02/02/2014 Sunday Politics London

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The unions helped

him beat his brother to the top. Now Ed Miliband wants to change Labour's

relationship with them. Who will come out on top? We will be asking

one union baron what he thinks. Cracks in the coalition after

Education Secretary Michael Gove sacks the chairwoman of Ofsted. His

Lib Dem deputy is said to be hopping mad. We will be talking to the new

deputy leader of the Lib Dems, Malcolm Bruce.

Caught a bout of the EU blues? David Cameron has been drowning his

sorrows with the President of France. Who better? We will be

asking if the EU referendum bill is dead in the water.

And bad weather getting you down? Getting from A to B a bit of a

nightmare? Fear not! The leader of the Greens will be here with her

traffic and travel report. Dutch UKIP manifestoes are causing major

tailbacks across the South, apparently stretching all the way to

Brussels. In London: The Met Police look set

for a big roll-out of officers wearing cameras.

Will it provide the kind of reassurance people want?

Yes, all that and more in today's action-packed Sunday Politics. And

blowing more hot air than I have had hot dinners, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt

and Iain Martin. After the row about candidate

selection in Falkirk, Ed Miliband said he wanted to reshape the

relationship between Labour and the unions. The biggest changes involve

union membership of the party, which in turn will affect future Labour

leadership elections. Some claim this is Ed's Clause 4 moment. But

the unions will continue to be powerful at conference and on the

party's ruling committees, and they will still be able to bankroll the

election campaign. Here is Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman,

speaking earlier. What he is proposing for the March the 1st

conference is a huge change in financing, in the election of the

leader, in what goes on at local level. In due course, it might have

implications for the NEC elections and conference. But this is already

a big issue to take forward. Joining me now is Paul Kenny,

general secretary of the GMB union and chair of the Trade Union and

Labour Party Liaison Organisation. Is this Ed Miliband's Clause 4

moment? I don't know about that. It is certainly a bold move,

particularly to have an electoral college, which as you said was the

system which elected him in the first place. Everybody admits that

has needed reforming for some time. Moving to a one member, one vote

situation seems to me to be sensible. I know some people are

upset, mostly MPs, who will lose their golden share. But it is

nonsense that one MP should have the same vote as 1000 party members. So

the MPs have lost out. Have the unions lost out? Well, the system is

currently that union members get a ballot paper, but they have to

declare that they are a Labour supporter and they have to sign to

that effect in order to participate. Then their vote is counted. At the

last election, about 200,000 trade union members gave that indication,

and they participated in that way. That will not change. The way it is

organised will be different. The big change in the electoral college is

that the logical weight given to MPs will disappear. I wonder if you have

really lost anything. At the moment, there are about 3 million people

automatically affiliated from the unions to the Labour Party. If only

10% of them opt in, that will still mean twice as many union individual

members, 300,000, versus about 180,000 Labour Party members. So

union members and maybe even the unions will have as big an influence

on the leadership elections as you do now, maybe bigger? Well, they are

individual votes. Different unions support different candidates. It is

lost in the media myth of barons and block votes, but there is an

individual vote. Different unions recommend different candidates, and

union members vote accordingly. Ed Miliband won more individual votes

by a country mile than David, but it got messed up in the process of this

electoral college. As I have understood the proposals so far,

they are not a done deal. There is a lot of discussion. But it seems

there are three hurdles. Firstly, union members themselves will have

to agree whether they want to affiliate to the Labour Party. If

they don't, the rest of it falls. If they decide they do my they will ask

union members to support that an individual basis the next five

years, which will have financial implications. Then there will be a

third position, which is that people who may want to agree with the

union's position and affiliate with the Labour Party may want to go

further and become active supporters of the Labour Party, participating

in leadership elections. They will have to give their sanction to that

at a third stage. So the implications in terms of

constituency parties and so on are a lot less than the idea that the 3

million who are currently affiliated will change. At the moment, the

unions, because of the automatic affiliation, hand over a affiliation

fees of about ?8 million a year to Labour. You will now get to keep

that money, because the individuals will have to put up the money

themselves. You can keep that money and determine if you give it to

Labour to fight the election campaign, correct? Incorrect.

