14/07/2013 Sunday Politics London

Politics. A momentous week for Labour, the

unions and the debate over party funding. But with talks between the

parties stalled on how to fix the role of money in politics, we'll

bring Tory and Labour big hitters together to see if we can help them

make progress. Don't hold your breath!

It is hot out there. But you cannot blame the heat wave on global

warming. For the past few years, temperatures have stopped

increasing. So has climate change. , or is it time to think again? We

will be speaking to the dip them, Ed Davey.

Yet another existential prize for the NHS, with and official report

about to report 13,000 needless deaths. We will look at the politics

of NHS failure. In London this week, the Mayor has

unveiled his road plan for London, but where is the money coming from

and should the plan be taken seriously?

All that and the Silly Mid On, Fine Leg and Deep Extra Cover of

political punditry. I speak of course of Janan Ganesh, Nick Watt

and - she's back! Again! - Isabel Oakeshott. Three hacks who know the

difference between an Ed Miliband googly and a body-line delivery from

Len McCluskey. There'll be tweeting throughout the programme and sifting

the political ashes for nuggets of truth, so you don't have to.

Welcome. The NHS hits the front pages of the Sunday papers again,

and not in a good way. There are shocking details from a report from

the health service's medical director, Bruce Kayo -- Bruce Keogh,

revealing that 13,000 patients have died needlessly. We will be speaking

to the former Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham. He has been

in the firing line on the issue on Sky this morning. I fully support

it, and I look forward to its conclusions. I will work with the

government on it. What disappoints me is the way the Conservative Party

are using these things for party political advantage. As I said at

the beginning, these problems were identified before the last

election. They have carried on since. In some cases they have got

worse. In all cases, A&E has got significantly worse at these 14

hospitals. In some cases, the mortality rate has got worse at

these hospitals. So, Isabel, there is Andy Burnham. He says we should

take the party politics out of it. Is he in trouble? I think Andy

Burnham feels under a great deal of pressure under this. He also feels

really wronged. I spent quite a lot of time talking to Andy in the House

of Commons this week, and I know he feels passionately that he did the

right wing as Health Secretary. We did a story in the Sunday Times

today, which shows the official advice that Andy Burnham received in

the wake of the Stafford Hospital crisis, which prompted a wider

review reported this week. His officials told him he didn't really

need to do anything more about it. He was told he didn't need a public

enquiry or a private enquiry, so he overruled that advice. So he is very

passionate. You could see he was angry in that interview. So Mid

Staffordshire is not a one off. It is far more extensive. And the

problem of the performance of the NHS with weekdays compared to

weekends is more of a problem, I think. You are more likely to die at

the weekends. Considerably more likely. There is now a certain

degree of availability of data and openness in the NHS, which allows

things like this report to come to light. You have organisations like

Doctor Foster, and people like Bruce Keogh. On the Andy Burnham

question, I think Isabel is right that it is not obvious he was

culpable. But being in government at that time, and presiding over it,

you do become politically vulnerable. This is something that

affects all recently deposed government. This happened with the

Tories in 97. They were still paying the political price for things that

went wrong under John Major eight years later. What about the things

that went wrong? Andy Burnham says it has got worse under this

government. A lot of it happened when money was being thrown at the

NHS. Labour was always going to enjoy a lead over the NHS, and the

best the Conservatives could do was neutralise it. If they are in any

way able to show that the last government created a sort of

unfeeling, bureaucratic NHS, where the managers were more interested in

targets than patience, then that is very configure it -- very important

for the Conservatives. Andy Burnham is very deeply and passionately

committed to the NHS. He was Health Secretary at the end of the last

government, and the targets were set up before he was the Secretary of

State. That report is published this week.

It has been a big week for Ed Miliband. He spoke about union

reform on Wednesday, and managed to shift the spotlight from the funding

of the Labour Party to the funding of all political parties. Here's the

story so far. It has been a fortnight that has

left Parliament and the people who write about it are grappling with

some of the biggest issues in politics. Influence, power and

money. Falkirk, in central Scotland. Last month, Weber was

picking its candidate for the next election, after the sitting MP, Eric

Joyce, was caught brawling in Parliament. -- Labour was picking.

The candidate selection left Labour at odds with Unite. There were some

issues around the Falkirk selection. The issues were that the

Unite union tried to influence the selection process by signing up

people as new members without their knowledge. As Labour HQ got wind of

it, they put the local party into special measures and held an

investigation. But the resulting report has been kept under wraps.

The Falkirk saga was a nightmarish trap for Ed Miliband. He got the

leadership on the back of the significant union endorsements over

his brother. The whole issue of the relationship between the party and

the unions remains one that is potentially divisive and electorally

problematic. Here it was, all coming together in a single story. Cue a

media frenzy. One that had wavered Cameron rubbing his hands with glee

at PMQs. We have the press release, Mr Speaker, how Unite plans to

change the Labour Party! It was very entertaining, because every question

managed to come back to Len McCluskey. I was half expecting

David Cameron to blame people crashing out of Wimbledon on Len

McCluskey! Not many laughs in Ed Miliband's Commons office as they

tried to contain the damage. In the coming days, Labour's general

campaign manager, Tom Watson, who had close links to Unite, resigned.

