20/10/2013 Sunday Politics London

Good morning and welcome to The Sunday Politics. Alex Salmond says a

vote for Scottish independence would be an act of national self belief.

His deputy joins us live from the SNP conference in Perth. Is

Whitehall meddling too much in modern affairs? The Communities

Secretary, Eric Pickles, joins me for The Sunday Interview. Senior

coppers will be answering questions this week over the Andrew bachelor

for. A former detective and a critic of the police go head to head. -

the Andrew Mitchell affair. In London, does the London assembly

have one arm tied behind its back? All of that to come. And the Home

Office minister sacked by Nick Clegg, who says his party is like a

wonky shopping trolley, which keeps veering off to the left. He will

join us live at noon. With me to unpack all of this, Nick Watt, Helen

Lewis and Iain Martin. They will be tweeting throughout the programme,

using hashtag #bbcsp. It is the last day of the Scottish national party

conference in Perth. We have discovered that Alex Salmond has

been on the same diet as Beyonce. The SNP leader compared his attempts

to lose weight with the campaign for independence - lots achieved so far,

20 more to do. In a moment, I will be joined by the deputy leader of

the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon. First, they report on the independence

campaign. September 18 2014, the date of destiny for Scotland, the

day when these campaigners hope its people will decide to vote yes for

independence. In a recent poll, only 14% said they knew enough to vote

either way. That is unlikely to change any time soon. I think the

Scottish people will be going to the polls next year still not knowing an

awful lot of stuff which is important, because the outcome, in

terms of taxation, debt, exactly what will happen to the allocation

of assets between the two countries, will come about as a result of

negotiation between a Scottish government and the UK Government.

That is not stuff which will be known year. At the moment, polls

suggest Scotland will decide to remain within the UK. A recent

survey found that 44% of those questioned planned to vote no, 25%

questioned planned to vote no, 5% yes. But interestingly, the

undecideds were at 31%, suggesting that Alex Salmond's task might be

tough but not impossible. There are a number of reasons which make a

vanilla campaign a good idea. It does not put off cautious voters, it

allows for people to imagine their own version of what independence

will be like, and crucially, it allows for the yes campaign to take

advantage of any mistakes by the no campaign. In other words, the yes

campaign are not out there with big ideas, they are just waiting for the

no campaign to trip up. What we do know is that whatever happens next

September, Scotland will be getting more power. From 2016, a separate

income tax regime will come into force, giving the Scottish

Parliament control over billions of pounds of revenue. What we do not

know yet is how the alternative would pan out. There are issues

which would be raised by independence, issues about how the

national debt is allocated, what the currency will look like, how an

independent Scotland would balance the books, because it would have a

bigger job to do, even down the Whitehall government has to do.

Those are really big issues, which a Scottish government would have to

face, on top of whatever negotiation it had to have with the UK

Government. The Scottish government's White Paper on

independence, two to be published within weeks, should fill in some of

the banks. But how Scotland votes in September may yet be determined by

what it feels rather than what it knows. And joining me from Perth is

Scotland's Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon, we

meet again! Hello, Andrew. Former leader of the SNP Gordon Wilson

said, if this referendum fails, it will fail on the basis that people

put their British identity ahead of their Scottish identity, so we have

got to attack on the British identity - what does he mean? Gordon

Wilson is a very respected, much loved former leader of the SNP. My

view is that I do not think the independence referendum is really

about identity. I am secure and proud of my Scottish identity, but

this is a decision about where power best lies. Do decision-making powers

best lie here in Scotland, with a government which is directly

accountable to the people of Scotland, or does it best lie in

Westminster, with governments which, very often, people in Scotland do

not vote for? That is the issue at the heart of the campaign. Let me

just clarify, you do not agree with him, that you need to go on the

attack with regard to the British identity of Scottish people? No I

identity of Scottish people? No, I do not think we are required to

attack British identity. It is absolutely compatible for somebody

to feel a sense of British identity but still support Scottish

independence, because Scottish independence is about a transfer of

power. It is about good government, accountable government, ensuring

that decisions are taking here in Scotland, by people who have got the

biggest stake in getting those decisions right. I represent a

constituency in the south side of Glasgow, and if you speak to many

people in my constituency, if you ask them their national identity,

many of them would say Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Polish, and many

of them will vote yes next year because they understand the issue at

stake, which is the issue of where decisions are best taken. It looks

like you are changing tack ex-, you have realised the softly softly

approach, of saying that actually, nothing much will change, we will

still have the Queen, the currency, and all the rest of it, is moving

over towards voting for a left-wing future for Scotland... Well, I know

that what we are doing is pointing out is pointing out the choice

between two futures. If we vote yes, we take our own future into our own

hands. We make sure that for ever after, we have governments which

will be in demented policies which we have voted for. If we do not

become independent, then we continue to run the risk of having

governments not only that we do not vote for, but often, that Scotland

rejects. We are seeing the dismantling of our system of social

security. There are politicians in all of the UK parties who are

itching to cut Scotland's share of spending. So Scotland faces a choice

of two futures, and it is right to point out the positive consequences

of voting yes, but also the consequences of voting no. But you

are promising to reverse benefit cuts and increase the minimum wage.

