21/10/2012 Sunday Politics London

For good morning. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. After another

shambolic week for the government, it is fight back time. They have

chosen crime. The Prime Minister is about to get tougher on criminals

and elections for the police and crime commissioners are three weeks

away. We are joined by Home Secretary Theresa May to talk about

that, Andrew Mitchell, and Gary McKinnon. That is the Sunday

interview. We will suffer on the -- statutory

regulation mean less scrutiny of celebrities like Jimmy Savile? We

will have Neil Wallis. The agony over Andrew Mitchell and the energy

policy shambles have put a smile on Labour's face. We were asked

whether good economic news around the corner could wipe it off.

In London, the mayor once more influence over the schools in the

capital. What difference could he With me, the best and the brightest

political panel in the business - Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh, and

for one week only, standing in for Nick Watt, our second favourite

Polly Toynbee. Expect wit and wisdom, the usual laughing when

they don't know what they're talking about and tweeting during

the programme. The fall-out involving Jimmy Savile shows no

sign of abating. Tomorrow the BBC's Panorama programme will investigate

the Newsnight decision - Panorama this as Newsnight like alien versus

predator. George Entwistle will face questions from the Commons

culture select committee about what he knew and when. This morning Greg

Dyke speaks to Andrew Marr about the developing scandal, the former

director general. I think the BBC made two early mistakes, firstly

the statements about this were not strong enough, not saying this is a

really serious issue - it is not enough to say we looked in our

files. Secondly, when they started saying the Newsnight programme was

not running for editorial reasons, you needed to explain what they

were. Why did the editor of Newsnight decide this was not a

strong enough programme to be broadcast? I suspect he didn't

think the evidence was strong enough, but somebody needed to say

that and nobody did. Isabel, the Newsnight programme was withdrawn,

but it was clear they were on to something so should note that have

alerted the BBC and the director general to think again about the

Jimmy Savile tribute broadcast over Christmas? Yes, and I think George

Entwistle expect a rough ride in his questioning. The source said

they think there was a real prospect he may lose his job over

this. I think it would be sad if he did because he has only had it for

a short time, but I think what Greg Dyke says is quite right, that

there was a fumbling in the beginning and the shock of the

whole thing simply overwhelmed him. It was a bungle. The what was the

bungle? Not to explain why the Newsnight story was pulled. Perhaps

the Panorama programme will say why. A There is even an argument about

what the story was. The BBC was originally saying this was an

investigation into the police not pursuing Jimmy Savile, but now it

turns out the story was about the substance of what Jimmy Savile was

up to. It will be very important which it was. If it was genuine...

After all, they needed to have a watertight case and we need to know

how what -- watertight that case was. And there is a sense there was

a civil war going on and the BBC - Panorama investigating Newsnight,

e-mails being leaked even to the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday. It

is very bloody. And it justifies the intervention from be Ed

Miliband when he called in to an inquiry for what is going on in the

BBC. I think that was entirely justified. We may come back to this.

It has been billed as the most significant development on the

police in since the Metropolitan Police were set up almost 200 years

ago. Next month's elections for the newly created police and crime

commissioners have been -- hardly been dominating conversations, but

it is a big reform. If it has passed you by, here is a guide. It

is the big idea the government hopes will transform policing in

England and Wales. Next month voters will elect powerful new

police and crime commissioners to replace the existing police

authorities. They will receive a salary of up to �100,000 and the

whole process will cost taxpayers 70 million. Supporters say there

will be more transparency, the critics claim the changes risk

politicising police forces and distorting decisions about where

resources are targeted. The new commissioners will decide

priorities for local forces, said budget and award grants. They will

also appoint chief constables, although chief constables will

still retain operational independence. The Conservative and

Labour parties are contesting of re-election, while the Liberal

Democrats and Plaid Cymru are not running candidates. If voter

turnout is as low as many predict, there will be questions over the

legitimacy of new commissioners before they have even started their

work. In a moment we will be speaking to the Home Secretary

Theresa May about plans for police and crime commissioners, but

firstly how the changes will affect policing near you. Policing in

Britain is always changing, driven by technology, society and the law,

but who governs policing in England and Wales is facing what one former

chief constable called the biggest change to policing since 1829. One

elected individual wants them to replace appointed police

authorities but three areas of the UK are not having these elections.

London already has a PCC, but in practice it is not Boris Johnson.

The role has been deputised. At the mayor has delegated his authority

except for a couple of functions for me to be the head of his office

for policing and crime. Because it is the capital, linking has

benefits. More than in some ways isn't out rider, it is also in some

ways set up to do more faster than potentially other parts of the

country across the criminal justice system. In Northern Ireland, for 11

years the policing Board has overseen the policing service of

the Northern Ireland. It has turned politicians on nine Independents

Ahmed. -- on it. I doubt whether one police and crime commissioner

could represent all of the abuse that existing Northern Ireland.

board success has been changing public perceptions, but the past

does provide problems. We are not without our difficulties or

challenge is, but we do when Dover to get agreement on most of these

things, these issues, and move forward from there. The final area

that is not having police and crime Commission at elections is Scotland,

where policing and the governance of policing is changing quite

dramatically. Scotland has just become one national force. What

doesn't change is that the new chief constable is overseen by an

all-star police authority. I am content that the government has its

authorities, they will put their stamp on it, but there will be a

strong voice from operation of rational policing as to what is

required. In time that relationship between government and the police

authority could be in stark contrast to that route taken in

England and Wales. We seem to be at a crossroads, and Scotland is

taking a different policing path But I will be candid in St I think

it is a path a lot of people in England are looking at quite

The Home Secretary Theresa May joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome to the programme. Looking at the Sunday newspapers

this morning, many of your colleagues think David Cameron

needs to get a grip and have a clear-out of his Downing Street

machine - do you agree? No, if you look at the big things the

government has been doing, what will matter to the voters, if you

look at the decisions we have made this week and some of the things

that has happened - unemployment is down, crime is down - what we're

doing in immigration, those are the things that matter to voters.

