25/03/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

A senior Tory Party treasurer quits, after the Sunday Times says he

offered access to David Cameron in return for cash donations. We'll

put the claims to the Tory Party's Deputy Chairman, in our Top Story.

How did George Osborne's big day go so wrong? We hear worries from the

Tory backbenches about the granny tax Budget.

And, how long will this man make political hay out of the

coalition's budget woes, before attention turns to Labour's own

economic credibility problem? Well, not long actually. We'll be testing

Ed Balls, on that in the Sunday And our political panel of the best

and the brightest, here to deliver their Budget verdict, look at The

Week Ahead. And tweet selflessly An allegation of sexual assault is

made every three days in London by patients using London's mental

health services, why is it so All that coming up over the next

hour. But first, the news, with Adam Parsons.

The Conservative Party's chief fundraiser has resigned, after he

was secretly filmed offering access to the Prime Minister, in exchange

for a substantial donation. Peter Cruddas made the remarks to

undercover reporters from the Sunday Times. In the last hour,

David Cameron said the way Mr Cruddas behaved was "totally

unacceptable". Mike Sergeant reports. �200,000. This led to the

swift read in -- swift resignation of Peter Cruddas, it appeared to

show him offering access to the heart of government. We will listen

to you and we will put it into the policy committee at Number Ten.

said he deeply regretted what he called his bluster, and said there

was no question of donors influencing policy. What happened

is completely unacceptable, this is not the way we look -- we raise

money in the Conservative Party. It is quite right Peter Cruddas has

resigned. Drawing a line under these headlines may not be easy

with questions remaining about which donors may have been

entertained by David Cameron. have been for Denner -- dinner in

the Prime Minister's private apartment. Labour wants a full list

of any donors who may have tried to influence policy committees.

idea that policy is for sale is grotesque. I think that David

Cameron is going to have to publish the list of policies that have been

sent from these dinners, sent to this Cameron Committee. The Liberal

Democrats say talks will begin soon on reforming the party system. Yet

another attempt to reduce the role of big money in politics.

The BBC has learned that relatives of the 17 people, allegedly killed

compensation. Afghan officials and tribal elders told the BBC that

families were paid $46,000 per person killed, and 10,000 dollars

per person injured. The families have been told that some witnesses

would be flown to the US, to give evidence against US Army Staff

Sergeant Robert Bales, who was charged with 17 counts of murder on

Friday. The prospect of strike by petrol

tanker drivers has prompted the government to announce that

soldiers are to be trained to take over their roles in the event of

industrial action. The results of a strike ballot of 2,000 members of

the Unite trade union are expected tomorrow.

The former world darts champion, Jocky Wilson, has died at the age

of 62, after suffering from a lung condition. Wilson dominated the

world of darts in the 1980s, winning the world title twice, and

was British champion four times. That's it. There's more news here

on BBC One, at 6.35pm this evening. So, the Tory Party's top bagman,

Peter Cruddas, resigned in the early hours of this morning, after

The Sunday Times revealed that he offered wealthy lobbyists access to

David Cameron and George Osborne, in return for large cash donations

to Tory Party funds. Serious stuff. I'm joined by Michael Fallon,

Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party.

Four access to the Prime Minister, his wife and the Chancellor, and

the opportunity to raise issues with the Downing Street policy unit,

or for donations. How long has this been going on? He was wrong to

boast that it could happen, it is unacceptable anyone should have

special access to the Prime Minister. That hasn't happened. We

have made it absolutely clear we will look at any of the evidence

the Sunday Times has and see if our rules have to be tightened further.

