09/06/2013 Sunday Politics London

Sunday Politics. It was billed as Labour's big week - the moment when

Ed Miliband reset his party's policy on the economy. So, has his proposed

cap on welfare spending and promise to stick to Tory spending plans done

the business? The Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls joins us live.

Another senior MP is caught up in yet more cash for access

allegations. This time it's Conservative Grandee Tim Yeo, caught

on tape promising undercover journalists how he could help

further the interests of their mythical solar power company. He

denies he's broken any rules. And protests this week in leafy

Hertfordshire as the global heavyweights of politics, business

and the military meet behind closed in a luxury hotel near Watford.

David Cameron was there. So was Ed Balls, and the bosses of Google and

Yahoo. We'll discuss the conspiracy theories and the reality of the

Bilderberg Group. In London this week we reveal the

council where a quarter of elected members have at some stage been

summonsed for not paying their government's top secret programme

for intercepting digital communications. And with me, a

political panel whose highly sensitive emails must surely be on

the security service's hit-list. Yes, it's the Guardian's Nick Watt,

Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times, and Helen Lewis from the New

Statesman. So, another Sunday, another senior politician caught up

in a newspaper lobbying sting. You would think they would get the hang

of it by now. Tory MP Tim Yeo - who chairs the Commons Energy and

Climate Change Committee and makes considerable sums on the side from

various renewable energy interests - was secretly filmed by Sunday Times

journalists. They say he offered to use his position to promote the

interests of a fictitious solar power company in Parliament and

Government. They also report him claiming he coached the boss of

another firm, owned by a company of which he's a director, before the

businessman gave evidence to his energy committee. Mr Yeo denies he's

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 48 seconds

done anything wrong. Here's some of Earlier this morning Tim Yeo agreed

to do a live interview with us, but in the last hour he pulled out. In

fact he has also cancelled an interview with Sky. My political

panel never lets me down because they need the money. How does this

work? This is one of the more interesting lobby scandals. Last

week we had one which damaged seemingly the Tory rights because

the proposed perpetrator was Patrick Mercer, a Tory rebel. This week it

is Tim Yeo, who has always been seen as being on the wet end of the

Conservative party, an advocate of dealing with climate change using

Government policy. It is revealing the fictitious company in question

dealt in solar panels. I don't think many right-wing Tory backbenchers

will be devastated at his fall. before this sting, there were many

people who thought he was hopelessly compromised anyway. His job is to

push renewable energy. It pushes the green agenda, doesn't claim to be

objective in these matters. He is involved in various companies that

push renewables and has earned over half �1 million since 2010 from

these companies. Many people watching this will think regardless

of the sting that he is hopelessly compromised. Yes, there is what is

known as the Daily Mail test. They should probably apply the Sunday

Times test of how this looks. Everything he has done is probably

perfectly legal but it stinks. interesting the Commons has allowed

this to happen because I suggest to you, supposing the chairman of the

select committee, a committee that deals with the economy and banking

in the city, supposing the chairman of that committee was also a

director of Goldman Sachs, what would we say? We would have a

problem. If Andrew Tyrie was doing that, and I think this is different

to the previous cases because we have felt they were slightly like

taxis for hire. I will table some questions for you. Where is Tim Yeo

works at a slightly more elevated level. He is not a taxi for higher.

He is a limo! He has consultancy with companies linked to that

committee and it goes to this point that you say, how can you be

chairman of the committee and have interests in the renewables sector

which will grow and grow? Tim Yeo would say all of my directorships

are public knowledge and you will be able to tell everyone how much I

earn from them, but I think viewers and those outside the Westminster

bubble will say I don't care whether it is public or not. For the

committee you chair to be directly aligned with interests that benefit

you financially is not right. thought from the MP expenses

scandal, everything can still be technically within the law and still

morally shocking. It has taken half a decade and you still have MPs

making those mistakes. The whole backlash against back to basic ten

years ago, it was much more personal scandal. It should technically be OK

to be chairman of the select committee and have interests because

you should declare everything. The problem is, and Tim Yeo is recorded

as saying that he cannot be seen to interviewing this chairman of the

company that he is involved in, but I can talk to people behind the

scenes, I have all sorts of access. Is they're not going to be a head of

steam building up where the public and others will say, if you are

going to chair powerful committees, you cannot have well rewarded

outside interests? You would think that, but it has never happened in

20 years or so. I think the problem is... The solution would be to pay

MPs more but nobody wants to do that, do they? And outrageous port.

Move on. For the last three years Labour has argued that the Coalition

has been cutting Government spending too far and too fast. But last week

major speeches by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls signalled a significant shift

in Labour thinking. First the Shadow Chancellor indicated he'd stick to

the Coalition's spending plans for the first year after the election.

