03/02/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Conservative

party is at war this morning over gay marriage. More than half their

MPs are expected to vote against it in the Commons on Tuesday. This

lunchtime, Tory constituency chairmen will hand in a letter of

protest to 10 Downing Street. That's our top story. The Prime

Minister described Mali as part of a generational struggle against

extremism in North Africa. But is it one Britain's equipped to fight?

Foreign Secretary William Hague joins us for the Sunday Interview.

Hillsborough, phone hacking, plebgate. Three reasons why the

government is right to reform the police? I'll be asking the

organisation that represents rank and file officers. With a huge

housing shortage, the market is open to abuse. We look at a

pioneering scheme to regulate And with me, as always, the best

and the brightest political panel in the business. Isabell Oakeshott.

Janan Ganesh. And Nick Watt, who will be tweeting more quickly than

high-speed trains running through Tory constituencies. So, up to 180

Conservative MPs, according to some reports, including several cabinet

ministers, are expected to vote against the government's same sex

marriage bill on Tuesday. The bill will still pass, with the support

of Labour and Liberal Democrats. But what kind of damage will it it

inflict on the Conservative party? In a couple of hours, 20 local

party chairmen will go to 10 Downing Street to hand in what they

are calling a strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister.

Including the Education Secretary's constituency party president, who

says for some members gay marriage is a step too far.

Regretfully, some Tories have resigned. We've seen resignations,

I'm President of Surrey Heath Conservative Association and, yes,

we have seen a good number of resignations, regretfully. I would

encourage people to remain in the party and argue the case from

within, but we are losing people and surveys have indicated that we

are going to lose voters. Maybe David Cameron thinks is going to

pick up more votes from the centre but we question that. Michael Gove

constituency president. Nick, we know it get through because the

opposition vote, it's enough to do it, plus the Tories are split but

how serious a rebellion is this for David Cameron? 200 of his MPs are

not going to support him although they are quite entitled to vote as

they want because it is a free vote, but you slightly feel it with David

Cameron, why is he doing this? It feels like they are obsessed with

Tony Blair, and they want to be able to say, we are just as

progressive as he was. Also, what did Tony Blair do really well? He

would tell the party where they are wrong and take them in a direction

they didn't feel comfortable with, the centre ground, and that, you

feel, is what David Cameron is doing here, but is not exactly

doing it like Tony Blair because he's saying to Conservatives, don't

worry, I understand. You have got to be tougher to lead something

like this all the when Tony Blair did this, duffed up his own party,

he still carried them with him. Cameron is not doing that.

numbers we ever heard about, 180 who will vote against this measure,

is a far smaller number than the number who will support the

proposals but will go through the lobby dealing are really resentful

and unhappy about it. Because they have been put at odds with their

own constituents. And they are really, really fed up about it.

Tories vote against it, it will be about 300 or so, so there would be

more? There is a danger of the majority of Tory MPs will vote

against this. Quite possibly and the one good grievance they do have

is this was not in the Tory manifesto, whereas, in cent

devising marriage and a tax system was in the manifesto also that is

ultimately a procedural grievance, not based in principle, and...

there a grievance based on faith? You never made this promise and

you're giving it. It's not a principle, had it been in the

manifesto, it would have changed their views. The majority of public

support, overwhelming in the younger generation, who are the

Tories traditionally struggle with and my hunch is, when it gets

through this week, thanks to Labour and Lib Dem support can it will be

absorbed into the national culture immediately. Within a few months,

everybody will know someone who knows someone who knows someone in

a same-sex marriage and this time next year, we will wonder what the

fuss is about. It is damaging on a ground level because of Tory

activists are alienated which has consequences for the next election,

but I think it's a winner for the prime minister. It's like smoking

on aircraft. To suggest today you could smoke on an aircraft, people

would think you were bonkers. What does it tell you about party

management? It seems to be cack- handed. He could have introduced

gay marriage and the married tax allowance as one, to help unite his

party. It would have caused problems with the Lib Dems who are

very opposed to any type of marriage tax breaks. The Lib Dems

couldn't have made such a song and dance about it had they been linked.

I think the impact on Cameron will be longer lasting than you suggest.

The resentment amongst his backbenchers, having been put in a

difficult position about it. Social change it feels painful for

Conservatives at the time that people move on. The problem of

introducing recognition of tax in marriage, the one person who

doesn't feel comfortable about that is George Osborne. Who was the most

liberal MP in the country, George Osborne. He doesn't feel

comfortable about it. He needs all the help he can get at the moment.

The other point is, parliament overwhelmingly supports equal

marriage. Parliament does not overwhelmingly support recognising

marriage and a tax system. The Conservative Party may but

government doesn't. We will monitor the fall-out as the week goes on.

Earlier this morning, Tony Blair was asked about assisting the

French with the conflict in Mali. Remember him? Britain has sent over

300 troops to help train local soldiers, but says it won't be

putting combat troops on the ground. Well, this morning Mr Blair backed

that action, saying what David Cameron was doing was difficult but

necessary. We always want in the West to go in and go out and think

there is a clean result. It's not going to happen like that, we now

know that. It's going to be long, difficult, messy. If you don't

intervene, and you just let it happen, it's also going to be long

and difficult and messy, and possibly a lot worse, so it's a

very difficult decision. I found these decisions are immensely

difficult when I was in government, and I don't envy David Cameron

having to take the decision now, but I think he's essentially

writing what he is saying. You have got to take a view that is a long-

term view, and be prepared to engage over it. The former prime

minister. Well, joining me now from Glasgow. Mr Murphy, good morning.

You heard Tony Blair backing David Cameron this morning on Mali,

calling it a generational struggle and said we need to be there for

the long haul. Do you agree? support the mission and the

international effort while scrutinising the decisions the

Government is taking. We can't allow Mali to become a failed state,

to become like Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorism and terrorists,

so it's right that the European Union, the UN, the UK, the French

are involved in the way that we are, but there are concerns, of course.

These borders around Mali are porous, in that Timbuktu, Al-Qaeda

melted away but they have not melt away because the borders. Not

boarders in any sense we would recognise, drawn up with a ruler,

in Paris, over 100 years with no proper controls. This will take a

regional effort. In principle, you're in favour? Your critical of

certain things but overall, you agree. Defence spending is

currently enduring. An 8% cut in real terms for such a big cut.

