18/03/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to Sunday Politics. What will be in Boy

George's little red box come Wednesday? What should be in it?

Yes, it's Budget week, which means the Westminster rumour mill's gone

into over-drive. Will it be goodbye to national pay rates and the 50p

tax rate? Will it be hello tycoon tax?

What can the Chancellor do to get the wheels of British business

spinning? We'll be asking the Director General of the CBI, John

Cridland, for his wish list. He joins us for the Sunday Interview.

And should we be building more on England's green and pleasant land?

Or should it be back to the drawing board for the Government's plans

for the planning system? The Chairman of the National Trust and

the Government go head to head. And our political panel of the best

and the brightest, here every week to analyse British politics in The

Week Ahead and tweeting continuously throughout the

programme. In London, air pollution hit record levels this week

according to one measurement, yet the government says it's now

meeting EU targets. What's the All that's Dom in the next hour,

but first the news. Thank you. Good afternoon.

The Chancellor George Osborne insisted today his priority for

this week's Budget was to help people on low and middle incomes.

Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning, Mr Osborne also

promised to target the super-rich who buy their properties through

offshore companies and avoid paying stamp duty. Terry Stiasni has the

details. George Osborne says that what's inside this year's Budget

box is already agreed by the coalition, but until Wednesday, the

rest of us get just glimpses. His Liberal Democrat coalition partners

would like him to raise more tax on the country's most valuable

properties. Some on the Conservative side would like to see

the 50p high tax rate for high earners changed. The Chancellor

gave one clear indication of how he'd like to deal with the well-off

who try to get out of stamp duty on their homes. Rich people, often

foreigners who come to this country, but also people here in Britain,

who put pounds into - to avoid stamp duty, that is unacceptable.

We're going to go after it. We're going to be extremely aggressive in

dealing with it. People are going to face a punitive charge. Beyond

that he was giving little away. Wednesday you'll see a Budget for

working people. His Labour opposite numbers said the Government was out

of touch. For families on middle and low incomes saying their petrol

price is up. Their fuel bill is up. Their living standard is squeezed,

youth unemployment rising. The idea that George Osborne is saying the

number one priority is to cut taxes for firms of �150,000, they can't

be serious These rivals are keen to persuade voters they're on their

side. On some questions like tax rates and child benefit, only one

knows what answers the Budget will provide.

Sunday trading laws could be suspended during the London Olympic

Games to help boost the economy. Shops that are currently allowed to

open for just six hours on Sundays will be able to trade all day. The

move, which has been opposed by politicians and some campaigners,

would apply to England and Wales. It is expected to be announced by

the Chancellor in his Budget later this week.

The Premiership footballer Fabrice Muamba remains in a "critical

condition" in intensive care this lunchtime according to a statement

from his club, Bolton Wanderers. The 23-year-old was taken to the

London Chest Hospital yesterday after suddenly collapsing at White

Hart Lane during the FA Cup quarter-final against Tottenham

Hotspur. That's it for if moment. There is more news on BBC One at

6.30pm this evening. So it's budget week. By 3.00pm on

Wednesday afternoon, the speculation will be over and we'll

all know the contents of George Osborne's red box. The Chancellor

told us this morning all the decisions have been made. In fact,

it's been pretty much done and dusted for a week. Tomorrow there's

one final meeting of the "quad" to discuss how it's all to be

presented. "The quad" I hear you ask? Well, that's the core of the

coalition - the Prime Minster, the Chancellor, Nick Clegg and Danny

Alexander. And Mr Osborne was very keen to stress this morning that

this would be a coalition budget. My priority is to help low and

middle earners. That is where the bulk of the effort in the Budget is

going to be. We want to see real and substantial progress on lifting

low-income people out of tax. We've already taken a million low-income

people out of tax and helping working families, the people who

get up in the morning, go out to work, try and provide for their

family, the people who are looking for jobs if they have lost jobs -

those are our priorities. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls was also

speaking to Andrew Marr a little earlier. This is what he had to say.

For families on middle and low incomes seeing their petrol prices

up, their fuel bills up, their living standards squeezed, Youth

unemployment risings, the idea George Osborne is saying the number

one priority is to cut tax on firms of �150,000, they can't be serious.

It's totally out of touch. What planet are they on? You can see

there the post-Budget political battle lines to come. In a moment

I'll be speaking to the Conservative backbencher John

Redwood. But first let's talk to the Liberal Democrat Treasury

spokesman Stephen Williams, who's in our Bristol studio.

Mr Williams, good afternoon to you. Good afternoon, Andrew. Do you

think that public sector pay should reflect local economic conditions?

I think a case can be made for it, and I spent 17 years in the private

sector before I became a Member of Parliament in 2005. It's quite

normal for wage rates in Bristol to be quite different to what they are

in Liverpool, Sheffield or Newcastle. Most people in the

private sector are used to that but it's not been the norm in the

public sector. I think this is something that should be a long-

term reform and certainly shouldn't be connected to the short-term

emergency of dealing with the Budget deficit. If the Chancellor

came out with an end to national pay bargaining in the public sector

in his Budget or at least the beginning of it - a process

starting towards it, how would you react? We'd have to wait and see

what the detail was. In the autumn statements it was already announced

the various pay review bodies were going to be asked to have a look at

this situation. I think what the Chancellor is going to be asked to

do in the Budget next week is simply update us on what they have

got to and the Civil Service. We'll have to wait and see in tors.