Downing Street machine seems to go from shambles to shambles, and this

good news is not being covered. The two is down to the media what gets

covered. It wasn't down to the media for the Prime Minister to

make a shambles of the energy policy. From voters what matters is

the values that drive the government, and we are a government

that works alongside people who want to get on in life and you see

that coming through in a range of decisions we are making that matter

to people. So he doesn't need to do some cleaning of the Downing Street

machine? The we are in mid-term, there are bumps along the way, but

what people will look at are the real issues we are dealing with.

had the botched energy announcement, he is now moving on to your to

earth with a speech telling us prison sentences must convey a real

sense of punishment, but rehabilitation is not a dirty word.

Isn't that current policy? And we have been looking at rehabilitation

for some time. What is happening now is we are looking across the

board to make sure every part of the criminal justice system, we are

doing everything we can to fight crime. Isn't that their job? What

is new? Were air announcing some changes. In my area, one of the

issues, if you look at organised crime gangs, we know there are

middlemen with firearms that they rent out criminals. There isn't an

offence for somebody to possess a firearm with the intent to supply

it to somebody else. I think it is right for that to be an offence

because they are as guilty as the person using it. Let me move on.

Can you confirm widespread reports that you work in the vanguard of

the efforts to get rid of Andrew Mitchell. And I am not going to

comment on private conversations. Obviously the incident took place,

Andrew apologised, the apology was accepted, the police didn't take

action. You wanted him to go, didn't you? Andrew has resigned and

that is the end to it. I will not talk about private conversations.

suspect, as many people do, that you wanted him to go because Andrew

Mitchell, the whole argument was undermining and making more

difficult the already difficult job of reforming the police. No, it

wasn't, and we have been reforming the police now for two-and-a-half

years. We have a wide range of reforms, and we are seeing that

beginning to work. Despite the fact chief constables have had to cut

their budget, crime is falling, and confidence is being maintained. The

big change is the one you have talked about, about police and

crime commissioners. You know better than me, you were at the

Police Federation, they have been angry with these reforms and it

surely stands to reason Andrew Mitchell may be even angrier with

you. Obviously the Police Federation did raise concerns about

the reforms. Anybody who saw what happened at that conference could

see for themselves but we have been talking to them because we are

putting through wide-ranging reforms to give the police more

discretion to give them better ability to exercise their judgment

and greater professionalism and the Mrs Thatcher once described ITV as

the last bastion of restrictive practices. Do you regard the police

as an unreformed public service? There are changes that are needed

that we are putting through, and what we are doing in policing is a

good example of the approach the Government is taking to public

services across the board, which is that it is possible to cut spending

and budgets and improve the service, and we are seeing that in policing.

How different world policing look in five years' time if your reforms

go through? There will be a significant difference. Local

people will have a voice through the commissioners they have elected

to determine local policing. There will be a new National Crime Agency

which will deal with serious crime, child exploitation, Border crime

and economic crime. But amongst all of that, individual officers will

have more discretion. They will not be operating to central government

targets. They will be doing what local people want. I think the

college of policing will bring more professionalism in, so it is an

exciting time for policing. There is a good future ahead. We have got

the best police force in the world, but we need to reform and do better.

At the heart of the idea of commissioners is the idea that

public priority should be reflected in police priorities. Can you give

me an example of where police are currently failing to match the

people's priorities? Well, I think one of the areas that has been

shown by the inspectorate, actually, where there has been a concern from

people is an antisocial behaviour and the approach that has been

taken to that, and we have been changing the approach to that, but

many people feel that if more could be done about that, fewer young

people might then turned to a wider range of criminal activity or go

down that criminal route. So that is one area where many people feel

that that there has been a disconnect. Let's have a look at

what the new Scottish chief constable said to the Sunday

Politics. The changes do not affect him, but he has something

interesting to say. We will not be held hostage, as it were, by highly

local populist issues at the expense of the sort of things that

local populations will never put on their priorities. You'll never get

a local population saying, we want to devote resources to counter

terrorism, that is not logical, or organised crime, that would be

unusual. What They Say to that? First of all, there are aspects of

policing like counter-terrorism which will be retained as a

national, albeit with units in police forces around the country at

regional level. The National Crime Agency will work with forces in

terms of issues like organised crime. But what I say on organised

crime is this, for what matters to people at there, that is what is

happening on their doorsteps and in their streets, and the drugs being

sold in their streets, the people who are stealing in order to fund a

drug habit are actually the local end of the organised crime. That

shows you what you are up against, he uses the phrase, highly local,

populist issues, almost a dismissal of these concerns. This view was

prevalent through the chief constables, that is your problem,

isn't it? When we have the commissioners in place, I think

what you will see is that they will be able to be that boys, talking to

the Chief Constable about what people's priorities are at the

local level, and setting the police priorities, because the Chief

Constable retains operational independence. The candidates I have

spoken to have got a very real understanding of the wide range of

issues. I am glad to have mentioned that, let's look at some of the

manifesto pledges being made. More police on the beats, every reported

crime should be attended and investigated, every one, a more

realistic shift and working patterns for officers, I assume to

get more on the streets. Are these priorities for operational matters?

