:00:43. > :00:45.Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:45. > :00:49.Has the Government's Commission on a British Bill of Rights been
:00:49. > :00:52."rigged" by the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke? That's the explosive
:00:52. > :00:59.allegation of a member of the Commission on the verge of
:00:59. > :01:01.resigning his post this morning. He joins us live in our top story.
:01:01. > :01:05.And as the Government's Welfare Reforms become law, will Iain
:01:05. > :01:10.Duncan's changes really transform Britain? The Work and Pensions
:01:10. > :01:18.Secretary joins us for the Sunday interview.
:01:18. > :01:21.All that and Danny Alexander on tax and tycoons.
:01:21. > :01:23.And, as ever, the best political panel in the business, here every
:01:23. > :01:33.week to analyse British politics in The Week Ahead and tweeting non-
:01:33. > :01:37.
:01:37. > :01:46.stop throughout the programme. In London, how the contenders for
:01:46. > :01:48.the city hall are trying to tempt voters with promises of giveaways.
:01:48. > :01:53.All that coming up in the next hour. But first the news with Maxine
:01:53. > :01:55.Mawhinney. A US soldier in Afghanistan is
:01:55. > :01:57.reported to have killed at least ten Afghan civilians and wounded
:01:58. > :02:01.several others after leaving his base in the southern province of
:02:01. > :02:11.Kandahar. The soldier has surrendered to the US military
:02:11. > :02:13.
:02:13. > :02:19.authorities and is now under arrest. Kabul, Quentin Sommerville. Quentin,
:02:19. > :02:23.what more can you tell us? We have just learned that this was a staff
:02:23. > :02:27.sergeant who may have been an member of the US Special forces.
:02:27. > :02:32.There were reports that he has had some kind of nervous breakdown
:02:32. > :02:37.before even the base and then killing these Afghans. But this
:02:37. > :02:41.seemed to be and methodical and a planned attack. He went from house
:02:41. > :02:47.to house killing afghans, we believe women and children were
:02:47. > :02:53.amongst the dead. We believe the figure currently stands at 10. Just
:02:53. > :03:00.after the controversy when American soldiers accidentally burnt the
:03:00. > :03:03.Islamic holy book, the Koran, this brings American - Afghan relations
:03:03. > :03:06.to a new low. Japan has held a minute's silence
:03:06. > :03:08.to mark the exact moment, a year ago, that the north-east of the
:03:08. > :03:14.country was hit by a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami claiming the
:03:14. > :03:18.lives of 20,000 people. Andy Moore reports.
:03:18. > :03:22.The National Service of Remembrance was led by the Emperor. At 46
:03:22. > :03:29.minutes past two in the afternoon local time, the precise moment the
:03:29. > :03:34.earthquake struck, there was a minute of silence.
:03:34. > :03:39.TRANSLATION: we're all gathered together in deep mourning to offer
:03:39. > :03:43.condolences to the deceased. Earlier at dawn handfuls of people
:03:43. > :03:52.gathered for private remembrance services in this Tsunami hit area.
:03:53. > :03:58.Like many areas this is still a wasteland. TRANSLATION: I wanted to
:03:58. > :04:03.save people but I could not. What can I do but keep on going? In the
:04:03. > :04:07.area around the nuclear plant the population has moved out. It may be
:04:07. > :04:12.decades before they can come back. Wearing protective clothing, some
:04:12. > :04:16.residents were allowed back briefly to a spot less than a mile from the
:04:16. > :04:26.nuclear plant. And in a sign of hope for the future they planted
:04:26. > :04:27.
:04:27. > :04:37.cherry trees. Someone one day may be able to enjoy their blossom.
:04:37. > :04:46.
:04:46. > :04:54.Here Liberal Democrats have voted against the Bill to change the NHS.
:04:54. > :04:56.That is all for the moment. Last year, the Government set up a
:04:56. > :04:59.Commission which David Cameron hopes will lead to more decisions
:04:59. > :05:04.being made by the UK Parliament and fewer by judges in the European
:05:04. > :05:06.Court of Human Rights. But has the Commission on a British Bill of
:05:06. > :05:12.Rights been working towards delivering or frustrating the Prime
:05:12. > :05:16.Minister's promise? In a moment, one Commissioner will tells us why
:05:16. > :05:22.he thinks the Commission is rigged against the PM getting his way. But
:05:22. > :05:25.first, here's Giles Dilnot on the growing row.
:05:25. > :05:29.The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are never more
:05:29. > :05:34.controversial than when they clash with the democratic will of the UK
:05:34. > :05:38.Parliament. From blocking the deportation of the terror suspect
:05:38. > :05:43.to demean a UK than on prisoners voting illegal, many Conservative
:05:43. > :05:48.MPs have long wanted to change who has the last word on human rights
:05:48. > :05:52.in this country. Parliament, not judges. This coalition of parties
:05:52. > :05:57.long at odds over the question of what is called Democratic overwrite
:05:57. > :06:00.agreed to investigate a British Bill of Rights incorporating and
:06:00. > :06:06.building on the European Convention. And a commission of legal experts
:06:06. > :06:09.was set up in March last year to do just that. The Commission we are
:06:09. > :06:17.establishing to look at a British Bill of Rights will be established
:06:17. > :06:20.him instantly. -- imminently. one of the eight commissioners has
:06:20. > :06:24.told the Sunday politics that he believes the commission, which
:06:24. > :06:28.often leads in the Lords and answers to Nick Clegg and the
:06:28. > :06:32.Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, is deliberately ignoring that stated
:06:32. > :06:41.Prime Minister will aim and that the chairman of the commission is
:06:41. > :06:46.trying to silence them by forcing them out. In e-mails seen by Sunday
:06:46. > :06:48.Politics it had been raised whether or not the concerns of these
:06:48. > :06:52.overwhelming majority of parliamentarians and of the Prime
:06:52. > :06:56.Minister are to be taken seriously. So far up the commission is engaged
:06:56. > :07:02.largely with proponents of the status quo and is set to do the
:07:02. > :07:08.same. Indeed he was not alone. Last July fellow Conservative
:07:08. > :07:12.commissioner Anthony Speight QC wrote, I shall be failing in my
:07:12. > :07:17.duty if I stand back and allow every trace of distinctive Tory
:07:17. > :07:21.thinking to be squeezed out of the picture. However, just six days ago,
:07:21. > :07:30.e-mails show that the row escalated dramatically won the chairman
:07:30. > :07:33.threatened to go to Ken Clarke and resign. 24 hours later, all seven
:07:33. > :07:38.commissioners including his Conservative colleagues signed a
:07:38. > :07:41.letter to the justice secretary stating that the doctor's
:07:41. > :07:46.continuing presence on the commission is significantly
:07:46. > :07:51.impeding its progress. All his manoeuvring is already angering one
:07:51. > :07:55.senior Tory backbencher. The point of the commission was to bring home
:07:55. > :07:59.human-rights. Not to do them down or reduce them but to bring them
:07:59. > :08:03.back on the British democratic control. That is fundamental. If
:08:03. > :08:07.you do not be that there's no parliamentary control of it, no
:08:07. > :08:11.final parliamentary override, then they have not delivered on the
:08:11. > :08:15.promise they set out. Late last night the Ministry of Justice told
:08:15. > :08:21.the Sunday politics, we are aware that there have been internal
:08:21. > :08:24.difficulties within the Commission on process rather than policy. The
:08:24. > :08:26.Ministry of Justice has received a letter to that effect from the
:08:27. > :08:29.commissioners and we will respond in due course. The commission
:08:29. > :08:34.itself told us that they had discussed the issues of
:08:34. > :08:41.parliamentary sovereignty battling. And Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is
:08:41. > :08:45.with me now. The Prime Minister wants this commissioned to find
:08:45. > :08:49.ways to ship the balance away from the European Court of Human Rights
:08:49. > :08:58.towards the UK Parliament. Is that what the Commission is doing?
