:00:14. > :00:16.Hello and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament, our look at the best
:00:17. > :00:18.of the day in the Commons and the Lords.
:00:19. > :00:23.Is sending in the bulldozers a good idea?
:00:24. > :00:25.Jeremy Corbyn criticises David Cameron's plans to demolish
:00:26. > :00:40.We'll be Prime Minister guarantee that all existing tenants of the
:00:41. > :00:44.council estates earmarked for redevelopment will be be housed in
:00:45. > :00:51.new council housing in their current communities? The House of Lords
:00:52. > :01:00.discusses the House of lords. Should their powers be curbed? Use your
:01:01. > :01:03.Use your vote prudently, yes, use it sparingly, yes.
:01:04. > :01:06.And if God Save the Queen has to go, what should become
:01:07. > :01:17.I want to say which area it was says the most reasonable choice was
:01:18. > :01:23.Could housing be one of the main political issues during the time
:01:24. > :01:29.At the weekend David Cameron unveiled his ?140 million plan
:01:30. > :01:32.to tackle poverty by bulldozing so-called 'sink' estates to make way
:01:33. > :01:34.The Prime Minister pledged to demolish 'brutal high-rise'
:01:35. > :01:37.towers and bleak housing in an effort to tackle drug abuse
:01:38. > :01:42.So was this an attempt by the Conservative leader to march
:01:43. > :01:48.across Labour's traditional territory?
:01:49. > :01:50.The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn challenged David Cameron
:01:51. > :01:57.This week the Prime Minister rather belatedly acknowledged
:01:58. > :02:03.there is a housing crisis in Britain.
:02:04. > :02:07.He announced a ?140 million fund to transform 100 housing estates
:02:08. > :02:11.around the country, which amounts to ?1.4 million per housing estate
:02:12. > :02:30.It is not even going to pay for the bulldozers, is it?
:02:31. > :02:37.What we have done is double the housing budget. We're going to be
:02:38. > :02:42.investing ?8 billion in housing. That comes after having built
:02:43. > :02:47.700,000 homes since becoming Prime Minister. We have over a quarter of
:02:48. > :02:52.a million more affordable homes. Every estate he announces you wishes
:02:53. > :02:58.to build those will include tenants and people who have bought their
:02:59. > :03:01.homes under Right to Buy. Will those people, the leaseholders, will be be
:03:02. > :03:07.guaranteed homes on those be built estates that he has proposing to
:03:08. > :03:13.build? Of course I accept this is not as carefully thought through as
:03:14. > :03:19.his reshuffle. I gather is still going on. It has not actually
:03:20. > :03:23.finished yet. What we want to do is to go to human tears where there are
:03:24. > :03:27.a sink estates and housing estates that have helped people back and
:03:28. > :03:32.agree with those local councils, those local people and make sure
:03:33. > :03:37.tenants get good homes, make sure home owners get rehoused in new
:03:38. > :03:42.houses. That is what we want. I noticed the Prime Minister did not
:03:43. > :03:48.give any guaranteed to leaseholders on states. So there is another
:03:49. > :03:55.larger groups on those as states that have two I have a question to
:03:56. > :03:59.ask him. Daryl says, will be Prime Minister guarantee that all existing
:04:00. > :04:06.tenants of the housing estates earmarked for a reader redevelopment
:04:07. > :04:13.will be rehoused in council housing in their current amenities with the
:04:14. > :04:17.same conditions that we have now? Isn't it interesting, Mr Speaker,
:04:18. > :04:21.who here is the small see conservative who is saying to people
:04:22. > :04:26.stay in your sink estates, have nothing better than what Labour
:04:27. > :04:32.agave after the war. We are saying if you are a tenant, have the Right
:04:33. > :04:38.to Buy. If you are in a sink estate, we will help you out. That is the
:04:39. > :04:43.fact of politics today. A party on the side of the House that once to
:04:44. > :04:49.give people life chances and a Labour opposition that wants them to
:04:50. > :04:53.stay stuck in poverty. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister doesn't seem to
:04:54. > :05:00.understand. He doesn't understand the very serious concerns that
:05:01. > :05:04.council tenants have when they feel they are going to be forced away
:05:05. > :05:10.from the community where they live, where their children go to school
:05:11. > :05:14.and their community is so strong. But there is another area where the
:05:15. > :05:19.Prime Minister might be able to help us today. His party's manifesto
:05:20. > :05:25.said, everyone who works hard should be able to own a home of their own.
