12/05/2013 Sunday Politics London

Politics. It is the big euro referendum vote next week for MPs.

How will Euro-sceptics in the Cabinet vote? We will ask Defence

Secretary, Philip Hammond. Will Mr Hammon's plans to cuts work and if

it doesn't, what that? The Defence Secretary is our Sunday Interview.

Is help to buy a recipe for sky high prices? Labour and the Tories go

In London, five years after he scrapped plans for the thAm gateway

bridge is the Mayor of London on the verge of' big U-turn in the river

With me a political panel as relaxed as David Cameron in the run-up to a

euro vote in the House of Commons, here is Nick Watt, Janan Ganesh and

Helen Lewis. Now, when in January David Cameron promised a referendum

on Europe after the next election, he hoped it would spike UKIP's guns

and satisfy his backbenchers. Well, it has done neither. UKIP goes from

strength to strength and Tory backbenchers are more bull she than

ever. Next week, they will -- bull she than ever. The process

propelling Downing Street into a tail-spin. Its latest wheeze is that

ministers don't have toe vote against it, just -- have to vote

against it, just abstain. Here is Michael Gove speaking to James

Landale earlier. How are you going to vote? We need to have a

referendum at some point in the future. It is not appropriate at

this stage. Also in a way, it is an exercise as I said earlier in

letting off steam. We can't have a Referendum Bill because we are in

coalition. So Helen, ministers abstain on their

own Queen's Speech. How bad does it look? We are not worried at all!

They are really worried. It is terrible. It shows that Cameron

can't keep control of his backbenchers and it is a proxy for

the fact that a lot of them would rather have someone else's leader.

They make sure that Mr Cameron can't keep control of his own Government

ministers be. Maybe some will go with the rebels and not just

abstain? I think it does look bad that the Conservative Party is now

banking on about Europe, something that David Cameron said they

wouldn't do and when they bang on about Europe, don't forget where it

is on the list of people's priorities. It is Number Ten. They

should be talking about cost of livering. So it is not very good --

living. So it is not good. This is a coalition. In a coalition, both

parties can't get what they want. If David Cameron was leading a majority

Government, there would be a referendum and legislation. That's

not happening because he is in a coalition. The Parliamentary

shenanigans, people will look at that and think that's a coalition,

but where they won't be amused is a party banging on about something

which is Number Ten on people's list.

The backbenchers think that Cameron wants a referendum in order to stay

in. They want one to come out. their behaviour through this has

been the worst in its entirety. They said in January that the referendum

speech would shoot UKIP's fox. It would pacify the Tory Party and they

said it would ensure that David Cameron would not need to talk about

Europe between now and the next election. It failed on all three

counts. So where do they go from here? Well, the biggest worry is not

the amendment next week, but what do the Tory rights ask for next? Is it

a mandate referendum or legislating for the referendum now? Or bringing

the entire referendum itself ahead before... I mean there are those

calling for a mandate referendum which is the referendum to allow you

to go and negotiate, but those who want a mandate referendum, there are

divisions within that. It is like the divisions of the Judair front.

I think Labour should shut their trap and let them get on with it.

I like that. New advice to the Labour Party, shut your trap!

Michael Gove had something more incendiary to say when it came to

remarks about Nick Clegg and math hOOt hau Oakeshott and -- Matthew

Oakeshott and Vince the Cable. It has overshadowed the Queen's

Speech. I thought you had forgotten about that. Here is a reminder.

Wednesday's Queen's Speech was supposed to put the coalition

roadshow on track. A row between Nick Clegg and Liz Truss brought Lib

Dem Tory tensions back to the boil. The Cabinet agree on plans to

strengthen Army reserve, but the idea is controversial on the Tory

backbenches. Defence deck, Philip Hammond, wants the deployable

reserves to be 30,000 strong by 2020. Alleviating reductions in

regular troop numbers. The Spending Review will reveal how deep future

defence cuts will be. Given the health, schools and aid budgets are

protected, other departments, including the Ministry of Defence

would be at the brunt -- will bear the brunt of the cuts and the

Defence Secretary expressed his concern.

We won't be able to make significant further cuts without eroding

military capability. One thing missing from the Queen's

Speech was any mention of a EU referendum. Conservative

backbenchers will attempt to stop a vote on the vum next week. Firl fill

-- referendum next week. Philip Hammond joins me now. Secretary of

State, welcome to the programme. Your Cabinet colleague, Michael Gove

had something remarkable to say about the coalition this morning.

About Nick Clegg and Vince Cable and the Lib Dem peer, Matthew Oakeshott.

Let's look at what he had to say. don't think we can understand Nick

Clegg's position without also appreciating the position that he is

in because of internal Lib Dem politics. So he is not going to get

his way? I think he has got to show because, you know, there is a

campaign at the moment being led by Matthew Oakeshott this Liberal

Democrat in the Lords to destabilise Nick Clegg because Matthew Oakeshott

wants Vince Cable to succeed him and Nick needs to show Lib Dems that he

is fighting hard. I understand. That's one of the things that happen

in coalition. We have had discussions with Nick in the past

where we haven't always had the same starting position, but in the end,

because he is a reasonable guy, we have managed to find an appropriate

sin is a sis. His job is in jeopardy, do you

agree? Well, all party leaders have to manage their parties. It is part

of what they do. In a coalition, it the leaders of both parties in the

coalition are simultaneously managing their parties and managing

the Government's agenda. It is a balancing act.

Is there a pattern of behaviour you recognise in will Mr Clegg that he

takes positions to give his own side red meat rather than on the

substance of the issue? Well, all party leaders have to manage their

parties, but as Michael Gove said, we manage to come to a sensible

solution that allows the Government's business to proceed in

a sensible way. So what positions does David Cameron

take that he doesn't believe in, but he has to give red meat to his

backbenchers? I am not saying that Nick Clegg is taking a up a position

he doesn't really believe in. He is expressing concerns that he is

hearing from his, from inside his own party and there will be a

discussion, but on the substantive issue of childcare ratios, it is

clear that Britain is out of step with our European neighbours and out

of step with many of the countries which are reckoned to have the best

childcare systems in Europe like Sweden.

