10/02/2013 Sunday Politics London

Good morning. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The Government announces

difficult new tests for beef products, but are they shutting the

stable door after... We will ask the environment secretary and his

shadow and bring you the latest on the horsemeat scandal. After Chris

Huhne's disgrace, the coalition are in a fight to the death over his

vacant seat. We will ask Ed Davey if it is a by-election his party

can afford to lose. After the horrors of Mid Staffordshire

Hospital, can the NHS really be described as the envy of the world?

Karol Sikora and Nicola Horlick go head-to-head. In London, the mayor

is facing his most challenging budget round so far. He will be

cutting council tax but also All that and a panel offering pure

and unadulterated political insight. It is more succulent than the final

Nick Watt, Iain Martin, Miranda Green. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

was on the BBC speaking about the government's plans on social care.

He was asked how they plan to pay for it. Let me make this point,

because there has been some speculation in the papers about

inheritance tax. The point of what we're doing is to protect people's

inheritance. The worst thing that can happen is the most vulnerable

moment in your life, you lose the thing that you work hard for, that

you save for, your own home. We're trying to be one of the first

countries in the world that create a system where people do not have

You spoke about a massive increase in the inheritance threshold, note

they are using it as a tax revenue raiser. It is incredible, they are

long way from the pledge that George Osborne used to see off

Gordon Brown. It shows that politics is becoming more about the

concerns of the elderly as the country ages. Interesting, it is a

policy they did not speak about and they have had to find the money for

it and go back on what they promised. If you can forget about

the pre-election period this looks quite good, and obviously there are

two things you need to forget about, the pledge to raise inheritance tax

and you have to forget about what they said before the election, that

imposing a cap would be a bad thing. If you forget that, it looks quite

good, because Jeremy Hunt is saying they want to fully fund the scheme.

The limit is quite a lot of money, but what he was saying this morning

is that would increase the chances of people being able to take out

insurance, he wants to change the culture so people are not just

taking out pensions, also insurance for long-term care. This will make

that easier. Just forget the period before 2010. So what has changed

because they are in government. Exactly, this is a measure of how

serious austerity was. Lots of measures were too difficult to

tackle, they need to be tackled now. It is a scandal that has shone a

light on what we eat and how it gets to a plate. In the case of

some meat product, the routes include Holland, Ireland, Romania

and France before reaching British supermarkets. We will find out if

the Government is getting a grip on the scandal, but here is a reminder

of how it unfolded. Food inspectors found burgers containing not just

before a horse. Millions of workers were taken off the shelves of

supermarkets, and this week, some lasagne sold as beef were found to

contain 100% or so. -- 100% horsemeat. A French food supplier

is in the firing line, supplying hundreds of product to UK

supermarkets. The police are now speaking to the Food Standards

Agency, investigations are under way across Europe. The environment

secretary Owen Paterson warned of an international criminal

conspiracy. With more tests on the product on the way, we have been

told to expect more bad news about what is on the supermarket shelves.

In a moment, we will speak to Owen Paterson about that, but first I am

joined from Westminster by Mary Creagh, his shadow. You have been

scathing in your attacks on the Government for not doing enough,

but it turns out Labour stop testing for horsemeat in 2003.

Would you like to apologise for that? Food standards of Vohra taste

tests for it this on the basis of intelligence, the last Test was

done in 2003. Since then, there has not been any intelligence that

there has been horsemeat passed off as beef. It was burned in Ireland

in the last four weeks. The question is why we have not ordered

widespread tests on the 10 million beefburgers withdrawn. Why did you

not just do some random checks? food Standards Authority is there

to protect human help. government ministers. They do lots

of tests on kebab shops, chicken shops, they are the areas of high

risk. That is where diseases can get out of the food chain. Massive

food poisoning. You stop the testing. You also ended daily

government inspection of plants of meat in two pregnant six. Would you

like to apologise? We should focus on where we are now. -- in 2006.

The budget has been cut over a four year period. The Government had an

industry summit yesterday and did not invite in representatives from

the major caterers. No tests are being carried out on the burgers

sitting in hospitals and schoolss. We should focus on the present day.

You have spoken about illegal and carcinogenic horsemeat entering the

food chain, you have no evidence, you have no evidence of hospitals

and schools. You are scaremongering. I was past evidence over two weeks

ago which are raised on the floor of the House of Commons that horses

in the UK abattoirs had been exported and entered the human food

chain, they tested positively. I have had confirmation that seven

horses were exported to France and the Netherlands and at one ended up

on a plate in the United Kingdom. You claimed the regulatory

framework had broken down catastrophically. How many people

have died? The problem with this drug is that it causes a serious

adverse blood disorder, that is why it is banned from the food chain.

We are learning about this, I have certainly learned about it over the

last four weeks. Nobody has died, and horse is safe to eat as long as

it is tested. It is not a catastrophe, Mary Creagh. It is

scaremongering. It failed catastrophically in that people are

now making the choices not to buy processed meat. The Food Standards

Agency says do not eat the beef lasagne. The Government cannot

contradict itself. You mentioned Owen Paterson, he joins me now.

Owen Paterson, what should people do with frozen meat products in

their fridges? If those product had been withdrawn from supermarkets,

they should go back to the supermarket and claim a refund.

What is quite clear about this and the meeting were held yesterday

with senior retailers and distributors to correct Mary Creagh,

who represent those who distribute to government institutions, we are

absolutely clear that it is quite wrong for consumers to go into

shops and buy products clearly marked beef to find later it

contains horsemeat. What should people do with product they have?

