22/04/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

There's a new word circulating the Westminster village these days.

It's not in the Oxford English Dictionary. It begins with O, and

it means "a bit of a mess". The word is "omnishambles". And it was

used just the other day by Labour leader Ed Milliband, to describe

the coalition government. It's not the best backdrop for the

coalition parties, as they head for elections on May 3rd. It's a

particular headache for the Liberal Democrats, who were already

suffering in the polls. We'll be talking to Deputy Prime Minister

Nick Clegg, in our Sunday Interview. His latest mission, to reform the

House of Lords, will be making the headlines tomorrow. But there won't

be coalition consensus. We'll have the latest from the Tory

backbenches. And, our political panel of the

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

The Week Ahead, and tweeting uncontrollably throughout the

In London: After an enforced four- year sabbatical, Ken Livingstone

seeks to win back City Hall. He All that in the next hour. But

Good afternoon. Michael Brown, a convicted fraudster who was once a

major donor to the Liberal Democrats, has been extradited from

the Dominican Republic. It's believed he'll be returned to

Britain, where he faces a seven- year jail sentence. Our political

correspondent Louise Stewart reports.

And this is Michael Brown, if convicted conman and fugitive,

arrested after three years on the run. Michael, are you going back to

Britain? He refused to say anything injury whilst in jail in the

Dominican Republic. He had been living there using a false name,

Darren Nally, after absconding to the Caribbean. He was convicted in

his absence in London in 2008 and sentenced to seven years. He gave

�2.4 million to the Lib Dems in 2005 when the party was led by

Charles Kennedy, making him their biggest donor. The Lib Dems have

said they support any moves to bring Mr Brown to justice. In a

The millionaire lifestyle in the Dominican Republic came to an end

when police arrested him for skipping payments on �14,000 a

month apartments. He was flown to Madrid yesterday, where he will

face extradition early next week. He could return within 10 days.

Police here say they are pleased after four years Mr Brown is now a

step closer to start in his prison sentence.

Voting is underway, in the first round of the French presidential

election. President Nicolas Sarkozy cast his vote in Paris. The man

thought to be his main rival, the socialist Francois Hollande, has

also voted. Turn-out so far has been lower than five years ago. A

total of ten candidates are taking part.

In the last hour, the Formula One Grand Prix in Bahrain has got

underway, despite calls for it to be cancelled. It follows two days

of political unrest and demonstrations, and the death of a

protester. Dan Roan has just sent this report.

The start of one of the most contentious Grand Prix is in recent

years. In the build up to the race, the noise of engines had been

drowned out by that of protests. Bahrain's most prestigious sporting

event has been the focus of three days of rage, and seen the death of

one prominent protester. Security on the roads surrounding the

circuit this morning. The authorities feeling nothing to

chance. A series of checkpoints and armed guards, and searching on the

gates. Once inside this circuit, the atmosphere is relaxed. It feels

like Formula One, business as usual. It could be any other grand prix in

the calendar. So far, the race is safe and in order. Today, they

decided they wanted to have the race. The FIA checked it and agreed

to do it. If all three parties agree, yes. For now at least, the

focus has returned to the action on the track. But this race looks set

to be remembered not for its winner but the controversy it provoked.

37,000 people have been taking part in the London marathon. Kenyan

athletes won both elite races. Wilson Kipsang in the men's contest.

While Mary Keitany won the women's event for the second year in a row.

Britain's David Weir won the men's wheelchair race for the sixth time.

Prince Harry, who presented the prizes, joked that the Duke and

Duchess of Cambridge would run next year.

That's it. There's more news here on BBC One, at 6.20pm. Andrew.

No one cares about it, according to the polls. But this week, it's the

one topic that's going to give the coalition one mighty headache.

Tomorrow, an all-party committee of peers and MPs will publish its

proposals for reforming the House of Lords. The project is currently

at the top of Nick Clegg's agenda. We'll be talking to him in just a

few minutes. But first, let's talk to the Shadow Justice Secretary,

Labour's Sadiq Khan. The minister Khan, you are in

favour of Lords reform. But let me asking you about Theresa May. You

have described her handling of the Abu Qatada case as a shambolic.

