21/04/2013 Sunday Politics London

Sunday Politics. The government is going to court to prevent an EU tax

hitting the City of London, as more pressure is piled onto the Prime

Minister to deliver on his pledge to bring back powers from Brussels.

He wants to be in the centre ground of British politics, but claims the

centre is moving left. How will Ed Miliband's strategy go

down next month? Two years into civil war, it is

claimed an estimated 70,000 lives. Is it time to arm the Syrian rebels?

On Sunday politics in London, our council is doing enough to chase up

debts? Authorities have �800 million in

brightest. They are limbering up, as they should on marathon day. As the

stragglers crossed the finish line, let's turn first two events in

Boston. It seems it is getting much more difficult to draw the line

between home-grown terrorism and international terrorism. Exactly.

This event, even though it was much smaller in scale than 911, had much

more in common with seven Flash seven. These terrorists were to a

large extent home-grown. The one consolation that America has had

since 911 is that they have not been subjected to home-grown terrorism of

this kind. So it is a big psychological bond. The Americans

thought their Muslim community was better integrated than ours.

Exactly. Boston is the most liberal city in the United States, but they

were saying that they did not want to have any prejudice against

Muslims because of this, but clearly there is going to be quite a big

domestic debate in the United States about this, because the FBI had

identified the elder brother, and had interviewed him. The Washington

Post reported that they were concerned that there was not enough

for them to continue further. found slightly reassuring about the

whole horrible scenario was that these boys appear to have been

radicalised at the local mosque, which is a familiar tale, isn't it?

The Sunday Times interviewed the uncle of the bombers yesterday, and

he did tell that familiar tale of boys that were drifters, they didn't

know where they were going, and they were influenced in the local mosque.

It seems to me something that is possible to tackle. Even though it

didn't look like it for a while, it is another example of Islamist

terrorism. Yes. On September the 12th 2001, had we known that we

would go 12 years without a successful Islamist attack on

American territory, we would have found that incredible. It is a

success that we have gone this far without an attack of that kind. It

also, potentially, tells the change in tactics with the Chechen

nationalists. Until now, their war has been a war with Russia, fought

that foil. Their leader has been trying to turn it into a wider

global struggle. The mystery is still, why Boston? If it is a

Chechen cause, what has it got to do with Boston?

The government is going to the European Court of Justice in

Luxembourg to protect the City of London from attacks on financial

transactions. It 11 EU countries want to introduce them. Fair enough,

say Euro-sceptics, but there has been no progress on David Cameron's

promised to bring back powers from Europe. 500 business leaders are

pressing the PM to deliver this week. We are now going to talk to a

member of the Fresh Start Group of Conservative MPs. Do you see this as

a move by the government, a more robust attitude by the government,

to go to court? On the issue of the financial transactions tax, it is

important to remember that this is about financial services across the

board, and eurozone dominated transactions that can take place

wholly outside Europe. It is protectionist at a time when the

world economy needs to be liberalised. Is it symbolic of the

more robust attitude to Europe? think it is right that the

government is fighting a measure, tooth and nail, using the diplomatic

process and the legal one, which is bad for Europe, world trade and

British business. Mr Cameron is sending your group to Europe to

negotiate powers back, the Fresh Start Group. Isn't that a job for

government? There is a job for us to make a case. The government has got

its review of competencies to work out precisely the due diligence and

the cost benefit analysis of all the different EU areas, and then it will

have to go back to the commission and the member states to make their

case. In terms of repatriation, what exactly has been achieved and will

be achieved by 2015, with the general election? It will be hard to

achieve a huge amount within coalition. David Cameron wants to

have a review of competencies, to start the negotiation process, and

put it to a referendum. There are some things we will repatriate, such

as crime and policing. We will exercise the block opt-out that the

government says it will, and we will decide which measure out of the 135

really is in the British interest. The government has announced the

block opt-out, so they must be on board. Any substantive change in our

relationship with Europe has got to wait until the next election, and is

predicated on a Tory victory. Is that correct? The Conservatives can

only talk for what they would do if they were elected back. With the

coalition deal in 2010, we knew that freezing the EU position was one of

the components of this deal. Lamentable as it may be for a

conservative like me, I recognise that was the price of the deal.

can make no progress on this side of the election then? We have the

safeguard we have in relation to financial services. We would also

like to do something about benefit tourism, which Iain Duncan Smith is

locked in negotiation with the European Commission about. Let's be

realistic about this and not get ahead of ourselves with the

rhetoric. We are constrained with what we can do in coalition.

after repatriation, let's assume that you win the next election and

you go to repatriates, and you end up with largely the status quo

between London and Brussels, would you then say that we should vote to

leave the EU? If we got crumbs out of the renegotiation deal, I think

it would only strengthen the hand of those who are saying that Britain

has got to exit to look after its vital national interests. That's not

what I want. I want to see us fight hard for a better deal. That's what

the Prime Minister is trying to achieve. Is it is the charred -- if

it is the difference between the status quo and getting out, you

would say to get out? We are going to have a renegotiation in good

faith. I am not going to start making threats. The reality is,

there is an interesting opinion survey on this, and by three to one

the British people would rather renegotiate with the EU than

withdraw. It is a test for Britain, as also for countries like Germany,

who want us to stay in. Unemployment is up, deficit reduction has

stalled, and there is little or no growth in the economy. Even the most

tribal of Tories could claim that the coalition strategy is a success.

