10/11/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Ed Miliband's on

the war path over pay day loans, the war path over pay day loans

your energy bill and what he calls the bedroom tax. His spinners say

he's resurgent though the polls don't show it. We'll be talking to

his right hand woman, Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman. From

resurgent to insurgent. Nigel Farage won an award this week for being a

political insurgent. We'll be talking to the UKIP leader. And

Harriet hates, hates, hates page three. She wants rid of it. But what

do you think? We sent Adam out with some balls. Stay. It is good fun for

the guys. What do you think about people who think it is exploitative?

It is free choice. In London, the row over the super sewer rumbles on.

And with me, fresh from their success at yesterday's Star Wars

auditions, Darth Vader. Obi Wan Kenobi and R2D2. Congratulations on

your new jobs. We'll miss you. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

First, the talks with Iran in Geneva. They ended last night

without agreement despite hopes of a breakthrough. America and its allies

didn't think Iran was prepared to go far enough to freeze its nuclear

programme. But some progress has been made and there's to be another

meeting in ten days' time, though at a lower level. The Foreign

Secretary, William Hague, had this to say a little earlier. On the

question of, or will it happen in the next few weeks? There is a good

chance of that. We will be trying again on 20th, 21st of November and

negotiators will be trying again. We will keep an enormous amount of

energy and persistence behind solving this. Will that be a deal

which will please everyone? No, it will not. Compromises will need to

be made. I had discussions with Israeli ministers yesterday and put

the case for the kind of deal we are looking

the case for the kind of deal we are interests of the whole world,

including interests of the whole world,

the world, to reach a diplomatic agreement we can be confident in in

this issue. This otherwise will threaten the world with nuclear

proliferation and conflict in the future. The interesting thing about

this is that it seems future. The interesting thing about

prepared to go far enough over the Iraq heavy water plutonium reactor

it is building. The people who took the toughest line - the French.

France has always had a pretty tough line on Iran. They see it as a

disruptive influence in Lebanon. line on Iran. They see it as a

disruptive influence in Lebanon I am reasonably optimistic a deal will

be done later this month when the talks reconvene. Western economic

sanctions have had such an impact on Iran domestic league. They have

pushed inflation up to 40%. Dashes-macro domestically. The new

president had a campaign pledge saying, I will deal with sanctions.

I actually think, by the end of this year, we will see progress in these

talks. Should we be optimistic? The next round of talks will be at

official level. The place to watch will be Israel. The language which

has been coming out of there is still incredibly angry, incredibly

defensive. They do not want a deal at all. Presumably John Kerry has to

go away and tried to get Israel to be quiet about it, even if they

cannot be happy about it. They cannot agree to a deal which allows

the Iraq reactor with plutonium heavy water. You do not need that

with a peaceful nuclear power programme will stop that is why the

Israelis are so nervous. If there is an international deal, Israel could

still bomb that but it would be impossible. The French tactics are

interesting. It says the French blocked it in part because they are

trying to carry favour with Israel but also the Gulf Arab states, who

are really nervous about and Iranians nuclear capability. Who is

that? Saudi Arabia. Newsnight had a story saying that Pakistan is

prepared to provide them with nuclear weapons. You are right about

Saudi Arabia. They are much more against this deal than Israel. Who

is Herman van Rompuy's favourite MEP? It is probably not Nigel

Farage. He plummeted to the bottom of the EU president's Christmas card

list after comparing him to a bank clerk with the charisma of a damp

rag. And he's been at it again this week. Have a look. Today is November

the 5th, a big celebration festival day in England. That was an attempt

to blow up the Houses of Parliament with dynamite and destroy the

Constitution. You have taken the Dahl, technocratic approach to all

of these things. What you and your colleagues save time and again -

of these things. What you and your colleagues save time and again you

talk about initiatives and what you are going to do about unemployment.

The reality is nothing in this union is getting better. The accounts have

not been signed off for 18 years. I am now told it is 19 and you are

doing your best to tone down any criticism. Whatever growth figures

you may have, they are anaemic. Youth unemployment in the

Mediterranean is over 50% in several states. You will notice there is a

rise in opposition dashed real opposition. Much of it ugly

opposition, not stuff that I would want to link hands with. And Nigel

Farage joins me now. Let me put to you what the editor of the Sun had

to say. He says, UKIP will peak at the European election and then it

will begin to get marginalised as we get closer to 2015 because there is

now that clear blue water between Labour and the Tories. What do you

say to that? There may be layered blue water on energy pricing but on

Eastern Europe, there is no difference at all. When Ed Miliband

offers the referendum to match Cameron, even that argument on

Europe will be gone. The one thing that will keep UKIP strong, heading

towards 2015, is if people think in some constituencies we can win. I

cannot sit here right now and say that will be the case. If we get

over the hurdle of the European elections clearly, I think there

will be grounds to say that UKIP can win seats in Westminster. You are

going to run? Without a shadow of a doubt. I do not know which

constituency. The welcome I got in Edinburgh was not that friendly

Edinburgh is not everything in Scotland. I think we have a

realistic chance of winning those elections. If we do that, we will

have the momentum behind us. You might be the biggest party after the

May elections. The National front is likely to do very well in France as

well. They have won the crucial by-election in the South of France.

Have you talked about joining full season in Parliament? The leader has

tried to take the movement into a different direction than her father.

The man she beat, to become leader, actually attended the BNP

conference. The problem she has with her party and we have with her party

is that anti-Semitism is too deep and we will not be doing a deal with

the French national government. You can guarantee you will not be

joining such groups. I can guarantee that. Let's move on to Europe. Let's

accept that the pro-Europeans exaggerate the loss of jobs that

would follow the departure of Britain from the UK. Is there no

risk of jobs whatsoever? No risk whatsoever. There is no risk at all.