:08:58. > :09:06.Absolutely not. The commission has been consistently directed by the
:09:06. > :09:09.chairman away from consideration of parliamentary overwrite. After one
:09:09. > :09:17.year it is now clear that it has been intended all along to issue a
:09:17. > :09:22.report in favour of the status quo. We have actually consider it a
:09:22. > :09:27.question of parliamentary sovereignty only once in the whole
:09:27. > :09:33.year that we have been in existence. And when I asked for the Prime
:09:33. > :09:38.Minister's statement that you have just put on air to be included in
:09:38. > :09:41.our initial discussion paper, the German took me to a room in the
:09:42. > :09:45.basement of the House of Lords and said I would be considered a
:09:45. > :09:50.maverick and have no influence if I persisted with that demand. Would
:09:50. > :09:56.it be fair to say in your opinion, that the commission is working to
:09:56. > :10:01.support the Prime Minister with the role of Parliament? That is exactly
:10:01. > :10:10.what I E C and exactly what I am saying. The commission answers to
:10:10. > :10:15.Kenneth Clarke. He and Nick Clegg set it up and selected the German.
:10:15. > :10:20.His civil servants run the commission and staffing, his hands
:10:20. > :10:24.are everywhere. You mean Kenneth Clarke. Are you saying that just as
:10:24. > :10:30.the secretary has been complicit with the commission in defying the
:10:30. > :10:33.Prime Minister? Yes he is following the agenda of the human rights
:10:33. > :10:38.establishment, which is well represented on the commission and
:10:38. > :10:43.in doing so, he is sidelining not only Parliament but also the prime
:10:43. > :10:47.minister. And I consider that disloyal. So just to be clear,
:10:47. > :10:51.these are important accusations, the justice secretary Ken Clarke is
:10:51. > :10:56.following a different agenda on this matter from the Prime
:10:56. > :11:01.Minister? We were called in, the commissioners were called in last
:11:01. > :11:09.December by Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg and told in terms that we
:11:09. > :11:13.should ignore what was called agitation from Parliament. Now, I
:11:13. > :11:19.consider that at 10-1 vote, an overwhelming vote by Our House of
:11:19. > :11:25.Commons cannot be dismissed as agitation and I said so. It sounds
:11:25. > :11:28.like you have lost faith in the commission to deliver any real
:11:28. > :11:33.change of that current human rights set up. Where does that leave your
:11:33. > :11:41.position? I'm afraid it leaves me with no alternative but to resign
:11:41. > :11:44.because I think the cause is so important to look in amateur way at
:11:44. > :11:49.human rights and to make it consistent with parliamentary
:11:49. > :11:54.sovereignty, that I do need to pursue it but not on the commission.
:11:54. > :11:58.Have you become a lone voice on this issue? Are you surprised that
:11:58. > :12:02.he cannot carry the support of some Tory members of this commission?
:12:02. > :12:07.There are some Tory lawyers on the commission, but they do not appear
:12:07. > :12:13.to be backing you. What he should ask them that. It is depressing to
:12:13. > :12:18.watch them being picked off one by one by the chairman. But that has
:12:18. > :12:22.happened because the chairman has consistently threatened to resign.
:12:22. > :12:30.And they have changed their minds in view of that threat and not on
:12:30. > :12:37.the bases of the issue. I could have settled for a quiet life, but
:12:37. > :12:41.it goes against my deepest convictions to sacrifice
:12:41. > :12:44.parliamentary sovereignty, which is at stake. And I'm afraid I will
:12:44. > :12:49.have to pay the price. It sounds from what you're saying that in
:12:49. > :12:53.terms of the work of his commission, major reform of how we handle human
:12:53. > :12:58.rights in this country and our relationship with the European
:12:58. > :13:04.Court, that reform is dead in the water. Well the commission has done
:13:04. > :13:10.very little work. The only research that has been commissioned on
:13:10. > :13:15.parliamentary sovereignty has been �500 grants to a graduate student.
:13:15. > :13:19.That is the only research. If we had not held a single public
:13:19. > :13:25.hearings on the matter and will not do until 14 months after the
:13:25. > :13:29.commission was set up, that is not a serious investigation. So the
:13:29. > :13:33.idea of a British Bill of Rights, that is dead in the water?
:13:33. > :13:39.British Bill of Rights may or may not be recommended, but in terms of
:13:39. > :13:43.any mature discussion of how parliamentary sovereignty can be
:13:43. > :13:48.maintained and that at the same time we can pursue human rights, is
:13:48. > :13:53.not seriously being discussed because it has been thwarted by the
:13:53. > :13:57.Ministry of Justice. So, another day another budget
:13:58. > :14:00.submission from the Deputy Prime Minister. This time it's his idea
:14:00. > :14:10.for a so-called "tycoon tax", aimed at tax-avoiding millionaires which
:14:10. > :14:11.
:14:11. > :14:13.would see them pay at least 20% of their income to the Treasury.
:14:13. > :14:19.Apparently it's an idea Nick Clegg cooked up with Chief Secretary to
:14:19. > :14:21.the Treasury, Danny Alexander. So is it designed to liven up the Lib
:14:21. > :14:23.Dem Spring Conference this weekend or a real prospect for George
:14:23. > :14:30.Osborne's budget? Who better to ask than Danny Alexander himself who
:14:30. > :14:38.joins us from the Party gathering in Gateshead. Welcome to the
:14:38. > :14:47.programme. Thank you. Is it part of the Lib Dem Budget strategy to now
:14:47. > :14:53.garage at tycoon tax on the Chancellor? What we have been doing
:14:53. > :14:58.here this weekend is debating Liberal Democrat tax policy going
:14:58. > :15:01.forward. And the core of that is our priority, but high priority we
:15:01. > :15:06.attach to cutting the tax for people on low and middle incomes
:15:06. > :15:09.and lifting the income tax threshold to �10,000 was of our
:15:09. > :15:14.aspiration that we will put forward at the next general election will
:15:14. > :15:17.be to go beyond that and get to a position when no one on a minimum
:15:17. > :15:24.wage would pay any income tax at all. Of course that must be paid
:15:24. > :15:27.I understand that. That's on the record. Answer my question, are you
:15:27. > :15:31.and Nick Clegg urging a tycoon tax on the Chancellor?
