06:29. > :06:36.between left and right, Tory, Labour, on the bigger picture,
:06:36. > :06:42.which is the deficit reduction targets, whether you stick to that
:06:42. > :06:48.precise spending package, or whether you will get to it in 2015
:06:48. > :06:55.or 2017, or whether you borrow to create growth. Keane's inverses the
:06:55. > :06:58.supply-side. Still far apart. you're going to have measures,
:06:58. > :07:03.infrastructure projects, credit easing, help for small businesses,
:07:03. > :07:06.a jobs fund to get young people back to work. A tacit
:07:06. > :07:10.acknowledgement that the debt reduction will not get there by
:07:10. > :07:15.2015. They have been brought on board by the Lib Dems. We should
:07:15. > :07:19.give them a bit of credit for once for pulling the Conservatives over
:07:19. > :07:25.to the right side! Sounds like you have got the memory already! I
:07:25. > :07:28.haven't got that yet. 10 questions to ask... What is most interesting
:07:28. > :07:31.about this week is not the tinkering that George Osborne does
:07:31. > :07:35.in the Autumn Statement, because he doesn't have much room for
:07:35. > :07:39.manoeuvre and we probably had most of it last week with the housing
:07:39. > :07:43.staff and employment law changes and youth culture act. It is to
:07:43. > :07:48.redefine the battlefield on what exactly is Plan A. I can't define
:07:48. > :07:54.it. Is it deficit-reduction by 2015? Not really because that will
:07:54. > :07:57.not work any more. What is it? It is slightly dry stuff that we
:07:57. > :08:02.obsess about, talking about matters that don't mean a lot to normal
:08:02. > :08:07.people, but how do we reshape... Where are the jobs coming from,
:08:07. > :08:13.more importantly? Part of Plan A was we would cut public sector jobs
:08:13. > :08:15.and the private sector would step in, but they haven't. We will leave
:08:15. > :08:18.that there. Now, two million workers are
:08:18. > :08:21.expected to take to the streets on Wednesday. Schools will close,
:08:21. > :08:23.travel and border checks will be disrupted and operations will be
:08:23. > :08:26.cancelled. You might think such drastic action was a measure of
:08:26. > :08:29.last resort, taken after months of talks mired in deadlock. But after
:08:29. > :08:32.a Government concession on public sector pensions which the unions
:08:32. > :08:36.themselves described as a "material move", it might seem puzzling that
:08:36. > :08:38.we are on the brink of one of the biggest walkouts in British history.
:08:38. > :08:41.Earlier this morning, I spoke to the TUC General Secretary Brendan
:08:41. > :08:44.Barber. I began by asking him whether the public would have more
:08:44. > :08:52.sympathy with the strike if the Government hadn't shown such
:08:52. > :08:57.willingness to negotiate. They have been intransigent, I'm afraid. On
:08:57. > :09:02.some of the key issues involved in this difficult issue, they have
:09:03. > :09:07.simply been unwilling to reconsider their position at all. That has
:09:07. > :09:09.made it extremely difficult. said on November 2nd, I'm glad
:09:09. > :09:14.they've made a move, it is important that the government has
:09:14. > :09:18.moved, it has come late and we welcome they have made a move today.
:09:18. > :09:24.It is a material move in their position. That doesn't sound like
:09:24. > :09:28.intransigence. But even on some of those issues that were involved in
:09:28. > :09:35.the proposals they set out early in November, we are still awaiting
:09:35. > :09:39.absolute clarity on exactly what those proposals amount to. Why not
:09:39. > :09:43.wait for the clarity and then go on strike if you're unhappy with what
:09:43. > :09:46.you get? There are a whole number of different issues involved in the
:09:46. > :09:50.negotiations which need to be addressed and need to be resolved.
:09:51. > :09:56.On some of those, as things stand, the government had shown no
:09:56. > :10:00.willingness to reconsider their position. On others, they have
:10:00. > :10:04.failed to even present the information to enable us to clearly
:10:05. > :10:08.understand what some of the proposals amount to. That has made
:10:09. > :10:13.it extraordinarily difficult. But nobody is taking this action this
:10:13. > :10:19.week likely. We have been trying to resolve this problem through those
:10:19. > :10:24.negotiations for almost the whole of this year. Nobody has been
:10:24. > :10:31.rushing to action. But the sense of frustration and a sense of real
:10:31. > :10:35.injustice and anger is enormously strong across a whole range of
:10:35. > :10:40.unions, many of them have never taken action before. What do you
:10:40. > :10:44.say to the mother on low-pay, no gold-plated pension for her, having
:10:45. > :10:49.to take a day off work because her child can't go to school? It is
:10:50. > :10:55.terrible, isn't it? I take no pleasure in seeing ordinary
:10:55. > :11:01.people's lives disrupted by this industrial action. But I think
:11:01. > :11:09.people across the Community realise that sometimes it is right to take
:11:09. > :11:11.a stand. Sometimes you have to show how strongly you feel. But only two
:11:11. > :11:16.to three weeks ago, you were talking about how the government
:11:16. > :11:21.had moved, how this could be a basis for negotiations, yet this
:11:21. > :11:26.strike is going ahead. We have tried in the intervening period to
:11:26. > :11:29.resolve this and reach an agreement. That has not been possible. That is
:11:29. > :11:33.being disingenuous when on 2nd November, you said the government
:11:33. > :11:37.had moved and we are still going ahead with the strike. It might
:11:37. > :11:42.look to some people that you have decided on this industrial action,
:11:42. > :11:47.you have a mandate, come what may it you are going ahead. No, that is
:11:47. > :11:52.not the basis on which something so important is decided, of course not.
:11:52. > :11:56.All of the organisations involved, 30 unions, they made this decision
:11:56. > :12:02.very reluctantly. They don't want to move to industrial action
:12:02. > :12:06.lightly or casually. Yet I urge you to look at the range of
:12:06. > :12:09.organisations, organisations representing our most senior civil
:12:09. > :12:12.servants, head teachers, professional health workers who are
:12:12. > :12:16.dedicated to the service they provide. Many of them have agonised
:12:16. > :12:21.over this decision they have made. But they feel so strongly that this
:12:21. > :12:26.is a real injustice the government is seeking to force through, they
:12:26. > :12:30.have to make a stand. I'm proud of them for doing it. We are about to
:12:30. > :12:34.speak to Francis Maude, who is listening. Is there anything you
:12:34. > :12:39.could say that could get you to call off your action? At this stage
:12:39. > :12:48.I think that is probably unlikely. Nothing he can say? What Francis
:12:48. > :12:53.Maude has to do with his colleagues in government is give people
:12:53. > :12:57.confidence that there is a secured, fair pension going to be maintained
:12:57. > :13:03.for the future. At the moment, people simply do not have that
:13:03. > :13:07.confidence. Pensions can be quite complicated, but this is a simple
:13:07. > :13:13.point. Sorry to interrupt. Isn't that a rather extraordinary
:13:13. > :13:18.position? There's nothing the chief negotiator could say on Sunday
:13:18. > :13:22.lunchtime that would get you to call off your action on Wednesday?
