11/03/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Has the Government's Commission on a British Bill of Rights been

"rigged" by the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke? That's the explosive

allegation of a member of the Commission on the verge of

resigning his post this morning. He joins us live in our top story.

And as the Government's Welfare Reforms become law, will Iain

Duncan's changes really transform Britain? The Work and Pensions

Secretary joins us for the Sunday interview.

All that and Danny Alexander on tax and tycoons.

And, as ever, the best political panel in the business, here every

week to analyse British politics in The Week Ahead and tweeting non-

stop throughout the programme. In London, how the contenders for

the city hall are trying to tempt voters with promises of giveaways.

All that coming up in the next hour. But first the news with Maxine

Mawhinney. A US soldier in Afghanistan is

reported to have killed at least ten Afghan civilians and wounded

several others after leaving his base in the southern province of

Kandahar. The soldier has surrendered to the US military

authorities and is now under arrest. Kabul, Quentin Sommerville. Quentin,

what more can you tell us? We have just learned that this was a staff

sergeant who may have been an member of the US Special forces.

There were reports that he has had some kind of nervous breakdown

before even the base and then killing these Afghans. But this

seemed to be and methodical and a planned attack. He went from house

to house killing afghans, we believe women and children were

amongst the dead. We believe the figure currently stands at 10. Just

after the controversy when American soldiers accidentally burnt the

Islamic holy book, the Koran, this brings American - Afghan relations

to a new low. Japan has held a minute's silence

to mark the exact moment, a year ago, that the north-east of the

country was hit by a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami claiming the

lives of 20,000 people. Andy Moore reports.

The National Service of Remembrance was led by the Emperor. At 46

minutes past two in the afternoon local time, the precise moment the

earthquake struck, there was a minute of silence.

TRANSLATION: we're all gathered together in deep mourning to offer

condolences to the deceased. Earlier at dawn handfuls of people

gathered for private remembrance services in this Tsunami hit area.

Like many areas this is still a wasteland. TRANSLATION: I wanted to

save people but I could not. What can I do but keep on going? In the

area around the nuclear plant the population has moved out. It may be

decades before they can come back. Wearing protective clothing, some

residents were allowed back briefly to a spot less than a mile from the

nuclear plant. And in a sign of hope for the future they planted

cherry trees. Someone one day may be able to enjoy their blossom.

Here Liberal Democrats have voted against the Bill to change the NHS.

That is all for the moment. Last year, the Government set up a

Commission which David Cameron hopes will lead to more decisions

being made by the UK Parliament and fewer by judges in the European

Court of Human Rights. But has the Commission on a British Bill of

Rights been working towards delivering or frustrating the Prime

Minister's promise? In a moment, one Commissioner will tells us why

he thinks the Commission is rigged against the PM getting his way. But

first, here's Giles Dilnot on the growing row.

The rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are never more

controversial than when they clash with the democratic will of the UK

Parliament. From blocking the deportation of the terror suspect

to demean a UK than on prisoners voting illegal, many Conservative

MPs have long wanted to change who has the last word on human rights

in this country. Parliament, not judges. This coalition of parties

long at odds over the question of what is called Democratic overwrite

agreed to investigate a British Bill of Rights incorporating and

building on the European Convention. And a commission of legal experts

was set up in March last year to do just that. The Commission we are

establishing to look at a British Bill of Rights will be established

him instantly. -- imminently. one of the eight commissioners has

told the Sunday politics that he believes the commission, which

often leads in the Lords and answers to Nick Clegg and the

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, is deliberately ignoring that stated

Prime Minister will aim and that the chairman of the commission is

trying to silence them by forcing them out. In e-mails seen by Sunday

Politics it had been raised whether or not the concerns of these

overwhelming majority of parliamentarians and of the Prime

Minister are to be taken seriously. So far up the commission is engaged

largely with proponents of the status quo and is set to do the

same. Indeed he was not alone. Last July fellow Conservative

commissioner Anthony Speight QC wrote, I shall be failing in my

duty if I stand back and allow every trace of distinctive Tory

thinking to be squeezed out of the picture. However, just six days ago,

e-mails show that the row escalated dramatically won the chairman

threatened to go to Ken Clarke and resign. 24 hours later, all seven

commissioners including his Conservative colleagues signed a

letter to the justice secretary stating that the doctor's

continuing presence on the commission is significantly

impeding its progress. All his manoeuvring is already angering one

senior Tory backbencher. The point of the commission was to bring home

human-rights. Not to do them down or reduce them but to bring them

back on the British democratic control. That is fundamental. If

you do not be that there's no parliamentary control of it, no

final parliamentary override, then they have not delivered on the

promise they set out. Late last night the Ministry of Justice told

the Sunday politics, we are aware that there have been internal

difficulties within the Commission on process rather than policy. The

Ministry of Justice has received a letter to that effect from the

commissioners and we will respond in due course. The commission

itself told us that they had discussed the issues of

parliamentary sovereignty battling. And Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is

with me now. The Prime Minister wants this commissioned to find

ways to ship the balance away from the European Court of Human Rights

towards the UK Parliament. Is that what the Commission is doing?