Budget, but in terms of the broad principle, I have no objection.

What would the response be if the Chancellor abolishs the 50p top

income rate of tax? I think that is a matter of timing more than

anything. I certainly don't think now would be the right time to

announce the abolition or reduction of the 50p rate of tax. 2012 is

going to be quite a difficult year for many families up and down the

country and Liberal Democrats in the coalition are quite clear our

priority in this Budget is to make sure we make significant progress

to raising more people out of income tax altogether and having a

tax cut for people on low and middle incomes so we get to a point

in this Parliament where everyone can get �10,000 worth of tax-free

pay. How much would that cost? I am told about �9 billion. If you agree

with that figure, or roughly, how would you pay for it? That may be

the total cost. Of course, we have already made significant progress

in past Budgets in getting towards that goal. Nearly a million people

by the time we get to the next tax year started in a couple of weeks'

time will be raised out of tax aland a tax cut will already be in

place. There is still �7 billion to find. If you want to move to

�10,000 quickly, you have to find �7 billion quickly. How would you

do it? Various initiatives have been suggested to the Chancellor.

How would you do it? Tightening up on pension contributions. There is

still very generous relief available for high-rate taxpayers

in order to put funds into their pension pots. You can pay �50,000 a

year into your pension scheme and still attract the top rate of tax.

Most people would still think that's extraordinarily generous.

There is still plenty of scope for clawing that back. We have had the

suggestion of the mansion tax for the last couple of years from the

Liberal Democrats, and recently Nick Clegg has floated the idea of

a tycoon tax so that everyone, whatever the reliefs they're

claiming in order to do certain things, does have at least a basic

level of taxation they're paying towards the rest of society.

Williams, thanks for joining us. Thank

And the Conservative MP John Redwood is in our Central London

studio. You. Good afternoon to you. Good afternoon. As I understand,

you want the Chancellor to scrap the 50p top rate of income tax, but

in the current climate of austerity, why should those earning over

�150,000 a year have priority? want the rich to pay more. I think

the obvious way to get them to pay more is to set them a rate which

will make them stay and pay. I think the 50% tax rate is losing us

money. I think we all agree we want the rich to make a contribution.

How do you know that? Sorry to interrupt you but it's often been

said that the 50p top rate doesn't bring in any money. We don't know

that yet though. The Treasury hasn't published the figures.

because we have past experience to look at. When Labour had an eightp

rate in 1979, the top 1% just paid 11% of total income tax. At the

more modest level now it's 27% of all income tax is paid by the top

1%. If you took it down to 40 it would be higher. In America it's

far higher, a 35% rate. Nobody is suggesting we're going to get that

much. You do need to have a rate that people will be prepared to

stay and pay. You want to cut the top rate of income tax. Most

pension tax relief goes to the high earners - to those in the higher

tax brackets. What would be wrong with restricting that tax relief to

the basic rate of income tax? wouldn't fiddle around with it. I

think it's a good thing people will save and make a provision for their

own retirement. I wouldn't fiddle around with it. It's not fiddling

around. We're not undertaxed. We have a huge amount of tax ref --

revenue coming in. What we need to do is spend more wisely. Above all,

we need to grow the economy. The way to do that is not to have more

rich people here, but to cut the income tax burden on everybody else,

and that's what I am very happy with and the Liberal Democrats and

Conservatives agree with. This we want tax cuts for everybody so they

can spend more. You say fiddle around with it. Let's make clear -

over �7 billion in tax relief goes to those on the higher tax brackets

in pension relief. It is a multi- billion-pound tax relief for the

rich. What's the justification for that rather than using that money

to cut the taxes of those on more modest incomes? Want people who are

successful to be able to save for their futures so they're not

dependent on the state. One of the worst things about Labour is more

and more people got dragged into partial state dependency because

they took more money off them then gave money back in the way the

Government thought. There was a handling charge because you had to

have an Army of inspectors to take it off them, then more to give it

back to them, a silly system. exchange to the cut in the 50p rate,

which will not be popular with your coalition partners, what are you

prepared to concede in return? saying we need growth. If we have a

top rate of tax which raises more revenue which I am proposing...

That is not a concession. It is. We can use the extra revenue the top-

rate payers are going to be paying to have a better tax cut on

everybody else, which I thought the Liberal Democrats as well as us

wanted. No other concessions? No higher taxes on the well off in

return for cutting their 50p tax rate? I am very happy with the

Chancellor's proposal he's put out again today we should stop certain

loopholes like the stamp duty loophole, very happy to see that

blocked off. We must get away from this idea Britain's problem is too

few taxes. Britain's problem is not enough growth. You don't get growth

by taxing more. You cannot tax a country into prosperity. You need

to promote prosperity by lower taxes on everyone so they can spend

more and more rewards for success. That's what I want. John Redwood,

thanks for being with us today. In a moment we'll be finding out what

business wants from the budget with the Director General of the CBI,

John Cridland. But first, let's have a look at the economic

challenges Mr Osborne is grappling with.

The UK's public finances face a funding shortfall of �114 billion

despite moves by the Government to curtail spending.

How is the Chancellor going to sort it out? The plan is by 2017, some

of it, about 20%, will be fixed by increased revenue from taxation.

