Plebgate - MPs demand apology from officers: Politics live blog (2024)

Keith Vaz, the chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has said he is disappointed that the two Police Federation officers who were recalled to his committee this afternoon did not offer a full apology to Andrew Mitchell.(See 4.13pm.) Vaz told BBC News that the two were recalled because his committee felt they committed a contempt of parliament by misleading it two weeks ago. He welcomed the fact that Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones apologised in this respect.

In Mr Hinton's case he was very open and transparent and gave us that apology. Mr Jones apologised if he had misled us and, as we believed he had misled us, we accept that apology. But I'm disappointed they did not take the opportunity to we gave them to be unequivocal in their apology to Mr Mitchell and his family.

Vaz also said that Mitchell's wife was present in the room as the committee took evidence. The Independent Police Complaints Commission told the committee that its new inquiry into the Police Federation officers accused of giving a misleading account of their meeting with Mitchell to discuss plebgate will be finished by Christmas. A very experienced senior investigator, who is not a former police officer, is in charge of the inquiry, the MPs were told.

Ministers have started to offer concessions on the lobbying bill ahead of a vote on Tuesday afternoon that might lead to proposals for a three-month pause in the bill's scrutiny and reference of the regulation of charities at election times to a special select committee. As Patrick Wintour reports, Lord Wallace, the minister handling the bill, has written to coalition peers saying he is willing to raise the threshold substantially to ensure smaller charities are not covered by the bill's provisions that restrict the campaigning activity of charities during an election period.Ministers have also proposed that scrutiny of the section of the bill addressing charity campaigning could be deferred as long as six weeks, so long as the rest of the bill continued as normal.

The British ambassador in Berlin has been called in for a meeting at the German foreign ministry to explain allegations that Britain has set up a spying operation in its embassy building.

Andrew Tyrie, the chair of the Commons Treasury committee, has said that more work needs to be done to establish the possible economic benefits of the HS2 high-speed rail project. Speaking after an evidence-gathering session, Tryie said:

KPMG acknowledged today that their £15 billion per annum forecast return for the project has no firm statistical foundation. A lot more work is clearly needed.

Keith Vaz is talking about the hearing on BBC News now.

He says Stuart Hinton was open and transparent.

Chris Jones only apologised on the basis that he might have misled the committee, Vaz says.

But he says he was disappointed they did not offer a full apology to Andrew Mitchell.

Here are the main points from the session.

The two Police Federation officers recalled to the committee refused again to apologise to Andrew Mitchell for what they said about him after their meeting with him to discuss the plebgate affair last October. There are have claims that they misrepresented what he said for political reasons, and that their inaccurate claim that he refused to elaborate on what happened at the gates of Downing Street contributed to his decision to resign as chief whip. The officers have already issued a partial apology, accepting that it was a mistake to speak to the media. But they have not accepted that they lied about the meeting, and they maintained that position today. "I cannot apologise for something I haven't done," Sergeant Chris Jones said today. Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton said the same.

But the two officers expressed "regret" for the "distress" suffered by Mitchell. After the hearing two weeks ago they were criticised for not being sympathetic to Mitchell's situation. (See 2.41pm.) Today Hinton read out a statement on behalf of himself, Jone and Ken MacKaill (the third Police Federation officer who met Mitchell). Hinton said:

Our position in so far as the meeting with Mr Mitchell is concerned hasn't changed. While the committee appears to believe that we are indifferent to Mr Mitchell's predicament and the distress caused to him and his family since the original incident in Downing Street. We are not, I am not. Each of us fully recognises and regrets that fact that such distress has been caused.We share the belief that the investigation into the original incident in Downing Street has already taken a disproportionate period of time and should be resolved in the interests of all parties without delay.

Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, seemed to interpret this as a personal apology to Mitchell (when he asked a leading question about whether Hinton was apologising, Hinton said he was, for the distressed caused), whereas Vaz got Jones to say that Jones was not apologising to Mitchell. But Hinton and Jones were both essentially adopting the same position - expressing general regret for what happened to Mitchell, but not apologising for wrongdoing in this regard.

Hinton apologised to the committee for wrongly saying he had not referred to Theresa May as "this woman" in his conversation with Mitchell. (See 2.41pm.)And he apologised to May.

I inadvertently gave an inaccurate answer to the committee on the 23 October. There was no intention to mislead the committee. I repeat my unqualified apology to the committee for this inaccuracy. I also repeat the unequivocal apology I made in writing as part of that same document to the home secretary. Whilst I believe that at the relevant point of the meeting on the 12 October [2012] I appear to have failed to bring the home secretary's name to mind, I fully accept that this does not excuse the form of expression I used in the meeting with Mr Mitchell and I apologise for that accordingly.

Jones told the committee that he did not mean to mislead the committee when he answered a question about his disciplinary record two weeks ago (see 2.41pm), but he said that he apologised if he misunderstood the question.