You would renationalise the Royal Mail, though how you would do that

nobody knows. You are promising to cut energy bills. These are the kind

of promises that parties make in a general election campaign, not in a

once in 300 years extra stench or choice. Is the future of Scotland

really going to be decided on the size of the minimum wage? --

existential choice. A yes vote would be about bringing decision-making

powers home, but we are also setting out some of the things an SNP

government would do, if elected. out some of the things an SNP

government would do, if elected A government would do, if elected. A

decision on what the first government of an independent

Scotland would be would not be taken in the referendum, that decision

would be taken in the 2016 election. And all of the parties will put

forward their offers to the electorate. We are setting out some

of the things which we think it is important to be prioritised. These

are things which have a lot of support in Scotland. We see the pain

being felt by people because of the rising cost of energy bills, there

is widespread opposition to some of the welfare cuts. So, we are setting

out the options which are open to Scotland, but only open to Scotland

if we have the powers of independence. Given that you seem to

be promising aid permanent socialist near Varna, if Scotland is

independent, if you are right of centre in Scotland, and I understand

that is a minority pursuit where you are, but it would be a big mistake

to vote for independence, in that case, wouldn't it? No, because the

whole point of independence is that people get the country they want,

and the government a vote for. So, right of centre people should not

vote for independence? No, because people who are of that political

persuasion in Scotland get the opportunity to vote for parties

which represent that persuasion, opportunity to vote for parties

which represent that persuasion and if they can persuade a majority to

vote likewise, then they will get a government which reflects that. That

is the essence of independence. Right now, we have a Westminster

government which most people in Scotland rejected at the last

general election. That is hardly democratic. It is right and proper

that the SNP, as the current government, points out the

opportunities that would be opening up. Can I just clarify one thing,

when we spoke on The Daily Politics earlier last week, you made it clear

to me that Alex Salmond, we know he wants to debate with David Cameron,

but you made it clear to me that he would debate with Alistair Darling

as well, and Mr Carmichael... He made it clear yesterday. Well, he

said to the BBC this morning that he would only debate with these people

after he had had a debate with Mr Cameron, so who is right? I was

making the point last week, and Alex Salmond was making it yesterday and

this morning - let's have that agreement by David Cameron to come

and debate with Alex Salmond, and then Alex Salmond, just like me

will debate with allcomers. So if he does not get the David Cameron

debate, then he will not do the others, is that right? Let's focus

on is wading David Cameron to do the right thing. So, in other words he

will not debate, yes or no? Members of the SNP government... We know

that, but what about Alex Salmond? He said yesterday, we will debate

with all sorts of people, including the people you have spoken about,

but David Cameron should not be let off the hook just putting aside the

independence issue, energy prices are now even playing into the SNP,

so every political party has to do something about energy prices. Yes,

it is clearly it is interesting is the difference between the SNP and

the Labour approach. Ed Miliband electrified the party conference

season when he said he would freeze energy prices for 20 months,

seemingly having an amazing control over the energy market, where we

know that essentially what pushes prices up the wholesale prices on

world market. What Nicola Sturgeon is talking about is actually saying,

this amount is added to your bills for green levies, and we are going

to take them off your bills and they will be paid out of general taxation

in an independent Scotland. That is a credible government, making a

credible case, very different to what Labour is saying, although

playing to the same agenda. So, Labour has got a populist policy,

the SNP has also got a populist policy, the one group of people that

do not have a decent response to this is the coalition? Exactly. What

the SNP also have is a magic money pot, so that speech yesterday, you

are right, it was very left wing, social democratic, but there was

none of the icing like Labour has been talking about, with fiscal

responsibility. I think that is the difference between the two. We know

what the Tories would really like to do, all of these green levies which

were put on our bills in the good times, when they were going to be

the greenest party ever, the Tories would like to say, let's just wipe

out some of them, put the rest on to some general government spending,

but they have a problem, which is in the Department of Energy and Climate

Change. Not only that, they really are stuck now. But there is

something in the free schools debate this morning, the parties are now

determined to send a message to their potential voters at the next

election, that they are trying to fight their coalition partners. Do

not expected any change in coalition policy or free schools policy before

the election, but we can expect to hear the parties try to pretend that

they are taking on their coalition partners. Mr Clegg has said, we

would put this free schools policy into our manifesto, so is it not

possible that the Tories will say, if you give us an overall majority,

we will cut your electricity bill because we will get rid of these

green levies? I think that is entirely possible. The Tories know

that they are stuck on this, they do not have a response to Ed Miliband.

How much should ministers in Whitehall medal in local decisions

across England? In opposition, David Cameron said he wanted a fundamental

shift of power from Whitehall to local people. He said, when one size

fits all solution is... Eric Pickles described it as "an

historic shift of power". But the Communitites and Local Government

Secretary can't stop meddling. In the past few months Mr Pickles has

tried to ban councils from using CCTV cameras and "spy cars" to fine

motorists... Told councils how to act quicker to shut down illegal

travellers' sites... Criticised councils who want to raise council

tax... Insisted councils release land to residents hoping to build

their own property... And stated new homes should have a special built in

bin storage section. It seems not a week goes by without a policy

announcement from the hyper active Mr Pickles. So is the government

still committed to localism, or is it all about centralism now?

And Communities Secretary Eric Pickles joins me now for the Sunday

Interview. Welcome. Nice to be here. You said

in July you were going to give town halls the power to wreak their local

magic. So why issue diktats from Westminster? It is not about giving

power to local councils, it is going beyond that to local people. If

local councils refuse to open up their books, we have to go straight

to local people. You have attacked councillors using so-called spy

cameras to enforce parking rules. Why is that your business? Because

there is an injustice taking place. You cannot use fines to raise money

and that is plainly happening. If you get yourself a ticket from a

CCTV, it could be days or weeks before that lands on your doorstep

and you have virtually no possibility to be able to defend

yourself. But just leave it to people to vote out the council then.