There have been some weak and lazy arguments put around about this We

will go on doing business - go on doing trade with Europe. We will

have increased opportunities to do trade deals with the rest of the

world and they will create jobs. The world and they will create jobs The

head of Nissan, the head of Hitachi and CBI many other voices in British

business, when they all expressed concern about the potential loss of

jobs and incoming investment, we should just ignore them. With

Nissan, the BBC News is making this a huge story. The boss did not say

what was reported. He said there was a potential danger to his future

investment. They have already made the investments. They have built the

plant in Sunderland, which they say is operating well. We should be

careful of what bosses of big businesses say. This man said they

may have two leaves Sunderland if we did not join the euro. I do not take

that seriously. As for the CBI, they wanted us to join the euro and now

they do not. Even within the CBI, there is a significant minority

saying, we do not agree with what the CBI director-general is saying.

The former boss of the organisation is saying we need a referendum and

we need a referendum soon. It depends on the renegotiation. There

is not the uniformity. What we are beginning to see in the world, is,

manufacturing and small businesses are a lot more voices saying, the

costs of membership outweigh any potential benefit. If you look at

the polls, if Mr Cameron does repatriate some powers and he joins

with Labour, the Lib Dems, the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales,

most of business, all of the unions to say we should stay in, you are

going to lose, aren't you? In 1975, the circumstances were exactly the

same. Mr Wilson promised a renegotiation and he got very

little. The establishment gathered around him and they voted for us to

stay in. I do not think that will happen now. The scales have fallen.

We do not want to be governed by Herman Van Rompuy and these people.

These people are Eurosceptic but they do not seem to feel strongly

enough about it that they are going to defy all the major parties they

vote for, companies that employ them, unions they are members of. I

am absolutely confident there will be a lot voices in business saying,

we need to take this opportunity to break free, give ourselves a chance

of a low regulation lowball trader. -- global trade. In 1970 53 small

publications said to vote yes. I am not contemplating losing. The most

important thing is to get the referendum. If UKIP is not strong,

there will not be a referendum. Earlier in the year, your party

issued a leaflet about the remaining sample parents being able to come to

this country. The EU will allow 29 million Bulgarians and remaining is

to come to the UK. That is technically correct but we both know

that is not the case. It is an open door to these people. Why take the

risk? By make out there are 29 million people? I stand by that

verdict. It is an open door. 29 million are not going to come. They

can if they want. Also 29 million people from France can come. After

these countries have joined, we will do another leaflet saying that Mr

Cameron wants to open the door to 70 million people from Turkey. That is

scaremongering. I would not say that. We have a million young

British workers between 16 and 74 British workers between 16 and 4

without work. A lot of them want work and we do not need another

massive oversupply in the unskilled labour market. Why did you have such

a bad time on question Time this week? The folk that did not buy your

anti-immigration stick. Do you think that group of people in the room was

representative of the voters of Boston? What would make you think it

was unrepresentative? When the county council elections took place

this year in Boston, of the seven seats, UKIP won five and almost won

the other two. I don't think that audience reflected that, but that

doesn't matter. How an audience is put together, how a panel is put

together, on one programme, it doesn't mean much at all. It shows

that your anti-immigrant measure doesn't fly as easily as you hoped

it would? The opinion polls which will be launched on Monday that we

are conducting and nearing completion, they show two things.

Firstly, an astonishing number of people who think it's irresponsible

and wrong to open the doer to Romania and Bulgaria, secondly and

crucially, a number of people whose vote in the European elections and

subsequent general elections may be determined by the immigration

issues. This does matter. It would be the perfect run group the

European elections in May for you if a lot of Bulgarians and remainians

flooded in. You would like that to happen? I think it will happen.

Whether I like it or not, it will happen. You think it will be good

for you, it will stir things up? If for you, it will stir things up If

you say to people in poor countries, you can come here, get a job, have a

safety net of a benefits system, safety net of a benefits system

claim child allowance for your kids in Bucharest, people will come You

are ready with the arguments already? You will be disappointed if

only ten turn up? Whether lots come or not we should. Taking the risk

and yes, we are going to make it a major issue in the European

election. Let's leave it there. Thank you very much, Nigel Farage.

The summer of 2013 was not good for Ed Miliband, with questions over his

leadership, low ratings and complaints about no policies. He

bounced back with a vengeance at the Labour Conference in September,

delivering a speech which this week won the spectator political speech

of the year aword. In that speech he focussed on the cost-of-living and

promised a temporary freeze on energy prices. Even said this. The

next election isn't just going to be about policy. It's going to be about

how we lead and the character we show. I've got a message for the

Tories today. If they want to have a debate, about leadership and

character, be my guest And if you want to know the difference between

me and David Cameron, here is an easy way to remember it. When it was

Murdoch v the McCanns, he took the side of Murdoch. When it was the

tobacco lobby versus the cancer charities, he took the side of the

tobacco lobby. When the millionaires wanted a tax cut as people pay the

bedroom tax, he took the side of the millionaires. A come to think of it,

here is an easier way to remember it. David Cameron was a Prime

Minister who introduced the bedroom tax. I'll be the Prime Minister who

repeals the bedroom tax There we go, that will go down with the party

faithful on Tuesday. There will be a debate on the bedroom tax. Labour's

Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, joints me now. Let's begin with the

bedroom tax or bedroom subsidy. Nearly 11% of people who've come off

Housing Benefits all together after their spare room subsidy was

stopped, isn't that proof that reform was necessary? No. I think

that the whole way that the bet room tax has been attempted to be

justified is completely wrong. What it's said is that it will actually

help take people off the waiting lists by putting them into homes

that have been vacated by people who've downsized by being

incentivised by the bedroom tax, who've downsized by being

incentivised by the bedroom tax so basically if you are a council

tenant or Housing Association tenant in a property with spare bedrooms,

then because the penalty is imposed, you will move to a smaller property.

