29/06/2014 Sunday Politics London

No surprise that Mr Cameron didn't get his way at the European summit.

But does it mean Britain has just moved closer to the EU exit?

Doctors want to ban smoking outright.

A sensible health measure or the health lobby's secret plan all

We've been crunching the numbers to find out whether Parliament's about

Are Royal Mail services under threat as TNT muscles in on more

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

panel in the business Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh.

They've had their usual cognac, or Juncker as it's known in

Luxembourg, for breakfast and will be tweeting under the influence.

He's a boozing, chain-smoking, millionaire bon viveur who's made

it big in the world of European politic.

I speak of Jean-Claude Juncker, the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg

He'll soon be President of the European Commission,

He wasn't David Cameron's choice of course.

But those the PM thought were his allies deserted him and he ended up

on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Fedrealist Juncker.

-- on the wrong end of a 26-2 vote in favour of Arch-Federalist

So where does this leave Mr Cameron's hopes

of major reform and repatriation of EU powers back to the UK?

Let's speak to his Europe Minister David Lidington.

Welcome to the programme. The Prime Minister says that now with Mr

Juncker at the helm, the battle to keep Britain in the EU has got

harder. In what way has it got harder? For two reasons. The

majority of the leaders have accepted the process that shifts

power, it will not careful, from the elected heads of government right

cross Europe to the party bosses, the faction leaders in the European

Parliament and and the disaffection was made clear in many European

countries. Mr Juncker had a distinguished period as head of

Luxembourg, and was not a known reformer, but we have to judge on

how he leads the commission and there were some elements in the

mandate that the heads of government gave this week to the new incoming

European Commission that I think are cautiously encouraging for us. The

Prime Minister talked about those that not everybody wants to

integrate and to the same extent and speed. Let me just interrupt you.

What is new about saying that Europe can go closer to closer union at

different speeds? That has always been the case. It's nothing new.

Indeed there are precedents, and they are good examples of the

approach as part of the course and one of the elements that the Prime

Minister is taking forward in the strategy is to get general

acceptance that while we agree that most of the partners have agreed to

the single currency will want to press forward with closer

integration of their economic and tax policies, but not every country

in the EU is going to want to do that. We have to see the pattern

that has grown up enough to recognise there is a diverse EU with

28 member states and more in the future. We won't all integrate the

extent. It is a matter of a pattern that is differentiation and

integration. I understand that. John Major used to call it variable

geometry, and other phrases nobody used to understand,

geometry, and other phrases nobody that you're back benches don't

geometry, and other phrases nobody any union at any speed, even in

geometry, and other phrases nobody slow lane. They want to go in the

other direction. It depends which backbencher you talk to. There's a

diverse range of views. I think that there is acceptance that the core of

the Prime Minister's approaches to seek reform of the European Union,

for renegotiation after the election, then put it to the British

people to decide. It won't be the British government or ministers that

take the final decision, it's the British people, provided they are a

Conservative government, who will take the decision on the basis of

the reforms that David Cameron secures whether they want to stay in

or not. Is there more of a chance, not a certainty or probability, but

at least more of a chance that with Mr Juncker in that position of

Britain leaving the EU? I don't think we can say that at the moment.

I think we can say that the task of reform looks harder than it did a

couple of weeks ago. But we have do put Mr Juncker to the test. I do

think he would want his commission to be marked and I think that there

is, and I find this in numbers around Europe, and there is a

growing recognition that things cannot go on as they have been.

Europe, economically, is in danger of losing a lot of ground will stop

millions of youngsters are out of work already that reform. There is

real anxiety and a number of countries now about the extent to

which opinion polls and election results are showing a shift of

support to both left and right wing parties, sometimes outright

neofascist movements, expressing real content and resentment at

Howard in touch -- how out of touch decisions have become. You say you

are sensing anxiety about the condition of Europe, so why did they

choose Mr Juncker then? You would have to put that question to some of

the heads of European government. Clearly there were a number for whom

domestic politics played a big role in the eventual decision that they

took. There were some who had signed up to the lead candidate process and

felt they could not back away from that, whatever their private

feelings might have been, but I think the PM was right to say that

this was a matter of principle and it shouldn't just be left as a

stitch up by the European Parliament to tell us what they do. He said, I

can't agree to pretend to acquiesce. They have to make the opposition

clear that go on with reform. Are the current terms of membership for

us unacceptable? The current terms of the membership are very far from

perfect. Are they unacceptable? The current terms are certainly not ones

that I feel comfortable with. The Prime Minister described them as

unacceptable. Do you think they are? We look at the views of the British

people at the moment. If you look at the polling at the moment, the

evidence is that people are split on whether they think membership is a

good thing. I'm asking what you think. David Cameron wants to in --

endorse changes in our interest, but also because the biggest market is

going to suffer if they don't challenge -- grasp the challenge of

political and economic reform. Newsnight, Friday night, Malcolm

Rifkind the former Secretary of State said to me that even if the

choice was to stay in on the existing terms, he would vote to

stay in on the existing terms. He doesn't necessarily like them, but

he would vote to stay in. That is the authentic voice of the Foreign

Office, isn't it? That is the position of your department. Is it

your position? Malcolm Rifkind is a distinguished and independent minded

backbencher. He's not in government now. But that is your position. No,

the position of the government and the Conservative Party in the

government is that we believe that important changes, both economic and

political reforms, are necessary and that they are attainable in our

interest and those of Europe as a whole. Would you vote to stay in on

the existing terms? That's not going to be a question that the

referendum. Really? I know that in 2017 Europe is going to look rather

different to how it looks today. 2017 Europe is going to look rather

different to how it looks today For one thing our colleagues in the

Eurozone will want and need to press ahead with closer integration.

