13/01/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. With just over a

week to go until David Cameron's big speech on Europe, politicians

and business leaders line up to warn him not to damage our

relationship with the EU. Are they right? Should he listen?

In a week when the Government has been busily marking it's own

homework, we ask Communities Secretary Eric Pickles whether,

when it comes to housing policy, it's a case of must try much harder.

That's the Sunday Interview. And, as violent protests continue

in Belfast over the decision to cut the number of days the Union flag

flies above the City Hall, we'll debate the decision and the

significance of the riots, as two politicians at the heart of the

controversy go head to head. In London, 12 fire stations to go.

I will be asking the fire commissioner whether we will be

All that and the best and the brightest political panel in the

business - Isobel Oakeshott, Janan Ganesh and Nick Watt with views,

insight and gossip on the big stories of the day. They'll also be

tweeting as fast as their little digits allow throughout the show.

Now, Ed Miliband has had a busy weekend. Yesterday, he made a

speech designed to draw a line under the New Labour years and move

on. In it, he conceded the last government lost touch with voters,

especially over issues like immigration. But he defended one of

the remaining big beasts of the last government, Shadow Chancellor

Ed Balls, when pushed by the BBC's You mentioned Ed Balls, does to

scare middle-England a little? think he scares the Tories and

David Cameron. We have said we were going to the next election as a

team but I am not going to start measuring the curtains for Downing

Street. He will be a member of the Cabinet? Yes, he is doing a great

job and will continue doing a great job. Ed Miliband talking to James

Landale on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. And I'd like to take

this opportunity to wish Andrew a speedy recovery from all on here on

the Sunday Politics after his stroke earlier this week.

Did you buy his endorsement of Ed Balls? He didn't specifically say

Ed Balls would be Shadow Chancellor on the day before the next election,

but the reason he needs to offer assurance is that there has been a

lot of speculation this week David Miliband my going to the Shadow

Cabinet. David Miliband made a significant speech last week in

which he made a very interesting argument on the economy that the

Blairites are putting out - let's accept the amount of money in the

pot, but have a debate about the priorities and how you spend that,

and we would obviously prioritised the poor and the coalition would

prioritise the rich. Whereas Ed Balls is criticising the government

for sucking the demand out of the economy. The problem with Ed Balls

is it brings up bad memories. they feel they are economically

vindicated by what has happened over the last few years - Labour -

and still have not made the same gains in the opinion polls. I think

if they move him, it will not be this year, it will be closer to the

election, and even then I'm not convinced it will happen. Would you

want him on the backbenches? I don't think he will accept a

middle-ranking shadow cabinet job, so there is a Geoffrey Howe problem

for Ed Miliband. He is stuck with him whether he wants him or not.

Yes, there was not a cast-iron guarantee. You learn to interpret

every word, so it was not a cast- iron guarantee and I think that is

because Ed Miliband would like his brother back, and perhaps only

because his brother would only accept the shadow chancellor role.

Now, the waiting is almost over. No, I'm not talking about David Bowie's

new album. It's much more exciting than that, because in just over a

week David Cameron will travel to the Netherlands to spell out, at

last, where he sees Britain's future in Europe. He's expected to

call for the repatriation of powers from Brussels in a deal to be

endorsed by a referendum. Controversial stuff. This week, 10

senior business figures including Richard Branson warned the

government against marginalising the UK in Europe. They wrote, "we

must be very careful not to call for wholesale renegotiation of our

EU membership, which would almost They are not alone. The US

Assistant Secretary for European Affairs told British reporters that

America favours a strong British force in Brussels. Yesterday

Michael Heseltine warned David Cameron against rushing into a

referendum, describing his strategy as an unnecessary gamble. George

Osborne has raised the spectre of British departure, telling German

newspaper Die Welt, the EU must change. This morning it has been

reported in the Observer that Ken Clarke is joining forces with Peter

Mandelson to stress the benefits of remaining in the Union. I'm joined

now by Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP, the worlds biggest advertising

company - and a signatory to the letter in the Financial Times on

Wednesday. The EU is changing, the eurozone will get closer in fiscal

terms and political terms, economic terms, we will not be part of that

so we will have to renegotiate our relationship. There will be

attempts to. From the point of view of business, if you look at things

like the car industry, financial services industry, being part of

what is the largest economic force in the world, it is better for us

from a business point of view to be part of that so I would rather be

inside the tent trying to renegotiate the things that you and

I find oppressive, rather than be powerless to make the changes.

you saying that David Cameron is right - he will have to do some

renegotiation? Yes, but it is about how you try to go about it. If you

grandstand, Showboat, the chances of being able to renegotiate

anything fundamental will be difficult. Somebody raised the

issue this morning in the papers about how John Major went about it

in a quieter and more diplomatic way, and I think that is necessary

because you bring out the opposition, you bring out the

American reaction, the German reaction. Was George Osborne

grandstanding when he raised the prospect of our departure? He said

in order that we can remain in the European Union, the EU must change.

