13/05/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. This is the Sunday Politics. From the Rose Garden to a

tractor factory, the coalition is two years old but nobody's in the

mood to celebrate. The Prime Minister promises renewed focus on

the economy. But will the relaunch and the Queen's Speech that

followed it make a blind bit of difference? Communities Secretary

Eric Pickles joins us for the Sunday Interview. Is there an

alternative blueprint that would get the economy moving again: for

example, radical deregulation or government stimulus? The two big

economic ideas of the age go head to head. The pressure is back on

Jeremy Hunt, David Cameron and the Tory Party after Rebekah Brooks'

appearance at the Leveson Inquiry. But she also revealed a very cosy

relationship between New Labour and the News International gang. So,

haven't the Opposition also got a case to answer? We'll put that to

Labour MP and hacking victim Chris Bryant. All that and the best and

the brightest political panel in the business, here to discuss the

week ahead and tweeting remorselessly as if their young

lives depended on it, throughout All that between now and noon. But

first the news with Maxine Mahwhinney. A man and a young boy

have died after a boating accident on the River Avon near Warwick.

Their bodies were recovered from the water at Barford. Two other

children, who were earlier rescued from the river, are being treated

in hospital. The accident happened in early evening in what were

described as hazardous white water conditions. The father and three

children, all under 10, had set add on a small plastic rowing boat on

the River Avon. -- set out. It went over a weir and capsized. The girl

had a cardiac arrest and needed emergency treatment at the scene.

She has been taken to Birmingham Children's Hospital, where her

condition is described as serious but stable. The boy is conscious

but poorly. Emergency services searched the river and found the

body of another child - a boy and the father late on Saturday night.

Tonight I have been looking at emergency service workers who have

been bent over in tears. You do not see that very often. A very

traumatic incident to mind. We are feeling for the family tonight as

well. Police are due to brief the villagers are Barford later today

on the circumstances surrounding the deaths. They have banked

relatives for their health and support -- thanked. Two British

servicemen have been shot dead in southern Afghanistan by members of

the Afghan national police force. One was a soldier from 1st

Battalion Welsh Guards and the other an airman from the Royal Air

Force. They had been providing security near a base in the Lashkar

Gah district of Helmand province. Their next of kin have been

informed. The Greek President is holding crisis talks this morning

to try to form an emergency government. The leaders of the

three main political parties have all failed to negotiate a coalition

since the elections last Sunday. They remain deeply divided about

the strict austerity measures needed for the country to receive

international bail outs. Mark Lowen is in Athens. What can we expect

today? This is the last chance to steady the ship, to fill the power

vacuum, to form a government and stave off fresh elections, which

could hasten the departure of Greece from the euro. Those crunch

talks are under way but they are unlikely suit -- to succeed. They

are deeply divided over the international loan agreement with

the EU and the IMF. Do they stick to the cost cutting or stick to the

euro membership of Greece? Most members want to keep the euro but

ditch the bail out. Party leaders will try to reach an agreement on

which path to follow. If they cannot agree, it will be up to the

Greek people to decide in fresh elections. That's it. There is more

news here on BBC One at 6pm. Rebekah Brooks was not the only one

squirming as she gave her evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on Friday.

Senior Conservatives including David Cameron and George Osborne

could be forgiven for hiding behind the sofa as the former Sun editor

and New International chief executive revealed just how cosy

their relationship was. But, while Labour politicians have made hay,

alighting on a new e-mail about Jeremy Hunt's role, they were also

embarrassed by tales of pyjama parties, phone calls and close

friendship between their party and Mrs Brooks. And, with senior Labour

figures including Alistair Campbell coming before Leveson later this

week, it is not over yet. I'm joined by Shadow Home Office

Minister Chris Bryant, hacking victim and a prominent Labour voice

on all things Murdoch. You are calling for the resignation of

Jeremy Hunt. Should you not wait to hear what he has to say first?

Justice Leveson has made it clear that he cannot and will not

adjudicate on the ministerial code of conduct. The any person who can

do that is the Prime Minister. He should be referring this matter to

Alex Allan, the person charged with doing that. We have heard the case

for the prosecution. We should hear the case for the defence before we

get a judgment. Whether that just as well as on it is another matter.

