:00:44. > :00:47.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to Sunday Politics. What will be in Boy
:00:47. > :00:50.George's little red box come Wednesday? What should be in it?
:00:50. > :00:54.Yes, it's Budget week, which means the Westminster rumour mill's gone
:00:54. > :01:00.into over-drive. Will it be goodbye to national pay rates and the 50p
:01:00. > :01:03.tax rate? Will it be hello tycoon tax?
:01:03. > :01:06.What can the Chancellor do to get the wheels of British business
:01:06. > :01:12.spinning? We'll be asking the Director General of the CBI, John
:01:12. > :01:15.Cridland, for his wish list. He joins us for the Sunday Interview.
:01:15. > :01:19.And should we be building more on England's green and pleasant land?
:01:19. > :01:22.Or should it be back to the drawing board for the Government's plans
:01:22. > :01:29.for the planning system? The Chairman of the National Trust and
:01:29. > :01:32.the Government go head to head. And our political panel of the best
:01:32. > :01:34.and the brightest, here every week to analyse British politics in The
:01:34. > :01:44.Week Ahead and tweeting continuously throughout the
:01:44. > :01:45.
:01:45. > :01:49.programme. In London, air pollution hit record levels this week
:01:49. > :01:59.according to one measurement, yet the government says it's now
:01:59. > :02:00.
:02:00. > :02:03.meeting EU targets. What's the All that's Dom in the next hour,
:02:03. > :02:05.but first the news. Thank you. Good afternoon.
:02:06. > :02:08.The Chancellor George Osborne insisted today his priority for
:02:09. > :02:11.this week's Budget was to help people on low and middle incomes.
:02:11. > :02:14.Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning, Mr Osborne also
:02:14. > :02:20.promised to target the super-rich who buy their properties through
:02:20. > :02:27.offshore companies and avoid paying stamp duty. Terry Stiasni has the
:02:27. > :02:31.details. George Osborne says that what's inside this year's Budget
:02:31. > :02:35.box is already agreed by the coalition, but until Wednesday, the
:02:35. > :02:39.rest of us get just glimpses. His Liberal Democrat coalition partners
:02:39. > :02:42.would like him to raise more tax on the country's most valuable
:02:42. > :02:47.properties. Some on the Conservative side would like to see
:02:47. > :02:51.the 50p high tax rate for high earners changed. The Chancellor
:02:51. > :02:56.gave one clear indication of how he'd like to deal with the well-off
:02:56. > :03:01.who try to get out of stamp duty on their homes. Rich people, often
:03:01. > :03:10.foreigners who come to this country, but also people here in Britain,
:03:10. > :03:13.who put pounds into - to avoid stamp duty, that is unacceptable.
:03:13. > :03:18.We're going to go after it. We're going to be extremely aggressive in
:03:18. > :03:24.dealing with it. People are going to face a punitive charge. Beyond
:03:24. > :03:28.that he was giving little away. Wednesday you'll see a Budget for
:03:28. > :03:31.working people. His Labour opposite numbers said the Government was out
:03:31. > :03:36.of touch. For families on middle and low incomes saying their petrol
:03:36. > :03:39.price is up. Their fuel bill is up. Their living standard is squeezed,
:03:39. > :03:46.youth unemployment rising. The idea that George Osborne is saying the
:03:46. > :03:50.number one priority is to cut taxes for firms of �150,000, they can't
:03:50. > :03:54.be serious These rivals are keen to persuade voters they're on their
:03:54. > :03:58.side. On some questions like tax rates and child benefit, only one
:03:58. > :04:00.knows what answers the Budget will provide.
:04:00. > :04:03.Sunday trading laws could be suspended during the London Olympic
:04:03. > :04:07.Games to help boost the economy. Shops that are currently allowed to
:04:07. > :04:09.open for just six hours on Sundays will be able to trade all day. The
:04:09. > :04:13.move, which has been opposed by politicians and some campaigners,
:04:13. > :04:16.would apply to England and Wales. It is expected to be announced by
:04:16. > :04:18.the Chancellor in his Budget later this week.
:04:18. > :04:20.The Premiership footballer Fabrice Muamba remains in a "critical
:04:20. > :04:25.condition" in intensive care this lunchtime according to a statement
:04:25. > :04:27.from his club, Bolton Wanderers. The 23-year-old was taken to the
:04:27. > :04:29.London Chest Hospital yesterday after suddenly collapsing at White
:04:29. > :04:39.Hart Lane during the FA Cup quarter-final against Tottenham
:04:39. > :04:41.
:04:41. > :04:45.Hotspur. That's it for if moment. There is more news on BBC One at
:04:45. > :04:47.6.30pm this evening. So it's budget week. By 3.00pm on
:04:47. > :04:50.Wednesday afternoon, the speculation will be over and we'll
:04:50. > :04:53.all know the contents of George Osborne's red box. The Chancellor
:04:53. > :04:56.told us this morning all the decisions have been made. In fact,
:04:56. > :04:59.it's been pretty much done and dusted for a week. Tomorrow there's
:04:59. > :05:05.one final meeting of the "quad" to discuss how it's all to be
:05:05. > :05:07.presented. "The quad" I hear you ask? Well, that's the core of the
:05:07. > :05:13.coalition - the Prime Minster, the Chancellor, Nick Clegg and Danny
:05:13. > :05:19.Alexander. And Mr Osborne was very keen to stress this morning that
:05:19. > :05:23.this would be a coalition budget. My priority is to help low and
:05:23. > :05:27.middle earners. That is where the bulk of the effort in the Budget is
:05:27. > :05:32.going to be. We want to see real and substantial progress on lifting
:05:32. > :05:35.low-income people out of tax. We've already taken a million low-income
:05:35. > :05:38.people out of tax and helping working families, the people who
:05:39. > :05:43.get up in the morning, go out to work, try and provide for their
:05:43. > :05:46.family, the people who are looking for jobs if they have lost jobs -
:05:46. > :05:49.those are our priorities. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was also
:05:49. > :05:52.speaking to Andrew Marr a little earlier. This is what he had to say.
:05:52. > :05:58.For families on middle and low incomes seeing their petrol prices
:05:58. > :06:01.up, their fuel bills up, their living standards squeezed, Youth
:06:01. > :06:06.unemployment risings, the idea George Osborne is saying the number
:06:06. > :06:10.one priority is to cut tax on firms of �150,000, they can't be serious.
:06:10. > :06:15.It's totally out of touch. What planet are they on? You can see
:06:15. > :06:17.there the post-Budget political battle lines to come. In a moment
:06:17. > :06:20.I'll be speaking to the Conservative backbencher John
:06:20. > :06:22.Redwood. But first let's talk to the Liberal Democrat Treasury
:06:22. > :06:26.spokesman Stephen Williams, who's in our Bristol studio.
:06:26. > :06:31.Mr Williams, good afternoon to you. Good afternoon, Andrew. Do you
:06:31. > :06:36.think that public sector pay should reflect local economic conditions?
:06:36. > :06:41.I think a case can be made for it, and I spent 17 years in the private
:06:41. > :06:44.sector before I became a Member of Parliament in 2005. It's quite
:06:44. > :06:47.normal for wage rates in Bristol to be quite different to what they are
:06:47. > :06:50.in Liverpool, Sheffield or Newcastle. Most people in the
:06:50. > :06:54.private sector are used to that but it's not been the norm in the
:06:54. > :06:57.public sector. I think this is something that should be a long-
:06:57. > :07:00.term reform and certainly shouldn't be connected to the short-term
:07:00. > :07:05.emergency of dealing with the Budget deficit. If the Chancellor
:07:05. > :07:08.came out with an end to national pay bargaining in the public sector
:07:08. > :07:12.in his Budget or at least the beginning of it - a process
:07:12. > :07:17.starting towards it, how would you react? We'd have to wait and see
:07:17. > :07:20.what the detail was. In the autumn statements it was already announced
:07:20. > :07:24.the various pay review bodies were going to be asked to have a look at
:07:24. > :07:30.this situation. I think what the Chancellor is going to be asked to
:07:30. > :07:33.do in the Budget next week is simply update us on what they have
:07:33. > :07:37.got to and the Civil Service. We'll have to wait and see in tors.
