23/09/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good morning. Welcome to the new improved, extended and earlier

Sunday Politics. Beware of the tax police, as Lib Dems gather in

Brighton. Danny Alexander announces plans to crack down on anyone who

has a home worth 1 million quid, and might not be paying the tax

they should. The Chief Secretary joins us for the top story. Will we

hear more about the wealth tax? Could it work and would it be good

for the economy? Evan Harris and John Redwood go head to head. Time

for a fresh crackdown on the jobs who will hurl abuse at the police -

no sign yet as Andrew Mitchell hangs onto his job. We will ask

Eric Pickles whether his posh colleague should get back on his

bike and pedal are out of the Cabinet. In London - the Liberal

Democrats rule out a third runway at Heathrow. I'll be talking to

Nick Clegg about whether the expansion at Gatwick or Stanstead

is an option. With me throughout, the best political panel. They will

be tweeting as if their careers depended on it throughout the

programme, which they probably do. Nick what of the Guardian, Isabel

Oakeshot, and Janan Ganesh. Nick Clegg has been talking about the

new idea to help young people on to the housing ladder. I can announce

today the government will be doing something which hasn't happened

before - we will be working out ways in which parents and

grandparents who want to help their children by a property of their own,

we will be allowing them to use their pensions to act as a

guarantee so that their youngsters can take out a deposit and buy a

home. On the one hand you need a big pension pot to guarantee a

deposit, so this would help the better-off, on the other hand they

seem to be bashing the better off at every opportunity. For the issue

for most young people is trying to raise a big deposit. When I first

bought a property, we have to raise 5% and that was a struggle in

itself. Now you have to raise between 30,000-�50,000. Would your

parents risk their pension pot on your deposit? I am not sure there

was enough there. There has been so much talk about some kind of bloody

on property or pensions to make things easier when it comes to

buying property and they need to have something to show for that

talk, but the practical difficulties, as we have seen with

the proposed mansion tax, they are so owner as I am not convinced they

will produce anything by 2015. parents are not like Nick Ross. If

we can speak up for the Lib Dems, this is about aiming this at the

squeezed middle. Those who do not have large amounts in a building

society, but those who have modest assets and they would hope to draw

some of those down for their children. The man behind this,

Danny Alexander joins me now from the party's conference in Brighton.

Good morning. Let's start with this anti-affluence unit. There is a

basic point that everyone should play by the rules. We have been

investing more time and effort in making sure people can't engage in

tax avoidance. Tax evasion is cracked down on more toughly even

than before. Last year we announced the creation of these affluence

units to look at the minority of people in that bracket whose

affairs presenter risks to the taxman, if you like. Today we are

seeing how HMRC have got on, and that has been very successful. They

have brought in �44 million in the first year of that unit. They have

said it for cast the net more widely, we can bring in more

resource. It will pay at least 15 times the amount of money we put in,

but it is targeting those people whose affairs are risky. It will

not mean anyone who has a home over a million pounds will get enough,

door from the taxman. If you have a house or other assets combined at

more than a million, you will now become the subject of special

scrutiny from the taxman - is that true? Or if your net worth is more

than a million pounds, you will be in the population that the affluent

unit is able to look at, but HMRC can identify particular groups and

individuals where there are particular tax risks. For example,

those with properties overseas. They will not be looking at every

person in that group. They will be saying let's identify the areas

where there are risks. Let's employ more experts in tax law and

accountancy to really make sure those people are playing by the

rules, paying the taxes they should be saying. The consequence of

people who dodge the tax system is that those of us who play by the

rules have to pay more tax as a result. Let's look at the sudden

idea your party has unveiled today, that parents and grandparents can

dig into their pension pot. You would need a pretty big pension.

This is a subsidy to the better-off. I think there are a lot of people

out there who already help their children with deposits. That

happened to me when I bought my first home, but there are an awful

lot of parents who don't have any cash to help their children get on

the housing ladder. In many cases they might have built up a

substantial pension pot, which they were -- will be able to release

after pension age. Parents in those category can use a lump sum when

they reach retirement age to guarantee part of the mortgage,

precisely the helped their children need to get on the housing ladder.

It is about fairness and making sure young people have the chance

to get on the housing ladder. also about your mother and father

having a big enough pension pot. Let's turn to the apology. We

haven't got much time. Tuition fees - Vince Cable says you warned Nick

Clegg abolishing tuition fees was unaffordable. How did he respond?

