02/03/2014 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Fears that Ukraine could face invasion escalate this morning as

Russian forces take control of Crimea. President Obama and his

European allies tell President Putin to back off. It doesn't sound like

he's listening. Shadow Education Secretary Tristram

Hunt has started spelling out Labour's plans for schools. So

what's the verdict - full marks or must try harder? He joins us for the

Sunday Interview. And all the big political parties

are desperate to broaden their appeal. We'll look at some unusual

ideas for freshening up those tired old party logos. Charities report a

sharp rise in the use of food banks and people deal with benefit

changes. And tightening household finances.

And with me, as always, three journalists who'd make a clean sweep

if they were handing out Oscars for political punditry in LA tonight.

But just like poor old Leonardo DiCaprio they've never won so much

as a Blue Peter badge! Yes, it's Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan

Ganesh. Instead of acceptance speeches they'll be tweeting faster

than the tears roll down Gwyneth Paltrow's face. Yes, that's as

luvvie as we get on this show. Events have been moving quickly in

Ukraine this weekend. The interim government in Kiev has put the

Ukrainian military on full combat alert after Russia's parliament

rubber-stamped the deployment of Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.

Russian troops seem already to be in control of the mainly

Russian-speaking Crimea region, where Russia has a massive naval

base. President Obama told President Putin that Russia has flouted

international law by sending in Russian troops but the Kremlin is

taking no notice. This is now turning into the worst stand-off

between Russia and the West since the conflict between Georgia and

Russia in 2008, though nobody expects any kind of military

response from the West. Foreign Secretary William Hague is on his

way to Kiev this morning to show his support for the new government,

though how long it will survive is another matter. We can speak to our

correspondent David Stern, he's in Kiev.

As things look from Kiev, can we take it they've lost Crimea, it is

now in all essence under Russian control? Yes, well for the moment,

Crimea is under Russian control Russian troops in unmarked uniforms

have moved throughout the peninsula taking up various positions, also at

the Ismis which links Ukraine into Crimea. They've surrounded Ukrainon

troops there. Three units have been captured according to a top

officials. We can say at the moment Russia controls the peninsula. It

should also be said, also they have the support of the ethnic Russian

population. The ethnic Russians make up the majority of the population.

They are also not entirely in control because there are other

groups, namely the Tatar as and the ethnic Ukrainian speakers who are at

least at the moment tacitly resisting. We'll see what they'll

start to do in the coming days. David, I'm putting up some pictures

showing Russian troops digging in on the border between Crimea and

Ukraine. I get the sense that is just for show. There is, I would

assume, no possibility that the Ukrainians could attempt to retake

Crimea by military force? It seems that the Ukrainians are weighing

their options right now. Their options are very limited. Any

head-to-head conflict with Russia would probably work against the

Ukrainians. They seem to be taking more of a long-term gain. They are

waiting for the figs's first move. They are trying not to create any

excuse that the Russians can stage an even larger incursion into Crimea

or elsewhere, for that matter. They also seem to be trying to get

international support. It should be said, this is a new Government. It

has only been installed this week. They are trying to gain their

footing. This is a major crisis They have to count on the loyalty of

the army they might have some resistance from solders from the

eastern part of the country who are Russian speaking. They probably

could count on Ukrainian speakers and people from the centre and west

of the country as well as regular Ukrainians. A lot of people are

ready to fight to defend Ukrainian Terre Tory. Where does the Kremlin

go next? They have Crimea to all intents and purposes. There's a weak

Government in Kiev. Do they move to the eastern side of Ukraine which is

largely Russian speaking and there's already been some unrest there?

That's the big question, that's what everybody's really asking now. Where

does this go from here? We've had some unrest in the eastern part of

the country. There have been demonstrations and clashes. More

ominously, there have been noises from the Kremlin they might actually

move into eastern Ukraine. Putin in his conversation with Barack Obama

said they might protect their interests there. It should be said,

if they do expand, in fact, they've also said they are dead against the

new Government seeing it as illegitimate and fascist. It does

contain risks. They will have to deal with international reactions.

America said there will be a deep reaction to this and it will affect

Russia's relations with Ukraine and the international community. They

have to deal with the reaction in Ukraine. This may unite Ukrainians

behind this new interim Government. Once Russia moves in, they will be

seen as an invading force. It plays on historical feelings of Russia

being an imperial force. Joining me is MP Mark Field who sits

on the security Security and Intelligence Committee in the House

of Commons. What should the western response be to these events? I can

understand why William Hague is going to Kiev tomorrow to stand side

by side whizz whoever's in charge. They need to CEOP sit numbers and

also President Putin. The truth is we are all co significant fatries to

the Budapest Memorandum of almost 20 years ago which was designed to

maintain the integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea. There needs to

be a discussion along those lines. The difficulty is President Putin

has watched events in recent months, in relation to Syria, it is palpable

President Obama's focus of attention ask the other side of the Pacific

rather than the Atlantic. The vote in the House of Commons, I was very

much against the idea of military action or providing weapons to the

free Syrian army. My worry is, events proved this, the majority of

the other options toed as sad are rather worse. It is clear now we are

in a constitutional mess in this country. We cannot even contemplate

military action without a parliamentary vote that moves

against quick reaction that is required from the executive or, I

suspect, there will be very little appetite for any military action

from the West over in Ukraine. We are corn tours under the agreement

of less than 20 years ago. We may be but we've guaranteed an agreement

which it is clear we haven't the power to enforce. You wrote this

morning, Britain is a diminished voice. Clams Iley navigating the

Syrian conflict we relick wished decisions to the whims of

parliamentary approval. That may or may not be but the Kremlin's not

watching how we voted on the Syrian issue? In relation to Syria, it was

where is the western resolve here. The truth ask Putin's position is

considerably less strong. In diplomatic terms. He had a victory

in Syria in relation to chemical weapons and in relation to the

West's relationship with Iran. Putin is a vital inter locking figure In

demographic and economic terms, Russia's in very deep trouble. The

oil price started to fall to any degree, oil and gas price, given the

importance of mineral wealth and exports for the Russian economy

Putin would be in a lot of trouble. It requires an engagement from the

EU and the EU are intending to look at their internal economic problems

and will be smarting from the failure within a matter of hours of

the deal they tried to broker only nine days' ago.