That is negotiation again, trying to secure benefits and changes. It

is a question of how you go about it. He is raising the prospect that

we may not remain in the European Union. Speaking from our business's

point of view, I don't think that will be helpful. This uncertainty

has been raised and we have enough uncertainty in the world with the

eurozone, the US fiscal deficit, the Middle East, China, we have

enough uncertainty around the world without adding to it again. If you

are thinking about it from the point of view of multinational

businesses, were they will locate their plants, their people, their

headquarters, it will put that increasingly at a level of

uncertainty which will disadvantage the UK. You have previous on this -

you signed a letter in 2003 saying we have to join the euro. You said

if we didn't it would be damaging for British-based businesses,

British employees and the British economy as a whole. We suggest you

were wrong there. We still believe, certainly from a business point of

view, from an economic point of view, and from the point of view of

Britain in the future world, it would be better to be a significant

part of Europe. He wanted us to join the euro, and you said it

would damage business and the British economy. I would suggest to

you that you were wrong, so why are you right now? We will have to see

how it plays out. At that particular point in time, I

wouldn't disagree with you. If we, the British people, attempt quite a

fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe, not

attempting to get out, but a fundamental renegotiation, that

would damage business and the economy? No, it leads to one

certainty and postponement of decisions, the decisions made by

people in terms of locating factories, when and where they're

going to make their decisions are becoming increasingly uncertain. If

you look at Lee levels of capital spending in the United States, the

UK and Western Continent, given the general uncertainty we have, there

has been significant delay. There has been a lack of investment, and

the last time I looked America was not renegotiating... There are

enough challenges without introducing more uncertainty.

you give an example of a company that has said it is not coming

until the uncertainty is over. can think of many examples. Just

one would do. Without naming specific, there are several

examples of companies that have postponed their decision.

operate across the world as well as in Europe, if we had a more semi-

detached relationship with Europe, why would it damage your business?

It is about access to the market. You are saying that most people

against the idea want us to end up as a Norwegian example. The

Norwegians end up paying about 80% of what we pay for the privilege of

being outside, the Swiss have been trying to negotiate trade deals for

10 years. 25% of our business is in continental Europe... Can my

finish? The last time I saw you lecture, you said that increasingly

you -- European business was not growing fast and all of your growth

was taking place outside of Europe. Europe has a West part, which is

slower growth, and an eastern part. There is an interesting dynamic to

what you are talking about. We were talking for the programme about

whether a referendum will take place, putting that to one side for

a minute, by the time this is sorted, western continental Europe

will probably be coming in to a recovery phase. We would make the

decision, if we chose to come out, to come out at precisely the wrong

time because there will be a cyclical recovery. Will David

Cameron be worried that important business people like Martin are

speaking out like this now? fairly sure he is worried, and what

we will see over the next few days and weeks will be a parallel

operation. What we have seen in the last few days is quite an operation

by a Europhile business groups and figures like yourself to put the

case that you have. I know that Number 10 is concerned about this

and we will see another operation where you get some moderate Euro-

sceptic business figures who will come out and put the opposite case.

Not had bangers, but a reasonable case for renegotiation. And you

think there was a reasonable case. You would want the best possible

terms. Anybody would want that. The question is what practically you

can get, given the position, and the downside is, if we come out,

that we will not have the exposure to this significant part of the

world. I think David Cameron will like the fact you are making the

case for Britain in the European Union because he doesn't want to

leave. Isn't the challenge for you, the argument that you are making

about factories pulling out of the European Union - out of the UK -

are identical to the arguments that Britain in Europe put forward in

1999 as to what would happen if we didn't join the euro. Those

arguments were wrong and our decision not to go in was right.

Shouldn't you say we got it really badly wrong 12 years ago, and then

maybe people would listen to you now. They did say to Andrew that

And the scares that you gave. You signed a letter. Looking at future

economic history and development, we are already disadvantaged in

relation to the growth markets of the world. One of the biggest

opportunities that we have is to be part of the biggest - 450 million

people, bigger than the United States, although it is not what --

not one country, obviously... But we are trying to negotiate a free-

trade zone. For me, the question is not whether you try to meet gauche

-- whether you try to renegotiate, because he is doing that. It is all

about the questions that you raise. I see no prospect of renegotiating

anything fundamental to the central market, including employment

legislation. Are you as sceptical as I am about the prospects for

repatriation? I think it is very difficult. The people on the other

side, the members of the club... It reminds me, in a perverse way, of

the Turkish-EU situation. Many people said they wanted the Turks

in, many people said they didn't, and the Turks got fed up and said,

a plague on all your houses. I think on the other side, people

will be saying, enough is enough. The biggest issue for us is the 17

eurozone countries, as opposed to the 27, and the increasing

influence of those 17. Did you not relocate your company anyway away

from Britain, even before renegotiation came on the agenda?

Job that was very unfair, that was because the previous government

threatened to tax overseas profits. The coalition government legislated

to remove that. Is this a better government for business than the

last one? To their credit, this government, in the short term, have

tried to make sure that Britain is open for business, in terms of

corporation tax. We now have the current debate about appropriate

levels for corporation tax.. you coming back to Britain? We came

back. We actually came back. fully updated edition of the

coalition agreement will be provided a new road map, or will

it? It has been introspection time at Westminster. It has been a week

of half-term reports, with the Government marking its own homework,

department by department. It is clear there remains work to be done

in the brief of Eric Pickles. Britain's housing crisis remains

unsolved. This week, one of a Eric Pickles' junior ministers and

Indeed, the 2011 census showed home ownership in England falling over

the previous decade for the first time in 60 years, from 68% to 63%.

Mr Pickles' solution is more new homes, but the think tank the

posture exchange says... -- the policy exchange. His department is

also responsible for community cohesion. In today's Sun on Sunday,

Mr Pickles attacks at... But what preparations has the Government

made for the potential influx of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants?

Eric Pickles joins me now for the Sunday Interview. Eric Pickles,

welcome and to this, our first edition of Sunday politics for 2013.

