:00:44. > :00:46.Sunday Politics. This is George's week. And the papers are full of
:00:47. > :00:49.stories about rows between ministers haggling with the Chancellor in the
:00:49. > :00:51.run up to Wednesday's Spending Review. That's today's top story.
:00:51. > :00:54.The Government has launched an education revolution. The teaching
:00:54. > :01:00.unions won't have it and are even striking against it. NUT General
:01:00. > :01:03.Secretary Christine Blower joins us for the Sunday Interview. And a
:01:03. > :01:07.group of Tory right wingers hanker after a Margaret Thatcher public
:01:07. > :01:16.holiday. They also want to bring back hanging and ban the burka.
:01:16. > :01:21.We'll talk to their unofficial shop steward. In London, why has the
:01:21. > :01:30.Janan Ganesh's scheme to bring derelict homes back into use only
:01:30. > :01:40.managed to produce eight habitable the brightest political panel that
:01:40. > :01:43.
:01:43. > :01:47.money can buy. Helen Lewis. Janan Ganesh. And Miranda Green who will
:01:47. > :01:51.be tweeting throughout the programme. Faster than George North
:01:51. > :01:54.down an Australian touchline. But first, the Spending Review. George
:01:54. > :01:57.Osborne says he is looking to cut another �11.5 billion of public
:01:57. > :02:00.spending as part of his long-drawn out deficit reduction plan. He had
:02:00. > :02:02.one bit of news for us this morning. He's reached agreement with the
:02:02. > :02:05.Ministry of Defence about its budget. That happened last night.
:02:05. > :02:11.And he repeated the Government's key message that the health of the
:02:11. > :02:16.economy is beginning to improve. think we are moving from rescue to
:02:16. > :02:19.recovery and you can see that because the economy is growing,
:02:19. > :02:23.unemployment is coming down, there is a record number of people in
:02:23. > :02:26.work. It is still going to be, of course, a challenge because the
:02:26. > :02:31.economic problems that Britain built up over many years are considerable
:02:31. > :02:35.and you can see what's happening elsewhere in the world, but I think
:02:35. > :02:38.we are out of intensive care and our job is to secure the recovery and
:02:38. > :02:43.I'm absolutely confident we can turn the country around. The Chancellor
:02:43. > :02:48.on the BBC this morning. He's looking a bit more optimistic for a
:02:48. > :02:54.start. He's talking about another shed load of cuts for 2015-16, so
:02:54. > :03:01.why is he bothering? He has to do. He's talking about green shoots and
:03:01. > :03:04.the recovery phase. It's very difficult because he has missed his
:03:04. > :03:10.targets, we still have an unemployment problem. We are talking
:03:10. > :03:15.about 0.3% of GDP, not fantastic news, and I don't think he's got
:03:15. > :03:20.much cause for optimism, frankly. His whole demeanour has changed and
:03:20. > :03:24.he may be right, he may be wrong. thinks things are getting better.
:03:25. > :03:30.George Osborne's share price hit the floor lasted and has been creeping
:03:30. > :03:34.up slowly since because of the tentative economic recovery. I think
:03:34. > :03:39.the thing which will satisfy him the most is the way austerity itself is
:03:39. > :03:42.an idea, and it's become less and less controversial in politics. We
:03:42. > :03:46.are now in the fourth fiscal year of austerity and the level of political
:03:46. > :03:50.agreement around is actually greater than it was when it began. Three
:03:50. > :03:54.parties, not too, were broadly in favour and the differences are very
:03:54. > :03:58.much once of emphasis rather than principle. I don't think any of us
:03:58. > :04:03.could have foreseen that. I thought austerity, which I broadly support,
:04:03. > :04:07.which would be much more controversial. I thought would be
:04:07. > :04:10.civil unrest and more protests, more demonstrations and, instead, all we
:04:10. > :04:13.have seen are things like the People's assembly which took place
:04:13. > :04:23.yesterday and it's pretty innocuous stuff compared to Arthur Scargill
:04:23. > :04:24.
:04:25. > :04:34.and the 1980s. How bruising has this been for the coalition? Absolutely,
:04:34. > :04:36.Danny Alexander is as much like George Osborne as can be in this
:04:36. > :04:42.process which is controversial in the Lib Dems said there could be
:04:42. > :04:46.problems down the line. What is remarkable now is the degree of
:04:46. > :04:50.consensus about the broad strategic direction and you have had Labour do
:04:50. > :04:54.this kind of GPS rebooting over the last couple of weeks, which are
:04:54. > :04:59.still looking a bit awkward but, broadly, they are going in the right
:04:59. > :05:03.direction. Is that where you end up in the river? It's such a gamble for
:05:04. > :05:07.them to say we would do things a bit different but not that differently.
:05:07. > :05:13.If you want to believe in austerity, there's already a big party offering
:05:13. > :05:16.that and the danger for them is their complicated message about
:05:16. > :05:19.day-to-day spending and capital spending is too nuanced to get
:05:19. > :05:22.across. So that's Labour and the Conservatives. What about the Lib
:05:22. > :05:25.Dems? Well, yesterday Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg had some home
:05:25. > :05:29.truths for his party's unruly grassroots. He told Liberal Democrat
:05:29. > :05:31.local councillors, or at least to those that are left, that come the
:05:31. > :05:36.next Lib Dem election manifesto, they would have to curb their
:05:36. > :05:41.natural tendency to promise the earth. Building on the approach we
:05:41. > :05:45.tucked in 2010, on that front page of the manifesto, we will be even
:05:45. > :05:51.clearer with people about the commitments which are prioritised
:05:51. > :05:57.for us, and the ambitions which we accept may be affected by resources
:05:57. > :06:01.and circumstances. As a party with compassion, the desire to offer big
:06:01. > :06:05.spending commitments will be as strong as it ever has been. But we
:06:05. > :06:12.will resist the temptation to talk big and end up delivering small.
:06:12. > :06:16.the Lib Dem Deputy Leader, Simon Hughes is here with us. Your 2015
:06:16. > :06:21.manifesto will now have read lines, these, as I understand it, will
:06:21. > :06:24.detail which policies would be non-negotiable in the coalition.
:06:24. > :06:27.Where does that leave the rest of your manifesto? You want to
:06:27. > :06:31.implement the whole of it because you want to be a hell party in
:06:31. > :06:34.government on our own and I always assumed when I joined the party,
:06:34. > :06:39.when we were younger, we might have to go through a coalition to become
:06:39. > :06:49.a majority government and we are there. You're not going to form the
:06:49. > :06:49.
:06:49. > :06:54.government in 2015, though. It's unlikely, but you never know. The
:06:55. > :06:58.lesson we learned last time as we had a very good manifesto for items,
:06:59. > :07:03.things we've have delivered, income tax cuts for the poorest, most
:07:03. > :07:06.important. But we had things like tuition fees which was our policy I
:07:06. > :07:11.believed in and I thought was right but we couldn't deliver it because
:07:11. > :07:14.there wasn't a majority in parliament. We were staffed by our
:07:14. > :07:18.colleagues and therefore, we lead people to believe we couldn't
:07:18. > :07:22.deliver so we have learned that lesson which is that there are
:07:22. > :07:30.certain things which we would insist on in any coalition and that people
:07:30. > :07:35.can expect it to be delivered. the rest would be if you form the
:07:35. > :07:41.majority government yourself. it's a relevant? The rest could be
:07:41. > :07:44.negotiated. In this Parliament, two thirds of our manifesto has become
:07:44. > :07:47.government policy. The point Nick may justly, it's far better to
:07:47. > :07:53.deliver two thirds of what we believe the country needs than in
:07:53. > :07:57.opposition. Delivering zero. senior Lib Dem said yesterday the
:07:57. > :08:03.manifesto would set out the things Lib Dems would die in a ditch to
:08:03. > :08:08.deliver. Give us an example of that. I think we have to have an
:08:08. > :08:13.increasingly fairer tax system Army have now. We have gone down the road
:08:13. > :08:21.very successfully in lifting people out of tax out of the bottom.