That is the justification for it. But actually, something like 96 of

But actually, something like 96% of the people who're going to be hit by

the bedroom tax, there isn't a smaller property for them to move

into. I understand that. Therefore they are, like the people in my

constituency, if they have got one spare bedroom, they are hit by 700

a year extra to pay and that is completely unfair As a consequence

of people losing the subsidy for their spare room, they have decided

to go out and get work and not depend on Housing Benefit at all?

11% of them. What's wrong with that? Well, they are going to review the

way 2 the bedroom tax is working. What is wrong with that? But that's

not working. That's the result of Freedom of Information, 141 councils

provided the figures, 25,000 who've come off benefits, of the 233,000

come off benefits, of the 233,0 0 affected, it's about 11%. These

people were clearly able to get a job was having the Housing Benefit

in the first place? But of course the people who're on the benefits

who're not in work are always looking for work and many of them

will find work which is a good thing, but for those who don't find

work, or who find work where it's low-paid and need help with their

rent, it's wrong to penalise them on the basis of the fact that their

family might have grown up and moved away and so you have either got to

move out of your home, away from your family and your neighbourhood,

or you've got to stay where you are and, despite the fact that you are

low-paid or unemployed, you have got to find an extra ?700 a year because

of your rent. So it's very unfair The Government that was

commissioning independent research on the impact of this work change

and welfare policy, particularly on the impact on the most vulnerable,

some of which you have been talking about there, shouldn't they have

waited until you have got the independent research, that

independent investigation before determining your policy? No. In

fact, the Government should have waited until they'd have done their

independent research before they bought into effect something and

imposed it on people in a way which is really unfair. They could have

known. Why didn't you wait? What they could have done is, they could

have asked councils, are people going to be able to Manifest into

smaller homes if we impose the bedroom tax and the answer from

councils and Housing Associations would have been no, they can't move

into smaller homes because which haven't got them there. They should

have done the evaluation before they introduced the policy. We are

absolutely clear and you can see the evidence, people are falling into

rent arrears. Many people, it's a terrifying thing to find that you

can't pay your rent, and some of the people go to payday loan companies

to get loans to pay their rent. It is very, very unfair. The

justification for it, which is people will move, is completely

bogus. There aren't places for them to go. On the wider issue of welfare

reform, a call for the TUC showed that voters support the Government's

welfare reforms, including a majority of Labour voters. Why are

you so out of touch on welfare issues, even with your own

supporters? Nobody wants to see people who could be in a job

actually living at the taxpayers' expense. That's why we have said

that we'll introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, so that if you are a

young person who's been unemployed for a year, you will have to take a

job absolutely have to take a job, and if you have been unemployed as

somebody over 25, there'll be a compulsory thing after two years of

unemployment. So if you have been on welfare two years? So the main issue

about the welfare bill actually is people who're in retirement who need

support. We have said for the richest pensioners, they shouldn't

have to pay their winter fuel allowance. My point wasn't abouts

the sub stance, it's about how you don't reflect public opinion --

substance. The Parliamentary aid said the political backlog of

benefits and social security is "not yet one that we have won. Labour

must accept that they are not convincing on these matters,". Well,

redo have to convince people and explain the policies we have got and

the view we take. So, for example, for pensioners, who're well off, we

for pensioners, who're well off we are saying they don't need the

Winter Fuel Payment that. 's me saying to you and us saying to

people in this country, we do think that there should be that

tightening. For young people, who've been unemployed, they should be

offered jobs but they've got to take them. So yes, we have to make our

case. OK. The energy freeze which we showed there, on the speech, as

popular. The living wage proseles have been going down well as well.

Why is Labour's lead oaf the Conservatives being cut to 6% in the

latest polls? Ed Miliband's own personal approval rating's gotten

worse. Why is that? I'm not going to disdues ins and outs of weekly

opinion polls with you or anybody else because I'm not a political

commentator, but let me say to you the facts of what's happened since

Ed Miliband's been leader of the Labour Party. We have got 1,950 New

Labour councillors, all of those... But you're... All those who've won

their seats against the Conservatives or the Liberal

Democrats and no, Andrew you don't always get that in opposition. In

1997 after Tony Blair was elected, the Tories carried on losing council

seats. Exceptional circumstances and these days Mr Blair was 25% ahead in

the polls. You were six. The economy grew at an annual rate of 3% in the

third quarter just gone. Everybody, private and public forecasters now

saying that Britain in this coming year will grow faster than France,

Italy, Spain, even Germany will grow faster. Your poll ratings are

average when the economy was flatlining, what happens to them

when the economy starts to grow? Well, I've just said to you, I'm not

a political commentator or a pundit on opinion polls. We are putting

policies forward and we are holding the Government to account for what

they are doing and we think that what they did opt economy pulled the

plugs from the economy, delayed the recovery, made it stagnate and we

have had three years lost growth. I understand that, but it's now

starting to grow. Indeed. If you are no political commentator, let me ask

you this, you anticipated the growth, so you switched your line to

no growth to this is growth and living standards are rising. If the

economy does grow up towards 3% next year, I would suggest that living

standards probably will start to rise with that amount of growth.