So support should be high, but it's not. It is even starting to slide.

What can it Miliband -- Ed Miliband do to improve his party's appeal and

his own image? Ed Miliband talked of the deep

convictions that helped Margaret Thatcher win three elections. But

what are the deep convictions of Ed Miliband? He claims politics is

challenged by a dominant figure in Labour politics, one Tony Blair. He

wrote that the financial crisis has not brought a decisive shift to the

left. Next week's election in England and Wales will be eight test

of the party's popularity as we get closer to a general election in

2015. The shadow to and local governments and Hilary Benn joins me

now for the Sunday Interview. Hilary Benn, Labour is 7% ahead on

an average of the most recent polls. Given the dire state of the

economy, that is hardly impressive. 7% ahead is 7% ahead. The fact is

that the public gave the coalition the benefit of the doubt when they

came in, given the state of the economy and what had happened to

lots of countries around the world. Nearly three years on, people are

beginning to see that George Osborne's economic plan is not

working, and the IMF is now saying that it is not succeeding and he

should think about something else. That reflects what we have been

arguing for some time. Let me show you what the situation was in April

1990 five, two years before the 97 election. We are taking a poll that

is favourable to you at the moment. You were 30 points ahead before the

1997 election. So it's not a great result. It is different times and

different circumstances. You are up against an unpopular government

presiding over an unpopular economic policy. The last two years of local

elections, we have done well, we have gained seats and councils. That

is what really matters - how people cast their vote when they come to

the polls. Politicians always say that! It's not just your average is

7%, your leader is slipping. By some measures in some polls, you are down

to your lowest measures of the year. As economic news has got worse

throughout the year, why? Polls go up and down. If you go back to the

1979 election, the then Prime Minister without polling the then

Leader of the Opposition, and you remember what the result was. In

this election, people will be looking at their falling living

standards, rising unemployment, rising national debt, and the

government having to borrow more. People can see that the economic

plan is not working. If you have a plan that isn't working, you should

change course. My argument isn't that people cannot see that the

economic plan is not working, it's that they still do not want to vote

for you. Your leader is an even bigger problem. The latest poll

shows only 24% think Ed Miliband is up to being Prime Minister. Given

that only around 34 want to vote for you, 8% of Labour voters do not rate

him as a PM! I think he is a strong and courageous leader. He has taken

to big decisions. One, to break with consensus. He did that when it came

to News International and what should be done with the Levenson

enquiry. But he also broke with the consensus with what we should do

with the enquiry -- with the economy. The media, the IMF,

everybody said that George Osborne's plan was the right thing

to do, and now we find that it has not worked. The government is giving

tax cuts to millionaire's, while taking money off many of my

constituents. That may be true. Why is it the case that the more people

see of him the less impressed they are? He is heading towards three

years as your leader, and his personal popularity in several polls

is now at an all-time low. Why? not accept that. The real measure is

not the polls, it is how people choose to vote. Your party spends a

lot of money on polls. Why is his personal popularity solo? Lots of

parties do polling. What really matters is how we do in the local

elections. In the last two years, in local elections, we have seen Labour

gained seats in councils, including Ed Miliband claims the centre

ground has moved to the left. What is the evidence of that? People

have seen the impact of the economic crisis. There is a much

greater willingness to take tough action against the banks. We have

proposed a tax on bank has bonuses to give people a start. -- banking

bonuses. Everybody hates the banks. That is not evidence of a move to

the left. There is more consensus that there was prior to the

economic crash. Everybody loved the banks before and now everybody

hates them. What is the evidence the centre has moved to the left?