:05:26. > :05:30.So we'll families earning his so-called national living wage be
:05:31. > :05:39.able to afford one of his discount starter homes? I very much hope they
:05:40. > :05:45.will. As well as starter homes, we are having shared ownership homes.
:05:46. > :05:49.We are saying to the 1.3 million tenants of Housing associations, we
:05:50. > :05:58.are on your side. You can buy your own home, why does he still oppose
:05:59. > :06:07.that? Well, Mr Speaker, I hope this what hope goes a long way. Research
:06:08. > :06:12.by shelter found that families on his so-called living wage will be
:06:13. > :06:26.unable to afford the average Tartar home in 98% of local authority
:06:27. > :06:32.areas. He didn't answer the question about the 1.3 million housing
:06:33. > :06:39.association tenants. I want what is best for everybody. He owns his
:06:40. > :06:44.home, I own my home, why weren't we let those 1.3 million own their
:06:45. > :06:51.homes? Why not? The Prime Minister gave no assurances to tenants, no
:06:52. > :06:53.assurances to leaseholders, no assurances to low-paid people who
:06:54. > :07:00.want to get somewhere decent to live. He quoted the words of Linda,
:07:01. > :07:05.a council tenant for the last 25 years. The council bill being put
:07:06. > :07:11.through Parliament, we will have two signed a new agreement, if we say we
:07:12. > :07:17.will have to pay the bedroom tax and debt. If we downsize, we lose our
:07:18. > :07:23.secure home. It is a real problem that Linda and others are facing. If
:07:24. > :07:31.she was in the advice you grow, what advice would you give her? It has
:07:32. > :07:38.not paid by pensioners, but that's another point I would make to Linda
:07:39. > :07:44.and all those who are in council housing or other two Council
:07:45. > :07:49.Association homes. We are giving you the chance to buy your own home. It
:07:50. > :07:54.is interesting what this exchange has shown. We now have a Labour
:07:55. > :07:58.Party with a housing policy that does not support home ownership.
:07:59. > :08:02.They have a defence policy that does not believe in defence. We have a
:08:03. > :08:08.Labour Party that does not believe in work and a Labour leader who does
:08:09. > :08:10.not believe in Britain. David Cameron.
:08:11. > :08:12.The SNP Westminster's leader Angus Robertson opted
:08:13. > :08:19.He supported the idea of a post-study work visa that
:08:20. > :08:21.would allow university students from overseas to stay
:08:22. > :08:25.He said the Commission led by the economist Lord Smith had
:08:26. > :08:27.recommended the creation of schemes to allow overseas graduates
:08:28. > :08:30.to remain in Scotland and work for a period of time once
:08:31. > :08:45.Why did the UK Government this week ruled out a return of a post study
:08:46. > :08:51.work Visa without discussions and before parliamentary reports? There
:08:52. > :08:54.is no limit on the number of people who can stay after they have
:08:55. > :09:01.graduated, as long as they have a graduate level job. That is a clear
:09:02. > :09:06.message. The return of post study abusers is supported by all of
:09:07. > :09:11.Scotland's publicly funded colleges, College Scotland, universities
:09:12. > :09:16.Scotland, the representative body for higher institutions. All
:09:17. > :09:21.parties, including the Scottish Conservative Party. Why does the
:09:22. > :09:29.Prime Minister think they are all wrong and he is right? I think the
:09:30. > :09:33.disadvantage of inventing a new post-work-study route, we are
:09:34. > :09:37.effectively saying to people coming to our universities, it is OK to
:09:38. > :09:43.stay with a less than graduate job. There are lots of people in our own
:09:44. > :09:47.country desperate for a those jobs. We do not need the world's brightest
:09:48. > :09:53.and best to come here and study and then to do a menial and Labour job.
