20/05/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good afternoon and welcome to the Sunday Politics. Our top story: the

G8 summit ends with a planned agreement to promote jobs and

growth and keep Greece in the Eurozone, but was anything decided

that will make the slightest difference to the euro crisis? We

will have the latest live from Chicago.

Over �1,200 a year and rising, so what will the Government do about

household fuel bills? Energy Secretary Ed Davey joins us for the

Sunday interview. The Police Federation accuses

Theresa May of being on the precipice of destroying the police

service. The organisation's chief, Paul McKeever, is here to explain

why as he goes head-to-head with the police minister Nick Herbert.

And our sharp and zesty political panel are here as always, analysing

British politics in the week ahead and tweeting feverishly through out

the show. In London this week, a charity for

the disabled cries foul after a London council removes its code

spanks and starts its own recycling scheme for profit. -- it removes

its clothes banks. All that to come between now and 1

o'clock, but first the news. Good afternoon. President Obama

says world leaders made genuine progress at the G8 summit near

Washington, despite there being no agreement on a plan to tackle the

Eurozone crisis. He said all the leaders acknowledged that growth

and job creation must be the top priority, but the German Chancellor

Angela Merkel insisted that Eurozone countries must stick with

austerity measures to cut their deficits.

After the summit, President Obama had this to say about the talks.

agreed that we must take steps to boost confidence and promote growth

and demand while getting our fiscal houses in order. We agreed on the

importance of a strong and cohesive Eurozone and affirmed our interest

in Greece staying in the Eurozone while respecting its commitments.

We also recognise the painful sacrifices the Greek people are

making at this difficult time, and I know my European colleagues will

carry forward these discussions as they prepare for meetings next week.

A man the of the G8 leaders have now travelled to Chicago for a NATO

summit which is expected to be dominated by the withdrawal from

Afghanistan. It comes as a senior government

official revealed a small number of British soldiers could remain after

the combat forces withdraw in 2014. Gathering in Chicago, NATO is keen

to show that its members still stand tall and United on

Afghanistan, and that NATO are still a formidable alliance, even

once those towering defence budgets are cut. For President Obama, David

Cameron and the other leaders here, getting combat troops out of

Afghanistan goes down well with the majority of voters, long since

weary of the war. It is how to do that with credibility that is at

issue, without looking as if NATO is running for the exit. Many

nations have had enough of their soldiers fighting and dying on

Afghan soil. French combat troops may leave by the end of this year,

unless the new French leader is persuaded to change his mind.

Either way, NATO insists that it is all part of the plan to hand over

security to Afghan forces by the end of 2014. During that process,

you will see the withdrawal of troops and a gradual change of the

roar of our troops from combat to support. It is not in contradiction

with our strategy. What is decided here is as much about appearance as

reality. By the end of this summit, NATO leaders hope to send out a

clear message of support for Afghanistan, post 2014, financial

and political, not least so that the manner of NATO's leaving does

not reflect badly on the alliance. An earthquake in northern Italy has

killed at least six people and caused thousands of others to flee

into the streets. The earthquake, which struck in the middle of the

night north of Bologna, had a magnitude of six. Rescue teams are

now combing the area amid reports that more people may be buried

under rubble. Thousands of Chelsea fans are

expected to line the streets in west London today as the team

parades the Champions League trophy. They triumphed over Bayern Munich

in a dramatic final last night in Germany, when Didier Drogba scored

the winning goal in a penalty shoot-out.

That is it for the moment. More news here at 6 o'clock on BBC One.

As we heard, the G8 summit ended in Camp David yesterday with a

statement that combined boilerplate -- boilerplate with banalities.

Nothing to resolve the euro crisis, the proposed action of any sort.

Today the Prime Minister is at a NATO meeting in Chicago, from where

our chief political correspondent joins us. Did I miss something? Was

there something of substance decided at the summit? The blunt

answer is no. Anyone looking at the summit must have a profound sense

of deja-vu, because how many times have we been at these summits and

emerged with a bit of paper with bold statements of intent and

declarations of determination to defend the euro, but at the end of

the day, these are just words and not even new words. There is talk

of emphasising jobs and growth. Who would not be in favour of that?

When you look at the detail of the communique, it contains a line

suggesting that different countries may have to adopt different

measures. That seems to be a green light for Europe to continue in a

disorderly fashion. What happened at this summit was that President

Obama and David Cameron and a few others hoped to use it to crank up

the pressure on the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to give

the okayed the German taxpayers to spend more popping up struggling

southern European countries. But Angela Merkel came, saw and left

and conceded pretty much nothing. For the European leaders, the

caravan moves on to Brussels this Wednesday and yet another summit.