People are more willing to consider changes and different policies than

is the case in the past, because we can see the impact of the crash, we

understand what caused it, and increasingly, they look at the

policies of the coalition and think they are profound in way --

profoundly unfair. Why are people facing an increase in council tax

bills where there is a council tax freeze? The Government is hitting

those on lowest income. I would suggest to you that in a whole

range of issues, immigration, welfare reform, deficit-reduction,

the country is moving to the right on these issues, and it makes

Labour look increasingly out of touch, and that is why your ratings

or poor. It depends on your definition of left and right and it

might not be the same as mine. If we take welfare reform, we are

putting forward a proposal that would say very clearly, if you have

been out of work for more than two years, we will provide you with the

job. That is the responsibility of the state to care for people, and

in return you need to do it. Many people said that was too right-wing,

now you say it. Things are moving to the right, not the left. It is

sensible for the economic times in which we live. I will let the

viewers decide that. Many of your former colleagues in government,

Tony Blair, David Blunkett, they discerned no mood of the public

towards the left. This is what John Reid said, I do not think the

central ground is moving left. Are they wrong? I have read the

articles that Tony Blair and David Blunkett wrote, and I can find

nothing controversial to disagree with him what they said. You just

disagreed with that. He says it is not moving. It depends on your

definition of left and right. People are willing to support

changes that they might not have been willing to support in the past

because the circumstances are different. The centre ground may

not be moving to the left, I believe that a Labour to argue

about, but you party seems to be moving to the left. We have heard

of what one Labour person called an old fashioned stitch-up by the

unions. People resigning because of it. Candidates who fought and did

well retired by the union barons. Are you happy with how the seats

have been selected? Things can get agitated. The truth is, unions do

not have a majority on the panels that are short listed, and as I'm

sure you're aware, the choice of where people are put on the list,

that choice is made by ordinary party members voting in a ballot.

The former Labour general secretary says it was a stitch-up. I do not

agree with that. It was the same process we used in previous years.

Another candidate who almost one in 2009 was pushed out of the way to

make place for a union official. was not on the panel and neither

were you. They made their judgment but it is party members who make

the decision. She was told the decision to exclude her was a

political judgment. I do not know who said that. The panel's

shortlist and the members decide where the people go on the list. It

is the same system we have used before. George Osborne published

the coalition spending plans for 2015 on June 26th. They will cover

the first year for you. When will you tell us if you accept these

plans or change them? We have always said we will announce our

plans in the run-up to the election. Clearly, we will need to see what

his spending plans are. It is two years away. It is not sensible to

set out categorically what we intend to do, because look at the

change that has taken place over the last three years. If we did

make decisions on the basis of George Osborne's plans in 2010, it

would have not been relevant for the current circumstances because

of the failure of his economic policy. You will have all the

information the government has to make its spending forecast, because

it will be published. You get to see it. Why can you tell us based

on the assumptions and forecast, this would be the spending plan?

The government has done it. have partly done it yourself,

answered the question, you said the forecast may be wrong. They have

been downgraded time after time. The sensible moment to make a

decision about what our commitments are going to be and how we will pay

for them will be in the run-up to the election and not now.

government will tell us in June, you will not tell us until 20th

April 15. We will make it a where - - make it available in a sensible

time during the run-up to the election. Nobody can tell what the

economy will be like in two years time. You can make forecasts based

on certain assumptions and the forecast would change if the

assumptions changed. You said these are the biggest Cup being imposed

on the most deprived communities. Will you be reversing these?

will redistribute it in a fairer way. It is not right that David

Cameron's local-authority is getting an increase in spending

power this year per head of population, and some of the most

deprived communities are getting a substantial reduction. It is about

fairness in the way the money is shared out. The overall level of

reductions will stay the same? not saying anything about the level

of investment because that depends on circumstances, but we would be

distributing the money available in a much fairer way, because you

cannot justify the biggest cuts falling on the most deprived

communities. You claim council tax increases will harm the poorest

people? They will, it is not sensible to do that just now, it is

wrong that people were are disabled, single mothers, carers, are being

hit. The same is true with the bedroom tax. If you ask me about

the bedroom tax, I do not think it will be in the current form it

takes by the time of the next election because it will not

withstand contact with reality. Will you commit to reverse it?

set out what we want to do during the next election. You will not

tell me what individual policies will be, Ed Miliband says this will

be a change election, in other words, a watershed. Give me two

ways in which it will be a watershed. Our proposal to build

100,000 new affordable homes. We have the lowest rate of completion

since the mid- 1920s. Houses are down 11%. We will make funding

available for an increase in house building. I have called on the

government to use the proceeds from the recent auction for that. In

what parts are they being built? It is where Labour Party councils are

in control. Give me another watershed. Two million more homes,

of which 500,000 are affordable, that is a much better record than

the coalition government. The second watershed is the jobs

guarantee, and the third is repeating the bankers bonus tax to

help 100,000 young people. Long- term youth unemployment is going up.

Many people regard these his policies but not watershed policies.

If you do not have a job and Durer young person that will be pretty

important. The government has always promised more jobs,

delivering is another matter. Last time you for these elections you

lost 300 seats. It was terrible for you. James Purnell was writing his

resignation letter, Gordon Brown was unpopular, the economy was in

recession. You need to win back the 300 seats for this to be a success.

Agreed? I'm not going to make a prediction about that but you're

right, these elections were very bad for Labour. But these are

predominantly in Tory heartlands, because they are county councils.

We will be fighting to win control of councils all over the country

but I'm not going to predict what debt will be. You cannot win these

300 seats, and claimed it is a great result. We are fighting to

win seats across the country and I think we will undoubtedly see

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 71 seconds

improvements on what was a very bad In the shadow of President Assad,

they're still playing football in the capital Damascus. But the

fighting goes on. Two years of civil war have left 70,000 Syrians

dead. More than a million have fled to refugee camps in other countries,

millions more are displaced within So what's the British position?