We had a debate about this as a party for many months running up to

the election. The what did you tell him and how did he respond? We knew

that this was an expensive policy. What we put in our manifesto was a

graduated way... Mr Alexander, what did you tell him and how did he

respond? I'm coming to that. I am saying that we were clear this was

an expensive pledge, it would be difficult to afford under the

financial circumstances, but as a democratic party where our party

conference have a big role in shaping our manifesto and we

decided to include that in the manifesto and sign up to that

pledge. What did you tell him and how did he respond? You after the -

- filibustering. I don't remember the details of the conversation

which took place quite a few years ago, but this was an expensive

policy and it would be difficult to afford, and that is why we took the

approach we did in our manifesto, phasing it in over a number of

years. Under the financial circumstances, it was not

affordable, and we made a pledge we could not keep. That is why he

apologised. You signed the NUS pledge, was that before or after

your warning that it was unaffordable? For it is something I

regret, I wish I hadn't done it because it was not a promise we

could keep. How do already said it was unaffordable when you signed

it? I signed it during the election campaign. The discussions you are

referring to took place way before that campaign, but having agreed to

include this policy in the manifesto I followed through that

in the way every other Liberal Democrats MP did. We will let you

get back to the conference in Brighton. Thank you. Mystery still

surrounds exactly what the chief whip, Andrew Mitchell, said to

police officers on Wednesday night after they refused to let him ride

his bike through the main gate at Downing Street. He accepts he gave

them a near full and there are reports this morning that he now

one admits to swearing at them, but he still denies he called the

offices morons and plebs. Can he survive? If it is established he

used that word or swore, I think he is toast. The toxic nature of the

word pleb, and secondly because he lied. If it is established those

were the words used, I think he will be gone. It is difficult for

that to be established. We probably have two police officers. Yes, but

it depends on them publicise and that, and you can imagine the

police dropping it if it is too dangerous. David Cameron could have

done with this like a hole in the head. Nothing substantially new has

emerged, and it is one person's word against another, and we still

don't know who the police then is. I think this story is running out

of steam now. Do you agree with that? It is dreadful because David

Cameron has spent 10 years trying to detoxify his party, and now this

word has been used. I think Andrew Mitchell has got to draw a line

under this. In the old days, Chief whips did not appear on television.

He has got to face the camera and say what he is allowing his friends

to say, which is yes I lost my rag and I swore, but I did not use the

word pleb. There are some people who find it hard to believe he used

that word. Has he got previous? apparently it is not the first time.

For remember the big Raul about planning reform, the one that

ground on for two years until the U-turn in March? The row is back.

Some time in summer, the Chancellor and Prime Minister decided they

wanted more. The rumblings of discontent have carried on. David

Cameron and George Osborne have demanded planning regulation must

not hold back growth. The Prime Minister said he was frustrated by

the current system and that he was determined to cut through the

dither that holds this country back. One plan is to allow householders

to build bigger extensions without planning permission. This week the

council decided to block what they said was a very foolish proposal,

and there could be more building on green belt land provided

replacement land is found instead. This weekend attempt to focus the

government on growth have been sidelined by the row over the Chief

Whip's outburst at police officers in Downing Street. Andrew Mitchell

is accused of swearing at the police, which he now admits. The

Police Federation insists that police officer's notebooks confirm

that and that he should resign. Eric Pickles joins me for the

Eric Pickles, let's start with Andrew Mitchell and go on to

planning. Do you accept either the police or the Chief Whip is lying?

It would be wrong to say either party is lying. But what is clear,

Andrew Mitchell, used ungallant language which he regrets, and

which he has apologised both to the police and the Prime Minister.

the Metropolitan Police Federation who represents the police officers

has been clear, they said police notebooks confirmed Mr Mitchell

swore at them and use the word plebs. If it is established, will

he have to go? Mr Mitchell has apologised. But not for using the

word pleb. If he did, would he have to go? Mr Mitchell is clear he did

not use the word pleb. The somebody who has been a member of Parliament

for 20 years, sometimes in difficult times, I have always been

grateful for the police and the protection they offer, both for the

Palace of Westminster and Downing Street. His it likely it is the

sort of work, a rugby educated at Mr Mitchell would use, rather than

one big police officer would fabricate? At cannot recall Mr

Mitchell and the times I have been with him every using such a word.

So am of his colleagues have told us it is the sort of language that

rings true of Mr Mitchell. Is this the sort of word he would use?

has not used it in my presence. I am very proud myself to be a pleb.

Do you accept no Cabinet minister can call the police plebs and stay

in the Cabinet? No Cabinet minister can abuse the police. No Cabinet

minister should lose their temper with the police. I don't believe

given Andrew Mitchell, has apologised, given... He has not

apologised for the workload. Can a Cabinet minister called the police

plebs and survive? The Prime Minister has given him a public

dressing-down. He should be given the opportunity to start the

process of being a good Chief Whip. Who do you think the public are

more likely to believe? At Tory politician nicknamed Thrasher

because of the way he treated people are public school, or a

couple of policemen? What happened was wrong. It shouldn't have

happened. Mr Mitchell accepts it shouldn't have happened. Recognised

he used, both in terms of his behaviour and language, was

inappropriate. This is the poll from the Mail on Sunday this

morning. The question was, should Andrew Mitchell resigned question-

marks us -- 67% yes, 22% said No. They want him to go. I don't

believe someone should Duke -- lose public office because they used

inappropriate words and lost her temper. He has made a good start of

being Chief Whip in terms of rebuilding the party and re-

establishing the office. It could not have come at a worse time.

one player to another, it does this make you embarrassed and angry? --

won play up to another. I think Mr Mitchell is angry. Are you not

angry as well? In the power of forgiveness, and some want to be

able to apologise and be able to move on. This is Brian Binley,

Conservative MP. He says, Andrew Mitchell's actions strengthen the

impression that those at the top of the party are a bunch of elitists

who think they are better than others. I am not defending the fact

Andrew Mitchell lost his temper... You have made that clear, but what

do you say to the point that Brian Binley makes. I am not a public

school boy, I'm not a millionaire and there are lots of people sat

around that table... We should move away from this class ridden

critique. We had the man on a bicycle who lost his temper.

