15/07/2012 Sunday Politics London

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. An epic spat in

the Commons with Tories queuing up to strangle Nick Clegg's plans to

reform the Lords. This morning, the Prime Minister has appealed to

backbenchers and coalition partners alike not to descend into division

and navel-gazing. That is our top story.

And an Olympic-sized fiasco over security for the Games. Who is for

the high jump? Yvette Cooper is this week's Sunday interview.

Our political panel of the best and brightest here every week to

analyse British politics in The Week Ahead and tweeting with the

speed of Usain Bolt throughout the programme.

The Olympics are 12 days away. How will the London Transport programme

code and what were the legacy be? How secure can we make the 2012

Games? All of that coming up in the next

hour but first the news. Many thanks. It has emerged that

the Government was warned about problems with the G4S contract to

provide security staff for the Olympics 10 months ago. Concerns

were raised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The

Home Office insists that matters were resolved earlier this year.

The questions keep coming for the security firm G4S. So they keep

coming, too, for the Government. Who knew what and when? Could this

problem have been spotted earlier and sorted out sooner? This is a

disaster as far as people are concerned. It is almost threatening

to spoil the party. What we need to do now is to pull together and make

sure that they deliver the Games that everybody wants, the Greatest

Show on Earth. No, insist ministers, this will not spoil the party or

the Games. There was always a back- up plan to bring in more troops

like these if there was a problem. The military were always going to

have a significant role keeping us save at the Olympics, but that role

is now rather bigger. The Government says this hitch is not

that surprising given the scale of the Olympics but they were in the

dark about G4S's failure to recruit enough staff until a couple of days

ago. We of course have been monitoring the situation with G4S.

Their management told us right up until last week that everything was

on track. The moment that they didn't, we put in place a

contingency plan, but we have had that plan for many months. We are

very lucky to have fantastic armed services. Labour say that ministers

have been complacent. The G4S there are more questions to come. Their

chief executive will face MPs at Westminster on Tuesday.

The Syrian Government has denied using tanks and helicopters in its

assault on the village of Tremseh. UN inspectors are due to return to

the area today to continue their investigations into what exactly

happened. Our correspondent is in Beirut. The Syrian Government

clearly putting up a strong defence of its actions this morning. That

is right. Basically they are saying that this was a targeted attack on

several buildings in the village used as bases by what they call

terrorists, armed rebels in other words. That co-ordinates with what

the UN observers of binding on the ground. After their first visit

yesterday they reported it was a specific attack on opposition

activists and not an all-out assault on the village killing

civilians. Where there is a discrepancy is in the use of heavy

weapons. The UN is sticking to its story that they have found evidence

of mortars and artillery being fired into the village, presumably

by Government forces, and the observers themselves last Thursday

saw a helicopter firing into the village, obviously a Government

helicopter. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson in Damascus, the

Syrian official, insists absolutely that Syrian forces did not use

tanks, artillery, anything happier than a rocket -- heavier than a

rocket-propelled grenade which can be used by one man. That is

contradictory to the UN observers' findings. Discrepancies. On the

issue of a massacre, the UN account seems to be closer to that of the

Syrian Government than it is to the activists on the ground, who said

there was a big massacre of civilians. Thank you.

Health trusts in the South West of England are considering imposing

pay cuts of up to 5% on staff in a bid to cut costs. 19 cuts are

suggesting changing the terms of conditions of doctors and nurses

with the threat of being sacked and rehired on new contracts if they

refuse. The trusts say they are looking at more flexible ways of

rewarding staff and they would consult with trade unions before

making changes. Amir Khan has lost his WBA and WBC

light welterweight unification fight against Danny Garcia at in

the early hours of this morning in Las Vegas. The fight was stopped in

the 4th round after Amir Khan had been not to the floor three times.

It is his second defeat in succession. -- knocked to the floor.

There is more news on BBC One at 7:30pm.

There are areas of profound differences between the

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, as David Cameron in this morning's

Sunday Times said, as if we did not know. But he insists the coalition

is the right answer for Britain in troubled times but this has not

been a good week for coalition partners. The plans for Lords

reform has were mugged in the Commons by a series of Tory

backbenchers looking for a fight. The scars will take a while to heal.

Monday, Nick Clegg presents his plan for reforming the House of

Lords. But dedicated individuals cannot compensate for flawed

institutions. This bill is about fixing a flawed institution. Behind

the scenes, Tory rebels were mobilising. 70 signed a letter

spelling out their objections, and what the Commons lose its power? He

wants a bunch of politicians anyway and why now? -- who wants a new

bunch? The Conservative whips applied the thumbscrews. I was

certainly being worked very hard. Several conversations on several

days including on the day of the vote. Several conversations about

my own reasoning behind it, my future, all sorts of things, and

that is their job. The arm-twisting was not enough. Just before 10

o'clock on Tuesday night, the Commons voted on the plans. 91

Conservatives rebelled, two of their ministerial aides who lost

their jobs. Then the Government step back from the brick,

withdrawing a programme motion, which is the bit of business that

set the parliamentary timetable. The coalition were almost certain

to lose the vote. In the House, the Prime Minister was losing his rag

with one of his backbenchers, Jesse Norman, to the astonishment of

those watching. He pointed his finger directly in Mr Norman's face.