:08:21. > :08:25.under 10,000 would pay tax. Everybody says that. I noticed Ed
:08:25. > :08:28.Balls this morning suddenly saying he believed in a stronger economy
:08:28. > :08:34.and fairer society. That's what we have said and labour didn't deliver
:08:34. > :08:38.so it would mean for me, lifting the tax threshold at least to the
:08:38. > :08:44.minimum earnings level, 12 and a half thousand. But also making sure
:08:44. > :08:52.that people at the top with higher incomes pay more. Would that mean a
:08:52. > :08:56.higher rate of tax than 45%? because as you well know, they are
:08:56. > :09:01.still paying much more than they were under Labour but it does mean
:09:01. > :09:06.going after the tax avoidance and the tax evaders. You will hear more
:09:06. > :09:11.about that. What about the mansion tax? Would you go into coalition
:09:11. > :09:14.with any party that didn't agree with the mansion tax? I don't think
:09:14. > :09:18.discussion has finished yet. It's a good idea in principle and needs
:09:18. > :09:22.more work, in my view, internally. The sort of thing we ought to have
:09:22. > :09:29.other bottom line, is making sure that every youngster before they
:09:29. > :09:34.leave school has face-to-face careers advice and guidance which is
:09:34. > :09:39.not guaranteed at the moment. Those are real practical things. Would you
:09:39. > :09:48.go into government with a party that wanted to build Trident? I'm a
:09:48. > :09:53.realist. The other two parties are for it. We think we ought not to be
:09:53. > :09:56.spending so much on the same extent as now so we have the review
:09:56. > :10:06.commission. We are waiting for the report. I think there will be
:10:06. > :10:07.
:10:07. > :10:14.negotiation about that. It's not a red line? What we will be doing...
:10:14. > :10:19.Increasing tuition fees? We have ended up in a position where most
:10:19. > :10:26.people have seen a benefit of the new system and the poorest are
:10:26. > :10:34.applying in similar numbers to good university before. So you were wrong
:10:34. > :10:44.to propose it? No, we got the tactics wrong. Any constitutional
:10:44. > :10:49.issues you would make a red line? are two years from the election.
:10:49. > :10:53.This is good practice for you because you will be asked to gain.
:10:53. > :10:56.We'll work these things out together. The important thing for us
:10:56. > :11:01.as we end up with a much fairer society than the Tories left is and
:11:02. > :11:04.labour left us. Something for me which is an absolute central thing
:11:04. > :11:09.to the next manifesto is building the sort of number of affordable
:11:09. > :11:13.homes that we need, not just in London but across the country.
:11:13. > :11:17.have to have a huge house-building programme. The recent record has not
:11:17. > :11:25.been good. The last government was worse than the Tories before them
:11:25. > :11:33.and we hope to do better than that. I think you hear more about this
:11:34. > :11:35.week. On the spending review, we understand there's a battle going on
:11:36. > :11:42.between two very famous Liberal Dems, Danny Alexander and Vince
:11:42. > :11:51.Cable. Whose side are you on? I'd talk to the Chief Secretary this
:11:51. > :11:57.morning. I gather it will all be resolved by Wednesday. Is Vince
:11:57. > :12:03.Cable OK to hold out or as Danny Alexander right to say we have to
:12:03. > :12:09.continue our deficit reduction? Everybody has to continue deficit
:12:09. > :12:13.reduction. We need to reduce it by a third. We have ring fenced the NHS
:12:14. > :12:17.and overseas development and schools budgets. There is a battle to make
:12:17. > :12:23.sure we have investment in apprenticeships, science and jobs.
:12:23. > :12:28.So who are you supporting? I want the maximum investment we can
:12:28. > :12:34.deliver to get the economy going. In three days time, you will know the
:12:34. > :12:43.result. It will be live on the Sunday Politics. People can see more
:12:43. > :12:48.of you in London on the Sunday London regional opt. You can never
:12:48. > :12:51.get too much. Two Simons for the price of one. When it comes to cuts
:12:51. > :12:55.there are one or two areas that still escape the axe. International
:12:55. > :12:58.Aid is one. Health is another. And the amount we spend on our schools
:12:58. > :13:02.is the third. So the money for teaching our kids is still there.
:13:02. > :13:04.But it comes with a whole raft of changes to how English schools work.
:13:04. > :13:06.It amounts to nothing less than a transformation. Within days of
:13:06. > :13:09.taking office, Michael Gove rushed through legislation which brought
:13:09. > :13:18.about a huge expansion in the number of academies. Three years ago there
:13:19. > :13:23.were just 203. Now there are 2973. He gave organisations the power to
:13:23. > :13:26.set up free schools, independent of local authority control, with the
:13:26. > :13:30.ability to experiment. He's rewriting the national curriculum,
:13:30. > :13:35.the new one being introduced next year which will fundamentally
:13:35. > :13:40.reformed GCSEs and A-levels to follow in 2015. This revolutionary
:13:40. > :13:45.zeal hasn't found favour with the teaching unions. At the April
:13:45. > :13:48.conference, the NUJ unanimously passed a vote of no-confidence in
:13:48. > :13:53.the Education Secretary and demanded his resignation saying Michael Gove
:13:53. > :13:56.has based its policies on dogma, political rhetoric and is only
:13:56. > :13:59.limited experience of education. The General Secretary of the National
:13:59. > :14:09.Union of Teachers, Christine Blower joins me now for the Sunday
:14:09. > :14:15.
:14:15. > :14:21.NUJ's record, various school reforms that successive governments had
:14:21. > :14:25.tried to introduce. Very quickly, when the Thatcher government in the
:14:25. > :14:30.80s allowed comprehensives to opt out of local authority control the
:14:30. > :14:34.NUJ oppose that. Yes, in the end, we got rid of it because it wasn't a
:14:34. > :14:39.good idea. When the last Labour government provide that policy with
:14:39. > :14:41.its academies programme you oppose that, too. Yes because there is much
:14:42. > :14:46.better ways of doing what they wanted to do and we didn't oppose
:14:46. > :14:49.the London challenge which was lauded by Michael will show last
:14:49. > :14:53.week. You have resisted the spread of academies under this government,
:14:54. > :14:58.is that correct? Yes, they are on a different basis to the Labour ones
:14:58. > :15:01.and some of them have been stopped. You are bitterly opposed to the
:15:01. > :15:05.Coalition Government support for parents teachers charities to set up
:15:05. > :15:09.free schools, is that correct? Correct, and that's because there's
:15:09. > :15:13.a huge problem with place planning for the pity of schools opening in
:15:13. > :15:17.the wrong place. The large number of free schools would have opened have
:15:17. > :15:21.been secondary when there is a crying need for primary places.
:15:21. > :15:31.have oppose the national curriculum, league tables, teacher appraisals,
:15:31. > :15:32.
:15:32. > :15:35.performance related pay. We have opposed all of those things but we
:15:35. > :15:39.have always offered an alternative. We have always said that all
:15:39. > :15:44.children and young people have the right to a broad and balanced
:15:44. > :15:49.curriculum. I understand that but I wanted to establish that this
:15:49. > :15:54.record, you may be right or wrong, but it would be fair to say you have
:15:54. > :16:04.opposed almost every major reform to the state education system of the
:16:04. > :16:04.
:16:04. > :16:10.past 30 years. We did not oppose the company -- comprehensive schools
:16:10. > :16:14.under Margaret Thatcher. It is your position, as I understand it, that
:16:14. > :16:19.all children should go to what Alistair Campbell called dog
:16:19. > :16:22.standard comprehensives, that all children should go to standard
:16:22. > :16:28.comprehensive schools. There should not be a choice of a different type
:16:28. > :16:32.of school in the state system, is that correct? No. Our policy is
:16:32. > :16:39.every child should go to a good local school. Comprehensive?
:16:39. > :16:44.Comprehensive, nonselective. academies or free schools?
:16:44. > :16:48.children should go to schools within their local authority area and the
:16:48. > :16:54.local authority should hold the ring on things like school improvement
:16:54. > :16:58.and special needs and so on. Even though you sent your daughter
:16:58. > :17:02.outside of your local authority? said a good local school, not local
:17:02. > :17:05.authority school. We live in London. We live in a small borough and she
:17:05. > :17:11.went to a school in an adjacent school Borough which is easiest to
:17:11. > :17:19.get to on the bus routes. It is a matter of what a local school is. It
:17:19. > :17:24.was a local authority school. I assume you are against private
:17:24. > :17:34.schools? The National Union of Teachers does not have a policy of
:17:34. > :17:40.closing down private schools. you abolish them? It is not an issue
:17:40. > :17:45.of abolition. We are against the current policy where schools which
:17:45. > :17:49.work hitherto private eye now allowed to have state money.
:17:49. > :17:54.would abolish private schools? would not have chosen it for my
:17:54. > :17:59.children. I am not asking you that, if you had your way, you would
:17:59. > :18:05.abolish it. I am a servant of the National Union of Teachers. I am
:18:05. > :18:09.telling you what the policy is. My own view is that society would be a
:18:09. > :18:13.lot better if all schools were educated in the same system.
:18:13. > :18:18.Absolutely true. And therefore, the corollary of that is we would not
:18:19. > :18:24.have private education. Is it fair to say that your educational
:18:24. > :18:31.attitudes, a uniform it galloped Arianism, is a product of your own
:18:31. > :18:34.hard left policies? No, wrong altogether. It is a matter of having
:18:34. > :18:39.comprehensive schools who take all comers and who have curriculum
:18:39. > :18:43.freedom so they can play to the strengths of all of the young people
:18:43. > :18:48.who are there. That is actually what we need. We want to make sure that
:18:48. > :18:52.there are no children who are not getting the very best education.
