11/11/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Our top story

today: The BBC leaderless and in turmoil this morning. After its

director-general, George Entwistle, was forced to resign last night,

there are calls this morning for BBC chairman Chris Patten to fall

on his sword, too. All because of that Newsnight report which falsely

accused a former Tory politician of sex abuse.

How does the BBC restore trust following what Chris Patten has

called Newsnight's shoddy journalism? We will hear from

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman and former Conservative Culture

Secretary David Mellor. Britain fell silent at 11 this

morning to remember its war dead on Remembrance Sunday. The Defence

Secretary, Philip Hammond, joins us straight from the Cenotaph for the

Sunday Interview. In London, added his more CCTV than anywhere else in

the world, but could we one day see surveillance drones in the skies

And with me today, a little later in the programme, our top political

panel, Isabel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt, who will be

tweeting throughout the programme. So the BBC is in turmoil this

morning after the resignation last night of George Entwistle,

director-general and editor-in- chief of the organisation, over the

decision to broadcast a report on Newsnight which alleged that a

senior Conservative of the Thatcher era sexually abused a young man in

the 1980s. The report, of course, turned out be wholly fallacious.

Here is Adam Fleming with details of how the crisis has unfolded.

Just weeks into the job, George Entwistle faced pressure that was

unprecedented. Allegations against Jimmy Savile and accusations that

an investigation into them had been dropped. Then this.

A brand new crisis for Newsnight. Tonight this programme apologises.

I key allegation in a report about child abuse was wrong. -- a key.

Newsnight had broadcast a report claiming that an un-named

Conservative politician had abused children at this care home in Wales.

There was speculation on Twitter that it was the former party

treasurer, Lord McAlpine. He denied it and threatened to sue. Then the

victim came forward to say it was all a case of mistaken identity.

Saturday morning and the director- general embarked on a round of

interviews intended to be reassuring. They were the opposite.

When did you find out? I found out the following day. You did not see

it when it was broadcast? No, I was out.

Hours later, and in the dark, he announced his resignation. I was

confident the trustees had chosen the best candidate for the post and

the right person to tackle the challenges ahead, however, the

wholly exceptional events of the past few weeks have led me to

conclude that the BBC should appoint a brand new leader.

Now the pressure is on the man by his side, the chairman of the BBC

Trust, Lord Patten. This morning he spoke to Andrew Marr. At the heart

of our journalism in the BBC is good investigative, uncompromising

investigative journalism. Newsnight has been part of that tradition

with Panorama and others. We certainly want to hold on to that

but we want to make sure it does not make the same sort of mistakes

that have been made by Newsnight. Here at the BBC's brand new

headquarters, the office of the temporary director, Tim Davie, and

a hive of activity. The head of Newsnight has reduced yourself from

that any Jimmy Savile related coverage This week the organisation

was supposed to be celebrating its 90th birthday. Instead it is facing

what virtually everyone is calling its gravest crisis.

Adam Fleming reporting. And we can talk now to the BBC's media

correspondent, Torin Douglas. Good afternoon. The chairman says he is

not resigning but what will he have to do to keep his Jupp?

He has got to sort out what happened on these two Newsnight

programmes. Their inquiries into both the investigations. He has got

to make sure that is dealt with quickly and thoroughly. Then he has

got to appoint a brand new director-general that will make

sure that the BBC is restructured. He said the BBC needed a radical

overhaul. There are two reports coming up on

Newsnight, one of them may come out today. Are there developing doubts

that Newsnight will survive beyond Christmas?

I think that is the case. Lord Patten said he will discuss that

with the brand-new acting director- general. Lots of people think that

the brand is so tarnished that it cannot survive. He said that

investigative journalism on the BBC would survive, that that was very

important. In the building that we're both in,

is their unexpected bloodbath looming for senior managers?

I think some managers will go. Whether it is a bloodbath will

depend on what these two reports will say. George Entwistle is not

the last BBC executive to go. Joining me now is Harriet Harman,

the deputy leader of the Labour Party. Good afternoon. After that

car crash of an interview on the Today programme, most people

concluded that Mr Entwhistle had no choice but to go. He went last

night at 9 o'clock. But does the chairman of the BBC Trust bear

responsibility, he appointed Mr Entwistle? I think everybody has

part of the responsibility but George Entwistle has resigned and

now there needs to be a period of stability and rebuilding. There

does have to be an investigation into what actually went wrong in

the issues that you have listed. There are clearly systemic problems

that possibly George Entwistle wanted to deal with. We do not need

more instability. Part of the problem for the BBC is, as you say,

everybody has responsibility. As we find out the hard way, when

everyone has responsibility, nobody has responsibility. George

Entwistle has taken responsibility. The buck stopped with him.