Then, the fightback. It began on Monday this week, when Ed Miliband

met Labour MPs. Walking down the corridor, you could hear lots of

voices booming out. You could hear Chris Bryant, and another MP saying

he had fought all his life for the unions. Miliband turned round and

said he was angry about Falkirk and wanted to see change. The big speech

came on Tuesday. I do not want any individual to be paying money to the

Labour Party in affiliation feels unless they have deliberately chosen

to do so. He was announcing the end of the system where union members

automatically donate �3 of their dues to Labour. In future, they will

have lawn -- to opt in. A big gamble, because it could cost the

party millions. But it seems to pay off. Ed Miliband acted decisively.

He got back on the front foot. meant the Labour leader could talk

about the funding of all parties when he met David Cameron for a PMQs

rematch. 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and

down this country. That is against a party funded by a few millionaires

at the top! I am willing, as I have said before, to have a �5,000 limit

on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals. Is he

willing to do that? No, he said, because that would require state

funding for all parties. All of this was the subject of much discussion

this weekend at the annual Durham miner's Gala. This was not just an

issue for left wing activists. wider situation is for all to

consider. How much are we willing to pay for democratic politics? Like I

said, the big issues in modern politics - influence, power and

money. Transport Secretary, Patrick

McLoughlin, and the shadow leader of the house, Andrea Eagle, join me to

go Head To Head. Angela Eagle, Labour's relationship

with the unions. Unite say Labour's funding could drop by 90%. Are you

willing to take that hit? Miliband, in making the speech that

he made, saying people should make a positive decision to have their

affiliations to the party endorsed by them, does mean that we are

willing to take the hit. We are willing -- we are going to be

campaigning to recreate the Labour Party as a mass party, to give it

back to the people. We want to give politics back to the people. We

cannot have political parties funded by small, very which donors, like

the Conservative Party. Patrick McLoughlin, the Labour Party is

prepared to take a hit on a traditional area of its funding.

What sacrifice are you prepared to make? We are abiding by the party

funding rules brought in by the last government. Most of the trade union

funding that goes to the Labour Party is actually not given by its

membership. When I was a Parliamentary candidate, my

association after the NUM for a contribution. They were told that it

couldn't be given because I was not propagating the Labour Party's

ideas. Now the -- now that Len McCluskey is saying 90% of people

will not opt in shows that this was money almost by coercion. They have

had big donations as well. I will come back to you on a minute on your

sacrifice, because I notice you didn't answer my question. You are

going to have opting in, but the unions will still have huge funds,

and they will still give you a shed load of money come the election.

is up to each trade union to decide what they will do with their

political funds. There are many unions who are not affiliated to the

party and don't give their political fund monies to the Labour Party, but

use them for more general campaigning. The issue is we have

seen a Conservative Party 50% funded by hedge fund owners. They have

given a tax fun -- a tax cut to millionaires. We have just seen a

�145 million cut in taxes for hedge fund owners. Let me get a reaction.

Patrick McLoughlin, what do you say to that? People will be paying more

in tax under this government than they did under the last government.

The last government had a top rate of tax of 50% for one month. They

will be playing a higher rate under the entire period of this

government. Nobody in the Conservative Party buys influence.

It is clear you buy influence in the Labour Party. It is the unions who

put Ed Miliband in the position he is in now. Patrick, let's just take

this very narrow point about the �145 million tax cut to hedge fund

owners. They have given �20 million in donations to the Conservative

Party in the last few years. They have now been given �145 million

extra by the Chancellor. They cannot buy influence. If anyone has given

tax advice, it has been given by the Labour Party by their big donors,

who told one of their donors how best to donate to the Labour Party.

Let's be absolutely clear about this - we cannot afford to start turning

to the taxpayer. It is clear the unions have influence in the Labour

Party, but for you to deny that rich people have no influence, that just

doesn't sound credible, does it? Let me give you some examples, Adrian

Beecroft and Anthony Bamford have given your parting millions of

pounds and they get to write reports that determine your party's policy.

They get to contribute as everybody gets to contribute. Adrian Beecroft

got to write a report in which he said we should abolish maternity

rights and abolish rights at work. I am proud... They didn't object to

that. They have put a lot of that into effect. Under your system, the

unions will still have a disproportionate role in choosing

your leader and that your party conferences. We have to work through

that, but first we have to campaign among the 6.5 million members of

trade unions to get them to join the party individually. We want to give

politics back to the people, recreate mass politics. We have a

situation where there are more people saying they follow the Jedi

religion than members of the Conservative party. We had to

recreate mass membership parties. might not be that easy. Patrick

McLoughlin? We need to widen the base of political parties, I think

that is the right way to go. We shouldn't be coming to the taxpayer

for more and saying that somehow these trade unions and members of

Unite are somehow supporters of the Labour Party. There are Unite

members who vote for the Tories and the Liberal Democrat party. We have

put millions of pounds of funding... Will you accept the

change in legislation? I haven't even seen the legislation. There is

a bill next week, let's do it. are not talking about political

funding, there are many trade unions that are not involved in the Labour

Party. You clean up your funding, we are cleaning up hours. Are you

saying that the disproportionate union influence, the special

position at the union conference and in choosing your leader, that that

could go? In due course, we have to look at the implications of what Ed

Miliband has announced. That is what Ray Collins, who has been appointed

to look at the details of this, we'll look at. This is a sea change

in politics, we are giving politics back to ordinary people. Patrick

McLoughlin, what do you think of a cap on individual and institutional

donors? I think we need to look at that. We have said we are open to

that, it depends on what sort of level the cap comes in. We have got

to, everyone, try to get more people donating to the party. What about a

cap? It is something we would consider. We have said we are in

favour of a �5,000 carp. The Conservatives will not go below

50,000. They have 250 donors that have pledged to give 50,000 a year.

