19/01/2014 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Nick Clegg says

Chris Rennard must apologise. "What for?", say his friends. We'll ask

senior Lib Dem minister Danny Alexander whose side he's on.

What about the voters? What do they make of the Lib Dems? We hear the

views of a Sunday Politics focus group. A donkey. They do other

people's work. It's Penny Mordaunt MP. And we'll get the verdict on

Portsmouth MP Penny Mordaunt's plunge from the highboard from who

else but the Minister for Portsmouth.

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political panel in the

business: and in London, Boris Johnson has pledged to recruit more

volunteers. Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting

throughout the programme. First this morning, Nick Clegg is

considering a fresh investigation into the behaviour of the party's

former chief executive, Lord Rennard. Last week, a lawyer

appointed by the party decided that no action could be taken against

him, but that women who had accused the Lib Dem peer of inappropriate

behaviour "were broadly credible". More than 100 party activists are

demanding an apology. Chris Rennard say he's nothing to apologise for

and the party whip must be returned to him. Helen, this is not going

away. It is turning into a crisis for the Lib Dems? They have only got

seven female MPs. There is no female Cabinet Minister. There is a

reasonable chance that after the next election there might in no

female Liberal Democrat MPs at all. A scandal like this will not

encourage women into the party. Have they made a complete mess of it? You

feel for Nick Clegg, because he launched an utterly rigorous

process. He called in a QC. The QC looked at it and decided that the

evidence did not meet the burden of proof in a criminal trial. But

clearly he felt that the evidence from these women was very credible

and serious. He said it was broadly credible. Clearly it was serious.

Rennard is being advised by Lord Carlisle, fellow Liberal Democrat

peer, who is giving purely legal advice. He is saying it has not

reached that edge-mac, so do not apologise. This is a political

issue, so the agony continues. Nick Clegg was hoping to keep the party

whip withdrawn. But they did not launch an enquiry, the Webster

enquired it was not an enquiry, it was a legal opinion. You're right,

it was an internal opinion. The Lib Dems distinguished themselves from

the other two parties not with policy, but with ethics. They

presented themselves as being cleaner, and in possession of more

Robert Jay than Labour and the Conservatives. That will be harder

to do now. -- more probity. There are a Lib Dem peers that are more

relaxed about taking him back and letting him pick up the party whip.

That is the problem. There is a generational issue. The older Lib

Dems in the House of Lords, the kind of thing, he did not do anything

that wrong. The younger activists and those outside the House of

Lords, they think it is a pollen. Yes, there is definitely a sort of

what you are complaining about sort of thing. That is symptomatic of a

cultural difference. The report last year found that they tried to manage

the allegations. They did not do what any company would do if there

was an allegation of sexual harassment. If there had not in the

by-election in Eastleigh, this story may not have got the attention it

did. Channel four news are the one that really drove this. Without

their reporting, this might not have come out. It is not going to go

away, because the issue of whether he gets the party whip back will

come week. -- will come up this week.

So it's not been a great week for the Liberal Democrats and none of

this will help public perceptions of a party already struggling in the

polls. In a moment, I'll be talking to the second most senior Liberal

Democrat in the land, Danny Alexander. First, Adam Fleming went

to Glasgow to find out what voters there made of the party.

Let's put the Lib Dems under the microscope in Glasgow. We have

recruited some Glaswegians who have voted for them, and some who have

not. Hello, John. Let's get started. I will be watching them through the

one-way mirror, along with the former Liberal Democrat MP John

Barrett. Let's get to the heart of the matter straightaway. If the Lib

Dems were a biscuit, what would they be? Tunnock's Teacake. Hard on the

outside but soft in the middle. They give in. There is no strength of

character there. They just give in to whoever. Ouch. Rich Tea. A bit

bland and boring. Melts and crumbles under any sort of heat and pressure.

Morrison's own brand of biscuit, not top of the range like Marks

Spencer or Sainsbury's or Waitrose. A custard cream, sandwiched between

David Cameron and the Tories. I think they were concerned that they

had one exterior, but something else was really inside. They did not find

it too definitive, too clear, too concise, too tasty, too appealing.

Which means? It is a worry. If that is their gut reaction, literally,

let's find out what is behind it. The context of them being stuck

between a rock and a hard place, for them as a party, I feel slightly

sorry for them. I think people who voted for them will think they are

victims as well, being sold down the river by going to the coalition. I

think the ones, particularly student fees, that was an important one to a

lot of people. People felt cheated. I agree. Just going back on that, so

publicly and openly, it makes you think, well, what do they stand for?

It is trust. Harsh. But our group is feeling quite upbeat about the state

of the economy. What have the Lib Dems contributed to that? I am not

quite sure. It is George Osborne, a Conservative, who is the Chancellor,

so it is mostly down to him. The Liberal Democrats are mostly on

their coat tails, if you know what I mean. Have the Lib Dems done

anything, anyone? I think the Liberal Democrats were responsible

for increasing the tax allowance, ?10,000 for next year. I think they

have played a major role in that. Yes. I am glad somebody noticed

that. We will have helped everyone who is receiving a salary, and it is

interesting that nobody has mentioned that. Now, let's talk

about personalities. Everyone knows him, but what about say, this guy?

Alexander. Danny, they got it straightaway. I actually quite like

him. I think he talks very clearly and it is easy to understand what he

says. Fellow redhead Charles Kennedy is popular as well. He is very

charismatic and it is through him that I voted Liberal the last few

times. But who is this? I recognise him but I cannot tell you his name.