But big donors to get the chance of to dine with the Prime Minister and

Chancellor. They meet ministers, I am sure they will seek Ed Balls,

but the big change now, what we have changed since the Labour

government, is any meeting with a minister it is not only recorded

but published. A big donor to the Tory Party can dine with the Prime

Minister in his private quarters, can that the public? Yes, lists are

published of guests at Chequers. Every minister has had to publish

who they have had meetings with. That is a huge step forward from

the days when Bernie Ecclestone gave the Labour Party �1 million,

got the rules on a Formula One tobacco sponsorship changed. We

have claimed that up. We hear her that the location of Downton Abbey

is one of the venues for this kind of dinner. Ed Miliband was wrong

when he said... Look, meetings between the Prime Minister and

businessmen are published quarterly. There is transparency now when

there wasn't before. There is something called a leaders' group

in your party, if you donate �50,000, you get access to leading

figures from the Prime Minister down. Are these meetings

documented? If meetings with ministers are documented and

published. The Prime Minister? a businessman, yes that is

published quarterly. For all political parties, they have

dinners. Businessmen have meetings with ministers or the Prime Minster,

that is published quarterly. All political parties meet businessmen,

charities. Are these dinners, with major donors of the Tory Party, are

they in the public domain? David Cameron is the first Prime Minister

who has published lists of those who have been to stay with him at

Chequers, who have had his was pitilessly -- hospitality. It is a

matter of public record. If you are the deputy chair then, but you have

never met the party's third biggest donor, and this chief fundraiser?

Up I don't meet all of the donors. Donors don't have access to

everybody at the top of the Tory Party. Peter Cruddas is a

relatively new treasurer. He made a mistake. He has accepted that, he

has resigned. We are looking at our rules and will tighten them up if

necessary. I'm still not clear if I go see these names of donors. If

you give us the details of how to find it, we will put it on our

website. It wasn't supposed to be like this. After weeks of briefing

and leaking, George Osborne's Budget should have been a carefully

calibrated piece of political theatre. As it turned out, the

combination of a controversial tax cut, and a measure quickly dubbed

the "granny tax", delivered the worst press the coalition has

received since its formation a little under two years ago. So, how

did that happen? Giles Dilnot reports.

Chancellor George Osborne clearly didn't anticipate the red box he

was holding contained, amongst many measures, a political stink bomb.

Had he, he might have held it even further from him. But now, the so-

called "granny tax" has left a bad smell that's lingering. Why didn't

a man with the reputation as a superb political strategist not see

it coming? All roads lead to George Osborne.

He is involved in every aspect of government policy and Tory decision

making. And he is only a man capable of working 24 hours, seven

days a week, they are not enough hours in the day for someone to

undertake all the jobs he did. And he took his eye off the ball, I

think. It is a balanced budget, but clearly there have been leaks, and

those parts which haven't been beat will be very newsworthy. That is

politics and news. Every Budget has its down side but in the helter-

skelter of getting a budget for growth and jobs, something was lost

in the detail. Over time, we will simplify the tax system for

pensioners... Perhaps, trying to explain it better than what

appeared to be disguising it, might have helped. It's left to

backbenchers this weekend to have to reassure their older voters.

None of us yesterday saw that coming. This morning, to wake up to

that was a shock for everybody. Certainly for me. I have had some

angry people on the phone this morning and had to deal with them.

I hope they are happier now. perception is such, pensioners are

going to be barely a king about this for quite a while and I would

have preferred him to get the money from reduced public spending than

raise this niggling amount of tax on pensioners. In Conservative-held

Croydon Central, there's been a market for 730 years. And, when it

comes to money, customers have a gut instinct for how good or bad

something feels. All of the Conservative MPs we have

spoken to have been at pains to point out this tax exemption is and

stealing from your granny, that helping the highest paid with a tax

cut isn't just gifts too rich friends. But it's a perception

problem, the juxtaposition of these two items has caused bad news

headlines, which can hurt in marginal seats and cost votes.

I have actually voted Tory all my life and I decided, in view of what

they have done in this Budget, I will have to look for an

alternative. They always seem to do it to the poorer people. The people

with less money. Pensioners. Disabled people. Which I think is

unfair. I think it is a bit harsh. As well as this pensioner's tax, it

is not good. I voted for this government and I feel betrayed.

There's no general election tomorrow, but people here will help

choose a London Mayor soon. And may lose sympathy with any party that

gives an appearance of standing above their ordinary concerns.

Michael Fallon is still with me. Justified to the 700,000 people who

will retire next year, why they will be �323 worse off because of

this Budget? No Budget is popular with everybody. We are lifting 24

million people, raising their tax allowance, taking two million

people out of tax altogether. Increasing the... Let me finish.