:18:52. > :18:57.are opposed to performance related pay for teachers and the union is
:18:57. > :19:01.going out on strike this week in the north-west, why are you against
:19:01. > :19:07.this? We are against the vast majority of teachers not getting a
:19:07. > :19:13.pay rise. Given that there is no more money, axiomatic league, if you
:19:13. > :19:18.only pay some teachers more, then other teachers will not get any. You
:19:18. > :19:23.cannot become a teacher unless you pass your induction year, and then
:19:23. > :19:28.at the moment there are six years, and then you get to the top of the
:19:28. > :19:37.main scale and then there is a cut-off point which is performance
:19:37. > :19:40.related. If we made sure all teachers worked to their absolute
:19:40. > :19:45.strengths we would have no problems. It does not need to be
:19:45. > :19:48.linked to pay. A final point on this, the School teachers review
:19:48. > :19:53.body could not find any research which was able to link performance
:19:53. > :20:00.related pay for teachers to student outcomes where the student outcomes
:20:00. > :20:10.had improved because there is no method. You have had a huge pay
:20:10. > :20:11.
:20:12. > :20:16.rise? Me? I have not.You did a couple of years ago. I won
:20:16. > :20:20.�159,000? Nothing like. What I had was the normal incremental increase.
:20:20. > :20:25.So it is a normal increase regardless of whether you are any
:20:25. > :20:28.good or not? I have to be elected. stand in front of my members every
:20:28. > :20:32.five years and they have two nominate me and vote for me. I would
:20:32. > :20:36.say that is a pretty high performance bar. You are not just
:20:36. > :20:44.against good teachers being paid more, you are against bad teachers
:20:44. > :20:47.being sacked? I am not in favour of bad teachers not being sacked. If
:20:47. > :20:51.there are teachers having difficulties, you have to make sure
:20:51. > :20:57.that you do your very best to make sure they can deliver properly. It
:20:57. > :21:04.is expensive to train a teacher, or at least it has been up until now,
:21:04. > :21:07.if Michael Gove gets his way they will walk in off the streets, so you
:21:07. > :21:12.should not just sack people. You should see if there are ways of
:21:12. > :21:16.making sure they can work well. have hundreds of thousands of
:21:16. > :21:20.teachers in this country yet only 18 bad teachers have been struck off
:21:20. > :21:26.for incompetence in the last four decades. I am not entirely sure
:21:26. > :21:31.where you get those figures from. If you look at figures from the GT see
:21:31. > :21:37.you would find something different. Why is it in the government's
:21:37. > :21:42.interest or anyone else's interest to sack people. It is in the
:21:42. > :21:47.pupils' interest, isn't it? We have to have teachers who can do the job
:21:47. > :21:51.properly. Some are teaching in a place they do not find easy to teach
:21:51. > :21:55.in. Schools are not all the same. We have to make sure that everyone is
:21:55. > :21:59.supported to do the very best job they can. Teaching is not for
:21:59. > :22:03.everybody and I am happy that some people choose to leave because it is
:22:03. > :22:07.not the for them. Do you support Stephen Twigg's announcement that
:22:07. > :22:13.Labour would force free schools and academies to sack teachers who do
:22:13. > :22:18.not have qualified teacher status? It is just nonsense to be employing
:22:18. > :22:22.people who do not have qualified teacher status. You would advocate
:22:22. > :22:32.the sacking of 5000 teachers who do not have this as Mac I would say get
:22:32. > :22:32.
:22:32. > :22:39.them on courses to become qualified. I think there is hope is a mission
:22:39. > :22:43.that those people will understand how there is -- I think there is a
:22:43. > :22:47.presumption that these people will understand how to teach. Private
:22:47. > :22:51.schools do not have a problem with it. You are against sacking your own
:22:51. > :22:56.members when they are bad but you are in favour of sacking 5000
:22:56. > :23:02.teachers even if they are very good? Did I say I was in favour of sacking
:23:02. > :23:05.them? I said I was in favour of getting them qualified teacher
:23:06. > :23:09.status. And what if they do not want to? Then they will not be teachers.
:23:09. > :23:15.Perhaps they can remain in those free schools and do other jobs.
:23:15. > :23:21.I show you a figure which makes me wonder whether the system you
:23:21. > :23:29.support is doing well. It is up here on the left. This shows almost 60%
:23:29. > :23:36.of pupils get five GCSEs, but those on free schools meals which is a
:23:36. > :23:41.decent proxy for poverty, only 36%. That is the result of our current
:23:41. > :23:45.comprehensive system. It fails the very people it was meant to help.
:23:45. > :23:49.That is not a failure of comprehensive education. That is
:23:49. > :23:52.because we have a monstrously unequal society. I would say there
:23:52. > :23:57.are contents of schools in London, burning and Leicester who are doing
:23:57. > :24:01.very, very well by that group. the system is meant to help these
:24:01. > :24:06.kids on the free school meals and was meant to raise the standards
:24:06. > :24:09.from the bottom. They are still way behind the average. The fact that
:24:09. > :24:13.very large numbers of children who are eligible for free school meals
:24:13. > :24:18.and come from poor homes do not do as well as their peers from middle
:24:18. > :24:22.class homes is a stain on our society. It should not happen but it
:24:22. > :24:26.is not just down to schools. There are other things in play. A child
:24:26. > :24:31.comes to school where they have had no breakfast, they may not have a
:24:31. > :24:34.bed in which to sleep, you cannot put that all down to schools. I
:24:34. > :24:38.absolutely agree with you that we need to do everything we possibly
:24:38. > :24:42.can and one of the things we can do is find the money to provide
:24:42. > :24:47.universal free meals at schools, not just lunch but also breakfast. Then
:24:47. > :24:55.people would be in a better position. Let me give you another
:24:55. > :24:59.figure, 20% of nonselective secondary schools, 20%, no student
:24:59. > :25:06.achieves enough grades to get to one of our most trusted just
:25:06. > :25:11.universities, not one. Surely, after 30 years of this experiment, you
:25:11. > :25:15.have supported an example of how ordinary kids from poor backgrounds
:25:15. > :25:19.are not getting the opportunities they deserve. And there are a
:25:19. > :25:23.variety of reasons for that and it is not accessed double, I agree with
:25:23. > :25:27.you. We do want children and young people who come from poorer homes
:25:27. > :25:34.with fewer advantages, we do want them to go to those universities,
:25:34. > :25:39.but a lot of them are going to other universities. It may matter and it
:25:39. > :25:42.may not. But they should if they want to. Of course they should if
:25:42. > :25:47.they want to. But there are also issues about the universities, about
:25:47. > :25:52.the extent to which they do outreach, and the subjects which are
:25:52. > :25:56.meant to have equal value at a level, the subject is unacceptable.
:25:56. > :26:00.There are issues beyond the school. But I am not defending the fact that
:26:00. > :26:04.there are poor children who have few advantages. I am saying it is not
:26:04. > :26:09.just the schools. It is a matter of this being a very unequal society
:26:09. > :26:12.and there is no sign of it being improved. Thank you.