:07:37. > :07:42.Budget, but in terms of the broad principle, I have no objection.
:07:42. > :07:46.What would the response be if the Chancellor abolishs the 50p top
:07:46. > :07:50.income rate of tax? I think that is a matter of timing more than
:07:50. > :07:54.anything. I certainly don't think now would be the right time to
:07:54. > :07:58.announce the abolition or reduction of the 50p rate of tax. 2012 is
:07:58. > :08:00.going to be quite a difficult year for many families up and down the
:08:00. > :08:04.country and Liberal Democrats in the coalition are quite clear our
:08:04. > :08:08.priority in this Budget is to make sure we make significant progress
:08:08. > :08:11.to raising more people out of income tax altogether and having a
:08:11. > :08:17.tax cut for people on low and middle incomes so we get to a point
:08:17. > :08:21.in this Parliament where everyone can get �10,000 worth of tax-free
:08:21. > :08:26.pay. How much would that cost? I am told about �9 billion. If you agree
:08:26. > :08:30.with that figure, or roughly, how would you pay for it? That may be
:08:30. > :08:33.the total cost. Of course, we have already made significant progress
:08:33. > :08:38.in past Budgets in getting towards that goal. Nearly a million people
:08:38. > :08:45.by the time we get to the next tax year started in a couple of weeks'
:08:45. > :08:50.time will be raised out of tax aland a tax cut will already be in
:08:50. > :08:54.place. There is still �7 billion to find. If you want to move to
:08:54. > :08:58.�10,000 quickly, you have to find �7 billion quickly. How would you
:08:58. > :09:03.do it? Various initiatives have been suggested to the Chancellor.
:09:03. > :09:06.How would you do it? Tightening up on pension contributions. There is
:09:06. > :09:11.still very generous relief available for high-rate taxpayers
:09:11. > :09:15.in order to put funds into their pension pots. You can pay �50,000 a
:09:15. > :09:18.year into your pension scheme and still attract the top rate of tax.
:09:18. > :09:22.Most people would still think that's extraordinarily generous.
:09:22. > :09:25.There is still plenty of scope for clawing that back. We have had the
:09:25. > :09:28.suggestion of the mansion tax for the last couple of years from the
:09:28. > :09:31.Liberal Democrats, and recently Nick Clegg has floated the idea of
:09:31. > :09:36.a tycoon tax so that everyone, whatever the reliefs they're
:09:36. > :09:40.claiming in order to do certain things, does have at least a basic
:09:40. > :09:44.level of taxation they're paying towards the rest of society.
:09:44. > :09:47.Williams, thanks for joining us. Thank
:09:47. > :09:51.And the Conservative MP John Redwood is in our Central London
:09:51. > :09:56.studio. You. Good afternoon to you. Good afternoon. As I understand,
:09:56. > :10:01.you want the Chancellor to scrap the 50p top rate of income tax, but
:10:01. > :10:04.in the current climate of austerity, why should those earning over
:10:04. > :10:08.�150,000 a year have priority? want the rich to pay more. I think
:10:08. > :10:13.the obvious way to get them to pay more is to set them a rate which
:10:13. > :10:17.will make them stay and pay. I think the 50% tax rate is losing us
:10:17. > :10:21.money. I think we all agree we want the rich to make a contribution.
:10:21. > :10:26.How do you know that? Sorry to interrupt you but it's often been
:10:26. > :10:30.said that the 50p top rate doesn't bring in any money. We don't know
:10:30. > :10:36.that yet though. The Treasury hasn't published the figures.
:10:36. > :10:43.because we have past experience to look at. When Labour had an eightp
:10:43. > :10:47.rate in 1979, the top 1% just paid 11% of total income tax. At the
:10:47. > :10:51.more modest level now it's 27% of all income tax is paid by the top
:10:51. > :10:55.1%. If you took it down to 40 it would be higher. In America it's
:10:55. > :10:58.far higher, a 35% rate. Nobody is suggesting we're going to get that
:10:58. > :11:04.much. You do need to have a rate that people will be prepared to
:11:04. > :11:08.stay and pay. You want to cut the top rate of income tax. Most
:11:09. > :11:12.pension tax relief goes to the high earners - to those in the higher
:11:12. > :11:15.tax brackets. What would be wrong with restricting that tax relief to
:11:15. > :11:22.the basic rate of income tax? wouldn't fiddle around with it. I
:11:22. > :11:25.think it's a good thing people will save and make a provision for their
:11:25. > :11:31.own retirement. I wouldn't fiddle around with it. It's not fiddling
:11:31. > :11:35.around. We're not undertaxed. We have a huge amount of tax ref --
:11:35. > :11:41.revenue coming in. What we need to do is spend more wisely. Above all,
:11:41. > :11:46.we need to grow the economy. The way to do that is not to have more
:11:46. > :11:50.rich people here, but to cut the income tax burden on everybody else,
:11:50. > :11:54.and that's what I am very happy with and the Liberal Democrats and
:11:54. > :11:58.Conservatives agree with. This we want tax cuts for everybody so they
:11:58. > :12:02.can spend more. You say fiddle around with it. Let's make clear -
:12:02. > :12:09.over �7 billion in tax relief goes to those on the higher tax brackets
:12:09. > :12:13.in pension relief. It is a multi- billion-pound tax relief for the
:12:14. > :12:18.rich. What's the justification for that rather than using that money
:12:18. > :12:22.to cut the taxes of those on more modest incomes? Want people who are
:12:22. > :12:26.successful to be able to save for their futures so they're not
:12:26. > :12:30.dependent on the state. One of the worst things about Labour is more
:12:30. > :12:33.and more people got dragged into partial state dependency because
:12:33. > :12:37.they took more money off them then gave money back in the way the
:12:37. > :12:42.Government thought. There was a handling charge because you had to
:12:42. > :12:47.have an Army of inspectors to take it off them, then more to give it
:12:47. > :12:51.back to them, a silly system. exchange to the cut in the 50p rate,
:12:51. > :12:55.which will not be popular with your coalition partners, what are you
:12:55. > :12:59.prepared to concede in return? saying we need growth. If we have a
:12:59. > :13:03.top rate of tax which raises more revenue which I am proposing...
:13:03. > :13:06.That is not a concession. It is. We can use the extra revenue the top-
:13:06. > :13:10.rate payers are going to be paying to have a better tax cut on
:13:10. > :13:13.everybody else, which I thought the Liberal Democrats as well as us
:13:13. > :13:18.wanted. No other concessions? No higher taxes on the well off in
:13:18. > :13:23.return for cutting their 50p tax rate? I am very happy with the
:13:23. > :13:27.Chancellor's proposal he's put out again today we should stop certain
:13:27. > :13:31.loopholes like the stamp duty loophole, very happy to see that
:13:31. > :13:35.blocked off. We must get away from this idea Britain's problem is too
:13:35. > :13:40.few taxes. Britain's problem is not enough growth. You don't get growth
:13:40. > :13:42.by taxing more. You cannot tax a country into prosperity. You need
:13:42. > :13:48.to promote prosperity by lower taxes on everyone so they can spend
:13:48. > :13:52.more and more rewards for success. That's what I want. John Redwood,
:13:52. > :13:55.thanks for being with us today. In a moment we'll be finding out what
:13:55. > :13:58.business wants from the budget with the Director General of the CBI,
:13:58. > :14:01.John Cridland. But first, let's have a look at the economic
:14:01. > :14:04.challenges Mr Osborne is grappling with.
:14:04. > :14:11.The UK's public finances face a funding shortfall of �114 billion
:14:11. > :14:15.despite moves by the Government to curtail spending.
:14:16. > :14:24.How is the Chancellor going to sort it out? The plan is by 2017, some
:14:24. > :14:27.of it, about 20%, will be fixed by increased revenue from taxation.
:14:27. > :14:31.The bulk of it, about 80% of it, will go through spending cuts.