The bulk of it, about 80% of it, will go through spending cuts.

The trouble for Mr Osborne is that most of those tax increases have

already happened, but only 12% of all the spending cuts have taken

place, which means there's a lot of pain still to come. And let's

remember nothing close to this scale of cuts has been attempted in

the last 60 years. Of course, if the economy was growing more, the

Chancellor would get more income from tax. But last year the UK

economy grew by only 0.8% and set to rise by only 0.7% this year.

And the Director General of the CBI John Cridland joins me now for the

John Cridland, you have called for the chance - from the Chancellor

for targeted and modest tax cuts worth �500 million. Is that it?

Yeah, it is it. Why? Because as the debate on the Budget's become more

political, everybody's talking about tax cuts. I agree with John

Redwood on this point, we should be focused on growth and what business

is asking For Non Stop this -- asking for, for this Budget are

measures that deliver growth. million would be neither here nor

there. It's a pathetic amount. I was working it out, in a �1.3

trillion economy, the CB seufplt calling for tax cuts of 0.04% of

GDP. It's not even a rounding error. Spot on and do you know why that's

the case because I don't think the country can afford significant

growth - significant tax cuts if it really wants growth. Those targeted

measures are about investment in infrastructure, and investment in

small businesses. I don't think this is the Budget to be talking

about big giveaways. That's why we came in with a very hair shirt

Budget proposal. Do you think that's why people don't take much

notice of the CBI these days? they take notice if we had come in

for big tax cuts for high wealth individuals? We are being sensible,

prudent. We are saying cut the deficit number one priority, that's

important to all of us and strategies for growth then.

Investment in infrastructure, Andrew, is three times more

effective in getting growth than tax cuts. When we spoke to you at

the Conservative conference in the autumn of last year, you gave

George Osborne ten out of ten on deficit reduction, which is pretty

high marks and seven out of ten overall, what would you give now?

Wye still give the marks on deficit reduction. Full marks? Yeah, on

growth I think the problem at the moment is that the whole of the

growth strategy is not bigger than the sum of the parts. There's so

many separate little things being done. We need an emphatic growth

strategy as we have a deficit reduction strategy. Is that six?,

seven, eight, less, more? It's still still seven. The reason is

that most of the things he announced in the autumn statement

are a promisory note, great great ideas but yet to happen. What would

you give Vince Cable out of ten? strategies for growth, seven, too.

Necessary the same Government. on other matters out of ten? He is

a great advocate for business. I worked with him closely on things

that mat tore me, like energy costs, investment in science, like making

sure immigration policy doesn't prevent business growing, he is

batting on the same wicket as I am. You agree if he is on the same

wicket that the Government has no vision on the economy? His words,

not mine. You said you are on the same wicket. His leaked letter,

there was nothing much in it I disagreed with. Really? No. He was

talking about a modern industrial... You want an industrial strategy?

do because that means that we are pulling the levers that will get

growth moving. When did that last work? We had a good plan with Mr

Hezletine, since then getting on for a quarter of a century, we

haven't seen an industrial strategy that delivers growth for the

economy. If there is a cut in the 50p top rate, some of your members

would like, should there be offsetting increases, in other

words, other taxes on more affluent? I would like to see a 50p

tax cut because it's bad for Britain and bad for business. The

question is can we afford it in this Budget which is why I haven't

asked for it?. If it were implemented. Cow Cow offset it --

cow -- you could offset it with a tycoon tax. Stamp duty on houses

which are not catching taxes they should pay that's a matter for the

Chancellor, not the C the CBI. us business is sitting on a cash

pile of over �700 billion, why are you not investing it in this

country? Business hasn't had the confidence to invest and the main

reason that is the case is because of the eurozone crisis. I am

feeling a lot more optimistic than when we last spoke because I think

the storm cloud of the eurozone crisis is moving over. Some canny

policies around industrial policy from this Chancellor would cause

business to start spending that money. What does the Chancellor

have to do in his Budget then to get business to start investing in

our country? One of those very targeted measures I talked about is

a measure to give a capital allowance for investment in energy

and transport infrastructure because 80% of all the money that's

going to be spent on energy and transport comes from businesses,

not from the taxpayer. That money has got to be leveraged, leveraging

the private sector money for the benefit of the national economy.

That's not going to unleash the �700 billion they're sitting on. We

need business to spend this money at a time when the Government is

tightening its own belt. What are you going to do to encourage

business to invest? You are about to talk about the planning system.

The planning system is where Government for its rules gets in

the way of investment in energy and transport. And just in case viewers

misinterpret me, I am not talking about building on the green belt, I

am not talking about upsetting the National Trust, I am talking about

the big developments that we need for the economy. Thank you for

being with us. On Wednesday alongside the Budget the Government

is to publish its revised planning guidelines for England. The draft

policy was published last July but it caused outrage among countryside

lobby groups who claimed it was a so-called developers' charter. We

sent Adam tphrepling to west -- Fleming to west Sussex to see what

the fuss is about. It should be peace and kwaoeu out

here but parts of the English Shires are at war with the

Government over plan to slash the guidance on planning from more than

1,000 pages to less than 60. When the proposals were first published

last summer there was an absolute outcry. Critics were worried that

the Government wasn't doing enough to promote development on

brownfield land, and they were furious about an idea that planers

should almost automatically grant approval to schemes as long as they

were sustainable. People People couldn't even agree on the meaning

of the word sustainable. And here in Southwater in west

Sussex this patch of green demonstrates another aspect that

concerns campaigners. This is a piece of ordinary countryside, it

isn't National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty but

nevertheless it's important to the people that live locally. Under

planning guidelines the wider countryside is protected but under

the Government's planned new framework in the draft that we saw

there was no mention of wider countryside. So we are looking for

the Government to correct that when they publish the final version of

the national planning policy framework.