You said there was no evidence to we should not eat them, and yet the

FSA were advising people not to eat it. Who do we listen to? You listen

to the second half of the sentence which has been dropped off the

quote, which is that I totally endorse the recommendation that if

a product is withdrawn from supermarkets, do not eat it. Take

it back to the supermarket and claim a refund. I would entirely

endorsed the recommendation of the Food Standards Agency, which was

set up by the Labour government to be independent and professional.

You told us to accept there will be more bad news. Our supermarket

shelves could be awash with contamination. We need to wait and

see the results. But it could be. No, let us see what comes out of

the testing. There has been no testing for 10 years so you do not

know. The FSA quite rightly tests on the basis of intelligence, as

Mary Cray said. So you do not know. They test for issues which are a

threat to human health. This is an issue of labelling and fraud. This

is a conspiracy against the public. It is either a case of gross

incompetence, but I have a feeling it is a case of an international

criminal conspiracy, and we are determined to get to the bottom of

this. To do that, we will need to get to the bottom of it not just in

this country, I was in Dublin last week, and this week I will be

speaking to counterparts across Europe. Ultimately, this is about

the European Union. People could be eating horsemeat are knowingly this

lunchtime. That is possible, that is why we are carrying out this

unprecedented screening of processed beef products. It looks

as if the product is -- the problem is limited to processed beef, and

there has been criminal substitution of beef with horse.

That is wrong. If people buy a product marked beef, they are

absolutely right to expect that. Why not have a moratorium on the

improvement in do you? -- meat movement in the EU. That is not

possible under the rules of the Common Market. Would you like to?

If I find a product is injurious to public health, emphatically, I will

take action. As we established yesterday, the food standards are

authority, the retailers and distributors are determined to get

to the bottom of this. -- food Standards Authority. Giving you are

operating in the dark, why not ban meat products from other European

countries until the matter is resolved? Our retreat action like

that would not be possible. -- actions like that. There was a risk

of danger to human health with BSE, but this is an issue of fraud.

People are being sold one thing and getting another. At the moment we

do not have evidence of threat to human health. People will have

heard the phrase for the moment. We should have a moratorium Morag Bain,

until you can come on to programmes like this. -- we should have

prohibition until you can come on programmes like this. I said there

may be more bad news because we do not know how far this incompetence

or criminal conspiracy extends. I can assure you that if evidence

comes forward of material involved that is a risk to human health, I

will take whatever action is necessary. Moratorium? That is

allowed within the rules of the EU if there is a threat. This scandal

has been brewing, why did the only begin rigorous testing on Thursday?

The roar of the authority is to concentrate on material that could

be a threat to human health. -- the objective. This issue has risen

quite recently, and at the moment it is an issue of fraud. You have

said that four of five times. The beef lasagne at was discovered many

weeks ago, they delayed reporting it. I spoke to the chief executive

of Findus last night and I need to be cautious on this. There is a

possibility of legal action. The lesson from Findus, endorsed

entirely at the meeting, is the moment a processor or retailer or

discovers there might be material which is improper in one of their

products, they should notified the FSA immediately, and as sure as

rigorous tests are conducted, approved by the FSA, the material

should be withdrawn. We will strongly support any producer or

retailer or we take that action. You did not call an emergency

summit until yesterday. Why were you slow off the mark? We have been

working on this all through the week. You write your constituencies

on Friday. You could have done that. Why did you not? We respect the

arrangements we inherited from the Labour government. We had a meeting

with them on Thursday, on Friday, I had further discussions with them,

and it was my idea that, given the new evidence, we should hold the

meeting yesterday, which was extremely constructive and

thoroughly worthwhile. You got a dressing-down from Downing Street.

We worked closely with Downing Street, this is exaggerated. The

meeting that I called yesterday was entirely my decision. I had a very

constructive... Downing Street thought it was too late. We have

been working closely with them. Things are happening every day. Can

I make it absolutely clear, the meeting yesterday was emphatically

my decision. It is not the meeting, it is the time it took. You keep

saying emphatically that this could be an international criminal

conspiracy. I will repeat the words, an international criminal

conspiracy. Why haven't you called in the police? They have already

had discussions. The police have told us they are not having an

investigation. There has to be activity in this country, they're

working with counterparts across Europe. The FSA is also doing that.

If it is criminal conspiracy, they should be investigating it. The FSA

is working with their counterparts across Europe, encouraging them to

work with the legal authorities. You keep on saying there is no

health risk, look at what is happening. We are consuming

horsemeat unknown, consuming it from Romania, where horse

infections are endemic, being processed by a French plan,

recently the centre of an E coli outbreak, and yet you can still say

that the health is not in any way at risk? I have said we must wait

and see the results of the test, YOU mentioned shows the

extraordinary international network of this trade. -- but the case.

That company has apologised to customers in 16 different countries.

The meeting yesterday, I expressed my concern that the whole system of

regulation throughout Europe is based on trust. There is a great

track that the piece of paper attached, it guarantees the content.

I would like to see more testing of material through the process.

that company still sending food products to Britain? The only other

product I know, they were stopped, that is down to the retailers.

could still be sending it? That is down to the retailers, who have

ultimate responsibility for the When will processed meat be safe to

eat and have what it says on the packet? We are looking at a case of

processed beef products, whether either through incompetence or

criminal conspiracy beef has been substituted with horse. When can we

buy it with total safety and knowledge of what we're eating?

will have results at the ends of this -- end of this week. We will

be giving the public assurances as we work through the detail. Thank

you for joining us this Sunday morning. Now, you will be shocked

by this. I hope you are sitting down. The coalition partners are

about to start fighting. Yes - it is unprecedented - I know! There's

a by-election on the way. It might just get ugly. It has been a week

to remember for the Liberal Democrats, but not in a good way.

have pleaded guilty today. I have taken responsibility for something

which happened ten years ago. The only proper course of action for me

is now to resign my Eastleigh seat in Parliament. That will trigger a

by-election in Eastleigh, which will see the two coalition parties

going head-to-head. That comes in the wake of last month's vote on

changes to parliamentary boundaries A policy Nick Clegg once supported,

but then abandoned after Tory opposition torpedoed house of Lords

reform. Ed Davey - the man who got his job

left a year ago. Pressure will grow on Nick Clegg

inside his party which could be good news for the Energy Secretary,

if rumours of his own leadership ambitions are accurate. And Ed

Davey joins me now for the Sunday interview.