Is there any sense among European leaders that they will do anything

more productive in Brussels? Actually, the indications are that

we are veering dangerously close towards drift land. Sources say

this informal summit next week in Europe will not be expected to be

the occasion of any major resolutions to the Eurozone crisis.

Then you are looking to June the tenth, when Mario Monti has called

another gathering, this time with Francois Hollande and Chancellor

Merkel to have another think. Then you go on to the Greek elections on

June 17th, and then you are getting close to your holiday land. The

danger is that although everyone says they do not want to kick the

can down the road, that is what is going on. Enjoy the Windy City.

At least I can see the sun over there.

Now, this week, Energy Secretary Ed Davey warned that British

households face blackouts in a decade unless the country builds

more generating capacity. He wants public backing for plans to spend

more on new nuclear plants and renewable energy. Why?

Well, the UK is facing a looming energy gap, with some experts

predicting a 20% short fall in production by 2015. This is because

a quarter of our current coal and nuclear power stations will have to

close in the next decade because they are too old or too polluting.

Next week, the Government launches its new energy bill, aiming to

reform the wreckage to market. The energy bill will offer financial

incentives, hoping to convince energy companies to invest in low-

carbon technologies like nuclear and renewables. All this comes

against a backdrop of ever-rising energy bills for consumers, with

almost 4 million households expected to be in fuel poverty.

That is where energy bills are more than 10% of income this year alone.

With research showing that the average annual household fuel bill

is now at �1,252, how can the Government feel the energy gap

while keeping our energy bills affordable? The Energy and Climate

Change Secretary Ed Davey joins me now for the Sunday interview.

The average cost of household energy bills has risen five times

faster than average household income in the past eight years. Why

do you persist with policies that drive up the price of energy even

more? The real thing driving energy bills for households is the cost of

global gas and oil. We need to make sure our economy is better

insulated. We are having to import more and more gas as the North Sea

oil and gas supplies run-down. That will leave our economy more exposed.

Oxford Economics published an analysis last week which showed

that if we don't take action on climate change, the impact of

fossil fuel price hikes like we have seen when the Arab Spring

happened or previously will be very damaging to the economy. Climate

change policies can reduce that damage by 50%. They can insulate

the economy from global gas prices. The average annual fuel bill is now

�1,252, incredibly. It is over 6% of the average take-home pay of the

average earner. I understand that world prices are pushing up demand,

but you are forcing electricity companies to buy onshore wind at

twice the rate of alternatives and offshore at three times the rate.

Why do that when there is enough upward pressure without you're

adding to it? The impact of bills on policies to tackle fuel poverty

and renewable technology is quite small compared to the impact of

global gas prices. Ofgem says it is �100 per average bill. We are doing

a lot to help consumers. The Deputy Prime Minister announced a package

that I negotiated with the Big Six. That will help people move on to

better tariffs for their suppliers. The energy providers have agreed

that every year, they will tell their customers what the best

tariff for them is. Since I have been energy secretary, we have put

behind collective switching. This is the idea of bringing consumers

together so that they can get better deals on the market. Last

week, Which? did their auction, which managed to bring together

over 150,000 consumers, and they got a better deal on the market and

saved an average of �120. Look at this graph. It shows the energy

costs. There is the gas price. Much more for onshore wind, much more

for offshore wind. That does not include the full cost of keeping

back up stations to run fossil fuel when the wind doesn't blow. And

sometimes it doesn't. Why are you forcing people to buy more

expensive electricity? Why do that when there is enough in the market

forcing the price up without government interference? Firstly,

those figures are wrong. The price of one - -- onshore wind is much

lower. What is it? The difference between gas and onshore wind has

halved in the last five years. what are the right figures? Many

expect onshore wind to be competitive. These are from your

department. They are from Civitas. Civitas published them, but they

are from your department. I can show you the latest figures. They

show that onshore wind and offshore wind, the price of those is coming

down fast. We have a taskforce that is working with all the offshore

wind generators. Big companies like Siemens and so on. We hoped to

reduce the cost of offshore wind by 30% over the next few years.

Investors in indigenous energy supply. You don't have to pay for

the wind, long term. And it is clean. This is a good investment.

Our subsidies are driving down the cost. They are driving the price up,

and it is passed on to us. You are wrong. That was a static graph.