He was red-faced and very aggressive. Mr Norman clearly did

not seem very happy but did not really respond adversely either. I

thought he dealt with the situation terribly well actually. That gave

Ed Miliband an opening at PMQs at midday on Wednesday. Mr Speaker,

last night he lost control of his party and not for the first time.

Not for the first time he lost his temper as well. A few hours later,

David Cameron faced his party at the 1922 Committee of backbench MPs.

Nick what of the Guardian had his ear to the door. Message number one

was that we are going to have one last go at this and we are not

going to go on about House of Lords reform for ever and then a second

message was that we should have a smaller elected element. This is

the George Osborne idea which she has been put into ministers, which

would be removing the 92 remaining hereditary peers and in 2015 you

would replace them with an elected element and that is all you would

do this Parliament. The Lords is in limbo. A bit like relations between

the Tories and the Lib Dems after this turbulent week.

The Lib Dem man in the Foreign Office is Jeremy Browne and he

joins us from Taunton. Good afternoon. What makes you think

that Tory rebels will change their minds over Lords reform by

September? Well, that is a conversation you should perhaps

have with them and the Conservatives. Nick Clegg lead a

completely unified party in the House of Commons to a majority of

338, I think, on Tuesday evening, in favour of a largely elected

democratic Parliament. In a way, the ball is in the Court of the

Conservatives and Labour because they have been playing games with

this legislation. They need to decide how they will take forward

the will of Parliament as expressed on Tuesday evening. I have had that

conversation with a number of Tory rebels and they have said they will

not change their minds and they expect the rebellion to be even

bigger next time because they have their bit between the -- their

teeth. We have the coalition agreement, entered into three by

the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. It is a contract of how we are

going to go about the coalition Government together. It is not

entirely conservative or entirely Liberal Democrat and it reflects

the fact that neither party won the general election. You cannot have

an approach where one party picks and chooses which bits of the

agreement they are going to honour. It is a package of measures as a

whole. I think the expectation should be that both parties will

honour their side of the contract, their obligations. They should

enact that overall package. If one party is reluctant about one part

of the package, they have to address that issue seriously

because, if you like, the ball is in their court. But my big

message... Go on? I am grateful to you for letting me interrupt you.

The Prime Minister is going to give it one last go, that is his exact

wording. It is hardly fighting them on the beaches. If I was a rebel, I

would think one last go and then it is over and I need to rebel one

more time. I think the rebels on the Conservative benches need to

remember that the Conservatives did not win the last general election

so they are not in the business of an act in their manifesto in full

and they have no mandate to act their manifesto in full. -- not in

the business of connecting their manifesto in full. There has to be

some give and take. There is a coalition Government between two

distinct political parties, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats,

and that agreement reflects the fact that no party won the general

election. I think some Conservative backbenchers are behaving as though

they won and no doubt they wish they had, but they did not. I wish

the Lib Dems had won but we did not either. There is some give and take

a both parties have to behave in a responsible, disciplined way.

Coming back to my first point, on Tuesday night, the Liberal

Democrats, Nick Clegg's party, which is a blend, aggressive and

Kevin Rudd. You have made that point twice. -- Nick Clegg's party

were disciplined, aggressive and co-ordinated. In this long article,

David Cameron does not give a single word in favour of Lords

reform and yet this is meant to be a rallying cry to the rebels.

Jeremy Hunt saying that if it was up to him there would be 100%

elected House of Lords. So there is a range of views. Is the Prime

Minister's heart in it? I believe it is because he signed up to the

coalition agreement as a whole and it is contained within the

agreement. He voted along with me and an overwhelming majority of MPs

on Tuesday evening for a democratised Parliament. Let me

make this point. It is the crucial, underlying point. I strongly agree

with the point that you are driving at. We need to make sure that in

this country we have a coalition that is, if you like, well... The

worst type of coalitions are where the parties cannot agree on

anything and do nothing in particular. The best coalitions are

where the parties are more than the sum of their parts and they bid

reach other up, if you like, raised in the bar. It is good to have that

mindset and good for Britain to have an optimistic and ambitious

Government. That is the type of condition that we need to see. We

do see it but we need to see it more than we do at the moment. If

you like, the mentality for both parties should be what can we add

and not what can we subtract from the coalition and that will be in

the interest of the country as a whole. There we drag you back to

what you can deliver. You stress that this is a coalition where we

have to do things that we do not really like and they have to do

things they do not really like. If House of Lords reform is dead, our

boundary changes also dead? I am not sure that actually the

Conservatives don't really like House of Lords reform. What is the

answer to my question? Well, it was in their manifesto. David Cameron

and George Osborne and William Hague and others voted on Tuesday

evening for House of Lords reform. If House of Lords reform is dead,

Jeremy Browne, would you still vote for boundary changes? I don't

accept the premise of your question. It might be. I don't think it is a

tit-for-tat arrangement. There is a package of arrangements and

contained in it are a number of constitutional measured and you

have mentioned two, including other measures, and we are enacting that

package as a whole. For a sample, it directly-elected Police

Commissioners, which was in the Conservative manifesto and not

Liberal Democrat manifesto. -- for example. And in good faith we

enacted that part of the agreement even though it is a Conservative

policy. Might you still boat for boundary changes if you do not get

Lords reform? -- vote. That is a hypothetical question. It is a good

question. We have just had a massive majority in favour of House

of Lords reform. It is only in Alice-in-Wonderland politics where

it is called a disaster. No other country in the world looks at our

House of Lords and things that is the model they want for their

Parliament. We need to modernise it and have progressive change and

that is what Parliament voted for David Cameron has already started

to map out the outlines of what might be in the next Tory manifesto.