We are trying to enforce the law and it clearly states that you cannot

use parking fines in order to fund general rate. So why are you not

taking them to court if they are breaking the law? There have been a

number of court cases taken by local residents. I am there to stand by

local residents. Your even trying to micromanage, allowing motorist s to

micromanage, allowing motorist 's to park for 15 minutes in local high

street. Why is that your business? I'm trying to ensure that local

authorities understand the importance of the town centre. If

you look at all opinion polls, right now there is a five-minute leeway

but there are many cases of people being jumped on by parking officials

for quite trivial things. It is about saying, surely I can go and

get a pint of milk. But a party that dines out on localism, that is a

matter for local people, not the men in Whitehall. I have to be on the

side of local people. That person who wants to go and get a pint of

milk. Ultimately it is a matter for them. It is a matter for the

council. But a little bit of criticism is not a bad thing. You

have now declared war on the wheelie bin and suggested that new homes

should have built in storage sections. You just cannot help

meddling! I suppose that is possible. You are a meddler! I am in

charge of building regulations and planning. So I may have some

responsibility there. Another one, interfering in local planning

decisions. A couple of places, you ruled in favour of developers. They

want to build over 200 houses against the wishes of the parish and

district councils. The local MP said the Secretary of State's decision

runs roughshod over any concept of localism. Now I have to be a

blushing violet because of course this is still potentially subject to

judicial review. I have to act properly. And Apple went is entitled

to justice. -- an applicant. A local authority has a duty to ensure that

is adequate housing for people in their area. This was not a decision

that I took as a personal decision, it was on the advice of an

inspector. But you contradict what David Cameron himself said in 2012,

David Cameron himself said in 2 12, he spoke about a vision where we

give communities much more say and local control. People in villages

fear big housing estates being plonked from above. You have just

done exactly that. After a proper quasi judicial enquiry. What we have

is planning framework which local people can decide where it goes. But

people can decide where it goes But they cannot say, nothing here. They

have to have a five-year housing supply. Previous to this government

decided exactly where houses would go, now local people can take the

lead. Anna Silbury said because of the way your department rules, local

authorities now have no alternative but to agree development on green

belt land. I do not accept that. I belt land. I do not accept that I

think around Nottingham there are particular problems with regards to

the green belt. The matter has been referred back.

the green belt. The matter has been want to see development on the green

belt but on Brownfield site. We want to see underused land. But you have

to remember why we have the green belt. Not

to remember why we have the green nice, it is their to prevent

conurbations bumping into one another. Your

conurbations bumping into one is vocal about the need to deal

what he calls the historic under provision of housing. Shelter says

we need 250,000 new homes per year. provision of housing. Shelter says

Houston statistics are getting there, but nowhere near that. -

housing. You cannot there, but nowhere near that. -

localism agenda as well as meeting housing demand. I do not accept

that. We inherited a position where the lowest level of building since

the 1920s was in place. But it has steadily improved. It does take a

while. You cannot have a localism agenda where people call the shots

on housing as well as meeting the housing demand. People have a duty

to ensure that future generations have somewhere to live. You cannot

pull up the drawbridge. There is nothing incompatible between that

and localism. Because someone has to be the voice of those people who are

going to live there and to make sure there is the proper amount. Plans

now exist for more than 150,000 homes to be built on protected land,

including the green belt. That will mean riding over local concerns.

mean riding over local concerns Each application will be taken on

its own merits. To suggest that there is an assault on the green

belt is as far from the truth as you can imagine. Should Andrew Mitchell

get his job back if the years exonerated? I would be honoured to

sit with Andrew Mitchell in the Cabinet. I have always believed his

version. But it is a matter for the Prime Minister who he has in

government. He would have no problem in seeing him back in Cabinet?

Absolutely not. Your mother answered Vulcan junior minister Nick balls

said about the Royal Charter for the press, there's nothing we have done

that troubles me as much as this. Is that your view? It is not. I accept

the compromise agreement put together. If the press want to have

an additional protection that the Royal Charter offers, then they can

move into the system. But if they want to continue independently that

is acceptable to me. But you previously echoed Thomas Jefferson,

you said for a free society to operate the river of a free press

has to flow without restriction. has to flow without restriction

That is what I said at the time. has to flow without restriction

That is what I said at the time We That is what I said at the time. We

had to find a compromise. And that seems to me to be a better

compromise. Let me just show you this little montage of pictures that

we have. I could not be happier! we have. I could not be happier

Then you are in the Desert and there you are in San Francisco. Then you

are in the casino. That is my personal favourite. These students

took a cardboard cutout of you and took it round the world with them.

Did you ever think you would become a student icon? I always felt

secretly that that might happen one day. But it came earlier in my

career than I thought! Why would they do that? I think they thought I

could do with a bit of an airing! I went to Norfolk earlier, but that

looks better. Thank you. On Wednesday senior police folk,

On Wednesday senior police folk including chief constables, will be

questioned by MPs about what's become known as Plebgate. That's the

incident in Downing Street last year which led to the resignation of the

government chief whip Andrew Mitchell. Last week the Independent

Police Complaints Commission questioned the "honesty and

integrity" of police officers who met Mr Mitchell following the row.

So do scandals like this affect public trust in the police? Here's

Adam Fleming. It's a story of politics, the

police, and CCTV. No, not Andrew Mitchell, but an MP's researcher

called Alex Bryce and his partner Iain Feis.

It started on a summer night in 2011. They'd been in Parliament.