No, these are about an approach that the police should be taking

and reflecting the voice of local people and what local people want.

People do want to see more police on the streets. A priority for an

operational matter? It is a priority for the force to be able

to get people out there doing the job, officers doing the job that

people want them to do. How that is then done, there are issues about

operational independence, but some of those issues are being addressed

by some forces. Every crime to be attended and investigated, a

priority, or is it an operational matter? It is perfectly reasonable

for a police and crime Commissioner to say to a chief constable that

they think every crime should be looked into. But is it an

operational matter or a priority? You make the distinction. We have

said that the chief constables retain operational independence,

and it is absolutely right that they decide to to investigate, they

decide who to arrest. That should not be decided by a politician.

Let's look at the elections themselves, the first time we have

had them in this country, three weeks away. If the turnout is low,

and many think it will be very low, will that not affect the legitimacy

up of the winners? There has been a lot of speculation about the

turnout. We do not know until it happens. It probably will be low.

There at two sets of people making sure that people know about the

election. At government level, we have put at advertising to tell

people about elections, neutral, but explaining what the role is and

when the elections are taking place. Around the country, candidates are

getting out vast amounts of literature. My own party has sent

out a vast amounts of literature, getting the message out to people.

In terms of the mandate, I would say this, Andrew, the police

authorities at the moment have no democratic mandate to do this job

of overseeing the police. The police and Crown Commissioner will

have a democratic mandate from the people to do this. -- crime

Commissioner. In other areas, your government thinks turnout is

important, this is what Francis If turnout is too low for a strike

and you want to act, surely if they are too low for police

commissioners, the same applies. do not set turnouts for any

elections that take place in this country. He is saying that you

should. I said any collections in this country. We do see turnout

very, obviously, at local elections it can be low, but I do not think

it is wise to try to predict what the turnout will be. For the first

time, they will have a democratic mandate that does not exist today.

But don't you have yourself to blame if there is a low turnout?

You have decided to hold these elections in November, no Prime

Minister would go to the country in November, and the manifestos are

only available online in a country with 7 million people who do not

have online access. The manifestos is possible for people to get a

printed copy, a phone number is being made available. As if that is

going to happen! Have you done it? The website is available for people

to look at. Not for 7 million. government is doing its bit in

terms of the advertising campaign about the importance of the

elections. Obviously, the Conservatives, Grant Shapps is our

party chairman, the campaign chairman for the police and crime

Commission elections, and they will be doing their bit locally to get

information out and insure people know about elections and go out and

vote. -- ensure. You told the Sunday Times that the free movement

of people in the EU would be part of the Government's review into our

relationship with the European Union. Can I remind you of article

48 of the treaty of Rome, to which we have signed? Freedom of movement

of workers should be secured within the community. So how would you

curtail that freedom? Well, first of all, Andrew, the freedom of

movement has been taken beyond what was in the treaty of Rome. It is

absolutely right that it referred to freedom of movement of workers.

It has gone much more widely, it has been interpreted more widely.

There are three things I would say in relation to what we can do about

it. First of all, we're working with other member states on the

abuse of free movement that we see taking place. What is that these?

Sham marriages being used, somebody from a third country outside the

European Union using a sham marriage to someone in one of the

member states to gain access through to a country like the

United Kingdom. How many instances of that? It is a growing number of

cases. How many? It is a growing concern across the European Union...

Pas de not have the figure to hand, Andrew, but it is a growing concern.

-- I do not have. We need to look at some of the factors that

encourage people to want to come here, and yes, we look at free

movement as part of this... The term does not mean a lot to people,

the balance of competencies work is looking across the board and Sane,

where there is the power lie to make decisions about these

particular issues, with us for the European Union? What are the

advantages and disadvantages? When that work is complete, we will look

at whether to take that forward in any one of the areas it covers.

it is still government policy that immigration will be below 100,000.

We are working, and our aim is to get it down to those tens of

thousands by the time of the election. I'm not going to predict,

but that is what we are working for, and I think we are on course. We

have seen, in the last figures, a significant drop in the number of

net migrants to the United Kingdom, so we are restricting the number of

non- EU economic migrants. We are cutting out the views across the

student visa system, and we are having an impact. The Garry

McKinnon case, finally. This is what the Daily Telegraph said. This

Have you had an official complaint from the US Attorney-General about

your decision? I have not had a conversation with the Attorney-

General. I took my decision on the basis of the material available to

me, as was open to me doo-doo. you had a complaint? I have not had

a come -- a conversation. I have not had a written complaint. Is it

true that you have been calling him and he will not return your calls

customer we have been arranging to set up a call, and we have not yet

spoken. I expect that we will be speaking about his decision. I

spoke to the US ambassador on the day that the decision was made.

he got a right to be angry? You wrote to the US in July to say

there were no legal or medical grounds to stop the extradition.