Then on Thursday Mr Miliband claimed that a future Labour Government

would be tough on spending and even cap the welfare budget. Here's what

the Labour leader had to say. next Labour Government will have

less money to spend. If we are going to turn our economy around, protect

our NHS and build a stronger country, we will have to be laser

focused on every single pound we spend. Social security spending,

vital as it is, cannot be exempt from that discipline. Some people

argue that if we want to control Social Security spending, we have

two leave our values at the door. I disagree. Quite the opposite in

fact. Controlling Social Security spending and putting decent values

at the heart of the system are not conflicting priorities. It is only

by reforming Social Security with the right values that we will be

able to control costs. Ed Balls joins me now for the Sunday

interview. Welcome back. Both you and Ed Miliband made major speeches

last week. What importance do we know of the Labour party this

weekend that we didn't know last weekend? People know that because

the inheritance will be much tougher than anyone wanted, Labour is saying

we will have to face up to that tough inheritance and make very

difficult decisions. We are saying loud and clear to anybody out there

who thinks the Labour Government next time around will be like the

last Labour Government, increasing spending, spending will be falling

for departments, we will have to make tough decisions and be rigorous

about priorities, but we will do things in a more balanced way.

your intention if you win the 20 15th election to stick to the

Coalition's current spending plans for 2015/16? That is our starting

point and if things carry on for the next two years, that will be what

happens. I have heard this from other Labour MPs about the starting

point. The key verb I would suggest is will you stick to them? I am

saying to you, if things carry on for the next two years as I fear

they will, yes, my Shadow Cabinet colleagues will spend the money

which we inherit, no more, and there will be no point in them coming to

me saying can we spend more here and there. I may not like it and my

colleagues may not like it, but I will have to be a Chancellor who

says no. Do you think the Coalition cuts have been too deep and too

harsh? Yes, the Coalition said they would secure recovery, get gross,

the tax revenues would come in and they would get the deficit down.

They have lost �270 billion of tax revenues they thought they were

going to get. I have said in the speech last week, not only have they

failed, if they were to act now to get the economy moving, a temporary

VAT cut, I think that would make the economy grow more strongly and ease

the pressure in 2015, but they won't. We are carrying on with the

same policies of the Eurozone and that will make things very hard.

how much on current coalition plans will the Coalition have cut overall

spending by the time of the next election? They are doing very badly

at it. What George Osborne said he would do is cut spending and raise

taxes, �30 billion more a year. how much will they have cut spending

by the time you plan to take over? Not very much, his problem is

spending on pensions and unemployment have risen. The big

driver of his fiscal problem is not about spending, his problem is

compared to his plans he has lost �270 billion in tax revenue because

people seeing their living standards falling are not getting rises.

Companies are not playing tax on profits they are not making. Let's

look at total Government spending since the Coalition came to power.

This is the figures from the OBR and we have put it into current prices.

You can see it started at 732 billion, by 2015 it will be down to

about 717. That is a fall of only 2% so when you look at that how can you

say it is either too harsh, too deep or too quick? What is happening

within those numbers, there is a departmental spending on the NHS,

schools, local Government that has come down, but spending on welfare

benefits has gone up over that period and that net number reflects

the rising welfare. The big reason why the deficit is not coming down

is not that spending picture, it is because of the VAT rise plus the tax

revenue lost because the economy flat lined, it is the loss of tax

revenues that is really the failure. You fail on gross because

living standards are falling. look at these years, what we called

the out years, where you continue to see some rather modest cuts in

overall spending, will you stick to them? What is happening underneath

those figures is a big fall in spending, which is planned. We

expected on defence, police, social care, maybe even on the budget of

skills. On those figures that continues in the following two

years. That is being offset by the government's failure to get spending

coming down. Will you stick to that or will you cut by more or less?

have said that we will set clearer rules for the deficit and the debt

in two years time. You see, those plans are not the plans which George

Osborne proposed two years ago. Balls, we are both well aware of

that. You have talked about continuing in the medium term to

continue fiscal consolidation. That is very modest fiscal consolidation.

Will you stick to that, will you do better or will you borrow more?

would like to see the expenditure on housing benefit and unemployment

coming down faster. We'll do cut more or less? Compared to those

plans, in 2015-16, we are going to be inheriting those plans. Add the

moment, I have no more confidence than you that those plans will be

delivered. My fear is that George Osborne's plans will be higher than

that. Your leader said only a few months ago that, I think that

universal benefits which go across the population are an important

airdrop of our society, including child benefit. Why are you agreeing

to take away this bedrock of society? We're not going to take

away universal benefits. The welfare system has always had some benefits

which are universal, like free prescription charges and state

pensions. We have said that the winter fuel allowance which we

introduced universally, that is going to be a change. We will say,

to be honest, we cannot continue to pay the winter allowance to the

richest pensioners. We did not like taking away the Child benefit from

people on higher incomes but we fear the government did it in a way which

was very complex and very unfair. You are going to keep it? Well...