2011. They'd been in Parliament After a few words with a police

officer, Ian was wrestled to the ground. Alex came to have a look and

the same thing happened to him. Both were arrested and charged. These

pictures emerged on day one of their trial. A trial that was halted

because the police version of events just didn't match the footage. A lot

of people with incidence like this which we experienced, people think

there is no smoke without fire. So when we said we did nothing wrong,

people would think police just would not do that. There is always that

underlying view that some people have. I think that has been

challenged and people who know us believe that. This year the Met

apologised and paid compensation. And it's led to an unlikely sort of

friendship. When the truth came out about the Andrew Mitchell story I

actually sent him an e-mail to congratulate him about the truth

coming out. He did send a reply acknowledging that. So where are we

with THAT saga? Remember last September? Andrew Mitchell had a row

with police at the gates of Downing Street about his bike. He lost his

job as chief whip after accusations he called the officers plebs. That,

he's always denied. This week the police watchdog the IPCC suggested

that three officers may have lied about a meeting with him at the

height of the scandal. Add that to the charge sheet of cases that

haven't exactly flattered the police. Like the revelation of a

cover up over Hillsborough. The prosecution of an officer from the

Met over the death of Ian Tomlinson during protests in 2009. Along with

news that undercover officers were told to smear the family of Stephen

Lawrence. During Thursday's protest by teachers in Westminster the

police operation was really, really relaxed. And recent scandals have

done nothing to affect society's view of the boys and girls in blue -

or should I say hi-vis. About 6 % of the public say they trust the

police. And that's not budged since pollsters started measuring it 30

pollsters started measuring it 0 years ago.

Of course, in Britain, crime is down, so the perception might be

that the police is doing a good job. And the rank-and-file recently

seamed pretty chipper at this awards ceremony. Is it a good time to be a

police officer? It is a good time. Despite all of the headlines? Still

a good time. But speak to officers privately, and they say Plebgate is

affecting how the public see them. Some of them also think

politicians, the Tories especially, are enjoying that a little too much.

Adam Fleming reporting there. Going head-to-head on this issue of trust

in the police, a Sunday Mirror columnist and Peter Kirkham, former

chief inspector. Peter Kirkham, let me come to you first. Plebgate, the

cover-ups over John Charles De menace, the death of Ian Tomlinson,

the industrial deception over Hillsborough, why is the culture of

deceit so prevalent in the police? I do not agree there is a cultural

deceit. These are all individual incidents which raise individual

issues. I would suggest that your short headline summarising each of

them has taken the most negative view of it. How can you be positive

about the police's behaviour over Hillsborough? It remains to be seen

with the inquiry but we are probably talking about a handful of senior

officers, dealing with the paperwork. Well over 100 testimonies

being doctored by the police. Well, those testimonies were true to start

with, so the officers have told the truth, and they have been changed

for some reason. By the police. By the police all lawyers we have got

this thing that the police conflates everything. There are 43 forces,

everything. There are 43 forces there is ACPO, there is the College

Of Policing... People say it was a handful of police officers, it

wasn't, it was six senior police officers who were alleged to have

doctored 106 D4 statements. Even today we are hearing that more than

1000 officers are yet to be spoken to about Hillsborough. -- 164. Do we

pretend that Hillsborough, and some of these examples, are the exception

rather than the rule? What is the evidence that this is now prevalent

in our police? I think there is a lot of evidence, and Plebgate is

probably the thing which has clinched it. The public want to

know, how deep does this girl? The audacity of a group of policemen who

think they can set up a Cabinet minister. Five of those who were

arrested and bailed still have not been charged. One of those officers

actually wrote an e-mail pretending to be a member of the public. I do

not see what the problem is in prosecuting them for that. Taking

Plebgate, there are loads of different bits of that incident.

different bits of that incident There is the officers on duty in

Downing Street, the issue of who leaked the story to the Sun, there

are the officers who claim to have been there who would appear not to

have been there, and then we have got the West Midlands meeting

issue, which has sort of been resolved this week. There has been

misconduct. But at a lower level. But it is the audacity of an

organisation which thinks it can take on an elected minister and

destroy him for their own political purposes, at a time when the

Government are cutting please pay, when they are freezing their

pensions and reducing their numbers. It looks very much to all of us,

pensions and reducing their numbers. It looks very much to all of us the

It looks very much to all of us, the public, that the police are at war

with the government, and they are going to do anything they can to

discredit the Government. The police would have every reason to be at war

with the Government, because there if there is a crisis of trust... But

it looks like they fitted up a Cabinet minister. That remains to be

seen, it is being investigated. We know that those Birmingham officers,

they totally misrepresented to, if not lied outright, about what was

said. Again, that is a misrepresentation of what happened.

If you actually go and look at what is said, it is plain from the

context, they were saying, he has told us nothing new. But he had in

the transcript, it said he hadn't. He would not admit he had used the

word pleb. He apologised profusely, he said it would never happen again,

he said many things that he had not said before. I agree, which is

presumably... Thereon many police forces in this country, they have

one of the toughest jobs in the land, they end up getting involved

in almost anything which happens in society, and there are obviously a

number of difficult examples, but what is the evidence that it is out

of hand, other than just several bad apples? This bad apples argument, we

have some amazing police people, have some amazing police people

thank God, but it is because of those that we have to root out the

bad ones, the ones that are possibly corrupt. From where most of us are

standing, the ones who are being accused of being corrupt, there does

not seem to be any process to deal with these people. The trouble with

a rotten apple is that it spreads. It is not fair on the good cops to

be tainted by this, and I think the police force, as an institution...