That is the party's leader in Scotland, Willie Rennie, and the

party's role in the upcoming referendum on independence draws a

blank as well. It does not feel like they have featured, it is SNP and

Labour and Conservative. They are last in a four horse race. We have

been talking about the biggest issue in Scottish politics, independence

and the referendum and the Lib Dems are nowhere. They are not mentioned

and they seem to think it is all about Labour and the SNP. The Lib

Dems are part of the Better Together campaign and we are being drowned

out among that. Looking to the future, what messages do voters have

for the Lib Dems? Get a backbone. Do not go back on your policies or your

word. Be strong and decisive. If you will pardon the expression, man up.

DIY, do it yourself. Do not award bankers and other people for

failure. Stand up. Be your own person, party. If that focus group

represented the whole country, what would the result for the Lib Dems be

at 2015 in the election? If they get the message across between now and

then, the result could be OK. If they do not get the message across,

the result could be disaster. Maybe they would do a lot better on their

own. I do not think you are seeing the true Lib Dems because they are

in the coalition. They maybe deserve another chance. Crucially for the

Lib Dems, that means there is some hope, but there is also plenty of

anger, some disappoint, and a bit of bafflement as well.

And watching that with me, senior Liberal Democrat and Chief Secretary

to the Treasury Danny Alexander. Welcome to the programme. One of the

things that comes through from the focus group is that if there is any

credit around for the economic recovery, it is the Tories that are

getting it, and you are not? What can you do about that? The first

thing to say is that the economy would not be recovering if it was

not for the Liberal Democrats. If it was not for our decision right

beginning in 2010 to form a strong, stable coalition government that to

deal with the problems, we would still be in the mess that Labour

left us with. Why are you not getting the credit? That was one

focus group. It was interesting to hear opinions. We have to work very

hard to get across the message that the economy would not be recovering

without the Liberal Democrats. People would not be seeing the

largest income tax cuts for a generation without the Liberal

Democrats. The ?10,000 threshold that one of the people referred to

is coming into peoples pay packets this year. Lots of people recognise

that. There was the one person in the focus groups. This is your

measure of success, raising the people at which people pay income

tax. But most of the voters do not even give you credit for that. The

role that we haven't British politics as a party, is that we are

the only party that can be trusted to deliver a fair society and a

strong economy. People know they cannot trust the Labour Party. We

saw it again from Ed Miliband this morning. You cannot trust the Labour

Party with the nation's finances. It may well be your policy, the income

tax threshold, but it is the Tories that are getting the credit? I do

not think that is true. I have spent lots of time meeting photos and lots

of people recognise that if it was not for the Liberal Democrats,

people would not be seeing those tax cuts. We are helping disadvantaged

children in schools. It is right that we have to work very hard

between now and polling day to do several things, to make sure that we

secure the recovery, there can be no complacency. The economic recovery

is in its early stages and we need to make sure it is sustainable. We

need to make sure the benefits of the recovery are shared out people

who have made sacrifices, people on low pay, people who have seen their

savings are eroded. The Tories have now hijacked another Lib Dem

policy, another big hike in the minimum wage. You spoke about the

need to make sure that people on low pay benefit from the recovery, a big

hike in the minimum wage. Did the Chancellor consulting on this? We

have been talking about it for some time. Vince Cable asked the low pay

commission for advice on this. Why did Vince Cable not make this

announcement, why was it the Chancellor? Let me say a few other

things about this. If we are going to secure the recovery, this year we

have to make sure that businesses start investing. We have got to get

Roddick typically rising. An increase in the minimum wage is

something that needs to follow that. We will not do it unless the low pay

commission adviser as it is important for the economy at this

stage. Did you know the Chancellor was coming out with that statement?

I did not know he was going to say something on that particular day. We

have worked together on it in the tragedy to see what the economic

impact would be, and to emphasise that it is the commission, which has

credibility with business, trade unions and government. It must not

be a politically motivated increase. So you did not know, and Vince

Cable, and it is properly a matter for him as the Business Secretary,

he did not make the announcement? I don't think that's right. I don't

clear every word I say with him, I don't expect him to do the same to

me. The Lib Dems have told us before it was the Treasury that was

blocking this from happening. We were going to ask the low pay

commission to advise us on bringing the minimum wage back up. During the

financial crisis, wages have been lower-than-expected but it's also

right, we shouldn't act in a hasty way, we should listen to what the

commission has to say, and if they don't recommend an increase we have

to make sure economic conditions are there to get it right. Not only are

the Tories getting credit for that, our Scottish voters group showed

that people have still not forgiven you for ratting on tuition fees, and

that was a broken promise that didn't even apply to the people in

Scotland, where there are no tuition fees! Nick Clegg has been very clear

about the issues that that brought up. If you look at our manifesto,

the University of London said we delivered about 70% of our policies

in the manifesto. They haven't forgiven you for the big one. The

big promise we made was to cut income tax the millions of people.

That is a policy which is putting money back into the pockets of

working people. It is only possible because we are delivering our

economic plan in government with the Conservatives. Now we have to make

sure, through tax cuts, through looking at issues like the minimum

wage and other groups who have made sacrifices, make sure that benefit

is shared. I am not going to agree to anything which undermines the

confidence of businesses to invest in this country over the next 12

months. Speaking of Scotland, the Lib Dems, why do they now look

largely irrelevant in the battle for the union? Not one of our focus

group even knew who your Scottish leader is. I don't accept that. I

have spent a lot of time with Alistair Carmichael and others, we

are all making the case every day. If Scotland votes to be independent,

it will be in a much worse financial position within the European Union.