Very nice to be here. The planning minister in your own department

declared this week that the housing shortage was the greatest social

injustice being faced by this country, do you agree? Well, we

inherited this situation. You cannot get housing away from such a

low level very quickly. But the signs are encouraging. But is it

the greatest social injustice ever faced by this country, it was your

minister who said that? reference are was making to the

Policy Exchange was regard to the claim about the lowest levels since

the 1920s. It is a great injustice, among other ones. So, it is not the

greatest? No. The Future Homes commission says we need about

300,000 new homes every year - do you agree with that? We certainly

need to increase the amount of building. We are about 11% up on

what we were at last year. We are doing a number of schemes, of which

I am sure we will be able to go through in detail. We are

increasing the availability of land, we are helping with regard to

equity shares. But fundamentally, when you went for your mortgage,

when you were young man, or when I did so, the kind of deals which

were available to us are not available now. Let's look at the

record, because it is early days, but there are some figures. Let us

accept for the sake of his interview that the last government

had a poor housebuilding record. In the last year of Labour, there were

116,000 new houses completed. In the most recent annual figure we

have for your government, it is only 117,000, an increase of less

than 1%. York Wheel on track to get slightly more than 132,000.

these are your government figures up to September of last year. From

your own department. Houses completed. We have not had any more

published that I have seen... we have issued some figures to

suggest that we are on track for something between 132,000 and

133,000. That is more than 11% up. These are completions, the official

figures, as I say. I would suggest to you that when you look at

housing starts, it is going to get worse again. Look at these figures.

These are housing starts in England. So far this year, or almost to the

end of last year, just 98,000. we are 11% up on what we were the

year before. No, you are down on the year before. I don't think your

figures are correct, I'm afraid. These figures have been researched

and I have checked them myself. am delighted about that. They are

official government figures from the ONS, showing quite clearly that

the number of housing starts is in decline. What I am saying to you

very clearly is that on last year, we are 11% up. I think taking

quarterly figures is not necessarily terribly helpful. I am

not for one moment painting a position to say everything is rosy,

but what I am saying is that in terms of the combination of new by,

together with first buy, releasing more public land for housebuilding,

with these measures, we can show some small - maybe you want to

dismiss it as insignificant - but I think there is progress. But these

figures show that in the year to September, there were only 98,000

new starts, so are you telling me that in this year, you will

complete more houses than the year just finished? I am saying that we

are 11% up on the previous year. So, the short answer to that question

is yes. You will build more houses in 2013 then you did in 2012?

You have spent a lot of time going over the figures. I have spent a

lot of time. I am not going to come into its prestigious show like this

and not know what I am talking and not know what I am talking

about. Well, the Policy Exchange, an intellectual out rider for the

Cameron project, says this... the point that I made at the start

was that we started with the lowest level of house building since the

1920s. That was our base. And it has now got lower. What I have just

politely pointed out is that we have actually produced more houses,

rather, the building industry has, than the latter two years of Labour.

Of course, that was from the immediate aftermath of the

financial crash. Labour's record, which I accept is not great, in the

year 2002, it was 144,000. The following year, 155,000. The next

year, 169,000, and continuing to go up after that. You are nowhere near

any of these figures, and even these figures were not great.

these figures were not great. will take some time to get to these

figures, which as you rightly say, are not great. The housing market

is a largely dysfunctional market. It is not delivering the numbers

that we want. That is why we have made a number of reforms on the

supply of housing. I have just gone through one or two of the

initiatives, but at least we have been able to make sure that young

people can now get on the ladder, at least for new-build. How many

houses do you hope to build this year? I think the figure should be

somewhere in the region of between 132,000 and 133,000, and that is in

no way adequate in terms of the numbers. I am talking about this

year. I am asking you about 2013, not 2012. I would... We should...

We have signed contracts, just dealing purely with social houses,

to deliver 170,000 social houses over that period. I am simply

asking about this year, 2013. answer to that is a figure greater

than 133,000. It is starting to rise. Given that we have abandoned

national targets which did not deliver, and given that we are

looking towards local growth, and given that we have introduced all

of these reforms with regard to planning, and given that we have

further plans to enable people to be able to take out mortgages, all

of these things kind of have a bit of a lag. Do you accept that the

housing shortage, which is pretty dramatic and likely to get worse,

is one reason why people find it very hard to get on the housing

ladder, because houses are too expensive? Houses are very

expensive, and if the rest of consumer products had risen at the

same rate as house prices, then we would be in a great deal of

difficulty. Do you know how much a chicken would have cost if it had

gone up by the same rate over the last 30 years? �47. Do you think

house prices are too high? It is one thing which is purely market-

driven. It is controlled by the supply, and the supply is

inadequate. It is related to land as well. Let me move on to another

issue, because it affects housing. Much of the extra demand which we

have seen has come from record immigration. Now, that could

intensify, despite government efforts. In one year's time, 29

million Romanians and Bulgarians will be free to come and live and

work in the UK. As the Home Office giving you any estimate of how many

are actually expected to come in the next couple of years? To be

honest, I don't think anybody entirely knows the number that will

come from Bulgaria and from Romania. So, have you had a guesstimate from

the Home Office? I have had no discussions with the Home Office

with regard to the numbers. So, if you have no idea of the numbers,

which is what you have said, does that mean you have not been able to

do any preliminary work on what their housing needs might be?

know of a number of borrowers that have an average number, so I would

expect to see an influx in the east of London, which would be the

predominant area. Have you done any preliminary work on the

implications for our housing demand as a result of this? I do not know

what the boroughs are doing. Have you done any? Yes, we have done

some. And what is the consequence, how many are you planning for them?

