06/04/2014 Sunday Politics London

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Pressure on Culture Secretary Maria Miller mounts as the Tory press,

Tory voters and even a Tory Minister turn against her. That's our top

story. The economic outlook is getting

rosier. But Ed Miliband is having none of it. The cost of living

crisis is here to stay, says Labour. Shadow Minister Caroline Flint joins

us for the Sunday Interview. And we bring you the Sunday Politics

Gallery. But which former world leader is behind these paintings of

world leaders? The Mayor wants to close Heathrow and replace it with a

new London borough. A blue flint for regeneration or economic Armageddon?

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

business - Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Nick Watt. Their tweets will be

as brief as a Cabinet Minister's apology.

A frenzy of betting on the Grand National yesterday. But there was

one book on which betting was suspended, and that was on the fate

of Culture Secretary Maria Miller, now the 2/1 favourite to be forced

out the Cabinet. She galloped through her apology to the Commons

on Thursday in just 32 seconds. But speed did her no favours. There's

been mounting pressure on her to resign ever since, especially from

Tories. And this weekend the Chairman of the Independent

Parliamentary Standards Authority, Ian Kennedy, said it's time MPs gave

away the power to decide how colleagues who break the rules are

punished. An inquiry into Maria Miller's expenses claims was launch

in 2012, following allegations he claimed ?90,000 to fund a house she

lived in part time with her parents. She had designated this her second

home. She was referred to the Parliamentary Standards

Commissioner, who recommended that she repay ?45,000. But this week the

Commons Standards Committee, comprising of MPs from all parties,

dismissed the complaint against Maria Miller and ordered her to

repay just ?5,800 for inadvertently overclaiming her merge claimants.

She was forced to apologise to the Commons for the legalistic way she

dealt with the complaints against her. But Tony Gallagher told the

Daily Politics on Friday: We got a third call from Craig Oliver who

pointed out, she is looking at Leveson and the call is badly timed.

I think if you are making a series of telephone calls to a newspaper

organisation investigating the conduct of a Cabinet Minister, that

comes close After that interview Craig Oliver

contacted us, saying there was no threat in anyway over Leveson. I

mead it clear at the time. Tony Gallagher is talking rubbish about

me, and you can use that. The Daily Telegraph have released a tape of a

phone call between Maria Miller's aid, Joanna Hindley, and a reporter

investigating her expenses claim. Joanna Hindley said:

Maria's obviously been having quite a lot of editor's meetings around

Leveson at the moment. So I'm just going to kind of flag up that

connection for you to think about. The Prime Minister is sticking by

his Culture Secretary, but this weekend's crescendo of criticism of

her presents him with a problem and he could be wishing Maria Miller

would just fall on her sword. Even over 80% of Tory voters in a Mail on

Sunday poll think she should go. On the Andrew Marr Show, the Work and

Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, defended his colleague. I've

known her always to be a reasonable and honest person. But is she doing

the Government or her any good by staying in office at the moment, do

you think? This is a matter the Prime Minister has to take

consideration of and she herself. My view generally is I'm supportive of

Maria, because if we are not careful we end one a witch-hunt of somebody.

And I'm joined now by the Conservative MP, Bob Stewart, and

the man in the white suit, former MP and anti-sleaze campaigner Martin

Bell. Welcome to you both. Stuart Stuart sturkts let me put this to

you, a Conservative MP told this programme, this is a quote, she has

handled this appallingly. Downing Street has acted like judge and

jury, for Craig Oliver to get involved is disastrous. She's been

protected by the whips from the start. What do you say to that? It's

not great, is it? The fact of the matter is the question one should

ask is, did she deliberately try to make money? Did she deliberately try

to obscure ate? The answer is she certainly didn't deliberately try to

make money, in the system, which was the old system, and with regard to

obscure ago, I wasn't there, but let's put it this way. She was going

through a quasi-judicial process and might have ended up in court, so she

has a right to defend herself. Hold on o you said she doesn't do it to

make money, she remortgaged the house a couple of times to earn more

interest to us, the taxpayer, and when interest rates went down she

didn't reduce the amount she was charging in expenses. Well, the

point is the adjudicator said there was ?45,000 she was owed. And then a

committee, Standards Committee, said actually it should be reduced. That

was mainly MPs but there are three lay members. Yes, but they don't

have the vote. OK, fine, that is where it is wrong and we've got to

get it sorted. Let me put another quote from our Conservative MP. He

didn't want to be named. None of you do at the moment. I'm being named.

But you are backing her. George young in cahoots. He's been leading

on the Standards Committee to find her innocent. The Standards

Committee is unfit for purpose. I think the Standards Committee should

be revisited. I think the system is still evolving. And I think actually

we ought to have totally independent judgment on MPs' pay and allowances.