Some Tory MPs feel the same way and, as a result, we understand that

when the final version of the document is published soon it will

have some minor renovations to provide reassurance. But there

won't be any major changes. Which pleases Liz Peace of the British

Property Federation as she explained at this noisy building

site. Some elements of the document were unnecessarily intphraplorry

and by sensible modification, if I was re-writing it I can see little

bits I would take out, I would would tweak. I think however that

the body or the lobby against it has been unreasonable and our

planning system in the UK is quite a good one. The problem is the way

it's actually implemented. It just takes such a long time. The olded

aage about time is money. Back in Sussex I found the planning

notice for the proposed development that's worrying people around here.

It's literally in tatters. The Government's planning policy could

end up the same way if the re- written version doesn't impress

those campaigners and MPs worried about the future of the English

countryside. Let's go head-to-head on this with

Simon Jenkins, chairman of the National Trust and Stephen Hammond,

parliamentary Secretary to Eric Pickles, the Minister in charge of

these changes. Simon Jenkins, what's wrong with

the reform that simplifies the planning process, protects the

green belt, and favours sustainable development? Nothing. If that's

what it did. That's what the Government says it does. But it's

wrong. In what way? The proposal in the original version of the draft

document which you understand has been changed, so we are talking

about something we don't know what's in it, it was a bad document.

It basically said that it will go to building permit system, anybody

who has a plot of land anywhere outside green belt and designated

areas, just about 15% of the land, talking about most of England

that's countryside. OK a bad document that you have now had to

change? Well, as you know there's been a consultation but the

original intention was to ensure we simplified the planning system, put

in place protections for the green field and it was sustainable

development. It was using a well known recognised sustainable

development definition and I think that we have obviously put it out

to consultation after the first draft and listened to people.

you made substantial changes as a result? Well I am not - I haven't

seen the final draft, so... You are the Minister's parliamentary

Secretary. Well, I have obviously had discussions. Doesn't he take

you into account? I am lucky he does take me into confidence on

certain things and I have been involved in a number of discussions.

There will be major changes or won't there? There will be changes

because as we have said, we will listen to what people have said to

us. Do you think you have won? don't know yet. We really don't

know. There was a revised document which was widely discussed. We

thefr discovered the Treasury tried to censor it, to revert it. We are

talking about whether there should be presumption of favour of

building. Building has no shortage of building land lying sraeubg abt

in -- vacant in towns. The The issue was whether anyone in the

countryside could put in a planning application and get it allowed

through if they could say it was economically or socially

sustainable. If you drive up the M1 now, in half the fields you drive

past past there are huge hoardings going up saying use this

advertising space, this is the consequence of this plan if it goes

through. Already they're planning to put up advertisements up and

down the motorways of England as if this was Spain or Syria or wherever.

It's a crazy plan. I think that Simon's first premise was wrong,

the idea this was going to allow development everywhere all over the

countryside, that was not in the plan. We were ensuring that all the

protections that that were previously in place were going to

stay and that's what the revised document will do. Why are these

hoardings going up in fields all over England. I can't speculate.

What I am telling you is that as you know if you looked at the

document and I am confident when you see the revised document the

protections that are there to the green fields and green belt which

were there in the first document will remain in the second. They

weren't in the first document which is why we had this row. I am in

favour of the way Andrew introduced it, the system needs simplified. We

were engaged on discussions on simplification. It was complex.

That was different from saying that in all areas of Britain without an

existing plan which is 80% of Britain which didn't have an

existing plan, there would be a presum initial favour of something

called sustainable development, that's a being permit system, not a

planning system and the building permits would be allowable if you

could show it was socially or environmentally or economically

sustainable which means had jobs. It was a crazy system. We all agree

the system needs change. What about his point. The issue about

sustainable development is that there was complete disagreement as

to whether or not what Simon views it as is what was in the document

and we would have argued strongly and did argue strongly that all the

protections that had previously been in place remained in place.

they're all in place what are you changing? We are changing, as Simon

already pointed out, what we had was a complex system, where there

were over 1,000 pledges of planning guidance down to 56... You are

saying you are making it simpler but not changing the principles on

which it's based? Not at all. We are also doing is allowing

neighbourhoods and people to have a greater say, allowing - ensuring

the land of the lowest environmental amenity value is

brought back into play. The problem with it was that the entire drift

of the first document was in favour of development. Not sustainable

development, just any sort of development. And the criteria in

which in would be allowed which included economic sustainability,

which meant did it make a profit. Now I am hoping, I am expecting the

document to have changed, but we consulted lawyers, everyone on this.

It was going to be a lawyers' charter. Every planning application

would be appealed against because it was outside the plan. It was a

really bad system. I am praying that you got it right this time.