It will be seen that on a proper analysis I do not believe that my answers misled the committee. My interpretation of the meaning of the questions has not changed. If, however, I failed to recognise the meaning of the questions I was asked, I apologise. If the committee was misled by my answers, then that was wholly unintentional.

Do those amount to new apologies or not?

Both men backed down over the allegation that they misled the committee two weeks ago. (See 2.41pm.) Stuart Hinton apologised clearly. Chris Jones was less apologetic, but he has written a letter to the committee, and there may be an apology in that.

But the MPs on the committee are much more interested in a wider point - getting them to apologise to Andrew Mitchell for what happened to him. On this, the two officers gave ground a little.They said they regretted giving the impression that they did not care about the distress caused to Mitchell. But this seemed to be a reference to the distress caused to Mitchell by the plebgate affair generally. (Remember, these officers had nothing to do with the incident in Downing Street.) As for what they said themselves after their meeting with Mitchell, they do not accept that they deliberately misrepresented what he told them. And so, on that point, they would not apologise. Jones was more explicit about this (not apologising) than Hinton, although, as far as I could tell, both men were adopting the same position.

I'll post a full summary soon.

Labour's David Winnick asks Jones if he is absolutely sure that he has given the committee the information it wants.

Jones says he has.

And that's it. The session is over.

Jones says it was not his intention to mislead the committee two weeks ago. But he misunderstood the question he was asked.

If he mislead the committee because he misunderstood the question, he apologises, he says.

Q: You have now given the committee all the information it requires.

Jones says he would like to think so.

Q: What is your disciplinary record?

Jones says he has no findings of misconduct against him. But 13 complaints have been made against him.

Vaz reads out what Jones's chief constable told the committee. (See 2.41pm)

He says that in two cases action was taken.

Jones says the action in relation to those complaints consisted of being given advice. That is not the same as a finding of misconduct.

Q: What were those cases about?

One was about the use of force, Jones says. The other was performance of duty.

Q: What was that about?

Jones says he was asked to secure a video. But when the video was opened, the wrong video was in the case. And Jones was criticsed for not checking the right video was in the case.

Q: And the use of force issue?

Jones says he pushed someone in the back when off duty, resulting in a minor injury to their mouth.

Jones says he has submitted a written response to the committee.

He is "disappointed" that he was not given a chance to respond to the committee before it published its report.

It was not his intention to mislead the committee, he says.

He says he "adopts" Hinton's evidence.

Vaz says this is not America. A witness cannot "adopt"s someone else's evidence.

Jones says he regrets what happened to Mitchell.

Q: Will you apologise to Mitchell?

Jones says he cannot apologise for something he has not done. But he recognises the distress that has been caused to Mitchell's family. He thinks it would be best if the investigation concludes quickly.

Q: So you won't apologise for the distress caused?

Jones says he cannot apologise for something he did not do.

Q: You don't want to apologise for any distress?

At the moment, says Jones.

Chris Jones is now giving evidence.

Vaz starts by repeating what he said to Hinton.

Q: What do you want to say to the committee.

Jones says he also has a written statement.

Q: Have you any more to say?

Hinton says he wants to say something on behalf of all three officers.

They gave the impression they were unconcerned about Andrew Mitchell. That is not the case, he says.

Q: So do you wish to apologise to Mr Mitchell and his family for the distress caused.

For the distress caused, Hinton says. But he says he cannot apologise for something he did not do.

Q: Is there anything else you want to say?

No, says Hinton.

Vaz says the committee has received a letter from Hinton's chief constable. The chief constable said it was a disrespectful term and that he would take this up with Hinton.

Q: Has he done so?

Not yet.

Hinton says, again, it was an inadvertent error.

Hinton is reading out his prepared statement.

He says there were "inadvertent inaccuracies" in his evidence two weeks ago.

He told the committee he did not remember saying "this woman" or "that woman".

He had not listened to the tape for many months at the time. The transcript did not seem to make sense.

Since the hearing, he has listened to the recording. He did say "this woman". And he was clearly referring to the home secretary.

There was no intention to mislead the committee, he says.

He apologises to the committee for that.

And he says he wants to repeat the apology he offered in his letter to the committee to Theresa May.

Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, starts.

He thinks Hinton for coming.

He says today's hearing will not cover what happened when Hinton met Andrew Mitchell. That is now being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Instead, the hearing will cover what Hinton said at the hearing two weeks ago. (See 2.41pm.)

If the committee is not satisfied with what Hinton says, it will report to the Commons, and the Commons will report the matter to the privileges committee.

Q: I asked you about the comments in the transcript where you referred to "this woman". I said three times that this was a reference to Theresa May. You said it was a "typo".

(Vaz is spinning this question out at quite some length.)

Q: [Still the same question]. In your letter to us you confirmed you were referring to May. Can you confirm that?

Hinton says he has a statement to read out.

The session is about to start.

Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton is giving evidence first.

And here are Guardian profiles of the Police Federation officers.