Isn't she just trying to solve a problem which the Labour government

had failed to solve over more than 10 years? Huge progress was made

during the course of us being in government. We obtained assurances

from Jordan, which guaranteed if he were to return, he would not be

tortured. The European Court has accepted those assurances. As we

have seen, this government has used party politics as a motivator for

policy announcements, the budget, france is maud, the theatre we had

on Tuesday, where the motivation was to get great TV pictures of Abu

Qatada being arrested rather than checking we got the dates right and

the legal process could be executed. What you were not able to do in 10

years, she has not been able to do in two. We agree this man should be

extradited. We have said to Theresa May what she should have done as

soon as the European Court judged three months ago, was straight away

the government should have been on the phone or gone to Jordan to get

further assurances required, to make sure when and if Abu Qatada

goes into Jordan, the evidence obtained through torture cannot be

used against him. We are pleased we have got those assurances. The

question is, how is it the Home Secretary can get the dates wrong

and be more concerned by good TV pictures, rather than getting him

extradited to Jordan. Let us come on to Lords reform. You

are in favour. But you want a referendum on the issue. Is that a

deal breaker? Let me explain. haven't got that much time. Is

having a referendum a deal breaker? It is in our manifesto. Reports

from the Joint Committee, to be published tomorrow, say the

recommendations are a referendum -- recommendation. It is a simple

question. If you don't get a referendum, we are not support

reform? We are not sure what the joint committee will say or the

government in response. Our policy is quite clear. We say, let the

people decide. It is for us to hear what the government will do. If you

don't get a referendum, we you suppose Lords reform? We need to

see what the details are from the government. That is my simple

answer. It is not an answer. When there is major constitutional

reform of this scale, it is proper for the people to decide whether it

should go ahead. You still haven't told me if it will be a deal

breaker. A head of steam against Lords

reform has been building in the Tory Party. At a meeting of Tory

backbenchers last week, MP after MP stood up to condemn the proposed

reforms. This morning, there are reports that the revolt has spread

to the Cabinet, with at least five Tory ministers against Lords reform.

Some are even predicting it could break the coalition. We're joined

now from Shropshire by senior Conservative MP Mark Pritchard.

Welcome to the programme. You are a shop steward for the Tory

backbenches. The House of Lords reform will be the centrepiece of

the Queen's Speech in a few weeks. RUH -- are your Conservative

backbenchers happy about that? think the majority say that the

priority in the legislative timetable should not be a House of

Lords reform, but should be growth, getting people into jobs, growing

the prosperity of our nation. I noted the deputy promised it is on

your show. The question to him is, should this be a priority when the

country is tiptoeing out of recession, with all the other

challenges the country faces? For the majority of Conservative MPs

and my constituents, I am afraid House of Lords reform is just not a

priority. What will you and your colleagues do, when it comes before

the House of Commons? We will have to wait and see what the joint

committee says. You must have a pretty good idea? If there is a

call for a referendum, this will be a fundamental constitutional change

to the way Parliament works. Then it would be very difficult for both

the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, for the government

as a whole, to go to the country on a referendum on House of Lords

reform, but denied referendum on the European question. We know the

majority of people in this country are carrying -- cried out for a

referendum on Europe. I don't hear many clamouring for a referendum on

reform. So they can be separated. A headache for the government. Or

tented is to drive it through Parliament. I don't think that will

be successful. Either way, the government is between a rock and a

hard place. It doesn't have to be if we don't drive through with

house of Lords reform, which was not part of the coalition agreement.

The 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, had a meeting last

week. We are told the mood was unpleasant over Lords reform. How

would you describe it? I think people have strong views. They've

been there priority for the government, including our junior

partners, the Liberal Democrats, should be growing the economy,

getting people back into jobs, ensuring the country prospers. It

is not about Lords reform. The polls show only 6% of the public

care about this issue. I think, the one labelled the government has to

be careful not to have attached to it, and it may stick, is that it is

out of touch. If we drive ahead with Lords reform, it would easily

have that label on it, that the government is out of touch. I don't

believe the Conservative backbench is out of touch. The government

should listen. To make growth of this nation a priority.

Thank you very much. Now, to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the high

stakes gambler, whom many think is risking too much on reform of the

Lords. Can he pull it off, without shattering the coalition? Does

anybody care? Doesn't he have anything better to do? After all,

it's been a torrid few weeks for the government, and the forecast

for the Liberal Democrats is not encouraging.

One poll, published in the Sun last week, places the Liberal Democrats

in fourth place, behind the UK Independence Party And in the

Bradford West by-election last month, won by George Galloway of

Respect, the Liberal Democrats came fourth and lost their deposit. The

party faces a difficult set of local elections.

In 2011, they lost 778 seats and The biggest reduction of

councillors for the party since 1977.