Do you think Vince Cable is man ufrg for Nick Clegg's job -- manoeuvring

for Nick Clegg's job? Well, I am not privy to say the inner workings of

the Lib Dem party, but Vince Cable has always been an ambitious man.

P if it determines positions that the Lib Dems take inside the

coalition, you will need to be privy to that? We are not privy to the

workings. Workings of the Lib Dem leadership. Vince Cable has always

been ambitious. There will be a Tory backbench

amendment which says to the Queen's Speech it regrets that an EU

Referendum Bill was not included in the Queen's Speech, will you vote

for it, against or it or abstain? Well, I haven't seen any amendment

yet... Well, I have just read it out. You don't know what amendment

will be tabled. That is the amendment. I have spoken

to the MPs bringing it forward and that's the amendment... We don't

know whether it will be accepted or selected for a vote. It is a

hypothetical question how one would vote, but I would say this, members

of the Government, members of the Cabinet are responsible for the

Queen's Speech. It would be bizarre if kwerp voting in -- if we were

voting in favour an amendment that we share responsibility for. The

substance has been inflated. We are agreeing here. We are all believe

that there needs to be a referendum on Europe. We all believe that the

British people need to have a say. So and we also all agree that we

need to make very clear to the public our commitment to that

referendum. Now some of our backbench colleagues think that the

best way to do that is to bring forward a Bill in this Parliament

that would be almost certain to be defeated because it won't be

supported by the Liberal Democrats and it will be opposed by the Labour

Party. The Prime Minister has made clear that he will give a commitment

that if he is Prime Minister, after the next election, there will be a

referendum. So we're going to have the referendum one way or another if

we have a Conservative Government after the election.

But Michael Gove told the BBC that he will abstain on this amendment

and you can't tell me whal you will do. Well, you are all over the

place, aren't you? If an amendment was tabled, it seems abstention

would be an appropriate thing for a Cabinet member to do. Voting

against, voting in favour of it is out of the question because we have

collective responsibility for the Queen's Speech, but I wouldn't want

to vote against it and allow that to be misinterpreted as in anyway

questioning our commitment to our belief in the idea of a referendum.

I mean as one Tory MP says this morning, it is bizarre and bonkers

that Cabinet Ministers won't rally to support their own legislative

programme. You will abstain on a motion that attacks your Queen's

Speech? The legislative programme is clear. This is about what we are

going to do and legislate for, but we know there is a sub-text agenda

here. It is not about the legislation itself, it is about the

clarity of commitment to the proposed agenda and I think what the

Prime Minister has done making a clear statement that if he is Prime

Minister after the next election, there will be an in/out referendum

and it is the right way to go and we can probably do other things over

the course of this Parliament to reinforce that. Perhaps we can

publish a draft Bill so people can see what the referendum might be.

You wouldn't put it before Parliament. Can I tell you what

Chris Grayling said about this. He says Britain cannot and should not

continue without a change to its current relationship with the

European Union. Do you agree with that? Yes, I do.

If we can't get a change, we leave? The European Union is... Correct?

The European Union is going to change. There is no question about

that. Not just... Well, you don't know

that, Secretary of State? Well, yes, I do. Not because Britain wants it

to change, but the logic of the eurozone means it has to change so

there will be question. If you are wrong and you don't follow these

things anymore that I do and if you are wrong, do you agree with Chris

Grayling that we should vote to leave? The question with respect,

Andrew is whether that change satisfies the needs of Britain and

the British people. That's the question. And with the commitment to

a referendum, David Cameron will be in a very strong position to

negotiate for Britain it the changes that we need as part of the overall

package of changes that the European Union is going to have to implement.

If you won't answer my question. Let's move on. Let's go to defence.

You are cutting the Army over 100,000 to over 80,000 and you will

fill the gap led increasing the deployable reserves from 15,000 to

30,000. However you look at it, a cut of 20,000 regular troops

balanced by an increase of over 15,000 reservists, it is a clear

diminition of British military strength, isn't it? We are changing

the nature of the reserves. Making the reserves a more integrated part

of the army, so they will train together and work together and verve

battalions will be paired with -- reserve battalions will be paired

with regular battalions. But you are right, we have had to make some

tough decisions in defence. Our budget has been reduced and we had

to decide how we were going to absorb that budget reduction and

what we decided to do, with military advice, was to reduce the numbers in

the regular army to increase the verves and to ensure re-- reserves

and ensure we provided the equipment our troops needed. The alternative

was to maintain numbers that wasn't affordable and under equip them

which has been done in the past. Let me look at something. Kurm Bob

Stewart use -- colonel Bob Stewart used to be a colonel in the British

Army, he says someone at the MoD is smoke a lot of dope if they think

they will manage to get the reserves up to 30,000. What are you smoking?

We will get the reserves up to 30,000. The reserves have been

higher than 30,000. They have been allowed to decrease and it the last

Government sent messages about what it thinks about the reserves when

Gordon Brown had to do cuts. That was then, what are you going to

do? For employers it meebs making sure the training and qualifications

that reservist get during their training is recognised in their

civilian careers. It means giving employers more certainty about the

timing of liability for callout of their reservist employees. For the

reservists themselves, it means an assurance that they will get the kit

and we will get the training, including training with regular army

battalions and training on overseas missions. Are you going to offer fox

incentives? -- financial sintives? We are looking at that. I would like

to look at financial incentivisation for those employers that matters.