What do you do then? We have not switched our line because the

economy started to grow. All the way along, we said the economy will

recover, but it's been delayed and we have had stagnation for far too

long because of the economic policies. We have been absolutely

right to understand the concerns people have and recognise that they

are struggling with the cost-of-living. Sure. And we are

right to do that. What kind of living standards stuck to rise next

year? -- start to rise next year. I hope they will. For 40 months of

David Cameron's Prime Ministership, for 39 of those, wages have risen

slower than prices, so people are worse off. I understand that. You

will know that the broader measurement, real household

disposable income doesn't show that decline because it takes everything

into account. Going around the country, people feel it. They say

where's the recovery for me. Living standards now start to rise? If that

happens, what is your next line? There is a set of arguments about

living standards, the National Health Service, about the problems

that there is in A, which caused -- are caused by the organisation. I

can put forward other lines. All right. Let me ask you one other

question If no newspapers have signed up to the Government-backed

Labour-backed Royal Charter on press regular lace by 2015 and it looks

like the way things are going none will have, if you are in power, will

a Labour Government legislate to make them? They don't have to sign

up to the Royal Charter, that's not the system. What the Royal Charter

does is create a recogniser and basically says it's for the

newspapers to set up their own regulator. They are doing that. My

question is... Let me finish. If they decide to have nothing to do

with the Royal Charter that was decided in Miliband's office in the

wee small hours, will you pass legislation to make them? The

newspapers are currently setting up what they call... I know that,

Harriet Harman. Just let me finish. OK. Because the newspapers are

setting up the independent Press Standards Organisation. Right. If it

is independent, as they say it is, then the recogniser will simply say,

we recognise that this is independent and the whole point is

that, in the past when there's been skaen deals a tend press have really

turned people's lives upside down and the press have said OK we'll

sort things out, leave it to us, then they have sorted things out but

a few years later they have slipped back, all this recogniser will do is

check it once every three years and say yes, you have got an independent

system and it's remained independent and therefore that is the guarantee

things won't slip back. Very interesting. Thank you for that

That's really interesting that if they get their act right, you won't

force the alternative on them. We want the system as set forward by

Leveson which is not statute and direct regulation. I want to stick

with the press because I want to ask, is this a British institution

or an out-of-date image for a by gone age. The Sun's Page 3 has been

dividing the nation since it first appeared way back in 1970. That's

dividing the nation since it first appeared way back in 1970. That s 43

years ago. Harriet Harman's called for it to be removed, so we sent

Adam out to ask whether the topless photographs should stay or go. We

have asked people if page three should stay or go. Page three. What

do you think? Nothing wrong with it at all. I think it is cheap and

exploits women. It is a family newspaper. Should it stay or go?

exploits women. It is a family newspaper. Should it stay or go Go.

I will look like the bad guy. It should go. You have changed your

mind. It is free choice. Girls do not have to be photographed. Old men

get the paper just for that. Know when your age does that? Not really.

Dashes-macro know what your age Page three girls, should they stay

or go? I am not bothered. There are other ways of getting noticed. Page

three of the Sun newspaper every day, there is a woman with no top

on. We got rid of that about 40 years ago in Australia. I am not in

favour of censorship. It has been long enough. It can stay there. What

is wrong with it? We want to encourage children to read the

newspapers. I do not want my children to look at that. It is

degrading. Do you think we will see the day when they get rid of it?

Yes, I do. I am wondering if I can turn this into some kind of a

shelter. It is tipping it down. I think the council should do

something about their car parks Mother nature, the human body. It

should stay. Is some people like it, that is fine. I have nothing against

it. You know what has surprised me, lots of women saying it should stay.

Maybe they are seeing it as empowering. As I have a baby

daughter in there, I am happy to see it go. Imagine my grandad opening up

his paper and they're being my bats! It should go. There is nothing wrong

with it. He wants it to go. What about people who think that page

three should be banned? Idiots. Do you know a girl called Lacey, aged

22, from Bedford? Good luck to her. I do not know her as a person that I

have heard she is nice. What about her decision to be on page three?

Nothing to lose. Do you think she has made Bedford proud? That is not

hard. What have we learned? More people want page three to stay down

for it to go. Most people do not really seem to care, do they? You

have heard a range of views. I am not arguing it should be banned I

not arguing it should be banned. I have not argued for it to be banned

but I have disapproved of it since the 1970s. You do not think it

should be banned? I do not think there should be dictating content

but I do think, if you arrive from outer space in this country in

21st-century Britain, and asked yourself what was the role of women

in society... To stand in their knickers and nothing else, I think

women have more to aspire to than to be able to take their clothes off in

public. The sun no longer has the circulation, or the political

importance, that it had in the 980s importance, that it had in the 1980s

when page three was at its height. Aren't people just voting with their

feet anyway? The market is sorting this out. Half the number of people

buy it now than they did 20 years ago. Until the time the sun does not

have page three any more, I am entitled to my view that it is

outdated and wrong. I am happy to establish that you do not want to

ban it. What should happen? Should people boycott the paper? I have

never implied or said it should be banned. I have always been

forthright. Should people boycott the paper? I have not called for a

boycott. The women's movement, of which I am part, and this is not

about politicians censoring the press. I am part of the movement

which says women can do better than taking off their clothes and being

in their knickers in the newspapers. Why don't you do something about it?