:09:54. > :09:58.That is not what our immigration system is for. What we want is a
:09:59. > :10:06.system that we can advertise to the world, com study and work here. Onto
:10:07. > :10:12.gambling and the potential dangers of fixed odds betting terminals.
:10:13. > :10:19.Some of the Government's backbenchers would agree with me,
:10:20. > :10:26.despite my background would be menial, in calling to a reduction to
:10:27. > :10:31.fixed betting terminals. They seem reluctant to review this ?1.6
:10:32. > :10:37.million industry and refuses to bring it under scrutiny. Can the
:10:38. > :10:40.Prime Minister ensure that the Government will undertake a review
:10:41. > :10:48.of this dangerous and addictive problem? We keep this important
:10:49. > :10:49.situation under review. A former oil trader raised
:10:50. > :11:02.the falling global price of oil: 30 billion I'll is good for... It is
:11:03. > :11:09.bad in other respects. If it goes on like this, we risk seeing regimes
:11:10. > :11:14.under pressure, enormous financial transfers out of our markets to pay
:11:15. > :11:18.for other country's deficit, a possible collapse in share prices
:11:19. > :11:22.and dividends for pensions and a liquidity problem in our banking
:11:23. > :11:29.sector. May I invite the Prime Minister initiate a review across
:11:30. > :11:35.Whitehall to assess the effects of low oil prices on our economy and
:11:36. > :11:40.beyond? It has a effect on our our constituents who are able to fill up
:11:41. > :11:46.their cars were less than ?1 per litre. That is a very big increase
:11:47. > :11:52.in people's disposable income. A low oil price is good for the British
:11:53. > :11:56.economy as an economy that is a production economy. There are other
:11:57. > :11:58.consequences and union to many of them. We need to look carefully at
:11:59. > :12:01.how we can help our industry. Now, cast your mind back to the end
:12:02. > :12:05.of October and there was something of a constitutional
:12:06. > :12:06.crisis at Westminster. The House of Lords had blocked
:12:07. > :12:09.the Government's planned cuts to tax credits and this despite the Lords
:12:10. > :12:12.supposedly having little or no say Conservative Ministers
:12:13. > :12:18.were not best pleased. A review was ordered into the powers
:12:19. > :12:21.of the Lords. It concluded that peers should
:12:22. > :12:23.lose their veto over what's known Peers would instead be allowed
:12:24. > :12:29.to send these laws back to the Commons, forcing MPs to vote
:12:30. > :12:33.again, but would only be able The person in charge of the review
:12:34. > :12:48.led a debate on his proposals. My Lords, by having the ability to
:12:49. > :12:52.do what the House of lords traditionally does so well, ask the
:12:53. > :12:59.House of commons to think again, we are doing what we have always done.
:13:00. > :13:04.To limit it to a ping without a pong, we are giving the House of
:13:05. > :13:09.lords writes that they do not have at the moment. In other words we
:13:10. > :13:15.have a conversation between the two houses that they have the final say.
:13:16. > :13:20.Speaking as someone who has served the Government for 30 years, it is
:13:21. > :13:25.no bad thing that the House of lords does have the opportunity to revise
:13:26. > :13:28.legislation, to seek no matter how inconveniently or uncomfortably to
:13:29. > :13:34.the Government of the day, go back and think about this again.
:13:35. > :13:38.Particularly in relation to tax credits. I sometimes reflect that
:13:39. > :13:42.members of the Government party in the other house might be grateful of
:13:43. > :13:47.being speared several months of being quite rightly have ranked by
:13:48. > :13:56.their constituents, who would have lost sums of money. The House
:13:57. > :14:06.sometimes sells itself sought. -- sells itself short. In that context
:14:07. > :14:15.of the constitutional democracy, to deal with legislation on issues as
:14:16. > :14:16.sensitive as the level income of people who are hard-pressed because
:14:17. > :14:28.of the economic crisis,... Why is this change being proposed?