That, in our view, needs to be done in a way that fully respects the

rights of those of us who remain outside. Variable geometry, tackling

things like the abuse of freedom of migration. Those are all in the

conclusions from the leader this week and we should welcome that.

Very briefly, finally, when will you, as a government, give us the

negotiating position of the government? Will you give us what

you hope to achieve before the election or not? David Cameron set

out very clearly in his Bloomberg speech that he wanted a Europe that

was more democratically accountable, more flexible, more at it --

economically competitive. That is all very general. When will you lay

out the negotiating position? It's not general. It is very far from

general. We have seen evidence in the successful cut of the European

budget, the reform of fisheries, budget, the reform of fisheries

those reforms have started to take effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister, effect. We have won some victories

and I'm sure the Prime Minister as and I'm sure the Prime Minister, as

we get towards the general election, will want to make clear what the

Conservative Party position is, and perhaps other political leaders will

do the same for their party. Thank you for joining us this morning. The

you for joining us this morning The harsh reality of this is that there

is a yawning gap between what the Prime Minister can hope to bring

back and what will satisfy his Conservative backbenchers. Yes, I

think the Parliamentary Conservative Party is divided into three parts,

those who would vote to leave the EU regardless, those who would stay

regardless, and a huge middle ground of people who want to stay in on

renegotiated terms. These are not three equal parts. Those who would

vote to stay in regardless are smaller and smaller. Compared to 20

years ago, tiny. But the people in the middle, generally, would only

stay in if you secure a renegotiation that will not be

re-secured. In other words, they are de facto, out by 2017 and the

referendum. This whole saga of the recent weeks has been the single

biggest economy in foreign policy under this government. That's not

what the voters think. -- single biggest ignominy. I mean the failure

to secure the target. The opinion polls show that standing up against

Mr Juncker has proved rather popular. I suggest that is not Mr

Cameron's problem. His problem is that, if in the end he gets only

because Medic changes, and if he says he still thinks that with these

changes -- cosmetic changes. And he says that they should stay in, that

would split the Tory party wide open. Eurosceptics say would be the

biggest split since the corn laws. He wants to protect the position of

coming out, and you might get that. He wants to crack down on abuse of

benefits, and he might get that He benefits, and he might get that. He

wants to restrict freedom of movement for future member states,

and that's difficult, because it is a treaty change. And he wants to

deal with closer union, but that is also treaty change. In the Council

conclusions, David Cameron was encouraged because it said, let s

look at closer union, but it did not say it would reform. All it said was

ever closer union can be interpreted in different ways. In other words,

we're not going to change it. The fundamental problem the David

Cameron was that two years ago, when he vetoed the fiscal compact, that

showed Angela Merkel was unwilling to help them and what happened in

the last two weeks was that Angela Merkel was unable to help him. There

is not a single leader of the European Union that once Juncker as

president, and he doesn't want it, he wants the note take a job at the

European Council. But there was this basic stitch up by the European

Parliament that meant he was presented, and when Angela Merkel

put the question over his head there was a huge backlash in Germany and

she was unable to deliver. I understand that, but I'm looking

forward to Mr Cameron's predicament. I don't know how he squares the

circle. It seems inconceivable that he can bring back enough from

Brussels to satisfy his backbenchers. No, you can't. Most of

them fundamentally want out. They don't want to be persuaded by

renegotiations. Where it's hard to draw conclusions from the polling is

that if you ask people question that sounds like, do you like the fact

that our Prime Minister has gone to Brussels and stuck it to the man,

they say yes, but how many people will go to the voting booths and put

their cross in the box based on Europe? We know mostly voters care

about Europe as a proxy for immigration fears. In ten people in

this country could not tell you who John Claude Juncker is Angela Weir

is replacing. -- and who he is replacing.

And I'm joined in the studio now by arch-Eurosceptic Conservative MEP,

Daniel Hannan and from Strasbourg by staunch European and former Liberal

war? His declared objectives would leave Britain still in the common

agricultural policy, the common foreign policy, the European arrest

warrant, so the negotiating aims which we just heard Nick setting out

wouldn't fundamentally change anything. It would be easy for the

Government to declare war on any of these things. The danger from your

point of view as someone who wants to stay in is that if David Cameron

only gets cosmetic changes, the chance of getting the vote to leave

the European Union increases, doesn't it? Hypothetically it

probably does but we have two big things to get through first in

domestic politics before we even reach a negotiation. One is are we

going to have the United Kingdom this time next year following the

referendum in Scotland? Secondly, are the Conservatives after the

general election next year going to be in a position to pursue a

negotiation? In other words are they going to be a majority government or

even a minority government? For the sake of this morning let's assume

the answer to both is yes, the UK stays intact and against the polls

they were saying this morning, David Cameron forms an overall majority

after the election. There is a danger, if he doesn't bring much

back, that people will vote yes, back, that people will vote yes

correct? There is that danger and I see a lot of the British press

comment this morning saying this could be a rerun of the Harold

Wilson like negotiation of the 1970s, a bit cosmetic but enough to

say we have got new terms and you should go with it. I think what is

different however, and this is really an appeal if you like, it

cannot just be left to the Liberal Democrats and coalition government

to make this case on our Rome. A lot of interest groups across the land

will have to start being prepared to put their head above the parapet on

the fundamental - do you want Britain to remain in the European

Union? Yes or no? Are you willing to put your public reputations on the

line? We are not getting enough of that at the moment and it is getting

dangerously close to closing time. Daniel Hannan, David Cameron will

not get away with this, will he? It not get away with this, will he It

will be an acceptable to his party. If it is an acceptable to Tory

backbenchers it is because it is working and they are reflecting what

their constituents say. A majority of people in the country are unhappy

with the present terms. They can see there is a huge wide world beyond

the oceans and we have confined ourselves to this small trade bloc.