We haven't have not got there yet and that is where it is wrong.

Martin Bell, have MPs interfered in the Maria Miller process and with

the current Standards Commissioner in the same way that they saw off a

previous Commissioner they thought was too independent? Andrew it is

exactly the same. Yesterday I looked at a diary entry I made for May

2000, I said, dreadful meeting standards and privileges, they are

playing party politics. One of them told Elizabeth fill kin to her face

the gossip in the tea room was she had gone crazy. Nothing's changed.

What this shows is most of all, what's the committee for? If it is

just going to rubber stamp what the party wants and its mates, I don't

see any point. But it hasn't rubber stamped. It's changed it. Well, it

has watered down. That's why we should make it totally independent

and it shouldn't be involved in the House of Commons. It is plus plus ca

change isn't it? MPs', scandal, and MPs closing ranks for one of their

own. Has the Commons learned nothing? And this is after the

expenses scandal, where everything was out for everybody to see, you

would think MPs would be careful. This is before the expenses scandal.

We are looking at an historical event, during your time, Martin, not

mine. I'm clean on this. You campaigned for him as an

independent. I did, he was a good friend of mine. And now you've

joined the club. And now you are defending Maria Miller? I'm

defending someone who hasn't been proved guilty of anything beyond the

fact she was rather slow to come forward with evidence. My point on

that, is I understand that. MPs are being lambasted the whole time these

days. There were a heck of a lot of them, Martin, who are utterly

decent. She didn't try to make money. We've just been through that.

I don't think that's right. The jury is out on that. What should have

happened in the Miller case, Martin Bell? I don't think there should be

a committee on standards. I think the Commissioner should make a

report. There has been to be justice for the MP complained against. Then

the committee of the whole House can consider it. But we are, the House

of Commons, then as now is incapable of regulating itself. That's been

proving yet again. She made a perfunctory apology. She threatened

and instructed the Standards Commissioner investigating her, and

her special adviser linked expenses to Leveson, when trying to stop the

Daily Telegraph from publishing. I mean, is that the behaviour of a

Cabinet Minister? Well, it's probably not the behaviour of

someone that's got time on their hands. She's a very busy Cabinet

Minister. Well, she had enough time to write lots of letters to the

Standards Commission ser. She felt under such threat. She had the time.

She had to make the time. Die know the lady is not trying desperately

to make money. I disagree but on that. The fact of the matter is,

this was an old, old system, that we've tried to put right, or the

Commons has tried to put right. I agree that MPs shouldn't get

involved in this. Should we get rid of this committee? It serves no

purpose except to cause trouble. The adjudicator has said that and it

should be the end of it. It shouldn't come back to the Commons.

Although her special adviser threatened them over Leveson she was

trying to introduce something like trying to introduce something like

Leveson and that is something a big chunk that the press doesn't want.

She is a target. It has a good record on this issue. It played wit

a straight bat. The facts aren't in dispute are they? Will she make it

to the next cabinet reshuffle and then go? Iain Duncan Smith said it

is a matter for the Prime Minister. In my view, as things stand, I

question did she deliberately want to make money? I don't think she

did. Should she go? No. Should she be reshuffled? I don't know.

Goodness me, you are asking someone who will never be reshuffled,

because he will never make it. I was only asking for your opinion, not

your ability to do it. This is a problem for Cameron isn't it? It is

a problem for Cameron. There is nothing wrong with returning to be

badge benches, as you know. Hear, hear. To that. Stick with me. Helen,

can she survive? Is I'm going out of the prediction game when I said

Clegg is going to win the date, so I owe Janan a tenner on that one.

Grant Shapps has supported her. She was ringed by Sir George young and

Jeremy Hunt... This is pretty devastating. On past form David

Cameron hates having to bounce people out of the cabinet. He will

want to keep Maria Miller until the summer reshuffle. This is a question

mark on whether she survive this is. This isn't damaging to the

Conservative or the Labour Party, it is damaging to everyone. This is

catastrophic damage to the entire political establishment. Every

single speech that David Cameron and Ed Miliband have given since 2009,

talking about restoring trust, they can wipe them from their computers,

because voters are going to look that there and say, this lot haven't

learnt anything. They are giving perfunctory apologies and then you

have MPs sitting in judgment on MPs and rather than paying back ?45,000,

she pays back ?5,800 after MPs have been into it. Damage is huge. Just

getting rid of one Cabinet Minister, you will need to do more than that.

You will notice that Labour haven't made huge weather of this. No,

goodness me, they have their own skeletons. Exactly. The person who

has made hay out of this is Nigel Farage, who has not been backwards

in coming forward. He doesn't seem to care about skeletons. The Prime

Minister has be-Gunby backing her, but that's not popular even with

Tory voters. How does he get out of this? This is the problem for him.

