01/07/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. David Cameron

opens at the door to a referendum on Britain's relationship with the

EU. We ask UKIP Eden Nigel Farage if the Prime Minister has stolen

his party's most popular political tune. As Labour called for an

inquiry into the banking scandal, shouldn't the parties start by

apologising for its own record on regulation? We asked shadow Chief

Secretary to the crater rim, Rachel Reeves, to come clean. The

Government push ahead with plans to reform the second chamber and we

ask the leader of the Lords whether it is a fight they can possibly win.

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

the political week ahead and tweeting with all the abandon of a

banker on the Bollinger. In London as the recession bites high streets

are suffering. The Mayor and local councils are pumping money in, but

is it public money well spent? All that and more in the next hour, but

first the news with Gavin great. Good afternoon. The prime minister

has suggested the possibility of a referendum at some point in the

future on Britain's relationship with Europe. In an article in the

Sunday Telegraph he says a vote may be needed to get the full-hearted

support of the British people for changes in the way they are

governed. Recently returned from another

Brussels summit, David Cameron says the EU is in flux and now is not

the right time for a referendum. Instead he writes, whole swathes of

legislation covering social issues, working time and home affairs

should be scrapped. We will need to consider how best to get the full-

hearted support of the British people whether it is in a general

election or a referendum. The Prime Minister is not changing our

position, but he is pointing the way to how our thinking is

developing and how policy should be guided in the future, how we should

think about this choice about whether to have a referendum.

Downing Street say David Cameron is speaking to eight Tory audience as

the Tory leader with an eye on the next election and Labour are

critical. On Friday the Prime Minister seemed to rule a

referendum out. On Sunday morning he hints he is willing a referendum

in. The Foreign Secretary has been sent out to say the position has

not changed. It is a shambles. While the Liberal Democrats say

this is the wrong debate at the wrong time.

The business secretary Vince Cable has urged shareholders in British

banks to get a stronger grip on weak boards and out of control

executives. He said that nobody at Barclays was prepared to take

responsibility for the rate rigging scandal that has engulfed the

company in recent days and shareholders ought to take action.

Violent thunderstorms across the eastern United States have killed

at least 13 people. High winds and hailstones caused widespread

destruction and left millions without power. More extreme weather

is forecast for the next few days. There is more news on BBC One at

5:30pm. How significant is this morning's

intervention by the Prime Minister backed up by the Foreign Secretary,

dangling the prospect of a referendum on Britain's

relationship with the European Union? One man with a vested

interest in that question is UKIP Eden Nigel Farage. You have got

eight Tory party promising to claw back powers from Brussels and tat

that endorsed by a referendum. That is bad news for you? We have heard

it all before. This was a man who promised a cast iron referendum. We

constantly hear they are going to call back powers when in fact there

Conservative MEPs vote for more powers to be transferred to

Brussels. He is giving some vague promise there might be a referendum

in the future, but it will not be about our membership of the EU. If

he thinks he has buried this issue in the long grass, he is in for

another think. We do not know what the shape of Europe is going to be.

Let's see what the euro-zone will look like and what our relationship

should be with the euro-zone. We know we will not be part of it and

so then have a referendum. What is wrong with that? We are now stuck

inside a single market. 75% of the laws are made because of that. We

have to pay and membership fee of �50 million a day. I am perfectly

happy for us to have a referendum now. Do we want a simple free-trade

agreement. Even Liam Fox is sympathetic with what you say and

he thinks it is only the extremes, you at one end and the pro-

Europeans at the other who wants a referendum now. That is silly.

There is a clear majority of people who want a referendum on this issue

and want an end to our political involvement with the European Union.

Liam Fox is aged in our direction. Let us go for a quick negotiation

and if we do not get what we want, we believe anyway. Are we further

away from the European Union after this article? We are no closer at

all. The only reason he has said this is because he is terrified of

the votes from the UKIP. If there was a European election tomorrow,

the Tories would come third. language you are talking has a lot

of support in the country, maybe they do not go at the whole weight,

but why are you polling 6%? Some have had as as high as nine or 10%.

The first-past-the-post system is very cruel to UKIP, but there is a

European election coming up in two ears time and that is under PR.