We've even sent the Prime Minister's wife and the royal

family to the region to show that this is something Britain cares

about. Here at the Foreign Office they had hoped that Assad would be

toppled quickly or stand down. Since that hasn't happened there's

been a gradual ramping up of British government support for the

opposition. Here's the Foreign Secretary last year. Her Majesty's

Government have decided to recognise the National Coalition of

Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate

representative of the Syrian people. Last Month: We will also provide

new types of non-lethal equipment for the protection of civilians,

going beyond what we have given before. We have taken no decision

that we would like to send arms to the Syrian opposition, but the UK

and France argue we will need further amendments to the arms

embargo. In other words - sending weapons to the rebels. But who

actually are the rebels? You have various factions who can just about

agree that they want Assad to step down. Rosemary Hollis has studied

the region for decades. You have the Islamists, the various factions

including the Nusra front, the various Al-Qaeda types from

overseas, including Iraqis who were trained in the Iraqi context,

Chechens in the mix, those from the This is another phase in a story

that originates in Afghanistan in the 1980s. There are more moderate

elements though, who are meeting the Foreign Secretary in Istanbul

this weekend. But they can't do anything without the support of

other countries like the US, China and Russia who are nowhere near

agreement on how to end the Alan Mendoza runs the Henry Jackson

Society, think-tank which promotes Western in that vet -- Western

arms embargo? It is obvious that in action has caused more problems than

action. There is a humanitarian tragedy going on right now in

Syria. More people have been killed in recent months than in the first

year of the conflict. We want to see a managed transition in Syria, but

there is no sign of that happening. We have to change the terms of trade

We have to change the terms of trade on the ground. It started with a

peaceful demonstration in the street peaceful demonstration in the street

It moved on and now we are involved in more Islamists. They have given

support. This creates a division. Are you worried about giving them

guns? Of course, they have been planning to gain sympathy and

support from the Syrian people, because they appeared a few months

ago and they are giving up to al- Qaeda. You will end up giving guns

to the bad guys. Not necessarily. fighting on the ground, the people

with more arms are the Islamists. They are going to win if we do

nothing. What we need to do is to get the moderate, secular side to

have forced to actually counterbalance that. You think, in

sending arms to the opposition, you could actually distinguish as to who

is going to get the guns? Absolutely. You cannot do that. It

is not practical on the ground. You would create isolation between the

rebels, because the bad guys think of themselves as the good guys, who

are liberating Syria from the dictatorship. By arming the rebels

in Syria, you are creating a revolution, a kind of battle between

the Islamists and between the Syrian free army. We have three poll is of

the conflict, and political solution is the only way to move forward.

do we get that? Through pressure on Assad. Not through the pressure of

Russia and Iran. Assad is not the supermassive power in Syria.

cannot get Russia to do any pressuring. They are bolstering the

Iranians. It will end up with terrorism in Syria. Even if Al-Qaeda

has lost its war with America, it can regain in Syria. You say 70,000

people have died there, and that is probably a reasonably accurate

estimate. If you give these people guns, and more than guns, a lot more

will die. They've got guns already. Syria is awash with small arms

already. The problem is we cannot force Assad to a political

transition. Nobody wants to see a violent overthrow, but it is

happening in slow motion right now, because he has enough power to hang

on without being forced to the negotiation table. We have to bring

the moderate and secular forces there, because that is the only

guarantee you can get pressure on Russia, Iran and Hezbollah to change

their mind. He says you have to do it to break the logjam on the

ground. But that is not through getting more debt in Syria. Syria

can use chemical weapons in order to gain power right now. It knows it

will get the full power of the United States if it did that.

solution is to pressure Iran and Russia and Hezbollah. We need to

pressure more, more pressure from the superpowers like America,

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The situation could escalate more, to

have a more regional war in Syria, where we have vulnerable borders,

which can leak to Jordan, Israel and Lebanon. Then we have an

international war in the region. Syria is a tribal mosaic. It is a

hotchpotch of tribes that we understand almost none of. What has

it got to do with us? Plenty -- plenty. Firstly, there is a

challenge to values going on. Tens of thousands of people are dying,

and that speaks to our values. you are talking about hard power.

