09/12/2012 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics at the end of a

week when we had an autumn statement with a distinct winter

chill. The Chancellor said he would miss his debt target, but the

country will have to borrow even more her and that we are looking at

austerity for as far as the eye can see.

But business largely welcomed the Autumn Statement, with its lower

taxes on profits, tax relief for investment and the beginning of a

rise in fuel duty. We will ask the Shadow Business Secretary if he

agrees. And je ne regrette rien - I'm A

Celebrity's Nadine Dorries to us -- tells us she would do it all again

and lashes out at her tormentors. The papers are full of scurrilous

lies about myself and my family. In 7 1/2 years, I have never taken a

single parliamentary day away, not one.

In London, 60 years on from the great smog, the mayor has joined

forces with some of Europe's are the worst polluters to try to

soften European regulations. With me as always, the best and

brightest political panel in the business. This week, it is in

Martin, Janan Ganesh and Rowenna Davis, who will be tweeting with

gusto throughout the programme. Sadly, gusto could not make it.

Anyway, a tough autumn statement, with George Osborne reneging on

deficit and debt targets and forced to admit that the austerity were

last even longer. But finding enough money down the back of the

Number 11 sofa to cut taxes on businesses, raised the personal

income tax allowance even higher and scrap that planned rise in the

price of fuel. We will be talking about all that, but firstly, the

Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, was out and about

this morning and was asked about companies like Starbucks, Amazon

and Google and the way they seem to pay less tax than most of us would

like. Thinking of the tax system as a church plate going around on a

Sunday morning is the wrong way to think about it. Our job and the

responsibility of taxpayers is to pay the proper amount of tax. Any

businesses who want to rectify their arrangements, I welcome that.

But there are millions of small businesses and individuals who pay

the proper amount of tax day in, day out.

I am a little puzzled here. The politicians of the left and right

agree that these tax rules with companies like Starbucks, and then

when it does not result in enough tax, they say they should pay more?

In is almost as if the political class can be Seamus and

irresponsible sometimes. I think the government is doing two things

to deal with this. One is toughening up rules and a closing

loopholes, and the other is moral exhortation. Only one of those

strategies is viable. We are rules based society. If you don't like

the legal behaviour of businesses, toughen up the law. We are not a

mob. This reminds me of last year's bonus row at RBS regarding Stephen

Hester, where again business in the private sector took its own

decisions within the law, but was forced to reverse it through sheer

public exhortation from public opinion and politicians. If we want

companies to pay the proper rate of tax, we need to change the rules,

not ask for a handout. Absolutely. It is fantastic that a right-wing

Chancellor has endorsed the views of what was once considered a

radical left-wing action group in the form of UK Uncut. But despite

the posturing, we have to look at the legislation and make those

changes. That will be difficult when you have got these massive

cuts to HMRC. But he is bringing more people in. He has put more

money into that particular area, but the overall cuts to HMRC are

still 20%. Whether they can counteract that is another issue.

The Chancellor has won a massive victory if all we are talking about

in relation to the Autumn Statement is his statements on closing tax

loopholes. The real issue for working poor people is, where does

the growth come from? De HMRC is doing its job, policing the rules.

Starbucks is paying the tax it should under the rules. It is not

that you need more people at HMRC, you need better rules so that these

guys pay a proper amount of tax. That is right. Politicians are

being hypocritical here. Can we be certain that any politician who is

complaining loudly now, they must not have voted for the Finance

Bills in the last 15 years. Did George Osborne tackle the head of

Google on this when he had him round to dinner a couple of years

ago? No, he didn't. He had him round for dinner in Number 10?

Absolutely. He is close to the Osborne has and Cameron. This is

not just a British problem. I was reading Der Spiegel earlier this

week. The Germans have a problem with this as well. These are

European rules which have backfired on the European countries, because

they are all basing themselves in Luxembourg, which is virtually a

tax haven, and all the profits are being remitted their anti-European

people are getting nothing. I do not buy the idea that with time, we

can eliminate the loopholes. It is a persistent problem. But the

biggest worry about Starbucks choosing to pay what it regards as

its proper tax share rather than the strictly legal one is that it

makes tax revenues difficult for the Treasury to predict. Danny

Alexander used the metaphor of a ball being passed around church. We

are heading towards that model. If companies are choosing their right

for moral share of tax rather than the legal obligation... I would

like to do that! That is true, but this should be seen as a rebellion

against globalisation. It is no mystery why voters are annoyed

about this. They are being squeezed and a siege companies which exist

above the nation-state Peng hardly any tax and making a fortune.

After George Osborne's March Budget, a new word entered the political

lexicon, omnishambles, as the Chancellor will from bad headlines

about his plans for taxes on pasties, grannies, caravans and

charitable gifts. Come last week's Autumn Statement, the public

finances were in an even worse state, but Mr Osborne got a better

press, perhaps because it was an assured performance. But the more

you look at the figures he unveiled, the more you are struck by the

precarious state of deficits and the national debt.

He promised the national debt would begin to fall as a proportion of

our annual output by 2015-16, but it will not. He has had to postpone

hitting his target for the deficit again. In 2010, he said he would

meet it by 2015. Last year, he put it back to 2017. Now he has

announced another year of spending cuts, prolonging austerity until at

least 2018. The forecast of how much money the government will

borrow each year has increased since they were announced in the

March Budget. Even so, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said

the figure shows a �27 billion gap in the government finances for the

years after the election, a black hole which implies a further

squeeze off public spending, extra borrowing or tax rises. If the

Government was to continue to protect health, schools and

international aid from any cuts, other departments could face budget

cuts of 30% since the last election. Joining me now, Business Minister

Matthew Hancock. When the Chancellor took over in 2010, he

said he would abolish the deficit by 2015. Now the Office of Budget

Responsibility tells us not just that we will still have a deficit

by 2015, but the highest deficit in the Western world. Could you think

of a clearer definition of failure? I do not think it is failure. The

crucial thing shown this week is that we are making progress. The

deficit is coming down. Everybody knows it is harder than expected.