For all of us, we have to respect the police. There is a problem, is

there not? People do worry that if you can fit up a Cabinet minister,

you can fit up anybody... . I would disagree that anybody has proved

that anybody has been fitted up. We are yet to hear what happened at the

gates of Downing Street. But what we do know about the gates of Downing

Street is that we were told by the police officers that passers-by had

heard this incredible row, where Mitchell's file went was bullied.

That is not true... . They did not use those words, actually. All

right, but it is clear that the Police Federation jumped on this as

a politically motivated campaign... I have always said that politics

should be kept out of policing. The federation, they cannot go on

strike, but this was to covertly political, so I criticise them for

that. Do we need a better way of monitoring the police? We need a

more competent and properly resourced Independent police

commission. But if you look at those Bravery Awards, every police

officer, every year, who acts with bravery... That is the police force

we want to believe in. That is the police force you have got. We will

leave it there. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I will be speaking

to former Lib Minister Jeremy Browne. And in The Week Ahead, we

will be taking a look at what is coming up with our panel. At first,

The Sunday Politics across the UK. Hello and welcome to the London part

of the show. Boris Johnson and George Osborne

went to China. They were attempting people to come with simpler Visa

rules. Was it worth it? Boris thinks so. I am not going to come back to

London with a panda. But we will have billions of pounds worth of

investment. This trip helps keep that going. Boris Johnson there Are

you optimistic that this trip will manifest in jobs for Londoners? Well

whether it is opportunities for London businesses, or even improving

the tourist economy, that would be a good thing. But if it is more about

promoting Boris Johnson, I am not so sure. I think he does like to demote

himself quite a lot and has lofty ambitions of his own. Would Ken

Livingstone have done the same sort of thing? Well, I think Ken had an

office in Beijing, which was about an ongoing relationship, a

sustainable relationship. James Brokenshire, surely Theresa May must

be extremely worried about this idea of relaxing these rules when the

thrust of your government has been to crack down on net migration, and

bringing the number is down to tens of thousands, when Boris Johnson is

saying, let's relax the rules and encourage more immigrants to

London? I think it is important to note that we have been entirely

consistent in saying that we want the brightest and the best to come

to this country. George Osborne, to this country. George Osborne

what he said is underlining how we can ensure that the Visa process, it

is not being relaxed, can be done more effectively, turned around in

24 hours, that the forms which are therefore Chinese business people to

come to London and to be able to trade, that is done effectively so

trade, that is done effectively, so that we can see an increase as we

are seeking, in terms of doubling the amount of trade between this

country and China. This is not about personality, it is about advocating

London and the UK. Making a special case for China, because Boris

Johnson said, a relaxation of these rules Chinese people coming to the

UK, which flies in the face of what you are saying about known EU

migrants. It does not, because we are focused on reducing migration,

and dealing with the problem that Labour left as one uncontrolled

immigration. -- non-EU. We want to get good, effective, Chinese

business people here, focused on growing the trade between our two

countries. Since its inception 13 countries. Since its inception 3

years ago, City Hall and the mayor have become potent landmarks on the

political landscape of the landscape -- of London. But what about the

London assembly? It was set up to scrutinise the mayor. This week, the

scrutinise the mayor. This week the role of the assembly has come under

attack from its neighbour across the river, Parliament. Have you read the

Assembly report on food poverty in London? I am aware of the broad

conclusions of the report... The job of the London assembly is to

scrutinise the mayor, but a new report from Parliament says the

assembly needs new powers to be able to do that properly. Do you know

what it is? No. Not really, no. Intended to be relatively weak

compared to the mayor 's office, Intended to be relatively weak

compared to the mayor 's office the compared to the mayor 's office, the

Assembly was never supposed to regularly block policy. It was not

given the right to vote down his plans, except with a two thirds

majority, and even then, it can only reject a very broad strategies,

rather than specific initiatives. The mayor has yet to lose a vote. I

do not think it has been holding the mayor to account adequately. This is

for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are relatively

small in number, not properly organised enough, and secondly, they

have not found it was a bore, with one or two exceptions, to drill into

what the mayor has been doing consistently over time, and in

particular, to look at transport, policing and other services and

follow the numbers, follow the money, really. According to this

many many inconsistencies which need to be sorted out. Assembly members

can join the mayoral team which runs the fire brigade or deals with our

rubbish, but not the office for policing and crime. The fact that

some of them sit, for example, on the fire authority, none of them sit

on transport for London, you are asking, why is that? So, getting a

consistent approach to the Assembly, it would be a help. There may be

inconsistencies, but Londoners are more likely to worry about how

effective the assembler is, and whether it has been worth the ? 00

whether it has been worth the ?100 million it will have cost them by

2016. I am joined from Sheffield by Labour MP Clive Betts, chair of the

Communities And Local Government Select Committee, and by the newly

appointed parliamentary private secretary to Eric Pickles, the

Communities Secretary. Live bets, why should Londoners care about the

powers that the Assembly has? Clearly, the male will always have

more publicity than the Assembly, but it is important that any powers

the mayor has must be held to account by a body which scrutinises

what he is doing, asks questions, and in certain cases, if necessary,

amends the budget if a two thirds majority thinks that should be

amended. What we were saying is that the Assembly has not got sufficient

powers to hold the mayor to account in that way. So, was it set up

incorrectly by Nick Raynsford, the former Labour minister? No, it has

grown over the years, leaving inconsistencies. The Assembly does

not have the power to call in inconsistencies from the mayor, in

the way that any local council up and down the country would have. The

and down the country would have The Assembly should have a right to

question him on things before they are implemented. We mentioned the

budget, and when he puts forward to oppose all is for day-to-day expo

joke, the Assembly can amend that, but on capital expenditure, ?5

billion a year, the Assembly has no say on that at all. That cannot be

right. What specifically would you like the Assembly to be able to do?