The Commons home affairs committee is soon going to take evidence from two of the Police Federation officers who have been criticised for giving a misleading account of their conversation when they met him to discuss the plebgate affair. They are Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton from Warwickshire Police Federation and Sergeant Chris Jones from West Midlands Police Federatsion

This is what happened last time they appeared before the committee (with a third Police Federation officer, Ken MacKaill from West Mercia Police Federation).

In a report at the weekend, the home affairs committee strongly criticised all three officers for refusing to give a full apology to Mitchell for what happened.

We are appalled at the stubborn and unashamed refusal of an apology by Inspector MacKaill, Detective Sergeant Hinton, and Sergeant Jones to Mr Mitchell. The only remorse shown by the three officers is that relating to the choreography of their dealings with the media after the meeting. Their statement of the 21 October 2013, which they continued to adhere to during their evidence, apologises for the "poor judgement in talking to the media following the meeting" on the 12 October 2013.We believe this is an empty gesture of little comfort to Mr Mitchell and his family. No matter what their view on the case, we find it incredible that they cannot recognise the impact their actions have had on another person's personal life and career.

But, although Hinton and Jones have been recalled today so they can apologise to the committee, Keith Vaz, the committee chairman, is not necessarily expecting a new apology for what they said about Mitchell. The two men have been recalled to apologise for misleading the committee two weeks ago in relation to specific elements in their evidence.

The case against Stuart Hinton

This is what the report said about Hinton, and why he was being recalled. (The bold is from the original report.)

We also note that, despite accepting the transcript as having been a correct recording of the meeting, when DS Hinton was asked about his use of the phrase "we as you know as a federation have issues with the reform of this woman that the Conservative Party have", he claimed to have been misquoted and stated that he believed it to be a typographical error. In the opinion of his own Chief Constable, "It is clear that the phrase "that woman" was a reference to the Home Secretary and this is quite obviously a disrespectful term which should not have been used by anyone, particularly a serving police officer."

We find it extraordinary that any witness, let alone a Chief Constable, should seek to correct the evidence given by another, particularly when that witness is a sworn officer, and given the nature of the investigation on which this inquiry focuses.

The letter also specifically draws into question the integrity of the evidence provided by DS Hinton and states that his answers may have been "adversely affected by his mistaken belief that he may face a misconduct panel at some future time".

We are appalled at the assertion that DS Hinton misled this Committee because of his belief that he could face a misconduct panel. All evidence given to select committees should be provided honestly and not be affected by forethoughts of any future outcome. It is an indictment of the quality of evidence provided by DS Hinton that, when specifically asked if the reference to "this woman that the Conservative Party have" was about the Home Secretary, he suggested that it was"a typo, to be perfectly honest".

This can only be characterised as mendacious when subsequently he has informed us in a letter that he accepts that "the woman referred to in this sentence must be the Home Secretary. No discourtesy or lack of respect was intended in referring to her in this way. I offer an unqualified apology to her through your Committee if the transcript appears to suggest either. Having listened to the recording—I do not claim to have a positive memory of the precise circ*mstances over a year later—my interpretation is that I was somewhat uncertain in what I was seeking to say at this point, and appear to have failed to bring immediately to mind the Home Secretary's name."

It is a serious matter to mislead a Committee of this House and DS Hinton will be recalled to the Committee to apologise for this. If he fails to apologise, that would constitute a prima facie contempt of the House. We are referring DS Hinton to the IPCC.

The case against Chris Jones

And this is what the report said about Jones, and why he was being recalled.

We asked explicitly whether any of the officers concerned had been disciplined for misconduct on a previous occasion. Inspector MacKaill stated he had been previously disciplined for misconduct. We are still awaiting details of the case. At the time that Inspector MacKaill clarified his disciplinary record for the Committee, the other witnesses were also invited to do so and both indicated that they had not been subject to disciplinary procedures. However, On 30 October, we received correspondence from Chief Constable Sims which stated that Sergeant Jones has been the subject of 13 complaints (including the current one): "two were subject of a local resolution with the complainant, three were closed by dispensation, five were unsubstantiated and two resulted in action being taken".

Chief Constable Sims suggests that it seemed likely that the officers may have misunderstood the question as it was put to them in Committee. However, since the Committee returned to the question at the end of the officers' evidence, and Inspector MacKaill offered a clarification about a disciplinary matter some years ago, we do not believe that Sergeant Jones could have failed to recognise the question that was being asked. Sergeant Jones failed to give a full account of his disciplinary record when asked. It is a serious matter to mislead a Committee of this House and Sergeant Jones will be recalled to the Committee to apologise for this. If he fails to apologise, that would constitute a prima facie contempt of the House.

The government is about to announce some new concessions on the lobbying bill, ahead of a vote this afternoon on a proposal to shelve it for three months. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a government whip, has sent peers a letter saying this:

We have listened to the views of many charities and other voluntary groups. They have made the point that low level and low spend campaigning, particularly by small groups, could be caught by the bill as currently drafted, and could mean that many more of them will have to register with the Electoral Commission and be subject to spending and donations controls in the run up to a general election. We understand these concerns and intend to respond to them.

