17/11/2013 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Downing Street announces an inquiry into allegations of hardball tactics

and intimidation by unions in industrial disputes. That's our top

story. Thousands dead. Hundreds of

thousands without homes. Millions affected. What is Britain doing to

help the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan? We'll ask

International Development Secretary Justine Greening.

Winter is coming and so, it seems, is another crisis in England's

hospitals. I'll be asking the Shadow Health Secretary how he'd put a stop

to the NHS's annual woes. In London, an alarming series of cycle

fatalities on the capital's streets, and renewed calls to get lorries off

the roads in peak hours. With me, the best and brightest

political panel that money can buy. Janan Ganesh, Nick Watt and this

week, Zoe Williams, who'll be tweeting their thoughts throughout

the programme. The Government has announced a

review to investigate what the Prime Minister has called "industrial

intimidation" by trade union activists. Bruce Carr QC will chair

a panel to examine allegations of the kind of tactics that came to

light during the Grangemouth dispute, when the Unite union took

their protests - replete with a giant rat - outside the family homes

of the firms' bosses. Earlier this morning the Cabinet office minister,

Francis Maude spoke to the BBC and this is what he had to say. To look

at whether the law currently works and see if it is ineffective in

preventing the kind of intimidatory activity that was alleged to have

taken place around range mouth during the previous disputes --

Grangemouth. We make no presumptions at the beginning of this. I do think

it is a responsible thing for the government to establish what

happened and really do a proper review into whether the law is

adequate to meet the needs. That was Francis Maude. This is a purely

political move, isn't it? Unite did this a couple of times, it is hardly

happening all over the country but the government want to say, we are

prepared to investigate Unite properly, Labour isn't. This seemed

a lot worse when I thought it was a real rat. I thought it was a giant

dead rat. I am not sure if you know much about rats but real rats are

not this big, even the ones in London. The thing is, obviously it

is naked politics but I think it is more intelligent than it looks. They

are trying to taint Miliband as a week union puppet and that doesn't

really wash. They hammer away with it and it might wash for some

people. But it really castrates Miliband in the important issues he

has to tackle. Zero hours, living wage, all of those things in which

he needs to be in concert with the unions, and to use their expertise.

He is making them absolutely toxic to go anywhere near. It keeps the

Unite story alive, have to kill -- particularly since Mr Miller band is

under pressure to reopen the investigation into what Unite are up

to -- Mr Miliband. They are frustrated, not only at the BBC but

the media generally at what they think is a lack of coverage. I see

the political rationale from that respect. There is a risk. There are

union members who either vote Tory or are open to the idea of voting

Tory. All Lib Dem. If the party comes across as too zealous in as --

its antipathy, there is an electoral consequence. Ed Miliband has been

careful to keep a distance. Yes, they depend on vast amounts of

money. When Len McCluskey had a real go at the Blairites, Ed Miliband was

straight out there with a very strong statement. Essentially Len

McCluskey wanted Blairites in the shadow cabinet sacked and Ed

Miliband was keen to distance himself or for that is why it is not

quite sticking. Another story in the Sunday papers this morning, the Mail

on Sunday got hold of some e-mails. When I saw the headline I thought it

was a huge cache of e-mails, it turns out to be a couple. They peel

away the cover on the relationship between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls,

with some of Ed Miliband's cohorts describing what Mr balls is trying

to do as a nightmare. How bad are the relations? They are pretty bad

and these e-mails confirm the biggest open signal in Westminster,

which is that relations are pretty tense, -- open secret. That Ed

Miliband doesn't feel that Ed Balls is acknowledging the economy has

grown that Labour needs to admit to past mistakes. The sort of great

open signal is confirmed. On a scale of 1-10, assuming that Blair-Brown

was ten. I think it is between six and seven. They occupy this joint

suite of offices that George Cameron and -- David Cameron and George

Osborne had. It is not just on the economy that there were tensions,

there were clearly tensions over HS2, Ed Balls put a huge question

over it at his conference. There will be more tensions when it comes

to the third runway because my information is that Mr balls wants

to do it and Ed Miliband almost resigned over it when he was in

government. I don't think Ed Miliband is thinking very

politically because he has tried live without Ed Balls and that is

not tenable either. -- life without. He has defined a way of making it

work. That is where Tony Blair had the edge on any modern politician.

He didn't want to make Ed Balls his Shadow Chancellor, he had to.

Somebody said to him, if you make Ed Balls Shadow Chancellor, that will

be the last decision you take as leader of the Labour Party. Is it as

bad? I was surprised at how tame the e-mails were. At the FT it is

compulsory, one French word per sentence! To call him a nightmare,

compared to what they are willing to say in briefings, conversations,

bits of frustrations they express verbally come what is documented in

the e-mails is actually pretty light. It has been a grim week for

the people of the Philippines as they count the cost of the

devastation wrought by Typhoon Haiyan. HMS Daring has just arrived

near the worst hit areas - part of Britain's contribution to bring aid

to the country. It has been one of the worst natural

disasters in the history of the Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan hit the

country nine days ago, leaving devastation in its wake. The numbers

involved are shocking. The official death toll is over 3600 people, with

many thousands more unaccounted for. More than half a million people have

lost their homes and the UN estimates 11 million have been

affected. David Cameron announced on Friday that the UK government is to

give an extra ?30 million in aid, taking the total British figure ?250

million. An RAF Sea 17 aircraft landed yesterday with equipment to

help aid workers get too hard to reach areas. HMS Illustrious is on

its way and due to arrive next weekend. The British public have

once again dipped into their pockets and given generously. They have

given more than ?30 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee.