:14:31. > :14:34.The trouble for Mr Osborne is that most of those tax increases have
:14:34. > :14:38.already happened, but only 12% of all the spending cuts have taken
:14:38. > :14:41.place, which means there's a lot of pain still to come. And let's
:14:41. > :14:45.remember nothing close to this scale of cuts has been attempted in
:14:45. > :14:48.the last 60 years. Of course, if the economy was growing more, the
:14:48. > :14:56.Chancellor would get more income from tax. But last year the UK
:14:56. > :15:00.economy grew by only 0.8% and set to rise by only 0.7% this year.
:15:00. > :15:10.And the Director General of the CBI John Cridland joins me now for the
:15:10. > :15:14.
:15:14. > :15:19.John Cridland, you have called for the chance - from the Chancellor
:15:19. > :15:25.for targeted and modest tax cuts worth �500 million. Is that it?
:15:25. > :15:28.Yeah, it is it. Why? Because as the debate on the Budget's become more
:15:28. > :15:32.political, everybody's talking about tax cuts. I agree with John
:15:32. > :15:37.Redwood on this point, we should be focused on growth and what business
:15:37. > :15:42.is asking For Non Stop this -- asking for, for this Budget are
:15:42. > :15:49.measures that deliver growth. million would be neither here nor
:15:49. > :15:54.there. It's a pathetic amount. I was working it out, in a �1.3
:15:54. > :15:59.trillion economy, the CB seufplt calling for tax cuts of 0.04% of
:15:59. > :16:04.GDP. It's not even a rounding error. Spot on and do you know why that's
:16:04. > :16:08.the case because I don't think the country can afford significant
:16:08. > :16:12.growth - significant tax cuts if it really wants growth. Those targeted
:16:12. > :16:16.measures are about investment in infrastructure, and investment in
:16:16. > :16:22.small businesses. I don't think this is the Budget to be talking
:16:22. > :16:25.about big giveaways. That's why we came in with a very hair shirt
:16:25. > :16:30.Budget proposal. Do you think that's why people don't take much
:16:30. > :16:34.notice of the CBI these days? they take notice if we had come in
:16:34. > :16:38.for big tax cuts for high wealth individuals? We are being sensible,
:16:38. > :16:42.prudent. We are saying cut the deficit number one priority, that's
:16:42. > :16:46.important to all of us and strategies for growth then.
:16:46. > :16:50.Investment in infrastructure, Andrew, is three times more
:16:50. > :16:53.effective in getting growth than tax cuts. When we spoke to you at
:16:53. > :16:57.the Conservative conference in the autumn of last year, you gave
:16:57. > :17:01.George Osborne ten out of ten on deficit reduction, which is pretty
:17:01. > :17:05.high marks and seven out of ten overall, what would you give now?
:17:05. > :17:08.Wye still give the marks on deficit reduction. Full marks? Yeah, on
:17:08. > :17:13.growth I think the problem at the moment is that the whole of the
:17:13. > :17:17.growth strategy is not bigger than the sum of the parts. There's so
:17:17. > :17:21.many separate little things being done. We need an emphatic growth
:17:21. > :17:27.strategy as we have a deficit reduction strategy. Is that six?,
:17:27. > :17:31.seven, eight, less, more? It's still still seven. The reason is
:17:31. > :17:36.that most of the things he announced in the autumn statement
:17:36. > :17:41.are a promisory note, great great ideas but yet to happen. What would
:17:41. > :17:46.you give Vince Cable out of ten? strategies for growth, seven, too.
:17:46. > :17:50.Necessary the same Government. on other matters out of ten? He is
:17:50. > :17:54.a great advocate for business. I worked with him closely on things
:17:54. > :17:59.that mat tore me, like energy costs, investment in science, like making
:17:59. > :18:02.sure immigration policy doesn't prevent business growing, he is
:18:02. > :18:06.batting on the same wicket as I am. You agree if he is on the same
:18:06. > :18:13.wicket that the Government has no vision on the economy? His words,
:18:13. > :18:18.not mine. You said you are on the same wicket. His leaked letter,
:18:18. > :18:22.there was nothing much in it I disagreed with. Really? No. He was
:18:22. > :18:26.talking about a modern industrial... You want an industrial strategy?
:18:26. > :18:35.do because that means that we are pulling the levers that will get
:18:35. > :18:38.growth moving. When did that last work? We had a good plan with Mr
:18:38. > :18:41.Hezletine, since then getting on for a quarter of a century, we
:18:41. > :18:45.haven't seen an industrial strategy that delivers growth for the
:18:46. > :18:50.economy. If there is a cut in the 50p top rate, some of your members
:18:50. > :18:54.would like, should there be offsetting increases, in other
:18:54. > :18:58.words, other taxes on more affluent? I would like to see a 50p
:18:58. > :19:02.tax cut because it's bad for Britain and bad for business. The
:19:02. > :19:09.question is can we afford it in this Budget which is why I haven't
:19:09. > :19:19.asked for it?. If it were implemented. Cow Cow offset it --
:19:19. > :19:22.cow -- you could offset it with a tycoon tax. Stamp duty on houses
:19:22. > :19:28.which are not catching taxes they should pay that's a matter for the
:19:28. > :19:32.Chancellor, not the C the CBI. us business is sitting on a cash
:19:32. > :19:36.pile of over �700 billion, why are you not investing it in this
:19:36. > :19:40.country? Business hasn't had the confidence to invest and the main
:19:40. > :19:44.reason that is the case is because of the eurozone crisis. I am
:19:44. > :19:49.feeling a lot more optimistic than when we last spoke because I think
:19:49. > :19:52.the storm cloud of the eurozone crisis is moving over. Some canny
:19:52. > :19:55.policies around industrial policy from this Chancellor would cause
:19:55. > :19:59.business to start spending that money. What does the Chancellor
:19:59. > :20:04.have to do in his Budget then to get business to start investing in
:20:05. > :20:09.our country? One of those very targeted measures I talked about is
:20:09. > :20:13.a measure to give a capital allowance for investment in energy
:20:13. > :20:16.and transport infrastructure because 80% of all the money that's
:20:16. > :20:21.going to be spent on energy and transport comes from businesses,
:20:21. > :20:24.not from the taxpayer. That money has got to be leveraged, leveraging
:20:24. > :20:28.the private sector money for the benefit of the national economy.
:20:28. > :20:31.That's not going to unleash the �700 billion they're sitting on. We
:20:32. > :20:35.need business to spend this money at a time when the Government is
:20:35. > :20:39.tightening its own belt. What are you going to do to encourage
:20:39. > :20:43.business to invest? You are about to talk about the planning system.
:20:43. > :20:48.The planning system is where Government for its rules gets in
:20:48. > :20:51.the way of investment in energy and transport. And just in case viewers
:20:51. > :20:55.misinterpret me, I am not talking about building on the green belt, I
:20:55. > :21:01.am not talking about upsetting the National Trust, I am talking about
:21:01. > :21:04.the big developments that we need for the economy. Thank you for
:21:04. > :21:07.being with us. On Wednesday alongside the Budget the Government
:21:07. > :21:12.is to publish its revised planning guidelines for England. The draft
:21:12. > :21:16.policy was published last July but it caused outrage among countryside
:21:16. > :21:20.lobby groups who claimed it was a so-called developers' charter. We
:21:20. > :21:25.sent Adam tphrepling to west -- Fleming to west Sussex to see what
:21:25. > :21:28.the fuss is about. It should be peace and kwaoeu out
:21:28. > :21:33.here but parts of the English Shires are at war with the
:21:33. > :21:37.Government over plan to slash the guidance on planning from more than
:21:37. > :21:41.1,000 pages to less than 60. When the proposals were first published
:21:41. > :21:45.last summer there was an absolute outcry. Critics were worried that
:21:45. > :21:48.the Government wasn't doing enough to promote development on
:21:48. > :21:52.brownfield land, and they were furious about an idea that planers
:21:52. > :21:56.should almost automatically grant approval to schemes as long as they
:21:56. > :22:02.were sustainable. People People couldn't even agree on the meaning
:22:03. > :22:06.of the word sustainable. And here in Southwater in west
:22:06. > :22:10.Sussex this patch of green demonstrates another aspect that
:22:10. > :22:13.concerns campaigners. This is a piece of ordinary countryside, it
:22:13. > :22:16.isn't National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty but
:22:17. > :22:21.nevertheless it's important to the people that live locally. Under
:22:21. > :22:24.planning guidelines the wider countryside is protected but under
:22:24. > :22:27.the Government's planned new framework in the draft that we saw
:22:27. > :22:31.there was no mention of wider countryside. So we are looking for
:22:31. > :22:35.the Government to correct that when they publish the final version of
:22:35. > :22:41.the national planning policy framework.