What do you say to Tory backbenchers who do not think the

Prime Minister has gone far enough? Principled though they are, they

have lost every single battle within the Conservative Party since

the treaty of Maastricht. The only way we are going to get changed in

this country and a referendum is it UKIP is stronger. They are in the

wrong party. That was 40 seconds. For a definite maybe at some

unspecified date in the future from the Prime Minister on a euro

referendum, but what about Labour? They have flirted with the idea in

recent months. Rachel Reeves is the Shadow Chief Secretary to the

Treasury and joins us from the Cambridge studio. Hello, Andrew.

you welcome the Prime Minister's decision to open the door on a

referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister is

all over the place with this. We had a vote in parliament in October

on whether there should be a referendum and Labour MPs voted No

and the Prime Minister did as well. On Friday he said one thing and on

Sunday he is saying something different. It is a shambles and it

says more about David Cameron's relationship with the Tory party

backbenchers than it does with his leadership and the future of

Britain in Europe and Britain's economy. Right now the number one

priority should be getting us out of the recession, bringing down

unemployment and dealing with the deficit. I do not think having this

debate about whether we may or may not have a referendum on Europe in

the future is the right priority. Let's come to Labour's policy. We

know the euro-zone is moving towards a much closer physical and

banking union and that will have implications for Britain's

relationship with the EU. At some stage will be not have to have a

look at that again and consult the people? First of all, it is clear

Europe is changing. Even though we are not part of the euro-zone and

will not be part of the further integration on banking, those

decisions will have a huge bearing on the UK economy because so much

of our trade is with Europe. We need to be at the decision-making

table ensuring those decisions are in the interests of the British

people. What is Labour's position? For example at the moment the

austerity programme we are seeing has tipped as back into recession.

Sorry to interrupt, but that is not what I am asking. Will we not need

at some stage to look again at our relationship and consult the

people? What is Labour's answer? is fine to have that discussion in

the future when we know what the future of Europe looks like, one we

know what that relationship between the euro-zone countries and the non

euro-zone countries look like. It is not the debate we should be

having now. I understand you have ruled out a referendum now. But I

am wondering since you do accept Britain's relationship with Europe

will inevitably change as the euro- zone becomes ever more united,

would Labour envisage a referendum at some stage in the future? Once

we know what it looks like, we can have a discussion about whether it

is appropriate to have a referendum. We already have a law that if any

further powers are transferred to Europe we will have a referendum.

That is a Tory law. Yes, it is. you rule out a referendum in the

future or not? No, I do not rule out a referendum in the future, but

it is not a debate we should be having to date. We should be

debating how to get the economy back on track here and in Europe.

Do you think Bob Diamond should resign as chief executive of

Barclays? We have not seen anything of Bob Diamond since the scandal

emerged last week. Do you think you should resign? It is clear he is

not providing the leadership. He has got an opportunity next week to

explain his views and we need to know what he knew when this market

rigging was going on. Do you think he should resign? We do not know

what he knew and when. At the moment it is clear he is not

providing the leadership that Barclays needs and that the banking

sector needs to get out of this latest scandal. If your leader Ed

Miliband says major changes are required at Barclays and, quote, it

is hard to see that led by Bob Diamond, if that is what he is

saying, why not call for his resignation? We have got to hear

what he has to save. But your leader has made up his mind. I do

not think so. What he is saying is we need a clear change at Barclays.

So Bob Diamond should resign? have not heard from him yet. Why is

you're leaders say it is very hard to see Bob diamonds now leading

Barclays? What he is saying is it is unacceptable what has been

happening and they need to explain themselves. They should have done

that over the weekend. Bob Diamond has a final opportunity when he

comes to the Treasury Select Committee next week to explain

himself and then we can make a judgment about whether he should

stay or not. At the moment I am far from convinced he should be in his

job. I have got that impression. Your leader has called for an

inquiry into the banking industry. Alastair diamond said, we know what

went wrong and we do not need a costly inquiry to tell us. Who is

right? We are not calling for a judge led inquiry, but a public

inquiry that reports back in 12 months in a number of areas, but

particularly around the culture. We had the Vickers Report into the

structure of the financial services sector, but there is the much wider

issue of the culture. Alistair Darling says you do not need that

in a wiry, we know what went wrong. He is right there are things that

can be done immediately. In the Financial Services Bill going

through Parliament at the moment that could be amended to put in

tough causes -- clauses about criminal proceedings when bankers

do wrong. It could also change the way in which the LIBOR rate is

regulated. There are short-term things that can be done and I hope

the Government does that, but we also need a wider reform into the

culture of the sector and that has not happened yet, but it certainly

should. In any inquiry into past mistakes and do your Government,

the Shadow Chancellor would be a key witness. Should he begin by

We already said that we should have been tougher in regulating the

banks. But George Osborne and others were saying that the

regulation was too tough. All parties have some responsibility.