Over time, the prices of renewables, both onshore and offshore and solar,

are coming down fast. It is a success. You are not just forcing

us to buy more in a tree -- more expensive electricity, but the new

carbon floor price comes in next year, twice the size of the

European press. That will be passed on in energy bills as well. Indeed

it will, because we want to make sure we move to low-carbon

electricity generation. That is important both in terms of energy

security and also because we are becoming more exposed to gas

imports. We also have to clean our electricity generation. This floor

price adds �3 billion to the cost of electricity generation. We will

pay for that. You have to look at the forces of competition which

will be generated because of the carbon price floor. We want to see

more investment in low-carbon technologies. That includes

renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. If we can

incentivise more investment in these new technologies, these low-

carbon Technologies, which will be essential in the decades ahead not

just in the UK but globally, then we cannot just meet our climate

change objectives and our energy security objectives, which are

critical for every family in the UK, but we can do it in the most cost-

effective way. We can use the power You were against nuclear power in

your manifesto, then, you got into the coalition, and you said, we

might build up sub-stations, and you are introducing a guaranteed

full price, which is a subsidy. are right to say that the Liberal

Democrats did not support new nuclear in our last manifesto,

mainly because we have got worries about the cost of it. But now you

are subsidising get it. We are not. We did not win the election. The

Conservative policy was not too dissimilar. They have real problems

and concerns about the cost of new nuclear, because the history has

been very expensive. The Conservative manifesto... We do not

have enough time. The Tbilisi -- The Conservative manifesto is clear

that there should be no public subsidy for nuclear. That is the

coalition agreement, that is our departmental policy, and I am

determined that there will be no public subsidy. But your policy,

you can call it a subsidy or not, that will add to people's energy

bills. The policy is clear, there is going to be no public subsidy

for nuclear. We are determined to make sure we negotiate hard. The

history of nuclear, it has been very expensive, it has added costs

to consumers, and because I am worried about consumer bills, I am

not going to allow the negotiations on a clear to add to their belts.

Who will build the first new generation of nuclear plants and

where? We have to see. We are negotiating. We have opened

negotiations with EDF, they have the project in Somerset. If we can

get a deal that involves no public subsidy, we could see that project

proceedings. When will the power come on stream? Because there are

huge costs, they take a long time to build. EDF say, if we can reach

agreement, based on a public subsidy, they would be thinking

about it happening by the end of the decade. This is the same

company that is building a new station in northern France, it said

it would cost 3 billion, but it will cost 6 billion. It has been

delayed for four years. Similarly, in Finland. That is why we protect

the taxpayers and consumers interests. This is the first

consultation which says they should be no public subsidy. We are going

to be tough an hour negotiation. -- on our negotiation. There is a

source of Safe Energy beckoning it, it is called shale gas. There are

five trillion cubic feet under Morecambe Bay. You could treat it

that like North Sea oil in the 70s. It is an opportunity, but I did not

agree we should go hell-for-leather forehead. -- for it. You have got

to make sure that there are stronger regulatory frameworks in

place, up otherwise there could be environmental damage. People who

have seen the drilling in the north-west are boarded by seismic

effects, that is why we commissioned scientists... They are

no bigger than the earthquakes we have had in Yorkshire for scores of

years. That is why we published the report, so people could see what

they were saying. We had a meeting recently in Downing Street, we got

some of the biggest energy companies in, who are looking at it

in North America and elsewhere, people like Shell, Centrica, and

they said you should take your time in exporting -- exploiting these

resources, and they also said the reserves in the UK are not huge.

The game changed in reserves are in the Ukraine and in China. I think

that could potentially have big changes in the gas market globally.

The latest estimate says that there is 1000 trillion cubic feet of gas

under the seat -- under the sea on Britain's shawls. Is it because you

hate the idea of a new fossil fuel? Not at all. We are going to try to

see whether we can exploit this resource. It is sensible that we

try to see if we can exploited, that is why we want to exploit wind,

tidal, Marine Energy, the renewable resource of Sola. All of these are

on this island, we are an energy Island, it is a fantastic

opportunity, but when we exploit the resources, we should be

cautious. We need to maintain energy security, to meet our

climate change obligations. Last week, the head of the Police

Federation accused the Home Secretary of being on the precipice

of destroying the police service. Governments like to boast about

getting more police on our streets. This is not what they mean it.