Can you confirm you sent that letter? No, there has been quite a

bit in the press about what might or might not have been said. There

were no categorical statements of that sort. What did you say?

decision was open to me to take up until the point at which the court

required me to take the decision. I took the decision on the material

that was available to me. Remember, Andrew, there was evidence coming

in until relatively soon before I actually took that decision.

understand the grounds on which you took the decision, Home Secretary,

I am not challenging that it was your decision, but in July, when

you did right, did you give indications that there were no

legal or medical grounds to stop the extradition? It has always been

understood that the decision was mine to take finally on all the

material that was available after the point at which I took that

decision, and that was the basis on which I took the decision. I mean,

something has clearly happened, someone in the British government

told the Americans something that has made them so angry. Senior

officials are saying that your relations, not the Government's,

your relations with the Obama administration are finished.

have a strong and secure relationship with the nicer states

across a range of issues. I would give you an example of it, be

strong and secure relationship with United States administration across

a range of issues, national security matters, extradition, the

special relationship generally. To give you an example, two days after

the decision, I had a constructive meeting with the head of the

director of Customs and immigration enforcement in the United States,

talking about how we can carry on and build on our working

relationship to the benefit of both sides. The US Attorney-General...

What is clear is that we have, with the US, an extradition treaty which

is important, I believe it is an important treaty for both sides,

the United States and United Kingdom. It is a treaty that I

believe is balanced, and we work on that basis, we want to see people

extradited to the United States, as we have seen with Abu Hamza,

Christopher Tappin... But the US Attorney-General has said, quote,

he feels completely screwed by you. What do you say to that? I will be

having a conversation with them and we will discuss the matter. I have

set out the basis... It sounds like treaty generally, when I announce

the decision, I did make some announcements about the process of

extradition, but that treaty is important because we do not want

criminals to hide behind borders. Wasn't it a bit hypocritical and

maybe even inconsistent to base your decision to refuse extradition

on the basis of Labour's Human Rights Act which you want to

repeal? First of all, the situation exists at the moment that it is

possible for a Secretary of State to refuse on human rights grounds.

Now, in future, I think it is right the decision is not for the

Secretary of State but for the courts, and we will be bringing

We have a first-class leader at the moment, he is dealing with issues

very well indeed. Home Secretary, thank you for being with us this

morning. The Jimmy Savile revelations have

reignited debate about the prospect of stronger press regulation. Once

the report - the question will be well celebrities like Jimmy Savile

be able to sleep more soundly once the press has been a coward? They

are actors but the words are from working journalists. This is a new

play about the press by the National Theatre of Scotland called

Enquirer and there is a scene about the real-life Enquirer.

implications of Leveson. What do we think will happen? I don't want my

report to end up on a dusty shelf... Earlier this year, Lord Justice

Leveson heard from witnesses who said their lives had been blighted

by the media. It just felt like such an intrusion into such a sense

of invasion. A my husband said we have asked you to stay away, no.

The editor said we are going to use it anyway. Leveson is still

polishing his script which will be published later in the year. One

theory is he will recommend a new press regulator with the force of

the law behind it. There is also a sense the inquiry is having an

effect in real life newspaper offices. The can see examples where

you might have expected there to have been more press coverage than

there was. Take the death of Gary Speed. In normal circumstances you

would have more speculation about why he killed himself, that never

happened. The what about the example on the front pages now -

the allegations against Jimmy Savile. To some, it is a warning

about the government being too tough on the press like Rupert

Murdoch who recently treated: -- At the moment passes looking for

any occasion when it can put forward tighter regulation against

public interest. The cast and crew of this play are going on tour to

Belfast next but the big question is where is the media heading after

this? Anne Diamond and Neil Wallis, former executive editor of the

paper, joined me. We should point out that Neil Wallis is currently

on police bail as part of the phone hacking investigation and unable to

answer any questions relating to that. Why do you say regulation of

the press would be good news for the Jimmy Saviles of this world

when you never exposed him? I find that rather a fascinating question

because what you are saying then, it will be easier if we put more

restrictions on you. There are plenty of laws in this country

controlling what journalists do, and frankly libel, privacy is a

stick with which the press can be beaten. A former editor of the

Sunday Mirror said you take on someone like Jimmy Savile, that is

a big calculation. So they raise enough regulation already to

inhibit investigative journalism? Bringing Jimmy Savile into the

Leveson debacle is a red herring. It was not the press that one must

Jimmy Savile, in fact it was the broadcast media which works under

statutory regulation - the ITV. I don't see anything wrong with the

price being asked, now that they have proved themselves of the

inability to a self-regulated, maybe now the argument is for some

sort of statutory regulation. Let's give it a go because it hasn't

worked, self-regulation, let's give it a go. If the problem with

bringing statute into it, it is a bit like losing your virginity. You

can only use it once. Once the politicians get their hands on the

levers of authority in relation to a press whose job Battista

primarily hold the legislature or to account, they will then get the

press they want rather than the press they deserve. It is

interesting you use the word authority because that is not we

have not had. We have had a press which, if you are an owner like

Murdoch it has been like money, about the desire to sell newspapers,

profit. If you have been in your position, it is about power. It is

not about authority. What we need now is some sort of press which

does have integrity. Isn't it the case that tabloid newspapers have

large budgets and powers, but you have been more interested in

titillating gossip about celebrities rather than on covering

real wrong doing like Jimmy Savile. Sometimes. A lot of times. A lot of

times, and a lot of times we have exposed a whole variety on very

unsavoury activities amongst politicians. Do you believe we

should allow those sorts of politicians to decide the press we

have? Just this week, we have the Telegraph story about how MPs are

renting out their own flat to each other, then hiring flat at the

taxpayers' expense. The press revealed that. The Fiat is if you

have to matriculation, which at the end his political, that is the kind

of stories they will put rules in place to stop that coming out.