Should defence spending rise again after 2015, when you might be in

power? Just over the Mali, there's worried about train is being

protected. Let's move on to defence spending. It's pretty clear that

the Conservatives promised a bigger budget, a bigger army, a bigger

Navy and are doing the opposite while in power. We are going

through a strategic defence review and we have set out our priorities

in our manifesto. We've already talked about the need for

procurement, a tiny budget, a huge number of ideas. Will it defence

spending rise and are you? I can't say this borrowed from election.

Some of your viewers will have noticed the prime minister in

Algeria on Wednesday night made a promise defence spending would

increase. By Thursday morning, his government could not stick to the

promise. One the Government in power had who have access to

finance an intelligence, make a promise to last 12 hours, it's

difficult for the opposition to make a promise. It's interesting,

when I always ask you about this, you simply attacked the Government

rather than tell me what your policy has. That's what you would

expect. Has the Government got the priorities rights in its defence

spending? What would you do now different? There is a real worry

they are making some cuts which it makes sense, for example, special

forces support. That has been denied. Let's see. Those forces

should remain secret and the Government should not used the

privacy of special forces operation to camouflage undeclared cuts

against special forces. Those sorts of cards would be self-defeating. -

- cuts. That doesn't make sense. In terms of Al approach, what the

Government has to get on top of, and both parties have to get on top

of, beleaguered parties and government, regardless of Labour

and Conservative, the massive issue of procurement. The fact is, the

projects take too long, they are not on budget, on time, and they

take so long, as they are going along, ministers come along and say,

why don't we add another capability on to that ship, that aeroplane? We

need to get on top of that. Both Labour and Conservative procurement

records are appalling. Let's move on to Europe. You told me of the

Labour conference last year, I think at some point there should be

an in-out referendum on the European Union. You must be happy

that David Cameron agrees with you? Not at all. I don't think David

Cameron was responding to anything I was saying of the Labour Party

conference. I have been clear, in politics you can't rule these

things out. You said, I think there should be an in-out referendum.

can't rule it out in the future and it would be foolish to say that.

Murphy, you didn't say to me, you never say never, you can't rule it

out. You said, I think at some point, there should be an in-out

referendum. We can't rule it out, at some point, they could be an

inept referendum in the Labour Party. You said there should be one.

The situation has changed the last couple of months, with the actions

of the Prime Minister. He has promised a referendum, four years'

time, on a proposal which is as yet unclear. What he has done it, his

great enormous uncertainty for the country in the next four years in

return for a false sense of security for himself as Tory party

leader. Mr Murphy, and you buy much for joining us. -- thank you very

much for joining us. When David Cameron was campaigning for the

Conservative Party leadership in 2005, he famously described himself

as the heir to Blair. Three years into government and his foreign

policy is indeed looking distinctly Blairite. But it wasn't always

Foreign policy in the Blair years were dominated by war. The new

government promised to prioritise trade and commercial interests. Yet

in 2011, Britain played a leading role in military intervention in

Libya which culminated in the Death of Colonel Gaddafi. Now British

forces are deployed in the third deployment under this government,

this time in the African country of Mali. The Prime Minister said the

troops would be in the tens but last week we learned 330 members of

the Armed Forces are now in action supporting France's campaign

preventing Islamist rebels taking over Mali. With the defence budget

shrinking by 8% over this Parliament in real terms, can

Britain afford to be so committed overseas?

The Foreign Secretary William Hague joins me now for the Sunday

William Hague, you came to power wanton to refashion foreign policy,

making it more focused on commercial aspects, that is what

the Prime Minister told us. Now the Prime Minister says we are in a

generational struggle. What changed and did you see it coming? We are

both. Are offering a huge and much greater effort in promoting British

exports. That goes on, what of the events in Mali or Afghanistan, that

is a major part of our foreign policy. But of course, the work to

counter terrorism goes on. Crisis spring up in parts of the world

that we have to deal with. Britain has a responsibility to deal with

that. I think we have learned a lot from what happened over the last

decade because our prime focus is on getting countries within the

region itself, this case of West African countries, there have their

forces trained and equipped to do the military job in Mali and make

sure there is a political presence at the same time. Let's just have a

look at what the Prime Minister said. He said, we are in the midst

of a generational struggle, we must beat them militarily, we must close

down the and governed space in which they thrive. It is straight

from the Tony Blair Book of soundbites and indeed Mr Blair back

to this morning. I thought your policy was meant to be different?

Are we supported them going into Afghanistan and what happened in

Iraq. We have learned about making sure that wherever possible, it is

not Western armies on the ground in Africa. The French have acted quite

correctly in an emergency. Sir it is Western armies? Not in the

medium to long term. Think Somalia, not think Afghanistan. What we are

doing well and smiler, it does not get a lot of attention because it

is going well, we have a legitimate government, we have African forces

doing the fighting and we give the diplomatic and humanitarian support.

That is the model to think about in Mali as well. That requires

training. Most of the people you have Talkback, the 330, will be

involved in training Africans to do the fighting -- most of the people

you have talked about. President Obama said a decade of war is

ending. You say the world will be a more dangerous place over the next

decade or two than the last decade or two. You cannot both be right.

You must think the President is wrong. The President is talking

about American forces scaling back from Iraq and they are scaling down

in Afghanistan. So while we. We are reducing from 9,000 to 5,000.

decade of war ending or do we move on to more wars? The reason I say

the world as a more dangerous place is because if you look at the

Iranian nuclear situation, if you look at Syria, if you look at it

being crunch time for the Middle East peace process which I think it

is, and some of these conflicts in Africa, yes, there are a whole

range of conflict us but that does not mean we respond to them all in

the same way. I cannot stress this too strongly. Wherever we can make

sure it is countries in that region that are taking on their own

responsibilities, we will do that. That is what we are doing in East

Africa and West Africa. The world is always a dangerous place. I

cannot think of a time in my lifetime and the world has not been

a dangerous place. In most of my life time we had nuclear

destruction hanging over us. Are you really saying that the world is

about to become more dangerous than the last two decade which saw 9/11,

two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, more dangerous than that?

yes, I do think that. Think about the Cold War, the 1990s, before

9/11, people thought that the world had changed permanently. Countries

were all going to be free and democratic. We have not reached the

end of history. And we are in a situation where there are multiple

unstable situations. That is why the foreign policy has been busier

in the last couple of years. It does not mean you respond to every

situation by deploying the British Army. But in Mali you have. The

Prime Minister said a British troop deployment would be in the tens to

begin with. It is already in the hundreds. Why? And could it go

higher? Because they are training other people so we are under less

pressure. He said tens would do that. Are he was talking about the

EU training mission which would supply a 40 people. First of all,

there are no combat troops in this deployment and we have no plans to

send combat troops. Can you give a commitment that there will never be

British combat troops in Mali? cannot foresee that situation but I

can absolutely say we have no plans or current intention to do that.