Whether he was a millionaire or not, you shouldn't have lost his temper.

He is an Boris Johnson write about how people whose work at the police

should be treated? This is what the mayor of London had to save.

people swear at the police, they must expect to be arrested.

APPLAUSE. Not just because it is wrong to

expect officers to ensure profanities, it is about the

experience the culprits. If people feel there are no comebacks, no

boundaries and no retribution for the small stuff, they will go on to

commit worse crimes. If you swear at the police you should have your

collar felt unless you are the Chief Whip? We give discretion to

police officers to determine charges along with the Director of

Public Prosecutions. I'm not a word the police officers felt it was

necessary. Boris Johnson was speaking before this event, that

was last year at the party conference. The Police Federation

are furious. They are calling for Mr Mitchell's resignation. How did

the Tory party end up swearing at the police and getting on the wrong

side of them? Mr Mitchell regrets what he said. He has apologised.

You have said that 10 times. have asked me the same question 10

times. I thought I would be consistent. In not answering them?

Consistent in the. Mr Mitchell is very sorry, and we should move on.

What about the national planning thing? It was a remarkable success,

you got the backing of conservationists and housebuilders.

When the George Osborne tell you it wasn't enough and you have to go

further? We have not changed that, the national planning policy

framework remains. When we made the statement we said we would look at

a number of procedural changes to the planning system, and this is

part of a process. I wrote to local authorities earlier this year

saying I would like them to look at what we call section 106 agreement.

40% of them did. Some of them don't like it. This is the leader of

Richmond council's, we don't think people should be putting up a

neater extensions willy-nilly. We have planning rules and we believe

they need to be adhered to. What are you going to do with them?

And surprised at his reaction, considering we said we would

consult and considering we also said existing safeguards to protect

neighbours would be there. Let me give you a quick example - if you

have a terraced house and you have a seven metre garden meant. In the

present rules you can move out three-metre us or 50% of the garden,

which ever is the smaller amount. Under these rules you can move

about six metres or 50%. So the difference is half a metre. What

will you do with councils, including from your own party who

say, we don't want to do this. 54% of the public were behind them,

they said the rules will lower the quality of Designed buildings and

houses? I don't think it will. It will allow people who want to have

their parents live with them, or maybe want to take care of someone

within their family, who has particular needs. They might want

to put up a conservatory. I recognise it is ironic that on the

date I announced this, the Labour Party want to tax this aspiration.

The planning officer societies say, if people can build big things in

their back garden without permission, it is likely

neighbourhood disputes will increase? I am surprised the

professionals are saying this before they had even seen the plans,

before they have even seen what we are doing. We made it clear

existing protection for neighbours will remain. We made it clear it

will never be more than half the side of the garden or the extent we

allow, whichever is the smaller amount. It is allowing people to

extend a single story of her home. It happens all over the country,

all of the time and it will make a marginal difference, but an

important difference. councillors say they don't want to

go this way, and voters don't want to go, since you are meant to

believe in localism, will you leave local councils to go of their own

way on this? It is the other way round. If they decide not to do

this, under Article four arrangement. A member of the public

can seek damages against them, so it will be the public taking on the

councils if they go against. We will be very reasons, civilised and

straightforward. You have repeatedly promised to stop people

being fined for putting things out on the wrong day. Why were 3197 of

these fines issued in 2011 and 2012? Watch this space, an

announcement is due. What will it say? Very soon, and when we

announce it, it will be an honour to appear on your fine programme.

We will take you up on it. Another Lib Dem Conference and

another tax to catch the affluence. The party who brought you the

mansion tax and the tycoon tax is back with the mansion tax. What is

it and will it work? Here is Giles Dilnot.