:22:41. > :22:44.Some Tory MPs feel the same way and, as a result, we understand that
:22:44. > :22:48.when the final version of the document is published soon it will
:22:48. > :22:55.have some minor renovations to provide reassurance. But there
:22:56. > :22:58.won't be any major changes. Which pleases Liz Peace of the British
:22:58. > :23:02.Property Federation as she explained at this noisy building
:23:02. > :23:06.site. Some elements of the document were unnecessarily intphraplorry
:23:06. > :23:11.and by sensible modification, if I was re-writing it I can see little
:23:11. > :23:14.bits I would take out, I would would tweak. I think however that
:23:14. > :23:18.the body or the lobby against it has been unreasonable and our
:23:18. > :23:23.planning system in the UK is quite a good one. The problem is the way
:23:23. > :23:29.it's actually implemented. It just takes such a long time. The olded
:23:29. > :23:34.aage about time is money. Back in Sussex I found the planning
:23:34. > :23:39.notice for the proposed development that's worrying people around here.
:23:39. > :23:42.It's literally in tatters. The Government's planning policy could
:23:42. > :23:48.end up the same way if the re- written version doesn't impress
:23:48. > :23:53.those campaigners and MPs worried about the future of the English
:23:53. > :24:01.countryside. Let's go head-to-head on this with
:24:01. > :24:04.Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust and Stephen Hammond,
:24:04. > :24:07.parliamentary Secretary to Eric Pickles, the Minister in charge of
:24:07. > :24:11.these changes. Simon Jenkins, what's wrong with
:24:11. > :24:14.the reform that simplifies the planning process, protects the
:24:15. > :24:17.green belt, and favours sustainable development? Nothing. If that's
:24:17. > :24:22.what it did. That's what the Government says it does. But it's
:24:22. > :24:25.wrong. In what way? The proposal in the original version of the draft
:24:25. > :24:29.document which you understand has been changed, so we are talking
:24:29. > :24:33.about something we don't know what's in it, it was a bad document.
:24:33. > :24:37.It basically said that it will go to building permit system, anybody
:24:37. > :24:40.who has a plot of land anywhere outside green belt and designated
:24:40. > :24:43.areas, just about 15% of the land, talking about most of England
:24:43. > :24:47.that's countryside. OK a bad document that you have now had to
:24:47. > :24:50.change? Well, as you know there's been a consultation but the
:24:50. > :24:54.original intention was to ensure we simplified the planning system, put
:24:54. > :24:59.in place protections for the green field and it was sustainable
:24:59. > :25:02.development. It was using a well known recognised sustainable
:25:02. > :25:05.development definition and I think that we have obviously put it out
:25:05. > :25:09.to consultation after the first draft and listened to people.
:25:09. > :25:13.you made substantial changes as a result? Well I am not - I haven't
:25:13. > :25:17.seen the final draft, so... You are the Minister's parliamentary
:25:17. > :25:21.Secretary. Well, I have obviously had discussions. Doesn't he take
:25:21. > :25:24.you into account? I am lucky he does take me into confidence on
:25:24. > :25:27.certain things and I have been involved in a number of discussions.
:25:28. > :25:31.There will be major changes or won't there? There will be changes
:25:31. > :25:34.because as we have said, we will listen to what people have said to
:25:34. > :25:40.us. Do you think you have won? don't know yet. We really don't
:25:40. > :25:45.know. There was a revised document which was widely discussed. We
:25:45. > :25:51.thefr discovered the Treasury tried to censor it, to revert it. We are
:25:51. > :25:55.talking about whether there should be presumption of favour of
:25:55. > :26:00.building. Building has no shortage of building land lying sraeubg abt
:26:00. > :26:02.in -- vacant in towns. The The issue was whether anyone in the
:26:02. > :26:07.countryside could put in a planning application and get it allowed
:26:07. > :26:11.through if they could say it was economically or socially
:26:11. > :26:14.sustainable. If you drive up the M1 now, in half the fields you drive
:26:14. > :26:17.past past there are huge hoardings going up saying use this
:26:17. > :26:21.advertising space, this is the consequence of this plan if it goes
:26:21. > :26:25.through. Already they're planning to put up advertisements up and
:26:25. > :26:29.down the motorways of England as if this was Spain or Syria or wherever.
:26:29. > :26:32.It's a crazy plan. I think that Simon's first premise was wrong,
:26:32. > :26:36.the idea this was going to allow development everywhere all over the
:26:36. > :26:39.countryside, that was not in the plan. We were ensuring that all the
:26:39. > :26:43.protections that that were previously in place were going to
:26:43. > :26:47.stay and that's what the revised document will do. Why are these
:26:47. > :26:51.hoardings going up in fields all over England. I can't speculate.
:26:51. > :26:54.What I am telling you is that as you know if you looked at the
:26:54. > :26:57.document and I am confident when you see the revised document the
:26:57. > :27:00.protections that are there to the green fields and green belt which
:27:00. > :27:03.were there in the first document will remain in the second. They
:27:03. > :27:08.weren't in the first document which is why we had this row. I am in
:27:08. > :27:13.favour of the way Andrew introduced it, the system needs simplified. We
:27:13. > :27:17.were engaged on discussions on simplification. It was complex.
:27:17. > :27:20.That was different from saying that in all areas of Britain without an
:27:20. > :27:23.existing plan which is 80% of Britain which didn't have an
:27:23. > :27:26.existing plan, there would be a presum initial favour of something
:27:26. > :27:29.called sustainable development, that's a being permit system, not a
:27:29. > :27:31.planning system and the building permits would be allowable if you
:27:31. > :27:37.could show it was socially or environmentally or economically
:27:37. > :27:42.sustainable which means had jobs. It was a crazy system. We all agree
:27:42. > :27:44.the system needs change. What about his point. The issue about
:27:44. > :27:48.sustainable development is that there was complete disagreement as
:27:48. > :27:52.to whether or not what Simon views it as is what was in the document
:27:52. > :27:55.and we would have argued strongly and did argue strongly that all the
:27:55. > :27:59.protections that had previously been in place remained in place.
:27:59. > :28:02.they're all in place what are you changing? We are changing, as Simon
:28:02. > :28:08.already pointed out, what we had was a complex system, where there
:28:08. > :28:11.were over 1,000 pledges of planning guidance down to 56... You are
:28:11. > :28:16.saying you are making it simpler but not changing the principles on
:28:16. > :28:19.which it's based? Not at all. We are also doing is allowing
:28:19. > :28:25.neighbourhoods and people to have a greater say, allowing - ensuring
:28:25. > :28:28.the land of the lowest environmental amenity value is
:28:28. > :28:32.brought back into play. The problem with it was that the entire drift
:28:32. > :28:35.of the first document was in favour of development. Not sustainable
:28:35. > :28:39.development, just any sort of development. And the criteria in
:28:39. > :28:44.which in would be allowed which included economic sustainability,
:28:44. > :28:48.which meant did it make a profit. Now I am hoping, I am expecting the
:28:48. > :28:51.document to have changed, but we consulted lawyers, everyone on this.
:28:51. > :28:54.It was going to be a lawyers' charter. Every planning application
:28:54. > :28:58.would be appealed against because it was outside the plan. It was a
:28:58. > :29:01.really bad system. I am praying that you got it right this time.
:29:01. > :29:11.Well, I am confident that we will have got it right. I am also
:29:11. > :29:12.