Firstly, the affiliation fees are paid from what is called the

political fund, which most unions have to set up in order to

participate. The union will continue to pay the ?3 a affiliation fee for

those members who want the union to be affiliated. But you get to keep a

lot more money. In reality, we will see a transitional period of a few

years. Less people will probably say yes, depending on how popular Labour

are, about whether they want the union to give money to the Labour

Party. The GMB has already done this. By the way, don't call me

kneel. It is Andrew or Mr Neil. The unions will have a bigger chunk of

money because the unions will not be handing over all of the money at one

time. But you could still play a major part in funding the Labour

election campaign. We'll how much you give the dependent on what the

Labour Party puts in its manifesto? Of course it will. It will have to

justify our support to Labour for the members who provide money to the

political fund. If we did not argue for the cert is social justice

campaigns and laws we want to see, we would be failing in our job. I

don't intend to hide that from anybody. The unions are there to

fight for their members. That is our fight for their members. That is our

job. So you will still be a major part of the bankroll of the Labour

campaign. You will still have 50% of the votes at a Labour conference,

and you will still have a major part in the Labour National executive

committee and the policy committee. It is right to say the unions are

still at the heart of Labour, are they not? Well, if you sick to break

the affiliated link between trade unions and the Labour Party, the

whole thing collapses. That is what anchors the Labour Party as far as

we are concerned. Many of our members think that when they want to

look for ferrochrome and rights, social justice, housing and the

health service, Labour are better it quipped to deliver that for working

people than the current parties. That is why we have traditionally

supported them. But not at all of our members support Labour, which is

why we don't affiliate all of them to Labour. There are over 30 million

people in the British labour force now. Union membership is only 6.5

million out of that 30. A 6.5% of that do not vote Labour, they vote

Tory or liberal or nationalist in Scotland. So you are a relatively

small pressure group. Why should Labour be in thrall to you? We are

the biggest voluntary organisation in this country. Sorry about that,

but that is the fact. People make conscious choices. My own union, the

GMB, has been growing for eight years. So this dying picture you are

trying to paint... In terms of accounting for the fact that some do

not support Labour, that is why unions do not affiliate all of their

members to the Labour Party. We have adjusted to that. If you don't like

being called Neil, I don't like being called a barren either. What

about Mr Baron? I don't like that either. We are representatives of

working organisations. It may be inconvenient for politicians to have

to listen to working people, but we will continue to press. Lord Baron,

thank you very much. So, is this a Clause 4 moment for Ed

Miliband? Not really, but to his credit, he is going ahead with this.

There was a point at which it looked as though Ed Miliband would back

away from reform. To his credit, he is trying to create a mass

membership party again. But when it comes to the crucial business of

funding a general election campaign, these reforms will make Labour more

reliant on large donations from trade unions. They could have more

power now, because they get to hold back this money, whereas beforehand,

they had to hand it over automatically. As Mr Kenny just

said, how much they handover will be dependent on good behaviour. Yes,

but these are pragmatic reforms. The fact that Ed Miliband has a lot of

capital in not being seen as a Blairite has helped him get these

through . The response has been muted, which suggests good party

management on his behalf. That may be because they will still have 50%

of the votes at a party conference. Mr Kenny was clear that that could

be deal-breaker if they tried to take that away. They have more

places at the NEC than anyone else, and party members, if only 10% of

them signed up, they will outweigh individual members in the

constituencies. It was interesting, how relaxed Paul Kenny was. He was

taking thousands of pounds from the Labour Party a few months ago

because he was annoyed about these reforms, and now he is relaxed

because they still have 50% of the vote at Labour Party conference and

Labour Party Parliamentary candidates are still selected in the

same way. But there is a simple point here. Yes, you can pick apart

what Ed Miliband said and said the unions have too much influence, but

the only way he could have gone all the way was to break the link with

the trade unions, and he was not going to do that. It was not the

Labour Party that founded the unions, it was the unions that

founded the Labour Party. Even Tony Blair did not break the link. In

that context, Ed Miliband has gone incredibly far. For the last 50

years, this opting into the union, you have to turn to page 50 of your

union terms and conditions to say, do you want to opt out of the

political levy 's that is going to go, which will mean that when the

next Labour leader is elected from the union votes, they will get their

ballot from the Labour Party and you will append the fast where ballots

went out from Unison macro and GMB with a picture of Ed Miliband on the

front of the ballot paper saying, vote for aid. They were Stasi and

Saddam Hussein ways of trade union members electing the Labour leader,

which will go. I am sorry his Lordship is not still here to answer

that question. HMS Coalition is not a happy ship.

The lovey-dovey days in the rose garden are long gone. It is not a

loveless marriage, perhaps even an open one. The latest split is over

the decision by Education Secretary Michael Gove to replace Labour peer

Sally Morgan as head of the schools inspectorate, Ofsted. Mr Gove's

deputy, Lib Dem David Laws, is said to be spitting blood about her

removal, although only through surrogates. He has not said a word

on the record. Here was the Education Secretary a little

earlier. If there is another opportunity for Sally to serve in a

different role at a different time, then I would be delighted to support

her in the role which she thinks it is appropriate to do. There is

nothing wrong with Sally but there is a principle across government

that there should be no automatic reappointment, and that after three

or four years, it is appropriate to bring in a fresh pair of eyes. That

is good corporate practice in order to ensure that you refresh boards,

bring a new perspective, and have tough questions asked. We're joined

now by the newly elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats,

Malcolm Bruce. He's in Aberdeen. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

David Laws is said to be furious with Michael Gove, is he? I think he

is because Sally Morgan has been doing a good job and that has been

generally agreed across the whole spectrum. I think Ofsted is an

impartial body that inspects all schools and it shouldn't be subject

to some kind of political direction. That is the concern, that she is

being removed when she was doing a good job and most people thought she

should be reappointed. It is strongly rumoured her successor will

be a high-ranking Tory backer. Why hasn't David Laws said this himself,

have you spoken to him? I have, and I know he is not very pleased about

it but he will want to speak to Michael Gove himself when he gets to

see him on Monday. The question you have to take on board is that David

Laws is the schools minister, effectively the one who has

engagement with Ofsted, and he is seeing it being undermined by the

Secretary of State. There is a question that if Michael Gove is so

pleased with Sally Morgan why is he replacing her, and who will he be

replacing her with, and on what basis? Maybe parliament should have

a confirmation hearing so that we can be assured that whoever is put

in charge is there because they are good at it. Why has he licensed his

surrogates to save this rather than saying it himself? He didn't, he

knew I was on the programme this morning so I am giving you the

answers as best I can. David is perfectly capable of speaking for

himself. He hasn't so far. You asked me to come on this programme and

David was anxious for me to know he wasn't happy about it, and I can

certainly tell you that. I can also give you my own opinion which is

that Ofsted is not the Department for Education, it is an independent

body. The question you have to ask is will Michael Gove but someone in

charge of Ofsted who will have a political agenda? If so, that is not

what Ofsted should be used for. Let's move on to your own position.