The LIBOR arrangements were set up in the 1980s. Of course, we should

have been tougher when we were in power. But this is something that

has grown up over the last 30 years, not just in the UK but

internationally as well. That is why we need this wider review into

the cultural the sector so that we can put it right for the future,

not just about the past. You didn't change the LIBOR rules while you

were in power. The culture really took root and fostered under your

government. Once again I would say, shouldn't you apologise for a

massive mistake when you were in government? Well, we have

apologised. I am happy to apologise again and say we should have been

tougher when we regulated the banks when we were in power. But this is

something that has grown up over 30 years and the governments of both

Labour and conservative. But it has also been an international problem

as well. On LIBOR, specifically, those rules were put in place in

the 1980s. They were not changed under our government, the last

Biden government. In the financial services bill, at the moment, there

is no plans to regulated, despite the fact that Labour are such

questions about that great elation back in March. I hope the

Government amends the bill so that the libel rate is regulated in

future. But we do need a wider review to get things right for the

future. Now, if crisis in banking, the

economy and Europe were not enough to keep the Government occupied,

they are also taking on the small matter of reforming the House of

Lords. That shouldn't be too challenging(!) After all, the

Parliament Act of 1911 was designed as an interim step towards a new

system. That was only, what, 101 years ago? Nick Clegg has published

the Government plans to finally make some progress.

Under the plans, the current House of Lords will be replaced by a

largely elected second chamber. It will be smaller. Instead of 826,

there would be 450 members. 80% would be elected using proportional

representation. The remaining 20% would be appointed by an

independent commission. The first election would take place in 2015,

with further reductions every five years. All members would serve for

15 year terms, but would not be allowed to stand for re-election.

David Cameron has given the reforms his full backing. We have been

discussing this issue for 100 years. It really is time to make progress.

There are many in his party who do not share his enthusiasm, perhaps

as many as 100 rebels. Which is more important for UK growth and

jobs? The implications of these massive changes being proposed in

the EU or House of Lords reform? Labour supports the principle of

Lords reform, but will not back the Government timetable, potentially

clocking up parliamentary business for weeks or months. The Lib Dems

are keenest. They would not easily forgive their coalition partners if

the reform is blocked. Tam Strathclyde, the Government

leader in the House of Lords, joins Welcome. In what way is the House

of Lords Brogan? Why does it need radical reform? For one of the

difficulties for reformers is that the House of Lords does a very good

job and has done so consistently. What this is about is giving it a

new, democratic legitimacy. Making sure that it can do its job more

effectively, be stronger, hold the Government to account, challenge

the House of Commons. The whole parliament needs to be strengthened.

The best way of starting the process is to democratise the House

of Lords. Many people think it does the job well already. David Davies,

a leading Tory backbencher. He says, the Lords is the only institution

which has stood up to over-mighty government, whose dominance in the

Commons led to unreasonable actions. Let me move on to another one, Lord

Howe distinguished Tory peer, increasing the electoral component

will certainly not lead to an improvement in the ability of this

House to do the functions that it has done so well over the years.

How about this young chap? He said, members of the House of Lords speak

for themselves entirely, not for lobbies, not for groups, not for

interests, unions. They are there on their own behalf. If you think

that, why are you reforming it? said at the beginning that the

House of Lords is doing a good job. The purpose behind this is to come

to a very sensible conclusion. Should lawmakers be elected? Our

argument is that they should be. For the first time in 100 years, a

government has had the courage to put a bill before Parliament. I

come on the shearers and discuss -- I come on the shows and discuss

this for many years. Now Parliament is making it the decision. If you

make them elected, they will not do the things that you said. They will

speak for lobbies, they will speak for the groups, they will speak for

interests and unions. They will not be there on their behalf? Isn't

that right? We have tried to replicate, as far as possible, the

strengths of the current house. Peers will only be elected once,

for long terms, 15 years. That guarantees independents. They do

not have to stand for re-election. It also means that they have had

the tick of authority from the electorate. That is an important

strengthening. Let's come on to some of that. It is Sunday. Can we

agree, from the Department of honesty, that he would not be

pressing ahead of this if you were not in coalition with the Lib Dems?

It is right that this is a coalition government attempt at

reforming. If you were not in coalition, you would not do it?

think that is also true. David Cameron has been well quoted saying

that it was not his priority and it might be a third term issue if we

were a Conservative government. But it is an important demand for

Liberal Democrats and we have worked very closely together,

including what the Labour Party, to come up with this Bill. You said

people would be elected for a long term and there would be democratic

and accountable peers. In what way would the politicians are elected

for 15 year terms be accountable to the people? I very carefully didn't

use the word accountable. You probably thought I might. You are

right, they are not accountable. It is people who choose which people

will represent them in the second chamber. There, they will use their

independence, their knowledge, in that chamber. But they will not

have to come back to the electorate. Once they are there, they are there

for 15 years. I think that is strengthening the current system.