:29:12. > :29:15.confident... How do you know if you have not seen the document? Just
:29:15. > :29:18.before you jump in, let me answer the point that you have asked me to
:29:18. > :29:21.answer, which was the first point, that we are confident that what we
:29:21. > :29:23.had in the first place was not exactly as Simon described. We are
:29:23. > :29:25.confident that what was there in terms of the presumption in favour
:29:25. > :29:28.of sustainable economic development was there and it would not have
:29:28. > :29:30.been a lawyers' charter. Do you think building ought to have taken
:29:30. > :29:33.place in existing towns or is it fine in the countryside. I would
:29:33. > :29:35.prefer to see the brownfield space in existing towns developed first
:29:35. > :29:38.and that's exactly what that document did because it talked
:29:38. > :29:41.about lowest environmental amenity value and it was an encouragement
:29:41. > :29:45.to use those sites first. It ripped up the presumption of developing
:29:45. > :29:50.proupb field sites first. It simply didn't do that, because if you read
:29:50. > :29:56.the the document it said... he's read the document! We have all
:29:56. > :29:59.read that document. None of us has read the new one. But you will soon
:29:59. > :30:02.have a chance because as you know, there is a commitment for to us
:30:02. > :30:05.produce it by the end of March which we will do. Good, we will
:30:05. > :30:10.hold to you that commitment. Thank you very much.
:30:10. > :30:15.Now it's approaching 12.30. You are watching Sunday Politics. Coming up
:30:16. > :30:25.in 20 minutes: I will be looking at the week ahead with our panel.
:30:26. > :30:30.
:30:30. > :30:33.Until then, the Sunday Politics Hello and welcome from us in the
:30:33. > :30:38.capital. This week: air pollution hit record levels in London. It
:30:38. > :30:42.comes as the Government insists it's averted the threat of big EU
:30:42. > :30:46.fines over air quality, but has it been drawing on the most revealing
:30:46. > :30:51.data? Here with us for the next 20 minutes, green Assembly member
:30:51. > :30:55.Darren Johnson and Sarah Tether, the Minister for Children and
:30:55. > :30:59.Families and Lib Dem MP for Brent central. Let's talk about the
:30:59. > :31:02.Budget this week if we can. Darren Johnson, in terms of taxation, what
:31:02. > :31:07.would you like to see happen, a top rate reduced or increased?
:31:07. > :31:10.certainly want to see the top rate reduced, and I hope the Liberty
:31:10. > :31:15.Stadium put pressure on their coalition partners to retain the
:31:15. > :31:19.top rate. I actually think we need to be increasing it for the very,
:31:19. > :31:24.very wealthiest because if we did that, we could afford not to make
:31:24. > :31:28.these devastating cuts to public services, and actually tackle the
:31:28. > :31:32.deficit without harming public services. Then you ruin all of that
:31:32. > :31:37.incentive to create wealth, don't you? I think we need fairer society.
:31:37. > :31:41.All the academic research shows now if you reduce the gap between rich
:31:41. > :31:44.and poor, other problems are tackled as well, so you have less
:31:44. > :31:49.crime problems, less health problems and so on. We actually
:31:49. > :31:53.need moor equal society. I make no bones about that. Sarah, would you
:31:54. > :31:56.be happy to see the 50p tax rate reduced to 40p as a centrepiece of
:31:56. > :31:59.George Osborne's Budget My priority as a Liberal Democrat in the
:31:59. > :32:03.coalition Government is to make sure we get tax cuts for those who
:32:03. > :32:06.are earning the least, and I think that's what'll help to boost the
:32:06. > :32:10.economy in London and really ease the pressure on families, and in
:32:10. > :32:13.terms of any change to the top rate, I think what's important is those
:32:14. > :32:17.who earn the most pay their fair share. I feel less concerned about
:32:17. > :32:21.exactly how we do that what's really important, though, is that
:32:21. > :32:24.those who earn the most pay their fair share and those who earn the
:32:24. > :32:28.least get a bit of a break. It's really difficult for families at
:32:28. > :32:33.the moment who... When you say you're less concerned about how you
:32:33. > :32:37.do it, would you be happy to see it cut to 40p I want to make sure
:32:37. > :32:41.those who earn the most pay their fair share. How we do that is
:32:41. > :32:45.matter for detail. I think we'll have to wait for George Osborne...
:32:45. > :32:51.That wouldn't, would it, because that would be the higher rate
:32:51. > :32:55.earners paying less. 1% of the rich, those who earn more than �150,000,
:32:55. > :32:59.need to pay their fair share. How we deliver that is a question for
:32:59. > :33:03.the Budget. We'll have to wait for that later this week. A critical
:33:03. > :33:07.litmus test for me will be do those who earn the most continue to pay
:33:08. > :33:12.their fair share after the Budget? That's important. Ken Livingstone
:33:12. > :33:21.revealed a pledge this week to help families with the cost of childcare.
:33:21. > :33:24.He promised grants and loans for those on low incomes and to fund
:33:24. > :33:30.nursery places. Ed Miliband was out with him this week. We asked the
:33:30. > :33:34.Labour leader whether it was not just more than a Jessture? I don't
:33:34. > :33:40.think helping people with affordable childcare is a bribe.
:33:40. > :33:48.It's recognising the severe costs of childcare in London. Helping
:33:48. > :33:51.people into work is good for them and good for our community. Sarah
:33:51. > :33:54.Tether, the Minister responsible here - would you accept the
:33:54. > :33:58.characterisation of this as a childcare crisis in the capital?
:33:58. > :34:01.Well, the problem with Ken Livingstone's proposal is there is
:34:01. > :34:06.actually nothing concrete there. If he were actually doing something
:34:06. > :34:12.conceet, I would say fantastic. Somebody is actually coming forward
:34:12. > :34:17.with a new idea in the debate. But... He says 1,200 families -
:34:17. > :34:22.doesn't seem like very many - would get grants up to �700. They would
:34:22. > :34:25.also get interest-free loans... That's not what he said. He said
:34:25. > :34:30.he'd have a conversation and he might be able to deliver it
:34:30. > :34:33.possibly. In comparison, what the Government is doing is by 2013,
:34:33. > :34:38.26,000 two-year-olds will get 15 hours of free nursery care. That's
:34:38. > :34:41.concrete and real. That's in addition to the 200,000 three and
:34:41. > :34:44.four-year-olds who are already getting 15 hours of early education
:34:44. > :34:47.because of decisions I have taken inside the Government. This is a
:34:47. > :34:50.priority for the Government. We do recognise there is enormous
:34:50. > :34:53.pressure on families. But the Government is rolling out the
:34:53. > :34:57.largest increase in early education that any Government has ever tried
:34:58. > :35:05.to do before. Exactly. Isn't the truth of the evidence that people
:35:05. > :35:09.aren't taking up those places in London? 75% take-up of those free
:35:09. > :35:13.place you may be providing compared to 86% across the country because
:35:13. > :35:18.they don't work for those people. They're not flexible enough. It's
:35:18. > :35:21.only 15 hours. It doesn't enable them to get into work. It's not the
:35:21. > :35:25.reason people aren't taking nose places up. There are issues about
:35:25. > :35:29.attracting - sometimes families who are disengaged with forms of
:35:29. > :35:33.education - making sure the offer is both known to them and attracted
:35:33. > :35:38.to them. So you're appealing to get it across that it's available for
:35:38. > :35:42.them? I don't think that's true. I think we need to do more to make
:35:42. > :35:46.sure those from the most disadvantaged families take up the
:35:46. > :35:50.offer. But getting them involved earlier and making that right from
:35:50. > :35:54.two will help to make sure they are in early education right the way
:35:54. > :35:57.through. That'll make a huge difference from them when they
:35:57. > :36:00.begin school. What can we afford when we take out the pledges you
:36:00. > :36:08.would make in term of the environment, which would cost a
:36:08. > :36:12.huge amount of money - not much left to fund childcare places.