There was something telling in the statistics you read out, which is

that other countries are dealing with their deficits. And we need to

deal with ours. Ours is the highest. We started with the highest by some

margin. We had the biggest boom and the biggest bus. We did not have a

higher deficit by Spain, Greece or Italy and by 2015, we will. In 2010,

we had the highest deficit in Europe and the highest in the

developed world outside of Iceland. And after five years, we will still

have the highest. The astonishing thing is that despite the fact that

we were left with the biggest deficit, because we have the

political will and the credibility to bring it down, we have been

rewarded with very low interest rates and which we can borrow,

where some of the other countries have lower deficits, but worse

interest rates which are harming their economies even more. And that

is because they do not have had a steady path and the political will

to deal with it. In March, the Chancellor told us how much he

would borrow in the years ahead up to 2016. That was just nine months

ago. How much more has he told us we will have to borrow? It depends

over what period. From 2011-12- 2016-17. He has told us he will now

have to borrow �104 billion more than he told us nine months ago.

That is not credible. That is the Keystone Kops of public finance.

used to be an economic forecaster. You could do better than that.

much. 104 billion in nine months. The crucial point is firstly that

those forecasts are now made independently. Anybody who believes

they should be made independently needs to agree with the forecasts.

So when you have Ed Balls saying they are wrong, he is saying we

should not have an independent forecast. Secondly, although it is

difficult, the deficit is coming down. That shows that we are making

progress, as well as the unemployment figures being better.

As I visit companies around the country, you know from everything

you hear that it is crucial that we keep on the path of gradually

bringing our deficit down. Except that you are borrowing 100 billion

more than you said nine months ago. The failure of the opposition to

put a credible case this week shows more eloquently than we could that

this is the only path possible. opposition will be following you,

so I will deal with them. Look at this figure. The higher-rate

taxpayers included 3 million when you came to power. By 2015, there

will be 4.2 million. Did you think you would be part of a Tory

government which is dragging thousands of middle income people

into rate tax bracket at your party invented only for the very

affluent? As everybody in this Government has said, we are all in

it together. We say that not only as a description and a values

argument, but practically. Yes of course, there are more people who

have to pay in the higher rate band. I do not wish that was the case,

but do I wish the cuts to fall elsewhere? No. We have a massive

deficit, bigger than almost anywhere in the world, so we have

to deal with it. So saying we are all in it together involves people

paying their part of the burden. But these people are in the middle.

They are striving and you are taking away their child benefit.

400,000 are being squeezed. You are supposed to be in favour of these

at strivers. They are on an average -- above average Sorry, but they

are now in a tax band designed for millionaires in the Cabinet, not

these middle-income people. I am not sure you understand the squeeze.

In the autumn statement, those in the higher rate band but earning

below �100,000 will get a tax cut last year because the threshold is

going up so that the rate at which anybody starts to pay tax is going

up, which means people are paying less tax. The 40% threshold is

going up by less than the rate of inflation. That is a tax rise.

new ad in the fact that the basic threshold is going up, for

everybody, the threshold is going up. So next year, there is a tax

cut for everybody. And we are taking 2 million of the lowest paid

out of tax altogether. This is a big change in our tax system so

that until you earn �9,500, you pay no tax at all. If you are on the

minimum wage, you pay half the amount of income tax you did in

2010. And if you are on a middle income, the new norm for you is a

40% tax rate which was never meant for these people. George Osborne

once said we should judge him on went for -- whether Britain keeps

its triple-A rating. Should we still judge him on that? We have

still got our triple-A rating. will lose it, should we judge him

badly? We are trying to deal with Britain's problems and make

ourselves competitive for the years ahead in this difficult environment.

As you have seen, the argument on the other side is to put up

borrowing. We are trying to do everything we can to bring it down.

But do we join -- judge Mr Osborne badly if we lose our triple-A

rating? But we have still got it. And if we lose it in January, do we

judge him badly? We have still got it. Remind me why you once compared

yourself to Churchill and Disraeli? I didn't. I was admiring them. But

I know how the media works and That's the Tory take on the all the

-- on the Autumn Statement? What about Labour? Ed Miliband says

Labour would make growth a priority. There were plenty of new measures

in the statement designed to help British business get the economy

going again. The rabbit out of the hat was

another cut in corporation tax on company profits. From April 2014,

it will be a low 21%, down from 28% when the coalition came in. There

were cheers when the Chancellor cancelled the rise in fuel duty.

There was help for small businesses. Mr Osbourne he can tended rate

relief for another year which meant that 350,000 firms won't have to

pay anything at all. And there was a ten-fold increase in the amount

of money businesses can spend on investment and benefit from speedy

tax relief. It's tprup �25,000, to �250,000. The institute of

directors which represents entrepreneurs as well as business

executives, declared the Autumn Statement is, a tricky job, well

done by George Osborne. Does Labour agree?

Labour's shadow Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna, joins me now for the

Sunday Interview. Chuka Umunna, whatever its other

weaknesses and I am sure you think there are many, business thought

the Autumn Statement was good for business. Does the shadow Business

Secretary agree? It will be churlish of me to deny that there

were some measures that certainly welcome here, for example, the U-

turn on cutting capital allowances, they increase capital allowance is

good. We also saw the cut in corporation tax and a few other

measures, as well. I wouldn't deny that there weren't measures there

that were welcome. Fuel duty? Absolutely, I mean, that was

welcome, too. That was something that we called for. Two things,

they were very disappointed that there wasn't more in this Autumn

Statement to address the issue of finance. The lack of finance, the

lack of access to finance for profitable successful businesses

that can't get it has been a perennial problem. The Government's

project Merlin scheme failed in that respect, as did it its credit

easing scheme and we have yet to see the funding scheme work in that

respect. They wanted more news on the business bank Vince Cable has

talked about. The other issue is the operation of the national

insurance break, particularly the Federation of Small Businesses have

strongly supported our argument for a national insurance break for

micro businesses taking on extra workers. But the key, Andrew, the

key is this - is delivery. Because we saw a number of announcements in

the Autumn Statement last year, say, for example, on infrastructure.