That is not how the Leveson Inquiry is set-up. It has no powers to do

that. Surely he will quiz him on the issues and his relationship

with BSkyB and with the people in these international? If he will not

quiz him about the ministerial code of conduct because he has no

authority to do that. Lord Justice Leveson has made it absolutely

clear that he will not do that job. That is fine. That is a

technicality. You are calling for his resignation even though you

admit you have not heard the other side of the case. The News

Corporation lobbyists and when the question about references to Jeremy

Hunt were referred to, they talked about the special adviser and he

has resigned. No one has talked about the whole of what was said in

the evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. He made it clear there every time

he referred to Jeremy Hunt, he had not actually spoken to Jeremy Hunt.

He says in terms that, on occasion, he was merely transcribing been us

from another person who referred directly to Jeremy Hunt. -- e-mails.

The point that no one can run away from is the fact that every element

that was predicted the Secretary of State would say, he did say. He did

so before News International new information about what the

Secretary of State was going to say before he said it and the fork

commercial operators did. He could have got that information from a

special adviser acting without the authority of his bosses. We do not

know that. Special advisers are pretty much always joined at the

hip to their minister. You are going to say about Damien McBride,

I am sure. I put it to you again, pretty well knowing is not enough

to convict a man before you have heard his case. The point is that

the bats were out. They came from the Office of Jeremy Hunt, if not

from Jeremy Hunt himself. I am not taking any one side but I am

putting. It is a matter of natural justice that before you call for

someone's resignation, you should hear the other side. Indeed. The

place to hear it is in Parliament and not the Leveson Inquiry, which

has nothing to do with these issues. That is meant to be about what

happened at News International. The whole aim of this has been to get

to the bottom of what actually happened. My anxiety about Cameron

and all of this is what has happened so but is you have to

track the truth out of them will start a pretend there were not

meetings and then there were meetings and then there was an

extra meeting. -- out of them. They pretend. What Lord Leveson has

taught as is the incredible set of relationships between Rebekah

Brooks, other senior News International people, and your

Labour Party. Formal and informal, there were a huge number of people

involved. You would just as in bed with them as the Conservatives have

been. I personally was not. I understand why, in 1992, when we

lost the general election and the Murdoch newspapers absolutely

savaged - not tried to undermine the Tory leadership - and

absolutely savaged the Labour Party generally. I think we went far too

far. He created, in 2003, the communications that gave Mr Madoc

everything he wanted. He could buy all of BSkyB. -- Communications Act

gave Mr Murdoch. You did a tour with him beforehand. I argued

against it at the time. Did you apologise? I have apologised many

times was dug in the first debate I did in the House of Commons, I said,

we allowed one man to have such power. You worked for him and you

should know him better than anyone else. You should apologise. I have

nothing to apologise for. Should Mr Smith and Mr Michel appear in front

of Lord Leveson? I am happy for them to do so but Jeremy Hunt

should explain why he has lied to the country. We are grateful for

you saying it again but we have run out of time. It has been a little

over a week since the coalition parties were given a good kicking

by voters. Since then, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been on

a mission to regain the political initiative. Two years on, the

coalition government is in relaunch mode, trying to capture an early

sense of purpose and drive. David Cameron and Nick Clegg went to a

tractor factory in Essex. Where better to tell voters that, from

now on, they focus on the economy. The Government also unfair be

second Queen's Speech. It wondered how much impact this would have in

terms of jobs and grows. Business leaders were not impressed. One

said there was a big, black hole in terms of helping firms expand. Liam

Fox told us the main problem was employment will it -- legislation.

We can make it easier to hire and fire people off. We can make it

cheaper to hire people. We can stop protecting those in employment at

the cost of those out of work at the present time. After suffering

their first election drubbing since taking office, the Conservatives

are desperate for some brighter economic news, to make sure it is

not an experience they will have to repeat. And the Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles, joins us for the Sunday Interview. Eric

Pickles, this week David Cameron told us that restoring the economy

to growth is the first priority of the Government. Where will that

come from? That is for the Government to be able to create the

conditions for us all to work that bit harder. The nature of the world

has changed. We're up in competition, not just with European

neighbours, but also the balance is shifting towards the Far East.

understand that. We will come to the work harder line in a minute.

Let me ask a game, where will the growth come from? It can only come

from industry - people making things and selling things. -- ask

again. Government can only create conditions for growth. There is the

growing places fund which has proved quite successful. Bet is the

Regional Growth Fund, which has proved reasonably successful.