30,000 off-duty officers marching against this government's plans for

reform. At last week's Conference, claiming their relationship the

service has with his ultimate boss is broken. We no longer trust you

in the police service. End of story. The government's of gimmick is that

the police are the last, long and reformed public service. -- on

reformed. Some of its roles can be done cheaper by civilians. Let's

stop pretending the police are being picked on. Every part of the

public sector is having to take its share of the pain. The police say

they are unique job, the sacrifice of a right to strike and being

effectively on Calle 24/7 to put themselves in arms wait means they

should be treated differently. There is a feeling that these

people do not respect them, that there is a lack of understanding of

their job, and that has created a real problem for this government

that previous governments did not face. Last year saw two reports

into pay and conditions that have been viewed with suspicion. The

author insists the work was independent, fair, unpolitical and

much misunderstood. That is disappointing, because for the

hard-working officers doing the most difficult, demanding jobs,

working shifts, in the cold and wet, facing dangerous and angry men, in

many cases, those police officers, if my recommendations are

implemented, get a pay rise. But tens of thousands of officers have

got convinced that this is all bad, it is all part of a pay cut for

political ideological reasons, and that could not be further from the

truth. Most serving officers I spoke to privately except some

reform is inevitable and necessary. But the privatisation of certain

roles has left them deeply uneasy, and on pay and conditions, they

resent facing a future where they may make the calculation that the

job gets more out of them than they do out of the job. That message is

coming to Westminster's front line. I have had a number of police

officers come to my surgeries, they are in agreement with a number of

reforms, but they feel it is happening too fast, too far.

Uncertainty and anxiety is not good. Why the Prime Minister is so keen

to reform the police may lie in the past. In 1993, Michael Howard

backed away from similar reforms, Let me come to you first. We all

about to go through some fundamental changes that will alter

policing together, that is what you said. We are the first organisation

to call for a commission, many years ago. But it has to be

holistic reform. They were the only organisation in the public sector

that said we accepted we should take our fair share of the cuts. We

listened to the Inspector of Constabulary, who said you could

cut the police service but up to 12%, and then you are down to the

bone. We accepted that. Piecemeal, you are cutting on to the bone.

That is not true. The savings have been identified by the independent

inspector, and on top of that, things like the two-year wage

freeze wealth -- will save a further sums of money. That applies

across the public sector. People are living longer, changes have to

be made it to deal with the deficit, but somehow, the police should pay

no part in that? That is not true. The police has consistently opposed

reform, whenever it has been proposed. You are opposed the

introduction of community support officers. This is going way beyond

that. If you look at what is happening, we have got a four-year

pay freeze in the public sector, we accept that, and the reforms to

pensions, which we cannot negotiate on. But we have this review which

has been adopted by the government, which has 121 recommendations,

which would fundamentally change policing. It opens the door to

horsetail privatisation, you'd use accountability and resilience. --

wholesale privatisation, you would lose accountability and resilience.

In Devon and Cornwall, 700 officers have gone already, it is put in the

community at risk. The review says nothing about privatisation. It

says that they should be a basic standard of fitness in the police,

which I am astonished at the Police Federation should oppose. We are

negotiating. We discovered that there were 25,000 police officers

who were not on the front line at all. One in five. What the report

says is that it is important that we have a system of remuneration

that makes sure you prioritise the front line, that pays people for

the job they of the wind, and if they are not fit enough... It is

opening the door to privatisation. Even the core of British policing

has been fundamentally changed, people trust the office of

constable, and they understand it, they understand the Independent

role they play, and you are changing that. You are making

outlandish claims, you will not make any progress at will. -- all.

There is no change to the Palace police officers have to make

arrests. The use of the private sector in policing was introduced

by the prop -- by the last government. This is going way

beyond that. These claims will not stand up to evidence. Tell me why

in the tender document that it talks about patrol. Why is it

mentioned? You say you do not want that, and it is mentioned. There is

no intention of doing that. They would not have the power was,

because we will not do them. It is a red herring. You talk about

faring -- fairness, and some officers will lose 25 to the 2% of

their spending power. Why are we being treated differently? Why are

we having pay reviews on top of everything? It is important to

realise these reforms do not change the overall picture. They say we

should have a system which recognises those officers to win

the most important jobs, instead of the system at the moment, weighed

you increase your pate every year, regardless of the skills you have.

Even after these reforms are implemented, the police will still

have one of the best deals on pay and pensions in the public sector.

You have to look at the job we do. Is that true? Yes, we are

reasonably well paid for what we do. We say so. We were open to reform.

