10/06/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Spain is heading

for a massive 100 billion Euro bail-out of its dodgy banks. But is

it big enough? As the Chancellor blames the Euro crisis for

Britain's economic woes, we'll get the view from the City. That's our

top story. When it comes to reforming our

schools who is the true heir to Blair? Secretary of State Michael

Gove or his Labour counterpart Stephen Twigg? The Shadow Education

Secretary joins us for the Sunday interview.

And should the Government perform the mother of all U-turns yet and

give the go ahead for a third runway at Heathrow? The two sides

go head to head on airport expansion.

All that and the best political panel in the business, looking

forward to the week ahead and tweeting as if the Spanish banking

sector depended on it throughout the programme. The mayor has signed

up to be cycling revolution. With a bicycle only traffic lights but

will the motorists give it a green All that in the next hour. First

Good afternoon. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has warned that

Britain's economic recovery is being killed off by the crisis in

the eurozone. He said European leaders need to find a permanent

solution. Our political correspondent Chris Mason reports.

It might be his job to manage our economy, but George Osborne is

effectively saying it's not my fault we are in this mess. The

Chancellor has blamed our troubles on Europe before but his language

today is striking. Any chance of getting the economy going again is

being killed off by what is happening on the Continent, he

writes. Ministers add those countries that use the euro will

need to bind closer together. have been very clear for some time

and George Osborne has reiterated that today that we think for those

countries in the eurozone there is an inevitability about them having

more collective responsibility in certain areas. The UK would remain

in the European table but not and more powers to Brussels without a

referendum. Labour say the Chancellor is deeply complacent and

out of touch to blame Europe for what they call a double-dip

recession made in Downing Street. Judges will be given new guidelines

to ensure fewer foreign criminals escape deportation by claiming

their right to a family life will be breached if they are removed

from the UK. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has decided that MPs

should be able to vote on whether tighter rules should apply to

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. A clear-up operation is under way

in west Wales after yesterday's flooding. Some villages were cut

off and houses and caravan parks were flooded by up to five feet of

water. Hywel Griffiths reports. When a flood it reaches your front

door there is little choice but to let it through. Outside this House,

there's a growing pile of ruined flooring, and furniture. It just

came in through the front door, the back door, and it was just so quick.

I don't know where it came from. It was like a river straight through

the House. After a month's worth of rain fell in one day, rescue teams

were batting against the tide. Even a lifeboat crew had to be airlifted

to safety. If you want an idea of the force of the flood water, look

at this enormous slab asphalt which was carried by the current and

deposited on top of a rubbish bin. It's left a huge holes exposed.

Although water is being pumped away, beers are warning people need to

stay on their guard. Unfortunate, people are getting too close to the

river banks, and there's a danger some body could get swept away or

trying to drive through floodwater. With over 300 flood alerts in place

across Wales, the full impact is only just becoming Clare. -- clear.

That's it. There's more News here Billions in bailouts have already

been poured into the tiny economies of Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Now Spain is rattling its much bigger begging bowl and the word is

it might need up to 100 billion euros later this month just to

rescue its banks, which are awash with worthless property loans. But

will that be enough? And who's footing the bill? Allister Heath,

editor of City AM joins us. Who is going to pay this?

Ultimately, the Europeans. It will lend 100 billion euros to the

Spanish and they will give the money to their banks. Clearly,

European tax payers, but also Spanish taxpayers, because this is

massively increasing their national debt. Spain is transferring

property debt from the banks on to the Government's books which will

weaken the Spanish government but strengthen these very dodgy banks.

Can they afford this? Who knows, really, because this bail-out fund

has supposedly got 500 billion euros in it but we have not seen

the money yet. I doubt that this will be enough, because I suspect

their property debts are much larger than that and we have other

countries which might need a bail- out. At the moment, there might

temporarily be a stop to the crisis but I don't think it solves any of

the deep-seated problems. Spain could come back for more money

because it's even worse than it looks? And others may join the

queue behind them? Spain could easily come back for more money.