Are you saying that they should be given a wider remit, in terms of the

two thirds majority to block or reject proposals which They should

have the power to call things in. He has a new policy proposal and comes

up with an idea. They should be allowed to say to the mayoral, hold

on, before you implement this you must produce a report for assembly

members to consider. In the end it would be a decision for the mayoral

to go ahead but the assembly should have the right to question it. The

assembly does have powers to reject the mayoral's strategies by two

thirds majority, except of course for policing plan. That is an

inconsistency. Is it not ridiculous that this body cannot scrutinise

what the mayor is doing. Well the assembly was set up so the Labour

Party could not better the mayor. There is an argument that there is

some tidying up to be done. But it is not a priority at the moment. The

key issue for Londoners are things like housing and high streets. And

the London electorate, they can call the mayor to account every four

years. They are not clamouring for change. I think there are more

important things to do in parliamentary time. So you're saying

that the American do what he likes in four years in terms of policing

and budget. -- the mayor. He is accountable to the electorate of

London. The assembly have the ability to question him and ask him

to think again. There is an argument for tidying up some of the powers

but there are more pressing issues. Give me one example where the the

assembly has managed to block a major proposal? With a two thirds

majority, they have the power to block the budget. But that would be

a big deal, the entire budget. Should they not have that power over

policing and transport? You should look at putting in new powers, but

not straightaway. It is not a priority? The GLA has been in

existence for around the teen years. It is time to look at these things

afresh. This year we had a very interesting set of circumstances

with the mayoral's budget, which will result in one in ten fire

stations in London closing. The majority of Londoners do not want

this. Neither did the majority of assembly members but he was able to

steam roller that through. So the wishes of Londoners are being

overwritten? We heard from one expert in local government. They

just do not have powers to stop him. I think the mayor is doing a great

job for London. But that is not the question. I think the assembly can

scrutinise effect to flee. They have produced a range of fabulous reports

that are taken into consideration by the mayor. There may be some tidying

up to do but it is that rather than anything fundamental. It does not

seem that the recommendations of your report will be taken on. But

you propose moving assembly members from the executive bodies. But then

would that not result in less transparency? No, they would not be

confused and muddled by being on those executive bodies so it is not

clear who is response will. There are assembly members on the fire

authority. They can be assembly members for transport but none have

been appointed. All that really is a mess and needs to be tidied up. This

is not a Labour Party proposal but a cross-party proposal. Would you be a

little more urgent about this issue if there was a Labour mayor in place

at City Hall? No, I think there is an argument for tidying up but it is

not a priority at the moment in parliamentary time. There are things

like housing and high streets instead that are important. The

mayor is accountable. We can tidy up when we have time but it is not

urgent. Not any time soon. An investigation by this programme

into town hall corruption in London has found that 80% of local

authorities have successfully prosecuted their own staff for fraud

in the past three years. Are the councils who have not made any

prosecutions were once that we should worry about?

This programme as every local authority in London whether they

found their own staff committing fraud in the past three years. 5

found their own staff committing fraud in the past three years. 25 of

fraud in the past three years. 5 of 33 got back to us and just short of

80% had their own workers successfully persecuted for some

kind of fraud. Barnett gave us a great insight into the type of cases

we are dealing with. For example a scheme involving defrauding in the

housing sector. But it is not just money. Barnett has an operation into

illegal workers infiltrating into the council as signal enforcement

officers. They found that staff had used to get the job. And in Ealing

town Hall officers entered the building and took away three illegal

migrants working there. Seven council workers have been

prosecuted, and they say that is a sign of good this. It is a big issue

for some councils. In the past they have been hit with a big stick by

central government and others when they discover fraud. The implication

being it happened on your watch and you should not have allowed it to

happen. But that misses the fact that all organisations are

vulnerable to fraud. And so any organisation should be pleased if

they do find a fraudster and should make a song and dance about taking

them through the process and bringing them to justice. Lambeth in

the late 20th century had a bad reputation for corruption. One of

the men responsible for cleaning it up said that he found it surprising

that some local authorities had not had any staff prosecuted. Fraud

running at 5.5% of your budget can be a massive sum. Looking at the

London figures, 20 billion pounds per year is spent on services.

Cutting that by 40% within 12 months could free up ?400 million for

better local services. That is something to concentrate on. Getting

the police to prosecute can be a problem. In cases in Wandsworth the

police had enough evidence but would not prosecute. This includes one

employee you, where it amounted to an overpayment of ?39,000. It is

disappointing when we go to the police and they say they do not have

the capacity of a certain threshold. That is disappointing. But that is

the way things are at the moment given the pressure on public

finances. Could it be that those authorities who have seen their own

workers guilty of defrauding the taxpayer are the ones building

strong cases? It is the ones who have not who have questions to

answer. ?1 in every ?20 spent by local

authorities is fraudulent. Are you surprised by that? I do not know how

those figures have been arrived at. But I think it should be a zero

tolerance approach. This is about trust in public services and also

about ensuring that in difficult economic times, every pound spent is

spent wisely and used to best effect. So local authorities need

proper procedures in place full stop the culture has to be right and they

also have to have the resources to be able to do this work. There is a

lot of focus on protecting front-line services. And we have

seen massive cuts to local authorities. You have to also invest

in these offers functions in order to be able to tackle this problem.