Would Unite not be able to give more than �5,000? That is what the party

have talked about. So come the election campaign, Unite can only

give you 5000 quid? The Conservative party are raising millions of pounds

and having dodgy donor dinners in Downing Street as a reward. That is

a nice alliteration. What is wrong with a cap of �5,000? That would

mean, and the Kelly report says this, anything under 10,000 would

need a contribution from the taxpayer. If you carry on spending

the money both of you spend at elections, you could spend less.

That is something I would be open for discussion about. One quick

question, Lynton Crosby is the big election drew Ruta David Cameron, he

has had links with the tobacco lobby, your Government has changed

its policy on tobacco, should he stepped down given those links with

tobacco? Of course not, he works for the Conservative party, he does not

lobby Conservative party. Has he talked to Lynton Crosby about

tobacco? I don't know their conversations but he has said in the

House of Commons he has not talked to him about tobacco. We will leave

it there. Now, are you ready for a puzzle?

Well, here's one - can global warming be happening as expected if

the world has stopped getting hotter? That's the brainteaser

that's troubling scientists and which threatens to shatter the

consensus over global warming. Global temperatures have risen by

0.8 Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, but since the late 1990s

they have stalled despite the fact emissions of greenhouse gases have

continued at pace. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

reached 400 parts per million for the first time earlier this year.

This has led some climate scientists to question whether there could be

something wrong with their models. One eminent German professor has

said no far nobody has been able to provide a compelling answer to why

climate change seems to be taking a break. The climate change Secretary

Ed Davey has said this normal expression of scientific uncertainty

is no reason to reconsider energy and climate change policies, even

though his department says they are already adding �112 to annual

household bills, a number which is set to rise. Speaking last month, he

described people who cast doubt on the scientific consensus as

crackpots vomit and warned the press not to give a campaigning platform

to people who deny climate change is man-made. Ed Davey joins me now for

the Sunday interview. Ed Davey, welcome. In a speech on

June the 2nd, you said healthy scepticism is part of the scientific

process, then later you said anybody who challenges the climate change

consensus is a crackpot, so what is it? I think we should challenge

science, and there is a healthy debate amongst climate change

scientists, but the vast majority of climate change scientists believe

that climate change is happening and that man-made activity is causing it

so it is a tiny number of people who believe that it is not happening and

that man is not responsible for it. I agree with President Obama in his

recent speech when he said we don't need another meeting of the flat

Earth Society, we need to get on and tackle climate change. Scientist who

challenged the consensus, they are crackpots? I was referring to a

particular issue. Of course we should have a debate, I'm not

against that. You shed the news -- you said the newspapers should not

publish the reviews. I think we need a more balanced debate, particularly

when we saw an analysis of scientific papers, and of the

scientists who expressed a view, of them 97% said climate change is

happening and that it was human made. That survey has been

substantially discredited. 35% of the abstracts were misclassified and

they were classified to the pro-global warming side. The expert

most quoted approvingly has disassociated himself and said it is

not reliable. If you look at what the scientists are saying, take the

cheap scientists Sir John Beddington, he said in his speech as

he left that the evidence was unequivocal. The chief scientist to

my department, Professor Sir David Mackay has the same view so we need

to take action. Let's just imagine that the huge majority of scientists

are wrong. Let's say that climate change deniers are right. Should we

gamble? Even though most of the scientists dated happening? I say we

take a cautious approach and I hope your viewers will ensure their

houses against the chance of the fire burning their house down, I

think given the risks of climate change are greater and with more

devastating effects, we should invest in a little insurance policy.

Look at this graph, this shows temperatures rising since 1980, it

is a trend and we have flattened it out a little bit. It rises, and

suddenly in around 1997 it plateaus. Isn't that a bit of a

puzzle? Know, when you talk to people at the Met office, they

expect in their models there will be short-term variation. In this

century, if you took that longer, you will find at the beginning of

the 20th century there was a plateau and there was a plateau in the

1950s. Report says the real CO2 emission rising temperatures really

clicked in after 1980. I'm afraid you are wrong. There is no Met

Office model that predicted this plateau. You are wrong to suggest

the climate change committee think it only started in 1980, that is

simply not true. In terms of the most recent decade, let's remember,

that was the warmest on record. Even if you look at the temperature

analysis, that is pretty striking, but I think that is a very narrow

way of looking at climate change science. You have got to look at

things like the temperature of the sea because that is land surface

temperature. The oceans continue to warm, sea levels have continued to

rise. It is important because you are not showing the full picture.