Increasing the pension by over 5% this year. The biggest cash

increase ever in the pension. When we are protecting all pensioners,

whether they are better off or not, from prices, increases in earnings,

it is not unreasonable to ask the better-off pensioners to know

longer expect an increase in their higher allowance after April next

year. The average increase will be around �80 a year. People are still

�323 worse off. This is linked to Owen pen -- took inflation, the

increase. This is a bad time to retire under this coalition. You

lose �323 a year. You will not qualify for the new pension

guaranteeing �140 a week which doesn't come in, until 2016. Your

message is, don't retire under this government. That is not right. The

new pension is coming in. We are the first government ever to give

pensioners a guarantee that the pension each year will rise by the

hire of prices, earnings or 2.5%. That has given them the biggest

increase they have ever had. In addition, they keep their free

benefits, TV licence, but travel, free prescriptions. Pensioners

understand that their children, their grandchildren, R Strudwick at

the moment, trying to make ends meet. We are helping 23 million

The government claims it will cost �100 million, cutting the top rate

tax. Enormously uncertain estimates, agreed? No, because the claim we

made is verified by the Independent office of budget responsibility.

That office of budget responsibility said these are

uncertain estimates. The also said it is a reasonable estimate. The

direct cost is 100 million but we will get five times that back in

things Labour never did by clamping down on stamp duty evasion and

making sure the rich pay more. five times figure, it only comes to

500 million because you assume there will only hundred million be

100 million better off. There is no way you're measures will result in

the rich paying more, they could be paying a lot less. These are big

measures. There was a big increase in stamp duty, we are capping tax

reliefs, we want the rich to pay more. The top rate of 50p didn't

bring in the income it was supposed to bring in and there was a lot of

evasion. This is the first government to crack down on evasion.

They will only pay more if you're 100 million figure it is right. Why

is a Tory lead government, which speaks for Middle Britain, allowing

more and more people to be trapped into the 40p tax band? Over 3

million when you came into power, over 5 million by the next general

election - why? People will be earning more. The you are cutting

the bound. No, that is not true. You are reducing the band. Yes.

said no. Overall, it will be growing as the economy grows. We

have to watch the effect of moving to the top band, but this Budget

improves incentives at the bottom, those on the 20p band. Most people

are at the bottom. Most people pay the bottom rate of tax. You are

talking about the top 15%. I accept there is a problem when they move

across the line, but we believe in cutting taxes. Just not if you are

in the middle. Who has benefited most from the

George Osborne budget, politically it looks like Labour, but will that

turn into a transformation of the party's economic reputation? Labour

laid into the Budget would relish this week. The Chancellor is not

Robin hoard, he is the Sheriff of Nottingham. As for jobs and growth,

he could not give a Friar Tuck. party has a wider problem. The

public still blames Labour more than the Coalition for the current

spending cuts. Going into the Budget, Ed Miliband and Ed balls

trailed the Tories in the balls. There is still some way to go in

restoring Labour's reputation on the economy. The shadow chancellor

Ed Balls joins me now for the Sunday interview. You have been

trooping round the TV studios since the Budget saying the Court of the

50 pence rate will cost the Treasury �3 billion. You know as

well as I do that is not true. it is completely true. It is in

page 51 of the HMRC report. Face- saver 300,000 legitimate top rate

payers will be given a tax cut, they get �40,000. They say they

believe that if you cut taxes by 3 billion for those taxpayers, or the

people currently avoiding tax will pay �2.9 billion, people from the

Cayman Islands or whatever, that is your net figure. That latter is

highly uncertain but it is a fact the legitimate talked -- top rate

taxpayer will get a tax cut. the cost to the Treasury is not 3

billion, it is accepted that when you change up and down the rate of

tax, it changes people's behaviour. There is an argument of how much.

For you to be right, you assume zero behaviour. What I said was, in

the days after, the legitimate taxpayers currently paying tax are

given, according to this report, a tax cut of �3 billion. The

government hopes that is offset by this big behavioural effect. The

behavioural effect is uncertain, as you just said to Michael Fallon.