So, Ed Davey, do you see yourself leading the Lib Dems one day?

really supportive of what Nick has been doing. He's the best leader

we've had. He'll lead it not just to the next election but the one

after that. What is the answer to my question? Listen, I think the

Liberal Democrats have got from strength-to-strength over recent

years. I think we have gone into Government. We have shown what we

can do. I want to be part of that team. I will not feed the rumours

some people feed and want to see - I want to concentrate on the real

issue. What Nick Clegg has been doing, for example, delivering or

policy of income tax cuts for people on low incomes. We have

taken two million people out of income tax. That is the real issue

we should talk about, not personalities. Let's look at what

has happened. Chris Huhne, first Cabinet minister forced from

Cabinet. David Laws - the shortest in history because of expenses

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 59 seconds

He has admitted his guilt, he will face the consequences. We should

not forget he made a big contribution to it. Is this a must

win for the Lib Dems? I think we can win it. Not only have we held

the seat for 20 years, we have a very good record. The campaign will

see as focusing on what we have achieved locally and nationally.

That is why, against the trend elsewhere, we have taken seats of

Every one of the constituency 36 councillors is a Lib Dem. It

follows, therefore, not to win would be a damning verdict on Nick

Clegg, wouldn't it? I think we are going to win.

Not to win would be a damning verdict. We have Mike Thornton. He

has lived there 20 years. He is active for the community. Someone

like him will be the sort of candidate that people of Eastleigh

want to vote for. I know you think you are going to win. I was trying

to get you to respond... I think Nick is in a strong position

whatever happens. He is showing to our party and the country, if you

have a leader like Nick, who sticks with his principals on taking the

low-paid out of income tax, you can deliver big tax cuts.

The campaign could turn nasty. The Tories are out for revenge because

you renegued on your promise to make parliamentary constituencies

more equal. We followed taking that decision, followed on from the

Conservatives and the House of Lords reform. That was an important

policy for us. The statement had a second chaim, where people choose

who sets the -- chamber, where people choose who sets the laws for

them. It was in the party manifesto. Because they renegued on something

which is so important to us and we believe the coalition, we felt we

couldn't go ahead... Let's unpick that in some detail. People are

right not to trust you, aren't they. Listen to this from Nick Clegg.

the broken scales of our democracy ten voters in Glasgow north have

the same weight as voters in Manchester Central. These

differences are repeated up and down the country. Edinburgh South

and Wrexham had fewer than 60,000 voters. West Ham had more than

80,000. This unfairness is deeply damaging to our democracy.

I presume you agree with every word. The Liberal Democrats have

campaigned for fairer votes for as long as I can remember. We want a

fairer voting system in the UK. Nick was explaining how we felt

that for ages. And you didn't vote for it? The boundary changes were

one way, but the real way, for many elections you know this, we have

been arguing for electoral reform... I understand that. That is the best

way to deliver fair votes. That is the problem that Nick was setting

out. This piece of legislation - he was talking about it in that clip,

it brought together the AV referendum and the boundary changes

and fulfilled the bargain struck in the coalition agreement. We will

bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes

the provision for the introduction of a vote as well as for the

creation of fewer and more equal- sized constituencies - that was the

bargain. The Tories kept their promise, you didn't. I disagree.

You have taken an extract from the agreement. If you looked at the

full part of that, you would see a promise to have an elected second

chamber. Let's look at that. I am sorry. You are doing the pick and

choosing. I am not. I was involved in the coalition agreement. Let me

tell you what our deal was, it is something we have been campaigning

for 100 years, that some feel strongly about - namely the people

of Britain should choose the people who pass the laws. When the Tories

renegued on that agreement, we felt within our rights to say, I am

sorry, you cannot have the thing that was your in manifesto and not

in ours. The problem... Excuse me, you have accused me of picking and

choosing. Let's just go to the full words. I understand them very well,

They brought proposals for an upper chamber - they kept their word on

that. You renegued on boundary changes. I don't accept that at all.

Everyone knew when we were signing up to this coalition agreement and

some of us were very clear about it, because we feel so strongly about

making our country more democratic and accountable to people, so the

people out there get to choose who decides the laws over them. I am

afraid the Conservatives renegued. It is only when they did that, that

we said hold on a minute you have to have a price to pay. What bit of

that agreement didn't they keep? Look at the words up there. What

words didn't they keep? They did not deliver on the expectations and

the understanding. I think you know, as well as we did, as well as the

Conservatives did, that the expectations was that we would have

legislation passed through both Houses. It is not there in the

agreement. This is what the programme was. In the Queen's

speech, it was agreed in Cabinet. The Conservatives failed to deliver

on that. It is completely legitimate for us to say, hang on

we wanted a modern democracy, more responsible to the voters. You have

renegued on that. We are not going for a boundary change which was not

in our manifesto and is not our preferred way of delivering fairer

votes. You agreed in the coalition that in return for an AV referendum

you would agree to boundary changes and cut the size of the House of

Commons. You got your referendum. You lost, you got your House of

Lords proposals. You voted against the boundary changes. That is what

happened. No, I am sorry, you are wrong on that. We had a package of

democratic, political reform in the coalition agreement. And

unfortunately, the Conservatives were not prepared to see it through,

even though it was in their manifesto. I have to say, we were

very disappointed in that. Indeed were many people who cared about

this issue for many years. I have to say, the Conservatives have paid

a price for their inability. trusting you? For their inability

to stick by their word. trusting you and you renegued on

your promise. I don't agrow with that. It is important our country

reforms its democracy. Where we with working well with

Conservatives we could have worked together there. Unfortunately we

were not able to. The Germans have pulled out of our nuclear programme.