have worked in broadcast journalism all my life. Broadcast media

doesn't do much investigation. it does. It didn't do the expenses

scandal. There have done plenty of other very good journalism. The

fundamental weakness of your argument is you keep saying any

sort of regulation which is not self-regulation, which hasn't

worked,=gagging the press and it doesn't have to mean that. They

haven't done the hacking story. the press did hacking as well. We

can each cite examples, but the point is it doesn't follow, it

isn't on segue. We can still operate within the bounds of

statutory regulation. Anne Diamond speaks with experience of this. You

were working in the Sun when you published photographs of her son's

funeral without her permission. That is the kind of thing most

people would like to see regulations, that you can't do that

and it stops you -- doesn't stop you from doing proper

investigations into bad people and wrongdoing. This is an unfortunate

example because her memory of that and my memory of that, and I was

involved in this heavily, are simply very different. That may be

because of time, but we recall this differently. I remember very much

that the campaign we did together, were she talked about that as one

of the highlights of her career, was enormously effective. That is

an example of how that power of the press can do real good, but

regulation would not have stopped that either. I think we need

tighter regulation. 20 years ago I would not have argued for statutory

regulation, but given the experienced eye have had, now was

the time to try that and see. you think that is what Leveson will

command with? It is plain to me that he had no sympathy whatsoever

with the tabloid press. You regulate the tabloid, you regulates

the entire print media. I just asked you if you think it will

happen. Yes, I do. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead

with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across

Welcome to the London part of the programme. Later, confusion and

uncertainty over where the axe will fall on policing in the capital as

its very own existing elected commissioner, the mayor, seeks to

find tens of millions of pounds of savings. With me today,

Conservative MP Mark Field, and former Home Office Labour minister.

The capital's teenagers notched up another good crop of GCSE results

last year, the fastest improving pupils' in the country, but is

there a role for the mayor in London's schools? He thinks so, but

what? An inquiry commissioned by the mayor into education in the

capital claimed this week there were 15,000 children who left from

the school this year struggling in English and maths and that 28,000

secondary-school left without five good GCSEs. It has recommended

setting up a golf club of schools which show they are bucking the

trend -- gold Club. It suggested the mayor should play a more

strategic role in the development of three schools. I think there was

a role, a strategic role for London as a whole to drive up standards.

Any mayoral manoeuvres may well meet resistance from councils. They

are making their own submission to government asking for more

influence and an ability to intervene if academies are not

coming up to the mark. Dr Tony sea wall was the chair of

that inquiry, he joins us now. What do you make of this? Some of it can

be seen to be repeating what government is supposed to be doing,

but I don't have a problem with the Munden focus because there are

issues in London which are not the same around the country. Certain

things like the Golden Club of schools, that may be a gimmick, but

some other things, the London curriculum could be quite

interesting and the attempt to link schools with higher-education -

some of that goes on already - the book to boost that is a really good

start. I think it is good news. I take on board the question about

duplication but in a time of doom and gloom about the economy, it is

great to have something people feel passionately about. London is a

very big area with 7.5 million people living in the capital, but

it is massively polarised with some of the best success stories and

some of the worst schools, and working together to see whether

elements of that excellence can permeate down is a positive route.

Is there room for the mayor? And what could he be doing that he

isn't doing now? If you look at the question of schools getting more

autonomy, that has left the former local education authority there

used to service schools, their role is diminished. There is a feeling

from schools now that they want some kind of sense of bringing

things together and learning from each other. We are not talking

about necessarily the mayor coming in to run schools, but certainly

some kind of strategic Agency to bring things together. The issue of

the gimmick, that is central, and that means that schools get into

the club which are doing extremely well and so almost like a mutual

society. They come together and other schools were learned from

that. The Ofsted report judges schools and parents can make their

own judgment already, can't they? Yes, but the standard to get into

the golden club is very interesting. It is about whether you come to a

place of excellence, where you are almost doing things which are

really unusual in terms of schooling. What the key element in

their is they are excellent so they can help others. It doesn't need

any statutory powers so why doesn't he just do it? He is doing it.

Various ground swell that once this to happen anyway and schools will

join it. It is inevitable. mention the role for academies and

schools sharing expertise, but we know they already do that and

academies are often part of chains already and there are federations.

For example of the centre of excellence we are talking about

really are about trying to drive up particular standards and this is

where academies are stuck. They are OK in the sense of getting grade C,

but how do you get the best grade? We have called the report "going

for gold, turning achievement in two excellent". He is struggling to

fulfil functions with the budget cuts already, what could he do?

GLA is not going to hands-on do anything of this. This is a

strategic enabling exercise and it is interesting. People, symbols,

ways in which people look at things and having the mayor endorse things

$:/STARTFEED. A lot of schools already work together, and the key

thing for me is linking schools with skills. Something that has not

been mentioned, in my constituency, I have children from a range of

backgrounds achieving at different levels directly linked to their

ethnic background, and that is an area that any mayor of London ought

to be very concerned about. Would you be happy with this as long as

it is not a statutory role? I think where Tony gets it right is that

this is not about layers of bureaucracy, it is about trying to

raise a profile, a massive issue for many Londoners, and in the

recession a lot of relatively affluent Londoners are no longer

able to send their children to private education, and they will be

looking to academies as the grammar schools of the 21st century. Very

briefly. Nine D 1,000 places are needed. This is where the mayor is

really strategic in the sense that GLA have properties... Seeing as

you mentioned it, do you only want to see free schools fulfilling

that? It is not the only way, there are other ways. Community schools

can still happen? Of course. Around the edges, he might be able to make

land available. Let 1,000 flowers bloom, let's have innovation and

diversity of schooling. Can I say, on the free school issue, if this

brings better co-ordination to this policy, which has a lot of problems,

that can only be a better thing. This lesson is running over, we

will return to the issue. London was seen as the model for

police commissioners up and down the land, an elected mayor with

oversight of the Metropolitan Police, but what will the future

shape of the force be? Wide-ranging reorganisation is on the cards

because of the need to cut tens of millions of pounds from the Budget.