:13:22. > :13:25.Well, he could certainly have a try. If he said the government are not
:13:26. > :13:29.going to force through contributions increases, that would
:13:29. > :13:34.help. That they are going to reconsider the change in indexation
:13:34. > :13:39.they have made to reduce the value of the pension so significantly,
:13:39. > :13:42.that they are not just going to force through the increase in the
:13:42. > :13:46.pension Beijing scheme so that people will have to work in some
:13:46. > :13:50.cases quite a number of years longer before they secured their
:13:50. > :13:54.pension. If they would state -- take a step back on some of these
:13:54. > :13:58.issues. But having talked to Francis Maude and his colleagues a
:13:58. > :14:04.lot over written months, I fear he is not prepared to say that, which
:14:04. > :14:09.leaves us with a real difficulty. Of course, we will try to resolve
:14:09. > :14:12.this through the negotiations after the industrial action on Wednesday,
:14:12. > :14:17.but unless he comes up with something very surprising, the
:14:17. > :14:19.action will be going ahead later this week. Grateful to you, thank
:14:19. > :14:24.you. And listening to that interview,
:14:24. > :14:27.Francis Maude, one of the ministers leading the negotiations.
:14:27. > :14:33.Have you got anything to say to Brendan Barber that might avert the
:14:33. > :14:40.strikes? Yes, I would say, call it off, now. He said we had been
:14:40. > :14:45.talking incessantly, we have. There are conversations going on every
:14:45. > :14:50.day, pretty much. There will be conversations on Tuesday, Thursday.
:14:50. > :14:54.This is going on intensively. The unions have jumped the gun. Brendan
:14:54. > :14:59.slightly let the cat out of the bag. He said there is nothing you can
:14:59. > :15:03.say that will call it off. They set off on this path months ago,
:15:03. > :15:08.calling ballots which jumped the gun, with very low turnouts in some
:15:08. > :15:13.of these ballots. The biggest unions had turnouts of a quarter
:15:13. > :15:17.and a third of their memberships. This was irresponsible, in
:15:17. > :15:27.appropriate, wrong timing, wrong thing to be doing, will inflict
:15:27. > :15:29.
:15:29. > :15:33.damage on the economy at a time of When was the last time you spoke to
:15:33. > :15:36.Brendan Barber? I understand there have been four different pension
:15:36. > :15:41.negotiations going on. We had a meeting at the beginning of this
:15:41. > :15:45.month, there have been conversations since then. But that
:15:45. > :15:50.was the beginning of November, we have got a strike on Wednesday.
:15:50. > :15:54.but there are four separate schemes. An agreement has to be reached not
:15:54. > :15:59.in the central body, but in the sector schemes. And that is
:15:59. > :16:03.happening all the time. There have been meetings twice a week going on.
:16:03. > :16:07.So, this is very, very intensive. It is completed disingenuous to say
:16:07. > :16:11.that there have not been conversations. They have been going
:16:11. > :16:14.on all the time. Some people would suggest that your role in this has
:16:14. > :16:18.actually been to stoke the flames of it, you have expressed your
:16:18. > :16:21.irritation, you have talk about the unions going on strike for 15
:16:21. > :16:27.minutes, which I think a lot of them found insulting and
:16:27. > :16:31.patronising. The unions involved in the Royal Mile have on a number of
:16:31. > :16:38.occasions had a five-minute strike to achieve what was needed, which
:16:38. > :16:44.was to keep the ballot mandate open. But this was done for public
:16:44. > :16:48.consumption. We have suggested to them in private, I'm not going to
:16:48. > :16:52.tell you all the discussions which go on in private, and there are a
:16:52. > :16:56.lot, but we have suggested to them in private that there are ways of
:16:56. > :16:59.doing what he said was important, which was to keep open the ballot
:16:59. > :17:04.mandate, because of this eccentricity in the law, which says
:17:04. > :17:08.that if you have got a mandate, you have to exercise it within 28 days,
:17:08. > :17:12.or it goes. So we said, let's think of some ways around this. Some
:17:12. > :17:16.people have called for example a two-hour strike in the middle of
:17:16. > :17:19.the night to get around it. What I was suggesting is completely
:17:19. > :17:22.consistent with what a lot of unions already do. What about this
:17:22. > :17:28.other point which some people thought was provocative, which was
:17:28. > :17:31.to say, if you do not accept this, we reserve the right to withdraw it
:17:31. > :17:36.from the table. Presumably you either think it is a fair deal for
:17:36. > :17:43.workers or not. If you're going to withdraw it, that is hardly fair.
:17:43. > :17:47.We think it is a good outcome. This will still save the taxpayer a good
:17:47. > :17:51.deal of money. But would it not be a sign of good faith if you said
:17:51. > :17:54.you would stick to it come what may? So you think it would be fine
:17:54. > :17:57.for the Government to commit a considerable amount of taxpayers'
:17:58. > :18:02.money to continue to be spent on pension schemes which are still
:18:02. > :18:07.going to be the best anyone will have access to, while actually
:18:07. > :18:11.there is no agreement that the unions will not carry on striking
:18:11. > :18:15.and taking industrial action, working to rule, inflicting more
:18:15. > :18:20.damage on the interests of the public and on the economy? You
:18:20. > :18:24.think it would be fine to do that? No, this is conditional on an
:18:24. > :18:28.agreement. This is a very fair, generous offer. We have said that
:18:28. > :18:31.no-one within 10 years of retiring need fear any change to their
:18:31. > :18:36.retirement age, or any reduction in the value of their pension. We said
:18:36. > :18:42.that no-one earning below �15,000 will actually pay any additional
:18:42. > :18:48.contributions. This is a fair way of treating dedicated public
:18:48. > :18:52.servants who are entitled to good pensions. I want to test this
:18:52. > :18:55.fairness and generosity. David Cameron said that low and middle-
:18:55. > :19:00.income earners would be getting a larger pension at retirement than
:19:00. > :19:03.they do now... That's not right, is it? Many of
:19:03. > :19:09.their will. We have said that many of them will be able to retire on a
:19:09. > :19:16.pension at least as good as the one they can expect now. So, someone
:19:16. > :19:20.aged 37, on �26,000, working until they are 67, they will not be worse
:19:20. > :19:24.off? We are talking about the pension you retire on. Many people
:19:24. > :19:29.will be expected to retire later, because we're living 10 years
:19:29. > :19:34.longer than people were. A 60-year- old today can expect to live 10
:19:34. > :19:39.years longer than a 16-year-old in the 1970s. So it was not correct,
:19:39. > :19:43.factually? Many of them will get a better pension, but what we have
:19:43. > :19:47.always said is that people will be able to retire, particularly middle
:19:47. > :19:50.and low-income earners, on a pension at least as good. The
:19:50. > :19:55.change we made was where we increased the generosity of the
:19:55. > :19:58.offer, which had the effect of meaning that many of them will
:19:58. > :20:03.retire not on a pension just as good, but better than what they
:20:03. > :20:08.currently can expect. Let's talk about the disruption on Wednesday.