It's about how far house prices will fall in Spain. Spain says 20%

but other independent analysts think it might even reach 50% at

some stage and if that happens, there will be lots of bad debt and

the Spanish government wants to endlessly bail-out its banks, so

therefore it will have to borrow more money. Either this will

reassure the markets in the short term or open a new can of worms,

and the Greeks will say, they are getting 100 million, no tough

conditions, but it will encourage people to vote against the Greek

bale-out conditions. Exactly, in the short term, the markets of a

letter gently, desperate for action. In the short term, when people

realise the big issues created by this, the fact that the Greeks are

no longer going to save that they trust the Germans and Europeans

will be strict with them, there will be a lot of worries. The real

problem is the bad debt is not going away but being moved about

the system. The taxpayers are having to pick up the bad debt.

looks like Europe will be a drag on the British economy for the

foreseeable future and I suspect that's why the Chancellor is now

blaming Europe. It's clearly not all their fault in the case of the

UK but I can see the eurozone going on and on and on because there will

be small bail-outs of the small bay leads after small bail-outs.

Ireland did exactly what Spain did and now they are in deep trouble. I

don't think the problem will go away soon and the single currency

experiment I'm afraid to say, is ending in disaster. Thank you very

much. Now, Tony Blair and New Labour may be fading into political

history, but in the Department for Education their legacy lives on.

It's been a busy two years in the Department for Education, where the

Secretary of State Michael Gove has accelerated the Blairite policy of

creating academy schools. There were 203 of them when the coalition

came to power. There are now more than 1,800 with others in the

pipeline. The job of deciding whether Labour supports or opposes

those plans has gone to Stephen Twigg. An icon of New Labour's

victory in 1997 when he snatched Michael Portillo's seat. Twigg was

a schools minister when Tony Blair was pursuing his education reforms,

often against the will of his own party. Now under Ed Miliband he's

back covering his old brief. This time as Shadow Secretary of State.

After seeming to endorse another coalition idea with a distinctly

Blairite flavour, free schools, he's in the tricky position of

carving out a winning blueprint for Labour's next manifesto, while

leading the opposition to ideas his And Stephen Twigg joins me now for

What is the difference between Labour's approach to schools now

compared with when you were in government? Obviously we are having

a policy review, Look and that what worked in government, in other

parts of the world, in schools around the country. The big

challenge in education in this country is to break the link

between family background and how well children do at school. We

started to do that in government and they want us to continue that

job. When it comes to these kinds of changes, you started, Michael

Gove as Education Secretary is suddenly doing what new Labour

dreamed of doing, independent self- governing state schools, and

introducing them faster than Tony Blair dreamed of. No, he has taken

our Academy programme and turned it on its head. Our academies were

Lytton at underperforming schools, in areas of great social and

economic need and bringing in new innovative management to schools in

that area. Michael Gove says they can vote to become an Academy and

we know from the survey's most schools are doing this because they

get more money. That's not about promoting innovation in schools.

That was in reference to what Michael Gove was doing. He seems

pretty pleased with the way it's going. I think what's really

important is we are judged by what works. Labour's Academy programme

worked because we brought really good people in to run schools and

we had high qualities teaching in those schools. I worry that Michael

Gove's approach is dogmatic which simply says, by having academies

and free schools you can improve a. I don't think evidence supports

that. Labour policy in 2005 was to go for academies and foundation

schools. And free schools, too. Tony Blair wrote the introduction

to it and said, we would like to see free schools as well.

created all sorts of ways, academies, trust schools, and I

support innovation in schools but I recognise that there are many

community schools that a pioneering as well. It's not only the

Academy's. The key, to me, is to have the innovation, and the key to

that is good head teachers working with a really good teachers. If the

Academy model works, your party's model, why should it be limited to

failing schools? Why not apply it to bog-standard comprehensives?

That's a very good point and one thing we're doing in our policy

review is looking at the freedoms schools should have and my feeling

is it should apply to all schools regardless of their structure and

for example I spoke about the benefits of a longer school day.

Why not allow all schools to do that? That would make them

academies. Or giving greater freedom to other schools. In our

Academy programme we had sponsors who worked closely with the school

to bring about improvement but the Government doesn't even have that

and we know most schools who had voted to become Academys have done

so for financial reasons. It's not necessary for innovation.

confused. You raise the prospect that maybe all schools should

become versions of academies and on the other hand, you criticise the

Government for rolling out academies. I criticise them for the

way they've done it because we now have 2000 schools which are

academies and who are they accountable to? Michael Gove. I

don't think it is desirable, a good system, and some of them will fail.