Ultimately it is about reducing taxation and giving people a chance

to earn money and sell things people want to buy. You say it can

come from businesses. It can only come from businesses. Let me show

you the figures on business investment. In November, the OBR,

the independent forecast for business investment was 7.7%. By

March of this year it was downgraded to 0.7%. Wherever the

growth is coming from the ship, it is not coming from business. That

is why we have to support and growth figures. It is not down to

the Government. We have reduced taxation on business. We have

encouraged people to invest. It is a difficult financial time. You

only need to look to the Continent to understand that. Britain cannot

be completely diverse from the rest of the world. You said it is not

coming from government. It can never come from government. We have

seen it is not coming from business investment and the figures for next

year do not look great. Where will it come from? What is massively

important is to bed down on the deficit. We probably could create a

false boom, if we followed Labour's policies of borrowing more but

ultimately we would arrive at a reckoning, sooner or later. You

only need to look across to our friends on the Continent to see the

price of that reckoning. We know where it is not coming from. It is

not coming from government, business investment, exports. What

I'm trying to get from you this morning is, where will the growth

It can only, it from business, from industry, from services, from

things that we sell. The Government can only create the conditions for

that to happen. What was the most important thing in the Queen's

Speech to boost jobs and growth? That should only be seen in the

context of the radical reforms that we introduced over the last two

years. One it good thing would be the regulation of the energy market

and the other would be the regulation of the banks. They will

not boost growth? And they will create a more stable environment.

The Government has said it will repeal necessary legislation. What

unnecessary legislation will you repeal? I have been in the process

of repealing rather a lot of unnecessary legislation. One of the

first things I did was to repeal the housing information act.

have done that, I accept that, and lots of people were happy that he

did, but what major legislation will be repealed now, going

forward? We will improve employment loss so it is easier for people to

get into a job. That is something we need today. We need to ease up

on the small restrictions on business. It is interesting that he

said, that you would repeal unnecessary legislation, because

you had a report that came up with all manner of proposals to

deregulate the labour market. Have any of these proposals been

implemented? I think some have been implemented but it is not my field

of expertise. You called on Labour deregulation as one of the

unnecessary things you would repeal. That is why we have got this bill,

to be able to do that. Personally, I have introduce some restrictions.

It will be easier on small business relief, and I think we delivered on

that. I am told that all of it has been sidelined and that our

understanding is that the only measure that remains is for

companies employing fewer than 10 people. They could get rid of

underperforming workers more easily. I am disappointed to hear that

because it was certainly our intention to exempt micro companies

from this legislation. So you're not getting your own way, are you?

It is a coalition. Could you do more if you were not in coalition?

You have to take our policies on the hall and on the whole, our

policies have been for deregulation. William Hague has said this morning

that the boss of Sainsbury's should stop complaining and work harder.

What evidence do you have that they do not work hard already? I think

we should all work harder, I should work harder, you should work harder.

I do not have the time to work harder? What evidence do you have

that these people are not already working very hard? The point

William Hague was making was very reasonable. Government cannot carry

the can cute make gross. It can make the conditions to create

growth. I made this point earlier with regard to our discussions on

how the world and competition is changing. The only way we can get

out of this is by us all working harder. With Labour we had

something for nothing culture. one could complain about Gordon

Brown not working hard. We spoke to the British Chamber of Commerce

this morning to get them to respond to the work harder man trap that

you are putting out. They said that businesses up and down the country

are busting a gut to find brand new growth opportunities. To borrow a

phrase from politicians, we are straining every MACS in youth to

ensure growth. I think we need to understand that it is immensely

important that we are not going to it, I out of our economic

circumstances and last week sell to the world. -- doing everything we

can. You are blaming businesses. This is what the director of the

British Chambers of Commerce said. There is a black hole when it comes

to helping businesses to create enterprise, and growth. All we can

do is to create the conditions for growth. We have reduced corporation

tax. Would you like to deregulate more in your department? Yes, we

have a very sensible rule of one in, one night. You mean that that there

is one rule in, and one rule out. would like to do that and get rid

of two rules. So one in, a two guide. But none of that would

include the rules from Europe? wigmaker very big difference.

of the rules affecting business come from Europe and you cannot

touch these? We need to argue about those. But we trade within the

European Union and we have to abide by those rules. Would you encourage

that strategy across government, the strategy about one rule end, at

two rules are out? Yes, I would. -- one rule in, two rules out.

David Cameron listening to you? sure that he is. A unfortunately

the public did not listen to you when it came to elected mayors.