Are you going to start doing that for the Liberal Democrats as well?

Are you going to start going your separate ways before the May 2015

election? Well we are less than half way through this Parliament.

So, I think people can get aahead of themselves. We will not have a

general election until May 2015. We are only in the summer of 2012. Of

course we are separate parties the Liberal Democrats will have a

separate manifesto and so will the Tories and the Labour Party. Is it

helpful of the Prime Minister giving we would like to see in the

Conservatives manifesto if he didn't have the Liberal Democrats

around his neck. Well the Conservatives didn't win the last

election. They may well not win a majority at the next general

election or subsequent ones either. I point I make and I come back to

it. The psychology of a successful coalition is that if I come with up

a fantastic idea for, for example, education, what I think is best is

if the coalition partner, rather than trying to water down my idea,

comes back with a fantastic idea of their own. In other words we bid

each other up and become more of the sum of our parts. We try to

have a healthy competition which isn't about... Oh, we seem to have

lost the line down it Taunton there, just as he was making a point. He

had already made most of it before, I think we got the gist of what

Jeremy Browne was saying. Thank you for joining us on the Sunday

Politics. The current row about G4S and the security fiasco at the

Olympics is a reminder if it is needed that being Home Secretary is

one of the toughest jobs in British politics but my Sunday interview

guest still wants the job. It may be one of the great offices of

state but the Home Office is also a graveyard for ministerial careers.

You've got to grip immigration. Over 3 million more people came to

this country than left it under the last Labour Government. A policy

they admit they got wrong. You have to run the police and keep law and

order while the Chancellor tightens the purse strings. You have to pray

prisoners don't leap the fence like they did under Home Secretary,

mourpd and hope that queues don't swamp Heathrow or riots don't

dominate the headlines as they did last summer. Perhaps most important

of all, it is your responsibility to stop terrorists mounting the

kind of attack on this country, the memory of which sends a shiver down

our collective spine. The woman who wants that job is Labour's Yvette

Cooper. She is my Sunday Interview. Let's try and find out what kind of

Home Secretary you would make. Let's start with immigration,

always a huge topic. Labour now says it was wrong on a number of

things about immigration. So, specifically what would the

immigration policies of Home Secretary Cooper be? Well you are

right we have said that there were things we didn't get right,

including we should have brought the points-based system in earlier

and we should have had transitional controls around Eastern Europe we.

Need to learn from that and look forward. So what would you do...

Let's park all that. Some of the things we would concentrate on

first of all is on illegal immigration. We know it is getting

worse. For example there has been a nearly 20% reduction in the number

of illegal migrants being stopped at Heathrow as rault of the

downgrading of security checks last year. -- as a result. We know there

is a 20% reduction in the number of foreign criminals dedeported. A

starting point for any system, if it is going to be fair, the rules

need to be be enforced. You need foreign db -- proper enforcement.

And a guy who raped a 12-year-old girl is in the news this morning,

from Sudan, he can not be deported because of your Human Rights Act.

don't note cases. We have said there is more action that needs to

be taken on foreign criminals but it has got worse in the last 12

months. Since the election there is a reduction in the number being

deported not actually because of the courts but because the Borders

Agency is not teaking illegal immigration seriously or

enforcement and is not getting the bureaucracy right. The Home

Secretary took a decision to cut 5,000 staff from the Borders Agency,

putting huge pressure on. We are seeing it in what is happening at

Heathrow. Let's look at legal I will graigs before any cuts in the

borders. When you came to power there were just under 50,000 net

migration coming into this country. By the time you left office it had

risen to over 250,000 a year, net, coming in.

Looking at that, did you let too many people in? I think what you

saw was a huge increase in travel and trade, right across the world.

So you saw comparable increases in migration in most other western

European countries and most other in fact major western economies.

But we have said we should have had the points-based system in

earlier... You opposed the when the Tories proposed the in the 2005

election. We introduced it but we should have introduced it earlier.

Did you let too many in? skilled migration I think has been

too high for some years. It does need to come down and that's why -

it is why we brought the points- based system in but I think it

needed to be tightened further. you did let too many people in?

have to lock at different kifpbdz migration. I understand that. I

will come on to the different times in a minute but overall did you let

too many in? Start for the different kinds. It matters. Low

skilled migration was too high we. Should have brought in a points-

based system and also the level of migration from Eastern Europe was

higher than we would have wanted. We didn't get the assessment of the

figures right at the time. I don't think however it was wrong to have

an an increase in legitimate foreign graduate students who are

coming to Britain to our universities and bringing billions

of pounds into our universities as well. It is important to recognise.