There were 18 major road projects announced in the Autumn Statement

last year. We haven't seen the diggers get going in respect of any

of them. That's the thing... I put that point to the Chief Secretary,

he said that's not true. Let me show you what's happened to

corporation tax. Just to see if this has Lib support here -- Labour

support. It was 28% when you left got and it's now down, or will be

by 2014, to 21%. That cut in the tax on company's profits, that has

Labour support? Yes, I think that's a good thing. I I should say many

companies because of their size don't pay corporation tax.

understand. Whether they would like to have a national insurance break

which we have argued for against a corporation tax cut they've always

said national insurance is the one that would make a real difference

to them. You liked some of the measures. Yes, it would be churlish

to... Let's move on to benefits. This welfare benefits by 1% a year

over the next three years. Tkoeu take it from the Sunday papers, Mr

Balls is writing in the Sun, Ed Miliband's people clearly briefing

the Observer that you are going to vote against it? We haven't seen

the bill but I think unless fundamental changes are made to the

proposals that we have seen so far, I think we will struggle to support

it. Two things about this, Andrew, the first is just to viewers, many

people think these cuts are not going to affect them. Six out of

ten households who are going to be affected by these cuts are working

households. Mistakingingly, the Chancellor thought he could play

political games with people's livelihoods and he could say people

on benefit against the strivers, so to speak. Many people on benefits

are working are striving and the thing that many people found

particularly distasteful, was this notion that somehow those who are

out of work are feckless. understand the distupbgs. A lot of

people out of work are striving to get jobs. Let's look at those on

out of work benefits, those not on benefit and working. Should those

on out of work benefits be limited to a 1% rise? We haven't seen the

full proposal. You don't need to see the tpwoeul answer that

question. Look, we do need to see the range, the whole package of

measures. Let's look at... I would be grateful if cow answer. Why

should those on out of work benefits get a bigger rise than the

the% rise in public sector pay? Think about the people we are

talking about. Many of the people I come across in my constituency who

are in this situation are often young people, graduates coming back

from university, or people who have qualified from college. They are

doing a constant stream of workplacements. People carry on...

I understand that. So vote against the 1%. You are asking me to tell

you how we are going to vote on a bill. I haven't seen the contents.

We know the principles. You are asking me to make a judgment for my

colleagues. The shadow cabinet has not met to determine what we will

do on this bill we haven't seen yet. Those who have been on benefits

have seen a 20% rise on benefits over the past five years. Average

earnings have risen by 10%. Surely it's only right that those on

benefits should get no more than those in work? As I said at the top

of this interview, you are seeking to lump them all together. No, I am

not. You said those on benefits, many on benefits are actually

working, Andrew. Let's take those in work. You haven't answered the

out of work benefits. Let's take those on in work benefits. Should

tax credits which top up lower pay, should they be limited to 1%?

need to see the package of measures but the important distinction also

is whether or not, when you are doing that, you are also going to

give people earning millions of pounds a year a tax cut in the

order of �107,000. That's the thing. We will look at the package of

measures put forward in this bill and we will make a a decision.

know what's in the bill. We don't. Do you not know all the measures in

the bill. We know those on out of work benefits and those in, in work

benefits will be limited to 1% over the next three years. It's a simple

question, do you support that or don't you? I have not seen the

measures. But the test that we will apply is are these measures likely

to increase child poverty, are they going to adversely impact lower

income families who are in receipt of benefit and is it fair? Those

are the tests that we will apply. We know the answer to all of that.

1% is less than the rate of inflation. This is a real cut for

people on benefits whether in work or out. Why can't you just say we

will vote against it? As I have said, we haven't seen the bill yet.

As the proposals have been framed so far, I think we will struggle to

support this. But there is another important thing actually here,

Andrew, which is will Nick Clegg be able to, - if this is all that's in

the bill, will he be able to Marshall all his troops through the

division lobby? Sarah Tether has already said she things changes are

immoral. You want to talk about the Lib Dems. It would help us all if

you talked about yourselves. Let me move on to company tax avoidance.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks all the other multinationals thaerb taking

-- they're taking advantage of tax arrangements that were either

introduced by or approved by the last Labour Government. Why did you

make it so easy for them to avoid tax? I don't agree we made it so

easy for large companies to avoid tax. Let's actually look at what we

achieved in Government. You are always playing catch-up with these

companies because they employ some of the most highly reimmune rated

lawyers and accountants. But the National Audit Office two weeks ago

said that as a result of the new disclosure information measures

that we implemented in Government, the revenue has has taken in over

�12 billion extra as a result of that. Also, if you look you - it's

not just what do you domesticically, it's what you do internationally,

as well. In April 2009, at the G20, Gordon Brown managed to Marshall

the other countries together to threaten to impose sanctions on tax

haven jurisdictions... That's another issue. It's not. I am

talking about Google, Starbucks and Amazon. The fact you are calling

them on to make voluntary payments in addition to the tax, that only

shows that you left behind a tax code riddled with loopholes for

these companies. We are not calling on them to make voluntary

contributions, we are calling on them to pay their fair share. These

companies benefit from the talent that the society that they operate

in brings in terms of the employees. They benefit from our custom. All

we are asking them to do is to pay a fair share. You think he are --

they are pay agoing -- paying a share fair? It's unfair what you

see these large companies that have been mentioned do, they cloud

people's view of the contribution that businesses make to the

Exchequer and it's important to state many small and medium-sized

businesses who will be watching this programme... They pay their

whack. I understand that. We must not allow what the larger companies

do to colour their perception. you boycotting Starbucks? I haven't

bought a coffee from Starbucks since we heard... Are you

boycotting them? I am not. Are you by cotting Amazon? -- boycottingam

astkopb. Google is hard tore boycott. I would like to see,

Starbucks have to rebuild trust with their customers and the public.

What they've done this week is an important first step but they've

still lots of questions to answer. Wye like to see Amazon and Google

follow their lead in that respect. Tony Blair said that Labour can't

go into the next election without the support of a single chief

executive from a big company. Can you name a boss of a big major

company who is backing Labour? chairman of ASOS. Is that a public

company? I am not sure if it's listed. Any others? I know where

you are going with this. No, I am just asking. I am putting to you

the Blair test. I am not going to mess around with you, we did lose

lots of support at the 2010 general election amongst business and I am

determined that we win it back and that's a journey we are on. I am

pleased to say that this year we held amongst the large parties

probably the biggest business engagement event of the year and we

have lots of people coming back to us. Thank you very much.