The International Development Secretary, Justine Greening, joins

me now for the Sunday Interview. Good morning, Secretary of State.

How much of the ?50 million that the government has allocated has got

through so far? All of it has landed on the ground now. HMS Daring has

turned up, that will be able to start getting help out to some of

those more outlying islands that have been hard to reach. We have

seen Save the Children and Oxfam really being able to get aid out on

the ground. We have a plane taking off today that will not read just

carrying out more equipment to help clear the roads but will also have

their staff on board, too. We have ?50 million of aid actually on the

ground? We instantly chartered flights directly from Dubai where we

have preprepared human Terry and supplies, and started humanity work

-- humanitarian supplies. A lot of it has now arrived. I think

we have done a huge amount so far. We have gone beyond just providing

humanitarian supplies, to getting the Royal Air Force involved. They

have helped us to get equipment out there quickly. We have HMS

Illustrious sailing over there now. Why has that taken so long? It was

based in the Gulf and is not going to get there until two weeks after

the storm first hit and that is the one ship we have with lots of

helicopters. The first decision we took was to make sure we could get

the fastest vessel out there that was able to help HMS Daring. HMS

Illustrious was just finishing an exercise and planning to start to

head back towards the UK. We have said to not do that, and diverted

it. Shouldn't it have happened more quickly? We took the decisions as

fast as we were able to, you can't just turn a big warship around like

the HMS Illustrious. We made sure we took those decisions and that is

while it will be taking over from HMS Daring come and that is why HMS

Daring is ready there. It will be able to provide key support and

expertise that has not been there so far. The US Navy is doing the heavy

lifting here. The US Navy had the USS Washington, there is an aircraft

carrier, 80 planes, 5000 personnel and they have the fleet, they are

doing the real work. We obviously helping but the Americans are taking

the lead. It is a big international effort. Countries like the US and

the UK, that have a broader ability to support that goes beyond simply

call humanitarian supplies -- have made sure we have brought our

logistics knowledge, we have sent out our naval vessels. It shows we

are working across government to respond to this crisis. Why does

only just over 4% of your aid budget go on emergency disaster and

response? A lot depends on what crises hit in any given year. We

have done a huge amount, responding to the crisis in Syria, the conflict

there and the fact we have 2 million refugees who have fled the country.

We are part of an international effort in supporting them. Shouldn't

we beginning more money to that rather than some of the other

programmes where it is harder to see the results question of if we were

to give more money to the refugees, it would be a visible result. We

could see an improvement in the lives of children, men and women.