I am doing something about it by saying it is outdated. I am not

doing anything more about it. Should people buy the paper as long as

there is a page three? Would you like to say to viewers, as long as

page three is in the sand, you should not buy it? Dashes-macro be

Son. I am saying, wake up to what the role of women in society should

be, which is more than page three. If they changed it in Australia,

If they changed it in Australia which is where Rupert Murdoch came

from, why can they not change it in this country? You're watching the

Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes... I'll be talking

to man leading the campaign for an English parliament. Until then, the

Sunday Politics across the UK. Hello and welcome them from us and

to my guests. Welcome to you both. A little later, we will be taking

another look at the story causing a big stink in west London. Is there a

way to reduce the disruption that is coming from building the Thames

super sewer? Let's start with a story, not from London, but across

the pond. New York has a new mayor. He talked about ending stop and

search. He has become the first Democrat to hold the role of men in

20 years. The most striking thing here, winning 73% of the vote and a

really old-fashioned leftish, Liberal leader of the city.

Presumably what London needs. It is an impressive result. Almost any

politician I imagine would give anything for a result like that.

Let's see how he does. There is talk of New York slipping backwards

towards its bad old days. I do not know what will happen. Many people

will think it has been a period of managerialism under Bloomberg.

Perhaps given his own wealth, favouring that part of the city.

What most people think about is the Giuliani years. He did some amazing

things with crime figures in New York. He was there with numeric 9/11

and his leadership was exemplary. A lot of leaders have thought about

Republican days as being where they got law and order under control. No

reason that will happen but they are the kind of concerned I have heard

being expressed. It is an amazing result. Good things here swing an

interesting way? A little bit more taxation of those best able to pay

it in London. He has a stonking mandate. It was the result of a kind

of upsurge of New Yorkers, who I think feared that New York was

becoming two cities - is city of the rich and a city of the poor and

dispossessed. Here you have a hugely charismatic Democratic candidate,

saying, I am going to make this one city. I think that is the risk in

London. Are you the person to ensure that happens in London? This is not

about me personally, Tim. It is now because I have asked you. As a

Labour MP serving London constituency, yes. I am concerned -

deeply concerned - about this in London. You must see the bookmakers

and the newspapers with your name being mentioned as a potential

candidate. It is a good time to ask. Have you given up the idea of it?

Have you ruled it out? It would be good to have a woman running. I am

never going to vote for a Labour mayor but I would say this, I think

that Tessa would be a very credible candidate. I think also, it would be

great to see Labour in London coming out from under the shadows of Ken

Livingstone. To have a woman taking the lead, Tessa would be a credible

candidate. I think she has completely destroyed and damaged

your chances. Where are you on that? Are you considering it? I am

thinking about it. There are London elections, there is a general

election. I am a Labour member of Parliament for Dulwich and West

Norwood. No one should rush and declare themselves for an election

in three years time. I have genuinely not made up my mind.

Teather has told me that she considers herself to be of the

centre ground in terms of politics. -- Tessa. We do not know about the

Conservative candidate. The water regulator told Thames will this week

it could not put up bills by 8% next year, which would have meant an

increase of, on average, nearly ?30 per household. Part of the argument

was it needs the money to help to pay for the super sewer to be built

under the River Thames. Next week, Hammersmith Council is submitting

its suggestions to a planning enquiry, arguing that disruption

during the engineering process could actually be dramatically reduced.

The ?4 billion Thames Tideway tunnel would run from west to east. It is

essential in order to stop millions of tonnes of sewage from being

pumped into the Thames every year. Thames water will need to demolish

most of the building cc running along the river behind me. At the

moment, they are peoples homes and peoples businesses. They will all

have to go. This road in full - an area behind here - would be dug up

and turned into an excavation site. -- filler. There will be 27,000

extra trucks using its roads. Added to which, the road is a cycle path.

Rarely a good mix with HDV is. If you are walking down the street when

you would have no idea about what would happen here, unless you happen

to see this sign out of the corner of your eye and decide to read it.

Notice is hereby given that issues specific for compulsory acquisition

hearings will be held by the examining authority, Thames

utilities Ltd, for the Tideway tunnel - the project. It does not

tell you what the project is. Wow that is all legally accurate and

necessary, what it is not is a sign that says, public meeting, come and

have your say. Most people here will not be able to understand and give

their concerns. Some residents complain about a lack of engagement.

Barbara is one of them. She lives with her husband, who has

Alzheimer's. A proposed site is outside her flat. The buildings you

can seep through the living room window will be knocked down. They

will be full still it with a construction site all the time to

stay few metres away from their garden. -- they will be forced to

live. There will be coughs and infections. The air pollution -

there will be dust. Goodness knows what will be in that dust. They have

heard little about compensation. They have not guaranteed you will be

in the same borough. You could end up in another part of London. I just

do not know. They have not been specific as to where they would move

you to. The message from here might be, not in my backyard. What if this

disruption did not add to be in anyone's backyard. According to a

new report, that might be the case. Written by an international

construction firm, it says if Thames water chose to dispose of all the

soil anywhere else, it was still be possible although it would take

longer to do. It could cost more but could also cost less. It is possible

you could construct the super sewer without losing this site. If that is

the case, and we believe it is, then we are obliged to make sure that the

powers that be are aware of this and it would be absolutely unthinkable

if a drive strategy, using this site were pursued, if there were an

alternative. The bitterest pill to swallow for some residents here is

that despite disruption, water bills will be going up, as they will in

every household across London. I'm joined by the Head of The project of

Thames Water. We'll give you a chance to respond to the first point

about keeping local people up to speed. Do you think you are doing

enough to consult and keep people in the picture? I certainly believe we

are and we have been carrying out consultation since 2010 and 2011, so

consultation since 2010 and 201 , so there's been a number of years when

we have been out engaging the local residents and have attended public

meetings. And advertising at public meetings? Have people been attending

them and they know what is going on in this part of Fulham, do they

They do and we have written to people and put leaflets around

informing them of the public meetings. Also we have tried hard to

engage with the London borough of Fulham which systematically refuse

to engage with us over the last two years. What do you mean? They've

told their offices not to have meetings with us or to respond to

correspondence so it's very difficult to take on board people's

concerns if you can't engage with them. That said, we have made a huge

effort to engage with the community that live in and around the area.