As this happens, can frontline policing be maintained and crime be

London has a new sheriff in town, Stephen Greenhalgh, deputy mayor

for policing, the man using the new police powers on Boris Johnson's

behalf. Top of his list, what he calls the Twenty Twenty Twenty

Challenge, a cut in crime, boosting public confidence, but at the same

time delivering a cut in the Budget. Exactly how he will find the money

is not clear. The difficulty is this, 80% of the police budget goes

on staffing, and the mayor has promised to give police numbers on

roughly the current level, 32,000. So the savings have income from

somewhere else, and City Hall have a radical shake-up of policing in

mind. Already under way is a reduction in staff who on not fully

warranted police. The number of community support officers has

halved from March 2010 down to 2,300 last month, or that figure is

likely to creep up again. Other staff also saw their numbers

reduced and could well fall further. On top of that, there are 6,000

police currently working in back- office jobs, and roughly 20% of the

force, and the Metropolitan Police are determined to get them into

neighbourhood policing roles, but that could come at a risk. The air

are roles in the back of this, whatever that is, which need

policing skills, they need to have warranted offices filling those

roles. If you are taking phone calls from members of the public,

that is perhaps a call centre type is you, and that is different.

changes to the police state are expected. Even the famous Scotland

Yard could be sold. Police stations will close and front counters were

the public can walk in will go with them. City Hall says that when one

of the shut, replacement should be found elsewhere. On the ground,

that does not seem so straightforward. This is Cavendish

Road police station in Lambeth, still operation, but closed to the

public until further notice. There have been no replacements for them.

Confusion over mayoral policy does not end there. Police have

currently been organised along the Elektra map, with each borough

having its own command. Police briefing documents seen by the

Sunday Politics explain how this will change, saying that senior

management and support services will be shared between boroughs.

The London Assembly, council members and other politicians

across London have been told this could mean borough commanders will

have to serve two areas, something the mayor denied this week. We are

not getting rid of borough commanders, all right? But they are

merging, so you may have one person in charge of two boroughs. No, that

is not the intention. That is what is being consulted on currently.

do not care what piece of paper you have got. It is from the Met!

Whatever confusion there may be, the pressing need to find savings,

the mayor's deputy will have to find answers soon enough.

The deputy mayor for policing, Stephen Greenhalgh, is here now.