You are 69, white male, middle-class, what is your answer to

the party with diversity problems? I don't think that is what they voted

on. They felt I had a wealth of experience that would be vulnerable

to the party from the period now until the election, not least

because the central issues that will concern voters are the economy, and

I have a track record of promoting the party's economic policy over

many years. But you are not even standing at the next election. No,

but we need to get to the next election and my colleagues have

confidence that I can do a useful job for the party in that situation.

We have developed and delivered policies that I have helped to shape

and I want to persuade people to understand the Liberal Democrats

have made a fundamental difference to the economic recovery. But you

know what has been happening with the Liberal Democrats and their

problems with women. Wasn't this a chance to select a woman in a major

part? You only have seven female MPs out of 57, not a single Lib Dem

woman in the Parliament. Again, why you rather than making a break and

bringing someone in onto major positions? My colleagues have

concluded that the role I am best qualified to do it, that is why they

voted for me. We do only have seven women and that is an issue we need

to address. Two of those women are ministers, one is a government whip.

We seem to have lost our line to Aberdeen, just as Malcolm Bruce was

in full flight defending his position. I'm not sure if we can get

the line back, just bear with me for a few seconds to see if we can get

it. It looks as if we have lost Malcolm Bruce, I do apologise to

Malcolm Bruce and the viewers that we were not able to continue that

interview. Fierce winds, torrential rain and a

tidal surge have brought more misery to thousands. Official records show

that southern England has seen the wettest January since records began

in 1767. I remember it well. The Somerset Levels have been hit by

weeks of flooding, with little respite from relentless rain. And,

the residents of one village on the Levels, Muchelney, has been cut off

for almost a month. We sent our Adam out with his wellies and a properly

filled out risk assessment form. The very wet road to Muchelney. This

village of about 100 residents has been cut off for about four weeks,

and like the weather vane, it feels a little bit spooky. It came up to

here and your front door was there. Anita is just relieved the water

stopped here, practically on her doorstep. Now it is the

practicalities that are the problem. Driving around for food is quite a

hassle. You are foraging. It's not as bad as that but we do have a few

bits in the vegetable garden still, and we had some nice apples until

the rats ate them but we are not doing too badly on that score. It

sounds like the medieval! That's what it feels like. Talking of

retro, who knew Somerset still had a Coleman, this is Brian's first

delivery since Christmas. Everything has gone old-fashioned. We are now

talking to neighbours we might never have seen before or spoken to so we

are getting to know more people in the village. She's right, there has

been an outbreak of Dunkirk spirit, quite literally. The council and the

Fire Brigade have put on this boat service to get people to work and

school. The church has become an unofficial flood HQ. This is where

people pick up their mail, and this is where the people who run the boat

stopped for their tea breaks. It all seems quite jolly, if a bit boring,

but it is no fun for the homes and businesses that have been inundated,

or for the farmers whose land is underwater, an area the size of

Bristol, or for the villages which are less isolated but where the

flooding is worse. People like the parish chairman are starting to get

angry with how the Government has responded. It was all a bit late. We

knew what was going to happen with the amount of rain on the fields and

the Government was so slow to react. The county council got the

boat going quickly but it was another four weeks nearly before the

button was pressed for the major incident. Right on cue, the cavalry

arrived in the shape of emergency crews from other parts of the UK.

The rumour is that they will bring in a hovercraft but the bad news is

that the weather is becoming more grim this weekend. There has been a

surge in bookings at the campsite where people have seen the Somerset

Levels on holiday and would like to come on holiday, if it ever stops

raining. I'm delighted to say we have got the line back to Aberdeen,

somebody has put a shilling in the meter. We can go back to Malcolm

Bruce. We were talking about the Lib Dem women and your election, I

suppose the point some people are making is that your party has as

many knights in Parliament as it has women and you are one of them. The

good news is that for the five MPs who are standing down, who have had

candidates elected in their constituencies so far, all five

candidates that have been selected are women. We need to fight hard to

get behind those women and get them elected so that we have a much

better balanced parliament in the future, but given that we have few

women, you really have to pick people appropriate for the job and

we have appointed the women as I have said but we need our image to

be balanced. How many women candidates will there be come the

next election? At the moment, 12, five more than we have now, and we

haven't finished selection. Where there are men sitting and standing

again, that is not likely to change, but where they are standing down we

are overwhelmingly choosing women, and in my view good and very able

women. What I would want to say to people is that if you want to see

the Lib Dems have more women, go to those seats and help us hold them.

We are told that only 20% of the 57 seats have female candidates and in

the unlikely event that you were able to hold onto them all, it still

wouldn't be a sea change to have 20%. The point is you have to build

them up. We are supporting female candidates. These are really good

candidates who will make first-class MPs and I certainly believe you will

gradually see the Liberal Democrats taking them on. We don't have 300

seats that we currently hold like other parties, but what I can tell

you is that increasing -- increasingly we will have female

candidates. One newspaper has said that you will deal with the Chris

Rennard fallout quickly and privately, what does that mean? It

means I will not be telling you because these things are not helped

by comments on the airwaves. I hope it will be possible to have a

resolution without people going to court but I don't think it helps

anybody for me to comment on any aspect of how this will be done and

I'm not prepared to do so. If you are not in full possession of the

facts, why did you say you will deal with this privately? I have come

into this halfway through, I don't have full possession of the facts, I

doubt you do, and we have a process that needs to be followed through.