Scotland will be contributing to the rebate for the UK, rather than

benefiting from it. It has been a disaster for your Scottish based to

have joined a coalition with the Tories. It may have been the right

thing to do, you say it is in the national interest, but Scottish Lib

Dems did not expect to be in a coalition with the Tories. By the

way I think it is also in the national interests and the interests

of the people for Scotland, cutting the income tax of Scottish people,

stabilising the economy. We are now seeing good growth. But you are in

meltdown. I don't accept that. We will see what happens in the 2015

election. I think we have a record to be proud of, we have played a

very important role in clearing up the mess Labour made in the

economy, of making sure the Coalition government tackles the

problems in this country, but does so in a fair way. I think the

biggest risks to the economic recovery over the next few years is

either a majority Labour government or a majority Conservative

government. Labour you cannot trust with the finances, the Tories want

us to play chicken with the European Union which would truly be a

disaster to investment in this country. You announced this week

that if Scotland votes to leave the UK, it would be the British Treasury

that would guarantee all British government debt. There wouldn't be a

negotiation, but the backstop would be that even if they didn't take

anything, we would still guarantee the debt. What was happening in the

markets that you needed to calm them down? We were getting quite a few

questions from the people we rely on to lend us money. We are still

borrowing billions of pounds every month as a country. Those people

were asking us to clarify this point. It was becoming a serious

concern? It wasn't reflected in the guilty yields. I follow the bond

market quite carefully and there was no sign this was having an impact.

That's why the right thing to do was to clarify this point now, rather

than the concerns being reflected in what you imply, and I think it is a

bad idea for Scotland to vote for separation but it would be wrong to

allow for the fact that question is on the table to cost taxpayers in

the UK more money and higher interest payments simply because

Alex Salmond has put that question on the table. That's why I think it

was the right thing to do. There were a lot of calls from the focus

group that you need to be different. Nick Clegg has embarked on this

aggressive differentiation. Where you can be different is the

bankers' bonuses. What conceivable reason could there be for anybody at

RBS getting a bonus twice in their salary? We have not been approached

by RBS in terms of those votes. I would be sceptical about an approach

from RBS if it can. It shows what we have presided over as a party in

government, massive reductions... I'm not asking you about that, I'm

asking what conceivable case there can be for a bank that has failed to

sell its branches even though ordered by the Government, still has

38 billion of toxic debt on its balance sheet, I ask again what

possible reason should they get twice salary as a bonus? Your right

to say RBS is in a very different position to other banks, it is

mostly owned by the state. RBS hasn't put a case to us but they

might do so I would like to look at what they would say, but I would be

sceptical as to whether a case could be made given some of the things you

said, but also the fact that it is a bank that has benefited from the

taxpayer standing behind it. Now RBS has to focus more on domestic

retail. Let me turn to Chris Rennard, ten women have accused him

of sexual harassment. He denies every case. Who do you believe? We

have been through a process on this as a party. A report has been issued

on this. I agree with Alistair Webster on this, he has made clear

that while he cannot prove what happened to a criminal standard,

that there is clear there has been considerable distress and harm

caused. I agree with him about that and that's why it is necessary for

Chris Rennard to apologise as he has been asked to do. If he refuses to

apologise, should he be denied the Lib Dem whip in the Lords? I don't

think he should be readmitted to the Liberal Democrat group in the House

of Lords until such time as the disciplinary process, including the

apology, has been done properly. We are very democratic party, it is a

matter for our group in the House of Lords in due course to make that

judgement. Party HQ has had a lot of complaints from party members about

the fact no apology has been made. The appropriate committee would need

to look at that and decide what action needs to be taken because

these are very serious matters. We as a party have learned a lot, taken

a long, hard look at ourselves, to change the way we work. The apology

does need to be made. We are told that Lord Newby, the Chief Whip of

the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, we are told he has shaken

hands with Chris Rennard and welcomed him back. That decision has

not been taken yet. I think Lord Newby would share my view on this.

Have you shaken his hand and welcomed him back? No, I haven't.

Does Nick Clegg have the power to deny Chris Rennard as the whip? I am

making it clear that a lack of apology is totally unacceptable, and

therefore we have to take steps if that is not forthcoming. His view

and my view is that Lord Rennard should not be readmitted to the

House of Lords if that is not forthcoming. In our party, our group

in the House of Lords has two in the end take a view for itself. And they

can override Nick Clegg's view? I hope that when they look at this...

Do they have the power to override Nick Clegg? They have the power to

decide who should be the whip. The failure to follow up the simple

human demand for an apology for the stress that has been caused is

totally unacceptable. Your party is totally down lighted on this --

divided on this. Here is what Lord Carlile had to say. A total

nonsense, hyperbole. It is a ridiculous statement to make and we

have seen Alistair Webster, the QC who did this investigation, comment

on that himself this morning. He has followed the process the party laid

down in its rules, which sets the standard for the investigation which

asked him to report on the evidence he has found, but he also has a duty

of confidentiality and responsibility under the data

protection legislation as well. Here is what your activists have said in

a letter to the Guardian. This shows there are strong opinions, but why

should Chris Rennard apologise for something he denies, unproven

allegations, on an unpublished report that Chris Rennard has not

been allowed to read? He should apologise because he wants to

continue to be a member of the Liberal Democrats and this is the

recommendation that has been made by the internal disciplinary process.