Can you name any other democratic legislature in the world where

people are elected for 15 years? can't. There isn't one, we couldn't

find one. But I cannot think of another second chamber that is

created in exactly the same way as ours, partly a Blairite House of

cronies, partly an ancient, hereditary House, with

representation from bishops. It is a good mixture but I think we can

improve it. If they get in for 15 years, what happens if they turn up

for lunch, subsidised, signed on to get their �300 and then go back to

the City or their trade union and do nothing else? Can we get rid of

them? What would be the point of standing for election? �300 per day.

If they came every day. Of course they would come for that. There

will be rules in the new chamber and there will be the power to

expel them. Who would have had that power? The House of Lords itself.

If it was decided that a member was not playing the game or respecting

the rules, they would be flown out. You expect them to turn on their

own? Very much so. We have examples in the recent past where the House

of Lords has expelled peers. That is because they were sent to jail!

And those that were not sent to jail, but were suspended for

breaking the rules. If the US Senate can get by on 100 members,

why does a fine fear religious letter, covering a much smaller

country, need 450? Originally it was 300. Twice the size of the US

Senate! It is a good point. Our politics has revolved in a

different way. We have sat and examined this, they said they

should be 450. The Government, in the spirit of compromise, trying to

create a consensus, accepted that point. You would have liked you

are? I argued for that. It is part of collective responsibility. We

came to a conclusion, trying to create a consensus. It is now 450.

Can I show you what David Blunkett said about this? They are all going

to be chosen from party lists. 80% will come from party lists. David

Blunkett, the strength of the current house is to speak with the

voice of people with a live experience, not purely because they

are on a party list. Every one of the elected members will be chosen

by parties up and down the country. It will go to those who grease best,

not those that know best? The party position on this was to have

smaller constituencies, based on cities and counties, probably

elected on first past the post. But we are in a coalition and it was a

requirement that it should be under PR. We have come up with this list

system. It doesn't suit everybody but it is not 1 million miles away

from Jack Straw's position in 2008. Again, it is trying to find the

most consensual position. In the House of Commons there is a tension

between those who want to democratise the second chamber, but

do not want it to have too much authority. Some of them believe by

having a system like this it will remove that authority. I do not

think they are right. The current house has many, many problems. We

understand that. Particularly its appointed nature. But it does have

independent-minded people with expertise, you said that yourself.

You cannot argue that a party list system will produce independent-

minded people with expertise. You know that not to be true as I do.

am not one of those who believes you cannot elect people with

independence and expertise. Just to push the point one bit further, we

reserve 20% of the new House of Lords for people who have exactly

that, who are genuinely independent of party politics and who will

represent all sorts of bodies and bring the kind of expertise that we

are very used to in House of Lords today. Can I ask you a question of

parliamentary procedure? I'm interested in what happens. If the

Commons votes against the timetable motion, an attempt to limit debate

within agreed parameters, still a lot of debate, but limited, it

means that Lords reform will dominate the floor of the Commons.

It has to be taken on the floor as a constitutional issue. What would

happen? We are still in very early days. There is just over a week to

go before the House of Commons has to take a decision on a programme

of motion. Discussions will take place between the Government and

the Labour Party. They do not yet know how many days we are going to

offer, they haven't told us how many days they want. Can you

proceed with that? I think it will be very difficult to spend weeks

and months. But we mustn't second- guess the House of Commons. I think

most of them will want to get down to discussing the important issues

of what is happening in the second chamber, rather than relying on a

Labour Party political tactic to delay discussion, again and again.

People will find it very strange that in the middle of an economic

crisis, a banking crisis, a eurozone crisis, events in Syria

and perhaps elsewhere, if the Commons floor is dominated, week

after week, of Lords reform? Members of the House of Commons

will also see the force of that argument. That is why I think they

will support a programme motion, a sensible programme motion proposed

by the Government. We have a referendum on just about everything,

if we want an elected mayor, if Scotland should have its own

parliament, it Scotland should be independent, the Welsh Assembly,

why can't we have a referendum on this major constitutional change?

We have had very few national referendums. The last General

Election, all three party manifestos agreed that there should

be a democratic reform, and have done over the course of the last 10

or 12 years. They said they would try to find a consensus, they

didn't all say they would do it? have it all yet seen whether or not

we can achieve a consensus. That is the whole point of the

parliamentary debate. Referendums are expensive. �88 million on,

ostensibly, asking people to agree something that the political

parties have already agreed. I think this is a political ploy by

the Labour Party. They shoved this into their manifesto at the last

minute and have never mentioned his in the past. But if the Lords

Lords stuck it into the bill, they would have to be a discussion in

government about what would be the most appropriate way of continuing.

Speaking of referendums, a final question, the same question as to

Nigel Farage, are we closer or further away from a referendum on

Europe after the Prime Minister's statement? I think we are closer to

a referendum than we were. What we are not clear which is what the

basis of that referendum is going to be. The Prime Minister says he

understands the needs and requirements to have a referendum,

but let's decide what it's going to be about before making that

It is approaching 12:30pm and you are watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up: I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.