:36:12. > :36:16.Sarah said she wanted to hear concrete pledges. We want to work
:36:16. > :36:20.with all schools across London to ensure we have breakfast clubs to
:36:21. > :36:24.ensure there are extended school opening hours and so on. That is a
:36:25. > :36:29.really practical way that the Mayor can work with schools right across
:36:29. > :36:34.London in an affordable way, and I think these things are affordable,
:36:34. > :36:39.but unlike Ken Livingstone, we have got properly costed plans for our
:36:39. > :36:42.manifesto. We want to reduce fares, but we're making very clear that
:36:42. > :36:48.the motorist will pay additional charges. We are saying where the
:36:48. > :36:52.money is going to come from. A 10% reduction in the spending review
:36:53. > :36:57.from 2010 and what councils can spend. We know Sure Start centres
:36:57. > :37:00.and children's centres are closing. We know the local authorities don't
:37:00. > :37:06.have the statutory responsibility to provide those free nursery
:37:06. > :37:09.places - how can - That's not true. There are a number of things untrue
:37:09. > :37:12.there. There has been scare- mongering around closing of Sure
:37:12. > :37:15.Start centres. That's actually not what's hang on the whole. There
:37:16. > :37:25.have been some closures, some merges, some change, but relatively
:37:25. > :37:32.few have closed. Across the country we still have 3,500 Sure Start...
:37:32. > :37:35.Three or four boroughs have no Sure Start centres. The truth is most
:37:35. > :37:41.people aren't using those centres to find their education places.
:37:41. > :37:44.They're using the private sector or the voluntary sector. It's not
:37:44. > :37:48.necessary for centres to provide that, nor is it necessarily what
:37:48. > :37:52.parents want. They want a choice in their local area. You need a range
:37:52. > :37:56.of local education providers to ensure those places are available.
:37:56. > :38:00.Stay with us. Air pollution hit record levels in the capital this
:38:00. > :38:03.week. The Department of Environment even issued a health warning. Faced
:38:03. > :38:08.by big EU fines the Government has said things have gotten better,
:38:08. > :38:14.claiming it's now meeting EU targets. It's now being accused of
:38:14. > :38:18.not passing on the worst data that is being recorded in the capital.
:38:18. > :38:22.Eddie Connor suffers from asthma, a condition he developed aged 20.
:38:22. > :38:25.think the air quality in London is absolutely disgusting. People walk
:38:25. > :38:29.out and about and have a really good time. For me, I have to pick
:38:29. > :38:32.and choose the days I go out because it is so difficult to
:38:32. > :38:37.breathe with the really poor air quality we have. Sometimes I have
:38:37. > :38:41.to lock the balcony doors, lock everything because it is so bad out
:38:41. > :38:45.there. I am literally choking in my own flat. In London, air quality is
:38:46. > :38:49.a serious issue linked to one in every five deaths. It's so bad, we
:38:49. > :38:55.have been breaking European law for years, but the Government claims
:38:55. > :38:58.things are getting better, and air quality in London during 2011 looks
:38:58. > :39:01.set to have fallen within the permitted levels. The final
:39:01. > :39:04.calculations are being done and will be filed with the European
:39:04. > :39:10.Commission in September. One reason the Government is so confident is
:39:10. > :39:14.the data based on readings from this monitoring site on the
:39:14. > :39:18.Marylebone Road, chosen by them to monitor the reduction of pollution
:39:18. > :39:22.in the capital shows no breach. Government has said Marylebone Road,
:39:22. > :39:24.this site, was the highest monitored and modelled site. That's
:39:24. > :39:28.only true for their monitoring network. There are a hundred
:39:28. > :39:30.monitors in London. There were breaches at other monitoring
:39:30. > :39:36.stations that they weren't referring to to the European
:39:36. > :39:45.Commission. The campaign -- Campaign for Clean
:39:45. > :39:49.Air in London says the worst air in London was to be found here,
:39:49. > :39:53.Neesdon Lane in Brent. They say if this was counted, the Government
:39:53. > :39:58.would still have illegally bad air. Coming here, you can instantly see
:39:58. > :40:04.why the readings are so high. The air is terrible. Everything you see
:40:04. > :40:08.- the ground, the signs are covered with a film of rubbish. If you look
:40:08. > :40:12.here, it's fine. You run it along the surface, it's covered. Brent
:40:12. > :40:17.Council were so concerned about the pollution here, they set up this
:40:17. > :40:20.monitoring station. We are breaching the regulations of the
:40:20. > :40:27.air quality objectives. They say you shouldn't exceed more than 30
:40:27. > :40:32.times a year. So far this year we have had 22 exceedings and we're
:40:32. > :40:36.only two-and-a-half months into the year. But the Government don't use
:40:36. > :40:41.information from these sites in part because they say they're not
:40:41. > :40:47.necessarily run to European standards, not the case here.
:40:47. > :40:52.Is this equipment compliant with EU directives? Yes, it is. So the
:40:52. > :40:55.equipment is calibrated and audited on a regular basis to make sure we
:40:55. > :40:58.comply. The Government declined our request for an interview, but told
:40:58. > :41:08.us they're currently reviewing which monitoring sites are
:41:08. > :41:16.
:41:16. > :41:20.currently included in their data. But even if these figures are
:41:20. > :41:26.included, the Government couldn't tell us if they'd be in time for
:41:26. > :41:33.when they have to hand in the figures to Brussels. There was a
:41:33. > :41:35.breach of the bad air in Neesdon Lane. If it's not reported to
:41:35. > :41:41.Brussels, that would be public health fraud.
:41:41. > :41:46.Simon Burkett from the Campaign for Clear Air. Let's go Nottingham and
:41:46. > :41:50.talk to Mark Spencer, a member of the Environmental Audit Select
:41:50. > :41:55.Committee. Welcome to you. Is the Government - the capital - only
:41:55. > :41:58.meeting these targets because it's yooth using recordings from
:41:58. > :42:02.monthering point which doesn't reflect the actual picture here in
:42:02. > :42:06.London? What's happening is all of those stations meet the right
:42:06. > :42:10.criteria. If we started to use different stations all over the
:42:10. > :42:15.capital, then the priorities would be that we're moving the goalposts.
:42:15. > :42:19.It's important we keep the same stations to compare data one year
:42:19. > :42:23.to the next to see how we're progressing. But we hear in that
:42:23. > :42:26.report that obviously there are clearly around London a hundred
:42:26. > :42:30.monitoring points and levels are exceeding these targets in those
:42:30. > :42:34.low levels. Something is not right, is it? We also heard not all of
:42:34. > :42:37.those station meet the right criteria in terms of the equipment.
:42:37. > :42:42.Some do. Some don't. The number of those sites are under review. We're
:42:42. > :42:46.going to look at maybe adding more to it. I can't emphasise enough how
:42:46. > :42:50.important it is that those stations - the sort of - on the whole stay
:42:50. > :42:53.in the same place so we can compare data one year to the next.
:42:53. > :42:57.Otherwise, we won't be able to monitor whether we're gettings
:42:57. > :43:02.better or worse. Would you accept we hear, for instance, there in
:43:02. > :43:06.Brent, it's a fully compliant monitoring system. Regularly the
:43:06. > :43:09.levels are being exceeded? Yeah. I think clearly the list needs to be
:43:09. > :43:12.under review. We're reviewing that and will look at whether that
:43:12. > :43:16.particular station will get added to the list or not. I don't think
:43:16. > :43:20.we're in a position to say yes or no at this time. But we're
:43:20. > :43:23.constantly reviewing which sites can be added. After all the hull
:43:23. > :43:27.Balloo over this, the Government is saying it's appearing to have hit
:43:27. > :43:30.these targets no. Danger of these EU fines now. I am very concerned
:43:30. > :43:36.now the Government and the Mayor have been doing everything possible
:43:36. > :43:39.to try to avoid the fine. Obviously no, one wants to see London hit by
:43:39. > :43:43.a �300 million fine from the EU, but I think the Government are
:43:43. > :43:47.doing everything possible to try to avoid the fine rather than actually
:43:47. > :43:52.solving the problem. How is it, as Mark Spencer says, we have been
:43:52. > :43:56.using this site at Marylebone Road since 1997. If you're going to
:43:56. > :44:00.compare like with like, the moment they hit the targets, someone like
:44:00. > :44:06.you comes along and says let's use other monitoring stations. It's not
:44:07. > :44:10.fair, is it? The Campaign for Clean Air says we need to present a
:44:10. > :44:14.fuller picture. The full picture needs to be presented. I do believe
:44:14. > :44:18.that the European Commission are being hoodwinked at the moment and
:44:18. > :44:22.not being given the full picture, and the reality is we need to
:44:22. > :44:26.concentrate on actually solving the problem and reducing air pollution
:44:26. > :44:31.in the capital. We need things like a very low emissions zone for
:44:31. > :44:35.central London with much cleaner emissions standards. We need much
:44:35. > :44:39.cleaner bus and taxis and real investment in that. The Mayor and
:44:39. > :44:42.the Government have been dragging their feet for too long on this.