Any comments in public do not help. Isn't it hypocrisy of a high order

to hear from a party that is constantly calling for transparency

in other institutions but when it comes to your own, you say, I am not

going to talk about it. There are all sorts of disputes that happen in

the world and often people don't talk about them because talking

about them aggravates the situation. I believe you have to

deal with them privately and I don't think trial by media in this context

is helpful and I don't believe that those who choose to make those

comments are making it easier to solve them. There are problems in

other walks of life and the Liberal Democrats are not the only ones with

these problems. We are trying to change that culture and I think we

will do it effectively in our own way. We have a pastoral care officer

now and I think that is the right way to do it. Thank you for that.

Let's now go back to the story of the flooding in Somerset. We are

joined by the leader of the Green party, Natalie Bennett in Millbank.

Natalie Bennett, don't the Green party bears some responsibility for

these floods? You have sided with the Environment Agency in the

decision not to dredge rivers and that is one of the reason why these

places have been flooded. Firstly I want to give my sympathy to everyone

dealing with these floods. The homeowners, the farmers seeing

sodden fields for weeks and weeks. We get that, we all have huge

sympathy, particularly because so little seems to be done to help

them. What is the answer to my question? I think there is strong

evidence that dredging is not the answer. If you think about the flow

of the river, where the pinch points are is things like bridges, weirs

and towns. If you dredge the river in between those barriers, you just

make the water faster to those points. The experts are saying that

dredging is not the answer, it may be in particular cases, but you have

to look at each river system on its own merits and very often the best

way of dealing with this is working out ways to slow the watered down

and make sure that people don't suffer unduly while you are doing

that. The west of England agricultural Society, which I would

venture knows more about the Somerset Levels than either of us,

has said that without dredging, this was a disaster waiting to happen.

The local drainage boards have been calling for years for dredging to be

resumed. The National Farmers' Union has called for it, and the chairman

of the West Sussex flood defences has called for more drainage, and he

is a drainage engineer by profession. So I don't know where

your experts are, but the experts on the ground am not the urban ones in

London, seem to think this has not been caused, but made worse by the

failure of the Environment Agency to continue to dredge. If you look at

the example of the planning and climate change coalition, which is

led by the town and country planning Association, who you would not

describe as a group of radical greens, these people have said we

have to look at how we deal with flooding in the future. But not in

Somerset. These are the people currently being flooded, not

somebody sitting in a quango office in London. They have asked for this

to happen and it hasn't, and they are now flooded in definitely. We

have to look at what is happening on a case-by-case basis. If you look at

Germany, there are many cases there were, to deal with flooding, many

farmers are paid to hold water on their land. Maybe we need to

introduce those systems, because we have to protect farmland, but we

also have to protect urban areas for safety. We saw a horrible flood in

Wales were lines were endangered -- where lives were endangered. That is

the priority, to protect lives, property and farmland. Lives are

endangered at the moment, particularly as this stagnant water

turns toxic. And yet we are in a situation, again encouraged by the

Greens and the lobbying Environment Agency, it says it does not want to

dredge because dredging is expensive, yet it spends millions on

a bird sanctuary. That is getting everything totally wrong. The

government is getting everything one by cutting on flood defences. It has

not cut on a bird sanctuaries. I don't know the details of that. But

looking at the broader issue, we have to prepare for climate change.

The government has slashed funding to the Environment Agency and has

cut back on the number of staff available to deal with it and has

removed the requirement on local councils to plan for climate change.

These are all gambling the future of our lives and property and the

future of our environment. Hasn't the high watermark of greenery now

gone well past? You don't come out of the Somerset Levels with any

great reputation. The UK government is now going to start fracking as

quickly as it can. Brussels is loosening the CO2 obligations for

2030. The President of America is about to give the go-ahead to the

keystone pipeline, a totemic issue for American greens, and your party

is in a state of civil war in Brighton. It is over, isn't it?

Absolutely not. We are seeing large amounts of extreme weather around

the world. Any one event is whether, but we are seeing a lot of it and

people are recognising that climate change is happening. If we are going

to quote international experts, I can quote to you Ban Ki-Moon, the UN

Secretary-General, not known as a radical green, and he said after the

IPCC report came out that the heat is on and we must act. If you go to

Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, again

not a radical green, she was asked what kept her awake at night, and

she said, we are not doing enough about climate change. So actually,

people around the world are looking at what is happening around them are

both people on the ground and people in high positions are saying we have

to act on climate change. And in the case of Britain, that should

absolutely not mean fracking. Sorry to interrupt, but I have evidence

that you are planning a little career change. Don't go away. This

is what happens when you let Nigel Farage present the weather. One

thing leads to another and low and behold, the Sunday Politics now has

a new traffic and travel reporter. Let's go back to Green Party leader,

Natalie Bennett. Thanks, Andrew. It is easy out that, so let's start

with our airports. I am pleased to say that Heathrow's third runway,

Boris Island and all short-haul flights are, just like our

arguments, well grounded. We suggest making or alternative arrangements,

like a re-nationalised rail network, although it would be a

glaring omission if we did not admit that that plan is currently being

delayed by Labour Party foot dragging. Speaking of trains, we are

hearing that high-speed two may well be derailing, or at least getting

bogged down in political fog. One viewer, Ed Balls, has texted in to

say he is completely lost. Thanks for the update, Ed. You are not

alone among political commuters. Meanwhile, dumped UKIP manifestoes

are causing major tailbacks across the South, apparently stretching all

the way to Brussels. This does make driving road tricky, but UKIP's MEPs

can, of course, just hop on their gravy train. The tree had a

roundabout is blocked after reports of a political earthquake. It seems

that a green unwound his beard to block a dodgy gas extractor. A

motorist who turned out to be the environment minister object into the

delay and was told to frack off as furious badgers demanded that he

stopped moving the goalposts. Unregulated traffic in the city of

London continues unchecked. Pedestrians should try to block

bankers with sacks of loot rushing for the payments. But do beware the

Lib Dem Exodus that is clogging up the motorways. Although they are in

a jam, or is it a fudge, we are happy to make way for them, as, like

all refugees, we say they are welcome here in muesli green. That

is the travel. Back to you, Andrew. Natalie, I think you make my point.