Clearly it does need to be tackled. Is it worth spending money on? We

have heard about the need for efficiencies and savings. You do not

hear much about this fraud problem. Well it is a significant problem in

all public services and the government is resolute in saying we

need to tackle organised crime groups involved in this, in some

cases. We have launched the National crime agency and it has a clear

focus on fraud. One of the examples we gave was one local authority

which found it had contracted out a mini crab servers that was actually

run by organised crime network. -- minicab service. But some say there

is not the support from central government to prosecute these cases.

Its central government involved enough good smack it is supporting

the fight against fraud. We have put in place the mechanisms with the

National crime agency. Fraud is not a victimless crime. It is a focus

for us in our enforcement at liberty. You need people and

resources to investigate it. You need that joined up approach whether

from local authorities and police, to actually tackle blaze and take it

through the courts. Local authorities are taking this more

seriously. They are raising their standards. We are seeking to work

with them to identify fraud more effectively. That is money coming

out of taxpayers pockets. We do need a focus on this in the way that I

have suggested and that is what we are doing. But reputational damage

is an issue for local authorities. Is that I have is part of the reason

they may not have pursued some of these cases? I would like to think

that is not a reason for them not taking action. But it must be a

consideration. I would say authorities need to take this very

seriously. It is also joining things up. If people are defrauding one

organisation they are unlikely to be doing it in another.

Now Kate Ford has the rest of the political news. Inside out has

revealed some estate agents might be breaking race discrimination laws on

behalf of landlords. The evidence suggests some leading agencies have

been discriminating against black people searching for a home in the

private rental market. The agents deny this. The move to put a former

Whitehall police station on the banks of the Thames into a different

use is part of a plan to sell off large parts of the police estate in

the next few years. It has been alleged that Transport for London

ignored police warnings about the dangers faced by cyclists in the new

cycle lanes. Thames Water's unjustified bid to add a surcharge

next year has been denied, according to a watchdog. So, are we back in a

world of no dogs, no Irish, no blacks, when it comes to housing? I

think some people's experience in London is awful, when they are

trying to find a property to rent. There are unscrupulous letting

agents, who say some dreadful things and do some dreadful things, and so,

I am really pleased that the Equality And Human Rights Commission

is looking into this. It is this sort of thing which does not make me

proud to be a Londoner, when normally I am very proud to be

living in this city. In the 21st century, is this the kind of thing

you would expect? I think it is quite shocking, in terms of what we

have just heard on there. It should be about judging the right tenant,

not the colour of their skin, for goodness sake. It is utterly

unacceptable. Is it strange that this has come to the fore? I do not

think it is particularly strange, because we have had a lot of

rhetoric from the Government in the last couple of days, with the

Immigration Bill coming up on Tuesday, trying to whip up tensions,

and this is part of what is going on. I am sorry, trying to conflate

that with some kind of racism, that is unfair. The focus is on driving

down immigration, but not in any way which links in with this. Thank you

to both of you for being my guests today.

Are the Lib Dems like a wonky shopping trolley? Why is Nick Clegg

kicking off over free schools? And what about Boris and George's love

bombing of China? All questions for The Week Ahead. We are joined now by

the former Home Office minister and Liberal Democrat MP Jeremy Browne.

Jeremy Browne, let me ask you this key question - ??GAPNEXT who is in

the ascendancy in your party, those who would fear to the left, or those

who would fear to the centre? The point I was making in the interview

that I gave to the times was that I want us to be unambiguously and on

up genetically -- and unapologetically a Liberal party. I

do not want us to be craving the approval of columnists like Polly

Toynbee. I do not want us to be a pale imitation of the Labour Party.

I think we should be proud and unambiguously a authentic Liberal

party. That is my ambition for the party. If it is, as you put it,

fearing to the left, then I think that is a mistake, I think we should

be on the liberal centre ground But be on the liberal centre ground. But

is it actually veering to the left, your party? I think there is a

danger when a party, or any organisation, feels that it is in a

difficult position, to look inwards, to look for reassuring,

inwards, to look for reassuring familiar policy positions. I do not

want us to be the party which looks inwards and speaks to the 9% of

people who are minded to support us already. I want us to look outwards

and speak to the 91% of the population, for whom I think we have

got a good story to tell about the contribution we have made to getting

the deficit down, cutting crime, keeping interest rates low, and

also, distinctive Liberal Democrat policies for example on income tax

and pupil premiums. If we look like we are a party which is uneasy and

ambivalent about our role in government, people will not give us

credit for the successes of the government, and we will not be able

to claim the authorship which we should be able to claim for our

policies excesses in government. should be able to claim for our

policies excesses in government I policies excesses in government. I

want us to be confident, outward looking, and authentically liberal.

If we are that, people real sense that and they will respond

positively. Does that not therefore make it rather strange that Nick

Craig should choose to distance himself from the coalition's schools

policy? Well, I support free schools, I think they are a liberal

policy. Education is a fascinating area, so let's explore it a bit. We

have had two very significant and troubling reports in the last

fortnight, one from Alan Milburn, saying that social mobility has

stalled in this country, in other words, what your parents do is a

reliable guide to how you will get on in life and the other saying that

Britain lags behind our competitors, the other

industrialised countries, in terms of the educational attainment of

15-year-olds. Both of those are worrying. We have a scandalous

situation in this country where two thirds of children from

disadvantaged backgrounds are failing to get five Grade A to Grade

C. Some get none at all. If we were the world leaders in education, we

could have an interesting conversation about how we are able

to maintain that position, but we are not. Whether there are good

things one less good things which have happened in our schools over

the last 30-40 years, we really need to raise our game and stop letting

young people down who need a good quality education in order to

realise their full potential in life. It sounds like you do not

share Mr Clegg's designations? I think there are two big dangers for

us as a party. I do not think we should be instinctively statist, and

I do not think either we should be instinctively in favour of the

status quo. I want us to have a restless, radical, energetic,

liberal reforming instinct, which is about putting more power and

responsible at the end opportunity in the hands of individual people.