:26:12. > :26:16.It is two and a half months since the government introduced the cup to
:26:16. > :26:20.housing benefit for people in social housing who are judged to be living
:26:20. > :26:23.in properties which are too large for their needs. What has been the
:26:23. > :26:29.impact? Adam has been to Manchester where the council says it is already
:26:29. > :26:33.counting the cost. Call it the bedroom tax or the spare
:26:33. > :26:39.room subsidy, Vincent just calls it life. He moved into this one-bedroom
:26:39. > :26:42.flat this week, very begrudgingly. He had been living in a three
:26:43. > :26:46.bedroomed house, his grown-up children had long moved out. In
:26:46. > :26:55.April, his housing benefit was cut because he was not using those
:26:55. > :27:03.bedrooms. �147 fortnightly, I would have to pay �40 plus. It was just
:27:03. > :27:06.over �40 plus council tax. It would have been about �45. And what did
:27:06. > :27:11.that difference mean for you and your finances? It was just
:27:11. > :27:18.impossible. The government estimates that the number of people affected
:27:18. > :27:23.by the change is 660,000. Those with one extra bedroom would lose on
:27:23. > :27:31.average �14 of housing benefit per week. The more empty bedrooms, the
:27:31. > :27:36.bigger the reduction. There are exemptions for carers and the Armed
:27:36. > :27:39.Forces. The government is giving �150 million to councils to help
:27:39. > :27:46.manage the changes. Here at the local housing association, they have
:27:46. > :27:51.spoken to all of their tenants who will be affected. You are paying for
:27:51. > :27:58.the extra bedroom, OK. How many are following Vincent and moving into a
:27:58. > :28:02.smaller place? So far, 80. That is less than 3%. If people are not
:28:02. > :28:07.downsizing, what can they do? options that are available to them
:28:07. > :28:11.are very limited. They are essentially taking a lodger, for a
:28:11. > :28:18.lot of people for reasons of child protection is a complete and utter
:28:18. > :28:22.nonstarter. To access work, which again in North Manchester is very
:28:22. > :28:27.difficult for people to do. We have a lot of people who would love to be
:28:27. > :28:31.in work and sadly are not because of the economics of the area and
:28:31. > :28:37.because of their own personal situations. Two down star eyes to a
:28:37. > :28:41.smaller property. Or not pay your rent? Or not pay your rent.At the
:28:41. > :28:45.town hall they are starting to count the cost of the rent which is going
:28:46. > :28:51.unpaid. We monitor it very closely because we have to make sure that
:28:51. > :28:56.the income does flow into housing associations and we think we are 5%
:28:56. > :29:00.down comparator with last year and that is about �1 million that is not
:29:00. > :29:05.coming through into the housing providers. I suspect that will get
:29:05. > :29:11.worse as the year goes on. At least �1 million of rent will go on paid
:29:11. > :29:17.this year? More than that. If the whole are unable to pay it
:29:17. > :29:23.collectively adds up to a huge bill. Two weeks ago, Manchester's town
:29:23. > :29:27.Hall hosted a summit of councils who are opposed to the changes. If you
:29:27. > :29:31.have reclassified larger flats as one-bedroom flats, others are
:29:31. > :29:35.offering financial incentives to encourage people to move. A lot are
:29:35. > :29:41.porting people falling into arrears. Back in the suburbs we found
:29:41. > :29:46.Vincent's old home. It is empty but it has been offered to a family with
:29:46. > :29:54.children who will probably moving in a few weeks time. I am glad, really.
:29:54. > :29:57.So some good has come? I hope so. It is just how it is done. And beg is
:29:57. > :30:02.chairman of the Work and Pensions Select Committee. She is in our
:30:02. > :30:12.Aberdeen studio -- and beg. Jackie Doyle is MP for Thurrock. She is in
:30:12. > :30:12.
:30:12. > :30:17.London. If this policy about making more efficient use of the housing
:30:17. > :30:20.stock or is it about cost-cutting in saving money? Making more efficient
:30:20. > :30:24.use of housing stock and having fairness brought back into the
:30:24. > :30:28.system. Where people are entitled to support with their housing it should
:30:28. > :30:31.be on the basis of what they need not on the size of a property they
:30:31. > :30:36.occupy, particularly when we have families on the waiting list needing
:30:36. > :30:41.houses bigger than they currently have. Public housing should be on
:30:41. > :30:46.the basis of need? I don't have any argument with that at all but
:30:46. > :30:50.there's a mismatch between the size of houses people either allocated or
:30:50. > :30:55.said that they need and the actual housing stock which exists. Housing
:30:55. > :30:58.associations have been generally building two-bedroom houses,
:30:58. > :31:02.three-bedroom houses for years now and not one bedroom houses so
:31:02. > :31:09.there's a shortage of those for people to move into to allow
:31:09. > :31:16.movement people want. You want people to go to smaller houses.
:31:16. > :31:21.There's not enough go to. This is a legacy of housing associations being
:31:21. > :31:27.very poor at managing their stock. Families will be allocated a
:31:27. > :31:30.three-bedroom house and will view that as their house for life not
:31:30. > :31:36.like in the private sector. If you need to use the benefits system to
:31:36. > :31:41.do that, that's what we have to do. The policy is causing huge rent
:31:41. > :31:44.arrears. The council expects to use �1 million in rent at the moment.
:31:45. > :31:51.What is the point of a policy that simply ends up with people not being
:31:51. > :31:55.able to afford their rent? We have the support given by the government
:31:55. > :31:59.added up to local authorities to use that effectively but local
:31:59. > :32:02.authorities have a large part to play in making the system work and
:32:02. > :32:10.they can complain about that all they can get better control over
:32:10. > :32:15.their housing stock. If we accept there is a mismatch between the size
:32:15. > :32:18.of the house and the size of the family living there, and there's big
:32:18. > :32:26.families waiting to get into bigger properties, if you don't like this
:32:26. > :32:30.approach, what would Labour do? some authorities are doing is
:32:30. > :32:36.offering incentives for people to downsize and there are other ways of
:32:36. > :32:39.doing it rather than putting people into arrears. When I grew up in a
:32:39. > :32:43.council flat my parent did think it was their home for life. Luckily,
:32:43. > :32:47.they were always in work and we're not dependent on housing benefit but
:32:47. > :32:51.no one knows when they take a council house, that they will at
:32:51. > :32:56.some stage in their life start to need housing benefit. They're using
:32:56. > :33:02.the benefits system to try and socially engineered housing stock,
:33:02. > :33:08.if the wrong way round. We need to more houses. Your last government
:33:08. > :33:14.didn't do that, did they? But that's still the answer, build more houses.
:33:14. > :33:17.If you didn't do it over 13 years, why will you do it next time?
:33:17. > :33:21.Hopefully it will do. I have been pushing the government to do that
:33:21. > :33:25.but it's also about building the right houses for the people we
:33:25. > :33:30.have. People's expectations have gone up and therefore, very often
:33:30. > :33:33.the houses which are built our two-bedroom houses, and people want
:33:33. > :33:38.two bathrooms these days. The problem comes when someone comes out
:33:39. > :33:41.of work or has a health problem which means they can no longer work.
:33:41. > :33:47.The expectations of always being able to afford the rent then comes
:33:47. > :33:52.to an end and the housing benefit, using it to manipulate this is not
:33:52. > :33:55.the right way forward. Simply because, it punishes the people for
:33:55. > :34:02.the economic situation they are in, rather than looking for a proper
:34:02. > :34:06.solution. With respect, I am the third generation of someone who was
:34:06. > :34:09.raised in council housing. My grandparents went from having four
:34:09. > :34:13.children in the house to living alone and their housing need has
:34:13. > :34:19.changed. Why shouldn't they be encouraged to liberate that house
:34:19. > :34:26.for a family to enjoy the same privilege they did? We have to use
:34:26. > :34:29.the financial situation to encourage it. I understand giving positive
:34:29. > :34:33.incentives for people to downsize and we should look at that, too.
:34:33. > :34:41.Because they haven't, we have to do the housing benefit system. What
:34:41. > :34:46.incentive would you give for someone's grandparents, family is
:34:46. > :34:52.gone, to move to a smaller place? Councils already have these things
:34:52. > :34:58.in place. For the pensioner couple, the incentive is a nice house in a
:34:58. > :35:03.nice area which is cheaper to heat and easier to keep. But sometimes it
:35:03. > :35:07.needs to be sold to people. Of course, the housing benefit changes
:35:07. > :35:15.don't affect that. They are still stuck in their four bedroom house
:35:15. > :35:20.and are less likely to move simply because the one-bedroom flats have
:35:20. > :35:26.been taken by the people who have been forced of working age.
:35:26. > :35:29.people of lived in the same area the hell life, have a social support
:35:29. > :35:35.network, seen their children grow up, and then, in their mid-60s and
:35:35. > :35:39.70s, you want them to move? That's exactly why we need to look at
:35:39. > :35:43.fiscal incentives. Yes, if you've lived in the same area for 40
:35:43. > :35:46.years, it is your home and you have your roots there. If the taxpayer is
:35:46. > :35:50.going to continue to pay the bill for your rent, you have no
:35:50. > :35:57.incentive. That's why we need to use carrots as well as sticks to get the
:35:57. > :36:03.best use of the houses. Is it you're feeling Labour will reverse this
:36:03. > :36:08.policy if they win the election? would hope they will look at the
:36:08. > :36:11.policy again. The problem is, people will have arrears, I can't imagine a
:36:11. > :36:14.future government writing of all sorts of arrears on things. That
:36:14. > :36:18.would be incredibly expensive so it depends on where we are in two years
:36:18. > :36:21.time. Thank you both for going head-to-head. It's just after
:36:21. > :36:24.11.30am. You're watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20
:36:24. > :36:34.minutes. I'll be looking at the week ahead with our political panel.
:36:34. > :36:40.
:36:40. > :36:44.Until then, the Sunday Politics the government has pledged millions
:36:44. > :36:49.of pounds to bring empty and derelict homes back into occupation.