While the government stands by the principle - endorsed by the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission - that third parties who campaign in a way which "can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success" of a party or candidates should register with the Electoral Commission, we accept that there is a balance to be struck between transparency and placing regulatory requirements on third parties.

We are therefore looking again at the thresholds for registration to ensure that small campaigning groups, including charities, are not caught by the regulatory regime. I will make clear to the House this afternoon that the government will bring forward amendments to the bill to substantially raise these thresholds from those proposed in the bill.

Ed Miliband has launched a sweeping attack on the government's approach to the economy, citing the development of a "Wonga" culture as evidence that Tory policies are failing to help people with the cost of living. "The first and last test of economic policy is whether living standards for ordinary families are rising," he said in the speech, in which he also confirmed plans to give firms that pay the living wage a 12-month tax break. See 12.19pm for a full summary. The Tories accused him of being "opportunist". Sajid Javid, the Treasury minister, put out this statement.

We want to secure a sustainable, long-term economic recovery for hardworking people. That means we must stick to our economic plan - growing the economy, helping business create jobs and cutting the deficit. And by controlling spending to cut the deficit, we can keep mortgage rates low and taxes low. Already we have cut income tax for 25 million people, frozen council tax and frozen fuel duty.

But Labour's same old policy of more spending, more borrowing and more debt - exactly what got us into a mess in the first place - would mean higher taxes and higher mortgage rates. Even Ed Balls says Ed Miliband's latest policy would have a 'substantial extra cost'.

Hardworking people would be worse off with Ed Miliband's short-termist, opportunistic politics.

Miliband has refused calls to reopen Labour's inquiry into alleged vote-rigging in Falkirk.

Boris Johnson has blamed rising energy prices on Labour's failure to build more nuclear power stations. This is what he said on LBC.

The answer to our energy crisis is to build more generation. It is absolutely crazy, we spent 20 years creating a load of blooming wind farms that wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding and produce a tiny quantity of our energy needs.We should have started 20 years ago with the nuclear stuff. It's a disaster that we didn't.Labour puss*-footed around for ages out of sheer neuralgia about nuclear. We should have gone for it then and we should go for it now.

I'm afraid that what Labour is endlessly trying to say, that you can have your cake and eat it and you can somehow cut fuel bills and get the energy companies to disgorge all this money without jeopardising their ability to invest in new plant - that strikes me intuitively as being wrong.

Johnson has sharply criticised the regime to control terrorism suspects and claimed that Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who has gone missing after disguising himself in a burqa, "obviously had help to escape". As Alan Travis reports, the London mayor blamed "coalition politics" for watering down the previous regime of control orders and claimed the current terrorism prevention and investigation measures or "Tpims" were not working.He urged the home secretary, Theresa May, to "get tough" with the Liberal Democrats to end the "ludicrous" situation.

It is worth remembering that May is a potential rival to Johnson in a future Tory leadership contest. This is what Quentin Letts wrote in a revealing profile of May earlier this year.

Earlier this year, when there was speculation about David Cameron’s future and the Mayor of London started making mischief, Mrs May laid down markers that she would fight for the Tory leadership if there was a vacancy ...

Mr Cameron was initially peeved by such naked jockeying for position but there has since been a rapprochement.Mrs May has let it be known she is not hoping to oust Mr Cameron: she is simply determined that Boris Johnson should not stroll into high office.

I am told she finds his shallowness childish and his repeated adultery deplorable. It affronts her both as a child of the vicarage and as a woman. She has no time for Boris’s fnarr-fnarr celebrity.

Johnson has also today admitted riding his bike at night without a working back light.

Payday lenders are divided over a plan to limit the number of rollovers of short-term, high-interest loans, MPs have heard.

Lone mothers and their children have lost their legal challenge to the government's flagship benefit cap policy. As the Press Association reports, two high court judges ruled on Tuesday that new capping regulations introduced by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, are lawful.

Caroline Flint, the energy secretary, has said the energybosses of all the major energy firms should follow the example of Centrica boss Sam Laidlaw and forgo their bonuses.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that the UK is one of best places to live and work, although income inequality has risen by more than in other countries since the global financial crisis struck in 2007.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has said that David Cameron's CBI speech yesterday showed that he will not have clout to win significant concessions from the EU in his renegotiation of its powers.

How can the Prime Minister try to suggest to the general public that he is going to play hardball with Brussels and claw back actual, credible powers to Britain when he very publicly promises he wants to keep Britain in the EU? Why would any of the other 27 leaders or any of the power brokers of the EU be concerned for one minute that they should try to meet his demands when he is so dewy-eyed over the European project? They can see it for what it is. He says one thing to the public, and another to them. He changes his tune depending on his audience.

The commission president was right when he said that only UKIP were the real Eurosceptics and that the Conservatives were just fakes, saying we would win more support in the 2014 European elections from an increasingly unhappy British public. He also pointed out that there could be no real repatriation of powers without a treaty change, and that that option was not on the table and never would be. Going into the supposed negotiations with a red line that says, 'whatever the EU does we will support it', is an extraordinary diplomatic strategy, and one doomed to fail.

