09/02/2014 Sunday Politics London

morning, folks, welcome to the Sunday Politics. Rising flood water,

a battered coastline, the winter storms forced the Government to take

control. Is it hanging the Environment Agency out to dry?

Embarrassment for the Government is the Immigration Minister resigns

after he discovered he was employing a cleaner with no right to work here

for seven years. Ed Miliband promised an end to what he called

the machine politics of union fixes in the Labour Party, but will his

reforms we can the union's role The Shadow Business Secretary Chuka

Umunna joins us for the interview. In London after two days of

disruption in the capital the Mayor Boris Johnson will be talking to ask

about strife on the Underground All of that and after a week of very

public coalition spats can David Cameron and Nick Clegg keep the

coalition show on the road? Two senior party figures will go head to

head. And with me, Helen Lewis, Nick Watt and Iain Martin who would not

know they Somerset Levels from their Norfolk Broads, but that will not

stop them tweeting their thoughts. We start with the strange Case of

the Immigration Minister, his cleaner and some lost documents

Yesterday Mark Harper tendered his resignation, telling the media he

had discovered the cleaner who worked for him for seven years did

not have the right to work in the UK. The Communities Secretary Eric

Pickles said he had done the honourable thing. I was sad to see

him go, he was a strong minister. Had he been a member of the public

he would not have done anything wrong, but he set himself a very

high standard and he felt that standard and honourably stood down.

This would seem like a good resignation, maybe unlike the

Baroness Scotland one years ago on a similar issue, but have we been told

the full story? We wait to see that. Labour have picked up saying he is

an honourable man, that the reason why he resigned is these very owners

checks that landlords and employers will have to perform on employees

over their documentation. The most interesting line is that, we do not

require them to be experts or spot anything other than an obvious

forgery. The suggestion that there is the document he was presented

with originality, which he lost was on home office paper and was perhaps

not entirely accurate. That is the embarrassment. He is the minister

putting through a bill that will demand tougher checks on people and

he himself did not do enough checks to discover she was illegal. There

is an odd bit where he involves the home office later to check her out

as well. He writes a resignation letter and he has to hold himself to

pay higher standard. He has done the David Laws approach to this, resign

quickly and he can come back. David Cameron wants him to return swiftly

to the frontbenchers. He is a state school educated lad. He is the kind

of Tory that the Tories are in short supply of. He is a rising star. I

would caution on this idea that it is customary that whenever anyone

resigns, it is always thought they will come straight back into office.

If only the outside world worked like that. It is not, in a company

if the HR person resigns, he is such a great chap he will be back next

week. There is a silver lining for David Cameron is he has been able to

move Harriet Bond up as he moves everyone up. But nobody will see her

in the whips office because she is not allowed to appear on television.