Let's just deal with the commander's first, then we can go

on to the wider picture. Can you clarify that, is it possible that

some commanders will be lost and you will have a commander across

two boroughs? Her I will start by saying that London is very clearly

divided by the boroughs, and they are very important. As a former

Barra leader, there is no way to wipe away that point of

accountability, and there is no intention in the foreseeable future

for sharing borough commanders. The mayor has made that clear. No plan,

not even considered as a proposal. It is not being considered as

something that we would entertain, and that is the mayor's office for

policing and crime. You have a document that is looking at sharing

services, and you should not necessarily have 32 back offices,

32 Investigation Department. There are opportunities to share

resources to catch more criminals and a more efficient service, that

is something that is up for grabs. On to more philosophical matters,

how ripe for reform are the police? We have a job of work to do. Let's

look at where we saw growth over the last 10 or 12 years. We saw

considerable growth in the back office, and you saw the peak of

14,000 people working in support functions. They are very important,

but it used to be about 17% of costs in 2006. By 2012, it is

almost one in every �3 are in the back and middle office. We need to

do more to ensure we have the police deployed and doing the

things they can do, but we have to have a Lina back office. How can

you do that with the same number of police officers on the streets

kurta marked that assumes the Met is the most sleekest operation

today. Comparative forces say they spend less. Have you found out why

that has happened? In the time that I have been there, it is clear that

we need to have a longer term view about how this organisation is

going to look, and that requires a lot of discipline, a clear strategy

of what you're aiming for in terms of the party's numbers. Then how

you organise and how you acquit that in the best possible way. --

the police numbers. Technology, the technology spend by the Met is

about �250 million. That is an enormous sum of money. Of that, the

original ICT contract was priced about 60 million. For the same

services, they spent about 40 million. That is 200 million are no

extra items that simply are operationally needed and necessary

and not driven by why they are mission-critical to catching

criminals. You know that people talk about Spanish practices, the

last unreformed public body. Do you find that? Do you think the police

work flexibly enough? Look, what I see from working with the police,

in this area, it is the first public service, a commitment to

doing something for London. They have a can-do attitude, but they

recognise themselves that if you have less money, �300 million less

to spend in 2015-16, you cannot just turn a handle and do things

the way they are done today. You have to have a clear idea about

what they are going to do to run things, so they recognise the need

to change. Give us an idea of where you would like to see that thinking,

we are not concerned about selling buildings of the ICT. The first

thing you need to reduce his the overhead and the back office, the

waste and duplication. 93 business units! You have an estate that

costs �200 million to run. We have dealt with that. Overtime and shift

systems, the way police officers work, would you like to look at

that? I am not someone who is an expert on how you deploy police

officers. But I recognise that you need to reform the policing model

to ensure you get those people with special powers doing the things

they do and that we do not have them stacked behind desks, so that

they are certain people in London, doing the things we expect. Is this

timely? By its nature, police is never going to be a nine-to-five

operation, so it is difficult to talk about the way in which you

reorganise compared to a normal job, and Stephen has touched on issues

to do with procurement. One of the things I see in my constituency,

which includes the City of London, which historically had its own

police force, I accept it is very well resourced, partly out of city

corporation monies, but there are important lessons to learn about

localism. Moving away from the current model, even a more

localised model, I think it would be a retrograde step for many

Londoners. It has been a long time coming, it needs to happen? Once we

found out what Brian Paddick's pension was, that threw up all

sorts of issues. For a Brian Paddick, I am sure he ended over 30

years of service. �60,000 barrier, great work if you can get it.

not here to defend himself. There are systemic issues across the

public sector there, but I agree with Mark on localism. I'm not

surprised the mayor has backtracked on that plan to join boroughs up,

because that is an error. Londoners want to know who is accountable,

the mayor may be overall, but on the disease that Stephen Greenhalgh

was saying, we can talk endlessly about pruning the back office, but

that will not deliver more numbers on the street, and we do need to

see visible solutions. He has just had the last word on that, but it

is a big challenge, do you accept that obviously, is it your priority

to define the cuts first, needs must with the money, and you accept

that crime will have to go up before it comes down? You cannot do

it all at one time. That is a nonsense. You have to have a

picture of where you're trying to get to, clarity about what life

will look like in 2016. The pay bill for 32,000 officers is �1.9

billion. We have a budget of 3.2 billion. If we do not throw money

against technology, if we are properly equipped buildings, still

providing access to the public, if we think about how we deploy police

officers, you can do that within serve London in a way that is

better today, frankly. Thank you very much indeed. We would like to

keep in touch with you on this one, best of luck! Time to catch up on

some other stories, the Week in 60 The mayor's new commission on

Finance met to examine the tax paid by London as being kept in the

capital. Mr Johnson said the chitty should not be a cash cow for the

rest of the country. -- City. One and five Londoners are on poverty

wages, according to a charity, more than half a million people earning

less than the London living wage of �8.30 per hour. The Olympic Stadium

race continues to be more of a marathon than a sprint. A meeting

of the legacy Development Board stumbled over what rent to chart

and the issue of retractable seats. The Fire Brigades Union is trying

to extinguish spending cuts that could mean 600 job losses and 17

station closures. The brigade is looking to save �65 million. The

details were leaked ahead of a meeting next month. First-time

buyers in London now need an average deposit of just over

�60,000, according to a report by the Yorkshire Building Society, and

that means many are now saving for eight and a half years or end up

withdrawing from the Bank of mum If you thought the challenge was

big for the police, it is clearly as before the fire service as Rowe,

17 stations to go from London. is a big issue, rather like the

hospitals with accident and emergency. No-one wants to lose a

fire station from their patch, I have lost one and another is in the

offing. It probably can, but I can accept there will be local people

worried about the implications. cannot disagree with that.

disagree, actually, because some police stations are not in the

right place, but fire stations need to be close to things. If you think

of London traffic, you have to get there quickly, and I worry about

reducing careful. Hackney is currently unscathed, but our

vehicles would have to go to fires in neighbouring boroughs, which

would dilute what is available locally, and we need to look

carefully at that. We will be returning to that is you, thank you

In a moment we will be looking ahead to the big stories that will

dominate politics next week, but first the news at noon.

But afternoon. David Cameron will set out in your approach to law and

order, promising that the government will be tough but

intelligent. In a speech tomorrow he is expected to reveal plans to

increase the use of payment by results for groups helping to

rehabilitate offenders. Earlier in this programme, there Home

Secretary said another area ministers would be tackling is gun

crime. If you look of organised crime gangs, we know there are

middlemen who have firearms that they went out to criminals who then

use them. There isn't an offence at the moment for somebody to possess

a firearm with intent to supply that somebody else, I think it is

right that we introduce that offence.

Funeral are taking place this lunchtime of those killed in the

car bombing in Lebanon on Friday, including that of the country's

intelligence chief. The attack is being blamed on Syria. Live now

have to our Middle East correspondent in Beirut.

There are thousands of protesters and mourners here at the heart of

this square in Beirut, not just to mark the passing of the country's

intelligence chief, but also to protest against the excesses of

what they see as the Syrian regime in Lebanese politics. Such a car

bomb has not been seen here for four years, and many people feel

what is happening in Syria is being recruited in Lebanon. There is a

fear here that many people believe the clashes will return and they

will get drawn into the politics of neighbouring Syria. They also want

to park the massing of a man who was seen as very prone Lebanese.

At least 10 people are reported to have been killed when a car bomb

exploded in Damascus in Syria. The blast happened outside a police

station and came as President Bashar al-Assad was meeting the UN

and Arab envoy attempting to negotiate a ceasefire in the

uprising. The former BBC director general

Greg Dyke has criticised the corporation's handling of the

allegations that Jimmy Savile abused children. He said the BBC

was slow to realise the seriousness of the scandal. The BBC made two

early elastase, firstly the statements about this were not

strong enough, and not saying this is a really serious issue that

needs to be examined. It is not enough to say we looked in our

files. Secondly, when they started saying that the Newsnight programme

was not running for editorial reasons, you needed to explain what

they were. Why did the editor of Newsnight decide this was not a

strong enough programme to be broadcast? I suspect he didn't

think the evidence was strong enough, but someone needed to say

that and nobody did. That is all the news now. More news on BBC One

at 6 o'clock. Now, back to you. Number 10 remains omnishambles

Central, masterminding dreadful headlines in the face of good news

about crime and the economy. How long will Labour be smiling if next

week brings news of a growing economy? They are questions for our

panel. On my little Sunday panel we had a

dilemma today because we didn't know if we should take a tip from

the thick of it to show what is happening, or should we go with

real life? We decided to go with real life because it is even better.