When David Cameron marches into these high powered meetings to talk tough and fight for British sovereignty, everyone around the table must be shaking with laughter, not fear.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that the Somerset badger cull has failed to meet its target - even after the three-week extension.

In the Commons Julian Smith, the Conservative MP, has just used a point of order to raise allegations that UK intelligence officials may have been named in the leaked documents obtained by the Guardian from Edward Snowden and distributed overseas. His question was triggered by a New York Times story. This is what he said:

The Guardian newspaper has constantly denied sending details of UK intelligence agents overseas ... Over this weekend the New York Times published highly specific information regarding UK intelligence teams operating in the Middle East. Is it in order, Mr Speaker, for a national newspaper to constantly refuse questions from this House and to threaten the security of our constituents in this way?

John Bercow, the Speaker, said that this was not an issue of procedure (as Smith knew full well - he was just using the point of order mechanism to raise the matter on the floor of the Commons). Bercow went on:

The honourable gentlemen is drawing attention to what he believes to be what I think I can probably best describe as an equivocation by the Guardian. That is a matter that the honourable gentleman must pursue by other means.

He also said that Smith had already held a debate on the conduct of the Guardian in Westminster Hall, and he suggested that Smith could try for another debate on this matter.

In the Commons George Osborne, the chancellor, has just announced that Britain has signed an information sharing agreement with the Cayman Islands. It's the first deal of its kind with an overseas territory, he said, and it meant HM Revenue and Customs would have access to information about money held in Cayman Islands accounts.

One of Sparrow's rules of political journalism is that is often an inverse correlation between the newsworthiness of a speech and its quality. Today's speech from Ed Miliband is a good example. The main announcement in it, the tax break for firms that pay the living wage, or the "make work pay" contracts as Miliband calls them, came at the weekend and, in story terms, it's a bit thin. The comments about payday lenders may make the news, but one journalist at the event said on Twitter than Miliband did produce a story until he revealed in the Q&A that he had recently spoken to his brother.Yet it's a very good speech because it tackles the Conservative charge that he is anti-market head-on and makes the case for market intervention in language that is clear and engaging (and relatively free of the usual bombast and hyperbole).

Here are the main points.

Miliband mocked David Cameron for thinking the cost of living was not related to the state of the economy.

Now, David Cameron said recently that I wanted to “talk about the cost of living” because I didn’t want to talk about “economic policy.”

So we have a Prime Minister who thinks we can detach our national economic success from the success of Britain’s families and businesses.

He doesn't seem to realise that there is no such thing as a successful economy which doesn't carry Britain’s families with it.

And he obviously doesn't get that the old link between growth and living standards is just broken.

He said living standards, and whether they are rising, is the most important test of economic policy.

The first and last test of economic policy is whether living standards for ordinary families are rising.

He said government had to "permanently restore the link between growth and living standards for all of Britain’s working people".

He accused the Conservatives of being ideologically committed to the economic model that led to people being on low wages.

Listen to their silence on our plans for a living wage.

Nothing to say.

On the falling value of the minimum wage.

Nothing to say.

On zero-hours contracts.

Nothing to say.

On the exploitation of low-skill migrant labour which undercuts wages.

Nothing to say.
They’re silent because of what they believe in.

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, George Osborne described my argument that they believed in a race to the bottom as something straight out of “Karl Marx” and “Das Kapital.”

No.

He’s wrong.

It is about what is happening in this capital city.

Right here.

And towns and cities across the country.

Right now.

Now, they think that this low wage economy is the best we can do.

Because they believe doing anything about it means intervening in markets in ways that we shouldn’t.

He said that David Cameron's willingness to defend energy companies meant that consumers were facing a "Big Seven" (Cameron and the "Big Six" energy firms). Labour was giving MPs a chance to vote on its plan for an energy bill freeze in an opposition day debate tomorrow, he said.

Miliband defended market intervention. All markets had rules, he said, and all governments, including the coalition, intervened in markets. The difference between Labour and the Tories was not about whether to intervene, but how to intervene, he said.

A dynamic market economy, with profitable private sector companies is essential for creating the wealth we need.

But markets always have rules.

The question is: what do those rules allow?

And what do they encourage? ...

All governments set rules for what they want to see.

This government does intervene in markets but in the wrong way.

They make it easier to fire people.

Water down rights for agency workers.

Turn a blind eye to the failure to pay the minimum wage.

Pushing companies to compete on low wages, low skills and worse terms and conditions.

They introduce tax cuts for the richest.

Defend bonuses for the bankers.

Stand up for a powerful few.

Supporting their belief that wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everybody else.

Don’t believe it when they say they are stepping away, they are stepping in all the time, stepping in to stand up for the wrong people.

He described the rise of payday lenders like Wonga as "one of the worst symbols" of the cost of living crisis.