200 of the 330 are to train the African forces. Others are to make

it possible to -- for our transport aircraft to be there. This is to

support the French troops. At just to finish up in Mali, what evidence

do you have that the jihadist anywhere represent a threat to

Britain? They represent a threat to the region and we have seen that in

the Algerian hostage crisis. There were six British people killed in

Algeria. We have people all over the world who are always in danger.

Do these jihadists... The fact is you do not have a shred of evidence

that these people have a threat to Britain. I cannot give you all the

evidence but I would say I partly agree with your questioned that a

greater threat to Britain, to the British homeland, if you like, has

come from terrorist operations in Somalia, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Which is what your intelligence services are briefing of the record

to people like me. If we do not want what is happening in the Sahel

to grow. Somalia has had 20 years of being a failed state. The Afghan

conflict has gone on since 9/11. We would be neglecting our duty, if we

let the Sahel region drift said that in 10 years' time it was a

great threat. Let's turn to defence spending. If as the Prime Minister

says we are in the middle of a generational struggle, and you have

just said the next -- the next two decades would be more dangerous

than the last two, why on earth are you cutting defence spending?

have had to balance the budget in defence. Many procurement projects

which could not be afforded, there has been a reduction of seven or 8%.

In real terms. That is less than many government departments. We

will be the 4th biggest military spender in the world. We are

investing in new equipment, particularly his surface ships and

submarines. Look out what you're doing to the British Army. You say

procurement but this is manpower. Up with the Americans, the finest

trained army in the world and you are slashing it by overt 20 or 30 %.

And what you do not have on your chart is what happens to the

reserve forces which will be greatly increased. If the world is

so dangerous, you ring fenced international aid, you ring fenced

health, you are ring-fencing now education as well, if the world is

as dangerous as you say it is, people will be amazed that you have

not also a ring-fenced defence. International Aid is part of

dealing with these issues. They are not military only problems. They

are politically economic development problems. We have had

to get the defence budget into balance. Other countries are doing

the same. We will remain the 4th biggest military spender in the

world. We remain able to project military force. We will be one of

only two European countries along with France able to do that, even

after the changes in defence. remember interviewing you in

opposition, you and the other Tories are used to lamb asked Tony

Blair for fighting three wars on peacetime defence budgets. Now you

are into a third war of your own and you on an even smaller defence

budget than he was. For I do not recall saying that defence would be

immune to the reductions. You attacked him for not spending

enough. We asked for better equipment and work is being done to

make sure the troops in Afghanistan have the equipment they need. They

are much happier with the equipment than they were five or six years

ago. That work has been done and people should not underestimate the

British defence budget and what Armed Forces will remain capable of

doing. Off on what they have to do is support other people, trying

other people, not necessarily do that. Don't you think the voters

are fed up with politicians like yourself deploying our forces into

war zones and the theatre of conflict, politicians whose

generations have never had to face a bullet themselves, and you

constantly cut your budgets as you do so? We are reducing our forces

in Afghanistan and ending their combat role. We did what we did in

Libya without deploying British forces on the ground. And

mercifully, without the loss of a single British life in action. And

we are doing what we are now doing in Mali to help African forces do

the necessary work on the ground. That does not put in the British

Army or British soldiers and harm's way and into conflict unnecessarily,

it is avoiding doing so where have we can. Don't you think it is risky

for British troops to be in Mali? lot of them are not going to Mali,

just to explain this again, a lot of them will be engaged in training

African forces, some of that is outside Mali. Some of those are

servicing and supporting aircraft not based in Mali. These are not

combat troops going to Mali. Let's me come on to Europe. Have

your views changed on the European Union since he became Foreign

Secretary, since you're days in the Tory party? Not necessarily. I

strongly support what the Prime Minister set out in his speech.

am sure you did because you saw the draft in advance, probably helped

him write it! What do you say to the Tory backbenchers who say you

have gone native in the Foreign Office, you have become less

eurosceptic while they have been going in the opposite direction?

have introduced the referendum lock already that any further transfer

of powers to the EU requires a referendum, we have got Britain out

of the liability for the eurozone bail out, the last government let

us into that. I have vetoed the creation of a European military

operational headquarters. That might have been useful for Marley.

We are not short of headquarters! We are doing what we set out to do.

I spoke to the Conservative MPs about Europe and it was the most

united, it was a meeting of Conservative MPs most in agreement

with Europe that I have addressed in 15 years of addressing

Conservative MPs on Europe. A lot of the Conservative MPs say that

current terms of membership are unacceptable and that if we cannot

get a major change through the repatriation your government is

aiming for, they would rather leave. Do you take that view? The we want

a new settlement. Would you leave? We will use our judgment at the

time of a referendum. We intend to get a new settlement on the

principles that the Prime Minister set out and then put that to the

British people, able to argue that we have that new settlement and on

that basis we will stay in the European Union. That is our

intention. Let me show you what you said in October 2011. You said an

in out referendum would create additional economic uncertainty in

this country at a difficult time. Just over a year later we are still

in difficult times. And you have just created four years of

uncertainty. Actually, I do not think we have. The in out

referendum now would be the wrong thing to do. Choosing between our

membership of the EU as it stands today and leaving the European

Union would be the wrong thing to do. Rather than months of

uncertainty, we will have four years. At least if you had it now

we would get rid of the uncertainty. This debate will not go away.

would if you had the referendum. That would be the wrong question at

the wrong time. The right question at the right time is between an

improved relationship between Britain and the EU or leaving. This

is the realistic timetable on which to habit and incidentally, as we

just saw from your interview with Jim Murphy, there will be much more

uncertainty under Labour's proposals. They will not rule out

doing it themselves. A poll supports same-sex marriage. Are you

disappointed that so many in your party are out of tune with modern

It is for them to make their own decision. When did you change your

mind on this? This is a new issue. When did you become in favour of

it? The last couple of years, it's here in the Western world, it's an

issue in France, the USA. If we were not debating it now, it would

be a big issue in the next general election and we would all have to

say where we stood. You are a recent convert to gay marriage?