Five years ago his reaction to the expenses scandal was seen by many

Tory backbenchers as excessive. They felt hung out to dry by a man who is

independently wealthy. To go from that to making a special exemption

to Maria Miller because it is politically suitable is more

incendiary and provocative. It is not just upsetting the voters and

the Daily Telegraph but a good number of people behind him. I think

they will get rid of her. I think the Government, to paraphrase

Churchill, will zoo the decent thing after exhausting all options, of the

European elections a reshuffle. The culture department has gone from a

baulk water in haul to one of the most politically sensational jobs

because of its proximity to the Leveson issue. She has to be

replaced by someone Lily skillful and substantial. Mr Cameron is not

short of smart women? Nikki Morgan, the education department, these are

absolutely outstanding women and the problem that the generation elected

in 2005, Maria Miller generation, there are some really good people

elected in 2010. You are not responsible for hacking into the

culture Department's Twitter account last night? I was out at the time!

They all say that! One so, Maria Miller is like a modern-day Robin

Hood... She robs the poor to help the rich. Which one of us has not

embezzled the taxpayer? I reckon it is the lady. You have the perfect

cover. We would not know how to, would we? You cannot tweet from a

mobile device, can you? Play it safe. No, do something dramatic.

Have lots of pledges. Have just a few pledges. Ah, there must be a

Labour policy review reaching its conclusion because everyone has some

free advice for the party about its message and the man delivering it.

Here's Adam. He is well liked by the public don't quite buy him as a

leader. The papers say he is in hock to the unions and the party has a

lead in the polls but it is not solid. Bartenders Neil Kinnock. That

is what they said Winnie who lost the 1982 election. The whole country

deserves better and we will work to ensure that the day will come when

with the Labour government, the country will get better. Someone who

was there can see some spooky parallels. The important lesson from

1992 is it cannot rest on your laurels and hope for the best, you

cannot sit on a lead of seven points because the election narrows that

and you cannot rely on the government not getting its act

together because the Conservative Party was well funded and organised,

the double whammy posters, the tax bombshell, but incredibly effective

and the message was unified and they beat us on the campaign. The lesson

for Labour today is this lead will evaporate quite possibly over the

next few months and we might go into the election behind in the polls.

But Ed Miliband is getting conflicting advice about how to

avoid 1992 happening. Be bold, be cautious and then, the idea that

Labour can squeak into office with just 35% of the vote, which worries

some people. Each month, the Labour Party meets around the country and

last week, everybody spoke about the dangers of this 35% strategy. They

were increasingly unhappy and it is very important that those people

around the leader naturally have a duty to protect him and they make

sure he gets this message that while there is total support for him, they

do want this key year in the run-up to the General Election to be

putting out an alternative which we can defend on the doorstep. The

doorstep where Neil Kinnock made his concession speech is crammed with

Spanish back hackers. The old Labour offices are no a budget hostel.

Labour headquarters is down the road and they are putting the finishing

touches to a speech Ed Miliband will give this week about the cost of

living and I am told he will drop hints about new policies in juicy

areas like housing, low pay, growth and devolving power. As for the

charge that they are not radical enough, his people say they want to

be bold but they have to be credible as well. They say that Labour is

more united than it has ever been but there has been some grumbling

that the cost of living campaign is not the same as a vision for the

country. And that Ed Miliband was not statesman-like enough at Prime

Minister's Questions and one figure who sat at the same table in the

Neil Kinnock years summed it up like this. Things are OK but it feels

like we're playing for the draw. Shadow Energy Secretary Caroline

Flint joins me now for the Sunday Interview. This 35% victory

strategy, it does not sound very ambitious? I am campaigning to win

this election with a majority government and everybody else around

the table is also. But we want to go to every corner of the country and

win votes for Labour and win seats, that is what we are working towards.

To avoid last time, the coalition bartering. But that 35% is a victory

strategy so are you saying there is no 35% strategy and that no one at

the heart of Labour is not arguing for this? We are working to win

around the country and to win all of those battle ground seats and we

must have a strategy that appeals to a cross-section of the public but

within that, that broad group Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and. You

could do that with 35% of the vote? There is lots of polling and

everyone looks at this about what we need to do to get seats and we want

to have a comprehensive majority at the next election to win to govern

this country. Last week, we have been reading reports of splits in

the party over policy and on tactics, even strategy. A struggle

for control of the General Election manifesto, we are told. What are you

arguing over? I said on the committee and just listening to the

film before, it is about being radical but also credible and we are

talking about evolution and that is an important subject but we are also

united and to be honest, in 2010 people were writing us off saying we

would turn on ourselves and that has not been the case. We are not

arguing about the fundamentals, we are discussing the policies that are

coming up with different colleagues and talking about how we can make

sure they are presented to the public and that is part of a

process. That is a discussion, not disagreement. The Financial Times,

which is usually pretty fair, reports a battle between Ed

Miliband's radical instincts and the more business fiscal conservatism of

Ed Balls. What side are you on? I am for radical change, I am for energy

and I believe strongly we must be formed the market and people might

portray that as anti-business but this is about more competition and

transparency and others coming into this market so our policy on this is

radical, not excepting the status quo. It is also for business.