The Prime Minister was crystal clear yesterday. The truth is the

Prime Minister was very clear. This was a policy intent that will be

delivered through the necessary mechanisms. The Prime Minister

comes to this House Weekly to be scrutinised by this House. Does he

give any notice of every answer? Does he get notice of every

question? Of course the answer is no, but if he has a -- is asking

whether these questions are being deliberated, the Hon Sir is yes.

That was not the BBC drama department for comedy. The Energy

Secretary was sent in to explain what the Prime Minister meant

because he hadn't really known. Isabel, we are going to get more

probably good news on the economy that the third quarter, the economy

started growing again, but is then no piece of good news this

government could not turn into an omnishambles. They have locked in

these fixed-term parliaments. How Labour must wish there was a

general election tomorrow because they would be home and dry. If the

economy turns round in the next year, this will be forgotten.

Really, do you think that is true? It would take something of a

miracle. George Osborne and the OBR were predicting we would now be at

3% growth and we are miles below. Let's hope this week the figures

will be good, everybody hopes that, but it could be a blip. One think

tank says they suspect it will fall back because the Olympic tickets

have been put into the third quarter. Everybody must hope it is

real but it is risky. omnishambles confirms something we

have been discussing on this show for the best part of a year, that

Number 10 itself needs more and better political operators. There

are plenty of high-minded neutral civil servants in there, but

Downing Street is relatively poor at avoiding accidents, at seeing

threat before they emerge. Is that down to the dining Street machine?

A lot of unnamed Tory MPs are saying that in the papers this

morning. That is true, there is clearly a communications problem

and I have lost count of the times in the last six months Downing

Street insiders have told me I think we are now getting a grip,

then there is more shambles. I want to say about your comments, that

when the figures come to be revised There is a possibility it may be

seen that we were not in a double- dip recession. That is a remote

possibility but certain people in government are hoping for it. For

official statistics are all over the place. We have arguments about

the deficit being cut, then rising, then be in court again. Do you by

the Downing Street... It sounds like... Downing Street is not

highly regarded by the Conservatives, I know that. It

sounds too easy to blame it. After all this government has more

special advisers even than us. They said they wouldn't and the last

government was blamed for having too many. It must be just the wrong

advisers, whether they are good at it and this lot are plainly rubbish.

It is not just the fault. If Andrew Mitchell does something like that,

no amount of spin can put that right. These are unforced errors.

There was no need for David Cameron to pre-announced and bomb formed

energy policy will have run knows it is the trickiest nightmare for

government. In the end the buck stops with David Cameron. He was

the one who said at Prime Minister's Questions I can

announce... It was clearly pre- planned and it turned out to the

announcement that to this weekend we have no idea what it means.

Apparently he will be announcing that when a prisoner leaves a

prisoner with �43 in their pockets, they will take it away. How will

those prisoners get there first meal unless they wander into a shop

and steal it. Last week was obviously a pretty good one for Ed

Miliband, he didn't have to do anything, but he appeared at the

rally against the cuts organised by the TUC. It didn't quite go as well,

but let's have a look first. course there will still be hard

choices, and with borrowing rising not falling, I do not promise easy

times. You know, it is right that we level with people, that there

would still be hard choices. I have said that whoever is in government

now, there would be some cuts but this government has shown that

cutting too far and too fast, self- defeating austerity is not the

answer. It is not the answer to Maybe more booing than he expected,

but we don't know quite where he is going on issues of the deficit and

economic policy. I think that brewing was a thoroughly good thing

for Ed Miliband. It shows he is not on another planet. He recognises

that Labour would have to stick with some austerity measures,

showing him as a reasonable person. Polly, you were there. I was

standing right near the front. I was clapping when I thought he was

right, and I thought he was right to say that. There were a lot of

trade unionists who passionately wanted him to say no cuts but most

of that was a group of Socialist Workers Party people who were

determined to be brewing any Labour politician. A you wouldn't get the

TUC doing that. You wouldn't. Anybody sensible knows that if

Labour takes over next time, they will have a very hard time deciding

their priorities, and which cuts to put back. I come back to my point

that getting food is one thing, still having a clear narrative on

what you do with the economy is another. This is why it is hard to

read. Being booed initially is a good thing, it shows he is prepared

to be challenged, but it is a logically consistent policy but not

an electable one. Coming back to the subject we love, the BBC, are

we in for the worst week since the whole Iraq war business? We have to

remember a large amount of the written press hates the BBC so

tries to pin everything about Jimmy Savile on the BBC. It was the NHS,

it was brought more, it was the support charities. Nobody knew or

and nobody had the evidence if they suspected. The question - will it

be the big head that Rolls or deputy heads? Are have to challenge

what you say about us hating the BBC, really we just expect them to

be subject to the same scrutiny as everybody else. I do understand the

point of view of that journalist who was axed who worked on that

programme. There is nothing more annoying than seeing a story spiked

and appearing somebody else -- somewhere else.