You are now preparing a new career in traffic and travel. Well, I do

believe in lifelong education and that was an example of it. We know

you have had a tough time today to get to our studio. Thank you for the

effort. You are watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up in just over 20 minutes, we will have more from our

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

Hello and welcome from us. This week in the capital, we have learned that

there is said to be a big roll-out of body worn cameras in London's

police force. Can it provide reassurance for the public and

police officers alike? Discussing that later and anything

else we can come up with will be Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney

North and Stoke Newington, and Mary MacLeod, Conservative MP for

Brentford and Isleworth. Let's start with research by a think-tank,

Centre for Cities, which found that 80% of the investment there has been

and creation of jobs in the country has been in London. Young people

graduating elsewhere in the country are coming to London. Mary Macleod,

do you fear that London is sucking the life out of the rest of the

country? I love London. I was born in London and have worked my whole

life here. I think cities will be the centre for growth, but much of

what happens in London also has a positive effect elsewhere. Three

fifths of contracts from London go to elsewhere in the country. So

there is no harm in London being that, and a lot of people will want

to come to London in search of jobs. But we need to think about the

rest of the country. That is why I say, don't expand Heathrow, let's

expand regional airports so that we bring jobs to other parts of the UK.

But being a London MP, London is the most important city for me to look

at how we develop London. Engine of the economy, or is it overheating?

Are you worried about this sucking the life out of effect? People have

been complaining about London dominated the life of the national

economy since the 17th century. Of course people come here for jobs,

but there are other reasons too. If you are in the old EU BT community,

people come for freedom and the torrents that London has always

shown. There are many reasons why London is a mecca for young people

from all over the country. When we were in power, we did a lot to

regenerate urban cities like Birmingham, Manchester and

Newcastle. And in the age of the Internet, a lot of people are

choosing to work in their regional centres because they can connect to

people online. So it is inevitable? Not inevitable, but it has always

been the case. London is an international city, like Paris and

New York. In a sense, those three major capitals are almost like city

states, and it has been like that from the 17th century. But we do

want to help other cities as well. That is where we should be saying to

the Chinese or doing business with India or Brazil, do come to other UK

cities, because we want to regenerate those as well. London

does not keep the wealth in London. If you take the tube, some of the

contracts for that have gone elsewhere. Or if you look at some of

the bicycle companies in my constituency, they do their

paintwork in Wales. What about the idea that of a 50% tax rate, 30% of

the people who would pay that are London's are you concerned that

90,000 people would be more affected by that? The 50% tax rate is very

popular. We are now ten points ahead in the polls. Does that make it

right? It does, because everyone knows we are in a difficult

financial situation. Whoever wins in 2015 will have to make further cuts.

Londoners want to know the burden is being shared fairly. But the money

is being raised in London and then exported to the rest of the country.

There is no evidence that Londoners are opposed to 50p. It is about

fairness and it is about people with the broadest shoulders wearing the

burden. Londoners would be the first to get upset if they felt the

poorest were bearing the burden of digging us out. They have stolen a

march on you with 50p. I completely disagree. We bring in more income

tax through 45p. Your point is ridiculous. You think it is

ridiculous to care about fairness? It is about how much money you bring

in. The minute you put the rate up, you bring in less money. We are

taking people out of income tax altogether. In Hounslow, people care

about fairness as well. Moving on, we understand that in a

few weeks, a large number of London's police officers will be

issued with cameras that they were on their uniform. There was much

talk of this after the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan, and City