Opinion polls show that few people regard Ed Miliband as by Minister

material -- Prime Minister material. That has been true since he became

leader. And in some cases, they have been getting worse. Why is that?

Opinion polls say certain things about the personalities of leaders,

David Cameron is not great either. And they were not great when he was

in opposition. At this stage, he was getting 49% as Prime Minister real

material and Ed Miliband, 19. -- Prime Minister material. When you

look at certain questions that the public is asked about who you think

you would trust about being fair in terms of policy towards Britain, who

understands the cost of living crisis, they very much identify with

Ed Miliband. We are ahead in the polls. Ed Miliband has made that

happen. We have one more councillors, we have been running in

by-elections and we have held this government over the barrel over six

months on energy prices. That is to do with his leadership. The more

that voters save him, the less they seem convinced. In 2011, he had been

leader for one year, and only 11% regarded him as weird, by 2014, that

was 41%. Look at that! Look at that weirdness! What people need is to

know where the Labour Party stands on fundamental issues. And in those

areas, particularly the cost of living and fairness and people being

concerned that we are entering into a period where people will be worse

for the first time ever at the end of the Parliament, these things are

important and Ed Miliband is part of our success. Definitely. I think

this is ridiculous, to be fair, he is not a politician that says, I am

dying with the Arctic monkeys, I know who is the number one. He did

not play that game. -- down. He is not either there to portray himself

as someone who was with the children, I know everything about

popular culture. His authenticity is the most important thing. People do

not think he is authentic, unless they think we were at is authentic.

Is it true that his staff applaud him when he comes back after giving

even a mediocre speech? I have never heard that. I have never heard about

him being applauded. And I am pleased to applaud him with he makes

speeches, I have given him a standing ovation. You have to do

that because the cameras are rolling! No, he made a good speech.

Five minutes without notes. It took a long time to memorise I don't

blame him! The cost of living. Focusing on that, it has paid

dividends. But inflation is falling and perhaps collapsing, unemployment

is falling faster than anybody thought, as we can see. Wages are

rising, soon faster than prices. Retail sales are booming, people

have got money in their pockets. Isn't the cost of living crisis

narrative running out of steam? I do not think so and I should say that I

welcome any sign of positive changes in the economy, if anybody gets a

job in Doncaster, I am pleased by the end of this Parliament families

will be over ?900 worse off because of tax and benefit changes and the

working person is ?1600 worse off and it is the first government since

the 1870s where people will be at the end of the Parliament. We

believe the government made wrong choices that lead the rich off at

the expense of those on middle and lower incomes. -- let the rich. The

average family ?794 worse off from tax and benefit changes. That has

been backed up. They are those figures. But he has skewed these

figures by including the richest, where the fall in tax and the

penalty they pay is highest. If you take away the richest, it is nowhere

near that figure. Everybody agrees and even the government and

knowledges that at the end of their tenure in Parliament, people will be

worse off. 350,000 extra people who would desperately like full-time

work who are working part-time and 1 million young people unemployed and

the reason the cost of living has a residence is people feel that. I was

in a supermarket and at Doncaster and someone summed this up, he said

I work hard and at the end of the week, beyond paying bills, I have

got nothing else. If you take away the top 10% who are losing over

?600,000, the average loss comes down to around ?400, less than half

of what you claim. That figure is totally misleading. These are the

figures from the IFS. It still shows... Whatever way you shape

this, people will still be worse off, families worse off because of

these changes to tax and benefits and working people because wages

have not kept up with prices. Your energy portfolio, you back the

enquiry into the big six companies and you intend to go ahead with the

price freeze and reconfigure the market even before it reports. If

you win, this is a waste of time? Whilst we have had this process

before the announcement, we always feel if it goes that way, there

might be areas we have not thought of that the enquiry will also draw

attention to that we might want to add on. You are right, our basic

reforms for the new regulator, to separate generation supply, we will

pursue that. What happens if this report concludes that your plans are

not correct? You will still go ahead? I don't think so. Actually,

if you look at the report that Ofgem produced, some of the issues Labour

has been drawing attention to like vertical integration, they cover

that. I was asking about the Competition Commission? The report

last week is a result of working together and I think it is clearly

accepted in this sector, look at SSE last week, they will separate the

business. We are pushing at the open door. It has already pulled out of

gas. So it follows if you freeze energy prices across the market, it

might be the right thing to do but there will be a cost in terms of

jobs and investment, correct? Well, I met with SSE last weekand the

chief executive and talked about these issues. The jobs changes are

partly about them looking at how they could be more efficient as a

company. On offshore wind that wasn't really to do with the price

freeze. That was more to do with issues around confidence in that

area and therefore willing to put the money into it, as well as

technical issues as well But there'll be job losses. Is that a

price worth paying? We believe the reason we are having a price freeze

is these companies have been overcharging customers and haven't

been investing in their organisations and making them more

efficient. I do not believe a price freeze is linked to job losses.