As I say, we look at the education system, of course there are good

teachers and good outcomes in some schools and for some pupils,

overall, our performance in this country is not good enough, so the

status quo has not been a successful stop I am interested in how we can

innovate. -- has not been a success. Are the Tories wooing you? Well, I

Are the Tories wooing you? Well I do not know if that is the right

word, I have been reported, and I have set myself, that the

Conservatives have, if you like, made some advances or generous

suggestions to me, but I am a liberal, and I am a Liberal

Democrat. I have been a member of the Lib Dems since the party was

founded, I joined when I was 18 years old. I have campaigned

tirelessly for the Liberal Democrats for my entire adult life, so I am

not about to go and join another political party. I would turn this

on its head, let me put it like this, I think there are quite a few

liberals in the other political parties, people like Alan Milburn,

who wrote a report on social mobility, people like Nick Bowles in

the Conservative Party. Our ambition, as Liberal Democrats,

should be to attract liberals from other political parties, and no

political party, to the Lib Dems. Just briefly, have you suggested

that the Tories do not run a candidate against you in the next

election? I have not suggested anything of the sort. The

Conservatives have to make their own decisions about which candidates

they select, and I will take on whoever is select it from each of

the political parties. Thank you for joining us. There is a danger not

from Jeremy Browne, but from Mr Clegg, in that, having been part of

a coalition which has gone through an enormous squeeze in living

standards for three years, it did not look like both was coming, it

was being regarded overall as a failure, but now, it may be turning

the corner, so why would you then start to disassociate yourself from

the coalition's policies? Yes, the danger for Nick Clegg is that he

makes the Liberal Democrats looked like visitors in a guesthouse, a

guesthouse which is owned by the Conservatives. As you say, they were

there for the three difficult years, and just at the moment when the

economy seems to be coming right, and we are getting some nice growth,

they seek to distance themselves. It is interesting that Jeremy Browne

came out with the outrageously disloyal statement that he supported

free schools statement. That is a disloyal Liberal Democrat view, but

on Thursday, of course, the Liberal Democrat party was in favour of free

schools, because in that statement about the Al-Madinah school, David

Laws made a passionate defence about what Nick Clegg is now criticising,

which is having on qualified teachers. If things are now coming

right, the big risk for the Liberal Democrats always was that they would

not get the credit anyway. Well if not get the credit anyway. Well, if

they diss associate themselves like this, they definitely will not get

the credit. It depends which voters their opinion poll ratings are dire,

he spoke about 9%, and sometimes it is less than that. So, where are

they going to get those voters from? They have not got those

anti-Iraq war voters. Is it not Mission impossible, getting Labour

voters test surely the left of the Lib Dem vote is peeling off towards

labour, not away from Labour? I wonder to what extent, and this

might be speculation, this might be organised and arranged, that Cameron

and Clegg both understand that they have groups of voters that they need

to get, so they need to send messages out to different groups, it

looks like a bit of a setup to me. Boris in China, along with boy

George - let's have a look... Who, according to JK Rowling, was Harry

Potter's first girlfriend? That s Potter's first girlfriend? That's

right, and she is Chinese overseas student, is that not right at

Hogwarts? Actually, we are not sure it is right, she is actually from

Scotland. It is not only London which has a diverse society. Putting

that to one side, we are inviting the Chinese into finance our power

stations, to run big banks in the cities, we are giving out more visas

to them, are we right to embrace the Dragon? What worries me about the

power stations then, it is 30% of investment, and it reminds me a lot

of PFI, the idea that you do not want a huge investment on your

balance sheet, but if somebody bails out halfway through, we cannot stop

with a half finished power station. It is EDF, the French company, which

will actually build it, and we will be guaranteeing the debt for them.

It is extraordinary that there has been so little adverse comment after

George Osborne and Boris's trip to China, and is it now really the UK

Government policy, to sell Britain to the Chinese? There was a debate

in government about this, as they were getting ready for the trip,

in government about this, as they were getting ready for the trip and

there will be at some point in the next six months be a David Cameron

trip to China. He has had to wait three years because they were

annoyed about him meeting the Dalai llama. There were some people in the

Foreign Office who were saying, fine, but tread carefully. George

Osborne's view is absolutely not, get in there, I do not care about

any of these problems, get stuck in. I think he is storing up five

years since the financial crisis, Chinese banks are being given a

special, light touch regulatory regime. What could possibly go

wrong?! There is lots to see. Energy prices have continued to dominate

this week. We have got the EDF deal, whereby we are going to be giving

them twice the market rate for their energy. But for the coalition, all

eyes are on the GDP figures. The expectation and hope is that the

recovery will be stronger than the figures have suggested so far, on

which basis it can influence the result of the next general

election. The chief economist at the Bank of England was saying on

Twitter last week that the Bank of England may now bring forward the

assessment when it says, maybe we are going to have to change monetary

policy, if unemployment goes below 7%. And we know what that means,

interest rates. The Bank of England on Twitter! That is it for today.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow on BBC Two. I will be back with

prime Minster 's questions on Wednesday, and of course, we will be

back at 11 o'clock on BBC One next Sunday.