The money may come in. The there is one, so there for your 3 billion

figure it is nonsense. It may be 2.5, it may be two. It is not my

figure. The 3 billion figure next year it is the HMRC figure of the

static cost. The static cost? they say other people paying tax

may cough up. If it is such a good idea and you think the behavioural

implications are zero. I didn't say that. What stop Jews from

introducing a top rate tax on income on the super-rich? The thing

which happened was the global financial crisis which opened up

the deficit. Taxes have to go up and they were done in a fair way,

including the top rate, which the government admitted was �3 billion.

Why didn't you take it up? I would rather every tax rate was lower if

we could afford it but it depends on your priorities. At a time when

you have got to get the deficit down and the government is raising

taxes, the middle class paying more tax, while the Tories gambling that

a �3 billion tax cut to existing taxpayers will reap revenues?

Filthy rich when you work in labour - why didn't you introduce a tax on

the higher rate? People on higher incomes, incomers were going up, we

raised stamp duty. We did it in the global financial crisis. You did it

at the end of government, you were in power for years! Tax going up

needs to be done in a fair way. The judgment was it was not the right

thing to do at the time, then the world changed. You identified the

problem when you were a minister. This is what you said. You said,

It is why it is very important to make sure on all the things you do,

on financial regulation, on taxation, you do things in a way

which does not undermine Britain's reputation in the world. The way in

which David Cameron announced to the Daily Mail the stripping of

Fred Goodwin's Night Hawk, the right decision, but that sent a

terrible signal around the world. You were talking about not putting

up salaries too much. You are saying they are very mobile people,

and now you are saying that there is no behavioural impact when you

put up taxes. I never said that. That is what you said. There at me

say it again - There is a �3 billion tax cut to the richest

300,000, 10,000 each on average. How much behavioural effect will

be? If it is zero, the net cost is 3 billion. The danger is the cost

will be billions of pounds, which could have been used, if they

haven't done this now, not to have the tax rise, which as you said is

on middle and lower income pensioners. This is about

priorities. Do you think this is a priority now when pensioners are

being hit? The depends how much it costs. Exactly. It might not be

your 3 billion but let's move on. Due to this Budget, the number of

taxpayers paying 40p in the pound will reach 5 million by 2014, up

from 3.7 now. It incorporates a lot of the squeeze to middle. How much

should somebody burn before they start on the 40p? I don't think

Michael Fallon really explain what is going on. A what should the 40

pence band be? The 40 pence band that Labour will set out in our

manifesto, we have set out for the hour tax rates and I will not pick

out one in particular here three years out when I don't know the

economic circumstances. So you don't know when the squeeze Middle

should move into the higher tax band? I am worried when people are

moving into that at �50,000 when they are about to lose their child

benefit. Families who will lose potentially 50% of their disposable

income because George Osborne has told them they are rich. Let's move

on to pensions, you put great stock on the wisdom of the IFS. They

You have been scaremongering, haven't you? You have been

frightening pensioners. What that quote does not reveal his it is

actually the person who is currently in their late 50s, early

60s, who lose five times more. They lose of the �300 a year because

their lances removed entirely. I think people looked at the budget

and said to George Osborne, why do you think pensioners should be hit

in this way now? In few are poor pensioner, you are not affected.

Most pensioners don't pay tax. you are a well-off pensioner, it

doesn't affect you either. Even if you are an existing pensioner, it

is only about �83 a year. You can agree or disagree but you have been

scaring people and it is not threatening to ordinary pensioners

at the moment. New pensioners, about to be pensioners, will be hit

by �300. Existing pensioners will be hit by an average of about �83

the year. He you're the man who put pensions or by 75p, you are part of

the team who did it. I will admit my mistakes. Will George Osborne?