:20:08. > :20:12.How worried are you of what it could be like? I think it will be
:20:12. > :20:16.destructive, schools will close, which will inconvenience not only
:20:16. > :20:20.the children, but actually, the real damage will be to the millions
:20:20. > :20:27.of people who depend on the schools being open to be able to go to work
:20:27. > :20:31.themselves. They have got hard pressed household budgets, they're
:20:31. > :20:34.going to work to pay the taxes which go to pay the pensions for
:20:34. > :20:38.public sector workers, better pensions than nearly anyone in the
:20:39. > :20:42.private sector has access to. will say these are only
:20:42. > :20:47.contingencies, but the military are on standby, to do what? To make
:20:47. > :20:53.sure that our borders are secured, and that the inconvenience to
:20:53. > :20:57.travellers, people visiting Britain, is minimised. How many members of
:20:57. > :21:05.the army have been trained up? would have to speak to the UK
:21:05. > :21:12.Border Agency. They have responsibility for keeping the
:21:12. > :21:16.border secure and for minimising the inconvenience to passengers.
:21:16. > :21:19.They are taking that responsibility extremely seriously. People will be
:21:20. > :21:25.arriving at Heathrow on Wednesday morning, and they will find
:21:25. > :21:28.soldiers sitting there at passport control? It is possible, you will
:21:28. > :21:32.have to speak to the Department about that. There will be some
:21:32. > :21:35.disruption, I'm afraid it is inevitable. Passionate in
:21:35. > :21:38.appropriate, irresponsible, the unions have jumped the gun. It is
:21:38. > :21:42.quite wrong to be calling strikes at a time when discussions are
:21:42. > :21:45.still going on, and where we are making progress. The unions have
:21:45. > :21:48.been disingenuous this morning, saying there is no progress. Of
:21:48. > :21:56.course they have to say that because it justifies this
:21:56. > :22:00.irresponsible strike. Are you not worried? One newspaper today has a
:22:00. > :22:05.poll saying the public are blaming the Government for this strike.
:22:06. > :22:09.That was not what they were asked. Actually, the public are very much
:22:09. > :22:13.supporting, as far as I can see, the changes the Government is
:22:13. > :22:16.making. People look at their own pension arrangements, and they look
:22:16. > :22:20.at the pension arrangements for public sector workers, which, at
:22:20. > :22:24.the end of this, will be far better than what anyone else can expect.
:22:24. > :22:29.And they say, is it right that my life should be disrupted, I will
:22:29. > :22:33.not be able to go to work, because my children cannot go to school,
:22:33. > :22:37.when actually I'm paying out in many cases as much in my taxes to
:22:37. > :22:44.support their pensions as I am to support my own. It seems obvious
:22:44. > :22:51.now that both sides, if they do not want this, that nothing will change
:22:51. > :22:55.before November 30th. But what about after November 30th? Would
:22:55. > :22:59.you then be able to offer the unions something more, to give them
:22:59. > :23:03.some sort of face-saving exercise? What we have made absolutely clear
:23:03. > :23:07.is that there is still a lot of flexibility, there are a lot of
:23:07. > :23:10.moving parts. The reason why we have been talking so intensively is
:23:10. > :23:15.that because in each of these schemes, which all have different
:23:15. > :23:18.workforces, different profiles of salaries, different age ranges, to
:23:18. > :23:23.work out within each one the best way to put the pieces together to
:23:23. > :23:26.provide the best pension schemes, and the best outcome for most of
:23:26. > :23:31.their members. That's what we're trying to do. There are not any
:23:31. > :23:34.more parts we can put on the table. We have made a big, generous offer,
:23:34. > :23:39.on November 2nd. Everybody acknowledges that it is a generous
:23:39. > :23:43.offer. The unions have said it is a big move forward. We now need to
:23:43. > :23:53.finalise it, to work out the way to use those moving parts to provide a
:23:53. > :23:54.
:23:54. > :23:57.fair and affordable outcome. Thank you very much for being with us.
:23:57. > :24:01.The big walkout should be a no- brainer for the Labour Party. But
:24:01. > :24:05.with the strike three days away, the Labour Party is sitting firmly
:24:05. > :24:10.on the fence. In a moment I will be speaking to the Shadow Chief
:24:10. > :24:18.Secretary to the Treasury, Rachel Reeves, about that. But first, some
:24:18. > :24:22.maths homework. She's one of Labour's brightest young things.
:24:22. > :24:26.Only elected last year, Rachel Reeves is already in the shadow
:24:26. > :24:31.cabinet. Can this maths buff and former Bank of England economist
:24:31. > :24:34.help save Labour's two classic conundrums - how to manage the
:24:34. > :24:38.relationship with the trade unions and how to rebuild its battered
:24:38. > :24:41.economic reputation. But what does the relationship between Labour and
:24:41. > :24:46.the trade unions at up to at a time when strikes on the agenda? Well,
:24:46. > :24:52.the party was formed by the unions. Ed Miliband was elected thanks to
:24:52. > :24:55.their support. And figures out this week show that they donate 89% of
:24:56. > :24:59.Labour's money. But it is a complicated equation when it comes
:24:59. > :25:03.to solidarity on strikes, with the party offering sympathy for
:25:03. > :25:09.strikers but refusing to back Wednesday's action. As for the
:25:09. > :25:14.economy, despite the coalition's troubles, voters are sceptical that
:25:14. > :25:17.the two Eds can really do their sums. 50% say they do not trust
:25:17. > :25:26.Labour to make the right decision, and many blame them for the current
:25:26. > :25:32.slowdown. But Rachel Reeves continues to argue for tackling the
:25:32. > :25:34.deficit more slowly to avoid another recession. As we await an
:25:34. > :25:38.autumn statement designed to deliver growth, she believes that
:25:38. > :25:42.Labour are starting to win that argument. But it will be for the
:25:42. > :25:50.public to decide if her calculations really do add up.
:25:50. > :25:57.Rachel Reeves joins us now. Thank you very much for being with us.
:25:57. > :26:00.Simple question, yes or no will do - do you support the strikes?
:26:00. > :26:03.understand why public sector workers are going on strike, but I
:26:03. > :26:07.think it could have been averted if the unions and the Government had
:26:07. > :26:13.been sitting down talking to each other this weekend rather than
:26:13. > :26:17.talking separately to you. But they have said they have been talking.