Chris Patten should stay? I think he has an important job to do as

the chairman of the trust. You have described it as Carl Mall, but

there are programmes, news programmes, culture programmes and

sports programmes, that everyone in this country that loves and wants

to watch. Some MPs are saying that the BBC Trust has failed. They are

saying that the BBC should now be regulated by Ofcom, which regulates

other parts of broadcasting? brand-new settlement of the

governments of the BBC was recently agreed. In 2006. To pull everything

up at the roots would not be a good idea. I am in no doubt about the

seriousness of this, there are the victims of those who were abused by

Jimmy Savile, then there was the decision to do a programme about

Jimmy Savile. Now there is the wrongful allegations. Do you

believe this should be sorted out by the BBC Trust, not by a brand

new regulatory regime? I believe at this point that the BBC has its

governing structure. One thing that parliamentarians must resist is we

must not allow the next victim of this debacle to be the independence

of the BBC. We have to resist answering the question, should

Newsnight carry on? That is a question for the BBC. We do not

want politicians to start macro managing this. There are other

institutions and people in the frame. The deputy chairman, you're

deputy, is Tom Watson. He has claimed under cover of Commons

privilege that there was a Tory paedophile ring in Thatcher's

Downing Street. Is there any merit to that claim? He has passed

information that he has to the police. Have you asked him about

the quality of information that he has? I have asked him and he says

he has passed the information to the police. Have you asked about

the integrity of disinformation, does it justify the claim that he

has made? He thinks it justifies the claim and he has passed it to

the police. Ultimately it is for the police to investigate. He is

the deputy chairman of the Labour Party. He has also claimed that a

senior aide to a Tory Prime Minister was involved in a child

abuse ring. Is there any merit in that? Obviously he has information

that he has passed to the police. Have you seen it? No. I have not

ask to see that information but I have assured myself that he has

pass that information to the police. Have you assured yourself that this

information is of sufficient integrity to justify making these

claims? I have not. By it he is the deputy of the Labour Party? Yes,

but he was doing it in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. We must

not have a chilling effect on recognising that there is a problem

of child abuse. There clearly is. That is important for the BBC as

well, because it has got it badly wrong. Another thing that is

important is that people do not make wild and unsubstantiated

accusations that result in senior people being accused of things

which are wholly false. That has happened, not just with Lord

McAlpine, but with many other public names who have been smeared

terribly on the Internet. The kind of accusations Tom Watson made in

the house encourage that. He did not make any mention of any names.

He spoke of his senior aide to a Tory Prime Minister. That

immediately encourages massive twitchers speculation and names

have, into the frame. People have been named although there is no

evidence. Is that a proper thing to do? I cannot say, having not seen

the information, whether it will It is not for me to evaluate the

information. He is a senior Labour figure, as he is making accusations

of a paedophile ring in Downing Street. Have you not ask to see the

information? I have satisfied myself that it has been passed to

the police. I do not think it makes any purpose firm need to make a

judgement as to whether this was warranted. Let's come to ITV and

the ambition of the Prime Minister with names taken from the Internet

and bandy to the Prime Minister. What should ITV bosses, or Ofcom,

What this shows, and I think there is an element of this in relation

to Newsnight as well, the relationship between Trust at

public service broadcasters who have a responsibility to act with

integrity and be balanced, and also the issue of the internet, and

those broadcasters with public- service responsibility should be

careful not crossed the line. should happen to ITV over its

ambushing of the Prime Minister with names plucked off the

internet? The complaint has been made to Ofcom and that is the

proper body to be looking into this. I know it is sounding like I am

saying the police should be doing this, the BBC Trust should be doing

this, but the point is you don't actually want politicians with the

government running these broadcasters. Thank you for being

with us. Chris Patten was also asked earlier this morning about

the wider implications for the whole of the BBC. This is what he

had to say. When George said that we had to get away from the silos

in the BBC, away from the infighting, be more self-critical,

devolve decisions far more for money and editorial decisions, he

was spot-on and the tragedy is two weeks after he set himself to start

doing those things, he was overwhelmed by a crisis which was

partly caused by some of those things. If you are asking if the

BBC needs a radical structural overhaul, then absolutely. I am

joined now by the former conservative Culture Secretary

David Mellor and the former BBC editor of the Today programme,

Kevin Marsh. Kevin, Jeremy Paxman claims George Entwistle was brought

down by cowards, incompetence and time-servers - do you know who he

is talking about? The not really, that is pretty typical Jeremy, to

be honest. I think his is the wrong analysis, but there you go. One sit

inevitable, after first of for his appearance before the select

committee which didn't impress many people, and even worse the car

crash of an interview yesterday on the Today programme, the director

general had to go? A in 20 minutes we saw the strengths and weaknesses

of the BBC. A fantastic interview, and demand shaking in the limelight

he was fine not meeting too many people outside, but as someone who

would command confidence more widely in his leadership abilities

George Entwistle never did that so he had to go. Now the question is

should he have been appointed in the first place? We will come on to

that in a minute. Isn't the harsh truth that the director general was

brought down by his own inability to rein in some appalling

journalism on Jeremy Paxman's own programme? That is a fair analysis.

Whether this scandal would have brought him down without the

previous Jimmy Savile crisis, I don't know. The McAlpine scandal

was even worse. The problem was, and David is right, George had a

particular management style. A very likeable bloke, very honest,

integrity, but he did have a vision of the way the BBC should be run.

He tried to explain it to MPs, try to explain it badly to John

Humphrys, and the outside world can see the BBC doesn't speak like that.

You have got to make sure the system does that. George Entwistle

was appointed by Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust - is his

job now on the line? Yes, inevitably. I am very fond of Chris,

one of the finest people of my generation in politics and it is a

shame circumstances conspired against him from going further in

the Tory party, but he doesn't have seemed to have played a good part

in this. We can't have much confidence in his ability to pick

someone the second time and we don't know what his role is. Visit

to apologise and occasionally criticised the BBC, or to run the

BBC? He had to the corridors of Oxford, he has other jobs, I just

think it needs someone more energetic and focused. So the BBC

needs a new chairman as well? fire was him, I would consider

whether I am so tainted by this nonsense... I mean, look, George

had the leadership qualities of Winnie the Pooh when it came to the

world outside. If we had been sitting and we had George Entwistle

been, we would not have appointed him. The point is he is not a

credible person, and if Chris Patten says I would do the same

again, I don't think he should be given the opportunity to do that.