:14:29. > :14:31.Part of a wider concern by the government, no government likes it
:14:32. > :14:39.when they are defeated but join the club. I know what it is like to be
:14:40. > :14:45.defeated. In the five and three quarters years of this government,
:14:46. > :14:49.it suffered 123 defeats and any five and three quarters years between
:14:50. > :14:56.2002 and 2008, which I am particularly familiar with, the
:14:57. > :15:02.government suffered 325 defeats. I urge the size not to abandon its
:15:03. > :15:09.right to say no. Use it prudently, yes, sparingly, yes, but retain this
:15:10. > :15:16.we must. The application of the proposals in the report is that we
:15:17. > :15:23.have gone beyond the point where the present self-regulatory framework
:15:24. > :15:28.can be allowed to continue and something that is more laid down in
:15:29. > :15:33.statute might be required in place of the current convention.
:15:34. > :15:35.You're watching our round-up of the day in the Commons
:15:36. > :15:40.An MP bids to replace God Save the Queen with an anthem
:15:41. > :15:46.The British economy risks once again becoming dependent on consumption
:15:47. > :15:53.by households and not led by export performance.
:15:54. > :15:55.You're watching our round-up of the day in the Commons
:15:56. > :16:00.The British economy risks once again becoming dependent on consumption
:16:01. > :16:02.by households and not led by export performance.
:16:03. > :16:03.That was the claim of the Scottish Nationalists
:16:04. > :16:06.during a Commons debate they'd called, focusing on the UK's current
:16:07. > :16:10.Opening the debate, the SNP's finance spokesman noted that in 2012
:16:11. > :16:12.the Chancellor George Osborne had declared he wanted to double
:16:13. > :16:16.Mr Speaker, total export sales in 2013 were ?521 billion,
:16:17. > :16:18.which was a reasonable start, but that fell to ?513
:16:19. > :16:30.The numbers are moving in the wrong direction,
:16:31. > :16:35.yet the Chancellor and this Government still expect us
:16:36. > :16:39.to believe that exports could, in effect, double over this
:16:40. > :16:44.The OBR s most recent forecast suggests that they will miss that
:16:45. > :16:47.target by about ?350 billion, so the target set
:16:48. > :16:58.I have to say that I really struggle to take lessons on the economy
:16:59. > :17:05.It is a party that built its whole idea of independence,
:17:06. > :17:10.which mercifully the good people of Scotland rejected,
:17:11. > :17:15.on the idea that oil was going to be the lubricant,
:17:16. > :17:17.the foundation of their independent economy.
:17:18. > :17:24.Oil is now $35 a barrel and it is accepted that if the SNP
:17:25. > :17:26.had been successful, the cost would have been somewhere
:17:27. > :17:31.in the region of ?5,000 for every single household.
:17:32. > :17:35.Scotland would have been in the most atrocious economic place if it had
:17:36. > :17:42.The Chancellor s latest wheeze is to open the door to Chinese cash.
:17:43. > :17:45.China has no track record of building nuclear power plants,
:17:46. > :17:48.yet the Chancellor has offered massive subsidies over the next 20
:17:49. > :17:51.years in the hope of encouraging Chinese state companies to invest
:17:52. > :17:59.So much for encouraging British manufacturing!
:18:00. > :18:02.I believe that the Chancellor s cunning plan has little to do
:18:03. > :18:05.with energy security and everything to do with getting China to cover
:18:06. > :18:06.Britain s disastrous current account deficit.
:18:07. > :18:08.With Chinese money coming in, foreign currency will stay
:18:09. > :18:17.The head of the Tax Office, Dame Lin Homer, has announced
:18:18. > :18:20.that she will be leaving her post in April.
:18:21. > :18:21.Until then, though, it's business as usual,
:18:22. > :18:23.so MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have been
:18:24. > :18:25.questioning her with their usual robustness.