Absolutely not. The commission has been consistently directed by the

chairman away from consideration of parliamentary overwrite. After one

year it is now clear that it has been intended all along to issue a

report in favour of the status quo. We have actually consider it a

question of parliamentary sovereignty only once in the whole

year that we have been in existence. And when I asked for the Prime

Minister's statement that you have just put on air to be included in

our initial discussion paper, the German took me to a room in the

basement of the House of Lords and said I would be considered a

maverick and have no influence if I persisted with that demand. Would

it be fair to say in your opinion, that the commission is working to

support the Prime Minister with the role of Parliament? That is exactly

what I E C and exactly what I am saying. The commission answers to

Kenneth Clarke. He and Nick Clegg set it up and selected the German.

His civil servants run the commission and staffing, his hands

are everywhere. You mean Kenneth Clarke. Are you saying that just as

the secretary has been complicit with the commission in defying the

Prime Minister? Yes he is following the agenda of the human rights

establishment, which is well represented on the commission and

in doing so, he is sidelining not only Parliament but also the prime

minister. And I consider that disloyal. So just to be clear,

these are important accusations, the justice secretary Ken Clarke is

following a different agenda on this matter from the Prime

Minister? We were called in, the commissioners were called in last

December by Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg and told in terms that we

should ignore what was called agitation from Parliament. Now, I

consider that at 10-1 vote, an overwhelming vote by Our House of

Commons cannot be dismissed as agitation and I said so. It sounds

like you have lost faith in the commission to deliver any real

change of that current human rights set up. Where does that leave your

position? I'm afraid it leaves me with no alternative but to resign

because I think the cause is so important to look in amateur way at

human rights and to make it consistent with parliamentary

sovereignty, that I do need to pursue it but not on the commission.

Have you become a lone voice on this issue? Are you surprised that

he cannot carry the support of some Tory members of this commission?

There are some Tory lawyers on the commission, but they do not appear

to be backing you. What he should ask them that. It is depressing to

watch them being picked off one by one by the chairman. But that has

happened because the chairman has consistently threatened to resign.

And they have changed their minds in view of that threat and not on

the bases of the issue. I could have settled for a quiet life, but

it goes against my deepest convictions to sacrifice

parliamentary sovereignty, which is at stake. And I'm afraid I will

have to pay the price. It sounds from what you're saying that in

terms of the work of his commission, major reform of how we handle human

rights in this country and our relationship with the European

Court, that reform is dead in the water. Well the commission has done

very little work. The only research that has been commissioned on

parliamentary sovereignty has been �500 grants to a graduate student.

That is the only research. If we had not held a single public

hearings on the matter and will not do until 14 months after the

commission was set up, that is not a serious investigation. So the

idea of a British Bill of Rights, that is dead in the water?

British Bill of Rights may or may not be recommended, but in terms of

any mature discussion of how parliamentary sovereignty can be

maintained and that at the same time we can pursue human rights, is

not seriously being discussed because it has been thwarted by the

Ministry of Justice. So, another day another budget

submission from the Deputy Prime Minister. This time it's his idea

for a so-called "tycoon tax", aimed at tax-avoiding millionaires which

would see them pay at least 20% of their income to the Treasury.

Apparently it's an idea Nick Clegg cooked up with Chief Secretary to

the Treasury, Danny Alexander. So is it designed to liven up the Lib

Dem Spring Conference this weekend or a real prospect for George

Osborne's budget? Who better to ask than Danny Alexander himself who

joins us from the Party gathering in Gateshead. Welcome to the

programme. Thank you. Is it part of the Lib Dem Budget strategy to now

garage at tycoon tax on the Chancellor? What we have been doing

here this weekend is debating Liberal Democrat tax policy going

forward. And the core of that is our priority, but high priority we

attach to cutting the tax for people on low and middle incomes

and lifting the income tax threshold to �10,000 was of our

aspiration that we will put forward at the next general election will

be to go beyond that and get to a position when no one on a minimum

wage would pay any income tax at all. Of course that must be paid

I understand that. That's on the record. Answer my question, are you

and Nick Clegg urging a tycoon tax on the Chancellor?