Now the BBC has an acting editor in chief who has zero experience of

journalism - how does that work? Look ing at the comments on Twitter

and the internet last night and this morning, BBC journalists don't

think very much of it. Tim Davie is a very sound pair of hands. He has

other qualities, but not a journalist. He has to take this

crisis by the throat, he is probably the man for that but I

personally don't think he is the long-term answer. A everyone wants

the BBC to continue doing proper journalism, but is Newsnight as a

brand tainted beyond redemption? think so. Newsnight, there will

always be a Newsnight but I do think there may be a cathartic

moment when you replace it by news late evening or news almost

tomorrow morning but I don't see how Newsnight as a brand can

survive this. The awful thing about McAlpine was it was so grotesque.

Relying on a man who is a weirdo. He has already cost 1.5 million in

libel damages when he accused a policeman of sexually abusing him.

And why didn't they show a photograph? The idea of Alastair

McAlpine being involved in child abuse is so ludicrous. Does

Newsnight survive beyond Christmas? I think it survives but it might

well survive in a different form. I suspect one of the conclusions

drawn from this is that investigation has got to be pulled

under a single umbrella. It is quite true that some very basic

things went wrong with this investigation, one of which

incidentally was why was an outside contractor, if you like, the Bureau

of investigative journalism trusted with such a contentious

investigation? They are very keen to get a foot in the door of major

news organisations but this does cast a question over them. It the

BBC is going to do investigative journalism, surely it has to do it

itself? This weird organisation boasting about what Newsnight was

going to do was totally inappropriate. I say this a someone,

a broadcasting minister on and off for 10 years, I had to put my tin

hat on and defend the BBC which I did with enthusiasm so I speak as a

friend of the BBC who can't understand or the stuff and I feel

the BBC has to get its grip. Otherwise the enemy's will rise up.

Gentlemen, thank you. The eleventh- hour of the 11th day of the 11th

month, yesterday Remembrance Sunday coincide with Armistice Day. David

Cameron and other political leaders assembled in London this morning to

lay wreaths to one of the war dead. Old be speaking to Philip Hammond

in just a moment, but first here is a reminder of what is currently on

his desk. Mr Hammond took over as Secretary of State of defence from

Liam Fox just over a year ago, since when he has been busy. The

former businessman and heritage department cutting the number of

troops in the army from just over 100,000 to just over 80,000 by 2020.

This week he fleshed out plans to double the size of the Territorial

Army to compensate for the squeeze on the regular army, taking the

newly named Army Reserve from 15,000 to 30,000 personnel which

has led to accusations the government wants an army on the

cheap. Earlier this week he joined the Prime Minister on a tour of the

Middle East to drum up business with hopes of selling more typhoon

fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Another

issue on his mind is Syria. This week David Cameron said more needed

to be done to stop the bloodshed. Syrian President shows no sign of

change. Meanwhile Philip Hammond is also managing to annoy his

coalition partners by stating the government is committed to their

like-for-like replacement for Trident, something the Liberal

Democrats suppose. Whether he will be able to keep them happy remains

to be seen. The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond joins me now for the

You have just come from the Cenotaph and we are grateful you

have done so. It is the nation's annual reminder the sacrifice men

and women in uniform have made and continued to make. Can you explain

how part-time soldiers can replace the thousands of full-time soldiers

you're making redundant? Firstly I should say that many of the

reservists who have been called up over the last 10 years to serve in

Iraq and Afghanistan have made the same sacrifices that regulars have

made and 29 of them have made the ultimate sacrifice. The answer to

your question is that we have to cut our coat to fit the cloth and

we have to deal with the budget problem in the MoD as well as the

broader fiscal challenge as the government faces and part of that

has been the acceptance of a smaller regular army, and in order

to provide the resilience for an ongoing operation, we need to

increase the number of army reservists from about 19,000

trained TA soldiers to 30,000 by 2018. I think that is an achievable

target. Let me show you this quote If I it address that question to

the current chief of the General Staff, not a former chief of staff,

the answer is yes, provided we use our reservists intelligently,

provided we build on the concept of what the Army calls the whole force

using regulars, reserves, civilians and contractors together. Yes, we

can do it and it will mean using reservists not necessarily for the

same task that regulars are doing but to provide the kind of support

the army needs when it deploys, particularly on an end during

operation. One makes you think you It is an increase from about 19,000

to 30,000. Over the next six years we have got to find another 11,000.