Come on, Jews said in March, to Parliament, how can anyone believe

it is right to take away child benefit from middle-income

families? That was the question you asked. Ten weeks later, you see it

is right. I am afraid the inheritance we will face will be

very cost. You knew that in March. You told me in March it was going to

be terrible. What has changed? We have had the International monetary

fund tell us that even this week recovery is not secure. The risks

are on the downside. Living standards are falling. Businesses

are not investing. In those circumstances, can I say that our

priority with the two pay more child benefit to people on the highest

earnings? You did not know that ten weeks ago? I think that the evidence

of failure has accumulated week by week. Let's suppose you're right and

it will be worse than you think. In ten months it could be looking more

worse, if that is the correct grammar. I am not totally sure, but

we will move on. You have proposed that winter of your payments should

be means tested and you have accepted that child benefits should

be as well. Reluctantly. What other welfare benefits would you consider

for means testing? I think it is about striking a balance depending

on how difficult things are. It is clear to me that for people who are

over 60, I think that the state pension, the free prescription, I

actually think free bus travel, those are foundational. What once

would you consider? I have said the winter allowance. We have looked at

the free television licence. If you take it away from higher income

people over 75, it would only get you �20 million. The admin is so

complex I do not think we should do that. The one I have set out so far

is the winter allowance. When you say there will be a cap on welfare

spending, what are you talking about? We are saying that we want to

set a plan for Social Security spending over a number of years. I

will then save to departmental spending colleagues on housing and

welfare, you have got to get the welfare budgets coming down in line

with that. It is an incentive for them but it is also quite tough.

Will the cap the on the total welfare budget of over 200 and

pounds or will it be the welfare budget, not including state

pensions. We have said last week that we certainly think it should

exclude the welfare spending which depends on the ups and downs of the

economic cycle, which would be around the spending on unemployment.

I think there is a question on that on how you handle inflation which

can sometimes be up and down. As for pensioners, that is a real question.

I do not know if George Osborne will include or exclude pension spending.

Our plan is to include it. So pension spending would be included

in the welfare cap? That is our plan. What benefits other than

pensions are not affected by the state of the economy? Housing

benefit is hugely structural. every benefit other than pensions,

old-age pensions, I would suggest, is affected by the state of the

economy. Even old-age pensions are affected by the state of the

economy. The government made a big mistake on the economy in the tax

rises and pushed up inflation. That pushed up the cost of pensions. In

housing and incapacity benefit, those are two areas were even

adjusting for the economic cycle, if you are not getting houses built and

rents are going up, then that ends up having a long-term expenditure on

incapacity. I understand that. If you're welfare system says that you

will not help the poor get back to work with a disability, it ends up

costing more in the long term. happens if in your two, you have set

this welfare cap which includes pensions, you have set it and it

looks like you are going to breach it. Do you cut spending on welfare?

For the cap to work vigorously you have got to be looking ahead and you

have got to be saying to the ministers, three years ahead, you're

ministers, three years ahead, you're going off track, do what needs to be

ministers, three years ahead, you're going off track, do what needs So

you could cut benefits? I pointed out the winter allowance decision I

have made. No Chancellor can ever say that he has not done that.

you stop an increase on a cap on pensions? That is not our intention

at all. So why the cap? It is important that you are looking

across all welfare spending as far as you can. It may be that the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it comes to his cap in a few weeks

time, he wants to include unemployment spending and pension

spending. I think it is important to look across the whole welfare state

and the drivers of expenditure. Most welfare spending is going to people

over 60. That is the truth. should look across the whole piece.

You have talked about building 400,000 affordable homes in two

years. You have cited the IMF supporting a house-building

programme. Let me show you what Hilary Benn just said. Local

communities should decide where they want new homes and developments to

go. I picked it to you, you have been around a long time, all

previous experience under Labour and Conservative governments sure you

can have a major house-building programme you can have major

devolution of planning to step -- major devolution of planning

consent, but you cannot have both. Hilary Benn says that we have got to

build more homes. He is right about that. If you take your cities at the

moment and what is happening in our housing market, at the moment the

shortage of homes is for first-time buyers. Affordable housing in the

centre of times. My point to you is that the short age of homes, mainly

in the side, they are all Tory councils and they will not agree to

affordable homes? It is more complicated. The housebuilders are

saying, we only one to build 45 bedroom houses on greenfield land on

the edge of times. The demand for housing, the place where we wanted

is in the town centres, it is affordable. We need to listen to

what people are saying locally. They are saying, you not concrete over

the green belt. Build affordable homes where people actually want to

live. Is the British economy recovering? I hope so. Do you think

so? I am fearful, but even if it is, it is going to be really weak. If

you looked at broad money in our economy, as you know, broad money

aggregates tell you something important. At the moment, broad

money is really flat. Banks are not lending, consumers are not spending,

businesses are not investing. There are signs of a pick-up in the

service sector, fingers crossed. Is this going to be a recovery which

gets investment flowing, I am fearful. By European standards, the

British economy is doing not badly. The Eurozone has contracted for the

sick quarter, we are not. France and Finland are in recession, we are

not. The IMF says that Britain will grow twice as fast as Germany this

year. Your economic credibility is doubtful? Even next year, the IMF is

predicting growth of less than 2%. understand that. No one said it was

rude health. But we are doing better than Europe. Over the last three

years, we have matched the Eurozone. It has been dismal. Unless you get

growth going and living standards rise, unless you feel on tax, this

is not going to turn around. final question, you were at this

secret Bilderberg Group meeting in Watford on Friday. How are your

plans for world domination preceding? World domination! I have

been to this thing a couple of times over the last 15 years. I do not see

what a fuss is about. It is a group of people that sit around and talk

about what is how mean, medical research, the economies. You did not

go towards world government? One of the problems with opposition is you

do not get to decide anything. you. What is your favourite

organisation with a skidding in? Spectre? The board? How about the

Bilderberg group? The other club of transatlantic VIPs who meet every

year, usually at a very posh location, to discuss... Well, who

knows? It is all kept very hush-hush. Guests include the likes

of Henry Kissinger, the head of the IMF and our Prime Minister. This

year's top-secret tete-a-tete was being held in Watford. It is like

Christmas for conspiracy theorists, including Adam.