Last night the boss of Wonga said he was speaking for the ‘silent majority’, who are happy with their service.

But the truth is he wants us to stay silent about a company where in one year alone their bad debts reached £120 million.

An industry in which seven out of ten customers said they regretted taking out a loan.

With half saying they couldn’t pay it back.

Payday lenders don’t speak for the silent majority.

They are responsible for a quiet crisis of thousands of families trapped in unpayable debt.

The Wonga economy is one of the worst symbols of this cost of living crisis.

He said that Labour would introduce "make work pay" contracts giving 12-month tax breaks to firms paying the living wage as soon as it was elected.

He accused Cameron of being more rightwing than former Conservative prime ministers Stanley Baldwin and John Major.

This power station was built in the 1920s after a Conservative government intervened to fix a broken energy market.

That government, of Stanley Baldwin, knew that if government didn’t fix broken markets, nobody else was going to.

Stanley Baldwin knew it.

John Major seems to understand it.

But David Cameron doesn’t.

His response to Labour’s energy price freeze shows how out of the mainstream he is.

He took issue with the whole idea of government intervention in a broken market.

He said there was no need for Labour to reopen its inquiry into the alleged vote-rigging in Falkirk. He had responded to the allegations "swiftly", he said in the Q&A.Mr Miliband said he believed Mr Darling meant "that we should look at any new evidence" and that had happened. He said that the local party was already in special measures and that he was bringing in fundamental changes to relations with the unions. "I am absolutely determined that we do not have a repeat of Falkirk anywhere," he added.

Here's the full text of Ed Miliband's speech.

BBC News and Sky have abandoned their live coverage. But I've got the text, and I'll post a full summary of it soon.

Miliband mocks David Cameron.

David Cameron is still on his lap of honour.

To celebrate how brilliantly he has done.

In the slowest recovery for a hundred years.

And he says the Tories think low wages are how Britain will compete with China. But Labour believes in a race to the top, he says.

The coalition has intervened in markets in the wrong way, Miliband says.

All governments set rules for what they want to see.

This Government does intervene in markets but in the wrong way.

They make it easier to fire people.

Water down rights for agency workers.

Turn a blind eye to the failure to pay the minimum wage.

Pushing companies to compete on low wages, low skills and worse terms and conditions.

They introduce tax cuts for the richest.

Defend bonuses for the bankers.

Stand up for a powerful few.

Supporting their belief that wealth will trickle down from those at the top to everybody else.

Don’t believe it when they say they are stepping away, they are stepping in all the time, stepping in to stand up for the wrong people.

Miliband says he backs the market economy - but that there must be rules.

A dynamic market economy, with profitable private sector companies is essential for creating the wealth we need.

But markets always have rules.

The question is: what do those rules allow?

And what do they encourage?

Do they encourage companies to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, as part of a race to the top?

And provide the support they need to do so?

Or do they encourage a race to the bottom of low wages and low skills?

Do the rules mend broken markets?

Or allow some firms to take advantage of broken markets at the expense of everybody else?

Miliband says the Tories have nothing to say about issues like zero-hours contracts, and the falling value of the minimum wage, because they support this economic model.

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, George Osborne described my argument that they believed in a race to the bottom as something straight out of “Karl Marx” and “Das Kapital.”

Miliband jokes that his father might have liked this. He goes on:

[Osborne's] wrong.

It is about what is happening in this capital city.

Right here.

And towns and cities across the country.

Right now.

Now, they think that this low wage economy is the best we can do.

Because they believe doing anything about it means intervening in markets in ways that we shouldn’t.

I disagree.

Miliband says the Tories do not undestand this problem.

Now, David Cameron said recently that I wanted to “talk about the cost of living” because I didn’t want to talk about “economic policy.”

So we have a Prime Minister who thinks we can detach our national economic success from the success of Britain’s families and businesses.

He doesn't seem to realise that there is no such thing as a successful economy which doesn't carry Britain’s families with it.

And he obviously doesn't get that the old link between growth and living standards is just broken.

Growth without national prosperity is not economic success.

The first and last test of economic policy is whether living standards for ordinary families are rising.

And as I listened to these stories, my overwhelming thought was: how is this being allowed to happen in Britain, 2013?

Because these stories of payday lenders are just one part of the cost of living crisis facing families across our country.

Low skilled jobs.

Wages that are stagnating.

Predatory behaviour by some companies.

This isn’t just an issue for the lowest paid, it affects the squeezed middle just as much.

A country where a few at the top do well, but everybody else struggles.

This is not just an issue facing Britain.

It is the issue facing Britain.

Miliband starts with stories about meeting two women who took out payday loans, and who then ended up with horrific debt problems.

He met them at an advice centre. The woman in charge told him payday loan companies were running riot through the community.

This is an industry where seven out of 10 customers say they regret taking out of a loan.

Payday lenders are responsible for a quiet crisis of debt. The "Wonga economy" is one of the worst symptoms of the state of the economy, he says.