Until then the Sunday Politics across the UK. Welcome to the

London part of Sunday Politics. Coming up: As the recession bites,

what does the future hold for London's high streets? I am joined

by Labour MP Margaret Hodge and Conservative MP for Orpington Jo

Johnson. First, it has been repealed the south London health

care trust is in big trouble. It has debts of �150 and is losing a

further �1 million a week. The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is

in talks with the trust and has set in train a process which could end

with the arrival of a Government appointed administrator. Insolvency

looms for the south London health care trust made up of three

hospitals in Orpington, Woolwich and Sidcup. The trust may find

itself taken over by a Government administrator, but will it be

possible to balance the books without reducing treatment, using

beds and sacking doctors and nurses? Health campaigners say not.

If you are going to save �1 million a week you cannot do that without

making massive cuts to staffing and capacity. That will impact directly

on the availability and access of quality health care. But the

trust's management say despite their financial woes of the care

that patient receive one not get worse. If every three months we

measure the quality of care and we can measure it is getting better

and at the same time sought the money out, this will be a good

thing. How did we get into this mess? The Government put the blame

with its Private Finance Initiative schemes. These allowed hospitals to

borrow money. A private company would stump up the money up front

for large-scale projects such as building hospitals and the state

paid them back over many years. This year the trust will pay �61

million in charges and interest. But not everyone believes the PFI

is are solely to blame. It is convenient for the Government to

blame them. Experts have said it is only responsible for about a third

of the problems. But could this problem be replicated across the

capital? The Government has identified 21 trusts nationally who

are in trouble. Eight of those are in London and four in particular

have serious debts. But they may not need the same level of

Government input. Barking, Havering and veg Bridge Trust has got a

problem, but they have a plan that they have agreed with us and that

has been agreed with the Secretary of State. As things stand they have

a plan they are working to and delivering on. But the difficulty

for Government is that although individual hospitals may have got

themselves into trouble it is likely to be ministers taking the

blame if there are cuts. Margaret Hodge, is this the time

for a recantation about the errors of embarking on this PFI model.

have looked at PFI many times in the Public Accounts Committee and

it is true it is not good value for money which is why it is a bit

depressing that this Government is going on with that as a mechanism.

Lots of people told you that when you're in Barking in Government and

embarking on this. But we would have never got our new hospital in

our area if we had not had PFI and there were lots of hospitals built

that otherwise would not have been built. And secondly I agree with

what was said on your piece that to use PFI for the so excuse of the

financial problems is wrong. In my hospital which has got a PFI and is

paying more that it should, last year for example in obstetrics they

had to pay �5 million in compensation in obstetrics for poor

services and they were paying less than �1 million in 2006-2007. And

because of the poor quality of care they are wasting money. In the A N

D AA have got 30 to 40% locum doctors who do not know what they

are doing so people are waiting too long and they cost more. In your

constituency there is one of these hospitals, two out of three appear

five. What is going on? On a couple of points Margaret made. Yes, the

early PFI contracts were often very easy for the financiers who created

them and they were very lucrative tricks and maintenance contracts

with hugely inflated billing, for example a �500 a light bulb. Over

the years the Treasury has got better at managing PFIs and be know

how to manage them better. There was never a get out in the early

stages. The contractor which renegotiate and made huge profits.

You mentioned the PFI contract on the Princess Royal in Orpington and

that is an example of a contract that was signed in 1998 in the very

early days of the Blair Government and it was a very generous contract

and its stuffed Princess Royal with these massive interest payments.

That is not the totality of the problem. A receipt there are others

there as well. What do you think needs to happen? This south London

health care trust is heavily indebted and it is the product of a

three-way merger. The chief executive of the NHS himself said

was that it was inevitable. could see the savings that have to

be made, so do you accept they will have to be cuts in staffing and

services may suffer? What is important we end the uncertainty

because nothing kills a hospital more than uncertainty. Patients

whose confidence in their treatment and it is unsettling and they do

not know whether they will get the care they expect and stab a

confidence in their own job security. When you have got a trust

that is using over �1 million a week and that is unsustainable and

straining resources but elsewhere in the health system, you have got

to end that uncertainty. That is why Andrew Lansley has stepped in

to put it into administration. It should have been done earlier.