The 75p was colossal mistake but we have much bigger real-terms

increases in the pensions. The government is this assembling the

pensions. They are cutting pensioners' incomes, and when the

top rate tax has been cut for the richest, why are families and

pensioners paying the price? government's case is that long-term

interest rates are the best measure of monetary and fiscal policy

credibility, do you agree? No, I don't. Why did you say this in

I made that speech in 2003. In a normal economy, that is true. As

you know, when you get into a liquidity trap, when you have the

kind of Japan or 1930s problems we have at the moment, when the

government is resorting to quantitative easing, the interest

rate becomes sticky. You can't go any lower but it is reflecting the

weak state of the economy. I read the whole of your speech in 2004

and you put no caviar at at all on that. He boasted about how our

long-term rates were lower than Germany's for a period. And what

were they at the time? Have you changed your mind? At the time,

rates were at about 5%. If I had known we were about to be facing

this global financial crisis, I would have made a difference beach.

Governments around the world might have taken different decisions, so

you are right to say in hindsight we didn't see this catastrophe. My

argument with Dutch-born is he doesn't even understand it now.

That is why he is not seeing these low-interest rates are the product

of an economy not growing, stagnating. People wonder if you

have learnt any lessons about spending because you spend more in

the boom years and you want to spend more now as we are teetering

on stagnation. Part of the problem is that George Osborne is spending

more on unemployment. Wouldn't it be better on spending money into

getting young people backing to work? The global financial crisis

did not happen because... Is there any time when you would not spend

more? When I was the Secretary of State for Education after the

global financial crisis, I set out a billion pounds of spending cuts

which Michael Gove attacked me for. If we were back in the good times

again, would you still increase spending by more than the growth

rate of the economy? That depends upon the priorities facing the

country. People will look at a education system, transport

system... So you would? At in some areas you would but in other areas

you would spend less. What do you say to some Labour people who said

to me, Ed Balls is a great shadow minister, he should definitely be

in the shadow cabinet but he is tainted by being at the centre of

The opinion poll in the Daily Mail puts me ahead of George Osborne in

public confidence at this stage of the economic and political cycle.

There was one in the Evening Standard a few days ago. It is not

about polls but whether you make the right arguments and people

think you are tough enough to make the right decisions. For pensions,

families and jobs, we have better arguments than George Osborne. In

January, up I said in a fair way, stick to the public sector pay

restraint, that was tough and the right thing to do. Different

priorities for George Osborne. approaching 12.30. You're watching

the Sunday Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes: I'll be looking at the

week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics

Hello and welcome from us. In the capital, an allegation of sexual

assault is made every three days involving patients using London's

mental health services. We he claims not enough is being done to

protect them. With us for the duration, David

Lambie, MP for Tottenham. And Conservative MP for Chelsea Greg

Hands. . The mayor of London is an

effective champion for the city he runs so well. We will work with him

on plans this summer to go on investing in London Transport,

lengthening commuter trains, extending the Underground and

exploring new river crossings in east London. The blocks of Norway's

from the Chancellor over what he is doing for London. What does it add

up to? The is a very good Budget for

London, good for business and jobs and tax payers. The 3 million

taxpayers in London will be getting a tax cut. 97,000 Londoners will be

taken entirely out of the income tax system. A very good Budget for

London. It is a good budget -- Budget for some, but not for

pensioners, not for the unemployed, there was very little for them. And

I think people will recognise, yes, the personal allowance is good news.

But if you see inflation going up, the cost of living going up, travel

fares going up, this is a bad Budget. The background is in

dealing with Labour's appalling economic legacy which has a massive

impact on the Londoners. The worst Budget deficit in the G20, the

deepest recession since the 1930s. This Budget should be seen in

context. Fiscally neutral, as well. I have got to say that is wearing

thin. Boris made eight interventions to get that tax

reduced from 50% for the very richest Londoners, to 45%. He has

made no intervention on tax credits, the NHS, unemployment. We see where

his priorities are. Why is he taking fares up by 44%? The problem

is Ken Livingstone is not credible on fares or on anything, nobody

trusts him. Going back to the 50% - - 50p tax rate. It is important

that London is competitive. And London has had a higher rate of top

tax rate. We have to compete as an open, international city. Was Boris

Johnson right, he kept on saying, bring this tax break down. So was

he right? And number of voices are calling for the 50 pence rate to be

brought down, Boris was one of them. He recognises London needs to be

competitive. Boris also intervened on making sure there is funding for

infrastructure in London. Another big announcement George Osborne

made on Wednesday. Extra money for the Enterprise Zone, extra money

for cycling. There is �80 million, money is tight, that money has been

found, public Bunny, to unlock private money in the east end. If

focusing on jobs and growth -- public money. We have real poverty

in north east London. Nothing in this Budget, no interventions from

the london mayor. And stamp duty going up on these properties?