What we need to do is alongside that is stop those situations from

happening in the first place. A lot of our development spend is helping

countries to stay stable. Look at some of the work we are doing in

Somalia, much more sensible. Not just from an immigration but there

is a threat perspective. There is a lot of terrorism coming from

Somalia. You only have to look at Kenya recently to see that. Which is

why you talk about what we do with the rest of the spend. It is why it

is responsible to work with the government of Somalia. Should we

give more, bigger part of the budget to disaster relief or not? I think

we get it about right, we have to be flexible and we are. This Philippine

relief is on top of the work in Syria. Where can you show me a

correlation between us giving aid to some failed nation, or nearly failed

nation, and that cutting down on terrorism? If you look at the work

we have done in Pakistan, a huge amount of work. Some of it

short-term. It is written by terrorism. That is -- ridden by

terrorism. That is not going to fix it self in a sense. Look at the work

that we do in investing in education. The things that little

girls like Malala talk about as being absolutely key. We are ramping

up our aid to Pakistan, it will be close to half ?1 billion by the time

of the election. Why should British taxpayers be giving half ?1 billion

to a country where only 0.5% of people in Pakistan pay income tax,

and 70% of their own MPs don't pay income tax. It is a good point and

that is why we have been working with their tax revenue authority to

help them increase that and push forward the tax reform. You are

right, and I have setup a team that will go out and work with many of

these countries so they can raise their own revenues. You really think

you will raise the amount of tax by sending out the British HRM see? How

many troops I we sending out to protect them? They don't need

troops. We make sure that we have a duty of care alongside our staff,

but we have to respond to any crisis like the Philippines, and alongside

other countries we have two work alongside them so that they can

reinvest in their own public services. If they can create their

own taxes, will we stop paying aid? We need to look at that but the new

Pakistan Government has been very clear it is a priority and we will

be helping them in pursuing that. Let me show you a picture. Who are

these young women? I don't know, I'm sure you are about to tell me. They

are the Ethiopian Spice Girls and I'm surprised you don't know because

they have only managed to become so famous because your department has

financed them to the tune of ?4 million. All of the work we do with

women on the ground, making sure they have a voice in their local

communities, making sure they have some control over what happens to

their own bodies in terms of tackling FGM, female genital

mutilation... Did you know your department has spent ?4 million on

the Ethiopian Spice Girls? Yes, I do, and we have to work with girls

and show them there is a life ahead of them with opportunity and

potential that goes beyond what many of them will experience, which

includes early and forced marriage. It is part of the work we do with

local communities to change attitudes everything you have just

said is immeasurable, and they broadcast on a radio station that

doesn't reach most of the country so it cannot have the impact. It only

reaches 20 million people and the project has been condemned saying

there were serious inefficiencies. That aid report was done a while ago

now, and it was talking about the project when it first got going, and

a lot of improvements have happened since. I would go back to the point

that we are working in very difficult environments where we are

trying to get longer term change on the ground and that means working

directly with communities but also investing for the long-term,

investing in some of these girls start changing attitudes in them and

their communities. Why does the British taxpayers spend ?5 million

on a Bangladesh version of Question Time? We work with the BBC to make

sure we can get accountabilities... That is bigger then the BBC Question

Time Normal -- budget. That includes the cost of David Dimbleby's

tattoo! We are working to improve people's prospects but also we are

working to improve their ability to hold their governments to account so

that when they are not getting services on the ground, they have

ways they can raise those concerns with the people who are there to

deliver services for them. In your own personal view, should the next

Conservative Government, if there is one, should you continue to ring

fence spending on foreign aid? But it is critical that if we are going

to spend 7.7% of our national income, we should make sure it is in

our national interest and that means having a clear approach to

humanitarian responses, in keeping the country safe, and a clearer

approach on helping drive economic development and jobs so there is a

long-term end of the dependency. Do you believe in an shrine in the

percentage of our GDP that goes on foreign aid in law? Yes, and that is

a coalition agreement. There have been a lot of agreements that you

are sceptical about ring fencing. We are focused on shaking up the

economy and improving our public finances. Why haven't you done that?

At the end of the day we will be accountable but we are committed to

doing that. You are running out of time, will you do it? I hope we can

find the Parliamentary time, but even if we don't, we have acted as

if that law is in place and we have already met 0.7% commitment. If you

are British voter that doesn't believe that we should enshrine that

in by law, which means that with a growing economy foreign aid will

rise by definition, and if you think we should be spending less money on

the Ethiopian Spice Girls, for whom should you wrote in the next

election? I think we have a very sensible approach. I don't know what

the various party manifestoes... The only party who thinks we shouldn't

be doing this is UKIP. I think you have to look at the response to both

the Philippines crisis and Children In Need. Of all the steps we are

taking to get the country back on track, it shows the British people

will respond to need when they need it and it is one of the things that

makes Britain's special. Thank you. "It's always winter but

never Christmas" - that's how doctors describe life inside

accident and emergency. The College of Emergency Medicine have warned

that this year could bring the "worst crisis on record". If that

dire prediction comes, expect a spring of political recriminations,

but how prepared are the NHS in England? And what do they make of

this autumnal speculation? Giles has been to Leeds to find out.

This winter has already come to our hospitals. It had an official start

date, November the 3rd. That is when weekly updates are delivered to the

NHS's most senior planners, alerting them to any sudden changes in

patient numbers coming in. Where do they numbers register most then

A They are the barometer for what is going on everywhere else, and

they are the pressure point, so if the system is beginning to struggle

then it is in the A department that we see the problems. It is not

that the problems are the A departments, but they are the place

where it all comes together. Plans to tackle those problems start being

drawn up in May and they look at trends, even taking notice of any

flu epidemics in New Zealand. They also look at the amount of bets. But

the weather, economic realities, structural reforms, and changes to

the general health of the population, are all factors they

have to consider. We get huge amounts of information through the

winter in order to help the NHS be the best it can be, but we had to

redouble our efforts this year because we expected to be a

difficult winter. We know the NHS is stretched so we are working hard to

be as good as we can be. That means they are looking at winter staffing

levels, plans to ask for help from neighbouring hospitals, and

dovetailing help with GP surgeries, and still having the ability to move

up an extra gear, a rehearsed emergency plan if the NHS had to

face a major disease pandemic. You spend any time in any of our

hospitals and you realise the NHS knows that winter is coming and they

are making plans, but you also get a palpable feeling amongst health

workers across the entire system that they do get fed up of being

used as a political football. Doctors and all health care

professionals are frustrated about the politics that surrounds the NHS

in health care. They go to work to treat patients as best as they can,

and the political knock-about does not help anyone. I find it

frustrating when there is a commentary that suggests the NHS

does not planned, when it is surprised by winter, and wherever

that comes from it is hard to take, knowing how much we do nationally

and how much our hard working front line staff are doing. When the

Coalition have recently tried to open up the NHS to be a more

independent body, it is clear the NHS feel they have had an unhealthy

dose of political wrangling between parties on policy. The NHS is not

infallible or making any guarantees, but they seem confident that they

and their patients can survive the winter.