:36:49. > :36:56.But, in London, the mea skin to do that has only managed to bring eight
:36:56. > :37:03.homes back into use. I'm joined by Labour MP for Ilford South and Simon
:37:03. > :37:07.Hughes. First of all, we should start with this final chapter in the
:37:07. > :37:12.rancorous dispute over proposed fire cuts in London. The Fire Brigade
:37:12. > :37:18.union turned out in force for a protest outside City Hall. Let's
:37:18. > :37:26.look at the numbers. The closure of 12 fire stations, 520 job cuts. Is
:37:26. > :37:29.this going to put people 's lives in danger? I believe so. The fire
:37:29. > :37:33.personnel protesting about their jobs, it's something they know best
:37:33. > :37:38.about the public are furious. I haven't met a single person who
:37:38. > :37:43.supports it. Take my borough, losing one fire station completely, losing
:37:43. > :37:48.a third of the cover, we have doubled the number of fire deaths
:37:48. > :37:57.over the last ten years. 34. We've had 27,000 fires, double the number.
:37:57. > :38:00.The most number of vulnerable properties. Over 300 high-rise
:38:00. > :38:04.buildings which need to be protected. There's not a single good
:38:05. > :38:10.reason that's been given in the proposal why Southwark fire station
:38:10. > :38:14.should close and others should lose an engine. It's just not logical.
:38:14. > :38:21.When you look in the arguments being made, looking at the figures
:38:21. > :38:24.overall, the number of fire deaths continue to fall, in London. The
:38:25. > :38:30.Fire Brigade union is not going to vote for this. Turkeys don't vote
:38:30. > :38:35.for Christmas, do they? 4.5 million people are going to have to wait
:38:35. > :38:40.longer for fire engines to get to their fires in the area. We know the
:38:40. > :38:44.first few minutes of any fire is the most dangerous. Lives are going to
:38:44. > :38:48.put at risk but of course, the cause of this is not just the macro mea
:38:48. > :38:54.and his policies but also the 25% cut in the budget for the Fire
:38:54. > :39:04.Service in London which has been forced through which Simon supports.
:39:04. > :39:07.
:39:07. > :39:17.The macro mea made the decision to is entirely the mea's decision.
:39:17. > :39:19.
:39:19. > :39:23.you spoken to the mea? I have put in submissions. We have a meeting with
:39:23. > :39:33.the Fire Service and the public and question the Commissioner. We
:39:33. > :39:37.couldn't have been clearer. The reduction of attendance times in
:39:37. > :39:41.every single board in my constituency is clearly not
:39:41. > :39:48.something that can be compatible with a safer Fire Service and safer
:39:48. > :39:53.London. I hope this is not the last chapter. I hope it's got a few more
:39:53. > :39:56.months to run and I hope we see this decision reversed. We will follow at
:39:56. > :40:02.closely. These are some of the heated debates which goes on in the
:40:02. > :40:07.Mayor's office. Wednesday saw the question Time where members usually
:40:07. > :40:17.get their monthly chance to hold the Mayor to account and usually it's a
:40:17. > :40:21.
:40:21. > :40:28.sedate affair but this one turned I'm at City Hall for the question
:40:28. > :40:38.Time to see how he's going to celebrate it. This is the action
:40:38. > :40:45.
:40:45. > :40:52.movie trailer. This has a reputation Brigade. It looks like it's quite
:40:52. > :40:55.lively, lots of firefighters in the house and the pressing issue for
:40:56. > :41:00.them is fire cuts. You are not answering my question. You have cut
:41:01. > :41:06.its budget for your own silly purposes, with that stupid council
:41:06. > :41:13.tax reduction, 7p a week, which nobody cares about. Jenny Jones are
:41:13. > :41:19.getting quite cross with Boris. are bringing more part of London
:41:19. > :41:29.into target response times. It is a fair and reasonable thing to do.
:41:29. > :41:34.
:41:34. > :41:42.I'm going to adjourn the meeting and we will continue with the
:41:42. > :41:45.questioning. Well, we don't see that very often.
:41:45. > :41:54.It's been adjourned while the firefighters are storming out of a
:41:54. > :41:57.meeting in protest at the cuts. It is quietened down a lot. You can
:41:57. > :42:07.detect people are not quite so focused now. A few e-mails are being
:42:07. > :42:07.
:42:07. > :42:12.checked. A completely sick and warped view... So much for straight
:42:12. > :42:15.to DVD. That was pure box office. People say the assembly lacks teeth
:42:15. > :42:23.but that sort of grilling is what question Time should be about every
:42:23. > :42:32.month. Let's find out more, shall we? It was a stormy one and the man
:42:32. > :42:36.in control was Darren Johnson. Not easy to get people in control.
:42:36. > :42:41.was an interesting one for you to talk about this week. I do think it
:42:41. > :42:46.is a really useful session. Obviously not as interesting as that
:42:46. > :42:50.every month but the fact that we have 2.5 hours of questioning every
:42:50. > :42:54.month, rather than a half an hour Prime Minister 's question time in
:42:54. > :42:57.Parliament, I think it allows for a proper in-depth look at some of the
:42:57. > :43:05.issues and a proper grilling. I think Prime Minister 's question
:43:05. > :43:09.Time is is far more interesting. talk about grilling. Ken
:43:09. > :43:15.Livingstone, when you were former Mayor, sitting in that seat
:43:15. > :43:19.surrounded by that level of scrutiny, how comfortable was it?
:43:19. > :43:22.enjoyed it. In Prime Minister 's questions, the MP gets to make one
:43:22. > :43:28.point and the Prime Minister get the last work. The assembly member can
:43:28. > :43:31.come back and come back again. All these questions will come in. My
:43:32. > :43:36.staff would go off and find the answers. They would give them to be
:43:36. > :43:39.the night before, I would read them, but I learn things from the
:43:39. > :43:45.questioning. Assembly members are picking up what's going on in London
:43:45. > :43:49.and they will pursue. Very often issues would come up members would
:43:49. > :43:53.raise which would change the way me and my staff were tackling the
:43:53. > :43:58.problem or would bring something to our attention we were not aware of.
:43:58. > :44:03.I'm wondering about the tone of it. This one was exceptional, unlike the
:44:03. > :44:08.majority of them, where people were asleep, a few members of the public
:44:08. > :44:11.were engaged, so is that because there isn't that robustness? It
:44:11. > :44:19.isn't so muscular in the assembly. You can't get somebody to change
:44:19. > :44:29.what they're going to do. We do normally have a pretty macro snake
:44:29. > :44:37.
:44:37. > :44:40.meeting, things do tend to get more sedate. The Mayor can run out of
:44:40. > :44:43.steam a bit and so on but you can get some really in-depth questioning
:44:44. > :44:49.in a way you just couldn't possibly get in Prime Minister 's question
:44:49. > :44:54.time because it is a half-hour show, really whereas we get 2.5
:44:54. > :45:00.hours every month. You can have an opportunity to... The show aspect of
:45:00. > :45:06.it, here is Boris doing it now. Right in the middle, all eyes on
:45:06. > :45:14.you, attention. Some may say this can turn into an ego trip. One
:45:14. > :45:20.person performing cartwheels for as long as they like. I was happy to
:45:20. > :45:23.answer the questions. Auris does a lot of bluster. I went for the first
:45:23. > :45:28.couple of years. It seems like they are only getting through half the
:45:28. > :45:32.questions that they should. I never knew if that was because Boris was
:45:32. > :45:38.not on top of the detail or because he thinks it is best to fluster and
:45:38. > :45:42.all of that. Looking at things like the budget, you need two thirds of
:45:42. > :45:46.the assembly to vote against. It makes it almost a lucid environment
:45:46. > :45:50.where you can shout bluster if you like but you're not going to change
:45:50. > :45:56.anything. I was up for the Commons Select Committee on communities and
:45:56. > :46:04.local government putting the case for additional powers for the local
:46:04. > :46:09.assembly. How much were you asking for? Some smaller powers. If we had
:46:09. > :46:14.the hurdle at 60% rather than two thirds to amend the budget, the
:46:14. > :46:21.assembly could have more of a say. If we could have the power to reject
:46:21. > :46:24.mayoral appointees at the hearings, small additional powers, I am not
:46:24. > :46:28.talking about a massive change in the relationship between the Mayor
:46:28. > :46:33.and the assembly, but small additional powers could help us hold
:46:33. > :46:40.the Mayor to account. Would you like that? I ran for mayor because that
:46:40. > :46:44.is all you were given as an offer. I would rather have had a council.