The Masters of the universe and their critics have spent a weekend

at Watford's posh Grove hotel for the annual Bilderberg meeting. Could

that be the Prime Minister, the George Osborne and egg rolls -- and

Ed Balls share a ride? This year the organisers have released a list of

the 150 people in their and the topics they have been discussing.

Growth, big data and current affairs. The protesters outside

accused this group of everything from climate change to coups, but

they are mainly a night about the lack of transparency. The man in the

middle of the crowd is Alex Jones, King of the conspiracy theorists. I

there any conspiracy theories out there that you think are just too

extreme? I do not personally think they are extraterrestrials. Scary

stuff, but this protest seems more like a slightly weird party. It is

just corporate Megadeth, so we are here to destroy them all. It is

surrounded by a ring of steel, and a big, but fairly relaxed, police

presence. Bilderberg veterans say that is a big change. I had a

baptism of fire in 2009 in Athens. I went along and spent a week being

arrested, rearrested. For residents of Watford, it is a bit, so what?

heard it was a secret shadow government meeting. It has not been

held in England for a long time. What do you think of that? What?

Secret shadow government? What is that. Very few of the participants

from the UK wanted to speak. I have just managed to speak to a very

senior participant on the phone. I asked him, why all the secrecy? He

said that until the 1990s, the use to hold press conferences after

every meeting but no journalist turned up, so they stop doing them.

As if by magic, a member of the infamous -- a member of the

influential steering committee turned up. What goes on this

discussion of the worlds problems with a lot of politicians and

businessmen. We always produce lists of who is there, it is not secret.

But we do not have a mass audience listening to our discussion so it is

a good informal weekend. But the Internet is full of nutty theories

about how we're going to invade the world and poise in America. It is

much dollar than that. I am slightly disappointed. Maybe not so sinister

after all. I am told that there is a Bilderberg splinter group which

includes the Chinese, and you know how open they are. That was Adam

Fleming reporting, we have not seen him since. And we've been joined by

Alex Jones, an American shock jock who's been campaigning for more

openness at the Bilderberg Conference, and by David

Aaronovitch, columnist at the Times. Welcome to you both. What have you

discovered about Bilderberg? I have interviewed members of the EU

Parliament, 3000 people, Bilderberg is heavily involved in the EU plan

and helped to catch it and it is a Nazi plan. They had Lockheed

scandals in the 70s and that is why Prince Bernard, the founder, had to

step down. It is the ultimate lobbying meeting. Well you have this

scandal going on, the Prime Minister going there, Ed balls, we have

forced them from cover to admit they are puppeteers above the major

parties. So now we know that Oldenburg has given us the euro?

Yes, if you talk to Alex for any length of time, you discover all

kinds of things you never knew. You have uncovered the New World order,

which is deadly. It is full of criminals who seek to run the world

and will kill anyone who gets in their way and you are a lone

crusader powering against them, so how are you still alive? Which is

the explanation? They don't exist, or you are part of the conspiracy? I

say the first. I say the second. Five years ago when Obama was

Oldenburg, the New York Times said I was crazy and there was no

Bilderberg meeting. I got a phone call saying you had better shut your

mouth... They are going to say there is no aspiring, it is like Nazi

Germany. It is tyranny. I am here to testify that your head was not cut

off. It turns me into a martyr, it puts! Songs of the end of what I

have said. We have megabanks getting $85 million a month of US taxpayer

money, most of it going to Europe. EU taxpayers have to pay to these

mega- bankers. It has come out and then the media distracts you.

are not going to dominate this, it is not your own radio show. Should

we beware of the Bilderberg Group? It feels slightly out of date,

belonging to the a row when you couldn't admit in Parliament, , when

recalled the head of the MI5 M N, we couldn't admit to these things.

People haven't been at the meeting yet. We are in a police state, it is

like 1984. How come you are here then? They turned back some of my

reporters but they didn't turn me away because they didn't want to

cause a stink. Do you think the BBC is part of the conspiracy? Why have

we let you on? Because you guys think you can manage the whole

thing. I have 3 million radio listeners a day, I get about 50

million U-tube views a month. The establishment doesn't know what to

do. Alex has this point, I would ten years ago have said listen to this

stuff, he believes people put the cancer virus in vaccines in order to

create a eugenics programme, that is what he believes, and I would have

said that is kind of mad and so on and it is an interesting

psychological point. The problem is that conspiracy theories like these

are believed. I am here to warn people. You keep telling me to shut

up. This is not a game. You have this arrest for public safety, life

in prison. You are the worst person I have ever interviewed. David,

thank you for being with us. It has gone half past 11. You are watching

the Sunday Politics. You will not stop the Republic! You guys are

crazy! We will be back with our political panel. Until then, the

Sunday Politics across the UK. Hello and welcome from us. Coming up

later: The Labour council where a quarter of all councillors have at

some stage received a summons for not paying their council tax. I am

joined today by Gareth Thomas, Labour MP for Harrow West, and by

Jackie Doyle-Price, Conservative MP for Thurrock. First off can we talk

about what is being seen by some as a consequence of the murder of the

soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich. A fire which destroyed the Islamic

centre in Muswell Hill in North London his week. Counter terrorism

police have been involved. The security minister James Brokenshire

has now visited. It appears to be a hate crime, and the initials of the

English Defence League were seen on the side of the burning building.