Well, as I say, what we have been doing this weekend is debating the

Lib Dem tax policy, that's one of a number of ideas that we have as a

party. I think it's a very interesting and good idea, it's one

that could really help to ensure that the thing we all need to do as

a country which is to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share of

tax. That's been a priority for the Liberal Democrats and the coalition

Government over the last couple of years and this is an idea that

could help with that. Of course it will be for the Chancellor to

announce that in the Budget in a couple of weeks' time and I won't

comment on what will be in that, I'll talk to you about the policies.

I'm asking you to tell me what you and your leader are urging him to

do in the Budget. How much, which is an idea that you ze scribed as a

good idea, so I assume you would like to see him do it, how much

would it bring in and what would the rate be? Sorry, I missed the

second part of your question. much would the tycoon tax bring in,

what would the rate be? Well, those are all matters for

discussion. The idea that is lying behind it which is a similar idea

to one being put forward by President Obama in the United

States is that our tax system at the moment through its many reliefs,

loopholes and so on allows people with high salaries some times to

pay almost no tax at all. The idea behind it is to address that

problem. We haven't put forward as a party a particular rate for it.

What we are trying to do this weekend is put that along with many

other ideas about tax on the table, particularly to focus on the key

priority that we have which is to deliver further and faster the

commitment we have made as a coalition Government to get the

income tax threshold to �10,000. Right now, the top priority must be

to get money back into the pockets of people on low and middle incomes.

That's the right priority for the country an it's certainly the key

priority for many others. You've said that many times. Let's get on

to new territory. Matthew Oakeshott... It's something that's

very important so I don't apologise for repeating that. Repeating it

doesn't get us very far. Matthew Oakeshott, a Lib Dem peer always

calling for more taxes says the tycoon tax is "superficially an

attractive idea but falls apart on serious scrutiny".

Well, I think that the views of one Lib Dem peer who was sacked as our

Treasury spokesman in the House of Lords a year or so ago saw p

shouldn't distract you from thinking that the Liberal Democrats

very much support ideas lick this to ensure that the wealthiest in

this country continue to pay their fair share -- like this. That must

be right at a time of real challenges, that we have to make

difficult decisions in order to deal with the massive mess that

Labour left us. We are trying to do so fairly. As a coalition

Government, we have done things like increasing capital gains tax,

made changes to pension contributions at the top end, all

of which were designed to ensure the wealthiest, those with the

broadest shoulders pay their fair share. You want a tycoon tax, keep

the 50p rate, curtail pension relief for the higher payers, you

want a mansion tax. Denis Healey, squeezing the rich? I wouldn't put

it that way. I would say the focus for the Liberal Democrats and the

coalition Government is on making sure that we have a tax system that

is fair. Of course, the main lever for delivering that is the lifting

of the income tax threshold, the focus that we, as Liberal Democrats,

had in our election manifesto in 2010 on ensuring that people on low

and middle incomes pay less income tax. That's the right thing for the

country, particularly people who're feeling squeezed. I've let you make

the same point four times, we'll leave it there.

Thanks. By the Government's own account its welfare reforms are the

most radical since the founding of the welfare state more than 60

years ago. Will Iain Duncan Smith's changes work? The Work and Pensions

Secretary became an Evan yellist for reforming welfare in the years

he stepped down as Conservative Party leader -- evangelist. His

welfare reform Bill finally became law this week. The flagshipry form

is the universal credit, a single benefit that replace os they ares,

including Jobseeker's Allowance and Housing Benefit. Crucially, it's

intended to make work pay by ensuring that welfare payments are

reduced and are consistent -- at a consistent rate as earnings

increase. The controversial measure is the �26,000 a year benefit cap

that limits welfare payments to approximately the average wage. The

Act face a rocky ride but will implementing the reforms and ending

what Duncan Smith calls the culture of dependency be any easier?

Iain Duncan Smith joins us now for the Sunday Interview. Secretary of

State, welcome to the programme. Can we begin by asking you to look

at the figures coming up in the board in just a second. They show

that the number of unemployed in active households has stuck

stubbornly between 3.5 and 4 million over the last 15 years.

That's regardless of the state of the economy, whether it's doing

well or badly. Nobody's really managed to shift these figures for

almost coming up to 20 years? Can you guarantee your changes

will? Well, that's what our changes are aimed at doing. I know that,

but will they? I believe they lrbgs but this's the start. There's a

number of changes that are coming through that will affect this. The

we thing is that we have - the issue is not whether unemployment

rises or falls in recession or good times - the problem is we have had

a greing number of rezilyul unemployed -- growing number of

residual unemployed. 20% of households are unemployed,

something like two million kids growing up in those households.