This is what you told the Tory conference two years ago. I believe

elected mayors in cities will be embraced by the public if they have

real powers. The voters said no. They did, and we now have a mayor

in Liverpool. There will be one in Bristol, but I am bitterly

disappointed that we do not have one in Manchester and Leeds.

Birmingham, Manchester, Wakefield, Leeds and Bradford all voted

against you. Why? I think largely because the entire political

establishment in those cities were against them. We are moving into a

world where it will be more about mayors. Manchester will regret

having Liverpool next to it with a vibrant mayor running that city. It

is not about this country. A place like Liverpool is as important as a

place like Baltimore or Frankfurt and I think they will do better by

having a mayor. But ultimately it is the people that should decide

and you should never mark the people for their decision. In your

view, is the idea dead, is the attempt to get elected mayors over

for the foreseeable future? For the foreseeable future, we will not

impose an idea on a set of cities that have said they do not want to

have mayors. There are other ways we can do it, we have done a deal

with Manchester. I understand. One final question. I know that you

have changed your mind on gay marriage, you're now in favour of

gay marriage and I heard you speak eloquently about your change of

mind, but should it be included in the legislative programme for this

government? There is still a consultation, as far as I know. It

was never intended that we would legislate this year. I understand

that some of my colleagues have... That some of your colleagues have

said, let's not bother with it. you have something like several

partnerships which are for all practical purposes a marriage,

let's drop the hypocrisy and go all the way. Thank you for being with

us. We're back in recession and the cuts have barely begun to bite. The

evidence from Europe suggests that voters are looking to alternatives

to austerity. Here the Chancellor is razzle look at sticking to Plan

A, but is he right and what are the alternatives?

Adam Fleming has been rummaging through the undergrowth to find

answers. Just like the rest of the world,

they are obsessed about getting things growing here. There are two

schools of thought about how you get a gross. One says you need to

prune back things that get in the way light government spending and

regulation, the other that you need to nurture the economy with a big

watering can filled with public money. When the coalition was born,

in another garden, the Government committed itself to a course of

crooning with very little watering. -- pruning. In the Queen's Speech

this week, ministers promised another bout of the regulation.

need to free up the supply side and by that time mean that we need to

have a more competitive economy to provide goods and services in a

global market. We need to deregulate the labour market in

particular. But one man's deregulation is another's slicing

up of employment rights, a particular concern to the Liberal

Democrats. And then you meet people like the economist Jonathan Portes

who happened to write Norman Lamont's gain from his speech about

the green shoots of recovery in the 1990s. C, more gardening. He thinks

we're on the wrong path. Government should borrow money with

interest rates at record lows. We have a shortage of houses and

creaking infrastructure. We should borrow money now to invest for the

future, which would increase growth and output. It would build assets

for the country for the future. That view won over voters in France

last weekend were President elect Francois Hollande has promised more

spending and fewer hearts, to the horror of supply siders here. --

fewer cuts. There is no easy way out of this, you cannot drink your

way out of alcoholism, which is effectively the economic policy

being put forward by the Labour Party in Britain and socialists on

the Continent. These are the weighty issues of our age, and the

search for growth is much harder than gardening.

Joining us to debate how best to get the economy moving, Mark

Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and

Ann Pettifor, director of Prime Economics.

Make your case for a stimulus. fact is that we have a crater at

that has appeared in the economy of about �120 billion. This great big

hole has emerged as a result of the financial crisis and the failure of

the banking sector, nothing to do with government. The private

finance sector crashed and the Government had to take on a lot of

their liabilities. There is this great big hole and the Government

is saying it is nothing to do with us. It is the equivalent of

appeasement in the pre-war days. Thank goodness Churchill took a

different strategy. We are going to leave this crater of unemployment

and inactivity. Mr Sainsbury cannot get customers to walk through the

door. How would you make stimulus? I thought your chart on business

investment was very interesting and correct. The business sector does

not have confidence, they are afraid. What would you do? Public

investment would be brought in. We are amongst the slowest in the

world when it comes to broadband. We need public investment, but also

in housing. What would be wrong It goes to what Liam Fox was saying.