But we are astonished that government has given police in such

a low priority. We are getting the knock-on effect from other areas of

the public sector being hit, like the social services, education, we

are having to pick up the pieces from that. There is extra work to

be done, and public safety is being put at risk. You have given us a

low priority, it is unfair. Police officers will tend to earn 15% more

than other emergency services. They will have the best public sector

pensions available. They will continue to be able to earn

overtime. �2,500 a year on average. You are cutting the numbers. The

police picked at 143,000 under the last government, unit are already

back to 186,000, with people to Of course we have to make savings.

All the political parties admit that we would have to make savings.

But with a situation where we have 6000 officers on restricted duties,

that number has doubled in the last eight years. We have 24 off --

25,000 officers who are not on the frontline. The government knows it

has been caught out giving the police a very low priority, with a

20% cut. Overseas Development has been increased by 34%. There is not

a force in the country that will have a 20% cut to its budget.

will be even higher with inflation. The Sunday Times was talking about

a scheme taking over from ASBOs. will replace ASBOs with a better

system which will enable injunctions to be obtained earlier

to deal with crime and deal with reoffending more effectively.

Things like that are being lost because of what is going on

elsewhere. They are still going. You are watching The Sunday

Politics. In 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with our

political panel. Until then, the Hello and welcome from us. Coming

up, while a charity for the Disabled is crying foul after a

London council decided to remove its recycling banks from public

land and run its own second-hand clothes business instead for profit.

John and me this week are Lynne Featherstone, Home Office minister

and Lib Dem MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, and the Labour MP for

Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn. First, rioting spread rapidly

across -- rapidly across the city last summer, but compensating those

who suffered has not been such a quick process. Some 136 cases are

still outstanding nearly nine months on, and the Labour MP for

Tottenham said this week that this was unacceptable. These people are

victims and not simply clients. A process claim form means sleepless

nights and the brutal reality of losing your business or shutting up

shops. Lynne Featherstone, this is your bag. You have responsibility

for this now. It seems grindingly slow, and still not sorted. Why?

is very sad and serious that there are people who still have not had

their compensation. But the Home Office has been moving mountains to

do as well as we have done. In London, those are not quite the

right figures, because in London, there were 707 claims outstanding

of which 571 have been settled with insurance companies. There are only

three original claims in London that have not been settled. The 136,

which includes those three, come from the individuals who were

originally refused by the insurers and then had to make a claim later.

So there are 133 new claims in that figure. OK, so around 500 insures

companies are asking for the money. And people have had to go through

being denied insurance money. Isn't that a long time, nine months?

These companies need to get back on their feet. He and they are being

practically chased. But around half of them ask for Documentation or

papers, and ask again and again, and they don't arrived. You need a

paper trail where possible. Sometimes documents have been lost

or burnt or are not available, and the insurance adjusters make

adjustment for that. But we are now going to close down the central

operation and get right down into the local areas to chase it

proactively, the few last ones. in half these cases, the claimants

are not providing documents. What about the point being raised by

some that your entitlement could be affected if you have received

donations or any other sources? David Lammy raised to bat in the

house. Can you clarify that? gather there was one example of

that which was stopped immediately. That is not acceptable. Say you can

receive money as a donation and it does not affect your claim?

that would be outrageous if it affected you claim just because

some philanthropist had given you something. You are up against

hardship. If you have to wait for a claim, there is a gap underpinning

it. Jeremy Corbyn, have you had any cases yourself? For fortunately, my

constituency was largely spared. Damage was done to a couple of

properties and I believe it has been settled. The issue David

raises is a very serious one. Tottenham was seriously damaged and

it is not just the compensation, it is the depressive effect on the

local economy of unusable businesses, which then depresses

the whole area and cuts down the number of people training and

shopping there. It needs to be sorted out quickly. What comes into

force after this happened is an act which is 125 years old. There has

been some indication that the Government might use that. Can you

clarify on that? We are looking at whether the Act needs changing. In

my view, it certainly does. It does not cover things we think might

need to be covered. For instance vehicles? Vehicles that are damage

on the property are covered. Vehicles damaged because they are

parked out on the road are not covered. It is an old act and we

need to take another look at it. Feet we need to look at the causes

of the riots and the aftermath of I think the way in which young

people who were very peripherally involved received strong sentences

is a very bad message. Those who committed acts of arson and so on

Keighley deserve to face justice. We need to look at that. That is

another issue, but I wonder whether provisions of an act which, for

instance, don't take into account a car that is not outside your

property that is 100 years old... There were no cars around 100 years

ago. So you can't blame the parliament of 1890 or whenever it

was. No, but clearly, the speed with which some communities have

not been able to get back on their feet because of delays... But the

issue is, whose responsibility is it? Is it the insurance, if you

have insurance? Or is it a riot, therefore the riot Act applies,

therefore the state must compensate? In this case, the riot

Act applies and compensation is being paid. David Lammy raised the

issue of why the shares industry did not deal with all of the claims,

because they are professionals at it, rather than just the riot act?