You say if Mr Putin decides to increase the stakes and moves into

the east, takes over the whole place, our Government, you say, will

find itself with another colossal international headache. Some people

watching this will be thinking, what's it got to do with us? It s a

long way away from Britain. We haven't a dog in this fight? We have

in this regard for the longer term here. I think if there were to be

some military action in Ukraine the sense of Russia taking over, it

could have a major impact on the global economy in very quick order.

You should not deny that. There will be move to have sanctions against

Russia. The escalation of that will be difficult. The other fact is

looking at our internal affairs and reform, partners, the Baltic states,

Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, they will be looking at a resurgent

Russia now and think they'll need to hold as tightly as possible to the

EU institutions and the power of Germany at the centre of that. This

whole appetite for the reforms politically and economically will be

closed very much within a matter of a short period of time. It has

longer term implications. Mark Field, thank you.

We're joined now by BBC News night's Diplomatic Editor Mark Urban. Is

there any prospect of a western military response? Clearly at the

moment, it is nil. The boat has sailed with the Crimean. It has been

per performed by Russian forces It is now a matter of coordinating a

plate cal line. European foreign ministers tomorrow. To say what will

our future limits be? Where could we possibly draw red lines? To try to

think a couple of steps down this, what happens if Russia interrupts

energy supplies to EU member states ornate owe countries? These are the

important steps they have to think about. It is quite clear we are in a

different world here now. Also, Ukraine is facing a urgent foreign

exchange crisis. Within literally a few weeks they could run out of

money. All of these are rushing towards decision makers very fast.

There is an interim and I suggestion unstable Government in Kiev. Crimea

semi-to be under Russian control. There are clashes between the

reformers and Russian nationals in the east of the country. What does

Mr Putin do next? He has lots of options, of course. He has this

carte blanch carte blanch from his Parliament to go in to the rest of

Ukraine if he wants to. His military deployment suggests the one bite at

a time, just Crimea to start with. See what response comes from the

Ukrainian Government. Of course so far, there hasn't been a coherent

response. The really worrying thing about recent months, not just recent

days, are the indications that the future of Ukraine as a unitary state

is now in doubt. Look at it from the other side of the equation. The

President when faced with demonstrations, many extremists he

was unable to deal with that. Now we have the other side, if you like,

the Russian speakers, the other side of the fight, Russian nationalists

showing they can get away with unilateral action more or less with

impunity. The Ukrainian chiefs have been sacked. I think there are

considerable questions now as to whether Ukraine is falling apart

and, if that happens, we're into a Yugoslav-type situation which will

continue posing very serious questions for the EU and NATO for

months or years to come. So, Janan, Ukraine is over? Where the west to

concede to the Russian in Crimea, it would perversely be a net loss for

Russia. You'd assume the rest of Ukraine would become an un

unambiguously a member of the the EU, maybe NATO. On top of that a

Russian dream of Eurasion dream they will look at Putin's behaviour

and is a, no, thanks, we'll head towards the EU. It is a short-term

victory for Putin which backfires on his broader goals in Well, many

people said if he grabs Crimea, he loses Ukraine, which is your point.

We have seen violent demonstrations in the big eastern cities in Ukraine

yesterday. People taking control of certain buildings. The risk is there

of spreading beyond Crimea. I think the lack of any unified or visible

response from Ukrainian armed forces... They allowed Russian

troops to walk into the bases in Crimea. They have supposedly gone on

red alert but they have done absolutely nothing. We don't see

them deploying from barracks. There are serious questions about whether

they would just fall apart. Putin is not going to let them split away. I

would have thought he would like the entire Ukraine to come into the

Russian ambit. Barack Obama is saying this will not stand. He has a

90 minute conversation with Vladimir Putin and what is his response? I am

suspending my cooperation in the run-up to the Sochi Summit. What is

the EU doing? Nothing. There is nothing they can do and Putin knows

there are a series of lines that he is able to cross and get away with

it. Why should Berlin, London, Washington be surprised by the

strength of Vladimir Putin's reaction? It was never going to let

Ukraine just fall into the arms of the EU. That is the interesting

point. And who does he listen to? Paddy Ashdown was saying sent Angela

Merkel because she is the only person who can talk to him and I

find that response worrying. We need to speak with a united voice but

nobody knows what we should be saying. Military intervention is out

for the West so we go to economic sanctions. Doesn't Vladimir Putin

just say, oh, you want sanctions? I have turned off the gas tap. Yes, it

is move and countermove, and it is difficult to predict where it will

end up. In all these meetings that are being held, they do think a step

or two ahead and try and set out clear lines. Thank you for coming in

this morning. Labour has been struggling since

2010 to decide exactly how to take education secretary Michael Gove,

one of the boldest reformers of the coalition and most divisive figures.

Ed Miliband appointed TV historian Tristram Hunt and many thought

Labour had found the man to teach Michael Gove a lesson. But how much

do we really know about the party's plans for England's schools? Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland are a devolved matter. Child has been back

to school to find out. A politician once told me, do you know why

education secretaries changed schools? Because they can. Michael

Gove might dispute the motive but he is changing schools, like this one.