Those are national security situations of a classic kind. Now we

have moral interests and strategic interests too. We are seeing

refugees streaming over, destabilising Jordan, Iraq and

Lebanon. It is in our interests to stop that happening. Thank you both.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up, I will be

looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then, the

idea how much London councils are owed in unpaid charges and tax? �800

million is how much. More on that later. Here to discuss that and who

knows what else, Heidi Alexander, MP for Lewisham East, and Greg Hands,

Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham. We were reminded this week

that there is caste discrimination in London. There was a big

demonstration in London against the practice. The prejudice shown,

especially in the workplace among some communities, seek, Hindu and

Muslim for example. Do you agree with that, break? It has been

considered. We had a short debate in the House of Commons this week. It

is something that needs to be studied. There is not a consensus

within the communities themselves, let alone within the wider

community. It was rejected this week in the

vote, and you voted against including it. I did. All forms of

discrimination need to be taken seriously and to be tackled. I'm

sure further studies will be done. So you might accept the principle of

it being included in legislation at some stage, or do you see any reason

for it? It is possible it might be accepted, but it is something we

should not rush into at this point, and to really examine the pros and

cons of this issue. There is not a consensus within those communities

themselves as to whether this is something that should be tackled

head-on through legislation. One of the reasons for that is that some

people say it might stigmatise and make the problem worse. Yet you

think it should be part of this legislation. It should be illegal to

discriminate on a caste basis. did vote for the principle of having

legislative underpinning on racial prejudice on the grounds of caste.

While it is a relatively small problem, and one which is rejected

by the Hindu and Sikh faith, I think Greg and I would agree that there is

no place for any prejudice of any kind in our society. It may be a

lessening problem as cultures develop. Is the government right

that we can address this with education, and we do not need to go

down the legislative route? If you talk to anyone who has been subject

to discrimination on the basis of caste... And we have spoken to

people who have had quite traumatic experiences, then I think in British

society there isn't a place for that, and it is right that there is

some sort of legal protection. We have to look at the definition of

caste, we have to look at how this works in practice. I think there are

still discussions ongoing at the moment, but it is an important issue

that needs to be tackled. Many of the things that have been described

may be covered under racial legislation. It is a question of

whether legislation is necessarily the right and only solution to this

problem. There are lot of forms of prejudice out there in this world,

and not all of them are covered by legislation and by the force of

law. Thank you. We often report on the tough times

faced by London councils. They're spending pressures and difficult

choices. Are they getting their hands on all the money they could

be? It's a merge that authorities in the capital are owed �800 million in

council tax than the residents of any other part of the country, and

in some borough is one in ten do not pay. Hundreds of millions is missing

from our town Hall. Sunday politics decided to find out just how much

debt our local authorities had. Across the capital, there's a �640

million outstanding, and in addition, we have discovered at

least �170 million extra from unpaid business accounts, rent and other

sources. That makes over �810 million. To put all that in

perspective, the total government cuts to councils in London this year

are �157 million. We are talking about money which is much more than

the government cuts we hear so much about. The signs are that this year,

the money will be even harder to collect. The council tax benefit

reforms, which mean that from 2013 onwards, tiny amounts of money will

be collected from a large number of households who previously paid

nothing. It will inevitably lead to higher rates than we have seen

before, and action against more households than before. So we will

see an uptake in the overall level of Korea's year next. According to

the government, there is no excuse. If you have �650 million owed to

you, you have a duty to collect that tax, so you keep bills down next

year. Local authorities will find it easier to manage their finances if

they do the right things to collect the money they are owed, and do not

put that Bill on other hard-working be that councils are overzealous in

their pursuit of the missing money? According to one charity who helps

the public with money problems, the number of calls they get about debts

to local authorities is rising, and councils' methods may be

counter-productive. The use of Bayliss is one example. That will

often ratchet up debt quite quickly. Somebody might be saved -- served

with a parking fine, but quite quickly found that the Bayliss

charges make that higher. It is then impossible for them to pay it.

Things like that set the chances of the person paying that debt. In the

last year, celebrities, corporations and even the BBC faced criticism

over their tax arrangements. Some might want that attention to turn to

the revenue of ordinary taxpayers. Simon Parker is here from the New

Local Government Network. Why is so much underpaid? It is difficult to

put it into context. This is an awful lot of money at a time when we

are asking council taxpayers to pay more. It is important councils

collect as much as possible. The figures here are gigantic, but they

have been around for a long time. It is 20 years worth of arrears. We

should not get too excited about getting that money back, because it

is old debt. In the 1990s, some councils were abominable at

collection rates. Now, most councils are in the high 90s, but no one ever

gets all of it. How worth it is it, in the end? Presumably you have to

put a lot of effort into chasing. There is a difficult balance for

councils to strike. In some cases, it can cost almost as much as the

debt to get it. On the other hand, it is really important for councils

that they do not send a message that it is worth giving it a try. They

have to try and enforce it, because the principle is clear. If you owe

it, you should pay it. How'd you get away without paying it? You are

there registered against an address. The bill arrives. Often, you are not

registered against an address. In parts of London where they have the

lowest collection rates, they have transient populations. People don't

stay in properties for a long time. Even if they did register, they

perhaps register and then leave, and then they are hard to chase.