Ice caps are continuing to melt. still have a puzzle because this is

the temperature, and here we have superimposed carbon dioxide going up

in quantity. When you look at that, is it not clear there is at least a

possibility that there is something of a disconnect now between CO2

emissions and temperatures? If you had a longer time series, most

scientists would say that is consistent with what we have seen

previously. But the scientists cannot explain this disconnect.

can actually... This is just to amplify the question, this is Doug

and spoke to their leading scientist, and what they are saying

is that you should not just look at surface temperature, you should look

at the temperature of the oceans, at the level of the sea which is still

rising, look at the ice caps, still melting, look at the increasing

frequency of the severe weather events. If you look at one bit of

information, which is what you are doing today, I'm afraid you are not

seeing the full picture. When this plateau started to develop, the

people who advise you, such as Phil Jones at the climate research unit,

a world centre of climate science, he described the plateau as nonsense

and stupid. The Met Office denied a plateau was even happening. That is

why, as I said in my speech which you read out a few minutes ago, a

healthy scepticism is good because climate science is incredibly

complicated. It is new, innovative science so nobody, if you talk to

the climate change scientists, none of them actually say we know

everything for sure. Of course they don't. Few scientists say that, but

the question is would you be prepared, is any Government prepared

to take a gamble on the future of our planet when the vast majority of

the science shows the climate change is happening? On this plateau, you

said simulation shows this plateau happening, the Met Office shows

non-. Scientists at the University of Hamburg, the world 's leading

centre of climate science, they have looked at the climate models, they

have run the simulations, and they produced a 15 year plateau in only

2% of the simulations. They just don't happen on the models you

depend on. Let me show you what the professor has said. I would like to

see more of that, but since you just quoted Doctor Doug Smith of the Met

Office, you came to a conclusion that the Met Office wouldn't agree

with. I am not sure whether -- what the University of Hamburg thinks. We

have to look at our models. No one is suggesting

# Am not suggesting and climate change scientists are not suggesting

that our models are perfect. You are ignoring all the things I am saying

about the rising heat in our atmosphere, the ice caps, the Arctic

and Antarctic, the rising sea levels, the extreme level event -

why are you choosing to ignore that? I am concentrating on what the

computer models are focusing on. The predicted ice melts didn't happen

this year, other than normally. Professor Stork says that if there

is a 20 year plateau, then we will need to have a fundamental

re-examination of climate change policy. Not to abandon it, but to

wonder whether we are doing it so quickly and in the way we are doing

it. The Met are saying that this plateau could now continue until

2017. That would be 20 years. If it is still a plateau in 20 years, will

you re-evaluate the situation? re-evaluate our policy all along.

The climate change science underlines the fact that the world

is getting warmer, and that is uncontested. There is a debate, and

quite a reasonable debate, on how quickly that is happening at all the

aspects of it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take action. Not only can

you take the insurance argument - if there is a risk, surely you should

insure against it? But also, all the things we are doing to make homes

warmer through better energy use, and I am speaking to the relevant

minister from China today about what is happening there. There are many

reasons for taking up our policies, such as avoiding pollution. A lot of

our policies are no regrets. If you have actually cleaned up the

energy, cleaned up the atmosphere, that is not to be regretted.

your policies are hugely expensive. No, they are not. �400 billion is in

the act. A number of climate scientists are not denying that CO2

emissions can increase the temperature. What they want to look

at a game is whether it leads to such a quick and large rise in

temperatures that the IPCC has predicted. They predicted 3% for

this century. Professor Peers Foster at Leeds University, said that the

higher temperatures are now unlikely. A professor at Oxford says

that higher temperatures now look iffy. At the Georgia Institute of

technology, the professor says temperatures could stay flat for

another decade or two. If it is not quite working out, as we originally

thought, do you not want to step back and reconsider policy? If our

policies were as expensive as you suggested, we would want to look at

them. Look at the figure you gave the top of the programme. You said

our policies are putting �112 on peoples bills. Let's look at that.

The vast majority of that �112 is tackling fuel poverty, and making

people's homes warmer. That is no regrets, because it reduces energy

bills long term. A lot of the policies we are doing we should do

anyway. Only a small part of that 112 you mentioned, is in subsidising

renewable and low-carbon energies. That is why we are taking very

rational, sensible, moderate approaches to this. It may well be

that climate change will not go in the central forecasts. If you look

at other models of all the scientists you talked about, they

believe you have a range of scenarios, just as you do if you

forecast inflation or growth. point I am putting to you is that a

lot of climate scientists are saying that the lower range is now more

likely than the higher range. If temperatures were to rise by one

Celsius, what would be the consequences for Britain? We have

seen some of the consequences if you talk to farmers, and the money we

are spending on flooding. You cannot absolutely proved that is down to

climate change, but many people think it is. The central forecast

you proceeded on has been the IPCC central forecast of an almost 3%

rise in temperatures. If it turned out, and some climate scientists are

now saying it is only going to be 1%, what would be the effect on

Britain? The 1% you have talked about is helped by a tiny minority

of scientists. The vast majority of scientists who advised us and other

countries, such as President Obama, are worried that we are not going to

hit the two degrees target that we said we needed to stay within. All

of the projections you are talking about go above that. If we kept it

to two degrees, that would be a real step forward, and we would reduce

the amount of damage. If you are serious government, looking at the

science in an objective, neutral way, you would take action. You

wouldn't gamble on our children's future and our grandchildren's

future. That would be irresponsible. Nor would you rush to spend �100

billion on wind power. You would perhaps, if you felt the champ

bitches were not going to be as aggressive as the IPCC, you would

take time to develop carbon storage. You would take time to develop

proper battery storage, so that wind power would be more effective.