British Gas has. It leaves France, EDF. It has no money, ladened with

debt. Your policies are in trouble, aren't they? When the German two

companies decided to sell Horizon - what happened was there was huge

interest from around the world to buy that Horizon consortium. We

were really surprised at the price that was paid. It was higher than

people expected. The Japanese consortium paid nearly �700 million

to take over the Horizon. When some company pays nearly �700 million, I

take that as a massive vote of confidence. You don't know, do you,

until you give them a high guaranteed price - in other words a

state subsidy, they will not do that? We are clear and I could not

be clearer that the key thing is to make sure we get value for money

for the taxpayer, for the consumer and our economy. In the past,

people have paid far too much for nuclear energy. We are not going to

allow that to happen. That is why we have a policy which came from

the Conservative's manifesto. I strongly support it. There should

be no public subsidy for new nuclear. The latest British

Geological Survey says there's enough shale gas under UK territory

to heat every home in the land for 1,500 years. You say it will have

There is a potential there is lots of gas we could use and I celebrate

that because it means we do not have to import gas. If we have gas

that is in the UK not coming from the other side of the world, that

is good for the UK. The survey shows there is a potential there.

We have not been able to do the drilling yet. The potential is huge.

We do not know how much of it is recoverable, and how much of it can

be recovered in an affordable way. We need to do all the research, we

We need to do all the research, we cannot just look at what is

happening in North America and say it can happen here. I hope we can

get lots of shale gas, I have made sure the environmental controls are

strong, things like the methane emissions... If you get that, why

would it not bring the gas price down? It has in America. If you

look at the gas market, there are basically three in the world, North

America, Europe, Asia. They are not integrated for obvious reasons.

Physical properties of gas, the cost of exporting. Therefore, the

markets must be looked at separately. If you look at the

demand and supply for gas, the demand is increasing quite

significantly in Europe and Asia. The supply is chasing demand. The

reason why, even if we are successful, it will not make a big

difference in the price of gas, is because it is this huge increase in

demand. Thank you very much indeed. It has been a difficult week for

the NHS in England with the appalling treatment received by

patients in the mid- Staffordshire Hospital, under France's report

identifying systemic failures. -- the Robert Francis report. Willett

damage the brand? We use it and depend on it in times of need. The

NHS is under pressure. The rising demand of an ageing population, to

questions about its very reputation. That reputation has been tarnished

by the scale of neglect discovered at Stafford hospital. Five other

hospitals with persistently high death rates will be investigated.

His NHS the brand still want to be proud of? The NHS is definitely

something we should be proud of. If something we should be proud of. If

you look at other countries, not every country has health care free

at the point of need for everybody. Regardless whether you're rich or

poor, that is something we should hold on to. Over the years,

politicians have lined up to defend it, not least David Cameron who,

before he became Prime Minister, said his priority could be summed

up like this. I can sum up nine in The nation's collective pride in

the National Health Service was put on display for the world to see at

the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games last summer. How does how

much we spend here compared to other parts of the world? Figures

for 20 12th show that health care spending was 9.6% of GDP. In France

and Germany it was 11%. America spent the most on health care. The

system's different. In Germany, people pay money out of their wages,

and their employers pay into health care. The insurance will then pay

for health care. In France it is also similar, people pay out of

their wages. The difference is patients pay upfront for quite a

bit of care. The reclaim it from social security funds. The NHS has

been paid for through taxation since it was created, but it has

been through changes. This hospital was one of the last Labour

government Foundation Trust. The coalition plans caused to the

biggest reorganisation the NHS has ever seen. In America, health care

is having its own reorganisation. Loved by some, loathed by others.

President Obama is making the healthcare system more open for

poor people. Can we learn anything? They reduce their reliance on

hospital care by putting in new technology to support people to

care for themselves. There are pockets of really good practice in

America that we can learn from. Here, the NHS remains a much-loved

institution, but after the revelations this week about poor

treatment of patients, how much longer can it be described as the

envy of the world? Professor Karol Sikora and Nicola Horlick joined me

to go head-to-head on whether the Nicola Horlick, 400 to 1,200 deaths

by poor care in the Staffordshire Hospital. Another five trusts being

investigated because there death- rate might be even worse. Why would

anybody envy the NHS? In any large system, and our health system is

enormous, you will get things that go wrong from time to time. It is

very important not to extrapolate that and say the whole system is

bad. It simply is not. There are some exceptional hospitals in the

UK. It is the bad apple excuse. What is the envy of the world is

the free at the point of delivery. Free care at the point of delivery.

No other country has such a super system. The trouble is we have seen

tremendous medical innovation and growth in the number of people over

65, which I will join shortly, and demand for care is outstripping our

ability to supply it. The NHS is creaking, and has no mechanism for

people to pay into that creaking system. If the NHS is the envy of

the world, why has no other advanced country ever copied it?

That is an interesting point, but I'm absolutely sure that when you

look at the American system, it is better. But if you look at the

Swedish, French, German systems... They have health care that does not

depend on your ability to pay but they never copied the British

system. Sweden is very small and very highly taxed. If you look at

the State, that is the place to look. It is a massive country,

leader of the Western world. To be spending 18% of your GDP on health

care and not everybody is covered, despite President Obama's best the

10th, it is terrible. Do you want elements of the American system

here? Some of them. We need to make people customers rather than

patients. We cannot go round telling people they are suffering.