There is a huge debate to be had about whether we could be doing

better outside. It is not danger, it is democracy, trusting people. If

the only person offering a referendum at the moment is the

Prime Minister, it has serious consequences for his party, your

party, that's what I'm talking about. I am very proud of being part

of the party that is trusting people to offer this. If he only gets

cosmetic changes he cannot carry his party. But ultimately it will not be

his party, it is the electorate as a whole that has to decide whether the

changes are substantive. Everything we have been hearing just now is

about staying out of future integration, protecting the role of

the non-euro countries. People are upset about what is going on today

with the EU. They can see laws being passed by people they cannot vote

for, friendships overseas are prejudiced, and they conceive that

the European Union has just put in charge in the top slot somebody who

wants a United States of Europe into which we will eventually be dragged

into as some kind of Providence. Jean-Claude Juncker is a Federalist,

you are Federalist, why did the Lib Dems oppose him? We shared the view

that whilst you take account of what the members of the European

Parliament say, ultimately the choice of the presidency in the

commission should be the political leaders, the governmental leaders at

a national level, and that's why we went down the route we did. It was

more to do with the system than the individual. Although I would say

that you need to bear in mind, I mean Daniel, I respect him

personally and the integrity of his views, as I think he does mine, but

to dismiss the European Union as a small trading block globally, when

you have got the United States of America, China and other countries

acknowledging its importance, it is really Walter Mitty land. Are we

closer than... Daniel Hannan, are we closer to an exit after what

happened last week? Yes, because the idea that we could get substantive

reforms, gets a mythic and powers back and be within a looser, more

flexible European Union has plainly been closed off. We have to face up

to the actual European Union that has taken shape on our doorstep. Are

has taken shape on our doorstep Are we going to be part of that or are

we going to have a much more semidetached, looser relationship

with it which we can either achieve via a unilateral system of power or

another way. This debate is never-ending, it is going on and on

and has bedevilled British prime ministers for as long as I can

remember. Shouldn't the Lib Dems change their stance on the

referendum yet again let's just have this in-out referendum and have it

sided one way or another? Our position remains clear. If there is

a constitutional issue put before us in terms of treaty changes then we

will have a referendum. Why not now? I am probably the wrong person to

ask because I argued and voted for a referendum on Maastricht because I

thought that was a constitutional treaty. Anything that makes the

Queen a citizen of the European Union surely has constitutional

implications. Anyway, 20 years on we are where we are and we need to

established common vocabulary. You talk about federalism. What do we

mean? Most of the people operating in the European Parliament and the

institution across the road, the Council of Europe, they mean by

federalism decentralisation of powers, not a Brussels superstate

but actually the kind of decentralisation that maintains

national characteristics and pools resources and sovereignty where it

makes sense. Mr Juncker, who is now going to be in charge of the

Brussels commission, he believes in a single EU reform policy, an EU

wide minimum wage and EU wide taxes. You said this week that you

liked the sound of Juncker federalism. Does that sound good to

you? No, and I think the new president of the commission will be

disappointed if he puts forward these views because although we only

had Hungary voting with us, I think if you go to other countries,

France, Poland, Scandinavia, they are not going to buy that kind of

menu. What they mean by federalism is the continental concept, also the

North American concept, that we can sit very happily... They have an

army, a federal police force, federal taxation. Yes, but in terms

of the political institutions which is what we are discussing here, you

can have the supranational, the European level, whilst still having

the very vibrant national, and indeed as we are practising in the

United Kingdom the subnational. A very brief final word from you,

Daniel. That is ultimately going to be the choice. The European Union is

an evolving dynamic, we can see the direction it is going in. Do we want

to be part of that? I suspect Charles Kennedy would have loved a

referendum. I cannot help but notice his party is going downhill since he

was running it. It is illegal to light up in the workplace, pubs and

restaurants. Now the British Medical Association has voted to outlaw

everywhere but not everybody at once. It would apply to anyone born

after the year 2000. In a moment we will debate the merits of those

plans but first he is Adam. There was a time when to be British

was to be a smoker. 1948 was the year off peak fag with 82% of men

smoking mainly cigarettes but it was a pipe that Harold Wilson used as a

political prop to help with the hard-hitting interviews they did in

those days. The advertisements make out pipe smokers to be more virile,

more fascinating men than anybody else. Do you thought -- have that

thought anywhere in your mind? No. It changed in 2006 when smoking in

enclosed places was banned. I would rather be inside but unfortunately

we have got to do what this Government tells us to do. I think

it is good, it is calm and you can breathe. Research suggests it has

improved the health of bar workers no end and reduced childhood asthma.

Now just one in five adults is a smoker. Coming next, crackdowns on

those newfangled e-cigarettes, smoking in cars and possibly the

introduction of plain packaging. There is still those who take pride

in smoking and see it as a war on freedom.

We're joined now by Dr Vivienne Nathanson

from the British Medical Association who voted for a graduated ban

on smoking at their conference last week, and Simon Clark

They're here to go head-to-head There are plenty of things which are

bad for our health, why single out cigarettes? We need some sugar in

our diets but the fact is that we need to stop people smoking as

children because if we can do that, the likelihood that they will start

smoking is very small. In no circumstances is smoking good for

you. There are lots of smokers who live long, healthy lives but we

totally accept smoking is a risk to your health and adults have to make

that decision, just as you make the decision about drinking alcohol,

eating fatty foods and drinking sugary drinks. This proposal is

totally impractical. It will create a huge black market in cigarettes

which will get bigger every year. They say this is about stopping

children smoking but there is already a law in place that stops

shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children. This target adults so

you could have the bizarre situation in the year 3035 for example where a

36-year-old can go into shops to buy cigarettes but if you are 35 you

will be denied that, which is ludicrous. The point is that the

younger you start smoking the more likely you will become heavily

addicted. I take the point, but the point he is saying is that if this

becomes law, down the road, if you go into shops to buy cigarettes you

would have to take go into shops to buy cigarettes you

no idea how the legislation would be written but the key point is that if

we can stop young people from starting to smoke, we will in 20

years have a whole group of people who have never smoked so you won't

have that problem of people who are smokers and they are now in their

20s and 30s. Or you will have a lot of younger people who get cigarettes

the way they currently get illegal drugs now. They are already getting

cigarettes illegally and we have to deal with that. We have got to get

better. The Government has not been able to stop it. We know this is

going to kill 50%... When you are 15 you think you will live for ever.