Hall is keen to proceed. After a period of recent turbulence, it is

seen as one way of reassuring the public and indeed detecting officers

themselves. Police officers on the high street

in Sutton, south-west London. For over a year, they have been equipped

with body worn cameras, giving them the ability to film crime in high

definition as and when it happens. They say that a picture paints a

thousand words. When we are dealing with that incident, yes, officers

can go back to the police station and make notes, but this captures

the incidents we have to deal with. According to this pub manager, the

technology has improved the high street. As soon as the camera comes

on, you see attitudes change. The mayor saw the agreement in Sutton

for himself in December. It is massively an official for the

criminal justice system to have real-time evidence about what

happens. City Hall sources told this programme that e-mail will be

authorising the world's largest roll-out of Buddy worn cameras this

spring. The way London is policed could change for ever. Details are

thin on the ground, but there are already arguments about whether this

technology should be used in the same way that it is at the moment in

Sutton. Officers were these all the time, but they are not always

recording. The Home Office only allows police to film when there is

a specific incident. Then they just turn them on. But according to some,

they should be on all the time and let the police interact with the

public and not just for specific incidents. Leon Briggs was detained

by police in Luton last year. He died in police custody. There are

investigations ongoing by the independent police commissioner and

a coroner into how it happened. His family said police body cameras

would give them answers. Do not know why he died. I need to know. Leon's

partner, at a meeting with police last year. Leon's friends, family

and other campaigners are now campaigning for what they call

Leon's law. Leon's law is about the simple proposition that all police

officers in all interactions with the public will wear body worn

cameras, and they will record during those interactions. Technology will

start to hold the police to account. But it will not hold police to

account if they have the discretion to switch the cameras off when they

choose. Last week, Luton council passed a motion backing these

proposals, saying the Home Office guidelines need to change. There

should be abroad broader guidance to the police about these cameras

because with the police in total control of when you turn it on and

off, you might find there is a confrontation when the camera is not

on. Exactly how the Mayor will do it, to what extent, and what lessons

he might learn from Luton are not yet clear. When it is clarity we

want, we turn to Steven greenhouse, good to see you. What is happening

with the plans, when and how many officers? Versus a pilot that shows

a lot of promise. I met some officers on the Isle of Wight who

use cameras, and they said they'd put away their CS gas and use them

because it seems to reduce confrontation, particularly in the

night-time and with victims of domestic abuse, and in other

interactions as well. Hopefully we will see a reduction in complaints

about the police as well. What were the events in Sultan? Certainly

domestic abuse and on the Isle of Wight as well, but we are producing

the largest pilot in the world. Frankly, you have to use modern

technology to move from the 19th century the whistle on the

pocketbook. You are saying the largest pilot anywhere a police

force has done, so what are the numbers? 500 cameras, around eight

London boroughs, and within local policing, and the Commissioner has

made a commitment around firearm officers that respond. So they will

be in eight London boroughs, territorial policing, so when will

this be done? Towards the end of March, and one of the London

boroughs happens to be Hammersmith and Fulham. Where are we out with

the firearms? We heard the Commissioner was committed to do

that. We have the funding, and we will roll on the pilot until next

year. We have to go through the approvals process, secure the

equipment and begin the work of testing this out. For how long? It

is a pilot, as long as you need to. You have clearly got to look at this

over the course of at least one year, but depending on those

milestones, but it has to be agreed in advance. Do you have any views

about the current Home Office guidelines which fairly severely

restrict when you can switch on and off and the rules around it. The

issue was about how the criminal justice system changes itself to the

digital era. People have cameras and we need to make sure the evidential

value of this is secured, and courts can use it, and not be restricted by

bureaucrats. You think the guidelines need changing?

Potentially these specific guidelines need to be reviewed and

then we can feedback based on this pilot, but worse than that the

evidential value that is sometimes captured cannot be used in the

charging process of the CPS very easily as I understand it. So you

wouldn't have a problem with the cameras running all the time. No, we

need to be clear about when there is value because having a camera on all

the time means you have to work out how much of it you store. We need to

work out when it will have the biggest impact to reduce complaints

against the police and have the biggest impact in interactions with

the public. Diane Abbott, what do you think about what you have heard?

I think it is the way to go. I have been in London politics since the

Brixton riots in the 1980s. What happens is that someone dies, and

because people don't have information rumours take off like

wildfire and that is where you have these social complications. If you

have these cameras, you will have fewer rumours, lest things blowing

up in the community, it has to be the way to go. I understand your

point about not filming it all the time but you don't want to have

police switching it off at will. Are you saying it should be on all the

time? You have got to have a protocol. One guy died, and they are

supposed to have filming in the custody suites now, and when I went

and asked what the tape showed, he said the camera is broken. That kind

of thing creates distrust. Mary? I agree with that. I think we want

more prosecutions and if this will help with that all the better.

Chiswick was the very first refuge in the world so we want to do

everything we can. It appears to be advantageous that people are saying

something instantaneously which is caught on camera, which they may

subsequently changed so it is proving a very good evidential

gathering tool. It has to be dealt with sensitively but there are

special police officers who deal with domestic violence cases. It

helps protect the police, victims, prosecutions, it is good all round.

And it gives transparency about police communications. The Met

Police all agreed... I have noted the Commissioner's excitement about

deploying this, I think it is right and I am glad that everybody agrees

that building that transparency goes right back to the core of the

19th-century. Does it need to be approved by the Home Secretary, this

kind of scale? We are going ahead with this pilot in partnership the

Home Office. This is one area where we are at one with the Home Office.