And if you three want to resign Do not hate you are coming back next

week. But we will do it with honour. It has been a hellish week for

residents of coastal areas with more storms bringing more flooding and

after Prince Charles visited the Somerset Levels on Tuesday the

Government has been keen to show it has got a grip on the situation at

last. For last weekend's Sunday Politics I

made the watery journey to the village of Muchelney, cut off for a

whole month. Now everyone has been dropping in. First it was Prince

Charles on a park bench pulled by a tractor. He waded into the row about

how the floods have been handled. Next it was the chair of the

Environment Agency, Lord Smith, who faced angry residents. Sought the

river is out. That is precisely what we are going to do. Where he faced,

a resident, he did not need that many. David Cameron went for a look

as well and gave the region what it wanted, more pumps, more money and

in the long-term the return of dredging. There are lessons to

learn. The pause in bridging that took place from the late 1990s was

wrong and we need to get dredging again. When the water levels come

down and it is safe to dredge, we will dredging to make sure these

rivers and stitches can carry a better capacity. The Environment

Secretary Owen Paterson has not been seen again because he is recovering

from emergency eye surgery. In the meantime the floodwaters rose ever

higher. Some residents were told to evacuate. In Devon the railway was

washed away by the waves leaving a big gap in the network. Look at the

weather this weekend. If you can believe it, the storms keep rolling

in. What is the long-term solution for flood prone areas of the

country? I am joined from Oxford by the editor of The Ecologist

magazine, Oliver Tickell, and by local MP Tessa Munt. Tessa, let me

come to you first. What do you now want the Government to do? I want it

to make sure it does exactly as it promises and delivers what every

farmer and landowner around here knows should have been done for

years. First, to solve the problems we have right now, but to make sure

there is money in the bank for us to carry on doing the maintenance that

is necessary. Was it a mistake not to do the dredging? When the waters

start to subside does dredging become a key part of this? Yes, of

course. It is something the farmers have been asking for four years

When you wander along a footpath by a river and you see trees growing

and there is 60% of the capacity only because there is silt, it needs

to have a pretty dramatic action right now and then we need to make

sure the maintenance is ongoing Oliver Tickell, was it a mistake to

stop the dredging? If the dredging had happened, the land would not be

covered in water for so long? Clearly it is necessary to do at

least some dredging on these rivers and in particular because these

rivers are well above ground level. They are carrying water that comes

down off the hills well above the level of the flood plain on the

Somerset Levels. They naturally tend to silt up. But the key thing is

that is only a small part of the overall solution. What we need is a

catchment wide approach to improve infiltration upstream and you also

need to manage the flood plain on the levels and upstream so as to

have active flood plain that can store water. This idea it is just

about dredging is erroneous. Dredging is a part of it, but it is

a catchment wide solution. Dredging is only a small part of the solution

he says. Yes, of course it is. But look here. With the farmer is

locally, the landowners, they know this land will carry water for a few

weeks of the year, that is not a problem. But this water has to be

taken away and there is a very good system of drainage and it works

perfectly well. In my area there are serious problems because the

dredging has not taken place. There are lunatic regulations around were

when they do do some of dredging, the Environment Agency is asked to

take it away because it is considered toxic waste. This is

barmy. We need to take the stuff out of the rivers and build the banks up

so we create protection in the future. We have to make sure the

dredging is done but make sure the drainage works well and we have

pumps in places and we have floodgates put onto the rivers. We

need to make sure repairs are done more quickly. All right, let me go

back to Oliver Tickell. Is it not the case a lot of people on your

side of the argument would like to see lands like the Somerset Levels

return to natural habitat? Looe I would like a degree of that, but

that does not mean the whole place needs to turn into wilderness so it

will remain agricultural landscape. Everybody, all the interested

parties who signed up to a document called vision 2034 the Somerset

Levels envisages most of the area of the Somerset Levels being turned

over to extensive grassland and that is what it is best suited for. Let

me put that to Tessa Munt. Have you signed up to this where you will end

up with extensive grassland? I have seen it, but grass does not grow if

water is sitting on this land for weeks and weeks. What you have to

remember is a lot of the levels are managed very carefully and they are

conservation land and that means cattle are allowed to go out at

certain times of the year and in certain numbers. It is well managed.

Do you accept it should return to grassland? Grassland, fine, but you

cannot call land grassland in the flipping water is on it so long that

nothing grows. It is no good at doing that. You have got to make

sure it is managed properly. Drainage has been taking place on

this land for centuries. It is the case the system is there, but it

needs to be maintained properly and we have to have fewer ridiculous

regulations that stop action. Last year the flooding minister agreed

dredging should take place and everything stopped. Now we have got

the promise from the Prime Minister and I thank Prince Charles for that.

Is it not time to let the local people run their land rather than

being told what to do by the Environment Agency, central

Government and the European Union? The internal drainage boards have

considerable power in all of this. They wanted to dredge and they were

not allowed to. The farmers want to dredge that is what is going to

happen, but they have signed up to a comprehensive vision of catchment

management and of environmental improvement turning the Somerset

Levels into a world-class haven for wildlife. It is not much good if

your house is underwater. The farmers themselves, the RSPB, the

drainage boards, they have all signed up to this. The real question

now is how do we implement that vision? You give the money to the

drainage boards. At the moment they pay 27% of their money and have been

doing so for years and years and this is farmers' money and it has

been going to the drainage boards and they pay the Environment Agency

who are meant to be dredging and that has not happened. We have to

leave it there. We have run out of time.

Last week saw the Labour Party adopts an historic change with its

relationship with the unions. Changes to the rules that propelled

Ed Miliband to the top. Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader in 20 0 by

the electoral college system which gives unions, party members and MPs

one third of votes each. This would be changed into a simpler one

member, one vote system. A union member would have to become an

affiliated member of the party. They would have to opt in and pay ?3 a

year. But the unions would have 50% of the vote at the conference and

around one third of the seats on the National executive committee. The

proposals are a financial gamble as well. It is estimated the party

could face a drop in funding of up to ?5 million a year when the

changes are fully implemented in five years. The leader of the Unite

trade union has welcomed the report saying it is music to his ears. The

package will be voted on at a special one of conference in March.

And the Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna joins me now for the

Sunday Interview. Welcome back. In what way will the unions have less

power and influence in the Labour Party? This is about ensuring

individual trade union members have a direct relationship with the

Labour Party. At the moment the monies that come to us are decided

at a top level, the general secretaries determine this, whether

the individual members want us to be in receipt of those monies or not so

we are going to change that so that affiliation fees follow the consent

of individual members. Secondly we want to make sure the individual

trade union members, people who teach our children, power via -

fantastic British businesses, we want them to make an active choice,

and we are also recognising that in this day and age not everybody wants

to become a member of a political party. We haven't got much time The

unions still have 50% of the vote at Labour conferences, there will be

the single most important vote, more member -- union members will vote

than nonunion members, their power has not diminished at all, has it?