The changes he is ringing in our encouraging them to be academies,

free from local authorities to control their own budgets, ushering

in free schools, focusing on toughening exams and making them the

core of the curriculum with less coursework, and offering heads more

discretion on tougher discipline. And he is in a hurry to put all this

in place. But has that shut out any chance for a Labour Government to

change it all themselves and do they really want to? Any questions?

Visiting a different school, first in line to get a crack at that

would-be Labour's third shadow education secretary since 2010,

Tristram Hunt. In post, he has not been taken about fine tuning

previous direct opposition to free schools and he has also suggested

teachers in England would have to be licensed under a Labour Government,

allowing the worst to be sacked and offering training and development to

others and of course ending coalition plans to allow unqualified

teachers into classrooms. Full policy detail is still unmarked

work. Your opinion about evolution? What is very clear is that Labour's

education policy is still evolving. We are learning that they have some

clear water, but we also seem, from the sting at the back, to get the

feeling that there is not a great deal of difference from them and the

current Government on types of schools and the way education should

proceed. -- from listening at the back. So what exactly is different

about their policy? What Tristram Hunt's job is to do is to be open

and honest about the shared agenda between us and the Tories. There are

a lot of areas where there is clear water between us and Tristram Hunt

as to turn his back, shared agenda, stop fighting it, and forge our

agenda, which I think people will be really interested in. The art of

Government, of course, is to balance competing pictures of policy, even

inside your own party. It is fair to say that if Labour reflects and

draws its own visions of a shared agenda, it might have to square that

idea with teaching unions, who are already unhappy with the pace and

tone of change that the Government had sketched out. What we sincerely

hope is that if Labour were to form the next Government, that they would

look at a serious review of accountability measures. That is

really what ways on teachers every single day. Actually they would look

at restoring the possibility, for example, of local councillors to be

able to open schools. That seems eminently sensible. If they are not

going to move back from the free schools and academies programme at

the very least they need to say that academy chains will be inspected

because at the moment they are not. Labour have balls in the air on

education and are still throwing around precise policy detail. There

are areas that they could grab hold of and seize possession. A focus on

the rounding of the people, developing character, the impact of

digitalisation on the classroom Also the role and handling of

teachers in the system and the interdependence of schools. That is

all still to play for. Currently I think the difference between the

parties is that the coalition policies, while we do not agree with

all of them, are clear and explicit, and Labour's policies are yet to be

formulated in a way that everybody can understand clearly. I don't

think that Tristram Hunt or Miliband will want to pick unnecessary fights

before the election. I think we will have quite a red, pinkish fuzziness

around the whole area of policy but after the election there will be

grey steel from Tristram Hunt. But if fuzzy policy before the election

is the lesson plan, it does rather risk interested voters being left in

the dark. Tristram Hunt joins me now for the

Sunday interview. Welcome. Thank you. Which of Michael

Gove's school reforms would you repeal? We are not interested in

throwing a change for the sake of it. When I go round schools,

teachers have been through very aggressive changes in the last three

years, so when it comes to some of the curriculum reforms we have seen,

we are not interested in changing those for the sake of it. Where we

are interested in making change is having a focus on technical and

vocational education, making sure that the forgotten 15% is properly

addressed in our education system. What we saw in your package was an

interesting description of how we have seen structural reforms in the

names of schools. Academies, free schools, all the rest of it.

International evidence is clear that it is the quality of leadership of

the headteachers and the quality of teaching in the classroom that

transforms the prospects of young people. Instead of tinkering around

the names of schools, we focus on teacher quality. Viewers will be

shocked to note that this Government approves of unqualified teachers in

the classroom. We want to have fully qualified, passionate, motivated

teachers in the classroom. It sounds like you might not repeal anything.

You might build on it and you might go in a different direction, with

more emphasis on technological education but no major repeal of the

reforms of Michael Gove? I don't think you want to waste energy on

undoing reforms. In certain situations they build on Labour

Party policy. We introduced the sponsored academy programmes and we

began the Teach First programmes, and we began the London challenge

which transformed the educational prospects of children in London We

want to roll that out across the country. You have said there will be

no more free schools, which Michael Gove introduced, but you will allow

parents let academies, which just means free schools by a different

name. No, because they will be in certain areas. We want to create new

schools with parents. What we have at the moment is a destructive and

market-driven approach to education. I was in Stroud on

Thursday and plans for a big new school, in an area with surplus

places, threatened to destroy the viability of local, rural schools.

We want schools to work together in a network of partnership and

challenge, rather than this destructive market-driven approach.

You say that, but your version of free schools, I think, would only be

allowed where there is a shortage of places. That means that where there

is an excess of bad schools, parents will have no choice. They still have

to send their kids to bad schools. And we have to transform bad schools

and that was always the Labour way in Government. At the moment we just

have an insertion of new schools. Schools currently underperforming

are now underperforming even more. Children only have one chance at

education. What about their time in school? Our focus is on the

leadership of the headteacher and having quality teachers in the

classroom. So they cannot set up new better schools and they have to go

to the bad schools. Tony Blair said it should be easier for parents to

set up new schools where they are dissatisfied with existing schools.