Conservative MP for Mid- Bedfordshire, Nadine Dorries,

caused a minor sensation at Westminster when the country woke

up one morning to learn she was to spend the next fortnight eating

spiders and being covered by cockroaches in the Australian

jungle on "I'm a Celebrity." It came as a bit of a shock to Tory

Party bosses, too. They say they were taken by surprise and

immediately removed the Parliamentary Whip from her. Now

she's back, still suspended and utterly unrepentant. I'll be

speaking to her in a moment. But first, this is her case, in her own

For the last seven and a half years I have represented the constituency

of Mid-Bedfordshire for almost every day of my life. Being an MP

isn't a job, it's more of a life choice. When the producers of I'm A

Celebrity offered me the chance to go into the jungle, I saw that as

an opportunity to engage with a whole new electorate that

Conservative MPs like myself don't normally have an opportunity engage

with. I saw this as an opportunity to

change perceptions, to show people that Conservative MPs are just like

everybody else, we are mums and dads and sons and daughters. When I

left there was a knee-jerk reaction invoked by the media which became

almost hysterical. The papers are full of scurrilous

lies about myself and my family. Journalists wrote that I was away

for a month, it wasn't even two weeks. Parliament was on its own

half-term holiday and I missed no legislation.

Knowing that I was going away, I worked throughout the year and took

four days off this summer. Everyone who works has holidays, even the

Prime Minister takes holidays. I just choose to do something a

little bit different with mine. In seven and a half years, I have

never taken a single parliamentary day away, not one.

You lock better now -- you look better now. What's your name? The

reality is that the reaction on the street has been overwhelmingly

positive. When I went into a supermarket the other day I was

cheered. That doesn't happen every day. Michael Gove told me a lovely

story in the Commons the other evening. When he was visiting a

school in St Helens last week, the children wanted to know from him,

do you know Nadine? He told me that he said to the children, if she was

your mum, would you be embarrassed or proud? And they all put their

hands up and shouted proud. Children run up to me on the street

with their phones and say, are you Nadine Dorries? Are you the MP?

What is it like to eat a spider? Meanwhile, back in Westminster, in

the corridors of power, my whip was suspended and my name was removed

from the Conservative Party's website list of MPs. In 2015, a

whole new generation of voters will go into the voting booth in mid-

Beds, put a cross next to my name and know exactly what they're

voting for. Far from being a disaster, I'm A Celebrity was a

total success. Tphoeuf regrets -- I have no regrets and would do it

Let me put to you what critics are saying. They are saying that a

parliament which brought us Margaret Thatcher and Winston

Churchill is now the parliament of Nadine Dorries and reality TV. You

have undermined the reputation of the Commons. What say you?

response to that is that 12 million people watched I'm A Celebrity. I

think they are articulating a pompous and narrow-minded attitude

that there is something about Parliament which is detached from

people. I always said one of my reasons for going in was that it is

pompous off people like myself and you and others to expect people to

look to us to find out about politicians. We should not expect

them to look at programmes like yours or Westminster. We as MPs

have a responsibility to go where they are. That was the challenge.

But I understand that they cut out nearly all of your political

discussion. They only saw you eating disgusting things and being

covered in insects. There was no politics. They cut out the politics,

and there was a huge amount of discussion, I can tell you. But

whereas before I went into I'm A Celebrity, people may have listened

to what I want to save for about three minutes, or even three

seconds, now they will listen for longer because they know who I am.

They know what I stand for. When I speak about political issues, they

will know who is talking about them. Is that for the greater good of the

Conservative Party or for Nadine torrent -- food and Nadine Dorries?

If you walked around my constituency, you would think it

was for the greater good of the Conservative Party. If you listen

to what other Conservative MPs are telling me about what schools are

saying to them, there are not many schools in Newcastle and Leeds who

know a Tory politician's name. In those areas, the Google search for

my name shot up. 20 times more people searched for my name Dan

Nick Clegg's or George Osborne's in those areas. So it was for the

greater good of Nadine Dorries, people will say. He no, it was for

the greater good of the Conservative Party. It showed that

Tory politicians are not afraid to go out and engage with people on

their level. We go to where those people choose to make their life

choices and find out their information. What size will the

Phoebe when you have to declare it? He anything I earn from the

programme, I started the first of my charitable donations yesterday,

will be declared on the register of members' interests. But every day,

you interview male MPs who earned outside earnings and work as full-

time barristers and have other interests. Have you ever asked them

what they earn, or is it something you just ask women? Are no, we

often ask how much they earn elsewhere. I have never heard you

ask a male MP what fee he is being paid for the work he does. Maybe

you have to watch our programmes more often instead of being in the

jungle. Would you like the way up to be restored?

Of course I would at, but that is in the jurisdiction of the Chief

Whip. One of the issues he named was that I had to speak to my

Conservative Association and my constituents. My association had a

meeting last week and there was a hundred % vote that the whip should

be returned. You Me have to come out on the streets to know what my

constituents think. If another reality TV programme comes along

with an offer, are you likely to do it? I think this might have been my

once-in-a-lifetime. You have had enough? I don't know. I don't think

I am likely to be offered another reality TV programme! To do I would

not put that in the long grass. There are suggestions that if the

Tory whips will not restore the whip or put on too tough conditions,

you might defect to UKIP. Would you? You must be about the 20th

person that has asked me that. I am looking forward to receiving the

Tory whip back. I have always been a Conservative. Do you intend to

fight your constituency as a Conservative at the next election?

Yes. Of and you would rule out running as a UKIP candidate?

Look, I am very much hoping that I will have my whip restored in the

not-too-distant future and I will fight Mid Beds constituency as a

Conservative MP, for no other reason than I love this

constituency. I have given my life to it over the last seven and a

half years, and as a result of I'm A Celebrity, every person knows who

I am. Is your political career effectively over? Not at all. It

might just be beginning. So what is the political ambition now for

Nadine Dorries? I have always had issues that I champion, such as

reducing the 24 week abortion limit to 20 weeks, euthanasia, and ageism

in the BBC, funnily enough. But the important thing now is that when I

talk about reducing the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20,

people may listen and they will know who it is talking about it.