Those figures are correct. That's the problem. Can you give us any

idea of what will hatch to the figures if your reforms take you to

it -- happen to the figures? We are driving more lone parents, for

example, back to work earlier. We have dropped it from 16 down to

five when the children are five you go back to work. We are seeing more

people on the Incapacity Benefit changes going back to work because

we are asking them to be re- assessed. What we have seen already

if you look at the figures today is a fall in the number of inactive

people, those figures you've seen, actually more people going back and

being ready for work. I would suggest to you that unless we see a

step change in the figures, by which I mean a substantial

reduction, the reforms will have failed? The whole idea and the

whole purpose of the Bill and all the o the Reforms that weren't in

the Bill, universal credit and everything else was to change the

culture from being welfare pays you better than to be in work. From now

on, it has to be that work is better for you than being on

benefits. For people trapped in families out of work, they have no

sense that work can build you, help you, shapes you, gives you your

friendships, they only know one thing, am I better off or worse off

sitting on benefits doing a bit of cash in hand. The universal credit

objective is to change that dynamic so that being in work you are

better off. The second thing is that the way we get people back to

work has to change and that's the work programme which is that we no

longer want to use civil servants to do this. We want the private and

voluntary sector so set whatever they think is necessary and I mean

whatever is necessary, to drive the long-term people back to get their

conditions sorted and then ready for work and back to work. The

third element is the conditionality which is, we do all this for you,

we have a contract with you now, with the British taxpayer, you have

to to the things that we ask you to do, otherwise you will lose your

benefit if you don't work with us. These things are critical.

understand. We have heard that's the background to the Bill. Let's

see if the incentive to get back to work is strong enough. Let's take

your benefit cap, it's �500. Let's look at the difference in the

average weekly rent. In the north- east, it's only �66. In comparison

to London, it's almost �100. Outside of high rent London, the

benefit cap will have almost no impact? There are two caps you

mustn't get confused about. The first is the overall benefit cap,

but as well underneath that, there is a household cap, that is to say

we are looking at the amount of Housing Benefit that's paid and

that does have a very big effect across all the regions. So what we

are talking about here, I fancy, is the cap on benefits overall, which

is at �26,000 a year. �500 a week. It will affect the south-east more

than anywhere Emms. It won't make any difference if you live in north

of England? It doesn't have a big effect up there because of the

simple reason that the cost of living and rentals are higher in

the south-east, so we accept that. You shouldn't introduced a regional

cap? Not at all. The difference is, we have other caps going on. For

example, the Housing Benefit cap will have an effect in all the

regions, that is to say I'm capping the amount that we are going to pay

in Housing Benefit to families. We have dropped... In regional bases?

Across-the-board. I don't regionalise benefits because we

haven't don that yet, that is a debate to be had and we may need to

look at that. We don't regionalise pay from the public sector. These

are having a big effect in the regions, the benefit cap doesn't

have the same effect but the majority of those affected in

London will have a massive change. The Jobseeker's Allowance. If

claimants refuse to work three times, they could lose their

benefits for three years? Yes. you accept that could leave some

people destitute? Well, I don't believe it will do

because we are always... Really? I don't believe it will because

there's always help and support available in a minimalistic way for

people who run into serious difficulty and of course we protect

children. The reality is here, for years we've said to people on

benefits, it doesn't really matter what you do, there'll always be

that support. Whereas for the rest of the country who work on low and

marginal incomes who pick where they live, their lives are set

around what they can afford. So all we are saying to them, those on

benefits is this, you have choices, just like everybody else. We'll do

what we can to help you, but if you taxpayer has the right to say, that

contract has been broken by you and therefore they don't owe you the

money. That's the principle. We need to change the culture here,

it's not about money always, it's a culture that says, you can do what

you like, we don't mind. That's changing now. We are saying no, you

do what you are asked, if you don't then we'll make sure you don't get

the money. You have got this yawn versal credit coming in in 2013, it

will encompass a number of the existing credits. You have said

throughout your idea is that we'll always pay to work rather than be

at home on benefits. That's been your teeth throughout the reforms.

If even after your universal credit is introduced, many people will

face effective marginal rates of income tax of 76%, lower than now

for some but 76%? That's hardly incentive? Better than they face

right now. Some same people will be facing marginal rates of over 100%

right now, this is how ridiculous it's got. 76 is very high? Let me

explain the basic structure of this. A huge amount of the money that we

pour into universal credit goes to getting people into work and into

the lower income jobs, that is to say the lowest number of hours, so

they'll be much better off, a family with two children et cetera

will be better off than they would have been on benefits and �36

better off than they would be right now. The key things here is the

changes that are there are supported. The area into the tax

system that, margin goes up from 65 to 70%. My point is they are much

higher up the number of hours and moving towards full-time work. So

it is better than it will be right now and of course, Governments in

the future can choose to make that better if they waish. Indeed. But

over three million people will face an effective marginal rate of tax

of 60%. They will pay a higher rate than Barclay's Bob Diamond who's

paid himself over �6 million. How is that an incentifz to get into

work? It's a greater incentive -- incentive. A bigger incentive?!

could face a 95p in the pound deduction for every hour that you

work right now. You have made it a wee bit better? It's a lot better.