Well, I am confident that we will have got it right. I am also

confident... How do you know if you have not seen the document? Just

before you jump in, let me answer the point that you have asked me to

answer, which was the first point, that we are confident that what we

had in the first place was not exactly as Simon described. We are

confident that what was there in terms of the presumption in favour

of sustainable economic development was there and it would not have

been a lawyers' charter. Do you think building ought to have taken

place in existing towns or is it fine in the countryside. I would

prefer to see the brownfield space in existing towns developed first

and that's exactly what that document did because it talked

about lowest environmental amenity value and it was an encouragement

to use those sites first. It ripped up the presumption of developing

proupb field sites first. It simply didn't do that, because if you read

the the document it said... he's read the document! We have all

read that document. None of us has read the new one. But you will soon

have a chance because as you know, there is a commitment for to us

produce it by the end of March which we will do. Good, we will

hold to you that commitment. Thank you very much.

Now it's approaching 12.30. You are watching Sunday Politics. Coming up

in 20 minutes: I will be looking at the week ahead with our panel.

Until then, the Sunday Politics Hello and welcome from us in the

capital. This week: air pollution hit record levels in London. It

comes as the Government insists it's averted the threat of big EU

fines over air quality, but has it been drawing on the most revealing

data? Here with us for the next 20 minutes, green Assembly member

Darren Johnson and Sarah Tether, the Minister for Children and

Families and Lib Dem MP for Brent central. Let's talk about the

Budget this week if we can. Darren Johnson, in terms of taxation, what

would you like to see happen, a top rate reduced or increased?

certainly want to see the top rate reduced, and I hope the Liberty

Stadium put pressure on their coalition partners to retain the

top rate. I actually think we need to be increasing it for the very,

very wealthiest because if we did that, we could afford not to make

these devastating cuts to public services, and actually tackle the

deficit without harming public services. Then you ruin all of that

incentive to create wealth, don't you? I think we need fairer society.

All the academic research shows now if you reduce the gap between rich

and poor, other problems are tackled as well, so you have less

crime problems, less health problems and so on. We actually

need moor equal society. I make no bones about that. Sarah, would you

be happy to see the 50p tax rate reduced to 40p as a centrepiece of

George Osborne's Budget My priority as a Liberal Democrat in the

coalition Government is to make sure we get tax cuts for those who

are earning the least, and I think that's what'll help to boost the

economy in London and really ease the pressure on families, and in

terms of any change to the top rate, I think what's important is those

who earn the most pay their fair share. I feel less concerned about

exactly how we do that what's really important, though, is that

those who earn the most pay their fair share and those who earn the

least get a bit of a break. It's really difficult for families at

the moment who... When you say you're less concerned about how you

do it, would you be happy to see it cut to 40p I want to make sure

those who earn the most pay their fair share. How we do that is

matter for detail. I think we'll have to wait for George Osborne...

That wouldn't, would it, because that would be the higher rate

earners paying less. 1% of the rich, those who earn more than �150,000,

need to pay their fair share. How we deliver that is a question for

the Budget. We'll have to wait for that later this week. A critical

litmus test for me will be do those who earn the most continue to pay

their fair share after the Budget? That's important. Ken Livingstone

revealed a pledge this week to help families with the cost of childcare.

He promised grants and loans for those on low incomes and to fund

nursery places. Ed Miliband was out with him this week. We asked the

Labour leader whether it was not just more than a Jessture? I don't

think helping people with affordable childcare is a bribe.

It's recognising the severe costs of childcare in London. Helping

people into work is good for them and good for our community. Sarah

Tether, the Minister responsible here - would you accept the

characterisation of this as a childcare crisis in the capital?

Well, the problem with Ken Livingstone's proposal is there is

actually nothing concrete there. If he were actually doing something

conceet, I would say fantastic. Somebody is actually coming forward

with a new idea in the debate. But... He says 1,200 families -

doesn't seem like very many - would get grants up to �700. They would

also get interest-free loans... That's not what he said. He said

he'd have a conversation and he might be able to deliver it

possibly. In comparison, what the Government is doing is by 2013,

26,000 two-year-olds will get 15 hours of free nursery care. That's

concrete and real. That's in addition to the 200,000 three and

four-year-olds who are already getting 15 hours of early education

because of decisions I have taken inside the Government. This is a

priority for the Government. We do recognise there is enormous

pressure on families. But the Government is rolling out the

largest increase in early education that any Government has ever tried

to do before. Exactly. Isn't the truth of the evidence that people

aren't taking up those places in London? 75% take-up of those free

place you may be providing compared to 86% across the country because

they don't work for those people. They're not flexible enough. It's

only 15 hours. It doesn't enable them to get into work. It's not the

reason people aren't taking nose places up. There are issues about

attracting - sometimes families who are disengaged with forms of

education - making sure the offer is both known to them and attracted

to them. So you're appealing to get it across that it's available for

them? I don't think that's true. I think we need to do more to make

sure those from the most disadvantaged families take up the

offer. But getting them involved earlier and making that right from

two will help to make sure they are in early education right the way

through. That'll make a huge difference from them when they

begin school. What can we afford when we take out the pledges you

would make in term of the environment, which would cost a

huge amount of money - not much left to fund childcare places.