But then we would have had to change primary legislation to do

that, and we wanted to be quick, so we took the fastest option, which

was for those who were insured to go through insurance agencies who

do this every day. And we would recompense the Insurance Agency.

But there is a disturbing number of people who are uninsured in any

respect. You can't take away the need for insurance, though. If it

has done anything, the events of last summer, it will persuade

people to look carefully at their insurance situation.

The determination of a London council to find new sources of

income has placed it on a collision course with one of the country's

leading charities. Bromley wants to ban Scope's recycled clothes banks

and move into the business of selling on its residents' unwanted

clothes itself for profit. A charity shop and a row of

recycling bins in south London, an unlikely political battleground.

Most of the facilities here are the council's, but this one is

different. A clothing bank owned by the charity Scope, one of 34 in the

borough, where people can donate old clothes to help people with

cerebral palsy. This is one of the last collections that will ever be

allowed to be made from this site. Next month, Bromley Council will

evict the charity and takeover not just the spot, but all the others

in the borough. Hopes will now be sold at a profit, with the money

ending up in the town hall. Scope claimed this decision will lose

them �360,000 a year in Bromley alone, much more than the local

authority are set to gain. clothes come out of the banks, come

to our shops, and we sought to them, steam clean them and then sell them.

Whereas if they take them directly to the rag trade, they will just

get right for them, and that is not what people put them in the club

spent four. Local opposition is being mobilised. Customers in

Scope's Bromley shops are being asked to put their names on a

petition. This store alone has nearly 400 signatures. It is

terrible. There will not be anything around for people to take

their clothes too. The charity claimed the economic situation

means fewer people are donating clothes straight to the shops. A

combination of the two means that some shops may have to close. And

more importantly, services which disabled people rely on to get by

may have to close as well. That means help provided to people like

Lola and her mother Jo. Scope provided the family with help above

and beyond what the state was able to do. We got a diagnosis when

Leila was two of cerebral palsy. We were bowled over. The information

we were given at the time was almost zero. They don't seem to

know how to speak to parents yet. I phoned Scope and spoke to somebody

who was immediately very helpful. Providing services for vulnerable

people is not just the preserve of charities, it is also the job of

local councils, and having had their budgets slashed by the

Government, money has to be found elsewhere, which is why the idea of

using clothing banks to protect services is becoming popular. In

Hertfordshire, local authorities have taken control of their

clothing banks. And here in London, nine boroughs are exploring ways of

changing how we do it here which could mean they follow suit. The

Mall, Bromley are alone in the The fall-out from the financial

crisis has put a lot of pressure on high streets. It may be that

London's charity shops are about to find themselves even more squeezed.

Joining us are Warren Alexander, chief executive of the charity

Retail Association, and Simon Parker, director of the new Local

Government Network. Warren, councils need the money. They can

do it door-to-door. What is wrong with what Bromley are doing?

Keighley, councils are under pressure and they need to generate

more money. But the damage they are doing to charities by taking away

the significant and important source of income is doing a lot of

harm and depriving charities of money that they would spend on

local services. Simon? No one wants to see Charities losing out. We

have seen some of the critical work organisations like Scope do. But

there is also critical work that local authorities do around social

care, elderly care and looking after kids. These services are

under pressure and councils in London are taking budget cuts of up

to 15% last year and something similar this year. The cry is to do

more with less and be innovative and find ways to fund these

services. That is what they are trying to do. Are we right that

other councils are thinking of doing something similar, and a few

years down the line, a lot might be doing it? It seems likely that

councils will consider this because they have to look at every source

of revenue they have got to support the bedrock services they provide.

So other councils are considering it as a potential source of revenue.

I would be surprised if a lot of the authorities were not thinking

of going down this route. There's nothing to stop charities doing

door-to-door collections. They already do door-to-door collections.