The only area? We would like to explore those but we haven't got

time today! The last point, when is it happening? We are starting the

pilot towards the end of March and it goes on for the next financial

year. For many, the word prefab will evoke images of factory produced

temporary housing which sprung up all over London after the Second

World War but there are calls for new permanent prefabricated homes to

ease the capital's unrelenting housing problems. This is how you

build a prefab, in a factory... Factory homes were once commonplace

around London, offering emergency housing, but could it be time to

bring back a modern version of these 20th-century techniques? Walls

assembled in a factory are slotted into place, and according to

developers these houses go up at a rate of one per day, and when

finished they will be permanent, unrecognisable from the post-war

prefab. You have got lower costs to heat your home, less than ?30 per

annum. This week Labour announced they want to see a huge increase in

prefab construction, saying up to 14,000 could be built by the end of

this year alone. London has a housing crisis and the Mayor is not

doing enough. He has got masses of land, the equivalent of five Hyde

Parks. Labour wants him to use that land and stimulate a pipeline of

these homes on his land across London. In response, City Hall

issued the following statement. According to Labour, in Japan and

Sweden 90% of homes are factory built. With backing of some sort

from Labour and Conservatives in London, could it be that the capital

starts to emulate them soon? What do you both ink of prefabs? This

initiative in rain was a GLA initiative so I think it has got

potential. Housing in London is a major issue, we need more affordable

housing. The mayor is on track to do this, he has done 60,000 already. It

was meant to be 110,000 of course, because it was 55,000 for the first

term and then he wanted to match that so it would be 110,000. It is

still a big increase from what it was, and if we can do anything to

help the houses go up quicker, the better. We need to make sure it is

the quality required but it is this type of housing which is built

off-site and brought on-site that could have real potential. Does it

only work in certain areas? There was a generation of prefab houses

built after the Second World War and people lived in them until the end

of their lives and they loved them, so I think you can have them

anywhere. Housing is a huge crisis in London. I think you need to put a

levy on non-dom owners, you need rent controls, you need to allow

councils to borrow to build houses, and I also think these prefab houses

are part of the solution. We have seen from that statement that the

mayor has this land and plans for it, is there an argument for

changing the mix so that you have more prefab houses? I think there

will be a mix of it and it will be down to a large extent two London

boroughs as well to make a decision about what is right for the space

they have got. In west London it is flats going up rather than houses,

although I was at a housing meeting in Brentford yesterday and they said

they want more houses for families and something that is affordable,

but we want something happening now and not in ten years. The solution

could be something which is an important part of the mixture of

what we do in London housing. But we could overdo it, it is no

consolation is it? It is a mix, and above all councils need to be able

to borrow to build, but it is an issue people think the mayor has

failed on. Now the political news in 60 seconds.

Flexible tickets and travel cards aimed at part-time workers in London

will be launched in January 2015, no details as yet but Boris Johnson

said the plan would bear down on transport costs. Ministers have

blocked the 2011 report into the controversial high-speed rail scheme

HS2. The document analysed how it was progressing at the time but the

Government said it was not in the public interest to release the

paper. Metropolitan Police and mayor of London Boris Johnson want to buy

three cannons from Germany. The banning of a London bus advert

suggesting people could get over homosexuality should be

investigated, the appeal court has ruled.

Was the mayor right? If Transport for London decided this advert

breached its procedures and didn't have it in the first place and it

was clear, that is one thing, but should there be allowed to pick up

the phone and say this is going to offend a large number of people, it

is election time, we can't have it? He obviously felt strongly about it.

What I would have done is either to ban both sets of adverts or allow

both and there is always that difficult combination of allowing

freedom of speech but yet we want to build a tolerant society. We have a

really tolerant society in London which is really important and we

want to maintain that, especially in west London 30% of my constituency

is Asian. I don't think it is a political issue, it is a human

rights issue. People should not be allowed to put anti-gay stuff on

buses any more than they should anti-black. Would you have done the

same thing? It is human rights, not political. Half of the country's

LGBT's community lives in London. You cannot have anti-gay stuff on

buses. Are you any clear on whether you might like to stand for this job

in 2016? I have no plans to run to be Mayor of London. Have you thought

about it? It has been suggested to me, but I currently have no plans.

Not a complete denial! Hopefully a Conservative mayor again.

Not a good week for David Cameron on the tricky European front last week.

President Hollande said he was not interested in major treaty reform

for 2017. That is when Mr Cameron hopes to hold his in-out referendum.

And the private member's bill to put that referendum on the statute bill

was killed by Labour and Lib Dem peers in the Lords. James Wharton

was the Tory MP behind the bill, and he joins me now. What happens now?

It is out of my hands what happens now, because Labour and the Liberal

Democrats conspired in the Lords to kill off my bill. One of the options

is for another private member to bring a bill forward when they have

the next private member's bill at, and we can try again. The prime

minister has indicated that he will support that. But whatever happens,

it will be in the Conservative manifesto at the next election. Do

you accept that cost this is Tory policy and not government policy

that the government policy elite macro cannot bring forward a bill?

That is the problem. The Liberal Democrats, despite having promised a

referendum in their manifesto at the last election, now will not allow

government time for a bill to enshrine that in law. That was why I

brought it forward as a private member's bill. David Cameron and the

Conservative Party through everything behind that. To many

people's surprise, we got it through all the House of Commons stages.

Sadly, to their discredit, Labour and Liberal Democrat peers, doing

the bidding of their masters in the Commons, is conspired to kill it. Do

you accept that it is Conservative policy, but not government policy,

that you could not use the Parliament act to get this through

the Lords? That is not the case. The Parliament act is clear that if a

public bill passes through the House of Commons twice in one

Parliamentary period, there is a certain amount of time that has to

be between both bills being presented. There are some procedural

steps to be overcome, but there is no legal reason why the Parliament

act could not come into effect. I was talking about you not having a

majority in this case. That remains to be seen. We saw previously that

Labour and the Liberal Democrats sent enough people to frustrate its

progress to make it as difficult as possible, but not huge numbers to

vote against it. On a Friday, huge numbers of MPs do not attend

normally. Getting that number might prove difficult. The Parliament act,

which is a bit of an atomic bomb in constitutional terms, if that was

used, they would turn up to vote against you. Is it not the case that

after the countryside Alliance tried to involve the courts in the hunting

ban that it was made clear that the Parliament act was not to be used

for constitutional issues? I don't think we know how many would turn up

and we don't know how they would vote. One of the things that has

been revealed as I have gone through the process of getting this bill to

get a referendum through the Commons is that there are big splits in the

Labour Party. One of the reasons we did not see them turning up in large

numbers to stop this bill from happening was that Ed Miliband knew

that if he tried to lead his own MPs through the lobbies to block a

bill, the only purpose of which is to let Britain decides to give

people a say on membership of the union, a lot of his MPs may not have

followed him. It is all fantasy politics anyway. The French

president has made clear that he has no interest in treaty change this

side of 2017. He would need a referendum as well . And he needs

that like a hole and had. Merkel is not keen, as she is in coalition

with the social Democrats. Without the French or the Germans, it will

not happen, end of story. The policy is that we will try to negotiate on

getting a better deal. I hear what you are saying, but I don't

recognise it as reality. We have a strong bargaining position. But

whatever the result of that negotiation, it will be put in an

in-out vote to the Britain people. It is time people were allowed to

decide. It has been over a generation since we last had a say.