:18:26. > :18:27.She was challenged over whether enough is being done
:18:28. > :18:31.A Conservative, Stephen Phillips, suggested that wealthy people
:18:32. > :18:35.in particular had been "getting away" with tax evasion.
:18:36. > :18:40.A claim that led to tetchy exchanges with Lin Homer.
:18:41. > :18:42.You are prosecuting 35 a year at the moment.
:18:43. > :18:46.By 2020 you are going to be prosecuting 100.
:18:47. > :18:50.That means that each and every year at the moment there are about,
:18:51. > :18:53.let's say, no, in fact, 65 is an underestimate because even
:18:54. > :18:55.in 2020 you will not be prosecuting everyone.
:18:56. > :18:58.But there are a lot of wealthy individuals who are evading
:18:59. > :18:59.their taxes and who are not prosecuted.
:19:00. > :19:05.You can agree with that and it will reflect credit on you.
:19:06. > :19:08.I said a few minutes ago, you probably didn't hear
:19:09. > :19:10.so I will say again, that across the whole spectrum
:19:11. > :19:13.we do not prosecute everybody in every category.
:19:14. > :19:16.So there will always be individuals who we don't prosecute.
:19:17. > :19:19.Wealthy, less wealthy, not so wealthy.
:19:20. > :19:26.It has never been our intention to prosecute everybody.
:19:27. > :19:32.You assess the risk in terms of evasion yourself at 40%
:19:33. > :19:35.in relation to individuals evading personal taxation.
:19:36. > :19:39.A message which goes out loud and clear, doesn't it?
:19:40. > :19:42.It is "evade your taxes and you are not going
:19:43. > :19:46.No, I don't think it is, Mr Phillips, and I am not
:19:47. > :19:50.But I think the message is that we will use a range
:19:51. > :19:52.of approaches to dissuade people from evading their taxes.
:19:53. > :19:59.And the assertion that we have ignored rich people...
:20:00. > :20:03.Well, the problem with that is that on your own figures,
:20:04. > :20:08.you have asked the Treasury for more money so that you can prosecute more
:20:09. > :20:11.wealthy tax evaders and another 65 a year by 2020.
:20:12. > :20:14.I want more money to do volume crime, which is what led
:20:15. > :20:18.I don't understand why you are so defensive.
:20:19. > :20:25.I don't want the message to get out there that there are certain people
:20:26. > :20:27.that we will not go after and I think...
:20:28. > :20:29.I reject words being placed in my mouth, I'm afraid.
:20:30. > :20:42.I honestly don't quite understand why you are being so defensive
:20:43. > :20:48.about this because it does seem to me that if you have gone
:20:49. > :20:51.from looking at the numbers of prosecutions of wealthy
:20:52. > :20:56.individuals, 35 was mentioned, and you have got some additional
:20:57. > :21:00.funding to increase prosecutions to 100 a year.
:21:01. > :21:05.I sort of feel, that says to me that maybe there are some people,
:21:06. > :21:08.maybe not all of the 65 added on, some people who might,
:21:09. > :21:13.through other things, because maybe that became part
:21:14. > :21:16.of the way that HMRC worked, maybe some of those 65,
:21:17. > :21:19.and obviously not the same individuals, who are going to be
:21:20. > :21:23.prosecuted in the future and maybe in the past they came
:21:24. > :21:31.in for a conversation and something would be sorted out.
:21:32. > :21:33.And, yes, they might have to sort out their affairs and pay
:21:34. > :21:35.a backdated cheque or something like this.
:21:36. > :21:37.But ultimately, there will not be a prosecution.
:21:38. > :21:41.Because it seems to me, we have seen too many of those
:21:42. > :21:47.conversations happening rather than prosecutions and quite rightly,
:21:48. > :21:54.public concern at that has led to more funding coming in,
:21:55. > :21:57.which maybe more of those cases or types of those cases should end
:21:58. > :22:01.with prosecutions, so, honestly, I don't think this is a trap.
:22:02. > :22:05.It is just saying, don't be defensive.