It is interesting that you featured at Bromley, because it looks as if

they will get something like between �75,000 and �130,000 a year

from selling off these sites. That represents a 0.02 % of their budget,

a tiny amount. And the money Scope will lose from this, about �360,000,

from just that area in Bromley, is enough to support 720 families with

disabled kids through their face- to-face support programme. That is

how the cuts will affect charities like Scope, delivering essential

services. Are you seriously saying it might affect those services.

Won't they have to adapt like everyone and find new ways of doing

this or encouraging people to drop those clothes round to shops?

Charity shops are significant and important part of the income

generated by charities to support services. Stock is the biggest

problem they are facing at the moment, getting enough, at a time

when charity shops are seeing a huge increase in their customers,

to some extent because of the recession. They are finding it

difficult to generate enough stock. Seeing this kind of attack on an

important source of stock is They sound cack-handed. You have

got a system where people can leave their clothes for them to sell on,

what is wrong with leaving that continuing? There is a problem

about wasting clothes that are dropped in normal waste disposal

stuff that could be recycled and re-used, and the public need to be

educated, but I cannot see why probably have such heavy measures

against a charity which are counter-productive in a financial

sense. This is Liberal Democrat austerity in action, setting local

authorities against charities in local communities. This is mean

beyond me. The figure is tiny. Councils have got to find money and

be innovative, but this is called. It is ridiculous. A lot of them

will do it. Seriously, if they think that is the answer to

reorganising their council structures, to delivering their

services, if that is where they have to go, which ever Council,

they should be voted out. It is ridiculous. No council thinks this

is the entire solution, but if you look at the figures across London,

3.2 million quid, 100 social workers. I am surprised at the

level of money, it sounds like it is not an especially good deal.

Bromley are selling decides to charities to collect clothes? Is

that what they are proposing to do? They will go door-to-door with

collection. They are not allowed to have their clothes banks. These are

banks that the public seats as places for charity. Bromley are

taking them away. You think local authorities will have to look for

these kind of measures in future? We are looking at a 20% further cut

in the next Spending Review, they will have to find money from

somewhere. That is the choice you are forcing on people. I come from

Haringey, the idea that they could not find more money by the

organisation is not right. Councils have to beat very innovative, they

have to find savings wherever they can, this is a saving too far, and

it is unnecessary. Hackney has decided not to go ahead with

throwing charities out. What else has been happening here?

The BBC survey on the effects of the housing benefit changes has

revealed that 65% of the 26 London boroughs that responded said they

had actively tried to relocate people outside the borough in

2011/12. Hammersmith and Fulham council have said that couples with

a joint income of more than �40,000 will no longer be entitled to a

council house. Testing began for a cable-car lift across the Thames in

east London. TfL said it would be ready by the summer, but there were

no plans for it to be opened before the Olympics. Critics have raised

concerns that sponsorship will fail to cover the total cost. Sutton and

Cheam MP found himself between a rock and a hard place this week. He

attacked proposals to close the maternity unit. The NHS says that

would add just six minutes to get elsewhere. Talk to anybody in my

constituency, they would laugh you out of the room when you say that.

His Paul Burstow hypocritical? Government health reforms, leading

to closures, and he is not happy because it is his own local

hospital. It is not hypocritical. Everybody loves it if a minister

has trouble on their patch. What he says, this is not a ministerial

decision, it is a decision by the local PCT, and it is a bad decision,

because it is done on a flawed process, on a flawed basis. If they

could argue that that was the right choice and the logical choice,

which everybody thought was right, he would not be able to campaign

against it. But right now, that is not the case. We should know, we

know what happened when the decisions were made on the

Whittington, particularly on transport. What about the survey,

the authorities seemed people move? I am seeing that in Islington. I

have checked with the local authority, there are several

hundred families out in the cold, their housing benefit is less than

the rent, and in a very small number, the rent has been frozen.

Communities and families are under threat, it is a disgusting policy

that is being followed, capping housing benefit, which impacts on

the poorest people living in private rented accommodation.

is Islington, not prepared to put up the rent levels to some of its

social housing, it says it cannot afford to do that? Absolutely, the

government says, if the council wants to pursue a building

programme for the future, they must increase rents to 80% of market,

which would mean that council tenants in Islington would pay

twice as much, Haringey probably slightly less, but a big increase.

We need a strategy of housing in London, building more council

housing, which is controlled and private sector rentals, and is

having a system which pays the rent, rather than evicting families.