I assume she thinks the biggest problem with the last Labour

government was it did not spend enough. We have tested this policy

to distraction. Austerity and trying to balance the books, I

think it is a prerequisite for growth. Actually having a stable

environment allows you to start making some reforms to help

business in this country. Why is the economy not growing? Eric

Pickles was rather in favour of what the coalition has done to this

is business. It seems a lot of warm words. Cooler words about

instructing businesses to work harder. What has the coalition done

to make it easier to run a business? The reason the coalition

cannot do anything, they are paralysed with the fact we have to

balance the books. As if the budget of the Government is like the

budget of you or I. No, it is certainly not like mine. The

Government has already borrowed one trillion pounds. Under current

spending plans, that rises to 1.5 trillion by 2016. You want to

borrow even more? Yes. The Government is not like you. You

cannot go to the Bank of England and asked the Bank of England to

enter numbers into the computer and put it into your bank account but

the Government can. Only for a certain time. We know what has

happened with Spain, Greece and Italy. When the Government spends,

it gets tax revenues and stops paying unemployment benefit. This

is fantasists -- fantasy. Her what you want the Government to do?

won the Government to go much faster on red tape, particularly

employment law. That is irrelevant. The costs faced by the start-up of

a small company and the risks of taking on new employees are

extremely high. If you put a high price on anything it will consume

less of it. Easier to fire people, that is austerity, isn't it?

would get more people into work. Rather than being on the dole

queues, they would be working. have the lowest taxes on employment

across the cult status that the whole of the OECD. We have much

lower unemployment benefit. -- the whole of the OECD. If you look at

what Germany has done over the last 10 years, it has liberalised its

employment law is enormously. -- at Lord's. It it has allowed people to

be taken on for consultants. -- it has allowed. It has cut back on

medical insurance which allowed for people to retire early. Germany

went down a writ of liberalisation. They pay much higher taxes than we

do. -- down the route. It is more expensive to hire a German worker

and the taxes you pay on a German worker than a British worker. They

pay more benefits as well. I am sure you are offering no more than

blurred, sweat and tears. We would get people on the unemployment

rolls into work, who are presently on the doll. I'm not sure that his

blood, sweat and tears. Here is a thought of both of you. You are

wanting to act on the site of demand by increasing it. You are

acting on the supply side to make it more efficient. Why don't you do

both? We do not need to do the supply side. Productivity is very

low. We could improve that if we invested more in businesses and

more in infrastructure, like broadband. This is a one-trick pony.

There is already a fiscal stimulus. We have tried back to death. Why

not tried to solve the problem at the other end? I tried to get you

to get that and failed. -- together. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes: I will be looking at the week ahead

with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across

Hello. Later in the show, as London prepares to Perret host to the

world, what benefits to Britain and its foreign policy? -- play host.

Here, with us for the next 20 minutes, our two guests. First this

week assay a fond farewell to the local Accident and Emergency unit.

-- say a fond farewell. One had been earmarked for closure. For an

update, we are joined by our political correspondent. If the A&E

and maternity services at St Hellier are earmarked for closure,

could this pattern be repeated across other parts of the capital?

This is indicative of what is happening across the whole capital.

Health services are changing and a out changing radically. The NHS in

London has to save �5 billion bid for 2016. The NHS is keen to change

the way it delivers its care - more concentration on fewer and more

specialist sites. If you specialise and put all the doctors in one area,

you can treat patients better and get better outcomes. In south-west

London, this week a panel of 60 people recommended St Hellier

should lose its A&E and maternity services, instead becoming a

planned centre for surgery - a centre of excellence. That clinical

argument is all very well, you have the political argument, which is

difficult for the Lib Dem Health Minister, Paul Burstow. He was born

at St Hellier. On his website is a campaign about saving the hospital.

Some people made by the clinical arguments but it is difficult to

say to your constituents, I agree our local hospital and eat or

maternity unit should go. Do you think we will get a case of, not in

my backyard? I certainly do not think Paul Burstow will be the only

MP with petitions on his website. In North West London, for example,

there are plans to shut four out of nine Accident and Emergency units.