Does that mean tax breaks? financial incentivisation. What does

it mean in English? It means cash, cash when their employees get called

out on reserve service. Now that does matter, to small employees. If

I talk to the large employers, maul employers. If I talk to the large

employers, they are not interested in financial incentives. They do

this because it is good for their business and because it is part of

that corporate, social responsibility agenda. What money

are we talking about? I cannot give you figures. It is something we are

looking at. By the time we publish the white paper, later in the

spring, we will have a concrete offer on the table. Let's look at

spending cuts in the defence department. You told the Telegraph -

"Any further reduction on the defence budget would fall on the

level of activity we will be able to carry out?" Is there going to be a

further reduction? We are engaged in a Spending Review. We know that.I'm

not going to conduct it in public. I cannot answer your question until we

get to the end of that process but what I can and have said is that

there are further efficiency gains we can make in defence, it would be

absurd to pretend that there are not. But they are not going to

amount to very large amounts of money. If we go beyond the amounts

that we can take through efficiency gain we will have to reduce military

cape bible. You said you will not have to -- military kipabilities.

You said you will not be able to make sufficient cuts. Are you being

asked to? There is a cross-government discussion going on

at the moment. The Chancellor will make an announcement on You 26th.

Let's look at what has been said. You said take 0. 0.5% out of the

welfare budget, you solve the problem in defence. 0. 5%. There is

a body in the Cabinet who who says we need to look at the welfare

budget. As you know, and as has many made public by the Liberal

Democrats, they are blocking any further reductions in the welfare

budget at the present time that. Means the whole of the further

fiscal consolidation that the Chancellor needs to make, has to

fall on departmental budgets. That will mean some very, very tough

choices. Are you comfortable, as a Conservative Defence Minister, that

you are presiding over a 10% cut in the defence budget, in the life of

this Government, while your Government is increasing overseas

aid by 25%? Are you comfortable with that equation? Well, look, the

overseas aid commitment is one we made before the last election. I

take you back to the discussion we just had... I understand that. I'm

asking if you were comfortable with it. It was a commitment we made and

I'm comfortable that if we make a promise, we stick to it. Your policy

is supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. It is a

Westminster consensus but for the rest of the country the polls show

this is a Africa view, that you should increase aid and cut defence.

It is only Westminster that this is a popular view. It shows you how out

of touch the political elite in this country is We are what we are doing

is working with our colleagues in DFID to look at how we can better

use defence and development budgets together. For example, in fragile

states, where we are seeking to prevent conflict and built capacity

upstream rather than intervening when things breakdown later on. The

more we can do together, across the defence development boundary, the

more effective we will be. Aid will pick up part of that budget. Would

health and education pick up part of your budget as well? We already have

considerable interaction with the considerable interaction with the

Pick up some of the military hospitals. You are referring to

something in a newspaper. I'm trying to get an answer. The point is this:

As we bring our troops back from Germany. We have 19,000 odd troops

there. We provide health and education services in Germany for

them at the moment. As they come back to the UK, the burden will

transfer from defence on to the health and education budgets as they

are relocated. Some of the military hospitals and military medical that

is done now, would you like the health budget to pick some up?

make this transfer back from Germany, that's inevitably what will

happen. Some of the burden of providing that health care and

education will transport to the Department of Health and Department

for Education. Would you like the education to pick up some of the

education costs of defence? Yes, we are spending money at the moment. We

run secondary and primary schools in Germany we will no longer run once

we've repatriated our forces to the UK. You are raiding other

department's budgets to get this 10% cuts? I'm not raiding other

departments' budgets. As we transform our Armed Forces and bring

them home, naturally the role defence plays in providing health

care and education abroad will be diminished abroad. Yes or no. That

would be nice That would make it no fun. Are health and education

ministers agreed to this? They are absolutely aware that as we drawdown

from Germany we'll expect their departments to meet the cost of that

redeployment. Yes or noI have not heard anything to the contrary.

That's neither a yes or a no but never mind.

Thank you for being with us. It is not easy to get on the property

ladder. Imagine if someone helped to subsidise your mortgage or put it

another way, Help to Buy. That's what the Chancellor did say nounsing

would he underwrite mortgages for people who could find a 5% deposit

-- did, announcing. We'll debate the rights and wrongs

in a moment but first Adam Fleming has more. I'm come to a wrapped

brand new estate in -- I've come to a brand new estate in Northampton to

find out about the Chancellor's policy of buying houses. You could

just tell that George Osborne wanted us to think Margaret Thatcher's

traud mark pollty the right to buy, because he called his scheme Help to

Buy. The buyer will stump up at least 5%. Repayments start after

five years and it is only available for people buying new builds.

This is our two bedroom apartment. People like Ethan, who will be

moving into a brand new flat like this one next month. Although I

think he will lose the pink duvet. If this Government scheme didn't

exist, what would you have done? Still lived with my parents until

I'd saved up enough money to get my own and put a deposit by myself and

try to get a mortgage, if the Government scheme wasn't around.

long do you think that will have taken? Until I was in the 30s.What

age are you now? 22. The agency administering the scheme in this

area say there are lots more people like him in the queue. At the

moment, around 250 applicants have actually put in an application and

are in the process of being approved and given that this is really just a

month or so after the announcement, and people haven't really heard a

great deal about the detail of the equity-based help tow buy a loan, it

is not great. The Government hopes it'll help to get house builders

demorg of this, building and shoring up the economy. Jim money son works

for the developers of this place. -- Jim Munson I think the benefits of

that that to the economy, you wouldn't see that return on many

other investments. It works all the way down from the supply train

through to the contractors and employment, more take-up of

apprenticeship roles. Take-up of the second part of the schem starts in

January 2014. It is a bit more controversial. The Government will

guarantee up to 15% of a buyers' mortgage. And it can be for any kind

of home, up to the value of �600,000. But some say it is not

such a grand design. The taxpayer becomes liable for losses, although

the Government's still not reached a deal with the mortgage lenders, as

they've not found a way to prevent it going used to buy second homes.

-- it being used. Then the wider question: Is it really a good idea

for the state to get involved in the mortgage market in such a big way?