For me, it was really about that. You are watching The Sunday

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

with our political panel. Now The Sunday Politics across the UK.

Well come from us. Coming up later, it is the 60th anniversary of the

great smog of London that claim double 4000 lives, but why is the

mayor trying to loosen regulation in alliance with some of Europe's

of the worst polluters? Joining us, Gavin Barwell,

Conservative MP for Croydon Central, and Margaret Hodge, Labour MP for

Barking and chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Let's linger

for a moment on the Autumn Statement. Do either of you know

how many people claim housing benefit in your seats? 36,000 in

Croydon? Gavin, how many do you think are scroungers and how many

are strivers? I do not think there are lots of people scrounging,

choosing to sit at home. But we do have a problem with a welfare

system that traps people on benefits, and we have to look at

the balance and ensuring that people who are working hard are

getting equally rewarded. In the last few years, we have seen

benefits increasing by more than average salaries, which can't be

fair to taxpayers. But you say you do not have money in your

constituency who are claiming benefits who should not be. There

are some who do that. You will see people being prosecuted for

deliberate fraud. But I think more people are trapped by the

complicated system. So no question about how far reaching this squeeze

will affect people? It will affect people, but you have

to get the balance right. There are lots more people in my constituency

who work hard, and it isn't fair to ask them to pay taxes to give

people who are not working a bigger increase in their standard of

living. Sometimes the rhetoric has been that there are a lot of people

claiming benefits. Are the scroungers with you in Barking?

I may, I would like to say something about the rhetoric,

because the action does not meet the rhetoric. The people who will

be hit by this are not just the poor who are entirely dependent on

benefits, it will be people in work. Barking residents on �20,000 a year

will suddenly find... It is not a freeze, it is a squeeze, but it is

still going up by a certain amount. A 1% squeeze on benefits and a 5%

cut of the taxes for the richest in the country. Is that fare? Looking

at the public finances, are you saying you would not have done the

same thing? I would not have been unfair. By giving the which the 5%

holiday, it is going from 50% to 45%, whereas benefits are going up

by only 1%. But the richest people will pay a bigger share of income

tax in every year of this government than they paid in any of

the 13 years under Labour. We have increased the personal allowance so

that someone working full-time on the minimum wage has seen their

income tax bill cut in half. That is fair. Let's move on. Let me say

something about the barking people. A little later. We want to look at

something specific, the capital's transport system and what it might

look like in a decade's time. We were given a possible idea this

week, with a Transport for London business plan which puts cars and

road users at its heart, but with the Chancellor confirming further

economic austerity this week, some people think it is barely more than

a wish list. This week, Transport for London

revealed its �3.8 billion business plan for the next ten years, with

an apparent strategic U-turn putting roads firmly centre-stage.

The key proposals - engineering works at major road junctions to

alleviate congestion and improve safety, upgrades to tunnels,

bridges and flyovers including the Hammersmith flyover. The number of

automated traffic lights will increase to help traffic flow and

for cyclists, the mayor wants �900 million earmarked for safety

measures, the extension of the Boris Bike scheme and by claims

including a super corridor along the Embankment. With roads

accounting for 80% of journeys in the capital, Transport for London

argued that road improvement is essential. But some feel that the

shift in emphasis is unfair. mayor has not laid out his stall as

a mayor for public transport users. He is penalising public transport

users with inflation-busting pay -- fare rises. But with the scheme

dependent on receiving central government funding, does the plan

amount to little more than a wish list?

The Commissioner for London Transport for London, Peter Hendy,

is here. Everyone has their wish- list, not least at this time of

year, but were you right to breathe people this week that you could

double spending on roads and that things are looking OK for the next

decade? Yes, we are. My present financial settlement finished in

2014-15. There is no money currently beyond that for anything.

We need to set out a long-term plan which provides capital expenditure

for continuing renewal of the tube system, renewal of the other

railway assets and improving roads and it cycling and developing

places that would not get developed if not for better transport links.

London needs a medium term capital settlement to continue the good

work we started. You are making no bones about it being a wish list,

though. It may not happen, but you say it is needed? Are I think it

will happen, because the argument but for London and the national

economy, the city drives the national economy. We have 80,000

people a year coming here. The population is 8.2 million. It will

grow in the next ten years to a figure nobody has seen since the

Second World War. If we don't have this investment, people will not

get to work, school or hospitals because they will not be able to

get on the transport system. from the autumn system -- Autumn

Statement, you can see that funding will only go down. Interestingly,

this Government and the opposition have both talked strongly about the

need for transport infrastructure investment to develop the economy.

So we thought it was about time, with 18 months left of our current

plan, I would like to continue spending money wisely, getting good

value and creating jobs for the rest of the UK. Let's push aside

looking into the future. Just looking at these next two years

under existing spending arrangements, you are losing 20% of

the government grant to run the transport system. So we have got to

work hard. We have a spending cut and the grant goes down annually.

We have made a lot of economies. But how do you maintain what you

are doing when the grant is coming down? There is a balance between

government grant and fares. Our first assumption is that the

inflation rate plus 2%. So you are admitting that the fare payer will

have to fill the gap from a government grant, paying above

inflation for tomorrow's Actually on both restating

Government policy, which is to increase the proportion of the

spending pay... What do you think about that? I think that's

Government policy. Does that make you feel comfortable, though?

our plan does is to make an assumption about what future mayors

will do. If we do better, get more income in, he can... I am trying to

look at the reality. Over the next two years you are taking 15%

increase from fare rises, even though the cost of operating the

tube network is remaining more or less the same. You are using that

money, what for? Actually, the point is this, which is that you

have to continue investment, the most important thing is to continue

the investment. We can see that you are saying that, the reality how

can you? On the present figures? Two ways to get the money tprrbgs

Government grant or out of taxpayers. There is a third way,

increase income and you can save money. The 4th way, does it not now

look a folly, some call them vanity projects, create things like the

cable car, bike schemes, things that don't pay their way. They

might be great when times are good, but we can't afford these now and

you are using the tube payer to subsidise those? It's interesting,

nothing pays its way. The tube can cover operating costs but can't

cover investment cost. The bus service costhoods 400 million.

are you promising more on roads at this time and on bikes, why don't

the bikes pay their way? 80% of London's movement is on the road

network. We never consistently invested in the infrastructure.