The EDL have denied any involvement in the blaze, adding a number of

fires have been carried out to frame them. So, are there reasons to be

concerned about community tensions? Obviously there is very real anger

about what happened in Woolwich. I hear what the EDL have been saying

but the rhetoric around the response will only encourage people to react

in a violent way. We are proud of this country being liberal and

tolerant. What happened in Woolwich is alien to that, but also any

reprisals will be equally alien. What is the feeling in Harrow? Have

any precautions been made to protect buildings? There have been some

precautions taken by the police working across all communities to

make sure that for example mosques and temples are properly protected

and there is visible policing in those areas. I agree with Jackie.

What we have seen across London and across the country is uniform

outrage about what happened in Woolwich. I am struck by the number

of people of Muslim faith who have been equally outraged by what

happened. The Assistant Commissioner this week said there had been

tension but there had not been reprisals of violence following

this. Do you believe that? In Harrow, and I think across the bulk

of London, we have not seen a significant spike in hate crime as

yet and that is very encouraging, but clearly if there are any

incidents of hate crime, that needs to be cracked down on and it will be

important to see what the results of the investigation are that the

Metropolitan police are conducting into the mosque fire.

We have seen members of the EDL appearing outside the Old Bailey

this week, should the police be thinking more carefully about

whether to allow protest marches? What about freedom of expression?

Freedom of speech is very important in this country, and just as the

perpetrators in Woolwich were rogue elements and by no means

representative of the broader Muslim faith, I think we have to be careful

about branding anyone until the outcome of an investigation has been

settled. There will always be people on the margins of society who want

an excuse to behave in this way. you think we should ban marches?

am not in favour of banning anything. If there is a security

risk, you have to have that option in your locker. It is right to allow

people to have freedom of speech, but if it will inflame tensions,

create the risk of crime, you have two have that power. As we heard

this week, the Metropolitan Police is considering plans to use positive

discrimination when recruiting new officers. Scotland Yard has

confirmed this might mean a white officer could only be hired if a

person from a black or ethnic minority background was recruited at

the same time. It's borne out of concerns the Met still doesn't

adequately reflect the capital it polices. Jerry Thomas reports. In

1999, this was the media scrum that greeted the new Metropolitan police

Commissioner and the Home Secretary, in the wake of a damning report that

found the force to be institutionally racist. Sir John

Stevens was tasked with recruiting 5000 nonwhite officers. We need the

forced to mirror what the population of London is. An opportunity then to

change the culture of the Met Police, now it seems we have

another. We want to make sure we have the best chance to make sure

the Metropolitan police looks and feels like London. In 1999, it had

890 nonwhite police officers, now it has more than 3000, closer to 10%.

However, for in ten Londoners are not quite so the Met patrols police

is catch up -- the Metropolitan police. One possibility is that for

every white police officer it recruits now, it will have to take

on one nonwhite one. We are constantly hearing from the public

that they want policing to look like London, so if we are going to

recruit in a different way, we have got to try a different approach.

Doing that would need a change in the law and wouldn't be universally

popular within the Metropolitan police. All discrimination is wrong

and we base our view on the fact that employment selection,

recruitment, whatever you want to call it, should be based on merit.

If the Metropolitan police did change the law, it could have

implications elsewhere in the capital. There are both Government

bodies and private sector employers who will say they would like to do

it as well. There are lots of American organisations who find it

slightly frustrating they cannot have these ratios in the UK.

Metropolitan police says it intends to encourage more nonwhite

candidates to apply, and only if the recruitment drive fault is they seek

a change in the law. Joining us now, Halil Huseyin, Chair of the Staff

Association groups which promote diversity within the Metropolitan

Police. Why have the figures not been better? We have seen they have

improved. It is a very good question. Within the service there

are certain barriers internally. The best way to describe it would be

internal politics. As opposed to racism? I believe it has been

identified the Metropolitan police is no longer institutionally racist

but it is how to take diversity forward. What are the barriers? A

white force all management doesn't recruit ethnic minority applicants?

The bottom line is this, the Metropolitan police service is still

not reflective of London's communities and until we paint the

better picture, we will not be a better place in terms of supporting

London's communities. Is that because not enough are replying or

wanting to be in the police force, and is that reflective of something

that should be as of much concern? People do not feel the police force

is a place for them? Culturally, there are massive concerns from

diverse communities. It could be how you are brought up. There are whole

load of issues. The bottom line is the Metropolitan Police is looking

into these issues with the support of the internal diversity Forum,

which I am chair of. Would you support positive discrimination and

say, a measure, if you take one might employee on, you take one

black employee on at this time? Whatever the service decides, it is

important that we are consulted and their expertise is considered.

would you like to see... ? I would like to see that. Realistically, we

are still lacking the numbers within the service to reflect London's

communities. We have heard a representative of the rank and file

saying they are against positive discrimination. They say it should

be on merit. This would cost pension?