Conservative MP, Nadhim Zahawi and shadow economic secretary to the

Treasury, Cathy Jamieson join me now to go head-to-head on Help to Buy.

Nadhim Zahawi let me come to you first. Why won't these schemes

create a housing bubble? You are increasing demand artificially but

aren't building enough affordable homes? If you look at the scheme and

then the planning reforms we are making, those go hand-in-hand.

Looking at core stroonls in different authorities, most local

authorities now have the message and are doing the right thing. Rugby

district council has embraced the localism bill act that is now in

place, and is doing the right thing in terms of Will of allocating the

in terms of Will of allocating the right land for development. The

average age of a first-time buyer now is 37. I think that is criminal.

Fshling We understand the problem -- we understand the problem. We are

trying to find out if your solution is going to be right. You are

pumping up the demand. How many homes were started in England last

year? Just under 100,000.A deplorable level, correct? Well, you

are right but also the net increase in the number of dwellings in this

year is at 135,000, which is at an all-time high since 2008/9. 2009 was

the worst year since the war. Hardly a great yardstick. After Labour's

#3r06ly gassy with the money, it is a hard challenge -- profligacy.

You increase supply as well as demand by reforming planning. That

is pient. We saw on the film -- that's the point. We saw on the film

someone being able to buy a property at 22, instead of waiting to their

30s. Shouldn't you welcome welcome this? We should try and courage and

support people who want to get into their new homes but the point is

about supply. Labour did have a good record in Government. 500,000

affordable homes and a lot of them build in the last five years of

Government. The question here is: Do these measures really bring more

houses into the mix to make them available, and there have been

serious questions asked about that? The Treasury Select Committee has

raised a number of issues and in fact was quite critical saying the

Chancellor was unconvincing on this particular aspect of the mortgage

guarantee scheme and also that if you wanted to ensure that there were

more homes available you wouldn't necessarily start from this point of

view. I think there is a lot of unanswered questions, particularly

around this issue of people being able to buy second homes.

Essentially a second home subsidy. The Government have said that wasn't

the intention but they haven't yet been able to show us how they would

stop that happening? How would you stop it happening? One of the things

we have to look at is the detail. How do you decide with Ethan's case,

if his parents want to help him to get to that 5% snoochl or if someone

is selling -- that 5%? Or if someone is selling a smaller property in

order to get a bigger property. Labour shouldn't be playing politics

with this. There isn't any. For Cathy to say we didn't think about

the supply, we did. We introduced the localism bill which became an

act. All about reforming the planning system making it easier for

sites to be found in different areas to make it easier. I think that

shows how on the defensive the Tories seem to be on this. The

Treasury Select Committee and indood some independent economists, people

in the banking system and the building societies have welcomed,

broadly welcomed the scheme but have said that the detail is not right

and that the Government needs to go back and sort this out. They have

raised questions about whether it will increase the number of homes

that are available, or whether it'll simply cause a bubble in the housing

market, which wouldn't be in anyone's interests. And, of course,

if Labour - if the Tories had followed Labour's suggestion of

using the money from the 4G option to build more affordable homes that

would have given an additional boost. I'm really not going to take

any lectures on the issue about support for people who want on to

the housing ladder. Why didn't you use that 4G money to build more

use that 4G money to build more homes? They are all over the place

where they are going to spend the money and fin the cuts for it. Ed

Miliband couldn't answer the question. Kathy is waffling on this.

The reality is we are putting 19. 5 billion bds more into affordable

home. These are all, you know, solid, real policies. Labour need to

come up with some policies or support us in making sure that young

people can get on to the housing ladder.

Part of the problem for the housing starge is you didn't build enough --

shortage is that you didn't build enough homes when you were in power.

In the Labour years you built only half of the affordable homes, social

housing, local authority housing, than the Conservatives did during

the Conservative years. That's hardly a record to be proud of?

Well, both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have looked at that record and said

yes, of course, there is more than we can do.

You were boasting about it earlier. It is only 50% of what the Tories

built. You didn't build enough houses when you were in power?

what the Tories have managed to achieve is the lowest record in the

peace time years since the 1920s. They have nothing to boast about

either. Of course, people who are out there, who went on to the

housing ladder and who are keen to get into housing association or a

housing co-operative or to get a council house want to see housing

built and it is interesting the trEEsh Select Committee report

clearly -- Treasury Select Committee report clearly said that should be

the focus at looking at the supply as well as the demand and there are

real concerns that have to be addressed. Are you going to vote for

this EU referendum amendment to the Queen's Speech? Yes, I am. I think

if I were Prime Minister I would be relaxed about that.

No, we have run out of time. Thank you very much. It is hard to get a

yes or no these days. It is 11. 30am and you are watching

the Sunday Politics. I will be look ago the week ahead. Until then, the

We are looking at the laritiest thinking at what river -- latest

thinking of what river crossings are needed in some. Could the mayor's

plans prove a bridge too far for his Conservative colleagues. Let's start

with big bigger picture of what investment London needs and how it

should raise the money to pay for it. Next week a report will

recommend devolution of more tax raising and retaining powers to

London Government in the form of both the boroughs and the mayor.

Would you welcome that? We have been talk being business rates, probably

a revaluation of the council tax, more borrowing powers for councils.

Would you welcome that? I would, but it is not a new idea. When I was

deputy leader of the barnet Council we were lobbying the council to do

this. When we had new projects, we were keen tothe stamp duty to

provide that the infrastructure. There is no surprise the report has

come to this conclusion. It is a surprise that the Conservative-led

Government isn't saying yes? Well, I am not sure it is the Government.

is usually the Treasury. The last time I looked it was part

of the Government. Why not? Would you call for it? I certainly would

support calls for it. I believe in greater localism ra than the the

Treasury deciding. The mayor will have to spending decisions in the

future. For example,' projection of the population will increase. He

will have to put more infrastructure in such as the Tube and this could

be one way of funning it. David Lamby, Labour -- Lammy Labour

created the financial devolution. Nothing, Labour wasn't thinking

about doing anything in terms of tax revenue and tax raising powers. Is

it time to look at that? Yes, it is. I think Boris is right to ask Tony

Traveres to look at this. He is the man to do the job. If you like G20,

LA is now 123 years old. -- GLA is now 13 years old. It is a teenager.