What about the central point there that they will be present and there

is a consultation document done by a perfectly respectable firm saying

you don't have to extract all this stuff here, you can tunnel through

to the end, you don't have to cause this disruption on this site? Well,

we don't agree with that. We agree that the solution we have put

forward is the optimum solution I think in terms of the report that's

written, there are some major factual inaccuracies within it and

indeed there's even a sentence in it that says that it's been written and

with a limited knowledge and understanding of the project and we

certainly would agree. Why do you say yours is the optimum project

though? Because we feel in terms of the ten years of studies that have

gone on, in terms of developing the scheme and consulting with it, about

that scheme since September 201 , scheme and consulting with it, about

that scheme since September 2010, we that scheme since September 201 , we

feel we have come up with the best overall solution, not necessarily

for Hammersmith and Fulham but for London as a whole so we can deliver

the outputs required of the scheme whilst minimising disruption in

London as a whole. It wasn't long ago that it seemed better to others

that Barn Elm was a better site. Environmentalists kicked off and you

shifted your attention away from that because the fight looked too

harsh to deal with then you shifted it? We went out and shared our

initial plans, we listened to what people said, we took those views

into account and then we reviewed our proposals, we did a back check

of our process. The key thing about one of the over-Kell ming things we

got told in response was build Boro y you can on brown field rather than

green field -- overwhelmed. There is a protected wharf in Hammersmith, on

the video you saw earlier there were concerns over people saying about

the number of lorries. We are committed to taking 90% of the

material away from the sites by river, hence significantly

rereducing the number of lorries on the streets. A word from you two

here, do you support it and should it go ahead as planned? I think for

my constituents, particularly in the East End and around Acton, broadly

they do want it. It's going to deal with a lot of historical flooding

problems Acton suffers from. So broadly yes but concerns about the

work starting and whether or not it will be well managed. Cross party

support and you think it should be done? Yes and it's important there

is cross party support to give a project like this stability. But of

course, I think this is something that we learnlet with the Olympics,

very complex side site, where you have disproing for Nat, discomfort,

upheaval being borne by a small number of people. You really need to

invest in them. The ?80 going on the average bill, is that acceptable?

Well, you have to pay for this kind of investment. I would like to see

that figure audit and incidentally I'm very glad that Ofwat have

knocked back the proposed increase for consumers. That's very good.

That's to be very welcomed. You are nodding your head, you agree, can I

check? Very happy with Ofwat has done. The ?80 figure is a lot but I

wonder whether or not it would be possible to extend it over a longer

time and reduce the impact. Thames Water have to impropose relations

with customers because right now I don't think they are terribly good.

For London to be a functioning city, you have to upgrade the

infrastructure. What about the Ofwat decision? What is your feeling about

it and does that set back the super sewer? In terms of the decision

it's only recently been made and we need to review the decision and then

consider our next steps. Must be a set back, you were saying this money

was needed for investment? Well, the was needed for investment? Well the

Thames term of ?3 was the figure mentioned. It won't affect the

Government support for the project and the fact it has to be financed.

We are running out of time on this one. If you can bear to hold that

thought, we have to move on Thank you very much. The London living

wage was put up by 25p to ?8.80 an hour, meaning a wage rise for 2 ,000

hour, meaning a wage rise for 20,000 Londoners who work for firms that

have signed up to a voluntary scheme. Half a million workers still

earn below the living wage and Downing Street, the Mayor, Labour,

business and the unions are all at odds over how to get more people

paid it The living wage is a voluntary scheme for businesses who

want to pay more than the national minimum wage like this London pub,

one of the first firms to sign up. Politicians are trying to come up

with ways to encourage firms to get on board. Labour is planning to

offer tax breaks to businesses which adopt the living wage and to make it

a requirement for Governments to win contracts. Boris Johnson announcing

the rate for the living wage set by economists in City Hall this week.

Similar to Labour, he wants paying a living wage to be a condition for

firms to bid for contracts from the Greater London Authority. That could

be against European law, according to Downing Street. This week, Number

Ten suggested it could break EU procurement laws unless the living

wage was paid to all workers in London, effectively raising the

minimum wage by ?2. 50 app hour from its current ?6.31. For the time

being, that doesn't look to be on the cards. Business Secretary Vince

Cable says making it compulsory would mean job losses. The CBI is

warning prices would have to rise to cover the cost. Labour on the London

Assembly says the living wage should be made compulsory in the capital,

replacing the minimum wage. Some small companies may well be

struggling to pay a London living wage. You can help those and work

that through. There's lots of sectors that are not struggling.

There is healthy profits and the question is, should the profits be

put back to some of their low-paid workers? Despite all the attention a

the living wage has received, only 20,000 are affected by the scheme.

Expect to hear more on how that number might be increased Why not

pay this automatically, compulsory to half a million more Londoners?

Think of the tax receipts, the benefit bill going down? We all want

to see people properly remunerated for good work and want to see people

getting wage rises. But listening to that, I wonder how many companies

are talking about healthy profits. It has to be a balance about

rewarding staff at work and making sure you don't reward those in work

at the expense of those still looking for work. That has to be a

really big consideration because otherwise small companies are going

to say, if I have to pay the higher wages, I can't take anybody else on.