I like to think I have a good working relationship with The Met

Federation. My opinion is certainly that we need better representation

through the police service. Potentially, could that not create

more tension resentment, that would actually be to the disadvantage of

the black and ethnic minority applicants we need in the police

force? It is no surprise that my personal opinion with B, if we are

looking at recruitment, alongside that we need to look at other

strategies to support the retention and progression of candidates.

-- positive discrimination, measures are needed because we're not moving

fast enough? The Metropolitan Police needs to be more representative of

the community, but I have always been against positive

discrimination. It diminishes those that actually do make it, who you

are actually trying to help. I am very interested in what was said

earlier, looking at what happens within the service. It is easy to

focus on recruitment, but we can focus more on tackling behaviours

within the Metropolitan Police. We can encourage people to go farther

and move up the organisation. saw more broad mock -- if you some

more role models in the higher ranks, that would send a clear

message that you can go all the way? Yes, and we have got to reach a

tipping point where people can see that the public face of the

Metropolitan Police is like them. We had a long way from that. Gareth

Thomas, we need the best people available, not people being

recruited and the basis of quarters? We certainly do need the

best to be recruited into the Metropolitan Police. There are two

issues, and one is that we are having a debate about recruitment at

all. London has lost some 4000 police officers in the last two or

three years. We will allow you to get back in. Go on. On the specific

went about black and ethnic minority recruitment, the rise in the last

ten years disguises a wider problem. The recruitment is far more at the

lower levels of the Metropolitan Police than the higher levels. What

do we do about that? I agree with both your other guests about the

culture change that is needed within The Met. There have been a series of

high-profile cases around a number of senior black and ethnic minority

the officers of The Met to have left the organisation for various

controversial reasons. My own recent Chief Superintendent in Harrow lost

out on promotion opportunity. I think of them. That kind of things

sends disproportion of signals to people, that you can only get so

far. Sure. We need to do more on recruitment, but the crucial thing

is retention. How do you support good officers at lower ranks to help

them progress up the ranks. Final point, if you're telling people out

there considering a career, would you tell them it is a place you

should want to go and join, it is changing, it is going to happen?

Absolutely. I have been in the service for just shy of 13 years.

For me, it was not in a sailing ship in terms of glory, there have been

challenges, but we have had senior colleagues that have taken my view

very seriously. To answer your question, yes, I would encourage

people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, and indeed the

wider community, because it is not just about black and ethnic minority

communities. There are other communities out there that for shy

of being diverse, disabilities and other areas. Thank you for coming

Now, we reported a few weeks ago on the hundreds of millions of pounds

owed to London's councils in unpaid council tax, much of it unlikely to

be recovered. Today, another twist on the story. The councillors who

don't pay council tax, or all of it, anyway. We've learned court

summonses have been issued against 55 current councillors, including 16

alone in one borough, Lambeth. Andrew Cryan reports.

Across London, every, councillors are involved in decisions about how

our council tax money is spent, but the Sunday Politics investigation

has found that some of them are rather keener on spending public

money than coughing up their share of it. We found that five London

councils currently have a serving councillor who has been issued a

court summons for non-payment of council tax. To borrowers have

three. Another to have four nonpaying cancellers. Waltham Forest

and Harrow have six, Barnett eight, but double any of those, with 16

currently serving councillors, all issued with court summonses for

non-payment of their council tax, is Lambeth. Last week one newspaper ran

at page leader, a big story, and one councillor who had received a court

summons for non-payment of council tax. He then Lambeth, it is six

times as many people and a quarter of the whole counsel. By the time

people are issued with a court summons, things have gone pretty

far. At the point where the summons arrives, it suggests it is on the

very edge of forgetfulness. It suggests that people are testing how

far they can go. That is not something that most of us would want

to do apart from in the most extreme financial difficulties. It is

uncomfortable news for a council that used to spend a lot of time in

the headlines. The images in the media about Brixton and Lambeth and

black people in general are always negative. I the early 80s, Landis

was known as a centre for the radical left. Neil Kinnock says that

the Labour Party itself will have to pay a price for their defiance.

findings about council tax non-payment prompted similar

indignation from today's ministers as what you might have had back

then. It is an astonishing figure. I am amazed that councils let it get

that high. We do not have good enough rates of collection. Lambeth

have got to get their act together in their own houses well. Every time

someone does not pay their council tax, every other good taxpaying

resident is covering that cost in the rate they pay. In the streets

around the town Hall, views were mixed. In the times we're living in,

it is not easy for nobody, whether you're working for the cancelled or

not. Realistically, everybody is facing hard times. I think it is

good for them to pay. We invited Lambeth to take part in a programme

but they declined and give us this statement.

Now it's time for a look at the rest from council tax or borrow money and

wit, are barred from voting the cancelled.

Do you think there should be further sanctions. Should anyone be able to

carry on as an elected member if they have the summons to pay money

to an authority they are representing? The crucial thing is

that the money gets paid. Clearly the ideal situation in terms of any

council taxpayer is that they pay their council tax when it is

required, on the Jew did. The significant thing about what Lambeth

have said is that every one of those councillors has paid now. They have

now paid the full amount. Should it have got to that situation in the

first place? We do not know how long it went on? There are whole series

of councillors from political parties that get into difficulties.