You can't just treat all migration as the same. That's what the

government is doing and their approach isn't working.

understand that. I'm still not if you think we let too many. In let's

look at the gross migration, the breakdown in figures. The last year

you were in power. 9 3thourd Brits came become into the country. You

will not stop them coming back. -- 93,000 Brits. 176,000 from the

European Union. We can't stop them coming. In it is not an Irish this

morning but 3 22,000, by far the biggest bulk came from outside the

EU. That is in our control. Would you support this number? We have

supported proposals that the government has proposed.

That reduces the number. You would reduce that. In You want to reduce

low skilled migration. Because that affects such a large proportion, it

does have an impact on the overall level as well. So if you would

reduce that, can you give us any kind of ballpark then of what you,

as Home Secretary, would regard as a proper level of net migration.

You left us with 250,000 coming neverry year. What would you aim

for? We have said issues around controls, targets, caps and limits

is something we need to do considerable work on as a result.

Give me a figure. I think it is important we do this in a serious

and steady way. The Government has picked out a ballpark figure.

etrying not to interrupt you but I am. I'm not interested in the

Government. I'm interested in you. For someone who has apologised for

previous immigration policy I'm trying to get a rough idea of what

you think in the 21st century, a net migration ballpark figure

should be, what is it? Sure. The Government did what you are asking

me to do now. To pick a figure out of thin air. David Cameron did that.

He said he wanted to reduce net migration from 250,000 to the tens

of thousands. In fact that hasn't worked. As a result... You can't

give me faiing. We haven't seen the net migration figure changing and

also the condition sequence of what he is doing by bundling up net

migration, as you are asking me to do, is instead to end up trying to

cut the number of serious graduate students. I don't think your

apology will count for much among viewers if you can't give us an

idea of what you think the scale of immigration should be. Well you

know what you are asking me to do is you are asking me to do what the

Government has done and that isn't working. I think you should look

separately for example at what is happening with students, you should

look separately at what is happening with low skill migration

and particularly, there is a whole lot of immigration which doesn't

even count in the Government's net migration figure that you want to

target. For example, student visitor visas and student visitor

visas are going up. It is not included in the Government's

figures and they are not foe cousin on that. On crime and prisons and

crime, would you be a David Blunkett Labour Home Secretary or a

Roy Jenkins Labour Home Secretary? Well I think the approach that we

took in fact... What would you be? We said tough on crime and the

causes of crime. That's the awere proch that David and Tony Blair

took and a series of Labour Home Secretaries took. It has worked. We

had crime fall. It fell everywhere in Europe and America. If I had

promised new 1997 that crime would fall by 40% you would not have

believed a word of it. It did happen. It was as a result of the

approach we took. I'm trying to get you to look forward not backwards.

Bear with me it, a thing we journalists have. I'm trying to

work out what you would do. Let me show you what your leader says. You

said when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in

prison because of high reoffending rates, I'm not going say he's soft

on crime. Every time the Tories do something, you come at them from

the right. Even the Justice Secretary said

they are taking risks with public safety. You have to look at

community sentences, where they work and what you can do to prevent

reoffending. Is your leader right in saying that high reoffending

means we have to look at short sentences or is Sadiq Khan, your

Justice Secretary right, in saying that the Justice Secretary are

taking risks. They are both right. How can they both be right? Some of

the things Ken Clarke wanted to do, he wanted to end up, I think it was

substantially reducing rape sentences. I don't think that is

the right thing to do. I think that is Ken Clarke getting the balance

wrong. There are o areas of course where you want to prevent

reoffending but I do think the Home Secretary is taking a huge risk by

cutting 60,000 police officers. you to the right of the claerning?

It is much too is impistic to talk like that. To the right of Ken

Clarke. I think it is much too simplistic. Let's come on to G4S,

it is one of these periodic nightmares that hits the Home

Office. Would hole secretary Cooper ever high G4S again? They do look

like a complete shower at the moment. It is shocking what they

would have dob. You have to have an awful lot of scepticism about their

ability to deliver a CI think it is not just about G4S. Serve working

to deliver the Olympics, fantastic works have gone on with the venues.

It is not just about G4S letting the country down. Why on earth did

the Home Office not know what is happening. And wait to the last

minute. It is utter incompetence. I'm not sure if you answer mied

question. It was you, the Labour Government that made G4S rich. I

have a list of contracts you gave them. I see the boss, who is now

touring the studios ised paid almost �1 million a year with �5

million of share options. Sounds like a banker. You made them rich.

Would you ever employ them again? Public-private partnerships can be

effective. You wouldn't expect me to set what the framework would be

for every individual contract. asking whether you would use them

again. I would certainly not want to be contracting out core public

policing to them, which is what the Government has been forcing police

forces to. You wouldn't let anybody do that. You are right. You

shouldn't be contracting out policing It is a big mistake.

want to move over to Lords reform. Briefly. I think the Government,

the Home Secretary has serious questions to answer. She has not

yet explained whether she is on top of what is happening with the G4S

number of staff and the volunteers and also how on earth could they

not know with what it looks like now, that they were actually

advised in the autumn. If the Home Secretary was here, what was the

number one question would you ask: Is she in control of it now. Do we

now know that there won't be any additional police or troops needed,

and secondly, how could she possibly have not known, even as

late as Monday of last week, she was saying she was confident it was

going to be all right. Final question on Lords reform in our

last mib. Labour says it is in favour of an elected second chamber.