:22:06. > :22:09.Public pressure and unhappiness in this particular area
:22:10. > :22:13.is going to lead to more prosecutions and that will mean that
:22:14. > :22:16.maybe some individuals in the way they carried out their affairs
:22:17. > :22:19.in the past will not be acceptable in the future
:22:20. > :22:22.Please don't be defensive about that.
:22:23. > :22:25.I am not, and can I just say, that is our approach
:22:26. > :22:29.across the piece and has been since 2010 so we have gradually been
:22:30. > :22:37.expanding prosecutions, not maybe as fast as we could have done.
:22:38. > :22:41.But we do believe that we need to signal clearly that for anyone
:22:42. > :22:47.who evades tax, there is a risk of prosecution.
:22:48. > :22:50.Now, have we had enough of God Save The Queen?
:22:51. > :22:52.The UK national anthem always gets an airing when the England football
:22:53. > :22:55.team or England rugby team is about to play
:22:56. > :23:00.But shouldn't England be represented by something more English?
:23:01. > :23:18.Land of Hope and Glory is one of the songs now being put forward
:23:19. > :23:20.as an alternative to God Save the Queen.
:23:21. > :23:23.Introducing his own Bill in Parliament, a Labour MP believed
:23:24. > :23:25.an English national anthem was an idea whose time
:23:26. > :23:33.It has often seemed incongruous to me that when England play
:23:34. > :23:36.against other home nations on the football or rugby field,
:23:37. > :23:39.while the Welsh and Scots sing an anthem that reflects the identity
:23:40. > :23:42.of their nations, England sings about Britain.
:23:43. > :23:45.That reflects a sense that we see Britain and England as synonymous,
:23:46. > :23:48.and this not only denies us English an opportunity to celebrate
:23:49. > :23:51.the nation that is being represented, but it is a cause
:23:52. > :23:54.of resentment among other countries within the British Isles,
:23:55. > :23:57.who feel that England has requisitioned the British song.
:23:58. > :23:59.I spoke to radio stations in all corners of England this
:24:00. > :24:02.morning, such was the interest in the debate about what our
:24:03. > :24:09.There were voxpops on the streets of towns far and wide,
:24:10. > :24:10.and each area reflected the specific differences
:24:11. > :24:17.I will not say which area thought that the most appropriate choice
:24:18. > :24:20.for an English national anthem would be Heaven Knows I m Miserable Now
:24:21. > :24:25.` that will remain a secret between me and the listeners
:24:26. > :24:32.But that reflects the fact that each local area has its own sense
:24:33. > :24:35.He said there had been suggestions for an English anthem
:24:36. > :24:39.The three options were God Save the Queen, Jerusalem and Land
:24:40. > :24:41.of Hope and Glory, and Jerusalem was the clear winner,
:24:42. > :24:48.Land of Hope and Glory received 32% and God Save the Queen just 12%.
:24:49. > :24:55.Just as Jerusalem was the favoured choice of those who voted
:24:56. > :24:58.in the Commonwealth Games poll, so it seems to be an early favourite
:24:59. > :25:00.among members of the public who have engaged with me.
:25:01. > :25:02.The campaign group England in my Heart is specifically
:25:03. > :25:05.campaigning for Jerusalem to be played before England rugby matches.
:25:06. > :25:07.One MP believed a separate English anthem was wrong.
:25:08. > :25:12.What greater pleasure can there be for a true-born English man
:25:13. > :25:19.or true-born English woman than to listen to our own national
:25:20. > :25:24.anthem ` a national anthem for our whole country,
:25:25. > :25:27.for our whole United Kingdom, of which England is but a part,
:25:28. > :25:34.but an important part, and to listen to those words that
:25:35. > :25:37.link us to our Sovereign, who is part of that chain that takes
:25:38. > :25:43.Despite that opposition, Toby Perkins was allowed to bring
:25:44. > :25:47.How far it progresses remains to be seen.
:25:48. > :25:52.Do join me for our next daily round-up.
:25:53. > :25:56.Until then, from me, Keith Macdougall, goodbye.