We have to have systems which spot the early signs of failure. Do you

accept, Tony Blair and your successor thought this model should

Is that Labour policy? No, it's not Labour policy. Academies have done

some brilliant things but so, too, have community schools and they

want to move the debate on because the structure of a school, the name

of a school, the way it's governed, is not the main thing. Why is that

not your policy any more seen as it was supported by you when you were

in power? Our programme did brilliant things. It was fantastic.

Some of the Government's academies and free schools will do some

brilliant things but we have got to look at the evidence and it says

and leadership that makes a difference in our schools and is

quite wrong for us to dismiss the many brilliant community schools

that don't want to become academies. I'm still confused because you told

me earlier that you thought all schools should have an academy *

Freedom and yet I put up the Andrew Adonis quote that we never bleed

all academies should be restricted to just failing schools and we

wanted all schools to be academies and you tell me it's no longer

Labour policy. The Academy freedoms which is of the earlier questions

was about, the second half of my point is that there are certain

expectations parents should have of every school. For example, I

disagree with Michael Gove when he says academy schools are not bound

by the school meals standards. It's a very big concerned in terms of

public health. I'm in favour of having entitlement for parents and

pupils regardless of the school. Let me make other point. Curriculum

flexibility, one of the freedoms we gave to academies which has

continued is more freedom over the curriculum. If that makes sense,

which I think it does, that extended to all schools. It doesn't

necessarily mean those schools have to become academies in order to get

that status. Most primary schools Do you welcome the government's

intention to move on to some intention to move on to some

primary-school swith academy status? Sometimes academy status

might be the solution, but you questioned Michael Gove on this in

January, look how badly he handled the school in Harrogate. Much

better to work with parents. Do you back academies in primary schools?

So the Times, but sometimes a better solution is a federation.

What about if the parents vote for it? Yes, of course if the parents

vote for it. Sometimes the solution might be academy status but not

always. What about free schools? Do you agree with Andrew Adonis?

Labour set up dozens of free school academies before 2010. Our policy

was to oppose free schools. Andrew is a good friend of mine and I

agree with him on a lot of these things but I don't agree with him

on that. So you are opposed to free schools? Some are now being

established, some of them are excellent schools, and I am not in

the business of closing down excellent schools. I have a

different concern about free schools - at the moment there is a

serious shortage of primary school places in the country, and yet the

spending priority is on free schools. That does not make sense.

It was the last government that told local authorities to get rid

of service places. Let me ask you this - when you close down three

schools if you get into power? course not. All the existing free

schools will continue to exist under Labour? No blank cheques are

written either way. If the school is successful, of course we won't

be closing it down. A would you be creating any more free schools?

need to look at that. You say you need to look at it but I have Ed

Miliband here, saying "free schools are the opposite of the thing we

need." If your leader says that, why do you need to look at it? The

cost we don't believe they are the right answer. I have been to visit

the woodpecker school, which is fantastic, that is because the head

teacher is brilliant. We will not be in the business of closing

schools like that. We want their admissions. If free schools can be

fantastic, why does your leaders say they are the opposite of the

thing we need. Because this is not the programme we would have brought

in if we had won the election. you won't create free schools if

you are in power? If you are believing in three schools, don't

vote Labour? Not at all. Parents don't care that much whether the

local school is a community school, a free school or and Academy, they

want good quality school and the evidence is that it is the quality

of the teaching that matters much more than the name on the board

outside the school. Foreign languages could be made compulsory

for primary-school children for the first time, do you support that?

do. So why did you abolish compulsory languages for 14-16 year

olds? Because that is a different situation. Children will get along

of of learning languages if they learn them younger. When you make

this change, the teaching of foreign languages collapsed in the

state system and 75% of modern language GCSEs, don't you now wish

to apologise for that change? think the mistake we made was not

to focus on primary schools first, I think having more choice at 14

makes sense. Some younger people are so dissatisfied with being

forced to learn languages at that stage, we shouldn't do it. Thank

you for joining us. The coalition government has done

so many U-turns even we have lost count, but whilst some of those

political pirouettes have been embarrassing they have been small

beer, but there is growing pressure for a rethink on their opposition

to a third runway at Heathrow as part of the policy review on

aviation. Any U-turn on that could really shake things up.