You are not saying that. Even where they are dissatisfied with existing

schools, they cannot set up free schools and you are reneging on

that. We live in difficult economic circumstances where we have got to

focus public finances on the areas of absolute need. We need 250,0 0

new school places. 150,000 in London alone. We have to focus on building

new schools and where we have to put them. And secondly... Absolutely

not. Focusing on those schools. Making sure we turned them around,

just as we did in Government. We have had a remarkable degree of

waste under the free school programme. If you think of the free

school in Derby, the Academy in Bradford, and as we saw in the

Telegraph on Friday, the free schools in Suffolk, a great deal of

waste of public money on underperforming free schools. That

is not the Labour way. We focus on making sure that kids in schools at

the moment get the best possible education. Except that in your own

backyard, in Stoke, only 34% of secondary school pupils attend a

good or outstanding school. 148 out of 150 of the worst performing local

authorities and it is Labour-controlled. Still terrible

schools and yet you say parents should not have the freedom to start

a better school. We have great schools in Stoke-on-Trent as well.

We face challenges, just as Wolverhampton does and the Isle of

Wight and Lincolnshire. Just like large parts of the country. What is

the solution to that? Making sure we share excellence among the existing

schools and making sure we have quality leadership in schools. Those

schools in Stoke-on-Trent are all academies. It is not a question only

of structure but of leadership. It is also a question of going back to

the responsibility of parents to make sure their kids are school

ready when they get to school. To make sure they are reading to their

children in the evening. We can t put it all on teachers. Parents have

responsibilities. I understand that but you have told me Labour's policy

would not be to set up new schools which parents hope will be better.

Parents continue to send their kids to bad schools in areas like Stoke.

Labour has had plenty of time to sort out these schools in Stoke and

they are still among the worst performing in the country. You are

condemning these parents to having to send their kids to bad schools.

Where we have seen the sett ing up of Derby, Suffolk, we have seen that

is not the simple solution. Is simply setting up a new is not a

successful model. What works is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on

Friday at a failing comprehensive is not a successful model. What works

is good leadership. I was in Birmingham on Friday at a failing

comprehensive school and now people are queueing round the block to get

into it. You can turn around schools with the right leadership,

passionate and motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the

learning outcome of their kids. In the last few years of the Labour

Government, only four kids from your this Government would set up the new

school. In Birmingham, they got in a great headmaster and turned the

school around and now people are queueing round the block to get into

it. You can turnaround schools with the right leadership, passionate and

motivated teachers, and parents engaged with the learning outcome of

their kids. In the last few years of a Labour Government, only four kids

from your area of and you had plenty of chances to put this right but

only four got to the two and you had plenty of chances to put this right

but only four got to the two leading universities. Traditionally young

people could leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries,

the steel industry, the traditionally young people could

leave school at 16 and walking two jobs in the potteries, the steel

industry, the but also to get an apprenticeship at Jaguar Land

Rover, JCB, Rolls-Royce. That is why Ed Miliband's focus on the forgotten

15%, which we have just not seen from this Government, focusing on

technical and vocational pathways, is fundamental to Your headmaster

was guiles Slaughter. Was he a good teacher? He He never taught me.

Over 90% of teeners in the private sector are qualified. They look for

not simply teachers with qualified teacher status. Teachers with MAs.

Teachers who are improving them cephalitis. Becoming better

educators. cephalitis. Becoming better

teaching. You were taught by unqualified teachers. Your parents

paid over ?15,000 a year for you being taught by unqualified

teachers. Why did you make such a big deal of it? Because we've seen

right around the world those education systems which focus on

having the most qualified teachers perform the best. It cannot be right

that anyone can simply turn up, as at the moment, have schools at

veritising for unqualified teachers teaching in the classroom. We want

the best qualified teachers with the deepest subject knowledge, for the

passion in learning for their kids. It is absurd we are having arguments

about this. Simply having a paper qualification doesn't make you a

great teacher. Let me take you to Brighton college. It is gone from

the 147th to the 18 18th best private school in the land. Fllt the

headmaster says: This is the top Sundaytimes school

of the year. The school in derby where this Government allowed

unqualified teaching assist taints. We had teachers who could barely

speak English. That is because if you have unqualified teachers you

end up with a dangerous situation. The problem with that school was not

unqualified teachers. People were running that school who were unfit

to run a school. We have an issue about discipline and behaviour

management in some of our schools. Some of the skills teachers gain

through qualifications and learning is how to manage classes and get the

best out of kids at every stage It doesn't end with a qualified teacher

status. That's just the beginning. We want our teachers to have

continue it will development. It is not good enough to have your initial

teacher trainingaged work through your career for 30 years. You need

continual learning. Learning how to deal with digital technology.

Refresh your subject knowledge. As an historian I help teachers. You've

taught as an unqualified teacher. Not in charge of a subject group. I

give the odd lecture. I'm-y to go to as many schools as possible. I don't

blame you. It is uplifting. Would you sack all unqualified teachers?

We'd want them all to gain teacher status. What if they say no? If they

are not interested in improving skills and deepening their knowledge

they should not be in the classroom. If a free school or academy hired a

teach thinking they are a great teacher but unqualified, if they are

then forced by you to fire them they will be in breach of the law.

They are being urged by us to make sure they have qualified teacher

status. We've lots of unqualified teachers as long as they are on the

pathway to making sure they are qualified. But if they say they

don't want to do this, will you fire them? It is not an unreasonable

suggestion is that the teachers in charge of our young people have

qualifications to teach and inspire our young people particularly when

we face global competition from Shanghai, Korea and so on. The head

teacher of Brighton college finds incredibly inspeechational teachers

who don't' necessarily have a teaching qualifications. It is a

different skill to teach ten young nice boys and girls in Brighton to

teaches 20 or 30 quids with challenging circumstances, special

educational needs, different ability. Being a teacher at Brighton

college is an easy gig in comparison to other schools. Where we want

teachers to have a capacity to teach properly. Do you think Tristram

could ever lead the Labour Party? I think Ed is a great leader, the

reforms yesterday were a real sign for his leadership. And the fact

David Owen, the man with a pre-history with our party is back

with us. It is great. Even Gideon had to change his name to George.