Webster himself said this was not an inquiry, it is an opinion. If Chris

Rennard apologises on this basis, he opens himself to civil lawsuits. He

says he is not going to do it. As a Liberal Democrat you join the party

because you believe in its values, you abide by its rules. One of those

rules is that we have a process if there are disciplinary allegations.

The committee of the party supported Webster's recommendations, one of

which was that an apology should be made because he clearly found

distress had been caused. Will there now be a proper inquiry? I don't

think any of these legalistic things, I don't think he can have it

both ways. Will there be a proper inquiry? Alistair Webster did do a

proper inquiry. There was a proper report into what happened at the

time and we have learned a lot from this is a party, and the most

important thing now is that Chris Rennard apologises. You have made

that clear. What kind of biscuits are you? Are you a Tunnocks? Soft on

the inside? It is good of you to be advertising a Scottish product. We

just wondered if you weren't tough enough to take on Ed Balls. Thank

you. More than tough enough is the answer to that.

Generally governments are a bit rubbish at IT projects. They tend to

run way over budget and never quite achieve what they promised. So the

revelations of a former spy that the US and British security agencies

were in fact astonishingly efficient at eavesdropping on the digital

communications of their citizens came as a bit shock. But just how

worried should we be about their clandestine activity?

In his latest revelation, former US by Edward Snowden has claimed that

America's National Security Agency operates a secret database called

Dishfire. It collect 200 million mobile phone messages every day from

around the world, accessed, he says, why British and American spies. This

week, the president has outlined a series of surveillance reforms,

including Ning to the storage of the phone call information of millions

of Americans, and no Morse -- and no more spying on allies like Angela

Merkel. Critics say that the British intelligence agencies have refused

to acknowledge even the need for a debate on the issue. The Foreign

Secretary William six says that we have a very strong system of checks

and balances. -- William Hague. ?? new line Nick Pickles is director of

the pressure group Big Brother Watch. The Labour MP Hazel Blears in

on Parliament's Intelligence And Security Committee. They're here to

go head to head. Welcome to both of you. Hazel

Blears, let me come to you first. President Obama has made some major

changes as a result of what we have learned that the NSA in America was

up to. But British politicians seem to, they are not up for this kind of

thing, they are hoping it will go away? It is not going away and that

is why my committee, the Intelligence And Security Committee,

has decided to launch an enquiry into whether the legal framework is

up-to-date. We have had massive technological change. We have had a

call for evidence. Some of the sessions will be open so that people

can see what the evidence is. Obviously some of the information

will have to be classified, but on the committee, there is a real

commitment to say, there is a big debate going on, let's see if the

system is as Rob asked as we can make it. The big question is

oversight and the call for evidence that the committee has issued is not

mention oversight. It is ten years since the Foreign Affairs Committee

said that the committee should be a fully elected committee chosen by

Parliament and not the Prime Minister. It has changed, actually.

The Prime Minister nominates people and the house gets to him -- gets to

approve. In America, they have a separation of power, the president

does not nominate Kennedy. Basically, Hazel Blears, you're an

establishment lackey? I do not think so. Most of the people on the

committee have some experience of intelligence and these issues. In

this country, we have robust scrutiny, compared to some of her

European neighbours. We have Parliamentary scrutiny, the

interception commissioners, and ministers have to sign the warrants.

But there may be room for improvement, which is why we are

having the enquiry. Do not forget, President Obama said that the agency

should not have the ability to collect data, he wanted to put more

safeguards in. That is essential for the work of the agencies. If you

cannot see the data, you cannot take the connections and see the

patterns. Some people never talk about the threat from terrorism, it

is all about travesty. There are several thousand people in this

country, as we are talking, who are actively planning to do a country

harm. When this debate started in the US, the NSA head stood up and

said there are 54 plots that have been detected by this capability

that has detected and that in bulk. Now the head of the NSA has admitted

that the number is actually zero. It is not the intelligence committee in

the US that did the work to reduce that number, it was a Judiciary

Committee. The fact that we have two different bodies doing this in this

country, it means that you do not get the correct view. How can people

have confidence in a body when if you go around Europe, for example,

or the world, we are not at the end not requiring judges to not sign

warrants? I do not accept that the committee failed on that range of

issues. You look at the reports on 7/7. Two reports by the committee

get to the heart of it. If you look at that terrorist attack on our

country, people will say, why did you not have them on the radar? The

agencies are between a rock and a hard race. They have got to be

subject to oversight, but beanie capability. Did you know about

Dishfire? We go to GCHQ on a regular basis and I know about the

capabilities that we have got. Some of the names of these programmes, we

would not necessarily know. But did you know that GCHQ had the

capability to use Dishfire, or to get Dishfire material from the NSA?

I knew and my committee knew that we had the capability to collect data,

and these days, people do not write letters, they do not use landline

telephones, they use the Internet and text in, so it is important that

the agencies are able to keep up with that take the logical change.