This year, they are fielding fewer candidates in England than the

Conservatives and Labour. 1,552 candidates, compared to 2,151

for the Tories, and 2120 for Labour, which some commentators have put

Last week, the Lib Dem leader said that he has had to make "painful

compromises". And there are tricky issues still ahead for the

coalition, including Lords reform, and plans for increased internet

And the Deputy Prime Minister is Nick Clegg, welcome. Good to have

you back. These proposals on Lords reform. When you settle for

anything less than a largely democratic chamber elected by

I think the principle that the people who make the laws of the

land should be elected by the laws of the land should strike people as

fairly uncontroversial. I know it creates heat and fury in the

Westminster village. I think we should get on with it now with

your views, our priority as the government of course remains

rescuing and repairing the British economy, it does not mean we can do

other things like introducing some democracy into the House of Lords.

We have established, almost by convention, but before major

constitutional change we have a referendum. We had one for Scottish

devolution, we will have one for Scottish independence, we had one

for the referendum, why a if this is a major change of 1,000 years of

history, why not a referendum on reform of the Lords? People have to

answer the question, why is it we should spend a great deal of money,

millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, asking the British people a

question which frankly people do not worry about very much, and on

which there is consensus between the three main parties. All three

parties, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have a

commitment for Lords reform. To sub-contract to the British people

an issue which the politicians at Westminster cannot deal with is

asking a lot of the British people when last year we did have a

referendum. But that was a issue where there was a stark difference

of opinion. That is not the case here. Do remember the composition

of the House of Lords has changed radically over the last 20 years.

No one went to a referendum to ask the British people for permission

to now stuff the House of Lords with political appointees. Over 70

% of people in the House of Lords are there because people like me,

Ed Miliband and David Cameron put them there. Nobody asked the

British people for that kind of industrial scale patronage and I

think now asking people something which most people would consider

perfectly normal, which is to have that a bit of democracy in our

legislative chamber in Westminster, would strike most people as an

unnecessary 10 of the wheel. People will wonder we are having a

referendum for Coventry to decide whether we have an air but not for

the House of Lords -- Coventry to have a mayor. Why not have it?

Unlike the, you would probably win this one. Firstly, this is not a

unilateral decision by me. You are quite right, with any major

constitutional issue which should work on a painstaking business of

trying to find cross-party consensus. Batters the spirit of

which I have always worked. I have reached out to members of the

Conservative Party and Labour Party. Say you would not rule out a

referendum if your back was against the wall? The people who want to

advocate a referendum, and it is for them to explain why we should

spend millions of pounds on this, and why we should create a

monumental distraction of a referendum, on an issue where all

parties agree, when Our central purpose as the Government remains

sorting out the economic mess that we inherited. Regardless of whether

you have a referendum or not, if you don't get Lords reform because

of backbench Tory resistance, they just will not vote with you, will

you withdraw Lib Dem support for the boundary changes which the

Tories do want? There is quite a lot of pressure to do otherwise but

we have not indulged in tit-for-tat selective choice about which part

of the coalition agreement we are going to support or not. We all

entered into this government, knowing that no one had won a

majority, no one had the right to triumph completely over the other

side and secondly, we had a clear programme of reforms that we wanted

to introduce. I have asked Liberal Democrat, MPs and peers to back a

number of things, whether it was the NHS bill and a number of things

which they did not like at all but I did it because it was in the

spirit of coalition and I would like -- I would ask all people to

continue to govern in that spirit because it is what the British

people want. We have shown that we can hang together and govern in the

national interest. You say that put your concern at the moment is an

elected House of Lords. It is not my only concern. I did not say that.

It will be a big part of the Queen's Speech. But you seem to be

out of touch on this. It is not a burning issue in the country. Look

at this from a recent poll. It shows 1% regarded it as an

important issue. Absolutely. are out of touch. There are many

things you deal within politics that you know why a significant but

are not the subject of conversation in the pub or round the kitchen

table. World trade rules are immensely important to this country

but it is not something which has ever been raised with me on the

doorstep as I go round canvassing in my Sheffield constituency. Just

because something has not talked about in great deal, it does not

mean it is not significant or important. We have had so many

scandals and so many problems in our democracy, whether it is MPs'

expenses, whether it is party scandals, the way the House of

Lords is enumerated, I think we have an opportunity to finish a

debate which has been going on for a century now. It is based on a

relatively conventional view which is that people who make the laws of

the land should be elected by eight people -- by the laws of the land.