When you look at the margins, it's hugely better. Someone on 16 hours

with two kids, a family there, they'll be �95 better off. The

incentive is there. You would like to go further wouldn't you?

Governments can go further. would like to go further? They can

go further because that's a matter for policy. Why don't you go

further? We have gone pretty far as it is. We'll be able to say that

someone when universal credit comes in, everybody on universal credit

will be better off than they were under the Tax Credits and better

off for the most part than they are essentially on benefits. That's a

key element. Let me ask you this. Suppose one of

your constituents comes to see you for advice, he's got two children,

a sole earner earning just below the 40% rate of tax, he's offered a

promotion that would take him over the higher rate of threshold, as a

result he'd lose his child benefit worth �1700 a year. Take the job,

the promotion or not? Always. �1700? All the take promotion

because what happens is your job develops. The key thing to

understand... Even if he'd be worst off? You are always better off

taking a job that does improve that. This funding would be worse off?

The reality of the interplay of child benefit is a simple fact of

life, you are dealing with the way it's about to work with the Budget.

It's going to be withdrawn from a people on higher income. That is a

reality for those people. Then again, you have to argue, if a

Government doesn't have a huge amount of money, we have to seek

that back to 35 pay off the deficit. It's fair to say, there's only so

Could I ask you for a brief reaction about a statement there

will be no meaningful perform on the bill for human rights? I'm not

aware what has gone on because these meetings are not in the

public domain. I know my permanent secretary when I walked into the

Department at first. He was a fair and decent man. I think, all the

time I spent with him, he was straight and did not the 10th to

try to subvert what the debate was. Sometimes, when you are attacked

public servants when they cannot defend themselves, it is a little

bit unfair. You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will

be looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then,

the Sunday Politics across the UK. Hello from us at the London part of

Sunday Politics. We are discussing tax and election giveaways. The two

male role candidates are attempting to win mines and promising to leave

more in your purse. Will be looking at those promises with my two

guests, the Conservative MP for Ealing Central and Acton and the MP

for Bow. Let's be -- let's start with the Leveson Inquiry. There was

pressure not to devote so many resources to the inquiry because of

what was largely apolitical and media-driven level of hysteria. Do

you think there has been hysteria? I do not think so. There has been

concern expressed at the huge number of police officers devoted

to this particular thing. It is an inquiry which has to be gone

through, has to be successful. Whatever it takes, we need to

ensure it is conducted properly. Kit more to house will also be

aware that London, as a whole, has to be policed fully and properly.

He may well have said, I'll be getting the balance right? It is

essential this inquiry is fully and properly conducted. Do we have to

consider how many police resources are put into this? I think it is

extremely important. It is about restoring trust and confidence in

the police service are making sure that where there has been

corruption, the inquiry does the work in order to make sure that

does not happen again and the police get the right guidance and

support to make sure their behaviour is up to the standard the

public expects. We have to recognise we owe it to those people

who have been treated appallingly by the media and sections of the

police who have been alleged to have been corrupt business has to

be cleaned up. Otherwise the whole system will suffer. Kit has shown

that he has interfered politically in this incident. That is wrong and

unacceptable. We have to make sure the focus is in showing that the

Leveson Inquiry receives the support it requires. What is

shocking about the leadership of Boris Johnson is rather than making

sure bet is proper policing and standing up for London and making

sure we have enough officers, these people are undermining the inquiry.

I think it is very important that Londoners feel they're getting the

policing they meet and deserve. London have -- has a number of hot

spots. I think we have to get the balance right. It is an important

inquiry. Allegations of corruption and corrupt relationships need to

be exposed but other policing has to be done. Your party is cutting

police officers. Plenty of time to argue in the next 90 minutes. We

are told it will hit plenty of people whose homes are worth a

fortune but do not necessarily have much income. Is a mansion tax

looming? 90% of those affected would be in the capital. Vince

Cable raised the prospect again this week. My colleagues are not

wedded to be 50 p tax rate. If that were to go, it would be replaced by

taxation of Wales because wealthy people in the country have to pay

their share. The mansion tax is a sensible way of doing it. It is the

Liberal Democrats spring conference. Joining me from there is Steve

Williamson. It is a tax on anyone with enough wealth to have an house

worth more than �2 million. What the Liberal Democrats are

discussing in Newcastle this weekend is how we can make the tax

system fairer. The number one priority is to make sure that

everyone who has �10,000 of income without paying income tax. We also

need to make sure that the wealthiest are paying their fair

share. Would you say it was acceptable and possible that many

people would have to sell their properties in order to pay this?