could not disagree with that. That is exactly what a Labour Health

Secretary would have to do. I have become back on the PFI. We looked

at the 20 trusts that were in the greatest financial difficulty and

we found that in only six of them was PFI that factor. We are where

we are. What do you do? Do you close hospitals? One of the

problems in London and I think you would agree with this, is that

money is sucked into the centre of London with the big teaching

hospitals. We both represent outer London constituencies. It may well

be that you go for a merger, but at the expense of closing the

hospitals in out a London and expect people to go into inner

London is wrong. My constituents do not have cars in the same way as

other people do. If you are having a baby to a you have to go into

central London... Would you support a merger? There will have to be job

cuts and some services may have to be closed. I cannot prejudged the

decisions the administrator will have to make. There will have to be

difficult decisions to be taken. But we must not allow this process

to end up with the centre of gravity shifting into the centre of

town. Outer London has its own special needs. We must not let

health quality worsen because of this. There is also trouble on the

High Street. As the recession bites London's local retailers find

themselves in competition with retail parks, shopping centres and

a booming online sector are. What would help? The Mayor's office and

London councils are pumping millions into the high streets. But

his is money well spent? The suburban high street, summer, 2012,

the recession now visible. But perhaps London should be grateful.

We are also having amounts of money ploughed into our high streets that

others can only dream up. One of the Mayor's key objectives was to

have money pumped into the high streets. We know that banks have

been given billions and we have seen help given to other industries

like the British car manufacturers, but are London's high streets about

to get a bail-out of their own? This is what Leyton High Road used

to look like. It is now like this. Waltham Forest council spent nearly

�500,000 doing up the shop fronts. At this boutique this investment

helped inspire them to put money of their own into doing up the entire

store. We had a few meetings, we talked about the design and the

colours and they showed us a few colours and we took it from there.

Great news for the shops who got the money, but what about their

competitors who miss out? Shoppers on the High Street had mixed views

about whether public money should be spent on private businesses.

improves the community and generates more business for all of

us. Private individuals are making money. As a taxpayer I like things

to go into things like people in hospital. But the council insists

the public get a good return for their money. Some people would say

largesse, others would say ambition. We are spending money in Leyton and

Walthamstow and next year in the north of Walthamstow. These are

places that have been neglected for a long time and we are investing

and showing our ambition so that private owners and businesses can

have confidence this is a place they want to invest in and live in.

But could it be that our money is being spent on a hunch as opposed

to a rigorous business model? According to one company that

specialises in collecting data on the High Street, our politicians

might be making a stab in the dark. I'm not aware they have that

ability to drill down into every single high-street and understand

what its occupancy and vacancy rate is like. What has been historically

a mix between food and beverage and shops. It is important to

understand how areas have changed. Is public money being spent badly

at the moment? I think it could be spent better. Like with anything we

have to know what is the return on that investment going to be.

matter how well public money is spent, the high streets will have

to compete with internet sales, large shopping centres and

stagnating living centres. Richard Dodd has joined us from the

British Retail Consortium. A number of funding streams, Mary Portas, is

this all to be welcomed from your point of view? Our high streets are

tremendously important, they are important to local communities in

terms of the jobs and services they provide. Many of them are in

trouble. One in 11 High Street shops is standing empty and it

would be a big mistake to ignore that. Of course these schemes

involve a relatively modest sums of money. They are not going to be an

all embracing, a total solution, but they are showing the right

intent. It looks predominantly about facelifts, surface staff, is

that true? The real problems on the high streets are about costs of

doing business and one of those is business rates. It's is that too

high? Not getting enough back from them? The Government put �350

million of extra costs on to retailers last April and the

previous year as well. That has made huge impact on these

businesses. But also we should not ignore the fact we need to invest

in making our town centres into safe and attractive places people

want to go to. It seems to be a perennial thing warning that the

high street is dying with retells super parks, but it never quite

does. Something else comes along, whether it is a coffee shop or an

Internet cafe. It is not dying. Many of them are in trouble. They

are all evolving, some more successfully than others and we

have to work with that process of evolution to make sure high streets

go on providing those services and jobs even if they are different in

nature to what has gone on in the past. How is Orpington town centre?

Things are looking up. Vacancy rates are only Piper said which is

a third of the national average. That is due to a successful

regeneration programme funded by City Hall and by Bromley council.

They spent �2.2 million doing the roads and the lighting and it has

made a big difference and we got a vote of confidence in Orpington

High Street. It will bring the first cinema there since 1982 if

Miller Developments goes ahead. had doubts whether there was

empirical evidence to show whether this money was being spent

correctly. You will only be able to tell from football, but surely it

is too early to say? We have got about 440,000 every week. Sorry,

every month in Orpington High Street and that is an impressive

figure. It is clear that strong lead from local Government can

create a fertile environment in which businesses still confident

enough to invest. He is barking beaming? Not yet. We have got some

of the Mayor's money, but it is money in people's pockets to spend.