:26:17. > :26:21.Francis Maude said he spoke to Brendan Barber at the beginning of
:26:21. > :26:24.November. We have got strikes looming on Wednesday. I would have
:26:24. > :26:27.thought that Francis Maude would have spent this weekend negotiating
:26:28. > :26:33.with Brendan Barber and public sector workers to avert these
:26:33. > :26:36.strikes. That's what people up and down the country want. That's what
:26:36. > :26:41.businesses want, and yet they have not spoken since the beginning of
:26:41. > :26:46.the month. Let me ask the question again - do you support the strikes?
:26:46. > :26:50.I don't think that is the right question. It is the question I want
:26:50. > :26:53.to ask. But the real question is, what has right done to avert the
:26:53. > :26:57.strike? If Labour were in power, this weekend we would have been
:26:57. > :27:01.sitting down with the unions to thrash out a deal, to negotiate an
:27:01. > :27:03.outcome which is acceptable both to taxpayers and for people and the
:27:03. > :27:06.public sector. The Government and Francis Maude has admitted
:27:06. > :27:12.yesterday, have not done that. there not a role of political
:27:13. > :27:16.leadership, whereby you should be able to shake, one way or another,
:27:16. > :27:20.there was an important new offer put on the table, and the unions
:27:20. > :27:23.have said it looks interesting, we need clarification on it - why are
:27:23. > :27:27.you striking when you're still getting clarification and still
:27:27. > :27:31.talking about the offer? Surely it would have been better to delay the
:27:31. > :27:36.strike action until some time in the future, when you think actually,
:27:36. > :27:40.this is a lousy deal, or it is OK. What you saw on the 2nd November
:27:40. > :27:46.was some concessions from the Government on the a crawl rates and
:27:46. > :27:49.on the transitional protection for some people coming up to retirement.
:27:49. > :27:54.But the across-the-board increases in contribution, that is not on the
:27:54. > :27:57.table, it is being imposed. If you're a low-paid worker, part-time,
:27:57. > :28:02.particularly a woman working in the public sector, a community nurse, a
:28:02. > :28:06.dinner lady, they will be facing increasing contributions of between
:28:06. > :28:09.�5 and �10 a week. They're already struggling to make ends meet, with
:28:09. > :28:12.a two-year pay freeze. They will find it very difficult to absorb
:28:13. > :28:17.this increase, but it is not even on the table. That is one thing we
:28:17. > :28:20.think the Government should have been negotiating on. Don't Labour
:28:20. > :28:23.get themselves into a difficult position, where the unions think,
:28:23. > :28:28.you're a bit mealy mouthed in supporting us, and the public think,
:28:28. > :28:32.you are not condemning the strikes? I have sympathy for the people who
:28:32. > :28:35.rely on public services. The kids are supposed to be getting an
:28:35. > :28:39.education on Wednesday. Francis Maude said it was not a big deal,
:28:39. > :28:44.but I think it is, for many kids. But you could show political
:28:44. > :28:49.leadership and say, they should not go on strike. I do understand why
:28:49. > :28:54.people, teachers, people in the Border Agency, I understand why
:28:54. > :29:01.they're so frustrated, because they feel the Government are being
:29:01. > :29:04.disingenuous. Also, they are being asked to contribute 3% extra from
:29:04. > :29:08.their pay packet, effectively a tax on public sector workers which will
:29:08. > :29:11.not even be going into their pension pots. If Labour were in
:29:12. > :29:15.power, the difference would be that we would be sitting down
:29:15. > :29:20.negotiating, rather than upping the rhetoric and threatening to
:29:20. > :29:27.withdraw the deal, as Francis Maude did again today on this programme.
:29:27. > :29:30.Just one more question on Labour's relationship with the unions - we
:29:30. > :29:35.talk about the fact that nine tenths of your funding comes from
:29:35. > :29:38.the unions, should it not be an ambition to reduce that? Since the
:29:38. > :29:43.general election last year, our membership has gone up by more than
:29:43. > :29:49.50%, and the biggest supporters of the party are our members, who pay
:29:49. > :29:55.through their subscriptions and off road through donations. -- and also
:29:55. > :29:58.through donations. What we were talking about was the levy that
:29:58. > :30:02.members of the trade unions pay. That is not quite an answer to the
:30:02. > :30:06.question. That is the decision of people to pay the political levy
:30:06. > :30:09.for the trade unions, and that many then comes to the Labour Party, and
:30:09. > :30:14.I'm proud of that relationship. The Labour Party was formed by the
:30:14. > :30:17.trade unions, it is part of our tradition. Just on the economy,
:30:17. > :30:22.let's talk about the wider UK economy, with the Autumn Statement
:30:22. > :30:32.coming up on Tuesday - why do you think it is that if the Government
:30:32. > :30:35.
:30:35. > :30:38.is making such a mess of this, the We should have done more with
:30:38. > :30:45.banking regulation. But we are now seeing the impact of this
:30:45. > :30:52.Government's policies. Increasing taxes, VAT, cutting public spending
:30:52. > :30:56.at such a rate is now risking a double-dip recession in the UK.
:30:56. > :31:01.talk about the failure of banking regulation. Don't you also need to
:31:01. > :31:06.say we spent too much? Until 2008, the Conservatives were backing our
:31:06. > :31:09.spending. How I'm not asking about what they did, I'm asking you for
:31:09. > :31:17.your judgment on whether Labour spent too much. I don't believe we
:31:17. > :31:21.did. Between 1997 and 2007 we reduce debt as a share if GDP, but
:31:21. > :31:25.during the financial crisis, we made a decision to bring forward
:31:25. > :31:29.spending, to cut taxes, to try to avoid a global recession becoming a
:31:29. > :31:35.global depression. They were the right choices because it stopped
:31:35. > :31:39.unemployment going up to 2.5 and 3 million to as we've seen in the
:31:39. > :31:44.sessions and the past. Your five point plan for jobs involves more
:31:44. > :31:52.borrowing. You haven't said how much more borrowing, have you?
:31:52. > :31:56.point is... So the answer is no? VAT, that is �12 billion. For what
:31:56. > :32:01.makes you think of the markets are going to accept more borrowing when
:32:01. > :32:06.they haven't done in Spain, Italy, Greece? That is a massive gamble.
:32:06. > :32:10.The reality is that the government on a borrowing at least �46 billion
:32:10. > :32:13.more than they had previously planned because of the cost of the
:32:13. > :32:17.failure of their economic policies, they have more people out of work
:32:17. > :32:22.so we are paying more out in benefits and getting less in taxes.