Mayor. What we have proposed is it will be a 1% levy on properties

worth �2 million. -- no. If, for any reason, we do accept there are

some people who live in houses that had grown over 30 years and do not

have that amount of money - it has been dubbed a granny tax by some

people - granny will not have to pay the tax. It will be stored up

until the proceeds from the property worth more than 2.5

million are realised. We what about the other potential injustices? You

can earn several properties under 2 million and have one that is over 2

million in you will get hit. will be paying council tax on all

of theirs. The whole system needs to be looked at. At the top end of

the property sale - the mansion tax - there should be a new levy on

properties worth more than �2 million. Other people have

suggested the council tax bands need to be looked at as well to

make sure all these properties right round the country are tacked

-- taxed in a fairway. People are piling up lots of tax and putting

them into properties and not paying their fair share of tax. That is

what a lot of people think needs to be tackled. Would you be prepared

to see this contemplated if the top rate of tax were removed? I do not

support a mansion tax. I am a London MP. Some people are my

constituency would be affected by these proposals. I have found what

I heard quite extraordinary. Either you're going to raise this tax or

you are not. It is going to be a revenue or it is not. The idea that

some people can remain in houses not paying it seems to be very

unclear. I do not believe we are much beyond a rumour about this. I

am not at all convinced it will find its way into the budget. There

are people living in big houses who do not have a lot of money. Others

have saved their income - the income is earned, they have saved

it and paid tax on it - then they have decide to put it into a house

was up to have to pay tax all over again would be unfair. If it has

gone up in value, they have not done anything to learn that extra

money. They have saved their money in the first place and been

fortunate with where they have chosen to put that money. These

houses are not mansions at all necessarily. We may look at this

idea from Labour. We would be interested as to whether the

mansion tax would be a good deal between the Liberals and the

Conservatives ask for the tax to be cut. That does not really improve

the situation. What would be interesting is to see whether the

revenue raised would be there to support those who are in most need.

If it is to give a tax break to those people at the top end of the

tax threshold, it is unlikely you will get the support because it

does not achieve anything. We would have to wait and see what to

demands to. A final word from Stephen Williams. To accept there

is so much more thinking about working out how it will be

administered and valued and everything? -- de you accept?

will not be raised overnight. More work would need to be done on it if

it is announced in the Budget. If you have a property worth �2

million, the value over that amount would be subject to a 1% annual

charge. The only complication is people without much income, we're

saying we would help those people and to further tax until they are

able to pay it when the property is sold. Thank you very much. City

Hall gets most of its income from government grant and general

taxation. How much it raises in fares and council tax - its share

of council tax. Bose Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone are promising

they will not increase the council tax. There are 5.8 million voters

in London. The politicians in the capital a desperate to know who we

are, what we think and whether we can be persuaded to vote for them.

They seem to agree a big way to win votes is by offering us ready money.

Boris Johnson is saying that those over 60 should be able to use

public transport for free. When Carol reaches 60, the household

could be saved �3,000 a year - the cost of an annual zones 1 to 9

travel card. I was very pleased to hear this. It does with the impact.

It is worth a lot of money. Will it be effective? Well, I am thinking

about it. I want to hit a bit more first - see what they say. -- here

a bit more. When leaflet start coming through the door, I will be

asking some searching questions. the moment, Ken Livingstone appears

to be out doing his opponent in the amount of money he is offering the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 79 seconds

The impact it will have on other areas of spending looks set to

dominate this election. I'm joined by our resident Local

Government guru, Tony Travis, who also has a day job working at the

London School of Economics. It's no surprise that people make promises

about spending and what money they are going to offer people. Ken

Livingstone first, is this fares deal and package workable? Are the

surpluses there to reduce fares? There is no doubt that in an

organisation as big as Transport for London with a �10 billion

budget that there is the money to deliver this kind of cut in fares.

There is more income coming in this year than was expected, spending is

a bit lower. The question is, that is of course pound for pound less

money to invest in the system and the London transport system needs

money spent on it in very large amounts so. For every penny that's

handed back, it's �1 less invested in the future. What about the fact

of EMA, where is the money coming to replace the money lost? I think

the money will come partly from further and higher education and

some of it from the boroughs. I thinks the an attempt to bring

together money from other sources and use it for this particular

purposes, but it's not money directly within the Mayor's budget

yet. Boris Johnson is promising something that could cost �8

million to �10 million. It will be staggered as a retirement age thing,

has he got the money for that? like the Ken Livingstone policy.