Expect a lot of local campaigns. In 2010, when Andrew Lansley became

Health Secretary, he said, I want an end to top down reorganisations

and closures of A&Es. NHS London has gone back to the drawing board

and we have bottom up closures. They are backed by clinical

evidence but, if the local gospel is going to use -- lose its A and B

or maternity, I suppose it does not matter much to you. -- A&E. Do you

support the policy that local panels of clinicians and patients

should be the ones deciding which services must close? It is the

beginning of a long process which will take months and months. It is

a good start. This panel is broad- based. Patience, lots of clinicians,

local of 30s. It is the beginning of a process that will lead on to

public consultation. -- local authorities. The Conservatives when

they came into the election said we were not be backing closures of

Accident and Emergency departments. What he actually said was there

would be a moratorium on the way of people took stock to see the best

way of dealing with this. It is clinician lead. There are good

arguments around best. We can see reconfiguration so that have

happened, which are working well and saving lives. We have to be

objective. You will not fight any attempt to close, let's say

maternity and Accident and Emergency services at Chelsea and

Westminster Questor up you would not fight it, on that basis? I do

not know. It is impossible territory. No MP would say they

would not at least put the case for their local hospital. The need to

listen of -- to what is being said by clinicians. You would support

the idea of decentralisation. Let the people on the front line decide

where resources should go. It did not include trade unionists or

representatives. I have spoken to them. They say if you close

Accident and Emergency at St Hellier, we will have to go

elsewhere. It was made up of the public, Patients, local of

authorities. In it did not include local trade unions. You cannot say

it did not include local people. was not representative. It was a

cuts exercise. Not just here, it was across London. Where David

Cameron launched his health policy, we are told that Accident and

Emergency is going. You are saying no services should be closed, even

if they are deemed not to be working. I am saying, when you go

through this exercise, we include everyone in the consultation. We

listened to the clinicians and we got the best result. Paul Burstow

is there Health Minister. I cannot see how he can remain as an Health

Minister was launching a local campaign. When you mentioned the

stroke and the major trauma consultation, some people are

saying and making strong comments about this consultation, they said

that would lead to hundreds of lives being lost the dog that has

not happened. We have to recognise that claims about the previous

reorganisations... Of the clinicians are saying, this is what

the joint director of this exercise... What they are saying,

they believe it could save hundreds of lives. One reason they give it

is you cannot get the same level of expertise at weekends and out of

hours. The reorganisation of Lord Darzi in the last government is

nothing to do with this. We will be following this story. Along with

other records due to be set in London this summer, thanks to the

Olympics, the capital is due to host the larders meeting of heads

of state in its history. -- the largest meeting. They were

competing -- they will be competing not just on the field but on

diplomacy as well. All the Olympic Games allowed the host nation - is

again nation to sell an image of themselves to the world. -- at the

host nation. China is not afraid to modernise. Beijing, 2008, gave a

clear message that China had emerged as the superpower. This

summer, can expect Britain to use the Olympics as a tour of its own

foreign policy? It is a real opportunity for Britain. If you

want to push foreign-policy and public diplomacy, you have to be

liked, respected and trusted. I think that if these heads of state

come here and see the sort of country we are - that we are fair

and tolerant - they will go back with a good impression. Should

Britain be doing more than simply buying some good whale? There are

calls for the British government to ban the Olympic a fissions --

officials linked to Syria and Bahrain. They are those accused of

human rights abuses to pro- democracy campaigners. You have had

the trial and the tension of many sporting athletes. Some are still

in jail in Bahrain. That is clearly related. These people would be

competing in these games were they not in prison. There has been

called for Britain to exercise more power over countries that do not

let females compete. In Saudi Arabia, there is segregation. Saudi

women are not competing on level par let -- playing field. I do not

think that Saudi Arabia should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Is it really for Britain to dictate? Where do you draw the

line? A lot of countries you do not approve of. We are not wild about

human rights in China. There is serious abuse in plenty of

countries of the freedoms we enjoyed in this country. If you

start banning him from a country and him from that country and her

from another country, you will just run into trouble and it will never

end. Lest we forget, the rest of the world often has complaints to

make about Britain. There has been speculation over boycotting London

2012 over the use of the logo and the use of Dow Chemical as a

sponsor. It killed -- it produced a chemical that killed thousands in

the 1980s. The United States does not wish to be represented in a

host country that is invading and subjugating another nation. During

the Cold War, Russia and America led groups of countries in boycotts

against each other's games. There is no indication yet that foreign

policy will overshadow London 2012 The IOC has said the 2012 games

should not be the forum to raise political issues but surely there

is an opportunity to do that behind-the-scenes? Behind the

scenes a lot of quiet diplomacy goes on. But once we sign up as a

country to hosting the Olympic Games, the IOC makes the decisions

about who can and cannot be there under their criteria. That does not

stop people protesting at various things. I do not know where the

Chinese are training, but some people may want to go along and

protest peacefully. But it is an opportunity when we have all the

heads of state here, and some of them will not stay very long, but

with the sports ministers, a great deal of diplomacy goes on. What

sort of level are we speaking about, is it terribly polite, or are real

political issues chewed over? President Obama comes, the Prime

Minister will use the opportunity to speak with him more seriously

than some of the other leaders. But we're beginning to forget that this

is about a big sporting occasion. The sports ministers will be there

and when I was in Sydney, due spent a lot of time with the sports

ministers. Hopefully when you're actually beating them on the field!