They are customers. Hospitals should be managed like hotels, and

they are not. Stafford is a classic example. Every system has bad

things happen. How would you change it? What you need to do is do what

Tony Blair started, make it a competitive system where people had

choice, real choice, not artificial choice. They could choose to go to

a private hospital, public hospital... Would they pay? No. The

NHS would become an insurance system. Social care has gone down

that route. So it would be like the American system? It is partly

insurance-based, they also have the equivalent of the NHS. It takes 18%

of the GDP and they have even worth help -- worse help. In some places.

The real answer is to look around the world, take the best, the best

things about the NHS. It is what we want to aspire to. The principle of

getting high quality health care regardless of the ability to pay,

how you deliver that, there is a debate that the NHS is only one way.

Is there no way you would change the NHS to make it function better?

I think in terms of giving people a choice, the evidence shows that

people want to go to the closest hospital. Whenever they have been

given greater choice, the fact is, most people actually want their

local hospital to be as good as they can be, and travel relatively

small distances. We must focus on getting the number of elderly

patients out of a hospital, because they are blocking the acute care

beds. We have this culture that has developed that people go to

hospital to die, 50% of people die in hospital. Many of them do not

need to be in hospital, they could be at home, they could be in our

home. -- a home. I fully agree, social structures have broken down,

nobody wants to care for granny. Many people are not ill, they are

just old and had incurable illness. They just need tender loving care.

It is approaching a quarter to 12, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up, I will be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.

Until then, the Sunday Politics Well come from us. Coming up later,

the mayor is facing his most challenging budget round yet,

cutting the emergency services and also council tax. Joining us for

the duration, Bob Stewart, and Stella Creasy. We will start by

talking about equal marriage Bill, passed this week despite 50% of

Conservative MPs not been happy with that. You voted against it. Do

you feel out of step with public opinion? We know the majority of

the public do not care, according to opinion polls. Those that do

care had very strong views on it. That small percentage of people are

for call on one side or the other. In my constituency, I got 300

people telling me to vote against it. -- small percentage of people

are supporting one side or the other. Is that not because people

who feel strongly are more active when against something? Actually, I

had about 10 people saying, why did you not agree with the government?

I wondered, why did they not ask me beforehand? Now they feel strongly.

I am a representative, not a delicate. Now it is known, all the

MPs that voted for it, in London, there are a great number of civil

partnerships, there has been for a long time. Thank goodness for that.

I have no problem with that. Honestly, I wish this had not

happened. I feel battered and bruised by this matter. I feel the

Conservative Party should not have brought this matter forward. Right

now, we could do without his rift in national politics. Let's face it,

there are lots of people... I feel in my heart of hearts that it was

wrong, that is why I voted against I feel really sad that you feel

battered and bruised by this week. I voted for same-sex marriage with

pride. For me it is about equality and ensuring that everyone in my

community, if they want to get married they do so out of love, not

because of gender or society's requirements around that. It was a

really important moment for me. I had representations for and against

it. It is about values that I came into politics for and the things I

want to stand up for. I feel sad that you feel battered and bruised.

I hope in time we will recognise it as a better step where everybody is

equal. I voted against it with sadness, to be honest. I voted

against it with sadness. Difficult decisions taken by a lot of people.

It is budget-building time at City Hall. Boris Johnson is facing his

most difficult financial budget yet. He is offering Londoner's a

reduction in his share of council tax. Saving �3.65 a year. On Friday,

the mayor defended his choices before the London Assembly.

should be obvious to all, that in tough times, when people are facing

squeezes on their incomes, it is right to bear down on council tax.

That's what we've done. We'll continue to do it. So, what are his

key budget decisions for next year? What were the alternatives open to

him? It is Boris Johnson's most

controversial budget yet, cuts to Fire Service and the police.

Decisions forced on him, in part, by cuts to City Hall. The mayor is

also making those cuts deeper of his own choice. Firstly, there's a

cut in council tax - the average household could be �3.72 better off

as a result of this budget. As a result of that, the police will be

getting even less money. With all the talk of cuts, it would be easy

to assume City Hall is spending less next year than it is this. It

isn't. In fact, GLA spending has climbed by a quarter since Boris

Johnson has become mayor. The lion's increase transport. It

means TFL's capital expenditure, the money on future projects and

growth will go up by �590 million. The revenue on the day-to-day

running of things is up too. By �236 million. There's no question

that increasingly the police and the fire brigade have been put

under enormous pressure. Their budgets have been cut. They have

had to close police stations and fire stations. TFL is not in that

position. They have been able to continue to expand. Indeed even

their least used stations have been protected.

It means places like this on the Central line can rest easy. On the

average day only 440 people get on here. 360 get off. On a Sunday it

is fewer - just 85 passengers going either way. Perhaps rightly,

closing the station is nowhere near the mayor's agenda. The mayor's

Conservative colleagues on the London Assembly don't go as far as

calling for closures - they do think the mayor needs to crack down

on TFL spending. This is where we are most concerneds a group. We

think it requires further examination. We think it should be

Boris's big second-term objective, to reform TFL, to be more value for

money. It doesn't get the kind of scrutiny that it should. What are

you saying is this is a mayor who could be more Conservative?

could always be more Conservative. What does that mean? Remember, the

Conservative Party at the London Assembly is the assembly group.

This is a mayor who is supported by the Conservatives and fought under

the Conservative label. As a list member myself, my job is to remind

him that he is a Conservative. you think sometimes he doesn't act

like one? I think sometimes he could be more Conservative. Whether

that happens remains to be seen. As does will the mayor's policy to

increase fares to help transport and cutting council tax at the

expense of the fire and list will go down well with the electorate.