Have you thought of switching to Tommy or Tony? Maybe not Tony!

Michael Foot was called Dingle Foot. I love the Labour because it accepts

everybody from me to Len McCluskey. We are a big, broad happy family on

our way to Government. Thank you very much.

You're watching The Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers in

Scotland who leave us for Sunday politics Scotland. In over 20

minutes I'll look at the week ahead with our political panel. First The

Sunday Politics where you are. Welcome. With me this week Paul

Burstow, Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton and cheap and Tessa Jowell.

Potential mayoral candidate next time round. We keep on being told.

We'll look later at what one charity says is the four-followed rise in

the use of food banks notice capital over the last two years. First,

let's have a word on another post Olympic milestone reached this

weekend. As the aquatic centre opens to the public. Most of the people

who've seen it so far agree it looks impressive and that it is being

priced reasonably with a swim costed between ?3.50 and ?4.50. The broad

broader look of the Olympics says there's been little uptake in sport.

It looks impressive. I wouldn't think so, it was part of the

intention ten years' ago. Do you think we're up to speed and hitting

the milestones at the time you expected? On the park? Absolutely.

It is very easy to pocket achievement like this. But I think

that the legacy company deserve huge credit for 9 fact we now have a new

glorious park in East London. We have eight world-class venues which

are open or about to be opened to the public. We have 3,000 homes in

the Olympic Village. Nearly half of which are affordable. Run by

triathlon Housing Association. ,000 families, as I understand it, have

now moved in with another 3,000 homes promised for the north of the

park. So no issues there. Paul, you're at the other end of London.

It is not that you expected to get immediate physical legacy out of the

games. When you observe, do you think things are moving as fast as

they should? The real legacy has been the human legacy. The games

makers recruited from Sutton, they enjoyed the volunteering spirit so

much, they created a new charity in my area called the community makers.

They are carrying on that legacy. What are they doing? They are

working with the local authority. It is a real positive outcome. Do you

agree as a Lord's committee report did just before Christmas, evidence

of a sporting legacy or physical legacy is not there by any means

yet? I'm celebrate celebrating Jo Rowsell's medal. That's another part

of the ongoing legacy in the investment. Are you seeing

particular evidence of more people taking up sport, facilities

available in your patch? Come to keep park, they are fulling of

people taking exercise, jogging Maybe it is just a Sutton thing

What they doing in dull itch and Norwood? Lots. Are you happy with

the physical sporting legacy? No, I'm not. I think the biggest mistake

that the Government made, Michael Gove made, in relation shot Olympics

was to end the dedicated funding for school sport. They say they've put

it all back but there was a world-class system of getting kids

playing sport in school. 60% of children were playing five hours of

sport a week. The volume was increasing. You have to build

participation from school. Physical education for very little children

and then choice of sports for older children. I think they just became

idealogical about it. They've back-tracked but a lot of progress

was lost. According to some charities, many more people are

having to use food banks in the capital to get enough to eat. Food

poverty was key baited at the London Assembly. A group has been set up to

look into the issue. This is Kingston food bank staffed

by vowel untears. A growing number of people are turning to food banks

to help. Former soldier Greg how he will is one of them. . Each week I'm

left with ?10 a week to buy food. I was, because of food bank's help,

the food they've helped me to get, it took a lot of pressure off me. I

was able to sort debtors out and keep them at bay. Unemployed Thomas

Cormac is also grateful for assistance. It's been two days since

I've eaten. And these people have been helpful. They help a lot of

people in my position. What would you do without them? I'd probably

have to go shop lifting, believe it or not. Various charities and

organisations arrange food banks which give food to people who can't

afford it. Most are run for the it. Rustle trust. There were nearly

12,000 visits. This financial year, those visits have passed 63,000

That's an increase of nearly 40 % in the last two years. For food banks

like this, you can't turn up and be given food. You have to be referred

by social workers. You're given three days worth of food and you can

return three or four times. We've seen increased usage across the

board. We've more than 40 food bank projects in London. In areas like

hackney or Tower Hamlets where the rate of child poverty is amongst the

highest in the UK, the need for help is really substantial.