:46:44. > :46:51.Boris would not have got away with so much if he had a Tory group who
:46:51. > :46:56.could remove him. Any mayor can sit there and of to the side do deals
:46:56. > :47:03.with property developers. It is the American model. Let's not forget
:47:03. > :47:08.that 50 American mayors R.N. Prison for fraud. I want to throw this over
:47:08. > :47:11.to the others, you have had experience of this, whenever I have
:47:11. > :47:19.presented the Daily Politics on Wednesday, people would complain
:47:19. > :47:25.that crazy if it was very noisy in the house and ask why people behave
:47:25. > :47:29.like children but otherwise people complain it is boring. What do you
:47:29. > :47:33.think people want? I think people want the entertainment but they do
:47:33. > :47:38.not like people shouting over each other where you cannot hear what is
:47:38. > :47:42.being said. In Prime Minister 's questions, the mood can change very
:47:42. > :47:47.quickly from a serious question to somebody makes a mistake and there
:47:47. > :47:51.is laughter and you are back to something very tense in seconds. I
:47:51. > :47:56.do not think Prime Minister 's questions is about accountability.
:47:56. > :48:01.It is more about presentation and image. The real work is done in
:48:01. > :48:06.select committees. I have been in Parliament for 21 years and been on
:48:06. > :48:16.select committees for 18 or 19 years. And the liaison committee.
:48:16. > :48:22.The real interface for the public is PMQs. Select committees go on behind
:48:22. > :48:31.closed doors. No, it is televised. Would you maybe learn something from
:48:31. > :48:35.the May release -- male role model? It has been changed. We did have two
:48:35. > :48:40.sessions of quarter of our age. I think it is more logical to have a
:48:40. > :48:45.longer session because it allows some follow up. We also have the
:48:45. > :48:50.liaison committee to quiz the Prime Minister in town and that can be
:48:50. > :48:52.quite effective. A prime minister, under this speaker, when he comes to
:48:52. > :48:59.the house, is required to answer every question from everybody. He
:48:59. > :49:04.was there reporting on the Fermanagh Summit for an hour and a half taking
:49:04. > :49:08.questions on Syria mainly and on tax and transparency, two important
:49:08. > :49:13.issues. I think the system in Parliament works very well and it is
:49:13. > :49:18.an opportunity for the public to have a go at their lead on the one
:49:18. > :49:22.hand, but they also want somebody to hold the lead it to account. The
:49:22. > :49:31.system Ken and I set up for the London government gave a chance for
:49:31. > :49:36.the Mayor to be quizzed by 25 people. A last word with you, Ken,
:49:36. > :49:43.because you had a foot in both camps, which one was most fun.
:49:43. > :49:47.hated Prime Minister 's question. This week, the government pledged
:49:47. > :49:51.millions of pounds to bring empty and derelict homes back into
:49:51. > :49:56.occupation but this programme is not new. The scheme has been running for
:49:56. > :50:01.a year already. However, the Sunday Politics has learned that only eight
:50:01. > :50:08.properties have been brought back into use. Andrew Cryan reports.
:50:08. > :50:12.London's North circular. In the 1970s, planners bought these houses
:50:12. > :50:18.with the plan to knock them down and widen the road. That never
:50:18. > :50:23.happened. They have lain derelict for decades. The North circular is a
:50:23. > :50:27.success story Boris Johnson's first term. Hundreds of homes up the
:50:27. > :50:32.street were once derelict but have now been turned into homes that
:50:32. > :50:41.people live in. In his first term, the Mayor managed to bring 5139 hens
:50:41. > :50:51.into use in -- homes back into use. But his third term has been much
:50:51. > :50:52.
:50:52. > :50:56.slower. Only eight homes have been brought back into use. Labour say it
:50:56. > :51:00.is not good enough. I think after the first year of the programme, you
:51:00. > :51:03.have only brought eight homes back into use, most people would look at
:51:03. > :51:09.that and think something is badly going wrong with the programme. The
:51:09. > :51:16.buck stops with the Mayor. He has to have a grip on it. Campaigners say
:51:16. > :51:21.this has slipped down his agenda. Four marks out of ten for Boris on
:51:21. > :51:27.empty homes, I would give him seven or eight for his first term but now
:51:27. > :51:32.it is only two or three. The levels are pitifully low. It tends to show
:51:32. > :51:37.that what was a good programme and started out with a lot of energy has
:51:37. > :51:39.very seriously tailed off and that is a worry. City Hall say the thing
:51:40. > :51:43.is to judge them when the programme has finished.
:51:43. > :51:49.We did ask the Deputy Mayor for housing, Richard Blakeway, to appear
:51:49. > :51:55.on the programme, but he was not available so Andrew Cryan caught up
:51:55. > :51:57.with him earlier in the week to ask what exactly is going wrong. Nothing
:51:57. > :52:05.has gone wrong. Since the Mayor was elected, 10,000 empty homes have
:52:05. > :52:12.been brought into use. 5000 of them was through GLA funding because of
:52:12. > :52:18.the substantial investment which the Mayor has overseen. Now it is aptly
:52:18. > :52:24.be striking that the proportion of homes that were empty for longer
:52:24. > :52:28.than six months is at the lowest level since the 1970s. Let's park
:52:28. > :52:32.the first term for a moment and move on to the latest scheme. This is a
:52:32. > :52:38.project where you have only managed to bring eight homes back into use.
:52:38. > :52:41.You have only spent 1% of the budget. Your own offices have told
:52:41. > :52:47.the off the record it is not working right. You're quite happy to sit
:52:47. > :52:51.here and tell all of London it is a scheme which is working fine?
:52:51. > :52:56.officers have told me that they will deliver this programme. They will
:52:56. > :53:01.bring in 1000 empty homes over the period of the funding. I have been
:53:01. > :53:05.very clear that what we want to see years for the public money is those
:53:05. > :53:12.homes brought back into use for a significant length of time so we
:53:12. > :53:17.have set the bar high, five years at least four homes to be used for
:53:17. > :53:21.affordable housing. When we came to office, there was some scepticism in
:53:22. > :53:27.the economic conditions, whether you would get long-term empty homes
:53:27. > :53:33.below 1%. We have done that and we are continuing to maintain that.
:53:33. > :53:38.far behind is this scheme running? Where did you hope to be a year in?
:53:38. > :53:43.We have always said the scheme would be back loaded. Specifically, when
:53:43. > :53:47.you started this scheme, where did you expect to be one year into it?
:53:47. > :53:51.Do you know the answer? I know we have signed contracts for a
:53:51. > :53:55.three-year period, I know we have set a really high bar for
:53:55. > :53:58.organisations to make sure they are really targeting the right empty
:53:58. > :54:01.homes, homes which have been empty for a significant length of time,
:54:01. > :54:11.rather than going for something which would have been easier to
:54:11. > :54:12.
:54:12. > :54:17.bring back into use. Therefore, we are absolutely, confident that we
:54:17. > :54:25.will continue to do that. Do you have confidence in the national
:54:25. > :54:32.scheme? No, identical. Empty homes has always been a scandal in London
:54:32. > :54:38.for years. We need to avoid getting rid of council properties in the
:54:38. > :54:42.borough where I am the MP for Southwark, the council have sold 600
:54:43. > :54:48.odd council homes and they have built about 25. That is
:54:48. > :54:55.unacceptable. We need to make sure that developers are held to the
:54:55. > :55:00.required amount for affordable homes which they are generally not. It
:55:00. > :55:04.says 25% -- 35% and they often deliver less. We must not allow
:55:04. > :55:07.foreign purchases to be buying up increasing amounts of London and
:55:08. > :55:12.keeping some of them empty or very nearly empty. There is a whole set
:55:12. > :55:17.of things we need to do. Housing is at the top of the London agenda and
:55:17. > :55:23.the Mayor and his team needs to do more. Richard Blakeway was saying it
:55:23. > :55:28.will be back loaded and don't judge it on eight houses, judge it on the
:55:28. > :55:33.whole plan. But even if the whole plan was fully implemented it is a
:55:33. > :55:37.drop in the ocean for housing problems in London. We have
:55:37. > :55:43.thousands, tens of thousands of people who in desperate need.
:55:43. > :55:48.Homelessness under Boris has doubled. Any MP will tell you, my
:55:48. > :55:51.casework in the last six months on housing cases has significantly
:55:51. > :55:58.increased. More and more people are coming to MPs who are absolutely
:55:58. > :56:03.desperate. We need a national plan for public sector housing and to
:56:03. > :56:06.allow local authorities to build houses and go ahead quickly.
:56:06. > :56:12.welcomed the government's plan to be more relaxed about planning
:56:12. > :56:17.regulations? No, because I do not think that is the problem in London.
:56:17. > :56:22.The problem actually is more to do with holding the land. The Labour
:56:22. > :56:25.Party has come out with proposals this week, people have got sites for
:56:25. > :56:30.development and for building houses but they are holding it because they
:56:31. > :56:35.want to make more money long-term. We need to get a move on now.