TfL has surpluses saving money in projects so there is money in there,

but you have to say that, although it's well aimed politically like

the Ken Livingstone fares cut, the Johnson concession, of course, is

increasing concession for a group of people who more and more work.

You might wonder whether people who're looking for work and who

can't get to interviews deserve the money more than people who're in

work and get an extra concession. Boris Johnson will say, I'm not

going to make big rash financial promise money that we can't afford,

we need to invest, but of course, other people have done the give

away for him. The Government have put money in to soften the fares

rise and there's money for police officers, presumably both those

amounts won't be there if he were to win again in a year's time?

question of how much money there is for the following year will be

negotiated as we go along. That's true for Ken Livingstone if he were

to win. I mean, London has done relatively well out of public

spending settlements in recent years under Governments of both

parties actually and both Mayors in fact. The question of whether that

can continue, particularly as more Mayors appear in other cities is a

big question. Mayors in other cities, there is

another story. To offer people, commuters,

travellers more money in their pocket over the next few years when

they are going to have to continue to spend as a result maybe of more

overcrowded trains because the investment isn't going in? At a

time when people's incomes are being hit very hard when ordinary

families are being squeezed because of the Government's cuts, it's the

right emphasis, to try and Mick shaur that there isn't an

increasing burden on people to pay for their fares -- sure. That's why

Ken's focused on the 7% fare cuts. It struck a cord, people feel the

pain and need help. Striking the cord because the message is, Boris

Johnson not understanding ordinary Londoners? Look, Ken Livingstone

has form in this area and I don't think you need to look into a

crystal ball, you can just read the book. Actually, you can read Ken

Livingstone's own autobiography in which he admits that previous

promises to keep fares low were broken. He pledged to resign that.

Nobody believes his promise, that's the trouble. Sounds a bit desperate

to me that actually. But the truth is that he has form on this, he's

always promising fare cuts ahead of elections and never delivers and

the fact that after 2004, by September of that same year, they

had gone up beyond inflation. I don't think that people necessarily

believe that this is something he's going to be able to deliver or in

fact necessarily intend to delefr. He's cynical when it comes to

making the promises -- deliver. he not cynical that Government,

George Osborne, has helped out Boris Johnson, cushioning the fare

rises for this year, offering an extra one-off payment for police,

money that will not be there in a year es' time? We have extra police

partly because of the Olympics, but Boris has managed his finances

judiciously. We'll have 1,000 more police officers on the street by

May than when he arrived in office. There's every reason to believe

that ongoing there will be further negotiations about future funding.

In terms of other promises Boris made, like for instance, the

freedom pass for 60s and overs, that is more affordable than the

137.2 billion of a 7% cut which I don't think will happen in a

million years. We'll come back to a few of those

things in a moment. A full list of all the candidates standing in the

election is available on the BBC London website:

Now what else has been happening in the city? Here is a flavour in 60

seconds. Charged at the London Assembly by

Baroness Ducec youb obsessed with secrecy over the failure to

allocate tickets for the Games -- Ducey. The 2012 l 2012 chairman

fought back. I'm not going to divert the attention of my teams

who still have four million tucts to sell. - tickets. Transport

Secretary Justine Greening opened thery fushished London Southend

airport. It can currently take two million flights a year but it's

claimed this could triple -- -- refurbished. Cycle schemes opened

but there's questions on how much it's costing the public purse. Back

to the Olympics and a million parking per mutts will be issued to

help control traffic at even use during the gaims. Up to 400,000

properties, businesses and homes will be affected -- Games.

But, what I want to ask you about the Olympics, the rising costs.

Security seems to have been und estimated. Got a view?

underestimated. We should be hugely proud of the fact that we've got

the Olympics in London and in East London which will regenerate the

area and I know that my constituency are incredibly pleased.

But the will be disruption about people, there are concerns about

whether the A&E services will be able to get through in the VIP

lanes and we need to make sure local people don't suffer as a

result of the Games. Some people are very sensitive about it because

they haven't got tickets. In my borough, we haven'ted that marathon

route. The security cost now is double the number we thought?

the original bid document was woefully inadequate. They were

allowing mess money for security in London that they had to pay out in

Athens. Clearly that was a massive underestimate and I think that's

where all the problems started. thank you to you both.