Instead, on the basis of forecasts that may prove to be wrong, you

persist with a highly expensive programme. I dispute this is as

costly as you are saying. We are developing carbon caps. It. We are

developing energy storage technologies, not just batteries. We

are looking at water and hydrogen technology, so we can store wind

power when it is not needed on the grid. We have a whole range of

policies. The idea we are simply about wind is nonsense. We're about

tidal, wave, solar, nuclear as well as wind. If the plateau is still

there by 2020, what will you say to me? I still think the evidence

suggests, if you look at the rising heat in the oceans, which you have

failed talk about today. If you look at the ice caps, which you have

failed to talk about today. You asked me one question about the

temperature. I am saying you take a very narrow approach. Minister, we

have run out of time. Come back in the autumn and we will talk about

the oceans and the ice caps. It is coming up to 11:30am. Coming

up, I will be looking at The Week Ahead with our political panel.

Until then, the Sunday Politics later, as the Mayor launches his

road plan for London, we will be asking his transport deputy how they

plan to pay for it all. Joining me, Bob Neill, Conservative MP for

Bromley and Chislehurst who is a Conservative Party vice-chair, and

Clyde said, Shadow Minister for Sport and Labour MP for Eltham.

A rout over alleged malpractice and entry is in Falkirk between the

Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and Unite General Secretary, Len

McCluskey continues. Bob, you entered the fray this week when you

wrote to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe this week about two London

constituencies. Why did you write to him? They appear on the same hit

list of constituencies that Unite had, which include Falkirk, which

the Labour Party have called the police into look at potential

irregularities. It is clear from documents that have been leaked that

there is an orchestrated campaign - not my words - and Falkirk was part

of it. These two London constituencies also part of it. A

Conservative MP wrote to the Labour Party to make sure that nothing has

gone untoward in London. That sounds like a fishing expedition, if you

don't mind me saying. If no laws have been broken, what proof do you

have that in regularity and illegality has happened? If the same

things happened in Falkirk as elsewhere... So you haven't any

evidence? It is believed that the same tactics are being applied.

Labour in London has talked about an orchestrated campaign. What happens

if people are being signed up to the Labour Party without their

knowledge? That can involve the falsification of the document, which

is a criminal offence. We know Labour Party members in Ilford North

were being signed up - or Unite members in Ilford North, were being

signed up to the Labour Party. your knowledge, no law has been

broken. It is only if they don't know they have been signed up, which

is the alleged practice in Falkirk. It sounds like you don't have any

evidence of people being signed up without their knowledge. What is

your take? We are very grateful to Bob for being so interested in the

Labour Party! We are wondering what has gone on in Romford. Conservative

councillors were complaining about the process by which they had been

deselected, talking about Loch abodes. I didn't know the

Conservative Party had block votes. This is a waste of police time. The

Labour Party has made it clear that if it finds any wrong doing it will

deal with it. Ed Miliband has taken decisive action about that in

Falkirk, and made it quite clear he's not going to tolerate this.

don't you rerun all the selections that have taken place so far, in all

those 41 constituencies on the hit list? Then there can be no question

of it. That is a big undertaking. am grateful for Bob's suggestion.

Where we are finding things wrong, we are taking action. Ed Miliband

took swift, decisive action. He did move very quickly on Falkirk.

he found out the Conservatives were already on the case. Have you heard

from Bernard Hogan-Howe? I have had an acknowledgement. I am not going

to tell him how to do his job. Let's say Ed Miliband acted swiftly on

this. If we have a piece of legislation going through Parliament

at the moment which would enable us to have an opt out rather than an

opt in to the political levy. Is he going to be supporting amendments to

do that? We will help him if he wants to. Very generous of you.

The Mayor launched his vision this week for the road network. It is a

strategy he has no money for, and will largely have to be in the

mentored by other people. Should we take it seriously?

The elephant and Castle roundabout in south London. The capital's most

dangerous road junction, and this -- the location of the launch of the

road's task force. I go on endlessly about Crossrail, about the tube,

about what we are doing about the transport system. The majority of

cars are on London's roads. You have to improve the roads. In this

instance, that is an investment thought to be in the region of �30

billion. 20 mile an hour speed limit in the capital, getting glories of

the road at busy times, and making roads nicer to been air. Including

plans to put parts of the South Circular in an underground tunnel.

Should that happen, this is what London's roads should look like. The

first stumbling block is this # Mayor of London only controls

around 5% of the capital's roads. The rest are run by local

authorities. For this to be a reality, Boris Johnson will be

relying on others to do it. Having said that, the councillors were

encouraging. This has been an example of the problem road.

Elephant and Castle has a huge potential as a regeneration area,

but the transport issues have been huge. We have sorted out a fully

costed programme. The other challenge will be money. Nobody

knows how much the plan will cost, not least the huge project of

putting the South Circular in a tunnel. Transport for London are

trying to wonder who will foot the bill. Who will benefit from putting

it in a tunnel? Probably places like Peckham and Wandsworth. You might

expect businesses to be in favour, property values to increase, more

development. Maybe there is a flight of that money to be had. We can look

at these ideas and work out if they stack up. If we cannot get the money

from taxation, it will not happen. How much of it will, is a 20 year

plan is going to depend on another generation of people to deliver it.