It says something about our political and financial times we

live in that "tax the rich" has gone from something people with

placards shouted in the street to something seriously discussed in

Government Nick Clegg opened the Lib Dem Conference saying he wanted

"Lower taxes on work, more on unearned wealth to reward people

who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune". A

Wealth Tax has been his theme for weeks, saying he won't accept �10

billion of extra cuts coming from Welfare alone. He's long-called for

a mansion tax on million pound properties but at the last year's

Budget, George Osborne, walked all over that idea. Now it seems the

Lib Dems are ready to block any Tory welfare cuts unless they get

that wealth tax. Simply read, the Lib Dem tune is 'Money's Too Tight

NOT to Mansion'. Economic growth hasn't come out anywhere near as

well as expected. Growth is worse, tax revenues are down, spending is

up. You need to do more to get rid of the deficit, that's why a year

ago we heard there would be significant additional cuts in the

next Parliament in order to meet the Fiscal Rules. The Economy has

done even worse again over the last year. We're probably going to hear

more this December about more cuts certainly in the next Parliament if

not this one. We know George Osborne favours a two-year benefits

freeze, what's the Lib dems price for that? Exactly what the Liberal

Democrats are talking about, we don't know. But for most people the

key thing is does this involve a tax on their property, the house

that you live in, and does this include a tax on your pension?

That's where nearly all the wealth that people have sits and that's

the biggest economic and political question surrounding this issue.

tend to feel in today's politics that welfare cut and taxing the

rich are politically popular, but is that true? To a limited extent

yes, unfortunately even if they do manage to get some taxes on the

wealthy increased against the wishes of some parts of the

Conservative Party. But it goes alongside a further �10 billion of

cuts that are being thought about in the Welfare Bill. It's very

unlikely that the soft-left voters who've deserted the Liberal

Democrats would come back to them if you look at the polling evidence.

The rich are taxed the wealthiest 1% of income tax payers pay 30% of

all income tax. But any taxation of the rich risks, as many

Conservatives argued when calling for the removal the 50p top rate,

stifling the very incentive to invest and spend and flow of money

you were trying to create. Former Lib Dem MP, Evan Harris and

John Redwood go head-to-head. Evan Harris, Nick Clegg said to the

BBC this morning there would be more measures to tax at the wealthy

this side of the election. But he wouldn't tell us what they are,

what should they be? It should be a range of things. A clampdown on tax

avoidance, which is mainly by better off people who can afford to

explore the schemes. Tax on property, the value of properties

over 2 million. Your property cannot go overseas, it is fixed and

that is sensible. It cannot be right to have a �3 million mansion

on paying the same council tax as a family house next door. I would

like to see more taxes on other wealth, because if we sit to this

deficit reduction plan... Give me an example? I think things are

being worked on. I'm not in Government. On that you part of the

federal policy committee? We have a tax Commission looking to what we

will put in our manifesto. I am looking at this side of the

election? Even the Liberal Democrats, one person does not make

the tax policy. We won't accept, and Nick Clegg made this clear,

should there be any more demands on the poorest in society, including

the working poor who get benefits, What is wrong with asking wealthy

to make a considerable contribution? They are paying less

tax because they have good ways of getting away from paying the tax

and not bothering at all. We need to be smart in the way we tax the

rich, tax them at a level in a way which means they stay and play.

What about tax wealth? Of course in inheritance tax, they have

introduced 7% on stamp duty, but revenues are falling at the top end.

The top 1% of income tax earners pay 28% of the total tax at the

moment. I might even agree with Mr Harris that we would like that to

be higher. In America they pay 37% because the rate is lower. On the

Labour, the gap between the rich and poor got wider. If we recognise

the inequalities that continued to grow, then the wealthy, who own

much more than the percentage they pay in tax, should pay more. That

is wrong the wealthiest should pay less than the poor. While did you

caught the top margin? That was wrong. I don't think the case that

John has made was right and that is the first question - when it raised

more? If you asked the academics what the evidence based was for

that, that is weak. I think the economic case is the first thing.

What we are having here is a discussion about what the

differences will be at the next election, and I say bring it on. I

don't mind if John Redwood says vote Conservative and we won't be

tough on the wealthy, and the Liberal Democrats are saying the

wealthy should pay their fair share. We know how to tax the rich in a

way that gets more revenue from them, that is the smart thing to do.

I am interested in what happens between now and you write in your

manifesto, because we have your side saying we made do some of that

but we want more tax on the wealthy. The deal will have to be done.

course - each Budget is a deal, and so far we have been following the

Liberal Democrats approach of big increases in current spending in

the first three years of the coalition instead of cutting

spending, and we have been following their policy of

increasing tax rates. The higher tax rates are bringing in less

revenue. 20% of the deficit reduction is coming from spending

cuts. No, it is not. Have you looked at the numbers? Spending is

up by more than 50 billion so far. The deficit reduction plan involves

billions of effective cuts and the ratio over Parliament's is 70 - 30.

We don't think there should be any more cuts affecting the poorest

part of the community until the wealthiest pay their fair share.

don't want cuts on the port either but this government has made a big

increase in public spending, which went up by more than 5% in the

first year. The figures in August showed it going up by 4.4% over the

most recent year, but because the tax rates when talk so much by

Labour, instead of collecting more revenue they are collecting less

revenue. There is a clear differentiation between the Liberal

Democrats on the Conservatives, both now and that the next election.

Do you agree current spending has gone up? The art is another debate.