In relation to the other parts of the group of people who will be

voting in a future leadership contest, we are seeking to move

towards more of a one member, one vote process. At the moment we have

the absurd situation where I, as a member of Parliament, my vote will

count for 1000. MPs are losing. . They still have a lot of power. I am

a member of the GMB union and the Unite union, also a member of the

Fabians as well so I get free votes on top of my vote as a member of

Parliament. We are moving to a system where I will have one vote

and that is an important part of this. You asked how many people

would be casting their votes. The last time around, under the

old system, up to 2.8 million ballot papers were sent out with prepaid

envelopes for people to return their papers were sent out with prepaid

turnout. The idea that you are going to see a big change... Even if

your individual party members. In one vital way, your purse strings,

your individual party members. In the unions will be more powerful

than ever because at the moment they have to hand over 8 million to

than ever because at the moment they fraction of that now. They will get

to keep that money, but then come the election you go to them and give

them a lot of money -- and they will have you then. They won't have us,

as you put it! The idea that individual trade union members don't

have their own view, their own voice, and just do what their

general secretaries do is absurd. They will make their own decision,

and we want them to make that and not have their leadership decide

that for them. Let me go to the money. The Labour Party manifesto

will be reflecting the interests of Britain, and the idea that somehow

people can say we are not going to give you this money unless you do

this or that, we will give you a policy agenda which is appropriate

for the British people, regardless of what implications that may have

financially. They will have more seats than anybody else in the NEC

and they will hold the purse strings. They will be the

determining factor. They won't be. Unite is advocating a 70% rate of

income tax, there is no way we will have that in our manifesto. Unite is

advocating taking back contracts and no compensation basis, we would not

-- there is no way we would do that. How many chief executives of the

FTSE 100 are backing Labour? We have lots of chief executives backing

Labour. I don't know the exact number. Ed Miliband has just placed

an important business person in the House of Lords, the former chief

executive of the ITV, Bill Grimsey. How many? You can only name one

Bill Grimsey, there is also John Mills. Anyone who is currently

chairman of the chief executive With the greatest respect, you are

talking about less than half the percent of business leaders in our

country, we have almost 5 million businesses, not all FTSE 100

businesses, not all listed, and we are trying to get people from across

the country of all different shapes and sizes. Let's widen it to the

FTSE 250. That is 250 out of 5 million companies. The largest ones,

they make the profits and provide the jobs. Two thirds of private

sector jobs in this country come from small and medium-sized

businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses are an

important part of a large companies supply chains. So you cannot name a

single chairman from the FTSE 2 0, correct? I don't know all the

chairman. Are you going to fight the next election without a single boss

of a FTSE 250 company? I have named some important business people, but

the most important thing is that we are not coming out with a manifesto

for particular interests, but for broader interest. Let me show you,

Digby Jones says Labour's policy is, "if it creates wealth, let's kick

it" . Another quote, that it borders on predatory taxation. They think

you are anti-business. I don't agree with them. One of the interesting

things about Sir Stuart's comments on the predatory taxation and I

think he was referring to the 5 p rate of tax is that he made some

comments arguing against the reduction of the top rate of tax

from 50p. He is saying something different now. Digby of course has

his own opinions, he has never been a member of the Labour Party. Let me

come onto this business of the top rate of tax, do you accept or don't

you that there is a point when higher rates of income tax become

counter-productive? Ultimately you want to have the lowest tax rates

possible. Do you accept there is a certain level you actually get less

money? I think ultimately there is a level beyond you could go which

would be counter-productive, for example the 75% rate of tax I

mentioned earlier, being advocated by Unite in France. Most French

higher earners will pay less tax than under your plans. I beg your

pardon, with the 50p? Under your proposals, people here will pay more

tax than French higher earners. If you are asking if in terms of the

level, you asked the question and I answered it, do I think if you reach

a level beyond which the tax burden becomes counter-productive, can I

give you a number what that would be, I cannot but let me explain -

the reason we have sought to increase its two 50p is that we can

get in revenue to reduce the deficit. In an ideal world you

wouldn't need a 50p rate of tax which is why during our time in

office we didn't have one, because we didn't have those issues. Sure,

though you cannot tell me how much the 50p will raise. In the three

years of operation we think it raised ?10 billion. You think. That

was based on extrapolation from the British library. It is at least

possible I would suggest, for the sake of argument, that when you

promise to take over half people's income, which is what you will do if

you get your way, the richest 1 currently account for 70 5% of all

tax revenues. -- 75%. Is it not a danger that if you take more out of

them, they will just go? I don't think so, we are talking about the

top 1% here. If you look at the directors of sub 5 million turnover

companies, the average managing director of that gets around

?87,000. Let me narrow it down to something else. Let's take the .1%

of top taxpayers, down to fewer than 30,000 people. They account for over

14% of all of the income tax revenues. Only 29,000 people. If

they go because you are going to take over half their income, you

have lost a huge chunk of your tax base. They could easily go, at

tipping point they could go. What we are advocating here is not

controversial. Those with the broadest shoulders, it is not

unreasonable to ask them to share the heavier burden. Can you name one

other major economy that subscribes to this? Across Europe, for example

in Sweden they have higher tax rates than us. Can you name one major

economy? I couldn't pluck one out of the air, I can see where you are

coming from, I don't agree with it. I think most people subscribe to the

fact that those with wider shoulders should carry the heavy a burden We

have run out of time but thank you for being here.