I think we can do that by working with employers, by improving the

offer to reservists, and by making an attractive offer to it ex

regulars leaving the regular forces, at a naked easier to them to join

the reserves. That gives us more numbers and more resilience.

will know that some employers do not take people on if they learn

that they are in the Territorial Army. The Duke of Westminster has

had the Territorial Army close to his heart for a long time. He has

said that you should not be allowed to ask someone if they are in the

Territorial Army when they apply for a job in the same way that you

cannot ask a woman if she is pregnant. Do you agree? If there is

evidence of significant widespread discrimination... Let's ask people

in the reserves. If there is evidence of systematic

discrimination, we certainly have not ruled out the option of

legislation to prevent it. Employers are resistant. Why do you

not encourage them, and say that the Government will pay the

National Insurance of those involved? We have not ruled out the

possibility of financial inducement to employers, particularly small

employers. The Australians have a system that target's financial

support on the smallest businesses. We have said that we would

encourage responses on whether this would work. But we need to

emphasise to employers how there can be mutual benefit in implying

reservists. The Army spends a lot of money on training and increasing

the skills of reservists. If we can do that, it can be a win-win

situation. You have just come back from a tour of the Middle-East with

the Prime Minister. You were reinforcing alliances and building

up arms sales. While we used as secretive about the trip? We were

not secretive about it. You did not take in the lobby journalists with

you? We filled the aircraft. Every seat on the aircraft was full.

chose the week of the American election because you knew that

everyone would be watching that and you did not want the press coming

with you, because he did not want them in Saudi Arabia? We had a

significant number of journalists and there was significant coverage

of the trip. I do not recognise the picture you're painting. Why do we

sell arms to countries like Saudi Arabia with appalling human rights

records? We have a long history of working with Saudi Arabia for

stability in the region. Working with them for regional stability.

Do we sell them arms? We do, particularly Fighter Aircraft.

do not deny that they have an appalling human rights record?

There is human rights record needs to improve and we continually make

the point to them. To whom did you make that point when you were in

Saudi Arabia last week? We saw the King and the Crown Prince. What did

you tell the King about his human rights record? I am not going to

discuss details of the conversation between the Prime Minister and the

King of Saudi Arabia. We used the opportunity that our relationship

gives us to emphasise to the Saudi Arabians and others that the best

way to ensure stability in the future is a loosening of the grip

that exists in those countries and a gradual and progressive opening

two and more inclusive, and democratic society. They may not

have to do that if you continue to sell them all these weapons. Let me

show you this from the United Kingdom's strategic export controls

You cannot possibly ensure that what we sell the Saudi Arabians

will not be used for internal repression, correct? The equipment

we supplied the Saudi Arabians is principally fighter aircraft and

the support around them. We supply Saudi Arabia with assault rifles,

body armour, machine guns, helmets, and combat shot guns. Can you give

us any assurance that that would not be turned on their own people?

Any application for equipment of that type, currently, would go

through a process that would look at precisely the test that you have

alluded to. If there was considered to be a risk that it could be used

in internal repression, it would not be approved. So why did we sell

them combat shot guns? I do not know if you have a date attached to

that. I am just saying that this is the record of the British

government. We have a very robust system of farms export licensing,

probably the most robust system in the world. All applications are

tested carefully against the criteria. Please do not forget that

Saudi Arabia is at the heart of one of the most volatile regions in the

world, threatened by the potential emergence of a nuclear armed Iran.

It makes sense to build alliances that will at ensure stability in

that region. You say it is an unstable region. While in the

Middle-East, I think the Prime Minister was in Jordan when he said

that, he said more needs to be done about Syria? Yes, the Prime

Minister is frustrated by our inability to end the bloodshed. He

wants to leave no stone unturned. The most constructive thing we can

do is to maintain international pressure on those countries which

are blocking action on the United Nations Security Council. That is

the route that we used in Libya, the Security Council resolution

allowed all like-minded countries around the world a legal basis to

intervene and support the rebels. Do we relied military assistance?

Are we do not rule it out, but at the moment we do not have a legal

basis for doing that. The Prime Minister keeps asking us to test

the legal position and the practical military position. Could

we intervene with the majors humanitarian effort, because you

chief-of-staff told the BBC this morning that if asked to, we could

do that. Is that correct? We are already the second largest owners

of humanitarian aid to the Syrian opposition. We have plans to step

that up further if the situation requires it. I am sorry to

interrupt, we're running out of time. I want to get on to Trident.

What consideration have you given to scrapping Trident? We conducted

a review and we decided that Britain would remain committed to a

continuous deterrent. The Trident missiles and the warheads on them

have many decades of life left in them. The only question is around

replacing the submarines that carry them. They will go out of service

in late 2020. We need to be able to replace them in time for that date.

So when Nick Clegg says you have jumped the gun on this, is that

true? We have an agreed programme that we will make the main

investment decision in 2016, after the next election. In order to be

unable -- in order to be able to make that decision, we have to

invest in design and engineering development work right now. Let me

show you what a format serve -- let me show you what a former

Conservative Secretary of State for What do you say to that? We have

the greatest respect to Michael Portillo, he has been out of

government at the Ministry of Defence for a long while and he

does not have access to the information that would allow him to

make that judgment. There is as we speak at least one Royal Navy

submarine armed with nuclear missiles cruising somewhere in the

world. What is it protecting us against? It is the ultimate

guarantor of four sovereignty and independence. It allows us a

retaliated a cat -- it allows us to retaliate if the United Kingdom

were attacked. If there was an attack by terrorists, and dirty

bomb, we would not use it then? are speaking about a capability, if

we were to build this new generation of submarines, we would

be speaking about a capability that would have a life of another 60

years. You and I cannot know which countries will have nuclear weapons

over that period. There is a real danger that if Iran goes nuclear it

will provoke an arms race in the Middle East. We should not take

risks with the security of Britain. If you get your way, 80 strident,

correct? That is the most efficient way to maintain our deterrent.