Times have changed, civil partnerships came in. We had a good

discussion about it and within a remarkably short pier at a time,

they become accepted for that I think the same will happen with

this and so, I look at three things also is it right in principle? I

think it is. Marriage is an institution, very positive. We

shouldn't deny it to people. Is there sufficient public consent for

it to be a law? Yes, there is. Is there sufficient protection for

those who disagree with it for their own reasons of religious

principle? Yes, there is. Churches and faith groups are don't want to

have same-sex marriages, don't have What do you say to the growing band

of Tory backbenchers who want a job swap between you and the

Chancellor? We will not be having a job swap. The Prime Minister would

tell you that. Are there will be no such thing. The Chancellor is doing

a great job. What would you like to do as a last great job in politics?

I don't want to be a politician in my sixties and I'm 51 now. I came

back to support David Cameron and do this job, so would always been

my intention and his intention but I would be Foreign Secretary. We

haven't set a time limit on it. William Hague, thank you for being

with us. They are known as the party of law and order. But over

the past three years, this Conservative-led government has

clashed repeatedly with the police over its ambitious plans to reform

the force in England and Wales and change officers' terms and

conditions. The relationship reached a new low over what did or

didn't happen when the former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell tried to ride

his bicycle through the Downing Street gates. In a moment I'll be

talking to the the Police Federation, the organisation that

represents rank and file officers. The Conservative side of this

Government had a mission on election to reform the police, and

it has done so on an unprecendented scale. Against a backdrop of budget

cuts, it has restructured organisations. It has looked at pay

and conditions and pensions, and it has radically changed

accountability. And unlike attempts in the past, it seems to be getting

it's way. This government deserves huge credit for driving through a

coherent package of police reform that none of its predecessors were

able to do. That is making the police more accountable, police

commissioners, giving them a realistic budgets, they had Budget

increases year on year for decades, and for dealing with their

workforce, eliminating practices and making police employment more

flexible. All of that employment work was done by Tom Winsor, who

insists, if followed, most officers will be better off. But he was

uncomporomising on those unfit for frontline duties and recommended

pay reflect responsibilities. The Home Secretary has acted on his

pension suggestions and personal None of this has gone down well

with Police Federation who have made their feelings known in no

uncertain terms. The Police Federation have lost one

crucial part of their argument. They said spending cuts would lead

to more crime. Crime has fallen. It is difficult, as a minister, to

take the Police Federation to seriously after that. All police

officers whatever rank, understand are the only get legitimacy to

public trust and that has been undermined by a number of cases.

Jailed this week, this woman for selling information to a newspaper.

Simon Haward, sacked after the death of Ian Tomlinson during the

G20 riots. The long wait for the Hillsborough inquiry to get up the

real truth. Which pointed the finger at police behaviour. And the

incident outside Downing Street. Did he or didn't he? It just raises

questions. The IPCC see, headed criticised by the Home Affairs

Select Committee, whose chairman believes all of this does have an

effect. When you have big picture issues like Hillsborough, Jimmy

Savile, Andrew Mitchell, this is in a sense, what poisons relations and

I think there is a loss of confidence but also a loss of

confidence in the Government and the structures of government.

shows no signs of improving with the arrest of four people, three of

them officers, as part of Operation Alice. The investigation into the

row over Andrew Mitchel's exit from Downing Street. An affair that

tarnished government but is also I'm joined now by Steve White, Vice

Chairman of the Police Federation, which represents police officers in

England and Wales. In recent years, the police have been rocked by

scandal and scandal. The death of Ian Tomlinson, phone hacking

allowed to proliferate because some of the police were in the pockets

of News International, the lies and cover-ups of Hillsborough, an

officer jailed for 15 months on Friday trying to sell a story to a

tabloid. Do you accept the police are in a crisis which is damaging

publish -- public confidence? we're going through a bit of a

tough time. There's no doubt about that. The underlying support that

the public give the police is still there. I think it will remain.

Clearly, they have been mistakes in the past we need to address.

there is Plebgate, four arrests in relation to the incident. Did you

think the British police could be implicated and accused of a

conspiracy to remove a government minister? It's unfortunate people

abused those terms. The inquiry into Plebgate is ongoing. It would

not be appropriate for me to comment into much detail because I

don't know what happened. police will not come out well from

this. We will have to wait and see. Many people think these events make

the case for police reform compelling. Yet you have set your

face against it. Why? I would like to know why people think we have

set our face against a double that it's not the case. I've been a

police officer for over 25 years and during those 25 years, I had

seen the way the police operate in terms of pay and conditions,

defences and offences we have to deal with, and how we go about our

daily duties will sub it has changed beyond recognition and it's

right it is changed and we have played a part in that. He said that

the reforms the home secretary is trying to put through our meaning

that we on the precipice of destroying the police service.

would have to say, a lot of problems came through the reports

from a Tom Winsor of. It's not necessary change in the way we are

going to do our work. It changes pay and conditions to the detriment

of officers. If you are taught me a wholesale reform to make us more

responsive to our communities, absolutely, we are behind that, but

we disagree on the route in relation to the reports, which we

think has been unwise. Police pay is currently linked to the years

served, not the quality of the job done. Tom Winsor suggests paying

officers for their skills, especially those on the front line

who have the most dangerous jobs. It's interesting to use that

analogy in terms of experience and skills because Tom Winsor has also

said that you cut the starting pay of a police constable by �4,000.

They are going to be on the front line. In terms of putting value

into what we do, we question whether that is actually the case.