:32:22. > :32:26.With these targeted measures to get jobs and growth back on track, that
:32:26. > :32:29.will get the economy moving and will help us reduce the debt in a
:32:29. > :32:34.sustainable way. At the moment we are borrowing more because of
:32:34. > :32:40.economic failure. Can I go back to the strikes? Francis Maude was
:32:40. > :32:46.talking about eccentricities in the strike ballot. You have to take the
:32:46. > :32:49.industrial action within 28 days of the ballot. Do you agree with that?
:32:49. > :32:55.As Francis Maude said, the unions could do something different league
:32:55. > :32:58.to keep that mandate available. But they have decided to take strike
:32:58. > :33:04.action on Wednesday because of the strength of feeling about this
:33:04. > :33:08.issue. You think the 15th minute idea was a constructive proposal?
:33:08. > :33:12.don't think that... Are you suggested that was the right way
:33:12. > :33:16.forward? What I was saying is you could keep the mandate by just
:33:16. > :33:21.taking small action. On this occasion the unions feel so
:33:21. > :33:26.strongly about this issue, that is not on the table. That might be a
:33:26. > :33:30.better idea. Negotiations are quite close to reaching an agreement.
:33:30. > :33:33.doesn't sound like they are close to reaching agreement. The fact
:33:33. > :33:37.that Brendan Barber and Francis Maude have not spoken since the
:33:37. > :33:41.beginning of the month suggests they are a long way off a deal.
:33:41. > :33:44.That is unfortunate because people who rely on public services will
:33:44. > :33:48.see massive disruption that could have been avoided if the government
:33:48. > :33:51.were sitting down with the people in the public sector this week
:33:51. > :33:59.rather than coming on the television and saying they might
:33:59. > :34:04.withdraw their offer. You do seem to suggest, and I am interested in
:34:04. > :34:09.this, that some sort of token strike action, whether in the
:34:09. > :34:14.middle of the night, would have been a way forward that would have
:34:14. > :34:17.allowed the talks to continue and still keep the mandate. Jackie is
:34:17. > :34:21.saying is it appropriate to say you have to take action within 28 days
:34:21. > :34:25.to keep that mandate? There are ways to keep that mandate going
:34:25. > :34:28.that fall short of full strike action, but the unions have decided
:34:28. > :34:35.and balloted on strike action and they are going ahead with that
:34:35. > :34:38.because they don't think the government have listened. Thank you.
:34:38. > :34:48.We will have more on what to expect from the Chancellor's statement
:34:48. > :34:51.
:34:51. > :34:53.later. First, The Politics Show Hello and welcome to The Politics
:34:53. > :34:57.Show in London. Coming up later...
:34:57. > :35:02.It is the biggest change to parliamentary boundaries for
:35:02. > :35:06.decades, we consider one MP's fight to save his constituency. Self-
:35:06. > :35:08.interest or commonsense? But first, and next year's Olympics
:35:08. > :35:13.there are big commercial opportunities both legal and
:35:13. > :35:17.illegal. Fielders profession in the world might anticipate an upturn in
:35:17. > :35:20.business as millions visit the capital for the Games. But as
:35:20. > :35:24.police rampart their efforts to shut Brussels and London, could
:35:24. > :35:28.prostitutes be driven onto the streets and therefore Integrator
:35:28. > :35:33.danger? -- brothels. According to the English collective
:35:33. > :35:43.of prostitutes, there's a degree of prosecution going on towards sex
:35:43. > :35:57.
:35:57. > :36:06.workers as police target human Now Conservative assembly mender
:36:06. > :36:10.Andrew Goff has claimed... -- He added that brothels were
:36:10. > :36:14.targeted under the guise of the police going after trafficked women
:36:14. > :36:18.and asked if this was the best way to attack trafficking. He also
:36:18. > :36:22.called for the police to turn a blind eye to prostitutes working in
:36:22. > :36:24.Brussels, for them to be decriminalised and licensed, adding
:36:24. > :36:34.it would do some power pence and make it easier to allow health
:36:34. > :36:35.
:36:36. > :36:39.His remarks have been questioned in some quarters, with critics
:36:39. > :36:44.claiming it will give a green light to prostitution, enabling a red
:36:44. > :36:49.light districts to spring up in every area of town.
:36:49. > :36:53.Andrew off is here with me now along with Labour assembly member
:36:53. > :36:58.and candidate for deputy Mayor, Val Shawcross. What do you say to the
:36:58. > :37:03.reaction to what you say? Police are going into hard against
:37:03. > :37:07.brothels and prostitution? police quote is they want to make
:37:07. > :37:11.London a hostile environment for pimps, but some of their actions
:37:11. > :37:15.make it a hostile environment for women working in the sex industry.
:37:15. > :37:19.I want to see a regime whereby women feel able to report attacks
:37:19. > :37:23.against them, to report whether or not they have been trafficked orca
:37:23. > :37:27.worse, and I think currently the conduct of the police is not
:37:27. > :37:32.helping that, but they have a law which mitigates against the safety
:37:32. > :37:38.of women. What is your evidence that it is not working? I think we
:37:38. > :37:42.have seen an increase in raids, for example, in the five Olympic
:37:42. > :37:48.boroughs. 80 raids in the past year whereas in all the remaining
:37:48. > :37:54.boroughs of London, we have only had 29. They are concentrating on a
:37:54. > :37:58.particular area. The messages I am getting from people in that
:37:58. > :38:02.industry, from prostitutes, is they are feeling it is a more unsafe
:38:02. > :38:07.environment. They are cautious that if they were to report an attack,
:38:07. > :38:13.for example, to the police, it might be then criminalise rather
:38:13. > :38:17.than the attacker. What do you say about this? I think the police are
:38:17. > :38:21.absolutely right to carry on trying to stamp down on this. The concept
:38:21. > :38:28.that somehow or other a woman in a brothel is making a career choice
:38:28. > :38:33.is absolutely ridiculous. Enormous numbers of women are Coe worst,
:38:33. > :38:37.traffic, drug abuse is implicated in this, extreme violence. There's
:38:37. > :38:43.absolutely no sensible research that shows women makes this as a
:38:43. > :38:47.career choice. Of course they don't. Poverty is one of the biggest
:38:47. > :38:55.drivers of women into this industry and it is very important that we
:38:55. > :38:58.don't give any signals that this is a legal industry. It is very
:38:58. > :39:06.implicated with a gang criminals. What about if the police were going
:39:06. > :39:10.in harder because of the Olympics? 90% of the women in prostitution in
:39:10. > :39:14.London are thought to be migrants and the police themselves think a
:39:14. > :39:17.very, very large number have actually been trafficked. It is
:39:17. > :39:22.really important that they keep the pressure up because at the moment
:39:22. > :39:24.the danger is that there could be an increase in violence against
:39:24. > :39:30.women and the growth in broth and prostitution. A do you recognise
:39:30. > :39:35.that? I don't recognise that picture. Val is not looking at any
:39:35. > :39:37.research into this area. For research suggests there's not a
:39:37. > :39:42.massive number of women being trafficked, though there are
:39:42. > :39:47.trafficked women. My interest in those women being trafficked,
:39:47. > :39:51.research suggests the figure of colours of Lee trafficked women
:39:51. > :39:59.into Prof is well below 5% and that is independent research. The police
:39:59. > :40:04.themselves are saying that they have seen no rise in the amount of
:40:04. > :40:07.trafficking in the run-up to the Olympics. This is being based...