Are the Liberal Democrats responsible for the current

omnishambles which is a word used by people in your government, as

the Tories? My own view is that the issues which have dominated since

the Budget, I think they are controversial for a very plain,

simple reason, they are controversial. It is controversial

to cap unlimited tax reliefs which benefit very wealthy people in this

country. It is controversial to place VAT on one form of hot cooked

food while other forms of hot cooked food have been subject to

VAT for many years. I think we need to take this innocence on the chin

that when there is no money left, and let's not forget that Liam

Byrne reminded us of this at the time of the general election, there

are no easy choices. I personally think the big judgments in the

Budget will stand the test of time. A tax relief for basic rate tax

payers, bring corporation tax down to the lowest level. We know the

bits you like. You on the today programme last week. I want to

concentrate on the things which are more unpopular. You signed off on

the granny tax? Yes. The caravan Tax? Yes. The pasty tax? Yes.

she did all that why is this leaflet from your party, if I can

put on the screen, issued by the Lib Dems in Cornwall, stop the

Tories taxing our pasties. clearly disagree with that because

as you quite rightly pointed out, it was a government decision. Not

popular in Cornwall. I dare say you can find Conservative candidates

who will be campaigning against the so-called pasty tax. Of course I

disagree with a leaflet which somehow suggests the Budget is not

a coalition budget. This is a coalition budget, the centrepiece

of which happens to be something very close to my heart which has a

�3.5 billion tax cut for basic rate tax payers with the biggest art

lived in the allowance ever. That is something I am very proud of. --

up left. On the charity tax, this was not used signing off, it was

your idea because you wanted a tycoon tax, where somebody paid a

minimum amount of tax including using charities. This was your idea.

It is all our ideas to make sure that you do not have these great

big holes in the tax system without any limit whatsoever. Including

charity donors? I only know one other developed economy, Australia,

where you have completely unlimited tax reliefs which are only enjoyed

by a very wealthy people. Let's remember, it is ordinary tax payers

who have to fund those. As we made clear, as the Chancellor has made

clear, the Prime Minister and myself, we will look at the details,

we will consult the charities, we do not want to inhibit philanthropy

or hurt charities, but the principle that we do not have a tax

system which has these Gordon Brown sized holes and it has got to be a

good thing. The parentage for that was you. Can I just say that I have

been very candid and clear with you that this is a coalition budget

from a coalition government. What I have never done and I am not going

to start doing now, is to start saying, but it was -- we are going

to deny and that bit we will pass Bowes. This is a coalition

government governing in the national interest and we delivered

a coalition budget which I believe will stand the test of time.

also proposed the conservatory tax as well. The idea that if you add

some improvements to your home, you have to do a lot of green things as

well. That was one of your junior Lib Dem ministers who came up with

that. I understand it is your job to finger. At people but I take

seriously the principle that in that case, the Department for local

government headed up by a Secretary of State from one party and a

minister from another, they together propose a consultation.

They did not say this would happen. They did not say there was going to

be a green conservatory tax imposed on people. They said a reasonable

question to pose is we have lots of homes and buildings which are very

poorly insulated, people are paying far too much on their energy bills,

they need to be insulated better. It was your party's idea. It may be

good or bad. Why on earth would you want to point an act is a tree

finger at the government in a local way, asking people are simple

dilemma, how do we insulate our homes better which is something we

will do under the green deal from this autumn and winter and onwards,

so people spend less rather than more money on their energy bills.

That question and that issue is a big one and it is right that we

consult on it. On internet surveillance, you signed off on

this in a committee that was attended by you but then in public

your party runs a mile from it. did not sign off on a legislative

proposal, I have not even seen it. You are making comments on the

internal digestive mechanisms of government and how we make

decisions. We decided at the National Security Committee that

there is a dilemma. There is an issue. People are making telephone

calls to each other using the means of doing so that did not do so in

the past and are not captured by current statutory powers which the

police and security services and joy. You need to an -- you need to

update that. It has not even been discussed collectively. We have to

decide exactly how to do that, how you subject back to proper

parliamentary scrutiny and how you absolutely make sure, a point I

made at the time, that we do not infringe basic civil liberties. It

is getting back balance right. It is painstaking work and it has not

been completed yet. Why are you putting up so few candidates in the

local elections? We are putting up fewer but we lost a lot of

councillors last year. We took a real thumping last year. What we

are doing, which is normal, we are focusing our resources, focusing

our candidates on those areas where we are strong and where we can

campaign well and deliver for local communities. Michael Brown, your

party's biggest ever donor is now being extradited from the Caribbean

back to this country, he gave your party to �0.4 million, he is a

convicted fraudster, you have no legal obligation to give this money

back but don't you have a moral obligation? First, I should say I

am very pleased that he is coming back to serve his sentence. He is a

convicted -- convicted fraudster or and this happened before I was even

an MP let alone lead but -- leader of the Liberal Democrats. The

electoral commission in 2009 looked at this exhaustively, and they

categorically concluded that the money was received in good faith

and all the checks that should have been made were reasonably made by

the Liberal Democrats at the time. If we had been shown wanting on

those counts then of course we should pay the money back.