:44:42. > :44:45.Because we meet the target according to central London and
:44:45. > :44:51.Marylebone Road, does that satisfy you? Are you happy? Tell your
:44:51. > :44:57.constituents... I respect Neesdon Lane, yeah. That the air quality is
:44:57. > :45:00.fine in your constituency? I am not very interested in the EU target. I
:45:00. > :45:06.am interested in what's happening on that lane. I have been
:45:06. > :45:10.campaigning on that lane for a long time. There's particular problem on
:45:10. > :45:14.that lane. It's very close to the North Circular Road. You say not
:45:14. > :45:19.particularly representative - it's a bad area? What I am interested in
:45:19. > :45:22.is cleaning that up area, actually. The EU target, I am sure, is a
:45:22. > :45:24.tremendously important technical debate, but right now I am worried
:45:24. > :45:29.about this. But do you think it reflects, though, if an area like
:45:29. > :45:32.that - it's like semi-industrial, but on the outskirts of London, has
:45:32. > :45:36.got poor air quality, there is not much point in recording it and
:45:37. > :45:39.using it as the official measure - one point in Marylebone Road, is
:45:40. > :45:44.there? I still want the Government and the council to take action. I
:45:44. > :45:47.want the Mayor to take more action. The Mayor has frankly done very
:45:47. > :45:52.little on this issue because he's not particularly interested in it.
:45:52. > :45:56.There is an awful lot more that could be done to deal with cross-
:45:56. > :45:59.London transport routes, bus links, an issue I have been campaigning on
:45:59. > :46:03.for years. Those are appalling. Trying to get better bus links
:46:03. > :46:07.would mean getting people out of their cars, which would mean less
:46:07. > :46:10.traffic on the north Circular Road. A Conservative Mayor not doing
:46:10. > :46:15.enough we hear from the Government Minister? I just can't agree with
:46:15. > :46:19.that. I think if anybody has done more than Boris has done, frankly.
:46:19. > :46:23.He's worked on stopping idling and worked on putting green
:46:23. > :46:29.infrastructure in place. Nobody has done more for cycling than he's
:46:29. > :46:33.done. He's added to the tube. Removed the congestion charge?
:46:33. > :46:37.actually worked with bus to make sure that the buses are cleaner. I
:46:37. > :46:40.think he's done a... But how is it - we know this week that air
:46:40. > :46:48.pollution reached record levels, admittedly, by considering another
:46:48. > :46:51.pollutant, but still a serious one, not the PM10, but PM2.5. Record
:46:51. > :46:55.levels? Nobody is pretending this is perfect, and there is still a
:46:55. > :46:59.long way to go, but to say he's done nothing is rubbish. He's
:46:59. > :47:02.worked particularly hard, and it's about getting the balance right
:47:02. > :47:06.between making sure the economy carries on and people come with it.
:47:06. > :47:09.You have to take electorate and businesses with you, otherwise,
:47:09. > :47:14.they'll ignore... He's actually done worse than nothing. He's
:47:14. > :47:18.actually taken some backward steps and scrapping the western extension
:47:18. > :47:24.to the congestion charge has increased air pollution. Scrapping
:47:24. > :47:30.the inspection regime for black cabs, that has increased...
:47:30. > :47:33.you'll let me in - this is about priorities, spending �11 million on
:47:33. > :47:43.one bus... We're going off into very interesting territory, but
:47:43. > :47:50.
:47:50. > :47:54.let's end it. What else has been On your marks, get set, take cover!
:47:54. > :47:59.As Olympic security ramped up this week it was announced sites for
:47:59. > :48:04.ground to air missiles were being checked out in Blackheath to combat
:48:04. > :48:08.possible terrorist threats. Crossrail unveiled machine that is
:48:08. > :48:12.will cut out the tunnels under the capital. Top surgeon and former
:48:12. > :48:15.Minister Lord Darzi warned of a fragmentation of care when NHS
:48:15. > :48:19.London is scrapped next year. I fear there might be a vacuum
:48:19. > :48:23.there. We will end up to what we were years ago, which is
:48:23. > :48:29.fragmentation of care, no one is able to make a decision. At the
:48:29. > :48:33.Leveson inquiry more criticism of the deputy mayor for policing, from
:48:33. > :48:38.assistant commissioner for questioning the use of resources.
:48:38. > :48:48.He has said to me I hope you are not putting too many resources in.
:48:48. > :48:48.
:48:48. > :48:51.I said well, that's my decision and not yours.
:48:51. > :48:56.At the London Assembly you have been questioning the mayor and the
:48:56. > :49:00.deputy before on this. Kit Malthouse saying to another officer
:49:00. > :49:04.here, are you spending too much money on the hacking? Obviously,
:49:04. > :49:07.poll significances need to -- politicians he need to hold the
:49:07. > :49:11.police to account. I am concerned we are overstepping the line here
:49:11. > :49:15.and we are seeing direct political interference in operational matters,
:49:15. > :49:19.not only those comments we heard about from Kit Malthouse but also
:49:19. > :49:25.the mayor tell the Assembly previously that the whole hacking
:49:25. > :49:28.thing was a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party.
:49:28. > :49:35.That's obviously not true. I am concerned we are seeing direct
:49:35. > :49:40.political interference. Do you have that concern, she had to tell him
:49:40. > :49:43.that's my decision, operationically is what I spend on operations.
:49:43. > :49:48.have to be clear there is a difference and it sounds as though
:49:48. > :49:55.she was perfectly capable of telling him to Butt out. She seems
:49:55. > :50:00.to know her own mind and... She's having to be in the position.
:50:00. > :50:04.trust her strength of character to be able to reButt that adequate.
:50:04. > :50:08.the broader theme, you don't think this could be a signal of
:50:08. > :50:13.encroaching. We have to be clear where the line is and politicians
:50:13. > :50:16.need to give clear direction on priorities and hold them to account
:50:16. > :50:26.but that's no, sir the same as interfering in operational
:50:26. > :50:27.
:50:27. > :50:32.decisions. Thank you very much. Back to you, Andrew.
:50:32. > :50:35.So, Ed Miliband will be tidying up his office after his break-in, her
:50:35. > :50:40.Madge is going to particlement to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee and
:50:40. > :50:50.there's the matter of course of the Budget. It all means time to look
:50:50. > :50:51.
:50:51. > :50:56.at the week ahead. So, Isabelle, cut through all the
:50:56. > :51:00.speculation, where do we stand this week? What do we think is bankable
:51:00. > :51:04.in the Budget? I never like to say what's bankable. That's why I am
:51:04. > :51:10.asking you! We will trupb again next week when you are wrong. Have
:51:10. > :51:13.a go! We are definitely going to see some announcement on the 50 p.