Over a third of food bank stock goes to children for whom being hungry

can have serious repercussions on their education, health and future

employment. What is the answer? One major solution to tackling food

poverty in London and hunger among our children would be to introduce

university free school meals in all our primary schools. University free

school meals have a huge Ben knit to children. They remove the stigma of

being a child who is in receipt of free school meals, it means all

children have better results in school. This would require over ?58

million a year from the Greater London Authority. It was discussed

by the London Assembly this week. I am a supporter of the whole free

school meals idea. But so far, the mayor hasn't committed any money to

it. Oxfam says it is important long-term solutions are

investigated. It is shocking that in one of the word's still richest

countries, people are reliant on the kindness of others for very basic

things like food. We are supposed to have a social safety net so people

don't have to live hand to mouth. Free school meals are a solution but

critics say it is hardly the time to find the extra cash. Others argue it

doesn't seem right there are an increasing number of residents like

Greg and Thomas who can't afford to buy the food they need to Are you

concerned about the proliferation of food banks in the capital? I am

encouraged by the number of agencies coming forward to support who are in

many cases in who are in many cases in Government is making partnerships

with those and ensuring that we do refer people to the appropriate

agencies so that people can be fed. You are encouraged that people have

come forward so you are encouraged by the number of food banks? I am

encouraged that people are getting involved in recognising that this is

a real issue. The problem of poverty has existed in London for many years

but it has become more acute since the recession and it is good that

the Government is making partnerships with those and ensuring

that we do refer people to the appropriate agencies so that people

can be fed. You are encouraged that people have come forward so you are

encouraged by the number of food banks? I am encouraged that people

are getting involved in recognising that this is a real issue. The

problem of poverty has existed in London for many years but it has

become more acute since the course the money disappeared. Are you

concerned that they are needed? Of course, but I am particularly

encouraged by the fact that people at the Trussell Trust are pitching

in the Labour part of the London assembly this week talked about

universal free school meals for all primary children. Of course the

coalition is committed to providing that for infant aged children. What

do you think about the Labour part of the London assembly this week

talked about universal free school meals for all primary children. Of

course the coalition is committed to providing that for infant aged

children. What do you think about I don't understand why asking London

taxpayers to subsidise school meals for rich kids is going to help. That

is the universality argument. If wealthy kids from wealthy families,

with free school meals for wealthy kids from wealthy families, with

free school. I don't see it and I don't think Londoners see it either.

I think we should be targeting scarce resources on those people

that need it. Some that doesn't help children who really need the

dedicated funds. I don't see it and I don't think Londoners see it

either. I think we should be targeting scarce resources on those

people that need it. That four of ten could do without food. They are

not wealthy but they don't qualify for free school children out of ten

could do without food. They are not wealthy but they don't qualify for

free school you pick out that small number that might be the wealthy

would be guaranteed a meal. I think the commitment to targeting those

who are from backgrounds where who are from backgrounds have not got

the right amount pupil premium, is an important part of that. But I

don't see how universality solves the problem. We should be fighting

poverty not feeding rich kids. They can afford it themselves. This is,

identified through things like the pupil premium, is an important part

of that. But I don't see how universality solves the problem We

should be fighting poverty not feeding rich kids. They can afford

it themselves. This is taxpayers coming from ordinary Londoners, to

pay for the children of people who are much wealthier than there they

want people who can't afford it What do you think? That is a

horrible analysis of what goes on in state schools in London today. What

you are saying, Andrew, is that you would like to see kids whose

families are Ron Social Security benefits, who may be in work but on

tax credits taxation supporting people who can't afford it. What do

you think? That is a horrible analysis of what goes on in state

schools in London today. What you are saying, Andrew, is that you

would like to see kids whose families are Ron Social Security

benefits, who may be in work but on tax lined up and maybe they would be

eligible for free school meals but they would be distinct and fantastic

success the whole point about primary education, and this is why

free school meals have been such a fantastic success in school after

lunch properly fed and nourished first of all you have to ensure that

every single child comes to school in the morning, and then continues

school after lunch properly fed and thing as well about children growing

that they are part of a community not distinguished by whose that they

are part of a community not distinguished by know? How do they

distinguish at the moment between those with support and those have

more or less money. How do they know? How do they distinguish at the

moment between those with support and those children on free school

meals line-up separately from children paying for their meals

Where does that happen? Where do you stand on this where does that

happen? Where do you stand on at which school do they line-up

receiving free school meals, it is those who do not claim. I don't

entirely agree it is right to say that the reason there has been an

increase in food is due to a range of things, not just one cause. There

is undoubtedly is due to a range of things, not just one cause. There is

undoubtedly to go to introducing free school meals for infant

schools, and it would be great to. How can we afford in Southwark is

such that I the success of the project in Southwark is such that I

hope other authorities will do health Enabling them to use the

education is to make sure they are properly nor itched. We have to

recognise the biggest increase in food banks came under the last

Government when it increased in 2,000 a #5 to over 40,000 in 20 0.

Yet, that increase was ignored by the previous Government. A five fold

increase coming to the... It is spreading taxpayers' money over

wealthy people. Giving tack payer support to wealthy people. Is there

any wonder were throughout out of office when you used taxpayers'

money... Don't be so unpleasant Thank you very much. This week it

was announced the number of passengers going through Heathrow

Airport was open 3. 5% in the last year. It is running officially at

98% capacity. Something you won t be surprised to learn the own owners

suggest shows the need for another runway. Passenger traffic reached a

record 72. 5 million in 2013. Up from 70 million the year before

According to Heathrow, the aircraft were larger and fuller than in

previous years. There are 470 nights departed and landed in 2013. So

operating atst last year, Heathrow was short-listed as a location for a

new runway. It was suggested to lengthening an existing runway at

Heathrow and opening a new runway at Gatwick. The right place for the

runway to go with the right support and services, from a social and

economic point of view, would be to the eastern side of the capital The

decision may now come in the second half of next year when the airport's

commission is due to issue final recommendations on where a new

runway should be built. Paul never liked Heathrow expanse before but

you're coming round to seeing the business argument? Absolutely not.

Before we talk about any expansion which we don't need to see at

Heathrow, you need to look at unused slots around London. Stansted, 7%

of its slots not used. Luton, 5 % of its slots not being used. Gatwick,

12% not being used. So the short-list is not used. The capacity

is not being used. Better trains into Stansted would help with space.

We don't need fantasy islands. You don't need the Davis commission

process? The Davis commission is looking longer term. We have this

capacity now. Where will we be in 15 or 20 years' time. When we get

there, we'll do Stansted, Gatwick. Then where? I want to see them do

that before coming up with... Where do you feel now? If we used all of

the capacity in London, then I would look at the area around Stansted and

possibly expand. But we don't need to do that any time soon because we

have this capacity already available. Tessa Jowell, where are

you on this at the moment? Well waiting for the report. Yes, but

what is your instinct? Let me be absolutely clear about this. I

supported a third runway at Heathrow when I was in the Cabinet, let me be

clear. I was persuaded of the case for more capacity. I think the

question about whether or not Heathrow... And I think the

consensus is that Heathrow is the only airport that can become a hub

airport. I want to look at the economic case for that. Essentially

what that means is that you can get on a plane at Heathrow and fly to

more places in the world. What economic benefit does that bring us?