whether you knew or not, you were in a fact in receipt of stolen

goods. Don't you have a mile -- Moral majority to hand that money

back? The money it was from a specific company. I think the

principle is if you are to receive as a political party, money from

someone and you did so on false pretences, knowingly, or you did

not conduct the right checks, then of course you should pay the money

back. The Electoral Commission showed that that was not the case

and the Liberal Democrats were There are stories you'll stand down

at the next election. Can you confirm you will fight the 2015

election as Lib Dem leader? You bet. And, having done that. If

Parliament results in another hung Parliament, are you up for being

Deputy Prime Minister again, in a different coalition? I will save

you now as I said for months before the last general election, I don't

think how coalitions are formed should be the plaything of

individual politicians. You should be driven by the instructions you

have a seed from the British people. This is only one possible

combination that could have led to stable government. We are dutifully

following the mandate given to us. Thank you for being with us. It's

approaching 2.30. 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 Andrew, thanks very much.

Welcome from us, here in London. Now, Ken Livingstone hit the ground

running with a fares pledge launched right at the beginning of

the year. But then, as this marathon campaign progressed, he

hit the proverbial wall, with controversy over his tax

arrangements. Into the final stretch, has he recovered? Can he

recover? The Labour candidate is here to tell us today. So, this

cannot be how you wanted or planned things to go?

I'd like it to be a focus on the issues but it has been on trivia. I

was in Croydon and a man said, I would love to vote for you but I

was told you are going to introduce a Sharia law in London.

Why didn't you see this coming? There is nothing to see coming. All

of the cadets published their tax returns. I pay three times the

average rate of tax over the past few years. You cannot criticise tax

arrangements unless yours are beyond scrutiny. You know people

are going to rake over them, it is a question of judgment. What I have

done is paid full tax on everything I have learned. In the same way, no

company pays income tax, on a total income. Ind the last three years,

have done three visits to China, none of which I have paid for, all

of which involves expense. I want Chinese jobs coming here. Why did

you want, why did you not avoid a situation where we would be happy

to ask these questions? You don't need to ask the questions now we

publish tax returns. It is right everyone should publish tax returns

in public office. If there is a lesson, is it this revealed Ken

Livingstone, usual rules don't apply? I paid the rate of tax are

legally should. Not as much as Boris Johnson but he earns more.

relation to the campaign, do you think you have damaged your party's

chances? So many people say, what is being done to you is wrong. Four

years ago, stories millions of pounds have gone missing. Boris

initiated an investigation and found nothing was true. Transport,

crime, housing, we should focus on this. The Tory mayor has a weak

record and they want to discuss anything but that. You need to win

back Labour voters who have deserted you. How have you won them

back? We will know in two weeks. All I am focused on is on the

street explaining how we cut travel fares, over 2000 police have gone

in the last two years. Look at the pledge. And the record. On the

screen now. 2004, here are the peak fares. Scented pence before. After

the election, �1. -- 70p. Can we trust you to bring down these

travel fares? I went into the election having increased these

travel fares in 2004. I froze them on the buses. I increased them

before the election. I made it clear. They would go up in line

with inflation. The only time in my political career fairs have gone up

by more than inflation was when we increased them to pay to build the

London overground. Just voted Britain's best railway. If you go

on to the Transport for London website, in real terms, bus fares

were down 9%. Tube fares parolee up by 1.25%. This there is promising

in the next four years to increase by 2% above inflation. I am

promising to cut them by 7%. That will save you up to �1,000. This is

what happened last time round for travel cards. They are going up.

Can we trust you to reduce fares again? That is in line with

inflation. At an independent study. It showed over Mike eight years,

Tube fares only went up in real terms by 1.4%. You need agreement

from the train operating companies or government. The mayor set the

increase and the train operating companies have to follow that.

government has to agree. It doesn't. While I was London mayor, I set the

travel fares. You have to increase them in line with inflation. Year

by year, except when they wanted money for the overground, that is

what I did. The travel cards have to be in line with that. So, you

think you can reduce fares by 7% and freeze them. You would use �380

million, the surplus. We only need 269 of it. You would go into

Transport for London. Their team would say that is money we want on

it to upgrades or payment of the debt. They can't spend any more on

upgrades because they already underperforming. 5-�150 million

this year. I will focus on making sure they spend on Investment.

it is allocated. They need to pay back the debt to keep this rate of

investment. They are paying it back. There is a programme. They have

started to pay back some early to reduce the surplus because it is an

embarrassment. If it is sitting on a cash surplus it should put it

back into to the pockets of Londoners. If it is telling you, it

needs it for investment? If I am lucky enough to be elected, as I

come in to sign the acceptance of office, Transport for London would

have worked out how to cut fares. Let's say they did it one year.