What should happen? The proper legal framework should include, if a

company is cooperating, as Google and Facebook do, it should be

illegal for GCHQ to hack into them. In the US, Lundberg estimate that

this has driven a 35mm and hole in the US economy because people do not

trust but there are systems are secure. We need to know that GCHQ

are not trying to use a different door into the system, whether by

hacking or foreign intelligence. We need judicial oversight with judges

and not politicians signing off. The final 30 seconds to you. As a result

of the changes in the Justice and Security act, the committee is

accountable to Parliament and not the Prime Minister. Those changes

are taking place, and I am up for the debate if we need more change or

not. But I want British agencies to have more power to protect the

people in this country. Thank you to both of you. It's coming up to

11:40. You're watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up in just over 20

minutes, we'll get the verdict of the Minister for Portsmouth on that

dive from the Portsmouth MP. Ouch! Plus, the week ahead with our

political panel. Until then, the Sunday Politics across the UK.

Hello and welcome to the London part of Sunday Politics. With me this

week, Transport Minister Stephen Hammond, AKA Conservative MP for

Wimbledon, and Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North and now close

aide to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Welcome to you both. A little later

on, Boris Johnson has pledged to get 100,000 more Londoners to volunteer.

But now some are questioning the kind of opportunities on offer.

But first to the never-ending debate about the country's aviation future.

And another spat involving the mayor. Boris Johnson has accused Sir

Howard Davies, who is heading the commission deciding on where extra

runways should go in future, of "cold- shouldering" him over his

views and his support for an airport in the Thames Estuary? He's being

dissed. What do you say about this? You need to remember, Boris Johnson

is always a keen advocate for his views and you will find all sorts of

ways of putting them out there. It was clear that Sir Howard said there

were three options. There was a fourth option he was keeping alive,

the Thames Estuary option. He said there would be a consultation from

February and that is what he has doing. The consultation has not even

started so I think it is Boris making sure that people hear what he

wants to say. He's saying, through his adviser, that he is not been

given the kind of respect he should. His views should have greater

respect, he is the person with the strategic overview of London. Sir

Howard has said he will do a three-month consultation and he will

listen to those views. He has kept the Thames Estuary option alive. It

is going to be examined properly and thoroughly. He will report and speak

about it in June. I am pretty sure that Boris will get respect from Sir

Howard. When you say keeping alive the Thames Estuary option, do you

really believe that? I think it is keeping alive, because Sir Howard

said that he would resent three options. He said there has not in

another examination of the Thames Estuary option. It is pretty

unlikely it will get in there now? If it was pretty unlikely, it would

not be there in December. I think he is giving it a chance to make sure

it is properly examined. The fact he is doing that, people close to Boris

Johnson seem to think that this is a con. It is much more likely that

Boris is making sure that his views are known and heard. I think Sir

Howard is giving the proper examination of the option, Boris and

all of his advisers, I am sure, will have a chance to put their case in

exhaustive detail, with the strategic overview. Karen Buck, you

cannot disagree with that, presumably? If they made as saying

that his views are not being taken into account, that is a pretty

serious thing? It is. Listening to the way that this was presented, it

sounded vitriolic, it did not seem like the mayor was putting his views

on the table. The truth of the matter is, and I think that Boris

has rumbled this, the Thames Estuary is only on life support. It was only

put into the next stage of the review to probably avoid a row.

Reading between the lines of Howard Davies, it was clear. There is a

tendency for people to push things down the road and hope it will go

away. I am suggesting that the row will be kept in play until after the

next election? I would hesitate to say anything quite as cynical. On

the wider point of aviation, this is quite good news for you guys,

because you cannot decide what you support? We said that we excepted

the government's decision not to go ahead with the third runway. There

needs to be a much more consensual approach to this. These are enormous

projects. If the Mayor of London is falling out with the government on

this, over what should an independent and expert review, this

is bad news for London. I would love to talk to you more about this, but

let's come down to the ground. Now, a fortnight later than usual,

fares on tubes, trains and buses are going up. The delay caused by a

curious breakdown in communication between government and City Hall.

Overall fares are going up by just under the rate of inflation, though

some individual fares over inflation. And just as passengers

start paying more, there are strikes on the horizon. Max O'Brien has

more. Across the capital, transport fares

have risen. The mayor has called the fares increases a freeze. Average

fare rises are matching inflation. But this is always a source of

elliptical controversy. The Labour Party, Ed Miliband as the leader,

has gone on about energy prices and the cost of living. This will put

greater pressure on government and opposition politicians to see what

they would do. The rises have sparked a row between the mayor and

George Osborne. Between -- before Christmas, Boris Johnson announced

that the fares would rise by 3%, to match inflation, but the cost of

travel cards would go up by 1% more than inflation. Later, the

Chancellor said that fares would only go by inflation. The Mayor of

London then had to scrap his increase. The government decided

that they would mimic transport for London, and keep fares on the

network at the rate of inflation. I do saying that rail passengers from

Cornwall to Corby have Boris Johnson to thank? I am.