We are joined by Edward Lister. Flexibility on how to spend it,

control of land and soen. You cannot grumble about this -- and so

on. You cannot grumble about this, can you? The amount of money we are

getting is being reduced. We have some big savings to make. �500

million has to come off the Metropolitan Police budget. We have

large reductions in all other budgets, including TFL, the Fire

Service, the GLA itself. Why do we hear - you accept it is a good deal

- the deal has not changed - it is a good deal from Government? It was

to start with. It is a manageable deal. It means we have to reduce,

in line, with all Government departments. Hearing more grumbles

or wanting more to do with housing. We cannot do what we want with

housing unless we have our share of the stamp duty. We have more growth

in London and the mayor has been consistent with this argument. He

has made the point we should be investing in transport, investing

in housing, investing in London's infrastructure because London will

grow and grow by over one million. How is it a good deal then?

According to your budget the spending will half - �240 million

this year. 425 starts so far this year of new homes. If you look, you

will find most of our starts were last year everything is being

geared up. Are you saying that you took some money and pushed it ahead

of the election to build some more? We wanted the money spent as

quickly as possible. That is the way the budget is structured.

Giving you less money for this year? It means there is less money

this year. You use money from this year to put in before the election

to boost the housing numbers last year? The numbers don't go up that

quickly. It takes years to get schemes off the ground and building.

A lot don't come to completion until 20156789 it takes a long time

for them to come through -- 2015. It takes a long time for them to

come through. �3.72 - more symbolic than

significant? I don't agree. The mayor, since 200, has frozen and

reduced council tax. That is 20% reduction in real terms. Remember

his predecessor increased council tax by 150%. That is the difference.

And those increases were for policing and extra police officers.

You accept, don't you, that the Metropolitan Police is facing its

most challenging financial cuts in a generation? Yes. Oh, yes, we do.

But, and this is the important point, the mayor has made it clear

that the number of policemen should be around 32,000. So the cuts are

in the office, in police stations, in buildings. And losing the senior

ranens. Do you not think that Londoners would be prepared to put

back some of the police officers, the police stations or the counter

-- or the counters you are going to sell. We have got an estate

developed during the Edwardian times. We have buildings no longer

fit for purpose. Many of the buildings are totally unsuitable

for modern policing. Why cut by �3, when really from a little increase

crow could cushion the blow and not -- you could cushion the blow?

the same time, why should Londoners keep on paying out for back office

services for police buildings. They want to pay for policemen on the

street. That is what the mayor is committed to delivering. That

priority is being met. When will you get your hands on, or your

teeth into, as a former leader of a cost-cutting, efficient community

into Transport for London? It has reduced its numbers of directs, it

has reduced the back-office staff dramatically. The money in TFL will

largely go to fund infrastructure. There is a programme within TFL.

Between now and 2018, Transport for London is growing dramatically. We

are establishing something like an increase in 30% in the rail

capacity in London. There is enormous expansion in Transport for

London taking place. That is needed for our population. Has Boris

Johnson got the balance right here? I am sorry Mr Lister, your sums

don't stack up. You are 453 managers on over � 300,000 a year.

If that is not right for reform, I don't know what is. You talk about

a council tax cut. My constituencies are paying an extra

�50 a year for their travelcards. That is up from 2011. If you give

us back �3 a year, the extra price they pay to get into work every day

does not stack up. The anticipated fare revenue, � 250 million more.

This is an argument run during the mayor's election. He put the choice

to Londoners. He was very clear about it - yes you can cut the

expenditure, yes, you can have less buses oi we was the proposal made

by opposition parties. Yes, you can cut the train service, or you can

invest. He made that and he won the election... Can I just, on the

manage side, please bear in mind in is an enormous organisation with a

lot of highly-trained, highly- skilled staff. Very professional

staff and very skilled staff. That is the cost to save... It is

called Crossrail and that.... the right decisions been made? How

important is reduction in council tax? Are you worried about cuts to

police and fire? Who isn't worried about the cuts to the police and

the Fire Service. Yes, I totally understand the driving logic of it.

I accept Boris's requirement to try and keep the front-line staff going.

We are all worried. Do you believe that front-line thing, that by

stripping out - who will manage these officers if you take out the

middle and the senior ranks and replace them by constables?

answer is, you can always manage better. Having been in one of these

organisations there are levels of command which can be stripped out.

It can work that way. A final word on this from Mr Lister. Are you on

track for a 10% overall reduction in council tax for the next three

years? What will go will be trimmed, cut to provide that? The mayor has

made a commitment he will reduce council tax by 10%. This is the

first instalment. He is committed to that. At the end of the day it

is Londoners having to pay that. Londoners who are on low incomes,

where this is much more important to them - the council tax content.

He is determined to achieve that. And we believe we can achieve wit

the direction of travel, which is there, about greater efficiencies,

modernisation and really bringing our services into the 21st century.

Next year and the year after looking more difficult in terms of

Government funding. Thank you. Now a study this week looking at

young offenders in Tower Hamlets has found early warning signs of

their behaviour was being missed. One campaign wants to remind

Londoners about forced marriage and the day-to-day issue women face.

The global One Billion Rising campaign has come to town for the

Valentine's Day launch on Thursday. It has caused a stir and will be

the subject of a parliamentary debate. While it may be photo

shoots, the picture for women in London is different. Domestic abuse

in London is at bad levels. We need to do more about it. It covers

whether it is verbal, sigh logical, financial abuse. That is part of

what we have tried to do as a Government, is to widen that

definition of domestic abuse, that it is recognised. Despite this, the

picture in London has seen little change. The figures for the last

two years show the number of rapes in London boroughs wept up by 64.