70 million passengers a year, around 180 destinations worldwide,

Heathrow is Europe's busiest airport. If I wanted to fly to

Philippines or the China, both emerging markets, I could check-in

at Terminal 5 but I would not be able to fly direct. I would have to

catch a connecting flight at an airport outside the UK. That

matters, say big business, because firms want direct connections, and

a third runway is the answer according to some MPs who wants to

oppose the idea. We need Heathrow to be able to compete with others

so that Britain has a proper airport with international

connections all over the world, particularly to these new emerging

expanding economies in Asia. have to have good links to them to

remain competitive. There are great cities in China that you can't get

to directly from the UK. government has promised to look at

all the options. It could opt for a new hub airport in the Thames

estuary, so-called Boris Ireland. Stansted or Gatwick could be

expanded but new runways would go against the coalition agreement. Or

a third runway could be built at Heathrow. A no parliament combined,

but our concern about the environmental impact of the

Heathrow third runway is very significant and I don't see any

technological solution on the horizon which could cause us to

change our minds. IC us opposing a third runway at Heathrow. Senior

Lib Dems I have been speaking to made it clear they would oppose a

third runway, but one Tory I spoke to said the government should lay

the groundwork for a third runway, and the next Conservative manifesto

should not have any promises ruling out runway expansion. That could

mean a fight with Tory MPs whose constituencies are in the

flightpath. Flights, over every 90 seconds. This one has already

promised to spark a by-election, and he is prepared to go further.

If we have a manifesto like that, in this area I would not stand as a

conservative on that manifesto. I suspect there are others who feel

strongly, the same way. A bumpy ride ahead, whatever the

destination. With me now, the Conservative peer Lord Glendonbrook,

otherwise known as Michael Bishop who until 2009 run the airline BMI,

and the Labour MP John McDonnell who represents the constituency of

Hayes and Harlington. Michael Bishop, Boris Johnson said recently

he throw third runway is dead, move on, what do you say? His proposal

is pie-in-the-sky, in the sea as opposed to in the sky. The history

of Heathrow is one of the projects which will never be allowed to

happen, and I don't think this third runway will be an exception.

He's Row is one of the great national assets we have, still the

world's greatest international airport, but it is in decline to

other major airports it has to compete with. Surely we should

invest in success? I agree, but there is another solution to

expanding. There is a cross-party consensus that expanding would be

devastating for the local community, and also for air pollution, but we

are served by five major airports around London. We have to link them

effectively by rail in particular, and then we can compete with the

world. We move 140 million passengers through London airports,

twice Frankfurt, four times Amsterdam, so we are competitive

now. My fear is that developing runways will cost us jobs, not gain

us jobs. The reason businesses are not moving to London is quality of

life, and what do they say? Air pollution and traffic congestion so

we are creating a problem for the future. For the last 25 years it

has been a consensus between successive governments that

airports should be given new runways on an incremental basis and

now we have a situation where that runway it is needed and it has to

be at Heathrow. Why does it have to be at Heathrow?

If you financed it in the Thames estuary, national assets would have

to close to fund it. I think passengers want to interconnect

with in the same airport. No passenger will book a trip where he

has to do part of it by a bear, trust the rail system to catch

another flight. Were we are losing out to the provincial markets of

the provincial cities. Frankfurt, Madrid, Amsterdam, Paris, they now

have better links than we do to these markets. That's not true. I

checked this because Michael raised the issue of China are few weeks

ago in the press and I checked the number of flights to China - we

have 100 a week. They are all to Shanghai and Beijing. But that is

where the profits are, that is where the big-business connections

are needed. We need to be more creative about this. This

incremental growth has got us into this mess. We can out compete in

the future if reconnect up the airports. Do we have enough links

for the emerging markets of the provincial towns? A fact of the

matter up is that Frankfurt, and Germany is a country with strong

environmental views, has actually not ploughed down area of the

forest around Frankfurt to create a new runway -- has done that.

took five years to make that decision, and thousands of people

camped out in the woods. But the project was completed, and it took

seven years to build. What happens if we don't have a new

runway at Heathrow? Our economy is based on a very mobile society. You

can think of London as an aircraft carrier, where people fly in and do

their business and fly out again. The geographical position at the

Thames estuary is at the furthest eastern tip of the UK. The journey

to there would be another 35 miles. Let's get real, and I agree with

the Prime Minister. He has challenged the Avening -- aviation

industry to get real about the fat. We know that high-speed rail is

coming, which takes 20% of the short haul flights out of Heathrow,

that can be made up for with flights elsewhere. We no passenger

loading on individual airplanes has increased 25%, and we also know -

this is the big one - if we don't tackle this, we will not tackle

climate change and our children will never forgive us. We have to

leave it there. The 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 and welcome to the London part of the show. Coming up later

in the programme, the Dutch cycling revolution that's coming to London?