Joining me now from Salford in the Shadow Health Secretary, Andy

Burnham. Tell me this, if you were health secretary now, you just took

over in an emergency election, what would you do to avoid another winter

crisis? I would immediately halt the closure of NHS walk-in centres. We

heard this week that around one in four walk-in centres are closed so

it makes no sense whatsoever for the Government to allow the continued

closure of them. I would put nurses back on the end of phones and

restore an NHS direct style service. The new 111 service is not in a

position to provide help to people this winter. I think the time has

come to rethink how the NHS care is particularly for older people so I

propose the full integration of health and social care. It cannot

make any sense any more to have this approach where we cut social care

and let elderly people drift to hospitals in greater numbers. We

have two rethink it as a whole service. So you would repeal some of

the Tory reforms and move commissioning to local authorities

so the NHS should brace itself for another major top-down health

reorganisation? No, unlike Andrew Lansley I will work with the

organisations ie inherit. He could work with primary care trusts but he

turned it upside down when it needed stability. I will not do that but I

will repeal the health and social care act because last week we heard

that hospitals and health services cannot get on and make sensible

merger collaborations because of this nonsense now that the NHS is

bound by competition law. Let me get your views on a number of ideas that

have been floated either by the press or the Coalition. We haven't

got much time. Do you welcome the plan to bring back named GPs for

over 75s? Yes, but it has got harder to get the GP appointment under this

Government because David Cameron scrapped the 48-hour guarantee that

Tony Blair brought in. He was challenged in the 2005 election

about the difficulty of getting a GP appointment, and Tony Blair brought

in the commitment that people should be able to get that within 48

hours. That has now been scrapped. Do you welcome the idea of allowing

everyone to choose their own GP surgery even if it is not in our

traditional catchment area? I proposed that just before the last

election, so yes. Do you welcome the idea of how a practice is being

rated being a matter of public record, and of us knowing how much,

at least from the NHS, our GP earns? Of course, every political party

supports transparency in the NHS. More information for the public of

that kind is a good thing. Do you welcome this plan to make it will

form the collect in an NHS hospital -- make wilful neglect a criminal

offence. It is important to say you can't pick and mix these

recommendations, you can't say we will have that one and not the

others. It was a balanced package that Sir Robert Francis put forward.

My message is that it must be permitted in full. If we are to

learn the lessons, the whole package must be addressed, and that includes

safe staffing levels across the NHS. Staff have a responsible to two

patients at the government also has responsible at T2 NHS staff and it

should not let them work in understaffed, unsafe conditions -- a

responsibility to NHS staff. Is there a part of the 2004 agreements

that you regret and should be undone? A lot of myths have been

built up about the contract. When it came in, there was a huge shortage

of GPs across the country. Some communities struggle to recruit.

This myth that the government have built, that the 2004 GP contract is

responsible for the AM decries is, it is spin of the worst possible

kind -- the A crisis. You would redo that contract? It was redone

under our time in government and change to make it better value for

money. GPs should be focused on improving the health of their

patients and that is a very good principle. Not so great if you can't

get 24-hour access. I agree with that. We brought in evening and

weekend opening for GPs. That is another thing that has gone in

reverse under Mr Cameron. It is much harder to get a GP appointment under

him and that is one of the reasons why A is an oppressor. -- under

pressure. What do you make of the review into intimidatory tactics by

unions? If there has been intimidation, it is unacceptable,

and that should apply to unions as well as employers. Was Unite wrong

to turn up and demonstrate? I don't know the details, this review will

look into that presumably. I need reassurance that this is not a

pretty cool call by Mr Cameron on the designed to appear near the

election -- that this is not a political call. Are you sponsored by

unite? No. Do you get any money from Unite? No. What have you done wrong?

It seems others are getting money from Unite. Can I tell you what I

think is the scandal of British party political funding, two health

care companies have given ?1.5 million in donations to the Tory

party, they have ?1.5 billion in NHS contracts. I wonder why you don't

spend much time talking about that and obsess over trade union funding.

We are happy to talk about that. We see from e-mails that Mr Miliband's

closest advisers regard Mr Ed Balls as a bit of a nightmare, do you see

a bit of a nightmare about him as well? I don't at all, he is a very

good friend. I can't believe that you are talking about those e-mails

on a national political programme. My goodness, you obviously scraping

the barrel today. I have been in front-line labour politics for 20

years. I can't remember the front bench and the wider party being as

united as it is today and it is a great credit to Ed Miliband and Ed

Balls. We are going into a general election and we are going to get rid

of a pretty disastrous coalition government. It was worth spending a

few seconds to establish your not having nightmares. Thank you for

joining me. It's just gone 11:30am. You're

watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, I'll be

talking to the MP accused of using his political contacts for financial

gain. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Hello and welcome. We will be kicking off in a -- with a focus on

the safety of cycling in the capital after recent fatalities. And later,

we'll be asking whether a winter crisis in London hospitals

casualties departments can be averted. With me, Mike Freer,

Conservative MP for Golders green and Nick Hillier. With a sudden

spike in fatal incidents, there have been calls for urgent safety reviews

amidst claims that London's Mayor, Boris Johnson, has rushed to

encourage cycling in the capital without making it safe enough. He

has promised to analyse and learn from the latest deaths will stop

improvements to his so-called superhighways are promised but as he

told me earlier in the week, they would not be scrapped. It is very

important to continue with the cycle superhighway programme, to continue

to make cycling ever safer. We will see what happened at the bow

roundabout, we will analyse it. There is no traffic engineer in the

world who can accommodate every eventuality. What should happen? Do

we need a review? Do we need to stop any further construction of

superhighways? I would not stop because most of them seem to be

working OK. We have to have a look at the back spots, there are

problems with the Bow roundabout. Where there are problems, we need to

find out what we can do to make it safer for cyclists. I cycle, I use a

bus lane, I don't have a superhighway and it works well.