:56:35. > :56:41.Richard Lake Way says, trust me, and watch how it rolls out. We will
:56:41. > :56:50.certainly be doing that. -- Richard Blakeway. Now the rest of the
:56:50. > :56:55.political news in 60 seconds. New council has lost its appeal
:56:55. > :57:04.against betting company Paddy Power against the council's decision to
:57:04. > :57:08.reject a new licence for a shop. The judge overruled the appeal. The
:57:08. > :57:11.council say they are deeply disappointed.
:57:11. > :57:15.The number of explosions under London pavements has trebled in the
:57:15. > :57:19.last year. The help and safety executive raised concerns that
:57:19. > :57:25.Londoners could be at risk after the number of explosions rose to 29 last
:57:25. > :57:30.year from eight the year before. Transport Minister Stephen Hammond
:57:30. > :57:35.has vowed to seize the driving licences obtained by illegal
:57:35. > :57:39.immigrant unless they can prove they have a right to be here. A judicial
:57:39. > :57:45.review is being sought by Westminster Council over plans for a
:57:45. > :57:47.29 story tower block that critics say will harm the use of Parliament
:57:47. > :57:57.at Westminster Abbey. The development is planned for land
:57:57. > :58:02.near Waterloo row waystation. -- Waterloo row waystation.
:58:02. > :58:06.Did the judge get it right in his betting shop ruling? I have no
:58:06. > :58:12.problem with the judge making the decision but the issue goes more
:58:12. > :58:21.widely. It is about what we have in our high street and what people
:58:21. > :58:25.want. People want more shops selling food and clothes rather than betting
:58:25. > :58:33.shops and estate agents. Will this affect your back lard -- backyard?
:58:33. > :58:38.Week have a lot of payday loans places and authority should have
:58:38. > :58:42.more control. If the judge makes a wrong judgement we should look at a
:58:42. > :58:47.way of local authorities dealing with that in the future. What power
:58:47. > :58:50.would you give a local authority? Under the localism and people can
:58:50. > :58:55.bring forward neighbourhood plans and they can say we want much more
:58:56. > :58:59.of this. At the moment, you cannot object to a different type of use
:58:59. > :59:04.being made of shops in the high street by and large if they are
:59:04. > :59:07.still a retail outlet or run office outlet. I think communities ought to
:59:07. > :59:10.be able to shape their community and I have seen already on the South
:59:10. > :59:15.bank in my part of the world, communities coming together and
:59:15. > :59:21.saying we want to decide a plan for our area. Some people are saying we
:59:21. > :59:24.are really keen to shape the old Kent Road and other roads to make
:59:24. > :59:29.sure they work for the community and are successful and clean and
:59:29. > :59:39.prosperous and do what we want them to do. That is all we have time for.
:59:39. > :59:40.
:59:40. > :59:46.big stories that will dominate politics next week with our
:59:46. > :59:49.political panel. But first the news at noon with Maxine Mawhinney. Good
:59:49. > :59:51.afternoon. The US whistle blower, Edward Snowden, who has revealed
:59:51. > :59:54.details of secret US and British surveillance programmes, has fled
:59:54. > :59:58.Hong Kong from where the US authorities were seeking to
:59:58. > :00:07.extradite him. He's on a flight bound for Moscow where he's due to
:00:07. > :00:11.arrive shortly. From Hong Kong, John Sudworth reports.
:00:11. > :00:15.The hunt for Edward Snowden, the man America wants to bring home, has
:00:15. > :00:18.taken a dramatic and surprising turn. According to one Hong Kong
:00:18. > :00:24.newspaper, citing what it calls credible sources, he is at present
:00:24. > :00:27.on board and Aeroflot flight to Moscow. A statement from the Hong
:00:27. > :00:33.Kong government confirms he has indeed left the territory although
:00:33. > :00:37.it doesn't say where he has gone. And it blames the US legal blunder
:00:37. > :00:43.saying a request for Hong Kong to arrest him did not meet the correct
:00:43. > :00:47.legal requirements. His departure comes shortly after further
:00:47. > :00:53.revelations exposing the extent of Britain's own high-tech spying
:00:53. > :00:57.capabilities with the government's eavesdropping centre GCHQ seem to be
:00:57. > :01:01.gathering large quantities of Internet and phone call data he also
:01:01. > :01:04.revealed details of US efforts to hack into Hong Kong's Telecom
:01:04. > :01:10.indication system to gather text messages and Internet traffic from
:01:10. > :01:14.across China. Hong Kong may have taken the easy way out. It was
:01:14. > :01:20.facing a lengthy extradition battle and intense diplomatic pressure from
:01:20. > :01:24.the US and maybe China, too, where state media today called America the
:01:25. > :01:28.biggest cyber hacking villain of our time. The report from a Russian news
:01:28. > :01:33.agency says Edward Snowden is on a flight from Moscow to Cuba on
:01:33. > :01:36.Monday. As he slips away from Hong Kong, America may find their
:01:36. > :01:39.whistleblowing IT specialist ends up somewhere much further from its
:01:39. > :01:42.reach. The Chancellor, George Osborne says he has reached
:01:43. > :01:48.agreement with the Defence Secretary on MOD spending for the year 2015 to
:01:48. > :01:51.2016. Speaking ahead of his spending review this week, he said the
:01:51. > :02:01.civilian numbers would be reduced, but insisted there would be no cut
:02:01. > :02:02.
:02:02. > :02:07.in armed forces personnel. There will not be a reduction in our
:02:07. > :02:11.military capability. We won't reduce the numbers of sailors and soldiers
:02:11. > :02:14.and airmen. We will spend more money on things like cyber which is the
:02:14. > :02:16.new frontier in defence. Gunmen have killed ten people including nine
:02:16. > :02:19.foreign tourists after storming a hotel in far northern Pakistan.
:02:19. > :02:23.Officials say five are from Ukraine, one from Lithuania and three from
:02:23. > :02:26.China. A tour guide of Pakistani or Nepalese origin was also killed. The
:02:26. > :02:35.assault happened at the remote base camp of the world's ninth highest
:02:35. > :02:41.mountain. Two separate militant groups have said they carried out
:02:41. > :02:45.the attack. That is all for now. There will be more news on BBC One
:02:45. > :02:47.at 6:30pm. Now back to Andrew. Thanks, Maxine.
:02:47. > :02:51.So we've got a Spending Review on Wednesday. The Government wants
:02:51. > :02:55.another �11.5 billion of cuts in 2015/16. The Opposition has to work
:02:55. > :02:59.out how to say it's all appalling. While saying they would sign up to
:02:59. > :03:09.it if they win the next election. So how are the two sides lining up for
:03:09. > :03:16.
:03:16. > :03:19.this phoney war? The big question it exactly right. But they have got
:03:19. > :03:24.a difficult balancing act. They can point to a few things they would do
:03:24. > :03:28.differently but the weird thing is, they look very relaxed, the higher
:03:28. > :03:32.echelons of labour. We saw Ed Balls and this morning on the Andrew Marr
:03:32. > :03:36.show looking like he's having a whale of a time. George Osborne
:03:36. > :03:40.looks at hands, relaxed. I wonder if they have got something up their
:03:40. > :03:45.sleeve they don't know because it looks to me like a nightmare job.
:03:45. > :03:50.Should they be relaxed? This spending review is more about Ed
:03:50. > :03:55.Balls and labour rather than George Osborne and the Tories. It only
:03:55. > :04:01.deals fiscally with one year. It also doesn't deal with tax
:04:01. > :04:06.increases. So it's far more about labour. They have spent recent weeks
:04:06. > :04:09.migrating towards the government's position on fiscal policy. That can
:04:09. > :04:14.only be credible if it is consistent which means their response to this
:04:14. > :04:18.spending review can't be too shrill and hostile. Ed Balls has to enter a
:04:18. > :04:28.political dear he's not used to. A magnanimous moderate measured
:04:28. > :04:29.
:04:29. > :04:35.approach. How is like going to happen? David Millard and a couple
:04:35. > :04:39.of months ago before he skips town, that David Miliband, couple of
:04:39. > :04:43.months ago before he skipped town, discussed what you to do within the
:04:43. > :04:48.available spending envelope not opposing every single cat and it's
:04:48. > :04:52.quite interesting. It's a general election warmup. If all parties
:04:52. > :04:55.agree on tackling the deficit, you ought to get a much more adult
:04:55. > :05:02.conversation about the shape of the nation you want to emerge from a
:05:02. > :05:04.period of severe cuts. Whether we will get that proper grown-up
:05:04. > :05:10.conversation because the parties will have different views about
:05:10. > :05:13.where they want to end up. OK, we haven't had that debate yet from any
:05:13. > :05:17.side. There is one group of people the Chancellor might struggle to
:05:17. > :05:19.please next week. And they are on his own backbenches. The other day
:05:19. > :05:23.some Conservative MPs published their own Alternative Queen's Speech
:05:23. > :05:26.including a list of 40 bills of which dreams are made of. If you're
:05:26. > :05:30.on the Tory Right. Top of the list is a Margaret Thatcher Day Bill
:05:30. > :05:32.which, in tribute to the heroine of the Tory right, would change the
:05:32. > :05:37.name of the annual August Bank Holiday Monday to Margaret Thatcher
:05:37. > :05:39.Day. The Alternative Queen's Speech also includes a Face Coverings
:05:39. > :05:47.(Prohibition) Bill which would ban the wearing of certain face
:05:47. > :05:53.coverings presumably targeting the burka. There's a Capital Punishment
:05:53. > :05:55.Bill, which would bring back the death penalty for certain offences.