But do London's motorists want to give way to cyclists? I'm joined

for the next 20 minutes by London's newest MP, the Labour member for

Feltham and Heston, Seema Malhotra. And the Conservative MP for Bromley

and Chislehurst and Local Government Minister, Bob Neill.

Welcome to both of you. But first, Sunday Politics can exclusively

reveal new research claiming that there is a direct link between

advertisements for prostitutes in the back of newspapers and sex

trafficking. Ahead of the Olympics, there are calls for the Mayor and

police to use existing powers to clamp down on local newspapers

getting rich from the exploitation of women. I'm joined by Mary

Honeyball, a Labour MEP representing London in Brussels who

commissioned the research. And sex worker Catherine Stephens an

activist with the International Union of Sex Workers who believes

the ads serve to protect sex workers. Can I start with you call

Mary Honeyball. What proportion of women identified through

advertising have been trafficked? It is a lot. In London, 94.6% of

women who work in the sex industry are actually migrants. It's almost

all of them, actually, who come from other countries. They will not

have all been trafficked. What is the proportion because that's the

important statistic? Sexual adverts in newspapers are being blamed for

the increase in sex trafficking. Is that the case? It is the case and

the police themselves say it is the case. A year-and-a-half ago the

Metropolitan Police rope to newspaper editors across London

saying that there is a direct link between the advertisements in the

newspapers for sexual services and human trafficking. The police are

absolutely certain there is a link and that's one of the reasons I'm

so concerned about it. Is there a right approach? It still seems if

there is a link, and there is a high proportion of migrants

offering their services through newspapers, shouldn't it be the

police approaching this through criminal investigations?

certainly think it should be. We need to tackle this in every way we

can because when we are talking about trafficking, it's not only

something which is a criminal offence but something which is

violent, horrible, one of the worse things that can happen to anyone.

Very often, these are young teenagers. We are not talking about

consenting adults in any way but a violent, very nasty crime. Do you

accept the link but actually it's worth going down the route of

trying to stop sexual adverts in newspapers? The organisation with

which I work is based on evidence and in reality, rather than

stereotypes and assumptions. We hadn't seen this document yet and

we have not been sent a copy by your office. It seems to be a

survey of people are work in London offices. If you look at the history

of research around the proportion of trafficking, in the sex industry,

the Police Research, things are like Acumen, you are looking about

5% of the total people working in the sex industry who are trafficked.

Also, one of the UK problems is a legal problem, the law works very

well to facilitate trafficking because it makes it a criminal

risky for anyone who comes into contact with women in the sex

industry to contact the police. We would like to see a situation where

people could report and everybody in the sex industry has the

protection of the law. The should you be clamping down on sexual

adverts in the newspapers? We've got to be careful about legislation

because it has to be proportionate and unenforceable. Is it

justifiable to have up women justifiably trafficked? Absolutely

not, which is why we had strengthen the law with his real one abilities.

It a criminal offence to pay for sex, if the woman has been

trafficked, controlled by a pimp or coerced. Whose responsibility is it

to know? How will newspapers know? The first thing, if you try to make

it a criminal offence, to be the customer of those adverts is...

that law means there's a number of cases of clients, even a case

quoted by Harriet Harman, where a client had paid �10,000 of some

bodies debt bond to help her escape Commission, and then was able to go

on and give evidence in court. That client would now be committing a

criminal offence and confessing to a crime against which there is no

defence if the contact the police. I don't think that's an accurate

reflection. I've had 25 years as a barrister before I came to

Parliament and there was considerable discretion but it

somebody gives evidence for the Crown, even if they may have been

complicit, there is a discretion. Is it too blunt an instrument? Will

it have an impact on it trafficked women? I think it's got potential

have an impact on trafficked women and it's for this reason. You have

to look at behaviour. Where are the uses of sex services finding them?

It's a big problem in London. It suggests local advertisements in

local newspapers, who get �44 million in terms of revenues a year,

that's the route, and if you look at it, marketing is going to be the

way in which you generate demand for services. There has to be a

proportion to that link. OK, thank you both very much for coming in.