Over the past week it seems that Nick Clegg has activated a new Lib

Dem strategy - 'Get Gove'. After a very public spat over who should

head up the schools inspection service Ofsted, Lib Dem sources have

continued to needle away at the Education Secretary. And other

senior Lib Dems have also taken aim at their coalition partners. Here's

Giles Dilnot. It's unlikely the polite welcome of these school

children to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party colleague

schools minister David Laws would be so forthcoming right now from the

man in charge of schools Conservative Michael Gove. Mr Laws

is said to have been furious with The Education secretary over the

decision to remove Sally Morgan as chair of Ofsted. But those who know

the inner working of the Lib Dems say that's just understandable. When

you have the department not being consulted, it would be possible for

him to not publicly comment. The remarkable thing would be if he

hadn't said anything at all. We should be careful to understand this

is not always part of a preplanned decision. There is a growing sense

that inside Number Ten this is a concerted Lib Dem strategy, we also

understand there is no love lost between Nick Clegg and Michael Gove

to say the least, and a growing frustration that if the Lib Dems

think such so-called yellow and blue attacks can help them with the

election, they can also damage the long-term prospects of the Coalition

post 2015. One spat does not a divorce make but perhaps even more

significant has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander s

recent newspaper interview firmly spiking any room for George Osborne

to manoeuvre on lowering the highest income tax rate to 40p. All this

builds on the inclusion in Government at the reshuffle of

people like Norman Baker at the Home Office and Simon Hughes at Justice

people who are happier to publically express doubt on Conservative

policy, unlike say Jeremy Browne who was removed and who has made plain

his views on Coalition. It is difficult for us to demonstrate that

we are more socialist than an Ed Miliband Labour led party. Even if

we did wish to demonstrate it, doing it in coalition with the

Conservatives would be harder still. Nonetheless a differentiation

strategy was always likely as 2 15 approached, so is there evidence it

works? Or of the work we publish shows the Lib Dems have a huge

problem in terms of their distinctiveness, so attacking their

coalition partners or the Labour Party is helpful in showing what

they are against, but there are bigger problem is showing what they

are for. And one Conservative MP with access to Number Ten as part of

the PM's policy board says yellow on blue attacks are misplaced and

irresponsible. At this stage when all the hard work is being done and

the country is back on its feet the Lib Dems are choosing the time to

step away from the coalition. That is your position, but do you suspect

coming up to the next election we will see more of this? I think the

Lib Dems are about as hard to pin down as a weasel in Vaseline. And

with the public's view of politicians right now, and wants to

be seen as slicker than a well oiled weasel? And we have Lib Dem peer

Matthew Oakeshott and senior Conservative backbencher Bernard

Jenkin. Matthew, the Lib Dems are now picking fights with the Tories

on a range of issues, some of them trivial. Is this a Pirelli used to

Lib Dem withdrawal from the coalition? I do not know, I am not

privy to Nick Clegg's in strategy. Some of us have been independent for

some time. I resigned over treatment of the banks. That is now being

sorted out. But what is significant is we have seen a string of attacks,

almost an enemy within strategy When you have Nick Clegg, David Laws

and Danny Alexander, the three key people closest to the Conservatives,

when you see all of them attacking, and this morning Nick Clegg has had

a go at the Conservatives over drug policy. There is a string of

policies where something is going on. It is difficult to do an enemy

within strategy. I believe as many Lib Dems do that we should withdraw

from the coalition six months to one year before the election so we can

put our positive policies across rather than having this tricky

strategy of trying to do it from within. Why does David Cameron need

the Lib Dems? He probably does not. The country generally favoured the

coalition to start with. Voters like to see politicians are working

together and far more of that goes on in Westminster then we see. Most

of my committee reports are unanimous reports from all parties.

Why does he need them? I do not think he does. You would be happy to

see the Lib Dems go? I would always be happy to see a single minority

Government because it would be easier for legislation. The

legislation you could not get through would not get through

whether we were in coalition or not. The 40p tax rate, there

probably is not a majority in the House of Commons at the moment,

despite what Nick Clegg originally said. It does not make much

difference. What makes a difference from the perspective of the

committee I chair is historically we have had single party Government

that have collective responsibility and clarity. The reason that is

important is because nothing gets done if everybody is at sixes and

sevens in the Government. Everything stops, there is paralysis as the row

goes on. Civil servants do not know who they are working for. If it

carries on getting fractures, there is a bigger argument to get out If

it continues at this level of intensity of the enemy within

strategy as you have described it, can the coalition survived another

16 months of this? It is also a question should they. I never

thought I would say this, I agree with Bernard. Interestingly earlier

Chuka Umunna missed the point talking about business support.