Despite the triumphant claim of the Mayor of London, critics argue that

has lower than expected rise will leave a hole in transport for

London's budget. If fares are to be held at lower levels than were

previously expected. That will drive down costs. To do that, the mayor is

proposing to close many ticket offices. This week, the RMT

announced their intention to strike over ticket office closures. This

means that the debate will rumble on long after today's price rises. We

will come to Boris Johnson as the saviour of the nation in or read,

but Karen Buck, this has got to be welcomed. You have got proof of

this, he has said that London cannot pay fears of more than inflation

increases this time? -- the fares. He was forced into that. The overall

package was always going to be an inflation on the increase. He

recognises the cost of living pressures, he says. I am sure that

he is beginning to recognise the cost of living pressures after five

years of over inflation rises. Commuters have the most expensive

tickets in the world. Of course it is well commit is not as high as it

was first proposed, but it is still significantly higher than the

average income rise that Londoners are enjoying. Where are you and

labour at the moment? There was some confusion? Does Labour is still

stand by and believe in a kind of 7% reduction in transport fares next

year? We wanted to see a price freeze this year. That has changed

from Ken Livingstone's view of a reduction? We were saying that we

wanted to see a price freeze. We welcome anything that makes a

contribution towards Londoners and their budgets. It still leaves

Londoners with up budget shortfall they were not expecting. We are

seeing a breakdown in the relationship between London and the

government. Stephen Hammond, you must have known about this. Were you

all said to have rail fares going much higher, but luckily, Boris

Johnson came along and said, people need to pay lower fares? George

Osborne decided to follow suit? There may be lots of stories around,

and lots of myths around, and I will not tell you the ends and outs of

the government was Mac discussions, but all I can say is that if you

think it was a last-minute reaction to that, you need to think about

what has happened over the last two of three years. We have moved from

the formula that the Labour Party left us. Even the year before, we

have went from RPI two plus one. This year, it was inflation. It is

the first time in a decade that has happened. You knew that Boris

Johnson was going to do it in London. That sounds to me like an

interesting tale. You are not denying it. Look at the consistent

record this government has done. There are lots of great things Boris

does annoy the great supporter but who's to -- he does not dictate

policy. Just clarify this. Will you give him that money like you

subsidise the reduction in the rail fare everywhere else in the

country? Boris has already announced his plans, he had already taken that

into account. He will be using increased revenue opportunities and

he has made it clear... It sounds quite foolish of him not to have

waited to see what the Chancellor was going to do first before he

decided on his package. He wanted to make a pledge to Londoners. It is

affordable in the TfL budget, and I'm sure Boris will be wanting to

bear down on the cost to make sure that London and TfL provide people

with a service which is cost efficient and value for money. It

has been suggested there are terrible communication problems

because of the rivalry between George Osborne and Boris Johnson.

Why are they not singing on the same page? I saw them yesterday and they

seemed pretty happy, chatting away to each other. Let's move on. One

thing Boris Johnson pledged to seize upon was getting 100,000 more

Londoners volunteering by the time he heads off in 2016, so how is it

going? We have been finding out. There has been some patchy

recruitment and some are questioning the kind of opportunities that are

now available. One of the most incredible successes of London last

year was the volunteering. The Mayor of London has been trying to get

that carry on through the name of Team London, that legacy was in

action this week at the school in London. Something to give to give to

your community, to make it a better place. I talk to young people about

how they can use their gifts and their passions to help the

community. City Hall are keen to emphasise that volunteering is not

just good for the people at the receiving end but also for the

people doing it, particularly if you are unemployed or you have just left

school. Volunteering work can really help. This is the Team London

website, giving people the chance to search for volunteering

opportunities. According to some people, some of the adverts on this

website crossed a line and they are not just giving people volunteering

opportunities they can learn from but they are actually trying to get

people to do jobs for free when they should be being paid. The Sun says

it is a minimum of three days a week, undergraduate level... One

campaign group says that City Hall needs to keep on top of what they

have on their website. There is a lot of ambiguity. If you are work

you should have rights and responsibilities, there will be

written, verbal, or implied contract to say you have to come in and do

certain tasks, whereas volunteering is of your own accord, come and go

as you please, and help out on a cause. Labour on the London assembly

say they are concerned. I think we are seeing that by the back door

they are almost substituting paid employment for volunteering roles

and that cannot be right. I will be writing to the Government department

that oversees this to make sure they investigate these matters. Questions

have also been asked about opportunities advertised through

Team London relating to the Scientology. New issued this

statement: Separately the group were also using

the Team London website. City Hall removed them from the website

because they failed to offer enough opportunities after registering.

Another group linked to the Church of Scientology continue to advertise

on the website. With the mayor committed to finding tens of

thousands of extra volunteering opportunities by 2016, some ask if

enough is being done to that what they advertise.

The Mayor's volunteering adviser is here, what is the update on the

figure? Where are you on this? We are doing very well, and it is great

to see the Team London schools programme in action. We were really

pleased with the uptake following the Olympics. The Olympics gave an

amazing insight into the value of volunteering and we have kept that

momentum going. In terms of the 100,000, we have had since 2011 over

one million volunteering hours and that is an astonishing figure. In

terms of numbers we have had over 100,000 people use the website and

to date we are around 25,000 who are actively volunteering through team

London. Volunteering opportunities are available through a lot of other

organisations so you don't have to go through Team London but it is the

go to place. It makes it quick and easy. A survey recently showed that

people were not sure how to volunteer, well if you are in

London, you go to Team London. What about some of the opportunities

appearing on the website, we heard on the film, it sounds like some

people are trying to get employment on the cheap. If you look at the

guidelines from the minimum wage act, it is absolutely clear the

recognition that is given to volunteers and the huge benefits

they bring to hundreds of thousands of charities. Is your focus on

people who are doing something once a week regularly or whatever, or are

you wanting people to take jobs on the cheap with a view to getting

future employment? We are not wanting people to take jobs on the

cheap, we want people to have experience of work. Some people

volunteer Reading to young children, or in a sports programme, but there

are also a lot of people in the 16-25 age group who cannot get work

experience, who have no experience of the world of work, and we want

them to be able to volunteer may be an hour on a Saturday afternoon or

maybe in the evening, there are all sorts of ways you can volunteer.