It's very rare these days that a British politician is proud to say

they are taking their policies from Europe, but the Mayor of London

seems to be the exception. Under pressure from cyclists during the

election campaign, Boris Johnson signed up to the "Love London, Go

Dutch" campaign - agreeing to adopt some of the cycling policy's from

Europe's number one cycling nation. So what exactly does that mean?

Andrew Cryan went to Holland to No helmets, high-visibility jackets,

padlocks. Welcome to Groningen in Holland, the world's number one

cycling city. Between 60% of all journeys are made by bicycle.

Compare that to England, and London, it's only 3% but that has not

happened overnight. It's down two decades and decades of a very

controversial decisions. Once upon a time, Holland had similar traffic

to the UK falls of congested roads became hard for cyclists. By the

1970s, a soaring number of deaths of children became a source of

outrage. Politicians made an enemy of the car but a friend of the

bicycle. This man was one of them. There was a resentment towards the

car. A street is something you play on as a child. You should have come

for it to shop and work on it and there was a strong sentiment at the

time. We did not called ecological but it was, in a sense. What was

important was that there was a strong political debate on who is

the end of the streets. The winner in Groningen was duffer good a

bicycle. It's easy to see how they did it. Cars and bicycles are

separated were possible. When they meet, cyclists have the priority

like on this roundabout. There are special traffic lights and parking

at your bike is not a problem particularly at the railway station

where they had 6,000 spaces. At London Bridge, they just have 400.

So it's great news for people on bicycles but in London, the most

popular form of transport is the motor car. So what is Groningen

I mean, instantly, what do I do here? This is not where I am meant

to be. Are they honking me? In the centre of town, it's confusing. I

can't drive up there. Back when all of this started in the 1970s, the

first thing they did was try to stop cars driving through the

middle of town so they put a ring road around it. You can drive into

the centre but have to drive out the same way you went in so there

is no through traffic and once you are in, you can't go many places.

So, basically, unless you're making a delivery or are a taxi, you would

be absolutely mad to try to drive here. But once you get out of the

centre, it a different story. Since so many people have been putting

off the driving, in the suburbs, traffic flows well so Groningen,

easy to drive, beautiful to cycle but could we apply that to London?

A lot of cyclists think we can. Before this year's election, people

demanded we go Dutch. The mayor signed up to the campaign. But

given the scale of the task, anybody expecting London's roads

that to be the same as the Netherlands perhaps shouldn't hold

their breath. I'm joined by Mustafa Arif from the

London Cycling Campaign who started the Love London, Go Dutch. And by

the legendary racing driver Sir Stirling Moss. Welcome to both of

you. We have watched that film. Boris Johnson committed himself to

go Dutch. Ought firm proposals are you hoping to see? Firstly, it's

important to recognise that the transformation of London into a

place which has saved and inviting four Cycling... Surely that is

debatable? No, it's going to take a long time and won't happen quickly.

It's a multi- decade programme for the the Dutch started in the 1970s.

The Danish start of the 1990s. We want three flagship schemes in the

next four years. Cycling and walking will be prioritised. That

can show these things can be done in London. Having identified areas?

We want the mayor to take ownership of this and work out how he wants

to do this because it has to be local priorities and where it makes

sense. Do you think it is achievable? Has Boris Johnson got

any firm proposals as to where those areas could be? He gave two

examples and suggested Vauxhall, the joy rate to repair, as an area,

and I can't remember the other one. -- gyratory. What do you think of

it as an idea? Should we emulate other cities in Europe where

cyclists feel better? It's a great idea but not feasible. In London,

we are so closed in, so many vehicles, a density of vehicles are

higher than anywhere else and I don't think it is feasible. I think

they should make it law you must wear a helmet so if anybody falls

off, at least they have some protection. Have you ever cycled in

London? With a bicycle, not really? I have a scooter, a same sort of

thing. It does make a difference. It's the feasibility which is key.

We looked at Groningen but there's no comparison between that City and

London in terms of, not just its size, but there are streets and

number of vehicles and heavy vehicles on the road for the

thirsty, helmets being compulsory, the evidence is making it

compulsory reduces the number of people cycling. Is it feasible to

make London a cycling city like Groningen? Groningen is a smaller

place but not the only place in the Netherlands. All of the Netherlands

has good quality cycling structure. We can look at Amsterdam and bigger

cities and the ideas used there. In the New York, Manhattan, a lot of

work has been done recently and we could apply those lessons to London.