That is not something which I think would be helpful, to go through the

numbers for that, just yet. Why? Because I think you would have to

have a degree of confidence, in terms of the numbers, before I

would publicly say. One of the reasons I have asked for fresh

information is to make sure that before I make a public statement

with regard to this, that I am confident on the numbers. So, like

2004, when the then government told us only about 15,000 people would

come from Poland and that fear and so on, and it turned out to be

750,000, this could be another In fairness to Michael Howard, he

cut the figures are almost exactly right. I am reluctant to give a

figure until I am confident. Let's talk about the ball park. One Tory

MP said let's make the assumption that they cover the same rate as

they did from Poland and lot fear, he said then we are talking about

another 300,000 Romanians and Bulgarians - is that a reasonable

assumption? No, I don't think so. A why not? Because I need to be sure

about the figures before I make a public pronouncement. That has not

changed in the last two minutes. let's be honest - do you have any

idea how many Romanians and Bulgarians will come? I have been

given a figure, I'm not confident on the figure, and until I am

confident I will not quote it. you give a ballpark figure? Perhaps

I wasn't very clear, so let me be clear, I have seen figures, I

wasn't confident with those figures, I asked for a further explanation

and when I have got that and when I feel confident about the figures,

then I will talk about the figures. Does the figure you have been given

worry you? When I am confident about the figures, I will express

my confidence or worries. But do you accept that this could present

another major increase in housing demand in a country where there has

already a major housing shortage? Given that we have got a housing

shortage, any influx from Romania and Bulgaria is going to cause

problems and it is going to cause problems not just in terms of the

housing market but also on social housing markets, but one of the

reasons why I am not repaired to start the scare story going is that

I think we need to be reasonably confident about the figures.

appreciate I am not looking for a scare story, I was looking for the

scale of the problem. Let me finish with a question - when you're lost

on this programme in September I asked when you were going to stop

councils fining people for putting their bins out on the wrong day.

You said watch this space, an announcement is due very soon.

Given the unreasonable nature of these charges, we are actually

going to legislate. When? If in the next session. Some time this year?

If yes. There will get rid of fining for putting your rubbish bin

out on the wrong day? Yes, if you put the wrong yoghurt pot into the

wrong rubbish bin, it is ludicrous to find people, and ludicrous to

find a woman who is just a few yards out of her driveway, but if

people scatter there litter about that is unreasonable. Anyway, no

finding for putting your rubbish bin out on the wrong day?

Absolutely. A Eric Pickles, thank you.

Now, violence continued in Belfast last night, with 29 police officers

injured in riots following the latest protest at the City

Council's decision to restrict the flying of the Union flag. Northern

Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers has called for restraint this

morning and warned that the protests are damaging Northern

Ireland's economic prospects. So what lies behind them and how

representative are they of the views of Belfast's protestant

community? Giles Dilnot has been to the city to find out. Stones, fire

bombs and fireworks thrown in rioting in Belfast. Young

Protestants waving flags over the loss of a flag. Police with water

cannon this has masked men and lasers. Explosive tensions we

thought were in the past. Whilst all that is true, and this is where

it has been happening, you are in the part of the UK were politically

nothing is exactly what it says on the tin. It is not all of Belfast,

not every Protestant, not just about the flag. There are layers

and layers to this. The focus is Belfast City Hall, not short of

British symbolism, and what flag flies above it. That issue was

brought up by Republicans who wanted no flag or two flags.

Unionists wanted their flag flown daily as it had been. Pushed hard

to back the Unionist side, the Alliance Party responded with a

compromise to both - the Union flag only, flown only on designated days.

The irony is that for 12 years that has been the agreed policy at

Stormont, and there has not been one word of complaint from any of

the Unionist parties in 12 years. Part of the difficulty around this

is that some politicians have stirred up sectarian fears for

party political reasons. A small section of Northern Ireland's

Protestant community saw it as an attack on their cultural identity

in the midst of austerity. Whenever you go to a disadvantaged area and

people think their identity has been taken away from them, the flag

becomes more important because they don't have any stake in society,

and that is the problem. Police suspect the hand of old loyalist

hard men in the protests. Those behind them say it is more about a

grassroots generational reaction, as critical but own -- of its own

politicians. The to like putting Palestine in charge of Israel, it

just doesn't add up. Now the DUP are telling people it is OK, it has

changed. Belfast has changed. Once viewed from a distance, the

sectarian divide mystified, now the majority of the city feels the same.

In the market the trouble doesn't past the smelling test -

consultation 10 minutes away is more likely about the price of fish

The majority of people want to provide for their families. This is

definitely affecting shops and businesses in Belfast. Take

yourself home. For many, what they want to fly got is the political

and economic cost to squabbling over symbols.

And Alliance MP Naomi Long and Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's

Health Minister, and a member of the Democratic Unionist Party joins

Now that you have seen the reaction to your decision, do you accept

that by reducing the number of days the flag flies, it has just been

deeply upsetting and provocative to half your city? I don't accept that

and I don't accept the threat of violence and intimidation should in

any way alter the democratic process. We had a very difficult

decision to take in City Hall. My party colleagues took legal advice

and the quality advice given to them by the council. They looked

carefully at the situation that happened in other councils, such as

Lisbon City Council, so we looked at the evidence and our councillors

believed this was the right thing to do in what is a shared city with

a Dover's view. It reflects that Belfast is within the UK, it

respects the flag in the way the book we are encouraged to do by the

College of Arms, and it reflects the fact there are many people who

have a stake in the City and share that allegiance. One to is your

reaction to that? I did vote against the flags policy in Lisbon

back in 2002, but the truth is... I didn't interrupt you. She has got

it wrong on this issue, and not just the few 1000 people are

protesting, but hundreds of thousands of people are angry at

this decision. The national flag can't be flown on the building 95%

of the time. The Alliance Party need to realise that going back to

the majority rule in this instance them lining up with Sinn Fein, that

that type of majority rule does not work and instalment it is much

better for everyone. I want to show you a leaflet, it is in the colours

of the Alliance Party and it shows this picture of the flag

disappearing and it changes the alliance slogan which has always

been "a shared future" Into "a shared future for whom". I think

you and other members distributed 40,000 of these leaflets, you have

really played your part to stir this up, haven't you? I have not

played any part. He your party has. I think the Alliance Party have

stirred this up by removing the national flag and I don't see,

whenever I travel to other parts of the UK, I see the national flag

flying with didn't -- with dignity. It was a wrong decision to remove

it and it has been detrimental to Northern Ireland and the community.