Exactly. If you can't find someone, it is hard to make them pay. Given

that, we heard in the report that it is hard to address and these are

huge sums of money. Perfectly understandable? Under Labour,

council taxes doubled. The amount spent on council tax benefit

doubles. If tax rates are as high as that, then arrears will start to

rise. Councils like mine, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington

and Chelsea, have got two of the lowest. Hammersmith and Fulham has

cut its council tax by 3%, and that helps people to afford their council

Is their correlation between the size of the council tax and how few

people pay it? We do not have the data. I meant to look at it before

I came on. If you look at the figures, it looks like it will be

more collected in wealthier areas. The picture is messy. Somewhere

like Lewisham is higher, relatively speaking. We hear Hammersmith, once

worth, so on. Is that problem? also have a more deprived community

in Lewisham than we do in places like Chelsea or Fulham. Lewisham

collect about 96% of its council tax. It could be better, it could

do more. It does take quite robust action against people who do not

pay. Last year, the issue 29,000 summonses, and they took action

against a number of households. There are differences between

people, some people who cannot pay, there are big issues going forward

with the impact upon the reforms to council tax benefits, with the

amount of money has been cut by 10%. In Lewisham, 24,000 people have

received a council tax bill as a result of the changes.

implications of benefit changes and localising council tax, a number of

people or a lot more, how many people will be paying council tax

who were not before? For London 75,000 in London. There are already

signs that the people there are least able to pay will not be

paying. The council will find it very difficult to find that money.

Particularly well administered councils, they are finding savings

elsewhere. The idea that government said we want to cut the amount we

pay you in your total council tax benefit by 10% but leaving it up to

the council, those councils have actually chosen to make savings

elsewhere. These were individuals who never had to pay before.

Naturally, they will find it difficult. A lot is down to that

individual local council as to how they decide to pass on the changes.

At a heart of this is Britain's benefits bill, which Labour have

consistently voted against, all the savings, these benefits, under the

last government the benefits bill overall was higher than what we are

spending on health, schools, and defence put together. The

Government needed to take action on the overall benefits bill. Every

single one of these changes has been opposed by Labour. Let's be

clear about what the government are doing in respect to benefit changes,

it is the bedroom tax, the total cap on benefits, there is a

cumulative impact on households in London which is going to make it

really difficult for some households to pay their bills.

Anything obvious or knew that local authorities can do here? I'm not

sure there is. We have been trying to collect tax for a long time so

we know how it is done, the difficult choice will be between

letting some of the school and cracking down on it. When we look

at these figures, people are going into arrears and getting visits

from the bailiffs. On that gloomy note, thank you. Could soon become

easier for you to knock up that much wanted Conservatory in your

back garden. A much bigger one than you expected as well. Government

plans relaxing planning rules survive the Commons will this week.

There might be compromise or a climbdown in the air. Ministers

announced plans for a three-year relaxation in building laws,

allowing expansions on houses to be up from 16 ft to 26 beat. Critics

fear the relaxation will lead to disputes among us neighbours and

unsightly extensions. The narrow victory highlighted real concerns.

Eric Pickles is now wanting to find a compromise. This new approach

will be set out in the House of Lords. Bob Blackman has joined us,

Conservative MP. You do not like these proposals, narrowly lost. You

were going to meet and make a compromise? Obviously discussions

were going on, the conversation of doubling the amount of Permitted

Development closed last Christmas and we have been waiting for the

Government to come forward with the results of that consultation and

what they propose to do. This debate was about local authorities,

should they be allowed to opt out of whatever the Government came up

with? I take the view that this approach, London should be allowed

to set their own standards, because here we sit in the suburbs and

urban London, cheek by jowl, if somebody wants to do an extension

on their property, which would be very welcome for them, they will

affect properties either side and at the back of them. Those people

need to have the opportunity to object to these proposals.

saying you want an opt-out, are you saying there is no point in this

change? Clearly there is a point across the country, there are areas

where this will not affect you at all. If you live in a rural area,

why shouldn't you extend your home to as much as you want? Here in

suburban areas, you will have a dramatic effect. Imagine waking up

the day after somebody starts building up 26 ft extension in the

garden without you even knowing. Imagine that, Greg Hands, your

current neighbours may or may not be watching, if you walk up and

decided to put a 20 ft extension, how would your neighbour's field?

And not sure there is 26 ft available in my road. The objective

here is to make it easier for people to extend their home. It is

part of the housing shortage. In terms of the particular us, we are

listening carefully. What made his points very eloquently last week,

we are listening to him and others. -- Bob Blackman. We will come back

next week with a revised proposal in the House of Lords. Until then

we will wait to see what that is. Will this get the building industry

going again? We need more homes across the country. The key thing

is London councils are very effective at processing planning

applications for extensions. Et 7% go through within eight weeks. The

13% refused, people do not want. -- 87%. What is not to like about that

information? We will have to wait and see. Next week we will see

precisely how to respond, how ministers respond, but I am very

confident. Where do you stand? What you say as a Londoner? I feel the

current planning system, and I have served as a local councillor for

eight years, is too restrictive. It needs to be liberalised somewhat.

Planning is always a question of compromise is, between the person

making the application and the people nearby. It is about getting

that balance right. Would you be happy to see at 20 ft extension in

the house next door to you? I do not live in a conservation area, so

it could happen. Would you be happy? I do not think you could.