You're still going to get over time, one of the best pensions, get paid

more than other emergency services, you may not like the reforms but

they are hardly destroying the police service. The important thing

is an hour service to the bring to the public. We want to be listened

to. Increasing police officers' pension contributions up to in

excess of 13%, which is the most out of any public sector scheme, a

huge amount, at the same time we have had a two-year public sector

pay freeze. We accept and have to play our part. They have been

freeze is around incremental pay progression for police officers and

some officers have taken a pay cut. All right. Let me bring you back to

Plebgate. Do you regret the Federation news that incident as

part of a campaign against these reforms? The vice-chairman of

England and Wales, there are 43 separate branches around the

country, all of whom have responsibilities to their

membership and sometimes we have disagreements. So do you regret

police officers wearing a PC pleb T-shirts? You demanded Andrew

Mitchell's resignation. I didn't. Not you, personally. The federation.

Dark arts have been used to destroy him. Don't you feel it's time to

apologise? I would like to make it clear, the National Police

Federation accepted Andrew Mitchell's apology and we wanted to

move on. The fact of the matter is... There's a number of police

federations and the West Midlands who felt there were questions to

answer. The chairman of the Met Police Federation, the biggest one,

encourage people to kill Mr Mitchell's in box with complaints.

Your federation organised a campaign against him are. And it's

now backfired. Is it not time for the preparation to apologise to Mr

Mitchell? I disagree with you, Andrew. That's not the case. The

clue is in the name for that we are a federation. Do you not condemn

those parts of the Federation wearing the PC pleb T-shirts, those

who demanded his resignation without knowing the facts, those

who may have conspired to help get rid of him? Do you condemn it?

a matter for the individual officers who wore the T-shirts, I'm

not here to account for it. What is your view? So they can do what they

want? Nationally, we accepted Andrew Mitchell's apology, we

wanted to move on and maintain our relationship. You are backtracking.

I'm not. A few months ago, you would have been calling for his

resignation. I had never called for his resignation. Thank you. It's

approaching 11.40am. You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up in just over 20 minutes: I'll be looking at the week ahead

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

Welcome to us. Later we will be London the Conservative MP Mick

Maguire and Labour's Heidi Alexander. Welcome to you both.

Hard not to start over hospitals and south-east London. The Health

Secretary has decided to go ahead with most of the administrators

recommendations for sorting out the south London health care trust

which has been used in many millions of pounds which means

changes to neighbouring hospitals, Lewisham's, which hasn't got any

such problems. As the local MP, what is your reaction to the

A smaller accident and emergency, very little detail about what that

actually means. I think it is little more than a glorified urgent

care centre. The Maternity Department goes pretty much

completely with a midwife lead Centre, left at Lewisham for the

4,000 babies born every year. I think there is a real question

about where these babies are being born? There was a big concern but

the accent and emergency and he has insisted after advice from the

medical care unit, there will be 247 emergency consultant cover,

definition of an A&E. This is a small concession, actually. He has

used big words to ramp up what it actually means in practice. I think,

in practice, it means a handful of elderly people who need to be

admitted, to spend a short period of time in hospital, will now be

able to do that in Lewisham, which is welcome. For all other medical

emergencies, people will be sent elsewhere and for parents, when

their children wake up in the middle of the night, very poorly,

the expertise and the doctors are not going to be in place to be

helping those people and those families. What did you think today

quid what you heard Andy Burnham say this was crossing the line, a

dangerous precedent, fiddling around with a hospital which is

doing OK? There's some striking similarities to what has happened

at Lewisham hospital which was effectively paying the price of the

financial failure of previous PFI agreements and bad management.

Between that and what happened in my local hospital. It has been

downgraded as a result of massive PFIs put in place in neighbouring

hospitals so the sense of unfairness, I understand, and I

think Andy Burnham actually should be little more cautious in his

choice of words because it was the health secretary Alan Johnson in

2008 who first downgraded Chase Farm and there wasn't an outcry

from the front bench. Do you support the general drift of this

I was elected on a manifesto to try and prevent the downgrade of A&E at

Chase Farm. My job is to represent my constituents. Chief medical

officer said I should not be doing that and look at the medical

arguments. My argument here is that people who should be arguing the

case to win the hearts and minds of the public, if they are right, is

the medical profession, which in my case played no significant role.

Next move, is that it, a battle lost? We will keep fighting. The

Conservative manifesto said it would stop the forced closure of a

Andy and maternity services. Page 47 of the Conservative manifesto.

Or what can you do about Lewisham now? There is the option of a

review. I know the mayor of Lewisham is looking at that. But we

are going to continue to fight this. OK, let's move on.

We had more details this week of the high-speed two rail line and

the construction of CrossRail as we know it is well under way. Is there

any more scope for any more construction in the capital? This

week, one of London's business organisations will put the case for

CrossRail two going north south across the capital.

CrossRail under construction. Almost twice the price of the

Olympics, it is the largest construction project in Europe.

When it is finished it will add 10 % to the Tube's capacity. With

London's population set to expand by over a million people in the

next decade, transport planners say it is not enough. The mayor will

give his planning to expand further. The final details of the proposed

route will be unveiled on Tuesday. It is predicted the line will run

South West, North East from Wimbledon to Epping, via Euston,

stopping at Chelsea and Hackney among others. There will also be

the potential to extend the line further in both directions. The men

may be on site but the final say on the project would come from the

government. At the moment, they are offering warm words but not hard

cash. The government recognises the need extra funding to reach

additional demand. Also has the Department we are expecting to see

the business case from TfL later this month. At a point, we will

have to documents to inform the debate about whether CrossRail is

the right solution. The final price tag would defend on the route. With

little money around it is unlikely the tax payer would pick up the

thick end of the bill. In the report we set out costings. The

important thing is there is a partnership fund. The need to be

partnership between tax payers and businesses in London, the tax payer

nationally so we can make this affordable but we also need to cut

private finance agreements as well. Last week, Southwark council leader

launched this online petition calling for the Bakerloo line to be

extended to Camberwell and Peckham. No one transport scheme will meet

all of London's needs. There may be the need for some to be extensions

but we will also need significant new capacity from the south-west of

London to the north-east, which we believe is best provided by a new

line. The big difference between the two schemes is that CrossRail

two has the backing of big business, the Bakerloo line does not which

means one is more likely to be made than the other.

We saw a picture of him there, Peter John, the leader of Southwark

Council, welcome to you. What would CrossRail two do for you in the

south-east? Not much, in truth. At the end, Lewisham is poorly served

by the underground system. We have been waiting 100 years for the

Bakerloo extension to come to Camberwell so we think it is time.