These companies do need to be more efficient. Goal for all of us is

realising the fantastic opportunity for more jobs and growth from an

energy sector that has certainty going forward. That's what Labour

will deliver. Caroline Flint, thank you.

It's 1130 and you're watching The Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to

viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for Sunday Politics Scotland.

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead, but first The Sunday

Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to the London part

of the programme. I'm joined by my guests for the next 20 minutes or so

by Jane Ellison, Conservative MP for Battersea, and Frank Dobson, Labour

imagine for whole torn and St Pancras. Welcome. Later, the Mayor's

plans to knock down Heathrow Airport, create a whole new borough,

and shift London's main airport to the east of the capital. But first,

a report by the London health commission to advise the Mayor,

headed by Lord Darzi, has looked at the sale of unused NHS property to

be sold off to help address the problem of London's housing

shortage. London health commission has

publisheded a summary of the recommendations put to them as part

of submissions to its report on the future of health services. Two

recommendations were spotlightedly Lords doorsy. London's NHS should

cash in on unused buildings if it wants to improve the capital's

health. The buildings should be sold to help create the 400,000 jobs

predicted to be needed in the next ten years. The NHS spends ?50 to ?60

million pounds a year maintaining them. 30% of ten-year-olds in London

are obese or overweight. A We need to look at every intervention,

including taxation in tackling this big programme but that's not in my

gift to announce. I'm advising the Mayor on what he should be doing.