However far you could go, 15 ft, cover the whole garden. As with all

these things the Iraqi considerations, any extension,

whether it cuts out light, implications. We know these

considerations, everyone feels them. Planning is always a balance of

these considerations, where do you have that balance? Is that balance

in the right point? That question will be down next week. These

changes give the householder the power to make that decision about

the balance. They take it away from an independent third party, the

authority, and they say it is a householder who can choose whether

that development is appropriate, and it takes the say away from the

people who live next door. It is deeply ironic that this government

say they want to give more power to local communities to have a say in

what happens in their neighbourhood and they are changing the planning

rules in such a way that are going to cause huge attention in

communities. Are you in a better place? Yes, we got a pledge that a

compromise arrangement will be tabled in the House of Lords on

Monday. Obviously it will come back to the House of Commons for a

decision. Lots of MPs on the conservative side said we will

accept what the Government have said, and gave the Government the

benefit of the doubt. -- the Conservative side. We want to make

sure the compromise arrangement works for everyone. We need to move

on. Thank you. Now the rest of the A report by the Conservatives on

the London assembly called for tube workers to be banned from going on

strike. They are suggesting a mediation process overseen by an

independent judge, but unions say this will be doomed to failure. The

home of British skateboarding since the 1970s is set to close after

plans to redevelop the Southbank Centre. An alternative site is

being offered but users what the cultural significance to be

respected and for it to be saved. How would you like to builds and

the Olympic Park. People will be losing out on benefit changes, the

opposition say the money will be better spent creating permanent

At Conservative group pushing on this, wanting to change the loss on

strikes. In general, London tube strikes happen far too often for

trivial reasons. It is a complete abuse. A lot of it will be up to

Boris in terms of how he handles it. More of my constituents travel by

chewed their end any other constituency in the country. It can

be quite difficult. Do you support this? I think this is another rash

policy. I think they are difficult unions, hard work needs to going to

engaging with them. Back to you. In a moment we will look ahead to the

big stories that will dominate next week but first the news. Runners

taking part in the London Marathon stood in silence to remember the

victims of the Boston bombings last Monday. Thousands of people lined

the route after security was tightened in response. It was a day

for London but also for Boston. Many runners wore black ribbons,

all experienced tighter security. Despite the week's events, the

crowd emerged in their thousands to chew on the runners. Mo Farah ran

the first path before dropping out. The spirit of the day was summed up

by another athlete, Tatyana McFadden, who won the event in

Boston just ours before the bombing. They were in my heart for the whole

weekend. I dedicate this win to Boston. Remembering those affected

by it. David Weir could only finish 5th in the men's wheelchair event.

Victory in the elite races was won by an Ethiopian. The faults were

It will never get any body down here. The great thing about the

marathon is no matter what colour you are, religion, nationality,

everyone comes together. For every runner that crosses the finish line,

the organisers are donating �2 to the Boston fund, raising thousands

and thousands in the process. Many runners are still out on the course.

to question the teenager who is thought to have carried out the

bombing. These pictures show Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in a boat,

shortly before the exchange of gunfire that led to his arrest. He

remains under armed guard in hospital.

More than 200 people are known to be dead or missing after yesterday's

earthquake in China. Thousands of people have been injured. Rescue

workers have been searching remote villages for survivors.

Celtic have been crowned Scottish Premier League champions after they

beat Inverness at Celtic Park. Celtic needed only a point to retain

the title in front of their home fans, but they ended up winning 4-1.

That is all the news for now. More news on BBC One just after 6:30pm.

For now, back to Andrew. Britain has already lost its AAA. Is

it now going for the triple dip? A row over whether a separate Scotland

could keep the pound, and trade unions are considering holding a

general strike. All up for discussion in the week ahead.

On Thursday, we are going to get the growth figures for the first quarter

of this year. That's when we will see whether the growth has been so

weak, or whether there is no growth at all that we are technically into

another recession, almost a triple dip reception. -- recession. Then

there is that warning that the Chancellor had from the head of the

IMF, Christine Lagarde. Should growth be particularly low, then

there should be consideration to adjusting, by way of slowing the

pace. So the politicians always use the IMF when it agrees with them,

and they attack the IMF when it disagrees with them. Does the IMF

matter in terms of the politics of our economic debate? What would

really matter in terms of the politics is if we do go into triple

dip recession this week. It is a presentational issue. Either way, it

sounds like growth is going to be very weak. Politically, a triple dip

would be an extraordinary blow for the Chancellor, and it has been one

thing after another this week, with the unemployment figures - which are

quite a shock - and then the credit rating again. There is no way this

economic news is getting better. You asked us to make predictions for

2013, one of which was the overall GDP growth for this year. All of us

said less and 1%, and it looks like, on Thursday, we will be on

course for something under 1% for the whole year. If there is growth,

it will be anaemic. It is easy to predict growth, because you just

take the OBR figures and then subtract a couple of percentage

points! The IMF really matters for George Osborne, because Christine

Lagarde was his big friend. When Dominic Strauss Kahn had to resign,

he was on the phone in seconds saying that it should be her. George

Osborne says that the dynamics of the IMF have changed, because

Olivier Blanchard, the chief economist... Is he French?He is.