:15:31. > :15:35.Well, as I say, what we have been doing this weekend is debating the
:15:35. > :15:39.Lib Dem tax policy, that's one of a number of ideas that we have as a
:15:39. > :15:43.party. I think it's a very interesting and good idea, it's one
:15:43. > :15:47.that could really help to ensure that the thing we all need to do as
:15:47. > :15:50.a country which is to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share of
:15:50. > :15:54.tax. That's been a priority for the Liberal Democrats and the coalition
:15:54. > :15:57.Government over the last couple of years and this is an idea that
:15:57. > :16:02.could help with that. Of course it will be for the Chancellor to
:16:02. > :16:06.announce that in the Budget in a couple of weeks' time and I won't
:16:06. > :16:10.comment on what will be in that, I'll talk to you about the policies.
:16:10. > :16:18.I'm asking you to tell me what you and your leader are urging him to
:16:18. > :16:22.do in the Budget. How much, which is an idea that you ze scribed as a
:16:22. > :16:27.good idea, so I assume you would like to see him do it, how much
:16:27. > :16:31.would it bring in and what would the rate be? Sorry, I missed the
:16:31. > :16:38.second part of your question. much would the tycoon tax bring in,
:16:38. > :16:42.what would the rate be? Well, those are all matters for
:16:42. > :16:45.discussion. The idea that is lying behind it which is a similar idea
:16:45. > :16:51.to one being put forward by President Obama in the United
:16:51. > :16:57.States is that our tax system at the moment through its many reliefs,
:16:57. > :17:01.loopholes and so on allows people with high salaries some times to
:17:01. > :17:06.pay almost no tax at all. The idea behind it is to address that
:17:06. > :17:10.problem. We haven't put forward as a party a particular rate for it.
:17:10. > :17:14.What we are trying to do this weekend is put that along with many
:17:14. > :17:17.other ideas about tax on the table, particularly to focus on the key
:17:18. > :17:20.priority that we have which is to deliver further and faster the
:17:20. > :17:24.commitment we have made as a coalition Government to get the
:17:24. > :17:27.income tax threshold to �10,000. Right now, the top priority must be
:17:27. > :17:31.to get money back into the pockets of people on low and middle incomes.
:17:32. > :17:36.That's the right priority for the country an it's certainly the key
:17:37. > :17:41.priority for many others. You've said that many times. Let's get on
:17:41. > :17:45.to new territory. Matthew Oakeshott... It's something that's
:17:45. > :17:49.very important so I don't apologise for repeating that. Repeating it
:17:49. > :17:54.doesn't get us very far. Matthew Oakeshott, a Lib Dem peer always
:17:54. > :17:59.calling for more taxes says the tycoon tax is "superficially an
:17:59. > :18:03.attractive idea but falls apart on serious scrutiny".
:18:03. > :18:07.Well, I think that the views of one Lib Dem peer who was sacked as our
:18:07. > :18:10.Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords a year or so ago saw p
:18:10. > :18:13.shouldn't distract you from thinking that the Liberal Democrats
:18:13. > :18:20.very much support ideas lick this to ensure that the wealthiest in
:18:20. > :18:23.this country continue to pay their fair share -- like this. That must
:18:23. > :18:26.be right at a time of real challenges, that we have to make
:18:26. > :18:30.difficult decisions in order to deal with the massive mess that
:18:30. > :18:34.Labour left us. We are trying to do so fairly. As a coalition
:18:34. > :18:37.Government, we have done things like increasing capital gains tax,
:18:37. > :18:42.made changes to pension contributions at the top end, all
:18:42. > :18:46.of which were designed to ensure the wealthiest, those with the
:18:46. > :18:52.broadest shoulders pay their fair share. You want a tycoon tax, keep
:18:52. > :18:59.the 50p rate, curtail pension relief for the higher payers, you
:18:59. > :19:02.want a mansion tax. Denis Healey, squeezing the rich? I wouldn't put
:19:02. > :19:06.it that way. I would say the focus for the Liberal Democrats and the
:19:06. > :19:09.coalition Government is on making sure that we have a tax system that
:19:09. > :19:12.is fair. Of course, the main lever for delivering that is the lifting
:19:12. > :19:16.of the income tax threshold, the focus that we, as Liberal Democrats,
:19:16. > :19:21.had in our election manifesto in 2010 on ensuring that people on low
:19:21. > :19:24.and middle incomes pay less income tax. That's the right thing for the
:19:24. > :19:27.country, particularly people who're feeling squeezed. I've let you make
:19:27. > :19:32.the same point four times, we'll leave it there.
:19:32. > :19:36.Thanks. By the Government's own account its welfare reforms are the
:19:36. > :19:41.most radical since the founding of the welfare state more than 60
:19:41. > :19:45.years ago. Will Iain Duncan Smith's changes work? The Work and Pensions
:19:45. > :19:50.Secretary became an Evan yellist for reforming welfare in the years
:19:50. > :19:53.he stepped down as Conservative Party leader -- evangelist. His
:19:53. > :19:59.welfare reform Bill finally became law this week. The flagshipry form
:19:59. > :20:02.is the universal credit, a single benefit that replace os they ares,
:20:03. > :20:07.including Jobseeker's Allowance and Housing Benefit. Crucially, it's
:20:07. > :20:11.intended to make work pay by ensuring that welfare payments are
:20:11. > :20:16.reduced and are consistent -- at a consistent rate as earnings
:20:16. > :20:22.increase. The controversial measure is the �26,000 a year benefit cap
:20:22. > :20:26.that limits welfare payments to approximately the average wage. The
:20:26. > :20:32.Act face a rocky ride but will implementing the reforms and ending
:20:32. > :20:41.what Duncan Smith calls the culture of dependency be any easier?
:20:41. > :20:45.Iain Duncan Smith joins us now for the Sunday Interview. Secretary of
:20:45. > :20:50.State, welcome to the programme. Can we begin by asking you to look
:20:50. > :20:56.at the figures coming up in the board in just a second. They show
:20:56. > :20:59.that the number of unemployed in active households has stuck
:20:59. > :21:03.stubbornly between 3.5 and 4 million over the last 15 years.
:21:03. > :21:07.That's regardless of the state of the economy, whether it's doing
:21:07. > :21:11.well or badly. Nobody's really managed to shift these figures for
:21:11. > :21:15.almost coming up to 20 years? Can you guarantee your changes
:21:15. > :21:19.will? Well, that's what our changes are aimed at doing. I know that,
:21:19. > :21:23.but will they? I believe they lrbgs but this's the start. There's a
:21:23. > :21:27.number of changes that are coming through that will affect this. The
:21:27. > :21:31.we thing is that we have - the issue is not whether unemployment
:21:31. > :21:39.rises or falls in recession or good times - the problem is we have had
:21:39. > :21:43.a greing number of rezilyul unemployed -- growing number of
:21:43. > :21:47.residual unemployed. 20% of households are unemployed,
:21:47. > :21:50.something like two million kids growing up in those households.