Indeed but they also do it as rebellion and because they see

adults and it is remarkably easy to buy cigarettes. Whatever the case is

for individual choice, won't most people agree that if you could stop

young people smoking, so that through the rest of their lives they

never smoked, that would be worth doing? You get 16 or 17-year-olds

who already do that. Is it worth trying? When the government

increased the age at which shopkeepers could sell from 16 to

18, we supported it. We don't support a ban on proxy purchasing,

we support reasonable measures, but this is unreasonable. This proposal

says a lot about the BMA, because this week the BMA also passed a

motion to ban the use of E cigarettes in public places. There

is no evidence that they are dangerous to health, so why are they

doing that? They are becoming a temperance society. This is not

about public health, it's an old-fashioned temperance society and

they have to get their act together because they are bringing the

medical profession into disrepute. We were having argument is about

things that people buy large accept, smoking in bars or public places,

but the real aim of the BMA was the total banning of cigarettes

altogether. This would suggest that that was true to claim that. It s

not about a ban, it's about a move to a country where nobody wants to

smoke and no one is a smoker. But it would be illegal to smoke. It would

be illegal to buy, not smoke, and there's a difference between two. So

even if I am born in the year 2000, even if I am born in the year 2 00,

it would still be illegal to smoke, just illegal to buy the cigarettes?

Indeed. The point being that the habit of smoking is very strongly

linked to your ability to buy, so that is why things like Price and

availability and marketing are so important. People will flood across

the Channel with the cigarettes. One the Channel with the cigarettes One

thing you will find is that throughout the world people is

looking at -- people are looking at the same kind of measures, and

different countries like Australia, they were the first with a

standardised packaging. Other countries will follow, because all

of us are facing the fact that we can't afford to pay for the

tragedy. There will be people waiting to flood the market with

cigarettes. This is nonsense. Thanks for both coming and going

head-to-head. "Unless we have more equal

representation, our politics won't be half as good as it should be."

So said David Cameron back in 2 09. So said David Cameron back in 2009.

So how's it going? Well, you can judge the quality

of the politics for yourself, but we've been crunching

the numbers to find out what parliament might look like after

the next year's general election. Here's Giles.

Politicians are elected to Parliament to represent their

constituents, but the make-up of Parliament does not reflect society

well at all the parties it. In 010 well at all the parties it. In 2010

more women and ethnic minority candidates entered Westminster but

not significantly more inner chamber still dominated by white males.

Looking at the current make-up of the Commons, Labour has 83 female

MPs, the Conservative have 47 women MPs, which is just over 47% -- and

the Lib Dems have 12% of the parties. All of the parties have

selected parliaments in those seats where existing MPs are retiring and

to fight seats at the next election, and they've all been

trying to up the number of women and ethnic minorities because discounts

and can be capitalised on. A picture tells a thousand words. Look at the

all-male front bench before us. And he says he wants to represent the

whole country. Despite the jibe, the whole country. Despite the jibe the

Labour Party know they have a long way to go on the issue of being

representative. So we way to go on the issue of being

look at this particular area of lack of women and ethnic minorities.

In the most marginal, 40 have women candidates, that would mean if they

got just enough to win power, they would have 133 women, which is 41%

The Conservatives currently have 305 MPs and their strategy

at the next election is to concentrate on their 40 most

marginal seats, and the 40 seats most mathematically likely to turn

In those 40, 29 candidates have been selected

If they kept hold of their existing seats and won those 29 new ones

they would have 56 women MPs, around 17%, and up 2% from last time.

The Liberal Democrats are fighting to hold on to the 57 seats they won

at the last election, if they manage that, they would have

However all the indications are it could be

a bad night for the Lib Dems, if they lost 20 seats, on a uniform

swing it would leave them with just four women, 11% of the party.

One Conservative peer who thinks the party needs to look at all

options if it's female numbers go down in 2015, says Parliament is

The bottom line is, if 50% of our population is not being looked at

evenly, are we really using the best of our talent? And yes, women's life

experiences are different. They are not superior, they are not inferior.

They are different. But surely those life experiences need to be

represented here at Westminster So that's the Parliamentary

projection for gender, According to the last census

in 2011, 13% of people in the UK Labour currently has 16 MPs from

black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds or just over 6%, if they

get their extra 68 seats that figure would go up to 26, 8% of their party

were from BAME backgrounds. The Tories currently have 11 BAME

candidates, or 4% of the party. If they get an extra 29 seats,

that would mean 14 BAME MPs, The Liberal Democrats

don't have any BAME MPs. If they manage to cling

on to their current number of seats they would have two,

giving them a proportion of 4%. If they lost

their 20 most vulnerable seats, But even if you changed the mix

of gender and ethnicity in Parliament would that solve

the problem? Probably not. Only 10% of us have gone to

a private fee paid school. A Quarter of all Mps went to Oxford

or Cambridge. Only a fifth

of us went to any university. There is a huge disillusionment with

the political elite due to the fact that these people don't look like

us. They don't speak like us, they don't have our experiences and they

cannot communicate in a way we relate to. If you look at the

turnout, at the moment, if you are an unskilled worker, you are 20

points less likely to turn and vote than a middle-class professional and

that is getting worse with single election.