They might have their own ideas. I'm joined by Isabel Dedring, the deputy

mayor of London. We are proposing a Silvertown crossing near Blackwall,

and the proposal is that that is likely to be tolled but there are

many more things we can do to free up space on the road network for

pedestrians and cyclists, road safety and those issues. The road

task force did recommend using pricing more widely to manage

demand, and you agree with that? of the reasons of having that group

is that they can be independent, and we do say that charging is a tool we

would consider in the long term but at the moment there are many more

things we can do in terms of getting more capacity out of the road

network. What does the Mayor think of road pricing? He thinks it would

be a policy of last resort. Clearly we don't want to charge people if

there are other things we can do. The task force, although it is

independent, you were involved in it and they think it is important in

the future. What about the South circular going underground, is that

fanciful? One of the issues with the road network is it has not have the

level of ambition compared to the rail network. They have ambitions,

but we are saying we need to investigate some of these ideas and

look at the ways in which they might be funded. If you look at an example

of Hammersmith, putting the flyover underground and freeing up that land

in order to lift property values, plant trees, and it can be paid for

in part through the property values in that area which could be

significant. Is this kite flying in terms of the South circular

underground? The cost would be vast. Yes, but it does tend to be

expensive, and Crossrail for example has been paid for in large part

through contribution from business developers so it shouldn't be any

different for the road network in principle. If you look at a place

like Hammersmith or the South circular, potentially there is a big

land value uplift. TfL is looking at where these things could be

relevant, but it is not about putting motorways through the middle

of London, it is about making London a nicer place to be and freeing up

space on the surface so we are making areas where people live less

congested and nicer places to be. People will love that idea but it

still comes back to the issue of cost. If you are talking about ten,

, �20 billion, would you have two toll that to pay for it? In the most

recent business plan, we have doubled the amount of funding we are

putting into the road network, and that has been protected in the

Spending Review, and that is for anything from a total rebuild of

Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall, those key locations in London where there

is more pressure, but also locations like five ways which are congestion

blackspots. Would you toll over ground as well? It is premature to

comment on that, but that wouldn't be the intention. But you couldn't

rule it out? We would have to do work to understand how this would

work, or if it could work at all, but people recognise that because of

London's growth, projection is expected to grow significantly and

unless we think in those terms, we cannot come up with the right

answer. What do you think about tolling, would you be in favour?

would have to look at what impact that has on local residents. I don't

rule it out, I am open-minded. We have always said that major

infrastructure, that is one thing, but I would oppose any attempt at

blanket road charging for people across London. What is interesting

and worth looking out, there are other things we could do in

south-east London for example. One of the reason there is a lot of

traffic on the South circular is because a lot of people want to get

across to Canary Wharf. There are no links. For a fraction of cost of

these schemes, you could extend the DLR and give really good public

transport links. Couldn't the money be better spent on improving the

flow of traffic in London by doing some of the things Bob Neill has

suggested? One of the perils of doing a road strategy is that

everybody says what about these roads. Where is the money coming

from for your big projects on the roads? I take the point about

improving and tolling, but you need some big money upfront. If you look

at the Northern line extension, that is paid for almost entirely by third

sector funding, so because of the property values and the businesses

coming to the area it is not funded by Government grant. What is your

response? Firstly no one will pay to sit in a traffic jam so we have got

to do something about traffic growth. Whatever we do has to deal

with that. On the East Thames river crossings, we did have a plan, one

of those is now built, the DLR to Woolwich, and one of the others was

the Silvertown link. I don't think it is sensible just to build a road

that goes across to Silvertown next to the Blackwall Tunnel. It must

increase capacity for public transport if we increase demand for

road space on that corridor. I have been calling for the DLR to come

across two North Greenwich and that offers up a lot of space. I would

take the DLR without the road but not the road without the DLR.

doing a lot of work on DLR extension is, on Silvertown specifically. I

will look at it in more detail but it is important to say the Mayor is

progressing the DLR crossing for this reason. It wasn't even

mentioned in a document the Mayor produced for his strategy. Everyone

is talking about silver -- Silvertown so we will keep on with

this proposal. Thank you. There's been much speculation in

recent years that the Government's benefits changes would force the

poor out of London. Remember, the Mayor even spoke about Kosovo-style

social cleansing. But, could it be that simple market forces and

economic growth are doing the same? Jennifer Conway reports.

Hoxton in Hackney, possibly the front line in the gentrification of

inner London. This part of town has been transformed from working-class

East End to a hipster's paradise in not much more than a decade but the

residents here fear they could be forced out of London entirely. Most

of this will be knocked down to make way for posh flats. This man works

and lives in the estate with his wife and children and parents. He

has said he will have to leave the family home as it will be

demolished. The future of his shop is also uncertain and he has only

been given �230,000 for his four bedroom in a London home and he

thinks it is worth more. I don't want to move, I want to stay. I

don't want to leave my family, I am happy where I am. Local estate

agents valued his home at �70,000 higher. In most circumstances the

for the council has made does not survive the test of being

objectively reasonable. In some cases, we have somebody who is

�100,000 out in terms of the value of their property. In other cases,

people are being compensated for less than they paid for the flat.

This kind of investment will not be welcome if we are taking away

people's property so someone else can be wealthier. The council say

nothing of the kind is true. This was an expert decision, and that is

what we are basing this on. Leaseholders have got their own

valuation but that is not independent. On top of that there is

these home lost payments that they would get. It is not about changing

Hackney, it is about delivering new homes for people who live here

already, whether they are leaseholders or tenants.

Leaseholders we spoke to have mixed views. I suppose it will improve it.