David Cameron has committed to delivering that referendum. The

Conservative Party will have it in our next manifesto for the election.

Whatever happens to my bill or any other of the bill that comes

forward. If people want a referendum, the only party that can

deliver that in British politics is the Conservatives. Let me bring the

panel in. Nick, where is this going? It is clear to me and anyone who

follows European politics that there is no appetite for major treaty

change in the short run, particularly for the kind of major

changes that Vista Cameron says he is going to get, and yet the Tories

are talking about Europe again when they should be talking about the

economy. And Francois Hollande is looking at 2017, the year we are

meant to have this referendum. There will be a French presidential

election going on, and Nicolas Sarkozy will be back in play by

then. But James has an interesting point, which is that it is down to

Angela Merkel. She would be more receptive to David Cameron's ideas

of reform than people assume. She has looked over the edge at a Europe

without the UK and said, that is not acceptable, and I am willing to pay

a price, not any price, but a price to keep the UK in the European

Union. And the French, because the UK and France are the only serious

military powers in Europe, will eventually come to that position. So

there is more support for David Cameron than people assume. The

French are also not a strong position in terms of the euro and

French economy. The Foreign Office seem a bit more optimistic about

it. Of course they are. Douglas Hurd once told me, we are winning the

arguments on the single currency. Of course anything from the Foreign

Office comes with a health warning, but if David Cameron had won a

majority and was determined to renegotiate, he is in a strong

position with Merkel. There is a possibility that the French could

eventually be talked around. So it is not entirely bleak on that front

for Cameron. When do the Tory party managers say, look, stop banging on

about Europe again? The economy is going away. We still have an

electoral mountain to climb. Let's just talk about that and not be

divided. They should have done that some time ago. It is already too

late. The Tories need a seven point lead in the polls to get image are

tea. The way things are, that would require a huge change from where we

are now . It is very unlikely to happen. So all this is happening in

some bizarre imaginary space with wonderful rainbows and sunshine. But

we can detect the beginnings of a shift in the last couple of weeks.

If you talk to Tory backbenchers, Douglas Carswell is now saying in

public that it is time to stop the fighting. If they are to get even

close to winning the election, they can't do it if they are all against

each other. I don't think it is an imaginary space. It is likely that

David Cameron will have the largest party in the election. If it is a

hung parliament and it is the Liberal Democrats and the

Conservative Party, David Cameron will save to Nick Clegg we gave you

an AV referendum, I am having this referendum. And it will be difficult

for Nick to say no. Let me go back to Mr Wharton. You are going to get

a referendum in the manifesto. Other than Ken Clarke, everybody wants it.

So why don't you just banked that and get behind the leadership

Institute causing endless problems and coming across as a Europe

accessed, divided party? I am absolutely behind the leadership.

David Cameron announced the policy I am trying to bring forward in this

bill. It is in line with the speech he gave this time last year. But

getting that commitment into law will help to kick-start the

negotiation process and mean everyone will know where we stand.

But whatever happens, the Conservatives are committed to

delivering a referendum. And to address the point that we talk about

Europe too much, that is not the case. We have a good message on the

economy, on tackling immigration and reforming welfare. There is more to

do, but this is also an important part of policy. But at a time when

the economic news seems to be turning in your direction, you are

talking about the European referendum. Your backbench

colleagues are trying to change the Immigration Bill every which way.

Dominic Rather is putting in an amendment is and Mr Nigel Mills has

been on this programme, putting in amendments that are clearly illegal.

How is that helpful? The fact is that we are in a coalition, so there

are areas of policy where Conservatives might want to go

further and we are not able to do that. In other areas, we are

delivering good reforms. But this is not a matter of going further. The

mill 's amendment was clearly a contravention of the Treaty of Rome.

That is where you get the headlines from. Some of your colleagues have a

death wish? Would they rather have a Miliband government if the choice is

an impure Cameron one instead? I don't think anyone in their right

mind would rather have a Miliband government. Then why are they

behaving that way? We have had some disagreements into the leak and

debate within the party, but it was talked about on the panel just now.

The Conservative Party is behind David Cameron and focused on winning

the next election. Europe is one part of that. We have policies in a

range of areas, but we are getting back on the right track. Thank you

for being patient with us. Is this ghost story going to go

somewhere? Mr Laws is talking through surrogates at the moment,

but there is a strategy by the Lib Dems make these differential points

now. I think it is fantastic coalition sports and entertaining,

but in terms of out there, it has almost no traction whatsoever. I

don't think any voters know who Baroness Morgan is and it sounds

like one but politicians shouting at another bunch of politicians about

their ability to give each other jobs. There is a larger point about

the way Michael Gove runs his government. He is notoriously a very

polite man surrounded by Rottweiler is, his advisers. He has made

enemies of a lot of people in the media, and some of that will come

back on him in the next 18 months. We shall see if Mr Laws himself

sticks his head above the parapet. That is it for this week. The Daily

Politics is on throughout the week at midday on BBC Two, except on

Wednesdays, when we are on at 11:30am. I will be back next week at

the same time. Remember, if it is Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.