When you try to do it the next year, they won't have been able to use

that surplus to put into, they won't have it available. The Hang

on. I am cutting fares by 7%. In 1984, I cut it by much more. If you

look at the independent report by the ratings agency, they identified

one with �3 billion surplus. I am only taking that bit in the Fairs

account. Not touching the Investment. If you needed more

money, would you consider putting money on the congestion charge

again? What about your pledge on gas guzzlers? We are in a different

world. The most important thing is to keep money in people's pockets

to spend locally. A lot of the cars are now much more fuel efficient.

My commitment is cut travel fares, freeze council tax, no increase on

congestion charge. Have you lost your radical environmental age?

Eight years ago, we were not been the worst recession since the 30s.

Now we are. The most important thing is to keep money in people's

pockets, and if I start taking money out of that, it will prolong

the recession. Just as a George Osborne is do with tax increases.

It hasn't lifted as out, it has belonged it. You would get rid of

the new bus Boris Johnson has developed? After all that research

and development. We will keep the six or seven he has bought. We

won't buy an expensive bus. Research and development has gone

into it now. We need to see the next generation of buses as purely

electric. We have the worst air quality in Europe, 4,000 people die

every year prematurely in this city every year. These are ready for

production. I was happy when her first introduced them 10 years ago

but the world has moved on. We are are on the verge of having clean

electric buses. This should be a focus. You say you could get

Transport for London to bulk buy it energy and offer a cheaper energy

to people. But the energy companies may not sign up to it. Transport

for London buys energy at half the price of domestic costs. What will

other companies say? They will increase prices and not give you

that deal. We would be straight to court, we have an agreement. We

want Londoners who wanted to transfer so they say about �120 a

year. The energy companies are even less popular than journalists and

politicians in the poll ratings. They don't want a big row where we

end up in court because they are continuing to flee south Londoners.

What would you do about the bicycles. Has Barclays Bank paid

enough for the scholarship of these bicycles? Would you take that

contract on? We won't do anything that incurs additional cost. You

need to keep spending down, keep money in London. We don't want a

row about that. We will simply publish the details of the contract.

We have to renegotiate it at some time. The frames cost �12,000 over

the life of the contract. I would buy the scheme all over London but

at that price would cost �1 billion. If it continues, the scheme, to

take public money when it isn't available. Can you commit to

expanding that scheme. Or not? There are other schemes around the

world very much cheaper. Barcelona in particular we have looked at. We

will be saying to Barclays Bank, the people making the bikes, this

isn't a good deal for taxpayers. Let's negotiate it down. Or, we

will have a cheaper bike scheme as well. It is in your manifesto you

would use this that formed to campaign against changes to the NHS.

It is irreconcilable with you having an annual health check done

by a private provider? The london mayor needs an annual health check

because the mayor's wife is insured for -- life. �5 million we tried to

find an NHS provider but it said they do not have these two kinds of

checks. Boris Johnson has had to have this as well. I knew very well,

if I wasn't careful, someone might be questioning the state of my

health in this campaign. So, they made sure I had a health check. If

the Tory Party said, is Ken going to survive for four years...

Doesn't it blunter a message you want to give out, stopping private

providers coming into the NHS? the NHS provided those checks, we

would have gone to them. What I do say, if the Londoner has this, then

all our staff should. We went to Guy's Hospital but they said they

do not provide that sort of service. He Ken Livingstone, of course, was

first elected Mayor as an independent. People without party

have stood in every contest so far. Only one is in the race this time,

Siobhan Benita. Andrew Cryan reports.

Whitehall's corridors of power may seem like an unlikely place for an

unknown challenger to emerge from. That's exactly what has happened.

Siobhan Benita spent 15 years here. Including at the Cabinet Office and

finally the departure of help. 15 years in the civil service give

me the credentials to do this job. I have that fantastic experience of

how the machinery of government works. What am not is a party

politician. My policies are based on the evidence of what is good for

London. According to her, that means of an responsibility macro,

for London, designed to give better financial management for city pool.