Business is worried about this anti-European rhetoric and that is a

deep split between the Liberal Democrats and the UKIP wing of the

Tory party. That is really damaging and that is something we need to

make our own case separately on Do you get fed up when you hear

constant Lib Dem attacks on you What makes me fed up is my own party

cannot respond in kind because we are in coalition. I would love to

have this much more open debate I would like to see my own party

leader, for example as he did in the House of Commons, it was the Liberal

Democrats who blocked the referendum on the house of lords and if we want

to get this bill through it should be a Government bill. We know we can

get it through the Commons, but we need to get the Liberals out of the

Government so they stop blocking the Government putting forward a

referendum bill. And put millions of jobs at risk? I am not going down

the European road today. It strikes me that given that the attacks from

the Lib Dems are now coming from the left attacking the Tories, is this a

representative of the failure of Nick Clegg's strategy to rebuild a

centrist Liberal party and he now accepts the only way he can save as

many seats as he can do is to get the disillusioned left Lib Dem

voters to come back to the fold The site is we have lost over half our

vote at the last election and at the moment there is no sign in the polls

of it coming back and we are getting very close to the next election I

welcome it if Nick Clegg is starting to address that problem, but talking

about the centre is not the answer. Most Liberal Democrat voters at the

last election are radical, progressive people who want to see a

much fairer Britain and a much less divided society and we must make

sure we maximise our vote from there. We know what both of you

want, but what do you think will happen? Do you think this coalition

will survive all the way to the election or will it break up

beforehand? I think it will break up beforehand. Our long-term economic

plan is working. The further changes in policies we want to implement to

sustain that plan are being held back by the Liberal Democrats. When

will they break up? It has lasted longer than I thought it would, but

it must break up at least six months before the election. Do you think it

will survive or not? The coalition has delivered a great deal in many

ways, but it is running out of steam. It depends what happens in

the May elections. If the Liberal Democrats do not do better than we

have done in the last three, there will be very strong pressure from

the inside. You both agree. Television history has been made.

You are watching the Sunday Politics. Coming up: I will be

looking at the week ahead with our political panel. Until then it is

the Sunday Politics across the UK. Welcome from us. What else could we

possibly talk about? There have been 48 hours of disruption to London's

transport network and the same again is coming this week. Boris Johnson

will be here to discuss his position. With me is Markfield,

Conservative MP, and Emily Thornberry, Labour MP for Islington

South and Finsbury. First, two women in front line or front bench

politics? Labour leader Ed Miliband accused David Cameron of failing to

advance the cause of women generally and failing to promote Conservative

women in particular. Look at the all-male front bench before us. And

he says he wants to represent the whole country. I guess they did not

let women into the bullying can club either. First, before we discuss the

issues, as a stance did that work? I suppose it did. It was the luck of

the draw, because normally there would be one or two of the current

ministers who would have been there. Yes, it worked as a bit of a stunt

and Labour have done a lot of polling saying there was a problem

with women for the Conservatives. It looks as though Labour's lead is

larger amongst women voters, so that is why he decided to lead on this.

As a stance had your guys gone and checked the diary and found out who

was away? Theresa Villiers was not coming over? It was a bit of luck.

Normally even on a good week you would only have a couple of women on

the front bench whereas half of our Shadow Cabinet I women. We do not

normally put them all the front bench. What I found extraordinary

was some political commentators were saying we only put the women on the

front bench to make a point, but they are there week in, out. We

decided to make a point that we would put them, although it was not

quite completely stage-managed, we said, move up. It is hard for you

fundamentally to raise the issue about women in politics when the

Conservatives will always have Margaret Thatcher. Absolutely. It

may have been 20 or 30 years ago and the Conservatives will always talk

about it and the Prime Minister is married to a woman as well and he

has met a few occasionally. That is not the point. You need to listen to

women and you need to make sure your policies are relative to women. You

know these things called PBS, the informal friend of the Prime

Minister who will be his eyes and ears, people are saying this and

that. If you look at the number the Prime Minister has had and the

Chancellor of the exchequer has had, they have had sex. How many of

them have been women? One. Looe it is because they have a problem

listening to women. The biggest problem is more the culture of

youth. We are both older than any of the main party leaders. A lot of

women have a lot of family responsibilities. I accept for a lot

of women they are put off the idea of getting into politics in their

30s and early 40s. As a result of the cult of youth that is what has

got to change. There are a huge amount of women who could come into

politics in their 40s and 50s. Why does Labour have so many more women

MPs? We were answered that in more detail at another time. The Prime

Minister called it unnecessary, the Mayor pointless and the unions said

they had no choice. There were two days of disruption on the Tube

network and there will be more this week. 48 hours of strikes this week

caused misery for many commuters and a headache for the Mayor of London.

I am sorry about the inconvenience this morning. It will not last long.