Up was there really that much pressure to get rid of this flag on

most days of the year? There are a couple of things Edwin has said the

need to be addressed and the reality is that in Lisbon City

Council were Edwin was a member, unionists took the flag down, then

put it back up under pressure, and then finally had to remove it. He

was present when the decision was taken to fly the flag on designated

days in line with the equality advice given to the council. I am

happy to defend that position. In terms of my colleagues, I am not a

member of Belfast City Council so the DUP have to answer why they

targeted me in this hateful campaign, in an inflammatory

leaflets which spoke of tearing down the flag. They have stirred

tensions rather than trying to address the issue of how we express

sorrow identity in a shared society. With respect to how the flag is

flown across the rest of the UK, many councils use the designated

days policy. It is recommended, so the idea that it is anti-British is

nonsense. There is sensitivity around this issue... I want to

bring Edwyn back in. Why did you target Naomi? She is an alliance

Party member. Her office is the centre of activity for Alliance in

Belfast. That was the office that people could easily relate to women

came to making their protest known. Let's get away from this, the cause

of the issue is the removal of the flag. It only brings Belfast City

Hall into line with the rest of the province. Stormont Parliament

already has a similar arrangement to it, some town councils have a

similar arrangement. It brings it into line with the amount of days

you fly the flag. A doesn't bring it into line with the rest of

Northern Ireland. The status quo was working and that has been

damaged and we can see the consequences of it. Leaving aside

the people engaging in violence on the street, and that is to be

condemned, we need to reflect their hundreds of thousands of people

across Northern Ireland who have been greatly offended by this

particular decision. Am afraid we are going to have to leave it there.

It's approaching quarter to 12. You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up in just over twenty minutes, I'll be looking at the

week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics

Hello and welcome. Coming up later - a dozen fire stations to close,

500 firefighters to be lost. What effect of that have on the safety

of Londoners? Joining us today the Conservative MP Mary McLeod, and

Meg Hillier, Hackney and Shoreditch for Labour. First this week, a

recipe for reform? Proposals to change the face of the capital's

police force have been unveiled. The strands to them, the closure of

some stations and dismantling the safe neighbourhood teams in

electoral districts in the capital in favour of a more centralised

It is Bobby's, not buildings, that a rest on burglars. That's the

mantra. Over the next couple of years, the Met will sell off 200

buildings, including New Scotland Yard. In addition, more than 1,100

supervisor and management positions will go. Over the same period, the

target is to cut crime by 20%, whilst increasing public confidence

in the police by the same figure. The Met is trying to use the Post

Office to replace some police counters. However, will Londoners

be convinced by such major changes? Well, is Meg Hillier convinced?

am not happy about any reduction in police officers. On stations, in my

area... I am less concerned generally about those, because

frankly, it is difficult to contact the police at the moment, however

you try to do it. They have really got to up their game on contact

with the public altogether. If this cuts programme does not deliver

better contact with the police, we need to be on top of them about

that. It is not about the numbers of stations, it is about that

contact. You can queue for half an hour at the police station and then

not get a great service, and I think it is abysmal. Uni good

access on the telephone, and you need good police stations as well.

Frankly, Stoke Newington police station, in my local area, is a

terrible service at the moment. You go in and you queue for ages. It is

not a good way to do is things like passing on intelligence. Having

locally-based offices could work well, as long as they are there

when they are supposed to be. As long as you can contact the police

24 hours a day, seven days a week, in an emergency, or indeed just to

pass on information. That is where we need better quality of service.

Can you defend these proposals? First of all, on numbers, there are

more police officers now in London than we had under Ken Livingstone

as mayor. We have had this debate again and again. The numbers will

be lower in the boroughs from 2010 onwards. There will be more police

officers in London in 2015 than there were under Ken Livingstone.

That is true. In terms of these proposals, the key thing about

cutting crime, and crime in London has gone down, therefore, what I

want is to get police officers out on the streets, visible, not in

buildings. Yes, people need to be a good contact the police. That's why

things like the 101 number are going to be really important.

trying to move this forward, so, you would be happy to see some of

these buildings going, but what people do not know yet if any,

where will this new access be? well, they will be finalising these

proposals on that at the moment. But in principle, if that is what

you're asking, then we have to look at getting more police out on the

streets. That's what the public want. You have had these models of

six uniformed officers in your constituency, electoral districts,

all 6 assigned, but that has been reduced to two in each area - will

at continue to give reassurance? think there is reassurance, with

increasing numbers of visible officers. I think the public liked

to have some form of police presence, that they know they can

go somewhere, and it is finding appropriate ones in each borough to

make it happen in London. But let's look at the results. This is all

about making sure we are cutting crime. That's the measure that I

will use. It is true, that is a measure we will all be using. One

of the real benefits of having neighbourhood based police is

having a friendly face for people to pass on little bit of

intelligence. It makes it feel like everybody working together against

crime, rather than having a distant, remote place to report these things.

I am very concerned already about the quality of access to police.