:40:07. > :40:13.That research has been debunked thoroughly by the police themselves.
:40:13. > :40:18.It hasn't. It has been debunked. That study went into about 100
:40:18. > :40:22.brothels, spoke to women under circumstances where they were
:40:23. > :40:28.probably under coercion and threats of violence. It was a very small
:40:28. > :40:32.sample and has been comprehensively debunked. I really do think...
:40:32. > :40:35.last word with each. You should talk to some of the women in this
:40:35. > :40:39.industry. Your caricaturing every single one as being coerced into
:40:39. > :40:44.doing that. Some people have made choices and you don't liberate
:40:44. > :40:48.women by taking their choice away. Women do not make a choice to be
:40:48. > :40:54.victims of sexual violence, to be abused by gangs in London. You can
:40:54. > :40:58.shut your eyes to it. You should look a little bit more seriously at
:40:58. > :41:02.the implications of this issue. that's all we have time for. Thank
:41:02. > :41:05.you. The political map of London looks
:41:05. > :41:09.set to change under new proposals to reduce the number of MPs. The
:41:09. > :41:14.capital will lose five of its 73 seats and House of Commons. Nearly
:41:14. > :41:20.every constituency in London is being redrawn to some extent. Some
:41:20. > :41:25.MPs are not happy. This is Andy Love, MP for Edmonton.
:41:25. > :41:30.Although maybe not for much longer. Under proposed changes, his
:41:30. > :41:35.constituency will cease to exist and merge with Chingford, which he
:41:35. > :41:41.says is bad news for residents. represent some of the most deprived
:41:41. > :41:45.people who need public services, who need somebody to champion their
:41:45. > :41:49.rights in the community. A member of parliament, that is their role.
:41:49. > :41:54.The new seat of Chingford and Edmonton is divided by the Lea
:41:54. > :41:58.Valley. Industrial land, but most importantly a reservoir, leaving
:41:58. > :42:03.only two road crossings more than two miles apart. We followed Andy
:42:03. > :42:08.to the local shopping centre as he tried to canvass support. I am
:42:08. > :42:12.running a campaign to save Edmonton. What we are doing is trying to stop
:42:12. > :42:15.them linking Edmonton with Chingford. One has -- one of his
:42:15. > :42:19.big contentions is the amount of time it will take people to get
:42:19. > :42:22.from Edmonton to Chingford and on these leaflets it says Chingford,
:42:22. > :42:26.one hour and 30 minutes by foot. Not that many people would fancy
:42:26. > :42:31.that walk. We're going to see how long it would take by public
:42:31. > :42:36.transport. Destination Chingford, Conservative Association. The
:42:36. > :42:40.journey might be one that residents wanting to see their MP have to get
:42:40. > :42:48.used to. The proposed new seat, if it had existed at the last election,
:42:48. > :42:51.would have been won by Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservatives. The
:42:51. > :42:55.reaction you get from some members of the public is that politicians
:42:55. > :42:59.are interested in this because they are trying to save their own skins.
:42:59. > :43:01.Inevitably there will be the case and I would be the last to say
:43:01. > :43:07.politicians don't have a critical interest in the boundaries under
:43:07. > :43:10.which they operate. Of course. But we have tried to separate the
:43:10. > :43:15.politics from the issues that should concern everybody. It is
:43:15. > :43:19.about community, it is about links, it is about how the difficulties of
:43:19. > :43:29.accessing your representative. Chingford & Woodford Green
:43:29. > :43:31.
:43:31. > :43:36.Fantastic. I suggested it was an hour to an hour and a half, it has
:43:36. > :43:39.turned out to be spot on the middle. Chingford is a very different place
:43:39. > :43:44.compared to the at the side of the tracks. It is notably well fear.
:43:44. > :43:47.But while economics and a huge body of water may separate the two parts
:43:47. > :43:54.of the proposed new constituency, and he thinks he might have found a
:43:54. > :43:58.quicker way to bridge that divide. -- Andy. You're wearing a
:43:58. > :44:02.lifejacket, you have taken us to the King George Sailing Club on the
:44:02. > :44:06.reservoir. Why is that? That is Edmonton straight across the
:44:06. > :44:09.reservoir on the other side. That is the most direct route and that
:44:09. > :44:19.is the one I'm going to take to show you how ludicrous these new
:44:19. > :44:27.
:44:27. > :44:34.boundaries are. We are going by Only the eye Ps! -- VoIPs.
:44:34. > :44:39.Andy Love is Here. How long did it take you to get across the lake?
:44:39. > :44:47.4 minutes. Tony Travers is also hear from the LSE. How long does it
:44:47. > :44:49.take to go by car from one side of your constituency to the other?
:44:49. > :44:54.my constituency... The new one. takes somewhere between 15 and 20
:44:54. > :44:58.minutes. That doesn't make it sound so bad. You have to remember that
:44:58. > :45:02.the people who want to act as a Member of Parliament, they are
:45:02. > :45:07.often the very people who don't have access to a car and it is to
:45:07. > :45:13.my unconcerned about. Don't you feel it is geographically not right
:45:13. > :45:17.I think I am saying more than that. They have ignored geography all
:45:17. > :45:22.over the country and I would not stand out if it was the only thing
:45:22. > :45:27.of matter to me. What matters is this enormous geographical barrier
:45:27. > :45:31.that exists between the two parts of the constituency. There are no
:45:31. > :45:35.links between Chingford and Edmonton. We will never build them
:45:35. > :45:45.because of the barrier. And we are losing the links we currently have
:45:45. > :45:51.
:45:51. > :45:54.Almost none of these cases are typical, without being unhelpful.
:45:54. > :45:58.Some of the constituencies will remain exactly the same. Others
:45:58. > :46:02.will be dismembered, but there are some clear examples. This is one of
:46:02. > :46:08.them, where what feels like a single place ends up being on
:46:08. > :46:13.either side of a river or road, and is undoubtedly separated. But I
:46:13. > :46:16.thought the promise was that what was meant to be happening would be
:46:16. > :46:20.to iron out those problems to make things more integrated.