It used to be that disruption by strikes was a distant memory and if

the Mayor has his way, the reforms will change the way we use the Tube

for ever. Every ticket office on the Tube will be scrapped by the end of

next year at a loss of 1000 jobs, although Transport for London say

there will be no compulsory redundancies. Less than 3% of

journeys on the Chu involves the ticket office. Transport for London

like to say that only 3% of journeys on the underground use the ticket

office but that is if you look at it in terms of percentage. The numbers

seem much bigger, 36 million times a year, or 100,000 times every day. To

put that in context, that is three times as many journeys as take place

from the Mayor's cable car and cycle hire schemes combine, both things he

is keen to keep funding. According to the trade unions, the closures

will also make us less safe. Is there any empirical research that

suggests networks without a ticket office are less safe? We have not

done it, I don't think that kind of research has been done, but in the

event of a problem taking place not just a terrorist attack or something

of that nature, the passenger will ask the staff to help them. After a

number of occasions when there has been a major signal failure or

someone taken ill, they don't just sit behind and sell tickets, these

people play a vital role. If the London Underground is going to be

open on a Friday and Saturday night, people using it throughout the

night, surely the wrong thing to do is to get rid of these people. They

should be there to supplement the extra people using the network. Why

don't we keep the ticket office is open to give people a sense of

security they want? In 2008, Boris Johnson campaigned to keep the

ticket offices open. When I was mayor there was a proposal to close

40 or so ticket offices, I agreed with about 20, but when you are

looking at Victoria and charring Cross and these other large

stations, you just cannot have tourists milling around, people who

come from Sheffield or Aberdeen not certain how the system works, there

is a real problem there. According to one expert, the reforms are

likely to go ahead. It looks like the decision has been made and it

will go through. TfL Make these decisions, and after a few days of

strikes everything carries on as before. Indeed, Transport for

London's plans only count for a tiny proportion of savings compared to

the cuts they will have two make. The strikes will continue long after

this dispute is over. Mayor Johnson is here, he has come to talk about

the strike and the issues around it. Let's talk about how it will affect

those stations in a moment, but in terms of this week you have been

leading from the front but wouldn't you be better establishing rapport

with some of these union leaders? It is an important point is that you

should leave management to get on and manage, and if you think back to

industrial relations in the 197 s when we have this thing, politicians

supplanting their managers, inviting union leaders in for beer and

sandwiches, it was a disaster. There has barely been a moment since I

have been mayor when we haven't either had a threat of strike or

some kind of action going on with the RMT in particular. In those

circumstances, you have got to leave it to your people, to TfL to get on.

If the people were looking for some moral authority here, who could

bring Londoners together and unlock an intractable dispute, you are

rather left without the necessary equipment or the background, are

you? You mean TfL? You haven't built any relationship with these unions

at all. I have certainly have many conversations with representatives

from the RMT and other unions who run London. You can't get away with

that, can you? Have you ever met a leader of the union in the time you

have been mayor? I have met Bob Crow. You haven't met Bob Crow, we

know you haven't met Bob Crow. I have met Bob Crow. What I haven t

done... I mean in a formal capacity to somehow say, no official business

here, let's just meet each other. I want to tell you that I want to

support the workers at the appropriate time. I think Tony

Travers got it right in your report, there is a ritualistic display by

the leaders who want to show they can take on TfL, Bob Crow in

particular. Couldn't you have helped position yourself? You talk about

rising above it, couldn't you have said, you have good intentions, I

don't hold anything against you With the greatest respect it is the

point I made at the beginning. If I, as the mayor, were to step in

when you have really quite militant people, not actually so much Bob

Crow but others around you who have no interest in doing a deal, if I

were to step in and undercut my negotiators, that is the last thing

they need. Have you offered guidance and clarity of your position to TfL

bosses? They are operating with your authority, and you have presumably

told them, this is going ahead, don't negotiate? On the contrary, I

have told them to have the door open, not to be mapped choke or

confrontational, to engage, to communicate what we are doing, to

sell the message about how this is the best possible package for the

RMT and for Londoners. Since November we have called 15

meetings. The RMT and another have only turned up to six of those,

boycotted the others, and in the others they simply refused to

engage. What needs to happen is that there are talks that have been going

on on Friday, and we hope clearly that there will be a deal and I have

no doubt the deal will be made but I want to stress the worst possible

thing to get a result now would be to have grandstanding by politicians

and union barons when what needs to happen is that the two sides needs

to come together and take forward... Let's examine that. There

are 270 tube stations, we will be closing that acute offices. 256

actually. How many staff will be gone from those ticket offices? The

programme altogether involves around 750 redundancies. I suppose the key

question... Let me give you the key answer. How many more will be

visible to Londoners? At most nations, Emily will be thrilled to

hear this, at most stations you will actually have more people visible to

Londoners out, concourses than there were before. How is that possible?

Because you have quite a lot of people doing jobs as supervisors

behind plain glass... This is being driven by technology. You are kind

enough to play that footage of me in 2008, ticket offices were not

invented, sorry the iPhone was not invented. 2007, the year before It

didn't have the uptake. You also had ticket machines. We have had a

massive increase in contactless ticket purchasing. You can get staff

out from behind the glass and do what the passengers want them to do.