We have to recognise that at the crucial thing is that they pay in

the end. Councils like Lambeth have to crack down on non-payment of the

council tax. One of the reasons why Lambeth has been able to turn around

its finances and its reputation is precisely because it has cracked

down, like other London Labour councils, on non-payment of the

council tax. Your minister was sending very intolerant of this, do

you feel the same way? I have a zero tolerance attitude to this. We are

talking about people who drive expenses and salaries for

representing their communities and the council. Those allowances

probably the -- probably exceed what they would have to pay in council

tax. Serving your local community as a counsellor should not be a

full-time job. If we are getting into that state, it is one of the

weaknesses we have. People get into financial difficulty. Are they not

recite slayed the kind of April that you would not want to preside over

you and your local authority? Equally we need to make sure that if

you're standing for election and Elizabeth of trust. If you're going

to make decisions about how the taxpayers' money is going to be

spent, you should be honouring your dads. There are occasions when

people get into difficulty, but Beachy dented into a proper

arrangement with the local authority to make sure there paid. Now it is

time for a look at the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.

Mind the doors at Gregory Baker Street. The Conservative group on

the London assembly have suggested turning to sponsorship deals for

Tube lines and stations. They save �136 million is raised this weekly

mean reason fares. Cressida Dick told police that there is no

evidence that other suspects were on the scene at the recent killing of a

soldier in will age. She also said that 600 officers have been involved

in the investigation. Less than one fifth the victims in the London

riots are yet to see a payout in your compensation claims. Police

figures say that only �35 million has been paid out so far.

The headteacher of a top London Academy has resigned over the misuse

of public funds. She was the head of the skill in St John's Wood. An

eight-month investigation into the school's finances, found that she

spent thousands of pounds in taxes, flowers and even her own birthday

party. Is nothing sacred? Should we flog

off any available public space? in favour of trying to get as much

private money into our public services as possible. If we take

less money from the taxpayer, it is fine by me. We are talking about an

international, recognised brand in the London Underground. Would you be

happy to have hard red sponsors names on that map? I think it could

be done innovate is for way. And it would be profitable. The name of the

sponsor is the issue? That is for whoever comes to negotiate deals. I

cannot see why maintaining the integrity of an iconic international

brand and giving some advantage to people cannot be achievable. Have

times become so hard, and you know, you will have to adopt all the

spending restrictions of this government, have times become so

hard we should look at solutions like this? We should look attractive

get more commercial revenue onto the tube network. Selling advertising

space seems to make complete sense. I am not sure I would want had won

the hell station replaced with a sort of Google or Berkeley station.

That is a step too far. I think the idea is not. We have seen the

Barclays banks around the place? Even that the mirror does not seem

to have negotiated a very good deal with Barclays, I am not sure I would

trust him to negotiate a good deal to the place had only held other

stations. -- to the place Harrow on the hell are other stations. People

have an affinity with cheap stations because of the service that they

provide in the community. I was talking to someone from The National

Trust earlier this week, and they said they did not like the boards

that are going up on roundabouts, even on roads, what do you think

about those? They have every potential to be a good revenue

raiser for local authorities. We have a numbered in Thurrock. The day

bring money into maintain the planting. We should not real things

out without using our imagination. We have not seen any final decisions

made, but I suppose we should watch this space, thank you you both.

Now, the news at noon with Tim Wilcox. William Hague has confirmed

he will give a statement to Parliament tomorrow on the

allegations surrounding the intelligence agency GCHQ. There is

pressure to clarify how much ministers know about spying on

Internet use. It has been accused of monitoring e-mails with information

gathered by Prism. William Hague said ordinary people should not be

worried about being spied on. authorise operations most days of

the week at GCHQ so I know how they work. The idea that GCHQ people are

sitting working out how to circumvent a UK law with another

country is fanciful, it is nonsense and I can give people that

assurance. A senior Conservative MP is facing allegations that he used

his position as chairman of the Commons energy committee to help a

private company influence parliament. Tim Yeo was secretly

filmed by Sunday Times investigators posing as staff from a green energy

company looking to hire him. They allege he told them he coached the

boss of a firm, owned by a company paying him, on how to give evidence

to his committee. Mr Yeo denies the allegations as Ross Hawkins reports.

A secret recording, an MP, a committee chairmen across the table

from undercover reporters. Another set of lobbying allegations. Tim Yeo

appear to say he coached someone working for a firm in which he had a

financial interest before they appeared at his committee. He denies

the claims and was due to go on TV to talk about this until he changed

his mind. Earlier this morning Tim Yeo agreed to do a live interview

with us but in the last hour he pulled out citing no reasons.

was hard on the heels of separate claims about Patrick Mercer. David

Cameron once said lobbying would be the next big scandal and has now

promised a new law to set up a register of lobbyists by July. The

question is whether that will end the allegations by reporters and

secret cameras. Nelson Mandela has spent a second night in hospital in

Pretoria, where he's receiving treatment for a recurring lung

infection. Officials say Mr Mandela, 94, is breathing unaided and remains

in a serious but stable condition. We are waiting for an update, but in

the meantime we are being told Nelson Mandela's doctors have not

made any changes since yesterday since they said he was in a stable

but serious condition. His relatives have been in hospital today to see

him but there is no sense of a bedside vigil. Many South Africans

are urging the 94-year-old liberation hero to fight on, but you

also get the sense many people are aware he is old and frail armed

there are increasingly talks about the need for nature to take its

course and for Nelson Mandela to be allowed to enjoy his last few days

or weeks or whatever it is in peace. That is all the news for now, there

will be more news on BBC One at six o'clock. Back to you, Andrew.