Sarah said she wanted to hear concrete pledges. We want to work

with all schools across London to ensure we have breakfast clubs to

ensure there are extended school opening hours and so on. That is a

really practical way that the Mayor can work with schools right across

London in an affordable way, and I think these things are affordable,

but unlike Ken Livingstone, we have got properly costed plans for our

manifesto. We want to reduce fares, but we're making very clear that

the motorist will pay additional charges. We are saying where the

money is going to come from. A 10% reduction in the spending review

from 2010 and what councils can spend. We know Sure Start centres

and children's centres are closing. We know the local authorities don't

have the statutory responsibility to provide those free nursery

places - how can - That's not true. There are a number of things untrue

there. There has been scare- mongering around closing of Sure

Start centres. That's actually not what's hang on the whole. There

have been some closures, some merges, some change, but relatively

few have closed. Across the country we still have 3,500 Sure Start...

Three or four boroughs have no Sure Start centres. The truth is most

people aren't using those centres to find their education places.

They're using the private sector or the voluntary sector. It's not

necessary for centres to provide that, nor is it necessarily what

parents want. They want a choice in their local area. You need a range

of local education providers to ensure those places are available.

Stay with us. Air pollution hit record levels in the capital this

week. The Department of Environment even issued a health warning. Faced

by big EU fines the Government has said things have gotten better,

claiming it's now meeting EU targets. It's now being accused of

not passing on the worst data that is being recorded in the capital.

Eddie Connor suffers from asthma, a condition he developed aged 20.

think the air quality in London is absolutely disgusting. People walk

out and about and have a really good time. For me, I have to pick

and choose the days I go out because it is so difficult to

breathe with the really poor air quality we have. Sometimes I have

to lock the balcony doors, lock everything because it is so bad out

there. I am literally choking in my own flat. In London, air quality is

a serious issue linked to one in every five deaths. It's so bad, we

have been breaking European law for years, but the Government claims

things are getting better, and air quality in London during 2011 looks

set to have fallen within the permitted levels. The final

calculations are being done and will be filed with the European

Commission in September. One reason the Government is so confident is

the data based on readings from this monitoring site on the

Marylebone Road, chosen by them to monitor the reduction of pollution

in the capital shows no breach. Government has said Marylebone Road,

this site, was the highest monitored and modelled site. That's

only true for their monitoring network. There are a hundred

monitors in London. There were breaches at other monitoring

stations that they weren't referring to to the European

Commission. The campaign -- Campaign for Clean

Air in London says the worst air in London was to be found here,

Neesdon Lane in Brent. They say if this was counted, the Government

would still have illegally bad air. Coming here, you can instantly see

why the readings are so high. The air is terrible. Everything you see

- the ground, the signs are covered with a film of rubbish. If you look

here, it's fine. You run it along the surface, it's covered. Brent

Council were so concerned about the pollution here, they set up this

monitoring station. We are breaching the regulations of the

air quality objectives. They say you shouldn't exceed more than 30

times a year. So far this year we have had 22 exceedings and we're

only two-and-a-half months into the year. But the Government don't use

information from these sites in part because they say they're not

necessarily run to European standards, not the case here.

Is this equipment compliant with EU directives? Yes, it is. So the

equipment is calibrated and audited on a regular basis to make sure we

comply. The Government declined our request for an interview, but told

us they're currently reviewing which monitoring sites are

currently included in their data. But even if these figures are

included, the Government couldn't tell us if they'd be in time for

when they have to hand in the figures to Brussels. There was a

breach of the bad air in Neesdon Lane. If it's not reported to

Brussels, that would be public health fraud.

Simon Burkett from the Campaign for Clear Air. Let's go Nottingham and

talk to Mark Spencer, a member of the Environmental Audit Select

Committee. Welcome to you. Is the Government - the capital - only

meeting these targets because it's yooth using recordings from

monthering point which doesn't reflect the actual picture here in

London? What's happening is all of those stations meet the right

criteria. If we started to use different stations all over the

capital, then the priorities would be that we're moving the goalposts.

It's important we keep the same stations to compare data one year

to the next to see how we're progressing. But we hear in that

report that obviously there are clearly around London a hundred

monitoring points and levels are exceeding these targets in those

low levels. Something is not right, is it? We also heard not all of

those station meet the right criteria in terms of the equipment.

Some do. Some don't. The number of those sites are under review. We're

going to look at maybe adding more to it. I can't emphasise enough how

important it is that those stations - the sort of - on the whole stay

in the same place so we can compare data one year to the next.

Otherwise, we won't be able to monitor whether we're gettings

better or worse. Would you accept we hear, for instance, there in

Brent, it's a fully compliant monitoring system. Regularly the

levels are being exceeded? Yeah. I think clearly the list needs to be

under review. We're reviewing that and will look at whether that

particular station will get added to the list or not. I don't think

we're in a position to say yes or no at this time. But we're

constantly reviewing which sites can be added. After all the hull

Balloo over this, the Government is saying it's appearing to have hit

these targets no. Danger of these EU fines now. I am very concerned

now the Government and the Mayor have been doing everything possible

to try to avoid the fine. Obviously no, one wants to see London hit by

a �300 million fine from the EU, but I think the Government are

doing everything possible to try to avoid the fine rather than actually

solving the problem. How is it, as Mark Spencer says, we have been

using this site at Marylebone Road since 1997. If you're going to

compare like with like, the moment they hit the targets, someone like

you comes along and says let's use other monitoring stations. It's not

fair, is it? The Campaign for Clean Air says we need to present a

fuller picture. The full picture needs to be presented. I do believe

that the European Commission are being hoodwinked at the moment and

not being given the full picture, and the reality is we need to

concentrate on actually solving the problem and reducing air pollution

in the capital. We need things like a very low emissions zone for

central London with much cleaner emissions standards. We need much

cleaner bus and taxis and real investment in that. The Mayor and

the Government have been dragging their feet for too long on this.