We cannot have a situation where we need to do Crossrail one and it

takes 30 years to get part of the money out of the treasury to make

this happen. The Treasury will always think that London's roads are

paved with gold. There are other considerations across Whitehall and

across the country. This isn't about more money for London, it is about

having greater flexibility for the mayor and local authorities to both

borrow to build housing, and to retain stamp duty, business rates

and the others. Rather than waiting every three

years. Absolutely. With a population of ten million, you have got to have

the certainty on bridges, on roads, on rail, and on housing and we need

that. Someone from Local Government, won't

there be and how do you resolve the tension there maybe in terms of what

was devolved between the mayor and the boroughs? The boroughs are the

heavy lifters. They are the spenders. They know where their

economic needs are and where the housing is needed? That's correct.

The relationship between the mayor is very good. He works very closely

with the London boroughs. I know they have identified priorities

between themselves. I think he will address their concerns in his

decisions about infrastructure, but David makes a good point and that's

that the fiscal autonomy of London Government is nothing like it is in

other parts of the world such as New York or some of the provinces in

France and it is time we gave the mayor and the London Assembly the

power to decide their own funding decisions.

Let's turn to the question of river crossings. No shortage in central

and West London, but out east, it is another story. Plans for a big

crossing, the Thames Gateway Bridge was shelved by Boris Johnson when he

was elected. But could we now be seeing the signs of one big mayoral

Jean et using the Blackwall Tunnel twice a day to commute from her home

in Kent into Canary Wharf. Getting across the river has become an

obsession. I can do an hour from my office door to here quite easily

three times a week you could take an hour from my office door to here.

And it is not far. More than just a waste of time, she

says the traffic lost her money and has had a huge impact on the way she

can work. You cannot guarantee a breakfast meeting. No way. And many

a time I have had to make excuses for not turning up. People know now

not to book me first thing at 9am on a morning because the chances of me

getting there are slim. The idea that East London needs more

river krotion is uncontroversial, but -- river crossings is

uncontroversial, but if Ken Livingstone had his way, later this

year, this would have opened to the public, the Thames Gateway Bridge.

Attacked by green groups and local Conservative councils, plans for the

six lane road bridge was scrapped by Boris Johnson. But could a U-turn be

on the cards? This week, Transport for London, announced the results of

their consultation into new river crossings in East London. Proposals

for a new road crossing on the same spot received the support of 71% of

respondents. The mayor's other option of a ferry was less popular.

The message from some local businesses is clear. Do a U-turn on

it. We need it. It is not going to help East London if we don't have

more river crossings. Not just one, I would love two. I don't want a

ferry particularly, it is not sustainable long-term. Whereas a

bridge and a tunnel, that would solve all the problems.

Businesses maybe urging him on, but if the mayor does want to go ahead

with the bridge, he may face opposition from some, not least

There was a division in opinion depending on which side of the river

you were, Newham and Tower Hamlets and other councils were supportive

of a Thames Gateway, people in Bexley Council and yourself weren't.

Do you think that could change if a bridge proposal came back? No is the

short answer to that, Tim. The boroughs on the north side of the

Thames would be maintain their support for it. Bexley would not

because the road infrastructure in Bexley would not support the volume

of traffic that the bridge would transfer on to the roads.

Would a different model or a bridge that was more local rather than a

great big one which was proposed that would meet with approval?

I don't think it could be possible to design such a bridge without

destroying the business case for it because the roads are too small. One

of the principle roads the traffic would have to travel along is little

more than a country track where two cars have difficulty passing side by

side and that goes through ancient woodland.

Wouldn't your constituents prefer or when they weigh these things up want

the access of getting across to the economic heartland of the capital,

north of the river, such as the person we saw in that film and

wouldn't they be prepared to take that disruption? I suspect some

might, but most wouldn't because the area we are talking about is

residential and the housing is very, very close to the road that would be

concerned. What you would be doing is turning semi busy domestic roads

into something like the south circular almost overnight and whilst

there could be potentially, although the planning inspector didn't think

there would be any benefit, there would be environmental implications.

So should the mayor rule this out? Yes. We are not opposed to the idea

of more crossings in East London. I think everybody would agree those

are desirable. It would need to be the right crossing in the right

location and this is neither. It should be ruled out by the mayor.

He has the power to do that and he should be doing that? Yes. What I

would like to see from the mayor and what I called on the mayor to rule

out a fixed link crossing in that location. Not o to rule out

crossings in East London. There are other locations that could and

should be looked at in more Department of Health. A crossing at

that -- in more depth. If there was ap consultation on that, what do you

say? It is a mistake. I think Transport for London have been

clever in getting us back on to the table because it was dead and buried

five years ago. Having it back on the table now, they have manoeuvred

themselves into the position. Well, the Mayor of London allowed

that No, Transport for London. The mayor is allowing consultation.