When the mayor and his disorganisation start talking at

cross rail two, what do you think? We have not asked them to assess

the merits of the Bakerloo extension but I know the mayor is

keen on the extension. He has said to me he thinks it should be a

priority. He needs to make sure it is his number one priority. Which

perhaps it is not at the moment and you will have seen the trend with

the next tube extension we are told, which is around Battersea, which

needs a huge amount of private money, big companies coming to set

up there. Realistically, we get at around Peckham and Camberwell?

think we are. Southwark and Lewisham are two boroughs where we

are expecting to seek increases in our populations of around 100,000.

Those people will be serving central London, working in central

London but also working in Peckham and Camberwell and Lewisham. We

need a transport infrastructure to meet their needs. Has there not

been feasibility work done by TfL? TfL has done some feasibility work.

Obviously, we need them to take that further forward. We need them

to look in earnest. I know there would be a major business benefits

in terms of regeneration in terms of Camberwell, Peckham and beyond,

if the Bakerloo line was extended. You have had Tube extension, the

South London Line has helped your part of the world but does

CrossRail help you? Certainly, CrossRail two does not have much of

an impact on South East London. East London Line has come down into

part of Lewisham which is fantastic. There is huge demand for trains in

south-east London because the Tube network does not really extended

south-east London. People are using the East London line a lot more. I

think the value of the Bakerloo line extension is that it really

comes into south-east London, could continue through cat for down to

Bromley, for example, and that would bring the tube map to south-

east London probably. Would it go through your constituency? We would

not see much but I can empathise with both cases. With HS2 we will

be bringing a lot more people into London so overall the structure and

strategies... Be cos of HS2 and CrossRail, are we likely to get

another one? This is the time to be looking at London. We need capital

infrastructure projects and I think the government and then there are

doing the right thing. What we have been looking and arguing, and I

have been working hard to develop this, we want to see extra

infrastructure going up our eastern corridor in Enfield, the main

Cambridge line, because we know it will drive jobs and housing. These

investments will be welcome wherever they are. It could lead up

to a new hub airport in Stansted? Some say it will do that. Let's not

get you on aviation. A final word from you. What is the next stage?

It is to carry on getting signatures on the petition and

making the economic case. The Mayor is talking about his priorities

being jobs and growth, I think a Bakerloo Line extension would bring

jobs and growth to our part of south-east London. We have been

waiting 100 years for it. Thank you. This weekend, every private

landlord in Newham was supposed to have registered their property with

the council. It is the first licensing scheme of its kind in the

country. Hello, it is the police, open the

door. I can see you. Seems like this are a weekly occurrence in the

borough of Newham -- Newham, police cracking down on the landlords of

large multiple occupancy homes. his property should have a licence.

It does not. There are a large number of people living here and

there are fire precautions which are completely inadequate. We are

here to gather the evidence we need to take action against the landlord.

1, two, three beds. Upstairs we find four men sleeping in the same

room. One tells me he is from South India and has a master's degree in

computing. I'm getting my salary and I need to spend and expand. I

am looking at all the things and my rent will be more. It is very hard

for me in this country. I just go for �300 a month. It is quite easy

for us. Since Friday, Every Landlord in the bar is supposed to

have registered with the council. Not just bigger properties like

this. Homes will have to meet a certain standard. A move the

council say will help stop abuses. In it does not take that long to

put some clothes on. Open the door! Later on, another property. This

time it is registered under the new scheme. The landlord here does have

a licence but the council are not sure whether he is meeting the

terms of it. They are asking how many people live here, trying to

work out who they are and see if the licence complies. The council

suspect it is breaking some rules. This is pretty typical. We find

properties like this every week and we find people living in this type

of accommodation. It is very sad. But it makes us cross. People are

exploiting people who do not necessarily understand their rights.

That is wrong. It is important that the local authority steps in.

some landlords think the scheme is well-intentioned but misguided.

This man is one of them. He thinks the 500 pound licence could people

-- could put people off buying to let in the borough, reducing the

supply of properties and pushing up prices. It is an additional level

of bureaucracy. Newham already has plenty of powers to enforced

against rogue operators. I do not understand how creating a database

of every property which has been privately rented in the borough

will enable them to improve standards. There are concerns as

well about how well the register is being run. There is an estimated

38,000 rental properties in the borough. Only 22,000 have been

registered sofa. -- so far. All eyes will be on Newham to see if

other local authorities follow suit. It is a veritable parade of Labour

leaders in London this week. Sir Robin Wales is here, the leader of

Newham council. Your enforcement officers are doing what they are

doing now, presumably quite successfully, why a licensing

scheme where you have to charge people? Are a few unlicensed, you

know where they are. You can do something about it and there are

rules you have to abide by. The only way we can abide by every

property is to get people registered. The people who keep

under the radar are the bad landlords. We think 25 % of

landlords are ripping people off, exploiting them and not paying tax.

If you do not go on the scheme, �20,000 fine is possible. Most of

them are good and you will have them charging five -- �150. It is

for five years. We are saying the good landlords have to pay a little

but the good landlords will drive the band - at bad landlords out.

Let's think about the thousands of people who are being exploited. If

we had 38 people in one property. 16 of them children. We cannot let

that continue. Why do you have to charge for it? This will cost a lot

of money to a force. We are putting a lot of effort into enforcing it.

When we did the pilot it took two years to identify everybody. So the

good landlords, the vast majority who are paying their licence fee,

that is helping you bolster your enforcement? Yes, �30 a year in

order that we can take out the rogue, we call them criminal

landlords, we can take them away and actually transform the nature

of it. That will also drive up the rents that are available to people.

We think it is perse -- perfectly reasonable. The government will

benefit from higher taxes. We will stop seeing people exploited.

have been and a lot of landlords campaigning against it? Three-

quarters of people said they wanted it. You are twice as likely to have

antisocial behaviour from a private rented property than any other type

of property. We have had enough of landlords not behaving responsibly.

Landlords want to license lettings agents. Are was with one in

Stratford and he said despite the Olympics hardly any three-bedroom

family sized private rented homes were in the area. You need to free

these up. Isn't that a priority? This will drive a lot of bad

landlords out. We are interested in buying them, doing them up and

making them available for rent because we support private renting.