And I think that these cuts could mask that. In terms of that

relationship, one important aspect... We should stress that

there will be more consultation, and final proposals have not yet

been put forward. What about the Fire Service? It has to find cuts

of about �45 million over the next two years. 12 stations will be

closed, the fleet of fire engines will be reduced and more than 500

firefighters will go. In a moment, the Fire Commissioner will be

telling us all about the possible impact. But first, this report. The

Fire Service as we know it best, tackling blazes across London. But

it is also vital for its disaster, terrorism and search and rescue

response. Now, in the spot like is this Fire Service itself. -- now in

the spotlight is the Fire Service itself. The London force needs to

cut �45 million over the next two years. Deeper cuts had been

expected, and the Brigade has already been making headway,

finding �11 million ore ready for this year. Now, the Fire Service

has found another �30 million for the following financial year. It is

the fire stations themselves which are for the chop. Another 12 have

been earmarked for closure... A total of 18 fire engines are to be

cut, and the Brigade is set to lose more than 500 firefighters. The

fire brigade says response times will not be affected. In some areas,

it will even improve, they say, as the remaining fire engines will be

redistributed. There are still concerns that these cuts will have

an impact. Anybody who knows anything about fire knows that the

human body, the brain, cannot survive for more than a few minutes

in a smoke-filled environment. If your local fire station closes, and

you have to rely on a fire station much further afield, there is every

chance you will be at much greater risk. Unquestionably we will see a

higher number of deaths and injuries as a result of this.

the past decade, the number of fires in London on a daily basis

has halved, from around 150 to 75. With the capital set to lose 12

fire stations and 18 engines, could his record be at stake? Joining me

now is the Fire Commissioner, Ron Dobson. In your time, how many fire

stations have you seen close? memory, there were five in 1998,

and one in 2007. So that's six in 15 years. Within a couple of years,

you're going to close 12... important thing to remember,

firstly, is that during the last 10 years, we have seen the number of

fires reducing by more than a third. The number of incidents we have

attended has also been reduced by a third. So, significant changes in

the risks we face. We have got an attendance target of six minutes

across the whole of London. There are some areas of London this and

we do not achieve that, but this plan will actually bring more

boroughs within that target standard. We can come on to those

targets in a minute, a possible improvement, even, in those figures.

We we can alter that. But in terms of the closures, if over these 10

years, and we know we have got this downward trend, but why has it

taken you so long to make the savings, you must have been

incredibly bloated? We review the arrangements every three years. We

have made some other changes. you are able to get rid of 12

stations in two years, what have you been doing the? We have reduced

the number of fires, we have been using the resources that we have

got to educate the public. We have now got to the point where we think

we can reduce it. If you have reduced it so far, and now you lose

that number, then presumably... would say the reduction but we have

seen will continue. Numbers will continue to come down, the public

will continue to be educated. The standards across the whole of

London will be maintained. How can you achieve this holy grail,

improving things, with fewer people? We have got targets of six

minutes for the first response, and eight minutes for the second.

on your targets. Those are nationwide... No, those are London

targets. Every fire authority sets its own targets. We have the best

standards in the country. We are the quickest to get a fire engine

out anywhere in the country.. But the response times will not be as

good, because you will not have so many engines and stations... At the

moment, we have more fire stations in the centre of London. What we

are now doing is redistributing the cover to get an even level of cover.

But in central London, the fire engines will still not get there so

quickly, albeit they may stay within the targets? Any change will

be measured in terms of seconds, rather than anything else. But we

know that seconds can make the difference. It does not take very

long for people to die in fires. it does not. We are achieving our

targets in most boroughs. But in many areas, we are doing even

better than that. One extra borough will be brought into the six-minute

target, so that 32 out of 33 will get a second appliance within eight

minutes. Be in my constituency, one station is going, in the

neighbouring constituency, Bow is also going. Also Clerkenwell. And

my area is growing in population. My concern is that getting rid of

12 fire stations, all at once, because of the cuts, let's be clear,

is not actually planning for the future growth of places in London.

But the number of fires is going down? Let's hope that still

continues. The preventive work is a good thing. In my area, when we

have a higher incidence than average of fires, we still need a

lot of that as well. You can be honest your constituents - we do

not need these fire stations, yes, we want firefighters offering

safety advice, but we do not need nearly as many engines or buildings.

In west London, there is little changed, in terms of the proposals,

and this is only a consultation, remember. So, I do not lose any

stations. It is a consultation, but there is not much choice. But I

think you need to look at this across the city as a whole. It is

about saving lives. It sounds like we have had good results on that.

But across London, the population is transient, people move around,

so I think it makes sense to do this review every three years. I

would encourage the public to respond to this consultation, where

they have worries, and then hopefully we will get a result that

makes sense. Once you have got rid of these for a stations, those

sites will have gone forever. thing I want to ask you before you

go - I have heard recently, someone at City Hall, suggesting that if

you're closing these fire stations, they might be used for new schools,

is that a discussion you have had with anybody? No, it is just

rumours. In terms of the way we reduce fire deaths and injuries,

this is a broad consultation, including lots of other things

within the London safety plan. Actually, safety from fire and fire

deaths is not about having a fire station and every corner. It is

about educating people. -- on every corner. There is no evidence that

population growth in London actually increases the risk of fire.

Thank you very much indeed. Now, how to find affordable care for

your children, so you can combine it better with your work?