And an education commissioner charged with lobbying for more

primary school places. And campaigning for a third runway at

Heathrow. With fares frozen until 2014. Or the council taxpayer rise.

Her policy platform is not exceptional, middle of the road, a

Whitehall policy platform of new structures and bureaucracies, a

Youth Assembly, a youth mayor. Responsibility macro. Various

commissions. New duties on local councils. Bureaucratic structures

and mechanisms rather than anything concrete. Also, promises to look at

things. A bicycle network would be reviewed. A housing needs survey

commissioned. A review of the police. For some this is buried.

The charge being a review is what politicians do when they don't have

a policy. Not so, according to I am the mayor who is saying I am

brave enough to say, let's have a completely independent external

review of the Metropolitan Police Service. I am saying once and for

all, I will do what lots of people have been calling for. Go on to my

policy at Heathrow. You cannot say I am taking bold policy moves. I am

the only candidate who is saying if you're going to increase airport

runway is the way to do it. Whether that is enough to win over

Londoners, that is enough to be seen but she has attracted a number

of higher profile backers, including the man known in

Whitehall as God, Sir Gus O'Donnell. He has a direct line to the top

newspaper and broadcasting bosses. He has been lobbying on her behalf

entirely free of charge. She has endured a leg-up from Urmston

looked young -- Ernst & Young. She insists they get nothing in return.

I have put all of my tax out there, I am being very open about my

funding. There is just the possibility that people like what I

am doing. An international airport which will keep London in World

position. However, the people who seem to like Siobhan in this

campaign video may be less keen than they first appear. A company

came to me, social and press, they offered to do a radio it for me and

they were friends and family of theirs and some of mine. It was

scripted and I have never said it was not. But they were not

necessarily Siobhan Benita fans, they were taking part in the video?

Yes. The real fans have been using Twitter, shortening Harrods and

winning her publicity. On the day of the Grand National, the same day

the bookies slashed miles and there was a joke about on the day of the

Grand National but there was no suggestion to put money on me. He

is tweeting on my behalf. Regardless of how well she does in

the polls, Siobhan Benita could well be seen as one of the winners

of this election. A quick word on Siobhan Benita, do

she help or hinder you if she takes the vote away? Everyone has second

preferences. On the way here, one of her supporters was handing out

leaflets and wanted a photograph so I got a commitment for second

preference. On policing, are you going to be the commission and head

up the police in? I am kicking around how we will do this. So you

will not commit to this? I will announce its sometime this week we

will make a financial decision. We are looking at the various options.

It is planned for later on this week. Restoring morale in the Met

is key. People are talking that the demoralising. We have had three

Commissioners in four years, that is a nightmare. There was all the

corruption under Murdoch and now all the race stuff. The Met should

be a wonderful place to work. I want to make it so. Labour are well

ahead of Conservatives and the polls but you seem to be lagging

behind the party, how will you feel if you prevent effectively a Labour

victory? Every day I am of -- out on the street, I cannot create the

mood with these polls. It is the best move I have seen another since

Blair's first landslide. How would it feel if you were a drag on the

party? IAA think I'm going to win, I genuinely believe that and I

think we will show what Ed Miliband's government will do to

make a fairer Britain. We will make a fairer London. We will look after

the 99 %, not just the 1% Boris campaigns for. Will you stand again

in four years' time? Can we get through one election at a time?

you lose will you stand again? am rejected I will say it is time

for someone else do come along but I eight am going to help bring down

the next politicians who will be the next generation down the road.

Thank you very much indeed. Here are all the candidates. Next we, we

will be looking at Boris Johnson's campaign and we have asked him to

take part in the programme. That is all we have time for here, time to

Coming up, next week we can expect fireworks over the House of Lords

reform proposals. Rupert Murdoch is before Leveson on Wednesday and the

Home Secretary's troubles are far from over. Prince William will be

buying his misses a little present to celebrate their first wedding

anniversary. Let's have a look at the weekend. -- the week ahead.

House of Lords reform. We have seen there is a head of steam in the

Tory backbenches at about this. Labour is saying they are in favour

but they want a referendum. Does this have the ability to fracture

the coalition? I think it does in theory. What Cameron has got going

for him at the moment is the fact that he still has not had this

incredibly long awaited reshuffle. I spoke to quite a lot of the

would-be Tory rebels last week who felt very passionate about not

voting for House of Lords reform but they are not prepared to

sacrifice their ministerial ambitions. What do you think?