is a good thing. To spend your effort on reducing a tax for the

very richest seems to me to be bizarre, when Londoners are facing

rising inflation. The Institute of Fiscal Studies has said all this.

That is not valid. Actually, it is 3 million plunders getting a tax

cut, due to the increase in personal allows up to �9,200. That

is the big news in this Budget for London. Pensioners know they will

be a lot poorer. We have learnt an allegation of rape or sexual

assault involving patients using mental health services in the

capital is made every three days. Those involved are victims and

perpetrators. Mental health charities say this is likely to be

an underestimate. Genevieve Butler suffered from

serious mental health problems, she was admitted to Gordon Hospital in

her mid-twenties. She was sexually assaulted and physically assaulted

while at the hospital, by other patients. I know remarkably little

about it, because when I was told about it by my daughter, I thought,

I thought she was potty. And politely disbelieved her. It was

only later that I realised it was actually true. Genevieve went on to

kill herself, jumping from a 4th floor walkway in another London

hospital. I think it is fair to say the Gordon Hospital was the origin

of her suicidal thoughts. approached the trust which runs the

hospital but they declined to comment. Sunday politics has learnt

similar allegations of abuse are far from uncommon. We have obtained

figures from nine mental health trusts. In the last four years,

they have been 500 allegations of sexual assault. The trust says it

knows of at least over 100 allegations actually happened. Only

two cases resulted in prosecution. Particularly if people have a

history of psychiatric issues, may be learning disabilities, it is

tougher for their voices to be heard and for the CPS to believe

they have a solid case which will stand up if it comes to court.

Problems commonly cited for low conviction rates may also mean the

victims of abuse involving mental health patients do not come forward.

There may be many more cases than reported. All sorts of things like

shame and guilt. People may feel was possible for the actions of

others. They may be embarrassed. A difficult hurdle to get over it in

talking to someone. That is true with sexual abuse issues anyway

even outside of institutional settings. Doubly difficult if you

are going through a psychiatric crisis. Could a lack of data be

symptomatic of a culture where complaints by patients are not

taken seriously? In a case of Genevieve Butler, although her case

has been looked at by officials and NHS management, it has not been to

the family satisfaction. They have been asking for an independent

investigation. They are acting with total impunity at the moment. And I

think that if we want an NHS that we can rely on, we have got to

speak out, and make those NHS managers properly accountable.