is approaching 1:00pm. You are watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be looking at the week ahead

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

the UK. Good afternoon. We know they are used in military conflict

but companies in London are now offering drones for hire in the

city. Joining us this week, the Conservative MP Bob Stewart, and

Heidi Alexander. Philip Hammond has said he wants to see the number of

military reservists increase. Are the inadequate substitute for the

real thing? Not as things stand at the moment. But as things are

planned, let's hope they are. From my point review, we're going to

have a future army of 82,000 and we will have another 30 thousands

reservists. -- 30,000. He cannot get them on the cheap. They have

got to have the resources allocated to them to train and sustain their

efficiency. The resources are not there? The Ministry of Defence

assures us that they will get those resources. I think the jury is out

on that from my point of view. I do not want the army or the RAF cut.

We do not want to see the armed forces cut. We want the best we can,

but one way of trying to do it is to use more reservists. Is there

any issue, about companies, particularly at this time of

difficult economic times, is there an issue with companies losing

reservists on their staff when they go to do their service? I think it

can be a problem. It is not just about deployment. Reservists also

need to have the appropriate training. What the Secretary of

State for Defence said this week, but he was not clear, he said there

should be some incentives for employers. I think people in the

reserve force should that be discriminated against in terms of

getting a job and their career progression. The Government needs

to be clear about exactly what it means in terms of support for

employers. I have heard of bad practice among some large employers.

That is not even speaking about small employers. The Government

needs to think of its approach about this. This week, the cost of

getting around London got more expensive as the Mayor of London

announced that he was raising fares on trains, buses and bikes.

Next year, up bus fares will go up and the cost of the bike hire

scheme will double, an announcement which has provoked anger. That is

too much. You only use it for half an hour each day and you pay for

about �45 for the year. Doubling it does not make sense. This is saving

money in terms of people avoiding the tube. In 2013, on average,

fares will go up by 4.2 %. It would have been higher, but the

government contributed �90 million. A weekly travel card will go up to

�43.60. The services OK, but it is not improving. Again and see what

the increases for. It is ridiculous. It is expensive enough just now.

The public transport increases will hit the lowest-paid families

hardest. People who are trying to travel to work to earn a living.

the Transport For London board meeting, the Mayor of London

explained the thinking behind the rises. We have to invest in our

transport infrastructure. There is also expected to be an announcement

on roads before Christmas. It is not good news, but under the

circumstances, with the investment going on and the improvements we

must make to cope with the population increase, it is not

unreasonable. But with the cost of bike hire going up to �2 and the

annual charge to �90, some are questioning whether the sponsorship

deal is good value for money. has been a good deal for cyclists

in London but we need more investment in cycling in London.

London assembly members say that fares should not have been

increased by so much. Critics have accused the mayor of trying to be a

bad news by announcing the rises on the day that President Obama won

Earlier I asked Isabel Dedring why Londoners were being hit by fare

rises again. The mayor has been able to put fares up by a smaller

amount he originally had in the plan and that is because we have

got 96 million from the government to hold fares down so that is great

news. Anyone who followed the recent mayoral campaign, Boris was

clearly campaigning on a platform of Investment and Boris feels very

strongly he has to honour that commitment he made to Londoners. He

is investing in things like up grading the Duke, increasing

capacity, investing in cycle safety and those things take funding.

it fair for Londoners to be paying for future investment? That is what

governments should be doing, isn't it? Fund balance, when you look at

the new things we are investing in, a big chunk comes from the

government directly and we have spent effort looking at our own

business. When I look at things we will be including in the business

plan before the end of the year, a lot of those have been funded from

efficiencies within the business. We are committed to keeping fares

as low as possible, but we have to look at the investments we want to

make. Why are Londoners not just paying for the service they are

getting now? Where are they paying for a promise of tomorrow? Broadly

speaking, we are similar to a lot of other countries. Ideally that

balance would be different, but it is usually the way it is here in

London. We know it affect staff at city hall - people have been

enduring pay freezes, their income has been frozen or coming down, why

aren't first frozen? A as I say, we have secured the money from

government to reduce the rise by as much as possible. At the same time

people are saying the Northern Line is crowded, I can't get on in the

morning, people talk about cycle safety - how can we improve the

safety of cyclists? These are things that need to be funded and

we need to try to find the right balance point. In the campaign for

mayor spoke about maintaining fares in order to invest in the network.