There is an important statistic which is that 73% of employers would

rather employ somebody who has had volunteering experience because it

gives them the skills to turn up on time. What's not to like?

Volunteering was one of the great triumphs of the Olympics in London

and I applaud any initiative to get people volunteering but I had a look

at the website and it did worry me that some of the vacancies were

being advertised as fixed days. People were being asked to commit to

working on a Tuesday and Wednesday with the expectation of turning up

at a certain time and it does seem to overstepped the line. It does

discriminate particularly against low-income people who are signing

on, people from ethnic communities, people who cannot afford to work for

free. They are not working for free, we are giving people the

opportunity to have an experience of work. We have continued the visitor

welcome programme and the events support programme with volunteers

and we have a specific scheme which we run through an excellent

organisation which provides us with young, unemployed people, they

funnel them through into the Team London projects to help them find

experience of volunteering. That is critical. To deny those people the

opportunity is to possibly deny them work at a later stage. Is this a

version of the Big Society? It is. People are crucial to cohesion,

bonding... The big society is alive and kicking! I have to confess, I

read the Team London page, and it makes it clear that interns will be

paid. Will you hit your target? I hope we will. We are working with

350 schools in London already. Now it is time for the rest of the

political news in 60 seconds. The new chairman of HS2 has pledged to

deliver the high speed rail project more cheaply. He also stressed his

priorities were to build the project more quickly and get the benefits to

the north earlier. Boris Johnson has thrown the Southbank Centre's

redevelopment plans into disarray by declaring that are part of the

complex used by skateboarders should be left unchanged. The surprise

intervention could threaten the whole scheme as the centre planned

to use beyond across as retail units to generate income. The mayor has

said less affordable housing will be built on the Olympic Games site to

allow for more economic activity. He says fewer homes will be built

overall and are smaller than promised percentage of those would

be affordable. The High Court has stopped the Warren comprehensive

school from being converted into an academy. Mr Justice Collins granted

an injunction. Realism now, more economic

development, less housing has got to be the way? We need more affordable

housing. In this half of the year, just 1400 affordable homes will be

built by the mayor. Affordable housing schemes are collapsing

around London, it is a crisis. A broken promise by the looks of it as

well. He will not reach the target. 6800 on the Olympic site, and then

2800 on the athletes village, of that 1400 will be affordable so

there is 50% there. Let's wait and see. Fantastic culture, 100,000

houses being built by the mayor. Andrew, back to you. Welcome back.

Now she made quite a splash last night. I am talking, of course, of

the Portsmouth North MP, Penny Mordaunt. If you missed her first

appearance in ITV's celebrity diving competition show, here she is in

action. APPLAUSE

Here is a lady who is more used to campaigning for votes than diving

for them. She created far too much rotation. Hard work has gone into

the start of this dive to try and control it. That looked painful. Now

the Portsmouth North MP got voted off the show last night but what

about the verdict that really matters? The newly appointed

Minister for Portsmouth, Michael Fallon, is here. Welcome to the

programme. I would give her ten out of ten for bravery. I was cheering

her on. She was doing this for a local charity, raising money for the

local swimming pool. She was a good sport. As Minister for Portsmouth,

can we expect to see you in your swimming trunks for the next

series? I do not think I have the spare time at the moment. But there

is a big challenge in Portsmouth. Penny Mordaunt and the other local

MPs there have been remorseless in asking ministers to help the city.

They are losing jobs. There is a goblin Trinity -- there is a big

opportunity to create jobs. Should she have been on a celebrity

television show of their role these problems in Portsmouth? This was in

her spare time and it is raising money for a good cause. I do not

think we should eat two sniffy about it. Did I not see you dressed up on

Thursday night, doing your programme? This is my job. This is

not her job. It was in her spare time, she was raising money for a

local charity. Your Minister for Portsmouth. Are we going to have a

minister for every town? Are we going to have a minister for

Chipping Sodbury? Chipping Sodbury does not have the issues that

Portsmouth have -- that Portsmouth has. There are jobs at risk in

shipbuilding. The government puts in a lot of money through the regional

growth fund, some ?20 million. There are range of government funding

streams going into Portsmouth. My job is to make sure that is properly

coordinated. I need to make sure that Portsmouth seizes this

opportunity to develop a more broadly -based marine and maritime

economy. To make sure a marginal seat stays Tory at the next

election? There are marginal seats everywhere. There is a Liberal

Democrat marginal the -- seat. Vince Cable and I have been working

together for the issues that Portsmouth is facing. We work on

these things together. But I have the very specific job of making sure

that the effort on the ground is coordinated. So Vince Cable is not

the Minister for Portsmouth? I have been there recently, so has Vince

Cable. So there are two ministers for Portsmouth? Just a minute. I am

making sure that the effort is properly coordinated on the ground.

I am determined to turn this challenging time into a proper

opportunity. Should we be to Paul faced about this? No, good honour.

How much money would be have to pay you to get into a swimming costume?