Where it is working well we should leave it alone, where it is not

working we should look at making it better for cyclists, but also make

drivers aware they are in a heavy cyclist area. Would you say that you

feel just as happy cycling in a road where there is no defined

superhighway? Is there an issue about the cycle superhighway that

gives you a false sense of safety and security? Every cyclist is

different. I don't feel particularly safer or less safe when I'm on the

roads. Just cycling down a piece of blue paint doesn't make me feel any

safer. I only feel safe when I'm in a bus lane because on the old, the

buses seem to be very conscious of cycle safety. Once you on a normal

road, which most of my patch is, you have to have your wits about you. It

is quite frightening, what you see drivers doing and especially truck

drivers. There needs to be a bit of an awareness of drivers. I would

like see a few prosecutions. You see some terrible things of people

driving and text link Mawhinney dove a bit of a crackdown -- people

driving and text messaging, we need to have a bit of a crackdown. We

looked at whether people doing the driving test should also have to

cycle. We thought there should be more cycle awareness. In terms of

segregation, in Hackney, we have done an awful lot without

segregating because you cannot segregate everywhere. Simple, cheap

measures have made it a lot better for cyclists. For things like the

superhighway, there is an order in for closer segregation and there are

blackspots like the Bow roundabout. The plan is for further segregation,

you would not go along with what Lord Adonis think should happen a

review. There must be reviews that transport for London are doing on

the superhighways. When you look at some of the footage we have seen

recently, there are lorries going across and they are clearly not well

signposted. Just putting some blue paint across a junction will not

stop drivers, or cyclists being reassured falsely. There are

blackspots, I am not sure you stop it altogether. They could be seen as

a gimmick because good training and transport design throughout makes

cycling safer and the highways themselves are not the solution. You

think most of these routes seem to be going OK in certain parts, but it

is a distinction you can't really make. A cycle superhighway is either

safe or not. If it has got flaws anywhere along the route, it is not

safe. I don't think it is fair to say that all of the superhighways

are flawed. I think you have to look at where there have been accidents.

We are looking now. We are getting the distinct impression, not least

from evidence that has been put to inquests, that people before,

Metropolitan Police officers, were saying these were accidents waiting

to happen or it was confusing. Don't those things get done before you

pursue a policy? The danger is of reacting to accidents rating Tappan,

it is pretty much every road in the borough -- accidents waiting to

happen. You have to look at where you have lots of HDV is -- HGVs and

cyclists and vehicles all converging. If there was a plan for

one in Finchley Road, would you accept that and be happy for it to

go ahead? It is not in my constituency but I get the point.

Before it was introduced, all the stakeholders should be consulted and

I would say, as a cyclist who uses Finchley Road, here are the pinch

points. That is what happened in Hackney, the cycling group has been

instrumental in shaping what the council has done, they have worked

together. That is what we can take from this, more involvement of the

people involved. Well over half of cyclist fatalities

on the road have happened as a result of collisions with HGVs.

There are fresh calls to get lorries off of London streets during peak

hours, and not just for cyclist safety but to cut congestion and

improve traffic flow. In just over two hours, the controversial GLC

lorry ban will come into force. Trucks over 16 and a half tonnes

will be prohibitive from entering the capital at night and during the

weekend. Restrictions on night-time deliveries in London have been in

place for almost 30 years. Heavy trucks need a permit and are told to

keep away from residential streets. The scheme, now operated by London

councils, is coming under pressure to reform. New technologies mean the

trucks are much quieter than they would have been when the

restrictions were introduced. Modern technologies coming out very soon,

and they are amazing, some of the systems they have got. With quieter

trucks, the disturbance caused at night should be mitigated. In Paris

and Dublin, they do the opposite of what we do in London and they

restrict what lorries can do in the day rather than at night. Is it time

we looked again? There is increasing pressure to get lorries off the

streets in London and stop them clogging the streets for everyone

else. If you can get more and more lorries delivering out of hours, it

will free up the roads for every other road user including buses,

cyclists and pedestrians. Around about this week, a cyclist was

killed at this interchange after a collision with an HGV. This happened

at 8:45am, peak time for lorries as the restrictions are lifted and they

rushed onto the roads to make deliveries. The questions is --

question is if weather those restrictions were different,

accidents would be fewer. During the Olympics lorries were encouraged to

make out of hours deliveries. Transport for London said it was a

success and are hoping to introduce more trials will stop the Olympic

showed us the Olympics showed us it was

possible to create everything never can change. We worked closely with

the boroughs of London councils, the freight industries and big

supermarkets to help that happen. You can make a big change, the

question is how do you make it part of everyday life rather than a

one-off thing for the Olympics. Olympic transport policy may not

prove so popular outside of the Games. Customers were advised to

avoid the underground at the busiest times. During the Olympics,

transport for London spend a lot of time telling people about where the

busiest places on the network would be and how and when to avoid them.

They thought it was a great success and this is an attempt to bring that

logic into normal travelling circumstances. Not all passengers

are warming to the advice that they consider not using the tube at the

time is that they want to. Could it be that out of hours deliveries

prove less popular if the reality becomes a big truck clattering down

your street when you're trying to sleep.

The former leader of Islington Council joins us. What do you think?

Transport for London look as if they would be interested in allowing a

lot more journeys at night, what is the problem with that? We have to

balance the needs of London is to have a decent nights sleep, and lots

of people live on busy roads, above shops and so on. We have to be

mindful that the lorry delivery at 3am or 4am May not be so grateful

residents. London councils are on the side of residents rather than

supermarkets and we have to get that balance right. A lot of the major

roads you are talking about, transport in London would been in

charge of them, and aunt Laurie is just much quieter now? Those new

measures have not made as much difference as we thought, and don't

forget, when there are refrigerators and big dump masters being placed

onto the highway in the middle of the night, they can be really noisy.