Tessa Jowell, where are you with this? Are you with the London

Assembly figure who says it should be compulsory for everybody? I think

that Ed Miliband's position, which combines tax breaks with a voluntary

approach, is the right one at this time. I think there's more traction

in bringing employers into paying the London living wage short of

regular ion. I think a huge tribute is due to London citizens who have

campaigned across London. But you are quite clear - sorry to bang home

the point - but to compulsory pay to it everyone is not right? It's not

as simple as that. The challenge is 56240,000 Londoners do not get the

London living wage -- 560,000. We have seen a stub Stantial increase

in the number of living wage employers. My view would be, as with

Ed Miliband, that there is more that can be achieved through a voluntary

approach. A nudge approach. Let me just say this. I think London

citizens whose view I very much take on this, talk about the greater

strength of this being an obligation that employers willingly engage in

out of respect for their employers, rather than something to be forced

on them. Boris Johnson is saying he wants to get companies doing

business with City Hall companies, yes? Can I just go back. It's a very

important point this. Getting at least companies doing work for the

public sector to pay that? Let's see what the EU law has to say about

that. To go back on the Ed Miliband point. The point about his help to

companies to meet the high wages only runs for one year. The

businesses have made it clear that at the end of that year, they are

left with staff on higher wages and can't afford to take on extra staff.

I'm not sure that Ed's latest special offer stacks up. What would

be wrong, because he's the Mayor now and as a Conservative-led

Government, what would be wrong with ensuring all Whitehall departments

contract only with employers who employ people on the living wage? I

think that would have a ripple effect downwards to the small

companies who provide resources to the bigger companies. It's an

important signal isn't it? Very important, but I go back to my

point. Everything has to be balanced against the consideration about

whether you are costing businesses more money to the point they can't

hire new people. We have to balance people in work with people trying

to... You are never going to get the benefit or productivity. This is

exactly what I mean about the traction. You can use public

procurement as a lever that incentivises companies. You want to

bid for a big contract with City Hall, let us see if you are paying

the living wage. Let us move on It's time for the rest of the

political news in 60 seconds More families with children are living in

bed-and-breakfast accommodation than for almost ten years, according to

Shelter. Some 62,000 children in London face being homeless this

Christmas The Mayor faced an official complaint after he claimed

?4,000 for flights during his recent trade mission to the Gulf. Labour

complained Boris Johnson was in breach of rules restricting him to

economy seats unless there are exceptional circumstances Several of

many Johnson's top aids were also accused of breaching the rules Data

from the Met Police revealed there were almost 2,000 reported cases of

13-19-year-olds committing violence against their own parents in greater

London alone, over a 12-month period from 2009-2010 Several hundred to

testers, many wearing Guy Fawkes masks blocked Parliament Square as

part of a protest called the million mask march. Many demonstrators

staged a Bonfire Night burning of energy bills to raise their

opposition to the rising cost of fuel Another death on this cycle

superhighway and a commitment by the mayor where he can introduce more

segregated cycling into the capital in the future. That is essential.

Probably, it is a paradox. As cyclists move from a segregated

cycle track to one where cars move as well, that may be one of the most

dangerous areas. This has to be driven by safety. Also, more

opportunity. A bit of fear that may have pushed too fast ahead -

superhighways and bike schemes and so want and not checked the safety.

I do not think it is possible to do that in every part of London. Tessa

is right. We need more training. We is right. We need more training We

see -- we need to see lorries with more equipment so they can see

cyclists. Back to you, Andrew. We learned this week that no more

warships will be built at Portsmouth, the home of the Royal

Navy since the days of the Mary Rose and Francis Drake. But has the city

been sacrificed to save jobs on the Clyde in Scotland? Is England the

loser in an effort to keep the United Kingdom intact? Let's speak

to Eddie Bone, he leads the campaign for an English Parliament. Is

England the loser in this attempt to keep the

doubt, Andrew. We would look at it from the campaign for the English

Parliament that the British governance is bribing the Scots to

stay with the union at the cost of English jobs. What is the best

outcome for England when Scotland votes in the referendum next year?

We have got to have an English parliament. What I mean by that is

an endless governor and with a first minister speaking on behalf of the

people of England. -- and English government. If Scotland votes for

independence, that is the union coming to an end. It will be

dissolved legally. England would be going to negotiating table without

true representation. The union continues but it continues without

Scotland. I want to come back to my... That is the constitutional

position. You may not agree with me but that is the constitutional

position. Do you want Scotland to vote for independence next year?

position. Do you want Scotland to vote for independence next year We

vote for independence next year? We want a fair deal with equality for

England. If that can be maintained or England can have a fair deal

within the union, that is brilliant. Let's have a federal system are all

the nations are treated equally If the nations are treated equally. If

that cannot happen and Scotland decides to stay, if Scotland goes,

it is an independent England, isn't it? If Scotland votes to leave the

union, what is left of the United Kingdom would be so dominated by

England at Westminster would, in effect, Beale English Parliament,

wouldn't it? I do not agree with you. I think that is a British, deny

list approach. The act of union was a fusion with the King of England to

the King of Scotland. That would come to an end. The Welsh are very

concerned. They are a very small nation. If you have a botched

British come English Parliament, the British come English Parliament the

Welsh would be in a very vulnerable situation. They would not be

listened to. Also a situation with Northern Ireland. There are voices

in Northern Ireland talking about trying to reunite Northern Ireland.

It would be a very volatile situation. Would you prefer England

to become an independent nation separate from what was left of the

UK, which would be Wales and Northern Ireland? Would you like to

see England have a seat in the UN? I want their representation for the

people of England. English jobs were sacrificed because the British

government wanted Scotland to remain... You have answered that

very quickly. I am -- very clearly. Would you want England, without

Northern Ireland and Wales to become a separate nation state? If that is

what it takes for people of England to have their representation -

representation that looks at policies of the NHS, education very

different from Wales and Northern Ireland - then so be it.