Greece's future is on hold. The euro crisis continues. It is

threatening Spain. What is the EU do in? Holding another summit,

naturally! The Government tells us that it is

its policy that Greece should stay in the eurozone. That is what it

says publicly. What does it say in private? I have been talking to a

lot of people connected to the Treasury this week. What is quite

striking, the division of opinion amongst people. Some of them say,

privately, the Treasury is working on the assumption that they will

leave, but officially, they are not admitting that. There is

uncertainty in the Treasury about how this is going to play out,

there is no consensus as far as I can see. The Government does not

really have a policy? It does not have a strategy. The politics of

the situation of strange, the worst the eurozone gets, the less likely

Britain is to grow, and the better an excuse the government has for

that lack of economic growth. It is difficult to know if it is in net

interest -- in their interest for the crisis to be sold, because if

it did and Britain continue to struggle, they would lose the big

excuse. I am reasonably optimistic about the summit, they tend to be

more productive than DG8. Does tend to be elegantly curated talking

shops. The mistake we make it is focusing on Francois Hollande and

neglecting the person who can do something, Angela Merkel. Either by

making Gemmill less competitive -- Germany are less competitive...

has got an election next year. is already in trouble. But she can

either do that all German taxpayers' money to an even greater

extent behind the single currency. Those are difficult things to sell.

Almost impossible. Europe has overshadowed domestic politics. And

it will for the foreseeable future. Yes, what was interesting, you are

seeing the change across the Continent, the idea that blanket

austerity is the only way is perhaps not as popular as it was.

We have seen Francois Hollande, he is not popular, but Barack Obama is,

and when he says, growth has been working at for us, it could work

here. The Angela Merkel/David Cameron position is a bit more

isolated, in a way it was not before. What is interesting, it is

not necessarily against David Cameron's interest if there was a

fiscal stimulus in Europe, as long as Britain did not pay. Even if he

believes austerity is the long-term solution, if they could deliver

some growth, that would be helpful for Britain's future come up

otherwise, we are making 80% of the Kurds when Europe could be on its

knees. -- cards. The report on freeing up the British labour

market will be published. Is there any Freedom of Information act

involved? Yes, that has happened. The report was commissioned many

months ago by the Liberal Democrats. Went Ed Davey looked at it, he

thought, I do not like the findings. There were long negotiations,

Beecroft was persuaded to drop some of his recommendations, but still,

the government did not like them particularly. Now, they have been

forced to publish it, because of the Freedom of Information request.

They do not have to do anything about it. Well anything become

policy? There is a reasonable chance. George Osborne wanted to

announce at the last Tory conference that the majority of it

would be implemented, and it was the fact that it was leaked to the

Liberal Democrats, and they are opposed it, that killed it. But the

best part of six to nine months on, with the economy back in recession,

it is easy for the Tory half of the government to make the case that,

if we do not do this, we look like we are guilty of a dereliction of

duty. David Cameron can make the case for it in a way he could not

have done. This is a picture of the Chancellor, at the football match

last night in Germany. He was Normally, if you would not say

anything about ministers going to football matches, they do it all

the time, but this relaxing of the Prime Minister, it may not be the

best idea. It is quite interesting, one of the biggest criticisms of

politicians, they are out of touch with ordinary people, so seeing a

Prime Minister who spends time with his family and relaxes a bit is

quite refreshing, on the grounds that you get the job done and you

are competent. When people are suffering and in pain, seen those

pictures does not work. It is interesting that the story has

started to come up now, led by the Times, very much part of this

Rupert Murdoch agenda, which has turned completely against David

Cameron, and will continue to run. I agree, it looks horrendous. And

at a time when Number Ten is trying to favour the striving classes. To

be seen to be engaging it in leisure pastimes clashes with that

message. But there is not a linear relationship between the time spent

on the job and how could it you are. If there were, Gordon Brown would

have been the best ever Chancellor and Prime Minister. Sometimes I

work longer hours than they do! What I have always had a problem

with, David Cameron's weekly date nights. Hard working parents will

know that is so out of the reach of most of us, I am lucky to get one

every three months. I will have a word with your husband! Is a

damaging? Yes. If you are seen to be getting the job done and these

are good times, all very well and good, but these are tough times,

people do not want to see it. Especially when there has been a

massive backlash, businesses should be working harder, and we will only

get out of the crisis by working hard, but you are not setting the

example. William Hague told us to work harder, then the paper's

report that David Cameron cannot put down his iPad. Then Downing

Street denied it. That quote was one of the least wise statements

made by a senior minister this year. But George Osborne going to be

football match is better than going to the polo match or a kitchen