There is a huge amount of estate not used. And it is costing the taxpayer

something between ?50 or ?60 million. A better use of the estate

is one of the important outputs of this commission. The commission

which was set up by the Mayor is tasked with finding new ways of

getting the health message across to Londoners. Jane el songs do you

accept the recommendation by Lord Darzi that you should be tax taxing

fatty foods and fizzy drinks? It is one of the things people raise in

this area of policy. I'm not entirely persuaded that's the way to

go. Why not? We've achieved a great deal, for example 70% of labels on

ready meals in supermarkets will soon have a completely standard

packaging telling people the nutritional content. There's lot you

can achieve through voluntary action. And we are seeing health

education programmes having effect. We do look at all the evidence and I

will be interesting interested in what the commission has to say. The

Chief Medical Officer has warned that a sugar tax may have to be

introduced because of high levels of obesity. The Government has no plans

to do that as a moment. I'm interested to see what is going on

internationally and keep open our option os. We are making good

progress with voluntary action. Frank Dobson, 37% of ten-year-olds

in London are obese. Do you think more drastic action like a tax is

necessary Sing it probably. I support what Sally Davis is

recommending, a tax on sugar. You can then take the money raised from

the tax on sugar, which should put people off buying sugary stuff, and

use it to subsidise fresh fruit and vegetables. Words from a former

Health Secretary. Something perhaps you should be not just keeping on

open mind to but looking at. We've this from arid Darzi, and the Chief

Medical Officer, there is support for. This There is. I have a lot of

conversations with some of those experts. It is an emerging area of

policy but it's not an easy area in which to elect. I think everyone

acknowledges that. I do think we haven't yet fully explored what

could be achieved through voluntary action and health education. Do you

welcome the Mayor of London treading on national policy? I'm very open to

anybody who wants to raise issues, ideas around public health. One of

the abuse of the public health system over the past year when we've

put it back into local government is the innovation and creativity we've

seen coming out of many local government authorities. Or it leads

to a confused message. I don't think soft. Only this week in the house of

Parliament I brought people together from all over the country who are

doing great things in their local area to celebrate that. What we are

seeing a an explosion of creativity across our local government. I'm

open to the Mayor coming forward with new ideas. Frank Dobson, one of

the other recommendations was about flogging off unused build that the

NHS owns, costing ?50 million to ?60 million a year, a good idea? Some of

them, maybe, but it needs to be looked at carefully. We need too

make sure that if one bit is somebody who might own a particular

chunk of land or a build building, it is surplus to their requirements,

there may be another part of the health service nearby which could

make good use of it. Providing that's looked into, there's no

objection really to selling them off. But the question is, Lord

Darzi, a very good man, says it could be used to deal a bit with the

housing crisis, it won't deal with the housing crisis if it is being

flog off to somebody who is going to develop flats for Russian oligarchs,

as the London chapter of the friends of Vladimir Putin, who are the

people who are driving up prices at the moment. Although there is a

housing shortage, not for oligarchs but generally. There is a desperate

housing shortage and a desperate increase in the cost of buying

houses or rents, and that's partly been dragged up by these outsiders,

the Russian ol gags or Chinese -- oligarchs or Chinese business people

or people from the Gulf paying five times over the odds. Why would you

spend money maintaining empty buildings and disused land I think

Lord Darzi meant. Looking at your illustration, it looked like it was

the National Temperance Hospital in my constituency. I and my

constituency has been trying to get that as local housing for a long

time and now it is going to be used as a depot for HS2 coming Uist

Euston. Thank you. The Mayor of London's new proposal

this week makes a third runway look positively mild. Boris Johnson wants

nothing less than the close the airport and replace it with a new

London borough. Is this the type of bold plan we need or a blueprint for

economic Armageddon for London. Heathrow Airport has never been much

loved by Boris Johnson. His preference for a hub estuary is

famous. He announced plans about how he would like to see Heathrow closed

altogether. A bold move. There is nothing in London bigger in economic

terms. It is responsible for over 100,000 jobs. What the Mayor's

critics say is this, there are few examples of the Mayor of a town

lobbying to close one of its greatest economic assets. Instead

the Mayor would like to see something a bit like this. Heathrow

redeveloped and turned into a new suburb. On Monday he launched his

vision of how he thinks it should happen. You've got a site 1,200

hectares, bigger than Kensington and Chelsea, where you could all sorts

of things. High-tech universities. We think about 90,000 jobs, maybe

190,000 population. Tens of thousands, 80,000 new homes.

Fantastic opportunity for West London. And the loss of jobs at

Heathrow isn't such a problem, according to the leader of the

council where the airport is situated. Nothing remains same

forever. At one time there were huge elements of the population engaged

in looking after horses had and then somebody ups and invents the motor

car. What's happened to them? They are doing something else now aren't

they? What we've heard a lot about is what would happen to the Heathrow

Airport site if the airport was to close. What's not in these documents

is details of close. What's not in these documents

the rest of London if the airport was to shut.

This West London freight company are based beyond the boundaries of the

Mayor's redevelop redeveloped Heathrow. They rely on the airport

for their business. Bosses feel so strongly, a pro-Heathrow message has

been added to part of the fleet. They are highly dubious about the

Mayor of London's plan. I'm guessing as a way with most things that

deteriorate for whatever reason, they stand empty for 20-25 years

before redevelopment starts and this side of London will be devastated in

the way of unemployment. Even the Mayor's report draws comparison are

London's Docklands. Once upon a time the Thames was the busiest waterway

in the world and London's docks the gateway to the largest commercial

empire history has ever seen. When the docks closed in the 1970s, East

London was devastated. Its redevelopment remains an ongoing

process. If Heathrow were to shut some fear West London would suffer

the same fate. People that base their business model on big near an

airport, whether for transport or access to goods, and they certainly

wouldn't stay in this area. You would see a significant

disinvestment from day one if the decision was taken to close

Heathrow. Any decision about Heathrow Airport's future is some

way off, as politicians wait for the Davis commission do report. In the

meantime this week it emerged that Dubai has now overtaken Heathrow as

the world's busiest International Airport.

Joined by the Mayor's chief adviser on aviation. Welcome to the

programme. Is this a pipe dream for a realistic plan? I think it is very

realistic Jo. Nobody else seems to mention that between now and 2030

the population of London is likely to grow by another 2 million people,

by 25%. If you are sitting there as Mayor of London you've got to think

hard about homes and jobs for them. We have a congested West London and

a Heathrow Airport which isn't doing its job, which is constrained is,

which is environmentally damaging the. Unlike other cities we should

think of moving that outside the city limits. Yes we should be

thinking what can we do with the site that's left over? Rapidly to

move to have jobs and homes for people to accommodate this large

population. That's the right thing to do, it is not a pipe dream. How

many people living in Heathrow and Hounslow rely on Heathrow for its

living. About 145,000 people. Would they lose their jobs? Far from it,

aviation is a growing industry. There is would be more people in

London employed in aviation if you allowed it to grow. This isn't like

a car factory closing and going out of business or a steelworks. This is

a growing industry. There would be more people employed. Many of them

would relocate. Other people... Let me pick you up on the relocation,

because if you are talking about the source of jobs that people have when

they travel a short distance to Heathrow Airport, baggage handlers,

caterers, cabin crew, cleaners. How are they going to relocate? They

were not paid very well and rely on the airport for their livelihoods.