:21:50. > :21:55.Those figures are correct. That's the problem. Can you give us any
:21:56. > :21:59.idea of what will hatch to the figures if your reforms take you to
:21:59. > :22:03.it -- happen to the figures? We are driving more lone parents, for
:22:03. > :22:07.example, back to work earlier. We have dropped it from 16 down to
:22:07. > :22:10.five when the children are five you go back to work. We are seeing more
:22:10. > :22:15.people on the Incapacity Benefit changes going back to work because
:22:15. > :22:18.we are asking them to be re- assessed. What we have seen already
:22:18. > :22:22.if you look at the figures today is a fall in the number of inactive
:22:22. > :22:26.people, those figures you've seen, actually more people going back and
:22:26. > :22:31.being ready for work. I would suggest to you that unless we see a
:22:31. > :22:35.step change in the figures, by which I mean a substantial
:22:35. > :22:40.reduction, the reforms will have failed? The whole idea and the
:22:40. > :22:43.whole purpose of the Bill and all the o the Reforms that weren't in
:22:43. > :22:48.the Bill, universal credit and everything else was to change the
:22:48. > :22:51.culture from being welfare pays you better than to be in work. From now
:22:51. > :22:55.on, it has to be that work is better for you than being on
:22:55. > :22:59.benefits. For people trapped in families out of work, they have no
:22:59. > :23:03.sense that work can build you, help you, shapes you, gives you your
:23:03. > :23:08.friendships, they only know one thing, am I better off or worse off
:23:08. > :23:11.sitting on benefits doing a bit of cash in hand. The universal credit
:23:11. > :23:14.objective is to change that dynamic so that being in work you are
:23:14. > :23:18.better off. The second thing is that the way we get people back to
:23:18. > :23:23.work has to change and that's the work programme which is that we no
:23:23. > :23:25.longer want to use civil servants to do this. We want the private and
:23:25. > :23:29.voluntary sector so set whatever they think is necessary and I mean
:23:29. > :23:32.whatever is necessary, to drive the long-term people back to get their
:23:32. > :23:35.conditions sorted and then ready for work and back to work. The
:23:36. > :23:39.third element is the conditionality which is, we do all this for you,
:23:39. > :23:43.we have a contract with you now, with the British taxpayer, you have
:23:43. > :23:47.to to the things that we ask you to do, otherwise you will lose your
:23:47. > :23:50.benefit if you don't work with us. These things are critical.
:23:50. > :23:54.understand. We have heard that's the background to the Bill. Let's
:23:54. > :23:59.see if the incentive to get back to work is strong enough. Let's take
:23:59. > :24:07.your benefit cap, it's �500. Let's look at the difference in the
:24:07. > :24:11.average weekly rent. In the north- east, it's only �66. In comparison
:24:11. > :24:14.to London, it's almost �100. Outside of high rent London, the
:24:14. > :24:18.benefit cap will have almost no impact? There are two caps you
:24:18. > :24:22.mustn't get confused about. The first is the overall benefit cap,
:24:22. > :24:25.but as well underneath that, there is a household cap, that is to say
:24:25. > :24:28.we are looking at the amount of Housing Benefit that's paid and
:24:28. > :24:34.that does have a very big effect across all the regions. So what we
:24:34. > :24:39.are talking about here, I fancy, is the cap on benefits overall, which
:24:39. > :24:42.is at �26,000 a year. �500 a week. It will affect the south-east more
:24:42. > :24:46.than anywhere Emms. It won't make any difference if you live in north
:24:46. > :24:50.of England? It doesn't have a big effect up there because of the
:24:50. > :24:53.simple reason that the cost of living and rentals are higher in
:24:53. > :24:58.the south-east, so we accept that. You shouldn't introduced a regional
:24:58. > :25:00.cap? Not at all. The difference is, we have other caps going on. For
:25:00. > :25:04.example, the Housing Benefit cap will have an effect in all the
:25:04. > :25:12.regions, that is to say I'm capping the amount that we are going to pay
:25:12. > :25:14.in Housing Benefit to families. We have dropped... In regional bases?
:25:14. > :25:18.Across-the-board. I don't regionalise benefits because we
:25:18. > :25:23.haven't don that yet, that is a debate to be had and we may need to
:25:24. > :25:27.look at that. We don't regionalise pay from the public sector. These
:25:27. > :25:30.are having a big effect in the regions, the benefit cap doesn't
:25:30. > :25:35.have the same effect but the majority of those affected in
:25:35. > :25:38.London will have a massive change. The Jobseeker's Allowance. If
:25:38. > :25:43.claimants refuse to work three times, they could lose their
:25:43. > :25:47.benefits for three years? Yes. you accept that could leave some
:25:47. > :25:52.people destitute? Well, I don't believe it will do
:25:52. > :25:55.because we are always... Really? I don't believe it will because
:25:55. > :25:58.there's always help and support available in a minimalistic way for
:25:58. > :26:02.people who run into serious difficulty and of course we protect
:26:02. > :26:06.children. The reality is here, for years we've said to people on
:26:06. > :26:09.benefits, it doesn't really matter what you do, there'll always be
:26:09. > :26:13.that support. Whereas for the rest of the country who work on low and
:26:13. > :26:16.marginal incomes who pick where they live, their lives are set
:26:16. > :26:20.around what they can afford. So all we are saying to them, those on
:26:20. > :26:29.benefits is this, you have choices, just like everybody else. We'll do
:26:29. > :26:32.what we can to help you, but if you taxpayer has the right to say, that
:26:32. > :26:35.contract has been broken by you and therefore they don't owe you the
:26:35. > :26:38.money. That's the principle. We need to change the culture here,
:26:39. > :26:43.it's not about money always, it's a culture that says, you can do what
:26:43. > :26:46.you like, we don't mind. That's changing now. We are saying no, you
:26:46. > :26:50.do what you are asked, if you don't then we'll make sure you don't get
:26:50. > :26:54.the money. You have got this yawn versal credit coming in in 2013, it
:26:54. > :26:57.will encompass a number of the existing credits. You have said
:26:57. > :27:04.throughout your idea is that we'll always pay to work rather than be
:27:04. > :27:09.at home on benefits. That's been your teeth throughout the reforms.
:27:09. > :27:15.If even after your universal credit is introduced, many people will
:27:15. > :27:21.face effective marginal rates of income tax of 76%, lower than now
:27:21. > :27:25.for some but 76%? That's hardly incentive? Better than they face
:27:25. > :27:30.right now. Some same people will be facing marginal rates of over 100%
:27:30. > :27:34.right now, this is how ridiculous it's got. 76 is very high? Let me
:27:34. > :27:39.explain the basic structure of this. A huge amount of the money that we
:27:39. > :27:43.pour into universal credit goes to getting people into work and into
:27:43. > :27:48.the lower income jobs, that is to say the lowest number of hours, so
:27:48. > :27:52.they'll be much better off, a family with two children et cetera
:27:52. > :27:57.will be better off than they would have been on benefits and �36
:27:57. > :28:03.better off than they would be right now. The key things here is the
:28:03. > :28:07.changes that are there are supported. The area into the tax
:28:07. > :28:11.system that, margin goes up from 65 to 70%. My point is they are much
:28:11. > :28:15.higher up the number of hours and moving towards full-time work. So
:28:15. > :28:21.it is better than it will be right now and of course, Governments in
:28:21. > :28:27.the future can choose to make that better if they waish. Indeed. But
:28:27. > :28:35.over three million people will face an effective marginal rate of tax
:28:35. > :28:39.of 60%. They will pay a higher rate than Barclay's Bob Diamond who's
:28:39. > :28:48.paid himself over �6 million. How is that an incentifz to get into
:28:48. > :28:53.work? It's a greater incentive -- incentive. A bigger incentive?!