I had just come back from New York and they are not as far ahead as

London and they're only doing it on the outskirts of Manhattan, not

through the centre. That is segregated tracks. Isn't

segregation what is needed for safety question of yes, but in a

Groningen, what they tried to do is reduce the amount of through

traffic and one problem we have with safety is this a lot of rat

running through residential areas with the volume of traffic is too

high. Could it work? I think it can. We have a campaign which is

applicable in London. I was delighted to send off the cyclists

as they joined 28th April cycle ride. They are campaigning for

safer cycling. Brian Dowling, who was killed, was from Hounslow at. I

had a friend who was killed in Hounslow. Save the cycling, I think

we are frustrated by those who go through red lights but to say we

have a vision for London which is not just about the motor car but

people living, walking, cycling and families doing that together.

need to learn more about it. Frankly, children should be taught

lane discipline and that sort of thing. There is bicycled all over

I think they are doing that to some extent. There can be innovative

ways that can change the whole of London, bit by bit. What should

local London boroughs be doing - should there be segregation? It is

a question of horses for courses, and different situations when

applied in central London from in my patch in Bromley. I am keen to

see more people cycling. Boris Johnson has invested 200 million in

promoting cycling in London, he is more committed than anyone, he is a

Daily cyclist himself. That roundabout was a black spot, a real

problem for accidents in the past. Then there are only expects 5% of

journeys to be made by bike by 2026. More households have got bikes,

more cycle rides are taking place, more cycle journeys. We are

starting from a different position to our European colleagues but we

are going in the right direction. Thank you.

For a round-up of the rest of the political news in London now, in 60

seconds. There was only one story in town

this week as the Queen celebrated her 60 years on the throne, but

away from the pomp and ceremony, what was the political fall-out?

Some stewards were forced to take shelter under London Bridge for

part of the night. I didn't get any sleep on the night when we stayed

under London Bridge. I did a full shift for them, the weather was

terrible, the weather gear they supplied was no good. It was a

poncho and high-visibility vest. There was an anti-monarchists

protest outside City Hall. I am here to protest the unaccountable

power of the ground, what it symbolises which is hereditary

privilege, constitutional power that it still has. A on Jubilee

breakdowns increased fears that the route which carries 600,000

passengers a day will be unable to cope with the increased passenger

load during the Olympics. Just before we go, Bob, looking at

the images, unpaid job seekers left stranded under London Bridge

overnight - that is not the image London wants to project? That was a

logistical problem with that particular Contractor. They make

that clear themselves, but the idea of getting people to volunteer and

support the Olympics has got to be right, in the same way as giving

people work experience has got to be a good thing. It is wrong to

condemn a programme in these circumstances. This could be the

sort of thing they will do in the Olympics, couldn't it? At the

Olympics will be keen to work under the best possible standards. London

will be meeting with millions of visitors, hopefully, and we want to

have good stewarding. It is something that has a lot of

attention from the people putting on the Olympics and I am sure you

will see it professionally done. Are you reassured it was not

exploitation? It was a logistical problem? I personally think we need

a bit more reassurance. The government has got to do much more

with contractors and with the mayor because to have sent that message

to those who might be volunteering or helping with the Olympics that

there is no guarantee for you is the wrong thing. Who is policing

it? Who makes sure it won't happen? On a obviously the government is

not running the Olympics, and it shouldn't be either. I listened to

the ranting from John press -- John Prescott on the radio, which was

very biased, but this is part of a bigger scheme to give young people

the chance to volunteer. That is good but we want it done

professionally, we agree about that. That is it from us this week. Just

time to say thank you to our guests and I will be back on Monday.

How will the Spanish bale-out go down? Which way will the Greeks

vote? And will the Prime Minister's mind be on the euro crisis with the

prospect of a grilling at the Leveson Inquiry? These are the

questions for the week ahead. Welcome to the week ahead. You have

the -- heard the interview with Stephen Twigg, what do you think to

the policy? I thought he is in a difficult position, clearly a

Blairite, but guess who was education secretary in 2010? It was

Ed balls and he put the brakes on it so it is a difficult act. People

are still not sure if he is in favour of free schools or against.