And that's the key, evidence does suggest that if a

Party reflects the society it exists within, it is more likely to get

It's just gone 11.35pm, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll have more from the panel.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Joining us for the next 20 minutes or so,

Sir Richard Ottaway, Conservative MP for Croydon South and

Teresa Pearce, Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead. Welcome to you both.

Let's start today, after we have considered how TNT is muscling in on

the Royal Mail's London patch. Is it a game changer for how we get our

post? That in a moment, but first a quick word on Chancellor George

Osborne calling for the creation of a northern hub. How would this rival

the capital? Well,

he says by focusing on four key areas; by providing modern transport

connections; backing science and universities; backing Northern

creative clusters and by giving them One thing that emerged from this was

more discussion about whether London is sucking the life out of the rest

of the country. Is that what George Osborne means? I wouldn't say

sucking the life out of the rest of the country. There's no doubt about

it, there is a clear focus on the British economy in London and it is

the engine room. We clearly want to devolve as much of that economy as

we can do the North. There has been a lot of investment in the north, as

there is a ?600 million infrastructure project going on,

there is a ?600 million infrastructure project going on and

we have seen 20,000 more jobs which is a boost the economy, but what

he's talking about, because people are to good transport links, if we

actually connect the city 's up we will get people to go there --

people are attracted to good transport links. That will take some

of the pressure of London. Does London have this role that somehow

saps the rest of the country, or do you think that there is a need for a

rebalancing? I think London is important. But everything is London

centric, so people look around London and think this is what we

need, more housing, more jobs but they don't look outside of where

they are talking about. I was brought up in Lancashire, so

Manchester has undergone quite a revival and you have media city

there, and what we need to look at in transport is not just line is not

just lines that come to and from London, or north to south, we need

to West. Do you not think there is a danger or the intention is, by

reflecting attention to the North, a recognition that possibly over the

last three or four years the party hasn't got this right yet in terms

of economic balance? I don't agree with that. I think it's important to

note that George Osborne is an MP for Cheshire. The first Chancellor

of the Exchequer to come from that region for some time. But Manchester

is the next big hub in Britain. It is where the industrial revolution

and its heart, and like most regions, it needs a shot in the arm

now and again and he feels that the time is right, because he spends a

lot of time there and he can see it, and personally I think is right

to focus on it. Not for electoral reasons or anything like that. I

think he wants to get his long-term economic plan going and to give a

boost to the Northern economy. . boost to the Northern economy.

Let's get the focus back on London. The housing charity Shelter has this

week published a report claiming the vast majority of property

in London is out of the reach Families with children are

particularly missing out. The housing charity Shelter looked

at thousands of properties on sale in London on any given day and

compared it to the mortgage that the average family working in the

borough could afford. According to the report, 99.7% of homes were too

expensive for those who could put down the average 18% deposit. For

families with the smaller 5% deposit, the picture was even more

stark. The report comes as official figures show average house prices in

London rising almost 20% in the last year.

Joining me in the studio is the Head of Shelter, Campbell Robb.

Welcome to you. Just outline again the methodology. You made a

comparison between incomes and expenditure. Outline that

methodology. We looked at one single deal on one of the property websites

and looks every the sale in England and London and we looked at the

house prices and we set them against what the average wage is for a

family and what the average deposit was. What that clearly showed was

that were an average working family, with two incomes, who have saved up

a bit and got an average deposit, nearly 88% of properties were not

affordable to them. In some areas there was no property available and

in some areas there was one or a handful. What it clearly shows is

the real drought of affordable homes for families who are increasingly

stuck in properties that are either too small or rental market not fit

for purpose. You made an assumption that you could get a deposit of

about 18%. That high? What we also show is that if you have the smaller

deposit, a Help-To-Buy deposit of 5%, then 0.1% of properties were

available. You have a smaller deposit and your monthly costs go

up. It is the first time you've done this exercise? Do you presume that

this will starkly change? This differential has happened in 18

months. We have seen London house prices rise by 18%, and the average

price is ?475,000. It is a housing market that is so far away from the

average family and what they want to be able to achieve and we really

need to see effort from the Mayor of London and the government to get

some affordable housing bill. Things like Help-To-Buy were meant to

precisely remove this. Most Help-To-Buy is helping people with a

small deposit of 5%, which puts the average cost per month and the

research shows that across London less than 0.1% of properties

available for a family, two bedrooms or more, could help Help-To-Buy.

or more, could help Help-To-Buy It's not really helping people in

London. Sir Richard, let's bring you in, a seat like Croydon web people

see the demographic changing because they are forced out of high-priced

central London properties and it puts the pressure on you. Or tell

me? Can you see pressure in that area?

property constituency. It is an interesting report though it doesn't

include studio flats, share them -- accommodation and retirement homes

but I think we have to kick-start housing and get interest rates down,

which the Government is doing its best to keep interest rates down.

Since 2010 we have built some 200,000 affordable homes, 70,000 in

London, another 15,000 in the pipeline. We have built more council

houses in the last year than the Government did in its entire 13

years. The average family in London, they don't recognise that. They have

been built. But they are not genuinely affordable average

families who are stuck in a rental market which is too expensive and

broken for them. We need to see more genuinely affordable being built.