Hammersmith flyover, despite the claims of the inside out story this

week, was not in a good condition. We have to put it in a good

condition. We have tunnels and flyovers that need maintaining.

Would you like to see another road tax, are there going to be further

charges on the road user? We can see charges going up for everyone

else. That's a matter for the mayor in the future. You have been a

passionate advocate of public transport, are you going to feel

happy seeing the concentration on roads? If you see the the mayor's

transport strategy, charging is an option. This mayor said he wouldn't

do it in his term, it's too late in his term. To do a bigger scheme you

need a number of years. The fact remains in the meantime there is a

lot you need to do with the road network because 80% of London's

businesses on the roads, there is a whole issue about movement to

sustain businesses, there is issues about pedestrians and cyclists

which are critical. How do you teal with this financial situation to

get this right, keep on putting it on the fare payers. What is unfair

is you are putting it on the tube users and bus users and using that

to fund prioritise roads and that feels unfair to me. Let me give you

an example, in my constituency we have a proposed hospital closure

and that means everybody's going to have to go to the other hospital,

Queens hospital, King George Hospital it is a proposal. For

people on the poorest estate it requires three bus journeys and

takes at least an hour and a half to get there. Investment in the bus

service would make it at least two bus evers, we have been on at you

forever to get that done. You are prioritising the roads. You have a

moan, as well, no tram link to Crystal Palace. Good news which I I

welcome, the route to Wimbledon and extra trams that will improve

capacity, it's good that's been included. There is a reference to

the extension, FTL wants to work to identify the funding. The council

is keen to work with you on that. Wrap up and try and give them a

sense of hope. Actually, the other piece of good news that nobody has

referred to is the Northern Line extension to Battersea which will

open up a huge development area. Which has been funded by a loan

which at the end of the day will have to be paid for - no, most of

transport infrastructure is funded through Government. This is going

to be funded by the London taxpayers. It's a different

investment. I welcome it, I am not sure about the funding. My answer

is actually my job is to keep the system going. You have to care

about who funds it. I do care about who funds it but actually some of

those questions are political questions, in the last mayoral

election one candidate said I will put up fares by inflation a bit

more, the other candidate, a large reduction and he didn't win,

interestingly. I carry out the policy, I don't make it. You are

purely apolitical. Unfair to ask you personal views. I will ask them

later. When I have retired. 60 years ago this week, London was

enveloped by the Great Smog. The situation became so desperate the

government of the day pushed for ground-breaking legislation. The

Clean Air Act was introduced. But six decades on, London's Mayor is

actually lobbying for lighter controls on air pollution, along

with some of Europe's other worst polluters. Andrew Cryan has more.

The worst pollution disaster ended 60 years ago today by the time the

Great Smog was over thousands had lost their lives. The Government

spurred into action. The Act was introduced,. It's harder to see but

London still has serious problems with its air quality. Over 4,000

people die every year because of pollution in our air. But the main

laws forcing to us clean it up these days come from somewhere else.

Instead, they come from here, in Brussels. Air quality targets are

enshrined in Europe law but London is in breach of them and could

eventually find itself fined millions of pounds. The European

Commissioner insists that this is for our own good. I would say at

the risk of fines is a side issue. The risk really is to health. Your

health, my health, and the health of anybody living in a city in the

UK. So, this is not the EU being petantic about rules, it's a threat

to irment and people. Things could be about to get tougher for London.

The commission are reviewing air quality legislation. That means

even tougher rules than the ones which London is currently not

making are going to be brought in. Ahead of that, Boris Johnson has

teamed up with 11 other European regions, some of the most

industrialised parts of Europe, or put another way, the most polluted.

Together, they'll be lobbying these corridors asking for greater

flexibility in the rules. Air quality campaigners have no doubt

about what that means. Flexibility means unenforcability to me.

Flexibility means, time extensions, it means watering down legal

standards. It means that the legal drivers, the things that have

forced action on the ground in cities like London, those will

simply fall away. Questions not just about the mayor's strategy,

but his choice of allies. In three of the 12 regions who signed up it

light's Northern League were in Government. A controversial group

in Europe. Some will call them neo- fascists, I would say they've a

terrible reputation, not just politically but in terms of the

environment, in terms of how they treat people and day-to-day issues.

And as far as the environment is concerned, people in London need to

know going into alliance with them on the sraoeur splt a joke and it

would be a joke if it wasn't affecting the health of Londoners.

The northern League refute any allegations of fascist leanings and

defend their grouping with Boris Johnson. This group aims to set

rules that can be observed by our countries without shutting off all

our productive activities and these issues has to be taken into

consideration while setting forward rules for air quality by the

European Commission. However, more than just asking for flexibilities,

it appears the mayor may rather the EU had nothing to do with our air

quality at all. To the single market, that's the great

achievement of the European Union. We can easily scrap the social

chapter, the fisheries policy, a lot... With Britain's future role

in European increasingly questioned, it could be that whatever the

European Commission does, London by that time is going it alone.

Our last guest may have had to be apolitical, this one doesn't I'm

joined by Matthew Pencharz, the Mayor's environmental adviser.. Why

don't you want to try and achieve tough targets, rather than trying

to achieve flexibility and loosening? Thank you for promoting

me to economic advisor, I am the environment advisor. I would refute

completely we are trying to loosen the rules. If you actually read the

paper, it's all about how European citizens deserve clean air and what

the mayor is up to, to make the air cleaner in London. Since your film

didn't say so it's worth saying what he is doing, he did stringent

age limits, 15 years, which some taxi drivers are upset by. The low

emissions coming into a city? just the congestion charge zone,

out to the boundary. And we are fitting buses as fast as possible.