How can it make it safer when four 125 nations there will only be one

person in the station? Because a lot of those stations already only have

a tiny number of people looking after them as it is, and very often

that person will be behind plate-glass. What is happening now

is that a member of staff will be there to offer guidance, all the

people that need it most, to tourists, vulnerable, disabled, the

elderly, and they will be equipped with the latest technology, they

will be able to offer refunds, deal with problems with the Oyster card

and that will be a massive improvement. If there is going to be

fewer staff, which there will be, and you are going to extend the

hours, it will mean there are fewer people in the stations. The question

I asked TfL and they couldn't answer, the Angel tube station will

be open 24 hours, and the platforms are long way away from the main part

of the station, so how many staff will there be on duty at three

o'clock in the morning on a Saturday night, and how many will it be that

make it safe? The answer is enough. Tell us. I have teenage children, I

want to know if it is safe. Let s not be parochial. I'm giving you the

answer, there will be more out on the platforms than there are now and

that will offer greater reassurance. For 24 hours, people

will be in there? You will have a much greater amount of drunkards,

people on the platform... Can I make a point in defence which is that

when you look at what has happened on the Tube, crime has come down a

20%, the number of police on the Tube since I have been there has

risen by 10% and this is obviously a concern, I have talked extensively

to my officials about this, and they are unanimous that these measures

will continue to make London transport... Can I bring Mark in?

Your constituents will say to you, we thought the Tube system was going

to be expanded, and yet the number of stuff around is going to be

fewer. The number is still being reduced. There has continued to be

huge technological changes. This is not a great advertisement for

London, people are watching these strikes taking place so this is not

responsible behaviour from the union. Credit to Boris and TfL,

Londoners were very resilient with this strike and it was good that we

have more buses being put on and I had to take a bus for the journey I

made, taking my son to school, and I was struck by how well the

passengers behaved but also the helpfulness of the conductors and

the staff and everyone held together. No one would disagree and

you have helped that response, you were very visible. The final word to

you... I want to thank... Can I ask you, what is your mandate? 84% of

Londoners anyway didn't vote for you as the mayor, but you had nowhere in

your manifesto that you are going to do this. I had a very clear

manifesto pledge that was for automation and modernisation. I hope

we have more changes as quickly as possible. We did a survey, it showed

82% of Londoners, once it was explained to them what we are doing,

and let me tell you... How mad that you haven't spoken to Bob Crow in

five years, he has to ring you up on the radio station. Your party

brought this country to its knees by endlessly having union barons in and

talking to them and insulting them. Let me on to rot and say... On that

sexist assaults... He is not answering! We have been the reverse

of the match out and we have engaged. Mike Brown and our teams

have made it absolutely clear to people and on the London underground

that change is coming and they accept it. You would have done it.

Thank you so much for coming in Now it is time for the rest of the

political news in 60 seconds. Figures this week show the

Metropolitan police has lost over 3000 officers since May, 2010, a

drop of 10%. There are just over 30,000 PCs in London despite the

Mayor's pledge to maintain numbers at or around 32,000.

Doctors and nurses will have to log details of the injuries suffered by

female nude -- genital mutilation which will gather more information

on the practice which was outlawed in the UK in 1995. Transport for

London has announced the buses are to become cashless pond this summer.

The number of cash fares will fall to less than 1% this year. The

Southbank Centre has put its ?1 0 million redevelopment plans on hold

after the Mayor criticised its original proposal for funding.