Successive governments have failed to do this but there are people

watching this programme trying to buy their own home in London who

will feel there is not much for them. Successive governments, he

said, and these properties should have been started and done under

Labour government. Yes, they should. In my constituency, on the

salary I earn now, if I was starting now without a hefty deposit I would

not be able to buy a house for my family. That is a ridiculous

situation. Stable homes make stable communities and it is in the

interest of everyone to make sure we have places for all our public

servants to live. If we end up in a city where firefighters, nurses and

teachers cannot live, what is the future for Londoners? Can't they

live in places like Croydon South? Are you seeing already people being

forced out of London? But we are building the homes. Boris Johnson is

releasing a lot of land at the moment and we have got something

like over 200,000 planning permission is being given. What do

you say to people who are suffering now? Well, unlucky, you were the

wrong generation, and about a bit longer? I cannot deny the fact that

house prices in London are rocketing. But there are still

plenty of places outside of London warehouses are much cheaper, much

more affordable and we were talking a second ago about the Northern

hub, houses but there are reasonably priced. People should be leaving

London to go and live there? That will be the long-term result of the

Northern hub, that some of the economic base of London will move to

relieve pressure and boost the north. That is the answer rather

than going through any big house-building programme? It is not

just in London that people cannot afford houses, there are whole range

of places where they are struggling to so. We need to do both. At the

moment we have a lot of homes in the north and not so many jobs, and we

have more jobs in the south and not so many homes. We need a decent

programme happening now. The Royal mail has complained to come TNTs

growing presence, it says by cherry picking a few areas which are

profitable, the company is threatening its own universal

service. Sending a letter used to be a fairly

straightforward affair. It went in the letterbox, Royal Mail collected

it, and delivered it to the recipient. Not any more. In fact the

Postal Service has changed so much in the last ten years or so that

over half of the male in the UK is collected and sorted not by Royal

Mail but by its private sector competitors, and when it comes to

business mail the new kids on the block like UK Mail and TNT have 70%

of the market. Most of it now seems to be coming from various

competitors. I have noticed very few have dumps all Royal Mail logos,

competitors. I have noticed very few have dumps all Royal Mail logos it

is mainly all sorts of other logos now. Across town at the Balham

operation, at TNT the rivalry is under way. They are now active in

around one third of London, and in the places that they are, some 5%

of all letters delivered come from a TNT employee rather than the

traditional Royal Mail postman. However there have been some high

profile cases of male going missing. In April, it was reported

that one London resident found over 200 letters dumped in a bush and

this post was discovered by the Conservative MP for Hendon after it

was dumped in a river. Myself and some supporters were cleaning up the

river and we noticed a lot of cans and mattresses and things like

that. We noticed a black sack which opened up to reveal lots of council

tax bills, notifications from banks and other official documents which

have not been delivered. It is very important mail, as I said, a council

tax notification, and those who needed that information were

probably not in a position to be able to work out what had happened

to their letters. TNT have pointed out that the vast majority of their

mail is delivered without a hitch, but according to Royal Mail the

problem with TNT is that their new covers are only delivering to the

most profitable parts of the country, mostly so far in London

which gives them an unfair advantage. The universal service

offering is described in law so we have got to deliver to every address

in the UK six days a week. If we don't have the volumes of mail that

allow us to cross subsidise, so business cross subsidising, we will

get to a tipping point where the economic spur of the universal

service offering don't make sense. Last week Royal Mail asked off, to

look at this. The review is promised but not until next year. In the

meantime, you might well find a TNT postman delivering at your door.

meantime, you might well find a TNT postman delivering at your door The

company aimed to soon cover nearly half the country. Mark Littlewood is

here now, welcome to you. What do you say here? Is it important to

preserve the universality of the Royal mail service or is that the

problem? I think that is the problem. If you are determined that

you want a system that we guarantee that the same price of a stamp every

household and every business in the country, competition becomes very

difficult indeed. You can understand why TNT would concentrate on London

and Manchester, because moving post around in densely concentrated

cities is relatively cheap. You wouldn't need to charge 60p for a

first-class stamp for a letter moving within London. Royal Mail

have got a point. If you are going to demand of them that they have got

to deliver six times a week to every household no matter how far flung to

the corners of the UK, it will be difficult to compete with these

insurgents. The problem you are saying is that we have gone to a

partial opening up but not a complete opening up of the market.

That's right and we seem unwilling to change the universal service

obligation at all. Do we really need to guarantee all six days of the

week, or might three days a week be OK? Can there be some differential

pricing if you are sending a letter within a city like London or

Manchester, might that be a a service the Royal Mail can offer? It

does make their job very difficult. Should it be the case that people

paid more in rural areas or areas over a wider geographical spread

than in urban areas? I think that is perfectly reasonable. I was trying

to work out the cost of sending a letter from John O groats to Land's

End. It runs to maybe ?20 or ?30 letter from John O groats to Land's

End. It runs to maybe ?20 or ?3 and we are only charging 60p. If you

choose to live in a cold area of the country, your heating bill will be

relatively higher, or if you live in a fairly remote area your train

journey to London will be more expensive. I don't understand why

postal services are uniquely different. What would you do here?

Restrict TNT or say to the Royal Mail you don't have to be

universally more? The Royal Mail are in an extremely difficult situation

because they are bound to deliver a service that their competitors are

not bound to do. At the moment it is said... It is like you have put them

in a race and tied their shoelaces together. They cannot possibly

compete with TNT who employ people on zero hours contracts and low

wages. The service delivery is not up to scratch. Yes, we can have

competition but it needs to be true competition. What do you think? Is

it time to have a serious look at universality and say realistically

the Royal Mail, you will not have to do that in the future. The arguments

that were put forward, when we introduced the Postal Service act in

2011 these arguments were put forward and it is not a genuine

market because we have a regulator with the power to intervene, to

provide subsidy to Royal Mail if necessary to provide a universal

service, and he has the power to impose conditions on TNT and any

other operator in the market at the same time. To me, that is the best

way to keep the simplicity of the service rather than what I think a

fairly complex structure. Can you, if the Royal Mail are saying that

under the present system allowing TNT to expand, they are not going to

be able to afford... They are just not going to be able to provide that

universal service? The regulator as recently as last November looked at

it and said there is not a problem with the universal service at the

moment, but he has got the power is here. He can set up what they call a

contribution fund, which can guarantee the universal service For

guarantee the universal service. For the time being, nothing is set in

stone and I think that is the right way forward. That is all we have got

time for today. Now it is time for the rest of the week's political

news in 60 seconds. A new study has found that in - in

London eligible for free meals have surpassed those in the of England.