With the right access they'll be able to continue their jobs. Who is

going to pay for their commuting. They have to be near the jobs they

do. That isn't true across London I'm afraid. You don't nope how

London works. I do! People travel from all parts of London to jobs in

other parts of London. Many of them on quite tight wage as. The fact of

the matter is that this is a growing industry with more jobs and

different skill sets. We are talking about something that's going be

happening in about 15 years. We don't know the skill sets that are

going to be needed. Are you going to need the same amount of of baggage

handlers you will have more people employed many aviation and with a

new city available at Heathrow and the jobs involved in creating that

new city, the west of London is going to boom just as much as the

east from this. Are you saying there would be no

adverse effect on West London when you close the airport? There would

be a dislocation effect that the Government can help with in terms of

skills and training and the sort of things that people want over a 15

year period. And we will certainly get huge net benefits from doing

this. So there would be an adverse effect whilst this airport was being

built? While the airport was being built, Heathrow would remain open

during the whole of that period because you have no other airport.

While it is being built and planned and developed over that 15 year

period, anybody working at Heathrow who wanted to stay working at

Heathrow would be able to do so. Other people who work at Heathrow,

many of them police officers and customs officers and immigration

officers, would get relocation packages, the BBC moved to Salford

not long ago and it was done in a very sensible way. Let us ask two

local MPs. Being in London, would this lead to the economic

devastation of West London or is this something you can support? I

have to say that my interest in Heathrow was primarily a

constituency one, so for me it is too early to speak on it. I can see

why the Mayor has to look ahead and have the horizon plan but my

interest is constituency-based so I am waiting to see what the Davis

Commission comes out with and my principal interest is in the noise

levels that affect my constituents. You would like to see it moved away?

I want to make sure that what everywhere we go, we need extra

capacity added as not make life less comfortable. Could you support this?

I will wait and see what the commission says. The Mayor must also

think about capacity and Daniel Moylan says this is a plan. I am

principally thinking of my constituents. Lots of constituents

think this way, is this pie in the sky? Both the public and private

sector have invested a huge amount of money in Heathrow and what is

proposed is they should be another huge investment to build a new

airport and then another lot of huge investment to replace Heathrow, once

it has moved. It is not as though the country is absolutely rolling in

capital, looking for somewhere to invest. The other thing is the whole

of West London, the much wider area, the western side of London is

very much geared to Heathrow being where it is and the location of a

lot of businesses in the county areas to the west of London are also

related to the idea of having a major airport at the west of London,

not in the estuary. Do you have any support? The examples that Frank

gives ignore this has been done successfully in other cities. You

saw the lead of Hillingdon Council talking about this. -- leader of.

People will have new opportunities for jobs and growth, Hong Kong has

benefited so much from moving its airport and developing the new land.