The worst thing is it is really not his fault, it is a strategic

failure on the part of the Labour party to decide whether they want

to support what was originally their policy. The danger that this

extends to public policy in general, they end up moving into that

territory. What is Labour schools policy? For holding position is

that we are not against free schools, we wouldn't change them,

but we will not be bringing it in any more. Ed Miliband is against

them. The party is divided on that, that is no secret. No not now?

the Prime Minister came in, the junior minister under him in his

department is Lisa Nandy, who has been very vocal against free

schools in the past. Let's get on to this European business. Coming

on to this Spanish bail-out in a minute, but the Chancellor said

this morning that the economy is going belly-up and it is the euro's

fault. Does that washed? For the time being it probably does. The

defining argument until the next election will be out to interpret

the eurozone crisis. George Osborne will argue it prevents us from

growing, Ed Balls will argue that the areas eurozone countries are

growing. Not many. Not many, but Germany is still growing. Do you

think this can still work? Just to blame... We know the eurozone is a

drag on the British economy, but to blame that for the total absence of

growth, that is a hard stretch. am it seems to have a familiar ring.

In 2000 date, Gordon Brown was saying we were the victims of a

global economic slow down and the Conservatives said absolutely not.

George Osborne and David Cameron have made a raw political decision.

We go on about the Budget and water disaster was, but his big moment

was the Autumn Statement when George Osborne admitted his entire

economic strategy to front load the cuts, to get growth, is not working,

and he will be prolonging the cuts for another two years. His alibi is

the eurozone, but the eurozone is not in a recession. It is still at

negative growth because Germany is holding it up. It is a difficult

one to sustain. Labour is still well ahead in the polls, for quite

a while now, and even if the eurozone is a drag on the British

economy, this will still be a big opportunity for Labour. Both sides

want to come across as Euro-sceptic. Going back to the point you made,

we are also seeing George Osborne laying the ground for what I think

will be an EU referendum, which I think will be inevitable now. The

question will be what is the question, and George Osborne will

not want the Yes No vote. He will wanted to be shall we agree to a

new fiscal intervention scheme? But whether he can do that without his

Tory backbenchers agreeing, I don't know. George Osborne has been

saying we have this referendum lock so that if there is this transfer

of power from the UK to the EU, there will be this referendum, but

no one is talking about the transfer of power and if there was

that transfer of power he would veto it so it is difficult to see

the circumstances in which we would have a referendum. Let me move on.

Leveson, will ever go away? Tomorrow we have David Cameron and

George Osborne, then we have John Major, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg,

Alex Salmond, and then David Cameron on Thursday. Where do we

begin? I think the big one will be David Cameron. He has faced a lot

of questions about his Competency but this will be about his

character, and there are a lot of questions he will need to answer

about the BSkyB bid, Jeremy Hunt, and it will be massive. What is

really interesting to watch out for is how many inquiries do you have

where the participant is also the judge? The whole of the Leveson

Inquiry will be reporting back to Jeremy Hunt, and David Cameron will

be making a call on what has happened and it will be interesting

to watch if he signals how much he will accept from Leveson. Gordon

Brown will be interesting because there are a lot of questions to ask

him. He was the slumber party man but David Cameron is the prime

minister, everything else is history. Leveson does not sit their

ready to machine gun the Prime Minister, it is genuinely a

discovery process for him. I imagine one of the areas he will be

interested in, and this has been picked up on the Dispatches

documentary tomorrow night, but when David Cameron became part of

the Conservative Party he said he would do things in a new way, and

then in 2007 you have this falls fast. Why did you do that? There

are basically panicked into 1007 won the right wing press turned

against them, but Leveson will be keen to discover this narrow

question of exactly what questions were asked of Andy Coulson before

they hired him. Was he asked whether he was complicit about the

degradations that happened at the News Of The World? Five years after

his recruitment, we still know so little about that recruitment

process. This will be limited by the fact there is a police inquiry

going on, so the number of questions they can ask will be

limited, and also with special participants date is, David Cameron

can request reductions from that inquiry. Don't forget the

significance of George Osborne's evidence. Initially he was only

giving written evidence, now he will be appearing. What came up

from the Jeremy Hunt evidence? He was basically deciding that Jeremy

Hunt should get the new cause I judicial role. Quite embarrassing

for the Chancellor. The big mystery is why, having made Andy Coulson

the press secretary in opposition, he then took him into government?

If he hadn't done that, it wouldn't be the issue it is today. Or that

shock news, I have to end it. That is all for today. At noon on BBC