:51:13. > :51:17.It will be a shock if there was nothing after this build-up. My
:51:17. > :51:21.best guess is that they're going to announce a drop to 45p but with a
:51:21. > :51:28.delay in the imphreltation, but I have to say I don't have that on
:51:28. > :51:32.categorical sourcing. All right. A speeded up rise towards the first
:51:32. > :51:35.10,000 of income not being taxable? That's a banker and I would be
:51:36. > :51:42.prepared to put my reputation on that one. I think that Clegg feels
:51:42. > :51:45.very confident that he's got this in the bag and stamp duty. And the
:51:46. > :51:49.Chancellor this morning made made it clear they were going to do
:51:49. > :51:53.something. Makes you wonder why people didn't do something about it
:51:53. > :51:56.before. What do you think? If we see some movement on 50p and a
:51:56. > :52:01.raising of the threshold, and we see the end of universal child
:52:01. > :52:06.benefit and the planning reform which was discussed earlier being
:52:06. > :52:14.advanced, as far as radical Budgets go it will be up there with the
:52:14. > :52:18.1988 Lawson Budget. Really? If he only only goes to 45p.
:52:18. > :52:22.combination of those measures I listed taken together would add up
:52:22. > :52:24.to a dramatic Budget. I don't think it will have much immediate
:52:24. > :52:27.economic impact. I have this unfashionable view the Government
:52:27. > :52:30.cannot do a lot about the immediate situation, there is a very touching
:52:30. > :52:36.belief out there if only the Government was to pull a lever and
:52:36. > :52:40.for some that lever is a tax cut, for some increased spending, we
:52:40. > :52:47.could go to decent growth. I don't think that's true. As Lord Cane
:52:47. > :52:50.said of monetary policy like pushing on a piece of string.
:52:50. > :52:54.disagree, this Budget is going to be the politics of redistribution,
:52:55. > :52:59.it's about who gets a mansion tax or 50p, that feels like rearranging
:52:59. > :53:03.the deckchairs on the top of the Titanic. There's no real policy for
:53:03. > :53:06.growth and we got that from your interview with the CBI director.
:53:06. > :53:09.How can this be a radical Budget when at the end of the four years
:53:09. > :53:12.are we going to have growth that's in the north as well as the south?
:53:12. > :53:15.Are we going to have growth outside of the City and in other industrial
:53:15. > :53:19.sectors? I don't think this Budget is going to change anything.
:53:19. > :53:24.thing I took from the CBI interview was when John Cridland said the
:53:24. > :53:30.main reason for the endemic lack of confidence is the external events
:53:30. > :53:35.of the eurozone crisis and the Government doesn't really run an
:53:35. > :53:41.economy, it sets the framework F the animal spirits aren't there,
:53:41. > :53:43.then tweaking tax and framework can do do little. He said he agreed
:53:43. > :53:46.with Vince Cable and investment in infrastructure would be a policy.
:53:46. > :53:52.The long-term. But the immediate situation what people are focused
:53:52. > :53:57.on is beyond the which hadths of policy-makers. Wasn't clear what an
:53:57. > :54:00.industrial policy really means. We have all been concentrating on the
:54:00. > :54:05.argy-bargy with the Lib Dems and the Conservatives in the coalition.
:54:05. > :54:09.But behind the scenes there's been an equal fight going on between the
:54:09. > :54:13.Chancellor who really wants radical change in the planning laws, we
:54:13. > :54:16.debated that, and as I understand it Mr Pickles, the Communities
:54:16. > :54:20.Secretary who with normal departmental caution wants to go
:54:20. > :54:24.more slowly. I was actually quite surprised to see that the planning
:54:24. > :54:27.policy is going to be published next week because I was talking to
:54:27. > :54:30.Pickles' department as late as Thursday afternoon last week and
:54:30. > :54:34.they said absolutely no announcement next week. We want a
:54:34. > :54:38.separate announcement. We want clear blue water between the Budget
:54:38. > :54:42.and our announcement. It looks as if Pickles has been bounced into
:54:42. > :54:46.this. I also think that his department was very badly burned
:54:46. > :54:49.when this policy was first announced last, I think last autumn
:54:49. > :54:54.or summer, so you can't blame the man for wanting to be more cautious
:54:54. > :54:57.this time. But the Chancellor this morning, he didn't tell us much
:54:57. > :55:01.about the Budget, nor could he, that was to be expected, but he
:55:01. > :55:06.went out of his way to say that one of the ways I am going to get
:55:06. > :55:09.growth in the economy is the reform of planning. I am sure that's right.
:55:09. > :55:14.And a couple of weeks ago in the cabinet apparently there was an
:55:14. > :55:19.interesting set-to when Clegg said this needs to be a really very
:55:19. > :55:24.green Budget and I think the Chancellor basically said, sod that.
:55:24. > :55:29.Or words to that effect! Doesn't it speak to the tension, between
:55:29. > :55:34.whether they believe in protecting the countryside or read The
:55:34. > :55:38.Economist. Why would they read the economist! Let's not go there.
:55:39. > :55:44.Labour, Mr Miliband, I am not quite sure why I am saying this but are
:55:44. > :55:48.we tipping back into the Slough of despond for Mr Miliband after
:55:48. > :55:51.several weeks when he seemed on the way up? There is a sense of one of
:55:51. > :55:54.his flagship policies, the bonus tax is currenting into a magic
:55:54. > :55:58.money tree, like the penny on income tax was for the Lib Dems,
:55:58. > :56:03.the best part of a decade ago. spend it again and again? Exactly,
:56:03. > :56:06.it's paying for too many things to be credible. The economic message
:56:06. > :56:09.overall is better than a few months ago. A few months ago they were
:56:09. > :56:13.still giving essentially academic speeches about remaking capitalism
:56:13. > :56:19.from first principles. And now they're focusing more, in a more
:56:19. > :56:27.retail way on prices, jobs, and and incomes which probably has a lot to
:56:27. > :56:29.do with Ed Balls intphraoeupbs that is -- influence. I was told that Ed
:56:29. > :56:33.Miliband's private saufs dysfunctional and it's the kind of
:56:33. > :56:36.thing you hear and it washes over you and you think yeah. Then I saw
:56:36. > :56:41.him get out of a Rolls Royce. That's the image that sticks with
:56:41. > :56:45.me from this week. How did that happen? I think he had overdosed on
:56:45. > :56:48.Lemsip or something, supposedly he was ill that day. I don't know
:56:48. > :56:51.where his judgment weupbt that day. It's extraordinary. Money may well
:56:51. > :56:55.have been involved, we are told this individual is a Labour donor,
:56:55. > :56:58.I think, perhaps you know more about that. Not about that. I know
:56:58. > :57:01.there has been big changes over the last few weeks because what's
:57:01. > :57:06.happened is there's Labour leadership office with Ed Miliband,
:57:06. > :57:09.but also the party machine in Victoria Street and at the moment
:57:09. > :57:13.there's been a division between those two and and they haven't been
:57:13. > :57:16.on the same page and recently Ed Miliband has put his people in to
:57:16. > :57:20.Victoria Street so they should be singing from the same hymn sheet in
:57:20. > :57:23.a strong way now and it's interesting when there is dischord
:57:23. > :57:31.between the scenes it's an opportunity prove that you are a
:57:31. > :57:35.leader. Are we back into Miliband- bashing territory again? The poll
:57:35. > :57:39.extended a little. It's now 5%. It was one or 2% or level-pegging with
:57:39. > :57:43.the Tories. So we can point to that. I don't know whether his
:57:43. > :57:46.underlining personal credibility and poll ratings are any better.
:57:46. > :57:51.always forget, the Budget is not just the test for the Chancellor,
:57:51. > :57:56.it's always that. It's the leader of the opposition that replies to
:57:56. > :58:00.the Chancellor. Let's hope that it's not Harriet Harman that day.
:58:00. > :58:03.We all saw how well she coped with detailed questions. It will be Mr
:58:03. > :58:06.Miliband and all eyes will be on him. Absolutely. Two challenges
:58:06. > :58:09.Labour has at the moment. The first is a short-term one, is even if
:58:09. > :58:13.they're right about the economy, even if they should be spending
:58:13. > :58:15.more now and investing it, how are they going to prove that in four
:58:15. > :58:19.years? Because this Government could preside over four or five
:58:19. > :58:27.years of stagnating growth and if Osbourne gets one quarter at the
:58:27. > :58:33.end, they'll be able to say we did it. You have to wait for the next
:58:33. > :58:40.one, I will tweet it after the programme! That's your lot for this