Independence will need to be the way forward. We have a small window of

opportunity that the federal system might still work. D1 indenting have

a system like Scotland? -- do you want England to have a system like

Scotland? What we need to do now is implement the process is to get

their representation for England. I would urge your viewers to join our

campaign because it is the only way to protect jobs in England, protect

the NHS, protect education. Otherwise we will see the people in

England continually penalised by the British government is trying

desperately to save the union by giving more to Scotland and Wales.

Nice to talk to you. Helen, on this business of the Clyde versus

Portsmouth, it would have been pretty inconceivable of the British

government that believes in the union to have allowed the Clyde to

close. That would have been a disaster. It would have been. It's

dumped Nicola Sturgeon. Hang on a minute, if there was Scottish

independence, England were not allow its warships to be built in a

foreign country. She was unable to admit there were any downsides to

Scottish independence. It would be dangerous for Scotland to talk about

this. You have a Lib Dem and a Conservative MP with reasonable

majorities. They will find that a killer on their doorstep in the next

election. There are no results in this for Mr Cameron. He has one MP

and he will be lucky to have two. And the South of England, I know

Portsmouth is quite an industrial area, but the South of England is

overall Tory territory. He has backed the Clyde where there are no

Tory votes. The Tory problem in Scotland is crucial. The trend to

look out for is the rise of English nationalism within the Conservative

Party. They have the word Unionist in their official title. If, in

election after election, they failed to win a significant presence in

Scotland, and they are failing to win a majority in Westminster

because of that, it is not hard to imagine that in ten years time that

would be a party which has more autonomy. One person we know who

does not sign up to that. David Cameron is a romantic Unionist at

heart he may say that are not any vote in Scotland but he want to keep

the union together. With the Clyde, you saw a rival together of economic

and political interests. It is economic or the case the greatest

shipbuilding capability in the United Kingdom is in the Clyde. It

is politically very helpful for this government to say to people in

Scotland, look at the benefits of being in the United Kingdom and,

being in the United Kingdom and under their breath, or in the case

of Alistair Carmichael to a camera, look what might go if you leave!

That came together very conveniently to the government. Now, how do you

like your politicians? Squeaky clean with an impeccable past? Or are you

happy for them to have a few skeletons in the closet? Well, last

week the Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitted smoking crack cocaine. He

said he took the drug about a year ago whilst in a drunken stupor. So,

what impact do confessions have on a political career? In a moment, we'll

hear what our panel has to say, but first, take a look at this. Yes I

have smoked crack cocaine. Am I an addict? No. Have I tried it?

Probably one of my drunken stupor is, about a year ago. I have used

drugs in the past. I have used class a drugs in the past. About 30 years

ago at university, I did smoke cannabis. I took cannabis is a few

times at university and it was wrong. Have you snorted cocaine? I

tried to but unsuccessfully years ago. I sneezed. The people around

you who took cocaine, they went... Is it better to confess or the that

get you into even more hot water? It is absolutely better. The confession

by Jacqui Smith was without glamour. Finding a Labour politician who once

smoked cannabis 25 years ago... I do not think it makes you think that

she cannot be a serious politician. Politicians should brace thing about

them which everyone knows. In the case of Ed Miliband, he should not

deny being geeky. That would reek of in authenticity. The Tory MP meant

to be regarded as a rising star, turns out he was claiming to heat

his horses stables at the expense of the tax payer. He had made a

generous claim for energy bills in his constituency home. He went

through the papers and found he had been using it to heat the stables

and he laid it all out and did the right thing. He was completely

honest. Is that the end of it? It will still haunt in because energy

is such a big issue. He was right to be honest about it. Helen was

saying, absolutely, you need to be honest about your past. Harriet

Harman said she smoked pot at university. If you have smoked pot,

you can have a front line career. If you have taken class a drugs, you

cannot have a front line career There is the politician confessing

and the remarkable willingness of the public to forgive. It is

enlightened and progressive to forgive a politician for an affair

or taking soft drugs at university. To smoke crack cocaine and demand be

mad of following the Mayor of Toronto does astonishes me. There

was an example in America a few years ago. It was crack cocaine. He

years ago. It was crack cocaine He was elected having confessed to

smoking crack cocaine. I draw the line around class a drugs. We will

put the team on to investigate him. Help to Bible come back into the

headlines again. Mr Cameron will surroundings by the people who are

benefiting from buying their homes on this scheme in the same way that

this is that you used to visit those who had bought their council houses.

It will become hugely politicised. The Bank of England thinks that

unemployment will drop late 201 , early 2015. They will put interest

rates up. Those with 95% mortgages will have two find an extra ?400

rates up. Those with 95% mortgages will have two find an extra ?40 a

month to pay them off. I would not be surprised if David Cameron is

setting up himself with this trouble. They will not want to raise

interest rates. Mark Carney was very careful to give himself three get

out clauses. If unemployment hits a certain level, Key has three

measures which have to be fulfilled before he goes ahead and raises

interest rates. As a Tory strategist, would you rather go into

the election with low and implement or low interest rates? I think they

would stick to low interest rates. -- low unemployment. It is not just

panellists who are raising questions about it, it is senior figures

people in senior economic positions. They are saying the scheme is fine

at the moment. David Cameron will be surrounded by people who have taken

mortgages out at low levels and it is all fine right now but if

interest rates go up, it will not be cosy. That's all folks. The Daily

Politics is back tomorrow on BBC Two at midday. I'll be back next Sunday

at the normal time of 11am. Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the

Sunday Politics.