Order, order. The health service was big news this week as the NHS

Bill finally passed through Parliament. What impact will it

have on this issue of accountability? But other parts of

the NHS, mental health will now be offered to more private providers,

bad news for some. The issue is to do with multiple providers coming

in, many of whom are going to have a commercial imperative as well as

a health imperative. And so the likelihood of transparency is going

to be much reduced. Professionals however moral and ethical they

might be barred going to have organisations which have got

particular views about how they are going to move forward. It will be

much more in the interests of these organisations to keep things in

House and not to be open about serious problems. The Department of

Joining me, the chief executive of the charity, mine. -- Mind. Are

those figures is a prize it to you? It is extremely concerning there is

such a high level of numbers being reported. It is incredibly

important for people who are extremely vulnerable, to be in a

place where they can be treated. They can only be treated if they

feel safe. Any number above zero is a number too high. I think it is

worth recognising trusts have done a lot of work. But we don't seem to

be seen these figures on a routine and regular basis, and that would

help to understand the scale of the problem. Publicised? So we can

tell? Do think they should routinely publish? Yes, it would

make a lot of sense for these figures to be me -- to be made

readily available, so that patients and their families can be confident

that their loved ones are being treated in a safe area. Would you

accept that this was happening more and more? Is there any evidence for

that? Is this an increase? I can only speak about what is happening

in our trust. From the information, there hasn't been an increase in

recent years. What has changed his hour reporting structures have

changed significantly. We have encouraged a culture within the

organisation whereby staff are encouraged to report instances

which are properly investigated. If that happens in all other mental

health trusts across the country. I would gigawatt Paul has said, to

ensure our hospital wards are safe -- I would echo what. What

difficulties are faced here, about being able to prove an allegation

is true? Is it the suggestion, or is it the case that many

allegations may not be, or there is a presumption they might not be, it

is a complex area. In the past, there were times when it was

presumed if a patient was unwell and made an allegation, that

allegation was probably not made on fact. There has been a shift and we

now take allegations seriously no matter the condition of the patient.

It will be investigated and reported. Many trusts have employed

police liaison officers in conjunction with the Metropolitan

Police. Police officers working in- patient units to actually meet the

patients very quickly and investigate allegations promptly.

That has seen big benefits. that been going far enough? The

criminal justice system and police are dealing with these issues. Is

that been done more sensitively and It is proving difficult, and a

greater degree of understanding is important. We know that when people

with mental health problem report as a victim of crime, they are much

less likely to be taken seriously and believed. The criminal justice

system is taking this more have moved far enough to be able to

make sure prosecutions can probably take place. Have you got the

guidance and support from the NHS on how to deal with it? There is a

lot of pressure from the NHS. There is a requirement we report these

when it happens. We know NHS London had a backlog of such things until

recently so perhaps were not learning the lessons quickly enough.

That was the case but things have improved significantly. Now there

are strict timescales and we need to submit comprehensive report to

NHS London for them to look at and consider. If those reports are not

up to scratch, we are told so and we investigate. You will not have

been aware of the detail and we can't compare these figures with

the previous years, but does it raise concerns the you about the

safety of people receiving help either in institutions or in the

community? I think it does raise concerns. Can recommend Sunday

politics for doing the investigation because this is an

area which is not in the public eye as much as it should be. I happen

to know West London Trust, where I represent in Fulham, is introducing

reforms and it is looking at things. That is to be welcome, so I think

it needs to be taken seriously. Your mental health trust?

economically pressed times, you do see more mental health, and it

remains in our country the Cinderella service without the

focus and without the investment needed. Some of what we are seeing

here is quite old health stock, certainly that is the case in my

part of London, where you don't quite have the appropriate

facilities so that people can feel private and comfortable in this

therapeutic environment. Thank you for coming in. What else has been

happening in the City this week? He was a round of in 60 seconds. --

here is a round-up. The race for City Hall started this

week with all the main candidate out and about across town on the

first lap of the election campaign. Outer London is the potential motor

of the economy. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses here.

it can be a clear choice. We have someone like myself with a long-

term commitment as opposed to someone else who was using it as a

stepping-stone to being the leader of the Tory party. I don't want

that, I want to do what is right London. I want to talk about the

policies that will make London a much better place. It is important

there are a lot of candidates, and particularly the Green Party

because we discuss things that have long-term consequences for London

and everybody living here. Opinion polls show Boris Johnson leading

Ken Livingstone by eight percentage points.

David Lambie very closely involved with Ken Livingstone's campaigned -

do you think claims about his own tax arrangements have damaged him?

A lot of the last few weeks has been dominated by Celia coming from

the Conservative team. I suspect over the next six weeks, Londoners

will be concentrating hard on the issues, on crime, mainstream things.

Will you attribute claims to how Boris Johnson appears to have

pulled away again in the polls? suspect the polls will be up-and-

down. Most Londoners would say this is close. He should not have been

taking checks and banking them on his behalf. We should not be having

a conversation about Ken Livingstone's tax. We should be

talking about why Londoners are paying high fares, crime, policing.

Why are you having conversations and the prime minister talking

about personal tax arrangements? is saying one thing and doing

another. Ken Livingstone over the years has attacked aggressive tax

avoidance, yet that is precisely what he has been doing by setting

up this company to channel his earnings to avoid paying income tax.