He could stop the consultation now. He could put a stop to it and it

won't just happen? Yes, he could do that, but he is committed to

exploring the possibility of further crossings in East London. And that's

fine, the danger is and this is why we have been pushing hard against

this, this particular crossing is the wrong cross in the wrong

location. David Lammy were you a Labour mayor,

would you go for a Thames Gateway bridge? There have got to be

crossks, that's clear. Nine million people in London. We have to have

easier routes for people in the south-east particularly. I think it

should have remained in the consultation. 71% of people were

saying they wanted it. Clearly, the concerns of Bexley have to be met

and so, you know, I don't know the detail, but you have got to get a

way... Was it three lanes or two? These proposals aren't the thAments

gateway. There is a dis -- Thames Gateway. Would you are have -- would

you have a Thames Gateway bridge? Xwor ris should never -- Boris

should never have taken the proposals out. We should be

consulting on that and moving forward, but not just on that

because it would lead too increased press. You need ferry boat crossings

as well. George Osborne, we have heard in

autumn statements and Budgets, no one is disputing, everyone thinks

there is a need for infrastructure and he gave money for the mayor to

look at river crossings. You are not affected by it locally, but surely

as a Conservative, you would support proposals for something that

facilitates traffic getting around the capital easily? Is would. I go

back to the point that I was making. It is down to the local authorities

to make that decision where they should be sited. Bexley have a

concern and feel that's not the right location. 71% of people want

an additional river crossing. Shouldn't the mayor decide?

mayor should consult with the London boroughs who are closer to the

people. The majority of the boroughs want

it? Well, the final decision is for the mayor to make, but I believe he

should work closely with colleagues, both in Local Government on the

north and the Southside of the river.

The mayor has got to think about the I shall interests of London, not --

think about the interests of London. If you are worried about the

signals, I have heard you in the London Assembly indicating your

worries. Do you think it looks like a U-turn is on the cards here?

have asked? I cannot read the mind of the mayor. I would want to say,

we have heard in your story and the other panellists today talking about

China 1% of people want this to happen. -- talking about 71%.

Transport for London ran this consultation for 14 weeks, and they

had 6,000 people respond, less than 2%. It is not overwhelming.A very

good point. When they come back to doing a statutory consultation, they

will have to be much more rigorous. That's all the time we have on this

at the moment. Thank you for coming It is estimated that 4% of council

homes in London are being illegally sublet, more than any other part of

the country. Late they are summer this will become a criminal offence.

The number of local authorities in the capital appear set to get tough.

According to the Government, 4% of social housing in London is being

illies Italy sublet by the tennants without permission -- Illictitly. In

Harrow, the council take it very seriously. We have a small housing

stock and high housing demand. All this is costing the council a lot of

money to deal with. We followed council officers as they went

door-to-door looking to inspect properties they thought were

breaking the rules. But at the fist one, there is a problem. Morning,

Harrow council. No answer. And at the second... Hello, Harrow council.

the second... Hello, Harrow council. And, the third. Now this is the

fourth property we have tried this morning and nobody has answered.

Unfortunately the council at this stage have no right to force entry

at all. If they want to do that, they have to send a letter, apply to

the court to get a court order and come back. By the fifth we are

getting used to the sound of knocking. But then... An answer

are having a problem getting into this property. Without permission

they are not allowed to enter and gather evidence. A message is left

to get in touch with the council. Before it gets to this stage, an

awful lot of work will have gone into these cases. They will have had

to build evidence, based on tip-offs and very often they will have

knocked on the doors before. They might have to knock on property

number six again, but from later this summer subletting of social

property will be a criminal offence, punishable with two years in prison.

With it now becoming a criminal offence, it may well be easier for

authorities now to engage maybe with the local police force to maybe get

warrants and to execute warrants to force access to the properties and,

you know, will be able to expedite cases far quicker and far cheaper

than just continuing to knock doors and not get any results at all.

For new laws -- the new laws might have been a help at doors number

seven, eight and nine People with becoming smaert and operating more

sophisticated because they can see there is a lot of publicity around

it. -- becoming smarter. They are having people in the property that

can pose as the tenant by leaving their passports and identification

with the subleather. -- sub-letter and briefing the sub-letter if the

council turns up. We have had that. Councils across London are looking

forward thiefg more power on this issue. -- looking forward to having

more power. What do you think about that, memo to Harrow, go around in

the evening when people are in and not at work.

Eileen Short is here from the Defend Council Housing campaign. What do

you think is going to happen? think it is a ridiculous and

shameful waste of time and energy. It does nothing to create the homes

we need. Councils have the powers to deal with illegal sub-letting, but

at the moment that really isn't the issue. It is part of a really

sustained attack on council housing, coming from the Government, at the

same time as Lord Freud, the benefits minister is going

aroundbury telling people to take in a longerer. -- going around Britain.

They have powers but not tough powers. This is the threat of a

criminal action. It is ridiculous. What you will find and I predict it

now, that what council also find is that people have their sister's chin

and their boy friends living with them because they haven't got

anywhere else to go. -- their sister's children.

In many instances it won't be that, it will be an illegal sub-let and

anything that prevents, when we know it is a scarce resource, anything

that stops that has to be a good thing. If people jump queues by

sub-letting, it is wrong, isn't it? Councils have the powers. I tell you

what has created the nervousness for councils, is that they no longer

manage their house housing property with an estate office. Everybody is

behind a switchboard. Nobody knows what is going on. Instead of

managing ect ifively they will want to take the truch yob of the law. --

managing effectively. This will give them more powers. There is nothing

to create homes. Where will those people go to? A private renting

sector that nobody can afford. this worth pursuing It certainly

was. The pressure on social and council housing in my constituency

and I'm sure in David's is immense. We have many people who desperately

need to be homed. If there is one person who is illegally sub-letting

and making money, we have to take ction a. I ask Eileen -- take

action. I ask Eileen, if the councils have power, why are they

not taking action? The Government have stepped in to brick in

fairness. You have to ask the councils but I think most people

know that if you are going to do something about the shortage of

housing, then you need to build the council housing we need and not cut

the budget for new homes by 60%. David Lammy you have to support this

and get tough. You can't have a situation where people are making

money by sub-letting council properties. I think it has to be

clamped down on. But it is a small problem. The big problem is supply.

You can't have bedroom tax, take in a lodger and go down on people for

doing it. They have to match it up. It is a sense of being preoccupied

by the small problem when the big problem, building houses and

creating supply is not being done. It might strike people as odd. Times

are hard for councils, they haven't got much money but they are expected

to put money into teams going around knocking during the day, without

much luck. Let me come back to the so-called bedroom tax, which is not

a tax. The previous Government decided to do this in the private

sector which was supported but because it is in the social sector

the Labour Party is not supporting it. No-one understands why that is.