A lot of that goes on, but as a country, what we're trying to show

is that particularly in London, we are a diverse, tolerant community

and people will go away with a good feeling. Most of the tourists, in

reality, those who are coming to watch the Olympics are here to

watch the sport. If they have a great sporting occasion, they will

go home thinking that London is a great city. Do you think there is a

worry, maybe it is something you would like to see, that some

messages do get through? We saw footage from Syria and that is

probably one of the most potent examples? Should Syrian officials

becoming to the Olympic Games? only way we could stop the

officials coming it is if they were already on our list of banned

people. Zimbabwe is a good example. There is going to be a Zimbabwean

team, but I will be watching carefully that there is not anyone

from Zimbabwe who is not on the list. In order to stop them coming

without doing that, it has to come through the United Nations. As a

country, we cannot say that we're not letting the team from Bahrain

in, because the IOC would not allow it. Some people do not realise how

important the IOC is. It has observer status at the United

Nations and it is almost treated like a small country. Let's look at

another sporting event that is coming up, Euro 2012. The Sports

Minister is considering boycotting games that are played in the

Ukraine. Would you support that? That would be up to him, and he may

well decide to do that. When I was Sports Minister, I did not want to

meet anyone from China because I was very involved in the Tibet

Campaign. But if he decides that, it is very different from calling

for the England team not to go. There is a point where politics and

sport should not crossover. Do you agree with these sentiments, that

this is a public event? I agree with the point about constructive

engagement in sports. But you have to draw the line in the sand. I was

in favour of a boycott for South Africa because of apartheid. I did

demonstrate and the Saudi princes did come last time as well. I would

not allow them into the country because of the way which the

discriminate on women and the way the execute people. It is up to the

athletes to also take a moral position on this. In terms of

boycotting sporting events during the apartheid era, a lot of

pressure was brought to bear, because of that, so it can work.

Kate Hoey is right. Saudi Arabia, that is against the IOC's own

charter. They have a very clear point on sex discrimination and I

know that they are working hard with the Saudi Arabians to bring

Amex team. It is hard to draw the line on which human rights abuses

to deal with. There are a lot of human rights being abused in a

whole range of countries around the world and drawing the line is very

difficult. We should probably take the line that the IOC decide and

let the free press and free protest take hold. The London organising

committee could do this, they could, or on the particular situation with

the stadium, they could have been much tougher. In terms of who comes

to the country, it is part of the UN and I was see decisions.

Olympics have been commercialised. They have kudos out of this, and

they're really exploiting people. What else has been happening, here

is a flavour in 60 seconds? Is it au revoir entante cordiale.

Francois Hollande took a swipe at Britain. The British have only paid

attention to the interests of the City of London. Conspicuous by its

absence from the Queen's Speech, at any mention of High-Speed Rail Two.

Does this mean the project has been shunted into a siding? And a brand

new strain of omnishambles crossed the river. Boris Johnston announced

his brand new it line-up of advisers but failed to realise that

Stephen Greenhalgh could not take up the post of deputy for policing

while still serving as a councillor. Stephen Greenhalgh has announced he

will be standing down as a councillor. And workers whose jobs

are under threat gathered in London at a protest rally. An estimated

126 people could lose their jobs if Remploy factories are closed.

What about Remploy? Apparently you met with some of the employees

earlier this week? Will they get a last-minute reprieve? There are

very distressed about their future. They hope so. Popular support has

been enormous, 100,000 people have signed the petitions. I hope the

Government will think again. this cost-effective when all of the

factories lost money last year? was on the first committee it for

discrimination against disabled people. I am an integrationist. I

want them to be in mainstream work, but it always is a role for support

in employment, and that is what Remploy does. They have not been

successful in the commercial world because they will always require

some subsidy. But also because they have been badly managed and the

workers have not been listened to. It could work if the Government

gives it a chance. Was it helpful when Iain Duncan Smith said that

disabled workers at Remploy factories are not doing any work,

they are sitting around making cups of tea? The Secretary of State has

said that he was misrepresented. I am sure that is right. He has said

he was misrepresented and he is committed to the employment of

disabled people. Any money saved in this would be reinvested helping

disabled people into work. We are at a crossroads on the few about

how disabled people are employed. This review was conducted by one of

the leading lights in the disability movement in the last 20

years. All the major disability movement say that the way forward

is to employ disabled people. He said that more than anything he

wanted to be supported to work in the mainstream. Even if you are

pursuing that policy, these organisations have all said that

you would not do it now with high levels of unemployment. Thank you

to Jane Ellison and John McDonnell. Back to Andrew with the week ahead.