Bid is not enough money in the BBC covers. Good on her. It took seven

years to get a leg there's an MP. She should be a minister. It is a

pity she has the spare time to do this. She is very talented. It is

interesting about the Minister for Portsmouth, up in the north-east

they must be sad that they do not have any marginal seats. Nick Brown

as David Cameron last July, can we have a minister for the north-east,

and the Prime Minister is said no? Does this mean that Portsmouth is

more deprived economic late than the north-east? No, it means it is a

marginal seat. The Labour Leader Ed Miliband was on

the Andrew Marr programme this morning and he outlined plans under

a Labour government for an annual competition audit. Here is what he

had to say. The next Labour government will have an annual

competition at it, not just done by the regulatory body. Alongside them

will be the citizens advice bureau, setting the agenda for the future,

setting the agenda for how we can ensure that competition will benefit

consumers and businesses. I want to see Labour going into the next

election as the party of competition, the party of the

consumer, the party of hard-pressed working families who are struggling.

They need somebody to deal with those issues and that is what the

next Labour government will do. I thought you were meant to be the

party of competition? We are the party of competition. This is the

party that has given us some of these problems. We have an annual

competition review in the energy sector. We have already tackling

banking. What is interesting about his proposal is it is the smaller

ones who are less sure about this, the smaller banks who think that

this could inhibit the growth. It is the smaller energy companies who

think that through interfering with the market, through his price

freeze, that he will hinder competition. We spoke about this

before. It is a clever pitch that Ed Miliband is making. Under the guise

of token markets and claiming to be the party of competition, he is

creating the reason for state intervention? -- broken markets.

Exactly, and it is state intervention that does not work.

There is a proud tradition in government of smashing open cartels.

Teddy Roosevelt did it nearly a century ago. The problem is, in

those situations it was clear and obvious that the consumers were

suffering. I am not sure it is entirely obvious in this country. In

the banking sector we have free current accounts in the high street.

That is not true in all Western countries. In the energy sector, our

bills are not outlandish they high. It is when we take taxes into

account the become unaffordable. He has to make the case that consumers

are suffering as a result of these monopolies. Ed Miliband would say it

is not about state intervention, but about making markets work. The piece

that was written by his intellectual Duryea about the significance and

the importance of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the Republican president in

the yearly -- in the early years of the last century. He wanted markets

to work. There is an interesting debate on Twitter this morning. Tim

Montgomerie is saying, why are we, the Conservative Party, not seen as

the party of Teddy Roosevelt? We are seen as the party of business.

There are smaller energy companies competing against the big six. In

banking, we have seen smaller companies coming. It was the Labour

government that created the big six energy companies. I think Teddy

Roosevelt also invaded Cuba and the Philippines. That could give us a

clue as to Ed Miliband's foreign policy. Nigel Farage has promised to

purge the party of its more extreme candidates ahead of the European

Council elections in May. But that may not be going so well. Listen to

this. The latest in this process is these homosexual laws. And Thomas I

shall manage. I believe that the Prime Minister, who was warned that

disasters would follow a three went in this direction, he has persisted,

and I believe that this is largely a repercussion from this godlessness

that he has persisted in. The instructions I have got from now on,

or is just not to answer in, and not to give interviews such as this one.

So you are ignoring them? I am not ignoring them. But you are talking

to me? You are the last one I shall be speaking to. I think it is too

late. Who would have thought it? It is not global warming that is

causing the floods, it is gay marriage? That explains it. Last

year David Cameron offered a coded retraction of his statement that

UKIP is full of fruit cakes. I think he will be tempted to retract the

retraction. It is a warning to lots of Tories who think that their best

interests are served by flirting with lace -- with UKIP. Nigel Farage

is a very plausible guy, but several layers down, there are people who

are very different. Nigel Farage is saying that he's going to clear the

party out of what Mr Cameron called the fruitcakes. If he is true to his

word, Mr Sylvester's days in the party should they numbered. If Nigel

Farage falls under the bus, what is left of place -- what is left of

UKIP? People say that they like UKIP because unlike other politicians,

they speak their mind. But as it turns into more of a proper

organisation, people speaking their mind will be less acceptable. The

European elections are always a protest vote. People are not happy

with the elite. You will get people saying utterly ridiculous things

like that man in Henley-on-Thames. But this is a chance to vote against

the entire political establishment. I am not sure that comments like

that will make much of a difference. There are lots of arguments about

climate change. That was certainly a new one! They are the only big

protest party at the moment. Protest party is obviously hoovered up lots

of votes. We have got to be clear in European message that we are the

only party that can reform Europe and give people a proper choice, the

first referendum in over 40 years. Mr Sylvester used to be a

conservative. You're probably glad to see the back of him? David

Cameron is right, there are probably a few fruitcakes around there. I

think that mainstream conservatives will understand that this is the

only party that can secure European reform and give people the choice

they have been arguing for. Whatever happens in the European elections,

it is a protest vote. We have almost run out of time. We will see this

week of Chris Rennard gets the party whip act. There is a battle brewing

between Danny Alexander and the common side of the Liberal Democrats

and the House of Lords. If he turns up on Monday and asks to be let in,

I they going to make a big scene at the gate of Parliament? And the

issue will stay in the papers? Yes, they are clearly nervous that Lord

Rennard might be tempted to mount a legal bid. That is all for today.

Thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics is back on Monday at midday

on BBC Two. And I will be here again next week. Remember if it is Sunday,

it is the Sunday Politics.