You said take in a lodger and now you are going after people doing the

same thing. That's the point. you very much.

Time for a look at the rest of the A �1 billion deal to build a

university campus near the lik -- Olympic Park in Stratford has fallen

through. Newham college had been in talks since October to develop the

Carpenter Estate but haven't agreed terms.

The Marie opened a new business centre in Tottenham part destroyed

by the riots. -- the mayor. Council tennants in Westminster are

set to receive free broadband connections. The network will

initially be offered to 1 thousand homes in the o Grosvenor estate in

June before being rolled out to all 22,000 council tennants by early

next year. Under current reform plans the Fire Service will take

longer to reach many Londoners in the case of an incident. The figures

from the London Fire Brigade believes the impact of plans which

will see 12 fire stations closed and 18 fire engines lost.

Matthew Offord under these fire proposals more fire engines will not

be getting to this incident within this crucial six minutes. It is not

going to affect your area. You seem to have benefited by putting fire

engines back. Aren't you worried about it? It is something I

considered within my own area and the amount of fire engines and tend

acts that we have got. My concern was we had to ensure that those

tenders can actually reach road traffic accidents in that amount of

time if there had been a reduction. I'm very pleased that the Government

have - rather they have listened to me on that issue and we don't have

any cuts. But, what we have seen is a major change within the Fire

Service across London, that there are less fires being attended. There

is more preventative work and we are reaping the benefits of that.

you, because there is a lot of emotion about this, David Lammy, you

can't complab about this, really, can you? -- you can't complain. You

are not losing, are you losing any fire stations on your patch? Your

fire response times are not changing under the changes, in a big urban

area. We campaigned and won. There are 40 wards in London, some with

poor and deprived communities. There is a fire in your house, you pick up

the phone and ring the Fire Brigade and now they are not going to get to

you at the same speed as in my constituency. When your house is

burning down you don't care about the modelling. You want to know what

the fire engine is coming to you. is managing risk. Because of the

cuts, the same lines we got on police station closures, we will now

see people less safe in London as a consequence. Don't you wish and

think Labour should have taken on and looked at this earlier, really?

It is outdated, how fire provision is, in London. I don't accept that.

We are now going to see more overcrowding, in areas than we have

seen before as a result of these changes. I'm sorry, no more time for

both you. Thank you very much, both you. Thank you very much,

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

politics next week, with our political panel. First the news.

Good afternoon. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has told

the BBC he would vote for Britain to leave the EU if there was a

referendum today. He's the most senior Conservative to

date to publicly contemplate backing Britain's exit from the EU. He told

the BBC's Andrew Marr Show -- life outside would be perfectly tolerable

but he said the best course was to follow David Cameron's plan to

renegotiated powers and lead the change Europe needed. I think the

most important thing to do is to support the Prime Minister in

renegotiating our position and then put it to a referendum. Some of my

colleagues are very exuberant and want to let off steam, fair enough.

My own view is, let the Prime Minister lay out our negotiation

platform, make sure that he has a scombloort, which I'm convinced we

will secure. -- a majority. Then let's have the referendum then.

former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, says he's confident

he'll be returned to power, more than 13 years after he was ousted in

a military coup. Partial, unofficial results from yesterday's general

election, put his Pakistan Muslim League well in the lead. But, the

party's expected to fall short of an overall majority, forcing it to go

into coalition. He had been widely tipped to return

to power. But it's still a remarkable personal comeback from

Nawaz Sharif, after being ousted as Prime Minister by the Army in 1999.

And on the day after, Pakistan's newspapers reflect it.

It was cricketing legend, Imran Khan who most threatened Nawaz Sharif's

ambitions, galvanising young voters with his call for a new Pakistan.

With victory in sight, Nawaz Sharif seemed to recognise the force of

that challenge. "With zbod's help, we will fulfil every single promise

we've made to the youth." -- with God's he. Voters yesterday defied

the violence that played the campaign and continued on election

day itself with a turnout of more than 60%. If Nawaz Sharif and his

party fall short of the majority they need to govern on their own, he

will have to cut deals with other parties or independence. He promised

the electorate strong and stable government, arguing that a new and

ineeffective coalition would be bad news for Pakistan.

He will have a honeymoon period of sorts but from the economy, to

tackling extremism, time will not be on his side.

The Syrian Government has rejected accusations that it was behind two

car bombs that killed at least 43 people in Turkey yesterday and

wounded dozens more. Hundreds of mourners have attended

the funerals of the victims in the town of Reyhanli, where many Syrian

Foulkes have fled. Nine people, owl area Syrian refugees have fled.

Nine people have been arrested. Here a group of senior nurses is

warning of inadequate staffing levels on many hospitals wards. The

Safe Staffing Alliance says people's health is being put at risk but the

Government says hospitals are best-placed to decide on the number

of registered nurses. That's all the news for the moment.

More news on BBC One at 5.35pm. So, how will that euro vote play out

and what will it mean for Dave and Ed is and what will be the fallout

from the hand grenade that the edge secretary, Michael Gove has thrown

into the heart of politician -- that Education Secretary, Michael grove

that is thrown into the heart of coalition politics.

Let's start with Michael Gove's remarks abouts whether he would vote

to stay in or out of Europe, if offered the status quo or out, he

says he would choose out. That's what Mr Grayling is saying as well.

Mr Hammond wouldn't really answer that question, dancing on the head

of a pin taking in comfort in - oh, Europe will change. But they are

having to line up and answer this, aren't they? It shows the division

in the Cabinet now is not over whether it is right for the Prime

Minister to have a referendum now, or in 2017, they are all agreed on

that. The division is what happens in 2017 and clearly, you have one

group of Cabinet ministers, the Prime Minister, George Osborne,

possibly Philip Hammond, or scared of life outside the European Union.