The number of other sexual offences fell which 111. What have the

Government been doing to address these figures? There are things

they have done like create new rape crisis centres. Nationally we have

done, specified funding for domestic violence. Pbdz 40 million

has been ring-fence -- �40 million has been ring-fenced for that and

preventing this where possible. Some money will go into education,

looking at how we can prevent it in the local communities. It is this

emphasis on education that campaigners are focusing on. On

Valentine's Day they are calling for teaching on domestic violence

to be taught in schools. What does it look like? How does it harm? How

does it impact. We are not bringing up people to know that. It seems

the Government is willing to listen. It has to start at a young age,

where you go into schools. We are doing that. More needs to be done

to say to young people, this is something that should not happen.

Some would say campaigners are pushing at an open door, with cross

party consensus on the issue. With figures on sexual offences

stagnating at best, is it time for We saw the probation service is not

intervening when the signals were worrying. They were not picked up

and people committed more serious offences. We certainly need to

speak to young people not just about sex but relationships. Boys

and girls. I have a catalogue of horrible experiences of young girls

to get taken into sexual education lessons while the boys get sent to

play football. 11 year-olds, at 8% of them believed it was acceptable

to hit a woman if the dinner was not on the table. Statutory sex

education will be a vote on Thursday. I have been going around

the country talking about tackling violence against women in society.

We need to challenge the attitudes and expectations about what a

relationship will look like and teach them about mutual respect.

you have any issue with that? has it right. Will you vote for it?

I will have a look at it. Some people resist, do not feel this has

a place in the classroom. Everybody is trying to stuff brings into the

classroom, but we need to make some decisions. I do not like the idea,

there is far too much abuse of women in our society. Far too much.

If we can actually cut it, I would like to see some evidence, let's do

it, let's see if we can do it in schools, because quite frankly,

some families do not seem to be addressing it at home. There is

evidence that the level of advice out there now, the support services,

refugees, that sector is in trouble. 230 women every day in this country

are turned away from a refuge because there is not space. They

have taken a disproportionate hit to the services, so I welcome

cross-party agreement about what we can do in schools. The point is to

make this a priority for government across sectors. Services that

respect women are being cut. I hope you'll join me. You may go to the

lobbyists in support as well. not know. I'll have a look at it.

We will say for now you will do the dancing. Everybody can be involved.

1 billion people will be -- 1 billion women will be beaten or

raped in her society. What else has been happening in the capital? Here

A London estate was sold by the Council for �50 million, even

though it has spent �44 million moving residents out. Southwark

council wants to redevelop this estate. It is part of �1.5 billion

scheme to regenerate the area. This library, earmarked for closure, has

been handed to a group of residents to run. Barnet council called the

building in April. The council has now agreed the community group can

take over the premises for the next two years. One of the Met's -- one

of the Metropolitan Police's top policeman has accused the force of

not understanding multiculturalism. He said many of his colleagues do

not get it and he is resigning. The security firm G4S is close to

receiving up deal for compensation from the London 2012 organising

committee, after it failed to Bob Stewart, you were an employee

of G4S. The indications are they will be playing for the costs. --

paying for the costs. Have they been punished enough or be what to

give up their management fee? certainly should. It was a huge

inconvenience and embarrassment. I think G4S should pay more. In the

end, it went smoothly, the public did not mind. They like the troops

on the streets. We are lucky to have an armed forces who were

willing to step into the breach. G4S did not deliver on the contract,

they should pay accordingly. We need the costs recovered, not just

the police and the armed forces, but that management fee. Clearly

they did not manage the contract properly. That is absolutely case.

We are told there will be a decision soon. Back to Andrew Neil

In a moment, we will look ahead to the big stories that will dominate

politics next week. First, the news. The Environment Minister Owen

Paterson has moved to reassure shoppers that all processed meat

products currently on sale in supermarkets are safe to eat.

Speaking on this programme, he said he was reassured by the Food

Standards Authority. That was despite the fact that test or a

whole range of products are still How much contamination has there

been to our food? The Government is already warning there could be more

bad news ahead, after the meek in some company eight lasagne --

Findus lasagne was found to be 100% horsemeat. The results will be due

by Friday. People could be eating horsemeat and only this lunchtime,

that is true, isn't it? It is possible, that is why we are

carrying out this unprecedented screening of products. It looks as

if the product is limited to processed beef, and there has been

criminal substitution of beef with horse. Some retailers have been

caught up in the scandal. Findus is taking legal advice over whether

there is grounds for pursuing the case against their suppliers.

Ministers have been under fire for not reacting quicker. Ministers

said consumers were given conflicting advice. People are

making the choice not to buy processed meat. Ministers are

contradicting advice from the Food Standards Authority. They said do

not eat beef that has been processed. The government said they

will be introducing stricter monitoring rules for the food

industry. The Government is expected to announce they will

extend a freeze on inheritance tax to pay for more state funded care

for the elderly in England. The individual allowance will be pegged

at �325,000 for another three years from 2015. Thousands more people

will become liable for the tax. A month-old baby boy is recovering

well in hospital after reportedly having a finger torn off by a fox

as he slept in his home. He was rushed to St Thomas's Hospital, and

surgeons were able to reattach his finger. Paul Gascoigne is reported

to have been faced -- placed in an intensive care unit after

collapsing. He flew to America this week to check into a rehabilitation

clinic in Arizona. His time in rehabilitation has been paid for by

friends. That is the news for the That Eastleigh campaign gets under

way and David Cameron tells the Commons about his trip to Belgium.

These are the stories in the week You were in Brussels with the Prime

Minister. As far as his own people are concerned, he had two big

victories, the referendum and the budget-cutting. But you wonder

whether the people he needs to placate, is it ever enough? You do

wonder. On the day we announce we're leaving the European Union,

Bill Cash will stand up and say we're still 26 miles from France.