It is good to see such harmony in coalition politicians. It is just

after 11:35pm. You are watching Sunday Politics., not in 20 minutes,

more from the best-connected panel in political television. Well, they

Hello and welcome to the London section of Sunday Politics. Coming

up later - the Lib Dems have this morning reinforced their opposition

to new runways at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, but might there

leader be prepared to take them down a different flight path?

Joining me this morning, Nick de Bois and Tom Brake, who has just

joined the government of deputy leader of the House of Commons. As

we have been hearing, the Lib Dems want focus on the tax affairs of

people with assets of more than a million pounds through a beefed-up

anti- Affluence Unit at the Inland Revenue. This morning they have

another target in their sights, second homeowners, so that councils

can crack down on them. This person's decision to buy a second

home can prove controversial... But according to some, Londoners are

victims. This is the office of Simon Hughes, he says in inner

London constituencies like this, second homes are a very serious

problem, pushing up the property prices and forcing locals out of

the area. So this week at conference, he will be pushing for

the Lib Dems to adopt a policy giving local councils the power to

designate certain properties as off-limits for second-home owners,

but there is a snag. If the council don't want to use the powers,

nothing will happen. In Simon Hughes' borough of Southwark, they

are happy to see second homeowners coming in and they are not

interested in the Lib Dem proposal. How do you go about policing it?

What about the foreign investor who uses a front man to buy or acquire

the property? Who will be policing that? How can councils do this when

there are such a drain on our resources?

Sunday Politics spoke to the 12th in a London authorities and City

Hall. I only Lewisham expressed any desire to use the powers. At the

heart of this debate is the issue of foreign owners, the idea that

people from abroad Bar by Inner London crash pads and leaving them

empty, whilst everyone else faces a desperate shortage of housing. Last

year, 60% of new build houses went to foreign buyers. To put that in

context, it is equivalent of the Government's the fording housing

budget for the whole of England over four years. Although these

figures are often quoted, There is no data that demonstrates this

money is being spent on cushy London homes like this. This flat

is right in the middle of Simon Hughes' constituency, and was

bought by a foreign investor. Rather than sitting empty, it is on

the market and available to rent. According to the agents renting the

property, there would be almost no building in London if it was not

for the foreign influx of cash. Banks are not very willing to lend

money to developers, so they have to sell them before they have built

them. The only people in the market with money to buy those properties

are the Asian investors. proposal does not appear to be a

hit with their coalition partners either.

Let's hear from Tom Brake and Nick de Bois in a moment, but first

Simon Hughes can join us from Brighton. How will you do this? How

would it work? Step back for one second, what is the issue in London

and surrounding London - the issue is we are desperate for homes,

affordable homes, rented housing association homes, and homes to buy.

The big challenge, worse than any other part of that country.

Secondly, the gap between peoples in comes is greater than anywhere

else, and saying step back and let the market sort it out is not an

answer. We need to think imaginatively about what to do. The

proposal could be done across London by the mayor of London,

designating the areas where the pressure on prices is accentuated

by the fact that a lot of the sales are going to foreign investors who

are paying much higher prices, forcing up the cost of housing in

the market. If we tried to make sure that the homes for sale were

for people to live in, so the people who were spending the money

would be spending to live in them, it takes out a whole range of

people whose only interest is in investment, and it would bring the

house prices down. I don't buy the arguments that it is technically

difficult made by the Labour leader of Southwark Council, who has a

vested interest in opposing things that I say because we are in a

contest. We have got to have some imaginative solutions. You set

designating areas - could you designate individual apartments?

That is the first question, but the second question is how can you

enforce this? Firstly, we designate areas already in housing in London.

Rent is fixed according to different designations called broad

market rental areas. It is well used by the land valuation people

and councils and so on so that is not difficult. How do you prove

someone is using somewhere for a second home? It is very easy.

Firstly you discover who the owner is, that is not difficult because

it is a public requisite to know that, and they signed a document to

prove they live in it. People are told when they buy that they have

to buy it for their own use, and if they don't they will be committing

an offence, and by definition you have a self policing the -- self-

policing system which can be backed up by the authorities. We also have

to build more affordable homes, use tax incentives to get land release,

stop developers sitting on land which has planning permission, and

do the sort of things the government have announced in the

last couple of months, which is put more money in the kitty so they can

be borrowing for homes. We have got to encourage housing associations

by giving them security for their funding so there is a lot of things

to do. This is the way for high- pressure areas like London, where

you could take heat out of the market and bring the prices down.

Thank you. Let's test those ideas firstly with Nick de Bois. Does

this seem like a runner for you? is well-intentioned, but crackers.

The fact that councils will have to be doing work to enforce this and

their reaction is very telling - the reality is how do you determine

between someone who was buying a property from abroad and renting it

on the market? It is still a place for people to live. Companies buy

them so employees can come and live in them. Who will sign the form

then? Sometimes they are transient employees. It is not a solution to

the housing crisis. Tom Brake, just joining the coalition government,

is this one you will want to bang away at straight away? For there is

a problem with affordable housing and this could make a contribution.