:28:53. > :28:57.could face a 95p in the pound deduction for every hour that you
:28:57. > :29:01.work right now. You have made it a wee bit better? It's a lot better.
:29:01. > :29:06.When you look at the margins, it's hugely better. Someone on 16 hours
:29:06. > :29:10.with two kids, a family there, they'll be �95 better off. The
:29:10. > :29:13.incentive is there. You would like to go further wouldn't you?
:29:13. > :29:18.Governments can go further. would like to go further? They can
:29:18. > :29:21.go further because that's a matter for policy. Why don't you go
:29:21. > :29:24.further? We have gone pretty far as it is. We'll be able to say that
:29:24. > :29:29.someone when universal credit comes in, everybody on universal credit
:29:29. > :29:32.will be better off than they were under the Tax Credits and better
:29:32. > :29:36.off for the most part than they are essentially on benefits. That's a
:29:36. > :29:41.key element. Let me ask you this. Suppose one of
:29:41. > :29:46.your constituents comes to see you for advice, he's got two children,
:29:46. > :29:50.a sole earner earning just below the 40% rate of tax, he's offered a
:29:50. > :29:54.promotion that would take him over the higher rate of threshold, as a
:29:54. > :30:00.result he'd lose his child benefit worth �1700 a year. Take the job,
:30:00. > :30:04.the promotion or not? Always. �1700? All the take promotion
:30:04. > :30:07.because what happens is your job develops. The key thing to
:30:07. > :30:12.understand... Even if he'd be worst off? You are always better off
:30:12. > :30:15.taking a job that does improve that. This funding would be worse off?
:30:15. > :30:21.The reality of the interplay of child benefit is a simple fact of
:30:21. > :30:25.life, you are dealing with the way it's about to work with the Budget.
:30:25. > :30:28.It's going to be withdrawn from a people on higher income. That is a
:30:28. > :30:32.reality for those people. Then again, you have to argue, if a
:30:32. > :30:37.Government doesn't have a huge amount of money, we have to seek
:30:37. > :30:47.that back to 35 pay off the deficit. It's fair to say, there's only so
:30:47. > :30:51.
:30:51. > :30:57.Could I ask you for a brief reaction about a statement there
:30:57. > :31:01.will be no meaningful perform on the bill for human rights? I'm not
:31:01. > :31:08.aware what has gone on because these meetings are not in the
:31:08. > :31:16.public domain. I know my permanent secretary when I walked into the
:31:16. > :31:20.Department at first. He was a fair and decent man. I think, all the
:31:20. > :31:24.time I spent with him, he was straight and did not the 10th to
:31:24. > :31:28.try to subvert what the debate was. Sometimes, when you are attacked
:31:28. > :31:36.public servants when they cannot defend themselves, it is a little
:31:36. > :31:43.bit unfair. You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will
:31:43. > :31:53.be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then,
:31:53. > :32:01.the Sunday Politics across the UK. Hello from us at the London part of
:32:01. > :32:07.Sunday Politics. We are discussing tax and election giveaways. The two
:32:07. > :32:13.male role candidates are attempting to win mines and promising to leave
:32:13. > :32:20.more in your purse. Will be looking at those promises with my two
:32:20. > :32:30.guests, the Conservative MP for Ealing Central and Acton and the MP
:32:30. > :32:35.for Bow. Let's be -- let's start with the Leveson Inquiry. There was
:32:35. > :32:40.pressure not to devote so many resources to the inquiry because of
:32:40. > :32:46.what was largely apolitical and media-driven level of hysteria. Do
:32:46. > :32:50.you think there has been hysteria? I do not think so. There has been
:32:50. > :32:55.concern expressed at the huge number of police officers devoted
:32:55. > :32:59.to this particular thing. It is an inquiry which has to be gone
:32:59. > :33:04.through, has to be successful. Whatever it takes, we need to
:33:04. > :33:10.ensure it is conducted properly. Kit more to house will also be
:33:10. > :33:16.aware that London, as a whole, has to be policed fully and properly.
:33:16. > :33:22.He may well have said, I'll be getting the balance right? It is
:33:22. > :33:27.essential this inquiry is fully and properly conducted. Do we have to
:33:27. > :33:32.consider how many police resources are put into this? I think it is
:33:32. > :33:36.extremely important. It is about restoring trust and confidence in
:33:36. > :33:39.the police service are making sure that where there has been
:33:39. > :33:42.corruption, the inquiry does the work in order to make sure that
:33:42. > :33:46.does not happen again and the police get the right guidance and
:33:46. > :33:51.support to make sure their behaviour is up to the standard the
:33:51. > :33:56.public expects. We have to recognise we owe it to those people
:33:56. > :34:00.who have been treated appallingly by the media and sections of the
:34:00. > :34:06.police who have been alleged to have been corrupt business has to
:34:06. > :34:13.be cleaned up. Otherwise the whole system will suffer. Kit has shown
:34:13. > :34:18.that he has interfered politically in this incident. That is wrong and
:34:18. > :34:22.unacceptable. We have to make sure the focus is in showing that the
:34:22. > :34:26.Leveson Inquiry receives the support it requires. What is
:34:26. > :34:30.shocking about the leadership of Boris Johnson is rather than making
:34:30. > :34:37.sure bet is proper policing and standing up for London and making
:34:37. > :34:41.sure we have enough officers, these people are undermining the inquiry.
:34:41. > :34:48.I think it is very important that Londoners feel they're getting the
:34:48. > :34:56.policing they meet and deserve. London have -- has a number of hot
:34:56. > :34:59.spots. I think we have to get the balance right. It is an important
:34:59. > :35:05.inquiry. Allegations of corruption and corrupt relationships need to
:35:05. > :35:10.be exposed but other policing has to be done. Your party is cutting
:35:10. > :35:15.police officers. Plenty of time to argue in the next 90 minutes. We
:35:15. > :35:20.are told it will hit plenty of people whose homes are worth a
:35:20. > :35:28.fortune but do not necessarily have much income. Is a mansion tax
:35:28. > :35:34.looming? 90% of those affected would be in the capital. Vince
:35:34. > :35:40.Cable raised the prospect again this week. My colleagues are not
:35:41. > :35:43.wedded to be 50 p tax rate. If that were to go, it would be replaced by
:35:43. > :35:50.taxation of Wales because wealthy people in the country have to pay
:35:50. > :35:57.their share. The mansion tax is a sensible way of doing it. It is the
:35:57. > :36:02.Liberal Democrats spring conference. Joining me from there is Steve
:36:02. > :36:07.Williamson. It is a tax on anyone with enough wealth to have an house
:36:07. > :36:11.worth more than �2 million. What the Liberal Democrats are
:36:11. > :36:16.discussing in Newcastle this weekend is how we can make the tax
:36:16. > :36:22.system fairer. The number one priority is to make sure that
:36:22. > :36:27.everyone who has �10,000 of income without paying income tax. We also
:36:27. > :36:30.need to make sure that the wealthiest are paying their fair
:36:30. > :36:37.share. Would you say it was acceptable and possible that many
:36:37. > :36:42.people would have to sell their properties in order to pay this?