There are lots of green parts about a year. Compared to 20 years ago,

Hackney has better schools, more affordable housing, and the Olympic

Park but some people are worried these will not be enjoyed by the

original people of Hackney. Bob Neill, it is difficult to get that

balance between redevelopment and regenerating an area, and

accommodating people who have perhaps lived there all their lives

in some cases. It is a difficult balance, and one of the issues here

seems to revolve around the compensation paid for compulsory

purchase, and it will be wrong if people have invested in their

property and they lose out. The rules are clear that nobody should

be left worse off than they would have been if their property had been

-- not been compulsory required. They should get a genuine open

market value. It is difficult in an area that has risen in value, the

properties that have not been developed, difficult to gauge what

the market price would be. Open market speaks for itself because the

open market mechanism produces it. My suggestion is that would be a

better route than individual one-off valuations. Do you think this sounds

like people are wanting to cash in on their properties when they have

been offered a deal to be housed off-site when the work is being

done, and then have a chance of buying one of these new homes?

is an element of bargaining but this should be looked at independently,

Bob is right. They should assess what the leaseholders have been paid

in this way, but local leaseholders should be complimented for what they

are attempting to do because they are guaranteeing people can go

back. Last year, the number of social rented starts was 1400 and

that is the lowest since the 1920s. It is a disgrace so the council is

getting moving on this and it has to be complimented. If householders can

go back into these properties, they will not have to pay rent on the

rest of the property they go back into which is a very generous

arrangement. The local authority is going a long way to make sure they

stay part of this scheme. Now it's time for the rest of the political

news in 60 seconds. The chair of governors of a school in south-east

London claimed expenses for travel from his home in Minorca in Spain.

In two months almost �300 was claimed in air and rail fares for

him to attend meetings. Green assembly member Jenny Jones says the

Metropolitan police have spent almost �4 million policing the

Ecuador Embassy since WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took

political refuge over 12 months ago. The Boris bikes cost taxpayers �1400

for each bike every year, costing taxpayers �11 million in total.

Critics have accused the mayor of failing to strike a good enough deal

with Barclays. Six female Greenpeace protesters took the aerial route to

get their message across when they climbed the Shard. Clapham and New

Cross fire stations will stay open after all but with only one fire

stories. The police have spent formally in pounds policing the

Ecuadorian Embassy since Julian Assange took refuge in the

Ecuadorian Embassy a few months ago. Has that been money well spent.

It seems a lot of money to place police officers outside the

building, but we have an obligation to do that by law. Sometimes,

applying the law can be expensive and can force you to do things you

would rather not and spend money you would rather not spend. There is a

legal obligation, and Julian Assange has gone through the court process.

The Ecuadorian government have adopted this line, and it is a pity.

But we have to do what is prescribed by law. I am sure if you were

talking to the alleged victims of hip crimes, they would want to see

him. Do you think the Mayor could get more money out of Berkeley 's as

the sponsor to pay for it? I am sure he is alert to what can be done in

that sort of situation. I would not try to second-guess that on-air, but

I think Boris is pretty good at trying to get people out of it.

about the fire stations, the closures? There is going to be one

fire station each for Clapham and New Cross. Is that going to be safe

enough? I think the proposals to cut fire stations is cuts too far. It

would have been fractions of pennies on people's precepts for council tax

to keep those fire stations open. I think the public would have voted

for that if they had been given the option. Thank you. Back to Andrew.

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

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

A jury in the United States has acquitted a neighbourhood watch

volunteer of shooting dead an unarmed black teenager. George

Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in Florida last year but argued that he

acted in self-defence. The case has divided opinion in America and the

verdict has already prompted some demonstrations, as David Willis

reports from Florida. We find George Zimmerman not guilty.

A dramatic conclusion to the trial that has captivated and divided this

nation in roughly equal measure. George Zimmerman, and neighbourhood

watch volunteer, never denied shooting dead and unarmed black

teenager called Trayvon Martin, but he said he did so in self defence,

and the jury agreed. As happy as I am for George Zimmerman, I am

thrilled that this jury kept this tragedy from becoming a travesty.

are very, very saddened, but we accept the jury's verdict in this

case. Trayvon Martin was walking home when he was spotted by George

Zimmerman, who was sitting in his car. Convinced Martin was part of a

gang who targeted the local neighbourhood, the prosecution

claimed Zimmerman pursued and then provoked Trayvon Martin, as he

headed into this private apartment complex. Zimmerman's lawyers said

their client was the victim of a vicious assault. There were no

witnesses to the confrontation that followed, but neighbours picked up

the sound of cries for help, Trayvon Martin was dead. Instead of

laying the matter to rest, there is a feared the jury's verdict may only

serve to reopen old wounds. A firefighter has died and a second

is being treated in hospital after a fire in Manchester City centre. It

broke out yesterday afternoon at a hairdressing salon. We can speak to

our correspondent, who is there. is nearly 24-hour is since the fire

broke out on the other side of that building there. Initially, it seemed

fairly routine, but at 8:30pm something happened in there.

Possibly an explosion, may be caused by chemicals contained in hair

products stored there. Two firefighters had to be rescued. One

of them, Stephen Hunt, died in the fire. He was 38 years old, the

father of two teenaged children. His colleagues are said to be devastated

by his loss. Greater Manchester Police have arrested two 15-year-old

girls on suspicion of manslaughter in connection with this fire.