What he didn't talk a bout of course was the rising cost or the

likely rising cost of using London's bike hire scheme. We see

you have doubled the fees for that. How could you do that? The scheme

has been much more successful than we could ever have hoped so we are

seeing growth, both in members but What you can't have is an unfair

situation where cycle hire is being given more funding went other modes

of transport when other people are paying their fair share. Her how

much did it lose last year? We want to put it on a stable financial

footing. How much public subsidy was there? I think you have got

those figures, and as we expand you don't want something that is

significantly loss-making. Is it about 9-10 million? We are

expanding the scheme through phase three. As the me have got at the

moment, I think about 10 million is the figure - why are you asking

Londoners to pay more and why not the sponsors, Barclays, who are

only paying less than a quarter of the cost of this being? When we put

the sponsorship deal out to tender, Barclay's put the most money on

this table so we were pleased with that. If we can find somebody else

who can put more money on the table, we will be more than happy to sign

them up. Do you agree that is not enough? And now you're asking

Londoners to pay considerably more. The total sponsorship package is

�50 million. You know that year by year under �5 million the first

year, say. What is significant is what the total package is from

Barclays, �50 million over the term of the deal and that is the best

deal we had on offer at the time. Surely it is significant what

Barclays paid last year, isn't it? In to is that local -- total

package of course. Cycle hire are getting a fair share format mode

and that will enable us to expand that scheme. Where you rule out any

further hikes in the bike hire scheme in coming years? This was a

one-off, not part of the annual fairs deal, we have announced it

together but we will keep it under review. Obviously we want the

scheme to keep expanding and if that affects fares we will keep

that under review. People are e- mailing me every day to say they

want more docking areas in London. We want to get the balance right,

the same as we do on every other mode. Not much choice here, really?

This has got to happen. I think on your footage, Peter said this is

not good news. I think it is awful news for people travelling in

London. What Ken Livingstone said when he stood for mayor, of course

we had the big debate around the mayoral election about this, that

he looked at the finances and the operating surplus that existed...

He did say that and the voters decided. No are they are being hit

with massive fare increases. Boris Johnson has been very consistent on

art presumably, and the voters have said that is fine. That is the

place we have to be because of the financial situation. He has hit

London has very hard in their pockets next year on the Duke, on

the buses, and on the bike scheme. This is the scheme that he takes

great pride in and it was more about getting more people out of

their cars onto bicycles and London and yet we are seeing that price

going up. It is not at all clear whether there is any clarity around

the deal done in the first place with Barclays. Let me bring you

into this - how are you viewing these fare increases? With anger

because my constituency will be really quite hard hit by this high

of 4% or whatever. What should have happened? What I say it is anger

from my point of view that it has had to happen. I accept it, but I

would prefer central government to give more funding. There has been

some funding, otherwise it would be much more. If they were saying 4.7,

it would be up much further. I am angry because my constituents are

having to pay this extra money to get into London. The reason why

they live out there, because it is meant to be cheaper to live out

there but they lose that because of such big fare rises. You are being

asked to pay more but the service is not getting any better so

massive overcrowding on the network. Let's move on. The military is used

have droned on manned flying devices has become one of the most

controversial ingredients of the war in Afghanistan.

The unmanned aerial vehicle, commonly called the drone. Military

technology refined in Afghanistan, now they're coming home and could

eventually be as normal over our skies as a helicopter. While abroad

they could be used to drop bombs, but over here they are likely to be

armed with nothing more than a camera. Not everybody likes the

idea. London already has so much CCTV, we are the most surveyed

people in of the Earth. If you add these, we finally become some Big

Brother surveillance state. I think the word drone really engenders

this distrust in the media. We use these vehicles, basically flying

cameras. Sky-Futures is a start-up company. Rom from just outside

London, they rent out their equipment for what they say are

entirely benign uses. Wind turbines inspection, 3D mapping, and in the

future they say there are a lot of ways in which they could work of

the local authorities. A lot of buildings lose heat through the

roof. If they are very inefficient, it is very simply done with the

thermal camera at a fraction of the cost of the money you while losing

in the first place. We could see drones playing a key role in

disaster relief, say for example if the Thames flooded. If you want to

find out what is going on in this area, you would decide on a flight

path for this. The University of Southampton worked on mapping

systems like the locations of emergency services and even people

on Twitter. They say that would give a more accurate picture of

what is going on on the ground, accessible even from an iPad.

are already being used by emergency responders across the country and

definitely in London we can see that happening. It is it an

opportunity the London Emergency services want to take up? London

Fire Brigade said they had never used drones but do have access to

other forces equipment, should they want to. The Metropolitan Police

were less open, saying they could neither confirm nor deny any

information about them. Drone companies themselves were more open

- we spoke to two who said they had been in talks with the Met about

the technology. Skydroid said they had worked with the Met Police,

some project. These are pictures of the 2008 Olympic handover ceremony.

However, Sunday Politics have been told that the Metropolitan Police

said a lack of funding have slowed down the take up.

I am joined by the director of the Campaign Group, big brother watch,

Nick Pickles. What we have seen in the film are these farm land aerial

systems, with small devices. The concern people should be worried

about his military companies flying the same equipment they have in

Afghanistan - fixed-wing much larger systems - and will we be

seeing those devices repurchased for civilian use? What would the

problem be? We already know of BAe Systems working with Kent police on

a project that has had very little transparency. Specifically looking

at drone use. What's were they used for? This is what we have been

asking. What would be unacceptable in how they are using them? Some of

these larger military drones can be in the air for three days on a

fixed flight path with someone at a desk controlling what they do. We

as citizens have no idea. Why is that different from CCTV? That is

it that for the point. If you walk down the street and you see a

camera, you are legally entitled to be told he was operating it and why.

With the drone, you have no idea what is going on. If you are under

suspicion of a crime, there please have the right to survey you.