Barnardo's has released a report calling on Hubble to make work pay

for low-income parents in particular, by increasing the hours

of free child care and the number of people who will benefit under

the future universal credit. -- calling on the Government. At the

moment it says too many are caught in a poverty trap. London has the

highest childcare cost in the country, with it costing around �5

an hour for a nursery place in London. Some parents even find

themselves out of pocket by working. On average nursery places cost 24%

more than elsewhere in Britain. the moment, everybody gets 15 hours

of free child care. If the family decides to work 24 hours, they will

be more than �7 a week worse off. If they then want to increase hours

to 35 hours of work, they will be a massive �15 worse off. Double it is

not just London's high childcare costs which make it difficult for

working mothers and fathers... Those problems are magnified in

London because of the way the transport system works, the high

costs of transport, as well as the fact that a lot of jobs, especially

jobs at the minimum wage, require you to work unusual hours. But one

London council, Camden, has bucked the trend, this week announcing it

will increase the statutory number of hours from 15 to 25. Critics of

the system say poor parents in the capital are this incentivised from

working, so are some parents in London destined to be labelled as

shirkers? -- disincentivised. What needs to happen here? We want to

try to help families where we can, which is why we are looking at the

proposals to make a difference and turn things around. Do you like the

idea of a potential tax break, which has been mooted? But then we

read in a newspaper that it has been delayed, talk of this �2,000

tax relief...? I think it is worth looking at. Today, I had an event

in Chiswick for women, looking to turn them into entrepreneurs, many

of them with children. In London, we have fewer women as a percentage

working than anywhere else in the country. I think that is a huge

amount of talent that we want to engage with. We want to do that,

but how? If and when the universal credit system is introduced, there

will not be that incentive to work, to do that extra bit, because the

cost of childcare will nullify it. That's why we are saying, let's

looked separately at child care, to say, what can we do to make sure

that we are supporting women getting back into the workplace?

That is why we are looking at proposals in terms of looking at

how you support getting two-year- olds care... The coalition has

introduced the guaranteed statutory 15 hours for two-year-olds...

That's for the most vulnerable ones, yes. But what we are talking about

here is working parents. Friendly, 15 hours a week for the most

vulnerable two-year-olds is not going to help working parents. The

15 hours is not enough to work. This is because they cannot always

buy on top, it is complex. Let the clear, we need to be bold about

this. The Government's response has been shambolic. We have had these

leaks to the Sunday papers. We hear that there are still arguments

going on. We need to see... If you let me finish. Why are we having

this issue now? The last Labour government introduced Sure Start

centres, they introduced extra free hours, and I am not going to sit

here and say... Why on earth are you now having an issue with what

we are trying to do? We all need to be bolder, across the political

divide, and say that child care is an investment, particularly for

working mothers, because the tax that they will pay, the career

opportunities they will have, as Let's stop arguing about that one

and argue about something else in a moment, but he was a round up in 60

seconds. The South London health care trust should be broken up

according to its specialist the administrator. It has run up debts

of 50 million. Jeremy Hunt will make a decision on the strapped

trust -- cash strapped trust in February. The Mayor's Fund charity

has announced it will put 600 and for the capital's most deprived

children. It was discovered children have been passing out in

lessons because of hunger. A New Year and a new start for Ray

Lewis, former deputy mayor, returning in a paid role to re-

grade the mentor scheme. He left in 2000 date after questions over

financial irregularities. Ray Lewis back, is that right?

don't think it is a good thing. I can't understand how he can be

earning �20,000 for one day's work a week. It is good the mayor once

more mentoring, but there are plenty of other people who can do

it. Why go back to somebody who has not delivered? Mary McLeod, he left

and design because of concerns from the Church of England which the

mayor does not seem to have addressed, but he asked him back.

Not thing has been proven, and dial as think people are innocent until

proven guilty. Not criminally of course. No nothing has been proven

so we should take it at face value and he denies these allegations but

I do believe British value in terms of the rules of law, people are

innocent until proven guilty. you have expected the mayor to do a

full investigation into it? The two small up to the Church of England.

They passed their concerns to the mayor but it is not immediately

clear... The mayor has decided that he thinks Ray is doing a good job

and he wants to offer him this position. Let's be clear about this

- mentoring for young people in London is critical and role models

are important. I agree on that. Andrew, back to you. In a moment

we'll look ahead to the big stories that will dominate politics next

week with our political panel, but first the news at noon with Chris

Rogers. The First Minister of Northern Ireland Peter Robinson has

said the only way to stop the recent violence there is through

political dialogue. He was speaking after 29 police officers were

injured in the latest violence linked to a decision to restrict

the flying of the Union flag at Belfast City Hall.

The debris left behind after a dangerous night. Calm has returned

to this part of east Belfast but the severe violence here has been a

setback to the people working to end the trouble. It is almost six

weeks since Belfast City Council voted to restrict the flying of the

Union flag, sparking a dispute which has brought loyalists on to

the street. The First Minister says violence will achieve nothing.

flag is not going to go up because somebody throws a petrol bomb at a

policeman. The only way forward is through the political process and

we are trying to encourage people to engage in that, and bring

forward channels so we can talk to people on the ground. He hoped

those initiatives will find a way to stop this sort of trouble.

Yesterday 29 police officers were injured, their highest casualty

figure since the dispute started. Rioting broke out when loyalists

walked past the nationalist area. Both sides were involved in clashes,

then loyalists attacked the police with petrol bombs and stones. This

week senior politicians from Belfast, Dublin and London will

hold a meeting to discuss the recent trouble. The people involved

believe the situation can be resolved but hopes take a hit with

every night of disruption and destruction.

Na year-old British girl has been shot dead while on holiday in

Jamaica. Imani Green from Balham in south London was in a shop when a

gunman opened fire. Several models were also injured in the attack.

The court in Egypt has ordered a retrial for the country's former

President Hosni Mubarak. He was overthrown in 2011 and imprisoned

for failing to prevent the deaths of hundreds of demonstrators during

the revolt that forced him from power. Our correspondent is in

Cairo. Does this come as a surprise? Not exactly because Hosni

Mubarak's lawyers have been pushing hard for this appeal, but it is not

just an appeal against the life sentence that he received, but

against the entire conviction and so it will be a full retrial. As

one lawyer said to me, what happened before those extraordinary

scenes of Hosni Mubarak appearing behind a cage in a court room, they

appear for nothing now, and that has shocked the relatives of the

victims of 850 or so protesters that were killed, they feel he

should have got a death sentence and found guilty on the more

serious charges of ordering the killings. This could backfire

because he will face those charges again, but there is finally a

question about his health and whether he is in no condition to

face retrial because as well as the other complications he has had in

terms of his health, a couple of weeks ago he slipped in prison and

he is not in prison any more, he is in a military hospital because he

broke his ribs. There are questions about whether he can face a retrial.