:36:42. > :36:51.Mayor. What we have proposed is it will be a 1% levy on properties
:36:51. > :36:57.worth �2 million. -- no. If, for any reason, we do accept there are
:36:57. > :37:02.some people who live in houses that had grown over 30 years and do not
:37:02. > :37:11.have that amount of money - it has been dubbed a granny tax by some
:37:11. > :37:15.people - granny will not have to pay the tax. It will be stored up
:37:15. > :37:20.until the proceeds from the property worth more than 2.5
:37:20. > :37:27.million are realised. We what about the other potential injustices? You
:37:27. > :37:31.can earn several properties under 2 million and have one that is over 2
:37:31. > :37:35.million in you will get hit. will be paying council tax on all
:37:35. > :37:40.of theirs. The whole system needs to be looked at. At the top end of
:37:40. > :37:44.the property sale - the mansion tax - there should be a new levy on
:37:44. > :37:47.properties worth more than �2 million. Other people have
:37:47. > :37:51.suggested the council tax bands need to be looked at as well to
:37:51. > :37:56.make sure all these properties right round the country are tacked
:37:56. > :38:00.-- taxed in a fairway. People are piling up lots of tax and putting
:38:00. > :38:05.them into properties and not paying their fair share of tax. That is
:38:05. > :38:11.what a lot of people think needs to be tackled. Would you be prepared
:38:11. > :38:16.to see this contemplated if the top rate of tax were removed? I do not
:38:16. > :38:19.support a mansion tax. I am a London MP. Some people are my
:38:19. > :38:24.constituency would be affected by these proposals. I have found what
:38:24. > :38:29.I heard quite extraordinary. Either you're going to raise this tax or
:38:29. > :38:33.you are not. It is going to be a revenue or it is not. The idea that
:38:33. > :38:38.some people can remain in houses not paying it seems to be very
:38:38. > :38:43.unclear. I do not believe we are much beyond a rumour about this. I
:38:43. > :38:49.am not at all convinced it will find its way into the budget. There
:38:49. > :38:54.are people living in big houses who do not have a lot of money. Others
:38:54. > :38:59.have saved their income - the income is earned, they have saved
:38:59. > :39:04.it and paid tax on it - then they have decide to put it into a house
:39:04. > :39:10.was up to have to pay tax all over again would be unfair. If it has
:39:10. > :39:13.gone up in value, they have not done anything to learn that extra
:39:14. > :39:18.money. They have saved their money in the first place and been
:39:18. > :39:25.fortunate with where they have chosen to put that money. These
:39:25. > :39:33.houses are not mansions at all necessarily. We may look at this
:39:33. > :39:37.idea from Labour. We would be interested as to whether the
:39:37. > :39:42.mansion tax would be a good deal between the Liberals and the
:39:42. > :39:45.Conservatives ask for the tax to be cut. That does not really improve
:39:45. > :39:49.the situation. What would be interesting is to see whether the
:39:49. > :39:52.revenue raised would be there to support those who are in most need.
:39:52. > :39:56.If it is to give a tax break to those people at the top end of the
:39:56. > :39:59.tax threshold, it is unlikely you will get the support because it
:39:59. > :40:04.does not achieve anything. We would have to wait and see what to
:40:04. > :40:09.demands to. A final word from Stephen Williams. To accept there
:40:09. > :40:14.is so much more thinking about working out how it will be
:40:14. > :40:19.administered and valued and everything? -- de you accept?
:40:19. > :40:26.will not be raised overnight. More work would need to be done on it if
:40:26. > :40:31.it is announced in the Budget. If you have a property worth �2
:40:31. > :40:34.million, the value over that amount would be subject to a 1% annual
:40:34. > :40:39.charge. The only complication is people without much income, we're
:40:39. > :40:44.saying we would help those people and to further tax until they are
:40:44. > :40:50.able to pay it when the property is sold. Thank you very much. City
:40:50. > :40:55.Hall gets most of its income from government grant and general
:40:55. > :41:00.taxation. How much it raises in fares and council tax - its share
:41:00. > :41:07.of council tax. Bose Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are promising
:41:07. > :41:12.they will not increase the council tax. There are 5.8 million voters
:41:13. > :41:18.in London. The politicians in the capital a desperate to know who we
:41:18. > :41:27.are, what we think and whether we can be persuaded to vote for them.
:41:27. > :41:34.They seem to agree a big way to win votes is by offering us ready money.
:41:34. > :41:39.Boris Johnson is saying that those over 60 should be able to use
:41:39. > :41:49.public transport for free. When Carol reaches 60, the household
:41:49. > :41:55.could be saved �3,000 a year - the cost of an annual zones 1 to 9
:41:55. > :42:05.travel card. I was very pleased to hear this. It does with the impact.
:42:05. > :42:07.
:42:07. > :42:14.It is worth a lot of money. Will it be effective? Well, I am thinking
:42:14. > :42:21.about it. I want to hit a bit more first - see what they say. -- here
:42:22. > :42:27.a bit more. When leaflet start coming through the door, I will be
:42:27. > :42:31.asking some searching questions. the moment, Ken Livingstone appears
:42:31. > :42:41.to be out doing his opponent in the amount of money he is offering the
:42:41. > :42:41.
:42:41. > :44:00.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 79 seconds
:44:00. > :44:05.The impact it will have on other areas of spending looks set to
:44:05. > :44:09.dominate this election. I'm joined by our resident Local
:44:09. > :44:13.Government guru, Tony Travis, who also has a day job working at the
:44:13. > :44:18.London School of Economics. It's no surprise that people make promises
:44:18. > :44:24.about spending and what money they are going to offer people. Ken
:44:24. > :44:28.Livingstone first, is this fares deal and package workable? Are the
:44:29. > :44:31.surpluses there to reduce fares? There is no doubt that in an
:44:31. > :44:35.organisation as big as Transport for London with a �10 billion
:44:35. > :44:39.budget that there is the money to deliver this kind of cut in fares.
:44:39. > :44:43.There is more income coming in this year than was expected, spending is
:44:43. > :44:47.a bit lower. The question is, that is of course pound for pound less
:44:47. > :44:52.money to invest in the system and the London transport system needs
:44:52. > :44:59.money spent on it in very large amounts so. For every penny that's
:44:59. > :45:04.handed back, it's �1 less invested in the future. What about the fact
:45:04. > :45:08.of EMA, where is the money coming to replace the money lost? I think
:45:08. > :45:12.the money will come partly from further and higher education and
:45:12. > :45:16.some of it from the boroughs. I thinks the an attempt to bring
:45:16. > :45:19.together money from other sources and use it for this particular
:45:19. > :45:25.purposes, but it's not money directly within the Mayor's budget
:45:25. > :45:30.yet. Boris Johnson is promising something that could cost �8
:45:30. > :45:36.million to �10 million. It will be staggered as a retirement age thing,
:45:36. > :45:43.has he got the money for that? like the Ken Livingstone policy.