What is the trade-off between economic gain and environmental

destruction. You want to look at that more but at the moment you are

quite happy to say that as things stand, you think the case is there

and is made for at least one more runway at Heathrow? I am open to

another runway at Heathrow but my mind would not be closed to looking

at additional capacity at Gatwick. I don't think that the proposal for an

estuary airport is really feasible. Would you like your party to go into

the next election being more definite about what it supports say

if you were the leader of the party? Would you be happy to lead an

Heathrow expansion ticket? First of all we have to be in a position

where we have the necessary information, economic,

environmental, passenger information and so on, to make a decision. Once

a decision is taken, it has got to stick. I think the important thing

is that we get sufficient cross-party support to make it last.

I understand that but from what you have seen so far you think Heathrow

expansion is the best. I have said I am open-minded about that. Everybody

is open-minded. Everybody is just saying they want to wait. But you

have been in London politics for a long time. Being in London politics

does not mean leaping to an answer in the absence of the facts. I have

told you how I am going to form a judgement. I have told you that I

supported a third runway as a member of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet took

that decision. You seem pretty strung up on this. You are wrong. We

have had five years in between and a further report commission which I am

under obligation to honour and consider. Fair enough. And let's

make use of the existing capacity in London's airports first. OK. We did

not make much progress. We toured around the issues and did not get

further forward. Here is the news in 60 seconds.

Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered London teenager Stephen

Lawrence has said she believes part of the police are still racist. She

said some attitudes have not changed much. Stop and search measures

continue to be unfair. 33 junctions where more than 25

cyclists and pedestrians have been seriously injured or killed in the

last three years are to have ?3 0 million spent on them. Transport for

London said work would begin in the second half of the year.

The Metropolitan Police has not made a convincing case for buying three

water cannon. London assembly's police and crime committee says that

with no specific intelligence of disorder it is not clear why there

is a rush to get them. The hospital campaign in South West

London delivered a petition to their MPs. They were protesting against a

piece of legislation that they claim will give Government the right to

close any hospital with 40 days notice.

Briefly on this one, would you allow the Government to close the hospital

because it made sense? To close a hospital? I think these decisions

cannot be -- can only be taken on the basis of how you serve the

community and save the most lives. I think that is the right basis for

making judgements about any changes to hospitals. The problems in South

West London are that it has all been badly botched and the arguments

poorly delivered and so the public has not been brought with them. Said

this is about people saying... It is changing provisions for what happens

when hospital goes bust, put in place quite sensibly by the last

Government and this Government is looking at adapting them. But it is

nothing to do with a hospital that is not broke and is financially

solvent. St Helier is going in the right direction financially. But are

you convinced about that? It would give the Government the power to do

that if it was not financially viable. Yes, no hospital is an

island and you have to look at the whole picture, but it does have to

involve the local authority. The minute that is not done, I press the

Government to change it. Thank you both for being here. Andrew, back to

you. This week grant Shap said he wanted

to rebrand the Tories as the workers' party to show it can reach

out to blue-collar workers. One Conservative Party MP said they

should scrap what he said was their boring old logo. We asked him and

two other independent MPs how they'd freshen up their logos.

Aspiration's always been our core value. About helping people get on

with life. Giving people ladders of opportunity. That's why our symbol

must reflect our values of aspiration and why I'm calling for

our symbol to be changed from a tree to a ladder which symbolises social

mobility and stands up for everything conservatism represents.

I like an he will fanned, an animal that never forgets. We're the only

party which seems to remember what life was like before the NHS and

minimum wage and the global financial crash was caused by too

little regulation not too much. We have a leader who can spot the

elephant in the room, the lack of women on the Tory frontbench. The

republicans in America have had the same idea. Theirs is a suspicious

blue. Our would be deepest red. We love our Liberal Democrat bird. Mrs

Thatcher called it the dead parrot when we launched it. We won the

Eastbourne by-election off the Tories very soon aftered with.

Perhaps it feels like we're in a coalition cage but we're escaping

that soon. Why does it fly to the right? Most Liberal Democrats would

want it to fly to the left. I hope it will soon.

Interesting there. Let's stick with the Robert Hall pin one. He was

being serious. The others were fun. It is interesting that talking about

appealing to the blue collared vote, the upper working class, lower

middle class, curiously now neither Mr Cameron nor Mr Miliband has great

cut through with these people. But in wanting to be the Workers Party,

how do you square that with choosing five old Etonians to draw up four

next manifesto. Labour said one of the things was cutting inheritance

tax, after all their priorities they went to privilege rather than earned

income. Rebranding is not enough. The one question the modernisers

never asked themselves when they took party ten years ago is the

thing we know as the Conservative Party, salvageable as a brand? I'm

beginning to think it isn't. If you look at all public opinion research,

there are lots of people in this contrary with Conservative views.

They won't vote Tory or contemplate the possibility of voting Tory. Can

we get over the electoral problems by relaunching as a different

pro-business, pro-worker party. That means new name, new logo. It will

mean new people as well. If you say you're on the sides of what Thatcher

called the strivers, the people themselves want to see you have

strivers in the people who run your party so you know what we've been

through, the struggles we've had. How many of the six drawing up the

manifesto have had ever a mortgage. The one who's not an old Etonian

went to St Paul's. He's a day schoolboy! It is interesting and it

was funny you mentioned an elephant. Don't think of an elephant as the

title of that book. Calling it the Workers Party draws attention to the

Tories biggest electoral weakness. The idea they are a class apart Out

of touch. I think it is interesting, they have identified their elections

are won or lost by this particular demo graphic of the C 1, and C .