:46:20. > :46:23.difficulty is that when you start to change boundaries, and
:46:23. > :46:27.particularly when you reduce the number of constituencies, which is
:46:27. > :46:31.what lies behind all of this, it leaves the people drawing the
:46:32. > :46:35.boundaries with a terrifically difficult job. If you move the
:46:35. > :46:40.boundaries for one, in order to get just the right number of voters,
:46:40. > :46:44.you have knock-on effects in the next one. And you end up with
:46:44. > :46:49.constituencies which in some cases do not fully makes sense. We cannot
:46:49. > :46:52.get an absolute, scientific indication of this, but we can get
:46:52. > :46:56.some indications from previous election results, which indicate
:46:56. > :47:01.that it would make it less likely that you would hold the seat next
:47:01. > :47:10.time - is that one factor? course it is a factor for me,
:47:10. > :47:13.personally. We have tried to separate out the issues. Everybody
:47:13. > :47:18.can tell when an argument is essentially political. We have
:47:18. > :47:22.tried to stick to the criteria which the Boundary Commission has
:47:23. > :47:27.suggested - it is about geographic links, community links, it is about
:47:27. > :47:31.all of the other issues which make up a constituency. If
:47:31. > :47:34.constituencies are going to be all in this together... You're making
:47:34. > :47:40.this case to the Boundary Commission, any indication from
:47:40. > :47:44.then yet that they might admit they have got this one slightly wrong,
:47:44. > :47:47.with this big body of water it adds that we invited them to come up and
:47:47. > :47:51.see for themselves, but they resisted the temptation. I hope
:47:51. > :47:55.they will review this seriously. We have got significant concerns
:47:55. > :48:01.expressed by my constituents, it just does not make any sense. Let
:48:01. > :48:07.me just say, as a comparison, they had to cross the River Thames, they
:48:07. > :48:12.did so at the narrowest point in London. They have crossed the River
:48:12. > :48:17.Lea at the widest point. If you look at the overall result,
:48:17. > :48:22.comparing it with last time, it looks as if Labour would lose
:48:22. > :48:25.probably two or three seats, and so, they would be slightly worse off,
:48:25. > :48:31.the Conservatives might lose one, too. But overall, the Conservatives
:48:31. > :48:38.would do slightly better. And what about some key senior figures?
:48:38. > :48:42.south London, there's a number of MPs, including Tessa Jowell, Kate
:48:42. > :48:47.Hoey, Sidique Khan, all finding their constituencies are being cut
:48:47. > :48:51.up. But of course there will be some new constituencies which
:48:51. > :48:55.arguably will make more sense as communities after the reform, even
:48:55. > :48:59.though it means dismembering a constituency, from the point of
:48:59. > :49:02.view of the MP. They will all end up fighting with each other, which
:49:02. > :49:08.they like less, of course, even than fighting with opponents in the
:49:08. > :49:11.other party. If you run a venue in London where you have live music
:49:11. > :49:14.and it is under a certain size, soon you may not need an
:49:14. > :49:18.entertainment licence. The Government is considering getting
:49:18. > :49:21.rid of some regulations which they believe to be burdensome. But some
:49:21. > :49:26.of London's councils are worried about what this could unleash. When
:49:26. > :49:34.it comes to getting permission to put on live music events, there are
:49:34. > :49:37.lots of inconsistencies within the system. You do not need a licence
:49:37. > :49:41.to have a carol concert in a church, but you do if it is in a church
:49:41. > :49:48.hall. You would not need a licence for a free school concert, but you
:49:48. > :49:51.would if there was charity fund- raising going on. Punch & Judy
:49:51. > :49:57.shows, pianists in restaurants and other things all need licences to
:49:57. > :50:00.go ahead. It is these anomalies and disadvantages for small music
:50:00. > :50:04.events which the Government hopes to remove by changing the licensing
:50:04. > :50:08.system. They are proposing that all venues with an audience of less
:50:08. > :50:14.than 500 people will no longer have to buy licences to host musical
:50:14. > :50:18.events. -- 5,000 people. It is a relief for many small venues which
:50:18. > :50:21.currently struggle to pay. Kensington & Chelsea Council have
:50:21. > :50:25.almost 1,000 venues which would be free to host events under the new
:50:25. > :50:31.regulations. The council are worried that this could lead to
:50:31. > :50:36.music being played around the clock, leading to an increase in noise and
:50:36. > :50:39.anti-social behaviour. But laws on noise nuisance, alcohol licensing
:50:39. > :50:42.and disorder will remain the same, so are the council just standing in
:50:42. > :50:52.the way of what many would say is his implication of an overly
:50:52. > :51:04.
:51:04. > :51:07.complicated system? -- is an -- is a simplification. Joining me now, a
:51:07. > :51:09.representative of Kensington & Chelsea council. We are very
:51:09. > :51:12.supportive of the creative industries, we want people to have
:51:12. > :51:17.a good time, but actually, if you remove all the regulation which is
:51:17. > :51:19.currently in place, as this threatens to do, you run the risk
:51:19. > :51:24.that residents will be immensely that residents will be immensely
:51:24. > :51:29.inconvenienced. The only section they will have is to make a
:51:29. > :51:33.complaint or to see to have a premises closed down after the
:51:33. > :51:38.event. We want some control, to give residents some degree of
:51:38. > :51:43.security. John Smith, making this easier for the venues, and for the
:51:43. > :51:46.musicians, is all very well, but for the people living nearby?
:51:46. > :51:50.think they have got legislation in place now which can deal with that.
:51:50. > :51:53.You have got environmental legislation, anti-social behaviour
:51:54. > :52:00.legislation, health and safety legislation, which we think deal
:52:00. > :52:03.with this. What happens with the Licensing Act is that they have to
:52:03. > :52:08.sign up to a complicated set of restrictions before they even play
:52:08. > :52:11.music. When we did some research, just after the Licensing Act was
:52:11. > :52:17.passed, it was clear that most complaints were about domestic
:52:17. > :52:21.music, from parties and things like that, and recorded music, which is
:52:21. > :52:26.exempt from the Licensing Act. So it only punishes live music.
:52:26. > :52:31.the DJs can be loud, but not live music. Is this too prescriptive,
:52:31. > :52:37.just putting burdens in the way? I don't think so. You saw from the
:52:37. > :52:41.film, we have nearly 1,000 licensed premises in our Burgh. What is
:52:42. > :52:47.appropriate in one place, where it might make sense to relax the rules,
:52:47. > :52:50.is not appropriate in a built up, inner city area, where one person's
:52:50. > :52:57.noise and good fun really makes another person's life a misery. We
:52:57. > :53:02.have got to take account of that. This fails to do that, there is no
:53:02. > :53:06.balance. We have lobbied for a long while for an exemption for the
:53:06. > :53:09.smaller venues. We did not like the way that music was licensed under
:53:09. > :53:14.the Licensing Act. And we know that this particularly hit the smaller
:53:14. > :53:19.venues, because they are using recorded music, rather than live
:53:19. > :53:22.music. So the opportunity is not there to grow young acts. I was
:53:22. > :53:28.doing some research into the borough, and there is a small venue
:53:28. > :53:34.on the King's Road called the 3p, where Mumford & Sons and Laura
:53:34. > :53:39.Marling started. That is the kind of venue we want to encourage.