Lewisham expressed an interest in using this, and it may well be that

if this was on the table, a tool that councils can use, or the local

authorities in London may want to do the same. Do you see any

difficulties with it? Clearly any proposal will not be completely

straight forward, but Simon set out how this could be enforced. It is a

number of one of a possible number of measures that money to implement

in London to deal with the housing crisis. Could you see people being

penalised or prosecuted for having a second home? I can't see it and

the telling thing is that it will be optional for the council's so it

is hypothetical, but it is a state intervention that worries me we

will end up with different blocks, creating an artificial intervention

rocket is not solving the problem. Good intervention would be with the

idea that we can give discounts for selling off council housing stock,

and different from the past so people buy their council houses and

that money is released to buy another house. For another day.

Thank you. How to maintain Britain's global hub status in this

guise is an issue back on the agenda. For the Lib Dems it opens

up an issue they thought they had shelved under the terms of the

coalition agreement, but the Conservatives ruled out additional

The Prime Minister used a Cabinet reshuffle this month to make the

Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, and opponents of airport

But the London mayor, Boris Johnson, went on the attack warning there

was only one reason to move Justine Greening, and that was to expand

Heathrow airport. The Prime Minister has set up a Commission to

find a consensual way forward. An interim report will look at the way

of using existing one raise and maintain the UK's global hub status.

The final report won't be delivered until 2015, so any decision will be

for the next Government. Well, this morning the Lib Dems

supported a motion to rule out new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and

Gatwick. My Conservative colleagues at the departments for Transport,

Justine Greening and Theresa Villiers were robust in defending

aviation policy, and resisting a third runway at Heathrow. How

unfortunate but should have been removed at the last reshuffle,

dispatched to look after the developing world and Northern

Ireland, respectively. When I spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick

Clegg, earlier this week he was quick to rule out expansion at

Heathrow, but he is not now ruling out new runways elsewhere. I am

against Heathrow expansion. I always have been and I cannot

envisage any circumstances in which I would change my mind. My home in

London happens to be under the flight path and I think the

proposals don't stand up to the scrutiny. It would be a sticking-

plaster solution. The runway fill up very quickly and before you know

it we would be looking at a 4th and 5th runway. Do you rule it out?

do at Heathrow. The Independent Commission has a wider remit to

look at other alternatives. What happens if that Commission finds

the preference but the best thing to do is expand Heathrow? I am not

going to second guess what the Commission will come out with.

There is no evidence at all that the only long-term solution to the

challenges of the aviation sector in the UK, is to plaster and

additional stretch of west London with Tarmac that will fill up with

aeroplanes in a few short years. Were it to do that, would you

prepare to state in Coalition or be in Coalition with a party which

supported that third runway expansion? You were trying to lure

me into a minefield of what if questions. Would you abide by the

Commission? This is very clear, I see what you mean. The Commission

can come up with any recommendations it wishes which it

will submit to the three party leaders. It is for the party

leaders to decide how that analysis from the Commission will affect

their manifesto. As far as our manifesto is concerned in 2015, we

will repeat that we have seen no analysis which in any way alter has

argued that a third runway is not a long-term answer to Britain's

aviation needs. Do you rule out expansion, new runways at Gatwick

and Stansted? I want the Commission to look in the round at this issue

of how you create, in the long term, not in the next 10 years, but 30,

40, 50 years, this have connection to Asia, Latin America and so on.

There are so many different proposals that people think you can

join Birmingham with Heathrow, create a new harbour some were up

the M1. So you personally would consider a more runways at

Stansted? Personally, I think if there are options which just don't

require additional capacity in the South East, but maybe mean

additional capacity elsewhere, of course it is stuff we will look at.

You have got to be driven by the evidence. So that is all clear. Tom,

why don't you tell me personally what your hunch might be, where we

could be in three years, way you think there should be a hub airport.

We know you have been consistently opposed to Heathrow expansion, so

what is the answer? You are inviting me to second guess what

the Commission is going to be doing over the next three years. I am not

going to do that. What we want the Commission to do is look at this in

the widest way possible, to take into account of course Aviation,

the need for runways and airport, but also to look at sustainability

aspects and emissions. I don't want you to second guess that because

the Commission says let's speak to the experts. You have not come to

this recently, you have looked at it over many years. What is your

instinct? Your leader does not feel averse or against Stansted. Do you

want it to be Birmingham or do you like Boris Johnson's estuary

airport? We made it clear at the conference there is no need for

runways in the south-east. Now? There is capacity at those airports,

there is capacity at Stansted, Luton and Gatwick. Heathrow cope

with almost 50% additional passengers without any extra

flights during the Olympics. should they not be a hub airport?

Short term, we have the capacity and we should use it more

effectively. There is going to be substantial growth in aviation,

something like 60% will be allowed and stay within the carbon

emissions cap. Longer term we do need to look at the issue of a hub

airport, and we are hoping the Commission will come up with

sensible suggestions were it could be located. Nick, are you someone

who could live with and support Heathrow expansion? First of all I

support airport expansion, the case has to be in the south-east. We do

more trade with those countries where we have direct airport links.