Otherwise they don't have that right. He have experience of drones

- assess this practical application. Should we not have worries about

consent? The have got to be controlled properly, but it will

happen. In 1978 I was an intelligent officer in the London

area. I used cameras like this, much better actually. They are not

very clear. The ones we had in 1978 you can identify from 1000 ft who

was in the crowd. When it is a riot situation, this is important. They

could possibly be used, a remotely piloted vehicle, to check the heat

coming off the top of the roof for marijuana of growth. We do have any

problem with police using them in I would like to see them controlled

by someone I said the police, so licence would have to be obtained

for that purpose. I think that is acceptable. The criteria is, if it

helps to save lives, then we should use it. The EU agree? I think it is

like something from a science- fiction novel. In principle, I

would not say and necessarily object to them, however, the debate

needs to be had about exactly what these drones would be used for, and

when they would be used. For the Metropolitan Police to say they can

neither confirm nor deny we did they are using them, that seems to

be a ridiculous situation. If the police want to use them, they

should be open about it and we should have a debate. Agreed. Just

say that we are looking at them, that is all we need to do. We have

run out of time on this one, but we had started the debate and we can

return. Now for a round-up of the political news.

Could it be it no more Henry Moore in Tower Hamlets? The sale of this

statue has been sanctioned despite opposition from fellow councillors,

the local MP, Danny Boyle and Boris Johnson. The sale could raise �20

million for the council. On Wednesday, the Deputy Prime

Minister was questioned on the living wage. He tells us that he

supports the a living wage and the increase announced on Monday. Can

he tell us how many Lib Dem councils paid a living wage?

Olympic Stadium may not open until 2016. The London assembly learnt

this this week. The race for a successful 10 in G stadium has

still been up -- is still undecided. Recession-hit empty businesses are

being targeted by squatters. Bob Stewart, never mind Liberal

Democrat councils, should you councillor in Bromley not be paying

a living wage? If they could, but they are trying to keep the price

down because they have a responsibility for looking after

every one that lives in Bromley. The answer is yes, in principle,

but in practice, when they can, they should. More and financial

difficulties faced by councils. Is it fair enough to flog off a Henry

Moore if you are in dire financial straits? The reality is that

councils in London have been hit hard by government cuts. As I

understand it, the sculpture was up in Yorkshire for the last 15 years.

People in Tower Hamlets have not seen it. What do you think about

the fuss that has been made with this. I think agree. On the one

hand you want to liberate something that people do not seem to care

about, but on the other hand, it is a gift, so you have this dilemma.

Some people would say it is appalling, some people would say it

was right. I think it is very difficult. We sat, it is back to

you, Andrew. -- with that. In a moment, we will look ahead to the

big stories that will dominate politics next week with our

political panel, but first the news with Nick Owen.

Good afternoon. The BBC's former director-general, George Entwistle,

resigned and was not forced out of his job, according to the chairman

of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten. He has defended his own role in the

corporation's crisis which saw Mr Entwistle quit last night following

a Newsnight broadcast which alleged a senior Conservative politician

from the Thatcher era was involved in child abuse, a claim which

proved to be unfounded. Lord Pattern says he needs to remain in

his post as the BBC seeks to restore public trust in the

corporation's journalism, as Nick Higham reports.

There is not a bloodbath yet, but this morning's newspaper headlines

were dreadful for the BBC and the man who helped the top job for just

54 days. He was ridiculed as out of his dead and last night he resigned,

saying it was the honourable thing to do. The wholly exceptional

events of the past few weeks have led me to conclude that the BBC

should appoint a brand new leader. What finally puts paid to George

Entwistle, admitting he had not known in advance about the

inaccuracy Newsnight film, and only learnt it was wrong and hours after

it was reported elsewhere. This morning, the chair of the BBC Trust

was trying to limit the damage. have to make sure that the BBC has

a grip. Just put is horrendous crisis on one side for a moment.

The BBC has been one of the most respected national institutions.

Some commentators say that the chairman's job may be on the line.

If he manages to fix this in weeks, and the ship is stabilised, I

cannot see why his position would not be secure. But if there is any

sense of prevarication, he has had it. The man temporarily in charge

is Tim Davie, the head of radio. In the BBC's worst journalism crisis,

a man from I Gerd Muller -- a man from a marketing background to sort

out the crisis. Let's speak to our correspondent,

who is at the BBC's New Broadcasting House in Central

London. Ben, we have seen the acting director-general, Tim Davie,

arriving for work today. What is the first thing he is going to have

to deal with? Good afternoon. He may have to take

some pretty big decision straightaway. After the Newsnight

broadcast when they mistakenly implied that his senior Tory

politician had been in -- had been involved in child abuse, at George

Entwistle asked for a reporter on that broadcast. What lawyers were

consulted, what questions were asked before it was broadcast. That

report is due today. If it shows that people did not do their jobs

properly, Tim Davie will be the person to decide what if any

disciplinary action should be taken. We also understand he will be

speaking to Lord Patten about the future of Newsnight as a programme.

Downing Street says this is a serious moment for the BBC. They do

not think it is an existential crisis but they say that the BBC

needs to show it. -- needs to show grip.

People across Britain fell silent at 11 o'clock this morning to

remember the servicemen and women who have given their lives in war.

Among other events, a service and parade have also been held by

British troops in southern Afghanistan. Daniella Relph reports.

The Queen at the Cenotaph, leading the remembrance. As thousands lined

white hall, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month there

Around the UK, the country Pause to Remember. -- paused to remember. In

Afghanistan at the British base should -- at the British base at

Lashkar Gah, they remembered. For the Queen, there was added

poignancy, knowing that her grandson Prince Harry is currently

serving in Afghanistan. From political leaders to

representatives of the Commonwealth, it is a day of reflection. For the

veterans, the march past remains a moment of immense pride. As another

year passes, this is their chance to honour the sacrifice of fathers

and to ensure the memory of that sacrifice never fades.