Cameron is flirting with this gambit and a referendum and it is

interesting that Nick Clegg, in his interview earlier, did not

absolutely rule it out. He senses that a referendum is eminently

winnable. All parties would have to campaign for a Yes vote. The Tories

would be split? They would be split but David Cameron can make the case

for the manifesto they put before the public in 2010. He could make a

populist case to the public which is would you rather have more or

less control over the second chamber which is currently stuff by

donors, cronies and suppose it experts. Clegg knows it is winnable.

He does not want one but he did not rule it out. Labour has to decide

does it want to play politics with this which I think is very tempting

because you could cause great trouble for the coalition by

opposing this or is it so committed to an elected second chamber that

in the end, it will go along with the reform proposals? I think the

question for Labour, it is quite a gift for them, that by calling for

a referendum there is the point of principle and pragmatism. If you

agree that votes are so important in our democracy then you have to

say we have to vote on that, too, and it is inconsistent to do so or

otherwise. Practically it is a good deal for Labour. If they can upset

this idea of the boundary changes, that would be fantastic for Labour

because they will lose as well. case for a referendum is clear, you

can agree or disagree, the case is clear and it is to do with the

constitutional change issue, the question is for Labour which Sadiq

Khan would not answer, do you make that a deal breaker. Do you say, no

referendum, we will not vote on this before the Commons? I think

they should take a very bold stance on that. I disagree with Janan

Ganesh that the public would not be in favour of reforming the House of

Lords. The biggest problem with democracy is not that we don't vote

enough. If you look at the monarchy, that is hugely popular. There is a

sense of tradition which is hugely popular. Something Cameron does not

have very much of is the idea of safeguarding of protecting the

traditions and institutions and the country which his backbenchers will

pick up on. Fireworks from Rupert Murdoch this week? My understanding

is he has had enough of being humble. My sources tell me that he

thinks the British establishment is out to destroy him so he will come

out all guns blazing against the British establishment when he

appears before Ledston on Wednesday. Discuss. I hope that is so because

it will make it great fun. I want to know if Wendy will be there.

Vanguard? Absolutely, and will she be positioned nice and close

instead of any -- in case of any flying custard pies? The Leveson

Inquiry is slowly moving away from the narrow issue of hacking towards

the broader issue of the relationship between the media and

the political parties. The insights of Rupert Murdoch on specifically

the relationship between the Prime Minister and News International

could be quite incendiary and quite shocking. David Cameron himself is

Before Lord Leveson in June. If you read his tweets, he is up for a

fight, he is here already, he will not be jet lag on Wednesday.

spent the entire week on Twitter slamming everything the coalition

does. It feels like he knows where the balance of power lies. We know

that Murdoch is prepared to go against people who formerly

supported him. We know he is prepared to come out and say these

things. There will be some interesting revelations to come out.

My understanding is, he has turned completely against Cameron, you can

see that in the tweets. But Gordon Brown disowned him and he is out to

get Mr Brown as well. There are lots of skeletons he can bring out

from both cupboards. And eventually it is both Murdochs. James is

appearing as well. He was the front line in the relationship between

the politicians and the media. Theresa May. This has not gone away.

I am a poet and did not know it! The stories today is that Mr Abu

Qatada could be with us for the foreseeable future and out on bail

and suing the British tax payer. you talk to lawyers who are

involved in this kind of work, they say the absolute number one golden

rule is no when the deadline is. At the end of the day, I don't think

that voters are really bothered by the minutiae of what happens here.

What they see is a government who is apparently incapable of

supporting a terrorist. It is not a good look. If he is here for the

foreseeable future which means he will be allowed out on bail again

because he was only brought back in because he was about to be deported,

a fee starts selling us again, we are into another ten years, is the

Home Secretary's position tenable? You would think so. She is in a

privileged position. The Prime Minister rates her incredibly

highly and thinks she is a safe pair of hands. But on top of that,

she is the only woman in occupation of four great offices of state.

There is not an obvious female replacement. I think she's better

protected than many others. Can she survive because she's a woman, that

does not sound very fair? I think she will survive and you cannot

fire someone for counting the days wrong. This issue is much bigger

than Theresa May and the Conservative Party. It affects

Labour as well. With the feel a sense of legitimacy and authority

about the institutions over in Europe. If you compare what is

happening here with the United States, if the Supreme Court makes

a decision people do not like, they do not question its legitimacy.

There is not the sense of ownership over the European Court that there

should be. We we could just put him on a plane and see what happens.

We will have to leave there. Jo Coburn will be back tomorrow with

the Daily Politics. She will be talking to the leader of the House