We'll see if our story on human rights makes waves in Westminster

this week and we'll hear a thing or two more possibly about tax and the

Budget. It's all meat and drink to the regular panel here to help you

digest the Week Ahead. Isabel, Iain Duncan Smith was

suitably diplomatic about what's been happening in the Human Rights

Commission, but I would suggest that the idea that mainly a group

of Liberal Democrat lawyers have got together with Ken Clarke to

thwart the wishes of the Prime Minister is just red meat to the

Tory backbenchs? Absolutely. The commissioner or, shall we now call

him the former commissioner suggested that Euro-Sceptic views

were being thwarted. I think the other person who's thwarted here is

David Cameron. I think he genuinely feels very strongly about these

issues. He wants to see the European courts' powers curtailed

as far as Britain is concerned. He's just frustrated on that. I

don't think it's a synthetic thing from his point of view, I think he

wants to really do something, but this is the reality of the

coalition. I disagree, I don't think David Cameron has any

intention to repatriate powers, because if you did that, you would

have to withdraw the membership of the European court and if you do

that, you come out of the European Union. I think the entire

commission was just a way of bock - - boxing a controversial issue.

I've been looking at this. There's an argument as to whether you have

to be part of the Council of Europe to be be part of the European Union.

There are lots of members who're not. The bigger issue was that he,

I don't think he ever wanted to go about it in the convention, but he

wanted to get a UK Bill of Rights that therefore meant we could say

to Strasbourg, we are really gloing to do all this at home, we only

need you for the tough cases. he's been outfoxed. I talked to

someone at Number Ten last summer who predicted this would happen,

that they would be outmanoeuvred by their own commission because Number

Ten does not have the grip and the street smart politically to get

this kind of thing done. It does suggest that even after almost two

years in power, there are basic questions of executive command and

competence that can be leveled against the Government. I'm

astonished that Labour don't make this their narrative ci took of the

Government. A -- critique. They are bashing Cameron. If they said of

him this guy is a slapdash inattentive Prime Minister, I think

they would make greater inroads than there are at the moment.

The Lib Dems, my interview with Danny Alexander, which feared to

illicit a single answer, I apologise for that. But how do you

feel about this, the Lib Dems are now the Dennis Healey of 2012? The

Lib Dems propose a mansion tax, they propose to keep the 50% top

rate, they propose the take away pension tax relief for the higher

earners. Now we'll have a tycoon tax. I mean, that's, Labour doesn't

propose all that? The really big issue about the budget is, is it

going to be enough to deliver growth. That's the key question. We

can argue as much as we like about taking money from the top or taking

it from the bottom, but at the end of the day, we have got 2.6 million

people unemployed and a massive deficit that doesn't seem to go

down. We have manufacturing growth declining. What's interesting is

that the Liberal Democrats have got some quite strong policies for

growth. We had Vince Cable saying that we wanted a bank for British

industry. If you introduced these, what would that do for growth?

Exactly, that's exactly my point is that we are talking ability very

much a budget of fairness but not a budget of growth. The Conservatives

also have quite a strong set of policies on this, so we had David

Davis saying he wanted to cut tax, but because there can be no

agreement on that strategy between the two, all we are talking about

is this politics of redistribution. The Healey analogy's very

instructive, you wonder how they get away with having the word

"liberal" in their party. Shouldn't it be socialist? Half the party was

that. They are becoming more vociferous on their views on tax

and spend and it's madness. Whatever they gain in the way of

left-wing credibility, they are losing in the way of credibility as

a governing party. They come across as a party who want to be in party

and in opposition at the same time. Remember their local income tax,

anyone remember that one? They're policys that are dreamed up on the

hoof, then they collapse under scrutiny. I am is cynic. I think Mr

Clegg and his allies like m Mr Alexander know they're activists.

The ones in Gateshead rate being in bed with the Tories, so the way to

keep them happy is throwing red meat about mansion taxes and taking

away tax relief. They've offended a lot of their members because

Liberal Democrats take process very seriously and they democratically

decide process together. The tycoon tax has never been discussed with

the Liberal Democrat members. was clear when we started asking

questions about it. Mr Cameron is off to America this week, he's

travelling in Air Force One, the President's got a proper lane,

inlike our Prime Minister. When he went to France, he virtually

endorsed Sarkozy. Who do you think he'd like to see win in November?

think as he's the first British Prime Minister in a long time who's

indifferent to the results, but a he has less of an interest to be

close to the President than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair did.

He's relatively indifferent to the outcome. Number Ten's tried to

cooperate with the White House on joint initiatives and policy

projects and it's got nowhere. one thing... They both seem to be

to wanting out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. That will

probably be the most important thing discussed. I disagree, David

Cameron might be the first Prime Minister to want Obama to win. The

Republicans would push him to be more hawkish on defence, we might

be pulled into Iran and that would be dangerous and show him to be

right-wing. I think Macmillan would have wanted JFK to be born. If you

can't get enough of human rights, tune into my documentary on the sub

ject, called Rights Gone Wrong on this Wednesday night, 9 o'clock on

BBC Two. You can keep across all the big political stories tomorrow