London's Deputy Mayor for policing has confirmed the Metropolitan

police has purchased three water cannon from Germany, which cannot be

deployed until the Home Secretary authorises their use in England and

Wales. A new report finds many child

protection services are in crisis and a large number of children are

slipping through the net. In Prime Minister 's question time

Labour's may Hayley raised the problem of the unavailability of

faster broadband. Businesses in Shoreditch and the city cannot get

fast broadband, this is a national embarrassment. My right honourable

friend the culture secretary is working very hard to deal with those

areas of the country that do not have superfast broadband and I will

make sure he puts Hackney firmly on his list. What Stephen Green has

said this week is that water cannon fill the last gap in a kind of

public order toolkit, he called it, just in case we need it. I think

that is very disappointing. We need to be putting our money into

policing on the streets and looking at why the riots for instance

happened, and what we can do to stop them happening again and I don't

think water cannon would be effective. In an area like mine it

is different in the boulevards of cities but in an area like London

around St Paul's, those little narrow roads, how would you use

water cannon there? I think it is a waste of You had trouble in Croydon.

We certainly did. In 2012, the rights we had in Croydon, the water

cannons would have made a difference -- the riots. Croydon might be a

different place today if we had had them. The police have to make the

operational decisions about when to use them. I think they can be

effective in certain circumstances. 200,000 German police knock-offs,

second-hand, only a few years left. The key point, the Home Secretary

has not made a final decision. Boris is not averse to finding a bargain

in the marketplace and he has got cheap. I suspect he has had a nudge

and a wink that there will be some guidance coming from the Home

Secretary, and it's probably worth buying them. He wouldn't have been

so foolish to go ahead and and do it otherwise. So you think he will

know? He began as Mayor of London saying he would make the streets

more peaceful and with less crime, and halfway through a second term he

is buying water cannons. Just a final point, is there any concerns

about injuries caused by them? Health and safety issues? That is

why they are rather good. Water pushes people back but doesn't do

long-term damage. If you are rioting, you have to accept that

there is a risk that the police might come back at you. There have

been problems elsewhere in Europe, but I take your point. Thanks to

both of you today. Back to you, Andrew.

Now, there have been some less-than-helpful remarks

about the way the Labour party makes policy, and they've come

from the man who is heading Labour's Policy Review, Jon Cruddas.

In a speech to party activists he was recorded saying that,

"instrumentalised, cynical nuggets of policy to chime with our focus

groups and our press strategies and our desire for a topline in terms of

the 24 hour media cycle, dominate and crowd out any

He added that Labour's election strategy was being hampered by a

The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was asked about what Mr Cruddas had

I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he's not frustrated, he is

excited about his policy agenda. He excited about his policy agenda He

is frustrated that one report of 250 pages gets reduced down. So it's our

fault? That is the way we live in the world in which we live, but we

have big ideas about devolution long term infrastructure spending

and new manufacturing policy, new investment in skills, big changes

which, let's be honest, I'm really on George Osborne's agenda. How

serious is this? It is Wimbledon, so let's call it an unforced error. You

go to the party speeches, and you don't know who is in the audience.

There is no need for something as serious as this to happen. It's

hugely serious because it speaks about something people have felt for

a long time, that they have doled out little nuggets of policy but no

overarching story. There was a quite saying the Ed Miliband has given as

a shopping list, not a narrative. When people in the party say things

that are true, it's very difficult for people to explain it away. Not

sure Mr Miliband can win here. He was recently criticised for not

having policies. Now he's being criticised for having too many. I

think this line of attack is particularly wounding because he

prides himself on being a politician of ideas. That is his unique selling

point, and the weight that David Cameron's prime ministerial nature

is his selling point. So it is wounding. If I was the Labour Party,

before announcing any policy, I would ask can help fix us on the

economy? It might be radicalised immolating on its own terms, but

it's politically useless. -- radical and innovative on its own terms. I

don't think any member of the public does not think they are not radical

enough or creative enough. If anything, it's the opposite. They

are a bit nervous about what a Labour government could do and

nervous about the economic reputation. Reassurance, caution,

maybe a bit of timidity might be the notions that inform their policies

or should inform their policies in night -- my view, not the opposite.

I am worried for Jon Cruddas, because anyone who questions the

Labour Party are part of the nexus of the banking industry who are

terrified of a Labour victory. It's interesting that this goes to the

heart of the debate in the Labour Party, at the highest levels, do

they put a big offer to the British people, or a little off, John

Cruddas offer, or Douglas Alexander offer? Ed Miliband says that his

ideas about freezing energy prices and rent controls are a big offer,

but his policy chief clearly has real concerns that they don't go far

enough. How important a figure is John Cruddas in the project? He is

hell of the -- head of the policy review and has a huge amount of

power, and so him slagging off the policy review is a bad moment. He is

trusted in that inner circle and the problem for Ed Miliband from the odd

is that he has people with strong opinions, Maurice clasping is

another, big thinkers, but they maybe don't have a precaution that a

professional politician might have in terms of giving bland answers.

So, David Cameron had to apologise after his former director

of communications was convicted of phone hacking.

David Cameron's other former friend, Rebekah Brooks, had a better day.

At the same trial, she was cleared of all the charges against her.