He is not doing nothing. What is this about then? This alliance

wanting more flexibility? Are you going to be hitting your target or

the EU target on nitrogen levels this year? We are not alone and...

But you are not? 22 out of 27 European nations are not going to

hit levels. London is the biggest city so we do have in Europe by

some distance so we have a problem. But there are smaller cities in

England and Scotland and Wales which also have a problem, like

Bradford in Wiltshire have a problem. This is a Europe-wide

issue. Do you have an issue about some of the people you find you are

in alliance with, some people have issues with the Northern League.

Some people might have issues with the the the Green Party in Germany.

You are happy with the approach of doing that? You work with the

partners you work with. You might think the mayor has a problem

working with the red green alliances, but I haven't a problem

with that. You work with the way the European Union works you work

with people with common interest. These are 12 big regions, that has

a problem with air quality, like London does, so we are seeking to

address it by working together. And I don't think we are terribly

concerned about what political parties happen to be in charge of a

region. A new bus for London, didn't ask Peter about it, actually,

the first or first assessment of its pollution, if you like, from

this bus, it doesn't meet levels on particals? I believe that was an

eroepbous test score and that's from a briefing... It's going to be

all right, less polluting than the bus it's replacing? It's going to

be the cleanest, greenest bus of its size that we have seen. OK. Are

these unreal istic targets. I can't judge but I am glad the mayor is

taking action. I don't like there is an attempt to water down the

targets that are there. If people are dying because of air pollution,

it has to be a priority. It should then inform the spending patterns

of the mayor and just saying because it comes from Europe we are

not going to do it is irrelevant. It's a real side-step. You are

where you are, and you just try and achieve it otherwise it will be

construed as if you are trying to get away without achieving targets.

Boris is passionate about this. The issue is the policy levers that can

enable to us achieve these targets are an set by Europe and the level

they've set for vehicles for emotions hasn't been effective in

bringing down the emissions. So one of the things these major cities

are doing is lobbying for more effective standards at EU level.

have to move on. Thank you. We will have more time next time. Thank you

very much. Now it's time for a roundup of the

rest of the political news in 06 Not quite silicon valley. Plans

were unveiled to turn old Street into what's been dubbed tech city.

The Government are putting �50 million into a technology cluster,

including a makeover of the roundabout itself.

New figures reveal that since 1999 one in five properties on London's

most expensive streets have been sold to foreign companies,

according to the land registry. Transport for London knew about the

cracks that threatened the busy Hammersmith flyover for weeks

before a closure last December. BBC London has revealed TfL were warned

of a small risk it could collapse at any moment. West Ham were

officially named as the top choice tenants for the Olympic Stadium.

But the deal isn't signed yet. One of the conditions they'll have to

meet is to agree to hand over a share of the profits from any

future sale of the club. Down the road, bad news for a controversial

mosque as Newham council turned down plans by a group to build a

10,000-capacity centre which would have been the biggest in Britain.

Gavin, what can we do about foreign investors coming and taking our

homes? If we are going to be a global city we have to allow people

to come here. We need to make sure the stamp duty regime regime makes

sure people are paying the tax and need to build more homes. I agree

with that, a we should stop the tax dodge. We need more housing,

probably not at the upper end. That's why we should really put

capital investment. It's hard to do this and they're still renting them

out. It's the vehicles they're using essentially to do it that you

can close off. You think there could be a way? The Chancellor's

made a change in the last budget. We will have to return to that and

see whether it will work. It clearly affects a lot of properties.

To both of you, thank you very much. In a moment, we will look ahead to

the big stories that will dominate politics next week with our

political panel. First, the news at noon.

Good afternoon. The president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, has an elder

decree he issued last month which meant that judges could not contest

his decisions. The decree sparked angry protests and led to

accusations that Mr Morsi was behaving like a dictator.

Egypt digs in for a prolonged siege after the opposition rejected

President Morsi's latest concession. The army has been bolstering the

defences outside the presidential palace as the protests continued.

The president did make some opposition leaders yesterday, but

most boycotted. After talks, the government agreed to withdraw the

decree giving President Morsi sweeping new powers.

TRANSLATION: It is decided that the constitutional decree issued on

21st November 2012 is cancelled as of today. But the president offered

no compromise on the issue of a referendum on the new constitution,

which will still go ahead next Saturday. The opposition protesters

are still here in Tahrir Square today. As far as they are concerned,

the president has not agreed to the main demand, the postponement of a

referendum on the new constitution. They can -- determined to continue

their sit-in. Debate protesters were as angry as ever.

TRANSLATION: Molesey's cancellation of his decree has come late in the

game. It should not be the case that every time we demand something,

it comes only after bloodshed. Meanwhile, supporters of the

president have been protesting at the MediaCity on the outside of

Cairo. They accuse the private media of being biased against the

president and his movement, the Muslim Brotherhood. They are

pressing the president not to make any concessions to the opposition.

Demonstrations for and against the president are continuing. The

situation in Egypt is increasingly tense as the vote on a new

constitution is now less than a week away.

So Scotland Yard has contacted police in Australia over the hoax

call made by a Sydney radio station to the hospital which was treated

and the Duchess of Cambridge. The nurse who answered the call, Omar

Jacintha Saldanha, was later found dead and is believed to have taken

her own life. An inquest into her death is due to open this week. The

presenters, Mel Greig and Michael Christian, are said to be receiving

counselling. Senior Conservatives have formed a

group to campaign for gay marriage. Legislation to allow churches and

other religious venues in England and Wales to opt into holding

ceremonies is expected to be introduced in Parliament before

Easter. The Prime Minister has given his backing to the proposals,

despite intense opposition from within his own party.

England's cricketers have won the third Test against India by seven

wickets. They needed just 41 runs for victory after bowling out the

home side for 247. England now lead the four match series 2-1. Captain

Alastair Cook said his players had been outstanding.

More news will be on BBC One at 5:35pm.

Well, a huge row is brewing within the Conservative Party have a gay

marriage. The Labour Party has a huge decision to make over whether

or not to oppose cuts to welfare, and Nadine Dorries finds out

whether she will get the party whip back again. Three meaty subjects

for the week ahead. Right, welfare. Let's put up on the

screen what the Observer lead with today. It is clearly the result of

briefings from the Miliband camp. But we don't seem to have that.