Every major constitutional change passed by the last Labour

Government required a programme timetable a limit on the debate.

Why not - why don't you vote for one on this Lords reform. We voted

for the bill. We didn't vote for the programme motion. Only ten days

deaf bait which would have allowed the Government to force through

bits of the bill that needed to be amended. You only gave eight days

to Scottish devolution, seven days to the Welsh Assembly, twodys to

day we talked about earlier, did you that in four-and-a-half days.

You could argue about the number of days but why not vote for some kind

of timetable if you are in favour of it. Bnch before these time

tables were brought. In I was in Parliament then and we managed to

get legislation through it. Requires the Government to talk to

us about each stage and we have said we'll work with them to Mick

sure it gets through Parliament if the Government will work with us to

do that but it needs to be amended. That's why we had to say this about

the timetable motion it, would not have allowed us to be able to amend

the bill in the way we need but we need it to get through to have

House of Lords reform. Have a good You are watching Sunday Politics.

Coming up next 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead with

our Sunday panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Hello and welcome to the London part of Sunday Politics. Joining me

for the next 20 minutes, shadow Olympics minister Tessa Jowell, the

Labour member for West Dulwich and West Norwood, and the Conservative

MP for Beckenham and member of the Defence Select Committee. There is

only one story in London, not the rain, the Olympics. Londoners were

always promised that the additional cost of the Games would just be 38p

for the average household per week. We have been paying that for over

six years. Opinions are still divided on whether that was value

for money. As Hugh Robertson has been telling us, there are areas

where exactly what Londoners can expect in return for that sum of

money has yet to be decided. I know not everybody likes this analogy,

but what we are talking about here per week, you cannot even buy a

Walnut whip for 38p. I was tempted to bring one! If you buy one of

them once a week for 10 years, do you want that or the spent of the

Olympic Games? This is what it has cost. The average London house sold

has had to go one extra sugary treat less for the sake of hosting

the Olympic Games. The deal was signed off by a Labour Government

and Labour Mayor. Would this cost gusting minister prefer it to have

been cheaper? -- cost-cutting minister. I would not. The then

Government look that the Games and the possibilities that came to this

country as a result of staging the Games, and I wish they had done

more with them. That was when the plans were for a larger scale,

regeneration of Stratford and the other things. That is when that

came about. The centrepiece of that investment, the half a billion

pound Olympic Stadium, still without a permanent tenants sorted

for after the Games. It may be too early to judge whether it

represents good value or perhaps whether Londoners would have

preferred to spend their cash on something else. There have been

some well-publicised problems over the stadium, principally because we

have had too many people wanting to get into it and not too few. That

is what caused the delay and I think we will get over that and I'm

completely sure we will deliver a mixed-use communities stadium with

football at its heart after the Games. It sounds like they might be

some news coming soon? There may very well be but that depends on

the good negotiations. Before the Games? That depends on the

negotiations. It is well known that lots of people are interested in

being part of the Olympic Stadium. It is a fantastic facility. We have

already got the World Athletics Championships coming to London in

2017, which we secured last year. We had lots of communities

interested in using it around the stadium. I would like to add a

football club to that and it would be the icing on the cake. I am

confident that will happen but we cannot make an announcement before

the Games possibly. But we could have that used? Possibly but

probably not. -- but we could have that news? Possibly but probably

not. You can never guarantee anything, but we will be pretty

sure that it will open again in 2014 on time. On the subject of

certainty, could there be any room for manoeuvre on the highly

controversial Games lanes designed to let at Leeds and sponsors was

around London while we, the people paying for it, sit next to them? --

athletes and sponsors. The best advice to anybody travelling in

London, if you are thinking of driving into central London, please

do not. If it was complete gridlock on the whole of London grinds to a

halt then nobody can move anywhere. I don't think that will happen, by

the way, but you would be foolish not to look at the worst case

scenario. So there are varying mixtures of excitement and bread.

By the end of the summer, opinions may have changed about whether it

was all worth it or not. Tessa Jowell, are you alarmed by

the recent travel problems, particularly looking at the M4 and

the rehearsals at the key London stations that did not go very well.

First of all, I do not think it is fair to say they did not go very

well. The M4 has now reopened. has, surprisingly! The fact is that

these problems will arise and we have to brace ourselves for more

difficulties in the days before the opening ceremony. The important

thing is the unity of purpose to address those problems and sold

them. When you say more problems, what are you thinking of? I cannot

be of anything worse than a crack on the M4, the main route from

Heathrow air court. -- I cannot think of anything worse. We have to

manage the problems rather than going into meltdown and assuming

nobody can do anything about them. We have an expert team at LOCOG and

Transport for London managing this. It is our job to give confidence to

that, not to... OK, are you confident? What about the transport

system itself, grinding to a halt? That was the question put to the

minister. Well, I do not think it will but if it does we will get

through it and that is the end of it. We have got to sort it. It was

not designed for the Olympic Games and it was designed for London 100

years ago. We have adapted it and it will be adapted again and things

will go wrong and people will complaint and other people will

have a magic journey. And that will happen. If it does grind to a halt,

perhaps not literally, then should people consider it suspending the

restrictions on the roads and people could use those specific

claims? That is the kind of sensible, last ditch strategic

planning. That will be a decision under gold command for the police,

at Transport for London, and the Mayor. Let them take those

decisions. These are not things that have not occurred to them. Of

course they have thought of them. But he would be in breach of the

deal signed with the Olympic Committee that those loans would be

kept empty and designated for those people. -- those lanes. But if you

have a crisis you have to manage the crisis and create a solution.