We are looking to build elsewhere. We went to the government and said

if you give us and let us do some things, we can build more

properties. We mean to build and try and develop this. In the end,

I'm not telling the situation with 16 kids in one house. We cannot put

Grand chap said they going to tear of regulation on landlords.

they passionately believe in local decision-making. What is right in

Newham, I see a lot of advantages. Should we look at something like

that in Enfield? Guildford, elsewhere, this is not something we

should be imposing on people. We shouldn't have a national register

of. I don't think we should do it on a regional basis. I can see

advantages on anti-social behaviour. There is a case where we have

private rented housing, someone came into my surgery and said it is

making our lives hell. There's a legal activity going on there,

anti-social behaviour, it's driving them mad. It's difficult to remove

some body if they are not keen to do it. Anything which starts to

rain in the export of landlord will be a good thing. I think Newham is

leading the way and I disagree with Nick when he says they shouldn't be

a regional scheme. I think London, as a big city, this problem is

endemic. I've seen people living in sheds at the bottom of people's

gardens. The conditions at the bottom end of the private rented

sector is appalling. In Lewisham, it's doubled in the last 10 years.

People can't afford to get a mortgage but, at the other end of

the scale, there's not enough council housing and social housing

available for people to rent. are still well short about 10,000,

on to? Yes, we will be identifying everybody, knocking on every door.

We did a pilot and it took two years to get the landlords but we

got them in the end. We, this year, we are serious about this, we will

transform the lives of some of those residents. Thank you very

much indeed. What else has been going on at this week? Here it is

in 60 seconds. Good news for London revellers who may get another hour

to catch the last tube. Due to the accept -- success of the Olympics

services, TfL are looking to run the tubes until 2am. London

councils are being accused to use a litter fines as cash cows and

employing private police forces to maximise opportunities. Four of the

top 10 find issuers were London borough was. -- boroughs. Under the

plans, in future, only electric vehicles will qualify. A new race

has begun in the Olympic park to get into the athletes village halls

of 17,000 people have already signed up to deliver 2,800 flats.

Chelsea Barracks, sources say the firm behind the controversial

scheme are reconsidering developing the site due to the context of the

prevailing economic environment. That economic environment, will be

building new places any more because there's no businesses who

want to move it to occupy them? What I would say is we have to be

careful about the language we are using. Sometimes I hear leaders

talking too much about, sending signals we don't like profit,

talking constantly about the tax spectrum. We want everybody to pay

their fair share. Britain is a great place to invest and we should

encourage people to do that, asking people to come in and do business.

I think there's many regeneration sites in London and across the

country but have stalled. This government regeneration strategy

does not exist, to be honest. One of the first things the Government

did was take away some of the funding for the National affordable

house building programme which helped make the developments more

viable so I think what we're seeing of the results of that short-

sighted approach initially. If the shard is selling difficulty to get

people in there, something iconic, that's a problem, isn't it?

shouldn't look to the last Labour government who failed to do an

awful lot of that, but it's a difficult economic climate and

London is a great city to be in. It's a good place for business.

People are coming into the UK to invest. Don't read too much into

one iconic building up. Thank you, In a moment we'll look ahead to the

big stories that will dominate politics next week with our

political panel. And we'll be joined by the Conservative

backbencher David Davis. But first Good afternoon. Senior local

Conservatives are urging the prime minister to delay any parliamentary

decision on gay marriage until after the next election. A

delegation of constituency chairmen will deliver the letter to Downing

Street this lunchtime, warning that the issue could cause significant

damage to the Party. Louise Stewart is in Westminster. Louise, just how

damaging is this? Maxine, I think there is no doubt it is a divisive

issue for the Conservatives. It's an issue the Prime Minister cares

passionately about and I think many in the Conservative party thought

it would help to modernise the brand and appealed to a wider

audience. It is laid bare tensions within the party. It is a free vote

on Tuesday and its estimated some Cabinet members, as well as more

junior ministers, and even the party whips, are likely to abstain

from the issue. There is a delegation going to Downing Street

very shortly this lunchtime to hand in this letter of protest, and they

say they're calling for the boat to be delayed. They think it should be

put off until after the general election and say it has been pushed

through with haste, which many Conservative members find extremely

distasteful. Louise, thank you. A woman from East London who was

disfigured in an acid attack on her way home from work has speaking to

the BBC about her ordeal. Naomi Oni, who's 20, had just stepped off a

bus late at night when a woman wearing a veil threw liquid in her

face. She says she didn't want to live when she saw herself for the

first time after the attack. Ben Ando reports.

This was 20-year-old Naomi Oni before the attack, now her life has

been changed forever. There was droplets on my arm. She suffered

burns on her shoulder, her face and wrists, just over a month ago when

acid was thrown at her by an unknown attacker dressed in a

burger. She has no idea why she was targeted, and is facing the world

now in the hope that someone will contact the police. It burnt my

tongue, got into my eyes. And it burnt quite a bit of my hair. I'm

not death, not blind, and I can eat and drink and talk. That, to me,

that person failed, whatever their aim was. They failed and God has

given me a life for a reason. That's what keeps me going. When

she first saw her injuries, she said she wanted to die but now she

is determined to stay positive. No one has been arrested.

The leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the UK for two days

of talks with David Cameron. It's part of efforts to prevent a

Taliban resurgence when NATO troops leave the region. It's currently

scheduled by the end of next year. Hamid Karzai and his counterpart

will have his dinner at Chequers this evening before a formal

meeting tomorrow. That's all the news for now. There

will be more here on BBC One at Thank you, Maxine. The NHS, the

Police and the Conservative Party. Three institutions that will come

under strain and scrutiny in The A bit of an argument between

Michael Gove and the Observer newspaper. It used to be the

Financial Times. Let's have a good headline about smear tactics

against his bows and so on ovals of it's a storm in a teacup? Yes, I'm

completely underwhelmed by it. Spin doctors are basically political

appointees, and their job is to spin and sometimes it gets nasty

and journalists generally have a thick skin about that. I'm sure it

will be followed up. Yes, I think there's a lot of Twitter action on

this. It's not Watergate. Really? Let's get it into perspective, but

there are some interesting issues raised here. The political editor

of the Observer has been questioned by the Tory education camp run by

Michael Gove's operation and you should expect that. Other

journalists have had some pretty serious things said about them up.