Munich. Lots of places. London is unique but that is not to say you

cannot learn lessons. Denver has moved its airport and become a major

economic success story. We have to leave it there. We can make this a

great success. Good luck with that. Thank you. The rest of the political

news in 60 seconds. Inspectors have been appointed by the government to

examine allegations of financial management and fraud in Tower

Hamlets. Eric Pickles was also handed a file to Metropolitan

Police. The Mayor denies any wrongdoing. Warnings were issued as

a mix of European emissions and dust from the Sahara descended on the

capital. This follows the EU recently launching legal proceedings

against the UK for failing to improve air quality. Starting this

week, hospitals must record and report whether a patient has been

subjected to female genital mutilation or if there is a family

history of the practice. At a full meeting of the London Assembly,

Mayor Boris Johnson was accused of failing to tackle London's housing

crisis. The Mayor aims to build 42,000 homes a year, 17,000 of which

would be affordable. In his first term as Mayor, 57,000 affordable

homes were built. So far in his second term, 18,000 have been

completed. Let's talk briefly about air quality in London because we

have had the Saharan dust over the capital and other parts of the

country. Do you accept this has had a more significant impact because of

all of the poor quality air quality in London that already exists? We

have seen a combination of factors and some are broadly out of our

control and there are some local factors, and those things came

together. We have been making sure that people have been warned if they

have pre-existing conditions to be careful but there are things we can

do. The Mayor is bringing in 600 new clean buses by 2016 so I think

London is beginning to tackle this problem. Yes, because the EU is

launching legal proceedings against the UK after failing to improve air

quality after 13 years of warnings and high-levels of nitrogen dioxide

in London. So, progress has not been made, has it? Well, actually action

has been taken and that is even more important thing in my local council,

we have seen concerted action by the Mayor having a greater impact on the

High Street. We are starting to see action being taken but of course

there is more we can do but there are some factors in the last few

days that have been out of anyone's control. Do you think it is because

there is already a poor level of air quality in London? My constituency,

particularly the Euston Road area, has the worst air pollution in

London already. Are you in favour of electric cars? I am in favour of

anything that reduces pollution but I am also against HS2 coming into

Euston because even the people promoting HS2 admit that it would

add additional air pollution. I think we're going to have to leave

it there but thank you to both of you for being my guests today. That

is all we have got time for. My thanks to Jane Ellison and Frank

Dobson. Tim Donovan is back in the chair next week. And with that, back

to Andrew. Welcome back and time now to get more from our panel. So they

can justify their meagre patents. This cost of living mantra will last

all the way until the election. Cannot? Ed Miliband leaves he is

onto something and for most of this Parliament, inflation has

outstripped wages. That is going to go the other way and wages will

rise, to which you say Ed Miliband has nothing to say. He says if you

think people are going to feel better in the blink of an eye, you

are a Conservative and do not understand the depth of this and he

is taking the message from a presidential election in America in

2012 and make Romney was ahead on some of the economic indicators but

Barack Obama was ahead on the key one, do you believe this candidate

will make your family's life better? The message that Ed Miliband

will try to say is the next election is about whose side are you on? And

he believes Labour will be on the side of more voters than

conservatives. It would be crazy for Labour not to talk about the cost of

living because even if wages exceed inflation next year, it is not as if

voters will walk around feeling like Imelda Marcos, they will still feel

as if they were struggling and not just compared... Retail sales are

slowing? That is not the sign of palpable disparity. Circumstances

are better than three years ago but not better than five years ago. The

Reagan question will still be employed, are you better off than at

the last election? But things in America were actually getting worse

when he asked that. I covered that election, that is why it resonated

and they did get worse. The Ayatollah had quadrupled the price

of oil. This is based on things getting relatively better, after a

very long wait, so the cost of living critique will have to adapt?

It will but it gets out of a very sticky spot and the IFS says wages

will not outstrip inflation and by that time they can start talking

about other things, plans for the railways and tuition fees and at the

moment, everything is up for grabs. Labour know that every time they

talk about something they want to do, the question is, how do you pay

for it? They can talk about the economy and they don't have

substantial things to say. Is it true that Mr Iain Duncan Smith was

going to make a major announcement on benefit cheats? Or something to

do with that this morning? But he decided against it because of the

tobacco over Maria Miller? It would be very odd to go on to The Andrew

Marr Show to have a chat and see what he is having for lunch. Patrick

went from the Guardian said he was going to set out higher financial

penalty phase for providing inaccurate information in claims.

This is a bad day to do that, given that MP expenses are treated far

more lenient the than any one from Joe public. That would be

fascinating, if true. And he is making a very big speech on well for

tomorrow and this tweet from Patrick went at the Guardian, he has proper

sized on welfare matters and he tends to know what is going on. But

it would be deeply unfortunate if that was the message today. How can

he make a speech that has anything about cracking down on benefit

claimants? Not today but I am not sure tomorrow. Do you get the

impression that nobody in both main parties is very confident of winning

in 2015? I column last week said the result, the most likely result from

one year on is another hung parliament and which government

results from that depends on the mathematical specifics of whether

the Tories can do a deal as well as Labour, leaving everything in the

hands of Nick Clegg or whether one party can do a straightforward deal

but I do not detect any sense of exuberance or confidence in either

camp. And the Tories are still shooting themselves over losing the

boundary commission reforms because that was going to net them 20 seats

and they lost that because they messed up the House of Lords reform

and there are still furious with themselves. The former US President,

George W Bush, has been a busy boy and here at the Sunday Politics we

thought you'd like to see the results of his artistic endeavours.

Time for the gallery. I was a prize to find myself saying,

some of these are not bad! -- surprised. Vladimir Putin? I like

the one of Tony Blair but his early ones of dogs, to be in the presence

of the master is to see his portrait of a Joanne Love. He is not of the

Turner prize but I was surprised. He gets the mask of Vladimir Putin,

also Tony Blair. I was impressed that he did not allow personal or

political grudges to influence his artwork. Jacques Chirac, he comes

out of this incredibly well! And Angela Merkel comes out

astonishingly well. Quite generous as well. Tony Blair is the best one

and the reason is he had the closest relationship with them and he has

talked about this portrait, saying he was quite fond of him and you can

see that. These are awful, they would not get you an A-level but you

must admire him to have the guts to do this, and display them publicly!

An A-level? Just doing joined up numbers gets you that these days!

What do you do when you retire? This is less embarrassing than some of

the other things people have done. As good as Churchill? I don't

know... No! Churchill was brilliant! And on that! That's all for today.

Tune into BBC Two every day at lunchtime this week for the Daily

Politics. And we'll be back at the later time of 2:30pm next Sunday

after the London Marathon. Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday

Politics.