Because we meet the target according to central London and

Marylebone Road, does that satisfy you? Are you happy? Tell your

constituents... I respect Neesdon Lane, yeah. That the air quality is

fine in your constituency? I am not very interested in the EU target. I

am interested in what's happening on that lane. I have been

campaigning on that lane for a long time. There's particular problem on

that lane. It's very close to the North Circular Road. You say not

particularly representative - it's a bad area? What I am interested in

is cleaning that up area, actually. The EU target, I am sure, is a

tremendously important technical debate, but right now I am worried

about this. But do you think it reflects, though, if an area like

that - it's like semi-industrial, but on the outskirts of London, has

got poor air quality, there is not much point in recording it and

using it as the official measure - one point in Marylebone Road, is

there? I still want the Government and the council to take action. I

want the Mayor to take more action. The Mayor has frankly done very

little on this issue because he's not particularly interested in it.

There is an awful lot more that could be done to deal with cross-

London transport routes, bus links, an issue I have been campaigning on

for years. Those are appalling. Trying to get better bus links

would mean getting people out of their cars, which would mean less

traffic on the north Circular Road. A Conservative Mayor not doing

enough we hear from the Government Minister? I just can't agree with

that. I think if anybody has done more than Boris has done, frankly.

He's worked on stopping idling and worked on putting green

infrastructure in place. Nobody has done more for cycling than he's

done. He's added to the tube. Removed the congestion charge?

actually worked with bus to make sure that the buses are cleaner. I

think he's done a... But how is it - we know this week that air

pollution reached record levels, admittedly, by considering another

pollutant, but still a serious one, not the PM10, but PM2.5. Record

levels? Nobody is pretending this is perfect, and there is still a

long way to go, but to say he's done nothing is rubbish. He's

worked particularly hard, and it's about getting the balance right

between making sure the economy carries on and people come with it.

You have to take electorate and businesses with you, otherwise,

they'll ignore... He's actually done worse than nothing. He's

actually taken some backward steps and scrapping the western extension

to the congestion charge has increased air pollution. Scrapping

the inspection regime for black cabs, that has increased...

you'll let me in - this is about priorities, spending �11 million on

one bus... We're going off into very interesting territory, but

let's end it. What else has been On your marks, get set, take cover!

As Olympic security ramped up this week it was announced sites for

ground to air missiles were being checked out in Blackheath to combat

possible terrorist threats. Crossrail unveiled machine that is

will cut out the tunnels under the capital. Top surgeon and former

Minister Lord Darzi warned of a fragmentation of care when NHS

London is scrapped next year. I fear there might be a vacuum

there. We will end up to what we were years ago, which is

fragmentation of care, no one is able to make a decision. At the

Leveson inquiry more criticism of the deputy mayor for policing, from

assistant commissioner for questioning the use of resources.

He has said to me I hope you are not putting too many resources in.

I said well, that's my decision and not yours.

At the London Assembly you have been questioning the mayor and the

deputy before on this. Kit Malthouse saying to another officer

here, are you spending too much money on the hacking? Obviously,

poll significances need to -- politicians he need to hold the

police to account. I am concerned we are overstepping the line here

and we are seeing direct political interference in operational matters,

not only those comments we heard about from Kit Malthouse but also

the mayor tell the Assembly previously that the whole hacking

thing was a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour Party.

That's obviously not true. I am concerned we are seeing direct

political interference. Do you have that concern, she had to tell him

that's my decision, operationically is what I spend on operations.

have to be clear there is a difference and it sounds as though

she was perfectly capable of telling him to Butt out. She seems

to know her own mind and... She's having to be in the position.

trust her strength of character to be able to reButt that adequate.

the broader theme, you don't think this could be a signal of

encroaching. We have to be clear where the line is and politicians

need to give clear direction on priorities and hold them to account

but that's no, sir the same as interfering in operational

decisions. Thank you very much. Back to you, Andrew.

So, Ed Miliband will be tidying up his office after his break-in, her

Madge is going to particlement to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee and

there's the matter of course of the Budget. It all means time to look

at the week ahead. So, Isabelle, cut through all the

speculation, where do we stand this week? What do we think is bankable

in the Budget? I never like to say what's bankable. That's why I am

asking you! We will trupb again next week when you are wrong. Have

a go! We are definitely going to see some announcement on the 50 p.