That is all the news for now. There will be more here on BBC 1 at 6

o'clock. Now back to Andrew. Thank you, Nick. So how much worse

can it get for the BBC? And what will happen to those investigations

into child abuse claims? Those are the big questions for The Week

10 Downing Street has issued a statement coming to the aid of the

BBC, saying it does not believe it is facing an existential crisis.

What do you make of that? They also say that the BBC needs to get a

grip. My first thought was, they should know. As an outsider, this

does not feel such a serious crisis as the David Kelly affair. But been

in this building this morning, I detect that for people that work

for the BBC, it feels like a great crisis. There is an acknowledgement

that so many things have seriously gone wrong. We hear the call that

what the BBC needs is a period of stability after the instability.

The chairman was talking this morning about the need for radical

restructuring. There are two reports to come out today. There is

speculation of a bloodbath among senior managers. That is not

stability. Yes, I'm personally and convinced that Lord Patten can

remain in his job. I am not even convinced that the BBC Trust can

survive in the long term. When the BBC charter is renewed in 2016, the

corporation may be held to account by Ofcom. What is there to gain

from Lord Patten resigning? thought that predicted resignations

were a problem after the Jimmy Savile story. What happened there

was inexcusable. In his series of interviews this morning, Lord

Patten seemed to be immune from criticism because he was saying

that the only people that criticise him is Rupert Murdoch. There are

questions in the Observer and the Independent On Sunday, it is a real

problem. Downing Street have to be really careful. They must question

the independence of the BBC. You asked Harriet Harman if Chris

Patten should go. She did not want to go down that line. She said it

would be wrong to pull everything up at the Ritz. If there is a

cross-party consensus that Chris Patten should not go, he will

probably stay. It becomes for the foreseeable future a story without

an end. We may get one of the reports on Newsnight to date, and

then, one week later are 10 days, they'd is another report on

Newsnight coming out. You kind of field the drumbeat for Newsnight's

demise. I feel that it is probably a discredited brand. Serious

questions are being asked. Will it last until Christmas? Maybe not

even for the next few days. But what were they doing sub-contract

in pieces of important investigation to the side fought, -

- it to this company, at the Bureau of Investigation. Their team is

remarkably small, it is not comparable to a similar team on the

Sunday Times. This happened because the managers have reduced

themselves, anyone involved in Jimmy Savile. People like Helen

Boaden are not around to make these judgments. You had the Controller

of Radio 5 Live deciding whether to put out an investigation. Has what

has happened with Lord McAlpine, the claims of the Tory paedophile

ring without any Tories in it, will the wider claims for an inquiry

into child abuse just whether now? The Prime Minister has set up two

inquiries on the basis of testimony which has not proved to be true.

did seem to be quite tasty. Politicians have made insinuations

about Lord McAlpine, indirectly. turned out that the witness on whom

Newsnight relied, it turned out he was unreliable. I do not agree with

David Mellor, who called him a weir door and the programme earlier this

morning. He has been proven to be an unreliable witness several times,

but he has also suffered the most terrible child abuse. I think there

is a difference between being and reliable and been described as a

weirdo. That would really jarred with me. The man does not deserve a

character assassination at this point. He made a mistake but we

cannot imagine what he has been through. It was grossly

inappropriate. I think the BBC has a duty of care to this man, who is

clearly vulnerable. You are saying that he is an unreliable witness

but Newsnight looked at him in the past and decided it would not be

appropriate to proceed with the programme on the basis of what he

was saying. The more we find out about the Newsnight story on Lord

McAlpine, the worse it gets. Two elections this week, the police and

Crown Commissioners election Andy Kirk a by-election. What is more

important? The Police elections are more important, but the turnout

will be feeble. The interesting thing about Kirkby that was caused

by Louise Mensch walking away from Parliament, it occurs at the same

time as Nadine Dorries a' trip to Australia. Both those incidents

debase Parliament. We have some pictures of Nadine Dorries. I am

not sure that it is a real jungle. The thread that brings together the

police elections and Nadine Dorries is Oliver Letwin. It was his

recognition to the Conservative Party that meant Nadine Dorries was

the candidate. It was Oliver Letwin's idea to have these elected

police commissioners. He is an old Etonian, isn't he? I thought the

Tories had given up on Corby. But I understand that David Cameron has

ordered all of his MPs to get out there on Thursday, as had Ed

Miliband. At the very least there will be a high turnout of

politicians. That is trying not to come third! If Labour cannot win in

Corby where the Conservatives only had a majority of 1,900, they are

in trouble. The commissioner elections are indicative of this

government. It has some good ideas, but no commitment to follow through

and implementation. You will have a series of elections with very low

turnout and the Office of police commissioner will be worth very

little. Nadine Dorries, she is on tonight, and his series on ITV. Is

this the end of her political career are the start of a brand new

career, she becomes a household name? Her political career was

going nowhere. What concerns me about his says that hurts because,

abortion time limits, is really important. She has been brave on it,

but beefier for me is that going on natural will undermine her cause.

There is a suggestion that she will join UKIP. I do not think that will

do anything for their sense of grandeur.

That is all for today. I'll be back with more Daily Politics on BBC Two