That sold for now. There will be a full round up at 6 o'clock. Now,

back to Andrew. So, politics is up and running

again in 2013 and what's dominating? Well, coalition, Europe

and maybe a Clegg fightback. Some things never change. All will

Let's start with the interview with Eric Pickles, particularly on this

business of whether there is any official estimates of how many

Romanians and Bulgarians will come here in the year when they have the

right and privileges of European membership. I think he began by

saying he didn't have a figure, but then he said he did but he wouldn't

tell me. It is fascinating but I don't think his position is

sustainable. He said he was not confident in his figures so I

interpret that as either the figures he has seen are either on

realistically lope in which case the government will be slated for

them, or they are terrifyingly high, in which case they also have a

political problem. My colleagues in the daily papers will be scurrying

around trying to get hold of the figures. The everybody remembers

when it was the turn of Poland and other eastern European countries to

have full membership rights, Andrew said only about 15,000 people would

come, and about three-quarters of a million came. My view is that the

influx of people was not a disaster, what was a disaster politically was

the underestimation because it made the government seemed incompetent.

It is understandable Eric Pickles would not want to make that mistake

again. My question is is this figure subject to a Freedom of

Information request? He began by telling me he had not had an

official estimate from the Home Office, but then said the Home

Office had told him nothing, then said he did have this figure. He

could not have a figure unless the Home Office provided him with at

least a variety of projections. That's right. Ed Miliband was

saying this morning that David Cameron is in danger of sleep

walking out of the European Union. He slowed me feel Eric Pickles was

sleepwalking into his interview with the you. The challenge he

faces is that the challenge of implementing Margaret Thatcher's

vision for the enlargement of the European Union to include former

members of the Warsaw pact. We did not put in seven year transitional

arrangements, as we did with Poland and Hungary. To put it politely, I

remember going to Bulgaria before they came in in 2007 and thinking

are these people really ready? For example, you see motorcars driving

the streets with police markings, and that happens because when they

confiscate cars from gangsters they can turn them into police motor

cars. They are geographically significant countries, very

important for the trafficking of people coming into the European

Union, better to have them in than out but you have a big challenge.

We will see what the newspapers make of them. The Sunday Times had

a story today from the guru, Steve Hilton, now out in California but

used to be a key figure in Downing Street. He exposes impotent number

turn. He is quite devastating, isn't he? Should we link the timing

of this to Mr Hayward's appearance in the Commons last week we could

not his finest hour? To be fair, I don't think Steve controlled the

timing. The mean a student slipped it to you? I couldn't possibly

comment. For those in the Westminster village, we neo- he

became frustrated with his inability to push through the

radical things he wanted to do. -- we know he became frustrated. He

wants to be radical in the face of a stifling Whitehall machine and

Brussels as well, and I think David Cameron must miss him. We are at a

stage where the Tories need radical ideas. Every government needs a

maverick. He is just not there. This is the interesting thing about

the story. We know that Steve Hilton feels this way but it is not

an opinion confined to him. There are Tory backbenchers and people in

Downing Street who are continually frustrated with the ease at which

the civil service prevails on public service reform. I want to

move on to radio disc jockey. Damian McBride has just written

this morning saying where is the government grid? When David Cameron

came in he said he wanted fewer special advisers, one-time saying

what is the policy on criminal justice? They didn't know because

they didn't have proper advisers. They have increased that and they

have a new policy unit but it is Nick Clegg will be doing an

interview on a London radio station. But in this day and age, everybody

can listen to it. He got away with the first week, but there will be

some weeks when things will happen that he will just not want to talk

about... Exactly, and he is also prone to various rhetorical quirks

which people pick up on, like an over-reliance on cliches. Also,

getting confused between debt and deficit. Doing it once, and doing

it like that, is one thing, but doing it consistently is another.

And even if he avoid catastrophe, I don't think he will achieve what he

ultimately wants, which is it resurrection of his political

popularity in the country. I do not think he has much to lose. You say

it was a great success this week, and his people seemed quite happy

with it. The slight problem I have is, I cannot get that image of him

in that thing out of his head. He has nothing to lose. His popularity

is at an all-time low, and he is quite good in those forums. He is

very chatty. Week, the political commentators, we have been selling

Nick Clegg for a long time - would a judicious investor may be by one

at the moment?! I think indeed, he is in such a low place, the only

way is up. But I think on LBC, he is much more confident. He came

back after the summer, saying, I am going to differentiate myself from

the Conservatives, I am not going to be afraid, I am going to say

what I think. And you will see that tomorrow, when Liberal Democrat

appears in the House of Lords will vote with Labour to try to defer

the shrinking of the House of Commons until after the next

election. The Tories are furious, there is nothing they can do, and

the Liberal Democrats do need to differentiate themselves, and that

is a prime example. Being on a London radio station in the morning

will not change his political history, but it could be part of an

overall attempt at a fight back. am of the view that nothing can

change his level of popularity in the country. Isabell Oakeshott is

right that he has little to lose, but the amount he has to gain is

also up for question. Are we still selling, or buying? I think he will

be pushed out in the end, but there is the possibility that he could be

pushed out and become a national treasure. But remember, he will not

be wearing that incredible hulk onesy. Well, I had no idea what one

of those wars, but I do now. It is amazing what you can learn here in

there was Mr village. That is all for now. We will all be back at the