So, have British spooks been using a secret US data programme called

Prism to keep tabs on our emails? What does David Cameron do about

Syria? And what will Ed Miliband do next after his big speech on

welfare? All questions for The Week Ahead. So, you saw William Hague on

the news saying there is nothing happening here, no need to hang

around, move along - he will not get away with that, will he? I thought

he was completely unconvincing. It went through the if you have got

nothing to hide you have got nothing to fear, which is what people always

say when they won't answer your questions, and failed to verify

something Obama had already verified. Ministers are terrified

when they have to talk about US operations because we have this

fantastic intelligence relationship with them, but guess who is the

junior partner. If the junior partner gets in trouble, the top

will be turned off. It is nonsense, he said, that they would circumvent

the law, but he did say within that law all of the intelligence agencies

in this country have the right to do targeted monitoring as long as it is

proportionate and against free sorts of people - suspected terrorists,

suspected criminal networks, and oversees foreign countries spying on

us. Clearly he is giving some form of authority for something like

this, but he will be really careful to not upset the Americans. This

story has legs, doesn't it? think it does. People assume the

Government has wide access to data, whether that takes the form of

legalistic case-by-case applications to the likes of Google for specific

bits of data, I think that will strike people as a secondary

question. I am one of these pansy wishy-washy metropolitans and even I

don't care. I agree, but I think people should care about it. They

are not worried if you are trying to listen to Al-Qaeda, they are worried

you may take -- have your information taken and used within

the authorities. It is Guardian America that has been breaking these

stories. The former deputy Secretary of State under Bill Clinton tweeted

this morning that these are really significant revelations. Something

new always comes out to give the story fresh life. The worrying part

to me is the Obama Administration monitoring journalists. I think the

lesson of the spectre of Obama defending Prism in public is that

civil libertarianism never survives first contact with the reality of

Government. People in Guant?namo know that as well. You may have

forgotten our interview with Mr Jones of America, but we also had Ed

Balls on the programme today! I was struck about how he included the

whole of the welfare bill for the cup, including pensions. Most

significantly, he included pensions. The reason they are talking about

spending is because at the time of the Budget, Treasury sources said we

will monitor what is known as annually managed spending, and

Labour are trying to pre-empt that by announcing their own cup. In that

briefing, George Osborne's aides said that would not include the

triple lock, said it would not be included in that so you now have a

potentially interesting position where the Labour Party is saying

that we think pensions should be included in this cup, and apparently

George Osborne saying it shouldn't be. I think it is phenomenally

interesting because you think we have had U-turns by Labour, wait

until they find out the welfare bill is half comprised of pensions.

the one hand old people do vote in droves and you can imagine them

being perturbed by what Ed Balls said today, but on the other hand it

is a dilemma for the Tories because they looked like they overindulge

elderly voters, especially prosperous ones who don't need any

help, and it is hard for them to portray themselves as fiscally

careful. There is talk that a recovery of sorts is under way, you

wouldn't write home about it but things seem to be getting better

rather than worse. His whole analysis seems to predicate it being

barred. The whole Ed Balls strategy and the reason why he is potentially

putting pensioners into the pot, is his strategy is to say this economy

is in such a mess, caused by this Government sucking out demand at

this precious stage in recovery, it is so bad we have got to accept

these awful things. If the economy does begin to heal, it will be

interesting whether he can carry on like that. The problem is if you are

getting growths, it will probably not come quickly enough to have an

immediate impact on spending. direction of travel in politics is

everything, isn't it? They are heading in the right direction. We

saw two very good speeches from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls this week, but

Labour's credibility problem is about the past. They went into the

last financial crash with a deficit after so many years of growth.

the feeling now that almost day by day Parliament is tying the Prime

Minister's hands, but even if he does move to give alms to the rebels

or some of the rebels that he may not have a majority in parliament

for it and he will have to go to Parliament to get permission.

think that is a good thing. He needs to make the case about who we are

arming and how long it could take. I think more democracy is the answer,

not less. It means the Commons will play a major role in policy. Going

to war is an accidental decision, but arming a particular group of

rebels? What is interesting is the debate going on in Cabinet, and

quite a few members, sensible people who are really concerned that as

they say David Cameron is turning into Tony Blair on Syria and the

word that is used is a moral imperative. They are concerned he is

getting ahead and putting the UK potentially into a position that

would not be sustainable. Would David Cameron have the freedom to

supply the rebels even if he wants to? No, I don't think he will.It is

time for us to go. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at noon

and throughout the week on BBC Two, and we'll be back here same time