Thank you. Police in Northern Ireland say seven officers have been

injured in North Belfast, during a second night of violence. Trouble

flared when police attempted to enforce a decision to ban an Orange

Order march from passing the republican Ardoyne area of the City.

An extra 400 officers from around the UK have been drafted into the

province following the clashes. That's it's now. There will be more

news on BBC One at 6:35pm. Now, back to Andrew.

Thank you. It is the last week before the end of the summer term

for days, Nick and dead. It will be a busy one, as we discover in The

Week Ahead. So, Janan, Lynton Crosby, the Guru

of elections for Mr Cameron is making headlines in the Observer

this morning because of his links with the tobacco lobby, as a

lobbyist in another job. It is clear Labour are out to get him. They are,

and they have some circumstantial evidence to play with. The

government has changed its line on packaging since Lynton Crosby

arrived. I still think he will survive, given that the evidence is

not more than circumstantial. It would be a calamity for David

Cameron to lose, not just because of the short-term, moral embarrassment,

but because he has really improved their political performance. The

Tories have become much sharper over the last few months. If they have

the chance of avoiding a shabby, nebulous election campaign like in

2010, they need Lynton Crosby. At the moment, he is part-time. So the

Tories are desperate to keep him. would be absolutely amazed if there

was any real evidence that Lynton Crosby has lobbied the Prime

Minister on the issue of plain packets for cigarettes. I think he

has far bigger fish to fry, and is far too smart to make such a silly

error. I think there is probably a lobbying scandal somewhere about the

government's position on this issue, and it is probably a wider one on

how the tobacco companies have gone -- have got to ministers about it.

We know he has spoken to the Prime Minister about this idea of getting

the barnacles off the boat. Just focus on the economy and Ed

Miliband's weaknesses, and maybe things like plain packaging for

cigarettes is a barnacle that should be got off the boat. This doesn't

pass the smell test. It doesn't look good. In his early days, you had

David Cameron - a touchy, CD new leader. Now you have someone running

his election campaign who doesn't do that sort of campaign. I tend to

think people win and lose elections for much deeper reasons than who

they have hired to help them out on that campaign. A big decision will

be taken in the next election Ash Mack who is best to run the

economy. It doesn't matter if Lynton Crosby is here or not. Will we get a

reshuffle next week? I think so. If I had written about it, it wouldn't

have happened! It is a junior level reshuffle, not Cabinet Minister

level. I think the key theme of it will be the promotion of women. I

know the Prime Minister is very keen to put a number of women to perhaps

even Minister of State level positions, quite senior positions,

to get them in place to put them in Cabinet next time round. Labour's

funding problems, or links with the unions... It started in Falkirk. The

story has now moved to the Tory fat cats and it isn't about Labour and

the unions any more. I thought Ed Miliband was very impressive this

week. It is the first time in recent months he has shaped events, rather

than responding to them from a defensive positions. I worry that he

keeps doing good things that he should have done three years ago.

Confronting the unions will work for him now politically, but it would

have worked much better if he had done it from a position of strength,

after becoming Labour leader. back up in the polls. That is more

like it in mid-term. Yes. It fell down to about 6% in recent weeks.

What I have just said about the unions is also true on his

confrontation on austerity. It would have been much more effective if he

had done it back in September 2010. It is reminiscent of the great Phil

Collins line -- the speech writer, that is. The definition of a brown

night is a somebody who becomes a Blairite too late! We waited for

some time, and we made this big move on union funding. But we shouldn't

underestimate the significance of what he has done. David Miliband was

talking about it this morning, saying it was going to happen.

want to play you a clip. Is my right honourable friend aware that after

yesterday's surrenders of powers by the Home Office to the European

Union, by bringing the European Court of Justice in to the arrest

warrant, the Commission has welcomed it as pragmatic? Has pragmatism

overtaken the Prime Minister's popular desire to repay to the

powers? I would say to my right honourable friend that the Home

Secretary's decision yesterday represents the repatriated to the UK

of 98 powers. That is a massive transfer of power back here to the

UK, which I think he should welcome. We have this issue of competencies

coming up this week, of moving back from Brussels to London, or sending

some back from London to Brussels. It is an example of the insatiable

appetite of the Tory backbenchers on this issue. It was a shame we

couldn't see Theresa May's the Home Secretary expression on this. This

has got everybody hot under the collar. There are all sorts of

amendments going down. It goes to the heart, I think, of who the Tory

backbenchers feel runs the country. As we enter into the summer, I would

suggest that if we had headed into the summer last week, we would say

that Labour is going into the summer in the doldrums and the Tories with

a spring in their step. Not quite clear that this is the situation

now. I don't think the reshuffle will be momentous enough to change

that in the short term. However much trouble Labour are in at the moment,

they can just count on Europe cropping up. This issue of Justice

and home affairs is interesting in the longer term. There are people in

number ten who believe that when it comes to the renegotiation of

membership in 2017, or whenever it happens, the thing to do is win

backs Justice, home affairs and the ECHR, because that is what annoys

the public, rather than the more difficult economic question.

Labour over the worst of it? Yes, and Labour has pulled it back this

week. There is a reason why Jacob Rees-Mogg was so significant there.

When the chips are down, David Cameron wants to stay in the

European Union, and a lot of his party do not like that. Are you

going to have a good summer? Hope so. That's all for this week.