You said about overseas companies, this is paying a lesser rate

through the corporation. It is tax avoidance. He has attacked people

for avoiding tax, very clearly, yet he himself has run his own affairs

to avoid paying income tax and instead booking it through a

company. I think he continues to have serious questions to answer. I

think Ken Livingstone will continue to have very serious questions to

answer. I said this is a side issue. The issue is Boris taking 250,000

from the Telegraph. Let's get back to what London has care about,

which is rising inflation, about whether it is right to spend your

effort on a 50% cut for the richest. About crime, about what Boris...

I'm afraid we are running out of time. Thank you to both of you. You

can C-list of everyone who has been declared so far, but now back to

Andrew. A looming strike, who cares if the

MPs are rough on their break this week, there are juicy issues to

savour in the week ahead. Isabel, political journalist of the year,

which I know you got after you started appearing on this programme.

Where does this cash for access story go? That is clearly dire for

the Tories. Peter Cruddas sounds like a barrow boy. A few weeks ago,

Nick Clegg launched a new bid to sort out party funding no one took

any notice, but there is a process under way and I think that will be

taken a lot more seriously. We had cash for higher, cash for

amendments, Peers, cash in secret from the Labour donor Mr Abrams,

and now we have got this, which is huge. It is bad all round, isn't

it? Absolutely, and it raises questions for both sides on party

funding. What is interesting with this one is the emotional intensity

when you can see the bigger picture. That will spread on YouTube in a

way that it won't in other areas. am still interested to know if the

names of these dinners are really published, are you? The response

was ambiguous as it went on. The problem is not a lack of will, it

is that they genuinely can't agree what to do about it. In November,

Sir Christopher Kelly suggested state support for the parties, and

even the Lib Dems thought that was a bad idea. Let's move on to the

Budget because we are short of time today. The worst headlines any

Chancellor has had in recent memory, bad again this week, and the polls

giving him a hit as well. What happened to this great political

tactician called George Osborne? has been a tactical failure, and he

could have made the case for getting more money out of

pensioners and it would have worked but he didn't. Not only would

independent experts have backed him, but many pensioners have kids and

they would have backed him. The idea is you take a hit now so you

don't take the hit closer to 2015. A There is more mileage in this for

Labour, isn't there? Absolutely, but I agree first of all that this

is the government that is prepared to take tough decisions and there

is a real question about pensions in this country. They are

completely unaffordable and it would have been a bold decision to

say we need to have a conversation about pensioners but let's not

present it as an over- simplification. By existing

pensioners, they lose but it is just a little bit and they are not

the poorest. The actual loss for individual pensioners is pretty

negligible. Many don't pay tax at all and the saving for the

government is something like 3 billion. I think this was a

presentational failure rather than an economic political failure.

King back, what do you think people will say? We are in the heat of the

moment and we get wrapped up on things like the granny tax, none of

which may be playing. What do you think we will be talking about?

this the Budget we will remember for growth, or will we remember it

for the 45p tax cut? There are some questions Labour should be asking -

the issue is not just about whether we can get growth back but what

type of growth will we get back? Ed Balls presided over time when it

was growth that was just City-based, not for people in the middle, just

at the top, and how well they do things differently? Let's move on

to the final thing we are talking about, it looks like the tanker

drivers will be voting to go on strike tomorrow. Is this government,

whose members are entirely on bloodied in industrial disputes -

the winter of discontent is as far back for them as the general strike

- are they capable of taking on powerful union? They have trained

up 400 army personnel to make sure there are no queues at petrol

forecourts and the contingency planning has been meticulous. There

was some internal debate about whether to publicise this plant of

bringing in the army because they don't want to prompt panic-buying

but I don't think this will descend into scenes of chaos. Will they run

at the Sir -- the first signs of gunfire? They do have memories of

the fuel protests in 2000 and they have done that repertory work.

Labour will be asked if they backed this strike. At absolutely, and

there is a question about whether we will see a series of strikes

going ahead, is this going to set a precedent about what will happen in

the future? If you show any sign of weakness, they hold the government

in contempt. Let's talk about it next weekend, if we can make it to

the studio. That is all for this week. Jo Coburn will be back