So, with more juicy Leveson revelations coming, the Police

Federation welcoming, in the hostile sense of the word, Home

Secretary Theresa May to their conference, and the prospect of a

feisty Prime Minister's Questions, there's much to discuss in the Week

A bad week for the Tories, and maybe a bad week for Labour with Mr

Campbell appearing. We may get to learn about the relationships

between News International and the Labour government. Both sides are

embroiled in his game. The only people who are sitting pretty are

the Liberal Democrats. Presumably they could not be bothered with

that. They could not have got the access if they wanted it. Labour

have had many more years to get embroiled with its -- with senior

News International executives and the murdereds. The Tories had only

been in for a year when this started. The difference for them is

that it is history, whereas Mr Cameron is a living, breathing

Prime Minister. Tony Blair did not use electronic mail, he did not use

a mobile phone, there are no trails. It is a more immediate issue for

the Government and Labour. But I get the sense that the Government

is more relaxed about the Leveson enquiry than it was a week ago,

partly because Rebekah Brooks did not reveal anything devastating.

The spotlight is shifting to Labour with the likes of Jack Straw and

Alastair Campbell going before Leveson. The event of the week was

at weed from the editor of the Telegraph, who said that Leveson

was the 149th most visited story on his website. Not many people are

interested. Here is the big issue of the day. What is a pyjama party?

Have you been to one? I am not sure. I was going to propose that we have

won this evening. I hope it would involve a midnight feast.

understanding is that the best parties are ones which you do not

wear pyjamas. This is Sunday, daytime. We will move along. I was

listening to his speech yesterday that Ed Miliband was giving and he

said, all of us were too close to the media. I think this will be an

issue for all of us, and that is key. You say it is history, but

when Ed Miliband says that we need to challenge Margaret, their people

in the shadow cabinet now who were saying, what are you doing? There

was that famous memo. I disagree that this is going to go away. We

will open a Pandora's box. When Jeremy Hunt comes to the inquiry,

we may have a Ministerial report on that. There may be a police report.

Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson will be going to court and that

could bring about more revelations. The police, the Home Secretary will

get the usual reaction from the Police Federation. I do not know

why they bother going to the conference. As the Government has a

serious police problem? I do not think they do. If the Police

Federation are to be believed, it was a sizable protest and that is

never comfortable experience. But in terms of public support, the

public are looking at what the police are complaining about and

they are seeing people retiring at the age of 50 on massive pensions.

I have been surprised Papa's two years that the media has not

focused more on the Government's policing policies. -- for beat last

two years. The test now is, not the policy, I have never doubted that

radicalism when it comes to intent and policy in any area. It is the

tenacity and determination. If they see it through? Absolutely. When

you are trying to do big fish and reform alongside massive cuts, it

can be very dangerous and very explosive - particularly if you do

not take the professional institutions with youth - as was

the problem with the NHS. And we have Prime Minister's Questions on

Wednesday. We have one this Wednesday, one the following

Wednesday and not another one Aberu Kebede for a while. They have got

yet more holidays coming out. -- coming up for a while. I do not

think the Sunday Times you guv poll asked that question. They have both

got negative ratings. -- YouGov. The rating of Mr Miliband is less

than a -- negative than that of David Cameron. In if you dig into

underlying numbers, as to whether they regard him as good in a crisis

or whether they would prefer him has Prime Minister, his ratings are

lower than they have ever been. There is still a lot of confidence

in Number 10. In 2014/2015, when the public shifts its personal

choice of Ed Miliband or David Cameron as Prime Minister, they

will choose David Cameron. We were having a very different

conversation a few months ago about Ed Miliband. He has not changed

much but he has earned the right to be heard now. Was tea is rising,

David Cameron, the infallible leader, does not seem to have as

much kudos. -- whilst he is rising. Is this a mid-term blip? I suspect

it is more of a mid-term blip. The Government can do something about

it, which would take the form of a reshuffle in the next few weeks.

need to go and pack our pyjamas! I'll be back tomorrow on BBC Two at