Of course the Olympic Committee would be party to any of that but

they want as much as anybody else for the Games to be a fantastic

success. Absolutely. You can take possibility to the very limit of

what is likely. That is what the test events have done. The test

days, at what Network Rail did, all to try and identify where the

weaknesses are and be in a position to address them if they do arrive

in real time. One of the problems of the strikes, the bus drivers

trying to strike a deal over bonus payments. What do you say to them

because that has not been resolved? Perhaps they could think about the

military, should they get a bonus? They will not get a bonus and they

will be delighted to come in and sort out the problem. Quite frankly,

I asked the bus drivers to stop. We have to make this a great event.

Sort it out as fast as possible. absolutely agree with that. I am on

the record as saying there should be no strikes during the Olympics.

So should they pay the bonus? the most important thing is to get

round the table and negotiate. My understanding is that there is

money on the table to fund the bonus. The whole thing has got to

be done fairly between the different elements of Transport

personnel. But there should be no strikes. Moving on from Transport

to legacy, which is very important. One London won the bid it was a

different economic climate. Knowing what we know now, could be Games

have been done for less money, should have been done for less?

It would not have been worth spending money on building venues

without regenerating the park in which the venues sit. You could not

have done anything if you had not invested in washing the soil,

levelling it, dealing with waterlogging. Now there will be

2800 homes after the Games and another 7500 to come. A new

community for London. Do hundred and 50 sweet treats, a price worth

paying? -- at 250. Some people will say no. I say yes. Quite frankly we

are going to have a fantastic event. It will showcase London and it will

be a world-class event. We will show that this country may well be

in the doldrums at the moment but it can still put on a class act.

you regret that we have got to the Olympics happening in a matter of

weeks and no idea what the stadium will be used for in the future?

Should that have been sorted out so we know what that legacy would be?

Well, they are trying to sort it out. Seven years? These things are

not as easy as that. Seven years since like a long time but equally

it will be sorted out and I hope very much they will get someone to

occupy it and use it to maximum capacity. Can we look at the other

side of that assertion? Six out of eight venues have got their long-

term tenants which has never happened in any other Olympics city.

Tell me about an Olympic city that before the Games is so advanced

that they have settled the legacy of the stadium as we are? But your

idea was not taken up in the end. Which? He wanted to party bring it

down and then rebuild it. I think it will be. It will not be and

85,000 seater stadia because who needs that? What about imminent

news? We could expect an announcement before the Games.

not party to that, but the sooner the better and in the autumn I

think we will know who will be there in the longer term. All right.

It emerged that G4S the private company hired to provide security

for the Games failed to train at the workers as promised and the

army have been called in to fill the gap. This is what Theresa May

said in the House of Commons to explain. We were receiving

assurances from G4S until very recently and the gap in the numbers

was only crystallised finally yesterday. Because we have been

monitoring this, we had had discussions with the minister of

defence about whether there would be availability of troops. -- the

Ministry of Defence. And that is why yesterday we were able to take

that decision, having prudently been making those discussions and

contingency arrangements. Joining us from Westminster, Margaret

Gilmore from the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and

Security Studies. Now we know that 3500 soldiers on their way to shore

up the shortfall and security staff, is that a shock for you? What a

fiasco. The military were asking what do you need and what can we

give you? We know that all the specialists stuff around the

sailing and in the Thames and the big military hardware that we have

seen, we know about that, but we also know that our troops a bridge

at logistics but they were kept away. Then a small number have come

in. -- our troops are brilliant at logistics. Then finally they have

been brought in. His security compromised? Of course not, if

anything they will do a better job. The ball might feel more

comfortable. I will just put that question to Bob Stewart. 3500

troops have been drafted in two weeks before the Games start. That

is a big ask. It is a big ask and clearly it was a shambles for G4S

and they have made a big mistake and I hope they will pay for that.

Shouldn't the Government have known? Theresa May said the

Government have reassurances but it does not sound convincing. Why did

they not know about the short for? The answer is that I do not know. I

suspect it was hidden by G4S. When the Government found out, I am

quite sure that they started ringing alarm bells immediately.

The military have been put on standby and they are being used.

That is what they have to do and what the military are there for. As

I said earlier, it would be jolly nice if they could get a bonus, but

they will not. What about other contingency plans coming into

force? The key thing about the military is that these people are

going to come in and they will do the simple task that they will do

very well of speeding long queues in securely. Checking bags and

getting people through and doing the perimeter work. I think the

contingencies in place for other eventualities are in a different

sphere. I think they all stand up. I have never seen anything like the

type of security that we have got that these Games. We rings of steel

around it. And there has been a spate of arrests not just in London.