The number two in the IMF would take a more Keynesian approach. The lack

of support from the guard is a real change in the dynamics. -- from

Christine Lagarde. The IMF says we should have less austerity here,

because it isn't working. But in Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Spain,

where the austerity is much worse, it says they have to carry on with

more. How do we square that? The IMF seem to be all over the place with

their views on austerity. It varies from country to country. But George

of Swan cannot say that because he spent the last two years supporting

the IMF. -- George Osborne. He has had a strange month because all of

the economic news has been uniformly bad, and yet his one big success has

had nothing to do with his own brief, which is the issue of

welfare. He has pushed that very aggressively, and it seems to have

had some moderate impact on the polls. It pushes him away from his

natural area of economic, the Treasury brief. I thought you were

going to say that his one big success was the tears at the

funeral! And I am not being entirely flippant about that. It did show a

different side to Osborne's personality, which will not do him

any harm. What is striking is that George Osborne is looking nervous.

In that speech he gave at the Morrison's distribution centre, he

was nervous. His people was saying -- were saying afterwards, how did

he do? For all that confidence, he looks insecure. He has probably seen

the list of chancellors who fade -- failed listening to Treasury briefs.

Now, remember this? Not unless you are over 90 years old. 1926 was the

last time Britain saw a general strike. The unions will meet at the

TUC to decide whether to stage another one in protest at the

government's austerity measures. The 1926 general strike was meant to be

an open-ended conflict. It wasn't just a protest. It was an overall,

open-ended strike, and eventually it collapsed. This would be a one day

affair, if it happens at all. What's the point? The worst thing for the

unions would it be -- would be to call a general strike and then for

it to be a complete flop. In 1926, they had the powers and the

involvement in the economy to paralyse the country. You can

imagine them calling this now and it being a damp squib. The strikes we

have had so far have been pretty lame. So I agree. If they did call a

strike, I can't seem -- I can't see it and mounting to much. If they

call a strike and only the usual suspects turn up, it will undermine

the unions. It will. The tragedy for the unions is that in the 1980s,

when Labour did its best to leave planet Earth, the one element of the

Labour movement that was sane and helpful was the trade unions. There

were people in the trade unions that we have got to fight, so said a

member of the Shadow Cabinet. like me will say, do you support the

strike or don't you. Someone like Ed Miliband is between a rock and a

hard place. We were talking about Ed Miliband's failures in the polls,

and this is the last thing he needs. I'm sure his poll ratings would go

down even further, because he is forced into a position where he has

to come out against the unions, and every one is reminded yet again that

it was the unions that got him the job in the first place. A battle

between Edinburgh and Whitehall. The SNP's latest policy came out last

year that they would stick with sterling. The Treasury coming out

with the paper this week suggesting it may not be quite as easy as Alex

Salmond would have us think. nearly choked on my called legs when

I read the piece by George Osborne, because he was arguing in favour of

a single currency and saying what a good thing it was. It turned out it

was the pound! A pound for the United Kingdom as a whole, and it

will not work if Scotland becomes independent. There was a report on

the House of Lords economic committee on this, saying it was

without precedent having a part of the United Kingdom opting out, and

it would be unconstitutional and improper for the bank of England, on

the monetary policy committee, to give a seat to an independent

Scotland. The problem to the SNP is, when you come down to the nuts

and bolts of it, they were going to have their future in the European

union. They were going to be an independent country, but they are

going to have the same head of state. They were going to be an

independent country, but they are going to keep the pounced on, and

what is their relationship with the bank of England? Once you get down

to the nuts and bolts, it gets very difficult for them. You cannot have

a currency union without a political union, and the SNP are flirting with

doing that. If you think this position is unattainable now, just

think of the heat of the referendum campaign. Alex Salmond is, to give

him credit, a really sinuous tactical operator. But when it comes

to the heavy lifting on questions of substance, the currency, or whether

Scotland would have to reapply for EU membership, he is much more

shaky. We have had Stuart Hollies in here on politics Scotland. Let's

hear what he was saying. I look forward to the document, because it

will not be much more than a repetition of the scare story that

we will have to join the euro. It is false to say that a foreign country

will be controlling our economy. was talking about the SNP's

independence within Europe. Now they do not want the euro. It is good you

wield him out, because otherwise we would get criticisms for being

biased. I agree exactly with what the others have said. The SNP's

position is riddled with contradictions. We were talking

about unions breaking up, and this union is breaking up, because this

is your last appearance as a regular! Why? You are moving to the

country, I hear! It's where it all happens. Not at all! Will you miss

her? You should hear where she is moving to! I am joining the Chipping

Norton sect. I will be having you all-rounder to lunch! In that case,

we are up for it! Will you come back and see us? Will do, yes.Thank you