Anyway, it was preparing the ground, I would suggest, Rowenna Davis, for

Mr Miliband and the Labour Party to vote against the welfare uprating

of only 1%. I believe they will oppose the welfare changes. They

are able to do that largely because 60% of the people who will suffer

from them will already be in work. The they will have a higher

personal allowance. So they will be better off. If you account for the

whole thing, perhaps they will. But the other issue is that the tables

are turning in relation to welfare. You cannot take this much out of

the welfare budget without people who are vulnerable being hit. In

the tabloids, we are increasingly seeing people who have cancer or

are veterans having their benefits cut. That will not play well with

the public. The traditional dichotomy between those in work

being strivers and those out of work skiving will break down.

Labour knows this is a wedge issue. They know it is a trap Mr Osborne

has said for them, but they have so -- decided to walk into it? At yes.

They also know in focus groups, when voters are asked to draw a

picture to represent the Labour Party, it is invariably a family on

the sofa on benefits. That image of fecklessness has stuck to the party

recently. The Government is sure it is on the winning side in this.

Chuka Umunna or alluded to the risk that some of the welfare cuts are

on low paid people in work who are dependent on tax credits to top up

their income. So on that fault line, it is not an easy division between

strivers and the feckless. We can now show that Observer story. Mr

Miliband is not on the record on that, but it is clear what is

happening. To give him political comfort, he is aligning himself

with charities which are concerned about this. Labour are in a real

bind here. The welfare squeeze is very popular with the public, and

the welfare cap on benefits is the most popular policy the coalition

has. There should be concerns around the edges but the coalition

should have, but Osborne is making a big judgement call here that in a

time of austerity, people are anti- welfare and will welcome this.

There is another question here about the Liberal Democrats. I was

going through the coalition agreement from 2010 last night, and

there is nothing there which commits them to a benefit cap or

any of these cuts in benefits. But there is a commitment to end child

poverty by 2020. There may be ground for Labour to work with the

Liberal Democrats here. Do you think that is likely? Chuka Umunna

referred to it as well, but I would have thought it is limited. It

seems that Mr Miliband has taken this decision, knowing it could

cost him political capital, but he either thinks it is the right

decision, or he has no alternative. Or both. It is a brave decision. He

knows the polls are against him and the public are not on side on this

issue. But the reality of how these cuts will hit people will start to

spread in the public, and Miliband will get more popularity. Let's

move on to gay marriage, which is becoming a wedge issue for the

Conservatives. Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, was out and about

this morning. This was what he said it. It is obvious that the

constituencies are in Parliament to do this. Nobody is calling for any

change to religious practice. That is clear from what the Prime

Minister has said. No religion will be under any compulsion to do

anything. The Labour Party and the Liberals would vote for it. Tories

would vote for it. Let's knock this on the head. Watch it through, in

his inimitable style. The Prime Minister is not giving in to his

backbenchers. It seems that he is organised in other backbenchers to

come to his aid. Is this a serious issue for the Conservatives? It is,

actually. There is no doubt that this will pass. There is a majority

for it. It is a question of priorities. If you are moderately

in favour of it, as I am, it seems an odd issue to make such big play-

off. The danger for Cameron is in the country beyond metropolitan

London, where a lot of MPs will tell you that people are resigning

from constituency associations and numbers of activists are about.

These are the foot soldiers Cameron needs in 2015 to knock on doors and

distribute leaflets, and there is unhappiness that a Conservative led

Government will push this through. Why is he making it such an issue?

The phrase Conservative lead is part of the issue. It is striking

how many senior Tories are privately convinced social and

cultural liberals. Cameron, Osborne, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

There is a huge gap on those issues between that oligopoly at the top

of the party and below that, the parliamentary party, and below that,

much of the grassroots and the Tory party base. He thinks it is a

symbol that in a time of austerity, when the government does not have

to do "progressive things", you can do something in expensive but

symbolically potent, which is gay marriage. Are you surprised that Mr

Cameron is so vehement about this? I am, because the biggest issue

with the public is that we do not want to have a set of culture was

happening in our Parliament at a time when people are going through

so much socio-economic pain. Although you said there will be a

majority in parliament, the Lords might block this. There are

certainly conservative people on Twitter saying this is likely to

get stuck halfway. If we get into spring and we are still talking

about these issues of morality rather than the material issues

people are facing on a daily basis, it will descend and people with

politics and Cameron. Now the most important issue of the week, Nadine

Dorries. What did you make of it? Extraordinary interview. I have to

declare that I like Nadine Dorries. In an age when people have

concluded that politicians are often too bland, she is certainly

not that. And she speaks up for a certain kind of aspirational

conservatism. She just has a small problem with the two chaps who run

the Conservative Party. I disagree with everything Nadine says in

terms of a politics, but I think she is hard working, passionate and

committed. You are right, at a time when the biggest problem with

politics is that people think they are homogeneous and not daring

enough, she had the guts to go out there and do something interesting.

To what purpose? I think she is genuine about this. In her heart,

she believes she is benefiting the Conservative Party. And

interestingly, Cameron's approach to managing her is doing more harm

than good. If he had given her the whip, she would never have got a

video on The Sunday Politics and an interview. You are feeding her,

Andrew. But is it for the greater glory of the Conservatives or for

herself? She is taken with the fact that everybody now recognises her.

She is also taken by the fact that she came back in less than a month,

as if that was an act of conscientiousness. She was voted

out! She get the whip back? No. In terms of the dignity of the party,

it was unacceptable. The story will run and run if she does not get it

back, because she will go to UKIP. She could become a UKIP martyr.

did not rule it out, nor did she rule out going back on to another

celebrity show. Nor did she tell us how much she earned, although she

made it a sexist issue. I was not sure how much that had to do it,

either you tell us or you don't. She implied that a lot of male MPs

are full-time barristers, which has not been the case for a generation.

She lives to fight another day. That is if there today. I will be

back at the coalface with all the big stories tomorrow in the Daily

Politics on BBC Two at midday, and we will be back at the same time,