The plan involves moving a community of skateboarders to make way for

retail units. Let's not talk any more about transport. What about

losing the Southbank plans? They could be shelved because Boris

Johnson wants to keep the skateboarders? It was an interesting

bit of politics. These are youngsters who are not involved in

politics who have been campaigning and have made their voice heard It

might mean the whole development does not happen. I think Boris makes

quite a good point, we have probably got enough retail units in central

London. Let's make sure it is a genuinely open space for all

Londoners and particularly young Londoners who otherwise may not have

a voice. Both of you, thank you so much. Andrew, it is back to you Can

David Cameron get a grip on the floods? Can UKIP push the

Conservatives into third place in the Wythenshawe by-election on

Thursday? Is the speaker in the House of Commons in danger of

overheating? All questions over the weekend. Let's look at the politics

of the flooding. Let me show you a clip from Eric Pickles, the

Communities Secretary, earlier on the BBC this morning. We perhaps

relied too much on the Environment Agency's advice. I apologise. I

apologise unreservedly and I am really sorry we took the advice of

what we thought we were doing was the best. The Environment Agency is

being hung out to dry by the Government and the Government has

taken over the running of the environmental mess in the Somerset

Levels. It is turning into a serious crisis by the Government and even

more so for the people who are dealing with the flooding. There is

no doubt that what has been revealed is it is not just about what the

Government did or did not do six months ago. What is being exposed is

an entire culture within the Environment Agency, fuelled often by

European directives about dredging and all manner of other things, a

culture grew up in which plants were put ahead of people if you like All

of that is collapsing in very difficult circumstances by the

Government and it is difficult for them to manage. Chris Smith would

save the Environment Agency is acting under a law set by this

Government and previous governments and the first priority is the

protection of life, second property and third agricultural land and he

is saying we are working within that framework. It is an edifying

spectacle, they are setting up Lord Smith to be the fall guy. His term

of office comes at the end of the summer and they will find something

new. But the point Lord Smith is making is that dredging is important

and it was a mistake not to dredge, but it is a bigger picture than

that. I am no expert, but you need a whole skill solution that is looking

not just bad dredging, but at the whole catchment area looking at the

production of maize. It is harvested in autumn and then the water runs

off the topsoil. You see the pictures of the flooding, it is all

topsoil flooding through those towns. What you have got to have in

the uplands is some land that can absorb that water and there are

really big questions about the way we carry out farming. Chris Smith

was meant to appear on the Andrew Marr show this morning, but pulled

back at the last minute. There must be doubts as to whether he can

survive to the summer. Where is the chief executive of the Environment

Agency? I agree with Nick that Chris Smith has been setup in this

situation. David Cameron went to the Somerset Levels on Friday for about

half an hour, in and out, with no angry people shouting at him. You to

a farm. It is agreed he has had good crisis. But we are seen as being a

London media class who does not understand the countryside. You can

imagine David Cameron in a pair of wellies. If this was happening in

Guildford, it would not have dragged on for so long. Looe it is

interesting how they are saying the Environment Agency has put words in

front of everything else. The great-great-grandson of Queen

Victoria thinks people should be sacked at the whim. He is talking

about how the Environment Agency spent ?31 million on a bird

sanctuary. It turns out the bird sanctuary was an attempt to put up a

flood defence system for a village which has worked. That village has

been saved. They compensated some farmers for the farmland they were

not going to be able to farm and put a flood defence system further back

to protect this village and then they built a bird sanctuary. It was

not ?31 million to create a bird sanctuary, it was to save a village

and it worked. But in 2008 the Environment Agency was talking about

dynamiting every pumping agency There was a metropolitan mindset on

the part of that agency. If it does what Owen Paterson, who is now off

in an eye operation, suggested a plan to fix this, they will find a

lot of what they want or need to do will be in contravention of European

directives. The Wythenshawe by-election. There is no question

Labour is going to win, probably incredibly convincingly, one poll

showing 60% plus of the vote. It would be surprising if Labour was in

any threat up there. The issue is, does UKIP beat the Tories and if so,

by how much? The latest poll was showing it in second place as nip

and tuck, but the feeling I have is UKIP will do better. And they have

got a great local candidate. The Tories have not parachuted somebody

in and they have got a local man in and that will help them. We have all

been waiting to see if the Tories lose their head, but they might go

chicken earlier than that. Will UKIP come second? It looks like that A

poll this week showed that Labour is way ahead and UKIP possibly second.

But it is an important by-election for UKIP. If they do well in the

European elections, they should still be on a roll. They did really

well in by-elections last year. If they do not do well, is it because

they are not on payroll? Or in Manchester they have a fantastic

leader of the council? Will UKIP come a good second? I think they

will and if they do not, it might suggest Nigel Farage is losing its

slightly. One thing to look out for is how little Labour are attacking

UKIP. Their election strategy relies a lot on UKIP taking Tory votes But

it could also take Labour votes Particularly in the north and we

shall see. The results will be out on Thursday night. The Speaker of

the House of Commons, John Bird , his interventions have become more

frequent and something was strange. Have a look. I am grateful to the

honourable gentleman. Order, the Government Chief Whip has absolutely

no business whatsoever shouting from a sedentary position. Order, the

honourable gentleman will remain in the chamber. If we could tackle this

problem. I say to the honourable member for Bridgwater, be quiet if

you cannot be quiet, get out, it is rude, stupid and pompous and it

needs to stop. Michael Gove. Order. You really... Order. You are a very

over excitable individual. You need to write out 1000 times, I will

behave myself at Prime Minister 's questions. He was talking to the

Education Secretary and it is not 1000 lines, it is 100 lines, at

least it was in my day. Is he beginning to make a fool of himself?

There was only one over excitable person there and that was the

speaker and he is losing the confidence of the Conservative MPs,

but he never had that in the first place. But he is an incredibly

reforming speaker. He has this strange idea that Parliament should

hold the Government to account. It will never catch on. It means very

frequently there are urgent questions. The other day he called a

backbench amendment on the deportation of foreign criminals. He

could have found a way not to call that. He is a real reformer and the

executive do not like that. That is true and he has allowed Parliament

to flourish which has given us room to breathe at a time of a coalition

Government when Parliament has more power. That is all that enough to

overcome these increasingly mannered and some of them may be preplanned

interventions? The last one was last week, and last week the speaker had

a rather stressful week with the tabloids. Something is clearly up. I

think it is a real shame. I think many of us when he was elected did

not think he would make a great speaker and there are people like

Douglas Carswell and Tory rebels who have said he is a fantastic speaker.

He has given the Commons room to breathe and he has called on

ministers to be held to account when they do not want to be. What do you

think? He is seen as anti-government and he is pro-backbencher and that

is what people do not like. People like Douglas Carswell are actually

very strongly in support of him We carry the interventions every week

on Prime Minister 's questions and we see them every week and they are

getting a bit more eccentric. If I was having to keep that under

control, I would be driven slowly mad. But his job is easier than

mine. But if you look at his deputy, Eleanor Laing, she is very

robust, but she is calm. Chap who does the budget is excellent. We are

on throughout the week at midday on BBC Two. We will be back next Sunday

at 11. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.