More and more people are living in London now and we have to protect

the environment for local people. Peter John, fellow Labour

councillor, he feels that we should look at this. On the cycle

accidents, I think the scheme we run, we could be using that because

40,000 lorries are registered with us to make sure that each Laurie has

this pass, to make sure it is the safest possible vehicle, and we

could also make sure drivers are being held to account for their

reckless behaviour. You are not prepared to consider loosening this

night-time band, how do you know people wouldn't mind it now? It is

not a complete ban. You give permits to a limited number per year, a lot

more lorry journeys and surely we could direct a lot more of them to

the evening. Hardly any lorries do deliveries at that time so maybe

more drivers could look at their start and finish times a lot of the

deliveries could be delivered at 4pm. Do you think we should change

this, there is more latitude now? I think there is a case to say we

could revisit the rules. There is a difference between allowing

deliveries into central London where there are relatively few people

living, and I would be happy to look at relaxing those deliveries

throughout the night. It is different to having deliveries into

the high streets of most town centres around London, whether it is

Islington or high Barnet. We need to look at the difference between the

high centres and maximise deliveries. Wouldn't the people of

Hackney say that, given these cycle accidents, we will take more

disruption and noise at night if we can get some of these lorries off

the roads during the day? There is an argument for that, but Catherine

is right. It is about getting the balance with noise pollution. I

think the Olympic experiment was interesting and showed there can be

more deliveries at night but there are some streets in my constituency

where it wouldn't be a problem to have night-time deliveries, and

others where it would still be a nightmare for residents because it

would still be noisy, and we also have to look at the training of

drivers because often the noise comes from loud radios and the

slamming of doors. When do you make another decision on this? We are

doing some pilots in Camden and Richmond in the New Year and I will

be happy to come back and tell you how they are going. Next, what to do

to ease the pressure on A departments in London. On a wider

scale, new plans to reorganise and take the strain of the system, and

the latest data from the London assembly shows the recommended

waiting time is being missed all too often. During the summer Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt admitted he was concerned about the potential

for a crisis with A this winter. Despite the extra ?110 million he

found to help them get through this and next winter, he said it will be

difficult to make sure staff can cope with demand and keep waiting

times under control. A report from the London assembly showed London

A are already struggling. With the cold on its way, senior doctors

are warning this winter could be the worst on record for A treatment.

The London assembly says somebody needs to be charged with getting a

grip on the problem. When this coalition Government came into

being, they changed the hierarchy and now there is a vacuum of

leadership. This needs to be given to a new body, whether it is the

Mayor of London or another authority, that is open to debate,

but I think it should be given to the Mayor of London. Doctors

continue to expect a crisis this winter.

The Government this week saying we will create a new role for the

family doctor, making sure older people don't go to A as much,

possibly bringing in a two tier A, that seems like sensible

rationalisation, doesn't it? Most good GPs would be keeping an eye on

their elderly patients anyway so we have got to not over blow what the

Government is promising here. In terms of the make up of the A, my

own A doesn't do anything anyway but it is still fully functioning,

people with heart problems go elsewhere to get better treatment

and I don't have a problem with that. There has not been proper

planning about how people access emergency care overall, and on the

Public Accounts Committee we have seen a lot of this, people competing

to shunt the problem elsewhere and often people end up going to A

Notably, people are warning there will be a crisis but it hasn't

happened, it has not necessarily happened. Things like flu jabs

matter, because elderly and vulnerable people are affected by

that. Are you concerned about preparations not being in place? To

be fair, every Government has faced a crisis as winter approaches, it is

how you plan for it and I have visited one A recently. It is

about ensuring that we get it right this winter whilst we also deal with

the underlying problem of increased demand and people using A more and

more when they should be using the primary care system. So many people

who are used to social care divided by local authorities, we know the

cuts to that kind of provision, that is contributing, isn't it? I went

into my local A and asked them why they are coping so well. We do have

a part of the population that is new to the country where going to the GP

is not part of their culture. 65% of A admissions are elderly, and in

Barnet we are looking at which care homes have a regular referral and

which don't and what is going wrong. This is about communication, isn't

it? We need to be concerned about shortage of A nurses because it is

partly a financial issue. If you look at the hospital in Hackney, a

hospital is run next to A so people are in the right place for

the right treatment, and I think it is about that sense as well. We are

seeing walk-in centres being closed so the Government cannot dodge

responsibility. It is regular changes and lack of planning leading

to this. What do you want your Government to do? What are you doing

to get a change of behaviour? In the short-term, half ?1 billion has gone

in to make sure they can deal with increase in demand as the winter

approaches. In the long term I want a grown-up conversation about how we

get the change of care working properly, and I would like some

A to be tougher interning people around and telling them they are in

the wrong place. A big subject but let's move on. It is time for the

rest of the political news in 60 seconds. Education Secretary Michael

Gove this week praised Hackney Council for letting go up to a third

of their social workers. He claimed it showed the council to be holding

social workers and managers to the highest professional standards.

Labour should apologise for its poor record of building social housing,

the party 's own spokesperson has said. London assembly member pointed

out that Margaret ThatcherGovernment build more houses

in a single year than Tony Blair managed in 13 years of power.