Ed Miliband is about to give his speech.

He is being introduced Rob Tincknell, the chief executive of Battersea power station. He says last Thursday marked the 30th anniversary of the closure of the power station.

Battersea power station is used to hosting politicians, Tincknell says. That may be a reference to David Cameron, who launched the Conservative party's 2010 manifesto here.

Ed Milband will be giving his speech on the cost of living at Battersea power station shortly. There is no live feed, so I will be dependent on BBC News and Sky. I'll post a summary when I've seen the full text.

Before he starts, here's a short reading list.

Patrick Wintour's preview story for the Guardian.

The Independent on Sunday's interview with Miliband in which he announced his plan to offer a tax break to firms that pay the living wage.

An article in the Times on Monday (paywall) by John McTernan, Tony Blair's former political secretary, criticising the living wage proposal. Here's an extract.

The dirty secret at the heart of the Living Wage concept is that it is a classic Trotskyist “transitional demand”. It is not intended to reform capitalism but to expose its contradictions. The value of the demand is that it appears reasonable but can never be met. That, comrade, is the point.

Many decent people support this campaign. But they are wrong. Remember the arguments about the introduction of the National Minimum Wage? Employers feared that it would destroy jobs. In the end it didn’t. Not because the greedy plutocratic boss class were wrong, but because of careful design. The Labour Government created a Low Pay Commission to model the impact of a minimum wage. The level that was set was not arbitrary, but scientific. Hence, all gain, no pain.

So what about the Living Wage? This has been modelled by the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research. Their conclusions? 300,000 young people would lose their jobs if it was implemented across Britain. Ah, but it wouldn’t be across the whole economy, I hear proponents say, just for firms who can afford it. Seriously?

You can read all today's Guardian politics storieshere.And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's papers, arehere.

As for the rest of the papers, here'sthe PoliticsHome list of top 10 must readsand here'sthe New Statesman's list of top 10 comment articles.The ConservativeHome website seems to be down at the moment.

And here are four articles I found particularly interesting.

Steve Richards in the Independent says Ed Miliband may avoid a decision on whether or not to back an EU referendum until after the Scottish independence referendum.

As I wrote recently, the Labour leader has been known to reflect that he could write Labour’s manifesto now. But he has one momentous decision still to make. Does he match Cameron’s offer on Europe, or fight an election without making such a pledge? At one point I was told that Miliband was ready to announce his support for a referendum before this year’s Labour conference. The latest thinking is that no final decision will be made until shortly before the European elections next summer, and possibly not until after the referendum in Scotland where Salmond would make much of both potential UK Prime Ministers risking the UK’s continued membership of the EU by offering a referendum.

Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times (subscription) says politicians should be wary of extravagant promises.

At this point, politicians and their advisers will make the electoral case against low-key manifestos: who would vote for a party that does not even hold out the hope of a much better country? But the ultimate victim of bombast and over-ambition is the good name of politics itself. If the defining flavour of British public life is nihilistic cynicism, it is partly the result of politicians making big promises while trends in the outside world degrade their capacity to deliver on them.

In Westminster, people ask where the next truly national leader will come from; one who transcends the electoral stalemate that looks to be Britain’s medium-term destiny and commands a convincing governing majority. Pundits monitor the 2010 parliamentary intake for a nascent Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.

The folly is to assume that a winner must evince the boldness and sheer theatre of those two. There may be an untapped following for a more modest politics, for grown-up candour about what the government of any medium-sized country can do against globalisation and history, for practical policies to make life a bit but not much better. The next great leader might be more Angela Merkel than Thatcher, more Sir John Major than Mr Blair. As they prepare their manifestos for 2015, politicians should dare to be dull.

Graeme Leach in the Times (paywall) says the economy could be slowing down by the time of the 2015 election.

Mr Osborne’s economic hopes face a pincer movement. Banking weakness will prevent escape velocity and if the economy grows in unbalanced ways — perhaps via the housing market — we may see the re-emergence of inflation. And if you think I’m being negative, I haven’t even mentioned the risk of the return of the euro crisis.

The unfolding narrative at present is that, despite the Conservatives trailing in the polls, economic recovery will steadily lift them and allow David Cameron to tell voters that all the pain has been worthwhile. The broad economic consensus is that GDP growth will accelerate from around 1.5 per cent this year to 2 per cent in 2014 and 2.5 per cent in 2015. If this happens — and it might — the budget deficit will narrow sharply and the political deficit will move into surplus, providing a springboard for a possible Tory victory.

The optimistic forecasts may come to pass, but many of the people making such forecasts didn’t predict the recovery in late 2012. They missed it because they didn’t pay sufficient attention to how the total amount of money in the economy — the M4x measure — began to grow about a year ago. Further acceleration of M4x in the first half of 2013, by around 5 per cent, happened only because of the lagged effects of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing policy. Without that QE the economy would have continued to bump along the bottom; now it has ended, its beneficial effects might end too. Sorry to be technical, but the one thing that stands out in the current economic debate is the lack of recognition of the role of money in the recovery. And if the economic consensus has failed to understand the past, it won’t predict the future accurately either.