Frankfurt, Amsterdam, they are winning hands down and so we need

more capacity. We hope the review will test the thesis an answer in

the positive. Second it will look at the options, and they are

complex. I cannot answer your question directly, but if the

evidence supported a third runway would do the job for the long term,

of course that would be something worthy of support. But I am not

sure that it will be. With you and your colleagues wait and listen and

watch the analysis, and take the recommendations in order of

preference from this Commission? Every one will form their own

opinion. But there is a strong case for the Boris Ireland as well.

Would that work for you? I want a solution, what ever it is, that it

will allow us to remain competitive. He would accept a proposal that led

to the creation of a new airport in the estuary and meant the closing-

down of Heathrow? A of course, that is an over-simplification, you have

to look at what you'll do with Heathrow. The complex of trying and

even considering transferring the airport, jobs, it is just the

implication. We have to wait until after the election for the report,

I don't like that. Tom, possibly would you support the idea of an

airport hub, more runways at one of the south-east airports, if you

closed others, so there was no net increase, but you still have a cup.

So Stansted could have three? have made it clear we don't support

any net increase in the number of runways. That is a given. We need

to look at other airports, in terms of Manchester and Birmingham where

they have capacity and they want it to be used. We have lots of light

going into Heathrow that up 0.2 point flights which could go to

other airports and the South East as an alternative. Much to talk

about that in the future. We have to move on.

Now safety belts on and hold on to your seats, here's our review of

The police officer cleared of killing Ian Tomlinson apogee Pentti

protest was sacked for gross misconduct. Findings were denounced

as a whitewash by the Tomlinson family.

Still basking in Olympic glow, the London mayor did not bite when

asked to consider heavy sponsors. When asked what Usain Bolt are

eight and the day he ran, what did he eat? Do you know the answer? He

ate McDonald's. Noel Olympic glory for G4S, the committee said it

should forgo the �54 million management fee. G4S created an

eleventh-hour fiasco. Richmond Green is under a known

battleground, but could that change? The Conservative council is

being rebellious and has voted to oppose the Prime Minister's plans

to relax planning rules. Let's start with the revolting

people of Richmond. Tom, do you agree or think they are right to

object to a kind of free-for-all extensions to property, which could

be coming in? I support the idea of localism, so local councils, they

have an option to take this up, the Government is offering them. If

they feel in their locality it is not appropriate, it is a decision

for them. I think it is a bit early to rebel on that. I would like to

see the detail. If you see the detail and then you can form an

opinion. I am not convinced, it does need some examination on how

it would affect my borough, so let's look at the detail. The idea

of eight metre expansion, Design and no planning permission, how

will people feel about this? It I was to put it like that, a lot of

them would be concerned. But you hear ministers saying there are

lots of safeguards. I need to see the detailed before we decide where

to go. An G4S security, should they can back this management fee, it

was far administration did but the security people in place. Should

they handed back? The difficulty is, there is a contractual arrangement

which guarantees them this fee. However, they may choose that in

the circumstances it would be appropriate to hand it back.

wonder if they will? I want to ask you, you are an official on the

backbench 1922 Committee, is Andrew Mitchell in trouble? I won't speak

for the 1922 Committee, but of course he is in difficulty. Because

of the swearing, or if its emergence he called the police a

pleb? He has apologised. It was disgraceful, I don't think the

police should be treated like that. I think the matter now needs to get

some context. If there is a disagreement between the two,

anything that the mergers which suggests an Judy use those words,

it is difficult. If thanks to you We will mark your card for the

political week ahead, but first the news with Chris Rodgers.

Good afternoon. The Deputy Prime Minister has pledged the very

wealthy will be forced to pay more tax to help reduce the budget. He

said the Lib Dems wouldn't agree to further welfare cuts unless the

Conservatives accept the need for the better off in society to pay

their fair share. Turbulent times for the Lib Dems,

their poll ratings are dismal, with some putting them in 4th place. But

Nick Clegg said the political weather would change when voters

realise his party is fighting for greater fairness in an era of belt-

tightening. I think the majority of people in this country would find

it unacceptable if further fiscal austerity was basically implemented

on the backs of the poor. Nick Clegg's party is pushing for a new

levy on expensive properties, but he was not keen to divulge what

other taxes or were being devised to hit the wealthy, or whether they

could be delivered before the next election. Whoever will be in

Government in the next Parliament, Labour, Conservative, or in

combination, or have to produce further savings. It is an economic

fact. It is important we have a debate now in the middle of this

Parliament about the principles which will govern that but the

Government's will do more to ensure the better off cough up what they

already own. A specialist team of tax inspectors has been increased

to 300. They have gone over those who are worth more than �2.5

million or more. But millionaires will come under scrutiny, too. Nick

Clegg, perhaps more than any other politician knows the dangers of

promising what he cannot deliver. He has told his party wants to tax

the wealthy, now he has to tell How much of this is Nick Clegg

trying to please his own supporters? It will please them to

hear that he is interested in tax and the wealthy, and he has a team

to come more up with some options. Unless he shares more details,

voters will be sceptical as to whether he can deliver. He admitted

he has been unable to persuade his coalition partners on lunch and tax.