Hundreds of children in London's most deprived areas are about to be

taught Latin. They will use a grant of ?250,000 from the Mayor's

education fund. A new report has prompted calls for

transport bosses to publish details of the worst performing bus

companies and routes. Meg Hillier, that is the kind of

praise you must welcome from a conservative education minister,

praising Labour Hackney Council for getting rid of a third of social

workers who were not up to scratch. That is the way Michael Gove would

like to spin it, but we have a very good leader in Hackney who tailors

the services. It is still painful, let's be clear. A lot of suffering

is still going on in Hackney. Is it true there are a lot of social

workers out there who should not be in their jobs? Every area has good

and bad people. One of the keys is that good local authorities can

continue to attract good local people, and we have seen that in

Birmingham where they have not been able to recruit. What about the

suggestion of more private organisations dealing with child

protection? I think it depends on individual circumstances. I wanted

my social workers reporting to my offices as leader of the council

because you need to have the direct levers to pull. I don't think I

would go down that route. It is heartening to hear that because

neither would I. You can see how much these private companies cream

of from people who should be receiving it. We will return to this

if we hear more. Thank you. Andrew, it is back to you.

Who'd be an MP? It's a good question. Certainly something Mark

Pritchard must have asked himself when his picture graced the front

page of the Daily Telegraph, with allegations that he had offered to

set up business deals overseas in return for hundreds of thousands of

pounds. Mr Pritchard dismissed the claims as hurtful and wrong. He

referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner

who has now said there is insufficient evidence to

investigate. In a moment we'll talk to Mr Pritchard, but first let's

take a look back at how the story unfurled. A Conservative MP has

denied allegations that he used his Parliamentary contacts for financial

gain... The daily Telegraph says Mark Pritchard offered to broker

investments overseas. In a statement he said the allegations made by the

Telegraph are false. Mr Pritchard was secretly filmed... What do you

make of these allegations? He has referred himself to the

Parliamentary Commissioner for standards to clear his name and I

suspect this story will reopen the debate about what MPs should be

allowed, having business interests elsewhere. Is it not clear that you

did ask for money in consultancy services? First of all I would like

to apologise for the sunglasses, I have had a lot of comments about

that. On a serious point, these claims by the Telegraph of false.

You didn't ask for ?3000? They are false, hurtful and malicious. It is

known widely that I have sued the Telegraph previously. I have also

been critical of their coverage of the plebgate affair, their reporting

of that. I have been supportive of the cross-party Royal Charter and I

know that some people in the media don't like my position on that. That

is why it is malicious. I believe in a free press. That free press also

has a responsibility to be fair, accurate and lawful. In discussions

with this business who turned out to be a Telegraph reporter, it is true

that you ask for ?3000 a month consultancy fee. The point is...

That is the point. No. That video has been cut and pasted to serve the

Telegraph's story. The story was that we want to get Mark Bridger,

for whatever reason, at any cost. -- Mark Bridger hard. I would not go

down the line they were hoping I would go down. Everything I own

outside of Parliament is openly declared. We are allowed to have

outside witness interests. The Telegraph need to say clearly

whether they accept that or they don't. I think you need to say

clearly whether you asked for the money or not. You then went on to

ask for ?300,000 if it was a 10 million deal, you asked for 3%

commission. Let me be clear, if I was asking for income in return for

lobbying, or raising issues in Parliament, or setting up

Parliamentary groups, or going to ministers, writing to ministers,

that would be completely inappropriate. I was approached by

somebody to advise them on business. It is entirely proper and entirely

within the rules for members of Parliament to have outside

consultancies and interests. Did you or didn't you? I am answering the

question in the way that I want to answer it, not in the way that fits

a particular narrative. The narrative, unfortunately, of some

parts of the Telegraph and to be fair, there are some very good

journalists, I know there is a dispute about the direction of that

paper at senior parts. Do they want to return to being a Catholic,

objective newspaper or do they want to slip into the slippery slope of

being an agnostic rag, looking for sensationalist headlines? Part of

this has come from your membership of these all-party Parliamentary

groups. You were in Malta when you are first approached, I think you

were on a trip there, Hungary is another one, there is an

uncomfortable overlap between your political and business interests. I

have no business interests in any of those countries. Some of the country

is the Telegraph mentioned, let me be clear, I have not even visited.

You were boasting that you knew the Albanian Prime Minister and the

Mayor of Teheran and the previous prime minister. I make no apology

for making foreign trips. I think it is unfortunate we have a narrative

developing in some parts of the press that if a politician goes

abroad at the taxpayers expense, it is wrong. If they go abroad at a

host government's expense it is wrong. If they go abroad with a

charity, NGO and private company, even if it is declared, it is wrong.

We want people with an international perspective in Parliament. Look at

this map. You are a member of 54 country groups. I don't know what

Canada has done not to deserve you, or Australia. 54 groups, you are a

part of. You're like... This is the Mark Pritchard British Empire. That

is very kind. If I had global interests that white I would not be

in Parliament. No, no, no. That is the point... It is the suspicion,

that you used these groups to drum up business for your consultants.

Prove it, that is the trouble. These sorts of headlines, create

suspicion. I am suing the Telegraph... Have you issued a writ?