Is that a taste of things to come? Normally if intelligence agencies

are suspicious about people then they put them under surveillance

for a long time to get enough evidence to prove there is a plot

and put them through the courts. I think the politicians have

absolutely zero tolerance of taking any risk on security, so if

somebody falls under suspicion, they are being arrested and if

there is not enough evidence to put them through the courts, at least

if there was something going on then it would have been disrupted

and the message has been said that they have been clocked and they

Tessa Jowell, what do you say about that? Well militarisation, yes,

heavy-handed security, yes, heavy- handed policing, yes. So, that's

why I think the aim throughout, is certainly in all the discussions I

have been party to, is to ensure security, surveillance, the action

to protect the Games is proportionate, so that people are

able to enjoy Games, which is safe, and secure, but as I say, doesn't

feel as if we've suddenly been invaded. One of the things I think

we do owe, however, is a great debt of gratitude to these soldiers who

are coming back, many of them from active deployment to take on this

responsibility. And as Richard... With a promise of tickets? I hope

so, at least, at least some tickets. Or give their families tickets.

hope people will thank them. Margaret gill Moroccans another

issue that could be a problem with protests, leading up to the games.

Dr Margaret Gilmore, another issue could be protests. Is that a

difficult issue? Well unless things go pear-shaped, the UK was critical

during Beijing of the way things were handled so we can't do the

same and come down in a heavy- handed way, however we cannot have

the situation where we had last summer where we had major rioting

because where you are moving large crowds of people around, if you

start getting in the way of that and start getting panic amongst the

crowds, then off doubly worse security situation. So there will

be protests, but any hibit of violence, I think they will come

down heavy handedly and they are watching people coming in from

abroad, known protesters, and we have we have seen terrorist arrests

we are also seeing people who are known to protest violently, who are

being arrested and given little messages that way. Bob Stewart are

you reassured, confident, from a security point of view, we will all

be fine. It'll all be fine but I have one word of caution, we will

find things that will happen that we haven't expected. That's the way

of the world and that is why, as Tessa has said, we have got a

pretty good organisation to be flexible and, for example, if

necessary, with approval, use Olympic lanes, we will get the best

way forward. Thank you very much. Nue, look at the rest of the news

in 60 seconds. -- now a look at the rest of the news in 60 seconds.

With fears the Olympic flame might be doused with a are iny forecast

for week one, organise remembers drawing up continge Icy plans,

including orderering thousands of plastic ponchos. Worryingly for the

Games 27 planners. M4 was closed for repair. The motorway will

become part of the Olympic route network on Monday with one lane on

each carriageway reserved for competitors, officials and sponsors.

In east London residents lost their appeal to have the anti-terrorist

ground to air missiles deployed on the roof of their tower block

removed. He helped win the Olympics and

three general elections for the Labour Party but now Tony Blair is

back, advising opposition leader Ed Miliband, on the Games, Sporting

and Economic legacy. Braving the llts, a cheeky streaker in Henley

jumped on the Olympic bandwagon, armed only with a replica

artificial torch. So, is it the weather we are going

to have to worry about more than anything else? Listen, with an

event on this size and scale you worry about everything. If you

worry about everything, you are prepared for whatever arises.

can't do anything about the weather. Wouldn't a roof have been a good

idea? No.. Why not? Would you like knee spend half an hour. You have

about a minute. Like Wimbledon they have done well with their roof.

there are very clear rules about how Olympic and world records are

set in track and field. And there is a roof, two-thirds of the

stadium is covered, and it's been designed precisely to ensure that

any record set is valid. So as long as you are not in this thaird where

it is uncovered. Then you want your plastic poncho. Do you think they

should have done a bit more. We have had a freak Sumner terms of

the rain but perhaps more should have been done... To stop the rain.

No, but to mitigate it? No, there is damn all you can do. There is

only one person responsible and not any of us can easily talk to him.

What about refunds? I have tickets, jot door event. What happens if it

is rained off. Will you get your money back? I think you ought to

talk to the organisers about that. I'm pretty good on most matters

Olympic but ticket refunds in the event of rain I'm afraid...