Hamish Macdonell in the Times (paywall) says Sir John Major, the Conservative former prime minister, has said that the UK would be diminished if Scotland voted for independence - even though that result would benefit the Conservatives.

Sir John — the last Conservative leader to win a general election outright, 21 years ago — said it was in Tory interests for Scotland to vote to break with the rest of the UK.

He added that while independence might suit the Conservatives politically it would be a disaster for the United Kingdom. “Somewhere down the line we have mislaid our Scottish votes,” he said. “From a purely political point of view we would be better off without Scotland, but the UK would not.

“If Scotland went, the UK would be diminished. Heaven knows what we would do for an Army without Scotland. And there is a huge amount of Scottish talent.”

The Telegraph's Michael Deacon is at Battersea power station for Ed Miliband's speech. He has been inspired to start quoting Morrissey.

For the record, here are today's YouGov GB polling figures.

Labour: 40% (down 1 from YouGov in the Sunday Times)

Conservatives: 33% (up 1)

Ukip: 12% (no change)

Lib Dems: 9% (up 1)

Labour lead: 7 points (down 2)

Government approval: -27

According to Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour a majority of 90.

And Keith Vaz, the chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has been on TV this morning too. Talking about the plebgate hearing this afternoon, he said that his committee would be giving the two Police Federation officers a "big opportunity" to correct what they said when they gave evidence to the committee last month.

It’s only two weeks since the officers came to see the select committee to give us their version of events and I’m sorry to say that in a number of respects they have given evidence that was not strictly accurate.So this is their big opportunity today to come before the committee and to explain why that happened and to correct the record.

Caroline Flint, the shadow energy minister, has been giving interviews this morning.

As Patrick Wintour reports, she said that the bosses ofmajor energy firms should follow the example of Centrica boss Sam Laidlaw and give up their bonuses.

She also said that Labour would not be publishing its internal report into the alleged vote-rigging in Falkirk.

Wonga and other payday lenders are giving evidence to the Commons business committee now. My colleague Graeme Wearden is covering it on his business live blog.

Asked on LBC how much his energy bill, Johnson was unable to answer. "I'm sure it's outrageous" was all he could say. He said that that "higher powers" in his house (Mrs Johnson, presumably) dealt with these matters.

On his LBC show Boris Johnson has just taken a question onMohammed Ahmed Mohamed, the terror suspect who absconded last week from a Tpim dressed in a burqa.

Johnson said the incident showed that the Tpim system was "plainly not working" in the way that it should. He said that he suspected that Mohamed had an accomplice, but he stressed that he did not know this for sure. When LBC's Nick Ferrari asked him if he had asked the police for clarification on this, he started floundering (making it clear that he hadn't).

Johnson also said that banning the burqa (as some Tory MPs proposed yesterday) would be "ludicrous".

The practice of placing offenders in the stocks and pelting them with rotten fruit has long been abandoned, but Commons select committees are thriving and today we're likely to see Keith Vaz and his colleagues on the home affairs committee treating two officers from the Police Federation in a manner reminiscent of the day when people were literally pilloried, and not just metaphorically. If you want to know why the committee feels so strongly, read the report it published at the weekend.

That's this afternoon. Before that I will be focusing on Ed Miliband's cost of living speech.

Here's the agenda for the day.

9am: Boris Johnson hosts his Ask Boris phone-in on LBC.

9.30am: The Commons Treasury committee takes evidence from economists on HS2.

10am: Single parents learn the outcome of their legal challenge to the government's benefit cap policy.

10.15am: Wonga and others give evidence to the Commons business committee about payday loan companies.

11am: Ed Miliband delivers a speech on the cost of living crisis at Battersea power station. As Patrick Wintour reports, Miliband willdeclare the cost of living crisis has become the preeminent issue facing Britain, as he sets out plans for employers to receive a tax rebate if they choose to pay a worker the living wage, which is now worth £7.65 an hour, £1.34 higher than the minimum wage.

11.30am: George Osborne, the chancellor, takes questions in the Commons.

12.30pm: Nick Clegg hosts a Q&A with youngsters at a careers fair.

2pm: Peter Horrocks, director of the BBC World Service, gives evidence to the foreign affairs committee.

2pm: Ofgem holds a conference on re-engaging consumers in the energy market.

2pm: Sir David Nicholson, the NHS England chief executive, gives evidence to the Commons health committee.

2.45pm: Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton from Warwickshire Police Federation gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee. At 3pm Sergeant Chris Jones from West Midlands Police Federation gives evidence.

From 3pm: Peers begin a debate on the lobbying bill. At some point there may be a vote on an attempt to delay the bill for three months.

4pm: Dame Anne Owers, chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and Rachel Cerfontyne, the IPCC deputy chair, give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about the “plebgate” affair

As usual, I’ll also be covering all the breaking political news as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another after the home affairs committee hearing.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.