Some Euro-sceptics were praising him and others were not exactly

jumping up and down. Some of the Euro-sceptic newspapers were not

making much after this real success. This was not done on the back of a

fag packet, not even with the November summit. He was arguing for

this two years ago. How did he achieve this? He built up allies

across the European Union. thought he didn't have any? He has

someone austerity. Angela Merkel. The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark.

On the other issue, him repatriating powers, this shows he

needs allies, and at the moment, he does not really have allies for

that. That is absolutely true, but by now, Cameron was supposed to be

entirely friendless. He was supposed to be not getting any sort

of renegotiation, I think he is in a potentially good position with

his party. The Tory party is always a very difficult party to lead.

There has never been a period where has -- where it has been easy. You

could ask Robert Peel about that 100 years ago. I did, he was not

happy. I think just about everyone in the Tories could take something

out of it. If you want out of the EU, you get a referendum, if you

want a renegotiation, you get that, if you want to stay in, you get a

referendum. That combined with this deal puts him in a pretty good

place. That is right, and he has done well. If you look at the Times,

yesterday the story was on page 14. Unless you get recognition for your

victories, you will not buy off these awkward people. Even the Tory

press was a bit churlish. wonder when they will be satisfied.

The fact that Germany was prepared to ally itself with Britain on this

issue bodes very well for the future, and also, the reform the

Common Fisheries Policy. Perhaps if Europe gets a bit more pragmatic,

that will help David Cameron keep the UK in. It was help -- it was

useful that the Germans and the French had not agreed a position.

If he can keep that, he may get a lot of things. The French President

said they could not touch the British rebate because it is in the

treaty. You want to renegotiate the treaty, maybe we should look at the

rebate. And he still wants us to help him! Not if he is sulking. We

all love for by-elections, they keep us going. We have Eastleigh

coming up on the 28. The coalition partners will be head-to-head. They

are already irritating each other's. This is Boris Johnson, he called

Nick Clegg's for women on LBC. is Boris from Islington. -- phone-

in. When you going to get all those government ministers out of their

limousines and onto public transport like everybody else? How

can we expect government to vote for increases in infrastructure

spending, which we need in the city? They are sitting in

chauffeur-driven limousines. They should get on public transport with

the rest of us. It was a pre- recorded question, but it is an

example. They are going to go hammer and tongs with each other in

Eastleigh whilst running the The AV referendum descended into a

terrible pit of ill feeling on both sides because there were personal

views thrown. It affected how the coalition could operate for a siem

afterwards. It will be interesting to see whether the nastiness in

Hampshire affects how the Government can function. Ed Davey

was robust - he doesn't care, he sticks to his position - that would

have infuriated the Torys? It will. While it will be a fantastic by-

election and great fun, there is a lot at stake as your interview with

Ed Davey showed. If the liberals can win this, they are arguably

back in the game in an interesting way. If the Tories win this, that

is an extraordinary result in the middle of austerity and the middle

of an economic crisis and Labour. Everyone is writing off Labour and

it is a long-shot. If Labour can really mount a good campaign and

get a good candidate like John O 'Farrell. It is the kind of thing a

Government in waiting should be winning. It is not one of these

posh South coast towns? It has been described as the crew of the south.

They are hoping to say the main issue at this by-election will be

tax and our great tax thrash by �10,000 and that will help people

down the income scale. How has it happened? In budgets introduced by

a Conservative Chancellor. It will be hard for them to say it was

their policy and they pushed for. Eastleigh is a classic Liberal

Democrats seat. It was won in a by- election in 1994. What do the

Liberal Democrats do? They get dug in. They do well in the council.

They have every seat in the Borough Council. There are four Tory seats

that are not in the constituency. It is difficult to dislodge that.

want to know who will win? Answer me in the knowledge that I will

certainly return to this tape when you are wrong.

I think the Lib Dems could pull it off. If they do it will be an

important point in rehabilitating Nick Clegg joofplt the Tories will

win with one caveat. For them to win they need Labour to fight a

good campaign which erodes the Lib Dem vote. The winner will be the

loser. UKIP because they will make the Tories' job much more difficult.

Who will win? I think it will make it much more difficult for the

Tories. Answer the question! better not be like that when it

comes to your wedding day! The meat scandal. Where does the

story go from here? Having covered lots of the stories like this, they

tend to have a momentum of their own. They go in directions that you

cannot predict and secondly, Owen Paterson - the great hope of the

right - had him on today, how is he doing? This is any Cabinet

minister's nightmare. It can go in any direction. It is uncontrollable.

It refers back to things which happened six or seven years ago,

long before he knew he would be in the job he's in. It is incredibly

difficult to handle. The thing I am left with is isn't it extraordinary

that the horsemeat scandal, which is important, but has not killed

anyone as far as we know, is the subject of emergency summits and

Government panic and briefing. The scandal in Mid Staffs which killed

up to 1200 people isn't. It says something interesting about where

we are. It says something interesting about what the public

want from a Government. You can talk about cutting back red tape.

On the other hand, if you find there's not been enough regulation

and Chancellor of the Exchequering, the public feel -- and checking,

the public feel failed. We have all become experts in food

chains. There was a paper the Conservatives drew up which talked

about abolishing the FSA, when they were saying we don't like quangos.

He makes an important point about the balancing. They are in a

difficult position. This is not BSE. There's no evidence that people's

health is at risk. What is at risk is people eating something that

they don't know what it is. They don't want to scare people when

there may not be scare issues. I did get the impression that

Number Ten had been a bit unhappy - from the way he didn't answer.

think this is the thing. It is a question about Government

competence. Last year, the Government got into a lot of

trouble over issues, there was a feeling they were not in charge.

You have to show you are in charge and you can act. We will see where

this story goes. That's it for today. If you are having lunch, I