:45:43. > :45:46.TfL has surpluses saving money in projects so there is money in there,
:45:46. > :45:50.but you have to say that, although it's well aimed politically like
:45:50. > :45:54.the Ken Livingstone fares cut, the Johnson concession, of course, is
:45:54. > :45:57.increasing concession for a group of people who more and more work.
:45:57. > :46:01.You might wonder whether people who're looking for work and who
:46:01. > :46:05.can't get to interviews deserve the money more than people who're in
:46:05. > :46:08.work and get an extra concession. Boris Johnson will say, I'm not
:46:08. > :46:10.going to make big rash financial promise money that we can't afford,
:46:11. > :46:14.we need to invest, but of course, other people have done the give
:46:14. > :46:17.away for him. The Government have put money in to soften the fares
:46:17. > :46:21.rise and there's money for police officers, presumably both those
:46:21. > :46:25.amounts won't be there if he were to win again in a year's time?
:46:25. > :46:29.question of how much money there is for the following year will be
:46:29. > :46:34.negotiated as we go along. That's true for Ken Livingstone if he were
:46:34. > :46:37.to win. I mean, London has done relatively well out of public
:46:37. > :46:41.spending settlements in recent years under Governments of both
:46:41. > :46:45.parties actually and both Mayors in fact. The question of whether that
:46:45. > :46:47.can continue, particularly as more Mayors appear in other cities is a
:46:47. > :46:50.big question. Mayors in other cities, there is
:46:50. > :46:53.another story. To offer people, commuters,
:46:53. > :47:00.travellers more money in their pocket over the next few years when
:47:00. > :47:03.they are going to have to continue to spend as a result maybe of more
:47:03. > :47:07.overcrowded trains because the investment isn't going in? At a
:47:07. > :47:10.time when people's incomes are being hit very hard when ordinary
:47:10. > :47:14.families are being squeezed because of the Government's cuts, it's the
:47:14. > :47:19.right emphasis, to try and Mick shaur that there isn't an
:47:19. > :47:24.increasing burden on people to pay for their fares -- sure. That's why
:47:24. > :47:29.Ken's focused on the 7% fare cuts. It struck a cord, people feel the
:47:29. > :47:33.pain and need help. Striking the cord because the message is, Boris
:47:33. > :47:37.Johnson not understanding ordinary Londoners? Look, Ken Livingstone
:47:37. > :47:43.has form in this area and I don't think you need to look into a
:47:43. > :47:46.crystal ball, you can just read the book. Actually, you can read Ken
:47:46. > :47:53.Livingstone's own autobiography in which he admits that previous
:47:53. > :47:56.promises to keep fares low were broken. He pledged to resign that.
:47:56. > :48:00.Nobody believes his promise, that's the trouble. Sounds a bit desperate
:48:00. > :48:05.to me that actually. But the truth is that he has form on this, he's
:48:05. > :48:09.always promising fare cuts ahead of elections and never delivers and
:48:09. > :48:13.the fact that after 2004, by September of that same year, they
:48:13. > :48:17.had gone up beyond inflation. I don't think that people necessarily
:48:17. > :48:21.believe that this is something he's going to be able to deliver or in
:48:21. > :48:24.fact necessarily intend to delefr. He's cynical when it comes to
:48:24. > :48:27.making the promises -- deliver. he not cynical that Government,
:48:27. > :48:30.George Osborne, has helped out Boris Johnson, cushioning the fare
:48:30. > :48:37.rises for this year, offering an extra one-off payment for police,
:48:37. > :48:46.money that will not be there in a year es' time? We have extra police
:48:46. > :48:49.partly because of the Olympics, but Boris has managed his finances
:48:49. > :48:52.judiciously. We'll have 1,000 more police officers on the street by
:48:53. > :48:56.May than when he arrived in office. There's every reason to believe
:48:56. > :49:02.that ongoing there will be further negotiations about future funding.
:49:02. > :49:06.In terms of other promises Boris made, like for instance, the
:49:06. > :49:09.freedom pass for 60s and overs, that is more affordable than the
:49:09. > :49:13.137.2 billion of a 7% cut which I don't think will happen in a
:49:13. > :49:17.million years. We'll come back to a few of those
:49:17. > :49:21.things in a moment. A full list of all the candidates standing in the
:49:21. > :49:26.election is available on the BBC London website:
:49:26. > :49:36.Now what else has been happening in the city? Here is a flavour in 60
:49:36. > :49:36.
:49:36. > :49:41.seconds. Charged at the London Assembly by
:49:42. > :49:46.Baroness Ducec youb obsessed with secrecy over the failure to
:49:46. > :49:50.allocate tickets for the Games -- Ducey. The 2012 l 2012 chairman
:49:50. > :49:57.fought back. I'm not going to divert the attention of my teams
:49:57. > :50:00.who still have four million tucts to sell. - tickets. Transport
:50:00. > :50:05.Secretary Justine Greening opened thery fushished London Southend
:50:05. > :50:15.airport. It can currently take two million flights a year but it's
:50:15. > :50:16.
:50:16. > :50:19.claimed this could triple -- -- refurbished. Cycle schemes opened
:50:19. > :50:23.but there's questions on how much it's costing the public purse. Back
:50:23. > :50:29.to the Olympics and a million parking per mutts will be issued to
:50:29. > :50:35.help control traffic at even use during the gaims. Up to 400,000
:50:35. > :50:41.properties, businesses and homes will be affected -- Games.
:50:41. > :50:47.But, what I want to ask you about the Olympics, the rising costs.
:50:47. > :50:49.Security seems to have been und estimated. Got a view?
:50:49. > :50:53.underestimated. We should be hugely proud of the fact that we've got
:50:53. > :50:59.the Olympics in London and in East London which will regenerate the
:50:59. > :51:02.area and I know that my constituency are incredibly pleased.
:51:02. > :51:05.But the will be disruption about people, there are concerns about
:51:05. > :51:08.whether the A&E services will be able to get through in the VIP
:51:08. > :51:10.lanes and we need to make sure local people don't suffer as a
:51:11. > :51:16.result of the Games. Some people are very sensitive about it because
:51:16. > :51:25.they haven't got tickets. In my borough, we haven'ted that marathon
:51:25. > :51:29.route. The security cost now is double the number we thought?
:51:29. > :51:32.the original bid document was woefully inadequate. They were
:51:32. > :51:35.allowing mess money for security in London that they had to pay out in
:51:35. > :51:39.Athens. Clearly that was a massive underestimate and I think that's
:51:39. > :51:49.where all the problems started. thank you to you both.
:51:49. > :51:53.