In the current recession more people are out of work and there is

not that money to spend on the High Street. The other thing in Barking

and Dagenham is we lost Marks & Spencer and that was a key store

that attracted others. Woolworths went into liquidation. I think from

all my experience both on local Government and in central

Government unique a catalyst that brings in other private sector

One thing that would really change things for you? We need to focus on

the sorts of initiatives that can spark action. But we mustn't ignore

them really impact for things, things like business rates and

rents are -- the top of that. A so, what else has been happening

in the capital? Here is the answer Airline bosses, business leaders

and unions united to attack the Government's blocking of a third

runway at Heathrow, claiming that Britain was losing opportunities

and business when it could least afford it. They accused the

Government of making decisions for short-term political gain. Less

than four weeks to the Olympics, Tower Bridge got in on the act with

the Olympic logo dangled from its structure. And the new cable car

that serves Olympic valleys, the ExCel centre and the O2 Arena,

opened. But at what cost to the taxpayer? If there is any taxpayer

spending, we would expect it would be recouped from merchandising and

ticket sales. One caveat, people are banned from swimming underneath

the flightpath. Barking and Dagenham borough has the highest

risk of housing repossession in the UK according to a new report by

Shelter. Variation is most balanced in capital, where it is more than

6.5 times that in Kensington and So nice to have a member of the

Johnson family here. It has been too long. The cable car, what does

the cable-car provide for the people of Orpington? Well, it is an

opportunity for them to cross the river in a new way. It is not just

for the people of Orpington. It doesn't directly go there. It is an

addition to London's infrastructure. I am sure it will be useful. Do you

get the impression or the feel for whether this is good for

regeneration or good as a tourist attraction? Some people will call

it a vanity project. What do you think it's long-term aim or

reasoning could be? Well, infrastructure is a critical part

of creating jobs and growth in the London economy. There is clearly a

need for new ways to get around in that part of the city. Putting the

infrastructure in place often creates benefits that we cannot

identify immediately. If we reduced all big infrastructure projects to

the immediate financial benefits that we could envisage in the next

three or five years, nothing could ever get built. They create huge

options and spin-offs that we cannot envisage at the moment.

it opens up the area around the docks and draws people there, it

might be slow, but if it does that that is a great new addition to

London? I do agree with Joe on this. I don't think Boris will get his

money back, but I think you have to invest in infrastructure to try to

encourage further investment and growth. Just thinking about it, the

Olympics meant that we got the extension of the Jubilee Line to

the Olympic site at the expense of the extension of the Docklands

Light Railway, which would have helped the Royal Docks and

certainly would have helped me and my constituents in Barking and

Dagenham. I wonder if this cable- car reveals the bigger problem that

is still there, particularly in south-east London or an area like

yours, where it highlights the need for getting people into the central

London? And this is just one small measure? Absolutely. The transport

links to south-east London are in urgent need of improvement. Andy

East London! We are very keen that City Hall, that rail is devolved to

City Hall. There is an accountability to that part of

London. It at the moment they are embedded within the Department for

Transport. There is no sense of accountability, locally. What we

need is for London Overground, doing a fantastic job and other

parts of the capital, to take over the South Eastern suburban routes.

I'm afraid that is all we have time So, with Bob Diamond before the

Treasury Select Committee on Wednesday and Liam Fox putting the

cat among the pigeons on Europe today and tomorrow, it is time to

break open the Bollinger again for The Express political editor is

making a wonderful tweet, remember about this referendum that we are

not going to have, when are we not going to have it? The best I can

make out of it is that there will be a referendum one day, once we

know what our relationship with the European Union is. As ambiguous as

that is, the one consoling factor is that Labour's position is

roughly the same thing. Eventually, not yet, once we know what the

eurozone looks like. The problem with the Government's position and

Cameron's article in the Telegraph is not its ambiguity, it's that he

seems to be saying he can renegotiate our position. I don't

think the French and the eurozone I still don't understand what it is.

Is he saying that nothing can happen before 2015, but he will put

it in the Tory manifesto that he will renegotiate the relationship

with Europe. He probably will not be able to do it, but then does he

go for a referendum or is it job done? And not even sure he knows

what he means. I was in the Sunday Times newsroom yesterday and got

two entirely different briefings from Downing Street on what this

article was going to save. The first said one thing and somebody

rang me up and said, actually, we are not sure about what we told you

earlier, can you change it? It had all the hallmarks of something that

was rushed out, possibly because they knew that Liam Fox was making

this very provocative speech on Monday and wanted to get in there

first. It has opened a hornets Nest the monks to Euro-sceptics. They

are not pacified with us at all? Absolutely. Janet is right, Cameron

is now in the same position as Labour, we might have a referendum

if the terms change. But even though it was billed as Cameron

coming closer to a referendum, I thought it was incoming further

away. It was my understanding that in the coalition agreement, if our

terms and relationship with Europe changed, we would have a vote won

membership. Actually, the terms of Europe have changed as Europe

renegotiate its relationship with each other. What he ended up saying

was, actually, even though the terms of changed, there will be no

referendum until 2015. It seemed like he rushed out something. The

whole article was pregnant with phrases you learn at the school of

PR. It will be tough, but we can do it, that sort of stuff. Because he

had no spoken in Brussels, when he ruled out and in or out referendum?