It will be a shock if there was nothing after this build-up. My

best guess is that they're going to announce a drop to 45p but with a

delay in the imphreltation, but I have to say I don't have that on

categorical sourcing. All right. A speeded up rise towards the first

10,000 of income not being taxable? That's a banker and I would be

prepared to put my reputation on that one. I think that Clegg feels

very confident that he's got this in the bag and stamp duty. And the

Chancellor this morning made made it clear they were going to do

something. Makes you wonder why people didn't do something about it

before. What do you think? If we see some movement on 50p and a

raising of the threshold, and we see the end of universal child

benefit and the planning reform which was discussed earlier being

advanced, as far as radical Budgets go it will be up there with the

1988 Lawson Budget. Really? If he only only goes to 45p.

combination of those measures I listed taken together would add up

to a dramatic Budget. I don't think it will have much immediate

economic impact. I have this unfashionable view the Government

cannot do a lot about the immediate situation, there is a very touching

belief out there if only the Government was to pull a lever and

for some that lever is a tax cut, for some increased spending, we

could go to decent growth. I don't think that's true. As Lord Cane

said of monetary policy like pushing on a piece of string.

disagree, this Budget is going to be the politics of redistribution,

it's about who gets a mansion tax or 50p, that feels like rearranging

the deckchairs on the top of the Titanic. There's no real policy for

growth and we got that from your interview with the CBI director.

How can this be a radical Budget when at the end of the four years

are we going to have growth that's in the north as well as the south?

Are we going to have growth outside of the City and in other industrial

sectors? I don't think this Budget is going to change anything.

thing I took from the CBI interview was when John Cridland said the

main reason for the endemic lack of confidence is the external events

of the eurozone crisis and the Government doesn't really run an

economy, it sets the framework F the animal spirits aren't there,

then tweaking tax and framework can do do little. He said he agreed

with Vince Cable and investment in infrastructure would be a policy.

The long-term. But the immediate situation what people are focused

on is beyond the which hadths of policy-makers. Wasn't clear what an

industrial policy really means. We have all been concentrating on the

argy-bargy with the Lib Dems and the Conservatives in the coalition.

But behind the scenes there's been an equal fight going on between the

Chancellor who really wants radical change in the planning laws, we

debated that, and as I understand it Mr Pickles, the Communities

Secretary who with normal departmental caution wants to go

more slowly. I was actually quite surprised to see that the planning

policy is going to be published next week because I was talking to

Pickles' department as late as Thursday afternoon last week and

they said absolutely no announcement next week. We want a

separate announcement. We want clear blue water between the Budget

and our announcement. It looks as if Pickles has been bounced into

this. I also think that his department was very badly burned

when this policy was first announced last, I think last autumn

or summer, so you can't blame the man for wanting to be more cautious

this time. But the Chancellor this morning, he didn't tell us much

about the Budget, nor could he, that was to be expected, but he

went out of his way to say that one of the ways I am going to get

growth in the economy is the reform of planning. I am sure that's right.

And a couple of weeks ago in the cabinet apparently there was an

interesting set-to when Clegg said this needs to be a really very

green Budget and I think the Chancellor basically said, sod that.

Or words to that effect! Doesn't it speak to the tension, between

whether they believe in protecting the countryside or read The

Economist. Why would they read the economist! Let's not go there.

Labour, Mr Miliband, I am not quite sure why I am saying this but are

we tipping back into the Slough of despond for Mr Miliband after

several weeks when he seemed on the way up? There is a sense of one of

his flagship policies, the bonus tax is currenting into a magic

money tree, like the penny on income tax was for the Lib Dems,

the best part of a decade ago. spend it again and again? Exactly,

it's paying for too many things to be credible. The economic message

overall is better than a few months ago. A few months ago they were

still giving essentially academic speeches about remaking capitalism

from first principles. And now they're focusing more, in a more

retail way on prices, jobs, and and incomes which probably has a lot to

do with Ed Balls intphraoeupbs that is -- influence. I was told that Ed

Miliband's private saufs dysfunctional and it's the kind of

thing you hear and it washes over you and you think yeah. Then I saw

him get out of a Rolls Royce. That's the image that sticks with

me from this week. How did that happen? I think he had overdosed on

Lemsip or something, supposedly he was ill that day. I don't know

where his judgment weupbt that day. It's extraordinary. Money may well

have been involved, we are told this individual is a Labour donor,

I think, perhaps you know more about that. Not about that. I know

there has been big changes over the last few weeks because what's

happened is there's Labour leadership office with Ed Miliband,

but also the party machine in Victoria Street and at the moment

there's been a division between those two and and they haven't been

on the same page and recently Ed Miliband has put his people in to

Victoria Street so they should be singing from the same hymn sheet in

a strong way now and it's interesting when there is dischord

between the scenes it's an opportunity prove that you are a

leader. Are we back into Miliband- bashing territory again? The poll

extended a little. It's now 5%. It was one or 2% or level-pegging with

the Tories. So we can point to that. I don't know whether his

underlining personal credibility and poll ratings are any better.

always forget, the Budget is not just the test for the Chancellor,

it's always that. It's the leader of the opposition that replies to

the Chancellor. Let's hope that it's not Harriet Harman that day.

We all saw how well she coped with detailed questions. It will be Mr

Miliband and all eyes will be on him. Absolutely. Two challenges

Labour has at the moment. The first is a short-term one, is even if

they're right about the economy, even if they should be spending

more now and investing it, how are they going to prove that in four

years? Because this Government could preside over four or five

years of stagnating growth and if Osbourne gets one quarter at the

end, they'll be able to say we did it. You have to wait for the next

one, I will tweet it after the programme! That's your lot for this