I take full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson. I did some

on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and

those turned out not to be the case. I always said that if they turned

out to be wrong, I would make a full and frank apology, and I do that

today. I am extremely sorry that I employed him. It was the wrong

decision. I'm clear about that. When I was arrested it was in the middle

of a maelstrom of controversy, politics and of comment. Some of

that was there, but much of it was not, so I'm grateful to the jury for

coming to that decision. Not been a great week for David Cameron. Andy

Coulson found guilty, and another person who had worked in Downing

Street is also charged on an unrelated issue. And he was 26- on

unrelated issue. And he was 26-2 on the wrong end in Brussels, and there

is a poll this morning which no one seems to be talking about which puts

Labour nine points ahead. Before all that there was Dominic Cummings

criticising the Downing Street operation is being shambolic. Is Mr

Cameron's judgement becoming an issue? Yes, what often happens when

one leader is under pressure for long enough, as Ed Miliband has been

the six months, we get bored. We then switch the Gatling gun to the

other guy. So David Cameron going into the Conference season might be

the man under pressure. The whole Andy Coulson saga has raised

questions about his judgement and those around him, but any political

damage she was going to sustain over Andy Coulson and phone hacking was

sustained years ago -- he was going. It was Brother beyond the

date the News of the World was closed down three summers ago - it

was probably on the date. As the hacking trial cut through to the

general public? Or is it just as media and political obsessives? I am

sure it has cut through in some way but it didn't necessarily happen in

recent days, more likely in recent years. It was some time ago that

Andy Coulson resigned in high profile circumstances. It has had a

slow burning effect over a few years, and the Prime Minister fears

the Big Bang. But there is one theme and words that unites this week with

Juncker and Andy Coulson, and that is that the Prime Minister can be

lackadaisical. He was lackadaisical in not asking big question is when

there was a lot in the public domain about what had happened that the

News of the World. And he was lackadaisical with Juncker. He made

a calculation that Angela Merkel would support him and it turned out

she couldn't. Maybe he needs to change. He was late in understanding

what was happening in Germany when both the Christian Democrats, her

party, wanted Juncker, and when the actual Murdoch press of Germany said

that they wanted him as well. He never saw that. He only looks at one

person in Germany, Angela Merkel, and it is a grand coalition, and the

SDP felt strongly about it. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime

Minister. He is, in a sense, an essay crisis Prime Minister. He's

essay crisis Prime Minister. He s very good in an essay, and the SA

gets a double first the essay. Is Ed Miliband right to be angry? He has

John Cruddas attacking him, and that is the news leading in the Sunday

Times, and has not been a good week the Prime Minister and in which Mr

Miliband has a bigger lead in the polls than he has had some time, so

polls than he has had some time so he must be wondering why they are

having a go at him. He made a tactical error in Prime Minister's

Questions by asking all the questions about Andy Coulson. The

one at the end about what Gus O'Donnell said was rather hopeful in

the extreme. Politicians can be out of touch on all sides of the house.

The problem is, and there is a great quote by William Hague, is that the

Tory party has two modes, panic and complacency. At the moment they are

complacent. They think Ed Miliband will lose Labour election but I

don't know if they have a positive plan about how to win it. -- lose

Labour the election. Now, we knew Prince Charles had

trouble keeping his views about the environment

and the countryside to himself, but that's not the only thing he's

passionate about according to a radio four documentary to be

broadcast this lunchtime. Here's former Education Secretary,

David Blunkett on how the Prince had once attempted to influence

his policy on schools. I would explain that our policy was

not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very

keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had

what he would've seen as the opportunity to escape from their

background, where as I wanted to change their background.

And you can hear that documentary - it's called The Royal Activist -

Does it matter that Prince Charles is getting involved in this kind of

policy, released behind closed doors question mark on the issue of

grammar schools is not clear anybody listened to him. I think it is a

principal problem. I've spoken to form a government members, and

judging by what they say, if anything we underestimate how much

contacting makes with ministers. And contacting makes with ministers And

how many representations he makes on the issue that interest him. There

has been an attempt to keep it hidden. It's almost a theological

question about whether the future monarch should be involved in the

public realm. If he wants to influence policy, shouldn't we know

what policy he's trying to influence and what position he is taking?

Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly --

Sewer speech is better than private one-on-one lobbying. Possibly - so

a speech. Prince Charles's views are interesting. He's not a straight

down the light reactionary. He makes a left-wing case for rammer schools.

There is an interview with him in the Financial Times in which his

argument in favour for architectural development takes into account

affordable housing in the wake which no one would have suspected. He has

interesting views, but I'm not convinced on the point of principle

whether someone is dashing his position should be speaking. Your

former employer 's famously described him as the SDP king. You

slightly feel sorry for him. He s described him as the SDP king. You

slightly feel sorry for him. He's 66 and still an apprentice. He's in a

difficult position. We know what the powers of the monarch are. They are

to advise in courage and warned the Prime Minister of the day. These in

the difficult position where the problem for him is that there is a

line that isn't really defined, but you slightly feel he just gets a bit

too close to it and possibly crosses that line with the lobbying that

goes on. I think the worrying thing is that at some point he will become

King and will he know that he has got to work within that framework?

He is somebody that cannot win either. If he doesn't take an

interest in public policy, he will be thought to be a bit of a waster,

going round opening town halls, and when he does have an interest we

think, hey, you are in the monarchy, stay out. There's an interesting

parallel with first ladies who are encouraged to find a controversial

charitable project. Michelle Obama has bought childhood obesity, and

that is the standard thing. Everybody knows that that is a bad

thing, but you are not offering solutions that are party political.

I feel there must be a middle way with what he should be able to do

about finding big causes he can complain about without getting stuck

into lobbying ministers. Which can become a party political issue. He

has had some influence on architecture, because the buildings

we are putting up to date are better than the ones we used to put up.

The Daily Politics is on BBC 2 at 11:00am

We'll be back here at the same time next week.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

Catch the late-afternoon games on the go.