It seemed like a reaction against what he said 72 hours earlier. This

presents the was problem of all, a government which does not really

know what it thinks and is pushed around by events. In the first 18

months of its life, even if you hated everything the Government did,

you could not accuse it of weakness. It had a sense of direction. They

have lost that since January. I think it began with her Stephen

Hester and RBS bonus row and it has never really been recovered. Going

back to what you said, Janet, Europe is becoming closer together

and Cameron is increasingly isolated. What he will say in his

speech tomorrow is that we will safeguard the City of London.

Actually, I'm not sure if Europe is going to be able to take London

acting as a sort of jersey on the side of the Continent. It could

really take steps to isolate the UK. What if it said, for example, if

you want to do business as a bank in Europe and we are underpinning

new, financially, you have to be in the eurozone area. It would

completely shut out London. If it was legal, which it might not be.

But you raise a good point. The point that Janet made is absolutely

right, I think. I would guess it is almost inconceivable that the

Europeans would agree a renegotiation that allowed us to

stay in with all of the benefits and none of the obligations, which

would leave a Tory majority government in a position of having

to have an in or out referendum and probably having to say out? I think

what Cameron has been afraid of, and he is right to be afraid of it,

is Ed Miliband catching him out on this and making a really bold

statement by saying, actually, we are going to offer people a

referendum. That would have made Cameron look very weak. He did have

to come out and say something. What is odd is the timing of it and how

garbled it has been. On banking, although Rachel Reeves did not

quite say it, it is pretty clear that Labour are waiting to see how

Bob Diamond performs. There is every chance that after they hear

what he had to say, they are going to call for his resignation?

Absolutely. I think he should go. He was either complicit in what was

happening or totally negligent. Either way, the fact that he

doesn't realise that the public needs to see somebody taking

responsibility is symptomatic of an entire industry that is completely

out of touch. I don't think it would be a risk for Labour to say,

actually, we need him to go. The one point why would make is that

this is much, much bigger than Bob Diamond. I do think that we need a

Leveson Inquiry for the banking sector. It's interesting, the

parallels between the two. A set of elites in an over concentrated

industry that think they are above the rules and manipulate them for

their interests, rather than the public interest. I think we need

some kind of reckoning now. Ed Miliband has been right to call for

that public inquiry. How much would we find out? These things cost so

much money and end up like a theatre, often. You hold an inquiry

into a specific event like Bloody Sunday. To hold an inquiry into

something like the culture of banking, it's like an inquiry into

media ethics. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry took six years and cost

millions of pounds! That did go on for too long and cost too much. To

do it on the culture of banking would allow it to turn into what

Leveson Inquiry has become, an inquiry with no discernible limits

and will resulting conclusions that satisfy no one. Which of the five

Iraq inquiries have placated people? We are still waiting for

one! They are still meeting in Whitehall. Politically, in a sane

world, the Government would want an inquiry into banking because it has

very little to lose from it. Most of the regulatory failures took

place previously. Labour should actively oppose one because they

are going to be in front of it. But the exact inverse has happened.

a sense, this has caught people's attention almost more than the

slump itself. They have worked out, although they do not know what

LIBOR is and it probably didn't affect them, it was a kind of

victimless crime, in a way, for ordinary people, people behind

closed doors were rigging things and I think the public are just

saying, why isn't somebody going to jail for this? In a way, it's

simple to understand. You can see an exchange of the e-mails that

says, hey, mate, can you change it to this? The other guy says, yes,

just for you. It looks really dodgy. Fixing an interest rate that is at

the heart of London's integrity as a global financial centre? This is

another reason why we need an inquiry. It has happened in the

States and has been very successful there as well. It says that if you

do wrong you will be publicly shamed. That stops a massive

problem happening afterwards. are getting at with the select

committees. It's become very Americanised, how we will people

out, put them behind the stand as if this is what goes on. Not as

good at asking questions as the Senate. We will get there.

believe it is only the start, many other banks are going to be done

for this LIBOR scam as well. If Bob Diamond goes, you could see the

case for a complete Cole. Cameron hasn't ruled out a full inquiry. --

That is all for this week. Jo Coburn will bring you the Daily

Politics on BBC Two tomorrow at the earlier time of 11 o'clock. We will