This Twitter account spoke about other journalists, making serious

personal points, and I think when you get into that territory, you

need to be careful. Does anybody care? I'm not sure anybody within a

mile of here cares. It's that bad. I'm not old enough to remember

Watergate but I suspect it's a non- story. I can tell you Watergate was

marginally more important in my view. But it reveals something

deeper, anyone who tries to reform education orthodoxy in this country

get attacked. It happened to Tony Blair 10 years ago. He can shows

you the scars on his back. It happened Michael Gove now. When you

talk the education department, though not characterised by a

pugnacity, but a sense of on the ability because they are

permanently under siege. Now, tomorrow night the Channel Four

Dispatches programme is broadcasting a follow-up of its

investigation into the plebgate or plodgate affair including an

interview with Mr Mitchell himself. I was caught between the pincers of

the police on one hand, and the media on the other. In a way that

would lead you to believe that the Leverson Inquiry had never even

taken place. I think it was completely wrong. And it led to my

demise. Mr Mitchell on Channel 4 tomorrow night. Well, a little

while ago, I spoke to the vice chairman of the Police Federation,

the organisation that represents rank and file police officers and

campaigned vociferously against Mr Mitchell. Let's have a reminder of

what he said. The National Police Federation accepted Andrew

Mitchell's apology and we wanted to move on. The fact of the matter

is... You don't think he should have resigned? There is a number of

police federations in the West Midlands have felt there were

questions to answer. David Davies has taken a close interest in this.

What do you make to the Federation line now? I think the simple thing

is, the National Police Federation did nothing to interfere with the

West Midlands Federation when it was setting and drew up. They went

to see him, gave an account of the meeting which was untrue. It did

nothing to stop the campaign, that he should campaign and so on. It's

very convenient for him to sit back and say, it's not our fault. Not me.

I'm afraid it is just as guilty as everybody else. You think it

letters people off the leash? Absolutely appalled that it's a

serious consequences for its future. People don't have trust in a

federation like it did and the Government will be less afraid of

them. It sounds quite bizarre to say this, in the 21st century, is

the circumstantial evidence that at least part of the police force were

allowed to destroy a Cabinet minister? It looks that way.

Certainly in terms of the federation in the West Midlands,

who picked up the story, and made much more of it. Let's remember who

they are for the but federation represents people whose job it is

to uphold justice. Therefore, they have certain standards. These

people are supposed to be upheld in justice and are fitting up cabinet

ministers. Where does Downing Street come out in all this,

though? The Cabinet minister, in the end, didn't quite enjoyed the

support and the robust support of Downing Street. There's a couple of

world problems the Downing Street's handling of it. First thing to say

is, why on earth Jeremy Heywood did the investigation and self? He has

the entire apparatus of the state at his fingertips, and he has a man

from MI5 seconde it to Number Ten to look after his security. Why

didn't he say to him, go through it and tell me what's wrong with it?

He did the wrong thing. Secondly, Downing Street is not just a

Justice Organisation but it's there to defend the Prime Minister. If

the Prime Minister doesn't want to have a fight with the federation,

exacerbate an on going clash with the police over piece of forms and

so on, what are they going to do? They won't step out and take a

robust line defending Andrew Mitchell and that's effectively

The government has tried to do things by way of Police

Commissioners. Was that their main grievance? It will be a self

justification. It is not a union technically so these are not shop

stewards. Why does a militant shop steward become militant? To get re-

elected. Sometimes he tries to appeal to the worst instincts of

his members and that is what is happening here. If you take money

away from people, that is what the reforms are doing, the simple thing

is if you take money away they will have a grievance. Another thing you

have not mentioned, David, is the extent to which Labour was

incredibly opportunistic about this story. They were coming up to the

elections on Police and Crime Commissioners and they were

planning to make that a real big issue if Mitchell had not resigned

beforehand. And indeed Miliband's attack on the day, with Mitchell

sitting in front of him was a fierce attack. It was, I think, a

significant part of what happened in the 22 Committee afterwards of

Tory MPs saying we have got to go and Andrew Mitchell's own decision

to go. I don't think many British institutions come out of this with

credit. The only group that was supporting Andrew during the so-

called tough time was the nurses who worked with his wife, black

nurses who said her, now you know how our sons feel. A criticise

Jeremy Heywood the Cabinet Secretary but he was working in the

space created for him by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister

made a decision which was not to accuse the police have line even if

they did. It was as they say in Scotland, feared. They were careful.

Is that the southern version?! cannot be inside his head and heart

but he did not want to fight with police. Gay marriage, it looks like

your party is split down the middle? I am afraid it is. I am

seeing a lot of numbers. The previous biggest rebellion was and

91 and I think it will be bigger than that. I think it will be well

over 91. It is reflecting a combination of things. It is

reflecting the views of the MPs themselves but also reflecting

their membership. I had lunch with a very Loyalist very decent Cabinet

minister last week. His first words were, how many members have you

lost? He has lost dozens. Have you? Yes. That this is not as it is

being portrayed, an issue of rights, it is a clash of beliefs. Civil

rights -- civil partnerships were an issue of rights. I was involved

in that. Alan Duncan was the first gay minister to come out. That was

about rights. Is about a clash. Peter Tatchell talked to me about

this years ago. I spent six months thinking about it. It is not for

government is say your police are right, your beliefs are wrong.

really big news story next week which will affect the country is

the horrendous events which took place in the mid- Staffs Hospital.

I think it will be a wake-up call for the NHS in general. How

widespread is bad behaviour? think what is really concerning for

patient and people who use hospitals every day, these terrible

things happen many years ago when the economy was pretty healthy. Now

hospitals are facing much more tough economic conditions. There

are lots of cuts to staffing. Does that mean it is not in a widespread

but it could get worse? We all care about the NHS, this could swamp

them? If any good comes from this story is it has become politically

legitimate to voice concerns about the NHS. I prefer the NHS to the

American insurance model. For too long it has been politically toxic

to entertain that subject. Gordon Brown said this shows the Tories

are not trusted. This has been caused by trying to meet targets.

Thank you for joining the most talented panel in British