He also came up with a new idea on helping young people on to the

housing ladder, but again with very little detail. The idea is popular

with voters, but what people in the country will be asking is when he

will be putting these ideas into practice. And that has died and

another has been seriously injured in a skydiving accident near

Peterborough. It is thought the men collided

approximately 50 ft above the ground, collapsing their parachutes.

One man died at the scene, the other is in Addenbrooke's Hospital

in Cambridge with severe spinal injuries.

How has told could be compensated directly by gas and electricity

suppliers who break industry rules, under new plans announced today.

The regulator Ofgem will have the power to force energy firms to make

direct payments to customers, rather than imposing fines which go

to the Treasury. Special church services are being

held today in memory of the two police officers killed in Greater

Manchester. PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes died last Tuesday.

Dale Cregan has been charged with murdering the women, as well as two

men who were shot earlier this year. There will be more news on BBC One

at 6:35pm. Now back to Andrew. It is a Lib Dem

seaside Special, but will Nick Clegg - the one in the kiss-me-

quick hat - When the cuddly toy on the peer or get sound on his ice-

cream? These are the big questions in the week ahead. While we have

been on air doing the Eric Pickles interview, Ladbrokes has narrowed

the odds that Mr Mitchell will go to 5-4 on. What do you make of

that? I think they are wrong. Cabinet ministers have to resign if

something new about the story emerges and there has not been

anything substantially new, as I said before. Nick was right when he

said if Andrew made an apology publicly, that would probably be

the end of it. What if we see these contemporaneous note books from the

policemen? Then it becomes his word against the police and I suspect he

loses that battle. I am also surprised David Cameron has not

used this as an opportunity to further the modernisation of the

Conservative Party. You can imagine if this happened in opposition in

2006 he would have seized on it and said we will not tolerate this in

this party and dismissed him. It is obviously harder when you're only

appointed him 17 days ago. We have the story is still raging in the

paper on the seventh day, the minister has to go, and it is not

still raging but I wonder if we should have a new Alastair Campbell

role - not necessarily whether it lasts in the papers, but the danger

with this story is that it has cut through and makes the point that

was made on one of your other programmes which is that David

Cameron and George Osborne are arrogant posh boys who don't know

the price of milk. If you think that what happened to Patrick

Mercer in the row about racism - what he said was very harshly

treated for and he is still very bitter about it, and David Cameron

reacted immediately to that. He has reacted differently to this. Let's

come back to the Lib Dems in Brighton for their annual

conference. Nick Clegg wants to bash the rich more, playing to his

own Lib Dem party faithful, but in the Sunday Times poll 58% of voters

find him untrustworthy, 66% see him as indecisive. There are not enough

apologies to pull him back from that. I don't think it will make

any difference and other papers have similarly gloomy polls for the

Lib Dems. In one poll they are behind UKIP so he has a very

difficult task this week. He will do his very best to cheer up his

troops and remind them of the benefits of being in coalition.

leadership is not in fact, but can he pull back these figures?

suspect not. You alluded to the fact that his party is mired in the

polls, but there is no immediate prospect of him being disposed of.

Tim Farron is not a plausible leader of the major political party

for example, so he is fairly safe for the next few years. Vince Cable

will be putting down a marker this week. And he has been talking about

if there was a vacancy he would love to do it. The problem with

Nick Clegg is he is to find structurally by the fact he did one

thing in the election and another in the government. If you define

structurally, it is difficult pull it back from that. Within the next

year, if for example the Lib Dems have difficult local elections in

the spring, if his position doesn't come back, I think by next summer

his position will look very difficult. I agree, I think it is

not if but when. I think he's doomed. There is more going on in

the conference than the question of his leadership because something

interesting is happening - the slow but real recovery of coalition

relations. Last week we saw Nick Clegg and Michael Gove collectively

announcing GCSE reforms and there is now the mooted idea of some kind

of deal on the wealth tax. Lib Dems accept the strategy of the last

year didn't work. Evan Harris wants a lot of differentiation. He will

be the one helping to draw up the next manifesto. The signing of the

pledge was meant to save him, but Evan Harris was not signed on that.

His point was made well by David Laws in the Times yesterday, which

is that the danger at is they were basically like Daleks blasting each

other. It is interesting about how they're made the movement towards

the wealth tax because in the Budget George Osborne was willing

to agree to this mansion tax if the top rate of income tax went down to

40p. David Cameron veto that mansion tax, which is why we have

45p but no mansion tax. I want you to promise me you can make sure you

know how to use your machine's next week, it has been at Twitter free

zone. You need to provide us with decent kit. We will be back on the

daily politics on BBC Two throughout the week with the big

speeches from Brighton, reaching a crescendo on Wednesday afternoon