:53:39. > :53:44.the bureaucrats of Kensington and Chelsea could have prevented major
:53:44. > :53:49.bands! We have a great history of being the home of lots of creative
:53:49. > :53:53.bands. We do not want to stop that, but there is a right place and are
:53:53. > :53:57.well placed to make lots of noise. We have plenty of licensed premises,
:53:57. > :54:02.we have music licences, it has not stamped out creativity. But it
:54:02. > :54:07.gives residents some support. think they have already got powers
:54:07. > :54:12.which they could use? We think they exist already, yes. If there is an
:54:12. > :54:16.issue, people can be taken to task. Why can't you just do that, it
:54:17. > :54:21.would save you time and money, wouldn't it? No, because that puts
:54:21. > :54:25.the onus on to the nearby residents, on to the neighbours, on to the
:54:25. > :54:30.miscreant. What's wrong with saying, this is a venue where we want some
:54:30. > :54:35.live music, we can manage it properly, we can control the crowds.
:54:35. > :54:39.The idea that up to 5,000 people can go to a venue, and there is no
:54:39. > :54:46.control whatsoever, is ludicrous in central London. It may work in the
:54:46. > :54:54.middle of pull. That's all the time we have on that for now. Back to
:54:54. > :55:02.you, Jon. As we have been discussing, the Chancellor's Autumn
:55:02. > :55:07.Statement has a lot of hype to live up to. Treasury sorties -- treasury
:55:07. > :55:13.sources quoted today say it will be a game-changer. That is a big claim.
:55:13. > :55:17.So, what can we expect from the Autumn Statement? This is what
:55:17. > :55:21.rebuilding the economy looks like. Today, we're using concrete. I'm
:55:21. > :55:25.not joking, because getting billions into infrastructure
:55:25. > :55:29.projects like roads and railways is one of the two main lines of attack
:55:29. > :55:35.which Mr Osborne will be using on Tuesday in his battle to stimulate
:55:35. > :55:39.economic growth. Building, for example, a new railway means jobs
:55:39. > :55:45.in the construction industry, in transport and associated businesses
:55:45. > :55:49.and a revenue stream when passengers start queuing up. If I'm
:55:49. > :55:55.standing here in seven years' time, I will be running a serious risk of
:55:55. > :55:59.getting mowed down by a train coming out of this tunnel behind me.
:55:59. > :56:05.This is the Canary Wharf Station for CrossRail, and the entire
:56:05. > :56:08.project is costing �14.8 billion. I have been told that the Government
:56:08. > :56:14.will be announcing another big infrastructure project this coming
:56:14. > :56:18.Tuesday. But where is the money going to come from? The Government
:56:18. > :56:21.can spend money on capital infrastructure projects without
:56:21. > :56:27.interfering with their own mandate to reduce the deficit. But they
:56:27. > :56:30.would rather involve the private sector, too. There's a lot of
:56:30. > :56:33.companies and Investment funds with a lot of cash on their balance
:56:33. > :56:38.sheets, and on looking back, getting the planning consent ready,
:56:38. > :56:41.and the Government putting in the necessary support, is important not
:56:41. > :56:48.just for getting jobs now, but also in preparing the economy for the
:56:48. > :56:51.future. The second weapon in the Government's armoury is going to be
:56:51. > :56:55.something called credit easing. The banks are hoarding money, rather
:56:55. > :57:00.than lending it, which is bad news for businesses, particularly small
:57:00. > :57:04.ones. We now know the Treasury will underwrite �20 billion worth of
:57:04. > :57:09.loans to small businesses, targeting companies that turnover
:57:10. > :57:12.less than �50 million. The Government guarantees the funds, so
:57:12. > :57:16.that taxpayers' money would not be at risk if one of the businesses
:57:17. > :57:25.went under. But some people in this attack think this is a wrong and
:57:25. > :57:30.risky strategy. -- some people in the City. It is quite a risky thing,
:57:31. > :57:35.because we would be seeing the taxpayer once again taking on risk.
:57:35. > :57:38.People think that loans are too risky, and yet the Government is
:57:38. > :57:43.going to start underpinning this. And there is a trend here. We saw
:57:43. > :57:46.it also on the policy of guaranteeing 95% mortgages. The
:57:46. > :57:50.Government is turning into a bank, turning into a vehicle to guarantee
:57:50. > :57:55.debt, for private individuals or firms, and I think that is
:57:55. > :58:02.dangerous. It also shows that the coalition has learnt nothing from
:58:02. > :58:05.the disaster of some time lending. -- of subprime lending. When you
:58:06. > :58:09.start to think you know better than lenders, you end up in trouble.
:58:10. > :58:13.That is the big stuff, infrastructure and credit. But this
:58:13. > :58:16.autumn statement is also going to mean difficult decisions about us,
:58:16. > :58:19.and how we cope with falling standards of living. We know for
:58:19. > :58:23.example but the Chancellor is going to cap increases in rail fares for
:58:23. > :58:30.commuters, but what will happen about increasing benefits, for
:58:30. > :58:38.instance? The Government's policies to upgrade benefits against the
:58:38. > :58:42.consumer price index have been using the rate from the previous
:58:42. > :58:47.September. This time the Government will have to spend more next year
:58:47. > :58:50.than they had been expecting on benefit recipients, about which
:58:50. > :58:54.more and more than they had been expecting in March. That's why
:58:54. > :58:56.people are talking about the Treasury backing away from such a
:58:56. > :59:02.large and direct increase in benefits. And what is going to
:59:02. > :59:06.happen about fuel bills? Fuel duty is helping to reduce the deficit,
:59:06. > :59:11.but there is talk of a freeze. Government has plans to increase
:59:11. > :59:15.fuel duty next January by 3p, which will raise the Government about
:59:15. > :59:17.�1.3 billion each year. That is part of what is helping to
:59:17. > :59:22.contribute to closing the gap between government spending and
:59:22. > :59:26.revenue. Juggling conflicting needs, like the need to save money and the
:59:26. > :59:30.needs of car drivers, for example, is going to require some careful
:59:31. > :59:34.manoeuvres this Tuesday. But most of all, George Osborne wants
:59:34. > :59:38.British business to say, yes, this is a radical strategy to encourage
:59:38. > :59:45.growth. This time, a bit of tinkering is not going to do the
:59:45. > :59:50.trick. Just to say, there will be full coverage of the Chancellor's
:59:50. > :59:54.statement in a special programme on BBC Two on Tuesday at noon. That is