:05:55. > :05:58.And a Sexual Impropriety in Employment Bill which would require
:05:58. > :06:00.that claims by employees alleging sexual impropriety be limited to
:06:00. > :06:10.cases where the criminal law has been broken, effectively making
:06:10. > :06:13.
:06:13. > :06:16.sexual harassment claims much more difficult to pursue. No doubt the
:06:16. > :06:24.Lib Dems have got there I on that one. And the unofficial shop steward
:06:24. > :06:32.of the Alternative Queen's Speechers is Peter Bone. Welcome. You realise
:06:32. > :06:38.that it is 2013 and not 1913? are correct on that, correct.
:06:38. > :06:45.you came up with all of this? modern, reforming agenda. You missed
:06:45. > :06:49.out birching? Some of these bills are minor. The Margaret Thatcher
:06:49. > :06:57.days mine. The Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill is the EDL
:06:57. > :07:01.pudding balaclavas and face marks on. Not the burka? That would
:07:01. > :07:09.curiously get caught up in it? wrong to present that a bill quite
:07:09. > :07:19.that Ray. The purpose of this is to slap David Cameron with a wet fish,
:07:19. > :07:20.
:07:20. > :07:25.isn't it? -- it is wrong to present that a bill quite that way. As you
:07:25. > :07:34.well know, many of those bills were in the last Conservative manifesto.
:07:34. > :07:41.Capital punishment? Burkas. Margaret Thatcher Day? Thankfully Margaret
:07:41. > :07:44.Thatcher had not passed away. are not being very helpful, are you?
:07:44. > :07:48.We are putting forward Conservative policies. We have a coalition
:07:48. > :07:52.government at the moment and poor old David Cameron as one hand tied
:07:52. > :07:54.behind his back. Some of these ideas like coming out the European
:07:54. > :08:00.Convention Treaty of human rights and having a British Bill of Rights
:08:00. > :08:06.is something which was the manifesto before. How much of this agenda are
:08:06. > :08:11.you taken by? I'm sure it will please you that someone coming from
:08:11. > :08:17.the left sounds bonkers. But Tory party ran on a much more socially
:08:17. > :08:22.conformist platform in 2005 and you didn't win an overall majority in
:08:22. > :08:27.the 2010. This is not the answer to the Tory party problems. We're
:08:27. > :08:31.talking by getting rid of three parties in the state. Saving money.
:08:31. > :08:35.Getting rid of the Department of energy, climate change, combining
:08:35. > :08:40.the offices of the devolved countries, getting rid of the office
:08:40. > :08:44.of Jeopardy Prime Minister. That is modernising. Limiting the number of
:08:44. > :08:49.members of the House of Lords. Surely you would welcome that? I
:08:49. > :08:52.would welcome that. If you had said we were going a new bank holiday I
:08:52. > :08:58.would be up for that and you could call it whatever you want as far as
:08:58. > :09:02.I'm concerned. Surely not Margaret Thatcher Day? If you want to annoy
:09:03. > :09:05.the left, you should call it Tony Blair today. We could Gordon Brown
:09:06. > :09:11.and a bank holiday. One that people look forward to but it's always a
:09:11. > :09:14.terrible let down. There is a Ted Heath day, played piano in the
:09:14. > :09:23.morning, go sailing in the afternoon and have no friends to share any of
:09:23. > :09:31.it with. I love the one of the Rab Butler day, the best bank holiday we
:09:31. > :09:36.never had. That's one for older viewers. What you make of it?
:09:36. > :09:40.Presumably the Alex Douglas Hume Aday doesn't last very long. This
:09:40. > :09:45.whole set of bills is a condemnation of the Tory right. I give the Tory
:09:45. > :09:48.right abuse in my column but it's not fair to present these bills as
:09:48. > :09:53.representative of that movement generally. It's a caucus within the
:09:53. > :10:02.Tory right. There is far more MPs who are moderate, more politically
:10:02. > :10:06.centred. Much more socially liberal. Their concerns are much more to do
:10:06. > :10:11.with cutting taxes, pro-enterprise and Europe than they are to do with
:10:11. > :10:19.criminal justice. We had cutting taxes and less regulation in these
:10:19. > :10:26.bills. What is your Europe policy? Helping the government have a cost
:10:26. > :10:30.benefit analysis. You say that with a straight face. Taking Article 50
:10:30. > :10:35.now, the two-year period when it out of the EU, start but often when the
:10:35. > :10:44.referendum is held and the country vote overwhelmingly to come out of
:10:44. > :10:50.the EU, we can do it and don't have to wait for another two years.
:10:50. > :10:53.the problem for David Cameron that the caucus of reasonable right are
:10:53. > :10:58.quite silent. We don't hear from them a lot but we hear from Peter
:10:58. > :11:03.and his friends quite a lot. This is surely a gift for the other party.
:11:03. > :11:06.Which of these bills to not think a sensible? I think you have created a
:11:06. > :11:09.huge problem for your leader because other parties will be able to say if
:11:09. > :11:17.you vote for a Tory majority, this is what you will get. And it's not
:11:17. > :11:24.things like that. Bulgarian and Romanian immigration continuing? You
:11:24. > :11:30.haven't named a single policy that you don't like. I will name one. You
:11:30. > :11:36.from the left. The only thing which would make me want to wear a burka
:11:36. > :11:40.is if you banned it. You think it's OK for the EDL to have their faces
:11:40. > :11:45.covered as they throw things at the police? They are committing a public
:11:45. > :11:50.order offence and you could arrest them for that. But you can arrest
:11:50. > :11:57.them for covering their faces. I'm curious about is what didn't
:11:57. > :12:06.make the cut? What did you think, that is too eccentric? So all the
:12:06. > :12:12.eccentric stuff was included? try to get a pagan bill to rule out
:12:12. > :12:17.the coalition but I was overruled. If Peter is complaining that, at the
:12:17. > :12:19.moment, are quite reasonable centre-right government is governing
:12:19. > :12:22.in the centre right because the Conservative Party has its hands
:12:22. > :12:32.tied behind its back, you are presenting this as the alternative
:12:32. > :12:36.and people will say, thank goodness they have got their back?
:12:36. > :12:40.haven't actually Toby which bills go too far. These are private members
:12:40. > :12:47.bills. They are for debate and argument and some of them might find
:12:47. > :12:52.a way into a future Conservative manifesto. It's a kind of an
:12:52. > :12:56.alternative manifesto, isn't it? is to encourage these issues to come
:12:56. > :13:05.forward. I'm afraid you haven't actually come up with one you are
:13:05. > :13:09.saying is extreme and rubbish, so... I don't agree with standpoint on the
:13:09. > :13:15.EU, for example. Last week at the G8, we have the prospect again aired
:13:15. > :13:17.this enormous trade deal between the EU and the USA. If that comes off,
:13:17. > :13:22.we will make significant progress before the next election, people in
:13:22. > :13:25.this country will realise that it's enormously to our economic advantage
:13:25. > :13:30.to be part of this huge trading bloc, the EU. And your position
:13:30. > :13:37.would look more eccentric. What is much more important is we are part
:13:37. > :13:41.of a free trade area in the north of banter, as well. The EU is one of
:13:41. > :13:44.the most protective organisations in the world. It will not let
:13:44. > :13:47.developing countries sell into the EU and it's causing poverty in
:13:47. > :13:53.developing worlds. I would still say to you, you haven't produced a
:13:53. > :13:59.single bill you don't like. Why not just join UKIP and you'll get all of
:13:59. > :14:04.this? Because they would then come back and vote Conservative again.
:14:04. > :14:09.OK, we will see if that happens. We'll have to leave it there. There
:14:09. > :14:12.is an important cricket match on today to watch. That's all. Jo
:14:12. > :14:15.Coburn will be back with the Daily Politics tomorrow at the earlier
:14:15. > :14:18.time of 11.00am because of the tennis at Wimbledon. I'll bring you