And the whole Prime Minister strategy is to reform our

relationship, so we can stay in. Then there is another group of

ministers, Michael Gove, outside the Cabinet, Boris Johnson, and for

them, they have no fear of life outside the European Union. And they

say - if the Prime Minister can re-establish a better relationship,

fine, we'll stay in. But if we can't, no problem going out. The

problem for David Cameron, is that he is telling the Conservative Party

what he is going to do is renegotiate the terms of British

membership, and what he is telling to European leaders and Angela

Merkel, is, no, I want to reform the European Union as a whole. And if

that is what he does, if what he does is what he is telling Merkel he

will try and do, you will see that Michael Gove and Boris Johnson will

be campaigning for a no vote forbury to leave the European Union. -- for

to leave the European Union. -- for Britain to leave. That is he at Tory

nightmare. They think people like Mr Gove and Mr Grayling, they think

that even if Mr Calm drount get much back from Europe -- Mr Cameron, if

he gets a Wilsonian fig leaf back, he will campaign it stay in, whereas

he will campaign it stay in, whereas they'll campaign to stay out.

If there is no renegotiation he would have to support exit as well.

When 2017 comes around and renegotiation hasn't been

substantial, there is something about David Cameron, his tendency to

side with majority opinion or establishment opinion, his

reluctance to rock the boat on an issue as big as this that will lead

him to campaign for a yes vote. If a Tory leader takes a minority

position within his party and wins, and keeps Britain within the EU, you

can just imagine how vicious the tear-up within the party will be.

That's still to come. We did know that Michael Gove was likely to come

out rather than accept the status quo. What we didn't know, is what he

thought of Nick Clegg. This is the hand grenade on the Marr Show.

You are suggesting that internal Lib Dem politics an an attempt to

destabilise Nick Clegg is determining policy about how

children are cared for in this country? Well, we have to

acknowledge that you need to look at newspapers today to see that Lord

Oakeshott is trying to promote Vince. It is understandable within

the Lib Dems this goes on. Nick has to show a lit of leg as it were on

these -- a bit of leg as it were on these issues. It is remarkable. He

is saying that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen this position on

childcare, it is different what he did have, because he needs to shore

up his position with his activists? It is a fantastic story and one I

don't believe. He moved the conversation on from splits in the

Tory Party to splits in Lib Dems. You don't believe that Nick Clegg

has taken that position or Vince Cable is on manoeuvres? I don't

believe NEC has taken a position that is purely political and the

idea that somebody would take a position for... But he wrote to Liz

Truss saying this is fine, go ahead. Well, he says that's a consultation.

I read the letter, thrilling though it was and it is very detailed.

I think, you heard him on the LB C Show and he does believe that the

ratios would be bad if they were relaxed.

The story I would suggest, Nick, is that Michael Gove is furious with

the way Nick Clegg has stitched up Liz Truss who is one of his junior

ministers and someone he admirers a lot and this was the revenge on

Clegg this morning? And for such a polite man, Michael Gove has a shiny

pair of metal toe capped doctor Martin's. Of course, he is annoyed

that Nick Clegg is changing his position and Helen would say this is

a consultation and I am responding to the doubts. But on the point is

Nick Clegg in trouble? Weirdly this time last year, Nick Clegg of the

three party leaders, the one whose position was most insecure, wind the

tape forward and Nick Clegg of the three party leaders is the one who

is the most secure. Matthew Oakeshott called for him to go at

the end of August. As much as we love Matthew Oakeshott, he is like a

bee that stung and lost his life so nobody really licence to him now.

Reading Mr Cable's interview in the Sunday Telegraph this morning, I am

not tee old at 70. -- I am not too old at 70. Nick Clegg is wrong when

he says that 3. 5 million jobs will go if we leave the European Union.

He clearly is on manoeuvres. I gis I disagree -- I disagree. His age is

probably too old. Hoon has gone. You are left with the Tim Farron's of

this world. Nick Clegg is safe until 2015. It is a cheeky cheeky comment

from Michael Gove. If there is a party leader who makes concessions

to his own tribe in order to hang on to his job, it is David Cameron. We

saw that before. It is becoming the response of the

school yard. Michael Gove knows all about leadership ambitions. I am not

sure he does have ambitions to lead the Conservative Party? , he enjoys

causing a stir. You saw it with his comments about, was it Mr Men Nazis

this week. He has an eye for a good headline and he likes, he likes

getting one. Now, you told the Labour Party just

to shut-up about Europe... entirely.

I para phrase. Do you think it will follow your advice, because Miliband

said we won't have a referendum? Yes, he gave a speech and Ed Balls

has a softer position and I think they would do well to say as little

about this as possible. But they are not able to because

people like me ask them questions like that! Can they get away with

just shutting up about this. There are people in the Labour Party

worried that this is given their leader is fragile and not that big

anyway, this is a ding are yous position? And the Tories are

convinced it is dangerous for them not to offer a referendum. If Ed

Miliband becomes Prime Minister and offers a referendum, the first-half

of his premiership is taken up with the issue of Europe and if he loses,

if Britain votes to leave, his premiership ends after

two-and-a-half years. Some people are critical of Ed Miliband for not

being strong enough. He has been clear on this from the word go and

said it clearly in the speech yesterday. This is not the time to

have an in or out referendum and we the Labour Party have agreed with

the change in law that this coalition introduced which is if

there is a further transfer of sovereignty from here to Brussels

there will have to be a referendum. He doesn't to take Britain out of

the European Union so he doesn't want to be a Prime Minister that

would have to preside over that if the referendum went the wrong way.

So in a sense, he stuck to a principle here? You saw Michael Gove

say I have every confidence we will win a majority and they don't have

confidence. The chairman doesn't have confidence in that? It is all

contingent on that 2017 is having a majority which they won't have. So

we are still dancing on the head of a pin.

It would be interesting to see what happens. Right, that's it. You can

keep up-to-date with the big political stories on the Daily