Mrs Thatcher got them by the shed load, Tony Blair got them. His

failure in 2010 is the reason David Cameron didn't win an overall

majority. I'm disappointed with the ladder. You should have a hammer or

sickle! The Conservatives have a terrible brand problem. You heard

them explaining why they did badly in the Wythenshawe by-election,

saying there's quite a large council estate there In 1961, I think the

Conservatives won a by-election back then, they were getting through to

those sort of voters. There is not a single Conservative councillor in

Manchester. They have this terrible problem. You're right for them to

pick up on the five Etonians writing their manifesto. David Cameron sir

rounding himself with his own. He doesn't have to do that. I seas

things like isn't Robert Halpen great. He decides and has his own.

He has some more slightly common people from St Paul's! One of the

ways the Conservatives hoped to broaden their appeal is the tougher

line on immigration. We learned net immigration is rising substantially.

Back up over 200,000. Nigel Farage of UKIP wrapped up the rhetoric In

scores of our cities and market towns, this country, in a short

space of time, has become N'Zonzi rkable whether it is --

unrecognisable. Whether it is the impact on local schools and

hospitals. In many parts of England you don't hear English spoken, this

is not the kind of the community we want to leave to our children and

grandchildren. Helen, maybe people, I assume, will love the sentiments.

Others will say, this is getting... It is going down a dangerous road.

Nigel Farage's wife is German and he shares a flat with Godfully Bloom,

nobody knows what he's saying half of the time. You can handle the

letters from Yorkshire. Alex Salmond does not make his case on Scotland

for the Scottish. Let's put aside whether the policy's right or wrong.

How bad, by the Tories own lights, is the fact the net figure for

immigration went up 60,000? It looks really bad. If I was a Tory

strategist, I'd be philosophical about it. Immigration, even if they

were meeting the target, I don't think the public would believe it.

It is like crime a few years ago, the crime rates had been declining

for the best part of 20 years but the fear of crime remains high.

There's such a degree of cynicism that regardless of your

administrative record in Government, the public will remain hostile to

you. This is where Nigel Farage can be potent. He said it is not about

numbers. It is about community. It is about people seeing their

communities change. And in the Sunday Telegraph, it was said this

isn't a dog whistle, a it is a meaty bone for a bull terrier. The problem

for the Government on these figures is we know why the net migration

figures are not looking good. They got down the non-EU figures but the

EU figures are going up. From Italy and Spain as their economies tanked,

people came here. If he hadn't made such a big deal of the numbers, the

Tories, I mean, you could present this as a huge success story. If you

believe immigration was good for the country. You would say it doesn t

matter what Labour says, the best and the brightest young people from

all over Europe are voting with their feet to come to Britain. But

you never hear that case being made and certainly not by Labour. They

acknowledge although immigration is best in the abstract for the

economy, people don't feel it in their daily lives. There's a huge

vacuum for the case where immigration should be in our public

life. I remember a time when the economy was in such decline there

was a rush to the door in the sixties and seventies. Now we are

claiming our economy's doing better than any of the other major

economies bar Germany, people want to join in our success. London was a

declining city until the mid-eighties. Theresa May cannot be

honest. She was proposing a cap on immigration. Not going to happen.

Today she is saying maybe people from poorer member states cannot

come in until their economies grow. That's future accession states.

That's Turkey in ten years' time It is causing divisions with the

coalition. She's bashing Vince Cable. You often see Liberal

Democrats bashing the Tories. You don't often see a Tory minister bash

Vince Cable. She does on the immigration figures. He thought they

were good news. Last week, Vince responded to the news by saying it

was a policy he was happy for the gift to flunk. The problem was going

for a cap. There are six moving parts. UK citizens leaving, coming

back. EU citizens leaving and coming back and then third party nationals.

And students coming to study. Of course. You only have control over

the EU citizens. Have you to clamp down on ace strayian, Chinese or

American graduates. They should have gone for the Australian points

system. I don't have a pure cap on numbers just background etc. Tim

Farran said in the European election either vogue Liberal Democrat or

UKIP. He turned that to his advantage. It is hopeful but he s

come up with a way to spin this Labour has his special conference.

Was it or was it not an event? Not sure it was the biggest moment in

the party since 1918. But things fell apart in the special conference

in 1981. 2004 got another special conference. Who's on board? David

Owen who founded the gang of four. He's not joined but he's given them

money. He's not going to sit with them in the Lord's. He's given

money. They lost the gang of four. Back comes David Owen. Not historic?

Why would he want it to be more significant than it was. There's a

tendency to see him taking the fight to his party. Why would he want

that? The fact it has not pleased Grant Shapps is not a test to see

whether this has worked. It has been described as an historic moment and

incremental of what John did. The trade union block voters disappeared

a long time ago. They still have 50% of the vote. But 2,000 of union

members voting for this guy has gone. It is a reform from 20 years

ago. Welcome but not historic. Ed Miliband's stored up trouble. Len

McCluskey wants a million new homes and answered to the benefit caps is

not reconcilable with the deficit reduction strategy. In five years'

time if there is a Labour Government it becomes very difficult. We should

keep an eye on it? Always. Labour Party process is never ending.

Unlike this programme. That's all from us today. Continuing reports of

events in the Ukraine on the BBC News Channel. There's no Daily

Politics tomorrow because of cover Arg of the Nelson Mandela memorial

service at Westminster Abbey on BBC Two live. We'll be back on the Daily

Politics on Tuesday at midday. We'll be back here next week with the Work

and Pensions Secretary, Ian Smith. If it is Sunday, it is the Sunday

Politics.