mean I can't write to you. I'm sure and many people will and I will

take up their requests for help but that's something for LOCOG. You are

moving in, aren't you? I am, I'm going to be part of the Deputy

Mayoral Team overseeing what we hope will be the smooth and happy

running of the village. My fellow Deputy Mayors, Duncan Goodhew, Tony

Hall and the Mayor of the Village. Charles Allen. That's it. We will

be back in the autumn. I will be back tomorrow with Daily Politics,

now back to Andrew. Tomorrow we will have the Prime

Minister and his deputy joined at the hip over plans to rebuild the

country's railways but is Lords reform dead in the water, is the

coalition now just the walking wounded and is Chancellor Osborne's

job safe in any autumn reshuffle. Questions that are meat and drink

to our panel in the Week Ahead. So, row wenia is the Prime Minister

kidding us, Lords reform is over? - row wenia. Personally I think it

is. What shocked me is the scale and depth of the rebellion. Over

100 MPs defying the whip if you count abstentions, not only the new

intake but also the old guard lined up, organised by one of the most

erudite, intelligent and loyal MPs in the form of Jesse Norman. I

think what is interesting about this is their objection is very,

very principaled. It is not subject to the pragmatic compromise that

David Cameron might like. I don't think they will move on that. What

I think is also interesting is in the past David Cameron's pragmatism

has served him well, helped him get a lot through but when he comes up

against principled objections of backbenchers, I think it makes him

look like he is not a true Conservative. Of course the issue,

Isabel isn't for or against Lords reform, it is whether you can get

this timetable motion in to make sure it doesn't dominate the floor

of the house forever and a day. Yvette Cooper was saying on the

programme. If the Government came forward with a prr timetabled

motion we would look at it. We have the example of Labour timetabled

motions. You feel if the Government was serious about this, it could

get round the Tory rebels. I think it is possible they could. The one

thing that would buy off a lot of Tory rebels, if there was an

amendment for a referendum but there is one big misconception I

would like to knock on the heads. The Lib Dems keep trotting it out,

and that is that the coalition agreement contains a commitment to

House of Lords reform. Look at the wording it, does not contain a

commitment to do anything, other than set up a series of committees

and "bring forward proposals", that is not saying this is a priority

for us and we are going to actually make it happen. It is all politics,

isn't it, in the end? The Prime Minister's heart, reading the

Sunday Times' article is not really in this Lords reform. Would he like

it but in the end it is no big deal. Labour wants Lords reform but if it

makes more sense playing politics over a programme timetable on the

sort of legislation which they always had and timetabled

themselves, then it ain't going to happen. It seems that way. I'm more

optimistic than most of the Sunday press seem to be that it might

still happen. I think there are sufficient numbers of rebels who's

objections to the bill are actually quite practical rather than

philosophical. That were you to, for example, cut the tenure of

elected Lord from 15 years to seven or eight or change the voting

system so it wasn't a part list system, you might win enough people

over that by the autumn you could win a vote to contract the

discussion. And if there was enough time in the House you could win the

votes. The House, the Commons doesn't like it. True. As you

suggested, it is the second question of timing remember than

the principle question is that the obstacle -- rather than the

principal question. Where do we see this in regards to

Lords op significance. Other than deficit reduction, I'm not sure

what the coalition agree on any more. Absolutely. The remarkable

fact in the story of this coalition has been the discipline of the

Liberal Democrats who have been prepared to vote for things that

their heart really, really isn't, in and now that the coalition

agreement has almost all been passed through, I really wonder

whether they are going to see the rise of the Liberal Democrat

backbencher and particularly in September one thing I think we will

be talking about a lot is Europe and that issue already... That will

do well, go well with them. They can't a aggro on a coalition 2.0.

They can't agree on coalition Mark 2. This is the central problem.

People have suggested the coalition will be relaunched through a

reshuffle. I think that will help if you promote people like Jeremy

Browne or David Laws to the Cabinet who are believers in the coalition,

that can help at the margins but they will never regain their

initial stability as a Government until they discover a new set of

policies that they genuinely agree on and that does require a a grand

bargain. In the absence of it and in a legislate kpwrif schedule

that's busy and active and interesting, all that political

space is filled by mischief. They haven't got an agreed platform,

other than continuing with deficit reduction, which is not exactly a

huge success so far, they have not got an agreed programme to see them

through to 2015. I think they really do need to do that. What

they will say is actually we are in implementation phase. We are

incredibly businessing behind the scenes pushing through the radical

reforms on education and welfare particularly. The trouble is, to

perception for outsiders is that nothing much is happening. I do

think they need to sit down and come up with - it doesn't need to

be a massive long document. something that keeps the show on

the road. Two or three things they can agree on rain committed to

doing. I'm convinced that the main obstacle that the Liberal Democrats

don't have that many positive causes to advance. If you were to

strike an grand bargain, the Tories would say give us a new runway. I

know it is pain for you guys... is painful for a lot of Tories.

What would they give the Liberal Democrats in return? They have

constitutional demands but beyond that not very much. Reshuffle not

until the autumn, if it comes then, we are agreed at that? I'm certain

it'll be at the beginning of the September. Here is the question

deliciously raised this morning, is George Osborne job's safe is in he

shuffle or is Mr Hague breathing down his neck? Should Mr Osborne's

job be safe? They are two very different questions. I think George

is far too powerful to be moved, so he is only going to move to the

Foreign Office if he decides he has a fancy for a bit of foreign travel.

I don't blee. Jania I'm sure... Such a... I cannot see George

Osborne taking that because it would look like a demotion. Should

sne Personally I think yes, but what do you think? If George

osintelorn not Chancellor after the reshuffle I will come to the Sunday

politics in a dress -- if George Osborne is not Chancellor.

I hope is, please. Better pray. His political stock is the lowest it

has been and I can understand discussion about his future but the

one thing that ueites the coalition is the deficit reduction programme.

Which so far is not going great. Would it not be better to have a

gruff Yorkshire accent comprehensive schoolboy as

Chancellor in the middle of the worst recession in living memory.

Absolutely. A lot of the problems, the economy is getting worse,

because of Europe but also because we had a Budget which was by all

accounts an omni-shambles. The priority might be deficit reduction

but let's face it, it is going up. Also this is the Chancellor who

made it easier to firework terse bottom for incompetence. That's it

for today. For the Sunday Politics, and that's it for the rest of what

only the British could call summer but Jo Coburn is back for Daily

Politics tomorrow and on Tuesday and I will be back for This Week.