I expect an apology. Have you issued a writ? I have just answered your

question. It is yes or no, have you issued a writ? I am in final legal

discussions tomorrow about issuing a writ. You have raised something for

top the fact is that is inaccurate. I am a member of 40-something

Parliamentary groups, of which I make no apology. We have got 54. Let

me answer the question if I may. It would be very useful. There are 196

countries around the world, it is less than a quarter of the country

groups on my figures. I make no apology. One of my regrets is not

having visited Syria, I don't know if I am a member of the Syria group,

part I should become a member, I make no apology. -- perhaps I should

become. When it came to the Syria vote, I was blind sided foot of yes,

we have excellent briefings. I had to make a judgement based on part

knowledge with nothing beats being on the ground, as even BBC

journalists recognised this week. Nothing beats being on the ground.

You posted about your connections in Albania to getting a business

contract. You meet these people through these all Parliamentary

groups. That is where there is an unhealthy overlap. That is what the

Telegraph said, let's wait and see. Look... You are a newspaperman, you

know lots of people in the newspaper industry, as well as being a

respected broadcaster. I am not going to prejudice my legal

proceedings against the Telegraph. I make no apology. A good politician

has to be local am a national and international. Hang on hang on --

has to be local, national and international. We need politicians

who get out of the Westminster bubble, who have a business

hinterland, who keep their foot in the real world and have an

international perspective. And ask for 3% commission? I have answered

the question. It was a cut and pasted video, photo shopped to suit

the agenda of the Telegraph. They need to get back to serious news

reporting and I wish those well at the senior part of the Telegraph who

want to get to those days. We look forward to the writ. Thank you.

Now - there's been more good news on the economy for George Osborne this

week - inflation's down, growth forecasts have been revised up and

unemployment has fallen again. On Friday the former Bullingdon boy

donned a head torch and went down't pit for just one of many photo

opportunities ahead of the Autumn Statement, which he'll deliver in

the Commons on fifth December. And, who knows, he might even take his

hard hat off for that. # Going underground.

# Let the boys all saying and let the boys all shout for tomorrow.

# Lah, lah, love, love. # I talk and talk until my head

explodes. # Make this boy shout, make this boy

scream. # Going underground.

# I'm going underground. # I'm going underground.

George Osborne in his heart out, he probably sleeps with it on. This

Autumn Statement is becoming a more important part of the political

calendar for the coalition. It looks like this is where they are finally

going to come up with some kind of response to Ed Miliband's game

changing electricity price freeze. The idea which is mooted is they

will move people's green tax on two general bills which is not an answer

but cosmetically it could have apolitical impact. George Osborne is

receiving a lot of representations from lobby groups, business, MPs on

his own side, for tax cuts and extra bits spending and he has to spend

the next two weeks reminding people of something that has been skewered

by the economic recovery. This country has a fiscal deficit which

is twice that of France, supposedly the crisis economy in western Europe

or if you accept it will take another parliament again to

eliminate this deficit, we are not even halfway through the age of

austerity. He is in no position to give anything away. He has to hold

the line. Danny Alexander has been useful but this is his real

challenge. He is going to give stuff away. When the Autumn Statement

comes away, 15 months from an election, Nick Clegg has been

talking about raising the tax allowance threshold even further,

talk of moving green levies of the electricity bills, he is going to

give stuff away. We will get funding for free school meals that Nick

Clegg mentioned in his party conference. The significance of the

Autumn Statement is twice a year, a Chancellor stands up and we all look

at the state of the economy. If you talk to members of the Chancellor's

circle, it is interesting how nervous they are. They say, don't

assume we are going to have this wonderful growth for ever, don't

assume everything is fine in the eurozone. I think what would help

the Chancellor is if somebody was able to see some of that humility in

public. It is recognised that he was far too triumphalist

speech he made on the 9th of September, when he said to Ed Balls,

we have one and you cannot make an economic policy on the cost of

living -- we have... Won. economic policy on the cost of

people don't seem to learn from Norman Lamont's green shoots. Labour

has moved from complaining there is no growth, now there is, to say

has moved from complaining there is is gross but living standards are

not rising. If the economy grows by nearly 3% next year, even the bank

is saying it will grow by 2.8%, living standards could start to

rise. It does but everybody in a difficult position politically if

the economy starts growing, ironically. We need to remind

ourselves that economy, the natural direction of an economy is to grow.

Unless the politicians screw up. Unless you have some idiot in

charge! It is not a cause for the Morris dance that they seem to be

doing, certainly on the Tory side. Osborne is put in a difficult

position goes he will have to stop giving stuff away, he cannot push

the austerity line at the same time as jangling his magical growth -- he

will have to start giving stuff away. It puts Labour in a difficult

position, it is very unlikely that living standards will match GDP. Not

since 2003, GDP has been a great indicator. Wages have stagnated for

ten years, food has gone up 17%, energy has gone up 24%. That is a

decade in which everybody has got poorer. The real sweet spot comes

when wages start to outstrip inflation. It is a sweet spot and

will be a huge challenge for Ed Miliband. As ever on the economy

with a sweet spot, you have a danger moment because that is when the

governor of the Bank of England will have to look at interest rates.

Everything he was saying last week was when we move toward 7%

unemployment come that is not the trigger for raising interest rates,

it is the moment when we look at it. Everything was saying he did not

want to do that. When do you anticipate wages outstripping

inflation? It hasn't happened for so long. The second half of next year.

Wages and prices are not the sole measure of living standards, there

are broader measures which no one seems willing to use.

That's all for today. The Daily Politics will be back at tomorrow at

midday on BBC Two and I will back here on BBC One at 11:00am next

week. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.