:51:53. > :51:57.We'll see if our story on human rights makes waves in Westminster
:51:57. > :52:02.this week and we'll hear a thing or two more possibly about tax and the
:52:02. > :52:10.Budget. It's all meat and drink to the regular panel here to help you
:52:10. > :52:13.digest the Week Ahead. Isabel, Iain Duncan Smith was
:52:13. > :52:17.suitably diplomatic about what's been happening in the Human Rights
:52:17. > :52:22.Commission, but I would suggest that the idea that mainly a group
:52:22. > :52:27.of Liberal Democrat lawyers have got together with Ken Clarke to
:52:27. > :52:32.thwart the wishes of the Prime Minister is just red meat to the
:52:32. > :52:35.Tory backbenchs? Absolutely. The commissioner or, shall we now call
:52:35. > :52:39.him the former commissioner suggested that Euro-Sceptic views
:52:39. > :52:43.were being thwarted. I think the other person who's thwarted here is
:52:43. > :52:47.David Cameron. I think he genuinely feels very strongly about these
:52:47. > :52:51.issues. He wants to see the European courts' powers curtailed
:52:51. > :52:56.as far as Britain is concerned. He's just frustrated on that. I
:52:56. > :53:00.don't think it's a synthetic thing from his point of view, I think he
:53:00. > :53:04.wants to really do something, but this is the reality of the
:53:04. > :53:07.coalition. I disagree, I don't think David Cameron has any
:53:07. > :53:10.intention to repatriate powers, because if you did that, you would
:53:10. > :53:12.have to withdraw the membership of the European court and if you do
:53:12. > :53:20.that, you come out of the European Union. I think the entire
:53:20. > :53:24.commission was just a way of bock - - boxing a controversial issue.
:53:24. > :53:27.I've been looking at this. There's an argument as to whether you have
:53:27. > :53:31.to be part of the Council of Europe to be be part of the European Union.
:53:31. > :53:35.There are lots of members who're not. The bigger issue was that he,
:53:35. > :53:40.I don't think he ever wanted to go about it in the convention, but he
:53:40. > :53:45.wanted to get a UK Bill of Rights that therefore meant we could say
:53:45. > :53:49.to Strasbourg, we are really gloing to do all this at home, we only
:53:49. > :53:52.need you for the tough cases. he's been outfoxed. I talked to
:53:52. > :53:56.someone at Number Ten last summer who predicted this would happen,
:53:56. > :53:59.that they would be outmanoeuvred by their own commission because Number
:53:59. > :54:04.Ten does not have the grip and the street smart politically to get
:54:04. > :54:08.this kind of thing done. It does suggest that even after almost two
:54:08. > :54:10.years in power, there are basic questions of executive command and
:54:10. > :54:16.competence that can be leveled against the Government. I'm
:54:16. > :54:22.astonished that Labour don't make this their narrative ci took of the
:54:22. > :54:26.Government. A -- critique. They are bashing Cameron. If they said of
:54:26. > :54:29.him this guy is a slapdash inattentive Prime Minister, I think
:54:29. > :54:34.they would make greater inroads than there are at the moment.
:54:34. > :54:38.The Lib Dems, my interview with Danny Alexander, which feared to
:54:38. > :54:44.illicit a single answer, I apologise for that. But how do you
:54:44. > :54:48.feel about this, the Lib Dems are now the Dennis Healey of 2012? The
:54:48. > :54:52.Lib Dems propose a mansion tax, they propose to keep the 50% top
:54:52. > :54:58.rate, they propose the take away pension tax relief for the higher
:54:58. > :55:01.earners. Now we'll have a tycoon tax. I mean, that's, Labour doesn't
:55:01. > :55:04.propose all that? The really big issue about the budget is, is it
:55:04. > :55:08.going to be enough to deliver growth. That's the key question. We
:55:08. > :55:12.can argue as much as we like about taking money from the top or taking
:55:12. > :55:15.it from the bottom, but at the end of the day, we have got 2.6 million
:55:15. > :55:19.people unemployed and a massive deficit that doesn't seem to go
:55:19. > :55:22.down. We have manufacturing growth declining. What's interesting is
:55:22. > :55:27.that the Liberal Democrats have got some quite strong policies for
:55:27. > :55:30.growth. We had Vince Cable saying that we wanted a bank for British
:55:30. > :55:34.industry. If you introduced these, what would that do for growth?
:55:34. > :55:37.Exactly, that's exactly my point is that we are talking ability very
:55:37. > :55:41.much a budget of fairness but not a budget of growth. The Conservatives
:55:41. > :55:44.also have quite a strong set of policies on this, so we had David
:55:44. > :55:47.Davis saying he wanted to cut tax, but because there can be no
:55:47. > :55:53.agreement on that strategy between the two, all we are talking about
:55:53. > :55:57.is this politics of redistribution. The Healey analogy's very
:55:57. > :56:03.instructive, you wonder how they get away with having the word
:56:03. > :56:05."liberal" in their party. Shouldn't it be socialist? Half the party was
:56:05. > :56:09.that. They are becoming more vociferous on their views on tax
:56:09. > :56:12.and spend and it's madness. Whatever they gain in the way of
:56:12. > :56:19.left-wing credibility, they are losing in the way of credibility as
:56:19. > :56:24.a governing party. They come across as a party who want to be in party
:56:24. > :56:28.and in opposition at the same time. Remember their local income tax,
:56:28. > :56:33.anyone remember that one? They're policys that are dreamed up on the
:56:33. > :56:38.hoof, then they collapse under scrutiny. I am is cynic. I think Mr
:56:38. > :56:43.Clegg and his allies like m Mr Alexander know they're activists.
:56:43. > :56:49.The ones in Gateshead rate being in bed with the Tories, so the way to
:56:49. > :56:53.keep them happy is throwing red meat about mansion taxes and taking
:56:53. > :56:57.away tax relief. They've offended a lot of their members because
:56:57. > :57:00.Liberal Democrats take process very seriously and they democratically
:57:00. > :57:03.decide process together. The tycoon tax has never been discussed with
:57:03. > :57:07.the Liberal Democrat members. was clear when we started asking
:57:07. > :57:11.questions about it. Mr Cameron is off to America this week, he's
:57:11. > :57:15.travelling in Air Force One, the President's got a proper lane,
:57:15. > :57:20.inlike our Prime Minister. When he went to France, he virtually
:57:20. > :57:24.endorsed Sarkozy. Who do you think he'd like to see win in November?
:57:24. > :57:30.think as he's the first British Prime Minister in a long time who's
:57:30. > :57:34.indifferent to the results, but a he has less of an interest to be
:57:34. > :57:38.close to the President than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair did.
:57:38. > :57:42.He's relatively indifferent to the outcome. Number Ten's tried to
:57:42. > :57:48.cooperate with the White House on joint initiatives and policy
:57:48. > :57:52.projects and it's got nowhere. one thing... They both seem to be
:57:52. > :57:56.to wanting out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. That will
:57:57. > :58:00.probably be the most important thing discussed. I disagree, David
:58:00. > :58:04.Cameron might be the first Prime Minister to want Obama to win. The
:58:04. > :58:09.Republicans would push him to be more hawkish on defence, we might
:58:09. > :58:15.be pulled into Iran and that would be dangerous and show him to be
:58:15. > :58:19.right-wing. I think Macmillan would have wanted JFK to be born. If you
:58:19. > :58:24.can't get enough of human rights, tune into my documentary on the sub
:58:24. > :58:27.ject, called Rights Gone Wrong on this Wednesday night, 9 o'clock on
:58:27. > :58:31.BBC Two. You can keep across all the big political stories tomorrow